Full text of "Protecting nature : regional reviews of protected areas"

See other formats

Protected Areas Programme

Protecting Nature

Regional Reviews of
Protected Areas

J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison, P. Dingwall
Editors

IVth World Congress on National Parks and
Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela

IUCN

The World Conservation Union

AIN S342

Protecting Nature

Regional Reviews of
Protected Areas

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

http://www.archive.org/details/protectingnature94mcne

Protecting Nature

Regional Reviews of
Protected Areas

J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison, P. Dingwall
Editors

IUCN — The World Conservation Union
1994

The designations of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimination of its frontiers and boundaries.

Published by:

Citation:

ISBN:

Cover photograph:

Cover design by:
Produced by:

Printed by:
Available from:

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

IUCN

The World Conservation Union

(1994) International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial
purposes is authorised without prior permission from the copyright holder.

Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without
the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

McNeely, J.A., Harrison, J. and Dingwall, P. (eds). (1994), Protecting
Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. UCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. viii + 402pp.

2-8317-0119-8
Mount Makalu, Nepal: J.A. McNeely
IUCN Publications Services Unit

IUCN Publications Services Unit on desktop publishing equipment purchased
through a gift from Mrs Julia Ward.

Page Brothers (Norwich) Ltd, UK

IUCN Publications Services Unit

219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL, UK

IUCN Communications and Corporate Relations Division
Rue Mauvemey 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland.

The text of this book is printed on Fineblade Cartridge 90 gsm low-chlorine paper

Contents

Page
ECO re oe a ee na a WO ee, See er Vii
Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World.................. 1
Coastal Marine Protected Areas.................2.....00..0.. 29
Sub-SaharancAthicars crc ecyry:. J del aytteh slg EE bee dress eiade a A. 43
North Africa and the Middle East ............................ 13.
SUTTON) eh ARR AS Saige eee tienen Bartell ramet cd 9 oR. Uhl oi BMe, 101
INO TRIMEUNASIC arity ete a ase cre. & Grete, oct ogee an eee 133
EaswAsial: aw. 0st!a5 Res Sete, ois aor, et, 2 ee 157
south,and SoutheastiAsia’! 65.) 005. BL Re SR ON Des of BE 177
UIST ALA. 2 < (reed Koha) b VIER UN Ak TA RA OTA Paya) Ue) CN 205
AntarcticaiNew Zealand...) ce ce ce ere cee ee ee 229
MRETPACHICM I, RY 1 Sheth Oi 5h TPE OR EARN g ETS TPN) WU ee eee 255
NOMMPAINCNI Cale 22 ies ene, be WE AS, @ gam cue Sn Cun anar meereee 277
CentFalVAMON CAs cacestors co: vex lyce ears thar eae Sede Araceae ene 301
GaliDDOON eo od ce rs es etm es PON Joes lek re ae ee 323
SOUMMAMICLICA™ cre tm eee ced cen ete hee at here eee ore eer eee 347
Caracas’ACtion! PAN: « v6...° «joe ok hae. Set Be oe Se 373
Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................... 381
MIStON COUTMEIOS a5 teas acoder eel Ne ia ai i er ee er a 385
TRY? ER% 3a een ci adel dMRanal ete ote a area meen in, “Sit thes be Seta 389

Addendum

Readers should be aware that this publication is based on information
provided at the IV World Parks Congress, held in Caracas, Venezuela in
February 1992. Since then, a number of countries have further developed
their protected areas networks. For example, the Lao People’s Democratic
Republic is recorded here as lacking a protected areas system. However,
during late 1993 some 18 Biodiversity Conservation Areas were gazetted,

covering approximately 10 per cent of the country.

Readers are encouraged to consult the 1993 United Nations List of
National Parks and Protected Areas (IUCN, 1994) for more recent
statistical data.

It should also be noted that during 1994 IUCN introduced a revised
system of protected areas Management Categories. This is described in
Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 1994).

Preface

Every ten years, professionals involved in the establishment and management of protected areas
meet to assess the current state of protected areas, exchange information about new approaches to
protected areas management, and agree priorities for action in the coming years. The IV World
Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas was held from 10 to 21 February 1992, in Caracas,
Venezuela. Over 1,800 individuals—protected areas managers, educators, scientists, politicians,
tourism operators, and many others—reviewed progress and concerns, and agreed on a series of
new approaches to protected areas, building on the experience of the past.

In preparing for the IV World Congress, it quickly became apparent to the Steering Committee
that a significant review was required of the progress that had been made since the holding of the
III World Congress on National Parks in Bali, Indonesia, in October 1982. Three approaches were
used to collect this information:

w First, to draw out the key issues, to identify important lessons and future directions, and to
draw attention to the highest priorities for action, views were sought from a range of
professionals from within the respective regions, under the overall guidance of IUCN’s
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA). CNPPA Chair P.H.C. (Bing)
Lucas asked each of the Regional Vice-Chairs and the Vice-Chair Marine to prepare reviews
of what they considered the major issues in their respective regions, following the outline
agreed by the Steering Committee. This often involved regional meetings and other forms of
consultation, and in some cases also involved engaging others from within the respective region
to help with compilation and drafting.

ma Second, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) worked with national protected
area management agencies to produce the four-volume Protected Areas of the World, a
systematic country-by-country account of national protected area systems. These volumes
provided the factual basis to support conclusions made in the regional reviews, and helped
ensure that data were consistent across the regions. The data contained in these volumes have
been up-dated where possible for this book.

a Third, draft regional reviews were presented at Caracas and discussed by participants from
within each region. Based on the comments received, the reviews were subsequently revised,
some of them very considerably. Early drafts of several of the regional reviews—notably South
America, North America, and Europe—were prepared in forms that were two or three times
too long for the purposes of this volume. While the editorial process inevitably led to some
loss in detail, it is hoped that the longer versions can themselves be published separately in the
respective regions.

This book is, therefore, the result of an exhaustive round of consultations, meetings, submis-
sions, and discussions held in all parts of the world, and is the most authoritative single volume
on the protected areas of the world.

Vil

The regional reviews would not have been possible without the active participation of the
CNPPA Vice-Chairs, often serving primarily in a voluntary capacity under the wise leadership of
the CNPPA Chair, P.H.C. (Bing) Lucas. Numerous members of the CNPPA network and other
protected area professionals contributed to the reviews, and a number of consultants contributed
to the actual preparation of text; these are acknowledged in the respective regional review. The
World Conservation Monitoring Centre played a valuable role in providing the factual background
and helping in numerous additional ways. The texts were prepared for publication by staff at both
IUCN and WCMC, including Caroline Martinet, Joanna Erfani and Sue Rallo, James R. Paine,
Donald Gordon, Chris Sharpe and Harriet Gillet.

A large number of partners—ranging from governments to private foundations—provided the
financial resources necessary to organize and hold the Congress, and to support the preparation of
the Regional Reviews. Bilateral assistance came from the Governments of Venezuela, the
Netherlands, Sweden (SIDA), Finland (FINNIDA), Germany (BMZ-GTZ), Norway (Ministry of
Environment), Denmark (DANIDA), the United States of America (United States Department of
State and Department of Interior National Park Service), the United Kingdom (ODA), Switzerland
(DDA and Interco-operation), Canada (Canadian Park Service) and France (Ministries of Foreign
Affairs, Co-operation and the Environment). Multilateral institutions contributing included:
Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB),
The World Bank, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
the World Heritage Committee, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), and Agence de Co-operation Culturelle et Technique (ACCT) in France. International
non-governmental organizations and foundations supporting the Congress include: The Nature
Conservancy, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the MacArthur Foundation, and the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). British Petroleum helped support Congress documen-
tation. The World Resources Institute and the Bureau of the Ramsar Convention provided
important services to the Congress. Other institutions provided specific support to certain of the
regional reviews, and these are acknowledged in the respective review.

J.A. McNeely, Gland, Switzerland
J. Harrison, Cambridge, UK
P. Dingwall, Wellington, New Zealand

June 1994

viii

Introduction

Protected Areas in the
Modern World

ee ene | mie pmenengation.of (Wen
MPA Vice Ohne: Pe re ly a

r- : a ; ote GIG A optwerk Gad t 4

_ : ca p ~ wa) alrores a
=e t Wel mview ae

Ok te wl becheer
‘tiga a ty ott

pans nia! * 2 na Leabe| avy MEAT?
rash Piet Snr faves) Raaca Dog
il aie ees, a yeh 4 ae a adel A fe SAE Tn sie ‘ODAy'S
hg aoe Cyn Dt, SRM (akan levies apt Mente: 5) ryiaties
er, Ts —_ “se eerily Sea eh be tatters Con: TINY
<aralae pati 7 tanay tea Kaeyok prem F

Contents

Page
ieee INtTrOdUCTION ia Congress. on Malional. Perks and Protected. Arage. oO Fee 5
2. Objectives and classification of protected areas ................ U
3. 1he- world’s protectediareas ©). car s2crbegeion, 2). oe eee ee 10
3.1 Analy sisiotiprotectedjareas| COVera ge =e mamra Rew ueeie Ra i are aa 10
4. Protected areas ofthe world’sregions ...................... 13
4.1 hewegionalyapproachito protectediareaswaaena cee CeCe ac eae 13
4.2 Regional comparisons of protected areas... ...............0.. 15
5. Regional reviews of protected areas........................ 17
Sel ebereparationrofsthe reviews melee 9. een ee 17
5:27 ehormatand)contentiofithe reviews, .ocucmoucueaeschcetn on ciacne eRe 18
6GsnternationaliconventionS. 5. 0.5. 5 cea suseso) cite ae 18
7. Conclusion: People and protected areasystems ................ 23
HGEIGlGnCesS: S27 a ee, RAT eR eee el cae eee 24
Annex: Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by
biogeographic province en. is = 2 ays = yey oo ee 25
Boxes
Box 1. Conservation objectives for protected areas... ................ 8
Box 2. Categories and management objectives of protected areas ........... 9
Box 3. The modified system of protected areas categories approved at the
IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas ........ 10
Tables
Table 1. Summary of the global system of protected areas by CNPPA region. ..... 5)
Table 2a. Summary of the protected areas of the world by IUCN management
Catevory, (MUMIDEr OL SItCS) oa sai ian ee ee 6
Table 2b. Summary of the protected areas of the world by IUCN management
Cate gony, (aledl COVELEG)) emeyren tei ie west e-em 7

Table 3.

Table 4.

Figures

Figure 1.

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)

Figure 3.

Figure 4.
Figure 5.

Figure 6.
Figure 7.

Figure 8.
Figure 9.

The development of the protected areas system of the world by

CENPPA regione weoieah ole ko tagoe eet a= ecco
Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biome type .. . .

Number and area of the world protected areas system (1992), by IUCN

Manacement Gate tony. 5.) sae eed cmet oe) ok) leat ena

Biogeographical provinces. Those in black have less than one per cent

withinyprotectedtarcaS: s.rucu sme ee set emt ternn tate mr oI
Geographical responsibilities of CNPPA Vice-Chairs ...........

Relative development of Categories II and V: Europe compared to the

rest of the world (excluding Europe). .............----5

Comparison of the growth of protected areas systems in the Sub-Saharan

‘and:SoutheAmencantrealimsie-) - ey els ose ae ee eee

Comparison of size class: Europe and South and Southeast Asia realms

COM Paredes yey a ae Gest las Se kclte noe ee
Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites (global). . . .

Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites

CBD) SG ooc seco ad eo nasoounaae soos o Ow Halo oo

Figure 10.Adherence to the World Heritage Convention and location of natural

properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. ............

Figure 11.Participation in the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme and

the location of internationally recognized Biosphere Reserves .....

Introduction
Protected Areas in the Modern World

Jeffrey A. McNeely, Secretary General,
IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas

Jeremy Harrison, World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Paul Dingwall, CNPPA Vice-Chair for the Antarctic and New Zealand Region

1. Introduction

In all parts of the world, people have developed ways
to seek a balance between the interests of individuals
and the larger interests of society. Many societies
throughout history have recognized certain geographi-
cal areas of special importance to them, often protecting
them against abuse by individuals through religious
sanction. Moder industrial society, which has greater
power to affect nature than any of the world’s previous
civilizations, has greatly developed the idea of pro-
tected areas.

Protected areas as we know them were born over a
hundred years ago in the frontier of the North American

West, at a time when the indigenous population was
being displaced by immigrants. The West had been
thoroughly occupied for thousands of years by a rich
diversity of different ethnic groups, but to the European
immigrants it was a "wilderness" which needed to be
"conquered". To maintain at least a sample of this
"pristine" wilderness with a minimum of disturbance,
Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872 in
an area which was formerly occupied by Shoshone,
Crow, and Blackfoot Indians. A key element of the new
national park was that people—except for park staff—
were not allowed to live permanently in the area. The
North American model of the pristine national park
(= no resident population) grew slowly at first, but
beginning in the 1960s many more countries established

Table 1. Summary of the global system of protected areas by CNPPA region.

Area in

Area of
Region

North America

Europe

North Africa and Middle East
East Asia

North Eurasia
Sub-Saharan Africa
South and Southeast Asia
Pacific

Australia

Antarctic/New Zealand
Central America

23,433,902
5,105,551
13,118,661
11,789,524
22,100,900
23,927,581 1,247,997
8,866,88 4487,437
573,690 4,858
7,682,487 814,113
13,625,961 34,335
542,750 45,871
238,620 22,857
18,001,095 1,145,894

2,560,502
462,231
440,724
424,151
237,958

CategoriesI-V % VI-VIIlandUA %

Total area
designated

Area in Categories

94,312
44,371

2,654,814
506,602
36,088 476,812
23,622 L 447,773
0 } 237,958
1,153,421 2,401,4181
351,266 : 838,703
16,803 : 21,661
23,816 ; 837,929
17,921 : 52,256
58,213 104,084
9,138 . 31,995
2,465,237 3,611,131

149,007,606 7,928,928
Prepared from 1992 data

4,294,208 12,223,136

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned; categories used are the
1978 system and not the revised system. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may
lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

national parks which excluded people, following the
1969 IUCN definition of "national park" as a relatively
large area which is not materially altered by human
exploitation and occupation, and where the highest
competent authority of the country has taken steps to
prevent or eliminate exploitation or occupation in the
whole area.

Experience quickly showed, however, that most parts
of the world already had people living there, or at least
had people with legitimate historical claims to the land.
In recognition of the reality that conserving nature
required more flexible approaches to management, many
countries began to develop ways to augment the strictly
protected national parks, including game reserves,
watershed protection forests, indigenous reserves, rec-
reation forests, and many others. Over 25,000 protected
areas have now been established, covering over 5 per
cent of the globe (an area roughly equivalent to twice
the size of India). Only 1,470 of these are national parks
of the Yellowstone model, while the rest are given a
wide variety of other designations (IUCN, 1990); Aus-
tralia alone has at least 45 named kinds of protected
areas (see Bridgewater and Shaughnessy, this volume).

To bring some order to this chaos of terms, IUCN
(1978) established ten categories of protected areas
based on management objectives. These categories are
far more than just names. While continuing to support
the idea that some areas are so important for national
objectives that the highest degree of protection from
human influence is required, IUCN has also recognized
that the ideal of national parks being places without

significant human influence is not always reflected in
practice; in South America, for example, a recent IUCN
study found that some 86% of national parks had per-
manent resident human populations (Amend and Amend,
1992). Further, both governments and international
conservation organizations have recognized that new
management approaches are needed to build a more
positive relationship with the people who live in and
around protected areas. This new perspective was first
given full legitimacy in the World Conservation Strat-
egy (IUCN, 1980) and was converted into practical
advice at the III World National Parks Congress (Bali,
Indonesia, October 1992). The title of the Congress
proceedings, National Parks, Conservation and Devel-
opment: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining
Society (McNeely and Miller, 1984), gives a clear indi-
cation of the new directions being advocated.

After a decade of experience with the new approach,
a number of important lessons have been learned. Many
of these were brought together at the IV World Con-
gress on National Parks and Protected Areas, which was
held in Caracas, Venezuela, in February 1992. Several
publications have already resulted from the Congress
(McNeely, 1993; Barzetti, 1993; Thorsell, 1992; Har-
mon, 1992) and many more are in progress. The Caracas
Congress provided an opportunity to reassess the cur-
rent status and trends of protected areas and to synthe-
size the lessons learned to date. This book is one of the
major outcomes of the Congress, presenting a region-
by-region review of the major protected area issues of
the world.

Table 2a. Summary of the protected areas of the world by IUCN management category

(number of sites)

North America

Europe

North Africa and Middle East
East Asia

North Eurasia

Sub-Saharan Africa

South and Southeast Asia
Pacific

Australia
Antarctica/New Zealand
Central America
Caribbean

South America

BRINE KE NDWOON

Total

Prepared from 1992 data
Notes:

Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean where it is 1 sq km.

"UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned; categories used are the 1978 system and not the
revised system. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.

Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may
lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover.

Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World

Table 2b. Summary of the protected areas of the world by IUCN management category

(area covered)

North America 19,724
Europe 31,070 55,130
North Africa and Middle East 22,958 139,429
East Asia 3,746 72,866
North Eurasia 218,493 16,444
Sub-Saharan Africa 25,824 758,064
176,508

1,452,628

South and Southeast Asia 73,555
Pacific 1,948 1,281

Australia 25,835 633,210
Antarctica/New Zealand 8,858 21,710
Central America 3,558 31,012
Caribbean 494 8,697
South America 83,896 546,325

184,705 696,293
3,422 66,138 306,473
62 232,788 45,487
309,387 38,153
1,8403 1,176
439,090 24,831 1,247,997
232,493 4,670 487,437
1,543 76 4,858
105,679 49,374 814,113
3,558 0 34,335
11,057 67 45,871
6,758 6,896 22,857
281,189 206,404 1,145,894

207,150 2,560,502
462,231
440,724
424,151

237,958

28,076

$19,939 3,913,304

Prepared from 1992 data

217,090 2,387,816 890,757 7,928,928

2. Objectives and classification of
protected areas

The IUCN categories system is based on a set of 12
broad objectives which can guide management deci-
sions (Box 1). It is clear, however, that some of these
objectives may be more compatible than others, and that
uncontrolled implementation of some of them could
lead to over-exploitation or even destruction of the
natural values the protected area was established to
protect. Logging in a national park, for example, is
clearly inappropriate, whereas wildlife management and
certain types of education, training and research may be
compatible and even help support sustained-yield for-
estry. On the other hand, a national park established to
conserve sample ecosystems and ecological diversity
can often also support tourism and conserve water-
sheds.

The 1978 categories system has been the subject of a
lengthy review by IUCN’s Commission on National
Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA), beginning in 1988
and culminating in a workshop at the Caracas Congress;
a revised version of the categories paper will be pub-
lished early in 1994. A summary of the definitions used
from 1978 to 1993 (including within this volume) can
be found in Box 2. The slightly modified system agreed
at Caracas includes the addition of wilderness areas to
Category I, the definition of anew Category VI, and the
recognition that those areas of interest in the former
Categories VI to X should fit within the new Categories
I-VI. This new system is presented in Box 3.

As well as demonstrating the potential range of man-
agement "tools", categories also provide the framework
for comparing protected area systems, and judging change
over time. So, for example, unless otherwise indicated,

tables and figures of protected area statistics used in this
volume include only those publicly-owned sites over
1,000 hectares in IUCN Management Categories I to
V—the so-called UN List criteria). Figure1 illustrates
the proportion of protected areas found within each of
the five management categories.

Analysis of protected areas statistics using the IUCN
criteria has its limitations, and the regional reviews have
brought these clearly into focus. Where countries or
regions have many small protected areas, the protected
area system is under-represented in these tables. Europe,
for example, has many thousands of protected areas
smaller than 1,000ha; in Sweden, 1,200 nature reserves
totalling 430,000ha are too small to be included, and in
the Netherlands, the extent of protected areas is under-
stated by an estimated 30-40% because it excludes the
many small reserves in that country.

Many protected areas, often within other sectors such
as forestry, serve an important conservation function
but do not fall within IUCN Management Categories
I_V. In Southeast Asia, for example, almost 500 areas,
or about 20% of all protected areas, are Category VI to
Category VIII areas (under the pre-Caracas system). No
less significant is the case of Central America, with 71
Category VI to VIII areas, or 43% of the total number
of protected areas; they cover 3.3 million ha or some
6% of the territory in the region. The North Eurasia
review identifies 1950 sanctuary areas which are not
included in the UN List; these areas cover more than 67
million ha, nearly triple the area protected under IUCN
Categories I-V.

Countries or regions with a high proportion of their
reserves managed by private trusts or other non-govern-
mental bodies are also under-represented by such statis-
tics. In Europe, many very large areas managed for

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Box 1. Conservation objectives for protected areas

1. Sample ecosystems. To maintain large areas as representative samples of each major biological region of the
nation in its natural unaltered state for ensuring the continuity of evolutionary and ecological processes,
including animal migration and gene flow.

Ecological diversity. To maintain examples of the different characteristics of each type of natural com-
munity, landscape and land form for protecting the representative as well as the unique diversity of the nation,
particularly for ensuring the role of natural diversity in the regulation of the environment.

Genetic resources. To maintain all genetic materials as elements of natural communities, and avoid the loss
of plant and animal species.

Education and research. To provide facilities and opportunities in natural areas for purposes of formal and
informal education and research, and the study and monitoring of the environment.

Water and soil conservation. To maintain and manage watersheds to ensure an adequate quality and flow of
fresh water, and to control and avoid erosion and sedimentation, especially where these processes are directly
related to downstream investments which depend on water for transport, irrigation, agriculture, fisheries, and
recreation, and for the protection of natural areas.

Wildlife management. To maintain and manage fishery and wildlife resources for their vital role in
environmental regulation, for the production of protein, and as the base for industrial, sport, and recreational
resources.

Recreation and tourism. To provide opportunities for healthy and constructive outdoor recreation for local
residents and foreign visitors, and to serve as poles for tourism development based on the outstanding natural
and cultural characteristics of the nation.

Timber. To manage and improve timber resources for their role in environmental regulation and to provide
a sustainable production of wood products for the construction of housing and other uses of high national
priority.

Cultural heritage. To protect and make available all cultural, historic and archaeological objects, structures
and sites for public visitation and research purposes as elements of the cultural heritage of the nation.

Scenic beauty. To protect and manage scenic resources which ensure the quality of the environment near
towns and cities, highways and rivers, and surrounding recreation and tourism areas.

Options for the future. To maintain and manage large areas of land under flexible land-use methods which
conserve natural processes and ensure open options for future changes in land use, incorporate new
technologies, meet new human requirements, and initiate new conservation practices as research makes them
available.

Integrated development. To focus and organize conservation activities to support the integrated development
of rural lands, giving particular attention to the conservation and utilization of "marginal areas” and to the
provision of stable rural employment opportunities.

(after Miller, 1980)

conservation objectives are in private ownership. The
County Nature Trusts in the United Kingdom, for ex-
ample, own or lease some 2,000 nature reserves cover-
ing 52,000ha. About half of the protected areas in
Belgium are not State-owned, and in Switzerland non-
governmental organizations own 520 nature reserves
covering 80,000ha. New Zealand currently has almost
600 protected areas in reserves or covenants over pri-
vate land; covering more than 20,000ha, and such areas
are growing rapidly in number.

Clearly, then, the UN List does not document the full
extent of global protection but rather indicates a very
conservative picture of the protected area estate. The
regional reviews in this book demonstrate that reality is
only partially reflected in statistics; and that manage-
ment problems bedevil protected areas of all categories.
The latter issue is discussed in detail in each of the
reviews.

Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World

Box 2. Categories and management objectives of protected areas

I. Scientific Reserve/Strict Nature Reserve. To protect nature and maintain natural processes in an undisturbed
state in order to have ecologically representative examples of the natural environment available for scientific
study, environmental monitoring, education, and for the maintenance of genetic resources in a dynamic and
evolutionary state.

National Park. To protect natural and scenic areas of national or international significance for scientific,
educational, and recreational use.

Natural Monument/Natural Landmark. To protect and preserve nationally significant natural features
because of their special interest or unique characteristics.

Managed Nature Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary. To assure the natural conditions necessary to protect nationally
significant species, groups of species, biotic communities, or physical features of the environment where
these require specific human manipulation for their perpetration.

Protected Landscapes. To maintain nationally significant natural landscapes which are characteristic of the
harmonious interacuon of man and land while providing opportunities for public enjoyment through
recreation and tourism within the normal life style and economic activity of these areas.

Resource Reserve. To protect the natural resources of the areas for future use and prevent or contain
development activities that could affect the resource pending the establishment of objectives which are based
upon appropriate knowledge and planning.

Natural Biotic Area/Anthropological Reserve. To allow the way of life of socicties living in harmony with
the environment to continue undisturbed by modern technology.

Multiple-Use Management Area/Managed Resource Area. To provide for the sustained production of water,
timber, wildlife, pasture, and outdoor recreation, with the conservation of nature primarily orientated to the
support of the economic activities (although specific zones may also be designated within these areas to
achieve specific conservation objectives).

(after IUCN, 1978)

Figure 1. Number and area of the world protected areas system (1992) by IUCN
management category

Number of sites Area covered

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Box 3. The modified system of protected areas categories agreed at the lV World
Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas

Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area. Areas of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or repre-
sentative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific
research and/or environmental monitoring; or large areas of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or
sea, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which are
protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.

National Park: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for Ecosystem Conservation and Recreation. Natural
areas of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems
for this and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation
of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor
opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.

Natural Monument: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for Conservation of Specific Features. Areas
containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding or unique value
because of its inherent rarity, represen- tative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.

Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for Conservation Through Manage-
ment Intervention. Areas of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as
to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species.

Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for Landscape/Seascape Conservation
and Recreation. Areas of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature
over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, cultural and/or ecological
value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is
vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.

Managed Resource Protected Area: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for the Sustainable Use of Natural
Ecosystems. Areas containing predomin- antly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of
natural products and services to mect community needs.

3. The world’s protected areas
3.1

practical target for each of the biogeographic provinces.
Rather than consolidation, the decade after Bali was one
of continued growth (Figure 2). Indeed, Table 3 illus-
trates that more than 50% of the area protected has been
established since 1982 in five regions: North Africa/
Middle East, East Asia, North Eurasia, Central America,
and the Caribbean.

Analysis of protected areas
coverage

IUCN has been working for many years to promote
development of a global protected area system that
would ensure adequate representation of the full range
of biome types. In 1975 IUCN developed a bio-geo-
graphic structure for assessing protected areas coverage

An analysis of coverage using IUCN’s classification
was presented at the Bali Congress (Harrison et al.,

at the global level (Udvardy, 1975), dividing the world
into eight realms, each of which was sub-divided into a
number of biogeographic provinces (a total of 193 in the
world, as listed in the Annex). Each province is charac-
terised by one of 14 major biome types (listed in the
Annex).

At the III World Congress on National Parks and
Protected Areas in 1982, many participants were con-
cerned that the following decade would be one of con-
solidation rather than growth. However, the meeting
was essentially forward looking, and one of the objec-
tives of the Bali Action Plan (McNeely and Miller,
1984) was to establish by 1992 a worldwide network of
national parks and protected areas to cover all terrestrial
and marine ecological regions. A figure of 10 per cent
of the land area was agreed to be an appropriate and

1984), but this was of limited value because at that time
no estimate of the area of each biogeographical province
was available, and hence percentage coverage could not
be calculated. These estimates have since been made,
and an analysis was first published in 1992 for the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-
opment (WCMC, 1992). Some 46 of the 193 terrestrial
provinces (24 per cent) have reached the 10 per cent
target (Annex).

A summary of coverage by biome (Table 4) gives a
first approximation of how well the major ecological
formations are protected, suggesting that particular at-
tention should be paid to the further development of
protected areas in temperate grassland regions, and in
the major lake systems. Analysis by biogeographical
province, while sull crude, provides a more detailed

Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)
2,500

Number of sites

Te calle WNL (x1000sqkm)

1,500 —

1,000 —

1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Five year period beginning...

picture of coverage. The Annex also highlights a num- However, analysis using biogeographical classifica-

ber of provinces where protection appears to be less
than adequate, with 38 out of 193 provinces having less
than 1% of their area protected; Figure 3 shows the
location of those provinces. Review of the Annex indi-

tions is not entirely satisfactory, and many habitat/eco-
system types are not adequately covered by this approach.
In a study of mountain protected areas, for example,
Thorsell and Harrison (1992) used altitudinal range as a

cates where priorities might lie for the further develop-

means to identify those areas of interest, and provided
ment of protected area systems.

an inventory of more than 400 sites. They concluded
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system of the world by CNPPA region

% area
established
1972-1981

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established

% area Date Total
established area
unknown designated

established
1982-1991

99,367 2,560,500

y : 12,918 460,671

North Africa and Middle East : L ; : 8,630 440,725
East Asia E : : ; 19,574 427,414
North Eurasia : : l , 0 237,956
Sub-Saharan Africa ; ‘ ; E 13,620 1,247,998
South and Southeast Asia E : ‘5 H 9,539 487,435
Pacific : : : , 47 4,857
Australia ; 143,057 814,113
Antarctic/New Zealand ; : ! : 2,033 34,334
Central America F : : t 314 45,869
4,911 22,857

3,313 1,145,891

317,322 7,930,629

Prepared from 1992 data

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometre. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are
included. Categories used are the 1978 system, not the revised system. Similar tables can be produced based on
number of sites rather than area covered. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size
has occured, or a change indesignation, this may distort the figures.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

sease pa}da}0/d ulyjIM JUad Jad aUO UeY} Sse] BAeY yOe/q Ul BSOYY “SadUIAOJd jedIydesHoaboig “¢ ainbi4

Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World

Table 4. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biome type

Biome Type Area (sq km)

Tropical humid forests 10,513,210
Subtropical/temperate rainforests/woodlands 3,930,979
Temperate needle-leaf forests/woodlands 15,682,817
Tropical dry forests/woodlands 17,312,538
Temperate broad-leaf forests 11,216,660
Evergreen sclerophyllous forests 3,757,144
Warm deserts/semi-deserts 24,279,842
Cold-winter deserts 9,250,252
Tundra communities 22,017,390
Tropical grasslands/savannas 4,264,833
Temperate grasslands 8,976,591
Mixed mountain systems 10,633,145
Mixed island systems 3,252,270
Lake systems 517,694

Based on 1992 data

Number Area (ha)

53,833,388
36,629,731
48,722,746
81,755,123
35,823,999
17,758,448
98,400,670
36,472,009
164,504,267
23,512,784
6,998 248
85,249,420
32,276,920
663,486

Notes: Protected areas are excluded from the above analysis if location is unknown.

that further attention needed to be focused on increasing
protection in the Atlas range, Antarctica, the Alps,
Papua New Guinea, the Hindu Kush, and the mountains
of Burma. Other habitat-specific reviews at interna-
tional levels cover wetlands, coastal marine habitats
(see Kelleher and Bleakley, this volume), and so on.

BirdLife International (previously the International
Council for Bird Preservation) has been developing
techniques for identifying key areas for birds (Endemic
Bird Areas, or EBAs) through study of the distributions
of bird species with relatively narrow ranges. Some 221
EBAs have been identified and mapped (Bibby et al.,
1992), and reviews of the coverage of EBAs by pro-
tected areas have been carried out for some countries,
demonstrating that perhaps as many as 20% of the
EBAs have no protected areas. Other approaches to
identify important sites at the international level include
the many species action plans being developed by IUCN’s
Species Survival Commission. The quest for an effec-
tive and representative global system of protected areas
is continuing.

4. Protected areas of the world’s
regions

4.1. The regional approach to
protected areas

A regional approach to international activities on pro-
tected areas has several benefits. Central America is
different from Africa, and each is different from Oceania
and North America; yet a region has many cultural,
historical, and biogeographical factors in common. The
needs of protected areas managers— especially in man-
agement and building public support—are therefore

often better served by support activities within the region.
To meet these needs, CNPPA is organized regionally,
broadly following the realms of Udvardy (1975), but
modified by political reality to clearly identify which
countries lie within which regions (Figure 4 and the List
of Countries). The regions can briefly be described as
follows:

w South America. A natural unit, including the whole
continent, and corresponding to the southern part of
Udvardy’s Neotropical Realm.

gw Central America. A less natural unit because the
northern boundary excludes Mexico (which lies
partly in the Neotropical Realm). However, the
countries south of Mexico and north of Colombia
have numerous features in common, and have united
to form a regional programme for conservation of
biological diversity and protected areas. It therefore
seems sensible to recognize this unity.

@ Caribbean. This region includes all of the island
nations and states of the Caribbean sea, but not the
surrounding "mainland". Although not in the Carib-
bean Sea, Bermuda is also included.

w North America. This covers the region from Mex-
ico northwards, comprising all of the Nearctic Realm
and small parts of the Neotropical Realm in southern
Mexico and the Everglades. It is a small region in
terms of number of countries, but two of the coun-
tries—Canada and the USA—are huge, and have
been world leaders in protected areas.

a Europe. A difficult region to define, being attached
geographically to Asia and influenced by an extraor-
dinarily complex history. All of it lies within the
Palaearctic Realm. For historical reasons, only the
Baltic republics of the former Soviet Union are

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

(tak
“I ‘
Wa \.

oyloed

a ¢

Pa 2BISY 1889

puyjeeZz MeN/O}OIB}UY

OIloBd

BOLeUy

.! ¢ ot
et edoing UJON
a Ly

SAIEUD-291A VWddND JO Saiiqisuodsa, jediydesboay “pv aunBi4

included in this CNPPA region at present, although
at least the Ukraine, Belarus and parts of the Russian
Federation are technically within Europe.

North Africa and the Middle East. This region lies
almost completely within the Palaearctic Realm, but
is nonetheless rather artificial in its geographical
boundaries; however, it has sufficient cultural ho-
mogeneity to be treated as a unit.

Sub-Saharan Africa. This region corresponds closely
to the Afrotropical Realm, with only a few relatively
minor differences along the northern boundary.

North Eurasia. This region, all within the Pa-
laearctic Realm, includes the Russian Federation—
still the world’s largest country— and most of the
former republics of the Soviet Union. While most of
the territory is geographically in Asia, most of the
population is located within the European part of the
region. As can be concluded from the review, this is
a region of rapid changes and will certainly be
presented differently at the next Congress.

East Asia. This region excludes the former Soviet
Union but includes all of China. Most of it is within
the Palaearctic Realm, but the southem boundary
encompasses two biogeographical provinces that
are included within Udvardy’s Indomalayan Realm:
Taiwan and the South Chinese Rainforest. As with
North Africa and the Middle East, this region as
defined has sufficient cultural homogenity to justify
treatment as a single unit.

South and Southeast Asia. This is another difficult
region to define, with somewhat artificial boundaries. It
includes most of the Indomalayan Realm, but India,
Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar all have
areas that are technically in the Palaearctic Realm,
some parts of southern China (East Asia) are in the
Indomalayan Realm but are included in the East
Asian region, and the Eastern Indonesian islands
(including Irian Jaya, the Indonesian part of New
Guinea) are included, although biogeographically in
the Oceanian Realm.

Pacific. This area corresponds closely to the Oceanian
Realm, but with the Eastern Indonesian islands ex-
cluded. It is united by collaboration through the
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
(SPREP) and a regular series of South Pacific Con-
servation Conferences.

Australia. This is a natural unit, corresponding
precisely with Australian Realm. It is also unusual
in comprising only one country, although the Aus-
tralian states have considerable autonomy.

New Zealand and Antarctica. This region corre-
sponds precisely to the Antarctic Realm of Udvardy,
though politically it is somewhat awkward because
sO many distant countries have claims or interests in
Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic islands.

Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World

4.2 Regional comparisons of

protected areas

As these CNPPA regions are defined using political
boundaries, it is relatively easy to generate a range of
protected area statistics which illustrate protected area
coverage of these regions, and the development of the
protected areas over time. Some of this information can
be compared with the global biogeographic tables and
figures presented above.

It is clear from Table 1, for example, that considerable
differences exist between regions. North America and
Australia each have some 10 per cent of their land area
declared as protected, while Europe, Central America,
and the Caribbean have over 8.5 per cent. At the other
end of the scale, North Africa and the Middle East, East
Asia, North Eurasia, the Pacific, and Antarctica have
less than 4 per cent protected, although individual coun-
tries, such as New Zealand, have well developed and
extensive protected area systems. Comparison with simi-
lar tables within each region highlights the range of
coverage between nations. In fact the area for most
concern is probably North Eurasia (the republics of the
former Soviet Union), as most of Antarctica is de facto
protected (and protected de jure, under the Antarctic
Treaty), and the Pacific has a range of effective pro-
tected areas which do not easily fit within IUCN man-
agement categories I-V. Plans certainly existed for
development of the protected area system before the
breakup of the Soviet Union (see Nikolskii, this vol-
ume), and it will be interesting to follow developments
in this region over the next decade.

The figures in Tables 2a and 2b show the absolute
number of sites and area protected in each of the man-
agement categories in each of the regions. These figures
reveal many interesting comparisons. For example, North
America has twice as much area in national parks as any
other of the regions, even though sub-Saharan Africa,
South and Southeast Asia, and South America have
more individual national parks than North America, and
Australia has twice as many. Category V is mostly
European, including more than half of all Category V
areas in the world; Antarctica and New Zealand have
none currently included. North Eurasia has the most
sites in Category I, twice as many as the next region
(South America) and ten times as many as North Amer-
ica. But North Eurasia also has the fewest Category IV
and only two Category V areas. Category III is a North
American category, with five times as many as Europe;
East Asia and North Eurasia have no Category III areas,
while Australia and the Pacific have just one each. The
differences in categories are the result of a range of
factors, including population settlement patterns and
conservation history, as explained in the individual
reviews. However, it is clear that the full range of
categories is not being utilized in many parts of the
world, or at least is not being utilized in the same way.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 5. Relative development of Categories Il and V: Europe compared to the rest of
the world (excluding Europe)

1,400

1,200
World Europe
1,000 (excluding Europe)

Cd
=

assess"
as

Number — Year > — Year >>
of sites

Category Il Category V

Figure 6. Comparison of the growth of protected areas systems in the Sub-Saharan
and South American realms

14007 Gouth America Sub-Saharan Africa

800
600
400

200

Number of sites/Area sq.km (x 1,000)

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Five year period begining...
16

Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World

Figure 7. Comparison of size class: Europe and South and Southeast Asia realms

compared

Size class frequency

&jjnumber of sites in each class
CEEOL
COR

SZ
KOO

Palaearctic (Europe)

Table 3 and Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate the substan-
tial differences between regions in rates of establishment
of protected areas. Especially striking are the differ-
ences in rates of establishment between Africa and the
other tropical regions, presumably the result of an early
desire to protect areas with "big game" species in the
Africa savanna, followed by a period of consolidation
and tourism development. Africa therefore would ap-
pear a very high priority for implementing additional
categories of protected areas which meet the needs of
local people (see Olindo, this volume).

The information provided on number of areas and
area covered suggests strong regional differences. These
differences are often a reflection of opportunity, so, for
example, the Pacific and the Caribbean do not have
much opportunity for establishment of particularly large
areas, while population density in Europe tends to re-
Strict the size of new protected areas there. Figure 7
provides a comparison of protected area size class fre-
quency between Europe and South and Southeast Asia,
clearly illustrating the bias toward smaller sites in Europe,
a theme explored further in the European review paper
(see Synge and Bibelriether, this volume).

5. Regional reviews of protected

areas
5.1 Preparation of the reviews

For each of the regions outlined above, the CNPPA
Chair has selected a Regional Vice-Chair who has been

\\Area covered (million hectares)

j
j
gWA_.

South and Southeast Asia

confirmed by the IUCN Council and is responsible for
coordinating the work of CNPPA within the respective
region. One of the most important tasks during the past
several years has been to compile the regional reviews
which are contained within this volume.

These reviews are each the result of considerable
consultation within the respective regions. In some re-
gions, this involved special working sessions of CNPPA
(as in South and Southeast Asia and the Caribbean). In
others, it involved convening task forces (Europe, North
Africa and the Middle East, Africa, and South Amer-
ica), while in still others it involved considerable con-
sultation among the involved parties, often taking ad-
vantage of other meetings being held in the region on
related topics (North America, Australia, the Pacific,
North Eurasia, East Asia, and New Zealand and Antarctica).

To ensure that marine protected areas were given
sufficient emphasis, the CNPPA Vice-Chair for coastal
marine protected areas was requested to prepare a global
review for marine protected areas. This involved the
establishment of 13 task forces to cover each of the
marine regions. Since the boundaries of these regions
are rather different from the terrestrial areas, we have
kept this report separate, although marine and coastal
issues are also dealt with in each of the regional reviews.

This preparatory process was designed to strengthen
the network of protected areas professionals in each
region, to feed ideas and information to the Caracas
Congress, and to make best use of the results of the
Congress. It also helped to build consensus about the

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

major issues facing protected areas in the region, and
the approaches needed to address them. The process
therefore contributed to the preparation of the Caracas
Action Plan and the Congress Report (McNeely, 1993)
as well.

5.2 Format and content of the reviews

Each of the Regional Vice-Chairs was asked to follow
a general format, applied to the particular conditions of
the region. Each review covers the following:

1. Historical perspective. Provides a brief geo-
graphical introduction to the region, how the
protected areas system has been developed over
time, factors influencing the establishment of
protected areas systems, participation in major
international protected areas programmes, ma-
jor actions that have been taken, and lessons
learned.

2. Current protected area coverage. Includes
data on the current system of coverage per coun-
try, categories of protected areas, and how well
current systems cover major habitat types.

3. Additional protected areas required. Cov-
ers, in summary form, the major gaps in the
protected area system of the region: what is
required to ensure that the protected areas of the
region are effective in protecting biodiversity,
representing the full range of habitats, meeting
the needs of recreation and tourism, protecting
water supplies and genetic resources, and meet-
ing the many other needs of society that require
maintaining land and water under reasonably
natural conditions.

Protected areas institutions. Identifies the
kinds of institutions which are involved in the
establishment and management of protected ar-
eas, showing a very broad range indeed. The
linkages between protected area institutions and
other development sectors is also covered.

Current levels of financial investment in pro-
tected areas. Designed to present information
on expenditures by governments and private
organizations on protected areas. However, this
kind of information has proved difficult to col-
lect in a reasonably complete way, and the infor-
mation contained here can be considered only a
first approximation.

Human capacity in protected areas manage-
ment. Intended to highlight the number of
people directly employed by protected areas and
the numbers indirectly employed as a result of
the establishment of protected areas; as with
financial investment, such figures are elusive.

7. Priorities for future investment in protected
areas. Designed to identify current action plans

at both national and international levels from
both private and public institutions, and state the
priorities for investment in the region.

Major protected areas issues in the region.
Gives each of the regions an opportunity to
present the most important issues for them, in-
cluding relations between local people and pro-
tected areas, involvement by the private sector
in the establishment and management of pro-
tected areas, the relationship between protected
areas and surrounding lands, protected areas and
science, and threats to effective management
(both internal and external).

Priorities for action in the region. Drawing
from the analysis in the previous pages, each of
the reviews concludes with a section on action
priorities. This section varies somewhat in form,
Iength, and content, designed in each case to be
uscful to the respective region. For several of the
regions, this section provides the basis for a
much more detailed action plan which has been
developed through a subsequent process of con-
sultation, discussion, and collaboration.

6. International conventions

For a wide range of activities, conservation action can
benefit greatly from an international approach or per-
spective. Some sites are of such value to mankind that
the global community as a whole should take action for
their protection. Some habitat types are under threat in
many parts of the world, yet can be tremendously pro-
ductive if used in the right way. International coordina-
tion of research and training within protected areas
networks can have a multipier effect if the results of
such efforts are shared.

The Convention on Wetlands of International Impor-
tance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (signed in Ramsar,
Iran, in 1971) provides a framework for inter- national
co-operation for the conservation of wetland habitats. It
places general obligations on states relating to the con-
servation of wetlands throughout their territories, with
special obligations pertaining to those wetlands desig-
nated to the List of Wetlands of Intemational Impor-
tance.

Wetlands are defined by the convention as: areas of
marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artifi-
cial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static
or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of
marine waters, the depth of which at low tide does not
exceed six metres. More than 600 sites are now listed,
in more than 80 countries (Figures 8 and 9), although
representation in large parts of Africa and Central and
Southeast Asia is still rather low. By far the greatest
number of listed sites is to be found in Europe, although
the larger sites tend to be elsewhere.

Figure 8. Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites (global)

Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World

entre

~
~

D
Cc
‘=
fe)
ast
iS
io)
=
iS
fe)
a)
fe)
>
=
)
“
c
fe)
oS)
ne)
=
o)
=
co)
oo
+
>
a
U
o
—
ce)
a
o)
=
a

Listed Wetlands

| Contracting Parties

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 9. Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites (Europe)

Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World

sujuag BuoyUO;W UoIyDAIeSUOD POM ey} Ag peiodeid

S9}IS |DINJOU pajsiq e

SalDg HuljoduyUuog Ea

1SI7] aHeyWaH POM Oy} UO paqiosu! Sa!ledoud jeunjyeu JO UO}}BDO] Puke UO!}UBAUOD abey9H POM 8u) 0} BoUaJeUpY “O01 aNbi4

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

24jUaQ BHuvoyuUoW UoNDAJeSUOD PJ4omM ey Aq peindaig

SaAlesay siaudsoig e

suol}ou Bulyodioiog a

SaAJaSoYy aaydsolg
paziubooa, Ajjeuoneuseju! jo UONeD0) oy} pue aUWesBHO1g aiaydsolg ay} pue UBW ODSANN ey} ul UONedioWe, “11, anbi4

D2,

The Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage (adopted in Paris
in 1972) provides for the designation of areas of "out-
standing universal value" as World Heritage sites, with
the principal aim of fostering international co-operation
in safeguarding these important areas. Sites are inde-
pendently evaluated for their world heritage quality
before being declared, and include both natural and
cultural sites; only natural sites are considered here.

The World Heritage Convention considers as natural
heritage, among other qualities:

natural features of outstanding scientific value

geological or physiographical formations which are
of global significance

particularly significant areas for threatened species
natural features of outstanding natural beauty

The World Heritage Convention has more signatories
than any other conservation convention, with 136 state
parties as of September 1993. Figure 10 illustrates the
distribution of contracting parties, and of the hundred
or so natural and mixed natural/cultural sites inscribed
on the List of World Heritage (there are many more
cultural sites listed).

The establishment of Biosphere Reserves is not cov-
ered by a specific convention, but is part of an interna-
tional scientific programme, the UNESCO Man and the
Biosphere (MAB) Programme. Biosphere Reserves dif-
fer from the preceding types of site in that they are not
exclusively designated to protect unique areas or impor-
tant wetlands, but for a range of objectives which in-
clude research, monitoring, training and demonstration,
as well as conservation roles. Figure 11 illustrates the
distribution of Biosphere Reserves, and of countries
participating in the programme.

7. Conclusion: People and

protected area systems

The regional reviews contained in this book all reflect
great concem about the relationship between people

Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World

and protected areas in a world of growing human popu-
lations and growing demands for resources. The ap-
proach to protected area management advocated in the
regional reviews and at Caracas involves partnerships
with a wide range of interest groups, for the benefit of
people, protected areas, and biodiversity. This approach
faces formidable challenges. Many protected area staff
are convinced that a cooperative approach could ulti-
mately reduce the quality of the protected area; they
believe that strong legislation supported by vigorous
law enforcement is the best option for long-term con-
servation. And indeed, experience has shown that local
people sometimes are as likely as anyone else to misuse
privileges under cooperative management. Even so,
given the insufficient staff and logistical support likely
to be available to most protected areas for the foresee-
able future, the "strict preservationist approach" would
not only be impossible to implement, but would even
be of doubtful validity on conservation grounds. The
proposed conciliatory and cooperative approach may be
the only viable option in the conditions of today
(Ishwaran, 1992).

This compromise means that the more that basic
human needs can be met by protecting natural areas, the
better are the chances of survival for those areas. Since
demands on resources can only be expected to continue
to grow, itis necessary to justify existing protected areas
ever-more convincingly and to establish new areas un-
der a range of management regimes which can adapt to
varying local conditions and human requirements.

People should have no illusions about the severity of
the problems protected areas will face in the coming
years. The conflicts of tomorrow will be even more
difficult than those of today, as resource scarcity, climate
change, economic imbalance, population growth, expand-
ing consumption, and continuing use of inappropriate
technology form a witch’s brew of challenges to pro-
tected areas, and to sustainable use of the environment
as a whole. But such challenges mean that protected
areas have an even more important part to play in
securing a productive future for the people of our planet.
The regional reviews contained in this volume suggest
the most productive way to proceed.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

References

Amend, S. and Amend, T. (eds.) 1992. Espacios Sin
Habitantes? Parques nacionales de America del
Sur. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 497 pp.

Barzetti, V. (ed.). 1993. Parks and Progress: Protected
Areas and Economic Development in Latin America
and the Caribbean. 'UCN-IADB, Cambridge, UK.
240 pp.

Bibby, C. et al (1992). Putting Biodiversity on the Map:
priority areas for global conservation. ICBP,
Cambridge, UK.

Harmon, D. (ed.). 1992. Research in Protected Areas:
Results from the IV World Congress on National
Parks and Protected Areas. George Wright Forum
9(3-4): 17-168.

Harrison, J., Miller, K.R. and McNeely, J.A. 1984. The
World Coverage of Protected Areas: Development
Goals and Environmental Needs. In: National Parks,
Conservation, and Development: The Role of Pro-
tected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Ishwaran, N. 1992. Biodiversity, protected areas and
sustainable development. Nature and Resources,
28(1): 18-25.

IUCN, 1978. Categories, Criteria, and Objectives for
Protected Areas. UCN, Morges, Switzerland. 26 pp.

IUCN, 1980. The World Conservation Strategy: Living

Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF/, Gland, Switzerland. 48 pp.

IUCN, 1990. 1990 United Nations List of National
Parks and Protected Areas. Prepared by WCMC.
TUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. 275pp.

McNeely, J. A. and Miller, K.R. (eds.). 1984. National
Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of
Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C. 825pp.

McNeely, J. A. (ed.) 1993. Parks for Life: Report of the
Ivth World Congress on National Parks and Pro-
tected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 252 pp.

Miller, K.R. (1980). Planificacién de Parques Nacion-
ales para el Erodesarrollo en Latinoamérica.
Fundaci6n para la Ecologia y para la Proteccién del
Medio Ambiente, Madrid. SOOpp.

Thorsell, J.W. 1992. World Heritage Twenty Years Later.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 191 pp.

Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A Classification of the Bio-
geographical Provinces of the World. I\UCN
Occasional Paper No 18. IUCN, Morges, Switzer-
land. 49pp.

World Commission on Environment and Development.
1987. Our Common Future (Brundtland Report).
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 400pp.

IUCN (1992). Protected Areas of the World: a review
of national systems. Vol 3: Afrotropical. YUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. xxii + 360pp.

Thorsell, J. and Harrison, J. 1992. National Parks and
Nature Reserves of the Mountain Regions of the
World. In: Parks, Peaks, and People. East-West
Center, Honolulu, USA.

Annex

Annex. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biogeographic
province ;

Biogeographic
Province Area (sq km) Number Area (ha)

Nearctic Realm

Sitkan 349,903 17,200,857
Oregonian 124,604 899,012
Yukon Taiga 1,019,584 20,311,463
Canadian Taiga 5,127,155 18,027,793
Eastern Forest 2,222,997 4,995,285
Austroriparian 596,892 1,220,070
Californian $26,507 864,516
Sonoran $07,770 10,053,623
Chihuahuan 577,181 582,187
Tamaulipan 210,371 50,232
Great Basin 660,356 723,283
Aleutian Islands 124,511 7,909,534
Alaskan Tundra 958,491 30,942,068
Canadian Tundra 1,733,377 19,820,110
Arctic Archipelago 689,965 0
Greenland Tundra 498,731 0
Arctic Desert and Icecap 2,120,078 98,250,000
Grasslands 2,442,342 771,140
Rocky Mountains 1,578,491 13,369,600
Sierra-Cascade 228,720 2,838,038
Madrean-Cordilleran 763,250 2,341,251
Great Lakes 254,499 513,634

Palaearctic Realm

Chinese Subtropical Forest 862,946 1,925,831
Japanese Evergreen Forest 266,882 2,836,969
West Eurasian Taiga 4,000,000 6,569,354
East Siberian Taiga 5,536,078 4,574,986
Icelandian 101,591 916,741
Subarctic Birchwoods 100,000 253,410
Kamchatkan 283,311 1,099,000
British Islands 266,599 3,966,218
Atlantic 715,955 4,476,827
Boreonemoral 1,285,235 1,892,415
Middle European Forest 1,467,342 6,883,956
Pannonian 102,530 352,216
West Anatolian 37,610 10,691
Manchu-Japanese Mixed Forest 1,252,284 3,275,407
Oriental Deciduous Forest 2,751,446 6,436,349
Iberian Highlands 316,084 2,842,288
Mediterranean Sclerophyll 1,194,658 ° 3,654,932
Sahara 6,960,804 22,908,200
Arabian Desert 2,996,082 5,929,560
Anatolian-Iranian Desert 2,203,749 20,029,973
Turanian 2,116,829 1,394,217
Takla-Makan-Gobi Desert 2,184,554 12,000,342
Tibetan 1,268,119 24,367
Iranian Desert 403,527 980,732
Arctic Desert 195,915 3,491,000
Higharctic Tundra 859,865 2,228,650
Lowarctic Tundra 2,158,146 1,348,708
Atlas Steppe 421,541 91,498

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Annex. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biogeographic
province (cont.)

Biogeographic
Province Area (sq km) Number Area (ha) %

Pontian Steppe 1,945,402 25 1,254,610 0.6
Mongolian-Manchurian Steppe 2,605,123 17 2,253,280 0.9
Scottish Highlands 46,791 37 707,955 15.1
Central European Highlands 369,903 390 6,289,887 17.0
Balkan Highlands 221,241 103 983,029 44
Caucaso-lranian Highlands 936,015 69 5,444,834 5.8
Altai Highlands 1,048,263 7 2,282,136 22
Pamir-Tian-Shan Highlands 643,207 30 6,091,096 9.5
Hindu Kush Highlands 217,105 5 183,438 08
Himalayan Highlands 860,070 79 8,257,297 9.6
Szechwan Highlands 578,558 56 2,687,788 46
Macaronesian Islands 14,032 10 111,634 8.0
Ryukyu Islands 2,479 5 39,064 15.8

Lake Ladoga 17,606 1 40,972 2.3
Aral Sea 67,548 1 18,300 0.3
Lake Baikal 32,260 0 0 0.0

Afrotropical Realm

Guinean Rain Forest 607,048 23 1,323,245 22
Congo Rain Forest 1,921,970 24 7,017,294 3.7
Malagasy Rain Forest 200,573 15 455,055 2.3
West African Woodland/Savanna 3,247,618 81 17,885,256 5.5
East African Woodland/Savanna 1,510,608 71 14,283,895 95
Congo Woodland/Savanna 1,356,749 5 3,774,000 28
Miombo Woodland/Savanna 2,432,142 38 14,839,500 6.1
South African Woodland/Savanna 1,694,787 104 8,034,713 47
Malagasy Woodland/Savanna 324,074 19 614,774 1.9
Malagasy Thorn Forest 70,676 2 44,950 0.6
Cape Sclerophyll 129,683 52 1,895,490 14.6
Western Sahel 2,814,709 12 6,171,240 2.2
Eastern Sahel 1,169,711 4 4,846,000 4.1
Somalian 2,166,783 Dili 4,327,969 2.0
Namib 364,602 7 9,596,653 26.3
Kalahari 504,861 10 9,977,287 19.8
Karroo 377,735 18 465,532 1.2
Ethiopian Highlands 505,387 7 1,606,000 3.2
Guinean Highlands 80,030 4 1,394,613 17.4
Central African Highlands 269,463 8 4,435,825 16.5
East African Highlands 65,457 11 267,700 4.1
South African Highlands 198,957 38 433,201 BP)

Ascension and St Helena Islands 187 0 0 0.0
Comores Islands and Aldabra 1,860 1 35,000 18.8
Mascarene Islands 4,494 3 9,553 2.1
Lake Rudolf 7,331 0 0 0.0
Lake Ukerewe (Victoria) 69,504 1 45,700 0.7
Lake Tanganyika 3,275

Lake Malawi (Nyasa) 28,949 1 8,700 0.3

Indomalayan Realm

Malabar Rainforest 223,556 44 1,029,983 46
Ceylonese Rainforest 31,104 1 7,648 0.2
Bengalian Rainforest 179,943 18 445,362 2.5
Burman Rainforest 257,585 2 20,455 0.1
Indochinese Rainforest 452,508 2,922,444

Annex

Annex. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biogeographic

province (cont.)

