Korea’s Protected Areas
Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Seoraksan National Park This report summarises the findings of a detailed evaluation of the protected area system of South Korea, produced on behalf of IUCN, the Korean National Parks Service (KNPS), the Korean Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the Jeju Island Special Self Governing Province. The research has been undertaken by the Management Effectiveness Assessment team from KNPS and an external team of assessors. The following have been involved in the research and preparation of the report:
PROJECT Manager:
Mr. Won Woo Shin: Executive Director of Nature Conservation, KNPS Former Director General in Nature Conservation Bureau in Ministry of Environment Former Director General in Yeongsan River Basin Environmental Office
Responsibilities: Overall responsibility for appropriate management of the funds and achievement of the planned outputs in a timely fashion and to the highest level of quality. Promote and facilitate the interaction of relevant parties with the collaborative work. Supervise and monitor the technical progress of each project component and make adjustment as needed. Collect and disseminate information on the project progress to each party and ensure all the relevant funds shown on the work plan are available in time. Take responsibility for the project outcome.
KNPS MEE Technical Team
Project Advisor: Prof. Heuk-jin Chung: Chungju National University
Responsibilities: Assist the project manager and provide advice in the design, planning, management, implementation, monitoring and supervision of project activities. Assure effective communication among MEE technical team, IUCN and other relevant experts.
Members from KNPS: Dr. Hag Young Heo : Senior Researcher Ms. Soyoung Park Mr. Sungwoo Yang
Responsibilities: Develop site-level evaluation tool with assistance from IUCN. Consult with and involve agency staff in process and manage the stakeholder engagement process. Provide training of participants in MEE process. Conduct the site-level MEE and analyze the results. Facilitate and contribute to External Review Team mission. Prepare final MEE report in conjunction with IUCN. Participate in the presentation of the results in appropriate meetings nationally and internationally. Arrange translation, publication and distribution of project deliverables. Internal Review Team
Members: Prof. Do Soon Cho: Catholic University Mr. Yong Seok Shin: Superintendent of Seoraksan National Park, KNPS Prof. Dong Geun Lee: Seoul National University Mr. Gwang Hyeon Cho: WesleyQuest Specialist Prof. Tong Mahn Ahn: Seoul National University
External Evaluation Team
External team members were chosen to provide a wide range of expertise and to cover different aspects of the assessment; areas of specialisation were selected at the start of the trip and although each team member considered every aspect of the mission individuals took particular responsibility for different aspects and for producing site reports. Team leader Associate Professor Marc Hockings, University of Queensland: lead author of the WCPA framework on assessment of protected area management effectiveness and WCPA vice-chair for science; original chair of the task force that established protected area management effectiveness as a key issue within WCPA, has been involved in developing and implementing many protected area assessment systems at different scales and is coordinating a global study of protected area management effectiveness. Team members Mr. Nigel Dudley of Equilibrium Research: co-author of the WCPA framework and of several assessment methodologies; a team member of the first national assessment in Finland. Mr. Hyun Kim of KNPS and IUCN: specialist in Korea s national park system and acted as liaison between IUCN and KNPS in establishing the assessment. Mr. Peter Shadie: Head of the IUCN Asian protected area programme and former staff of New South Wales National Parks Service (Australia); long practical experience in protected area management in Australia, globally and in Asia. Dr. Rauno V is nen: Director of Natural Heritage Services in Finland, the state protected area agency, and initiator of the first national assessment process. Mr. Geoff Vincent: of G W Vincent and Associates, former Deputy Chief Executive of Parks Victoria (Australia) and involved there in a major state-wide assessment, long practical experience in protected area management. Contents
Preface Chapter 1; Summary, conclusions and key 7 recommendations
Chapter 2; Background and context 13 Chapter 3; Introduction to assessment method 23 Chapter 4; Thematic analysis of the Korean 29 protected area system Thematic Area 1; The Protected area system 31 Thematic Area 2; Natural resource management 37 Thematic Area 3; Visitor services and visitor management 43 Thematic Area 4; Cultural heritage management 50 Thematic Area 5; Governance and business management 53 Thematic Area 6; Staff structure and organisation 61 Thematic Area 7; Stakeholders and communities 65 Thematic Area 8; Monitoring, research and assessment 71 Thematic Area 9; International presence 74 Chapter 5; Korean site data / Field mission report 77 Chapter 6; Global comparison 105 Appendices 109 System level assessment pro-forma completed 110 Site-level assessment proforma 123 Mission programme and list of people interviewed 146
Glossary: CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CEESP Commission on Environmental, Social and Economic Policy CEM Commission on Ecosystem Management CHA Cultural Heritage Administration DMZ Demilitarised Zone IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature KNPS Korea National Park Service Korea Refers here to Republic of Korea, also known as South Korea MLTMA Ministry Land Transport and Maritime Affairs MOE Ministry of Environment UNEP-WCMC UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas Preface
As of 1960s, Korea has established the modern protected area system, designated and managed various types of 1,300 protected areas including national parks, ecosystem & landscape conservation areas, wetland protected areas, nature reserves, forest genetic resources reserves, Baekdudaegan protected areas, marine environment conservation areas and marine protected areas. The ecosystem and its biodiversity in protected areas are protected by the relevant laws and national plans.
As a current member of the diverse international conventions such as CBD, UNFCCC, RAMSAR and CITES, Korea is actively engaged in the international collaboration in the field of the natural environment and improved the international capacities. As a result, RAMSAR COP10 was successfully held in 2008 in Korea. Based on the agreement at World Summit Sustainable Development, Korea established and implemented the first national strategy for sustainable development 2006-2010. Korea also set up a green growth as a national policy and made strenuous efforts for a natural environment protection and sustainable development.
The objectives of this project are to implement Program of Work on Protected Area (PoW PA) which was adopted in CBD COP 7 in 2004, check the current management status little over half a century after the introduction of the modern protected area system, build the relevant information and improve the capacity building of the staff for the better management of protected areas. Covering 39 sites including national parks under Ministry of Environment (MOE) jurisdiction, this project was initiated with a number of preparatory works for many years since the first discussion in 2005 and the participation of the domestic & international experts.
