BALANCING the SCALES: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity's Chances Through Bioregional Management

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE

BALANCING THE SCALES: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity's Chances Through Bioregional Management

KENTON R. MILLER BALANCING THE SCALES Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity's Chances Through Bioregional Management

Kenton R. Miller

u WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE

February 1996 Kathleen Courrier Publications Director

Brooks Belford Marketing Manager

Hyacinth Billings Production Manager

Organization of American States Cover Photo

Each World Resources Institute Report represents a timely, scholarly treatment of a subject of public concern. WRI takes responsibility for choosing the study topics and guaranteeing its authors and researchers freedom of inquiry. It also solicits and responds to the guidance of advisory panels and expert reviewers. Unless otherwise stated, however, all the interpretation and findings set forth in WRI publications are those of the authors.

Acknowledgments v Lessons Learned from La Amistad Biosphere Reserve 24 Foreword vii Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, I. Introduction 1 U.S.A 25 Brief Description 25 What is a Bioregion? What is Bioregional Key Challenges to Bioregional Management? 4 Management 27 Lessons Learned from the Greater The Aim and Message of this Study 6 Yellowstone Ecosystem 28

Characteristics of Bioregional The Wadden Sea 28 Management 6 Brief Description 28 The Bioregionalist Approach 8 Challenges in Shifting to Bioregional The Biosphere Reserve Approach 10 Management 29 The Integrated Conservation and Each Country's Distinctive Development Project Approach 11 Management Regimes 29 The Ecosystem Management Institutional Cooperation within Approach 12 Each Country 30 Institutional Cooperation among Three Challenges to Bioregional the Three Countries 30 Management that Policy-Makers Lessons Learned from the Wadden Can Anticipate 15 Sea 31 Capacity 15 Stakeholder Involvement 15 Greater Serengeti Ecosystem 31 Institutional Cooperation 15 Brief Description 31 Challenges of Managing at the Whole II. Examples of Early Bioregional Ecosystem Scale 33 Management Experience 19 Lessons Learned from Serengeti, Mara, Kajiado, and Amboseli 37 La Amistad Biosphere Reserve 19 Brief Description 19 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 38 Challenges of Shifting to The Great Barrier Reef Program in Bioregional Management 21 Brief 38

m Challenges to Managing a Large Lessons Learned from the North Marine Ecosystem 39 York Moors National Park 52 Lessons Learned from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park The Hill Resource Management Authority 43 Program, India 53 The Hill Resource Management The Mediterranean Regional Sea 44 Program in Brief 53 The Mediterranean Regional Sea Lessons Learned from the Hill Program in Brief 44 Resource Management Program .... 54 Consequences of Establishing a Basin-wide Program 45 III. Guidelines for Bioregional Lessons Learned from the Management 55 Mediterranean Action Plan 46 What is the Right Scale? 55 CAMPFIRE Program, Zimbabwe 47 The CAMPFIRE Program in Brief 47 Guidelines to Meet the Challenges Consequences of Shifting Wildlife Facing Bioregional Management Management to a Regional Scale .... 48 Programs 56 Lessons Learned from CAMPFIRE 49 Challenge to Build Capacity 56 Challenge to Foster Stakeholder North York Moors National Park, U.K. ... 50 Participation 59 Brief Description of the North York Challenge to Establish Cooperative Moors 50 Arrangements Among Institutions... 62 Mechanisms for Managing at the Bioreeional Scale 50 References 67

IV Acknowledgments

am grateful to Bruce Goldstein, Andrew Taparendava N. Mavaneki, Richard Saunier and Lawton and Anne St. John for their assistance Alvaro Ugalde. Iduring the research phase of this work. External peer reviewers included Mario Boza, P. Special thanks go to my WRI colleagues J. Barfoot, David Cumming, Folkert de Jong, Charles Barber, Alan Brewster, Laura Lee Dooley, Richard Kenchington, Simone Lovera, Walter Tom Fox, Nels Johnson, Jonathan Lash, Owen Lusigi, Taparendava Mavaneki, Adrian Phillips, Lynch, Walt Reid, and Nigel Sizer for their valu- Vicente Sanchez, and Michael Wells. able guidance during the project, and to Donna Dwiggins, Marta Miranda, Dina Sperling, Several knowledgeable practitioners of biore- Kathleen Courrier and Hyacinth Billings for help- gional management contributed by sharing their ing obtain project support and for getting the text experiences and debating concepts and ideas and graphics into print. with me, including Peter Berg, Mario Boza, Juan Jose Castro-Chamberlain, Helen R. Hughes, K.R.M. Folkert de Jong, Adolfo Mascarenhas, Foreword

torm-battered islands of biological diver- and especially for practitioners, on making sity in a sea of human settlement: that may bioregional management work. Swell be the fate of the world's parks and natural areas as wildlands give way to farm, The rubric of "bioregional management" pasture and settlements. Lands set aside for con- draws upon worldwide achievements with pro- servation have been at the center of the world's tected areas and is enriched by a number of dif- efforts to protect biological diversity, and that ferent approaches, including bioregionalism, strategy is under siege. What can be done to biosphere reserves, integrated conservation and shore up these vital areas, and as important, development projects, and ecosystem manage- maintain key habitats, species and genetic mate- ment. Each builds upon a strong ethic of "place" rials wherever they are found across human and stewardship. Each promotes the use of best- modified landscapes while fostering their care- available science and information to help pro- ful use? tect, restore and carefully manage biodiversity and natural resources. But how well do biore- The answer must address the way people gional methods work in practice? manage and interact with nature outside of protected areas, where they live and work, and in To learn how policy-makers, managers and forestry, agriculture, fishing, wildlife manage- communities go about uniting conservation and ment and other major uses of land and water re- development on larger scales, Balancing the Scales sources. As Kenton Miller argues in Balancing the looks at La Amistad Biosphere Reserve in Costa Scales, we must first expand the geographic Rica; the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the scales of conservation and development pro- United States; the Wadden Sea, extending from grams—shifting their traditional scope to em- the Netherlands to Germany and Denmark; the brace whole ecosystems. We must then change Greater Serengeti Ecosystem on the Kenya/ the process of these programs to involve the Tanzania border; Australia's Great Barrier Reef broad array of people and institutions who have Marine Park; the Mediterranean regional sea; a stake in the management of the region. Only Zimbabwe's CAMPFIRE program; the United by adopting this larger "bioregional" approach Kingdom's North York Moors National Park; and can we nurture our natural resources while giv- the Hill Resource Management Program in India. ing local communities the chance to derive sus- These programs were established with a variety of tainable livelihoods from those resources. goals, not always giving highest priority to biodi- Balancing the Scales is a practical book that ex- versity conservation. Yet, experience demon- plores the lessons to be drawn from current ex- strates that region-wide programs offer important periments with bioregional approaches, and opportunities for embedding biodiversity objec- proposes sensible guidelines for policy-makers, tives into resource management.

vn These long-running programs have had options that balance local interests with soci- varying degrees of success in meeting their am- ety's larger interests. Adjusting the design and bitious objectives, but all provide useful in- delivery of technology may be necessary to give sights into meeting the three major challenges communities and institutions the space and facing those bent on applying bioregional time to adapt. approaches. Similarly, drawing on external funding The first great challenge is building capacity. sources may be vital to securing short-term sup- At larger geographic scales, managers must be port—so long as that funding gives way eventu- able to plan and implement activities that may ally to a sustainable flow of resources. call for skills and experience not found in their own organizations. The needed tools, methods These challenges notwithstanding, biore- and talents may be found, however, in other gional management has the potential to reap levels of government, in the private sector, or in huge gains for biodiversity—in part by attract- indigenous or civil society groups. Bioregional ing a larger, more complex pool of skills and programs should plug the gaps in organiza- tools. Dr. Miller argues that this approach also tions' and individuals' capacities—building helps local communities grasp the connections upon existing capacity wherever possible, while between biodiversity and their own livelihoods being able to respond to changes in attitudes, and encourages them to begin voluntarily the economy and the environment as necessary. restoring the habitats, sites, and ecological functions that determine the health of larger ecosys- Another challenge for bioregional manage- tems. In the end, all interested parties recognize ment is engaging local residents and other stake- the importance of social and institutional con- holders, that is, those who depend upon, utilize, cerns and scientific knowledge in charting a bet- live within, or otherwise care about the place ter future. and its biological resources. Stakeholders who do not become full partners in planning and im- Balancing the Scales is part of a larger group plementing programs can end up hindering the of studies by the World Resources Institute program's chances of success. So leaders, plan- and its United Nations, governmental and ners, and policy-makers should get to know the NGO partners around the world. The 1992 stakeholders, their concerns, interests and per- WRI/IUCN/UNEP Global Biodiversity Strategy spectives, and should seek to involve them in provided a framework for policy and action planning and implementation. One key is to worldwide. The 1995 WRI/UNEP/IUCN help them select issues of common interest for National Biodiversity Planning report draws action and investment. These individuals and upon the experience of 17 partner countries groups may need help gaining the access, skills to offer guidelines to nations in the throes and information needed to participate fully in of planning how to implement the Conven- decision-making, as well as a fair share of the tion on Biological Diversity. Nested within benefits. Government agencies, for their part, that national perspective, this study explores must honor their commitments to local commu- options for transforming global and national nities, work quickly to implement programs, goals into practical guidelines for manage- and be prepared to share authority and respon- ment on the ground. Other reports that sibility in new creative ways with regional and expand upon biodiversity topics include local public and private partners. Keeping Options Alive, Biodiversity Indicators for Policy Makers, and Biodiversity Prospecting. The final challenge facing bioregional man- WRI researchers are now taking these ideas agers is promoting cooperation between organiza- and concepts to the regional and national level tions and institutions already working in the in Indonesia, the Philippines, and in area. This means developing management Amazonia. vm We would like to express our appreciation to biodiversity and biological resources. For their the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the foresight and support we are deeply grateful. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Jonathan Lash Agency, and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation President for their generous support of WRI's program in World Resources Institute

IX I. Introduction In this Chapter: • the need for bioregional management • ct'liat is a bioregion? what is bioregional management? • the aim and message of Ihis report • characteristics of bioregional management • three challenges to be anticipated

At the scale of the bioregion, people can conserving nature and natural resources without understand the flow of natural systems, relinquishing products and services that can be whereas at the global, or national levels, developed and produced sustainably. the mind boggles. A parallel shift is needed in the way we deal Kirkpatrick Sale with nature's scales of time, which are rarely syn- chronous with agency plans or administrative cy- ow can the elements of wild nature—its cles. Animals migrate at certain times of the year, species, genetic traits, populations, habi- plants are best re-established during certain sea- Htats and ecosystems—be maintained in sons. There is a hurricane season and a time-hon- landscapes that also need to produce material ored cycle of animal reproduction. Management goods, environmental services, and the many cul- programs must anticipate nature's timing of tural, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits that people events as well as the amount of time society everywhere want? Governments and communi- needs to adapt to new information, technology, ties entering the 21st Century must find answers and global change. Even earthquakes, floods, vol- to this fundamental question. canic eruptions, and other natural disasters, while hard to predict exactly, can be prepared for if na- Scientists, resource managers, and local com- ture's cycles are understood. munity leaders agree that the best policy approach is to expand the geographic scales of our Shifting scales to align action to place and time conservation and development programs to cover will have many benefits. First, communities and whole ecosystems. In some situations, they also management agencies stand to gain a better note, the best policy is to shift downward, fo- awareness of the linkages and interdependencies cussing more attention upon habitats and sites in among the resources and environmental services trouble (European Centre for Nature Conserva- of their ecosystems, their jobs, food supplies, and tion, 1995; Risser, 1995; Aberley, 1994; ANZECC, material needs, as well as of the potential and 1994; Noss, 1994; May, 1994; U.S. Department of limits of their habitat. State, 1994; Batisse, 1993; Bennett, 1993; King, 1993; Wells et al., 1992; Noss, 1990; Lowrance et Second, this approach enables managers and al, 1986; Noss and Harris, 1986; Conway, 1985; communities to address the key components of Harris, 1984; Noss, 1983). ecosystems. What forest canopy, grassland, coral reef, sea grass beds, caves, or other ecological Whatever the shift, the question is one of bal- structures need to be maintained or restored in ancing the scales—of finding the best places for the overall ecosystem? How can such ecological functions as stream flow and daily and seasonal tion of scenic and natural wonders, the protection migration be managed and monitored in practical and use of various species, natural populations, terms? Should management be extended over ge- communities and habitats, and the provision of ographic space and through additional seasons to recreation, tourism education, research opportu- accommodate additional stakeholders? And what nities, ecosystem services, foreign exchange, and species, genetic resources, wildlife populations, checks on renewable resources production are and communities are found and where? Which significant, if poorly understood. In many parts warrant restoration, introduction or control? And of the world, these areas are governments' sole or which can be harvested sustainably? main approach to biodiversity conservation.

Third, residents and managers can reconsider Yet, many protected areas are under-funded, their resource-related activities and their use of understaffed, and short on opportunities for staff land and water areas with global change in mind to build their capacity. They also fail to employ and prepare for possible increases in rainfall or information and science to improve management drought, sea level rises, and locational shifts in practice, they lack effective mechanisms for habitats and wildlife communities. working with nearby residents, and they operate without a government commitment to supporting Fourth, by working with other inhabitants management over the long term (Noton, 1995; who live in, work within, or otherwise care for Wells et al., 1992). this larger ecosystem-wide geographic space, interested parties can more systematically examine In many of these areas, national parks and pro- their conflicts—for example, over access to and tected areas are becoming isolated as wildlands use of goods and services (Saunier, 1995; Saunier get converted to farm, pasture, settlement, and in- and Meganck, in press). frastructure (IUCN, 1994a). Some are simply too small to meet the habitat requirements of local Today governments and communities rely species, wildlife communities, and populations or mainly on their national parks, and other special to encompass ecosystem processes (Ecological So- protected areas, seed banks, tissue collections, zoos, ciety of America, 1995; Paquet and Hackman, and botanic gardens to maintain the diverse life- 1995; McNeely et al., 1994; Newmark, 1987). So forms found in the world's many habitats (UNEP, too, many protected areas have become too iso- 1995; WCMC, 1992; WRI et al., 1992; McNeely et al. lated from regional economies to undergird 1991). In some countries, community-led initiatives neighbors' livelihoods. And the pressures of involve the protection, restoration, and use of biodi- shrinking wildlands, even in the most remote re- versity and biological resources (Planet Drum Foun- gions, seemingly pit the goals of many protected dation, 1995; Western and Wright, 1994). In many area programs against the interests of local cul- cases, however, the contribution of these protected tures and traditional groups seeking more space areas, germplasm facilities, and other tools vital to and access to natural resources. biodiversity protection, restoration, and use may be limited by under-investment, growing competition Since the landscape is fragmented and much for scarce land and funds, and the overwhelming wildland has been converted to other uses, the number of endangered species, genetic resources, boundaries and coverage of some protected areas communities, populations, habitats, and landscapes may not conform to the size and shape of the in need of saving (Reid, 1992; Wilson, 1991). ecosystems that are to be maintained and managed (Newmark, 1987; Harris, 1984). Moreover, in Take protected areas as an example. The 1993 landscapes where protected areas have not been United Nations List of Protected Areas presents established, key genetic, taxonomic, and ecological more than 9,800 sites in the world (IUCN, 1994b). elements of diversity that once may have been (See Box 1.1.) Their contribution to nature conser- found in wildlands, or extensive farm or forest op- vation and human wellbeing through the protec- erations, are now relegated to isolated patches in Box 1.1. )bjc-i lives ,ind C alvgones of the World's Protected Areas

I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: IV. Habilat/Spccios Management Area: l'to Areas ol l.iml and or sea possessing tectecl \ie.v-. \lanai;i'd Vl.univ tor C'OIWI- Minu1 outstanding or reprcsentativ e ',atioiT lhroii^'n Man.'.êment Interven- i-co-ivMems. geological or ph\~-ioiogical tion. Ari'a^ n! Sar.d ~,ad -'or -ea subjci t to features and or species available pnmar- active intervention for management pur- ily io: si/'entiiic IV-HVRII .wJ, ori'iiviron- poê> ô a^> ti> eiT-Lire I he nv.intenani.e or mrnl.il monitoring; or large areas of un- habitat^ and.- ov to meet liv ri\|iiiremi'iU- modified or siiglMh m.iJifit.-il land. of f ,md • o» sea, retaining their natural i hai- acter .Hid influence, without permanent V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected o: -.ignilu ant habitation, w hull are pro- Areas Map.i-A'.-J Mainlv lor i aiuiM-ape ' tected and managed s1 a-' to preserve Sejsc.ipeto:iser\atii»!i .ir.il Kei reat:on. their natural condition. Arej>ol land, with .iw>t and >-ea a-Mipprn- pria'e, w here the interaction of people .:nd II. National Park: I'rotivUd Are.is \1on.!s;ed nature o\ IT lime lia- produced IHI area ol M;iin!v '.or \\o**\-ter,->. Ccn-i-rv.iH.tn .md distinct i harai.ti.-r wills ^.ijiiiitiiaiit je--thi.-liv., ii:!lti:'«il .siid/ori-cnlojiioii \alue. ano OIU-M se.i. de'-ivmaled to I.T protect the ecological with hiyji l->ioio^!C.ii divi-rsitv. Sateftu.ird-

iuli-i;;ity of tnio or r.iosv vc<»s\>-tetii^ for in,e tlie inlejiritv of il'.i- traditional inter.ic- tins ,i!iJ tuturi1 generations, ib.i i.i\ciiide ex- lion i1^ v itai to the protection. mainlen.VMv ploitation or occupation inimical to llu- and evolution ol ûch an area. jiurpif-e1* o! di'î^n.itioii of the .:rea .mil u:) pn>\ ide a foundalivMi tor spinui.il. -.cien- VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: Pro- :i!ic, fdiu.iiio.ial, n'cre.ition.il .md \ iîtor tected \re.is \kiruined M.iinK for the û>- oppoitunitii1--. .iii oi which mult be i-n\ i- taiuable L seol \,".ura! Ico-xsU-m-. Aiv.i- ronmenlalk and cuiluralK joni containiivj, prei)oniin.inliy unmodiiied natural ^\-.te:1l'». nianaized to ci-.ûie lon^ term HI. Natural Monument: Trotecled \re.i-, prolei-tion and m.iiiiten.mce ot biological ed \lainl\ lorCoiiM-rvation o! diver-itv, while prov idini; .it the sinu1 lime il'c IV.ituivs. An-iis coi'tamin^ one or a -,U:-lainabie tlow of i-,atiira! prvVlucN,:iid pucific natural or natural, cultural serv ici-«i Lo meet lommunitv need1;. •eatiirer. t.^ out--.lcir.dini; or up.iqiie \ alue 'necause ot it-^ inhereni rarir\. rc-prc- >:-ir.._c: !lu- mtidilicd -v«-tem o; prinecieci area-; -ent.uive or aesthetic c|iialilie-« or cullur,il categories agreed ar ihe l\ World Conj\re->s oil National Parks and Pioterted Areas. p."C.

intensively managed, farms, pastures, timber-har- resources wherever they are found. On the one hand, vesting sites, fishing grounds, and suburban, protected area programs need to be strengthened; urban, and industrial areas (See Box 1.2). Indeed, other in-situ measures and all ex-situ facilities and these vestiges are increasingly found in a mosaic of measures need to be applied much more widely mixed private, public, and communal ownership. and their use integrated into overall biodiversity- conservation strategies (UNEP, 1995). Where im- New policies are needed to protect, restore, and portant biodiversity is found on mixed public and foster the careful use of biodiversity and biological private lands, property rights and tenure over Box 1.2. I h;vr N.ili-s [h.ir Shiipi1 Ihr I'niHrp'ill li;i\ii\ IIMI\

ii'iii-tii1 I )i\ t""*.it\ .#1 I >i\rr.-iiy 'p-it\

C iin>mnnit\

Population I'hykmi I Home

(Vi^nKrM

li-l Order tens v stein I ,tmil\

I l.ihil.n - \iihi-

Species

di Ovtri, !<•>'•"

resource use must be strengthened and new What is a Bioregion? What is arrangements promoted among various levels of Bioregional Management? government and among local communities to foster the long-term exercise of authority and re- The term bioregion in this study denotes a geo- sponsibility (Asher, 1995; Lynch and Talbott, graphic space that contains one whole or several 1995; Barber et al., 1994; Western and Wright, nested ecosystems. It is characterized by its land- 1994; Davis and Wali, 1993; Bromley, 1991; Os- forms, vegetative cover, human culture, and his- trom, 1990; Poole, 1989). The growing list of tory, as identified by local communities, govern- goods and services being demanded from wild- ments, and scientists. lands by local, national and global communities, listed in Box 1.3, makes the need for new policies Already in Australia, California, and Western even more urgent. Canada, the bioregion is a unit of planning and Box. 13. l'sitor:li.!! (..nod- and Ser\ U.e*> rrom the \,ili;:\il l. o

Lcusystcm Operation, Maintenance, Adapta- Id. 1 li-lorii-dl \ aim-. tion, and Evolution II. (. IIIIUMI v.ilui's 1. Polabk1 w.ili.'r ûrtaci1.. j;;"oi:nd \2. 1 ai K \\ .n nint; j-\ sU-in: wcithfr, rlinvi 2. indu-lriiil uati1!'. >ii:'t,iui. lii'i'imd i IMPCI1, ii.i/.irii.ni-. eifnl-. .'. \i:irien( diÛioulion: !iood-i. du«:!.-ci'i- ;"5. Mn nu-nt transport ] +. liM 1. I'hoto-A ntheM*" l'^. i ij;ht iv.odil'iiM "i. Ki^piraiio'i Ifi. I iltmlinn î iiiti\i\ inlet anci other radiation <••. (.Kidatiop 17. Stur.j;',!' of .t;e'-elir iniorniatuiM 7. Adaptation IS CMher -M ieniitk v.iiue^ •v 'x-if-regulation v). Mineral ivtlinn Lconomii' Services 111. I labital for local Kind, air and aquatic .mi- 1. r.ner^y sdurci1^: wind, >olar, hwlrii, tidal, m.i!-. hwcl-i .Mid oilier iifeiorms; U'ediisv;. bioin.i:^. uenilieijiiai 2 !>ili;tion ol i"oritaiM:ii*.nt» 11 ii.iin!:it f;ir nii^r.jniii; Kind, .lir. T. Di-iornpo-isioiT of Loriaininant'-: oyidaliim lite I'lirni-. e\ .ipor.ition. Ji-.-ôlutioii I ^. I'lvdin;.;. brivdin.u., IHIIMMX . ihelt 4. I r.wr-port ot iont.imin.int> b\ wind and w.iter. jniinal lon^nnipliun. dilution b\ air Son-1 .ingiMe Cioods and Services .ir>d w.itev 3. ^tvir.ii;c oi t'onl-.uviii'oiri- 2. Sh.kio <•>. I'ro-ioii control V Ki'iTLMlion.il IIMMII wali'i". swiiniuinc, bo;it- 7 '-'I'liimiiil amliol ii"i>;, wati'i- skiinj;, -niiiii-ij^ 5. I'luod lonfoi 4. l\tV!V.H'ti!"..il iiM- nl"icind" hit-ini;. v '••'. (Mher (.ositro! of u.iler reîiiie 1C. (.ir.n;n.i w.uer ivcharî- 11. Sp.ii.e lor uirv.n. indii-itria!. a^riculiuri1 oc- iiip.ilion. road w.i\ -;. lanaK. airporl- d. Uiviv.Tlinn.il use ni .iniin.ils: spoil lumtiiij 12. Physical support lor MrucUnvh TV Climate lor.lroi ami proUvlion 14. Dis i'o:itrol and pr«)tei"lio:i ~:. Ki.-v.iv.Thon.il II-JI IP. :->fnr;r. biiMeiiti

S. Siienlilii/ tmnism 11 lv.plor

management (ANZECC, 1994). In the United and 4 in the Pacific Islands (Planet Drum Founda- States alone, more than 600 relatively recent tion, 1995). New Zealand is now reforming its bioregional initiatives have been inventoried by a land subdivisions to better reflect its diverse University of Michigan study (Frentz et alv 1995). ecosystems and to provide a more ecologically The 2995 Planet Drum Bioregional Directory in- oriented geographic framework for public and cludes 204 projects in Canada and the United community organization and administration States, 5 in Mexico, 6 in Australia, 26 in Europe, (Helen Hughes, pers. cornrn., June 5,1995). The term bioregion as used here connotes the in- stand and take action to better protect and restore clusion in the early steps of planning of all inter- biodiversity and biological resources and to pro- ested local residents, those who use or depend mote their careful use by adjusting the scales of upon the area's resources, and those who have management programs to cover whole ecosys- other interests in the area and its people. It also im- tems. The guidelines presented here should help plies ecological, social, and economic analysis and them establish bioregional management policies participatory approaches to establishing goals and and programs where planning goals are heavily implementing plans. Stakeholder planners and weighted toward biodiversity protection, restora- managers understand the need to work at various tion, and use. scales from the ground upward through local, provincial or state, national, and international lev- The study's message is addressed to policy- els, thus linking tiers of ecological, social, economic makers, resource managers, and community and institutional organizations. (See Figure 1.1.) leaders:

Whether defined by science, governmental ad- Re-scaling your field-conservation programs to ministration, or community action, the bioregion cover whole ecosystems through bioregional reflects the perceptions of the resident human management programs can increase the oppor- community toward its sense of place or "home- tunities to protect and restore biodiversity effi- land" (Aberley, 1993; Cronon, 1991; Andruss et ciently and foster its sustainable use. Unneces- al., 1990; Lane, 1988). It is a part of larger land- sary delays and conflicts can be reduced and scapes and biomes, and it can be subdivided into more easily resolved if you anticipate the main smaller ecosystems, such as stream catchments, challenges facing bioregional planners and valleys, and individual patches of forest or wet- implementors. land, etc. (Naveh, 1984). Two other groups should also be interested in "Bioregional management" seeks to encom- this report. Those concerned with implementing pass whole ecosystem(s) so as to protect and re- the Convention on Conservation of Biological Di- store their components sustainably. It nurtures versity (Glowka et al., 1994) and Agenda 21 can the mechanisms by which these ecosystems func- use it to develop tools and policies for meeting tion. Its guiding commitment is to using ecosys- the provisions of the international agreements, tem resources for the long run cooperatively with and development assistance organizations can resident inhabitants and other interested parties. use it to help design multilateral and bilateral "Bioregional planning" is an organizational biodiversity projects. process that enables people to work together, ac- quire information, think carefully about the potential and problems of their region, set goals and Characteristics of Bioregional objectives, define activities, implement projects, Management take actions agreed upon by the community, evaluate progress, and refine their approach. As used This study builds upon ongoing work in here, bioregional management is thus an integrat- bioregionalism (Aberley, 1994; Aberley, 1991; ing concept, one that amalgamates the learning Sale, 1985), the Man and the Biosphere Pro- and perspectives of several like-minded ap- gramme (UNESCO, 1995; USMAB, 1994), inte- proaches to resource management. grative conservation and development projects (ICDPs) (Wells et al., 1992), and the rapidly evolving philosophy and principles of ecosys- The Aim and Message of this Study tem management (ESA, 1995; U.S. Department of State, 1994). It extracts from this base an ideal- Policy-makers, resource- and protected-area ized set of characteristics for bioregional man- managers, and community leaders need to under- agement. (See Box 1.4.) Figure 1.1. Hierarchies of Bioregional Management

Levels of Indicative Bioregional Activities and Ecological Levels Organization and Capacities for of Organization Management Each Level

• Global ecosystems: air, > Global/ • Intergovernmental water, nutrients, inter-governmental negotiation geo-chemical, migration programs: • Diplomacy - Conventions on: • Supported by science, Biological Diversity, information and Climate, Wetlands, management Migratory species, Forest and Germplasm Agreements, etc.