Biogeographic
Province

South Chinese Rainforest
Malayan Rainforest
Indus-Ganges Monsoon Forest
Burma Monsoon Forest
Thailandian Monsoon Forest
Mahanadian

Coromandel

Ceylonese Monsoon Forest
Deccan Thom Forest

Thar Desert

Seychelles and Amirantes Islands
Laccadives Islands

Maldives and Chagos Islands
Cocos-Keeling and Christmas Island
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Sumatra

Java

Lesser Sunda Islands

Sulawesi (Celebes)

Borneo

Philippines

Taiwan

Oceania Realm

Papuan

Micronesian

Hawaiian

Southeastern Polynesian
Central Polynesian

New Caledonian

East Melanesian
Australian Realm
Queensland Coastal
Tasmanian

Northern Coastal
Wester Sclerophyll
Southern Sclerophyll
Easter Sclerophyll
Brigalow

Western Mulga

Central Desert

Southern Mulga/Saltbush
Northern Savanna
Northern Grasslands
Eastern Grasslands/Savannas

Antarctic Realm

Neozealandia
Maudlandia
Marielandia
Insulantarctica

Neotropical Realm
Campechean

Area (sq km)

188,979
179,164
1,412,232
297,201
959,750
219,436

778,120
1,777,073
837,032

580,938 —

966,966
527,831

270,000
10,465,150
2,193,955
19,206

259,164

Number

Area (ha)

354,128
1,273,648
5,568,180

580,200
2,453,175
1,096,956

156,528

776,060

193,975
4,567,577

2,893

8,700
66,777
4,907,720
1,083,654

538,540
2,523,242
4,229,634

572,866

288,577

6,817,897
4,390
283,604
64,745
37,154
256,418
6,049

8,167,080
1,389,936
1,288,199
2,659,804
1,707,985
3,592,493

393,932
2,260,773
9,895,645
5,870,350
2,609,598

669,628
1,007,736

2,897,136
196,325

317,872

1,230,420

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Annex. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biogeographic
province (cont.)

Biogeographic
Province Area (sq km) Number Area (ha)

Panamanian 40,065 1,046,599
Colombian Coastal 237,201 1,127,620
Guyanan 1,009,104 2,499,469
Amazonian 2,509,392 20,091,134
Madeiran 1,671,819 1,212,128
Serro Do Mar 243,787 3,609,676
Brazilian Rain Forest 1,533,869 1,525,542
Brazilian Planalto 219,152 18,207
Valdivian Forest 111,933 4,016,359
Chilean Nothofagus 123,711 3,919,882
Everglades 6,827 807,859
Sinaloan 192,114 176,000
Guerreran 158,439 128,857
Yucatecan 39,959 106,970
Central American 309,974 1,606,618
Venezuelan Dry Forest 270,319 4,636,901
Venezuelan Deciduous Forest 58,928 896,127
Equadorian Dry Forest 50,343 184,314
Caatinga 899,739 249,461
Gran Chaco 988,513 1,380,155
Chilean Araucaria Forest 32,867 45,414
Chilean Sclerophyll 57,331 147,008
Pacific Desert 290,390 48,824
Monte 1,234,810 849,018
Patagonian 413,118 1,319,095
Llanos 437,988 1,141,025
Campos Limpos 207,269 10,863,872
Babacu 293,021 903,050
Campos Cerrados 1,778,650 7,325,611
Argentinian Pampas $12,152 345,795
Uruguayan Pampas 522,200 1,288,780
Northern Andean 256,507 3,738,251
Colombian Montane 154,776 4,465,461
Yungas 483,142 4,410,485
Puna 464,873 2,339,310
Southem Andean 10,694,145
Bahamas—Bermudean 136,119
Cuban 328,128
Greater Antillean 968,717
Lesser Antillean 167,919
Revilla Gigedo Island 0
Cocos Island 2,400
Galapagos Islands I 766,514!
Fernando De Noronja Island 37,941
South Trinidade Island 0
Lake Titicaca 36,180

Notes: Protected areas are excluded from the above analysis if location is unknown.
Based on 1992 data
Excludes marine component of the Galapagaos Islands National Park
* Area of biogeographical province unknown

Coastal Marine
Protected Areas

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

suoibes auleW YWddNO Jo uoNes07 *} eunbi4

Contents

Page

Hee tiStoriCal DErSPeCtiVS ooo. ee cay ou cy ones Wrens, Seeeueraeees «se a ee OR 33
ile Management of the marine environment’. - =... 4 «eee 33

(PR PTOPTESS SINCE Bale Je)... ss Ses 2 ee oe eee ane ae ee 34

1.3. Participation in major international protected area programmes .......... 35

2. Current protected areacoverage.......................... 36
3. Additional protected areas required........................ 36
4. Marine protected areainstitutions ......................... 37
5. Current levels of financial investment in marine protected areas ...... 37
6. Human capacity in protected areas management................ 38
7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 38
8. Major global marine protected areaissues.................... 38
8.1 Public participation in planning and management of the coastal zone. ...... 38

8.2 Marine protected areas and surrounding lands andseas .............. 39

8.3 Marine protected areas andscience ...............--2.2.-2--2-.-. 39
S'4eeclinreatstoumarine protectediareaSaa) 4 4.250 a oie ic eel eee 39
StomeivecaliconsiderationS=«5 «24. « s, st eheaees Chee ee eee ne 40
SPPCIOUUECS TOT ACTION) occ Cp sec coat conde, we) ol oy scope ens toy os Sascha iden ou yee aa 41
BEICLONCES » Ausisus eS) swam ae eh Ret A! Bok See eee a 42
Figure 1. Location of CNPPA marine regions. ..................... 30
Box 1. __ Basic definitions for marine protected areas... ............... 34
Table 1. Distribution of marine protected areas. .................2... 36

(li sonia west
mal cn nytt “nr

anhumled to tiotraggn

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

Graeme Kelleher, Vice-Chair Marine, IUCN Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas; and Chris Bleakley, IUCN Special Projects Officer,
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

1. Historical perspective

1.1 Management of the marine

environment

The need to devise methods to manage and protect
marine environments and resources became widely re-
cognized internationally during the course of the 1950s
and early 1960s. Thus, the First World Conference on
National Parks (1962) considered the need for pro-
tection of coastal and marine areas but the development
of practical responses to this need required a legal
framework for addressing the sovereignty and juris-
dictional rights of nations to the seabed, beyond the
customary three-mile territorial sea. In 1958 four con-
ventions, known collectively as the Geneva Conven-
tions on the Law of the Sea were adopted: the Conven-
tion on the Continental Shelf; the Convention on the
High Seas; the Convention on Fishing; and the Conven-
tion on Conservation of the Living Resources of the
High Seas.

Increasing technical capability to exploit mineral re-
sources on or beneath the sea bed and to exploit fishery
resources in deep waters led to the long-running Third
United Nations Conference of the Law of the Sea, held
between 1973 and 1982. The outcome of the nego-
tiations was to enable nations to take a number of
measures, including those related to regulation of fish-
ing and the protection of living resources of the con-
tinental shelf, to a distance of 200 nautical miles from
their national jurisdictional baseline. These measures
provide a legal basis upon which the establishment of
marine protected areas and the conservation of marine
resources could be developed in areas beyond territorial
seas.

During the 1970s there was increasing recognition
and mounting concern regarding the regional nature of
the environmental problems of the marine living re-
sources of the world. In 1971, the Convention on Wet-
lands of International Importance Especially as Water-
fowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) was developed, de-
fining wetlands to include many coastal marine habi-
tats. In 1972, the Convention for the Protection of the

World Cultural and Natural Heritage (known as the
World Heritage Convention) was developed to give
international recognition to areas "of outstanding uni-
versal value"; these could include marine areas.

Also in 1972, the Governing Council of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was given
the task of ensuring that emerging environmental prob-
lems of wide international significance received appro-
priate and adequate consideration by Governments.
UNEP thus established its Regional Seas Programme to
address problems on a regional basis, by the establish-
ment of Action Plans with a particular emphasis on
protecting marine living resources from pollution and
over-exploitation. The first such Action Plan was adopt-
ed for the Mediterranean in 1975. Some 14 Regional
Seas Projects now cover all of the world’s marine
regions.

In 1975, IUCN conducted a conference on Marine
Protected Areas in Tokyo. The report of that conference
noted increasing pressures upon marine environments
and called for the establishment of a well-monitored
system of Marine Protected Areas representative of the
world’s marine ecosystems.

In 1981, a workshop was organized as part of the
UNESCO Division of Marine Science COMAR (Coastal
and Marine) Programme to consider research and train-
ing priorities for coral reef management. An outcome
of this workshop, which was held in conjunction with
the IV International Coral Reef Symposium, was the
publication of the UNESCO Coral Reef Management
Handbook (Kenchington and Hudson, 1984).

In 1982, the IUCN Commission on National Parks
and Protected Areas (CNPPA) organized a series of
workshops on the creation and management of marine
and coastal protected areas as part of the III World
Congress on National Parks held in Bali, Indonesia.
This led to the publication by IUCN of Marine and
Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and
Managers (Salm and Clark, 1984).

UNESCO organized the First World Biosphere Reserve
Congress in Minsk, USSR in 1983. At that meeting it

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Box 1. Basic definitions for marine protected areas

Primary goal of marine conservation

The primary goal of marine conservation and management is: "To provide for the protection, restoration, wise
use, understanding and enjoyment of the marine heritage of the world in perpetuity through the creation of a global,
representative system of marine protected areas and through the management, in accordance with the principles
of the World Conservation Strategy, of human activities that use or affect the marine environment".

Definition of marine protected areas

The term "marine protected area" is defined as: "Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying
water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective
means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment".

Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN General Assembly also recommended that as an integral component of marine
conservation and management, each national government should seek cooperative action between the public and
all levels of government for development of a national system of marine protected areas. This resolution and

primary goal have provided the focus for CNPPA’s marine programme.

was recognized that the Biosphere Reserve concept is
potentially applicable to the marine environment and
that an integrated, multiple use Marine Protected Area
can conform to all of the scientific, administrative and
social principles that define a Biosphere Reserve under
the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Pro-
gramme.

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) published its report Our Common
Future, which highlighted the importance of marine
conservation. In November of the same year, the Gen-
eral Assembly of the United Nations welcomed the
WCED report. At the same time, it adopted the "En-
vironmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond”,
which was developed by UNEP in tandem with the
WCED report. In 1988 UNEP and IUCN published the
three volume Coral Reefs of the World, a global direct-
ory of coral reefs prepared by the then IUCN Conser-
vation Monitoring Centre. These and other publications
have highlighted the serious threats which confront
marine areas around the world.

Despite these initiatives, conservation in the marine
environment has lagged far behind that for the terrestrial
environment, and an integrated approach to the man-
agement of the global marine ecosystem is yet to be
implemented. As a result, many marine areas now face
serious problems, including: stress from pollution degra-
dation; depletion of resources, including species; con-
flicting uses of resources; and damage and destruction
of habitat.

Recognizing these problems, the [V World Wilderness
Congress in 1987 passed a resolution which established
a policy framework for marine conservation. A similar
resolution was passed by the 17th General Assembly of
IUCN in February, 1988. These resolutions adopted a

statement of a primary goal and defined the term "ma-
rine protected area” (Box 1).

1.2 Progress since Bali

The Bali Action Plan was the product of the III World
Congress on National Parks and called for the incor-
poration of marine and coastal protected areas into the
worldwide protected areas network. The following sec-
tion is a summary of activities that have been under-
taken in pursuit of this objective:

Develop and distribute concepts and tools for establishing
marine protected areas

The development and distribution of concepts and tools
relating to marine conservation and marine protected
areas has proceeded steadily since 1982. Some of the
major publications since that time include: Kenchington
and Hudson (1984), Salm and Clark (1984) and Kelleher
and Kenchington (1992).

Although a significant information base exists to
guide the planning and management of marine pro-
tected areas, concepts that are accepted by the ma-
majority of marine conservationists are still sometimes
met with suspicion. To overcome this further effort is
required to make information available to those respon-
sible for marine protected areas, particularly in develop-
ing countries, to decision makers, other resource man-
agers and to the public in general.

Develop a classification system for categories of marine
protected areas

The IUCN Protected Areas classification adopted by
CNPPA (McNeely and Miller, 1984) can be applied to
the marine environment with little conceptual diffi-
culty. In doing so it should be recalled that marine
conservation is most often successful when it is based

upon large-scale, integrated, multiple-use regimes, of
which more highly protected areas are one component.
Category V and Category VIII protected areas fulfil an
important role in providing a means to address the
problems of resource allocation and management of
conflicting uses that are the fundamental source of
many of the threats to marine environments.

Further develop and distribute biogeographical clas-
sification systems for marine protected areas

In seeking to develop a globally representative system
of marine protected areas the eventual aim is to cover
and represent biogeographic variation and biodiversity
at all levels. The first step is to examine broad bio-
geographic variation.

CNPPA’s approach has been to encourage the use of
biogeographic classification systems already in exist-
ence, rather than trying to impose a single global clas-
sification system. The intention is to support the use of
systems which have already been developed and are in
use, recognising that the practical results of the applica-
tion of different rationally-based biogeographic clas-
sification systems are likely to be very similar. This
approach has the advantage of building on the activities
of regional and national bodies who have developed
systems to best suit their own particular conditions and
requirements.

There is no doubt that further refinements of ap-
proaches to marine biogeographic classification will
continue to be made. Such improvements should be
encouraged to proceed in parallcl with efforts to es-
tablish and improve the management of MPAs.

Incorporate scientists, managers, administrators, and
supporters of marine conservation into the protect-
ed areas community

Strengthening the marine protected areas community
remains as important now as it was ten years ago at Bali,
although significant progress has been made since that
time. CNPPA has established a network of 18 working
groups across major geopolitical marine regions, with
the specific objective of promoting the establishment of
a global representative system of marine protected areas.
IUCN also has a network of individuals who promote
its activities in marine conservation generally.

The greatest challenge facing those concerned with
building support and involvement in marine protected
areas remains increasing the participation of user and
industry groups. In many instances these groups view
marine protected areas with suspicion, and see thcir
own interests directly threatened by the establishment
of MPAs. Such groups need to be convinced of the need
for management of the marine environment and of the
role of MPAs in management, and reassured that pro-
vision will be made for existing uses, on an ecologically
sustainable basis, within a nation’s marine areas. There
is also a need to increase the involvement of scientists
and the application of science to the solution of marine

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

environmental problems, particularly as relates to the
management of MPAs.

Encourage the establishment of marine protected
areas

There has been considerable progress in establishing
new marine protected areas. In 1970, 27 nations had 118
marine protected areas. By 1985, 430 MPAs had been
proclaimed by 69 nations, with another 298 proposals
under consideration. A recent estimate from data gath-
ered by CNPPA and GBRMPA, in cooperation with
WCMC and the World Bank, is that 1,182 MPAs have
been established in over 120 countries.

1.3. Participation in major
international protected area

programmes

Biosphere reserves

The applicability of UNESCO’s biosphere reserve con-
cept—in which human activity is specifically provided
for within buffer and transition zones surrounding highly
protected core areas—is particularly high in the marine
environment. WCMC lists 101 biosphere reserves with
a marine (including estuarine) or littoral component. Of
these, 10 areas have a substantial sub-tidal compo-
nent.

World Heritage sites

The World Heritage List is one mechanism used to
provide protection to outstanding examples of import-
ant marine ecosystems and habitats. Nomination of an
area to World Heritage status can provide significant
impetus to conservation measures because it places an
obligation on signatory nations to provide effective
management. Member countries commit themselves to
ensuring the identification, protection, conservation,
presentation and transmission to future generations of
World Heritage properties.

Twenty-three World Henitage sites are listed by WCMC
as having a marine or littoral component. Of these, 10
include a sub-tidal area as a substantial component of
the site. This represents a small proportion of the total
number of World Heritage sites (90 "natural" sites as of
December 1992).

The Ramsar Wetlands Convention

In adhering to the Ramsar Convention, governments
undertake, among other things, to promote the wise use
of wetlands and to create wetland reserves. An area can
be listed by having identified international significance
in ecological, botanical, zoological, limnological or
hydrological values. For the purposes of the Convention
"wetlands" are defined as "areas of marsh, fen, peatland
or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or
temporary ... including areas of marine water the depth
of which at low tide docs not exceed six metres".

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

WCMC record that 23 Ramsar sites include a marine
or littoral component. Of these, only 3 areas are listed
as having a substantial sub-tidal component. The bene-
fits to signatories of the Convention can include assist-
ance with monitoring, production of management re-
ports, direct funding assistance to improved manage-
ment of listed sites, designating new sites, promoting
wise use, and regional and promotional activities.

The International Maritime Organisation

The concept of Sensitive Areas and Particularly Sensitive
Areas has been adopted by the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) to enable the development of com-
mon jurisdictional and enforcement regimes for en-
vironmentally significant marine areas. The manage-
ment measures for international shipping which may
then be considered by the IMO for application within
such areas include compulsory pilotage, traffic separa-
tion schemes, the declaration of areas to be avoided by
international maritime traffic and controls on substances
discharged from shipping. The initiative provides an
important mechanism for gaining recognition by the
IMO, and indeed the wider international community, of
the need for special protective measures in environ-
mentally sensitive marine areas. The Great Barrier Reef
was identified by MEPC as the world’s first Particularly
Sensitive Area in November 1990. Other areas con-
sidered for this status are the Galapagos Islands and
parts of the Baltic Sea.

Regional conventions

Under UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme several re-
gions now have conventions which include a protocol
which support the establishment of marine protected
areas. These regions include the Mediterranean, Carib-
bean, the South East Pacific and East Africa. In the
South Pacific the “Convention for the Protection of the
Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific
Region’ (SPREP Convention) provides a similar found-
ation, while in the Baltic the recently revised Helsinki
Convention now includes provisions calling for habitat
and species conservation.

2. Current protected area coverage

A data setof protected areas with marine (including estuarine)
and littoral components has been provided by WCMC as
a contribution to this review. Further data have been
gathered by CNPPA and the GBRMPA under a project
for the World Bank Environment Department. Approxi-
mate figures for the number of MPAs in each of CNPPA’s
marine regions are listed in Table 1. It must be emphasized
that the data in Table 1 do not give any indication of the
effectiveness of the protection afforded by these marine
protected areas.

Table 1. Distribution of marine protected
areas

Approximate
number of MPAs

Marine Region

1 Antarctic
2 ‘Arctic
3 Mediterranean
4a NW Atlantic
4b NE Atlantic
N Adlantic-Baltic
Wider Caribbean
West Africa
South Atlantic
8a Indian Ocean
8b North West Indian Ocean
8c South East Africa
9 Southeast Asia
10 Central & South Pacific
lla NE Pacific
11lb NW Pacific
12. SE Pacific
13. ~— Australia

These areas are also shown on Figure 1.

In none of the marine regions can there be said to be
adequate representation of biogeographic variation, let
alone of more detailed levels of biodiversity. Even in
the Wider Caribbean and in the Baltic Sea, where the
initial step of achieving representation of broad bio-
geographic types has generally been achieved, there is
a need to look in greater detail at ecosystem properties
and processes, at habitats and at species. In the Mediter-
ranean region, where around 6 per cent of the coastline
is included in protected areas, some of the most critical
ecosystems, the seagrass meadows and the wetlands,
urgently require protection (Batisse and de Grissac,
1991).

3. Additional protected areas
required

Action is now urgently required to identify the marine
areas which require protection and to determine priorities
for the implementation of appropriate protective mea-
sures. In doing so, criteria under the following broad
headings need to be considered: naturalness, biogeographic
importance, ecological importance, economic importance,
social importance, scientific importance, intemational or
national significance, and practicality/ feasibility.

In selecting areas a degree of pragmatism is required.
Selection of areas should not be based on degrees of threat
alone. In the case where two equally valuable marine areas
are being considered for inclusion in marine protected
areas, declaration of an area which is less "threatened", and
for which there is less competition from other user groups,
may be more likely to succeed politically, while at the

same time achieving conservation objectives. An MPA
which is opposed by the local community is unlikely to
achieve such objectives.

International experience has shown that it is often a
mistake to postpone, by legislation or otherwise, the estab-
lishment and management of MPAs until extensive re-
search and survey programmes have been completed.
Often, sufficient information already exists to make stra-
tegically sound decisions regarding the boundaries of
MPAsand the degree of protection to be provided to zones
or areas within them. Postponement of such decisions
often leads to increasing pressure on the areas under
consideration and greater difficulty in making the even
tual decision.

New objectives are also stimulating the creation of
new marine protected areas. Marine biodiversity is now
recognized to be an important aspect of marine con-
servation. In considering marine biodiversity and the
role of marine protected areas it is important to recog-
nise on the factors that make particular areas critical
both in terms of ecosystem processes and properties.
Marine areas of relatively low diversity, such as salt
marshes, mangroves and seagrass beds, are crucial to
the health of marine ecosystems because their high
productive capacity contributes greatly to the food chain.
Other areas that must come under consideration are
those sites of importance to breeding cycles and to
migratory species. Courtship areas, spawning grounds,
nursery areas, migratory corridors and stopover points
are examples. Identifying the critical ecosystem pro-
cesses is a challenge in itself, and yet it is one that must
be addressed in the search to develop a system of marine
protected areas which adequatcly represents and pro-
tects global marine biodiversity.

4. Marine protected area
institutions

Most marine protected areas are managed by govern-
ment. This responsibility can rest with either a single
agency or with several, and can include Fisheries and
Forestry or Agriculture ministries. The responsibilities
of the agencies are not always clearly defined, and the
conservation aspects of management may conflict with
the resource optimisation objectives of such agencies.
These government agencies are in some instances bureau-
cratic and very slow to respond to management chal-
lenges.

In many regions the institutions and legislative frame-
work for developing integrated marine protected areas
system have not been established. Even where such
agencies are established they must still compete with
sectoral administrations such as tourism, mariculture
and fishing which often are expanding at a rapid rate.

As the first step towards fully integrated coastal zone
management, one option is the establishment of Marine
Management Authorities, with representatives of na-
tional and state governments as well as a small number

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

of representatives of local government and community
interests, with the specific function of achieving in-
tegrated planning, research and management of the
marine coastal zone in accordance with the principles
of ecologically sustainable development.

Because of the proven difficulty that organisations
and individuals have in simultaneously attempting to
achieve two goals—in this case, economic development
and ecological protection—these Authorities should not
be responsible for detailed management of individual
sectoral activities, such as fisheries or tourism. Such
activities should continue to be managed by existing
specialist agencies. However, the Marine Management
Authorities could have the following responsibilities
and functions:

@ development, in association with interest groups
and the community generally, of a strategic plan for
the marine coastal zone;

@ oversight of coastal development to ensure that it is
ecologically sustainable;

@ design and management of comprehensive moni-
toring programmes which will define the state of the
marine coastal environments and the trends in en-
vironmental parameters;

@ design and management of contracted, multidiscipli-
nary, ecological research programmes aimed at solv-
ing environmental problems;

@ design and implementation of comprehensive com-
munity involvement and education programmes de-
signed to achieve voluntary acceptance by the com-
munity of policies, programmes and actions which
will lead to ecologically sustainable development.
Particular emphasis should be placed on educating
the young.

To the maximum extent practicable, specific man-
agement programmes and actions should be carried out
by existing agencies, with the Marine Management
Authorities concentrating on policy, strategy, planning,
design and supervision of research programmes and
co-ordination. The enabling legislation should override
conflicting provisions of existing legislation.

In the absence of an organisational framework that
provides for integrated management, the energies of
people and governments will continue to be dissipated
in intersectoral conflicts, incompatible activities, inef-
ficient developments, and research that is not relevant
to achieving ecologically sustainable development.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in marine protected
areas

It has not been possible for this review to determine the
level of investment within marine protected areas on a
detailed regional or global basis due to a lack of available

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

information. However, the phenomenon of "paper
parks" is not confined to terrestrial protected areas
alone, and may be even more prevalent among marine
protected areas. As a general statement, even in count-
ries which are establishing marine protected areas, man-
agement is often inadequate, or totally lacking, due to
insufficient resources, staff, taining and equipment.

Effective management of an MPA requires adequate
funding levels for management planning, research, moni-
toring and assessment of impacts and public educa-
tion/information. Many MPAs have opportunities for
generating this revenue through activities such as tour-
ism fishing, and other forms of use. The user-pays
principle is increasingly being applied in natural re-
sources management. Unfortunately, it is not often the
case that revenue generated is directed towards man-
agement of the area; more typically it is directed into
general revenue. Directing these fees towards man-
agement provides an incentive to the managing agency
to develop efficient and effective forms of charging.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

Training

There is a world-wide shortage of trained staff to develop
and implement management measures in marine pro-
tected areas. The pressing need, particularly in devel-
oping countries, is for marine management training as
opposed to marine science training (Kenchington, 1990).

Different forms of training are needed for different
levels within the management structure. The objective
must be to achieve the understanding needed for effective
implementation of management. Such training should
include:

@ Policy makers, heads of state, government min-
isters, parliamentarians, congressmen, local govern-
ment and community leaders—for understanding
the purpose of management and the importance of
the managed environment.

@ Ata high level, those responsible for management
within the designated agency—for detailed under-
standing and philosophical framework of the man-
agement task.

@ Ata high level, those responsible for management
in related or interacting agencies—for understand-
ing the interaction of management with the function
of their own agencies.

@ Atthe level of those responsible for oversight of the
management programme—for an understanding of
the roles of management and of the components of
the management task.

@ At the level of those responsible for undertaking
management—for an understanding of the roles of

management and the skills to undertake and super-
vise the conduct of management tasks.

w Rangers, enforcement personnel, volunteers—for
an understanding of management and to develop the
special skills appropriate to the tasks to be under-
taken.

Education

To be effective, management must be supported by
educational measures to ensure that those affected are
aware of their rights and responsibilities under the man-
agement plan and that the community supports the goal
of the legislation. Few countries could afford the cost
of effective enforcement in the presence of a generally
hostile public. Conversely, costs of enforcement can be
very low where public support exists.

A well-designed education and public involvement
programme can generate political and public enthu-
siasm for the MPA and its goal and objectives. Estab-
lishment of the idea that it is the people’s MPA will
generate pride and commitment.

7. Priorities for future investment
in protected areas

A global representative system of marine protected
areas will make an important contribution to the con-
servation of marine biodiversity and ecologically sus-
tainable development. Each nation has a contribution to
make towards the establishment of this global repre-
sentative system by ensuring that its marine habitats are
adequately protected in MPAs.

The highest priority for future investment in MPAs
should be to ensure that each national government with
a stretch of coastline has the financial and institutional
capacity, and the political commitment, to develop a
national system of marine protected areas.

8. Major global marine protected
area issues

8.1. Public participation in planning
and management of the coastal
zone

Many marine areas, especially those in the coastal zone,
are characterized by rich resources and a complex array
of human uses. Any use of the coastal zone will have an
impact on the natural resources and on other competing
uses. It therefore follows that planning for use of the
marine coastal zone, and protected areas in particular,
requires a carefully orchestrated process of participa-
tion.

Involvement and active participation of users of marine
environments in development of legislation and in es-
tablishing, maintaining, monitoring and implementing

management of MPAs is almost always of key im-
portance to the acceptability and success of manage-
ment. It is thus highly desirable that the concept of
public or user participation be established in legislation.
This should be expressed in terms appropriate to the
social structure, conventions and government structure
relevant to the area in question. The key requirement is
that procedures are sufficiently detailed to ensure ef-
fective and appropriate public participation.

Accordingly, opportunities should be provided for the
public to participate with the planning or management
agency in the process of preparing management and
zoning plans for MPAs including: the preparation of the
statement of MPA purpose and objectives; the pre-
paration of alternative plan concepts; the preparation of
the final plan; and any proposed major changes to the
plan.

It is essential to include the needs of traditional users
of the marine resources within the framework of coastal-
zone management. In most cases an approach to pro-
tection is only likely to be successful if it is based upon
traditional patterns of ownership. The cultures of the
Pacific Islands, Japan, and of other areas throughout
Asia and Africa are intimately related to the natural
resources of the open sea and the coastal zone, and have
along tradition of using these resources on a sustainable
basis. Attempts to impose management regimes which
conflict with these traditions will not be accepted by
local populations and will prove impossible to im-
plement. Given the general shortage of resources which
afflicts many management agencies, the most efficient
use of these resources will be achieved when working
in harmony with the needs of the local human pop-
ulation.

The form and content of legislation under which
MPAs are established should also be consistent with the
legal, institutional and social practices and values of the
nations and peoples enacting and governed by the legis-
lation. Where traditional law and management practices
are consistent with the goals and objectives of the
legislation, these traditional elements should be drawn
upon to the greatest practicable extent. This applies to
both the traditional, perhaps unwritten, law of abori-
ginal communities and the more recent traditions of a
country or people. Further, the customary or accepted
ownership and usage rights of a marine area which is to
be managed are critical considerations. Legislation should
reflect this.

The use of fishery reserves can be an important aspect
of such traditionally based management controls. Fish-
ery Protected Areas, which may be based on a long
tradition of stewardship for fish and similar resources,
can provide a better opportunity for development of a
marine protected areas system in that country than a
system based purely on conservation principles.

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

8.2 Marine protected areas and

surrounding lands and seas

In the sea, currents constantly carry sediments, nutri-
ents, pollutants and organisms through an area, and
because of the ability of wind and tide generated cur-
rents to mix water masses, particularly in continental
shelf areas, events originating outside the boundaries of
a MPA often affect populations within it. The principle
of a buffer zone protecting a core site from impact is
well established, and should be applicd to MPAs.

Integrated coastal management and planning which
promotes a comprehensive, multi-sectoral, integrated
approach to the use and conservation of coastal areas,
habitats and resources is required. The scale and link-
ages of marine environments makes their conservation
clearly a matter of broad-based management of human
uses and impacts. The basic requirement for marine
environment and resource protection is the manage-
ment of human use and impacts in very largé areas.

The development of institutional regimes to achieve
such integrated management of the marine environment
and adjacent lands must be a top priority for the coming
decades.

8.3 Marine protected areas and

science

The level of understanding of the ecology of the marine
world is a great deal lower than it is for terrestrial
environments. Improving this situation will be import-
ant in providing the basis for developing sustainable
management regimes and in attempting to repair the
damage caused in the past. Both marine scientists and
marine managers must realise the central role played by
marine science in assisting the rational management of
the oceans and the need for marine scientists to direct
their energies towards the solution of environmental
problems.

Extensive research is required to improve our know-
ledge of how marine systems work. Such knowledge is
the basis on which decisions concerning types and
levels of use of marine resources are made. Monitoring
the state of the marine environment provides the consi-
derable volume of data required to make accurate pre-
diction of the operation of marine systems.

8.4 Threats to marine protected areas
As a general comment, one can summarise the state of
the world’s marine environment as suffering from a
number of stresses caused by human activity resulting
in observable and in many cases gross reductions in
environmental quality. In many cases these factors place
marine protected areas under severe stress. Especially
important threats include pollution, overfishing, and
physical alteration of the seabed or coastline.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Pollution

By far the greatest source of pollution of the sea is
land-based human activity. Not surprisingly, the degree
of marine pollution at different parts of a coastline is
often closely related to the size of the adjacent human
population.

Forms of human-induced pollution include nutrients
(mainly nitrogen and phosphorus), herbicides and pesti-
cides and their derivatives, and toxic chemicals and
heavy metals, most of which are created in industrial
processes including mining. Outfall sewers cause local
eutrophication, loss of seagrass beds, build-up of toxic
metal levels in sediments and organisms and loss of
public amenity.

Nutrients in sewage, combined with contribution of
nutrients from other sources, particularly affect coral
reef ecosystems adversely, resulting in reductions in
strength of calcium carbonate skeletons and smothering
of corals by algae. However, in some circumstances
addition of nutrients to marine areas may be seen as
beneficial. For instance, deep outfall sewers can con-
tribute to the nutrient budget which may result in larger
fish catches. However, the risk of toxic substances
entering the food chain is high in these instances.

Mainland environmental problems are usually re-
flected in marine problems. Soil erosion results in sus-
pended sediments being conveyed to the sea. Nutrients
in the form of ions are often attached to the soil particles,
leading to nutrient enrichment. The effects can include
degradation of coral reefs and the destruction of sea-
grass beds.

Great amounts of oil are carried in tankers around the
world’s coastline. There is the ever-present risk of a
major oil spill with potentially disastrous ecological
consequences. No country in the world has the capacity
to combat adequately a major oil spill. The International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) estimates that 6.7 per
cent of the total offshore production is lost through oil
spills into the marine environment as a consequence of
pipeline accidents, blowouts, platform fires, overflows, mal-
functions and other minor occurrences (World Resources
Institute, 1990).

Fishing

Virtually every international marine fishery is con-
sidered by most experts to be inadequately managed for
ecological sustainability. The evidence of inadequate
management is decreasing catch/cffort ratios followed
by stock collapse. Input/output controls by themselves
have usually not worked because pressure from the
industry prevents imposition of sufficiently stringent
controls until after the point of no return in the process
of stock collapse has been paszed.

The estimated sustainable yield of the world’s fish-
eries is in the region of 60 to 100 million metric tons per
year. In the period 1985-87 approximately 80 million

tons were taken, and of the 16 major global fishing
regions, the estimated annual catch exceeded the esti-
mated sustainable production in nine of them (World
Resources Institute, 1990).

A possible answer to the problems of over-fishing and
destruction of habitat is to combine multiple-use pro-
tected area management processes with traditional fish-
ery management practices. Such an integrated process
would allow the various interest groups to agree on what
areas and levels of protection should be provided to
critical habitat and to areas that are representative of
major habitat types. Such protected areas fill the mul-
tiple roles of providing baselines against which to mea-
sure ecological changes caused by human activity, pro-
tecting critical life stages in commercially or recre-
ationally fished species, providing sites in which to
carry out ecological research and allowing tourists and
the public to appreciate and enjoy relatively undis-
turbed marine environments.

Physical alteration of the seabed or
coastline

Destruction of coastal wetlands, removal of mangrove
areas and alteration of the coastline for coastal devel-
opment continue to occur in a largely unplanned, un-
coordinated and disintegrated fashion. Decisions are
made without taking into account adverse ecological
and economic consequences of destruction of natural
coastal environments. Activities such as dredging and
harbour construction change water patterns and sedi-
ment regimes, often with ecologically undesirable results.

Such activities occurring in proximity or within the
boundaries of MPAs can have devastating effects on the
marine ecosystems they are designed to protect. To
prevent this situation from arising the legislation under
which an MPA is declared must be effective in regu-
lating activities likely to cause such disturbances, both
within the boundaries of the MPA, and preferably out-
side the boundaries of the MPA as well.

8.5 Legal considerations

For most countries a broad, integrated approach to
conservation, management and protection of marine
resources is a new endeavour which is not adequately
covered in existing legislation. Thus review and revi-
sion of existing legislation and the development of new
legislation are often necessary before a programme of
management can be undertaken.

Whatever the detail of the legal system, a number of
issues need careful attention if satisfactory legislation
is to be created. Issues that must be addressed include
the need for policy, management arrangements, regu-
lations, enforcement and penalties to be included in the
legislation. Other issues warranting further attention
include:

@ Statement of objectives. Objectives encompassing

conservation, recreation, education and scientific
research should be written into legislation. If this is
not done and if conservation is not given precedence
the establishment of areas may be an empty political
gesture.

Multiple use protected areas. It is strongly recom-
mended that legislation be based upon sustainable
multiple use managed areas as opposed to isolated
highly protected pockets in an area that is otherwise
unmanaged or is subject to regulation on a piece-
meal or industry basis. In designing such umbrella
legislation the following goals merit consideration:

— provide for conservation-based management over
large areas;

— provide for a number of levels of access and of
fishing and collecting in different zones within
a large area; and

— provide for continuing sustainable harvest of
food and materials in the majority of acountry’s
marine areas.

Coordination. The legislation must provide co-
ordination of planning and management, by all gov-
emment, intergovernment and international agen-
cies with statutory responsibilities within areas to be
managed. Provision should be made to define the
relative precedence of the various pieces of legis-
lation which may apply to such areas.

Activities external to MPAs. Because of the link-
ages between marine environments and between
marine and terrestrial environments it is important
that legislation include provisions for the control of
activities which occur outside an MPA which may
adversely affect features, natural resources or acti-
vities within the area. A collaborative and inter-
active approach between the governments or agen-
cies with adjacent jurisdictions is essential. The
ideal is to have integration of objectives and ap-
proaches within a formal system of coastal zone
management within each country, with collabor-
ation between countries.

Responsibility. Legislation should identify and es-
tablish institutional mechanisms and specific res-
ponsibility for management and administration of
marine areas. Responsibility, accountability and
capacity should be specific and adequate to ensure that
the basic goals, objectives and purposes can be
realized.

Management and Zoning Plans. Legislation should
require that amanagement plan be prepared for each
managed area and should specify constituent ele-
ments and essential considerations to be addressed
in developing the plan. Where the multiple use
protected area concept is to be applied, legislation
should include the concept of zoning as part of
management. The legislation should require zoning
arrangements to be described in sufficient detail to
provide adequate control of activities and protection

Coastal Marine Protected Areas

of resources. The provisions of zoning plans should
over-ride all conflicting legislative provisions, with-
in the constraints of international law.

@ Monitoring, research and review. The legislation
should provide for surveillance of use and for peri-
odic review of management and zoning plans in
order to incorporate desirable modifications indi-
cated from the results of surveillance, monitoring
and research.

9. Priorities for action

As the world’s human population continues to increase
into the next century, the proportion of people who
depend on the sea’s resources is likely to increase. The
sea’s capacity to provide those resources is already
diminished by pollution, overfishing and habitat des-
truction. The urgency of applying the full range of
measures necessary to protect the sea’s life support
systems cannot be overstated. Marine protected areas
are one of the most effective ways of contributing to that
protection.

Insufficient attention has been given to the desig-
nation, planning and management of marine protected
areas. The public and governments, in particular, need
to recognise the importance of the marine environment
and the present inadequacies of protected area cover-
age.

The interdependence of the marine environment and
the strong influence of the land on marine areas must be
recognized. The achievement of ecological sustainabi-
lity and maintenance of biodiversity in the marine en-
vironment will depend on integrated planning and man-
agement regimes. Marine protected areas encompas-
sing complete Large Marine Ecosystems and including
highly protected areas (categories I-III) can achieve
such integration, when coupled with administrative ar-
rangements for coordination between the different ju-
risdictions of adjacent land and sea areas.

The major challenge facing marine protected area
planners for the next decade will be to establish a global
system of marine protected areas representative of all
major biogeographic types and ecosystems and to pro-
vide the requirements for their competent planning and
management. This will include sound scientific research
and long-term monitoring and the application of the
results in decision making, and the conduct of strong
public education and involvement programmes.

International organisations, governments and NGOs
should collaborate in:

@ identifying the role of marine protected areas in
protecting marine biological diversity and achiev-
ing ecologically sustainable use;

@ establishing a global system of marine protected
areas representing all major biogeographic types

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

and ecosystems, using biogeographic classification
schemes adopted in each region;

w establishing national systems of marine protected
areas which preferably encompass complete marine
ecosystems or habitats;

w developing institutional arrangements within each
country to achieve integrated management of each
marine protected area and to provide coordination
mechanisms to ensure that adjacent land areas are
managed in a complementary way;

@ ensuring that the designated management agency
has the legislative power, the human resources and
the responsibility for managing each marine pro-
tected area with the overriding objective of achiev-
ing ecological sustainability; wherever possible this
agency should not have the conflicting responsi-
bility of economic optimisation of any activities
within the marine protected area;

B creating management regimes for the coastal land
and sea that will be compatible with local and regional
cultures and will cater for access to resources without
having detrimental effects on marine protected areas;

@ ensuring that local and indigenous people are strongly
involved in all aspects of planning and managing a
nation’s marine protected areas.

w bringing managers and scientists together to begin
integrated, multidisciplinary, management-orientated
research and monitoring programmes to provide a
scientific basis, to the maximum extent practicable,
for selection, planning and management of marine
protected areas; and

@ commencing a coordinated scientific and admin-
istrative effort to insure that existing marine pro-
tected areas meet their management objectives.

References

Batisse, W. and de Grissac, A.J. 1992. Marine Protected
Areas in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea—
Past, Present Status and Prospective.

Ch’ng, Kim-Looi. 1992. Establishing Marine Parks Malaysia:
Issues, Problems and Possible Solutions.

Croom, M., Wolotira, R. and Henwood, W. 1992. Pro-
posed Biogeographic Subdivision of the North East
Pacific Marine Realm. (Draft)

Diegues, A.C.S & Moreira, A.C. 1991. Global Repre-
sentative System of Marine Protected Areas: South
Atlantic Marine Realm—The Brazilian Coast.

Dingwall, P., 1992. Global Network of Marine Pro-
tected Areas—the Antarctic Region.

Elder, D.E & Pernetta, J. 1991. Oceans. Mitchell Beazley
Publishers. London, UK.

Esping, L.E. & Gronqvist, G. 1991. The Baltic Sea and
the Skagerrak. IUCN-CNPPA—Network of Marine
Protected Areas.

Holthus, P.F. 1992. Marine Protected Areas in the South
Pacific Region: Status and Prospects. Holthus, P.F.
1992. Marine Biological Biodiversity Conservation
in the Central South Pacific Realm (With Emphasis
on the Small Island States).

IUCN, UNEP, WWF 1991. Caring for the Earth. A
Strategy for Sustainable Living. Published in Part-
nership by IUCN, UNEP and WWF.

IUCN (1991). Directory of Protected Areas in Oceania.
Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring
Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. xxiii — 447pp.

Kelleher, G.K. 1991. Marine Management—Problems,
Solutions and the Contribution of Science. Paper
delivered to the 2nd Westpac Symposium, Penang,
Malaysia.

Kelleher, G.K. & Kenchington, R.K. 1991. Guidelines
for establishing Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and GBRMPA, Canberra, Australia.

Kenchington, R.A. 1990. Managing Marine Environments.
Taylor and Francis, New York, USA.

McNeely, J.A. & Miller, K.R. 1984. National Parks,
Conservation and Development—The Role of Pro-
tected Areas in Sustaining Society.Smithsonian In-
stitution Press, Washinton D.C.

Mondor, C.A, Mercier, F.M. & Croom, M.M. 1991.
Proposed Subdivision of the Northwest Atlantic
Marine Realm for Planning a Global System of
Marine Protected Areas.

Robinson G.A. & de Graaff, G. 1991. The IUCN-
CNPPA Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
Area 6 (West African Marine Realm).

Salm, R.V. 1984. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas:
A Guide for Planners and Managers. 1UCN, Gland,
Switzerland.

Simard, F. 1991. State of the Marine Protected Areas in
the North-West Pacific Realm.

van’t Hof, T. 1992. Coastal and Marine Protected Areas
in the Caribbean: How Can We Make Them Work.
Parks (3) 1.

WRI, UNEP & UNDP 1990. World Resources 1990-91.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

WRI, IUCN & UNEP 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy.
Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use Earth’s
Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. Published
by WRI, IUCN & UNEP in consultation with FAO
and UNESCO.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

o00c OOOL
C
eo

seoie pajoe}oid payeubisap Ajje6a; uum papnjou! Asjun0d Jo eHeyuadJed

%OTZ YOY, 240;

Oc—-Sl

peyoajoud

42S1—-Ol

201-S

25-10

%L°O uby} sseq

aBplUsd404

‘dew

Contents

Page
PMN STON CAL PETSPECHVS aca: oo. icy si 55.05 Hayne yu sented Mesos oheed Rema «ls 2s 47
ele the history ofpeople:and natures. -) ees eee eee eee 47
1.2 Environmental implications of economic development .............. 47
£3) | Uhesrowth/of the protected/areas system’ 5) ./syees..... s+ 44 o nn ae 49
1.4 Participation in international conventions and programmes ............ 51
IPS ee IVESSONSHIEAINEM I ee te se a 5 =. aes ee Se eG ee, Cnn 6 et a 52
2. Current protected areacoverage.......................... 52
PALMS YSLEMS plans: qeamshaKG see lhA Savi.» Agathe: Liraeuneh ie sceecue: eer elie 54
2.2 Coverage of major habitats by protected areas. .................. 54
oes me brotectediareassinidan eer sa 7.) ee er 54
3. Additional protected areas required ........................ 55
a>. Protected area institutions. 2. 2 os. a ee ate De en Te 55
4.1 Conflict and co-operation with other development sectors............. 58
5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ............ 58
6. Human capacity in protected areas management................ 58
7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 60
8. Major protected areaissuesintheregion .................... 61
8.1 Improving the relationship between protected areas and local communities... . 61
8.2 Improving management of protected areas. .................... 63

8.3 Making protected areas part of modern society: The role of education,
trainin pvandinesearch armen yy yet) wie eevee mma oer rete 63
84s" Intemationalico-operation: 2.5 sche ah: 2) amen) Eames ee Cie) 64
9. Priorities foractionintheregion.......................00. 65
LOACONCIISION ee Ws PRIS cs RETIN WA Me Gis 65
CKTIOWICOGEINENIS: saeco aes ahh gi ey eh tye sy Qo de ater mre ,ovee. ase gem eue olka ae oh Sp mee 66

References
Box

Box. 1
Tables

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.

Figures
Map.

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Bs he MORNE ee Ca CRE ea ATOMIC ELON EISG GS ole oo 71
‘Tourismin;Francophone,Africa .. . -ssiska cocked fe ecles eo ee 60
Summary of the protected areas system ..............-0000. 48
Protected areas by IUCN management categories............... 53
The development of the protected areas system ............... 56
Adherence to international/regional conventions ............... 59
World Heritage sites in Sub-Saharan Africa... 2... ..........0.. 62
Protected areas management agency budgets ................. 67
Percentage of country included within legally designated protected

ATCASetie tae Aine noes Gane Mona ea © See ee 44
Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)........... 50
Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............. 50

Sub-Saharan Africa

Presented by Perez Olindo, Vice-Chair (anglophone) and
Mankoto ma Mbaelele, Vice-Chair (francophone) for Sub-Saharan Africa,
IUCN, Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas

1. Historical perspective

Africa is a vast continent, predominantly comprising
woodlands and grasslands, although rain forests repre-
sent nearly one-fifth of the total remaining global re-
source. The rain forest ecosystem also accommodates
more than half of the continent’s biota, and contains
over 8,000 plant species. This, therefore, represents one
of the botanically richest ecosystems in the world. In
addition, Madagascar itself is considered to be one of
the seven major world centres of biodiversity (O’Conner,
1990).

Within Africa, a number of World Heritage sites are
of such value and importance that they transcend the
region. Examples include: the Banc d’ Arguin National
Park in Mauritania, an ecosystem comprising a desert
zone and coastal wetland; Tai National Park in Céte
d'Ivoire, the best remaining example of the West African
rain forest; Niger’s Air-Ténéré Nature Reserve, the only
protected mountain desert in Sub-Saharan Africa, and
the last refuge for large desert animals; Serengeti National
Park in Tanzania, which represents the African Savanna
in the minds of many people; and Zaire’s Virunga
National Park with its mountain gorillas and Montane
rainforests.

With a current population of 646 million, and a growth
rate of 2.9%, Africa is witnessing an ever-increasing
human demand on the resources of both forest and
savanna ecosystems. One of the manifestations of this
is deforestation, which currently stands at about 1% per
annum in the closed rain forest zone (Sayer et al., 1992).
Further, it has been estimated that over half of the
original wildlife habitat in Africa has already been lost
to logging, charcoal burning, and conversion to agri-
culture and livestock grazing (Kiss, 1990).

Given this background, the role of protected areas is
being closely examined in every country of the region.
Reaching a balance between the conservation of bio-
logical diversity and supporting the local development
needs of an expanding population base is now a fore-
most consideration.

1.1. The history of people and

nature

Protection of nature, in the form of traditional creeds
and taboos, has a long history throughout the region.
Examples include the protection of mountain forests
and peaks in Madagascar, the protection of "kayas" or
coastal forests as sacred groves in Kenya, and the estab-
lishment of a "monkey sanctuary" at Boabeng-Fiema,
Ghana, to protect the mona, and black and white colobus
monkeys, considered sacred in that area. More formal
laws and regulations also have a long history in Africa,
one excellent example being the "305 Articles Code" of
the Ancient Malagasy Kingdom, which provided pro-
tection for forests in Madagascar (WCMC, 1992).

It was under colonial rule, however, primarily by the
French and British, that the structure for modern pro-
tected areas was established for the great majority of
African countries. During the colonial period, the creation
of protected areas was enshrined in such notable pieces
of legislation as the London Convention of 1933, later
superseded by the African Convention on the Conser-
vation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1968.

This African Convention, which provides a frame-
work for defining a range of conservation areas, has
been adopted widely by many African states for the
continued management of protected areas in the post-
colonial era, or has served as a model from which new
legislation has emerged. Clearly, however, the Conven-
tion, which has served as a valuable point of departure,
is becoming outdated as a model in countries which are
looking to protected areas to satisfy both conservation
and local development needs.

1.2 Environmental implications of

economic development

Prominent economists and statesmen have described
the 1980s as the lost decade for Africa. The continent
was confronted by a series of natural calamities like
droughts and diseases, inhibiting the economic
development of the region. During the last decade, many

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Sub-Saharan Africa

Area in Area in Categories Total area
Country Area CategoriesI-V % VI-VillandUA % designated %

Angola 1,246,700 26,410 : 62,610
Benin 112,620 8,435 f 27,241
Botswana 575,000 102,250 } 106,805
Burkina Faso 274,122 26,619 : : 36,323
Burundi 27,835 889 : } 942
Cameroon 475,500 20,504 : t 39,110
Cape Verde 4,035 0 : ; 0
Central African Rep. 624,975 61,060 : ; 70,724
1,284,000 29,800 : 119,245

1,860 0 t i 0

342,000 11,774 : x 11,774

Céte d'Ivoire 322,465 19,929 : 34,371 54,299
Djibouti 23,000 100 i 0 ! 100
Equatorial Guinea 28,050 0 t 3,167 3,167
Ethiopia 1,023,050 25,341 : 168,708 194,049
Gabon 267,665 10,450 : 6,950 3 17,400
Gambia 10,690 184 ; 0 ! 184
Ghana 238,305, 10,746 : 25,554 36,300
Guinea 245,855 1,635 } 8,807 ! 10,442
Guinea-Bissau 36,125 0 t 0 d 0
Kenya 582,645 34,702 d 27,255 5 61,957
Lesotho 30,345 68 : 0 ! 68
Liberia 111,370 1,292 : 14,286 15,578
Madagascar 594,180 11,148 : 1,245 E 12,393
Malawi 94,080 10,585 7,039 f 17,624
Mali 1,240,140 40,120 ; 17,348 d 57,468
Mauritania 1,030,700 17,460 : 0 i 17,460
Mauritius 1,865 0 ! 0 ! 0
Mayotte 376 0 ! 0 0
Mozambique 784,755 20 r 17,411 H 17,431
824,295 103,706 7,842 : 111,548

1,186,410 96,967 : 0 i 96,967

923,850 30,624 : 7,172 } 37,796

2,510 59 : 0 59

26,330 3,270 1,501 5 4771

Sao Tome-Principe 964 0 : 0 i 0
Senegal 196,720 21,803 600 F 22,403
Seychelles 404 379 30 : 409
Sierra Leone 72,325 820 : 2,733 i 3,553
Somalia 630,000 1,800 ; 3,444 \ 5,244
South Africa 1,184,825 74,134 : 761 : 74,895
Sudan 2,505,815 93,825 : 28,665 : 122,490
Swaziland 17,365 459 : 142 } 601
? 0 i 0 ! 0

939,760 130,000 235,115 : 365,115

56,785 6,469 2,689 : 9,158

236,580 18,708 A 45,390 64,098

2,345,410 99,166 : 37,082 d 136,248

752,615 63,609 : 232,193 295,802

390,310 30,678 i 28,888 i 59,566

23,927,581 1,247,997 K 1,153,421 2,401,418

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category
has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover (eg. Seychelles).

countries suffered food shortages while others were
bailed out with food donations from friendly countries.

In Liberia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mozambique, Angola
and Southern Sudan, the infrastructure was largely dis-
rupted by civil war, while in countries like Uganda and
Rwanda, civil disorder either led to the overthrow of
governments or the extensive dislocation of commu-
nities. This led to much suffering and distress. So much
went wrong in so many countrics that the preoccupation
of caring for protected areas receded into the distant
background. Even in countries like Kenya, Tanzania
and Zimbabwe, where wildlife-based industries like
tourism and hunting thrived, major foreign exchange
earnings from this sector were used to subsidize other
national priorities rather than being reinvested in main-
taining and enhancing the resources which generated
this wealth.

As 1991 came to aclose, media headlines showed that
Africa’s earnings from intermational trade had fallen by
some US$54 billion between the 1986 and 1990 fiscal
years, compared to the region’s earnings in the previous
five year period (1981-1985). This prompted countries
to place increased emphasis on diversification away
from such heavy dependence on production of low-
value commodities. This trend, however, has directly
involved the conversion of scarce land to alternative
economic agricultural production, a fact which has in-
tensified the serious competition for the availabie pro-
ductive land in each country. This is not easy for wild-
life or protected areas, which do not enjoy high priority
at the national level, even in couniries like Kenya where
wildlife-based tourism has become the largest foreign
exchange eamer.

For the next decade to record a major turn-around in
this negative trend for Africa, additional external re-
sources will be needed from the facilities already in
existence as well as from completely new sources of
support. Equally necessary will be courage, in the majo-
rity of African countries, to display maturity and a high
level of political will to achieve stronger control mea-
sures over the conditions which have so far governed
the use of and trade in African commodities. Clearly,
there is a need for national governments must give their
highest priority to improving the economic returns ac-
cruing to Africa. Countries suffering budgetary de-
ficits will also need to negotiate easier access to devel-
opment resources in order to survive as viable economic
entities.

In common with other developing countries of the
world, rapidly-increasing human population remains
the largest single threat to the future well-being of the
already established protected areas. It is also perhaps
the real generator of alternative land uses in areas with
the potential for establishing new national parks and
wildlife reserves. For example, with the extra demand
for food, many important wetlands that sustained migratory
birds on their flyways to wintering grounds have increasingly
became the subject of reclamation for food production.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Fortunately, there is increasing dialogue throughout the
region, aimed at integrating the multiple use of such
areas with the over-riding objective of maintaining the
ecological attributes of these lands.

The fact that no substantial areas were formally re-
moved from protected areas to agriculture over the past
decade is in itself a major achievement for the countries
concemed. For Africa, therefore, the consideration should
not be as much that the continent did not achieve the
minimum worldwide target of 10% of each country’s
land area under legal protection, but that under great
pressure, African countries have maintained as designated
protected areas whatever lands they had already committed
to conservation. This is remarkable, given that African
governments and people see the future of their environment,
including their national parks and other protected areas,
as being absolutely intertwined with the performance of
the region’s economy.

