WCMC Biodiversity Series No.10 | A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff < ~ a Oe an & G "S09 on reo WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge http://www.archive.org/details/globalreviewofpr99jame WCMC Biodiversity Series No.10 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff Alexander N. James University of Cambridge Michael J.B. Green and James R. Paine World Conservation Monitoring Centre = >) SCOR es © 9 x a OS é Y, © WORLD CONSERVATION M495, eo MONITORING CENTRE ON ON WCMC - World Conservation Press 195 The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, based in Cambridge, UK, is a joint venture between three partners in the World Conservation Strategy and its successor Caring for the Earth: IUCN — The World Conservation Union, UNEP — United Nations Environment Programme, and WWF — World Wide Fund for Nature. The Centre provides information services on the conservation and sustainable use of species and ecosystems and supports others in the development of their own information systems. The mission of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) is ‘to promote the establishment and effective management of a worldwide, representative network of terrestrial and marine protected areas as an integral contribution to the IUCN mission.’ In performing this mission, WCPA strives to establish itself as: ‘The world's recognised source of guidance, support and expertise on protected areas.’ WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE Published by: ISBN: Copyright: Citation: Cover design by: Printed by: Available from: WCMC - World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK. 1 899628 13 4 © 1999. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non- commercial purposes is authorised without prior permission from the copyright holders, provided the source is acknowledged. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purpose is prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright holders. The views expressed in this book do not necessarily reflect those of WCMC or its collaborators. The designations of geographical entities in this publication and the presentation of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WCMC, IUCN, or other participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. James, A.N., Green, M.J.B. and Paine, J.R. 1999. A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staffing. WCMC — World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK. vi + 46pp. Michael Edwards Victoire Press World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL, UK Tel: +44 1223 277314; Fax: +44 1223 277136 Email: wcemc @wemc.org.uk Web: http://www.wcmc.org.uk/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WCMC would like to thank the following protected area professionals for their valuable contribution to this study: Kadik Bashir Ann Marie Martin Peter Bridgewater F. Galle M. A. Sattar Penelope Hynam Roach Roland de Schaetzen John Barnes Lucia Lima Haji Mohd Yassin bin Anwar Salleh Bikwemu Gaspard Zakaria Hoski Pedro J. Araya German Corzo L. Peonides Jiri Flousek Nouza Jan Starka Ludoz David Williams Tegest Dachew Birandra Singh Marja Hokkanen Laurent Borde David G. Kpelle Panagitios Drougas Victor Archaga C. W. Lai C. Lachungpa Shlomo Dolberg Juliette Nelson Dadson Mugwe Bouaphanh Phanthavong Valts Vilnttis J.-M. Sinner J. N. B. Mphande Francis Liew Bourama Niagate Joseph Borg A. W. Owadally C. Javier de la Maza Evira U Than Nwai Shyam Bajimaya Algeria Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Bermuda Brazil Brunei Burundi Chad Chile Colombia Cyprus Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Dominica Ethiopia Fiji Finland French Polynesia Ghana Greece Honduras Hong Kong India-Sikkim Israel Jamaica Kenya Laos Latvia Luxembourg Malawi Malaysia Mali Malta Mauritius Mexico Myanmar Nepal Johan Thissen Marcel Boulet Netherlands New Caledonia Wren Green New Zealand Salaou Barmoli Niger Lawan B. Marguba Nigeria Fin Kateras Norway Yousaf Qureshi Mohammad Pakistan-Ajk Mhammad Mumtaz Malik Pakistan- NWFP Erasmo Vallester Panama Gaikovina R. Kula Joaquim Marques Papua New Guinea Portugal John Collie Seychelles Kalie Bangura Sierra Leone Jan Zuskin Slovak Republic Peter Fearnhead South Africa C. P. Attanayake Sri Lanka Giles Romulus St. Lucia Marta Misterewicz Sweden Ching-Fen Hsiao Taiwan Asukile R. Kajuni Tanzania Prawat Thanadka Thailand Preecha Chansiritanon Thailand Abdou Karim Moumouni Togo Nadra Nathai-Gyan Trinidad & Tobago Ahmed Rida el Fekih Salem Tunisia Sami Yasar Olcer Turkey Judith L. Garland Turks and Caicos Islands Wendy Thompson UK-England Mike Bingham UK-Falkland Islands Michael Meharg UK-Northern Ireland A. B. Hill UK-St. Helena I. R. Bonner UK-Wales Cecil Machena Zimbabwe Financial support for the project was provided by the Commission of the European Union (DGVIII) as part of a wider project on financial investment in biodiversity conservation. In addition, the authors would like to thank Esther Byford, Victoria Freeman and Susan White for their assistance in the preparation of this report. CONTENTS NCKNOWIER SEMEN 1S: .. Wie Do eC es : — oe ay ve abit ene ae yl A iiast = he és » i i es aA cal! % ae Sai | crn tw « er »> rs L a ah Su oh | 7 ” seething a ~ a free oe 7 ‘ ie: sy : ‘i i a 1 INTRODUCTION Covering 13.2 million square kilometres, or more than 8.8% of the earth’s land area, protected areas are at the core of global efforts to conserve biological diversity (Green and Paine, 1997). The effective management of these areas, however, depends greatly upon the adequacy of resources available to government agencies and other bodies charged with their management and protection. These agencies require resources for annual operating budgets, capital investment, staff training, community development, and public awareness among a wide range of other activities. Moreover, the control of unsustainable practices, such as wildlife poaching and the encroachment of agriculture and mining into protected areas places an additional burden on many management agencies. The global level of protected area expenditure is not well documented, though often argued to be inadequate (McNeeley et al., 1990; IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1991). While the geographical areas under protection are well defined (e.g. IUCN, 1994a, 1998), management intensity has not received regular assessment. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in many countries protected areas are often left unmanaged, a direct result of inadequate budgets and staffing by government agencies (e.g. WCMC, 1992a; IUCN, 1994b). However, a lack of information on agency budgets has hindered a systematic assessment of the adequacy of funding for the world’s protected area system and setting of priorities for foreign assistance. Government expenditure on protected areas, or biodiversity conservation more generally, is not reported in international financial statistics (IMF, 1988; 1998). Nor does such information appear in other major compendia of environmental data, such as OECD (1991), World Bank (1992), WRI (1994), WCMC (1992a, 1992b,1994a). Governments rarely have convenient access to budgetary data for most aspects of environmental protection expenditure, including biodiversity conservation. This reflects the relatively recent emergence of biological diversity on the political agenda, with statistical reporting systems lagging well behind the rising interest in the subject. This study aims to address the gap in information on protected area resources by: e Presenting data on protected area budget and staffing levels for a global cross-section of countries, drawing on WCMC surveys and other information. e Estimating the shortfalls in protected area budgets and the cost of adequately conserving protected areas in different regions. e Examining the factors that influence protected area budgets and staffing levels, such as country income, population density, protected area size, and biodiversity richness. e Identifying countries for priority assistance. The study comprises seven sections. The next section reviews previous studies of protected area expenditures. The data collection and presentation methods of this study are outlined in Section 3. In Section 4, the budget, staffing, and shortfall data are presented, which provide the basis for estimates of the cost of adequate protected area conservation in the developing countries. Priority countries for foreign assistance are identified in