• Regional ecosystems: • Bioregional programs: • Sciences - Multi-country level: • Information gathering, - Biogeographic province Mediterranean Action development and level Plan, Wadden Sea, La delivery - Landscape level Amistad Biosphere • Regional planning, - Plant/animal Reserve inter-country planning communities - Country Level: Great and cooperation - Migration Barrier Reef Marine • Protected area planning Park, Yellowstone and management National Park, North • Cooperative York Moors National mechanisms for private, Park, CAMPFIRE public and communal community wildlife land owners management, Hill • Policy and technology Resource Management development to Program encourage sustainable practices in forestry, agriculture, fisheries, wildlife, tourism and water management • Monitoring and reporting

• Local ecosystems ' Local site level: ' Develop and use skills - Community protection and knowledge • Habitats of fish spawning areas, (traditional and " Structure local watershed technological) to " Species composition management plans, and protect, restore, " Genetic variation forest rehabilitation inventory, research and " Local migration efforts sustainably harvest • Patch dynamics natural resources Bo\ l.-l. Ki'\ t'h.ir.K (fii^

ni; fiun Llic I'li'ini-ni1" jinl i-nvricikv nyjiip's lii.uMt iiTwliij hiiuii\»."r—itv. ldi\iil\ ni Hio.'vgion.ili.-in, \1.in and Ihe llioiphi'iv IVo- s-iii-li sill's, whii h in.iy alroad\ In- di-iv;ii:;"!i :i) i;loi\ii iitaii^i1. Uoih Ihi-'ioii' ;n t(.-ri>s;rs o! liinri'niorwl Mi.iii.i^'miTit work siti1^ .Hid i.o!;idiii~, ,IIV ni'^ti'd IN iliiin ii m.ifriv win bo idi-nhlk-d: ol mixi-d l.ind usi> LIIKI OU iKTsliip patter i^.

!. Large. Mnlicalhi Viable lic'îium Hiorr- •i. / tDuontk $u*tiihuibilit\j P-n.- \\\ i-li- jlioiv.i fii.in.v.^'M'.cnt p'oiir.ini1- L-rnhr.vi1 tvîon- iiood-,iif piMpli1 ;i\ ini; and working u itliii: l!v 1 kir;_;i- i-poii^h !•.» uu iiiiie ihi h.ii'ii.ibi ,mii Mi»ri-t;u'n, iiiiindiiii', th.o->t.> \\\ iiii'iiîiA. ^y.d i^- iia>.»\-.tiM"* ivi-di'd to pi\i.illv iii thf liMSrix, jivi'iiuuiiM^cd. Appro- make hoik i omniunilii'i tiiul population i\n- pri.ili- iinvntiM1- to m.ikt.1 optinwl uî- ol lov.il 1 1 lnjîo.iliv \ i.ihli' o\ IT llit- liiPivU'i in.'! hr^. ri - [p j;ii»rs-i mi!1-' S1 jhif M ,nv.'p.ioil.iic mij;Mliir\ .i>i' i-i>iiii->ini\l w itii.'. N\ -ti'iii lor •.h.iriiii; MR- p.TUt'r:!-. .iiitiv ip.i!f rsiitiiri-'-. linii' c\ cit1-, .sin! 1.1)^1^ :-.wi hi''isiits o! i VM1-IT .II'MTL' Ihc imp.n"l> of glnkil i l ai;i\f iisc \\uv\\.

ersliip uml Managi'incul Mi V ii'.K1.• \ lull im'nliviHfiil of>liikclinlilrrs Ml 1 J 1 i""sliip io i••-'.abli.-i Moiv;;;or..-.i proî-.'tr s n ;a\ p.irlii'-v v\ ho iv.n ciMi\t or U-noli! ISI»IT> thi. n- , oiiif n-on"i piiblk .iî'iicii1-. or iroiTs t !n- mil!- iiiuniu w! ri-îdi-nl^ and ri'M-iirri' LI-IT-. llv lion, anii oppoiumiMos to lv tuli\ invohi-d in tasks of ci!ii\i'nii!j; -IdkfliitliitT-^. pr«'paiing .ii pkiniiiiif; and ni.iii.iîny, llu- bion-t;ional pro-

niôiiaHii i\ \ i-.i.m -I.UiMHi-nl-, pLmn "if1 : MU] ;.\!\iin. Ki.\ hero is buiidinj; the i(u\ii i\ip.K"ilv Io 1 r tin>;.-ii;ivi'd-iipo:i.ii tu iticsi, in !v p.irtii'ipaU . rk'mi'.i.iii-. .'.lid pef-nriii thi- \".i u)iii sh.in-d wi. ipoiii{i\ e!v K twoer. p-jhli*1 and pn- i"*. or t'uil\ ai!imi'in:t\-I"1.!--i'd1 (•>. bofitil Accept time —An\ propoî!-, for 1 S/n/i /HJ-I' el'Coir*. Curriilora uml Mn- i.inm^ in tin- i\ I hf-i1 proi'.iviii:1" iniiitdi' v.oi\- w ildkind f i-iîdi'iiN.ind Uva! pi-opli.-*- iiKludiiij; iii- lh.il itvilc.-i' i^pif-fnliitl1. f "-.liiipli.1.". o! rlu- niiit1-. netni Io hi1 .â'pt.il^

The Bioregionalist Approach and the potential of natural resources in their bioregions, as defined by ecological, economic, Bioregionalism is a grassroots, "bottom up" and social criteria (Aberley, 1994). They refer to approach led by communities themselves, pri- "homeland" as a geographic space that encom- marily in North America, but increasingly in Aus- passes their water sources and other key ecologi- tralia and Europe too. This approach provides one cal features, food production, forests and wilder- example of community-led efforts to work at the ness, villages and infrastructure (Aberley, 1993; scale of the ecosystem; its use is rapidly spread- Andruss et al, 1990; Cronon, 1990; Lane, 1988). ing, and it appears to be quite transferable. This approach focusses upon the political Bioregionalists aim to find a balance between means to promote restoration and maintenance of the resident community's need for livelihoods the natural systems that ultimately support the lii them. All stakeholders warrant tin- opportu- from which lessons may be drawn from real- nity In participate in program management world experience lo respond appropriately. and implementation. 11. Rezlonilion Where the \ iabilily of 7. N>//i/ ami Comprehensive Information Mime habilats or ecological functions have All stakeholders have at llieir disposal the criti- been impaired through i-xctssiveor inappro- cal information needed lo facilitate biodiver- priate UM1, then these areas are lo be restored. sil\ management, (leographic Information sWeni technology is used lo help stakeholder* 12. Cooperative Skills Development C'nm- envision their region and indistinctive fea- niunities and public ami pri\ale organi/alions tures dearlv. ( MS also helps them modi.1! op- together locale and mobilize Ihe skills, know I- tions and scenarios ror the hi tun*. edge, and information needed to be able to manage the area. S. Research and Monitoring Research and inquiries focus on people 'en\ ironment inU'i- IV Inslitulionnl Integration Alliances ailinns. llu- di-\ elopnu-nl of innn\ .ltivi- nu-lh- u ilh other institutions ,-ind with local organiza- nds tor nian.igin.i; natural ri'-ourci";. and tin.1 tion* ore forged to close gaps, minimize over- lon^-ti-rin monitoring oU-n\ ironnii-ntal f.uinrs lap, and make management and investment in and tlit1 impactol'managonii'iit pr.u-tiit";. the region more efficient.

*•'. Use ol' Knoxvled»e Si it-ntitif, 1IK.I1, and 14. International Cooperation Because tradilional knowk-dgi-aiv omplined in plan- some ecosvslems cross inlernational bound- ning and managonu-nl ,Kti\ ilii> Biology, an- aries and, in some cases, extend globally along Ihropology. ivonomio, cnginivring. and otht'i" animal-migration routes or along venues ivlatrd fields are lapped. Such know ledge where endangered species ^tv traded, interna- helps stakeholders and program managers to tional cooperation agreements for debate, anticipate nature's long and short c\cles and to mechanisms for joint research, information track global change. management, and investments are part o\ the biodiversity management program. ( The Man 10. Adaptive Mainigemeiil Hioregional pro- ^nd the Biosphere Programme is particularlv grams ,ire operated on ,\n experimental basis. suited lo this purpose.)

people and nature in each area. It rests on a com- 1.5.) In fact, formal methodologies and structures mitment to the health of natural systems; a spiri- are avoided, and this decentralized movement tual and cultural affinity to community, the land, has no formal institutions. Bioregional programs and ecological processes; and the goals of politi- are federated, however, and tied to each other cal decentralization, self-determination, and both culturally and commercially. social equity (Dodge, 1990). Every bioregional project prepares a resource Bioregionalism is as much a movement of inventory, maps, a list of local economic enter- practitioners as it is a methodology. Its adherents prises, and food-production options. It also are rapidly developing concepts and guidelines establishes working groups of residents to for planning, land use, social behavior, and other address social equity and gender issues. Land dimensions of bioregional management. (See Box use is planned and managed to achieve a wide network of biosphere reserves. This program Box 1.5. Ciuiding lends of liioregionalism exemplifies an international consensual approach to managing whole ecosystems to preserve key 1. Dioregions oiler I hi- most opportune biodiversity. (See Box 1.6.) spatial scale lor human governance and socio-economic development; Biosphere reserves are "designed to deal with one of the most important questions the world 2. (lovernance within a hioregion should he faces today: how can we reconcile conservation of democratic and responsible to local um- biodiversity and biological resources with their Irol. should nurture a high quality or life, sustainable use? An effective biosphere reserve and should be judged on its ability l<> program involves natural and social scientists; achieve social justice; conservation and development groups; management authorities and local communities—all .'V IVonomic development within a bioro- working together on this complex issue" gion should be Uvallv regukited, based (UNESCO, 1995). on the use nl appropriate technology, rocussed on self-reliance (w ilh limited, Presently, there are 338 biosphere reserves in v.iIuc-added export manufacturing), ^nd 82 countries. Most have been initiated by central expanded only lo the extent that resident ecos\ stems t.an Mislain.ibly support exploitation; and Box 1.6. Hements of I5iosphere Reserves 4. The political and economic interdepen- dence o\ biore^ions should be institution- I. One IT Mii'iv (."i'ir A'iiix secureK pro- alized at si,iii-/pm\ incial, federal., conti- tected sites for conserving biological di- nental, and global levels lhroiii;h versitv, monitorim; minimally disturbed federativ)ii. ecos\ stems, jmi undertaking non-de- slmctive research and other low-impact sn;/.'ic: Alx-rlev, lll(-»4 uses (such as ivnlouri>m and education).

2. A well-defined Buffer A>ue: which di\ei;-e landscape and to protect water, soil, and surrounds or adjoins the core /ones, and biodiversity. is used for cooperali\ e acti\ ilies compatible with sound ecological practices, in- National, regional, and local bioregionalist cluding en\ ironmental education, recre- congresses have been held, with the first proceed- ation, and applied ^nd basic reseaiih. ings published in 1984. A current bioregional directory and map were published in 1995 in Raise v A flexible lr.w

10 government agencies in collaboration with scien- The ICDP approach warrants a closer look here tists affiliated with universities, NGOs, and gov- because ICDP projects aim to "...enhance the ernment agencies. Occasionally, local communi- conservation of biodiversity in protected areas ties participate too. Established national parks by focusing on the social and economic needs of and other types of protected areas are often the people living in or nearby communities" (Brown starting point (McNeely and Rojas, 1995). Bio- and Wyckoff-Baird, 1992). sphere reserve designation, planning, and management are strictly national prerogatives, though While traditional protected area management international leadership to establish reserves has been largely confined within an area's legal throughout the world and to promote and coordi- boundaries, ICDP personnel and budgets explic- nate international cooperation in research, moni- itly aim to meet the needs and aspirations of peo- toring, and information exchange has its role. ple living around as well as within these areas. Methods for designing and managing biosphere ICDP increases options for local residents to man- reserves are kept general, so the great variation in age resources for their own benefit and for that of how the biosphere reserve concept has been ap- generations to come. Indeed, access, stewardship, plied around the world comes as no surprise. and ownership are vital dimensions of this approach. By building conservation and develop- In several cases, the biosphere reserve ap- ment goals and activities into project design and proach is being promoted and employed by com- implementation, the ICDP approach balances the munities and NGOs to strengthen local resource immediate needs of local people with short- and management. Examples include the pioneering long-term conservation goals (Wells and Bran- work at Mexico's Montes Azules Biosphere Re- don, 1993; Brown and Wyckoff-Baird, 1992). serve (Halfter, 1994; 1993) and Guatemala's Maya Biosphere Reserve (Santiso, 1993). The Mata At- In the ICDP approach, a key concern is equity lantica Biosphere Reserve in Brazil illustrates how in the distribution of benefits, so all stakeholders the concept has been applied to a fragmented, but are involved early in project planning, as well as critically important biodiversity region of tropical in implementation and evaluation. Social Impact coast (Conservation International et al., 1993). Assessment (SIA) is used to identify possible ad- verse social effects and to help planners and man- At the Second World Congress on Biosphere agers mitigate those they cannot avoid (Hough, Reserves held in Seville, Spain in June 1995, a 1991). (See Box 1.7.) ICDPs also employ Participa- strategy for further developing the Biosphere Re- tory Rural Appraisal (PRA)—a planning tech- serve network was agreed upon (UNESCO, 1995). nique that helps communities define their problems, analyze past successes, evaluate local The Integrated Conservation and institutional capacities, set priorities, and tailor a Development Project Approach plan for the community to adopt and implement. The use of PRA exemplifies how ICDP seeks to In the early 1980s, overseas development empower the local communities to take charge of agencies sought ways to support the long-term their own development. (See Box 1.8.) conservation of areas critical to biodiversity's survival. Drawing upon experience in both de- The ICDP approach emphasizes systematic velopment and conservation projects, the World data gathering and analysis of ecological, geo- Bank, bilateral donors, and other groups looked physical, social and economic data to support site for ways to complement biological considera- selection and planning decisions. Significantly, tions with social and economic analysis. The while this approach is heavily oriented toward term ICDP originated in the work of Wells, Bran- the development of economically sound liveli- don, and Hannah (1992), which was supported hoods, biological factors do come first in deci- by the U. S. Agency for International Develop- sion-making. This way, when political considera- ment, World Bank, and World Wildlife Fund-US. tions arise, options and priorities for biodiversity

11 Ho* 1.7. Social Requirements for Selection of Box 1.8. I he International Conservation Integraled Conservation and Development and Pexelopment Project Approach (K Dl'i Projects 1. Catherdata and provide analysis lo I. Any disruptions or alterations to indige- support planning, monitoring and nous land use and production systems evaluation; that are proposed in the 1C. I )P must be I made acceptable lo participating resource 2. lake Meps lo conser\e the resource base user owner groups; and provide overall em ironmental i m.inagemenl; I 2. I oca I resource user/ow ner groups must ."V I ake action to boost -.ocial c][~\i.\ economic have the organizational capability to rep- Je\ elopment: i roenl their inLeresI so lhal they can mod- it\ and renegotiate acliv ilie- as experi- 4. Strengthen local \( KK pri\ ate groups, ence is gained; ^n>.\ resource agencies; anil i. Most people likely lo be alfected bv the : project must perceive the conservation of i. lirokerand balance the interests of the biodiversily in Ihe proposed activities- lo various stakeholders lo strike cooperative he of local benefit, and mechanisms must agreements and further siislain.ibilitv. be developed to educate skeptics; IVC: Brown and VVvckoff, 4. 1 he acliv ily must not make poor people I poorer or a I reach marginal social groups even more marginalized; and, The Ecosystem Management Approach

^ An already-established local W.O that The emerging fields of conservation biology ! can promote communication among the and of ecosystem and landscape science have local community ^mi national and brought scientific rigor to bear on biodiversity • prov incial or district go\ eminent agen- loss and sustainable resource management cies in charge ot prolectcd areas musl be (Council on Environmental Quality, 1995; Hansen a partner in the effort. and di Castri, 1992; Haveh and Lieberman, 1984). Systematic analysis of the impacts of human- N'l/r.i1: Ikounand Wvckotf-I?aird, I'W2 caused and natural change upon forest, island, marine, and other environments have over the past two decades greatly enlarged our under- and human needs investments have already been standing of human/nature interactions. The phi- thought through. losophy and principles of ecosystem management are quickly converging with those of the previous Most ICDPs accord primary attention to the approaches to suggest that achieving sustainabil- development potential just outside of protected ity and conserving biodiversity require shifting areas. The objective of such buffer-zone manage- conservation programs to ecosystem scales of ment, according to Brown and Wyckoff-Baird management (Council on Environmental Quality, (1992,) is to ".. .optimize the political, economic, 1995; Ecological Society of America, 1995). social, cultural, ecological and intrinsic worth of resources through active adaptive management, Ecosystem management has been defined opera- with fairness to all groups, and allowing for tionally as ".. .an innovative framework for changing values over time." achieving harmonious and mutually dependent

12 sustainability of society and the environment, priority areas for biodiversity conservation and to that focuses on human and natural systems at re- analyze and prescribe management options. gional scales across inter-generational time peri- Much as in the other approaches described here, ods" (U.S. Department of State, 1994). Similarly, wildland sites form the core of each ecosystem- the Ecological Society of America (1995) defines wide program. A distinction, however, is that ecosystem management as "...driven by explicit these core sites are linked by corridors—ideally, goals, executed by policies, protocols, and prac- swaths of natural or restored wildland, but in tices, and made adaptable by monitoring and re- practice often crop, pasture, and harvested forest search based on our best understanding of the lands—so animals can move freely and commu- ecological interactions and processes necessary to nities can respond to global change. sustain ecosystem composition, structure, and function" ( Reid et al., 1993). (See Box 1.9.) The matrix consists of the lands and waters that surround the core sites and corridors and extend One hallmark of ecosystem management is the outward to the boundaries of the ecosystem or set systematic use of scientific tools to identify high- of ecosystems under consideration (Noss, 1983).

BOK 1.9. Principles o\ the l.co-\slem Management Approach Derived from the Man and Hio-phere Program Study of the l:\erglade-. I'lorida, U.S.A.

One or' the most technically, socially, and • In planning and management, remember political!) advanced application-* of eco-Wem that all ecosWem- and institution- have thinking in the United States has been the unique and \ar\ ing conditions. analysis of' the C iivaler l.\ erglades

13 More explicitly than other approaches, ecosystem agement arrangements. From a management per- management emphasizes the need and role for a spective, the matrix may need the most analysis. matrix large enough to maintain the region's characteristic biological diversity, including eco- Proposals to link programs through large cor- logical functions and processes. In the matrix of ridors down the length of the U.S. Rocky Moun- farms, harvested forests, fished areas, and human tains, the Central American Isthmus (See Figure settlements, upstream catchments, stands of old- 1.2.), and the Andes of South America are being growth forest, grasslands, coral reefs, sea-grass developed by scientists, NGOs, and governments. beds and mangroves, genetic resources, and rare communities of wildlife will need to be managed In the United States, ecosystem management as components of the overall ecosystem. Accord- has become an important political issue within ingly, public agencies, private land owners, cor- broader public debates on how government porations, and communal groups will need to be should manage public lands and on how private partners in the development of the information property rights should change. Without effective base, the identification of key components of bio- mechanisms to establish and foster cooperative diversity, and the design and negotiation of man- arrangements with land owners and interests

Figure 1.2. The Proposed Central American Biological Corridor

Protected Areas r

110 Kilometers

Source: Adapted from Can et al. 1994

14 located outside central government jurisdiction in table first. Whether new participants become dis- the surrounding matrix, stakeholders are natu- gruntled neighbors and enemies of biodiversity rally worried about their future rights of owner- conservation or allies depends upon how fully ship and access to private and public lands and established partners involve them. resources. In some cases, government agencies need to take the lead, catalyzing and forging cooperative Three Challenges to Bioregional agreements, a common vision, and an action plan Management that Policy-Makers based on common interests. Inter-governmental Can Anticipate and non-governmental organizations can help provide orientation and support (Olivieri et al, Three complex challenges await policy- 1995). In other cases, authority and responsibility makers, managers, and communities. All grow may best be redistributed from central govern- partly out of the deeply embedded values and ment to local government, to communities, or to practices of public agencies and the land-use and private hands. Either way, authority, responsibil- lifestyle traditions of local people. ity, leadership, and management are established and legitimated locally once the communities Capacity themselves reach consensus.

First, policy-makers and interested parties can Who best can care for various natural re- anticipate that managing whole ecosystems will sources? How can the "taking" of local rights of require drawing upon a range of scientific, tech- access and resource use be avoided? Most point- nical, social, and policy tools and capabilities edly, what mechanisms permit stakeholders to rarely found in any single established institution help set goals, design and implement mecha- in the region. New policies should promote the nisms for reaching them, and enter into co-opera- pooling of the tools and capabilities of a region's tive management and even co-finance agree- communities, agencies, and individuals. In some ments? These are questions that policy-makers cases, certain skills will have to be imported from and communities can anticipate in the planning outside the region or developed from scratch. and negotiating process (Berger, 1988).

