DOCSLIB.ORG

Protected Area Approaches in the EU

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protected Area Approaches in the EU 21 October 2014 Protected area approaches in the EU By: Evelyn Underwood Robert Ashcroft Marianne Kettunen Andrew McConville Graham Tucker This work was funded by the statutory nature conservation bodies in the UK, as part of a contractual arrangement with IEEP to provide intelligence on EU environment policy and other policies which impact on the environment. It reflects the independent views of IEEP and not necessarily the views of the funding bodies. For further information contact Emma Watkins at [email protected]. Disclaimer: The arguments expressed in this report are solely those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinion of any other party. The report should be cited as follows: Underwood, E., Ashcroft, R., Kettunen, M., McConville, A.J. and Tucker, G.M. (2014) Protected area approaches in the EU. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London/Brussels. Corresponding author: Graham Tucker [email protected] Acknowledgements: We are especially grateful to the following experts for supplying information and comments on protected areas in their country: Croatia: Irina Zupan, State Institute for Nature Protection; Ivan Budinski, Association BIOM. Czech Republic: Pavlina Kuncova, Natura 2000 Unit, Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic; Alena Kubánková, Head of Natura 2000 Unit, Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic; Michael Hošek, independent expert; Stanislava Bartošová, CSOP (Czech Union for Nature Conservation). Estonia: Andres Kalamees and Veljo Volke, Estonian Ornithological Society. Finland: Mervi Heinonen - Natural Heritage Services / Metsahallitus, Aulukki Alanen - Finnish Ministry for Environment; Tero Toivanen, BirdLife Finland; Tapani Veistola, Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. France: Pierre Commenville, Adjoint au sous-directeur, Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie; Thierry Lefebvre, head of protected areas programme, IUCN France. Germany: Volker Scherfose and Götz Ellwanger, Bundesamt für Naturschutz; Elke Baranek, EUROPARC Deutschland. The Netherlands: Annemiek Adams, Natura 2000 Policy Officer, Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands. Spain: Dr Octavio Infante, SEO – BirdLife Spain; Marta Múgica, EUROPARC España. We also thank David Baldock and Andrew Farmer of IEEP, Stewart Pritchard, Clive Mitchell and Greg Mudge of Scottish Natural Heritage, Paul Corbett of the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, Adam Cole- King of Natural Resources Wales and Stephen Grady of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for their helpful comments on the draft report. Institute for European Environmental Policy London Office Brussels Office 11 Belgrave Road Quai au Foin, 55 IEEP Offices, Floor 3 Hooikaai 55 London, SW1V 1RB B- 1000 Brussels Tel: +44 (0) 20 7799 2244 Tel: +32 (0) 2738 7482 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 Fax: +32 (0) 2732 4004 The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is an independent not-for-profit institute. IEEP undertakes work for external sponsors in a range of policy areas as well as engaging in our own research programmes. For further information about IEEP, see our website at www.ieep.eu or contact any staff member. Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction and background .................................................................................... 6 1.1 Aims and scope of this review of protected areas in the EU ............................................. 6 1.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Structure of this report ...................................................................................................... 9 1.4 The role of protected areas in biodiversity conservation.................................................. 9 1.5 Protected areas in Europe ............................................................................................... 16 2 Protected areas in the UK ........................................................................................ 24 2.1 The role of protected areas in biodiversity conservation in the UK ................................ 24 2.2 Protected area designations and coverage in the UK ..................................................... 26 2.3 Objective setting for protected areas in the UK .............................................................. 30 2.4 Protection levels and approaches in the UK .................................................................... 31 2.5 The monitoring of protected areas in the UK .................................................................. 32 3 Observations on protected area approaches in selected European Member States .. 34 3.1 The role of protected areas in biodiversity conservation................................................ 34 3.2 Protected area designations and their specific roles ...................................................... 38 3.3 Protected area objective setting...................................................................................... 43 3.4 Protection levels and approaches.................................................................................... 45 3.5 The monitoring of protected areas .................................................................................. 46 4 References .............................................................................................................. 49 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ 56 5 Protected areas in Croatia ....................................................................................... 