In the final analysis, two major factors which will
ensure the survival and continued well-being of pro-
tected areas throughout the region. The first is full
international support for the African economic recovery
programme, with increased resources being channelled
to countries with good governance and transparent financial
management, the second is how well protected areas
respond to changing circumstances and the needs of
local populations. Otherwise, the world must brace
itself for a decline not only in the area coverage of
protected areas, but a further decline in the quality of
the values such areas protect. Indeed, the threat that
natural areas may disappear altogether in the 21st Cen-
tury is a real one for much of the continent.

1.3. The growth of the protected

areas system

In Africa, the first modern conservation area was estab-
lished in 1898, later to be known as Kruger National
Park, South Africa. Most of the colonial powers’ acti-
vities to establish national parks and reserves in their
territories took place between the two world wars. Albert
National Park (now Virunga National Park) was created
in the former Belgian Congo (now Zaire) in 1925; Italy
created a reserve in Somalia; France was especially
active in Madagascar, where it created four reserves;
and the British created numerous reserves in their colonies.
Following independence, virtually all countries created
additional protected areas, based on new legislation
(Figures 1 and 2).

By mid-1991, participation in international protected
areas conventions was reasonably strong in Africa . Far
more than half the countries under review are signa-
tories to the World Heritage Convention, while slightly
fewer countries participate in UNESCO’s Man and
Biosphere Programme. While only about a dozen countries
have ratified the Ramsar Convention, well over three-
quarters of the states are signatory to the African Convention
on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN, 1992).

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)

300
Number of sites

200 Area (x1000sqkm)
200
150
100

0 ee E:

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)

1,400
Number of sites

1,200 Area (x1 000sqkm)
1,000
800
600

400

200 =

1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Five year period begining...

Protected areas in Francophone Africa. A decree
of 10 March 1935 regulated hunting and established
national parks as refuges for animal species in the
various colonies of French West Africa. There was,
however, no special decree to protect flora in these
refuges similar to the decree of 1927 which created ten
natural zoological and botanical reserves in Madagascar.

In July, 1953, the Assembly of the Union Francaise
established the pre-eminence of the principle of agrono-
mical development of the tropical countries and pro-
posed "calling on the government to take all measures
of a nature to protect forests and spontaneous vege-
tation, and to carry out the agronomical development of
the Overseas Territories". The orientation, however,
was such that protected areas were marked out and
regulated on the basis of criteria and jurisdiction adapted
to suit conditions prevailing in Europe.

Apart from certain specific targets, whether econo-
mic (forest in Senegal) or protective (water, soil, rare
plant and animal species), classification of protected
habitats during the colonial period was generally carried
out in places where the fewest problems would be
caused to people, for example, in thinly populated re-
gions. This was done for historical reasons; to create
buffer zones between peoples in areas of local conflict;
or for ecological reasons, such as disease (sleeping
sickness and especially onchocerciasis), natural soil
depletion, impoverishment as a result of long years of
farming, or a lack of water resources.

Designation generally took place in areas where settle-
ment and/or resettlement had been hampered by the
aforementioned constraints. The most characteristic were
eastern Senegal, south-west Mali and south-east and
south-west Burkina Faso. These undisturbed areas were
thus fairly rich in wildlife and were therefore ideal sites
for classification and protection. At a later stage, pro-
tected areas in the Sahel were often extended to the
detriment of surrounding villages which were uprooted
and moved beyond the new limits, thus compromising
the future of certain parks and reserves. A typical case
in point is the Niokolo Koba National Park, Senegal,
which was extended seven times and where the dis-
placed village communities, perhaps understandably,
have carried out heavy poaching.

Significant protected areas were established in Fran-
cophone Africa during the 1930s and 1950s, followed
by a slower rate of establishment from the 1960s on-
wards. In a number of countries, such as Benin, Burundi,
Djibouti, Rwanda and Togo, all of their protected areas
were established prior to 1962 (Table 3).

The most significant creations of protected areas in
Francophone Africa over the past decade have been in
Niger, Mauritania, Central African Republic and Burkina
Faso. It is no accident that these sites, which are so dif-
ferent in size and environment, ranging from Diawling,
Maunitania (13,000ha) on the fringe of the desert, through the
dense Bayanga forest, Central African Republic (32,000ha),

Sub-Saharan Africa

to the Air-Ténéré desert (7.7 million ha) in the Sahara,
are all examples of the so-called third generation of
protected areas. These sites emphasise economic aspects,
and the effective participation of local or integrated
populations.

Protected Areas in Anglophone Africa. _ Early legis-
lation pertaining to conservation and the establishment
of both conservation areas and forest reserves dates to
the turn of the century in a number of Anglophone
African countries. While the majority of forest reserve
networks were in place at an early date, the period from
1950-1970 witnessed a significant expansion in many
conservation area networks. In countries such as Ghana,
Lesotho, Malawi, and Uganda, the majority of protected
areas were established between 1962-1971. In contrast,
the networks of such West African states as The Gambia,
Liberia, and Sierra Leone are new, with most protected
areas being established over the past decade (Table 3).

A number of protected area networks arose out of
established forest reserves, examples being the creation
of national parks in Uganda and Malawi, while a num-
ber of countries have regraded game reserves and other
protected area categories to national park status. Many
of the protected areas established in the 1980s have been
gazetted as a result of arecognition of the need to protect
certain habitats or species, or to establish areas with
multiple-use management in mind. Examples of the
latter include the creation of wildlife utilization areas in
Mozambique, contractual national parks involving pri-
vate landowners in South Africa, and proposed forest
parks in Uganda.

Unfortunately, the growth in the protected area net-
works throughout the region does not, in any way,
reflect upon how such areas have been managed. For
example, despite there being over 10 million ha within
conservation areas in Sudan (4% of the country’s area),
many of the country’s reserves exist on paper only due
to the ongoing civil war. Numerous other conservation
areas throughout the region have no management or
development plans, no scientific data and no protection
systems in place. These and other issues are discussed
at length in a comprehensive review of national pro-
tected areas systems, prepared by the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992).

1.4 Participation in international
conventions and programmes

Table 4 summarises the international conventions and
programmes that countries of the Afrotropics are party
to. Of the 50 countries of the Afrotropics, 33 are signa-
tory to the World Heritage Convention. While 18 of
these countries do not have any World Heritage sites,
six have two or more sites listed. Tanzania and Zaire are
noteworthy in having 4 sites each. In total, 27 sites have
been designated for the Afrotropics (Table 5), covering
a total area of 27.8 million hectares.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

As far as Biosphere Reserves are concemed, 20 countries
participate in the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere
(MAB) Programme. A total of 36 sites have been estab-
lished, covering a total area of about 13.3 million ha.
Ten countries have established more than one site,
Kenya with five.

The fewest number of Afrotropical countries par-
ticipate in the Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention. A total
of 44 sites have been listed in 17 countries, covering 4.1
million hectares. Thirteen of these 17 countries with
Ramsar sites became party to the Convention on or after
1986. Ghana has established six Ramsar wetlands, while
South Africa is the most active with 12 sites.

1.5 Lessons learned

Protected areas and national economies. Some
conservationists feel that issues of trade and the per-
formance of the economy are far removed from the
planning and management of protected areas. However,
national parks, forest reserves and other protected areas
permanently block off vast areas of land, therein fore-
going competing economic uses, and often excluding
human settlements. Considering that a large portion of
the African continent is either desert, arid or semi-arid
in nature, drought is frequent and recurring, and that the
human population increase in Africa has been one of the
highest in the world, it becomes immediately apparent
why the conservation of protected areas is a serious
front line socio-economic issue.

Failure to address basic economic issues will inevi-
tably pose the greatest challenge to the survival of
Africa’s protected areas. Measures to redress the econo-
mic balance, which have been discussed on numerous
occasions, include: restructuring the pricing of com-
modities to reflect their true value; exercising control
thereafter over any sharp fluctuations in commodity
prices; reducing Africa’s overwhelming dependence on
a narrow range of raw materials for its hard currency
earnings; and diversifying Africa’s economies. Africa
will need external support to achieve these goals.

If such measures are not enacted, it is foreseen that
the slippage will intensify and most of what we know
now as the great national parks, wildlife reserves and
even the vast protected forests of Africa may be overrun
by asea of humanity, seeking the barest minimum level
of survival from that land.

Management plans and legislation. The prepa-
ration of management plans allowing for the rational
use of protected areas and their surroundings must be
based on prior study, properly organised communi-
cation infrastructures and public awareness and training
campaigns. However, national legislation should be
more flexible to permit some limited exploitation of the
resources of at least some protected areas on the basis
of specific predetermined criteria. The same would
need to be done for the application of regulations inside
protected areas, tending to give greater responsibility

for resources to local populations and to enable them to
retain a greater share of the benefits.

Hunting on public land, which is banned in many
countries, is a typical example of legislation which
should rapidly evolve to take account of the traditions
and needs of the people, especially since current bans
on hunting constitute an incitement to poach and to
organised smuggling, while helping to increase the
populations of the species most likely to cause damage.
New legislation should be able to distinguish between
traditional and modern hunting, establishing closed and
open seasons, encouraging the population to breed game,
and providing incentives for land-owners to retain wild-
life on their property.

At regional or subregional levels, it will be essential
to harmonise legislation and regulations to make States’
efforts to implement their protected area management
policies more effective. Land-use legislation also needs
revising to take account of present socio-economic con-
ditions and conservation needs.

2. Current protected area coverage

In total, conservation areas in IUCN categories I-VIII
cover about 10.0% of the area for the region, and
comprise an area of around 2.4 million ha. A further
breakdown reveals that 5.2% of the area for the conti-
nent is in IUCN categories I-V, comprising 645 sites,
while 4.8% is in categories VI—VIII or category unas-
signed (Table 1 and Map). Within categories I-V, the
majority of sites are either categories II or IV, with very
little representation of category III sites (Table 2).

Within Francophone Africa, protected areas in cate-
gories I-VIII cover more than 15% of the total area in
Benin (24.2%), Rwanda (18.1%) and Céte d’Ivoire
(16.8%). At the other extreme, countries such as Burundi,
Djibouti, Mauritania and Madagascar all have networks
which cover less than 5% of their total area. In most
Francophone African countries there is a greater percentage
of land found within categories I-V than in categories
VI-VII. This perhaps reflects the strong tendency towards
"preservation" of areas in these countries, although it
could also be a reflection of the information available.

The variation in protected areas coverage in IUCN
categories I-VIII is somewhat greater between coun-
tries in Anglophone Africa. At one end of the spectrum
lie Zambia (39.3%), Tanzania (38.9%), and Uganda
(27.1%), while at the other end, The Gambia, Lesotho,
and Nigeria all have less than 5% of their respective
areas covered by protected areas. In between these two
extremes are found countries such as South Africa,
whose system of 574 nature reserves covers an area of
6.3% of the country (Table 1) (IUCN, 1992). In coun-
tries such as Tanzania (25.0%), Ethiopia (16.5%) and
Zambia (30.9%), a large percentage of protected areas
are in IUCN categories VI-VIII, such areas often serv-
ing multiple-use functions.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Sub-Saharan Africa

Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde

Central African Rep.

Chad
Comoros
Congo

Céte d’Ivoire
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi

Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mayotte
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Reunion
Rwanda

Sao Tome-Principe
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
St. Helena

Area

No.

I
Area

7,900
8,435
89,870
4,893

10,304
31,020
4,140

1,266
17,625
100

25,341
184
10,298

89,777
2,200
23,175
3,270

10,120

39,100
3,573
8,336

99,166

63,590

27,019

758,064

No.

Area

Nol No} rnlwonln

8,910
12,380
21,726

10,186
29,180
25,660
10,508

1,024

11,148
10,585
40,120
17,460

= 8
SCP AMKEF NWO] NN

-
— 0

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection
function are generally included.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

In addition to conservation areas, more than 3% of the
total area for Africa is found within forest reserve
networks serving protection or conservation functions.
Such forest reserves account for 12% in Benin, 6% in
Senegal, 5% in Malawi, and 3% of total area in Kenya.
Another 2.5% or so is covered by forest reserves serving
production functions (WCMC, 1992).

2.1 Systems plans

At the pan-African or regional level, recommendations
for new protected areas are encompassed within reports
by MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986), IUCN (1987),
MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986), and Stuart and
Adams (1990).

For a number of countries, national reviews are avail-
able regarding priorities for increased protected area
coverage. Examples include Ethiopia’s ten year National
Programme for the Conservation and Management of
Forests, Wildlife, Soils and Water, Kenya’s A Policy
Framework and Development Programme 1991-1996,
and a systems plan is currently being prepared for
Ghana under the auspices of a Forest Resources Man-
agement Project (IUCN, 1992).

2.2 Coverage of major habitats by

protected areas

A number of habitat types are poorly represented within
Africa, and for the majority of countries in the region,
gaps in protected area coverage remain. For example,
although Uganda has many national parks and reserves,
the present network was gazetted before any analysis of
ecosystems had been made. Consequently, only 36 of
the 94 major non-aquatic ecosystems are within natio-
nal parks with a further 23 in game reserves at the
present time.

The most common terrestrial habitat types identified
as needing further protection throughout the region
include montane, evergreen and lowland forest areas;
mountain systems (e.g. the Eastern Arc Mountains,
Tanzania); coastal forests; savanna and desert ecosys-
tems, particularly in the case of the Sahelian countries;
grasslands; deciduous miombo woodlands; and swamps
and freshwater lakes, including the need for increased
protection of the Okavango Delta, and lakes Tanganyika
and Malawi, respectively. Further, habitats associated
with offshore islands have received little protection. Ex-
amples include woodland habitat on Rodrigues, Mauritius, and
forest thicket and mangrove habitat on the islands of
Pemba and Zanzibar, Tanzania.

On the marine side, coastal wetlands, mangroves,
turtle and bird nesting areas, sand dunes, and coral reefs
have been identified as needing further protection through-
out the continent. This is becoming of paramount impor-
tance in the face of industrial and commercial developments,
pollution, and exploitation of marine resources. The
efforts of Mauritania in establishing the Banc d’Arguin
National Park and of Kenya in some 114,000ha in the

form of marine national parks and reserves, and in
proposing that reefs such as Kanamai and Vipingo be
included in a large fishing reserve system, are excep-
tional, not representative of efforts throughout Africa.
More usual are countries such as Sudan where marine
resources have only been partially surveyed, or
Mozambique which has yet to develop a comprehen-
sive coastal resources policy.

A number of countries throughout the region have
developed protected area networks which comprise most
of the habitat types found within their national bounda-
ries. For example, of the 29 major biotic communities
in Malawi, 18 occur in the protected area system and a
number of others are found in the forest reserve network.
In Namibia, the state-owned protected areas cover about
14% of the country and include 11 of the 14 major
vegetation zones, while, in theory, the protected areas
of Ethiopia protect most of the country’s vegetation
types and total 19 million ha. Other examples of com-
prehensive protected area networks are those of Kenya,
Zambia and Zimbabwe. Within francophone African,
Senegal, Céte d’Ivoire, Zaire and Cameroon are the
countries where the most complete representation has
been achieved in the ficld.

2.3 Protected areas in danger

Poaching, forest destruction and general encroachment
are reported from almost every African country, due
largely to rapid population growth, and the conflict
between traditional hunting practices and modem legis-
lation which has been superimposed upon peoples with
different cultural values and outlook. In a few countries,
political instability, which has led to the destruction of
normal food supplies as well as a collapse in surveil-
lance of protected areas, has made this situation worse.
This, for example, resulted in IUCN’s Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) placing
the entire park system of Angola on its Threatened
Protected Areas list in 1988.

Drought over much of the continent has had direct
detrimental impacts on protected areas, and lead to an
increased level of human use of them. Lack of appre-
ciation of the long-term benefits of, for example, catch-
ment protection forests and exploitation of short-term
benefits also plays a part. Even where protected areas
themselves remain fairly intact, their isolation due to
habitat alteration in surrounding areas threatens their
viability for migrant species which require large ranges.
A case in point is Nigeria, where the total area of forest
declined from 60 million ha to under 10 million ha
between 1976 and 1985. The net effect of this has been
to create a forest reserve network of isolated entities,
therein reducing their capacity to conserve effectively.
Further, severe reduction of large herbivore habitat
outside reserves has led to overgrazing and habitat
destruction by elephants and other species inside pro-
tected areas in countries where their populations remain
relatively high.

In contrast to the more industrialised continents, pol-
lution generally poses little threat for most of the pro-
tected areas in Africa. This is apart from special cases
where, for example, tsetse fly control programmes have
introduced large amounts of undesirable chemicals, and
in marine areas near busy ports. Marine areas are,
however, subject to over fishing and reef damage, and
the large land-locked lakes of the continent are particu-
larly vulnerable to pollution. River barrages have signifi-
cantly affected ecosystems in a few areas, and their
impact is likely to increase as more large-scale attempts
are made to harness water resources. A number of these
have already been proposed.

Other common threats to protected areas include ex-
traction of timber, fuelwood and other forest resources;
illegal settlement; mining; military disturbances; un-
authorised fires; commercial fishing; and development
activities (e.g. road construction). There is also an in-
creasing recognition that a lack of participation by local
communities in the management of protected areas
leads to decreased levels of protection, and may indeed
be a root cause of the more visible threats (Besong and
Wencélius, 1992).

More localised threats include the development of the
proposed trans-Kalahari railway in Botswana, which
would affect the Central Kalahari Game Reserve; the
construction of several large dams which has caused
changes to ecosystems in and around Kora National
Park and Lake Turkana, Kenya; threats to Manova-
Gounda-St Floris National Park in the Central African
Republic, as a result of invasion by nomads from Chad
and Sudan with their herds of livestock carrying bovine
rinderpest; the invasion of exotics in Mauritius, which is
causing a significant threat to the native flora and fauna;
tourist pressure, for example in protected areas such as
Amboseli National Park, Kenya, and Makgadikgadi
Pans Game Reserve, Botswana; diamond mining in the
Loma Mountains and Gola Forest Reserves of Sierra
Leone, which has greatly increased soil erosion; the
reconsideration of a hydro-electric scheme which would
devastate Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda; and
chemical pollution and river diversion schemes which
are threatening the Okavango Delta (IUCN, 1992).

Internal threats to the integrity of protected areas
include inadequate legislation, enforcement and infra-
Structure; lack of technical expertise and management
plans from which to carry out management activities;
staff involved in incompatible and/or illegal activities
within protected areas; and in extreme cases, such as
civil war, abandonment by staff. By the early 1990s, no
fewer than a dozen protected areas in Anglophone
Africa and at least eight in Francophone Africa had been
placed on CNPPA’s Threatened Protected Areas list.

3. Additional protected areas
required

A number of countries have proposals to increase the
amount of land covered under protected area status,

Sub-Saharan Africa

which will help to address existing shortcomings in the
protected area networks. In Kenya, for example, a recent
review has recommended that an additional 500,000ha
of forest land (22% Government and 78% Trust land)
be gazetted, including areas of coastal forest. In addi-
tion, various forest inventories and management plans
are scheduled (World Bank, 1988b). In Uganda, an
inventory of the distribution and status of wetlands is
planned in order to develop a wetland reserve network;
currently, only about 2% of wetlands are afforded pro-
tection within the country. In Namibia, the Ministry of
Wildlife and Tourism has identified various priorities
for action, including extension of the protected areas
network to include at least 10% of each of the country’s
habitat types, joining up more reserves via corridors,
and creating buffer zones. And, parts of Lesotho, which
include important catchment areas, are scheduled for
protection by an expansion of the Drakensberg/Maluti
Catchment Conservation Programme (jointly with South
Africa) (Bainbridge et al., 1989).

If 10% of total area for each country is taken as a
reasonable standard for protected area coverage, then a
good number of African countries have either reached
or surpassed this mark (Map). In order to improve the
management and investment in these areas, however, a
number of countries are considering regrading specific
sites. In Uganda, for example, there are proposals to
regrade certain reserves (e.g. Bwindi Forest Reserves)
to national parks and give total protection to some
important water catchment areas. However, while a
significant percentage of the country may be designated,
this does not in itself ensure conservation, and many areas
lack effective management for one reason or another.

4. Protected area institutions

Francophone Africa. In francophone Africa, national
parks and wildlife are rarely managed autonomously;
their management structures are generally associated
with another, dominant entity, for example within Tour-
ism and Environment in Senegal, Burkina Faso, Central
African Republic, Cameroon, and Togo, and within
Rural Development, Water Management and Agricul-
ture in Guinea-Conakry, Chad, Mauritania, Senegal,
Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Mali, and Céte d’ Ivoire.

Only Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi have more or less
autonomous structures: Institut Zairois de Conservation
de la Nature (IZCN); Office Rwandais des Parcs Nationaux
(ORPN); and Institut Burundais de la Conservation de
la Nature et de l’Environnement (IBCNE), respectively.
Central Africa and Congo have integrated these concerns
into, respectively, a Ministry for Water, Forests, Hunting,
Fisheries and Tourism, anda Ministry for Forest Economics,
thus highlighting the link between the target and its
environment.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Sub-Saharan Africa

% area % area % area Date Total
established established established established established area
up to 1962 1962-1971 1972-1981 1982-1991 unknown

Angola 67.3 32.3 0.4 0.0 0 26,410
Beuin 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8,435
Botswana 50.7 49.3 0.0 0.0 85 102,250
Burkina Faso 28.6 62.2 9.1 0.0 0 26,619
Burundi 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 488 888

Cameroon 48.8 28.6 16.4 6.2 160 20,504
Cape Verde 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Central African Rep. 93.9 0.0 41 2.0 0 61,060
Chad 3.7 90.1 45 1.7 0 29,800
Comoros 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Congo 85.2 2.5 12.3 0.0 0 11,773
Céte dIvoire 0.4 64.5 35.1 0.0 0 19,928
Djibouti 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 100
Equatorial Guinea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Ethiopia 0.0 60.5 29.4 10.0 0 25,341
Gabon 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 10,450
Gambia 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 0 184
Ghana 0.0 94.8 5.2 0.0 0 10,746
Guinea 76.6 0.0 0.0 23.4 0 1,635
Guinea-Bissau 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Kenya 118 45 11.6 12.0 0 34,702
Lesotho 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 68
Liberia 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 1,292
Madagascar 84.8 8.2 0.0 6.9 0 11,147
Malawi 24.9 59.9 15.2 0.0 0 10,585
Mali 96.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0 40,119
Mauritania 14.3 0.0 67.2 18.5 0 17,460
Mauritius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Mayotte 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Mozambique 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 20
Namibia 21.5 21.3 55.9 1.3 0 103,706
Niger 3.1 4.0 0.0 93.0 0 96,967
Nigeria 48 5:3 31.2 58.6 175 30,623
Reunion 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 59
Rwanda 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3,270
Sao Tome-Principe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Senegal 42.8 23.8 33.4 0.0 465 21,802
Seychelles 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 378
Sierra Leone 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 820
Somalia 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1,800 1,800
South Africa 73.5 3.9 13.0 9.6 6,247 74,134
St. Helena 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Sudan 43.7 0.0 13.4 42.9 250 93,825
Swaziland 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 459
Tanzania 60.1 24.4 97 5.9 800 129,999
Togo 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,014 6,469
Uganda 38.1 53.5 0.6 7.9 823 18,707
Zaire 24.7 55.5 6.1 13.8 0 99,166
Zambia 35.2 0.0 58.2 6.5 0 63,609

30,678

1,247,998

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas mecting criteria for
TUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in
size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted.

Several years ago, Senegal and Céte d’Ivoire adopted
full ministerial structures, each creating a Secretary of
State for National Parks followed by a Ministry for
Nature Protection. Senegal is the only country in the
francophone part of the region with a corps of national
park rangers independent of the water and forest rangers.

In general terms, then, protected area management
structures in Francophone Africa are governmental;
they are associated with the forest services whose ad-
ministrative structures vary from country to country,
and, within one country, from one government to the
next. None of the options chosen can be taken as a
model. There is a need for management structures which
fit in with other national administrative entities and
sectoral policies to provide overall coverage for devel-
opment problems and land-use planning. Such structures
will have to be more democratic and ensure greater
participation in the future.

These deficiencies are reflected in current protected
area legislation throughout most of francophone Africa.
In general, legislation and regulations on protected areas
and wildlife are ill-suited to present-day socio-economic
realities. Regardless of whether or not the legislation
dates back to colonial times, it allows for strict protection
for a large number of habitats and species but is still
unsuitable for designing and implementing modern man-
agement methods, particularly those which actively in-
volve local populations in the running of protected
areas.

Anglophone Africa. Protected areas legislation
in anumber of countries of anglophone Africa is in need
of revision; in about half of these states it dates from the
early 1970s or before. In Nigeria, for example, nature
reserves, forest and game reserves are still designated
in accordance with the 1933 London Convention,
although in the Northern Region, forest reserves are
governed by the Northern Nigerian Forestry Ordinance
(1960).

Ina number of other countries of Anglophone Africa,
such as Kenya, Nigeria and Liberia, new protected area
legislation has recently been passed. This legislation
will take time to become effective, however, partic-
ularly with administration being in the hands of new
organizations in Kenya (Kenya Wildlife Service) and
Nigeria (National Parks Board), and with the role of the
Forest Development Authority being redefined in Liberia.
In countries such as Mauritius, further legislation is
being passed in relation to marine nature reserves and
turtle reserves.

Forestry legislation in some cases (e.g. Malawi) dates
from the 1930s or 1940s. The 1980s has seen some
Tevision of legislation, but in a few countries where it is
in the process of being updated, it is taking a long time
to finally become law.

Apart from management problems on the ground,
institutional problems affecting efficiency are reported
from many anglophone African countries. Often, pro-

Sub-Saharan Africa

tected areas management is split between more than one
ministry, making it difficult to administer; in any one
country, they may come under a national parks autho-
rity, a forest department, a lands department, a district
council, or a tourism department, depending on the
category of protected area. A case in point is Uganda,
where wildlife management is carried out by two agen-
cies within the Ministry of Wildlife and Tourism: the
parastatal Uganda National Parks; and the Game De-
partment, the latter maintaining staff in some forest
reserves. Nature reserves and forest reserves are man-
aged by the Forest Department within the Ministry of
Environment Protection. A lack of co-operation between
these three agencies has been reported as inhibiting
protected area management. This has prompted recommen-
dations for the establishment of a National Advisory Com-
mittee on Natural Resource Conservation, which has
been endorsed by the Prime Minister’s office. In other
countries, various protected areas are managed by such
divergent groups as the Fisheries Division (marine areas)
in Mauritius, Kenya National Museums (responsible for
managing over 300 sacred forests), and the Instituto
Investigacao de Mozambique and various port captains,
who are responsible for coral reef protection in that
country.

Throughout the region, the trend is towards collab-
oration between agencies involved in protected areas
management, particularly in the forestry and wildlife
sectors. This has come about partly due to a conver-
gence of interests in conserving critical habitat areas,
and a recognition that areas cannot be managed effect-
ively where the jurisdiction is shared by agencies with
divergent mandates. In Sudan, for example, multiple
use management areas, developed in conjunction with
forest reserves, have been recommended to reduce pres-
sure on forests. In Kenya, where nature reserves are
managed by staff from the Ministry of Wildlife and
Tourism, Kenya Wildlife Service, and the Forest De-
partment, collaboration is being fostered through initia-
tives such as the Kenya Indigenous Forest Project.
Further, closer co-operation is being developed to con-
serve the particularly threatened and fragmented coastal
limestone forests in the country (WWF, 1991). In Botswana,
the aims of the draft Conservation Strategy, recently
approved by Cabinet and now going through parliament,
include integrating the many sectoral ministries and
NGOs involved in conservation and protected areas
management, and the formation of a National Conservation
Strategy Advisory Board. This Board, together with the
present Co-ordination Agency, will be directly responsible
to Cabinet.

Within anglophone Africa, there are generally few
incentives for the private sector to own land in protected
areas; in a few cases such as Lesotho there are disin-
centives. In most countries, legislation does not permit
private ownership in national parks, or at least their core
areas. In only a very few states, such as Mauritius,
Malawi and South Africa, is there specific legislation
designed to encourage individuals to own protected
land.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Nevertheless, there are a number of examples of par-
ticipation in protected areas management on the part of
the private sector. In 1990, 359 farms covering 46,000
sq km were registered as private hunting and guest
farms in Namibia; Uganda has about 2,000 sq km of
private forests; and in South Africa, about 0.2% of all
conservation areas are in private reserves, and of the
nearly 2 million ha in forest reserves, around 620,000ha
is catchment forests on private land.

The NGO sector is poorly developed in many coun-
tries of Africa. Notable exceptions include the Kalahari
Conservation Society, Botswana, the East African Wildlife
Society, and the Wildlife Society of Zimbabwe (IUCN,
1992). Village or local reserves involving collective
non-governmental ownership have been developed in a
few countries, Ghana and South Africa (Natal) being
examples.

4.1 Conflict and co-operation with

other development sectors

Currently, linkages with other development sectors is
uncommon, although the need for collaboration with
government departments in such areas as land-use plan-
ning is increasing. In Botswana, for example, wildlife
management areas have been proposed for areas of
marginal land around parks and reserves as buffer zones.
Increasing conflicts with grazing demands of domestic
cattle need redressing and may lead to wildlife manage-
ment areas becoming mainly the responsibility of Dis-
trict authorities.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

Fora number of countries in Africa, protected areas play
a vital economic role. This is manifest in the income
accrued from tourism, in the protection of watershed
areas in support of other development sectors, and in
conserving valuable plants and animals which are uti-
lised in a number of ways. For example, total earnings
of the Wildlife Division, Tanzania for 1990/1991 were
about US$2.6 million from tourist and resident hunting,
trophy sales, live animal trade, park entry and camping
fees. Tanzania National Parks earned around US$3.5
million from tourism, while Ngorongoro Conservation
Area Authority earned in excess of US$1.8 million over
the same period (Table 6). In contrast, countries suffer-
ing from civil disorder and any number of environ-
mental calamities, usually expressed in terms of severe
poverty, have not reaped such benefits. In these coun-
tries, protected areas exist primarily as “paper parks",
with little staff, infrastructure and apparent value per se
for residents living in and around such areas.

There is wide discrepancy in the budgets of protected
area administrations throughout the region, reflecting
the general level of support available to protected areas.
Well-financed administrations include those of South

Africa’s Natal Parks, Game and Fish Preservation Board,
which had a budget of US$36 million in 1991; the
Kenya Wildlife Service with a 1989 budget of US$18.2
million; the Ministry of Wildlife, Conservation and
Tourism, Namibia, with a budget of US$11 million in
1990; and the Office of Tourism and National Parks,
Rwanda with a 1990 budget of US$4.7 million. At the
other extreme, the Wildlife Conservation Branch, Sierra
Leone made do with US$4,590 in 1991, while the Forest
Development Institute, Angola had a budget of US$20,000
in that same year (Table 6). Overall, most African
countries spend less than one fifth of the annual investment
of $230 per square kilometre of protected area considered
to be necessary to achieve effective conservation (Leader-
Williams and Albon, 1988).

Investment in protected area infrastructure is particu-
larly difficult for administrations with minimal budgets,
as most funds are spent on staff salaries and adminis-
tration. In 1990, annual personnel costs for the Institute
for the Conservation of Nature of Zaire was US$1
million. This left US$2,000 as recurrent budget.

Not surprisingly, a great deal of investment for pro-
tected areas comes from international agencies for many
African countries. For example, funding in support of
Ghana’s Forest Resources Management Project has been
allocated by the World Bank to the tune of US$64.6
million over a six-year period (World Bank, 1988a;
EPC, 1989). Although this funding is targeted at both
the forestry and wildlife sectors, implementation of
recommendations will need further investment. Sim-
ilarly, the Southern African Wetlands Project, Malawi,
which aims to identify important areas for conservation
action, is supported by SADCC, IUCN and NORAD.

Currently, very little investment comes from private
conservation-oriented organizations within Africa. Further,
there are only a handful of self-financing administrations,
such as the Office of Tourism and National Parks, Rwanda,
which is able to invest in protected areas from tourist
revenue.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

Throughout anglophone Africa, protected areas man-
agement is in need of strengthening, and there is a
general lack of well-qualified and trained staff in most
countries. Fortunately, a number of training institutions
which are attempting to address this situation. These
include the College of African Wildlife Management at
Mweka, Tanzania, and the Institute of Renewable Natu-
ral Resources (IRNR), in Kumasi, Ghana. As part of
their program, IRNR offers post-graduate training in
areas of wildlife, forestry and fisheries management.
Various workshops and training courses, in English and
French, are also organised by organizations such as
IUCN and WWF. The bilingual FAO publication Na-
ture et Faune provides a forum for discussion on con-
servation and protected area issues throughout the region.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Sub-Saharan Africa

Country

Angola

Benin

Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon

Cape Verde
Central African Rep
Chad

Comoros

Congo

Céte d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia

France (Mayotte)
France (Reunion)
Gabon

Gambia

Ghana
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea

Kenya

Lesotho

Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi

Mali

Mauritania
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia

Niger

Nigeria

Rwanda

Sao Tome & Principe
Senegal
Seychelles

Sierra Leone
Somalia

South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania

Togo

Uganda

UK (St Helena)
Zaire

Zambia
Zimbabwe

Notes:

World Heritage

Date No. Area (ha)
November 1991 0 -
June 1982 0 -
April 1987 0 =
May 1982 0 -
December 1982 1 526,000
April 1988 0 =
December 1980 1 1,740,000
December 1987 0 -
January 1981 3 1,485,000
July 1977 1 22,000
June 1975 0 -
June 1975 0 -
December 1986 0 =
July 1987 0 -
July 1975 0 -
March 1979 1 13,000
June 1991 0 -
July 1983 1 152,000
January 1982 1 9,400
April 1977 0 -
March 1981 1 1,200,000
November 1982 0 -
December 1974 1 7,736,000
October 1974 0 -
February 1976 2 929,000
April 1980 D, 35,018
June 1974 0 -
August 1977 4 7,380,675
November 1987 0 -
May 1984 0 0
September 1974 4 5,482,000
June 1984 1 3,779
August 1982 2 1,095,381

Biosphere Reserves

No. Area (ha)

UGS dl Wa ee te)

mI i yn

lLunitieledl il

(Po a ay te)

(ee Le|

15,000
7,770

133,300
1,334,559

140,000
771,000

3,594

1,900,970
2,337,600
220,000

297,700

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention

Date

June 1990

October 1986
October 1986
December 1986

February 1988
May 1990
November 1992
June 1990

May 1987
October 1982

April 1987

July 1977

March 1975

March 1988
January 1976

December 1991

No. Area (ha)
3 299,200
1 195,000
0 0
0 0
3 1,080,000
6 ™
1 39,098
5 225,007
1 18,800
3 162,000
1 1,173,000
1 220,000
4 99,720

12 228,344
1 15,000
2 333,000

1. Other mixed natural/cultural sites are inscribed on the list of World Heritage, but on the basis of beauty resulting

from the man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. These sites, which have not been included

in the above table, include Bandiagara in Mali.

2. Several world heritage sites lie across international borders. To simplify this table these have been counted under
each country, and the total number of sites is thercfore inflated. These sites are Mount Nimba (Cote d’Ivoire/
Guinea), and Victoria Falls/Mosi-Oa-Tuna (Z.ambia/Zimbabwe).

3. Only sites lying within the region are listed.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Box 1. Tourism in Francophone Africa

Beyond current attempts in the countries of the region to promote the economic integration of protected areas,
tourism, which is supposed to provide economic benefit, is extremely marginal. Of the francophone countries,
Senegal receives most tourists, 250,000-300,000 per annum, but only 0.1% of them visit the national parks,
and international tourism only contributes 3% to GDP, compared with 35% in Kenya. Overall, tourism on the
continent represents about 2% of tourism worldwide.

In the light of these figures, further development of tourism needs to be a major point of consideration in
Francophone Africa. Apart from Rwanda, no country seriously promotes wildlife tourism, and often nothing
has been done in protected areas to make wildlife easier to observe, guides have received little or no training,
infrastructure either works badly or not at all, prices are high compared with what is provided in return, and
performance is rarely on a par with expectations.

Wildlife tourism has often been viewed through the experiences of Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe,
countries difficult to compete with. Rather than trying to attract the same clientele, however, infrastructures
should support local resources, experience and innovation. Indeed, the promotion of local cultural resources,
together with improved protected area management and better-quality guide services would go a long way to
promoting tourism which was better adjusted to local economic, social and cultural environments. Further, a
dynamic wildlife tourism policy should not be solely in state hands, but should involve all those concemed in

partnership.

Within francophone Africa, there is a lack of senior,
high-quality managers for national parks and protected
areas, and training opportunities are clearly inadequate.
Currently, there is only one school in Garoua, Cameroon,
which trains field workers. In addition, there is a low
quota of study grants available for staff from each
country to attend the school. On-the-job training or
training for junior staff is non-existent in many coun-
tes.

Two significant factors account for the low level of
training provided for protected areas managers. First, in
certain countries, no social or professional recognition
is given for the training received in Garoua. This is due
to the fact that most politicians underestimate the im-
portance of training in wildlife management, consi-
dering it as neither a mark of success nor a necessity.
Second, there has never been any assessment or follow-
up of graduates from Garoua, and some past students
have reported that their training is not adapted to new
approaches in protected areas management.

Existing institutions need to be strengthened, especi-
ally those with a regional mandate like Garoua. During
staff training, more attention needs to be given to social
and management problems, therein enabling staff to
encourage NGOs, the rural population and individuals
to participate more in the rational use of protected areas.
Other recommendations include an increase in the
country grant quotas for Garoua, and the establishment
of an assessment and follow-up system for graduates.
The use of structures such as the Nazinga game ranch
(Burkina Faso) as field laboratories for practical work,
the provision of post-graduate studies, and an increase
in the value of managerial, supervisory and development
posts in national parks and protected areas is desirable.
Inresponse to these needs, Garoua’s traditional partners
are reportedly considering an increase in their com-
mitment to training, in particular by starting up a post-

graduate course in wildlife management, and by streng-
thening the school in general.

In summary, training for all managers and staff through-
out the region needs to ensure the acquisition of skills
which can be adapted to local conditions. This training
should enhance individual job satisfaction, and encour-
age the involvement of highly motivated people, therein
guaranteeing a good return on investment. The quality
of training may be enhanced by exchanging information
with those institutions like Mweka College who already
have experience, and by discussing common problems.
Twinning the protected areas of the region with those
in other regions, and creating a partnership system
between managers from the North and South for the
conduct of field studies may prove useful.

7. Priorities for future investment
in protected areas

The majority of countries in Africa are well aware of
what is needed in terms of appropriate legislation, sup-
port for protected area institutions, and weaknesses in
their current protected area networks. Against this re-
cognition is the reality that protected area networks need
considerable development in many countries. Some, such
as Sierra Leone, are dominated by production forest
reserves, having developed few reserves for wildlife or
conservation. Even in those countries with wide cover-
age, important habitats are still inadequately protected.

Management plans for individual protected areas are
few, investment portfolios even rarer, and many states
are in need of developing overall system plans for their
protected area networks. Even in those countries which
had once prepared management plans, these are now
usually out-of-date and of little value. Uganda is a case
in point.

Many protected areas throughout the region require
additional investment for infrastructure and personnel
as poaching and encroachment are commonly reported.
Development projects to decrease population pressure
on protected areas by, for example, supplying alter-
Native sources of fuelwood, water or grazing need to be
linked to protected area management in more areas, and
include the increased use of buffer zones.

With peace and stability returning to some of those
countries which were politically unstable during the
1980s, large amounts of investment will now be re-
quired to reinstate proper management in the various
protected areas.

Both government and national NGOs need to increase
their level of development funding, but, due to anumber
of constraints and other priorities, this often proves
unrealistic. Other possibilities, as yet little exploited,
include the involvement of other development sectors
and collaboration with other countries. One potential
example of this is in Mozambique where negotiations
are in progress between the National Directorate for
Forestry and Wildlife, Mozambique, and South African
NGOs, the Endangered Wildlife Trust and WWF/South
Africa, concerning possible privatization for exploiting
Mozambique’s wildlife resources. Funding towards the
establishment of the Kruger/Limpopo International Park
is being considered by the World Bank, involving asum
of US$12 million, and this interest should be encour-
aged.

Fortunately, there are numerous examples of how
international assistance is being used in support of
protected area networks. This is in respect of site man-
agement, systems planning, and institution building.
Specific examples include the ODA/World Bank-
supported Forest Resources Management Project in
Ghana, the goals of which are to consolidate the pro-
tected areas network, improve management, and pro-
vide guidelines to sustainable development through
documents such as the National Forest Strategy State-
ment; the preparation of a National Systems Plan in
Liberia; and the formulation of national conservation
strategies in numerous countries throughout the region
(IUCN, 1991). FINNIDA is providing support to Na-
mibia in order to examine development issues in rela-
tion to forests and woodlands in the north of the country,
while IUCN and NORAD have been involved in the de-
velopment of a coastal management plan in Mozambique
(Stuart and Adams, 1990).

8. Major protected area issues in
the region

The predominant issue in the region today is the role of
protected areas in reaching a balance between conser-
vation on the one hand, and support of local devel-
opment needs on the other. Issues are explored within
this context under the following headings.

Sub-Saharan Africa

8.1. Improving the relationship
between protected areas and

local communities

The extensive African experience of local communities
living in harmony with their environment has generally
been acknowledged and well-documented. Until re-
cently, however, there was little evidence that com-
petent authorities took local communities and their ex-
periences into their confidence by giving them a parti-
cipatory role in the management of national parks and
protected areas. As a rule, no stake in the direct econo-
mic retums accruing from the use of such protected
areas was offered or forthcoming to these communities.

As a result, antagonistic relationships have often de-
veloped between park authorities and local commu-
nities. A classic example involves people living in
grasslands or savannas, who have developed cultures
revolving around livestock such as sheep, goats and
cattle. For such people, a constant pre-occupation is the
grazing and watering of their animals. Under drought
conditions, these people look across park or reserve
boundaries to see green pastures, flowing rivers, and
dams full of water. They assume it proper for them to
move their livestock to utilize some of these natural
resources. Indeed, these local communities remember
their ancestral use of these same grazing grounds, unim-
peded. They remember the seasonal migrations of wild-
life over their own lands and how they accommodated
them and shared their own grazing and water year in
and year out. Thus, they fail to understand the logic
behind their exclusion from national park lands, even
when it becomes absolutely necessary for them to do so.
Consequently, they see protected areas as preserves set
aside for the luxury enjoyment of the rich who tend to
show no sympathy for local communities’ basic sur-
vival needs. It is perhaps paradoxical that communities
who share their lands with wildlife find their activities
conflicting with protected areas, now considered the
main means of biodiversity conservation.

In a number of countries, certain categories of pro-
tected area include provision for the continuance of
traditional ways of life. Examples include the Maasai
peoples in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania,
and the Bedouins in Jebel Elba National Park, Sudan.
Certain uses such as controlled fishing may also be
carried out legally, as in the case of some Kenyan
marine reserves and the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands in
Nigeria. However, population expansion within sub-
sistence communities and pressures from tourism or
drought have been increasing conflicts between tradi-
tional peoples and protected area management. In parti-
cular cases, where human presence and management
are incompatible, enclaves have occasionally been des-
ignated, an example being the exclusion of fishing
villages from a national park on Lake Malawi.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 5. World Heritage sites in Sub-
Saharan Africa

Cameroon
Dja Faunal Reserve
Parc National de Manovo-Gounda-St Floris

Cote d’ Ivoire
Comoe National Park
Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (with Guinea)
Tai National Park
Ethiopia
Simen National Park
Guinea
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (with Céte
d'Ivoire)
Madagascar
Bemaraha Integral Nature Reserve

Malawi
Lake Malawi National Park

Mali

Falaise de Bandiagara
Mauritania

Banc d’ Arguin National Park
Niger

Reserve de I’ Air et Ténéré
Senegal

Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary

Niokolo-Koba National Park

Seychelles
Aldabra Atoll
Vallée de Mai Nature Reserve

Tanzania
Mt Kilimanjaro National Park
Ngorongoro Conservation Area
Selous Game Reserve
Serengeti National Park

Zaire
Garamba National Park
Kahuzi-Biega National Park
Salonga National Park
Virunga National Park

Zambia
Victoria Falls /Mosi-oa-Tunya (with Zimbabwe)

Zimbabwe
Mana Pools NP, Sapi and Chewore Safari Areas
Victoria Falls /Mosi-oa-Tunya (with Zambia)

One of these sites (Bandiagara) is a mixed natural/cultural
sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty resulting
from man/nature interaction, rather than natural features
alone.

The human and livestock population explosion in the
Sahelian region over the past 20 years has created a
search for new land to clear and cultivate. The pheno-
menon has been exacerbated since the middle of the
1970s by sharp climate changes, and has inexorably

driven populations further south. It is tempting for these
migrants searching for new land to consider protected
areas and their environs as land with a supposedly rich
potential for cultivation, grazing and water. Today, the
pressure they exert on protected areas and surrounding
villages is particularly acute in the south of Chad, Niger
and Burkina Faso, and in the south-west of Mali. In
those countries which have been politically unstable
during the 1980s, considerable numbers of people have
moved into protected areas and little is being done to
change this. For governments and those concerned with
nature conservation, these trends and the need to res-
pond to them will represent some of the greatest chal-
lenges in the foreseeable future insofar as ecosystem
conservation, land development policy and natural re-
sources management are concerned.

Although there may be criticism of the fact that
national parks have not been adapted to local con-
ditions, and they are certainly not a panacea for nature
conservation, they are nevertheless one of the elements
in the solution to the problem of people’s coexistence
with their natural environment. Giving protected areas
back to the farmers would only provide a temporary
solution to their problem: it would only take a few years
for the land to degrade as badly as present village
farmland.

South Africa has the most sophisticated system of
private land management in support of conservation on
the continent. The 1983 National Parks Act Amend-
ment provides for the purchase or acquisition of private
land in core areas, and the designation of privately
owned land to form "contractual national parks" which
can act as buffer zones. A large number of private areas
are of conservation significance, some of which are
registered as Natural Heritage Sites under the South
African Natural Heritage Programme. Management as-
sistance is available for these, but sites can be dereg-
istered if damaged, or at the owner’s request. Less
important private areas are registered under the Sites of
Conservation Significance Programme. In 1984, there
was a total of 620,000ha of mountain catchment in
private ownership, but administered by the Directorate
of Forestry. Many private game reserves, including the
largest in the world in eastern Transvaal, are financed
by hunting and tourism. The South African Defence
Force is also a major landowner and is taking steps to
improve the conservation status of many of its 60 sites,
in consultation with the Wildlife Society of South
Africa. Natal has a system of conservancies in which
private individuals form cooperatives to ensure the ef-
fective conservation management of their properties; in
1984 this scheme involved 800,000ha of land, over
1300 owners and 280 game guards.

For protected areas to survive the pressure of com-
peting land uses, it is now necessary to engage in exten-
sive dialogue with affected communities. The greatest
issue for discussion revolves around the affected

community’s place and role in their local environment.
In response, more action is now being taken in buffer
zone development and in the involvement of local com-
munities in management activities. Examples of this are
found in Nigeria, where the management plan for Oban
National Park includes a strategy for sustainable devel-
opment around the park; and Niger, where around the
Air-Ténéré Nature Reserve, there has been an attempt
to promote multiple use activities. In Guinea-Bissau,
projects for the creation of protected areas are looking
towards the setting up of biosphere reserves, therein
integrating rural communities with conservation re-
quirements. Other people and park projects include
initiatives around Amboseli National Park and Mount
Kulal Biosphere Reserve, Kenya; Queen Elizabeth Park,
Uganda; Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda; and the
Dzanga-Sangha Dense Forest Reserve in the Central
African Republic (Kiss, 1990; McNeely, 1992).

Interestingly enough, where this integration has been
successful, such as at Air-Ténéré, Niger and around
forest areas in the Central African Republic, the popu-
lations in these surrounding areas are increasingly cal-
ling for an extension of the protected areas concemmed
so that they too can benefit from the effects of con-
servation. As McNeely (1992) has pointed out, con-
servation measures are likely to be most successful
when they provide real and immediate benefits to local
people.

In other countries, more elaborate integrated devel-
opment schemes are being tried, as a means of gener-
ating food and income for rurai communities and, in
part, to reduce pressure on core areas within protected
sites (Kiss, 1990). One example includes the Southern
African Wetlands Project, covering Botswana, Malawi,
Zambia and Zimbabwe. The aims of this project are to
identify important wetlands and develop integrated land
use programmes around them. This is likely to include
wetlands located both within and outside protected areas.
Two other examples are the Luangwa Integrated Rural
Development Project, Zambia, which is a multi-sector
programme for economic development, including South
Luangwa National Park and Lupanda Game Manage-
ment Area; and the Communal Areas Management
Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE),
Zimbabwe. The CAMPFIRE programme involves dis-
tricts developing more rational land use policies in
inhabited areas outside protected areas. At the begin-
ning of 1990, 13 districts had the right to implement
CAMPFIRE projects, which need approval from the
parks department and relate only to communally-owned
lands. These have been most successful in areas with
low population densities adjacent to protected areas
with good wildlife populations.

In total, there are currently over 30 people and parks
projects being undertaken throughout the region. Based
on a number of case studies, Hannah (1992) has iden-
tified that the prerequisites for their success include

Sub-Saharan Africa

long-term donor commitment, a sound policy environ-
ment (area of influence planning), and a focused, well-
designed project approach which includes technical
assistance.

8.2 Improving management of

protected areas

The preparation of management plans is one of the most
effective steps toward ways of improving management.
Throughout the region, a variety of plans have been
prepared which are site-specific, revolve around parti-
cular habitat types, or are larger national or regional ini-
tiatives. In Namibia, for example, the Caprivi Man-
agement Plan is under review and will link conservation
to regional development in the area; while in Nigeria,
the area around the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands is the focus
for a scheme of sustainable development aimed at con-
serving wetland resources. Other examples include sup-
port from the Frankfurt Zoological Society and WWF
for a regional conservation strategy for the Serengeti,
Tanzania; and in Liberia, the Tropical Forestry Action
Plan aims to link forest reserve management to local
land use management units. Forest reserves are in-
creasingly becoming recognised for their catchment
protection value and provided for in multiple resource
management plans.

8.3. Making protected areas part of
modern society: The role of
education, training and research

Education. _ Apart from university departments and

national administrations involved in protected areas
management, national and international NGOs are in-
strumental in providing educational materials and run-
ning courses, both in the formal and informal sectors.
For example, organizations involved in environmental
education include the African Wildlife Foundation in
East Africa, the Southern African Nature Foundation in
countries of Southem Africa, and BirdLife International
(ICBP), which is involved in educational activities in a
number of African countries, including Ghana, where it
provides assistance to local wildlife clubs.

Training. As mentioned earlier, a few institutions
and training programmes are available in protected
areas management throughout the region. However,
these institutions frequently experience shortages of
funds, equipment and technical expertise. Further, there
is often a lack of interest and motivation on the part of
national researchers and university staff for activities
which may require long stays in the ficld under difficult
conditions.

Research. Currently, scientific investigations are un-
evenly distributed and lack co-ordination throughout
the region. Within Francophone Africa, there are a
number of ongoing research and study programmes,
including those at: Nazinga Game Ranch, Burkina Faso;

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Banc d’Arguin National Park, Mauritania; Dimonika
Biosphere Reserve, Congo; and Tai National Park, Cote
d’Ivoire. Despite these initiatives, research and know-
ledge are generally inadequate, results are not properly
disseminated, if at all, and field research is still in the
hands of foreign structures. There are no databases on
such topics as genetic resources, biodiversity, and so-
cio-economic issues, which would make it easier to
define the nature of protected areas and ways of sus-
tainably exploiting them. In some countries, not enough
use is made of local expertise, possibly due to lack of
realization overseas of the presence of competent resi-
dent scientists. Further, there may be a lack of under-
standing that the training of local staff is important in
developing the management capacity of these countries.

Within anglophone Africa, there is a wide spectrum
of research interests, involving foreign and local scien-
tists, as well as a whole host of organizations, both
national and international. This research encompasses
species considerations, habitats, and site-specific as-
pects. Examples include: study by Kenyan and foreign
scientists into issues such as tourist impact, rhino ecol-
ogy, and involvement in such long-running initiatives
(18 years) as the Amboseli elephant monitoring project
by AWF; a collaborative WWF/ Forest Development
Authority survey of large mammals in Liberia in order
to make management recommendations, including the
creation of new protected areas; in Mauritius, a coastal
area survey, supported by UNESCO, will help assess
the status of reefs so that increased protection can be
implemented; an investigation of forest utilization by
rural communities and timber companies under the
auspices of the Gola Rainforest Conservation Programme,
Sierra Leone, jointly management by the Government,
Conservation Society of Sierra Leone, BirdLife Inter-
national (ICBP), and RSPB; and collaboration between
the Makerere Institute of Environment and Natural Re-
sources, the Uganda Institute of Ecology, the Ministry
of Environment Protection, IUCN and WWF in the
development of broad-based research into management
problems in and around protected areas. In many coun-
tries of anglophone Africa, this research is being sup-
ported by elaborate temporal and spatial datasets. Within
South Africa, for example, the Jankershoek Forestry
Research Centre is in the process of digitising all nature
conservation areas in the country.

Protected areas in many countries of Africa tend to
become the focus for ecological studies because they
usually include the most intact examples of natural
habitats. At present, research activities are primarily
focused on the ecology and distribution of the more
endangered species, including captive breeding require-
ments, biological inventories, and habitat assessment
for management purposes. However, in many protected
areas, basic faunal surveys and plant inventories are still
lacking: these represent basic prerequisites for sound man-
agement. Further research on resource evaluation, and
more detailed ecological investigations of particular

species or habitats is also required to ensure their best
conservation management. It is also necessary to de-
velop research into the social, economic and political
aspects of resource management in protected areas, and
to give emphasis to research which has a direct impact
on socio-economic life. In the final analysis, research in
protected areas will only achieve its socio-economic
aims if it manages to acquire the parameters needed to
master management techniques, and also improves the
community’s living conditions.

The procedure involved in the collection of data for
the region is important. In the first place, efforts need to
be concentrated on the design of analytical methods and
their effective implementation, depending on ecocli-
matic zones. Following from this, there is a need to
create, in each country, a structure to co-ordinate re-
search on national parks and protected areas; and
strengthen existing research structures, or create new
ones, based on a national or regional station network.
Finally, these initiatives need to be recorded in a data
bank(s), supported by national and international docu-
mentation funds.

8.4 International co-operation

A number of international cooperative schemes are in
force, but there is still great potential for further co-
operation where protected areas are adjacent or nearly
so across international borders. This is especially so for
the creation of World Heritage sites, Ramsar sites and
Biosphere Reserves. As protected areas become in-
creasingly isolated by changing land uses around them,
the maintenance of migration routes and seasonal graz-
ing areas for certain species may be particularly assisted
by cross border co-operation. A number of lakes and
wetlands are part of more than one country and would
benefit from joint conservation efforts which are in-
creasingly being encouraged.

To date, there are no fewer than 20 countries involved
in management of trans-boundary protected areas in the
region. The countries of Southern Africa are particu-
larly active in this regard. Noteworthy among these
include discussions between Mozambique, South Africa
and Zimbabwe for the creation of the proposed
Kruger/Limpopo International Park. If established, this
would represent the largest international park in the
world. Between Kenya and Tanzania, there are co-
operative agreements to conserve and strengthen the
Mara-Serengeti ecosystem, including the development
of an action plan, and a protected corridor between the
national parks of Amboseli (Kenya) and Kilimanjaro
(Tanzania) to aid elephant migration is planned. Zambia
and Zimbabwe share a World Heritage site in the
Victoria Falls area, while in West Africa, Nigeria has
signed an agreement with Chad, Niger and Cameroon
over the joint control of the flora and fauna of the Lake
Chad basin.

