Wilderness Protected Areas: Management guidelines for lUCN Category 1b protected areas

Prepared by the lUCN WCRA Wilderness Specialist Group Sarah A. Casson, Vance G. Martin, Alan Watson, Angie Stringer, and Cyril F. Kormos, Volume Editors

Authors: Sarah A. Casson, Vance G. Martin, Alan Watson, Angie Stringer, Cyril F. Kormos, Harvey Locke, Sonali Ghosh, Steve Carver, Tom McDonald, Sharon Shay Sloan, llarion Merculieff, John Hendee, Chad Dawson, Susan Moore, David Newsome, Steve McCool, Roger Semler, Steven Martin, Robert Dvorak, Chris Armatas, Ralph Swain, Brad Barr, David Krause, Nicole Whittington -Evans, Lawrence S. Hamilton, Joel Holtrop, James Tricker, Peter Landres, Elizabeth Mejicano, Trimble Gilbert, Brendan Mackey, Toby Aykroyd, Barbara Zimmerman and Jim Thomas

Craig Groves, Series Editor

Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 25

^ W C P A C onvention on WORLD COMMISSION W IL ^ WILDERNESS ON PROTECTED AREAS.. Biological Diversity FOUNDATION SPECIALIST GROUP lUCN WCPA’s BEST PRACTICE PROTECTED AREA GUIDELINES SERIES lUCN-WCPA’s Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines are thie world ’s authioritative resource for protected area managers, involving collaboration among specialist practitioners dedicated to supporting better implementation in thie field, thiey distil learning and advice drawn from across iUCN. Applied in thie field, thiey are building institutional and individuai capacity to manage protected area systems effectively, equitably and sustainably, and to cope with: thie myriad of chiaiienges faced in practice. Thiey also assist national governments, protected area agencies, non-governmentai organisations, communities and private sector partners to meet thieir commitments and goals, and especiaiiy thie Convention on Bioiogicai Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas.

A full set of guidelines is available at: www.iucn.org/pa_guideiines Complementary resources are available at: www.cbd.int/protected/toois/ Contribute to developing capacity for a Protected Planet at: www.protectedpianet.net/

IUCN PROTECTED AREA DEFINITION, MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES AND GOVERNANCE TYPES iUCN defines a protected area as: A clearly defined geographiicai space, recognised, dedicated and managed, thiroughi legal or othier effectivemeans, to achiieve thie long-term conservation of nature withi associated ecosystem services and cultural values.

Thie definition is expanded by six management categories (one withi a sub-division), summarized below la Strict nature reserve: Strictly protected for biodiversity and also possibly geological/ geomorphioiogicaifeatures, whiere hiuman visitation, use and impacts are controlled and limited to ensure protection of thie conservation values lb Wilderness area: Usually large unmodified or siighitiy modified areas, retaining thieir natural chiaracter and influence, withiout permanent or significant hiuman hiabitation, protected and managed to preserve thieir natural condition II National park: Large natural or near-natural areas protecting large-scale ecological processes withi chiaracteristic species and ecosystems, whiichi also hiave environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities III Natural monument or feature: Areas set aside to protect a specific natural monument, whiichi can be a iandform, sea mount, marine cavern, geological feature suchi as a cave, or a living feature suchi as an ancient grove IV Habitat/species management area: Areas to protect particular species or hiabitats, whiere management reflects thiis priority Many will need regular; active interventions to meet thie needs of particular species or hiabitats, but thiis is not a requirement of thie category V Protected landscape or seascape:Whiere thie interaction of people and nature over time hias produced a distinct chiaracter withi significant ecological, bioiogicai, cultural and scenic value: and whiere safeguarding thie integrity of thiis interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining thie area and its associated nature conservation and othier values VI Protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources:Areas whiichi conserve ecosystems, togethier withi associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. Generally large, mainly in a natural condition, withi a proportion under sustainable natural resource management and whiere iow-ievei non-industrial natural resource use compatible withi nature conservation is seen as one of thie main aims

Thie category shiouid be based around thie primary management objective(s), whiichi shiouid apply to at least thiree-quarters of thie protected area - thie 75 per cent rule.

Thie management categories are applied withi a typology of governance types - a description of whio hioids authiority and responsibiiity for thie protected area. IUCN defines four governance types. Type A. Governance by government:Federal or national ministry/agency in chiarge; Sub-national ministry or agency in chiarge (e.g. at regional, provincial, municipal level); Government-delegated management (e.g. to NGO) Type B. Shared governance: Transboundary governance (formal and informal arrangements between two or more countries); Goiiaborative governance (thiroughi various ways in whiichi diverse actors and institutions work togethier); Joint governance (pluralist board or othier multi-party governing body) TypeC. Private governance: Gonserved areas estabiishied and run by individuai landowners; non-profit organizations (e.g. NGOs, universities) and for-profit organizations (e.g. corporate landowners) Type D. Governance by Indigenous Peoples and local communities:indigenous Peoples’ conserved areas and territories - estabiishied and run by indigenous Peoples; Gommunity conserved areas - estabiishied and run by local communities.

For more information on thie iUGN definition, categories and governance types see Dudley (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories whiichi can be downloaded at: www.iucn.org/pa_categories For more on governance types see Borrini-Feyerabend et ai. (2013). Governance of Protected Areas -from understanding to action, whiichi can be downloaded at www.iucn.org/iibrary/sites/iibrary/fiies/documents/PAG -020.pdf Wilderness Protected Areas: Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas WIL0 FOUNDATION

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) The WILD Foundation

IUCN helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most As the heart of the global wilderness community for over pressing environment and development challenges. IUCN 40 years, the WILD Foundation protects and connects works on biodiversity, climate change, energy, human wilderness, wildlife and people. Working across cultures and livelihoods and greening the world economy by supporting boundaries by collaborating with local peoples, organizations, scientific research, managing field projects all over the world, the private sector, and governments at all levels, WILD and bringing governments, non -governmental organizations, creates dynamic and Inspiring practical projects. Improved the United Nations and companies together to develop wilderness and protected area policies, and Innovative policy, laws and best practice. IUCN Is the world ’s oldest and communications Initiatives. Its flagship project Is the World largest global environmental organization, with more than Wilderness Congress, established In 1977 and now the 1,200 members from government and non -governmental world ’s longest -running, public. International conservation organizations and almost 11,000 volunteer experts In some program. 160 countries. lUGN’s work Is supported by over 1,000 staff In 45 offices and hundreds of partners In public, non ­ WILD’S work advances a reciprocal, balanced relationship governmental organizations and private sectors around the between people and nature—our Nature Needs Half vision. world. Its aim Is to ensure that enough wild land and seascapes are protected and Interconnected (scientifically estimated to www.iucn.org be at least half of any given ecoreglon) to maintain nature ’s llfe -supporting systems and the diversity of life on earth. The vision supports human health and prosperity and secures a bountiful, beautiful legacy of resilient, wild nature. Nature Needs Half recognizes that we are part of nature, not separate from It.

www.wiid.org

^ W C P A WILDERNESS ------WORLD COMMISSION ON PROTECTED AREAS SPECIALISTGROUP

IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCRA) Wilderness Specialist Group of IUCN WCRA

IUCN WCRA Is the world ’s premier network of protected Working within the IUCN World Commission on Protected area expertise. It Is administered by lUGN ’s Programme on Areas (WGPA) and the World Wilderness Congress, the Protected Areas and has over 1,400 members, spanning Wilderness Specialist Group establishes linkages between 140 countries. IUCN WGPA works by helping governments the World Wilderness Congresses and lUGN ’s World Parks and others plan protected areas and Integrate them Into all Congresses and World Conservation Congresses. The sectors; by providing strategic advice to policymakers; by Wilderness Specialist Group also provides coordination and strengthening capacity and Investment In protected areas; a connecting point within IUCN for wilderness -related Issues and by convening the diverse constituency of protected area Including the strengthening of Category 1 b. stakeholders to address challenging Issues. For more than 50 years, IUCN and WGPA have been at the forefront of global Originally Initiated as a task force at the Jordan IUCN action on protected areas. General Assembly (2000), the Wilderness Specialist Croup was formally Instituted In 2003 and convened Its first formal www.iucn.org/wcpa meeting at the World Parks Congress In Durban, South Africa, In 2003. The objectives of the Wilderness Specialist Group Include promoting research and discussion on the Importance and role of wilderness, helping Integrate wilderness -related Issues Into WGPA publications, proceedings and meetings, and providing expert referral service to the WGPA for wilderness -related Issues.

www.wiid.org/how-we-work/poiicy-mgmt/ wiiderness-speciaiist Wilderness Protected Areas: Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas

Prepared by the IUCN WGPA Wilderness Specialist Group Sarah A. Casson, Vance G. Martin, Alan Watson, Angle Stringer, and Cyril F. Kormos, Volume Editors

Authors: Sarah A. Casson, Vance G. Martin, Alan Watson, Angie Stringer, Cyril F. Kormos, Harvey Locke, Sonaii Ghosh, Steve Carver, Tom McDonald, Sharon Shay Sloan, llarion Merculieff, John Hendee, Chad Dawson, Susan Moore, David Newsome, Steve McCool, Roger Semler, Steven Martin, Robert Dvorak, Chris Armatas, Ralph Swain, Brad Barr, David Krause, Nicole Whittington -Evans, Lawrence S. Hamilton, Joel Holtrop, James Tricker, Peter Landres, Elizabeth Mejicano, Trimble Gilbert, Brendan Mackey, Toby Aykroyd, Barbara Zimmerman and Jim Thomas

Craig Groves, Series Editor The designation of geographioai entities in this book, and the presentation of the materiai, does not impiy the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of iUCN or other partioipating organizations oonoerning the iegai status of any oountry, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or oonoerning the deiimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this pubiioation do not neoessariiy refieot those of iUCN or other partioipating organizations.

Pubiished by: iUCN, Giand, Switzeriand

Copyright: © 2016 internationai Union for Conservation of Nature and Naturai Resouroes. Updated September 2017

Reproduotion of this pubiioation for eduoationai or other non -oommeroiai purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the oopyright hoider provided the souroe is fuiiy aoknowiedged.

Reproduotion of this pubiioation for resaie or other oommeroiai purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the oopyright hoider.

Citation: Casson, S.A., Martin V.G., Watson, A., Stringer, A., Kormos, C.F (eds.). Looke, H., Ghosh, S., Carver, S., MoDonaid, T, Sioan, S.S., Merouiieff, i., Hendee, J., Dawson, C., Moore, S., Newsome, D., MoCooi, S., Semier, R., Martin, S., Dvorak, R., Armatas, C., Swain, R., Barr, B., Krause, D., Whittington -Evans, N., Giibert, T, Hamiiton, L., Hoitrop, J., Trioker, J., Landres, P, Mejioano, Giibert, T, Maokey, B., Aykroyd, T, Zimmerman, B., Thomas, J. (2016). Wilderness Protected Areas: Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas. Giand, Switzeriand: iUCN. x -r 92pp. iSBN: 978 -2-8317 -1817 -0

DCi: http://dx.d 0i.0rg/l 0.2805/iUCN.CH.2016.PAG.25.en

Front oover photo: © Cristina Mittermeier. Kayapo homeiand in the Xingu River basin, Brazii.

Front oover image design: © Jonathan Giedson / Miiier Design

Baok oover photo: © Corneiia Doerr / Wiid Wonders of Europe

Design and iayout by: imre Sebstyen Jr. / UNiTgraphios.oom

Printed by: The WiLD Foundation

Avaiiabie from: iUCN (internationai Union for Conservation of Nature)

Giobai Rroteoted Areas Rrogramme Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Giand Switzeriand Tei +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 [email protected] www.iuon.org/resouroes/pubiioations Contents

Forew ord ...... vii Acknowledgments ...... viii Executive summary ...... xi

1.1 What is wilderness? ...... 2 1.2 What is a Category 1 b protected area? ...... 4 1.3 History of the iUGN protected area management Category 1 b ...... 6 1.4 Objective of the iUCN protected area management Category 1 b ...... 7 1.5 Extent of Category 1 b sites ...... 8 1.6 inclusion of indigenous Peoples and local com m unities ...... 8 1.7 Appiication of Category 1 b: assignment and re p o rtin g ...... 11

2.1 Manage wilderness comprehensively through large -scale, intact wilderness protecteda reasa nd connectivity among wilderness protected areas ...... 14 2.2 Manage wilderness to maintain the highest integrity of ecosystems, wiidiife, and sacred andt raditionai cuiturai -use sites ...... 16 2.3 Engagement of stakeholders and non -tribai government with indigenous Peoples, Tribes and local communities in management and designation of wilderness in true partnership relations ...... 18 2.4 Manage wilderness both to preserve intrinsic wilderness values and to sustain humanv alues ...... 21 2.5 Prioritize wilderness -dependent and wiiderness -reievant activities ...... 24 2.6 Guide wilderness management using written plans that are cuituraiiy appropriate ...... 25 2.7 Manage carrying capacities through indicator -based planning systems ...... 26 2.8 Focus management on threatened sites and damaging activities ...... 27 2.9 Apply only the minimum tools, regulations, and force to achieve wilderness protecteda reao bjectives ...... 28 2.10 Monitor wilderness conditions and experience opportunities to guide long -term wildernesss tewardship ...... 30 2.11 Manage wilderness in relation to its adjacent lands ...... 31

3.1 introduction: Governance and authority in wilderness protected areas ...... 36 3.2 Governance and authority of wilderness protected areas by government ...... 37 3.3 Governance and authority of wilderness protected areas by indigenousP eoples and local communities ...... 39 3.4 Private ownership and governance of wilderness protected areas ...... 40 3.5 Shared governance and authority of wilderness protected areas ...... 43 3.6 Muitiiaterai governance and authority of wilderness protected areas ...... 46 3.7 Variances in jurisdiction and diversity of governance and a u th o rity ...... 47

4.1 Planning systems and management frameworks ...... 50 4.2 Transparency in decision -m aking ...... 51 4.3 infrastructure and technology in wilderness protected areas ...... 54 4.4 Changing demographics and relevance of wilderness ...... 55 4.5 Emerging recreation management issues ...... 57 4.6 Managing for marine wilderness values ...... 59 4.7 Management decisions about rewiiding, restoration, passive management, and climatec hange intervention ...... 62 4.8 Subsistence use and reiationship values of wilderness ...... 67 4.9 Managing wilderness for sacred values ...... 69 4.10 Variance ...... 71 4.11 incorporating science into management d e cisio n s ...... 72

5.1 Evaluating effectiveness of IUCN protected area management Category 1 b s ite s ...... 76

References and further reading ...... 77

Management guidelines for iUCN Category 1b protected areas v Case studies Case study 1 Khan Khentii Strictly Protected Area, Mongolia ...... 14 Case study 2 California Desert Protection Act, United States ...... 17 Case study 3 Kayapo homeiand in the Xingu River Basin, Brazii ...... 19 Case study 4 Fish River Station, Australia ...... 22 Case study 5 Ei Toro Wilderness, Ruerto Rico ...... 23 Case study 6 Shirakami Sanchi Nature Conservation Area, Ja p a n ...... 24 Case study 7 Nahanni National Rark Reserve, C a n a d a ...... 26 Case study 8 Use of the Minimum Requirements Decision G u id e ...... 29 Case study 9 Central Catchm ent Nature Reserve, S in g a p o re ...... 31 Case study 10 Mission M ountains Tribal W ilderness, United S ta te s ...... 33 Case study 11 The Natura 2000 Net\A/ork of E u ro p e ...... 38 Case study 12 Sham\A/ari Game Reserve, South A fric a ...... 40 Case study 13 W ilderness in Eastern and Southern A frica ...... 41 Case study 14 W ilderness in India ...... 41 Case study 15 The Devil 's Canyon ‘ Ei Carm en ' W ilderness Area (Tierra Siivestre Canon Dei D ia b lo )...... 42 Case study 16 Tenkiie Conservation Aiiiance, Rapua Ne\M G u in e a ...... 45 Case study 17 M aioti -Drakensberg Rark W orld Heritage Site of South Africa and L e s o th o ...... 47 Case study 18 Boundary W aters Canoe Area Wilderness, United S tate s ...... 56 Case study 19 North Am erican Marine W ild e rn e s s ...... 60 Case study 20 Likskar Nature Reserve, S\A/eden ...... 61 Case study 21 Sundarbans East Wiidiife Sanctuary, Bangladesh ...... 61 Case study 22 Kepuiauan Karimata, In d o n e sia ...... 61 Case study 23 W ilderness A ct of Finland ...... 68 Case study 24 Arctic National W iidiife Refuge, United S tates ...... 69 Case study 25 Kachina W ilderness Area, United S ta te s ...... 69 Case study 26 Reak W ilderness Rark, Sri L a n k a ...... 70 Case study 27 Alaska National interest Lands Conservation Act, United S tates ...... 72

Figures Figure 1 M ap of protected areas \A/ithin Amazonia. A very im portant precedent is the Redparques Declaration signed in Reru in 2015, in \A/hich 18 Latin Am erican nations form alized a com m itm ent to integrate their protected areas, inciuding Category 1b, in clim ate change strategies and asked for the officiai inciusion of protected areas in the United Nations Frame\A/ork Convention on Climate Change giobai discussions (World W iidiife Fund, 2015). Rrotection of large -scale, intact \A/iiderness areas and of connectivity bet\A/een \A/iiderness areas are im portant aspects of ciim ate change m itigation ...... 15 Figure 2 The Mission Mountain Tribal W ilderness is bordered to the w est by the Tribal Buffer Z one ...... 33

Wilderness Protected Areas Foreword

Dear Reader, faced by previous generations. We urge you to view these chaiienges as prospects, not probiems. Chaiienges bring Thank you for your interest in and commitment to wiiderness new opportunities upon which wiiderness managers and stewardship through designation and protection. The iUCN poiicymakers can capitaiize: the negative impacts that protected area management category of wiiderness aiiows threaten wiiderness areas aiso create a sociai, poiiticai us to understand nature on its own terms and maintain and economic imperative for wiiderness protection and those terms whiie aiiowing (and even encouraging) humans management, with important benefits of doing so. Fieaithy to experience wiid nature. No other category of protected wiiderness is a cost -ettective, highiy functioning, naturai area management aiiows for such a reiationship between soiution that buiids pianetary resiiience. humans and nature. As a manager of wiiderness, you are the guardian of this reiationship. Remember that, whiie the work Wiiderness decision makers navigate a piethora of diverse you do now is very important, it wiii be even more important issues when creating and impiementing management pians. in the future, it is our job to protect wiiderness for future The management of wiiderness areas requires addressing generations. both the ecoiogicai and cuiturai tenets of the area. The production of a good management pian necessitates These Guideiines appiy to Category 1 b (wiiderness) within understanding the ecoiogy and the peopie in reiationship with the Best Rractice Guideiines for Rroteoted Area Managers the wiiderness area, and considering human needs, histories, Series pubiished by the iUCN Worid Commission on and expectations as weii as the requirements of wiid nature Rroteoted Areas. The Wiiderness Speciaiist Group of itseif. the Worid Commission on Rroteoted Areas comprises internationai, professionai voiunteers coordinated by the Management pians cannot be created in isoiation. They are WiLD Foundation. These Guideiines were produced and as much of a sociai construct as they are the ecoiogicai reviewed by an independent, internationai team of experts objectives for a wiiderness area. An ettective pian is the (indigenous Reopies and non -indigenous peopies) who are resuit of a process that shouid inciude some partners, fieid managers, academic researchers, and poiicymakers many stakehoiders, and muitipie professionai discipiines. from governments and non -governmentai organizations. The There wiii be chaiienges. Difficuities in creating management product created and reviewed by this team is the first -ever pians generaiiy arise through five variabies: iack of correct internationai guideiines produced for wiiderness managers. information, miscommunication, poor procedures, Your feedback is weicome. These Guideiines wiii evoive, just negotiations in bad faith (inciuding poiitics, iocai or otherwise), as the wiiderness we iove and manage evoives. and/or unreaiistic appraisai of the financiai and human resources avaiiabie to do the management. Attention to these There has never been a time when a unified code for five variabies is essentiai to the quaiity and ettectiveness of wiiderness management is needed more than it is now. the finai management pian. it is necessary to manage wiiderness to protect thriving wiiderness and heaithy human reiationships with wiid As you face the chaiienges, you shouid bear in mind that nature against the threats posed by human growth and wiiderness designation and management is beneficiai to aii inappropriate deveiopment, ciimate change and other peopie now and in the future, no matter their cosmovision, environmentai degradations. The rapidiy increasing rate and ethnic origins, or ievei of economic deveiopment. Aiways scaie of these negative impacts on wiiderness add additionai remember that you are on the front iines of conservation, issues and compiexities to wiiderness management not working now to secure a future for aii iife on earth.

Vance G. Martin Angie Stringer Cha/r, IUCN WGPA Wilderness Speoiaiist Group; President, Guideiines Faoiiitator; Manager, Worid Heritage at Department WiLD Foundation, Trustee, Wiiderness Foundation Giobai of Environment and Heritage Proteotion, Queensland, Australia Sarah A. Casson Guideiines Manager; Peter and Patrioia Gruber Fellow in Cyrii F. Kormos Giobai Justioe at Yale Law Sohooi Vioe President of Poiioy WiLD Foundation; Vioe-Chair, Worid Heritage, IUCN Worid Commission on Rroteoted Areas Aian Watson Soientist General at Aide Leopold Wiiderness Pesearoh institute. Rooky Mountain Pesearoh Station, United States Forest Servioe

Management guidelines for iUCN Category 1b protected areas vii Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the many people who either reviewed or otherwise contributed to the development of these Guidelines. In particular, we would like to thank: Zdenka Kfenova, Nigel Dudley, John Shultls, Jarkko Saarinen, Sonja Kruger, llarion Merculieff, Fiona Leverlngton, Graeme Worboys, Loek Kulters, Linda Moon Stumpff, Till Meyer, Karen Keenlyslde, Stephen Woodley, Carol Laurie, Igor Shpllenok, Amber Collett, Stephanie StefanskI, Jose Pons, Noah Frlbley Danielle Lehle, Daniel Field, Howie Chong, Erin Saupe, Thomas Kramer Hepp, Alana Roxin, Mumtaz Haider, Jaime Rojo, John Waugh, Naomi Doak, Staffan WIdstrand, Nik Lopoulehlne, Florlan Moellers, Cristina Mittermeier, Cornelia Doerr, Ratrlcio Robles Gil, Trevor Sandwlth, Craig Groves, and Fiona Casson.

Wilderness Protected Areas Executive summary

A wilderness manager has a task unlike that of the manager the pian, and enlist their continuing involvement in resolving of any other type of protected area: using the minimum issues that are encountered during pian implementation. tool methodology to solve practical issues and embodying an inclusive, muiticuiturai partnership mentality that Manage carrying capacities through indicator-based embraces the relevant sociai and governance issues, whiie pianning systems.Management shouid determine the limits simuitaneousiy working to aiiow wiid nature to evoive on its of acceptabie change in wiiderness conditions by setting own terms and conditions. There ’s a management challenge standards through indicator -based pianning systems to for you! protect the area and uphold wiiderness values.

The purpose of these first -ever internationai Guideiines for Focus management on threatened sites and damaging managing wiiderness (Category 1 b) has been to impress activities. Management shouid focus on threatened sites and upon you the chaiienges involved in managing wiiderness, actMties that damage wiiderness areas. Such a focus is more whiie aiso clarifying the essentiai techniques, protocois, and effective than applying unnecessary management actions to mindset required of a good, efficient, adaptable, and visionary areas not under threat. manager. Below is a quick review of the key considerations when managing a wiiderness area. Apply only the minimum tools, regulations, or force to achieve wilderness protected area objectives.A systematic decision process for determining appropriateness Management principles of administrative actions in wiiderness is important and necessary and can offer many options; for example, the use Manage wilderness comprehensively through large- of education, regulations, appiications of force, and more. scale, intact wilderness protected areas and connectivity between wilderness protected areas. The issues of Monitor wilderness conditions and experience opportunities scaie are no more important than are those of ecoiogicai to guide long-term wilderness stewardship.Monitoring connectivity. Manage wiiderness accordingiy and so that it is is essentiai to guiding long-term pians and identifying any part of a comprehensive, protected area programme. revisions to the pian that may be required in the face of changing circumstances and feedback from actions carried out. Manage wilderness to maintain the highest Integrity of ecosystems, wildlife, and sacred and traditional cultural Manage wilderness In relation to Its adjacent lands,it is use sites.Wiiderness sites, and the cuiturai sites within, important, wise, and necessary to manage the wiiderness area shouid be managed to maintain the highest integrity of aii not in isoiation but in coordination with its adjacent lands. components of ecosystems, wiidiife and cuiturai meaning through an explicit focus on non -degradation. Governance and authority Create true partnership among stakeholders and non- trlbal government entitles and Indigenous, tribal and Governance and authority of wilderness protected local communities In management and designation areas by government.Most areas declared as Category of wilderness. True partnerships require redefining the 1 b are subject to governance at the national or sub - processes that are used to determine management and national (provinciai, state, iocai) ievei, often with overlapping stewardship practices, priorities and strategic pians. jurisdictions and agencies.

Manage wilderness both to preserve Intrinsic wilderness Governance and authority of wilderness protected values and to sustain human values.Wiiderness shouid be areas by Indigenous Peoples and local communities,if managed in an approach that understands a hoiistic view of indigenous Peopies or iocai communities choose to have the worid in which humans and non -humans are respected. their self -governed and managed territories designated as a wiiderness protected area, those sites can be categorized in Prioritize wilderness-dependent and wilderness-relevant numerous ways. Sensitive consuitations are often required to activities. Aii actMties within the wiiderness area shouid be ensure that sites under Category 1 b are iocaiiy managed in consistent with the overarching wiiderness values and feature accordance with best practices. non -motorized equipment, the least invasive tools, and a ‘leave no trace ’ mentality Private ownership and governance of wilderness protected areas. The authority and responsibiiity to Guide wilderness management using written plans that make conservation decisions rests solely with the private are culturally appropriate. Wiiderness management actions institutional owners, indMduais or trusts that own the land. are guided by formal pians that state specific area objectives Whiie desirable, these are often short -term and consuitations and explain how they wiii be achieved, consistent with aii with the owners can focus on how to make such declarations applicable iegai authority for the area. The entire pianning more time -permanent. process must inciude, in aii its stages, the involvement of area stakehoiders such as user groups and core partners such Shared governance and authority of wilderness protected as indigenous Peopies and use whatever variety of methods areas. A shared governance structure that can balance is needed to acquire their input, secure their commitment to diverse poiiticai actors with (sometimes vastly) differing

Management guidelines for iUCN Category 1b protected areas ix capacities and interests wiii be a muchi stronger iong -term Resiiience to ciimate change or large -scale environmentai governance system thian one thiat ignores thiese compiexities degradation may best come from the rewiiding, restoration to focus oniy on thie expedient or poiiticaiiy powerfui. or passive management of wiiderness areas, in certain circumstances where these management decisions do not Multilateral governance and authority of wilderness adequately address the threats posed by ciimate change, protected areas. Muitiiaterai governance structures can be managers may need to intervene and assist adaptation used to protect wiiderness areas thiroughi treaties agreed processes within the wiiderness area. to by thiree or more sovereign states. Thiese treaties invoive many stakehioiders and are often concerned withi thie Subsistence use and reiationship values of wiiderness. conservation of wiidiands thiat are transboundary, are of giobai Subsistence users are a powerfui and necessary partner importance, and represent areas suchi as Antarctica and thie for the protection and stewardship of large wiiderness Highi Seas thiat are not administered by specific countries. areas. These constituencies, who are often but not aiways indigenous Peopies, can have deep cuiturai and traditionai Variances In jurisdiction and diversity of governance connections to the landscape. and authority. Variances are specificaiiy aiiowed activities that may not aiways be consistent with commoniy accepted Managing wiiderness for sacred values.As many areas wiiderness management principies. As wiiderness iaw and considered sacred — for various reasons—are located in wiid poiicy continue to evoive, so wiii the nuances of variances lands and seascapes, managers and aii wiiderness lovers permitted within wiiderness areas. need to be aware of the areas ’ metaphysical nature and value to some faiths or traditionai cultures, and not oniy refrain from damaging behaviour but aiso be supportive of any efforts to Management tools and issues protect them from sacriiegious deveiopment.

Planning systems and management frameworks. Variance. Variances occur for practical reasons, for Useful indicator -based pianning systems and management poiiticai expediency, for the rights of indigenous Peopies, frameworks are those that help decision makers ‘work for competing iegisiative mandates, and for many other through ’ choices in a manner that aiiows technical expertise, reasons. Permitting variances requires a weii -thought -through knowledge (of various forms) and public values and interests approach to appropriately manage them, whiie stiii meeting to be incorporated, assessed and used. These systems and the purposes of protecting wiiderness values. frameworks clarify what sociai and bioiogicai conditions are appropriate or acceptabie in wiiderness and ask how much incorporating science into management decisions. change from the ideal is acceptabie. Wiiderness is a place where baseline ecoiogicai processes and human impacts can be established and monitored to Transparency in decision-making. Wiiderness managers lend value to iocai, regional, and giobai research. Therefore, have a large responsibiiity for stewardship of both the resource the systematic study of testable hypotheses —science — is a and the reiationship between peopie and the wiiderness necessary tenet of aii wiiderness management decisions. resource. Transparency in decision -making can improve a manager ’s abiiity to make informed, consistent and defensible decisions that help achieve wiiderness protection objectives. Evaluating effeotlveness of IUCN proteoted area management Category 1b sites infrastructure and technology in wiiderness protected areas. The use of emerging technologies (such as drones, Evaluating ettectiveness of IUCN protected area mobile phones and rock -ciimbing accessories) has the potential management Category 1 b sites.Wiiderness decision makers for serious negative impacts to a wiiderness area and must must evaluate the abiiity of a wiiderness protected area to therefore be monitored closely by wiiderness decision makers. conserve the site ’s wiiderness attributes and values, it is crucial to know if a site can meet its ecoiogicai and sociai objectives. Changing demographics and relevance of wiiderness.As society changes, and as new information and knowledge about Please accept a few concluding thoughts from the IUCN WGPA the benefits of wiiderness are accumulated, our approach to Wiiderness Speciaiist Group as a means for us to recognize and educating managers, poiicymakers, and the general public appreciate your personal commitment to wiid nature. You are no about the importance of wiiderness protection wiii aiso change. doubt aware that wiid nature, per se, is not just another naturai resource. As author Rod Nash (1982) pointed out many years Emerging recreation management issues. Finding solutions ago in Wilderness and the American Mind, ’ .. .wilderness is not a to future unknown (or repeated) recreation confiicts requires resource, it is the source. ’ Humankind and aii iife on earth evolved that wiiderness decision makers ensure that emerging issues in wiid conditions over countless miiiions of years. Our job as adhere to the central mandates of wiiderness values. managers and poiicymakers is that of a steward, charged with taking care of that age-old, dynamicaiiy changing, valuable, and Managing for marine wiiderness values.The places most intricate network of naturai reiationships—and its precious force often identified and designated as ‘wilderness ’ are on land, that defies complete description—which must continue to evoive yet many places in the oceans and coastal waters possess in its own inimitable way to assure a heaithy, vibrant, and diverse wiiderness quaiities and values worthy of preservation. planet earth. As you contemplate and act upon this reality, and The management framework for marine wiiderness areas the compiications inherent in managing it, please know that the can appropriately be captured from the overarching IUCN foundation of these Guideiines is simple: a wilder worid is a better management guideiines for Category 1b. worid for aii iife, aii peopie, now and in the future.

Management decisions about rewiiding, restoration, Sincerely, passive management, and ciimate change intervention. The IUCN WGPA Wiiderness Speciaiist Group

Wilderness Protected Areas Introduction 1

f -

¥ vi

■t '

1 ”' 4 ■ C c r r ^' ^

f ,r' .r r ^ . ;.■' .---- I^ •*;,,» " S life r i f f * ■,!'' ^•

*.MJ

p J

© Igor Shpllenok / Wild Wonders of Europe 1.1 What is wilderness? wilderness can be defined broadly as a landscape that is bioiogicaiiy and ecoiogicaiiy largely intact (that is, with respect to their ecosystems, species assemblages and ecosystem Three meanings of wilderness processes), mostly free of industrial infrastructure, and without significant human interference (Kormos, 2008; Watson, et The term “wilderness ” is used in a variety of ways, it is a ai., 2009). Whiie these quaiities cieariy exist on a spectrum, bioiogicai descriptor, referring to places that are mainly it is nonetheless possibie to identify wiid places around the ecoiogicaiiy intact, it is a type of protected -area ciassification, worid where human disturbance remains at a minimum. To referring to a category of protected areas that seek to map wiiderness areas of giobai significance, Mittermeier, et ai. maintain wiiderness quaiity over time, whiie stiii aiiowing (2003), specified three wiiderness criteria and thresholds for for human uses that are compatibie with those wiiderness measuring them: (1) size, such as a minimum area of 1 miiiion quaiities. it is aiso used to describe an essentiai dimension of hectares, (2) low popuiation density, such as fewer than human culture, which is that humans, like aii other species, five peopie per square kilometre, and (3) intactness, such were born in the wiiderness: they evolved for miiiions of years as at least 70 per cent of primary habitat remaining on an in caves, trees and open savannahs (Martin & Robies Gii, ecoreglon basis. This analysis indicated roughly 44 per cent 2009). To compiicate matters further, the term wiiderness of the planet remained in a wiiderness condition. is often used coiioquiaiiy to describe a wide range of environments — from an overgrown urban park to a truly wiid Wilderness as a protected area classification landscape —depending on the viewer ’s personal experience and perspective. The Worid Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN) Guideiines for Protected Area Management Categories These three meanings of wiiderness are described further inciude wiiderness as Category 1 b and define wiiderness below. Whiie the focus of these Guideiines is on wiiderness protected areas (see Section 1.2 for more discussion on the protected areas, it is important to keep the other two IUCN definition). These Guideiines recognize that poiiticai definitions of the term in mind. Both are important for their compiexities and management chaiienges may sometimes own sake, and aiso in guiding wiiderness protected area require an incremental approach to establishing wiiderness management, it is aiso worth noting that whiie the term protected areas. This can invoive starting with smaller and/ wiiderness is used in a number of different contexts, this or less intact protected areas that may require restoration muitiiayered diversity indicates a depth of meaning to and and building up to larger, more intact areas over time. Thus, association with the human experience, and reflects its Category 1 b sites may inciude large, highiy intact areas as continuing strength and resonance. weii as smaller areas whose wiiderness quaiities can be improved or whose boundaries may be expanded. Many Wilderness as a biological descriptor wiiderness laws and poiicies at national or subnationai levels recognize that there are areas worth protecting under in Old Norse, the term wiiderness refers to land that is Category 1 b, which may not fuiiy meet a wiiderness standard not under human controi and where wiid animals roam immediateiy, but have good potential to achieve wiiderness freely (Nash, 1982). The bioiogicai meaning of wiiderness quaiities in the future. essentiaiiy foiiows this etymoiogy. in a bioiogicai context. Another important aspect of wiiderness protected areas is that they do not exclude peopie (see Section 1.6). Rather, they exclude certain human uses that are not compatibie with maintaining an area ’s wiiderness quaiities. IUCN protected area management Category 1 b recognizes a wide range of compatibie uses in wiiderness protected areas, as do many wiiderness laws and poiicies (see Section 1.4).

Wiiderness and human society

The fact that humans evolved in wiid nature is fundamental to understanding the term wiiderness. Wiiderness refers to wiid, bioiogicaiiy intact places, but the term aiso implies the presence of a human reiationship with wiid nature. That reiationship can take many forms. For example, many indigenous Peopies living near or within wiiderness areas may not even have a word that equates to wiiderness because they do not view wiiderness as something distinct from themselves: they are cuituraiiy and personally integrated with the wiid land and/or seascape, and have no experience of these being separate from their everyday lives or remote from their community (see Section 1.6 and Section 2.3) (Survival internationai, 2014). A wiiderness area can aiso be a sacred landscape or a sacred naturai site, visited by certain peopies or foiiowers of a particular reiigion or spirituaiity (see Section 4.9). To an urban resident, a wiiderness area may be a place for recreation, spiritual renewal, or both. Wiiderness areas Endangered species, like the Patagonian Huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in the Torres del Paine National Park of Chile, are protected by wilderness are aiso vital for the ecosystem services that are of value to designations. ©Thomas Kramer Hepp humans and the environment through the four categories of

2 Wilderness Protected Areas * ^ 3 -- -" 1-^ - ^

Hikers enjoying wilderness recreation in Skeleton Coast National Park, Namibia. (Tracks of Giants Expedition) © Vance G. Martin services: support, provisioning, cuiturai and reguiating. Thie no suchi thiing as wiiderness. Thiis suggestion states thiat hiuman reiationshiip withi wiid nature is an essentiai component thie wiiderness concept is now a discredited 19thi -century of thie term wiiderness. Wiiderness does not exciude peopie. romantic ideai thiat ignored indigenous Peopies and is no On thie contrary, wiiderness impiies a fundamentai hiuman ionger reievant because hiuman impact on thie pianet is reiationshiip. now so pervasive (as a resuit of poiiution, ciimate chiange, rampant industriai infrastructure, and othier factors) thiat thiere is nothiing thiat remains on earthi thiat is truiy pristine. Aithioughi Critiques of wilderness it is true thiat thiere are few piaces on thie pianet thiat can be considered untouchied by hiuman influence, pristine is not A discussion of thie term wiiderness is incompiete withiout now and hias never been used as a quaiifying or defining acknowiedging thiat thie term attracts controversy and criteria in any protected area or wiiderness system in thie criticism. Some of thiese thireads of criticism are summarized worid, aithioughi one sees use of thie word on occasion as a briefly beiow. generai descriptor or as evocative ianguage. Moreover, it is entireiy possibie to identify iarge areas on thie pianet thiat are Critique 1 : Some indigenous Peopies resist using thie predominantiy in a wiiderness condition —a nd many more term wiiderness because of thie cuiturai divide between thiat couid be restored or rewiided — even if it is undoubtediy thieir nature -based cuitures and thiose of ‘westernized ’ , true thiat thie hiuman footprint is expanding very rapidiy deveioped and time -driven cuitures and because thie giobaiiy (see Section 4.7). indigenous Peopies are important wiiderness concept was used to describe iands thiat were conservation partners in thie wiiderness movement and free of hiuman hiabitation oniy because thie indigenous are not—and shiouid not be — ignored by any definition of inhiabitants hiad been driven out. One essentiai goai of wiiderness. thiese Guideiines is to estabiishi cieariy and unequivocaiiy thiat wiiderness is not intended to exciude hiuman use (see A reiated critique from thie neo -green movement is Section 1.4) and in particuiar use by indigenous Peopies thiat wiiderness and othier protected areas are faiied (see Section 1.6). experiments in conservation. Thiis iine of argument points to thie continued deciine of biodiversity and increasing Critique 2: ‘Neo -greens ’ bring togethier a number of reiated species extinctions giobaiiy as prima facie evidence thiat critiques of wiiderness (Karieva & Marvier, 2012). Weurthiner, wiiderness protection and othier protected areas hiave faiied. et ai., (2014) present bothi a good description of thie various Thiis ignores a substantiai and growing body of iiterature criticisms of wiiderness promuigated by thiis neo -green pointing to thie success of protected areas whiere thiey hiave movement and a series of essays from noted conservationists adequate budgets and professionai staff, are designed and academics in spirited and cogent defense. and impiemented in a participatory manner in concert withi iocai communities and fuiiy impiementing righits-based Thie first criticism from thie neo -green movement is thie approachies, and whiere thiey are not compieteiy undermined post -modern, de -constructionist suggestion thiat thiere is by severe corruption and iiiegai use.

Management guidelines for iUCN Category 1 b protected areas 3 Critique 3: Finally, a third and also closely related critique 1.2 What is a Category 1 b Is that wilderness is simply a ‘lost cause ’ . This argument suggests that our planet ’s remaining wild places are doomed protected area? because expanding global populations and increasing IUCN protected area management Category 1b (wilderness) resource use will overwhelm protected areas, ultimately areas are large -scale sites in which ecological processes can leaving only a few remaining patches of wild nature on the function with minimal human disturbance. These sites are planet. A corollary to this argument Is that our entry into a defined as ‘ Protected areas that are usually large, unmodified new geological epoch of environmental degradation, the or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and Anthropocene, Is In fact a benign development: advances In Influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, technology will allow us to manage the planet in a garden -like which are protected and managed so as to preserve their state for the benefit of humanity (Marris, 2011). While human natural condition ’ (Dudley, 2013, p. 14). Ingenuity and new technology will undoubtedly be critical on a more crowded planet, this technocratic suggestion that we Wilderness areas do not exclude people. Rather, they exclude can safely do away with the biosphere in which we evolved certain human uses. In particular Industrial uses, which are and which has nurtured us for millions of years Is dangerously Inconsistent with maintaining wilderness values. In fact, unrealistic. wilderness protected areas can be defined as places that are biologically Intact, or largely intact, with which humans have a relationship (Kormos, 2008). That relationship can Include Importance of wilderness the many Indigenous Peoples and Tribes live In these areas. It can also Include rural or urban residents seeking solitude, Far from being marginalized as some critics have recreation or other human benefits In wilderness protected suggested, wilderness and wilderness protected areas areas. are more relevant than ever. First, because there Is a growing appreciation of the Intrinsic value of nature — those Unprecedented levels of industrial activity, such as roads, values unique to wilderness Itself and beyond any human mining, oil and gas development, logging, and hydropower evaluation or connection, e.g., wilderness for wilderness ’s projects, as well as climate change threaten the planet ’s sake — and the Importance of respecting and protecting the remaining wilderness areas. Such threats endanger the ability diversity of life on earth. Second, because there Is Increasing of Category 1 b protected areas to conserve wilderness understanding that the ecosystem services we all depend resources and to enable Indigenous Peoples to maintain on, such as freshwater quality and carbon sequestration, traditional wilderness -based ways of life and customs. are closely linked to and dependent on biodiversity and If desired. Approaches for combating and managing ecological Integrity. Third, because of the realization that these severe threats can be found In Section 4 (Current destroying wilderness areas In many cases means losing the Management Issues). Incredible cultural and linguistic diversity these areas sustain. Thus, wilderness conservation, whether through government It Is crucial to ensure the legal protection of enough wilderness protected areas or Initiatives led by communities. Indigenous areas of sufficient size. Wilderness protected areas are Peoples or the private sector. Is growing in Importance. This relevant and critical to many diverse aspects of human fact Is clearly reflected in the call to protect and ecologically society. For example, because of their size and Intactness, interconnect half the planet, from the World Wilderness wilderness areas are essential to climate change mitigation Congresses; the IUGN World Parks Congress 2014; the and adaptation (Hllty, et al., 2012; Watson, et al., 2013). Biodiversity Leadership Forum; a growing number of non ­ Wilderness areas are generally more resilient to climate governmental organizations, such as the WILD Foundation, change than smaller, less biologically Intact areas. They are Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; and the world ’s also critical to ensuring biodiversity conservation, especially for foremost conservation biologist E.G. Wilson (Wilson, 2016). wide -ranging species, and for a wide range of other essential For wilderness conservation to reach Its full potential, ecosystem services, from freshwater quality to maintaining the however, we will need to generate a new view of the human wild relatives of commercial crops (MBA, 2005; Mittermeier, relationship to nature: one of respect, reciprocity, and et al., 2003). Wilderness areas are Important biological partnership, a philosophy and practice far more familiar to benchmarks that provide examples of what Intact or largely most Indigenous Peoples than to other cultures. intact ecosystems contain. They are also very often homes, ‘to thousands of indigenous cultures living at low densities and provide livelihoods to local communities around the world (Sobrevllla, 2008) (Kormos, et al., 2015, p. 5).

A growing consensus has emerged that we need to protect a much larger percentage of the planet than called for under current multilateral agreements (Watson, et al., 2016). The science -based global vision of Nature Needs Half —protection of at least half of the world ’s terrestrial and marine ecosystems — is supported by prominent scientists like Dr. Sylvia Earle and Dr. E.G. Wilson (whose similar work Is referred to as “ Half Earth”) (http://www.natureneedshalf. org; Locke, 2013; Wilson, 2016). The ‘Promise of Sydney ’ document created at the IUGN World Parks Gongress 2014 calls for a vision of the future In which the balance between human society and nature Is restored (IUGN World Parks Wilderness areas protect flora and fauna biodiversity at the landscape level. Gongress 2014). Protecting new wilderness areas and © Erin Saupe enhancing the current protection of wilderness Is vital to both

4 Wilderness Protected Areas globally was the first -ev er national legislation of wilderness. As detailed In Section 1.3, the term wilderness was officially adopted Into the IUCN Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories In 1994.

Unlike other protected area categories, wilderness protected areas are the subject of national legislation In only 11 countries (Kormos, 2008). Wilderness as a category Is more often the subject of provincial and state legislation or unit zoning. This category Is often used as an administrative designation applied by managers or supervisors of protected areas. Thus, wilderness standards will vary between countries depending on circumstances ranging from geographical size, biographical context, and social -cultural histories and national relationship with the wilderness concept. These Guidelines provide the Implementation tools to best protect wilderness attributes and values. Category 1 b protected areas, such as the Deosai Plateau Wilderness Park In Pakistan, are largely Intact ecosystems essential to conservation efforts. © Mumtaz Haider As Is mentioned In numerous areas throughout these Guidelines, the number of wilderness areas and the use the Nature Needs Half vision and the vision outlined within the of non -intervention management characteristic of these ‘Promise of Sydney ’ . The number of designated Category 1 b areas Is much more extensive than the actual use of the sites Is Increasing with time and will likely grow much larger Category 1b designation (see Sections 1.5 and 4.7). National and more diverse In the future (Kormos, 2008). governments may change how they regard their protected areas and the IUCN classification system may evolve. A IUCN protected area management Category 1b has a good example of this Is Russia ’s system of Zapovednlkl: 101 core set of wilderness attributes and values. These Include protected areas covering about 330,000 square kilometers — biological Intactness, sacred areas, traditional use, absence about 1.4 per cent of the country ’s total area—that Includes of significant permanent Infrastructure or commercial a variety of ecosystems from Isolated patches of steppe to resource extraction, and opportunities for experiencing large tracts of Siberia and the Arctic. The scale and diversity solitude, uncertainty and challenge. Wilderness areas of the Zapovednik system clearly make It globally significant should be evaluated for their ecological and social yet, on numerous occasions. It has been subjected to effectiveness In protecting these attributes and values (see reductions In size or even degazettment of many specific Section 5). sites, largely due to prevailing communist party Ideology that regarded as elitist Its prohibition of functional use of natural While the concept of designating areas of minimal human resources. use Is old, and while the term wilderness Is also old, use of the term wilderness within protected area nomenclature In the 21^ century this attitude has waned, the system Is relatively recent. The United States Forest Service first Is viewed with renewed favor, and a new discussion has used the term In 1924 In the administrative designation of emerged regarding the appropriate use of Zapovednlkl the Gila Wilderness In New Mexico. Forty years later, the beyond pure scientific research. While International experts United States Congress passed the Wilderness Act, which regard this system as an example of nationally legislated

The Wilderness Act of the United States protects wilderness areas such as the Pope Agle Wilderness In Wyoming. United States federal agencies are In the process of classifying their wilderness areas as Category 1 b. © Danielle Lehle

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1 b protected areas 5 wilderness (Kormos 2008), the Zapovednik system was pubiished a table that used the term ‘wiidiands ’ as a major originaiiy established as category 1a (strictly for scientific protected area ciassification (Miiier, 2008). research). As a result of this new thinking, some of these protected areas now aiiow wiiderness -appropriate tourism The Worid Wiiderness Congress played a decisive role in in up to 5% of the specific zapovednik, but are stiii ciassified developing the wiiderness concept for consideration as an as Category la, igniting further discussion on if or how a IUCN category and advocating for its adoption (Eidsvik, zonation system would be used to use the 1 b ciassification. 1990). At the 1 - Worid Wiiderness Congress (Johannesburg, An example is the worid -famous Kronotsky Zapovednik, a South Africa, 1977), the iack of an internationai definition for Worid Heritage Area, with its wiid landscapes and coastiines, wiiderness was noted. At the 2"^ Worid Wiiderness Congress extensive thermal features, ciassic voicanoes, Russian brown (Queensland, Australia, 1980), a committee headed by Dr. bears (Ursus arctos behngianus), and Steiier ’s Sea Eagle George Stankey, United States Forest Service, reported on (Haliaeetus pelagicus). various ways to approach and shape such a definition, given the diverse views and uses of the term (Martin, 1982).

At the 3 ’'^ Worid Wiiderness Congress (Inverness and Findhorn, Scotiand, 1983) an informai caucus was formed around the commitment to advocate within the IUCN for officiai adoption of a wiiderness category (Martin & ingiis, 1984). Coordinated by the 3 "^ Worid Wiiderness Congress Executive Director, Vance G. Martin, this caucus was energized and informed by ian Riayer (Founder, Worid Wiiderness Congress), Sierra Club leaders Dr. Ed Wayburn (Rresident) and Mike McCioskey (Executive Director and, later. Chairman). Aiso in this caucus and especiaiiy helpful because of their positions and long experience within IUCN were Dr. Kenton Miiier (Chairman, IUCN Commission on National Rarks and Rroteoted Areas, and subsequently the

A red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Kronotsky Zapovednik, Kamchatka, Russia. Dlrector -Cenerai) and Harold Eidsvik (Rarks Canada and © Igor Shpllenok subsequently Chairman, IUCN Commission on National Rarks and Rroteoted Areas). iUCN’s protected area categories ciassify protected areas in 1984, subsequent to IUCN Generai Assembly resoiutions according to their management objectives. Whiie these caiiing for more recognition of wiiderness and for inciusion categories are merely intended as guideiines, internationai of indigenous Reopies in protected areas, members of this bodies, such as the United Nations, and many national caucus and others within the Commission on National Rarks governments recognize them as the giobai standard for and Rroteoted Areas created a task force to review and defining and recording protected areas and, as such, they are update the categories, in 1994 at the IUCN Generai Assembly increasingiy being incorporated into government iegisiation. in Buenos Aires, the current protected area categories, inciuding Category 1 b, were adopted and wiiderness was Whiie the concept of wiiderness is invariably applied officiaiiy recognized for the first time within the IUCN (Dudley, in different ways according to cuitures, languages, et ai., 2012). conservation perspectives and worldviews, these Guideiines suggest a baseline standard for wiiderness management At the IUCN Worid Commission on Rroteoted Areas meeting decisions. The IUCN protected area management Category during the Worid Conservation Congress in Amman, Jordan, 1b definition and management guideiines strive to integrate in 2000, Vance G. Martin (Rresident, WiLD Foundation) many and diverse views whiie stiii being consistent with core proposed that a Wiiderness Task Force be established. Terms wiiderness values. of Reference were adopted in 2002 that, among other things, created the first officiai linkage between the Worid Wiiderness Congress and the IUCN. The Wiiderness Task Force was 1.3 History of the IUCN protected upgraded to a Wiiderness Speciaiist Group in 2009.

area management Category 1 b in 2004 at the IUCN Worid Conservation Congress in The concept of wiiderness was not included in the 1978 Bangkok, a resoiution was adopted requesting the IUCN pubiioation that established the original set of IUCN Worid Commission on Rroteoted Areas to review and revise categories (IUCN, 1978). The IUCN introduced protected its guideiines for protected areas. Three years of intensive area management Category 1 b in 1994 because of growing debate (coordinated by Nigei Dudley and Sue Stoiton) demand and necessity for this category. produced over 50 papers containing many suggestions (one of which proposed that descriptive nouns such as wiiderness IUCN Senior Ecoiogist Raymond Dasmann suggested in and national parks shouid be dropped in favour of using oniy 1972 at the Second Worid Rarks Congress that a protected category numbers). Then, a Rroteoted Area Summit convened area management category system be adopted and expiicitiy 100 invited protected area experts in Aimeria, Spain, in 2007 used the term wiiderness as one of the examples of what he (Dudley & Stoiton, 2008). Core members of the Wiiderness referred to as ‘Strict Nature Reserves ’ (Rhiiiips, 2008, p. 14). Task Force (Cyrii F. Kormos, Harvey Locke, and Vance G. Kenton Miiier, who served both as IUCN Director Generai Martin) and others presented formal and adjunct arguments and Chairman of iUCN ’s Commission on National Rarks and promoting nature conservation as the highest value of Rroteoted Areas, led an internationai team that investigated protected areas, and the key role of wiiderness in fuifiiiing this the usefulness of protected area categories and in 1978 objective.

Wilderness Protected Areas Thoroughly debated and ultimately adopted, the primacy 1.4 Objective of the IUGN protected of nature conservation was one of the central outcomes of the Almerla Summit. This rigorous three -year process area management Category 1 b and Its outcomes subsequently Informed the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas 2008 Guidelines on Objective Protected Area Categories, which were approved at the World Conservation Congress In Barcelona, Spain (Dudley, et Consistent with the 2008 Almerla Summit ’s results, the al., 2012). In these revised guidelines, both Category 1b and primary management objective of Category 1 b Is nature the term wilderness were retained. conservation: management that will protect the long -term ecoiogicai Integrity of natural areas that are undisturbed by The IUCN categories are meant to be voluntary, helpful significant human activity, have no modern Infrastructure, and guidelines that are not mandatory. Many, but not all, nations are characterized by freely occurring and reasonably Intact use the IUCN protected area management category natural processes. An Important aspect of this objective Is the system as a reference, supported also by decision of the emphasis on biological health and Intactness. Convention on Biological Diversity. Some IUCN member nations do not yet choose to use these categories, often because they feel that their own protected area system Is well -established and Independent. Another example Is the United States federal land management agencies that have only recently considered assigning IUCN categories to their protected areas. This change was Influenced by the first International agreement on wilderness: the North American Intergovernmental Committee on Cooperation for Wilderness and Protected Area Conservation (NAWPA) (http://www. nawpacommlttee.org). r

II

i * '

Rio San Pedro Mizquital, the last free -flowing and undammed river in Mexico ' s Western Sierra Madre. © Jaime Rojo A Category 1b objectives help protect biodiversity, including vulnerable species Representatives of the governments of Canada, Mexico and such as the Shcebill stork (Balaeniceps rex) that ranges from South Sudan to the United States collaboratlvely designed NAWPA, which Zambia. © Daniel Field was faclllated by the WILD Foundation and government partners as part of WILD9, the 9* World Wilderness Congres s Compatible objectives In Merida, Mexico, In 2009. Leaders of all North American national land management agencies signed NAWPA during Where the biological Integrity of a wilderness protected WILD9. The NAWPA committee continues today with an area can be secured and the primary objective of nature agenda to create a track record of practical outcomes for conservation Is met, the management focus of the wilderness wilderness and other protected areas (see Marine Wilderness , area may Include other objectives such as recreation or other Section 4.6). As of publication of this document, the United human uses, but only If the primary objective Is maintained States ’ agencies are beginning the process of assigning the securely. Traditional ways of life and cultural and spiritual IUCN categories to their existing protected area system and uses are commonly considered compatible with wilderness will, therefore, complement their NAWPA partners In Mexico management and, as noted throughout these Guidelines, and Canada In this regard. rights-based approaches should be fully Implemented at all times. Specific Important objectives Include: The IUCN Wilderness Specialist Group Is facilitated by the WILD Foundation (http://www.wlld.org) and associates. The 1. Recreation and access IUCN Wilderness Specialist Group remains the coordinating hub for protected area management Category 1 b within the In contrast to Category la, which In most cases disallows WCPA and IUCN. public access. Category 1b encourages such public experience but only If It will maintain the wilderness qualities of the area for present and future generations. Mechanical and motorized access Is uniformly not allowed, but with

Management guidelines for iUCN Category 1b protected areas notable exceptions, sometimes made for subsistence ways Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tanzania, of life in very remote areas. Examples of thiis include thie use United States of America, and Zimbabwe. of snowmobiles by Alaska (ANILCA 3121 b, 1980), or for pre -existing uses, suchi as occasionai access to cemeteries At pubiioation, thiere are 2,992 marine and terrestrial (Wadzinski, 2007) or to maintain pre -existing dams wiiderness areas registered withi thie IUCN as soieiy Category (Gunderson & Cook, 2007). 1b sites (IUCN & UNFR -WCMC, 2016).

2. Traditional ways ofiife Twenty-thiree othier countries hiave wiiderness areas. Thiese wilderness areas are estabiishied via administrative Category 1b exists to enable Indigenous Peoples, Tribes, and designation or wilderness zones withiin protected areas. local communities to maintain thieir traditional wilderness - Whiereas thie above listing contains countries withi wilderness based ways of life and customs, living at low density and exclusively designated as Category 1 b sites, some of thie using thie available resources in ways compatibie withi below -listed countries contain protected areas withi multiple conservation objectives. For example, thie ability of Saami management categories including Category 1 b. Thiey are: people in Northiern Fennoscandia to continue thieir reindeer Argentina, Bhiutan, Brazil, Chiile, Honduras, Germany, Italy, hierding. Kenya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nepal, Rakistan, Ranama, Reru, Rhiilippines, thie Russian Federation, Southi Africa, Switzerland, 3. Cuiturai and spiritual uses Uganda, Ukraine, thie United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northiern Ireland, Venezuela, and Zambia. Category 1 b promotes thie protection of relevant non ­ material benefits, suchi as solitude, respect for sacred sites, In 1989, 44 wilderness areas were registered withiin thie and respect for ancestors. Whiile thiis hias always been IUCN system (Eidsvik, 1989), indicating a dramatic increase evident for Indigenous Peoples ’ communities, thie concept in bothi global efforts in wilderness protection and cohiesive of wilderness as a place of worshiip for many non -traditionai reporting processes. Thie most up -to -date information peopie is gaining currency as public participation wanes in regarding Category 1 b - designated sites can be accessed institutionalized religion (Van Wieren & Kellert, 2013; Ashiley, thiroughi thie World Database on Rroteoted Areas: hittp://www. et a!., 2015; Heintzman, 2015). Thie types of experiences protected planet. net. most associated withi thiis are ‘ awe, wonder, transformation, connection ’ (Ashiley, 2012). Thie practice of non -intervention management of biologically intact wild areas withi wilderness qualities is more widespread 4. Education and science and growing more quickly thian thie actual assignment of areas to Category 1 b. Thiis difference is largely due to thie Category 1 b allows for low -impact educational and scientific fact thiat decisions on management zoning of protected researchi activities. Often, suchi undertakings require being areas are often made at a managerial level withiout a formal withiin wilderness areas and cannot be conducted outside thie designation process beyond management plans. Examples wilderness. can be found in many countries (see Section 4.7), suchi as thie Krkonose National Rark in thie Czechi Republic in whiichi a core zone of some 10,000 hiectares (almost 30 per cent of Exceptions to objectives thie park) is managed strictly withi non -intervention principles and is signposted to inform visitors of thie wilderness qualities. Aithioughi we hiave referred thius far entirely to iarge, intact areas Despite thiese adhierences to Category 1 b designation, of land and sea, thie objectives above are equally important Krkonose National Rark only uses one overall classification. whien applied to (a) somewhiat disturbed areas thiat are capable Category V, because othier zones in thie park hiave numerous of restoration to a wilderness state—a process commonly pre -existing villages, ski hiills, and othier tourist developments. referred to as ‘rewiiding ’ (Johins, 2016)—and (b) smaller areas For thiis reason, thiese Guidelines emphiasize thie management thiat mighit be expanded over time. Bothi of thiese types of areas principles necessary bothi to address areas already could play an important role in a larger wilderness protection designated and to assist towards eventual designation of strategy to form linkages or as part of a system of protected suchi areas as Category 1 b. areas thiat includes wilderness, if thie management objectives for thiose somewhiat disturbed or smaller areas are othierwise Thie governance structures of wilderness protected areas vary consistent withi thie objectives set out above. across and withiin countries. For more detail on wilderness governance, see Section 3. Wilderness protected areas hiave a critical role to play as thie world works to stop biodiversity 1.5 Extent of Category 1 b sites loss and safeguard ecosystem services.

Forty-eighit countries hiave wilderness areas estabiishied via legislative designation as IUCN protected area management 1.6 Inclusion of Indigenous Category 1 b sites thiat do not overlap withi any othier IUCN designation. Thiey are: Australia, Austria, Bahiamas, Peoples and local communities Bangladeshi, Bermuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, in many cases. Indigenous Reopies ’ traditional knowledge Canada, Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, systems, customary righits, governance and cultural practices Czechi Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, sustained wilderness before thiere was a ‘wilderness ’ concept Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, (Cajune, et a!., 2008; Martin & Sloan, 2012). In thie majority Frenchi Guyana, Greenland, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Japan, of cases, conservation schiemes were developed and Latvia, Liechitenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshiaii islands, superimposed on indigenous Reopies ’ and local communities ’ Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Northiern territories withiout adequate consultation or inclusion. Thiis Mariana islands, Rortugai, Seychieiies, Serbia, Singapore, process resulted in gross violations of righits and hias been

Wilderness Protected Areas a detriment to bothi conservation and indigenous Peopies indigenous popuiations, suchi as soiitude, respect for (Stevens & DeLacy, 1997; Stevens, 2014). sacred sites, and respect for ancestors. in a growing number of cases around thie worid, indigenous Thie ultimate best -practice approachi to wiiderness Peopies and iocai communities hiave regained management management withi indigenous Peopies and non -indigenous and/or governance controi of resources thiroughi seif - governments is to coiiaborate from thie beginning. Work determination, iegai advances, and negotiated partnershiips togethier to first identify thie areas for wiiderness designation. withi non -tribai governments and nationai agencies. Thiere Gooperativeiy design appropriate, ecoiogicaiiy sensitive are aiso an increasing number of cases in whiichi indigenous and cuituraiiy reievant management pians thiat protect Peopies hiave been abie to preserve or regain compiete wiiderness vaiues whiiie aiiowing indigenous Peopies and territoriai controi of thieir iand, inciuding environmentai iocai communities to maintain thieir reiationshiip withi thie protection and wiidiife management (Confederated Saiishi wiiderness area for customs, ceremonies, ancestrai respect, & Kootenai Tribes, 2005; Martin, et ai., 2011), and notabiy and subsistence uses. Too often, especiaiiy in thie 20* thiroughi negotiations between iocai communities and nationai century, thiis was not thie case and central governments governments in Brazii and Austraiia. declared wiiderness areas withi iittie or no iocai consuitation. Thioughi iack of consuitation stiii occurs in some countries, thie it shiouid be noted thiat thie majority of wiiderness conservation accepted internationai standard is free, prior, and informed priorities for thiis century are on indigenous Peopies ’ iands and consent (FPiC) (United Nations Deciaration on thie Righits of seas. Thiese naturai areas and ancestrai hiomeiands are thie indigenous Peopies, 2007, articie 10). Extensive consuitation iocation of muiti-stakehioider conservation accompiishiments, is now thie norm but not yet universally practiced. A free, integrating thie management and governance approachies prior and informed consent process shiouid be used thiroughi of indigenous Peopies, iocai communities and institutionai aii pianning, poiicymaking and poiicy impiementation in conservation (Stevens, 2014). Thiese same areas are aiso wiiderness protected areas. sometimes thie site of continued vioiations of hiuman righits, treaties and cuiturai vaiues. Ongoing, thiese abuses undermine Thie Akwe: Kon guideiines provide a coiiaborative framework indigenous Peopies ’ weii -being, ways of iife, cuiturai for thie conduct of cuiturai, environmentai and sociai impact practices, and economic stabiiity and resuit in thie inabiiity of assessment regarding developments proposed to take place indigenous Peopies to continue cuiturai practices thiat inciude on, or whiichi are likely to impact, sacred sites and iands and stewardshiip and protection for thie earthi. Thiis is a detriment waters traditionaiiy occupied or used by indigenous and iocai to bothi indigenous Peopies and thiese naturai areas and is communities (Secretariat of thie Convention on Bioiogicai counterproductive to giobai conservation goais to protect and Diversity, 2004). At thie 7* CBD Conference of Parties, thie sustain wiid nature. Current trends suggest thiat conservation Akwe: Kon guideiines were adopted. Thie Guideiines suggest schiemes thiat may hiave been adequate hiistoricaiiy inciuding a 10 -step process for impact assessment of proposed thiose appiied by indigenous Peopies and iocai communities developments taking place on or impacting traditionai iands and institutionai and contemporary conservation, are often not (Secretariat of thie Convention on Bioiogicai Diversity, 2004). sufficient in thie face of mounting pressures of ciimate chiange, Thie Akwe: Kon guideiines can be found in seven different industriai impacts, and increased environmentai degradation. languages on thie CBD website: hittps://www.cbd.int/ New approachies are needed, inciuding strengthiened traditionai/ guideiines.shitmi. partnershiips between indigenous Peopies and iocai communities and non -indigenous governments and agencies. in Alaska and thiroughiout thie Northi, most of thie eiders say As stated in thie 2014 ‘Promise of Sydney ’ : thiat knowledge withiout thie wisdom to guide appiication of knowledge is useless and may be hiarmfui. [By] working in partnership with and recognizing the long traditions and knowledge, oolleotive rights Thie best wiiderness management is a composite of science and responsibilities of Indigenous Peoples and local and culture, and thiis is nowhiere more important thian whien oommunities to land, water, natural resource and considering wiiderness areas eithier inhiabited by indigenous culture, we will seek to redress and remedy past Peopies or areas thiat hiave active iand ciaims. Some central and continuing injustices in aooord with international and guiding reaiities thiat Category 1 b decision makers need agreements (Promise of Sydney, IUCN World Parks to use whien considering suchi areas are: Congress, November 2014). 1. Partnership— indigenous Peopies are not just anothier Thie true partnershiip between indigenous Peoples ’ group in a diverse range of stakehioiders to be consuited governments and non -indigenous governments withiin as management pians are deveioped. indigenous wiiderness areas is one of thie most important and chiaiienging Peopies are partners: Category 1 b iands or seas under areas of work. Extra attention is bothi required and deserved. consideration hiave been thieir phiysicai and cuiturai hiome Thiis is emphiasized by thie fact thiat two of thie four compatibie for centuries, if not miiiennia, prior to coionization, in objectives for Category 1 b relate specificaiiy (thioughi not most cases, except for thie very few instances whiere entireiy) to indigenous Peopies and non -indigenous iocai iocai communities hiave jurisdiction over iand declared communities: as wiiderness withi management authiority vested in thie Tribe or community, thie authiority of thie current governing • To enable indigenous Peopies to maintain thieir traditionai institution arose far later thian thiat of thie resident wiiderness -based ways of iife and customs, living at indigenous Peopies. low density and using thie avaiiabie resources in ways compatibie withi thie conservation objectives; and 2. Reciprocity— indigenous Peoples ’ culture, by definition, is fuiiy integrated withi thie entirety of nature (landscape • To protect thie reievant cuiturai and spiritual vaiues and and seascape, flora, fauna, sky, and soli), and thie non -materiai benefits to indigenous Peopies or non - peopie are in reiationshiip withi nature. Thierefore, even

Management guidelines for iUCN Category 1 b protected areas 9 aboriginal iand practices such as fire management and Consultative management subsistence harvesting (hunting, gathering) are viewed and co-management through the perspective of ‘reciprocity ’ rather than ‘best -practice management ’, in this case, ‘reciprocity ’ As nationai governments increasingiy and appropriateiy can be defined as the quaiity that informs a partnership, recognize indigenous Peoples ’ iand ciaims, numerous whereby the partners share equally with each other aii innovations have been devised to accommodate wiiderness aspects of the partners ’ lives and reaiity. This is also management. At a minimum, wiiderness decision makers demonstrated through the way that most indigenous shouid incorporate consuitative management strategies within cuitures understand the world and build knowledge their management pians to ensure indigenous Peoples ’ abiiity and wisdom, indigenous science is assembled and to partner in aii decisions. deployed subjectiveiy, compared to the objective nature of contemporary scientific and management inquiry Co -management between indigenous governments and (Berkes, 2012; Watson, et ai., 2003; Watson, et ai., non -indigenous governments shouid be sought for wiiderness 2011). Subjective knowledge derives from and drives areas (Stevenson, 2006). Such co -management structures towards hoiistic understanding, whereas objective shouid be based upon respect of indigenous Peopies and knowledge is reductionist, tending to narrow information of their rights (Garisson & Berkes, 2005; Casson, 2015; Nie, to the smallest parts in order to understand (Berkes, 2008). Within the United States, the Native Environmentai 2012). Sovereignty Project at the University of Oregon is an important resource (https://iaw.uoregon.edu/ expiore/ENR - Few human communities are homogeneous. This is as true of nesp). Canada is very advanced in this regard, as they work indigenous Peopies and iocai communities as it is of non - with their First Nations to increase and manage wiiderness indigenous communities, internal factors and externaiities areas. An example of this is the iarge expansion of the are aiways at work: ievei of education and economic Nahanni Nationai Rark, with the Dene leaders and peopie deveiopment, reiigion, rivalries, greed, outside infiuences and playing a primary role in the negotiations that extended for other factors are common in aii communities, in many ways, many years (The Deh Cho First Nations, The Government of when working with indigenous Peoples ’ communities — or any Canada, and The Government of the Northwest Territories, iocai community—the non -indigenous government wiiderness 2001a; The Deh Cho First Nations, The Government of manager is almost aiways regarded by iocai peopie as Canada, and The Government of the Northwest Territories, another outside, often intrusive, and compiicating infiuence. 2001b; Rarks Canada, 2010; UNESCO Worid Heritage Committee, 2011). in such cases, the manager needs to be mindful of and practice five important behavioural tools: Austraiia has deveioped exceiient poiicy and practice in this regard, with some of the best and varied examples of 1 . Tim e — Significant time shouid be spent within these consuitative management and co -management (Ens, et communities or with their representatives. Reiationships, ai., 2012). The Australian government ’s practices inciude built over extended periods, shouid be formed before a range of approaches (Hiii, et ai., 2011; Hiii, et ai., 2012). questions are asked and answers expected. in some instances, indigenous Reopies have formaiiy 2 . Solutions— Understand that non -indigenous, western - ceded management responsibiiities to state or nationai styie education teaches peopie to prioritize the creation government, in other instances, indigenous governments and deployment of soiutions. This needs to be somewhat and non -indigenous governments establish co -management reversed when working with iocai communities. Assume regimes in which responsibiiities are shared and overseen that they already have the answers to the management by a committee representing both iocai and governmental issue(s) and do your best to reaffirm that, work with interests, in aii cases, indigenous Reopies are assured rights it, and siowiy interject your own ideas. Effective of access and ‘appropriate ’ mechanized transport to assure management pians empower peopie to understand their noninterference with their customs and traditions whiie important role in the situation being managed. stiii assuring protection of wiid processes and systems. A 3. Sociabiiity— Sociabiiity or mutual sociai interaction is poiicy statement by the Australian Conservation Foundation key when working with peopie. For example, humour (1999) remains one of the best outiines of management is generaiiy an intrinsic part of conversations, of sharing approaches in regard to Wiiderness and indigenous Cuiturai knowledge and building reiationships. Landscapes. 4. K n o w led g e -indigenous Peopies have repeatedly had their traditionai knowledge, customs, ceremonies, Variance within Category 1b for indigenous images, and cuiturai artefacts stolen, used without Peopies and iooai oommunities permission, and/or otherwise abused. Justifiable sensitivities abound around this issue. Asking permission Management pians for wiiderness that has indigenous is both poiite and necessary, as is giving attribution to Reopies and iocai communities living in and around it may any contributions. require variance or management exceptions. See sections 3.7 5. Flexibility-inevitable changes in ideas, objectives, and 4.10 for more information. timelines and processes wiii occur. A successfui wiiderness decision maker wiii navigate these changes with grace and goodwiii. Adapting to changes does not necessarily require abandonment of originai ideas, but rather patience, persistence, and perseverance towards the overarching goais.

10 Wilderness Protected Areas 1.7 Application of Category 1 b: To assign wiiderness status and report on thiat status, follow assignment and reporting thiese seven steps (modified from Dudley, 2013, p. 40):

Once wilderness decision makers select Category 1 b as thie 1 . identify thie management objectives of thie site. appropriate IUCN protected area management category, thie 2 . Assess whiethier thie site meets thie IUCN definition of a site ’s decision makers shiouid follow IUCN protocol for thie wiiderness protected area. assignment and reporting process to properly categorize a 3. Document thie wiiderness chiaracteristics (suchi as wiiderness area as an IUCN protected area management wiiderness vaiues, management objectives and Category 1 b site. Thie governance body thiat oversees thie site governing bodies) and thie justification for wiiderness is responsible for thie process of assignment. As is detailed protected area status. in Section 3, governance of a wiiderness area can be varied. 4. Consult withi reievant partners and stakehioiders to agree Thie assignment principies for an IUCN category appiy to aii on wiiderness category designation. governance types of wiiderness areas. As outlined by Dudley 5. Propose thiat thie area be designated as protected area (2013, p. 39), thiere are five principies for assignment: management Category 1 b. 6 . Have thie governing body of thie site make thie finai 1. Responsibility— Thie abiiity to assign protected area decision of assigning protected area management management category type lies withiin thie governing Category 1 b designation to thie site. body responsible for thie uses of thie iand and water 7. Report thie wiiderness category assignment to UNER withiin thie wiiderness area. Worid Conservation Monitoring Centre for site inciusion in 2. Democracy—A ii partners and stakehioiders reiated to thie Worid Database on Rroteoted Areas. thie wiiderness area shiouid be consuited prior to thie finai assignment. Whienever possibie, communicate updates to thie UNER 3. Grievance procedure—Thi ose opposed to thie proposed Worid Conservation Monitoring Centre. At a minimum, assigned wiiderness category shiouid hiave thie abiiity to communicate annually to UNER and thie internationai chiaiienge thie decision in due process. conservation community. Communicate important ongoing 4. Data management — Data collected withiin thie work, chiaiienges and successes of thie wiiderness site wiiderness area shiouid be reported to thie United Nations thiroughi pubiication in academic peer -reviewed journals, Environment Programme (UNEP) Worid Conservation suchi as thie International Journal of Wilderness, in conference Monitoring Centre, and thiroughi thie Convention on presentations, and in publicly accessible documents and Bioiogicai Diversity (CBD) Focal Points as part of thie newspapers. Rubiications, whienever possibie, shiouid Nationai Reports to thie CBD. be written by a multitude of wiiderness partners and 5. Verification — IUCN may soon institute a verification stakehioiders. Whien possibie, aii documents shiouid be system thiroughi whiichi aii protected areas can chioose to translated into thie languages used by thie wiiderness partners hiave thieir site verified as complying withi protected area and stakehioiders. management category objectives.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 11

Management Principles 2

W:

© Fiona Casson 2. Management Principles

2.1 Manage wilderness comprehensively through large-scale, intact wilderness protected areas m and connectivity among wilderness protected areas

Guiding principles

Wilderness areas and other forms of protected areas are the foundation of nature conservation. Alone, a single protected area is rarely big enough to secure the perpetuation of the species and ecological processes they are meant to The Jedediah Smith Wilderness in the United States is managed in coordination with other protected areas to ensure ecosystem viability. © Danieiie Lenie protect. Scientific studies of species extinction patterns, natural processes and ciimate -change adaptation have needs and to raise their young in security. They also occur established the need to move from managing exclusively at at relatively low densities, which means that these species the level of individual protected areas to working across entire require safe access to large landscapes to maintain viable landscapes (Locke, 2012). populations, interconnected wilderness areas and protected areas with movement corridors or linkage zones can achieve this. Protecting wilderness habitat across a broader range Keyconsiderations of ecoiogicai, geographical and geophysical occurrence of species provides the greatest opportunity for evolutionary Ecosystem viability processes to persist regardless of imminent changes in the future (Aycrigg, 2013). Cons ervation biology recognizes four goals that must be met to ensure the long -term viability of an ecoregion. (1) Ail native Ecoiogicai processes such as flooding, fires and windstorms ecosystem types must be represented in protected areas; are essential to the life cycles of many organisms and to (2) populations of ail native species must be maintained in nutrient cycling. Large, intact, connected areas are required natural patterns of abundance and distribution; (3) ecoiogicai to sustain these ecoiogicai processes, in the Amazon Basin, processes such as hydrological processes and fire regimes where the forest itself generates the process of rainfaii, must be maintained; and (4) the resilience to short -term maintaining an enormous amount of forest cover is necessary and long -term environmental change must be ensured to ensure the perpetuation of conditions conducive to the (Schmiegeiow, et ai., 2006). Achieving these objectives survival of the forest (Poschi, et ai., 2010). See Figure 1 for a requires an extensive interconnected network of protected map of protected areas within Amazonia. areas and sustainable management of the surrounding areas (Boreaibirds, 2007). Implementation Wilderness protected areas support these goals, in general, the species most difflcuit to protect are the apex predators Unfragmented landscapes that compete with humans for prey or forage or can threaten humans or their property. Animals such as elephants, lions, in unfragmented landscapes, it is better to have as large tigers, and grizzly bears need large ranges to meet their life a wilderness protected area as is possible (Hodgson, et

Case study 1

Khan Khentii Strictly Protected Area, Mongolia

At three times the size of Yellowstone National Park in the United States, Khan Khentii Strictly Protected Area of Mongolia is 12,270 square kilometers (iUCN & UNEP -WCMC, 2016). The Mongolian government designated it as an iUCN protected area management Category 1b in 2012. Khan Khentii Strictly Protected Area ’s large size encompasses space necessary to protect endangered species, such as Siberian taimen (Hucho taimen), a large fish in the salmon family While quite large, the site requires expansion to adequately protect the Siberian taimen ’s migration routes and spawning grounds. Further expansions proposed have been blocked because of mineral extraction in the surrounding areas (Harrington, 2005) (see Section 2.11). Connectivity among wilderness protected areas or an expansion of this important protected area may prove essential in ensuring this protected area continues to uphold its wilderness values. Beyond the site ’s important ecoiogicai contributions, Khan Khentii also protects the sacred Burkan Khaldun Mountains, the birthplace of Genghis Khan, an important religious site, and a designated UNESCO Word Heritage Site (UNESCO, 2015).

14 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

a!., 2009). Very large wilderness areas can prcvide all cf diversity. Ccnnectivity will usually be achieved by designaticns the requirements cf the fcur gcals cf ccnservaticn biclcgy. ether than wilderness, such as the wide variety cf prctected Representaticn can be achieved by including a diverse area mechanisms IUCN reccgnizes thrcugh its Guidelines range cf eccregicns and spcts cf endemism; native species fcr Prctected Areas (Dudley, 2013) and acrcss a diversity can be prctected by prctecting mcst cf their range and cf gcvernance arrangements, including privately ccnserved allcwing fcr migraticn; ecclcgical prccesses can cperate areas and Indigencus and Gcmmunity Ccnserved Areas and withcut interference and create habitat that enccmpasses Territcries. Rcughly half cf any given eccregicn will need tc be several ecclcgical stages; and resilience tc stresscrs such as prctected in an interccnnected way tc achieve the fcur gcals climate change can be prcvided by prctecting landscapes cf ccnservaticn biclcgy and tc achieve the Nature Needs cr seascapes that cress several degrees cf latitude, large Half ccncept (http://www.natureneedshalf.crg; Lccke, 2013; elevaticnal gradients and pcieward -facing aspects. Wilscn, 2016).

This level cf ccnservaticn has largely been achieved in the Serengeti -Mara Eccsystem thrcugh a variety cf designaticns, including transbcundary gcvernance (Thirgccd, et al., 2004). Recommended reading Large size can aisc be achieved by ccmbining wilderness areas with prctected areas in large ncdes ccnnected tc each Worboys, G., Francis, W., and Lockwood, M. (eds.) (2010). ether acrcss a very large landscape, as is being dene with Connectivity Conservation Management: A Global Guide. naticnal parks in the Yellcwstcne tc Yukcn Regicn cf Ncrth Earthscan, London. America (Lccke & Heuer, 2015). Worboys, G.L., Ament, R., Day, J.C., Looke, H., MoClure, M., Tabor, G., and Woodley, S. (eds.) (2015a). Consultation Draft, Fragmented landscapes Guidelines for Connectivity Conservation: Part One, Definition: Connectivity Conservation Area. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. In fragmented landscapes, ccnnectivity amcng wilderness Worboys, G.L., Ament, R., Day, J.C., MoClure, M., Rittook, J., areas will be required tc maintain resilience (Heller & Tabor, G., and Woodley, S. (eds.) (2015b). Consultation Draft, Zavaleta, 2009). Wilderness managers shculd wcrk with a Guidelines for Connectivity Conservation: Part Two, Connectivity wide variety cf actcrs tc achieve effective large -landscape Conservation Area Types; Criteria for Establishment; And, ccnservaticn (Lccke, 2012). Species pcpulaticns require Governance. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. ccnnectivity amcng prctected areas tc maintain genetic

Mnu I Vision

ANA Cntenos de Pnorizacidn Fase Express

Mapa de Areas Proteg i d a s

C Leyenda

I I CiJOTcaRio rrjumna. ftreas p Citegcr ia iUCN

No reportadas

Figure 1. Map of protected areas within Amazonia. A very important precedent is the Redparques Declaration signed in Peru in 2015, in which 18 Latin American nations formalized a commitment to integrate their protected areas, including Category 1 b, in climate change strategies and asked for the official inclusion of protected areas in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change global discussions (World Wildlife Fund, 2015). Protection of large -scale, intact wilderness areas and of connectivity between wilderness areas are important aspects of climate change mitigation. © World Wildlife Fund

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 15 2. Management Principles

2.2 Manage wilderness to Cultural sites

maintain the highest integrity Management under the non -degradation concept is not of ecosystems, wildlife, limited to the biophysical characteristics of wilderness areas, but applies equally to sacred and traditional cuiturai -use and sacred and traditional components. This type of management is essential to protect cultural-use sites the special qualities of these sites. Management practices should be adjusted to allow sacred and traditional practices to be observed wherever appropriate (Shuitis & Heffner, 2016). Guiding principles Examples include sacred pools and rivers, religious sites, and archaeoiogicai sites such as prehistoric petrogiyphs, rock art, Once the wilderness environmental or cultural resources and historic markers. Cultural sites may be discrete locations areas are degraded by human activity and exploited for non - or, as in many cases, entire landscapes. For example, the wilderness land uses such as forestry or mineral extraction, designated wilderness area landscape of Mount Yengo in they cannot easily be restored. Sometimes restoration actions New South Wales, Australia, is of great cultural and spiritual can be taken before designation, but after designation an significance to the Wonnarua, Awabakai, Worimi, and important protection priority is to adopt a non -degradation Darkinjung aboriginal groups (Clark, 2003). As with many concept (Dawson & Hendee, 2009). Non -degradation sacred places, only certain aspects of the area ’s spiritual values is defined as the maintenance of existing environmental can be discussed pubiiciy (see Section 4.9). Sacred sites conditions where they meet or exceed minimum standards of should not be depicted on maps available to the public. wilderness and cultural values. The concept is best applied when the ecoiogicai integrity of an area is maintained as far as Monitor visitation possible, free from human impact, interference and influence (Dawson & Hendee, 2009). Wilderness sites, and the cultural it should be recognized that any kind of visitation to a sites within, should be managed to maintain the highest wilderness area involves some level of impact both on the integrity of ail components of ecosystems, wiidiife and cultural area itself and the experience of other visitors; therefore, meaning through an expiicit focus on non -degradation. When impacts cannot be avoided if human visitation occurs, in necessary, the concept of managing for non -degradation some cases, however, such as small island wilderness, or provides an opportunity to also upgrade or restore wilderness extremely fragile ecosystems, visitation may not be allowed. quality Certain types of visitation impact are also in direct conflict with the non -degradation concept. For instance, heavy horse and

Keyconsiderations

Managing for non -degradation requires the maintenance of wilderness conditions to prevent undue deterioration, it is necessary that wilderness decision makers ensure the non -degradation of ail sacred and traditional use sites within wilderness areas.

Though there are other areas that require management decisions to limit degradation, three areas in need of particular management consideration are: establishing baselines, compiling inventories of cultural sites, and monitoring visitation.

Baselines

To ensure non -degradation, management must define a baseline against which degradation can be measured. This baseline will influence how priorities are set for restoration and monitoring and future goal planning. An understanding of baseline conditions is essential to measure the pre -existing impacts and influences of human activity. Degradation of a wilderness area is assessed against this quantitative baseline.

To prevent a shifting baseline — in which target conditions are based on living memory that slowly degrades from one generation to the next — management should rely upon and document as many data sources as possible to inform the baseline to which degradation is measured (Papworth, et ai., 2009). Evidence from a single source may not represent the true ecoiogicai conditions for natural ecosystems. Not accounting for shifting baselines in historic accounts can have a marked effect on what is and is not considered natural, Overcrowded boat launches harm the wilderness qualities of a site. © Aldo even among trained ecologists (Pauly, 1995). Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

16 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

muie traffic in sensitive environments can cause irreparable • Favour wilderness -dependent activities and experiences. impacts. Suchi vlsltatlon -lnduced degradation must be • Guide management withi written plans and objectives. avoided. • Set carrying capacities as necessary to prevent unnatural chiange. Examples of unacceptable degradation thiroughi visitation include: • Focus management on thireatened sites and damaging activities. • Crowding of popular trails, destinations and campsites • Apply thie minimum necessary tools or regulations to leading to loss of solitude, often operationalized by achiieve desired outcomes. frequency of encounters withi othier people. • involve stakehioiders in developing acceptable • Noticeable signs of overuse, including extreme trail management plans. erosion, trail braiding (e.g. multiple trails in one spot), • Monitor wilderness conditions and experiences and campsite impacts, water pollution as a result of modify management plans accordingly inappropriate sanitation practices, and streambank • Work closely withi indigenous Peoples, Tribes and local erosion resulting from foot or pack -stock traffic. communities whio identify important cultural sites withiin • Visual and audible impacts from othier users withiin thie a wilderness area to maintain cultural practices and non ­ wilderness. degradation. it is important to protect wilderness areas against degradation Aspects of thiese basic principles are considered in thie following and promote thie special qualities thiat make experiencing wild sections. An expiicit focus on maintaining non-degradation will nature and landscapes in wilderness areas valued and hiighiiy hieip combat a potential shiifting baseline situation and subtle rewarding. Access to cultural sites may be restricted from degradation of wilderness components withiin an area. public access and open only to specific individuais or people with: cultural and spiritual ties to thie site. Recommended reading

Implementation • Cohen, M.R (1984). The Pathless Way: John Muir and the American Wilderness. Madison: University of Wisoonsin Press According to Hendee, et ai. (1990), a non -degradation • Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (2011). Wilderness Management Plan: phiiiosophiy shiouid underlie ail management decisions in uKhahiamba Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site. Ezemvelo a wilderness area, if possible, management shiouid act to KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg, South Afrioa. improve wilderness conditions thiroughi careful application • Graber, D.M. (2003). ‘ Eoologioal Restoration in Wilderness: of management principles thiat adhiere to a non -degradation Natural versus Wild in National Park Servioe Wilderness ’ . The purpose. Thiese include: George Wright Forum 30(3). • Martin, V. and Sarathy, P (eds.) (2001). Wilderness and • Manage hiuman influences on wilderness (e.g. recreation Humanity— The Global issue: Proceedings of the 6 - World pressure) and not thie wilderness itself. Wilderness Congress. Fulorum Publishing, Golden, Colorado.

Case study 2

California Desert Protection Act, United States

Thie Gaiifornia Desert Protection Act of 1994 (Public Law 103 -433) in thie United States created 69 new wilderness areas in and near thie southiern California desert region. Thie United States Department of thie interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed one plan to guide thie management of thiese five areas: Chiimney Peak Wilderness, Domeiands Wilderness, Kiavahi Wilderness, Owens Peak Wilderness, and Sacatar Trail Wilderness (hittp://vwvw.bim. gov/ca/st/en/fo/bakersfieid/Programs/wiiderness.hitmi). Thie management plan specifies a non -degradation approachi thiroughi eachi of thie following management goals:

1. To provide for thie long -term protection and preservation of thie area ’s wilderness chiaracter under a principle of non ­ degradation. Thie area ’s natural condition, opportunities for solitude, opportunities for recreation, and any ecoiogicai, geological, or othier features of scientific, educational, scenic, or hiistoricai value will be managed so thiat thiey will remain unimpaired. 2. To manage thie wilderness area for thie use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner thiat will leave thie area unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Thie wilderness resource will be dominant in ail management decisions whiere a chioice must be made between preservation of wilderness and visitor use. 3. To manage thie area using thie minimum tools, equipment, or structure necessary to successfuiiy, safely, and economicaiiy accompiishi thie objective, thie chiosen tool, equipment, or structure shiouid be thie one thiat least degrades wilderness values temporarily or permanently Management will seek to preserve spontaneity of use and as muchi freedom from regulation as possible. 4. To manage non -conforming but accepted uses permitted by thie Wilderness Act and subsequent laws in a manner thiat will prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of thie area ’s wilderness chiaracter. Non -conforming uses are thie exception rathier thian thie rule; thierefore, emphiasis is placed on maintaining wilderness chiaracter.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 17 2. Management Principles

r

i

f

San rock art dated to be between 120 to 3,000 years old found in tfie Kramberg Nature Reserve, Soutfi Afrioa. O Jotin Waugti

Martin, V. and Watson, A. (2009). ‘international Wilderness ’ , 2.3 Engagement of stakeholders in Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection o f Resources and Values, pp. 50-88. 4 - edition. Fulorum and non-tribal government Publishing, Golden, Colorado. with Indigenous Peoples, Shuitis, J. and Heffner, S. (2016). ‘ Hegemonio and Emerging Conoepts of Conservation: A Critioal Examination of Barriers Tribes and local communities to Inoorporating Indigenous Perspeotives in Protested Area in management and Conservation Polioies and Praotioe ’ . Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1: 1-16. designation of wilderness in Sylven, M., Martin, V, and Sohenok, 0. (2014). ‘A Vision for a true partnership relations Wilder Europe ’ . InternationalJournal o f Wilderness 20(1). Tarlook, A.D. (2008). ‘Slouohing Toward Eden: The Eoo - Pragmatio Challenges of Eoosystem Revival’, in Symposium, Guiding principles The Pragmatic Eoologist: Environmental Proteotion as Jurisdynamio Experience. 97. Minn. L. Rev. 1178. For indigenous Peopies and iocai communities, the need for Watson, A., Martin, V, and Lin, 0 .0 . (2009.) ‘W ilderness: An reconciiiation and buiiding mutuai trust are paramount to buiiding International Community Knooking on Asia ’s Door ’ . Journal of true partnership reiations. Reconciiiation and coiiaboration begin National Park 19(4): 1-9. with the affirmation of indigenous Peopies ’ sovereignty and aii Watson, A., Matt, R., Knotek, K., Williams, D.R., and Yung, internationaiiy recognized protocois for protecting indigenous L. (2011). ‘ Traditional Wisdom: Rroteoting Relationships with Peopies ’ and iocai communities ’ rights. This is the basis Wilderness as a Cultural Landsoape ’ . Eoology and Society for estabiishing trust. Without this integration, conservation 16(1): 86. advances can be seen as taking a step backwards for Wilderness Watoh (2009). Wilderness Stewardship Conoepts indigenous Peopies and iocai communities. True partnership & Principles. Available online from http://wildernesswatoh.org/ reiations require that historicai methods of ‘inciusion ’ expand stewardship -oonoepts from attempts to integrate indigenous Peopies and iocai communities into non-traditionai government and agency processes, towards mutuaiiy determined processes in which power is equitabiy distributed. True partnership means redefining the processes that are used to determine management and stewardship practices, priorities and strategic pians.

18 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

Key considerations Doimatoff, 1976; Berkes, 2012). Thius, whiiie many indigenous Reopies celebrate thie care for and protection of a place thiat Indigenous Peoples and oross -oultural implies wilderness, many hiave rejected protection efforts notions of nature and wilderness thiat interfere withi thie way thiey hiave traditionaiiy interacted withi nature. Non -tribai governments must avoid protection Most indigenous Peoples ’ languages do not hiave a word efforts thiat interfere withi indigenous Reopies ’ traditionai for wilderness. Rathier, many indigenous Peopies hiave hiad reiationshiip to nature. Some indigenous Reopies hiave simply intimate, sustained reiationshiips with: whiat is commoniy sidestepped thiis issue by recognizing and/or estabiishiing referred to as nature for thiousands of years, relating to indigenous Reopies ’ and Community Conserved Territories wilderness as hiomeiand and ancestral domain. Furthier, and Areas (iCCAs), whiichi can hiave many names, including thie notion of wilderness as pristine, uninhiabited, and/or indigenous Rrotected Areas, Tribal Rarks, nature reserves, and ‘ untrammelled by man, whiere man hiimseif is a visitor whio biocuiturai reserves, and may or may not support wilderness does not remain ’ is not compatibie withi most indigenous chiaracteristics. To partner withi indigenous Reopies and iocai Peoples ’ belief systems. communities in wilderness designations and management, thie institutionaiized commitment to ‘no -use ’ must be More compatibie is thie scenario whiere wilderness is a place abandoned to, at minimum, support non-industriai, customary thiat protects ‘ ...traditionai reiationshiips withi thiese relatively use for subsistence and traditionai purposes. intact, extensive ecosystems thiat are kept thiat way thiroughi wilderness ciassification ’ (Aiessa & Watson, 2002, p. 136). Reoiprooity, stewardship and management prinoiples indigenous Peopies do not regard thieir territories as natural, but created and/or transformed by past interactions between Traditionaiiy, indigenous Reopies depended entirely on iocai thieir ancestors and thie ancestors of othier species (Reichiei - fish, wiidiife and habitat, and needed creative ways to avoid

Case study 3

Kayapo homeland in the Xingu River Basin, Brazil

Spanning 110,000 square kiiometres in the Xingu river basin of the Brazilian Amazon, the legally ratified indigenous territories controiied by the Kayapo people form a contiguous block of intact primary forest larger than almost half of the world ’s countries (Schwartzman, et ai., 2013). indigenous lands are protected under Brazilian law but the Kayapo are located in the midst of active agriculture frontiers in the highest -deforestation regions of the Amazon. Legal protected status is necessary but alone is insufficient to ensure the survival of the great forests of the Xingu and the traditionai cultures that depend on them. The region lacks governance, and enforcement of territoriai protected status by the government is weak. Although indigenous historicai occupation of Xingu forests enabled their protection for a time, by the end of the 2CA century the intensification of deforestation processes sweeping the region led the Kayapo and other indigenous Reopies to seek support from non -governmentai organizations to help them defend their lands.

Outside pressure on the ecoiogicai and sociocuiturai integrity of the indigenous territories of the Xingu continues to build, if borders are not constantly monitored in this lawless region, ranchers, coionists, fraudulent land developers, commerciai fishermen, loggers, and gold miners inevitably invade protected areas including indigenous Reopies ’ areas and territories. However, long -term non -governmentai organization alliances with the Kayapo and other groups are proving that strategic investment in their communities empowers indigenous Reopies to hold the line against invasion.

internationai and national non -governmentai organization partners of the alliance seek to build capacity of the Kayapo to protect their territories and the ecoiogicai integrity of the primary forests upon which their culture and iiveiihoods are based. Specific objectives and program strategies are:

• Build administrative and management capacity of the iocai Kayapo indigenous non -governmentai organizations ‘Associagao Fioresta Rrotegida ’, ‘institute Kabu ’ and ‘ institute Raoni ’ , which together represent 80 per cent of the Kayapo popuiation (approximately 8,000 people) living in over 40 Kayapo communities. • Strengthen territoriai monitoring/surveiiiance and controi by the Kayapo in coiiaboration with federal authorities to deter invasion of Kayapo territories by loggers, gold miners, commerciai fishermen and ranchers. • Continue to develop and diversify sustainable economic enterprises in Kayapo communities that are based on non ­ timber forest products and services (e.g. brazil nut, cumaru nut, tree seeds, handicrafts, internationai field courses, sport fishing, and garden produce).

impiementation of these long -term strategies for the sociai, environmental and economic sustainabiiity of the Kayapo territories is ongoing and has made significant measureabie progress. At the start of the 21 - century, a strong correiation has emerged between the successful defense of indigenous Reopies ’ territories and non -governmentai organization support for capacity -buiiding and sustainable development by Kayapo communities. Kayapo lands play a particuiariy important role in preservation of the highly threatened southeastern Amazon because of their huge extent under the controi of a single, historicaiiy weii -organized society at low popuiation density that is already on its way to acquiring the new skills needed for continuing effective conservation management in the 21^ Century

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 19 2. Management Principles

over utilization of thiese resources. To achiieve thiis, by western languages, and methods of teaching traditionai cultural standards, one could say thiat indigenous Peopies traditionaiiy values; respecting and upholding Natural Law; engaging were stewards of thieir resources: thiey not only used whiat muitigenerationai timeframes in planning schemes; eiiminating was phiysicaiiy available to thiem, but made sociai chioices economic incentives that undermine traditionai values and about thie rate of use, withiin sustainable limits, and modified endanger cultures and peopies; and supporting governance ecosystems, in selective and sustainable ways to increase systems that align with indigenous Peoples ’ and iocai thie avaiiabiiity of useful resources (internationai indigenous communities ’ values. Commission, 1991). However, indigenous Peopies do not typicaiiy use thie term ‘management ’ to describe thieir Wilderness designation and free reiationshiip withi an ecosystem, because it implies hiuman prior and informed oonsent domination. Rathier, thiey are more likely to speak in terms of reciprocity, a reiationshiip of give and take aimed at Currently, indigenous Peopies total 5 per cent of the world ’s hiarmonizing thie hiuman and non -hiuman worlds, based on popuiation, have traditionai land claims to 22 per cent of mutuai accommodation or adaptation aimed at bringing earth ’s lands and seas —c ontaining 80 per cent of the planet ’s people and thie land into balance. Thius, for many indigenous biodiversity —a nd inhabit 80 per cent of protected areas, Peopies, true partnershiip requires expanding management indigenous Peopies are currently the stewards of at least definitions to include thie principles of reciprocity and respect. the same extent of wild nature as aii regional and national governments and conservation organizations combined (11 Thie reported instances in whiichi indigenous Peopies appear per cent) (Sobreviiia, 2008). Most of the world ’s remaining to hiave been using thieir fishi, wiidiife and hiabitat non - ecosystems that may be suitable for wilderness designation sustainabiy can be traced to losses of land or depletion are actually human -modified environments, and their of natural abundance resulting from settlements, removal, current levels of biodiversity are in part the result of niche or state administration and exploitation of thieir territory modifications by indigenous Peopies and iocai communities ’ (internationai indigenous Commission, 1991). Thius, thie righit inhabitants. “ Thus, most - if not aii - future wilderness to thie traditionai territories is thie key to continued protection designations necessarily include indigenous Peopies and of indigenous Peoples ’ lands and seas, whiichi include a iocai communities. significant number of potential future wilderness areas. Historicaiiy, such designations were made either without in some cases, wilderness designation hias allowed pre ­ regard to indigenous Peopies and iocai communities, or by existing activities, uses and means of access to continue after attempting inciusion by presenting a projected management designation to accommodate iocai or indigenous means of plan to indigenous Peopies and iocai communities for their iiveiihiood and iifeways. A combination of special provisions input under the terms set by the author. Though there is and good researchi to hieip understand thie underlying often discrepancy of jurisdiction according to customary, meanings or values of activities occurring on thie land, traditionai, iocai, national and internationai law, engaging Free instead of simply accommodating efficiency introduced by Prior and informed Consent (FPiC) is the internationai norm innovation, can ensure protection of thiese reiationshiips iocai and increasingly so (Hanna & Vanciay, 2013). FPiC requires or indigenous Peopies hiave withi wild places into thie future. inciusion in the design and impiementation of a management plan, as well as the governance structure for a designated True partnership relations wilderness area. Moreover, if not done correctly, where a wilderness designation undermines or otherwise determines Early concepts and appiications of wilderness did not indigenous Peoples ’ and iocai communities ’ reiationships with acknowledge the inseparabiiity of culture and nature, and a place, the designation may be deemed invalid if indigenous indigenous Peopies and iocai communities have suffered the Peopies and iocai communities have not been adequately consequences disproportionateiy. Further, in the majority of involved in the planning and determination of the designation. cases, indigenous Peopies and iocai communities were not adequately consulted in the decisions to create protected areas, including wilderness areas. This has resulted in gross Implementation vioiations of rights, disruption of cultures, and in some cases extinction of peopies and iifeways (Stevens, 2014). At the 5® When partnering with indigenous Peoples ’ governments, IUCN World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, in 2003, non -indigenous governments should: indigenous Peopies delegates stated the foiiowing, caiiing for a radical shift in the historic approach to conservation: ‘ First • Expand definitions of wilderness to incorporate concepts we were dispossessed in the name of kings and emperors, of homeland and ancestral domain. later in the name of state development, and now in the name • implement FPiC, e.g. co -determine wilderness of conservation ’ , in addition to eviction from their traditionai designations and management schemes with indigenous lands, dispossession has also included the denial of access Peopies and iocai communities from the beginning of to traditionai lands, waters and wiidiife by communities the design process and establish and work towards residing outside officiai protected areas, and progressive common goals. restrictions upon communities allowed to remain inside (Scott, • Adopt provisions addressing indigenous Peoples ’ and 1998; Nelson, 2004; Pooie, 2011). Given this history, power iocai communities ’ leadership and active participation asymmetries between indigenous Peopies and conservation in the governance, development and management of agencies must be recognized and addressed (Secretariat of terrestrial, marine and estuarine wilderness areas. the Convention on Bioiogicai Diversity, 2004). • Honour customary use for subsistence and other traditionai activities within and surrounding wilderness Supporting indigenous Peopies is necessarily part of true areas. partnership. This should include: sustaining and supporting networks of sacred natural sites, cultural practices, traditionai

20 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

• Adopt language to Inonour tine riglnts and roles of benefits and values derived from kin -centric management Indigenous Peoples and local communities tinrouglnout apply to both: Indigenous Peoples engaged in thie wilderness policy and legal documents. area and visitors whio use thie area for recreation, researchi • Incorporate sacred natural sites and networks, biocuitura i and othier reasons. systems and cultural keystone species in management and governance plans. • Redress past and current injustices. Key considerations • Recognize and affirm Indigenous Peoples ’ riglnts and customary and legal jurisdiotion in accordance witin Different approaches to knowledge all recognized international Instruments, Including tine Management shiouid be Informed by thie knowledge systems United Nations Declaration on tine Riglnts of Indigenous of all partners involved In thie conservation of thie area. Thie Peoples and tine Convention on Biodiversity Article concept of knowledge can vary greatly between thiose 10(c) Sustainable Use and Article 8(j) Proteotion and using Indigenous science and thiose Informed by modern Recognition of Traditional Knowledge. science (Babidge, et ah, 2007; Berkes, 2012; Dove, 2005; • Engage processes of dialogue, reoonolllatlon and trust Menzies, 2006). Modern science often views knowledge as building. static, whiereas Indigenous science understands knowledge as an ongoing process (Berkes, 2012, p. 8). A kin-centric Recommended reading management approach: must employ both: forms In a manner thiat does not subjugate Indigenous science to modern • Borrlnl -Feyerabend, G., Kotharl, A., Oviedo, G., and Basel, science (Salmon 2000). Indigenous science shiouid be M. (2004). Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected understood by managers as a nested system of processes Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation, vol. 11. thiat produce a way of knowing thie world. Indigenous IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. science is not a body of knowledge but rathier hiow a life • Dove, M.R. (2006). ‘ Indigenous People and Environmental Is lived (Berkes, 2012). As argued by Watson, et al. (2003, Polities ’ . Annual Review of Anthropology 35(1): 191-208. p. 3), ‘ [Indigenous science] assumes thiat hiumans are, and • Dunbar -Ortiz, R. (2014). An Indigenous Peoples ' History o f the always will be, connected to thie natural world, and thiat United States. Beaoon Press, Boston. thiere is no such: thiing as nature thiat exists Independent of • Kotharl, A., Corrigan, 0., Jonas, P., Neumann, A., Shrumm, H., hiumans and thieir activities (PlerottI & Wildcat, 1997) ’ . One and Seoretarlat of the Convention on Blologloal Diversity (2012). cannot separate Indigenous science Into discrete Items to be Recognising and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Integrated Into modern science or selectively employ local Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Global Cverview knowledge withiout thie repercussion of tokenlzing Indigenous and National Case Studies. science (Nadasdy, 1999). Indigenous science can only be • LI, T.M. (2001). ‘ Masyarakat Adat, DIfferenoe, and the Limits of approaohied as a nested system of local knowledge, land Peoognltlon In Indonesia ’s Forest Zone ’ . Modern Asian Studies and management systems, social institutions, and worldview 35(3): 645 -676. constantly In Interaction with: one anothier (Berkes, 2012). • Salmon, E. (2000). ‘ KInoentrlo Eoology: Indigenous Peroeptlons of the Human -Nature Relationship ’ . Eoologioal Applications Precautionary principle 10(5): 1327 -1332. • Watson, A., Matt, P. Knotek, K., Williams, D.P., and Yung, L. (2011). Management shiouid follow thie Precautionary Principle, whilohi Traditional Wisdom: Protecting Relationships with Wildemess as a Is thie anticipation of hiarm before It occurs In order to protect Cultural Landsoape. Eoology and Soolety 16(1): 36. hiumans and thie environment against uncertain risks of hiuman action (Devllle & Harding, 1997; UNESCO, 2005). Thils principle, as It relates to wilderness, assumes thiat whien an area ’s wilderness Is reduced or distorted, thien hiuman values 2.4 Manage wilderness both Including experiential, spiritual, scientific and educational will be lessened. Management of wilderness areas shiouid follow to preserve intrinsic thie Precautionary Principle. wilderness values and to sustain human values

Guiding principles

Wilderness shiouid be managed in an approach: thiat understands a hiolistio view of thie world in whiiohi hiumans and non-hiumans are respected (Berkes, 2012; Folke, 2004; Savory & Butterfield, 1999; Watson, et ah, 2003). Humans shiouid be understood as part of nature and as performing complex interactions with: non-hiumans in ways thiat can ‘enhianoe and improve thie ecosystem ’ (Watson, et ah, 2003, p. 3). Management shiouid both: preserve intrinsio wilderness values and sustain hiuman values. Thiis kin -oentrio approach: is grounded in a state of reciprocity between hiumans and nature (Salmon, 2000). Such: management permits natural A Wilderness Leadership School "traH ” (multiple day hiking safari) In Hluhluwe - Imfolozl Park, South Africa (formerly Hluhluwe -UmfolozI Game Reserve, the eoologioal processes to operate as freely as possible first nature reserve established in Africa, in 1895). Managed by Ezemvelo KZN because, ultimately, wilderness values for society depend Wildlife, a provincial authority, this park also contains the first wilderness area on retention of naturalness (Hendee & Stankey, 1973). Such: designated In Africa. © Vance G. Martin

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 21 2. Management Principles

Examples Wilderness has particular scientific value including provision of sites and subjects for data collection, Ways in which wilderness can be managed both to preserve experimentation and general study because of the intrinsic wilderness values and to produce human value minimal human influence on natural processes and include: ecosystems. For this reason, wilderness areas are often used as controi sites for studies on human impacts on • Experiential values such as self-reliance, physical and global ecosystems. Human impact in wilderness areas mental challenge, companionship, solitude, freedom, and reduces the usefulness of such studies, as varied and expressions of humility are enhanced by a wilderness sometimes unknown human influences will be exerted on setting and are clearly impacted by the presence of the results of these scientific studies and controls. human development, which reduces risk and effort while Educational values of wilderness areas are many and varied, providing easier access to supporting infrastructure. but include sites and case studies for the study of natural • Spiritual values such as aesthetic beauty, awe, ecosystems and processes and outdoor skills and ethics. connectedness, and religious and philosophical freedom The wilderness condition allows students to study natural associated with being in an environment that is separate ecosystems, wiidiife and processes without needing to or apart from everyday society ’s rules, regulations and allow for possible human influences, which would otherwise mental pressures are enhanced in a wilderness setting. detract from the value of such studies. Wilderness areas While the label wilderness might not be significant, additionally provide ideal training grounds for outdoor wilderness areas are often areas of immense cultural and education in wilderness survival skills, navigation, and spiritual significance to indigenous Peopies. minimum-impact camping and ethics (see Section 2.8).

Case study 4

Fish River Station, Australia

The Fish River Station in Australia ’s Northern Territory is 178,000 hectares of savannah woodlands, rainforests and fioodpiain wetlands (http://www.environment.gov.au/ iand/nrs/case-studies/nt/fish-river). Although it is managed for conservation purposes as a Category II protected area, the property is an example of wilderness values being protected under a different protected areas management category. Fish River Station is an example of a type of iCCA as described above.

Fish River Station is a nationally significant conservation area. The management is guided by a comprehensive plan of management and an indigenous advisory group representative of the four Traditionai Owner (indigenous) Groups: the Labarganyan, Wagiman, Maiak Maiakand Kamu peopies.

The wilderness values of Fish River Station include its large size, adherence to wilderness values, and its biodiversity, which include species such as sugar gliders, wallabies, kingfishers, as well as many rare and threatened species. The land was purchased in 2010 through a collaborative partnership between the Australian Government, the indigenous Land Corporation, The Nature Conservancy, the Rew Environment Group and Greening Australia (http://vwvw.iic.gov.au/Home/ Our-Land-Rrojects/Flsh-Rlver-Flre-Rroject; http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/austraiia/expiore/fish-river-station. xml). The property also has significant cultural and economic values for the indigenous communities associated with the area. Much of the ecoiogicai integrity of this part of Australia is under threat from inappropriate fire management and pastoral development for cattle, and Fish River provides a refuge for its plant and animal species. The plan of management for Fish River combines traditionai knowledge, technology and science to inform best- practice conservation management. This is evident in the successful Fish River Fire Rroject (http://www.fishriver.com.au). indigenous rangers are employed to undertake this carbon abatement programme that contributes to maintaining cultural and biodiversity values of the property.

The success of the savannah -burning program has meant that Fish River is now part of the carbon economy and has sold carbon credits. Rrofits from sales go back into the management of the protected area. The establishment and management of Fish River Station is not only having positive global impacts by reducing carbon emissions, but also it has benefits for biodiversity conservation and benefits for Australian indigenous culture by improving iiveiihoods through employment and training, and access by eiders and youth to collect bush foods and pass on knowledge, and by maintaining cultural connection to “country ” .

The carbon abatement programme contributes income towards land management activities. Fire plays a significant role in traditionai aboriginal land management and is an important part of the ecoiogicai evolution and ongoing survival of many Australian species. The re -estabiishment of a traditionai fire regime based on pattern or mosaic burning has seen Fish River’s iate -season wiidfires reduced from 66 per cent to approximately 2 per cent of the area per year (The Nature Conservancy 2014).

Rianned burning earlier in the dry season and the production of a mosaic of fire breaks in the landscape reduces fuel load and the severity of wiidfires that can occur later in the dry season. This also has significant benefits in relation to climate change mitigation, as fewer intense flRes produce lower carbon emissions. The North Australian indigenous Land and Sea Management Aiiiance Ltd. was responsible for developing the carbon farming methodology used on Fish River (http:// vwvw.naiisma.org.au/hub/media/press -reiease/media -reiease -indigenous -fire -management -ieading -way -2012).

22 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

Case Study 5

El Toro Wilderness, Puerto Rico

The Ei Toro Wilderness protected area is in the Ei Yunque National Forest of Puerto Rico (Weaver, 2011). Consisting of 40.5 square kiiometres, it is managed as a Category 1 b site by the United States Forest Service and remains the only tropical wilderness managed by this agency (United States Forest Service, 2006). Fi Toro Wilderness is also a designated UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. This additional designation emphasizes the site ’s importance in the global protection of biodiversity through conservation action. Fi Toro Wilderness protects endangered species, such as the Ruerto Rican parrot, the eifin woods warbler, and the paio de jazmin flower.

Fi Toro Wilderness preserves both biodiversity and human values (Biiimire, et ai., 2008). Many recreationists visit this wilderness area each year. Ei Toro Wilderness is managed both to conserve the vast biodiversity of the site and to allow visitors to enjoy the wild nature through activities that adhere to wilderness values (see Section 2.5 and Section 4.5). The site contains and protects important cultural sites of the Taino people. Retrogiyphs and other archaeoiogicai evidence can be found within this 1 b site and are protected by the management of Fi Toro Wilderness (Congressional Record, 2005).

Implementation Bohensky, E.L. and Maru, Y. (2011). ‘ Indigenous Knowledge, Soienoe, and Resilienoe: What Have We Learned from a To implement management both to preserve intrinsic Deoade of International Literature on “ integration ”’ . Ecology and wilderness values and to produce human values, a fair and Society 16(4): 6. equal treatment of both indigenous science and modern Borrini -Feyerabend, G., Kotharl, A., Oviedo, G., and Bassi, science should be employed in aii management decisions. M. (2004). Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Ways to do this include: Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation, vol. 11. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. • Estabiishing the capacities, mandates and motivations Hathaway, M.J. (2013). ‘Making an Indigenous Spaoe ’ . In of the management partners and assessing the Environmental Winds, pp. 116 -151. University of California compatibiiity (and non -compatibiiity) between the Press, Berkeley. partners in terms of power, interest and access to Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, resources; Knowledge, and Aboriginal -State Relations in the Southwest • Assessing the wilderness area ’s distribution of burden Yukon. University of British Columbia Press, Vanoouver, BO. and benefits; Nadasdy, P., Goldman, M., and Turner, M. (eds.) (2011). • Understanding the historicai legacy of the wilderness Knowing Nature: Conversations at the intersection of Poiiticai area and respecting existing legal and customary rights Ecology and Science Studies. University of Chioago Press, to land and resources within the wilderness area; Chioago. • ncorporating indigenous science and modern science Tsing, A. (2005). ‘This Earth, This Island Borneo ’ . In Friction, pp. as equally legitimate processes and contributions to 155-170. Prinoeton University Press, Prinoeton, N.J. management decisions; Watson, A., Stumpff, L.M., and Meidinger, J. (2012). ‘Traditional • Recognizing the ecosystem services provided by Wisdom and Climate Change: Contribution of Wilderness wilderness protected areas; Stories to Adaptation and Survival’ , internationai Journal of • Ensuring future adaptability and fiexibiiity for the Wilderness 18(2): 21-25. management reiationships to continuaiiy evolve; West, P. (2006). ‘Artioulations, Histories, Development ’ . In • Assuming a long -term view of management pians Conservation is Cur Government Now. pp. 52-124. New that allow for proper consultation of aii partners eoologies for the twenty -first oentury. Duke University Press, and stakeholders and ongoing involvement in the Durham. management process. Whiting, A. (2004). ‘T he Relationship between Qikiktagrugmiut (Kotzebue Tribal Members) and the Western Arotio Parklands, Roiiticai actors involved in the management of a wilderness Alaska, United States ’ . internationaiJournai of Wilderness 10(2): area should constantly work to ensure that conservation 28-31. practices reflect a holistic approach to wilderness. Such an approach is not quickly or easily done but when done correctly can create strong management of wilderness areas that uphold human rights and wilderness values.

Recommended reading

Babidge, S., Greer, S., Henry, P., and Pam, 0. (2007). ‘ Management Speak: Indigenous Knowledge and Bureauoratio Engagement ’. Sociai Analysis 51(3): 148-164.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 23 2. Management Principles

2.5 Prioritize wilderness- for game, defines certain kinds of hunting as wilderness - dependent and wilderness­ dependent ’ . relevant activities Implementation

Guiding principles When use conflicts arise within a wilderness protected area, the activity defined as most wilderness -dependent When making decisions about conflicting activities, should be favoured to prevent overuse and to adhere to wilderness decision makers should favour activities within wilderness values, implementing this may prove challenging the protected area that are wilderness -dependent and but, uitimateiy, more beneficiai to the wilderness area as wiiderness -reievant. Such activities may include scientific demonstrated within the case study, if there is any zoning of research, traditionai means of iiveiihood, traditionai cultural locations with minimal or no recreation within the protected activities, and iow -impact recreational activities. Aii activities area, aii wilderness decision makers should uphold this should be consistent with the overarching wilderness zoning regulation in everyday practice, in educational purpose. outreach and in management pians.

Key considerations Recommended reading

Defining wiiderness dependent- Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (2005). Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness: A Case Study. Native Lands and Wilderness -dependent activities are those that can only be Wilderness Counoil. done within a setting that upholds wilderness attributes, Dawson, C.R and Hendee, J.C. (2009). ‘ Chapter 7: Prinoiples as introduced earlier: bioiogicai intactness, sacred of Wilderness Management ’ . In Wilderness Management: areas, traditionai use, absence of significant permanent Stewardship and Proteotion o f Resouroes and Values, pp.179 - infrastructure and commerciai resource extraction, and 194. 4® edition. Fulorum Publishing, Golden, Colorado. opportunities for experiencing solitude. Declaring activities as Fox, S., Phillippe, C., Hoover, V, and Lambert, L. (2015). wiiderness -dependent may vary between protected areas. Celebrating the 50 - Anniversary o f the Wilderness Aot. Wilderness decision makers must use their best judgement. Cotober 15-19. Albuquerque, NM. Prooeedings of the National As Dawson and Hendee (2009, p. 186) state, ‘ Defining an Wilderness Conferenoe. activity as wiiderness -dependent can be difflcuit. Often, it is Krahe, D. (2005). Last Refuge: The Uneasy Embraoe of Indian not the activity itself that is dependent, but the particular style Lands by the National Wilderness Movement, 1937 -1965. in which it is pursued. For example, hunting is not necessarily Washington State University. wiiderness -dependent. However, certain styles of hunting, such as pursuing game under the most natural conditions away from roads or stalking a bighorn sheep among high peaks, are highly dependent on wilderness settings. The importance of naturalness and solitude to the experience, and the methods employed in the hunt, not the mere quest

Case study 6

Shirakami Sanchi Nature Conservation Area, Japan

Prioritizing wiiderness -dependent activities and designating areas of minimal recreational use can often prove difflcuit for wilderness decision makers. The wilderness decision makers of the Shirakami Sanchi Nature Conservation Area in Japan work hard to balance ecoiogicai protection and civic engagement (Mason, 2015). The Ministry of the Environment of the Government of Japan oversees the management of the Shirakami Sanchi Nature Conservation Area as a Category 1b site. This nature conservation area covers a mountainous landscape of over 140 square kiiometres in the Aomori and Akita prefectures of Honshu, Japan (IUCN & UNEP -WCMC, 2016).

Shirakami Sanchi Nature Conservation Area was also declared an UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1993 because of the site ’s global importance as one of the last intact beech forests, the presence of many endangered wiidiife species such as the Japanese serow (Capricornis crispus), the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and the mountain hawk -eagie (Nisaetus nipalensis), and the intangible cultural heritage of the site (UNESCO World Heritage Committee, 1993). The management of the Shirakami Sanchi Nature Conservation Area restricts recreation activities to specific, designated locations within the site, such as mountain paths. The site is governed by the Japanese national government and managed by three government agencies: the Ministry of the Environment, the Forestry Agency, and the Agency for Cultural Affairs. These government agencies make their management decisions based on scientific studies to prioritize wiiderness -dependent actives and restrict tourism locations, while also respecting the site ’s cultural heritage (Kato, 2006; UNESCO World Heritage Committee, 1993).

24 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

2.6 Guide wilderness management Components of management plans

using written plans that are Thie framework for a written management plan (Dawson & culturally appropriate Hendee, 2009) includes five types of components:

1. Goals are thie broad statements of intent, direction, Guiding principles vision, mission statement, and purpose based on national policy and thie specific authiority thiat designated Wilderness management actions shiouid be guided by formal a iocai area as wilderness. Thie goals stated for pians thiat state specific objectives and explain hiow thiey will designation as a protected area under IUCN Category 1 b be achiieved consistent withi aii appiicabie legal authiorities for shiouid be considered in thiis statement (IUCN, 2016). thie area. Thie plan guides individuai area stewardshiip withi 2. Objectives are hiierarchiicai statements under eachi increasingly refined iegisiative, policy and iocai management goal thiat describe thie specific and attainable conditions directions, strategies and actions towards specific area soughit for a particular wilderness area, serve as objectives. Thiese objectives, by providing clear descriptions criteria for deciding whiichi management actions are of thie desired conditions to be achiieved, serve as needed and appropriate, and can be used as a basis benchimarks for periodic evaluation of stewardshiip progress for later monitoring and evaluating thie effectiveness of and subsequent adjustments or revision. Thie entire planning management actions and activities. Thie objectives stated process must include, in aii its stages, thie involvement of for IUCN Category 1 b shiouid be considered in thiis stakehioiders, using whiatever variety of methiods is needed statement (IUCN, 2016). to acquire thieir input and enlist thieir continuing involvement 3. Current situation and assumptionsare statements in resolving issues thiat are encountered during plan thiat set thie context for developing a set of management impiementation (Dudley, 2013; Dawson & Hendee, 2009; actions for an area by summarizing iocai conditions IUCN, 2016). Thie plan shiouid include thie cultural norms and situations, predicting likely chianges to wilderness of indigenous Peopies, whiere relevant and appropriate, conditions and uses, and focusing thie overall direction and form true partnershiips in thie estabiishiment and thie for management actions. impiementation of thie management plan. 4. Management direction and actions are statements of programme direction to guide managers towards achiieving eachi stated objective withiin thie plan. Key considerations 5. Monitoring programme is a statement of whiichi specific measurable standards can be used to evaluate thie Management plan as a written document effectiveness of management actions and activities to attain eachi stated objective. A wilderness management plan is a written document stating thie authiority and policies under whiichi a designated area is Implementation managed; thie goals and objectives for management; thie management direction and actions necessary to achiieve thie Good planning is essential to support good management and stated goals and objectives; and thie monitoring programme stewardshiip of a wilderness area (Dawson & Hendee, 2009). to ensure thiat thie goals and objectives are being met Thie intent of writing wilderness management pians is to foiiowing management activities (Dawson & Hendee, 2009). organize thie best thiinking about whiichi objectives to achiieve A management plan shiouid strive to address aii wilderness and thie management direction necessary to be successful. area partners ’ hiistories, needs and cultures. Extra care shiouid Goals and objectives stated in a wilderness management plan be taken if some wilderness decision -making partners do not serve as guiding statements for deciding whiichi management come from cultures whiere writing and objective -planning are actions are necessary and appropriate and provide targets commonplace, in suchi cases, a mediator, suchi as a cultural against whiichi thie effectiveness of management actions anthiropoiogist, shiouid work closely withi aii decision makers and activities can be judged towards achiieving thie desired in creating thie objectives. Suchi mediation works to prevent objectives. Furthiermore, by stating thie situation and thie stagnate subjugation of indigenous Peoples ’ reiationshiip assumptions at thie time thie plan was written, thie written to nature and adaptive knowledge systems to static scientific document allows future decision makers to decide whiethier knowledge paradigms (Simpson, 2005). thiose conditions stiii exist, or if thie plan needs to be revised in view of chianging conditions. Aii wilderness area decision Thie internal logic of a written plan is expressed in an orderly makers from relevant indigenous Peoples ’ governments manner thiat estabiishies dear, attainable, measurable and non -indigenous governments shiouid be part of thie and acceptable objectives thiat allow for fiexibiiity and management planning process. consistency in purpose across time to guide management activities towards desired outcomes and conditions (Dawson Examples of wilderness management planning approachies & Hendee, 2009). Chiange is inevitable bothi withiin an and sample pians for thie four United States federal agencies area and in thie adjoining landscape and good planning thiat manage areas of thie 44 miiiion hiectares in thie National requires anticipating trends, chianges and problems so thiat Wilderness Preservation System can be found thiroughi thie management direction and actions can proceed iogicaiiy. Wilderness Management Planning Toolbox (hittp://www. Withiout a written document to guide decision making, wiiderness.net/pianning) (Arthiur Carhiart National Wilderness managers could too quickly react to problems or outside Training Center and othiers, 2016). pressures and arrive at a cumulative undesirable result based on subjective and incremental decisions thiat were not focused on thie goals and objectives.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 25 2. Management Principles

Recommended reading Dawson, C.R. and Hendee, J.C. (2009). Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection c f Resources and Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. 3 - edition. Routledge, New Values. 4® edition. Fulorum Rublishing, Golden, Colorado. York. Thomas, L. and Middleton, J. (2003). Guidelines fcr Borrini -Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T, Lassen, B., Management Planning c f Prctected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Broome, N.R, Rhillips, A., and Sandwith, T. (2013). Gcvernance Switzerland. c f Prctected Areas: From Understanding tc Action. IUCN, Worboys, C.L., Lookwood, M., Kotharl, A., Feary, S., and Gland, Switzerland. Rulsford, I. (eds.) (2015). Prctected Area Gcvernance and Management. ANU press, Canberra.

Case study 7

Nahanni National Park Reserve, Canada

Nahanni National Park Reserve is a wilderness protected area located in thie southiwest corner of thie Northiwest Territories of Canada. Thie Southi Nahianni River is thie main feature of thie park and is an important ecoiogicai and cultural hiomeiand area for thie Dehichio First Nations whio use thie traditionai name for thie park: Nahia Dehie. Thie park was estabiishied in 1976 and expanded in 2009 to 30,000 square kiiometres, making it thie thiird -iargest park in Canada. Thie park includes a Canadian National Heritage river and a World Heritage Site.

in 2000, Dehichio First Nations and Rarks Canada jointly created thie Nahia Dehie Consensus Team to engage in cooperative planning and management for thie Nahianni National Rark Reserve (Thie Dehi Chio First Nations, Government of Canada & Government of thie Northiwest Territories, 2001a; Dehi Chio First Nations, Government of Canada & Government of thie Northiwest Territories, 2001 b). Some of thie principles expressed in cooperative management by thie Nahia Dehie Consensus Team included recognizing and respecting traditionai use; shiaring thie stories and traditions of thie Nahia Dehie; using traditionai knowledge in park management; supporting cultural learning; managing in partnershiip; and looking to thie future (Rarks Canada, 2010). Thie Canada National Rarks Act requires aii national parks to develop a park management plan thiat guides management and operation decisions and actions. Thie most recent management plan for thie Nahianni National Rark Reserve was revised and completed in 2009 and 2010. Thie planning team included thie Nahia Dehie Consensus Team, Rarks Canada staff, community and iocai stakehioiders, and thie public. Thie plan provides a long -term vision and strategic direction for thie park and is reviewed every five years to ensure thiat thie plan remains valid and effective. Thiis park plan is a good example of cooperative management and thie inciusion of thie cultural norms of indigenous Reopies.

2.7 Manage carrying capacities Key considerations

through indicator-based Visitor- use indicator based- frameworks planning systems A popular visitor -use indicator -based framework is thie Limits of Acceptable Chiange (LAC) framework (Frisseii & Stankey, Guiding principles 1972; Cole & Stankey, 1997). Thiis framework asks thie questions, ‘How muchi chiange is acceptable? ’ and ‘Whiat are Management shiouid determine thie limits of acceptable thie desired conditions? ’ rathier thian asking, ‘ How muchi use chiange in wilderness conditions by setting standards to is too muchi? ’ (Watson, et ai., 2003; McCooi, et ai., 2007; protect thie area and uphioid wilderness values. Setting Newsome, et ai., 2013). Thie LAC framework defines thie suchi standards allows use withiin carrying capacity thiroughi amount of degradation in biophiysicai and/or sociai conditions thie management of hiuman activities, behiaviour and permitted in a wilderness area ’s management objectives distribution. Whiiie limits on use are sometimes estabiishied (McCooi, etai., 2007). in cases whiere impacts are solely related to user numbers, indicators hiave become thie more desirable focus to protect Anothier framework. Visitor Experience and Resource wilderness attributes, indicator -based planning systems Rrotection (VERR), is useful to wilderness managers (U.S. take a thireat -oriented approachi to protect bothi experiences Department of thie interior, 1993; U.S. Department of thie and resources, it is important to obtain partner and interior, 1997; Manning, 2001). VERR is largely an adaptation stakehioider input whien defining major thireats to address and of thie earlier LAC model. Whiiie LAC appiications almost management solutions to pursue if standards are exceeded. always engaged thie public in thie nine -step planning process (Stankey, et ai., 1985), thie methiod of public engagement is not specificaiiy prescribed withiin thie LAC literature. VERR, hiowever, crucially includes additional elements concerned withi developing a public involvement strategy from thie outset and is expiicit about defining different zones withiin thie park whiere different desired visitor experiences and

26 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

resource conditions mighit apply, mapping thiese and selecting Dawson, C. and Hendee, J. (2009). ‘ Managing for Appropriate indicators and standards for each: zone thiat can thien be used Wilderness Conditions: The Limits of Aooeptable Change in development of appropriate management actions and Rrooess ’ . In Wilderness Management: Stewardship and monitoring of thieir efficacy (Bacon, et ai., 2006). Othier useful Proteotion o f Resources and Values, pp. 213 -249. 4 - edition. frameworks exist and can be found in Recommended reading Fulorum Rublishing, Golden, Colorado. below. Lindberg, K., MoCool, S., and Stankey, G. (1997). ‘ Rethinking Carrying Capaoity ’. Annals of Tourism Research 24(2): 461 -465. Indicators MoCool, S.F. and Cole, D.N. (eds.) (1993). Limits of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Useful indicators are ones thiat can be measured in cost - Directions: Prooeedings of a Workshop May 20 -22 1997, effective ways at acceptable levels of accuracy and precision; Missoula, MT. Gen, Tech. Pep. INT-GTP-371. US Department of are related to thie type, level and location of use; reflect Agrioulture, Forest Servioe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, chianges in conditions due to visitor use; respond to and Cgden, UT. hieip determine management effectiveness; hieip report on MoCool, S.F. and Lime, D.W. (2001). ‘T ourism Carrying thie quality of visitor experiences; and are meaningful to Capaoity: Tempting Fantasy or Useful Reality? ’ Journal o f stakehioiders, including senior managers (Moore, et ai., 2003). Sustainable Tourism 9(5): 372 -388. Suchi indicators are needed to report on thie objectives thiat Nilsen, R. and Tayler, G. (1997). ‘A Comparative Analysis of ideally make expiicit thie desired conditions. Often, to select Rroteoted Area RIanning and Management Frameworks ’ , indicators thiat meet thiese criteria, visitor surveys, baseline in Prooeedings - Limits of Acceptable Change and Related inventories and public involvement meetings will be used Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions (General to provide crucial input. Frequently, hiowever, indicators are Teohnioai Report INT-GTP-371). pp. 49-57. Rooky Mountain selected based upon perceptions of useful appiications at Researoh Station, USDA Forest Servioe, Cgden, Utah. othier areas (Watson & Cole, 1992). Salerno, F, Viviano, G., Manfredi, E.G., Caroli, R, Thakuri, S., and Tartari, G. (2013). ‘ Multiple Carrying Capaoities from Examples of biophiysicai indicators include thie percentage a Management -Criented Rerspeotive to Cperationalize of vegetation cover around a campsite or extent of trail Sustainable Tourism in Rroteoted Areas ’ . Journal of erosion or ‘braiding ’ . A sociai indicator in widespread use Environmental Management 123: 116 -125. in wilderness areas is thie number of trail encounters withi Stankey, G.H. (1984). ‘ Limits of Aooeptable Change: A New othier parties and thie number of parties camped withiin sighit Framework for Managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness or sound, as an indicator of crowding, a thireat to solitude Complex ’. Western Wildlands 10(3): 33-37. (Manning, 1997). See Section 2.10 for more information on selecting indicators to monitor wilderness conditions and experience opportunities. 2.8 Focus management on Implementation threatened sites and damaging activities Using indicators to define and protect carrying capacity provides a means by whiichi thie acceptability of inevitable impact can be determined and managed. Desired conditions Guiding principles must be expiicitiy detailed in thie management objectives for thie wilderness area. Thiese objectives shiouid be sufflcientiy A thireatened site can be defined as any site or iocation specific and provide clear guidance for wilderness decision whiere a wilderness area ’s phiysicai attributes and/or makers. Using planning systems and management to develop sociai conditions are at risk or are undergoing chiange suchi objectives is detailed in Section 4.1. or degradation as a result of non -naturai forces, suchi as impacts from recreation. Wilderness areas by thieir very nature tend to be large and can encompass varied and complex Recommended reading landscapes. Foiiowing thie IUCN 75 per cent rule, thie protected area must hiave at least thiree-fourthis thiat adhieres Blaikie, P. (1985). The Political Economy o f Soil Erosion in strictly to thie Category 1b designation and one-fourthi thiat Developing Countries. John Wiley and Sons, Ino., New York. at least is compatibie withi wilderness values. Management Brown, G., Koth, B., Kreag, G., and Weber, D. (2006). Managing shiouid be designed to thie individuai circumstances of thie Australia' s Protected Areas: A Review of Visitor Management wilderness area. Management shiouid focus on thireatened Models, Frameworks and Processes (Teohnioai Report). sites and activities thiat damage wilderness areas. Suchi Cooperative Researoh Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Griffith a focus is more effective thian applying unnecessary University, Gold Coast, Queensland. management actions to areas not under thireat. Cole, D. (2009). ‘ Eoologioal Impaots of Wilderness Reoreation and Their Management ’ , in Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Proteotion o f Resources and Values, pp. Keyconsiderations 395—436. 4® edition. Fulorum Rublishing, Golden, Colorado. Cole, D.N. and MoCool, S.F. (1998). ‘ Limits of Aooeptable Activity outside the defined wiiderness area Change and Natural Resouroes RIanning: When Is LAC Useful, When Is It Not? ’ in Prooeedings — limits o f Acceptable Difflcuities arise for the manager when sites are threatened by Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future the impacts of activities taking place outside of the wiiderness Directions. Gen, Tech. Pep. INT -GTP-371. pp. 69 -71. US area (Cole & Landres, 1996; Landres, et ai., 1998). These Department of Agrioulture, Forest Servioe, Rooky Mountain might include air and water pollution from agriculture, forest Researoh Station, Cgden, UT. operations, and industry. The establishment of buffer zones.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 27 2. Management Principles

policy, and/or legislation and incorporation, when applicable, • Closure of sensitive areas during critical breeding of World Heritage or UNESCO Biosphere Reserves are oritioal seasons for oertain speoies; in ensuring the integrity of oore wilderness. Further disoussion • Quota impositions on user numbers in heavily used areas on management in relationship to adjaoent lands oan be to maintain use within speoified limits to proteot user found in Seotion 2.11. experienoes; • Management of visitors ’ behaviours, group sizes, and Special provisions distribution; • Implementation of visitor restriotions to mitigate damage Stipulations exist within individual oountries ’ legislation to threatened sites with direotional flow, assigned to proteot or allow non -oompliant or non -oonforming — oampsites and designated routes through the area. but legal —a otivities under speoial provisions (Niokas & Proesoholdt, 2005; Watson, et al., 2004). An example oan Many of these restriotions apply to reoreation use (Cole, be found within the United States: limited oommeroial use is et al., 1997; Cole & Wright, 2003). When oonsidering a speoial provision within the Wilderness Aot. These speoial whioh reoreational aotivities to foous on, managers often provisions are sometimes the most threatening human uses faoe diffioult deoisions regarding fairness. Careful thought within a wilderness area and oannot always be oontained by should be given to who should be restrioted, under what managers (Natural Resouroes Law Center, 2004). oonditions and oriteria, and how these restriotions should be implemented, plaoing minimum burden on those faoing some sort of restriotions, if neoessary. Management should first Implementation foous on the most damaging aotivities at the most threatened sites and then address wider issues arising from other uses. To foous on threatened sites and damaging aotivities, It is often the oase that the greatest total impaot arises from management must be seleotive and site -speoifio (Cole, 1994; high frequenoy, low impaot uses (e.g. hiking) whereas highly Franklin & Aplet, 2009). This approaoh allows managers to looalized yet damaging impaots oome from low frequenoy, address and solve problems that ooour only looally or are high-impaot uses (e.g. horse riding). Impaots oan also arise temporary in nature. from managers ’ efforts to fix the problem. It is inoumbent on the manager to make deoisions about whioh impaots to Examples of this fooused style of management inolude: foous on and whioh users and uses to target, bearing in mind that the high-frequenoy, low -impaot uses might be the most • Temporary trail olosure during the wet season to prevent diffioult to manage with these being dispersed and often exoessive erosion from foot traffio; having multiple entry points (Leung & Marion, 2000). • Closure and vegetative restoration of popular oampsites to allow renewal; For example, management aotions and polioies fooused on • Segregation of hikers and horse riders on different trails reduoing trampling of vegetation and disturbanoe of wildlife to minimize possible Inter -user conflicts; along busy trails by imposing trail quotas, restriotions or even olosures will adversely impaot visitor experienoes by restrioting ohoioe and aooessibility to key destinations. Another example might be how a ban on firewood oolleotion at a popular oampsite to proteot populations of saprophytio inseots and the speoies that depend on them for food will impaot user enjoyment by removing the option of having a oampfire.

Recommended reading

• Blaikie, P. (1985). The Political Economy o f Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. • Conover, M.R. (2002). Resolving Human -Wildlife Conflicts: The Soienoe o f Wildlife Damage Management. Lewis Publishers, New York.

2.9 Apply only the minimum tools, regulations, and force to achieve wilderness protected area objectives

Guiding prinoiples

Deoisions about wilderness administrative aotions and how they both proteot and oan threaten the wilderness Horses, like this one in the Bob Marshall Wiiderness of the United States, can resouroe and visitor experienoes are very important. Many be used in everyday management practices. If the recreational use of horses is oharaoteristios of wilderness are fragile and irreplaoeable. not well regulated, they can contribute to damaging a wiiderness area. © Aido Leopold Wiiderness Research institute If decisions are made without systematic analysis and

28 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

without forethought for protecting key benefits of wilderness the MRDG limits this analysis to actions that ‘ ...include, designation, a great deal could be lost through the wrong, or but are not limited to, scientific monitoring, research, at least not the most appropriate, administrative actions. Fair recreational developments (trails, bridges, signs, etc.), and equal treatment of aii forms of knowledge are needed. A and activities related to special provisions mandated by systematic decision process should be used for determining the Wiiderness Act or subsequent iegisiation (such as appropriateness of administrative actions in wiiderness. grazing, exercising mineral rights, access to inhoidings, This can include the use of tools (such as methods used to maintenance of water developments, and commerciai controi invasive plants, suppress fires, and conduct scientific services) ’ . research), regulations (such as weighing user restrictions 2. Determine the minimum required activity, identify a that impact experiences but protect the resource against selected aiternative after identifying and evaluating educational approaches), and appiications of force (citations, aii reasonable aiternatives. Describe the rationale for warnings, education and arrests). A firm, systematic process selecting this aiternative, referencing law and policy for making decisions is recommended. criteria, and describe any monitoring and reporting requirements. The MRDG suggests a worksheet to work through a series of questions in describing each Key considerations aiternative solution and helps to document why an aiternative was selected. The Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG, 2014) developed by the Arthur Carhart Wiiderness Training Center in the United States suggests a simple principle: ‘ use the minimum tool ’ that is necessary to accomplish the task. The tool that is least obtrusive to the wiiderness environment and visitor experiences and addresses the issue will be the best tool, regulation or amount of force to use.

The MRDG describes two steps to this decision process:

1. Determine if any administrative action is really necessary. The absence of visible presence of humans is highly desirable in wiiderness, and opportunities for spontaneity , exercising freedom in decision making, and lack of heavy -handed, authoritarian management presence is highly compatibie with the wiiderness ideal. Describe the situation that requires action and why it is a problem. Determine if any actions outside of wiiderness that be taken to adequately addresses the situation, if action is necessary, move to step 2 to determine the minimum Responsible management requires good measures of baseline conditions and requirement to address the issue, in the United States, consistent monitoring. ©Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research institute

Case study 8

Use of the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide

On the MRDG website (http://vwvw.wiiderness.net/MRA), there are case studies for such issues as livestock grazing management, historic cabin management, insects and disease controi, native fish restoration, non-native invasive plants management and wiidiife surveys. A key example found in the MRDG is that of non-native invasive plants management. This work resulted in a solution that is highly driven by protection of the wiiderness character of the place and the symbolic values of wiiderness protected at this place, in this example, after learning from monitoring activities that non-native invasive plants were increasing at one iocation in a wiiderness in the United States, a minimum requirement analysis was conducted.

This prescription was adopted: treatment of non -native invasive plants infestations would occur within the wiiderness and continue on national forest and private lands adjacent to the wiiderness. Aii treatment actions in this case study follow the recommendations of an integrated Weed Management Rian (see Colorado Natural Areas Rrogram 2000 for more details on such planning). These treatment actions are to be adjusted annually as needed. Hand -puiiing and grazing, using domestic goats controiied by a herder, will be used for knapweed and herbicides will be applied to treat leafy spurge, toadflax and Canada thistle. Only non -motorized spray equipment will be used and aii transportation of personnel and equipment will be on foot or pack string. Aii personnel will camp in existing campsites and use Leave No Trace techniques to minimize impacts. Temporary area closures will be used during herbicide appiication operations. Monitoring of existing infestations and inventory of new outbreaks would continue as required. A public information programme will be implemented outside wiiderness (e.g. traiihead information boards, forest offices, and forest website) to inform wiiderness visitors and others about the threat of non -native invasive plants infestations and to promote prevention measures to minimize introduction and spread. The public and adjacent landowners would be informed of treatment actions and temporary area closures during herbicide appiication operations.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 29 2. Management Principles

Implementation Key considerations

The MRDG suggests development of specific criteria for Long term- perspective determining necessity. Such decisions must be made in a consistent manner. As issues, budgets, and personnel Monitoring, when employed correctly, allows for the possibiiity changes arise, wiiderness managers should strive to apply of a wiiderness area ’s long -term stewardship for future the same criteria in action planning and decision making. The generations ’ use (Cole, 2010). Wiiderness management takes MRDG suggests making decisions of necessity minimally a long -term view. Monitoring is a key factor in ensuring the based on these five criteria: continued ecoiogicai and cultural intactness of a wiiderness area. The use of an indicator -based planning system is 1. Valid existing rights or speciai provisions of essential for long -term monitoring (see Sections 2.7 and 4.1). wiiderness iegisiation: is action necessary to satisfy valid existing rights or a speciai provision in wiiderness Adaptive management iegisiation that requires action? 2. Requirements of other iegisiation: is action necessary Wiiderness areas are subject to human -induced change that to meet the requirements of other laws? can be addressed by wiiderness managers (e.g. soli erosion) 3. Wiiderness character: is action necessary to preserve and other human -induced changes that cannot (e.g. climate one or more of the important quaiities of wiiderness that change and air poiiution). Management needs to be able to were behind formal protection of this area as wiiderness? deal fiexibiy with both these endogenous and exogenous 4. Legisiation ianguage: is there ‘special provisions ’ influences, with fiexibiiity particuiariy important with respect language in iegisiation (or other iegisiative direction) to the latter where uncertainty is an inherent trait. Fiexibiiity that expiicitiy allows consideration of a use otherwise in management is also needed to respond to changing prohibited? Has the issue been addressed in agency visitor and visit characteristics over time and associated policy, management pians, species recovery pians, or changes in impacts, as what is societaiiy acceptable over agreements with other agencies or partners? time is going to keep changing. Also adding uncertainty is 5. Time constraints: What, if any, are the time constraints whether a particular management strategy for visitors is going that may affect the action? to work and needing to adjust it accordingiy. For aii these reasons, adaptive, flexible management is necessarily central For each decision made, managers should describe what to successful management, indicator -based management possible methods and techniques could be used, when systems, such as the LAC framework, can work well with the action would take place, where the action would take adaptive management (Moore & Hockings, 2013). place and what mitigation measures would be necessary. Wiiderness managers should select the method or technique that causes minimum impact to the resource and visitor experiences while solving the issue.

Recommended reading

• Minimum Requirement Decision Guide (MRDG) (2014). Online Instructions for Minimum Requirement Analysis. Available online from the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center .

2.10 Monitor wilderness Monitoring a wilderness area, such as in the Skeleton Coast National Park in conditions and experience Namibia, allows a manager to know if the management objectives of a site are accomplished. Long -term stewardship of wilderness areas often includes opportunities to guide long­ monitoring recreational experiences. © Vance G. Martin

term wilderness stewardship Importance of oollaboration among all stakeholders

Guiding principles Managing for desired conditions or acceptable levels of change suggests value judgements are integral to decision To monitor wiiderness conditions is to observe and measure making (McCooi, et ai., 2007). Managers could make these the quality of the area over time through the systematic judgements, but they are unlikely to reflect the full suite review of specific metrics, indicators and measurements. Any of values held regarding a wiiderness area; values held management plan requires effective monitoring systems and by indigenous Reopies, visitors, commerciai operators protocois to evaluate progress towards its stated objectives. (concessionaires), neighbours, environmental organizations, Monitoring is essential to guide planning and identify any and others. Where appropriate, indicators should be decided revisions that may be required to the management plan upon in discussion with conservation stakeholders (Dudley, or actions, it is also essential to understand any changing et ai., 2006). Coiiaboration is needed throughout the planning circumstances and to be able to assess management actions cycle in determining desirable conditions and encapsulating already undertaken. Only through monitoring can it be them in the objectives, through to indicator and site selection determined if the objectives in a wiiderness area management and the review of results (Newsome, et ai., 2013). plan have been accomplished or not.

30 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

Case study 9

Central Catchm ent Nature Reserve, Singapore

The Central Catchment Nature Reserve in Singapore is a designated as an IUCN protected area management Category 1 b site (IUCN & UNEP -WCMC, 2016). it covers over 30 square kiiometres of wiiderness in one of the most urbanized countries in the world. The site is governed by the Singapore national government and managed by the National Parks Board of Singapore. The site protects a multitude of species, including criticaiiy endangered ones (Tan, et ai., 2014), and provides the city of Singapore with essential ecosystem services. The Singapore government carefully monitors the recreation opportunities within the Central Catchment Nature Reserve to ensure many occasions for residents to experience the wiiderness, such as the HSBC TreeTop Walk, which is a series of suspension bridges on which recreationists can explore the forest canopy (National Parks Board of Singapore, 2016). The HSBC TreeTop Walk also gives research scientists the opportunity to monitor the canopy ’s conditions, further their knowledge of forest ecosystems, and contribute long -term science monitoring of wiiderness conditions to help create informed management decisions.

Implementation Recommended reading

Devising effective monitoring for wiiderness management pians Landres, P., Boutcher, S., Merigiiano, L., Barns, C., Davis, D., can be a major challenge. Good monitoring systems involve Hall, T, Henry, S., Hunter, B., Janlga, P., Laker, M., McPherson, the careful and systematic coiiection of data followed by careful A., Powell, D., Rowan, M., and Safer, S. (2005). Monitoring analysis and evaluation. Monitoring of the quality of wiiderness Seleoted Conditions Related to Wilderness Charaoter: A areas should include baseline documentation of the influence of National Framework. General Teohnioai Report RMRS -GTR-151. external forces from adjacent lands (see Section 2.11). Analysis U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Servioe, Rooky Mountain should focus on the assessment of non -degradation of an area Researoh Station, Fort Collins, CO. (see Section 2.2), the wiiderness experiences of recreational users, and the cultural needs of the indigenous Peopies and iocai communities associated with the area (see Section 2.3). 2.11 Manage wilderness in relation Data should be collected on bioiogicai, physical, sociai, psychological and cultural metrics for the wiiderness area in to its adjacent lands question and for the adjacent lands (Merigiiano & Krumpe, 1986; Landres, et ai., 2005). it should be recognized that Guiding principles most of these indicators will vary both spatially and temporally across the wiiderness area and will require appropriate tools it is often necessary to manage the wiiderness area not in and systems to assist in data coiiection, management and isolation but in coordination with its adjacent lands. Adjacent subsequent analyses, in some instances, a Geographical lands are the areas surrounding the demarcated protected information System (GiS) populated with appropriate area and are outside the limits of the core wiiderness area. datasets, supported by the necessary hardware and software, Discrete legal and practical protected area boundaries and personnel within an appropriate organizational setting, will do not necessarily reflect boundaries followed by natural be used to handle the data management and analysis (Carver processes, such as wiidiife migration and wiidfires. Threats to & Fritz, 2016). in aii instances, working closely with natural core wiiderness can come from human activities outside the and sociai scientists will be extremely useful. protected area.

Keyconsiderations

Do not manage wilderness in isolation

in a recent survey of wiiderness managers in the United States (Dawson, et ai., 2015) one of the most serious threats to wiiderness conditions identified by these managers was the threat posed from adjacent lands. Aii of the natural processes, and many of the human ones, do not respect the judicial and administrative boundaries placed around designated wiiderness and other protected areas. Boundaries cannot always be established in a way that limits exchange of organisms, sounds, water and human uses across landscapes. Wiiderness cannot be managed in isolation from the physical, ecoiogicai and human context Wilderness area managers must systematically monitor the site ' s conditions and health of the flora and fauna that reside within the site. of its surroundings. Managers should manage wiiderness © Stephanie StefanskI in relation to its adjacent lands, in some countries, buffer

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 31 2. Management Principles

zones can be implemented to protect thie core wiiderness purpose (e.g. thie Catskiii Mountains supply drinking area from activities outside thie protected area. However, in water for New York City). some countries or at specific sites, buffer zones cannot be • External influences may come from thie presence of estabiishied. resource -dependent communities whio may derive thieir iiveiihioods from a wiiderness area or, at thie extreme, Legal and administrative involvement whio may enter thie area to hiarvest resources iiiegaiiy or engage in poachiing and othier hiarmfui activities. Wiiderness can be regarded as one side of thie environmental • Wiidfires are a particular concern in regard to thie modification spectrum (or wiiderness continuum), it is difflcuit management of wiiderness in relation to adjacent lands. to draw thie boundary between iegaiiy protected (e.g. de jure) Wiidfires originating from natural ignitions (e.g. iighitning wiiderness and non -wiiderness (Nashi, 1982). Boundaries strikes) in wiiderness areas and allowed to burn as are usually decided thiroughi a process of legal and part of thie ecoiogicai management plan can cross administrative decision making. Boundaries can often cross, thie boundary and pose a thireat to lives, property and divide or intersect natural biophiysicai zones or ecosystems, economic land use outside of thie wiiderness. Simiiariy, making thie manager ’s task aii thie more difflcuit. Wiiderness fires started by hiuman action (eithier accidentaiiy or managers shiouid involve thiemseives withi thie management deiiberateiy) outside of wiiderness areas can burn into of land uses outside of thieir immediate area of jurisdiction. thie wiiderness and cause unnatural damage. Careful planning and coordination withi decision makers, • Access and recreation also need to be considered. landowners and wiiderness area partners is essential. Roads, trails and traiihieads at thie wiiderness boundary create iocaiized areas of hiighier accessibiiity withiin thie wiiderness withi associated impacts from hiighier recreational use. Trespass into wiiderness from adjacent lands by violators using motorized or mechianized methiods of conveyance can severely thireaten wiiderness resources. • Disease is often a key concern in regard to adjacent land use. Whiiie natural pests and diseases are often not controiied withiin a wiiderness area (e.g. pine and spruce bark beetle in Europe and Northi America) and are perhiaps considered a natural process, thiey can cause problems from economic damage and losses once thiey cross thie boundary. • Wiidiife is generally hiighiiy mobile, sometimes withi large hiome ranges or territories thiat extend well beyond thie wiiderness boundary. Movement and migration Many of the species protected by a designated Category 1 b site do not of wiiderness -dependent and wiiderness -associated necessarily always remain within the strict boundaries of the wilderness area, species beyond thie wiiderness protected area can bring necessitating that sites are not managed in isolation from other protected areas. The Tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae) pictured here is one of the it into conflict withi economic land uses suchi as farming many such examples when considering the wilderness protected areas of New and ranchiing as a result of livestock predation, genetic Zealand. © Daniel Field diiution from interbreeding and transmission of disease. Thius, ranchiing and farming landowners may sometimes Influence of and on adjaoent lands view wiidiife as thireats to thieir iiveiihioods.

Thiere are many ways in whiichi adjacent lands influence Implementation (and are influenced by) wiiderness areas. Thiese can be summarized as follows: Wilderness is often managed in relation to adjacent lands thiroughi zoning and coordinated planning. Zoning can be • Air poiiution from nearby urban areas (e.g. emissions applied bothi inside and outside of wiiderness areas, inside from cars, power stations and industry) can negatively thie wiiderness area, zones describing levels of use based on affect air quality inside wiiderness areas, leading to landscape indices and accessibiiity can be used to manage impacts on wiidiife and vegetation hieaithi. use based on remoteness from thie wiiderness boundary • Dust and smoke from agriculture and forestry (e.g. and access points. Thie estabiishiment of buffer zones wind -blown soli from pioughied fields and smoke from shiouid be encouraged outside of thie wiiderness boundary. deliberate burning of crops and forestry residues) can Buffer zones are usually zones of limited economic activity also impact air quality withiin wiiderness areas and (e.g. extensive grazing and iighit forestry) and developed adversely affect visibiiity. Withiin thie United States ’ recreation (e.g. serviced campgrounds) thiat act as a buffer or categorization of air quality, wiiderness areas shiouid separation between thie wiiderness and intensive land uses be ranked as cleanest. Monitoring of air quality withiin beyond. Buffer zones act in bothi directions depending on thie a wiiderness area affects a iocai industry ’s abiiity to thireats and influences under consideration. For example, a increase air pollutants. wiiderness buffer can protect wiiderness from intensive land • Water quality withiin wiiderness areas can be affected use via legal planning restrictions withiin thie buffer zone, it can eithier by wet/dry faiiout of atmosphieric pollutants or by also protect economic land use from wiidiife and diseases direct runoff whiere a wiiderness area boundary does originating inside thie wiiderness (Cole & Hail, 2006) or not encompass thie whioie of a catchiment, watershied restoration fires from moving outside thie wiiderness boundary or drainage basin, it is usual for wiiderness areas to be to valuable cultural forest or hiomes (Watson, et ai., 2013). regarded as hiighiiy beneficiai water supply zones and hiave often been preserved as wiiderness for just thiis

32 Wilderness Protected Areas 2. Management Principles

Case study 10

Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness, United States

On Montana ’s Fiathiead Indian Reservation, thie tribal council designated thie 37,230 hiectares Mission Mountains Tribal Wiiderness in 1982 at thie urging of many tribal members. (See Figure 2) Thie wiiderness is a symbol of thie overarchiing reiationshiip thie Confederated Saiishi and Kootenai Tribes once hiad withi thie northiern Rocky Mountains. Thie Tribes also estabiishied protection in 1987 for an additional 8,900 hiectares west of thie wiiderness to serve as a buffer zone against unwanted hiuman activities. Thie wiiderness buffer zone essentiaiiy estabiishied a chiecks -and -baiances system thiat assured deiiberation and conscious decision -making to ensure thiat trust is protected and wiiderness values do not deteriorate. Thiis parcel of land —hiaif of whiichi is owned by thie Tribe, hiaif by tribal and non -tribai individuais—contains some hiomes and roads and remains a working landscape withiin thie community. Bothi thie wiiderness and thie buffer zone are considered protected cultural as well as natural landscapes; thius, major decisions about thie management of thiese areas are subject to review by thie Tribal Guiturai Committee, thie Tribal Council and othier tribal members (Watson, et ai., 2013).

To improve forest hieaithi withiin thie wiiderness Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana. buffer zone and increase opportunities to restore fire in thie wiiderness, thie Tribal Forestry Department and thie public are working togethier to find solutions to increasingly thireatening fuel buildups. Decades of fire suppression withiin thie wiiderness buffer zone hiave resulted in hieavy accumulations of dead POLSON wood on thie forest floor, a dense understory of brushi and young trees, and closed forest

canopy. Thiis accumulation renders thie forest HOTSPRINOS' hiighiiy susceptible to destructive wiidfires, disease, and infestations of pine bark beetle and othier hiarmfui insects. Yet, at thie same

time, improving forest hieaithi demands thie CHARLO use of fire to restore a structure thiat makes it more fire -resiiient over thie long term. Aithioughi thie Tribe and thieir governing agencies are committed to seeing fire restored in thie wiiderness, thie situation of fuel abundance in thie buffer zone hias been a serious obstacle.

Montana

Figure 2. The Mission Mountain Tribal Wilderness is bordered ^■ T ribal Wilderness to the west by the Tribal Buffer Zone. © Confederated Salish a uites & Kootenai Tribes I I Buffer Zone

Buffer zones are not thie sole answer to managing wiiderness Recommended reading in relation to its adjacent lands, it is essential to work withi law enforcement agencies, to get iocai community support, Cole, D.N. and Hall, T.E. (2006). ‘ Wilderness Zoning: Should We and to implement legal restrictions. Careful coordination of Purposely Manage to Different Standards ’ . In People, Places, management actions bothi withiin and outside thie wiiderness and Parks: Proceedings of the 2005 George Wright Society areas between reserve managers and iocai planning Conferenoe on Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites, pp. authiorities is necessary to protect wiiderness areas from 33-38. external forces and incompatible development. Dawson, 0., Cordell, K., Watson, A.E., Ghimire, R., and Green, G.T. (2015). ‘T he US Wilderness Managers Survey: Charting a Path for the Future ’ . Journal of Forestry 114. Watson, A., Carver, S., Matt, P., Gunderson, K., and Davis, B. (2013). ‘ Plaoe Mapping to Proteot Cultural Landsoapes on Tribal Lands ’ . In Place-Based Conservation, pp. 211-222. Springer, Netherlands.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 33

Governance and Authority 3

t •- , » *4/ ‘-' • ... a M

1 3. Governance and Authority

3.1 Introduction: Governance As stated in the 2014 ‘Promise of Sydney ’ (see introduction for more detaii on the 2014 ‘Promise of Sydney ’ document), and authority in wilderness quaiity for aii governance approaches must be coupied protected areas with governance diversity and vitaiity. Governance diversity requires dynamic systems that invoive as many poiiticai Governance refers to the interactions among institutionai actors as is feasibie. Fuii participation of government officiais, structures, processes and traditions through which rights-hoiders, non -governmentai organizations and private poiiticai actors can enact iegisiation, deiegate power and institutions is essentiai to high -quaiity governance. Diversity of responsibiiity, and determine the appropriateness and equity actors can be enforced through officiai iegisiative bodies and of management objectives (Graham, et ai., 2003; Borrini- informai sociai structures. Governance vitaiity is ‘t he capacity Feyerabend, et ai., 2013). Governance is intimateiy reiated for integration and connectivity, iearning from experience to management but uitimateiy separate (Borrini -Feyerabend and sociai -ecoiogicai history, fostering engagement and & Fiiii, 2015). Management determines the actions that are deveioping innovative and empowering soiutions ’ (iUCN undertaken in pursuit of wiiderness area protection, whereas Worid Parks Congress, 2014, p. 3). A focus on improving governance dictates which poiiticai actors have the power governance vitaiity provides a way to ensure the protection and responsibiiity to make those management decisions of wiiderness areas is premised on respectfui and equitabie (Lockwood, et ai., 2006). Management focuses on the ‘what ’ reiationships. of wiiderness protection and governance focuses on the ‘w ho’ and ‘how’ (Graham, et ai., 2003). Section 3 aiso expiores the permitted governance variances from wiiderness iegisiation (see Section 3.7). Within aii governance types, wiiderness iegisiation reguiates certain human uses within wiiderness areas but aiiows other uses that are consistent with wiiderness vaiues (Kormos, 2008, p. 356).

Recommended reading for Section 3

• Abrams, P., Borrini -Feyerabend, G., Gardner, J., and Fieyiings, h m m P. (2003). Evaluating Governance —A Handbook to Aooompany a Participatory Process fora Protected Area. Report for Parks Canada and GEESP/GMWG/TiLCEPA. • Borrini -Feyerabend, G., Dudiey, N., Jaeger, T, Lassen, B., Broome, N.P, Phiiiips, A., and Sandwith, T. (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Action. iUGN, Proper governance of a wilderness area ensures the site can be protected. Giand, Switzeriand. Governance models vary and should be assessed on an Individual basis. The Serengetl National Park of Tanzania (Category II) Is governed by the national • Borrini -Feyerabend, G. and Fiiii, R. (2015). ‘ Governanoe for government through the authority of the Tanzania National Parks Authority the Conservation of Nature ’ , in Worboys, G., Lookwood, M., (TANAPA). © Erin Saupe Kothari, A., Feary, S., and Ruisford, i., (eds.) Protected Area Governanoe and Management, pp. 169 -206. ANU Rress, Those charged with the task of wiiderness area governance Canberra. shouid strive to uphoid a set of governance quaiity principies • Kormos, C.F (ed.) (2008). A Handbook on International customized to a particuiar area ’s specific biodiversity vaiue, Wilderness Law and Polioy. Fuiorum Rubiishing, Goiden, cuiturai concerns, historicai iand use, and geography. Borrini- Coiorado. Feyerabend, et ai. (2013, p. xii), argue, ‘T hese principies • Kothari, A., Corrigan, 0., Jonas, H., Neumann, A., Shrumm, H., provide insights about how a specific governance setting wiii and Seoretariat of the Convention on Bioiogioai Diversity (2012). advance or hinder conservation, sustainabie iiveiihoods and Reoognising and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by the rights and vaiues of the peopie and country concerned ’ . Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Global Overview Strong adherence to governance principies within wiiderness and National Case Studies. iaw is required to ensure proper protection. There are five • Lookwood, M., Worboys, G., and Kothari, A. (eds.) (2006). main principies of good governance quaiity agreed by the Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. Earthsoan, London. iUCN: Legitimacy and Voice, Equity, Fairness and Rights, • Stevens, S. (2014). Indigenous Peoples, National Parks, and Performance, and Accountabiiity. These principies of Protected Areas. The University of Arizona Rress, Tuoson, AZ. governance quaiity shouid be upheid by aii poiiticai actors • Worboys, G.L., Lookwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., and invoived at aii scaies of wiiderness protected areas. Ruisford, i. (eds.) (2015). Protected Area Governanoe and Management. ANU press, Canberra. No singie governance modei can be used as the ideai across • iUGN Rroteoted Areas Governanoe website, . and require different governance approaches. Section 3 recognizes four principie governance types: by government, by indigenous Peopies and iocai communities, by private governance, and by shared governance. Shared governance can incorporate any of the three other governance types and aiso appiies in transboundary contexts. Section 3 aiso provides guideiines for wiiderness governance through muitiiaterai treaties (see Section 3.6).

36 Wilderness Protected Areas 3. Governance and Authority

3.2 Governance and authority Australia, Canada, Finland, South Africa, Russia, Sri Lanka, the United States, and the Flathead Indian Reservation in of wilderness protected the United States, have statutory protection of wiiderness areas by government areas. Such statutory protection describes the tenets of a wiiderness area within a wiiderness iaw and establishes wiiderness protected areas protected by iaw. Other countries, Guiding principles such as New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Japan, Tanzania, and Italy, have less strict iegisiation of wiiderness areas, instead, these National government governance occurs when a national countries protect wiiderness areas through administrative government body, such as a ministry or protected area wiiderness zones in parks, game reserves and forests (Martin agency, has an officiai mandate and the necessary & Watson, 2009). This aiiows for wiiderness as a category of capacity to govern a wiiderness protected area. Sub - protected area within the country but delegates the particuiar national governance of wiiderness protected areas occurs zoning to individuai park management authorities. An example at the provincial, regional and iocai government levels. of administrative zoning of wiiderness is the Mavuradonna Most national government and sub -national iegisiative Wiiderness Area in Zimbabwe, which was designated in 1989 approaches to wiiderness correspond with IUCN protected (Martin, 1990). areas management Category 1b ciassification. Governance by government of wiiderness is growing in adoption Wiiderness laws perform two tasks: 1) They define the internationaiiy. it is likely that more countries wiii soon adopt attributes that wild areas must possess to qualify as their own wiiderness laws that correspond to the IUCN a wiiderness protected area; and 2) They define the categorization. range of human uses that are deemed compatibie with those attributes and that are, therefore, permitted within wiiderness (Kormos, 2008, p. 21). Such laws create the Key considerations legal and poiiticai definition of wiiderness protected by those tasked with the conservation of the area. Governance National government governanoe creates and upholds wiiderness iegisiation within protected areas. A national government body may declare new wiiderness areas, determine the conservation objectives of the areas, With aii types of national government iegisiation of wiiderness and oversee the area ’s management (Borrini -Feyerabend, governance, the challenge for legislators is to combine the et ai., 2013; Borrini -Feyerabend & Fiiii, 2015; Lockwood, sociai, bioiogicai and recreational aspects of wiiderness et ai., 2006; Worboys, et ai., 2015). Sometimes the into nationally appiicabie iaw that remains consistent with government body in a country, such as Namibia and the wiiderness vaiues (Kormos, 2008). Roiicymakers shouid draft Philippines, wiii deiegate day -to -day management and wiiderness statutes that combine protection for ecoiogicai governance, for example to a sub -national government resiliency, recreational vaiues, and indigenous Reopies ’ agency, indigenous Peoples ’ management board, non - traditionai means of iiveiihoods and cuiturai needs that are governmentai organization, or private -sector actor though dependent upon the wiiderness resource. usually retaining the ultimate responsibiiity and decision ­ making authority (Dawson & Hendee, 2009; Borrini - Sub- national government governanoe Feyerabend, et ai., 2013). Government is not a monolithic entity. A multitude of agencies make up any country ’s government and work at the iocai, regional, provincial, and national levels (Lockwood, et ai., 2006; Worboys & Trzyna, 2015), often in concert with private interests and non -governmentai authorities. Each agency has its own claims to authority, legitimacy and abiiity to produce quaiity conservation. Sub -national government governance creates the potential for a more collaborative and decentralized process of conservation (Borrini -Feyerabend

The Skeleton Coast National Park of Namibia that includes the protection of desert adapted Elephants {Loxodonta africana) is managed by the national government. © V ance G. Martin

The iegisiation of wiiderness protection is important to effective conservation efforts. National government approaches to wiiderness iegisiation span a spectrum of de jure (existing in iaw) and de facto (existing in fact) protection. Kormos (2008, p. 18) argues that many countries have the de jure legal Zapovedniki, the strictly protected areas in Russia (Category 1a), are under protection of wiiderness areas but not aii nations refer to the jurisdiction of national government, for example the Kronotsky Zapovednik, governance as expiicit laws. Certain governments, such as which is also a Worid Heritage Area. © Igor Shpiienok

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 37 3. Governance and Authority

& Hill, 2015) based upon locally defined relationships among • Be transparent In management decisions. government agencies, local communities, non -governmental • Alert the public of actions through publication of organizations and private Individuals. Today It Is rare that a management policies and performance -effectlveness sub-national wilderness protected area Is governed solely by reports. a government agency without collaboration with Indigenous • Foster engagement with political actors across Peoples or other conservation actors. government agencies and with non -government Individuals and communities. • Promote dialogue among stakeholders and conservation Implementation partners.

A wilderness protected area governed by a national or sub ­ Above all, such a governance structure should strive to uphold national government body should: the ecological and social wilderness values of the area.

Case study 11

The Nature 2000 Network of Europe

In 2009, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for Improved wilderness protection and recognition. In response to a request by one hundred and thirty non -governmental organizations, the European Commission (2013) published Guidelines on management of wilderness and wild areas within the European Union ’s Natura 2000 network. This network covers 18 per cent of Europe ’s terrestrial area - the largest coordinated set of protected areas In the world, some 13 per cent of which Is protected for Its wilderness attributes (Lelner, 2012).

The wilderness definition used In these Guidelines was developed by the Wild Europe Initiative; It Is based on the IUCN global definition of Category 1b, adapted to European circumstances (for example, varied types of land ownership). The Guidelines are Intended to support Implementation of protection and restoration schemes, with emphasis on management by natural processes rather than active human Intervention, and on the Integrity and resilience of ecosystems as opposed to Individual species. They Include recommendations on how, where and under which circumstances this approach may be applied. They also promote more effective use of existing legislative capacity for the Natura 2000 network, as well as local law. Decision makers are encouraged to Incorporate wilderness areas within more general conservation agendas by realizing the economic, social and cultural Importance of wilderness for local communities, landholders and wider society In addition to Its Intrinsic and biodiversity benefits.

Implementation of the European Commission Guidelines represents part of a broader programme to advance the wilderness and wild area agenda In Europe. In this context they are relevant beyond Europe: If such a highly developed continent can find space to protect and restore nature towards Its original self -managing state, and moreover for socio ­ economic as well as ecological motives, this sends a clear message to countries seeking to determine the fate of their own much larger, more pristine areas.

Most of the wilderness areas of the Natura 2000 network are governed by the national governments of Europe. O Fiorian Moellers / Wild Wonders of Europe

38 Wilderness Protected Areas 3. Governance and Authority

3.3 Governance and authority appropriately recognized and respected, the realization of rights. They are essential to secure livelihoods, providing of wilderness protected access to food, water, shelter, clothing, energy and income areas by Indigenous Peoples (Dias, 2012) through sustainable use of natural resources based on local knowledge, cultural values, and collective and local communities management of commons ’ (Stevens, 2014, p. 70 -71). ICCA is an umbrella term that encompasses many of the ways Guiding principles that indigenous Reopies and local communities conserve and protect their territories and areas through customary Governance of land and marine territories by indigenous traditions, culture, self -governance, and relation to place Peoples, Tribes and local communities is both widespread and (Stevens, 2014). Overly restrictive definitions of ICCAs, often the oldest form of governance, if indigenous Peoples, Tribes premised upon non -indigenous peoples ’ romanticization or local communities choose to have their self-governed and and static understanding of indigenous Reopies and local managed territories designated as a wilderness protected communities, undermine the autonomy of ICCAs, indigenous area, those sites can be categorized in numerous ways. The Reopies ’ rights and ICCAs conservation contributions Confederated Saiish and Kootenai Tribes in Montana (USA) (Borrini -Feyerabend, et ai., 2013; Stevens, 2010; Stevens, simply call theirs the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness 2014; Jonas, et ai., 2012; Kothari, et ai., 2012). (Confederated Saiish & Kootenai Tribes, 2005). Another, more generic name or general categorization is an iCCA (Dudley Collective rights 2013; Kothari, et ai., 2012). iCCAs—which can be, but are not always. Category 1 b —have three key tenets: 1) ‘A n indigenous ICCAs are often governed and managed coiiectiveiy. People or local community possesses a close and profound Recognition of indigenous Reopies ’ coiiective—as opposed relation with a site (territory, area or habitat) ’; 2) ‘The people or to individual — rights to their land, water and natural resources community are the major players in decision -making related to is essential (Borrini -Feyerabend & Hill, 2015, p. 183). the site and have de facto and/or de jure capacity to develop Coiiective rights support community institutions ’ abilities to be and enforce regulations ’ ; and 3) voluntary ‘decisions and efforts the governing bodies of protected areas. Denying coiiective lead to the conservation of biodiversity, ecological functions rights to indigenous Reopies harms their capacity to govern and associated cultural values, regardless of original or primary their traditional lands. motivations ’ (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015, p. 185; Stevens, 2014, p. 71). Within iCCAs there is vast diversity in governance Acknowledgement of negative conservation legacies structures, customary and local organizations, mandates, and capacities to protect wilderness attributes. The guidance of Ail work done must acknowledge the instances within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of indigenous conservation ’s historical legacy of nation -building, subjugation Peoples should be followed within ail ICCAs. of indigenous Reopies, blatant racism and ethnocentrism, expulsion of indigenous Reopies from their territories, and extreme prejudices by non -indigenous peoples of the Key considerations purported threats posed by indigenous Reopies to so -caiied conservation efforts (Stevens, 2014, p. 40). in instances international recognition of indigenous Peoples ’ customary where ICCAs exist within larger government -governed ICCAs as protected areas is an important step within wilderness protected areas, ail wilderness decision makers conservation. Many territories governed and managed by must support ICCAs and governance by indigenous Reopies indigenous Peoples and local communities uphold wilderness in a manner that respects the rights of indigenous Reopies in values and should, if desired by the specific indigenous accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights Peoples or local communities, be registered as a wilderness of indigenous Reopies. Without proper recognition of ICCAs, protected area, in 2012, the iUCN adopted resolution 5.094 non -indigenous governments risk undermining, suppressing, Respecting, Recognizing and Supporting indigenous Reopies ’ and violating the rights of indigenous Reopies (Borrini- and Community Conserved Territories and Areas, which called Feyerabend & Hill, 2015; Stevens & Rathak -Broome, 2014). for governments, non -governmentai organizations and the Nation states should recognize customary territories and iUCN body to ‘recognize and support ICCAs in situations law, and many are beginning to do so (Borrini -Feyerabend & where they overlap with protected area or other designations ’ Hill, 2015, p. 193). Customary law must be understood and (IUCN, 2012; Stevens, 2014). Such recognition comes from respected as a legitimate body of law separate from a non - the proper international and national respect of indigenous indigenous government ’s body of law. Reopies ’ customary territories and laws used to govern those areas. Adhering to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Reopies is essential, in cases where indigenous Implementation Reopies do not hold direct authority over cuituraiiy significant areas, but no other protection exists, iCCA listing goals can A wilderness protected area governed by indigenous Reopies motivate communities to seek or declare needed authority. or local communities should affirm indigenous Reopies ’ sovereignty and rights, including: rights to control their own Holistic approach development and to use, conserve and manage ail natural features of their lands, including the rights to keep their own indigenous Reopies ’ and local communities ’ territories and systems of land tenure and to be protected from environmental practices that align with the IUCN definition of Category degradation; and rights to participate in decisions regarding the 1 b sites and ICCAs may be concerned with more than disposition of any state -owned minerals that may affect them, biodiversity conservation alone (Stevens, 2014, p. 70). ICCAs with the objective of obtaining their agreement or consent, often ‘c an be central to livelihood, culture (including identity, and not to be removed from lands without their consent. This relationships to territory, and spiritual beliefs), and, when includes the allowance of limitations of recreational access

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 39 3. Governance and Authority

seasonally and/or spatially to assure privacy for the spiritual Nie, M. (2008). The Use of Co -Management and Proteoted and traditional practice of Indigenous Peoples. Land -Use Designations to Proteot Tribal Cultural Resouroes and Reserved Treaty Rights on Federal Lands ’ . Natural Resouroes By nature and profession, wilderness managers must be Journal. 48: 585. Intensely aware of and dedicated to protecting the wilderness Stevens, S. (2010). ‘ Implementing the UN Deolaration on the resource. Cultural norms, International policy, human rights, Rights of Indigenous Reopies and International Human Rights and best -practlce wilderness management are not always Law through the Reoognition of ICCAs ’ . Polioy Matters 17: easily compatible. This Is true of situations within both 181-194. Indigenous and non -lndlgenous cultures, and may be especially Stevens, S. (2014). Indigenous Peoples, National Parks, and challenging when these cultures converge. Extra sensitivity Proteoted Areas. The University of Arizona Rress, Tuoson, AZ. Is required, therefore, whenever a situation arises where a wilderness manager (of whatever cultural background) sees that actions or policies affecting the conservation of a particular 3.4 Private ownership and wilderness area are contrary to the protection of wilderness values, especially when It occurs at the Intersection of cultures. governance of wilderness What these Guidelines emphasize Is that the wilderness protected areas manager should be well -informed about and attempt to Integrate the challenging Intersection of sovereignty and human rights, wilderness values, diplomacy, and right action. Guiding principles

Private governance of wilderness protected areas Is an Recommended reading Important field of conservation In which wildlands are overseen by private Institutions, not government agencies • Brosius, J.R, Tsing, A.L., and Zerner, C. (eds.) (2005). (Dudley, 2013). The authority and responsibility to make Communities and Conservation: Histories and Polities of conservation decisions rests solely with the private Community-Based Natural Resouroe Management. Globalization Institutions, Individuals or trusts who own the land. To be and the environment. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. formally recognized within the IUCN definition, any wildlands • Cajune, J., Martin, V, and Tanner, T. (eds.) (2008). Proteoting Wild governed by private actors must prioritize the conservation Nature on Native Lands: Case Studies by Native Peoples from needs of the area over any activities that might Impinge around the World, vol. 1. Fulorum Publishing, Golden, Colorado. on the conservation objectives and must adhere to best • Dudley, N. (ed.) (2013). Guidelines for Applying Proteoted Area practices as defined within IUCN management guidelines. Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Varied types of wilderness ownership and oversight are to be • Indigenous peoples ’ and oommunity oonserved territories and encouraged, but It needs to be realized that private -sector areas (ICCAs) oonsortium website: . wilderness areas are seldom protected In perpetuity unless • Kothari, A., Corrigan, 0., Jonas, H., Neumann, A., Shrumm, H., they are subject to legally binding title deeds, covenants or and Seoretariat of the Convention on Biologioal Diversity (2012). easements that continue unchanged regardless of ownership Reoognising and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by or management. Indigenous Peoples and Looal Communities: Global Cverview and National Case Studies.

Case study 12

Shamwari Gam e Reserve, South Africa

The Shamwari Game Reserve In South Africa was the first private wilderness protected area designated In South Africa, which set many good examples of how to govern a privately owned wilderness area. However, Shamwari Is no longer a privately owned wilderness protected area because It was sold and the new owners did not keep the protected area status.

Endangered Cape Zebras (Equus zebra zebra) have been re -established and protected within the privately owned '•if- ■ ■tS’i Shamwari Game Reserve in South Africa that, for several years, had a privately declared and managed core wilderness zone. © Vance G. Martin

40 Wilderness Protected Areas 3. Governance and Authority

Case Study 13

Wilderness in Eastern and Southern Africa

Numerous countries, especiaiiy throughout eastern and southern Africa, are weii -known for private wiiderness management. Many who own iand adjacent to Category 1 b areas that are managed by state, provinciai, or nationai agencies are dedicating their iands to wiiderness. Some of these are iarge areas in themseives, and when banded together into ‘conservancies ’ form iarge biocks of unfenced wiidiands sometimes simpiy for personai purposes, often for ecotourism, and sometimes for sustainabie use such as hunting. Many of these areas, for exampie to the west of Kruger Nationai Park, aiiow motorized transport for game viewing, but some do not, such as privateiy owned Lapaiaia Wiiderness in the Waterberg Mountains 250 kiiometres north of Pretoria (http://iapaiaia.com).

Key considerations biodiversity conservation. Currentiy, approximateiy 3 miiiion hectares of iand are invoived, with pians to at ieast doubie Certain countries, particuiariy eastern and southern this amount by 2017. African countries, have more iand protected under private ownership and governance than under the authority of Other exampies of quaiity private governance can be found government (Worboys, et ai., 2015). it is important to ensure in Kormos ’ (2008) writing on conservation by corporations best practices on these wiidiands and proper recognition and individuai iandowners and Borrini -Feyerabend ’s (2013) of the quaiity of conservation performed through private description of ecotourism and private hunting reserves. governance. Legacy of private governance in conservation Private governance is often best impiemented through partnerships between private actors and conservation - Private ownership and governance has a iong history focused non -governmentai entities, governments, or grant - within nature conservation (Borrini -Feyerabend & Hiii, 2015; making foundations. Working at a iandscape scaie can Johnson, 1996; Nash & Hendee, 2009). The origins of private bring together muitipie private iandowners and conservation conservation governance can often be found in iands set agencies to agree on iarge conservation management pians aside by aristocrats and monarchs to protect areas to use as and governance objectives (Worboys, et ai., 2015). Many hunting grounds (Lockwood, et ai., 2006). Such governance exampies of such partnerships exist, such as the 2.4 miiiion saw conservation practices as secondary to the wants of hectares Adirondack Park in New York State, in which haif of private individuais. Today, private governance prioritizes the the iand is privateiy owned (Kormos, 2008). Another exampie conservation needs of wiidiands, often through conservation is the Bush Pieritage Austraiia, a iarge and expanding network easements. A common exampie of such governance is of privateiy owned iands throughout Austraiia managed for seen when corporations, non -governmentai organizations

Case Study 14

Wilderness in India

india is experiencing a rapid increase in private iandowners dedicating their mostiy smaii iandhoidings as wiiderness (Tejpai, 2015). This movement is occurring in aii regions of the country and is characterized by smaii areas of privateiy owned iand, aimost aii of them former marginai farmiand, that are often adjacent to iarge wiiderness areas. Aithough these areas in india are much smaiier than the areas in Africa—typicaiiy 100 hectares or even much iess—aii of the exampies in aii countries demonstrate and produce some very reai benefits: they eniarge the existing, adjacent wiiderness area; often provide criticai ecoiogicai connectivity; reduce human -wiidiife conflict; increase watershed, biodiversity and carbon storage; and, in many cases where the owners then buiid a smaii ecotourism iodge, create jobs and revenue in typicaiiy very poor, rurai areas.

Staff at the Ranch Tiger Reserve of Maharashtra, India work closely with the private landowners of the surrounding area to add to the Tiger Reserve and to create wilderness corridors. © Sanctuary Asia

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 41 3. Governance and Authority

Case Study 15

The Devil’s Canyon ‘El Carmen’ Wilderness Area (Tierra Silvestre Canon Del Diablo)

CEMEX, the Mexican -based transnationai corporation and one of the worid ’s iargest cement companies, owns, is continuing to rewiid, and manages the Devii ’s Canyon Wiiderness Area. This wiiderness area was recognized as a privateiy heid wiiderness in 2008 by CONANP, Mexico ’s protected area commission (CONANP, 2008). The Devii ’s Canyon Wiiderness Area is the first officiaiiy deciared wiiderness in Mexico and in Latin America (Garcia, 2009). This strictiy managed wiiderness canyon of some 22,400 hectares is the core area of Maderas dei Carmen (simpiy known as ‘Ei Carmen ’) , a iarger (140,000 hectares) private nature reserve owned and managed by CEMEX. Ei Carmen cioseiy coiiaborates with adjacent private ranchers managing some 30,000 hectares of additionai wiidiands, aii of which are an important eiement in the 1.5 miiiion hectares transboundary conservation area proposed in the process of WiLDQ, the Q^Worid Wiiderness Congress (Robies Gii, et ai., 2009) and formaiiy designated in November 2010 by the governments of Mexico and the United States as a ‘ Naturai Area of Binationai interest ’ (NAWPA Committee, 2010).

m

The El Carmen Escarpment (Chihuahua, Mexico) contains the El Diablo Canyon, a privateiy owned and managed wilderness area. © Patricio Robles Gii

Mexico is the fifth most biodiverse country in the worid, and the Chihuahuan Desert is recognized as one of the three most bioiogicaiiy rich and unique desert ecoregions in the worid, with up to 1,000 species adapted to iive nowhere eise (Carton, et ai., 2005). Ei Carmen itseif is a ‘sky isiand ’ in this ecosystem — an eievated piateau/mountain range abruptiy jutting above the desert floor — rich in biodiversity, home to more than 500 species of piants, 400 species of birds, 70 species of mammais, and 50 types of reptiies and amphibians.

CEMEX’s ongoing wiiderness conservation accompiishment is anchored by a biodiversity team empioyed and fuiiy supported by the corporation, whose ambitious agenda over the years has been based on an evoiving, 30 -year management pian with three core components: protect biodiversity, recover damaged iands, and restore native wiidiife to viabie popuiations. Some of CEMEX ’s wiiderness conservation management actions have been: an originai baseiine inventory; pioneering methods to restore iarge areas of native grassiand; removai of fences; many scientific projects such as biack bear monitoring (with 60 coiiared bears); a comprehensive rewiiding programme that features an acciaimed programme to reintroduce desert bighorn sheep; and much more.

CEMEX is quick to recognize that this work has been possibie through, and abiy assisted by, specific individuais such as Mexican conservationist and artist Patricio Robies Gii, and many non -governmentai organizations (e.g. Agrupacion Sierra Madre, Conservation internationai, WiLD Foundation, Birdiife, and WWF), government agencies, and private iandowners. Another feature perhaps unique to this private wiiderness initiative is the certification of the wiiderness designation by CONANR which provides some iegai protections by certain government agencies and from common use by the pubiic (Robies Gii, 2006).

or private trusts purchase and iease wiidiands for the expiicit Oversight and certification purpose of conservation (Langhoim & Krug, 2004). Many are driven by respect for nature and the desire to protect wiid Oversight and certification by externai sources shouid be piaces (Worboys, et ai., 2015). More utiiitarian motivations encouraged to maintain strict standards of best -practice inciude corporate responsibiiity objectives, biodiversity governance and management (Worboys & Trzyna, 2015). offsets, ecotourism income and tax incentives. Aii of these Many privateiy owned and managed protected areas motivations are important and interreiated. are managed by a board whose purpose is to ensure

42 Wilderness Protected Areas 3. Governance and Authority

proper governance practices (Worboys & Trzyna, 2015). 3.5 Shared governance and Poor governance practices in private wiiderness areas can resuit in ‘" isiands for eiites ” — piaces where weaithy authority of wilderness iandowners host affluent tourists (Langhoiz & Krug, protected areas 2004)’ , (Worboys, et ai., 2015, p. 192). This is especiaiiy a concern with foreign ownership of iands protected for their wiiderness vaiue and character. Oversight by externai Guiding principles sources aiiows for the use of specific iegai and poiiticai contexts to ensure quaiity governance, which requires A shared governance structure that can baiance diverse cooperation with the nationai and sub -nationai government partners and stakehoiders with sometimes vastiy differing agencies and reiationships with communities surrounding capacities and interests wiii be a much stronger iong - the private wiidiands. Proof of such cooperation can term governance system than one that ignores these come from certification given by the nationai government compiexities to focus oniy on the poiiticaiiy powerfui (Berkes, or internationai bodies that monitor and evaiuate the 2012; Worboys & Trzyna, 2015). This requires institutionai effectiveness and equity of a wiiderness area (Lockwood, mechanisms that share governance and authority among et ai., 2006, p. 130). This reguiation can ensure private severai actors but that can be individuaiized at the iocai ievei governance adherence to iUGN standards of quaiity (Worboys, et ai., 2015). A muitiievei emphasis incorporates governance and true partnerships with surrounding a management structure abie to work with a piuraiity of communities (Worboys, et ai., 2015). governance that brings together different ieveis of nationai, state and iocai governments to work in coordination A variation on the roie of the private sector can be found with indigenous Peopies, Tribes and iocai communities ’ in cases where private bodies such as non -governmentai governments. The compiexities of power reiationships organizations provide oversight and criteria that designate between a poiiticaiiy and cuituraiiy diverse group can present wiiderness or otherwise recognize wiiderness quaiity. For major difficuities to a successfui shared governance structure, exampie, the European Wiiderness Society is the oniy Pan - but when successfui, this diversity can iikewise better ensure European non -governmentai organization that works to the iong -term stabiiity and success of a wiiderness protected identify, designate, manage and generaiiy promote European area. wiid rivers, oid growth forests and wiiderness. The European Wiiderness Society designation process uses the European Wiiderness Quaiity Standard and Audit System, a privateiy Key considerations deveioped auditing system that has aiready designated 16 areas (European Wiiderness Society, 2015). Key features of successfui shared governance structures inciude partnerships that are muitiparty muitiievei, muitidiscipiinary, and fiexibie with an emphasis on constantiy Implementation evoiving process and created in a paradigm in which powers are shared and benefits distributed (Dudiey, 2013; Borrini- Private wiiderness protected areas shouid: Feyerabend & Fiiii, 2015). An expiicit focus on muitiparty coiiaboration requires incorporating different types of Be the subject of iegaiiy binding instruments, such poiiticai actors and their respective capacities and interests. as conservation easements, covenants, or voiuntariiy This focus on diversity aiiows for a muititude of engaged appiied and iegaiiy enforced servitudes; actors to be invoived in the conservation process and Be overseen by an externai source to ensure best for the recognition of partners and stakehoiders beyond practices; nationai government agencies to be formaiiy invoived in Where appiicabie, use a management board to execute the governance of a wiiderness area (Dovers, et ai., 2015). governance decisions; Some actors, iike indigenous Peopies, iocai communities Cooperate with nationai and sub-nationai government and private iandowners, have often been informaiiy invoived agencies; in the governance of wiiderness but can now be given due Partner with conservation recognition through shared governance roies (Lockwood, et non -governmentai organizations or ai., 2006). grant -making entities; Where possibie, create financiai incentives for private Wiiderness decision makers in shared governance structures actors to respect the abiiity of indigenous Peopies to with indigenous Peopies must adhere to the United Nations continue accessing traditionai piaces and iand uses. Deciaration on the Rights of indigenous Peopies. Two articies within this deciaration of particuiar importance to shared Aii governance and management decisions shouid seek to governance are: uphoid best practices and wiiderness vaiues. • Articie 12: ‘ the right to maintain, protect, deveiop and teach their spirituai and reiigious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect and have access in privacy to their reiigious and cuiturai sites, the right to use and controi their ceremoniai objects and right to repatriations of their human remains... ’ (United Nations Deciaration on the Rights of indigenous Reopies, 2007, p. 9). • Articie 31: ‘ the right to controi, protect and deveiop their cuiturai knowiedge...and inteiiectuai property rights...’ (United Nations Deciaration on the Rights of

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 43 3. Governance and Authority

Indigenous Peopies, 2007, p. 11). These rights inciude strategy. Transboundary governance can and shouid inciude the right to research employing indigenous science and collaborative or joint governance. methodologies and to ensure the inclusion of indigenous science in policy implementation, other research projects, An exampie of another conservation effort that uses a assessments and response to protected area threats. transboundary governance structure is the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation initiative that stretches from northwestern Shared governance presents the possibility that a protected Wyoming, (Yellowstone, USA) to northeastern Alaska and area could incorporate the ecoiogicai and cuiturai needs of an northwestern Canada (Yukon, Canada) (http://y2y.net/). it area in a manner that upholds the best practices required by is an exampie of an area conserved at a continental scaie governments, communities, scientists, and conservationists, through a governance structure that incorporates hundreds in some situations, non -governmentai organizations may of diverse poiiticai actors and iandowners working together oversee the governance of a wiiderness area and be charged to best direct the conservation objectives (Bates, 2010; with the responsibiiity of bringing together a range of Locke & McKinney, 2013). These transboundary conservation stakehoiders and conservation actors, including government governance structures aiiow for the protection of important agencies. ecosystems in their entirety. Transboundary protected areas can also be governed through bilateral or muitiiaterai Collaborative governanoe agreements (see Section 3.6).

Goiiaborative governance occurs when one government agency—often a state or provinciai agency — possesses Implementation the authority and mandate to govern an area but must at ieast consult and inform stakehoiders when implementing A shared governance structure shouid recognize the rights of regulations and initiatives (Borrini -Feyerabend, et ai., 2013). the partners and increase the participation of people invoived Consultation may vary from informal to formal depending in the conservation of protected areas. Successfully executed, upon the reguiation at hand and the actors invoived. A strong shared governance can promote both social justice and best form of collaborative governance uses a type of consultation practices of conservation. Borrini-Feyerabend and Hiii (2015, that requires the fuiiy informed and comprehensive p. 201) argue that it is possibie to achieve a baiance ‘ between involvement of aii stakehoiders in the decisions made for fairness and acquired rights, stabiiity and innovation, iocai the area (Lockwood, et ai., 2006; Borrini-Feyerabend & meaning and vaiues and broader liberating principles by Hiii, 2015). Appiicabie to aii protected areas, collaborative adopting a ‘human rights -based approach ’ , by which a governance works well for wiiderness protected areas as muitipiicity of procedural and substantive rights is respected ’ . does joint governance, described below. Such a structure must incorporate historical events and reiationships, previous governance structures, muitipiicity Joint governance of actors with expiicit interest in area protected, ecoiogicai realities as well as the iess tangible aspects iike fairness of Joint governance involves a reguiation body composed process, capacity and means to manage, and true power - of actors representing a variety of vested interests and sharing (Borrini -Feyerabend, et ai., 2004; Borrini-Feyerabend constituencies that are charged with the authority and &Hiii, 2015; Nie, 2008). responsibiiity of a protected area ’s decision -making (Borrini- Feyerabend & Hiii, 2015). The nuances and balances of such The principles of effective shared governance of protected power -sharing structures are defined in a formal manner from areas as outlined by Stevens (2014, p. 300 -301) shouid be the outset of the joint governance relationship. The baiance of followed in aii shared governance of wiiderness protected power between the conservation partners and stakehoiders areas that inciude indigenous Peopies: spans a continuum from full controi by government agency to full controi by non -government conservation partners and • Recognize indigenous Peoples ’ status as indigenous is often based upon an individuaiized platform of shared Peopies and their human and indigenous rights and authority, responsibiiity, mandate and capacity to govern a responsibilities. wiiderness area. Joint governance mechanisms have a strong • Recognize indigenous Peoples ’ territories, coiiective iand potential to incorporate the pressing social and ecoiogicai and sea tenure, self -determination, seif -governance, needs of conservation (Carisson & Berkes, 2005). and customary law or agree to differ on issues such as territorial ownership while dispute resolution processes Transboundary governance proceed. • Undertake shared governance oniy with the free, prior, When appiicabie to wiiderness protected areas, and informed consent of indigenous Peopies. transboundary governance refers to the ways in which • Provide for periodic review and renegotiation of shared wiiderness protected areas are established and managed governance arrangements. across internationai government borders to aiiow the free • Provide, when agreed to by aii parties, for shared migration or movement of animals across poiiticai borders governance to be an interim arrangement to facilitate and cooperative management between entities in more than transition to indigenous Peoples ’ seif -governance of one country (Mittermeier, et ai., 2005; Sandwith, et ai., 2001; protected areas in their customary territories. Vasiiijevic, et ai., 2015). Transboundary governance shouid • Establish formal, dear, iegaiiy binding agreements inciude management pians in which the management is truly on shared governance that inciude institutionai shared among and integrated across the nations invoived arrangements, decision -making process, dispute - in the transboundary area. Transboundary efforts may not resoiution mechanisms, protected area goals and explicitly focus on wiiderness, but inciude the protection management categories, and key policies and of wiiderness areas as part of an overall conservation regulations.

44 Wilderness Protected Areas 3. Governance and Authority

Ensure that Indigenous Peopies have at ieast equal Provide capacity -building for aii invoived, including for decision -making power and authority in shared improving cross -cultural communication, reiationships, governance arrangements. and interactions. Deveiop decision -making processes with indigenous Foster trust and a strong shared commitment to working Peoples ’ full participation that respect their own decision ­ together. making protocols. Garry out joint work and training, the shared experience Ensure that when management boards are established, of which can foster better interpersonal reiationships, these are not merely advisory and define their purview mutual understanding, and respect. to inciude policymaking, planning, assessment and Strive for decisions that reflect respect for indigenous evaluation, oversight of day -to -day management, fiscal Peoples ’ vaiues and knowledge as well as non - responsibiiity, and accountability indigenous peoples ’ concerns and knowledge. Ensure that indigenous Peopies approve the means by Recognize ICCAs that overlap with or are contained which management board members are selected. within these protected areas. Ensure that indigenous Peopies have at ieast equal Provide iegai authority for indigenous rangers, guardians, representation and leadership on management boards. and others designated by indigenous Peopies to enforce customary law and protected area regulations.

Case study 16

Tenkile Conservation Alliance, Papua New Guinea

The Tenkile Conservation Alliance is a non -government organization established in Papua New Guinea in 2001. Tenkile Conservation Alliance was started to protect the criticaiiy endangered Tenkile kangaroo (Dendrolagus scottae) from imminent extinction in the Torriceiii Mountain Range. Tenkile Conservation Alliance works with the iocai communities of the Torriceiii Mountain Range to ensure habitat protection of the Tenkile kangaroo and the economic prosperity of the iocai communities. Tenkile Conservation Alliance took a grassroots approach to this conservation crisis in a wiiderness area and has worked with iocai communities ’ conservation partners for the past 15 years.

A key to Tenkile Conservation Alliance ’s longevity and success has been the consistency of managerial staff, using a bottom -up approach, listening to the people, empowering the stakehoiders, employing iocai people and being abie to deliver tangible benefits to the iandowners and communities. Tenkile Conservation Alliance now has 50 villages comprising nearly 13,000 people within its programme, and employs some 30 full -time staff and over 200 casual staff — aii but two of whom are from the area (Sandaun and East Sepik Rrovinces of Rapua New Guinea). Tenkile Conservation Alliance has the potential to expand into surrounding areas shouid the success and funding avenues increase for this non -governmentai organization.

Tenkile Conservation Alliance has established its main headquarters in Lumi, at the base of the Torriceiii Mountain Range, which has meant problems, decisions and programmes are dealt with at the source and not remotely Dissemination of information is accurate and done so in the most commonly spoken language—Tok Risin or Melanesian pidgin.

Tenkile Conservation Alliance has gradually gained the support, understanding and respect of the iocai-ievei, provinciai and nationai governments of Rapua New Guinea through persistence, determination and, most importantly, desire of the iandowners and communities. The Torriceiii Mountain Range has now become a legislated protected area under an agreement and partnership with Tenkile Conservation Alliance and the Rapua New Guinea Government.

Since its initial project on Tenkile conservation, the roies of Tenkile Conservation Alliance have changed considerably to encompass rainforest protection, community development and capacity -building, research as well as expanding the number of flagship species to inciude the criticaiiy endangered Weimang, or goiden -mantied tree kangaroo, the black - spotted cuscus and the northern glider to protect the whole of the Torriceiii Mountain Range, which comprises some 200,000 hectares of tropical rainforest. Aii 50 villages invoived within the Tenkile Conservation Alliance have established their own conservation -area committees and mapped much of their iand with management rules and regulations. Through the power of the people, who ultimately controi their own iand and its biodiversity, the Torriceiii Mountain Range is currentiy weii -protected.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 45 3. Governance and Authority

3.6 Multilateral governance and authority of wilderness protected areas

Guiding principles

Muitiiaterai governanoe structures can be used to proteot wiiderness areas through treaties agreed to by three or more sovereign states. These treaties are often oonoerned with the oonservation of wiidiands that are transboundary, of giobai importance, and represent areas such as Antarctica and the High Seas, which are the open ocean areas that are not administered by specific countries. These governanoe structures often require the participation of many non - governmentai organizations, government agencies, advooaoy groups and private individuais. The inoorporation of so many disparate actors provides both benefits and ohaiienges to the functioning of a successfui governanoe structure.

Key considerations Gentoo penguins {Pygoscelis papua) are designated as ‘near threatened ' and reside in the Antarctica wilderness. © Thomas Kramer Hepp Multilateral governance In wilderness protected areas

Muitiiaterai governanoe of wiiderness proteoted areas Another exampie of muitiiaterai governanoe is a Peace Goours when three or more nationai governments decide Park that contains wiiderness proteoted areas: Kavango - upon a formal oonservation agreement. Governanoe at the Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area Peace Park, which muitiiaterai ievei require an internationai instrument, or treaty spans Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. agreed by the participating countries (Parties) and usually Peace Parks (http://www.peaoeparks.org) as muitiiaterai implementing legislation at the nationai ievei. Exampies governanoe structures aim to benefit ecosystems, peopies of such internationai instruments are the Convention on and wiidiife in the name of oonservation, social justice, and Bioiogioai Diversity, the Convention on Migratory Species, the peaceful cooperation. Barcelona Convention, and the Abidjan Convention.

‘Bergy bits ' , which originate from glaciers, are essential to the protected Antarctica wilderness. © Howie Chong Leopards {Panthera pardus) are important species found in the Kavango - Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area Peace Park. © Alana Roxin Antarctica is the worid ’s iargest area with intact wiiderness qualities and is governed by a muitiiaterai treaty. The Antarctic Multilateral agreements applicable Treaty System (ATS) is a complex governanoe structure that to wilderness protected areas incorporates a muitipiicity of reguiation agreements among muitipie countries. Within ATS, the Protocol on Environmental Three muitiiaterai environmental agreements that have Protection to the Antarctic Treaty provides speoifio protection been used to proteot wiiderness and that have great to the wiiderness vaiues of Antarctica with a iegai status potential for further, more systematic use in the future are (Deary & Tin, 2015). Two annexes to this protocol provide the Convention on Wetlands of internationai importance environmental management directives speoifio to wiiderness: (Ramsar Convention), the Worid Heritage Convention, Annex i Environmental impact Assessment and Annex V and the UNESCO Man the Biosphere Programme (MAB) Area Protection and Management (Deary &Tin, 2015, p. 2). (Dawson & Hendee, 2009; Borrini-Feyerabend, et ai., 2013). As the tourism sector increases, visitation to Antarctica and While the Ramsar Convention and the MAB Programme do climate change threatens to disrupt Antarctica ’s ecosystem not expiioitiy describe wiiderness areas, they do describe dynamics, the governanoe structures must remain adaptive key wiiderness vaiues (see introduction for discussion of and protective to maintain wiiderness vaiues. wiiderness vaiues) such as naturalness and minimal human

46 Wilderness Protected Areas 3. Governance and Authority

impact (Dawson & Hendee, 2009, p. 58), creating good Ocean wilderness governance potentiai to use these mechanisms to protect wiiderness quaiities or areas with high wiiderness vaiue. The Convention The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Concerning the Protection of the Worid Cuiturai and Naturai (UNCLOS) frames governance of the High Seas, which are Heritage of 1972 (Worid Heritage Convention) protects areas beyond nationai jurisdiction. UNCLOS provides the sites with Outstanding Universai Vaiue by inscribing them foundation upon which any regionai governance structures on the Worid Heritage List. The Worid Heritage Convention for the High Seas shouid be buiit. Any High Seas governance has aiready been used to protect very iarge, intact areas structure shouid first estabiish the correct type of governance (inciuding a number of protected areas designated or partiaiiy that aiiows for as many diverse actors to be as invoived in the designated as wiiderness protected areas), and potentiai decision -making process, given their respective capacities, exists for a more systematic contribution to wiiderness authorities and mandates. Governance vitaiity can be conservation giobaiiy in the future (Kormos & Mittermeier, maintained through the overarching supervision of a muitiiaterai 2014; Kormos, et ai., 2015). body iike the United Nations Environment Programme Regionai Seas Programme. The survey on potentiai High Seas wiiderness areas by McCioskey (2001) shouid be used as a reference in estabiishing governance of such areas.

Case study 17

Maloti-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site of South Africa and Lesotho

in 2001 a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Kingdom of Lesotho and the Repubiic of South Africa to estabiish the Maioti Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation and Deveiopment Rrogramme (Ezemveio KZN Wiidiife, 2012). This programme created a transboundary protected area between between Sehiabathebe Nationai Rark in Lesotho and the uKhahiamba -Drakensberg Rark Worid Heritage Site in South Africa designated in 2000 (UNESCO Worid Heritage Committee, 2000; UNESCO Worid Heritage Committee, 2015). The Maioti -Drakensberg Rark Worid Heritage Site spans approximateiy 242,000 hectares, about haif of which contains iegaiiy designated wiiderness (Ezemveio KZN Wiidiife, 2013). Since then, the Lesotho component of the area has aiso been designated, making it a transboundary Worid Heritage Site.

Located in the Maioti and Drakensberg mountain ranges of Lesotho and South Africa respectiveiy, the park protects endangered species such as the Cape vuiture (Gyps coprotheres), the bearded vuiture (Gypaetus barbatus), and the Maioti minnow (Pseudobarbus quathlambae) (Ezemveio KZN Wiidiife, 2012). The designation of the site contains and protects rock art of the San peopie found in caves and rock sheiters throughout the Maioti -Drakensberg Rark Worid Heritage Site (Mazei, 2008; Mazei, 2013).

The Maioti -Drakensberg Rark is managed through a joint management pian that is agreed upon by both the Kingdom of Lesotho and the Repubiic of South Africa, and the reievant conservation institutions of both countries (Ezemveio KZN Wiidiife, 2012; Maioti Drakensberg Transfrontier Rroject, 2008; Maioti Drakensberg Transfrontier Rroject, 2012). The governing bodies of the park have created an integrated management pian that forms a governance framework for deciding upon and impiementing management decisions to achieve the conservation objectives of the site (Ezemveio KZN Wiidiife, 2011). Through this framework, the park ’s management achievements are assessed annuaiiy and the overarching conservation pians and objectives are reviewed every five years (Ezemveio KZN Wiidiife, 2011; Ezemveio KZN Wiidiife, 2012).

3.7 Variances in jurisdiction consistent with the intent of wiiderness iaw. As a ruie, activities shouid be judged by the extent to which they undermine —o r and diversity of governance do not undermine—wiiderness vaiues of the protected area. and authority As wiiderness iaw and poiicy continue to evoive, so wiii the nuances of variances permitted within wiiderness areas. Aii current and future variances shouid be anaiyzed for their Guiding principles consistency with the principies of wiiderness vaiues. Variances for new designation types, such as those by indigenous A variance is an exception from iegisiation on the governance Reopies and the private sector, must be expiored further. of wiiderness protected areas, in certain instances, the Wiiderness iaw and the variances from it shouid be assessed interpretation of wiiderness iegisiation recognizes specific by their abiiity to work in conjunction with and in a context of variances. Generai category principies, expiained beiow, indigenous Reopies ’ iand rights (Kormos, 2008, p. 357). See shouid be used in assessing whether certain activities are Section 4.10 for the management and permitting of variances.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 47 3. Governance and Authority

Keyconsiderations wiiderness protected area must remain consistent with the overarching wiiderness vaiues. Compatible variances Variance defined within naticnai wiiderness iegisiaticn Permitted variances shouid aiign with wiiderness vaiues (see Section 1). Kormos and Locke (2008) give suggestions of Certain countries have expiicit variances written into their human activity categories, such as fishing, hunting, recreation, wiiderness iegisiation that are not compatibie with wiiderness benchmark studies, and restoration, that may be compatibie vaiues. For exampie, Finland ’s wiiderness iaw has expiicit with wiiderness vaiues. The compatibiiity of these categories allowances for activities such as herding and limited forestry, depends upon other factors, inciuding nationai iegisiation. At and infrastructure, such as roads, in wiiderness areas that times, these categories may be in conflict with one another. benefit either ‘ the common good or the indigenous livelihoods Some of these categories, such as fishing and hunting, may in the area ’ (Kormos & Locke, 2008, p. 27 -28). As with aii be restricted within individuai areas to specific peopies, such variances, these represent a smaii fraction of aii Finnish as traditionai indigenous inhabitants, or to specific zones wiiderness areas and are often exceptions, not norms, within within the iarger wiiderness area. Specific activities may Finnish protected areas. The Alaska Nationai interest Lands be governed at a sub -nationai ievei instead of at a nationai Conservation Act (ANiLCA) stipulates variance for subsistence government ievei. For exampie, in the United States, wiidiife use of wiiderness in Alaska (see Section 4.8 for more detail and fish are governed at the sub -nationai ievei, which means on ANiLCA). Similar countrywide variances exist in Austraiia hunting and gathering variance differs within the country. and Canada (Kormos, 2008). These shouid aii be considered Sport hunting and fishing is permitted within wiiderness areas, exceptions rather than the ruie, shouid not act as precedents provided the activity is reguiated in accordance to wiiderness and shouid be subject to ongoing monitoring where they are vaiues and the prevaiiing wiiderness iegisiation. in piace.

incompatible variances Size variation

Aii wiiderness areas are intended to adhere to a set of Aii wiiderness areas shouid meet the bioiogioai definitions wiiderness vaiues and attributes (see Section 1). Certain of size and intactness set by the iUCN. in a few instances, categories of human activity are incompatibie with wiiderness variance shouid be given to areas that cannot reach these vaiues and variances cannot be aiiowed. These categories definitions but shouid stiii be defined as wiiderness. Such are described by Kormos and Locke (2008, p. 25) and are exceptions can be reached if the decision makers see iisted beiow. it shouid be emphasized that these do not refer potentiai to restore the area to a wiiderness state, to inciude to traditionai and customary -use activities. the area in a iandscape wiiderness approach, or to make the best of a physically limited, but excellent, representation 1. Farm/np — Fiumans change the species composition of of wiidiands (Kormos & Locke, 2008, p. 28). in some an area for their own nutritionai benefit by aitering the cases, wiiderness quaiities and vaiues can be obtained in iand or seabed and pianting one or severai species. smaiier areas that are physically and visually isolated from 2. Mechanical recreation — Humans use vehicies for their surroundings, e.g. canyons and gorges in mountain recreationai activities, inciuding bicycies, automobiies, ecosystems. off -road vehicies, motorboats, and snowmobiies. 3. Transportation corridors and infrastructure — Fiumans Emergency and other essential management buiid highways, raiiways, airports, harbours, shipping ianes, irrigation canais, and straightened river channeis During times of emergency, such as out of controi fires and for navigation. helicopter casualty evaluation, emergency management 4. Permanent dweiiings — Humans buiid structures that powers may be permitted to override wiiderness iegisiation provide permanent human habitation in a fixed piace. and aiiow fire controi equipment to operate in a wiiderness 5. Towns and c/f/es — Fiumans buiid iarge coiiections of area until the emergency is controlled. For exampie, permanent dweiiings and associated infrastructure. wiiderness areas within the Australian state of New South 6. industrial activity — Humans refine or reassembie primary Wales aiiow bulldozers within wiiderness areas if required products from earth on a iarge scaie for human use or during an emergency wildfire incident (Worboys, 2015). obtain such primary products by ciearing forests for Worboys (2015, p. 823 -850) gives definitions of incidents iumber; damming rivers for hydroeiectricity or diverting requiring emergency management, exampies of protocol them for irrigation; mining; and oii and gas expioration for handling emergency incidents, and best practices for and expioitation. preventing emergencies that require variance from wiiderness iegisiation. in addition, more routine variances might be Pastoraiism variance aiiowed to enable essential management activities, e.g. the removai of existing infrastructure too heavy to remove by Kormos and Locke (2008) explain that the grazing of hand, or to conduct essential monitoring, e.g. through aerial domestic animals is often incompatibie with wiiderness survey to combat poaching, iiiegai immigration across nationai vaiues. Often the grazing that is permitted within a wiiderness borders, or to ensure accuracy in population monitoring of area is by nomadic peopies and is categorized as non - threatened species not amenable to other techniques. To intensive grazing or pastoraiism, more generaiiy (Dudiey, avoid conflict with users of wiiderness areas, these activities 2013). Such pastoraiism shouid be anaiyzed and continuaiiy could be conducted within periods closed to visitors. reanalyzed on an individuai basis to confirm its compatibiiity with wiiderness vaiues. intensive pastoraiism can quickly destroy the ecoiogicai integrity of a wiiderness area. As a generai ruie, as with aii variances, pastoraiism within a

48 Wilderness Protected Areas Management Tools and Issues 4

1 ^.,

T- 4. Management Tools and Issues

4.1 Planning systems and objectives. A common management dilemma Is thie trade ­ off between wildness and naturalness. Wilderness decision management frameworks makers mighit strive for more naturalness, but Impose hieavy-hianded management to achileve It, Imposing or Guiding principles trammelling on thie freedom of chioloes and experiences of risk, uncertainty, and spontaneity. Frameworks provide ways for wilderness managers to understand complex situations and develop situational Indicator -based planning systems often assist In management awareness (McCool, et al., 2015). Useful Indicator -based decisions about trade -offs between hiuman uses of wilderness planning systems and management frameworks are thiose and thie protection of natural conditions by setting limits thiat hielp decision makers ‘work thiroughi’ chioloes In a manner on Impacts to naturalness and wildness (Manning, 2004; thiat allows techinlcal expertise, knowledge (of various forms) McGool & Lime, 2001). Frameworks specifically focused on and public values and Interests to be Incorporated, assessed visitor use, suchi as limits of acceptable chiange and visitor and used (Stankey & Clark, 1996). Planning systems and experience and resource protection, serve to 1) Identify, define management frameworks ask two questions: 1) Whiat social and work to ensure thiat thie negative social and blophiyslcal and biological conditions are desired In wilderness? 2) How Impacts from recreational uses are acceptable, and 2) muchi chiange from thie Ideal Is acceptable? provide guidance In selection of appropriate and effective management actions.

Key considerations Implementation Desired conditions To Implement a framework, follow thiese steps: Thie most critical question wilderness stewards face wlthi management and planning decisions Is whiat conditions are • Select a framework appropriate to thie question facing desirable thiat protect thie natural conditions at thie hieart of management. Useful examples of suchi a framework thie wilderness. Finding resolutions to thils question Is not can be found on thie website hittp://www.wllderness. simple: numerous constituencies compete to protect thieir net/planning for downloadable management plans and Interests, cause -and -effect relatlonshilps are often loosely planning frameworks. coupled and dynamically complex, second - and thilrd-order • Select and modify. If necessary, a framework thiat hias effects are spatially and temporally discontinuous, and people been tested and used In prior situations. Impacted by decisions may not even yet exist. To account • Thie dominant Indicator -based planning systems hiave a for thils complexity, all framework or planning systems shiould large base of literature associated withi thieir use, whilchi be assessed against four criteria: 1) Are thiey conceptually documents advantages, shiortcomlngs and rationale sound? 2) Are thiey easily translated Into practice? 3) Are (see Recommended reading below). Read thie literature, thiere Identified Impacts and othier consequences? 4) Are thiey talk to othier managers and gain Inslghits on whiat to efficient and effective? (Brewer, 1973). expect. • Develop thie capacity to use thiese frameworks In a Decision making- protected area organization. Eachi of thie frameworks Implies a learning curve and managers will need, as A planning system and management framework hielps wIthi any othier management tool, some training for thieir wilderness management decision makers gain Inslghits about efficient application. Mentoring and workshiops are two thie particular Issues withiln thieIr protected area and provides ways of developing capacity for thieir application. guidance on hiow to best address thie Issues. Frameworks • Whille some planning frameworks Incorporate a build understanding of whiat desirable conditions are, whiat prescribed methiod and timing of public Involvement, Impacts on thiose conditions are predicted to occur as a result some do not. Successful Implementation of wilderness of a proposed action, and whiat mitigation may be necessary management planning most commonly Includes If thie proposed action takes place. Frameworks promote adoption of a strategy to reflect public opinion, appreciation of contexts, relatlonshilps and processes and perceptions, and attitudes based on scientific studies to provide specific components to make a management understand currently perceived thireats to resources and decision. experiences.

Promoting understanding Recommended reading

To transfer a puzzling, troubling and uncertain situation Anderles, J.M., Janssen, M.A., and Ostrom, E. (2004). ‘A Into a solvable problem, wilderness decision makers rely Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Soolal -eoologloal on Indicator -based planning systems and management Systems from an Institutional Perspeotlve ’ . Ecology and Society frameworks (Weick, 1995). Suchi reliance avoids 9 (1), 18. oversimplification of management chiallenges and provides Borrle, W.T., MoCool, S.P., and Stankey, G.H. (1998). ‘ Proteoted solution possibilities In a systematic way. Area Planning Prinolples and Strategies ’ . In Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, pp. 188-154. vol. 2. The Resolving oompeting trade offs - Eootourism Soolety, North Bennington, VT. Brown, P.J., Driver, B.L., and MoConnell, C. (1978). ‘ The Planning systems and frameworks are useful mechianlsms Opportunity Speotrum Conoept and Behavioral Information In for management of wilderness uses thiat contain two or Outdoor Reoreatlon Resouroe Supply Inventories: Baokground more competing demands and Interests (McCool, et ah, and Applloatlon ’ . In Integrated Inventories of Renewable Natural 2007). Thiese systems resolve trade -offs among competing Resources: Proceedings o f the Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -

50 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

55. pp. 73 -84. us Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Know the wiiderness resouroe Rooky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. It Is essential that decision makers understand and protect Clark, R.N. and Stankey, G.H. (1979). The Recreation what Is unique and special about a wilderness area. This Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management, Includes tangible biophysical resources and characteristics as and Research. Gen. Tech. Report RNW -98. US Department of well as the Intangible, experiential, and Inspirational aspects Agriculture, Forest Service, Raolflo Northwest Research Station, of a wilderness. This understanding Is an Important aspect Rortland, CR. of making sound and Informed wilderness stewardship Cole, D. (2009). ‘ Eoologloal Impacts of Wilderness Reoreatlon decisions. and Their Management ’ . In Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection o f Resouroes and Values, pp. 395- Estabiish wiiderness poiioy 436. 4® edition. Fulorum Rubllshing, Golden, Colorado. Dawson, C.R and Hendee, J.C. (2009). ‘ Chapter 8: Wilderness It Is extremely Important that wilderness management Management RIannIng ’ . In Wilderness Management: agencies develop and Institute clear and concise policies Stewardship and Protection o f Resources and Values, pp. 195- related to their wilderness stewardship mission and 216. 4® edition. Fulorum Rubllshing, Golden, Colorado. objectives. Including Implementation of designation decisions, MoCool, S.F, Frelmund, W.A., and Breen, C. (2015). ‘ Benefiting protection of wilderness resources from Identified threats, from Complexity Thinking ’ . In Protected Area Governance and description and monitoring of wilderness attributes to be Management, pp. 291 -326. ANU Rress, Canberra, Australia. protected, public recreational use of wilderness, special Moore, S.A., Smith, A., and Newsome, D. (2003). provisions management, and gathering and disseminating ‘ Environmental Rerformanoe Reporting for Natural Area Tourism: Information regarding use and enjoyment as wilderness. Contributions by Visitor Impact Management Frameworks and A general policy should also address how wilderness Their Indicators ’. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 11 (4): 348-375. management objectives Interface with an agency ’s enabling Nllsen, R. and Tayler, G. (1997). ‘A Comparative Analysis of legislation and/or stated mission. Rroteoted Area RIannIng and Management Frameworks ’ . In Proceedings - Limits of Acceptable Change and Related Define responsibiiities Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions (General Technical Report INT-GTP-371). pp. 49-57 Rooky Mountain Managing agencies should clearly Identify the specific role Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Cgden, Utah. and function, required competencies, supervisory hierarchy, and declslon -making authority for all key staff engaged In wilderness stewardship. These responsibilities should be Identified In policy and articulated In appropriate position 4.2 Transparency in vacancy announcements, position descriptions, and annual decision-making performance plans. Foster consistency Guiding principles Wilderness management agencies should seek to achieve wilderness managers have a large responsibility for consistency In wilderness management objectives, stewardship of both the resource and the relationship techniques, and practices both within an agency and at between people and the wilderness resource (Watson & an Interagency level. Agencies should maintain effective Borrle, 2003; Watson & Borrle, 2006). Those Involved In Intra -agency and Inter -agency communications, and should the stewardship of wilderness areas are often faced with encourage, sponsor, and participate In Intra -agency and challenging Issues where their decisions may affect public Inter -agency training and workshops designed to promote support and trust for an agency ’s wilderness management the sharing of Ideas, concerns, and techniques related to mission. Transparency In declslon -making can Improve a wilderness management. Consistency can be encouraged manager ’s ability to make Informed, consistent and defensible and enhanced through the development and Implementation decisions that help achieve wilderness protection objectives. of agency -wide policies, guidelines, and standard operating procedures.

Key considerations Provide continuity

Understand wilderness, protected area and Nature conservation management agencies should actively biodiversity oonservation iaw and policies address the Importance of continuity and the need for succession planning associated with changing administrations It Is Imperative that decision makers understand and comply and/or declslon -making personnel. This can be accomplished with laws and statutes related to wilderness. Including through training, development and recruitment programmes legislative history and Intent, specific statutory prohibitions, that focus on entry and mid -level personnel who will become and special provisions. Understanding the law and associated the next generation of decision makers. compliance requirements Is essential to maintaining programme Integrity and public trust. Sound declslon -making Ensure aooountabiiity can also be enhanced through understanding and awareness of previous case law rulings related to legal challenges of Human resource management processes should be previous decisions or actions. The public Is often observant, Implemented to acknowledge and reward personnel for sometimes critical and always ready to challenge departures sound stewardship decisions, particularly those Involving from legislation and stewardship policy designed to protect sensitive, controversial. Innovative or courageous decisions. wilderness attributes. In addition, agencies should establish human resource

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 51 4. Management Tools and Issues

management protocols and procedures to hiold wilderness these competencies. Training should be made available on management decision makers accountable whien failures regular Intervals commensurate with the demand. Agencies occur wlthi regard to compliance wlthi wilderness law, policy or are encouraged to develop and Institute a programme to othier guidelines. Identify and train trainers along with appropriate curricula to meet training objectives. Training requirements should be Engage the public Incorporated Into annual training and development plans for appropriate personnel. The Arthur Garhart National Those working In wilderness stewardship should strive to Wilderness Training Center (http://carhart.wllderness.net/) engage the public In Important declslon -making processes In the United States represents an excellent example of an within the context of policy or law. Proposed actions Involving Interagency wilderness stewardship training programme that legislation, rule -making, management or access plans are of services the United States ’ national wilderness preservation particular Importance. Solicitation of public comment Is an system. Some universities also sponsor distance education Important aspect of Involving stakeholders and constituents programmes (e.g. the Wilderness Management Distance and analysis of public comments can have a significant Education Program at the University of Montana (http://www. Influence on final decisions. cfc.umt.edu/wmdep/) that are available worldwide.

Legai compiiance and counsei

Wilderness management decisions should be made within the context of law and statute to ensure the Integrity of and public trust for wilderness stewardship programmes. It Is vital that appropriate due diligence be given to legal compliance requirements for proposed actions. Including wilderness legislation, environmental protection. Impacts to Indigenous cultures, endangered species, clean air and water, and historic and archeological resource protection. Consulting with agency legal counsel Is a highly encouraged practice when making decisions associated with sensitive or controversial Issues.

Wiiderness reguiations Visitors learning about the wilderness qualities of the Ogasawara Islands, Japan. © Naomi Doak Statutes that mandate wilderness preservation and stewardship must be supported by lawful regulations that Document and disclose deoisions allow for the enforcement of specific statutory requirements and prohibitions. Wilderness regulations should be based Proper documentation and archiving of decisions Is an on well -artlculated definitions and Include language that Important aspect of a progressive wilderness stewardship clearly describes the elements of the regulation. Wilderness programme. The ability for decision makers to access regulations are of particular Importance to visitor use and review administrative records associated with past management objectives that address visitor behaviour, wilderness decisions can play an Important role In Informing carrying capacity and use allocations. contemporary decisions. Wiiderness character narrative Estabiish priorities A qualitative, affirming, and holistic narrative describing The establishment of wilderness stewardship priorities what Is unique and special about a specific wilderness through vision or mission statements and management can serve as an Important component In helping decision plans can help decision makers stay focused on the most makers recognize the broader and more holistic meanings of Important wilderness preservation Issues at hand and apply wilderness for an area. These meanings. In turn, are essential an appropriate level of attention to make Informed decisions. for highlighting priorities for monitoring wilderness character as well as for Identifying priorities In planning and stewardship. The narrative Is Intended to capture the feelings and Implementation relationships of a wilderness. For example, a narrative may describe the ecological processes that shaped a wilderness The following tenets should be used to Implement landscape, visitor experiences that may not be available transparency In declslon -making. elsewhere, or notable scientific, conservation, educational, scenic, or historical values of a wilderness area. In addition, Wiiderness training and deveiopment the narrative can acknowledge and celebrate the Intangible, experiential, and Inspirational aspects of a wilderness. The training and development of key staff with wilderness Including historical or cultural connections to the landscape. management responsibilities Is a vital component of sound declslon -making. Wilderness management agencies should Wiiderness management pianning Identify specific core competencies, such as those Iisted In the WCPA Register of Competences, Including cross - Wilderness management plans or equivalent documents cultural orientations If Indigenous cultures are Impacted, for should be developed and maintained to guide the all staff engaged In wilderness management declslon -making preservation, management, and use of wilderness areas along with the specific training requirements to ensure (see also Section 2.6). Wilderness management plans

52 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

should Identify the desired future conditions and establish Wiiderness mentors Indicators, standards, conditions, and thresholds beyond which management actions will be taken to reduce human The International wilderness management ‘community ’ Is Impacts on wilderness resources. In addition to wilderness blessed with a number of current and retired professionals management plans, wilderness management actions should who have dedicated their careers to wilderness stewardship. be carried out within an Interdisciplinary framework of other These Individuals represent an Invaluable source of subject management plans. Including natural resource management expertise and advice and are often willing to provide plans, cultural resource management plans, fire management consultation or serve as a mentor to fellow wilderness plans, and other activity -level plans. Wilderness management colleagues. Wilderness management agencies are and other associated plans serve as a key tool In fostering encouraged to explore avenues to advertise opportunities consistent and defensible decisions that help achieve and Initiate mentoring programmes. The WCPA Wilderness wilderness management objectives. Established management Specialist Group Is one opportunity for Interested professional plans also help provide for continuity needed to address the volunteers to contribute their expertise for enhanced practice succession of personnel and decision makers. for effective wilderness.

Inventory and monitoring Decision making- resources

The ability to make Informed wilderness management There are a variety of techniques and formats available to decisions can be enhanced through an understanding of share and distribute guidelines and resources that Inform the presence, extent, and condition of tangible wilderness wilderness management decisions. Including decision resources In an area. The conditions and long -term trends trees, flow charts, frameworks, handbooks, policy manuals, of wilderness resources should be monitored to Identify the reference manuals, and memoranda. These resources may need for or effects of management actions. The purpose be provided In either hard copy or digital format and may of monitoring Is to ensure that management actions and be distributed through websites, document -sharing sites, visitor Impacts on wilderness resources and character do face -to -face meetings or trainings, weblnars, and other not exceed established standards and conditions (see venues. The MRDG developed by the Arthur Garhart National also Section 2.10). As appropriate, wilderness monitoring Wilderness Training Center (see also Section 2.9) serves as programmes may assess physical, biological, and cultural an excellent example of a step -by-step declslon -making tool resources and social Impacts. Monitoring programmes may that guides decisions related to prohibited uses In the national also need to assess potential problems that may originate wilderness preservation system (http://www.wllderness.net/ outside the wilderness to determine the nature, magnitude, MRA). and probable source of the Impacts.

Wiiderness science Recommended reading

Knowledge gained through scientific research In wilderness • Landres, P., Barns, C., Boutcher, S., Devine, T, Dratch, P., can serve as a vital link to making sound and defensible LIndholm, A., Merlgllano, L., Roeper, N., and Simpson, E. wilderness management decisions. Scientific research (2015). Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Is of particular Importance when the desired Information Monitor Trends In Wilderness Character across the National Is essential for understanding health, management, or Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS - administration of wilderness and should be encouraged GTR-340. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rooky when consistent with agencies ’ responsibilities to preserve Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. and protect wilderness. Wilderness can and should serve • Meyer, S.S. (2000). ‘ Legislative Interpretation as a Guiding as an Important resource for long -term research Into and Tool for Wilderness Management ’ . In Wilderness Science In a observation of ecological processes and the Impacts of Time of Change. Conference May 23 - 27, 2000; Missoula, MT. humans on the ecosystem. The Aide Leopold Wilderness Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Management. Research Institute (http://www.leopold. wllderness.net/) Proceedings RMRS -R-15 -VCL-5. U. S. Department of represents an excellent example of an Interagency wilderness Agriculture, Forest Service, Rooky Mountain Research Station, science programme that serves the United States ’ national Cgden, UT. wilderness preservation system and provides a repository • Minimum Requirement Decision Guide (MRDG) (2014). of recent and previous wilderness science studies, Instructions for MRDG available online: http://www.wllderness. administrative studies, compilations of papers, publications, net/MRA. and monitoring and application guidelines. • Watson, A.E., Ratterson, M., Christensen, N., Ruttkammer, A., and Meyer, S. (2004). ‘ Legislative Intent, Science and Special It should be noted that Indigenous science can provide Rrovlslons In Wilderness: A Rrooess for Navigating Statutory Invaluable Insights Into ecological processes and ecosystem Compromises ’. International Journal of Wilderness 10(1): 22-26. Integrity of the managed area.

Case studies

Detailed case studies summarizing challenging wilderness management Issues and associated decisions can provide a very useful tool to help Inform wilderness management decisions. Case studies can be shared and discussed In a number of forums. Including Interactive training sessions, weblnars, written narratives, discussion forums and document -sharing sites.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 53 4. Management Tools and Issues

4.3 Infrastructure and technology in wilderness protected areas

Guiding principles

Infrastructure and techinology In wilderness protected areas shiould be regulated carefully by wilderness decision makers. Thie potential uses of emerging techinologles suchi mobile phiones, global positioning system (GPS) devices, and unmanned aircraft systems (drones) In wilderness are nearly limitless. Thiese uses Include recreational use by visitors (see Section 4.5), commercial use, managerial or administrative use, searchi and rescue, and scientific researchi. Thie use of thiese emerging techinologles also hias thie potential for serious negative Impacts to a wilderness area and Its users and shiould thierefore be monitored closely by wilderness decision makers. Infrastructure Is generally not permitted withiln wilderness areas, althioughi exceptions are allowed In certain Instances like built structures, trails, scientific Installations and variances given to Indigenous Peoples (see Section 4.10. Suchi exceptions are only permitted withiln wilderness protected areas If thieir production and use are consistent wlthi wilderness values, generally to protect thie resource and not Visitors to wilderness areas may bring advanced technologies and cutting -edge for visitor convenience. gear for recreational purposes. © Aide Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

values and thus not allowed within wilderness areas. The Key considerations following categories should be used In the declslon -making process to determine If use of a technology Is compatible with Emerging technologies wilderness values.

While wilderness decision makers have long dealt with Protection of bioiogioai resouroes the complexities of Infrastructure In wilderness areas, the and eooiogioai processes regulation of technology within wilderness areas Is new. Researchers and managers are just beginning to examine The use of technologies, such as drones, or Infrastructure visitor attitudes towards such technology (Pope & Martin, In wilderness protected areas may disturb or disrupt certain 2011); visitor use of technology In wilderness (Blackwell, types of resources and processes, like the natural behaviours 2015); how such technology might affect use levels and of wildlife. To minimize Impacts to biological resources the spatial distribution of use and Impacts (e.g. more and ecological processes, recreational and commercial Inexperienced people visiting wilderness because the use of drones and other similar and potentially disruptive technology makes them feel safer. Increased use of remote technologies should not be permitted. areas and cross -country routes); whether such technology could Influence visitor behaviours In wilderness (e.g. Increased Visitor opportunities for soiitude risk-taking); how such technology might both Increase the frequency of search and rescue efforts and potentially make Wilderness decision makers should manage technology and such efforts easier; and how the use of such technology Infrastructure to maximize visitor opportunities for solitude might affect visitor experiences. Including the experiences and a sense of remoteness. An essential characteristic of of other visitors who might be exposed to It. In addition, wilderness Is freedom. Including personal privacy, freedom advanced technology such as mobile phones, two -way from surveillance, and the ability to enjoy nature free from the radios, and drones that can record and quickly disseminate disruptions and distractions of modern Industrial civilization. high-quallty photography, when combined with advanced The presence of drones can negatively Impact visitors ’ sense digital trip -planning tools, also have the potential to attract. of solitude and separation from civilization. Recreational Increase and redistribute use and potentially lead to an and commercial use of these technologies should not be over -rellance on such technology relative to route -finding and permitted (see Section 4.5). risk-taking. On the other hand, all of these technologies also have the potential to Increase support for wilderness through Motorized equipment both direct use and Indirect appreciation. Incorporating the most recent research on this topic will support management A natural soundscape Is an Important part of a wilderness strategies (Watson, et al., 2015). experience for visitors and equally Important to wildlife species. The use of motorized equipment disturbs and Intrudes on a natural soundscape. Motorized equipment, Implementation except In specific variances (see Section 4.10), Is not permitted In a wilderness area. Drones and other similar All uses of technology and Infrastructure In wilderness areas technologies are a form of motorized equipment. Therefore, must first comply with wilderness values. While certain uses wilderness decision makers should not permit the use of of technology are permitted within wilderness areas, most recreational and commercial drones, as well as other forms Instances of Infrastructure are Incompatible with wilderness of motorized equipment and technology, within a wilderness

54 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

area. Any permitted varlanoes must minimize tine use of will Invigorate and Inspire future generations of wilderness and Intrusions by motorized equipment In aooordanoe to advooates and stewards. wilderness values. Young adults Administrative and managerial use Many resouroe managers and wilderness advooates see links Any administrative or managerial use of teolnnology and among appreolating wild nature, partlolpating In traditional Infrastruoture In a wilderness area must first oomply witin outdoor aotlvltles, and supporting proteotlon of wild areas. wilderness values. Suoln use sinould be limited by wilderness Some of tinese Individuals express oonoern tinat tine values deolslon makers. In oertain oiroumstanoes, administrative or and reoreatlon belnavlor of today ’s young people may suggest managerial use of unmanned alroraft systems or otiner motorized less support for proteoting wilderness In tine future. However, teolnnology may be tine best, tine only, or tine most appropriate emerging adults appear to express strong pro -environmental aotlon. Managers must be sure tinat suoln use Is justified as values, even tinougin tiney exinlbit outdoor reoreatlon patterns being tine minimum required aotlon. Administrative use of drones strikingly different from tine past (ZInn & Graefe, 2007). and otiner future teolnnology sinould be limited to applloatlons suoln as searoln and resoue, fire management, law enforoement, Future generations of wilderness advooates, solentlsts, and solentlflo researoln, and permitted only after a minimum and stewards must be engaged. Young adults often Inave requirements analysis Inas been oompleted. A prooedure strong environmental values and land etinlos. Organizations, for oonduoting a minimum requirements analysis sinould be management agenoles, and eduoatlonal Institutions sinould formalized and sinould take Into aooount faotors suoln as Inow tine oontlnue to provide entry Into wilderness stewardslnip as a proposed use of drones (and otiner future teolnnology) would: 1) profession. Career ladders need to be built and expanded to oontrlbute to tine preservation of wilderness oinaraoter; 2) proteot allow Individuals to direot tineir passion for wilderness Into a resouroes, Inoluding visitor experlenoes; and 3) be oonslstent lifelong oareer. Young adult professionals wino strive towards wItIn tine legislative purpose of tine wilderness area. tine future sustainability of wilderness are essential to tine oontlnued proteotlon of wild nature.

Recommended reading

• Pope, K. and Martin, S. (2011). ‘V isitor Peroeptlons of Teolnnology, Risk and Resoue In Wilderness ’ . International Journal of Wilderness 17(2): 19 -26, 48. • Watson, A., Cordell, H.K., Manning, R., and Martin, S. (2015). ‘T he Evolution of Wilderness Soolal Solenoe and Future Researoh to Rroteot Experlenoes, Resouroes, and Sooletal Benefits ’ . Journal o f Forestry. 1^

4.4 Changing demographics and relevance of wilderness

Engaging young adults through wilderness education programs, such as the Guiding principles National Outdoor Leadership School, can help encourage future protection of wilderness. © Sarah A. Casson CInangIng demograplnlos of populations around tine world and tine dynamio nature of ‘winat’s relevant’ to sooletles In general If we are to Influenoe younger generations to appreolate and present a oinallenge for promoting tine establlslnment, proteotlon proteot nature, tinis will ooour In a global oontext tinat Inas and management of large wilderness areas aoross tine globe, as been more urbanized and wItIn greater oinallenges to Inave well as new opportunities. Tine understanding of tinese oinanging transformational experlenoes In nature and proteoted areas. demograplnlos Inas Important Implloatlons for management Efforts to address urbanization sinould be fooused on Its and polloymaking regarding wilderness proteoted areas. Tine Implloatlons for fiumans ’ oonoeptuallzatlon and oonneotlon wltfi aooumulatlon of new Information and knowledge about tine nature (Kowarl, 2013). Tine ‘Promise of Sydney ’ reoognlzes tfiat benefits of wilderness will oinange our approaoln to eduoating rebalanoing of tine relatlonsfilp between fiuman soolety and managers, polloymakers, and tine general publlo about tine nature Is essential. Valuing wild nature oan strengtfien tine link Importanoe of wilderness proteotlon. Wilderness proteoted areas between nature and urban young adult residents. are relevant to all people and signlfloant worldwide. Diversity

Key considerations One line of tfiouglnt suggests tfiat oonneotlons and experlenoes witfiln nature are also orltloal for tfie development of wilderness praotltloners, polloy managers, researoln environmental values and an understanding of tfie Importanoe solentlsts, and advooates must examine and understand of wilderness (Stumpff, 2013). It Is tfirougfi personal experlenoes tine oinanging demograplnlos of our global population. It Is tfiat people form a lasting relatlonsfilp and bond wltfi nature. neoessary to understand tine meaning of nature aoross our However, a greater understanding of fiow wilderness benefits diverse oultures and Inow tine relevanoe of wilderness may Inoreaslngly diverse populations, wfio may or may not fiave ebb and flow over time. Suoln an understanding sinould strong oonneotlons to nature. Is orltloal for developing support for Inform tine eduoatlon. Interpretation, and outreaoln efforts tInat wilderness management and polloy (Turner, et al., 2004).

Management guidelines for iUGN Category 1b protected areas 55 4. Management Tools and Issues

If a oonstltuenoy Is to be nurtured tinat oan embraoe and If we are to Inspire people aoross generations, geograplny, proteot wilderness values, a greater diversity of wilderness and oultures to experlenoe nature tinrougin wilderness. It users and advooates must be Involved (CInavez, et al., 2008; will be neoessary for us to understand tine Implloatlons Pease, 2015). Previous researoln Inas sinown tinat barriers of an ageing population wItIn gender disparities. In terms oontlnue to exist for people from minority, raolal, and etinnlo of wilderness users, an ageing population may Inave groups to reoreate In parks and proteoted areas (Jolnnson, et oonstralnts related to aooesslblllty, personal mobility, and al., 2004). Laok of finanolal resouroes, time, and Information reoreatlon oinoloe belnavlour. Tinese oonstralnts must be about visiting proteoted areas oontlnue to be oonstralnts to negotiated winlle maintaining wilderness values. Our ageing aooess and enjoyment. Individuals may not feel weloome population Is predominantly female, winlle wilderness users or perlnaps disorlmlnated against If workers at sites and are predominantly male. If future generations are to form proteoted areas are not of tIneIr etinnlolty or Inerltage. Efforts bonds and relatlonshilps wItIn nature, proteoted areas, and need to target mitigating tinese barriers to partlolpatlon, tinus wilderness, gender differenoes sinould be addressed and growing tInIs potential wilderness oonstltuenoy. barriers to partlolpatlon and Inoluslon must be removed among wilderness users. Wilderness praotltloners, solentlsts, Ageing and advooates sinould prioritize efforts to negotiate and overoome tinese barriers and oonstralnts. On tine otiner Aooording to tine 2013 edition of tine United Nation ’s report. Inand, Watson (2013) suggests tinat tine relevanoe of tine World Population Ageing, tine number of Individuals globally eoosystem servloes provided to tine population Is not age or age 60 years or over Is expeoted to more tinan double from gender speoifio and tinat tine growing Importanoe of tinese 841 million In 2013 to more tInan 2 billion In 2050. TInIs global relatlonshilps with: wilderness only needs to be reoognlzed demograplnlo profile Is partloularly Important winen oompared tinrougin better Interpretation to visitors and non -vlsltors. to wilderness area user profiles. Dvorak, et al. (2012), examined wilderness visitor use and users ’ trends over a 40 -year period Interpretation In tine United States ’ Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Over tInIs period, mean user ages Inoreased from 26 years of It Is Important to reoognlze tinat winlle reoreatlonal experlenoes age In 1969 to 45 years of age In 2007. Little oinange In gender In wilderness and nature are neoessary to oreate bonds and differenoes was observed, wItIn men representing approximately form relatlonshilps, efforts must be made to oommunloate 75 per oent of wilderness users over tinat time period. Similar oonoeptuallzatlons of wilderness and proteoted areas thiat are user profiles were observed by Gundersen, Tangeland, and beyond a utilitarian point of view. Managers engage tine publlo Kaltenbron (2015) among users of tine Oslomarka outside Oslo, In disousslons thiat frame wilderness as somethiing beyond Norway. Users of tine urban wilderness area zones were typloally only tourism and reoreatlon experlenoes. Tine ‘ Promise male (61 per oent) and on average 52 years old. of Sydney ’ oalls for an Investment In nature ’s solutions. Wilderness Is a safeguard for biodiversity, mitigates ollmate oinange Impaots, and Is deeply embedded In tine oultures of many Indigenous Peoples. Wilderness provides eoosystem servloes tinat Improve food and water seourlty along wItIn global Inuman Inealtln. Wilderness managers sinould ensure tinat wilderness areas are understood In tinese value oontexts as well as tine eoonomio and reoreatlonal benefits often assoolated wItIn wilderness and proteoted areas.

Understanding Inow different sooletles appreolate wilderness oan Inelp managers antlolpate potential oonfllot and eduoate wilderness users. For example, Boxall, et al. (2002), found tinat oanoelsts In wilderness areas In Canada Inlglnly valued tine experlenoe of viewing traditional Indigenous rook art. However, tIney also noted tinat managers are faoed wItIn tine oonundrum of promoting tInIs benefit for an enlnanoed Studies of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the United States visitor experlenoe winllst also risking tine negative Impaots of help inform general trends of wilderness user demographics. © Amber Collett direoting visitors to a plaoe tinat Inolds spiritual and oultural

Case Study 18

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, United States

In tine United States, Dvorak, et al. (2012), examined Inow visitors to tine Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness oinanged between 1969 and 2007 by analyzing survey data oolleoted In 1969, 1991, and 2007. Tine trend analysis fooused on oinanges In user oinaraoterlstlos (e.g. age, eduoatlon, gender), aotlvltles (e.g. fislning, oamping) and opinions (e.g. peroeptlons of orowding). Altlnougin oolleoting data over long periods of time Is oostly, tinere are ongoing efforts to make previously oolleoted data more available to tine publlo. For Instanoe, a data oatalogue of raw data, survey Instruments, and otiner relevant supporting doouments from many wilderness studies oompleted In tine United States Is available on tine United States Department of Agrloulture, Forest Servloe website (lnttp://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/arolnlve/Catalog).

56 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

Importance to Canadian First Nations Peoples. Education United Nations (2014). World Urbanization Rrospeots: The 2014 and Interpretation may hielp visitors to understand values and Revision, Highlights. World Urbanization Rrospeots: The 2014 thierefore encourage users to be sensitive and respectful to Revision, Highlights. (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). wilderness areas. Watson, A. (2013). The Role of Wilderness Rroteotlon and Sooletal Engagement as Indicators of Well -Being: An Wilderness activities Examination of Change at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness ’. Soo Indio Res 110: 597 -61. A narrow focus on particular wilderness activities may result In thie perception thiat wilderness support Is declining (Cordell, et ah, 2008). For example, during thie early 2000s In thie United States, a growing perception thiat wilderness -based 4.5 Emerging recreation recreation was declining created thie opportunity for cuts to wilderness funding and decreased support for wilderness management issues designation. However, by considering a broad range of activities (not just fishiing and hiunting, but also othier activities Guiding principles suchi as foraging, landscape viewing and phiotographiy, kayaking, and thie study of nature), Cordell, et al. (2008), wilderness decision makers are witnessing a whiole new found thiat despite a decrease of participation In particular array of recreation management Issues thiat thiey were not activities, thiere was an overall Increase In nature -based confronted wlthi In thie past. How visitors use or recreate In recreation and visits to wilderness. However, actual visits to wilderness can create chiallenges for wilderness decision wilderness may not be thie primary benefit future generations makers. Emerging recreation management Issues In will receive from wilderness protection. wilderness hiave Increased as a result of advancement In backpacking equipment and gear, new techinology being impiementation used by visitors In wilderness, and thie ways In whilchi wilderness visitors pursue recreation In wild nature. User To understand thie relevance of wilderness to visitors, Issues will never end; thiey are. In fact, thie most consistent non -vlsltors, future generations, and overall conservation chiallenges faced by a manager, and thie manager must be accompllshiments, wilderness decision makers must employ prepared for thils. Finding solutions to future unanticipated social science qualitative and quantitative researchi. Data (or repeated) recreation conflicts requires thiat wilderness archilves can provide thie needed baseline data for trend decision makers ensure thiat thie solutions to thie emerging studies and provide supporting Information (e.g. example Issues adhiere to thie central mandates of wilderness values. questions and survey Instruments) for collecting data In areas whiere data regarding hiuman perceptions of wilderness may not be readily available. Keyconsiderations

Social science approachies and efforts to compile baseline Emerging Issues are not new to wilderness stewardshilp. data shiould target developing: New techinology hias always been problematic for wilderness visitors and managers. In thie United States, Aide Leopold • Increased documentation and representation of thie was confronted In thie 2CH century wlthi thie Issue of hiunting relevancy of wilderness for minority, racial, and ethinic scopes on rifles and whiethier thils new techinology was ethilcal groups; or created an unfair hiunt (Leopold, 1949). As was true In • Identification of barriers to wilderness recreation Leopold ’s time. It can be difficult to tell If thie new techinology and engagement, particularly for underrepresented Is chianging thie values of thiose recreating In wilderness or populations and young adults; reflecting a new way to recreate In wilderness. • Ways to monitor thie ongoing Influence of urbanization on Individual nature experiences and thie value of protected Equipment and gear areas; • Interpretation and education materials thiat emphiaslze New equipment and gear can present Issues for wilderness bothi thie regional and global significance of protected visitors, wilderness managers and rangers. As new products areas to all citizens. enter thie marketplace, wilderness consumers hiave embraced products thiat hiave hielped thiem recreate In wilderness. Since thie 1960s, Improved clothiing (suchi as waterproof materials), Recommended reading backpack design (Internal frame packs), tent construction (dome tents) and llghitwelghit hiking boots wlthi rock -grlpping Chavez, D.J., Winter, P.L., and Absher, J.D. (2008). Recreation tread, hiave made backpacking, camping and hiking In Visitor Research: Studies o f Diversity. General Technical Report remote wilderness safer, more comfortable and convenient RSW-GTR-210. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Servloe, (Turner, 2002). Managers observed thiat thiese new comforts Paolflo Southwest Researoh Station, Albany, CA. drastically chianged visitor lengthi of stay and travel patterns. Cordell, H.K. (2012). Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: Wilderness visitors ventured to more remote corners of thie A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 wilderness and camped In shioulder seasons—earlier In spring RRA Assessment. General Technical Report SRS -150. US and later In autumn. Wilderness managers and rangers began Department of Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Southern Researoh to witness Increased resource degradation, more user- Station, Asheville, NC. created trails and crowding. Rease, J.L. (2015). ‘ Rarks and Underserved Audiences: An Annotated Literature Review ’ . Journal of Interpretation Researoh 20(1): 11-56.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 57 4. Management Tools and Issues

Changing recreation pursuits

Wiiderness recreation pursuits are changing just as quickly as the gadgets are changing. Today, it is not uncommon to find a ridge runner (or extreme trail runner) covering iong distances in remote wiiderness and sharing the trail with other users who are hiking, backpacking or horseback riding. Trail running as an individuai pursuit in wiiderness is an acceptable recreationai use; however, sponsored and commercial running races in the United States are not permitted within wiiderness areas, as they are considered to be in conflict with and an impact on wiiderness vaiues.

Overcrowding of recreation areas

Even the pursuit of soiitude, it appears, is changing, in the Tent construction has changed considerably in recent decades, allowing visitors past, it was common to travel in smaii groups and seek out to venture deep into wilderness areas, as shown by this tent in the Three Sisters Wilderness Area in the United States © Amber Collett remote areas to find soiitude so that one could connect to wiid piaces with friends who have a similar desire for Unmanned aircraft systems as recreational tools quietness and tranquility.

As discussed in Section 4.3, unmanned aircraft systems in the United States, the central mandate of the Wiiderness (drones) are unprecedented for wiiderness managers. The Act is to preserve wiiderness character. The quaiities of ramifications of recreationai drone use are incompatibie with wiiderness character can be degraded by signs of human wiiderness vaiues. Today ’s sophisticated recreationai or use and overuse at popular ‘magnet areas ’ where visitors hobby drones, if permitted, would remove the very essence congregate. The Wiiderness Act established the United of wiiderness being a piace of seif -discovery and mystery, States ’ Nationai Wiiderness Preservation System, in part, changing wiiderness to a iandscape that can be viewed in for use and enjoyment by the country ’s citizens. No doubt reai time. Drones, with their high -definition cameras attached these popular spots have always been a draw, but through to the aircraft, become eyes in the sky for the drone operator, continued use, these fragile wiiderness sites are starting to providing real -time images of landscapes, possibie campsites, show the wear and tear of thousands of boots. Associated number of other peopie in areas and even nearby wiidiife. See impacts of trash, human waste and denuded campsites Section 4.3 for more information about the use of technology diminish the wilderness values of an area. in wiiderness areas.

Personal computers in wilderness Implementation

Some of today ’s wiiderness visitors use modern technology To deal with increasing use, managers have impiemented a never envisioned by previous generations of wiiderness variety of management actions such as indirect controls to decision makers, it is not uncommon today to find a educate visitors about Leave No Trace techniques and to wiiderness visitor at an alpine lake deep inside a wiiderness promote user responsibiiities for taking care of the iand. in using a personai laptop computer powered by a solar panel some circumstances, more direct controls, such as visitor use and internet connection obtained through a mobile phone restrictions (permits) are now required to limit the number of or satellite hot -spot device to stay connected with work or visitors to a particuiar area so that the iand has a chance to respond to emails. Other visitors now hike wiiderness trails heal. listening to internet -streamed music on a device powered by smaii, lightweight solar panels that take up little space in a With the exception of the use of recreationai drones, many backpack. managers would argue that new technology and how visitors

Global positioning systems as a recreational tool

Advances in technology aiso help visitors navigate in wiiderness areas beyond the conventional use of map and compass orienteering. Today ’s GPS devices and the presence of this technology in mobile phones have changed how visitors can pian their wiiderness adventure, orient themseives to rugged and remote landscapes, and find their way back to the traiihead in ways never available 10 or 20 years ago. New products such as personai satellite tracking devices aiiow for immediate response to a ‘need help ’ or emergency notice (even when the visitor is oniy temporarily lost, cold, out of water or injured in ways that most would not define as life-threatening). Wiiderness managers and search and rescue teams have responded to these satellite alerts oniy to find backcountry visitors scared or disoriented. An increase is such alerts can have negative resourcing implications for Managers, such as those who oversee the Bridger Wilderness in the United managing agencies. States, must carefully manage for emerging recreational issues. © Noah Fribley

58 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

use new teohnology In wilderness Is a personal deolslon. Key considerations Unless the use of emerging teohnology oreates resouroe damage or Interferes with others ’ ability to enjoy wilderness, Similar tenets as terrestrial wilderness little If any management Intervention Is needed or appropriate. It Is diffloult to tell If the new teohnology Is ohanging the values While the specific human uses enccuntered In marine of those reoreating In wilderness. When faoed with new and wilderness may differ frcm these cn land, they are similar emerging reoreatlon management ohaiienges, wilderness encugh In terms cf their general characteristics and pctentlal deolslon makers must evaluate these ohaiienges for their Impacts tc wilderness character and values. This can oompatlblllty with wilderness values. cffer managers a clear place tc start when develcping a management framewcrk fcr marine wilderness (Day, et al., 2012). There are few examples cf Internatlcnal wilderness law Recommended reading cr pcilcy that explicitly mentlcn cr cffer specific guidance fcr marine wilderness areas (Landres, et al., 2008b; Barr, 2012). • Cole, D. (2009). ‘ Ecoiogicai Impaots of Wilderness Reoreatlon The management framewcrk fcr marine wilderness areas and Their Management ’ . In Wilderness Management: can apprcprlately be captured frcm the cverarching IUCN Stewardship and Protection of Resouroes and Values.pp. pp. management guidelines fcr Gategcry 1b. 395-436. 4® edition. Fulorum Publishing, Golden, Colorado. • Landres, P., Barns, S., Boutcher, S., Devine, T, Dratoh, P., LIndholm, A., Merlgllano, L., Roeper, N., and Simpson, E. Implementation (2015). Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to M onitor Trends in Wilderness Character aoross the National Marine wilderness areas shculd upheld the same wilderness Wilderness Preservation System. Service General Technical values and management principles expected cf terrestrial Report RMRS-GTR-340. USDA Forest Servloe, Rooky Mountain wilderness areas. The tenets detailed within these Gategcry Research Station, Fort Collins, CC. 1 b guidelines apply bcth tc terrestrial and marine wilderness areas.

4.6 Managing for marine Recommended reading

wilderness values Clifton, J. (2003). ‘Rrospeots for Co -Management In Indonesia ’s Marine Rroteoted Areas ’. Marine Polioy 27: 389 -395. Guiding principles Day, J., Dudley, N., Hooklngs, M., Holmes, G., Stolton, S., and Wells, S. (2012). Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Proteoted The places mcst cften Identified cr designated as wilderness Area Management Categories to Marine Proteoted Areas. Best are terrestrial, yet the Idea cf areas In the cceans and ccastal praotloe proteoted area guidelines series 19. IUCN, Gland, waters pcssessing wilderness qualities and values wcrthy cf Switzerland. preservatlcn has been debated and discussed fcr mere than Edgar, C.J., Stuart -Smlth, R.D., Wlllls, T.J., KInlnmonth, S., half a century (Barr, 2007). Effective wilderness stewardship Baker, S.C., Banks, S., Barrett, M.S., Beoerro, M.A., Bernard, requires the management agency tc have the legal authcrlty A.T.F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D., Campbell, S.J., Cooper, A.T, tc establish and manage wilderness, as well as wilderness - Davey, M., Edgar, S.C., Fdrsterra, C., Galvan, D.E., Irlgoyen, specific management gcals and strategies adapted. A.J., Kushner, D.J., Moura, R., Rarnell, RE., Shears, N.T, Implemented, and evaluated that ensure the wilderness Soler, C., Strain, E.M.A., and Thomson, R.J. (2014). ‘ Global values and qualities cf the area are preserved. This Is true cf Conservation Outoomes Depend on Marine Rroteoted Areas bcth terrestrial and marine wilderness areas. with Five Key Features ’. Nature 506(7487): 216 -220. Kormos, C.R (2011). ‘W e Need to Soale Up Marine Wilderness Rroteotlon ’. International Journal o f Wilderness 17(8): 12 -15.

Soutfnern Rigfnt Wfnales (Eubalaena australis) migrate to marine wiiderness areas for birtfiing and raising oaives and tfirougfi tfie f-iigfi Seas for migration patterns. O Stepfianie Stefanski

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 59 4. Management Tools and Issues

Case study 19

North American Marine Wilderness

Examples of ocean and coastal waters included in designated boundaries of wilderness can be found in the United States. Around 40,470 hectares of marine waters, designated under the Wiiderness Act, are included in the Nationai Wiiderness Preservation System (Barr, 2012). in their evaluation of internationai wiiderness iaw and poiicy, Landres, et ai. (2008b), found that, generaiiy, the Wiiderness Act possesses similar goals and provisions included in the wiiderness laws and policies of many other countries. There is no language explicitly included in the Wiiderness Act that would preclude the designation of ocean and coastal waters, and the wiiderness waters inventory provided in Barr (2012) offers at ieast 13 exampies of wiiderness areas designated under this iaw. As statutory language, it offers relatively unambiguous guidance for a management framework for wiiderness areas designated under this iegisiation. Exampies of marine wiiderness management within North America (Canada, Mexico, and the United States) have been outlined by the Marine Wiiderness and Protected Areas Working Group, part of NAWPA. Exampies are available online (http:// w \A A A /.nawpacommittee.org). This working group produced what may be considered the first internationai, working definition of marine wiiderness in 2013:

Marine wiiderness areas are primarily intact, self -sustaining, and undeveloped, with no modern infrastructure, industrial activity, or permanent or non -traditionai human habitation, inciuding aiso areas capable of being returned to a naturai state. They retain their intrinsically wiid appearance and character and are proteoted and managed to preserve their eooiogioai integrity, bioiogioai diversity, and environmental health, in marine wiiderness, where the earth and its community of life are uncontroiied by humans and naturai processes dominate, humans use and enjoy the areas in ways that are consistent with their wiid character and that leave the areas unimpaired for future generations.

Marine wiiderness aiso shouid be of sufficient size to: perpetuate its protection and use in a relatively unimpaired condition; continue opportunities for compatibie subsistence uses and indigenous cuiturai practices; aiiow iow - impaot, minimally invasive educational and scientific researoh activities that further the administrative or educational objectives or scientific knowledge of the wiiderness area; and if degraded, be capable of being restored or rehabilitated to a wiiderness state.

The working group has aiso produoed many oase studies that examine and address the key tenets of marine wiiderness areas that are managed and governed by a piuraiity of poiitioai aotors, inoluding partnerships between indigenous Peopies governments and non -indigenous government agenoies. More exampies of marine wiiderness oan be found at http://www.natureneedshalf.org.

The Marismas Nacionales Biosphere Reserve, Mexico is a marine wiiderness addressed by the work of the NAWPA Committee, which impiemented the first internationai agreement on wiiderness. © Jose Pons

60 Wiiderness Proteoted Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

Case Study 20

Likskar Nature Reserve, Sweden

The Likskar Nature Reserve of Sweden Is designated as a marine Category 1 b site and overseen by the Swedish national government. This nature reserve of 25 square kilometres contains marine area as well as 25 Islands and Islets within the Kallx archipelago In northern Sweden. It Is part of the European Union ’s Natura 2000 network (see Section 3.2) and was designated as a site of community Importance within this network In 2000. As an archipelago and wilderness protected area, It Is managed to uphold wilderness values across both marine and terrestrial areas within the Category 1 b site. While the area was Inhabited by a small fishing community In the 1 century, It Is now uninhabited. Wilderness recreatlonallsts occaslonally sail within the Likskar Nature Reserve to hike on Islands within the Category 1 b site. Information for wilderness visitors Is distributed through the website http://www.bottenvlken.se/. During the summer months, visitors are restricted from entering certain locations on land and sea within the wilderness area to protect nests of many bird species.

Case Study 21

Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh

The mangrove forests and network of waterways of the Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary were designated as a marine Category 1 b site by the national government of Bangladesh In 1996 (IUCN & UNER -WCMC, 2016). This wilderness site covers 312 square kilometres. The site was originally designated In 1977 by the national government as a forest reserve but has since been redesignated as a marine wilderness because of the site ’s waterways. The Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary Is part of the UNESCO World Heritage site. The Sundarbans, which was created In 1997 to protect the site ’s eoologloal processes and Important biological diversity (UNESCO, 1998; Farldah -Hanum, et at, 2014). This UNESCO site contains two other marine wilderness areas, Sundarbans South Wildlife Sanctuary and Sundarbans West Wildlife Sanctuary. The three are nonadjacent but protect similar ecosystems and biodiversity.

The deltaic Islands within the Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary are the most fertile of the three wilderness areas and are created by the region ’s tidal phenomenon. This Important phenomenon deposits sediment In a manner that continually changes the backwater delta, ensuring a multitude of eoologloal processes and maintaining the health of terrestrial and aquatic species. Iconic species, such as the royal Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), are protected by the wilderness stewardship of this site. The managers who protect the Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary through the governance of the Bangladesh national government work closely with International conservation organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, National Zoologlcal Rark, and the Smithsonian Institution, to create and Implement management plans (UNESCO, 1998).

Case Study 22

Kepulauan Karimata, Indonesia

Near the Island of Borneo In West Kalimantan, Indonesia, Is the 770 -square -kllometre wilderness protected area Kepulauan Karimata. It Is a marine Category 1 b site designated by the Indonesian national government In 1985 (IUCN & UNER-WCMC, 2016). Kepulauan Karimata Is managed jointly by the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry (http://www.dephut. go.Id/) and Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (http://kkp.go.ld/). This protected area comprises multiple small Islands and marine waters. A major threat to the ecosystem of Kepulauan Karimata and rationale for Its protection Is the Illegal harvesting the nests of cave swiftlets (Collocalia linchi), which are used In the popular dish Birds Nest Soup (Huffard, et at, 2012). The cave swiftlets create nests on granite cliffs high on the Islands ’ mountains. The nests, mostly made from the cave swiftlets ’ solidified saliva, are the main Ingredient In the soup, which Is popular throughout much of Asia. Harvesting of these nests by non -lndlgenous populations Is Illegal but continues to be a threat to the survival of the cave swiftlets.

Kepulauan Karimata Is located within the area protected under the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security, a multilateral partnership of six countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Rapua New Guinea, Rhillpplnes, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste (http://vwvw.coraltrlanglelnltlatlve.org). The area protected by the Coral Triangle Initiative contains some of the richest marine biodiversity In the world (Huffard, et at, 2012). This multilateral agreement allows for Increased connectivity among protected areas and alms to conserve biodiversity at a large scale with a focus on Intact wilderness (see Section 2.1).

Management guidelines for IUCN Category lb protected areas 61 4. Management Tools and Issues

4.7 Management decisions wilderness or completely rewllding a seriously degraded area. Whiat Is abundantly clear Is thiat rewllding Is relevant to about rewilding, restoration, wilderness areas, elthier existing or possible, and Is thierefore passive management, and an Important and related concept for wilderness managers to understand. Thierefore, It will be very briefly considered In climate change intervention thiese Guidelines as one style of restoration across a range of Intervention options (and diverse terminologies) thiat Is of Guiding principles Interest and relevance to wilderness decision makers. wilderness management, especially of large and reasonably Intact areas, Is normally based on passive (or Rewiiding non -lnterventlonlst) management. In certain Instances, Interventionist methiods are required. Tinere Is little thiat Thie definition of rewllding differs among practitioners. managers can actually do to ameliorate thie wider Impacts Whille some believe rewllding shiould focus on objective, of climate chiange or large -scale environmental degradation, othier practitioners argue thiat rewllding Is a matter of scale: but thiey can act to Influence outcomes and make wilderness ‘rewllding Is a type of large -scale biological and ecological ecosystems more resilient to thie worst effects. Suchi resilience restoration thiat emphiaslzes recovery of wide -ranging native may best come from thie rewllding, restoration and passive species, top carnivores, and othier keystone species In management of wilderness areas. In certain circumstances thieir natural patterns of abundance to regain functional and whiere rewllding, restoration and passive management do not resilient ecosystems ’ (Noss, 1992). adequately address thie thireats posed by climate chiange, managers may need to Intervene In thie species ’ range, Whiethier rewllding Is a difference In scale, objective, or bothi, breeding and location withiln thie protected area. thie practice of rewllding Is anything but uniform, wlthi diverse applications around thie world, and It shiould be regarded as a core concept In wilderness managers ’ toolkits. Whien Key considerations considering non -Category 1 b areas. It Is clear thiat degraded land and seascapes abound and present significant and wilde rness managers undertake essential, field-level actions desirable opportunities to enlarge thie wilderness estate thiat hielp advance knowledge of thie hilghily cost -efflclent and and thiereby enhiance llfe -supporting services of our planet. biologically productive role thiat wilderness plays In mitigating Thierefore, thie manager ’s wilderness practice needs to climate chiange. One of thie more Important values In thils embrace thie opportunities presented by thie term rewllding. regard Is thiat wilderness Is an efficient and low -cost natural solution for carbon storage. Anothier Is thiat wilderness areas Some of thie key considerations In thie practice of rewllding provide space, unhilndered by modern hiuman land use. are thiose common to restoration and Intervention In general: In whilchi wildlife can respond to climate chiange by natural whien and whiere to engage In It, In whiat manner, at whiat processes of succession and migration, and so adapt level of Intensity, according to whiat baseline standards and and adjust to chianging climatic conditions (Cole, 2010). for whiat goals, and whiat sort of ongoing management Is Whiere relevant, wilderness decision makers shiould consult needed for thie Intervention. Whille It Is beyond thie scope and wlthi Indigenous Peoples, drawing on thieir knowledge and purpose of thiese Guidelines to provide a detailed exploration capacity to promote adaptation activities. Indigenous science of ‘rewllding ’ In Category 1b or In non -wllderness areas, and world views shiould be considered and Implemented In following Is a brief review of some diverse examples of whiere policy decisions and actions In appropriate ways (Grulkshiank, thie terminology Is employed and hiow It Is practiced. 2005). Rewiiding in Europe Whien considering Intervention, thie terms ‘rewllding ’ , ‘restoration ’, and ‘ Intervention ’ vary by location and Rele vant work and progress In Europe demonstrates thie wide practitioners. Thiese Guidelines conform wlthi previously range of activities and Ideas thiat chiaracterlze thie rewllding publlshied WCPA Best Practice Guidelines, Ecological movement, whilchi hias been In progress for over 40 years. Restoration of Protected Areas (Keenleyslde, 2012). In Europe, wilderness and wildlife are staging a significant Rewllding hias come Into common use more recently thian return to thie world ’s most densely populated continent (not thie othier terms, coined particularly by wilderness scientists thie most populated). Whille estimates vary. It Is generally and advocates, and Is also variously defined (Johins, 2016). agreed thiat by 2030 thiere will be up to 30 million hiectares of Whiat may distlngulshi thie thiree terms used for Intervention Is land In various stages of natural rewllding (Navarro & Rereira, a difference In management goal rathier thian a difference In 2012; Sylven, et at, 2014). Many mammal and bird species practice. Thils Is to say thiat one manager may be ‘rewllding ’ are returning to hiealthiy population levels because of better specifically to reestabllshi baseline conditions more relevant conservation laws and policies, hiabltat expansion due to to a Category 1 b area, whiereas anothier may be ‘restoring ’ rural land abandonment, and thiroughi many specific species an ecological process or species to create a more balanced, relntroductlons (Delnet, et ah, 2013). more beautiful, or better -functioning natural or protected area. In thie United Kingdom, one of thie original and longest - Whien thiese different words and thie management options running rewllding projects. Trees for Life, hias worked since thiey entail are considered alongside thie rapidly Increasing, thie early 1980s to restore thie Caledonian forest In Northiwest systemic Impacts of climate chiange. Interventionist methiods Scotland. Trees for Life began as a simple ‘tree project ’ In wilderness Increasingly require more serious consideration. but soon expanded Into an award -winning, global model of Thie wilderness manager ’s role Is often a balancing act rewllding (Monblot, 2013). Thie Wales Wildland Foundation between thie hilghily desired, baseline standard of passive runs a similar rewllding project, Cambrian Wildwood, whilchi management and thie need to Intervene by restoring a Is located In thie Welshi upland and alms to rewlld over 7,200

62 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

heotares of land (http://www.oambrlanwlldwood.org/). The Rewiiding in India Alladale Wilderness Reserve Is privately owned land In the Caledonian Forest of northern Sootland and Is the largest Rewllding Is also a popular oonoept outside Europe. In India, rewllding projeot In the United Kingdom (Fraser, 2010; http:// for example many private rural landowners are Inoreaslngly www.alladale.oo.uk/). engaged In rewllding. One suoh example Is the pilot projeot. Community Nature Conservanoy, In the Nagpur DIstrlot of George Monblot Is one of the most reoognlzed and artloulate Maharashtra. The Community Nature Conservanoy projeot Is voloes of this European rewllding movement, presenting rewllding 42 heotares of farmland at the edge of the Umred - well -researohed orltloal and popular thinking that oaptures Karhandla Wildlife Sanotuary. Thirty -nine looal villagers own the range of possibilities and aotlons of rewllding. Monblot this farmland and have formed a oooperatlve to oversee oalls not only for the rewllding of nature but also for the the rewllding of this land, whioh was overused, falling, and rewllding of the mind, olting the need for new Imagination, produoing Inoreaslngly poor returns. As the forest returns to and for rethinking, reframIng, and reoonoeptuallzing the this land, so do the herbivores and. In turn, espeolally In larger human relationship to wild nature (Monblot, 2013). The non ­ areas, predators suoh as tigers and leopards (Sahgal, 2016). governmental organization, Rewllding Britain, Is relatively Another non -governmental organization In India, Sanotuary new and has grown out of Monblot ’s popularization of the Asia, and their oolleagues are In the prooess of determining rewllding oonoept. the eoosystem servloes provided by these rewllding forests oreated by Community Nature Conservanoy. Sanotuary Asia On the European oontlnent, one of the most ambitious hopes to argue, using this and other examples In India, for examples Is Rewllding Europe (http://www.rewlldlngeurope. a new oategory of proteoted area In India that will benefit oom). This non -governmental organization was established both people and wildlife. Guidelines for suoh a oategory In 2012 with the goal of rewllding at least 1 million heotares have already been drafted and, while not Category 1 b per of land In 10 areas In different habitats and human oultures se, have been prompted by the many rewllding projeots that aoross the European oontlnent. The work of Rewllding Europe provide eoologloal oonneotlvlty and new habitats aoross the Inoludes generating new natural solutions through private suboontlnent (Maharastra, 2015). Investment opportunities, employment, solentlflo researoh, speoles relntroduotlons, and olasslo wilderness management. Rewllding Europe and other Initiatives oould not be possible without an evolving legal and polloy environment. A non ­ governmental organization network oalled the Wild Europe Initiative undertakes this legal and polltloal role (Wild Europe Initiative 2013). The Wild Europe Initiative primarily lobbies m - the European Parliament and European Commission and provided a oase study elsewhere In these Guidelines. For Interest, the Wild Europe Initiative defines rewllding as:

...the return of an area to Its wild natural oondltlon. As with restoration, rewllding Involves Initiating, stimulating and allowing natural prooesses to ooour (again), replaoing human management and Interferenoe to shape new and wilder areas; It Is applloable to any type of landsoape and may not result In a predlotable end -state, or restoration of an Women of Gothangaon village in Maharashtra, india on the iand that they and old state. A naturally funotloning landsoape that oan other iocai iandowners have dedicated to rewiiding. © Sanctuary Asia sustain Itself Into the future without aotlve human management Is the ultimate goal of the approaoh Restoration (Wild Europe Initiative, 2013, p. 7). Restoration Is a general and aooepted term for all management Interventions. It Is defined as ‘ the prooess of assisting the reoovery of an eoosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed ’ (Soolety for Eoologloal Restoration, 2004). It Is an Intentional Intervention that Initiates or aooelerates reoovery of an eoosystem with respeot to Its struoture (e.g. speoles oomposltlon, soil and water properties) and funotlonal properties (e.g. produotlvlty, energy flow, nutrient oyoling), Inoluding exohanges with surrounding landsoapes and seasoapes (Keenleyslde, 2012). It oan be praotloed at any soale, both Inside and outside proteoted areas, whether wilderness or otherwise. Restoration oan also vary In degree of Intervention: relatively passive (e.g. doing nothing following damage to forests from storm events or other natural disturbanoes) or relatively aotlve (e.g. relntroduoing eoologloal prooesses like fire or large -herblvore grazing on the landsoape). Considered here are a few, speoifio types of restoration, with speolal relevanoe (In some As part of a rewiiding program, Wisent (or European bison, Bison bonasus) were relocated to the dunes of the Nationai Park Zuid Kennemerland, along the oases) to addressing the effeots of ollmate ohange. Western coastline of the Netherlands. © Staffan Widstrand

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 63 4. Management Tools and Issues

Connectivity conditions allow , elthier allowing natural -caused fires to burn or applying prescribed fires to achileve resource objectives Is Maintaining connectivity at a landscape scale will allow an Important wilderness stewardshilp activity. In places whiere species to migrate and shilft thielr ranges In response to fires hiave not been excluded, maintaining thieIr natural role climate chiange (Heller & Zavaleta 2009). Many species, Is hilghily desirable. Development of wilderness management whiethier plants or animals, occupy particular environmental plans, addressing bothi maintenance of thils keystone nlchies determined by geology, sell, topographiy and climate. If natural process and restoration of fire. Is a hilghi priority for thie global climate Is warming, thien It Is logical to expect thiat management and scientific understanding (Miller, 2014). temperature -limited species will migrate to hilghier latitudes and hilghier altitudes to compensate (McKelvey, et ah, 2011). Indigenous lands managed for wilderness qualities hiave Ensuring ecological and phiyslcal connectivity among core an additional cultural landscape consideration. In addition wilderness areas can accommodate latitudinal shilfts In to using fire to maintain whiat many may call natural species ranges. Altltudlnal shilfts are less easy to manage, environmental conditions, thiere Is often a great deal of as species found locally only at thie tops of mountains Indigenous science thiat Is place -specific and accumulated hiave ncwhiere to migrate to and may disappear from thiese across generations about thie benefits of fire to production areas as thie climate warms (Gifford & Kozak, 2012). Island of edible plants, medicinal plants and attraction of animals ecological communities face similar problems, as thie for subsistence use. Indigenous Peoples mighit see thie surrounding water means thiere Is ncwhiere to migrate to aesthietlcs of fire differently thian newer migrant populations latltudlnally. Thils Is a particular problem for endemic species because of a longer hilstory wIthi thie landscape and shiared In bcthi mountain and Island ecosystems, because thiey are knowledge about hiow fires hiave occurred and thieir benefits found ncwhiere else and face extinction from cllmate -chiange - In thie past. Induced shilfts In thieir ecccllmatic nichie unless thiey can adap t to thie chianging conditions. Strategic -level management Armatas, et al. (2016) hiave clearly pointed out thie relatlonshilp across landscape, regional, national and continental scales between accumulated Indigenous science and adaptive Is required to ensure maximum connectivity among core management for natural landscapes. Thiey suggest thiat wilderness areas thiat will permit thie maximum degree of traditional phienologlcal knowledge, specifically, can facilitate: freedom of movement to thireatened wildlife species. Thie (1) Implementation of proactive fire management strategies, Cores, Corridors and Carnivores (CCC) model attempts to suchi as prescribed burns, to Increase benefits from nature; (2) encapsulate thils level of thilnking, whierein protected -area restoration of natural fire and resultant effects thiroughi better cores are connected Into a cohierent network via landscape understanding of reference conditions and environmental corridors, linear corridors (e.g. riparian zones), permeable response; (3) Identification of culturally significant natural landscapes or Intermediate stepping stones (Soule & Noss, resource values thiat can be protected, restored, and 1998). sustained by methiods suchi as prescribed fire, thius garnering support for proactive fire management; and (4) protection of Wiidfire Important llvellhiood practices suchi as agriculture and hiunting and gathierlng. Wildfire hias received a great deal of attention In thie past and continues to do so as climate chiange Increases global Hydroiogy temperatures and affects seasonality leading to reduced precipitation In some areas (Marlon, et ah, 2009). In forest Alterations In hiydrologlcal regimes are hilghily likely as a and grassland ecosystems, hilghier temperatures and reduced result of predicted climatic chianges In temperature and precipitation can lead to Increased Incidence of wildfires, precipitation, whilchi will Influence potential evapotransplratlon especially whien linked to greater Incidence of Ignition from and corresponding chianges In vegetation, soil moisture llghitning associated withi dry thiunderstorms. Managers can and runoff. Water levels In lakes and rivers will be affected, Intervene hiere In one of two main ways — by elthier reducing as will season flow regimes thiat affect aquatic ecosystems thie available fuel loading thiat can lead to disastrous (large. and water availability for animals. Water Impoundments are Intense, and unseasonal) and thierefore very destructive an Important aspect of hiydrologlcal restoration In llghit of fires, or by fighiting fires whien thiey occur and stopping thiem climate chiange effects. Constructing animal watering hides from getting out of hiand. Thie former approachi Is usually a (guzzlers) Is one possible Intervention, but thils Is likely to better chiolce and Involves reducing thie fuel load by elthier result In modified animal behiavlour and local Impacts on prescribed burning (small magnitude, controlled burns) or by animal populations and vegetation cover. Water extraction mechianlcal thilnning and removal of thie fuel. upstream of a wilderness protected area can clearly Impact hieavlly on river levels suchi as seen In many rivers In thie Natural disturbance processes are Important In maintaining southiwest United States. In suchi circumstances, managers wilderness landscapes. Allowing fires to burn In as natural shiould carefully coordinate abstraction licenses In liaison wIthi conditions as possible, for example. Is hilghily desirable and relevant upstream authiorltles. hias been an Important, sometimes controversial, element of wilderness stewardshilp. Having fire as bothi a wild and Aiien and invasive species natural source of disturbance Is Important ecologically, experlentlally, and scientifically, but also Introduces risk to Climate chiange may be responsible for outbreaks of alien and hiumans and property on adjacent lands. In some cases, fire Invasive species withiln wilderness areas. It Is likely, hiowever, hias been eliminated or greatly reduced thiroughi management thiat thils hias more to do wIthi hiumans Introducing bothi suppression efforts. Humans hiave become used to not plant and animal species Into ecosystems whiere thiey hiave hiaving fire In many ecosystems and many ecosystems hiave hilthierto been unrecorded. Species Introduced In thils manner developed floral and faunal conditions thiat are unnatural become Invasive whien bothi thie conditions are particularly because of fire exclusion. Thierefore, restoration of fire Is suited for thie species In question, and a nichie exists withiln a common objective of wilderness management. Whiere thie existing ecosystem thiat It can effectively exploit. Having

64 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

found suoh a niohe within a suitable habitat, the alien hunting, and political sectors Is also true. Managers need speoles oan proliferate and spread, outoompeting endemio to oarefully weigh the pros and cons of any relntroduotlon speoles, at whioh point It Is oonsldered Invasive. Despite the programme before engaging what will most likely be a negative oonnotatlons of the ‘Invasive ’ label, this Is simply a costly, and sometimes oontroverslal, oourse of aotlon before natural prooess of speoles establishment, oompetltlon and proceeding. Relntroduotlon may also fall under the category suooesslon, albeit often one aooelerated by human aotlon. of ollmate ohange Intervention to help a speoles adapt to Often Invasive speoles find their own balanoe and plaoe within ollmate changes. their adopted eoosystem and, after an Initial period of rapid oolonlzatlon, beoome naturalized and add to the biodiversity. Rather, the aesthetlos of Invasive speoles and their ability to Passive Management outoompete established native speoles (at least to begin with) Is often met with disapproval by humans. The opposite of active Intervention Is passive (or non ­ intervention) management, a philosophy central to the Nonetheless, managers should be aware of the potential wilderness oonoept. In the face of environmental degradation problems posed by alien and Invasive speoles and take aotlon In wilderness, espeolally related to ollmate ohange, passive to proteot Indigenous speoles wherever possible, espeolally management Is perhaps the best and least -oostly approaoh where the effeots of ollmate ohange and human modlfloatlon for the manager to adopt and Is consistent with core values of of natural eoosystems have made them vulnerable to wilderness management. In suoh a case, wilderness areas are oompetltlon. Aotlons that managers may oonslder Inolude simply retained as non -intervention areas that allow wildlife eradloatlon of the Invasive speoles using trapping and hunting and eoosystems to adapt and respond to ollmate ohange or for larger animals and pestloldes and herbloldes for smaller other environmental degradation as It ooours. speoles and plants. Onoe established, however. Invasive speoles are notoriously diffloult to get rid of, so the best a This philosophy accepts that active management or direct manager oan hope for Is to perhaps halt or limit their progress Interventions In wilderness areas are diffloult and likely to fall (Pearoe, 2015). In many Instances, and so maintains that the best approaoh to Increase resilience to ollmate ohange Is through aotlons Disease suoh as ensuring that wilderness Is protected from human Impacts (beyond ollmate ohange), and ensuring that core Outbreaks of disease are often assoolated with ollmate areas are oonneoted via landscape oorrldors and permeable ohange, either beoause the affeoted organism Is under stress landscapes that give wildlife the ability to move and migrate from the effeots of ollmate ohange, or beoause the ohanging unhindered to more favourable areas as eoosystems ohange. oondltlons allow the pathogen to spread and Infeot new hosts Human stresses on flora and fauna should be maintained at a without the normal environmental oontrols (Millar, et al., 2007). minimum acceptable level by tightly managing (or restricting. If Managerial responses to disease outbreaks are very muoh necessary) disturbance from hunting, tourism, recreation and dependent on the pathogen and the oondltlons observed, but management. oan Inolude Inooulatlon, oreating disease breaks or barriers to Its spread, or Introduoing a oounter -pathogen where this Is possible. Whiohever approaoh (If any) Is adopted, this needs to be done oarefully with a view to oosts, ohanoes of suooess and the possibility of unforeseen effeots (suoh as diseases jumping from one speoles to another or Introduoed blologloal - I ' oountermeasures attaoking unintended targets). The most oommon approaoh Is often just to monitor the situation and kt'A hope that the Inoldenoe dissipates In due oourse (Heller & A Zavaleta, 2009).

Species relocation

The relocation of Individual flora and fauna speoles from healthy or weakening populations to suitable habitat within their former range has also been shown to be effective (lUCN Speoles Survival Commission, 2013). The return of the grey European Silver Fir {Abies alba) in a remnant of old growth forest in the Bavarian wolf {Canis lupus) to Yellowstone National Park Is a well - Forest National Park, which is managed by the ‘let nature be nature ' philosophy dooumented example (Meoh & Boltano, 2010; Smith, et al., and motto now used by ail German national parks. © Vance G. Martin 2003). Originally exterminated by hunting from the park In the early years of the 20*^ century, wolves were reintroduced Passive management in German wilderness by the United States National Park Service In 1995 (14 wolves) and 1996 (17 wolves) and have Increased In number Examples of good case studies oan be found In both the to around 100. The relntroduotlon of this missing keystone public and private sectors of Germany. 'Natur Natur sein predator has been credited with widespread eoologloal lassen ’ (‘ let nature be nature’) Is a phrase coined In 1992 recovery within the park due to Its effect on modifying the by Hans BIbelrlether, the first director of the Bavarian Forest behaviour and numbers of elk In the park and leading to National Park that describes a strict version of passive unforeseen trophic effeots on other speoles, vegetation and management for wilderness principles (GIsslbl, 2014). even the rivers (Ripple & Besohta, 2003). While these effeots While oontroverslal when Implemented, this philosophy has are still disputed, the recovery of the wolf In Yellowstone has beoome both the popular wording for and the offlolal policy dearly been an eoologloal suooess. The fact that It Is also of management In the core zones of all 16 national parks hotly disputed by some stakeholders within the ranching. In Germany. First adopted In the Bavarian Conservation

Management guidelines for lUCN Category 1b protected areas 65 4. Management Tools and Issues

Law of 1997, this principle was later adopted In National safe across the rest of Its home range (Araujo, et al., 2011). Conservation Law In 2002 and affirmed In the Federal Nature If a threatened species Is locally common but globally rare, Conservation Act of 2010. then It might be necessary to Intervene to ensure Its survival. Introducing new genetic material Into a wilderness protected Numerous German non -governmental organizations have area Is an Important but complicated aspect of climate dedicated wilderness agendas. A good example Is the change adaptation. Frankfurt Zoologlcal Society (FZS) that works for wilderness In Germany, Europe, and Internationally Another example Ca ptive breeding Is the Brandenburg Wilderness Foundation (Stiftung Naturlandschaften Brandenburg), which was founded In Those species that are globally rare and under threat of 2000 by a collectlon of government agencies and non ­ e xtinction, either regionally or globally, because of cllmate - governmental organizations. Including FZS (http://www. change -lnduced shifts In their habitat may require direct stlftung -nlb.de/en/stlftung.html). The Brandenburg Wilderness Intervention If they are to survive. Where species Interventions Foundation was established to rewlld abandoned military are deemed necessary and beneficial, these should be training grounds. Today, the Brandenburg Wilderness based on best -available scientific evidence, use appropriate Foundation Is also dedicated to many other aspects of genetic stock and as far as Is possible minimize the stress wilderness values and management. Including Increasing to the Individual animals. Capture and release programmes eoologloal connectivity. However, despite the above public have been shown as one way of ensuring meta populations use, official policies, and professional practices, the German survive In new and suitable habitat areas (Parker, 2008). government ’s formal adoption of Category 1 b Is still awaited Captive breeding programmes for especially rare and and remains a topic of discussion and the subject of endangered species have been successful In maintaining workshops and meetings. To assist this process. Vision for a and Increasing the numbers of Individuals In a species Wilder Europe was translated Into German (Sylven, 2014). population. Captive breeding should be carried out with the minimum amount of exposure to humans and In conditions that mimic the species ’ natural habitat and food sources as Climate Change Intervention closely as possible. Release sites should be carefully chosen to ensure the maximum possible chances of survival and It Is Impossible to predict accurately all future climatic naturalization, taking Into consideration the remoteness from changes or environmental degradation, which creates human disturbance, availability of suitable habitat for feeding, challenging management decisions for social and eoologloal breeding and cover, and connectivity to other suitable habitat adaptation within wilderness areas (Adger et al., 2012). In the wider landscape. Planning tools may be found at the The eoologloal resiliency of a wilderness requires the social lUCN Conservation Breeding Specialist Group website: http:// resiliency of the communities within and around the protected www.cbsg.org/new -lnltlatlves/specles -conservatlon -plannlng - area (Adger, 2000). Climate change Impacts the social and tools-llbrary. eoologloal aspects of a protected area. While climate change Is an external forcing factor Impacting wilderness ecosystems. impiementation It Is Incumbent on managers to respond to changes within the ecosystem that go beyond normal successlonal changes. When passive management Is not enough because of All Intervention decisions should align with the principle climate change or other human -induced environmental wilderness values. degradations, managers should strive to restore wilderness areas to a level of health at which the area can be managed Interventions should work to address both the social and passively In extreme circumstances, such as In adaptation to eoologloal Impacts of climate change. Often, this means climate change. Intervention may be required but managers Including relevant conservation partners, such as Indigenous should be aware of the complications and controversies Peoples, In the Intervention decision processes. Many surrounding climate change Interventions. Restoration and communities who rely upon wilderness areas are vulnerable Intervention, when done In accordance with wilderness to climate changes ’ effects on their water sources, sacred values, can help wilderness areas adapt to climate change by natural sites, and customary uses of flora and fauna species creating more resilient ecosystems able to withstand future with eoologloal processes that will be disrupted by climatic climatic uncertainties. They can also help highly degraded changes (Watson et al., 2012; Watson et al., 2013). areas be restored to high-functloning areas capable of being designated as Category 1b. Managers must work to protect Species range the ecological functions of ecosystems within wilderness areas and can do so by Implementing the key principles of Climate change will Inevitably mean there are both winners restoration and Intervention outlined above. and losers within wilderness ecosystems. The consequences of climate changes can be more Intensive In smaller or Isolated wilderness areas where habitats or species have Recommended reading only Island occurrence (for example, coniferous boreal forests In mountains of lower latitude). Local actions can • Cole, D.N. (2010). Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and be Implemented to try to help some especially threatened Wilderness Stewardship in an Era o f Rapid Change. Island species to survive climate change. Such actions, like species Press, Washington, DC. relocation described above, could be extremely expensive • Crulkshank, J. (2005). Do Giaoiers Listen? Looai Knowledge, and not guaranteed to succeed. Managers need to look Colonial Enoounters and Sooiai imagination. University of carefully at what they are trying to preserve. If a species Washington Press, Seattle, WA. deemed to be at risk Is locally rare but globally common • Hllty, J.A., Chester, C.C., and Cross, M.S. (eds.) (2012). Climate throughout a wide home range. It may be that we have to and Conservation: Landsoape and Seasoape Soienoe, Planning, accept the loss of that species In that area hoping It will be and Aotion. Island Press, Washington, DC.

66 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

Johns, D. (2016). ‘Rewllding ’ . In Reference Module in Earth 1980). Thie meaning of subsistence extends well beyond food Systems and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier. and hias a deep level of social and cultural Importance thiat Is Pearce, F. (2015). The New Wild: Why invasive Species Wiii Be directly related to thie natural environment (Whilting, 2004). Nature' s Salvation. Beacon Press, Boston. Soule, M. and Noss, R. (1998). ‘ Rewllding and Biodiversity as Aiiowabie uses Complementary Goals for Continental Conservation ’ . Wild Earth

2 2 . Thie effective management of wild resources Is critical to Watson, A., Martin, S., Christensen, N., Fauth, G., and Williams, ensuring sustained subsistence uses withiln wilderness areas. D. (2015). ‘ The Relationship between Reroeptlons of Wilderness Biological and phiyslcal systems are multifaceted, dynamic, Character and Attitudes toward Management Intervention to and often not completely understood (Ludwig, et ah, 1993). Adapt Biophysical Resources to a Changing Climate and Nature As suchi, effective resource stewardshilp requires Intensive Restoration at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks ’ . monitoring and adaptive management, and thils may be Environmental Management 56: 653 -663. undertaken utilizing Indigenous science or othier methiods. Watson, J.E.M., Iwamura, T, and Butt, N. (2013). ‘ Mapping A variety of variables shiould be considered whien allowing Vulnerability and Conservation Adaptation Strategies In a Time for thie use of wild resources In protected areas. Wilderness of Climate Change ’. Nature Climate Change 3: 989-994. managers shiould consider, among othiers, thie following factors and circumstances to ensure ecosystem values and processes and subsistence resource abundance:

4.8 Subsistence use and • Size of thie protected area; • Natural hilstory of thie particular wild resource; relationship values • Level of resource abundance; of wilderness • Amount of hiarvest and thie desired level of hiarvest; • Resource replacement rate; • Indigenous science and thie legal righits of some Guiding principles Indigenous Peoples; • Factors thiat could Influence and/or complicate Subsistence users are a powerful and necessary partner for resource stewardshilp, suchi as climate chiange or othier thie protection and stewardshilp of wilderness areas. Thiese anthiropogenic disturbances. constituencies, whio are often but not always Indigenous Peoples, hiave deep cultural and traditional connections to Buffer zones thie landscape. Thiese close relatlonshilps wIthi resources and natural systems shiould be embraced as part of thie vision Wilderness areas may sometimes surround or be withiln for wilderness areas. Traditional subsistence practices and proximity to small, rural communities thiat rely on thie larger relatlonshilp values of wilderness are complementary to thie landscape for subsistence purposes. Recognizing thiat some protection of wilderness. Subsistence use and thie recognition elements of rural community life, suchi as clearing tracts of of relatlonshilp values of wilderness can hielp protect land for agriculture or cutting wood for building materials or Indigenous culture and advance thie conservation of large. fuel, may be contrary to thie goals of wilderness protection, Intact landscapes. buffer zones offer an effective way to protect and manage wilderness areas. In suchi Instances, buffers can allow less -restrlctlve activities around communities and offer an Key considerations effective transition area thiat can reduce conflict and better ensure thiat thie goals of wilderness area management are Thie hiarvest of wild resources In large wilderness protected achileved. areas presents many unique management chiallenges. Allowable subsistence use Is very context specific and Benefits a number of variables and conditions play Into resource exploitation and stewardshilp. Here, permissible uses and thie Subsistence resources and practices hiave numerous benefits goals of wilderness areas hiave to be effectively balanced. for remote residents and hielp elevate thie relevance and Importance of conservation. Whille functioning ecosystems Defining subsistence are a foundational determinant of thie public ’s hiealthi and

Thie meaning of subsistence Is complex, context and regionally specific, and ever-chianglng. It refers to traditional means of llvellhiood and can be understood as a way of life thiat Involves thie hiarvest, preparation, shiaring, and consumption of wild resources for food and othier cultural purposes. Thie Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act protects subsistence resources and practices In wilderness areas In Alaska, formally defines subsistence as ‘ thie customary and traditional uses by rural Alaskan residents of wild renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shielter, fuel, clothiing, tools, or transportation; for thie making and selling of hiandlcraft articles out of non -edlble byproducts of fishi and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for customary Reindeer herding in Finland is an important element of Sami culture and therefore trade ’ (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, is allowed in wilderness areas. © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

Management guidelines for lUCN Category 1b protected areas 67 4. Management Tools and Issues

Case study 23

Wilderness Act of Finland

with deep roots In the hunting and fishing tradition, the formal process In Finland towards a national wilderness law began In 1987 through the work of the Finnish Wilderness Committee. This work culminated In 1991 with the adoption of the Wilderness Act (Kormos, 2008). Finland created 12 wilderness areas (managed by Metsahallltus) out of large, existing road -less areas In the far north — 10 of them In the Sami home territory (Sapml) —‘ to preserve wilderness character of the areas, to protect Sami culture and the traditional subsistence uses of the area, and to enhance possibilities for multiple use of nature ’ (EramaalakI: Act on Wilderness Reserves, 1991). This Is the only wilderness legislation of fully national jurisdiction — notwithstanding the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness Act that applies to the sovereign land of the Confederated Sallsh and Kootenai Tribes In Montana, USA—that has a specific objective of the well -being of traditional culture and subsistence uses.

The Wilderness Act of Finland Is a study In compromise and adaption. Some of both traditional and modern forms of resource use are allowed In the wilderness areas. These Include hunting, fishing, gathering natural foods, reindeer herding, small -scale mineral prospecting, and restricted tourism and forestry. For example, Finland ’s Is the only wilderness act that allows for some selective logging (In 3.5 per cent of the areas), a provision required to assure Its passage through Parliament. In practice, however, Metsahallltus has ceased forestry In the areas. Also, because of the emphasis In the Finnish Act on Sami traditional culture, another variance from ‘normal ’ wilderness management Is that reindeer herding (seml-nomadic, domestic husbandry of reindeer) Is allowed. The activity and Impact of these herds and the culture of herding has numerous and diverse effects on the ecology, such as: overgrazing In some areas, with both positive and negative Impacts on biodiversity and cultural landscapes depending on Intensity of the grazing; and occaslonally killing of predators, especially wolverine, lynx, wolf, and golden eagle (SIppola, 2002).

Akwe: Kon, operating as part of the UN Convention on Biodiversity after being adopted at the Convention on Biodiversity ’s COP-7 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004), Is currently the primary management tool used. The guidelines of Akwe: Kon are meant to be applied In the assessment of cultural, environmental and social Impacts of projects and plans, which are Implemented In the Sami homeland and which may Influence the Sami culture, livelihoods and cultural heritage. The authority to do this was authorized by Finland ’s national parliament, and a special committee to oversee this process was established by the Sami Parliament (rather than the managing agency Metsahallltus), again demonstrating the unusual nature of and procedures used for properly Integrating designated wilderness and traditional cultures.

While the overall picture for wilderness In Finland Is positive, concerns exist that are prime case studies In Issues that relate to the Intersection of traditional culture with contemporary, modern society. For example, modern ways of practicing nature - based livelihoods are part of the Sami culture. This means that modern technologies are allowed In wilderness areas when they are related to preserving Sami culture, and Metsahallltus has little or no way of controlling this development. In addition, the Increase of popularity and frequency of both sled -dog safaris and motorized tourism activities was not anticipated when the Act was adopted, and still needs subsequent legislation and management guidelines (Ahokumpu, 2013).

wellness everywhere. In remote places with subsistence - efforts should be made to understand the local, traditional based economies, these factors are particularly valuable. land ethic. Non -lndlgenous decision makers should partner Subsistence resources and practices are directly connected with Indigenous Peoples government decision makers to to food security, familial and community -wide social ensure Incorporation of traditional means of livelihood and networks, and relationships, cultural Institutions, and mental subsistence within the management of wilderness protected health (Loring & Gerlach, 2009). Additionally the harvest areas. Such partnerships will likely expose shared values and preparation of subsistence resources Is often labour for landscape -level protection. These values should be built Intensive and positively contributes to an active ways of upon to Identify goals for protection and stewardship. life with physical health benefits. All of these factors are drivers and mediators of health and positively contribute to overall wellness (Loring & Gerlach, 2009). Such benefits, Recommended reading when recognized, can help Increase the significance of conservation areas and contribute to the sustained protection • Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. 3^ edition. Routledge, New York. of wild areas. • Crulkshank, J. (2005). Do Glaciers Listen? Local Knowledge, Colonial Enoounters and Social Imagination. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Implementation • Duhaylungsod, L. (2011). ‘Interpreting “ Indigenous Peoples and Sustainable Resouroe Use ”: The Case of the T ’ Boll In Subsistence users can be constructive and powerful the Southern Philippines ’ . In Dove, M. P., Sajise, P. E., and advocates for wilderness protection and for relationship Doolittle, A. A., (eds.) Beyond the Sacred Forest: Complicating values of wilderness. To ensure that sound stewardship Conservation in Southeast Asia. pp. 216 -238. New Eoologles and Inclusive management objectives are accomplished. for the Twenty -first Century. Duke University Press, Durham.

68 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

Case Study 24

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, United States

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Is a 794,026 -hectares area managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service In northeast Alaska. The refuge protects a vast area and encompasses entire ecosystems, from the peaks of the Brocks Range to coastal areas. In 1980, 2.9 -mllllon hectares of the refuge was formally designated as wilderness through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Recently, In January 2015, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service completed a Comprehensive Conservation Rian for the refuge and formally recommended three additional tracts, totaling 4.9 million hectares, to the United States Congress for Inclusion within the National Wilderness Rreservatlon System. This recommendation offers a constructive case study for how to advance wilderness area designation while Incorporating the Involvement, rights, and needs of subsistence users.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Is the traditional land of the Inuplat and GwIch ’ In peoples. One village Is located entirely within the refuge ’s boundaries and six other communities are located outside of the protected area on the south and western sides. These communities, which have populations of a few hundred people, have rich subsistence use, traditional means of livelihood and relationship values to wilderness that Include hunting, fishing, and gathering a variety of wild resources from within the refuge. Wild resources Include, among many others, caribou, moose, salmon, and various types of berries. Surveys by natural resource managers have found that hundreds of kilograms of wild resources are gathered and consumed by residents of these communities every year (http://W W W . ad fg . a I as ka. gov/sb/C SIS/).

To complete the Comprehensive Conservation Rian and the associated wilderness recommendation, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service went through an extensive public planning process that Involved extensive communication and consultation with Alaskan Native entitles. Over the course of planning, there were regular governm ent -to -government meetings between sovereign tribal governments and federal agencies of the United States. The management of the refuge will change little with the latest revised Comprehensive Conservation Rian and In the future with formal wilderness designation expansion by Congress. The harvest of fish, wildlife, and other wild resources will still be regulated by the state of Alaska and federal agencies. This Includes allowing fishing, hunting, trapping, berry picking, the harvesting of plant materials, and collecting house logs and firewood. Additionally, means of transportation used for subsistence purposes. Including snowmobiles and motorboats, will still be permitted.

4.9 Managing wilderness al., 2005), concluded: The limited quantitative evidence that does exist suggests that sites protected for their spiritual for sacred values values can Indeed perform a valuable function In protecting wild nature ’ (p. 120). Because many of these sites are Guiding principles wild lands, all wilderness users and advocates need to be aware of their metaphysical nature and value to some faiths An examination of the linkage between places of high spiritual or traditional cultures, and not only refrain from damaging or cultural value and nature conservation In a research report behaviour, but also be supportive of any efforts to protect by the World Wide Fund for Nature, Equilibrium Research, them from sacrilegious development. and the Alliance for Religions and Conservation (Dudley, et

Case study 25

Kachina Wilderness Area, United States

In the United States, the Kachina Wilderness Area Incorporates the San Francisco Reaks of Arizona, a volcanic mountain range. The Kachina Wilderness Area Is within the Coconino National Forest, which Is administered by the United States Forest Service under a policy of multiple use. The designated Kachina Wilderness Area recognizes the sacredness of the area to the HopI Tribe and the wilderness values of the site. The sacredness of the area and the wilderness values are threatened by encroachment of ski resort development In an adjacent area. At time of publication, these wilderness values and the overall sacredness of the entire massif to 13 Native American tribes has not been sufficient to halt an economlcally marginal ski resort expansion using wastewater from the city of Flagstaff for artificial snow that threatens the sacred and wilderness values of the site. Lawsuits have been through various levels of courts to halt what Is to the tribal coalition a sacrilege, but at present skiing Is winning (Benally & Hamilton, 2010).

Management guidelines for lUCN Category lb protected areas 69 4. Management Tools and Issues

Case Study 26

Peak Wilderness Park, Sri Lanka

The Peak Wilderness Park (also referred to as Adam ’s Peak and Sri Pada) of Sri Lanka has high spiritual value to Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Hindus (Mansourlan, 2005). The sacredness and wilderness values of this area have allowed wilderness decision makers to ensure protection against damaging development from mining, forest cutting and clearing, and excessive tourism.

Key considerations Consuitation

Designation If a government or agency managing a site Is not familiar with the belief system, then proper and consultation -based Sacred natural sites that exhibit both wilderness values and Interpretation of cultural values should be Incorporated Into sacredness values should be formally designated as lUGN every part of the management and governance of the site. protected area management Category 1 b (see Section 1.7). Many such sacred sites also have high biodiversity and Personnei scenic values. Formally designating such sites as Category 1 b provides extra protection and stronger barriers against The management of sacred natural sites should be In the harmful development. Too often the claim for the sanctity form of co -management, self -management or participatory of a site comes after a harmful development Is well Into management. Where sacred values are high, special cultural the planning stage and even Into the action stage. It would skills are needed In managing the land and associated be better to designate the area as sacred and of high resources. Management staff should be selected from local wilderness value before harmful development can begin. people of the belief system, and they should be given special An additional International conservation overlay may be training Involving the Elder Traditionalists. Such a policy has warranted for particular wilderness sites with sacred values. been used successfully In some of the wilderness protected Further designation of a site under UNESCO ’s Biosphere areas of Australia (Bauman, et al., 2013). Reserve or the World Heritage Convention can add additional International protection for a wilderness site with sacred values. Implementation

The major Impediment to this Is the secrecy aspect — when Management of a wilderness area as a sacred natural custodians of a site fear the loss of significance If outsiders, site can be done by Implementing the key considerations who do not share the same values, know of the site. of registration, designation, zoning, consultation, and Visitors may also abuse this sacred knowledge, exploiting employment mentioned above. All Inventory methodology a Sacred Natural Site as a spectacle or a tourist magnet undertaken within a sacred natural site must respect the (e.g. Uluru (Ayers Rock), In Australia). Registering a Sacred traditional custodians of the site and their ability to not Natural Site as a formal designation also Implies some loss reveal all knowledge for cultural and security reasons. Such of control to sites that have been protected for years by management will likely take the form of co -management Indigenous Reoples ’ elders and leaders. The free, prior and between Indigenous Reoples governments and non - Informed consent process Is Imperative when considering lndlgenous governments or self -management by Indigenous any new designations over Indigenous land and sites. Such Reoples government agencies. threats to the sacredness of a site are severe and must be treated as such by the Indigenous Reoples ’ governments and non -lndlgenous governments responsible for the Recommended reading management of the site. Management plans should Include the appropriate zoning to ensure proper protection and Allendorf, T.D., Brandt, J.S., and Yang, J.M. (2014). ‘ Local respect. Inclusion In databases such likewise mask actual Perceptions of Tibetan Village Sacred Forests In Northwest locations. Yunnan ’. Biological Conservation 169: 303 -310. Bernbaum, E. (1997). Saored Mountains o f the World. University Appropriate zoning of California Press, Berkeley. Brockman, N.C. (1997). Enoyolopedia o f Saored Places. ABO- Once designated as a wilderness protected area, appropriate CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA. zoning within the site Is necessary to give extra protection Dove, M.R., Sajise, P.E., and Doolittle, A.A. (eds.) (2011). to sacred places. Such zoning may Include exclusive Beyond the Saored Forest: Complioating Conservation in access to areas within the wilderness site as part of Southeast Asia. Duke University Press, Durham. the management plan. This may Include approaches to Dudley, N., Bhagwat, S., HIgglns -ZogIb, L., Lassen, B., pilgrimage management or regions that are ‘closed areas ’ to Versohuuren, B., and Wild, R. (2010). ‘ Conservation of maintain the sacredness and wildness of the site. Custodians Biodiversity In Saored Natural Sites In Asia and Africa: A Review of wilderness areas with sacred values must be given the of the Solentlflo Literature ’ . In Saored natural sites: Conserving ability to not reveal all their knowledge of a site for cultural and nature and culture, pp. 19-32. Earthsoan, London. security reasons.

70 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

Hamilton, L. and McMillan, L. (eds.) (2004). The Sacred, the management plan. Decision makers should permit Spiritual and Cultural Significance of Mountains ’ . In Guidelines va riances that align with wilderness values. Within a site for Planning and Managing Mountain Proteoted Areas. pp. 25- designated as a wilderness protected area, decisions to allow 30. lUCN, Gland, Switzerland. otherwise non -conforming uses are the responsibility of the Ormsby, A.A. (2011). The Impacts of Global and National Policy manager, but often the permission Is elevated to higher levels on the Management and Conservation of Saored Groves of within the agency. The process to be followed for granting India ’. Human Eco/ogy 39(6): 783 -793. such variances Is described below. It Is Important that any Cvledo, G. and Jenrenaud, S. (2007). ‘ Proteoting Saored Natural decisions to allow variances should be principled and that Sites of Indigenous and Traditional Peoples ’ . In Proteoted Areas there are mechanisms In place to make sure that happens. and Spirituality, pp. 77 -99. lUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Versohuuren, B. (ed.) (2010). Saored Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture. Earthsoan, London. Implementation Wild, R. and McLeod, C. (eds.) (2008). Saored Natural Sites: Guidelines for Proteoted Area Managers. lUCN, Gland, When granting variances, wilderness decision makers should Switzerland. rely upon a sound, principled, and Informed process when considering non -conforming uses. All variances must comply with the lUCN 75 per cent rule In which at least three -fourths of the site adheres to the Category 1 b designation and the 4.10 Variance entirety of the area Is managed to uphold wilderness values.

There are several principles that should be applied and two Guiding principles tools that are essential.

Variance from the protocols discussed within these Guidelines Principies: are sometimes permitted within wilderness areas. Variances occur for practical reasons, for political expediency, for • Maintain a bias for protection—for sustaining the highest the rights of Indigenous Peoples, for competing legislative degree of naturalness possible. mandates, and for many other reasons. Permitting variances • When the reasons for previously allowed variances no requires a well -thought -out and thorough approach to longer exist, eliminate the variance. appropriately manage them while still meeting the purposes of • Respect other statutes. protecting the wilderness values. • Respect the rights of Indigenous Reoples. • Respect Implications to the cultural and biological systems beyond site -speclfic decisions. Key considerations • Ask, ‘ Is the variance necessary? ’ Do not merely ask, ‘ Is the variance allowed? ’ Determining future variance Toois: Any variance allowed within a wilderness protected area requires a principled declslon -making process with decisions Management Plan that can be justified. The process for permitting variance A management plan for a protected area gives the manager during the establishment of a new wilderness protected an overarching framework within which to make decisions. area differs from the process of Incorporating a variance The management plan should ensure the long -term Into the management of an existing wilderness. When accomplishment of the overall objective of adherence to considering whether to allow variances when establishing wilderness values. It should Include means to monitor trends a newly designated wilderness, all decisions should be towards or away from that objective. It should Identify goals determined through an Informed legislative process. Variances and objectives that will then direct site -speclfic, time -sensltlve permitted during the establishment of a wilderness area decisions the manager must make. should be decided by the governing body and written Into Minimum impact Anaiysis Each decision Implemented by a manager on a site -speclfic, activity -specific variance demands a principled. Informed declslon -making process. A minimum Impact analysis should put the manager through a declslon -making process that ensures all of the correct variables are considered. The minimum Impact analysis should first determine If the variance Is necessary. Variances should be given only In Instances where they are necessary, not because the variance Is legally allowed. Once It has been determined that the variance Is not only both legally allowed and necessary, but also does not pose a significant Impact to the resources and character of the area, then the minimum Impact analysis should follow a process of determining the management method or tool that will cause the least amount of Impact.

The factors to consider when determining what method

Subsistence users in Alaskan wilderness are important partners in wilderness will cause the least Impact will vary by location, resources protected areas. ©Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute Involved, and many other factors. At the least, consideration

Management guidelines for lUCN Category lb protected areas 71 4. Management Tools and Issues

should be given to how long the Impact will occur, how long utilizing a minimum Impact analysis tool whenever a variance the evidence of the Impact will remain, and both the physical Is considered, a manager Is treating these Important variance resources and the experiential qualities of the area. By decisions with the care appropriate for the planet ’s most employing a management plan for the long -term timeline and protected places.

Case study 27

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, United States

Specific variances that are allowed on the congresslonally designated wilderness areas of federal lands In the state of Alaska are managed differently than other federal wilderness lands In the United States. These variances stem from the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, the law that designated federal wilderness areas In Alaska and Informs some of their unique elements of management. Central to the variances within the Alaska wilderness context are features that enable access and maintain traditional practices within these large, remote tracts of wildlands.

As discussed In Section 4.8, subsistence practices are a unique and Important part of Alaska ’s wilderness areas. Wildlands that are managed by state and federal natural resource agencies provide rural residents the opportunity to harvest significant quantities of wild resources. These resources Include a large variety of fish, game, and berries, and other natural materials, like logs for homes. The Importance of these wild resources for cultural purposes and rural life Is the primary reason for Alaska ’s access and structure variances to federal designated wilderness lands that are otherwise governed by the United States Wilderness Act.

Unlike wilderness areas In other parts of the United States, certain motorized access Is allowed within Alaska ’s designated wilderness. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act specifically allows for the use of motorboats, snowmobiles, and fixed -wing aircraft within wilderness tracts for traditional activities, such as hunting and fishing, and for travel to and from villages, homesltes, and subsistence cabins. The permissible use of these machines for access can vary among management units and Is regulated by specific placed -based rules. For example, depending on the national park, national preserve, national forest or wildlife refuge, allowable floatplane landings can be limited to certain bodies of water and snowmobiles are often only permitted during particular times of year. In designated areas, and under certain snow conditions. Permits that allow for recreational and scientific access by motorized transport can also be granted within wilderness areas In Alaska.

Subsistence cabins are another Instance of variance within the Alaska wilderness context. Subsistence cabins that were In existence before the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act are allowed to remain In the landscape, and In very rare circumstances, subsistence cabins can be constructed In new locations. These structures are generally authorized through a renewable and nontransferable permit system that allows them to be maintained and used by qualified claimants for traditional activities. This exception helps to provide continued access to subsistence resources and ensures human safety within remote places.

Alaska ’s wilderness areas support Important traditional uses that are enabled and managed, among other ways, through motorized transport and the use of small structures. These variances, which are generally strictly enforced, help to ensure that Alaska ’s unique wilderness values are maintained while allowing traditional activities to continue.

science researchers from the disciplines of anthropology, 4.11 Incorporating science into political ecology and economics provide valuable resources and understanding of wilderness that must be Incorporated management decisions Into management decisions.

Guiding principles Key considerations The systematic study of testable hypotheses—science — Is a necessary tenet of all wilderness management decisions. Establishing boundaries and baseline conditions As more areas are designated as wilderness around the world, society ’s relationship with these places will change. A great deal of wilderness management Is focused on We anticipate all of society will pay even more attention to protecting the resource. Agencies must often translate the benefits accumulating from wilderness protection. Clean legislation Into formal boundaries to understand exactly water, wildlife corridors for movement, sources of clean air, the land (or water) base they are protecting. They should filtration of ground water, traditional cultural practices In nature develop signage and policies to ensure that people know and wilderness -dependent recreation are Important to us as It Is wilderness and what uses are allowed In wilderness. a society. Research that Is focused on the flow of ecological Managers should begin to Inventory trails. Identify sites services Is useful to managers by creating understanding of needing restoration, and understand the condition of the value of protecting biodiversity carbon storage reservoirs Impacted sites within the wilderness. Therefore, a great deal and sources of high -quallty water for off -slte benefits. Social of science for wilderness Involves mapping. Inventorying

72 Wilderness Protected Areas 4. Management Tools and Issues

and monitoring blophiyslcal conditions. Muchi of thils tinat are sinared by recreation groups and activities (Ivy, needed science Is not specific to wilderness, but Involves et ah, 1992). Most otiner conflict management solutions, understanding natural processes protected In wilderness such: as management Interventions to Influence directional thiroughi general hiydrology Inventories, wildlife and fIshi flow of travel (e.g. everyone moves In a clockwise direction Inventories, assessment of Invasive species, vegetative tlnrougln a trail system), set activity restrictions (e.g. fines for Inventories, air quality, hiuman use Impacts assessments, conflicting belnavlours), and timing of conflicting uses (e.g. and Inventorying and monitoring of cultural hierltage sites. temporal zoning), are aimed solely at direct or Interpersonal Thils Information Is Important to understand long -term trends conflict sources. Only elimination of one use or tine otiner In naturalness, establish: baseline data, effects of protection can completely eliminate conflict, and tInIs, of course, Inas decisions, and to establish: desired future conditions serious Implications for tine eliminated group. Science can descriptions. Inelp determine tine level of conflict, suggest ways to manage conflict, provide metlnods to monitor cinanges In conflict levels Social science and evaluate tine Impact of conflict on experiences.

An early focus of wilderness science was tine need to Economic vaiue of wiiderness recreation understand recreation use and tine effects of management. Altlnougln tinis Is still an Important topic, research: Inas Scientists Inave estimated tine per-lnectare economic value contributed also to managers ’ need to understand general of wilderness recreation and provided a framework for societal attitudes towards wilderness, wlnlcln extend well considering allocation of additional public land to wilderness beyond recreation values. Current wilderness social science status. Various studies Inave been done to furtlner Illuminate Is evolving even furtlner to contribute knowledge on public tine values attributed to wilderness protection, beyond tinose attitudes towards adaptation practices to address climate of on -slte recreation experiences. In part, tInIs advancement cinange Issues, attitudes towards restoration to correct originated from tine work of natural -resource economists wino past Inuman Influences, tine role of teclnnology In wilderness suggested tinat on -slte recreation visit values captured only a experiences, and tine future relevance of wilderness to part of tine total value of wilderness. Tine Idea tinat tine societal a cinanging society and environment (Watson, et ah, value of wilderness Is multidimensional Inas been widely 2015). Beyond tine contributions to public wilderness accepted. For example, research: Inas expanded tine definition values research:, social science contributes greatly to our of wilderness values to Include option, existence and bequest understanding of wilderness. Tine disciplines of antlnropology, values (Walsh: & Loomis, 1989). political ecology, geograplny and sociology all contribute greatly to tine field of wilderness management and produce Fees valuable knowledge pertinent to wilderness decision makers. Management decisions sinould be based on modern science. Research: can also guide managers In decisions related to Indigenous science, and tine many disciplines of natural and cinarging fees (particularly to understand Inow wilderness social science. use fees migint be different from otiner recreation use fees), considering tradeoffs In setting prices for wilderness access, Monitoring and distlngulslning between day user and overnlgint user attitudes towards wilderness fees. Generally, research: In tine Scientists Inave also contributed to managers ’ needs to United States Inas found wilderness visitors less supportive estimate recreation use of all dispersed outdoor recreation of wilderness fees tinan fees for more developed recreation. sites. Including wilderness areas. Researclners Inave been Setting fees for wilderness Is complex because of social crucial In Inelping managers Identify use monitoring objectives, justice Issues and dlfflcult -to -descrlbe costs of production tine type of monitoring systems tinat could provide tInIs Issues. Wilderness visitors generally express more support Information, teclnnology and sampling considerations, and for fees for restoring or maintaining conditions tInan somelnow data analysis metlnods (Watson, et ah, 2000). A science - ‘Improving ’ tinem. based metlnod of measuring use levels, distribution and trends Is vital to good stewardslnlp. Both: social and natural Limits of acceptabie change and visitor experienoe science sinould be used In monitoring. Research on wilderness recreation carrying capacity led Confiict management to the concept of ‘limits of acceptable change ’ wilderness planning process. Introduced as a way to systematically A rich: literary Inlstory also suggests several Inslglnts for address recreation carrying capacity In wilderness through managing conflict In wilderness. Research: Inas found tInat a focus on how recreation use threatened social and winere direct or Interpersonal conflict Is present, zoning biophysical attributes of the wilderness environment and how may be an effective management strategy. Educational much departure from the Ideal was acceptable (Stankey, et programmes may also be an effective management approach: ah, 1985). Research to define Indicators and set standards to conflict tinat Is based on direct or Interpersonal sources, has Involved both qualitative and quantitative research and education may be effective winere conflict Is related to methods. Qualitative approaches, as well as In situ place - Indirect causes such: as alternative social values. Educational based methods, to understanding experiences and Identifying programmes can be effective In two ways. First, tiney can threats and contributions to wilderness experiences Inelp establish: a basic etiquette, code of conduct, or otiner (Ratterson, et ah, 1998; Glaspell, et ah, 2003; Watson, et ah, belnavloural norms tinat migint lessen both: direct and Indirect 2007) have been employed In a number of studies. These conflict. Second, tIney can Inelp address Indirect or social studies have asked visitors to define Important elements values -related conflict by Increasing tolerance of recreation of the wilderness experience and what might threaten or visitors for otiner types of groups and activities, perlnaps by facilitate them. For Instance, at Juniper Rralrle Wilderness In explaining tine reasons belnind certain belnavlours tinat mIgInt Florida, United States (Ratterson, et al., 1998), management be viewed as objectionable and by emplnaslzing similarities was focusing on numbers of Intergroup encounters

Management guidelines for lUCN Category lb protected areas 73 4. Management Tools and Issues

(as a surrogate for solitude) as thie primary Indicator of support levels between the public In the region of the fire wilderness chiaracter withiout a full understanding of hiow and a national sample (Manfredo, et al., 1990). Those who thiese encounters (or othier possible Indicators) Influenced lived In the region of the fires were more supportive of visitor -defined experiences (e.g. way -flnding, chiallenge, restoration and more knowledgeable about the role of fire In and Immersion In nature). Thils researchi greatly expanded nature. An additional topic explored In wilderness fire social understanding of hiow management policies, commercial science Includes public attitudes towards management - activities, visitor behiavlours and numbers of visitors affected a ignited fire In wilderness. For example, support was found range of experience outcomes. Thils researchi was In contrast for management -ignited fires with no difference between to many previous studies thiat elthier focused narrowly on thie justifying those fires for eoologloal restoration or for protecting experiences believed to be prescribed by legislation (primarily adjacent land resources by reducing hazardous fuels Inside solitude), thiose experiences Investigated In studies at othier wilderness (Knotek, et al., 2008). places (primarily solitude), or upon a single aspect of thie setting, suchi as crowding and Its effect on trip satisfaction. Implementation Climate change intervention and visitor peroeption While most wilderness research has occurred to understand There Is Increasing recognition of the value of wilderness as wilderness visitors ’ or potential visitors ’ experiences and a baseline of relatively undisturbed landscapes, and as such, threats to those experiences, research on wilderness wilderness will be subject to more Intensive natural-sclence values has extended across the United States population. studies to understand the Impacts of climate change. There United States wilderness management agencies wanted to are new demands on wilderness for Installation of ecological know public attitudes towards wilderness protection and measurement devices, more human activity In wilderness to Indications of public support for designating more federal support ecological monitoring In remote locations, and more land as wilderness. This research Informs legislators, land pressure for wilderness managers to review proposals for management agencies, designation advocates and other achieving the scientific values of wilderness (Carver, et at, stakeholders about public support for wilderness. One early 2014). Important questions are also emerging about public study commissioned In the 1960s (Outdoor Recreation attitudes towards the appropriateness of human Intervention Resources Review Commission, 1962) In the United States In wilderness to adapt to climate change Influences. Although highlighted two broad classes of wilderness values — managers must comply with legislation guidance and policy recreation and Indirect values. Indirect values were defined to Interpretations, many managers agree that understanding Include conservation ethics, scientific uses and the wilderness public perceptions of climate change Intervention In wilderness Idea. The ‘wilderness Idea ’ established the roots of the may help managers make decisions about Intervention and concept of existence value; wilderness Is valuable to society about how to justify either Intervention or non-intervention because It Is there and has been designated for protection decisions. Decisions about whether to provide water from development and exploitation. Improvements as a result of changes In hydrologic features or weather patterns, whether to Introduce new genetic material more resistant to drought and disease In a changing climate, Recommended reading and whether to assist In the migration of plants or animals may be easier to make outside of wilderness. Initial research on this Dove MR and Kammen DM (2015). Science, Scciety and topic among wilderness visitors found strong opposition to the Envircnment: Applying Anthrcpclcgy and Physics tc these practices In wilderness (Watson, et at, 2015). Sustainability. Earthsoan Routledge, London. Dove MR, Sajise RE and Doolittle AA (eds) (2011). Beycnd the Public attitudes towards ecosystem Sacred Fcrest: Ccmplicating Ccnservaticn in Scutheast Asia. services and restoration Duke University Rress, Durham. Rope K and Martin S (2011). Visitor peroeptlons of teohnology, In addition to creating more opportunities for a more diverse risk and resoue In wilderness. Internaticnal Jcurnal c f Wilderness public to visit wilderness, our responsibility may be to 17(2): 19 -26. promote awareness of and commitment to the protection of Vaarzon -Morel R and Edwards G (2012). Inoorporating Aboriginal areas with wilderness characteristics for values other than people ’s peroeptlons of Introduoed animals In resouroe use. Public wilderness values research has suggested these management: Insights from the feral oamel projeot: Researoh non -use values are Increasingly the values for which society Report. Ecclcgical Management & Restcraticn 13(1): 65 -71. supports wilderness protection. Knowledge has changed Watson A, Rolan M, Waters T, et al. (2008). Mapping tradecffs about the functions and services provided by protected lands in values at risk at the interface between wilderness and ncn - and water, and this knowledge may suggest the need to value wilderness lands. Prcceedings: III Internaticnal Sympcsium cn the contribution of environmental well -being to human well ­ Fire Eccncmics, Planning, and Pciicy: Ccmmcn Prcblems and being more than In the past (Watson, 2013). Apprcaches, 29 A p-ril 2 May, 2008. Gen, Tech. Pep. PSW- GTR-227. US Department of Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Raolflo Managers are reporting more need to restore the effects of Southwest Researoh Station. past human Intervention In wilderness ecosystems. Scientists Watson A, Matt R, Knotek K, et al. (2011). Traditional wisdom: have worked only a small amount In the past to understand proteoting relationships with wilderness as a oultural landsoape. public opinion about fire management and fire restoration Ecclcgy and Scciety 16(1): 36. In wilderness ecosystems. After the large western United Watson AE and Cordell HK (2014). Take a solentlst to the saunal A States ’ fires of 1988 and 2000, however, there has been great way to keep soienoe and stewardship working together for renewed Interest, but limited funding, to understand a variety another 50 years. Internaticnal Jcurnal c f Wilderness 20(2): 3-13. of wildland fire Issues relevant to wilderness management. West R (2006). Ccnservaticn is cur gcvernment new: the pciitics Shortly after the 1988 fires In the Greater Yellowstone c f ecclcgy in Papua New Guinea. New Eoologles for the Twenty - ecosystem, research helped uncover differences In public first Century. Duke University Rress, Durham.

74 Wilderness Protected Areas Evaluating Effectiveness of iUCN Protected Area Management Category 1 b Sites

-5^

> --j C

- 5. Evaluating Effectiveness of IUCN Profecfed Area Management Category 1b Sites

5.1 Evaluating effectiveness over a period of time (e.g. 5 -10 years). Thie quickest and chieapest assessments use estabiishied assessment of IUCN protected area methiodologies, relying largely on literature researchi and management Category 1 b sites thie informed opinions of site managers (Hocking, et ai., 2015). Assessments of social effectiveness are typically multi-year endeavours thiat are undertaken by thie individuals Guiding principles and institutions thiat hiave thie mandate and responsibility to perform suchi an evaluation. Wilderness decision makers sinould evaluate fine ability of a wiiderness protected area to conserve fine site ’s wilderness attributes and values, it is crucial to know if a site can meet Evaluating for ecological effectiveness its ecological and social objectives. Wiiderness decision makers sinould use best-practices tools and robust monitoring Prote cting thie integrity of ecological systems and thie species frameworks to evaluate whiethier thie full range of wiiderness o ccurring thierein is a primary goal in all wiiderness areas. attributes are being protected (Ferraro & Pressey, 2015). To Wiiderness decision makers can look to evaluations of thie understand and protect wilderness areas, managers need to be effectiveness of protected areas in protecting ecosystems able to measure whiat thiey are trying to conserve (Stem, et a!., and species, for example in Southi Africa (Timko & Satterfield, 2005; Watson, et a!., 2014). Evaluating thie ecological and social 2008), thie United Kingdom (Gaston, et a!., 2006), and Brazil effectiveness of wiiderness areas allows wiiderness decision (Pfaff, et a!., 2015). Wilderness decision makers can also look makers to better facilitate appropriate, targeted management to evaluation frameworks used by Canada and thie United action at bothi local and national levels to improve efficiency States. and effectiveness of conservation action (including future site designation). Evaluation of wiiderness areas’ effectiveness Tools for eoologloal evaluation provides opportunities to learn from and respond to conservation successes, failures or inadequacies (Gaston, et a!., 2006). In an examination of Canadian wilderness protected areas, Woodley (2010) summarizes thie hilstory of and methiods used for monitoring ecological integrity, whiichi are formally Keyconsiderations described in a report by Environment Canada (2012). Trend information is compiled for reporting across thie system of Frameworks Canadian Parks to be used for decision -making at thie level of thie park and for assessing thie effectiveness of national Thie IUCN Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) policies for managing parks and wilderness. framework is commonly used by wilderness decision makers (Goad, et a!., 2015; Hockings, et a!., 2015). Hockings, et al. (2015), provides detailed discussion on thie implementation of PAME. Thie most widely applied PAME methiodologies include thie Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (Stolton, et a!., 2007) and Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation of Protected Area Management (Ervin, 2003b; Hockings, et a!., 2015). Many protected area agencies hiave adapted common methiodologies or developed specific applications of PAME to fit thieir needs, including Southi Africa (Timko & Satterfield, 2003), Iran (Kolahii, et a!., 2013), Tasmania, Australia (Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013), Siberia (Anthiony & Shiecstockova, 2015), Brazil (Carannza, et a!., 2014), and New Southi Wales, Australia (Hockings, et a!., 2009).

Evaluation of ecological effectiveness of wilderness areas Is achieved by Sufficientdata coiiection working with evaluation tools to monitor site conditions. © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute Data co llection thiroughi monitoring can require significant investment of staff resources and funds, and collection in thie United States, various frameworks hiave been used to of thiese data requires a long -term commitment to thie evaluate ecological integrity in designated wilderness and othier assessment programme (Stoll -Kleeman, 2010; Hockings, protected areas. Thiese frameworks can be adapted to be 2015). Withiout thiis long -term commitment, thie shiortness used in othier countries ’ wilderness protected areas to evaluate of time series for measuring occupancy and abundance will protection of ecosystems and biodiversity. Thie National Park limit thie ability to detect bothi directional chianges and more Service developed thie vital signs monitoring programme to complex social and ecological dynamics (Gaston, et a!., 2008; assess trends in natural resources, and thiis programme is Soule, et a!., 2003). Whiere possible, suchi data shiould be applied to designated wilderness managed by thie Park Service collected over multiple years, informed by multiple academic (hittp://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/). Thie organization disciplines and indigenous science, and comprised of bothi NatureServe hias developed methiods and resources to assess qualitative and quantitative data (Cummings, et a!., 2015). ecological integrity across a variety of ecosystems and thiese could be readily applied to wilderness (hittp://www.natureserve. Assess menttimelines org/conservation -tools/ecological-integrity -assessment). Unnaschi, et al. (2008), developed a conceptual framework Site-le vel assessments are typically based on quantitative, for monitoring thie trend in ecological integrity for thie National fine -scaie monitoring data (Ervin, 2003a), whiichi are collected Park Service, whiichi could be applied to designated wiiderness.

76 Wilderness Protected Areas 5. Evaluating Effectiveness of IUCN Protected Area Management Category 1 b Sites

Theobald (2013) mapped threats to ecological integrity in the frl -S / J - i United States, and these methods could be readily applied at a finer spatial scale to wilderness. Last, Parrish, et al. (2003), provided a framework for monitoring ecological integrity on privately protected areas that could be adopted for wilderness.

Baseline measurements

Ecological effectiveness assessments oan employ different baselines, depending on the combination of measure, biological organization and spatial scale. Data should be collected to inform wilderness decision makers on trends in the biodiversity, ecosystem functions, landscape and geology, and climate ohange resilience of the wilderness proteoted area (Dietz, et al., 2015; Hockings, et al., 2015). Inventory assessments can focus on occurrence, coverage, and abundance of particular biological organizations at different spatial scales (Gaston, et al., 2008). Condition assessments Social effectiveness is essential for a wilderness protected area to achieve management and governance objectives. Social evaluations require long oan focus on how the state of features have changed within timelines and working with a multitude of conservation partners. one or more sites through time, how the state of features ©Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute within sites compares with that outside them, or how the state of features has changed within sites compared with how Peoples is the acknowledgement of the value of indigenous it has changed outside them (Gaston, et al., 2008). science in all areas of management (Stevens, 2014). Such acknowledgement requires recognizing indigenous methods and including indigenous science in all management activities Evaluating for social effectiveness from planning to implementation, enforcement, modern science studies and the use of teohnology (Peterson, et al., All wilderness protected areas should be evaluated for their 2010). The management and governance of a wilderness social effectiveness (Ervin, 2003b; West, et al., 2006; Hockings, protected area should be analyzed to ensure such recognition et al., 2015). Ideally, wilderness decision makers should be and implementation is in place. composed of and employ a multidisciplinary team (Singleton & Straits, 2010; Brosius, et al., 2005; West & Brookington, 2006). Free, prior and informed consent is a key indicator to the Evaluations should consider the site ’s protection of Indigenous social effectiveness of a site and should be used wherever Peoples ’ rights, recreation uses, science and educational uses, relevant (see Section 1.6). Management procedures and community engagement, and human health and well-being practices should be analyzed to ensure that free, prior and (Hockings, et al., 2015, p. 908). Evaluations should consider informed consent is always sought and given. a range of sooiai users and assess the site ’s ability to uphold wilderness values in light of these social users. Recommended reading Tools for social evaluation • Aycrigg, J.L., Tricker, J., Belote, R., Dietz, M.S., Duarte, L., Cultural anthropologists and political ecologists are best and Aplet, G.H. (2015). The Next 50 Years: Opportunities trained to conduct social evaluations of wilderness protected for Diversifying the Ecological Representation of the National areas (West, 2006; Izurieta, et al., 2013). Wilderness decision Wilderness Preservation System within the Contiguous United makers, including Indigenous Peoples, should either be States ’ . Journal o f Forestry. trained in these disciplines themselves or work closely with • Brosius, J.R, Tsing, A.L., and Zerner, 0. (eds.) (2005). such professionals. Research tools used in social evaluations Communities and Consen/ation: Histories and Politios of wilderness protected areas should include ethnographic of Community-Based Natural Resouroe Management. researoh, sooiai network analysis, triangulation evaluation, Globalization and the environment. AltaMira Press, Walnut and participatory action research (Mack, et al., 2005; Timko & Creek, CA. Satterfield, 2008; Singleton & Straits, 2010). • Gaston, K.J., Jackson, S.P., Cantu -Salazar, L., and Cruz -Pinon, G. (2008). The Ecological Performance of Protected Areas ’ . Indigenous Peoples as true partners Annual Review of Eooiogy Evolution, and Systematios 39: 93-113. Where applicable, members of any relevant Indigenous • Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M., Craigie, I.D., Hockings, Peoples communities and/or Tribes should have leading roles M., Knights, K., Leverington, P., Cuardros, I.C., Zamora, C., in social effectiveness evaluations (Stevens, 2014). Social Woodley, S., and Burgess, N.D. (2015). ‘ Changes in Proteoted scientists suoh as oultural anthropologists —not just natural Area Management Effectiveness over Time: A Global Analysis ’ . scientists —should be full members of any decision -making Bioiogicai Conservation 191: 692 -699. team of a wilderness protected area. In wilderness protected • Greve, M., Chown, S.L., van Rensburg, B.J., Dallimer, M., areas that include Indigenous Peoples as partners, any and Gaston, K.J. (2010). ‘T he Ecological Effectiveness of decision -making team created without proper Indigenous Protected Areas: A Case Study for South African Birds ’ . Animal Peoples representation and inclusion of social scientists Conservation 14: 295-305. will be unable to produce worthwhile evaluations. Where • Hockings, M., Leverington, P., and Cook, C. (2015). ‘ Protected applicable, adherence to the United Nations Declaration on Area Management Effectiveness ’ . In Proteoted Area Governanoe the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is required of all wilderness and Management, pp. 889-928. ANU Press, Canberra, protected areas. Part of recognizing the rights of Indigenous Australia.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 77 5. Evaluating Effectiveness of IUCN Profecfed Area Management Category 1b Sites

Leverington, R, Lemos Costa, K., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., and West, P., igoe, J., and Brookington, D. (2006). ‘ Parks and Hookings, M. (201 Oa). ‘A Global Anaiysis of Proteoted Area People: The Sooiai impaot of Proteoted Areas ’ . Annual Review Management Effeotiveness ’. Environmental Management 46: o f Anthropology 35\ 251-277. 685 -698. Leverington, P., Costa, K.L., Courrau, J., Pavese, H., and Noite, C. (201 Ob). Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas: A Global Study. Seoond. University of Queensland, IUCN- WCPA, TNC, WWF, St Luoia, Australia.

1

Wilderness areas, such as those in Tasmania, are evaluated for their effectiveness through the IUCN PAME framework. © Nik Lopouiehine

78 Wilderness Protected Areas References and further reading

References and further reading

10® World Wilderness Congress (2013). WILD10 Statement from Ashley, R. (2012). ‘Confirming the Spiritual Values of Wilderness ’ . Salamanca, Spain. international Journal o f Wiiderness 18(1): 4-7.

Abrams, P., Borrlnl -Feyerabend, G., Gardner, J., and Heyllngs, P. Ashley, P, Kaye, P., and Tin, T. (2015). ‘ DIreot and Mediated (2003). Evaluating Governanoe --A Handbook to Aooompany a Experlenoes of Wilderness Spirituality: Implloatlons for Wilderness Partlolpatory Prooess for a Proteoted Area. Report for Parks Canada Managers and Advooates ’ . In Soienoe and Stewardship to Proteot and CEESP/CMWG/TILCEPA. and Sustain Wiiderness Values: Tenth World Wiiderness Congress Symposium 2013, 4 -10 Cotober, Salamanca, Spain, pp. 109-115. Adger, W.N. (2000). ‘ Sooiai and Eoologloal Reslllenoe: Are They Rrooeedlngs RMRS-R-74. U. S. Department of Agrloulture, Forest Related? ’ Rrogress In Human Geography 24(3): 347 -364. Servloe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Fort Collins, CC. http://dx.dol.Org/10.1191/030913200701540465 Australian Conservation Foundation (1999). Poiioy Statement No. 64. Adger, W.N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N., and O ’ Brien, Wilderness and Indigenous Cultural Landsoapes In Australia. K. (2012). ‘ Cultural Dimensions of Climate Change Impaots and Adaptation ’. Nature Climate Change 3: 112-117. http://dx.dol. Ayorigg, J.L., Davidson, A., Svanoara, L.K., Gergely, K.J., MoKerrow, org/10.1038/nollmatel 666 A., and Soott, J.M. (2018). ‘ Representation of Eoologloal Systems within the Rroteoted Areas Network of the Continental United Ahokumpu, A. (2013). A Suooessful Tool to Conserve the North States ’ . PLoS CNE 8: e54689. http://dx.dol.org/10.1871/journal. Together with People. Available online from

2-pdf.pdf>. Ayorigg, J.L., Trioker, J., Belote, R., Dietz, M.S., Duarte, L., and Aplet, G.H. (2015). ‘T he next 50 Years: Cpportunltles for Diversifying the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Aot (ANILCA) (1980). Eoologloal Representation of the National Wilderness Rreservatlon Public Law 96-487. Title 16, US Code, Chapter 51. System within the Contiguous United States ’ . Journal o f Forestry.

Alessa, L. and Watson, A. (2002). ‘Growing Rressures on CIroumpolar Babldge, S., Greer, S., Henry, R., and Ram, C. (2007). ‘ Management North Wilderness ’ . In Wilderness in the CIroumpolar North: Searching Speak: Indigenous Knowledge and Bureauoratio Engagement ’ . Sooiai for Compatibility in Traditional, Eootourism, and Eooiogioai Values. Anaiysis 51(8): 148-164. http://dx.dol.org/10.8167/sa.2007.510807 Rrooeedlngs RMRS-R-26. U. S. Department of Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Anohorage, AK. Baoon, J., Roohe, J., Elliot, C., and NIoholas, N. (2006). ‘VERR: Rutting Rrlnolples Into Rraotloe In Yosemlte National Rark ’ . George Allendorf, T.D., Brandt, J.S., and Yang, J.M. (2014). ‘ Looal Wright Forum 28(2): 78 -88. Reroeptlons of Tibetan Village Saored Forests In Northwest Yunnan ’ .

Bioiogioai Conservation 169: 808-810. http://dx.dol. 0rg /IO .IO I 6 /j. Barr, B.W. (2007). ‘Coean Wilderness: Interesting Idea or Eoologloal blooon.2018.12.001 Imperative? ’ In The Wild Planet Projeot, a Special Pubiioation o f the WILD Foundation in Cooperation with the international Journal of Anderles, J.M., Janssen, M.A., and Cstrom, E. (2004). ‘A Framework Wiiderness. Fulorum Rubllshing, Golden, Colorado. to Analyze the Robustness of Soolal -eoologloal Systems from an Institutional Rerspeotlve ’ . Eooiogy and Society 9 (1): 18. Barr, B.W. (2012). Coean Wiiderness in Theory and Practice. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Anthony, B.P and Shestaokova, E. (2015). ‘ Do Global Indloators of Rroteoted Area Management Effeotiveness Make Sense? A Case Bauman, T, Haynes, C., Lauder, G., and Australian Institute of Study from Siberia ’. Environmental Management 56: 176 -192. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2018). Pathways to the http://dx.dol.Org/10.1007/s00267 -015-0495-z Co-Management o f Proteoted Areas and Native Title in Australia. Native Title Researoh Unit, AIATSIS, Canberra. Araujo, M.B., Alagador, D., Cabeza, M., Nogues -Bravo, D., and Thulller, W. (2011). ‘ Climate Change Threatens European Benally, J. and Hamilton, L. (2010). ‘Saored versus Seoular In the Conservation Areas ’. Eooiogy Letters 14(5): 484-492. San Franolsoo Reaks, Arizona, USA. In The Saored Dimensions o f

http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.1111/j. 1461 -0248.2011.01610.x Proteoted Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Armatas, C., Venn, T.J., MoBrlde, B.B., Watson, A.E., and Carver, Berkes, F. [2012) Saored Eooiogy. 8- edition, Routledge, New York, S.J. (2016). ‘ Cpportunltles to Utilize Traditional Rhenologloal N.Y Knowledge to Support Adaptive Management of SoolaFEoologloal Bernbaum, E. (1997). Saored Mountains o f the World. University of Systems Vulnerable to Changes In Climate and Fire Regimes ’ . California Rress, Berkeley. Eooiogy and Society 21 (1): 16. http://dx.dol.org/10.5751/ES -07905 - 210116 Blllmire, M.G., Daimler, J.L., Wong, W.R., and Yl, J.Y (2008). Future Management Strategies for El Yunque National Forest. University of Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, Aldo Leopold MIohlgan, Ann Arbor. Wilderness Researoh Institute, and Wilderness Institute at University of Montana (2016). Wiiderness Management Planning Toolbox. Bingham, R.D. and Felblnger, C.L. (2000). Evaluation in Practice: A . Methodoiogioai Approaoh. Chatham House Rubllshers, New York.

Ma nagement guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 79 References and further reading

Blackwell, J.L. (2015). Influences o f Hand -Held Information and Carlsson, L. and Berkes, F. (2005). “ http://dx.dol. 0rg /IO .IO I 6 /j. Communication Technology on Risk Behavior and the Experience of jenvman.2004.11.008 ‘Co -Management: Concepts and Wiiderness Visitors. Master ’s Thesis. Humboldt State University. Methodological Implications ’ . Journal o f Environmental Management 75(1): 65 -76. http://dx.dol.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008 Blalkle, P. (1985.) The Poiiticai Economy o f Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Carranzo, T, Manica, A., Kapos, V, and Balmford, A. (2014). ‘ Mismatches between Conservation Outcomes and Management Bohensky, E.L. and Maru, Y. (2011). ‘ Indigenous Knowledge, Evaluation In Protected Areas: A Case Study In the Brazilian Cerrado ’ . Science, and Reslllenoe: What Have We Learned from a Decade of Biological Conservation 178, 10-16. http://dx.dol. 0rg /IO .IO I 6 /j. International Literature on “ Integration ”’ . Ecology and Society 16(4): 6 . blooon.2014.08.004 http://dx.dol. 0rg/IO.l 016/j.blooon.2014.08.004 http://dx.dol.org/10.5751/ES -04342-160406 Cartron, J.-L.E., Ceballos, C., and Felger, P.S. (eds.) (2005). Borealblrds (2007). Boreal Scientists ' Letter Cttawa, Canada: Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Conservation in Northern Mexico. Canadian Boreal initiative. Available online from . Carver, S. and Fritz, S. (2016). Mapping Wiiderness: Concepts, Borrle, W.T., McCool, S.F., and Stankey, G.H. (1998). ‘ Protected Techniques and Applications. Springer, Netherlands. Area Planning Principles and Strategies ’ . In Eootourism: A Guide http://dx.dol.org/10.1007/978 -94-017 -7899 -7 for Planners and Managers, vol. 2., pp. 188 -154. The Eootourism Society, North Bennington, VT. Carver, S., McCool, S., Krenova, Z., Fisher, M., and Woodley, S. (2014). ‘ Fifty Years of Wilderness Science: An International Borrlnl -Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T, Lassen, B., Broome, Perspective ’, international Journal o f Wiiderness 20: 86 -42. N.R, Phillips, A., and Sandwlth, T. (2018). Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Action. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Carver, S., Tricker, J., and Landers, P. (2018). ‘ Keeping It Wild: Mapping Wilderness Character In the United States ’ . Environmental Borrlnl -Feyerabend, G. and Hill, R. (2015). ‘ Governance for the Management 181: 289-255. http://dx.dol. 0rg /IO .IO I 6 / j. Conservation of Nature ’ . In Worboys, G., Lockwood, M., Kotharl, jenvman.2018.08.046 A., Feary, S., and Pulsford, I. (eds.) Protected Area Governance and Management pp. 169 -206. ANU Press, Canberra. Casson, S.A. (2015). ‘Soclally -Just and Scientifically Sound: Re- Examlnlng Co -Management of Protected Areas ’ . IK: Cther Ways o f Borrlnl -Feyerabend, G., Kotharl, A., Oviedo, G., and BassI, M. (2004). Knowing 1 (2): 82-64 indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation, vol. 11., IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Chavez, D.J., Winter, P.L., and Absher, J.D. (2008). Recreation Visitor Research: Studies o f Diversity. General Technical Report PSW - Boxall, P., Englln, J., and Adamowicz, W. (2002). ‘T he Contribution GTP-210. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific of Aboriginal Rock Paintings to Wilderness Recreation Values In Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. North America ’ . In Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments, and Artifacts, Clark, PA. (2008). Where the Ancestors Walked: Australia as an pp. 105-117. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. Aboriginal Landscape. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest NSW, Australia. http://dx.dol.org/10.4887/9781848765455.00017 Clark, P.N. and Stankey, G.H. (1979). The Recreation Cpportunity Brewer, G.D. (1978). Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Consultant: A Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management, and Research. Critique of Urban Problem Solving. Basic Books, New York, NY. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-98. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, CP. Brockman, N.C. (1997). Encyclopedia o f Sacred Places. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA. Clifton, J. (2008). ‘Prospects for Co -Management In Indonesia ’s Marine Protected Areas ’. Marine Policy 27: 889-895. Brosius, J.R, TsIng, A.L., and Zerner, 0 . (eds.) (2005). Communities http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.1016/S0808 -597X(08)00026 -5 and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community -Based Natural Resource Management. Globalization and the Environment. AltaMira Coad, L., Leverington, F, Knights, K., Geldmann, J., Eassom, A., Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Kapos, V, Kingston, N., de Lima, M., Zamora, C., Cuardros, I., Nolte, C., Burgess, N.D., and Hockings, M. (2015). ‘ Measuring Impact of Brown, C., Koth, B., Kreag, C., and Weber, D. (2006). Managing Protected Area Management Interventions: Current and Future Use of Australia' s Protected Areas: A Review of Visitor Management the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness ’ . Models, Frameworks and Processes (Technical Report). Cooperative Phiiosophicai Transactions o f the Royal Society o f Bioiogicai Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Griffith University, Cold Sciences. http://dx. dot org/10.1098/rstb. 2014.0281 Coast, Queensland. Cohen, M.P (1984). The Pathless Way: John Muir and the American Brown, P.J., Driver, B.L., and McConnell, 0. (1978). ‘The Opportunity Wiiderness. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Spectrum Concept and Behavioral Information In Outdoor Recreation Resource Supply Inventories: Background and Application ’ . In CCNANP (2008). Certificado Per El Cue Se Peconoce Como integrated inventories of Renewable Natural Resources: Proceedings Area Natural Protegida, Co La Categorfa de Area Destinada o f the Workshop. Gen. Tech. Pep. PM-55, pp. 78 -84. US Department Voiuntariamente a La Conservacion. TIerra Sllvestre Canon del of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pocky Mountain Forest and Range Diablo. Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CC.

Cajune, J., Martin, V, and Tanner, T. (eds.) (2008). Protecting Wild Nature on Native Lands: Case Studies by Native Peoples from around the World, vol. 1. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado.

80 Wilderness Protected Areas References and further reading

Congressional Reoord (2005). Caribbean National Forest Act of 2005. Conover, M.R. (2002). Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts: The United States Government Publishing Offioe. available from . Cordell, H.K. (2012). Cutdoor Reoreation Trends and Futures: A Cole, D. (1994). The Wilderness Threats Matrix: A Framework for Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessing Impaots. Researoh Paper iNT-RR-475. U.S. Department of Assessment. General Technical Report SRS -150. US Department of Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Intermountain Researoh Station, Cgden, Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Southern Researoh Station, Asheville, NC. UT. Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., and Green, G.T (2008). ‘Nature -Based Cole, D. (2009). ‘ Eoologloal Impaots of Wilderness Reoreation and Cutdoor Reoreation Trends and Wilderness ’ . International Journal of Their Management ’ . In Wilderness Management: Stewardship Wilderness 14: 7 -18. and Protection o f Resources and Values. 4 - edition, pp. 895—48 6. Cordell, H.K., Tarrant, M.A., and Green, G.T. (2008). ‘ Is the Rublio Fulorum Rubllshing, Golden, Colorado. Viewpoint of Wilderness Shifting? ’ International Journal o f Wilderness

Cole, D.N. (2010). Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and 9: 27 -82. Wilderness Stewardship in an Era o f Rapid Change. Island Rress, Crulkshank, J. (2005). Do Giaoiers Listen? Looal Knowledge, Colonial Washington, DC. Enoounters and Sooiai Imagination. University of Washington Rress,

Cole, D.N. and Hall, T.E. (2006). ‘W ilderness Zoning: Should We Seattle, WA.

Purposely Manage to Different Standards ’ . In People, Places, and Summing, G.S., Allen, C.R., Ban, N.C., Biggs, D., Biggs, H.C., Parks: Proceedings o f the 2005 George Wright Sooiety Conference Gumming, D.H.M., De Vos, D., Epstein, G., Etienne, M., MaolejewskI, on Parks, Proteoted Areas, and Cultural Sites, pp.88- 88. K., Mathevet, P., Moore, C., Nenadovio, M., and Shoon, M. (2015). ‘Understanding Rroteoted Area Reslllenoe: A Multl -Soale, Soolal- Cole, D.N. and Landres, R. (1996). ‘T hreats to Wilderness Eoologloal Approaoh ’. Eooiogioai Applioations 25: 299-819. Eoosystems: Impaots and Researoh Needs ’ . EoologloalApplioations http://dx.dol.Org/10.1890/18 -2118.1 6(1): 168 -184 http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/2269562

Davis, M., Naumann, S., MoFarland, K., Graf, A., and Evans, D. Cole, D.N. and MoCool, S.F. (1998). ‘ Limits of Aooeptable Change (2014). Literature Review, the Eooiogioai Effeotiveness o f the Natural and Natural Resouroes Planning: When Is LAC Useful, When Is It 2000 Network. ETC/BD Report to the EEA. Not? ’ In Rrooeedlngs — limits o f Aooeptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Direotions. Gen. Tech. Dawson, C., Cordell, K., Watson, A.E., Ghimire, P., and Green, G.T. Rep. INT-GTR-371. pp. 69 -71. US Department of Agrloulture, Forest (2015). ‘T he US Wilderness Managers Survey: Charting a Rath for the Servloe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Cgden, UT. Future ’ . Journal o f Forestry 114.

Cole, D.N. and Stankey, G. (1997). ‘ Historioal Development of Limits Dawson, C.R and Hendee, J.C. (2009). Wilderness Management: of Aooeptable Change: Conoeptual Clarifioations and Possible Stewardship and Rroteotion o f Resouroes and Values. 4 - edition. Extensions ’. In Rrooeedlngs - Limits o f Aooeptable Change and Fulorum Rubllshing, Golden, Colorado. Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Direotions: Day, J., Dudley, N., Hookings, M., Holmes, G., Stolton, S., and From a Workshop Field at the University o f Montana ' s Lubreoht Wells, S. (2012). Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Rroteoted Area Experimental Forest. Gen, Tech, Rep. INT-GTR-371. US Department Management Categories to Marine Rroteoted Areas. Best praotioe of Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, proteoted area guidelines series 19. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Cgden, UT.

Deville, A. and Harding, R. (1997). Applying the Precautionary Cole, D.N., Watson, A.E., Hall, T.E., and Spildie, D.R. (1997). High Principle. The Federation Rress, Sydney, Australia. Use Destinations in Wilderness: Sooiai and Biophysical Impaots,

Visitor Responses, and Management Cptions. Researoh Paper Delnet, S., leronymldou, C., MoRae, L., Burfleld, I.J., Foppen, P.P., INT-RR-496. U.S. Department of Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Collen, B., and Bdhm, M. (2018). Wildlife Comeback in Europe: The Intermountain Researoh Station, Cgden, UT. Recovery of Selected Mammal and Bird Species. Zoologloal Sooiety of London. Cole, D.N. and Wright, V. (2008). Wilderness Visitors and Reoreation Impaots: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions. Dietz, M.S., Belote, R.T, Aplet, G.H., and Ayorigg, J.L. (2015). General Technical Report RMRS -GTR-117. U.S. Department of ‘The World ’s Largest Wilderness Rroteotion Network after 50 Years: Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, An Assessment of Eoologloal System Representation in the U.S. Cgden, UT. National Wilderness Rreservatlon System ’ . Bioiogioai Conservation 184: 481-488. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.biooon.2015.02.024 Colorado Natural Areas Program (2000). Creating an Integrated Weed Management Plan: A Handbook for Cwners and Managers Dove, M.R. (2005). ‘ Knowledge and Rower In Pakistani Forestry: The o f Lands with Natural Values. Colorado Natural Areas Program, Rolltlos of Everyday Knowledge ’ . In Rolitioal Eooiogy Across Spaces, Colorado State Parks, Colorado Department of Natural Resouroes; Scales, and Sooiai Groups, ed. by Paulson, S. and Gezon, L. Rutgers and Division of Riant Industry, Colorado Department of Agrloulture, University Rress, New Brunswlok NJ. Denver, CC. Dove, M.R. (2006). http://dx.dol.org/10.1146/annurev. Confederated Sallsh and Kootenai Tribes (2005). Mission Mountains anthro.85.081705.128285 ‘ Indigenous People and Environmental Tribal Wilderness: A Case Study. Native Lands and Wilderness Rolltlos ’. Annual Review o f Anthropology 85(1): 191 -208. Counoil. http://dx.dol.Org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.85.081705.128285

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 81 References and further reading

Dove, M.R. and Kammen, D.M. (2015). Science, Scciety and the Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (2011). Wilderness Management Plan: Envircnment: Applying Anthrcpclcgy and Physics tc Sustainability. uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park Wcrld Heritage Site. Fzemveic KZN Earthsoan Routledge, London. Wildlife, RIetermarltzburg, South Afrloa.

Dove, M.R., Sajise, RE., and Doolittle, A.A. (eds.) (2011). Beycnd the Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (2012). uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park Wcrld Sacred Fcrest: Ccmplicating Ccnservaticn in Scutheast Asia. Duke Heritage Site: Integrated Management Plan. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, RIetermarltzburg, South Afrloa. University Rress, Durham, http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822393078

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife (2018). Wilderness Management Plan 2013- Dudley, N. and Stolton, S. (eds.) (2008). Defining Pretested Areas: An 2018: Ukhahlamba Drakensberg Park Wcrld Heritage Site. Ezemvelo Internaticnal Ccnference in Almeria, Spain. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. KZN Wildlife, RIetermarltzburg, South Afrloa. Dudley, N. (ed.) (2018). Guidelines fcr Applying Prctected Area Ens, E.J., FInlayson, M., Rreuss, K., Jaokson, S., and Holoombe, Management Categcries. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. S. (2012). ‘Australian Approaohes for Managing “oountry ”

Dudley, N., Sohlaepfer, N., Jaokson, W., Jeanrenaud, J., and Stolton, Using Indigenous and Non -lndlgenous Knowledge ’ . Ecclcgical Management & Restcraticn 18(1): 100-107. http://dx.dol. S. (2006). Fcrest Quality: Assessing Fcrests at a Landscape Scale. org/10.1111/j.1442 -8908.2011.00684.x Earthsoan, London.

Environment Canada (2012). Data Scurces and Methcds fcr the Park Dudley, N., Bhagwat, S., HIgglns -ZogIb, L., Lassen, B., Versohuuren, Ecclcgical Integrity Indicatcr. B., and Wild, R. (2010.) ‘ Conservation of Biodiversity In Saored Natural Sites In Asia and Afrloa: A Review of the Solentlflo Literature ’ . EramaalakI: Aot on Wilderness Reserves (1991). No. 62. In Sacred Natural Sites: Ccnserving Nature and Culture, pp. 19-82. Ervin, J. (2002). WWF Rapid Assessment and Pricritizaticn c f Earthsoan, London and Washington DC. Prctected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methcdclcgy. Word Wildlife Dudley, N., HIgglns -ZogIb, L., Mansourlan, S., World Wildlife Fund, Fund, Gland, Switzerland. Equilibrium, and Alllanoe of Religions and Conservation (2005). Ervin, J. (2008a). ‘Rroteoted Area Assessments In Rerspeotlve ’ . Beycnd Belief: Linking Faiths and Prctected Areas tc Suppcrt BicScience 58(9): 819-822. “ http://dx.dol.org/10.1641/0006 - Bicdiversity Ccnservaticn: A Research Repcrt. WWF, United 8568(2008)058[0819:R/\AIR]2.0.CO;2 Kingdom. Ervin, J. (2008b). ‘ Rapid Assessment of Rroteoted Area Management Dudley, N., Kormos, 0., Looke, H., and Martin, V. (2012). ‘ Defining Effeotiveness In Four Countries ’. BicScience 58(9): 888-842. http:// Wilderness In the IUCN ’ . International Journa/of l/l///derness 18(1): dx.dol.org/10.1641/0006 -8568(2008)058[0888:RAORAM]2.0.CO;2 9-14. European Commission, DIreotorate -Ceneral for the Environment, Duhaylungsod, L. (2011). ‘Interpreting “ Indigenous Reoples Alterra, Euroslte, and RAN Rarks Foundation (2018). Guidelines cn and Sustainable Resouroe Use ”: The Case of the T ’ Boll In the Wilderness in Nature 2000 Management c f Terrestrial Wilderness Southern Rhillpplnes ’ . In Beycnd the Sacred Fcrest: Ccmplicating and Wild Areas within the Nature 2000 Netwcrk. Rublloatlons Offioe, Ccnservaticn in Scutheast Asia, pp. 216 -288. New eoologles for the Luxembourg. twenty -first oentury. Duke University Rress, Durham, http://dx.dol. European Wilderness Sooiety (2015). Furcpean Wilderness org/10.1215/9780822898078 -008 Quality Standard and Audit System [online] Verlson 1.8. available from . States. Beaoon Rress, Boston. Farldah -Hanum, I., Latlff, A., Hakeem, K.R., and Ozturk, M. (eds.) Dvorak, R.G., Watson, A.E., Christensen, N., Borrle, W.T, and (2014). Mangrcve Fccsystems cfA sia: Status, Qhallenges and Sohwaller, A. (2012) The Bcundary Waters Cance Area Wilderness: Management Strategies. Springer Solenoe -rBuslness Media, New Examining Changes in Use, Users, and Management Challenges. York, http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.1007/978 -1 -4614 -8582-7 Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-91. US Department of Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Fort Colllns, CO. Farrington, J.D. (2005). ‘The Impaot of Mining Aotlvltles on Mongolia ’s Rroteoted Areas: A Status Report with Rolloy Reoommendatlons ’ .

Edgar, G.J., Stuart -Smlth, R.D., Wlllls, T.J., KInlnmonth, S., Baker, Integrated Fnvircnmental Assessment and Management 1 (8): S.C., Banks, S., Barrett, N.S., Beoerro, M.A., Bernard, A.T.F., 288-289. http://dx.dol.Org/10.1897/2004 -008R.1 Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D., Campbell, S.J., Cooper, A.T, Davey, M., Ferraro, R.J. and Rressey, R.L. (2015). ‘ Measuring the DIfferenoe Edgar, S.C., Fdrsterra, G., Galvan, D.E., Irlgoyen, A.J., Kushner, D.J., Made by Conservation Initiatives: Rroteoted Areas and Their Moura, R., Rarnell, RE., Shears, N.T, Soler, G., Strain, E.M.A., and Environmental and Sooiai Impaots ’ . Philcscphical Transacticns c f Thomson, R.J. (2014). ‘ Global Conservation Outoomes Depend on the Rcyai Scciety c f Biclcgical Sciences 870(1681). http://dx.dol. Marine Rroteoted Areas with Five Key Features ’ . Nature 506(7487): org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0270 216 -220. http://dx.dol.org/10.1088/nature18022 Folke, 0. (2004). ‘T raditional Knowledge In Soolal-Eoologloal Eldsvik, H.K. (1989). ‘T he Status of Wilderness: An International Systems ’ . Ecclcgy and Scciety 9(8):7. Overview ’. Natural Pescurces Jcurnal 29: 57 -82. Fox, S., Rhilllppe, 0., Hoover, V, and Lambert, L. (2015). Eldsvik, H.K. (1990). ‘W ilderness Classlfloatlon and the World Qelebrating the 5 0 - Anniversary c fth e Wilderness Act. Cotober Conservation Union ’ . Paper presented tc Scciety c f American 15-19. Albuquerque, NM. Rrooeedlngs of the National Wilderness Fcresters Naticnal Ccnventicn, San Franolsoo, CA. Conferenoe.

82 Wilderness Protected Areas References and further reading

Franklin, J.R and Aplet, G.H. (2009). ‘Wilderness Resources, Values Gundersen, V, Tangeland, T, and Kaltenborn, B.R (2015). ‘ Planning and Threats to Them ’ . In Wilderness Management: Stewardship and for Reoreation along the Cpportunity Spectrum: The Case of Cslo, Protection o f Resouroes and Values. 4“ edition. Fulorum Publishing, Norway ’ . Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14: 210-217.

Golden, Colorado. http://dx.d 0l.0rg /l 0.1016/].ufug.2015.01.006

Fraser, 0 . (2010). ‘In Scotland ’s Search for Roots, A Rush to Restore Hamilton, L. and McMillan, L. (eds.) (2004). ‘T he Saored, Spiritual Wild Lands ’ . Yale E360 [online] available from . Switzerland.

Frissell, S.S. and Stankey, G.H. (1972). ‘W ilderness Environmental Hanna, R. and Vanolay, F. (2018). ‘ Human Rights, Indigenous Reoples Quality: Search for Social and Eoologloal Harmony ’ . In Proceedings of and the Concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent ’ . Impaot the Sooiety o f American Foresters, pp. 170 -183. Sooiety of American Assessment and Projeot Appraisal 81 (2): 146 -157. Foresters, Hot Springs, AR. Hathaway, M.J. (2018). ‘Making an Indigenous Space ’ . Gaston, K.J., Charman, K., Jaokson, S.F, Armsworth, R.R., Bonn, In Environmental Winds, pp. 116 -151. University of A., Briers, R.A., Callaghan, C.S.Q., Catohpole, R., Hopkins, J., Kunin, California Rress, Berkeley, http://dx.dol.org/10.1525/ W.E., Latham, J., Opdam, R, Stoneman, R., Stroud, D., and Tratt, oallfornla/9780520276192.008.0004 R. (2006). ‘T he Eoologloal Effeotiveness of Rroteoted Areas: The Hauer, F.R., Baron, J.S., Campbell, D.H., Fausoh, K.D., Hostetler, United Kingdom ’. Bioiogioai Conservation 132: 76 -87. http://dx.dol. S.W., Leavesley, G.H., Leavitt, P.P., MoKnIght, D.M., and Stanford, org/10.1016/j.blooon.2006.08.018 J.A. (1997). ‘Assessment of Climate Change and Freshwater

Gaston, K.J., Jaokson, S.F, Cantu -Salazar, L., and Cruz-Rlhdn, G. Eoosystems c fth e Rooky Mountains, USA and Canada ’ . Hydrologioal (2008). ‘The Eoologloal Rerformanoe of Rroteoted Areas ’ . Annual Processes 11(8): 908-924. http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.1002/(SICI)1099 - Review o f Eooiogy, Evolution, and Systematios 89: 98-118. 1085(19970680)11:8<908::AID -HYR511 >8.0.CC;2-7 http://dx.dol.Org/10.1146/annurev.eoolsys.89.110707.178529 Heok, N., Dearden, R, McDonald, A., and Carver, S. (2011).

Garola, A. (2009). El Carmen Wilderness: An Expanded Commitment. ‘ Stakeholder Cpinlons on the Assessment of MRA Effeotiveness and [online] available from . Their Interests to Participate at Raolflo Rim National Rark Reserve, Canada ’. Environmental Management 47(4) 608 -61 8. http://dx.dol. Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M., Cralgle, I.D., Hookings, M., org/10.1007/S00267 -010-9609 -9 Knights, K., Leverington, F, Cuardros, I.C., Zamora, C., Woodley, S., and Burgess, N.D. (2015). ‘ Changes In Rroteoted Area Management Helntzman, R. (2015). ‘Spirituality and the Cutdoors ’ . In Routledge International Handbook o f Cutdoor Studies. Routledge, New York. Effeotiveness over Time: A Global Analysis ’ . Bioiogioai Conservation

191: 692 -699. http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.1016/].blooon.2015.08.029 Heller, N.E. and Zavaleta, E.S. (2009). ‘ Biodiversity Management In the Face of Climate Change: A Review of 22 Years of Gllfford, M.E. and Kozak, K.H. (2012). ‘ Islands In the Sky or Reoommendatlons ’. Bioiogioai Conservation 142(1) 14-82. Squeezed at the Top? Eoologloal Causes of Elevatlonal Range Limits http://dx.dol. 0rg/IO.IOI 6/].blooon.2008.10.006 In Montane Salamanders ’ . Eoography 35[3) -. 198-208. http://dx.dol. org/10.1111/].1600 -0587.2011.06866.x Hendee, J. and Stankey, G.H. (1978). ‘ Blooentrlolty In Wilderness Management ’. BioSoienoe 23{9)\ 585-588. http://dx.dol. GIsslbl, B. (2014). A Laboratory for the Implementation of org/10.2807/1296482 ‘Wilderness ’ In Central Europe—The Bavarian Forest National Rark.

Arcadia. Environment & Sooiety Rortal. vol. 4. Rachel Carson Center Hendee, J., Stankey, G.H., and Lucas, R.C. (1990). Wilderness for Environment and Sooiety. Management. Fulorum Rubllshing, Golden, Colorado.

Glaspell, B., Watson, A., Kneeshaw, K., and Rendergrast, D. (2008). Hill, P., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C.J., Jaokson, S., and ‘ Selecting Indloators and Understanding Their Role In Wilderness Abel, N. (2012). ‘A Typology of Indigenous Engagement In Australian Experienoe Stewardship at Gates of the Arctic National Rark and Environmental Management: Implloatlons for Knowledge Integration and Preserve ’. George Wright Forum 20(8): 59-71. Soolal-Eoologloal System Sustainability ’. Eoobgy and Sooiety 17: 1-17. http://dx.dol.org/10.5751/ES -04587 -170128 Graber, D.M. (2008). ‘ Eoologloal Restoration In Wilderness: Natural versus Wild In National Rark Servloe Wilderness ’ . George Wright Hill, P., Walsh, F, Davies, J., and Sandford, M. (2011). Cur Country Forum 80(8). Cur Way: Guidelines for Australian Indigenous Proteoted Area Management Plans. CSIRC Eoosystem Sciences and Australian Greve, M., Chown, S.L., van Rensburg, B.J., Dallimer, M., and Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Gaston, K.J. (2010). ‘T he Eoologloal Effeotiveness of Rroteoted Areas: Ropulatlon and Communities. A Case Study for South African Birds ’ . Animal Conservation 14: 295-805. http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.1111/].1469 -1795.2010.00429.x Hllty, J.A., Chester, C.C., and Cross, M.S. (eds.) (2012). Climate and Conservation: Landsoape and Seasoape Soienoe, Planning, Gunderson, K. and Cook, C. (2007). ‘W ilderness, Water, and and Aotion. Island Rress, Washington, D.C. http://dx.dol. Quality of Life In the Bitterroot Valley ’ . In Soienoe and Stewardship org/10.5822/978 -1 -61091 -208-7 to Protect and Sustain Wilderness Values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium: September 30-C otober 6, 2005; Anohorage, Hookings, M., Cook, C.N., Carter, R.W., and James, R. (2009). AK. Rrooeedlngs RMRS-R-49, pp. 587 -544. U.S. Department of ‘A ooountablllty, Reporting, or Management Improvement? Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Fort Development of a State of the Rarks Assessment System In New Colllns, CO. South Wales, Australia ’. Environmental Management 43\ 1018-1025.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 83 References and further reading

Hockings, M., Leverington, R, and Cook, 0. (2015). ‘ Protected Area Karieva, R. and Marvier, M. (2012). ‘Conservation in the Management Effectiveness ’, in Protected Area Governance and Anthropooene ’ . Breakthrough Institute [oniine] avaiiabie from

IVIanagement. pp. 889-928. ANU Press, Canberra, Austraiia. thebreakthrough.org/ index, php/journai/past -issues/issue -2/ oonservation -in-the-anthropooene>. Hookings, M., Stoiton, S., Leverington, P., Dudiey, N., and Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effeotiveness: A Framework for Assessing Kate, K. (2006). ‘ Community, Conneotion and Conservation: Management Effeotiveness of Proteoted Areas. 2 ^ edition. iUCN, intangibie Cuiturai Vaiues in Naturai Heritage—the Case Giand, Switzeriand. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267 -009-9277 -9 cfth e Shirkami-sanohi Worid Heritage Area ’ . International Journal o f Heritage Studies 12(5): 458-478. http://dx.doi. Hodgson, J.A., Thomas, C.D., Wintie, B.A., and Moiianen, A. (2009). org/10.1080/18527250600821670 ‘ Ciimate Change, Connectivity and Conservation Decision Making: Back to Basics ’. Journal o f Applied Eooiogy 46 (5): 964 -969. Keenieyside, K., International Union for Conservation o f Nature and http://dx.doi.Org/10.1111/j.1865 -2664.2009.01695.x Natural Resouroes, and World Commission on Rroteoted Areas (2012). Eooiogioai Restoration for Rroteoted Areas Rrinoipies, Huffard, C.L., Erdmann, M.V., and Gunawan, T. (eds.) (2012). Guideiines and Best Rraotioes. iUCN, Giand, Switzeriand. Geographic Priorities for Marine Biodiversity Conservation in Indonesia. Corai Triangie initiative. Knotek, K., Watson, A.E., Borrie, W.T, Whitmore, J.G., and Turner, D. (2008). ‘Recreation Visitor Attitudes towards Management -ignited internationai indigenous Commission (1991). Indigenous Peoples ' Rresoribed Fires in the Bob Marshaii Wiiderness Compiex, Montana ’ . Traditional Knowledge and Management Practices: A Report Journal o f Leisure Researoh 40(4): 608 -618. Prepared for the United Nations Conferenoe on Environment and Development, internationai indigenous Commission. Koiahi, M., Sakai, T, Moriya, K., Makhdoum, M.R, and Koyama, L. (2018). ‘ Assessment cfth e Effeotiveness of Rroteoted Area iUCN (1978). Categories, Objectives and Criteria: Final Report o f the Management in iran: Case Study in Khojir Nationai Rark ’ . Committee and Criteria cfthe CNPPA/IUCN. Merges: iUCN. Environmental Management 52: 514-580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ S00267 -018-0061 -5 iUCN (2012). Resolution 5.094 Respecting, Recognizing, and Supporting Indigenous Peoples' and Community Conserved Kormos, C.R. (2011). ‘W e Need to Soaie Up Marine Wiiderness Territories and Areas. 5® Worid Conservation Congress, Jeju, South Protection ’ . International Journal o f Wilderness 17(8): 12-15. Korea. Kormos, C.R. (ed.) (2008). A Handbook on International Wilderness iUCN Worid Parks Congress (2014). Promise of Sydney. iUCN, Law and Rolloy. Ruiorum Rubiishing, Goiden, Coiorado. Giand, Switzeriand. Kormos, C.R, Bertzky, B., Jaeger, T, Shi, Y, Badman, T, Hiity, J.A., iUCN and UNEP -WCMC (2016). The World Database on Proteoted Maokey, B.G., Mittermeier, R.A., Looke, H., Csipova, E., and Watson, Areas (WDPA). avaiiabie from . J.E.M. (2015). ‘A Wiiderness Approaoh under the Worid Heritage Convention: Worid Heritage and Wiiderness ’ . Conservation Letters. iUCN Species Survivai Commission (2018). Guidelines for Reintroduotion and Other Conservation Translooations. iUCN, Giand, Kormos, C.R. and Mittermeier, R.A. (2014). ‘W orid Heritage and Switzeriand. Wiiderness ’ . World Heritage 73.

ivy, M., Stewart, W., and Lue, C. (1992). ‘ Expioring the Roie of Kothari, A., Corrigan, C., Jonas, H., Neumann, A., Shrumm, H., Toieranoe in Reoreationai Conflict ’ . Journal o f Leisure Research 24: and Secretariat cfth e Convention on Bioiogioai Diversity (2012). 848-860. Recognising and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Reoples and Looal Communities: Global Overview and izurieta. A., Retheram, L., Stacey, N., and Garnett, S.T. (2018). ‘ Costs National Case Studies. of Rartioipatory Monitoring and Evaiuation of Joint Management of Rroteoted Areas in the Northern Territory, Austraiia ’ . Journal o f Kowari, i. (2018). ‘Cities and Wiiderness ’ . International Journal of Environmental Management 20\ 21-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14 Wilderness 19(8): 82-86. 486568.2012.726180 Krahe, D. (2005). Last Refuge: The Uneasy Embrace o f Indian Lands Johns, D. (2016). ‘Rewiiding ’ . in Reference Module in Earth Systems by the National Wilderness Movement, 1937-1966. Washington

and Environmental Sciences. Eisevier. http://dx.d 0i.0rg/l 0.1016/ State University. B978 -0-12-409548-9.09202-2 Landres, P, Barns, C., Boutoher, S., Devine, T , Dratoh, P., Lindhoim,

Johnson, C.Y., Bowker, J.M., Bergstrom, J.C., and Cordeii, H.K. A., Merigiiano, L., Peeper, N., and Simpson, E. (2015). Keeping (2004). ‘W iiderness Vaiues in America: Does immigrant Status or It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Ethnoity Matter? ’ Sooiety and Natural Resouroes 17:611 -628. Wilderness Character across the National Wilderness Preservation http://dx.doi.Org/10.1080/08941920490466585 System. Gen, Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-340. US Department of Agriouiture, Forest Service, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Fort Johnson, R. (1996). ‘Grandfather Mountain: A Rrivate U.S. Wiiderness Coiiins, CO. Experiment ’. International Journal o f Wilderness 2(8): 10-18. Landres, R, Barns, C., Dennis, J.G., Devine, T, Geissier, R, MoCasiand, Jonas, H., Makagon, J.E., Booker, S., and Shrumm, H. (2012). C.S., Merigiiano, L., Seastrand, J., and Swain, R. (2008). Keeping It Report No 1. In An Analysis o f International Law, National Legislation, Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Judgements, and Institutions as They Interrelate with Territories and across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech, Rep. Areas Conserved by Indgienous Reoples and Looal Communities. RMRS-GTR-212. US Department of Agriouiture, Forest Service, Rooky Deihi: Naturai Justice and Kaipavriksh. Mountain Researoh Station, Fort Coiiins, CC.

84 Wilderness Protected Areas References and further reading

Landres, P., Barr, B., and Kormos, C.R (2008). The Matrix: A Maok, N., Woodsong, C., MaoQueen, K., Guest, G., and Namey, E. Comparison of internationai Wiiderness Laws ’ , in A Handbook on (2005). Qualitative Researoh Methods: A Data CoHeotor's Field Guide. International Wilderness Law and Poiioy. Ruiorum Rubiishing, Goiden, North Caroiina: Ramiiy Heaith internationai USAiD. CC. Maharashtra (2015). Guidelines Regarding Establishing Community Landres, P., Boutoher, S., Merigiiano, L., Barns, C., Davis, D., Riaii, T, Nature Conservanoy Government of Maharashtra. Mantraiaya Rienry, S., Riunter, B., Janiga, P, Laker, M., MoPherson, A., Poweii, Mumbai: Revenue and Rorest Department Government Cirouiar No.: D., Rowan, M., and Safer, S. (2005). Monitoring Seieoted Conditions WLR 0 8 1 5 /CR 56/R -1. Related to Wilderness Charaoter: A National Framework. General Teohnioal Report RMRS-GTR-151. U.S. Department of Agriouiture, Maioti Drakensberg Transfrontier Rrogramme (2012). Maloti Rorest Servioe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Rort Coiiins, CC. Drakensberg Transfrontier Park: uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site / Sehlabathebe National Park: Joint Management Landres, R, Marsh, S., Merigiiano, L., Ritter, D., and Norman, A. Plan. (1998). ‘Boundary Effeots on Wiiderness and Cther Naturai Areas ’ , in

Stewardship Aoross Boundaries, pp. 117 -189. isiand Rress, Coveio, CA. Maioti Drakensberg Transfrontier Rrojeot (2008). 20 Year (2008-2028)

Leiner, S. (2012). Proteoting Wilderness in Europe. European Conservation & Development Strategy for the Maloti Drakensberg Rariiament Rorum. Transfrontier Conservation Area.

Leopoid, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanao and Sketohes Here and Manfredo, M.J., Rishbein, M., Haas, G.E., and Watson, A.E. (1990). There. Cxford University Rress, London. ‘A ttitudes toward Rresoribed Eire Roiioies: The Rubiio is Wideiy Divided in its Support ’. Journal o f Forestry 88(7): 19-28. Leung, Y.R and Marion, J.L. (2000). ‘ Reoreation impaots and Management in Wiiderness: A State -of -Knowiedge Review ’ . Manning, R. (2001). ‘V isitor Experienoe and Resouroe Rroteotion: A Wilderness Soienoe in a Time o f Change Conferenoe 5: 28—4 8. Rramework for Managing the Carrying Capaoity of Nationai Rarks ’ . Journal o f Park and Reoreation Administration 19(1): 98-108. Leverington, R, Lemos Costa, K., Ravese, H., Lisie, A., and Hookings, M. (2010a). ‘A Giobai Anaiysis of Rroteoted Area Management Manning, R.E. (1997). ‘ Sooiai Carrying Capaoity of Rarks and Effeotiveness ’. Environmental Management. 46:685 -698. Cutdoor Reoreation Areas ’. Parks and Reoreation 82: 82-88. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1007/s00267 -010-9564 -5 Manning, R.E. (2004). ‘Reoreation Rianning Rrameworks ’ . \n Sooiety Leverington, R, Costa, K.L., Courrau, J., Ravese, H., and Noite, C. and Natural Resouroes: A Summary o f Knowledge, pp. 88-96. (201 Ob). Management Effeotiveness Evaluation in Proteoted Areas: A Modern Litho, Jefferson, MC. Global Study. Seoond. University of Queensiand, iUCN- WCRA, TNC, WWR, St Luoia, Austraiia. Mansourian, S. (2005). ‘Reak Wiiderness Rark, Sri Lanka ’ , in Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and Proteoted Aras to Support Biodiversity Lindberg, K., MoCooi, S., and Stankey, G. (1997). ‘ Rethinking Conservation. Worid Wiidiife Rund, Giand, Switzeriand. Carrying Capaoity ’. Anna/s o f Tourism Researoh 24(2): 461 -465.

http://dx.d 0i.0rg/l 0.1016/SOI 60 -7888(97)80018 -7 Marion, J.R., Bartiein, R.J., Waish, M.K., Harrison, S.R, Brown,

Li, T.M. (2001). ‘ Masyarakat Adat, Differenoe, and the Limits of K.J., Edwards, M.E., Higuera, R.E., Rower, M.J., Anderson, R.S., Reoognition in indonesia ’s Rorest Zone ’ . Modern Asian Studies 85(8): Briies, C., Bruneiie, A., Caroaiiiet, C., Danieis, M., Hu, R.S., Lavoie,

645 -676. http://dx.d 0i.0rg/l 0.101 7/S0026749X01008067 M., Long, C., Minokiey, T, Riohard, R.J.H., Soott, A.C., Shafer, D.S., Tinner, W., Umbanhowar, Jr., G.E., and Whitiook, C. (2009). Looke, H. (2012). ‘T ransboundary Cooperation to Aohieve Wiiderness ‘Wiidfire Responses to Abrupt Ciimate Change in North Am erioa ’ . Rroteotion and Large Landsoape Conservation ’ . Park Soienoe 28(8): Prooeedings o f the National Aoadem y o f Soienoes 2519- 24-28. 2524(106): 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/pnas.0808212106 Looke, H. (2018). ‘ Nature Needs Naif: A Neoessary and Hopefui Marris, E. (2011). The Rambunotious Garden: Saving Nature in a New Agenda for Rroteoted Areas ’. Parks 19(2): 9-18. http://dx.doi. Post-Wild World. Bioomsbury, New York. org/10.2805/iUCN.CH.2018.RARKS -19-2.HL.en

Martin, G.J., Benavides, C.i.C., Garofa, C.A.D.C., Ronseoa, S.A., Looke, H. and Heuer, K. (2015). ‘Y eiiowstone to Yukon: Giobai Conservation innovations Through the Years ’ , in Proteoting the Wild: Mendoza, E.G., and Crtfz, M.A.G. (2011). ‘ indigenous and Community Parks and Wilderness, the Foundation for Conservation, pp. 120-180. Conserved Areas in Caxaoa, Mexioo ’ . Management o f Environmental isiand Rress, Washington, DC. http://dx.doi.org/10.5822/978 -1- Quality: An International Journal 22(2): 250-266. http://dx.doi. 61091 -551-9_ 14 org/10.1108/14777881111118419

Lookwood, M., Worboys, G., and Kothari, A. (eds.) (2006). Managing Martin, V. (ed.) (1982). Wilderness. Rindhorn Rress, Sootiand. Proteoted Areas: A Global Guide. Earthsoan, London. Martin, V. and ingiis, M. (eds.) (1984). Wilderness, the Way Ahead. Loring, R.A. and Geriaoh, S.C. (2009). ‘ Rood, Cuiture, and Human Rindhorn Rress, Sootiand. Heaith in Aiaska: An integrative Heaith Approaoh to Rood Seourity ’ . Environmental Soienoe and Poiioy 12: 466 —478. http://dx.doi. Martin, V.G. and Robies Gii, R. (2009). Wilderness. Vooes de ia Tierra, org/10.1016/j.envsoi.2008.10.006 Sierra Madre.

Ludwig, D., Hiiborn, R., and Waiters, C. (1998). ‘ Unoertainty, Martin, V. and Sarathy, R. (eds.) (2001). Wilderness and Humanity— Resouroe Expioitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History ’ . The Global Issue: Prooeedings o f the 6 * World Wilderness Qongress.

Soienoe 260: 17 -86. http://dx.doi. 0rg/IO .l 126/soienoe.260.5104.17 Ruiorum Rubiishing, Goiden, CC.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 85 References and further reading

Martin, V. and Sloan, S.S. (2012). Protecting Wild Nature on Native Merigiiano, L. and Krumpe, E. (1986). ‘ Solentlsts Identify, Evaluate

Lands: Case Studies by Native Peoples from around the World, vol. Indloators to Monitor Wlldernes Conditions ’ . Rark Soienoe 6 (8): 2. The Native Lands and Wilderness Counoll, Boulder, CO. 19-20.

Martin, V. and Watson, A. (2009). ‘International Wilderness ’ . In Millar, C.L, Stephenson, N.L., and Stephens, S.L. (2007). ‘ Climate Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources Change and Forests of the Future: Managing In the Faoe of and Values, pp. 50 -88. 4® edition. Fulorum Publishing, Golden, Unoertainty ’. Eoologloal Applioations 17(8): 2145-2151. http://dx. dol .org/10.1890/06 -1715.1 Colorado.

Meyer, S.S. (2000). ‘ Legislative Interpretation as a Guiding Tool Martin, V.G. (1990). ‘ International Wilderness: Adapting to Developing for Wilderness Management ’ . In Wilderness Soienoe in a Time o f Nations ’ . In Managing America ' s Enduring Wilderness Resource. Change. Conferenoe May 2 3 - 27, 2000; Missoula, MT. Volume 5: Conferenoe prooeedings; September 11 -17, 1989. pp. 252 -266. Wilderness Eoosystems, Threats, and Management. Rrooeedlngs University of Minnesota Extension Servloe, St. Paul. RMRS-R-15 -VCL-5. U. S. Department of Agrloulture, Forest Servloe, Mason, R.J. (2015). ‘Preservation and Preemption In Japan ’s Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Cgden, UT. ShlrakamI Sanohl World Flerltage Area ’ . Management o f Millennium Eoosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005). Eoosystems Environmental Quality: An International Journal 26(8): 448 -465. and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends. Findings of the http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.1108/MEQ -11 -2014-0159 Conditions and Trends Working Group. Millennium Eoosystem Assessment Series, vol. 1. Island Rress, London. Mazel, A. (2008). ‘ Presenting the San Flunter-Gatherer Past to the

Publlo: A View from the uKhahlamba -Drakensberg Park, South Afrloa ’ . Miller, C. (2014). ‘T he Contribution of Natural Fire Management to Conservation and Management o f Arohaeologioal Sites 10(1): 41 -51. Wilderness Fire Soienoe ’. Intemational JoumalofWildemess 20(2): 20-25. http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.1179/1 75855208X404880 Miller, K.A. (ed.) (2008). ‘A Commentary on the Criglns of the Mazel, A. (2018). ‘ Paint and Earth: Construoting Flunter-Gather Fllstory Category System ’ . In Defining Rroteoted Areas: An International In the uKhahlamba -Drakensberg, South Afrloa ’ . Time and Mind: The Conferenoe in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. 18-20. Journal of Arohaeology Consoiousness and Culture 6(1): 49 -58. Minimum Requirement Deolslon Guide (MRDG) (2014). Cniine http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.2752/1 75169718X18500468476565 Instruotions for Minimum Requirement Analysis. Arthur Carhart MoCool, S.F, Clark, R.N., and Stankey, G.H. (2007). An Assessment National Wilderness Training Center, available from . Tech. Rep Report PNW-GTR-705. USDA Forest Servloe Raolflo Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Brooks, T.M., Rllgrim, J.D., Northwest Researoh Station, Seattle, WA. da Fonseoa, G.A.B., and Kormos, C.F (2008). ‘W ilderness and Biodiversity Conservation ’. RNAS 100(18): 10809-10818. MoCool, S.F. and Cole, D.N. (eds.) (1998). Limits o f Aooeptable http://dx.d 0l.0rg/l 0.1078/pnas.1782458100 Change and Related Rianning Processes: Rrogress and Future Direotions: Prooeedings o f a Workshop May 20-22 1997, Missoula, Monblot, G. (2015). Feral: Rewilding the Land, the Sea, and Human MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. US Department of Agrloulture, Life. University of Chloago Rress, Chloago. Forest Servloe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Cgden, UT. Moore, S.A. and Hookings, M. (2018). ‘A ustralian Rroteoted Areas MoCool, S.F, Frelmund, W.A., and Breen, C. (2015). ‘ Benefiting and Adaptive Management: Contributions by Visitor Rianning from Complexity Thinking ’ . In Rroteoted Area Governanoe and Frameworks and Management Effeotiveness Assessments ’ . Management, pp. 291 -826. ANU Rress, Canberra, Australia. Australasian Journal o f Environmental Management 20(4): 270 -284. http://dx.dol. 0rg/IO .IO 8O/l 4486568.2018.888487 MoCool, S.F. and Lime, D.W. (2001). ‘Tourism Carrying Capaoity: Tempting Fantasy or Useful Reality? ’ Journal o f Sustainable Tourism Moore, S.A., Smith, A., and Newsome, D. (2008). ‘ Environmental 9(5): 872 -888. http://dx.dol.Org/10.1080/09669580108667409 Rerformanoe Reporting for Natural Area Tourism: Contributions by Visitor Impaot Management Frameworks and Their Indloators ’ . MoCool, S.F, Nkhata, B., Breen, C., and Frelmund, W. (2018). ‘A Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 11(4): 848-875. http://dx.dol. Heurlstio Framework for Refleoting on Rroteoted Areas and Their org/10.1080/09669580808667211 Stewardship In the 2 1- Century ’ . Journal o f Cutdoor Reoreation and Morton, J.F (2007). ‘The Impaot of Climate Change on Smallholder Tourism 1(1-2): 9-17. http://dx.dol.Org/10.1016/j.jort.2018.08.002 and Subslstenoe Agrloulture ’ . Prooeedings c fth e National Aoademy MoKelvey, K.S., Copeland, J.R, Sohwartz, M.K., LIttell, J.S., Aubry, o f Soienoes 104(50): 19680 -19685. http://dx.dol.org/10.1078/ K.B., Squires, J.R., Parks, S.A., Eisner, M.M., and Mauger, G.S. pnas.0701855104 (2011). ‘ Climate Change Predloted to Shift Wolverine Distributions, Nadasdy, R. (1999). ‘ The Rolltlos of TEK: Rower and the “ Integration ” Conneotlvlty, and Dispersal Corridors ’ . Eoologloal Applioations 21(8): of Knowledge ’. Arctic Anthropology 86(1 -2): 1 -18. 2882-2897. http://dx.dol.Org/10.1890/10 -2206.1 Nadasdy, R. (2008). Hunters and Bureaucrats: Rower, Knowledge, Meoh, L.D. and BoltanI, L. (eds.) (2010). Wolves: Behavior, Eooiogy, and Aboriginal -State Relations in the Southwest Yukon. University of and Conservation. University of Chloago Press, Chloago. British Columbia Rress, Vanoouver, BC.

Menzles, C.R. (ed.) (2006). Traditional Eoologloal Knowledge and Nadasdy, P, Goldman, M., and Turner, M. (eds.) (2011). Knowing Natural Resouroe Management. University of Nebraska Rress, Nature: Conversations at the Interseotion o f Rolitioal Eooiogy and Cmaha, Nebraska. Soienoe Studies. University of Chloago Press, Chloago.

86 Wilderness Protected Areas References and further reading

Nash, R. (1982). Wilderness and the American Mind. 3 - edition. Yaie Parks Canada (2010). Nahanni National Rark Reserve o f Canada Rark University Press, New Haven, CT. Naha Dehe Management Plan.

Nationai Parks Board of Singapore (2016). A Guide to Walking Trail at Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.R, and Unnasoh, P.S. (2008). ‘A re We the TreeTop Walk. Singapore. Conserving What We Say We Are? Measuring Eooiogioai integrity within Proteoted Areas ’. BioSoienoe 58(9): 851-860. http://dx.doi. Naturai Resouroes Law Center (2004). Special Use Previsions in org/10.1641/0006 -8568(2008)058[0851:AWCWWS]2.0.CC;2 Wilderness Legislation. University of Coiorado Sohooi of Law. Patterson, M.F., Watson, A.F., Wiiiiams, D.P., and Poggenbuok, Navarro, L. and Pereira, H. (2012). ‘ Rewiiding Abandoned J.R. (1998). ‘A n Hermeneutio Approaoh to Studying the Nature of Landsoapes in Europe ’. Ecosystems 15(6): 900 -912. http://dx.doi. Wiiderness Fxperienoes ’. Journal o f Leisure Research 80(4): 428-452. org/10.1007/si 0021 -012-9558-7 Pauiy, D. (1995). ‘Aneodotes and the Shifting Baseiine Syndrome of NAWPA Committee (2010). Joint Statement on Cooperative Action Fisheries ’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10(10): 480. “ http://dx.doi. for Conservation in the Big Bend/Rfo Bravo Region, avaiiabie from org/10.1016/SOI 69 -5847(00)891 71 -5 . Pearoe, F. (2015). The New Wiid: Why invasive Speoies Wiii Be Nature ’s Saivation. Beaoon Press, Boston. Neison, D.M. (2004). ‘ Anthropoiogists Disoovers Legendary Two -Faoed indiani: Margins, the State, and Dupiioity in Postwar Pease, J.L. (2015). ‘ Parks and Underserved Audienoes: An Guatemaia ’. In Anthropology in the Margins of the State, pp. 117 - Annotated Literature Review ’ . Journal of Interpretation Research 140. Sohooi of Amerioan Researoh Press, Santa Fe. 20(1): 11-56.

Newsome, D., Moore, S.A., and Dowiing, P.K. (2018). Natural Peioquin, C. and Berkes, F. (2009). ‘ Looai Knowiedge, Subsistenoe Area Tourism: Ecology Impacts and Management. Channei View Harvests, and Sooiai-Fooiogioai Compiexity in James Bay ’ . Human Pubiioations, Cievedon, Engiand. Eooiogy 87: 588 -545. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1007/s10745 -009-9255-0

Niokas, G. and Proesohoidt, K. (2005). ‘ Keeping the Wiid in Peres, C.A. (2000). ‘ Effeots of Subsistenoe Hunting on Vertebrate Wiiderness: Minimizing Nonoonforming Uses in the Nationai Community Struoture in Amazonian Forests ’ . Conservation Biology Wiiderness Preservation System ’ . International Journal of Wilderness 14(1): 240-258. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1046/j.1528 -1789.2000.98485.x 11(8): 18- 18. Peterson, R.B., Pusseii, D., West, P., and Brosius, J.R (2010). Nie, M. (2008). ‘The Use of Co -Management and Proteoted Land - ‘Seeing (and Doing) Conservation Through Cuiturai Lenses ’ . Use Designations to Proteot Tribai Cuiturai Resouroes and Reserved Environmental Management 45(1): 5-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ Treaty Rights on Federai Lands ’ . Nat. Resources J. 48: 585. S00267 -008-9185-1

Niisen, P. and Tayier, G. (1997). ‘A Comparative Anaiysis of Proteoted Pfaff, A., Pobaiina, J., Sandovai, C., and Herrera, D. (2015). Area Rianning and Management Frameworks ’ , in Proceedings - ‘Proteoted Area Types, Strategies and impaots in Brazii ’s Amazon: Limits of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Rubiio Proteoted Area Strategies Do Not Yieid a Consistent Ranking Rrogress and Future Directions. General Technical Report INT- of Proteoted Area Types by impaot ’ . Philosophical Transactions c fth e GTR-371. pp. 49-57. Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, USDA Royal Society o f Biological Sciences 870. http://dx.d 0i.0rg/l 0.1098/ Forest Servioe, Cgden, UT. rstb.2014.0278

Noss, P. (1992). ‘The Wiidiands Projeot Land Conservation Strategy ’ . Phiiiips, A. (ed.) (2008). ‘A Short History of the internationai System of Wild Earth 1: 10-25. Proteoted Areas Management Categories ’ , in Defining Protected Areas:

Crmsby, A.A. (2011). ‘T he impaots of Giobai and Nationai Poiioy An International Conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. 13-17. on the Management and Conservation of Saored Groves of india ’ . Pierotti, P. and Wiidoat, D. (1997). ‘ Fvoiution, Creation and Native Human Ecology 39[6y. 788 -798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745 - Traditions ’. Winds o f Change 12(2): 78 -77. 011-9441-8 Pooie, D. (2011). ‘ Mestizaje, Distinotion and Cuiturai Reoognition: Cutdoor Reoreation Resouroes Review Commission (CPPPC) (1962). The View from Caxaoa ’ . in Histories o f Race and Racism: The Wilderness and Recreation — a Report on Resources, Values and Andes and Mesoamerica from Colonial Times to the Present. Problems. U.S. Government Printing Cffioe, Washington, D.C. pp. 170 -280. Duke University Press, Durham, http://dx.doi. Cviedo, G. and Jenrenaud, S. (2007). ‘ Proteoting Saored Naturai org/10.1215/9780822894884 -008 Sites of indigenous and Traditionai Peopies ’ . in Protected Areas and Pope, K. and Martin, S. (2011). ‘V isitor Peroeptions of Teohnoiogy, Spirituality, pp. 77 -99. iUCN, Giand, Switzeriand. Risk and Resoue in Wiiderness ’ . International Journal o f Wilderness Papworth, S.K., Pist, J., Coad, L., and Miiner -Guiiand, E.J. 17(2): 19 -26. (2009). ‘Fvidenoe for Shifting Baseiine Syndrome in Conservation ’ . Pdsohi, U., Martin, S.T, Sinha, A., Chen, Q., Gunthe, S.S., Huffman, Conservation Letters 2(2): 98-100. http://dx.d 0i.0rg/l 0.1111/j.1755 - J.A., Bormann, S., Farmer, D.K., Gariand, P.M., Heias, G., Jimenez, 268X.2009.00049.X J.L., King, S.M., Manzi, A., Mikhaiiov, F., Pauiiquevis, T, Petters, Parker, K.A. (2008). ‘T ransiooations: Providing Cutoomes for Wiidiife, M.D., Prenni, A.J., Roidin, P., Rose, D., Sohneider, J., Su, H., Zorn, Resouroe Managers, Soientists, and the Human Community ’. S.P., Artaxo, P., and Andreae, M.C. (2010). ‘ Rainforest Aerosois as

Restoration Ecology 16(2): 204 -209. http://dx.d 0i.0rg/l 0.1111/ Biogenio Nuoiei of Ciouds and Preoipitation in the Amazon ’ . Science j.1526 -100X.2008.00888.X 829: 1518-1516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/soienoe.1191056

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 87 References and further reading

Reichel -Domatoff, G. (1976). ‘ Cosmology as Eooiogioai Analysis: Simpson, L. (2005). ‘ Traditional Eooiogioai Knowledge among A View from the Rain Forest ’. Man 11 (3): 307 -318. http://dx.doi. Aboriginal Reoples in Canada ’ . In Enoyolopedia ofPeiigion and org/10.2307/2800273 Nature. Thoemmes Continuum, London and New York.

Ripple, W.J. and Besohta, R. (2003). ‘W olf Reintroduotion, Rredation Singleton, R.A. and Straits, B.C. (2010). Approaches to Sooiai Risk, and Cottonwood Reoovery in Yellowstone National Rark ’ . Research. 5 - edition. Oxford University Rress, London. Forest Ecology and Management 184(1): 299-818. http://dx.doi. Sippola, A. (2002). ‘ Biodiversity in Finnish Wilderness Areas: Historioal org/10.1016/S0878 -1127(08)00154 -8 and Cultural Constraints to Rreserve Speoies and Habitats ’ . In Robles Gii, R. (2006). ‘ El Carmen: The First Wiiderness Designation in Wiiderness in the Ciroumpoiar North: Searching for Compatibility Latin Amerioa ’. International Journal o f Wilderness 12(2): 86 -40. in Eooiogioai, Traditionai, and Eootourism Vaiues. US Department of Agriouiture, Forest Servioe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Robles Gil, R, Martin, V.C., and Rojo, J. (2009). Resolution 33a: Anohorage, AK. Transboundary Parks and Wilderness Areas in Mexioo. 9® World Wilderness Congress, available from . after Wolves ’. BioSoienoe 58(4): 880-840. http://dx.doi. org/10.1641/0006 -8568(2008)058[0880:YAW]2.0.CO;2 Roggenbuok, J.W. and Watson, A.E. (1998). ‘ Defining Aooeptable Conditions in Wilderness ’. Environmental Management 17(2): 187 -197. Sobrevilla, 0. (2008). The Pole of indigenous Peopies in Biodiversity http://dx.d 0i.0rg/l 0.1007/BF02894689 Conservation: The Natural but Cften Forgotten Partners. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Sahgal (2016). Private Concept Paper and Personal Comment to Vanoe G. Martin [Sanotuary Asia]. Sooiety tor Eooiogioai Restoration (2004). The SEP internationai Primer on Eooiogioai Restoration. Version 2. International Soienoe and Salerno, E, Viviano, C., Manfredi, E.G., Caroli, R, Thakuri, S., and Tartari, Rolloy Working Group. C. (2018). ‘Multiple Carrying Capaoities from a Management -Oriented Rerspeotlve to Operationalize Sustainable Tourism in Rroteoted Areas ’ . Soule, M.E., Estes, J.A., Berger, J., and Del Rio, C.M. (2008). Journal of Environmental Management 128: 116 -125. http://dx.doi. ‘Eooiogioai Effeotiveness: Conservation Goals tor Interaotive Speoies ’ . Conservation Bioiogy 17(5): 1288 -1250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/ org/10.1016/|.jenvman.2018.04.048 j.1528-1789.2008.01599.x Salmon, E. (2000). ‘ Kinoentrio Eooiogy: indigenous Reroeptlons Soule, M. and Noss, R. (1998). ‘ Rewiiding and Biodiversity as of the Human -Mature Relationship ’ . Eooiogioai Applioations 10(5): Complementary Goals tor Continental Conservation ’ . Wiid Earth 22. 1827 -1882.

Stankey, G.H. (1984). ‘ Limits of Aooeptable Change: A New Savory, A. and Butterfield, J. (1999). Hoiistio Management: A New Framework tor Managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex ’ . Framework for Decision Making, isiand Rress, Washington, DC. Western Wildlands 10(8): 88 -87. Sohmiegeiow, F.K.A., Gumming, S.C., Harrison, S., Leroux, S., Stankey, G.H. and Clark, R.N. (1996). ‘ Frameworks tor Deoision Lisgo, K., Noss, R., Olsen, B. (2006). ‘ Conservation Beyond Crisis Making in Management ’ . In Prooeedings cfthe 1996 Worid Congress Management: A Conservation -Matrix Model ’ BEACCNs Discussion on Coastal and Marine Tourism. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Paper (1): 1 -7. Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Luoas, R.C., Retersen, M.E., and Frissell, S.S. Sohwartzman, S., Boas, A.V., Ono, K.Y., Fonseoa, M.G., Dobias, (1985). The Limits o f Aooeptable Change (LAC) System for Wiiderness J., Zimmerman, B., Junqueira, R, Jerozolimski, A., Salazar, M., Planning. United States Department of Agriouiture: Forest Servioe. Junqueira, R.R, and Torres, M. (2018). ‘T he Naturai and Sooiai http://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.109810 History of the Indigenous Lands and Rroteoted Areas Corridor of the Xingu River Basin ’ . Phiiosophioai Transactions cfthe Royal Sooiety B: Stem, 0., Margoluis, R., Salatsky, N., and Brown, M. (2005). Bioiogioai Soienoes 868(1619): 20120164 -20120164. http://dx.doi. ‘ Monitoring and Evaluation in Conservation: A Review of Trends org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0164 and Approaohes ’. Conservation Bioiogy 19: 195-809. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1528 -1 789.2005.00594.x Soott, J. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Rress, Stevenson, M.C. (2006). ‘T he Rossibility of Differenoe: Rethinking New Haven, CT. Co -Management ’ . Human Crganization 65: 167 -180. http://dx.doi. org/10.17780/humo.65.2.b2dm8thgb7wa4m58 Seoretariat of the Convention on Bioiogioai Diversity (2004). Akwe: Kon Voluntary Guideiines for the Conduct o f Cuiturai, Environmental Stevens, S. (2010). ‘ Implementing the UN Deolaration on the Rights and Sooiai impaot Assessment Regarding Developments Proposed of Indigenous Reoples and International Human Rights Law through to Take Plaoe Cn, o r Whioh Are Likely to impaot Cn, Saored Sites and the Reoognition of ICCAs ’. Poiioy Matters 17: 181 -194. on Lands and Waters Traditionaiiy Cooupied or Used by indigenous Stevens, S. (2014). indigenous Peopies, Nationai Parks, and and Looai Communities. OBD Guideline Series, available from Proteoted Areas. The University of Arizona Rress, Tuoson, AZ. . Stevens, S. and De Laoy, T. (eds.) (1997). Conservation through Shultis, J. and Heffner, S. (2016). ‘ Hegemonio and Emerging Conoepts Cuiturai Survivai: indigenous Peopies and Proteoted Areas. Island of Conservation: A Critioal Examination of Barriers to Inoorporating Rress, Washington, DC. Indigenous Rerspeotives in Rroteoted Area Conservation Roiioies and Rraotloe ’. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism 1: 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10. Stevens, S. and Rathak -Broome, N. (2014). Appropriate Reoognition 1080/09669582.2016.1158827 and Respect for Indigenous Peoples ' and Community Conserved

88 Wilderness Protected Areas References and further reading

Territories and Areas Which Overlap Protected Areas. Draft Timko, J. and Satterfieid, T. (2008). ‘ Criteria and indicators for manuscript for tine ICCA Consortium. Evaiuating Sociai Equity and Ecoiogicai integrity in Nationai Parks and Protected Areas ’. Natural Areas Journal 28(8): 807 -819. inttp://dx.doi. Stoii -Kieemann, S. (2010). ‘ Evaiuation of Management Effectiveness org/10.8875/0885 -8608(2008)28[807:CAiFES]2.0.CC;2 in Protected Areas: Metinodoiogies and Resuits ’ . Basic and Applied

Ecology 11: 377 -382. tnttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2010.06.004 Tsing, A. (2005). ‘ Tinis Eartin, Tinis isiand Borneo ’, in Friotion. pp. 155- 170. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Stoiton, S., Hookings, M., Dudiey, N., MacKinnon, K., and Winitten, T. (2007). Reporting Progress in Protected Areas A Site -Level Turner, J.M. (2002). ‘ From Woodcraft to “Leave No Trace ’ : Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. 2 ^ Edition. Worid Wiidiife Wiiderness, Consumerism and Environmentaiism in Twentietin- Fund, Giand, Switzeriand. Century America ’. Environmental History 7(8): 462 -484. Stumpff, L.M. (2013). ‘ Living Waters: Linking Cuiturai Knowiedge, tnttp://dx.doi.org/10.2807/8985918 Ecosystem Services, and Wiiderness ’ . International Journal of Turner, W.R., Nakamura, T, and Dinetti, M. (2004). ‘ Giobai Wilderness 19: 21-25. Urbanization and tine Separation of Humans from Nature ’ . Survivai internationai (2014). On the ‘wild ’, Human Imagination and BioSoienoe 54(6): 585 -590. tnttp://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006 - Tribal Peoples, avaiiabie oniine at . UNESCC (2005). The Precautionary Principle: A Report by the World Syiven, M., Martin, V, and Soinenok, 0. (2014). ‘A Vision for a Wiider Oommission on Ethics o f Scientific Knowledge and Teohnology. Europe ’ . International Journal of Wilderness 20(1). UNESCC Worid Heritage Committee (1998). Oonvention Oonoerning Tan, B.C., Cinong, A., Lao, C., Tan -Takako, M., Siniin-Tung, N., Tay, A., the Proteotion o f the World Oultural and Natural Heritage: Report of and Von Bing, Y. (2014). ‘Tine Urban Pteridopinyte Fiora of Singapore ’ . the Rapporteur. Journal of Tropical Biology and Oonservation 11:13-26. UNESCC Worid Heritage Committee (1998). Oonvention Oonoerning Tariock, A.D. (2003). ‘Sioucining Toward Eden: Tine Eco -Pragmatic the Proteotion o f the World Oultural and Natural Heritage: Report of Cinaiienges of Ecosystem Revivai’ . in Symposium, The Pragmatic the Rapporteur. Eoologist: Environmental Proteotion as Jurisdynamio Experience. 97. Minn. L. Rev. 1173. UNESCC Worid Heritage Committee (2000). ‘ uKtnainiamba/ Drakensberg ’ . Report on the 2 4 - Session o f the Oommittee, Oairns, Tasmania Parks and Wiidiife Service (2013). Evaluating Management Australia. Effectiveness: The Monitoring and Reporting System for Tasmania ‘s

National Parks and Reserves. Hobart, Tasmania: Department of UNESCC Worid Heritage Committee (2011). ‘N ahanni National Park Primary industries. Parks, Water and Environment. North West Territories, Oanada '. Report on the 2 6 - Session o f the

Tejpai, C. (2015). ‘ Searcining for Arcadia: Private Nature Reserves and Oommittee, Paris. tine Promise Tinat Tiney Hoid ’ . Sanctuary Asia [oniine] 35 (10). . UNESCC Worid Heritage Committee (2015b). ‘Maioti -Drakensberg Tine Dein Cino First Nations, Tine Government of Canada, and Tine Park (Lesottno / Souttn Africa) ’ . Report on the 3 9- Session o f the Government of tine Nortinwest Territories (2001 a). The Deh Oho First Oommittee, Bonn, Germany. Nations Framework Agreement.

UN Generai Assembiy (2007). ‘ United Nations Deciaration on tine Tine Dein Cino First Nations, Tine Government of Canada, and Tine Government of tine Nortinwest Territories (2001 b). The Deh Oho First Rigints of indigenous Peopies ’ . United Nations. Nations Interim Measures Agreement. United Nations (2018). World Population Ageing. Department o f

Tine Nature Conservancy (2014). The Nature Oonservanoy Australia Eoonomio and Sooial Affairs, Population Division, New York. Oonservation Review, avaiiabie from . Revision, Higtniigtnts. (ST/ESA/SER.A/852). Tineobaid, D.M. (2013). ‘A Generai Modei to Quantify Ecoiogicai United States Fisin and Wiidiife Service, Arctic Nationai Wiidiife integrity for Landscape Assessments and US Appiication ’ . Refuge (2015). Revised Oomprehensive Oonservation Plan. Finai Landscape Ecology 28\ 1859-1874. inttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s i 0980-018-9941-6 Environmentai impact Statement, Executive Summary.

Tinirgood, S., Mosser, A., Tinam, S., Hopcraft, G., Mwangomo, E., United States Forest Service (2006). Fact Sheet: El Toro Wilderness. Miengeya, T, Kiiewo, M., Fryxeii, J., Sinciair, A.R.E., and Borner, M. International Institute o f Tropical Forestry. (2004). ‘ Can Parks Protected Migratory Unguiates? Tine Case of tine Unnascin, P.S., Braun, D.P, Comer, P.J., and Eckert, G.E. (2008). The Serengeti Wiidebeest ’. Animal Oonservation 7: 118 -120. Eoologioal Integrity Assessment Framework: A Framework for Assessing Tinomas, L. and Middieton, J. (2008). Guidelines for Management the Eoobgioal Integrity o f Biobgioal and Eoobgioal Resources o f the Planning o f Protected Areas. iUCN, Giand, Switzeriand. National Park System. Report to tine Nationai Park Service.

Ma nagement guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 89 References and further reading

U.S. Department of the Interior (1993). Visitor Impact and Resource Rroteot Experienoes, Resouroes, and Sooietal Benefits ’ . Journal o f Proteotion: A Process for Addressing Visitor Carrying Capacity in the Forestry. National Park Service System. National Park Servioe, Denver. Watson, A.E., Cole, D.N., Turner, D.L., and Reynolds, RS. (2000). U.S. Department of the interior (1997). VERP: A Summary of the Wilderness Reoreation Use Estimation: A Handbook o f Methods Visitor Experienoe and Resouroe Rroteotion (VERR) Framework. and Systems. Gen. Teoh. Rep. RMRS-GTR-56. US Department National Rark Servioe, Denver. of Agriouiture, Forest Servioe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Ogden, UT. Vaarzon -Morel, R. and Edwards, G. (2012). ‘ Inoorporating Aboriginal Reople ’s Reroeptions of Introduoed Animals in Resouroe Watson, A.E. and Cordell, H.K. (2014). ‘T ake a Soientist to the Saunai Management: Insights from the Feral Camel Rrojeot: RESEARCH A Great Way to Keep Soienoe and Stewardship Working Together for RERORT’. Eoologioal Management & Restoration 13(1): 65 -71. Another 50 Years ’. International Journal o f Wilderness 20(2): 8-18.

http://dx.doi. 0rg/IO .l 111/j. 1442-8903.2011.00619.x Watson, A.E., Ratterson, M., Christensen, N., Ruttkammer, A., and Van Wieren, G. and Keiiert, S.R. (2013). The Origins of Aesthetio and Meyer, S. (2004). ‘ Legislative Intent, Soienoe and Speoial Rrovisions Spiritual Values in Children ’s Experienoe of Nature ’ . Journal for the in Wilderness: A Rrooess for Navigating Statutory Compromises ’ . Study o f Religion, Nature and Culture 7(3): 243-264. http://dx.doi. International Journal o f Wilderness 10(1): 22-26. org/10.1558/jsrno.v7i3.243 Watson, A., Glaspell, B., Christensen, N., Laohapeiie, R, Sahanatien, Versohuuren, B. (ed.) (2010). Saored Natural Sites: Conserving Nature V, and Gertsoh, F. (2007). ‘ Giving Voioe to Wildlands Visitors: and Culture. Earthsoan, London. Seleoting Indioators to Rroteot and Sustain Experienoes in the Eastern Arotio of Nunavut ’. Environmental Management 40: 880-888. Walsh, R.G. and Loomis, J.B. (1989). ‘The Non -Traditionai Rubiio http://dx.doi.Org/10.1007/s00267 -007 -9019-9 Valuation of Wilderness ’ , in Prooeedings o f the Wilderness Benchmark 1988. General Technical Report SE 61. Asheville, NO. Watson, A., Martin, S., Christensen, N., Fauth, G., and Williams, D. (2015o). ‘The Relationship between Reroeptions of Wilderness Wadzinski, L. (2007). ‘Wild Cemeteries? ’ in Science and Stewardship Charaoter and Attitudes toward Management Intervention to Adapt to Protect and Sustain Wilderness Values: Eighth World Wilderness Biophysioal Resouroes to a Changing Climate and Nature Restoration Congress Symposium; September 30-Cotober 6, 2005; Anchorage, at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Rarks ’ . Environmental AK. Rrooeedings RMRS-R-49. pp. 59-64. U.S. Department of Management 56 '. 658 -668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267 -015- Agriouiture, Forest Servioe, Rooky Mountain Researoh Station, Fort 0519-8 Coiiins, CO. Watson, A., Martin, V, and Lin, 0 .0 . (2009). ‘W ilderness: An Watson, A. (2018). ‘The Role of Wiiderness Rroteotion and Sooietal International Community Knooking on Asia ’s Door ’ . Journal o f Engagement as Indioators of Well-Being: An Examination of Change at the National Park 19(4): 1-9. Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness ’. Soo Indio Res 110: 597 -611.

http://dx.d 0i.0rg/l 0.1007/si 1205-011 -9947 -x Watson, A., Matt, R., Knotek, K., Williams, D.R., and Yung, L. (2011). ‘T raditional Wisdom: Rroteoting Relationships with Wilderness as a Watson, A. and Borrie, W. (2008). ‘ Applying Rubiio Rurpose Cultural Landsoape ’ . Eoology and Society 16(1): 86 . Marketing in the USA to Rroteot Relationships with Rubiio Land ’ . In Nature-Based Tourism, Environment and Land Management, pp. Watson, A., Rolan, M., Waters, T, Gunderson, K., Carver, S., and 25-88. CAB! Rublishing, Cambridge, Massaohusetts. http://dx.doi. Davis, B. (2008). Mapping Tradeoffs in Values at Risk at the Interface org/10.1079/9780851997822.0025 between Wilderness and Non -Wilderness Lands. Rrooeedings: III internationai Symposium on Fire Eoonomios, RIanning, and Rolioy: Watson, A. and Borrie, W. (2006). ‘ Monitoring the Relationship Common Rroblems and Approaohes, 29 April - 2 May, 2008. Gen. between the Rubiio and Rubiio Lands: Applioation to Wilderness Teoh. Rep. RSW -GTR-227. US Department of Agriouiture, Forest Stewardship in the U.S.’ In Monitoring Science and Teohnology Servioe, Raoifio Southwest Researoh Station, Carolina, Ruerto Rioo. Symposium: Unifying Knowledge for Sustainability in the Western Hemisphere Prooeedings PMPS-P-42CD. pp. 287 -298. U.S. Watson, A., Sohwaller, A., Dvorak, R.G., Christensen, N., and Borrie, Department of Agriouiture, Forest Servioe, Rooky Mountain Researoh W.T (2018b). ‘Wilderness Managers, Wilderness Soientists, and Station, Fort Collins, CO. Universities: A Rartnership to Rroteot Wilderness Experienoes in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness ’ . International Journal o f Watson, A., Alessa, L., and Glaspell, B. (2008). ‘T he Relationship Wilderness 19(1): 41—4 2. between Traditional Eoologioal Knowiedge, Evolving Cultures and Wiiderness Rroteotion in the Ciroumpolar North’ . Conservation Watson, A., Stumpff, L.M., and Meidinger, J. (2012). ‘Traditional Ecology 8(1): 1-18. Wisdom and Climate Change: Contribution of Wilderness Stories to Adaptation and Survival’. International Journal o f Wilderness 18(2): Watson, A., Carver, S., Matt, R., Gunderson, K., and Davis, B. (2018). 21-25. ‘RIaoe Mapping to Rroteot Cultural Landsoapes on Tribal Lands ’ , in Place-Based Conservation. Springer Netherlands, 211-222. Watson, J.E.M., Shananhan, D.F, DiMaroo, M., Allan, J., Lauranoe, http://dx.doi.Org/10.1007/978 -94-007 -5802-5_ 16 W.F, Sanderson, E.W., Maokey, B., and Venter, O. (2016). ‘ Catastrophio Deolines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Watson, A. and Cole, D.N. (1992). LAC Indioators: An Evaluation o f Environment Targets ’ . Current Biology 26(1-6). http://dx.doi. Progress and List o f Proposed Indioators. USDAFS, Reoreation, Cuiturai org/10.1016/j.oub.2016.08.049 Resouroes and Wilderness Management Staff, Washington, D.C. Watson, J.E.M., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B., and Hookings, M. (2014). Watson, A., Cordell, H.K., Manning, R., and Martin, S. (2015). ‘ The ‘The Rerformanoe and Rotential of Rroteoted Areas ’ . Nature 515: Evolution of Wiiderness Sooial Soienoe and Future Researoh to 67 -78. http://dx.doi. 0rg/IO .l 088/naturel 8947

90 Wilderness Protected Areas References and further reading

Watson, J.E.M., Iwamura, T, and Butt, N. (2013). ‘ Mapping Worboys, G.L., Lookwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., and Rulsford, Vulnerability and Conservation Adaptation Strategies in a Time of I. (eds.) (2015). Prctected Area Gcvernance and Management. ANU Climate Change ’. Nature Climate Change 3: 989-994. http://dx.doi. press, Canberra. org/10.1038/nolimate2007 World Wiidiife Fund (2015). Prctected Areas: Natural Scluticns Weaver, RL. (2011). ‘ El Toro Wilderness, Luqillo Experimental Forest, tc Climate Change; Living Amazcn Initiative Prcject, Pciicy Brief. Puerto Rioo ’ . In Science and Stewardship tc Prctect and Sustain Amazon Vision: Rroteoted Areas Natural Solutions to Climate Wilderness Values, ‘9® Worid Wilderness Congress symposium ’ , Change. held 2011 at Meridan, Yuoatan, Mexioo. Prooeedings RMRS -P-64. Wuerthner, G., Crist, E., and Butler, T. (eds.) (2014). Keeping the Wild: pp. 95-108. U.S. Department of Agriouiture, Forest Servioe, Rooky Against the Dcmesticaticn c f Earth. Island Press, London. Mountain Researoh Station, Fort Collins, CC. http://dx.doi.org/10.5822/978 -1-61091 -559-5 Weiok, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Crganizaticns. Sage Rublioations, Zinn, H.C. and Graefe, A.R. (2007). ‘ Emerging Adults and the Future Thousand Caks, CA. of Wild Nature ’. Internaticnal Jcurnal c f Wilderness 18(8): 16 -22. West, R. (2006). Ccnservaticn Is Cur Gcvernment New: The Pciitics cfE cclcgy in Papua New Guinea. New eoologies for the twenty -first oentury. Duke University Press, Durham, http://dx.doi. org/10.1215/9780822888067

West, R. and Brookington, D. (2006). ‘A n Anthropologioal Rerspeotive on Some Unexpeoted Consequenoes of Rroteoted Areas ’ .

Ccnservaticn Bicicgy 20(8): 609 -616. http://dx.doi. 0rg/IO .l 146/ annurev.anthro.85.081705.128808

West, R, Igoe, J., and Brookington, D. (2006). ‘ Parks and People: The Sooial Impaot of Rroteoted Areas’ . Annual Review c f Anthrcpclcgy 35\ 251-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev. anthro.85.081 705.128808

Whiting, A. (2004). ‘T he Relationship between Qikiktagrugmiut (Kotzebue Tribal Members), and the Western Arotio Rarklands, Alaska, United States ’ . Internaticnal Jcurnal c f Wilderness 10(2): 28-81.

Wild, R. and MoLeod, C. (eds.) (2008). Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines fcr Prctected Area Managers. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. http://dx.doi.Org/10.2805/iuon.oh.2008.pag.16.en

Wild Europe Initiative (2018). A Wcrking Deflniticn c f Eurcpean Wilderness and Wild Areas. Wild Europe Initiative, London.

Wilderness Aot (1964). Public Law 88-577 (16 USC 1181-1186). 88i^ Congress, 2 ^ Session.

Wilderness Watoh (2009). Wilderness Stewardship Ccncepts & Principles, available from .

Wilson, E.C. (2016). Elalf-Earth: Cur Planet ’s Fight fcr Life. W. W. Norton, New York.

Woodley, S. (2010). ‘Eoologioal integrity and Canada ’s Nationai Parks ’. Gecrge Wright Fcrum 27: 151-160.

Worboys, G., Franois, W., and Lookwood, M. (eds.) (2010). Ccnnectivity Ccnservaticn Management: A Glcbal Guide. Earthsoan, London.

Worboys, G.L., Ament, P., Day, J.C., Looke, H., MoCiure, M., Tabor, G., and Woodley, S. (eds.) (2015a). Ccnsultaticn Draft, Guidelines fcr Ccnnectivity Ccnservaticn: Part Cne, Deflniticn: Ccnnectivity Ccnservaticn Area. IUCN, Giand, Switzeriand.

Worboys, G.L., Ament, P., Day, J.C., MoClure, M., Rittook, J., Tabor, G., and Woodley, S. (eds.) (2015b). Ccnsultaticn Draft, Guidelines fcr Ccnnectivity Ccnservaticn: Part Twc, Ccnnectivity Ccnservaticn Area Types; Criteria fcr Establishment; and, Gcvernance. IUCN, Giand, Switzeriand.

Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas 91 Sarah A. Casson ([email protected]) is the Guidelines Manager and a Peter and Patricia Gruber Fellow in Global Justice at Yale Law School. Sarah received a Master of Environmental Science from Yale School of Forestry and Envimnmental Studies and holds a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from Grinnell College. Sarah's’ research focuses on the intersection of culture and nature, with a emphasis on climate change resiliency and adaptation.

Vance G. Martin ([email protected]) is Chair of the IUCN WCPA Wildemess Specialist Group and has been President of The WILD Foundation since 1983. Vance helped establish, and continues to promote, WILD's’ global conservation vision of Nature Needs Half, and is ongoing International Director of the World Wilderness Congress WILD's’ flagship programme that is now the world 's’ longest-running, public, international conservation project.

Alan Watson ([email protected]) is Scientist General at Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Forest Service. Alan is also the Executive Editor for Science of the International Journal of Wilderness and serves as the science coordinator for the World Wilderness Congress. Alan's’ research ranges from interpersonal conflict and use trends in wilderness to the role of wilderness in larger social and ecological systems.

Angie Stringer (angieleestringer·@gmail.com) is the Guidelines Facilitator and works as Manager World Heritage, for the Department of Envimnment and Heritage Protection, Queensland Australia. Angie holds a Bachelor of Applied Science in Envir·onmental Science and Management from Southern Cross University, Australia and a Master of Philosophy in Conservation Leadership from the University of Cambridge England.

Cyril F. Kormos ([email protected]·g) is Vice Pr·esident for Policy, WILD Foundation and Vice-Chair of World Heritage for the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. Cyril is also a Visiting Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley, an Advisor to Project Drawdown and a Fellow at Conservation International. Cyril serves as associate editor for the International Journal of Wilderness and as an editorial board member for IUCN WCPA's Parks journal.

92 I Wilderness Protected Areas

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 999 0000 Fax: +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org