58 6 Protected areas in the Czech Republic ..................................................................... 68 7 Protected areas in Estonia ....................................................................................... 77 8 Protected areas in Finland ....................................................................................... 87 9 Protected areas in France ........................................................................................ 98 10 Protected areas in Germany .................................................................................. 110 11 Protected areas in The Netherlands ....................................................................... 122 12 Protected areas in Spain ........................................................................................ 130 References ................................................................................................................... 139 Executive Summary This report was commissioned to gather information on the approaches and rationale of designating and managing terrestrial protected areas across the EU. The study aimed to understand how conservation objectives and legislative requirements shape protected area systems in a range of countries in order to provide new insight into the role of protected areas in addressing biodiversity loss. It focused on protected area types that receive some form of national or regional statutory protection primarily for biodiversity purposes, thus excluding geological designations, and designations for landscape and cultural values. The report outlines the UK approach to protected areas and assesses a sample of eight other EU Member States with a variety of habitats and species across various biogeographical regions; biodiversity threats; historical and current socio-economic and governance characteristics; and nature conservation history, specifically in: Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. This study has shown that the reviewed Member States generally recognise the important role of protected areas in achieving biodiversity conservation targets. Reflecting the long history of protected areas in Europe, countries use a wide variety of protected area designations and management regimes, and in federally organised countries, each region may also have its own system of protected areas. Nevertheless some widely used approaches (which are not followed in the UK) include the designation of National Parks that protect large-scale ecological processes (IUCN category II) and the use of strict biodiversity conservation protection areas (category Ia) (although generally over relatively small areas). Several countries are also showing increasing interest in designating wilderness areas (category Ib). The overall coverage of terrestrial protected areas that primarily focus on biodiversity conservation aims (i.e. IUCN categories I – IV) varies considerably amongst the countries studied, and cannot be reliably quantified in some due to overlaps in types, i.e. some areas have multiple designations. Moreover, all types of protected area play a role in supporting biodiversity conservation to some extent. The role of protected areas is also dependent on the level of protection (i.e. its strictness), which varies according to type; such that there is a trade-off between coverage and protection level. Furthermore, species and habitats have different needs with respect to the adequacy of protection coverage, and protection strictness. Management requirements also tend to depend on the habitats and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enhancing Nationally Determined Contributions Through Protected Areas Table of Contents
    ENHANCING NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGH PROTECTED AREAS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 BACKGROUND 5 METHODOLOGY 7 RESULTS 13 1. EXPLICIT MENTION OF PROTECTED AREAS 13 2. ESTABLISHING NEW OR EXPANDING EXISTING PROTECTED AREAS 14 3. UTILIZING PROTECTED AREAS TO HELP PEOPLE ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE (ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION) 15 4. MITIGATION BENEFITS FROM CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND AUTHORS AVOIDED EMISSIONS 17 Abigail Hehmeyer, Jacqueline Vogel, Shaun Martin, Ryan Bartlett 5. MANAGING PROTECTED AREAS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS 18 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20 WWF CONCLUSION 27 GLOSSARY 28 For more than 50 years, WWF has been protecting the future of nature. One APPENDICES 31 of the world’s leading conservation organizations, WWF works in nearly 100 countries and is supported by more than 1.1 million members in the United APPENDIX 1: RESULTS BY COUNTRY 31 States and 5 million supporters globally. WWF’s unique way of working APPENDIX 2: COUNTRIES RANKED BY CREDITS EARNED FOR THE combines global reach with a foundation in science, involves action at every level 5 CRITERIA EXAMINED 39 from local to global, and ensures the delivery of innovative solutions that meet the needs of both people and nature. Visit worldwildlife.org to learn more. APPENDIX 3: COUNTRIES REFERENCED IN THIS REPORT, LISTED BY REGION 41 REFERENCES 43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this analysis, conducted by WWF US, was made possible by the Support Project for the Implementation of the Paris Agreement (SPA), which is implemented by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) under its International Climate Initiative (IKI).
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Inclusive Conservation and Why Is It Important to Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area Management?