This report includes the information on the current protected areas status and its findings as well as the possible responses recommended by the internal and external experts. Through the systematic implementation of the possible responses after the close review, it is expected that Korea protected areas system can become the world best class and the management can be effectively improved.
I would like to thank Dr. Marc Hockings of IUCN-WCPA, Mr. Nigel Dudley, protected area expert, Dr.Rauno V is nen of Finland Metsahallitus who gave us technical comments on the park management, Mr. Geoff Vincent, the former deputy executive of Parks Victoria in Australia, Mr.Peter Shadie of IUCN ARO who coordinated for collaboration works between KNPS and IUCN. In particular, I want to thank all the staff of MOE & Korea National Park Service (KNPS), stakeholders and local residents who participated in the interviews.
Wonwoo Shin Executive Director of Resource Conservation in KNPS Preface
In 2004 the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a Programme of Work on Protected Areas that set ambitious goals for countries to advance the establishment and management of their protected area systems. This Programme, amongst other things, called on countries to develop systems for assessing the effectiveness of management of their protected areas and to implement assessments in at least 30% of their protected areas by 2010. With 2010 nearly upon us, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, in conjunction with the University of Queensland, the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre and the 2010 Biodiversity Indicator Partnership have been undertaking a global review of management effectiveness studies. This work has identified assessments of more than 7000 protected areas in over 100 countries — a remarkable effort that provides a better understanding of the state of the world s parks and guidance on how to improve the management of these important areas. As we approach the year of 2010 It appears that few countries will meet the Programme of Work target for management effectiveness assessments in at least 30% of their protected areas. A noted exception is the Republic of Korea. In late 2006, the Korean National Parks Service (KNPS) proposed to IUCN that they work together to develop a management effectiveness evaluation system tailored for the Korean context. With support from the Korean Ministry of Environment, work on this began in earnest in 2008 and this report is the result of that effort. IUCN assembled a team of international experts in protected area management to undertake this review. It takes courage and foresight for an agency such as the KNPS to embark on a project such as this — to invite an external team of experts to come in and review your management. The Report indicates that the Review Team found a well established protected area system with skilled and dedicated staff who are operating at a very high level. The obvious love of the Korean people for their national parks and protected areas is evidenced by the extraordinary levels of visitation and high levels of public support which the system enjoys. As you would expect, the report has identified a number of areas where management could be improved and the Review Team has made some constructive recommendations on steps that could be taken to achieve this. I applaud the Ministry of Environment and the KNPS for their commitment to establishing and maintaining a world class system of protected areas — this report is just one piece of evidence of this commitment. In September this year, I will be joining one hundred of my colleagues from around the world at a summit on Jeju Island in the Republic of Korea to discuss the future of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas post-2010. This meeting, hosted by the KNPS, is an example of global leadership and clear evidence of the commitment and contribution that the KNPS is making to protected areas in their own country and to the wider protected area community across the globe.
Nikita Lopoukhine Chair, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. Chapter
1 Summary, conclusions and key recommendations
Deogyusan National Park Wolchulsan National Park
Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Summary, conclusions and key recommendations
Korea has developed a very impressive protected area system, managed by highly motivated staff, which ranks amongst the best in the world. This achievement is still more impressive in light of the ecological devastation caused by conflict on the Korean peninsular and the multiple, conflicting demands of a rapidly industrialising country. The following paragraphs summarise some of the key findings in an assessment of many individual protected areas and of the protected area system as a whole, carried out in a joint effort between a Korean Management Effectiveness Evaluation Team and a team of external specialists, including a joint field trip undertaken in October and November 2008.
Protected area system Korea has undergone a major expansion in its protected area system, driven by a strong vision from the government, with a promise to complete a comprehensive ecologically-representative system by 2015, increasing cover from around 10 percent to 15 percent of the country s land surface. Further commitment at the highest levels will be needed to realise this vision in the face of financial constraints, competition for land and political pressure. Despite efforts to integrate, protected areas of all types are currently not really planned or managed as a system and remain fragmented in terms of legislation, policies and planning and institutional jurisdictions. As a result protected areas are also often geographically and ecologically isolated. A major challenge for the next decade will be to continue to build a truly inter- connected system rather than a set of isolated reserves.
Natural resource management Natural resource management has until now received less attention in Korean protected areas than management issues such as visitor services; nonetheless, overall condition of natural resources seems to be fairly good, although data are incomplete. Statistics for the number of threatened species that remain in danger gives cause for concern and needs to be monitored carefully in the future. Of the threats analysed, poaching and invasive species seem to be of the most immediate concern to the Koreans, although the former is reported to be declining in protected areas. The fragmented nature of the protected areas system and climate change will both potentially be even more important in the future. Restoration and landscape connectivity efforts are heartening and appear to be working, although it is still too early to judge final success for most efforts.
8 Chapter 1: Summary, conclusions and key recommendations
Visitor management Korea has world class visitor services in protected areas, particularly in terms of facilities and interpretation. The commitment of time and resources is impressive. Very high visitation, with the accompanying exercise and relaxation, must have positive health impacts and thus reduce national health and social costs. High visitor numbers inevitably put some protected areas under pressure, but impacts are often concentrated and it is preferable to manage visitors rather than stem demand and therefore support for the park system. It might be possible to provide more alternatives, for example developing alternative walks to mountain peak trails: more guided walks; broadening the range of visitor opportunities; and providing specialist cultural heritage or wildlife experiences. Efforts are being made to rationalise access systems through trail hardening, resting areas and cutting off unofficial trails.
Cultural management The Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA) is responsible for much cultural management in protected areas, along with Buddhist authorities in the case of active temples. Much of the cultural management within protected areas is of a high standard, but deterioration is clearly occurring and that there is currently a separation between natural and cultural management. Although most cultural management will continue to be carried out by specialists, on a day-to-day basis (and in all unregistered sites) much responsibility inevitably falls on protected area managers and rangers, who are usually not trained in such issues. Nature and culture are intertwined, so that greater integration with the CHA and more training for protected area staff are both needed.