Obstacles abound. Existing agencies may be Institutional Cooperation legally bound to restrict their scope of activity and limit their expenditures to their own estab- Third, beyond a government agency's tradi- lished jurisdictions. Historic jealousies may ob- tional jurisdiction, policy-makers and managers struct the exchange of information, species collec- will find a whole set of organizations and institutions, and local know-how. In some cases, new tional arrangements already in place and some- organizations may be needed to develop and times in conflict—with each other, with local share the missing skills. residents' objectives, and with biodiversity conservation. Often, public agencies may cover Stakeholder Involvement traditional sectors, including water, soil, forest, wildlife, tourism, agriculture, public health, The second predictable challenge is that each transportation, etc. Local and state or provincial new party to the debate or program brings addi- governments may or may not be in accord. Mean- tional concerns and values that may vary consid- while, farmers and forest land-owner associa- erably from those of the original, more traditional tions, indigenous tribal councils, and chambers of constituents of nature conservation, recreation, commerce have their own perspectives, as do tourism, and natural science. The key here is universities, experiment stations, research insti- making newcomers both stakeholders and part- tutes, private conservation organizations and na- ners without alienating those who came to the ture reserves, corporations that extract resources,

15 Figure 1.3. Elements and Dynamics of a Bioregion Timber and Non-Timber Production Forest Estate

Shrimp Ponds

Degraded lands are restored to a variety of uses, 3. including soil and water conservation, coastal pro- Elements and Dynamics tection, wood production, agriculture, pasture, and pro- of a Bioregion tected areas expansion. Coastal and marine areas are managed to conserve 4. key coral reefs, mangroves, beaches, and other ele- A variety of protected area types are used in a biore- ments, maintain fisheries productivity, and provide local 1« gion: strictly protected nature reserves, national or economic opportunities through carefully managed state parks, areas for the controlled extraction of non- tourism development. timber forest products, privately owned conservation Rangelands are managed within their carrying areas, and areas of permanent forest estate managed for . capacity to maintain native flora and fauna, raise timber production. 5 livestock, and ensure the livelihoods of any nomadic pas- Watersheds are managed in their entirety, from toralist peoples. 2 . ridgetop to blue water, and across a range of uses Agricultural lands are managed to optimize long-term from strictly protected uplands to estuarine fisheries. 6. productivity and support biodiversity by minimizing 16 Private Conservation Trust

use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, using local as well Larger towns within the bioregion provide a range as introduced crop varieties, and including trees, 8. of supporting institutions. These include zoos, hedgerows, community woodlots, and wildlife corridors aquaria, and botanic gardens to conserve endangered within the agricultural landscape. species and educate the public; schools, places of wor- ship, and media outlets to build awareness; non-gov- A range of community-based institutions support bio-_ ernmental organizations to provide support and infor- . diversity conservation, including community seedbanks, 7 mation for both communities and government; and agricultural extension services, and biodiversity inventory biodiversity information centers to serve as a focal point and research stations. for bioregional dialogue, information sharing, and collective action. 17

Source: WRI/IUCN/UNEP, Global Biodiversity Strategy, 1992 and managers of waste-treatment facilities. In involves revising legal, policy, and regulatory some cases, avoiding jurisdictional conflicts re- mandates and restructuring organizations' juris- quires creating a "regional authority" tailored to dictions to conform to the bioregion. add and embed bioregional management within overall resource development. As the examples that follow in Chapter II will show, the motivation for establishing bioregional This challenge can be addressed by policies programs varies with the interests of the commu- that promote cooperative arrangements among nity or government agency that takes the lead. established organizations and institutions to de- "Biodiversity" alone rarely gels common interest fine common goals, take comparative advantage or rallies action. But such goals as protecting of their varying mandates and missions, and take water supply, managing fish or timber to pre- steps toward more regional perspectives. (See serve jobs, and maintaining traditional ways of Figure 1.3.) Beyond simple negotiation, this often life often do.

18 II. Examples of Early Bioregional Management Experience

In this Chapter: • examples from worldwide experience

Living-in-place means following the ne- These examples were selected to illustrate cessities and pleasures of life as they are quite distinct approaches to dealing with the uniquely presented by a particular site, three challenges. None calls itself a "bioregional and evolving ways to ensure long-term program." Some do not even consider managing whole ecosystems their goal. Nevertheless, all il- occupancy of that site. A society which lustrate how governments, scientists, NGOs, and practices living-in-place keeps a balance local communities have pursued goals that re- with its region of support through links quire them to shift to larger, more complex scales between human lives, other living things, of management and highlight the challenges en- and the processes of the planet—seasons, countered along the way. weather, water cycles—as revealed by the place itself. It is the opposite of a society La Amistad Biosphere Reserve which makes a living through short-term destructive exploitation of land and life. The La Amistad Biosphere Reserve illustrates Peter Berg and Raymond Dasmann, 1978. the challenges faced in Costa Rica when the gov- (Reinhabiting a separate country: ernment, public management agencies, local indi- A bioregional anthology of Northern California. viduals, and NGOs decided to establish a mecha- Planet Drum Foundation.) nism to help manage a region where jurisdictions overlapped, interests competed, and communities felt alienated. It is the region richest in biodiversity airly long-running bioregional programs in Costa Rica, as well as a major source of fresh- provide insights into how policy-makers, water and hydropower potential and a homeland Fmanagers, and communities deal with the to most of the country's indigenous peoples. three challenges of building the capacity needed to manage larger and more complex ecosystems, Brief Description engaging residents and other stakeholders, and promoting cooperation among organizations and In the early 1980s, an array of public institu- institutions already working in the region. These tions governed the region without coordinating efforts—well known to students of community- their activities. Communal and private groups based management, economic and social devel- were weak, managerial and technical capacity opment, and wildlife conservation in developing were underdeveloped, opportunities for indige- countries—suggest methods and approaches for nous peoples to become full stakeholders in the making conservation and development more effi- program were lacking, funding was erratic, and cient and equitable. (See Box 2.1.) major natural disasters threatened progress. That

19 Square Kms. MainJeJlure

blii !ij:,oni.\ ii •irtfeta;«etftrB

2. (iri'.iUT Yi'lliiv^ [iiiblii- .l nijiMsy major p»ir- i'i Siioln.'iix ii r>Kuvi;iiiri

WjiUii'M HIM, IVnnurk, Cn'rivum JIUI llu-

-i. iii'i'.iU-i îiTi-nî'ti I (iO,Oi)i) Hi-iiiimtn bioroîini. wilh old ûltiiii1 iv-

3. Oval K'.nicr Ki-i-i M.iiuii1 l\irk M.i.jor i iiu-^l.i: ni.irlr.o i o'np!t'\ .\iillu>rit\, \ur-ti\ili.i

ii. Mcditcrr.'iPl.M!! Ni/tu'n I'i.in ^ oi.i!i oniiiv -i-«i b.i-^i fo ioli1 in II-N

7. C.WH'I-IKI l'r. -l\i^\l ni.-.nai»fMH"it or

S \crth York Mn IV.ik. L'.K

i •'. riu-1 till Ri-oura- \1,in,ii;fim. nl unknimii

began to change when Costa Rica and Panama zone. In 1982, UNESCO accepted the two govern- established a boundary International Park in 1982. ments' bid to get a portion of the region interna- tionally recognized as the bi-country La Amistad Initially, each country committed 200,000 Biosphere Reserve and it was declared a World hectares, and together the 400,000 ha cover most Heritage Site the following year (Gobierno de of the Cordillera de Talamanca, a mountain range Costa Rica, 1990). that extends from just above sea level to 3,800 meters. The Reserve embraces most of the Tala- The official mandate for the biosphere reserve manca mountain massif in Costa Rica, including is to manage for multiple use while continuing to its major watersheds and the Atlantic coastal protect the natural resource base (Gobiemo de

20 Costa Rica, 1990). Costa Rica's portion of the re- Challenges of Shifting to Bioregional serve now covers approximately 612,570 ha, some Management 12 percent of the nation's territory (Gobierno de Costa Rica, 1990) and an area rich in endemic Fifteen distinct legally mandated management plants. (Reportedly, 30 to 40 percent of the area's units had already been established before the flora is endemic.) (Gobierno de Costa Rica, 1990.) biosphere reserve was formed. (See Figure 2.1.) Government studies suggest that a harmonious These include two national parks, two biological management framework greatly boosts tourism, reserves, one forest reserve, one wildlife refuge, hydropower, biodiversity conservation and ex- one watershed-protection area, seven indigenous ploration, and crop production. In any event, cre- reserves, and one botanical garden. ating a reserve has opened the way to an equitable relationship with the region's indigenous Furthermore, mineral-exploration permits had peoples through recognition of their land rights, already been issued for nearly 35 percent of the restoration of impoverished soils and forests, and area overall and for almost 50 percent of the allotment of a fair share of bio-prospecting rev- lands within the legally established Indigenous enues from their lands (Morales, 1983). Reserves. Proposals to build an inter-oceanic

Figure 2.1. Multiple Jurisdictions in La Amistad Biosphere Reserve, Costa Rica

Lim6n San Jose

Cartago r

Cahuita 14 ,< . - -7 13

/ 12 ] »'•"•>•

•/-.

V., 9 "' ""•--. PANAMA Legend .'" io, ; 1 La Amistad International Park ,• ii / 2 Chirrip6 National Park 3 Rio Macho Forest Reserve 4 Las Tablas Protected Area 5 Barbilla Biological Reserve 6 Hitoy Cerere Biological Reserve RIP Grand De Tcrraba 7 Talamanca Indigenous Reserve 8 Chirrip6 Indigenous Reserve 9 Ujarras Indigenous Reserve 10 Salitre Indigenous Reserve 11 Cabagra Indigenous Reserve 12 Telire Indigenous Reserve 13 Taynf Indigenous Reserve 14 Tapani Wildlife Refuge Scale 15 R&.C Wilson Botanical Gardens Source: Conservation International. OAS. 1990 1 25 Km

21 pipeline across the reserve, along with a pro- sapped leadership and reduced capacity for posed road through the heart of the Talamanca, program development. and some 25 potential hydroelectric power plant projects in the area's watersheds surface occa- This initial loss of momentum came at a time sionally (Gobierno de Costa Rica, 1990). when the country was in the throes of fast-paced change. Tourism, mainly in the country's wildland Developing Leadership and Management areas, was becoming the nation's number-one for- Capacity. Conflicts among the various agencies eign exchange earner. Meanwhile, biodiversity with jurisdiction in the area started growing in was receiving considerable attention as national the mid-1980s. In response, the La Amistad Coor- and international pharmaceutical and biotechnol- dinating Commission was established by Execu- ogy industries "bio-prospected" for promising nat- tive Order of Costa Rica's President to address ural substances. Further, the region's rivers were these and other problems (CI, 1988). Headed by slated for hydro development. In just a few years, the Minister of Natural Resources, Energy and La Amistad changed suddenly from a remote hin- Mines (MIRENEM), the Commission included terland into a focal point for national and interna- representatives of all agencies with activities tional economic and policy interest. within the Reserve, including the Director of the National Park Service, the National Wildlife Ser- Meanwhile, the Commission continued devel- vice, the Executive Director of the National Com- oping a coordinating mechanism for enforcing mission of Indigenous Affairs, the Resident Di- compliance with their agreements. "Informal director of the Organization of Tropical Studies alogue," "enlightened self-interest," and "good (OTS), and the Director General of the National ideas" simply were not enough to motivate pri- Parks Foundation. The Commission's aim was to vate land-owners, commercial agriculturalists, in- set management policy for the biosphere reserve. digenous leaders, and various public agencies to Funding for the Commission, its General Coordi- negotiate agreements for managing their re- nator and staff, came from a five-year debt-for- sources, to formulate a common vision for the nature-swap supported by the Central Bank and bioregion, and to agree on how to co-manage it. Conservation International (CI) (Gobierno de To them, the carrots were insufficient without the Costa Rica, 1990). stick; they wanted assurance that behind the negotiating table and planning documents was a Initial leadership and logistical support for the binding force. Commission was provided by the staff of Costa Rica's National Park Service. Conceptually, this The government responded in 1992 by asking role answered the call by the 1982 Second World the Organization of American States (OAS) and Congress on National Parks to park and protected- Conservation International (CI) to work with the area management authorities to use portions of La Amistad Coordinating Commission to de- their budgets, personnel, and other capacities to velop an "institutional development strategy" help their neighbors develop an ecosystem-wide (Castro et al., in press; Saunier et al., 1992). In less area of cooperation and development to propel than six months, and without having to gather overall regional sustainability (Miller, 1984). additional data or information, the team came up with a proposal for turning the Commission into Shortly after, however, a newly elected gov- a regional authority charged with the sustainable ernment facing a fiscal crisis shrank public bud- development of the "Talamanca landscape" gets and froze hiring for government agencies. (Saunier et al., 1992). Under this initiative, the Budget and staffing limitations kept it from ful- Commission would manage both formal plan- filling its expanded role in the bioregion—a nar- ning and informal dialogue throughout the re- row interpretation of the Park Service's mandate gion to balance all stakeholders' interests and (Ugalde, personal communications, May 7-8 power. The proposal emphasizes conflict resolu- 1994). All these factors combined resulted in tion since most of the region's problems appear to

22 be social, economic, and institutional rather than digenous groups formed KANEBLO, an NGO technical. It also revamps the Commission, rotat- meaning "towards indigenous self-management," ing leadership, adding more public and private in 1992. The group's purpose is to enable indige- interests to its membership, and giving it the lead nous communities in the Biosphere Reserve to in planning and guiding implementation. survive in this rapidly changing environment by developing negotiating skills, access to informa- The strategy also calls for setting development tion, community organizations, credit, environ- priorities for the region, recognizing indigenous mental education curricula, cultural restoration peoples' territorial rights, preparing management techniques, livelihoods for women, forest nurs- plans for each protected area, and defining priori- eries, and other activities of local design and in- ties for compensation where private lands are to terest. Support comes from CARE of Costa Rica, be expropriated in the core areas of the Biosphere Conservation International, and the Dutch gov- Reserve. Also, recommendations are given for ernment (Talamanca, 1992). managing development projects, including the Trans-Talamancan Highway, mineral-exploration The involvement of indigenous peoples as concessions, pipeline and construction, carbon stakeholders in the program was further chal- and hydrocarbon exploitation, and hydroelectric lenged and facilitated when the Government projects. took up the OAS/CI strategy recommendation to establish management zones within the for- Responding to this study, the Costa Rican mal Indigenous Reserves. These zones include Government took two important steps. First, to isolated areas (where commercial contact is min- insure leadership, the central government plan- imal and traditional indigenous modes of life ning board was required to join the process. Sec- prevail), areas integrated into the commercial ond, to solve problems caused by overlapping ju- economy (where the population is essentially risdictions, the scope of the original Commission part of the national economy), and marginal mandate was enlarged to address development areas (where the indigenous people have paid a and conservation goals for the entire Talamanca price for development without fully entering the mountain bioregion. commercial economy and where, often, ownership has passed out of non-indigenous hands, Getting Indigenous Stakeholders Involved. deforestation is complete, or commercial farms The indigenous peoples of the bioregion found it and other non-indigenous enterprises have re- difficult to engage fully in the program. Both placed traditional land uses) (Gobierno de Costa their perceived lack of skills and organizational Rica, 1990). capabilities and the failure of government and neighbors to recognize their land rights stood in Finance. The costs of the La Amistad Commis- the way. In fact, these peoples have in recent sion, the salary of its coordinator, and other pro- decades gradually become a modern Spanish- gram costs are covered by various governmental speaking political and economic community, but and non-governmental sources. Obviously, to the pace of change had all but overwhelmed them meet its mandate, the coordinating office needed as roads, water works, and other infrastructure uninterrupted operating funds to cover its techni- entered the area. Meanwhile, squatters, mari- cal staff, expenses for stakeholder meetings, sup- juana growing, and the introduction of pineapple, port for stakeholder initiatives, and field projects. banana, coffee, cattle, and other agro-industrial But once the initial five-year fund underwritten commercial commodities increased pressure on by the debt-for-nature swap was expended, no traditional lifestyles. further operating funds for the program were forthcoming. Faced with external market-driven pressures to grow commercial crops and to lease or sell Fortunately, various international donors ap- their land rights to commercial interests, the in- preciated the integrated nature of the strategy and

23 its vision of local consensus-building. By 1992, • access for stakeholders—indigenous stake- funds from the Global Environment Facility, the holders' lack of access and lack of skills for Netherlands, the MacArthur Foundation, and participation; Sweden combined with the joint contributions of CI and the McDonald's Corporation, the OAS, • funding—lack of continuity in funding for and UNEP totalled approximately US$12 million. the coordinating mechanism once international sources are exhausted; and, Costa Rica has now established a national "environmental fund" that can receive and disburse • natural disasters—lack of measures to antici- grants to projects and entities in the country, in- pate and respond to nature's cycles. cluding the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve program (IUCN, 1994c; 1994d). That said, reliance The La Amistad experience provides several upon time-bound external grants is risky unless lessons: local and national financial involvement in the reserve grows. First, establishing a mechanism to coordinate public and private organizations, especially where Risk and Uncertainty. On April 22,1991, an the array of pre-existing jurisdictions is wide, may earthquake precipitated the loss of more forest take more than setting up a working group to fos- cover in the Talamanca than all the fires, illegal ter dialogue and agreement among involved par- cutting, and colonization in the region during the ties. A government mandated "regional authority" past quarter century. By some accounts, more may be needed to provide leadership, commit- damage occurred to the Cahuita reef system (see ment, and follow through. More specifically, such Figure 2.1) than that caused by all the contamina- an authority may be needed to reconcile policy in- tion from banana plantations. The 1991 quake consistencies, such as budget and personnel re- cost the region its infrastructure, as well as hous- strictions, and to make sure that the agreements ing and jobs. Disaster relief and re-investments in stakeholders help forge will be implemented. infrastructure absorbed manpower, facilities, and equipment and funds from all the region's gov- Second, stakeholders at a disadvantage in be- ernment agencies and other stakeholders. Now, coming full partners in the bioregional program the lingering question is, "To what extent can pol- can be helped along. In this case, the indigenous icy-makers and others involved in bioregional communities used limited external funding to es- programs anticipate such dramatic natural up- tablish their own independent non-governmental heavals, put contingency plans in place, and organization to help them develop the skills and adapt management accordingly?" capacity needed to participate in the program and to promote their own development and con- Lessons Learned from La Amistad servation agenda. Biosphere Reserve Third, financial support to the overall program La Amistad demonstrates that where conser- needs to be constant. Start-up funds from external vation programs are enlarged from well-bounded sources are extremely valuable in the initial phase protected areas to cover the whole bioregion, in- of work, when funding for personnel, transporta- cluding public and private lands, complex chal- tion, organizational meetings, and initial field ac- lenges arise: tivities is vital. However, other long-term internal and sustainable means of support are needed. As • leadership—lack of a mandate for public government priorities change, program support agencies to provide leadership, cooperate, through public funding may be precarious. Recog- and deploy personnel and budgets beyond nizing this challenge, Costa Rica established a spe- jurisdictional boundaries to catalyze bio- cial environment fund for depositing, capitalizing, regional programs; and distributing public and private contributions.

24 Fourth, even the best bioregional planning and nent of a 7.3 million ha. bioregion. The GYE in- implementation program can be interrupted by cludes Grand Teton National Parks, Gallatin, acts of God, such as the catastrophic 1991 earth- Custer, Shoshone, Bridger Teton, Caribou, quake in the Talamanca. But though natural up- Targhee and Beaverhead National Forests, Grays heavals cannot be predicted, the cycles of which Lake and Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife they are part can be. In Costa Rica, for instance, Refuges, a National Elk Refuge, part of the Wind records show that such phenomena are common. River Indian Reservation, state and local govern- Thus, an open question is how bioregional man- ment lands, and private lands (Clark and Harvey, agement programs, such as La Amistad, can 1990). The region's three important river sys- build in ways to forecast natural events and to tems—the Yellowstone, the Green, and the prepare for them with plans for emergency health Snake—supply water to trout hatcheries, agricul- care, infrastructure replacement, etc. ture, and towns and cities beyond park and reserve boundaries (Ekey et al., 1994). Bald eagles Finally, as a postscript, the 1991 earthquake in over-fly the area and nest in selected habitats; elk, Costa Rica prompted the government of Panama bison, and the threatened grizzly bear also range to ask the Organization of American States and freely throughout the region, though even at its Conservation International to come up with a relatively large size of 898,349 ha., studies suggest strategic plan for the whole Panamanian portion the Park cannot maintain viable populations of of the Biosphere Reserve. The strategy and related major species including grizzly and elk (New- institutional arrangements were prepared in 1993- mark, 1987). 1994 (Juan Jose Castro, personal communication, September 14,1995). After a three-year hiatus, the The GYE represents one of the last large, rela- Central American Commission on Environment tively undeveloped temperate-zone ecosystems and Development rekindled the spirit of coopera- left on earth (Barbee et al., 1991). (See Figure 2.2.) tion. Presently, national commissions are develop- Accordingly, in 1976, UNESCO accepted the U.S. ing programs that include harmonization of land nomination of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosys- use and conservation along international frontiers, tem (GYE) as an International Biosphere Reserve and the shared Central American Biological Corri- and a World Heritage Site (Ekey et al., 1994). dor shown in Figure 1.2 (Mario A. Boza, personal communication, September 29,1995). The GYE also includes the homes and livelihoods of more than 220,000 people. The region's economic employment base is changing rapidly. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, U.S.A. Primary extractive industry is giving way to such activities as tourism that depend on maintaining The experience in Yellowstone illustrates some the integrity and beauty of the region's natural of the challenges of developing a vision and plan systems (Goldstein, 1992). The economy is grow- for a bioregion that is primarily under public ing despite declines in the timber, oil, gas, and management. It shows how a private sector mining industries. Between 1969 and 1989, the mechanism can contribute to consultation and number of jobs in the GYE grew by 68 percent build cooperation among all stakeholders. and personal income grew by $2.2 million (Rawl- ins, 1994). More than 90 percent of all new jobs Brief Description are outside the resource-extraction industries, and outdoor recreation accounts for 80 percent of In 1872, Yellowstone was established as the national forest-related employment in the GYE. first modern-era national park. Scientists, managers, and conservationists created the concept of The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem illustrates the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in the an array of problems related to ecosystem plan- early 1970s to promote broader thinking, dia- ning and implementation, many of which have logue, and management of the Park as a compo- been amply analyzed by Goldstein (1992) and

25 Figure 2.2. A Large Proportion of the U. S. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is Managed by Few Government Agencies

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

kilometers miles

26 Lichtman and Clark (1994). Of interest here is that and grizzly habitat and advocate these species' a small number of public agency jurisdictions free movement across both public and private dominate this biodiversity-rich landscape. lands. This approach, they argue, will sustain the regional ecosystem and stimulate within it a Key Challenges to Bioregional strong and growing economy based heavily upon Management tourism and recreation.

