Korea’s Protected Areas

Evaluating the effectiveness of South ’s protected areas system

Seoraksan National Park This report summarises the findings of a detailed evaluation of the protected area system of , produced on behalf of IUCN, the Korean National Parks Service (KNPS), the Korean Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the 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 National Park, KNPS Prof. Dong Geun Lee: 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 (); 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, protected areas, marine environment conservation areas and marine protected areas. The ecosystem and its 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 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 , 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 . 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 , 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) 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, , 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, ), 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 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 ); 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 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:

State-managed protected area managed by the national government: e.g. Jirisan National Park managed by KNPS State-managed protected area managed by a local government: e.g. managed by Jeju self-governing administration State-managed protected area with management partially delegated to an NGO: e.g. Duung wetland Co-managed protected area: e.g. managed by the local government, KNPS and the Cultural Heritage Administration (in fact in all national parks KNPS manages the park and CHA manages the cultural assets held within the park) Private protected area managed by not-for-profit organisation: e.g. the six protected areas managed by the National Trust

24 Borrini-Feyerabend, G., A. Kothari and G. Oviedo (2004); Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards equity and enhanced conservation. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 11., IUCN, Gland and Cambridge; Graham, J., B. Amos and T. Plumptre (2003); Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century, Policy Brief Number 15, Institute on Governance, Ottawa

33 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Analysis: Thematic area 1: Protected area system Elements Analysis The modern protected area system is relatively new (although much older forms of hunting and forest reserves existed); high rate of land-use change and an ecosystem Context recovering from severe degradation including massive deforestation during the war. A strong vision for conservation has developed from government Considerable research into species building up an impressive picture of conservation needs, but still no comprehensive protected areas gap analysis or assessment of likely impacts from climate change. There have been limited efforts to look at different Planning management approaches and governance types. Strong visions from KNPS and MOE, but signs that management is not sufficiently integrated and that the Korean Protected Areas Forum has not solved this issue. Huge efforts to build a protected area system over the past few decades with strong Inputs commitment of time and resources from the government. Currently a species focus to the system rather than an ecosystem focus although signs that this may be changing. The Korean Protected Area Forum or MOE Joint Processes Committee emerge as possible vehicles for collaboration. Commitment to international processes such as WDPA. Confusion sometimes remains about which agency has responsibility for particular policy areas. Outputs Rapid growth to a system of about 1300 protected areas Strong system in place although this remains fragmented and more a collection of Outcomes reserves than an integrated system; important exceptions to this in the case of Baekdudaegan Mountains Reserve and some coastal reserves

Findings: Korea has undergone a very impressive expansion in its protected area system, driven by a strong vision and dedication from the government, with a commitment to continue and complete a comprehensive system within a few years. This vision has been matched by KNPS, which is aiming high both nationally and internationally in terms of quality. Further commitment, at the highest levels, will be needed to ensure that this brave vision is realised because it is clear that obstacles lie in the way in terms of money and political pressure against further protection. Currently, despite efforts to integrate, the protected areas system is not really managed as a system and remains fragmented in terms of: (i) multiple pieces of protected area legislation; (ii) variable and overlapping policies of the different institutions involved in planning and management; (iii) regional planning exercises where protected areas are often not taken into account; and also (iv) geographically and ecologically through being isolated in a landscape that is often not supportive of biodiversity. 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. Korea has made great efforts to establish a vision for ecological connectivity and to integrate its own conservation with that of the global community; these efforts are to be applauded and should continue.

Responses: Recommendations are ordered from actions that could be instigated immediately and broader policy or research efforts that may take more time.

34 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 1: The protected area system

Carry out a gap analysis25 of protected areas, so that the 2015 target for expansion can also meet the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas target of a comprehensive, ecologically-representative protected areas system26. Include an assessment of threats to protected areas. Many useful case studies are available for information, particularly from Latin America and the Caribbean (e.g. Mexico, Colombia, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Caribbean) and there is a regional gap analysis coordinated by ASEAN and Birdlife International27, examples from Australia (freshwaters), Turkey (key biodiversity areas), Fiji and many more. The gap analysis would involve mapping the distribution of important (particularly endangered and endemic) species and key habitats and overlaying this with maps of protected areas, to identify gaps in terms of species and habitats not sufficiently represented within the national protected areas system.

Gap analysis Gap analysis at a national level usually has 6 steps: (i) identify focal biodiversity and set key targets; (ii) evaluate and map the occurrence and status of biodiversity; (iii) analyse and map the occurrence and status of protected areas; (iv) use the information to identify gaps in the protected areas network; (v) prioritise gaps to be filled; and (vi) agree on a strategy and take action. The CBD recommends that gap analyses take place in the context of a number of principles: (a) Ensure full representation across biological scales (species and ecosystems) and biological realms (terrestrial, freshwater, and marine). (b) Aim for redundancy of examples of species and ecosystems within a protected area network to capture genetic variation and protect against unexpected losses. (c) Design for resilience to ensure protected area systems to withstand stresses and changes, such as climate change. (d) Consider representation gaps, ecological gaps and management gaps in the analysis. Representation gaps refer to species, ecosystems and ecological processes that are missed entirely by the protected area system; Ecological gaps relate to biodiversity that exists within protected areas but with insufficient quality or quantity to provide long term protection; while management gaps refer to situations where protected areas exist but are failing to provide adequate protection either because they have the wrong management objectives or because they are managed poorly. (e) Employ a participatory approach, collaborating with key stakeholders in making decisions about protected areas. (f) Make protected areas system design an iterative process in which the gap analysis is reviewed and improved as knowledge grows and environmental conditions change. A large number of case studies and examples are available at http://www.protectedareas.info/index.asp. Particular attention is needed on those ecosystems that are currently under-represented in the protected area system within Korea28.

Apply the IUCN protected area definition, category and governance types to all the protected areas in the country29 and report these to the World Database on Protected Areas. Current efforts to develop a regional toolkit for assigning categories could soon help to achieve this. IUCN has provided technical guidance to countries on assignment of categories and governance types, e.g. in Madagascar, Senegal and Turkey, and could be asked to assist in this way. A draft toolkit for identifying protected area category and governance type, developed by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, is also available30.

25 Dudley, N. and J. Parrish (2006); Closing the Gap: Creating ecologically representative protected area systems, CBD Technical Guide number 24, Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal 26 CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas section 1.1.6 (our emphasis) the establishment of comprehensive and ecologically representative national and regional systems of protected areas 27 Birdlife International (2008); Gap Analysis of Protected Areas Coverage in the ASEAN Region, Birdlife, IUCN and ASEAN 28 Dudley, N. and J. Parrish (2006): Closing the Gap: Creating ecologically-representative protected area systems, CBD Technical Guidelines number 24, Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal 29 Dudley, N. [editor] (2008); Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, IUCN, Gland Switzerland 30 Dudley, N. and G. Borrini-Feyerabend (2007); A scoring system to help select the appropriate IUCN categories and governance types for protected areas, IUCN Gland Switzerland

35 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Make greater efforts to ensure that protected area management plans are nested within sympathetic regional planning exercises. This could build on the national eco-network but might involve broadening the scope of consultative groups to include more local government officials and planning authority members and encourage them to factor protected area needs into regional plans31, particularly related to connectivity and buffer zones. Examples could include landscape approaches taken in the Netherlands32, Mediterranean33 and also draw from experience in implementing the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas around the world34. Recommendations elsewhere in this report on creating a regional structure for KNPS would also support this need to engage in stronger regional planning.

Continue to develop the rationale of protected area planning by supplementing the species approach with a more ecosystem-based approach35, particularly in light of the need for strategies to address the likely impacts of climate change. This should include consideration of land uses outside protected areas, particularly with respect to the creation of buffer zones, ecological transition zones and corridors36. There is a need to redirect Korea s powerful national research capabilities toward a more system based approached, which recognizes the complex dynamics between species and environment. This research needs to then inform policy, strategy and management practice in the parks system. Finally there is a need to articulate the broader ecosystem services that Korea s PA system provides and the importance of valuing these functions in system design and management.

Deogyusan National Park

31 Davey, A. G. (1998); National System Planning for Protected Areas, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 1, IUCN Gland Switzerland 32 Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (2000); Nature for People: People for Nature: Planning document for nature, forest and landscape in the 21st Century, Den Haag, Netherlands 33 Garc a Mora, M. R. (2002); Environmental Connectivity: Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Basin, Junta de Andalucia, Spain 34 Bennett, G. and K. J. Mulongoy (2006); Review of Experience with Ecological Networks, Corridors and Buffer Zones, CBD Technical Series number 23, Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal 35 Shepherd, G. (2008); The Ecosystem Approach: Five steps to implementation, CEM, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; Shepherd, G (2008); The Ecosystem Approach: Learning from Experience, CEM, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland 36 Dudley, N. and M. Rao (2008); Assessing and Creating Linkages within and beyond Protected Areas: A quick guide for protected area practitioners, Quick Guide Series ed. J Ervin, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington Virginia, 28p

36 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system

Thematic Area 2 Natural resource management

The extent to which the Korean protected areas system is proving effective in managing natural resources including particularly biodiversity (genetic diversity, species and ecosystems); key threats to natural resources including invasive species; and finally restoration efforts.

Relevant elements of the system level assessment Performance Indicator 1234 1b Comprehensiveness 2d Adequacy 3m Research 3n Management 6b Integrity

Overview: Natural resource management has until now received less attention within Korean protected areas than some other management issues, including particular visitor services and management. Overall natural and cultural management usually receive around 30 percent of the budget in KNPS (although additional funding goes to cultural heritage through the Cultural Heritage Administration). Much of the existing budget helps to support monitoring, leaving staff short of money for active natural resource management. Although KNPS headquarters play a key role in species, conservation, with for example a species restoration centre and ecological restoration team, nonetheless, more than a quarter of surveyed protected areas (by number and area) report having no or only reactive management of threatened taxa. There is recognition that this should change, perhaps through greater liaison between the central office and the field, and greater emphasis is now being given to conservation of natural resources and particularly wild species. Most effort in this area focuses on wildlife management. Although MOE has responsibility for water management, there seems to be limited appreciation of ecosystem services such as the provision of clean water to people outside the protected area or the role of protected areas in promoting wider soil stabilisation (dune restoration is one exception). Some national parks have water purification plants, operated by the local authority and using water from protected catchments.

Nonetheless, research suggests that in general natural resources are being maintained. The site-level assessment indicates that 81 percent of protected areas report that natural values are in good condition or only undergoing minor degradation; this figure increases to 95 percent in strict conservation zones. Forest condition is generally believed to be good and this is backed by observations of the evaluation team. However, when individual threatened species are considered, the level of security declines significantly; only 11 percent of national parks report that all threatened species are secure. At the other end of the scale, 39 percent of protected areas report that only some threatened species are secure. Furthermore, more than 17 percent of protected areas surveyed (covering more than 40 percent of the area) report that some

37 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

important natural values are degraded and will be at risk without corrective action. The larger and more heavily used protected areas generally show the worst problems. The significance of these statistics should not be exaggerated; the fact that a species is listed as threatened suggests that it is already suffering serious problems and as most protected areas have only been in place for a relatively short time, recovery would not necessarily be expected to be complete. A number of threats are identified:

Local use of resources in and around protected areas: some protected areas have resource agreements for collection of edible herbs or marine products, such as Taeanhaean National Park, which has resource agreements for collection of shellfish and other marine species. In other protected areas, activities or developments on private land within the protected area can create problems in terms of pollution, over-collection or loss of habitat.

Privately-owned land management: over half the protected areas surveyed (and 70 percent by area) identified private land management as having a significant negative impact on protected area values.

Infrastructure projects: Korea s rapid economic development continues to fuel demand for more dams, highways and other major infrastructure projects that threaten natural resource management: by isolating protected areas from other suitable habitat; by encroaching on protected areas; and by creating pressures against expansion of the system.

Edge effects: many protected areas do not have buffer zones and development sometimes takes place right up to the edge of national parks, putting pressure on natural resources and isolating the ecosystems; for example major new township development is occurring up to the borders of close to Seoul.

Poaching pressure: is reported as being variable between protected areas. In 2007 there were 109 instances of people being caught collecting wild plants, two instances of collecting wild animals and 35 of ; this represents what was intercepted rather than the total. In Korea as a whole poaching remains an important problem. In 2007 804 poachers were apprehended and changed37. Korea is undertaking a continuing crackdown on poaching. For instance 1,404 people were caught poaching and trading in wild animals in 2000, with 65,000 illegal trapping devices discovered38; although numbers have decreased since (see also thematic area on governance and business). This is now considered to be a minor problem within protected areas. Illegal fishing is also a problem in the country39.

Fire and disturbance dynamics: fire is considered to be only a minor problem; there were for example six cases of fire in national parks in 2007, affecting just 1.2 hectares. Korean forest is not generally a fire- prone ecosystem. However, given that most of the has been restored and is even aged, some more problems may arise in the future, particularly in the face of climate change. Some sites nonetheless report that problem fires are frequently not effectively controlled. Quite high level resources are put into fire control, partly because virtually all fires in protected areas are caused by humans and from fears that such fires could become more widespread.

37 MOE website: http://eng.me.go.kr/docs/sub2/policy_view.html?idx=50&class=13&topmenu=B&cat=240, accessed 14- 02-09 38 Korea Times (Seoul, Korea) 28th March 2001 39 Seoung-Yong Hong (1995); Marine policy in the Republic of Korea, Marine Policy 19: 97-113

38 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 2: Natural resource management

Invasive species: are not reported as being a major problem although they certainly occur and MOE has drawn up a list of ten important invasive species. More than 90 percent of reserves (by both number and area) report that invasive species are having a minor or negligible effect on values. Active measures are being taken against a number of invasive plants, including Ambrosia artemisfolia var. elatior, A. trifida and Eupatorium rugosum. Problems with an invasive pine disease have affected some areas and may be related to climate change; however this is not on the MOE list. Fishermen are offered a bounty for catching some species of invasive fish in an attempt to reduce numbers including particularly the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and bass (Micropterus salmoides). The red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans), a semi-aquatic turtle that has become established, is also removed in a control programme. Feral cats and dogs are reported to be an increasing problem in some areas, although are also not included on the MOE list of ten most serious invasive species. Management tends to be weaker in small protected areas, with a quarter of those surveyed (but only covering 7 percent of the total area) reporting that they have few actions against invasive species. Problems with invasive species may increase due to climate change.

Climate change: in general, the potential impacts of climate change have not been studied in detail in Korea and this is recognised as a lack at the moment, with plans to carry out a thorough review. Researchers in Korea are already starting to model potential impacts of climate change and finding significant alterations to distribution of forest types for example40, which will have important implications for protection strategies.

Visitor impacts: there are considerable visitor impacts in many protected areas, in particular path erosion and impacts from walking off trail, but also illegal camping, cooking and smoking (which is controlled for fire prevention), wildlife disturbance, noise and bathing in unregulated places. There has been considerable effort in visitor management planning and carrying capacities have been established, however, managing in line with these is challenging given a philosophy that access to the protected area system should not be restricted. Visitor services and facilities are strongly demand driven. Many parks require improved access planning and management. Some protected areas close off parts to allow ecological recovery; for example Halasan National Park has had some trails now closed for over twenty years while fragile vegetation recovers. KNPS has also carried out temporary closure programmes ( sabbaticals ) to restore degraded ecosystems since 1991. In the tubes in the World Heritage site in Jeju island, bat populations in the visited areas have declined dramatically, although it is not known if populations have fallen overall or relocated to other quieter cave areas.

Restoration is an increasingly important part of management in many protected areas, both in terms of restoring original habitat types and reintroducing or building numbers of threatened animal species. The government has selected 54 species for restoration action until 2015. As part of this effort, KNPS set up an ecological restoration team in 2007, designating 9 ecological areas, 22 plant species and three animal species as subjects of restoration: the 1 Park 1 Restoration project, which focused on damaged or artificial landscapes, and endangered, threatened or endemic species. Restoration is also needed to address periodic climatic problems; for instance a typhoon in 2006 left large scale flood damage in eight national parks, damaging both natural resources and park infrastructure such as bridges.

40 Kim, J. U., D. K. Lee and C. G. Moon (2008); Impact assessment of vegetation by climate change in Korea, presentation at the 13th AIM International Workshop, 16-18th February 2008, NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

39 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

The Asiatic black bear reintroduction programme in Jirisan National Park is currently the most ambitious of its kind in the country. The Korean bears are one of seven geographic subspecies, living also in eastern areas of and north eastern China. Fifty years ago there were estimated to be around a hundred bears in Jirisan but these had been reduced to perhaps as few as five as a result of poaching, in part for the medicinal trade41, and as a result of habitat destruction. Modelling suggests that without restoration the population would be likely to become extinct in around twenty years. The restoration project aims to build the population to fifty individuals again, bringing in bears that are genetically similar to the Jirisan population from North Korea and Russia. It is hoped that this population will be self sustaining and then capable of building numbers without further help. So far 27 bears have been released with around 16 adapting to life in the wild, six dying, one missing and the rest withdrawn again. Bears are kept for a period of 7-15 days in a caged enclosure to adapt to conditions in the region and then released. A number of community programmes are in place including compensation packages and protection measures for local beekeepers including provision of electric fences around hives, the only explicit compensation measures for potential wildlife damage in the Korean protected areas system42.

The Korean goral (Nemorhaedus caudatus) is being reintroduced into Woraksan National Park, having disappeared in 1982. In all, 28 individuals were released from 1994 to 2007 and it is hoped to facilitate genetic exchange between Woraksan and Gangwon province, eventually restoring a viable population in the Baekdu great mountain range. Elsewhere the otter (Lutra lutra) is also being reintroduced or having its population rebuilt, for example in the Sumjingang Ecological and Landscape Conservation Area, where habitat conservation and protection along a 6 km stretch of river is helping to rebuild the population. Around 15,000 hectares of plantation forests of exotic species exists within national parks in 2,600 individual plots and there are plans to restore these to native woodland over time. As a trial, 4000 m3 of Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi) and big cone pine (Pinus coulteri) are being replaced with original species in Jirisan national park. Sand dunes are being restored along the shoreline of Taeanhaean Coastal National Park and it is hoped to spread these efforts into other regions.

41 Kang, S. and M. Phipps (2003); A Question of Attitude: South traditional medicine practitioners and wildlife conservation, TRAFFIC East Asia Report, Hong Kong 42 Korea National Parks (undated); Restoration Project of Asiatic Black Bear, Species Restoration Centre, Jirisan National Park

40 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 2: Natural resource management

Analysis: Thematic area 2: Natural resource management Elements Analysis Very little pristine vegetation remains even in protected areas and there have been some recent mammal extirpations including tiger and leopard. Poaching pressure Context exists, along with some problems from invasive species, rapid infrastructure development and high rates of visitation. There is an urgent need for better understanding of likely climate change impacts. Good progress has been made in identifying targets, including for reintroduction or recovery of endangered species and for increasing naturalness within protected area system. The process of choosing test sites to establish restoration techniques (forest, Planning sand dunes and key species) and to build on these in other places is good, although it is too early to see how this will work in practice. Integration of goral restoration along the Baekdu Range is encouraging. Approximately 30 percent of the KNPS budget is devoted to natural and cultural resource management with a significant percentage of this aimed at monitoring. Inputs About 23 percent of the budget in other protected areas is devoted to natural and cultural resource management. There is a good research basis but probably not enough for integration with management priorities. Projects are underway for restoration of , goral and plantation forest Processes in protected areas also some wetland, dune and other restoration projects. Several significant restoration projects underway; outputs are less noticeable with Outputs respect to more daily management for species recovery Within KNPS protection strategies appear to be working for vegetation and general Outcomes habitat and for some species although here data are more ambiguous.

Findings: Overall as far as is known the condition of natural resource management in Korea s protected area system seems to be quite good, although the information received is predominantly about national parks and it is more difficult to judge what is happening elsewhere. Statistics for the number of threatened species that remain in danger and outside of the formal protected area system gives cause for concern; while this may be a function of the recently establishment of the protected area system it needs to be monitored carefully in the future.

Of the threats analysed, poaching and invasive species seem to be of the most immediate concern, although both are recognised as still being fairly minor problems, with the fragmented nature of the protected areas system and climate change both potentially more important in the future. Although poaching statistics show a fairly low impact on protected areas the comparatively high statistics for the rest of the country suggest that the situation needs to be watched carefully (see thematic area on governance and business). Visitor impacts, although they have some visual and local effects, do not seem to us to be undermining the basic ecology of the protected areas in the way that removal of key species has certainly done to a very significant extent in the recent past. Removal or control of invasive species is clearly an ongoing problem that requires both continued effort and innovation and lesson learning from other countries with similar challenges.

41 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Restoration efforts are heartening and appear to be working, although it is still too early to judge final success for most efforts. Criteria for selecting species for restoration were developed under an MOE research projects and include: scarcity; adaptability to the current environment; genetic resource value; feasibility of restoration; time issues, potential for conflict with humans and symbolic or cultural values. The tiger and leopard, which were both present in the Republic of Korea within recent history, were rejected for restoration because of threats to humans. There needs to be stronger collaboration with adjoining land managers, such as the Korean Forest Service, to harmonise natural resource management policy and build greater resilience for isolated protected areas.

Possible responses To some extent, clear policy advice is hampered by lack of knowledge, particularly in relation to what is happening in other protected areas. The following recommendations are therefore preliminary.

Focus monitoring to critical issues in protected areas concentrating for example on threatened habitats (criteria would be needed for selection), indicator species or places that can act as test cases for other similar sites.

Improve understanding and capacity on marine issues to improve the management of marine resources in marine and coastal protected areas (MCPAs); to better integrate terrestrial and marine management in coastal parks such as Taeanhaean; and to expand Korea s system of MCPAs.

Improve the understanding of climate change impacts on protected areas to develop adaptive responses to climate change impact such as enhanced connectivity, species vulnerability assessments, building system resilience, managing threats such as fire and alien invasive species.

Continue to focus attention on poaching, particularly in protected areas; given the high rate of problems throughout the country it seems unlikely that the protected area system is escaping as lightly as current statistics suggest.

Extend restoration efforts and try to ensure that restored populations have access to a network rather than a single reserve.

Consider increasing the use of buffer zones around protected areas, through special management arrangements with private land-owners or other governments bodies to help maintain protected area integrity and to increase ecological connectivity.

42 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system

Thematic Area 3 Visitor services and visitor management

The quality of visitor services in terms of both infrastructure and staff performance; clarity of policies towards tourism and outreach; information and education provision; and impacts of visitors on the natural environment of protected areas.