    Fact Sheet What is inclusive conservation and why is it important to biodiversity conservation and protected area management? October 2019 ‘Inclusive Conservation’ is a trans-disciplinary approach to balancing stakeholder visions, and promoting shared agreements for the future management of protected areas through the development and application of multiple tools and processes. - 2 - Protecting our natural areas Global context Protected areas are clearly defined geographical spaces, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated Figure 1: Growth in ecosystem services and cultural values.1 Protected areas are critical for protected area coverage conserving local to regional biodiversity, particularly the characteristic on land and in the ocean (Exclusive Economic Zones of threatened species, habitats and ecosystems.2,3 (EEZ) and Areas Beyond At a global level, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)) between 1990 agreed in 2010 to a target of protecting at least 17% of terrestrial and and 2018 and projected inland water areas, and 10% of coastal and marine areas (Aichi Target growth to 2020 according 11), by 2020. Currently, protected areas cover almost 15% of land and to commitments from countries and territories.5 inland waters and 8% of the world’s oceans.4 (Figure 1). Area (Million km2) 40 2 30 3 20 10 1 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1 ABNJ 2 EEZ 3 Land - 3 - Despite this expansion, protected areas only partly cover important sites for biodiversity, and there are issues associated with their ecological representativeness and equitable management6.
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptive Phenotypic Diversification Along a Temperature-Depth Gradient Jan Ohlberger Åke Brännström ([email protected]) Ulf Dieckmann ([email protected])
    International Institute for Tel: +43 2236 807 342 Applied Systems Analysis Fax: +43 2236 71313 Schlossplatz 1 E-mail: [email protected] A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria Web: www.iiasa.ac.at Interim Report IR-13-055 Adaptive phenotypic diversification along a temperature-depth gradient Jan Ohlberger Åke Brännström ([email protected]) Ulf Dieckmann ([email protected]) Approved by Pavel Kabat Director General and Chief Executive Officer June 2015 Interim Reports on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis receive only limited review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Institute, its National Member Organizations, or other organizations supporting the work. *Manuscript 1 Manuscript type: Article 2 3 Adaptive phenotypic diversification along a temperature-depth gradient 4 Jan Ohlberger1,2,3,*, Åke Brännström3,4,#, Ulf Dieckmann3,+ 5 6 1 Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, 7 D-12587 Berlin, Germany 8 2 Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Department of Biology, University of Oslo, N-0316 Oslo, 9 Norway 10 3 Evolution and Ecology Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg, 11 Austria 12 4 Department of Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Umeå University, SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden 13 * [email protected] (corresponding author) 14 # [email protected] 15 + [email protected] 16 17 Keywords: adaptive dynamics, ecological gradient, evolutionary diversification, sympatric 18 speciation, temperature adaptation 19 Online appendix A: Model variables, functions, and parameters 20 Online appendix B: Model functions and their estimation from empirical data 21 Online appendix C: Sensitivity analysis 22 ABSTRACT 23 Theoretical models suggest that sympatric speciation along environmental gradients might be 24 common in nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Highlights Marine Protected Areas Economics, Management and Effective Policy Mixes
    Marine Protected Areas Economics, Management and Effective Policy Mixes Policy HIGHLIGHTS Marine Protected Areas Economics, Management and Effective Policy Mixes Progress in expanding the coverage of marine protected areas is underway. With a push from the Sustainable Development Goals their global coverage is expected to increase even further. But their effectiveness is uneven. It is one thing to draw a line on a map – it is another to effectively design, site, monitor and enforce them. We are starting to understand what works and what doesn’t. Adaptive management and improvements over time will be essential if marine conservation and sustainable use objectives are to be met. Simon Upton – OECD Environment Director POLICY HI G HLI G H T Pressures on marine ecosystems from human activities are already severe and the often S competing demands for marine space and resources are projected to rise. Costs of poor ocean management practices include environmental and social costs that are often not factored into decision-making processes. This undermines the resilience of the ecosystems upon which we depend, for food, for income, but also other less visible life-support functions such as coastal protection, habitat provisioning and carbon sequestration. Marine protected areas are one of the policy instruments available to help ensure the conservation and sustainable use of our vast yet vulnerable ecosystems. While progress is being made towards increasing the global coverage of marine protected areas, significantly greater efforts are needed to ensure these are also being located in areas that are under threat and can therefore yield greatest environmental benefits, and that they are effectively managed.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Assessing Equity in Protected Area Conservation a Matter of Governance, Rights, Social Impacts and Human Wellbeing
    Understanding and assessing equity in protected area conservation A matter of governance, rights, social impacts and human wellbeing Phil Franks, Francesca Booker and Dilys Roe Issue Paper Biodiversity; Governance Keywords: February 2018 Equity, conservation, protected areas, Social Assessment of Protected Areas (SAPA), wellbeing About the author Phil Franks is a senior researcher in the biodiversity team at IIED. Francesca Booker is a researcher in the biodiversity team at IIED. Dilys Roe is a principal researcher in the biodiversity team at IIED. Corresponding author: Phil Franks, [email protected] Produced by IIED’s Natural Resources Group The aim of the Natural Resources Group is to build partnerships, capacity and wise decision-making for fair and sustainable use of natural resources. Our priority in pursuing this purpose is on local control and management of natural resources and other ecosystems. Acknowledgments This paper builds on the work of a large group of people who have worked over the last three years on the development of the equity framework for protected area management and governance. Annex 1 contains the latest version of this framework at the time of publication, which reflects discussions at a workshop in April 2017 and a recent round of comments. We would like to acknowledge, in particular, the contribution of Kate Schreckenberg and Adrian Martin (co-authors of our earlier publications), staff of the Forest Peoples’ Programme for their detailed comments on the latest version of the framework, and Noelia Zafro-Calvo for being the first person to put the framework to good use. Published by IIED, February 2018 Franks, P et al.
    [Show full text]
  • India's Action Plan for Implementing the Convention on Biological
    India’s Action Plan for Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas Submitted to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity March, 2012 Protected area information: PoWPA Focal Point: Dr. Vinod B. Mathur, D.Phil. (Oxon.) Dean, Faculty of Wildlife Sciences, Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun (Uttarakhand). INDIA Tel.: +91‐(0)135‐2640304(Off.); Mob.: +9412054648 Fax: +91‐(0)135‐2640117; Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Lead implementing agency: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India Multi­stakeholder committee: 1. National Board for Wildlife under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Prime Minister of India 2. State Boards for Wildlife under the Chairmanship of respective Chief Minister of States Description of protected area system National Targets and Vision for Protected Areas The target 11 of the Aichi Targets indicates that by 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10% of coastal and marine areas especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services are conserved through protected areas and other effective area‐based conservation measures; are effectively and equitably managed; are ecologically representative; and are well connected systems of PAs integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes. India’s National Wildlife Action Plan (2006‐2011) envisages 10% of the geographical area of the country under PA coverage. Recommendations are in place to establish additional 67 new National Parks at 203 new Wildlife Sanctuaries to make PA network more geographically representatives. Efforts are also underway to establish new ‘Marine Protected Areas’. In India, all government owned forests and other important ecosystems (which are outside the legally designated PA network), and occupy ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in India: Envis Bulletin Challenges and Way Forward 50 51 Wildlife and Protected Areas
    Coastal And Marine Protected Areas In India: envis bulletin Challenges And Way Forward 50 51 Wildlife and Protected Areas Summary India has an extensive coastline of 7517 km length, of which 5423 km is in peninsular India and 2094 km is in the 02 2 Andaman & Nicobar and Lakshadweep islands. The EEZ has an extent of 2.02 million km . This coastline also supports a huge human population, which is dependent on the rich coastal and marine resources. Despite the tremendous ecological and economic importance and the existence of a policy and regulatory framework, India's coastal and marine ecosystems are under threat. Numerous direct and indirect pressures arising from different types of economic development and associated activities are having adverse impacts on the coastal and marine biodiversity across the country. The marine protected area network in India has been used as a tool to manage natural marine resources for biodiversity conservation and for the well-being of people dependent on it. Scientific monitoring and traditional observations confirm that depleted natural marine resources are getting restored and/or pristine ecological conditions have been sustained in well managed MPAs. There are 24 MPAs in peninsular India and more than 100 MPAs in the country's islands. The 24 MPAs of the mainland have a total area of about 8214 km2, which is about 5% of the total protected area network of India and represents 0.25% of the total geographic area of the country. Dedicated efforts are required to secure and strengthen community participation in managing the marine protected area network in India.
    [Show full text]
  • Park Guards in the Conservation of Protected Areas Angela Martin
    park guards in the conservation of protected areas Angela Martin Parks in Peril, Innovations in Conservation Series, 2007 Park guards are the field staff in charge of the protection and security of natural resources in a protected area (Núñez, 2005). Depending on the specific character- istics of the protected area, they are also in charge of safeguarding cultural resources (PROARCA/APM, 2004). Without their presence, protected areas are more vul- nerable to the factors threatening their integrity. Park guards may be employed by government or civil society institutions, (using their own or donors’ resources), or work as volunteers. Support for park guards and their work is considered a key component for the Hugo Arnal strengthening of protected areas. This includes the provision of essential equipment for their operations, such as vehicles, radios and uniforms, as well as training. Accord- ing to a 1998 study done for the Parks in Peril (PiP) program, the most effective way to engage communities in management activities was to hire them as guards for the areas (Brandon et al, 1998). PiP has consequently promoted participatory processes in this issue... as a way of involving the community and encouraging local residents to become guides • General characteristics of park or park guards, on a paid or volunteer basis. Also, PiP encouraged government agen- guards cies to facilitate patrolling and training for park guards and transfer authority to local actors (Martin and Rieger, 2003). • Innovative strategies with park guards The purpose of this bulletin is to present general elements about the characteristics, - Community, indigenous and roles and responsibilities of the park guards in the protected areas, emphasizing some volunteer park guards innovative strategies from which lessons can be derived.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification and Modelling of a Representative Vulnerable Fish Species for Pesticide Risk Assessment in Europe
    Identification and Modelling of a Representative Vulnerable Fish Species for Pesticide Risk Assessment in Europe Von der Fakultät für Mathematik, Informatik und Naturwissenschaften der RWTH Aachen University zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften genehmigte Dissertation vorgelegt von Lara Ibrahim, M.Sc. aus Mazeraat Assaf, Libanon Berichter: Universitätsprofessor Dr. Andreas Schäffer Prof. Dr. Christoph Schäfers Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 30. Juli 2015 Diese Dissertation ist auf den Internetseiten der Universitätsbibliothek online verfügbar Erklärung Ich versichere, dass ich diese Doktorarbeit selbständig und nur unter Verwendung der angegebenen Hilfsmittel angefertigt habe. Weiterhin versichere ich, die aus benutzten Quellen wörtlich oder inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht zu haben. Lara Ibrahim Aachen, am 18 März 2015 Zusammenfassung Die Zulassung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft verlangt unter anderem eine Abschätzung des Risikos für Organismen in der Umwelt, die nicht Ziel der Anwendung sind. Unvertretbare Auswirkungen auf den Naturhalt sollen vermieden werden. Die ökologische Risikoanalyse stellt die dafür benötigten Informationen durch eine Abschätzung der Exposition der Organismen und der sich daraus ergebenden Effekte bereit. Die Effektabschätzung beruht dabei hauptsächlich auf standardisierten ökotoxikologischen Tests im Labor mit wenigen, oft nicht einheimischen Stellvertreterarten. In diesen Tests werden z. B. Effekte auf das Überleben, das Wachstum und/oder die Reproduktion von Fischen bei verschiedenen Konzentrationen der Testsubstanz gemessen und Endpunkte wie die LC50 (Lethal Concentrations for 50%) oder eine NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration, z. B. für Wachstum oder Reproduktionsparameter) abgeleitet. Für Fische und Wirbeltiere im Allgemeinen beziehen sich die spezifischen Schutzziele auf das Überleben von Individuen und die Abundanz und Biomasse von Populationen.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Assemblages in European Lakes - Comparison of Sampling Methods and Analysis of Size Structure
    Fish assemblages in European lakes - Comparison of sampling methods and analysis of size structure DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doctor rerum agriculturarum (Dr. rer. agr.) Eingereicht an der Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerischen Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin von Dipl. Biol. MATTHIAS EMMRICH Präsident/Präsidentin der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Prof. Dr. Jan-Hendrik Olbertz Dekan/Dekanin der Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerischen Fakultät: Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Frank Ellmer Gutachter/Gutachterinnen: 1. Prof. Dr. Robert Arlinghaus 2. PD Dr. Thomas Mehner 3. Prof. Dr. Reiner Eckmann Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 05.02.2013 Contents page List of papers V Author contributions VI Abstract (English) 1 Abstract (German) 2 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Sampling fish in lakes 4 1.1.1 Recreati onal angling 5 1.1.2 Scientific fish sampling 6 1.2 Size structure of lake fish assemblages 9 1.2.1 Anthropogenic influences of the size structure of lake fish assemblages 12 1.2.2 The role of spatial scale 13 2 Objectives 14 3 Methods and datasets 15 3.1 Sampling fish in lakes 16 3.1.1 Recreati onal angling 16 3.1.2 Scientific fish sampling 16 3.1.2.1 Multi -mesh gillnets 16 3.1 .2 .2 Trawling 18 3. 1. 2.3 Hydroacoustics 19 3.2 Size structure of lake fish assemblages 19 4 Main results 22 4.1 Sampling fish in lakes 22 4.2 Size structure of lake fish assemblages 24 5 Discussion 25 5.1 Sampling fish in lakes 25 5.2 Size structure of lake fish assemblages 29 6 Conclusions 31 Acknowledgement 32 References 34 Declaration of authorship 50 Appendix 51 Paper I 51 Paper II 67 Paper III 84 Paper IV 95 Paper V 115 List of papers This thesis is based on five papers, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals (I-V).
    [Show full text]
  • Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation I: Reserve Planning and Design
    Network of Conservation Educators & Practitioners Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation I: Reserve Planning and Design Author(s): Eugenia Naro-Maciel, Eleanor J. Stering, and Madhu Rao Source: Lessons in Conservation, Vol. 2, pp. 19-49 Published by: Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History Stable URL: ncep.amnh.org/linc/ This article is featured in Lessons in Conservation, the official journal of the Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners (NCEP). NCEP is a collaborative project of the American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (CBC) and a number of institutions and individuals around the world. Lessons in Conservation is designed to introduce NCEP teaching and learning resources (or “modules”) to a broad audience. NCEP modules are designed for undergraduate and professional level education. These modules—and many more on a variety of conservation topics—are available for free download at our website, ncep.amnh.org. To learn more about NCEP, visit our website: ncep.amnh.org. All reproduction or distribution must provide full citation of the original work and provide a copyright notice as follows: “Copyright 2008, by the authors of the material and the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation of the American Museum of Natural History. All rights reserved.” Illustrations obtained from the American Museum of Natural History’s library: images.library.amnh.org/digital/ SYNTHESIS 19 Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation I: Reserve Planning and Design Eugenia Naro-Maciel,* Eleanor J. Stering, † and Madhu Rao ‡ * The American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, U.S.A., email [email protected] † The American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, U.S.A., email [email protected] ‡ Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, U.S.A., email [email protected] Source: K.
    [Show full text]
  • Protected Areas by Management 9
    Unted States p Forest Department a Service DRNA of Agriculture g P r o t e c t e d N a t u r a l A r e a s o f P u e r to R i c o K E E P I N G C O M M ON S P E C I E S C O M M O N PRGAP ANALYSIS PROJECT William A. Gould, Maya Quiñones, Mariano Solórzano, Waldemar Alcobas, and Caryl Alarcón IITF GIS and Remote Sensing Lab A center for tropical landscape analysis U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry . o c 67°30'0"W 67°20'0"W 67°10'0"W 67°0'0"W 66°50'0"W 66°40'0"W 66°30'0"W 66°20'0"W 66°10'0"W 66°0'0"W 65°50'0"W 65°40'0"W 65°30'0"W 65°20'0"W i R o t rotection of natural areas is essential to conserving biodiversity and r e u P maintaining ecosystem services. Benefits and services provided by natural United , Protected areas by management 9 States 1 areas are complex, interwoven, life-sustaining, and necessary for a healthy A t l a n t i c O c e a n 1 1 - 6 environment and a sustainable future (Daily et al. 1997). They include 2 9 0 clean water and air, sustainable wildlife populations and habitats, stable slopes, The Bahamas 0 P ccccccc R P productive soils, genetic reservoirs, recreational opportunities, and spiritual refugia.
    [Show full text]