At issue is the balance between the interests of In 1991, the GYCC issued a second report (an the region's diverse local citizens and those of the 11-page brochure) containing the views not only vast majority of the nation's population who live of agency resource managers, but also of central far from the area and may seldom or never visit agency officials. Critics argue that the second fed- the region. eral proposal basically backs away from ecosystem management and simply calls for each Responding to growing legal and popular agency to manage its own jurisdiction (Lichtman pressure on governmental agencies to protect, re- and Clark, 1994). Negative public reaction to the store, and maintain ecosystems and endangered second government report paved the way for a species, the National Park Service and the Forest non-governmental (NGO) initiative comprised of Service took the initiative to prepare a manage- more than 90 organizations and thousands of in- ment plan for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosys- dividuals—the Greater Yellowstone Coalition tem. Since these two agencies together manage 76 (GYC). Formed to maintain a healthy landscape percent of the GYE, they felt compelled to take while accommodating a sustainable economy the lead by establishing the Greater Yellowstone (Ekey et al., 1994), the GYC's mission is to ".. .en- Coordinating Committee (GYCC), composed of sure the long-term preservation of the Greater the directors of these two services and their des- Yellowstone Ecosystem" (Glick, in press). ignated personnel. Issued in 1987, their first proposal, Vision for the Future: A Framework for Coordi- In 1989, the Coalition launched a Greater Yel- nation in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYCC, lowstone Tomorrow project to plan for the future 1987), was hailed as "a model for interagency co- protection of the GYE through wide public de- operation in this area well into the next century" bate and consultation with stakeholders. Objec- (Mintzmyer, 1991). The report presented informa- tives include: tion on the relationships of the GYE parks and forests, aggregated current management plans for 1. Develop a Blueprint for the Future to help artic- the park and the forests within the GYE, and of- ulate a vision for the region and make recommen- fered an overview of their collective manage- dations for managing the entire GYE. Published in ment. It also called for a common management of 1994, this report has been put forward as an "alter- region-wide resources and a new administrative native vision" to the federal agency document and system to resolve conflicts. reflects a ".. .solid understanding of ecosystem functions, man's impact on these processes, and Public debate of the Vision plan was intense. actions needed to assure long-term protection and Local residents and interests gave it a rancorous restoration" (Glick, in press; Rawlins, 1994). reception. Conflicts were particularly strong between lumber, grazing, and other commodity in- 2. Organize an informed and motivated con- terests on the one hand, and wildlife conservation stituency to make sure that recommendations in and recreation interests on the other. For exam- the action plan get implemented. Various debates ple, timber and cattle interests assert that their and meetings have taken place in the region to pro- traditional way of life should be retained—a per- mote community-generated visions for the GYE. spective common among rural people everywhere. In contrast, local wildlife-conservation 3. Help catalyze the implementation of the proponents call for the restoration of elk, bison Blueprint. The 1994 Blueprint calls for the adoption

27 of a Greater Yellowstone Conservation Act, nothing but a governmental "land-grab" and a which would designate some areas as wilderness, Federal "lock-up" (Lichtman and Clark, 1994). wildlife, and recreation areas and would protect corridors that link the GYE to other wildlife and ecosystem programs in the Rocky Mountains The Wadden Sea (Ekey et al., 1994). It also calls for protection of such critical areas as watersheds that lie outside The Wadden Sea demonstrates how three protected areas and recommends actions on countries established a coordinating mechanism water quality and fisheries, national parks, pri- to help them manage their respective portions of vate lands, geothermal features, and biodiversity. this shared biodiversity-rich and heavily-threatened North Sea coastal zone. Total national sov- Lessons Learned from the Greater ereignty is maintained, but the three countries ne- Yellowstone Ecosystem gotiate and agree on common guidelines, norms, and activities in the bioregion. This example illustrates two distinct issues. First is how the dominant stakeholder (in this Brief Description case, central government agencies) can take the lead to form a vision and plan for a bioregion that The Wadden Sea—a tidal area extending from contains multiple stakeholders. The second is Den Helder in the Netherlands along Germany's how assuming that the problems and challenges coast and the islands to Esbjerg in Denmark—is of planning a complex ecosystem are mainly tech- the largest unbroken stretch of mud flats in the nical can be a trap (Willcox, 1995). In the GYE, the world, encompassing approximately 900,000 ha planning challenges were primarily political, so- (CWSS, 1991). About 30 percent of the Wadden cial, and economic. Commodity-extraction inter- Sea falls within the jurisdiction of the Nether- ests wielded more political power than public of- lands, 60 percent in Germany, and 10 percent in ficials anticipated, both in the region and in Denmark. (See Figure 2.3.) Washington. This sea is an important nursery for numerous According to Lichtman and Clark (1994), the North Sea fish species and the backbone of the public agencies failed to analyze, understand, or North Sea commercial fishing industry. It is the test public values, expectations, and demands. main stopover for birds migrating from arctic They also failed to test the "vision" proposal with breeding grounds to wintering grounds in Eu- stakeholders and to initiate special educational, rope and in western and southern Africa. An esti- information, and public relations activities in the mated six to twelve million birds pass through communities within and around the GYE. These the Wadden Sea annually. analysts suggest that "It is in a policy or plan's in- fancy that it is possible to mitigate or eliminate Bordering the Wadden Sea are some of the obstacles most successfully" and that once a new most highly developed and populated areas in policy initiative begins, "unpredicted responses Europe, so the environment is under increasing can be much more potent, undermining the entire strain from industrial and ship-borne pollution. policy process" (Lichtman and Clark, 1994). Signs of impact include algal blooms, trash on beaches, and oil-coated sea birds and mammals. Even though the community recognized the importance of ecosystem management, the values Some 25 years ago it became increasingly ap- of local residents are still, deep down, shaped by parent that traditional terrestrial and species con- an historical epoch of resource extraction. A servation measures alone could not preserve this highly orchestrated minority citizen opposition unique ecosystem (Enemark, 1993). Various parts was thus able to convince the larger community of it have since been placed under comprehensive that this "ecosystem management proposal" was national and international legal protection.

28 Figure 2.3. A Tri-Country Bioregional Program for the Wadden Sea in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands

Esbjerg

Denmark

••*-•

The North Sea

Cuxhaven

Wilhclmshaven ' ' ' Bremenhaven Emdcn

#Harlingen Z ) Bremen

The Netherlands • / Germany

UK) km Source: 1993 _i Challenges in Shifting to Bioregional Wetland of International Importance in 1987. Ac- Management cording to the Danish Act on Nature Conservation, the Minister of the Environment can designate The Wadden Sea case illustrates the challenges areas for nature conservation on the Sea and state- faced when several bordering countries try to co- owned property. A Nature Reserve designation manage a shared cross-border ecosystem. The promotes conservation of the ecosystem while a problem begins with differences among the three Wildlife Reserve designation regulates public hunt- countries regarding conservation goals, institu- ing and other recreational activities (CWSS, 1991). tions, and management practices. Yet, no general guiding management or management plan governs these areas; state and county Each Country's Distinctive Management councils each manage their own jurisdictions, tak- Regimes ing responsibility for physical planning, water- quality management, and so forth. The Danish Wadden Sea. The Danish Wad- den Sea was designated a Special Protection Area Areas designated as Nature Reserve in the according to the EC-Bird Directive in 1983 and a Danish Wadden Sea total approximately 95,000

29 ha. Ten percent of the Nature Reserve is closed to ensure policy implementation and coordination the public; part of this area is dedicated to scien- among various sectoral interests. tific research (CWSS, 1991). In 60 percent of the Nature Reserve, human activities are strictly reg- Institutional Cooperation within Each ulated. In the remaining 30 percent consisting of Country the North Sea and the main shipping routes, few regulations exist. In the Netherlands, administration of the Sea has been divided among three levels of govern- The German Wadden Sea. The German part ment. Committees coordinate policies at each of the Wadden Sea is managed by federal, state level and among corresponding institutions. An and district authorities. No formal agreements co- Interdepartmental Wadden Sea Commission coordinate federal and state management. Under ordinates the policy of national departments the Nature Conservation Act—a framework while the Steering Committee of the Wadden Sea law—nature conservation is a state responsibility Provinces and the Federation of Wadden Sea Mu- (CWSS, 1991) and protected areas are designated nicipalities harmonize the activities of the three as Nature Protected Reserves or National Parks. provinces and 16 municipalities (CWSS, 1991). In The major part of the German Wadden Sea is des- contrast, Germany has no coordinating commit- ignated as national park, which is managed by tees. Denmark's Ministry of the Environment the Federal State governments. German national consults other ministries, county councils, munic- parks contain natural areas where the manage- ipalities, and other organizations when it amends ment objective is to preserve as many native policies or implements new ones (CWSS, 1991). species of flora and fauna as possible (CWSS, 1991). Institutional Cooperation among the Three Countries The Dutch Wadden Sea. To manage its portion of the Wadden Sea, the Dutch rely on physical The impetus to get the three countries to co- planning, the Wadden Sea Memorandum of 1980, operatively manage the common bioregion was amended in 1993, and the Nature Conservation first articulated in a Joint Declaration of the Act (CWSS, 1991). From the beginning, the policy Wadden Sea, signed in Copenhagen in 1982. goal has been to protect and manage the Dutch Common management issues were first dis- Wadden Sea as part of a larger coastal and marine cussed at the Fourth Trilateral Governmental ecosystem. The 1980 Memorandum—aimed at Wadden Sea Conference, held three years later protecting and developing the Wadden Sea as a in The Hague. natural area—is a national physical planning document for conservation and management. Although the 1982 agreement was to foster consultation and coordination among the three Unlike the approach taken in the German parties, later decisions shifted program focus out Wadden Sea, where regional and local jurisdic- to the ecosystem as a whole and expanded the tion over the area have been curtailed, manage- mandate of the tri-country program Secretariat to ment authority over the Dutch Wadden Sea rests take common actions to safeguard the Sea's sus- with adjacent provinces and municipalities. The tainable development (CWSS, 1991). In 1991, the objective is to ensure integrated planning of the 6th Trilateral Governmental Conference set the area and public involvement in planning (Ene- cornerstone of the program by adopting a com- mark, 1993). Additionally, a major part of the mon guiding principle—to allow natural Dutch Wadden Sea has been declared a National processes to proceed in this ecosystem—and com- Natural Monument under the Nature Conserva- mon management principles. Participants agreed tion Act (CWSS, 1992), so activities that destroy to develop common ecological targets and to or damage the protected area are prohibited. A elaborate a common management plan for a joint management strategy and management plans conservation area.

30 In the Esbjerg Declaration, which lays out the secretariat with a mandated program of work has guiding principle, pollution and species and habi- intensified and professionalized tri-lateral coop- tat conservation policies are addressed, marking eration (Folkert de Jong, personal communica- a clear shift from strict conservation objectives to- tion, August 29,1995). ward a more integrated ecosystem policy. At the 7th Conference, these decisions were further sub- Second, states can retain full sovereignty and stantiated by agreement on the boundaries of the maintain their unique domestic cultural style and cooperatively managed area and on ecological governmental approach to management if effi- targets for maintaining its physical, chemical, and cient national and local management mechanisms biological quality (CWSS, 1994). Ecological tar- can meet multi-country goals. gets will be detailed at the 8th Governmental Conference in Germany in 1997. Third, the agenda to be discussed among the countries that share the ecosystem must give pro- Lessons Learned from the Wadden Sea gram goals, ways to achieve those goals, and program evaluation and compliance their due. The The tri-country Wadden Sea program offers Wadden Sea program shows that issues as dis- important lessons for those who plan to set up tinct as marine pollution and wildlife and habitat mechanisms to conserve biodiversity across conservation, can be integrated into country pro- ecosystems that extend into several countries. grams, once agreed upon and specified through dialogue backed by research and analysis. First, the need for inter-governmental mechanisms can be minimal if local and national land and conservation institutions and practices are Greater Serengeti Ecosystem well established. Periodic inter-governmental conferences at which interested parties can for- Had the right steps been taken to establish mulate a common vision, goals, research, and cooperative management arrangements with project plans may make a legal international in- local residents early on, the Ngorongoro case strument unnecessary. In the case of the Wadden Sea, it was considered more practical to harmo- might well have emerged as a text-book example nize conservation and management practices of the only protected part in the whole of Eastern within existing national legal and administrative Africa in which multiple land use was directed, systems (which differ considerably). As the tri- ahead of time, to promote the dual goals of lateral program evolved, however, a common environment and development. secretariat was installed in 1987 to facilitate political activities and implement agreed measures, Adolfo Mascarenhas, September 28,1994 collect and disseminate information on conservation measures, and study and publicize activities Few examples illustrate more poignantly than that could harm the natural environment in the the Serengeti the challenges of protecting wildlife Wadden Sea. in ecosystems encompassing the homelands of indigenous peoples. In this case, maintaining bio- The relative merits of using political versus diversity may require striking an appropriate legal commitments to protect the Wadden Sea are balance with pastoralism. still debated within the region. Arguably, it is easier to reach common understanding when Brief Description "only" political commitments are at stake. More- over, while legal agreements are binding, their The Greater Serengeti Ecosystem (GSE) strad- implementation in practice may be no more cer- dles the Kenya/Tanzania border and covers more tain than political commitments. In any event, than 60,000 km2. As shown in Figure 2.4, the GSE even under this loose arrangement a common is composed of Serengeti National Park (SNP),

31 Figure 2.4. The Greater Serengeti Ecosystem, Kenya and Tanzania, Showing Range of Wildebeest Migration

Locality N Group Ranches — '\ - * \ \

Limits of Wildebeest Migration

100 100 Kilometers

Source: Douglas-Hamilton, I. and Associates 1988

the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), the communities reside within and use portions of Lake Eyasi Basin, Maswa Game Reserve, the this complex (Mascarenhas, pers. com. September Grumeti, Ikorongo, Loliondo and Lake Natron 28,1994; Parkipuny, 1989). Game Controlled Area in Tanzania together with Masai Mara National Reserve, the Loita Plains, Humid forested mountains, extensive savan- the Isiria Plateau, and the Loita Highlands in nas, volcanic craters, and fresh water lakes make Kenya. Fourteen distinct indigenous cultural for outstanding landscape diversity. The re-

32 gion's Ngorongoro crater numbers among the The Serengeti region was declared a National world's largest unbreached calderas, covering Park in 1940, the first of its kind in Tanganyika. over 250 km2. Annual rainfall varies from 1,200 This followed a series of earlier decisions from mm in the north to less than 400 mm in the the 1920s onward by the central colonial, and south-eastern plains and the Rift Valley, and al- later the national government, to extinguish— titude ranges from 3,000 m in the forested with the mere stroke of a pen, and without any mountains of the east to 1,140 m at Lake Victoria prior warning or consultation with local resi- in the west (United Republic of Tanzania, 1991; dents—the traditional land and resource rights of Parkipuny, 1989). 10,000 inhabitants (Fosbrooke, 1972).

For over 3,000 years, pastoralism has helped In response to unrest by the area's pastoralists shape the region's environment, and the Masai and agriculturalists, the government decided to have been on the scene for at least 500 years divide the Serengeti region into two areas: a (Berger, 1993; Western, 1993). This complex inter- larger western section (covering 14,263 km2) be- relationship of human activity and ecosystem came the realigned Serengeti National Park. The functions may suggest the need to manage this eastern portion (covering 8,292 km2) was declared greater ecosystem as a carefully coordinated unit. the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA). The 1,200 Masai who lived in the western portion The wildlife of GSE has made the area world were moved into the eastern Ngorongoro Conser- famous. More than one million wildebeest mi- vation Area, where the new Ngorongoro Conser- grate through it seasonally along with zebra and vation Area Authority was to administer the mul- other grazing species, with lions closely following tiple-use NCA with the needs of both settled and on their heels. Kenya and Tanzania have given a relocated populations in mind. major portion of this region protected area status, and special zones within them are cooperatively Conflicting Stakeholder Interests over the managed with the Masai and other local groups Greater Serengeti Ecosystem. Conflict has arisen (Homewood and Rodgers, 1987). over the future of the entire GSE among local people, national administrations in both coun- The Ngorongoro Crater portion of the GSE, tries, and international interests. On one side, na- with its unique assemblage of natural and cul- tional and international preservationists, along tural richness, has been named both a World Her- with some governmental agencies, favor relocat- itage Site and an international Biosphere Reserve. ing the local people and managing the entire area It has become a major destination for thousands for wildlife to encourage tourism. These interests of tourists each year. see wildlife-based tourism as the major economic strategy for this bioregion. Challenges of Managing at the Whole Ecosystem Scale Apart from the moral and ethical reasons for allowing the Masai and other groups to remain in The way of life of this region's pastoralists their homelands and to control their own future, over centuries may have helped shape the the other view argues that pastoralism should be Serengeti. It may have more potential to maintain encouraged, sometimes in modified form to further diversity than either a return to uninhabited biodiversity preservation. Although not all scien- wilderness or a switch to intensive agriculture. tists and other observers agree, Masai pastoralism However, competition for the area's resources, is generally considered compatible with the re- failure to coordinate the two countries' efforts, gion's soils, rainfall, and vegetation (Sanford, 1983; and the absence of an effective and equitable Homewood and Rodgers, 1987). Absent pastoral- mechanism for managing the region is impover- ism, excluding the Masai from several portions of ishing the ecosystem and the local culture and the GSE already appears to be reducing biodiver- inviting the erosion of biodiversity. sity and accelerating environmental degradation.

33 Regardless of how this argument is resolved, Meanwhile, livestock diseases and limits on the Masai's way of life can inform management supplies of grassland fodder and water have al- options. In a nutshell, the Masai practice ready caused cattle numbers to drop dramati- transhumance. They generally reside in permanent cally. The Masai have fewer animals to sell to buy settlements, their livestock are moved closer to or grain to eat, and since grain prices are rising away from settlement areas according to the faster than cattle prices, nutrition problems and availability of grazing range. "Home" to them is even starvation loom. not a small, fixed place, but an area that expands or contracts as rainfall patterns, range conditions, Help for the Masai has been discussed for and other livestock needs vary. Even though the years, but little progress has been made. Veteri- Masai's goals are compatible with biodiversity narian services promised in the 1960s as part of a goals because the group has learned to cope with relocation decision haven't yet materialized, so drought and erratic rainfall by managing live- tick-borne diseases persist. And road access stock over a particularly large region, the group's promised to the Masai to enable them to take cat- way of life has changed since European influ- tle out and bring grain on the return haul has de- ences arrived a century ago, and the impact has teriorated because government crews don't main- been dramatic and long lasting. tain these rough-terrain arteries. Even attempts by some Masai to grow enough grain on the high- The experience of the Masai of Tanzania's land rim to get back on their feet before rebuild- Ngorongoro Conservation Area illustrates some ing dwindling livestock herds have run aground of the problems that arise when arrangements for on a government policy that prohibits cultivation managing the greater ecosystem fly in the face of in the moist highlands. local peoples' way of life and concerns. In this case, no meaningful negotiation took place be- If the marginalization of the Masai and other tween residents and authorities with differing peoples of the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem goals (Mascarenhas, personal communication, whose lifestyles and practices have formed part September 28,1994). of the de facto management of the area reflects government policy, then how can biodiversity For example, relocated Masai agreed to move goals be achieved? If policies favor managing their settlements and herds again in the late core areas as uninhabited wilderness, while con- 1960s—this time up out of the Crater floor and verting the surrounding matrix to paddock cattle onto the rim—at the NCAA's request. But negoti- grazing and grain production, the odds for biodi- ations had not been thorough or focussed versity don't look good. enough, and the impact of this decision has continued to haunt residents, managers, and policy- Institutional Cooperation. At a landmark makers alike. Traditionally, Masai moved their workshop held at Seronera in the GSE in Decem- livestock freely in search of the fresh green flush ber 1985, it was agreed that any solution to this that follows cycles of fire and rainfall. Now, they set of issues would depend upon cooperation be- were restricted not only to the Ngorongoro Con- tween conservation, tourism, and Masai interests. servation Area, but also to the Crater's rim lands A Serengeti Regional Conservation Strategy only. They lost grazing space and could no longer (SRCS) was mandated to come to grips with the keep livestock at a safe distance from wildebeest needs of the people—that is, to identify actions movements—which have broadened to include that would satisfy community needs without the Crater rim—and the animals' new multiple- jeopardizing the region's resource base (United season home in the moist highlands. Now, wilde- Republic of Tanzania, 1991). beest calving takes place near livestock, risking the spread of malignant catarrh fever to cattle. To A strategy for promoting sustainable manage- make matters worse, calving periods are becom- ment of the entire ecosystem complex has now ing longer too. been prepared under the auspices of the Ministry

34 of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment, duced revenues totaling 444 million Kenyan co-financed by the Norwegian Agency for Interna- Shillings (Ksh) (about $11 million US dollars tional Development (NORAD) and the Frankfurt equivalent), or eight percent of the gross tourist Zoological Society (FZS) with technical and man- receipts of the entire country. Of this sum, 26 mil- agerial support from the World Conservation lion—23 million from tourism and 3 million from Union (IUCN) (United Republic of Tanzania, 1991). group ranches—were retained in the Mara area Its aim is to promote sustainable management of and Narok (administrative) District. Part of the the entire ecosystem complex. The strategy recom- retained funds are invested in basic socio-eco- mends implementing the plan through existing nomic activities and community development government and community structures instead of projects, such as schools, health clinics and cattle creating new organizations. A Programme Coordi- dips. In addition, grazing fees for wildlife are nation Unit (PCU) will be created during Phase III paid to group ranches. of the SRCS, under the overall direction of a Pro- gramme Director to be seconded from Tanzania's The Masai-run Narok County Council man- Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Envi- ages the Mara Reserve and the revenues it gener- ronment. The technical program will be overseen ates. The Mara Senior Warden manages the Re- by a Chief Technical Advisor provided by IUCN. serve for the County Council with guidance from the Masai Mara National Reserve Management Mr. J.J. Boshe, former academic chief officer of Committee (composed of representatives of the the East Africa Wildlife Management School in central government's Wildlife Conservation De- Mweka, Tanzania, provided this advice on how partment, the Chairman and several councilors of to manage the GSE: accept and accommodate the the Narok County Council, the Narok District current combination of wildlife conservation and Commissioner, chiefs and representatives of the pastoral activities and combine both in a zoning neighboring group ranches). The group ranchers plan; recognize the rights of occupation and use themselves collect fees for camping on their areas in the area; respect the local life style, culture, tra- (Parkipuny, 1989). ditions, and values; involve the Masai in the planning and management of conservation programs; Kenya's Kajiado District and the Amboseli Na- demonstrate that conservation of the areas' nat- tional Park, located East of the Serengeti, afford ural resources benefits all local communities by experience and insights into how conflicts like placing a portion of the tourist revenues into the those observed in the Greater Serengeti are being Masai's development programs; plan and provide resolved under quite similar circumstances. the communication and transportation infrastructure so local people can get essential commodities In 1974, an area around the Amboseli swamp from surrounding areas; realize that if the Masai was declared Amboseli National Park. (See Figure aren't allowed to use the Loliondo area to supple- 2.5.) Within a few years, the program was ex- ment their diet with agriculture, they will be panded to cover the migration route of wildlife forced to move into the Ngorongoro areas that are from Amboseli northward to the Nairobi Park critically important for biological, scenery, arche- (Western, 1994). ology and other values (Boshe, 1989). The Kajiado Wildlife Management Project was In Kenya's Masai Mara, in the northern portion developed and run from 1971 to 1977 to manage of the GSE, other types of innovative institutional the entire bioregion and to bring direct tangible arrangements are being developed to foster coop- benefits to the Masai—wildlife protection in the eration and address equity issues. For example, a two parks, species management, and compensa- portion of revenue gained from wildlife and tion to ranchers (Western, 1994; Parkipuny, 1989). tourist activities is being returned to local communities. In 1987, tourism, cattle, and other activ- The Project developed three key types of in- ities of the Masai community in the Reserve pro- centives and rewards. First, it helped group

35 Figure 2.5. Kajiado District, Amboseli, and Nairobi National Parks, Kenya

Mt. Kenya Nakuru Elev. 17,058 Ft. U£fANDA/ KENYA Lake Vk sorts

Masai Mara Njfin!! ^Nairobi TANZANIA Ift Nairobi National

Amboseh "vVNational Park Mt. Kilimanjaro Elev. 19,340 Ft. N Conservation Area

= Wildlife Migration

World Resources Institute et al. 1995 ranchers organize hunting concessions and al- Masai with a watering source for the people and lowed game cropping on their lands. Second, it their livestock there. Access to water and pasture helped group ranchers identify potential camp lands in the dry season was a sore point. Most nat- sites to attract paying visitors from Amboseli, ural watering sources had already been absorbed Tsavo, and Chyulu Parks. Third, it carried out into East Africa's national park system, where regular wildlife counts and assessments of the human use or occupation (including livestock range resources used by wildlife to determine grazing) are excluded (Berger, 1993). The govern- grazing fees. ment also promised to provide the Masai with important social services and to assist them in devel- The Government of Kenya negotiated agree- oping hunting-based tourism on their lands. ments with the resident Masai on several key issues. For example, the Masai of Amboseli Initially, the wardens and the Masai cooper- agreed—albeit reluctantly—to relocate their settle- ated. However, over the years, pipelines and ments and livestock outside the Park boundary, boreholes outside the parks were not maintained and the Government promised to provide the by the government as promised, so water sup-

36 plies were inadequate. Such unfulfilled promises coexistence of people and wildlife would necessi- left local Masai little alternative but to drive their tate the organization of informed and empow- herds illegally into the park for water. Parkipuny ered communities and broad public participation (1989) notes that despite its popularity among the in conservation affairs (Berger, 1993). To meet resident Masai, the Kajiado Project was aban- this implied goal, Berger established a "wildlife doned by government and its international col- extension" (WEX) program. The first step was laborators for reasons that are not entirely clear. conducting an information survey—one-day data-gathering workshops on each of 14 group The shift from common land pastoralism to ranches. The 131 individuals who participated privatized group ranches did have its drawbacks. were also invited to send representatives to a fol- For example, Masai ranchers consider the ranches low-up workshop where survey results were re- too small. Domestic herds can no longer be ported and important issues discussed in greater moved in response to drought, rainfall, and pas- depth (Berger, 1993). This exercise uncovered the ture flush, so if rainfall happens to pass a ranch need for action to address many issues: wildlife by, it will face economic disaster. Finally, with the damage to crops and pasture; difficulties in get- introduction of fenced boundaries, and the prac- ting compensation and collecting hunting fees; tice of individual or group, rather than communal wildlife as a reservoir of disease; conflict with the property rights, the traditional system of recipro- Wildlife Department; disputes over grazing, wa- cal grazing and water arrangements among tering and park boundaries, poaching, and fear of Masai groups has eroded (Berger, 1993). armed poachers; lack of local benefits from wildlife tourism; and, the negative effect of The key incentives that enabled the program to tourism on local culture (Berger, 1993). attract the participation of government and the Masai—wildlife management revenues and graz- As a matter of some urgency, the WEX group ing fees for wildlife—were eliminated when the decided to install solar electric fences to exclude Fund that covered these expenses was exhausted wildlife from cultivated areas while still allowing in 1977. The program was further undermined it access to key watering sites. Also, members of when hunting was totally banned that same year, the Olgulului Group Ranch joined a WEX-orga- eliminating both game cropping and hunting nized educational tour to Laikipia, where a concession fees (Parkipuny, 1989). women's cooperative used a solar-electric fence to keep elephants out of their maize plots. They According to Dhyani J. Berger, forces at work interviewed the farmers to learn how to construct in the Kajiado region are fragmenting the land- and maintain the fence (Berger, 1993). Later, at a scape. Historically, people and wildlife used the community meeting, WEX participants from the entire greater ecosystem as a single large-scale Olgulului Ranch decided to install the electric unit. Within it, their movements were synchro- fence, though a dispute over common borders nous with rainfall patterns and other ecological had to be settled first. About two years after the conditions. Today, the land is divided into five initial survey, the Olgulului Ranch had raised increasingly independent sub-systems of use and Ksh 30,000, collected 200 fence posts, and ordered ownership: small holdings, individual ranches, ir- 400 more. The Kenya Government and Wildlife rigated patches, group ranches and national Conservation International provided technical parks (Berger, 1993). support and solar equipment. Now the community is maintaining the fence (Berger, 1993). As Berger notes, the Wildlife Extension Project (WEP) was initiated in 1991 on the assumption Lessons Learned from Serengeti, Mara, that people would contribute to conservation if Kajiado, and Amboseli they participated in conservation activities and benefitted from them (Berger, 1993). Indeed, the As Berger highlights, problems that are to be central principle of the project was that successful solved through community action must be dealt

37 with promptly. For example, the two years it took to "uproot poverty and backwardness among the from the time the wildlife damage to crops was local human communities" of the Greater identified until the moment action was taken may Serengeti Ecosystem—and proposes adopting the be more time than is usually available to fix a biosphere reserve concept in this region management problem. (Parkipuny, 1989).