Relevant elements of the system level assessment Performance Indicator 1234 2e Strategies 4i Management 4k Interpretation 6f Impact

Overview: visitor management accounts for much of the day-to-day investment, at least within the national park system where nearly 30 percent of the budget is allocated to visitor management and associated infrastructure. National parks and other nature areas are extremely popular in Korea, with high demand and use and demand is apparently stable. Between 2006 and 2007 there was a government decision to eliminate park entrance fees, resulting in a rapid increase in what was already a very highly visited system. In 2006 there were 25 million visitors to national parks and in 2007 this rose to 38 million. Visitation is overwhelmingly domestic, with only 1 percent of visitors coming from abroad. Nonetheless there is considerable effort to make a proportion of signage and information leaflets available in English.

The protected areas have a generally high standard of visitor infrastructure. For example national parks have 75 offices, 8 visitor centres, 75 visitor guide posts, 29 shelters and 47 camp sites. There are 265 walking trails covering a total of 1,222 km. Considerable efforts have been made to improve safety and compensation claims are falling as a result of closing unsafe paths and buildings. Over 99 percent of the area of assessed protected areas is covered by safety planning, although most report some constraints in scope or capacity.

There is a high level of commitment to producing top quality visitor and interpretation centres, in terms of money invested and care in design and maintenance. Over half the protected areas surveyed reported full completion of maintenance programmes and only 7 percent (mainly small reserves) have only reactive maintenance. Some of the visitor centres included in the field survey, particularly at Halasan National Park on Jeju Island, stand alongside the best in the world. Standard of maintenance is high and more than three quarters of sites report that they are able to maintain high standards of cleanliness even during periods of maximum visitor use. The field excursions encountered very few broken, dirty or outdated signs or buildings, little refuse and considerable efforts to maintain trails. Korean visitors have high expectations for infrastructure in protected areas and expect, for instance, trail quality to be higher than would be the case in many European countries.

43 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

In some protected areas over-visitation is considered to be a potential or actual problem, particularly in Bukhansan National Park where the abolition of gate fees doubled visitor numbers to over 10 million people a year. Policy is currently demand-driven and there would be political and social problems in limiting visitation. The weight of numbers is undoubtedly having some side effects in terms of path erosion and the proliferation of unofficial walking paths, leading in turn to further damage, although there is little evidence that visitor numbers are undermining the protected areas core biodiversity values. While degradation looks serious in places it is often highly concentrated and affects only a very limited amount of the overall protected area estate. It is being addressed through, for example, path hardening, visitor flow control and the periodic closing of small areas to allow re-vegetation. Nonetheless, the pressure of so many visitors means that park infrastructure requires considerable work; a study in 2006 found that 255 trails (1,092 km) within national parks — that is the large majority — are suffering from damage and need a comprehensive restoration plan; this in turn takes resources from natural resource management.

The predominant philosophy at present is to focus on management of visitors rather than limitation on the numbers of people visiting. One result of the large numbers of visitors is a greater degree of control than is necessary in less heavily visited protected areas, with strong pressure to keep to marked paths and in some cases also controls about the time of day that the park can be visited and many no-access areas. Peak visitor number guidelines exist for extreme situations.

Currently there is only a limited use of segmentation of visitors and tailored approaches, both to vary the experience of people in parks and to spread out the pressure from visitors. There are visitor programmes available such as guided walks: for example in 2007 KNPS ran 284 programmes attended by 225,000 people.

The main model being followed is mass tourism and most visitors still come to walk on the main trails. For many people reaching the top of a mountain is a major attraction (in some cases also with spiritual significance if the mountain is considered to be sacred). Private in-holdings within protected areas are also important and sometimes may themselves be a draw to visitors, particularly in the case of Buddhist temples.

In Bukhansan National Park for example, 6 percent of the visitors in 2006 came explicitly to visit the temples and a percentage of others who come mainly for enjoyment of nature or exercise also visit one or more temples in passing. In Gyeongju National Park many visitors are primarily interested in the cultural sites relating to the dynasty and the natural features of the area may be secondary.

44 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 3: Visitor services and visitor management

KNPS staff are interested in ecotourism and there are plans to develop this, but also some obstacles: legislation is sometimes hampering development, as is the centralised process of decision making and lack of well-developed policies for dealing with private sector tourism providers. In the past a large proportion of the tourism expenditure has not reached local communities, thus making them less supportive of tourist ventures43.

Efforts are being made to widen the experience of visitors and for example there has been a programme to encourage poetry through readings within national parks, having poems displayed in banners beside trails and providing poetry books inspired by nature. Research by the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York s Central Park Zoo has found that displaying poetry helps people to internalise their experiences of nature and adds markedly to overall visitor satisfaction44.

There is a clear policy, vision and objectives for visitor management for national parks, planned at KNPS headquarters. Smaller reserves tend to be more likely to have little or only reactive planning for visitors. Cooperation takes place with the Ministry of Tourism but decisions about the types of visitor planning to use tend to be quite centralised. Surveys are undertaken both of people visiting protected areas and, less frequently, of the general public: these surveys show that visitor satisfaction is high and continuing to increase. KNPS managers say that visitor feedback and lobbying is influential in determining management policy. However, over 40 percent of sites surveyed reported that information about visitors remains insufficient for planning and management; information is generally better for national parks, reflecting the emphasis on visitors in these sites. There was limited evidence that KNPS interacts with many of the other organisations involved in protected area use, such as hiking groups, although they are involved in some aspects, for example mountain safety reporting.

Impressive educational and interpretive facilities are provided, particularly in visitor centres but also through nature trails with signs and increasingly through programmes involving trained rangers. Visitor and interpretation facilities are less common in the smaller habitat and species management areas. More than a third of protected areas surveyed said that visitor needs are only partially met.

Efforts are being made to increase visitor outreach. For example 85 KNPS rangers have been trained in eco-communication through courses run by the Korean Tourism Organisation and people in charge of local offices also participate in on-the-job training. Online education material is being provided with 31 courses since 2004. Rangers have worked overseas to learn from other park agencies in a benchmarking exercise. An accreditation scheme has been introduced for visitor programmes, with 9 out of 25 programmes achieving accreditation in 2007 and 2008. Services for disabled people and socially alienated people have been upgraded and a joint environmental education programme with local groups, including schools, was started in 2007, with 25,708 students involved in that year. There are also programmes to educate visitors in terms of providing codes of practice; explanation of why certain restrictions are in place or management actions are taking place; and details of wildlife in the area.

Visitor safety management is given high priority, with 119 rescue teams, detailed weather forecasting, safety classes for walkers and climbers, in park emergency signage systems and information on visitor centres.

43 Kim, Seong-Il (2001); Integration of biodiversity and tourism: Korea case study, UNEP 44 Kent Redford, WCS Institute, personal communication, January 2009

45 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Analysis: Thematic area 3: Visitor services and Visitor Managent Elements Analysis Korea has exceptionally high visitation rates to its national parks, with 25 million people a year visiting national parks in 2006, rising to 38 million in 2007 after abolition of entrance fees. There is a high level of support for conservation and in consequence also high pressures on the natural environment and built infrastructure Context within protected area. Visitation is heavily concentrated in some parks and, what s more, focused in some areas of parks such as mountain peaks. Korea s high level of urbanisation is creating specific hazards, for example 80 percent of the population live within 100 km of Seoul. A clear vision and policy exists for visitation to protected areas and for visitor services; the aim is to manage visitors rather than to control the number of people Planning visiting. Tailoring services to the context will be critical for handling current and projected future rates of visitation.

Visitor services are relatively well-funded, for example using 30% of the KNPS Inputs budget, although there are apparently still problems in raising money for maintenance of infrastructure rather than building new infrastructure

There is a high level of staff training, pride and efficiency in respect to visitor management. There are moves to work actively towards encouraging a greater variety of visitor activities, through programmes; provision of alternatives etc, to take Processes pressure off the most heavily visited places within some protected areas. Management processes may still be slightly too centralised, although a level of local decision-making is now encouraged.

The standard of visitor management and facilities is of high standard measured Outputs against any benchmark.

This has resulted in high level of support for protected areas from the general public, although local communities do not always share the same view. Nonetheless, there Outcomes are some signs of ecological strain in the system from the high visitor numbers, including local degradation.

Findings: Korea undoubtedly has a world class system of visitor services, particularly with respect to visitor facilities and interpretation. There is much that other protected area agencies and governments can learn from experience in the country and the commitment of time and resources is impressive. High visitation, with the accompanying physical exercise and increased mental wellbeing, must have positive impacts on health and thus a reduction in national health and social sector costs. Korea must enjoy one of the world s highest approval ratings from the general public for its protected areas.

46 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 3: Visitor services and visitor management

Although these high visitation levels certainly put some areas under pressure, it seems that the alternatives in terms of bad public relations, political backlash and the diversion of tourists to other sites means that it is probably better to manage than to limit visitation, as is being done at present. In this reality it is better to focus on improved management of visitors based on segmenting the market for differing visitor experiences. This can then provide a more diverse array of services, better manage impacts and increase revenue from value-added experiences. It might perhaps be possible to provide more alternatives, for example by developing alternative walks to mountain peak trails: developing guided walks which provide for a more intimate experience; broadening the range of visitor opportunities to encourage visitors to stay longer in the protected area; and/or providing specialist cultural heritage or wildlife experiences such as is being developed with the Asiatic Black Bear in Jirisan National Park. It is recognised that steps are being taken to investigate these options. Efforts are being made to rationalise access systems such through hardening certain trails, resting areas and cutting off unofficial trails. One inevitable result of this is that visitors have less freedom to walk off trail than is the case in many protected areas around the world and are also more restricted in terms of when they can visit. To achieve this there may be a more refined zoning system and/or need for some decentralisation of decision-making in regard to access and trails.

47 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Possible responses: There are relatively few changes felt to be necessary here and some of the points noted below are already in progress:

Develop a system wide Visitor Management Strategy which is harmonized with Korea s national tourism planning and which sets a clear vision and objectives for the role of the protected area system in terms of visitor services, facilities and appropriate uses emphasizing that natural and cultural heritage protection is paramount.

Continuing hardening trails and high use areas where visitation is high: particularly in places like Bukhansan and Gyeongju National Parks where high levels of erosion can be seen in places (although it is noted that the issue of trail hardening has met opposition from some NGO groups in Bukhansan). The technology and expertise for achieving this is available in Korea, however, new approaches could be learned through KNPS s agreement with countries such as New Zealand. A careful assessment of access policy should be undertaken: for example closing all illegal trails in Bukhansan may be counterproductive if it concentrates visitors into smaller park areas thereby increasing impact.

Investigate options for segmenting visitors: by providing alternatives to the most heavily used trails or sites; this will include public education, to encourage people to do more than simply climb to the highest point, and some new infrastructure, such as lowland trails. Regional recreation opportunity supply and demand analyses should be undertaken to identify the range of providers beyond the protected area system and the capacity to service demand. The South East Queensland recreation demand study is an example of use of such an approach45, which uses a periodic survey of the community to determine changing trends in recreational use that can be used in recreation planning.

The South East Queensland Recreational Demand Study Recreation planning in South East Queensland has been informed by two related processes:

A study of recreation demands undertaken periodically (1971, 2001, 2007) to assess the numbers and types of recreation users in the region and their preferences for recreation activities and settings; A study of recreation opportunities and providers across the same region.

The combination of the information on recreation demand trends (based on an analysis of changes across the three recreation demand studies) and information on the opportunities that are available across all tenures and suppliers of recreation opportunities such as national parks, forestry, local government and private landholders, provides a more comprehensive basis for developing a regional recreation strategy. Such a strategy can help providers to meet to the full range of recreation demands but does this by allocating use to the most appropriate providers rather than by concentrating use in one particular tenure or by each recreation provider seeking to meet the needs of all users.

45 See http://www.sportrec.qld.gov.au/Outdoorrecreation/OutdoorRecreationTrends.aspx

48 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 3: Visitor services and visitor management

Visitor Management Segmentation — New Zealand Recreation planning in South East Queensland has been informed by two related processes:

Following a major visitor accident in Cave Creek, Paparoa National Park, 1995 New Zealand s Department of Conservation (NZDOC) adopted a comprehensive approach to visitor management linked to visitor service levels and asset management. The NZDOC system combines whole-of-life- cycle asset management policy and practice with the segmentation of visitors derived from the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes. The ROS defines: The setting visitors seek and activities undertaken Experience sought and degree of risk accepted The facilities and services sought Visitor make up, numbers and projected use

Several classes of park visitors were identified by NZDOC: Short Stop Travellers; Day Visitors; Overnighters; Back Country Comfort Seeker; Back Country Adventurer; and Remoteness Seeker, based on the experiences they seek. This segmentation underpins the way in which NZDOC provides for park users and permits services, standards and facilities to be tailored to the needs and aspirations of specific classes of visitors.

Consider decentralisation of decision-making: particularly for visitor controls, access and trail use, although this needs to be within the context of strong overall national planning of protected areas.

Interact more with others user groups: including particularly hiking and outdoor pursuits groups and tour companies, to liaise regarding management issues and options for cooperation.

Review agency concessions, leasing and licensing policy and practice to ensure clear guidelines and regulations are in place to manage business interests in protected areas.

Consider the preparation of Business Development Plans for high use parks to foster a more service oriented approach which guarantees quality whilst protecting core park assets. Bukhansan National Park provides an example. The plans would identify the segments of visitor use which parks can and should provide for (appropriate use); carrying capacities and visitor management mechanisms; revenue streams and mechanisms; monitoring and evaluation programmes etc.

Undertake sociological research to understand better visitor satisfaction and expectations and options for diversification of visitor programmes as essential inputs to effective management planning (see recommendation in thematic area on Monitoring, evaluation and research concerning enhancement of social science and visitor management research within National Parks Research Institute).

Estimate the economic benefits caused by the high level of visitation in protected areas to local economy and especially to the costs of the social and health sector. Korea may be/become a world leader in massive but sustainable use of protected areas for the benefit of the public health and well-being of citizens. Such a study would help other countries to recognise such values of protected areas.

49 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Thematic Area 4 Cultural heritage management

Quality of management, organisation and future.

Relevant elements of the system level assessment Performance Indicator 1 2 3 4 4o CH Research/support 4p CH Management 6c CH Integrity

Overview: Most, perhaps virtually all, protected areas in Korea contain both natural and cultural sites within them and many also have features that contain elements of both, such as sacred mountains that have values in terms of ecology, landscape and spirit. National parks contain 668 cultural properties, including 38 National Treasures, 142 treasures, 6 historic and scenic sites, 46 monuments, 36 historic sites, 166 tangible cultural properties, 14 scenic sites and 220 natural monuments. For example: Gyeongju National Park is promoted as being Korea s only historic culture national park in light of it being predominantly a large cultural site with some important natural areas within it; and Jeju Island World Heritage site contains both natural and cultural features (and Mount Halasan is both a site of endemic species and a sacred mountain). Within protected areas around 85 percent of cultural treasures are linked to the Buddhist heritage. Many cultural sites are still being actively managed and even expanded within protected areas, which can cause tensions; there are for instance 339 temples within national parks. Some of these are old, some new or being expanded.

Most management of important cultural sites is under the control of the Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA) rather than KNPS, MOE or other agencies responsible for protected areas. Within national parks, KNPS takes some responsibility for unregistered cultural sites but is not responsible in law and admits that it has limited capacity to carry out these functions (although KNPS has developed some capacity within Gyeongju, where there are more than 200 cultural heritage sites unregistered in the area and thus under KNPS control46). Management includes both preserving sites but also often restoring; in the case of Gyeongju several of the monuments and religious statues had been damaged and buried in the past and efforts are now made to restore them. Cultural sites that are still being used are managed by the owners (e.g. monasteries); these will require periodic renewal, for example of woodwork.

Most national parks contain cultural sites and the cultural and historical resource management plans for all registered cultural sites are written by CHA. The local government manages the cultural sites in accordance with the CHA plan. However about half the national parks (by area) report that they have significant gaps in information about cultural and historical issues and almost 20 percent of sites say that the lack is serious enough to hamper decision making.

46 http://www.emuseum.go.kr/eng/her/her_07.jsp

50 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 4: Cultural heritage management

Although there is cooperation between the agencies, in practice this is not as comprehensive as it could be and managers of protected areas have little influence or control over cultural sites, which is thought to undermine the efficiency of whole site management. In other words, there is a poor integration of natural and cultural management.

Analysis: Thematic area 4: Cultural management Elements Analysis Many protected areas and all national parks contain cultural monuments, including many of global significance. There is a need for greater collaboration between the Context agencies involved and also for more interaction (and perhaps a new process for working) with some private landowners within protected areas, particularly for temples.

Much of the management of cultural monuments currently falls under the auspices of the Cultural Heritage Administration and there is an impression that there has been Planning relatively little interaction with other agencies. KNPS is trying to take responsibility for unregistered monuments in protected areas that it manages, but does not generally have high capacity to manage such sites and artefacts.

There is little direct budget for cultural management within protected area agencies. Inputs Revenues collected from temples do not directly benefit park management but are often assumed by visitors to be park user fees. Most day-to-day management involves ensuring that cultural elements within a Processes protected area do not suffer damage. Outputs Many cultural sites and artefacts are maintained Apparently statistics show that for national parks rate of success in maintaining Outcomes cultural heritage is lower than for natural heritage although remains quite high.

Findings: The evaluation team had limited time and also limited expertise to evaluate cultural management and unfortunately there was no opportunity to meet with members of the Cultural Heritage Administration. Much of the cultural management within protected areas of a high standard, but deterioration is clearly occurring and that there currently seems to be a separation between natural and cultural management. Cultural management should continue to be carried out by specialists. However, on a day-to-day basis, and in all cases with respect to unregistered sites, much of the responsibility will inevitably fall on protected area managers and rangers, who are not empowered to, and/or do not usually possess, the requisite skills and training needed to address these issues.

Possible responses:

Greater collaboration on management of cultural heritage within protected areas: between the CHA, KNPS, MOE and other protected area management agencies, perhaps through the formation of a joint task force. Kvarken World Heritage Site in Finland provides an example of how this might be achieved47.

47 www.kvarken.fi

51 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Kvarken World Heritage Site in Finland The World Heritage of the Kvarken Archipelago (Finland) and the the High Coast (Sweden) is situated in the Gulf of Bothnia, a northern extension of the Baltic Sea.The Kvarken Archipelago was listed on the World Heritage list in July 2006. The 5,600 islands of the archipelago feature unusual ridged washboard moraines, ’Degeer moraines’, formed by the melting of the continental ice sheet, 10,000 to 24,000 years ago. The archipelago is continuously rising from the sea in a process of rapid glasio- isostatic uplift, whereby the land, previously weighed down under the weight of a glacier, lifts at rates that are among the highest in the world.

The Ministry of the Environment is in charge of the World Heritage on the national level in Finland and Mets hallitus Natural Heritage Services has the regional level liability. In order to co-ordinate the World Heritage administration, Mets hallitus Natural Heritage Services has summoned a regional World Heritage Steering Committee including members from the Regional Council of Otsrobothnia, Regional Environment Centre, municipalities, research institutes, environment NGOs, local fishermen’s and farmer’s organisations and private sector. The steering committee compiled the plan for the governance and development of the area together with other stakeholders. The establishment of such a Steering Committee, with its secretariat and working groups on marketing, land use, and interpretation and infrastructure, has greatly facilitated the cooperation among stakeholders, public awareness and support for the World Heritage and its proper management and improved visitor services.

Phased building of cultural heritage management capacity within protected area agencies: including recruiting specialist staff, in house training or even through written material, establishing a functional structure capable of dealing with cultural heritage and harmonising policy and planning with the CHA, particularly focusing on sites with a relatively high responsibility for cultural heritage48.

Consideration of appointing dedicated staff members: in KNPS and associated agencies to oversee liaison on cultural sites.

Progressive transfer of cultural heritage management responsibility to protected area agencies to ensure consistency of policy and fully integrated approaches to managing both natural and cultural heritage within the protected area system. This may be a long term process but is considered essential to vest care, control and management in the one agency.

48 See for example UNESCO (2003); Cultural Landscapes: the challenges of conservation, World Heritage Papers number 7, UNESCO, Paris

52 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system

Thematic Area 5 Governance and business management

One of the most complex areas of the evaluation, covering legislation, policy and management structure and coordination, planning, law enforcement and support, including funding.

Relevant elements of the system level assessment

Governance Performance Indicator 1234 1e Foundation 1f Institutions 2c Legislation 4a Governance 4b Policies

Business management Performance Indicator 1234 2e Strategies 2f Planning 3f Information 4c Business support 4d Reporting 5a Plan achievement 5b Results achievement

Resourcing

Performance Indicator 1234 3b Funding adequacy 3c Funding reliability 3d Funding prioritisation

Risk Management Performance Indicator 1234 3b Funding adequacy 3c Funding reliability 3d Funding prioritisation

53 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Overview: The legislative base for protected areas is generally sound and shows strong government commitment to the principles and implementation of protected areas. All protected areas have been legally established and boundaries defined, with adequate physical demarcation.

Currently there is too much duplication of legislation and regulation, which sometimes causes unnecessary confusion. In part this may be because the protected area system has been developed over a number of years and during a time when the main aims of the system have continued to change and develop. There are also many levels of government involved in both setting policy and managing sites; too many agencies are involved without sufficient integration. While MOE coordinates the Cultural Heritage Administration and the other ministries involved in protected area management, differences remain. There are for example few regular systems of meetings between MOE and KNPS: there is an annual planning meeting at headquarters and approximately quarterly meetings regionally involving KNPS, MOE, policy and local government. Other meetings take place on an ad hoc basis. It is admitted that MOE and the National Forest Service sometimes disagree on policy towards forest management. The Forest Service is to some extent looking for a new role, following decades of focus on reforestation; it provides comprehensive outdoor recreational opportunities in areas that it manages and is interested in natural resource management issues, adding to the risk of duplication. It is recognised that there is a certain amount of duplication between MOE and both the and, in marine management, with the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. The presence of multiple actors can create an unhealthy level of competition, leading to duplication, with negative impacts on cost-effectiveness, and also means that the fields of specialisation of some agencies remain poorly defined.

There are attempts to address this, most notably through the Korea Protected Area Forum, initiated in 2007 and involving the Ministry of Environment, KNPS, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Cultural Heritage Administration, National Forestry Service, Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Korea Committee of IUCN, the Korean National Committee of UNESCO and experts from research institutes and universities. However, in practice this body has apparently had some difficulties in reaching consensus on key issues due in part to different institutional perspectives and it has been suggested that perhaps an independent facilitator might help this process.

In addition to integration within the country, there are substantial attempts to work more closely with other protected area agencies, including for example signing memoranda of understanding with Parks Victoria in Australia and with Metsahallitus, the Finnish protected area service. Korea is also a state member of several relevant international agreements and treaties including World Heritage, CITES and the CBD. One result of this is the introduction of international benchmarking since 2004, with two to three exercises a year.