The momentum behind wildlife management and
protected area policies of the 1970s and 80s, which led to
the creation of new structures for regional co-operation
(African Wildlife Commission) and the conclusion of
numerous agreements on conservation and the rational
use of resources, still exists. However, these structures
have shown themselves to be ineffective, and the pro-
visions of the agreements have not always been applied.
The causes for this include:

@ an absence of political will, related to a lack of
awareness of the economic importance of protected
areas;

w financial constraints;

@ technical constraints, in particular a lack of know-
how, and the small number of experts, particularly
from francophone Africa, at the international level;
and

@ an absence of adequate information on access to
international aid, and on successful experience and
progress, again especially in francophone Africa.

International co-operation is much more in evidence
than regional or subregional efforts. It has, however, not
yet reached the desired level, allowing for significant
progress in protected area management.

For international co-operation to be effective, it needs
to concentrate on the following activities:

@ ensuring that decision-makers understand and ac-
cept the importance of protected areas;

@ involving national NGOs, local populations (espe-
cially women), and individuals in the use and under-
standing of protected areas;

@ seeking more effective co-operation forms, such as
debt/in-kind swaps and donation financing for con-
servation projects;

@ ensuring greater donor involvement in francophone
African countries;

@ ensuring proper representation at the international
level of francophone Africa, and co-ordinating ac-
tion in favour of conservation and rational use of
national parks and protected areas in French-language
institutions such as ACCT;

@ adhering to international conventions on natural re-
source conservation; and

@ strengthening links between protected areas and other
development sectors.

9. Priorities for action in the
region
Deficiencies and Needs. A number of concerns and

items for consideration are to be found in practically all
countries. These are:

Sub-Saharan Africa

@ inadequate training for technical and field person-
nel;

@ inadequate and ill-adapted legislation and regula-
tions for protected area management;

@ little consideration of the interests and aspirations of
local populations;

@ inadequate scientific knowledge and, consequently, a
lack of management and development plans for
protected areas;

@ a lack of resources for wildlife-related activities.
Secondary priorities include the following:

@ development of public awareness programmes;

@ better definition of buffer zones and migration cor-
ridors;

@ consideration of the living conditions for protected
area personnel;

@ addressing the indifference or collusion of local
authorities in the destruction of wildlife;

@ understanding the link between poaching, wildlife
and the closure of the hunting season;

® condemnation of classical protection; and

@ amovement away from marginalizing the economic
role of wildlife and protected areas.

Other key considerations for francophone A frican coun-
tries include:

® considering what sort of effective solutions there are
to the problem of monitoring and ensuring the integ-
rity of transboundary national parks;

® clarifying the type of protected areas which should
be promoted; and

@ debate given to protected area criteria, such as mini-
mum size, to ensure the continued survival of par-
ticular species.

10. Conclusion

Partnerships need to be established among state, NGOs,
local populations, individual and private initiatives for
the cooperative management of protected areas in
Africa, fulfilling the roles of conservation and, increas-
ingly, sustainable development. The role of government
is to provide the socio-economic framework for all
those involved in protected area management.

Given the political and social upheavals in Africa
today, there is a clear risk that populations will demand
tracts of protected areas, which are often seen as sym-
bols of totalitarian power. To avert such risks, ways
need to be found to ensure that, when population aspir-
ations are taken into consideration, the very existence
of these areas is not called into question.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

International initiatives and support are, at present, maintenance of protected area networks will stem primar-
crucial to the development of protected areas through- ily from national and regional initiatives. Until these
out the region, particularly within francophone African conditions are satisfied, however, protected area sys-
countries. As environmental problems are alleviated tems will continue to develop in an uncoordinated and
and national economies stabilise, the development and piecemeal manner.

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this review depended heavily on wards. A special thanks goes to Hugh Lamprey, who
contributions from our colleagues from throughout the gave generously of his time and wisdom. The support
region, both before the Caracas Congress and after- of UNDP is also gratefully acknowledged.

Sub-Saharan Africa

“UOTTTIW 7 BSS) :([euuosied Zurpnjoxe)
Ja3pnq juauMoal SurUTeWal ‘UOIT[IW ('Q1$S/ ‘S180 JeuUOsIod [enuuy

“LUE SS$SN (Teuuosiod
Zurpnjoxa) 193pnq JaLMIaI puke '¢CZ7'9E9$S/ S1SO9 [auUOsIod [enuUY
(000‘061$SN)
00Z'80L'1 193pnq parcadxa adaq Ansar, ap pur (000'Lr$SM)
078'0LE WD 3193pnq pareuMse uoITeAIasUOD 2jTPT MA JO lusUTEdaq
‘€66I-1661
pouad ai) 3uunp uoneonpa pur ssouare me o11qnd 103 (000'09SNS)
souBy WD JO uotstaaid st aap 1a3pngq paisefaid anoge 01 uoNIppe Uy
“aMMNY a[QU2aSa10J DY) JO} S[DAI]
06-6861 18 UTeWal 0} A[axT] St SuUIpuNy ‘sIsUd SILWOUODe 1UALIND dy] USAID
“WONBAIDSUOD 1890} % [| Ajneunxaidde suejd juswidojsaap 06-861 J9PUN
"€Z9'ESTSN 198pnq
JuaLMse1 SuTUTeUal pur ‘PG L6$S/N S1SOo [ouUOsIod Jenuue sajmNsuO;
‘(sepisaiorg
sealy A 8282 OP OIDIAI9G) BdIAIaS sealy polomoig pue JunuNY
alp SI YOTYM JO DUO ‘sUONdaS INO] SaUIqUIOD AQS2I0,J JO NBIO}SAIG SY

‘(ILS‘€S6$SM) S1soo JauUOsIad [enuUe sopnjout 193pnq jUaLNIOY

OM T8E “Saxe
Asoat pue 3ununy Aq popuny 3uteq 123pnq sup ‘uoNestuedio JuloueUy
-Jlas & st (oun, eB] ap UoWaseUUTY [19 UONSMaI Be] Mod [euoNeN)

anuas eune,j Jo jUoWaseURPy puke UONDS01I0Ig BY) 10} oQUI_D [euoNeN oy],

(4) ‘gummipuadxa JUaLMdaI J9YIO 10J YOO'EESNS
pur s}s09 [auUOSIad J0J paredo|[e Ae YOO'OLZSNS Awos andy [eo sIN JO

>, | *s]SO9 aUUOSJod JenuuR saaMNsUOD

1D. | quaudojaaaqg [emmy Jo Asturyy amp ye (DGC)
SurjUN}P pure s1s210,] ‘Jaye AA JO aVIO}DeNG ay) Aq paloistulupe st SulpuN{

>. “1661 Ut ACT ON 01 e[geTeAe 1a8pnq [HOI aI saMNSUOD

3a4n0g

Bolly ueseYyeS-qns :sjeHpnq Aouebe }usweHbeuew Seale pa}d9}0ld “9 a/qeL

78S‘ ISO'T

p8E'8r

6861 ZSB'9LZ

1661 TILT 162

82 IZE'T

000°001

8rl'%8Pr

008'80r

00000

ava =. quayeainba
ae0d Sn

SOIAIDG ATPL UeKUay — BAUDy
ness g-eouIny
juswuOMAUg
olf pue ssamosay [wmMeN Jo ANsturpy — voulny

2JTPIAA pue owed Jo 1usunIedaq — eueysy

JUSWUOIIAUS

AWD 06¢'PSE'L ay] pur soamosoy femeN Jo Anstuiyy — eIquie

Joy paio3pnq
sem (uor[Mw 71 ¢ VAD) 1@8pnq ANsosoj ap Jo
(DAC) PsseYD e] ep 19 euNe.{ ap UOloaNG — uoqeH
uonesiuesi1¢—)
uoneAlasuo) aj N1PIIM Uedonng — eidorng

Vdd 000°€17'69

Anjsaio,J JO ae10}901G — BaUINH |eUOeNby
nnoqiq

SHOAT,P NOD “aug pue
ysiy ‘Ansasoy ul] 7 Buney pue e1O]{ “1G — O3u0D
SOIOWOZ

VAD 000'000' TE peyd

Bune] JO IW] pue Old oy)
WAd 000'000'0€ 1 Joj oQuUaD jeuoNeN — oqndoy ueouyy fenusD
apisa ode
uisuno] jo Anstuyj] — uoalowes;
tpurun q
osey BUEN
(dNM) Hed
[BuOTIeN pure 2J11P]iAA JO IUsWedaq — euREMSIOg

AOX 000'000'0ST

SuIQUNY puke uoroAOLg aMIeN 10} ae1O}90dsuy] — uluag
(JQ) amnsuy yusudojaaag 1salo,j — ejoduy

Ajuase ajqisuodsas/A1jun0.

AdUaLIND [eUOeU
ul jadpng

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

“Soules Jo
DATSNIOU! SEATV UONBAISUOD pure seare JsalOj JOJ 199pNq [FOL
“SaLIe[eS JO DAISNIOUT

‘Yeis youeasal JuoueULad ou are AlsY],
“soueyes SuIpn[oxe 1aspng
“SaLJe[eS JO JAISNISU]

SoLIe[eS JO DAISNIOU]

*sare[es UO
quads st yorym Jo yonul Ja3pnq wMUTUIU B UO ZuNeIado sI youRIg
OUL ‘amuIpusdxa yuamnd9e1 Jay}0 puke s}soo JauUOSIad [enuUe sa]MINsSUOD

‘wisuno}
woyg spunj uodn juspuadap pure 3utoueuy jas st Auo Ne juawoSeueul aul
IST “poacidde
(wor Z'TS$M$) UoNTw ZINON Jo amay e pue Ainsean ay fq parsofar
Apuanbasqns sem styy “1a3pnq s1eak SuIMOTOJ By] 1Oj (UOTT[T ZP$Sf)
UOT [MW O'ZPNON JO [esodaid & pontuigns Ansaio,j Jo uoumedeg ey) 1661 Ul

LD.

6b “sreaX 1U90aI Ul SUID] [BOI UI poul[oap sey SuIpuny 31e1¢
tf “SON T[NSOY JUAaLM ay} 0} JOLId UOTE AIasUoD IO} saIquade
JUSUIUIDAOS O} JIQETeAR SoaMOSaI JO UONRIOT[e [eNUUE [k10] DY] sem AINSI sty],

€f ‘jo3png ssomosay
[eimeN pure sarioysty ‘amiynoidy jo ANSIUT] ay) JO %C ET pue
yadpng [BUHL [101 DY JO % EQ JOJ PaUNOOe SdIAIVg 189104 BM $/€ 861 Ul

(\UOd) Boy UBIeYeS-qns :s}jea{pnq Aouebe jueweheuew Seale pajde}0ld “9 9/421

06S 7
986 €79

000°000'T

000°€Zr'T

000°000' IT

000°8rr

aeaX = juaeainba = Adua.Lind jeuoneu
aed sn

uoneAlasuoZ
aime NY JO uorstarq — (toyxsues]) BoUZY YNOG
Iq UoNeAIasUO_D [EIUSWUOLIAUY pue
ame N SAO — (SAO) 2S Paty edueIQ) eoUyY Nog
peog uonealasalg
Ystj pure ouren ‘syed [ee N — (Te1eN) BOL nog
spreog Ansoio4 — (1axsID) BOL W YNog
uonealasuoZ
“aug pue amen jo 1daq eded —(adeD) eouyy ynog
UVZ OOO'PETE Preog Seg [euHEN — (eUeMsieNYdog) OLY INOS
SOs BI[eulos

UVZ 000'¢ 89
UVZ 000'000'8

UVZ 000'000' 6
UVZ 00L'60S
UVZ 000'rLr'01

TIS €L0°26t'I (GOM) YouRlg UoNeAlasUOD aJT[PIIAA — PUI] BLAIS
yOs sap]ayokag
4OX [e3ouag
adiouug pue suo] org

uoTUn?y

syueg [BuO N| puk WISLMO J JO 201]jQ — EPUEMY

Anjsaioy Jo uaunredag [elopay — BuddINy
Suluuej

Ysly pue sauayst ‘ax TPL JO uoWedaq — JodIN
wsuno],

pur uONeAIAsUOD ‘ay TPIIM JO Anstutjy — eiqrure N
OF IPI

pue Ansolo,j oj aIe1O}DeNG [eUONeN] — onbiqurezojy

anokeyy

NON 000'000'01

PALAlag ISAO] sNUUNeY] — sMUUNePy
Bluejune|

TREN

soomnosoi [eIMEN pue Ansao,j Jo ALstulyAy — IMeTe YY
Jeosesepey|

Ayuouny iuswidojaasq Anseioj — eU9qt]

omosa']

Ajuase ajqisuodse1/A.13un0d

ul jodpng

Sub-Saharan Africa

1D, |

6b Sf

“WOO “SI2g (1661) HW [ES]

‘'ddgg “e1931N ‘einqy ‘TounoD uonealsuoD saamnosay [emeN ‘ssamMosay Jae AA 7% amTynousy Jo Anstur] [eJopey ‘eUdSIN :upyd uorwasasuos puyda}y (1661) DUN [IS]
‘dd7/ “uems ‘N's pue nol. ng Fy ‘ssurwUMS ‘WrH' Aq papdwiog -unjg uray uoyDasasuoD pun Kanung sninig :somyy pun sruoydayy uvotfy (0661) DSS/NONL [+f]
‘ddog¢ + nxx “yf ‘e8puqure| 7p pueliaziims ‘pur|D ‘NONI 1221douody “¢ sumo, ‘swasks pouonvy fo maaay y -pl4om 2yi fo svaay pa12a1044 (7661) NOMI [6b]

‘ddog ‘owoy pue [nfueg ‘uodar paystiqnduy s9ded punar8yoeq—uejg uonoy Ansaro, feordory (1661) Hf ‘suepa [Zr]

“1661 Malady UORRAasuioD Iueyday UBLyY *(1661) dnoip suneuIpiooD UoNeAsasuoD iueydergq uesUyY [Ty]

986] Ul uOneAIAZSUOD

JOJ SatgUuase JUDWIWIIAOS 0} JIG AR SoaINOSal JO UONESOT[E [FIO]. 986

‘000'7$S/N :(leuuosied

SuIpnjoxa) amsyy 193pnq jUaLMsey “UOT [IW Q' [GSf) :S1s0o [aUUOSIOd [enUUY (661

(Aae| *s}o8pnq JUOUIUDA08 UT Nd

%0Z B PEA[OAUT aaky [66] IsN3Ny u samsvou AUasne JUDWDAOS JO
uontsodun oy ‘uorenstuTupe uo juads sem 193pnq dy JO 1SOW OGG] UT
“16/1661 Ul WstNo} Waly UOT pg TSS
pews AUOIINY ealy UONBAIASUOZ O1OZUOIOSY “WsUNO}
Woy 1/0661 Ul UOT CES Ms PuNore poures syeg [euONe Ny eluezue |
“AMseay sy} O} pouMjal ake saoueuly asay] JO IsOu! saay SuNUNY IWOS Jo
uonuajal ay) Woy ed ‘seoj 3uidwres pue Anuo yed ‘apen jeumue at]
‘sojes Aydon ‘dununy 1uspisal pue suo Way (90¢'7L5'7$SN “xordde)
00S'9L9' 16SSZL UM 1/0661 J0J UOISTAI AJNPILAA Mp JO ssurusea [eo],
‘Auedwod asp ueluezuey ap pue AWoyNy evaly uoreAlasu0Z
olosual0s NN ‘seg [BUOITeNY eIUBZUR ] SUIpNyoUT satoudse Jao aay pue
UOISIAI AFTPEAA Mp st Ansturus sty Jo uonoIpsimf ap Japun Buryey Os|y
‘suoumedap areladas x1s sey yoy IWOUTUOMAUY aI) pue ssamosoy
Temeny ‘wisumoy jo Aqsturpy ou Aq posaistumupe are soomosal [enyeu [TY

€Clm ‘(S9010,J peg [BUONIe NY pue uoTTeAIgsUOD

6+
6b

OF IPILAA Pur (UepNg YIMos) WsuNO], pue sauayst ‘UoHeAssuOD

2ITPI A JO Ansturpy feuorsay oy are seare pojomoid 3uiseuew pue

duuaisiuTUpe 10J aqisuodsar sarouage ay) ‘(uo'|NU ¢°71$S(}) UOT
S9NAS Ala1eunxoidde si y98pnq uonesodioD Ansaio, [euoneN [enuue oy],
‘soliejes SuIpn[out jospng
“Soueles sapnjoxa am3ij ay],

("JUO09) Boy UBeYeS-qns :s}eHpnq Aouebe juewebeuew seose pa}de}01g 9 a1qeL

0661

1661

¢S9I4NOGg

LIT'6 CGMZ = WIN AINPIIAA ue syed [euOLIeN Jo 1usUNIedeq — emqequir, |

WZ viquieZ

000'Z00'I ZAZ (NOZD 21eZ Jo aime yy JO suoD ap JoJIsuy — o1Te7
000°9¢8'T son sanimbnuy pure ayipiiAy ‘wstmoy Jo Ansiuty — epues

TPL'6LS Vdd 000'8Z€'791 WsILMo], pue JUouUOMAUY jo Anstur] — 080],

BIURZUR |,
puelizems

000'0SZ'I dds 000'000'89 uepng
UVZ 000'08 UOIStAIC] UONBAIasUOD alTMeN — (epus,) ou yINOS

UVZ 000'000'0E UONRAIISUOD “AU pur amen
Jo a1e10I09N Jory — (TeeasuesL) Buy YINOg

quayeainba = AQuaaind jeuoneu Aduase aqisuodsas/A1jyuno.)

aenog Sn ul jaspng

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

‘aMleZ, ‘eseYSUTY| ‘aININ &] Op UONEAIaSUOD BI Mod sioneZ aAMNsUT “azeZ Ne iUeYdoyp, | op UONEAIasUOD ap URId (1661) NOZI [Et]
‘dd 1 ‘o80], ‘awo7] ‘3ununy 2
Soalosoy [RUN ‘swe [BUOTIEN JO UOTDaNG ‘WsIMO] 7 JUeWUONAU Jo ANsturp] *(yeIq) ‘UoIeAIasUCD queydeye J0j ued [euoneu e :o80], 10) uejd uonoe iueydaja uesuyy (1661) LAW [Zr]
‘ddp] ‘snnumeyy ‘soamosay [eimeN pur soroysty ‘omynousy Jo Ansturp] ap Jo sotasag Ansa, “pY-0R6 ‘UOodas ssadorg ($R6T) Parag ANsazoy sue] [Ef]
‘ddpp voumny jeuornby ‘ogeyeyl ‘Ansaio.4 pure saoysty ‘Yooisaary] ‘amynousy Jo Anstury] “vouny [euorenby -ue[q uoNeArasuoD rueydeyq *(1661) ATTVW [7x]
‘ddgp peyoy, ‘euourlpy
‘aunt, ap Soalasoy 19 xNeUONRN ‘Saeg Sop UISLMO], Np uorjoaNg “peyoy ne weyd2[9,| 2p UoNeAIasUOD ap uel *( 166[) uawWUONAUA, | op 19 awWsuNO] np aaistuly] [Cy]
“WOU ‘Indue g ‘sisalog 2p Je Jo Anstury] ‘aureoUyeNUDD onbyqnday uo weydeya,"] ap uonearasuoD ap ue[d “(766 1) SIsAOJ pur rem Jo ANstuW [8E]
‘dd¢g ‘uoarsures ‘apunoe X ‘xneuoneN sae sop 19 oune,j B] op UOTOAN( ‘aWSLNO], Np alsisIUlp] “UOIOWe) -Ue[q UONBAIOSUOD) queydelq ((paepun) ouisunoy np siaisiuly, [79]
dd/p] ‘wreypeg-so-seq ‘UOIstAl OFIPTAA URIURZUE | “eIURZUR | :Ue]q UoIeAIasUOD 1ueYydery (1661) UOISTAI OFIPILMA UeLUEZUEL [Cf]

("UO9) Bola UBIeyeS-qns :sjeHpnq Aouebe juswaheuew Seale pajoej0ld “9 a/qe1

Sub-Saharan Africa

References

Bainbridge, W.R., Motsami, B. and Weaver, L.C. 1989.
Draft Policy Statement for a Managed Resource
Area for the Maluti Mountains of Lesotho. Ministry
of Agriculture, Cooperatives and Marketing, Gov-
ernment of the Kingdom of Lesotho. SSpp.

Besong, J.B. and Wencélius, F.L. 1992. Realistic stra-
tegies for conservation in the tropical moist forests
of Africa: regional review. In: Cleaver, C..,
Munasinghe, M., Dyson, M., Egli, N., Peuker, A.,
and Wencelius, F. (Eds.). Conservation of West and
Central African Rainforests. The World Bank,
Washington, DC. Pp. 21-31.

EPC 1989. Environmental Protection Council Action
Plan (Draft). EPC, Accra. 9 pp.

FDA/IUCN (1986. /ntegrated management and devel-
opment plan for Sapo National Park and surround-
ing areas in Liberia. TUCN/WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
66 pp.

Hannah, L. 1992. African people, African parks: An
evaluation of Development Initiatives as a Means of
Improving Protected Area Conservation in Africa.
USAID, Washington. 76 pp.

Hilty, S.L. 1982. Draft Environmental Profile of the
Kingdom of Lesotho. Office of Arid Land Studies,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

IUCN 1987. Action strategy for protected areas in the
Afrotropical Realm. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, U.K. 51 pp.

TUCN/UNEP 1987. The IUCN Directory of Afrotropical
Protected Areas. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, U.K. 1034 pp.

IUCN 1990. The Nature of Botswana—a guide to con-
servation and development. UCN, Gland, Switzerland.
77 pp.

Sayer, J.A., Harcourt, C.S., and Collin N.M (Eds) 1992.
The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests— Africa.
MacMillan Publishers Ltd., London. 288 pp.

IUCN 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A review of
national systems. Volume 3: Afrotropical. Prepared
by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. xxii +
360pp.

Kiss, A. (Ed.). 1990. Living with Wildlife: Wildlife
resource management with local participation in
Africa. Draft. World Bank, Washington, DC. 215 pp.

KWS 1990. Kenya Wildlife Service—A policy frame-
work and development programme 1991-96: Annex 6
—Community conservation and wildlife manage-
ment outside parks and reserves. KWS, Nairobi.
181 pp.

Leader-Williams, N. and Albon, S. 1988. Allocation of
Resources for Conservation. Nature 336:533.

Lusigi, Walter J.(ed.). 1992. Managing Protected Areas
in Africa. Report from a workshop on Protected
Area Management in Africa, Mweka, Tanzania.
UNESCO, Paris, France. 200pp.

MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review of the
protected areas system in the Afrotropical Realm.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
259 pp.

McNeely, J.A. 1992. Economic incentives for con-
serving biodiversity: Lessons for Africa. Paper pre-
sented to "Conservation of Biodiversity in Africa",
Nairobi, Kenya, 31 August—3 September, 1992. 18 pp.

O’Conner, S. 1990. Madagascar: Beza Mahafaly and
Andohahela Reserves. In: Kiss, A. (Ed.). Living with
Wildlife: Wildlife resource management with local
participation in Africa. Draft. World Bank, Washington,
DC. Pp. 41-52.

Swart, S.N. and Adams, R.J. 1990. Biodiversity in Sub-
saharan Africa and its Islands. TOCN, Gland, Switzerland.
242 pp.

WCMC 1992. Tropical Managed Areas Assessment
Part 1. Subregional Reviews. Tropical Africa (Sec-
tions 6-10). Assessing the conservation status of the
world’s tropical forest: A contribution to the FAO
Forest Resources Assessment 1990. Draft. WCMC,
Cambridge, U.K. 428 pp.+ maps.

World Bank 1988a. Staff Appraisal Report: Ghana Re-
source Management Project. Report No. 7295-GH.
World Bank, Washington, DC. 119 pp.

World Bank 1988b. Kenya—Forestry subsector review.
Report No. 6651-KE. Agriculture Operations Division,
World Bank Eastern Africa Department. 41 pp.

WWF 1991. Kenya—Coastal forests: status, conser-
vation and management. Project No. 3256. Summary
sheet in: WWF List of Approved Projects Vol.6: Africa/
Madagascar, April 1991. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

gab tyr dvoid! Aw.

pine = sina a wetalnall, laren oA iratwelol, vatbon) fii
_ 7 ' afi ty, rer va Me Vin ei ‘VUE D aes Fy) einen Wi a rh ay 1k
: dha : ew lew eo oe ee 3 wi fa 2 1 ") 2u) oa
ee. na ean a Ste itera To mokegniN ade JARI,

C : ; ellis ni , ‘

I
dade SOOT O23 el sas hele at

iF) e + wih ty) iegaml ty's i }
; Bob? ae a V3 Te ‘ ' 1 0F Mrimup ; ay radi! in $i lm a ari. Oa Ty toe necy VON ee
i ohare 208 Che caw hal... scene alles wave, lenotges Leora
iy ead in aa 5 LA Ay sui po: qvt,l ar EY, il dy
sah reea Sel dal ht i : ae fe niki pean (a5 3 asilpod hon =
iri, faa?

Se ial (GR Go VE oT 2anciieS ‘nollie
iL ae age ; (t. pars gp

pagal Aig

yt a aa dsvatenit” hii! na en: ' R. | ake ery iD y¢

; ay es ei prt, eal yepn’t ah | pear ead re ying resin AAP T):
Pe ee ee

> ( kaa nga anf hl rca > ieee MiaakO) SWINE

“ieee 4 id he ah sa Weel ie Ardler erriie ee vee i

5 P ROPE Et 1é: rahyare Wee ma Oe a le ne on 1 ait Set
25 j SAAR A pe ya iy ) Aw daainiiis Pep uti ek) ates tinny wlow sh Yo wel
it epetear wlawintant RA mh trey ee 3 Ww wih eer wont
Bsa Hira: ET - 20 iain whan
ish Se ee ‘erty dha’ t-lmendunies Ss Ayyd SRE:
Se ee Eas = nd that bhiA Io IO .eMrand ee
Ta i ry A, 52 ant : Bea eomenTT nes A, iee
moti - Sisal pre desire, 2) castor weliglhy
( : ‘> MRD thr Cit ta tine 4 a: WOU ada
ase ie qolt 2.0 sgh
Ld etie ‘trl aolggunyh§p rena WN nN A)
‘ie ‘tilventiw? eos CUE ae
2 7s a ng MeO, eny
aaa nas ie contoviant to trails &
ji pet Smt) ABI enoclen

ORE (pti MM nile’) hing 29 cn a
ah —ageA \elgotl opati ne fail .
ARE seeabow bid eal .
Soyer A Sahel aap nek 5
hee Saaleyrin hh | MY senile? sorta
SAU remitted niin eect
las its saubidreg) ben briahs

‘AIR. daw yotvigh oner
alan been iragar

North Africa

and the
Middle East

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

008 OO” O
Co
Wy

seaie pe}0a}01d payeubisap Ajjeba; uum pepnjou! AsjuNod jo abejUsdIed

“SL—-Ol
201—-S
ZOE UBUY s40W i 45-10

Z0C—-SL 210 UY} ssa]

poayoajoud ebpjuadse,d

“dew

Contents

Page

MEOOUCUON ry Sin tantiese st BS ipecnsi,: ise 9g dotee ae Mae eee 77
ape d StOrical) DerSpective.“ Gace. Me cee! Exe eee. 78
Ile Eistony ofmaniandnature(-. 2.425 <=. oS onfacnke es ee 78

2 se Oorow th of protected! area) Sy Ste MS si. see a wae ge e a 79

1.3 Participation in major international protected area programmes ......... 82

2. Current protected areacoverage.......................... 84
2s lWoeProtectedtarears VStemisym rz pteti..5y snr bee cae ee ee 84

2.2 Coverage of major habitats and biological diversity ................ 84

Dee CAteCOn eS a BS AR... TR ee es ee eee ee ee 84

pia Protected areas in Ganser +... |... -» =; sis enema Ace De ee a ee 85

3. Additional protected areasrequired........................ 86
aeerotected area institutions... =... ww ee ee ee 88
5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas........... 88
6. Human capacity in protected areas management................ 89
hil, ASUEILe sauescheaa pe Pai aig ate ets Une RT ION ents Due te pee a a 89

GM Mama TAINS fee Ae, Fayed MENINGS SS 4: le, thieves» ny ed hee ep epee ee 89

7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 92
8. Major protected areas issuesintheregion.................... 92
Shea Okandiwiate hectare soewr cEche whe are. fw ek aS ae, le eee ers 92

SeD eR ATIMEG CONT Clier enc, Ganats cs ee a eae ciara a er 93

Sa SS teu Nteprity wi week PARAS cages. 2) Pi ee Ty ae ees OE Ae 93

$:40 Science and! protectedjareaS: v0.8). 2 les cc) casi en ees wad neal 94

S25 eeiraditionalldelacto protectionter 4) yee eee elena cnn 95

8.6 Public participation—people and protected areas ................. 95

8.7 Habitat restoration and species re-introduction. .................. 96

8:5) intemational:toursm:.: . =. 4 © 6 = « .eSeeeeecec ey ceegen eee eee eee ae 96

9. Priorities for actionintheregion..........................0. 97
Acknowledgements: 2.4 5.55.5. 2. os ls eles, seen 3, 2 97
References 22.5 .26 ie © cee a Se oO) 6 ote na BE Ree: 98
Tables
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system .................0.-. 78
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories. .............. 81
Table 3. The development of the protected areassystem................ 82
Table 4. | Adherence to international/regional conventions ............... 83
Table 5. | World Heritage sites in North Africa/Middle East .............. 83
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ................. 90
Figures
Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected
ATCAS Iss laa a sd ee Scns hv Re Mme ie SP PETS LS OR en 74
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)........... 80
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............. 80

North Africa
and the Middle East

Presented by Mohammad Sulayem, Vice-Chair for North Africa and the Middle
East, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, with support
from Mustapha Saleh, Faisal Dean and Graham Drucker

Introduction

This Regional Review focuses on that part of the Pal-
aearctic Realm that covers the Middle East and North
Africa. The region is perhaps one of the most diverse
on the globe, being at a junction between three conti-
nents: Africa, Asia and Europe. Its marine component
reflects this great diversity, centering on the Mediterra-
nean Sea but including the Atlantic Ocean, the Red Sea,
Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, Black Sea, Caspian
Sea and the Indian Ocean.

North Africa and the Middle East has remarkable
diversity, not just of nature, but of civilizations, cultures
and languages, reflecting its long and complicated his-
tory. The Middle East has been the cradle of western
civilization and the birthplace of its science, but it has
also probably experienced more wars than any other
continent. Situated at a geographical and historical "cross-
roads", the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Asia Minor
and the Levant harbour a varied fauna and flora, with
over 18% invertebrate endemism out of 3,027 recorded
species in Saudi Arabia alone (Miller and Nyberg,
1991). Partly this is due to relict flora and fauna which
survived from the last Ice Age when the Region was
wetter and cooler than currently with a temperate Medi-
terranean-type climate. The terrain is also varied, from
desert plains, covered in sparse scrub with perennial,
and often salt-tolerant herbs and ephemerals of the
Arabian Peninsula, to broad-leaved forests of the up-
lands of NW Africa and SW Asia where biodiversity is
very great. Dry forest and steppe cover large areas of
the Region but includes vast stretches of degraded scrub
and remnant wood savanna. The Arabian Gulf is rep-
resented by at least four critical marine habitats: coastal
marshes and mudflats, coral reefs, seagrass beds and
mangroves. Tidal flats and hypersaline wetland areas
are distributed throughout the more arid zones of the
region, as in the Sahara desert and along the north and
west Arabian Gulf. Much of the lowland areas are
cultivated in the less arid lowlands and livestock graz-
ing is prevalent ‘hroughout in all but the most hyper-arid
zones.

The region provides important migration routes for a
huge number of birds of a great variety of species. It has
been estimated that some 2-3,000 million migrants
move ina southerly direction across Arabia each autumn,
involving up to 200 species. Equally high numbers pass
through Turkey and down the Levant across Syria,
Lebanon, Israel and Egypt as well as across the Straits
of Gibraltar from Europe to Morocco and beyond.

However, North Africa and the Middle East’s natur-
ally diverse vegetation has been profoundly influenced
by human activity. Today, the only extensive areas of
vegetation that are essentially unaltered by human im-
pact are some areas of desert ecosystems in Arabia and
the Sahara; parts of the Mediterranean coniferous for-
est; some wetlands in Iran and Turkey; high montane
habitats in the circum Mediterranean region, the central
Arabian peninsula and of Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan;
some broadleaf forests in Afghanistan; and some wet-
lands, marine and sea habitats in north-west Africa, Iran
and Turkey. Elsewhere, unaltered vegetation is found
only on mountain tops above the tree line, in some
wetland areas, in isolated patches of woodland and on
some parts of the coast.

In the Middle East and North Africa the most signi-
ficant changes to vegetation and landscape occurred
thousands of years ago in the Sahara and other desert
areas. For the most part, they led to varied and biolo-
gically diverse continents, in many areas increasing
biological diversity, at least on the local scale.

However, in the past 50 years or so, there has been a
steady degradation in much of this rich landscape. In
the Mediterranean, notably in parts of Algeria, Morocco,
Tunisia, Cyprus and Turkey, mechanized agriculture
has reduced the rich patchwork quilt of woodlands,
hedges and small ficlds to an agro-industrial prairie
largely devoid of wildlife. In much of the Levant and
Egypt drainage has spared only remnants of the previ-
ously extensive wetlands. In NW Africa and in Turkey,
the massive expansion of tourism is causing great
damage to the fragile Mediterranean coast.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: North Africa and Middle East

Area in
Country Area
652,225
2,381,745
661
9,250
1,000,250
1,648,000
438,445
20,770
96,000
24,280
10,400
1,759,540
458,730
Morocco (Saharan Provinces) 252,120
Oman 271,950
Qatar 11,435
Saudi Arabia 2,400,900 211,974
Syria 185,680 0
Tunisia 164,150 444
Turkey 779,450 2,394
UAE 75,150
Yemen 477,530

Afghanistan

13,118,661

CategoriesI-V %

Total area
designated %

Area in Categories
VI-VIII and UA %

1,834
127,223
0

110
8,004
82,993
0

2,067
1,004
250

35
1,720
3,777
0
28,363
0
212,617
150
1,756
4,782
127

0
30
0
90
0
99
0
0
0
0
0

476,812

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category
has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may
lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover.

However, the decade since the 1982 World Parks Con-
gress in Bali was remarkable in many ways: at the end
of the 1980s, environmental issues started to rise up the
political agenda in most North African and Middle East
countries. Even with economic recession, they appear
to be staying there during the 1990s even in the event
of military conflict, civil strife and war.

1. Historical perspective

1.1. History of man and nature

The Middle East, North Africa and Southwest Asia were
settled and ruled by a number of ancient civilizations:
Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians,
Romans, Byzantines, and Arabs, to name just a few.
These empires prospered and were maintained by the
partnership that had developed between man and nature.
Their people mastered the skills of irrigation, agri-
culture, domestication of plants and animals, as well as
hunting and fishing to harness and use the bounty of
their land and sea. The development of these skills and
their widespread use eventually took their toll on the
available resources which were either degraded or com-
pletely depleted. The process of desertification had set
in and was viewed primarily as an inevitable con-

sequence of climatic change. A number of scholars saw
it differently and attributed the decline to man’s poor
management, despite the efforts of many of these cul-
tures to allocate and control the scarce resources of this
arid region. Examples of these controls include the
strictly rationed water rights, access to grazing, cutting
of trees, collection of firewood, and selective ownership
of agricultural land. Unfortunately those controls did
not apply to everyone in this vast region. Many rural
inhabitants unwittingly destroyed their forests through
clear-cutting for timber and charcoal, and they were
followed by herdsmen whose goats, sheep, cattle, and
camels grazed and browsed any remaining vegetation.
These practices continue to this very day, giving nature
little chance to regenerate its vegetative cover.

The epitome of the impact of man on his environment
is the Levant. Overlooking the eastern Mediterranean is
Mount Lebanon which was once carpeted with arich stand
of stately cedars whose height, strength, and utility became
legendary throughout the Old World. The felling of the
trees began as early as 3000 BC when the Phoenicians
began a lucrative trade in cedar wood with the Pharaohs
of ancient Egypt, the Assyrians, the Biblical King Solomon,
and many others. Five thousand years of service to civili-
zation has left the Lebanese highlands a permanently
degraded vestige of their former glory (Eckholm, 1976).

1.2. Growth of protected area

systems

Ancient civilisations (2000BC-200AD). One of
the earliest large towns yet discovered by archaeologists
is Catal Huyuk in central Turkey, believed to be at least
8,400 years old. Vultures, foxes, weasels, leopards,
rams and bulls were found in the many shrines of that
ancient town, either in effigy or as bones. The temple
inscriptions of the Egyptian Queen Hatsephut in 1540
BC illustrates a wildlife expedition to the Land of Punt.
It was sometime after that, about two thousand years
ago, that reserves and protected areas were developed
around the Mediterranean and in the Arabian peninsula,
many of which have survived to the present century.
The principles that governed those reserves provide the
basis for new and expanded systems of protected areas
in the region today.

The Greeks and Romans were perhaps the first to set
up organised protected areas. Caius Plinius Secondus
(Pliny the Elder) wrote the Natural History, of which
37 volumes survive, recording everything known about
the world. At that time throughout the Roman Empire
there were forest administration structures, delimited
forests, wardening systems, and programmes of tree
planting, along with areas set aside for wildlife (Drucker,
in litt., 1985; Mallett, in litt., 1991).

It is reported that the Roman Emperor Hadrian (117—
138 AD) was so struck by the destruction of the Lebanese
Cedar forests during a visit to the eastern realm of his
empire that he ordered nearly one hundred rock inscrip-
tions to be placed in the northern half of Mount Lebanon
to designate the surviving forests as imperial domain,
one of the world’s earliest recorded efforts at estab-
lishing a protected area. Today only scattered remnants
of these once extensive forests endure, leaving Hadrian’s
inscriptions as a silent memorial to a failed conservation
effort.

Traditional forms of protected area or resource reserve
(hima, hema, hujrah or ahmia) may have origins over
2,000 years ago in the pre-Islamic period, and devel-
oped as an ancient acknowledgement of the scarcity of
renewable resources and the need to conserve and use
them wisely in support of sustainable rural economic
development.

The early Islamic period (500-1000AD). Nature
conservation has had a long tradition in the Arabian
peninsula. The Koran and Arabic poetic literature attach
great importance to the value of man preserving his
natural heritage. The concept of the hima was given a
more solid legal standing according to Islamic law
(shari’ah) throughout the regions conquered by Islam.
The Prophet Muhammed abolished the ancient private
himas belonging to powerful individuals and estab-
lished a legal system that continues to govern these
protected areas designed to provide communal benefits.
He also set up a protected area hima near Medina in the

North Africa and the Middle East

6th century AD and subsequent caliphs were very strict
in keeping the hima system protected.

From 1000AD-1700. During this period there was
a prevalence of protected areas in the form of hunting
reserves. Beginning in 1240, under the reign of Abdallah
Abou Zakaria of the Hafside dynasty, hunting reserves
were maintained at Lake Ichkeul in Tunisia and their
management continued through the period of the Ottoman
Empire into the 20th century.

1700-1900. During the 18th and 19th centuries es-
tablishment of forest and hunting reserves were facili-
tated across the Ottoman Empire as far west as Algeria
as a result of Article 1243 of the Ottoman civil code,
within the body of Islamic law, which stipulated that
land and associated trees growing wild in mountains were
not to be possessed and should remain ownerless.

The first of the more recent conservation legislation
took place in Tunisia, which came into existence on 12
December 1884. The object of this Ordinance was to
regulate hunting throughout the country.

The early 20th century. It was not until this
century that the region witnessed the establishment of
the first modern protected areas. (See Figures 1 and 2
on the growth of the protected areas network).

Examples can be found in Algeria originally dating
from as early as 1920, in Iran in 1927, and in Morocco
in 1942. Other countries have since followed suit. The
impetus to set up protected areas at this time was more
for recreation than for nature conservation, as in the
colonial periods of a number of countries, such as with
the national parks of Chrea (Algeria) and Toubkal
(Morocco). Subsequently, the Forestry Service of the
French administration set up a network of legal provi-
sions for the protection of the environment, such as
those for the "Defence des végétaux’ (Tunisia) on 11
July 1932 and Ordinance on National Parks of 17 March
1936 (Tunisia). In 1936 Ahmed Pacha Bey decreed that
Bou Hedma be declared a state park of 5,000ha in order
to protect its unique forest ecosystem. In many cases
these series of acts have been largely repealed after
independence, and either reenacted or superseded in
subsequent presidential and Ministerial decrees or regu-
lations.

The 1950s—1970s. One of the most encouraging
trends of the past thirty years is the steady growth in the
number and size of protected areas in the region, clearly
showing that as a whole these countries are moving in
the right direction. The most rapid increase in protected
areas at this stage was in Iran, where at the end of 1965
there were 11 protected sites with a total area of
600,000ha; then up to 1976, five rivers were protected,
in addition to all marshes, wetlands, waterways and
bays along the Caspian Sea. By 1977, the number of
protected areas had risen to 69 sites covering a total area
of 7,998,168ha or 5% of the country.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)
50
Number of sites

40 Area (x1 000sqkm)

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)
500

Number of sites

400 Area (x1000sqkm)

300

200

100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

North Africa and the Middle East

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: North Africa and Middle East

No. Area

Area No. Area

410
125,645

197
10,753

eS) |

1
1

(Saharan Provinces) —
Oman -
Qatar -
Saudi Arabia 2
Syria -
Tunisia =
Turkey 1
UAE
Yemen

1,424
415 127,193
20
7,437
11,449

20
8,004

1,953
792

nol Por l art

1,200
2,370

211,974

444
2,394

-
1 on!i olni

139,429

45,487 179 440,724

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection

function are generally included.

A typical example of the rapid increase in protected
area establishment was in Turkey, where studies on the
selection and establishment of sites began in 1956, by
1987, eleven natural, one historic, two landscape, one
reserve and one natural monument were set aside as
national parks, covering a total of over 250,000ha. This
rose to a total of 21 national parks in 1990 with a total
area of 263,575ha.

The 1980-1990s. At the present time, most countries
in the region have some kind or other of protected area,
although there are major gaps in some of the Arabian
Gulf states and the Levant (IUCN, 1992).

In many countries this decade has been the start of the
development of the moder protected area network,
with Bahrain, North Cyprus, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya,
Oman, Qatar and UAE. Currently Yemen is actively
working towards its protected areas establishment centred
on work in Jebel Bura, Some major examples of wide-
spread activities include those of Oman and Saudi Arabia
with their Nature Conservation strategies and lists of
almost 200 proposed protected areas.

In Turkey although nature protection sites were slow
to develop, in 1987 five natural reserve area sites had
been designated and a further two were in the process
of being approved by the Ministry. This had risen to 18
sites totalling 25,492ha in 1991. In 1988 the first two
special protected areas were declared, rising to 11 by
1991. In 1981 at least 295,759ha were protected in 36
national forests.

The most major omission to major protected area
conservation plans and protected areas networks con-
tinues to be Iraq, with a continued lack of develop-
ments towards protected areas in Afghanistan: an early
start civil strife from 1979 onwards completely halted
the protected area developments of three wildlife areas
and one national park which were well protected at that
time.

Overall, the activities from the early 1990s onwards
appears to be positive, not just by almost every country
now having protected areas but by also looking at the
methods for strengthening the existing networks and
methods to improve administration, management, and
conservation of biological diversity.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: North Africa and Middle East

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established
up to 1962

Morocco (Saharan
Provinces)

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

% area
established
1972-1981

Date
established
unknown

Total
area
designated

% area
established
1982-1991

211,974
0

444
2,394

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria
for IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change
in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted.

Table 3 illustrates the development of the protected
area system in the 20th century.

1.3. Participation in major international

protected area programmes

North Africa and Middle East country participation in
major international protected area programmes has been
very limited. Table 4 illustrates the adherence to inter-
national/regional conventions within the region. In sum-
mary, the major specific actions which have been taken
in the North Africa and Middle East Region over the
last decade include:

@ Adoption of the Ramsar (Wetland) Convention held
at the town of Ramsar in Iran in 1971.

@ International meeting on Ecological Guidelines for
the Use of Natural Resources in the Middle East and
Southwest Asia held in Persepolis (Iran) in 1975 and
sponsored by IUCN.

@ The establishment of the UNEP sponsored
Mediterranean Action Plan adopted in Barcelona
(Spain) in 1975 with the promotion and estab-
lishment of protected areas as one of its functions.

The establishment by UNEP, with assistance from
IUCN, WCMC, and the Tunisian government, of
the Regional Activities Centre for Specially Pro-
tected Areas established in Salammbo, Tunis (Tunisia)
in 1985.

The development by UNESCO-MAB of regional
programmes for the conservation of marine turtles,
birds and marine mammals; and a Mediterranean
Biodiversity Conservation Programme and the ap-
proval of funding from the Global Environment
Facility in Jordan.

The adoption of the UNEP sponsored Kuwait Action
Plan in Kuwait in 1978 with the promotion and
safeguarding of biological integrity as one of its
functions.

The adoption of the UNEP sponsored Red Sea and
Gulf of Aden Action Plan in 1982 at Jeddah (Saudi
Arabia) with the promotion and safeguarding of
biological integrity as one of its functions.

Regional Workshops on Mediterranean Biosphere
Reserves held by UNESCO in 1991 (Tunis, Tunisia),
1986 (Florac, France) and 1979 (Side, Turkey). In
the third reunion (1991) there was the first informal

North Africa and the Middle East

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: North Africa and Middle East

World Heritage

Date No.

March 1979
June 1974
May 1991
August 1975
February 1974

February 1975
March 1974

May 1975

October 1978
October 1975
October 1981
September 1984
August 1978
August 1975

Saudi Arabia

Syrian Arab Rep
Tunisia March 1975
Turkey March 1983
United Arab Emirates —
Yemen Arab Rep October 1980 -

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
February 1983 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1

Notes:

Biosphere Reserves
Area (ha) No. Area (ha)

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention
Date No. Area (ha)

4,900

7,276,438 November 1983

105,700
1,357,550

September 1988
June 1975

1,000

January 1977 7,372

June 1980

November 1980

January 1984

1, Other mixed natural/cultural sites are inscribed on the list of World Heritage, but on the basis of beauty resulting

from the man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. These sites, which have not been included
in the above table, include Hierapolis-Pamukkale in Turkey.

2. Only sites lying within the region are listed.

@ gathering of IUCN CNPPA members from the
Middle East and North Africa.

@ 38th CNPPA Working Session, on North Africa and
Middle East at Etna Regional Park, Sicily in October
1992 organised by the International Park Docu-
mentation Centre (CEDIP), Sicilian Regional Authori-
ties, NCWCD, IUCN Secretariat, and WCMC.

Of the international conventions and programmes,
only six countries have signed the Ramsar (Wetlands)
Convention. However, there are up to 28 sites listed, of
which by far the most active country is Iran, with 18
sites covering 1.4 million hectares. Of the 18 countries
that have signed the World Heritage Convention, only
five were signed in the decade after 1980, and only one
after 1990. At present all countries, barring Israel, Kuwait
and United Arab Emirates, have signed the Convention.
Inscription of sites, however, has been limited to Algeria,
Tunisia and Turkey. Potential World Heritage Sites
have been identified in Horsh Arz el-Rab (Forét des
Cédres de Dieu) in Lebanon, and Jiddat al Harrasis in
Oman, and they proposed for submission in 1992/1993.

Table 5 lists sites inscribed on the World Heritage
List.

As far as Biosphere Reserves are concerned, only four
countries actively participate with Biosphere Reserves
listed in the Unesco Man and the Biosphere (MAB)
Programme. A total of 16 sites have been established,
covering a total area of about 9.9 million ha. Each

country, except Egypt, has established more than one
site, Iran the most with nine. However, there is growing
interest in this Programme and the benefits it has to
offer, particularly in relationship to applied scientific
study, sustainable development, and the harmonization
of man and his environment.

Table 5. World Heritage sites in North
Africa/Middle East

Algeria

Tassili N’Ajjer
Tunisia

Ichkeul National Park
Turkey

Goreme National Park
Hierapolis-Pamukkale

One of these sites (Hierapolis-Pamakkale) is a mixed natural/
cultural sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty
resulting from man/nature interaction, rather than natural
features alone.

The Middle East and North Africa region is unusual
in as much that being represented by more than one
continent it is applicable to a range of regional European,
African, and Asian conventions and programmes which
specifically encourage the establishment of protected
areas. The Barcelona Convention (Convention on Pollution
in the Mediterranean) entered into force in February

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

1976, and includes—under additional protocol which
entered into force in 1986 (Protocol Concerning
Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas)—the provision
to encourage the establishment of specially protected
areas which together with existing protected areas will
safeguard representative samples of the natural ecosys-
tems.

All the countries around the Mediterranean Sea ex-
cept Syria and Lebanon have now ratified. Many of the
24 Specially Protected Areas of the Middle East and
North Africa are existing protected areas, but some are
newly designated, as in Turkey.

Turkey and Cyprus are members of the Council of
Europe. The Council of Europe awards the European
Diploma to protected areas. One site has been awarded
the Diploma and two sites designated under the Council
of Europe Biogenetic Reserves network.

Other than these initiatives, there has been little in-
volvement with international protected areas programmes
which perhaps reflects the low priority accorded pro-
tected area establishment by many of the Middle East
and North Africa governments and a reluctance to be-
come party to any international programmes which may
involve additional financial commitments. Converse-
ly, the international programmes may find it difficult to
justify the resources necessary to undertake initiatives
in a region which is vast, little studied, sparsely popu-
lated, and politically insecure and so in global terms
does not appear to have a high priority for conservation
action although rich in biological diversity.

2. Current protected area coverage

2.1 Protected area systems

Ten countries in the region are implementing com-
prehensive systems plans for protected areas. Seven
others have systems plans that are either incomplete,
inadequate, or not being implemented. The remaining
countries appear not to have any such plans; instead,
protected areas have been selected and established on
an individual basis to protect specific areas of interest
(see map for the percentage of country included within
legally designated protected areas).

2.2 Coverage of major habitats and

biological diversity

Effectively, there is no regionwide protected areas net-
work and only limited proposals towards extending EC
wide initiatives to the region (see below). It is to be
expected that such a collection of protected areas does
not necessarily cover all major or critical habitats, nor
are they fully representative or geographically balanced.

At the national level approximately half of the coun-
tries have now published national flora and faunal in-
ventories, however details on the status and distribution

of species and their habitats is variable from country to
country. Algeria, Turkey, Oman, Israel, and Saudi Arabia
perhaps being the most progressive. For example, the
Omani government initiated in 1984 a survey for pro-
posing a system of nature conservation areas. Up to 43
different land classes and 12 marine habitats were iden-
tified, described and mapped, and populations of threat-
ened and endemic wildlife of interest for conservation
totalled 94 plant and 100 animal taxa.

However, right across the region protected area, or
even unprotected site specific, inventories are patchy
and illustrate a major need for rationalisation of review-
ing the coverage and level of protection of biological
diversity across the region. Towards redressing part of
this balance is the BirdLife International (ICBP) Pro-
gramme to identify Important Birds Areas of the Middle
East (see below).

Even where information exists the lengthy delays in
gazettement of sites over 1-10 years or more have not
infrequently been attained too late to conserve that
wildlife that the site was originally of note for, such is
the case in Gebel Elba (Egypt), a number of sites in
Saudi Arabia and Dilek Peninsula (Turkey).

Perhaps some of the major gaps in the protected areas
system is for the marine are coastal environment. A
limited number of coastal/marine sites exist in the
Mediterranean, and one or two in the Red Sea and
Arabian Gulf. However, given the enormous biodiverse
wealth and threats from tourism and marine pollution
these are priority areas for future conservation.

Other examples of note of areas without significant
protection, and under pressure from agricultural
"improvements" are, the steppic habitats of the Atlas,
Anatolia, and Arabia; the wetlands of the Mediterranean
and Anatolia; and the exceptional biodiverse and en-
demic rich montane refugia of the Atlas, Dhofar and
Afghan mountain chains (Green and Drucker, 1991;
Bates, 1991). However, proposed new areas in Egypt,
Morocco, Algeria, Oman, and Saudi Arabia will cer-
tainly address some of these concerns and help improve
the situation.

2.3 Categories

Much is being made in the Western World of the desig-
nation of a site as a national park, whereby it can only
reach this status once it has been promulgated by legis-
lation passed through parliament. It is important to
realise that legislation in many of the Middle East and
North African countries follow patterns and procedures
which differ completely from the West and so the
concept of "designated area" may then be misleading or
even invalid. In many countries, protected areas recog-
nized by organizations such as the NCWCD (Saudi
Arabia) can be accepted as being legal, and having
similar status to national parks for example even though
they do not necessarily have complete gazettement
(Abuzinada, in litt., 1993).

North Africa and the Middle East

National Designations in Middle East and North Africa*

Designation

Amenity forest reserve
Biological reserve
Bird sanctuary
Botanical reserve
Breeding station
Conservation area
Faunal reserve

Forest park

Forest reserve

Forest sanctuary

Game management area
Game reserve

Hunting reserve
Managed nature reserve
Marine park

Marine reserve
Multiple use area
National marine park
National scenic reserve
National nature reserve
National monument
National park

National reserve

*Based on the WCMC database

Summary of the protected area system is found in
Table 1. Of the national designations by far the com-
monest was the nature reserve (19%), followed by
recreational area (18%), other areas (12%), protected
area (9%), game reserve (6%), national park (4%),
reserve (3%) and breeding station (3%). Of these the
primary function was up to 47% for biological diversity
protection, 20% for amenity or recreation, 13% as game
or hunting areas, 3% for forest conservation, and only
2% for marine protection.

Only 19% of the nationally designated sites reach the
IUCN criteria standards for protected areas and consist
largely of small sites or those which are not formally
gazetted (such as traditional protected areas) or where
multiple-use management or recreation is the primary
interest.

Available estimates indicate that protected areas (IUCN
categories I-VIII) total about 475,982 sq km, or just
3.6% of the total area of the region. Of the 24 countries
and provinces of the region only two have at least 10%
of their land area under protection as recommended by
the Bali Action Plan of 1982. The coverage varies from
a maximum of 10.4% in Oman to no IUCN recognized
protected areas in Bahrain, Iraq, Qatar, and Yemen.

Table 2 summarises the number and area of the pro-
tected areas in the region by IUCN management
categories.

Designation

Natural monument
Natural reserve
Natural area

Natural nature reserve
Nature reserve

Other area

Permanent hunting reserve
Private reserve
Protected landscape
Protected park
Protected area
Recreational area
Regional park
Reserve

Scientific reserve
State forest
Underwater park
Waterfowl sanctuary
Wetland reserve
Wetland zone of importance
Wildlife sanctuary
Wildlife refuge
Wildlife reserve

a
rPndr Wer NUKE

pe Ny
wn

Sites meeting IUCN criteria include 178 in categories
I_-V and 34 in categories VI-VIII. There are also 27
internationally recognized Ramsar sites, six World
Heritage sites and 12 Biosphere Reserves. As indicated
above regionally recognized designations include
the Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas under the
Barcelona Convention, Council of Europe Diploma
sites and Council of Europe Biogenetic Reserves.