Section 5. Section 6 examines the impact of income, population pressure and other variables on protected area budgets and staffing. The final section summarises the principle findings and highlights the vital need for further research and establishing standard reporting procedures within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF PROTECTED AREA BUDGETS Previous publications of protected area financial data include global reviews of protected areas and biodiversity conservation by WCMC and IUCN (WCMC,1992a, b; IUCN 1994b). The financial data in these reviews cover a large number of countries and were derived from a variety of published and unpublished sources. These data are not suitable for statistical analysis or international comparisons because they cover a wide spread of years and many different types of conservation activity. Despite their limitations, these early studies indicate that annual expenditure on protected areas in many developing countries is extremely low, amounting to only a few tens of thousands of dollars in some countries. They confirm the general impression that protected areas in tropical regions are under-funded, though shortfalls were not estimated with any degree of accuracy. In addition, a number of studies on African protected area budgets have appeared in response to concerns about elephant and rhino poaching (Cumming et al., 1990; Barbier et al., 1990; AECCG, 1991; Leader-Williams, 1993). Cumming et al. (1984) estimated mean annual expenditure in African protected areas to be US $52 per km?. Martin (1993) reported that only two of fourteen African countries spent over US $100 per km?, with five countries nearer US $10 per km? per year. Dublin et al. (1994) found that less than US $5 per km? was spent annually on law enforcement activities in three quarters of the African countries sampled in 1993. In comparison to the low conservation budgets throughout the region, effective conservation in African protected areas has been estimated at between US$200 (Bell and Clark, 1984) and US$230 per km? (Leader-Williams and Albon, 1988). Foreign assistance for biodiversity conservation in developing countries has been another focus of research, though little of it has addressed protected areas directly. Abramovitz (1991,1994) assessed US investments in biological diversity conservation and research in developing countries. Lake (1996) examined the OECD database of development assistance flows and found that total bilateral aid for biological diversity peaked in 1992 and has since declined. UNEP (1996) concurred with that finding and proposed several new initiatives to increase the flow of aid for biological diversity conservation in developing countries. In addition, there is much unpublished “grey literature” that pertains to national and regional expenditures on protected areas. This literature includes reports on protected areas and the environment from foreign aid agencies and development banks, the annual reports of national conservation agencies, conference papers, auditor and management consultant reports. Some of this literature is held at WCMC and has contributed to this report, but in general this information is highly dispersed and unsuitable for international comparative studies. 3. STUDY METHODS AND DATA PRESENTATION This study presents three new sets of data: e National protected area budgets. e National protected area staffing levels. e Financial shortfalls in national protected area budgets. The data were obtained from two global surveys of protected area agencies undertaken by WCMC in 1993 and 1995. In the two surveys, 812 questionnaires(Appendices 3 & 4) were mailed to 619 protected area agencies. The response rate was 30% (244 questionnaires returned). These survey data were supplemented and cross-referenced with published and unpublished information also held at WCMC. These secondary sources provided some extra financial data and information on agency structures and responsibilities. The study is based on budgetary data from 123 conservation agencies in 108 countries. These agencies manage 3.7 million km? or 28% of the global protected area system. The staffing data set is somewhat smaller: 92 protected area agencies in 78 countries, covering 3.0 million km? or 23% of the global protected area system. Some of the major omissions from both data sets include: China, Japan, India, Indonesia, and the former Soviet Union. Protected area budgets are presented on the basis of 1996 US dollars per square kilometre. The budgets pertain to the annual expenditures of each country’s national protected area agencies, the full names of which appear in Appendix 1. The budgets include both operating and capital expenditures, and where possible the capital expenditures are identified separately. Foreign assistance, including that of non-governmental agencies, is also included in the budgets, and noted where possible. Agency expenditures not directly related to protected area management were identified in the survey questionnaires and removed from the reported budgets. Resources contributed by other agencies were also identified in the survey and included in the budgets, though this accounted for very little reported expenditure. In countries where protected area administration is divided between agencies, the analysis is based on the sum of the agencies’ budgets. For further details, each agency’s budget is identified separately in Appendix 1. The protected area staff data are presented on the basis of number of staff per 1000 square kilometres protected. Where possible, field staff, administrative staff, and other staff are identified separately. In many cases, however, data allow the presentation of only an aggregate staffing level. Again, in countries where more than one agency administers protected areas, a mean is presented in the text and full details are available in Appendix 2. Shortfalls in protected area budgets were obtained in response to two survey questions (Appendix 3, questions 6a and b). One question asked for an assessment of the extra funding needed for the agency to meet its stated conservation objectives. The other asked for an assessment of the extent to which their current budget met their agency needs: “not at all”, “only partially”, “about half’, “mostly”, or “fully”. Answers to these questions provided a basis for an estimate of the financial shortfall in each agency. It should be stressed that these shortfall estimates do not represent “official” agency policy, but are WCMC estimates based on the opinions of survey respondents. Marine protected areas are not included in the study. 4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION 4.1 PROTECTED AREA BUDGETS Table 1 presents the budget data by country, including the total agency budget for the given year and, if available, capital investment and foreign assistance. In the table a zero indicates that the protected area agency reported that the amount was zero, whereas a blank indicates that no information was given by the agency. The total area column in the table refers to the protected areas for which data were available, rather than the entire protected area estate of the country. The study identified $3.2 billion in agency budgets with a global mean protected area expenditure of US $893 per km?. However, the range in budgets is extreme, with many countries reporting very low expenditures. Budgets range from less than $1 per km? (Angola, Cambodia, Laos) to over $1,000,000 per km? (St. Lucia). Budgets in 32 countries were below $100 per km2, and below $10 per km? in 13 countries. Moreover, the wide range in budgets is evident in nearly every geographic region (Table 1). For example, in the Caribbean budgets range from $73 (Dominican Republic) to over $1 million per km? (St. Lucia) and in Europe from $199 (Slovak Republic) to $134,507 per km? (Malta). Twenty six out of 70 developing countries, plus one developed country, receive foreign assistance for their protected area systems. Reported foreign assistance totalled $66.6 million. However, incomplete reporting means these figures significantly underestimate total foreign assistance to protected areas. The largest aid recipients in the study are Brazil ($21.6 million), Portugal ($20.8 million in EU funds), and Panama ($6.4 million). The next tier of aid recipients received between $1.0 and $2.6 million and included: Kenya, Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, Honduras, and Czech Republic. In most cases, foreign