Adrian Phillips Turning Ideas on Their Head The New Paradigm For Protected Areas

Introduction he ideas that this paper brings together will be individually familiar to resource managers, protected area planners and managers, and other conservation experts, but they may not have considered their combined Tsignificance. So its purpose is not so much to break new ground as to suggest that the changes that have occurred in our thinking and practice towards protected areas over the past 40 or so years amount to a revolution. But while the merits of many of these individual changes have been fiercely debated, their col- lective significance, which can be traced in the decisions of four world parks con- gresses, has largely gone unnoticed. Yet taken together they have produced a new paradigm for protected areas in the 21st century. Powerful forces have helped to bring about this new paradigm—and they will have an even greater influence on protected areas thinking and practice in future.

Protected Areas •To be area-based concepts that A starting point is a definition of might be found anywhere; “protected area.” IUCN adopted this •To require specific measures (dedi- in 1994: cation, designation, regulation) for [An] area of land and/or sea especial- the purposes of biodiversity con- ly dedicated to the protection and servation (i.e., protection and maintenance of biological diversity, maintenance); and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal •To require management, delivered or other effective means (IUCN 1994). through legal or other effective means; and The Convention on Biological • By implication, to require that Diversity (CBD) uses a different defi- some kind of management authori- nition: ty is in place to secure conserva- [A] geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and man- tion. aged to achieve specific conservation There are some 60,000 protected objectives (Article 2). areas around the world—that is, places In practice these definitions are that satisfy the IUCN definition and only marginally different. Either are held in the database kept by the would suffice for the purposes of the United Nations Environment Pro- argument in this paper. Note that both gram’s World Conservation Monitor- of them consider protected areas: ing Center (UNEP/WCMC) at Cam-

8 The George Wright FORUM bridge, . However, A Classic View fewer than a quarter of these are large of Protected Areas enough to be included in the United It is traditional (and correct) to Nations List of Protected Areas, accord to the United States the honor whose listings are normally restricted of pioneering protected areas in their to areas greater than 10 sq km. The classic form, as government-owned, U.N. list is published every few years; government-run areas set aside for the last edition dates from1997 protection and enjoyment. This (IUCN 1998a). model was, and remains, a simple but Protected areas are managed for powerful expression of peoples’ con- many purposes and nationally have cern to protect their heritage for all been called by many different names. time. If this paper sets out to show To bring some order into this compli- why it is now often regarded as incom- cated situation, IUCN has developed a plete, and in some situations potential- system of protected area categories, ly counterproductive, this is not to based on primary management objec- diminish its achievements in many tives (IUCN 1994). All categories are countries, nor to suggest that it has no intended to fit within IUCN’s overall role to play in the future. definition of a protected area. These Notwithstanding the leadership categories are summarized in Table 1. role of the USA, in fact the idea of for-

Table 1. IUCN categories of protected areas (IUCN 1994) Category Description Ia Strict : Protected area managed mainly for science. Ib Wilderness Area: Protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection. II : Protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation. III Natural Monument: Protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features. IV Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention. VProtected Landscape/Seascape: Protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation. VI Managed Resource Protected Area: Protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 9 mally designated protected areas— around the world, though the driving national parks in particular—took root force has been different in different in a number of countries around the regions. For example, in Africa, the same time. The origins of Yosemite emphasis was on creating large game National Park go back to 1864, and parks; in Europe, a focus on landscape Yellowstone National Park, of course, protection was more common. came into being in 1872. But the Por- The inspiration of the United tuguese colonial government of States was much in evidence in this initiated what is now Tijuca National worldwide trend—creating a family of Park in 1861. The British colony of “Yellowstone’s children” (Everhart New South Wales (Australia) reserved 1972). Indeed, active marketing of the a number of areas west of Sydney for U.S. experience has a long history. protection and tourism in the 1860s Thus, the 1940 Washington Conven- and 1870s, some of which later tion on Nature Protection and Wildlife became part of Blue Mountains Preservation in the Western Hemi- National Park. In 1879, Royal Nation- sphere called on contracting parties to al Park was created in the wilds south create protected areas, of which the of Sydney as a natural recreation area principal model was national parks, for its burgeoning population. In sensu USA. The first two world parks 1885, Canada protected hot springs in congresses were held in the United the Bow Valley of the Rocky Moun- States (Seattle in 1962; Yellowstone tains; part of this became Banff and Grand Teton national parks in National Park. Several forest reserves 1972). Beginning in 1965, the USA were set up in South Africa in the last (and Canada) hosted a very influential years of the nineteenth century. In annual short course on parks for 1887 in New Zealand, the Maori Chief young conservation leaders from Te Heuheu offered the Crown 2,400 around the world. Also, the interna- ha of sacred mountain summits, which tional office of the U.S. National Park later became Tongariro National Park Service helped many countries to Act. The provincial or state tier of gov- establish national parks. Pride in the ernments also started to create pro- American achievement was evident: as tected areas: the province of Ontario the writer Wallace Stegner said, in Canada created Queen Victoria “National Parks are the best idea we Niagara Falls Park in 1885, and Algo- ever had. Absolutely American, nquin National Park (later Algonquin absolutely democratic, they reflect us Provincial Park) in 1893 (Holdgate at our best rather than our worst” 1999). (Stegner 1983). While the modern protected areas As protected areas were set up in movement had 19th-century origins more and more countries, it became mainly in the then “new” nations of more difficult to generalize about why North America, Australia, New they were established and how they Zealand, and South Africa, other were managed. Nonetheless, for many countries were quick to follow.During years the classic model dominated the twentieth century, the idea spread thinking, and was at the center of

10 The George Wright FORUM much national legislation to set up areas were set up favored a top-down protected areas. This view was rein- and rather exclusive view of protected forced by IUCN’s advisory, promo- areas. Setting up large game parks tional, and training work in this field, without too much concern for the which treated national parks as primus impact on local people fitted well with inter pares among the different kind of the autocratic style of colonial admin- protected areas.1 These ideas were istration (especially in Africa), and it delivered on the ground in many parts was equally at home in the early days of the developing world through sup- of post-colonial government which port given to national park projects by followed many of the same styles of FAO (the Food and Agriculture Orga- administration. Thus, modeled in part nization of the United Nations, in on the 1940 Western Hemisphere which U.S. experts played a very influ- Convention, the 1968 Africa Conven- ential role, especially in Latin Ameri- tion on Nature and Natural Resources ca), and (after its establishment in encouraged the creation of protected 1972) UNEP, as well as by some other areas from which local people would donors. Also, many countries set up be excluded, though tourists (and specialized agencies (national parks their activities such as sport fishing) services) to manage these areas. would be welcome (see Table 2). At least until around the mid- Certainly the opinions and rights of 1960s, the climate in which protected indigenous peoples were of little con-

Table 2. Extracts from the 1968 Africa Convention on Nature and Natural Resources.