Governance and business The Korean protected area system has a strong legislative base, comprehensive policies, a relatively good and apparently secure budget, agreed control and enforcement measures and a strong planning system at national and local level. Policies appear to be implemented well and effectively. Increasingly the Korean protected area system is being linked to the international system through cooperation with other protected area agencies. However, governance is currently confused, with different legislation and policies resulting in duplication; current attempts to address are not wholly successful. Lack of support for enforcement from police and local courts is a problem and there are differences between national and local government aspirations for protection that should be addressed. There are currently efforts by MOE to examine a number of ways of clarifying the situation.
Staff structure and organisation (considering KNPS only) Protected area staff have high levels of professionalism, dedication and skills and appear to be highly motivated. However, it is also clear that there is some dissatisfaction in the way in which staff are selected, recruited, trained and employed, with a feeling that skills are not always matched to jobs leading to impacts on staff morale. The lack of a regional office structure headed by a senior officer and the current practice of frequent transfers of officers in charge of individual national parks can undermine efforts to build trust and understanding with local communities. Linked to this is some concern that local community staff members are currently seen as second-best, confined to temporary jobs and with little opportunity for advancement. Although in theory the agencies operate a meritocracy, in practice old-fashioned approaches favouring male staff and seniority still influences the career structure.
9 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Stakeholders and communities The overwhelming majority of the population of Korea values and supports the protected area system and particularly national parks. This general level of support for protected areas is very encouraging, but it must be contrasted with the particular case of people living within larger protected areas who appear to be far less enthusiastic. A disgruntled stakeholder group could undermine the system in the long term, particularly as these are the people who are closest to the protected area. There is an impression that national stakeholders receive most of the benefits while local stakeholders carry most of the costs. Further stakeholder engagement will be needed; this will take time and effort and new skills. It is clear that some current policies are increasing the antagonism towards national parks; particularly with respect to temple buildings and other private houses within protected areas.
Research and monitoring KNPS has a dedicated research organization and the depth of research work that has been carried out and the resulting body of information is impressive; as is at the accessibility of this through intranet system, which is of world class quality. However, currently research is focused largely on biology and there is a lack of emphasis on research into some other necessary areas including society, culture and economics, climate change and marine protected areas.
International presence Korea has over the last few years made enormous efforts to increase its international role in protected areas and has to a very large extent succeeded, both regionally and internationally. It is actively, in some cases very actively, involved in IUCN, the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ramsar, CITES, World Heritage, UNESCO Man and the Biosphere and the International Association of Protected Area Stewardship. The current assessment is a significant part of this process and shows an important commitment not only to make Korean expertise more widely available to others but also to learn from experiences in other countries.
Ten key Recommendations
An Ecosystem Approach 1. Move from species to ecosystems: continue the trend towards developing a regional approach to conservation, building on existing examples and developing corridors and buffer zones to a greater extent than at present: building on a classic taxonomic approach also to include a dynamic systems approach.
10 Chapter 1: Summary, conclusions and key recommendations
Coordinated approach to the protected areas system 2. Strengthen system planning: through a comprehensive gap analysis including consideration of both needs for protection and options in terms of management categories and governance types, including application of the IUCN protected area categories.
3. Integrate management: carry out an analysis of gaps and overlaps in legislation and the role of agencies, to develop framework biodiversity conservation legislation and a plan for integration of protected area management into a single body.
Cooperation with different stakeholders 4. Improve local community relations: in particular to identify ways of improving local support for protected areas building on best practice in Korea and elsewhere, successful case studies and where necessary changes in policies and regulations to increase benefits to local communities.
5. Interact with more interest groups: in both formal and informal settings, to improve relations and build mutually supportive policies with particular emphasis on police (in respect to improving enforcement); private land owners in protected areas, local businesses, temples and hiking groups.
6. Improve regional integration: through establishing a regional structure of protected area management and increasing liaison with provincial-level government bodies, aiming to build support and integrate protected areas more fully with regional planning initiatives.
Increase management capacity 7. Enhance staff effectiveness and satisfaction: by a thorough review of recruitment policies, specialised training including university sources, assignment, rotation and use of local people, to reduce rapid turnover of new staff, increase effectiveness and bring more local people into full- time employment.
8. Diversify funding base: to increase revenue and to spread risk.
9. Focus research: to cover real management issues, include for example more on sociological issues, cultural heritage, climate change and marine protected areas.
10. Harmonising the management of natural and cultural heritage to ensure integrated and consistent policy and management practice.
The assessment will only have been worth doing if the results are used constructively to improve management; a process of reflection and implementation of the results is therefore essential. It is also recommended that such periodic assessments of protected area management effectiveness are institutionalised within the Korean protected areas systems and are undertaken regularly to maintain and to continue to improve the national protected areas system.
11
Chapter
2 Background and context
Jirisan National Park Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Background and context
he need to understand more about T management effectiveness of protected areas In a period of little over a century, more than 10 percent of the world s land surface has been assigned some kind of protected area status, representing what is almost certainly the fastest and most profound conscious change in land management in human history. Many protected area systems have necessarily been set up very quickly, often in a race to save remaining habitats and species that are under immediate threat of extinction, and this haste means that rate of establishment has sometimes exceeded the ability of governments and others to ensure that effective management is in place. In many cases the fact that protection is established under law does not remove all the threats that prompted gazettal in the first place and biodiversity and ecosystem services can continue to be lost through illegal or unregulated activity. In other situations, external pressures, such as pollution or climate change, can continue to damage habitats reinforcing the need for an adaptive approach to management.
A review published in 20001 concluded that few protected areas were fully secure and that although regional differences exist in the degree of threat (with African protected areas particularly at risk), there were stresses and challenges in most of the richer countries as well. Furthermore, many protected areas are only protected by their isolation and will come under increasing pressure as the development frontier progresses. Recognition of these problems led, amongst other reactions, to a call for better information about the status of and threats to protected areas and recommendations for adaptive management. Many governments and other managers of protected areas are working hard to develop effective management systems, often learning as they go. At the same time, interest in conservation is growing, along with the commitment of state funds to protected areas. Many stakeholders: government officials, interest groups and voters are demanding information about how well protected areas are performing.