funds were directed towards capital investment projects. The reporting of capital investment is also very patchy. Only 37 countries reported capital investment, which totalled $188.9 million. Another 13 countries reported zero capital investment for the year. No data was available for the remaining 57 countries. Some of the countries reporting large capital investments in protected areas include: Taiwan ($39.5 million), Portugal ($37.4 million), Sweden ($26.1 million), Thailand ($14.3 million), Norway ($13.4 million), Colombia ($6.5 million), Zimbabwe ($6.3 million), and South Africa ($3.3 million). Perhaps the clearest finding of the study is the concentration of global protected area expenditures in the developed countries. The developed country regions are North America, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, and East Asia (which includes only Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea). Mean expenditure in the developed countries is $2,058 per km?, compared to only $157 per km? in the developing countries. The developed countries account for 90% of sampled protected area expenditure, but only 41% of the total area protected. The developing countries account for a mere 10% of expenditure but have nearly 60% of the area under protection. 4 Results & Discussion Table 1: Protected area budgets and shortfalls in 1996 US$ per km? (budget includes capital investment and foreign assistance) Region (WCPA) & Count Protected Area (km?) Budget Capital Foreign Shortfall Investment Assistance North America Canada* 1991 295,345 1,104 United States* 1993 693,765 2,560 Mexico 1994 107,061 52 3 14 234 Central America Guatemala 1994 8,644 13 Honduras 1995 21,450 108 2 96 288 Panama 1995 15,566 1,484 119 412 198 Caribbean Antigua & Barbuda 1996 24 9,259 0 0 7,716 Bahamas 1992 1,253 323 Barbados 1993 0.2 434,311 Bermuda 1996 111 86,568 4,071 0) 3,604 Dominica 1995 166 6,500 2,513 2,643 2,167 Dominican Republic 1993 10,086 73 Jamaica 1997 788 794 0 302 12,406 Montserrat 1993 8 5,472 Netherlands Antilles* 1996 36 7,817 941 7,109 St. Lucia 1996 0.3 1,279,391 163,007 221,779 554,447 St. Kitts & Nevis 1991 26 4,433 Trinidad & Tobago 1994 269 439 46 1,316 Turks and Caicos 1997 534 214 0 0 South America Brazil 1995 179,098 224 121 176 Colombia 1995 90,988 130 71 14 43 Chile 1994 139,797 30 9 0 10 Peru 1996 164,974 8 North Africa & Middle East Algeria 2,350 1,226 0 0 1,226 Afghanistan 1,834 31 Bahrain 6,800 201 0 0 201 Cyprus 115 3,698 0 0 3,536 Israel 3,929 550 Morocco 4,783 138 Qatar 139 1,502 Saudi Arabia 323,996 32 Tunisia 408 1,154 0 1,154 Turkey 24,935 358 69 0 787 Yemen 3,625 27 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff Region (WCPA) Year Protected & Count Area (km?) Africa (Eastern/Southern) Botswana 1992 100,250 Ethiopia 1993 32,403 Kenya 1996 32,726 Malawi 1994 10,585 Namibia 1994 112,159 Seychelles 1995 40 South Africa 1996 34,244 Tanzania 1994 41,131 Zimbabwe 1997 30,158 Africa (Western/Central) Angola 1991 81,812 Burkina Faso 1994 31,937 Burundi 1994 1,135 Cameroon 1993 25,948 Central African Republic | 1991 46,949 Chad 1995 124,884 Congo, Dem. Rep. 1992 100,262 Cote d'Ivoire 1991 19,929 Gabon 1993 18,170 Gambia 1991 Sy) Ghana 1993 12,681 Madagascar 1996 13,903 Mali 1998 5,111 Mauritius 1995 75 Niger 1995 84,163 Nigeria 1993 34,218 Senegal 1993 10,127 Sierra Leone 1996 1,744 Togo 1996 6,487 East Asia Hong Kong 1996 417 South Korea 1993 7,568 Taiwan 1996 3,222 South-East Asia Brunei 1995 1,036 Cambodia 1995 32,672 Laos 1994 24,400 Malaysia 1994 2,658 Myanmar 1995 3,622 Thailand* 1995 68,056 South Asia Bangladesh 1995 949 Bhutan 1994 6,606 India 1994 1,011 Nepal 1994 15,025 Pakistan* 1997 5,881 Sri Lanka 1994 7,864 Budget Capital no 4,544 12,265 3,044 617 9 210 457 83 Foreign Investment Assistance 71 13 12 Shortfall 194 138 7,460 34 1,147 45 22,989 4,897 14,294 55 109 1,744 239 384 4 Results & Discussion Region (WCPA) Year Protected Budget Capital Foreign Shortfall & Count Area (km?) Investment Assistance Australia/New Zealand Australia 1994 21,199 1,335 New Zealand 1996 89,978 961 82 0 Pacific Fiji 1991 9 3,503 French Polynesia 1993 178 18,200 0 New Caledonia 1994 518 51,451 14,543 0 34,472 Papua New Guinea 1993 10,448 229 Vanuatu 1993 33 1,091 Western Samoa 1990 234 231 Europe Austria* 1994 23,136 1,074 Belgium 1993 784 309 Croatia 1992 3,929 464 Czech Republic* 1995 12,806 1,287 60 110 301 Denmark 1990 2,422 21,951 Estonia 1994 4,233 88 Finland 1994 27,782 484 96 99 France* 1993 47,088 2,531 Greece 1995 11,830 897 326 897 Hungary 1993 1,907 3,433 Iceland 1993 3,148 1,259 Latvia 1995 602 3,773 0 0 936 Lithuania 1995 927 722 0 3,332 Luxembourg 1995 660 1,520 980 Macedonia* 1996 1,939 434 Malta 1995 1 134,507 10,268 Netherlands 1996 360 9,755 3,219 Norway 1994 20,677 935 650 935 Poland 1991 29,252 421 Portugal 1995 5,107 12,763 desis) 4,086 4,212 Slovak Republic 1996 1,976 199 Sweden 1995 35,143 1,086 743 952 UK* 1995 *indicates multiple agencies: see Appendix 1 for further details A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff The disparity in budgets is illustrated further in Figure 1, which compares the mean protected area expenditure in geographic regions based on the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas system. The figure shows that the developed country regions (North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand) each have protected area budgets greater than the global mean. Interestingly, the newly industrialised economies of East Asia (Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea) have the highest protected area budgets in the world. Small island states also tend to have high protected area budgets. Both the Pacific and the Caribbean reported budgets above the global average, and were the only developing country regions to do so. The Pacific mean budget is influenced by the high expenditure in New Caledonia, which is assisted by the government of France. Some Caribbean island states with only a few square kilometres under protection have budgets that are among the highest in the world (St. Lucia, Barbados, Bermuda). The remaining developing country regions each have protected area budgets considerably below the global mean. The lowest protected area budgets are found in Africa (Western/Central) (3% of global mean), North Africa and Middle East (8%), South America (11%), Africa (Eastern/Southern) (29%), South Asia (37%), South-East Asia (48%) and Central America (63%). Many factors, such as the lack of government resources, the geographic size of protected areas, and degree of population pressure, are responsible for the relatively low budgets. These factors will be examined further in Section 6. 4.2 © PROTECTED AREA STAFFING The study identified 83,141 protected area staff in all occupations: field staff, administrative personnel, and other. These staff were responsible for the protection of more 3 million km?, or a global average of 27 staff per 1,000 km2. Table 2 presents the protected area staffing data by occupation for each of the 78 countries sampled. The global distribution of staffing is more even than for budgets. Overall, the developing countries have a staffing ratio of 27.6 per 1,000 km/?, slightly greater than that of 26.9 for the developed countries. The developing countries reported 56% of the total staff, compared to 10% of total expenditures. By comparison, the developed countries reported 44% of surveyed staff, but represented 90% of expenditures. Data on staff occupation is available for 57 countries. In these countries, field staff accounted for 48% of total staff. The mean staff input in this subset of countries is 16 field staff per 1000 km and 32 total staff per 1000 km. The staffing ratios vary considerably by country and region, partly attributable to differing definitions of staff occupation by the reporting agencies. The developed country regions tend to have a smaller proportion of staff in the field. The average field staff ratio is 38% in Europe and 25% in Australia (no other developed countries reported field staff). Two developing regions, North Africa and Middle East (30% field staff), South-East Asia (19%) also had lower than average proportions of field staff. In both of these cases, a high proportion of staff were reported in the “other” category, which if related to field operations would increase the ratios to 83% and 95%, respectively. Again, more detailed information is needed to accurately assess conservation efforts. Developing country regions reporting high proportions of field staff include Africa(Eastern/Southern) (68%), South Asia (77%), South America (80%), and Africa (Western/Central) (88%). 