From the Kajiado Wildlife Management Expe- From the evidence it is not clear whether a rience, Parkipuny extracts the following lessons: compromise solution can include both Masai and other peoples and biodiversity conservation in • Keep the scale of the project practical; the same space. Certainly, at the one extreme are cases and spaces where biodiversity protection • Make sure that the project target group has a and restoration will be best served if kept free unity of purpose and think of themselves as from grazing by domestic animals. Yet, including members of a cooperative venture; intensive agriculture and domestic livestock pad- docks in the general matrix of the ecosystem is • Start any efforts to organize and promote not likely to retain much taxonomic, genetic, or benefits to community groups with training ecological diversity. But the option of working and community mobilization; with the Masai and other peoples ought not to be lost too quickly since good co-managers are hard • Integrate new wildlife activities with those of to find. other institutions and groups active in the area; and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park • Recognize that how local people feel about wildlife depends on how secure their liveli- The mandate for the Great Barrier Reef Marine hoods are. Park is to protect the marine and coastal environment while fostering appropriate uses of the Looking back on Kenya's policy of granting area's resources (The Great Barrier Reef Marine ownership rights over national reserves to county Park Act of 1975). The Great Barrier Reef Marine councils and to the payment of compensation, Park Authority's implementation of this mandate hunting, and grazing fees to group ranches, demonstrates a balance between a strong catalytic Parkipuny concludes that such benefits can mean role by government and a commitment to pro- little in actual practice (1989). Problems will arise moting partnerships with other institutions. if there is no consistent, concrete management system designed to ensure that innovations are The Great Barrier Reef Program in Brief implemented within an efficient sustainable framework. Also, as undeniable as the current The Great Barrier Reef extends along approxi- need for external initiatives and financial support mately 2,300 km of the eastern coast of Queens- are, a shift is needed away from initial depen- land. (See Figure 2.6.) dence on external resources to increasing reliance on direct earnings generated by tourism and The world's largest system of corals and asso- wildlife (Parkipuny, 1989). ciated forms, it is also the largest known marine repository of biodiversity (French, 1991). In Parkipuny's view, the ".. .conservative, in- sular and fragmented approach to protection of It is diverse in both the sizes and types of is- biological resources is leading to a dead-end." He lands and reefs found and in the number and va- argues that planned and integrated management riety of organisms it supports. The Reef includes is needed—management that harmonizes the approximately 3,000 individual reefs, 350 sand conservation of biological resources with efforts cays, and 600 continental islands. Its ecosystem

38 supports approximately 400 species of coral, while overseas travelers visit all year long. Now, more than 1,500 species of fish, and populations more than 1 million people visit the Great Barrier of Indo-Pacific invertebrates, birds, turtles, Reef annually, so managers must limit them to dugong, whales, and dolphins (Great Barrier particular sites. Reef Marine Park Authority, 1993). The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, an area of 344,000 The second major challenge has been dealing square kilometers, was given World Heritage with the crown-of-thorns starfish—a voracious listing in 1981. echinoderm that has been decimating entire reef areas, putting the tourist industry and the reef it- Tourism is a major activity in the Great Barrier self at risk. Field and laboratory experiments Reef, contributing in excess of $1 billion (Austr.) suggest that the crown-of-thorns outbreaks may annually to the Australian economy. An esti- be tied to water quality: the survival of starfish mated $300 million (Austr.) is spent annually at depends on food availability, and nutrient levels island resorts and on commercial and private may skyrocket as coastal run-off increases. boating. Mining (sand, coral, possibly petroleum), fishing, and shipping also could bring in The organization that must deal with these revenue if developed. Under the previous challenges is flexible. The Great Barrier Reef Ma- regime—within adequate controls that were not rine Park Authority is a Commonwealth statu- scientifically based—these uses were already tory body consisting of a full-time Chairman and damaging various parts of the Reef. two part-time members. The Authority is also an adjunct of the Ministry of Environment, Sport Challenges to Managing a Large Marine and Territories (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Ecosystem Authority, 1993). Besides assuming managerial authority and responsibility, the Park Authority Establishing the Capacity to Manage a Large is the principal advisor to the Commonwealth Coastal-Marine Ecosystem. Legally, Australia's Government on the care and development of the terrestrial and coastal areas are under the juris- park. Some 150 Park Authority staff provide for diction of the States, so State and central, or Com- the protection, wise use, understanding and en- monwealth-level institutions must be involved in joyment of the Great Barrier Reef through the any comprehensive effort to manage marine maintenance, development and protection of the ecosystems. Besides that of working together, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. All but ten (who these collaborators face two major challenges. work out of Canberra) are stationed at the Townsville office. The Townsville headquarters First is rapidly-growing tourism. Already by of the Park Authority also operates the Great 1988, Australians were making about 141,000 vis- Barrier Reef Aquarium to enhance community its annually to the Great Barrier Reef region. In understanding and appreciation of, as well as ex- that year, tourists (both local and foreign) spent perience with and support for, Reef conserva- about $175 million (Austr.) in the area (Alcock et tion, the Park, and the Authority, so technical al., 1991). People journey to the Great Barrier staff are near the Reef. The Canberra office pro- Reef to view the coral from special bottom-view- vides advice to the Minister, supports the Great ing vessels and to fish, collect shells, and dive. Barrier Reef Ministerial Council, and liaises with Several of these activities are potentially harmful the Ministry for Environment, Sport and Territo- to the ecosystem (Alcock et al., 1991), especially ries, Parliamentary Committees and other de- visits to the reef on pontoon boats. In 1988, the partments and organizations based in the capital number of hotel rooms in all of Queensland rose (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 1993). 11.5 percent while the number of rooms available The key divisions of the Authority are Education in the island resorts increased by 21 percent. and Information, Environmental Impact Manage- Australians visit mostly during the winter ment, Corporate and Strategic Projects, and Ad- months on weekend or extended weekend trips, ministration and External Services.

39 Figure 2.6. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Cormorant Pass Section, Australia, Showing Management Zoning

GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK !: N't NORTHERN SECTION

Locality Map

QUEENSLAND , TOM .•':•

Rockh.- ] " 11. '.-. i.J 140 0 140 Kilometers

Source: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 1992

Zoning Categories and Related Activities

Activities

General Use "A" Yes Permit Limited Permit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Permit Yes Permit Permit Yes

General Use "B" Yes Permit Limited 'ermit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Permit Yes Permit Permit No

Marine National Park: "A" Yes Permit No No No Limited Yes Jmited Permit Permit No Permit Permit No

Park Buffer Zone Limited Permit No No No No Yes jmited Permit Permit No Permit Permit No

Marine National Park "B" No Permit No No No No Yes No Permit Permit No Permit No No

Scientific Research No No No No No No No No Permit Permit No No No No

Preservation Zone No No No No No No No No Permit Permit No No No No

40 •One-Mile • ' ' \\-VJ ' Opening "

HwJ.Turtle Group. . .^?Cy

I General Use "A" I General Use "B" 1 Marine National Park "A" j Park Buffer Zone j Marine National Park "B" I Scientific Research J Preservation Zone •-1=1. -0 • 4.ll Kilometers

Its approach to controlling starfish outbreaks outbreaks should be controlled in small or iso- illustrates how the Park Authority works. Indi- lated areas with great research and recreational vidual starfish have to be collected or injected value. Meanwhile, efforts are underway to deter- with copper sulphate, and once an area is cleared, mine if the connection between human activities other members of the same species often migrate and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks is definite, into the control area (Gladstone, 1991). These and research is being conducted to develop meth- measures are prohibitively expensive and suc- ods more environmentally friendly than using cessful only in limited areas. Moreover, it is al- copper sulphate to control the starfish locally. most impossible to find every starfish hidden be- neath the coral or in crevices. Only if a starfish Stakeholder Involvement. More generally, outbreak is allowed to run its course will they success of the Authority's programs depends die, but much of the coral gets eaten first. heavily on public support and participation. The same 1975 Act that established the Park and the Given the difficulty and expense of wide-scale Park Authority also established the Great Barrier eradication, many scientists agree that starfish Reef Consultative Committee, which represents a

41 wide cross-section of public and private interests viding good information about how the ecosys- and expertise, including tourism, fishing, science, tems work and on how private interests can pro- conservation, Aboriginal and Islander communi- tect long-term business opportunities by protect- ties, and local government (Great Barrier Reef ing the resource appears to have been more Marine Park Authority, 1993). Through this Com- effective than mandatory compliance, hi the case mittee, user groups participate in decision-mak- of tourism, the Park Authority works closely with ing related to the Reef, park managers come to a tourist boat operators and guides to engender better understanding of users' attitudes and val- their commitment to long-term environmental ues, and information is collected and shared. protection and good business practice. Tourists are advised that they are visiting an important Serious conflicts over the use of the Reef arose protected area and they are warned not to touch in the 1960s, when proposals to drill for oil and or remove coral or other marine life. Trash is mine limestone from the Reef were first made. The strictly controlled. democratic process revealed that Australians were willing to forego potential revenues from mineral As for bringing commercial sport fishermen on resources to preserve the Reef's uniqueness, biodi- board, the key has been helping them understand versity, beauty and grandeur (Alcock et al., 1991). the ecological requirements of the large game fish upon which their business depends. They have Two main instruments have been developed to agreed to refrain from fishing and entering breed- help manage and reduce such conflicts. First, the ing zones, and they patrol their own members Authority zoned the Park for multiple uses—a and impose stiff sanctions on violations—which careful and time-consuming process of public saves the Park Authority patrolling expenses. consultation. Initial zoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was completed in 1988. In the A third example of how consultation and co- preservation and scientific zone, entry is strictly operation can stave off conflicts with stakehold- limited; Marine National Park zones allow scien- ers is the Park Authority's work with the ship- tific, educational, and limited recreational activi- ping industry. Large ships carry petroleum and ties; and recreational and commercial fishing are other cargoes around Australia's east coast, permitted in the General Use zone. (See Figure passing through portions of the Reef. The indus- 2.6.) Thereafter, the Authority is committed to re- try (through the Australian branch of the Inter- viewing zoning and management plans for each national Maritime Organization) and the Park section of the Marine Park every five to ten years. Authority have now established a system Under this zoning scheme, tourism is permitted whereby highly trained pilots are taken on in 99.8 percent of the Park: only in preservation board to guide the ships through particularly and scientific research zones is it restricted. sensitive waters.

A government regulation enables the Author- Institutional Cooperation. The GBRMPA had ity to declare Reef Appreciation Areas or Special to be carefully planned and administered to work Management Areas in up to 20 percent of a par- with state-level mandates, promote self-inter- ticular reef area where damage is found or antici- ested and appropriate private enterprise, and pated (Alcock et al., 1991). In such areas, tourists protect the overall ecosystem. While the Park Au- cannot remove anything from the reef. thority was established at the Federal level, actual management activities have been carefully de- Second, the Park Authority is in constant dia- signed to take state-level mandates and capabili- logue with private enterprises that use the Reef, ties into account. Thus, day-to-day management an approach which sometimes substitutes for reg- of the Park is undertaken by Queensland govern- ulations and control. Although all stakeholders ment agencies. The "Emerald Agreement" be- know that the Park Authority can apply signifi- tween the Prime Minister and the Premier of cant "big stick" management interventions, pro- Queensland, which triggered the formation of the

42 Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council, has improved the Marine Park Authority's ability to • Box 2.2. Sti.ili'gii: Vi^ior I'l.m ol Ihc Great carry out its functions in cooperation with the ; B.Mricr K'eot Marine IV.rk Authority. Queensland Government, local authorities and the public (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Au- thority, 1993). ! I5\

Lessons Learned from the Great Vtan.ijit-mi'nt will onsurt1 cousin ation Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority through -uslain.ible tiso ,ji-,d nu ot biodi\iTsit\; On reviewing the past performance of the Au- thority, Mr. John Whitehouse, solicitor and for- HvkOinmuniU v\ ill ii^e I IK- jro.i iv mer Director of the NSW National Parks and iibl\ .1* a ivr-ult or odiui'linn. iMinr Wildlife Service (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ini-nt lifut mntribii'iion of iili\»<- iind Authority, 1994b) concluded that "... a continued Commonwealth role in the protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef is necessary • X'.iiir.rU-.ind Sinuh inform.ition will' and justified, that the model of a large multiple- j .n ciiliibU* to >i;pport niiinaj use marine protected area is appropriate for the Great Barrier Reef Region, and that the punning w il! CIIMIIV ilio m,nn GBRMPA has proved and continues to be a U-n.ina1 ol ^i'i will Lx1 in plan-. other changes are called for in the 1994 Strategic Plan for the Reef (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 1994a). (See Box 2.2.)

Three more specific lessons also deserve men- ing in nursery grounds, tourism controls visitor tion. First, capacity for managing these large and impacts, and shippers voluntarily accept Park complex areas can be built through cooperation Authority pilots on board. with other agencies already in the region. In the GBRMPA, Queensland's National Park Service Third, a powerful agency of central govern- already had the capacity to provide protection ment can foster cooperation and action by pre-ex- services to the Reef. isting state and local governments and agencies. Through careful negotiation, an enlarged under- Second, powerful authority may be best used standing of the perspectives of regional stake- indirectly—to provide incentives to stakeholders holders, and provision of information and educa- to cooperate. In this case, once informed, several tional materials, the Park Authority promoted user communities collaborated to preserve the widespread cooperation among institutions with ecosystem. Fishermen have refrained from fish- mandates in the region.

43 The Mediterranean Regional Sea tats for wildlife, fishing areas, tourist beaches, and industrial areas. The regional planning and negotiation effort that produced the so-called Med Plan illustrates The Mediterranean Regional Sea how states that share a major sea and coastal Program in Brief ecosystem can forge a cooperative arrangement. While the initial focus was on pollution control, For very compelling ecological, social and eco- this same framework could perhaps be used to nomic reasons the Mediterranean should be man- manage biodiversity and biological resources in aged at a bioregional level. It is an almost entirely the region. The results speak for themselves: enclosed sea (see Figure 2.7) whose waters are re- through careful planning and management, re- newed every 80 to 90 years from the Atlantic gionally coordinated pollution-control efforts de- through the Strait of Gibraltar. While it represents fused potentially great conflicts over critical habi- only 0.7 percent of the total surface of the world's

Figure 2.7. The Mediterranean Action Plan Fosters Cooperation Among the Basin's Coastal States, Including the Coordination of the Bioregion's Protected Areas

Austria ' Hungary / \ France ^WSr*^ Sovenig \ < Italy NBosniaJ Serbia r*- S f BLACK SEA fNjMtAenegip Bulgaris ^^ Corsica^/ <~\^ktanbul/ '^-v f Madrid f r^^Z r ^ J Spain /« Sardinia ( V • XrJ 4^ # C Turkey

AJggy -^^#^ Sicily^/ ^y TTumsT MEDITERRANEAN SEA £2*^; iTiinisia/ Crete Cyprus JoriQ Morocco I Algeria V ^V Tel Aviv f P^ i ^kxandria^— Israfcl ] *N W^^ V,-, ^| ^X I

Cairo* (\ \| / 1 V Dbya \\ ^ Egypt vJiL I 1/ Protected Areas * 0-450 Hectares V\ >v 180 0 ISO 360 Kilometers S # 451-16,000 Hectares \ \ >» ' *" \ > HPl6,001-l,474,000 Hectares \ \ \ \ Source: Kellehs^et al 1995, Environmental Systems Resej/rt \

44 seas (UNEP, 1991), this region saw the rise of times overshadowed by disagreements over who Western civilization, including the empires of should pay to control pollutants. Meanwhile, for- Egypt, Carthage, Greece, and Rome, and the cul- eign policy, science, and non-governmental civic tural-religious origins of Judaism, Christianity and groups entered the debate with another set of Islam. Twenty percent of the world's oil travels goals and perspectives. Haas (1990) suggests that through the Mediterranean Sea. Over 100 million foreign-policy officials had national environmen- tourists flock to its shores each year (UNEP, 1991). tal agendas to fulfill and that scientific re- Mediterranean tides are too weak to disperse pol- searchers were mainly looking for grant money lutants well, and so the pollution stays mainly near for research projects. the coasts. Looking beyond the sea and its coasts, the greater Mediterranean region features an array Apart from lacking a common vision, the of mountain ranges and watersheds that were Mediterranean countries worried about obtaining once covered by vast forests. After thousands of a fair share of the benefits anticipated from enter- years of human intervention and destruction, little ing into cooperative agreements. Many initially of the original forest types remain (UNEP, 1991). assumed that there would be a bias in the location and distribution of rewards. Indeed, Algeria so When, in the early 1970s under UNEP aus- strongly opposed control of industrial pollution in pices, the Mediterranean countries began search- its waters and coasts that a UNDP report assess- ing for common issues around which to develop ing pollution in Algeria's harbors was rejected by a basin-wide program, biodiversity per se was not the government. This type of response typified yet an international issue. Rather, marine and developing-country attitudes toward unilateral coastal pollution was what all countries consid- proposals put forward by the regional powers. ered the premier problem. Now the strong link (To set the historical record straight, Algeria did between the protection of biodiversity and sus- accept the Med Plan once its own national marine tainable use of biological resources on the one scientists reported similar conditions.) hand and the control of coastal and marine pollution on the other is coming to the fore. Stakeholder Involvement. To build partnerships in the Med Plan, UNEP promoted a coordi- Consequences of Establishing a nated program based on political compromise Basin-wide Program and scientific consensus. It created national alliances between scientists and NGOS who, in Management Capacity. Right from the start, turn, advised their respective governments. Even policy-makers in the Mediterranean seldom though various players remained ideologically agreed on how rapidly to develop pollution con- opposed or indifferent to the emerging vision for trols and how stringent to make them. The indus- the region, the partnership began to work thanks trialized countries favored introducing strong partly to UNEP's broad reach and open process pollution controls immediately, and most had the (Haas, 1990). The trick was satisfying all parties' capacity to do so. In contrast, developing coun- short-term interests while working incrementally tries preferred to wait until they were more in- toward long-term goals. dustrialized and the pollution problem became more evident before taking action, especially The key activity centers of the Plan were dis- since they lacked the scientific and technological persed among partner countries. Regional Activity capacity to address pollution control at that time. Centers (RACs) to coordinate and support the Mediterranean Plan Coordinated Pollution Moni- In general, the region's developing countries toring and Research Programme (Med Pol) were es- believed that environmental management would tablished in France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Malta, and necessarily come at the expense of economic de- Tunisia. A legal depository office was established in velopment, and common concern over the envi- Athens, set up with a regionally mixed staff. Lead ronmental health of the Mediterranean was some- laboratories for research and monitoring were set

45 up in Algeria, Egypt, France, Italy, Malta, Turkey, as one of the most successful examples of this am- and Yugoslavia. Arguably, some of these measures bitious United Nations program to control ma- were undertaken to placate countries that hung rine pollution in ten of the world's seas (Haas, back at first. Countries such as Libya and Syria, 1990). Under the Plan, the region's governments which did not initially participate in the Plan, re- coordinate their approaches to control pollution ceived no direct benefits. This approach had its from a growing number of sources and pollu- price: Haas (1990) argues that some laboratories did tants. They jointly carry out research and moni- not perform as well as had been expected. But most toring, and then develop and share methods, developing and developed countries agreed with techniques, and practices to reduce pollution. UNEP that involving all stakeholders was essential, even at the price of some loss in initial quality. To operationalize the planning under the Med Plan, the French Government developed the Blue In countries where the access and influence Plan. Nominally accepted by governments in 1975, (political power) of marine scientists and other it aims to develop a systematic view of the entire technicians was consolidated, governments ecosystem for the first quarter of the 21st century. adopted more comprehensive environmental leg- Scientific cooperation was intended to create a pool islation and policies, and they have reportedly of information for regional planners and to sensi- become more engaged in Med Plan meetings. On tize them to links between sectors. Unfortunately, the other hand, in countries where scientists and most governments ignored the Blue Plan, and re- technicians were still struggling for access and fused to financially support this scientific work recognition, efforts to control marine pollution which few understood. According to Haas (1990), have been much weaker. The strongest support- no broad scientific coalition pushed the Plan. ers of the Med Plan have typically been the countries in which local scientists and technicians More generally, of course, the commitment of wield some power (Haas 1990)—among them, Al- a country to pollution control is reflected in its geria, Egypt, France, Greece, and Israel. In the monetary outlays. Data on marine pollution-con- countries where this community is weaker, the trol projects in the Mediterranean region are in- objectives of the Land-Based Sources Protocol, for consistent, but new municipal sewage-treatment example, have not been integrated into national plants and sewerage systems are springing up policy even though the instrument has been around the region. Haas (1990) considers this signed and ratified. construction, along with oil-spill contingency plans, the Med Plan's brightest legacies. Institutional Cooperation. In 1975, the 16 coastal countries of the Mediterranean, plus the Lessons Learned from the Mediterranean European Union, negotiated and implemented the Action Plan Barcelona Convention, which called for the launch of the Mediterranean Action Plan following its Several indicators of success for the Med Plan adoption by the governments. The Med Plan con- have been noted: sists of four main components: integrated planning for resource development and management • Most Med Plan countries now have estab- in the Mediterranean Basin, a coordinated pollu- lished ministerial environmental coordination research and monitoring program, a frame- tion and regulatory bodies. work convention and related protocol (with technical annexes) for protecting the Mediterranean • The Mediterranean countries have developed environment, and institutional and financial struc- domestic legislation to control marine pollu- tures for the action plan (Haas, 1990). tion, especially oil pollution and offshore dumping. However, few efforts are closely Developed under the auspices of UNEP's Re- compatible, arrangements vary widely from gional Seas Programme, the Med Plan stands out country to country, and legislation in

46 developing countries isn't on the same sched- Second, in a multi-country ecosystem manage- ule as that in developed countries. ment program the scientific and technological capacity may differ significantly among the cooper- • Although direct measures of water quality ating parties. Partly as a result, perspectives on are lacking, regional scientists now assert goals and means for action will differ too. In the that the water quality in the Mediterranean Mediterranean, countries were given time to es- is better with the Med Plan in place than it tablish or strengthen domestic capacities and would have been without it. local scientists and technologists to advise their own governments and partner institutions. • Scientists also believe that the level of pollution has remained relatively constant, even Third, while intuitively an ideal ecosystem- though population growth has been tremen- management program should embrace broad dous since the Plan came into force. goals and activities, experience suggests that initial cooperation should focus on two or three From this first regional sea exercise, Haas common concerns and interests. (1990) suggests that the UNEP program has learned the following lessons: CAMPFIRE Program, Zimbabwe • Regional action is an effective way to conserve large marine ecosystems, but such ef- Zimbabwe's innovative CAMPFIRE program forts must contribute to both environmental (Communal Areas Management Programme for conservation and economic development; Indigenous Resources) seeks to establish a new relationship between local communities and • Regional governments should define their wildlife resources, and a new balance in the au- own ecosystem boundaries and overall thority and responsibility among the Central gov- problems; ernment's Wildlife Department, District government administration, and rural communities. Its • Basic information and research assistance most fundamental principle is that benefits can be obtained from a number of estab- should go to those who pay the financial and so- lished international and national institutions; cial costs of tolerating wildlife and who therefore act as "wildlife producers" in communal lands. • National technical capacities should be rein- Creating community proprietorship over wildlife forced wherever possible; and, and other natural resources, CAMPFIRE basically replaces an open-access situation in which • The scope of regional programs should be wildlife was over-exploited and undervalued. limited. (UNEP's later regional seas programs focussed mainly upon oil pollution.) While it is still early to measure the economic or ecological results of the CAMPFIRE program, Three broad lessons can be drawn from the indicators of community benefits and changing Mediterranean experience too: attitudes are encouraging (Zimbabwe Trust, 1990). CAMPFIRE tries to conserve biodiversity First, multi-country management programs by building biological resources into develop- can be established, identifying common goals and ment practice in communally-held landscapes perspectives to foster ecosystem-wide coop- that extend beyond protected areas. eration and action, especially in marine and coastal regions. Joint efforts to control oil pollu- The CAMPFIRE Program in Brief tion paved the way for political, managerial, scientific, and technological cooperation on other CAMPFIRE aims to improve the community's challenges. life, while maintaining the resource base. Its three-

47 pronged approach includes: a) identifying poten- most of the revenue, leaving little for local distri- tial financial benefits that rural communities can bution (Child and Peterson, 1991), so community derive from managing wildlife populations care- "trusts" were established to involve participants fully; b) restoring the perception that wildlife is a in decision-making, management, and benefit- valuable resource rather than a nuisance; and c) sharing. These trusts also promote information creating a powerful incentive for rural people to sharing and training activities. manage wildlife in conjunction with conventional subsistence agriculture to conserve natural Operating Scale. Within the larger CAMPFIRE ecosystems. program, the Beitbridge District example illustrates an effective operating scale for a bioregion. Consequences of Shifting Wildlife Consultation in February 1991 between Wildlife Management to a Regional Scale Department staff and the community led to the decision that the most appropriate unit of man- The CAMPFIRE program rests on interlinked agement was the "producer community"—a premises. Ecologically, indigenous wildlife pre- small, homogenous rural group of no more than serves are likely to be the most appropriate land 150 households. A group this size can manage its use in marginal areas. Economically, markets for affairs in an open and accountable way and, be- wildlife-related goods and services need to exist cause they participate directly in the management when the program starts or be easily developed; and harvesting of their wildlife, its members they should provide returns greater than those enjoy a fair share of the benefits (Child and Peter- for agricultural products or resource extraction. son, 1991).