1 Carey, C., N. Dudley and S. Stolton (2000); Squandering Paradise? The Importance and Vulnerability of the World s Protected Areas, WWF International, Gland
14 Chapter 2: Background and context
Role of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Increasing the management effectiveness of protected areas is therefore recognised as a major challenge by the international conservation community. Since 1997 it has also been identified as one of the key work areas of IUCN s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). The Commission started by looking at ways in which management effectiveness can be assessed and established a task force to investigate methodologies. A framework for assessment was published first in 20002 and then in a revised version in 20063. It now forms the basis for over 90 percent of protected area management effectiveness work carried out around the world.
The WCPA framework is not a single assessment methodology. It is recognised that every protected area system is different and that assessment systems also need to address a variety of needs, so that standardisation is not possible. Instead, WCPA provides technical guidance on the range of information that needs to be collected to make a balanced assessment and suggests a range of different approaches in terms of detail, thoroughness, frequency and subject.
WCPA proposes that all assessments should wherever possible include consideration of the full range of elements in the management cycle including: (1) context (importance of the protected area in terms of biodiversity and other values and threats and pressures); (2) planning (design of the protected area and management and work planning); (3) inputs (the resources needed to run the protected area effectively); (4) process (how management is conducted); (5) outputs (whether identified work targets are met); and (6) outcomes (whether overall objectives are met in terms of conserving biodiversity and other associated values). WCPA stresses the need to look beyond the quality of management itself to whether management is actually delivering the underlying values that the protected area was set up to conserve — such outcome assessments are inevitably more difficult to perform. The key elements in the WCPA framework are given in Table 1 below.
2 Hockings, M. with S. Stolton and N. Dudley (2000); Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for Assessing Management of Protected Areas, IUCN and the University of Cardiff 3 Hockings, M., S. Stolton, F. Leverington, N. Dudley and J. Courrau (2006,); Evaluating Effectiveness, A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas 2nd edition IUCN Gland, Switzerland and , Cambridge, UK
15 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Table 1: WCPA framework for assessing management effectiveness Elements of Context Planning Input Process Output Outcome evaluation Explanation Where are Where do we What do we How do we What were What did we we now? want to be? need? go about it? the results? achieve?
What is being Importance, Protected Resources The way in The quantity The quality of assessed threats and area design needed to which of achievement policy and planning carry out management achievement environment management is conducted Criteria that Significance Legislation Resources of Suitability of Results of Impacts: are assessed and policy agency management management effects of Threats processes actions management Site and Resources of in relation to Vulnerability system design site Services and objectives products National Management Partners policy planning Focus of Status Appropriate- Economy Efficiency Effectiveness Effectiveness evaluation ness Appropriate- ness
This framework has since been further developed in several different assessment toolkits , ranging from rapid site-level scorecards to detailed assessment systems that require research, stakeholder meetings and the development of monitoring systems. For simplicity, approaches to assessment can be divided into three broad types, any of which can involve assessments that range from simple to detailed studies:
1. System-wide assessments: covering all protected areas of a country or region and aiming to provide advice to managers of national or regional systems of protected areas: for example use of New South Wales State of the Parks system4.
2. Portfolio-wide assessments: covering all protected areas that are part of an organisation’s portfolio, which may therefore be a subset to an overall "protected area system", aiming to provide advice to managers of protected area portfolios of large donors or intergovernmental organisations: for example the use of the WWF/World Bank Tracking Tool to measure progress on project portfolios5.
3. Site-specific assessments covering one or a cluster of contiguous protected areas and aiming to provide guidance to protect areas managers: for example the Enhancing our Heritage project working with natural World Heritage sites6.
4 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2005); State of Parks Proforma and Guidelines, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation; Hockings, M., C. Cook, R. W. Carter and R. James (2009), Accountability, reporting or management improvement? Development of a State of the Parks assessment system for New South Wales, Australia, Environmental Management 43: 1013—1025 5 Stolton, S., M. Hockings, N. Dudley, K. MacKinnon, T. Whitten and F. Leverington (2007 2nd edition); Reporting Progress in Protected Areas: A site-level management effectiveness tracking tool, World Bank-WWF Alliance, Washington DC and Gland 6 Hockings, M., S. Stolton, N. Dudley, R. James, V. Mathur, J. Courrau, J. Makombo and J. Parrish (2008); Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit: Assessing Management Effectiveness of natural World Heritage sites, UNESCO, Paris
16 Chapter 2: Background and context
The aim of the current project is to assess the Korean National Parks as a system, but with additional attention to particular sites — i.e. the first and third of the options listed above. Although all protected areas were considered, particular attention was paid to the KNPS portfolio of national parks.
Development of management effectiveness assessment Much of the early work on management effectiveness was driven by non-governmental organisations, including particularly WWF, The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International, along with a few governments principally in Latin America. Major donor organisations including particularly the World Bank quickly became involved, in an effort to track the effectiveness with which their budgets were being invested. UNESCO also recognised the importance of assessment as a means of improving management in its natural World Heritage sites and also as a way of addressing reporting requirements under the convention. Protected area management effectiveness received a boost when the Convention on Biological Diversity s (CBD) Programme of Work on Protected Areas made it an explicit target in 20047, encouraging governments to use the WCPA framework in their reporting to the CBD (see box below, our emphasis8).
Goal 4.2 - To evaluate and improve the effectiveness of protected areas management
Target: By 2010, frameworks for monitoring, evaluating and reporting protected areas management effectiveness at sites, national and regional systems, and transboundary protected area levels adopted and implemented by Parties.