4 Results & Discussion Table 2: Protected area staffing Region (WCPA) |Year Protected Total Field Admin. Other Total Staff Field Staff & Countr Area (km?) Staff Staff Staff Staff (1000 km?) (1000 km?) North America Canada* 1991 295,345 3,823 13 Mexico 1994 107,061 401 301 100 4 3 United States* 1993 693,765 23,029 33 Central America Honduras 1995 21,450 98 54 25 19 5 3 Panama 1995 15,566 51 43 8 3 3 Caribbean Antigua 1996 24 33 10 6 17 1,375 417 Bahamas 1992 1,253 11 9 Barbados 1998 2.5 DD) 4 3 15 8,800 1,600 Bermuda 1996 111 103 91 12 928 820 Dominica 1995 166 95 85 10 572 512 Jamaica 1997 788 135 49 24 62 171 62 Montserrat 1993 8 6 714 Nether Antilles* 1996 36 9 6 2) 1 250 167 St. Lucia 1996 0.3 26 8 5 3 77,844 53,892 Trinidad &Tobago |1994 269 11 10 1 41 37 Turks & Caicos 1997 534 14 8 4 Dy, 26 15 South America Brazil 1995 179,098 621 3 Chile 1994 139,797 473 353 58 62 3 3 Colombia 1995 90,988 407 347 60 4 4 North Africa & Middle East Israel 1993 3,929 250 64 Qatar 1993 9 25 23 2,778 2,556 Tunisia 1995 408 200 185 15 491 454 Turkey 1995 24,935 1,290 239 241 810 52 10 Africa (Eastern/Southern) Botswana 1992 100,250 581 486 6 5 Ethiopia 1993 32,403 77 2) Kenya 1996 32,726 4,036 3,842 194 123 117 Malawi 1994 10,585 791 320 715 30 Namibia 1994 112,159 562 560 5 5 Seychelles 1995 40 26 24 2) 649 599 South Africa 1996 34,244 4,454 920 572 2,962 130 27 Sudan 1993 187,000 6,577 35 Tanzania 1994 40,300 1,400 1,298 35 32 Zimbabwe 1997 30,158 2,438 1,995 443 81 66 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff Region(WCPA) |Year Protected Total Field Admin. Other Total Staff Field Staff & Countr Area (km?) Staff Staff Staff | Staff (1000 km?) (1000 km?) Africa (Western/Central) Angola 1991 81,812 47 1 Burundi 1994 1,135 259 = 243 9 6 228 214 Cameroon 1993 25,948 109 4 Central African Rep |1991 46,949 415 9 Chad 1995 124,884 165 135 22 8 1 1 Congo, Dem. Rep. |1992 100,262 1,733 1,615 17 16 Gabon 1993 18,170 50 3 Ghana 1993 13,049 680 52 Mali 1998 5,111 69 51 17 1 14 10 Niger 1995 84,163 68 24 15 5 1 Sierra Leone 1995 1,744 45 29 4 12 26 17 Togo 1997 6,487 403 320 75 8 62 49 East Asia Hong Kong 1996 417 1,326 1,140 186 3,180 2,734 South Korea 1993 1,568 256 163 1 Taiwan 1996 3,222 668 215 320 148 207 67 South-East Asia Brunei 1995 1,036 171 147 24 165 142 Malaysia 1994 2,658 291 242 49 109 91 Myanmar 1995 3,622 674 533 75 66 186 147 Thailand* 1996 68,056 13,650 1,884 557 11,209 201 28 South Asia Bangladesh 1995 949 197 207 Bhutan 1994 6,606 51 43 8 8 7 India 1994 1,011 94 69 22 3 93 68 Nepal 1994 15,025 879 = 834 45 59 56 Pakistan* 1997 5,881 540 326 58 156 92 55 Sri Lanka 1994 7,864 670 380 89 201 85 48 Australia/New Zealand Australia 1994 21,199 119 30 18 71 6 1 New Zealand 1996 89,978 1,350 15 Pacific Fiji 1994 8 6 3 2 1 772 386 New Caledonia 1994 518 11 7 1 3 21 14 Pap. New Guinea __|1993 10,448 147 14 10 4 Results & Discussion Region (WCPA) & Countr Field Admin. Other Total Staff Field Staff Staff Staff Staff (1000 km?) (1000 km?) Protected Total Area (km?) Staff Europe Croatia 1992 3,929 250 234 64 60 Czech Republic* {1995 12,806 1,002 548 288 166 78 43 France* 1993 47,088 1,124 24 Greece 1995 11,830 104 34 10 60 9 3 Hungary 1993 1,907 481 255 252 134 Iceland 1993 3,148 177 25 56 8 Latvia 1995 602 88 76 6 6 146 126 Lithuania 1995 927 390 143 97 143 421 154 Luxembourg 1995 660 13 20 Macedonia 1996 856 185 84 216 98 Malta 1995 1.4 16 8 2 3 11,747 5,874 Norway 1995 20,677 60 50 10 3 2, Portugal 1995 5,107 367 1 Slovak Rep 1,976 261 132 UK* 36,928 1,523 204 427 134 41 6 *indicates multiple agencies: see Appendix 2 for details 11 1996 USS per square kilometer staff per 1000 square kilometers 250 7— 200 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff Figure 1: Protected area budgets: regional means in 1996 US$ per km? (not shown: East Asia, $12,308 per km?) ee 2 S xe & yy & & Rs Ss Ss a ye ye Ss & & &< g < cS & S RS S se ro) \F & Ri > a Ss s> S & &% 3 Ra Sy ca > o x Ss & > ©€ S Gj & o i) e cS & SF S s Ra Vy we y Figure 2: Protected area staffing: regional means of total staff per 1000 km? (not shown: East Asia, 432 per 1000 km7) 196 65 o eS Anne Soa * ie e s RS <} © oe > Ss Sf < 2@ &

e mc) e e ee e ae e ais. O08 ase ° ee ee e so e % e = ms e e (e 3 ee ® nN e (ddd ¢) ewooul! eyideo4aq OO000v ooool ooo-t i pao she igep eee ere e iv] e iS e a . ee a © t a % e Zs e 0 e G ee e e ee ac) e ® e ao} ® e. wet uD S Me ee e e *%.0 e e s e e ee = ® e @ = e ee e 3 ) ® nn = e oL ooo! ooool 000001 Ol oot oool oooo} 000001 (zwy sed ddd s) }efpng (zu 1ad ddd s) ;aHpng 19 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff SdiysuOHeyas SUIJJEIS VII PI}d9j}01g sp IANS] xapul Ay siaaipoiq jeuoleN t Se t it 1 if e e e © e e e e ‘ Ce e $ oe Sao ot * e e e e e © 3 ° 8 e .°@ e 6% = 8 e 0) ° e oe e t i ; ee e zy Jed Ajisuap uoljenjdodg ooo00r oool oot ol to" OL 2 it Lolo ° =) Oo Oo oool 5 ooool 000001 OL ool oool zWy 0001 sed yeIS o0oool 000001 (2tuy) Bale payoajoid jejoL OL oor Coc Pl e e e *» “*~ 5 e ee e r e .° . eer ee US e e e wens re e e. 3° e OO 6 Cy e (ddd ¢) awoou eyldeo 10g 0000b ooool 2 OR 6 ee e e oo 8 e e oe e oe ee e °° e e ol or ool 000} 0000! 00000} OL oot oool oo000l 000001 zWy O00L Jed ye\S zWy 0001 18d eIS 20 7 CONCLUSION An initial global survey such as this one inevitably contains a great many limitations and omissions, particularly with respect to the figures in Tables 1 & 2. However, the inherent weaknesses clearly demonstrate the acute need to collect protected area budget and staffing data on a regular and standardised basis. Without such data, comparisons of conservation expenditure between countries, the identification of priority areas for foreign assistance, and the assessment of global financial requirements for biological diversity conservation will continue to be elusive. Better data are needed on both the depth and breadth of the survey coverage. The number of countries and agencies included in the study cover less than 30% of the global protected area estate, and excludes important areas of species richness and endemism such as Indonesia, India, China, and the former Soviet Union. In Australia, data were available from only one of several protected area agencies, covering about 15% of the country’s protected area estate. Another area is the level of detail in the information provided by individual countries. Part of the absence of detail stems from the fairly simple design of the survey questionnaires (Appendix 3). As a result, questions remain regarding the allocation of budgets and staff to various protected area activities. Furthermore, information is weak on the expenditures or staff contributed by other agencies, such as transport and forestry departments, or the military. While the survey asked for such data, little was actually provided. Site-level data on protected area expenditures would also reveal important information. A follow up study might ask agencies to identify protected areas, either individually or by category, that do not receive active management (“paper parks”). While it is widely acknowledged that paper parks are widespread, there is no comprehensive accounting of where these areas are located. Secondly, site level data would allow a more precise econometric analysis of the costs of achieving conservation goals in protected areas. Another area requiring more detailed reporting concerns the tracking of foreign assistance to protected areas, an issue of critical concern for the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. At present there is no mechanism for collecting standardised, annual data on foreign assistance to either protected areas or to biological diversity conservation projects more generally (RSPB, 1996). This study found anecdotal evidence of significant foreign assistance to protected area agencies, though it was spread over an number of different years, and many developing countries were omitted from the sample. As a result of the severe constraints to the data, few, if any, firm conclusions can be drawn as to the funding and staffing of protected areas world wide. Nevertheless, two points are noteworthy. First, protected area conservation costs vary considerably by region and are positively related to economic development levels, population pressure, the degree of protected area fragmentation. However, high biodiversity countries tend to spend less on their protected area systems, a widely suspected fact confirmed by this study. Second, many of the developing countries appear to have well staffed protected area agencies, despite their relatively meagre budgets. It suggests that, despite the lack of funds, developing countries do make a valuable contribution to the global protection, which could be greatly enhanced by donor funding to develop existing institutional capacity. 