The variable structure and management means that there are no system-wide policies, although in practice KNPS guidelines often provide the basis for actions by other management agencies. MOE also publishes guidelines to, for example, wildlife corridors and ecological buildings. KNPS sets many policies which, once agreed by headquarters, become binding and provide a strong basis for operations. However, there are also sometimes policy conflicts between agencies and these need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Within KNPS the chairman and three senior executives meet weekly to discuss policy issues.

54 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 5: Governance and business management

MOE has identified three possible ways to reduce the confusion: (i) create an integrated protected area administration — a new institution; (ii) extend the functions of KNPS; or (iii) strengthen regional MOE offices to coordinate more effectively all protected area agencies.

Although legislation is strong, it is not watertight, and development pressures can sometimes outweigh conservation considerations near to or within protected areas. In particular, local governments are influential in planning decisions and experience suggests that they are likely to be more pro-development than central government.

Protected areas are usually subject to four levels of planning: (i) a basic plan dealing with a natural park coordinated by MOE (ii) a park plan at the time of gazettal including a ten-year zoning plan (in the case of larger protected areas); (iii) a five-year conservation and management plan; (iv) annual work plans and business plans. Work plans have proved to be relatively effective in guiding activities. Basic natural park planning in KNPS is coordinated by the Executive Director of Planning. Conservation oriented policy and planning is overseen by the Executive Director of Conservation through a Park Planning Team. Headquarters dictates the structure and provides guidelines but individual management plans are drawn up at park level. Most protected areas have current work programmes and there is a high rate of completion; over 70 percent of surveyed sites report achievement of most targets. Management planning tends to be stronger in larger protected areas.

There is a reliable budget from central government. The Ministry of Strategy and Finance (MSF) fixes the overall budget, including that of the MOE; this is then proposed by the Minister and is approved or reviewed by Congress. MOE then in turn allocates funds to management agencies, usually in consultation with the agencies concerned, although the former has the final decision (and sometimes different priorities from management agencies). As a result of this structure the budget is rather inflexible and varies little from year to year, although generally does increase to match the cost of living and new work programmes (currently around 8 percent a year). Long-term projects are provided with some security of budget planned over periods of up to ten years. The budget for a particular national park under KNPS is flexible to the extent that good outcomes tend to be rewarded by extra budget.

Management agencies are concerned that the budget remains inadequate: KNPS estimates that it is 25 percent of what would be needed to implement the full management plan. In particular there is a tendency for it to be easier to raise funds from MOE or the Ministry of Tourism for capital projects, such as building visitor centres, than for maintenance of infrastructure, although an asset management system exists. There have been particular problems relating to lack of planning before acquisition of a new protected area; in some cases existing funds simply have to be split between the sites even if there is now one more reserve to manage. KNPS has a self-auditing system implemented on an annual basis and has to present a periodic report to MOE; in addition there are national parliamentary estimates hearings.

55 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

A key governance issue relates to law enforcement and here the situation is a little confused. Almost a quarter of protected areas surveyed (which generally included the larger sites so that 60 percent of the area was involved) report that illegal activities have a significant or major impact. Most protected areas find that enforcement is constrained in terms of either scope or capacity. Rangers have an enforcement handbook and headquarters brings in outside experts to train rangers on specific issues once a year, with extra training by park officer 2-3 times a year. Planning includes time-specific targeted operations, for example focusing on risks of orchid theft during the main flowering season, but managers at KNPS believe that priority-setting could still be improved. On a local scale rangers generally understand the timing and location of key threats through the year and try to plan operations accordingly. Some protected areas have resource collection agreement for edible greens in mountainous national parks and marine products in marine national parks. For example, in two marine national parks and one coastal national park, where sustainable resource use is allowed and local communities have common cause with managers in cutting down illegal use, 66 people in 46 villages have formed a network to report on illegal activity.

Rangers are empowered to provide on-the-spot fines for minor offences, but have to liaise with police in cases where the offender is not cooperative (particularly with respect to providing identification); more important offences are handled by police and prosecutors. There are three levels of penalty. Minor offences are punished by fines, with or without indictments depending on the type of offence. More serious natural resource offences can result in an indictment or a fine of up to $US 30,000. The most serious offences, such as killing a bear, carry a fine of up to $US 200,000 or up to three years in Prison. Punishment increases with the frequency with which the perpetrator carries out an illegal activity. Lack of regional structure of KNPS hampers engagement. It should be noted that illegal activity is a relatively limited problem within national parks.

56 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 5: Governance and business management

Analysis: Thematic area 5: Governance and business management Elements Analysis

Korea already has a strong protected area system but one that clearly faces Context challenges, both as a result of development pressure within the country and through a range of threats including illegal activities such as poaching

Detailed planning takes place at four levels: initial gazettement plans, zoning plans, Planning management plans and work plans. There are many policies but because of the range of agencies involved few system-wide policies in place.

KNPS has a reliable budget although managers believe that this is insufficient by a wide margin for achieving all the ambitious aims of the vision and management plans. Inputs Nevertheless the protected area system is relatively well resourced compared to many other systems around the world.

Lack of coordination, in terms of legislation, policy development and law enforcement all in different ways create problems for the system. There is serious duplication of Processes legislation at the moment, which wastes resources and causes confusion, the Korea Protected Areas Forum is an attempt to address this but has been only partially successful. Enforcement issues are well implemented by rangers.

Korea has developed, notwithstanding the points above, a strong legislative basis for Outputs the protected areas system and a framework for implementation.

All protected areas are legally declared and have agreed and marked boundaries. A strong management planning process is in place and protected area managers Outcomes believe that enforcement is generally effective in controlling serious poaching and other crimes.

Findings: The Korean protected area system is strong, with an agreed 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. This appears 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. Nonetheless, governance is currently confused, with a plethora of different legislation and policies resulting in duplication and waste of resources; attempts to address this through the Korea Protected Areas Forum have yet to be wholly successful. Lack of support for enforcement from police and local courts is perhaps due to general indifference or antipathy towards protected areas from local government and there may currently be a mismatch between national and local government aspirations for protection that should be addressed.

57 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Possible responses: The following recommendations start with three immediate steps and then three longer term and more fundamental responses:

Carry out a gap and overlap analysis of both legislation and policy relating to protected areas to identify both areas of overlap and also discrepancies and disagreements that need to be addressed. Use the review to assess the three institutional options under consideration by MOE.

Consider developing overarching biodiversity conservation legislation, incorporating protected area provisions, to provide a single coherent instrument for delivery of biodiversity conservation goals. Examples of this include the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) in Australia49, and the law on biodiversity in Vietnam. It would be worth referring to the ongoing review by the IUCN Environmental Law Commission and World Commission on Protected Areas of best practice in conservation legislation for examples and case studies.

Overarching biodiversity conservation legislation In many instances, environmental legislation develops in a fragmented way as new issues and concerns are addressed and in response to emerging international conventions and agreements. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the overarching multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) that provides the context and fundamental principles for all of the other MEAs that govern the three components of biodiversity - ecosystems, species and genes. This complicated legislative situation is exacerbated in federal countries with multiple layers of governance. National biodiversity framework laws, which have almost always been adopted after the adoption of a country’s wildlife law, forest law, and protected areas law, provide the foundation for harmonizing enforcement of earlier laws and, in many cases, for making much-needed improvements to them. Several countries have adopted overarching biodiversity laws that govern all three components of biodiversity: Australia, Costa Rica, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Venezuela and Viet Nam.

In 1999, the Australian Government consolidated its fragmented environmental legislation into a single Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. At the same time it clarified responsibilities between the different levels of government in the country to produce a more robust and transparent system of environmental governance and a more coherent system of national protected areas. The Act identifies Australian Government interests in the protection of matters of national environmental significance, while the states and territories have responsibility for matters of state and local significance. The consolidation of the legislation has simplified and streamlined assessment and approval processes providing greater clarity and consistency in decision making.

Commonwealth of Australia, Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Act No. 91 of 1999 as amended

49 http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html

58 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 5: Governance and business management

Parks Victoria integrated management Parks Victoria is accountable to the Victorian Government for the management of all of the State s protected area system, except for areas reserved for production forestry. Land reserved under a range of legislation for the preservation and protection of natural and cultural heritage values is managed by Parks Victoria in accordance with the provisions of the Parks Victoria Act, 1998. In addition, Parks Victoria manages a range of other parks and recreation sites for their recreational values. The sites under Parks Victoria s management include: 40 national parks27 state parks13 marine national parks11 marine sanctuaries3 wilderness parks31 metropolitan parks57 other parks (including recreational management of Port Phillip and Westernport Bays and two major urban rivers)2,789 natural features and conservation reserves8,400 registered aboriginal cultural heritage sites2,500 non-Indigenous historic places

In all the Victorian parks system covers 3.95 million hectares, attracts 76.1 million visits per year and is managed as an integrated system.

State of Victoria, Parks Victoria Act 1998, Act No. 44 of 1998 as amended

Integrated management in Finland s protected areas Mets hallitus Natural Heritage Services is a government agency is supervised by the Parliament of Finland, Ministry of the Environment, and the Ministry of the Agriculture an Forestry. It manages all the State-owned areas reserved for nature conservation and hiking and ensures that natural resources are used sustainably in accordance with the Nature Conservation Act, Wilderness Act, Mets hallitus Act and a range of other legislation. In addition to the management of protected areas, the tasks of the agency include public recreational use of natural areas, fishing and hunting in all State-owned lands and waters, as well as the promotion of the sustainable use and preservation of the biodiversity in State-owned commercial forests.The sites under the management of Mets hallitus Natural Heritage Services and its three regional units include: 35 national parks; 19 strict nature reserves; 360 other statutory nature reserves; 92 privately-owned statutory nature reserves; 24 protected areas established by Mets hallitus decision; 1589 areas reserved for conservation programmes; 272 protected forests; 412 other protected sites; 12 wilderness areas; 7 national hiking areas; 22 other recreational areas; 41 other areas; public waters (2.44 million hectares, where not included above).

In all, the park system managed by Natural Heritage Services covers 7.04 million hectares, attracts about 4 million visits (excluding public waters; the number of visits in national parks is 1,8 million) per year and is managed as an integrated system which is also well-integrated to the wider landscape, especially, as regards to the State-owned commercial forests.

59 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Consider amalgamating the management of protected areas into one system, under MOE, possibility by enlarging KNPS to coordinate management of all protected areas within Korea rather than having these managed by different agencies, under different ministries, as is the case at present. Careful study would be needed to determine the new structure and also whether or not the change should be implemented at one time or gradually over a period of years to reduce disruption.

Develop a high level advisory panel, similar to Green Growth Korea or Korean National Commission on Sustainable Development, to coordinate the three activities referred to above, considering issues related to feasibility and cost-effectiveness, relevant specialisations in protected area management, capacity to cooperate with other organisations and staffing.

Diversify the revenue base, to avoid over-reliance on a single source and to provide greater flexibility in the budget. This could be a more diversified sourcing policy within government funds (for example accessing money for ecosystem services or health services from different ministries) or looking at different revenue sources including revenue generation. System Level Visitor Management Planning and site level Business Development Planning recommendations above would also link to this issue.

Strengthen policy on financial impact assessment for new protected area acquisitions and management plans — there should be clear policy to evaluate the financial impact of agencies assuming management responsibility for new areas or significant additions to the protected area estate. For example KNPS appears to have assumed responsibility for Gyeongju National Park from local government without any additional budgetary compensation. Equally there should be clear policy requiring the completion of a financial impact assessment of actions within protected area management plans to ensure feasibility and to commit the necessary resources.

Review impacts of the 2006/07 decision to remove park entry fees to understand the implications of changed visitation and financial scenarios. This review could consider options for charging at heavily used locations and times only or use of annual passes to limit the costs of fee collection.

Increase judicial power of rangers: particularly with respect to giving them the right to ask for identification from people known or suspected of breaking the law, thus removing an important obstacle to successful enforcement.

60 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system

Thematic Area 6 Staff structure and organisation

Looking in more detail at a key aspect of overall management; issues relating to recruitment, management and training of staff, staff performance and morale. This assessment looks specifically at KNPS.

Relevant elements of the system level assessment Performance Indicator 1234 3a Capacity 4f HR management 4g Training

Overview: From experience during the assessment, the Korea National Park Service is staffed with highly trained, enthusiastic and well presented staff, with a strong commitment to the service and open to developments and new ideas, including from IUCN. In 2007 there were just over a thousand staff, and an additional 873 temporary workers. There have been efforts to increase equality within the system with efforts to increase gender balance, which have been successful in increasing the number of women working for KNPS, although there are still few women at a senior management level. An international benchmarking system is helping to build capacity and expectations. Most rangers have university-level education although usually in the biological and environmental sciences as there are no specialist tertiary courses in protected area management in Korea. A substantial proportion of rangers have educational experience abroad. There is also regular interchange of staff, including between headquarters and field programmes.

Capacity to manage is variable: very strong for terrestrial ecosystems but felt to be weak for coastal and particularly marine systems. Training programmes exist — most rangers would expect to have at least one training course during the year — but are not particularly well coordinated between disciplines. New staff members have two weeks basic training and three months on-the-job training. There are some incentive programmes; for example staff members receive a bonus of up to one month s salary for high visitor satisfaction ratings, efficiency of business management and achievement of work programme.

There are high levels of staff movement between sites and jobs, strongly linked to promotion; this also helps to improve experience and capacity and creates a strong and professional park management culture. However, changeover time is so rapid that this sometimes causes problems both in terms of adjustment and because senior staff are seldom in place long enough to learn their way into a particular protected area. Most protected area superintendents stay on average 18 months although staff believe it takes at least 2-3 years to understand fully the situation within a particular protected area and to develop good working relationships with local communities and land owners. Some 15-20 percent of KNPS managers and rangers separated from their families for extended periods because of work placements. Superintendents are supplied with a house and there are usually a few more houses available for other staff, but only for a small minority.

61 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Although there are some efforts to employ local people, these are almost entirely for temporary jobs and in practice it proves difficult for local employees to move onto a permanent job, even if they work for KNPS for many years. Temporary jobs are skill- based.

Permanent jobs are recruited centrally, usually once a year, with a single advertisement. When jobs are both recruited and assigned note is taken of where the new staff member comes from and what his/her skills are, but there is an imbalance between the needs for positions and availability of staff, so that it is common for a highly trained graduate to be moved to different parts of the country and put to work at tasks that do not match their background. Training is fairly short (see thematic area on governance and business). Evaluation takes place, drawing 70 percent on the manager and 30 percent on peers, with no opportunity for self evaluation. Staff members report that the institution is relatively poor on corrective actions following evaluation.

Although promotion is meant to be based both on seniority and merit, in the past more emphasis has been put on seniority, although this is slowly changing. It was said several times that the combination of recruitment and placement policies, short turnover, under-utilisation of educational qualifications and experience and a perceived lack of transparency in issues relating to promotion and decision-making was causing frustration, particularly among younger staff members, and was reducing organisational effectiveness. The generally level structure in KNPS, with just a few very senior management positions, makes it difficult for skilled and ambitious people to progress in their careers. One result is an increasing level of staff turnover; whereas overall staff turnover is only 5 percent per year this rate rises to 20 percent per year for new staff, suggesting that many bright and well qualified people are becoming disillusioned.

The general structure of KNPS is also quite complicated, with split budgets and multiple reporting to all three of the Executive Directors. There are also too many staff reporting directly to the Executive Directors for efficient working.

There is no general manager between the Chairman of the Board and the functional operatives and the lack of regional structure hampers those issues relating to local participation and coordination. The three Executive Director functions of (i) park conservation; (ii) visitor services and (iii) planning suggest overlapping areas of responsibility across the traditional park management functions of park operations; park planning/policy and corporate support (finance HR, admin). It might, for example, be worth adding research explicitly to the responsibilities of the Executive Director of Planning.

62 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 6: Staff structure and organisation

Analysis: Thematic area 6: Staff structure and organisation Elements Analysis High expectation from many Koreans about the level of service and ambitious plans Context from the government about biodiversity conservation and the Korean protected areas system.

Currently there is no detailed plan for matching staff skills to jobs although there are Planning guidelines and requirements to help select and position new staff. There are longer term plans for more comprehensive human resource development. Staff training programmes, some exchanges (both within Korea and overseas), but a Inputs general feeling that slightly more is required.

There appears to be a lack of integrated approaches in attracting, recruiting and managing staff. Centralised staff recruitment, an apparent lack of matching skills to Processes people, problems with local people getting permanent jobs and rapid job changes are combining to lower morale in some cases and leading to a high rate of turnover in new recruits.

Despite the caveats expressed above, managers and rangers generally appear to be Outputs highly motivated and dedicated, with a high standard of service. Generally visitor satisfaction remains high. There is a high level of interest in working Outcomes for KNPS and the assessments teams had good exchanges with staff at both headquarter and field level suggesting of high morale.

Findings: It should be stressed that protected area staff appear to have high levels of professionalism, dedication and skills. This provides an excellent basis for the successful operation of the various agencies involved.

However, it is also clear that there is a level of dissatisfaction in the way in which staff are selected, recruited, trained and employed. Linked to this, but a distinct issue, 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, several people commented that in practice old-fashioned approaches based mainly on male staff and seniority still dominate the career structure and the flat structure of the organisation currently makes it difficult to gain promotion in any case.

Possible responses: A number of significant changes in policy could go a long way towards addressing some of the challenges described:

A review of recruitment, assignment and rotation policy, to (i) match job needs more closely with skills of individual staff members; (ii) tailor recruitment policies to current and expected future needs; and (iii) review job turnover times aiming for a blend of local knowledge and credibility with fresh ideas from outside. Korea could consider adopting a standard set of competencies for different classes of staff modelled on the ASEAN PA Competencies.

63 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Consider developing a regional structure, to improve coordination between the headquarters, local protected area managers and provincial government. Such a change has cost implications although if done effectively may reduce overall costs. It could be phased into operation and be addressed in part by moving some staff members from central office; regional liaison staff could operate from existing local park offices if necessary. This recommendation would create reporting lines through regional managers who would in turn report to the Executive Directors thereby reducing the number of reporting lines to Executive Directors. It would also allow the KNPS to engage on an equal footing with Provincial governments on broader development issues which may impact the parks — as is being more effectively achieved in Jeju.

Consider reviewing the current thematic structure of Executive Directors to separate more clearly functions of park operations; park planning/policy and corporate support (finance HR, admin)

Continue positive anti-discrimination policies with respect to gender, age and ethnic background, and for example increase the number of women at senior management level.

Provide a more effective way for local staff to gain permanent jobs for example through on-the-job training, access to KNPS training courses for skilled and motivated temporary staff and positive discrimination measures.

Establish a dialogue with Korean universities and educational authorities with the objective of establishing an undergraduate degree programme in environmental management with a major component focusing on protected area and wildlife management, outdoor recreational management and tourism business management. If a suitable institution can be identified to offer such a degree programme, KNPS should work with them to: o Review existing degree programmes in other countries to establish a relevant curriculum for the Korean situation; o Provide opportunities for students in the degree programme to obtain vacation practical work experience in Korean protected areas o Consider the possibility of establishing a ranger academy in Korea, associated with a university or other tertiary educational institution.

64 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system

Thematic Area 7 Stakeholders and communities

Mainly the attitudes of people — and particularly local communities — towards protected areas but also how KNPS and other agencies are attempting to interact with communities, issues of protected area governance and the extent to which other stakeholders can influence management.

Relevant areas of the system level assessment Performance Indicator 1234 1d Awareness 4j Engagement 4k Interpretation 4l Assistance 6d Stakeholders 6e Local impact 6f Broad impact

Overview: In general, repeated opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of the population of Korea values and supports the protected area system and particularly national parks. Unfortunately, one exception to this general rule is people who actually live close to or within parks, where only a minority show support. Overall, national parks are 50 percent in state ownership, 11 percent in other forms of public ownership and 39 percent in private hands (and 22 percent of this private land belongs to temples). Around 68,000 people live in national parks. Similarly, in the 39 protected areas surveyed within the assessment, 71.2 percent of land is owned by the state, another 6.5 percent is public and 22.3 percent is in private hands. Tension with private land owners has resulted, amongst other things, in slowing down the creation of new national parks and may have led to a protected area system based on more numerous, smaller, strictly protected areas and a less coherent, ecosystem approach to conservation.

The overall level of support is highly encouraging, showing that public backing for conservation can be built up rapidly even in a country that has undergone rapid development (usually amongst the worst conditions for conservation). It is hard to tell whether this is primarily due to interest in conservation or driven by recreational and / or spiritual values. Resistance within protected areas is due to the additional restrictions that arrive with protected area status, particularly with respect to extensions to built infrastructure, and the fact that house prices within protected areas are generally lower than they would be elsewhere. There are also restricted management options on land within protected areas. This is sometimes offset by extra earnings from tourism although experiences with this have been mixed and it is by no means always the existing local communities that fare best in these situations. Sometimes attitudes change over time: in the case of Taeanhaean Coastal National Park, one coastal community lobbied successfully to be excised from the park, leading to a discontinuity in coastal protection, but now would reportedly like to be within the park because of the additional commercial opportunities from tourism.

65 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Attitudes of people living around the park are more complicated; some move away while others are attracted to the park edges because of the commercial possibilities. For example many stallholders, and many large shops, make good business at the edge of Bukhansan National Park in Seoul, including a large number who operate illegally within the park boundaries: the mechanism for addressing these infringements appears to be less than effective.

There is a programme of community development and consultation, although this is aimed mainly at the more restrictive end of any typology of community engagement — actively consulting in the diagram below:

Increasing level of consultation and co-management

No consultation Actively Seeking Negotiating Sharing Transferring consulting consensus (involving in authority and authority and decision- responsibility in responsibility making) & a formal way developing (e.g. via seats in specific a management agreements board)

Figure 1: Degrees of collaboration (adapted from Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996, Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the approach to the context, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland)

Over 95 percent of protected areas have programmes of community consultation, but less than 18 percent consult regularly on all aspects of management likely to be of interest to communities. Most rely on managers to decide on the scope of consultation.

Long-term plans have been developed for increasing community engagement but these are proving quite difficult to implement. The aim is to develop win-win engagement, increasing management effectiveness through increasing community support for protected areas. MOE recognises eight different stakeholder groups that it is important to engage:

Monks Local communities Conservation NGOs Schools Academics Business Local government Other branches of central government

At national level, KNPS has a Park Management Consultative Committee to provide policy advice. Each of the 25 KNPS national park offices has a consultative committee, which meets twice a year, and the national breakdown of representation includes academics (14.7 percent), temples (8.1 percent), residents (23.1 percent), local government (20.6 percent), other organisations (19.2 percent) and KNPS staff (6.9 percent). The stakeholder committee primarily has an advisory role. MOE reports that there is a certain amount of co-management in some of its sites, but this seems to refer mainly to the employment of local people rather than any power-sharing agreement. Engagement with other stakeholder groups, such as

66 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 7: Stakeholders and communities

monks and the Buddhist hierarchy, are less formalised; meetings can and do take place but not necessarily in any agreed forum. In addition, individual managers engage with stakeholder groups on an ad hoc or organised way, depending on the skills and interest of the individual manager involved. Sometimes stakeholders engage in a different way by going above the agency in an attempt to either block developments or gain permission to excise areas for commercial operations. Lack of stakeholder engagement has been identified as a block on progress, for example in a GEF analysis of Upo Wetlands50.