Suggested activities of the Parties 4.2.1 Develop and adopt, by 2006, appropriate methods, standards, criteria and indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management and governance, and set up a related database, taking into account the IUCN-WCPA framework for evaluating management effectiveness, and other relevant methodologies, which should be adapted to local conditions. 4.2.2 Implement management effectiveness evaluations of at least 30 percent of each Party s protected areas by 2010 and of national protected area systems and, as appropriate, ecological networks. 4.2.3 Include information resulting from evaluation of protected areas management effectiveness in national reports under the Convention on Biological Diversity. 4.2.4 Implement key recommendations arising from site- and system-level management effectiveness evaluations, as an integral part of adaptive management strategies.
Partly as a result of the impetus provided by the CBD, an increasing number of governments have developed or are developing assessment systems. Finland became one of the first governments to introduce a state-wide management effectiveness system, with a report published in 20059, followed by a State of the Parks report in 200710. Management effectiveness assessments are now being developed by many other countries, including Australia, Germany, India, Scotland, Lithuania and Catalonia in Spain. The Korea National Park Service assessment will be the first nation-wide assessment using the WCPA framework in East and Southeast Asia.
7 Dudley, N., K. J. Mulongoy, S. Cohen, S. Stolton, C. V. Barber and S. B. Gidda (2005); Towards Effective Protected Area Systems: An action guide to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas, CBD Technical Series number 18, Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal 8 Chape, S., J. Harrison, M. Spalding and I. Lysenko (2005); Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 443—455 9 Gilligan, B. N. Dudley, A. Fernandez de Tejada and H. Toivonen (2005); Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Finland’s Protected Areas, Nature Protection Publications of Mets hallitus, A 147, Vantaa 10 Heinonen, M. (2007); State of the Parks — Finland: Finland s protected areas and their management for 2000-2005, Nature Protection Publications of Mets hallitus, Vantaa
17 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Korea’s nature and biodiversity Korea is a peninsula with 64 percent of its area covered in mountains, approximately 3,000 offshore islands and 63 important freshwater wetlands. The ecology has been transformed through long habitation and serious overexploitation during the latter part of the Japanese occupation and the civil war, including in particular large- scale deforestation during the war. The biodiversity resources of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea are only very partially known. In response to the resulting environmental problems, South Korea has undertaken major restoration efforts, particularly of forest, described in more detail later in the report. Today an estimated 0.4 percent of vegetation is in a fully natural state11, mainly as forest and Alpine meadows. Virtually all lowland areas have been transformed for agriculture or infrastructure. Korea is particularly important as a migration site, especially for birds, with 86 percent of birds being migratory12. There is also a large domestic flora and fauna with 2,322 known endemic species of all types, including four mammals, four birds, one reptile, five amphibians and 515 vascular plants. Many of the larger mammals, including the tiger and leopard, have disappeared from the south although a few individuals may remain in North Korea. Reintroduction of mammals such as the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus ussuricus) is a priority13 and future plans apparently also involve reintroduction of other species such as the musk deer (Moschus moschiferus parvipes), Korean red fox (Vulpes vulpes peculiosa), lynx (Lynx lynx), Dybrowski s sika deer (Cervus nippon hortulorum) and Japanese sea lion (Zalophus californianus japonica), which have either declined significantly or been extirpated from the country.
Growth of Korea’s protected areas Representatives from Korea attended the first World Conference on National Parks (the forerunner of the World Parks Congress) in Seattle in 1962, in order to help build consensus for a protected areas system within the country. Following negotiations, Hongdo Island and Mount Sorak were designated as the country s first natural reserves in 1965. The national park system was adopted in Korea in March 1967 and the first national park, Mount Jirisan, was designated in the same year. Korea made increasing efforts to join in with international conservation efforts, joining the CBD, Ramsar Convention and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in the 1990s and becoming a state member of IUCN in 2006. In 2007 the country celebrated the 40th anniversary of the creation of the national park system and the 20th anniversary of KNPS. Today there are around 1,300 protected areas in a variety of designations and management types, as outlined in Table 2 below. Only a very small number of these are currently listed on the World Database on Protected Areas or have a designated IUCN management category.
11 Bong Suck Choi (2007), Nature in Korea, in The Biodiversity and Protected Areas of Korea, edited by Hag-Young Heo, Ministry of Environment and Korea National Park Service, Seoul 12 Hee Young Chae (2007), Birds, in The Biodiversity and Protected Areas of Korea, edited by Hag-Young Heo, Ministry of Environment and Korea National Park Service, Seoul 13 Korea National Parks (undated): Restoration Project of Asiatic Black Bear, Species Restoration Centre
18 Chapter 2: Background and context
Table 2: Protected area types, numbers and area in Korea Type of protected Area Number Related laws Management Notes area Km2
MOE Exception is National park 20 6,580 Natural Parks Act (KNPS) Hallasan NP
Provincial park 29 990.8 Natural Parks Act Local govt
County park 27 234.5 Natural Parks Act Local govt
Ecosystem and Natural Envt. MOE, MLTMA, 11 by MOE, 19 by landscape 30 283.99 Conservation Act mayors etc mayors and governors conservation area Law on Conservation and Marine protected area 4 70.37 Management of MLTMA Marine Ecosystems Wetland protected Wetland 12 by MOE, 8 by 20 279.64 MOE, MLTMA areas Conservation Act MLTMA Special Act on the Ecosystem Special islands 158 10.125 preservation of MOE Island such as Dokdo Marine environment Marine Pollution 4 1,822 MLTMA conservation areas Prevention Act
Wildlife protected area 507 931.6 Wildlife Protection MOE, mayors Wildlife specially Act and governors 1 26.20 protected area Natural monument 149 841.3 Cultural Cultural Natural reserve 10 390 Properties Properties Scenic site 51 95.05 Protection Act Administration Law on Protection Forest Service 7 national parks (core Baekdudaegan 1 2,634 of Mt Baekdu (discussion with 1,699km2, buffer Mountain Reserve Range MOE) 935km2 Director of Act on the Forest Service, Forest Genetic Promotion and director of local 286 1,011.5 Resources Reserve Management of forest service, Forest Resources mayor and governor