Trends in biological conservation in the Middle East
and North Africa in many instances is away from site
protection and more towards integrated regional ap-
proaches, such as Oman Coastal Zone Management
Plan (Oman), Zuhrah (Yemen) and Southeast Anatolia
- GAP (Turkey). In densely populated areas with limited
land availability, such as Israel, other forms of area
designation are evolving. In order to conserve bio-
diversity and the visual resources, an approach has been
formulated to integrate development and conservation
of the natural and cultural landscape diversity. Open
spaces throughout the country were classified into four
categories in accordance to their value, importance,
sensitivity and vulnerability: protected areas, open space
landscape areas, controlled development areas, build-
ing. and development areas.

2.4 Protected areas in danger

Site protection is reasonably well implemented in less than
one third of the countries of the region. The remainder

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

vary in the degree of protection they provide, with some
receiving practically no protection at all. This is largely
due to lack of financial resources, inadequate training
of personnel or pressure from lands and peoples sur-
rounding the sites (Sulayem, 1991).

From the available information, it can be concluded
that:

w Sharp differences exist in the coverage and manage-
menteffectiveness of protected areas from one country
to another.

w The part of the Middle East and North Africa where
the protected area network seems to be least effec-
tive, in both coverage and management, is in the
Arabian Mountain refugia and eastern Mediterra-
nean countries, where species diversity is greatest.

Those sites listed as in greatest danger by IUCN
include those such as Gebel Elba with armed conflict
and Ichkeul with disputes over water rights. However
these are only selected examples and in fact the varicty
of threats to protection is immense.

Several countries in the Region have inadequate sys-
tems, particularly given their global importance for
biological diversity. They include:

w Iraq, where almost all proposed and recommended
protected areas are under severe threat due to lack
of political and social support, and are in danger of
losing their natural vegetation through misuse, de-
struction and armed conflict. For example, marsh-
lands in the recommended Hor al Hammar National
Park west of Basra are threatened by drainage, poli-
cies to alter the traditional lifestyles of the local
communities, and habitat destruction including through
chemicals. Not one protected area has been estab-
lished so far, and the legislative base is inadequate .

@ Yemen, again areas of nature conservation value are
under threat due to limited central political support
and are in danger of losing their natural vegetation.
For example, natural forests in proposed protected
areas are threatened by tourism developments. Only
one major protected area is in the process of estab-
lishment so far, and the legislative base is inade-
quate.

@ Morocco is one of Africa’s most biologically di-
verse countries but its protected areas are poorly
staffed, often with part-time personnel, who have
inadequate resources to look after the areas. The
protected areas generally do not have their own
administration but come under local forest officers;
most are not implemented on the ground, and some
are in danger from impact of the surrounding land
outside of protected areas. Also, the existing protected
areas (such as Toubkal NP) need to be strengthened,
extended and additional parks created.

On a favourable note, previously Ras Mohamed was
widely regarded as a site under threat through over
fishing, tourism and habitat destruction, following a

joint Government of Egypt and European Community
funded programme the situation is that the site is being
expanded and used as a role model for wise-use of
protected areas throughout the rest of the country.

3. Additional protected areas
required

The Middle East and North Africa have vast tracts of
land and sea which offer numerous opportunities for
large new protected areas. Many of the countries of the
region are planning substantial increases to their pro-
tected area systems. Prominent amongst these are the
Levant countries of Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. Egypt
even intends to create bilateral or trilateral parks with
its neighbours Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Jordan.

No overview is available to accurately identify gaps
in representation of main habitat types for the region as
a whole (as indicated above). In some countries im-
portant work has been done to identify the most im-
portant centres of biodiversity. However, major informa-
tion gaps exist across the region as a result of the
absence of baseline ecological data. Without filling
these gaps of information, a comprehensive systems
plan for the region as a whole will be difficult to
achieve. Comprehensive field surveys of areas where
knowledge is inadequate are therefore necessary to
provide the basic information needed to identify ad-
ditional areas to be protected. In many cases, infor-
mation to do this is lacking. Data on the coverage of
habitats, especially around the Mediterranean, is ad-
equate and there are various aridland-wide regional
studies, such as on the Sahara desert lands, and on
Mcditerranean, Arabian Gulf, Red Sea marine and
coastal ecosystems such as seagrasses or corals.

@ Protected area networks have been developed at a
national level, with little consideration given to a
regional Middle East and North Africa perspective.
The systems approach has not yet been taken at a
regional level, and monitoring of protected areas
across the Middle East and North Africa is inadequate.

To inform decision-makers and planners at all levels
of the existence and importance of sites and to en-
courage the development and implementation of natio-
nal conservation strategies, various studies and source
data is already available or in the process of preparation
that would contribute to such an analysis include:

@ The IUCN/WWF Centes of Plant Diversity Project,
which is identifying large areas that should be pro-
tected for their plant wealth, especially in the plant-
rich Mediterranean and Arabian Peninsula countries.

@ Published directories of Important Bird Areas
(Grimmett & Jones, 1989) and of wetlands (Carp,
1980), covering sites both large and small.

S Published directories of Coral Reefs of the World by
IUCN.

@ Published inventories of Mediterranean Specially
Protected Areas under the Barcelona Convention
(UNEP, 1989).

@ Onmithological Society of the Middle East (OQSME)
sites register scheme from 1982-1992.

w West Palaearctic waterfowl census database com-
piled by Intemational Waterfowl and Wetlands Research
Bureau of 1992.

@ Published lists in Current Status of Protected Areas
and Threatened Mammal Species in the Sahara-
Gobian Region (Green and Drucker, 1991).

Attempts to fill the gaps in the evaluation of the
natural and semi-natural habitats of the Middle East and
North Africa region as a whole include:

@ Drafts of the Middle East Important Birds Areas
Directory of BirdLife International (Evans, in litt.,
1993) and the Middle East and North Africa Protected
Areas Directory of the World Conservation Monitoring
Centre (Drucker, in litt., 1993): projects to produce
databases of sites of international, regional and na-
tional importance for biological diversity, providing
key information for the conservation of the region’s
fauna, flora and habitats.

In 1992 the World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
BirdLife International, and the UK Institute of Terrestrial
Ecology proposed to extend the EC CORINE Biotopes
methodology developed for Europe to the eleven Middle
East and North African Mediterranean countries covered
by the EC Avicenne Initiative. The principal objectives
of any such project are to systematically identify and
list key threatened species and biotope types of the
region to ensure their future conservation; improve the
country-level and regional availability of environ-
mental conservation data; promote improved data qual-
ity by use of standard field techniques, habitat
classifications and protocols for data capture; and promote
the ready flow of data for in-country applications; de-
velop regional communications and thematic databases
on sites with regionally important biotopes so as to
assist the development of an integrated conservation
strategy for the region; provide the basis for a coordi-
nated framework for species and ecosystem conserva-
tion, development of regional databases, and promotion
of cooperation between the international community,
and associations of the countries in the region.

In general, further protected areas are most needed in
the Mediterranean, Levant, and Southwest Asian area
of Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. (However, Iran has
particularly good representation of arid and wetland
ecosystems, and Turkey of Mediterranean and sub-
Mediterranean sites). As for the type of protected areas
needed, throughout the continent the greatest need is a
major extension of Multiple Use and Wildemess Areas.

Key areas in the region where better protection is
most needed include:

North Africa and the Middle East

@ The marine and coastal areas of all subregions;
@ The wetlands of North Africa;
@ The wetlands of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran;

@ The mountain coniferous forests of Lebanon, Cyprus
and Syria. At present only small areas of these
coniferous forests are protected; in Lebanon the
Parliament recently decided to protect part of this as
is the Syrian National MAB Committee, a portion
considered insufficient by biologists and conser-
vationists;

@ The marshes of Mesopotamia (Iraq/Iran). A large
area of flat and gently undulating wetland of reeds
and bogs, the largest expanse of reedbed and marsh-
land in the world.

Encouraging progress has been made on marine pro-
tected areas in the Mediterranean, though here, as else-
where in the world, efforts lag behind those on land.
With the exception of the Iranian coast, the situation is
poor in the Arabian or Persian Gulf; the Atlantic has
been poorly addressed—although Morocco has estab-
lished sites over the past decade at Oued Sous; the Black
Sea has been partly reviewed by Turkey, the Caspian
by Iran, Red Sea by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

Of the other countries of the region, for example in
Oman, one could suggest the areas listed under the
government proposals for a system of nature conser-
vation areas (NCA) which were to form part of a total
land-use strategy. Plans included proposed details for
policy and law, the designation of nature conservation
area systems. If this was to be fully implemented 91
NCAs would be protected, including 59 national nature
reserves, 20 national scenic reserves, and 12 national
resource reserves, representing about 37% of Oman. In
Saudi Arabia a number of proposals have been made,
including that based on a large-scale survey of water
resources covering 1,248,000 sq km in the mid-1970s.
A review by Meteorological and Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (MEPA) led to 46 marine and coastal
sites being recommended for protection, along with six
offshore areas in the Arabian Gulf. Subsequent work by
NCWCD (1990) on the terrestrial ecosystems identified
56 terrestrial and 47 marine and coastal sites for pro-
tection in one of five different reserve categories. Under
this scheme 4% of the country would be fully protected,
with another 4% partially protected (Abuzinada and
Child, 1991). In the Mediterranean major gaps occur
along the Mediterranean coast of Libya and Morocco.
Recommendations have been made for a series of pro-
tected areas in Lebanon by individuals and by NGOs.
Aside from the established Mashgara National Park of
3,500ha other sites under consideration include: Ile du
Palmier, mountain forests of cedar and fir in the north,
Barouk cedars in the Shouf mountains, and the remnant
marshlands of Ammik (one of the principal bird migra-
tion routes in the Near East).

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

4. Protected area institutions

In the Middle East and North Africa the institutions
responsible for protected area management vary greatly
from one country to another. In the majority of cases,
protected areas are the responsibility of central govern-
ment, but in others, such as Turkey and the North
African Territories of Spain, the system is highly decen-
tralized. There is a dichotomy between nature conser-
vation, natural resource conservation and recreation
institutions, and only rarely are they combined. The
institutional structures often evolved one from the other
as in the case of national park agencies from forest
departments in Morocco, Turkey and Cyprus.

Responsibility for the management and protection of
such areas have often been divided among various
branches of government, primarily the Ministry of Agri-
culture, but also Interior, Finance, Defence, Housing or
Tourism. In some countries, protected areas are under
the direct administration of the office of the Prime
Minister or Head of State. In those countries where
tourism plays an important part in the national eco-
nomy, the Ministry of Tourism has become involved in
protected area administration. However, as in Jordan
and Israel, protected areas are administered by non-
governmental agencies. In most cases, however, there is
insufficient coordination and cooperation among the dif-
ferent government agencies (IUCN, 1992).

Protected area institutions, as well as central govern-
ments themselves, in parts of Levant and Southwest
Asia tend to be weaker than those in North Africa.
Institutions in the former often have inadequate laws,
structures or budgets with which to combat serious
threats to their sites. In countries where tourism is im-
portant, such as Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco and Cyprus, the
buoyant economy and the need for recreation has some-
times taken precedence over conservation, as with the
high profile attempt at Dalyan (Turkey). However, tour-
ism has also provided sufficient funds to support pro-
tected areas and conservation, as in Egypt, through
entrance fees and tourist taxes. In the Arabian penin-
sula, with the abundance of oil-monies, protected areas
agencies have rapidly evolved although with declining
oil prices in the world economy and armed conflicts, as
in Kuwait, there has been severe decline in economies,
protected area agencies such as the NCWCD and MEPA
(Saudi Arabia) having to reduce staff and retrench their
activities.

Protected areas in the region are often subjected to
competing pressures from government agencies that
carry out large-scale development schemes, such as
reservoir and agricultural land reclamation and indust-
rial development. The destruction resulting from these
activities is often irreversible and valuable habitats and
species are lost. Areas subject to these incursions are
usually found in the more arid countries of the region,
where the demand for water or development is most
pressing and the impact on protected areas are seen as
a low priority.

Traditionally, legislation pertaining to national parks
and protected areas developed in a piecemeal fashion,
and tended to concentrate on the protection of a few
outstanding sites of scenic or recreational value. In
many cases the legal basis for protection was not suffi-
cient, or was totally lacking. In those situations the in-
stitutions responsible for protected areas have remained
weak and have failed to secure influence over other
branches of government, resulting in a distinct handicap
for their administration and staff.

Voluntary conservation groups have provided a cost-
effective way for government to implement conser-
vation policies. For example, government grants enable
the NGO Society for Protection of Nature in Israel
(SPNI) to manage nature reserves in Israel and for the
Royal Society for Conservation of Nature (RSCN) in
Jordan to acquire protected areas, which is also a partner
with the Government in running all protected areas and
provides the wardens.

Overall:

@ In much of the Middle East and North Africa, there
has been an emphasis on national parks for recrea-
tion in the historic past at the expense of areas set
up primarily to protect nature.

@ The management of most protected areas falls be-
low acceptable international standards and does not
have the relevant legislative framework of support.

@ Overall there continues to be a major need for the
majority of the countries upgrade their legislation
relating to protected areas.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

Table 6 shows the information currently available on
protected areas management agency budgets in the
Middle East and North Africa. It also shows, however,
that it is very difficult to separate spending on protected
areas from spending on nature conservation in general,
especially in countries with complex nature conser-
vation systems. Some of the figures are probably mis-
leading for this reason.

Detailed data on the exact budgetary allocations of
specific countries are limited, or even regarded as State
security. Nevertheless, the figures show dramatic dif-
ferences across the region and in comparison to other
global regions. Even high GNP states such as Saudi
Arabia, which spend over US$9m per year on its pro-
tected areas agency NCWCD, is small in comparison
with Europe or America, such as in the UK with
US$150m per year on protected areas alone and Mexico
with US$20m for 17 protected areas. This causes the
budget available to the Yemen, about US$ 0.1m per year
for all its forestry department activities, pale into insig-
nificance even though it is a country rich in biological
diversity. Clearly protected areas in some Arabian and

Southwest Asian countries are totally underfunded, al-
though there is one exception, that of Kuwait which has
spent US$3m on the establishment of a single national
park.

The financial involvement by the private sector in
protected areas is also very limited. The main income
for the operators of this sector comes from the man-
agement of hunting reserves, and it is questionable as to
how much of this revenue is recycled to the protected
area system. As an example, the income from such
reserves in Algeria is US$0.5m annually. Egypt has an
innovative financing mechanism whereby all interna-
tional air tickets issued in local currency in the country
have a 25% levy imposed, and the money thus raised is
directed towards financing the protected areas. In Turkey
a significant percentage of protected area finance comes
from revenues raised by the park entry fees and other
tourist/visitor expenditures (IUCN, 1992).

gw Few Middle East and North African protected areas
charge for entry, but this could be a good option for
Mediterranean countries, taking advantage of the
massive numbers of tourists each year and the boom
in nature tourism experienced in other parts of the
world. Turkey, for example, charges entrance for its
national parks, and it receives over 10 million visitors
per year to these areas.

In some cases, national parks have broughi strong
economic benefits to the region. In the case of Ras
Mohammed NP (Egypt), the coral, tropical marine fishes
and mangrove have proved a great attraction. The local
villages were almost abandoned 10 years ago, but now
has a growing economy and emigrants are returning.
According to Pearson, some US$10 million LE over 5
years of park budget developed a local economic impact,
creating jobs in the park itself.

Funds generated by international organizations have
not played a major role in aiding protected areas in this
region until recently with the involvement of the EC,
World Bank and UNEP, such as 0.8m ECU to one site
on Egypt by the EC and US$0.2m in Algeria by the
GEF. Other international funding is being used to support
protected areas in Jordan, Morocco and Cyprus. Whilst
feasibility studies by the World Bank have also looked
at Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Algeria.

In some countries which have had their debts re-
scheduled, notably Egypt and Morocco, debt-for-nature or
debt-for-development conversions are theoretically
possible. However, no country in the region has so far
attempted to benefit from this type of transaction. Never-
theless, all the seriously indebted countries could benefit from
acomprehensive debt reduction programme. Prompt at-
tention should be given to securing the same level of debt
relief to the countries in need, as was extended recently
by the Paris club to Egypt and Poland.

However, the international community has not been
overall forthcoming and it is urged that these agencies

North Africa and the Middle East

should play a much greater role in supporting the region’s
protected areas by sharing their expertise and providing
financing to all the countries concerned.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

6.1 Staff

As with levels of financing, there are large differences
in protected area staffing from one country to another.
Tunisia employs 400 people in 33 protected areas, com-
pared to three people who are employed in Yemen’s
embryonic protected areas system. Some countries, for
example, have no rangers in their protected areas. Others,
in contrast, not only have large, paid staffs but also
systems of volunteers as in Israel.

In most countries, though, staffing to protect the
natural heritage has lagged behind staffing to protect the
cultural heritage. Especially in Mediterranean coun-
tries, a knowledge of nature is not regarded as part of
the cultural awareness of citizens. Nature conservation
is too often an interest of hobbyists and specialists, not
of the general public, and this is reflected in staffing
levels.

6.2 Training

With the proposals for an expansion of the protected
area network across the region throughout the next
decade, the necessary management is perhaps too highly
sophisticated for the existing agencies skills or experi-
ence. As a result, more training is needed in a broad
range of skills, from management planning to com-
munity relations, from languages to information tech-
nology. The urgent need for such training courses was
unanimously endorsed by all the participants at the 38
CNPPA Working Session at Etna Regional Park, Sicily
in October, 1992.

The present level of training throughout the region is
inadequate. Current provision of training is patchy.
Specialist degrees and technical courses in conservation
management are non existent, with exceptions such as
in Israel. Provision for in-service training is ad hoc and
training opportunities are available to a very limited
staff who usually have to train overseas. Best provided
for are rangers and guides: Israel, Egypt, Turkey and
Morocco all offer some basic training. In Israel, the
NRA and SPNI have promoted a national training policy,
but such broad initiatives are otherwise unheard of.

Conferences and seminars, regional, national or inter-
national, have been held on behalf of FAO, UNESCO
and UNEP but are mostly attended by senior staff, the
exception being the Mediterranean Specially Protected
Areas MEDPAN Managers seminars.

Short-term staff exchanges are feasible between parks, but
to date few have taken place because siaff time is short,

6a “uoneoNps [BJUSUTUAIIAUS
pue uoneorMuNuoo ‘Wodsuen ‘souepes ‘UOnEpoOwWOdoe JJeIS JO SOUDUTEIUIBUL
pue uononysuoo ‘soouay SUT] eISUT ‘spor SUTUTEJUTEUL :3UIMOT[OJ SU) 01
pawooye are sjo8pnq sea pajoajolg JUsWESeUeUI puke UOTTeIISTUTUpe
Soarosal puke syed spreMo} JUDM Jadpnq s}salo,j pue INeAA BUY JO %¥ ‘8R6I UT

"SNG UOT 79 :uoNearesuoo SuIpnjout
somtanoe ANsaloj JOJ QOUE)sISsB pUe UOTT[IW COPS: :3ulussuaNs
[BUOIMINSUT 10} soamMosay [BINIAY PUL s}sal0,j Jo JSUTTEd|q
OUP 0) DOURISISSE SAPNISUT "OGG Ul 2oUuRIsIsse OV SaITMNsSUO|)
“Surluapre mM puke JOUdUIEIUIeU
sped [Te 10} poresoye aiom CY UOT[IW suo [66] UT Gy UOT
“60 pure 9 U2eMIOq alam sysed [eUONeU IsITy DY) 10J Jo3pnq SuUUTI
[enuue stp 103 996] ut jesodoid [euorsu0 ay], :sMOT[OJ se UMOpyBalg
‘(Apog aieaud & ‘NOSu au 01
JuWa Seu! puke JUSUTYST]GeIsa seare payoajaid 10} AytTiqrsuodsal ae 3a[op
almfnousy jo Anstunpy au) Jo jWounredag o8uey pue Ansoio,j oy], x)
“QOUR]SISSE [BOIUYOA} puke s}sId ‘(a[qrTeaeuN samsy) uoTesOT]e
193pnq JUUIIDAOS ‘soaj drysioquisw Waly st193pNq xONSU ALL
*yUoUOdUIOO seare pojoajaid B sapnjout AZaieNs JUOWUOIIAUS
UL “NONI Pu CIV SN Woy g6L'EZISNF wos IM paruaute[ddns
Sem SIL “0661 01 dn poriad oy Suunp ABZoreNg [eUSWUON AUG UeTUepIOL
alp Jo uoneyuowa|dun ap 10j SuIpuny aes SaMIISUOS any dAoge BY],
“UOT[IW CHISSN Sem CR6I ULIBSpNq oY] “UOITeAIZSUOO almMeU
Joy uotuodoid ue 3urpnjout ‘ja3pnq [enuue [TeI9A0 9YY SamMINSUOD aM3Ij BY],

‘armynousy Jo Anstutyy]

oy waxy ATTediouud 900 OE FA *93pnq [enuue eotAlog OTP

uendA3q sy] ‘uonajduroo 0} uotd2our joofoid wy ‘yeg FeuOneN
QUUPU poumeYyos] sey JO JUsWIdO]aAEp oy] Spre Mo} UONNQUyUO 3e1S

seo osn$

TOAIQSOY BIE] Seare poyooiod jediouud ayy 10j aimipusdxe Suu Yy

(8Z'0 SNS) 000'8ETFO ‘santpory [euoneaisay wed Joy 198pnq amnousy

Jo Ansturyy ‘(UOT[IW 87 [$SM) 000' LE9FO ‘seare poroaaid Jo uonearasuod
pur yuowidojaaap ‘USUIYSTIqQEIS2 BY 10} Jo3pngq aImmousy Jo ANstuIy

"0661 WAA/Yp UOT TW g OT st SuNUNY Wo anuaaes joallq
“porospng sem 000'0S7$SN JO IOI y “Surpuny FAH ym
UOOU! UT 98 sem joo Id UE]d yUDUISSeUEUI 2ANeIOgET[OD pojoefald & QGGI U]

amen
CVW 000'000'S = Jo Uonomalg pue suryst,y ‘Suu Jo “Ald —O20010j]
dXxT vAqry]

sjusUMUOP
dof 9z¢'%e O1OISTH PUB S¥qN JO wounredaq 2 NOSY — veplog

sTl ‘YY sonrosoy aMeN 2 Alsowny syed [UONEN — [22S]

dol bey]
wi ued]

000'000'01dD4 SOIAIOS 9ITIPTLM uenidxsg —1dA3q

dAD 000°SLL Ansaio,j jo juounredaq — snidk>
dHd urerye g

JuouuOAUg
aza amp JO uoNoa Org 10y Aouad y TeuoneN — elas, y

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

a21n0g avaX = quayeainba = Aduad.ind jeuoneu
aeyog sn ul jaspng

Aduase aqisuodsas/A1yun0d

}SCq SIPPIW Puke edly YON :sJeHpnq Aouebe juewebeuew sease pe}de}01d “9 8/G21

North Africa and the Middle East

“MM UT (1661) OWA [etal
eIEyUY ‘sHEyY TeMy pue ANsaio.j ‘amypnousy jo Answunyy Kayan] us K4ysas0J (1861) ANsaiog Jo [eI9UIH a1eIO}20NG YsTIM] [ZI]
“"ORUL-IPIS OP WSdd NII
% $861 1Q0100 TE—O¢E ‘TPUONeU JoNsaloy auroUNUTed Np UONBALasUOd BI IMs aMTeUTUIZS ‘aisIUN] wa sa8vanvs auo}f D ap 1a aunD{ DJ ap UCI AlasuoD VT “(SR6I) “S ‘wacky [peH 19g [II]
‘ddg | ‘stun | ‘wiqoay ipnog ur svasp parsaoad fo wasks v Surdojanaq (1661) "9 ‘PID Pur "HW ‘epeuznqy [oI]
‘ddg] 1990190 6 [—H] “UoI3ay 1seq 2[PPI-POLYY YUON aM Ut seary paromiaig uo doysyso~, WddNO-NOMI
IsILJ otf pue UBsUeLoN pay] ay] Ul soalasay aoydsoig uo Suna] aloydsorg pue uel PAIN, 21 18 poyussaid Jadeg ‘oomy ne sag8qaId sare sa] ins uoddey *( 1661) Sigiog ia xneq [6g]
‘ON UT (0661) “O‘PEUD = [sa]
“dg “stunt ‘1990190 6 1-F] ‘vOIZay 1seq A[PPIA-LOLYY YUON amp UT seary paoai0lg
uo doys1om Wdd NO- NONI 1s4/UesuELOUpay] Ip Ut soniesoy a1aydsorg Uo SuMIaA TVW PMY 21 18 pauasaid sodeg TeMNY Jo AMIS aN UI seare paromolg (1661) ‘4 “!Menps|y [zg]
0661 Arenues [¢ ‘20NjQ 19ef arg NON] JuouUOMAUY
Jo juounredag 0/9 ‘Adareg 1wouuoNAUY feuonRN 0661 Arenuer y3naip 696] JoqQuiaidag ueploy—Adaqeng jUoWUOLIAUG [eUONeN ‘sontanoe 19afoid uo uoday “(066 1) ‘f ‘wayseqoyy «= [9g]
‘ddg] “unkeHrekny ‘Auoymy iowdojaaaq puey aip Aq ssarBuod Ansaroy pyony nual ayn Joy uoday ‘Jaess] ut Ansaroy uo y4oda1 feuoMeN (0661) ‘UouY [cg]
‘ddgy ‘eisruny ‘stun ‘39q2Q 61-F1 “POLY YUON pue iseq [Ppl] Mp 10y Sung0UI VWddNO
“NONI Sty olf pur saaiasoy aoydsorg uBsueLoNpe; Uo Sune] aroydsorg pue ue PAY] 1p 1 poruasoad 1adeg 1d48q Jo o1qndoy quiy Ip Ul sear parooody (1661) Vad [bal
“NY Uy (1661) nomouy [Eg]
‘ddgce + miaxx “yf ‘e8puqureD pu purlsozims ‘puro ‘NONI ‘2I4DanIVg 7 aumjo, ‘swassks jouoNDN fo maiaay Y :P40M ays Jo svasy parzaIo1g (2661) NOI _—*Zd

8a24n0g

eld ‘7661-1661 UseMI9q SUBIOTUYSa IsAOy Jo SuTUTeN JOJ payeooyye sem
[eH UOT] MW auO JoUyUTY W “gg6] UI 1e3pnq Ansaroy a1e1s aI pesudwoD SL6S9T AA 000'000'7 day qeiy ‘uauta 7
dav sore qery paituy)
Za “seaie paloajoid 0) uone[al UT soueyes
SAHeNSIUTUPE UO JUads sem TL 000'000'0SS JO 11M B 0661 NI“ Atisaz0,4 Jo
ABODalIg [e1IUIH wp Aq jUsWsseueU yIed UO papu dxa1a3pnq jenuuy TUL 000'000'00€ Aysaio,j JO s1810}9aNG [elauaH — Koy],
11d ‘THOAYS] ‘AN Ao ou Joy o[quyreak yo8pnq soueureyurew aye1s UMN Xe] CGNL000'00$ Seq [euoneN pue SunuNH Jo ayesoioanpgng — eistun |
dAS BIAS
old “uorgar at ul
Anumoo 1940 Aue ueyp UOITeAIaSUOO Oo} }UDUNITWUOO [eloURUY I91e313
® sayeur A[qeqaid eiqery Ipneg *(00'O8ESSM) FOE Prr TUVS sem sieak
0m) Joy woddns NONI 10j 198pnq sy], Juawo8euEW pu UOITeNIsIUTUpE
‘seare poloaioid Jo sjoadse [Je Surpnyout JeaX Jad [eon 1o8pnq COMIN GOMON—21qzIV Ipneg
uoneasiutupy [emnousy pue Ansnpuy Jo ‘wy — 1e1ed
uewIC,

31N0S qeaX = quayeainba = Adua.1ind jeuoneu
ae9q SN ul jaspng Aduase aqisuodsas/A1jun0Z

(}U09) JSey S|PpIW Ppue Boy YWON :s}eHpng Aouebe }uowebeuew seose P9}99}]01d “9 aIGeL

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

financial resources are rarely available for them and the
language barrier is an ever-present difficulty. Franco-
phone initiative are perhaps the only functioning mech-
anisms based on aid and support by the french Atelier
technique which develops training for the staff of national
parks. Study visits and exchanges have much potential
for exchanging information and developing expertise
but are not well used at present and to date most have
been organized informally. Perhaps one option is the
funding under the World Heritage Fund and through
exchanges under the MAB Biosphere Reserve Pro-
gramme.

A major goal for every country should be to train a
sufficient number of qualified staff each year to manage
their protected areas. In designing an effective training
programme, the following recommendations were pre-
sented by the above mentioned meeting:

w@ Determine specific needs and tailor the training
courses to those needs bearing in mind the limita-
tions of the staff.

m Include all levels of staff in training activities, with
emphasis on recruiting and training local people to
work in the protected area.

@ Involve scientists from local universities, as well as
experienced protected area managers from the re-
gion in the programme.

@ Follow-up with on site evaluations to determine the
effectiveness of the training courses and need for
change.

@ Provide moral and financial incentives for partici-
pants of training courses, so they can take pride in
who they are.

The IUCN members from the region at the meeting
in Sicily also discussed the organization of appropriate
training courses for the region. The participants strongly
urged that regional capabilities based within the region
were to be used to the maximum extent, such as the
wildlife centre at Taif (Saudi Arabia) and SPNI field
stations (Israel).

7. Priorities for future investment
in protected areas

The major issues for the region have been largely iden-
tified above. Investment needs will require a partner-
ship between national governments and the private sector,
leading to a substantial increase in budgets and a higher
priority for protected areas.

The most significant source of investment today is the
Global Environment Facility (GEF), which has started
to provide funding for conserving biodiversity in some
of the countries of the region over the next several years.
These funds provide, for example, direct support to
protected areas in Jordan and Algeria.

The World Bank’s Mediterranean Biodiversity action
plan for the 1990s calls for preparation of conservation
master plans and identification of viable biodiversity
management projects (both terrestrial and marine) for
short-term and long-term investments, including policy
options for developing and managing biological resources.

The industrial and commercial sector should also be
encouraged to play a greater role in subsidising con-
servation and protected area costs as part of their in-
creasing concern for the environment. This can be arranged
either through direct donations and/or sustained sup-
port, such as linking protected areas budgets to income
from sale of electricity from dams whose watershed is
protected by a national park, or assistance from engin-
eering companies as in the GAP Region of Anatolia
(Turkey), or indirectly through environmental levies.

8. Major protected areas issues in
the region

8.1 Oil and water

The epitome of the Middle East and North Africa is oil
and water. Resource scarcity in this largely arid region
has resulted, at a very early date, in the development of
complex systems for land and critical resource allo-
cation and use. Water rights, land access for grazing,
collection of timber and firewood, and ownership of
agricultural land became strictly controlled.

Following the discovery of oil at the tum of the
century, the economies of many of the countries have
changed tremendously and oil now plays a central role
to activities within the region. On a per capita basis
Kuwait is perhaps the richest of the oil rich states of the
region. In Kuwait the Ministry of Petroleum and Kuwait
Oil Company manage the oil fields of the country. Its
six main exclusive rights areas act as de facto protected
areas, through prohibition of livestock grazing around
oil fields. Patrolling of areas is maintained by the mili-
tary authorities. The Kuwait Oil Company has spon-
sored various NGOs to encourage field studies, maintain
contact with other institutions and help disseminate
knowledge and to act as a conservation forum.

Changing lifestyles throughout the arid zones of the
region have in part been a consequence of increased
access to permanent water supplies, including the trans-
portation of water tanks into the hinterland. In the past
water was a scarce resource carefully tended and fought
over. In Tunisia oases still survive which have water
management regimes over 1,000 years old. Greater

availability of water has led to an expansion of livestock
numbers throughout the region and to stocks remaining
the year round on rangeland without undergoing seas-
onal movements. For example, in Kuwait alone this had
resulted in livestock overgrazing by 1.3 million sheep,
0.3 million cattle and 0.6 million goats by 1987.

In Kuwait reserve areas for exploitation of known
underground water are identified under a master plan.
The Ministry of Water and Electricity has rights over
these underground water areas which, by the very nature
of restricted access, have formed havens for wildlife. In
all forms of environmental protection, police posts are
used in coordination with protected area management.
The Saudi Arabia Ministry of Agriculture and Water
(MAW) is involved in protected area management and
has a key role for water management. The Ministry
undertook water resources surveys in the mid-1970s as
well as a complete land survey to determine the nature
of soil and prepare an extensive agricultural develop-
ment programme for the country.

8.2

Throughout history the Middle East and North Africa
has had major periods of military and civil strife, even
today localised and regional levels of armed conflict
continue. Under these conditions biological diversity
either thrives or is exterminated in various forms of
ecocide. On the one hand such instability leads towards
a low priority by the government to conserve areas
unless they have direct strategic value, on the other hand
by the very nature of any conflict areas being "set aside"
to form exclusion zones the wildlife can survive un-
disturbed as with the frontiers between two neighbour-
ing states. A supreme example of this last point is Gebel
Elba sandwiched between Egypt and Sudan. In many of
the countries of Arabia and North Africa precise coun-
try boundaries have yet to be defined. So that as between
Morocco and Algeria, Afghanistan and the former USSR
and Yemen/Saudi Arabia and Oman/Yemen, areas are
very rich in wildlife.

Armed conflict

Military conflict as in Afghanistan from 1979 on-
wards caused a breakdown in administration in many
areas of the country, depopulation and abandonment of
agricultural land, laying millions of land-mines through-
out the country, uncontrolled timber and wood use, and
hunting of wildlife. All protected areas were reported to
have been abandoned. In 1991, environmental consult-
ants for IUCN investigated environmental management
measures for Afghanistan. Only limited activities could
be recommended including the clearing of land mines
from selected key areas of natural forest, and that the
planning for the preservation of the remaining natural
forests should commence as soon as the security situ-
ation permitted.

Perhaps the most pronounced example of the impact
of armed conflict on the environment over the last
decade has been the wars involving Iraq. During the
Iran-Iraq war of the mid 1980s, marshlands were drained

North Africa and the Middle East

and chemical weapons were reportedly used. The 1990/
91 hostilities in the Kuwait/Iraq area had a significant
environmental impact. A number of designated conser-
vation areas were adversely affected in both Iraq and
Kuwait as well as bird sanctuaries and turtle nesting
beaches affected by oil slicks along the Saudi Arabian
coast. The burning of oil installations in Kuwait gener-
ated large smoke clouds which were reported to have
had significant local and downwind effects upon spe-
cies and habitats.

8.3 Site integrity
Since many protected areas in the North Africa and
Middle East are small or at the edge of their range or in

delicate ecosystems, they are particularly vulnerable to
damage.

One of the greatest concerns over protected area
maintenance is whether or not a sufficient sized area has
been incorporated, so as to ensure protection of the
whole environment—a land where rainfall may be so
intermittent that unless vast tracts of land are incor-
porated many of the species may not survive decades of
drought. A case in point is for the larger desert ungulates
which travel between favourable resources which may
be may hundreds of miles apart. In these cases the
ecological network or corridor system, as being grad-
ually applied in Europe, may be an option for the future.
Alternatives already being applied in the region include
the establishment of large areas which form ecological
units with a full range of resources (eg the Northern
Wildlife Management Zone (Saudi Arabia) at 15.2 mil-
lion ha, the Jiddat al Harasis (Oman) at 2.8 million ha
and Tassili N’ Ajjer (Algeria) at 8.0 million ha). How-
ever, at present across the region as a whole, more than
45% of protected areas are less than 1000ha. Given this
situation options must be looked at in the near future,
sO as to prevent complete habitat fragmentation and
widespread biodiversity loss.

The following examples indicate the range and scale
of the threats which have been identified in the region:

Water extraction. Lowering of the water table has af-
fected large parts of the desert regions of the Sahara and
Arabian Peninsula. For example, the Azraq wetland
reserve (Jordan) suffers from a lowered water-table.
Water extraction in river deltas, often for irrigated agri-
culture, threatens vital wetlands like the renown Nile
Delta protected areas such as Burulus Ramsar Site
(Egypt), the El Kala wetlands (Algeria), the Ichkeul NP
(Tunisia), Goksu Delta Special Protection Area (Turkey)
and Gala Golu/Evros Delta (Turkey/Greece). Specific pro-
jects funded or coordinated by international aid agen-
cies are also threatening the environment of the region.
Following completion of the Salam Peace Canal (Egypt),
for an irrigation project on the west bank of the Suez
canal, an extension will form the core of the North Sinai
Agricultural Development Project (NSADP) funded by
the World Bank which will irrigate 0.25 million feddan in

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

North Sinai, and may seriously damage the Bardawil
Ramsar site and surrounding natural habitats.

Agricultural and livestock grazing activities. Agri-
cultural exploitation originated in the region at the dawn
of history yet intensification and conversion of grazed
steppe and mountain pasture to ploughed arable fields
has been a threat to many arid and mountain refugia
particularly in the Atlas Steppe, Afghan mountains and
Iranian Highlands. Sheep, goat and camel free ranging
and farming is a problem in most national parks and
protected areas, with associated over-grazing, use of
vehicles and fencing.

Hunting. Many protected areas suffer from being
totally unable to regulate hunting. This is particularly
the case in Egypt, where BirdLife International esti-
mated that many million small birds may be shot each
year. Hunting is allowed in many sites such as those of
Turkey’s national parks. Ammiq (Lebanon) continues
to be under threat from widespread indiscriminate and
uncontrolled shooting of all migratory birds. Raptors
are particularly at threat, even though they are legally
protected. Estimates indicate that up to 15—20 million
birds are shot per year by some 500,000 hunters.

Military activities. _Anexample of a park threatened
by military activities and manoeuvres is the Negev
(Israel), where a large part of the desert is used for
military testing, including live firing. Other threatened
protected areas include Akamas (Cyprus) and sites in
Kuwait.

Forest damage. Legal and illegal felling causes dam-
age to many protected areas, especially in the
Mediterranean and Southwest Asia to Afghanistan.
Particularly threatened are the forest and scrub
national parks in Morocco and Algeria, Yedigoler
(Turkey) and woodland parks in Iran, Cyprus,
Syria and Lebanon. Forest fires are on the increase
in Mediterranean countries, partly because of the
increased susceptibility of conifer plantations to
fire.

Air pollution. Levels of air pollution in protected
areas are generally low except where in the vicinity to
major urban centres such as in Egypt and Turkey.
Protected areas in western Turkey suffer from acid rain
caused by emissions, principally local industrial sites
and car emissions. No details are available on trans-
boundary pollution.

Dam construction. Protected areas under threat from
the construction of sluices and dams include Massa NP
(Morocco) dammed beyond the bounds of the park, of
the Nile delta reserves (Egypt) which were seriously
affected by the construction of the Aswan dam and
Ichkeul NP (Tunisia) which is being affected by the
damming of its feeder rivers. The present damming of
the Tigris and Euphrates in Anatolia (Turkey) is re-
garded as having a major impact on the environment,
not only in Turkey itself but also in neighbouring Syria
and the Mesopotamian marshes (Iraq).

Tourism and development. Hotel and road-building
programmes have been immensely damaging, both in-
side and outside protected areas. This is, for example,
now the most serious threat to semi-natural areas in
southern and western Turkey, in Cyprus, Egypt, Morocco
and Tunisia.

Water pollution. Several vital Mediterranean coastal
parks are close to industrial plants; flamingoes in Tunisia
have been contaminated by heavy metals and other
chemicals. Oil slicks have caused catastrophes to coast-
al protected areas in the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf. In
Tunisia at Lac Tunis eutrophication caused by extensive
use of chemicals threatens aquatic life in the lake. In
North Africa the streams and rivers are under threat.

8.4 Science and protected areas

Scientific studies have been long been undertaken in the
region by the ancients of Egypt, Carthage, the Levant
and Asia Minor. For example, between 370 and 285BC
Theophrastus of Erosos was the first great botanical
writer of classical antiquity and his works on botany,
plant ecology and the environment were known through-
out Asia Minor. More recently Pedanios Dioscorides of
the first century AD, a native of Cilicia near present day
Adana (Tunisia), was renowned for his work on botany,
these were followed by renown Arab and Byzantine
scientists of great repute.

Perhaps one of the oldest scientific centres to under-
take research in protected areas, is the Institut Scienti-
fique Cherifien of Mohammed V University, Rabat
(renamed Institut Scientifique), commenced activities
in 1920. Itnow has six departments: zoology and animal
ecology, botany and vegetative ecology, geology, geog-
raphy, physics and satellite imagery (Beaubrun et
Thevenot, 1982). The Biological Institute (Israel) was
established in 1949 is concerned with botanical gardens
and zoos; the Institute for Nature Conservation Re-
search, established in 1974 as part of Tel-Aviv Uni-
versity, a body which undertakes research on the pro-
tection of birds of prey and larger mammals including
leopard.

More than 500 institutions and organizations have
been identified as working in the field of biodiversity in
North Africa, Middle East, and Southwest Asia
(Montague and Bruun, 1987). In each case scientific
academies, specialist desertification research centres, or
oceanographic institutes exist. The National Wildlife Re-
search Centre at Taif (Saudi Arabia) and the King Khalid
Wildlife Research Centre at Thumamah (Riyadh) under-
take ecological research, conservation surveys within
and outside protected areas, and reintroduction pro-
grammes. In some cases such as Assuit (Egypt) and
Omayed (Egypt) protected areas have actually been set
up specifically by institutes or universities for research
purposes. Many of the countries of the region have
forestry research stations such as at Rabat-Agdal
(Morocco) and Ankara Forestry Research Institute
(Turkey). Other research institutes which undertake

activities within protected areas include the Institut
National de la Recherche Agronomique (Morocco) and
National Zoological Park of Rabat (Morocco), with
priority for conservation and research on wildlife and
their bio- topes. Research in and adjacent to protected
areas has also been undertaken by various individuals
or groups attached to national or foreign universities.
Their work has included studies on threatened large
mammnals, threatened bird species, on flora, palaeotology,
palaeobotany, forestry, geology and on geography.

Many countries are compiling much-needed inven-
tories of species within their protected areas and in the
country as a whole. The results of such research should
be disseminated and made use of to help identify other
valuable habitats. Few mechanisms exist for making
sure that scientific findings are fed back to manage-
ment, thus enabling the results to be constructively
integrated into protected area policy. The problem is
due primarily to lack of communication between gov-
ernment institutions, management agencies and scien-
tists. There is also a tendency among visiting scientists
to use protected areas as a laboratory and to publish their
papers overseas.

8.5 Traditional de facto protection

De facto protection is quite widespread in the Region
and take a number of forms:

Traditional forms of protection continue to include a
limited number of ‘sacred groves’ and trees which are
still protected in Turkey, including at Harbiya near
Antakya, and traditional forms of rangeland protection
which were prevalent amongst the nomadic steppe and
mountain tribes (cf the Mahmeya of Syria and the Hema
protection of the Arabian Peninsula).

@ Existing hemas continue to be respected by local tra-
dition ("ourf") and are maintained under five types
where: a) animal grazing is prohibited; b) grazing
and/or cutting is permitted; c) grazing is allowed all
the year round; d) bee-keeping is undertaken; and
e) forests are protected.

The hema system and variants on it were widely
practised in and around the Arabian Peninsula. In Oman,
itis the practice of communal range control by villagers
of eastern oases, and there are other areas called
"hawtah" where hunting, cutting or grazing has been
proscribed. Similar social regulations governing range-
land have been recorded in Syria, locally named mahmia
or mara, and from the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Turkey
where they are referred to as koze (Draz, 1978; IUCN,
1992). In North Africa, traditional forms of protected
rangeland, common land or hereditary lands—called
aqdal, habous, or guich—had early origins among the
tribal systems. In Tunisia, range reserves called ghidal
or zenakah are found, and a tradition of "lineage reserves"
occurs among nomads of the eastern deserts of Egypt.
These are just a few examples of the many variations of

North Africa and the Middle East

the same communal land use theme (IUCN, 1992).
Community protection is also known to exist in Yemen.

To the present day in Yemen, a powerful social con-
science based on widespread acceptance of local
sheikhs’ values greatly facilitate protected areas admin-
istration and management. In many areas of the Yemen
sheikhs ban entry into certain areas. In some forest
protected areas fines levied against infringements.

Land and habitat conservation has long been in ex-
istence in Lebanon. Cedar forest protection has been
practised by local religious communities for many cen-
turies, and a number continue to be maintained, such as
the renowned Bshari Cedar Grove. Boundary stones, origi-
nating from the time of the Emperor Hadrian (138 AD), still
demarcate the ancient protected forest domain.

In Egypt, Mount Sinai is sacred to three monotheistic
religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; a site which
has subsequently been incorporated into the modern
protected areas network of the country.

Small scale examples of community protection may
be found in Tunisia. A private reserve, Rocher a Mérou,
has been established off the western coast by the Yacht-
ing Club of Tabarka, a site protected by voluntary
fishing bans in order to promote international diving
tourism in the area by ensuring that there is abundant
marine wildlife to be seen. Management includes con-
trolling entry into the area, and permitting foreign divers
to see the fish and feed them. Fishing is totally prohib-
ited in the area and closely regulated by the community
which works in close association with the Tunisian
Diving Club.

8.6 Public participation—people and

protected areas

Most of the land in the region is effectively owned and
managed by the State. This leaves little opportunity for
private organizations to own and manage protected
areas in a way that may enhance conservation of wild-
life and their habitats and next to no opportunities how
the land is managed.

Despite isolated examples of individual interest in
promoting and establishing protected areas such as in
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Lebanon, it remains a risky
and expensive investment for the private sector in the
absence of a comprehensive conservation plan for the
whole country. Non-governmental bodies hardly ever
feature in protected areas management of the region,
exceptions being Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Israel and
Lebanon. The SPNI of Israel is perhaps the largest
non-political voluntary organization in the region, with
over 700,000 members and a network of 25 field study
centres, nature tours and community education projects.
In Jordan, the Royal Society for the Conservation of
Nature supervises and enforces many laws that are
directly related to the conservation of nature, such as
the enforcement of the hunting law. Following the

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Royal proclamation of protected areas, it has been es-
tablishing sites for wildlife conservation, undertaking
activities including the reintroduction of globally en-
dangered and locally extinct species to their natural
habitat, and protecting old buildings, and sites that are
considered part of the national heritage. In Lebanon a
number of privately-owned nature reserves have been
established in the past including Khallet Khazem Farm
and Natural Reserve, which had been protected for at
least the last 50 years. Currently, the Society for the
Protection of Nature in Lebanon is very active in recom-
mending sites for future protection.

Hunting associations have long been involved in pro-
tected area management throughout the region, most
notably in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Iran and
Afghanistan to name but a few. In the case of Tunisia
they are largely under the auspices of the Federation of
Regional Hunting Associations (Fédération des Asso-
ciations Régionales de Chasse). Given the remit of
managing private hunting reserves for wildlife further
investigations ought be undertaken to realise the exact
contribution such areas make to the overall protected
areas system in the region.

8.7 Habitat restoration and species

re-introduction

The present preponderance of steppe reflects the degra-
dation of the environment over millenia by grazing,
browsing and cutting of wood. Rangeland, on which the
majority of North Africans and Arabians depend di-
rectly or indirectly, has been degraded and misused. In
more arid regions, dry land farming has exhausted soils
which has led to erosion.

With the realization that activities such as overgraz-
ing has destroyed or seriously damaged habitats there
is some attempt across the region to rectify the situation,
through active tree and shrub planting, fencing of habitats
and re-introduction of extirpated species. Case study
examples include Bou Hedma NP (Tunisia), Hai Bar
(Israel), Shaumari R (Jordan), Jiddat al Harrasis (Oman),
Takerkhort (Morocco), Omayed (Egypt) and Harrat al
Harrah NR (Saudi Arabia) on the Jordan frontier.

Re-introduction programmes for globally endan-
gered species have been started in many of the countries
of the region. Examples of successful re-introduction
programmes into protected areas include Libya, Algeria,
Jordan, Israel, Tunisia, Turkey, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In
Tunisia it was initiated by the Direction des Foréts
(species include scimitar-horned oryx, ostrich, addax,
Barbary sheep and Barbary stag). In Oman, on-the-
ground projects were initially aimed at specific, high
profile species, commencing with Arabian Tahr in 1976,
four species of marine turtle from 1977 and on the
reintroduction of Arabian oryx from 1978. "Operation
Oryx" was organized by a group of international wild-
life organizations to capture some of the remaining wild
oryx in Arabia in 1972, and send them to the US to
establish a captive breeding herd. By 1980 preparations

were underway to bring some of them back to Arabia.
The site chosen for their reintroduction was a distinct
ecological unit of about 25,000 sq km at the eastem side
of the Jiddat-al-Harasis and animals were introduced in
the early 1980s. Similar efforts are taking place in Saudi
Arabia and Jordan.

8.8 International tourism

In many of the countries of North Africa and the Middle
East tourism is next to non-existent. However around
the Mediterranean visitors are an enormous potential
source of wealth for the protected areas system with
billions of visitors per year. In Tunisia for example,
tourism plays an important part in the national econ-
omy, representing TD 68.7 m in 1977 rising to TD855
m by 1989 with 3.2 million tourists. The intention of the
Ministry of Agriculture has long been to expand interest
in ecotourism in its national parks. Three ecomuseums
have been constructed, and the first in Ichkeul was
opened in 1989. Visitors to Ichkeul NP number 20,000
annually and an average of 4,000 tourists visit the other
parks each year. In Turkey during the 1960s the num-
bers of visitors to national parks approached 500,000;
by 1985 about 10 million visitors made use of the
national parks. Forest recreation areas are established
for touristic, cultural and public recreational purposes
and by 1987 there were 30 million visitors to these
areas. In Israel national and international tourism is of
major importance to the region, with up to 1.65 million
visitors in 1988. Visitors are catered for at many of the
nature reserves and national parks, indeed in the legis-
lation for national parks they are described as being
"first and foremost intended for the enjoyment of the
visitor". Well over 200,000 visitors per year visit En
Gedi. Ecotourism is a major element of the activities
organised by SPNI and associated tourist companies.

Some natural areas in Egypt are becoming major
tourist attractions. In 1989, 30,000 tourists visited Mount
Sinai/St. Catherine’s Conservation Area and 60,000
visited Ras Mohammed Natural Park. The figure for St.
Catherine’s may rise to 565,000 if plans are followed
for development of the area, and whereas current reve-
nue is US$25,000 at Ras Mohammed, that is expected
to rise to US$313,000 as proposed plans are imple-
mented into effect. Conservationists are concerned that
intensive development in these areas, to accommodate
the increased tourist load, could seriously affect and
possibly destroy the fragile ecosystems of those areas
(Mishinski, 1989).

Out of the Mediterranean, international tourism is
variable and even banned from certain countries of
Arabia and Southwest Asia. Tourism is gradually de-
veloping in the Yemen, with an estimated 43,500 entries
in 1986-7. There are proposals to incorporate nature
conservation and ecotourism into future tourism pro-
grammes. Since 1990 the Ministry of Tourism has been
involved in developing plans for landscape protection
and is currently investigating potential activities in the

Bura region. Other nature protection initiatives are be-
ing undertaken by a private company in the Al Zuhrah
coastal area.

9. Priorities for action in the region

@ Reevaluate all development plans, past and present,
in light of conservation needs, stressing to all con-
cerned the enormous costs that will be incurred if
conservation of the environment is not integrated in
national development. No development project should
be implemented unless a proper environmental im-
pact assessment is first carried out.

@ Develop more flexible concepts for protected area
management are needed such as those that integrate
conservation, traditional land use and development.
Rigid plans that only contain restrictions and prohi-
bitions should be avoided.

@ Develop ways to protect areas outside the standard
protected areas in each country through appropriate
zoning to discourage the over-exploitation of certain
sensitive areas.

@ Refrain from using protected areas for military ex-
ercises which harm the environment, and where
such activities are inevitable, then appropriate safe-
guards should be adopted to protect the natural
resources.

@ Participate in international activities that encourage
greater involvement, networking and cooperation.
This would allow the region to exercise a greater
influence over the global growth of conservation

North Africa and the Middle East

and the maturation of the profession of protected
area managers, scientists and experts in the region.

@ Launch an urgent campaign to enhance environ-
mental awareness throughout the region. Otherwise
the average person will continue to regard conser-
vation as a costly luxury, thereby giving political
leaders the excuse to continue ignoring these issues.
Local information media, especially television, should
be required to highlight the need to conserve wild-
life species and their habitat, expose threatening
environmental problems and suggest solutions where
possible.

@ Strengthen the role of NGOs in achieving citizen
participation through mobilizing the public to assist
in fulfilling conservation goals.

@ Protected area agencies should focus on local people
as agents of conservation by encouraging and train-
ing them to benefit from their resources without
destroying them. As participants they can make the
difference between the success or failure of most
conservation projects.

It is further recommended that all relevant documents
including the North Africa and Middle East section of
Protected Areas of the World: a review of national
systems (IUCN, 1992) be translated to Arabic, and other
appropriate languages. This would provide an impor-
tant learning experience for everyone involved with
protected areas in the region. Copies should be made
available to decision makers, policy make all individuals
involved with protected areas, universities and libraries.

Acknowledgements

In October 1991 the informal gathering of CNPPA
members from North Africa and the Middle East in
collaboration with the MAB meeting on Mediterranean
Biosphere Reserves (Tunis, Tunisia) provided a good
opportunity to produce the first draft of this paper with
the valuable assistance of Mustapha Saheh and Graham
Drucker. That version was tabled and discussed at
Caracas. Subsequently the International Park Docu-
mentation Centre (CEDIP), Sicilian Regional Authori-
ties, NCWCD, IUCN Secretariat and WCMC organised
the 38th CNPPA Working Session, a North Africa and
Middle East forum at Etna Regional Park, Sicily in
October 1992, providing a valuable opportunity to re-
view the draft paper. A subsequent updating of the
document was kindly prepared by Faisal A. Dean on
behalf of the region.

In particular the authors would like to thank the
following who contributed so much to the success of the
regional activities: particular thanks to the organiser of
the third Mediterranean Biosphere Reunion, to
Mohammed Skouri and Jane Robertson of UNESCO.
For the CNPPA 38th Working Session, firstly to Bino li
Calsi and Franco Russo of Etna Regional Park, Nunzio
Spam Spinosato, Major of Nicolosia, Dr Burtone of
the Ministry of Environment, Prof Campione of the
Regione Siciliana and to Giovanni Valdre and his col-
leagues of the International Park Documentation Centre
(CEDIP). Thanks also go to Jeff McNeely, Danny
Elder, Laura Battlebury, Caitlin Williams, Frances
Parakatil, Caroline Martinet, Sue Rallo, Justin Mundy,
Alain Jeudy de Grissac and Mike Evans.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

References

Abdel-Noor, L., Al-Khoshman, M.A., Mirkarimi,
R. and Picardi, A.P. 1991. Environmental conse-
quences of the war and the impact on Iraqi civilians.
Harvard Commission on Civilian Casualties. 39 pp.

Abuzinada, A.H., Child, G. and Grainger, J. 1992. The
Approach to Planning and Initiating a System of
Protected Areas in Saudi Arabia. NCWCD, Riyadh.

Alsidrawi, F. 1992. The Negative Impact of The Iraqi
Invasion on Kuwait's Protected Areas. Kuwait
Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait.

Batisse, M. and Jeudy de Grissac, A. c.199]. Marine
Protected Areas in the Mediterranean and the Black
Sea: Past, present status and perspective. Report
prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. 23 pp.

Bates, P.J.J. 1991. Mountain refugia in Southern Arabia:
their zoogeographical significance and special im-
portance for conservation. In McNeely, J.A and
Neronov, V.M. (Eds.). Mammals in the Palaearctic
Desert: Status and trends in the Sahara-Gobian
region. The Russian Committee for the Unesco
Programme on Man and Biosphere. pp. 209-218.

Bayer, M.Z., Istanbul, T. and Akesen, A. 1991. National
Parks and Protected Areas in Turkey. Manuscript.

Bel Hadj Kacem, S. 1991. Liste des parcs nationaux et
aires protegees Tunisie 1991. Direction Generale
des Foréts, Ministere de 1’ Agriculture, Tunis.

Carp, E. 1980. Directory of Western Palaearctic Wet-
lands. \UCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Child, G and Grainger J. 1990. A system plan for pro-
tected areas for wildlife conservation and sustain-
able rural development in Saudi Arabia. NCWCD,
Riyadh. 389pp.

Clarke, J.E., al-Lamki, F.M.S., Anderlini, V.C. and
Shepperd, C.R.C. 1986. Proposals for a system of
nature conservation areas in the Sultanate of Oman.
Prepared by the International Union for Conserva-
tion of Nature and Natural Resources for the Diwan
of Royal Court, Sultanate of Oman. 368 pp.

Dean, F.A. 1993. Arab Sheiks—Hunters and Conserva-
tionists. Landscape International. 3(1). College Park,
Maryland. :

Draz, O. 1978. Revival of the "Hima" System of Range
Reserves as a Basis for the Syrian Range Develope-
ment Programme. Proc. 1st International Range Con-
gress. Denver, Colorado.

Draz, O. 1985. The hema system of range reserves in
the Arabian Peninsula, its possibilities in range im-
provement and conservation projects in the Near
East. Pp 109-121. In: McNeely, J.A. and Pitt, D.
(eds.), Culture and conservation: the human dimen-
sion in environmental planning. Croom Helm, London.
308pp.

Duvall, L. 1988. The status of biological resources in
Morocco, constraints, and options for conserving
biological diversity. USA, Washington, DC.

Eaux et Foréts. 1991. Rapport sur les aires protegees
au Maroc. Paper presented at the First IUCN-
CNPPA Workshop on protected Areas in the North

Africa-Middle East Region, 14-19 October 1991,
Tunis.

Eckholm, E.P. 1976. Losing Ground. W.W. Norton and
Co. Inc. New York.

Evans, M. 1993. Important Bird Areas in the Middle
East. Newsletter No. 1. 1CBP. Cambridge, UK.
Firouz, E., Hassinger, J.D. and Fergusson, D.A. 1970.
The wildlife parks and protected areas of Iran. Bio-

logical Conservation 3(1):37-4S.

General Directorate of Forestry. 1987. Forestry in Turkey.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Rural Affairs.
Ankara.

Grainger, J. and Llewellyn, O. 1992. Sustainable Use:
Lessons from a Cultural Tradition in Saudi Arabia.
NCWCD, Riyadh.

Green, M.J.B and Drucker, G.R.F. 1991. Current Status
of Protected Areas and Threatened Mammal Spe-
cies in the Sahara-Gobian Region. In McNeely, J.A
and Neronov, V.M. (Eds.) Mammals in the
Palaearctic Desert: Status and trends in the Sahara-
Gobian region. The Russian Committee for the
Unesco Programme on Man and Biosphere.
pp. 5-69.

Haddane, B. 1992. National Parks and Protected Areas
in North Africa. Strategy, Management and Eco-
nomic Aspects. Rabat, Morocco.

Harrington, F.A. 1975. Iran: Surveys of the Southern
Iranian coast line with recommendations for addi-
tional marine reserves. [UCN Publications New
Series No. 35.

IUCN. 1992. Protected Areas of the World: a review of
national systems. Volume 2: Palaearctic. Prepared
by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK 556 pp.

Jungius, H. 1987. The establishment of national parks
and protected areas in the arid zone: a contribution
to conservation and recreational utilization of natu-
ral resources. First symposium on the potential of
wildlife conservation in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, 15—
18 February 1987. National Commission for Wild-
life Conservation and Development. 1 1pp.

McNeely, J.A. and Miller, K.R. 1984. National Parks,
Conservation and Development: The role of pro-
tected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian
Institution Press. Washington, DC. 838pp.

Miller, A.G. and Nyberg, J.A. 1991. Pattern of ende-
mism in Arabia. Flora et Vegetatio Mundi IX: 264—
278.

Mishinski, J. 1989. A drop in the Ocean. Cairo Today.
June. pp. 38-40.

Porat, M. and Agasi, V. 1992. Protected Areas in Israel.
NRA and SPNI, Israel. pp. 17.

Posner, S. 1988. Biological diversity and tropical
forests in Tunisia. USAID, Washington, DC.

Ramade, F., 1984. Keynote Address: The Palaearctic
Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (Eds.),
National Parks, Conservation and Development:
The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC,
USA. 418-425

Ramade, F., 1990. Conservation des Ecosystémes
Meéditerranéens: Enjeuxet perspectives. Les Fascicules
du Plan Bleu 3. Economica, Paris. 144 pp.

Ramsar Convention Bureau. 1987. Conference re-
port, Third Meeting of the Conference of the con-
tracting parties. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada,
27 May-S June.

Sagi, Y. 1992. Protection of Open Space Landscape in
Areas Exposed to Massive Development Pressure.
SPNI, Israel.

Segnestam, M. 1984. Future Directions for the Western
Palaearctic Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller
(Eds), National Parks, Conservation and Development:
The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society.

North Africa and the Middle East

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC,
USA. 486-490

Stanley-Price, M.R. 1986. The reintroduction of the
Arabian oryx into Oman. /nternational Zoo Year-
book 1986. No. 24/25: 179-188.

Sulayem, M.S.A. 1991. Regional Review: North Africal
Middle East. Draft 1UCN-CNPPA. Gland, Switzer-
land.

Tavakoli, E. 1987. Iran environment. Jran Almanak.
44-48.

UNEP/IUCN (1988). Coral reefs of the world. Volume
2: Indian Ocean, Red Sea and Gulf. UNEP Regional
Seas Directories and Bibliographies. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. [Prepared for UNEP/
IUCN by WCMC]

P~.
ry
Lae
hie
wip

‘
=A.
a
|

Europe

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

seaie pe}oej}0id payeubisap Ajje6a; uiyyiM papnjou! Asjunod jo aHejusdieq «=~dew

%OZ UY} o10/

Z0E—-G1L

102

2S1—-Ol
ZOL-S
%2S—L'0

%1°Q UDY} Ssseq Ee

peyoejoid abpjusacseg

Contents

Page
ae Historical perspective) cic ishesr. sec Gee sels OR OS Si ee 105
2. Current protected areacoverage......................005. 105
male ON CIVICWE mete ey Oi ial ie aie h eRe Sk pres ey eee eee nee On eta ea ee 105
DMN lacksolsystemi plans rsh or eM. ©... . 18 eg ek Aa ea at ee a 107
2S mesliheity pesiotprotectedsateaS wioe-mod-) =) « che) Gus obeLS Ol neo nee Re 109
2.4 Protected landscapes (Category V): A European specialty. ............ 110
Dee Matine;protectediareaSims. sts oem. 2. = v cueieai eee ticles) teeter nets er PS 111

2.6 Other mechanisms to protect conservation sites: The link to regional
Plannin Ge Meester cso, shy a, Sass, 6 Ae (oS deat emote ok aE ie eRe 111
2.7 Evaluating the effectiveness of the protected areas ................ 112
3. Additional protected areas required ........................ 113
4. Protected areainstitutions ..........................0.. 114
Asie Decentralization sce PSA Ss... SE AR ei ee ee 115
AD) IN Sons olinele7/Kedes so ge bib a blob oe bode oho 65 oe eo bo u © 115
5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 115
6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 116
GuldemS taftinpiofyprotectediareass mum suwi i) km ene icnran al Re Cn 116
6.2 Training opportunities andneeds.............---2055---04, 116
7. Major protected area issues intheregion .................... 116
7.1 Pressures on protected areas ... 2... 25.2522 eee ee ee ee te eee 116
po eee SPeCial(GASe Ol tOUNISHIt emits acer eee) 0 ea en on mee 119
7.3 Coping with change in Eastern and Central Europe ........-..------ 120
7.4 Benefiting from a surplus of farmland ........+---.---++--+-+-+-+--- 121
7.5 Creating a peace dividend forconservation .......-.----++-+-++--- 121
7.6 The value of frontier and transboundary parks................2-..- 121

103

8. Initiatives between European countries ..................... 127
851 | The|European’Community =) 55-202) set ee ee 127
8.2 Other agreements and organizations at European level .............. 127
9. Priorities for actionintheregion ......................... 129
Acknowledgements... 25 cece ees; cee Les Raeey2 toane) Ate 131
Reterences 95 2. 6. cade tae ee «ot SS, cs ns Gu 131
Tables
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system ..................0. 106
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories ............. 109
Table 3. The development of the protected areassystem............... 114
Table 4. | Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 117
Table 4a. Adherence by European countries to regional treaties relevant to
protectedianeaSey. tay sites oe Sere os wks woos be aos See 118
ilable‘5}) a) World Heritage/sites;invEUrope) ee ) Se 120
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 122
Table 7. Protected areas in Europe created from 1982 to 1991 ............ 126
Table 8. | Comparison for selected countries in Europe of protected areas
eligible and not eligible forthe UN List ................. 128
Figures
Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected
ATC AS Eos hagae fern se, th vo ge ei ae a eae 102
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 108
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 108

104

Europe

Presented by Hans Bibelriether, Regional Vice-Chair for Europe,
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. Prepared by
Hugh Synge, IUCN Consultant, under the direction of Hans Bibelriether

1. Historical perspective

In the past ten years, Europe has experienced political
changes as dramatic as those anywhere in the world.
The collapse of the Communist regimes in Eastern and
Central Europe and with it the closing of the east-west
divide, the re-emergence of the forces of nationalism in
parts of former Communist Europe, and the greater
integration of the European Community (EC) are pro-
found events in Europe’s history.

The decade since the 1982 World Parks Congress in
Bali was also remarkable in another way: at the end of
the 1980s, environmental issues suddenly rose to the top
or near the top of the political agenda in most European
countries. Despite economic recession, they are likely
to stay there during the 1990s.

Europe has remarkable diversity, not just of nature,
but of civilizations, cultures and languages, reflecting
its long and complicated history. Europe is the cradle of
western civilization and the birthplace of science, but it
has also probably experienced more wars than any other
continent.

To an ecologist, much of Europe is a young continent.
North of the Alps, its present ecosystems developed
only after the retreat of the ice sheets some 10,000 years
ago. Nevertheless, there is great diversity in Europe’s
natural heritage, varying from the arctic tundra to the
evergreen oak forests of the Mediterranean. Europe has
spectacular mountains—Mont Blanc, the highest moun-
tain in Europe; Mt Etna, the largest active volcano in
Europe; and Mt Olympus, the national park with the
most vascular plant species in Europe. The region con-
tains outstanding wetlands, such as Cota Dofiana in
Spain, the Danube Delta on the Black Sea and the
Sjaunja mire complex in Sweden. And it contains valu-
able forests such as the Bohemian and Bavarian Forest
in Austria, Czech Republic and Germany. Its coastline
is complex, with numerous inland seas and islands.

However, Europe’s naturally diverse vegetation has
been profoundly influenced by human activity. Today,
the only extensive areas of vegetation that are essen-
tially unaltered by human impact are some areas of

105

arctic vegetation, parts of the Scandinavian coniferous
forest, and some broadleaf forest in SE Europe, notably
in Bulgaria and parts of former Yugoslavia. Elsewhere,
unaltered vegetation is found only on mountain tops
above the tree line, in some wetland areas, in isolated
patches of woodland and on some parts of the coast.

In Europe the most significant changes to vegetation
and landscape occurred thousands of years ago. For the
most part, they led to a varied and biologically diverse
continent, in many areas increasing biological diversity,
at least on the local scale. However, in the past 50 years
or so, there has been a steady degradation in much of
this rich landscape. In Northern Europe, notably in parts
of eastern England, northern France, Belgium, Nether-
lands and N Germany, mechanized agriculture has re-
duced the rich patchwork quilt of woodlands, hedges
and small fields to an agro-industrial prairie largely
devoid of wildlife. In much of Scandinavia and the
Baltic States, drainage has spared only remnants of the
previously extensive marsh forests. In southern Europe,
the massive expansion of tourism is causing great dam-
age to the fragile Mediterranean coast. Large amounts
of EC regional aid in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece—
now boosted to US$76 billion over 5 years— continue
to bring environmental damage.

As a result much of Europe’s natural heritage has
been devastated. For example, in Britain and the Nether-
lands, only 4 per cent of lowland raised bogs remain
undamaged. In Italy, three-quarters of the wetlands
have disappeared since 1900 and in Greece half since
the 1960s. In Finland, despite a forested landscape, only
fragments of the old forest survive. Similar examples
could be found for most other European countries.

2. Current protected area
coverage

2.1 Overview

Europe has had protected areas for centuries, for exam-
ple as royal hunting reserves or as forest reserves. Since
the first part of the 19th Century, small areas or even
single features such as trees and rocks have been declared

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

as protected. However, the national park concept emerged
later in Europe than in many other parts of the world.
The first national parks were set up in the early years of
this century and progress was slow. Some countries
started their protected areas systems even later—Portugal,
for example, only about 20 years ago.

Despite this late start, there is today an extraordinary
diversity of approaches to the conservation of nature
across Europe from one country to another. This reflects
a diversity in geography, history, law and political sys-
tems. The protected area systems in Europe are also very
complicated, with many different forms of designation.

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Europe

Area in
Categories I-V

Country

Area of Region

28,750
465
83,855
30,520
110,910
127,870
43,075
45,100
1,399
337,030
543,965
356,840

Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Estonia

Faeroe Is
Finland

France

131,985
93,030
102,820
68,895
301,245
63,700
160
65,200
2,585
316

Netherlands
Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

San Marino

Spain

Svalbard-Jan Mayen
Sweden

Switzerland

Vatican City
Yugoslavia (Former) 255,805

5,858,166 524,281

Notes:

Total area
designated

Area in Categories
VI-VIII and UA

oo nN i]
comooorcocec°o

-
nN
oSS
an

= Ww
oe
oo oofo

800,845

Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the

Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a
nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine
components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage

COVET.

Note:
former Yugoslavia.

106

This table was prepared by WCMC prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and the changes in

Since the Third World Parks Congress in 1982, Europe’s
protected area estate has grown rapidly. In some cases,
the new protected areas have been the result of imple-
menting long-standing plans, as in Scandinavia. In others
they have come about through political upheaval, for
example:

@ As the last agenda item of its last session, in
September 1990, the former East German parlia-
ment, a freely elected assembly, created 5 new

national parks and 3 nature reserves;

The day after the collapse of Ceausescu regime in
Romania, the government declared 11 new national
parks, fulfilling a proposal that conservationists had
been promoting for 20 years.

Although the period 1972-1982 witnessed the great-
est rate of growth in the protected areas network (see
Table 3), Table 7 shows that in the last ten years nearly
10 million ha have been added to the protected area
estate, an area larger than Hungary (Heiss, 1991). The
area of national parks has increased 50% in the same
period, with over 50,000ha created each in Austria,
Bulgaria, former Czechoslovakia, Finland, Germany,
Norway, Romania and former Yugoslavia. Before 1982,
two-thirds of the national parks were in mountains at
high or middle elevations, and only a sixth in coastal
areas. Of the areas created since 1982, about half are
montane and half are lowland (though 81 per cent of the
lowland areas created are in one country, Germany). In
contrast, along the much threatened Mediterranean coast-
line, only two new areas have been created, covering
only 14,375ha.

On other protected areas, predominantly nature re-
serves, Table 7 is likely to underestimate the gains since
most countries have reported only their larger areas.
Some gains are most encouraging: Sweden, for exam-
ple, has doubled the size of its nature reserves, from
846,000 to 1,910,000ha.

Table 1 summarizes the current protected areas in all
categories, including the multiple use areas, whilst
Table 2 shows the relative occurence of protected areas
in IUCN Management Categories I-V; in particular,
data in Table 2 underscores the importance of Category V
in the European context. The map shows the percentage
of each country included within protected areas that
meet these same criteria. These data are based on the
best information available to the WCMC Protected
Areas Data Unit, but the situation in some countries, e.g.
Germany, is so complex that the figures are not fully
comprehensive.

Moreover, the areas on the UN List are only part of
the protected area estate in Europe. Many other pro-
tected areas do not qualify for the UN List, either because
they are less than 1000ha in size (some examples of
these areas are given in Table 8) or because they are
owned by non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
For example, in Switzerland NGOs own 520 nature
reserves covering 80,000ha, and in the Flemish region

107

Europe

of Belgium, nearly 65 per cent of reserves are not owned
by the state.

In total, sites excluded from the UN List add up to an
extensive area; for example 30-40 per cent of the pro-
tected areas in the Netherlands (by area) are not on the
UN List. Excluded areas are often important sites for
threatened species and habitats, as in the 2,000 County
Trust nature reserves in the United Kingdom.

Extrapolating from these figures leads to an estimate
of 10,000-20,000 protected areas in Europe, of which
about 2200 are on the UN List. The growth of protected
areas in Europe is graphically shown in Figures 1 and 2,
both non-cumulatively and cumulatively, respectively.

2.2 Alack of system plans

Countries in Western and Southern Europe have tended
not to prepare system plans for developing their pro-
tected areas, although some have prepared detailed
assessments of sites important for nature conservation.
In contrast, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Po-
land, Slovakia and the Baltic States have good system
plans.

Some of the best examples of the systems approach
are in Scandinavia. Furthest advanced in implementa-
tion is Finland, where 13 of its planned 19 national parks
have already been established. In Norway, a systematic
conservation programme for natural habitats began in
the 1970s. Sweden published a nature conservation plan
in 1991 (Naturvardsverket, 1991), under which it plans
to increase its national parks to cover about 5 per cent
of the country.

Most of the rest of Europe does not have extensive
tracts of natural vegetation from which large areas can
be selected for protection. System plans may therefore
need to contain proposals for the protection of large
numbers of small areas.

Especially in areas of predominantly altered ecosys-
tems, conservationists also need to think more of eco-
logical networks than of individual nature reserves. The
Netherlands, based on its great experience in creating
and in recreating terrestrial habitats, is planning a com-
prehensive national ecological network across the country,
with corridors connecting one protected area to another
(Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fish-
eries, 1990). In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, ecolo-
gists have been planning a similar system over the past
ten years, comprising both natural and landscape areas
as a Territorial System of Ecological Stability.

To promote the idea of corridors and networks more
widely, the Netherlands Government commissioned the
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) to
prepare a proposal on this theme. Their report proposes
the concept of a European ecological network (EECONET)
in which the most important sites for each habitat type
are conserved, and where the sites are linked by corri-
dors to permit dispersal of species (Bennett, 1991).

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)
500

Number of sites

400

300

200

100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)
2,500

Number of sites

2,000 Area (x1 O00sqkm)

1,500

1,000

500

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

108

2.3. The types of protected areas

Table 2 shows that the main types of protected areas
used in Europe are Category II (often called national
parks), Category IV (managed nature reserves) and
Category V (protected landscapes). However, it has not
been easy to apply the CNPPA categories, in particular
to make the distinction between Category II and Cate-
gory V. In fact protected landscapes account for over
half of the protected area estate, at least that included

Europe

on the UN List, reflecting in part the much greater
difficulty of establishing a nature reserve than a pro-
tected landscape, and in part the fact that protected
landscapes are inherently extensive. The predominance
of protected landscapes, especially in Austria, France,
Germany, Poland and UK, means that any figures for
the proportion of a European country that is in protected
areas can be deeply misleading unless it separates pro-
tected landscapes from areas protected primarily for
nature.

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Europe

Albania
Andorra
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia

iS)

kml nrAhrunsl] & |
tedlrnnil

1
5
1
8
5
3
4
6
1

Lolreawil

Svalbard-Jan Mayen
Sweden

Switzerland

Vatican City -
Yugoslavia (Former) 7

[Ieitlni

166 117,387

= 3,526
3,259 16,094
20,269 22,417
4,163 5,5 98
3,637 10,886

18,069 35,044

34,910

2,935 29,605
4,679 7,529
45,019 46,355

2,364 7,878
1206

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
Note: This table was prepared by WCMC prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and the changes in former

Yugoslavia.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

National parks in Category II and nature reserves in
Category I are usually the best way to protect wilderness
areas. In addition to the extensive natural forests in
Scandinavia, other parts of Europe still have areas of
wilderness left, such as in the mountains of southern
Europe. Reflecting this, Bulgaria, Finland and Norway
all have a high proportion of Category I areas. In con-
trast, countries such as Germany, Netherlands and UK,
with little semi-natural vegetation left, tend to have
large numbers of small reserves and large areas of
protected landscapes, with few if any large Category I
or II sites.

The management and protection of most Category II
areas in Europe is far from adequate. A recent report for
the European Commission found that only about 10 per
cent of the 200 protected areas in Western Europe which
call themselves "national parks" truly attain the objec-
tives for Category II areas as set by IUCN (Heiss, 1988).
In Scandinavian national parks, for example, hunting is
usually permitted. In Central and Southern Europe,
cutting of natural forests for timber is common, and
some parks are being planted with exotic timber spe-
cies. Over-grazing is also a major problem, especially
in Mediterranean countries.

Some of the 200 "national parks" may be Category V
protected landscapes (as in UK, for example) and others
may need forms of traditional management to retain
their biological diversity. But these are in the minority.
The author of the EC Report, Heiss, believes that about
two-thirds of the national parks could, and should, be
managed to fulfil the objectives of Category II areas.
Clearly great improvements are needed.

The second main type of protected area used in Europe
is the managed nature reserve (Category IV). Manage-
mentis needed to maintain the biodiversity of these sites
in Europe, for two main reasons. First, most ecosystems
in Europe are greatly changed from their original con-
dition; very often, human intervention has increased
biodiversity by extending the amount of "edge" or tran-
sition areas between plant communities. Second, many
of the previous herbivores or carnivores are absent, and
their effect has to be substituted.

Habitats like heathlands, nature’s response to cutting
and grazing in forests on the poor soils in parts of
northern Europe, need grazing, cutting and even bum-
ing to maintain their structure and floristic composition.
Grasslands depend on grazing for their survival. Reed
beds need regular cutting for thatch to prevent succes-
sion to woodland.

In each of these habitats, for centuries the traditional
land management arrested the natural succession. As
these forms of land use become no longer economic, the
modern protected area manager has to mimic the tradi-
tional land use by mowing, grazing, cutting or burning.
The justification for doing so is to maintain the habitat
because it is in danger of disappearing (e.g. heathland),
because it is more species-rich than that which would

110

replace it (e.g. alpine meadows), or because it is the
habitat of a rare specics (e.g. bittern in reed beds).

In other cases the manager may wish to allow succes-
sion. Even here, some management is often needed. For
example, almost throughout Europe, deer populations
are so high that forests are unable to regenerate without
some culling of deer. The manager here is fulfilling the
ecological role of the absent wolf, lynx and bear. In
other cases, the manager may deviate the succession,
for example by removing introduced trees to prevent
them from seeding. The point is that the manager has to
choose.

In many cases Category IV reserves can be greatly
improved by management, creating ecosystems of high
interest and restoring values which have been lost.
Indeed, some wildlife-rich habitats have been entirely
created by human effort; in the Netherlands, for exam-
ple, the Oostvaardesplassen nature reserve was created
from the sea as part of the reclamation of polders and is
now an outstanding wetland for birds.

2.4 Protected landscapes (Category V):
A European specialty

As a consequence of the long history of human settle-
ment over much of Europe’s countryside, many areas
contain outstanding landscapes fashioned by people but
in harmony with nature. In such areas, the local com-
munities have evolved over the centuries a balance with
the natural world based upon traditional patterns of land
use. This has resulted in a subtle blend of natural and
cultural elements, exemplified by areas as diverse as the
hills of Tuscany, the Cotswolds in UK and the Hungar-
ian puzsta. These landscapes, which express the historic
as well as the natural qualities of the continent, are one
of Europe’s most distinctive features.

Many of them are now protected. Particularly well
developed are the 11 national parks of England and
Wales (as outlined by Poore, 1992). These Category V
areas cover nearly 10 per cent of England and Wales,
are home to nearly 250,000 people, and have an annual
budget of around US$70 million. The great value of
protected landscapes, as recognized in the Lake District
Declaration of 1987 (Anon, 1987), is that they provide
models of sustainable living in harmony with nature,
albeit usually at relatively low population densities.
They are also vital "green lungs" for recreation, ata time
when most Europeans live in cities.

However, many protected landscapes provide little
more than paper protection. For example, nature parks
in Germany have no administration, no money, very
small staffs and no legal status. Many were created by
municipalities primarily to attract tourists, and contrib-
ute little to conservation of nature or landscape. It is
arguable that many of the nature parks, regional parks
and regional nature parks in Europe are not genuine
Category V protected areas at all, since they do not fulfil
the objectives of that designation.

Most protected landscapes were first set up primarily
to conserve scenery rather than nature, and the degree
of nature conservation varies greatly from one to an-
other. While parts of some protected landscapes are run
on lines comparable to Category II or IV areas, even in
the well-run protected landscapes only a small part of
the budget and effort is specifically for conservation of
nature.

Protected landscapes are important and reflect well
the needs of Europe’s rich landscape heritage, but there
is a danger of paper designations that offer no real
additional protection. An upgrading of the approach is
required, together with a deeper commitment to nature
conservation in the existing protected landscapes. The
development of some Europe-wide agreement or stand-
ards to reinforce national efforts would be useful; at
present several linked initiatives, including one of the
Council of Europe, are considering such an agreement.

2.5

The great length of Europe’s coastline, and its diversity
of coastal ecosystems, means that marine protected
areas are particularly important in Europe. For marine
purposes, CNPPA divides Europe into three: the Baltic
Sea, the North East Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The
account below summarizes reports prepared for the
Caracas Congress on the Baltic (Esping and Grénqvist,
1991), on the North East Atlantic (Gubbay) and on the
Mediterranean (Batisse and de Grissac).

Marine protected areas

The Baltic is one of the world’s smallest seas. It is
almost entirely cut off from the open ocean and contains
archipelagos of great natural interest. Esping and Grén-
qvist divide it into 9 regions, and list 46 existing and 16
proposed marine protected areas, with at least one re-
serve in each of the 9 regions. However, in Sweden, the
country with perhaps the most developed conservation
infrastructure in the region, only one of the reserves,
Gullmar Fjord Marine Reserve, has proper manage-
ment.

In 1981 the Nordic Council of Ministers started a
project to select Nordic Marine Reserves, and this work
is now being revised. The Helsinki Convention on the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea
Area has established an environmental monitoring pro-
gramme for the Baltic Sea. This Convention has re-
cently been enlarged to cover the whole drainage basin
of the Baltic and its designated experts also make rec-
ommendations on the creation of protected areas.

The North East Atlantic region includes the coasts
of UK and Ireland, and the Atlantic coasts of Denmark,
Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Portugal and
Spain. All these countries have either established ma-
rine protected areas or are considering doing so. How-
ever, there are notable differences in the extent of the
reserves and the level of protection afforded to them. At
one extreme, the famous Wadden Sea on the coast of

111

Europe

Denmark, Germany and Netherlands is well protected
by national laws and by its designation as a Ramsar site.
The UK has some marine protected areas, both existing
and proposed, but only two of them have statutory
protection. Further south, the French, Spanish and Por-
tuguese coasts have only a few marine protected areas.
The Azores and Canaries both have marine protected
areas, but Madeira only has coastal reserves.

The marine protected areas of the North East Atlantic
cover only a negligible proportion of the total area. As
Gubbay points out, a far more extensive network is
needed to represent adequately all the various marine
biogeographic regions and community types.

In the Mediterranean marine region, Batisse and de
Grissac report a doubling in the number of coastal and
marine protected areas from 65 in 1981 to 127 in 1991.
The total area now protected is over 1.7 million ha,
divided between land (1.1m), wetland (0.4m) and ma-
rine (0.2m). About 3000km or 6 per cent of the coastline
is now protected. This good progress in the region is in
part due to the work of the UNEP Regional Activity
Centre for Specially Protected Areas and the implemen-
tation of the Barcelona Convention.

At least half the protected areas suffer from poor
management and a lack of trained staff. Since 1990, the
World Bank, within the framework of the Mediterra-
nean Environment Technical Assistance Programme
(METAP), has been assisting some of the southern and
eastern countries of the Mediterranean in developing
their networks of protected areas, institutions and leg-
islation. Batisse and de Grissac are optimistic that de-
spite great tourist pressures and problems of water
pollution, "the beginning of the next millennium could
see an amelioration of the environmental quality and a
real conservation of species and habitats". For this to
happen, thougi, more intensive regional cooperation
and stronger international assistance will be necessary.

2.6 Other mechanisms to protect
conservation sites: The link to

regional planning

Most land in Europe is in private ownership. Conserva-
tionists have had to evolve a variety of mechanisms for
working with private landowners.

Many European countries have regulations to con-
serve the habitats of officially protected plants and
animals, even on private land, but in many cases it is
unlikely the regulations are enforced (de Klemm, 1990).
Also, much land is effectively conserved through own-
ership by the military, by private or public forestry
concerns, or for hunting.

Some States have powers to buy land for nature
conservation by compulsion. In at least two such coun-
tries, France and Britain, this power has virtually never

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

been used, but in Sweden, the authorities do use com-
pulsory purchase of private lands to establish national
parks. Most States, however, have tended to evolve a
variety of mechanisms for protecting key sites without
forcing a change in ownership.

In France, the local préfet (the central government
representative in the departément) can issue orders es-
tablishing an arrété de biotope to protect the site of any
species on a special schedule prepared by the Govern-
ment in Paris. The préfet may prohibit or regulate a wide
range of activities, such as vehicle traffic, farming,
drainage or construction, and no compensation is paid
to the land-owner (de Klemm, 1990).

One of the most developed systems of this kind is that
of the Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in UK.
These are wildlife sites designated by the relevant gov-
ernment agency. Owners of a site have to consult with
the conservation service before carrying out certain
activities that could be harmful. In most cases, both
sides reach agreement and the conservation service pays
regular compensation thereafter. Where agreement can-
not be reached, the owner may be forbidden to carry out
those activities for a certain period of time.

These forms of designation are vital to conservation.
In UK, for example, it is mainly the SSSIs, rather than
the national parks, that provide the main defence for
sites important in wildlife. It is likely that forms of
protection like these will be of increasing importance in
the years to come. In particular, as the new democracies
of Eastern and Central Europe restore land to former
private owners, they may need to evolve mechanisms
of this type.

In Denmark, any destruction of certain habitats re-
quires permission from the local authority, irrespective
of who owns the land, and with no compensation if
permission is refused. So far the regulations cover heath-
land, salt marshes, peat bogs, lakes and watercourses
(Koester, 1984). This is an ideal way to protect endan-
gered habitats, enabling all their occurrences to be
effectively "protected areas”. It is the most far-reaching
piece of such legislation in Europe, but many countries,
notably Germany, Austria and Switzerland, are devel-
oping systems whereby land-owners are required to
maintain certain habitat types on their land, often in
return for compensation. In effect, Denmark is using
this mechanism rather than conventional protected ar-
eas to conserve rare habitats.

These examples show that, as systems for conserving
nature become more complex and developed, it be-
comes more difficult to separate the protected areas part
as a distinct sector. It is essential to see protected areas
as an integral part of nature conservation policy, rather
than as a sector of their own. Moreover, protected areas
should also be integrated into the land-use policy and
regional planning. And finally, it cannot be emphasized

112

too much that protected areas are not sufficient in them-
selves to conserve nature: they must be backed up by
planning and administration of land use for the whole
country.

2.7 Evaluating the effectiveness of
the protected areas

The literature on protected areas in Europe is immense,
but there seems to be little or no single evaluation of the
effectiveness of Europe’s protected areas network, in
terms of management and coverage.

In many cases, information to do this is lacking. For
example, virtually no countries have datasets on the
extent to which their listed threatened plants are in
protected areas. Data on the coverage of habitats, espe-
cially in northern Europe, may be better and there are
various Europe-wide regional studies, such as on heath-
lands and on coastal dunes. Of particular importance is
the European Community’s CORINE system, which
provides several vital databases relevant to protected
areas.

From the available information, it can be concluded
that:

@ There are sharp differences in the coverage and
management effectiveness of protected areas from
one country to another.

@ The part of Europe where the terrestrial protected
area network seems to be least effective, in both
coverage and management, is in Mediterranean
countries, where species diversity is greatest.

w@ Several countries in the European Community have
inadequate systems. They include:

Portugal, where almost all protected areas are under
severe threat due to lack of political and social support,
and are in danger of losing their natural vegetation. For
example, broadleaved forests in protected areas are
threatened by replacement with eucalyptus and pine.
Only one national park has been established so far, and
the legislative base is inadequate.

Greece is one of Europe’s most biologically diverse
countries but its protected areas are poorly staffed, often
with part-time personnel, who have inadequate resources
to look after the areas. The protected areas do not have
their own administrations but come under local forest
officers; most are not implemented on the ground, and
some are in great danger. Also, the existing protected
areas (such as Mt Olympus NP-3998ha) need to be
extended and additional parks created.

@ Outside the European Community, a country whose
system is well below what is needed is Albania; it
has an adequate legal base but staff are lacking and
government regulations cannot be implemented on
the ground.

@ In much of Europe, there has been an emphasis,
perhaps too strong an emphasis, on protected land-
scapes (Category V areas) at the expense of areas
set up primarily to protect nature.

m The management of most Category II areas, the
areas of most importance for conservation of nature,
falls below acceptable international standards.

@ Encouraging progress has been made on marine
protected areas in the Baltic Sea and in the Mediter-
ranean, though here, as elsewhere in the world,
efforts lag behind those on land. With the exception
of the Wadden Sea, the situation is very poor in the
North-East Atlantic.

@ Protected area networks have been developed at a
national level, with little consideration given to a
European perspective. The systems approach has
not yet been taken at European (or EC) level, and
monitoring of protected areas across Europe is in-
adequate.

3. Additional protected areas
required

It might be thought that a small and crowded continent
like Europe offers few opportunities for large new pro-
tected areas. It is surprising to find that this is far from
the case. Many countries are in fact planning substantial
increases to their protected area systems. Prominent
here are the new democracies of Eastern and Central
Europe: Bulgaria plans two more national parks and
marine parks, the Czech Republic and Slovakia both
plan to expand their already extensive park networks,
Hungary wants to create bilateral or trilateral parks with
its neighbours, Poland will shortly create two new na-
tional parks (Stolowe Mountain and Mazurian Lakes),
and Romania is implementing its massive Danube Delta
Biosphere Reserve.

This is encouraging but there has been little if any
Europe-wide analysis of what areas should be added to
the network. Studies and proposals that would contrib-
ute to such an analysis include:

m The "Ecological Bricks" proposal for Eastern and
Central Europe, which describes 24 large areas pro-
posed for protection (Anon, 1990);

@ The IUCN/WWF Centes of Plant Diversity Project,
which is identifying large areas that should be pro-
tected for their plant wealth, especially in the plant-
rich Mediterranean countries;

@ Published directories of Important Bird Areas
(Grimmett & Jones, 1989) and of wetlands (Carp,
1980), covering sites both large and small.

As for the type of protected areas needed, throughout
the continent the greatest need is a major extension of
Category II national parks, and possibly changing some
Category V sites to the management standards of

Europe

Categories I to IV. In future, the typical national park in
Europe may have a remote core area, managed as Cate-
gory I (no visitors) and/or Category II (visitors permit-
ted), some Category IV managed nature reserves (e.g.
alpine meadows in the mountains, heath lands in North-
ern European lowlands), and the whole surrounded by
a protected landscape of Category V.

As part of the follow-up to the Caracas Action Plan,
TUCN and FNNPE are planning a critical review of
which additional areas in Europe should be protected,
principally as large Category II national parks. In gen-
eral, further protected areas are most needed in the
Mediterranean region (though Bulgaria has particularly
good representation of Mediterranean and sub-Mediter-
ranean areas), as Outlined by Ramade (1990). For ex-
ample, in Greece, one could suggest the large area from
the Rhodopi Mountains to the Nestos Delta. In France
and Italy, one could suggest a large transboundary park
for the Maritime Alps, extending from Argentera NaP
in Italy and Mercantour NP in France.

Not only in the Mediterranean, however, are more
protected areas needed. Ireland has a protected area
estate of only 6 sites on the UN List totalling 29,474ha,
0.4 per cent of the country (but soon to increase to about
40,000ha, plus small nature reserves amounting to about
another 14,000ha). As Table 1 shows, this is still much
less than any other comparably sized country in Europe.
What appears to be needed are (a) a considerable ex-
pansion in the network of nature reserves, either as
Category I or IV areas, (b) one or more large national
parks on the European continental model, and (c) the
creation of a complementary system of Category V
protected landscapes. A particularly important area is
the Burren, the largest area of limestone pavement in
Wester Europe and a unique plant site. A small portion
of it, 1300ha, has recently been made a national park,
but some degree of protection is needed for its whole
52,000ha.

Other key areas in Northern Europe where better
protection is needed include:

@ The coniferous forests in Norway. At present only
small areas of Norway’s coniferous forests are pro-
tected. Only about 100,000ha (1.5 per cent) of po-
tentially productive coniferous forest is believed to
remain more or less untouched; Parliament recently
decided to protect only 28,000ha of this, a portion
considered insufficient by biologists and conserva-
tionists.

ag The Flow Country (UK). A large area of flat and
gently undulating peat bogs in north Scotland, the
largest expanse of such bog in the world. In the late
1970s, foresters started planting a dense carpet of
non-native trees on a large scale. By 1988 they had
planted 60,000ha and are permitted to plant a further
40,000ha—in all about a quarter of the whole area.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Europe

% area % area
established established
up to 1962 1962-1971

Albania 13.0 87.0
Andorra 0.0 0.0
Austnia 61.0 6.9
Belgium 5.2 0.0
Bulgaria 20.9 19.3
Czechoslovakia 2 16.4
Denmark 18.4 43
Estonia 26.5 34.3
Faeroe Is 0.0 0.0
Finland 58.7 0.0
France 0.0 30.5
Germany 18.3 46.9
Gibraltar 0.0 0.0
Greece 11.0 21.3
Hungary 0.3 1.6
Iceland 0.5 19.2
Treland 26.2 0.0
Italy 13.6 6.3
Latvia 16.6 0.9
Liechtenstein 0.0 0.0
Lithuania 0.0 0.0
Luxembourg 0.0 0.0
Malta 0.0 0.0
Monaco 0.0 0.0
Netherlands 13.9 2?)
Norway 0.5 22.0
Poland 4.6 24?)
Portugal 0.0 13.4
Romania 10.3 0.2
San Marino 0.0 0.0
Spain 2.3 26.5
Svalbard-Jan Mayen 0.0 0.0
Sweden 14.6 13.0
Switzerland 100.0 0.0
UK 41.4 16.9
Vatican City 0.0 0.0
Yugoslavia (Former) 35.6 14.5
Total 15.4 20.9

% area % area Date Total
established _ established established area
1972-1981 1982-1991 unknown ___ designated

0.0 0.0 215 445
0.0 0.0 0 0
12.2 20.0 2,009 21,184
0.0 94.8 0 71
9.5 50.4 0 2,614
57.1 21.3 0 20,587
40.8 36.5 397 4,093
36.3 3.0 0 3,595
0.0 0.0 0 0
0.0 41.3 0 8,504
45.1 24.4 256 53,001
20.2 14.6 1,246 87,806
0.0 0.0 0 0
46.0 21.7 0 1,025
63.8 34.3 0 5,769
78.3 2.0 0 9,155
7.0 66.8 0 386
18.8 61.3 102 20,083
64.8 17.6 0 1,746
0.0 100.0 0 60
0.0 0.0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0 0
61.5 22.5 623 3,525
50.2 27.3 0 16,093
35.0 58.1 0 22,417
57.0 29.6 0 5,598
1.2 88.3 89 10,886
0.0 0.0 0 0
20.3 50.9 69 35,043
100.0 0.0 0 34,910
31.1 41.3 537 29,604
0.0 0.0 7,360 7,528
27.7 14.0 0 46,354
0.0 0.0 0 0
24.0 25.9 12 7,877
36.1 27.6 12,918 460,672

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are
included. Similar tables can be produced based on number of sites rather than area covered. Sites are only in the
database once, therefore if a major change in size has occured, or a change in designation, this may distort the figures

Note: This table was prepared prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and the changes in former

Yugoslavia.

4. Protected area institutions

In Europe the institutions responsible for protected area
management vary greatly from one country to another.
In some countries, protected areas are the responsibility
of central government, but in others, such as Germany
and Austria, the system is highly decentralized.

There is also a split between landscape conservation
and nature conservation, with two separate systems in
parallel in some countries. The two systems often had
different origins, landscape conservation tending to have
emerged from a desire to protect landscapes and so
provide recreation opportunities and encourage rural
development.

114

Protected area institutions in southern Europe tend to
be weaker than those in Northern Europe. Institutions
in the former often have inadequate laws, structures or
budgets with which to combat serious threats to their
sites. In Eastern and Central Europe, with the severe
decline in the economies, protected area agencies are
having to reduce staff and retrench their activities.

4.1 Decentralization

As in other parts of the world, many European countries
are decentralizing their administrations. This is both an
opportunity and a danger for protected areas. It is an
opportunity for conservation because it is often easier
at local level than at national level to integrate conser-
vation into regional land-use planning systems, and to
bring the administration of conservation "nearer the
people”.

Spain shows the benefits of decentralization. After
the restoration of democracy, many government func-
tions were passed to the Autonomous Communities. In
the environmental field, only national parks and na-
tional hunting reserves remain under the control of the
national government in Madrid. This has released crea-
tive energy into finding new forms of safeguarding
nature and landscapes, as the experiences of Andalucia
and the Canary Islands show.

Decentralization may also facilitate cooperation be-
tween governmental and non-governmental agencies
over protected areas. For example, the regional nature
parks in France bring together the national government,
the departément administration and local bodies, such
as the Chambers of Commerce. Local interests are fully
represented right from the beginning.

A danger, however, is that the local authorities may
not have sufficient trained personnel to take on their
responsibilities. It may be difficult (or virtually impos-
sible as in the case of Austria) for decentralized nations
to fulfil their obligations under international conven-
tions if the central government cannot ensure the pro-
tection of certain areas. Also, the protected areas can be
harder to defend against external threats, de-gazetting
even, than if they are created by the national govern-
ment.

Local communities may not always appreciate the
international importance of some of the assets they hold.
To encourage broad support, central government and
international agreements (such as EC Directives) should
specify what needs to be protected at international level
and provide financial support so that local communities
are not disadvantaged.

Ideally, sites of international and national importance
should be established by the national government, even
if regional institutions are charged with their manage-
ment. Likewise, regional institutions (provinces, can-
tons or lander) should themselves be encouraged to
develop sites of regional importance, working with

115

Europe

local administrations. A national system for identifying
national priorities, partnership between different levels,
devolved responsibility for regional planning and pro-
tected area management, proper resourcing at all levels,
and arrangements for monitoring and review, are essen-
tial elements of protected area planning and manage-
ment in a country with a decentralized constitution.

4.2 Astrong voluntary sector

As part of the growth in environmental awareness, the
membership of voluntary conservation groups grew at
astronomical rates in the 1980s, in some cases at 20-30
per cent per year. Today, in Britain and Denmark, as
many as 1 in 10 citizens belong to conservation groups.
And in Eastern and Central Europe, popular environ-
mental groups were at the forefront of calls for demo-
cratic reform. Yet in Mediterranean countries, member-
ship of conservation groups still remains small, for
example less than 1 in 250 in Greece.

As a result, conservation groups in the north enjoy
political muscle, especially as their memberships now
often exceed that of political parties. The pressure they
have been able to exert has helped tighten laws on
protected areas and removed some of the more flagrant
threats that may have been tolerated a decade before.
Support groups have been set up for individual pro-
tected areas and a growing band of volunteers do prac-
tical conservation work. Some conservation groups have
bought nature reserves.

Conservation groups can provide a cost-effective way
for government to implement conservation policies. For
example, government grants enable the Swiss League
for the Protection of Nature to acquire nature reserves.
The Swiss League is also a partner with the Federal
Government in running the Swiss NP, and provides
many of the wardens.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

Table 6 shows the information currently available to
WCMC on levels of state financing to protected areas
in Europe. It also shows, however, that it is very difficult
to separate spending on protected areas from spending
on nature conservation in general, especially in coun-
tries with sophisticated and complex nature conservation
systems. Some of the figures are probably misleading
for this reason.

Nevertheless, the figures show dramatic differences
across the region. On the one hand UK spends over
US$150m per year on protected areas, yet Greece spends
about $1m per year, giving a per capita difference of
about 30:1. Clearly protected areas in some Mediterra-
nean countries are grossly underfunded: a UNEP study
found that in many protected areas in the Mediterranean
there is a budget for staff and other running expenses,
but virtually no money for investment (Ramade, 1990).

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

The leading economies in Europe—France, Germany,
Italy and UK—tend to provide about US$2-6 million
annually for each national park. With a budget of US$6
million, Bayerischer Wald NP (Germany) (13,100ha)
receives the highest park budget in Europe.

However, a large budget does not guarantee effective
protection. The Swiss NP (16,087ha), on a budget of
US$700,000 a year, achieves a very high standard of
protection, while Calabria NP (Italy), which is about the
same size (15,892ha) and has similar problems, achieves
a much lower standard on US$2 million a year. In many
European parks, the lion’s share of the budget is taken
up with measures which may not be urgent. For exam-
ple, in Stelvio NP (Italy), nearly all the annual invest-
ment of US$1.2 million is spent on maintaining paths.
A large part of the budget in French parks in the Alps is
spent on research into attractive, but not threatened,
animal species.

Few European protected areas charge for entry, but
this could be a good option for Mediterranean countries,
taking advantage of the massive numbers of tourists
each year and the boom in nature tourism experienced
in other parts of the world. Greece, for example, only
charges entrance for the Samaria Gorge NP, which may
have received as much as US$650,000 in 1991 from
entrance fees.

In some cases, national parks have brought strong
economic benefits to the region. Tassi (1991) relates the
case of Abruzzo NP (Italy), where the bears and wolves
have proved a great attraction. One small village, Civitella
Alfedena, was almost abandoned 20 years ago, but now
has a growing economy and emigrants are returning.
According to Tassi, some US$4.2m of park budget
developed a local economic impact of US$170m, cre-
ating over 100 jobs in the park itself and about 1000
more in related activities.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

6.1 Staffing of protected areas

As with levels of financing, there are large differences
from one country to another. Some countries, for exam-
ple, have no rangers in their national parks. Others, in
contrast, not only have large paid staffs but also systems
of volunteers. For example, the British Trust for Con-
servation Volunteers has over 50,000 volunteers each
year, working in over 3000 sites, many of them pro-
tected areas.

116

of the general public, and this is reflected in staffing
levels.

6.2 Training opportunities and needs

The extent of the protected area network in Europe and
the number of staff required to manage them have
increased in the past decade and techniques for resource
and visitor management have become much more so-
phisticated. As a result, more training is needed in a
broad range of skills, from management planning to
community relations, from languages to information
technology.

Yet current provision of training is patchy. Specialist
degrees and technical courses in conservation manage-
ment are still relatively rare. Provision for in-service
training is ad hoc and training opportunities are seldom
available for all the staff. Best provided for are rangers
and guides: Belgium, Denmark, France and UK all offer
special training. In England and Wales, the Countryside
Commission has promoted a national training policy
(Countryside Commission, 1989) and the National Park
Authorities have adopted targets for improving training
for all their staff (Association of National Park Officers,
1989), but such broad initiatives are uncommon.

Numerous conferences and seminars—tegional, na-
tional or internationai—are held but are mostly attended
by senior staff. In 1990-1, a "travelling" European
Protected Area Managers Seminar for senior managers
was organized by Wye College (UK). Training courses
are generally run regionally or nationally, for example
the Alelier technique in France develops training for the
staff of the parcs nationaux (L’ Atelier techniques des
espaces naturels, 1991). Study visits and exchanges
have much potential for exchanging information and
developing expertise but are not well used at presentand
to date most have been organized informally. For a
number of years FNNPE has promoted short-term staff
exchanges between parks, but few have taken place
because staff time is short, financial resources are rarely
available for them and the language barrier is an ever-
present difficulty.

In summary, as expressed in various FNNPE confer-
ence resolutions, European protected areas have a grow-
ing number of training needs which are not yet fully
matched by training opportunities.

7. Major protected area issues in
the region

7.1. Pressures on protected areas

The natural wealth of Europe is under threat and the
protected areas do not escape these pressures. Accord-
ing to the results of an FNNPE questionnaire, a majority
of national park managers believe that ecological con-
ditions in protected areas in Europe have deteriorated
over the last ten years.

‘soils JO SuNsy] pue Dduaroype jo sayep Suipmesai
Jeg[OUN SasBd IWOS UT SI UONENIS JUALMS oY} BY) UBSUL BIAB[SOSN A JOULOY IY) PUB UOIUL) 191AOG JULIO} ON 0g UI ‘adamy UT souBYo FeonTOd us00y 7
‘(Btae]so8n xX ) PUYC *(BLAE[sOIN J) NOY *(209a19) WODAj *(20001D)
soupy INO] ‘(20ueI{) afeq Bs 10/ABg SII puB fOYOIA-WUIES-IUOW] :are ‘3[qQeI DAOge aI UI Popn[oUuT Usaq 10U JABY YOTYM ‘sais soy] ‘UO saImBay [ENIEU
UBIN Joylel “UONOBIAUT aNjeu/UEW ap Woy SuNJNsar Amba JO SIseq 2p UO Ing ‘aBEILIOH PIJOAA JOIST] Ot UO pogisosu aue saps [eMy[No/feIMBU POXTU INO “| :SaON

Europe

¥60'81 LL61 Yue] 000'002 SLO AEW (c18aua uo]
29 BIQI9G)
BIAR[SOSN
861 Ae wop3ury poruy
SL61 Jequindas PUuBLZIMs
C861 Arenuer U2pPemMs
7861 AB ureds
é BIUSADIS
1661 4990199, ouuey] UBS
0661 ABW BIUBWIOY
0861 Jequiadag [88m30q
9L61 Sung puzjog
LL61 Ae ABm10n]
7661 isn3ny spuepompon
861 Joquianoyy ooBuopy
8261 J9qQuIdA0N] Bye
€861 J2quiades Zinoquiaxny]
7661 YorBAy BrueNyNT]
= Ula}sUN YsoIT]

8P88Z1 LLT SIZ 9L61 Arenuey 8S7' bb
= 6b0'L 9L61 Arenues OL8‘9T
= OSL'78E PL61 12qQuis90q 00596
L80LOEZ 861'Z01 7861 ABW LLT9IL
= oss 1661 oune

= 000'L¥9 1661 toquindag 897'b19
69b9E ZLB8IE €9¢'0€ 0861 J2qQuianony
- = WIL LLOI 2Quiaaon]
EZPLISI = 9ST 91 PL6l Aine
c98zs SIOZIE 0861 SEW

6LE07
= 4 4
at COPETOT 7 = IT 8861 Joquiaidas
SL = 74 OSE = =

loooo 1o7rO7 O72 O0N

= 101 1661 J2quiaceq
é BIAIET]

8261 aun¢ Aye]

1661 J9quindag purjaly
= puelao]

86 Aing AreSuny

7861 2290199 aog AJOH
1861 Aing aooalQ

961 isnsny Ausuiion
SL61 oung 20UBL]

L861 YY pugyulj

b wUoIsy

6L6I Ainge yreurusq

0661 Joquianony BIYBAO]SOYDEZ>)

- é
BLEOIE 0s6'9s 9161 42quiaseq 86L'E
8rss 8Z0'EI $861 J2qQU2AON, 808'8

= 00S'LS LL61 J9qQuia90q] -

- 68€'0I1 6L61 Udy 88'8Z1
LEST6I 00+ LOI SL6Lasn3ny O88
6ELbZE 695'099 9L61 Arenuge.4 Ore BSI'I
IPL6IS SEL Et 9861 19q010Q EBS'SLS
= Eve 101 PLol Avy 000'0SE
= vE9' 8b : d 000'09S'T
GOSZ6L 89F' PEL LL61 toquiandag =

ce 85691 0661 Aing 8ZL'79S
= SUZ , 1661 2990100 000'0ST 661 Ang BIwAlD
= L60'% SL61 Jequiadag 107 Sz PL6l YOR euBsing
- t 4 BulA039zD}//EIUSO g
S0EZEZP L09'6 9861 yore - a = umnig}oq
= 8ZS'Z01 7861 Joquiaceg 009'LZ wasny
96 = = = suopuy
= = = - 6861 Aing mUBqIY

nIinn

RAD 1 ee onn
Ne Ooo o-mocoooco!1coo

Biy ‘ON way ‘ON Bay ‘ON Bay (By) BIy ‘ON 28q (By) Bary ‘ON (By) BIW ‘ON 278q
Buojdiq SdA1IS9Y SVdS SVdS uoljuaAu0; Saclay a1aydsoig 338}113}] PIJOMA
c (U0) anjauasorg dann OIC | (SpueyjaA4) TeswieY

edoing :suolNuaAuod jeuo!6es/jeuo!jeusaju! 0} BDUaJOUPY “pb 2108.

117

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 4a. Adherence by European countries to regional treaties relevant to protected
areas
Nordic Rhine

Helsinki Barcelona

Albania n-a n-a 1990 n-a xX
Andorra n-a n-a n-a n-a *
Austria n-a n-a n-a n-a (R)
Belgium n-a n-a n-a n-a XX. (R)
Bosnia/Herzegovina n-a n-a * n-a - *
Bulgaria n-a n-a n-a n-a XX ®)
Croatia n-a n-a te n-a * *
Czechoslovakia n-a n-a n-a n-a XX XX
Denmark 05.10.76 03.05.80 n-a n-a 01.11.83 01.01.83
Estonia n-a n-a n-a

Finland (R) n-a n-a

France n-a 02.10.86 01.02.79

Germany n-a .05. n-a 01.02.79 01.10.84

Greece n-a 25.02.87 n-a (P)

Holy See n-a n-a = *

Hungary n-a n-a n-a (R)

Iceland n-a n-a n-a
Ireland n-a n-a n-a
Italy n-a 23.03.86 n-a

XX
01.11.83
01.11.83
Latvia n-a n-a n-a XX XX
Liechtenstein n-a n-a n-a XX (R)
Lithuania n-a n-a n-a XX XX

01.08.82
01.06.82

01.02.79

Luxembourg n-a n-a

Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
San Marino
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Yugoslavia

Key:
Nordic: Nordic Environmental Protection Convention (1984)
Helsinki: Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1974)
Barcelona: Convention on the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, Protocol conceming Mediterranean

Specially Protected Areas (Convention 1976, Protocol 1982)
Rhine: Convention on the Protection of the Rhine Against Chemical Pollution (1976)
Bonn: Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979)

Bern: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979)

(R): Country has ratified

(S):

(A):

n-a:
*

country is a signatory

‘not applicable’

n-a
n-a
n-a
(R)
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a
(R)
n-a
n-a
n-a

(R)
(S)
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a

22.01.88
n-a
n-a
n-a

(R)

Indicates data not available to WCMC at present

not party to the agreement

118

n-a
n-a
01.02.79
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a
n-a
(R)
n-a
n-a

01.11.83
XX

(R)

XX
01.11.83
XX

n-a

n-a
01.11.83
(R)

XX
01.11.84
XX

01.07.82
XX

XX
01.06.82
R)

XX
01.06.82

Originally covered by the USSR’s ratifications of Ramsar (11.10.76), World Heritage (12.10.88) and Helsinki;

Since many protected areas in Europe are small, they
are particularly vulnerable to damage. Some 40 per cent
of national parks are less than 10,000ha in size, and 88
per cent less than 100,000ha (Heiss, 1991). CNPPA has
identified 15 protected areas in Europe as threatened
(Thorsell, 1990). However, protected area professionals
in the region feel that most protected areas in Europe
are under some degree of pressure and threat. The 15
are in a sense the "tip of the iceberg". The following
examples indicate the range and scale of the threats.

Agricultural activities. Agricultural intensification
has been a threat to many protected landscapes, and may
be an increasing threat in eastern, central and southern
Europe, in some cases promoted by EC funding.

Air pollution. Most protected areas in southern
Scandinavia suffer from acid rain caused by emissions,
principally from other countries. Scandinavian coun-
tries suffer particularly badly since their bedrock is
predominantly of granite and gneiss. In Eastern and
Central Europe, damage to some parks has been very
severe due to local pollution from electric power sta-
tions, as at Krkonose NP (Czech Republic and Poland),
as well as from transboundary pollution.

Dam construction. Protected areas under threat
from the construction of sluices and dams include
Mercantour NP (France), Montezinho NaP (Portugal),
Vicos Aoos, Pindos and Mikra Prespa NPs (Greece),
and Pieniny NP (Poland).

Forest exploitation. Legal and illegal felling causes
damage to many protected areas, especially in Central
and Southern Europe. Particularly threatened are the
National parks in former East Germany, Biikk NP
(Hungary), Stelvio NP (Italy) and woodland national
parks in Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. Forest
fires are on the increase in Mediterranean countries,
partly because of the increased susceptibility of conifer
plantations to fire, as in Estrela NaP (Portugal).

Hunting, ranching and grazing. | Many protected
areas suffer from not being able to regulate hunting as
much as they would wish. This is particularly the case
in Italy, where the Italian Bird Protection League esti-
mates that as many as 150 million small birds may be
shot each year. Hunting is allowed in Austrian parks and
of some game species in 14 of Norway’s 21 national
parks. Reindeer farming is a problem in national parks
in North Scandinavia, with associated over-grazing, use
of vehicles and fencing. In Mediterranean countries,
erosion caused by over-grazing is serious, as at Mercan-
tour NP (France), Oiti NP (Greece) and Peneda-Geres
NP (Portugal).

Invasive species. | European ecosystems are relatively
resistant to invasive species introduced from other coun-
tries. Yet some parks are under threat, for example
Killarney NP (Ireland), which is heavily invaded by
Rhododendron ponticum, and Peneda-Geres NP
(Portugal), where Acacia dealbata from Australia is

119

Europe

defeating efforts to eradicate it. False acacia (Robinia pseu-
dacacia) is a troublesome pest in Central Europe.

Military activities. See section 7.5, below. An ex-
ample of a park threatened by military activities is
Dartmoor NP (UK), where a large part of the moorland
is used for military testing, including live firing. Other
threatened parks include Dovrefjell NP (Norway) and
Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer (Germany).

Mining. Numerous protected areas suffer from min-
ing and quarrying. In Cevennes NP (France), there are
quarries within the park and uranium mining on the
border. Alvao and Arrabida NaPs (Portugal) have open
quarries.

Transport links. Road-building programmes can be
immensely damaging, both inside and outside protected
areas. This is, for example, now the most serious threat
to semi-natural areas in southern England.

Water extraction. Lowering of the water table has
affected large parts of Europe, and not only wetlands.
For example, Kiskunsag NP (Hungary) suffers from a
lowered water-table. Water extraction in river deltas,
often for irrigated agriculture, threatens vital wetlands
like the famous Cota Dofiana NP in Spain.

Water pollution. Several vital Mediterranean coastal
parks are close to industrial plants; flamingoes in the
Camargue RNaP & NR have been contaminated by
heavy metals and other chemicals in the River Rhone.
Oil slicks have nearly caused catastrophes to other
coastal protected areas. In Central Europe, eutrophica-
tion caused by extensive use of fertilizers threatens
aquatic life in streams and rivers. Particularly badly
affected is Circeo NP (Italy).

War and violence. It has been reported that protected
areas were damaged by the fighting in Croatia in 1991—
2, in particular that the Kopacki rit Special Zoological
Reserve, a unique wetland and bird sanctuary, has heen
destroyed. As in the war over Kuwait in 1990-1, dam-
age to the fragile ecology of the region is often a
consequence of war and the present conflict in former
Yugoslavia is bound to threaten protected areas and
nature as well as human life.

7.2 The special case of tourism

Tourism has grown at astonishing rates in the last ten
years, especially on the fragile Mediterranean coast.
The World Tourism Organization forecasts a continued
annual growth of 3-4.5 per cent and the World Bank a
doubling of tourists in the Mediterranean by 2025.
Tourists, jaded from crowded beaches and fearful of
sun-bathing because of the increasing risk of skin can-
cer, may turn in mass towards Europe’s wilderness
areas.

Some of the severest problems have been in Mediter-
ranean countries, for example protecting the turtle beaches
on the Greek island of Zakynthos. Motorcycles, 4-wheel

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

drive vehicles and snow-mobiles can be a problem in
sensitive areas, especially in northern Scandinavia. Often,
however, the most severe damage is caused not by the
visitors themselves but by the accompanying facilities,
such as hotels, guest houses, restaurants and roads. The
infrastructure associated with downhill skiing can be
particularly damaging, as at Krkonose (Giant Moun-
tains) NP (Czech Republic), Triglav NP (Slovenia) and
Vanoise NP (France). Other parks acutely threatened by
tourist developments include Pyrénees-Occidentales
(Spain), Pallas-Ounastunturi (Finland), Peneda-Geres
(Portugal), Circeo (Italy) and protected areas in the
German part of the Waddensea.

An FNNPEstudy on sustainable tourism (1993), con-
cludes that many current forms of tourism in and around
protected areas are damaging and therefore cannot be
sustained. Yet tourism is both a threat and an opportu-
nity. The report argues for new forms of sustainable
tourism that would benefit conservation and local com-
munities. It calls on protected area managers to take a

Table 5. World Heritage sites in Europe

Bulgaria
Pirin National Park
Srebama Nature Reserve

Croatia
Plitvice Lakes National Park

France
Cape Girolata, Cape Porto & Scandola NR
(Corsica)
Mont-Saint-Michel and its bay
Greece
Meteora Group of Monasteries
Mount Athos

Poland
Bialowieza National Park (with Belarus)
Romania
Danube Delta
Slovenia
Skocjan Caves
Spain
Garajonay National Park
UK
Giant’s Causeway
St. Kilda
Yugoslavia
Durmitor National Park
Kotor
Ohrid

Five of these sites (Mont-Saint-Michel and its bay, Mount
Athos, Meteora, Kotor and Ohrid) are mixed natural/cultural
sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty resulting
from man/nature interaction, rather than natural features
alone.

120

more positive attitude to tourism and to cooperate more
closely with tourist agencies, so as to encourage sustain-
able tourism and deter inappropriate tourism.

7.3 Coping with change in Eastern
and Central Europe

The dramatic changes in Central and Eastern Europe
have created great opportunities for conservation but
also pose dangers, because of the rapid development
now likely in agriculture, trade and tourism.

In Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and
Slovakia, the new governments inherited extensive and
well-planned protected area systems, in some cases
more extensive and better managed than comparable
areas in western Europe (for details see IUCN, 1990b,
1990c and 1991). The Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania—also had good systems, much of them
created before the Soviet takeover in 1945, but progress
had been slowed down by the enforcement of Soviet
standards. In former Yugoslavia, protected areas were
always managed by the individual Republics, and never
had strong federal coordination; standards varied greatly
from one Republic to another. In Albania and Romania,
the poor economic situation had precluded the develop-
ment of effective protected area systems.

As early as the 1970s, some of the countries had
started creating protected landscapes, mainly for recrea-
tion purposes, since citizens could not easily leave the
country for holidays. Although some parts of the coun-
tries were (and still are) appallingly polluted by heavy
industry, large areas of attractive countryside, with some
natural and much semi-natural vegetation, remained.

Today, the new conservation authorities face strong
forces that could jeopardize their protected areas. The
governments are keen to decentralize their administra-
tions, but there is not yet the management expertise at
the local level. The countries all need hard currency and
may come under pressure to sell off natural resources,
such as timber, in a non-sustainable way. Equally seri-
ous is the possibility of privatization: the previous gov-
ernments took much of the land for the protected areas
illegally, and there is great pressure to restore land to
the former owners or to compensate them. Doing so will
be extremely difficult in some cases: for example, in
Bulgaria, there were about half a million owners of
forest before land was nationalized in 1948, with on
average only about lha each. At one time it looked as
though national parks would be broken up, but
Hungary, for example, has now decided to keep the
parks in state ownership; in Slovakia, only about a third
of the High Tatra NP will be returned to the communes;
in Estonia new park laws have proscribed reclaim by
previous owners; in the Czech Republic a fund is being
planned to secure continued state ownership of pro-
tected area land that would otherwise revert to private
owners.

At a meeting in Hungary, in May 1991, organized by
FNNPE with support from WWF and IUCN, delegates
from Central and Eastern European countries outlined
the priority needs of their protected areas and identified
opportunities for external assistance. Overall, a much
greater proportion of aid, bilateral and multilateral,
should be spent on nature conservation. And if the
countries need funds to buy out the previous owners of
national parks, where the owners were illegally dispos-
sessed of their land, western governments should con-
tribute generously. It would be tragic to lose key parts
of existing protected areas at this promising and critical
time.

Nevertheless, some protected area systems in the
"East" are older, more extensive and in places better
managed than comparable areas in the "West". What
most countries in the "East" need, therefore, is not
advice but equipment and funds. Indeed, the "West" can
learn much from them. For this reason, fewer "western"
experts should be sent "East" and more policy-makers
and park managers from the "East" invited to visit the
"West" and to learn for themselves about what works
well for protected areas in a free-market economy and
what does not.

7.4 Benefiting from a surplus of

farmland

The 12 countries of the European Community produce
so much food that they propose to remove some 15 per
cent of their arable land from agriculture. The land will
not be evenly spread throughout the Community, but
will be mainly concentrated in the cereal-producing
regions of northern Europe. In France, for example, it
may be as much as 3—5Sm ha. Similar policies may be
needed outside the Community; for example, Sweden
plans to reduce farmland by 500,000ha.

Conservationists believe that the best option for na-
ture would be a reduction in the intensity of farming,
rather than taking land out of cultivation. In fact this is
beginning to happen: the level of subsidies is now
decreasing, encouraging farmers to farm less inten-
sively, with beneficial effects on nature. Furthermore,
under the EC’s Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs)
scheme, farmers in certain regions are now being paid
subsidies to farm in traditional ways that do not harm
wildlife, like refraining from the use of pesticides and
artificial fertilizers. UK, for example, has just agreed to
treble the area of ESAs to over 1 million ha, and to
increase the environmental subsidies to them to US$116m
per annum by 1994, taken from the agriculture budget.
Other EC Member States, such as Denmark, France,
Germany, Ireland, Italy and Netherlands, are following
this approach.

However, large areas of land will undoubtedly be
taken out of agriculture, either temporarily or perma-
nently under "set-aside" schemes. Wherever possible,
priority should be given to land in areas of importance
for conservation, in particular so as to extend nature
reserves and other protected areas. Focussing set-aside

121

Europe

on the buffer zones of protected areas could stop much
of the damage caused to those areas by the drift of
agricultural chemicals, and could allow those areas to
expand and thus increase the chances that all their
species survive in the long term.

The reduction in the amount of land needed for farm-
ing in Europe is mirrored by similar reductions in land
needed for timber, fuelwood, rough grazing and other
uses. Indeed, all over Europe the observant traveller
sees land returning to nature. Overall, Europe is moving
into an era of immense opportunities for nature conser-
vation, opportunities matched in few other regions of
the world. But all these opportunities will only be used
to best advantage if done to a coherent strategy. The lack
of such a broad land-use strategy for conservation and
sustainable development is a major impediment.

7.5 Creating a peace dividend for

conservation

A similar trend may occur with the thousands of hec-
tares of military land in Europe. France alone has
300,000ha which no-one outside the forces can enter.
With the collapse of the divide between east and west,
most European countries are now planning or imple-
menting substantial reductions in their armies, navies
and air forces.

In fact some of the best natural areas in Europe are
held by the military. Prevention of access by citizens
has permitted enclaves of natural vegetation to remain
in areas of great agricultural change. Good examples are
the Evros Delta (Greece) and Salisbury Plain (UK).
Some Ministries of Defence have conservation officers,
often with considerable powers over how the military
look after their large land holdings.

The opportunities are perhaps greatest in the coun-
tries of Eastern and Central Europe. For example, a
staggering 8 per cent of the former East Germany was
used by the military. As the troops return home, conser-
vationists are finding some areas in which nature had
recovered well (e.g. the former Soviet bases in Ralsko
and Mlada in the Czech Republic) and others in which
it had been protected in a near pristine state (e.g a
7000ha piece of Hungarian puzsta grassland in Horto-
bagy NP, which had not been grazed for 40 years). In
others, however, the departing military have left behind
vast amounts of pollution, in particular from untreated
sewage, oil and aviation fuel. In the most acute cases,
health concerns and the danger of unexploded muni-
tions may prevent human access for decades.

7.6 The value of frontier and

transboundary parks

In Europe, frontiers are often in remote areas, such as
mountain ranges, in which the natural ecological unit is
in both countries. As a result, frontier and transboun-
dary parks are of particular importance in Europe. They
are also a visible symbol of peace and cooperation
between nations.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

‘(uorT!g Sre'z 2D) amutpuadxe fendes pue (uo 119 an])
aim tpusdxa Suto3uo useMmIeq paplalp ‘ami pusdxa [eUSUTUOMAUD ALIS
(aim puadxe [eUsUTUON AUD UO UOT 970'¢ A117] JO [B01 B Wa)

sooulaoid pure suorgal [[e Ul UONeAIISUOD aNyeU UO aNpudsdxa [e10 |

“syed [euoneu 201) ay) JO} sisoo SuTUUMY

Sapog aatisedsai Woy svare po}soioid Joy 1a3pnq jo aeumMso UNUT XE]
Bae pasajoid A]Uo ayy Jo UONeUsIsap oI 0) Joud (suopred oqnd
SuIpnyour) UotTealasuco adedspug] pue amyeu UO amIpusdxs smmnNsuos
(v€9'L9SN$)
000°ST + SOIWA St (QuowAed uotyesusdwioo pure jusuidojanap pur uor
-Basaid ‘uonismboe pur] Surpnyout) sarpog ayeis-uou Aq yep BuIpnyout
‘uonealosaid adeospur| pus uotjsq)a1d amyeu Jo uonowoid uo 2m)
-Ipuadxe ay] “seare uonsaqoid amyeu uo ammipusdxe ajes [210) DU st STU],

“syed yeuorga1 uo
amypusdxs Surpnyout a8equoy [emyeu sy) Sun oHo1d uo ampusdxo [RO],
SoAloSal aINyeU JO] Jo3pnq |enuuy
*swred [Buoryeu 10 193pnq aes |enUUY

‘seare palsaioid Joy yo8png
“seare pajsajaid 10} jospng

“uonoajaid aimyeu 10] 1a3png
*S]SOO JUDWISBUBUL 9AIDSII UMO Toy}
1200 diay 01 SOON 01 Aptsqns jeuondo ue sked yorym ‘syaioy 19 xneo
sop uoTeNsTUIUpY ol] se Yons suonesiue do Aq sjues3 jo uorstacid
ain Aq poyeoyduioo st uonemis [euotTeU ay], “spoou jUSWIa Seu
pure oseyaind jusuidinbs Joy saruowpne aasasal 0] poreoole ae 44g
UOT QT 2Wos Yorym Jo ‘Uonsajaid amreu Joy SuTpuNy [eIO at saIMNSUOD

18a X

000'ZLE'8E

000'088'981'T
000'S69'7
000°91L'9T

000'76S'Z
O00'TSL'T

000'910'8Z

quayeainba = Adua.ind jeuoneu
ul jaspng

aenod Sn

Bruen]

dHO Ula|sua}YOoI]
BLATT

“LLI 000'000'000'720'€ quauluomAUg amp Jo Anstuy] — (aes) Ape]
“LLI 000'000'000' ST (saoutaoid pure suor3a1) Aye]
dal purlauy
MSI 000'rET [lounoD uonealasuos amyeny — puryacy
dNH Axe3unyy
uD 000'000'00z Qd1Alag Salo, — 990015)

dID 000'00€ [ounoD Aouralasuod amen — (se1[2IgI) TeIeIqI

(enreychisay
/2uTY-YUON) Jo oyqnday [e1ape.y ‘AueuLaH

WA 000'989'89

(syed Jeuor3ax) sour]
dud 000'00S' FI (SoAlosad aim eU) JOUR]
Aad 000°6E6 68 (syzed feuoneu) sours]
WIA purjuty
Spurys] 2018.4

B1uolsy

Wad yreuusq
ASD 000'000'rL (o1jqndoy yeao[s) erfeaojsoysez_
MSD 000'000'0S (aqnday yooza) enfeaojsoyseza
BIOID

qusuUoNAU 2y) Jo Arist] — euesing

Aad 000'000'98E'9

TO€ 000'000'00¢

dF 000'000'001 sdlAlag UONBAIASUOD ame — UMIS|ag
SLV rLousny

elopuy
TIV viueq iy

Aduase aqisuodsas/A1jun0Z

edoung :sjeHpng Aduebe juswefeuew seole pajda}0/dg “9 ajGeL

122

Europe

Id _—‘siseop a8eiuoHy pue ({NOY) Anvog [emeN SulpueisinG Jo seary 01
poresoy[e st uo 0°CF Ajaeunxouddy ‘seare poiosjoid Joyo pue syed
Jeuoneyy ut Suipueds sopnjouy “apisAnunoo Japim ayn UTI arTarpuadxg

sid “(uorTMW EgryS) JUsWSeUEU seare paoolosd pue
(UOT TW Op [FWS) UotTesusdusoo/aseyommd pur] Joy Surpuny ouTUIsA0H

+a “Sulysy pueput pue Sununy sues ‘soatasal
aimeu pue syed ‘s}saloy Jo JUSWaseUBUI PUL UOTE AIASUOO ‘UONBaID
‘sallJ Jsaloy JO UOQUaAaId ‘euTEy PUB BO] Jo UOHOMOId :3uL9A09

‘suoi3ai snowouomy ap Aq amipuadxe uoneAlasuos ainreu [e101

ra ‘ammipuadxa UOITBAIasUOO aIMeU [EUONE

vid ‘sja3pnq aeiodas aary alojosoin pue syusU!
-UI9A08 [ed] BABY ISU], *S2JOZY PUR SpUEIS] sNIseaTIg at ‘O1UeS OUOg
‘enapeyA] Surpnjoxe ‘jesnuog [eUsUTIUCS O1 paroNsad st 193png ay, 193pNq
[e101 21p| Jo %g9 punoue st seauw paioajoud uo ATfeoytoods quads yunoWE ay],
‘aanmpusdxa juauMdal 50} %9¢ pue USUNISoAUT [endeo
JO} St % 9 Aporeurrxaidde yorym Jo ‘ataps peg asangnuodd op) J0j jaspng
cd “1661 WE 1eBpngq ams oN Wo (UOT 7S)
UOT BI pexswal sears paroooid pC “Surpuny poressuag Jes st (OTT
y7SN$) TZd YON LZ 2Wog ‘uonoaaid [BUsUIUOMAUD JO UONEPUNO]
Jeuoneu ay) Woy (UOT ¢°1S$) TZd YOUN $1 punose pur 18pnq o1e1s
alp Woy syed [euotTeU 0} paredo]]e ase (UOITMU T'L$S) Z Id UH 08
AWOS YORAM UTPIM “POmjou seare popojaid afoym ay) Joy amyipusdxe [eo],
cid “(IN UOT OTT)
JuoWoSeuBUI pue (Ty N UOTT[TW Q'OE) Seale Mau JO JUAUTYsST]GeISo
alp Jo] pred uonesusduioo ot poptaiq ‘seae poyoaiaid 10] 198pnq [OL
seam sanisuas A[]euaWUOT AUD pue syed
[euoTeu 01 parwooye st 193pnq ayp1 Jo Spm O41 AWOS *PG6G1 01 pouled
aeoX moj B 19A0 193pnq juauMd ap asBasout ApuRoIUsis 01 pasodaad st 1]
+ ssomosal [BINTeU JO JUSWaFeUBU PUB PUR] Jo uoNIsmbe ayy Joy pammbai are
SQOUBUT] UT SaseaJOUI [eNUEIsqns,, Tey soTels UeTg Aoyod AMEN 0661 UL

711d

anos

(1uo9) edoung :sjeHpnq Aouebe juewebeuew seose poe}9e}0ld “9 21021

7661 000'009'LS

1661 000‘ PS 8E

L861 000'7S8'S1Z

L861 000‘ 19'Sz

1661 000°€ 18°72

1661 000'009' TI

1661 000°019'9

0661 000'OIT'€Z

quayeainba
ae9d SN

1e3X

dD 000'000'0€
HHO

AS 000'000' Ez
ON

dSd 000'000'rEL' 1Z
dS 000'000'6L°7

ALd 000'000'S61'E

Z1d 000'000'000'0€T

MON 000'000'Tr

SIN 000'000' Tr
ddd
dN
dn

AQuaLIND [RUOHeU
ul jadpng

UOISSTULUOD
apiskgunoZ — (puelsuq) Wopsury pour)
pueLoziimg

Aoua8y uonoaiolg [UsWUOAUY — Uapamg
spurs] uoXkeyy uel pue preqeag

(Tetoutaad) uredg
(jeuoneu) weds
BIUDAO[S

Outre] UBS
BIUBWIOY

QOlAlag syeg [euoneyy — 183M 10g

Ad1Alag Syed [PUONEN Yst[Oq — PuelOd

Aemion

spueHouloNn
ooeuoy]
BPN
sunoquioxn’]

Aduade aqisuodsas/A1jun0D

123

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

“P66T Ul UTM COF O1 O661 Ut
UOIT]IW ¢ [F Waly asU 0} pajsedxa si ampusdxa asoym (WSq) Sey
aanisuag ATeuswUoNnAUY Surpuny AjjoaNp 10J a[qisuodsal ae AAW

9'LI uoneoNpe [eUSWUOIIAUD pues SulUTe ‘YoIeasal puke sorlasal aimeUu
DULL JO UONEOTJHOU puw UOND.[9s ‘([SSS) IseIMU] O1JNUIOG [Bloods
JO Soutg JO UOTTEOTJIOU pue UOTIDaIaS “(YNN) S2alasoy omen] Teuone Ny

JO JUSWOZeUeU pu JUOUTYST]qQeIS2/UONIg|9s aU] SOpNpou! 1a8pnq jenuUy

v9 °S, WSq UO dolape Sutpracid
pus seore ua0s euoneU Sunojold ‘seare uteyUNOU Jo JUIUID3e
-UBW ay) Bul MatAaL ‘syed AQunod pure [euoIsal uo Sulpuods sapniou]
67910 “VOLT 908°7F aM tpuadxa
oumweiZo0id pus UOT [TW pEg'zZ SOBBM PUB SaLIETeS :SMOT[OJ Se UMOP
WsyOI 9q [TIM SIUL, %ZZ JO 9seaiUl Uv ‘UOT |TU pO’ CF SEM €661-Z661
Joy amupusdxa [e10) paredionuy purjal] WaIJON] 10} JUoWTUOIIAUY lI)
Jo jwounsedag op Jo youelg apply, pue sprsAnuNoD amp Jo 193pnq [RIO],

“seore pajoajaid uo aimipuadxe jusWIW9A08 [enuUy

‘000'ZSEF SEM 1661 Ut SuTUTEN

uo ammtpusdxs [R10] ‘O00’ E9EF WuowWsseueu ui poafoaut Apap Jyeis

Play pue (000'96E 1F) Suoreorgnd pur juswaseueU! ontasal ‘sanus0

eanaidiqqur Surpnjour amonnsegut ‘(000"E LCF) aseyamd pur] (Q0'S6/F)

sI9UMO 01 s}JUsWAEd UMs dum] ‘(O00 SPS'LF) Nuswaasse JUoWOseUeW

Jopun siatdno90/si9uMo 0} sjuaWAed [enue ‘1661 Ul (000'LLZF)
JUDUIDSeULU JOAIP JOpUN SYN JO Sasea] ZuIpn[out aimipusdxa [Ro],

ERYULS

(u09) edoung :sjaHpnq Aouabe juswebeuew seese pajd9}0/d “9 a/GeL

BIAP[SOsN X
aig AD wen A

000'8ZS'rZ — dA#D.000'000'E1 souaysty

pure poo, ‘ammousy jo Anstur] — wopsury paruy)

000° 68'S dd 000'000'61 (SOON) PuEfIOIg Jo; [louNoD,

Aouealasuo_ aime x] — (puepioog) wopsury pour),

(SDD) puepoos 40j

000'887'Z1 dD 000'00r'9 uoIsstwUOD apisknUNOD — (puepioog) Wop3ury paruy

000'LIL'8

000'81

000° S9I‘E8

quayeainba
aenod Sn

ddD 000'079'r "JO 2p Jo yoursg 2PM
pue opisXnunoZ — (purjal] WeyuoN) Wopsury pau

ddd 000'01 Ansaio,j pue sauaysty ‘annus y
Jo uauuedaq] — (uel JO 2[s]) Wopsury paluy)

dD 000'7E0'9r amen ysysuq —(pue[suq) wopsury poruy

AQUdIIND [BUOTEU Ajuade ajqisuodsas/A1jun02)
ul jaspng

124

Europe

‘WOpsUTy patUy ‘Ysmquipy/yuad ‘puepoog 10¥ [louNoD AouwarasuoD ome N/Pue NODS Joy UOIssIUMUOD apisknuNOD ‘siouued [eIMEN (1661) SMON/SDO

“MH UT (7661) ‘W TEHOW

‘aleuuonsanb mataal [BuOIsal Oo} asuOdsal ‘NTT Ul (1661) ‘Sf ‘Aydmy

‘omreuuonsanb mataal euorgal 01 asuodsar ‘nT UT (1661) ‘TN ‘19Puldg

‘ddgZ] “‘ysnoroqiaiad *16-0661 [dy suoday yuaaquancg *(1661) DON

‘aleuuonsanb Mataal [euoidal 0) asuodsal 431] UT (1661) “V ‘said

‘ameuuonsanb mataal [euro 0} asuodsal 31] UT (1661) “L ‘UOssIe’]

‘alreuuonsanb Marval [BUOIZal 0} asuOdsal ‘IN| UT (1661) “Y ‘BMOp] siouUePy

‘aleuuonsanb Mataal [euorgal 0} asuodsal 911] UT (1661) “DO ‘MOTAO

‘amreuuonsanb Mmataal [euolsal 0} asuodsal ‘NI] Ul (1661) ‘O ‘Shey A-PlON] pue *g ‘uIaT]
‘ddgot

‘onde } OW], ‘sousYysty pue juswWaSeuRY] amEN ‘ano jo AnstuI ‘spur[JoaN ap JO ueTq AoMOd 2MIEN °(0661) SPUIYSTY Pure JUSWaSeURY] AMEN ‘aMINoBy Jo AnstUT]

“mq UT (7861) NONI

‘aareuuonsanb Mataal [euorsar 0} asuodsar ‘nI] UT (1661) “M ‘stumorssey

‘ameuuonsonb mataal [euorsal 0} asuodsal 111] Ul (1661) ‘[ ‘SAUD

'dd/.6g ‘uopucy ‘pry YN [euoneura Uy 19] 90q ‘sarpmig [eWourUoMAUg Joy omINsUT “Yooqiea x [eaWUOMAUY Uvsdoing (1661) (PA) V ‘wanND

‘aleuuorjsanb MaIAal [BUOIZal 0} asuodsal ‘1] UT (1661) “@ ‘Waony

“MIN ‘e3puqurey ‘NON BAvjsosn ZX ‘eruewoy ‘eueds[ng ‘elueqiy ‘OM ] FUIN[OA ‘0661 :‘WOdoy smeig feUsWUONAUY (166]) 9UNWealg Uesdaing Iseq NONI

STI-€OT “PueHOZIMS ‘PUETD ‘NONI HQO2eN ‘dN ‘NONVAMM/dd NN “edomng waise, pue WayLJoN UI UONeArasUOD ameN (0861) “d ‘S2aiquIy-UAID pur “q ‘arog
ddgcc + IAxx “yf ‘e3puquieD pue puepozims ‘purLD ‘NOMI ‘Naear[ed *7 SUINJOA ‘sWaIskg [eUONBN] JO MaIADY W :PHOM Hp JO sealy poromord (7661) NONI

("JuU09) edoing :sjeHpnq Aouaefe jusweheuew Seale paj}de}01dq “9 31qeL

[p9]

[67]
(91d)
{oza]
(z1q]
[sta]
(sta]
(ria)
[ela]
(z1a]

[11d]
[6a]
[9a]

[61d]
{ral
[ea]
(zal
{€1]

[z]

ssaaanog

125

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 7. Protected areas in Europe created from 1982 to 1991

National Parks
Area (in 1982)

Albania 0 (238,000)
Austria 204,000 (0)
Belgium 0 (0)
Bulgaria 53,770 (48,793)
Czechoslovakia 135,613 (200,061)
Denmark 0 (0)
Finland 544,540 (121,600)
France 0 (352,689)
Germany 697,158 (33,900)
Greece 0 (74,973)
Hungary 32,253 (121,443)
Iceland 0 (180,100)
Ireland 11,758 (10,737)
Italy 0 (271,240)
Netherlands 24,580 (11,410)
Norway 264,300 (964,330)
Poland 28,452 (136,548)
Portugal 0 (71,422)
Romania 353,900 (54,400)
Spain 9,715 (122,763)
Sweden 23,361 (618,108)
Switzerland 0 (16,870)
United Kingdom 28,800 (1,364,267)
Yugoslavia 161,360 360,244

Total 2,573,560 (5,158,926)

Key: N-I — No Information

Nature Parks Other Protected Areas

Area Area

N-I N-

0 N-I

67,854 No

0 27,833

0 321,288

0 134,995

0 22,800

764,688 47,687

N-I N-I

0 105,000

0 165,394

0 17,954

0 4,188

827,560 100,868

0 39,175

0 84,695

1,254,308 19,716

57,370 N-I

0 2,276

1,902,501 126,488

0 337,568

0 N-I

0 615,062

0 51,245

4,874,281 2,224,232

Notes: Areas in hectares. Only areas over 1000ha are included. “National Parks" signify areas of that name designated by
national governments most are in IUCN Category II and V, but some are Category IV. "Nature Parks" includes
Regional Parks; all are Category V. "Other protected areas" are predominantly nature reserves, mostly Category IV

Note:
Source: Gerhard Heiss, 1991,1992.

One of the first examples in Europe is what is now the
Peininy NP, between Slovakia and Poland, established
in 1932. Another good example is the Vanoise NP in
France and the adjacent Gran Paradiso NP in Italy. In
some cases three countries are involved, for example in
the complex of the Bayersicher Wald NP in Germany,
the Sumava NP in Czech Republic and the Bohmerwald
NaP in Austria, the last of which is now being estab-
lished.

The countries in Europe which have invested most in
frontier and transboundary parks are the Czech Repub-
lic and Slovakia, until December 1992 a single state.
Today, one third of the frontier around the two states,
about 800km, is within protected areas (Cerovsky et al.,
1991).

Conservation measures in one park can stimulate
similar measures in the other park. The largest area of
karst in Central Europe, on the border between Slovakia
and Hungary, has been a protected landscape in
Slovakia since 1973; the Slovak authorities designated
their portion as a biosphere reserve in 1977, the

This table is prepared prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and changes in former Yugoslavia.

Hungarian government then declared their part a pro-
tected landscape in 1979, a biosphere reserve in 1979
anda national park in 1985, and now the Slovak authori-
ties are planning to upgrade their part to a national park.
Thus a virtuous circle is generated.

Some of the best opportunities for new transboundary
parks are along the former Iron Curtain, from the Baltic
to the Black Sea. The physical Iron Curtain was in fact
a series of high technology fences, with on the eastern
side a wide zone in which people were not permitted.
This lead to 40 years regrowth of natural vegetation
over large areas. Under the ‘Ecological Bricks for a
Common European House’ project, WWF-Austria and
other conservation groups, including IUCN, are pro-
moting the concept of frontier parks along this border.
In fact, the first place where the fence of the Iron Curtain
was removed, in 1989, was in the Austrian/Hungarian
transboundary Biosphere Reserve of Neusiedler See/
Ferté-t6.

Now that many of the political barriers in Europe have
fallen, there is scope for a massive expansion of trans-

boundary parks. This would be a welcome expression
of the spirit of international cooperation between na-
tions and of their concern for mature.

8. Initiatives between European
countries

Many international bodies are active in Europe yet, as
pointed out by Synge (1991), there is a great need for
integration of the various legal instruments and forums.

Many of Europe’s protected areas have international
or regional designations, as Tables 4 and 4a show,
respectively. Designation as Ramsar wetland sites and
UNESCO biosphere reserves have proved popular, but
World Heritage sites, with their much tougher condi-
tions for entry, are much less numerous (Table 5).

The accounts below describe those international des-
ignations that are European rather than global in scope.

8.1 The European Community

The European Community is the only supra-national
law-making body in the world and the only body to
which nation states have surrendered significant ele-
ments of their sovereignty. The EC has agreed over 200
statutes on the environment and is emerging as a cruci-
ble in which new ways of international collaboration—
vital to environmental protection—are being forged.

The Community at present has 12 members—Belgium,
Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy.
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and UK.
However, some of the remaining countries are applying
for membership and more are likely to do so in the
future.

The main legal instrument used by the Community is
the Directive, which is a framework law. It is written in
the style of an international convention, and Member
States are required to implement it within a specified
period of time. If the Commission believes the national
law is inadequate to implement a Directive, it can take
the Member State concemed to the European Court of
Justice.

Two directives create protected areas: the Birds Di-
rective and the Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive.
Under the Birds Directive, which came into force in
1981, Member States have to classify as Special Protec-
tion Areas (SPAs) the most important territories for
some 178 endangered birds, listed on Annex 1 of the
Directive. Member States have declared over 600 SPAs
so far, covering about 5 million ha, out of the c.1500
sites that conservation groups estimate would qualify.
Moreover the actual protection afforded to SPAs is
uneven, as at least 2 Member States have not imple-
mented any protective measures in the SPAs they have
designated.

Nevertheless, conservationists are finding that, if an
area is designated in an SPA and then violated, the law
can be invoked. In a case between Germany and the

127

Europe

European Commission, the European Court of Justice
accepted that a dike could be built in an SPA at
Leybucht, on grounds of overwhelming public safety,
in this case to prevent a village from flooding, but ruled
against further damage to the SPA that had been argued
for on economic grounds. This decision means that
SPAs can be damaged for reasons of overwhelming
public safety, but not for economic reasons. This goes
beyond the customs and laws of most European coun-
tries. Conservation groups see the Leybucht case as a
vital precedent.

The second key directive is the Flora, Fauna and
Habitats Directive, which was adopted in June 1992.
This Directive builds on the Birds Directive by making
provisions for the conservation of habitats and species
(other than birds). In particular, Member States are
now required to create Special Areas for Conservation
(SACs, analogous to SPAs) to conserve the sites of a
given list of threatened species and of threatened habitat
types. The latter aspect, listing literally hundreds of
vegetation types from the CORINE system of vegeta-
tion classification, is unique in international law. The
countries of the Community now have to implement this
Directive; this can be expected to lead to more protected
areas being set up, especially for rare and declining
habitat types, and the standards of protection in existing
protected areas being strengthened.

SPAs and SACs have two great advantages over
protected areas created under international treaties. On
the one hand, as the Leybucht case showed, govern-
ments damaging them can be taken to the European
Court of Justice. On the other, the Commission is in-
creasingly able to provide funding for their creation and
implementation.

8.2 Other agreements and

organizations at European level

The Council of Europe’s Bern Convention (Conven-
tion on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats) was the precursor to the EC Habitats
Directive, as its provisions cover the protection of threat-
ened species and habitats in Europe. However, although
the provisions are wide-ranging, most of the work of its
Standing Committee, which is responsible for monitor-
ing its application, has been on endangered species.
Recommendations have been adopted on Gran Sasso
(Italy), Lagunas Bay (Greece) and on 20 sites for en-
dangered reptiles and amphibians. (For more details see
Synge, 1991.)

The Council of Europe is also creating a European
Network of Biogenetic Reserves (totalling 197 sites so
far) and awards the European Diploma to protected
areas. One strong point of the Diploma is that it is only
awarded after an evaluation of a park on the ground and
is reviewed by a further evaluation after five years. If
necessary the Award can be revoked. Not surprisingly,
this has proved an excellent way of maintaining the
quality of the areas awarded the Diploma.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 8. Comparison for selected countries in Europe of protected areas eligible and

not eligible for the UN List

UN List Sites
(IUCN Cat. I-V,
over 1,000ha)
Area

No.

Czech and Slovak Republics
National Nature Reserves (I or IV)

France
Nature Reserves (I or IV)

Greece

Aesthetic Forest (III or V)
Protected Natural Monuments (III or V)
Hunting Reserve (IV)

Hungary
Nature Conservation Area (IV)
Landscape Protected Area (V)

Italy

National (State) Protected Area (I or V)
Regional protected area (I or V)

Luxembourg
Nature Reserve (IV)

Norway
Marine Reserve (I or IV)

Poland
Nature Reserve (IV)

Sweden

Nature Reserve (IV)
Wildlife Sanctuary (?)

United Kingdom
National Nature Reserve (IV)

Notes:

Source: Compiled by WCMC, December 1991

UNEP’s Barcelona Convention—the Convention for
the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollu-
tion—contains a protocol on protected areas, which
entered into force in March 1986 and which all the
countries around the Mediterranean Sea except Syria
and Lebanon have now ratified. The Protocol includes
provisions to establish Specially Protected Areas (SPAs)
of marine and coastal areas, and water-courses up to the
freshwater limit. So far 75 SPAs have been designated,
but these include, as a single entity, the 61 properties of
the Conservatoire de |’ Espace Littoral et des Rivages
Lacustres along the coast of France. Many of the 75

56,808

83,708

30,458
15,000
9,450

13,815
404,013

1,841,000

130,339

128

Non-UN List Sites
(IUCN Cat. I-V,
under 1,000ha)
No. Area

Total Date of
No. Area information

31,714 88,522

15,580 99,288

2,649
1,624
1,745

33,107
16,624
11,195

17,432
5,658

31,247
409,671

39,114
26,774

207 600,027
287 1,427,408

520
911 143,000

27,134

17,314 272 = 82,201

430,000
110,000

1,381 2,271,000

0 891 110,000

37,768 242 168,107

Areas in hectares. This table is not extensive and contains only examples. NGO reserves are omitted entirely.

SPAs are existing protected areas, but some are new
ones, such as those created by Italy.

Turning to organizations, The Federation of Nature
and National Parks of Europe (FNPPE) is a pan-
European organization whose main membership com-
prises national parks, regional parks and nature parks
across Europe. By 1992, 180 sites in 28 countries were
members. Members use the Federation as a forum to
share management experience, and to promote and ex-
tend the ideals of conservation. It holds yearly assem-
blies, which have a series of workshops on specific

themes, such as training needs and tourism appropriate
to protected areas. It also arranges seminars, such as one
in Hungary on the changing agenda for protected areas
in Eastern and Central Europe.

Regarding information, CORINE, WCMC and
EUROMAB all have databases on European protected
areas. They work closely with other information centres
around Europe, one of the most active of which is the
International Park Documentation Centre (CEDIP)
in Florence, Italy.

Other organizations active at European level include
World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), which now has
a European Programme based in Brussels, EUROSITE,
and the European Union for Coastal Conservation (EUCC).
IUCN itself has an active programme of projects in
Eastern and Central Europe, a plan for a programme for
all of Europe agreed in 1992; its Commissions, espe-
ciaily the Species Survival Commission and CNPPA,
are very active in the region.

9. Priorities for action in the region
This Review confirms that:

many of Europe’s protected areas are in danger;
the network is incomplete;

the time is right to reinforce and extend pro-
tected areas.

The 10 Actions below address these conclusions.
Under each action, priority tasks are listed. Although
this is not a detailed action plan as costings, targets and
so on will need to be elaborated, it does provide a
framework for the action plan for Protected Areas in
Europe, to be prepared in 1993 by IUCN in cooperation
with FNNPE.

ACTION 1. Promote a Europe-wide
approach to protected areas

Priority should go to:

1.1. Anevaluation of the extensive natural and semi-
natural habitats of Europe in order to identify

gaps in the protected areas network.

1.2. Implementation of a continent-wide European
Ecological Network, based on the protection of
core areas for conservation, the creation of buff-
er zones around these, the establishment of cor-
ridors to link them, the restoration of damaged
habitats, and the creation of new ones as appro-
priate.

1.3. Ensuring that the conservation of biodiversity
and the establishment and management of pro-
tected areas figure prominently in international

129

Europe

cooperation for the protection of the environment,
in particular in: (a) The State of the Environment
report, and follow-up work, called for by Euro-
pean Environment Ministers at Dobris Castle,
Prague, 1991; (b) the implementation of the
European Community’s 5th Action Programme
for the European Environment; and (c) the work,
throughout Europe, of the Task Force for the
European Environmental Agency.

ACTION 2. Address the protected area
needs of priority sub-regions

Priority should go to:

2.1 Southern Europe and the Mediterranean: ac-
tion is urgently needed in this, Europe’s biologi-

cally richest sub-region, in particular to:

Strengthen protected area legislation and institutions at
the national level;

Extend protected area coverage in all biological re-
gions, but especially wetlands, forests and other terres-
trial habitats of the Mediterranean;

Exchange experience and information between manag-
ers;

Improve the level of training of staff; and

Extend existing collaboration for the protection of the
Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea.

2.2 Central and Eastern Europe: though protected
area coverage and standards of management are
relatively good in most of these countries, action
is needed to reinforce their protection in the face
of economic and social changes and external

threats.

Coastal and Marine Regions: action is needed
to identify protected area needs and priorities as
part of ongoing inter-governmental cooperation
for the protection of the North and Baltic seas
and the Arctic Ocean.

ACTION 3: Concentrate on the needs of
particular countries

Priority should go to:

3.1 Countries needing an improved coverage of pro-
tected areas. Examples include Ireland and the

United Kingdom (Scotland).

3.2. Countries where political support needs rein-
forcement. Examples include most of the coun-
tries of southern Europe, in particular Portugal

and Greece.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

3.3. Countries where decentralization creates pro-
tected areas problems. Examples include
Germany and Austria, in particular to reinforce
cO- operation between national and local
authorities responsible for protected areas.

3.4 Countries under great economic pressure,
such as Albania.

3.5 Countries recovering from armed conflict:
the States that are emerging from the breakup of
former Yugoslavia may need international help
to assist in the recovery of damaged protected
areas once the fighting is over.

ACTION 4: Promote higher standards of
protected area management

Priority should go to:

4.1 A major initiative to raise standards of protec-
tion and management in Category II national
parks.

4.2. Asmall number of high profile demonstration
projects selected for their suitability for interna-
tional collaboration and the replicability of les-
sons learnt within them.

4.3. Development of techniques of sustainable man-
agement for natural or semi-natural ecosystems
of high value for nature but under pressure from
human impacts.

ACTION 5: Promote protected area
objectives through other
sectors

Priority should go to:

5.1 Land use planning: to ensure that protected
areas are not treated as "islands", countries should
adopt effective land use planning systems so that
they can control construction, building, engi-
neering, agriculture and forestry, thus reinforc-
ing the protection given to all natural and cultural
resources, within and outside protected areas.

5.2 Development Funding: The EC Structural Funds
for the economic development of less prosper-
ous regions of Europe must be sensitized to
protected area needs, so that existing protected
areas are not damaged and to ensure that this
funding puts regional development on an envi-
ronmentally sustainable basis.

5.3. Agriculture: the reform of the EC’s Common
Agricultural Policy offers a unique opportunity
to create new protected areas and extend or
reinforce existing ones from land previously farmed.

130

5.4 Tourism: Governments should agree national
policies for sustainable tourism, based on re-
spect for the natural and cultural heritage, and on
using the revenue and public interest generated
by tourism to support protected areas.

5.5 Reducing pollution: Governments urgently need
to collaborate to combat the air, freshwater and
marine pollution which threatens many protec-
ted areas in Europe.

5.6 Securing a peace dividend: to convert large
areas of land formerly used by the military and
part of the land along the former Iron Curtain
into protected areas.

ACTION 6: Use or develop international
legal instruments

Priority should go to:

6.1 Adherence by States, which are not yet parties,
to the various existing global and regional con-
ventions for the protection of the natural envi-
ronment, in particular the Ramsar Convention,
the World Heritage Convention, the Convention
on Biological Biodiversity and the Bern
Convention.

6.2 Early implementation of the Flora, Fauna and
Habitats Directive within the EC countries, and
better implementation of the Birds Directive.

6.3. The development of an international agreement on
Conservation of Rural Landscapes of Europe.

ACTION 7: Improve protected area data
collection, monitoring and
evaluation

Priority should go to:

7.1 Extending the information handling system of
WCMC’s Protected Areas Data Unit.

7.2 Improving the data handling capacity of pro-
tected area authorities.

7.3. Ensuring that national and international infor-
mation activities include monitoring manage-
ment effectiveness and threats to protected areas.

ACTION 8: Strengthen the training of
nature conservation staff
8.1 Priority at national level should go to:

A policy statement by each country on training and a
commitment of a certain proportion of the protected

area budget to training; (an eventual figure of 4 per cent
is proposed;)

Preparation and implementation of a training strategy
to provide training at all appropriate levels;

8.2 Priority at international level should go to pro-
viding assistance to countries in achieving 8.1,
in particular to:

Prepare model training strategies, programmes and
materials;

Develop and coordinate a range of additional in-service
training opportunities for staff, especially at regional
level;

Set standards for national training centres and for
courses they provide.

FNNPE should receive support to employ a training
coordinator to develop and coordinate staff exchanges,
twinning programmes, training courses in priority sub-
ject areas and study visits.

Europe

ACTION 9: Mobilize cooperation at
european level

Cooperation among all conservation bodies and inter-
national funding will be vital to achieving the Actions
listed above. Transboundary protected areas, where man-
agement of a natural area is shared by two or more
States, are a particularly good way of developing inter-
national cooperation, and should receive further sup-
port. Another good way of achieving European cooper-
ation is by regional associations of protected areas or of
protected area agencies.

ACTION 10: Develop public support for
protected areas

Priority should go to building a better appreciation by
the public of Europe’s natural heritage, through better
educative and interpretative programmes in protected
areas, aimed both at local people and at visitors from
elsewhere. Such programmes should emphasize that on
the one hand "Conservation Begins at Home", but on
the other that "Nature is a European Heritage”.

Acknowledgements

This review was prepared in association with the
Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe
(FNNPE). Much of the work of drafting the review was
funded by the World Wide Fund for Nature — United
Kingdom.

IUCN and FNNPE gratefully acknowledge the con-
tributions made by many organizations and individuals
in the preparation of this report, both those who com-
mented on drafts of the text and those who provided the
essential data about protected areas which form the
foundation of the review.

A meeting in September 1991, on Elba, generously
arranged by the International Park Documentation
Center (CEDIP), provided a valuable opportunity to
review a draft outline of the paper. A subsequent

questionnaire, sent out to national authorities and rele-
vant CNPPA members, provided much additional infor-
mation, especially for the tables. Subsequent meetings,
involving both FNNPE and IUCN, were held in both
Gland and Grafenau, and an open meeting was held at the
Caracas Congress.

In particular [UCN and FNNPE thank the following,
who contributed individual sections: Jan Cerovsky,
Gerhard Heiss, Adrian Phillips and Rosie Simpson.
Thanks are also due to Zbigniew Karpowicz of the
IUCN East European Programme, Graham Drucker of
WCMC and David Baldock of the Institute for
European Environmental Policy (IEEP), and to Marie
Knuth, Mario and Antonio Machado, Anna Newman
and Alison Suter for translation services.

References

Anon, 1987. The Lake District Declaration, adopted by
the participants at the International Symposium on
Protected Landscapes, Grange-over-Sands, England,
5-10 October 1987. Countryside Commission. 3 pp.

Anon, 1990. Okologische Bausteine fiir unser gemein-

sanes Haus Europa. Miinchen, Verlag fiir Politische
Okologie. (Politische Oklogie, Beiheft; 2).

Association of National Park Officers (ANPO), 1989.
Report of the National Park Staff Training Working
Group. ANPO.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

L’ Atelier technique des espaces naturels, 1991. Pro-
gramme de formation des personnels des espaces
naturels. Ministére de 1’Environnement, Direction
de la Protection de la Nature.

Batisse, M. and A.J. de Grissac, (undated). Marine
Protected Areas in the Mediterranean and the Black
Sea: Past, present status and perspective. Report
prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. 23 pp.

Bennett, G. (Ed.), 1991. Towards the European Eco-
logical Network. Institute for European Environ-
mental Policy, Amhem, December 1991.

Bibelriether, H. and R. Schreiber, 1989. Nationalparke
Europas. Siiddeutscher Verlag, Munich. Col. illus.

Carp, E., 1990. Directory of Wetlands of International
Importance in the Western Palearctic. UNEP/IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland. 506 pp.

Cerovsky, J. etal, 1991. Frontier parks in Czechoslovakia.
Ministry of the Environment, Czech Republic. 16 pp.

Countryside Commission, 1989. Training for tomorrow's
countryside. Countryside Commission, Cheltenham,
UK.

de Klemm, C., 1990. Wild Plant Conservation and the
Law. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper
No. 24. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK. 215 pp. Illus.

Duffey, E., 1982. National Parks and Reserves of
Western Europe. Macdonald, London. 288 pp.

Esping, L.E., and G. Grénqvist, 1991. The Baltic Sea
and the Skagerrak: IUCN-CNPPA-Network of
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), the Baltic. Report
prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. November
1991.

FNNPE, 1991. In Nature and National Parks European
Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 110.

FNNPE 1993. Loving them to death? Sustainable tour-
ism in Europe’ s Nature and National Parks. FNNPE,
Grafenau, Germany. 96pp.

Grimmett, R.F.A. and Jones T.A. , 1989. Bird Areas in
Europe. International Council for Bird Preservation,
Cambridge, UK.

Gubbay, S., undated. North East Atlantic Realm. Report
prepared for IVth World Parks Congress.

Heiss, G., 1988. Inventur Europdischer Natur- und
Nationalparke. Vol. 1 (Greece and Portugal), Vol.
2 (France National Parks), Vol. 3 (France Nature
Parks, UK, Belgium, Netherlands), Vol. 4 (Switzerland,
Italy, FRG). FNNPE, Grafenau, Germany.

Heiss, G., 1991. Situation von Schutzgebieten: Region-
albericht Europa. FNNPE. 24 pp.

International Park Documentation Center (CEDIP), 1991.
A CEDIP contribution to the World Congress on
National Parks 1992: For an International Policy
on Parks. CEDIP, Florence. 8 pp.

IUCN, 1990a. 1990 United Nations List of National
Parks and Protected Areas/Liste des Nations Unies
des Parcs Nationaux et des Aires Protégées 1990.
Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring

132

Centre and IUCN. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland,
Switzerland. 275 pp.

IUCNN, 1990b. Protected areas in Eastern and Central
Europe and the USSR (An interim review). 1UCN
East European Programme, Environmental Research
Series, No. 1. 100 pp.

IUCN, 1990c, 1991. Environmental Status Reports:
1988/1989 and 1990. Vol. 1: Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Poland. 127 pp. Vol. 2: Albania, Bulgaria,
Romania, Yugoslavia. 170 pp. (UCN East European
Programme.

IUCN, 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A review of
national systems. Volume 2: Palaearctic. Prepared
by The World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 556pp.

Koester, V., 1984. Denmark: Conservation legislation
and general protection of biotopes in an interna-
tional perspective. Environmental Policy and Law
12(4): 106-116.

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fish-
eries, 1990. Nature Policy Plan of the Netherlands,
in outline. 22 pp. Col. illus., col. map.

Naturvardsverket, 1991. Naturvardsplan for Sverige
(A Nature Conservation Plan for Sweden).
Naturvardsverket. 80 pp. (English summary).

Poore, D. and P. Gwyn-Ambrose, 1980. Nature Con-
servation in Northern and Western Europe. UNEP,
IUCN and WWF, Gland, Switzerland. 408 pp.

Poore, D. & W., 1992. The Protected Landscapes of the
United Kingdom. Countryside Commission.

Ramade, F., 1984. Keynote Address: The Palearctic
Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (Eds),
National Parks, Conservation and Development:
The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.
418-425pp.

Ramade, F., 1990. Conservation des Ecosystémes
Méditerranéens: Enjeux et perspectives. Les Fascicules
du Plan Bleu 3. Economica, Paris. 144 pp.

Segnestam, M., 1984. Future Directions for the Western
Palearctic Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller
(Eds), National Parks, Conservation and Develop-
ment: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining
Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
DC, USA. Pp. 486-490

Synge, H., 1991. Environmental Agreements at Euro-
pean Level on the Conservation of Biological Diver-
sity. Paper prepared for the European Regional Con-
sultation of the WRI-IUCN-UNEP Biodiversity Con-
servation Strategy and Action Plan, London, 22-24
July 1991. 23 pp.

Tassi, F., 1991. Protected Areas Strategies for Europe
2000. Paper presented to the European Parliament/
WWE conference "Nature Conservation— Europe
2000", September 1991.

Thorsell, J., 1990. The IUCN Register of Threatened
Protected Areas of the World. YUCN, Mimeo.

North Eurasia

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

seaie pe}de}01d pajyeubisep Ajje6a) ulyyim pepnjou! Asyjunod jo abeyuadseq

008 OOF O
=
Wu

%OC UPU} aJ1OW

ZOC-SL

peyoajoud abpjuacs94
\L_ fo

“dew

134

Contents

Page
PETOGUCTION. Sire re etme sees Bearer en eRe EM hue ek 137
APEMEStOFICAall DEFSPECH VE) a. se esses ve ca aise le Sse ewan e vents, seis velenuiecmouemay 137
2. Current protected areacoverage .......................0.. 139
3. Additional protected areasrequired ....................... 142
4. Protected areainstitutions ..... 2.0... ee ee ee 144
5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 145
6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 146
7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 146
8. Major protected areas issuesinthe region ................... 147
Solem beopleiniprotectediarcasa, AeUic: .-.<.cika eucueuioes 2 ekklesia ee 147
Sp2aelnvolvementybyithe private sectOns = acl cle Ges Gace Gatien iene enone 148
Sesembrrotectediarcasvand surrounding lands) ye) icy cecil ennui) Cacao 149
Grd erOtectedyareas and science meme cc) Eee heme ot ene en mee 149
Se Eolutionvand protected’ areas... .) . ewes mee penne wee Bae eetas 151
8.6. Threats to effective management of protected areas ................ 152
Sees LrANns (ONUEHINIMAtLVES cogcweayecs > «Gee ees eS eee eee ee ee 152
9. Priorities foractionintheregion .....................00.. 153
REIGN ON CCS oe eee hag tree yin 5 Ta hye eed Coe Recta cle te a ceinare 155
Tables
Table 1. Summary of the protected areassystem .........-...-...-.-.-.. 138
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories .............. 141
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system ............... 143
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 147
Table 5. World Heritage sites in North Eurasia .................... 149
Table 6. Investment in nature reserves, national parks and game (hunting)
reservesnithey Republics . )euecne nen ene nen eeenr nomen memen 151

Table 7.
Figures
Map.