Management Capacity. The Wildlife Depart- Starting in June 1991, communities were given ment retains ultimate authority over wildlife re- the responsibility for managing their water, graz- sources on communal lands and can intervene ing, timber and wildlife resources sustainably where management proposals harm wildlife re- and the opportunity to benefit from their utiliza- sources. Short of that extreme, however, rural tion. In a redistribution of power, the CAMPFIRE communities are in charge of wildlife utilization program grants "appropriate authority" to Rural and share directly in the benefits. The local gov- District Councils once they signify their willing- ernmental Rural District Council plays a key role ness and readiness to assume responsibility. Dis- too, offering advice on communal project design, trict councils, in turn, devolve responsibility to auditing, and final project review. Community- smaller units, such as Wards (with 2,000 to 10,000 based programs use indigenous resources rather inhabitants each) and Villages—vital since seri- than imported technology. In the Beitbridge com- ous poverty plagues the project communities and munity, a committee was set up to manage the most participants lack access to health, education, projects. This required drawing up a constitution water, and other facilities. to formally organize the enterprise. The Council also set up a bank account to administer project Institutional Cooperation. The Zimbabwe ex- funds and savings. perience demonstrates how governmental agencies at the central and local levels can cooperate Stakeholder Involvement. It was agreed early with rural communities to catalyze new creative on that projects must evolve from informed deci- approaches to resource management and benefits sions taken by the rural communities themselves sharing. The rural communities employed pre-ex- and noted that a legal and policy vacuum would isting District and Ward Committees to convene impede progress, while a revamped legal and members, take decisions, and manage the distrib- policy framework would clarify the "ownership" ution of benefits. These grassroots institutions of what has hitherto been regarded as a common create a moral, if not a legal, sense of community resource (Zimbabwe Trust, 1990). In the past, wildlife "ownership." If individuals or communi- middle government levels typically siphoned off ties simply stand by passively in a process that

48 eventually bestows benefits on them, CAMPFIRE Lessons Learned from CAMPFIRE would merely substitute one form of dependency for another. Instead, CAMPFIRE projects enable In 1991, the CAMPFIRE Association of Zim- rural communities to articulate their own needs babwe analyzed the lessons learned from the pro- and to take full responsibility for all aspects of gram, paying particular attention to ways to shift wildlife management. Ultimately, CAMPFIRE resource management and utilization authority will be accepted by poor rural communities only from central authorities to local communities. The if it is based on sound ecological research rather findings: than aesthetics, global ecological principles, personal biases, or research hypotheses. • No new organizations were needed. CAMP- FIRE fits into existing local government hier- Allocating Benefits. Output-based rewards are archical structures—the Ward Development returned to CAMPFIRE producers, just as they are Committee, district council, and central gov- for crop farmers or livestock herders. Indeed, pass- ernment. The chairpersons of this Committee ing income to the local (ward) level and allotting are, in turn, members of the Council. less than 10 percent of overheads to the Council level has profound effects (Child and Peterson, • Community-based common property alloca- 1991). The Ward could distribute the funds as tion systems represent low-cost socially cash, invest them in community projects, or both. sound alternatives to state interventions. They help the community bolster resource In Chikwarakwara (Child and Peterson, 1991), management and defend their interests the community decided to spend $5,000 on finish- against outside influences. ing the school and accommodations for the teach- ers and $25,000 on a grinding mill to be managed In terms of the three key issues addressed in by a 149-member co-op, while paying out the re- this study, CAMPFIRE provides several impor- maining half to individual households. Each tant lessons: household could, if the majority decided, keep all the income from wildlife. Each was handed all of First, the capacity to manage wildlife resources a $400 share to be distributed according to a ma- is a function of social organization and gover- jority-determined plan stressing human develop- nance. By shifting authority and responsibility to ment and education rather than buildings, roads, rural communities, the benefits of harvesting and and clinics. Each family contributed $30 to the using wildlife were fairly distributed. school fund. Paying out the income from wildlife in cash made the links between productive efforts Second, even as rural communities take on more and earlier planning decisions clear to all. authority and responsibility for achieving biodiversity management goals, government's role remains In the decision-making process, government significant. Far from merely "handing over and provided technical advice but rarely exercised its washing its hands" of wildlife, Zimbabwe's gov- veto power. Government representatives helped ernment struck a balance between sharing power community members debate the costs and bene- and retaining public trust and accountability. The fits of various options that the people themselves key was a partnership between the Wildlife De- had identified for using the cash. Interestingly, partment and the producer communities. the community decided not to spend the remaining funds since they couldn't see a third "good Third, the best scale for managing biodiversity investment" and saw the value of keeping some may be local rural communities and their sur- cash on hand. Child and Peterson concluded rounds—even though wildlife habitat and move- from these and other examples that "given the ment extend outside this area. The Zimbabwe ex- chance, rural communities act with maturity and ample shows that reaching the individual and wisdom" (Child and Peterson, 1991). family unit with incentives to participate in

49 wildlife management requires organizing at the ment of these landscapes in ways that are com- village and community level. patible with conservation. Under IUCN's classifi- cation of protected areas, the United Kingdom's Fourth, not surprisingly, a good way to pro- 11 national parks are "Protected Landscapes" mote cooperation and rural dwellers' involve- (IUCN, 1994a). The UK national park designation ment in biodiversity management is to include restricts the use of land and fosters the mainte- them in planning, project implementation, and nance of the landscape's cultural and natural fea- the distribution of income. The Zimbabwe exam- tures. These landscapes reflect 2,000-10,000 years ple demonstrates how community members of human culture but also represent the most out- share income and allocate some of it to projects of standing remaining examples of the nation's bio- common interest and to savings. In all three activ- diversity. ities, the individuals help choose between present and future benefits. The Park covers 1436 km2 in northeast Eng- land, featuring forest, moorland, and farms. Once Fifth, the CAMPFIRE demonstrates two addi- heath, 25 percent of the park area has been tional factors central to spurring local participa- planted with non-native conifers. Moorland cov- tion in the program (T. N. Maveneke, pers. com., ers 35 percent and farmland covers 40 percent. Its April 21,1995 and September 6,1995). One is so- National Park status notwithstanding, the Moors cial status. Local leaders, game guards, scouts, bioregion is mostly privately owned. bookkeepers, and others all gain status from this type of work. The other is reinforcing traditional Mechanisms for Managing at the knowledge. People are motivated when their Bioregional Scale norms such as totems, traditional medicines, and sacred areas are explicitly recognized and in- Park managers and ecologists have identified a volved in the program. variety of problems arising from modernizing trends in farm practices. Most significantly, the drive to increase agricultural production has af- North York Moors National Park, U.K. fected the Park. Key influences are the draining of wetlands, the reseeding of areas with more pro- The North York Moors National Park exempli- ductive grass species, the clearing of woodlands, fies an approach to achieving the long-term main- and the plowing ("reclaiming") of moorlands for tenance of the ecological and species diversity of conversion to croplands, increased use of fertil- a bioregion through public/private cooperation. izer and sprays, and a loss of farm labor (P.J. Bar- As with CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe, this program foot, pers. com. September 7,1995). Park man- works on the principle that conservation efforts agers are addressing these challenges site by site. should be rewarded. Essentially, local farmers who hold private property rights enter into for- Removal of the traditional hedgerows between mal agreements with the national parks agency to fields, forests, and moorlands is one serious prob- manage their estate in a way that restores and lem. Once a vital component of the overall maintains the array of habitat types in the bio- ecosystem, they provide habitat and corridors be- region's matrix. In exchange, they receive direct tween habitat types. But farmers remove them be- economic benefits. cause they have received incentives to expand their fields and because maintaining a hedgerow Brief Description of the North York Moors is time-consuming and costly. Since the early 1980s, however, local farmers have been working North York Moors National Park, like other with the Park authorities as co-managers to re- UK national parks, is managed to conserve the store and maintain the hedgerows on their own landscapes and natural beauty of selected regions lands. These conservation activities complement of the country and to foster the public's enjoy- food production and other farming work.

50 On another conservation front, the National the socio-economic status of the first 11 farms to Park Authority broadened its wildlife conserva- join the Scheme. It determined that the payments tion efforts in 1993 by promoting measures to re- of UK£3,000 (approx. US$4,800) to each farm turn some farmlands to other kinds of habitat so from the Scheme are becoming an important as to balance the overall patchwork of habitat source of income and will help those farmers re- types in the landscape (Statham, 1993). Co- tain and, in some instances, employ more labor manager farmers restored traditional farming (Statham, 1993). Most of the 11 farms had in- methods to maintain particular habitat types. curred losses in 1990 and 1991—on the order of £7,350 in 1990 and £2,600 in 1991 for each farm, In 1988, the Experimental Farm Conservation though their general finances had improved by Scheme started on six farms in various locations 1992 (no figures available). Some of this differ- with three-year agreements (Statham, 1993). The ence can be attributed to Farm Scheme payments. scheme proved popular with local farmers and achieved the desired results at a modest price. The average cost to the National Park Author- Within a year, proposals to expand this program ity of this project is approximately £3,400 per to a wider geographic region were made. To start, agreement, including capital grant aid. The total the National Park Authority met with stakeholders budget available for this project for 1993/94 was from the wider region—among them, the National £360,000, including £23,000 for staffing and ad- Farmers Union, the Council for National Parks, the ministration costs. This amount allowed the Park Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of the En- Authority to undertake approximately 100 such vironment, two government advisory bodies, and agreements in that fiscal year. For the 1995/1996 local farmers and landowners. The objectives were financial year, the budget is £420,000, enough to to conserve important habitats and landscapes, cover roughly 130 whole farm management create alternative income for participating farmers agreements covering approximately 7,000 ha (P.J. who might otherwise be forced to intensify farm- Barfoot, pers. com. September 7,1995). ing, and create local employment opportunities by turning increasingly to traditional labor-intensive A Farm Scheme agreement is developed in operations, erecting fences to keep domestic live- four steps: stock out of woodlands, rebuilding drystone walls, and regenerating hedges (Statham, 1993). Under 1. A survey of the farmer's land; the Scheme, farmers are also required to protect historic and archaeological features. 2. Negotiation of the content of the agreement;

Implementation of this larger Farm Scheme 3. A mapped record of all features and habitats was held up for a short time pending adequate deemed valuable, including an assessment funding, but was under way by 1990. Funds came of their condition and management require- through a National Park Support Grant (a mix- ments; and ture of central and local government monies). Upper Farndale was chosen as the initial target 4. The division of the land into three cate- area. Because they had recently been sold to resi- gories: Conservation Grade, Conservation dent tenants, many of the farms were run down Woodland, and Improved Land. and under-capitalized but had enormous conservation potential. In the project's first 18 months, All aspects of the Scheme are discussed with the all the farmers in Upper Farndale entered the farmer, and latitude in bargaining over the de- Scheme and 11 agreements were drawn up cover- tailed content is considerable. ing 750 ha (Statham, 1993). Before joining the program, the farmer receives During 1990 and 1991, the Agricultural De- an estimate of the first year's payment available partment and Advisory Service (ADAS) assessed through the Scheme and an indication of the

51 conditions of that payment. Annual payments for Ultimately, the National Park Authority hopes the agreement are made in advance, and the first to extend the program to include all hill farming payment is made once the contract is finalized. areas within the North York Moors National Improvements are programmed over the five- Park. This extension would involve approxi- year period of the Scheme and annual payments mately 520 farms covering 35,000 ha and would related to them are made the year following com- require future funding of around £2.2 million an- pletion. In short, the more improvements, the nually. Realistically, the Park Authority is un- more farm income. Some flexibility is allowed, likely to obtain this level of funding in the near but the management agreement is a contract, and future, however, so the Farm Scheme will have to failure to complete improvement works, or to be carefully targeted to the most sensitive and im- maintain features and manage habitats in accor- portant areas. dance with the conditions of the Scheme, is considered a breach of that contract (Statham, 1993). Funding is obviously an important factor in the future of the Farm Scheme and other pro- The Park Authority maintains contact with the grams like it. One possibility is getting the Moors farmers throughout the agreement and offers ad- designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area vice and help with grant claims. At the end of (ESA), a government designation that comes with each year, each farm's compliance with the agree- payments and subsidies averaging £3-4 million ment is evaluated and the following year's pay- per area (Statham, 1993). Another option is rais- ments assessed. The Park Rangers are involved ing costs to area visitors (through, say, taxes on from the very beginning, helping settle agree- accommodations) but the idea has not been well ments and helping the farmer maintain public received, and since many visitors seek accommo- footpaths and trails. dations outside the Park, an accommodation tax scheme would involve drawing arbitrary bound- More concrete conclusions on the success of aries around the Park catchment area (Statham, the Scheme will not be possible until comparative 1993). Nor is collecting entrance fees particularly data is available. But the Scheme has succeeded practical since numerous roads and footpaths go in suspending habitat loss and improving some into the Park. For these reasons, a subsidy from of the habitat types and landscape features, in- state funds is seen as the most fair and adminis- cluding woodlands and hedgerows. "Improve- tratively efficient option. ments in the first two years of the Scheme included 15.2 ha of woodland enclosed, 1.9 km of Lessons Learned from the North York hedge regenerated and 17.2 km of drystone wall Moors National Park brought into good repair" (Statham, 1993). Also, the Park's benefits to the local communities have The North York Moors example brings into been widely acknowledged and the needs to this discussion the experience of a northern de- marry conservation goals to tourist activities veloped country where the landscapes of value to accepted. biodiversity conservation are found in a country- side that has been under human influence for A program of long-term monitoring has been millennia. The core areas are small. The option is set up to assess the Scheme. Results so far allow a to expand the program area by collaborating with few preliminary conclusions: the Scheme was well private residents in the matrix lands around the received by participants; it will have a beneficial core sites. economic effect on the individual farms; it will allow the option for hiring outside labor; and it First, in highly developed landscapes, where should have an immediate and long-term impact modern agriculture and pasture regimes domi- on local and non-local employment. A survey of nate the landscape outside of small remaining the Upper Farndale indicates that the Scheme has wildland core areas, biodiversity goals can be ad- created at least 2 full-time job equivalents. dressed through cooperative co-management

52 programs with resident farmers and other re- rural men find new sources of income and reduce source-using neighbors. their dependence upon produce from marginal lands. The commercialization of dairy production Second, incentives can be employed to enable encouraged animal keepers to shift from open- neighboring residents and resource users to build grazing goats and cows to stall-fed water conservation activities into their regular land- buffaloes. management work. Their labor, investments, and foregone land-use opportunities can all be The growing commercialization of agriculture remunerated. in the region stimulated farmers to expand access to water resources for their crops. In turn, this Third, cooperative arrangements have to be stimulated the development of micro-reservoirs developed, managed, and monitored at the micro and irrigation structures and the improvement of on-farm level to be meaningful to the farmer. water catchments. Similarly, the terms of compliance must be crystal clear. With growing markets and pressures to shift toward commercial production, the need for Fourth, the scale of cooperative programs in water began to create serious erosion problems in the matrix of the landscape can be adjusted ac- the city's main reservoir—the Sukna Lake in cording to the availability of funds to purchase Chandigarh City. In response, the Hill Resource services, and priorities set among the most im- Management Program was designed to increase portant sites warranting restoration and productivity, make the distribution of benefits management. more equitable, and spur effective resource conservation in the region.

The Hill Resource Management Simple technology was used to construct Program, India earthen dams in micro-watersheds to create reservoirs for local water supplies. The supplemental Neither a bioregional program nor one irrigation provided farmers with opportunities to focussed upon biodiversity, this rural develop- intensify cropping patterns and livestock raising. ment experience from India nevertheless demon- However, when livestock were grazed too close strates how important the timing of action and in- to the new reservoirs siltation speeded up, so it vestment is to program success and shows that if soon became obvious that the livestock would local development needs are kept in mind, bio- have to be kept away from vegetated catchment diversity can often be packaged into the program areas. with little added effort. To manage the new water resources and con- The Hill Resource Management Program trol grazing, Irrigation and Forest Protection Soci- in Brief eties (later renamed Hill Resource Management Societies) were established. Some developed irri- In the mid-1970s, the central Soil and Water gation-distribution systems, got grass-cutting Conservation Research and Training Institute in leases from the Forest Department, and generally Chandigarh initiated studies of erosion in that re- boosted family income from both agriculture and gion, in collaboration with the Ford Foundation animal husbandry impressively. (Poffenberger, 1990). While this program was being developed, rapid economic development Thus, two types of time-scale issues arose. was afoot. Green-revolution efforts expanded First, growing commercial markets for local food supplies, tube wells made more water avail- goods reduced pressure to use marginal up- able, and local produce markets were established. stream catchments for farming, grazing, and Off-farm employment in industry helped many woodcutting so plant succession could proceed in

53 the catchments. Gradually, as a by-product, im- Lessons Learned from the Hill Resource poverished scrub communities were replaced by Management Program evermore diverse habitats. The Hill Resource Management Program of Second, growth in commercial markets for India shows several lessons of importance to local goods increased demand for water for agri- bioregional management. culture. This stimulated development of a cooperative project between the program and the Forest First, the development of new and more effi- Department to build small dams to store and sup- cient tools and facilities for resource management ply water. One surprise was the impact on rural must be accompanied on a timely basis by the stakeholders of an increasingly efficient capacity formation of adequate and consistent local social to build dams. With experience, these micro- and institutional mechanisms. These are needed dams were built ever more quickly and more effi- to ensure the necessary adaptation and mainte- ciently. As the rate of dam construction in- nance of innovations and to enable stakeholders creased—sometimes several dams were built at to benefit from them. Failure to maintain this bal- once—the costs of materials, labor, and adminis- ance can negate the value of the innovations. tration fell further. Eventually, the rate of dam- building outpaced the capacity of local rural com- Second, biodiversity programs must adapt to munities to maintain the dams and soils and to changes that occur in the landscape, some of establish equitable water-distribution mecha- which are brought about by project activities nisms. In short, engineering outpaced social de- themselves. Thus, monitoring for economic, so- velopment, and the expanding geographic scale cial, and environmental change is a key compo- of the program got out of kilter with the time nent of such programs. In the Hill Resource Man- needed for social adaptation. agement Program case, by establishing economic opportunities elsewhere, what appeared to be an Early signs of failure included rapid sedimen- impossible task—to re-vegetate upstream catch- tation of the dams, social conflict triggered by in- ments—became easy in the context of a broader equitable distribution of water, a reduction in the conservation and development program. On the useful lifespans of the dams, increased dam- other hand, once new water-storage and distribu- maintenance costs, and reduced output of stored tion facilities started proliferating, the beneficia- water. As these impacts were appreciated, the ap- ries were unable to negotiate and adjust social proach shifted, and future dam construction was and institutional norms and practices fast scheduled through such community-based mech- enough. anisms as the Hill Resource Management Soci- eties, to better align the pace of construction with that of social adaptation.

54 III. Guidelines for Bioregional Management

In this Chapter: • Trlnil is IIw right scale? • twenty giiiilclines • issues to be weighed in the balance • lines bioregional iiiitiiagenient improve biodiversity's chances?

ncreasing biodiversity's chances through agement objectives. Stakeholders and institu- bioregional management means finding an- tional jurisdictions may vary as well. Iswers to three fundamental questions: To be practical, communities, residents, re- 1 how to create the capacity to manage more source managers, and government agencies will complex and integrated programs, want to define the bioregion in terms that most residents and resource-dependent people think of 1 how to meaningfully involve all stake- as home. This space will be subdivided into areas holders, and that correspond to specific watersheds, habitat types, the home ranges of certain species, timber- 1 how to build up and link established institu- supply sheds, development zones, and the like. tions, or, if needed, create new ones. Setting the scale of the project is essential to Confronting these challenges will require reaching shared individual and institutional policies and approaches that foster new bal- goals. Dialogue, scientific trial and error, and ances among often-conflicting factors, such as adaptation over time are the best way to deter- the redistribution of responsibility and author- mine a bioregion's boundaries. Any institution, ity among central and local entities. Guidelines organization, or individual able to help assess, derived from examples in Chapter II should plan, or implement a bioregional program help. should be made a partner in the effort. So should neighbors in the matrix who control or have an interest in old-growth or forest regeneration, up- What is the Right Scale? stream catchments, critical wildlife habitat, dis- persal areas for large mammals, cultural or his- In bioregional management, there is no one torical shrines, or resources and sites key to the single right scale at which to work. A bioregion of regional economy, settlements, and infrastruc- several tens to hundreds of thousands of hectares ture. Anyone in a position to halt or harm the is appropriate for some ecosystems that comprise program by, say, misusing resources, diverting mountain slopes and whole watersheds. A few water or wildlife movements, over-harvesting thousand hectares may be enough to manage or timber or wild fauna, setting inappropriate fires, restore some habitats or to protect, say, specific etc., should also be invited into the program. By strains of wild rice. At each scale, different tools the same token, any abused parcel of land that and capabilities will be needed to help meet man- affects other critical habitats negatively—

55 through erosion, for example -belongs in the In most of the examples presented in Chapter II, program. institutions already located in the region had most of these tools and capacities. What they lacked Thus, the right scale is determined by dialogue were policies for integrating existing programs and informed by science, technology, informa- and the skills to catalyze a multi-shareholder plan- tion, and social considerations. There will be one ning and implementation process. In a few cases, scale that is most ecologically viable, economi- however, new institutions had to be established to cally practical, and socially convenient for the provide missing skills and knowledge. overall program. Nested within will be other scales suitable for work on specific objectives, 1. Develop leadership for the bioregional such as the restoration of stream flow in a river program. Who convenes interested parties in a catchment, retaining old-growth habitats, geneti- bioregion? Who gets to know the residents and cally improving varieties of grains to enhance resource managers and users? And who formu- local economic and food security while reducing lates a vision and plan for a bioregional program? pressure on wildlands from the region's poor, etc. Ideally, a well-respected local individual or orga- Similarly, working with migratory species, air- nization already has leadership capacity and and water-quality issues, trade in endangered knows the community and its resources. species, timber certification, and seed exchange for research and development will require agree- Several policy options for cultivating such ments and negotiation with international organi- local leadership emerge from the profiles of zations on a global scale. Chapter II:

First, where various jurisdictions and levels of Guidelines to Meet the Challenges government converge in the bioregion, a new in- Facing Bioregional Management stitution can be established to integrate capacities Programs and skills and to implement a regional cooperative program for protecting and controlling the use of natural resources. A prime example of this Challenge to Build Capacity option is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Au- thority (GBRMPA). GBRMPA also realized, how- Grappling with whole ecosystems, managers ever, that no single new agency could effectively face a daunting challenge. They must develop exercise authority over 344,000 square kilometers the capacity to plan, encourage, coordinate, and of open sea, reefs, atolls, islands, and coastlines implement the many tasks and functions associ- that make up the Reef complex. Even with air- ated with the protection and use of biodiversity, craft surveillance, local contact would be required and forests, soils, seas, and other biological re- to inspect and assess human activity, so the Com- sources. Typically, this means protecting wild- monwealth central authority (GBRMPA) formed lands; systematically collecting and cataloging a legal partnership between GBRMPA and the flora, fauna, and microbial life; establishing and Queensland State government to handle day-to- maintaining ex situ facilities for storing key ge- day management of the coastal and marine ter- netic resources; restoring impoverished sites and ritory already under state jurisdiction. This critical habitats; fostering biodiversity education Emerald Agreement, as it is called, avoided du- in local schools and universities; promoting re- plication in establishing and financing a new search on using biological resources sustainably; Commonwealth protection service for the Reef, establishing policy incentives and financial and the Queensland Park Service's capacity to mechanisms to support and foster optimal land protect resources expanded as a result. GBRMPA use practices; and encouraging and testing tech- established similar partnerships with local uni- nological improvements for conservation and de- versities and research centers to cover aspects of velopment work in the region. the Authority's research and educational agenda.