Total 1,297 16,261.078 MOE = Ministry of Environment, MLTMA = Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs
19 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Protected areas are designated under many different Acts of Parliament. Each has its own designation criteria. The Ministry of Environment manages many of Korea s wetland sites directly (all MOE offices were originally based in river basins), along with ecosystem and landscape conservation areas, special islands and others. National parks make up approximately 44 percent of the terrestrial protected area estate and are designated by the Ministry of Environment to protect representative ecosystems and natural and cultural landscapes, both on land and at sea. The Korea National Park Service (KNPS) was established in 1987 to manage the national park estate. Management aims to combine both conservation and sustainable use of natural resources and the protected areas are directly under government control. However, much of the land in national parks remains in private hands and owners have a certain amount of autonomy in terms of day to day management decisions, within certain agreed guidelines and the Natural Park Act. There are five key requirements for designation (which also apply to provincial parks and county parks):
Jirisan National Park
1. Ecosystems: preservation of natural ecosystems must be satisfactory, or the area must be inhabited by endangered species, National Treasures (a designation that includes many rare and endangered species) or protected plant and animal species 2. Natural landscape: natural scenery must be preserved without significant damage or pollution 3. Cultural landscape: there must be cultural or historic artefacts that are in harmony with the landscape and have intrinsic value 4. Topography security: there must be no threats to the landscape from industrial development 5. Location: the national park must be located such that it contributes to overall national aims for conservation and management14
14 Korea National Park Service (2008); National Parks of Korea, KNPS, Seoul, Korea
20 Chapter 2: Background and context
In the earliest years, national parks were focused mainly on developing rural infrastructure through encouragement of tourism, but as understanding of nature and conservation needs increased they focused increasingly on issues of conservation coupled with promotion of public health and sustainable development. Most Korean national parks are identified as category V protected landscapes under the IUCN system although Seoraksan, Sobaeksean, Odaesan, Woraksan and Jirisan are all Wolchulsan National Park category II, being recognised as such by UNEP-WCMC and 2005 and 200715.
Other designations vary from those that stress sustainable use (for example Marine Environment Conservation Areas under the Marine Pollution Prevention Act also focus on maintaining fishery resources) to those that cover endangered species and genetic resources. Natural Monuments, designated under the Protection of Cultural Properties Act, include explicit reference to representative areas of original habitat (primeval forest and alpine meadows), agrobiodiversity, geodiversity and areas with a mixture of natural and cultural values . In addition to domestic designations, Korea recognises and applies a range of international protected area designations, including natural or mixed natural/cultural World Heritage sites (e.g. Jeju Island, Gyeongju), Biosphere Reserves (e.g. Mount Sorak and Jeju Island) and Ramsar sites for the protection of wetlands (e.g. Du-ung Wetland and Upo Wetland).
Recently, Korea has been making strenuous efforts to benchmark its national park system against international best practice, seeking to learn from experience beyond the borders of the country. This has included sending staff and exhibitions to international conservation events, planning or establishing staff exchange programmes with IUCN Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Costa Rica and the United States and publishing a series of English-language books and pamphlets explaining the system . In 2006, KNPS hosted an International Workshop for Better Management of Protected Areas , to promote application of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas in the region. The current study should also be seen in part as a step in the continuing international outreach by the Korean government and KNPS.
15 Korea National Park Service, Annual Report 2006-2007, KNPS, Seoul 16 Hag Young Heo [editor] (2007); The Biodiversity and Protected Areas of Korea, Ministry of Environment and Korea National Park Service, Seoul 17 National Parks of Korea, published by Korea National Park Service in October 2008, Seoul; KNPS(2008); National Parks of Korea, The joy given to us by nature, the future we must protect: http://main.knps.or.kr/PDS/knps_eng/knps_english.pdf; and KNPS(2008), Annual Report 2006-2007 (http://main.knps.or.kr/PDS/Downloads/pds/200811/yearreport_eng.pdf)
21
Chapter
3 Introduction to assessment method
Dadoehaehaesang National Park Jirisan National Park
Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Introduction to assessment method
This section reviews the process by which the study was established, explains what approach was taken and why and introduces the external team involved in the evaluation.
Setting up the study The Korean National Park Service approached IUCN about the possibility of carrying out an evaluation of Korea s protected areas in 2006. At the same time, KNPS seconded the services of a staff member to work on a short-term basis with the IUCN secretariat office in Bangkok, which helped to facilitate much of the organisation. A team was selected and a number of preparatory visits made to Korea during 2006 and 2007, both to visit some sites to see what would be involved in an assessment and to discuss the practical arrangements with KNPS. Further meetings took place between KNPS staff, Korean academics and representatives of IUCN at a number of international meetings, including the IUCN Protected Areas Summit in Almeria, Spain in May 2007 and the World Conservation Congress in Barcelona in October 2008, shortly before the assessment mission.
Five key decisions came out of early discussions with KNPS: 1. The assessment would be based around the IUCN-WCPA framework for management assessment, described in chapter 1 2. However, there was no off the shelf system suitable for immediate use within Korea and preliminary work would be needed to draw together a toolkit for carrying out the assessment 3. The process would involve a mixture of internal assessment by KNPS staff and external evaluation by both Korean and foreign specialists, working as a team 4. The assessment team would look at both the status of individual protected areas sites and also at the functioning and organisation of the protected area system as a whole 5. The external assessment and MEE teams would work together during a field trip in which a range of protected areas were visited.
Research work was carried out by the internal MEE team and advisors during 2008 and a field mission including the external team took place in October and November 2008. A preliminary report was developed in early 2009 for comment and the final report completed in mid 2009.