In general, relations are reported to be good with researchers and NGOs, poor with temples (although this varies between protected areas) and private land-owners and less well known in the case of hiking groups and some other stakeholders. In 55 percent of protected areas only a minority of private land-owners support the protected area in surveys. There is frequently tension between temples and managers in national parks, mainly over requests to expand buildings and collection of fees from cultural assets such as temples; the latter frequently takes place at booths by the park entrance giving visitors the incorrect impression that this is being done by KNPS. Over half the sites surveyed reported significant conflicts; the situation appears to be slightly better in larger protected areas. Although national parks have detailed programmes for planning and management related to private lands within the boundaries, which are implemented in all but three national parks, this is not the case for all other protected area types.

In addition, considerable resources have been put into more general public awareness raising efforts, through use of print and electronic information, video clips, images, events, advertising and encouraging visitation. As a result of these efforts public understanding of and support for protected areas continues to increase. There is no regular television or radio coverage of protected areas.

Almost all protected areas have planned programmes of local and resident community engagement, although only two sites reported that there were no constraints on the scope and capacity of this engagement.

Within national parks, there is limited support from KNPS for local communities over and above what is available to any citizen. KNPS has sometimes helped to provide small-scale infrastructure such as roads, meeting rooms, school books and equipment for communities living inside national parks and staff have carried out community projects such as support for farmers during ploughing and harvesting and providing additional tutoring for pupils after school, usually on nature-related topics, but sometimes also on more general issues such as English language training. However with the exception of compensating beekeepers for honey losses from reintroduced Asiatic black bears, currently no compensation exists for losses as a result of conservation. (By law such compensation should come from local government but the total amount allocated is too low at the moment to meet all demands.) While temporary jobs often go to local people there are no stated policies for this and in addition it is quite difficult for temporary jobs to be converted into permanent jobs (see thematic area on governance and business). Local businesses are sometimes promoted through the KNPS website. There is interest in developing eco-villages in national parks, with two projects ongoing in Sobaesan National Park and Jirisan National Park. Plans were initiated in 2006 and construction of villages started in 2007.

KNPS has an active volunteers programme, attracting over 15,000 people in 2007 who together gave 65,000 hours. There are also 200 volunteers with specialised skills to help in particular tasks.

50 Moores, N. (2003); Conservation of Upo and The People and Wetlands Programme, Upo Wetland Centre

67 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Analysis: Thematic area 7: Stakeholders and communities Elements Analysis A shortage of space in Korea reduces options for large protected areas without Context people; most of the larger areas therefore contain private land and resident communities: management of these presents a challenge for the agencies.

Stakeholders are increasingly involved in the selection process for protected areas, Planning formally and informally, and this is shaping protected area policy to some extent: unfortunately at present it is moving it more towards smaller reserves.

Currently formal inputs to planning from beyond protected area professionals come mainly from scientists and conservation NGOs and relatively little from other Inputs stakeholder groups although there is a desire to change this situation. KNPS provides some material inputs to communities living within protected areas.

Integration of management with stakeholder wants and needs has not progressed as far as it might in the Korean system as yet. There are a growing number of Processes stakeholder processes in existence although they are mainly limited to consultation rather than any sharing of responsibility or co-management.

The system has resulted in support from the general public, shown tangibly by an Outputs active volunteer programme assisting protected area management. Support for protected areas at national level is very high. However, support is far less Outcomes enthusiastic from communities living within protected areas and there are concrete reasons for this, including lower house prices.

Findings: The 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; they are necessary collaborators to the long-term success of conservation efforts but in many cases it seems that they will have to be won over. Experience in places such as Taeanhaean Coastal National Park shows that this is possible.

Further stakeholder engagement will be needed and this was mentioned several times by KNPS staff and others. This takes time and effort and sometimes new skills or experience. In particular, active, regular stakeholder engagement needs to be widened to all the stakeholder groups identified by KNPS rather than to two or three as at present. 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. In most countries, a building inside a protected area would be expected to have higher value than one outside (for example house prices in the New Forest National Park in the UK are 32 percent higher than the surrounding areas51) and if this is not the case there may be particular factors at play.

51 http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/housing_topic_paper.pdf

68 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 7: Stakeholders and communities

Possible responses: Most of the responses suggested are an extension of what agencies are already practising, although some would require slight changes of policy:

Encourage communities to participate more in protected areas, by providing formal and informal opportunities, being clear about what such engagement might mean and giving feedback. In the short term the membership of consultative committees should be extended to a wider group of stakeholders and a clear mandate for that group outlined. It is important that such bodies be seen to have a positive influence on management in order to maintain enthusiasm for participation amongst stakeholders. Engagement might be, for example, in the maintenance of cultural heritage assets or in practical conservation work.

Ensure that more benefits flow to local communities, by: (i) encouraging and supporting local businesses based on the attraction that the park has for outsiders (perhaps by running training course or providing start-up loans at reasonable rates; by clarifying concessions, leasing and licensing procedures for local businesses; joint marketing; or developing sustainable services and products related to nature- based tourism); (ii) developing a new relationship with the temples, including perhaps investigation of temple stay programmes where these would be possible; (iii) providing some positive discrimination for local people to get jobs in the systems; (iv) making it easier for high quality workers to transfer into full time employment through access to training courses and career structures.

Review regulatory arrangements, particularly with respect to resource use and to private lands within protected areas, to separate out actions that would cause genuine damage to the conservation aims of the area from those that would have little overall impact; then perhaps reduce controls on some of the latter. These might include streamlining small changes to private buildings or allowing sustainable use of some resources, following KNPS guidelines (as already happens for example in mountainous, coastal and marine parks). Development of further joint codes of conduct might help to address some of these issues.

69 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Lobby for greater support for purchase of private land, when this would help to satisfy stakeholder demands at the same time as increasing conservation benefits. It may be worth considering development of a high level KNPS task force to look at the issue of private land holdings in protected areas and to develop an overall national strategy.

Increase dialogue with the Buddhist hierarchy at both national and local level, as these groups should be natural allies in conservation but are often currently in conflict. Making effort to develop a national policy (perhaps a joint statement) on protected areas would be useful, as would development of agreed codes of practice for management of temples and particularly associated accommodation; such processes will inevitably involve some trade-offs. It could be, for example, that some expansion of temples could be traded off against an agreement to manage some temple-owned land more consciously for biodiversity. A national workshop between protected areas and Buddhists might be one way to start, for example through IUCN s Delos initiative52.

Continue awareness education, which has clearly been extremely successful, perhaps for a while focusing particular efforts on people living inside or near protected areas.

Address stakeholder tensions: set up a task force or team in KNPS headquarters to look critically at the reasons for tensions with stakeholders, particularly resident stakeholders, and suggest strategies for improving the situation.

52 Mallarach, J. M. and T. Papayannis (2007); Protected Areas and Spirituality, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

70 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system

Thematic Area 8 Monitoring, research and assessment

Mainly how monitoring and research contribute to protected area management, identification of any gaps and discussion of assessment processes.

Relevant areas of the system level assessment

Performance Indicator 1234 3f Information 4d Reporting 4m Natural values 4o Cultural values

Overview: The government of Korea has shown strong commitment towards understanding and monitoring the biodiversity within the country. KNPS has a strong internal research establishment, the National Parks Research Institute, working closely on a day-to-day basis with national park managers, and has also developed strong links with other research institutes through agreements and MOUs. The main focus is on biological research and capacity is fairly weak on issues relating to socio-economic values and visitor management. Outside experts, from both academic institutions and from NGOs, are consulted if particularly difficult or controversial issues need to be resolved. MOE is responsible for drawing up vegetation maps of all protected areas. More than 85 percent of surveyed protected areas (covering more than 95 percent of the area) have a planned monitoring programme focused on the most important aspects of management.

The result is that Korea now has a good information base for both systematic planning of any expansion of the protected area network (see thematic area on protected area system) and for measuring whether conservation strategies are working successfully. However, although staff at most sites believe that they have enough data for key planning and decision making, most also have significant information gaps. Only just over a quarter of sites believe that they have sufficient information overall and these tend to be the smaller habitat or species conservation areas.

The state-of-the-art KNPS intranet system is proving extremely useful in accessing and sharing information. All offices have access. This is a system of high standard on a global basis and could serve as a model for other countries. It could be used more widely within Korea, both for visualising information and for various forms of advocacy.

A knowledge management system is planned to be developed in two to three years when there is more understanding about exactly what is needed. Currently assessment of performance draws on four levels:

71 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Internal checking of issues such as quality of infrastructure, visitor numbers, visitors satisfaction (for example all equipment is subject to regular safety checks with a simple rating system);

Internal and external audits of performance plus business management assessments by government and Balanced Scorecard;

Monitoring programmes, particularly related to trends in populations of endangered species and maintenance of natural habitat;

The protected area management effectiveness assessment being summarised in the present report.

Currently most of the research is species orientated and aimed particularly towards monitoring. This has probably been an important focus for some time, to develop or recover basic baseline information on species existence, status and distribution. There is now some broadening towards socio-economic, cultural and ecosystem issues, although these remain a small proportion of the total. There was a clear message from some KNPS managers and rangers that research from the in-house team could usefully become more management orientated. The main remaining knowledge gaps relate to: threats to protected areas; social sciences; marine issues and cultural heritage. Significantly, many smaller reserves have no information on local communities and residents.

Analysis: Thematic area 8: Monitoring, research and assessment Elements Analysis Korea started from a relatively low base of knowledge about biodiversity and has built Context this up rapidly in order to develop effective conservation strategies Research work is planned carefully by the research division in cooperation with Planning KNPS and other agencies; the later also have the opportunity to commission studies for themselves Government supports high levels of research in protected areas through a dedicated Inputs research institution. Currently, research is aimed perhaps too narrowly at species; while this will probably Processes remain the core area of study, the focus currently underplays related social and cultural issues and also wider ecological questions An impressive body of information has been assembled over a few decades and Outputs monitoring processes are in place to maintain this and to identify trends This has allowed systematic planning to begin, although some steps are still needed Outcomes to take this further in meeting agreements such as the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas.

72 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 8: Monitoring, research and assessment

Findings: 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 and other systems. Building on this success it is now clear that the research agenda needs to move on to the next stage or stages, including: (i) a broadening of topics towards ecosystems, society, culture and economics, and (ii) a greater focus on management needs. One inference of that is that monitoring may in some cases need to be more streamlined, to focus on the most important species and habitats (including those whose status will have implications for other wild species as well — keystone species and indicator species). The current assessment system should provide a first detailed assessment of the protected areas system; consideration might be given to whether this should be repeated periodically, perhaps as a State of the Parks report of the kind pioneered in Finland.

Possible responses: a review of the current research and monitoring system is proposed to:

Use systems analysis to identify key values, ecological processes and threats that need to be included within the monitoring system, and also to review current monitoring practices to find out if there is any redundancy in the system. This should include recognition of the role of protected areas as test sites for understanding and adapting to climate change.

Investigate options for broadening research areas, both within the internal system and through partner organisations, by identifying strategic areas for research and monitoring; for example additional research on social issues and threats would both be justified: specific funding might need to be identified and obtained to help implement the results of this review

Develop or modify consultative committees on research to give greater voice to site managers and senior rangers in the identification of research topics, to re-orientate research so that it is more closely aligned to management needs.

Consider systems for strengthening research partnerships with universities (like the Parks Victoria research partners programme) and investigate the opportunities for establishing a system to seek research funding jointly for national park research priorities from national research funding schemes (for example the Linkage Grants to Universities and National Park agencies through the Australian Research Council is one model that could be examined).

Utilise infrastructure, site and asset data to resource a comprehensive risk management programme aimed at improving visitor safety and reducing the legal exposure of agencies to litigation, reducing financial risk by systematising asset maintenance and replacement, ensuring assets are appropriately insured and integrating emergency response and recovery into a risk-based process.

Consider instituting a regular system of site-level management effectiveness evaluation across a wider range of protected areas (i.e. beyond the 39 sites in the current assessment) with a periodic system level review based on the model of the current project.

73 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Thematic Area 9 International presence

Involvement in international treaties and conventions, regional role, interaction with other countries.

Relevant areas of the system level assessment Performance Indicator 1 2 3 4 1g Participation

Overview: Korea is a signatory to or member of a range of conservation organisations and conventions that relate to protected areas and has taken an increasingly active interest in these over the past few years. Specifically:

IUCN: Both MOE and KNPS are state members of IUCN and the Korean Association for the Conservation of Nature and Korean Society for the Protection of Wild Animals are also NGO members. KNPS has supported IUCN s work on protected areas through a two-year secondment of a senior staff member to the IUCN team in Bangkok. In addition, Professor Seong-il Kim is both an IUCN councillor and a Vice-Chair for WCPA for Asia. Through IUCN, the Republic of Korea is also investigating the possibility of developing a transboundary protected area in the DMZ between itself and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. The country has been active in several important global meetings, such as the World Conservation Congress.

Convention on Biological Diversity: Korea signed the Convention in 1992 and became a state member in 1994. Korea has completed necessary reports and addressed the Programme of Work on Protected Areas, including through the current assessment exercise. Korea has also looked beyond its own borders and hosted the International Workshop for Better Management of Protected Areas53 in October 2006 in Jeju Island, involving regional representatives from China, Taiwan, Japan and Mongolia, as well as international participants.

Ramsar: Korea has been a state member of the Ramsar Convention since 1997 and has eight designated sites in the country (the assessment team visited two of these) with a surface area of 8149 ha. Korea hosted the Ramsar 10th Conference of Parties in Changwon in October 2008, while the assessment was taking place.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species: Korea joined CITES in 1993 and is an active state member.

53 Anon (2006); International Workshop for Better Management of Protected Areas: The implementation of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas , 2006 CBD POWPA Workshop Organising Committee, Seoul

74 Chapter 4: Thematic analysis of the Korean protected area system Thematic Area 9: International presence

World Heritage: Korea has been a member of the Convention since 1988 and currently has eight sites listed on the World Heritage list. Only one of these is listed as a natural site, Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes, although the include much of Gyeongju National Park. Korea hosted the First International Workshop on Better Management of World Natural Heritage in Jeju Island in November 2008.

UNESCO Man and the Biosphere: Korea has two biosphere reserves, Mount Sorak National Park situated on the east coast of the Korean Peninsula in the Taebaek Mountain range and parts of Jeju Island.

International Association of Protected Area Stewardship: Korea supported and hosted the first meeting of this new international association, focused on the Asian region, in Jeju in November 2008, in association with a World Heritage workshop.

In addition, KNPS has signed MOUs with a number of regions and countries including Finland, the state of Victoria in Australia and Costa Rica. Many KNPS staff have the chance to work overseas and to bring the resulting experience back to their work at home.

Korea clearly takes its international obligations very seriously and is prepared to put time and money into building regional and international links with protected area systems in other countries.

Analysis: Thematic area 10: International presence Elements Analysis The East Asian region has a variable record in terms of protected areas, with some Context very strong countries and others with relatively weak protected area systems. Korea has a public aim of increasing its activity both regionally and internationally. Korea is a member of most conventions and agreements that would relate directly to Planning protected areas and is one of 86 state members of IUCN. Korea is clearly willing to put time and money into work beyond its own borders and Inputs into regional and international efforts to promote protected areas. The country has successfully fulfilled most clear obligations with respect to reporting Processes and membership of a range of conventions. In addition to standard actions required to support conventions and treaties, Korea Outputs has been taking an active role and sometimes a regional leadership role in the CBD, Ramsar, World Heritage and IUCN

It is still too early to judge the full outcomes of these or the extent to which the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas has been fulfilled. Korea continues to Outcomes destroy large and very important coastal wetlands through reclamation projects despite its active membership of Ramsar, suggesting that there may be divergent views within government about the importance of these obligations.

Findings: 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. 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.

75 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Responses: These efforts are to be applauded and Korea is urged to continue in this path. In this respect two particular issues may be of relevance:

The data management system developed by KNPS appears to be of a very high standard and could be a template for other countries: help and assistance with software design could be an important international role for Korea

To date Korea s main interactions have been either within the East Asia region or on a global stage. It might be worth considering more interaction that draws on Korea s situation of being a country that has undergone rapid development and also large-scale restoration. Targeted assistance to countries either just entering a rapid stage of development, or trying to restore ecosystems damaged on a large scale, might be an additional third area of interest.

76 Chapter

5 Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Dadohaehaesang National Park Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Korean site data

Thirty nine sites were assessed by KNPS and MOE staff using a questionnaire developed by the evaluation team; this information was then subject to statistical analysis to provide some overview of sites within the country. Analysis is still ongoing; the following analysis draws from some initial findings from statistical analysis (Kendall s tau). A full site level analysis report prepared by the KNPS has been prepared as a companion volume to this current report

Strongest correlations within Part D55 performance data (p<.0001) Not all the correlations are listed as some are clearly spurious (e.g. between having an invasive species monitoring program and clean toilets — likely to be both just a sign of a well resourced and managed park)

1. D4 (Natural Resource information) and D23 (Community consultation) Sites with a strong natural information base also have strong processes of community consultation and input into decision making — may not be causal connection but symptomatic of sound attention to information and decision making processes.

2. D14 (Information about visitors) and D15 (Visitor Management), D17 (Visitor Impact management), D19-1 and D19-2 (Awareness, Interpretation and Education programs) and slightly weaker, but still highly significant, correlations with D20 (Community/resident information) and D21-1 (Community engagement programs). Sites that invest in gathering information about visitors tend to be strong in many aspects of visitor and community engagement. While there is a strong correlation between information gathering, planned programmes and positive outcomes in relation to visitor management, the same does not hold true for community engagement. Here, there is positive correlation between the information base about communities and residents and the existence of a structured programme of community engagement, but neither the information base, nor the existence of a planned program correlates with positive outcomes in terms of community support. This suggests that the community engagement programmes may be misdirected and in need of review as they are not leading to stronger local community support.

55 Part D of the site level assessment proforma evaluated aspects of management performance (see appendix 2)

78 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

3. There are a group of indicators that seem to reflect generally sound management systems being in place — good performance in one area correlates significantly with good performance in the others. This does not necessarily mean that one element is leading to or causing good performance in the other but they may both reflect overall sound management. These items include:

D7 Management of invasive species D10 Janitorial services D14 Visitor information D15 Visitor management D16 Visitor safety D17-1 Visitor impact management programs (but not outcomes — D17-2) D19-1 and -2 Awareness and education programs and outcomes D20 and D21 Community information and engagement D26-1 Law enforcement programs

Some interesting absences of strong correlations 1. None of the Part D items are strongly correlated with positive outcomes in terms of conditions of natural values (D5) or Condition of natural values in the strict reserve (D6). Moderately strong correlations (P<.05) exist with (a) the implementation of management directions (D2-1) — i.e. where management plans are being implemented then the condition of natural values tends to be acceptable and (b) with the condition of cultural values (D12) — i.e. where natural values are in good condition, cultural values tend to be also intact.

2. There is frequently a lack of strong correlation between the existence of a structured program and the achievement of intended results from that programme: There is only a weakly significant correlation between the existence of clear, documented management directions and the extent of implementation of those directions There is no significant correlation between the implementation of a planned and comprehensive invasive species management programme and the extent of impact of invasive species on values There is no significant correlation between the implementation of a planned and comprehensive threatened species management programme and the security of those species There is no significant correlation between the implementation of a planned and comprehensive janitorial programme and the standards of facilities (maybe the heavily used parks are simply unable to cope with visitor numbers at some periods) There is no significant correlation between the implementation of a planned and comprehensive visitor impact management program and the impact of visitors in PA values (maybe the heavily used parks are simply unable to cope with visitor impacts at very heavily used sites) There is no significant correlation between the implementation of a planned and comprehensive community engagement programme and the supportiveness of local communities

79 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

There is no significant correlation between the implementation of a planned and comprehensive private land management programme and the extent of impact of private land on PA values There is no significant correlation between the implementation of a planned and law enforcement programme and the impact of illegal activities on PA values

The one exception to this pattern is community awareness programmes (D19-1 and -2) where there is a highly significant correlation between the implementation of a planned and comprehensive awareness and education programme and outcomes in terms of meeting park management and visitor needs.

This is generally a disturbing result as it suggests that current programmes in these areas should be examined in detail to see why they are not producing the intended results more strongly. The relatively small sample size in the site level assessment may be in part responsible for this general lack of correlation. Also, the threat and management demand in each site appear to vary so that the possdible management responses are different. this could be another reason for the general lack of correlation. But this result also requires some more derailed inverstigation to understand why this may be occurring and whether management approaches need to be adapted in those sites which show a lack of correspondence between management program implementation and management outcomes.

80 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Field mission site reports

This section provides summaries of site reports prepared for the sites visited by the evaluation team. It should be noted that while we have been able to draw on excellent site evaluations prepared by KNPS and on much expertise when we were visiting the sites, our experience is limited and very brief.

Bukhansan NP – site level findings and recommendations

Findings Bukhansan is the most visited park in Korea with 10.023 million visits in 2007. The park is a critical component of the recreational infrastructure of Seoul and is the preferred site for outdoor recreation in the region. Land ownership is divided between central government (49 percent); local government (9 percent); temples (1 percent) and private owners (41 percent). Removal of the visitor entry fee to the park resulted in a reported doubling in visitation (from 4.875 million in 2006). Management of the national park is, to a large extent, an attempt to balance the pressures from this high visitation with fundamental conservation objectives. There are currently 119 permanent staff and 243 contract staff. Management is also divided between two districts, which do not always agree on key policy issues.

Most visitors (90 percent) visit the park to hike and most hikers seek to climb to the summit of Mt Bukhan. Management interventions to control visitor impacts include zoning, hiking trail rationalisation to restrict or channel access (the park is the first in Korea to introduce one-way trails), site hardening, temporary closure and rehabilitation of damaged areas (usually for 5-10 years), information dissemination to raise awareness of park values and provision of alternatives to encourage visitors away from the Bukhansan summit routes. There is little interaction between KNPS and hiking groups.