56 Second, as in the multi-country cases of the facts are clear, the best technologies are selected, Wadden Sea and the Mediterranean, new institu- and control and leadership are given to a profes- tional mechanisms were established to convene sional agency of government, a bioregional the constituents, foster dialogue and debate, and management program will take off in the right di- help formulate common goal statements and get rection. But the approaches to bioregional man- agreement on programs. agement reviewed in Chapter I and the examples in Chapter II show the importance of both ac- Third, in the national programs of CAMPFIRE cording high priority to science, data, informa- in Zimbabwe and North York Moors National tion, and appropriate technology and focussing Park in the United Kingdom, public resource on social and governance issues. management organizations reached out to area residents to form new co-management arrange- The cultural and organizational characteristics ments for wildlife management (in the first case) and values of the Masai of Serengeti, fishers of the and habitat restoration (in the second). Barrier Reef, farmers in the North York Moors, ranchers in Yellowstone, and rural communities in Policy-makers should not underestimate the Zimbabwe and India all had to be taken into ac- importance of leadership style and legitimacy. count as a management program was defined, For example, where a few powerful governmen- planned, and implemented. Most significantly, tal agencies dominate the landscape, it might be how authority and responsibility are distributed all too easy to simply enlist them to take over the among levels of government and between public effort. However, their leadership can overwhelm and private interests is a central issue in promot- other stakeholders, blocking cooperation in building cooperation and mobilizing skills and capacity. ing a bioregional program. In the Greater Yellow- stone Ecosystem (GYE), the bioregion's two dom- 3. Use authority to foster cooperation. It is inant stakeholders—the U. S. Forest Service and idealistic to expect constituents to work together the U. S. National Park Service—prepared a "vi- as a tight band of well-meaning stakeholders. In- sion statement" that prescribed goals and activi- deed, experience suggests that a measure of au- ties for the entire bioregion. Whatever the pro- thority to provide "backbone" to the effort is both posal's merits or deficiencies, employing a needed and appreciated. Some regulation and top-down, closed-door approach—albeit with regulatory authority may be required to ensure public hearings after the fact—alienated other re- that certain minimum goals, standards, and crite- gional stakeholders and national interest groups ria are met. The exact balance of authority and whose contributions are essential to the biore- the relative use of intervention will depend upon gion's successful management. The approach ef- local circumstances. fectively short-circuited the debate, failed to integrate capabilities, roles, and functions, and In La Amistad in Costa Rica, regional con- generated more divisive and lingering contro- stituents asked government to established a Com- versy. Broader-based stakeholder processes—es- mission to ensure follow-up on activities agreed sentially bottom-up and non-governmental—are to by all parties. Without this "big stick," hours of now under way, including that of the Greater dialogue, debate, and negotiation could have be- Yellowstone Coalition, though the relative suc- come hollow exercises in paper democracy. Simi- cess of working through non-governmental lead- larly, the Great Barrier Reef Authority's power to ership has yet to be evaluated. intervene and protect resources has enabled it to foster cooperative arrangements with resource 2. View management as a social and gover- user communities, even though it has never had nance issue. All too frequently, planners and to exercise that power. managers presume that defining and implementing bioregional programs are technical and pro- 4. As needed, redistribute power over land fessional matters. If, this logic goes, the scientific and resources to develop authority and

57 responsibility in the bioregion. The CAMPFIRE ventory the Talamanca region, which is huge and example illustrates an issue fundamental to all the both biologically and topographically complex. In examples presented: how can central governments response, the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve ini- share or redistribute authority and responsibility tiative joined forces with other voices calling for over biodiversity and biological resources to (a) re- the establishment of what is now INBIO, the Na- move the "open access" problem, (b) establish in- tional Biodiversity Institute of Costa Rica. Now centives for local residents to take on responsibility INBIO works with local stakeholders to systemat- for biodiversity protection and management, (c) ically inventory the Talamanca bioregion. foster a fair sharing of benefits from the use of those resources, and (d) place the authority to pro- In India's Hill Resource Management Program, tect, control and use, closer to the ground? two important steps were taken to establish capacity—one technical and one social. First, the In many parts of the world, central govern- program cooperated with the state to build the ments wrestling with budget cuts and personnel small water-storage dams throughout the biore- quotas appear to be having ever greater difficulty gion. Second, and almost too late, the community exercising this power adequately. In Zimbabwe, established the Hill Resource Management Soci- power over wildlife resources is being shared eties to help local communities take better advan- with local governments and community groups. tage of the water now available and to protect As a result, evidence suggests, the already strong catchment structures being trampled by cattle. public commitment to conservation in that country is now spreading to rural communities directly 6. Use and build upon existing capacity wher- involved in management and benefit sharing. ever possible. Rather than building a large regional supra-structure of institutions, the 5. Identify and assess the capacities of organi- Mediterranean program reinforced local and na- zations and individuals in the bioregion and fill tional scientific technical capacity. Some countries in the gaps. Wadden Sea countries possess the helped others train personnel, construct facilities, capabilities needed to manage their own in-coun- secure funding, and establish databases, com- try programs. But they couldn't integrate the tri- puter services, and other infrastructure. Similarly, country bioregion until they formed an interna- the Barrier Reef program strengthened universi- tional commission and staged an international ties, state agencies, and research centers in the conference to convene multi-country dialogues region. on issues, identify options, and forge consensual work programs with corresponding targets and Less emphasis was given to capacity develop- responsibilities. ment in other bioregions. Yet, techniques for tourism management were developed in the Bar- In the Serengeti, the Tanzanian Government rier Reef, calls by the Commission and Confer- established the Ngorongoro Conservation Area ence for analysis and the implementation of stud- Authority to forge a bioregional program among ies on the Wadden Sea were answered, and new the several public agencies, communal groups, approaches were taken to wildlife restoration and and private interests in the region. But though harvesting in Zimbabwe and to water-storage this Authority has identified the elements of a co- facilities in India. operative stakeholders' agreement, it has yet to mobilize the local skills and capabilities needed 7. Build the capacity to handle change. to provide the veterinarian services, road mainte- Changing attitudes among constituents, shifts in nance, and health facilities it has promised in the the greater economy, and environmental change region. mean that the context of any bioregional program is in flux. The capacity to anticipate such changes In La Amistad, the early analysis of local skills and to respond appropriately is thus critical to and capabilities identified a lack of capacity to in- bioregional management's success.

58 The Indian water-conservation program illus- As noted, unless stakeholders become full part- trates how economic growth enabled people to ners in planning and implementing bioregional find jobs elsewhere and to abandon upstream management programs, one group or another is catchments to vegetative regeneration—a plus for likely to find its self-interest obstructed and to habitat diversity. Still, these shifts took time, and pursue other goals that may not be in the common engineers had to re-program their efforts, effec- interest. In a worse-case scenario, competing tively slowing down the construction of water- stakeholder groups can become totally disempow- catchment dams while communities prepared ered and leave the greater community, taking local agreements on livestock management and with them knowledge and other contributions. the use of the new water resource. 8. Leaders, planners, and policy-makers The Costa Rican case illustrates the need to should get to know the stakeholders, their con- weave preparedness for natural disasters into the cerns, interests, and perspectives. The evaluation bioregional management program and budget— of the Yellowstone example points to the failure in this case, hurricanes and earthquakes. How- of an early attempt at ecosystem management, ever inevitable, such setbacks are unpredictable mainly because too little effort was made to know and can devastate biodiversity programs and understand the region's peoples. In contrast, otherwise. the Great Barrier Reef program dedicated considerable time to meeting with key stakeholder Challenge to Foster Stakeholder groups, articulating their views, and defining the Participation issues to be examined together. The launch of the Mediterranean program almost failed for want of By reaching out beyond core areas, policy- cooperation until the issues as seen through the makers, managers and community leaders are eyes of each country were seriously explored. faced with the challenge of involving private land-owners, farmers, foresters, tour operators, 9. Initially, focus tasks on a few issues of in- indigenous communities, municipalities, state terest to the widest possible set of stakeholders agencies, corporations, and other interests in in the region. Although the aim of bioregional bioregional management. Already, protected programs is to comprehensively secure biodiver- areas such as those in IUCN's categories V and sity and the region's ecosystems, experience sug- VI (shown in Box 1.1), including the Great Bar- gests the need to begin simply, limiting the pro- rier Reef Marine Park, have developed consider- gram to one or a few issues of common concern. able expertise in this form of outreach, as dis- Gradually, programs can grow to embrace a more cussed in Chapter II. In general, many more comprehensive list of the region's issues and op- restricted wildland core sites managed as portunities and the stakeholders' vision for the IUCN's categories I-IV are working with adja- future. cent communities and regional development programs. The Barrier Reef began by addressing such specific issues as tourism's impact upon the reefs, Also, some stakeholders live at some distance sport fishing's effect on fisheries, mangrove pro- from the site, and future generations—whose tection, and control of the crown-of-thorns threat. welfare, livelihoods, and environment will de- Through a step-wise process of dialogue and col- pend partly on decisions made today—also need laboration with user groups, the Authority's tech- representation. In this context, governments may nical and managerial competence won recogni- have a stakeholder role to play—in representing tion, and its role as partner was accepted by the public interest in the bioregion, even if little stakeholders throughout the region. or no public land is involved. This is especially true where ecological processes and functions or CAMPFIRE focussed on mechanisms to en- species and genetic traits need protection. gage communities and individuals directly in

59 decisions on how income from wildlife can be associated with the development and mainte- distributed. North York Moors began with the nance of the ecosystem for centuries, have been restoration of hedgerows. In contrast, in the Yel- left out of program planning, implementation, lowstone, the public agencies jumped prema- and management. Even past agreements to pro- turely into comprehensive planning and the for- vide human health facilities and road mainte- mulation of an overall vision for the region, nance, for instance, have not been honored, raising many issues at once and making it diffi- putting pastoralism's very future at risk. Govern- cult to get a diverse community to agree upon a ment policies that encourage plowed agriculture discrete set of actions. around the periphery of the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem and provide incentives to settle lands 10. Link conservation and restoration activi- and convert communal reserve lands and group ties with socio-economic development goals in ranches to private holdings also make it hard to the bioregion. Goals to conserve biodiversity can conserve wildlands and biodiversity. hardly be separated from the needs and perspectives of local constituents. Considerable literature The experience of the indigenous peoples liv- documents how the inequities inherent in top- ing in the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve demon- down programs for resource protection prepare strates how barriers to involvement in biodiver- the ground for conflict, resource impoverishment, sity planning and implementation can be and the loss of livelihoods. The challenge is thus overcome. When government agencies failed to to integrate development with conservation goals provide access to planning activities, the La and measures. The Amboseli and Kajaido exam- Amistad indigenous peoples joined forces with ples demonstrate how, through sensitive and church groups to form their own NGO, which open dialogue—in this case, with local Masai res- now offers them training in the skills needed to idents and ranchers—it is possible to start a well- participate and negotiate in planning exercises. focussed regional program with activities that first address stakeholders' perceived needs. While stakeholders along the northern shore of Building fences to help protect gardens and the Mediterranean Sea were dealing with a devel- rangelands from migratory wildlife preservation oped-country agenda (environmental degrada- inspired confidence in the program. tion, habitat and species loss, etc.), countries along the southern shore were addressing devel- In several other cases, a lack of early focus on oping-country issues (employment, nutrition, the needs of stakeholders has hampered progress. housing, institution building, etc.). Even though For example, the Yellowstone program initially conventional wisdom dictates that a bioregion gave short shrift to the problems of local ranchers should be defined to embrace stakeholders with and loggers—social and economic analysis would homogenous expectations, managing the have helped. In the Serengeti, more attention Mediterranean bioregion meant working with a should probably have been given to the concerns particularly large and heterogenous set of com- of pastoralists, including cattle-disease control, munities. The Mediterranean Action Plan pro- transportation, and personal health. In these and vided a means by which the countries could se- other cases, a preoccupation with wildlife appears lect one topic of common concern—oil pollution, to have predominated the regional programs. as it turned out—and helped the North African countries, through information exchange and 11. Give local residents and communities ac- skills development, to participate fully in work cess to decision-making processes and the skills on this initial issue. needed to participate fully in the development and implementation of democratically managed Few examples show more discouraging and bioregional programs. In the Greater Serengeti encouraging results than the Amboseli. After the Ecosystem, a dominant stakeholder group—the government policies to stop hunting came into Masai pastoralists—whose practices have been force, internal funding for compensation incen-

60 tives dried up. But the WED program opened up In the other bioregional programs discussed in opportunities for Masai ranchers to participate Chapter II, different types of incentives were estab- fully in planning discussions and to set an action lished to encourage stakeholder involvement. In agenda that reflected their perspectives. La Amistad, stakeholders got the chance to plan and secure livelihoods over a longer time span 12. To keep negotiations fair, give all stake- than before. In CAMPFIRE, gaining a share of the holders information of equivalent value. In income and seeing improvements in community most of the examples, one or more potential part- services turned the tide of participation. The Great ners lacked key information about the resources, Barrier Reef program eliminated hassles for tour land use, economy, ecology, and other dimen- operators by developing strong voluntary codes of sions of their region. Some information was tech- conduct to protect and maintain the reefs and nologically inaccessible, requiring training in ad- coastal areas. In the Mediterranean, shared science, vanced computer use, Geographic Information technology, and information helped all parties in Systems (GIS), etc. the clean-up of everyone's backyard.

Perhaps uniquely, the Great Barrier Reef 14. To foster involvement and commitment, worked from a scientifically established informa- ensure that individual and group stakeholders tion base right from its beginning, regularly issu- receive a fair share of the benefits. The Zim- ing maps, data, and carefully prepared informa- babwe experience with CAMPFIRE illustrates tion for the public. As a result, the program's what happens when coins of income are literally constituency is relatively well informed, public placed on the communal table and those present debate on oil and mineral exploration (which was are allowed to decide what constitutes a "fair" turned down by the public) has been vigorous, share. Similarly, the North York farmers received and the reef's many visitors receive an education. a fair price for their labor and expenses, giving the program a sure footing. 13. Give stakeholders incentives to get involved in and committed to bioregional pro- On the other hand, the Masai are still awaiting grams. Even where interest in conservation is their due. In both the Tanzanian and Kenyan sec- great and volunteerism ensured, few stakehold- tors of the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem program, ers can afford to do more than attend a few pub- many people who have basically delivered on lic meetings or respond to questionnaires. To get their side of the deal are still waiting for the bene- them to alter farming, fishing, logging, or tourism fits promised. practices, for example, or to restore habitats on private lands may require compensating them for 15. In areas of multiple jurisdictions, try to de- time, expenses, or alternative uses of resources— velop coordination mechanisms that do not im- at least until markets more accurately reflect true mediately challenge nations' existing mandates costs and prices and thus elicit rational coopera- or sovereignty. In all the examples cited, various tive behavior and activity. jurisdictions were already in force. Some twenty- eight distinct public and private entities had juris- In the North York Moors, neighboring farmers dictional responsibilities in the Talamanca moun- in the bioregion's matrix were offered contracts to tains when Costa Rica established its portion of restore and maintain hedgerows on their lands the one-million hectare bi-national La Amistad and to restore certain habitats. Remuneration was Biosphere Reserve it co-sponsors with Panama. In high enough to sustain cooperation in the pro- the Mediterranean, the coastal nations have sover- gram. Presumably, these payments were efficient eignty over portions of the terrestrial, coastal, and since they re-established appropriate habitat for marine components of that ecosystem. less than it would cost to buy new land and hire workers. Here too, a pay-for-services approach Clearly, mechanisms can be designed to con- can jump-start cooperation on other issues. vene a bioregion's constituents, explore issues

61 and potential answers, and promote appropriate interest were already occupied by an array of action without challenging their sovereignty. The public and private organizations and institutions. Biosphere Reserve approach leaves intact the au- Perhaps the most complex was Costa Rica's La thority of public agencies and private property Amistad Biosphere Reserve, but the political rights in the Talamanca. The Med Plan fosters landscapes of the Wadden Sea and Mediter- project activities to address oil pollution within ranean programs were also dotted with national each country and establishes cooperative research and international structures. and monitoring activities at new centers around the region. Along with formal organizations, communal institutions already operating have an important 16. Honor all commitments that result from role to play in bioregional management. The in- negotiations. Evidence from the Serengeti, Am- digenous peoples of La Amistad, the Masai, and boseli, La Amistad, and Yellowstone suggest that other peoples of the Serengeti, Amboseli, and Ka- various commitments made by government agen- jaido, and the ranchers of Yellowstone—all have cies ring hollow several months and years later. strong notions about social behavior, land use, Potential partners in the region stood ready to ne- and the role of government that must be reck- gotiate and implement agreed-upon activities, but oned with if regional management initiatives are government was unable to deliver. Why? In La to succeed. Amistad, government policies changed, cutting off personnel and budgets. In Amboseli, pumps at 18. Don't hesitate to rely on short-term finan- the watering facilities were not maintained, forc- cial support from external sources for biore- ing pastoralists to return into the National Park gional programs initially, so long as it is re- with their herds. In such cases, cynicism sets in—a placed in a timely manner by a sustainable flow further obstacle to progress in future. of resources. Non-governmental support, debt- for-nature swaps, and other forms of financial 17. Promptly implement projects that respond support can be particularly helpful where gov- to community needs. Government agencies and ernments require several years to get a new bud- regional organizations must quickly implement get line funded. That said, however, the cases of projects agreed upon by the communities whose La Amistad and Amboseli and Kajaido illustrate livelihoods and security are affected by a biore- the pitfalls of relying for too long on short-term gional management program. This need opens up external support. In both, programs were halted an important niche for cooperation by non-gov- and local incentives proscribed while alternative ernmental organizations, which can often move sources of funding were sought. funds and carry out activities faster than public agencies required to rely on public works, abide Many countries are now setting up "environ- by national budgets, and follow detailed procure- mental funds" in which grants and contributions ment procedures can. from international, national, and private sources are held in trust and capitalized. Such approaches In the Amboseli example, the Wildlife Exten- hold out the possibility of long-term planning sion (WEX) project helped procure and install the and program security. Commitments made to fencing needed to protect gardens and fields from stakeholders can thus be honored and incentives marauding wildlife in short order after the ranch- continued indefinitely (IUCN, 1994c; IUCN, ers had waited two years for government action. 1994d).

Challenge to Establish Cooperative 19. Establish cooperative management op- Arrangements Among Institutions tions with and among stakeholders. A cardinal rule of ecosystem management is that people Initially, every bioregional management pro- with interests in a bioregion are not simply to be gram described here found that the ecosystems of placated with marginal give-aways or menial

62 jobs, but are understood to be partners. Nor are and agreed on ways to use and share the new re- they simply occupants of so-called "buffer zones" sources. As a result, both the productivity and the to be accommodated just to minimize negative sustainability of the investments increased. impacts on core zones. Indeed, their patches of forest, farm, and coastal area are vital cogs of the This analysis suggests eight issues that policy- greater ecosystem, and many of the resources makers and managers need to weigh in the bal- they control are as important as the core areas ance if their goal is to promote bioregional man- themselves to the ecosystem's overall function agement. (See Box 3.1.) and health. Finally, there remains the question, does biore- Cooperation between public agencies and pri- gional management increase the odds for long- vate parties hinges on how well government's au- term maintenance of our biotic wealth? Indi- thority to protect the interests of society at large rectly, we can say yes, as suggested by the are balanced with the need to join forces with subjective indicators listed in Box 3.2. local interests. The sport fishing boats operating in the Great Barrier Reef now police their own The examples examined in this study, how- community members to protect the nursery ever, have yet to be rigorously evaluated for their grounds of the fishery. CAMPFIRE communities impact on biodiversity conservation. Steps to work with government to prevent poaching of an monitor and assess results, and the use of objec- animal worth more alive than dead to the group tive indicators to gauge progress have been initi- coffers. North York farmers manage their own ated only recently (Amazon Treaty Secretariat, patches of the whole Moors ecosystem but follow 1995; Reid et al., 1993). guidelines developed communally. Furthermore, it is methodologically impossible 20. Adjust the design and delivery of technol- to credit positive achievements as the result of a ogy to allow for the space and time necessary bioregional program in the absence of witness for communities and institutions to adapt. The cases where under similar ecological, economic Indian Hill Resource Management program illus- and social circumstances, no bioregional type ac- trates why technology and innovation have to be tion is taken. So, with a cautious eye to what has introduced carefully and adjusted to local social been learned from our examples, we conclude and institutional circumstances. Once the engi- that bioregional management can bring together neers building the small reservoirs joined forces necessary skills and capacity, build a coalition of with community leaders to pace the program so neighbors and resource users who share ecosys- that the community could more easily adapt tems, and forge partnerships among institutions these welcomed facilities, participants began and organizations. In short, it can set the stage for keeping their livestock off the new reservoir walls forward movement.

63 Box 3.1. Issues in be Weighed in the Balance

1. Scale. Seek a balance between larger but shift the balance of funding as soon a-> pos- scales lh.it permit analv sis and the implemen- sible to a mix w ith internal sustainable funding tation o( policies to protect CUK\ utilize whole sources. eiosystems and the smaller soiled at u hicli man liters must deal with Iho problems and is- (i. Sovereignty. I'stablish cooperative sues of communities, resource users and man- arrangements among central, regional, and agers, ami residents whose li\ oliho are at local go\eminent entities, and private interests slake. Ihus, a hioregional program will fealure that respeel national and institutional sover- work at \arious scales simullaneouslv. I'ach eignty •titd existing mandate.^. C'entrali/ed lev el may \\ ell require difU-ri'iil lypi's ot skills command-and-conlrol approaches to natural and cjp.ibilitii's. dilk'ivnt partnoi>, and ditti-r- resources management and ownership w ill t'nt kinds of collaboration. have to graduallv give way lo co-management and co-finance arrangements. 2. PovvL'iand Authority. Balance ,uithorit\ and responsibility between central, regional, 7. Time and Adaptability. The time needed and local le\els of ^ovcrnmi'nt and pri\atei'n- to develop new ideas and techniques should be tities. In most instances, however, some level balanced with that required hv managers, (.(.im- of central authority will be required to repre- munities and other interesled parties to adapt sent society as a whole, as well as future gener- their respective social norms and resource vise ations, and to oversee compliance with appro- tei hniques. >ome oi the cycles of nature, like priate standards and norms. Neither extreme migration patterns, are predictable, so man- of totally central or entirely community managers can easily prepare lor them. But others— agement appears lo be ideal or practical. such as natural disasters strike unannounced, while still others occur over intervals too long ."V locus. While analyzing global and re- to fit into even long-range plans. Bioregional gional ecological, economic and social issues lo programs need lo anticipate and prepare for define the bioregion and its program of work, natural disasters and humanitarian assistance keep the focus on issues of common concern to demands while dealing with normal daily pro- all interested local parties. jects and activities.

4. Conservation/Development. Balancing S. Old versus New Institutions. Where pre- conservation and development goals keeps existing institutions can be adapted to lead, or bioregional programs relevant to local resi- contribute specific capabilities to the biore- dents and resource-dependent people and in- gional program, then on balance, their reform dustry. A preoccupation with conservation may be more efficient than the formation of alone can alienate potential partners and iso- new organizations. Alternatively, where estab- late the area from the regional economy. lished bodies cannot or choose not to evolve, or where needed skills and capabilities are not 3. Funding. Welcome international funds to available in any existing inslilulion, then a new support the launch of bioregional programs. bodv mav be juslified to fulfill that role.

64 Box 3.2.Preliminary Conclusions on the Impact of IJLorogiun.il Management on Uiodivorsity Conservation

1. Where bioregional programs c\rc underway, (•>. The need for careful protection and manage- .i larger and more complex pool of skills and ment of selected sites for their ecological tools are serving In help protect, ri'slori1, in- function", i* understood and accepted, while \cnlory, collect, sludv, appreciate, ulili/e at the same time greater emphasis i- given to and educate about the region's biotic. wealth. impro\emenls in the sustainable utilization of biotic resources, and the equitable sharing 2. Greater number* of individual* and groups of cosls and benefit*. liave become involved in charting the region's future and in reconsidering how their 7. Clver time, bioregional programs give own livelihoods need to be harmonized with greater emphasis to policy, legislative and the region s resources. administrativi'considerations, and place increasing weight upon social, cultural and .">. Established public and private organizations economic factors, l-'asy technical and expert and landowner* in the regions an.1 negotiat- fixe* are gracluallv held suspect. ing new agreements to promote cooperative planning and implementation, including co- S. Participant* favor incentives and other posi- management and co-finance options. tive mechanisms to foster their cooperation in regional programs; they also recognize the 4. Participants demand, and learn to employ role of governmental agencies and regional data, information, and local, traditional and authorities to provide long-term continuity, scientific knowledge in decision-making. support, and commitment to the aims of the program and national goals. ^. Stakeholder* develop the *kills and acce*s needed to participate in planning and management activities in the region.