24 Chapter 3: Introduction to assessment method
Assessment process The assessment itself consisted of ten main steps:
1. Preliminary discussions with KNPS inside and outside Korea to agree the scope of the study, the methods used and the personnel to be involved;
2. Agreement on the final scope of work at a meeting held in Seoul, June to July 2007, leading to finalisation of the MOU between KNPS/MOE and IUCN;
3. Provision of background reading including books and pamphlets published in English;
4. Development of a set of tools tailored to conditions within Korea by KNPS staff, the MEE team and the external team, finalised at a workshop in May 2008, focusing on site and system evaluation; identification of stakeholder groups that should be interviewed and of the sort of sites that should be included18;
5. Coordination of workshops in three regions to evaluate management effectiveness for individual sites and to exchange opinions with stakeholders;
6. Compilation of general data about site condition within protected areas, particularly those to be included in the field assessment, using a standardised questionnaire (see appendix 2);
7. Application of the questionnaire aimed at capturing information about the system, which included both a scoring section and space for explanation and notes (see appendix 2);
8. Completion of a field mission between October 23rd to November 3rd 2008 visiting officials in Seoul and then nine protected areas of various habitat types, sizes and governance around the country (see Table 3 below), during which many stakeholder meetings took place and both site and system assessment were revised during discussions between KNPS and the evaluation team;
9. Analysis of site and system level assessment results by the MEE team and the University of Queensland and production of the site level assessment report by KNPS;
10. Analysis and production of a final report, including system assessment and site assessment notes from the evaluation team and recommendations to KNPS and other actors in Korea.
18 The site level assessment tool was developed by adapting the New South Wales State of the Parks assessment pro-forma to suit Korean issues and standards
25 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Table 3: Protected areas included in field visits
Name Area (km2) Designation Description No. of visitors No. of residents Mountain, valleys Bukhansan 79.916 National park and gorges very 10,191,000 3,017 close to Seoul Freshwater wetland Wetland in sand dunes relying Du-Ung 0.065 Protected area 5,264 None on underground and Ramsar site water Mountain and forest area, 20 peaks over Jirisan 471.758 National park 2,725,000 1,131 1,500 m, high ridges and deep gorges Urban and historic National Park, park with natural Gyeongju 138.715 cultural World 4,912,000 1,070 features (8 areas Heritage site designated as NP) National park Mountainous area of Hallasan 153.386 and World 804,000 None forest and fell Heritage site
Wetland Mulyeongari- 0.309 Protected area Small wetland 15,000 None oreum and Ramsar site
Ecosystem & Landscape River and bank over Sumjingang 1.834 ~ 1,000 None Conservation 6km stretch Area Coastline dunes, Taean Haean Coastal national 326.573 tidal flats and 448,146 2,366 (coast) park (mainly) marine Ecosystem & Landscape Four wetland areas - Upo Neop 8.54 Conservation biggest natural Over 100,000 1,000 estimated Area, Ramsar wetland in Korea site
Jirisan National Park
26 Chapter 3: Introduction to assessment method
System level methodology The system level assessment was the most original element in the assessment and therefore will be described in slightly more detail (and is reproduced in full in appendix 1). The assessment is built around a questionnaire, which follows the WCPA management effectiveness framework, with a varying number of questions relating to each element of the framework: Context — 7 questions Planning — 7 questions Inputs — 6 questions Process — 16 questions Outputs — 2 questions Outcomes — 6 questions
Each question is assessed on a four point scale, rated against optimal conditions: 0-25 percent, 26- 50 percent, 51-75 percent and 76-100 percent of the optimum situation for each question. In most cases rating is also informed by choosing from four possible answers while in some cases it is decided by summing results from all site-level assessments. In total, the 44 questions provide an overview of protected area system performance. Note that the output section, which would be amongst the most important in a site level assessment, is given less prominence at system level whereas the process of management is the most complex issue addressed. The system ratings were based on interviews and the field visits and then aggregated and negotiated among the external team.
Site-level methodology The site level assessment was developed by the KNPS MEE Technical Team working with Associate Professor Hockings and his research team, based on an adaptation of the State of the Parks Assessment Proforma from New South Wales, Australia19. The Proforma (Appendix 2), was administered by park staff following training by the KNPS MEE Technical Team. A series of meetings have been held to develop an appropriate site-level assessment framework and guideline, which reflected the characteristics of Korea. A training workshop on how to complete the evaluation sheet took place in April 2008. A seminar with domestic and international experts and KNPS staff was held in May 2008. A review of the framework by IRT/ERT and KNPS staff was held in June 2008. The evaluation sheet consists of four parts: Part A: Description Part B: Context information (plans, values, threats, stakeholders) Part C: Resource allocation20 (staff and budget) Part D: Management effectiveness The assessment questionnaire in Part D consists of 10 questions on natural resources management, 3 on cultural/historic resource management, 9 on visitor/recreation management, 6 on community engagement, 2 on governance and 7 on management as a whole. Additional evaluation sheets are provided for other management issues that may be significant within the protected area.
19 Ms Carly Cook is acknowledged for her input to the review of the Site Level Assessment Proforma and the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change is thanked for making its Proforma available as a model for the Korean assessment. 20 Management category (17 fields): resource management (natural/historic, inventory and monitoring, invasive species, threatened taxa, fire, other issues related to resource conservation); visitor and recreation management (visitor information, interpretation/ awareness programme, visitor safety and rescue, visitor facilities, other visitor related services); community engagement (local community, relevant organization); governance and administration (official permit and law enforcement, park cleaning, infrastructure, contract/assessment/human resource, other administrative work).
27
Chapter
Thematic analysis of the 4 Korean protected area system
Jirisan National Park Gayasan National Park
Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system
The following chapter contains the main assessment, divided into a number of major themes:
Protected area system Natural resource management Visitor services and visitor management Cultural management Governance and business management Staff management Community engagement Monitoring, evaluation and research International presence
Each of these is presented in three parts: overview, findings and possible responses. The analysis draws from the system level questionnaires (and presents a graph with relevant elements of the system level assessment); the site level questionnaire, discussions with the KNPS in Korea and with MOE staff, meetings with stakeholders during the field trip, published information and personal observations by the evaluation team: where necessary points of clarification have been sought from the MEE team in Korea.
30 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system
Thematic Area 1 The protected area system
The extent to which the protected area system in Korea works as a system; the existence of a consistent vision and objectives between government departments; the quality and coordination of planning; and the extent of integration into the global protected areas system.