Conservation area “means any protected natural resource area, whether it be a strict natural reserve, a national park, or a special reserve....”

Strict nature reserve “means an area ... under State control ... throughout which any form of hunting or fishing ... [is] strictly forbidden ... where it shall be forbidden to reside, enter, traverse or camp....”

National park “means an area ... under State control ... exclusively set aside for the propagation, protection, conservation and management of vegetation and wild animals ... in which the killing, hunting and capture of animals and the destruction or collection of plants are prohibited ... and [in which measures are taken] to enable the public to visit these parks.... [S]port fishing may be practised with the authorisation and under the control of the competent authority....”

Special reserve “means other protected areas such as: ‘game reserve’ ... within which the hunting, killing or capture of fauna shall be prohibited ... where settlement and other human activities shall be controlled or prohibited; ‘partial reserve’ or ‘sanctuary’ ... an area set aside to protect characteristic wildlife.... ‘Soil,’ ‘water,’ or ‘forest’ reserve shall denote areas set aside to protect such resources.”

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 11 cern to any government before about area or profession made little effort to 1970; these groups were not organ- build bridges to others employed in ized as a political force as they are now related topics; protected areas were no in many countries. Even in more exception. In short, many protected developed countries, the prevailing areas came into being at a simpler time view until about the 1960s was that in a less complex world. governments knew best, and public It is this context that accounts for opinion was something for officials to the main features of the classic model, help shape, not to be influenced by. or paradigm,2 of protected areas as it Moreover, the scientific foundation for was before, say, 1970, and which are protected areas was often limited: the summarized in Table 3. basis upon which areas were selected, Of course, Table 3 is a bit of a cari- and their boundaries drawn, often cature, and certainly a rather crude involved arbitrary judgment based on generalization that overlooks many of superficial knowledge. More generally, the detailed ways in which protected the idea of inter- or multi-disciplinary area management in one country dif- working was in its infancy. The great fered from that in another. Nonethe- majority of people working in their less, it captures the prevailing values

Table 3. A classic model of protected areas (adapted from Phillips 2002).

Objectives Local people • “Set aside” for conservation, in the sense • Planned and managed against the that the land (or water) is seen as taken out impact of people (except for visitors), of productive use and especially to exclude local people • Established mainly for scenic protection • Managed with little regard for the local and spectacular wildlife, with a major community, who are rarely consulted emphasis on how things look rather than on management intentions and might how natural systems function not even be informed of them • Managed mainly for visitors and tourists, Wider context whose interests normally prevail over those • Developed separately—that is, planned of local people one by one, in an ad hoc manner • Placing a high value on wilderness—that is, • Managed as “islands”—that is, on areas believed to be free of human managed without regard to influence surrounding areas • About protection of existing natural and Management skills landscape assets—not about the restoration • Managed by natural scientists or of lost values natural resource experts Governance • Expert-led • Run by central government, or at least set Finance up at instigation only of central government • Paid for by the taxpayer

12 The George Wright FORUM held by protected areas professionals of the texts of the recommendations and political leaders at the time. tends to bear out the following conclu- sions. Charting the Changes in Thinking The First World Conference on To help chart the progress in think- National Parks adopted a number of ing about protected areas since, an brief recommendations, but not all of analysis has been undertaken of the them focused on protected area policy. topics chosen for recommendations at Several addressed institutional ques- the four global protected areas events tions (e.g., support for the newly that have occurred since 1962. These founded World Wildlife Fund), site- are the first (Seattle, 1962), second specific issues (e.g., Galapagos), and (Yellowstone/Grand Teton, 1972), species conservation issues. Table 4 third (Bali, 1982), and fourth (Cara- includes only those recommendations cas, 1992) world parks congresses. that relate to protected area policy in Also included in the analysis are two general. other international protected area

Table 4. Topics of relevant recommendations of the First World Conference on National Parks, Seattle, USA, 1962 (Adams 1962).

5: Park interpretation services 6: Research into undisturbed biotopes 7: Management to be based on scientific research 8, 9, 10: Protected areas definitions and standards 11: Exclusion of damaging development 13, 14: Inclusion of support for protected areas in aid programs 15: Marine protected areas 22: Species protection by protected areas

[Because the original recommendations were only given numbers, titles have been added by the author.] events held since 1992, and the The recommendations adopted by themes selected for the fifth congress the Second World Conference on to be held in Durban, South Africa, in National Parks were much more clear- September 2003. Each congress was ly focused on what were then seen as (or will be) a global gathering of pro- the global priorities for protected tected area and other conservation areas. They are set out in Table 5. experts, addressing the issues that The most remarkable thing about they regard as the most pressing. The this list, fully borne out by a detailed strictly limited number of recommen- analysis of the texts of the recommen- dations adopted at each event forced a dations, is the failure to address the prioritization that can be quite reveal- connections between protected areas ing. Of course this is a crude form of and questions of development in gen- analysis on its own, but detailed study eral, and between protected areas and

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 13 Table 5. Topics of recommendations of the Second World Conference on National Parks, Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, USA, 1972 (National Parks Centennial Commission 1973).

1. Conservation of Representative Ecosystems 2. Conservation of Tropical Forest Ecosystems 3. Conservation of North and Sub-Polar Ecosystems 4. Marine National Parks and Reserves 5. Establishment of Antarctica as a World Park under U.N. Administration 6. International Parks 7. Regional Systems of National Parks and Other Protected Areas 8. Conservation of the World Heritage 9. Wetlands Convention 10. Standards and Nomenclature for Protected Areas 11. Integrity of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves 12. Usage of National Parks 13. Detrimental Effects of Vehicles, Boats, and Aircraft in National Parks and Other Protected Areas 14. Research on National Park Values 15. Planning of National Parks and Other Protected Areas 16. Exchange of Information 17. Technical and Financial Assistance for National Parks 18. Training 19. Interpretation Services for National Parks 20. Education in National Parks and Other Protected Areas the areas around them in particular. later (see Table 6).While some themes There is also little interest shown in are the same or similar, there are a local communities or indigenous peo- bunch of recommendations that ples—except as a threat to protected address a wholly new agenda—see areas. And no direct attention is given those emphasized in italics. Even to biodiversity and genetic resources familiar topics, like poaching, are con- conservation. From today’s perspec- sidered from a much more construc- tive, these products of the 1972 con- tive viewpoint, with as much stress on ference in Yellowstone appear to rep- alternative sources of income for local resent an inward-looking and narrow people as on combating illegal activi- view of protected areas. They produce ties. In place of education in protected a much more comprehensive agenda areas has come the much bigger chal- than that adopted at Seattle, and may lenge of building public support for be said to capture the priorities of protected areas. In this way,by making advocates of the classic paradigm in the link between protected areas and Table 3. development questions, and by acknowledging the key role of local Toward a New Paradigm and indigenous groups, Bali repre- It is instructive to compare Table 5 sented a real watershed. with the topics of recommendations Analysis of the recommendations adopted by the Third World Parks adopted at the Fourth World Congress Congress in Bali, Indonesia, ten years on National Parks and Protected