21 + AP | = t ~ ‘ rit ! ‘i i } “y =e) Y us 44 ait a’ . 1F (; i . en tj 40 j rf j Y ' Ly { ay y % hid , i f i , i i F Wi ‘ bia e1) 1 Jy r a. Vw soe 73 er ; f aa ' aan waaio a : P =) j ey | hy Z i] v) oie" ' is a mah cae La “a if’ oh “4 al oll? one mx * 2 i ® GERwew ow os | pris QR ve See FONE 8 RA le, ee Oe on or a woes RN eI erties, Gly onze Vien till le da lam ti = re ined ve ie it el ws : a Pas Be ‘ rity on j tod rs im 7 — 4 w el, o 7 . ey, ‘om - wn y se , : ° ‘i he i shed “att = ie eh, : a“ mate palin t Wes | +2 mall wy a 8 tt so ‘ia las? Ss cs ‘plod ag te spirits ant =i ert’ Raita SS ate [ions mrs ee nS ee ee en eo Oo eT Pm ee Pe ia, ~~ mnt} We seit how er ee OS sears 1% vt ee Cie es el ida ee isa , te Oe @ ss | Saragges | 2oyc “ieeegrloren ee ee on a 6: i oe TBP ese ed! Ca age: 4 50 ioe wo leer WKAR’, lhe o ‘edt pg Adal a a oe 0d! “cme a be = ae ire il * “ye ead Ad pce cba «& Ar Cane Bf -ty) < unl ey ‘ 4 poems pay i a ted REFERENCES ABC and WCMC. 1997. Protected Areas Systems Review of the Indo-Malayan Realm. Ea. J. MacKinnon. The Asian Bureau for Conservation in collaboration with The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Canterbury, England. 198 . Abramovitz, J. N. 1991. Investing in Biological Diversity. U.S. Research and Conservation Efforts in Developing Countries. Washington: World Resources Institute. Abramovitz, J. N. 1994. Trends in Biodiversity Investments. Washington: World Resources Institute. AECCG (1991) African Elephant conservation review. Oxford: African Elephant Conservation Co-ordinating Group (unpublished). Barbier, E. B. and J. C. Burgess, T. M. Swanson, and D. W. Pearce. 1990. Elephants, Economics and Ivory. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Bell, R. H. V. and J. Clarke. 1984. ‘Funding and financial control’. In: Conservation and Wildlife Management in Africa (eds Bell, R.H.V. and E McShane-Caluzi.). Washington: Office of the Peace Corps. Cumming, D. H. M., R. B Martin, and R. D Taylor. 1984. ‘Questionnaire survey on the management and conservation of elephants and rhinos’ In The Status and Conservation of Africa's Elephants and Rhinos (D. H. M. Cumming and P. Jackson, eds.). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Cumming, D. H: M., DuToit, R. F. and S. N Stuart. (1990) African Elephants and Rhinos: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. YUCN Species Survival Commission African Elephant and Rhino Specialist Group. Gland: IUCN. FAO. 1995. World Agriculture: Towards 2010. An FAO Study. Ed. N. Alexandratos. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Green, M. J. B. and J. R. Paine (1997) ‘State of the world’s protected areas at the end of the Twentieth Century.’ Paper presented at the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Symposium on ‘Protected Areas in the 21“ Century: From Islands to Networks’, Albany, Australia, 24-29 November, 1997. Hannah, L., Carr, J. L. and A. Lankerani. 1995. ‘Human disturbance and natural habitat: A biome level analysis of a global data set.’ Biodiversity and Conservation 4:128-155. ICBP. 1992. Putting Biodiversity on the Map. Priority Areas for Global Conservation. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation. IMF. 1988. A Manual on Government Finance Statistics. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. IME. 1998. International Financial Statistics, 1997 Yearbook. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. 23 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff IUCN. 1994a. 1993 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas. Prepared by WCMC and CNPPA. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. IUCN. 1994b. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. eds J. A. McNeeley, J. Harrison, P. Dingwall. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. IUCN. 1998. 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas. Prepared by WCMC and WCPA. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. IUCN, UNEP, WWE. 1991. Caring for the Earth. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. RSPB. 1996. New and Additional?: Financial Resources for Biodiversity Conservation in Developing Countries 1987-1994. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Leader-Williams, N. 1993 The cost of conserving elephants. Pachyderm 17:30-34. Leader-Williams, N. and S. Albon. 1988. Allocation of resources for conservation. Nature 336: 533. Martin, R. B. 1993. ‘Should Wildlife Pay Its Way?’ (Keith Roby address, Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Perth, Australia, December 8, 1993) cited in Stephen R. Edwards, ‘Conserving Biodiversity; Resources for Our Future’ in The True State of the Planet (R. Bailey, ed.). New York: The Free Press. McNeeley, J. A., Miller, K. R., Reid, W. V., Mittermeier, R. A. and T. B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the World’s Biological Diversity. IUCN: Gland, Switz. Mittermeier, R. A. and T. B. Werner. 1990. Wealth of plants and animals unites ‘Megadiversity’ countries. Tropicus, 4(1): 1, 4-5. OECD. 1991. Environmental Indicators. OECD: Paris. UN. 1993. World Population Prospects. The 1992 Revision. New York: United Nations. UNEP. 1996. The Availability of Financial Resources. Note by the Executive Secretary for the Third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Buenos Aires, Argentina, November 4-19, 1996 (Document UNEP/CBD/COP/3/37). Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. WCMC. 1992a. Protected Areas of the World: A Review of National Systems. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 4 Vols WCMC. 1992b. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources. London: Chapman and Hall. WCMC. 1994a. Biodiversity Data Sourcebook. WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 1. Cambridge, UK: World Conservation Monitoring Centre. WCMC. 1994b. Development of a National Biodiversity Index. A WCMC Discussion Paper (unpublished). 24 References World Bank. 1992. World Development Report 1992. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 1997. 1997 World Development Indicators. Washington: International Bank for Reconstruction and Deveiopment. WRI. 1994. World Resources 1994-1995. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 25 APPENDICES 8I6ESE S8IS8I 88S°CI7Z 6EL'IS €19°LL6 1€6'6SE 000‘00r C8IS8I pr9'880'e 887°LL1°9 E9T“€60°ST Teproys sulpuny 6L9'LET Ip0'6EPr 0 p85‘ LOr'9 960°6S0°% 1OE"LES'T (20uR\sIssy UBIOIO.) 6ES‘ LIP 006° ISP 981°ES8'l veo'9E 901‘S9E (QUOUT}SOAUT jeuded) vEeT PII €L6LIT €97'SII LIE Lev 88S°ZIZ CCTLL ELL'tr CLy'S79 p6L‘6EL v6L‘6L0'I 000°609°6 798°98 1¢8'p0r TCT TCT OL9‘ZOL‘EZ E8P 9lET vI7‘60l 6LETEL‘7S9 OSE'SITPZI'T 1S6'709‘S €TP'78B19TE yospng [MIOL ves 697 99c‘cI OSr'IZ pr9'8 09E‘69E SOP'PTE 190°LOI CrE'S67 pore po}09}01g L661 v66l 1661 9661 S661 9661 £661 L661 £661 S66l 9661 £661 C661 9661 S661 S661 y66l £661 £661 v66l 1661 eax puryrey “y ypne ueXy-TeyyeN ‘N sn[NUoOY soyIH UOSTON oNOT[NE SWRI AA PLAC soureg uyor yoroy “H ‘d ule] oe] wy Jo\sayye A, OUISRAT PBEYOIY IO}OI A, eZee] apf soy [esvo_ pur ItAuq }doq UOTISIS SFTPTEM. UOISSTUIWIOD UOTBAIOSUOZ jsniy, [euoeN Bion] 1S yieg duLeyy oreuog yieg oureyy eqes snIy, [LUCIEN JeLIOs UO Ayoyny suod soy yeinjeN syleg [euoNRNY JO 938.10}99IIG AIC OFTPTEAA Pue Anjsoso.| syieg pur sarioysiy ‘sy idoq Js, [PUOneNY sopequeg snip [euOTeN seueyeg Ayoyyny syieg [euoyeN Soy JEN e[qeMousy JSUT JeN wOAAGHOO-dAV ANso10,J JO aJeI1OJOIIG “UIH SOTAIOS SFTPLEM Pure Ysty DOIAIOS syiVg [euoNeN ASo]Ooy JO 9yN SUT [LUOTIENY DAS OFTPIEM 29 Bpeue) Syed sored pur syiny, osego], 29 pepruny, STAON?? SHE IS Bony 3S UY spuepioyaN UY spurpoyON yeLIas}UO|] vorewer doy uvorurm0g RolUTUIOg epnulisg sopoqieg seueyeg epnqieg ensynuy uvaqquieg pureueg seinpuoyy pyeuroyeny BOLIIUIY [B.1JUID soqe1g poyuQ soyeig poyuQ OOIX9JA| epeurd BILIOUIY YION juopuodsoy Aouosy AuNOD (So.jaWO[y aaenbs ul seaie pajoa}01d “¢SA 9661 UL BIEP [eIULUTJ) UONeULIOJUT JadpNq vaiL pajd9}01g :] xipusddy 29 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff eiqrueN sniytineyAy IMEeIAL ekuody eidomy BUBMS]OG (U1dYINOS/U19}Sey) BLY uaula x Aayin J, BIsIUNn], Biqery Ipnes IeyedQ Od9010JJ [9eIs] smidAZ urelyeg ueystueysyy RLIOS[V SPY P[PPIA Pue BILIFY YIAON nog BIqUIO[OD Tite) izeig BaLIBULY YN SEL‘LvS‘8 6SI‘ZII 66! uIsTINOy, pue JUSUIUOITAU UTTAT TIS‘9SS 0 0 Eve p97 cL C661 AT[epemO “MV DdIAIBg A]S910,4 16S‘Z 909°9S¢ c8S‘Ol v66l apueydy ‘gq “N ‘f FPA pure syreg JN 3doq OLO‘780°E 08601 €°7 000‘rL6'1 OLO‘780°E OTL‘TE 9661 aMsny] UOsped DOIAIOS OFTPILM, eAUD YY LS8‘SrI €Or‘ZE £661 mayorq 18939, 31Q UOT}BAIOSUOD) OFTTPTIA O9L‘08S‘S OS~O0OI 7661 syed [PUOTIEN 29 OFTTPILM Idoq LOL‘86 C79'€E £661 asuey pur jsoI0,J JO Iq uaH LIV‘919‘61 0 CSSOIL'T LLL‘97@6'8 C£6 PT C661 J99[O IeseX Teg ssPIIA 29 BUNUN ‘syed 1eN 97S‘OLY 0 9CS‘OLY 807 C66! woes Ye a V syed JeN ‘Sununy ‘10,7 11q LI8‘@rr‘0l 966°E7TE 1661 UONBAIOSUOL) OFTTPTIMA UOT JEN €08°807 6EI £661 UWOT}OIG UOT}BAIOSUOT) 0L9‘199 €8L'v 1661 JO1g JEN 79 Surysty “Sununy 998°Z91 ‘7 676 '€ £661 B1aq[oq OWO[YS Ayoy ny SsaArasoy IINjeN 6c¢'LOP 0 0 LL6 SCV cll v66I Sapluodd “T quouyredag A1s910.5 760°69€'T 0 0 760°69€'T 0089 C661 SoLIaYst{ JO 938109911 TENLS ves‘ 1661 syied [PUONeN pure ofI[P[IMA MG CTE 088°7 0 0 C7E 0887 OSE'T C661 aryseg YIpey Aouasy suoD ainjeN JeN ¢o9'Coe | vL6V91 0661 OFIPIEMA 29 AQSoI0,{ JO TIq weH B9TLEOE P6lLr7'l vL9'E8r'9 COSTIS‘TI 886'06 C66l OZ1IO.) UBULIOL) ullUpy syed [PUOTeN PL9‘80r'I 0 CLS‘E6I‘T 170977 L6L‘6El +661 ekely ‘f[ O1pod (ASdVNS) JVNOO PTLLOOTE 60S‘079‘TZ ELE CSI ‘OV 860°6L1 S66I BUTT Bony UADIC/OAAIC/VANV dl [epaoys (20uR\sIssy (QuounsaA uy yospng voir sutpun UuSIOIO.]) Teyides) [BIOL po199}01g eax juopuodsoy Aoua3y Ayunod (sa.jawiojry aaenbs ur svare payoaj}01d “gS O66] UL BVP [eIOULUTJ) UOHeULIOJUL JadpNq vate pa}d9}0.1g :] xIpueddy 30 Appendix 1 61L'887Z vee OE vE6 OE OrI‘TEer 000°000‘¢ CLI 0 9IL‘7Z €06'LS9 868 IL9E EVL'888°7 pOE68S POE68S 6€7'199 Oss‘ 6rr'0S0'l 88r OLE 6rr'0S0'T 000'r16'T 000°86S'T 000°0EL 000'r16'T O%r'S86'l OLS'8h CLICEL 779'CTS'T vIL8er OITS6S 9S 68h 0 1Z8'0rl L7L‘L91 OP9'ELE SET‘OCTZ 0 0 86r'977 99h'6E 0 66S°LLI 960°€Z OSEI78'P 6£E OLS'7 L8€‘667'°9 678°S69'bI 189°S9r'z It 68L 609'6r6'I O9L'TLr'L 082‘998'09 =O O£S‘667'E 082°998'09 ZS1°79 0 TLO'T cer ly Tepuoys (2ouRjsIssy (JUauSaAUT yospng sulpun USI9IO]) [eudea) [BIOL L8v'9 9661 vrL't 9661 L7L‘Ol €661 SIT PE €661 E9I‘b8 C661 agus 8661 €06°EI 9661 189°7I €661 CLS 1661 OLI‘8I €661 67661 1661 797001 7661 V88'PZI C661 6r6 9b 1661 8r6'SZ €661 CEl‘T 1661 LEG TE 1661 ZTIS‘I8 1661 SSTOE L661 ce v66I PT VE 9661 Or C661 Pole p9}99}01g eax TUNOWINO|] “YW vinsueg ore y eqnsieyy ‘gq UeMeT T[OWLIeg nor[es ayeSvIN eulvinog gady “D praeq TYSOH PLUeyeZ predsey nwiamylg Buayoryy [1999 runley “Y o[pinsy peoyures, Jojog IT[OD uyor juopuodsay Soy pue syieg [euoTeN Iq youelg UOIeAIBSUOD IFIP syieg [euoneN jo yuowedeq syieg [euoneN eosin SOMOYST Pur OFTPTTAA “IC HAAANG dVONV idoq asTTPITAA pure ourey UOT]VAIOSUOD IJITPIIM JO }doq OFTPIEM pue Sununy tq Joye MA ‘SOLOYShy ‘JOIg WN Iq suod oINjeNY 10} 9yNINSUT SOY SFTPIIM 29 Site JEN MG Moy, ‘Yysty “uN ‘107 ‘1938 AA Seory 101g pur oJTTPTIAA 1doq UOTJLAIASUOD 2 ITAUG JSUT EN say Sununy ‘oy IPM ‘dN Id quoupiedaq Ansd10,7 30], auogT PLIZIS Jesouas PLIOSIN JO3IN TRIN Jeosesepey] eueyy eiquiety uogey OIIOAT,P 9309 y Waq ‘osu0D peyo doy apy jenueg uoojoUred, Tpuning ose, euryINg vjosuy (teaqUag/u19389\\) BOLTV WBA! OFTPILAA Seq IN 3daq syieg [euoneN vruezue yf, preog syreg [euoneN yoag syieg [euOTeN 2 suoD aMqequilz euezue BoLpY YINOS sayjayohog panunuo0s(U1IYINOS/U.19}Seq) BILIFY Aouesy Ayunod (Sa.naWOpIy a1enbs ul svaie pa}daj0.1d “ESQ OG6T UL BIEp [elULUTJ) UOWEULIOJUT JaspNnq vate p9}d9}01g :[ xIpuaddy 31 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff 76 O8E'L ELE 7898 81668 9661 uadIQ) USI UOTPAIASUOD Jo uouedaq pueleoZ MON POL'TIE 87 66L'IZ 7661 Jayemosplig Jojeg Aouosy suoD yeN uelyeysny Blesny pueyeez ManN/eleysny 0 L8V€7ZE' IT O9E'PLE9E 917 0r C66 uouRyatsuey) ‘d UOISTAIG Ye [BUOTIeNY pueyrey 000‘007*L 0 00008‘ 000‘°00L ‘OT Or8‘LZ 9661 eypeuRyL yMeLIg UOISIAIC UOT}BATOSUOT) OFITPITAA pueyrey L6L‘007 0 COL‘EE OEL‘*L9TZ TT9'E C66! TeMN UeYL ATC SUOD 2FITPTEAA pue oInjeN reumue sy S67 OL 0 C66! yuowyredaq A1s210,j eIpoquie’) ILv‘ 1081 0 800°TST‘E Pee LOI‘ 9€0'T C661 Ulssex pyoy Hey quoujedaq 1so10,j rountg 0S9'87I €7S‘6E9'1 ISEBLV'S 8597 v66l MalT STOURIy syed yeqes BISARTeIN| €09' 096'rI O0r'rZ v66l Suoaeyjueyd “G AIC 4IPIIM % BLY po}so}01g sory 006‘910°€ 8r8'16 TOLS6E TTI ‘TP ‘6 p98°L p66l eyekeueny “q ‘DQ voNvAsasuoD ojIPIIM JO “dog eyue’y Wg LOE*607'T 0 76r‘COl 06E'S L661 HPI ZeywINyy “AL quouedsd PTAA dIMN dHMN-UPISred 68° C61 96¢°LL TLE'SV 97S‘LLI 16v L661 peumueyoy 'O “A YO 2 WISLINOL, “YSty “OFTPIEAA MfVv-uesPyed ISp€0€'T SZ0'SI pool eAeunfeg wekyg suod oFIPIIM\ Sted YN Idoq [edon 180°08Z 110'T 7661 ed3unysey ‘Qs 3daq 3so40,f “But AA OFTTPTEMA WIPPIS-eIpuy 146009 OOr‘9rS C6r'S08 909°9 v66! UOISTAI(, UONBAIISUO,) 3IN}eN ueyny gq CEEOSO'T ¢SS‘90E CIO‘EEL ZITSS 676 C66! Jeyes ‘VW 9}10}DIIC SO1OF ysope[sueg BISY YNOS vOLLLL‘ST 0) ZIS 61S °6E 90r'608°LP TCTE 9661 OBIS uay-BurlYyD syzeg euoneN Jo ydaq UBMTe LT, LLU SvE19 89C°L £661 AyLioyny syed [euoTeN valoy YINOS EvS'p8S‘6 0 109‘ 768°'T ZIV T8L‘87 LIV 9661 eT "MD idoq sevaysiy pue sinqnousy Buoy Buoy BISY jSBy Tepazoys (eouR\sIssy —_ (JUOUT}SOAUT jospng eole sulpuny UBIII0.]) [eudea) [eI0L posjoig Ievax juopuodsay Aouesy Ayunod (soajawopry arenbs uy seaae paqoaj}0.1d “ESA 966L UL BIEp [ePOULUTJ) UOHeULIOJUL JaspNq BIE P9}99}01d *T xipueddy 32 3 6LIES 0 8EL‘%6 €80°T C661 Sore y [einjeny JO JOId SU] BIuOpsoe | 3 TrL‘9r9 OSr‘*Z00'T 099 C661 JOUUIS “W-"f = SDTATag UOTJBATOSUOD) oINJeN Sinoquioxn'T S Pr9'880°€E 0 907699 Lt C661 syed avg Jo Juouedaq Bruenyyy =< IZ9°E9S 0 0 T16 OLTT 709 C66! SINUTIA SIVA Aopsaoqd Boxy 2 JOAg WAU UTA] BIAJeT Ipr‘796'€ SPIE £661 JUSUIUOITAU 3y} JO A1STUTAL pue[so] P8L‘9rsS‘9 LO6‘I €661 Anuasy UOTVAIOSUO_D sINJeN Aresunyy 76L‘T19'O1 L61‘6S8°E Z6L‘TZ19‘O1 O€8‘TT C66! sesnoiq ‘qd WAU JBN 7 S}sos0,J 99g WOH Q999IL) 656 8SL‘97 COL 66! [es0}"'] s0edsq,| ep suoD gourd 6SE'8r7'6I 6Lr'I £661 Sa][aInjJeN] S9ATOSOY 90uely 9ES‘O19'EE TLO'E v66! souRrLy 9p [2UONeN soled gourly TCT SPL‘T CILES9'T 88S ISrEl T8L‘LTZ 7661 uaueyxyoH ele DTAIOG YAV_ Pue jSIOf pue[ury EVE TLE CET PV v66l WOT}99}01g JBN JO JuoupEdag BIUO ISH SELSOTES (G66 0661 Aouasy ainjeny pur 4soio,j JN yreulusd €SO'L9E SIT OL 0 8£9°S09 98S‘0I C661 ZOpn’y] eyIejg ulwupy svory edeospurT 101g day yoozD, O9T TOT 06r'ST LS8°S9OL Bre E199 €L9'T C66! uepeznoN adeospur’] 301g 29 dN eAvuing day yoozD, LV8‘S8ET L89'P87'1 0 980°LS7'6 Lys C66! yesnopy Wig = say atoydsorg qN esouoyDy doy yoezD 969°€78'T 676 '€ C661 syieg JN 2 SUOD JN Jo daq eyeol) Lev‘tv7 v8L €66[ Uezjeeyog purloy wnIs[9g-T MM. wInI3 [og vOE'889°9 TEL‘ v66! ae) “A syle [BuolyeN BLSNY 767 691‘81 por‘0z v66l ae A syzed Jopue’] BLISNY adoing CLO'VS VET 0661 SaLloyst] 27 Jo, ‘sy jo }doq BOURSES WI9}SO MA 666 SE ee £661 uf) JUSWIUOIAU nyenue A 760°S6E'7 8rr‘ol C661 PIN “YW CUIAOYIeH UOISTATG UOTJBATOSUOD sINjeNN = BOUTND) N ended €99'9C8‘LI 0 960°EES‘*L 9EL‘1S9°97 8Is 661 Jo[Nog [soe JUOWISUUOIIAUY,| 9P VTAIOG eIuopsye) MON 0 TSP IPT E SLI £661 apiog JuoIney juouoUUOITAUG,] B UONesa[oq eisouAjog Yous P6L‘TE 6 1661 ysulg eipuelig ify Ioj ys, [PUOTLNY ify ayboedg [epaoys (20uUR\SISSY (QuoWsaA uy] yospng vor surpunf UBIOI0,J) [eqdeD) [BIOL po}99}01g Jeo juopuodsay Aouosy Ayyunod (sa.xjauoj1y azenbs ur svare paq9a}0.1d “¢SQ 9661 U! BIEp [elULUTJ) UOHULIOJUT JadspNq vI1e pI}d9}01g :1 xipuoddy 33 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff I16‘ZEL 7SEOLP'EE 706'60S'1Z 9E6 CEE EI 676 8S1'I C86'E1 Teprzoys sulpuny daq Ansoi0, pure sinjnousy uonNeAIasuoD spuepyey [lounog apisAnuno; a8v}LIOH [eanjeN Ys}09S IIIAIOG JUDWUIUOITAUA (L) sonuoyINY syed [PUOTeN Aouasy Jo1g [eusUWIUOITAUA AI 01g odevospur’yT oinjeny BZIINILN Pp OBIBAISUOZ) ISU] IDIAING Seg [PUOTIRN WWIBI sNJeNY JOJ 93210}9911G WISI VNWNY 19]UID Joy JeN uopien o1uvjog N031V yled JEN JoysI[ag pue OAOIAR|A| eugjaH 3S-AN ‘s] puepyes-3N soTeM-IN puepoog-yN puryaz] ‘N-3N pue[suq-3IN uspomMs arjqnday xeao[s yesnyog purlod Ae@MION Spue[IOYJON BYLA eIuopsoRr||] (panunuos) sdoing L96‘7LI cL v66l ITH “a “V 8rI'S9 98 v66l weysurg ONIN 169°879'T S16°L96 ‘62 TES'L v66l Jouuog "a T 6£6 IL1‘09 ILI'€@ v66l €€0'O10'9I 971 p66l — Brey] [PPT 67S‘788°9E 1€9°6 S661 uosduoyy Apusr SL8°901 97 LOT‘9ST'8E Evl'se C66] ZOIMOTOISTIAL BLE]AT LU6‘76E 9L6'1 9661 upysnZ uer LIZ‘698'02 B68SSELE OCSI8I'S9 LOU'S S661 sonbseyy winbeos CCC VLE TI TST'6C 1661 8cs'Lrr'el 9€6 CEE 6I LL9‘0@ v66l seioyey Ul CO6'LIS‘E 09¢ 9661 uassTyy, URYor 0 661°€81 I S66I 810g ydosor L7O'8¢L 9S8 C661 (s0uR\sIssy (JUOUNSOAUT yospng vole UBIO.) [eudes) [BIOL poyajolg Ieax juapuodsay Aouosy Ayunod (saajawiop1y aaenbs ur seare paqooj0.1d “¢o7 9661 UL EUP [elOULUJ) UONeULIOJUT JadspNq vate pa}d9}01g :[ xIpueddy 34 09 Lye LOV c9 8S €Se ely 1c9 (6 v 8 vl I Ol at S ¢ 81 9¢ I I Vv 9 I C € 9 c9 vC 6v Sel Ol c8 So) Cl 16 cOl cI € v (Ze Il LI 9 Ol cf 8 ev Ig 61 XG vs 86 6720'E7 Ool 10€ lOr ETBE BIS RIS RS BRS 13430 “UlUpYy PIPT [RIOL 88606 L6L‘6E1 860°6L1 ves 697 99¢'CI OSr'IZ C9L'€69 190°LOI SE S67 Roly po}09}01g S661 v661 S661 L661 v661 9661 S661 9661 £661 L661 S661 9661 8661 C66! 9661 S661 S66l £661 y66l 1661 eax OZIOD UPULIAD vkely ‘f O1pog RUT BION] puepeg “] yupne uvXp-TeyeN ‘N SNINWIOY SoH uOS|ON oneTNE SUIRTTITMA PrAed soureg uyor yoroy ‘H ‘d Ulep oe] uy Jo\sa][e A OUISRIG BSeYOIV IOJOIA eZee] OP 'f ‘D juopuodsoy uTupy syzeq [Pune (ASdVNS) AVNOO YADIC/OAUIC/VNV AI soy [eIseo_ pure Aug 3doq PIQUIO[OD aqua izeag BOLIBUIY YNOG soores pure syiny, UOTIOIE FIP OBeqO], 29 peplulsy, ysniy [euoneN viony 3S yieg our] oieuog ye oulreyy eqes jsniy, [eUONRN JeLos}UO/y AjLIoy NY suOD soy [eINIeN AIC OFIPIEM pur Anso104 syieg pur saroysty ‘sy 3daq \sniy [euoneNY sopeqieg snip [euoneN seueyeg Aywoy ny syeg [euoneN Soy JEN a[qemouoy ISU] VN wOsAACHOO-dAV SMASN 7% SdNSN ASojoog JO oyNINsUT [eUOTIeNY SMO % epeury) syed Aouasy (SoajoUO[Ly atenbs ul svaae pajdaj01d) UOHeUIAOJUL SULVJeIS vaIe p9}d9}01g :7 xIpueddy eon] 3S JUY SpueLISyION JUY spurpoyaN JeLIas}UO] voreuler POTUTLUOG epnulisg sopeqieg seueueg epnaqieg ensnuy uvaqqiuies euleurd seinpuoy] BILIIULY [eUID soqe1g poyuQ OOIX9JA| epeurd BILIOUY YON AyunO?d 35 g ST ve 89 E918 S661 TOULIwE NOR[eS SoMOYsty pue OfTTP[IM “Id JO3IN I LI I¢ 69 aans 8661 ayesvIN euleInog HAAYNG TRA 089 6r0'E1 £661 gady “OD praed ydoq OFPILM pue suey vueyyy OS OLI‘8I £661 SJPIEM puke Buyuny Iq uoqeh 8 CT cel col P883'°rTl c66l TSOH{ PueyeZ SOY ITTPIEM 29 Sted JEN AIG peyD CIV 6r6'9P 1661 NOY, “Ysty “WunyY “Jo,j “Taye MA doy py [enue 601 86ST £661 Sealy 101g pur FI[PIIM 1doq uoorsUte’) 9 6 Eve 6ST Cell p66] predsey nwemyrg UOTIVAIOSUOD) 29 TAU JSUT JEN Tpuning Lv Z18‘18 1661 quounmedag A1sd10,J pjosuy ([B.13U9)/U.19}S9 AA) BILIJY Cvv 666'1 BEr'~ 8S1‘0€ L661 eusyory] [199 WW] OPI Sed WN JWdaq aMqequilZ 867 I oor'l 00€ ‘Or P66. = Tunney “Y e[FINsy syle [euoleN eluezue Ly, eruezue yl, LLS‘9 000°L81 £661 SIdIOF YW [PUOTLNY OFTPIEMA uepng 7967 TLS 076 vSr'y Pre VE 9661 peoyules{ 19}9q pleog syed [BuoleN volpy YINog 6 Ve 97 OV C661 ato uyor JIG syle [BUOTIEN 2% SUO) so]foyohag 09S 79S 6SI‘ZII v66l WISIINO], pue JUSUIUOITAUY UTIL BIGIUe NY OCE 16L c8s‘Ol y661 opueyd[ “ “N ‘f OFIPILAA Pure syseg ywN 3doq TMele v6l TPB‘E 9C0'r OTL‘TE 9661 aman] Uosped SOIAIOG OFITPIIAA PAUDY ekuoy LL cOr'ce £661 mayor jsodoL, B1IQ UOTJBAIASUOD OFTTPIIAA eidoryyq 98 18s OSz‘00I C661 syieg [PUOTeN 2p SFTTPILAA 1d9q eueMsjog (uUsdYyNOG/U19}seq) BIAFY O18 Ivz 6£7 067'I SE6 V7 C661 =: FOOTO ese Teg OFIPIEM 2 SuyUNY ‘syed WN Aoyany, cl CsI 007 80 C66! wees yDey a V syed JeN ‘Sununy “10,j Iq BISIUNnT, €Z SZ 6 €661 uolo9g UONRAIOsUOZ Ieyeed OSZ 676‘ £661 B1aqjoq owolYS Ayoy ny seArosoy onjeN] [oeIs] yseq 2[PPHAI Pue BILIFV YON JFeIS JJG JJPIS JFPIS voly Iy1O ‘UILUIpy Plat [210 po}09}01g eax juopuodsay Kouasy Amunodg A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff (sasjoWopy aaenbs ul seas pajde}01d) UOHLULAIOJUL SUIJEIS IIL PI}I2}01d +7 xipueddy 36 Appendix 2 €06'L e9€ OcE'T 986°6 9170 90E"E v6l v9s 790" Ors'Lz 99 cL ees vL9 79'E 6V (G44 16¢ 8co'c VC Lvl ILI 9€0'1 107 68 O8t OL9 p98'L IST 8E C&C (Gy 06'S iS 0¢ £6 sil l6v SV ves 6L8 SZ0'ST iS CC 69 v6 I10'T 8 tv IS 909°9 L6l 6r6 8rl OE CI? 899 CTE I 9S7 89S'T 981 OrI'T 97E'T LIv C19'l €€L'l 797001 8 SL OE 04 L8v'9 Cl v 67 SV prl'l BRS JFPIS ISPS WPS Poly 1930 “UTIpy Plot [PRIOL P9}99}01d C66! uoue}isuey) ‘dd 9661 eypeury ] jeMvlg C661 TeMN Urey, ) 661 Maly STOURI A S661 —-UISseX PYyOy tfeH p66l ayeAeueny “dD L661 = YETBIAT ZeJUINTAT “A L661 peuueyoyy ‘OA p66] eAvuTfeg weAYs P66l edsunysr’T “Od v661 C66! Teyes “VW 9661 ——OPISH{ ua,f-BuryD £661 9661 rT MO C661 L661 tunournojs,y nopgy C661 vinsueg [ey eax juopuodsay UOISIAIG yAeg [euOTeN UOISTAIG UOTVAIOSUOZ FTP AIC SUOD OFITPITAA pure oinjeNy syieg eqes juoujsedaq jso10,j UOTJVAIBSUOD OFITPIIM JO "Jdoq juoupedag ax1PIIM dH MAN Youy 29 WISLINOL, “Ysty “OFTPITM SUOD OFIPIEM Sed WN 1doq ydaq] sar0,J “BUI OFTTPTEAA UOISIAIG UOTJBAIBSUOD oINJeN] 9]B1OJOIIIC, SIO syieg [euoneN jo ydoq Ayuoy Ny syle [eUOTeNy ydaq soloysty pure sinpnosy suog siMeNy 1OJ 91NINSUT soy pure syieg [euOnRN JIG yourlg UONeAIOSUOD FTTPIIAA pueyrey, 7 pueyrey, 1 JewurAy vIskeleyy Tounig BISY }SUY-YIROS eyue’y] HS di MN-UPSPed yfy-urysryed jedan WPPTS-eIpuy ueynyg ysoprsurg BISV YINOS URAIR I, valoy YINOS suoy suoH BISY }Sey O1IVZ, os0], QUOT PLISIS (panuyuod) ([e.17U9/U19}S9A44) BILISY Aouosy Ayunogd (sa.jau0[1y arenbs ur seaie pajde}01d) UOHeULAOJUT SUJeIS Bae paj}da}01g :7 xIpusddy 37 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff rel Ltr Ol € Z er] L6 9 9 09 Ol LZ 081 tr SL L6 ee € I I z igh 81 HRS Wes 1310 “ulLUpy OCI vOT SOL 19¢ L9e Os 09 8 91 v8 ssl el trl 06¢ 9L 88 Sc LLI SSC 187 ve vol yell 0c LCT v8c 10v ve ple ver OSC Lvl L at S 9 Ose’! Oe 6ll eS JFPS PPM TRIOL 8L6'68 661 IZ Poly po}09}01g v66l S661 9661 S661 S661 S66! 9661 S661 S66l S661 £661 £661 S661 £661 S661 y66l c66I C661 £661 y66l v66l 9661 v66l Ieox Tey [SPY uosdwoyy Apuoy, urysnz, uer sonbieyy winbeor seloyey Ul] B10g ydasor JOUUIS "W-'f SIUTIA SIE A sesnoliq ‘qd zopnTy eyx1eI1S uef eZnoN yesnopy Hip RNY “Y CUIAOYIeDH jo[Nog [sorry SOIAIOS JUDWIUOITAUA (L) sonuoyny ye [euoHeN AIC 101g adeospuryT sinjeny VZIINIVN BP OVIRAIISUOD SUT WIS] ONJeNY 1OF 9}2I10}9911G uoprey oturjog N0S1V yleg JeN Jo}SI[9q puv OAoIAR|Y DOIAINS UOTJVAIOSUOD dIN}eN syieg 97819 Jo yuowIedaq dojoaog 30x 2p JO1g MAU UIP JUSUIUOITAUA 94} JO ATNSTUTPAL Anuasy UONeAIOSUOD JINN] IAUG JN 2 S}Salo0,j 99g uaH Tad) ‘Na “UNd “Nd ulUpy seorly odeospur’] j01g odevospur’] Jolg 29 qN eAruing soy o1oydsorg GN ssouoyry syle JN 2 suoD IN jo 1daq UOISIAIG UOTJBAIASUOD OINeN JUDUIIUUOITAUG,| IP IDIAIOS pueyoly “N-IN puesug-1N doy Yeao[g jesny0g AeMION RYLIAL eIuOpaoRy|| sinoquioxn’] Buen] BIA] puvyaoy Aresuny 209015) gurl day yoozD day yooz— day yooza RILOID adoiny vouIny NY endeg eIuOpa|ea MON ysurg eipursig jsn1y euoNeN Thy ty syed UddID UII, UONBAIOSUOD Jo JuoUIEdaG purleoz Mon JoyeMoSplg 1939 Anua8y suod JeN uelesny BIeysny pueryeeZ MoN/elTeysny juapuodsay Kouosy Ayuno?d (sa.jauo1y arenbs ul svaie pajse}01d) UOHeUAOJUI SUyJeIs vate pajda}01g :7 xIpuaddy 38 Appendix 2 HRS 1310 CEG y66l Jouuog “YT [founod sprsAnuno,) soreM IN 8c9 ILT€Z v66l aBeILOH [BINJeN Yst09g pueposs-N (penuyuod) sdoing IFES IRIS RIS Roly ‘UIIpy PIP [BIOL po199}01g eax juopuodsoy Aouosy Anunog (SanjoWop1y a1enbs ul svaae pajdaj01d) UOHeULIOJUL SUJLIS BIIe pajdI}01g :7 xIpueddy 39 . ae perro) Gee er ree eae 05-5 ? = 1 & € ——_ = - 7 - - 7 ' i. _ : 5 = ae : : : r : 7 se | 7 a Tee tt _ =~ a ae - * 7 c- = -_ APPENDIX 3 QUESTIONNAIRE ON INVESTMENTS IN PROTECTED AREAS 1993 Please complete this questionnaire and return if by 30 September 1993, together with ‘COPY: Of your annual report or other documentation providing BUOTIGHON On ee Le Ss puaeel and Staffing for F the current ee pes financial years, 10: e | Dr Michael J. B. Green World Conservation Monitoring Co 219 Ho Road, Contec CB3 ODL, UK | Fax +44-223-277136; email parks@weme.org. ae ee 1. INSTITUTIONAL DETAILS Your name and position Pec cec cece cece ccc cccccc ccc cccccsesc cesses ces ceseeeeeosssessesssecees Name Of yOUF AZENCY —=—__ ose eee neces cree c ccc ccecccccccccccccccccccccccccecccesccscccecess Address of your agency — oa... see eeeeeeeececcecceccccecececcecencees Delzzeenccosccsess noooanEdcodaaabeccaoaauaccodeoagaScecCCoSNae Fax:......c.scceee BaD SIHECOHSECOGOSSSESCEOOHAOGIGS00GOS000000 Melexs2.--occs-e0 BOOHOOOECOCOSSHOUCEOS0NdODDONNG0NS2O00000000 Email:........... 2. Does your agency produce an annual report? [If yes, please enclose a copy.] YesO NoO 3 How does your agency’s budget compare with the state or national budget? Agency budget: «§«-_— eaecncececeseeeeecceccccccecececeees Currency:..........-..-++ State / National budget: «—«— 2 see eeeee erence ec eeeeeees Financial year: Aree ec teas tO......... 19..... 4. Is there a shortfall between your agency’s planned budget and that allocated by government? [If yes, please give details below] Yes [Planned budget =............ Allocated budget = ...............+- Year =........ J No O 4] A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff If there is a shortfall, how are the remaining funds raised? [Please give details below or separately.) Is any expenditure incurred by your agency covered by another organisation’s budget? (If yes, please give details below or separately.] Yes © [Specify work and expenditure : ........---------ceceeeeeeseesceceeesecceeeesnsececens No oO Are any management or other activities ( e.g. patrolling, road maintenance, research) in protected areas carried out by staff from another agency? [If yes, please give details below or separately.] Yes [Specify agency and no. of volunteers: —.....--. ese eeeeeeececceccceccceceeecees No oO Are any management or other activities in protected areas carried out by volunteers? [If yes, please give details below or separately.] Yes OQ [Specify agency and no. of volunteers —.... .- esse eeeeneeceececec sec scscecooeees What happens to your agency’s revenue from entrance fees, permits etc? [If available, please provide a breakdown of revenue by source, separately if necessary.] It goes into the national treasury 0 It comes directly to this agency O Other (specify): were ec cccccccc cere cee scc cece ese ee see see ces esceese ese ressoee How much do you charge for entrance into protected areas administered by your agency? [If this varies according to the type of protected area, please give details here or separately.] Entrance fee for nationals Fb aod COSCO COBOR DSO IODC DOCS IOE ASO HOC IIOOSEEOBOOSOGOOSIBOaRg00 Entrance fee for foreigners = 42 10. 11. 12. Appendix 3 Is information on budget and staffing levels within each protected area administered by your agency readily available? [If yes, please provide a copy separately.] Yes O No oO Has your agency established a trust to fund conservation initiatives? [If yes, please enclose a leaflet or orther details about this fund.] Yes QO No 0 Pending 0 Additional comments: [Please provide these on a separate page if necessary.] 43 APPENDIX 4 QUESTIONNAIRE ON INVESTMENTS IN PROTECTED AREAS 1995 1. INSTITUTIONAL DETAILS YOU MaMe AN POSITION —=—_ «see e cece eee ccenceccccccccnccecceccccenesescs ses ccccsccescccoscoee INAMEIOMYVOUTAP CN CY se -nconcoccestecsoccccccecceacsessosecoecccsecscrcccsoccscstesccscesecscasiccccecescescesne NGATESSOf VOUT AGENCY) 7 ieccscacecieccecccescasoccwecic sconce cscccesensccesesrcecscsscsedoveccscecsonses Pec ccc ccc cccsce ccc ccc ccc cccccccee cesses ees ese eeeece ees ese see seseseeseseseseeee Peer ccc ccresceeceee cece ee eer ese eee cee ees ees cesses cesses ses eeesssoseseseeeeee Pee ecc ccs cccccccccescccc eee ceseee ccc c ee eee eesccsces see eee sce cesceseseeeeseeeee 2. AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES Please list the categories of legally designated protected areas under your responsibility (e.g. National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary): Legal Designation: Number of sites: Total Area: Pee cer cccccrsccesereseccccssesceccetccsssces = erccccesesess §§§= §- é駧 == ceecesesecscccccscccsscccccccses Pee eecrcccccrcsecccsescccssceesscceseseseees =§= ceccesecesese § i jé- == ceccceccccsccccccsccsesccsccce eee eceesercececcceseeseccecssesesoeseoescces = eesccesceeese §§ = j§é- = $§=§= = ececccccecseccccccsccsceccvccce Pee eeerccrcccesecccescoresccssescessoseseees = ceeccseessese §§ j§g- +§§§ cecccecccccecccccsccsscscsccces Pore ee rerccrcsscsesereccccsescsaseseescesees = cecccccesesss §§ q§- j§§§ cveosccccsesccccccccscccccecese See oeerecccesesecscceccesesessessesscssseses (= coescesssecss § = jq§é- === § cevesesccssccescccccscecsccces Peer ecrccccccesccscccccccceccesesesecccesoes eecesescceccs = —=§«§-§-«_—=s er ereccvescccccccccccccccccce Seer er rerceserecceseeeccsesessesesoeceeeseses = eccesesceeses § j§- §§§ cvevecccecscsccscccccescccccccce Appendix 4 AGENCY BUDGET Fiscal Year Ending:........................ WULTENCYMN Pil ccceacconccccescscseces sacs cee seccacce SOURCES OF FUNDS Total allocation from state or national government: «=———__.... seen eneeecceccceccecececececeecees Allocation carried over from previous year(S): «§«»-— eee ccececececececcecececcececerercecee Revenues raised by your agency andretained: «=§-_—____n ese scencececcncceccececcecececececs Foreign sources of funds, including bi-lateral and NGO: _........ 2... eeeeeneececereccecececeeeeces Domestically generated donations Or SUDSCTIPtiONS: «=———__ os seen eeceececceccceccecccccceeceeeees Other (please'state)s i cccccccccccerecsccs-ccsscaccccssesssoes (A) TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE TO YOUR AGENCY: ___....... 22... cece eeceecececeeee USES OF FUNDS Directly on protected areas: Salaries: en nn oe eecteatecocscceanasscasarc Operations/Maintenance: = =§-_—§- hence n cc ee enc ecctceeeeeeeeeee Capitalinvestment: = = =—«- «haa nce eee ccececcecerc ee eeeee Other (please state): = =§»-— § han ne neces ee ec ere ee rece ec eee Sub-total of protected area allocations: «=§»-_—_____ hence ceccencerceecc recs sceee Indirectly on protected areas; =§-_— hee nee cece eee erc tree econ cc eee Funds not spent on protected areas: «hen wene see eececeec sce cceccece (B) TOTAL FUNDS ALLOCATED BY YOUR AGENCY: __ ..........2.0c0eeceeeeeeeeeee If A does not equal B, please explain: ................:ecececeecececececccceccceccecee cesses reese eee reece cece ree eee eee eee eee see eee See OO SOS SES ESEOSS EEE SEO SES ESE OES ESSSES ESS ESSSSESESSSEEES ESS SESSSE SES SSO OED 45 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staff 4. PROTECTED AREA ALLOCATIONS Please list the protected area categories (e g. National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary) that receive funding and staffing from your agency: Legal destination Funding Field Admin Other Total Staff Staff Staff Staff 5. OTHER AGENCIES Do other agencies contribute resources to protected areas? Name of Agency Recipient Protected Areas Amount, if known 6. AGENCY NEEDS To what extent are your agency’s stated conservation objectives achieved with the current budget? Please tick (V) one box: O Not at all 0 Only partially 0 About half 0 Mostly C Fully What amount of additional funding would be required to fully achieve your oC Poe cecccccsccccscsoscccccccccccccccoccccscesccccceseceeee 46 A Global Review of Protected Area Budgets and Staffing This document describes the first attempt to systematically review national expenditure on protected areas, and to assess staffing levels. As such it is a major contribution to assessing the cost of biodiversity conservation. The review has many shortcomings and gaps, but it provides a basis for assessment of commitment and needs during the last decade of the 20" century, and also provides a foundation on which future assessments can be based. The WCMC Biodiversity Series presents the results of projects carried out by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, often in partnership with other organisations. This series is focused on providing support to the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, helping them to identify and monitor their biodiversity, to manage and apply information on biodiversity effectively and to exchange information. The WCMC Biodiversity Series General Editor is Mark Collins, Chief Executive of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Other titles in the series: Biodiversity Data Sourcebook The Biodiversity Clearing House - Concept and Challenges Priorities for Conserving Global Species Richness and Endemism The Diversity of the Seas: a regional approach Assessing Biodiversity Status and Sustainability Biodiversity Conservation in the Tropics Industrial Reliance on Biodiversity Freshwater Biodiversity: a preliminary global assessment PES fen Mag BS IS) > The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, based in Cambridge, UK, was established in 1988 as a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. WCMC is managed as a joint venture between the three partners in the World Conservation Strategy and its successor Caring For The Earth: IUCN - The World Conservation Union, UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme, and WWE - World Wide Fund for Nature. WCMC provides information services on the conservation and sustainable use of the world's living resources and helps others to develop information systems of their own. fam’ . IUCN ite, “te afte UNEP wwr Further information is available from World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1223 277314 Fax: +44 (0)1223 277136 Email: info@wemc.org.uk WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE ISBN 1 899628 13 4