The park contains about 50 Buddhist temples. Some are accessed by paved roads while more remote temples can only be reached by walking. Although only 5-10 percent of visitors come especially for the temples, many more stop to look or pray as they walk past. The temples seek a relaxation of current restrictions on their ability to expand buildings and infrastructure. Lack of mandate and expertise to manage cultural values in the park inhibits KNPS in addressing these wider issues.

81 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Conservation NGOs are strong advocates for park values and mobilise the community through rallies, voluntary projects and other awareness-raising events. Five or six NGOs also work with the protected area help to represent the park s interests when interacting with local government.

There is no integration of park and local government planning, with the result that urban infrastructure and services planning and development often conflicts with park management objectives. Current developments under construction or proposed include a new township with a projected population of 30,000 adjacent to the northern edge of the park, a major road traversing the north of the park and a tram service to one of the park entrances.

Monitoring of natural values has revealed significant pressures on the park from urban proximity and high visitation (increase in feral animals, reduced regeneration of pine forests, decrease in butterfly populations, and aesthetic intrusion of high-rise apartment blocks).

Unlicensed food vendors with strong political influence impede park management efforts to rationalise access and provide high standard services. Visitor demand for refreshments is high.

Forest fire is regarded as a significant threat to natural values, but rapid response capability is based on the need for protection of adjacent urban areas.

Recommendations

Recreational planning should continue with the implementation of a visitor needs and demands survey to shape the development of a recreation strategy for the park. The strategy should be developed in consultation with key stakeholder groups including conservation NGOs, hiking and climbing clubs and local communities, embrace the concepts of the recreation opportunity spectrum and limits of acceptable change56 and include a visitor access plan, a detailed service offer based on providing a range of services and facilities guided by visitor preferences and analysis of visitor satisfaction. The strategy should also consider assessing visitor capacity for the park and the option to close parts of the park when capacity is reached. The recreation strategy should be linked to regional and national tourism supply and demand analysis and strategies to encourage a more even spread of visitors.

56 Stankey, G H, D N Cole, R C Lucas, M E Petersen and S S Frissell (1985); The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning, General Technical Report INT-176, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah U.S.

82 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Existing data on visitation might usefully be applied through predictive modelling of impacts using different strategies (e.g. closure of illegal trails etc), to predict the impact of various access systems and apply the one likely to cause least long-term deterioration.

The closing and restoration of illegal trails should continue.

KNPS could consider the expansion of visitor use fees for value added services in the park. These services could be developed in consultation with existing park traders to encourage provision of a range of services consistent with park values that could be offered by licensed operators in the park. The park could also consider developing a commercial relationship with an outdoor equipment and clothing company to provide retail outlets for these products in the park. Revenue derived from these services could be utilised to improve park facilities, broaden the range of services offered or resource volunteer work projects in the park.

The position of illegal vendors should be clarified through liaison with the local authorities; either they should be expelled or a decision taken to allow them to stay but then to pay a commercial rate to the park.

A cultural heritage management plan should be developed and implemented in consultation with key stakeholder groups, including the Buddhist temples in the park.

The position of the park in the wider landscape should be consolidated, particularly in the context of developing greater resilience in the face of climate change through links to other natural areas and in harmonising adjacent land-use with park values. A closer working relationship and linked planning activities with local government are an essential pre-requisite for this to succeed. Given the very high demand for park facilities by the citizens of Seoul and the pressures on the park from surrounding development we recommend that KNPS should seek improved cooperative planning and development mechanisms that give the park a say in planning decisions affecting the integrity of the site.

That monitoring and research activities in the park should be directed by the needs of all aspects of park management, including biodiversity, recreation, cultural heritage, geotechnical, engineering, sociological and economic disciplines. The research program should be linked to needs identified by park management plans and be developed in consultation with research institutes, universities and key park stakeholder groups.

83 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Taean Haean(coast) National Park – site level findings and recommendations

Findings Taeanhaean, covering an area of 326 km2 on the west coast of the Korean Peninsula, was designated as a National Park in 1978. It is one of four national parks that contain a significant marine and coastal component. The majority of the park area is marine (289 km2 — 89 percent of the total park area). The land area of 37 km2 consists of numerous small islands and fringing coastal land and is 70 percent privately owned. Around 95 percent of people in the park rely on fishing.

Marine Protected Areas are also designated by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF) and are managed separately from the Marine National Parks managed by KNPS; so that responsibility over this area is split.

The park has no designated cultural heritage monuments but the intangible heritage associated with traditional fishing practices is considered to be significant and there are efforts to preserve this way of life within the park.

A major oil spill in late 2007 impacted significantly on Taeanhaean National Park and prompted major clean-up activities and subsequent monitoring of recovery by KNPS staff. Before and after oil spill data from the monitoring programme is expected to be available in the near future and this will provide valuable data on oil spill impacts and recovery.

84 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Other major threats to the park are considered to be: high levels of visitor use impacting on dunes and coastal ecosystems; unsustainable exploitation of fisheries and marine resources; storm erosion of coastal dunes; increasing commercial use of areas within and adjacent to the park and urban encroachment

The local community is considered to have a strong development focus that may be incompatible with sustainable management of the park. Pressure from the community led to the excision of one urbanized area (Malipo) from the park (although there is now community pressure to re-incorporate the area into the park, as its excision opened the area to investment and development by outsiders which did not benefit local people).

Initially the local community considered the park regulations and park management to be too strict and this generated negative attitudes towards the KNPS. However, there is evidence of a considerable improvement in park-community relations, partly as a result of effective engagement of the community by KNPS staff and partly due to relaxation of regulations (for example, an easing of regulations relating to construction within the park allowing higher buildings and the construction of tourist accommodation); whether the easing of these regulations is in the long term interest of the park condition remains to be seen. Park control over buildings is the main point of conflict with the local community, although it is also recognised that controls have reduced urban sprawl. The considerable efforts of the KNPS in response to the oil spill and the subsequent employment of local community members by KNPS to assist in the clean—up operations (especially at a time when they had lost other sources of income) was a significant factor in recent improvements in community relations. KNPS managers also act as intermediaries on occasion between fishing communities and other arms of government and fishing unions believe that fish stocks have improved since the park was established.

Regulation and management of use of the marine environment is largely the responsibility of MOMAF although the KNPS can apply additional restrictions (e.g. to net sizes). Lack of coordination between controlling authorities is a significant issue for the local community. Fishing zones and closed species are used, sometimes for particular groups or species, to maintain stocks. Recreational fishing is supposedly banned controlled, but this has proved impossible to enforce and in fact the local government puts out a brochure promoting collection of seafood, which is the opposite of KNPS policy.

Significant efforts on visitor interpretation are undertaken by KNPS, MoE and a local NGO

Most management attention is paid to the coastal (terrestrial) area of the park and significant advances have been made in dune restoration and other coastal land management initiatives. Initially there was opposition to dune restoration from local people but this has largely switched around because the presence

85 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system of the dunes has also helped to boost groundwater supplies. However, KNPS currently pays insufficient attention to managing the marine component of the park and lacks management staff with specific marine expertise. Common marine protected area methods such as zoning are not employed.

Recommendations

Current actions to build positive community relations should be continued although this should not involve compromising essential regulations to control unsustainable development. The facilitation of appropriate tourism and visitor facilities commensurate with maintaining the character of the traditional coastal communities should be encouraged.

A greater focus needs to be paid to KNPS management of the marine component of the park. This will require employment of staff with specialist marine experience and the application of best practice marine protected area management techniques.

Greater liaison with MOMAF is also needed to coordinate management and regulatory activities within the park, given current concerns about over-exploitation.

The considerable monitoring and habitat restoration activities already undertaken within the park should be maintained.

Expansion of the park to include islands to the west of the park, originally excluded for military security reasons, should be considered if changed circumstances make this possible.

86 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Gyeongju National Park – site level findings and recommendations

Findings Gyeongju National Park encompasses some 13,000 ha split into 8 separate sites scattered around the metropolitan area of Gyeongju City. The park is an IUCN Cat V protected area established in 1968 under the Natural Park Act but with management initially vested in Gyeongju City. The 8 sites were initially chosen primarily for cultural rather than natural values.

Around 90 percent of the park is private land and there are a number of settlements within the park with a resident population of around 1,000. Conflicts about policy with local communities remain significant.

Gyeongju is described as Korea s only Historical Park due to the predominance of cultural heritage. Significant areas of the park are listed as a cultural World Heritage site. It includes many of the principal Shilla Dynasty sites in Gyeongju City and contains 47 nationally designated cultural assets and 19 cultural assets designated at provincial and local government level: there are also numerous undesignated assets . The park also contains relative high levels of biodiversity with over 1,200 plant & animal species.

Management responsibility of the park was transferred to KNPS in January 2008, but without significant additional resources from the central government or any transfer of resources from the City of Gyeongju. This has required KNPS to reassign staffing and financial resources within its national budgets. There has been an impressive increase of staffing and resources (104 staff recruited since Jan 08) due, in part, to Gyeongju being one of two national parks for which KNPS would like to assume management, with a consequent incentive to show the change to be a success. However, without additional resources KNPS s capacity to manage a major urban park like Gyeongju will continue to be stretched. There appear to be

87 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system huge expectations on KNPS, both internally and within the local community, to improve management without compromising local development. KNPS staff predict that it will take 3-5 years for management to reach the level of other national parks.

Cultural heritage management within the park is split between the Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA) with responsibility for designated assets and KNPS with responsibility for undesignated assets. This results in some confusion, conflicting policy, duplication and poor integration of natural and cultural heritage management.

The park receives 500,000 visitors a year and there is a significant backlog of visitor facility maintenance to address, including a large number of degraded trails. Visitor demand is expected to grow given the park s urban location. There is still some damage to and theft from cultural sites. The park also experiences an unusual impact, namely the traditional practice of burying people in the mountainous parts of the park. This creates potential impact on the national park s values and is also a culturally sensitive issue, making it a challenge for KNPS to change community attitudes.

In addition to the usual pressures on protected areas, there is also a threat from an adjacent nuclear waste disposal facility being developed in the coastal area near the Daebon area of the park. This is symptomatic of a lack of consultation and participation between KNPS and Gyeongju City in development planning discussions which impact the park.

Recommendations

KNPS needs more time to develop improved cultural heritage management capacity and once this is inplace it is recommended that there is a progressive shift of responsibility from the CHA to KNPS within the park. Jurisdictional and legal arrangements would need to be tested; however interim arrangements should include formalised interagency coordination mechanisms; joint planning and policy development; joint impact monitoring; joint business planning; and conflict resolution processes.

Consistent with the above Gyeongju has the opportunity to become a centre of excellence in managing cultural heritage, particularly with respect to harmonizing natural and cultural heritage management policy and practice. The park could thus pioneer KNPS s system-wide need to improve its cultural heritage management capacity and would provide a useful training ground for staff who could transfer to other sites with significant cultural assets. In addressing site specific cultural heritage management challenges Gyeongju could also pilot a process to improve cooperation with the CHA and work toward the progressive transfer of responsibility for cultural heritage management inside the park system.

Gyeongju could also pioneer a closer relationship with Gyeongju City officials who have 40 years of history and appreciation of the park s management. Cooperative and/or coordination mechanisms could be piloted that may be replicated elsewhere in the KNPS system to address what has been identified as a tendency to have weak relationships between KNPS and local government. Such a process needs to be two-way, giving city officials influence over park decisions and vice versa. With this in mind it is

88 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

recommended that the high level council already established be reviewed to ensure that it empowers the KNPS to play a central role in urban planning and development.

The national park should if possible progressively acquire private land in priority locations to support improved management, for example to secure particularly fragile sites, remove unacceptable impacts or to rationalize boundaries. The park should develop a private land management strategy with the right mix of enforced regulation, land owner incentives, and awareness raising, drawing on some of the general principles outlined elsewhere in this report. Community asset mapping could be undertaken to accommodate the social and economic needs of park dependent communities whilst minimizing negative impacts.

The trail restoration works programme should continue, wherever possible using the support of the community as was evident from the soil carrying scheme and use of volunteers. A rationalization of the park access system could be developed in conjunction with a broader regional recreation supply and demand analysis to clarify the park s role as a recreation provider. There are parallels with Bukhansan National Park which is also close to a major city and a similar model could be followed.

The Gyeongju experience could be used as a case study to develop a clearer government policy on transfer of management responsibility and financial compensation in the event of new protected area acquisitions. Careful thought needs to be given to the most effective mix of centralised versus devolved management responsibility.

Gyeongju is only one of two National Parks with World Heritage status (Hallasan is the other but is under the management of Jeju Special Self Governing Province). World Heritage status is less well publicised than at Hallasan and KNPS could consider developing additional capacity on World Heritage promotion and management at this site. In addition, as at Gyeongju could become a vehicle for transferring some of the tools and expertise that World Heritage status brings to help strengthen other protected areas in the country.

89 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Hallasan National Park - Site level, findings and recommendations

Findings Hallasan National Park was designated a protected area (nature reserve) in 1966, a national park in 1970, a UNESCO MAB biosphere reserve in 2002 and a UNESCO natural World Heritage site in 2007 (as part of Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes).

The National Park covers 153 km2, 8.3 percent of the island. It is divided between a core zone (51 percent) and a less strictly protected zone (49 percent). Around 98 percent of the park is state-owned and it is intended that the remaining 2 percent will be purchased. The area of the Jeju natural World Heritage site is 188 km2, with Hallasan covering 164 km2, meaning that the WH and NP boundaries do not coincide precisely. The WH site core zone includes 55.3 percent of the area. There are six trails, where access is controlled (for example the trails are shut at a set time in the afternoon)

Visitors have increased at 12.8 percent per year recently and reached 804,887 in 2007. Management encourages day visitors although there are 7 shelters and one camp site. There are around 20 hiking NGOs. There is an aim of not concentrating visitor facilities, to spread any impacts. Some trails have been closed temporarily (although this can be a long time — some have already been closed for more than 20 years) to allow re-vegetation of damaged areas. Active restoration is taking place over 163,000 m3. Visitors are encouraged to keep to trails. There is a new (opened April 2008) and impressive visitor centre that explains the values of the NP and contains many interactive elements.

Hallasan is managed by the Jeju Island Self Governing Province, creating a different governance structure as compared with other Korean national parks. In 2008 it was reorganised (with extra budget) after gaining WH status, under the Jeju World Natural Heritage Management Team, with the Management Department of the National Park sitting under this. Of 50 staff members, almost half are rangers. The visitor centre is heavily staffed. Staff can still access KNPS training courses.

The government of Jeju Island has a public aim to make the island the best natural World Heritage site in the world . The management vision covers conservation of natural resources, sustainable use for human communities and visitor services.

Jeju Island is biologically important due to its vertical flora distribution, from sub-tropical on the coast to alpine in the mountains; most of the island s six vertical stratifications of vegetation types exist in Hallasan NP. There are 90 endemic plant species and 50 endemic animals on the island, many live within the national park. In total there are about 2000 plant species in Hallasan National Park and 5000 animal species. A research institute coordinates monitoring although NGOs also play a role. Hallasan also has important cultural values. It is a sacred mountain (one of three in Korea) and contains three temples and two other significant historical sites.

90 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Recommendations

The site is clearly well managed with a high level of visitor services and the main aspects of management should remain as they are.

The Management Team and Jeju government could consider increasing the area of the National Park, in particular to include the vegetation habitats at lower elevations. Apparently some of these are within national forests, which are managed for a mixture of timber and recreation and may already in effect be protected, but some consolidation of this might be beneficial. Better coordination between the National Park and forest managers could perhaps increase the range and thus biological value of the protected area as a whole. Representing all the vegetation zones in a single coherent protected area would be an unusual and noteworthy achievement. We support the continuing purchase of the remaining 2 percent of land in the protected area.

The temples and cultural sites are still managed separately from the biodiversity and natural values of the park. This situation occurs throughout Korea and was identified as a potential, and in some cases an actual, problem by the assessment team. Given that in Jeju Island all management comes within one central administration there seems to be an existing policy framework that would allow greater integration; if successful this might supply a template for other protected areas on the mainland.

More generally, the assessment team found that Jeju offered a used model for integrated protected area management at provincial level, which in this case is a source of much of the support. In general our assessment found that relations were better between protected areas and the central government than they were with provincial governments, although the latter is highly influential in determining many planning decisions. Because of the unique situation in the island regional management has a more significant role, albeit with the strong support from KNPS in terms of training and expertise. This could perhaps be examined as a case study to inform a system level development for greater regionalisation of KNPS and the positive involvement of local politicians in this process.

The extent to which Hallasan has been branded as a World Heritage Site (which we applaud) may have unintentionally concealed the role of KNPS and we suggest it might be worth looking at the branding again and ensuring that KNPS is also represented in literature and displays.

The main pressure on Jeju appears to be from visitation, particularly on trails where geological features are fragile and thus at risk. We recognise the value of the exclusion zones and restoration efforts but suggest that further work on carrying capacity may be needed if visitation keeps increasing. The aim should not be to dissuade visitors from coming — because the park will only survive in the long term if people feel ownership of it and its values — but perhaps provision of alternative activities to encourage people away from the most eroded trails or areas. While the high level of investment in visitor services is impressive, it might be worth also investigating some less capital intensive/high maintenance approaches that might allow a more intimate visitor experience for some people, while also taking pressure off the most heavily used areas.

Jeju Island is considering applying to switch the IUCN protected area category of Hallasan National Park from IUCN Category V (protected landscape) to IUCN category II. On first examination this seems justified and we recommend that the park authorities continue their investigation of this option.

91 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Outside the national park but within the WH area, we note that the number of bats in one of the main lava tunnels has decreased from around 3,000 to a few hundred after visitors increased, according to park guides. Some more information on this would be valuable, particularly if the bats have relocated to another cave or whether this marks an overall decrease in numbers.

As the first natural World Heritage site in Korea, Hallasan has an ambassadorial role to play both in terms of World Heritage but also in bringing some of the tools and approaches developed within World Heritage more generally into the Korean protected areas system.

The fact that Hallasan has a buffer zone (an unusual situation in Korea) is definitely beneficial and again could serve as a model for other protected areas.

Hallasan strikes us as a rather unique place in view of its political history and we support the existing and apparently successful partnership between Hallasan National Park and KNPS.

92 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Jirisan Nation Park – site level findings and recommendations

Findings This is largest terrestrial South Korean National Park, with an emphasis on biodiversity conservation, a well-known conservation programme on the Asiatic black bear and a pioneering restoration programme of areas damaged by the former use of the area (mainly relating to camping, erosion of trails, military use, etc.).

Yew tree communities and Alpine wetlands are recognised as habitats of particular value. The Korean tiger lizard (Eremias argus), once widespread, is now only found in the park and is continuing to decrease. Some rare plants are fenced to maintain communities. Lack of predators is leading to expansion of and water deer to nuisance levels in some areas.

Jirisan National Park is an important part of the Baekdu-Daegan corridor. However, based on the site-level discussions, the concept of connectivity was mainly understood as cultural or spiritual connectivity — the area could be described as the spiritual spine of Korea — and the biogeographical and ecological implications are not as well recognised.

The boundary of the protected area was designated in cooperation with the local community based simply on the altitude and was originally designated mainly for forest restoration (initially aimed at timber production) rather than conservation. Consequently, not all areas with valuable natural vegetation were included in the park. The integration of the protected area to the wider landscape was apparently not very well understood by the staff.

Land use regulations are the main source of disagreement with the local community, particularly with respect to zoning and controls on plant collection for food and medicines. A part of the original National Park was excluded because it had been encroached and developed for tourism services. The expansion and construction of Buddhist temples were seen as a major problem, although the area affected was quite limited in size taking into account that 9 percent of the National Park is owned by the temples. The temples have mainly turned over management of their forest lands to KNPS.

93 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Visitation is an important stress factor, with about 3 million visitors a year, and a heavily used road cuts the park in two parts. The high level of visitation was seen as problem at the easily accessible mountain tops, whereas ecotourism was welcomed to the lower elevations of the National Park. The parking areas at the higher elevations were very crowded. Carrying capacities have been calculated and are sometimes exceeded but rather than imposing closures attempts are made to reduce pressure by trying to encourage voluntary redirection to other areas, including use of a web page giving information on traffic density. Camping areas have been controlled to allow re-vegetation.

Cooperation between the Park Office and the Research Institute was identified as not working particularly well. The National Park staff were not satisfied with the scientific information, which was not seen relevant for the management of the park, except when compiling the management plan. In consequence, management interventions are not based on monitoring and more site-specific information is needed. On the other hand, the Park Office has not taken into account the recommendations given by the Research Institute to make changes in the visitor trails to avoid vulnerable habitats, so it appears that the breakdown in communication may be operating in both directions.

In addition to monitoring and restoration activities, the management activities include removal of alien invasive species of plants and animals. Forest fires were regarded as a minor threat, but during risky dry seasons, some roads have been closed for fire control reasons.

94 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Recommendations

The restoration of habitats and conservation activities of the black bear, with damage compensation to the local communities (e.g. for losses to bee hives) should be continued. These activities play an important role in raising public awareness and they demonstrate successes of conservation work.

Since Jirisan National Park plays a key role in biodiversity conservation in Korea, there should be more information available for both staff members and the public at large on the role of Jirisan in the whole Korean protected area system and as part of the Baekdudaegan corridor. More attention should be given to the role of wildlife corridors as dispersal routes in helping the relatively isolated and fragmented South Korean biodiversity to adapt to climate change.

Opportunities should be studied for enlarging of the National Park using adjacent high-biodiversity areas. No further areas should be excluded from the National Park due to the urbanisation of the surrounding areas or due to the development of tourism services as has occurred in the past.

While the biodiversity values of the National Park are exceptionally high and worthy of conservation, the problems caused by controlled construction of temples seemed to be very limited. Some greater tolerance to the improvement of facilities of the temples might help to improve the cooperation between temple authorities and park managers without any serious biodiversity losses, especially if these land use changes could be compensated by additional areas included in the National Park elsewhere. The evaluation team also believes that there is a lot of potential for partnerships with the Buddhist temples, e.g. in environmental education, especially if such activities could be coordinated nation-wide.

Due to the relatively heavy visitation at the mountain tops and, especially due to the road going across the National Park, it would be worth considering temporary closure of the road/roads at certain times of the day (e.g. between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m.) or at certain times of the year for short periods. The efforts to increase ecotourism at the lower elevations instead of mass-tourism at the mountain tops were seen promising. The parking at higher elevations could be limited by higher parking fees and controlled by use of an improved traffic alert system so that people were informed of congestion problems before they drove up the road.

The question of carrying capacities needs clarification. There is no point in determining or measuring such capacities unless they are used to trigger management actions, such as temporary closure of areas when there are too many people. Further advice is needed about the robustness of the calculations and then clear policies on responses need to be developed.

Although the cooperation between the KNPS Research Institute and the Park Offices was both locally and generally problematic, the strong focus on biodiversity conservation at Jirisan NP provides an exceptionally favourable opportunity to develop a model where the biodiversity research could be adjusted to fit the needs of the NP management. The team suggests that the Jirisan NP would take a lead in science- based NP management in Korea.

95 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Du-ung wetland Protected area

Findings The Du-ung wetland is a very small (90m by 150m) wetland area immediately behind the Shinduri sand-dune complex on the coast. Its main interest is the fact that it is topographically unique; a freshwater lagoon fed by groundwater, separated from the Yellow Sea by sand-dunes. In addition, there are a number of nationally endangered and rare species, including Korean golden frog (Rana plancyi chosenica), Narrow-mouth Boreal digging frog (Kaloula borealis), and the Tiger lizard (Eremias argus). In all, 311 plant species, eight mammals, 39 bird species, 14 amphibians, and 110 species of insects have been recorded.

The wetlands were designated as a protected area in 2002, became a Ramsar site in 2007 (apparently the smallest Ramsar site in the world) and are also recognised as a Natural Monument in Korea. Most of the water and surrounding land (72.4 percent) is in private ownership with the rest owned by state and government. There are moves by the government to purchase more of the land.

Management is under the control of the Ministry of Environment and Du-ung is part of a complex of seven wetlands that were addressed in a joint management plan in 2003. Local stakeholders include members of the adjacent communities, some 800 people in all. A local NGO, Green Taean, is involved in eco-guiding in the site, although there are only a relatively small number of visitors every year; around 25,000.

The surroundings of the wetland are managed and highly modified; there is grazing land and conifer plantation immediately next to the water and the banks appear to have been altered physically into smooth grass-covered slopes with no shoreline aquatic vegetation for much of the perimeter of the wetland. A boardwalk with interpretative signs explaining details of local wildlife runs around a quarter of the pool. There is some floating vegetation.

There are problems with invasive species, including particularly the American bullfrog, which is subject to occasional control efforts but continues to undermine native species. Additional environmental problems include pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus from adjoining farmland. The site-level assessment reports that these problems are minor and only affect part of the site, but given the small size of the pool it is highly likely that some effects are felt throughout the water body. No research appears to have been carried out on the impact of planting conifers so close to the shore, but it might be expected that they also had some impacts on water quality.

Important from the hydrological aspects of the site, withdrawal of groundwater resources is also affecting water availability.

The hydrological features of the site are important and worth conservation along with some of the more unusual species, but the overall conservation aims seem slightly confused, at least on the basis of a short visit. The site appeared to be highly modified, with few natural ecological aspects remaining (although there are still some important species) and the presence of invasive species, water pollution and comprehensive changes to the surrounding landscape all undermine conservation objectives. Du-ung therefore seems to be a site where some measure of restoration activities could usefully be brought to bear, particularly if all or most of the water and surrounding land could be purchased. Our recommendations

96 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

reflect these opportunities. Most apply to the site itself, some to the surrounding community or wider landscape and seascape.

Recommendations:

Follow through with land purchase plans, ideally aiming to buy the whole of the immediate area surrounding the wetland.

Develop a comprehensive new management plan aimed at re-wilding the area, including: natural regeneration (or re-establishment) of native vegetation; re-establishment of a more natural lake-shore, including emergent vegetation; and removal of pollution sources next to the lake.

Work with local communities and other stakeholders to address issues of groundwater resources in the region, either through dune restoration or by agreements to control use.

The visitor potential of the site is currently under-valued. A more natural and attractive-looking site would hopefully draw more people, but in addition greater emphasis in the interpretation facilities might be given to the hydrological aspects of the site and the reasons for Ramsar designation than is the case at present.

97 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Sumjingang Ecosystem & Landscape Conservation Area (Habitat of Otter)

Findings The Sumjingang Ecosystem & Landscape Conservation Area is a six kilometre stretch (1.8 square kilometre) of river and riverine habitat along the that provides important habitat for the Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra). Most of the reserve (99.5 percent) is government owned with only a small area of private land but the reserve is surrounded by agricultural land on the river flood plain and has a road running adjacent to the river along one bank. There is currently a population of 4-5 otters. Some other endangered species are in the area, including turtles.

Management is under the control of the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and is managed through the Yeongsan River Basin Environmental Office. The site has a small number of resident Rangers and contract staff employed by MoE and a management plan that was prepared in 2005. The Rangers focus their work primarily on natural resource management, community engagement and administration while the contract staff are more strongly focussed on recreation and visitor management and facility maintenance. The site is subject to very low visitation but some educational activities are conducted for visitors.

Otters generally require relatively undisturbed riverine areas and so the small size of the reserve, adjacent agricultural activity and related problems with invasive species are of concern in terms of maintaining and enhancing the population of otters within the reserve. Another threat identified in the site assessment report is direct impact from human activities such as mortality from fish nets and harvesting of marsh snails. Flooding accompanying heavy rains forcing temporary movement of otters and associated mortality on the adjacent road are also of concern.

98 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

The site level management effectiveness assessment results indicated that the area did not perform as well as the average across all 39 sites for many aspects of management. Community engagement and natural resource management performance were assessed as being particularly weak. This is likely to be, at least in part, a consequence of: the small size of the site and inherent difficulties of managing such an area; and the small budget and low staff complement of the site.

Recommendations:

Consider whether the site boundaries need to be reviewed to establish an expanded area that provides extended otter habitat or that can better buffer critical areas from threats to the otter s habitat.

Review staff and financial inputs in relation to the requirements of the management plan and results of the site level assessment and seek additional resources if needed to address performance shortfalls. Monitor otter mortality and address principal sources of non-natural mortality as appropriate.

Work with local communities and other stakeholders to address issues of otter conservation and seek to negotiate agreements to control uses of the site that are impacting on otter conservation.

Increase roadside signage, both to warn motorists to take care of otters and thus reduce the chance of road kill and to increase awareness of otter conservation.

Given the low population of otters, it may be necessary to consider ex situ measures, such as reintroductions, if the population fails to increase or if there are unforeseen reductions to the current population.

Due to the presence of other important species in the area, some wider consideration of ecosystem needs may be justified in the conservation plan.

99 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Upo Neop Ecosystem & Landscape Conservation Area (Wetland Protected Area)

Findings Upo Neop Ecological & Landscape Conservation Area (Wetland Conservation Area) is the largest wetland in the Republic of Korea. The area encompasses some 854 ha made up of four parts: Upo, , Sajipo and Jokjibul, 27 percent of which comprises water bodies. The area was declared a Ramsar site in 1998 in recognition of the its size and importance to 15-20,000 migratory water birds which spend time here in the winter and its value as wetland habitat.

The area receives relatively high visitation of more than 100,000 visitors per annum (significantly higher visitation of 500,000 p.a. was reported during the field mission). There was a recent sharp increase in visitation and interest coinciding with Korea s successful bid to host the 10th Ramsar Conference of Parties (COP 10) in 2008 which was taking place at the time of the field mission. The site is well known and subject to significant visitor pressure although site facilities and information were impressive, perhaps enhanced through the site s location near to the venue for the Ramsar COP. The level and standard of visitor information evident during the mission contradicts findings in the site assessment which rated this area poorly.

The site is managed by the Ministry for Environment through an agreement with the local government. This partnership provides for MoE to fund management and infrastructure development with day to day management delegated to local government authorities. At the time of the mission there was a considerable level of activity and management presence at the site perhaps as a result of the Ramsar COP, however, there appears to be a clear level of local ownership evident in the area. More than half of the site is privately owned and the wetland is surrounded by agricultural land. Traditional fishing practices continue in the protected area as this activity predated establishment.

The main management threats to the area are identified through the site level assessment as pollution from agricultural run-off, particularly in the monsoon season; alien invasive species; visitor impact exacerbated by the spike in numbers linked to the Ramsar COP 10; and variable to poor relations with the local community.

Recommendations

As the largest wetland in Korea Upo Neop attracts high visitation and should be promoted nationally to showcase national wetland values and conservation issues. Visitor facilities and interpretation at the site are impressive, however, could be broadened to deliver messages beyond site level to at national level such as through Korea s commitment toward international wetland and migratory bird agreements under the East Asia Australia Flyway Partnership. International interest and cooperation in the site should be fostered beyond the promotion afforded through the 2008 Ramsar COP;

100 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Continued efforts should be enhanced to buy key private lands within the area and/or to work closely with the community to build support through stronger participatory management and benefit sharing. Income generating opportunities should be developed with local communities through a range of direct and indirect mechanisms, perhaps via joint business planning;

The threat from alien invasive species was identified through the site assessment as a being of high impact and widespread concern; several invasive species (bullfrog, ragweed, bluefin etc) are already present. This threat is likely to grow under climate change impacts compounded by pollution from agricultural practices in surrounding lands. A buffer zone should be established around the wetland within which sympathetic land use practices should be developed in collaboration with local government and control mechanisms need to be stepped up. The direct involvement of local government in the management of the area should help to facilitate this approach. Increased staffing (beyond the current 5 percent) and budget should be applied to review and more comprehensively implement the alien invasive management plan;

The spike in visitation to the Upo Neop reflects growing interest in Korea s protected areas, however, presents challenges to the management of impact and the visitor experience. Visitor numbers, use patterns and attitudes should be periodically surveyed to understand trends and formulate appropriate responses. Regional visitor use patterns should be assessed to understand the attraction and role of Upo Neop in a wider context. Visitor use could be segmented to enhance experience, manage carrying capacity and impact seasonally and daily. Value-added visitor experiences such as night visits, working with researchers or specialist ornithological tours, could be targeted to smaller groups and return income to support management and benefit communities.

101 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Mulyeongari-oreum Wetland Protected Area

Findings Mulyeongari-oreum is located on Mt. Suryeong (508m a.s.l), a secondary or parasitic volcanic cone on Halla mountain, Jeju island. It is the only wetland in Korea located in a secondary or parasitic volcanic crater. It is believed that the crater was formed by volcanic activity between 100 and 2500 years ago. The wetland is a unique example of its type and, due to the shape of the crater, is a closed drainage ecosystem with distinctive fauna.

The site has an area of 30.9 ha and was designated as Korea s first Wetland Conservation Area in December 2000. The area was declared a Ramsar site in 2006. The site is owned and managed by the Republic of Korea under the jurisdiction of . The management authority is the head of Yeongsan River Basin Environmental Office, MOE.

Prior to designation the land had not been subject to any damaging land use and, from July 2004 until July 2007 was protected from public access and activities. Since then, considerable visitor damage has occurred to the area, presumably as a result of provision of a substantial steel and timber stairway and boardwalk giving access up the side of the crater and down to the edge of the wetland. Annual visitation is 15,000 visitors per year.

Two endangered species (Category II) inhabit the wetland: a giant water bug (Lethocerus deyrollei) and the Narrow-mouth frog (Kaloula borealis). About 210 species of plants have been recorded including the Amphibious Bistort (Persicaria amphibia), which, although occurring widely in Europe and north America, is known only from this and two other wetland sites in Korea. Forty seven species of insects and 14 amphibians have also been recorded.

There is no hydrological inflow or outflow to the crater other than from precipitation. Due to this closed drainage system, the wetland is fragile and prone to degradation from inappropriate use. Wetland soils are composed of volcanic ash and ejecta which has eroded into the base of the crater. The crater is densely vegetated with 30 year old indigenous forest.

The wetland has been closely monitored under a comprehensive wetland conservation plan prepared by the Ministry of Environment.

Whilst there is no conservation education programme in place, wetland tour programs are proposed to be introduced using local people as an incentive to conserve the wetland. These programmes are intended to begin when the visitors centre and other facilities are completed. The site level management effectiveness assessment results indicated that the area did not perform as well as the average across all 39 sites for many aspects of management. Natural resource management, community engagement and governance and administration (including facility maintenance) were assessed as being particularly weak.

The forest of Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) on the outer slope appears to be managed (there is an even-aged stand and no dead wood).

102 Chapter 5: Korean site data / Field mission site reports

Recommendations:

Whilst it is important to encourage better understanding of wetlands in the community, given the unique and fragile nature of this wetland, it is inappropriate for visitor infrastructure to intrude on the wetland, leading to inappropriate use and damage by visitors. The location and siting of visitor facilities within the crater, particularly the boardwalk which encroaches on the wetland, should be reviewed and consideration given to relocating viewing facilities so that the wetland can be seen, but not impacted on directly by visitors, or alternatively using temporary closures of the infrastructure to check on status of vegetation and allow recovery.

In order to foster greater visitor respect for the site, the visitor entry works under construction at the time of the ERT visit should be completed quickly, including the visitor carpark, guard station, visitor orientation signage and the path linking the carpark to the beginning of the crater stairway.

Interpretative infrastructure at the site should emphasise the unique nature of the wetland in terms of its geomorphology and hydrology, as well as its importance for the conservation of endangered species.

There may be some need for re-wilding particularly of the Japanese cedar area with reintroduction of more native species, including possibly wood-decaying flora and fauna.

The proposal to employ and train local people as wetland eco-guides should be implemented expeditiously to complement MOE interpretation, education and law enforcement programs.

103

Chapter

6 Global comparison

Sobaeksan National Park Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Global comparison

Introduction – issues of comparison The principal purpose of evaluation is to assess management and to apply the results at site and system level, with the aim of understanding and improving management of the protected area system. Nonetheless, there is often interest in understanding performance as compared with other countries and various attempts have been made to do this. Comparing results of management effectiveness evaluations between countries must be undertaken with great caution, because the context will be very different in terms of baselines, expectations, standards applied during the assessment and even cultural differences in the way in which protected area staff view their own performance. Different methodologies are often used and these can further affect the fine detail of assessment results in unquantifiable ways.

The current assessment in Korea only looked at 39 sites and a smaller subset were visited during the field mission. This assessment covers all national parks and a number of other significant sites but it only represents a sub-set of the protected areas in Korea (about 3% of the 1297 protected areas, but about 42% by area) and it is likely that it includes some of the best managed areas in Korea. Data from the global management effectiveness study (Leverington et al 2008), which is available for comparison with the Korean results, consists in large measure of either (i) sites that were evaluated because they were being supported by international projects due to the fact that they were facing problems, or (ii) comprehensive collections of all protected areas in the system (i.e. surveys that included the best and the worst managed sites).

The Korean protected area system With these cautions in mind, the following assessment attempts to place management of the Korean protected area system in a global context.

Korea clearly has a very well managed protected area system that stands alongside the best in the world. Particular strengths of the Korean system, which represent examples of world class management, include:

The clear national vision for protected areas and biodiversity connectivity at landscape scale, coupled with a strong sense of purpose for protected area management within the relevant agencies;

106 Chapter 6: Global comparison

The condition of both natural and cultural heritage in protected areas, which is generally good with most threats are controlled, although high levels of visitation create some challenges.

Excellent communication and awareness programmes, that carry the conservation message out to the very large number of people visiting national parks and other protected areas;

The strong positive impact that protected areas clearly have on the well-being of the broader Korean community;

The widespread awareness and strong support for protected areas amongst the general population of Korea as reflected in the high public approval ratings of the national system;

The sound basis on which protected areas are created including: (i) clear legal tenure; (ii) a strong planning regime; (iii) a generally good information base; and (iv) better provision and stability of resources (funds and staff) than many national agencies, noting however that resource adequacy needs to be considered in the context of extremely high levels of use and hence demand for management infrastructure and resources;

Strong system-wide policies, guidelines and management systems, which are usually well-developed and implemented;

Powerful research capacity which can be harnessed in support of management needs, backed by a state of the art computer based management information system (although there is a need to strengthen social science research efforts).

Korea s recent efforts to benchmark their management performance internationally are highly commendable. They are one of a handful of protected area agencies who are actively building international programmes of cooperation which augurs well for progressively creating an internationally cutting edge system.

In some areas, management of the protected area system still falls short of the best found elsewhere in the world. In particular, the protected area system is not fully representative of the biogeographic diversity of Korea and has been developed without a full gap analysis. There is a predominance of mountain biome protected areas. The full range of protected area category and governance types is not being used to build a more balanced and robust system. Furthermore, it is clear that many neighbouring and resident communities remain unsatisfied by management approaches and see the parks as liabilities rather than assets. This infers that neighbouring and resident communities do not realize the benefits from parks. This is also mirrored in the limited development of local community engagement programmes and participatory management approaches. Cultural heritage management systems are also fragmented between Government agencies resulting in differences in approaches, variable cultural heritage management capacity and unsatisfactory management.

107 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Multiplicity of legislation, policy and agency responsibilities across Korea s national protected area system creates duplication, confusion and inefficiencies therein generally hampering effectiveness. Contemporary best protected area practice entails the creation of national level biodiversity conservation legislation which umbrella s national strategies to conserve biodiversity and implement sustainable natural resource management approaches of which the creation of well managed representative protected areas is one component. It is desirable that current administrative structures and arrangements be reviewed and a more effective model tested. This should include consideration of designation of a single government agency with national responsibility for protected areas even if management responsibility is delegated at different levels for some types of reserves or in some instances.

Most national protected area agencies operate with a regionalised structure to ensure active engagement in regional development. This allows the protected areas system to be a legitimate contributor to regional development strategies and ensures that core natural and cultural values are respected and protected. The KNPS system lacks a regional structure which would support such stronger engagement.

Protected area sites in Korea

Given the caveats about comparisons outlined above, attempts were made to compare Korean site data with site data from other countries.

The site assessment results generally show that individual protected areas are well managed on any international comparison. Governance and administration appears to be relatively stronger in Korea than in other countries, however harmonization and coordination of biodiversity protection and natural resource management remains relatively weaker. Korea also appears to be particularly strong in vision and planning. Korea s trend toward increasingly high levels of overall public approval is globally impressive; however, as is the case in the rest of the world, community engagement at local levels remains weak and problematic. Korea most closely mirrors results from Australia and Europe.

108 Appendices

Wolchulsan National Park Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system 4 The design of the PA system is based on a systematic approach and all key biodiversity values are contained within the system Low level of current and potential threat. Comprehensive and effective risk management program implemented. National vision articulated with strong linkage to international commitments. Identification of values is complete and there is sufficient detail to guide reserve design, strategic and day-to-day management. 76-100% of optimum conditions s percentages or as mean scores 3 The design of the PA system is based on a systematic approach and most key biodiversity values are contained within the system or there are plans to add these areas in the immediate future Moderate level of internal and/or external threat. Risk management program implemented and controlling some threatening processes. Clear national vision articulated. Identification of values is complete and there is sufficient detail on most values to guide reserve design and day to management 51-75% of optimum conditions Performance 2 The design of the PA system shows limited evidence of a systematic approach and some key biodiversity values are unrepresented in the system High level of internal and/or external threat. Risk management program insufficient to implement management interventions. Limited vision articulated. Identification of values complete but there is insufficient detail for reserve design and management. 26-50% of optimum conditions 1 The design of the PA system shows no evidence of a systematic approach and many key biodiversity values are unrepresented in the system High level of external and internal threat. No risk management program implemented. No articulated vision. Identification of values is incomplete and general; hence of little value for reserve design and management Site level data — most commonly reported threats are visitor impact-inappropriate behaviour (61%), illegal harvest (57%), visitor impact-inappropriate use level (52%). The most commonly reported potential or emerging threats are agricultural encroachment/grazing (59%), invasive species (37 %), climate change (30%) 0-25% of optimum conditions on a scale of 1 = lowest level performance to 4 highest performance) Indicator containing the key biodiversity values for the country are contained within the protected area system articulated vision for the on-going development and management of the Korean PA system? and/or potential threat is the system and its protected areas facing? b) The most important areas b) a) Is there a clearly a) c) What level of current c) As a general guide or where data is being rolled up across PAs the following % assessments will apply 1) CONTEXT Appendix 1: System level assessment pro-forma completed (note: results of site level assessments, where relevant, are reported a

110 Chapter 7: Appendices 4 There is evidence of high levels of community awareness and support of the PA system Korean PA agencies are actively involved in all relevant agreements and provide leadership for some, and the standards provisions are generally met in full General legislation and policies positively support establishment and management of PAs Institutional structures positively support effective management of PAs 3 There is widespread awareness of the PA system and community is broadly supportive of protected areas Korean PA agencies are actively involved in most relevant agreements although the standards and provisions are not always able to be met in full General legislation and policies are broadly supportive of establishment and management of PAs Institutional structures are broadly supportive of effective management of PAs Performance 2 Awareness and support for the PA system is low or confined to small segments of the community Korean PA agencies are involved in some relevant agreements General legislation and policies create some difficulties for establishment and management of PAs but do not seriously undermine management Institutional structures neither assist nor impede effective management of PAs 1 The community is not generally aware or supportive of the PA system Korean PA agencies have no involvement agreements related to PAs General legislation and policies create significant difficulties for establishment or management of PAs Institutional structures create significant difficulties for effective management of PAs Indicator awareness and support of the community towards the protected area system as a whole? PA agencies participate in international and regional agreements, alliances, partnerships and cooperative arrangements and meet standards for the management of affected Pas? policies, legislation (other than PA legislation), and institutions in the area support protection and management of protected areas? institutional structures for PA management support effective and integrated management d) What is the level of d) g) To what extent do Korean g) e) To what extent do e) f) To what extent do f)

111 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system 4 effectively All protected areas are established with clear tenure and legal status An appropriate variety of protected area categories & governance types is used to significantly enhance conservation management within the socio-economic, legal and cultural context of the country Protected areas in the system are excellent in terms of number, design and location to effectively conserve the natural values of Korea PA legislation is entirely adequate and appropriate to the needs of country and significantly enhances capacity to manage PAs adequate and 3 Most protected areas are established with clear tenure and legal status An appropriate variety of protected area categories and governance types is used to meet conservation management needs within the socio-economic, legal and cultural context of the country Protected areas in the system are mostly large enough, of appropriate design and in the right locations to effectively conserve the natural values of Korea appropriate to the needs of the country and enables effective management of PAs PA legislation is predominantly Performance 2 constrains some issues where most circumstances but Tenure and legal status of the majority of protected areas is established but problems or uncertainties in tenure create problems in some areas Conservation management could be enhanced by use of a more appropriate variety of protected area categories and governance types within the socio-economic, legal and cultural context of the country The PAs in the system are mostly large enough, of appropriate design and in the right locations to effectively conserve values for which they were established, but there are significant gaps in coverage of the full suite natural values of Korea legislation management PA legislation is enables effective management of PAs in there are 1 constraining Tenure and legal status of many protected areas is incomplete or unclear and this creates significant problems for management Reliance on inappropriate set of protected area categories & governance types is significantly effectiveness of conservation management within the socio-economic, legal and cultural context of the country The are significant deficiencies in system design (ecological representativeness, adequacy and comprehensiveness) of PAs so that major components of the natural values Korea cannot be effectively conserved in the PA system PA legislation significantly constrains effective management of PAs design (ecological Indicator protected areas have clear tenure and legal status (inc physical and graphical demarcation of boundaries)? range of categories and governance types? system (considering system representativeness, adequacy and comprehensiveness), size, configuration and connectivity) to conserve the natural values of the country? manage and protect PAs? a) To what extent do a) b) Is there an appropriate b) d) How adequate is the PA d) c) Is legislation adequate to c) 2) PLANNING

112 Chapter 7: Appendices 4 Strategies are in place for all identifiable issues. Implementation monitored for effectiveness and programs adjusted accordingly. 41 0f the 45 management offices in the site level assessment have management plans with most plans being relatively recent (2006+) Systems and processes for management planning meet best practice standards for management planning (e.g see IUCN Planning Guidelines). Quality of plans is generally excellent. 3 Strategies are in place to address most issues but implementation could be improved. Systems and processes for management planning substantially meet best practice standards for management planning (e.g see IUCN Planning Guidelines). Quality of plans is generally good. Performance 2 Strategies are in place to address some issues but implementation is ineffective. Systems and processes for management planning are established but they fail to meet best practice standards in significant respects. Quality of plans is generally adequate. 1 No strategies are in place. There is no systematic approach to management planning and processes are frequently deficient. Quality of plans is generally poor Indicator develop and implement national strategies or frameworks for the management of system- wide issues or sectoral influences (eg tourism, visitor mgt, revenue generation, disaster management, climate change, invasive species)? management plans. systems and processes for management planning? e) Do Korean PA agencies e) g) Proportion of PAs with g) f) How adequate are f)

113 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system 4 Funding is allocated according to national priorities and performance controls are enforced. Staff numbers and/or skills are meet all operational needs in PAs and areas of support operations Funding is routine or otherwise secured through regular budget sources and there is capacity to optimise external funding when available Funding is able to meet basic needs as well most desirable planning, natural resource, cultural and visitor management activities for the PA system 3 Funding is allocated according to national priorities but performance controls are weak. Staff numbers and/or skills are generally adequate in PAs and areas of support operations. Site assessment data: Permits, law enforcement, administration and janitorial services take most staff time. Investment in community engagement and natural resource management is weaker Funding is routine or otherwise secured through regular budget sources or through long-term agreements with donors. Funding is able to meet basic needs as well at least some desirable planning, natural resource, cultural and visitor management activities for the PA system Performance 2 Funding is allocated on an historical basis with no performance controls. Staff numbers and/or skills are deficient in some PAs or areas of support operations Funding at a base level is generally stable (or increasing) but many activities and projects are dependent on less reliable funding sources Funding is just able to cover minimal management needs for the PA system (minimal staffing, basic operational expenses) 1 Funding is allocated ad hoc without regard to national priorities with no performance controls. Staff numbers and/or skills are deficient in many PAs or areas of support operations Major items as a percentage of total budget are visitor facility management (25%), built infrastructure (13%) and resource conservation (26%). Funding allocated to community engagement is low at just below 9%. Funding is unreliable, often variable and dependent largely on outside temporary (e.g. project based) sources. Funding is not able to cover the minimal management needs for the PA system (minimal staffing, basic operational expenses) Indicator to national priorities and performance against budget managed effectively? capacity in the management agency as a whole (including both on- ground and support staff? for the protected area system? sustainable is this funding? d) Is funding allocated according a) Is there adequate staff a) b) How adequate is funding b) c) How reliable and c) 3) INPUTS

114 Chapter 7: Appendices 4 Infrastructure and equipment is able to meet basic needs as well most desirable natural resource, cultural and visitor management activities for the PA system Necessary information to support management and decision making is mostly available and readily accessible to relevant staff 3 Infrastructure and equipment is able to meet basic needs as well as at least some desirable natural resource, cultural and visitor management activities for the PA system Necessary information to support management and decision making is mostly available but there are some impediments to availability or use Performance 2 Infrastructure and equipment is just able to cover minimal management needs for the PA system Necessary information to support management and decision making is frequently not available 1 Almost half the sites by number (49.8%) but only 30.6% area rate facilities as appropriate and adequate, with 41.5% (by number) and 65.3%(by area) indicating that while facilities are appropriate for the site they inadequate level of visitation. Infrastructure and equipment is not able to cover the minimal management needs for the PA system Necessary information to support management and decision making is rarely available Site data: Averages of Part D questions Q1 Values — 3.57: Q4 NRM 3.13: Q11 CHM 3.11; Q20 Local community 2.44; Q29 M&E 3.17 Indicator infrastructure and equipment for the protected area system as a whole, including the requirements of both on- ground and support services. available to support management and decision- making at all levels of the management agency? f) How much information is f) e) How adequate is the e)

115 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system 4 Policies for regular safety checks and management, maintenance of infrastructure & equipment are in place and there are databases or audit processes in place to ensure these are followed There is an existing regular process of assessing and reporting on management effectiveness of PA system The PA agency has a clear sense of purpose, direction and strategy that takes account of all key issues effective governance and is well understood by staff Formal business plans are regularly prepared, financial management and administrative support systems are of high calibre Documented system-wide policies or guidelines for key aspects of PA management are of comprehensive and high quality 3 Policies for regular safety checks and management, maintenance of infrastructure and equipment are in place A regular process of assessing and reporting on management effectiveness of PA system is being established The PA agency has a clear sense of purpose, direction and strategy that takes account of most key issues of effective governance and is understood by the majority of staff Some business planning is undertaken, financial management and administrative support systems are adequate for needs Documented system-wide policies or guidelines for most key aspects of PA management are adequate Performance 2 System-wide processes for management, maintenance and safety checks of infrastructure and equipment only cover some components of the system Ad hoc or partial assessments of PA management effectiveness have been undertaken but not is systematic or system- wide manner The sense of purpose, direction and strategy of the agency is frequently not known or understood by many staff or fails to address key issues of effective governance Basic financial management and administrative support systems exist but there is little or no attention to business planning Documented system-wide policies or guidelines for many key aspects of PA management are inadequate or not available 1 There are no system-wide processes for management, maintenance and safety checks of infrastructure and equipment No assessment or reporting of management effectiveness across the PA system is undertaken The agency lacks a clear sense of purpose, direction and strategy that takes account of key issues effective governance Business planning, financial management and administrative support systems are missing or rudimentary There are no documented system-wide policies or guidelines for key aspects of PA management Indicator system-wide processes for management, maintenance and safety checks of infrastructure and equipment? of assessing and reporting on management effectiveness through the PA system? governance of the agency (considering legitimacy and voice, accountability, fairness in decision making, equitable benefit sharing and application of the rule of law, leadership) system-wide policies and guidelines for protected area management? level and system-wide business planning, financial management and administrative support? e) How adequate are the e) d) Is there a regular process d) a) What is the quality of a) c) How adequate is system- c) b) How adequate are b) 4) PROCESS

116 Chapter 7: Appendices 4 Law enforcement support systems are in place at agency level so that field enforcement actions can be effectively concluded Human resource management systems are well developed, with clear policies and procedures. A system for staff performance review and feedback is used effectively to ensure staff growth and high level performance. There are clear policies and an overall plan for tourism and visitor management that addresses key issues in tourism and visitor management in PAs A training and capacity needs assessment has been completed within the past five years and a structured program to meet these needs is in place 3 Some law enforcement support is available at agency level but it is sometimes limited in capacity or commitment Human resource management systems are generally well developed, with clear policies and procedures for most aspects of staff recruitment and management. There is a system for staff perf. review & feedback There are clear policies and an overall plan for tourism and visitor management that addresses most key issues in tourism and visitor management in Pas Training and capacity needs are well understood and regular training is undertaken in line with this understanding Performance 2 Law enforcement support at agency level is weak so reported offences are frequently not able to be successfully prosecuted Basic human resource management systems are in place but policies are lacking or unclear and there is only limited staff performance review There are some policies and a plan for tourism and visitor management but it fails to address key issues in tourism and visitor management in Pas Basic training needs are understood and training is provided to most staff meet key requirements of their positions 1 There are no law enforcement support systems at the agency level Human resource management systems lack adequate policies and procedures and clear accepted systems for staff performance review and feedback Site data: Law enforcement is major area of activity (13.4% staff time) Q26-1 Law enforcement planning — 2.73; Q26-2 outcomes 2.89 Site data: Recreation and visitor management represent 27% of the overall budget 26% permanent staff time. Average performance scores across 11 assessment items relevant to visitor management vary from 2.63 3.42 with an overall mean of 3.21 There are no clear policies or an overall plan for tourism and visitor management that addresses key issues in tourism and visitor management in PAs Little or no training capacity development is provided Indicator wide support and capacity for, and commitment to law enforcement? system to assess capacity needs and provide training human resource management? system-wide approach to management of visitors and tourism? h) How adequate is agency- h) f) What is the standard of f) i) How adequate is the g) Is there an adequate g)

117 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system 4 There is an overall plan and structured program for communication, awareness and education in relation to PAs. Awareness and education materials are proactively distributed to target audiences. Community awareness and understanding of PAs is good. There is an active and planned program of community development and assistance that is delivering tangible and significant benefits to communities adjacent to PAs. There are clear policies and processes for community engagement that set the context for effective engagement at both the system and site level. There is an operational system of advisory committees to provide community and stakeholder input to the agency 3 There is an overall plan and structured program for communication, awareness and education in relation to PAs. Awareness and education materials are primarily distributed in response to requests. Community awareness and understanding of PAs is adequate. There is an active and planned program of community development and assistance that is delivering tangible but limited benefits to communities adjacent to PAs. There are policies and processes for community engagement that set the context for effective engagement at either the system or site level. There are regular opportunities for community and stakeholder input to the agency Performance 2 There is no overall plan or structured program for communication, awareness and education in relation to PAs. Awareness and education materials are produced but on an ad hoc or project basis only. Community awareness and understanding of PAs is limited. Community development and assistance is seen as a function of the PA agency but there are only limited projects and no planned program to deliver such assistance. There are only limited policies and processes for community engagement that set the context for effective engagement at either the system or site level and only limited community/stakeholder input to the agency. 1 Site data: Q19-1 Communication awareness and education(CAE) planning implementation — 3.12; Q19-2 CAE outcomes 2.95 Site data: Community engagement occupies less than 8% of staff time although the local community is recognised as a major stakeholder by 41 of the 46 offices that completed site level assessment. Q21-1 Community engagement planning and implementation — 2.87; Q21-2 outcomes 2.53 Q23 Community consultation — 3.11 There is no overall plan or structured program for communication, awareness and education in relation to PAs. No or very limited awareness and education materials are produced. Community awareness and understanding of PAs is limited Community development and assistance is not seen as a function of the PA agency. There are no policies and processes for community engagement that set the context for effective engagement at both the system and site level no effective mechanism for community/stakeholder input to the agency. Indicator system-wide communication, awareness and education program? system-wide program of appropriate community development assistance or compensation? wide community engagement (eg advisory groups, volunteers), and what proportion of protected areas have appropriate levels of community involvement? l) How adequate is the j) How adequate is system- k) How adequate is the k)

118 Chapter 7: Appendices 4 There is a system-wide program of research and monitoring of natural values with clear objectives and there are sufficient central office or regional staff to support PA site staff in this work so that adequate information is available. There are clear policies, plans and programs for addressing all system-wide, common or emerging natural resource management issues There is a system-wide program of research and monitoring of cultural values with clear objectives and there are sufficient central office or regional staff to support PA site staff in this work so that adequate information is available. 3 There is a system-wide program of research and monitoring of natural values; there are some central office or regional staff to support PA site staff in this work although the program/staff needs expansion to achieve adequate resource information levels There are clear policies, plans and programs for addressing the most significant system-wide, common or emerging natural resource management issues There is a system-wide program of research and monitoring of cultural values; there are some central office or regional staff to support PA site staff in this work although the program/staff needs expansion to achieve adequate resource information levels Performance 2 There is no system-wide program of research and monitoring of natural values and there are inadequate central office or regional staff to support PA site staff in this work There are only limited policies, plans and programs for addressing system-wide, common or emerging natural resource management issues There is no system-wide program of research cultural values and there are inadequate central office or regional staff to support PA site staff in this work 1 Site data: Research survey and monitoring occupy 4.24% of regular staff time. Q1 Identification and use of values — 3.57; Q4 Natural resource information 3.13 There is no system-wide program of research and monitoring of natural values and there are no central office or regional staff to support PA site staff in this work There are no policies, plans and programs for addressing system-wide, or emerging common natural resource management issues. There is no system-wide program of research and monitoring of cultural values and there are no central office or regional staff to support PA site staff in this work Site data: Resource management represents 31% of budget and 18% staff time. Q7-1 Invasive species planning and implementation — 2.6; Q7-2 outcomes 3.02 Q8-1 Threatened taxa planning and implementation — 2.9; Q8-2 outcomes 2.68 Q9 Fire management — 3.54 Site data: Q11Cultural and historic resource information — 3.11 Indicator program of research and monitoring of natural values with adequate support staff? adequacy of system-wide natural resource management processes and activities. program of research and monitoring of cultural values with adequate support staff? m) Is there a system-wide m) n) What is the overall n) o) Is there a system-wide o)

119 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system 4 There are clear policies, plans and programs for addressing all system-wide, common or emerging cultural resource management issues 3 There are clear policies, plans and programs for addressing the most significant system-wide, common or emerging cultural resource management issues Performance 2 There are only limited policies, plans and programs for addressing system-wide, common or emerging cultural resource management issues 1 There are no policies, plans and programs for addressing system-wide, or emerging common cultural resource management issues. Site data: Q13 Cultural and historic resource management- 2.88 Indicator adequacy of system-wide cultural resource management? p) What is the overall p)

120 Chapter 7: Appendices 4 Business plan targets have been achieved in large measure or in full Averages Part D by area/no of sites 3 Business plan targets have only been met in part Performance 2 There is a business plan but achievement of targets in the plan are not assessed 1 There is no business plan for the agency Site data: Q2-2 Implementation of management directions - 3.17; Q3 Work programming 3.56 Indicator outputs in key result areas been achieved? agency-wide business plan been achieved? b) To what extent have b) a) To what extent has the a) 5) OUTPUTS

121 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system 4 The protected area system is having a strongly positive impact on the well-being of the local community surrounding the PAs All of the goals envisioned for the PA system have been achieved as measured through a monitoring & evaluation process. New goals are set and monitored periodically. The protected area system is having a strongly positive impact on the well-being of the broader Korean community 3 Part D Q 12 Average condition score from site assessments = 3 (by % area) and 2.89 (by number of sites The protected area system is having more positive than negative impact on the well- being of the local community surrounding the Pas Most of the goals envisioned for the PA system have been achieved and a process to improve performance against unmet goals has been implemented. Averages Part D by area/no of sites Q5 = 2.67; 3.04 Q6 = 3.12; 3.30 Q7b = 3.04; 3.02 Q8b = 2.41; 2.93 The protected area system is having more positive than negative impact on the well- being of the broader Korean community Performance 2 The protected area system is having more negative than positive impacts on the well- being of the local community surrounding the PAs Some of the goals envisioned for the PA system have been achieved but monitoring and evaluation of achievements is poorly implemented. Averages Part D by area/no of sites Q20 = 2.79; 2.44 Q21b = 3.73; 2.53 Q22b = 2.35; 2.47 Q23 = 2.98; 3.11 The protected area system is having more negative than positive impacts on the well- being of the broader Korean community 1 The protected area system is having a strongly negative impact on the well-being of the local community surrounding the PAs None of the goals envisioned for the PA system have been achieved and monitoring evaluation of achievements is non-existent. The protected area system is having a strongly negative impact on the well-being of the broader Korean community Indicator estimation of the impact the protected area system on the local community? agencies stated vision and purpose for the PA system been met? estimation of natural integrity of protected areas in the system (trend and condition) estimation of the relationship between the managing agency and stakeholder groups estimation of the state cultural heritage of protected areas in the system (trend/condition) estimation of the impact the protected area system on the broader community? c) What is the overall c) e) What is the overall e) a) To what extent have the a) b) What is the overall b) d) What is the overall d) f) What is the overall f) 6) OUTCOMES

122 Chapter 7: Appendices

Appendix 2: Site-level assessment pro-forma Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Korea Protected area name Management Authority Year of assessment Date of assessment Principal assessor Assisting assessors Part A 1.Outline b. Protected area a. Reserve number Select from list c. IUCN category Select from list classification d. Reserve area(Km2) e. Year initially d-1. Area managed gazetted by a PA office h. Details of Change g. Number of changes f. Year of last change to reserve area i. Describe any aspects of protected area design (shape, size and boundary integrity) that impact on management j. In what way and to what extent does previous land use of the protected and adjacent protected area impact on management? k. International agreement Select from list 2. Visitors and Residents in the Protected Area b. Visitor number (estimate number if no a. Visitor numbers Select from list data for visitor numbers are available) c. Visitor numbers trend Increase/Stable/Decrease/Not Known/etc. d. Number of residents in the protected area Government-owned e. Status of property Total State-owned land Privately-owned land ownwership in the land protected area Km2 % Km2 % Km2 % Km2 % f. Land use type of neighbouring protected area Part B 1. Management (Master) Plan (Mid to long-term comprehensive plan) There are no management plans that apply to this protected area(move to Part B. 2.) There are management plans that apply to this protected area a. Name of plan b. Type of approval Select from list c. Year d. Effect Select from list 2. Other plans prepared or in preparation for the protected area There are no other plans or in preparation for the protected area (move to Part B. 3.) There are other plans prepared or in preparation for the protected area a. Name of other plan b. Type of plan c. Status d. Year prepared e. Influence on management Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list

123 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

3. Principal protected area values a. Principal values (List up to five c. Sources of information on b. Value category d. Significance of the most important) values Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list e. Identification of reserve values is comprehensive incomplete Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No 4. Current threats a. Major Threats (List up to b. Specific details c. Negative e. Sources of information d. Extent f. Confidence five of the most important) of threat impact on threats 1. Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list

or specify other threats

2. Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list

or specify other threats

3. Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list

or specify other threats

4. Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list

or specify other threats

5. Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list

or specify other threats

4-1. Emerging/potential threats a. Major Threats (List up to b. Specific details c. Potential d. Potential e. Comment on why/how potential five of the most important) of threat Negative impact Extent threat has been recognised 1. Select from list Select from list Select from list or specify other threats 2. Select from list Select from list Select from list or specify other threats 3. Select from list Select from list Select from list or specify other threats 4. Select from list Select from list Select from list or specify other threats 5. Select from list Select from list Select from list or specify other threats

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

124 Chapter 7: Appendices

5. Stakeholders a. Primary stakeholders (List up b. Issue category b-1. Issue c. Issue d. Relationship to five of the most important) category Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Name of group if applicable Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Name of group if applicable Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Name of group if applicable Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Name of group if applicable Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Name of group if applicable

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No Part C 1. Personnel classification a. Regular Number of staff Current Full number b. Contractors Total number Total working (days) Year based Temporary c. Volunteer Total number Total hours (per year) One time Certified

125 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Total Total Total Total q. other administration

p. Contract/assessment/ Human resources mgt o. Built infrastructure & asset maintenance n. Janitorial service

m. Endorsement/Permit & law enforcement Governance & Administration l. Cooperation w/ relevant organization k. Community program Community Engagement j. Others in visitor service i. Visitor facility

h. Safety & search/ rescue of visitors g. Interpretation & education program f. Visitor research Recreation & Visitor Management e. Others in resource conservation d. Fire management

c. Threatened species

b. Invasive species management a. Resource research & monitoring Natural Resource Management Total Reserve Name Main office Branch office 1 Branch office2 Main office Branch office 1 Branch office2 Subtotal Main office Branch office 1 Branch office2 Choose to fill in personnel input person or proportion select from list Input Category Contractors(Year based) Contractors(temporary) Regular 2. Personnel input for PA management 2. Personnel input for PA

126 Chapter 7: Appendices

Total Total Total q. other administration

p. Contract/assessment/ Human resources mgt o. Built infrastructure & asset maintenance n. Janitorial service

m. Endorsement/Permit & law enforcement Governance & Administration l. Cooperation w/ relevant organization k. Community program Community Engagement j. Others in visitor service i. Visitor facility

h. Safety & search/ rescue of visitors g. Interpretation & education program f. Visitor research Recreation & Visitor Management e. Others in resource conservation d. Fire management

c. Threatened species

b. Invasive species management a. Resource research & monitoring Natural Resource Management Reserve Name Main office Branch office 1 Branch office2 Main office Branch office 1 Branch office2 Subtotal Volunteer(certified) Volunteer(one time) Input Category 2-1. Personnel input (Volunteer) : Total hours/year : Total 2-1. Personnel input (Volunteer)

127 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Total

q. other administration

p. Contract/assessment/ Human resources mgt o. Built infrastructure & asset maintenance n. Janitorial service

m. Endorsement/Permit & law enforcement Governance & Administration l. Cooperation w/ relevant organization k. Community program Community Engagement j. Others in visitor service i. Visitor facility

h. Safety & search/ rescue of visitors g. Interpretation & education program f. Visitor research Recreation & Visitor Management e. Others in resource conservation d. Fire management

c. Threatened species

b. Invasive species management a. Resource research & monitoring Natural Resource Management Reserve Name Contribution National expenditure Input Category 3. Budget input (labor cost excluded)

128 Chapter 7: Appendices

Part D 1. Identification and use of protected area values a. Assessment criteria Information on the most important known protected area values is used to guide both long- term and day-to-day management. Information on the most important protected area values is used to guide either long-term management or day-to-day management Information on the most important protected area values partly guides either long-term management or day-to-day management Information on the most important protected area values has little or no influence on day-to- day management. b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

2. Management directions a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria There are clear, comprehensive, documented and appropriate All key management directions are being management objectives and strategies available to guide management. implemented There are clear, documented, appropriate management objectives and strategies Most key management directions are being for the protected area covering the most important aspects of management implemented Documented management objectives and strategies for the park are Some key management directions are being insufficient or inappropriate to guide management of the protected area. implemented There are no clear documented management No key management directions are being objectives and strategies for the park implemented b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

129 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

3. Work programming a. Assessment criteria A work program exists, activities are monitored against the planned targets and most targets are achieved. A work program exists, activities are monitored against the planned targets but most targets are not achieved.

A work program exists but activities are not monitored against the planned targets.

No work program exists to guide day-to-day management of the protected area. b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this problem/Comment

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

4. Natural resource information Natural resource management is not an issue for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria Information on the natural resource values of the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making Information on some of the natural resource values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning and decision making but there are important gaps in information Information on the natural resource values of the protected area is not sufficient in most cases to support planning and decision making

There is little or no information available on the natural resource values of the protected area b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

130 Chapter 7: Appendices

5. Condition of natural resource values Natural resource values were not identified in Part B as being among the most important for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table). Insufficient information is available to assess the condition of the natural resource values identified in Part B (justify/comment in assessment table). a. Assessment criteria Important natural resource values are not degraded

Some of the important natural resource values are degraded but are not currently at risk Some of the important natural resource values are degraded and are at risk without corrective action Important natural resource values are degraded and are at continuing risk without corrective action b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No 6. Condition of Natural values in the strict reserve there is no strict reserve in this protected area a. Assessment criteria The important natural values in the strict resereve are not degraded Some of the important natural values in the strict resereve are degraded but are not currently at risk Some of the important natural values in the strict resereve are degraded and are at risk without corrective action The important natural values in the strict resereve are degraded and are at continuing risk without corrective action b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

131 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

7. Invasive species (plants and animals) management Invasive species(plants and animals) is not an issue for this protected area and there is no invasive species management program (justify/comment in assessment table) There is insufficient information to assess the impact of weeds on protected area values (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to invasive Invasive species are having a negligible impact on species management is being implemented protected area values A planned approach to invasive species management is being Invasive species are having a minor impact on protected implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity area values but the values are not currenlty at risk Only reactive invasive species management is Invasive species are having a significant impact on undertaken for this protected area protected area values Little or no invasive species management is Invasive species are having a major impact on undertaken for this protected area protected area values b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue f. Invasive species management information f-2. Management f-3. Effect of f-4. Evidence for assessment of effect of f-1. Invasive species action management management Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list (If there are more than 5 invasive species, please continue to fill in j-1 below

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No j-2. Management j-3. Effect of j-4. Evidence for assessment of effect of j-1. Invasive species action management management Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list Select from list

132 Chapter 7: Appendices

8. Threatened taxa (species, populations and communities) Threatened taxa are not present in this protected area (or there is only a very minor part of their range in the protected area) AND there is no threatened taxa management program (justify/comment in assessment table) There is insufficient information to assess the impact of management on threatened taxa (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to management All threatened species in protected area are secure specifically targeting threatened taxa is being implemented. A planned approach to management is being implemented specifically Most threatened species are secure targeting threatened taxa, but action is constrained in scope or capacity Only reactive management is undertaken for this Some threatened species are secure protected area specifically targeting threatened taxa. Little or no management is undertaken for this All threatened species in protected area remain at protected area specifically targeting threatened taxa. risk b. Justification/Comment

Trend in condition Select from list

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

9. Fire management Fire is not an issue in this protected area AND there is no fire management program (justify/comment in assessment table) There is insufficient information to assess the impact of fire on natural resources (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria Fire is always effectively controlled (no fire or even when there is fire, it s put out quickly) Fire is mostly effectively controlled(almost no fire or even when there is fire, most fire is put out quickly)

Fire is sometimes not effectively controlled(fires is often an issue and not put out quickly)

Fire is frequently not effectively controlled(fire is prevalent and not put out quickly) b. Justification/Comment

133 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue f. Number of fires occuring in last 10 years

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 total Mean f-2. Area of PA burnt 10 years(ha)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 total Mean

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

10. Janitorial service (cleaning) Any service related to PA cleaning is not present in this protected area a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to janitorial Janitorial service always maintains high standards service is being implemented of cleanliness (litter, facilities) A planned approach to janitorial service is being Janitorial service mostly maintains high standards of implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity cleanliness (litter, facilities) even during periods of high use Only reactive janitorial service is undertaken for Janitorial service sometimes maintains high standards of this protected area cleanliness (litter, facilities) except during periods of high use Little or no janitorial service is undertaken on this Janitorial service frequently fails to maintain high protected area standards of cleanliness (litter, facilities) b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

134 Chapter 7: Appendices

11. Cultural & historic resource information No sites have been recorded on the protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria Information on cultural and historic resources is sufficient to support planning and decision making. Information on some cultural and historic resources is sufficient for key areas of planning and decision making but there are important gaps in information Information on cultural and historic resourcesis not sufficient in most cases to support planning and decision making. There is little or no information available on cultural and historic resources in this protected area b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No 12. Condition of cultural & historic resource values Cultural and historic resource values were not identified in Part B as being among the most important for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table). Insufficient information is available to assess the condition of the cultural and historic resource values identified in Part B (justify/comment in assessment table). a. Assessment criteria The important cultural and historic resource values are not degraded Some of the important cultural and historic resource values are degraded but are not currently at risk Some of the most important cultural and historic resource values are degraded and are at risk without corrective action The most important cultural historic resource values are degraded and are at continuing risk without corrective action b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

135 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

13. Cultural & Historic resource management Cultural and historic resource management is not an issue for this protected area(justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to management for cultural and historic values is being implemented A planned approach to management for cultural and historic values is being implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity Only reactive management for cultural and historic values is undertaken for this protected area

There is little or no management of cultural and historic values undertaken b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

14. Information about visitors The protected area has minimal visitation (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria There is an on-going program of collecting information about PA visitors to support protected area planning and decision making on managing visitor use in accordance with the protected area s management intent and to meet the legitimate needs of visitors. Sufficient information about visitors is available to support protected area planning and decision making for managing visitor use in accordance with the protected area s management intent and to meet the legitimate needs of most visitors. Some information (e.g. numbers) about visitors exists, but it is not sufficient in most cases to support protected area planning and decision making for managing visitor use in accordance with the protected area s management intent and to meet the legitimate needs of park visitors. There is little or no information about park visitors available to use in protected area planning and decision making. b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

136 Chapter 7: Appendices

15. Visitor management There is no visitor management program (justify/comment in assessment table) There is insufficient information to assess visitor satisfaction (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to visitor management is being implemented A planned approach to visitor management is being implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity Only reactive visitor management is undertaken for this protected area

Little or no visitor management is undertaken for this protected area b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

16. Visitor Safety Visitor safety is not an issue for this protected area(justify/comment in assessment table) There is insufficient information to assess visitor safety((justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to visitor safety management is being implemented A planned approach to visitor safety management is being implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity Only reactive visitor safety management is undertaken for this protected area

Little or no visitor safety management is undertaken for this protected area b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

137 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

17. Visitor impact management Visitor impacts are not a threat to values in this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) There is insufficient information to assess the visitor impacts on protected area values (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to visitor Visitor activities are having a negligible impact on impact management is being implemented protected area values A planned approach to visitor impact management is being Visitor activities are having a minor impact on implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity protected area values Only reactive visitor impact management is Visitor activities are having a significant impact on undertaken for this protected area protected area values Little or no visitor impact management is Visitor activities are having a major impact on undertaken for this protected area protected area values b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No 18. PA identification and visitor orientation No park identification and visitor orientation are provided in this protected area a. Assessment criteria Boundary marking, directional signage and basic park information fully meets protected area management and legitimate visitor needs. Boundary marking, directional signage and basic park information substantially meets protected area management and legitimate visitor needs. Boundary marking, directional signage and basic park information partially meets protected area management and legitimate visitor needs. Boundary marking, directional signage and basic park information does not meet protected area management and legitimate visitor needs. b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

138 Chapter 7: Appendices

19. Awareness / interpretation/ education program There are no awareness, interpretation or education program for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) There is insufficient information to assess awareness, interpretation or education program for this protected area a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to awareness, interpretation or The current needs of protected area management education information, facilities and activities is being implemented and legitimate visitor expectations are being met A planned approach to awareness, interpretation or education information, facilities The current needs of protected area management and and activities is being implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity legitimate visitor expectations are being substantially met Only reactive awareness, interpretation or education The current needs of protected area management and/or information, facilities and activities are provided legitimate visitor expectations are being met in part only There are no awareness, interpretation or education information, The current needs of protected area management facilities and activities relating to the protected area or legitimate visitor expectations are not being met b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No 20. Local community and residents information There are no local community and residents for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria There is an on-going program of collecting information about local communities and residents to support protected area planning and decision making in accordance with the protected area s management intent and to meet the legitimate needs of commuities and residents. Sufficient information about local communities and residents is available to support protected area planning and decision making in accordance with the protected area s management intent and to meet the legitimate needs of commuities and residents. Some information about local communities and residents s exists, but it is not sufficient in most cases to support protected area planning and decision making in accordance with the protected area s management intent and to meet the legitimate needs of local communities and residents. There is little or no information about local communities and residents available to use in protected area planning and decision making. b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

139 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

21. Community engagement Community engagement is not an issue for this protected area(justify/comment in assessment table) There is insufficient information to assess community engagement((justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to community The community is broadly supportive of the engagement is being implemented protected area and its management A planned approach to community engagement is being Most of the community is supportive of the implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity protected area and its management Only reactive management of community Some sections of the community are supportive of the engagement is undertaken protected area and its management but some are not There is little or no management of community Few sections of the community are supportive of engagement the protected area and its maangement b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No 22. Privately-owned land management No privetely-owned land exiists or there are no privately-owned land issues for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) There is insufficient information to assess privately-owned land management ((justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to management of Private land management activities are having a major private land in the protected area is being implemented impact on protected area values(values secure) A planned approach to management of private land in the protected Private land management activities are having a area is being implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity significant impact on protected area values Only reactive management of private land in the Private land management activities are having a protected area is undertaken minor impact on protected area values There is little or no management of private land in Private land management activities are having a negligible the protected area is undertaken impact on protected area values(values deteriorating) b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

140 Chapter 7: Appendices

23. Community consultation and input into decision making There is insufficient public interest to merit community consultation (justify/comment in assessment table). a. Assessment criteria There is an established, process of community consultation and input into decision making that covers all major aspects of protected area management of interest to the communities involved. Community consultation and input into decision making occurs at the initiation of PA managers. Community consultation is limited to responding to specific issues that have generated public concern. Apart from any statutory management planning, there has been no community consultation about management of the protected area. b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

24. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities on this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table). a. Assessment criteria Visitor facilities are appropriate to the protected area category and adequate for current levels and types of visitation. Visitor facilities are appropriate to the protected area category but are inappropriate for current levels and types of visitation.

Existing facilities are inappropriate for the protected area category.

There are no visitor facilities despite an identified need b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

141 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

25. Built infrastructure and asset maintenance There are insufficient built infrastructure or assets on this protected area to warrant an asset management plan (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria Most built infrastructure and assets are maintained in accordance with a planned program. Most built infrastructure and assets are maintained in accordance with a planned program but there are some inadequacies in servicing, routine and preventive maintenance or in responding to the need for repairs. While there is no planned program, routine maintenance occurs for most built infrastructure and assets

There is only reactive maintenance of most built infrastructure and assets. b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No 26. Law enforcement Law enforcement is not an issue for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to law Illegal activities are having a negligible impact on enforcement is being implemented protected area values A planned approach to law enforcement is being Illegal activities are having a minor impact on implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity protected area values Illegal activities are having a significant impact on Only reactive law enforcement is undertaken protected area values Little or no enforcement is occurring for this Illegal activities are having a major impact on protected area protected area values b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

142 Chapter 7: Appendices

27. Condition of recreation values Recreation values were not identified in Part B as being among the most important for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table). Insufficient information is available to assess the condition of the recreation values identified in Part B (justify/comment in assessment table). a. Assessment criteria Important recreation values are not degraded

Some of the important recreation values are degraded but are not currently at risk

Some of the important recreation values are degraded and are at risk without corrective action

Important recreation values are degraded and are at continuing risk without corrective action b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

28. Condition of economic, education/research or other values Economic, education/research or other values were not identified in Part B as being among the most important for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table). Insufficient information is available to assess the condition of the economic, education/research or other values identified in Part B(justify/comment in assessment table). a. Assessment criteria The most important values are not degraded

Some of the most important values are degraded but are not currently at risk

Some of the most important values are degraded and are at risk without corrective action

The most important values are degraded and are at continuing risk without corrective action b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

143 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

29. Monitoring and evaluation a. Assessment criteria A planned and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation strateg is being implemented. A planned monitoring and evaluation strategy is being implemented focusing on the most important aspects of park management but there are significant gaps in the program. There is monitoring of some aspects of park management but this is insufficient to meet the most important management needs for this protected area. Apart from this assessment, there is no monitoring or evaluation of park management undertaken for this protected area. b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

30. Park management issue: (insert issue here) There are no other important park management issues for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria a-1. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to This issue is having a negligible impact on management for this issue is being implemented protected area values A planned approach to management for this issue is being This issue is having a minor impact on protected implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity area values Only reactive management is undertaken for this This issue is having a significant impact on issue protected area values There is little or no management this issue is This issue is having a major impact on protected undertaken area values b. Justification/Comment c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

144 Chapter 7: Appendices

31. Park management issue: (insert issue here) There are no other important park management issues for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria a. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to This issue is having a negligible impact on management for this issue is being implemented protected area values A planned approach to management for this issue This issue is having a minor impact on protected is being implemented but action is constrained in area values Only reactive management is undertaken for this This issue is having a significant impact on issue protected area values There is little or no management this issue is This issue is having a major impact on protected undertaken area values b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

32. Park management issue: (insert issue here) There are no other important park management issues for this protected area (justify/comment in assessment table) a. Assessment criteria A comprehensive, planned approach to This issue is having a negligible impact on management for this issue is being implemented protected area values A planned approach to management for this issue is being This issue is having a minor impact on protected implemented but action is constrained in scope or capacity area values Only reactive management is undertaken for this This issue is having a significant impact on issue protected area values There is little or no management this issue is This issue is having a major impact on protected undertaken area values b. Justification/Comment

c. Sources of information used d. Details of sources (e.g. years of experience, details of published in assessment sources) Staff experience Research Planning documents Specialist opinion Community opinion Corporate database Monitoring etc. e. Proposed actions to address this issue

Coordinator Review Justification/Comment: Assessment changed: Yes No

145 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

Appendix 3: List of interviewees

1. Korean Field Mission Members > Won Woo Shin; Project Manager, MEE Team / Executive Director of Park Conservation, KNPS > Hyeok Jin Cheong; Adviser, MEE Team / Professor, Chungju National University > Yongseok Shin; Internal Review Team / Superintendent, Seoraksan N. P., KNPS > Hagyoung Heo; MEE Team / Manager, Partnership Team, KNPS > Soyoung Park; MEE Team / KNPS > Dowoong Kim; MEE Team / KNPS > Sungwoo Yang; MEE Team / KNPS

2. People Met and Interviewed during Field Mission Bukhansan National Park; 26th October > Sangheum Baek; Superintendent, Bukhansan N. P. (Dobong branch), KNPS > Wangeop Ju; Manager, Resource Conservation Team, Bukhansan N. P., KNPS > Jinbeom Lee; Manager, Visitor Service & Facility Management. Team, Bukhansan N. P., KNPS > Geumik Jang; Manager, Administration Team, Bukhansan N. P. (Dobong branch), KNPS > Kyeongsim Kim; Senior Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Bukhansan N. P., KNPS > Ho Lee; Staff, Administration Team, Bukhansan N. P. (Dobong branch), KNPS > Jihyun Gang; Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Bukhansan N. P., KNPS > Yurim Oh; Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Bukhansan N. P., KNPS > Eungyeong Im; Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Bukhansan N. P., KNPS > Chanheon Kim; Chief Priest, Naewonsa (temple), Jogye Order of > Youngsen Lee; Staff, Korean Ecoclub (Environmental NGO)

Taean Haean(coast) National Park & Du-ung Wetland protected Area; 27th October > Gihwan Park; Superintendent, Taean Coastal N. P., KNPS > Jongsu Ha; Manager, Resource Conservation Team, Taean Coastal N. P., KNPS > Hansoo Kim; Senior Staff, Taean Coastal N. P., KNPS > Yongchul Ahn; Manager, Anmyeondo Ranger Station, Taean Coastal N. P., KNPS > Dongjun Kim; Staff, Visitor Service & Facility Mngt. Team, Taean Coastal N. P., KNPS > Hyeongsu No; Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Taean Coastal N. P., KNPS > Namhee Im; Staff, Administration Team, Taean Coastal N. P., KNPS > Saehan Ryu; Researcher, Econix Plant Sociology Research Institute > Hyosang Im; Chairman, Local Agenda 21 for Taean (NGO) > Jonggwon Kim; Local Resident, Gulhyeolpo Area > Wijong Choi; Local Resident, Sambong Area

Jirisan National Park & Sumjingang, Habitat of Otter; 28th October > Yonggyu Park; Superintendent, Jirisan N. P. (Southern Branch), KNPS > Gisik Yang; Superintendent, Jirisan N. P. (Northern Branch), KNPS > Ingyo Seo; Manager, Resource Conservation Team, Jirisan N. P., KNPS > Byeongchae Kim; Manager, Resource Conservation Team, Jirisan N. P. (Southern Branch), KNPS > Dongjun Ha; Manager, Resource Conservation Team, Jirisan N. P. (Northern Branch), KNPS

146 Chapter 7: Appendices

> Hyeongyo Kim; Senior Staff, Visitor Service & Facility Management Team, Jirisan N. P., KNPS > Changwoo Yoo; Senior Staff, Yupyeong Ranger Station, Jirisan N. P., KNPS > Muntaek Gong; Senior Staff, Administration Team, Jirisan N. P. (Northern Branch), KNPS > Yeoktae Gwon; Senior Staff, Visitor Service & Facility Management Team, Jirisan N. P. (Northern Branch), KNPS > Eunhee Park, Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Jirisan N. P., KNPS > Yanggyu Park; Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Jirisan N. P. (Southern Branch), KNPS > Gwanok Lee; Staff, Administration Team, Jirisan N. P. (Southern Branch), KNPS > Daeseong Choi; Staff, Visitor Service & Facility Management Team, Jirisan N. P. (Southern Branch), KNPS > Doyun Hwang; Staff, Visitor Service & Facility Management Team, Jirisan N. P. (Southern Branch), KNPS > Jihun Lee; Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Jirisan N. P. (Northern Branch), KNPS > Janggeun Oh; Chief Manger & Senior Researcher, National Park Research Institute, KNPS > Byeongsu Choi; Senior Researcher, National Park Research Institute, KNPS > Jaeyoung Song; Researcher, National Park Research Institute, KNPS > Youngsoo Gwon; Researcher, National Park Research Institute, KNPS > Dongju Song; Chief Manager, Species Restoration Center, KNPS > Baegeun Lee; Manager, Restoration Team, Species Restoration Center, KNPS

> Duseong Woo; Director, Gurye Culture Center > Taegyu Lee; Ecoguide, Yeongsan River Basin Environmental Office, MoE

Gyeongju National Park & Upo Neup; 29th October > Hyeokgyun Gwon; Superintendent, Gyeongju N. P., KNPS > Duhan Kim; Manager, Resource Conservation Team, Gyeongju N. P., KNPS > Nojun Park; Manager, Visitor Service & Facility Management Team, Gyeongju N. P., KNPS > Youngcheol Hong; Manager, Administration Team, Gyeongju N. P., KNPS > Youngseok Kim; Manager, District Ranger Station, Gyeongju N. P., KNPS > Changgil Kim; Senior Staff, Visitor Service & Facility Management Team, Gyeongju N. P., KNPS > Jaeseok Yang; Staff, Administration Team, Gyeongju N. P., KNPS > Younggak Seo, Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Gyeongju N. P., KNPS > Cheolun Jeong, Staff, Resource Conservation Team, Gyeongju N. P., KNPS > Jaeyoung Choi; Professor, Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Gyeongju University > Chandong Park; Manager, Cultural Heritage Dept., City of Gyeongju > Jongwan Bang; Manager, Forestry Affairs Dept., City of Gyeongju > Byeongchun Seong; Ecoguide, Basin Environmental Office, MoE

Hallasan National Park & Mulyoungari-oreum; 30th October > Changdon Kim; Director, Hallasan N. P., World Natural Heritage Headquarter, JSSG > Changho Lee; Manager, Natural Conservation Team, Hallsan N. P., World Natural Heritage Headquarter, JSSG > Jaeyun Bu; Staff, Hallasan N. P., World Natural Heritage Headquarter, JSSG > Chunsuk Yang; Staff, Hallasan N. P., World Natural Heritage Headquarter, JSSG > Jeonggu Han; Staff, Hallasan N. P., World Natural Heritage Headquarter, JSSG > Siwan Kim; Staff, Environmental Policy Dept., JSSG > Jeonggun Go; Researcher, Halla Ecosystem Research Dept., JSSG

147 Korea’s Protected Areas Evaluating the effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system

> Chulsu Kim; Researcher, Halla Ecosystem Research Dept., JSSG > Janggeun Oh; Researcher, Halla Ecosystem Research Dept., JSSG > Changheup Lee; Researcher, Halla Ecosystem Research Dept., JSSG > Wonhak Hyeon; Staff, Korean Federation for Environmental Movement of Jeju (NGO)

Ministry of Environment & National Park Headquarter; 31st October > Woong Park; Deputy Director, Nature Policy Division, MoE > Mihyeon Gu; Senior Staff, Nature Policy Division, MoE > Deukhwan Jin; Senior Staff, Nature Policy Division, MoE > Yonggyu Choi; Team leader, Nature Environment Division, Nakdong River Basin Environmental Office, MoE > Yoomin Ju; Staff, Nature Environment Division, Nakdong River Basin Environmental Office, MoE > Intae Jeong; Staff, Nature Environment Division, Yeongsan River Basin Environmental Office, MoE > Dongchun Lee; Team Leader, Nature Environment Division, Daegu Regional Environmental Office, MoE > Hogyun Lim; Staff, Nature Environment Division, Basin Environment Office, MoE

> Younggi Kim; Executive Director for Visitor Service, KNPS > Seungjin Baek; Executive Director for Planning, KNPS > Jeonggi Kim; Director, Park Management Dept., KNPS > Seokwon Jeong; Manager, Visitor Service Team, KNPS > Seokwon Jeong; Manager, Visitor Service Team, KNPS > Gihyeon Park; Manager, Technical Support Team, KNPS > Siyoung Ahn; Manager, Planning & Coordination Team, KNPS > Youngjun Park; Senior Staff, Visitor Service Team, KNPS > Cheolwoo Ahn; Staff, Park Resource Conservation Team, KNPS > Seongyu Park; Senior Staff, Ecological Restoration Team, KNPS > Sahyeon Lee; Staff, Ecological Restoration Team, KNPS > Changjun Han; Senior Staff, Protection Team, KNPS > Youngjun Park; Senior Staff, Visitor Service Team, KNPS > Cheoljin Lim; Senior Staff, Technical Support Team, KNPS > Giseok Lee; Senior Staff, Financial Management team, KNPS > Hansu Kim; Senior Staff, Human Resources Development Team, KNPS > Gyeonggeun Park; Senior Staff, Management Innovation Dept., KNPS

External Specialists 1st November > Tong Mahn Ahn; Professor, Dept. of Landscape Architecture; Seoul National University > Yongha Park; Senior Researcher, Korea Environment Institute

148