Kenton Miller is Senior Associate and Director of WRI's Program in Biological Resources and Institu- tions. Before joining WRI, he served as Director General of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Earlier career posts have included Associate Professor of Natural Resources at the School of Natural Re- sources, University of Michigan; Chairman of the National Parks and Protected Areas Commission; and Director of the Regional Wildland Management Programme of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for Latin America and the Caribbean.

65 References

Aberley, D. 1994. Futures by Design: The Practice of Failed or A Vote for Posterity?" In: Proceedings Ecological Planning. The New Catalyst Biore- from the Conference on Partnerships in Parks and gional Series. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Preservation. 80-85. September 9-12,1991, Al- Island, British Columbia and Philadelphia, PA. bany, NY.

—. 1993. Boundaries of Home: Mapping for Local Barber, C.V., N.C. Johnson, and E. Hafild. 1994. Empowerment. The New Catalyst Bioregional Breaking the Logjam: Obstacles to Forest Policy Re- Series. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Is- form in Indonesia and the United States. World land, British Columbia, and Philadelphia, PA. Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

Alcock, D., E. Eager, A. Williams, and R. Kench- Barfoot, P. J. 1995. (Farm Conservation Officer, ington. 1991. "Could Tourism Damage the North York Moors National Park, York.) Per- Great Barrier Reef?" Issues. February 1991. sonal communication, September 7,1995. Batisse, M. 1993. "Biosphere reserves: an over- Amazon Treaty Secretariat. 1995. Proposal of Crite- view." Nature and Resources 29(1-4): 3-5. ria and Indicators for Sustainability of the Amazon Forest. Amazon Cooperation Treaty Pro Tern- Bennett, G. (ed). 1993. Conserving Europe's Natural pore Secretariat, Lima, Peru. Heritage: Towards a European Ecological Network. Graham and Trotman, London. Andruss, V., C. Plant, J. Plant and E. Wright. 1990. Home1. A Bioregional Reader. New Society Berg, P. and R. Dasmann. 1978. "Reinhabiting Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia California." In: Berg, P. (ed.), Reinhabiting a and Philadelphia, PA. Separate Country: A Bioregional Anthology of Northern California. Planet Drum Foundation, ANZECC. 1994. National Strategy for the Conserva- San Francisco. tion of Australia's Biological Diversity. Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conserva- Berger, D.J. 1993. Wildlife Extension: Participatory tion Council, Canberra, Australia. Conservation by the Masai of Kenya. African Cen- tre for Technology Studies (ACTS) Press, Asher, W. 1995. Communities and Sustainable Nairobi, Kenya. Forestry in Developing Countries. Duke Univer- sity, Durham, NC. . 1988. People, Parks and Wildlife: Guidelines for Public Participation in Wildlife Conservation. Barbee, R.D., P. Schullery, and J.D. Varley. 1991. Kenya Wildlife Trustees and United Nations "The Yellowstone Vision: An Experiment that Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

67 Boshe, J.J. 1989. "Towards Managing Ngorongoro Governmental Conference on the Protection of the Conservation Area's Conflicting Interests." Wadden Sea. Leeuwarden, November 30,1994. Kakakuona: Magazine of the Tanzania Wildlife Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Wil- Protection Fund. 3: 6-7. helmshaven, Germany.

Boza, M. A. 1995. Central America Biological Cor- . 1993. Quality Status Report of the North Sea ridor Project, San Jose, Costa Rica. Personal Subregion 10: The Wadden Sea. Common Wad- communication, September 14,1995. den Sea Secretariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany.

Bromley, D.W. 1991. Environment and Economy: . 1992. Wise Use and Conservation of the Wadden Property Rights and Public Policy. Blackwell Sci- Sea. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Wil- entific Publishers, Oxford, U.K. helmshaven, Germany.

Brown, M. and B. Wyckoff-Baird. 1992. Designing —. 1991. The Wadden Sea: Status and Developments Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. in an International Perspective. Report to the The Biodiversity Support Program, Washing- Sixth Trilateral Governmental Conference on ton, D.C. the Protection of the Wadden Sea, Esbjerg, 13 November 1991. Common Wadden Sea Secre- Carr, M. J., D. J. Lambert, P. D. Zwick. 1995. Map- tariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany. ping of Continuous Biological Corridor Potential in Central America. University of Florida, Conservation International, Fundacao Biodiversi- Gainesville, U. S. tas, Sociedade Nordestina de Ecologia, Minis- terio do Meio Ambiente, dos Recursos Hidri- Castro, J. J. 1995. (Organization of American cos e da Amazonia Legal. 1993. "Prioridades States, Project Manager in San Jose, Costa para Conservacao da Biodiversidade da Mata Rica.) Personal communication, September 14, Atlantica do Nordeste." Map from Workshop, 1995. Ilha de Itamaraca, Pernambuco, 6-10 de dezembro de 1993, Brasil. Castro, J.J., M. Ramirez, R.E. Saunier, and R.A. Meganck. In press. "The La Amistad Biosphere Reserve." In: Saunier, R. E., and R.A. Meganck Conway, G.R. 1985. "Agroecosystem Analysis." (eds.), Conservation of Biodiversity and the New Agricultural Administration 20: 31-55. Regional Planning. Organization of American States and The World Conservation Union, Council on Environmental Quality. 1995. The Washington D.C. Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sus- tainable Economies. Report of the Interagency Child, B. and J.H. Peterson, Jr. 1991. "Campfire in Ecosystem Management Task Force. Volume I, Rural Development, the Beitbridge Experi- Overview. Council on Environmental Quality, ence." Joint Working Paper Series, Department Washington D.C. of National Parks and Wildlife Management and Centre for Applied Social Sciences, Uni- Cronon, W. 1991. "Landscape and Home: Envi- versity of Zimbabwe, Harare. ronmental Traditions in Wisconsin." Wisconsin Magazine of History. 74(2): 83-105. Clark, T. and A. Harvey. 1990. "The Greater Yel- lowstone Ecosystem Policy Arena." Society and Davis, S.H. and A. Wali. 1993. "Indigenous Terri- Natural Resources 3: 281-284. tories and Tropical Forest Management in Latin America." Policy, Planning, and Research Common Wadden Sea Secretariat (CWSS). 1994. Working Paper. The World Bank, Washington, Ministerial Declaration of the Seventh Trilateral D.C.

68 de Jong, F. 1995. (Common Wadden Sea Secre- European Centre for Nature Conservation. 1995. tariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany.) Personal Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity communication, August 29,1995; November Strategy. Council of Europe, Document PE-S- 13,1994. ST (95)6, Strasbourg, France.

di Castri, F. 1995. "The Hierarchical Uniqueness Fosbrooke, H.A. 1993. "Ngorongoro at Cross of Biodiversity." In: F. Gros (ed.), Uniqueness Roads." Kakakuona: Magazine of the Tanzania and Universality in a Biological World. IUBS Spe- Wildlife Protection Fund, 2:11-15. cial Issue No. 33, 54-57, International Union of Biological Sciences, Paris. French, G. 1991. "Protecting the Great Barrier Reef." Maritime Studies, July/August 1991. Dodge, J. 1990. "Living by Life: Some Bioregional Theory and Practice." In: V. Andruss, C. Plant, Frentz, I., P. Hardy, S. Maleki, A. Phillips and B. J. Plant and E. Wright, (eds.), Home! A Biore- Thorpe. 1995. "Ecosystem Management in the gional Reader. 5-12. New Society Publishers, U.S.: An Inventory and Assessment of Current Gabriola Island, British Columbia and Phila- Practice." Master's Project. University of delphia, PA. Michigan, Ann Arbor. Gladstone, W. 1991. "The Crown-of-Thorns Star- Douglas-Hamilton, I. and Associates. 1988. Identi- fish: Is This Still An Issue?" Issues. February, fication Study for the Conservation and Sustainable 1991. Use of the Natural Resources in the Kenya Portion of the Mara-Serengeti Ecosystem. European De- Glick, D. In press. "Greater Yellowstone Tomor- velopment Fund of the European Economic row: Charting a Course for a Greater Yellow- Community. stone Forever." In: R.E. Saunier, and R.A. Meganck, (eds.), Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecological Society of America. 1995. "The Report of the New Regional Planning. Organization of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the American States and The World Conservation Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management." May Union, Washington. D.C. 31,1995 draft. Ecological Society of America, Duke University, Durham, NC. . 1990. "The Rugged Road to Sustainability in Greater Yellowstone." Greater Yellowstone Re- Ekey, R., D. Glick, A. Harting and C. Rawlins. port, Fall 1990. 1994. Sustaining Greater Yellowstone, A Blueprint for the Future: Executive Summary. Greater Yel- Glowka, L., F. Burhenne-Guilmin, and H. Synge. lowstone Coalition, Bozeman, Montana. 1994. A Guide to the Convention on Biological Di- versity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Enemark, J.A. 1993. "The Protection of the Wad- den Sea in an International Perspective: Plan- Gobierno de Costa Rica. 1990. Estrategia para el De- ning, Protection and Management of the Wad- sarrollo Institutional de La Reserva de La Biosfera den Sea." In: Roeland Hillen and Henk Jan "La Amistad." Ministerio de Recursos Natu- Verhagen, (eds.), Coastlines of the Southern rales, Energia y Minas, Ministerio de Planifi- North Sea. 203-213. American Society of Civil cacion Nacional y Politica Economica, Con- Engineers, New York. servation Internacional y la Organization de los Estados Americanos, San Jose, Costa Rica. Environmental Systems and Research Institute. 1993. Digital Chart of the World. Redlands, Goldstein, B.E. 1992. "Can Ecosystem Manage- California. ment Turn an Administrative Patchwork into a Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem?" Northwest —. 1992. Arcworld. Redlands, California. Environmental Journal. 8: 285-333.

69 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 1994a. Homewood, K. and W.A. Rodgers. 1987. "Pas- Keeping It Great: A 25 Year Strategic Plan for the toralism, Conservation and the Overgrazing Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Great Controversy." In: D. Anderson and R. Grove, Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, (eds.), Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Townsville, Australia. Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. —. 1994b. 1993-1994 Annual Report. Great Bar- rier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Hough, J. 1991. "Social Impact Assessment: Its Queensland. Role in Protected Area Planning and Manage- ment." In: P.C. West and S.R. Brechin, (eds.), . 1993.1993-1998 Corporate Plan. Great Barrier Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilem- Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, mas and Strategies in International Conservation. Queensland. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

. 1992. Reflections. The Great Barrier Reef Ma- Hughes, Helen R., Parliamentary Commissioner rine Park Authority, Australia. No. 27. for the Environment, Wellington, New Zea- land. Personal communication, June 5,1995. —. 1983. Cairns Section Zoning Plan and the Cor- morant Pass Section Zoning Plan. The Great Bar- IUCN (World Conservation Union). 1994a. Guide- rier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia. lines for Protected Area Management Categories. Commission on National Parks and Protected Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Areas (CNPPA) and World Conservation 1987. The Greater Yellowstone Area: An Aggrega- Monitoring Centre (WCMC). IUCN, Gland, tion of National Park and National Forest Manage- Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. ment Plans. Report of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, published by U.S. . 1994b. 1993 United Nations List of National Department of Agriculture Forest Service, In- Parks and Protected Areas. Commission on Na- termountain Region, Ogden UT. tional Parks and Protected Areas, and World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Gland, Haas, P.M. 1990. Saving the Mediterranean: The Pol- Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. itics of International Environmental Cooperation. Columbia University Press, New York. . 1994c. "Financing Protected Areas." Parks 4(2): 1-46. Halfter, G. 1994. "Conservation de la biodiversidad y areas protegidas en los pafses tropi- . 1994d. Report of the First Global Forum on Envi- cales." Ciencias 36:117-126. ronmental Funds. Santa Cruz, Bolivia, May 30-June 2,1994. IUCN, The Nature Conser- —. 1993. "Biodiversidad y Areas Protegidas." vancy, World Wildlife Fund-US, Washington Publicaciones Biologicas, Suplemento 1:124-128. D.C.

Hansen, A. J. and F. de Castri (eds.), 1992. Land- . 1993. Ngorongoro Conservation and Develop- scape Boundaries: Consequences for Biotic Diver- ment Project, Phase II. IUCN Regional Office for sity and Ecological Flows. Springer-Verlag, New East Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. York. Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley and S. Wells. 1995. (eds.), Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island A Global Representative System of Marine Pro- Biogeopraphy Theory and the Preservation ofBiotic tected Areas. Volume 1. The Great Barrier Reef Diversity. The University of Chicago Press, Marine Park Authority, World Bank, The Chicago, IL. World Conservation Union, Washington D.C.

70 King, Anthony W. 1993. "Considerations of Scale Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, and Hierarchy." In: S. Woodley, J. Kay, and G. U.K. Francis (eds), Ecological Integrity and the Man- agement of Ecosystems. St. Lucie Press, Ottawa, McNeely, J.A., K. R. Miller, W. V. Reid, R. Mitter- Canada. meier, and T. Werner. 1991. Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. World Conservation Lane, B.C. 1988. Landscapes of the Sacred. Paulist Union (IUCN), World Resources Institute Press, New York. (WRI), Conservation International, World Bank. Gland, Switzerland and Washington, D.C. Lichtman, P. and T.W. Clark. 1994. "Rethinking the 'Vision' Exercise in the Greater Yellow- Miller, K.R. 1984. "The Bali Action Plan: A Frame- stone Ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources work for the Future of Protected Areas." In: 7: 459-478. J.A. McNeely, and K. R. Miller (eds.), National Parks, Conservation, and Development. 756-764. Lowrance, R., P.F. Hendrix, and E.P. Odum. 1986. Proceedings of the World Congress on Na- "A Hierarchical Approach to Sustainable Agri- tional Parks, Bali, Indonesia. 11-22 October culture." American Journal of Alternative Agricul- 1992. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washing- ture 1(4): 169-173. ton D.C.

Lynch, O.J. and K. Talbott. 1995. Balancing Acts: Miller, K.R., and S. Lanou. 1995. National Biodiver- Community-Based Forest Management and Na- sity Planning: Guidelines Based on Early Experi- tional Law in Asia and the Pacific. World Re- ences Around the World. World Resources Insti- sources Institute, Washington, D.C. tute (WRI), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Conservation Mascarenhas, Adolfo. 1994. (Institute for Re- Union (IUCN). Washington, D.C. sources Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam.) Personal communica- Mintzmyer, L. 1991. "Two say politics rule their tion, September 27-28,1994. agencies." High Country News. October 7,1991.

Maveneke, T.N. 1995. (Director, CAMPFIRE As- Morales, R. 1983. "Planificacion y Direccion de la sociation, Harare, Zimbabwe.) Personal com- Reserva de la Biosfera Multicomponente y munication, September 6,1995. Multifuncional: El Caso de Areas Naturales La Amistad, Talamanca y Bocas del Toro en Costa May, R.M. 1994. "The Effects of Spatial Scale on Rica y Panama." Materiales del Primer Con- Ecological Questions and Answers." In: P.J. greso Internacional para la Reservas de la Bios- Edwards, R. M. May and N.R. Webb (eds), fera, Minsk, Bielorrusia, URSS. UNESCO, Large-Scale Ecology and Conservation Biology. Paris, France. 1-17. Blackwell Scientific Publishers, Cam- bridge, MA. Naveh, Z. and A.S. Lieberman. 1984. Landscape Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York. McNeely, J.A., and M. Rojas. 1995. "The Conven- tion on Biological Diversity: New Roles and Op- Newmark, W.D. 1987. "A Land Bridge Perspec- portunities for Biosphere Reserves." Paper pre- tive on Mammalian Extinctions in Western sented at International Conference on Biosphere North American Parks." Nature 325: 430-432. Reserves, Sevilla, Spain, 20-25 March 1995. Noss, R.F. 1994. "The Wildlands Project: Land McNeely, J.A., J.A. Harrison and P. Dingwall, Conservation Strategy." In: D. Aberley, (ed.), (eds.). 1994. Protecting Nature—Regional Re- Futures By Design: The Practice of Ecological views of Protected Areas. World Conservation Planning. The New Catalyst Bioregional Series.

71 New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Poole, P. 1989. "Developing a Partnership of In- British Columbia and Philadelphia, PA. digenous Peoples, Conservationists and Land Use Planners in Latin America." Policy, Plan- —. 1990. "Indicators for Monitoring Biodiver- ning, and Research Working Paper. The World sity: A Hierarchical Approach." Conservation Bank, Washington, D.C. Biology 4(4): 355-364. Rawlins, Chip (ed.). 1994. Sustaining Greater Yel- —. 1983. "A Regional Approach to Maintain Di- lowstone, a Blueprint for the Future. Greater Yel- versity." BioScience 33: 700-706. lowstone Coalition, Bozeman, MT.

Noss, R.F. and L.D. Harris. 1986. "Nodes, net- Reid, W.V. 1992. "The United States Needs a Na- works and MUMs: preserving diversity at all tional Biodiversity Policy." Issues and Ideas. scales." Environmental Management 10: 299-309. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

Noton, R.C. 1995. Conservacion y Uso Sostenible de Reid, W.V., J.A. McNeely, D.B. Tunstall, D.A. la Diversidad Biologica en America Latina. Oficina Bryant, and M. Winograd. 1993. Biodiversity In- Regional de la FAO para America Latina y el dicators for Policy-Makers. World Resources In- Caribe. RLAC/95/07 Documento Tecnico No. stitute, Washington, D.C. 18. Santiago, Chile. Risser, P.G. 1995. "The Status of the Science Ex- Olivieri, S., LA. Bowles, R.B. Cavalcanti, G.A.B. amining Ecotones." BioScience 45(5): 318-325. da Fonseca, R.A. Mittermeier, and C.B. Rod- strom. 1995. A Participatory Approach to Biodi- Sale, K. 1987. "Interview with Kirkpatrick Sale." versity Conservation: The regional Priority Setting The New Catalyst, Spring 1987. Workshop. Revised Discussion Draft (March 1995). Conservation International, Washington —. 1985. Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vi- D.C. sion. Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evo- Sanford, S. 1983. Management of Pastoral Develop- lution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cam- ment in the Third World. John Wiley, London. bridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Santiso, C. 1993. "The Maya Biosphere Reserve: Paquet, P. and A. Hackman. 1995. Large Carnivore An Alternative for the Sustainable Use of Re- Conservation in the Rocky Mountains. World sources." Nature and Resources 29(1-4): 6-11. Wildlife Fund/Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Saunier, R.E. 1995. Conservation and Management of Parkipuny, M.S. 1989. Pastomlism, Conservation and Natural Resources for Sustainable Development. Development in the Greater Serengeti Region: Oc- Organization of American States. Washington casional Paper No. 1. Ngorongoro Conservation D.C. and Development Project, Loliondo, Tanzania. Saunier, R.E., and R.A. Meganck, (eds.). In press. Planet Drum Foundation. 1995. "Raise the Stakes: Conservation of Biodiversity and the New Regional Bioregional Directory and Map." The Planet Planning. Organization of American States and Drum Review, No. 24. Planet Drum Foundation, The World Conservation Union, Washington San Francisco, CA. D.C.

Poffenberger, M. 1990. "Joint Management of For- Saunier, R.E., J.J. Castro and R.A. Meganck. 1992. est Lands: Experiences from South Asia." A "Regional Landscape Planning: The "La Amis- Ford Foundation Program Statement. tad" Biosphere Reserve of Costa Rica and

72 Panama." In: Symposium on Biodiversity in Man- WCMC. 1992. Global Biodiversity: Status of the aged Landscapes: Theory and Practice. U.S. Dept. of Earth's Living Resources. World Conservation Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K.

Statham, D.C. 1994. The Farm Scheme of North Wells, M. and K. Brandon. 1993. "The Principles York Moors National Park, United Kingdom. and Practice of Buffer Zones and Local Partici- In: D. Western, and R.M. Wright, (eds.), Nat- pation." Ambio 22:157-162. ural Connections: Perspectives in Community- based Conservation. 282-299. Island Press, Wells, ML, K. Brandon, and L. Hannah. 1992. Peo- Washington, D.C. ple and Parks: Linking Protected Area Manage- ment with Local Communities. The World Bank, Talamanca. 1992. Boletin Informativo, "Reserve U.S. Agency for International Development, de la Biosfera La Amistad." Octubre 1992, Nu- mero 5, San Jose. and World Wildlife Fund/US, Washington, D.C. Ugalde, A. 1994. (United Nations Development Programme, San Jose, Costa Rica.) Personal Western, D. 1994. Ecosystem Conservation and communication, May 7-8,1994. Rural Development: The Case of Amboseli. In: David Western, and R. Michael Wright (eds.), UNEP. 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community- United Nations Environment Programme, based Conservation. 15-53. Island Press, Wash- Nairobi, Kenya. ington, D.C.

—. 1991. Mediterranean Action Plan: Saving Our Western, D., and R. M. Wright, (eds.). 1994. Nat- Common Heritage. United Nations Environment ural Connections: Perspectives in Community- Programme, Athens. based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C. UNESCO. 1995. The Vision from Seville for the list Century: The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Re- Willcox, L. 1995. "The Yellowstone Experience: serves. United Nations Educational, Scientific, The Use of Science, with Humility, in Public and Cultural Organization, Paris. Policy." BioScience (Special Supplement on Sci- ence and Biodiversity Management): 79-81. United Republic of Tanzania. 1991. Serengeti Re- gional Conservation Strategy: A Plan for Conser- Wilson, E.O. (ed.). 1988. Biodiversity. National vation and Development in the Serengeti Region. Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Phase II Final Report; Phase III Action Plan. October, 1991. Ministry of Tourism, Natural WRI/IUCN/UNEP. 1992. Global Biodiversity Strat- Resources, and Environment, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. egy: Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use Earth's Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. U. S. Department of State. 1994. "Isle au Haut World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Principles: Ecosystem Management and the Case of South Florida." National Technical In- WRI, WCMC, and Padco, Inc. 1995. Africa Data formation Service, U. S. Department of Com- Sampler User's Guide. World Resources Insti- merce, Springfield, VA. tute, Washington D.C.

USMAB. 1994. The United States Man and the Bios- Zimbabwe Trust. 1990. People, Wildlife and Natural phere Program. U.S. Man and the Biosphere Resources—The CAMPFIRE Approach to Rural Program, Washington, D.C. Development in Zimbabwe. ZimTrust, Harare.

73 World Resources Institute

1709 New York Avenue, N.W. The World Resources Institute (WRI) is an independent center for Washington, D.C. 20006, U.S.A. policy research and technical assistance on global environmental WRI's Board of Directors: and development issues. WRI's mission is to move human society Maurice Strong to live in ways that protect Earth's environment and its capacity to Chairman provide for the needs and aspirations of current and future John Firor Vice Chairman generations. John H. Adams Kazuo Aichi Because people are inspired by ideas, empowered by knowledge, Manuel Arango Robert O. Blake and moved to change by greater understanding, the Institute Derek Bok provides—and helps other institutions provide—objective Robert N. Burt information and practical proposals for policy and institutional Sylvia A. Earle Alice F. Emerson change that will foster environmentally sound, socially equitable Shinji Fukukawa development. WRI's particular concerns are with globally William M. Haney, III significant environmental problems and their interaction with Cynthia R. Helms Calestous Juma economic development and social equity at all levels. Jonathan Lash Jeffrey T. Leeds The Institute's current areas of work include economics, forests, Thomas E. Lovejoy Jane Lubchenco biodiversity, climate change, energy, sustainable agriculture, C. Payne Lucas resource and environmental information, trade, technology, Robert S. McNamara national strategies for environmental and resource management, Scott McVay William F. Martin and human health. Matthew Nimetz Paulo Nogueira-Neto In all of its policy research and work with institutions, WRI tries to Ronald L. Olson Maria Tereza Jorge Padua build bridges between ideas and action, meshing the insights of Ruth Patrick scientific research, economic and institutional analyses, and Florence T. Robinson practical experience with the need for open and participatory Roger W. Sant Stephan Schmidheiny decision-making. Bruce Smart James Gustave Speth Mostafa K. Tolba Alvaro Umana Victor L. Urquidi Pieter Winsemius George M. Woodwell

Jonathan Lash President J. Alan Brewster Senior Vice President Walter V. Reid Vice President for Program Donna W. Wise Vice President for Policy Affairs Robert Repetto Vice President and Senior Economist Marjorie Beane Secretary-Treasurer