14 The George Wright FORUM Table 6. Topics of recommendations of the Third World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bali, Indonesia, 1982 (McNeely and Miller 1984). 1. Information on Protected Areas 2. Global System of Representative Terrestrial Protected Areas 3. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas 4. Antarctica 5. The Role of Protected Areas in Sustainable Development 6. Threats to Protected Areas 7. Combating Poaching 8. Environmental Planning and Protected Areas 9. Protected Areas and Traditional Societies 10. Conservation of Wild Genetic Resources 11. Development Assistance and Protected Areas 12. Management of Protected Areas 13. Protected Areas Personnel: Training and Communication 14. Development of Public Support for Protected Areas 15. Voluntary Assistance for Protected Areas 16. World Heritage Convention 17. Biosphere Reserves 18. International Agreements and Protected Areas

Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, shows a by issues that were to come to the fore number of further new themes emerg- in Rio de Janeiro a few months later, ing. This congress took place just such as global change and biodiversity before the United Nations Conference conservation; see italicized recom- on Environment and Development mendations in Table 7 below. It (UNCED) and was clearly influenced should be noted, however, that other

Table 7. Topics of recommendations of the Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, 1992 (McNeely 1993). 1. Strengthening the Constituency for Protected Areas 2. Global Change and Protected Areas 3. Global Efforts to Conserve Biodiversity 4. Legal Regimes for Protected Areas 5. External Forces Threatening Sustainability 6. People and Protected Areas 7. Financial Support for Protected Areas 8. Protected Areas and the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 9. Tourism and Protected Areas 10. Partnerships for Protected Areas 11. Marine Protected Areas 12. Information, Research, and Monitoring 13. Ecological Restoration 14. Water and Protected Areas 15. Development Planning and Natural Resource Use 16. Expanding the Global Network of Protected Areas 17. Protected Area Categories, Management Effectiveness, and Threats 18. Building Protected Areas Institutions 19. Developing Protected Areas Professionalism 20. Biosphere Reserves

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 15 new ideas, such as encouraging Caracas Congress in Albany, Aus- (supranational) regional strategies for tralia. The theme was “From Islands protected areas and promoting the to Networks,” and the meeting empha- idea of corridors between protected sized the importance of bioregional areas, were included in the Caracas planning as a context for protected Action Plan but not in the recommen- areas management (IUCN 1998b). dations adopted there (see McNeely It is of course too soon to say what 1993; Holdgate and Phillips 1999). will be decided at the forthcoming In the years since Caracas, ideas Fifth World Parks Congress to be held about protected areas have continued in Durban, South Africa, in Septem- to evolve rapidly at the international ber 2003, but the pre-congress draft level. Thus, the first Latin American list of proposed topics for recommen- Congress on National Parks and dations is analyzed in Table 8.3 Other Protected Areas (Santa Marta, Table 9 attempts to synthesize this Colombia, 1997), gave priority to (a) analysis by showing how various the spiritual dimension of protected themes have emerged over the course areas; (b) the emerging impacts on of these five congresses while others protected areas of an increasingly have declined in importance. The globalized free-market economy; and grouping of recommendations is sub- (c) the changing role of protected area jective, as is the assignment of recom- agencies, from “managers” to “regula- mendations. Moreover, the titles are tors” (Castaño Uribe 1997). In the far less important than the contents of same year, IUCN convened a “mid- the decisions. Also, it is noticeable that term” meeting five years after the over time the range of issues covered

Table 8. Draft topics for recommendations at the Fifth World Parks Congress, 2003.

1. Protected Areas and Global Change 2. Protected Areas and The CBD 3. Protected Areas in Africa 4. Protected Areas and Extractive Industry 5. Protected Areas and Tourism 6. Protected Area Categories for the 21st Century 7. Protected Area and Mountains 8. Transboundary Protected Areas 9. Spiritual Values of Protected Areas 10. Linking Protected Areas to International Programmes 11. Urban Protected Areas 12. Protected Areas and Armed Conflict 13. Protected Areas and Politics 14. Governance for Protected Areas 15. Capacity Building for the 21st Century 16. Protected Areas and Information Technology 17. Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas 18. Financial Security for Protected Areas 19. Building Comprehensive Protected Area Systems 20. Communities and Equity 21. Marine Protected Areas

16 The George Wright FORUM Table 9. Changing priorities for world parks congresses. Topic Recommendations adopted at (or proposed for): 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th (1962) (1972) (1982) (1992) (2003) Ecosystem coverage 15 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2, 3, 4 11, 14, 7, 19, 21 (including marine) 16 Standards, definitions, 8, 9, 10 10, 16 1 12, 17 6, 16, 17 information Threats, pressures, 11 11, 12, 13 6, 7 2, 5, 9 1, 4, 5, 12 global change Technical assistance, 13, 14 17 7 18 finance Interpretation, 5 19, 20 14 education Species, genetic 22 10 3, 8 resources, biodiversity Research, science 6, 7 14 Law, planning, and 15 12 4 management Training, capacity 18 13 18, 19 15 building Conventions, 6, 7, 8, 9 16, 17, 18 20 2, 8 transboundary, etc. Building support, 15 1, 10 13 partnerships Development, bio- 5, 8, 11 15 10 regional scale, etc. People (including 9620 indigenous peoples) Ecological restoration 13 Governance 14 Spiritual values 9 Urban links 11 N.B.: the proposed region-specific recommendation on Africa at the Vth Congress has been excluded from this analysis. under the topic headings has how much ideas about protected areas increased greatly,so titles alone can be changed in quite a short time. A num- misleading. Nonetheless, this analysis ber of critical external events were serves to illustrate what has been seen responsible for moving the agenda of as important at different ten-year the world parks congresses over this stages over the past 40 years, and to period. At the international level, the that extent the broad trends are clear. most important were: This analysis of the topics chosen • The 1972 United Nations Confer- for recommendations at the world ence on the Human Environment parks congresses between 1962 and held in Stockholm (which may be 2003, albeit a subjective one, reveals seen as signaling the end of a colo-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 17 nial period of conservation); • The publication of the World Con- • The development around the same servation Strategy in 1980, which time of the biosphere reserve con- expressed new thinking on conser- cept as part of the Man and Bios- vation and its relationship to devel- phere program of the U.N. Educa- opment (IUCN 1980); and tional, Scientific, and Cultural • The adoption of Agenda 21 and Organization, with its idea of a core the CBD at the 1992 UNCED. area for strict protection surround- These same events influenced (and ed by buffer and transitional zones, reflected) thinking about people and and its integration of conversation nature in general over the same peri- and development; od—see Table 10. Table 10. Summary of people—nature problematics in international conservation, 1960-1999 (Jeanrenaud 2002)

Variable 1960+ 1980+ 1990+ Perception of Wilderness Ecosystem; Culture in nature and nature biodiversity; nature in culture ecoregions Environmental Theocentric and Anthropocentric and Anthropocentric and values anthropocentric cosmocentric cosmocentric Diagnosis of Overpopulation; poverty; Power relations; environmental exceeding the land’s overpopulation North–South problems carrying capacity inequalities; what counts as a problem and to whom? Representations People are the threat People can’t be Align with rural people of local people ignored; people are a resource Solutions and Exclusionary protected Buffer zones, Alternative protected technologies areas integrated areas; participatory conservation and natural resource development management; human programs; sustainable rights use; community-based conservation Power relations Alliances with elites Technocratic alliances Alliances with grassroots Key influences Colonial conservation; Sustainable Democracy/human elitist interests development debate; rights movement; growing concern for participatory livelihoods development; post- modern influence on natural and social sciences Author’s note: Whereas the 1980+ column corresponds very well with the message in the World Conservation Strategy of 1980, the 1990+ column seems to go beyond UNCED and Agenda 21. Perhaps this most recent group of ideas challenges governments too much to find expression in an international agreement. Nonetheless, the ideas in the right-hand column are beginning to influence thinking profoundly, especially the idea of linking human rights and environmental protection. Indeed, what seems to be emerging is the idea of an environmental human right as against, or as well as, a theory of rights of nature. 18 The George Wright FORUM The Modern Paradigm None of the ideas in Table 11 (sum- for Protected Areas marized in the right-hand column of The result is the emergence of a Table 12) is particularly novel. They new paradigm for protected areas, one are becoming the standard ways of which contrasts in almost every working among professionals in the respect with that which prevailed 40 protected areas business in many or even 30 years ago. The essential ele- countries, although progress with ments of the paradigm at the outset of some issues is more rapid than with the 21st century are listed in Table 11. others. The contrast with the classic The contrasts with the classic model model is very striking. In almost every (Table 3) are summarized in Table 12. respect, established ideas that pre-

Table 11. The main elements of the modern paradigm for protected areas.

Objectives Local people • Run also with social and economic • Run with, for, and in some cases by local objectives as well as conservation and people—that is, local people are no longer recreation ones seen as passive recipients of protected • Often set up for scientific, economic and areas policy but as active partners, even cultural reasons— the rationale for initiators and leaders in some cases establishing protected areas therefore • Managed to help meet the needs of local becoming much more sophisticated people, who are increasingly seen as • Managed to help meet the needs of local essential beneficiaries of protected area people, who are increasingly seen as policy, economically and culturally essential beneficiaries of protected area Wider context policy, economically and culturally • • Planned as part of national, regional, and Recognizes that so-called wilderness areas international systems, with protected areas are often culturally important places developed as part of a family of sites. The • About restoration and rehabilitation as well CBD makes the development of national as protection, so that lost or eroded values protected area systems a requirement can be recovered (Article 8a) Governance • Developed as “networks,” that is, with • Run by many partners, thus different tiers strictly protected areas, which are buffered of government, local communities, and linked by green corridors, and indigenous groups, the private sector, integrated into surrounding land that is NGOs, and others are all engaged in managed sustainably by communities protected areas management Perceptions Management technique • Viewed as a community asset, balancing • Managed adaptively in a long-term the idea of a national heritage perspective, with management being a • Management guided by international learning process responsibilities and duties as well as • Selection, planning, and management national and local concerns. Result: viewed as essentially a political exercise, transboundary protected areas and requiring sensitivity, consultations, and international protected area systems astute judgment Management skills Finance • Managed by people with a range of skills, • Paid for through a variety of means to especially people-related skills supplement—or replace—government • Valuing and drawing on the knowledge of subsidy local people

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 19 Table 12. Contrasting paradigms: a summary of Tables 3 and 11 (adapted from Phillips 2002). As it was: protected areas were... As it is becoming: protected areas are... Objectives • Set aside for conservation • Run also with social and • Established mainly for economic objectives spectacular wildlife and • Often set up for scientific, scenic protection economic, and cultural reasons • Managed mainly for visitors • Managed with local people more and tourists in mind • Valued as wilderness • Valued for the cultural • About protection importance of so-called wilderness • Also about restoration and rehabilitation Governance • Run by central government • Run by many partners Local people • Planned and managed • Run with, for, and in some cases against people by local people • Managed without regard to • Managed to meet the needs of local opinions local people Wider context • Developed separately • Planned as part of national, • Managed as “islands” regional, and international systems • Developed as “networks” (strictly protected areas, buffered and linked by green corridors) Perceptions • Viewed primarily as a • Viewed also as a community national asset asset • Viewed only as a national • Viewed also as an international concern concern Management • Managed reactively within • Managed adaptively in long- techniques short timescale term perspective • Managed in a technocratic • Managed with political way considerations Finance • Paid for by taxpayer • Paid for from many sources Management • Managed by scientists and • Managed by multi-skilled skills natural resource experts individuals • Expert-led • Drawing on local knowledge vailed only 30 years ago have been (though existing laws can often be turned on their heads. The result is a stretched to accommodate many of the revolution in our approach to protect- new approaches); the “re-engineer- ed areas. ing” of protected areas people; the re- Putting this new paradigm into education of politicians and the public action calls for a new, more people- so that they understand the new focused protected areas legislation, model of protected areas; and the re- such as that adopted in Peru or Brazil orientation of development assistance

20 The George Wright FORUM policies so as to integrate protected been significant—thereby to some areas into poverty reduction projects extent undermining the power of the and strategies. Bringing about such a wilderness argument. It has revealed revolution has not been easy. There many new frontiers for conservation, are many people who—for good rea- especially in the marine environment, sons or bad—do not wish to hear that including the high seas, and many new the values and policies associated with challenges, such as climate change. It protected areas are now very different has also shown that techniques exist from those that prevailed in the past. for ecological restoration. And indeed there may be some in the Cultural and social awareness profession who still yearn for the old encourages greater respect for local certainties. communities and traditional and indigenous peoples, an understanding The Forces Behind the Changes of the true character of their relation- The forces that have driven these ship with nature, and an appreciation changes are increasingly powerful. It is of the sustainable practices that many not the aim of this paper to analyze of them have followed. This too has them in detail: the implications are led people to question the value of the very broad, since they touch on many wilderness concept, since many so- aspects of the way that society oper- called wilderness areas are in fact the ates and how nature functions. But it is homelands of indigenous peoples. possible to identify the main factors The views and experience of women that have brought about a very differ- are acknowledged now to be of special ent way of looking at conservation importance, and there is concern that issues, and the management of natural ethnic minorities should not be mar- resources in general and of protected ginalized; this too affects views of the areas in particular. These relate to sci- relationship between protected areas entific understanding, cultural and and the people living in or near them. social awareness, the acknowledgment More generally, greater understanding of human rights, political develop- of the values held by different sectors ments, general developments in man- of society has made it incumbent on agement practice, technological protected area managers to listen to advances, and economic forces. the views of local people and to Scientific understanding has taught respond to their concerns. The cur- us, for example, that many protected rent pre-occupation with stakeholder areas are too small to function effec- analysis is an expression of this. tively and need to be joined up with Linked to this has been the emer- others, or set in an ecologically friend- gence in recent decades of an interna- ly landscape, if the species within tional doctrine and law on human them are to survive. It has also shown rights, especially the rights of indige- us that the human impacts on what nous peoples, particularly in relation were previously thought of as pristine to the environment. This is evident in environments, from the Amazon forest the International Labor Organiza- to the Australian outback, have often tion’s Convention 169, the draft Dec-

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 21 laration on the Rights of Indigenous also more and more involved. The Peoples, and the Inter-America Decla- enhanced role of civil society favors ration on the Rights of Indigenous non-governmental organizations Peoples. In response, governments (NGOs) playing an increasingly have been obliged to make big changes important role in protected areas. in how they approach protected areas Greater use of market mechanisms to in indigenous territories. In Latin effect change, deliver services, or man- America, the Arctic, New Zealand, age processes impact in many ways on and Australia, for example, govern- protected areas and how they are man- ments are transferring responsibility aged. For example, private individuals for management, and even for initiat- are creating their own reserves, com- ing protected areas, to local communi- mercial ventures are more involved in ties. Respect of indigenous rights and delivering aspects of protected area awareness of the values of indigenous management, and protected area man- knowledge have been reinforced agers have to approach their job in a through the implementation of inter- more business-like way. At the other national conservation agreements. end of the scale, governments increas- Thus the CBD includes article 8(j), ingly recognize that protected areas which specifically calls on countries to are in part an international responsi- work with indigenous and local com- bility. This is sometimes very precise, munities. And even though conven- for example where a site is designated tions dating from the early 1970s, under the World Heritage or Ramsar notably Ramsar (wetlands) and World conventions (or regional agreements Heritage, do not include such meas- such as those in Europe), and some- ures, their implementation (and that of times it is a more general sense of UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Pro- responsibility encouraged particularly gram) has been increasingly guided by by the requirements of the CBD to the need to be sensitive to cultural conserve biodiversity in situ. diversity and the values of indigenous General developments in manage- groups. ment practice have affected protected It is impossible to generalize about area management in a number of ways. political developments, but several For example, in the latter part of the broad trends do seem to be underway 20th century it has become clear that in many parts of the world, in Africa, making connections across profes- Latin America, Eastern Europe, , sional and institutional boundaries is China, and so on. For example, greater one of the biggest challenges facing democratization and the devolution of governments and managers of all power from the center to regional and kinds. For protected areas, this means local tiers of government (including making connections to the areas indigenous peoples) means that cen- around and adopting a multi-discipli- tral government is no longer the only nary approach. Another broad trend government agency that creates or in management in general is away from manages protected areas: provincial, detailed master plans and towards the municipal, and local governments are adoption of a strategy of clearly

22 The George Wright FORUM defined objectives coupled with adap- •Devolution of political power from tive forms of response; this too finds the center has led to the break-up of an echo in protected areas practice. some protected area agencies with Technological advances also have unfortunate results. An extreme their impact on protected areas man- case is Indonesia, where the parks agement. It is not just that IT or GIS system in a country of globally make possible the handling and shar- important biodiversity has, to a ing of vast amounts of data and infor- large extent, been undermined by mation, but that they create a different the breakdown of central control set of understandings and expecta- and widespread corruption. Sever- tions among all concerned. In partic- al vital sites (such as Gunung ular, they encourage a belief that the Leuser National Park in Sumatra) boundaries to what are possible are face wholesale destruction from a not so often technical as they are range of threats; Jakarta has neither human and political. the will nor the ability to do much Finally there are economic forces, to defend the area in a political cli- ranging from the global to local, but all mate that encourages the ruthless putting pressure on protected areas extraction of natural resources. planners and managers. As these pres- •Stakeholder participation and com- sures have grown, so the management munity involvement may be essen- of protected areas has been ‘invaded’ tial but they can make great by economic theory. Managers have demands of resources (staff, time, had to master the language of values and money) from over-stretched pro- and benefits that protected areas rep- tected areas agencies. Also, they call resent, and to adopt more business- for fine political judgments about like approaches to the care of these who stakeholders are and how con- places, including the requirement to flicting interests can be determined develop business plans. Increasingly, and reconciled. Sometimes it is all this has included the idea of generat- too difficult and managers com- ing income to supplement government plain of “analysis paralysis” and subventions. “stakeholder fatigue.” •We should not be naïve about the Some Critical Reflections willingness or ability of all local on the Modern Paradigm communities to support conserva- As noted at the outset of this paper, tion and sustainable use. Not every the current approach to protected community has responsible tradi- areas is now widely shared. It accords tions in its use of natural resources; well with prevailing political, econom- modern hunting technology (e.g., ic, and scientific conditions. But it is high-velocity rifles) can change the not without major problems and the balance between hunters and reality is that it is not always easy to wildlife; and a community with a operate the modern paradigm. Here fast-growing population has a dif- are several of the criticisms that are ferent impact on natural resources sometimes heard: than one with a stable population.

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 23 How to build partnerships with urged to think beyond the protect- local people in the context of such ed area’s boundaries, to engage in challenges poses major dilemmas bioregional planning initiatives (see for many protected area managers. below), and even to address wider • In our enthusiasm for people-based social problems faced by ethnic conservation, we are in danger of minorities in nearby cities. diminishing the achievements of There are many more such difficult government-managed, strictly pro- questions, and no easy answers to tected areas. That is not the inten- tion; in fact, government-owned them. The modern paradigm may and -managed parks that are strict- indeed represent the outcome of a rev- ly protected against all kinds of olution in protected areas manage- exploitative use will remain the cor- ment, but it greatly complicates the nerstone of many countries’ sys- task of management. Nonetheless, as tems of protected areas. The new the last part of this paper shows, it is paradigm is not intended to under- fast becoming a reality. mine the value of such places but to show how their management has The Modern Paradigm in Action changed (or should change) radi- Three examples of the application cally, and to stress that the contri- of the new approach to protected areas bution that other kinds of protect- planning and management are briefly ed areas can make is equally impor- explored, with references to on-the- tant. It also a reminder that all gov- ground action: community-conserved ernments try to meet the demands areas, bioregional planning/ecological of many different groups and there- networks, and protected landscapes fore find it hard to support protect- and seascapes (IUCN protected area ed areas at the expense of other management category V). They all interests. The relevance of new par- suggest that the cutting edge of pro- adigm is that it offers more scope tected area work has moved into very for negotiation. different fields from those that •We are in danger of making the received most attention 30 years ago. manager’s job undoable. The 4 demands of stakeholder analysis Community-conserved Areas are only one part of the protected Community-conserved areas area manager’s ever-expanding set (CCAs) may be thought of as natural of responsibilities. He or she is ecosystems containing significant bio- expected to master (or at least diversity value that are conserved by employ experts in) many new and communities that depend on these complex areas of expertise (busi- resources, either culturally, for their ness skills and fundraising, eco- livelihoods, or both. While conserva- nomics, conflict resolution, public tion efforts may or may not include relations, and so on) on top of nat- outside support, the three key features ural resource and visitor manage- are that the local communities: ment. Now the manager is being •Are concerned about the ecosys-

24 The George Wright FORUM tem though their relation to it; environments go unrecognized and •Take effective action to maintain or unsupported, it means that a major enhance biodiversity; and contribution to conservation (and a •Are major players (usually the ready-made tool for building local major players) in decision-making support for conservation) is being and implementing decisions. neglected. Nonetheless, there are It is becoming clear that while such encouraging signs that some govern- areas provide a potentially important ments are coming to see the value of new tool in the conservation armory, treating local and indigenous commu- they have often gone unrecognized. nities as partners (see Table 13). There are several reasons for this. It is important to keep a sense of Many government conservation agen- proportion. Not all community-based cies are just too busy running their resource use is sustainable and not own protected areas, and hard pressed every local group will manage nature financially, to reach out to support in a responsible way. But there is community initiatives. Some conser- enough hard evidence now,from many vation experts do not believe that local parts of the world, to show that the people can live alongside nature and idea of CCAs needs to be recognized conserve it. In some countries, legal as a fourth arm of conservation, along- and policy frameworks do not recog- side the efforts of governments, nize the role of local people in conser- NGOs, and the private sector. There vation. Finally there are many coun- are important lessons being learned tries where indigenous peoples and too about why such approaches work rural communities have yet to secure better in some countries than in oth- their full legal rights to the territories ers. For example, CCAs will thrive and resources that they have occupied where power is devolved to local peo- or used in the past. ple, human rights are respected, and Yet the importance of CCAs is con- decision-making is transparent and siderable, for they are far more com- equitable. Where this happens, CCAs mon than was previously appreciated. contribute to conserving biodiversity In South Asia, for example, it is esti- and landscapes but also demonstrate mated that there are many such areas the integration of conservation and under community protection development, contribute to national (Kothari, Pathak, and Vania, 2000). protected area systems, and are part of They exist too in the form of sacred ecological networks and bioregional groves in Africa, as “tapu” areas in the planning (see next section). South Pacific, or as “hemas” reserves in pastoral communities of western Bioregional Planning/ Asia. They are common also in many Ecological Networks parts of the world, ranging from the IUCN has recently published a Arctic to tropical rainforests, where review of ecological networks (Ben- indigenous peoples have long lived nett and Wit 2001). It draws in part on close to nature. So where the efforts of earlier unpublished work by Miller local people to conserve their own and Hamilton (1997). What these

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 25 Table 13. Some examples of the successful partnerships between government and CCAs (source: personal communications as shown) Country Initiative Brief description Significance Australia indigenous protected IPAs allow indigenous IPAs account for nearly 17% of areas (IPAs) landowners to declare that total protected areas estate in they will manage their lands Australia mainly for protection of Source: Steve Szabo natural and associated cultural resources Mexico community protected laws recognize community local communities in Oaxaca (state of natural areas land and resources, (the most biodiverse rich Oaxaca) community land-use region of Mexico) protect planning, and local nearly 200,000 ha decision-making Source: Gonzalo Oviedo Ecuador negotiations over transfer of responsibility of 50,000 ha of land will be (Cofan de rights of indigenous ecological reserve from managed by local people with Bermejo) groups government to local outside support federation of indigenous Source: Gonzalo Oviedo groups Colombia negotiations over transfer of responsibility of 70,000 ha of land will be (Indiwasi rights of indigenous national park from managed by local people with National groups government to indigenous outside support Park) groups (first of 47 in Source: Gonzalo Oviedo Colombia) Samoa establishment of local communities have 30,000 ha + of land/sea will be (Safata marine protected taken the initiative to protected and managed by and areas for sustainable define and establish MPAs customary laws and Aleipata fisheries (including “no-take regulations, approved by Marine zones”) in the waters and government in community- Protected coastal areas of the District prepared management plans Areas) Communities of Safata and Source: Pedro Rosabal Aleipata Isle of community-based small island community, in 7,500 hectares of high Eigg, purchase of the island partnership with Scottish biodiversity and scenic value Scotland, conservation NGO and now conserved by local people U.K. regional agency, bought who have developed island for conservation and sustainable forms of tourism sustainable development Source: Web site overviews show is that there are initia- planning, landscape-scale or ecore- tives now underway in many parts of gion-based planning). the world to promote large-scale plan- Bennett and Wit found 150 such ning for conservation and sustainable schemes in all, and studied 38 in resource use, which involve develop- detail. Of these, over a third were ing networks of protected areas linked being implemented. Their examples with other land and water zones, all are found in all parts of the developed managed in an integrated way. Such and developing worlds. As the exam- initiatives go by several different ples in Table 14 show, ecological net- names that relate to similar concepts works vary greatly in size, from county (e.g., ecological networks, bioregional to continental scale, and the aims

26 The George Wright FORUM sometimes differ too. Several of them • They seek to integrate economic involve two or more countries. Rough- land use and biodiversity conserva- ly half of such initiatives are govern- tion. ment-led, with the rest inspired by All these schemes have important NGOs. Many form parts of interna- implications for the established pro- tional programs (e.g., biosphere tected areas within them. National reserves); others are stand-alone parks and other protected areas schemes. But while the initiatives dif- become the “anchors” of the network, fer widely in many respects, they have the core areas around which buffers certain features in common: are created and between which corri- • They focus on conserving biodi- dors are established; they also set the versity at the ecosystem, landscape, standards toward which restoration or regional scale, rather than in sin- schemes can aspire. Such projects, gle protected areas; therefore, have the effect of linking the • They emphasize the idea of ecolog- protected areas to the surrounding ical coherence through encourag- land and water areas, and to the ing connectivity; regional economy.They also provide a • They involve buffering of highly framework within which privately, protected areas with eco-friendly publicly, and communally owned land land management areas; can be managed through voluntary • They include programs for the agreements for a common cause. restoration of eroded or destroyed While early indications of the benefits ecosystems; and of bioregional planning are encourag-

Table 14. Some ecological network/bioregional planning initiatives (Bennett and Wit 2001). Title of Areas involved Leading Main objectives Main initiative organizations components Mesoamerican eight Meso- inter-governmental halt biodiversity loss, • core areas Biological american leadership ecosystem • corridors Corridor countries fragmentation; integrate • buffer zones (multi-national) with regional (multiple use development, including areas) integrated coastal zone management and MPAs Yellowstone– Canadian and NGO alliance ensure that wilderness, • wildlife cores Yukon U.S. Rockies wildlife, native plants, • connecting (bi-national) and natural processes movement continue to support corridors natural and human • transition areas communities Netherlands The Netherlands Dutch Ministry of create coherent network • core areas Ecological (national) Agriculture, Nature for species and habitats; • ecological Network Management and stimulate self-sustaining corridors Fisheries natural processes; • buffer zones develop/restore • nature connectivity development areas Cheshire Cheshire County, Cheshire County manage landscape for • core areas Econet U.K. Council/E.U. LIFE people and wildlife, and • restoring and (local) program improve the connections re-connecting between surviving landscape wildlife habitats features

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 27 ing, a major challenge over the next world around than the development of few years will be to assess the true such initiatives. value of these initiatives for biodiversi- ty conservation and sustainable devel- IUCN Protected Area opment. A particular challenge will be Management Category V: to establish how effective such large- Protected Landscapes and scale initiatives are in linking with Seascapes local people on the ground. (For a Table 1 summarizes the IUCN thoughtful analysis of the relationship management categories for protected between local participation and one of areas. While IUCN insists that all cat- the largest bioregional projects, the egories are important, traditionally the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, focus of most conservation attention see Rivera et al. 2003.) has been on categories I–IV, the so- called strictly protected areas. These The institutional and capacity- are areas in which the human pres- building implications of bioregional or ence—though it often exists—is kept at ecological network planning are a minimal level. The need for them is indeed formidable. Three kinds of greater than ever if much biodiversity challenges arise: is to be protected. However, there is now also a growing interest in protect- •To build the capacity to plan and ed areas which are lived-in landscapes, manage at a scale that is unfamiliar that is categories V and VI, the so- to most protected area managers; called multiple-use protected areas.5 •To foster stakeholder participation To promote interest in the approach, for a wide range of partners, which IUCN has just published guidelines can be very challenging given the on the management of Category V complex social and economic protected areas: Protected Land- implications of working at a large scapes and Seascapes (Phillips 2002). geographic scale; and This section draws on that advice. •To establish cooperative institu- In the IUCN Guidelines for Protect- tions to ensure the delivery of ed Area Management Categories results, where previously agencies (IUCN 1994), category V, protected were typically more narrowly landscape/seascape, is defined thus: focused (Miller 1996). [An] area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has While it is not suggested that pro- produced an area of distinct character tected area managers—with their limit- with significant aesthetic, ecological ed responsibilities and geographically and/or cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding circumscribed powers—should lead the integrity of this traditional interac- such initiatives on their own, their full tion is vital to the protection, mainte- involvement in them is essential. nance and evolution of such an area. Nothing illustrates more the need for With more than 50 years of experi- protected area management to be out- ence in Europe, and a growing body of ward-looking and connecting with the experience from elsewhere, it is now

28 The George Wright FORUM possible to identify with confidence ficial concern with how places look. the main features of the category V Also most scientists argued that the approach. Thus it is concerned with global priority should be the remain- both people and their environment, ing core “natural” areas. Such views and with a range of natural and cultur- prevailed also because of the domi- al values. It focuses on areas where nance of biologists, zoologists, and people–nature relationships have pro- other natural scientists in the conser- duced a landscape with high aesthetic, vation movement. Finally, there was ecological, biodiversity,or cultural val- the power of the essentially North ues, and which retains integrity. It American model of a national park: a views communities, and their tradi- simple concept that stood in marked tions, as fundamental to the success of contrast to the complex idea of pro- the approach; therefore, stakeholder tecting environments that people had and partnership approaches are need- occupied and shaped for perhaps ed. The approach recognizes the need thousands of years. The contrast is to support the stewardship role of the illustrated by Table 15. private landowner or manager (includ- The focus is now being placed ing that of land trusts or similar bod- more on outstanding, lived-in land- ies). It usually involves management scapes because of important concep- arrangements that are resolved tual and operational advances in con- through decision-making at local gov- servation and protected areas. Thus, ernment or community levels. It can conservation biology has shown the bring social, economic, and cultural need to work at the ecosystem scale benefits to local communities, along and across the wider landscape, with environmental, cultural, educa- through bioregional planning (see tional, and other benefits to a wider above) in which lived-in landscapes public. It requires that management must form a part. It is accepted too activities are integrated, promote sus- that protected areas cannot be treated tainability, and help to resolve con- as islands, but must be seen in their flicts. Properly run, such areas can larger context. The existence of offer models of sustainability for wider “paper parks”—areas protected in application elsewhere in rural areas. name only—shows that reliance on But as with all protected areas, catego- regulation and enforcement is costly ry V protected areas require effective and too often fails. Also, there is a new management systems, including objec- understanding of the link between tive setting, planning, resource alloca- nature and culture. Thus healthy land- tion, implementation, monitoring, scapes are shaped by human culture as review, and feedback. well as by the forces of nature; rich Several reasons explain why so lit- biological diversity often coincides tle international interest was shown in with cultural diversity; and conserva- category V protected areas in the past. tion cannot be undertaken without the It was seen (wrongly) as an essentially involvement of those people closest to Euro-centric idea which had little the resources (Brown and Mitchell application elsewhere, and as a super- 2000).

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 29 Table 15. Categories II and V contrasted. Characteristic Typical situation in Category Typical situation in Category V II National Parks Protected Landscape/seascape natural apparently “natural” ecosystems greatly modified ecosystems environment management ecosystem conservation and landscape protection, tourism, local objectives tourism economy and culture, sustainable use principal economic tourism farming, forestry, tourism land uses land/water mainly publicly owned mainly privately owned ownership management central/provincial government provincial/local government agency human settlement limited (sometimes illegal) long established, “part of the scene”

Although the greatest concentra- • The mountain communities of tion of category V protected areas is to the Himalayas, e.g., the Anna- be found in Europe, under names purna Conservation Area, such as regional nature park (France), Nepal; nature park (Spain), protected land- • Japan, where many national scape area (Czech Republic), and parks are managed as Category national park (U.K.), there are catego- V protected areas; and ry V protected areas in many other • The rice terraces of the Philip- parts of the world. Examples are: pines. • The small island developing In 1997, WCMC recorded 3,178 states in the Caribbean and the category V protected areas in its data- Pacific; base, covering in total 676,892 sq • The traditional farming lands of km—that is, 23.8% in terms of the the Andes; number of all protected areas and 11% • The traditional coffee-growing in terms of area covered (IUCN areas of Mexico and Central 1998a). The publication of IUCN’s America; guidelines for category V protected • The long-settled landscapes of areas (see above) is an indication that eastern parts of the USA and this is becoming a growth sector for Canada; new protected areas. • The growth, within the U.S. national park system, of new Conclusion protected areas relying on part- It is not the purpose of this paper to nerships with local communi- diminish in any way the value of strict- ties; ly protected areas, nor to disparage the •Wildlife dispersal areas of East achievements of this kind of conserva- Africa; tion. Well-managed protected areas of • The ancient “hemas” reserve all categories are needed more than and irrigation systems of Saudi ever. Indeed, in many places biodiver- Arabia; sity conservation will not be secured

30 The George Wright FORUM without a still greater effort to protect a protected area and the IUCN large parts of the planet against protected area categories, so that exploitation of any kind. But it is we can embrace parts of the essential to adopt new ways of manag- lived-in landscape, for example ing these, and in any case strictly gov- as category V protected areas. ernment-owned and -managed pro- There have in fact been huge con- tected areas alone are no longer ceptual advances in thinking about enough. What is called for in the 21st protected areas over the past 30–40 century, and what is now emerging in years, as this paper has shown. In the- the new paradigm, is a broader way of ory, at least, we know now what needs looking at protected areas. to be done to achieve successful pro- It is broader in three senses: tected areas. The challenge, as always, • By including a wider range of is to apply the theory. This requires actors among those who initiate that we develop support among peo- and manage protected areas, of ple and their political leaders for pro- which CCAs are an example; tected areas. This in turn depends • By working at a far broader scale upon us being able to show the bene- than hitherto, as exemplified by fits that they can bring to society.That ecological networks and biore- is the theme —Benefits Beyond gional planning; and Boundaries—of the Fifth World Parks • By broadening our understand- Congress to be held in Durban this ing of the range of possibilities coming September. encompassed in the definition of

Acknowledgments The author is indebted to Clive Anstey, Ed Barrow, Grazia Borrini-Feyer- abend, Elery Hamilton-Smith, Hanna Jaireth, Ashish Kothari, Sango Mahanty, Bob Manning, Gonzalo Oviedo, Pedro Rosabal, Peter Shadie, David Sheppard, and Andrew Tilling for their helpful comments on drafts of this paper.

Endnotes 1 Thus, the first title of what is now the United Nations List of Protected Areas was United Nations List of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. The first title of the IUCN commis- sion on the topic was the International Commission on National Parks (later Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, now World Commission on Protected Areas). The title of the 1962 and 1972 congresses were “International Conference on National Parks,” the 1982 event was called the “Third World Congress on National Parks” that in 1992 was enti- tled “Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas,” while that which is planned for 2003 will be the “World Congress on Protected Areas.” 2“Paradigm” is used here to mean a prevailing pattern of concepts and attitudes which togeth- er constitute an ideal for the planning and management of protected areas. 3 The author added the titles as the originals were only numbered. 4 See the IUCN/WCPA web site: http://wcpa.iucn.org/. 5 This section draws in particular from material provided by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Ashish Kothari, and Gonzalo Oviedo, to whom I am therefore indebted. 6 Though category V is unique among the categories in its emphasis on interaction between

Volume 20 • Number 2 2003 31 people and nature, it shares with category VI the idea of multiple use. Many of the reasons for a growing interest in category V apply to category VI as well, for example the emphasis on sustainable use of natural resources. But there is an important difference. While category V protected areas are lived-in landscapes that have been extensively modified by people over time, the definition of category VI speaks of an “area of predominantly unmodified natural systems,” which is to be managed so that at least two-thirds of it remains that way.

References Adams, A. B., ed. 1962. First World Conference on National Parks. Washington, D.C.: National Park Ser- vice. Bennett, G., and P. Wit. 2001. The Development and Application of Ecological Networks. Amsterdam: AIDEnvironment. Brown, J., and B. Mitchell. 2000. The stewardship approach and its relevance for protected landscapes. The George Wright Forum 17:1, 70-79. Castaño Uribe, C. 1997. Santa Marta Declaration. Bogotá, Colombia: El Sello Editorial. Everhart, W. C. 1972. The National Park Service. New York and London: Praeger. Holdgate M. 1999. The Green Web: A Union for World Conservation. London: IUCN and Earthscan. Holdgate M., and A. Phillips. 1999. Protected areas in context. In Integrated Protected Areas Management. M. Walkey, I. Swingland, and S. Russell, eds. Boston: Kluwer Academic. IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Cambridge, U.K., and Gland, Switzer- land: IUCN. ———. 1998a. 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas. Cambridge, U.K., and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. ———. 1998b. From islands to networks—Report on the mid-term expert meeting, Albany, Australia, November 1997. Unpublished report. Jeanrenaud, S. 2002. People-Oriented Approaches to Global Conservation—Is the Leopard Changing its Spots? London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Kothari, A., N. Pathak, and F. Vania. 2000. Where Communities Care: Community Based Wildlife and Ecosystem Management in South Asia. London and Pune, India: International Institute of Environ- ment and Development and Kalpavriksh. McNeely, J. A., ed. 1993. Parks for Life: Report of the Fourth World Congress on National Parks ad Protect- ed Areas Cambridge, U.K., and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. McNeely,J. A., and K. R. Miller K. R., eds. 1984. National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Miller K. R. 1996. Balancing the Scales: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity’s Chances through Bioregion- al Management. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Miller K. R., and L. Hamilton. 1997. Scaling up: Elements for a strategy for protected areas in the 21st cen- tury. Unpublished report. National Parks Centennial Commission. 1973. Preserving a Heritage. Washington, D.C.: National Parks Centennial Commission. Phillips, A. 2002. Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas—Protected Landscapes/Seascapes. Cambridge, U.K., and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Rivera S. R., P.M. Cordero, I. A. Cruz, and M. F.Borras. 2003. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and local participation. Parks 12:2, 42-54. Stegner W., 1983. The best idea we ever had. Wilderness (spring), 4-5.

Adrian Phillips, Senior Advisor to IUCN on World Heritage, 2 The Old Rectory, Dumbleton near Evesham WR11 6TG, United Kingdom; adri- [email protected] 3

32 The George Wright FORUM