Relevant elements of the system level assessment21 Performance Indicator 1234 1a Vision 1b Comprehensiveness 1c Threat 2a Status 2b Range 2d Adequacy 2e Systematisation 6a Outcomes
Overview: The protected area system has grown very rapidly over the last forty years, reaching 1,297 protected areas in total in 2008. Protected areas currently cover over 10 percent of the country under 15 different designations. Natural parks, which include national parks, provincial parks and county parks, cover 7.8 percent of the land surface. National parks alone cover 6.5 percent of the country and the 20 national parks in Korea contain 51 percent of known native species22. This includes the majority of the endangered species in Korea (national parks are estimated to contain 54 percent of the 156 animal species classified as grade I or II endangered and 68 percent of the 65 plant species classified as grade I or II endangered). However, these statistics also show that many endangered species lie outside national parks. After collecting opinions from 200,000 members of the public, KNPS selected 35 flagship species , linked to particular national parks, both to provide a focus for management and a public face of conservation within the particular protected area. For example, flagship species for Jirisan National Park are the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus ussuricus) and the Korean winter hazel (Corylopsis gotoana var coreana); and for Woraksan National Park are the Korean goral (Nemorhaedus caudatus) and the nodding lily (Lilium cernuum), emphasising the strong species-driven approach to conservation.
The site-level analysis found that over 70 percent of protected areas surveyed had good information on key reserve values and could use this in decision making, although there was variation in the quality of information available between different national parks.
21 Full details of the criteria are given in Appendix 1. Note that in the graphs quality of performance increases from 1-4 22 Hag Young Heo [editor] (2007); The Biodiversity and Protected Areas of Korea, Ministry of Environment and Korea National Park Service, Seoul
31 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system
No comprehensive gap analysis has been carried out for the country. It is clear that serious gaps remain in the system, for example in coastal wetlands, which are vital for many migratory bird species but currently under severe threat in the country from drainage and reclamation schemes23. Freshwater systems may also be under-represented and there is virtually no representation of lowland or cultural habitats.
Although the system has grown very fast it remains rather fragmentary and many individual protected areas are ecologically isolated. The horizons of many protected area managers may also be limited to within the boundaries of their particular park. Parks have consultative committees at two levels: headquarters-level committees consist mainly of NGOs and scientists while site-level committees include local government officials, NGOs, temples and other local representation.
The focus of protected areas has in the past mainly been on individual species. The public in Korea generally has a greater acceptance of the concept of species conservation than of ecosystem conservation. The main incentives for protection are still species and landscape rather than ecosystems or an ecosystem approach. Nonetheless, the importance of broadscale approaches is recognised by the government and the existence of the Mount Baekdu range series of protected areas (seven national parks and 2 provincial parks covering 2,634 km2 with 65 percent as core area and considerable areas managed by the Ministry of Forestry); efforts at integrated coastal protection at Taeanhaean Coastal National Park; and plans for a protected area in the DMZ show that landscape considerations are being given an increasing level of attention. The revised Fourth Comprehensive National Land Plan (2006-2020) includes a phased plan to build a national land eco-network covering the whole country to increase connectivity.
Clear targets have been set for expansion of the system, aiming to cover 15 percent of the country by 2015. There is commitment to ecological restoration in the Comprehensive Biological Master Plan from MOE, although this has not yet been fully addressed in practice. According to objectives in this plan, the National Institute of Biological Resources was set up in 2007 and a series of natural resource inventories were carried out. The Ministry of Environment intends to increase the number of protected areas following consultation with local stakeholders. However, it is recognised that the 2015 target may be difficult to achieve due to lack of funds for land purchase, objections from land owners and competing land uses: for example the government estimates that a further 3,848 km2 will be needed for urban expansion in the next few years. The last national park was set up in 1988 and there is no evidence yet of a programme to meet the new target. One result of local resistance to the planning controls that come with national park status (see thematic area on stakeholders and consultation) is that many small species-based protected areas have been created instead. There are some concerns about the ecological implications of this fragmentation, in terms of isolating wild species and preventing interchange of genetic material, leading to recognition that greater efforts need to be put into achieving more connectivity within the system.
23 WWF, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute and Korea Environment Institute (2006); Birds of the Yellow Sea Ecoregion and their Habitats
32 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 1: The protected area system
The Ministry of Environment has a Master Plan for the Environment, which includes plans for expanding the protected area system based on a ten year biodiversity assessment, and KNPS has a clear vision for its own work, based around: (i) nature conservation; (ii) visitor satisfaction; (iii) realisation of park management that satisfies both nature and human beings; (iv) reaching a leading position in world park management; and (v) fulfilling the role of a specialised agency. There are a number of national, cross agency, strategies including Biodiversity and Protected Areas (KNPS and MOE), Tourism and Protected Areas (KNPS and the Ministry of Tourism) and Invasive Species (KNPS and the National Strategy). However the aims of MOE and KNPS are not shared by all the institutions responsible for protected areas and there are some differences in philosophy and outlook and a mixture of visions . There is at present no national plan for developing an ecologically representative protected areas system and no inter-agency plan. The launching of a Korea Protected Area Forum in 2006 has started to address these issues but problems of different philosophies and priorities remain (see thematic area on governance and business management). While there is a national vision for biodiversity conservation there appears to be a gap between this and a vision for protected areas.
Only a small proportion of Korea s protected areas have, as yet, received an IUCN category, but there is a clear commitment to address this and to ensure that all Korean protected areas appear on the WDPA and the UN List of Protected Areas. KNPS has assigned IUCN management categories to its protected areas and has worked with IUCN and UNEP-WCMC staff to clarify and in some cases reassign categories (for example several national parks have been changed from V to II). Currently only categories II, IV and V are used in Korea although there is interest in expanding the system to include all the IUCN management models.
Less is known within Korea about the IUCN governance types24. The large majority of protected areas are managed by the government although the National Trust, an NGO, also manages six protected areas (see discussion under theme on governance and business) and some areas managed overall by the government effectively have their management delegated to NGOs. The following governance types can be identified according to the IUCN typology: