Biodiversity Issues for Consideration in the Planning, Establishment and Management of Protected Area Sites and Networks Secretariat CBD Technical Series No

TS 15 cover less red.qxd 30/01/04 3:25 PM Page 1

idvriyise o osdrto ntepann,etbihetadmngmn fpoetdae ie n ewrsCBD Tec Biodiversity issues for consideration in the planning, establishment and management of protected area sites and networks Secretariat CBD Technical Series No. of the Convention on Also available Biological Diversity

Issue 1: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats and Species

Issue 1: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats and Species BIODIVERSITY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PLANNING, ESTABLISHMENT AND Issue 2: Review of The Efficiency and Efficacy of Existing Legal Instruments MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREA SITES Applicable to Invasive Alien Species AND NETWORKS Issue 3: Assessment, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Biodiversity

Issue 4: The Value of Forest Ecosystems

Issue 5: Impacts of Human-Caused Fires on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning, and Their Causes in Tropical, Temperate and Boreal Forest Biomes

Issue 6: Sustainable Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources

Issue 7: Review of the Status and Trends of, and Major Threats to, Forest Biological Diversity

Issue 8: Status and Trends of, and Threats to, Mountain Biodiversity, Marine, Coastal and Inland Water Ecosystems

Issue 9: Facilitating Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

Issue 10: Interlinkages between Biological Diversity and Climate Change

Issue 11: Status and Trends of Biodiversity of Inland Water Ecosystems

Issue 12: Solutions for Sustainable Mariculture

Issue 13: Technical Advice on the Establishment and Management of a National hnical Series No. 15 System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas

Issue 14: Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (IMCAM) approaches for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity

BIODIVERSITY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PLANNING, ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREA SITES AND NETWORKS

February 2004

Published by the Secretariat of the Convention Acknowledgements on Biological Diversity. The report of the meeting of the Ad Hoc ISBN: 92-807-2414-2 Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Protected Areas established by the Conference Copyright © 2004, Secretariat of the Convention of the Parties to the Convention on Biological on Biological Diversity Diversity and the 5th World Parks Congress The designations employed and the presentation provided background materials for a number of of material in this publication do not imply the papers published in this volume. Gratitude is expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part expressed to all experts who participated in the of the Secretariat of the Convention on AHTEG meeting held in Tjarno, Sweden in June Biological Diversity concerning the legal status 2003: Sarah George and Per Wramner, the co- of any country, territory, city or area or of its Chairs, and Salvatore Arico, Charles Barber, authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its Lars Berg, Andrew Bignell, Lars Björk, David frontiers or boundaries. Carbonnell, Stuart Chape, Sheldon Cohen, Guy Duke, Maria Fernanda Espinosa, Grazia Borrini- The views reported in this publication do not Feyerbend, Jean Jalbert, Peter Herekenrath, necessarily represent those of the Convention on Tarita Holm, John Holmes, Bengt Johnsson, Sam Biological Diversity. The Secretariat of the Johnston, Betrita Loibooki , Ullika Lundgren, Convention on Biological Diversity is not Mohammad Ebrahim Mahabadian, Yaroslav responsible for the texts not authored by its staff. Movchan, Ishwaran Natarajan, Japhet Ngubane, This publication may be reproduced for Per Nilsson, Sahir bin Othman, Sian Owen, educational or non-profit purposes without Chedly Rais, Juan Pablo Rodriguez, Marc special permission from the copyright holders, Roekaerts, Samba Sarr,. Mohammed Shaker, provided acknowledgement of the source is Michail Stishov, Luis Suarez, Jan Terstad, made. The Secretariat of the Convention would Christoph Thies, Paulo Tomas, Carleen Weebers, appreciate receiving a copy of any publications Stephen Woodley. that uses this document as a source. Gratitude is also expressed to all staff of the Citation Secretariat of the Convention who contributed to Secretariat of the Convention on Biological the editing of the documents. But for their hard Diversity (2004). Biodiversity issues for work, it would not have been possible to publish consideration in the planning, establishment this volume of the Technical Series in time for and management of protected area sites and the 7th meeting of the Conference of Parties to networks. Montreal, SCBD, 164 pages and i the Convention on Biological Diversity. to iv. (CBD Technical Series no. 15). Martina Hoft and Tina Mulongoy are thanked for For further information, please contact: their assistance in formatting the document and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological designing the cover. Diversity World Trade Centre The Secretariat is also grateful to K. 393 St. Jacques Street, suite 300 Nagulendran and Adib Rehman of the Ministry Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9 of Science, Technology and the Environment, Phone: 1 (514) 288 2220 Malaysia for their assistance in facilitating the Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588 printing of the document in Kuala Lumpur. E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.biodiv.org Photo credits and cover: Martina and Robert Hoft Text layout: Tina and Jo Mulongoy Printed in Malaysia

Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

FOREWORD

Establishment and management of protected In order to provide an input to the seventh areas together with conservation, sustainable use meeting of the Conference of Parties, the and restoration initiatives in the adjacent land Secretariat requested members of the Ad Hoc and seascape are central to Article 8 on “In-Situ Technical Expert Group on Protected Areas Conservation” of the Convention on Biological established by the Conference of the Parties at its Diversity (CBD). Protected areas are known to sixth meeting and other experts, including in provide a range of goods and ecological services particular members of the IUCN World while preserving natural and cultural heritage. Commission on Protected Areas to gather They are thus essential components in national practical information on key biodiversity issues and global biodiversity conservation strategies. relating to protected areas. A synthesis of these There are now more than 100,000 protected views was presented in a joint publication with area sites worldwide. However, according to the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, best available data, they do not adequately cover entitled “Protected Areas and Biodiversity – An all ecosystems, habitats and species important Overview of Key Issues “. for conservation. In particular, while 12% of the The original contributions are considered so Earth’s land surface is within protected areas, valuable in themselves that they deserve less than one per cent of the world’s marine publication. They highlight critical issues ecosystems are protected and other biomes, relating to the selection, planning and effective including major freshwater systems and management of protected areas for policy- grasslands, are poorly represented. makers, managers, and other actors in the Last year, participants in the Vth World protected area community. They benefited from Parks Congress held in Durban, South Africa the discussions and conclusions of the Vth emphasized that, although the 1982 target of World Parks Congress. 10% protected area coverage of each biome by I thank all those who have contributed to 2002 was met protected areas are currently not, this document. I express my deepest gratitude always sufficiently well planned or appropriately to the Swedish Scientific Council on Biological managed to maximize their contribution to Diversity, Shell International Limited and the sustainable development including stemming International Council on Mining and Metals for global biodiversity loss. Therefore, there is an their financial support. I wish to acknowledge urgent need to take action to improve the IUCN – The World Conservation Union, the coverage, representativeness and effectiveness of World Commission on Protected Areas and the protected areas nationally, regionally and UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre globally. for joining efforts to gather the information The 7th meeting of the Conference of the published in this volume of the CBD Technical Parties to be held in February 2004 in Kuala Series. I hope that this document will be of great Lumpur, Malaysia will consider protected areas help to various protected area stakeholders and as one of its main themes and will consider will contribute to information exchange so adopting a programme of work on protected important for the implementation of Article 8 of areas with clearly identified targets. This event the Convention on Biological Diversity. provides a unique opportunity to ensure that protected areas play an important role in achieving the globally agreed target of significantly reducing, by 2010, the rate of Hamdallah Zedan biodiversity loss and thus support the objectives Executive Secretary of the Strategic Plan of the Convention, the Plan Convention on Biological Diversity of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the Millennium Development Goals.

iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABS Access and Benefit Sharing ADB Asian Development Bank AfDB African Development Bank AHTEG Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group AOS Arabian Oryx Sanctuary CAPE Cape Action Plan for the Environment CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCAs Community Conserved Areas CITES Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species CMPAs Co-managed Protected Areas CONABIO Mexico’s National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity COP Conference of Parties DRC Democratic Republic of Congo EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ESHIA Environmental social Health Impact Assessment FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographical Information System IADB Inter-American Development Bank ICCN ’’Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature’’ ICMM International Council on Mining and Metals IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IMCAM Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management INBio National Institute of Biodiversity (Costa Rica) IPIECA International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation association IUCN The World Conservation Union MCPA Marine and Coastal Protected Areas NBSAPs National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations OGP Oil and Gas Producers Forum PAs Protected Areas R&D Research and Development Ramsar Convention Convention on Wetlands of International Importance RAPPAM Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation of Protected Areas Management SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice SCBD Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity TBPAs Transboundary Protected areas TEV Total Economic Value TILCEPA Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity, and Protected Areas UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNF United Nations Foundation UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization WB The World Bank WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas WDPA World Database on Protected Areas WHC World Heritage Convention WMO World Meteorological Organization WPC World Parks Congress WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WWF World Wide Fund for Nature Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Executive Summary provides short overviews of the 25 articles included in this volume. These overviews follow the sequence in which the articles appear in the document.

1. Article 8 of the Convention on exploit resources to sustain life and develop Biological Diversity (In-situ conservation) economically. The problems facing protected calls for the establishment of a system of areas are thus intimately related to protected areas or areas where special socio-economic factors affecting communities measures need to be taken to conserve in and around protected areas, including biological diversity. It contains also many poverty, land tenure and equity. Chapter 2 other provisions relevant to protected areas. suggests some ways for the various The important role of protected areas in stakeholders to work together most effectively implementing the objectives of the to achieve the conservation and development Convention has been repeatedly emphasized objectives of modern society. in decisions of the Conference of the Parties (COP). Protected areas thus form a vital 3. The value of protected areas is poorly element of the various programmes of work understood and greatly under-valued by agreed upon by Parties to guide the markets, politicians and the general public. implementation of the provisions of the Traditionally, the only market economic Convention. The 7th meeting of the COP, values of protected areas that have been being held in February 2004 in Kuala recognized are tourism revenues and income Lumpur, Malaysia, will consider for the first from extractive activities. The difficulty in time protected areas in a comprehensive quantifying many of the economic, social, manner and adopt a programme of work environmental and cultural values of with clearly defined targets. Consideration protected areas usually lead to their under- of protected areas at the 7th meeting of the valuation when land and resource use COP will benefit from a number of meetings decisions are made. The value of protected that took place since its 6th meeting, areas can in some ways be realized using the including in particular the meeting of the Ad concept of total economic value. Hoc Technical Expert Group on protected Quantification provides protected area areas, the IUCN 5th World Parks Congress, advocates with a potent set of tools to make and the ninth meeting of the Convention’s a better case for increasing support for Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical protected areas as a concrete economic asset and Technological Advice. within local and national economies. Chapter 3 emphasize that protected areas 2. Protected areas carry out numerous have significant values for humanity, functions that are beneficial to humans, and values that governments, citizens and non- even essential to human welfare. Recently, a governmental organizations (NGOs) should strong consensus has developed that invest in. protected areas need to make a solid contribution to poverty alleviation and 4. There are more than 100,000 protected sustainable development. The main area sites worldwide covering almost 12 challenge for using protected areas to per cent of the Earth’s land surface. alleviate poverty is how to find the right However, they do not adequately cover all balance between the desire to live important ecosystems, habitats and species. harmoniously with nature and the need to Less than one per cent of the world’s marine

1 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas ecosystems is protected and other biomes, the Convention. However, the current including major freshwater systems and degree of protection accorded to the marine grasslands are poorly represented in the environment is too low to be effective. existing protected area systems. Protected Chapter 7 examines approaches for areas are subjected to many threats and their designing networks of MCPAs, based on the effectiveness needs to be monitored. While work undertaken by the Convention's Ad there are many definitions of protected Hoc Technical Expert Group on MCPAs. areas, the 1994 IUCN Protected Area Design principles for networks are Management Categories represent the discussed, as are practical steps to be international consensus about management considered in the design process. Adaptive types in protected areas. management approaches are keys to the management of MCPAs and networks. 5. Recent studies have shown that there are large gaps in the existing systems of 8. The diverse inland water ecosystems protected areas in almost all regions. are probably the most threatened of all Selection of new sites should be made ecosystem types because of habitat strategically taking into account ecological degradation and unsustainable exploitation. and human considerations. Chapter 5 briefly They are characterised by a high proportion reviews the criteria and methods for site of migratory species, most of which must selection for the establishment of have connectivity between different habitats representative protected areas. They include (usually through river corridors) maintained ecological (e.g. species richness, in order to complete their life-cycles. Inland vulnerability, level of threats endemism, waters and the biodiversity they support are irreplaceability and evolutionary processes) very important for livelihoods and protected and socioeconomic factors. The “key areas can be beneficial to local stakeholders. biodiversity area” concept, an approach that Although some relatively large areas are combines various ecological considerations under protection, certain ecosystem and uses globally applicable criteria applied categories are under-represented as are some to species, is described in some details. regions. The major problem is that the effectiveness of inland water protected areas 6. The global gap analysis discussed in is almost always undermined through chapter 6 is considered to be an effective influences arising beyond their boundaries. conservation planning tool that combines The ecosystem approach to protected areas data on the global distribution of terrestrial for inland waters is probably more critical to vertebrates and protected areas to assess the their effectiveness than for any other effectiveness of the global protected area ecosystem. network in representing species, and to provide recommendations for the future 9. Regarding forest biodiversity, although expansion of this network. The results more than 10 % of the world’s forests are indicate that the global network is far from included in protected areas, not all forest being complete, with more than 1,300 types are well represented. A more species of mammals, amphibians and consistent forest classification and adequate threatened birds not represented in any part gap analyses could help to improve the of their ranges. These results also representativeness of protected areas. There demonstrate the inadequacy of percentage- is a need for developing practical based targets in global conservation methodologies to address the adequacy and planning. efficiency of protected forest areas.

7. Marine and coastal protected areas 10. Dry and sub-humid land ecosystems (MCPAs) provide an effective and flexible are often believed to contain relatively low tool for implementing the three objectives of levels of biological diversity, particularly if

2 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas measured by species richness. However, it is migrations. A significant number of especially in such ecosystems that people transboundary protected areas already exist depend the most on biodiversity (including although the level of co-operative ecosystem functions and ecosystem management and status varies widely. Many services) for their livelihoods. A case is more are required. A case study of made that livelihood considerations must be international co-operation leading to the included in the identification of priority signing of the Carpathian Convention areas for action such as biodiversity illustrates the importance of addressing hotspots. Further it is argued that protected trans-boundary needs within broader areas establishment and management have ecological networks. to take into consideration people concerns if they ought to be successful. Alternative 13. Chapter 13 reviews the relationship protective measures, including community- between conservation, conflict, peace and based natural resources management, should cooperation including the transboundary supplement conventional protected areas protected areas, based on experience approaches. accumulated within the framework of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the 11. While planning, establishing and World Cultural and Natural Heritage managing protected areas, there is a need to (UNESCO, 1972). Three case studies are have in mind corridors, connectivity and presented from Croatia, India and the ecological networks. Common elements of Democratic Republic of Congo, where the ecological network approaches include inter World Heritage Convention promoted on- alia a focus on conserving biodiversity at site conservation amid conflict and war. the ecosystem, landscape or regional scale; The critical need to better support the role of and an emphasis on maintaining or protected area personnel in biodiversity strengthening ecological coherence, conservation is particularly emphasized. primarily through providing for ecological interconnectivity The principles of 14. The conventional model of protected biodiversity conservation corridors – scale, areas needs a substantial paradigm shift connectivity and resilience - are the same towards more participatory forms of wherever planning takes place, but the management, for effective and sustainable appropriate approach will depend on the conservation, and social justice. There is a local context. Successful establishment and need to (i) increase the role of indigenous management of corridors and networks and local communities in the require that land/resource-use decision- conceptualisation and management of makers and stakeholders be brought into the government-notified protected areas, and (ii) process from an early stage and be provided recognize sites conserved by such opportunities for effective participation. communities (collectively called Community Conserved Areas). Tips for 12. Trans-boundary protected areas are successful participatory conservation are those, which straddle two or more countries. described based on various cases studies They present unique challenges for around the world. management, in particular, as a result of differences in legal systems, human, 15. Management of protected areas has technical and financial resources, often been based on models that exclude the infrastructure and policies between relevant local resident populations and perceive their countries. They also offer many benefits concerns as incompatible with conservation. including enabling larger areas to be The relatively new concept of protected and promoting the application of “governance” in the conservation field can the ecosystem approach in particular help design planning and management through maintaining corridors for species

3 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas systems compatible with resident or user than 1,000 protected area sites. Its main communities, whose presence can be thrust is to develop ecological, institutional, regarded as a conservation asset rather than social, political and financial sustainability. a liability. Chapter 15 describes what is In its first decade of operation GEF provided governance, its different types and qualities, approximately $1.1 billion for about 200 and its relationship to the IUCN biodiversity projects involving protected management categories. The four main areas. The third replenishment of GEF in identified protected area governance types 2002 received $3 billion commitments. include: government managed protected areas, co-managed protected areas, private 18. Important progress has been made in the managed protected areas, and community last few decades in expanding and conserved areas. The importance of the consolidating protected areas. However, concept of protected area "governance" has much still needs to be done to ensure their gained recognition for effective and efficient effectiveness in the long-term. Chapter 18 protected areas. Although it is not a panacea, reviews the main key activities that can protected areas governance can make the contribute to enabling the conservation difference between social harmony and effectiveness of protected areas. These conflicts, and between decent livelihoods activities include: information for decision and destitution for the relevant communities. making, capacity building, conducive governance and policy framework, and 16. Indigenous and local communities are financial support. owners and co-managers of considerable areas of land designated as protected areas. 19. Many protected areas are being They often suffer direct economic losses seriously degraded, and many are in danger when their access to biological resources is of losing the very values for which they cut off by establishment of a protected area. were originally established. Assessment of For this reason, particular attention should management effectiveness has so far been be paid to the policies and process involved undertaken in only a small percentage of the in the selection, designation and world’s protected areas. There is a growing management of protected areas that involve awareness that evaluating management lands and waters traditionally occupied effectiveness and applying the results is at or used by indigenous and local the core of good protected area communities. The WWF/IUCN Principles management. The major challenges are to and Guidelines on Indigenous and further enhance awareness of the benefits of Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas evaluation, the willingness to use such should be considered for guidance. Chapter systems and capacity building. A description 16 emphasizes in particular that with of “management effectiveness evaluation” reduced financial resources, protected area (what it is, and how it can be applied, in the institutions are becoming weaker. It is this light of recent experiences), and the argued that a variety of actors, including framework for assessing the management traditional communities, should be effectiveness of protected areas developed considered assets for improving by the World Commission on Protected management effectiveness. Areas of IUCN are briefly presented in Chapter 18. 17. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) considers protected areas linked to 20. Bearing in mind the role that protected their surroundings as the most important tool areas can play to meet the global to achieve biodiversity conservation and biodiversity target of significantly reducing ecological integrity. As such, they are an by 2010 the rate of biodiversity loss as a important target area for GEF support. The contribution to poverty alleviation and to the GEF protected area portfolio supports more benefit of all life on earth, the protected

4 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas area coverage indicator is a possible means footprint, and (iii) making a positive of assessing progress towards this target. contribution to biodiversity conservation. Detailed and geo-referenced data exist on a large portion of the world’s protected areas 23. Tourism has become a major economic and efforts are underway to complete this activity. The apparent conflict between picture. As decision makers and the general tourism activities and biodiversity public can relate to the concept of protected conservation is often solved when a area, the communication value of this protected area is not considered only as a indicator is high. However, efforts should be wilderness area set aside for conservation made to introduce a measure of the purposes, but as series of ecosystems representativeness and the effectiveness of composed of several interacting elements protected area sites and networks. and actors which have to live in harmony. Unsustainable tourism activities will likely 21. Mining and biodiversity conservation increase social degradation and may have a have traditionally been viewed as mutually highly complex impact on cultural values. exclusive activities. There is considerable Sustainable tourism, in turn, can generate scope for the industry to help alleviate jobs and revenues, thus providing an pressure on protected areas due to poverty as incentive for preserving natural areas. well as to contribute directly to biodiversity Therefore the challenge for the development conservation, while minimising of sustainable tourism activities in protected environmental impacts. However, the areas is to correctly assess the trade-offs that challenges in realising this potential are occur between tourism development, the formidable as a deep lack of trust protection of resource values for which characterises the relationship between the protected areas are established and the conservation community and the mining interest of local communities. industry. Chapter 21 highlights key issues related to biodiversity conservation and 24. In chapter 24 the perspectives of access mining interface and discusses recent to genetic resources and sharing of initiatives including the IUCN - benefits derived from the utilisation of these International Council on Mining and Metals resources (referred to as “Access and (ICMM) Dialogue on Mining and Benefit Sharing” (ABS)) and opportunities Biodiversity and one of its outcomes, the that the genetic resources of protected areas ICMM landmark 'no-go' pledge. It is argued promise are examined. A number of that advancing conservation and bioprospecting innovations have been development objectives will require close derived from protected areas and they cooperation between governments, multi- provide a background to the role of ABS in lateral organisations, industry, communities protected areas management, including the and NGOs. Partnership opportunities with need for nationally adapted guidelines, companies offer environmental NGOs policies and legislation. Concrete proposals considerable potential to achieve on the as to what protected areas managers need to ground conservation outcomes. consider when addressing the issues in their country contexts are discussed. 22. Chapter 22 describes Shell's approach to meeting the challenges between energy 25. The role of youth in the current and needs for socioeconomic development and future planning and management of maintaining the health and integrity of the protected areas has been particularly world's ecosystems. The approach focuses emphasized in recent years. Efforts to on the three key areas that Shell has been involve younger generations in protected working on: (i) playing a role in the public areas, and the challenges and barriers that policy debate around protected areas, (ii) hamper the opportunities for more effective working to minimize its operational engagement of younger generations in the

5 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas stewardship of protected areas are illustrated. Suggested recommendations include policy initiatives that facilitate working partnerships between protected areas and youth organisations; incentives to encourage younger generations into environmental careers; mechanisms for dialogue between private and public sector young professionals to encourage private sector engagement; policies to promote research and continuing support for environmental education and the use of protected areas as living class rooms.

6 Biodiversity issues for protected areas

CONTENTS

Foreword ...... iii List of acronyms and abbreviations...... iv Executive summary ...... 1 Contents...... 7 1. Protected areas in the Convention on Biological Diversity...... 9 Sarat Babu Gidda and Kalemani Jo Mulongoy 2. Protected areas, poverty, and sustainable development...... 14 Jeffrey A. McNeely 3. Can we quantify the value of protected areas? From tangibles to intangibles...... 23 Charles Victor Barber 4. Status and trends of, and threats to, protected areas ...... 31 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 5. Protected areas design and systems planning: key requirements for successful planning, site selection and establishment of protected areas...... 37 Güven Eken, Leon Bennun and Charlotte Boyd 6. Global gap analysis: towards building a comprehensive network of protected areas..... 45 Ana S. L. Rodrigues, Luis Suárez, Rebecca Livermore, Charlotte Boyd and Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca 7. Some considerations on marine and coastal protected areas network design...... 52 Marjo Vierros 8. Protected areas and inland aquatic ecosystems ...... 58 David Coates 9. Protected forest areas: their representativeness and efficacy for the conservation of biological diversity...... 63 Gijs van Tol and Sarat Babu Gidda 10. Protected areas in dry and sub-humid land ecosystems - The need to make the people connection: key issues and challenges …….…………………………………………... 70 Juliane Zeidler 11. Protected landscapes, corridors, connectivity and ecological networks ...... 73 Charlotte Boyd 12. Transboundary protected areas: issues for consideration ...... 82 Yaroslav Movchan 13. Conservation amid conflict: protected areas for peace and co-operation ...... 88 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Natarajan Ishwaran and Guy Debonnet 14. Protected areas and people: participatory conservation...... 94 Ashish Kothari 15. Governance of protected areas, participation and equity...... 100 Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend 16. Protected areas and indigenous and local communities...... 106 Henrietta Marrie 17. Protected areas and the Global Environment Facility ...... 111 GEF Secretariat 18. Enabling activities to ensure effectiveness of protected areas ...... 116 Manrique Rojas and Sheldon Cohen 19. Maintaining protected areas for now and future: evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas ...... 119 Marc Hockings 20. Protected area coverage – A biodiversity indicator...... 128 Robert Höft 21. Protected areas and mining – Scope for conservation and development...... 132 David Richards and Scott Houston 22. Meeting the challenges between energy needs and biodiversity: shell case study...... 138 Sachin Kapila, Richard Sykes and Steven de Bie 23. Tourism in protected areas: Reducing conflicts and enhancing synergies...... 143 Paola Deda 24. Access and benefit sharing perspectives in protected area management ...... 148 Sarah Laird, Sam Johnston, Rachel Wynberg, Estherine Lisinge and Dagmar Lohan 25. Securing the future of protected areas: a commitment to younger generations...... 155 Susan Matambo, Josh Brann and Lisbet Kugler

8 Biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREAS IN THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1 Sarat Babu Gidda and Kalemani Jo Mulongoy Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

The Convention on Biological Diversity increasing in the past decades, existing (CBD) with 188 Parties is the most systems of protected areas are not important international legal instrument representative of all categories of addressing protected areas, and supporting biodiversity important for its conservation and fostering national and multilateral and sustainable use as set in Annex 1 to the efforts in a comprehensive manner. The CBD. This is particularly true for marine Convention defines protected area as “a areas, of which less than 1% are protected, geographically defined area which is and with regard to hotspots, in line with the designated or regulated and managed to Plan of Implementation of the World achieve specific conservation objectives”. Summit on Sustainable Development. Article 8 of the Convention calls for the To facilitate the implementation of establishment of a system of protected areas article 8 and related provisions of the or areas where special measures need to be Convention, the fourth meeting of the COP taken to conserve biological diversity. decided to consider protected areas as one of Accordingly, national protected area the three main themes for its seventh systems have been developed and meeting (decision IV/16). The preparatory maintained as key elements of national process on protected areas leading up to the strategies to conserve biological diversity. seventh meeting of the Conference of Parties Articles of the Convention concerning is described in Box 3. In preparing for the protected areas are reproduced in Box 1. The theme on protected areas, the COP, in its Convention recognises protected areas as a decision VI/30 encouraged the active tool for in situ conservation that must be collaboration with the Vth World Parks seen in conjunction with other relevant Congress and established an Ad Hoc provisions of the Convention. Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on The Convention has developed guidance protected areas to review methods and on various cross cutting issues relevant to approaches for the planning and the establishment and maintenance of management of protected areas including protected areas. The important role of options for appropriate policies, strategies, protected areas in implementing the and practices consistent with the objectives objectives of the CBD has been repeatedly of the Convention. emphasized in decisions of the Conference The AHTEG which met from 10 to 14 of Parties (COP). Similarly protected areas June 2003 in Tjärno, Sweden, identified form a vital element of the various thematic ecosystem and bioregional approaches to programmes of work viz., marine and protected area management and sustainable coastal, inland water, dry and sub-humid use of biological diversity, and mechanisms lands, forest and mountain biological to enhance stakeholder involvement. It diversity. Various decisions of the identified options and priority actions Conference of Parties on protected areas required for effective establishment and from its first to the sixth meeting are management of protected areas as well as depicted in Box 2. Although at the global level the number and extent of protected areas have been Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Box 1: Articles of the Convention concerning protected areas

The term “protected area” is defined in Article 2 of the Convention as “a geographically defined area, which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives”. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (e) of Article 8 contain specific references to protected areas and provide that Parties should: (a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity; (b) Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity; (c) Regulate or manage biological resources important for the conservation of biological diversity whether within or outside protected areas, with a view to ensuring their conservation and sustainable use; and (e) Promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas.

In addition to the provisions on in-situ conservation, a number of additional articles are relevant to the establishment and management of protected areas. These include in particular: Provisions on sustainable use in Articles 6 and 10, given the fact that increasingly protected areas are places managed for multiple purposes; Provisions on ex-situ conservation (Article 9) and restoration / rehabilitation (Articles 8f and 14.2) to complement on site efforts to protect habitats and species; Provisions on tools important for protected area management and planning such as biodiversity monitoring (Article 7) and impact assessment (Article 14); Other provisions including 8(j) on traditional knowledge, Article 11 on incentive measures, Article 12 on research and training and article 13 on public education and awareness. The text of the Convention can be accessed at http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp

options for management of transboundary reduce the loss of biological diversity at the protected areas. Based on the review of international, national and sub-national approaches, tools and gaps, the AHTEG levels through the implementation of the elaborated elements for a programme of three main objectives of the Convention, and work on protected areas under the to contribute to poverty alleviation and Convention which were further discussed at sustainable development, thereby supporting the Vth World Parks Congress the objectives of the Strategic Plan of the Following the review at the World Parks Convention, the Plan of Implementation of Congress, the elements for a programme of the World Summit on Sustainable work on protected areas prepared by the Development and the Millennium Expert Group was considered by the ninth Development Goals. It is envisaged that the meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Convention’s work on protected areas Scientific, Technical and Technological should be undertaken in the context of Advice (SBSTTA) in November 2003, in ecosystem approach. The ecosystem Montreal, Canada. The Subsidiary Body approach provides a framework within provided its recommendation to the seventh which the relationship of protected areas to meeting of the COP (9-20 February 2004, the wider landscape and seascape can be Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) for consideration. understood, and goods and services The overall purpose of the proposed delivered by protected areas can be valued. programme of work is to significantly

10 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Box 2: Decisions of the Conference of the Parties on protected areas from its first to the sixth meeting

The Conference of the Parties specifically considered Article 8 at its second and third meetings, where it emphasized the importance of regional and international cooperation, stressed the importance of disseminating relevant experience and requested the Executive Secretary to provide suggestions on how the collection and sharing of relevant information and experience might be enhanced (decisions II/7 and III/9). The Conference of the Parties also instructed the financial mechanism to support Parties’ efforts to implement Article 8 as a matter of urgency and priority (decisions I/4 and II/6). Protected areas form a central element of the various thematic programmes work adopted at the fourth and subsequent meetings of the Conference of the Parties: Programme element 3 of the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity is dedicated to marine and coastal protected areas. The two aims of this programme element are to facilitate research and monitoring activities related to the value and the effects of marine and coastal protected areas or similarly restricted management areas on sustainable use of marine and coastal living resources; and to develop criteria for the establishment of, and for management aspects of, marine and coastal protected areas (IV/5, annex). The programme of work on the biological diversity of inland water ecosystems recommends the sharing of information and experience relevant to conservation and sustainable use of such ecosystems, specifically referring to use of protected areas and their management strategies for conservation and sustainable use of inland water ecosystems. The Conference of the Parties also specifically encouraged the implementation of the joint work plan with the Convention on Wetlands (IV/4, annex 1). The use and establishment of additional protected areas is identified as one of the necessary target actions for the implementation of the work programme on dry and sub-humid lands (V/23, annex1, part B, activity 7(a)). The programme of work on Article 8(j) on traditional knowledge includes a component on protected areas. The expanded programme of work on forest biodiversity, which was adopted in decision VI/22, contains a number of activities related to protected areas. The programme of work also calls for work on the role and effectiveness of protected areas. The value of taxonomic data in assisting protected areas site selection is recognized in the programme of work for the Global Taxonomic Initiative contained in decision VI/8. Protected areas are also mentioned in connection with identification, monitoring, indicators and assessments (decision VI/7) and the Addis Ababa principles and guidelines for sustainable use of biodiversity. In the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (annex to decision VI/9), the Conference of the Parties adopted targets 4 and 5, which specify respectively that by 2010 (i) at least 10 per cent of each of the world's ecological regions should be effectively conserved, implying increasing the representation of different ecological regions in protected areas, and increasing the effectiveness of protected areas; and (ii) protection of 50 per cent of the most important areas for plant diversity should be assured through effective conservation measures, including protected areas. All the decisions referred to in this box can be accessed at http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx

The proposed programme of work on mountain biodiversity and the development protected areas is cross cutting in nature and of guidelines for sustainable use and is developed bearing in mind the need to application of ecosystem approach) avoid unnecessary duplication with the initiatives of the Convention, and to promote existing thematic programmes of work and synergy and coordination with relevant other ongoing and new (such as work on

11 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas programmes of various international protected area network. The ultimate result organizations. of the implementation of the programme of The seventh meeting of the Conference work is the establishment and maintenance of the Parties provides the first opportunity of an effectively managed, ecologically since the Convention came into force to representative global system of protected directly address the Convention’s provisions area networks, where human activities are on protected areas in a comprehensive managed to maintain the structure and manner. Building on the recent functioning of the full range of ecosystems, developments, CBD enables Parties, other in order to provide benefits to both present Governments, and relevant organizations to and future generations and achieve a effectively implement provisions on in-situ significant reduction in the rate of biological conservation by canalising efforts and diversity loss. resources in support of an effective global

Box 3: Preparatory process on protected areas leading up to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties

“Protected areas” is one of the priority themes of the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The preparation process leading up to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties consisted of a number of steps with the meetings of the ad hoc technical expert groups on marine and coastal protected areas and on protected areas, and the Fifth IUCN World Parks Congress being the major sources of input. Specifically, the following are the main steps in the preparatory process leading up to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties: The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas mandated by decision IV/5 concluded its work in 2002. The results of this work were considered at the eighth meeting of SBSTTA in March 2003 and served as the basis for recommendation VIII/3 B on marine and coastal protected areas. These results provided an interesting and illustrative indication of what is feasible in the wider context of protected areas in general. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (September 2002) called, in paragraph 44 (g) of the Plan of Implementation, for supporting initiatives for hotspot areas and other areas essential for biodiversity and promoting the development of national and regional ecological networks and corridors. The Open-ended Inter-Sessional Meeting on the Multi-Year Programme of Work of the Conference of the Parties up to 2010, held from 17 to 20 March 2003 in Montreal requested that the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Protected Areas, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at its ninth meeting and the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting consider the outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development relating to hotspots, ecological networks and corridors and other areas essential for biodiversity in the context of the work on protected areas, taking into account other relevant thematic programmes and cross-cutting issues, in the context of national strategies and action plans, and focusing on biodiversity loss. In pursuance of paragraph 4 of decision VI/25, Governments submitted thematic reports on protected areas in May 2003. These thematic reports provide information about national-level protected areas in the context of the implementation of the Convention; A strategic roundtable on protected areas, ecological networks and corridors held in June 2003 in Hague, provided input to the AHTEG, and to the ninth meeting of SBSTTA on the topic of ecological networks and corridors; The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Protected Areas met from 10 to 14 June 2003 in Tjärno, Sweden. The objectives of the meeting included review methods and approaches for planning and management of protected areas; identification of ecosystem and bioregional approaches; identification of mechanisms for stakeholder involvement and options for management of transboundary protected

12 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

areas. The Group reviewed a number of issues relating, inter alia, to the planning, establishment, and management of protected areas; status and trends of, and threats to, protected areas; stakeholders involvement; and ecological networks. The Group also identified elements of a programme of work on protected areas for the Convention on Biological Diversity. The IUCN Fifth World Parks Congress (WPC) was held in Durban, South Africa, from 8 to 17 September 2003. The main outputs of the Congress are the Durban Accord, Durban Action Plan, the message to the Convention on Biological Diversity and a set of 32 recommendations approved by different workshops organized during the Congress. The Durban Accord calls for a fresh and innovative approach to protected areas and their role in broader conservation and development agenda, and for specific action inter alia on: expansion and strengthening of worldwide systems of protected areas; mainstreaming protected areas within overall development and poverty-alleviation agenda; interests and aspiration of all stakeholders. The Durban Action Plan provides a framework of the detailed actions needed to achieve the commitments called for in the Durban Accord. The message to the Convention on Biological Diversity calls on the Conference of the Parties to adopt a rigorous programme of work on protected areas including specific targets and time tables, and establish effective means to monitoring and assessing the implementation of the programme of work. The Executive Secretary convened a liaison group meeting on the World Parks Congress on 18 September 2003 in Durban, South Africa, to analyse the outcomes of the Congress with a view to identifying elements from the Congress that are not fully reflected in the outputs of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Protected Areas, and which should be drawn to the attention of SBSTTA for possible integration in its advice to the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting. In response to paragraph 19(d) of decision VI/22, the Executive Secretary convened in Montreal from 6 to 8 November 2003, just prior to the ninth meeting of SBSTTA, an international workshop on protected areas as a measure to conserve and sustainably use forest biological diversity. The workshop enabled participants to exchange current knowledge and experience on opportunities and challenges to establishing and ensuring long-term sustainability of protected forest areas. The workshop recommendations were submitted to SBSTTA for consideration. The ninth meeting of SBSTTA held from 10 to 14 November 2003 considered protected areas as one of the themes for in-depth consideration and adopted recommendation IX/4. A revised proposed programme of work on protected areas is annexed to that recommendation for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting.

13 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREAS, POVERTY, AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2 Jeffrey A. McNeely IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction established their own protected areas (sometimes called “sacred sites”) through Many areas of great natural wealth that are their own cultural mechanisms. Thus the protected as national parks, game reserves, relationship among protected areas, poverty strict nature reserves, or other types of alleviation, and sustainable development has protected areas, are found in the most many complexities, which this paper will remote parts of a country, farthest removed begin to identify. from the mainstream developments that may The CBD defines “protected area” as “a be bringing prosperity to other parts of the geographically defined area which is country. Not surprisingly, these remote, but designated or regulated and managed to nature-rich, areas also support some of the achieve specific conservation objectives” least economically-prosperous segments of (Article 2). The 5th World Parks Congress, the country’s human population, making the meeting in Durban, South Africa, in linkage between nature conservation and September 2003, recognised that protecting poverty alleviation especially challenging. such areas is no longer seen as a process of The challenge has gone unaddressed for far eliminating people from the land, but rather of too long, and indeed, the rural populations integrating conservation objectives and have sometimes been encouraged, or even human activities in an appropriate manner that forced, to abandon the areas designated to assures the future of both. The modern achieve conservation objectives. approach to protected areas makes them More recently, a very strong consensus essential parts of sustainable development has developed that protected areas need to (McNeely, 1999). make a solid contribution to poverty The CBD has marked a significant shift alleviation, going far beyond simply doing in the perception of protected areas by no harm. This paper will highlight some of governments. It has linked protected areas to the most relevant issues, pointing out that larger issues of public concern, such as many approaches to developing protected sustainable development, poverty alleviation, areas can also provide important economic traditional knowledge, access to genetic benefits to rural populations. It is also resources, national sovereignty, equitable important to recognize that poverty is not sharing of benefits and intellectual property simply a lack of money, that human well- rights. Protected area managers are now being (sometimes called “sustainable sharing a larger and more important political livelihoods”) also involves living in a stage with development agencies, agricultural healthy relationship with the environment, scientists, NGOs, anthropologists, and that areas important for their natural ethnobiologists, lawyers, economists, values can also lead to significant benefits pharmaceutical firms, farmers, foresters, for local people, in terms of watershed tourism agencies, the oil industry, indigenous protection, non-timber forest products, and peoples, and many others. These competing other such values. Many of the rural poor groups claim resources, powers, and well recognize the value of conserving privileges through a political decision-making certain features or landscapes, and have process in which biologists, local

14 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas communities, the private sector, and Some of these functions can also be conservationists have become inextricably provided by unprotected nature, agricultural embroiled (McNeely and Guruswamy, 1998). lands, or even degraded wastelands; but The challenge is to find ways for the various properly selected and managed protected stakeholders to work together most effectively areas typically will deliver more of these to achieve the conservation and development functions per unit area at lower cost than will objectives of modern society. This paper will most other kinds of land use in the suggest means for doing so, with a special biologically important areas that require emphasis on the rural poor. protective management (e.g., Tilman et al., 1997; Hooper and Vitousek, 1997). The way 2. Contributions of protected areas to these functions are transformed into benefits sustainable development for people, including the rural poor living around protected areas, will depend on the Protected areas carry out numerous functions management objectives of the protected area that are beneficial to humans, and even and how effectively these objectives are essential to human welfare. Ten important converted into action. ones are listed below: • Biodiversity. Conserve genetic resources 2.1 Material benefits from protected areas and biological diversity more generally, The people living in rural areas have long enabling evolution to continue and depended on the natural resources that are providing raw materials for available there. Experience and logic indicate biotechnology. that local communities are likely to support • Watershed protection. Protect watersheds protected areas to the extent that such areas for downstream hydroelectric, irrigation, continue to provide benefits to them, and water supply installations. especially in the form of continued • Storm protection. Protect coastlines availability of resources. Commodities such against damage from storms (especially as animal skins, bamboo, beeswax, coral reefs and mangroves), and absorb construction materials, dyes, fibres, firewood, heavy rainfall (especially wetlands and fish, fodder, fruits, game meat, honey, forests). medicinal plants, mushrooms, ornamentals, • Tourism. Provide destinations for nature- resins, and timber have been harvested more based tourism and recreation. or less sustainably for thousands of years. • Local amenity. Ameliorate local climate The local people have often developed conditions and provide amenity values to mechanisms for managing these resources nearby communities sustainably and allocating the benefits among • Forest products. Provide a wide range of the community (as recognized in Article 8(j) non-timber forest products, and limited of the CBD). amounts of timber. Properly managed tourism in protected • Soil. Build soils, control soil erosion, and areas can also bring considerable income, recycle nutrients. without threatening the natural resource base. In Kenya, tourism is one of the largest export • Carbon. Sequester carbon, thereby industries, earning over US$300 million per contributing to global efforts to address year; thousands of jobs exist because of anthropogenic climate change. visitors to Kenya's magnificent coast and • Research. Provide sites for scientific wildlife parks. Divers spend about $30 research on a wide range of ecological, million per year at the Bonaire Marine Park in social, and economic topics. • the Netherlands Antilles, $14 million in Cultural values. Conserve culturally protected areas in the British Virgin Islands, important sites and resources, and over $53 million per year in marine protected demonstrate the nation's interest in its areas in the Cayman Islands, and $23 million natural heritage.

15 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas in Virgin Islands National Park in St. John's reliable source of water. For example, 7600 (OAS/NPS, 1988). ha of cloud forest in the La Tigra National Governments throughout the world have Park in Honduras provide the capital city of been able to capture considerable economic Tegucigalpa with 40% of its drinking water at benefits from tourism, through visa fees, a cost of about 5% of its second largest airport taxes, entrance fees for protected source; Guatopo National Park in Venezuela areas, bed taxes payable by tourist resorts, provides 20,000 litres per second of high- taxes on tour operators, and so forth. quality water to Caracas, justifying an Tourists and tour operators can contribute at expenditure of over US$15 million to buy out least part of the costs of the provision of timber and farming interests in the area; and large-scale tourism infrastructure and the the value of the hydroelectricity produced by costs of maintaining protected areas. Some Venezuela's Canaima National Park (3 million countries are quite successful in generating ha) is equivalent to 144 million barrels of oil such revenues; the South Africa Parks per year, about US$2.5 billion at the current Board, for example, is able to earn about price (Garcia, 1984). 80% of its running costs through various kinds of revenue-generating activities, as is 2.3 A word of caution the protected area system of Ontario, Economic assessment of the full range of Canada (Moos, 2002). goods and services provided by protected areas is part of the global move toward a 2.2 Ecosystem services from protected areas market economy. This economic valuation is Far more important than income from tourism broadly endorsed by governments, but it can or harvesting of renewable resources are the have negative impacts on the way that ecological services protected areas can resources are managed. By transforming non- provide to local communities, the nation, and monetary values into monetary ones, land, the international community. Particularly labour, and nature become commodities important services at the community level rather than part of the cultural heritage that include soil regeneration, nutrient cycling, binds the members of the community to one pollination, recreation, provision of pure another (Alcorn, 1997). water, and maintenance of the functioning Further, assigning values to biological ecosystem which yields harvestable resources. resources and ecosystem services inevitably Such benefits are often difficult to quantify, makes value judgements about distributional and even local people may take them for and irreversible effects. While a complete granted. Ecological services do not normally discussion of the value of biodiversity should appear in corporate or national accounting extend well beyond utilitarian values and systems, but they far outweigh direct values market prices, even partial assessments of when they are computed; one recent review value can help to clarify the importance of estimated that coastal ecosystems provide biological resources to national development services worth over US$4,000 per ha per year, objectives and suggest ways of applying while tropical forests are valued at US$3,000, economic incentives and disincentives to wetlands at nearly US$15,000, and lakes and ensure that the benefits of protected areas are rivers at US$8,500 (Costanza et al., 1997). delivered to the community, and that the One of the most important ecosystem community in turn is enabled to protect the services, especially in view of the major resources upon which its continued prosperity investments in water resource management depends. being made in much of the world, is the stabilizing of hydrological functions. 3. Management approaches to deliver Experiences from various parts of the world greater benefits from protected areas to demonstrate that protected areas are a cost- sustainable development effective management option for maintaining healthy watersheds that produce a steady and

16 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Wild resources have been harvested sustainably by rural people for thousands of Principle 1: The major functions of years, often as an important part of the culture protected areas deliver different benefits at (such as the Hema grazing management different scales. systems in many part of the Middle East). But Protected areas are important at many levels, the increasing population, more sophisticated including local, national, and global. Drawing technology, and changing social, economic on the list of the functions of protected areas and political structures of today have removed presented in section 2, Box 1 presents a model most traditional controls on how resources are of the various scales at which benefits are managed. If sustainable benefits are to be delivered by these functions, ranging from provided to local communities (a primary local to global. The range of possible benefits objective of development), more effective at each scale indicates the importance of controls may be required to ensure that defining objectives for individual protected populations of plants and animals are areas; different management approaches will maintained at productive levels. The means provide different mixes of benefits at different of doing this will vary from place to place, but levels. management of protected areas for sustainable development should be based on four main principles:

Box 1: The scale at which benefits are delivered by protected area functions

Protected areas provide benefits to people at all levels. Using the ten key functions listed above, this Box provides a model of the scale of which benefits can be derived, from 0 (=no benefit) to 4 (=maximum benefit). More precise determinations can be made for individual protected areas, based on management objectives.

Key Functions Scale at which benefits are delivered Local National Global 1. Biodiversity 0-4 2-4 4 2. Watershed protection 4 2-4 1-3 3. Storm protection 4 2-4 1-3 4. Tourism 0-4 4 2 5. Local amenity 2-4 1-2 0-1 6. Forest products 0-4 1-2 1-2 7. Soil 0-4 1-2 1-2 8. Carbon 0-1 1-2 2-3 9. Research 0-3 2-4 2-3 10. Cultural values 0-4 2-4 1-2

The first step in protected area communities, NGOs, and the private sector. management is to determine objectives at Because different objectives involve trade- both the system and site levels; these offs in terms of the distribution of costs and objectives determine who gets what benefits, benefits, they need to be made explicit in and pays what costs at what scale. This is a management terms. Further, many of the political process that should involve public goods benefits of protected areas dialogue with the key stakeholders, provide significant advantages for the global including landowners, scientists, local community, including conservation of

17 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas biodiversity, sequestration of carbon, and the categories of stakeholder tend to have very results of ecosystem research. Capturing different major motivations, leading to appropriate rents at the national or local level different major roles that they can play in from these global benefits remains a challenge protected area management (Box 2). The way that is only partially being met by that the resources of a protected area are used intergovernmental processes such as the in any particular place and time is the result of CBD, Ramsar, and World Heritage. NGOs accommodation among conflicting interests that capture willingness to pay among between stakeholders having different consumers in wealthy countries or sectors of objectives. Seldom does any single group society and deliver the results to protected dominate absolutely, and resources can be arrears in need can play an important role in used in many different ways at the same place this regard. and time. Thus protected area management is part of an on-going process in which an Principle 2: Many stakeholders have appropriate balance is sought among the interests in protected areas and important different interests of the various stakeholders. roles to play in their management. A national protected area system plan can Local communities, the private commercial provide the basis for this process, but the sector, non-governmental organizations, and Durban Congress highlighted the need to research institutions, contain considerable provide significantly greater attention to the variability as well as important potential to rural poor living in and around protected contribute to various aspects of protected area areas. management. However, these different

Box 2: Major motivations and roles of key stakeholders

This chart presents a model of the motivations and roles of four major categories of stakeholders in protected areas in addition to government resource management agencies. These will vary considerably from place to place, but government resource management agencies should recognize the main motivations, harness the strengths of each stakeholder, and be aware of the limitations of each.

Stakeholder Major motivation Major roles Local communities Sustainable livelihoods Resource management; buffer-zone management Private commercial sector Economic profit Managing profitable operations; providing sponsorship Non-governmental Conserving public Public information; organizations goods technical advice; linkages among stakeholders; funding from public Research institutions Scientific curiosity Research and monitoring; technical advice

18 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Principle 3: The major problems facing elevation, structure, and importance from one protected areas need to be addressed by site to the next. An over-emphasis on institutions at the appropriate scale, with centralized protected area agencies can appropriate roles. undermine institutional mechanisms at Just as different benefits of protected areas are smaller scales, such as traditional approaches delivered differently at different scales, so too to conservation based on local knowledge must the different problems faced by about specific complex interactions and protected areas be addressed by the right concerns about natural capital that can be institutions operating at the appropriate scale. applied in daily life. This clearly is not an The first step in determining appropriate either-or situation, but instead calls for management responses is to clearly identify creating new systems of governance for the problem being addressed. In general, local protected areas, with different institutions people possessing secure tenure can deal with having different responsibilities at different most day-to-day threats better than scales. Simply stated, large-scale, centralized governments can, while governments can governance units do not, and cannot, have the resist major abuses better than local people variety of response capabilities -- and the can (providing they have the technical and incentives to use them -- that large numbers of institutional resources and political will to do local institutions can have (Ostrom, 1998). so). When the main threat to a protected area Involving multiple stakeholders in arises from cumulative overuse by too many protected area management has many people making too many demands on advantages. The key challenge is to specify ecosystems to meet their day-to-day appropriate functional roles, as suggested in subsistence needs, local regulation and social Box 3. How these roles are distributed will control may be required, along with depend on the management objectives of each investments in improved agricultural practices individual protected area and how these are or alternative livelihoods (Caldecott, 1997). implemented, but the Durban Congress When poaching of endangered species is a underlined the importance of directing a major problem, law enforcement will be a greater share of the benefits to the rural poor. critical element. However, many of the factors leading to the loss of biodiversity and Principle 4: Protected areas are best degradation of protected areas originate in conceived as parts of a national system of national government policies far from land use. protected area boundaries, such as national As called for under the Convention on development priorities that may subsidize Biological Diversity, each country needs to industrial agriculture in buffer zones, promote treat its protected areas as a system, with resettlement in remote areas, build roads or different parts of the system designed to dams in protected areas, and issue timber provide different kinds of benefits to different concessions in protected areas or buffer zones. groups of stakeholders, though of course with These require broader approaches such as considerable redundancy built into the system improved national policies on development, to ensure sustainability. Box 1 implied that trade, land tenure, and land-use planning. protected areas need to be conceived as a A protected area system needs diversity national system, with some sites designed to in institutional approaches. Government provide primarily national benefits, others conservation institutions in many countries designed primarily to meet needs of local claim an exclusive mandate to manage people for watershed protection, other sites to conservation areas and activities but lack the ensure sustainable use of non-timber forest necessary human, financial, and technical products, and others designed primarily to resource capacities to carry out that mandate conserve biological diversity. effectively. But protected areas support A national protected area systems plan biological processes that often operate at will ensure that all major ecosystems are well small scales that vary dramatically in climate, protected, the different components of the

19 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas system are managed to the appropriate roles for different stakeholders are identified, objectives, connections between protected and priorities for investment are specified. areas are promoted where possible, developments in adjacent lands (buffer zones) are supportive of the protected area system,

Box 3: Functional roles in the management of protected areas

While each protected area has different challenges, the general distribution of responsibility among government, the private sector, NGOs, research institutions, and local communities can be assessed for each of the functional roles for protected areas. The table below assesses the importance of the role for each of the five groups, scoring from 0 (no role) to 4 (lead role). These scores are indicative only, and will vary with the site and its objectives.

Functional role Govern- Private NGOs Research Local ment Sector institutes communities

Site planning 4 1 2 2 3 Establishing norms 4 1 1 1 2 Maintenance of roads 4 1 0 0 1 Maintenance of trails 4 1-2 2 1 2 Running of hotels, 0-4 0-4 0-2 0 0-4 lodges Running of campsites 0-4 0-4 0-2 0 0-4 Habitat management 4 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-4 Wildlife management 2-4 1 1-2 1-2 1-4 Public information 2-4 1 1-4 1-2 1 Public relations 2-4 2 1-4 0-2 0 Extension 1-4 1 1-4 2-3 1 Research 0-4 1 1-4 2-4 1 Education 2-4 1 1-4 2-4 1 Monitoring 0-4 1 1-4 2-4 1-2 Bio-prospecting 0-1 4 1 2-4 2 Issuing permits 4 0 0 0 2 Funding 2-4 1-3 1-3 1 1

4. Conclusions: providing benefits to and employment opportunities outside, rural communities enhanced land tenure and control of new immigration (especially where the buffer Far more needs to be done to build support zones around protected areas are targeted for from local communities for protected areas. special development assistance). The key is This will require a challenging combination of to find the balance among the competing incentives and disincentives, economic demands, and this will usually require a site- benefits and law enforcement, education and specific solution. awareness, employment in the protected area

20 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

A key factor is the stability of rural disincentives (such as public ostracism, fines, communities, implying that governments need and jail terms). to be particularly cautious when Protected areas are created by people, so contemplating major efforts at relocating they are expressions of culture and serve as people from one part of the countryside to models of the relationship between people and another. Those people who have developed the rest of nature. Thus the culture of each long-term relationships with particular country is reflected in its system of protected settings, and have developed knowledge on areas, so each will tend to have different how to manage the resources contained within characteristics. those ecosystems, are likely to have very The single over-riding issue for those different relationships with the land and its interested in using protected areas to alleviate resources than are new immigrants who have poverty is how to find the right balance no particular linkage to local resources and between the generalized desire to live often receive considerable subsidies from harmoniously with nature and the need to outside; the new arrivals frequently are exploit resources to sustain life and develop responsible for more destructive land-use economically. The problems facing protected practices than are the long-term residents, but areas are thus intimately related to of course new technologies and new markets socio-economic factors affecting communities can be expected to change behaviour of local in and around protected areas, including villagers irrespective of their traditional poverty, land tenure, and equity; they also conservation practices. involve national level concerns, such as land At a minimum, local communities should use, tourism, development, balance of be consulted on any decisions that affect payments, energy, and resource management; them. In many cases, giving the local people and global concerns such as biodiversity, preferential treatment in terms of employment climate change, and generation of new within the protected area (including seasonal knowledge about life. or project-based employment), providing The sustainable development programme economic incentives to establish tourism or for national protected area systems advocated other income-generating activities in the here needs to include both firm governmental buffer zone, and ensuring an appropriate flow action and alliances with the other of benefits from the protected areas to the stakeholders at all levels. National surrounding lands can help to build a positive governments cannot delegate their role as relationship between protected areas and local guarantors of the conservation of a country's communities. cultural and natural heritage, so the It is possible that some local appropriate authorities need to build the communities have a limit on their perceived capacity to fulfil their regulatory and needs, and once their basic needs are met, management duties and responsibilities. But then they will reduce their impact on civil society can share certain rights and protected area resources. But this rosy responsibilities regarding the management of assumption is far from a generality and most protected areas after careful preparations and communities contain at least some individuals an adequate definition of roles and who happily will try to exploit more from a responsibilities. Given the interests of NGOs, system than can be supported in a sustainable businesses, scientists, indigenous peoples, and way, even if the social costs far outweigh the local communities who live within or close to private benefits. This means that protected protected areas, alliances can be created area management needs to be based on a clear among stakeholders to enable each to play an understanding of rules and regulations, and appropriate role according to clear effective means of enforcing them through government policies and laws. Social and various kinds of incentives (such as economic incentives can be used to reward employment, clean water, various kinds of land-holders that contribute effectively to linked development, and so forth), and protected area management.

21 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

If governments and the general public IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area recognize the many economic, social, cultural, Management Categories. IUCN, ecological, developmental, and political Cambridge, UK. 259 pp. values of protected areas; if appropriate McNeely, J.A. 1993. Parks for Life. IUCN, institutions are established to manage Gland, Switzerland. protected areas in close collaboration with McNeely, J.A. 1999. Mobilizing Greater other stakeholders; if sustainable economic Support for Asia’s Biodiversity: How benefits are enabled to flow to protected areas Civil Society Can Contribute to Protected and their surrounding communities; and if Area Management. Asian Development information from both traditional knowledge Bank, Manila. and modern science can be mobilized to McNeely, J.A. and L. Guruswamy. 1998. enable protected areas to adapt to changing Conclusion: how to save the biodiversity conditions, then protected areas can be the of Planet Earth. Pp. 372-387 in engines for new forms of sustainable rural Guruswamy, Lakshman and J.A. development that ensure a better life for all. McNeely (eds.). Protection of Global Diversity: Converging Strategies. Duke References University Press, Durham, NC. Moos, R. 2002. Ontario Parks: A successful Alcorn, J. B. 1997. Indigenous peoples and business operating model. PARKS protected areas. Pp. 44-49 in Borrini- 12(1):17-25. Feyerabend, G. (ed.). Beyond Fences: OAS/NPS. 1988. Inventory of Caribbean Seeking Social Sustainability in Marine and Coastal Protected Areas. Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Organization of American States/US Switzerland. National Park Service, Washington D.C. Caldecott, J. 1997. Indonesia. Pp. 43-53 in Ostrom, E. 1998. Scales, policentricity, and Lutz, Ernst and Julian Caldecott (eds.) incentives: designing complexity to Decentralization and Biodiversity govern complexity. Pp. 145-163 in Conservation. The World Bank, Guruswamy, Lakshman and J.A. Washington D.C. McNeely (eds.). Protection of Global Costanza, R. and 12 others. 1997. The value Diversity: Converging Strategies. Duke of the world's ecosystem services and University Press, Durham, NC. natural capital. Nature 387:253-260. Shah, A. 1995. The Economics of Third Garcia, J.R. 1984. Waterfalls, hydropower, World National Parks: Issues of Tourism and water for industry: Contributions and Environmental Management. from Canaima National Park, Venezuela. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, UK. Pp. 588-591 in McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Tilman, D. et al. 1997. The influence of Miller (Eds.). National Parks, functional diversity and composition on Conservation and Development: The Role ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300- of Protected Areas In Sustaining Society. 1302. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Hooper, D.U. and P.M. Vitousek. 1997. The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1302-1305.

22 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

CAN WE QUANTIFY THE VALUE OF PROTECTED AREAS? FROM TANGIBLES TO INTANGIBLES 3 Charles Victor Barber E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction conventional economic analysis suggests it also has no value.”1 Protected areas cover some 11.5 percent of the earth’s land surface and have been 2. Why quantify the values of protected established in almost every nation on earth. areas? According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in Article 8(a), Parties should To increase political, financial and “establish a system of protected areas or community support for protected areas, it is areas where special measures need to be often asserted that conservation proponents taken to conserve biological diversity.” need to better quantify the values that Clearly, protected areas have significant protected areas provide to humanity in values for humanity, values that tangible economic terms. Quantifying the governments, citizens and non-governmental values of protected areas can: organizations (NGOs) are willing to invest • Demonstrate that protected areas are in. Nevertheless, protected areas in almost productive assets in the economy; every nation are under increasing pressure • Build support for existing protected from competing land and resource uses and areas from policymakers and the public; priorities. • Provide a stronger rationale for The value of Earth’s “natural capital” is expanding protected areas systems; poorly understood and greatly under-valued • Integrate protected areas in national by markets, politicians and the general economic planning and help coordinate public. Short-term political horizons their management with sectoral plans encourage the exploitation of biological and development agencies; resources to meet short term economic • Support requests for funding from goals. However, liquidation of these natural traditional sources such as governments, assets often goes unaccounted in national donor agencies and NGOs; and company balance sheets, thus artificially • Help identify innovative sources of reducing costs and inflating profits. The finance such as charges for water supply considerable economic value of ecosystem maintenance, carbon sequestration and services do not register in conventional other ecological services; and markets (value does not become price), and • Inform management practices and are therefore not considered to be “real” ensure that they serve the full range of economic assets by policymakers. This values provided by protected areas. systemic under-valuation of biodiversity

results in a common view that establishment 3. The difficulties of quantifying all of protected areas incurs huge opportunity values of protected areas costs, particularly for developing countries. “This has meant that protected areas have been undervalued when land and resource 1 Protected Area Development in the Lower Mekong decisions are made. When a protected area Region (undated). Economic valuation: Its use in protected area management. Accessible at generates no obvious commercial returns, www.mekong-protected- areas.org/mekong/lessons.htm.

23 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

are not easily or appropriately quantified. Not all protected area values, however, can And, importantly, economic quantification be quantified. Protected areas provide of protected area values should not be humanity with many non-material, spiritual allowed to be used, by itself, to determine values that are very difficult to translate into whether a particular area should remain market terms. The value of solitude and protected or should be granted new communion with nature that many people protection. visit protected areas for can, to some extent, Even in the many cases where the be quantified in terms of “willingness to market economic values of protected areas pay” – the amount, for example, that people can be credibly quantified, it is important to pay to travel to and utilize protected areas place such market values in their particular and their facilities. But it is very difficult to local context. Differences in available assign a “market value” to, for example, an wealth to particular communities, and indigenous sacred site, and even the attempt differences in overall wealth between to do so strikes many people as countries, mean that the use of simple inappropriate. “dollar values” can be extremely misleading. One could easily quantify the market Protected areas may be the only source of economic value, for example, of Notre employment in an area, or may provide a Dame Cathedral in Paris, in terms of the critical source of timber, or of animal building, its furnishings, the land that it protein in local diets. Converted to dollar stands on, and the economic activity it values on open markets such measurements generates as a religious facility and tourist may appear trivial in economic terms, but attraction. One could then make a judgment their loss could be devastating to large that its economic value is less than an numbers of people in a particular place. alternative use of that site, such as a high- Finally, aggregate economic values, by rise office tower or amusement park, but themselves, can disguise serious inequities such a proposal would strike most people as in the current or proposed future distribution absurd and even offensive. Replacing a of protected area costs and benefits. It is forest held sacred by an indigenous therefore always important to assess costs community with a pulpwood plantation or and benefits for whom? logging concession is equally offensive in the eyes of that indigenous community (and 4. The values of protected areas many other people), of course. But it happens all the time nonetheless. The Traditionally, the only formal (i.e. market) difference lies not in the market economic economic values of protected areas that have values of Notre Dame and the sacred grove been recognized have been tourism revenues versus alternative uses, but rather in the (where tourism exists) and income from imbalances of power in the “political extractive activities in those protected areas marketplace.” The “value” of indigenous where such extraction is permitted. . Since sacred groves will increase, and be better many economic, social and environmental defended, when indigenous communities values or benefits of protected areas have no and their supporters gain sufficient political formal market, price, or expressed cash leverage to put a stop to their conversion, value, they are omitted from conventional and arguments about the “economic value” concepts of economic value (IUCN 1998). of the grove will not be much help in that Protected areas provide a wide range of struggle. values and benefits to humanity. Broadly, In short, quantifying the values of these can be divided into direct use values protected areas is an important and useful and benefits; indirect use values and strategy for building support and obtaining benefits; option values; and non-material financing, but it must be carried out in a values and benefits. Taken together, these manner that recognizes the many values that constitute a protected area’s total economic

24 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas value. The challenge is to develop TEV analysis of benefits needs to be politically credible, relatively simple to complemented with evaluation of total understand ways in which to express the economic costs as well, to derive net many components of total economic value in economic value. Significant advances have formal market price terms. been made in understanding the total economic costs of protected areas, which are 4.1 Total economic value now understood to encompass more than The concept of Total Economic Value just direct management expenditures. Other (TEV) has been widely used to attempt to costs that need to be considered include: convert all values and benefits of natural costs to other activities; human disease and ecosystems into simple economic terms. injury; livestock and crop losses; alternative Instead of focusing only on direct land and resources uses foregone; losses of commercial values, TEV encompasses non- profits from alternative investments, etc. market values, ecological functions and non- (Hitchcock, 2000). use benefits (see Figure 1). Figure 1 shows the main categories of values and benefits which contribute to TEV.

Figure 1: The constituent elements of total economic value (TEV)

Total Economic Value

Use values (material values) Non-use values (Non-material values)

Direct use values: Indirect use values: Option values: Existence values: Bequest values: e.g. grazing, e.g. carbon Value assigned Aesthetic, spiritual, Future values harvesting, tourism, sequestration, water for future direct cultural (use and non- research replenishment or indirect uses use) as legacy to future

Source: Adapted from IUCN (1998)

4.2 Direct use values and benefits important to consider the total economic Protected areas provide a range of direct use input of tourists into regional and local values and benefits, and these are the easiest economies, including travel and to quantify: accommodation costs, and employment Recreation and tourism: Many generated in local communities. Protected protected areas have considerable direct areas are also of value to visitors economic value that arises from their use by themselves, and their “willingness to pay” tourists such as hikers, campers and scuba for the experience is a partial measure of the divers. While park entry fees are one value that they receive. This can also be obvious indicator of this value, it is also viewed in terms of employment of local

25 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas populations. Such economic values are a services from the entire biosphere at $33 critical element, but the attractions of trillion, noting that most of this value is protected areas for many visitors are often, outside the market (Costanza et al. 1997). in fact, their non-material values (Eagles et Some key ecological services that protected al., 2002). areas provide include the following: Sustainable use of renewable resources: Climate influences: Protected areas play Some categories of protected areas permit a critical role in mitigating the impacts of the sustainable harvesting of certain climate change, acting as carbon reservoirs renewable natural resources. Such activities or sinks. Many protected areas play a may include: grazing of livestock; fishing; critical role in maintaining micro-climatic or hunting; the collection of non-timber forest climatic stability, including rainfall patterns. products; agriculture; water extraction and Water services: In addition to climatic the collection of genetic resources for both influences, protected areas are widely used scientific and commercial purposes. Many as a form of watershed protection, of these values are of particular importance guaranteeing the supply of water to adjacent for local and indigenous communities living populations. Many wetland areas and other within or adjacent to protected areas, natural ecosystems have been observed to especially in developing countries. play a role in water purification. The Extraction of non-renewable resources: presence of natural vegetation, notably Certain extractive activities are non- forests and wetlands also reduces extremes sustainable, notably the extraction of of water flow and hence plays a role in flood petroleum products and minerals. In general control. this would appear to be contrary to the Physical processes: Certain habitats concept of “protection and maintenance” such as salt marshes, mangroves and coral associated with the definition of protected reefs are widely cited for their role in coastal areas. There may be cases, however, where protection. In terrestrial areas the presence the extraction process has limited impacts of protected areas, even relatively small and the material being extracted may be areas along waterways or in strips along non-essential to the objectives and hillsides, has an important role in reducing functioning of the protected area. In such soil erosion. situations some argue that economic benefits Wider ecological influences: Spill-over (direct payments) for the extraction process of animals from protected areas into may justify this activity. adjoining land and water can support Education and research: Protected adjacent extractive uses. This is particularly areas offer some of the best opportunities to the case in marine environments, where understand and explain natural ecosystem even relatively small marine protected areas processes. They also offer a natural baseline have been shown to increase the abundance against which to measure environmental of fish and other marine life in adjacent change. Scientific and academic institutions fishing grounds. Some protected areas also are therefore often willing to pay for the help sustain high levels of natural opportunity to conduct research within pollination, avoiding the costs associated protected areas. Such activities not only with commercially provided pollination produce tangible financial returns but can (SCBD, 2003). also greatly improve the knowledge base for effectively managing a protected area. 4.4 Option values Future direct and indirect uses, including all 4.3 Indirect use values and benefits of those listed above, are considered “option Protected areas also provide many indirect values”. By maintaining protected areas and values and benefits, largely in the form of their ecological functions, we preserve the “ecosystem services”. One 1997 study option of enjoying the benefits that they estimated the annual value of ecosystem produce into the future.

26 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Genetic resources: One of the most forests of India. In many indigenous widely cited option values is the role of cultures as well as in the holy scriptures of protected areas as in situ reservoirs of all the major world religions respect for genetic material in the form of wild crop nature is implicit or explicit and, as natural progenitors, raw material for development of areas are diminished and species are driven new medicines, and the like. Although towards extinction there is an increasing call impossible to calculate, it is likely that such from religious groups to protect nature a role, when the global system protected because of its spiritual dimension. areas is considered as a whole, could be Cultural heritage: Certain elements of critically important for the maintenance of the natural or semi-natural landscape are of future food resources or the development of considerable cultural value for historic or future treatments for illness (ten Kate and more recent reasons. Many indigenous Laird, 1999). peoples place special cultural significance Refugia and adaptation: With growing on particular sites and species (Posey et al., concerns about climate change – as well as 1999). the more immediate impacts of pollution Intrinsic: It is argued by some that spills and other environmental disasters – values exist independent of human the potential importance of protected areas perceptions and unrelated to the human as refugia for future restoration and recovery view. Elephants, for example, certainly of adjacent areas is being increasingly value the existence of sufficient habitat to realized (Bennett, 1999 and IPCC, 2002). In provide adequate conditions for their addition, well designed protected area livelihoods. Such values are, but their systems (especially those that cover nature however, un-measurable. altitudinal and other ecological gradients) Intergenerational: We cannot know for may allow certain species to persist by certain what value future generations of migrating to new areas as climate change humans will put on the existence of occurs and they are forced to adapt. protected areas and the benefits they provide. If one starts from the principle that 4.5 Non-material values and benefits of the needs and preferences of future protected areas generations are likely to be similar to our Many of the benefits and values of protected own – and deserve equal respect and areas cannot easily be expressed in concern – then it follows the value of economic terms. While, in some cases, protected areas to future generations is a real economic figures have been derived for value that protected areas provide, values such as beauty, cultural importance, independent of any current benefits that they or even spiritual roles, such values are confer. generally fairly coarse proxy measurements that rely on what are, in the end, subjective 5. Quantifying the Values of Protected assumptions. And as noted above, some Areas would argue that that placing monetary value on some non-material values is Numerous methods have been employed for inappropriate. Principal non-material values quantifying the benefits of protected areas. include: As a general matter, those that are most easy Aesthetic: For many people, the values to apply tend to focus on marketable of natural beauty and wilderness – and the benefits and require the least amount of data inspiration, excitement and adventure they collection, but are prone to undervaluation. provide – are among the most important More complex methods that include reasons for the existence and maintenance of valuation of non-marketable values tend to protected areas. require greater investment in data collection, Spiritual: Perhaps the oldest protected usually involve use of a number of areas of all are holy sites such as the sacred assumptions that may be more or less valid,

27 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas and may fall prey to the objections to costs, and/or productivity of other inputs. economic valuation of non-material benefits This in turn may affect the price and/or discussed above. quantity supplied of the final good. It may The method most appropriate for a also affect the economic returns to other particular protected area or protected area inputs. For example, water quality affects system will in depend on the audience for the productivity of irrigated agricultural the valuation exercise, the scope of values crops, or the costs of purifying municipal one wishes to quantify, availability of data, drinking water. Thus, the economic benefits and the level of technical capacity and of improved water quality can be measured financial resources to carry out the by the increased revenues from greater evaluation. Some common methods for agricultural productivity, or the decreased valuing the economic value of ecosystem costs of providing clean drinking water. goods and services are reviewed below. This is a relatively simple methodology, its data requirements are limited, and relevant 5.1 Market prices data is likely to be readily available. On the The market price method estimates the other hand, the method is limited to valuing economic value of ecosystem products or those resources that can be used as inputs in services that are bought and sold in production of marketed goods, and if commercial markets. The market price changes in the natural resource affect the method can be used to value changes in market price of the final good, the method either the quantity or quality of a good or becomes more complicated to apply. The service. It uses standard economic method is also prone to undervaluation, techniques for measuring the economic since not all services will be related to the benefits from marketed goods, based on the production of marketed goods. quantity people purchase at different prices, and the quantity supplied at different prices. 5.3 Replacement costs, damage costs This method is effective because it uses avoided, and mitigation costs equivalents standard, accepted economic techniques to Even where protected area goods and determine individuals’ actual willingness to services have no market, alternatives or pay for costs and benefits of goods that are substitutes may be traded on markets, and bought and sold in markets, such as fish, these “replacement costs” can serve as timber, or fuel wood. Also, price, quantity proxies for protected area values. A and cost data are relatively easy to obtain for protected area may, for example, provide the established markets. flow of water for hydroelectric power It is, however, an incomplete method generation. Erosion protection, storm since market data is only be available for a protection, and provision of fish-breeding limited number of goods and services habitat are other examples where this provided by a protected area, and may not method can be used. The value of that reflect the value of all productive uses of the ecological service can be inferred, using this protected area’s resources. Hence, exclusive method, from what it would cost to replace reliance on the market price method tends the power thus generated with oil-based toward undervaluation. electricity generation. A similar approach can be used to estimate “damage costs 5.2 Effects on production (productivity) avoided” by the maintenance of a protected The productivity method estimates the area’s ecological goods and services, and/or economic value of ecosystem products or the costs for mitigating the negative impacts services that contribute to the production of of losing those services. commercially marketed goods. . If a natural These methods can provide a rough resource is a factor of production, then indicator of economic use value for services changes in the quantity or quality of the which are difficult to value by other means. resource will result in changes in production And where causality is relatively clear

28 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

(“deforestation in the protected area caused compensation for their loss) under various a flood that killed 200 people”), the values hypothetical scenarios. A study in Kenya, at stake are clear to policymakers and the for example, asked visitors questions such as public – sometimes painfully so. Such “Would you be wiling to pay $100 (or more, methods assume, however, that or less) to contribute towards elephant environmental actions are taken on a cost- conservation” and “How much would the benefit basis, which is not always the case. cost of your safari have to be reduced by if The methods also do not consider social elephant populations decreased by half?” preferences for protected area goods and Contingent valuation techniques are one of services, or individuals’ behaviour in their the only methods that can be used to assess absence. option and existence values of protected areas. It is, however, by its nature, very 5.4 Travel costs hypothetical. Many protected areas are valued as recreational destinations, and people spend 6. Conclusions significant amounts of time and money to visit them. This spending – for transport, None of these methods, by themselves, can food, equipment, entrance fees, fully and credibly quantify the values of accommodation and the like – can be protected areas in tangible ways that will measured, providing a proxy for the value sway funding agencies and government that people place on the recreational aspects policymakers. Taken together, however, of protected areas. This is a “revealed they provide protected areas advocates with preference” method, since it uses actual a potent set of tools to make a better case for behaviour and choices to infer values. increasing support for protected areas as a The travel cost method’s advantages concrete economic asset within local and include its similarity to conventional national economies. Most importantly, they empirical economic techniques, its reliance enable the protected areas community to on actual behaviour, low cost, and speak the language of economics – the opportunities for large sample sizes. Also, language that largely dominates the political the results are relatively easy to explain, and and economic decisions that so often can be related to concrete economic inputs determines the fate of protected areas. into local economies arising from a protected area. It assumes, however, that References people travel for only a single purpose (or site), and involves conceptual difficulties in Bennett, A.F. 1999. Linkages in the valuing the opportunity costs of the time Landscape. The Role of Corridors and people invest in travelling to a protected Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. area. In addition, those who place a very Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: high value on a particular site may choose to IUCN. live nearby, meaning a travel cost analysis Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The value of the will greatly underestimate the value they world’s ecosystem service and natural ascribe to the protected area. capital. Nature 387: 253-260. Eagles, F.J., D. McClean and M.J. Stabler. 5.5 Contingent valuation 2000. Estimating the Tourism Volume Even where protected area goods and and Value in Parks and Protected Areas services have no market price and no close in Canada and the USA. The George substitutes, they nevertheless often are of Wright Forum. Vol. 17: No. 3. pp. 63- high value to people. Contingent valuation 82. techniques infer this value by asking them Hitchcock. P. 2000. The Economics of their willingness to pay for protected area Protected Areas and the Role of goods and services (or willingness to accept Ecotourism in their Management.

29 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

World Commission on Protected Areas, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Second Southeast Asia Regional Forum, Diversity (SCBD) 2003. Progress in the Pakse, Lao PDR, 6-11 December. implementation of the work on cross Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cutting issues. Document (IPCC). 2002. Climate Change and UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/3, Annex Biodiversity. IPCC Technical Paper V. I. Also accessible at IUCN 1998. Economic Values of protected http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.aspx Areas. Guidelines for Protected Area ?lg=0&mtg=sbstta-09 Managers. World Commission on ten Kate, K. and S.A. Laird. 1999. The Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Commercial Use of Biodiversity. Area Guidelines Series No.2. Access to Genetic Resources and Posey, D.A. 1999 (ed.) Cultural and Benefit-Sharing. London, UK: Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. Earthscan Publications. Ltd. Nairobi: UNEP.

30 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

STATUS AND TRENDS OF, AND THREATS TO, PROTECTED AREAS

4 (See SCBD, 2003 for a full paper on the topic and Mulongoy and Chape, 2004 for additional data)

1. Introduction is now in excess of 100,000 sites. The total area has also increased continuously from The concept of “protected areas” has been in less than 3 million km² in 1970 to more than existence since historical times. The more 12 million km² by the late 1990s. However, recent concept, with the formal ecoregional and habitat representation establishment of protected areas by remains uneven. Governments, began to emerge in the Protected areas cover about 12 per cent nineteenth century. Originally, these were of the Earth’s land surface. In terms of largely “wilderness areas” where there was extent, using the IUCN management no significant human impact, and where the categories, national parks, ‘managed place of humans was restricted to visitors. resource areas’ for biodiversity conservation A 1959 United Nations Economic and and sustainable use, and habitat/species Social Council resolution gave global management areas and protected landscapes recognition to protected-area systems and seascapes are the most preferred means including the first attempts to register their for conserving biodiversity. The expansion number, extent and location, through a of urbanization and other development request to compile the World List of pressures have made it increasingly difficult National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. to declare larger wilderness areas or to This was endorsed in a 1962 United Nations properly protect existing ones, – although General Assembly resolution that initiated some countries such as Brazil and the periodic “United Nations List”. The Madagascar announced the establishment of World Database on Protected Areas, major reserves at the 5th World Parks managed by the UNEP World Conservation Congress. Many reserve systems are often Monitoring Centre, is the most biased towards the economically less comprehensive dataset on protected areas valuable and often species-poorer habitats, world-wide underpinning the production of while leaving others inadequately protected. the United Nations List of Protected Areas. Although the economic benefits of natural The 2003 United Nations List of Protected protected areas remain unclear, a growing Areas was released at the Fifth World Parks knowledge base supports the conclusion that Congress in September 2003. The IUCN they greatly exceed those of conversion. Protected Area Management Categories (see Data for marine protected areas are Box 1) provide a common language and limited but suggest that, while the oceans enable the comparison and summary of comprise 70 per cent of the Earth's surface, management objectives for the world’s less than 1 per cent of the marine protected areas and the basis for inclusion in environment is adequately conserved. The the list, although classification systems have high seas, outside national jurisdiction, some shortcomings. which comprise an estimated 64 per cent of the world’s ocean, are an area of obvious 2. Coverage of protected areas neglect. A relatively larger proportion of inland aquatic habitats are within protected The number of global protected areas areas. has been rising for the past few decades and

31 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Box 1: IUCN Protected Area Management Categories (1994) Category Ia – Strict Nature Reserve: Protected area managed mainly for science. Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring. Category Ib – Wilderness Area: Protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection. Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition. Category II – National Park: Protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation. Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible. Category III – Natural Monument: Protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features. Area containing one or more specific natural or natural/cultural features which are of outstanding or unique value because of their inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance. Category IV – Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention. Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species. Category V – Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation. Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area. Category VI – Managed Resource Protected Area: Protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. Area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs. Source: IUCN, 1994.

However, it is difficult to estimate the are vulnerable to impacts from outside those percentage of inland waters that is areas (e.g., within-catchment influences). effectively protected, in particular as they Similar concerns exist for the long-term future for marine protected areas. The major

32 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

lake systems of the world and temperate submitted in May 2003 indicates that less grasslands remain under-represented in the than 25 per cent of forest protected areas are global protected areas system. Mountain considered to be well managed with a good areas were among the first to be accorded infrastructure, and a large proportion of protected-area status and represent a forest protected areas in responding relatively high proportion of sites. Many countries had no management at all. Only 1 mountains cut across national boundaries per cent of forest protected areas are and provide opportunities for international regarded as secure in the long term. Even cooperation in protected-area management. less is known about the threats to marine The scientific focus of conservation has protected areas but a recent survey moved towards landscape-scale and concluded that only 14 per cent were ecosystem approaches and interest in effectively managed. Lack of integrated transboundary protected areas has marine and coastal area management was consequently increased. also a problem in most countries and for At the global level about 12.4 per cent most marine and coastal protected areas. of the world’s forest is in protected areas as International recognition of protected classified by IUCN categories. There are, areas, including, inter alia, areas designated however, considerable differences between through the World Heritage Convention, the the regions, ranging from 5in Europe to 20.2 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and the per cent in North and Central America. Man and Biosphere Programme, carries a In the framework of the Convention on significant element of prestige which assists Biological Diversity, national biodiversity both with the designation of sites and strategies and action plans, national reports subsequent support for their management. and thematic reports on protected areas All the programmes of work of the provide information on the status of, and Convention directly or indirectly involve threats to, the biodiversity within them, the protected areas. legal and policy framework for action and the institutions responsible for it. They 4. IUCN Management Categories indicate that protected-area systems are well advanced in most countries and Article 8 of The overview of global statistics the Convention is identified as a high indicates that 67% of the world’s protected priority by most Parties. Human, areas have been assigned an IUCN institutional and financial resources management category, covering 81% of the limitations are the major constraints to the total area protected. Among the categorised full implementation of the protected-area sites, the largest numbers lie within networks as well as the management of Category IV (Habitat/Species Management individual protected sites. Area) and Category III (Natural Monument). Together they comprise almost 47% of all 3. Effectiveness of protected areas protected areas. In terms of total area, Category II and Category VI comprise 47% The majority of protected areas appear of all protected areas. This is not surprising, to be effective in conserving species, since national parks have traditionally been habitats and landscapes of value. However, established to protect larger areas at the a large number of protected areas are ecosystem and landscape level, and the 2003 inadequately supported or fail for a variety figures reflect the trend in previous United of reasons. Direct and indirect threats to Nations Lists, although in relative terms the protected areas are well described but only a extent of Category II is marginally less than small fraction of protected areas have been it was in 1997. However, the considerable subject to some kind of analysis of threat. A extent of Category VI is a relatively recent compilation of national thematic reports phenomenon. It was the most significant

33 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Table 1: The number and size of protected areas on the basis of IUCN management categories as well as those sites without categories (Source: 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas)

Percentage of total Percentage of IUCN Area covered Number of sites number of protected total area Category (km²) areas (%) protected (%) Ia 4,731 4.6 1,033,888 5.5

Ib 1,302 1.3 1,015,512 5.4

II 3,881 3.8 4,413,142 23.6

III 19,833 19.4 275,432 1.5

IV 27,641 27.1 3,022,515 16.1

V 6,555 6.4 1,056,008 5.6

VI 4,123 4.0 4,377,091 23.3

No category 34,036 33.4 3,569,820 19.0

Total 102,102 100 18,763,407 100

Figure 1: Cumulative growth in protected areas from 1872 to 2003

Area of sites Number of sites

18,000,000 100,000 16,000,000

80,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 ) 2 60,000 10,000,000

8,000,000 40,000 Area (km Numbersites of 6,000,000

4,000,000 20,000 2,000,000

0 0 1872 1887 1902 1917 1932 1947 1962 1977 1992 2003 Year

Figure 1: Growth of the global number and total area of protected areas from 1872 to 2003. Source: 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas.

34 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

innovation in the last revision of IUCN’s generally. These were defined by the 1992 management category system, and Global Biodiversity Strategy as: recognised the important role protected • The unsustainably high rate of human areas play in the sustainable livelihoods population growth and natural resource of local people. consumption; • The steadily narrowing spectrum of traded products from agriculture, 5. Threats to protected areas forestry and fisheries; • Direct threats to protected areas can be Economic systems and policies that fail classified into five main categories: to value the environment and its (i). Individual elements removed from resources; • the protected area without Inequity in the ownership, management alteration to the overall structure and flow of benefits from both the use (e.g. plant, animal or marine and conservation of biological species); resources; (ii). Overall impoverishment of the • Deficiencies in knowledge and its ecology of the protected area (e.g. application; and through encroachment, grazing, • Legal and institutional systems that air pollution damage, persistent promote unsustainable exploitation poaching and illegal logging); Other underlying causes of threats to (iii). Major conversion and degradation protected areas include climate change and (e.g. through removal of loss of cultural connections between people vegetative cover, construction of and the land. Beyond these external threats roads and settlements, or mining); to biodiversity generally, protected areas are and also specifically threatened by the lack of (iv). Isolation (e.g. through major resources and capacity in the agencies conversion of adjacent lands) responsible for their management. “Lack of (v). Invasive species. capacity” encompasses a variety of problems, including: Indirect threats to protected areas vary • Lack of financial resources; from place to place, but often include: • Lack of staff and staff training; • Inappropriate land allocation and land • Inadequate institutional capacity and use decisions; infrastructure; • Unclear legal status of lands and waters • Lack of information about the biology and resulting conflicts; of the area; • Weak and inconsistent enforcement of • Lack of political/legislative support laws and regulations; and/or unclear or contradictory • Policies that capacity for natural legislation; resource-based industries in excess of • Lack of local community involvement sustainable supplies of raw material and participation; (such as timber); • Lack of coordination among • Rural poverty and landlessness; and management agencies; • Revenue needs of central or local • A poor legal framework and lack of governments. adequate enforcement tools; • Absence of comprehensive land-use The underlying causes of the threats to plans or management plans; protected areas are difficult to separate from • Poor definition of protected areas the underlying causes of biodiversity loss boundaries;

35 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

• Lack of agreements about resource use Mulongoy, K.J., Chape, S.P. (Eds) 2004. adjacent to or within protected areas; Protected Areas and Biodiversity: An and overview of key issues. CBD Secretariat, • Rapid turnover of protected area staff Montreal, Canada and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. References Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2003. Status and trends of, Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox and M. and threats to, protected areas. Spalding 2003. 2003 United Nations Document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/ List of Protected Areas. UNEP World 5/Rev.1. Also accessible at Conservation Monitoring Centre and http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.aspx IUCN, Cambridge, UK, 44 pp ?lg=0&mtg=sbstta-09 IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. CNPPA with assistance of WCMC. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

36 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREAS DESIGN AND SYSTEMS PLANNING: KEY REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL PLANNING, SITE SELECTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF 5 PROTECTED AREAS

Güven Eken*, Leon Bennun* and Charlotte Boyd** BirdLife International; Conservation International E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction other corridors (See Chapter 11 on Protected Landscapes, Corridors, Connectivity and Current extinction rates are at least a Ecological Networks) thousand times higher than typical in Earth’s Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, history (Pimm et al., 1995) and in situ existing systems of protected areas were conservation is considered one of the most rarely designed to conserve biodiversity effective and cost-efficient means to halt this systematically and cover all species for rapid species decline (Balmford et al., which site conservation is needed. Recent 1996). As well as providing direct protection studies have shown that there are large gaps to species, site conservation can also reduce in the existing network of protected areas in the loss of natural habitats, the main cause almost all regions, particularly in the tropics of extinctions (IUCN, 2003). Moreover, site (Rodrigues et al., 2003 and see also Chapter based conservation allows direct 6 on Global Gap Analysis). Various participation of local communities in on-the- methods have been developed and are being ground actions and, very importantly, used to select new sites for conservation and maintains and supports many economic and strategically expand the site system. Two ecosystem services (Daily, 1997; Bennun, main groups of considerations are taken into 2002; Balmford et al., 2002; De Groot et al., account to select sites: ecological and human 2002). considerations (Balmford, 2002). The first We therefore need to develop a system group (ecological considerations) is widely of conservation sites based on key areas used to design a conceptual system of which provide the minimum foundation for protected areas, whereas the latter group the long-term persistence of biodiversity (human considerations including threats, (Rodrigues and Gaston, 2001). These sites human resources, conservation costs and must be managed to conserve the important benefits etc.) is usually incorporated into the biodiversity that they shelter, and identification of immediate priorities for on- demonstrate the continuing provision of the-ground action. biodiversity goods and services to people (Bennun and Eken, 2003). While most 2. Where to conserve? – An overview of priority conservation sites will need to meet site selection criteria and methods the strict definitions of protected areas set by IUCN (IUCN, 1994), some areas may not Various methods have been developed to require such strict protection — they might, locate key areas for conservation based on for example, be sustainably used and ecological considerations. For instance, a managed by local communities. Besides, site total of 16 criteria are being used under 13 conservation should form part of a wider, prioritisation schemes for freshwater sites. integrated conservation approach and Species endemism (restricted-range species), selected areas should be connected with species richness and threatened species are each other within managed landscapes or the most frequently used criteria – see Table

37 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

1 (Darwall and Vié, 2003). Most conservation outcomes. This section gives methodologies embrace combinations of an overview of the most frequently used such criteria and their scientific rationale methodologies. and/or tools may vary according to desired

Table 1: Site selection criteria and frequency of use in 13 freshwater site prioritisation schemes (Darwall and Vié, 2003).

Selection criterion Number of schemes

Species endemism 11 Species richness 9 Species threatened status 9 Rare, outstanding, representative habitat types 7 Rare species 5 Threatened habitats 4 Species biodisparity 3 Biome restricted species assemblages 3 Habitats important as refugia / migration routes / food sources 3 Species aggregations, particularly during migrations 2 Significant population numbers (often as breeding pairs) 2 Taxonomic distinctiveness 2 Beta diversity (species turnover along spatial gradients) 2 Keystone species 1 Representative species assemblages 1 Genetic value 1

Biologically rich areas It is therefore not always easy to measure Biodiversity is distributed heterogeneously biodiversity in ways that are useful for site across the earth. Some areas teem with conservation (Purvis and Hector, 2000). biological variation, others are extremely Furthermore, the species richness approach poor and most fall somewhere in between alone might exclude poorer areas that play a (Gaston, 2000). Conserving areas with high vital role for a limited number of threatened, biodiversity can, therefore, be considered as restricted-range, biome-restricted or an efficient and simple way for allocating congregatory species. resources. However, biodiversity comprises This approach may also be misleading a variety of different quantifiable aspects, and tend to over-emphasise areas that such as number of species, species evenness include ecotones and widely dispersed and or phenotypic diversity, and cannot be vagrant species. To overcome this weakness, expressed by measuring only a single aspect. the criterion may be applied to protect

38 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

‘contextual’ species richness; that is, species However, when integrated with other richness within a biogeographically criteria, threatened species can be extremely restricted community and not simply total useful in selecting conservation-efficient number of all species occurring in an area systems of sites. (Bennun and Eken, 2003). Using the species A new global site selection programme richness approach in combination with other using the threatened species criterion is the criteria can help to design more complete Alliance for Zero Extinction. This sets of priority areas (Balmford, 2002). programme, led by a group of biodiversity conservation organisations, aims to identify Areas of narrow endemism and protect the world’s most endangered Some areas contain many species found species with globally irreplaceable nowhere else. Conservation of such populations: species that qualify as irreplaceable areas is evidently essential if Critically Endangered or Endangered under global extinctions are to be avoided the IUCN criteria and occur at a single site (Balmford, 2002; Rodrigues et al., 2003). globally. These areas meet the two Regions rich in narrow endemism tend to fundamental criteria of site selection: have a strong correlation with vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules biogeographically isolated landscapes (for and Pressey, 2000). They comprise the most example, greater rates of endemism are vulnerable and highly irreplaceable areas on observed in closed basin lakes, high earth. By starting with the species that are mountains or remote islands). ICBP (1992) most endangered, the Alliance aims to create and Stattersfield et al. (1998) defined a frontline of defence against extinction that narrowly distributed (restricted-range) bird will hold until broader scale conservation species as those with an historical breeding efforts can restore sufficient habitat to range of 50,000 km2 or less. Although this enable populations to rebound threshold was selected arbitrarily, it is now (www.zeroextinction.org). widely applied and has proven its conservation effectiveness for birds. High priority natural communities BirdLife International’s Endemic Bird Areas The conservation of many species, both rare programme is a key global-scale application and common, depends on the survival of of the narrow endemism concept which natural communities. Thus, conservation of highlights regions where distributions of at natural communities is viewed as a coarse least two restricted-range bird species filter for the conservation of all species, overlap (ICBP, 1992; Stattersfield et al., particularly for those taxa that are poorly 1998). Studies on global distribution known (Grossman et al., 1998). This patterns of restricted-range amphibians, approach primarily requires the reptiles and mammals are currently being identification and mapping of natural carried out, while similar analyses have been communities. Each community should then undertaken in Europe for plants and a be represented by best available examples of number of groups of vertebrates (Williams natural habitats weighted primarily by their et al., 2000). intactness but also applying secondary criteria such as diversity, endemism or Occurrence of threatened species threatened species (Olson and Dinerstein, Occurrence of threatened species is widely 1998). Occurrence of threatened habitats is used to identify priority sites as pursued by also recognised as a criterion for selecting the CBD and other legal international sites of conservation concern (Anderson, instruments. An identification process 2002). entirely based on the presence/absence of Several methods have been proposed to threatened species might lead to large gaps classify the world’s ecological communities in overall representation (Balmford, 2002). and habitats and map their boundaries.

39 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

These include phytosociological methods as possible (for example, within a limited (Braun Blanquet, 1928), physical area) (Williams, 2001). This methodology classification methods (Walter, 1954), life may incorporate one or more of the zones classification methods (Holdridge, ecological criteria listed above as well as 1978), the ecoregion approach (Dinerstein et other criteria based on human al., 1995) and a number of physiognomy- considerations. For example, based classification methods (Mueller complementarity may be applied to ensure a Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974; Gregorio and desired level of representativeness by first Jansen, 2000). This wide range of habitat selecting irreplaceable areas with unique classification methods, however, highlights species records, and then selecting others a major drawback with their use in that complement the species composition of identifying site scale conservation targets. the irreplaceable areas until the total set of The reason why so many methods exist is areas represent all targeted species or until that the surface of the earth comprises a the targeted area is reached (Williams et al., continuous environmental space, not a set of 2000; Williams, 2001). A complementary discrete habitats. As a result, it is hardly richness analysis for Europe has been possible to derive a science-based, data- carried out based on distributions of plant driven method for identifying ecological and vertebrate species. The analysis showed community or habitat conservation targets at that 94% of the targeted 3,143 plants and the site scale within any given bioregion. vertebrate species could be represented within 5% of the entire study area (Williams Ecological and evolutionary processes et al., 2000). PC software is available to run Site systems can be designed not only to similar analyses. One weakness of the represent species and habitats, but also to complementarity approach is that it often maintain key ecological and evolutionary selects areas that are widely scattered and processes (Balmford, 2002). Balmford each patch of habitat chosen may be too (2002) lists several processes that should in small to retain viable populations. principle be addressed in systematic priority Furthermore, complementarity requires setting but concludes that we are a long way equal sampling effort for all candidate areas from being able to incorporate the vast and this often has high financial demands majority of these process-linked concerns and may be time-consuming (Balmford, into site prioritisation, due to lack of 2002). However, complementarity methods sufficient understanding of their functions. can be particularly useful when prioritising Nevertheless, some process-linked concerns conservation action among key areas. involving species, such as migration bottleneck-sites, corridors for dispersal and 3. Key biodiversity areas: Using globally key areas for congregatory species, have applicable criteria to identify sites for already been widely adopted as important conservation indicators for identification of priority sites (Fishpool and Evans, 2000; Bennun and The “key biodiversity area” concept is an Eken, 2003; Darwall and Vié, 2003). Other approach that combines various criteria concerns, such as ecotones, areas supporting mentioned above. Key biodiversity areas are high population densities or enclave places of international importance for the populations, also have potential to be conservation of biodiversity at the global, integrated into criteria for site identification. regional or sub-regional level. This approach aims to identify, document and protect Complementarity systems of such areas. Sites are selected by Complementarity-driven algorithms are setting objective and globally applicable based on the principle of representing as criteria and applying them to those species much biodiversity as possible as efficiently for which site-based conservation is

40 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

appropriate (Bennun and Eken, 2003). Key Areas (IBAs) worldwide (Fishpool and biodiversity areas are identified using four Evans, 2001; Heath and Evans, 2000). selection categories: (1) Threatened species; Where data are available, the IBA criteria (2) Restricted-range species, with small and systems can readily be extended to global distributions; (3) Biome-restricted cover other taxa. Criteria for identifying key assemblages (sets of species confined to a biodiversity areas are set internationally. To particular broad habitat type, or biome); and ensure consistency, their application also (4) Congregations of species that gather in needs international review. However, the large numbers at particular sites during some process itself must be led at a local or stage in their life cycle. national level to ensure use of the best These non-exclusive categories available data and ownership of the resulting correspond to the two main considerations priorities. used when planning systems of sites - vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules 4. Where to invest first? – Priority and Pressey, 2000). The first category – setting in site conservation threatened species – addresses vulnerability, while the others cover different facets of All key biodiversity areas are important and irreplaceability. Key biodiversity areas, as a need to be conserved and managed so that set, form a systematic network of sites the biodiversity they shelter is not lost. throughout each target species’ However, human and financial resources for biogeographical range. Ideally, each site conservation are extremely scarce, so it is should be big enough to support self- essential to identify those key biodiversity sustaining populations of as many as areas where we need to invest in possible of the species for which it was conservation first. Although all key identified or, in the case of migrants, biodiversity areas are chosen according to provide their requirements for the duration their vulnerability and/or irreplaceability, of their presence (Bennun and Njoroge, some sites may be highly irreplaceable as 1999). well as vulnerable and therefore play a Species richness per se is not a criterion critical role in preventing species for identifying key biodiversity areas. extinctions. If the main conservation goal is Rather, contextual species richness is used – to avoid extinctions, the AZE (Alliance for prioritising areas within a particular biome Zero Extinction) approach enables the or area of endemism which are particularly identification of immediate global priorities. rich in biome-restricted or range-restricted The Alliance for Zero Extinction aims to species. Given the problems associated with select and conserve priority sites that contain setting targets for the extent and location of species currently evaluated as either site scale conservation within bioregions, Critically Endangered or Endangered by habitat classifications in themselves are not IUCN's Red Data list, and have a global used. Key biodiversity areas are also not population limited to a single functional identified by formal complementarity population in a discrete area analysis. They seek to identify the entire set (www.zeroextinction.org). AZE sites form a of significant sites, and therefore do not subset of key biodiversity areas - those that have any explicit aim of area-efficiency. need the most urgent conservation attention Nevertheless, complementarity methods if species extinctions are to be avoided. could usefully be applied to prioritisation of The key biodiversity area criteria use conservation action among key biodiversity ecological considerations to design a areas (Brooks et al., 2002). conceptual system of protected areas. Criteria for identifying sites based on However, the process of identifying these categories are already in place for priorities for immediate on-the-ground birds and used to identify the Important Bird

41 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Box 1: Key biodiversity area criteria

Each of the four main categories contains one or more criteria with an associated list of eligible species. These categories can, by relaxing the thresholds, be used to designate sites in a hierarchy spanning global, regional and sub-regional levels. Descriptions of and main application principles of the global criteria are presented below:

Globally threatened species (Criterion A1): The site regularly holds significant numbers of a globally threatened species, or other species of global conservation concern. A site qualifies under this category if it is known, estimated or thought to hold a population of a species classified as Critical or Endangered. Population-size thresholds may be set for those species classified as Vulnerable, Data Deficient or Near Threatened, as appropriate. The words 'regular' and 'significant' in the criterion definition are to ensure that instances of vagrancy, marginal occurrence, and ancient historical records are excluded. Sites may be included, however, where the species' occurrence is seasonal – or where suitable conditions for it prevail only episodically, for example, temporary wetlands.

Restricted-range species (Criterion A2): The site is known or thought to hold a significant component of one or more species with a restricted range. The species covered by this category may be considered as local endemics – endemic species with limited distribution. Such high specialisation in distribution pattern generally affects also the conservation status of species and these species often fall into the first category (Criterion A1) as well (Stattersfield et al., 1998). ICBP (1992) and Stattersfield et al., (1998) defined bird species with a restricted range as those with an historical breeding range of 50,000 km2 or less. We propose that final thresholds for other taxonomic groups are set on the basis of further desk studies as well as discussions between wider groups of experts. For all restricted-range species, irrespective of taxonomic group and range threshold, it is necessary that a system of sites is chosen to protect them such that all species are represented. This can be achieved by undertaking complementarity analysis where the distributions of a number of restricted-range species overlap. The “significant component” term in the criterion is not narrowly defined as it is intended to avoid selecting sites solely on the presence of a few restricted range species which are common and adaptable within their range and, therefore, occur at other chosen sites. However, the criterion has to allow site selection on the basis of the presence of one or a few species which would otherwise be under-represented, for example because of their narrow habitat requirements.

Biome-restricted assemblages (Criterion A3): The site is known or thought to hold a significant component of the group of species whose distributions are largely or wholly confined to one biome. This category applies to assemblages of species whose ranges are mostly or wholly confined within all or part of a particular biome. A biome may be defined as a major regional ecological community characterised by distinctive life forms and principal plant species. More than one habitat type and species community may occur within one biome. Therefore, the set of sites chosen to protect the species assemblage will usually cover all the main habitat types found within the biome. This criterion may be thought of as seeking to protect ‘contextual’ species richness, by selecting sites to protect characteristic assemblages within a biome using species richness as an indicator. This is primarily to ensure that a large number of sites each holding only a few biome-restricted species are not chosen. The contextual species richness analysis has to be made separately for each targeted taxonomic group because otherwise the analysis will be weighted towards groups that are more species-rich. Some sites may, however, be chosen for irreplaceable populations of one or a few species which would otherwise be under-represented – such as populations confined to a restricted habitat type within the biome or those that have an exceptionally high density. Sites that embrace two or more biome-restricted assemblages may also qualify under this criterion.

42 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Congregatory species (Criterion A4): This category applies to those species that are (or are perceived to be) vulnerable at the population level to the destruction or degradation of sites, by virtue of their congregatory behaviour at any stage in their life-cycles. These may comprise breeding colonies or other sites used during the non-breeding season, such as foraging, roosting and migratory stop-over sites. Stop- over sites may not hold threshold numbers at any one time, but nevertheless do so over a relatively short period due to the rapid turnover of individuals on passage.

action must also evaluate human Balmford, A. 2002. Selecting sites for considerations, such as threats, conservation. In Conserving Bird opportunities, costs, benefits and resources. Biodiversity - General Principles and Where there is flexibility, a combination of their Application (ed. K. Norris and D. threats and opportunities assessment and J. Pain), pp. 75-104. Cambridge: economic cost-benefit analysis may be used Cambridge University Press. to choose between different sites (or sets of Bennun, L. and G. Eken 2003. Key sites) which would contribute equally to biodiversity areas: Identifying the conservation goals. It is important that the world's priority sites for conservation – pressures (threats) analysis considers both a pilot study in Turkey. Discussion current and future threats within a time- Document. BirdLife International, frame of 10 to 20 years. Preferred sets of Wageningen. sites are those that provide the greatest Bennun, L. and P. Njoroge 1999. Important benefits for biodiversity, and generate Bird Areas in Kenya. East Africa sustainable economic and social services Natural History Society, Nairobi. and/or imply the lowest opportunity cost to Braun Blanquet, J. 1928. Pflanzensoziologie, local stakeholders. Where there are a large Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. number of sites and/ or considerations Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. (ecological and/or human-based) to be Brooks, T. M., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. evaluated, conservation planning software, Mittermeier, G. A. B. d. Fonseca, A. B. such as C-Plan and Marxan, can be used to Rylands, W. R. Konstant, P. Flick, J. identify different sets of sites which all meet Pilgrim, S. Oldfield, G. Magin and C. specific conservation targets. Hilton-Taylor 2002. Habitat Loss and The types of considerations chosen for Extinction in the Hotspots of priority-setting will vary according to agreed Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16, conservation goals. Prioritisation is 909-923. inevitably a dynamic process. Although Darwall, W.R.T. and J-C Vié 2003. irreplaceable areas will remain to be so, Identifying Important Sites for priorities need to be revisited as some areas Conservation of Freshwater are secured and the pattern of threats Biodiversity: Extending the Species- evolves. based Approach. Unpublished Report. IUCN. References Dinerstein, E., D.M. Olson, D.J. Graham, A.L. Webster, S.A. Prim, M.P. Anderson, S. 2002. Identifying Important Bookbinder and G. Ledec 1995. A Plant Areas in Europe: A Site Selection Conservation Assessment of the Manuel for Compilers. PlantLife, Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America London. and the Caribbean. WWF and The Balmford, A., G.M. Mace and N. Leader- World Bank, Washington D.C. Williams. 1996. Designing the ark: Heath, M.F., and M.I. Evans 2000. Setting priorities for captive breeding. Important Bird Areas in Europe: Conservation Biology 10: 719-727.

43 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Priority Sites for Conservation. BirdLife to conserving the Earth's most International, Cambridge. biologically valuable ecoregions. Fishpool, L. D. C., and M.I. Evans 2001. Conservation Biology 12, 502-515. Important Bird Areas in Africa and Purvis, A. and A. Hector 2000. Getting Associated Islands: Priority Sites for the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405, Conservation. BirdLife International, 212 - 219. Cambridge. Rodrigues, A.S.L. and K.J. Gaston 2001. Gaston, K. J. 2000 Global patterns in How large do reserve networks need to biodiversity. Nature 405, 220 - 227. be? Ecology Letters 4: 602-609. Gregorio, A. di and L.J.M. Jansen 2000. Rodrigues, A.S.L., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, Land Cover Classification System. M.I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.M., LCCS, FAO. Cowling, R.M., Fishpool, L.D.C., da Grossman, D.H. Faber-Langendoen, D., Fonseca, G.A.B., Gaston, K.J., Weakley, A.S., Anderson, M., Hoffman, M., Long, J., Marquet, P.A., Bourgeron, P., Crawford, R., Goodin, Pilgrim, J.D., Pressey, R.L., Schipper, K., Landaal, S., Metzler, K., Patterson, J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S.N., Underhill, K.D., Pyne, M., Reid, M., and Sneddon L.G., Waller, R.W., Watts, M.E.J., Xie ,L. 1998. International Classification of Y. 2003 Global Gap Analysis: towards a Ecological Communities: terrestrial representative network of protected vegetation of the United States in The areas. Advances in Applied Biodiversity National Vegetation Classification Science 5. Conservation System: Development, Status, and International,Washington DC. Applications, The Nature Conservancy, Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J., Arlington. 123 pp. and Wege, D.C. 1998. Endemic Bird Holdridge, L.R. 1978. Ecología Basada en Areas of the World - Priorities for Zonas de Vida. Instituto Interamericano Biodiversity Conservation. BirdLife de Ciencias Agrícolas, San José, 216 pp. International, Cambridge. ICBP. 1992. Putting Biodiversity on the Walter, H. 1954. Klimax und Zonale Map: Priority areas for global Vegetation, Festschrift für Erwin conservation. International Council for Aichinger, Band 1: 144 – 150, Ed. E. Bird Preservation, Cambridge. Janchen, Springer-Verlag, Wien. IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Williams, P. 2001 Complementarity. In Management Categories. Gland Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, vol. 1 (ed. [Switzerland] and Cambridge [UK]: S. Levin), pp. 813-829: Academic Press. CNPPA with the assistance of WCMC, Williams, P. H., C. Humphries, M. Araujo, IUCN. R. Lampinen, W. Hagemeijer, J.P.Gasc, IUCN. 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of and T. Mitchell-Jones 2000 Endemism Threatened Species. Gland and important areas for representing [Switzerland] and Cambridge [UK]: European biodiversity: a preliminary IUCN – The World Conservation exploration of atlas data for plants and Union. Online. Available: terrestrial vertebrates. Belgian Journal of http://www.redlist.org. Entomology 2: 21-46. Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253. Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg 1974. Aims and Methods in Vegetation Ecology. J. Willey and sons, New York. Olson, D. M. and E. Dinerstein 1998. The Global 200: A representation approach

44 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

GLOBAL GAP ANALYSIS: TOWARDS BUILDING A COMPREHENSIVE NETWORK 6 OF PROTECTED AREAS

Ana S. L. Rodrigues*, Luis Suárez§, Rebecca Livermore*, Charlotte Boyd*, Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca*† * Conservation International; § Conservation International Ecuador; † Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction Birds and Habitats Directives, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/). The twentieth century witnessed an In 1992, the Fourth Congress on extraordinary growth of the world’s human National Parks and Protected Areas population – from 1,650 million to 6,000 (Caracas, Venezuela) called for protection of million people, with almost 80 percent of at least 10% of each major biome by the that increase having occurred since 1950 Year 2000 (IUCN, 1993), and this has (UN, 2001). Such increasing human become a major national and international pressure is severely impacting biodiversity, guideline. In 2003, the Fifth World Parks with current species extinction rates at least Congress (Durban, South Africa) witnessed one thousand times higher than the rates the announcement that this target has been typical through Earth’s history, surpassed for nine out of 14 major terrestrial unprecedented since the last mass extinction biomes. At the global scale, 11.5% of the event, 65 million years ago (Pimm et al., Earth’s land surface is now under some form 1995). The most effective way to conserve of protection (Chape et al., 2003). Most biodiversity is to maintain native species in Governments have invested in the creation natural ecosystems: extinction can be fought of protected areas systems, with more than with less expense and more chance of 100,000 being recognized by the 2003 success in the long term by maintaining self- United Nations List of Protected Areas sustaining populations in their native (Chape et al., 2003). However, we still do habitats (Balmford et al., 2003). This not know enough about how adequate the approach requires the protection of areas global network of protected areas is in where conservation is a priority over other representing and ensuring the long term- land uses. persistence of biodiversity in the face of The practical value of protected areas in increasing human pressure. shielding areas of land from destructive use has been clearly demonstrated (e.g. Bruner 2. A global gap analysis: methods and et al., 2001, Sánchez-Azofeifa et al., 2003). results Protected areas have therefore received wide recognition as core components of Recently compiled data on the distribution conservation strategies, and their of species and protected areas makes designation is a requirement of several possible a first global assessment of the multilateral environmental agreements (e.g., representativeness of the global network, i.e. the Convention on Biological Diversity, a global gap analysis. This analysis was http://www.biodiv.org/; the Ramsar presented at the Fifth World Parks Congress Convention on Wetlands, as part of Workshop Stream 7 “Building the http://www.ramsar.org/), as well as national Global System of Protected Areas” and international legislation (e.g., European (Rodrigues et al., 2003; the full report can

45 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

be found online at of this analysis (Figure 1) and the http://www.biodiversityscience.org/). Here implications for global and national-scale we present an overview of the main results conservation planning.

Figure 1: Areas identified by the global gap analysis as being of high priority for the expansion of the global protected area system for the representation of mammals, amphibians and threatened birds.

Four major data sets were used for the and 680 are considered Vulnerable global gap analysis: species. (i). Data on the distribution of protected (iii). Distribution maps for all mammal areas were obtained from the World species were compiled, as part of Database on Protected Areas the IUCN Global Mammal (WDPA, 2003), compiled by the Assessment. In total, 4,734 WDPA Consortium building upon mammal species were analyzed, Version 5 of the database on including 131 Critically Endangered protected areas compiled by the species, 229 Endangered, and 618 United Nations Environment Vulnerable species. These data were Program’s World Conservation compiled by Wes Sechrest (W. Monitoring Centre (UNEP- Sechrest, unpublished), Luigi WCMC). Boitani (Boitani et al., 1999, for (ii). Data on the world’s globally large mammals of Africa; L. Boitani threatened bird species were and G. Amori, unpublished for compiled by the BirdLife rodents of Africa), Marcelo Tognelli International partnership (BirdLife, (Patterson et al., 2003, for rodents 2000). Of the 1,183 globally of South America) and Gerardo threatened birds included in this Ceballos (Patterson et al., 2003, for analysis, 182 are Critically bats of Central America). Because Endangered, 321 are Endangered, all these maps are still being

46 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

formally reviewed, only draft maps marginal, or the protected area is too small). were available for this global gap As an example of this underestimate, over analysis. 1,000 of the covered species (not gaps) (iv). Distribution maps for amphibian resulting from this analysis are only covered species have been compiled by the by protected areas that are very small on-going IUCN Global Amphibian (smaller than 1,000 ha) and/or areas that Assessment (IUCN-SSC and CI- have relatively low levels or protection CABS, 2003), with NatureServe (areas not classified as IUCN I-IV; IUCN, providing the distribution maps for 1994). species in North America (Blackburn et al., 2001). This 3. Implications for global conservation analysis was based on 5,254 planning amphibians, including 291 Critically Endangered, 494 Endangered, and The first conclusion that can be extracted 682 Vulnerable species. from the global gap analysis is that the A simple overlay between species and global network of protected areas is far from protected areas data shows that more than complete, even though it is already 1,300 species (out of more than 11,000 providing an invaluable service to analyzed) gap species, that is, species not conserving global biodiversity. It is protected anywhere within their mapped incomplete even for the representation of range. More than 700 of these gap species terrestrial vertebrates, which are the most have been identified by IUCN - The World charismatic and best studied of all species Conservation Union as facing high (Gaston and May, 1992), and those which extinction risk, out more than 3,500 have received most conservation attention threatened species included in the analysis up to now. Other taxonomic groups with (BirdLife, 2000; IUCN, 2003). Amphibians, high species diversity and endemism, such overall, are worst covered than birds or as plants and insects (which represent most mammals. This is mainly due to their of global biodiversity) are likely to be even smaller ranges (higher levels of endemism), worse covered (Rodrigues and Gaston, but also because they have received much 2001). less conservation action than either birds or The analysis also identifies, on a coarse mammals. scale, areas of high irreplaceability and high While these results demonstrate that a threat. The irreplaceability of a given area significant number of threatened species measures the likelihood that the area needs remain unprotected, it is important to note to be protected to ensure that species are that the numbers of gap species identified in represented at the global scale, or, this study are an underestimate. On the one conversely, how options for achieving hand, many species whose range apparently representation of specific species are overlaps one or more protected areas are not reduced if the area is not conserved (Pressey truly present in those areas. This is because et al., 1994; Margules and Pressey, 2000). species ranges are mapped as polygons that Irreplaceability is higher in regions of high encompass many areas of unsuitable habitat levels of species endemism. Area threat, or where the species are absent. On the other vulnerability, is a measure of the likelihood hand, many species are not or cannot be that the area will be disturbed or destroyed adequately protected in protected areas (Pressey and Taffs, 2001), and it was where they are truly present, either because calculated as the number of threatened the protected area does not offer effective species present at a site, giving more weight protection against threats or because the to those with higher extinction risk. Hence, species are not viable in those areas irreplaceability highlights regions containing (because, for example, the habitat is only species for which there are few alternatives

47 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

for conservation elsewhere, while threat countries. Instead, countries with higher highlights regions that are unlikely to be levels of endemism require higher available for conservation in the future percentages of their area protected unless urgent action is taken. Sites of both (Rodrigues and Gaston, 2001). This is high irreplaceability and high threat are because neither biodiversity nor the threats those that require immediate conservation to biodiversity are evenly distributed attention in order to prevent the loss of throughout the world, and consequently unique biodiversity values, and therefore protected areas should not be either. correspond to the highest conservation The vast majority of the regions priorities (Margules and Pressey, 2000, identified as priorities for the expansion of Pressey and Taffs, 2001). the global protected area network are located The regions highlighted by this analysis in low-income countries in the tropics – as urgent priorities for the expansion of the those that can least afford the costs of global network are mainly located in regions establishing and enforcing protected areas long recognized to be centers of endemism (James et al., 1999). This is the case even if (e.g. Stattersfield et al., 1998, Myers et al., the significant local benefits of protected 2000) and correspond to areas suffering high areas are factored in (Balmford et al., 2003), levels of habitat destruction (Sanderson, because much of the benefit of the 2002). These are mainly concentrated in establishment of protected areas is realized tropical forests, especially in areas of at a global scale (Kremen et al., 2000). topographic complexity, and on islands. In Thus, our recommendation for the rapid the Western Hemisphere, these include establishment of protected areas in regions Mesoamerica, the Caribbean, the Andes, and requiring urgent conservation action comes the Atlantic Forest. In Africa, these are hand-in-hand with a recommendation that mainly located in eastern Madagascar, the the costs of this conservation are largely Cape Fynbos, the Succulent Karoo, borne by the global community. Donor Maputaland-Pondoland, the Eastern Arc, the country governments, through bilateral and Albertine Rift, the Ethiopian Highlands, the multilateral institutions, as well as NGOs, Cameroon Highlands and the Kenyan foundations, and private corporations and Highlands. In Asia, highlighted areas individuals all have an important role to play include the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka, in financing conservation (Balmford and the eastern Himalayas, southwest, southeast Whitten, 2003). and central China, and continental and insular Southeast Asia. In Australia, urgent 4. The global gap analysis and previous priority areas are mainly around coastal global priority assessments areas, particularly the Queensland Wet Tropics, the Kimberley tropical savannah, The global gap analysis is certainly not the and the southeastern and southwest regions. first global assessment of priorities for The results obtained in this analysis conservation action. Previous studies, demonstrate that the percentage of area mainly lead by international already protected in a given country does nongovernmental organizations, include not inform how much more protection is Endemic Bird Areas (Stattersfield et al., needed (Soulé and Sanjayan, 1998; 1998), Global 200 ecoregions (Olson and Rodrigues and Gaston, 2001). This means Dinerstein, 1998), and biodiversity hotspots that percentage-based targets, such as the (Myers et al., 2000). These approaches recommendation that each country should diverge from each other and from this global dedicate 10% of its area to protected areas, gap analysis in the criteria applied for are not useful to assess the completedness of prioritization, and in the biodiversity each country’s network, nor to establish features targeted. Nevertheless, all of them global conservation priorities amongst have in common the premise that

48 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

conservation resources are scarce and should (e.g. Pressey et al., 1996, Australia; be allocated strategically, which explains the Williams et al., 1996, United Kingdom; remarkable degree of overlap between the Nantel et al., 1998, Canada; Scott et al., areas identified as priorities in this and 2001, USA). previous global analyses. Hence, most areas This global gap analysis highlights highlighted in the global gap analysis regions where the expansion of the global overlap with Endemic Bird Areas, Global network of protected areas is an urgent task 200 ecoregions (particularly the tropical at the global scale. However, each of the ones) and biodiversity hotspots. Parties to the Convention on Biological The contribution of this global gap Diversity has committed to conserve its analysis towards this bigger picture comes share of biodiversity. The same basic from two characteristics that distinguish it principles underlying the global gap analysis from previous assessments at the global are applicable to defining conservation scale: it is based on relatively detailed priorities at the regional and national scales. geographical data on the distribution of A systematic assessment of the thousands of species, covering three classes representativeness of the existing national of vertebrates; and it explicitly accounts for protected area network is key to guide its the existing global protected area network in strategic strengthening and expansion. In defining priorities for future action that are doing so, each nation should bear in mind its complementary to existing conservation increased responsibility for the protection of efforts. its share of biodiversity which is unique (i.e. species that are endemic) and/or globally 5. Implications at the regional and threatened. national scale References Interpretation of the results of the global gap analysis needs to take into account that this Balmford, A. and Whitten, T. 2003. Who is an assessment at the global scale, which should pay for tropical conservation, refers to a small fraction of species diversity and how could the costs be met? Oryx (excluding for example plants, invertebrates, 37:238-250. marine and most freshwater diversity) and Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Blyth, S., which is mainly about representation rather James, A. and Kapos, V. 2003. Global than persistence or species in protected variation in terrestrial conservation areas. Indeed, the nature of the data does not costs, conservation benefits, and unmet allow for a reliable estimate of the fraction conservation needs. Proceedings of the of analyzed species whose long-term National Academy of Sciences of the persistence is ensured by protected areas. United States of America 100:1046- This means that, while there is good 1050. evidence to support the claims that regions BirdLife International 2000. Threatened highlighted in this analysis are conservation Birds of the World. Lynx Edicions and priorities, little can be said regarding the BirdLife International, Barcelona and areas that have not been highlighted. Most Cambridge. certainly, the results of this study are not Blackburn, L., Nanjappa, P. and Lannoo, M. evidence that protected area networks J. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of should be considered completed for any of U.S. Amphibians. Ball State University, these regions. While several regions are well Muncie, Indiana. ahead in the development of their networks Boitani, L., Corsi, F., De Biase, A., of protected areas, gap analyses at the Carranza, I. D. I., Ravagli, M., Reggiani, national or regional scale demonstrate that G., Sinibaldi, I., and Trapanese, P. 1999. even for these the task is far from finished A Databank for the Conservation and

49 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Management of the African Mammals. conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853 Instituto di Ecologia Applicata, Rome, - 858. Italy. Nantel, P., Bouchard, A., Brouillet, L., and Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E., Hay, S. 1998. Selection of areas for and Fonseca, G. A. B. 2001. protecting rare plants with integration of Effectiveness of parks in protecting land use conflicts: A case study for the tropical biodiversity. Science 291: 125- west coast of Newfoundland, Canada. 128. Biological Conservation 84: 223-234. Chape, S., Blyth, S., Fish, L., Fox, P. and Olson, D. M. and Dinerstein, E. 1998. The Spalding, M. 2003. 2003 United Nations global 200: A representation approach to List of Protected Areas. IUCN - The conserving the Earth's most biologically World Conservation Union and UNEP valuable ecoregions. Conservation World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Biology 12: 502-515. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Patterson, B. D., Ceballos, G. Sechrest, W., Gaston, K. J. and May, R. M. 1992. Tognelli, M. F., Brooks, T., Luna, L., Taxonomy of Taxonomists. Nature Ortega, P., Salazar, I., and Young, B. E. 356:281-282. 2003 Digital Distribution Maps of the IUCN. 1993. Parks for life: report of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere – IVth world congress on national parks Version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, and protected areas. IUCN – The World VA, USA. Conservation Union, Gland, Pimm, S. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L., Switzerland. and Brooks, T. M. 1995. The future of IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area biodiversity. Science 269: 347-350. Management Categories. CNPPA with Pressey, R. L. and Taffs, K. H. 2001. the assistance of WCMC, IUCN, Gland, Scheduling conservation action in Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. production landscapes: Priority areas in IUCN. 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of western New South Wales defined by Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, irreplaceability and vulnerability to Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. vegetation loss. Biological Conservation Available: http://www.redlist.org. 100: 355-376. IUCN-SSC and CI-CABS. 2003. Global Pressey, R. L., Ferrier, S., Hager, T. C., Amphibian Assessment. IUCN and Woods, C. A., Tully, S. L., and Conservation International, Gland, Weinman, K. M. 1996. How well Switzerland and Washington, DC, USA. protected are the forests of northeastern James, A. N., Gaston, K. J., and Balmford, New South Wales? - Analyses of forest A. 1999. Balancing the Earth's accounts. environments in relation to formal Nature 401: 323 - 324. protection measures, land tenure, and Kremen, C., Niles, J. O., Dalton, M. G., vulnerability to clearing. Forest Ecology Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Fay, J. P., and Management 85: 311-333. Grewal, D., and Guillery, R. P. 2000. Pressey, R. L., Johnson, I. R., and Wilson, P. Economic incentives for rain forest D. 1994. Shades of Irreplaceability - conservation across scales. Science 288: Towards a Measure of the Contribution 1828-1832. of Sites to a Reservation Goal. Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L. 2000. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 242- Systematic conservation planning. 262. Nature 405: 243-253. Rodrigues, A. S. L. and Gaston, K. J. 2001. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, How large do reserve networks need to C .G., Fonseca, G. A. B., and Kent, J. be? Ecology Letters 4: 602-609. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.

50 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

M., Cowling, R. M., Fishpool, L. D. C., Stattersfield, A. J., Crosby, M. J., Long, A. Fonseca, G. A. B., Gaston, K. J., J., and Wege, D. C. 1998. Endemic Bird Hoffman, M., Long, J., Marquet, P. A., Areas of the World - Priorities for Pilgrim, J. D., Pressey, R. L., Schipper, Biodiversity Conservation. BirdLife J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S. N., Underhill, International, Cambridge, UK. L. G., Waller, R. W., Watts, M. E. J., UN. 2001. World Population Monitoring and Xie Y. 2003 Global Gap Analysis: 2001 - Population, Environment and towards a representative network of Development. United Nations protected areas. Advances in Applied Population Division, New York, USA. Biodiversity Science 5. Conservation WDPA 2003. 2003 World Database on International, Washington, DC, USA. Protected Areas. IUCN-WCPA and Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. A., Daily, G. C., Pfaff, UNEP-WCMC, Washington DC. A. S. P., and Busch, C. 2003. Integrity Williams, P., Gibbons, D., Margules, C., and isolation of Costa Rica's national Rebelo, A., Humphries, C., and Pressey, parks and biological reserves: R. 1996. A comparison of richness examining the dynamics of land-cover hotspots, rarity hotspots, and change. Biological Conservation 109: complementary areas for conserving 123-135. diversity of British birds. Conservation Scott, J. M., Davis, F. W., McGhie, R. G., Biology 10: 155-174. Wright, R. G., Groves, C., and Estes, J. 2001. Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America's biological diversity? Ecological Applications 11: 999-1007. Soulé, M. E. and Sanjayan, M. A. 1998. Conservation targets: Do they help? Science 279: 2060-2061.

51 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON MARINE AND COASTAL PROTECTED AREAS 7 NETWORK DESIGN

Marjo Vierros Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction – what’s in a network? Expert Group on marine and coastal protected areas (AHTEG)2 concluded, While ocean and coastal environments cover however, that while all types of MCPAs most of the earth, and contain all of marine provide potential benefits, some benefits can biodiversity, their current level of protection only be achieved through the use of highly is extremely low. According to recent protected areas where extractive uses are (2003) estimates based on data in the World excluded (“no-take” areas) (see report of the Database on Protected Areas, only AHTEG: UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/8/INF/7). approximately 0.45% of the entire ocean is Such benefits can include the enhancement protected. One third of this figure consists of of fisheries in surrounding areas, and as a two very large marine and coastal protected result, the enhancement of the livelihoods of areas (MCPAs): the Great Barrier Reef local communities dependent on the Marine Park and the Northwest Hawaiian fisheries resources. In addition, highly Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, protected areas can provide a boost for indicating that the level of protection tourism by allowing divers to experience a accorded to the rest of the ocean is even relatively pristine marine environment smaller. complete with large and numerous fish. At the same time the benefits of MCPAs Highly protected areas on their own may to biodiversity and fisheries, as well as to not be enough, though. Due to the nature of various stakeholders, are being increasingly the marine environment, MCPAs are recognized, and are supported by the results vulnerable to “up-stream” activities and of numerous scientific studies and practical events, such as coastal development, which experiences. These MCPA benefits provide have an effect on water quality through, for a considerable contribution towards the example, the release of pollutants, nutrients, three objectives of the Convention on and sediments. Therefore, establishment of Biological Diversity, including its target of MCPAs needs to be undertaken in the achieving by 2010 a significant reduction of context of integrated marine and coastal area the current rate of biodiversity loss at the management (IMCAM), and becomes, in global, regional and national level. It is also essence, an application of the ecosystem recognized that while isolated MCPAs have approach. many benefits, they will only be able to protect a limited fraction of marine and coastal biodiversity. A well-managed 2 The members of the AHTEG were as follows: network of MCPAs is needed to achieve the Margarita Astralaga, James Bohnsack, Juan C. full range of biodiversity benefits. Castilla, John Collie, Phillip Da Silva, Beatrice The concept of MCPA encompasses a Padovani Ferreira, Miguel D. Fortes, Sarah George, diverse set of approaches for area-based Kenneth Grange, Dalia Gudaitiene-Holiman, Thomas Hourigan, Nelson Kile, Dan Laffoley, Robin Leslie, protection, serving a variety of objectives Mohamed Menioui, Per Nilsson, Arthur Patterson, and consisting of differing levels of Mary Power, Aprilani Soegiarto, Murray Hosking, protection. The CBD Ad Hoc Technical Paula Warren, Marjo Vierros, Eduardo Villouta and Kathy Walls

52 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Given these considerations, the AHTEG management of marine and coastal concluded that a national framework for the biodiversity. The following scientific management of marine and coastal principles for establishment of networks of biodiversity should comprise the following highly protected areas were originally three elements representing, respectively, conceived by Ballantine (1997), and were high, intermediate, and low levels of elaborated upon by the AHTEG. resource protection for biodiversity: • A representative network of highly Principle 1: Representativeness protected areas where extractive uses are All biogeographic regions should be prevented, and other significant human represented. Within each region, all major pressures are removed (or at least habitats should be represented. minimized) to enable the integrity, Conservative and widely accepted structure, functioning, and exchange definitions should be used when identifying processes of and between ecosystems to regions and habitats. be maintained or recovered; • An ancillary network of areas that Principle 2: Replication support the biodiversity objectives of the All the habitats in each region should be highly protected network, where specific replicated within the network, and these perceived threats are managed in a should be spatially separate, to safeguard sustainable manner for the purposes of against unexpected failures or collapse of biodiversity conservation and populations. Where replication is not sustainable use; and possible then other design principles may • Sustainable management practices over need to be reconsidered, such as size and the wider coastal and marine number. environment. Principle 3: Viability 2. Designing a network – the principles The ultimate objective is to create a network of geographically dispersed sites that are As stated by the AHTEG, the aim of the self-sustaining, independent (as far as MCPA network should be to create a possible) of what happens in the surrounding coherent whole, with emergent properties area (Murray et al 1999). The network and values, not simply a collection of should be ecologically viable with MCPAs individual MCPAs and regulatory controls. achieving viability collectively and avoiding In this respect, connectivity between (genetic) isolation. MCPAs is critical, given the presence of mobile life stages in most marine organisms. Principle 4: Precautionary design This means that the viability of a given area In designing the network, a precautionary may be dependent on what happens approach should be taken wherever there is elsewhere. Larvae of certain species may uncertainty (e.g. regarding habitat diversity, travel long distances to reach a given species habitat needs, threats by human MCPA, and juveniles and adults regularly activities, connectivity processes, etc). The migrate between habitat areas. There is also precautionary approach in this circumstance strong connectivity between marine and is to use best available information to make terrestrial processes, particularly in relation decisions rather than delaying to await more to movement of water, sediments, seabirds and better information. Where there is and all other organisms that use both uncertainty, the precautionary approach environments. would favour erring on the side of As indicated above, a representative biodiversity protection. While it is important network of highly protected areas is at the to maintain as natural an IMCAM as core of a national framework for the possible, the network of MCPAs should

53 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

ideally be designed so that complete failure of habitats. If the overall goal is the creation of the management regime in the IMCAM of a representative MCPA network, all will not significantly affect the viability of habitats should be included as conservation the MCPA network (Lauck et al., 1998). targets, and not only the rare ones (Beck and Odaya, 2001). 3. Designing a network – From Individual species should be included as principles to practice conservation targets if they are imperiled and conservation of their habitats would not The AHTEG suggested that network design produce sufficient results, or if they are should be considered holistically in an declining faster than their habitats (Beck and ecosystem context, taking into account each Odaya, 2001). national or regional area, including the exclusive economic zones and the High Collection of data on their ecology and Seas. The network should incorporate distribution ancillary MCPAs as support for a primary Both biological and physical data may be network of highly protected MCPAs. Given relevant in this process, as is local and the unique characteristics of the marine traditional knowledge. Some potential data environment, the network should be sources include existing marine and coastal designed in such a way that potential habitat maps, inventories and assessments. connections between MCPAs are In many cases, existing data may be maximized. sufficient for the purpose, and there may be To assist the design of a network of no need to collect new data. The challenge priority MCPA sites, Beck and Odaya will then lie in locating these data and (2001) identified the following basic steps converting them into a usable format that need to be undertaken (including georeferencing). It should be 1. Identification of conservation targets noted, too, that in many cases existing (i.e. species and habitats) datasets may be incomplete, out of date, 2. Collection of data on their ecology and geographically imprecise or poorly distribution documented. Ardon et al. (2001) provide an 3. Determination of conservation goals for excellent discussion on the use of disparate the amount of targets that must be datasets for designing a network of marine protected protected areas. If the existing data is not 4. Identification of a set of sites that meet sufficient, new data may need to be these goals for all targets collected and habitat maps produced. The following discussion looks at each of If no habitat or bioregional classification these steps in more detail. exists for the area, it will need to be developed based on existing or new data. In Identification of conservation targets developing their Representative Areas Conservation targets define the features that Programme, for example, the Great Barrier are to be conserved, and generally consist of Reef Marine Park used a comprehensive a combination of ecosystems, communities range of biological and physical information or species, although the inclusion of cultural to define 30 reef and 40 non-reef bioregions features can also be considered. In general, across the Park (Day et al., 2003). Beck and Odaya (2001) recommend that it is Bioregions are relatively large areas of land best to first identify targets on the and water that contain geographically community and ecosystem level, with distinct assemblages of natural communities. attention paid to ecological processes that affect their viability. In most marine classification schemes, communities and ecosystems are combined under the concept

54 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Determination of conservation goals for The process of identifying priority MCPA the amount of targets that must be sites will, in most cases, need to take into protected account both ecological, and socio- A conservation goal is the amount of target economic and cultural criteria. There are a (habitats and species) that must be preserved number of tools available to identify a to protect the full range of diversity within network of MCPA sites based on ecological an ecoregion (Beck and Odaya, 2001). criteria. In particular, computer selection Unfortunately the rationale for setting algorithms have been developed specifically specific goals is not well developed. Most for this purpose. Some algorithms choose recent studies indicate that at least 20-30% areas with most abundance of habitats or of each habitat type should be included in species, and are therefore called “greedy” highly protected areas in order to ensure algorithms. These algorithms do not take fisheries benefits (e.g. Bohnsack et al., into consideration representativeness or 2003; Roberts et al., 2002; Botsford and rarity, and are consequently not best suited Gaines, 2001; Lindholm et al., 2000; for network design. Other algorithms choose Bohnsack, 2000). Although there is no clear sites using rarity and irreplaceability as agreement on how much habitat should be guiding principles. An improvement upon protected in order to preserve biodiversity these algorithms are those using a random, (Cabeza and Moilanen, 2001 and Sala et al., iterative component, resulting in the 2002), the 20-30% figure might provide a identification of a range of possible good starting point within the context of solutions for meeting the conservation goals adaptive management, provided that it is for all targets (Possingham et al., 2000). The applied as part of an overall framework for advantage of this approach is that managers management of marine and coastal and other stakeholders can consider a variety biodiversity, as discussed in section 1of this of options to find the one, which is most paper. It should be noted, though, that each suitable for the given circumstances. Two area and situation is unique, and that there is specific examples of reserve selection tools no one-size-fits-all solution for the using random, iterative algorithms are percentage of area that should be set aside in MARXAN, which was developed and tested highly protected areas (Agardy et al., 2003). at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park The 20-30% figure is being increasingly (http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/marxan.htm) put into practice, however. As a result of a and SITES, developed by the Nature new (2003) zoning plan, no-take areas cover Conservancy approximately 30% of the Great Barrier (http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/tnc/t Reef Marine Park, which has as its primary oolbox.html). objective the maintenance of biodiversity. Numerous studies have highlighted the The rarity or threatened status of a particular importance of stakeholder involvement in habitat may also play a role in setting the design and management of MCPAs, and conservation goals. In another example from such participation will, for example, the Gulf of California, Sala et al. (2002) set increase compliance and shape more a goal of protecting 20% of each culturally sensitive regulations (Friedlander representative habitat and 100% of rare et al., 2003). Therefore consideration of the habitats. It has also been shown that the purely ecological results from reserve design potential connectivity between sites tools by all involved stakeholders will increases greatly as the amount of protected ensure the input of invaluable information areas approaches or exceeds 20% (Roberts about the biological, socioeconomic and and Hawkings, 2000). cultural properties of ocean use (Johannes, 1997, Agardy et al., 2003). Two recent Identification of a set of sites that meet examples highlight this process. Extensive these goals for all targets. public consultations were held in the re-

55 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

zoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Ardon, J., Lash, J and D. Haggarty 2001. Park (Day et al., 2003) and in designing the Designing a Network of Marine Seaflower Biosphere Reserve in Columbia Protected Areas in the Central British (Friedlander et al., 2003). Columbiat Coast. Living Oceans Society Publication. 4. Design and establishment are not (http://www.livingoceans.org/document enough - the importance of adaptive s/LOS_MPA_model_v31_web.pdf) management Beck, M. and M. Odaya 2001. Ecoregional planning in marine environments: Once established, the effectiveness of the identifying priority sites for individual MCPAs as well as the entire conservation in the northern Gulf of network will need to be evaluated against Mexico. Aquatic conservation: Marine their management objectives, and necessary and Freshwater Ecosystems 11:235-242. adjustments made in the context of adaptive Ballantine, W.J. 1997. Design principles management. As stated by the AHTEG, for systems of 'no-take' marine reserves. adaptive management has been identified as Paper for workshop: The Design and the most appropriate approach toward the Monitoring of Marine Reserves at management of biological resources because Fisheries Center, University of British of its ability to deal with uncertainty and Columbia, Vancouver, Feb 1997. natural variation (more flexible than other Bohnsack, J.A. 2000. A comparison of the systems), its iterative nature (acquires short term impacts of no-take marine information on the biological resource reserves and minimum size limits. through the management cycle), and its Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 615-650. feedback mechanisms. This is particularly Bohnsack J.A., B.Causey, M.P. Crosby, important because establishment and R.B. Griffis, M.A. Hixon, T.F. management of MCPAs is always Hourigan, K.H. Koltes, J.E. Maragos, A. undertaken in the context of scientific Simons and J.T. Tilmant 2000. A uncertainty, given our limited understanding rationale for minimum 20 – 30% no- of the functioning of most marine take protection. Proceedings of the 9th ecosystems (Agardy et al., 2003). Successful International Coral Reef Symposium, application of adaptive management is Bali, Indonesia. Oct. 2000. strongly dependent on monitoring. The Botsford, L.W. and S.D. Gaines 2001. results of monitoring will provide a Dependence of sustainability on feedback mechanism through which configuration of marine reserves and management action, including the specific larval dispersal distance. Ecology percentage of areas set aside as highly Letters. 4: 144-150. protected areas where extractive uses are Cabeza and Moilanen 2001. Design of excluded, can be adjusted as appropriate. reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends in Ecological References Evolution, 16:5:242-248. Day, J., Fernandes, L., Lewis, A. and J. Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby. M.P., Innes 2003. RAP – An ecosystem level Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R., approach to biodiversity protection Laffoley, D., McConney, P., Murray, planning. A paper presented at the P.A., Parks, J.E. and L. Peau 2003. second meeting of the International Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues Tropical Marine Ecosystem Symposium and ideological clashes around marine (ITMEMS2), Manila, Philippines, protected areas Aquatic Conservation: March 2003. Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems Friedlander, A, J. Sladek Nowlis, J.A. Vol. 13, Issue 4: 353-367. Sanchez, R. Appeldoorn, P. Usseglio, C.

56 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

McCormack, S. Bejarano and A. Possingham, H., I. Ball and S. Andelman Mitchell-Chui 2003. Designing effective 2000. Mathematical methods for marine protected areas in Seaflower identifying representative reserve Biosphere Reserve, Colombia, based on networks. Pages 291-305 in Quantitative biological and sociological information. Methods for Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology, vol. 17, No. 6: Ferguson, S. and Bergman, M (eds.) 1769-1784. Springer-Verlag, New York. Lauck, T., C.W. Clark, M. Mangel, G.R. Roberts, C.M. and J.P. Hawkins 2000. Munro 1998. Implementing the Fully-protected marine reserves: a precautionary principle in fisheries guide. World Wildlife Fund, management through marine reserves. Washington, D.C. p 131. Ecol. Appl. 8(1): Supplement: S72-S78. Roberts, C.M., B.S. Halpern, Rr. Warner, Lindholm, J.P., P.J. Auster, M. Ruth, and L. and S. Palumbia 2002. Designing Kaufman 2000. Modeling the effects of marine reserve networks: why small, fishing and implications for the design isolated protected areas are not enough. of marine protected areas: Juvenile fish Conservation Biology in Practice 2: 9- responses to variations in seafloor 17: habitat. Conservation Biology 15: 424- Sala, S., Aburto-Oropeza, O.,.Paredes, G., 437 Parra, I., Barrera, J.C., and Dayton, P.K. Mangle. M. 2000. On the fraction of habitat 2002. 'A general model for designing allocated to marine reserves. Ecology networks of marine reserves' Science Letters 3(1): 15-22. Vol. 298 6 Dec 2002 pp.1991-1993 Murray et al. 1999. 'No-take reserve networks: sustaining fishery populations and marine ecosystems.' Fisheries 24:11:11-25.

57 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREAS AND INLAND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

8 David Coates Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity E-mail: [email protected]

Rivers have been altered since historical 1. Introduction – inland waters in peril times, but such modifications skyrocketed in the early to mid-1900s. Modifications Inland aquatic ecosystems are very diverse include river embankments to improve and include rivers, their flooded plains and navigation, drainage of wetlands for flood estuaries, lakes, bogs, swamps, marshes and control and agriculture, construction of dams coastal wetlands such as mangrove forests and irrigation channels, and the and lagoons. They include all of the world’s establishment of inter-basin connections and freshwater ecosystems but many are also water transfers. At the same time, these brackish-water or saline (as, for example, physical changes in the hydrological cycle with some inland seas). disconnect rivers from their floodplain In many parts of the world inland water wetlands and slow water velocity in riverine ecosystems continue to be intensely systems, converting them to a chain of modified and degraded by human activities. connected reservoirs. This, in turn, impacts The rapid proliferation of dams, river and the migratory patterns of fish species and the stream embankments, and the draining of composition of riparian habitats, opens up wetlands for flood control and agriculture, paths for exotic species, changes coastal for example, have caused widespread loss of ecosystems, and contributes to an overall freshwater habitats, especially waterfalls, loss of freshwater biodiversity and inland rapids, riparian floodplains and related fishery resources. Humans withdraw about wetlands. Habitat loss has been 4,000 km3 of water a year, or about 20 accompanied by a decline and loss of percent of the world’s rivers’ base flow. freshwater species, to a point where the Between 1900 and 1995, water withdrawals biodiversity of inland water ecosystems is increased by a factor of more than six, currently in far worse condition than that of which is more than twice the rate of forest, grassland, or coastal ecosystems population growth (WMO, 1997). The rates (World Resources Institute et al., 2000). The of water extraction are not evenly combination of pressures on freshwater distributed. Whilst some systems retain their systems has resulted in more than 20 percent near natural flows, in river basins in arid or of the world's freshwater fish species populous regions, extractions can reach becoming extinct, endangered, or threatened 100%, leaving no water at all to maintain in recent decades and even this is a serious natural river functions. This has underestimate according to some authors. implications for the species living in or Future extinction rates are believed to be dependent on freshwater systems, as well as five times higher for freshwater animals than for future human water supplies. for terrestrial species (Ricciardi and With population growth, Rasmussen, 1999). By far the greatest threat industrialization, and the expansion of to the biological diversity of inland waters is irrigated agriculture, the demand for all habitat loss and degradation. water-related goods and services will continue to increase dramatically, thereby

58 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

increasing pressures on freshwater species classification systems, including legal and habitats. Many experts, governments, descriptions, across spatially and seasonably and international organizations around the variable land-water interfaces. world predict that water availability will be The status and trends of biodiversity one of the major challenges facing human depended upon inland water ecosystems society in the 21st century and that the lack have recently been reviewed for the CBD of water will be one of the key factors (Revenga and Kura, 2003). This concludes limiting development (UNESCO, 2003). A that based upon existing information it is not major consideration for protected areas for possible to reliably estimate the total extent inland waters is that the water itself, not just of wetlands at a global scale. An overall the biodiversity it supports, is in high global estimate, including coastal wetlands demand. There are, therefore, significant in some countries, of about 1,280 million challenges to adequately balancing the in- hectares for total extent of aquatic situ and ex-situ uses of freshwater. ecosystems is quoted. However, there is a Inland water ecosystems are also very potentially large error in this estimate for the vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. aforementioned reasons. Similarly, global Most physical impacts of climate change figures for the area and distribution of will be manifested through alterations to the different inland wetland types are not water cycle (e.g., rainfall patterns) which generally available, mainly due to problems will obviously be a major influence on with standardising terminology and the lack inland aquatic ecosystems. Because most of inventory data. National and regional data wetlands lack adaptation options, many can for Oceania, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, be considered to be particularly vulnerable and the Neotropics allow just a cursory to climate change. Those most at risk are assessment of wetland extent and location. located at high latitudes and altitudes, e.g., Only for North America and for Western Arctic and Sub-Arctic bog communities, or Europe have more robust estimates of alpine streams and lakes. Wetlands that are wetland extent been published. Of 206 isolated are also particularly vulnerable, countries or territories for which the state of primarily because if they experience species inventory was assessed, only seven percent loss, the chance of recolonisation would be had adequate or good national inventory very low (Pittock et al. 2001). coverage. Of the remainder, 69 percent had only partial coverage, and 24 percent had 2. Inland Water PA’s – how many, little or no national wetland inventory. where and are there enough? Vegetated wetlands cover perhaps 6.6 percent of the global land area (excluding Inventories of inland aquatic ecosystems Antarctica and Greenland), and lakes and are incomplete, inconsistent in coverage and reservoirs cover 2.1 percent. Overall, there difficult to undertake for a number of is very poor data availability for the extent reasons including: difficulties with of river habitats, which, if small tributaries definitions, limitations of maps, ill-defined and streams were to be included, would be boundaries and the limitations of remote significant. sensing. Many important ecosystems are The most systematic registry of heavily vegetated (e.g., swamps or naturally protected areas for inland water ecosystems flooded forests) and difficult to inventory. A is the list of sites maintained under the particular feature of many inland aquatic auspices of the Convention on Wetlands of ecosystems is their highly seasonal nature International Importance, Especially as (especially the expansion and contraction of Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). many wetlands, such as on river floodplain, There are presently 138 Contracting Parties due to seasonal changes in flooding). This to the Convention, with 1328 wetland sites, marked temporal dimension complicates totalling 111.9 million hectares, designated

59 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands management beyond the boundaries of of International Importance. A number of protected areas in inland waters is the single Ramsar sites are also declared jointly with most important factor contributing to the World Heritage Convention. Data for reducing their effectiveness. With larger protected areas at the national or local levels catchment areas, significant transboundary have not been adequately compiled. Despite considerations are often involved. The need the poor availability of data, there is some for co-ordinated management efforts confidence that a relatively high proportion between countries is probably the greatest of inland water ecosystems is included for inland water ecosystems. Although some within areas designated as protected. For excellent examples of river basin co- example, based upon the aforementioned operation exist, including between less figures it would appear that about 10% of developed countries, transboundary co- global wetlands are designated as Ramsar operation regarding water resources, let sites. The proportion (although not total alone the biodiversity supported, remains a area) is certainly higher than for marine significant challenge in too many regions. ecosystems although it is noted that inland Inland water ecosystems, and in waters are under considerably greater threats particular rivers, are also characterised by a and are more variable. high degree of migratory species. The The problem, therefore, is not so much dynamic nature of such ecosystems results one of total area officially protected but (i) in many species occupying and utilising inconsistencies in regional coverage, (ii) different parts of the ecosystem at different gaps in coverage by ecosystem type, and times during their life cycle. For example, (iii) the level of protection afforded. many animals feed and grow mainly on river Regarding the latter, by far the most floodplains during the flood season and important consideration is the extent to migrate up to upper reaches, or the estuary which protected areas for inland waters or sea, to reproduce. This makes protected include protection against, or management area networks very important. In most cases of, the impacts of activities outside the it is not enough to simply maintain a number protected areas. Inland waters are very of protected areas which adequately cover dynamic in nature and all activities within the required habitat types – but the the catchment (watershed or drainage basin) connections between these must also be can have an impact within a “protected maintained if they are to be effective. For area”. For example, water pollution or most aquatic animals (with the notable abstraction upstream will result in exception of birds) the required corridors downstream impacts upon “protected areas” between habitats are along rivers which in rivers. Likewise, soil erosion in the must be free from obstruction and carry catchment of a lake will undermine the water of sufficient biological quality and effectiveness of lake protection if the quantity. catchment is not managed appropriately in conjunction with the specific area to be People are important protected. The extent of dependency of people upon the biological diversity of inland water 3. Improving effectiveness ecosystems is seriously under-estimated world-wide. In developed countries, in situ Managing beyond borders uses of inland waters include for sport and The ecosystem approach is essential to recreation, and especially recreational the effectiveness of protected area systems fisheries. Reliable estimates of the economic for all inland waters. This is probably more value of these activities are generally important than for any other ecosystem lacking but powerful interest groups have category. The absence of effective emerged that have already stimulated public

60 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

demand for the rehabilitation of inland systems in the Lao P.D.R. revealed that over waters in many areas, including the 50% of villages had effective local systems establishment of protected areas at the local in place which included limiting access (by level. However, in developing countries, activity or category of person, both spatially there is generally pronounced livelihoods and seasonally) and clear boundary dependency upon inland water ecosystems demarcations and management objectives to and particularly of poor communities of enable them to function as protected or people. Wherever inland water ecosystems conservation areas (Sjørslev, 2000). None and people co-occur, livelihoods had any government inputs or status. Some dependency upon the biodiversity that were also very small; for example, for inland waters support is invariably high. specific spawning areas for fish (only a few People use biodiversity directly for food hundred metres along their boundary). On (including nutrients and vitamins), building very heavily exploited floodplains in and medicinal products and for cash income, Bangladesh, where space is at a premium, employment or subsistence. In most areas, well targeted and managed community- the biodiversity of inland water ecosystems based protected areas, only a few hundred is also crucial for local and often regional square metres in extent within a wetland of food security (Coates, 1995). This several square kilometres, have contributed dependency is particularly marked, for to over a four fold increase in fisheries example, on the floodplains of the world’s production and a 30% increase in fish major river systems, such as the lower species diversity across the entire area Ganges River. within two years (Rhaman et al., 2003). The extent of dependency of livelihoods upon inland waters, and the water itself as a 4. Tools for managing better multiple-use resource, requires the involvement of local communities of people The most comprehensive guide to the in the establishment and subsequent design, placement, establishment and management of protected areas as critical to management of protected areas for inland their success. They have the most to gain water ecosystems are those provided under from improved management and are often the Convention on Wetlands the best placed to undertake it. An effective (www.ramsar.org), and its Secretariat. This ecosystems approach should include now has over thirty years of experience with attention to the social, cultural and economic the subject. Tools available include dimensions of natural resources classification systems for wetlands, criteria management within which the livelihoods of for site selection, examples of best practice, people is the paramount consideration. extensive management guidelines and wise “Protected area systems” (or networks), use principles. All of these are backed-up need to consider ecological and socio- with a comprehensive reference library. A economic linkages between protected areas practical Ramsar “toolkit” provides together with their setting within the overall guidance based upon measures adopted by management of the broader ecosystem, and the Conference of the Parties. its resources. The definition of “wetland” under the Ramsar Convention is very broad and Does size matter? includes most types of area that could be Experiences with inland water recognised for inland waters. Also, the ecosystems clearly show that to be effective, technical resources, including wise-use areas which protect biodiversity need not principles and the various guidelines etc., necessarily be large or be government are equally applicable to the management of sponsored. For example, a survey of any wetland site (whether designated under traditional aquatic resources management the Convention or not). The Convention of

61 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Biological Diversity and the Convention on Revenga, C. and Y. Kura. 2003. Status and Wetlands work closely together through a Trends of Biodiversity of Inland Water joint work programme. On issues relating to Ecosystems. CBD Technical Series 11. protected areas of international importance Secretariat of the Convention on for inland water ecosystems, the Convention Biological Diversity, Montreal. 120p. on Wetlands is regarded as the lead Ricciardi, A. and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. mechanism. “Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna.” Conservation References Biology 13 (5): 1220–1222. Sjørslev, J. G. (ed.). 2000. Luangprabang Coates, D. (1995). Inland capture fisheries Fisheries Survey. Assessment of and enhancement: status, constraints and Mekong Fisheries Component, MRC prospects for food security. Report of Fisheries Programme and Living the International Conference on the Aquatic Resources Research Institute, Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to National Agriculture and Forestry Food Security. Kyoto, Japan, 4-9 Research Institute, Vientiane, Lao PDR. December 1995. Government of Japan. UNESCO. 2003. United Nations World Document KC/ FI/95/TECH/3. 85p. Water Development Report. Water for Pittock, B., Wratt, D. et al. 2001. “Chapter People – Water for Life. 576 pp. Paris, 12. Australia and New Zealand.” In: France: UNESCO and Berghahn Books. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, World Resources Institute, United Nations Adaptations, and Vulnerability. Development Programme, United Contribution of Working Group II to the Nations Environment Programme, and Thirds Assessment Report of the the World Bank. 2000. World Resources International Panel on Climate Change. 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems: the McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, Fraying Web of Life. Washington DC: N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S. (eds). World Resources Institute. pp. 591-640. Cambridge, U.K.: WMO. 1997. Comprehensive Assessment of Cambridge University Press. the Freshwater Resources of the World. Rahman, M., Anisul I., Halder S. and D. Stockholm, Sweden: World Capistrano. 2002. Benefits of Meteorological Organisation Stockholm Community Managed Wetland Habitat Environment Institute. Restoration: Experimental Results from Bangladesh Paper presented at the International Conference on Wetlands and People, July 13-14, 2002. Dhaka, Bangladesh. IUCN Dhaka.

62 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED FOREST AREAS: THEIR REPRESENTATIVENESS AND EFFICACY FOR THE CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 9 Gijs van Tol and Sarat Babu Gidda E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

1. Introduction3 enable the comparison and summary of management objectives for the world’s Forests represent a considerable share of the protected areas. Very confusingly, the term protected areas in the world. Assessing the protected forest area is sometimes used to representativeness of protected forest areas, indicate a forest area under forest to ensure that all types of forest in a given management laws, not necessarily for geographical area are sufficiently biodiversity purposes. represented, requires a number of The third question relates to the definitional and classification problems to classification of the great variety of forest be solved. First of all the question “what is a types found throughout the world. A number forest” has a number of different answers; a of global classification systems of forests are main criterion is the percentage of canopy available, but unfortunately none of them cover, but different sources use a different has received universal acceptance. In the threshold value: The data used in the Global Global Biodiversity Outlook forests are Biodiversity outlook are based on a canopy broadly aggregated into five categories: cover of >30 %, while data of FAO are temperate and boreal needle-leaf forests; based on a canopy cover of 10 %. This temperate broad-leaved mixed forests; difference in threshold leads to different tropical moist forests; tropical dry forests; forest areas, especially in open forest types and sparse trees and parklands. A total of 22 with a natural low cover, such as thorn main forest types (Table 1) have been scrub. identified in these five categories; plantation The second question, “what is a forests are not included in these forest types. protected area” can also cause confusion. In (SCBD, 2001). In the Global Forest this article the term is defined according to Resource Assessment (FAO, 2001) the Article 2 of the Convention on Biological forests are regrouped into four main Diversity: “a geographically defined area climatological categories: tropical, which is designated or regulated and subtropical, temperate and boreal forests, managed to achieve specific conservation which unfortunately are not identical to the objectives”. An even stricter definition 5 categories distinguished in the Global would only include those areas that belong Biodiversity Outlook. to one of the six IUCN categories of The lack of consensus on classification protected areas. IUCN has developed a types complicates the interpretation of the comprehensive system of six categories of available information on protected forest protected areas for conservation areas under various forest types. This management (IUCN, 1994). The IUCN situation has a bearing on the assessment of categories provide a common language and comprehensiveness, representativeness and adequacy of protected forest areas. 3 This article is based on a parts of a background document prepared for the International Workshop on protected forest areas, 6-8 Nov. 2003 Montreal, Canada.

63 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Table 1: Main forest types (forest with > 30 % canopy cover) according to the Global Biodiversity outlook (SCBD, 2001)

Forest Type Area (km2)

Boreal and Temperate Needleleaf 12,511,062 Evergreen needleleaf 8,894,690 Deciduous needleleaf 3,616,372

Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed 6,557,026 Mixed broadleaf/ needleleaf 1,803,222 Broadleaf evergreen 342,892 Deciduous broadleaf 3,738,323 Fresh water swamp forest 126,963 Sclerophyllous dry forest 485,093 Disturbed 60,533

Tropical Moist 11,365,672 Lowland evergreen broadleaf rainforest 6,464,455 Lower montane forest 620,014 Upper montane forest 730,635 Fresh water swamp 516,142 Semi-evergreeen moist broadleaf 1,991,013 Mixed needle-leaf and broadleaf 17,848 Needle-leaf 61,648 Mangrove 121,648 Disturbed 842,269

Tropical Dry 3,701,883 Deciduous/ semi-deciduous broad-leaf 3,034,038 Sclerophyllous 405,553 Thorn 262,292

Sparse trees and park lands 4,748,694 Temperate 2,407,735 Tropical 2,304,959

TOTAL 38,808,671

64 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

2. Sources of information these management categories may be somewhat lower (around 10.5%), and the The most comprehensive dataset on global total of protected forests, including protected areas world-wide is managed by areas not assigned to management the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring categories, is around 16%. This assessment Centre in the form of a world database on was done using recent version of the world protected areas, maintained in partnership database on protected areas in combination with the IUCN World Commission on with an approximate map of global forest Protected Areas. The world database cover derived from the Global Land Cover currently holds more than 100,000 records Database. According to this analysis, the of protected areas and was launched into the most protected forests are tropical moist public domain at the Fifth World Parks forests and temperate needle-leaf forests, Congress in September 2003. which have over 11% of their area included The United Nations List of Protected in protected areas. Tropical dry forests are Areas is compiled from information the least protected with less than 9% of their provided by national protected area agencies area included in protected areas belonging to and other organizations to the world management categories I-VI. About 10% of database of protected areas and through the temperate broad-leaved forests are literature search. The 2003 version (Chape included under protected area of various et al., 2003) was also launched at the Fifth IUCN categories. The draft State of World’s World Parks Congress. The 2003 United Protected Areas also states that total amount Nations List of Protected Areas includes all of forest area protected is higher than these protected areas from all countries and figures suggest, as about two million km2 of territories, provided that they comply with these forest types are also included under the IUCN protected areas definition, with or protected areas that do not fall under any of without IUCN management categories the IUCN management categories. assigned, regardless of the size, and Protected areas not belonging to any IUCN including international and regional management categories have particular designated sites. significance in tropical moist forests. In this Another important source of data on forest type, the area of these undetermined forests is the FAO Global Forest Resource management category protected areas is Assessment 2000 (FAO, 2001). It is based almost equal to that of IUCN management on national reports from country category protected areas. correspondents. Unfortunately, many Regarding regional variation, Central countries have not provided information on America, South America, Eastern and protected areas, so the general overview on Southern Africa and Australia/New Zealand protected forest areas in the report is based have 25% or more of their forests within on additional information submitted by some kind of protected area. If only industrialized countries and an updated map protected areas in IUCN management of the UNEP WCMC protected forest areas. categories are considered, only Australia /New Zealand and Central America have 3. Protected forest areas: distribution more than 20% of their forests under and geographical variation protection. Forests in North Africa and the Middle East and in the Pacific are The Global Forest Resource Assessment particularly poorly protected with less than 5 estimated that around 12% of the world’s % of their area included within protected forests are included in IUCN protected areas areas in IUCN categories I-VI. categories I- VI. However, the draft 2003 While the forest categories included in State of World’s Protected Areas (in prep.) the draft State of World’s Protected Areas suggests that globally the total area within are very broad, a previous analysis carried

65 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

out by WCMC stated that freshwater swamp The total number of sites and their forests in both tropical and temperate extent in different forest biomes according regions, mixed needle-leaved and broad– to the 2003 United Nations list is given in leaved forests in tropical regions and sub- Table 2. tropical thorn and sclerophyllous dry forests are poorly protected.

Table 2: Number and area of different protected forest sites according to the 2003 United Nations List (Chape et al., 2003)

Biome (UNEP-WCMC) Total area of Total Protected Protected biome (km2) number of area (km2) area (% of protected total area) sites * Tropical humid forests 10,513,210 3,422 2,450,344 23.3 Tropical dry forests/woodlands 17,312,538 5,746 2,210,563 12.8 Sub-tropical/temperate rainforests/woodlands 3,930,979 6,196 665,174 16.9 Temperate needle-leaf forests/woodlands 15,682,817 13,297 1,350,221 8.6 Temperate broad-leaf forests 11,216,659 35,735 856,502 7.6 Evergreen sclerophyllous forests 3,757,144 5,334 399,587 10.6

Total 62,413,347 69,730 7,932,387 12.7 * including sites where no information on area is provided

There are some differences in the (FAO 2001). The extent of the different percentage of protected areas of different biomes and the area protected is given in forest types between data sets of the draft table 3. A comparison of Tables 2 and 3 State of World’s Protected Areas and the indicates that there is some discrepancy 2003 United Nations list. This is due to the between the FAO assessment and the 2003 fact that the 2003 United Nations list UN list both in the biome areas and in the includes all protected areas irrespective of areas protected. Because of the different IUCN management categories, whereas the classification systems used, these draft State of World’s Protected Areas only differences in areas are difficult to explain. considers protected areas that fall within According to the data compiled by the IUCN management categories. According WCMC, the percentage of protected to the United Nations list, the maximum temperate forest biomes is small when number of protected forest sites occurs in compared to tropical humid forests. In the temperate broad-leaf forest type, temperate zones (temperate needle-leaf whereas tropical humid forests have least forests and temperate broad leaf forests) the number of sites. However, a diametrically percentage of biome protected is well below opposite situation emerges in terms 10%, but 23% in tropical humid forests. percentage of the total forest type protected (7.64% and 23.31 % respectively). FAO estimates that about 12% of the world’s forests fall within protected areas

66 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Table 3: Protected forest area estimation (forest with > 10 % canopy cover) according to the Global Forest Resource Assessment 2000 (FAO 2001)

Ecological Total area Protected Protected domain (km2) area (km2) area (% of total area) Tropical 19,970,000 3,040,000 15.2 Subtropical 3,700,000 420,000 11.3 Temperate 5,070,000 830,000 16.3 Boreal 9,950,000 490,000 5.0 Total 38,690,000 4,780,000 12.4

4. Representativeness, available, specific studies or reports comprehensiveness and adequacy of pertaining to forest protected areas in protected forest areas different geographical regions and for different forest types are lacking. To be effective, forest protected areas must The general data on the extent of include the full range of forest ecosystems protected areas in different biomes are across a landscape (comprehensiveness), relevant to measure the progress towards the reflect the diversity within ecosystems by increase in protected areas, but they provide sampling different areas of the same only limited information on (insight into) the ecosystem type across the geographical area actual conservation of biological diversity. (representativeness), and the network of Information on protected area coverage of protected areas must maintain ecological global rare and exceptional forest types, like viability and integrity of populations, montane tropical cloud forests, mangrove species and communities (adequacy) forest, riparian forests and temperate rain (Kanowski et al., 1999; Frankel et al., forests, and of vulnerable types like semi- 1995). arid and Mediterranean forest ecosystems is The foregoing account shows that about still not available. For mangrove forests, for 12% of the global forest area is under a instance, the total area has decreased by 1%, protected category (with geographical and from 16.3 million hectare in 1990 to 14.6 forest type variations). The question then is: million ha in 2000 (FAO, 2003). How much what are the criteria for assessing of these mangrove forests are included in comprehensiveness, representativeness and protected areas is not known. Only when adequacy? Do the existing forest protected forest associations or vegetation areas meet this criteria?. How effective are communities have been thoroughly surveyed protected forest areas in conserving forest and mapped, will it be possible to assess the biological diversity? Practical approaches contribution to the overall conservation of for assessing representativeness, forest biological diversity and the main gaps comprehensiveness and adequacy are still that exist. not available and this is further clouded by It is also generally agreed that the the lack of consensus on forest classification existing systems of protected areas are not systems. Although some general studies sufficient to meet the role anticipated by the about the efficacy of protected areas in Convention of conserving representative conserving the species and landscapes are components of biodiversity and of meeting

67 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

the target of significantly reducing the rate Threats to protected areas are not of biodiversity loss by 2010. Many of the confined to developing countries or to the planet’s important forest areas are either not tropics. Loss of old-growth forest in Europe represented or inadequately represented by and North America, for example, has been protected areas. In addition many unique nearly complete in most areas except the sites and biodiversity hotspots are not, or not boreal north, and remaining forest fragments adequately, protected. The “Global Gap within protected areas are under threat from Analysis”, as recently carried out by air pollution, acid rain, overuse of national Conservation International, provides an parks, and other threats. overview of important areas for threatened and endangered species, not yet covered by 5. Conclusion officially protected areas. To evaluate the efficacy of protected From the foregoing account, it can be areas, an understanding of the various concluded that more than 10% of the threats to protected areas is essential, since world’s forest area is protected. However, many threats undermine the maintenance of there is only limited information available ecological viability and integrity of on the representativeness of the current populations, species and communities. protected areas with regard to different Direct and indirect threats to protected areas forest types. as well as their underlying causes have been To evaluate the representativeness of the reviewed by many authors (e.g. WRI et al. protected forest areas there is a need to 1992, UNEP, 1995; Carey et al. 2000). A further promote the work on the detailed account of threats to protected areas development of harmonized regional and is also available in the report of the Ad Hoc national forest classification systems, based Technical Expert Group on Protected Areas on harmonized and accepted forest and the Durban Action Plan of the World definitions (as mentioned under programme Parks Congress. The annual loss of about element 3, goal 1, of the programme of work 12.5 million hectares of natural forest as on forest biological diversity), and to result of changes in land-use and complement this forest vegetation type unsustainable logging is an important threat approach with a gap analyses based on factor. Deforestation and subsequent threatened and endangered forest species. fragmentation of the remaining forest areas, There is also a need to develop a practical has a negative impact especially on species methodology for assessing the with large home range and enhance the comprehensiveness, adequacy and efficacy effect of other negative impacts. Additional of protected forest areas, taking into account threat factors include the impact of climate different geographical and socio-economic change, hunting and wildlife trade of the conditions and the specific management species living in protected areas. problems. An IUCN survey conducted in 1999 (IUCN, 1999) in 10 key forest References countries identified inadequate management as another key issue that severely affects the Bruner, A., R.E. Gullison, R.E. Rice and effectiveness and the long term security of G.A.B. da Fonseca 2001. Effectiveness protected areas. Another study (Brunner et of Parks in Protecting Tropical al., 2001) is more optimistic about the Biodiversity. Science Vol. 291:125- management of protected areas, but also 128. emphasizes structural under funding and Carey, C., N. Dudley and S. Stolton 2000. ever increasing pressure on land use as two Squandering Paradise? The importance main reasons for the limited effectiveness of and vulnerability of the world’s the management of protected areas.

68 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: Kanowski, P.J. D.A. Gilmour,C.R. WWF. Margules and C.S. Potter 1999. Chape, S., S.Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox and M. International Forest Conservation: Spalding (compilers), 2003. 2003 Protected areas and beyond. United Nations List of protected Areas. Commonwealth of Australia IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Cambridge, UK and UNEP-WCMC, Diversity 2001. Global Biodiversity Cambridge, UK. Ix+44p. Outlook 2001. Montreal . ix+282p. FAO, 2001. Global Forest Resources State of the World’s Protected Areas (Draft) Assessment 2000. FAO Forestry Paper forthcoming from University of 140, Rome, Italy. 479p. California Press, edited by M. Spalding, FAO, 2003. State of the World Forest. FAO, S. Chape and M. Jenkins Rome, Italy. 151p. UNEP. 1995. Global Biodiversity Frankel, O, A.H.D, Brown and J.J. Burdon Assessment. Cambridge University 1995. The Conservation of Plant Press Biodiversity. Cambridge University UNEP. 2002. Global Environment Outlook- Press. 3: Past, present and future perspectives. IUCN 1994. Guidelines for Protected Areas United Nations Environment Management Categories. CNPPA with Programme, Nairobi, Kenya and assistance of WCMC. Gland, Earthscan. Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. WRI, IUCN and UNEP. 1992. Global IUCN 1999. Threats to Forest Protected Biodiversity Strategy: Guidelines for Areas: Summary of a survey of 10 action to save, study and use Earth’s countries carried out in association with biotic wealth sustainably and equitably. the World Commission on Protected ISBN: 0-915825-74-0. Areas. Research Report for the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. November.

69 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREAS IN DRY AND SUB-HUMID LAND ECOSYSTEMS - THE NEED TO MAKE THE PEOPLE CONNECTION: KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES 10 Juliane Zeidler Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity E-mail: [email protected]

Challenging the myth crops, farmers’ varieties (landraces) and local breeds. Furthermore, the continued Under the Convention on Biological provision of essential ecosystem services, Diversity (CBD), dry-land, Mediterranean, including ecosystem functions such as arid, semi-arid, grassland and savannah sustained soil fertility, clean water and air ecosystems are characterized as dry and sub- and energy supplies are largely depending humid lands. An explicit programme of on biological diversity. work on the biological diversity of dry and Of major concern is that human-induced sub-humid lands was initiated at the 5th change is increasing dramatically especially meeting of the Conference of the Parties in developing countries. Here land-use (COP) to the Convention (CBD, 2000; change (which is one of the key drivers of Zeidler and Mulongoy, 2003). Contrary to biodiversity loss and land popular myth that dry and sub-humid land degradation/desertification) is taking place ecosystems contain low levels of at an accelerating rate4 and the capacities to biodiversity, they can be extremely species efficiently manage the increasing pressures rich and, from a conservation point of view, are limited. It has been estimated that about amongst the most significant in the World 70% of the total dry-land areas worldwide (CBD, 2003; Chapin et al., 2001; Henwood are affected by increased desertification et al., forthcoming). (UN, 1992). This severe environmental degradation, including biodiversity loss, The people connection directly threatens the livelihoods of many people, especially the poor. Two billion people (one third of the total population), mainly in developing countries, Protected areas and biodiversity hotspots rely on the resilience of dry and sub-humid - can they make the match land biodiversity to provide their daily livelihood needs. These people are Recent assessments of the extent of particularly vulnerable to climatic protected areas (Spalding and Lysenko, fluctuations and biodiversity loss. Major forthcoming) indicate that between 1997 and uses of dry and sub-humid land biodiversity 2003 the percentage of individual biomes include existing crops and livestock and protected has almost doubled. This trend their wild relatives, potential new crops (e.g. also holds for dry and sub-humid land salt tolerant species), wild foods, medicine, ecosystems included in the assessment. aromatics and stimulants, ornamental, However, there are great discrepancies in pastoral, soil stabilisation, and tourism the proportion of ecosystem types protected (CBD, 2001). Farming and pastoral systems in the harsh and stressful environments, 4 Land-use change has occurred over the past centuries, particularly those in mountain areas, still especially in Europe and North America, which has led to mostly depend on a diversity of traditional major changes and potential losses of biodiversity (Chapin et al., 2001; Pimm, 2001).

70 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

on a biome or sub-regional basis (Spalding regimes and the exclusion of local and Lysenko, forthcoming). This raises inhabitants, putting wildlife conservation important issues for the establishment of goals ahead of human needs. This image has global protected areas networks. There are been changed over the past decade, various approaches to identify global especially through the increased efforts of "biodiversity hotspots", or areas of high promoting community-based natural biodiversity conservation value, which resources management. However, it is primarily aim to ensure adequate apparent that conflicts of land use still representation of characteristic and unique thrive. Countries are challenged with a need biodiversity assemblages5. Most use to integrated conservation priorities with measures such as species richness, other land use and development options. The endemism, rarity and level of threat. ecosystem approach of the CBD, for However, in the context of maintaining example, provides a useful and practical biodiversity and ecosystem services for framework in this regard. Recognizing the sustainable livelihoods, it is clear that a very importance of conserving biodiversity so its different approach to the identification of use can be sustained is crucial to livelihood areas where biodiversity has significant security, particularly in dry and sub-humid socio-economic value is needed, together lands. Despite the difficulty of the concepts with action for its conservation and and management requirements it is sustainable use. important that the interconnectivities of various factors are addressed6. Alternative "hotspots" and conservation approaches Some ways ahead

The continued establishment and Priority actions required that relate to management of protected areas are protected areas in dry and sub-humid land undisputably of great importance to ecosystems include the identification of biodiversity conservation, including the areas of particular biodiversity value and/or maintenance of ecosystem services, in dry under threat and the successful and sub-humid lands. However, it is clear implementation of key conservation and that, especially in countries with increasing sustainable use actions, especially through population pressures striving for livelihood applying the ecosystem approach. The CBD security and development, it will become programme of work on dry and sub-humid increasingly more difficult to set aside lands was developed to support action on formally protected areas which largely such priorities. exclude human populations from them. In some regions, historically protected areas References are associated with oppressive political CBD 2000. Decision V/23 Consideration of options for conservation and sustainable 5 For example Conservation International (CI) has published use of biological diversity in dryland, biodiversity hotspot maps which should help donors and decision makers identify areas where urgent action for the Mediterranean, arid, semi-arid, protection of global biodiversity is required (see grassland and savannah ecosystems; http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/strategies/hotspots/h otspots.xml); few dry and sub-humid land ecosystems identified; through the Global 200 initiative, the World Wide 6 An example of an innovative approach to conserving Fund for Nature (WWF) identified 134 terrestrial ecoregions ecosystem function is the concept of the ecological reserve to as priority targets for conservation, amongst these are 24 dry water management in South Africa. Water extraction from a and sub-humid land relevant ecosystems catchment first has to honor the needs of human consumption (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregio and the ecological requirements before other commitments, ns/global200/pages/home.htm); The IUCN and the WWF e.g. of industrial use, can be considered. This aims to avoid identified 234 Centres of Plant Diversity (CPDs), of which over-abstraction of water, which would damage the approximately one-third are situated in dry and sub-humid ecosystem including the natural water cycles. land ecosystems (WWF and IUCN, 1994).

71 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default. aspx?m=COP-05&id=7165&lg=0 Spalding, M. and Lysenko, I., forthcoming. CBD 2001. Global Biodiversity Outlook. Habitat coverage by the protected areas Secretariat of the CBD, Montreal, Canada; network. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, The State http://www.biodiv.org/gbo/ of the World's Protected Areas CBD 2003. Report of the Ad Hoc Technical UN 1992. Agenda 21. U.N. Doc. Expert group (AHTEG) on dry and sub- A/CONF.151/6/Rev. 1, 1992, reprinted in 31 humid lands I.L.M. (1992) (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/8/INF/2); at Worldwide Fund for Nature and World http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/sbstta/s Conservation Union. 1994, Centres of Plant bstta-08/information/sbstta-08-inf-02-en.doc Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for their Chapin III, F.S., Sala, O. and Huber-Sannwald, Conservation. 3 volumes; Cambridge, UK, E. (eds) 2001. Global Biodiversity in a IUCN Publications Unit changing environment. Scenarios for the 21st Zeidler, J. and Mulongoy, K.J. 2003. The dry century. Springer Verlag, New York, p. 376 and sub-humid lands programme of work of Henwood, W.D., Strand, H. and White, R., the Convention on Biological Diversity: forthcoming. Grassland and desert Connecting the CBD and the UN ecosystems - protecting our arid lands. Convention to Combat Desertification. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, The State of the RECIEL 112(2): 164-175 World's Protected Areas Pimm, S.L. 2001. The World According to Pimm: A scientist audits the Earth; McGraw-Hill

72 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED LANDSCAPES, CORRIDORS, CONNECTIVITY AND ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS 11 Charlotte Boyd Conservation International E-mail: [email protected]

“An ecological network is … a coherent system of natural and/ or semi-natural landscape elements that is configured and managed with the objective of maintaining or restoring ecological functions as a means to conserve biodiversity while also providing appropriate opportunities for the sustainable use of natural resources.” (Bennett and Wit, 2001, p5)

1. Introduction in semi-natural areas outside the protected area system are supported by strong land use Ecological networks and broad-scale planning traditions (Bennett and Wit, 2001; approaches to biodiversity conservation Sanderson and Harris, 2000). The approach planning are essential to ensure that wide- is being readily adapted to less developed ranging species have access to sufficient regions where the persistence of threatened habitat to support viable populations, that species and ecosystems also requires an there is sufficient connectivity to support expansion of conservation efforts that needs movement between core areas, that core to be reconciled with demands for areas are sheltered from edge effects and sustainable development. In these varied advancing threats, and that essential contexts, a number of different frameworks ecological processes are maintained. These have evolved, such as ecological networks approaches are an important mechanism for (Bennett and Wit, 2001), wildlands achieving the objectives of the Convention networks (Soulé and Terborgh, 1999), on Biological Diversity (CBD) - the ecoregion-based conservation (WWF, conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable 2000), bioregional planning (Miller, 1996) use of its components, and the fair and and biodiversity conservation corridors equitable sharing of its benefits. Both the (Sanderson et al., 2003). All are designed to World Summit on Sustainable Development contribute to a similar set of goals – the in 2002 and the Vth World Congress on conservation and long-term persistence of Protected Areas called on the 7th Congress threatened species, representative of the Parties to the CBD to promote ecosystems and ecological processes, ecological networks as a strategy for together with the maintenance of ecosystem reducing biodiversity loss (WPC services and sustainable development. The Recommendation 5:10). different frameworks also share a common The concept of ecological networks has structure of core areas, connecting linkages, been strongly developed in Europe, and buffer zones or areas of compatible particularly in countries such as the land/ resource use. The frameworks may be Netherlands and Germany where applied at a range of different scales, but this opportunities for biodiversity conservation paper will focus on broad-scale initiatives -

73 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

at the ecoregional and sub-ecoregional scale core habitat areas. For example, (Poiani et al., 2000; Sanderson et al., 2002). conservation planners need to take into (For the sake of simplicity, all these account the size of area necessary to enable frameworks will be referred to as ecological species and ecosystems to recover from network approaches for the rest of this expected disturbances, such as fire and paper.) drought. (Pickett and Thompson, 1978).

2. Key elements of ecological networks (ii) An emphasis on maintaining or strengthening ecological coherence, Bennett and Wit (2001) recognise five primarily through providing for ecological common elements of these approaches: interconnectivity Metapopulation analysis indicates that (i) A focus on conserving biodiversity at regional populations are more likely to the ecosystem, landscape or regional scale persist where there is sufficient movement Broad-scale approaches to biodiversity between local populations to supplement conservation planning have evolved in them before they disappear or to ensure that response to concerns that isolated protected the recolonisation rate exceeds the areas are too small to protect viable extinction rate. Linked fragments are populations of wide-ranging species or therefore expected to support greater maintain essential ecological processes. numbers of species in the long-term than Island biogeography theory indicates that isolated fragments of the same size. Indeed, the size of core habitat areas and distance to Fahrig and Merriam (1994) argue that, in the sources of replenishment influence the context of complex patch dynamics, number of species that these areas can replication and connectedness of patches support in the long-term (MacArthur and may be more important than their overall Wilson, 1967; Diamond, 1975). Small size. For many species, individuals and isolated populations are vulnerable to populations must move from one core area extinction due to inbreeding depression and to another, whether as part of periodic or random demographic and environmental seasonal migrations between sites, or to variation (Soulé, 1986). Habitat disperse to new territories. Connectivity may fragmentation is proving a major threat to also be critical for adaptive responses to biodiversity and to the ability of protected long-term change. For example, allowing for areas to support functioning communities of the movement of species and ecosystems in species (IUCN, 2003). Even the largest response to climate change may require a protected areas may be too small to meet the broad scale approach characterized by high needs of wide-ranging species and to levels of connectivity (Hannah et al, 2002). support viable populations over time Some ecological processes require (Newmark, 1995). Even where conservation connectivity – the classic example being the targets have more limited ranges, their long- transport of water, energy and nutrients term survival in the wild will depend on along riverine corridors. The diversity of functioning communities - viable core areas is often dependent on disturbance populations of associated species, such as patterns that modify habitat structure and plants, pollinators, seed dispersers, prey and open new niches. Isolated core areas may be predators - that may include wide-ranging more or less vulnerable to these disturbance species. patterns (for example, less vulnerable to fire Ecological processes that are essential to because natural fires started outside the core the long-term survival of species and area are unable to pass through barriers to ecosystems, such as water cycling, reach the core area) (Pickett and Thompson, pollination and predation, operate at a range 1978). of scales – in some cases, far broader than

74 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

(iii) Ensuring that critical areas are • protection and restoration of buffered from the effects of potentially connectivity between wilderness core damaging external activities areas; The resilience of core areas can be enhanced • control of exotic species; by a surrounding matrix of compatible land/ • reduction of pollution and restoration of resource use designed to protect them areas degraded by pollution (Soulé and against edge effects and expanding human Terborgh, 1999). activities. Threatened species are often particularly vulnerable at the edges of core (v) Promoting complementarity between areas (for example, forest birds may suffer land uses and biodiversity conservation higher rates of nest predation (Wilcove, objectives, particularly by exploiting the 1985)). As wide-ranging individuals move potential biodiversity value of associated in and out of protected areas, core area semi-natural landscapes populations become vulnerable to threats From a biodiversity perspective, the ideal beyond protected area boundaries, such as response to the need for broad-scale hunting and fishing. Changes in resource conservation and connectivity would be the and land use in areas surrounding protected expansion of existing protected areas. But in areas influence the structure and species heavily impacted regions, this is often no composition of habitat at the edges, eroding longer feasible, and conservationists must core areas of natural habitat. (Gascon et al., work with land/ resource users outside 2000). Edge effects can be reduced through protected areas to create new opportunities protected area designs that minimize edge- for biodiversity conservation. In some to-core ratios, but resilience is strengthened heavily impacted regions, growing by surrounding core areas with buffers of recognition of the need to maintain compatible land/ resource use. ecosystem services and environmental A buffer of compatible land/ resource stability for sustainable development use can also provide a forward defensive generates valuable support for conservation line against the incursion of aggressive planning and these objectives are integrated dynamic threats, such as migration and into standard planning goals. colonization or the expansion of timber Even in less heavily impacted regions, there operations, livestock or agricultural is often a need to significantly expand plantations. biodiversity conservation efforts and this can best be achieved by designing (iv) Restoring degraded ecosystems where biodiversity conservation plans that are appropriate consistent with sustainable development. While in some regions it will be possible to The broad scale of ecological network design appropriate broad-scale conservation approaches provides greater flexibility for plans based on remaining natural reconciling biodiversity conservation with ecosystems and habitat, ecological sustainable development than site-based restoration will be necessary in others. approaches. Following Aldo Leopold, the Wildlands Network approach to landscape restoration 3. Species-based and landscape focuses on six goals: approaches • protection and recovery of native species; The principles of broad-scale conservation • protection and restoration of native planning – scale, connectivity and resilience habitats; - are the same wherever planning takes • protection, restoration, and maintenance place, but the appropriate approach will of ecological and evolutionary depend on the local context, available data processes; and technical expertise and the type of

75 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

information necessary to convince decision- should be sufficiently large to be viable over makers and other stakeholders. time, and boundaries should be designed to minimize edge effects so that the area is 4. Boundaries resilient in the long-term (Scott and Csuti, 1997) Once a region has been identified as a conservation priority through a global or 6. Scale regional prioritisation process, the initial boundaries of the planning region will For many species, the resulting system of generally follow topographic or protected areas will provide adequate habitat biogeographic boundaries (such as the limits and connectivity to support viable of macro-watersheds or ecoregions). These populations, but there may be some wide- may be adjusted to coincide with ranging species of conservation concern that administrative or political boundaries, are not adequately protected by the system especially where the approach is led by of protected areas. The conservation plan government agencies or integrated into other therefore needs to be expanded to include land-use planning exercises. adequate habitat to support these species. Many wide-ranging species are tolerant of a 5. Core areas wide range of habitats, so that these additional areas may not need to be The backbone of an ecological network relatively intact, but could include semi- approach is a system of protected areas natural areas (such as some types of grazing designed to conserve core areas. The first land and managed woodland) that meet the step in designing an ecological network is habitat or resource needs of the species in therefore the identification and prioritisation question (Sanderson et al., 2002). of core areas in line with the established Identification of additional areas is based on goals. This process involves identifying a an assessment of the habitat requirements of clear set of conservation targets that need to minimum viable populations of wide- be represented in core areas (such as ranging species of conservation concern. globally threatened and restricted range This is used to determine whether these will species and/ or ecosystems, depending on be adequately met through the effective planning goals), mapping these species or protection of the selected core areas (see for ecosystems, and then systematically example, Foreman et al., 2003). If not, then identifying the sets of core areas that would the next step is to describe, identify and map meet the specified conservation targets. the additional areas required to secure the The final system of core areas should persistence of the wide-ranging species of include all the areas required to meet the conservation concern. Considerable research conservation targets (for example, effective may be required as different species groups protection of threatened species and/or are likely to have very different needs. For representative ecosystems). Wherever example, canopy bird species may be possible conservation targets should be met satisfied with intermittent patches of natural in more than one core area (to provide or semi-natural canopy in an agroforestry insurance against the risk of destruction of landscape, whereas ground-dwelling species any particular area). Each area should also may need more continuous natural or semi- be complementary to the other selected areas natural groundcover. A first approximation (that is, it should add value in terms of can be achieved by overlaying information targets or their replication). on the home ranges of wide-ranging species Once the system of core areas has been on vegetation cover/ habitat maps and finalized, then protected areas are designed seeking expert recommendations on the to conserve these areas. Protected areas

76 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

areas required to support the persistence of (Beier, 1993; Bennett, 1999). Connectivity these species. networks are designed based on ecological The system of protected areas will also studies and metapopulation analyses that be sufficient to protect a large number of indicate the connectivity needs of target important ecological processes and species, combined with studies of the actual ecosystem services. However, there may be movement patterns of these species and some essential ecological processes or supplemented by modelling of migration or important ecosystem services that operate at dispersal pathways when necessary (Walker a broad scale and will not be adequately and Craighead, 1997). A useful first maintained by the protected area system. For approximation may be gained by mapping example, top-level predators and current movement patterns for wide-ranging megaherbivores are often wide-ranging species, and combining this with maps of species, and viable populations are often not potential connecting features based on supported within the system of protected vegetation cover/ land use maps. areas. Broad-scale hydrological processes Designing connectivity networks is are often critical for the persistence of particularly challenging when there are a conservation targets, and are often also number of species of conservation concern identified as important ecosystem services. that are expected to use the connectivity As discussed above, considerations of network (Simberloff et al., 1992; Beier and scale should also take into account Noss, 1998). One approach has been to disturbance patterns, such as fire and focus on distinct biological corridors or flooding. The first step is to identify those movement pathways between core areas for ecological processes and ecosystem services a limited number of target species; another that are critically important for achieving approach has been to incorporate these conservation planning goals (focusing on linkages into a wider region of connectivity those that occur at a broader-scale than the across a landscape or seascape. core areas within the system), then determine what would be necessary for their 8. Resilience maintenance and map this where possible. As with minimum habitat requirements for Resilience to edge effects is built into the viable populations, the additional area design of protected areas by minimising requirements for ecological processes or edge-to-core ratios, but the persistence of ecosystem services may by satisfied by core areas can be further enhanced by semi-natural areas or compatible promoting compatible land/ resource uses in land/resource use areas rather than the surrounding area. For this goal to be additional core areas. achieved, it is critical that these buffer areas expand the area available for biodiversity 7. Connectivity conservation rather than reduce the core area allocated to strict protection. The delineation While the movement patterns of many target of edge effects has proved challenging. The species will be fully captured within single preferred approach is to identify the protected areas, some species will require pressures on species of conservation concern some form of connectivity between core associated with edge effects, seek to areas. For different species, connectivity understand the causes of these pressures may be provided by biological corridors (such as micro-climatic changes that lead to (linear strips of habitat) or stepping stones increased vulnerability to fire, or increased (small patches of habitat) or, for more competition from invasive species), then tolerant species, may be provided by develop recommendations on the type and compatible land/resource use already extent of compatible land/ resource use designated to meet scale requirements required based on this analysis. In the

77 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

interim, it may prove useful to identify The appropriate design process will clearly potential buffer zones for core areas use depend on local context. In particular, in based on vegetation cover/ land use maps, regions that are already highly fragmented, and to work to secure these. such as much of Europe and densely The delineation of areas of compatible populated or utilised regions of the tropics land/ resource use to provide buffers against (for example the Atlantic Forest in Brazil), advancing threats has also proved the emphasis will be on protecting challenging. Some inferences can be made remaining habitat patches, consolidating from analyses of the extent and rate of these where possible and restoring progression of impacts associated with connectivity, ecological processes and similar threats in the past (for example, areas ecosystem services. In many cases, some of habitat modification associated with investment in the ecological restoration of infrastructure development) and areas of critical landscape elements will be necessary compatible land/ resource use designed to (see Box 1). provide adequate buffers against these threats in the future.

9. Context matters: fragmented vs. relatively intact areas

Box 1: Ecological restoration

‘Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed.’ (SER, 2002; p2)

The aim of ecological restoration is to restore an ecosystem to its pre-disturbance state or to the trajectory it was following prior to disturbance. Ecological restoration must therefore have a clear reference point – a clear description of the key characteristics of the desired ecosystem following restoration. In the simplest case, ecological restoration may require nothing more than the removal of a specific disturbance (such as pollution or a harmful and invasive exotic species), and then allowing ecological processes to bring about recovery of the ecosystem on their own. In other cases, ecological restoration will require the reintroduction of native species or other intervention to restore ecological processes. Where the reference ecosystem is associated with traditional and sustainable cultural practices, such as traditional grazing or fire management on grasslands or traditional coppicing in woodlands, ecological restoration may require restoration of these practices. In many cases, the restored ecosystem will require continued management to prevent the resumption of the disturbances that necessitated restoration in the first place.

Ecological restoration is complex and costly – it should therefore be carefully targeted at high priority ecosystems at strategic points within the conservation plan. Existing connectivity should be maintained where possible, as it is much more complex and costly to restore connectivity once it has been lost.

In contrast, in areas that are still relatively forward in regions that are already intact, such as the Congo Basin, the fragmented, as the limits of these areas are emphasis will be on maintaining already defined and there is less flexibility. connectivity and broad-scale ecological In regions that are less fragmented, planning processes. The identification of core areas, is likely to depend more on identifying the connecting linkages and areas for appropriate size of core areas, based on the compatible land use is often more straight- minimum area required to support viable

78 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

populations of wide-ranging species or to Connectivity networks also need legal sustain broad-scale ecological processes, protection, with biodiversity conservation as and on identifying and addressing threats to a recognized goal, to protect them from connectivity, such as infrastructure incursions that erode their contribution to development plans. connectivity, but in many cases some level of human use will be compatible. In some 10. From design to implementation countries, it may be possible to develop special regulations protecting certain Integrating broad-scale conservation landscape features (such as restrictions on planning into other land-use planning development along streambanks, or initiatives and sectoral policies (such as conversion of remaining natural forest agriculture, livestock and forestry policies) patches). Targeted conservation service is critical. Ideally, conservation planning payments, agro-environmental schemes and will be proposed or officially led by the conservation easements, may also prove relevant land use planning authority, even if useful here. conservation organisations and ecologists Where the policy framework allows, take the lead in actual design. Broad scale planning restrictions or special planning conservation planning can play an important requirements (such as more rigorous role in integrating conservation objectives requirements for environmental impact into development planning, and the design assessments or more stringent environmental process should be designed to support that. quality standards) can help to secure This relationship needs to be cultivated from compatible land/resource uses in designated the beginning as it is unlikely that planning areas. Again, conservation easements, authorities will simply adopt a plan once conservation service payments and agro- completed. At the very least, the information environmental schemes can be employed to needs to be made available to local land use promote compatible land/ resource uses. For planning authorities and integrated into base example, Conservation International has maps used for land use planning purposes. targeted its Conservation Coffee Program at In countries that do not have a strong coffee farmers in high biodiversity areas, planning culture, other mechanisms for such as those in the El Triunfo Biosphere embedding the conservation plan into land Reserve in Mexico. Local farmers receive use decision-making need to be found. In all access to higher and more stable coffee cases, other important land use decision- prices in return for eliminating agrochemical makers and stakeholders need to be use, diversifying the shade canopy with identified and brought into the process from native tree species, conserving on-farm an early stage. forest and respecting the rules and All efforts should be made to ensure that regulations of the adjacent protected area. core areas are legally recognised with In most cases, spatially specific biodiversity conservation as a primary goal. strategies such as those described above will The preferred management category will be strengthened by policy action at a higher depend on the local or national context, and level, in particular action to address perverse the core areas may be owned and managed incentives or subsidies that encourage non- by government, non-governmental sustainable resource use. For example, organizations, private landowners or local where important habitat for target species is communities, but biodiversity conservation threatened by land/ resource use conflict as a should be a management goal and this status result of insecure land/ resource tenure, then should have legal backing. Ecological an appropriate strategy may include changes networks are an essential complement to to national land/ resource legislation protected areas, not a substitute. together with targeted efforts to support land/ resource titling in this habitat area.

79 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Finally, it is important to identify of biodiversity in a changing climate. potential threats to core areas and Conservation Biology 16:1: 264-268. connectivity, such as new infrastructure and Harris, L. and J. Sanderson (eds). 2000. development zones, in advance, and to Landscape ecology: A Top Down engage with government decision-makers Approach. Lewis Publishers, Boca and the private sector to develop alternatives Raton (Fl) that would meet the objectives of IUCN 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of infrastructure/ development with less impact Threatened Species. IUCN – The World on conservation goals or mitigating Conservation Union, Gland and measures. Cambridge. http://www.redlist.org. MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson 1967. The References Theory of Island Biogeography. New Jersey: Princeton. Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum Miller, K. 1996. Balancing the Scales: habitat areas and corridors for cougars. guidelines for increasing biodiversity’s Conservation Biology 7:94-108. chances through bioregional Beier, P. and R. Noss 1998. Do habitat management. World Resources Institute, corridors really provide connectivity? Washington DC. Conservation Biology 12:1241-1252. Newmark, W.D. 1995. Extinction of Bennett, A. 1999. Linkages in the mammal populations in western North Landscape: The Role of Corridors and American national parks. Conservation Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. Biology 9:512-526. International Union for the Conservation Pickett, S. and J. Thompson 1978. Patch of Nature, Gland. dynamics and the design of nature Bennett, G. and P. Wit 2001. The reserves. Biological Conservation Development and Application of 13:27-37. Ecological Networks: a review of Poiani, K.A., B.D. Richter, M.G. Anderson proposals, plans and programmes. and H.E. Richter 2000. Biodiversity AIDEnvironment and IUCN. Conservation at Multiple Scales: Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: functional sites, landscapes and lessons of modern biogeographic studies networks. Bioscience 50 (ii): 133-146. for the design of nature reserves. Sanderson, J., G. da Fonseca, C. Galindo- Biological Conservation 7: 129-146. Leal, K. Alger, V.H. Inchausty and K. Fahrig, L. and G. Merriam 1994. Morrison 2003. Biodiversity Conservation of fragmented Conservation Corridors: considerations populations. Conservation Biology 8: for planning, implementation and 50-59. monitoring of sustainable landscapes. Foreman, D., K. Daly, R. Noss, M. Clark, K. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Menke, D. Parsons and R. Howard Conservation International, Washington 2003. New Mexico Highlands Wildlands DC. Network Vision: Connecting the Sky Sanderson, E.W., K.H. Redford, A. Vedder, Islands to the Southern Rockies. The P.B. Coppolillo and S.E. Ward 2002. A Wildlands Project, Richmond VA:. conceptual model for conservation Gascon, C., G. Williamson and G. da planning based on landscape species Fonseca 2000. Receding forest edges requirements. Landscape and Urban and vanishing reserves. Science, 288: Planning 58: 41-56. 1356-1358. Scott, M. and B. Csuti 1997. Noah Hannah, I., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. worked two jobs. Conservation Biology Bond, M. Bush, J.C. Lovett, D. Scott, 11:5:1255-7. and F.I. Woodward 2002. Conservation

80 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

SER Science and Policy Working Group Walker, R. and L. Craighead 1997. 2002. The SER Primer on Ecological Analysing Wildlife Movement Corridors Restoration. www.ser.org. in Montana Using GIS. Paper presented Simberloff, D.S., J.A. Farr, J. Cox, and at the 1997 ESRI Users’ Conference and D.W. Mehlman 1992. Movement published in the Proceedings. corridors: conservation bargains or poor Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest investments? Conservation Biology 6:4: tracts and the decline of migratory 493-504. songbirds. Ecology 66: 1211-1214. Soulé, M.E. 1986. Conservation Biology: WWF 2000. A Workbook for Conducting the science of scarcity and diversity. Biological Assessments and Developing Sinauer Associates, Sunderland (Ma). Biodiversity Visions for Ecoregion- Soulé, M.E. and J. Terborgh 1999. Based Conservation. WWF Continental Conservation: Scientific Conservation Science Programme. Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Washington DC: Island Press.

81 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS: ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

12 Yaroslav Movchan Ministry of the Environmental Protection of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction programmes to strengthening or restore ecological networks, started quite recently Development has resulted in over- (within the past 15 years). IUCN defines a exploitation of natural resources, including transboundary protected area as “an areas of biodiversity, with high levels of pollution, land and/or sea that straddles one or more major changes in biomes, landscapes and boundaries between states, sub-national ecosystems, and negative impacts on human units such as provinces and regions, health. Despite substantial efforts during autonomous areas and/or areas beyond the recent decades, as witnessed by the large limits of national sovereignty or jurisdiction, number of international and regional whose constituent parts are especially initiatives, including conventions, dedicated to the protection and maintenance programmes and projects, the degradation of of biodiversity, and of natural and associated biological diversity continues through the cultural resources, and managed co- impacts of unsustainable development. . operatively through legal or other effective Political changes during the last decade means”. These are essential in many areas have presented new opportunities for because ecosystems and species do not sustainable development under which the always respect political boundaries. more sound use of natural resources is Evidently, as the focus of conservation promoted. The process of social has moved towards landscape-scale and development and/or transition to the market ecosystem approaches, together with the economy in some regions has also resulted recognition of the importance of ecological in some negative economic and social corridors and connectivity, interest in the consequences, including financial crises and practical conservation benefits of unemployment (Movchan Ya., 1999). transboundary protected areas has increased. Environmental matters should, therefore, be As of 2002, there were more then 170 considered in a holistic manner taking into complexes of two or more adjoining account social, ecological and economic protected areas divided by international conditions. boundaries, involving a total of 669 One of the interesting areas to which protected areas representing 113 countries. more holistic approaches can be applied is to No doubt, status of the areas and the development of protected areas and cooperation over their management vary. ecocorridors (Eco-nets). Within this context, Some were established as official here I discuss in particular the development transboundary areas, but all have the of transboundary protected areas (TBPAs). potential to become formally recognised as TBPAs. 2. Transboundary protected areas as TBPAs may be established through instrument for biodiversity conservation. high-level political initiatives of governments, local efforts in the field, or by International cooperation on establishment intervention of the third parties such as of the global system of transboundary NGOs, United Nations and academic protected areas, as components of institutions, or international conventions.

82 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

TBPAs may be single units formally • incompatible policies with regard to declared as transboundary through resource use versus resource protection; legislation, but many involve two or more • imbalances in power between partners distinct, but adjoining, protected areas with due to different commitments of or without cooperative management resources; arrangements. • misunderstandings based on religious or TBPAs are valuable in that they can cultural differences, or language combine and coordinate biodiversity barriers; conservation efforts between countries and • political tension or armed conflict; promote the conservation of ecological • a lack of parity with regard to the services at a scale that is larger than what ratification of international protocols or can be accomplished within national conventions; boundaries. • differences or conflicts in legal The important benefits of TBPAs, as frameworks and provisions; described by the ad hoc technical experts on • impediments to rapid response to protected areas established by the CBD emergency situations where Conference of the Parties in 2002 include: transnational consultation is required; a) enhancing conservation of • difficult terrain, inaccessibility, and lack ecoregions, landscapes, ecosystems and of transboundary transportation links; species; • different level of professional standards b) promoting a holistic approach with respect to zones and biomes; in protected areas agencies and variable c) facilitating the management of levels of authority given to protected area directors on each side of the border; transboundary natural resources; • d) promoting international cooperation technical incompatibilities in at different levels and in different fora; communication, fire suppression e) attracting additional financing from equipment, GIS systems, etc. international sources; In the light of the process of rapid f) enhancing commitment from degradation of biodiversity, in common with partners on local, regional and global scales; PAs more generally, the crucial concern is g) facilitating more effective research; maximum protection of virgin areas and h) bringing economic benefits to local minimizing the human impact on other areas and national economies; and as much as possible. Solutions include i) ensuring better cross-border control strengthening existing, and establishing new, of problems such as fire, disease, biological TBPAs, implementation of the ecosystem invasion, poaching, pollution and approach and improving international smuggling. cooperation. The following requirements Whilst TBPAs can have many benefits, can be identified: their establishment must overcome (a) Positive dialog concerning the difficulties related to differences between establishment of new TBPAs between countries in legal systems, culture and adjacent parties bearing in mind the capacity levels. ecosystem approach and the importance of ecological networks. 3. TBPAs in practice: conflicts and (b) Development of collaboration with difficulties adjacent parties and countries with the aim of strengthening effective collaborative The designing, establishing, management management of existing TBPAs. and governance of TBPAs are facing several (c) Harmonization of relevant national constraints including: legislation with a view to facilitate the establishment and management of TBPAs, and to develop mechanisms for equitable

83 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

sharing of the costs and benefits arising Diversity Strategy in respect of the issue of from the establishment and management of the development of pan-European Eco-net TBPAs. as a single spatial network of areas of European countries with natural or partly 4. TBPAs: The Ukrainian case-study altered landscape conditions. The conceptual scheme of Ukrainian Ukraine re-gained its independence in 1991. Eco-net is represented in Figure 1. As a typical representative of a post- The principal objective of this communist society, it inherited from the programme is to increase the area of lands previous system substantial problems related under natural landscapes to a level sufficient to the environment, including over- for the preservation of their diversity close exploitation of natural resources to their natural conditions. This includes the (particularly mineral deposits and development of a territorially integrated bioresources), water, air and soil pollution, system built to maintain natural corridors for land erosion, and radionuclide the migration and propagation of plants and contamination. Agricultural activity animals. The National Eco-network should seriously degraded steppe landscapes. meet the requirements of the Pan-European It is difficult to implement sustainable Eco-net and perform the leading functions in development policies under favourable respect of biodiversity conservation conditions let alone to pursue this goal in the (Мовчан Я.І., 1997). The Programme Ukraine. The basic Ukrainian environmental should also contribute to the balanced and policy documents have been adopted at sustainable use of bioresources in the different levels and take into consideration economy. in principal the necessity of biodiversity One of the main tasks of the Programme conservation, maintenance of productive is to agree upon the issues related to the capacity of forest ecosystems, enhancing transboundary integration of Eco-net the contribution of natural ecosystems to the elements of the neighbouring countries with global cycle and climate stability, decreasing elements of the National Eco-net in order to acidification and air pollution, and the develop the Pan-European Network. The elimination of the consequences of nuclear Programme provides for establishing contamination. transboundary protected areas of international importance, integration of the Ukrainian Eco-net. National Eco-net with Eco-nets of In reality, overall, environmental neighbouring countries that are members of considerations still play a subordinated role the Pan-European Eco-net. This is done, for to economic development. However, the example, by setting up common Ukrainian environmental management transboundary elements of Eco-net within system is developing rapidly and its main natural regions and natural corridors and goal during this transitional period is to agreeing upon the land use projects in incorporate environmental concerns into border areas. The common transboundary economic and social development policies elements of the national Eco-net will be set of the country. The State Programme of up in cooperation with Republic of Poland, Ukraine’s National Eco-network Republic of Belarus, Russian Federation, Development for Years 2000-2015 has been Romania, Republic of Moldova, Slovak developed in the context of requirements Republic and Hungary. The regional related to the further refinement, Convention on the Protection and improvement and development of the Sustainable Development of the Carpathian environmental legislation of Ukraine. This Region (Carpathian convention) could serve has been in line with recommendations of as good example of a successful attempt to the Pan-European Biological and Landscape

84 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Figure 1: The conceptual scheme of Ukrainian Eco-net.

co-operate in solving common are preserved there, its biodiversity, as well environmental problems at a regional level. as relief and landscape diversity, is extremely rich. The main woodland areas, Regional cooperation – Carpathian case- which support the ecological balance, study: improve the climate, and together with Context: mountain ranges, protect the sub-Carpathian Because of their geographic position, the southern Europe from cold winds. Several of Carpathian mountains are extremely the largest and cleanest European rivers important for Central Europe from social, originate there: the Tisza, Dnister (Nistry), economic, resource, climatic, hydrological Prut, Wisla (Vistula) and the Danube (in and ecological viewpoints. The population part). The Carpathians are also the home of of the whole Carpathian region is more than many relict and endemic species of the 25 million people. natural flora and fauna of Central Europe. The Carpathian Mountains are among Thus, the Carpathian mountains have a Pan- the last large mountain ecosystems of European heritage. Europe still preserved almost entirely in Anthropogenic pressures in the region their natural state. This mountain system is have reached their critical limits. The a hotspot for European biological and progressive destruction of forests, poaching, landscape diversity. It houses more than half industrial pollution, intensification of of the whole biodiversity of Central Europe. agriculture, development of tourism, The largest areas of European virgin forests expansion of region’s transport network and

85 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

other adverse impacts of economic activities Europe, significant progress was achieved have become serious threats to the unique during the last decade in solving the diversity of the Carpathians and the problems of environmental management in conservation of the whole mountain the Carpathians. Some Carpathian countries ecosystem. have signed bilateral and multilateral The situation is complicated by the lack agreements on concerted actions for of an effective legal mechanism for uniting environmental management and sustainable efforts of all Carpathian countries under the use. In some Carpathian countries (including purpose of strengthening co-operation in the Ukraine) environmental projects were field of preservation and sustainable use of implemented for solving specific problems. the Carpathians. Most Carpathian countries have economies Mountain ecosystems are preserves of in transition. The Global Environment natural biological diversity often with Facility (GEF) recently outlined a significant economic values. They are framework for another important project extremely sensitive to any anthropogenic aimed at the preservation of natural intervention or impact. These disrupt the resources there. Previous international unstable ecological balance and result in efforts did not solve the whole set of adverse and destructive processes. existing problems. The ecosystem of the The whole Carpathian region, by its Carpathian Mountains is still maintained in a physiographic, geomorphological, hydro- largely uncoordinated way. There is often a logical and ecological characteristics, lack of coordination in actions of represents a uniform, natural ecosystem. neighbouring countries, insufficient Hydrological conditions of the area greatly exchange of information and many other depend on its vegetation, mainly forests, contributing factors. The concept of a within the catchment. Most of the mountain regional transboundary project, which unites landscape is sloping. Thus, economic scientific, public and governmental sectors activities in the region should be based on of the Carpathian countries in funding joint uniform, mutually coordinated principles solutions, was born in Ukraine several years and approaches. ago under the preliminary title “Preserving the “Green heart” of Europe”. Political setting: The Carpathian mountains are mainly Progress – a regional Convention emerges: located in the territories of eight European The Ministry of Environment and Natural countries: Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Resources of Ukraine made considerable Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, efforts in searching for possible better Austria, Serbia and Montenegro. Almost all coordination of economic activities and these countries face similar environmental environmental management in the whole problems in the Carpathians. Transboundary Carpathian region. There were consultations, environmental impacts are also common negotiations and discussions with the between them. participation of experts and the top Political borders divide the Carpathian government officials of Hungary, Romania, Mountains into several distinct parts. In each Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic, of these parts, economic activities are Romania, UNEP/ROE and the GEF. conducted according to a level of economic Subsequently, the Carpathian Convention development of each country and the level was signed between these countries, which of its existing environmental legislation. Serbia and Montenegro later also joined. Due to the efforts of the countries and The Convention includes requirements international organizations, including those and provisions of the Convention on working under auspices of the United Biodiversity, the Pan-European Bio- and Nations (UNEP/ROE) and the Council of Landscape Diversity Strategy, multilateral

86 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

cooperation defined in Article 13 (including using traditional management (vulnerable ecosystems) of Agenda 21, the approaches), tourism (maintenance of Programs of Sustainable Development of village tourism taking into account the mountain Regions, the Green Backbone of interests of local populations), transport (i.e. Central and East Europe Conference (1998), in the determination of transport corridors), developments of the Pan-European Eco-net fisheries based on the principles in Central and East Europe (preservation of sustainability, land-use planning natural and cultural heritage of the (establishing of zones of so-called “green Carpathian Mountains), and the European lungs”, taking into account urbanization and Landscape Convention amongst others. also the geographic focus of Eco-net); and Other relevant stakeholders, international the development of suitable legal organizations and funds (UNEP/ROE, frameworks. UNDP, WB, GEF, WWF, IUCN, Carpathian The general approach to Eco-net is to foundation, Foundation for Development of create a framework for biodiversity the Carpathian region and other institutions) conservation that includes social and are invited to cooperate. economic benefits to populations and The idea was supported at many thereby promotes sustainable development. different levels. There was already an urgent The role of Eco-net for ecologically need of uniting the efforts of Carpathian susceptible and strongly degraded territories, countries in the noble cause of preservation where ecological capacity is exhausted, is of of this Central European mountain system a great importance. For such areas it is the and a consensus on the need for biodiversity only solution to crisis situations for the conservation and developing sustainable foreseeable future. environmental management in the Carpathian Mountains. Ukraine’s proposals References are being further developed and advanced by Movchan Ya. 1999. The way forward: how UNEP, which through its Regional Office to profile the relationship between for Europe, provides organizational, logistic biodiversity and economy in the and expert support. UNEP/ROE also agreed “Environment for Europe Ministerial to act as interim Secretariat of the Process”. Proceedings of the European Convention until the Permanent Secretariat Conference “Globalization, Ecology and is created. Substantial support was also Economy – Bridging Worlds”. Tilburg provided by Italy, Austria, Lichtenstein, (The Netherlands). 24-26 November, Germany, the Netherlands and WWF. 1999, p.77-85. The initiative of Ukraine in improving UNEP. 2003. Report of the Ad Hoc preservation and sustainable use of the Technical Expert Group on Protected “Green heart” of Europe (Carpathians, 2003) Areas. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/3. culminated in the Signing of the Carpathian Я. Мовчан. Екомережа України: Convention, at the Ministerial Conference обґрунтування структури та шляхів “Environment for Europe” in Kyiv (May, втілення.-Конвенція про біологічне 2003). розмаїття: громадська обізнаність і участь. – Київ: Стилос, 1997.-154 с. 5. New more holistic approaches (Ya.Movchan.-Eco-net of Ukraine:Justification of Structure and Protected areas are being promoted that Implementation.-Kyiv.-1997.-pp.98- incorporate adequate attention to natural 110). core areas, buffer zones and corridors. Carpathians 2003. “The Green Heart”of Attention to the following is also included: Europe: Carpathian Convention. integration of conservation in sector Ukrainian context. Kyiv. 2003. activities such as agriculture and forestry

87 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

CONSERVATION AMID CONFLICT: PROTECTED AREAS FOR PEACE AND CO- OPERATION 13 Natarajan Ishwaran and Guy Debonnet Natural Heritage Section, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: World Heritage Convention, protected areas, peace, cooperation

1. Introduction (paragraph 1) and 7 enjoin the Parties for Co-operation among protected area promoting international cooperation. The personnel from two or more countries Convention’s contributions to nature and sharing an international border has been biodiversity conservation and protected area attracting greater attention over the last few management are significant and have gained years. Even where relationships between international recognition particularly during national Governments are tense or have the last five years: deteriorated into outright war, park staff, far • In 1999, the United Nations Foundation away from national capitals, communicate (UNF) decided to target sites, and work across political boundaries. They, designated on the basis of, or having the more than any others, know that species and potential to meet natural heritage ecosystem conservation cannot succeed criterion (iv) and conditions of integrity within protected area boundaries set solely described in the Operational Guidelines on the basis of political considerations. as a priority for grant-making under its Guards, rangers and directors in sites that biodiversity portfolio; and share transboundary ecosystems often put • The Fifth World Parks Congress (8-17 aside national tensions and build local and September 2003; Durban, South Africa) site-level relations for effective considered World Heritage as one of the conservation. three cross-cutting themes. Links The relationships between conservation, between World Heritage and protected conflict, and peace and co-operation area management figured in most of the including in transboundary protected areas, plenary and workshop sessions based on experience accumulated within the convened throughout Congress. framework of the Convention Concerning 754 sites in 129 countries are now the Protection of the World Cultural and World Heritage; 582 are cultural, 149 Natural Heritage (UNESCO, 1972)is natural and 23 mixed (comprising cultural as reviewed in this paper. We describe three well as natural World Heritage values) sites, case studies where the Convention was used respectively. 35 (including 18 natural sites) to promote on-site conservation amid of the 754 sites are “World Heritage in conflict and war. We emphasize the value- Danger”; they face imminent threats and are added of international co-operation made priorities for international co-operation for possible through the use of the Convention conservation action. A World Heritage as a tool for conservation action. Fund, established under Article 15 of the Convention, is used to support and 2. The World Heritage Convention consolidate States Parties efforts to conserve World Heritage. The Fund currently stands The Convention was adopted by the General at about US$ 3.5 - 4 million/year. Conference of UNESCO in 1972 Substantially more financing options are (UNESCO, 1972). To date, 177 States are necessary for establishing effective World Parties to the Convention. Articles 6 Heritage conservation support systems. For

88 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

potential and designated sites relevant to As the war began, Croatian park natural heritage criteria (iv), UNF and a personnel were moved to Zagreb. Rumours growing range of NGO and private sector and unconfirmed reports on the integrity of partners play an important role in mobilizing the Park circulated rampantly; rebels support. occupying the site were allegedly planning to blast the natural dams that regulated water 3. Protected areas for peace and co- flow and sustained the scenic values of the operation cascading lakes. Other reports alleged that old growth forests were being illegally World Heritage is an important tool to logged. identify and strengthen the management of The World Heritage Committee protected areas of outstanding universal declared Plitvice a site in Danger in 1991 value. The 172 natural and mixed sites and called for an international mission to the together include more than 500 protected site. In 1992, a 3-person team from areas and make up 12-13% of the world’s UNESCO-World Heritage, IUCN and the protected areas coverage. Federation of Nature and National Parks of The Convention has been used to Europe (PNPPE) visited Zagreb and influence and resolve country and site- Plitvice. UN Protection Forces specific policy and management conflicts (UNPROFOR) in Zagreb facilitated the benefiting sites. Examples include: a Special mission and negotiated with the rebel- Law enacted via Presidential Decree in the groups occupying Plitvice and their Galapagos to control and eradicate alien, commanders to allow the international team invasive species; a US President intervened full access to the Park. UNPROFOR had to compensate a mining company to prevent placed a unit of Czech Army Officers in the mineral exploitation just outside the Park, partly because the site was World boundary of Yellowstone; a Mexican Heritage. President intervened to abandon proposals The mission enabled regular follow-up for expanding a salt-production facility that contacts between UNPROFOR, UNESCO, would have impacted Mexico’s El Viscaino IUCN and the Croatian authorities for Whale Sanctuary. A compilation of these regular verification of information on the and other cases illustrating the Convention’s state of conservation of Plitvice. The armed successes could be found in Thorsell (2003). forces stationed at Plitvice played an The three cases below describe the use important role in minimizing damage to the of the Convention as a tool for conservation site during the period of conflict. When the in conflict zones. Two of them include Croatian army ultimately recaptured the opportunities for transborder co-operation region and Plitvice in 1995, there was a brief that have only been partially realized so far. interlude when no one was responsible for When peace and normalcy return these law enforcement and anarchy prevailed opportunities could be better exploited to resulting in damage to parts of the old generate a range of benefits. growth forests. These violations were quickly brought under control and Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia): improvements to site-protection put in place Plitvice was declared World Heritage when rapidly and effectively. Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia. The In 1996, the World Heritage Committee site’s outstanding universal value is the decided that the threats to the integrity of the beauty of its cascading lakes and its old- site were mitigated and removed Plitvice growth forests. As Croatia declared from the List of World Heritage in Danger. independence from Yugoslavia in the early Plitvice is now well on its way to regain its 1990s, Plitvice became a zone of conflict. reputation as a popular tourist destination

89 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

and contribute towards regional economic been minimally impacted by the insurgency. development. This situation changed after 1997 as the rebels began to set up camps on either side Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India): of the Manas River. The Manas River straddles the Bhutan-India At the invitation of the GOI and the border. This Sanctuary on the Indian side is State Government of Assam a second in the State of Assam, and preserves a mission to Manas was fielded in February diverse array of forest and riparian 2002. Staff control of the Sanctuary had ecosystems. It is home to important been re-established in the Central Bansbari endangered species including the Asian one- Range; but Eastern and Western Ranges of horned rhino and the tiger. the Park continued to be insurgent enclaves. In the late 1980s militants from the Illegal felling of trees and collection of non- Bodo tribe began a campaign for a separate timber forest products were suspected to Bodoland in Assam. They used Manas for proceed unchecked in the Eastern and hiding and moved freely across the India- Western Ranges. The mission’s discussions Bhutan border within the Park to build up an with the Royal Manas National Park in insurgency. Between 1989 and 1992, 33 Bhutan indicated serious security concerns rhinos were poached. The World Heritage on the Bhutan side of the border. Committee declared Manas a site “in Bodo militants and the Government of Danger” and called for continuous India have reportedly signed an agreement monitoring and an international mission to on 6 December 2003 and the militants are the site. expected to lay down their arms. This is A UNESCO-World Heritage Centre- indeed good news for the conservation and GOI/MOEF mission to Manas was fielded in rehabilitation of the Manas World Heritage early 1997. Ecosystems of the Park were site in India. Bhutan ratified the Convention largely intact; but GOI/MOEF and Park in 2002 and hence possibilities for India- officials conceded that the frequency of Bhutan co-operation under the framework of seeing wildlife had significantly reduced. the Convention may become a reality in the Rhinos were suspected to have been totally coming years and the protection of the wiped out from the Park. transborder Manas ecosystem as a whole The mission came up with a could improve in comparison to the past. rehabilitation plan for the Park estimated to cost US$ 2.35 million. GOI/MOEF and the The Democratic Republic of the Congo State Government of Assam agreed to (DRC): DRC has always been a keen provide up to US$ 2.1 million. At its annual promoter of the Convention as a tool for session in 1997, the World Heritage international co-operation for conserving its Committee agreed to contribute US$ rich biodiversity. DRC’s five World 235,000 from the World Heritage Fund over Heritage sites, i.e. Virunga, Garamba, a 3-year period for the implementation of Kahuzi Biega and Salonga National Parks the plan. The Fund’s contributions were and Okapi Wildlife Reserve, protects ome of earmarked for specific types of purchases the most unique and biodiversity rich places and reconstruction of infrastructure that on the planet. Salonga (36,000 sq. km) is were urgent. But frequent recurrence of perhaps the largest tropical forest protected insurgent activity since 1997 delayed the area in Africa; it is home to the unique implementation of the plan, originally bonobo chimpanzee, the closest relative to expected to be completed by 2000. man and found only in DRC. Virunga At the time of the 1997 mission, rebel National Park is the oldest national park in activity was largely confined to the World Africa. It covers 8000 sq. km of savannas, Heritage site in India. Royal Manas National lakes, mountain rainforests, active volcanoes Park of Bhutan across the Manas River had and the snowcapped Ruwenzori “Mountains

90 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

of the Moon” and is home to the extremely Heritage Biodiversity sites” made a bold rare mountain gorilla. The 6000 sq. km move and granted US$ 2.9 million for the 4- mountain and lowland rainforest of Kahuzi- year programme (2000-2004). Biega are home to the other subspecies of A detailed account of the useful ways in eastern gorilla, Grauer’s gorilla, which is which the UNF supported programme has endemic to DRC. The 20000 sq. km Ituri contributed to World Heritage conservation forest of the Okapi Faunal Reserve, not only in DRC could be found in Debonnet and is the main stronghold of this endemic forest Hillman-Smith (2003). In brief, the 4-year dweller that is related to the giraffe, but is programme has: also the home area of the Bambuti pygmies. (a) delivered monthly allowances and Garamba National Park, on the border with food and medical rations to site staff in all the Sudan, protects the last remaining five sites; efficiency and timeliness of population of the northern white rhino, delivery of allowances has varied from site- currently at about 30 specimens. to-site but the guards know that funds due to The “Institut Congolais pour la them for a period of 4 years have been Conservation de la Nature” (ICCN), the secured; national conservation agency, has long (b) successfully tested a collaborative struggled to conserve the country’s five mechanism for establishing and World Heritage sites in the context of a implementing management priorities at the deteriorating economy and weakening site-level; site-coordination committees or governance. Since 1994 conflicts in the “CoCosis”, have been welcomed by site Great Lakes region have provided an staff, NGO partners and ICCN and helped incentive for arms and ammunition to pour designing community support activities for a into DRC, threatening amongst others the Belgian project for the five sites managed by integrity of all five of DRC’s World the UNESCO World Heritage Centre under Heritage sites. Displaced people, invading the same arrangements used for the UNF armies and DRC-based rebel factions have programme; all contributed to the breakdown of law and (c) helped ICCN to maintain cohesion order, uncontrolled exploitation of natural, and institutional continuity by serving as an mineral and land resources and frequent interlocutor between ICCN-Kinshasa and influx of refugees into sites such as Virunga. other ICCN-Units in Eastern DRC which In 1999, ICCN, in collaboration with its were under the control of various rebel partner NGOs and the UNESCO World regimes between 1998 and 2001; Heritage Centre began launching actions to (d) trained staff at the site-level and in support its staff who chose to remain and South Africa to develop skills and continue to perform duties in the five sites competencies and uplift morale during a despite risks to their life and property. An period of uncertainty and high risks; experimental period of emergency assistance (e) supported biodiversity status and from the World Heritage Fund was followed law enforcement performance monitoring; by the launch of a 4-year programme: assessments and studies have confirmed that “Biodiversity Conservation in Regions of the northern white rhino (in Garamba) and Armed Conflict: Protecting World Natural mountain gorilla populations (in southern Heritage in the Democratic Republic of parts of Virunga) were stable up to 2002; Congo”. Most bi- and multi-lateral donors encroachments in Virunga were mapped and left the war-torn country; GTZ of Germany a rehabilitation plan developed; continued to support ICCN and the Salonga (f) organized several technical/ and Kahuzi Biega National Parks but was diplomatic missions to DRC, Uganda and not ready for investments to support a new Rwanda and provided annual state of programme. Fortunately, the newly conservation reports on the 5 DRC to the established UNF, focussing on “World World Heritage Committee; Committee

91 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

recommendations and appeals for respect to Heritage Committee to derive and the integrity of World Heritage sites were communicate recommendations for widely disseminated among Governments specific actions from concerned and all other parties involved in the conflict; Governments and other parties involved an example of the impact of such basic in the conflict is necessary and useful; communication and diplomatic work is the • In conflict zones maintaining minimal eviction of illegal coltan miners from Okapi law enforcement for protection of by joint actions of an NGO partner and the designated areas, though difficult, is occupying army in the Okapi Wildlife essential; presence of site staff, NGOs Reserve; and and partners and other conservation and (g) provided continuous encouragement community support groups could to staff in Southern Virunga to continue co- minimize the damage to World Heritage operating with counterparts in Uganda and protected area values. Both in (Bwindi, a World Heritage site and Manas and in the DRC continued Maghahinga National Park) and Rwanda presence of staff had played a critical (Volcans National Park) to undertake role in limiting damage during the studies, surveys and field operations for the conflict periods. In Plitvice the special conservation of the mountain gorilla; UNPROFOR Unit had the same effect; UNESCO World Heritage Centre was able • In India and DRC strong institutional to influence a UNESCO-European Space framework and commitment from staff Agency (ESA) programme to focus on had been built over a long-period of mountain gorilla habitat change as a pilot time and played a significant role in project. The latter project has attracted ensuring site-presence during times of Belgian Universities and now provides conflict. Role of protected area staff in training on satellite imagery and GIS based biodiversity conservation is often mapping techniques for ICCN staff and undervalued in international forums. other specialists from DRC, Rwanda and The case of DRC and India clearly call Uganda. for more emphasis on building sound protected area management institutions 4. Lessons learned as conclusions and committed professionals at site and country levels; • Each conflict zone is different and has • The “CoCoSi” in DRC is turning out to its specific opportunities and limitations be a unique and unexpected for conservation action. Even where the achievement. ICCN Kinshasa is Government in power had lost control of adopting it as a model for developing a large parts of the country, as in DRC, “CoCoCongo” (Conservation Coalition long-term NGO/ICCN/site-staff for Congo) at the national level for co- alliances could work with UN to launch ordinating all donor negotiations related conservation actions. Site-based long- to protected area management in DRC; term NGO partnerships that have • UN based institutions and networks can international linkages seem to insure be effective in conflict zones, against isolation during periods of particularly if they work Government conflict. World Heritage status provides agencies that have a long-term history a better justification for UN sponsored within the country and with NGO conservation interventions in conflict partners who are committed to the zones; protection of sites; UN sponsored • Verifiable information on conservation diplomatic and technical missions can status of sites in conflict zones is have an impact on decision making of important. Regular reporting on sites to civilian and military leaders; and intergovernmental bodies like the World

92 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

• Opportunities for actively pursuing support the role of protected areas staff in transborder co-operation in conflict biodiversity conservation. Considerations of zones are limited. Attempts must be human dimensions of protected area made to keep the status quo of activities management are skewed towards that existed prior to the onset of conflict. communities and protected area personnel Transborder co-operation between India are often left out of the people part of the and Manas would be easy to facilitate if equation. One of the ways by which the Bodo insurgency ends. Discussions protected areas can contribute to sustainable between DRC, Rwanda and Uganda to development of regions and nations is explore ways and means of including through being an employment generator in Maghahinga (Uganda) and Volcans rural and marginal areas. If protected areas (Rwanda) as part of Virunga (DRC) and management is a field that provides Bwindi (Uganda) World Heritage sites competitive career options for current and have started. If successful such a future generations, then its role in measure would greatly strengthen sustainable development could become clear transborder protection of mountain and evident. Improving working conditions gorilla habitats. It would also provide a and career prospects of parks personnel good example of how an international demand innovations if the 12% of the convention could serve as a tool for world’s area now contained in protected promoting transborder co-operation for areas is to serve as anchors for sustainable protected areas planning and development. management in post-conflict zones. We conclude by placing special emphasis on the critical need to better

93 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREAS AND PEOPLE: PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION 14 Ashish Kothari Kalpavriksh, Pune, India, and IUCN Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity, and Protected Areas (TILCEPA) E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction chance of actually making conservation a mass movement. Parties to the Convention on Biological • In most situations, communities have Diversity (CBD) are considering, at the 7th customary and traditional rights to land meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP) and resources, and the denial of such in Kuala Lumpur, a Programme of Work on rights is unjust and violative of basic protected areas. One key element of this is human rights. on Governance, Participation, Equity, and • The negative consequences of PAs on Benefit-sharing. This element contains a local people (physical displacement, number of specific recommendations for denial of access to resources that have action, and it is important for parties to have been traditionally used, alienation from adequate guidance on how they can move sites of cultural value, and human rights forward to implement these. violations), have generated considerable It is also important to place the COP hostility and decreasing public support discussions on this Programme of Work in for PAs. Unless it can be shown that the context of the recently held World Parks PAs have benefits for people, or are in Congress (September 2003). Here, about some way linked to their lives, this 4000 delegates issued a declaration that decline could continue to the detriment squarely put indigenous peoples and local of the PAs themselves. communities at the centre of conservation • The focus on PAs as islands of planning. They also strongly emphasised the conservation, with increasingly need to put protected areas (PAs) in the destructive land use around them, is context of the larger landscape, addressing becoming self-defeatist. Classic issues of poverty and development, examples include wetlands that are governance and empowerment, benefit- and protected, only to have their biodiversity cost-sharing all of this in order to achieve being destroyed by pesticide and more effective protection for threatened fertiliser run-offs from their agricultural ecosystems and species. surrounds. Involving people in surrounding areas, in land/water uses 2. Why participatory conservation? that are compatible, therefore becomes a necessity. Participatory conservation has become an Evidence from a range of situations imperative for the following reasons: around the world (see box below) suggests • Local people have had long-standing that these issues can be effectively tackled traditions of conservation and restrained by involving indigenous peoples and local resource use, which the conventional communities in the conceptualisation and model of PAs tends to ignore. The management of PAs, and recognising their opportunity of utilising such traditions own diverse initiatives towards and knowledge is being lost, as is the conservation.

94 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

3. Towards participatory conservation: collaborative management and 4. Tips for successful participatory community conserved areas conservation

There are two broad trends in participatory The above and other examples have yielded conservation (as illustrated in the box valuable lessons on what to do, and what to below): avoid, while moving towards participatory (i). The increasing role of indigenous conservation. Some key lessons that would peoples and local communities in be relevant for national protected area the management of government- agencies: managed PAs, with sharing of decision-making power Learn from history: In particular, PA (Collaborative Management of managers can learn from the successes and Protected Areas); failures of the past, especially of the wise (ii). The recognition of the biodiversity traditional use of resources by many significance of territories managed communities, of the record of centralised by such peoples and communities state control that often alienated such largely on their own (Community communities from their resources, and of the Conserved Areas). changes taking place in land/water use and Of these, the concept of “community people-nature relations over centuries. conserved areas” (CCAs) is relatively new. These are sites of biodiversity significance Provide secure tenure to survival and that are effectively conserved by indigenous livelihood resources: In many countries, peoples or local communities (many of them communities have been dispossessed of their pre-dating modern PAs by several lands or resources, leading to breakdown of millennia!). There are probably thousands of conservation and sustainability traditions such CCAs around the world, with and institutions. Reviving or providing significant coverage of natural ecosystems security of access to lands and resources, is and wildlife populations. Yet they have therefore an essential (though not remained largely neglected by governments necessarily sufficient) step in creating long- and international conservation NGOs. Box 1 term stake in conservation. contains some examples of case studies on collaborative protected area management Clarify roles of all partners: All partners to (CMPA) and community conserved areas a participatory conservation arrangement, (CCAs) 7. and in particular the local communities and the official agencies, need to be clear about their respective roles. This would need to 7 For a compilation of several more such cases, please include the customary/traditional rights of see Policy Matters (Journal of the IUCN Commission local communities to land/resources and on Environmental, Economic, and Social Policy), No. 12, 2003 (available at concomitantly, their responsibility for http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/Public conservation. ations.htm). For a synthesis report of regional reviews, see “Community conserved areas (CCAs) and co- managed protected areas (CMPAs)-towards equitable and effective conservation in the context of global change”, Report of TILCEPA for the Ecosystem, Protected Areas and People (EPP) project (April 2003 draft), by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend (http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/TILCEP A/community.htm#epp). The cases in this box draw on documents written by Marco Bassi, Gonzalo colleagues, S. Jeanrenaud, Neema Pathak, and Ashish Oviedo, J.P. Gladu, Vivienne Solis and colleagues, J. Kothari. Nelson, N. Gami, Dermot Smyth, M. Merlo and

95 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Box 1: Collaborative Protected Area Management and Community Conserved Areas: Case Studies from Six Continents

Gurig National Park (Australia) In 1981, the establishment of Gurig National Park was agreed to by the Northern Territory Government and the Aboriginal traditional owners, to resolve a pending land claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The traditional owners consented to the establishment of the National Park in return to regaining title and the right to use and occupy it. A Board of Management comprising traditional land owners and Northern Territory Government representatives, prepares the management plan, enforces the rights of local owners, determines rights of access to others, and ensures protection of sites important for the aboriginal population. Australian law also recognises several Indigenous Protected Areas, controlled by aboriginal peoples.

Alto Fragua-Indiwasi (Colombia) The Alto Fragua-Indiwasi National Park was created in February 2002, after negotiations amongst the Colombian government, the Association of Indigenous Ingano Councils and the Amazon Conservation Team, an environmental NGO. The Park protects endangered humid sub-Andean forests, endemic species such as the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus), and sacred sites of unique cultural value. The Ingano are principal actors in the design and management of the park, the first such instance in the country.

Tayna Gorilla Reserve (Democratic Republic of Congo) The Tayna Gorilla Reserve of 800 sq km was created in 1999 through a formal agreement between the customary landholders, government and NGOs. Communities have been directly involved in the development of the Reserve’s management plan, which emphasises conservation with rural development. Key challenges are the prevention of unauthorized resource uses by outsiders during periods of political instability, and the engagement of the local Pygmy population, so far been neglected in the co-management process.

Forole (Kenya-Ethiopia) Forole is a sacred mountain between Kenya and Ethiopia, whose trees are totally protected by the Gabbra people. The lower part of the mountain provides permanent water and it is used as reserve grazing area by Gabbra and Borana pastoralists. Although there is sometimes tension over pastoral resources, the Borana fully respect the sacredness of Forole mountain and the inherent restrictions. This is an example of a community conserved area not univocally associated to a single ethnic group, and engaging local actors in complex economic and symbolic relationships.

Gwaii Haanas (Canada) The Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, located in Queen Charlotte Islands, was established in 1986 under an agreement between Parks Canada and the Council of the Haida Nation. The Haida initiated the process, after their land and culture started to disappear due to heavy logging. Gwaii Haanas is now governed by a joint Management Board, and its establishment park has promoted a shift in the local economy from logging to tourism. Employment opportunities have also been created by the Park, with over 50% of staff being Haida people.

Mendha-Lekha and Jardhargaon (India) Mendha-Lekha village in central India protects nearly 2000 hectares of forest containing threatened wildlife species. The forest belongs to the state, but it is the village that has staved off threats including timber logging and submergence by a dam. Mendha-Lekha’s inhabitants have also declared “tribal self-rule”, and practice a strong form of consensus democracy involving all adult members. Jardhargaon village in the Himalayan foothills of northern India, has over the last two decades protected 600 hectares of broad-leaved forest through a self-initiated Forest Protection Committee. Several dozen villages in other parts of the Himalaya conserve hundreds of square km of forest, under traditional arrangements of their own or

96 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

recognised by the state. These examples represent thousands of community conserved areas across South Asia, mostly not part of the government PA system.

Val di Fiemme (Italy) Long-established traditions of community forestry in the North of Italy date from the Middle Ages, and in some places such as the Val di Fiemme (Magnifica Comunità di Cadore), were maintained thanks to the struggles of local residents against the state that wished to incorporate all forests into the national demanio. The forest-managing institutions are still strong and characterised by a spirit of mutual assistance and solidarity. Legally, the forest is owned by all people of the Vald di Fiemme. Community forests are inalienable, indivisible and collectively owned and managed, and the result is a continuing high quality of the ecosystems, with significant biodiversity values.

Initiate a process of dialogue: Oft-times, conservation committees, and so on. These genuine and open dialogue amongst various should provide a clear say to local people in ‘rightholders’ and stakeholders is missing, decision-making, and build on relevant leading to misunderstandings and lost traditional institutions. opportunities to bring their respective strengths together. Such regular dialogue at Provide firm legal backing to the initiative: local, regional, and national levels is needed Informal participatory conservation to reduce stereotypes, increase initiatives can be powerful and successful, understanding, and arrive at mutually but don’t often last long. Legal backing, acceptable ways forward. through statutory or customary law or both, can be one element in providing such long- Encourage ecologically sensitive term sustenance. livelihoods: Clearly some traditional livelihoods are compatible with conservation Build on traditional knowledge, provide objectives, while others may be detrimental. modern inputs sensitively: There is much in The former need encouragement and traditional practices and knowledge from support, the latter need alternative which modern conservation can learn, and approaches. In all cases, the search for much in modern conservation science that secure livelihoods is important to tackle real traditional communities can benefit from. A poverty, and to link people’s lives with judicious mix of the two, with neither conservation. dominating, needs to be attempted.

Distribute costs and benefits more Set up accessible and transparent dispute equitably: Given that most costs of resolution mechanisms: Disputes amongst conservation are borne by local people and community members, or between most benefits go to ‘outsiders’, a more communities and others including official equitable sharing of costs and benefits is agencies, are commonplace in participatory urgently needed. This should include conservation initiatives. Transparent and tackling human-wildlife conflicts, accessible mechanisms to resolve such channelling conservation benefits to local disputes, including through third party people, and other such steps. mediation, are a good investment.

Create empowered institutions: A single Ensure public right to information: bureaucratic or scientific agency managing Secrecy about conservation and PAs is often not sustainable. There is a need development programmes (including for much more participatory institutions, budgets) is one major reason for suspicion such as joint management boards, village and misunderstanding. Citizens, in particular

97 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

local communities, must have full access to species. These need to be respected and all aspects of the conservation initiative, and promoted. developmental inputs that have a bearing on it. Resist destructive ‘development’ and commercial pressures: Many participatory Consider various forms of PA governance: conservation initiatives have failed due to One of the clear messages from the World the larger pressures of ‘development’ or Parks Congress was that PAs can be commerce that the site or participatory governed not only by the federal or central agencies have been subjected to. Such government of a country, but also by processes that impinge on the conservation communities, NGOs, local governments, values of protected areas, or undermine private entities, and combinations of these. community abilities to conserve and A country’s PA network should therefore be manage, need to be strongly resisted. Given able to accommodate, as appropriate to the that in many cases some parts of the situation, collaboratively managed PAs, government itself are promoting such community conserved areas (CCAs), private destructive processes, this can be quite reserves, etc. (see, for instance, note on how tricky, but conservation agencies need to put CCAs fit each of the IUCN PA categories, at their foot down on such matters! www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/wkg_grp/TILC EPA/WPC/TILCEPA%20CCA%20mandate Treat conservation as a process, not a %20and%20work06.03.03.doc) project: Short-term projects aimed at achieving participatory conservation are Adapt to site-specific situations: Given the often unsuccessful because they try to force enormous ecological, cultural, economic, an artificial pace or achieve impractical and political diversity within which PAs are targets. Experience from successful located, a uniform legal and programmatic community-based initiatives strongly approach for an entire country or region is suggests that a long-term process is counter-productive. PA policies and important, keeping in mind the varying pace programmes need to be open and sensitive of communities, the need to build to such local conditions, perhaps by sustainable institutional arrangements, and prescribing only a broad framework of so on. values. This built-in flexibility should promote creativity, but also contain checks Integrate steps to tackle inequities within against misuse. and outside communities: Communities are not internally homogenous; many of them Build capacity: Participatory conservation can contain severe inequities of gender, being a relatively new phenomenon in many class, caste, ethnicity, age, and other factors. countries, capacity of several kinds needs to Conservation initiatives need to consciously be built, of officials to deal with community understand and attempt reducing these issues, of communities to deal with inequities, such as for instance providing conservation responsibilities and new special decision-making status or benefits to institutions, and so on. the ‘disprivileged’ sections.

Be sensitive to cultural and spiritual Monitor the results of the initiative: From values: While the scientific value of PAs is the first step itself, monitoring of the undoubtedly important, there are often also ecological, social, economic, and political intangible cultural and spiritual values impacts of the initiative needs to be initiated. assigned by communities to This necessitates good baseline information, landscapes/seascapes, ecosystems and and continuous, participatory assessments of the changes in this baseline. It also means

98 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

the ability to change elements of the • Exchange experience and information initiative should it be found that related to successful and failed attempts, conservation and livelihood objectives are with each other (perhaps through the not being met. clearing-house mechanism, and of course bilaterally); Be aware of pitfalls, challenges, and • Invite indigenous peoples and local threats: Participatory conservation is not a community organisations, NGOs, and panacea to fit all situations; it needs to be individual experts to provide evidence put into place and in a way that is and ideas that would help build strong appropriate to the local situation. And in national programmes; particular, caution is warranted regarding • Adopt or strengthen policies, laws, and vested interests that could undermine the programmes of participatory initiative. conservation; in particular, move towards more equitable relationships 5. What next? with indigenous peoples and local communities, and the recognition of the Adoption of a forward-looking Programme importance of Community Conserved th of Work on PAs, by the 7 meeting of the Areas. Conference of Parties, will lead to a strong push for participatory conservation around the world. The following steps could be taken by national conservation agencies: • Document and learn lessons from existing initiatives at participatory conservation, including from case study material already available;

99 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

GOVERNANCE OF PROTECTED AREAS, PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY

15 Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend IUCN CEESP and WCPA Commissions E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction determines the sharing of relevant cost and benefits (management equity), is key to The management of protected areas (PAs) preventing or solving social conflicts, and has often been based on models that exclude affects the generation and sustenance of the local resident populations and perceive community, political and financial support. their concerns as incompatible with In a bold way we could affirm that one conservation. While the IUCN PA of the main messages coming from the 2003 categories V and VI are conceived to be Durban Congress is the following: the more inclusive of human communities, interests and concerns of indigenous, mobile virtually all IUCN categories (i.e. all main and local communities are likely to be PA management objectives) can be compatible with conservation if and when compatible with resident or user fair and effective PA governance communities, whose presence can be mechanisms are in place. regarded as a conservation asset rather than Two main aspect of PA governance i.e. a liability. How can this be? (i) type and (ii) quality (the so-called “good A relatively new concept in the governance” principles) have been examined conservation field, which rose to in the literature and at the Durban Congress. prominence in the Vth World Parks Congress in Durban (September 2003), can 2.1 PA governance "types" help us understand this. This is the concept Defined on the basis of “who holds of “governance" of protected areas. management authority and responsibility and can be held accountable”, four main PA 2. Description of governance governance “types” can be identified, including: Governance is about power, relationships, A. Government managed protected areas; responsibility and accountability. Some B. Co-managed protected areas; define it as “the interactions among C. Private protected areas; structures, processes and traditions that D. Community conserved areas. determine how power is exercised, how decisions are taken on issues of public Most conservationists are familiar with concern, and how citizens or other type A governance, where a government stakeholders have their say” (Graham et al., body (such as a Park Agency or a para-statal 2003). In a protected area context, a basic institution responding directly to the understanding of governance refers to “who government) is in charge of management holds management authority and and often also owns the PA’s land and responsibility and can be held accountable relevant resources. Recently, sub-national according to legal, customary or otherwise and municipal government bodies have also legitimate rights”. In this sense, governance become prominent in declaring and is crucial for the achievement of protected managing their own protected areas. In area objectives (management effectiveness), some cases, the state retains control of

100 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

protected areas but delegates their the world and over thousands of years, management to an NGO. human communities have shaped their lifestyles and livelihood strategies to Type B governance is also quite respond to the opportunities and challenges common, responding to the variety of presented by their surrounding land and interlocked entitlements recognised by natural resources. In so doing, they democratic societies. Complex processes simultaneously managed, conserved, and institutional mechanisms are generally modified, and often enriched their employed to share management authority environments. and responsibility among a plurality of actors—from national to sub-national 2.2. Community Conserved Areas (type government authorities, from representatives d governance) - compatibility with of indigenous, mobile and local protected area definitions communities to user associations, private In many cases, community interaction with entrepreneurs and land-owners. An the environment generated a sort of emerging subgroup of type B comprises land symbiosis, which some refer to as “bio- recently “restituted” by the state to their cultural units” or “cultural legitimate community owners and still landscapes/seascapes”. Importantly, much retained under a protected status under of this interaction happened not for the explicit contractual agreements. Other sub- intentional conservation of biodiversity but types of type B governance can be because of a variety of interlocked identified, but all are characterised by the objectives and values (spiritual, religious, need to achieve some form of consensus/ security-related, survival-related) which did, compromise among a plurality of social however, result in the conservation of actors. ecosystems, species and ecosystem-related services. In this sense, the governance type Type C governance has a relatively long D or Community Conserved Areas history, as kings and aristocracies always (CCAs)— comprises “natural and modified preserved for themselves certain areas of ecosystems including significant land or the privilege to hunt wildlife. Such biodiversity, ecological services and cultural private reserves had important secondary values voluntarily conserved by concerned conservation benefits. Today, private indigenous, mobile and local communities ownership is still an enormously important through customary laws or other effective force in conservation. NGOs have been means”. In CCAs, authority and buying and dedicating large territories to responsibility rest with the communities conservation purposes. And many through a variety of forms of ethnic individual landowners pursue conservation governance or locally agreed organisations objectives out of respect for the land, a and rules. Land and resources are usually desire to maintain its beauty and ecological collectively managed, a fact that may or may value or utilitarian purposes, such as gaining not have been legally sanctioned in the from ecotourism or reducing their levies and specific national context, but is fully taxes. compatible with the CBD definition of protected area. The governance type with which many conservation professionals may not be 2.3. "Re-discovering" community entirely familiar is type D, i.e. governance conserved areas by indigenous, mobile and local Community conserved areas can only be communities. Yet, this is the oldest form of understood within a particular historical and governance of natural resources on the social context, often as indicators of planet, and it is still widespread. Throughout institutional continuity, strength or change.

101 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Modernization processes occurring governance situation in place by the actors throughout the world have devalued the most directly interested and affected existence of indigenous, mobile and local (Abrams et al., 2003). communities and the roles they play in natural resource management. Their current 3.1. Principles of "good governance" “re-discovery”— which should remain A number of principles of “good critical and aware of the constraints and governance” (see Table 1) can provide pitfalls faced by communities and their useful criteria for this exercise as compared CCAs— is part of a movement that uplifts to the United Nations Principles and other cultural diversity and human rights. With broadly accepted goals and rules of conduct the renewed acknowledgement of CCAs, on which they are based8. Paramount Co-managed Protected Areas (CMPAs) are among those is the principle of “do no also being increasingly appreciated as harm!” through the respect of human rights, crucial for the engagement of communities including the rights of indigenous, mobile in conservation. The governance of CMPAs and local communities. As the Millennium is generally process-oriented and based on Development Goals explicitly aim at the sophisticated institutional settings, often eradication of poverty, conservation policy combining consensus-based and majority- and practice also need to follow suit, and based decision-making by various refrain from being a cause of organisations at various levels. impoverishment for disadvantaged communities. 3. Human communities: assets or Other useful principles, developed liability? primarily by UN bodies, are “legitimacy and voice”— the capacity of men and women to Getting back to the crucial question of influence decisions, built on freedom of how the presence of resident or user human association and speech, and “subsidiarity”— communities in protected areas can be attributing management authority and regarded as conservation asset rather than a responsibility to the institutions closest to liability, we shall first consider whether the the resources at stake. This latter tenet governance type in place is fair and effective derives from a number of religious and in the light of historical conditions, cultural traditions and is now enshrined in customary and legal rights and impact on the European Community Law. Further relevant communities. As demonstrated by principles include “fairness”—the equitable the case examples presented in the Durban sharing of costs and benefits of conservation Congress and described in the literature and possibility to recourse to impartial (Borrini-Feyerabend, 2003; IUCN, 2003), justice, “accountability”— ensuring a many conflicts between PAs and transparent flow of information on processes communities could be avoided and replaced and institutions, with decision-makers by cooperation if the latter would be assuming responsibility for their choices; recognised as rightful co-managers or “performance”—meeting the needs and managers of the natural resources on which concerns of all stakeholders while making a they depend for livelihoods and cultural wise use of resources, and “direction”— identity. In other words, what makes the grounding long-term conservation strategies difference is the effective and meaningful on ecological, historical, social and cultural participation of the relevant communities in the governance of the land and resources to be conserved. Secondly, we shall address 8 See, among others, the Universal Declaration of the quality of PA governance in place. For Human Rights, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Arhus Convention, the ILO Convention both individual sites and national system this No 169, the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of can only start from an assessment of the PA Indigenous Peoples, the UN Conference on Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity.

102 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

complexities. All of the above can be policy, practice and institutions that respect subsumed under the principle of equity. and uphold the good governance Practicing equity in conservation can be principles”. effectively understood as “striving towards

Table 1: Practising equity in conservation—proposed principles of good governance for Protected Areas

Principles of good governance for protected The United Nations Principles and other areas broadly accepted goals and rules of conduct on which they are based

1. “Do no harm! “ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Millennium Development Goals.

2. Legitimacy and voice Participation in governance (Millennium Declaration). Consensus orientation. 3. Subsidiarity Subsidiarity.

4. Fairness Fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (CBD). Rule of law.

5. Accountability Accountability and transparency.

6. Performance Responsiveness. Effectiveness and efficiency. 7. Direction Strategic vision. Embracing complexities.

4. Types of governance and IUCN most valuable wilderness areas correspond management categories to the territories under the control of un- contacted peoples, in the Amazon and other How the analysis of governance type forests in the Tropics. It can also be and quality can best fit the existing considered that “adhering to good understanding of protected areas? In Table governance principles” represents an aim for 2, governance type is described as a the governance dimension as “achieving complementary dimension to the management effectiveness” does for the IUCN/WCPA category system (see also category dimension. chapter 4 in this volume; IUCN, 1994). In fact, the main governance types are category-neutral, as protected areas exist that fill each possible combination of management category and governance type. This is true even for the extreme cases, such as category I (wildness area) as some of the

103 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Table 2: A classification system for protected areas comprising both management category and governance type

A. Government B. Co-managed C. Private Protected D Community Governance Managed Protected Protected Areas Areas Conserved type Areas Areas

IUCN Category

(key owners ) management objective) or ministry or national Federal charge in agency municipalLocal/ ministry or change in agency Government-delegated an NGO) management (e.g. to Trans-boundary management management Collaborative (various forms of pluralist influence) (pluralist management Joint board) management Declared and run by individual land-owner organisations non-profit …by etc.) universities, (e.g. NGOs, organisations for profit …by (e.g. individual or corporate land Declared and run by Indigenous Peoples Declared and run by Local communities I - Strict Nature Reserve/ Wilderness Area II – National Park (ecosystem protection; protection of cultural values) III – Natural Monument IV – Habitat/ Species Management V – Protected Landscape/ Seascape VI – Managed Resource

What are the advantages of seeking livelihoods and cultural survival. Globally, equity in conservation by embracing the conservation challenge involves uplifting different governance types and good and improving the management of existing governance principles? Many national protected areas, closing the gaps for specific protected areas systems are ambitious— ecosystems and species and ensuring they have been enlarging their size and physical connectivity among PAs. At the scope while development initiatives kept national level, a system comprising restricting the space for community protected areas under various governance

104 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

types and mindful of good governance IUCN - CEESP 2003. Policy Matters - principles would have better chances of Community Empowerment for accomplishing all that. As it could include Conservation, Issue 12, p. 320, at indigenous territories and areas under http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/publi community control and/or private cations/newsletter/PM12.pdf ownership, it would be more complete and Abrams, P, Borrini-Feyerabend, G., able to address connectivity gaps. In turn, a Gardner, J. and P. Heylings 2003 more complete system would be more Evaluating Governance. A Handbook to resilient, responsive and adaptive, i.e. more Accompany a Participatory Process for sustainable. In situations where a Protected Area, Manuscript, Parks communities have a direct or shared Canada and TILCEPA. governance responsibility, the system would IUCN 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area benefit from otherwise unavailable local Management Categories. CNPPA with knowledge, skills, resources and institutions. the assistance of WCMC. IUCN, Gland, And it could better promote respect, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + communication, support and joint learning 261pp.: posted at http://www.unep- amongst PA managers under different wcmc.org/protected_areas/categories/en governance types. Last but not least, the g/index.html system could allow more people to benefit Graham, J., Amos, B. and T. Plumptre, from conservation, including through more Governance Principles for Protected secure livelihoods. Areas in the 21st Century, Institute on The engagement towards equity in Governance and Parks Canada, Canada, conservation through more and better 2003. attention to PA governance is not a panacea. But it can make the difference between Acknowledgements social harmony and conflicts, and between decent livelihoods and destitution for the The author expresses thanks to Gonzalo relevant communities. The parties in the Oviedo, Pippa Heylings and Diane Pansky CBD demonstrated great foresight in for their comments on a previous version of electing this as a full element of their work this article plan for protected areas.

References

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., 2003. Report of the IUCN joint CEESP/WCPA - Theme on Indigenous and Local Community, Equity and Protected Areas (TILCEPA) for the Ecosystem, Protected Areas and People (EPP) project (APRIL 2003 DRAFT), available at http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg _grp/TILCEPA/community.htm#synthes is

105 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREAS AND INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

16 Henrietta Marrie The Christensen Fund, California, USA E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction9 designated as protected areas. As yet no systematic, complete data exist on how Many of the world’s most biodiverse areas many protected areas around the world are also the most culturally diverse. overlap with traditional lands and resources Indigenous and local communities around of indigenous and traditional peoples the world have developed complex cultures (Oviedo 2002). Nevertheless, it is estimated and lifestyles in response to the many rich that perhaps more than 50% of existing and diverse ecosystems on which they protected areas have been established on the depend for their livelihoods. In doing so, ancestral domains of indigenous and local they have also modified these ecosystems to communities. Millions of indigenous people suit their own needs and purposes over live within protected area boundaries. This many generations to the extent that both the is particularly the case in the developing people and the ecosystems have become world. One review concluded that 86% of mutually dependent. Effectively, what has protected areas in Latin America, 69% in been created are “biocultural landscapes” in India, and 70% worldwide are inhabited, and which humans should be considered as the great majority of these inhabitants are necessary components of the ecosystems indigenous or traditional peoples practising which comprise such landscapes. Ecosystem subsistence economies. In South America, changes, such as those induced by clearing 80% of the protected areas, and 85% in of vegetation, unsustainable harvesting of Central America have indigenous peoples bushmeat, and poaching can create changes living inside them. This situation is also in the lifestyles of the people that depend on true in a number of countries in the them. Likewise, removal of the traditional developed world, such as Canada, the inhabitants and their traditional ways of United States, Australia and New Zealand. managing their local environments can In a review of 82 protected areas precipitate changes in local ecosystems, for overlapping with lands and waters example, through changes in species traditionally occupied or used by indigenous composition, unchecked pest infestations, and local communities classified by and relationships between species. international category and region, Oviedo (2002) reported that the largest group of 2. Indigenous and local community areas corresponds to Category II (National involvement in protected areas Parks) with 33 areas representing 40% of the total. This contrasts with Categories Ib, III Indigenous peoples are owners and co- and V, in which only one area was recorded managers of considerable areas of land in each. Categories following in importance in this classification are Category IV: Habitat/Species Management Areas 9 This paper is based on document UNEP/CBD/AHTEG–PA/1/INF/3 on “Protected (12.2%), Category VI: Managed Resource areas: Their role in the Maintenance of Biological and Areas (8.5%) and Category Ia: Strict Nature Cultural Diversity”. Accessible at Reserves (7.3%). Oviedo also notes that http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/pa/tegpa- there is a group of areas not classified by 01/information/tegpa-01-inf-03-en.pdf

106 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

international category as per the 1997 list for example, for religious, ceremonial and (14.6%), in most cases because their conservation purposes, in effect creating national category doesn’t have a clear their own systems of protected areas. These correspondence with the International predate by many centuries, if not millennia, System according to the criteria of the the Yellowstone model which has respective governments, or because they dominated national and international have been declared after compilation of the legislation and policies on protected areas 1997 list (Oviedo, 2002). throughout most of the last century. The Oviedo, while noting that Category II: strategy behind the establishment of National Parks has by far the highest protected areas based on the Yellowstone proportion of protected areas overlapping model lies in setting aside lands and waters lands and waters traditionally occupied or and forbidding or strictly regulating human used by indigenous and local communities, access and uses of them. The groves, and also explicitly addresses issues relating mountains, rivers and lakes held sacred by to indigenous and local communities in its indigenous and local communities, or areas description, suggests that Categories V and subject to seasonal closures because of their VI seem to be the most useful ones for importance as nesting, breeding or spawning addressing the interests of indigenous and grounds, were often particularly important local communities, given their emphasis on for biological, ecological, landscape, or sustainable practices and the humans-nature fragility reasons. In other words, very much relationship that is built into their definitions the same criteria were often applied for the (Oviedo, 2002) identification of protected areas as However, the establishment of protected underwrite the declaration of contemporary areas has often been carried out with little protected areas by national and sub-national regard for the situation of the indigenous governments. Similarly, areas of particular and local communities that inhabit them. traditional significance would normally be Traditional customary land and resource under the authority of traditional institutions rights have often been sacrificed to the or spiritual leaders vested with “statutory” narrow conservation objectives of protected powers, and a body of customary regulations areas, and newly-imposed management and and norms would usually be defined and control systems have frequently overridden enforced to ensure compliance with rules traditional authorities and institutions, and in governing traditional access to and use of some instances have led to confrontation and the resources of such areas (Oviedo, 2002). violence (see Oviedo, 2002). As a result, Protected areas are one of the primary many indigenous and local communities tools for in situ biodiversity conservation, have been left in a situation in which the yet in situations where they overlap lands establishment of protected areas has very and waters traditionally occupied or used by often aggravated their conditions of indigenous and local communities, they face deprivation, poverty, marginalization, social conflicts that could seriously threaten their exclusion and cultural erosion, not only effectiveness. However, the protected-areas because of the restrictions or loss of access model is experiencing rapid and profound to natural resources, but also because of evolution, and there is nowadays growing disadvantages when relocated to other support for a new protected-areas paradigm marginal lands or moving to cities as of social sensitivity and inclusiveness, migrants (Oviedo and Sylva, 1994; Oviedo, flexibility in approaches, and integration 2002). with local development aspirations (Oviedo, The irony of this situation cannot be 2002). Properly planned and managed, and ignored. Indigenous and local communities with the participation and involvement of in many parts of the world traditionally set the traditional inhabitants at all stages of aside and restricted access to certain areas, planning, implementation and management,

107 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

such protected areas can have mutually It is now widely recognized that in the beneficial outcomes for both the people developing world, protected-area agencies themselves, and the ecosystems targeted for are, with a few exceptions, becoming protection. increasingly weaker, and their managerial In the establishment and management of capacities are downsizing due to economic protected areas, governments might crises, while at the same time being therefore consider constructing alliances stretched by growing human pressures. The with the indigenous and local communities problem of “paper parks”, or protected areas inhabiting them to solve existing problems, affected by ineffective management and improve management effectiveness, secure therefore increasingly vulnerable to the very survival of those areas as valuable growing, powerful threats, has become more receptacles of biodiversity, and expand real than ever (Oviedo 2002), citing Carey et national protected area networks to include al., 2000). In the presence of weaker ecosystem types so far under-represented protected-area institutions, it is argued, a (Oviedo, 2002). This will help to serve the variety of actors, including traditional twin objectives of both biodiversity and communities, should be considered assets cultural maintenance. for improving management effectiveness Indigenous and local communities are (Oviedo, 2002) themselves considering in many cases the . Local communities often suffer direct establishment of new protected areas in economic losses when their access to lands traditionally occupied or used by them biological resources (such as bushmeat, because they are increasingly finding timber, non-timber forest products and protected areas useful for their own access to agricultural land) is cut off by purposes, for example, as a means to gain establishment of a protected area. Protected greater recognition and protection for the areas may be the only source of employment natural resources in those areas, as a way of in an area, or may provide a critical source attracting financial and other support, and as of timber, or of animal protein in local diets. a way of increasing the security of such Converted to dollar values on open markets areas against the interests of developers such measurements may appear trivial in (Oviedo, 2002). In Australia, for example, a economic terms, but their loss could be new category of protected area is now devastating to large numbers of people. recognized, namely Indigenous Protected While the protected area may be producing Areas. In a number of instances, both considerable economic benefit to society at national and sub-national governments have large in the form of ecosystem services or enabled indigenous traditional owners to ecotourism revenues, the affected local gain title over existing protected areas on the people are in essence subsidizing those condition that they lease them back to the flows of values to the state and the wider government as national parks. However, as society. Thus there is a need to ensure that part of this arrangement, the traditional the burdens of protected-area establishment owners have significant authority and are not disproportionately visited on local responsibilities in how the parks are to be communities and that the tangible financial managed, and enjoy a significant share of costs to them are factored into the equation the revenue derived from, for example, park It should also be recognized that, in entrance fees. monetary terms, indigenous and local communities are often among the poorest 3. Financing protected areas that groups in their countries. They have few of overlap lands and water traditionally the resources necessary for the successful occupied or used by indigenous and local management of the protected areas, even communities though they may have significant responsibilities in such management.

108 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Therefore special attention should be paid to biodiversity conservation by shifting local ensuring that the long-term financial needs employment away from more destructive of the protected areas and the peoples livelihood activities (e.g., blast fishing, involved with them are met, for example, large-scale commodity crop monoculture). through an appropriate share of park Yet major barriers exist to scaling up such revenues, the establishment of conservation environmental businesses, including lack of trust funds. technical business planning capacity, lack of Protected areas are also proving to be an investment capital, lack of a pipeline of essential element of efforts to eradicate viable enterprises for investment, and poverty, hunger, disease, and environmental difficulties with engaging the financial degradation. Numerous studies and services industry. meetings have produced a wealth of analysis In tropical developing countries—where and case-studies illustrating the linkages biodiversity is richest and the threats to it are between conserving biodiversity and greatest—public development assistance alleviating poverty, hunger and disease. provided by the developed countries through However, these positive outcomes in many their bilateral agencies and the multilateral cases can only be achieved through changes financial institutions must remain a in the traditional economic and subsistence cornerstones of protected-areas financing, activities of the indigenous and local and must increase if protected areas in those communities concerned. New forms of countries are to survive. For this to happen, culturally appropriate employment that protected areas must come to be seen as an builds on traditional skills may need to be essential part of sustainable development, introduced to replace, for example, not a “luxury good” that only rich countries unsustainable traditional resource-use can afford. Much of this development practices, remembering that some of these assistance must target the capacity-building practices may have become unsustainable in needs of the indigenous and local more recent times due to indirect pressures communities whose territories overlap on indigenous and local communities and protected areas in order for them to take on their resource bases. Protected-area status prominent roles as managers, as well as can offer a whole new range of employment enable them to diversify into other forms of opportunities (as park rangers, tourist economic activity that will relieve pressure guides, interpretive centres, tourist-oriented on local biological resources. artefact production, infrastructure provision and maintenance). Many of these jobs will 4 Principles and Guidelines on also require training. Local people can Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and acquire, for example, scientific management Protected Areas skills to complement their traditional knowledge, so that they can better carry out The World Commission on Protected Areas such tasks as strategic planning, and the World Wide Fund for Nature environmental/social/cultural impact developed in 1999 Principles and Guidelines assessments, biodiversity monitoring, on Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and parataxonomy, habitat rehabilitation, species Protected Areas. This document is surveys, and so forth. essentially a development and application of There is considerable potential to WWF and IUCN respective policies on harness private financial flows to support indigenous peoples and conservation, in the local conservation efforts. Properly context of the existing WCPA guidelines on designed, new environmental business protected areas, and in response to claims of opportunities (e.g., ecotourism, organic indigenous and traditional peoples’ agriculture, shade-grown coffee, certified organizations (Oviedo, 1999). The forestry, etc) can contribute significantly to Principles and Guidelines, comprising five

109 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

principles and 22 guidelines for their capacity to meet the objectives of the implementation, should be considered as a Convention on Biological Diversity; framework aimed at providing guidance, not (v) Undertake an assessment of the IUCN as a blueprint. It is intended that they should International System of Protected Area be adapted to the particular situation, Categories and examine how its existing legislation, and policies of each country, and categories may be made more used together with other complementary accommodating of indigenous and local approaches and tools, to ensure effective community interests in protected areas management of protected areas in which overlap lands and waters they partnership with indigenous and other have traditionally occupied or used, also traditional peoples living within and around giving consideration to the adoption of a borders. new category specifically addressing indigenous and local community CONCLUSIONS protected areas, and to the establishment of criteria for such a category taking into Special consideration should be given to the account the objectives of the Convention interests of indigenous and local on Biological Diversity, and relevant communities in both current and future decisions of the Conference of the protected areas which overlap with lands Parties. and waters they have traditionally occupied or used and whose natural resources they References have traditionally relied for their sustenance and livelihoods, in order to ensure that their Oviedo G. T. 1999. A Joint WCPA/IUCN and customary uses of biological resources in WWF Policy on Indigenous/Traditional accordance with sustainable use Peoples and Protected Areas: Presentation requirements are maintained. There is a need (October, 1999). Gland, Switzerland: People to: and Conservation Unit, WWF International. (i) Involve more indigenous and local Oviedo G.T. 2002. Protected Areas and communities; Indigenous and Traditional Peoples’ (ii) Develop a set of guidelines which may Territories: Options and Opportunities be used in the development of co- (Draft, April 02). management agreements involving Oviedo G.T. and P. Sylva 1994. Areas protected area agencies and affected Silvestres Protegidas y Communidades indigenous and local communities for Locales en America Latina. Santiago de the management of protected areas that Chile: FAO/PNUMA. RLAC/94/17 overlap lands and waters traditionally Documento Tecnico No. 17. occupied or used by such communities; IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area (iii) Provide financial assistance for the Management Categories. CNPPA with the management protected areas that assistance of WCMC, IUCN, Gland, overlap lands and waters traditionally Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. occupied or used by indigenous and local communities, targeting the capacity-building needs of such communities for the effective management of those protected areas; (iv) Gain experience with the IUCN/WCPA and WWF Principles and Guidelines on Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas (1999) in terms of their

110 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREAS AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY 17 GEF Secretariat, Washington, USA E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction America and the Caribbean – individuals and institutions are working to extend and The Global Environment Facility is the sustain protected area systems through major source of funding for conservation results-driven GEF projects. They are and sustainable use of earth’s biodiversity. assisted by GEF’s three implementing As the financial mechanism for the agencies: the United Nations Development Convention on Biological Diversity, GEF Programme (UNDP), the United Nations receives guidance from the Conference of Environment Programme (UNEP), and the Parties on policy, strategy, program World Bank. Other GEF initiatives such as priorities, and eligibility criteria related to the Small Grants Programme, administered the use of resources. Projects generally deal by UNDP, and the Critical Ecosystem with one or more of four critical ecosystem Partnership Fund led by Conservation types and the human communities found International, are also contributing to this there: arid and semi-arid zones; coastal, growing mosaic of community-based, high- marine, and freshwater resources; forests; priority protected areas. GEF projects are and mountains. also implemented through seven executing In its first decade of operation, GEF agencies: the United Nations Food and provided nearly $1.1 billion for Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United approximately 200 biodiversity projects Nations Industrial Development involving parks and other types of protected Organization (UNIDO), the African areas. This portfolio supports more than Development Bank (AfDB), the Asian 1,000 sites covering more than 226 million Development Bank (ADB), the European hectares -- just over a quarter of the total Bank for Reconstruction and Development global area under protection. The $1.1 (EBRD), the Inter-American Development million for protected areas directly Bank (IADB), and the International Fund for contributed by the GEF helped leverage Agricultural Development (IFAD). almost $2.5 billion in co-financing from In 2002 the GEF received commitments project partners. Performance against of $3 billion for its third replenishment, an investment has also been high. The Second unprecedented vote of confidence in its Overall Performance Study of the GEF, an efforts to safeguard the global environment independent review completed in early and support sustainable development. To 2002, found that “GEF’s biodiversity effectively program and disburse these program has made significant advances in funds, the GEF has developed a series of demonstrating community-based strategic priorities for biodiversity conservation within protected areas,” and conservation. . that “GEF has steadily improved standards Bolstering the sustainability of protected of management of protected areas through area systems is one of four main directions participatory approaches.” in which the GEF will seek to develop its In many corners of the globe – Africa, portfolio. This priority targets not just the Asia-Pacific region, Central and Eastern ecological sustainability, but also Europe, Central and Western Asia, and Latin institutional, social, political, and financial

111 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

sustainability in the context of national The project identified eight areas for protected area systems. Support for priority protection. It also consolidated individual protected sites will be grounded institutional capacities for integrated coastal in the long-term vision countries have for zone management, educated people about their protected area systems. biodiversity conservation and sustainable Objectives include expanded use, and directly addressed problems caused engagement of the private sector, further by conventional tourism development, over- development of innovative financial fishing, and agro-industrial pollution mechanisms, intensified capacity building From a scientific standpoint, the scope and comprehensive stakeholder for biodiversity conservation is enhanced in participation, and an emphasis on in-situ moving from the concept of “islands” of conservation through the conservation of conservation to networks. This entails the globally important and threatened sites and adoption of a mosaic of land uses, pairing ecosystems. The GEF will also continue to production landscapes with protected ones. increase its assistance to “mainstream” The biggest challenge may stem from the biodiversity conservation in landscapes fair allocation of costs, benefits, and trade- where the primary emphasis is on economic offs related to biodiversity conservation. uses. Local stakeholders must contribute to the In all these ways and more, the GEF will development and implementation of strive to extend its record of achievement in institutional, organizational, and legal the ten years between this World Parks frameworks that support good decision- Congress and the next. making at all local levels, factoring in economic, social, and environmental 2. Links to land and sea concerns. GEF projects work to link protected Protected areas are important storehouses of areas and their surroundings in a myriad of genetic, species, habitat, and ecosystem ways —among them, buffer zones, diversity. The list of benefits and services corridors, cultural linkages, integrated they provide is long. Experience shows that ecosystem management, integrated coastal the full potential of these areas is realized zone management, and transboundary only when they are linked to their protected areas. surrounding geographic, economic, and Buffer zones create a transition between social contexts. Greater awareness must be protected areas and the surrounding created among protected area managers and landscape, where planners and managers can government agencies of the necessity of work with neighbouring communities to establishing, understanding, and managing address their needs and expectations. Forty- protected areas in light of the larger four GEF-financed biodiversity projects landscape or seascape. have incorporated buffer zones, and these A good example is found in a GEF projects include at least 209 protected areas. project implemented by UNDP in the Ecological corridors multiply the northern archipelago of the Sabana- conservation benefits of protected areas by Camagüey ecosystem in central Cuba. linking them within the larger context of Cuba’s offshore cays, 60 percent of which surrounding ecosystems. Thirty-two GEF- are located in the project area, are among the funded biodiversity projects, involving at country’s most important tracts for the least 207 protected areas, include corridor preservation of terrestrial and marine components (Table 1). biodiversity of global significance. Large An outstanding example is the Program number of invertebrates, and 46 vertebrate for the Consolidation of the Meso-American taxa, are found on these isolated islands. Biological Corridor, coordinated by the Commission for Environment and

112 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Development in Central America and wellspring for biodiversity for thousands of Mexico’s National Commission for years. GEF-supported national and regional Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity projects are working to mainstream (CONABIO). Co-implemented by UNDP, biodiversity conservation into agriculture, UNEP, and the World Bank, the program trade and investment, and other economic seeks to establish interconnected biological development priorities. corridors throughout a region that has been a

Table 1: The GEF’s Protected Areas Portfolio — Linking Natural Landscapes

Number of GEF Number of projects protected areas included in the projects Buffer Zones 44 209 Corridors 32 207 Cultural Linkages 8 24 Transboundary Protected Areas 5 29 Integrated Coastal Zone Management 7 15

To complement these efforts, the GEF’s for integrating ecosystem management in Small Grants Programme is using the Meso- three model areas — that is, carefully American Biological Corridor to prioritize combining conservation and sustainable use grant selection and approval in Central of forests, tundra, freshwater, and marine America. Some 70 of the 81 grants in Costa resources. Protected area management is Rica, for example, have been implemented part and parcel of the larger landscape in priority geographic areas linking national conservation and ecosystem management parks. This enables local and indigenous effort. communities to contribute to conservation Each model site represents different efforts while improving their livelihoods. patterns of ecosystems and types of people Another example can be found far to the pressures. The project seeks to enhance and north in the vast landscapes of Arctic incorporate the use of traditional indigenous Russia, some of the last remaining knowledge. By building on national policies wilderness on earth. The region serves as and priorities, it promises to show how the feeding and breeding ground for millions integrated ecosystem management can fulfill of migratory birds and mammals from Asia, ecological, economic, and social goals and Africa, and Europe. However, its rare and generate local as well as global benefits. endemic plants and wildlife are beginning to Georgia’s Caucasus region is a be imperilled by over-harvesting, illegal recognized global biodiversity hotspot -- harvesting, and habitat fragmentation. Only home to unique and threatened large a few species are currently protected. mammals like the Caucasian tur. A GEF- A GEF-supported project implemented financed project implemented by the World by UNEP is contributing to the conservation Bank is working to develop the country’s and sustainable use of biodiversity in these system of protected areas and link them to wilderness areas. Its immediate objective is the broader landscape. The desired result: a to adopt strategies and initiate action plans viable ecological network of habitats for in-

113 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

situ biodiversity conservation and the mainstream it into the wider development sustainable use of biodiversity. context? The project places particular emphasis A good example of mainstreaming on ecosystem management and corridor concerns the Cape Floristic Region, an conservation. Corridor plans that link entire plant kingdom – one of six worldwide management activities in protected areas and – situated on South Africa’s Cape Peninsula. similar activities on adjacent state forest Seventy percent of its more than 9,000 plant lands are being tested in high priority areas. species are found nowhere else on earth. These plans promote habitat management The region’s marine environment contains practices consistent with the needs of key over 11,000 species. threatened species. The GEF is supporting the Cape Action Corridor plans are also integrating Plan for the Environment (CAPE), the first recommendations for range management in bioregional plan produced for the specific alpine habitats, and provide detailed conservation of an entire floral region — performance indicators to monitor the marine, terrestrial, and aquatic effectiveness of management efforts. By environments. The plan lays out key strengthening the management of Georgia’s conservation activities over a 20-year protected areas and linking them to each period. These include a system of formally other and the surrounding land-use protected areas of varying sizes, as well as management, this project can help conserve buffer zones and biological corridors critical biodiversity while supporting sustainable to sustain the region’s unique evolutionary livelihoods in the Caucasus region. processes. A strong multi-stakeholder partnership is supporting the mainstreaming 3. Protected areas in the mainstream of biodiversity conservation into economic activities, as well as through integrated While better known national parks and development planning. seashores are often swamped with visitors, The GEF is also capitalizing the Table there is a continuing need to build broad- Mountain Fund, an endowment which based constituencies for protected areas and provides small amounts of seed funding to the values they represent. support community-based conservation “Mainstreaming” protected areas activities in the Cape Floristic Region. increases their effectiveness and integrates Another GEF-supported mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in national and initiative in Costa Rica seeks to improve the international policy frameworks.[The sharing of benefits from biodiversity challenge is to identify sectors directly conservation, as well as education and related to protected areas, and to develop awareness about its importance. new partnerships in support of protected Implemented by the World Bank, the area values. When protected area Biodiversity Conservation in Cacao- considerations are incorporated into policies Agroforestry project is upgrading the governing these sectors, the result can be a management of small, cacao-based Bribri win-win for environment and development. and Cabecar indigenous farms in the Nearly all GEF-supported biodiversity Talamanca-Caribbean corridor through the projects with protected area components introduction of market-savvy organic emphasize education and awareness raising production principles. These techniques through a variety of activities. Recent GEF ensure conservation and sustainable use of initiatives encourage looking beyond the on-farm plant and animal diversity and project in question to systematically target provide a reliable source of family income. the country’s enabling environment. How well is it positioned to address biodiversity conservation across the board and

114 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

The GEF outlook supporting the expansion of protected • Protected areas are the most important areas to the larger production landscape tool to achieve biodiversity conservation for increased biodiversity conservation and ecological integrity. As such, they benefits and sustainable use. will remain a target area for future GEF • The GEF will continue to support support innovative approaches to building the • The conservation community has made public, private, non-governmental, and commendable progress in expanding local community support needed to protected area systems, and made some incorporate biodiversity conservation gains in new collaborations with actors and protected area values into the broad not typically associated with multi-sectoral public policy planning biodiversity conservation. Maximizing process. the contribution protected areas make to healthy ecosystems and sustainable livelihoods requires further mainstreaming of values associated with them. • Protected areas must increasingly be linked to their surroundings and the environmental context in which they are found. Thus, the GEF will continue

115 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

ENABLING ACTIVITIES TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTED AREAS 18

Manrique Rojas and Sheldon Cohen The Nature Conservancy Email: [email protected]

1. Introduction given the limited amount of human and financial resources available for Protected areas are the cornerstone for conservation, it is critical to ensure that the biodiversity conservation around the globe. right decisions be made, for which it is Their importance has been recognized at crucial to have the right information. multiple levels, from international bodies, to Specific needs vary case by case, but in national governments, local groups, and general, the most important information communities. Important progress has been needs to enable biodiversity conservation made in the last few decades in expanding are those that allow decision makers to and consolidating protected areas, and today understand the biodiversity assets and the they cover approximately 11.5% of the options for their management and planet’s land surface. However, even conservation. These require a minimum though progress has been made, much still level of knowledge of the biodiversity needs to be done to ensure the effectiveness resources themselves, the threats to their of protected areas in the long-term. A series conservation and the causes of those threats. of activities can contribute by enabling this Such knowledge depends on information effectiveness. from various fields, a very good ‘Enabling activities’ in the context of understanding of local conditions, and protected areas refers to those activities that ongoing research and analysis. Resources allow for the design and implementation of like biodiversity inventories, maps of basic effective response measures to achieve key features in the terrain, and socio- conservation objectives. These activities or economic censuses can all contribute conditions can significantly facilitate the significantly to make better decisions. effectiveness of conservation in protected With a basic level of information and areas. In other words, if a series of understanding, decision-makers can make conditions are not in place, the effectiveness plans for conservation activities and of conservation efforts can be significantly establish priorities for resource allocation. hindered. The basic information allows for exercises This section briefly highlights some of like ecoregional plans, national biodiversity the key activities that can contribute in strategies, and conservation gap analysis to enabling the conservation effectiveness of take place. At the same time, a constant protected areas. feedback of information into decision making enables for adaptive management. 2. Key activities to enable the As new information becomes available, effectiveness of protected areas management decisions can be adjusted accordingly. Information for decision making Sound decisions require solid information. Capacity building This is no different in the field of Capacity building refers to the development biodiversity conservation. To the contrary, of an organization’s core skills and

116 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

capabilities which in the long-term enable their management to identify and address the organization’s effectiveness and its issues and gain the insights, knowledge and sustainability. Effective protected areas call experience needed to solve problems and for capable management, which in turn implement change. depends on effective institutions, trained professionals, and staff with multiple Financial support technical skills. Building the capacity of Long-term funding is an essential local stakeholders, both governmental and component to enable effective protected area non-governmental, is therefore one of the management. Unfortunately, most most effective means to secure the ability to developing countries lack mechanisms to meet local conservation needs. This ensure adequate funding levels for their strengthening process gives local institutions protected area systems. At the same time the ability to achieve conservation results by the recent shift of bilateral and multilateral ensuring they have the technical and assistance away from strictly environmental financial resources required to address the issues has affected many countries, challenges of abating threats and improving particularly those more reliant on biodiversity health at conservation sites. development assistance. Overall, funding Capacity building needs vary widely, for protected areas is exposed to and are important at all levels, from training fluctuations, inhibiting the ability to cover park guards on the ground to preparing high- recurrent costs and the implementation of level staff to participate in complex global management plans. Diversification of negotiations. Similarly, many different funding sources is needed to provide a types of skills are needed to enable effective buffer against unanticipated events such as management of protected areas, from abrupt declines in tourism, deterioration of leadership, fundraising, and scientific financial markets, and shifts in donor knowledge to administrative expertise in priorities. areas such as human resources and Experience and diversity of contexts bookkeeping. These human and institutional shows that no single source of funding is capacities are often scarce, particularly in likely to cover all recurrent and investment developing countries and in remote areas. costs for protected areas. A packaged Given the usual personnel turnover and the approach has to be developed and custom fit quick evolution of some technical fields like to each situation. As countries try to shift computing and genetics, capacity building from a pattern of financing short-term programs continuously have to be built, conservation projects to sustaining reinforced and expanded. conservation results over the long-term, The long-term requirements to build the funding for protected areas also needs to capacity of institutions and individuals need shift from a pre-dominantly external towards a significant commitment. Donors seldom a pre-dominantly domestic funding base, at have a mandate to provide long-term least for covering the minimum basic funding for such programs, so a challenge operating costs. This is a significant for capacity building is ensuring that it is challenge, especially for developing taken up by local actors who can provide the countries, where conservation competes services in the long-run. There are cases in with other pressing needs like health and which this has been achieved by pairing up education. with academic institutions, through In addition to increased funding, other government training centers, and by critical aspects of financial support for contracting private service providers. protected areas include making an effective Whatever the means, the effectiveness of use of available resources through financial protected areas is closely linked to assisting planning. In most cases, individual the individuals and groups responsible for protected areas and protected area systems

117 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

have not developed financial management economic and social values of goods and plans. Long-term financial plans can be ecosystem services produced by protected useful in generating accurate estimates of areas – such as fisheries, non-timber forest funding requirements over the long-term. products, genetic resources, tourism They are useful tools for decision making revenues, water security, and flood and that provide the foundation for developing storm control. These are generally not basic financial management strategies such recognized by decision-makers, local as identifying cost reduction measures and communities and other stakeholders, and are cash flow problems, as well as indicating not being fully captured through markets or how resource re-allocation could best financial instruments. Also, conservationists support established protected area should strive to demonstrate the linkage management priorities. Long term financial between conservation and poverty plans can also lead to the systematic alleviation to decision-makers who are assessment of the viability of new revenue naturally more interested in specific sources as part of a broader business-based contributions to alleviate poverty at the approach to improve protected area national and sub-national levels. management. Clarity in the legal framework is also important, not just by having sufficient Governance and policy environmental laws but also by ensuring that Another critical condition to enable effective environmental legislation fits well within the protected area management is a conducive broader national legal framework. Once governance and policy framework in which laws are in place, the lack of their to operate. This includes aspects like enforcement frequently becomes a limiting political will and the regulatory framework. factor that hinders effective management of Broadly speaking, policy and governance protected areas. Also, because protected refer to the processes and systems which areas function within the constraints dictated determine how power is exercised, how by the existing policy framework, inhibiting decisions are made, and how civil society policies can present significant barriers. participates in these processes. These issues These include, for example, laws and are relevant because they have great regulations that limit income generation at influence in how protected areas meet protected areas, alternative management conservation objectives and contribute to options like co-management, and redirection social, economic and environmental goals. of private sector royalties and other financial Governance and policy are therefore flows toward earmarked purposes such as relevant at all scales, from local, to national, protected areas management. Therefore a regional, and global. For example, legal, constant updating of the legal framework to policy, and regulatory frameworks are ensure it incorporates best practices and critical in defining the linkages between minimizes inhibiting policies, combined practical site-based conservation and the with follow up to ensure enforcement takes formulation of national-level policies and place, is a critical governance and policy strategies. Similarly, it is critical to secure issue for protected areas. political support for protected areas, which is key for decisions on budget allocations and other policy issues. One way to generate such support can be to highlight the

118 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

MAINTAINING PROTECTED AREAS FOR NOW AND FUTURE: EVALUATING 19 MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTED AREAS

Marc Hockings School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, University of Queensland, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

How well are protected areas meeting their conservation objectives and protecting their biological and cultural values? Are they being managed to cope with increasing threats such as climate change, hunting and invasive species? How do we measure this and adapt management so that protected areas will be maintained for now and the future?

1. Introduction resources efficiently, and assess and plan for potential threats and opportunities. All over the world, huge investments of money, land and human effort are being put 2. What is meant by “Management into protected area acquisition and Effectiveness Evaluation”? management, and into specific intervention projects. More than ten percent of the Management effectiveness evaluation world’s land surface is now in some form of measures the degree to which a protected protected area. This demonstrates the area is protecting its values and achieving its tremendous importance the global goals and objectives. The main objective of community places on this form of evaluation is to enable managers to improve conservation. However, declaration alone conservation and management of protected does not guarantee the conservation of areas. values. In most cases we have little idea of Three main components of management whether management of individual protected effectiveness can be evaluated: areas, or of whole systems, is effective. And more importantly, what little we do know Design of individual protected area or suggests that many protected areas are being protected area systems - important elements seriously degraded. Many are in danger of include size, shape, external interactions and losing the very values for which they were connectivity. Evaluation may highlight originally protected. design problems such as, exclusion of We clearly need to find out what is critical habitat areas, isolation, and lack of happening and then carefully manage protection from external pressures. protected areas to cope with escalating threats and pressures. An increasing number Adequacy and appropriateness of of people have been developing ways to management - examines how management monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of is being undertaken: whether plans are in protected areas. There is a growing place, whether the number of staff and awareness that evaluating management amount of funds are sufficient to meet basic effectiveness and applying the results is at needs and whether management meets best the core of good protected area practice standards for the region management. Essentially, evaluation enables Delivery of protected area objectives– managers to reflect on experience, allocate assesses whether protected areas are

119 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

achieving their stated aims. Measures control programs for weeds and feral include biological elements (such as whether animals; key species are surviving, recovering or • provide indicators of overall ecosystem declining) and social aspects (such as health and methods of managing global recreational use and the attitudes of local threats on the wider landscape; communities). • indicate the success or failure of initiatives beyond park boundaries such 3. What is the purpose of protected area as corridors and transfrontier parks; management evaluation? • enable Indigenous and other local communities to become actively Management effectiveness evaluation can be involved in assessing protected area undertaken for many reasons and it is management and guiding its future; important that the purpose of evaluation is • involve Indigenous and local made clear at the beginning of the process. communities to facilitate a greater Four broad purposes for evaluation are feeling of ownership and support for the outlined below: park; • promoting better protected area • enable practitioners to share ideas and management including a more reflective experiences, and make cross-site and adaptive approach; comparisons with consistent data • guiding project planning, resource (especially when using the same general allocation and priority setting; evaluation framework; • providing accountability and • give early warning signals of protected transparency; areas in danger – and help to argue for • increasing community awareness, funding and international support for involvement and support. these areas; Evaluating management effectiveness • provide a mechanism for incorporating should be seen as a positive process which scientific and traditional knowledge as allows us to correct and learn from our well as the perceptions and experience mistakes instead of repeating them as well of park managers into decision making; as to celebrate and build on past success. • provide a mechanism for maintaining Evaluation will also enable managers to management standards as governments anticipate future threats and opportunities. and their priorities change; There are many benefits of management • assist in times of political turmoil and effectiveness evaluation in the face of conflict by providing a focus for threats and pressures. For example, international pressure or presence to monitoring and evaluation can: protect the park; • give ‘concrete’ evidence of success in • provide data on economic and other managing pressures such as hunting and benefits of protected areas which can be poaching; used to build public and political • enable park managers to quantify support. impacts such as over-use and adapt management to minimise this; 4. The IUCN World Commission on • indicate effects to protected areas from Protected Areas Framework for assessing global threats such as climate change. management effectiveness of protected This in turn may help park managers areas from a network of sites, develop buffers and test hypotheses to cope with change; Following a recommendation at the IVth • demonstrate the effectiveness of World Parks Congress in Caracas in 1992 different management programs such as that called for IUCN to develop a system for monitoring management effectiveness of

120 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

protected areas, IUCN convened an The following section provides a brief international Task Force with broad regional description of each of the elements in the representation within its World Commission management cycle which are open for on Protected Areas (WCPA) to address the evaluation and explains why they are issue. The work of the Task Force resulted important. in a publication Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management of Design elements protected areas (Hockings et al. 2000) Context - Where are we now? which provides a framework and principles What is the protected area’s current status - for evaluation of management effectiveness. • its global, national or local It is clear that different situations require significance; different types of assessment. In particular, • its conservation and other values; there will be major differences in the • its broad policy and managerial amount of time and resources available for environment; and assessment in different parts of the world. • the particular threats affecting it. Issues of scale, nature of management objectives and differences in threats and impacts and available resources all affect the choice of evaluation methodology. Therefore, the WCPA Task Force developed a ‘framework’ rather than a standard global methodology. The framework aims to help in the design of assessment systems, provide a checklist of issues that need to be measured, suggest some useful indicators, and encourage basic standards for assessment and reporting.The WCPA framework is based on the premise that the process of management starts with establishing a vision (within the context of existing status and pressures), progresses through planning and allocation of resources and, as a result of management actions, produces results that (hopefully) lead to the Figure 1: Evaluation in the management desired outcomes. Monitoring and cycle evaluation of these stages provide the link that enables planners and managers to learn from experience. It also helps governments, This information helps put management funding agencies and communities to decisions in context. This may be the main measure how well their project or area is assessment used to identify priorities within doing. a protected area network, or to decide on the Figure 1 presents a common framework time and resources to devote to a special within which evaluation and monitoring project. It may also provide information on programmes can be established, combining management focus. For example, if context, planning, input, processes, outputs poaching is a major problem and there are and outcomes. no anti-poaching measures in place, then an important discrepancy has been identified. Conversely the existence of extensive anti- 5. The elements to be measured poaching brigades when the poachers have

121 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

moved on elsewhere may be a waste of plans or a process of annual work resources. programming) have been met as scheduled Planning - Where do we want to be and how and what progress is being made in are we going to get there? implementing long-term management plans. What are the intended outcomes for the Outcomes – What did we achieve? protected area system or the individual This question evaluates whether protected area? management has achieved the objectives in a How adequate is protected area management plan, or national plans and • legislation and policy; ultimately the aims of the IUCN category of • design; and the protected area. Outcome evaluation is • management planning? most meaningful where concrete objectives The selected indicators for evaluation for management have been specified either will depend on the purpose of assessment in national legislation, policies, or site- and whether a system of reserves or an specific management plans. Approaches to individual protected area is being evaluated. outcome evaluation involve long-term With systems, issues of ecological monitoring of the condition of the biological representativeness and connectivity will be and cultural resources of the system or site, particularly important. The focus of socio-economic aspects of use, and the assessment of individual protected areas will impacts of the management of the be on the shape, size, location and detailed system/site on local communities. Outcome management objectives and plans. evaluation should also consider whether the values of the site have been maintained and Appropriateness of management systems whether threats to these values are being and processes effectively addressed. Inputs– what do we need? Outcome evaluation is the true test of How adequate are the available resources in management effectiveness. But the relation to the management needs of an area. monitoring required is significant, especially This is based primarily on consideration of since little attention has been given to this staff, funds, equipment and facilities aspect of protected area management in the required. past. The selection of indicators to be Process - how do we go about it? monitored is critical so that resources are not How well is management being conducted wasted monitoring features that cannot help in relation to relevant standards of manage the most critical issues. management for a system or a site? The WCPA evaluation framework is Assessment will involve a variety of summarised in Table 1. indicators, such as issues of policy Ideally, assessments should cover each development, enforcement, facility and of the above elements, which are equipment maintenance, administrative complementary rather than alternative processes or the adequacy of local approaches to evaluating management community involvement and systems for effectiveness. Monitoring inputs and outputs natural and cultural resource management. over time can be especially useful to show changes in management efficiency and may Delivery of protected area objectives highlight the effectiveness of a particular Outputs – What did we do and what change to management. However, products or services were produced? assessments are driven by particular needs What has been done by management, and resources and a partial evaluation can and to what extent have targets, work still provide very useful information. The programmes or plans been implemented? framework provides a structure for The focus of output monitoring is on designing an evaluation system. A process is whether targets (set through management outlined in Figure 2.

122 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Table 1: Summary of the WCPA Framework

Focus of Elements of Explanation Criteria that are assessed evaluation evaluation Where are we now? - Significance Assessment of importance, - Threats Context threats and policy - Vulnerability Status environment - National context - Partners - Protected area legislation and policy Where do we want to be? - Protected area system Planning Assessment of protected Appropriateness design area design and planning - Reserve design - Management planning What do we need? Assessment of resources - Resourcing of agency Inputs Adequacy needed to carry out - Resourcing of site management How do we go about it? Assessment of the way in - Suitability of Efficiency and Processes which management is management processes appropriateness conducted What were the results? Assessment of the - Results of implementation of Outputs management actions Effectiveness management programmes - Services and products and actions; delivery of products and services What did we achieve? Assessment of the - Impacts: effects of Effectiveness and Outcomes outcomes and the extent to management in appropriateness which they achieved relation to objectives objectives

6. Application of management protected area systems to detailed effectiveness evaluation monitoring of individual protected areas. Depending on available time and resources Several methodologies for evaluating and the objectives of evaluation, the management effectiveness are now being processes range from complex to simple and applied all over the world. Many of these are cheap. based on the WCPA framework. The basic Samples of methodologies that have framework can be used to develop been developed and applied at various scales methodologies across a range of are outlined below. environments and scales, from rapid assessments of national and international

123 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Figure 2: Creating a methodology to assess the management of protected areas or protected areas systems

Set your project objectives

Objectives will depend on:

Location of PA or PA system Available resources, i.e. Timescale of project project funding, PA staff time

Choose the level of assessment to be undertaken

Complete TOR for the project

Decide who will undertake the assessment, i.e. consultant, PA agency staff

Draw up methodology for the assessment process

Elements of the methodology should include:

Structures for the inclusion Time line for the The range of indicators to Reporting structure for Processes for results of stakeholders in the assessment process be assessed the assessment results to be feed back to assessment process (i.e PA management system using rapid rural appraisal) and stakeholders

Once indicators are established, define data requirements, availability and gaps

Data gathering, i.e. desk research, structured interviews with stakeholders and monitoring programmes

Checking of research results and conclusions (ideally with stakeholders)

Production of report and recommendations

Feedback of the assessments results into PA management structures and systems

The enhancing our heritage: monitoring toolkit based on the WCPA framework has and managing for success in natural World been developed. Evaluation is being used to Heritage sites project improve management and reporting at This is a four-year United Nations World Heritage Site level. The project aims Foundation, IUCN and UNESCO project to improve management of World Heritage working in ten World Heritage sites in south sites by providing managers with a Asia, Latin America and southern and consistent program for assessing and eastern Africa. A monitoring and assessment

124 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

reporting on management effectiveness and actual resource conditions of the 387 units conservation values. of the US system. The methodology Evaluation involves field monitoring, examines critical indicators of both natural workshops and interviews. The process is and cultural resource conditions and participatory and involves many management practices. It particularly stakeholders from local communities and focuses on outcomes. Immediate benefits field staff to international NGOs. Improved included prioritised funding and increased communication has been established stakeholder awareness of park issues. between park managers, local communities and other key experts. Responses to Reporting progress in protected areas: A identified deficiencies are now being site-level management effectiveness implemented to improve management. tracking tool The World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest The Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation of Conservation and Sustainable Use has Protected Areas Management (RAPPAM) developed a simple, site-level assessment Methodology system for tracking progress in management WWF International has developed and field- effectiveness. The methodology, which is tested a tool for assessing the management also being used by the Global Environment effectiveness of protected area systems at a Facility, is designed to provide a relatively national level. It is intended to: quick, easy and consistent system for • identify strengths and weaknesses; reporting progress on management • analyse threats and pressures; effectiveness in a diverse range of protected • identify areas of high ecological and areas. It is not, however, designed to replace social importance and vulnerability; more thorough methods of monitoring and • indicate the urgency and conservation assessment for purposes of adaptive priority for individual protected areas; management. and • help to improve management WWF/CATIE and PROARCA/CAPAS effectiveness. evaluation methodologies Evaluation consists of review of Both the WWF/CATIE and available information and a workshop based PROARCA/CAPAS methodologies for assessment using the Rapid Assessment evaluating management of protected areas Questionnaire, analysing findings and have been developed, tested and refined making recommendations. The process over a number of years within Latin involved park staff, local communities, America. These methodologies involve scientists and NGOs. The objectives of scoring systems based around a hierarchy of assessment were developed individually for indicators of different aspects of each country. Detailed case studies for each management performance. For each area were developed and used to improve indicator used, a number of conditions are management in ways such as conservation established – the optimum condition being planning, priority setting, and increasing given the maximum value. Results are focus on threatened areas. presented in the form of a percentage of the maximum obtainable score. This can be The “State of the Park” Program to assess calculated as an overall figure for the natural and cultural resource conditions in protected area and as scores for each field of U.S. National Parks activity (eg. planning, legal etc) and can be This on-going project was initiated by the presented in matrix format. The National Parks and Conservation methodologies focus principally on Association to raise public awareness about management inputs and process with some the state of national parks and to show the

125 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

assessment of management outputs and outcomes. General guidelines for evaluating 7. General conclusions from studies on management effectiveness management effectiveness A number of general guidelines have been developed, based on experience in While significant progress has been made on management effectiveness evaluation over developing methodologies for evaluating the past decade. These guidelines are listed management effectiveness, assessments of in brief, grouped according to the aspect of management effectiveness have so far been evaluation that they relate to: undertaken in only a small percentage of the world’s protected areas. Case studies The process presented at the recent World Parks • The process should have clearly defined Congress documented the results of objectives and plan; assessments in nearly 1000 protected areas, • Methodology should be based on an undertaken using a variety of the evaluation accepted framework; methodologies. Comprehensive analysis of • Methodology used should be simple, this disparate dataset is yet to be undertaken. repeatable, and transparent; Nevertheless some consistent trends are • The level and complexity of evaluation emerging from these studies. Some depends on the scale, scope and purpose preliminary conclusions are: of the project; • Protected areas are, in general, • Assessment should focus on the most chronically under-funded in relation to important values and significant threats the perceived needs for adequate identified for that area; management. This is generally • Evaluation should be based on the best consistent across both developed and available information and may be both developing countries although the qualitative and quantitative; amount of funding available (and • Limitations to the process including perceived needs) varies significantly knowledge gaps should always be (James, 2001; Beeton, 2002; Ervin, identified; 2003; Mallarach, 2003); • Any performance indicators should • The majority of protected areas are cover either social, environmental or subject to multiple serious threats management issues; (Carey et al., 2000; Mallarach, 2003; • Indicators should be measurable and Dudley et al., 2003; Ervin, 2003) The results should reflect on important most significant threats are common aspects of management. across many sites and regions, although • Management effectiveness evaluation this result may reflect the fact that most needs to be supported by park managers assessments have, to date, been carried and project leaders and become part of out in forest protected areas in the core business. developing world. Major threats

identified across a range of studies Reporting (Ervin, 2003, Dudley et al. 2003) • Limitations and flaws in the process include: should be identified in the assessment • poaching; report; • encroachment and fragmentation; • Improvement to the process should also • logging; be recommended • agriculture and grazing; • Strengths and weaknesses of • alien invasive species; and management should be identified • mining.

126 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

• Clear recommendations for improving • capacity of often under-resourced areas management should be outlined after the to conduct evaluation. evaluation process

Applying results Further readings • The process does not end with evaluation - results should be fed into Cifuentes, A. M.,V. A. Izurieta and H. H. de future management and decision Faria (2000) Measuring Protected Area Management Effectiveness. WWF making; • Centroamerica, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Evaluation results should highlight any Courrau, J. (1999) Strategy for Monitoring the changes over time; Management of Protected Areas in Central • Results should help to set management America, PROARCA CAPAS Program. The priorities and guide resource allocation. Nature Conservancy, USA. Ervin J. (2003) WWF Rapid Assessment and Participation Prioritisation of Protected Areas • Involve the community, stakeholders Management (RAPPAM) Methodology, WWF, Gland, Switzerland. and all levels of park staff; Hockings, M., S. Stolton and N. Dudley (2000). • Build a team where necessary to carry Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for the project and encourage ownership as assessing the management of protected well as increasing communication areas. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, between of park managers and UK, IUCN stakeholders; Hockings, M., S. Stolton, N. Dudley and J. • Findings should be accessible to park Parrish (2001). The Enhancing our Heritage managers and stakeholders. Toolkit: book 1, UNESCO and IUCN www.enhancingheritage.net/

docs_public.asp 8. Conclusion - Where to Now? Leverington, F. and M. Hockings (in prep.) Securing protected areas and ecosystem This paper provides an introduction to the services in the face of global change – issue of management effectiveness managing in the face of global change: the evaluation. The framework and existing role of evaluating management guidelines should help managers adapt and effectiveness. IUCN/WRI Ecosystems, Parks apply existing methods or design and and People Project. implement their own evaluation Peterson, M. (2003) Developing a “State of the methodology. As experience with evaluation Park” Program to Assess natural and accumulates, we can expect these guidelines Cultural Resource Conditions in U.S. National Parks. to be extended and improved. www.npca.org/stateoftheparks The next step in the evolution of Stolton, S., M. Hockings, N. Dudley, K. management effectiveness evaluation will be McKinnon and T. Whitten (2003) Reporting increased focus on results of assessment Progress in Protected Areas – A Site-Level rather than the development of Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. methodologies. World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest The major challenge for the future Conservation and Sustainable Use. however, is to have these tools widely used TNC (2000) The Five-S framework for site and to have monitoring and evaluation conservation: a practitioner’s handbook for established as core business within protected site conservation planning and measuring area management. To achieve this there conservation success. Arlington, Virginia, needs to be a further increase in The Nature Conservancy • awareness of the benefits of evaluation; • willingness to use such systems;

127 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREA COVERAGE – A BIODIVERSITY INDICATOR 20 Robert Höft Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction The majority of Parties to the Convention list protected areas as the most obvious The Strategic Plan for the Convention on contribution towards the achievement of the Biological Diversity, which was adopted in first principal objective of the Convention, decision VI/26 of the sixth meeting of the i.e. to conserve biodiversity10. In most Conference of the Parties, includes the target cases, protected areas are created to ensure “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction the long-term conservation of the biota, of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the habitats and landscapes contained within its global, regional and national level as a boundaries. Protected area coverage can contribution to poverty alleviation and to the therefore serve as an indicator of the efforts benefit of all life on Earth”. This target was made at national, regional, global or endorsed by the World Summit on biogeographic/bioregional levels to maintain Sustainable Development, which also biodiversity. recognized and emphasized the key role Protected area coverage has several played by biodiversity in poverty advantages as an indicator: data are eradication. regularly compiled and stored; the surface When in November 2003 the ninth area can be calculated and analysed at meeting of the Convention’s Subsidiary various scales and in relation to different Body on Scientific, Technical and political or biogeographic features and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) protected area types; and the concept of considered ways of integrating outcome- protected area coverage as a means towards oriented targets into the programmes of biodiversity conservation can be effectively work of the Convention, it took into account communicated. the 2010 biodiversity target, the Global On the other hand, one needs to Strategy for Plant Conservation, and recognize some shortcomings. The relevant targets set by the World Summit on proclamation of an area as protected does Sustainable Development. SBSTTA not automatically guarantee the conservation recommended that the Conference of the of the biodiversity it contains. Nor does it Parties at its seventh meeting agrees that a necessarily coincide with an objective limited number of trial indicators, for which analysis of protected area needs. data are available from existing sources, be The following paragraphs discuss the developed, tested and reviewed by SBSTTA strengths and weaknesses of using protected prior to the eighth meeting of the area coverage as an indicator of status and Conference of the Parties in 2006. One of trends in biodiversity. the five indicators recommended for trial was the “coverage of protected areas”. 3. Data availability

2. Protected area coverage indicator Since 1962, the United Nations has compiled, and regularly updated, a list of the The surface area of protected areas reflects measures taken to safeguard biodiversity. 10 See for example information in thematic reports on protected areas (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/2)

128 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

world's national parks and reserves. Since Indicators are particularly powerful when the 1990’s this UN List of Protected Areas the information they provide is meaningful has been made available both as printed to the users. Only when the message they publications and as web-based databases contain is understood by the general public, that can be queried. The 2003 UN List, decision makers can be lobbied to translate released at the 5th World Parks Congress in the information into action. The indicator on Durban, South Africa, provides the latest protected area coverage is particularly reference information. The 2003 UN List suitable because most people can relate to has benefited from the establishment in 2002 protected areas as places set aside for of the World Database on Protected Areas conservation, education, research, spiritual Consortium. The Consortium has integrated values and/or recreational enjoyment. the UN List into a Geographic Information Protected areas can attract tourism and, in System and made it available on CD-Rom as many cases, generate income to local the World Database on Protected Areas residents. Some protected areas are (WDPA). In the 2003 edition of the WDPA, associated with prestige, particularly those more than two-thirds of the over 100,000 that are part of an international network, e.g. protected areas are fully geo-referenced. As World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves this work continues the accuracy and recognized under the Man and the Biosphere precision of the information increases. Over (MAB) Programme, Wetlands of the coming years, data gaps arising from the International Importance (Ramsar sites), lack or inaccuracy of polygon data for a Natura 2000 areas etc. Accordingly, the significant number of protected areas and general public perceives protected areas as errors in the attribute data are expected to be something valuable and desirable. The filled. In many cases, this will allow the greater the protected area coverage the correction of protected area coverage better. information for the recent past. The Caracas Declaration resulting from The global protected area coverage, the IVth World Congress on National Parks currently estimated at 11.5 percent of the and Protected Areas, held in Caracas, land and 0.5 of the marine surface, is Venezuela, in 1992 expressed a goal to expected to increase as information on some ensure that at least 10 percent of all 36,000 protected areas, for which boundary important ecosystems are safeguarded by the information is not available, is entered. year 2000. Because people could understand Depending on the base map used, the this figure this goal was considered both Geographic Information System allows appealing and – initially - unrealistic. Now analysis according to political or that 10 percent coverage have been biogeographic boundaries and/or by exceeded as a global average for terrestrial management category. The data would also systems, efforts can focus on ensuring that allow analysis of the protection of specific underrepresented ecosystems and oceans sites important for particular species and also attain appropriate coverage. Although habitats. This ability greatly enhances national conditions and priorities vary, the protected area planning and gap analysis. 10 percent protected area coverage will also Based on vectorized data, the analysis on serve as a mark for national protected area protected area coverage and gaps can be planning processes. Stakeholders will conducted at all different scales from local question their governments if the area under zonation planning, through national protected is much lower in their country. protected area network analysis to global Exceeding the mark will be a matter of statistics. national pride. And the global community 4. Communication will greet an increase in protected areas as an achievement for conservation.

129 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

5. Effectiveness of protection Dinerstein, 1998) to ensure that appropriate portions of particularly valuable ecosystem While the availability of data and the ease to types are protected. The draft programme of communicate information about protected work on protected areas of the CBD places area coverage are important advantages as emphasis on planning protected areas as part indicator, the area under protection alone is of a network and within the broader land- not sufficient. There are large tracts of land and seascape context. Major advances have under protection, which are not particularly been made on protected area planning to valuable for biodiversity conservation while ensure that important ecosystems and many biodiversity hotspots are unprotected hotspots are covered and that protected areas (Myers et al. 2000). There are also areas, are planned as a network of connections which, while officially under protection, sites which facilitate migrations and have been and continue to be degraded. The exchange of genepools (e.g., Margules and enforcement of an effective protection status Pressey, 2000; Cowling and Pressey, 2003; requires adequate staffing, equipment and Mulongoy and Chape, 2004). More than long-term planning security. Protected areas, capacity and resources, it is a matter of however, are frequently neglected in political will to ensure that these approaches difficult financial, socio-economic and/or and principles are fully taken into account at political situations (e.g. Balmford et al., the national and regional levels. 2000; Hart and Hart, 1997; Hamilton et al., 2000; Rodriguez, 2000). The draft 7. Development needs for the protected programme of work on protected areas of area coverage indicator the CBD and the Vth World Parks Congress, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2003, Many concerns exist over the inconsistent therefore emphasizes inter alia the need for quality and frequency of data reporting on an enabling environment, stakeholder protected areas worldwide. National participation in protected area planning and authorities may require support and management as well as preventive measures encouragement to allow them contribute to to mitigate the negative impacts of key the updating of information on protected threats to protected areas. areas under their jurisdiction. The advantages for adaptive management of 6. Protected area representativeness protected area systems and for strategic planning must be highlighted to engage all Besides the lack of a measure of protected relevant stakeholders in the reporting on area effectiveness the representativeness of protected areas. This information can also the sites under protection must also be highlight resource needs and facilitate the considered. The Caracas goal of 1992 release of financial and technical support to specified that all important ecosystem types strengthen the protected area system. should enjoy a similar level of protection. Furthermore, a purely area-based indicator This objective was taken up in the Global cannot be satisfactory in the long term. The Strategy of Plan Conservation (Decision general lack of information about, and ways VI/9), which, in its target 4, calls for at least to measure, management effectiveness must 10 percent of each of the world’s ecological be overcome. Such information must be regions to be effectively conserved. The integrated into the indicator on protected analysis carried out in the 2003 UN list of area coverage. This will require a protected areas, uses the broad transparent system of objective self- biogeographic classification of Udvardy assessment or independent third party (1975). However, it has been recognized that assessment which measures protected area it would be important to use finer categories, effectiveness on a numerical scale and the such as WWF’s ecoregions (Olsen and

130 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

incorporation of this information, on a Myers, N., Mittermeier, R., Mittermeier, C., regular basis, into the database. Fonseca, G. and Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation References priorities. Nature 403: 853-858. Olsen, D.M. and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The Balmford, A., Gaston, K.J., and Rodrigues, Global 200: A representation approach A.S.L., 2000, Integrating costs of to conserving the earth’s most conservation into international priority biologically valuable ecoregions. setting: Conservation Biology, v. 14, no. Conservation Biology 12(3): 502-514. 3, p. 597-605. Pressey, R.L., Humphries, C.J., Margules, Cowling, R.M. and Pressey, R.L. 2003 C.R., Vane-Wright, R.I. and Williams, Introduction to systematic conservation P.H. 1993. Beyond opportunism: planning in the Cape floristic region. keyprinciples for systematic reserve Biological Conservation 112 (1-2): 1-13. selection. Trends in Ecology and Margules, C.R. and Pressey, R.L. 2000. Evolution 8, 124-128. Systematic conservation planning. Rodriguez, J.P. 2000. Impact of the Nature 405, 243-253. Venezuelan economic crisis on wild Hamilton, A; Cunningham, A; Byarugaba, populations of animals and plants. D; Kayanja, F. 2000. Conservation in a Biological Conservation 96 (2): 151- region of political instability: Bwindi 159. Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A Classification of Conservation Biology 14 (6): 1722- the Biogeographical Provinces of the 1725. World. IUCN Occasional Paper No. 18, Hart, T and Hart, J. 1997. Conservation and prepared as a contribution to UNESCO's civil strife: two perspectives from Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Central Africa. Conservation Biology. Programme, Project No. 8. 11(2):308-309. Mulongoy, K.J., Chape, S.P. (Eds) 2004. Protected Areas and Biodiversity: An overview of key issues. CBD Secretariat, Montreal, Canada and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

131 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

PROTECTED AREAS AND MINING – SCOPE FOR CONSERVATION AND 21 DEVELOPMENT

David Richards* and Scott Houston** *Rio Tinto and the ICMM Biodiversity Task Force; **ICMM E-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction be to alleviate poverty in these countries while sustaining the environmental Mining and biodiversity conservation have foundations of the economy. It is clear that traditionally been viewed as mutually without economic development there can be exclusive activities. For those of us working no poverty reduction. Experience also shows within the mining industry, it is clear that that without economic development there this need not be the case. We believe that can be little improvement in environmental there is considerable scope for the industry protection. to help alleviate pressure on protected areas Worldwide systems of protected areas due to poverty as well as to contribute will need to be expanded and strengthened directly to biodiversity conservation, while in order to conserve biodiversity and natural minimising environmental impacts. and cultural heritage. However, as recent However, the challenges in realising this analysis of gaps in protected area coverage potential are formidable as a deep lack of has shown, much of the most threatened trust characterises the relationship between biodiversity lies outside protected areas. the conservation community and the mining This suggests that a broader approach to in- industry. This paper highlights key issues situ conservation, involving a wide range of related to the conservation and mining stakeholders, is needed. interface as well as recent industry The World Summit on Sustainable initiatives to address the trust deficit. It also Development, the World Parks Congress identifies possible areas for future and the Convention on Biological Diversity collaboration to enhance the industry’s have called for fresh innovative and contribution to biodiversity conservation and integrated approaches to reducing the to sustainable development more generally. unacceptably high rate of biodiversity loss. The important role of business in advancing 2. Biodiversity conservation and this agenda has been increasingly recognised sustainable development: Key issues and by governments and the conservation challenges community.

The world’s biodiversity is under threat. 3. Conservation and development: The This is as much due to root causes such as role of mining poverty, social change and lack of government capacity, as to the more obvious The capacity of mineral development to proximate causes including habitat loss, contribute to conservation is not intuitively invasive species and pollution. obvious. Mining is an extractive industry Many of the most acute conservation and, by its very nature, can have significant problems occur in biodiversity-rich direct and secondary environmental and developing countries that are also facing social impacts. The negative legacy of past pressing human development needs. The practices has created a deep level of mistrust challenge of sustainable development will of the industry in conservation circles and

132 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

raised questions about the industry’s role in partnerships with conservation groups and society’s transition to sustainable these are beginning to deliver real on-the- development. ground conservation outcomes. Minerals are essential to modern life. Assured supplies will be required to meet 4. Addressing the trust deficit the needs of the world’s growing population and to help fulfil expectations of Earning trust is not easy. Industry leaders improvement in the quality of life, notably recognise that this can only be done by in developing countries. The challenge delivering the beneficial outcomes of before us is to ensure that mining is part of mineral development while improving the solution that enables better outcomes for environmental and social performance. biodiversity conservation and sustainable While much more remains to be done, development. progress is being made along this path. The The industry has a number of strengths Global Mining Initiative and the Mining with which to work. One of the most Minerals and Sustainable Development important is that exploration and mining project signalled the intent of leading create wealth and employment companies to contribute to society’s opportunities. If properly integrated into transition to sustainable development. The regional development and biodiversity recent establishment of ICMM has also been conservation strategies, mineral-related a major step forward as it has already investment can help alleviate pressures from provided leadership to the industry in a poverty on biodiversity-rich areas as well as number of important areas (see Box 2). foster sustainable improvements in the In May 2003, the ICMM Council health, education, and the standard of living adopted a set of ten principles on sustainable of local and indigenous communities. development. The principles provide an Mining comprises a diverse range of important framework to drive continuous activities, scales, techniques and impacts. improvement in industry performance. Proactive community development ICMM and the Global Reporting Initiative programmes can provide sustainable (GRI) have recently signed a Memorandum economic and social benefits even after of Understanding to develop a Mining and mine closure. New technologies can reduce Metals Supplement to the GRI 2002 energy use and significantly reduce air and Sustainability Reporting Guidelines through water emissions. State of the art land a multi-stakeholder process. ICMM is also rehabilitation and ecosystem reconstruction working with UNCTAD, UNEP and the UK techniques have been developed and are Department of International Development being applied by many responsible on a good practice library web site. companies. These factors signal the need for As a result of these leadership a risk-based approach to decision-making as initiatives, the mining and metals industry is some responsibly operated mining activities one of the few industrial sectors that have a can be compatible with even the highest comprehensive Sustainable Development conservation objectives. Framework against which its corporate Today, both onsite and offsite members are committed to measuring opportunities are being pursued by leading performance (see Box 3 and 4). companies to enhance their contributions to biodiversity conservation. These include 5. The IUCN-ICMM dialogue assessments and conservation of unique flora and fauna, research and development The IUCN ICMM Dialogue on mining and and support for protected area site biodiversity announced at the WSSD management programmes (see Box 1). A represents a further important step towards number of companies have also established

133 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Box 1 : Positive Industry Contributions to Biodiversity Conservation

Onsite (a) Carry out full scientific assessments of biodiversity to inform decisions on new projects, existing operations and closure options; (b) Establish Biodiversity Action Plans on each site, integrate these into management systems and implement programmes that protect priority species and habitats (c) Create refuges for important species through effective control on land-use within owned/managed land (control hunting, development, resource use, access, vehicles, etc) (d) Monitor biodiversity components to track the effects of mine activities and presence against predictions and to characterise the effect of other processes (climate change, demographic change, etc). (e) Enhance conservation value of owned/managed land by undertaking reclamation programmes on degraded land, including the reconstruction of functioning ecosystems of higher value where appropriate. (f) Develop and implement sustainable arrangements for biodiversity management upon closure, taking into account scientific and community priorities.

Offsite (a) Engage in formal offset land swaps to compensate for the unavoidable loss of biodiversity value at the project or operation (b) Provide biodiversity data obtained by survey and monitoring to the scientific public to enable better decision-making and priority setting across the region. (c) Contribute to training and other capacity building for national academic, regulatory and NGO staff, in technical and managerial skills. (d) Support local, national, regional and global biodiversity priority-setting processes and assessments (e.g., Protected Area Management Plans, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, meetings of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, etc). (e) Undertake community conservation initiatives (sustainable harvesting, equitable marketing etc.) (f) Contribute financing towards priority conservation actions, including management of protected areas.

addressing the trust deficit. Intended to recommended by workshop participants and provide a forum for a full exchange of views develop related performance criteria and and perspectives, it is hoped that the implementation guidance in a number of Dialogue can establish a foundation of trust priority areas. and, in so doing, catalyse further performance improvements in the mining 6. ICMM’s Landmark ‘No-Go’ Pledge industry (More on the Dialogue can be found at www.iucn.org). A key outcome of the Dialogue to date has One of the Dialogue’s priority areas is to been the landmark ICMM Position develop best practice guidance to raise Statement on Mining and Protected Areas levels of industry performance in the way approved by ICMM Council in August biodiversity is assessed and managed. A 2003. This decision signals ICMM’s joint workshop was held in July 2003 (see commitment to engage with the www.iucn.org), the draft report of which conservation community on the contentious was discussed at a side event during the Vth issue of ‘no-go’ areas. It also contains a World Parks Congress in Durban. An number of important undertakings that IUCN-ICMM team will be established to establish key precedents not only for the take the draft operating principles

134 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Box 2: GMI, MMSD and ICMM

Global Mining Initiative (GMI) was a leadership initiative by the CEOs of 10 of the world’s leading mining and metal producing companies to develop the industry’s role in the global transition to sustainable development. The work of GMI culminated with the global policy conference, Resourcing the Future, which was held in Toronto in May 2002.

Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) project was undertaken by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) as part of the GMI. Based on an extensive program of stakeholder consultations, the MMSD report, entitled ‘Breaking New Ground,’ came forward with a number of recommendations for all constituents aimed at improving performance and enhancing the sector’s contribution to sustainable development.

The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) is an industry-based organisation that was established in October 2001 to provide leadership to the mining and metals industry in meeting the challenges of sustainable development. Its membership is currently comprised of 15 of the world’s largest mining and metal producing companies as well as 26 industry associations worldwide. ICMM is an outcome of the Global Mining Initiative (GMI) and has been mandated to take forward the recommendations of the Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) project (see www.icmm.org).

Box 3: Creating a national park

In 2000, the Canadian Nature Federation (CNF) approached the Mining Association of Canada (MAC) to see if the two organizations could agree on proposed boundaries for a new national park on northern Bathurst Island. The proposed area is particularly sensitive. To the east lies a rich geological fold belt, but the island is also home to critical calving grounds for the Peary caribou, an endangered species. After consulting extensively with industry, including Teck Cominco and Noranda (two MAC members that have explored the area), MAC and the CNF reached common ground. MAC proposed an eastern boundary that excludes lands with rich mineral potential, and at the same time suggested a temporary moratorium on those lands until the caribou herd has recovered MAC’s proposal was something of a breakthrough, since federal departments could not previously agree on the park’s boundaries. The final outcome is subject to negotiation of an impact benefit agreement with the Inuit.

mining industry but also other extractive undertaken ‘not to explore or mine in World industries. Heritage properties’ and to take all possible ICMM recognises the role of properly steps to ensure that operations are not designated and managed protected areas in incompatible with the outstanding universal conservation strategies and that, in some values of World Heritage properties. ICMM cases, exploration and mining development members have also made a commitment to may be incompatible with the objectives for respect all legally designated protected which areas are designated. To give effect to areas. this principle, ICMM members have

135 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

ICMM will also continue to work with recognise that sufficient reform of this IUCN to strengthen its system of protected system will lead to recognition of categories area categorisation. ICMM members

Box 4: Use of offsets to mitigate on-site habitat losses

In the mid 1990s, Kennecott, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto, needed to develop additional tailings storage capacity at its open pit mining operation in Bingham Canyon, Utah. Since the proposed site contained designated wetlands, Kennecott was required under US law to provide an offset of 1,055 acres of similar or enhanced wetland habitats as compensation. The wetland mitigation plan was developed in coordination with representatives of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, US Fish and Wildlife Services, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society and the US Corps of Engineers. The enhanced site became operational in February 1997 and is officially referred to as the Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve (ISSR). Based on initial positive wildlife response the ISSR was expanded from 2,500 to over 3,600 acres with a total of nine shallow ponds. After eight cumulative years of environmental monitoring the data establish that the ISSR provides an abundance of food and amenable water quality able to support shorebirds and other wildlife. Post enhancement water bird detections exceed baseline conditions by margins of 1,000% to over 3,000%. Kennecott is committed to maintaining the wetland functions and values in perpetuity. At some point in the future, Kennecott is considering ISSR long-term management to be turned over to a conservation group. The use of offsets to mitigate on-site habitat losses associated with development is controversial. But, as the ISSR experience shows, offsets can be a very successful biodiversity conservation tool for all parties in some cases.

of protected areas as ‘no-go’ areas and fraction of what was originally explored11. others with a multiple-use designation. This New exploration leases are increasingly work is intended to influence the way located in isolated locations including some decisions are taken in ICMM member in biodiversity-rich and socially sensitive companies, so that potential confrontations areas. This could bring mining into greater over land use with the conservation competition with alternative land-uses, community are minimised. including protected areas. ICMM believes that more strategic 7. Transparent, informed and fair approaches are needed to assist governments decision-making processes in negotiating responses that enable equitable resolution of different land-use, The ICMM Position Statement demonstrates conservation and development objectives. that industry accepts the principle of ‘no-go’ Such approaches need to be transparent, areas. What is of vital concern are the informed by mineral development potential decision-making processes used by assessments, among others, based on the governments in establishing land-use principles of sustainable development and priorities and protected areas, generally, and must take into account the opinions of and ‘no-go’ areas more specifically. From the consequences for local communities, industry’s perspective, much needs to be including indigenous peoples, and the done, principally by governments. regions involved. Society’s ever increasing demand for minerals will require industry to have access 11 Only about 1 in 1000 exploration targets results in to large amounts of land for exploration, mine development. Also, the total land disturbed to though the area retained for advanced mine an ore body (a measure of the likely impact on exploration and mining is only a small biodiversity) is relatively small compared to other land-uses.

136 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

In coming months, ICMM hopes to Governments can also foster real progress build on the results of a scoping paper now by establishing clear criteria for project being prepared under the dialogue with outcomes, including biodiversity IUCN. The intention is to bring together conservation results, when seeking other interested organisations (e.g., commercial partners in mineral development international organisations, governments, projects or when inviting bids on new environment and development NGOs) to mining licences. develop decision-making models and Collaboration is required to assist in the assessment tools that better integrate development of decision-making models and conservation and mining into land-use assessment tools that integrate conservation planning strategies and regional and mining into land-use planning strategies. development plans. Such work would only A concerted programme of international be a first step as a concerted programme of cooperation will also be required to build international cooperation will be required to government capacity to implement these help build government capacity in tools and ensure the application and developing countries and economies in enforcement of equitable rules regarding transition. Ultimately, such collaboration land access. will seek to develop clear and equitable The Parties to the Convention on rules for land access as well as establish the Biological Diversity (CBD) are striving to basis for determining ‘no-go’ areas for ensure progress in aligning the conservation exploration and mining activities. and development agenda, based on the ecosystem approach. The CBD and other 8. Conclusion international bodies also have an important role to play in advancing the Durban Plan of ICMM members are committed to providing Action developed at the Vth World Parks leadership aimed at improving the industry’s Congress. It is hoped that the products of the performance and enhancing the contribution IUCN-ICMM Dialogue can contribute to the of mineral development to poverty CBD’s proposed work programme on alleviation and biodiversity conservation protected areas and ecosystem management. objectives. ICMM commitments offer ICMM looks forward to future collaboration governments and other stakeholders a clear with those organisations interested in basis for choice when they consider how to advancing the mining industry’s translate mineral potential into sustainable contribution to biodiversity conservation. development outcomes. They also set industry standards that can be used to influence better performance in other parts of the mining industry. Advancing conservation and development objectives will require close cooperation between governments, multilateral organisations, industry, communities and NGOs. Partnership opportunities with companies offer environmental NGOs considerable potential to achieve on the ground conservation outcomes.

137 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

MEETING THE CHALLENGES BETWEEN ENERGY NEEDS AND BIODIVERSITY: 22 SHELL CASE STUDY

Sachin Kapila, Richard Sykes and Steven de Bie Shell International Ltd. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

1. Needs for greater energy demand? the energy needed to meet future demand will come from these traditional energy Recent UN population forecasts point to 8.5 sources with renewable forms of energy billion people by 2050 and a maximum (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal etc) global population of 10 billion by 2075. contributing around 30% of the energy Populations are ageing and it is estimated portfolio by 2050. That leaves 70% coming that over 80% of people are likely to live in from coal, oil and gas. urban environments by 2050. We are also likely to see increasing and more widespread 2. Needs for greater biodiversity affluence with estimated annual economic conservation? growth of 3.5% over the next 50 years – this should raise global average per capita Biodiversity is fundamental to human incomes above $20,000 by 2050. welfare and economic development. It plays Energy is essential for economic a critical role in meeting human needs by development and raising living standards. maintaining ecological processes upon Changes in economic and social which our survival depends – whether it be development mark transitions in the energy providing food, shelter or medicines or systems used, resulting in greater energy regulating our climate, purifying our water demand per capita as the economic and or maintaining our watersheds. Healthy social welfare of a society improves. ecosystems help maintain a sufficient and Shell's long-terms energy scenarios cite diverse gene pool for both wild and that global primary energy demand could domesticated species and also allow species ultimately saturate at either around 100 or to more easily cope with variations (e.g. 200 GJ per capita, depending on how much climate). Biodiversity also provides people investment is made in energy efficiency. At with spiritual, aesthetics and cultural 100 GJ per capita energy consumption by benefits. 2050 would be just over twice what it is The conservation of intact, healthy now, and at 200 GJ per capita, three times as ecosystems is therefore paramount to much. maintaining the full range of benefits that There is a real concern that in order to humans derive from nature. It is recognised meet this future energy demand there will be however, that biodiversity is becoming a scarcity of energy resources. Just how increasingly under threat. Human activities quickly the traditional forms of energy (coal, of all kinds from logging, agriculture, oil and gas) will become scarce (if at all) mining and fishing to infrastructure, depends on a number of factors such as the urbanisation and energy development advent of new technology, customer threaten the integrity and health of the preference, and government choices. What world's ecosystems – both terrestrial and is clear though is that a large proportion of marine. Some scientists believe that we are

138 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

on the brink of another mass species Important Bird Areas or Conservation extinction – best estimates indicate that the International's Biodiversity Hotspots and current extinction rates are 1,000-10,000 Wilderness Areas. times faster than the average extinction rates over geological time. 3. The challenge Society has responded to the threat to biodiversity and taken action in many ways. The challenge to society in the coming years The principal international instrument will be to ensure continued economic and targeted towards the conservation of social development given the increasing biodiversity is the Convention on Biological global population, while at the same time Diversity (CBD) launched at the Rio maintaining the health and integrity of the Summit in 1992. Over 180 governments world's ecosystems. Part of this challenge is have since ratified this Convention. There the need for increasing energy supply. If are numerous other biodiversity related global energy demand is to be met, and conventions such as the Convention on much of it through traditional forms of Migratory Species, the Convention on energy, then this inevitably means access to World Heritage Sites, the Convention on new acreage and resources, some of which Wetlands of International Importance will undoubtedly be sourced from beneath (Ramsar) or the Convention on the areas having high biodiversity value or International Trade of Endangered Species sensitivity. This presents a very real issue to (CITES). More than 145 countries have industry, governments, conservation either drafted or completed their National organisations and civil society in general - Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans whether energy development and (NBSAPs) outlining how they each plan to conservation can co-exist? Can the meet the objectives of the CBD. extraction of coal, oil and gas resources be Government signatories to the CBD are carried out in such a way as to not required to establish areas to protect compromise the integrity of that area's biodiversity as part of their obligations biodiversity values, whether it falls under under international law. There has been an protection or not? As one would expect the exponential increase in the numbers of issue is somewhat complex and emotive. terrestrial areas falling under protection over Shell's response to this challenge is to do the last century. There are over 110,000 three key things: protected areas (PAs) today covering some • play a role in the public policy debate 12% of the earth's land surface. In the around protected areas; marine environment, the target is to have • work to minimize our operational 15% of the world's oceans and seas, falling footprint, and under some level of protection by 2015. • make a positive contribution to These PA's range from areas strictly biodiversity conservation. designated for conservation and off-limits to any human intervention to areas where (i) The public policy debate multiple land-use activities are allowed. At Shell, protected areas are explicitly Nevertheless, there are many areas that highlighted in our Group Biodiversity contain some of the world's highest Standard, published in July 2001, and the biodiversity values that remain unprotected. first to emerge from an energy company. Conservation organisations are working hard We recognize however, that biodiversity is to address this and have been working on important everywhere and not only in defining their own areas of priority, such as protected areas and that the statement that IUCN's Centres of Plant Diversity, WWF's ‘we respect the basic concept of protected Global 200 Ecoregions, The Nature areas’ did not go far enough for some Conservancy's Last Great Places, BirdLife's NGO's. IUCN (The World Conservation

139 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Union) passed a Recommendation at its should be linked to other initiatives in 2000 Conservation Congress in Amman, protected area planning and Jordan, where it called upon governments to management; prohibit mining (including oil and gas • guide the programme of work on operations) from certain categories of protected areas of the CBD, and protected areas, namely the IUCN Category • provide technical advice on the I-IV protected areas. Category System to a proposed We have spent the last two years programme of work on protected areas defining what this 'call' means for us and for IUCN. have recently announced a number of The project outputs will provide a commitments with regard to protected areas. review of progress of the implementation of First, Shell will not explore for, or develop, the IUCN protected area management oil and gas resources from within natural categories system, leading to the World Heritage Sites. This is the first time recommendations for the system's an energy company has publicly declared refinement and development (see where it will not operate. We recognise the http://www.cf.ac.uk/cplan/sacl/ for more outstanding universal value that these sites details). represent for society. Shell has been working to strengthen its Second, we will further upgrade our relationship with the IUCN, both with the operational practices wherever we operate in Secretariat and its regional offices. Shell IUCN category I-IV protected areas or benefited from a two-year IUCN where an environmental, social, health secondment that helped Shell to work on the impact assessment (ESHIA) indicates high protected area issue and on specific projects biodiversity values. We will become on the ground. Shell will be providing a involved in spatial/regional planning return secondment to IUCN in 2004 for a exercises, assess our secondary impacts, period of 2-3 years. IUCN's unique implement Biodiversity Action Plans, and membership of government, government conduct appropriate baseline and monitoring agencies and NGOs has provided Shell with studies. access to a wide range of stakeholders and Third, we will publicly report on our views. One example is the role Shell played activities in IUCN Categories I-IV, and at the recent World Parks Congress, the first finally, we will work with IUCN and others time industry was allowed to contribute to to develop and pilot ways of strengthening the Congress proceedings. the management effectiveness of protected Shell has also been keeping a close eye areas through the provision of key skills, on what is going on with the CBD process creation of sustainable livelihoods and by through its consultations with key exploring options for sustainable financing. stakeholders and through the industry trade While defining what we meant by our associations, IPIECA (International reference to protected areas in our Standard, Petroleum Industry Environmental we have been given the opportunity to also Conservation Association) and OGP (Oil contribute to the wider policy debate. Shell and Gas Producers Forum). is a member of the Steering Committee for the "Speaking a Common Language" (ii) Reducing our Footprint project. The objectives of the project are: We are currently working hard to imbed our • establish the impact and effectiveness of Biodiversity Standard into business the 1994 IUCN guidance; operations and systems. Spatial information • examine what needs to be done to of protected areas and other sensitive develop and promote the objectives- regions (World Heritage sites, IUCN based system of protected area Categories I-VI protected areas, Ramsar categories itself, and consider how it wetlands, WWF Global 200 Ecoregions and

140 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Conservation International's Biodiversity Smithsonian Institution’s Monitoring and Hotspots) have been loaded on to an internal Assessment of Biodiversity Program Geographical Information System (GIS). (SI/MAB) have been independently This 'Early Warning System' helps staff assessing the impact of Shell's operations on developing new business opportunities to biodiversity and comparing this to that of identify risks related to protected areas and the adjacent national parks. Early results other areas of biodiversity value/ sensitivity. have indicated that the biodiversity within Early engagement with key stakeholders Shell's operations remains intact with such as WWF is now institutionalized. healthy ecosystems and for certain taxa the Biodiversity has also been integrated biodiversity is even higher than the into our internal ESHIA guidelines as well surrounding areas. The scientific as into our internal assurance process, by information collected will be used to help which each Operating Company has to drive improvements in operational ensure our Committee of Managing performance and will be used to contribute Directors that they are complying with HSE towards the longer-term conservation of the policies and underlying standards we have in general region. Shell is working with place. We are working on developing SI/MAB and others to determine whether guidance to have in place Biodiversity our area of operation could fall under some Action Plans at sites in or near areas with sort of protection to form an important high biodiversity value. We are also biological corridor between the two adjacent producing a number of tools to internally national parks. communicate the biodiversity message – a note to Shell managers, internal website, Oman: Shell as shareholders of Petroleum guidance notes, posters, CD's, magazine Development Oman are helping to preserve articles, guidance on how to implement the the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (AOS) through Standard etc. a strictly documented procedure that spells out how to operate in sensitive environments (iii) Making a Positive Contribution and what employees must do when they spot We recognise that to be taken seriously, we rare and endangered species. The sanctuary must demonstrate our commitments by is home to the first free-ranging ranging taking action on the ground. Shell has over herd of Arabian Oryx since the global 100 biodiversity related projects worldwide extinction of the species in the wild in 1972 ranging from conservation, science, and its reintroduction in 1982. PDO has environmental education to capacity- been helping to protect the AOS, the core of building and communication type projects. which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site in We provide below just a few examples of all operations. In particular the company projects that relate to protected areas where has agreed to stop activities in the core we are putting our policy into action and sanctuary area, help develop and agree to making a positive contribution. guidelines on how to operate in controlled zones of the sanctuary and participate in an Gabon: In September 2002, President Omar education partnership with the AOS Bongo of Gabon declared 10% of his management to further environmental country under protection and created 13 new awareness. Central to the PDO and AOS national parks. Two of these parks surround education programme is the development of Shell's infield oil operations, where we have a visitor information centre to help promote been present for over 20 years. Through a eco-tourism and act as resource for students. grant of US$ 2.8 million, the Shell Posters and books on the AOS and desert Foundation (together with Shell Gabon) has ecology have been produced to support facilitated a unique partnership between environmental awareness. science and industry. Scientists from the

141 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Canada: A further way Shell supports 4. Conclusion conservation efforts has been through its partnership with the Nature Conservancy of Shell sees biodiversity as a real business Canada (NCC). Shell pledged US$ 160,000 issue: if not addressed properly it increases for the three-year project to secure our risks and potentially jeopardizes our properties and conservation easements on licence-to-grow. On the other hand ecologically-important lands in the Alberta biodiversity presents great opportunities for Rocky Mountain region. Shell is looking at us to work in partnership, empower staff, other opportunities for enhancing or creating make a positive contribution, and to play an new areas under protection in the US, Latin active role in the public policy debate. America and Africa. Shell supports protected areas as an important component of the conservation Pakistan: Shell Pakistan is working with a agenda, delivering conservation objectives local NGO to help conserve the forests in set out in international conventions such as the Ayubia National Park. This is one of the the CBD. Shell recognises the years of hard few remaining moist temperate forests left in work invested by the conservation Pakistan - a country, which has 4% of forest community in their efforts to establish and cover left. However even what is left is maintain protected areas. being cut down at an alarming rate due to Shell sees the need for pragmatic and the dependence of the local population on yet innovative approaches when it comes to this resource for firewood, fodder and addressing the needs for energy and timber for construction. The purpose of the biodiversity conservation. Shell does project is to implement a conservation believe that there are some areas too strategy in Ayubia Forest to prevent sensitive to operate in, namely natural deforestation through the introduction of World Heritage Sites. But also feels that it Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) as an is possible through a transparent process, alternative to the consumption of firewood. working in partnership and with stringent Initially, Shell will subsidise the equipment operating practices, that it is possible to cost of LPG for 150 local households. This operate responsibly in some areas under will gradually be extended to approximately protection and other areas of high 3,500 households in the surrounding area. biodiversity value. Shell and a local NGO are co-operating to build community awareness and outreach.

142 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

TOURISM IN PROTECTED AREAS: REDUCING CONFLICTS AND ENHANCING SYNERGIES. 23 Paola Deda Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity E-mail: [email protected]

Protected areas need tourism and tourism needs protected areas. Though the relationship is complex and sometimes adversarial, tourism is always a critical component to consider in the establishment and management of protected areas (Eagles et al., 2002)

1. Is there a “sustainable” solution to apparent that tourism and parks might have conflicting functions? conflicting functions. The tangible components of the tourism activity, which According to the World tourism generally have a direct and physical impact Organization, tourism comprises the on the surrounding environment, can be of activities of persons travelling to and staying potential conflict with the main functions of in places outside their usual environment for protected areas. Indeed the challenge is to not more than one consecutive year for harmonize a development activity, seeking leisure, business and other purposes not physical and economic growth, with in-situ related to the exercise of an activity conservation and protection of the natural remunerated from within the place visited. and cultural heritage of a site. This description misses the explanation of Although it is clear that the main goal the type of industry supporting the travelling for protected areas is the protection and and lodging of tourists, which is preservation of the environment, the comprehensively captured by the definition understating of the possible functions played provided by the Government of Australia by a protected area has evolved throughout (http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au), which the last two decades. What has also evolved describes tourism as “the service based is the understanding of the ways and means industry comprising a number of tangible that can be used for the conservation of and intangible components. The tangible biodiversity, which have often included the elements include transport, foods and sustainable use of the resources, including beverages, tours, souvenirs and tourism. Thus, the apparent conflict of accommodation, while the intangible functions between tourism activities and elements involve education, culture, conservation is often solved when the park adventure or simply escape and relaxation”. is not considered as a mere wild area set If with “protected area” it is meant an aside for conservation purposes, but as an “area of land and/or sea especially dedicated ecosystem composed of several interacting to the protection and maintenance of elements and actors which have to live in biological diversity, and of natural and harmony. The increased appreciation of associated cultural resources, and managed environmental services provided by through legal or other effective means” biological diversity in protected areas has (IUCN definition, 1994), it becomes highlighted the economic value that these

143 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

areas could have for the community living facilities has altered habitats, seriously therein. depleted certain species and damaged entire ecosystems. In general the most serious 2. Potential conflicts should not be impacts are due to the construction of ignored facilities and infrastructures, which cause vegetation removal and elimination of As highlighted by the Conference of the habitats. Other activities cause disturbance Parties to the Convention on Biological to animals. Diversity (Annex to decision V/25), In many instances it has emerged how historical observations indicate that self- there are limits set by environmental and regulation of the tourism industry for social conditions which should be respected sustainable use of biological resources has by developers, and this is particularly true in only rarely being successful. protected areas. In addition, tourism The first reason is linked to the fact that activities should respond to local conditions, tourism businesses are driven by interests otherwise it could also cause adverse impact which do not necessarily coincide with those on the socio-economic structure of the local of protected areas. In the first instance, community living in the surroundings or in generally the tourism industry is generally the protected area itself. controlled by financial interests located Unsustainable tourism activities may away from tourism destinations. Secondly, increase social degradation and enhance many tourism operators view local phenomena like local prostitution and drug environmental conditions as a type of abuse. In addition, due to the unstable nature common property resource. Therefore, they of international tourism, communities that do not consider necessary to invest revenues come to rely heavily on tourism in economic generated by the tourism activity in the terms are vulnerable to the changes in the maintenance and conservation of the flow of tourist arrivals and may face sudden environment. Moreover, very often tourism loss of income and jobs in times of business instead of managing and reducing downturn. Moreover, when tourism as much as possible their impact on the development occurs, economic benefits are surrounding environment, simply export the usually unequally distributed amongst adverse impacts outside the tourism site. For members of local communities. There is protected areas this means that although evidence suggesting that those who benefit tourism activities might not have a direct are often limited in number and that those impact on the site, they might simply export who benefit most are often those who were impacts such as refuse, waste and sewage to at an economic advantage to begin with, surrounding areas unlikely to be visited, but particularly landowners who can afford the nevertheless important for the well-being of investment. the ecosystem of the protected area (for Tourism has also a highly complex instance buffer zones). impact on cultural values. Tourism activities Indeed, the impact of tourism facilities may lead to inter-generational conflicts on the environment is the most important through changing aspirations of younger fact to consider while planning for tourism members of communities who may have activities in a protected area. Tourism has more contact with, and are more likely to be very often had a direct impact on species affected by, the behaviour of tourists. composition of vegetation on the ground, Furthermore, they may affect gender increased the risk of the spread of pathogens relationships through, for example, offering from humans to wild species and the risk of different employment opportunities to men introducing invasive alien species. and women. Traditional practices and events Unsustainable consumption of natural may also be influenced by the tourist resources and pollution caused by tourism preferences. This may lead to erosion of

144 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

traditional practices, including cultural that they visit. Tourist expenditures, in net erosion and disruption of traditional terms, generate income to the host lifestyles. Additionally, tourism communities by, for example funding the development can lead to the loss of access development of infrastructure and services. by indigenous and local communities to Tourism also stimulates infrastructure their land and resources as well as sacred investment, such as construction of sites, which are integral to the maintenance buildings, roads, railroads, airports, sewage of traditional knowledge systems and systems, water-treatment facilities and other traditional lifestyles. tourism-related facilities. Existing infrastructure may also be used in a manner 3. Benefits and synergies should be which benefits local communities, where the enhanced. tourist is using the facility in one way, while the community uses it in another. Improved There are many successful examples of how and cheap transport services might also be sustainable tourism clearly has the potential brought to local communities by increased to reconcile economic and environmental tourism. concerns and give a practical meaning to Also tourism generates job opportunities sustainable development. Sustainable in the sector and offers various related tourism can indeed generate jobs and business opportunities. Tourism can also revenues, thus providing an incentive for provide funds for development or preserving natural areas. It can also raise maintenance of sustainable practices. public awareness of the many products and Increasing revenue flows in a region may services provided by natural ecosystems and also allow development of more sustainable biological resources and respect for land-use practices, by allowing, for example, traditional knowledge and practices. farmers to use improved rotations and some The most direct means of exploiting level of fertilizer input, rather than relying tourism for the sustainable use of biological on slash-and-burn cultivation to restore soil resources is through the harnessing of some fertility through fallow periods. proportion of tourism revenues for that end. In general, tourism can provide This may be achieved either through a alternative and supplementary ways for generalized environmental tax on tourists or communities to receive revenue from particular tourism activities or by charging biological diversity, as it can also provide a fees for access to biological resources, the viable economic alternative to unsustainable revenue from which can then be used for production or harvesting practices or other their maintenance. The latter procedure activities deleterious to the environment, generally means charging entrance fees to particularly in marginal areas, helping to national parks and other protected areas, but eradicate poverty. In some areas, low-input also includes fees for activities such as and small-scale agricultural activities that fishing, hunting and diving. Voluntary result in both an attractive environment and payment from visitors can also assist in the maintenance of high levels of biological conservation and management of places they diversity can also offer an opportunity for visit. It may include donation, membership, tourism. Sale of products derived from sponsorship, merchandise and practical sustainably harvested natural resources may tasks. also provide significant opportunities for In general, the contribution of tourism to income-generation and employment. economic development could have an Tourists who have travelled to a country indirect positive impact on the conservation associated with clean and green values may and sustainable use of biodiversity. Whether be encouraged to select products from that tourists are paying access fees or not, they country. have a major economic impact on the areas

145 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

It is accepted that sustainable tourism opportunities to learn about different can make positive improvements to cultures. Furthermore, tourism may, under biological diversity conservation especially some circumstances, encourage the when local communities are directly maintenance or revitalization of traditional involved with operators. If such local practices that are favourable to the communities receive income directly from a sustainable use of biological resources and tourist enterprise, they, in turn, increase their that would otherwise be in danger of being evaluation of the resources around them. lost. This is followed by greater protection and conservation of those resources as they are 4. Different interests should be balanced recognized as the source of income. Finally, tourism can serve as a major The challenge for the development of educational opportunity, increasing sustainable tourism activities in protected knowledge of natural ecosystems and local areas is to correctly assess the trade-offs that communities amongst a broad range of occur between tourism development, the people, in particular by tour operators and protection of resource values for which guides with specialized training in biological protected areas are established and the diversity conservation, indigenous and local interest of local communities. In general, it communities. Such education may be should be understood that the conservation reciprocal. In some parts of the world, local of biodiversity, the preservation of cultures people have become more aware of the and traditional lifestyles as well as the uniqueness of their local biological generation of income can bring important resources, for example the presence of benefits to protected areas, the community endemic species, through the advent of living herein and the tourism activities tourism. Better-informed tourists are more taking place on the site. Below is a table willing to pay for the access to natural sites. presenting shared interests of protected Tourism can also provide incentives to areas, local communities and the tourism maintain traditional arts and crafts and industry.

Table 1: Shared interests of protected areas, local communities and the tourism industry

Protected areas Local community Tourism industry Conservation of Primary function: in- Maintenance of goods Preservation of biodiversity situ conservation of and ecological natural resources, biodiversity services commodities on which the industry is based Preservation of Conservation of Maintenance of Preservation of culture traditional practices traditions and cultures another commodity to and knowledge for the for social cohesion offer to tourists conservation and and livelihood sustainable use of biodiversity Generation of Revenues to be Income generation for Revenue for the revenues invested in the local community industry conservation

146 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

There are several instruments, at the sustainable tourism through education and national and international levels, providing capacity building. The main goal of the guidance on how to balance different guidelines is to ensure a sound assessment, interests involved in the planning of tourism planning and management process, which activities in protected areas. In particular, involves the participation of all key the CBD (draft) guidelines on biodiversity stakeholders involved in tourism and and tourism12 are a tool addressing the biodiversity, in order to balance their planning of tourism activities in vulnerable interest and coordinate action. ecosystems, which governments, decision- makers, managers, developers and the local Reference communities should take into account when planning for tourism development in Eagles P.F., S.F. McCool and C.D Hanynes protected areas. The CBD guidelines focus (2002) “Sustainable Tourism in on making tourism and biodiversity more Protected areas”. IUCN, Gland, mutually supportive, engaging the private Switzerland. sector and local and indigenous communities, and promoting infrastructure and land-use planning based on the principles of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. They set out what the proponent of a new tourism investment or activity should do to seek approval, how the authorities should manage the approval process, and how to sustain the transition to

12 See SBSTTA recommendation VIII/5 on “Biological diversity and tourism: draft guidelines for activities related to sustainable tourism development and biological diversity and case-studies on the implementation of the guidelines” in document UNEP/CBD/COP/7/3 accessible at www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/cop/cop- 7/official/_Toc35419526

147 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING PERSPECTIVES IN PROTECTED AREA 24 MANAGEMENT

Sarah Laird, Sam Johnston*, Rachel Wynberg, Estherine Lisinge** and Dagmar Lohan *United Nations University ([email protected]), Tokyo, Japan; ** World Wildlife Fund, CARPO, Cameroon

1. Introduction13 concludes with recommendations that aim to assist protected area managers in grappling Bioprospecting have focused attention on with this complex field. protected areas for many years. Taq polymerase which came from extremophiles 2. Bioprospecting and protected areas found in Yellowstone National park in the US was collected in 1966. And even though Bioprospecting is undertaken by companies commercial use of “natural” genetic in a wide range of sectors. Demand for resources is cyclical, there are many good genetic resources, and the ways they are reasons why companies will continue to valued and incorporated into research and explore the opportunities that the genetic development (R&D), varies dramatically resources of protected areas promise. within and between sectors. For example, in Protected area managers, as well as others, the pharmaceutical industry, scientific however, have been slow to develop developments in the fields of biochemistry, guidelines and policies that ensure that the molecular biology, cell biology, protected areas can control bioprospecting in immunology, and information technology a manner that ensures maximum benefit for continue to transform the process of product protected areas whilst at the same time discovery and development. New promoting scientific and commercial use of technologies, such as combinatorial the genetic resources. In part, this has been chemistry, high-throughput screens, and due to a lack of national ABS guidance and laboratories-on-a-chip, provide experience, in this rapidly evolving area of unprecedented numbers of compounds to policy. test in high-throughput screens, with This paper has been prepared to address implications for the value of natural this gap in the literature and thereby assist products as an alternative route to protected area managers in addressing these discovering novel compounds (ten Kate and rapidly evolving issues. Section II considers Laird, 1999) Driven by scientific and the role and value of bioprospecting and its technological developments, natural relation to protected areas. Section III products research has been cyclical in recent reviews the international and national policy decades. However, it continues to form an context for ABS. Section IV outlines some important, if small, element of industry of the key issues that protected area R&D programmes, and to contribute managers need to consider in developing significantly to company revenues.14 their ABS policies. Finally, the paper

14 For example, 11 of the 25 best-selling blockbuster 13 This is an abbreviated version of a paper published drugs in 1997, representing 42% of industry-wide by United Nations University Institute of Advanced sales and with a total value of $17.5 billion, are Studies entitled “Biodiversity Access and Benefit- biologicals, natural products or entities derived from Sharing Policies for Protected Areas: An natural products (Newman and Laird, 1999). Of the 87 Introduction”. UNU/IAS, Tokyo, Japan. cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug

148 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Moreover, continued growth of the critical condition for academic studies that biotechnology sector and the increased monitor ecological change over time, and pervasiveness of biotechnology in other for commercial researchers who want to sectors will likely lead to greater ensure that they can return and re-collect a examination of novel genetic resources and sample that shows promise in laboratory biochemical process as part of the product testing. Protected area staff are development phase of various sectors. knowledgeable about local ecosystems, Bioprospecting in protected areas has communities, history and previous research. yielded valuable commercial products in Protected areas themselves offer recent decades. Two well known examples infrastructure, services, including help with of this are cyclosporine and TAQ. TAQ, permitting procedures, and logistical mentioned above, has been used in a range assistance, and can facilitate access to of biotechnological applications, with biological and genetic resources and annual sales exceeding US$200 million (ten interesting sites. Protected area managers, Kate et al., 2002). Cyclosporine, which because bioprospecting promises additional came from a soil sample taken from sources of precious funding, promotes Hardangervidda National Park in 1969, was research in the biodiversity of the area and the 33rd top-selling drug worldwide in 2000, promotes collaboration with scientific with total sales of US$1.2 billion (MedAd research and development programmes. News, 2001.). This type of benefit is critically important as Another well know example of few protected areas have sufficient budgets bioprospecting being linked to the protected to cover their most basic research needs. area network is the relationship that the National Institute of Biodiversity (INBio) 3 The policy framework for biodiversity has with the Ministry of Environment and research and prospecting Energy (MINAE) in Costa Rica, where INBio includes a ‘conservation overhead’ in A range of legal and policy developments at the budgets of its commercial research the intergovernmental, national, partnerships. Ten percent of all institutional, company, and community bioprospecting budgets, and 50 per cent of levels create the new framework within all royalties, are donated to MINAE (INBio, which biodiversity research and 2002). The Great Barrier Reef Marine bioprospecting take place. National Park is also marketing its genetic National governments, including those resources to the biotech industry, through of the Andean Pact countries, the research agreements with CRC, James Cook Philippines, Brazil, and India, have drafted University and AIMS. Similar arrangements new ABS measures regulating biodiversity are being explored elsewhere. research and prospecting. In total, around Both users and protected area managers 100 governments have implemented or are are interested in developing this relationship. drafting ABS measures (Mugabe et al., Users because protected areas offer 1997). In addition, countries are beginning researchers unique benefits. For example, to introduce laws regulating access to protected areas hold much of the world’s traditional knowledge, independent of biodiversity and are likely to become whether it is obtained in conjunction with increasingly important as repositories of genetic resources that complement national disappearing habitats, species, and genetic ABS measures.15 Complementing resources. They provide a stable site with limited or no exploitation of resources, a

15 For example, see the Philippines’ 1997 Indigenous Administration between 1985-1995, 62% are of Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and Peru’s Law No 27811 natural origin or are modelled on natural product Law Introducing a Protection Regime for the parents (Cragg et al, 1997). Collective Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples Derived

149 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

developments in national and international countries providing the genetic resources, policy, a range of documents developed by and that they be given priority access to indigenous peoples, researchers, results and benefits arising from professional research associations and biotechnology. The commitments in the companies have marked a significant shift in convention to respect, preserve and maintain the ethical and policy framework for knowledge, innovations and practices of biodiversity research and prospecting indigenous and local communities are also partnerships. The activities these documents important aspects of the ABS paradigm address are extremely varied and their scope promoted by the Convention (see Articles broad. They include basic academic 8(j), 10(c), 17(2) and 18(4)). research as well as commercial prospecting The Bonn Guidelines provide for genetic resources. voluntary guidance for the CBD’s Contracting Parties regarding their Access and Benefit-sharing under the obligations under the above provisions.16 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) These Guidelines provide operational Coming to grips with this complex and guidance for ‘users and providers’ of genetic diverse range of policies, interests, claims resources, to assist governments drafting and uses is daunting and often national laws, and to guide governments, overwhelming for those with other pressing communities, companies, researchers and claims on their time. The Bonn Guidelines others involved in ABS agreements. The and the CBD are the central pieces of Bonn Guidelines establish a basic model for international ABS policy with which ABS, whereby individual users and protected area managers should be familiar. providers of genetic resources are allowed to The CBD, which establishes standards for come to an informed agreement about how regulating access to genetic resources and the resources will be used and how the the distribution of the benefits arising from benefits will be shared. There are no biodiversity, is the principle international minimum standards, although Annex I does legal framework concerning the set the type of elements and issues that one conservation of biological diversity, the would expect to see in a fair and equitable sustainable use of its components and the agreement. The ABS National Focal Point fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising and Competent National Authorities, which from the utilization of genetic resources. are largely envisaged as being governmental The key ABS provisions are departments, provide a central contained in Articles 15, 16 and 19. Article coordination/information exchange in 15 recognizes the sovereign rights of States countries. over their natural resources and that the authority to determine access to genetic Protected areas and the CBD resources rests with the national The CBD also contains provisions on governments. It also recognises that each protected areas.17 These provisions call State shall endeavour to facilitate access to upon Parties to establish systems of genetic resources for environmentally sound protected areas, develop guidelines for the uses by other Parties. Article 16 requires selection, establishment and management of Parties to provide and/or facilitate access protected areas, regulate biological and transfer to developing countries of resources important for the conservation of technologies under ‘fair and most favourable biodiversity and promote environmentally terms’. Article 19 stipulates that measures shall be adopted to provide for the effective participation in biotechnology research by 16 Human genetic resources and ex-situ genetic resources collected before the entry into force of the from Biological Resources (approved by Congress in CBD are excluded from the scope of the CBD. August 2000). 17 See paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (e) of Article 8.

150 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

sound development in areas adjacent to research process, since financial benefits in protected areas. the form of royalties may not materialize; The commitments contained in the CBD the need to build capacity within the country are intertwined and mutually supportive, the to address this complex new suite of meaning of each separate provision being issues18; and the value of collaborating on a influenced and influencing the CBD’s other regional or international level (SCBD, 2001; provisions. Thus, the provisions of the CBD SCBD, 2002; Barber et al., 2002). ABS regarding ABS apply to activities in and National Focal Points and Competent around the protected area network. This National Authorities play a pivotal role in means that in developing their management developing ABS policies, providing policies, park managers should take note of information to potential users and providers, the relevant provisions contained both in the and building the know-how and knowledge CBD and in the Bonn Guidelines. about biodiversity that allows countries to Collectively, the provisions of the successfully capture benefits arising from its Convention and decisions taken by the use. Conference of the Parties promote a modern approach to protected area system 4. Developing a protected area ABS management. They embody a concept that policy: Some issues to consider is not dependent upon setting aside or "locking up" resources found within the Protected area ABS policies help protected protected area network, but one which seeks area managers maximize the potential gains to promote their integration into the national from biodiversity research and prospecting economy in a sustainable manner and to and minimize lost opportunities. manage the threats to protected areas in a Protected area managers and policy holistic and integrative manner. makers can best address ABS issues by drafting protected area ABS policies and Implementation of the CBD ABS collaborating on national ABS consultations, provisions strategies and drafting of measures. The Over 50 Parties have officially reported Bonn Guidelines provide a practical starting efforts to develop national legislation or point for all providers and users. As such, policies to implement the CBD’s provisions protected area managers should familiarize on the use of genetic resources. Regional themselves with these Guidelines. The efforts to apply these provisions have been standardized procedures of the Bonn made under the Andean Pact, Association of Guidelines clarify mutual responsibilities of South East Asian Nations, European Union, African Union, South Pacific Regional 18 Key capacities that have been identified in the Environment Programme and the Pan- CBD process include: legislative capacities of European Biological and Landscape countries; administrative capacity of key institutions Diversity Strategy. (e.g. national focal points and competent national authorities); taxonomic information and capacities on Key lessons that have emerged through biological resources; indigenous and local this process include the importance of communities’ ability to participate in all steps of the bringing on board a wide range of process; commercial skills of relevant public stakeholders as part of national consultations institutions (e.g. herbarium, universities and research to develop an ABS measure, including the institutes); development and management of intellectual property systems; and contract negotiation active involvement of local communities skills. See decision VI/24/B of the Conference of the and indigenous peoples; the need for Parties available at www.biodi.org/cop/6/decisions. effective implementing institutions and clear Also note document UNEP/CBD/ABS/EW- and transparent regulatory and permitting CB/1/2/CORR, Capacity-building for access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing: Synthesis of processes; the importance of partnerships submissions received on needs, priorities and existing and non-monetary benefits arising from the initiatives, and additional elements for consideration in the development of an action plan.

151 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

protected areas and researchers. These because of overly burdensome nature of the include prior informed consent processes it has established. requirements; behaviour in the field; the A similar situation has occurred in the nature and schedule of benefits to be shared Andean Pact. Little attention was given to (e.g. training, equipment, provision of specific national regulations for protected research results in locally-relevant forms); areas, including the potential to link existing and research relationships with local regulations with the new access regulatory communities living in proximity to protected system (Ruiz, 2002). Decision 391, areas, and whose knowledge and resources combined with national PA legislation, are often the subject of research. ABS created a complex layer of regulatory policies can also require commercial obligations in which applicants are not only projects to contribute financially to required to undergo regular access protected area management, or broader procedures established in Decision 391, but national protected area systems in the short, must also comply with the detailed legal medium and long term. In this way research framework for protected areas. In practice, relationships reflect international standards however, it is still possible to undertake of best practice as outlined in various codes research through the protected areas of ethics, declarations and international and legislation and regulations, without going national policy and law. through the Decision 391 process. It also The Philippines and the Andean appears that research has either declined, or Community were the first to introduce ABS that it is undertaken outside the Decision measures.19 Protected areas did not feature 391 process.21 prominently in these measures, although The impact of ABS measures on genetic resources found in protected areas protected areas in Andean Pact countries and are considered the property of the state. the Philippines appears limited. Research in In the case of the 1994 Executive Order 247 protected areas in both regions is still guided in the Philippines, collectors must obtain the by protected areas legislation and prior informed consent of local protected regulations, and often by-passes the new area management boards and ‘… the ABS regulatory processes of Decision 391 Research Agreement entered into must and EO 247. It also appears that, in cases conform with all the requirements under the where ABS measures are not by-passed Republic Act No. 7586 (The National altogether, they act as deterrents to Integrated Protected Areas System Act of biodiversity research and prospecting. In 1992), including conformity with the order to address these problems, the management plan formulated by the Philippines 2001 Wildlife Resources and Protected Area Management Board’ Conservation and Protection Act (RA 9147), (Appendix B, EO 247). Although the EO no longer considers academic research as 247 is reported to lead to increased bioprospecting for the purposes of awareness among protected area regulators permitting agreements. A simpler and local communities about new Memorandum of Agreement between the requirements for more equitable research,20 DENR and researchers now serves to govern it has generally resulted in a decline in academic research. The Philippines’ academic and commercial research. This is Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau expects that these more manageable and streamlined procedures will encourage increased scientific research.22 19 The 1994 Philippines Executive Order 247 on Access to Genetic Resources and The Andean Community’s Decision 391. 21 Ruiz, SPDA, personal communication, 2003. 20 Anson Tagtag, the Philippines Protected Areas and 22 Carlo Custodio, Philippines Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, personal communication, 28 July Wildlife Bureau, personal communication, 18 August 2003. 2003.

152 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

In other countries protected area framework and the Bonn Guidelines managers are called upon to take an active provide useful guidance for such role in managing biodiversity research and policies. Experience has shown that prospecting partnerships, because it is particular attention needs to be paid to: outlined in the relevant legislation, or more o distinctions between academic frequently, because they have been and commercial research; bequeathed the responsibility in the absence o the role of local communities; of anyone else. Either way protected areas and managers have become an important part of o the relationship between the the evolving international and national ABS protected area and national ABS policy framework. As a result, they should measures. play an important role in national • Developing endogenous capacities is the consultative processes that address ABS single most important step to capturing a issues and that develop national measures to greater share of the benefits. implement the CBD. Their experience can • Protected area managers should contribute valuable perspectives on effective participate in national ABS measures and provide insight into some of consultations, joining stakeholder the practical ramifications of approaches to committees set up to consider ABS ABS regulation. However, effective issues. participation in this process requires • Protected areas, as the sites of original capacity and understanding of the elements collections, should also be explicitly of equitable research relationships, and represented as beneficiaries in any ABS international standards of ‘best practice’ for commercial agreements. researchers and commercial use of • Protected area managers should ensure biodiversity. On-going capacity-building is a openness and transparency with necessary precursor to, and by-product of, a stakeholders when considering access protected-area policy consultation and applications from companies and drafting process. academic researchers. • National permitting procedures for 5. Recommendations research in protected areas should be streamlined to ensure it is efficient and Protected area managers and policy makers transparent, and integrates the range of can best address ABS issues by drafting relevant governmental regulations. protected area ABS policies and collaborating on national ABS consultations, References strategies and drafting of measures. Recommendations to achieve this include: Cragg, G.M., D.J. Newman and K.M. • Protected area managers should make Sander. 1997. Natural Products in Drug contact with the relevant ABS National Discovery and development. Journal of Focal Point and the relevant Competent Natural Products 60:1, 52-60. National Authorities for the Convention Secretariat of the Convention on Biological on Biological Diversity. Diversity 2002. Access and benefit- • The Bonn Guidelines provide a practical sharing as they relate to genetic starting point for all providers and users. resources: Progress report on the As such, protected area managers should implementation of decisions V/26 A-C. familiarize themselves with these Document UNEP/CBD/COP/6/19. Guidelines. UNEP, Montreal • Protected area managers should consider Secretariat of the Convention on Biological developing an ABS policy for their Diversity 2002. Recent developments on protected areas. The national policy access and benefit-sharing. Document

153 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

UNEP/CBD/COP/6/19/Add.1. UNEP, Ruiz, M. 2002. Research in protected areas Montreal in the context of Decision 391 of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Andean Pact. . In Laird, SA (ed). Diversity 2001. Global Biodiversity Biodiversity and Traditional Outlook. UNEP, Montreal Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Glowka, L. 1998. A Guide to Designing Practice. Earthscan, London. Legal Frameworks to Determine Access ten Kate and Sarah Laird 1999. The to Genetic Resources. Environmental Commercial Use of Biodiversity. Policy and Law Paper No.34, Bonn: Earthscan London. IUCN Environmental Law Centre. ten Kate, K., L. Touche, A. Collis and A. Instituto National de Biodiversida (INBio) Wells 2002. Access to genetic resources 2002. Bioprospecting: An Essential and benefit-sharing in a protected area: Component in the Conservation an agreement between Yellowstone Strategy. San Jose, Costa Rica: INBio. National Park and the Diversa MedAd News. 2001. Top 500 prescription Corporation. In Laird, S.A. (ed). drugs by worldwide sales, 2000. pp 70- Biodiversity and Traditional 75. Knowledge: Equitable Partnerships in Mugabe, J., C. Barber, G. Henne, L. Practice. Earthscan, London. Glowka, and A. La Vina 1997. Access to Genetic Resources: Strategies for Sharing Benefits. ACTS Press, Nairobi. Newman, D.J. and S.A. Laird 1999. The influence of natural products on pharmaceutical figures. In K. ten Kate and S.A. Laird (eds). The Commercial Use of Biodiversity: Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit sharing. Earthscan, London.

154 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

SECURING THE FUTURE OF PROTECTED AREAS: A COMMITMENT TO 25 YOUNGER GENERATIONS

Susan Matambo*, Josh Brann** and Lisbet Kugler*** *Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies in New Haven, CT; **Consultant with the Global Environment Facility in Washington, DC; ***Environmental consultant in Washington, DC E-mail: [email protected]

“Each Generation understands its historic moment as unique, and its future as rife with novel perils and opportunities. This is as it should be, for history is an unfolding story of change and emergence. Each era is unique-but in unique ways.’’(Raskin et al., 2002)

1. Introduction makers. To take advantage of this fact the parties need to build support for protected As we begin the 21st century, younger areas among younger generations, and generations across the globe are preparing to provide opportunities for participation and take on the responsibility of securing the capacity building so that each rising future of our planet. They do so in a unique generation can assume the roles required to but daunting era of globalization, which sustain protected areas in the future. brings with it “both novel perils and This paper, seeks to highlight the issues opportunities” (Hammond and Lash, 2000; associated with protected areas and younger Stiglitz, 2003)23. generations. It intends to explore ways in Protected areas, as recognized by the which younger generations can become Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), more effectively engaged with protected play an important role in the world’s efforts areas, and with biodiversity conservation to conserve biodiversity and thus, to secure issues in general. Also offered are some the future of life on earth (CBD, 1992; policy options as examples of ways in which Carabias et al., 2003). The immediate the parties to the CBD could move forward concern of the parties to the CBD should be in addressing younger generations’ issues. to ensure that future generations are bequested the great intergenerational legacy 2. Protected areas, younger generations represented by the global network of and global governance protected areas. Parties must fully recognize that today’s younger generations are There have been many recent efforts at the tomorrow’s managers, rangers, and local, national, and international level to scientists for protected areas, as well as involve younger generations in different tomorrow’s political leaders and decision aspects of biodiversity conservation. These include the soliciting of input from younger generations in formulating the principle 23 Several global backlash demonstrations output documents, the Durban Accord and including Seattle 1999 helped put the inequities of the Durban Plan of Action, at the Fifth globalization on the international agenda, more recently there has been unification of efforts by World Parks Congress (WPC) in 2003. younger generations at WPC, World Forestry However, it is increasingly recognized that Congress, WSSD to contribute to efforts of securing a greater work must be done to actively more sustainable environmental future for the planet

155 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

incorporate younger generations in • Meeting human spiritual and religious conservation in general, and specifically in needs and ensuring co-existence of the context of protected areas. At the humans and nature opening of the WPC, world leader Nelson • Preservation of cultural heritage Mandela spoke specifically about the Younger generations recognize that immediate need to reach out to younger protected areas have spiritual and cultural generations to ensure the future of protected values, and believe that an overall shift in areas (Mandela, 2003). values away from those which are purely As the Conference of the Parties to the economically based must occur if we are to Convention gathers to review Article 8 of secure the future of protected areas. the CBD, there is an opportunity to secure Younger generations also understand the the more effective engagement of younger social implications of conservation through generations at the global governance level. protected areas, and highlight the need for As we begin to think about new and more more scientific and social research, effective global governance structures that particularly in developing countries. affect the future of protected areas, we must also ensure that these efforts are based on 4. Challenges communication between older and younger generations which enables the combination Many barriers and challenges exist that of experience and wisdom with the energy, reduce the opportunities and incentives for open-mindedness and enthusiasm of young people to become engaged in the younger generations. greater effort to maintain and expand the global PA network. Opportunities for 3. The values of protected areas for younger generations to have first-hand younger generations experiences with nature are becoming fewer in the south, and thus the potential for each Protected areas represent many things for generation to develop an understanding of today’s younger generations, but perhaps and appreciation for the importance of most importantly they represent hope for a biodiversity is reduced. In the north, more biologically viable world for the generations and more younger generations seek more to come. Protected areas present financially rewarding professions. This is opportunities for learning, for action, and true for the younger generations in the south they are a means through which younger as well. Career opportunities in the generations can become directly involved in environmental sector can be limited, not biodiversity conservation. only in terms of individual salaries, but In preparing for the Fifth WPC, Yale simply by the number of entry-level job University conducted a survey of young opportunities available to young people people in all corners of the world to learn (Whitaker, 2003). Much can be done to more about their views on protected areas. remove some of these barriers. Greater Survey respondents ascribed the following resources could be allocated to encourage values to protected areas (Brunton et al., young people to enter fields of study 2003): important to conservation, and to assist with • Biodiversity conservation and protection stipends for unpaid entry level opportunities. of essential ecosystem services Through the removal of financial barriers to • Opportunities for scientific research and learning younger generations will be more education likely to have the opportunities and capacity • Income generation for local to contribute to the conservation of the areas communities that help to ensure ecological sustainability. Though protected areas have the potential to provide many opportunities for

156 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

younger generations, these opportunities can people face in becoming involved in their only be taken advantage of if young people conservation? The most practical step have sufficient access to protected areas. forward is through the development of When younger generations have no first- policy instruments at the global and national hand knowledge of the values of protected levels that will ensure on-going and areas there is little likelihood that they will strengthened involvement of younger be able to appreciate them, and then to act to generations in the conservation of protected maintain them. Often the only way that areas. We believe that appropriate policies young people are able to interact with and can provide incentives for conservation and appreciate their natural heritage is through at the same time reinforce values with young programs that specifically reach out and people. Garnering support politically and endeavour to provide experiences in which from funding mechanisms such as the youth can be exposed to the natural world. Global Environment Facility (GEF) for such Examples of such programs in the US policies is our challenge. include the San Diego Chapter of the Sierra The following list of policy options is Club’s Inner City Outings and the New intended as a very preliminary selection of York City Urban Park Rangers Youth policies to support the involvement of Program. Internationally, an example can be younger generations in protected areas, and found in the Bulgarian-based Green Balkans should not be considered comprehensive. It Youth Programs and the Young Park must be remembered that the success of any Rangers program in South Africa. Such policy is dependent on the context and efforts are to be strongly commended and manner in which it is implemented, and the the scope and number of such efforts should effectiveness of implementation. be greatly expanded. Policies that will facilitate better access to Protected areas also present ideal venues protected areas: for formative educational experiences. The • Development of youth programs at idea of an outdoor classroom (formalized or national parks. not) is not a new idea, and we must continue • Development of mechanisms that will to expand our use of this tool, and take provide working partnerships between advantage of the natural learning protected areas and youth organizations. environment that protected areas provide. Policies that will provide incentives to Protected areas can serve as a tool for attract younger generations into learning about the natural world, but also for environmental careers: learning about oneself. School programs • National internship programs in such as “Nature’s Classroom”, a program institutions that address environmental for middle school children in the United matters. States, demonstrate the potential of • Financial mechanisms to support youth protected areas in this regard. Protected in environmentally-related programs areas, and the conservation issues associated which do not offer remuneration. with them, also represent a forum through • Expanded scholarships for natural which younger generations can become resource related studies at the university engaged in civil society. level. Policies that will provide incentives for 5. Building on values and meeting public private partnerships and private challenges sector investment into protected areas: How then can the international community, • Development of mechanisms for particularly sovereign states, take advantage dialogue between private and public of the values younger generations hold for sector young professionals for protected areas, expand the opportunities addressing issues of private sector they provide, and address the barriers young engagement in protected areas.

157 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Policies that will encourage research, future of protected areas, and to engage particularly in developing countries: them more effectively at all levels in • Increased resources for research grants. protected areas and conservation. • Development of mechanisms that will • In the same way that NGOs and other provide technical and scientific constituency groups are represented in partnerships between protected areas in national delegations to international the north and protected areas in the conferences, young professionals could south. be formally engaged by the Parties to • Creating mechanisms that will bridge the CBD to participate in COP meetings information and research gaps between and in the process of policy the north and south such as regional development. information clearing houses. • Develop global young professionals • Development of north-south and south- programs that will encourage south exchange programs between participation and the input of young researchers and protected area professionals at the global governance management and technical staff. level. This could be structured similar to Policies that will ensure that protected programs adopted by the World Bank area values are instilled in younger and UNDP programs.24 generations: • Develop a global information clearing • Support for environmental education at house where young people can young age. participate in information gathering at • Support for school – protected area the local level across the globe. partnerships. • Protected areas as living classrooms. 7. Conclusion • Partnerships between protected areas and churches or other appropriate To secure the future of PAs, Parties to the institutions and organizations not CBD should take the necessary steps to fully traditionally associated with recognize and effectively engage younger conservation. generations from all sectors of society in all aspects of the stewardship of protected th 6. The Parties to the CBD: Securing the areas. The challenge for the 7 meeting of engagement of younger generations the COP 7 is to develop a mechanism which would facilitate the incorporation of The Parties are in a unique position to concerns voiced by the younger generations address the involvement of younger in the south and north into global debates generations in implementing the CBD and in and decision making processes. Ultimately, developing new and more innovative global the shared goals of the Parties to the CBD mechanisms for conservation of biodiversity and younger generations across the globe in protected areas (Esty and Ivanova, 2002). should be to move forward together toward The Parties can: solutions in which conservation of • Ensure that members of the CBD biodiversity and accountability of present commit to engaging younger generations to future generations becomes generations in the implementation of the norm within our society (Raskin et al., Article 8 during the review at the 7th 2002; Speth, 2002). This will ensure that meeting of the COP by providing a each younger generation fully appreciates “younger generations” specific clause or and understands the values of protected amendment that will encourage Parties areas and passes them on to their children in to the Convention to begin to fully an unimpaired state. recognize and acknowledge the role of the younger generations in securing the 24 World Bank Young Professionals Program and the UNDP LEAD Program

158 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

Mr. Nelson Mandela’s Speech, World Parks References Congress, September 8, 2003. Raskin, P., T. Banuri, G. Gallopín, P. Brunton, et al. 2003. Young Gutman, A. Hammond, R. Kates, and R. Conservationists and the future of Swart. 2002. Great Transition: The Protected Areas Worldwide: A call to Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. discussion at the Fifth World Parks A report of the Global Scenario Group. Congress. Eds. Kugler, L and Coppock, SEI PoleStar Series Report no. 10. J. Yale University FES Publishers. New Boston: Stockholm Environment Haven, CT. Institute. Carabias, J., Cadena, R. and De La Maza, J. Speth, G. 2002. The Global Environmental 2003. Capacity Needs to Manage Agenda: Origins and Prospects. In Protected Areas: A Global Overview. In Global Environmental Governance. Eds. Capacity Needs To Manage Protected Esty D.C and Ivanova. M.H. Yale Areas. Africa. Pp.17-33. Carabias, J., School of Forestry and Environmental Cadena, R. and De La Maza, J. Eds. Studies, New Haven.CT. Pp. 11-30. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington.VA Stiglitz J. 2003. Globalization and its Convention on Biological Diversity Discontents. W.W. Norton & Company . (CBD).1992. Article 8 (a) and (b). New York , London. Esty, D.C. and Ivanova, M.H. 2002(197). Whitaker, D. 2003. The Use of Full-time Revitalizing Global Environmental Volunteers and Interns by Natural Governance: A Function Driven Resource Professionals, Conservation Approach. In Global Environmental Biology, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 330-333. Governance. Eds Esty, D.C. and Ivanova, M.H. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT. pp181-204. Hammond, A. and J. Lash. 2000. "Cyber- Activism: The Rise of Civil Accountability and Its Consequences for Governance," IMP: information impacts magazine, May 2000. Available online at http://www.cisp.org/imp/may_2000/05_ 00hammond.htm. Access date 05/08/03

159 Key biodiversity issues for protected areas

INDEX

ABS. See Access and benefit sharing, Landscapes, 7, 14, 31, 33, 37, 39, 50, 67, 75, 80, 82- Access and benefit sharing, 8 84, 98, 101, 106, 112, 113, 128 Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group, ii, iii, iv, 1, 2, 9, 12, Local communities, 3, 4, 5, 8, 15-17, 21, 52, 61, 79, 13, 52, 68, 87 95, 100-102, 106-110, 125, 144-146, 150-153, 156 Benefits, 3-5, 12, 14-17, 19-22, 24-28, 31, 35, 37, 43, Management Categories, 2, 22, 31-33, 36, 44, 50, 69, 48, 49, 52, 55, 73, 82-84, 87, 89, 94, 97, 98, 100- 105, 110 103, 112-115, 120, 125, 127, 133, 138, 144-146, Marine and coastal, 33 149-153 Marine and coastal protected areas, 7, 11, 12, 33, 52 Bioprospecting, 148, 149, 154 Market prices, 16, 23 Capacity building, 116, 117 Mining, 5, 8, 35, 89, 126, 132-138, 140 Challenges, 3-5, 7, 8, 13, 20, 59, 96, 99, 101, 117, Non-material values, 24, 26, 27 132, 135, 156, 157 Number of protected areas, 33, 34, 60, 129 Communities, 18, 20- 22, 24-26, 37, 39, 93- 95, 97- Participation, 94, 103, 127 99, 111-113, 116, 118, 120-122, 125, 133, 136, Peace, 3, 7, 88, 89 137, 144-147 Planning, ii, iii, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 19, 20, 23, 41, 43, Community Conserved Areas, iv, 3, 95, 96, 99, 101, 44, 46, 47, 50, 56, 73-80, 87, 89, 93, 94, 107, 109, 104 114, 115, 117, 120-123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, Conclusions, iii, 92, 126 137, 140, 144, 147 Conflict, 3, 5, 7, 79, 83, 88, 89, 92, 93, 120, 143 Policies, 3-6, 9, 19, 21, 35, 79, 83, 84, 98, 99, 107, Connectivity, 2, 3, 7, 53, 55, 73- 80, 82, 104, 119, 122 109, 113, 114, 118, 122, 141, 148, 150, 151, 153, Core areas, 76 157 Corridors, 2, 3, 7, 12, 37, 40, 60, 73, 74, 77, 80-82, 84, Protected forest, 2, 13, 63, 65-68 87, 112-114, 120 Representativeness, iii, 2, 5, 7, 40, 45, 49, 55, 63, 67, Coverage of protected areas, 31 68, 122, 130 Design, 2, 3, 7, 37, 39, 41, 53- 55, 57, 61, 75, 77- 80, Resilience, 3, 70, 75 96, 116, 119, 121- 123, 127 Scale, 3, 14, 16, 17, 19, 33, 39, 40, 41, 45-49, 59, 73- Design, 2, 56, 119, 121 75, 77-79, 82, 83, 109, 121, 126, 130, 145 Dialogue, 6, 17, 97, 133, 137, 157 Services, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 37, 43, 73, 112, 117, Dry and sub-humid lands, 9, 11, 70-72 118, 122, 123, 127, 143, 145, 146 Ecological and evolutionary processes. See Site Site selection criteria, 37 selection criteria Size of protected areas, 34 Ecological networks, 3, 7, 12, 13, 73, 74, 82, 83 Stakeholders, 18-22, 43, 97, 112, 117, 118, 125, 127, Ecological restoration, 78 132, 137, 140, 141, 147 Econet, 82 Sustainable development, iii, 1, 7, 10, 14-17, 21, 73, Ecosystem approach, 2, 3, 10, 11, 52, 60, 71, 83, 137 75, 82, 84, 87, 93, 109, 111, 132, 133, 135-137, Ecosystem services, 3, 16, 26, 70, 71, 75, 77, 78, 108, 145 156 Synergies, 8, 145 Effectiveness, 33, 50, 68, 103, 119, 121, 123, 127, 130 Threats, 2, 7, 13, 19, 33, 35-37, 43, 47, 48, 53, 60, 68, Enabling activities, 8, 116 73, 75, 78- 80, 86, 88, 89, 96, 99, 108, 109, 116, Endemism, 2, 37, 38, 39, 41, 47, 48, 71 117, 119-123, 125, 126, 130, 151 Energy, 5, 8, 21, 70, 74, 133, 138-140, 142, 156 Tourism, 1, 5, 14-16, 21, 24, 25, 52, 70, 85, 87, 96, Equity, iv, 94, 102, 105 112, 117, 118, 129, 141, 143-147 Financing, 108 Traditional knowledge, 10, 11, 14, 22, 54, 97, 109, Gap analysis, 2, 7, 45-49, 116, 129 120, 145, 149 Global Environment Facility, iv, 8, 86, 111, 125, 155, Transboundary protected areas, 3, 10, 13, 33, 82, 84, 157 88, 112 Global priorities, 41 Values, 1, 4, 5, 14-17, 22-29, 48, 53, 86, 88, 89, 92, Governance, 3, 4, 19, 83, 91, 94, 98, 100, 101-105, 97, 98, 101, 104, 108, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 118, 155, 156, 158 122, 125, 126, 129, 135, 136, 139, 140, 144-146, Hotspots, 3, 9, 12, 48, 50, 51, 68, 70, 71, 130, 131 156-158 Impact assessment, 10, 140 Vulnerability, 2, 39, 41, 47, 50, 68, 77, 125 Indicator, 5, 8, 25, 28, 42, 125, 128, 129, 130 Wildlife, 20, 29, 57, 80, 81, 90, 92, 136, 148, 152 Indigenous communities, 147 World Commission on Protected Areas, iii, iv, 30, 65, Inland water, 2, 9, 11, 58- 62 69, 109, 120, 121 Irreplaceability, 2, 39, 41, 47, 50, 55 World Heritage Convention, iv, 3, 33, 60, 88 Younger generations, 5, 8, 155-158

160