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Development of the network of nature reserves and national parks
in the Republics: perspectives upto2005 ................ 154

Percentage of country included within legally designated protected

ATEAS yoru tees elon, osu bs Sadia! SN. es: Sato ois Heese 134
Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 140
Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 140

136

North Eurasia

Alexander A. Nikol’skii, Regional Vice-Chair for North Eurasia,
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with assistance
from Ludmilla !. Bolshova and Svietlana E. Karaseva

Moscow, August, 1992

Note: Many political changes have taken place in this region, so some of the information

contained in this report is subject to change.

Introduction

The North Eurasia region occupies a huge area of 22.4
million sq km. It includes a great variety of natural
complexes, including arctic deserts and tundra, taiga,
mixed and broad-leaved forests of the temperate zone
and subtropical forests, steppes and deserts. This diver-
Sity is the result of both latitudinal and altitudinal variety,
with the largest mountain regions in Eurasia (Caucasus,
Tien-Shan, Pamir, etc). Marine areas, part of three
oceans systems—the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific—are
of vital importance in the region.

At the time when this review was made, the 15
Republics of the region formed the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics with a population of 290 million,
but the political situation is changing rapidly and all
Union republics have now declared their sovereignty.
Furthermore, the regional State system, and its social
and economic policies, will change, influencing in their
tum the development of the protected areas network.
Already marked changes affect the management system
for specially protected natural areas. The major tendency
is a decentralization of natural resource management
and environmental protection.

The state of protected areas in the region as of mid-
1991 is discussed and some prognoses for protected
areas development are given with due regard to the
present tendencies of the political situation. A review
of the protected areas system prior to the dissolution of
the USSR has been compiled by the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992).

1. Historical perspective

Protected natural areas first appeared in Russia in the
14th and 15th centuries, the period of the formation of
the Russian centralized state. Prototypes of specially
protected areas appeared in Russia to preserve and
enrich forest, fish and game areas. Sites with limited
natural use practices were established in the Urals, in

137

the upper reaches of the Konda and Sos’ va rivers with
beaver and sable populations, and in Byeloveza Puscha
to protect the European Bison. There were also abatis
(protected forests) in the Don, Dnieper and Oka river
basins, and monastic "bloodless" (closed for hunting)
lands. Many of these early protected areas have been
transformed into zapovedniks (nature reserves) (the term
"zapovednik” is Russian, meaning "a ban on specific
actions").

Primarily, nature reserves and other protected areas
(sanctuaries, for example) have been created to preserve
the most valuable forest territories and valuable or
endangered species, including game animals and plants.

The modern concept of protected areas, based upon
the necessity to conserve natural ecosystems, began
early this century. Expeditions of the Russian Geographic
Society, and of the Moscow and Riga Societies for
Nature, played a significant role in its development.
Between 1910 and 1916, conservation status was given
to natural sites in the II’men mountains in the Urals, the
Vaika Islands in Estonia, Moriczala in Latvia, the hilly
area between the Pechora and Ilych rivers (the only
habitat of the European population of the sable) and
Pinus eldarica forests in the Caucasus. Considerable
knowledge had been obtained on nature monuments in
the Caucasus, Pre-Baltia and central regions of Russia.
Two large expeditions had been organized to survey
sable habitats in the Bargusin, Sayany and Kamchatka
regions. For the first time, a law was made in Russia to
prohibit hunting of sable in the wild, in 1913-16. Chari-
table activity of big land-owners contributed much to
providing conservation status to valuable steppe-areas
in the Ukraine, in Samara and Voronezh provinces, and
forest sites in Urals. By 1917 the protected areas net-
work included 30 nature reserves covering 1 million ha.

The main approach taken in Russia and then the
Soviet Union was the establishment of nature reserves
rather than national parks. Nature reserves provide better

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: North Eurasia

Area in
CategoriesI-V %

Country Area
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Russian Fed.
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan

29,800
86,600
207,600
69,700
2,717,300
198,500
33,700
17,075,400
143,100
488,100
603,700
447,400

Notes:

Total area
designated %

Area in Categories
VI-VIIIlandUA %

oooooooococoo

Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category

has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.

Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover.

The complete list of area in categories VI-VIII, including state forestry, reserves, (Zakazniki) is not available.

protection to nature than national parks, but their weak
point is that the territory is entirely inaccessible to
people. This can lead to a negative reaction by the
population to protected areas on one hand, and reduces
the possibilities for organized educational tourism, on
the other. All this has an impact on the environmental
education of the population.

During the first years of existence of the Soviet State
a number of new nature reserves were established,
including Astrakhansky (1919), Ilmensky (1920) and
Caucasian (1924) in Russia; Berezinsky (1925) in Belarus;
Kysyl-Agachsky (1929) in Kazakhstan and others. By
the 1930s the total area of nature reserves had doubled.

The decrees and by-laws of the Government of the
USSR confirmed the principle of inviolability, i.e. en-
tire withdrawal of their territories from economic activi-
ties. In 1933 the Committee for Nature Reserves,
attached to the Presidium of the All-Russian Central
Executive Committee, was established. In 1938 it was
transformed into the Chief Department for Nature Re-
serves, attached to the RSFSR Council of Peoples Com-
missars. Unfavourable tendencies subsequently started
to develop in protected area management due to wide
political and economic reforms, which needed the
maximum possible mobilization of all of the resources
and led to increased economic exploitation of protected
natural areas. The concept of their inviolability came
under criticism; tasks for utilization of economically
useful animals and plants and self-financing of nature
reserves were put forward. In the 1950s, when the
network of reserves was relatively representative, the
hardest period for their survival had come. Decisions
taken in 1951 and 1961 seriously reduced the number

138

of reserves and destroyed their management and scien-
tific structures. By 1951 only 40 of the 128 nature
reserves survived on an area of 1.5 million ha (formerly
12.5 million ha). In Russia only 17 of the 45 nature
reserves survived; in fact, all the biggest nature re-
serves with an area over 200,000ha had been abol-
ished, among them Pechoro-Ilych, Altaisky and
Sikhote-Alinsky. In 1961, 16 nature reserves were abol-
ished once more, including Altaisky, Zhygulevsky and
Kronotzky. Simultaneously, the area of many reserves
was reduced. Scientific research was limited to prob-
lems related to hunting, agriculture and forestry.

In the mid-1960s, due to the efforts of scientific
institutions, the situation began to improve. By the
beginning of the 1970s, earlier nature reserves had been
re-established and their numbers and total area achieved
the level of 1961 (Table 3). This work has been pro-
moted by the Commission on Nature Reserves of the
USSR Academy of Sciences, which was transformed
later into the Commission on Nature Protection, and in
1979 into the All-Union Research Institute for Nature
Conservation and Nature Reserves. Expansion of the
network of nature reserves continued in the 1970s. The
most intensive increase of their numbers was in 1976—
1980, when in Russia such large nature reserves as the
Taimyrsky (1,348,300ha), Wrangel Island (795,700ha),
Putoransky (1,660,000ha), Baikal’sky (165,700ha),
Baikalo-Lensky (600,000ha), Sayano-Shushensky
(389,600ha), and Central-Siberian (792,000ha) were
created. Nature reserves have been created in Central
Asia, in the Ukraine and in the Baltic Republics as well.

The national parks network began to develop only in
the 1970s. The first national parks were established in

the Baltic Republics. They are Lahemaa in Estonia,
Gays in Latvia and Lithuvian in Lithuania; later on
national parks were created in Russia, the Ukraine,
Transcaucasia and Middle Asia. Among them there are
Zabaikal’sky (246,000ha), the Baltic (418,000ha),
Prielbrusye (100,400ha) and Sevan (150,000ha). More
recently Vodlozersky (404,000ha) in Karelia and Shorsky
(418,200ha) in Kemerovo region, RSFSR, have been
established. The development of the protected areas
network in the region is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2,
although the latter does not reflect the depletion of the
protected areas system during the 1950s and 1960s due
to the manner in which the data have been recorded.

Game (hunting) reserves are a specific type of pro-
tected area, equivalent to IUCN Category IV. Histori-
cally, these were hunting areas for kings. Up to recent
times six areas of this type served as sites for a limited
number of persons, which provoked some criti cism. At
the same time, being under a highly strict protection
regime, these territories played an important role in
conserving natural ecosystems and some species of
animals and plants. Thus, the Crimean game reserve is
the best reserve area for the rare subspecies of the
Crimean red deer (Cervus elaphus) and the Byelovezha
Puscha is a reserve for the conservation of European
bison. Gradually there are now positive trends for the
- reorganisation of game reserves into nature reserves. In
particular, Zavidovo game reserve near Moscow has
been transformed into a nature reserve where shooting
is prohibited and now provides for a higher level of
scientific research. A decision has been taken on reor-
ganisation of the Crimean game reserve into a nature
reserve; a similar draft decision is under preparation for
Byelovezha Puscha in Byelorussia.

Table 1 shows selected data on protected areas in the
various Republics. The distribution of nature reserves
and national parks, as it is given in the figures, is highly
variable, ranging from 0% (Moldova) to 7.4% (Armenia)
in the various Republics (Map).

In recent decades, as the normal functioning of the
global biosphere is becoming increasingly threatened,
the role of natural areas as complete "ecosystems" is
being promoted. The necessity to coordinate intergov-
emmental efforts in protecting nature is also being
realized. The most important intergovernmental pro-
grammes for our country have been the International
Biological Programme, the Man and Biosphere Pro-
gramme (23 of our reserves have been declared biosphere
reserves), the World Heritage Convention and the Ramsar
Wetlands Convention.

The main recommendations of the 1982 Bali Con-
gress on national parks have been taken into account
in furthering state and republican programmes for pro-
tected areas. Thus, in 1984 a scheme for rational de-
velopment of the system of nature reserves, national
parks and equivalent territories was begun. In 1990, a
new Programme of Establishment of the Network of
Specially Protected Areas for the period up to 2005 was
adopted. The scientific principles for their development

139

North Eurasia

incorporated the principles of the USSR physical and
geographical zoning taking into account biogeogra-
phical coverage of major ecosystems within the pro-
tected areas network. After the Bali Congress the USSR
established 30 nature reserves (including 16 biosphere
reserves), 15 national parks and one game reserve with
an area of 9,725,000ha throughout the region. Among
them were large ones as the Wrangel Island Biosphere
Reserve (Pacific) and the Estonian Archipelago Bio-
sphere Reserve (Baltic, marine). Their distribution and
extent are aimed at protecting major ecosystems, con-
serving biodiversity, providing ecological balance, and
providing sites for background and biological mon-
itoring and for environmental education.

The Soviet Union has been a party to the Ramsar
Convention since 1975. At present 12 wetlands of in-
ternational importance are inscribed on the Ramsar list
in 7 Republics, covering about 3 million ha. Now 16
new proposals for the List, resulting from intensive
surveys by scientific institutions of the country, are
under discussion.

In 1989 the USSR signed the World Heritage Con-
vention, which came into force in 1990. Over 40 pro-
posed areas of outstanding value are being considered
in 13 Republics of the former Soviet Union. Some of
them have natural importance, while others are of mixed
natural and cultural/historic importance. To date only
one site has been inscribed on the World Heritage List
(Table 5), the Belovezhskaya Puschu, which lies across
the border from the Bialowieza National Park in Poland
(also a World Heritage Site).

The USSR has been a member of the UNESCO/MAB
Programme since it started in 1971, and numerous
programmes now are being conducted in nature re-
serves on multi- and bilateral bases. The basic principles
of all biosphere reserves include organizational, scien-
tific, monitoring, social and educational aspects which
are being followed in this category of protected area. Of
the 23 biosphere reserves, 19 were administered by the
USSR Ministry of Natural Resources Management and
Environmental Protection. Seven new areas are being
considered as proposals for Biosphere Reserves within
the Region. In 1983, the First World Congress on Bio-
sphere Reserves was held in Minsk, Belarus.

Since the dissolution of the USSR the situation re-
grading international conventions and programmes has
become unclear. However, current data held by the
World Conservation Monitoring Centre is given in Table 4.

2. Current protected area coverage

Throughout the former USSR the same categories of
specially protected areas were used in each of the
Republics as follows: nature reserves (equivalent to
IUCN Category I), national parks (Category II), nature
monuments (Category III) and sanctuaries or refuges
(Category I'V).

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)
100

Number of sites

80 Area (x1000sqkm)

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)

500

Number of sites

400 Area (x1000sqkm)

300
200

100

0 exert Hai Bo BS, on Ee
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

140

Nature reserves (zapovedniks) were established for
conserving and studying representative and unique
natural ecosystems, preserving the gene pools of organ-
isms, and monitoring the dynamics of natural processes
and phenomena. Their territories and water spaces were
withdrawn from economic use for perpetuity.

National parks were established to protect natural
complexes of outstanding ecological, historic or aesthetic
value as well as to promote environmental education.
One of the principal tasks of national parks was outdoor
recreation. As a rule, the national park lands were also
withdrawn from alternative uses.

Nature monuments were small natural sites or natural
objects, being of outstanding ecological, scientific, aesthetic
and cultural importance. Their protection was under the
responsibility of the land-users on whose territories they
were found.

Sanctuaries were designed for the conservation, re-
production and restoration of specific components of
wildlife.

The 1990 UN List of Protected Areas, published by
IUCN and incorporating the first five IUCN manage-
ment categories, gives a misleading picture of the rela-
tive areas, numbers and categories of protected areas in
the USSR. The list includes only nature reserves and
national parks (Categories I and II), whose total area is
1.02% of the land. But the list does not include sanctu-
aries (which have no assigned IUCN category). They
are the most widespread management category in all of

North Eurasia

the region’s Republics; by including these sites, the total
area protected in the region would reach 4.1%. These
amendments, change notably the view of the whole
system of areas in the USSR.

The development of the network of protected areas
has long been centralized and accomplished at the na-
tional level of the country. Plans for the development of
the System of Protected Areas and National Parks were
elaborated by the USSR State Environmental Agencies
on the basis of proposals by scientific research environ-
mental institutions. However since independence of the
various republics the network has become decentral-
ized.

In the process of developing plans for expanding the
system of protected areas in the USSR, the social and
economic features of a region were taken into account,
including industry, agriculture, population structure and
urbanization problems, transportation, pollution, and
traditional lifestyles. However, the area of a proposed
protected area depended to a large extent on the pop-
ulation density of specific regions. Comparing the area
of 27 nature reserves directed by the USSR Ministry of
Natural Resources Management and Environmental
Protection to population density shows an inverse ratio;
ie. the higher the population density, the smaller the
reserve area. The linear regression factor is rather high and
reaches 0.77 (significant at the 1% level). Similar results
have been received for the other 167 nature reserves in the
former Soviet Union but the average coefficient of corre-
lation is lower.

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: North Eurasia

IV
Area No. Area

119
1,778
1,384
1,672
7,899
1,779

187,573
856
11,114
1,587
2,132

218,493

160 237,958

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection
function are generally included. The complete list of protected areas in Categories III—V is not available. The
complete list of protected areas in Categories III-V is not available.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

These results are not unexpected, but they raise the
issue of the objectivity of the process of planning the
network of protected areas, suggesting that the institu-
tions responsible for planning and managing the pro-
tected areas may have been "victims of circumstance".

The distribution of nature reserves and national parks
indicates that the majority of them are located in the
most densely populated regions of the westem part of
the country, on the Russian plateau, in the mountains of
the Caucasus and in Middle Asia. Some 60% of the total
numbers of nature reserves are located in the European
part of the former USSR. Being small in size they are
surrounded by cultivated landscapes, finding themselves,
in some cases, in an "island" position. Relatively monoto-
nous vast territories of Siberia have few nature reserves,
but the existing reserves are large in size, are not dis-
turbed and are representative of the region.

Nature reserves and national parks fulfil major tasks
in conserving natural complexes. Sanctuaries are also
of vital importance. According to their status at the time
of the Union they were subdivided into Republic and
local sanctuaries; for conservation purposes they were
classed as game (or hunting), zoological, botanical,
landscape complex, hydrological, or geological reserves.
In 1991 the region had almost 2,000 sanctuaries, cover-
ing an area of 67,641,000ha; 700 of these sanctuaries
are of republican importance. The majority of them are
in Russia—nearly 1,000 sanctuaries in all covering an
area of 58 million ha. The sanctuaries of republican
importance have staff (guards, etc.), their territories are
reserved for longer periods, and they are more ade-
quately managed. However many of the sanctuaries
have limited or no legislation or management, effec-
tively "paper parks".

Traditionally, sanctuaries were established for the
pro-tection of game species and for the conservation of
the habitats of migratory species. At present their role
in protecting rare and endangered species of animals
and plants is increasing. Some 19 of 41 species of
mammals and 65 of 109 species of birds included into
the USSR Red Data Book have been given protection in
republican sanctuaries. Such species as polar bear,
European bison, Russian desman, snow leopard, red
wolf, hooded crane, Caucasian snow-cock, mountain
goose, rare species of birds of prey, numerous forest
plant species, and rare and endangered species of her-
baceous plants are pro-vided with protection in sanctu-
aries. Trends to combine the functions of game and
zoological sanctuaries have been outlined. At present the
USSR has over 750 botanical sanctuaries, many of which
are lha to 100ha in size. Many rare plant species in-
cluded in the USSR Red Data Book, are protected in
sanctuaries.

Natural monuments are related to another widespread
category of protected areas. They refer to monuments

142

of union, republican and local importance, and deci-
sions on their establishment are adopted at appropriate
levels. Obligations for their protection are taken by the
organisations on whose lands they are located. The
region now has over 5,000 protected natural monu-
ments: their number is increasing continuously. The
most intensive work is being done by the All-Russian
Society for Nature Protection on the territory of the
Russian Federation.

Other categories of specially protected natural areas
can be established in Republics, for example, forest
reserves, protected landscapes, nature parks, micro-
reserves (for protecting rare populations of animals and
plants), vulnerable sea areas, and coastlines. Resource
conservation areas, such as soil and forest protection
belts, areas to protect water supplies, forests in health
resort zones and others play an important part in plan-
ning regional conservation schemes.

3. Additional protected areas
required

Representativeness is one of the major objectives of the
protected areas network. It is evaluated at geographical,
ecosystem and specific levels. The geographic level
provides for evaluation of protected area representa-
tiveness in various units of territorial zoning including
physical-geographical and landscape. When making an
analysis of protected area distribution it was found that
some major biogeographic zones are not represented in
the network; among them are arctic deserts, tundra,
forest-tundra and steppe areas of Western Siberia and
North-Eastern Siberian taiga; and there are no nature
reserves in the mountain regions of the Polar and Pre-
Polar Urals and on the Central Asian upland.

At the ecosystem level representativeness is being
considered in relation to zonal, intra-zonal and unique
associations of specific biogeographical units. Compo-
nent maps (vegetation, geobotanical, soil) are being
used. Such an analysis has shown, for example, that
only two of the 16 forest nature reserves— Berezinsky
and Byelovezhskaya Puscha—are representative ones,
while others are represented with intrazonal associ-
ations.

At the specific level, representativeness is analysed
in relation to the flora of the nature reserves; to
correlation of species specific to definite combinations
of zonal, intrazonal and azonal associations; and to rare,
relict and endemic species. For these purposes the data
on ranges, floristic information and the lists of flora of
nature reserves are used. For example, the Astrakhan
nature reserve contains 20% of the flora of the
appropriate floristic region; in Central-Chernozemny
nature reserve this index reaches 49%. On the other
hand, the vegetation type in "Galychia Gora" Nature
Reserve is azonal and the index is only 2%.

North Eurasia

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: North Eurasia

% area
established
up to 1962

Armenia
Azerbaijan '
Belarus
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Russian Fed,
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukzaine
Uzbekistan

Notes:

% area
established
1972-1981

Date
established
unknown

% area
established
1982-1991

Total
area
designated

ooooooocoeoco

Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for

IUCN management categories I—V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in
size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted.

Faunistic evaluation is based upon analysis of repre-
sentativeness of the fauna species of the protected area
in correlation with the fauna in an appropriate region.
The assessment of the security of rare species with
protection includes indices of the presence of endemic,
rare and endangered species on the given territory. The
Red Data Book (RDB) of the former USSR and RDBs
of the Republics and of major regions are used for this
purpose. As a result, the requirements for the estab-
lishment of new protected areas are being defined and
the conservation category, meeting these requirements,
is being determined.

Keeping in mind the necessity to fill the gaps in the
representativeness of large physical-geographical units
as well as of unique natural complexes and monuments,
a scheme for the rational distribution of nature reserves
and national parks for the period up to 2005 was pre-
pared for the country. The results are summarized in
Table 7. This network represents typical landscapes,
habitats of rare and endangered species of animals and
plants and the most valuable natural associations. Nature
reserves will be established to protect the environment
of arctic islands, such as Franz Joseph Land (over four
million ha), Novaya Zemlya, the Kola tundra and
Bol’shezemel’sky. Nature reserves are also planned to
protect natural complexes of northern taiga and forest
tundra, including such large and representative sites as
Nenetzk, Kologriva and Emetz. The network of moun-
tainous, steppe and forest-steppe nature reserves will be
significantly extended.

In the former USSR, 16 nature reserves are on coasts
and islands (Bychkov, 1991) and also include marine
areas. Four of them are in the Black Sea, two in the
Caspian Sea and three in the Baltic. The White, Laptev’s,

143

Chukotsk and Azov Seas are each represented by one
nature reserve. The Kronotsk Nature Reserve of the
Pacific shore of Kamchatka has incorporated a 3km
wide marine zone. The Barents, Karsk, East-Siberian,
Bering and Okhotsk Seas have no protected areas. The
majority of marine protected areas are small in size,
exceeding 40,000ha in only five nature reserves.

The Dalnevostochny (Far-East) Sea Nature Reserve
is the only reserve established specifically for the con-
servation of the plants and animals of the sea-shore. Of
its total area of 64,360ha, the marine area is 63,000ha.
For marine areas adversely affected by anthropogenic
impacts, it was proposed by the all-Union to expand the
total areas of existing marine and island nature reserves
by joining them to neighbouring marine areas. In par-
ticular, it was proposed to extend the territories of 15
existing nature reserves in the Black, Azov, Baltic,
Caspian, White and Japan Seas, as well as to develop 5
new reserves, thus increasing the area of protected
aquatic areas up to 2-3% of the total areas of these seas.
Taking into the account the marine buffer zones, this
area could represent approximately 5%.

Again, prior to the break-up of the USSR it was
proposed to expand the areas of 4 existing reserves and
to establish 21 new nature reserves in the Barents,
Karsk, Laptev’s, East-Siberian, Chulcotsk, Bering and
Okhotsk Seas, and in the Pacific areas neighbouring the
Kuni islands. Thus in total the protected marine area
would have reached 6-8%. If buffer zones are taken into
account the total marine area would have reached up to
12%.

The former USSR planned to extend considerably the
network of national parks. By 1991 the percentage of
their territories as related to the total! area of specially

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

protected natural areas was low (0.12%), but future
increases of protected areas was anticipated to favour
national parks. An important task was the establishment
of national parks in the north of Europe, where natural
complexes include mixed elements of a historic and
cultural heritage. Thus, it was planned to create a na-
tional park to the west of Onega Lake, whose territory
would include the outstanding Russian architectural
monument of Kizhy.

The landscapes of the Urals are proposed to be repre-
sented in national parks of the polar, northern, middle
and southern areas of the Ural mountain country. Seven
national parks are proposed to be added to two existing
ones in the Norther Caucasus, thus increasing their
territory by more than 1 million ha. In the future, it is
hoped that the coastal area of Lake Baikal will be
provided with a ring of protected areas (including exist-
ing ones).

In total the network of nature reserves and national
parks will achieve over 80 million ha, 3.63% of the
region’s total area. It is to be hoped that the new Re-
publics will achieve this.

4. Protected area institutions

At present there is no united centralized system of
protected areas management in the former USSR. Nature
reserves, national parks, sanctuaries and natural mon-
uments are managed by numerous ministries, agencies,
organisations and local authorities.

From 1989 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union,
USSR Goscompriroda had been continuously taking
measures for establishing a federal union-republican
structure of protected areas management authorities.
This process was slow, mainly due to the tendency for
decentralization of administration and management in
the Soviet Union and the Declarations on Sovereignty
by the Republics. The multiplicity of agencies and
institutions involved in administration and management
of protected areas was also an obstacle in this process.

As of 1991, the majority of nature reserves (124
of 172) were part of the union-republican manage-
ment system of Goscompriroda (Minpriroda). Of these,
27 state nature reserves, including 19 biosphere re-
serves, are under the direct administration of USSR
Minpriroda; the remaining 97 reserves are under ap-
propriate republican State Committees, Ministries or
Departments.

Nature reserves not part of the USSR Goskompriroda
(Minpriroda) system in 1991 were managed by the
USSR State Forest Committee or appropriate republi-
can Forest Committees and Ministries, by Academies
of Sciences either of the USSR or of the appropriate
Republics, by the USSR Academy of Agricultural Sci-
ences or by its republican branches, by the USSR De-
fence Ministry, by the State Committee for Education,
Universities, by the Byelorussian Council of Ministers

144

Managing Department, USSR Ministry of Geology,
and by some local authorities.

National parks were managed under the union-repub-
lican (federal) administration system of the USSR State
Forestry Committee (Goskomles). It is implied that in
Republics they were administered by appropriate state
committees, ministries and departments. "Losiny Os-
trov" National Park ("The Moose Island"), located in
the vicinity of Moscow, is now managed by Moscow
government.

Following dissolution of the former USSR, protected
area responsibilities were taken over by the various
Ministries of the Environment, Agriculture or Forestry
in each Republic. Administration and management of
sanctuaries was and is exercised at the republican level.
The overwhelming majority of sanctuaries are located
on the territory of Russia and are subordinated mainly
to the Russian Hunting Department. In several Repub-
lics, sanctuaries are under the administration of local
(district) societies of hunters and fishermen and local
tourist boards. Other sanctuaries are subordinated to
management authorities of the republican Ministries of
Forestry, including various departments and territorial
authorities. Several refuges were guided by the former
USSR Defence Ministry, the research institutes of the
Academy of Sciences, higher school institutions of the
State Education Committee and the All-Union Acad-
emy of Agricultural Sciences, and local territorial agri-
cultural departments. In many Republics sanctuaries
were administered by regional, town and countryside
Boards of People’s Deputies. Many sanctuaries were
established by collective and state farms on their terri-
tories. Some sanctuaries, with preservation and restora-
tion of fish resources as their primary management
objective, were managed by regional Fish Conserva-
tion/Management departments.

At the time of the Union, attached to the USSR
Cabinet of Ministers, the Commission on Emergency
Situations had a special division in its structure to
supervise affairs related to protected areas manage-
ment. The republican Councils or Cabinets of Ministers
also had similar divisions with various functions and
powers.

On the level of Supreme Soviets of the USSR and of
the appropriate Republics the coordination (primarily
in the field of the law) of protected areas administration
was controlled by Committees and Commissions on
Environment Protection (having different titles). At the
All-Union level this was a Sub-Committee of the Com-
mittee on Ecology.

Financing of nature reserves and national parks is
centralized and provided from the state budget, thus
ensuring regular interrelations between the union and
republican Ministries of Finance and the appropriate
institutions dealing with protected area management.
The material and technical supply for protected areas is
also centralized. Previously it was provided by the

USSR State Committee for Material and Technical
Supply. Since 1990 the supply is provided through
so-called "horizontal contacts", i.e. based upon direct
agreements with suppliers of goods and equipment.

Rangers in the majority of reserves and parks, dealing
with protection of their territories from poachers and
disturbers, are equipped with firearms. The rules of
storage and usage of these firearms are strictly control-
led by the USSR Ministry of the Interior. Conserving
fish resources in protected areas is under the control of
the special Fish Supervising Service. Wild animal man-
agement in protected areas, primarily of ungulates, is
provided by republican Departments of Hunting. Con-
servation measures are best organized in nature reserves
and national parks. Some 3,000 rangers are involved
directly in providing conservation measures. Conserva-
tion measures in nature reserves and national parks are
complex and carried out variously with the help of
patrolling teams, periodical watch method, organisation
of cordons (rangers quarters) along protected areas bounda-
fies, patrolling from the air, and establishment of con-
trolling points.

Traditionally wide-scale scientific research is con-
ducted in nature reserves. To provide for its implemen-
tation, protected area staff collaborate closely with the
USSR and republican Academies of Sciences, univer-
Sities and institutes of the USSR State Committee for
Education and of appropriate republican governmental
agencies, as well as with branch industries institutes.
The background monitoring of the environment is car-
ried out jointly with the USSR State Committee for
Hydrometeorology. To implement forest inventories
and monitoring, protected areas staff are interrelated
with institutions of USSR Goscomles and appropriate
forest agencies of the Republics.

Aircraft and helicopters are widely used for protected
areas conservation and surveys. This work is done in
cooperation with republican airline services.

One of the major tasks of rangers is preventing fires
in protected areas. Nature reserves have their own tech-
nical equipment for extinguishing fires, but this is in-
adequate for fire control. Thus, 35 forest fires were
registered in nature reserves of the USSR Goscompriroda
in 1989.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

Financial investment the Government of the USSR and
by the Republican Governments in protected areas
had increased continuously for the past 15 years (see
Table 6).

Investments in the major categories of protected
areas—nature reserves, national parks and hunting
reserves—increased 4.3 times from 1975 to 1990 (i.e.
from 12,036,000 to 54,907,000 roubles). At the same
time the average maintenance costs per protected area
increased 2.5 times (from 115,000 to 282,000 roubles).

145

North Eurasia

Was this a large or small amount? Certainly a small one.
As the major expenditures are related to the payment of
wages to protected areas staff, this criterion can be a
relatively safe index of the level of financing of nature
reserves and national parks. In 1991 wages of the staff
of nature reserves, administered at the All-Union levei
and financed at a higher level than the republican ones,
were between 191 and 540 roubles a month (average
310 roubles). The wages of workers responsible for
territorial protection, often with risk to their life, aver-
age 200 roubles. In comparison, the average financial
maintenance per person in the USSR was 232 roubles
per month in the second quarter of 1991; a subsistence
wage was nearly 300 roubles. Accordingly, taking into
account these criteria, the total level of investments in
protected areas was recommended to be increased 3 to
4 times. However, following the dissolution of the USSR
the economic pressures on protected areas throughout the
region has led to significant difficulties for any admini-
stration and management in many of the reserves.

The level of state investments into protected areas
other than Categories I and II is beyond strict counting,
so we can provide only an estimate of a few million
roubles per year. In total the investment of the Govern-
ments of the former USSR and the Republics in all
categories of protected areas was an average of 60
million roubles a year in 1990 and 1991, or about 2
roubles per hectare.

Voluntary investment by private organisations and
persons into protected areas is not yet popular in the
region. However, funds for national parks in Estonia
and Latvia are the only exceptions to the existing situ-
ation (see Europe Regional Review). These Funds are
supported by numerous organizations and individuals.
Thus, in 1990 the level of investment to "Gaua"
National Park in Latvia amounted to 756,000 roubles;
of this sum 230,000 roubles came from the state budget
of the Republic and 526,000 roubles were provided
from other sources. In 1990 in Estonia, 609,000 roubles
were invested in the maintenance of the Lahemaa Na-
tional Park, of which 155,000 roubles was from the
republican budget with the remaining 454,000 roubles
provided by other sources, including private ones.

Tourism in protected areas is strictly limited in the
former USSR. The number of national parks is rela-
tively low and the tourist service infrastructure is unde-
veloped. In 1989 and 1990 the 27 nature reserves of the
USSR Minpriroda received a total of 320,000 visitors
annually. Because tourism was not allowed in nature
Teserves, people become acquainted with nature re-
serves when they visited their nature museums. The
payment for museum visits was so low that it could not
affect the investment into protected areas. Data in Table 2,
which is not fully comprehensive, indicate that the great
majority of protected areas in the Republics fall into
IUCN Management Category I, indicating the most
strict levels of protection.

National parks and nature reserves have significant
incomes. Their sources comprise selling wood, taken

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

during "cleaning" forests from wind-fallen timber and
branches, infested trees and after forest fires; income
from catching game species and transporting them out-
side protected areas for introduction/ reintroduction
purposes, based on contracts with state bodies for game
species (bred in captivity in some reserves); income
from additional scientific research made by reserve
scientists at the request of other organizations; rental
and income from public utilities provided to workers of
protected areas; and income from transportation facili-
ties provided to outsiders and from subsidiary shops and
agriculture in reserves and national parks.

If all budgetary assignments comprise 100%, then
other sources of funds reached 9% in nature reserves
and 45% in national parks in 1990. The high level of
additional funds in national parks results from timber
cutting.

Up to now international agencies have not allocated
financial resources to protected areas in the former
Soviet Union, although the World Bank was reviewing
proposals in late 1991.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

By 1990 in the Soviet Union the total personnel of all
nature reserves was 8,250, plus 3,470 for the national
parks. It is impossible to calculate the total number of
people involved in sanctuaries protection, but their num-
ber approximates 2,000 in the region. Thus, in total,
nearly 14,000 individuals are involved directly in pro-
tected area services.

An analysis of qualifications of people working in
protected areas shows 3 major categories of specialists:
administration (directors and their deputies); forest con-
servation service; and scientific staff.

Not all of the directors of nature reserves have a
higher education in biology, forest technology or game
biology. Often they are former economic executives or
politicians; some of them, nevertheless, appear to be
extremely talented and receptive leaders. As a rule, the
lack of specialized education of directors of nature
reserves causes conflict between scientific staff, work-
ers and administrators, as their understanding of the
goals and tasks of protected areas often differs. Usually
the director has two deputies: a chief forester and a
deputy director scientific. Chief foresters usually have
a specialized forest-technical higher or secondary edu-
cation, and deputy directors scientific have a biological,
game biology or geography education. The overwhelm-
ing majority of scientific staff have biological educa-
tions; many of them are game biologists. This is an old
tradition in the former USSR nature reserves, which
were created for the conservation and restoration
(enrichment) of the game species fauna.

This tradition now appears to have become a hin-
derance to developing modern methodologies of

146

ecological research in protected areas. In particular,
there is a shortage of specialists in invertebrates and
lower plants, microbiology, and soil.

The forest conservation service, with foresters in
charge, is responsible chiefly for the protection of
nature areas. But it is mainly among them that one can
meet accidental people, romantics in the worst sense of
the word, without any special training. Instability and
low qualification of workers in this category of pro-
tected areas staff is due mainly to the extremely low
wages, an average of 200 roubles per month.

There are no special professional schools for teaching
protected areas staff, but special training courses are
attached to several institutes and higher schools. There
is an urgent need for special training of foresters. Up to
now, No serious attempts have been made to address the
real need for specialists for protected areas; moreover,
no attempts have been made to create a specialized state
system of education for training personnel for protected
areas.

Finally, the lack of international exchange programmes
for experts working directly in protected areas should
be noted.

7. Priorities for future investment in
protected areas

Priorities for future investment were due to be, or at
least should have been determined by the USSR
Supreme Soviet Decision Act of 27 November 1989
"On Urgent Measures for Ecological Rehabilitation of
the Country". It was pointed out in the document that
by 1995 the area of protected territories should increase
up to 2% and by 2000 up to 3% by increasing the
network of national parks and nature reserves. Unfortu-
nately, investment priorities have not been determined
by this Act, and the rapidly changing political and
socio-economic situation creates considerable uncer-
tainty for priorities for investment in protected areas
even in the nearest future. Analysing existing trends,
one may hope that the total rate of state investment in
protected areas will increase rather slowly but steadily,
based on the continuous growth in investment over the
past 10-15 years. This relative stability can be ex-
plained to some extent by the fact that the protected
areas management authorities structure did not change
much, and the experts who worked in this field in years
prior to perestroika still continue their services in man-
agement institutions even after dissolution of the
USSR.

The input of private organizations into protected ar-
eas is expected to increase during the next few years,
but it will not be prevailing and will not influence
notably the development and investment into protected
areas. Public organisations, such as social and ecologi-
cal unions, and the Voluntary Nature Protection
Brigade, render mainly social and moral assistance to
protected areas.

North Eurasia

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: North Eurasia

World Heritage
Date No. Area (ha)

October 1988
November 1992
?

October 1988
August 1992

October 1988

Notes:

Biosphere Reserves
No. Area (ha)

regarding dates of adherence and listing of sites.
A number of States (eg. Georgia) have deposited a notification of succession by which a commitment is made to
the World Heritage Convention, ratified by the former Soviet Union on 12 October 1988.

At an international level, the plan of action provides
for a considerable extension of transboundary protected
areas (see section 8), but the investment in international
initiatives has been determined only for the near future.

Investments in maintaining and developing protected
areas within the framework of newly-established eco-
nomic relations can also be expected, including invest-
ments from selling scientific information, production of
environmental films by foreign TV and film-production
companies, and environmental educational excursions.

8. Major protected areas issues
in the region: legal, social and

economic development

8.1 People in protected areas

In many cases human access to natural resources is
incompatible with nature protection objectives and pro-
vides the major source of conflicts arising in protected
areas establishment. These conflicts are universal and
it is hard to believe that they will be overcome in a
general sense. On a planetary scale this is a contradic-
tion between man’s right to exploit natural resources
and his obligations to Planet Earth.

Establishment and broadening the protected areas
system often is interpreted by local populations as an
encroachment on their rights to use natural resources.
Compensation measures are often compromising; as a
Tule, satisfying the demands of local populations is
detrimental to the conservation status of protected
areas.

Usually, information is not well used. There is a good
understanding that the environment must be clean, rivers
inhabited by fish, forests by mammals and birds, but that

147

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention
Date No. Area (ha)

132,500
76,201

23,900
?
February 1977
December 1992
34,600 ?
159,585 ?
47,500 ?

9,028,510

211,051

1. Recent political changes in the former Soviet Union mean that the current situation is in some cases unclear

all these should be available for man. He should own all
this. People are not conscious yet that biological diver-
sity is a resource, providing for human survival.

The problems of local populations around protected
areas are being solved in different ways. People tradi-
tionally living in nature reserves and national parks are
usually allowed strictly limited rights to gather berries
and mushrooms, catch fish, cut hay, graze cattle, and
keep bees for private purposes on specially allotted
sites. In buffer zones sport hunting and traditional re-
source utilization by inhabitants are exercised under the
auspices of authorities of nature reserves or national
parks. The local population has a preference for hunting
in game sanctuaries. Local traditional land-ownership
and land tenure are exercised in two ways. First, land
tenure plans for ihe proposed nature reserve or national
park are subject to an obligatory agreement with land-
owners and local authorities. The statutes of each nature
reserve and national park have provisions for traditional
land tenure and maps indicate boundaries for land ten-
ure. Statutes are coordinated with local and republican
authorities.

Unfortunately, local traditions are not applied in pro-
tected areas management, thus leading to serious insuf-
ficiency in developing protected areas, especially nature
reserves and national parks. This lack of traditional
knowledge related to resource management limitations
has led to the loss of traditional protected areas. This is
aproblem that needs special investigation. For example,
until recently the relict fir forest was protected on Zhyma
mountain on Ol’khon island in Baikal because the
Buryat people believed this place to be sacred and visits
were prohibited (Imetkhenov, 1991).

It is regrettable that representatives of local people are
drawn insufficiently into protected areas management,
and that their managers are mainly Russians, especially

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

on the territory of the Russian Republic. In recent years,
due to the growing sovereignty of the Republics, the
situation is changing slowly and local people more often
participate in the administration of protected areas. This
process undoubtedly has a slight nationalistic bias, but
we hope that it will bring closer a more positive rela-
tionship with local people in protected areas administra-
tion and will apply traditional knowledge to management.

Inhabitants within protected areas have some bene-
fits, especially in distant areas and settlements of pro-
tected areas where local people, who are not necessarily
members of their staff, are involved in the reserve, park
or sanctuary infrastructure management. Thus, electric-
ity and heating provided to the protected areas are
available not only to the staff, but to all residents as well.
The same refers to shops, schools and medical help.
Usually, local people living in but not serving a pro-
tected area equally use transportation facilities of nature
reserves and national parks. In any case, some of the
houses in protected areas have been given partially by
the Councils of People’s Deputies to local residents, and
for the majority of residents, protected areas are the
source of their livelihood.

Several examples illustrate conflicts with local peo-
ple who are deprived of their rights to traditional re-
source use. In Sayano-Shushensky Biosphere Reserve
a mineral water source is traditionally the site of pil-
grimage for local people, mainly of Tuvinian national-
ity. Traditional medicine says it has curative properties;
it is also a sacred place. For a long time managers of the
reserve were in conflict with residents, trying to prohibit
free access to the source. Finally, they had to provide
limited rights for local people to the mineral water
source, within special quotas and under supervision.

In Sjunt-Khasardag, Turkmenia, a serious conflict
arose with the local population as tribal representatives
were required to give up rights to pastures that tradition-
ally belonged to them for inclusion in the territory of the
Reserve. This conflict was decided in favour of the local
people.

Uncontrolled cattle grazing in protected areas is one
of the most widely distributed violations of the conser-
vation regime. Native people traditionally used these
lands as pastures, and, as a rule, land tenure has been
changed only with great difficulty, with local people
being unwilling to give up their historic traditions.

In some cases, when interests of local people are
ignored, groundless decisions are taken in the process
of protected area planning. For example, not long ago
there was also serious conflict in relation to Ramit
Nature Reserve in Tadjikistan. A cemetery is located in
the Reserve near its boundary. Visits by former villagers
of the settlement neighbouring the cemetery were strictly
limited and former villagers could not settle in the
vicinity of their beloved graves. This problem was being
considered by the Republic Government and compro-
mises probably will be achieved.

148

In many cases, the interests of local people should be
taken into account, especially on limited traditional
resource management, lest sooner or later lack of proper
involvement leads to serious conflicts. Such interests
should be taken into account during the procedures for
allotting lands for nature reserves. However some
people may be pursuing their own aims and, having no
concer for traditional resource management, may com-
promise national interests.

8.2 Involvement by the private sector
Problems of involvement by the private sector in the
establishment of protected areas were new concepts for
the Soviet Union immediately prior to its dissolution,
newly permitted under the Law and Acts of the Soviet
Union and Union Republics providing for the private
sector and private land ownership. In the coming five
years these problems will be of great concern in relation
to general process of privatization in the economy and
land tenure.

In the draft "Basis of Law of the USSR and the
Republics on Specially Protected Natural Areas” and in
appropriate laws of the Union Republics, private own-
ership of specially protected areas was envisaged and
even up to now there have been no proposals for private
persons to manage nature reserves and national parks.
At the same time, taking into the account the general
trend for commercialization which penetrates nature
conservation structures, tendencies are growing for
using protected areas for commercial purposes.

Experience of the involvement of the private sector
in protected areas structures is limited, so it is too early
to evaluate properly this new phenomenon. But some
examples can be given. In Oksky Biosphere Reserve a
group of specialists have taken the breeding centre for
rare and endangered species of predatory birds on a
lease. In Kronotzk Biosphere Reserve the regional as-
sociation undertook obligations to provide helicopter
excursions to Geiser Valley (on the territory of the
reserve). There are some proposals to organize interna-
tional sport hunting in the buffer zones of nature re-
serves, although this is reported to have resulted in
hunting of RDB species such as the tiger.

The central protected areas management bodies are
very cautious about the involvement of the private
sector in nature reserves, for two reasons. First, no
approved mechanism is yet available for financing spe-
cially protected areas from non-state sources. It goes
without saying that such investments, being additional
ones, will be positively accepted by state management
authorities. However, investments into the establish-
ment and/or development of specially protected areas
should not automatically mean acquiring the right for
participating in managing of the appropriate territory by
the sponsor, for influencing their conservation status/
regime, or attempting some commercial activity on
their territories.

And second, no legal measures have yet been estab-
lished for the relationship between specially protected
areas and their financial donors, and for instruments to
stimulate non-budgetary investment. These problems
need urgent competent elaboration for controlling pri-
vate sector involvement into nature reserves and na-
tional parks affairs. In any case, protected areas should
remain state property independent of the economic struc-
tural reforms in the country.

Table 5. World Heritage sites in North
Eurasia

Belarus

Belovezhskaya Puscha State National Park
(with Poland)

8.3. Protected areas and surrounding

lands

The distribution and planning of new protected natural
areas is connected with the natural and economic con-
ditions of specific areas. This is taken into account in
developing complex territorial schemes of environ-
mental protection, including protected areas. For ex-
ample, the new and complex scheme of environmental
protection for areas of new oil and gas exploitation in
Western Siberia incorporates the interests of reindeer
breeding. Protected natural areas planning provided for
the protection of reindeer reproduction sites, routes of
their migration, and pastures. The territories of new
industrial exploitation partially affected the territories
of existing sanctuaries. With due regard to this fact, new
sanctuaries and refuges have been proposed and the
boundaries of the existing ones changed.

Prospects for further economic development of the
northeastern part of the European part of the former
USSR, in particular planning in the region of the Yamal-
Western Ukraine gas pipeline, have been taken into
account in the process of developing the scheme of
distribution of protected areas of the region. Industrial
zoning of the territory and evaluation of the existing
network of protected areas have been done. This evalu-
ation demonstrated the high efficiency of the present
sanctuaries. Thus, good progress has been achieved in
rehabilitation and protection of cedar populations in
sanctuaries, started along the northern limit of its range
20 years ago. It was proposed to expand this network,
and to establish new nature reserves on the basis of
closely distributed sanctuaries, and to expand territories
of existing nature reserves, in particular Pinezhsky.

A different approach is taken for urbanized areas,
where factors seriously limit the establishment of new
protected areas, and it is necessary to establish very
small protected natural or semi-natural areas. Within
highly urbanized areas the Moscow region is of special

149

North Eurasia

importance. This heavily populated region has a dense
network of roads, settlements, highly developed indus-
try, intensive agriculture and high requirements for
recreation. At the same time the region is characterized
with high natural diversity, located in the forest and
forest-steppe zones, with a variety of typical and unique
sites of great scientific and cultural importance. This is
also an area of importance for international tourism; the
well-known "Golden Ring” runs through historic towns
and places, including natural and architectural memori-
als and scenic landscapes. We have a challenging task
to create the network of specially protected areas in the
region to conserve the most valuable natural sites and
to provide for the growing demands of recreation and
ecological tourism. Scientists of the Moscow State Uni-
versity along with other scientific institutions have made
wide surveys and constructed a map of the most valu-
able natural sites in the Moscow region in order to
ensure the development of an integrated development
strategy for the area.

Present development of agriculture leads to relatively
monotonous landscapes with smooth relief and drained
lands, seriously affecting biological diversity. In central
Russia and Byelorussian Polessie, for example, devel-
opment of land-reclamation has led to considerable
impoverishment of the gene-pools of animals and plants,
decreasing numbers of game species of mammals, birds
and fish, loss of wetlands, and decreasing areas of wild
berryfields. Rational planning of territories should pro-
vide for compensation zones, as is done in the Baltic
Republics. For example, if land reclamation objectives
are fulfilled, 10-30% of the area should be protected to
provide for conservation of the habitats of wild animals
and plants. Reserved areas should include also eco-
nomically "inconvenient" lands, such as ravines, gorges,
steep slopes, sides of roads, river lowlands and lake
basins.

8.4 Protected areas and science

In the Sovict Union nature reserves traditionally pro-
vide conservation of landscapes and ecosystems, but are
also scientific research centres. All of them have scien-
tific divisions, chaired by deputy directors scientific.
Major scientific problems are being discussed by the
Scientific Council of the appropriate reserve. The num-
ber of scientific workers in such areas vary consider-
ably, in some cases reaching 40 scientists, as in the
Caucasian and Astrakhansky biosphere reserves; the
average is 10.

Scientific research is being conducted both by reserve
scientists and by researchers from other institutions,
primarily scientists from the All-Union Institute for
Nature Conservation and Nature Reserves of the USSR
Minpriroda, institutes of the Academy of Sciences in
each Republic, universities and pedagogical institutes.
A great volume of research is being done by students
who are allowed in reserves for field training. In recent
years direct links between nature reserves and scientists

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

from other countries (Germany, USA, Japan, Norway,
Finland, Sweden and France) have been developed and
joint research is being conducted.

In some regions of the former Soviet Union scientists
of nature reserves have established Regional Scientific
Councils, providing coordination of scientific research
on protected areas in their regions. Among them there
are the Caspian, Eastern-Siberian, Middle-Asian, Far-
East and Caucasian Regional Scientific Councils. Re-
gional Scientific Councils are expected to become re-
gional management bodies in the future, thus basing
management on geographic principles, and not on ad-
ministrative or national ones. The Commission on Co-
ordination of Scientific Research in Nature Reserves of
the former USSR Academy of Science played an im-
portant part in this work.

Since the 1930s several nature reserves have publish-
ed collections of scientific papers, and some of them
issue permanent collections of thematic and regional
scientific papers. Scientists of reserves participate ac-
tively in symposia, meetings and congresses. Almost all
of the reserves have scientific libraries, often compris-
ing several thousand books. Many reserves have large
zoological collections and herbaria.

Traditionally all nature reserves of the former Soviet
Union prepare "Annals of Nature", collections of an-
nual phenological observations on their territories. An-
nals of Nature also include observations on animals and
plants, providing a giant data bank on the state and
dynamics of the environment in the USSR; this un-
doubtedly serves as the basis of the system of ecological
monitoring in protected areas. Nevertheless, this unique
information is not yet properly organized; there is no
centralized archive of the Annals of Nature, no system-
atic index, and no unified database for storage and
computer treatment of the information.

In most nature reserves and national parks standard
meteorological stations have been established, and the
majority of them are part of the union meteorological
system.

Since 1981 monitoring stations had been established
by the Goscomhydromet throughout the USSR. By the
end of 1990 such stations had been established in 10
biosphere reserves. They provide for standard meteoro-
logical and environmental pollution data. Results are
being published in a special Bulletin. Unfortunately, the
equipment is outdated, and as a result reserves are not
collecting all of the required information, nor are they
getting it out without delay. This impedes analysis of
the biomonitoring data, hampering efforts to correlate
processes in animal and plant populations and environ-
mental changes, including the impact of anthropogenic
pollution on the biota.

A wide variety of biological research is carried out in
nature reserves. These can be subdivided into three
major categories: inventories of fauna and flora; moni-
toring the state of natural complexes/ecosystems; and

150

observing the status of rare and endangered species of
plants and animals.

Research into the biology of rare species of plants and
animals has provided opportunities for conserving and
restoring their numbers, and to rehabilitate the ranges
of several species. In particular, scientists of nature
reserves have made a significant contribution to con-
serving sable (Martes zibellina) in the Bargusin NR,
Amur tiger (Panthera tigris) and long-tailed goral
(Naemorhedus caudatus) in Sikhote-Alin NR,
European bison (Bison bonasus) in Prioksko-Terrasny
NR, Japanese white crane (Grus japonensis) in
Khingansky NR, Chinese merganser (Mergus squama-
tus) in Lazovsky NR, Siberian salamander (Salaman-
drella keyserlingii) in Bol’shehehzirsky NR, and
whipsnake (Elaphe climaeophora) in Kunashir.

The role of nature reserves is also significant in stud-
ies of rare and endangered plant species. Thus, the
Tertiary flora relict, sacred (in India) Caspian lotus
(Nelumbo nucifera) is effectively protected in
Astrakhansky and Kyzyl-Agach NRs; in Prymorie na-
ture reserves (Lazovsky, Ussuriisky and Kedrovaya
Pad) pro- tection measures are given to the wonder-
working "root of life" ginseng (Panax ginseng); and
Kedrovaya Pad Nature Reserve provides for conserva-
tion of the lichen navelwort (Umblicaria esculenta).
This list is merely an indication of the protection pro-
vided to threatened species by protected areas.

Research being conducted in nature reserves proves
that habitat protection is extremely important for spe-
cies survival. Forest cutting, cattle grazing, recreation
and changes in the soil chemistry, are followed by rapid
changes of communities and associations, leading to
detrimental changes to species with narrow or dispersed
ranges. For example, in the Karpatsky Nature Reserve,
the level of soil pH has been reduced because of fertil-
izer run-off from neighbouring fields, resulting in de-
creasing populations of narcissus (Narcissus angusti-
folius).

Elimination of even one dominant species is often
followed by a sharp change in the community compo-
sition. Thus, pine cutting on pine-shrub-sphagnum
oligotrophic high bogs is accompanied by growing thick
low under shrubs, affecting (due to darkening and de-
foliation) the sphagnum moss.

Tigrovaya Ballka Nature Reserve in southern Tadjik-
istan conserves the vanishing subspecies of the Bactrian
deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus) by protecting its habi-
tat, "tugai” thickets along the Vahsh and Pjandze river
valleys. Nevertheless, constructing cotton-fields and
water-flow regulation in surrounding areas poses a se-
rious threat to the habitats of this extremely rare species.
In addition, it is only due to habitat conservation in
Berezinsky reserve in Belarus that the European beaver
(Castor fiber) populations are numerous.

8.5 Pollution and protected areas

Recent research being carried out in reserves shows that
industrial and agricultural pollution of protected areas
is rather great, and that the densely-populated areas of
the European part of the former USSR suffer the great-
est anthropogenic impact. The following branches of
industry have had a serious impact on protected areas:
metallurgy, chemical, mining, construction, cellulose
and energy. The most careful studies have been carried
out on the consequences of industrial pollution from the
Monchegorsk group of enterprises (Severonikel) on the
ecosystems of the Laplandsky reserve. Aerosols formed
of sulphurous gases are being detected at a distance of
160km from the polluting source. The total area of the
Monchegorsk tundra affected by gas and dust pollution
discharge is nearly 4000 sq km. Pollution has reduced
the life of lichen species in the reserve, destroyed fir
trees, and shortened the life of conifer needles from 12
to 2 years (as coming nearer to the source of pollution).
Degradation of plant cover affects in its turn animal
population structure. In areas suffering industrial pollu-
tion discharges, the numbers of red-backed moth
(Clethrionomis glareolus) decreased 6.5 times in the
past 50 years. Shrews (Sorex sp.) are entirely absent
near the emission sources. Northern reindeer (Rangifer
tarandus) can be found only in less polluted areas that
still have lichens.

Increasing alkalinity in soils near the Cherepovetsk
metallurgy enterprise influences the radial growth of
tree trunks in the Darvinsky NR, making annual rings
much thinner. The Baikalsky reserve suffers dust and

Table 6.
the Republics

North Eurasia

gas pollution from big enterprises. The impact of the
Baikalsky cellulose enterprise, felt 60km to the west of
the reserve, is extremely harmful. High mountain firs of
the northern slope of Hamar-Daban suffer chronic poi-
soning. Atmospheric precipitations have a pH of 5.5»;
annual wood growth has decreased 40-60%, naturai
renewal to a tenth of its former rate.

Excess sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere in the Prioksko-
Terrasny reserve causes acid precipitation, leading to
necrosis and chlorosis of coniferous needles and leaves,
and denudation of branches.

New data on the impact of the Chernobyl nuclear
power station on the natural complexes of protected
areas are now being analysed. Investigations held in the
Caucasian NR found an increase in the levels of stron-
tium-90 and caesium-137. Experts believe this is the
cause of death of red deer (Cervus elaphus) and chamois
(Rupicapra rupicapra).

The most serious consequences of agricultural pollu-
tion (fertilizers and pesticides) in protected areas are
observed in the nature reserves of Central Asian Repub-
lics. Thus, in Zeravshan NR the level of organochlorine
pesticides is several times higher than the rate consid-
ered safe to humans.

Finally, agricultural water-flows in Tigrovaya Balka
NR have influenced the processes of mineralization,
substance turnover, composition, numbers, biomass,
dominant groups of micro- and macro vegetation in
lakes.

Investment in nature reserves, national parks and game (hunting) reserves in

Thousand rouble

Republic 1975 1980 1985

655
597
1,819
1,415
677
439
466

10,587
177
865

3,254
684

12,036

115 154

Average per protected area

16,959
215
1,220
4,811
787

151

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

975
698
1,884
1,603
866
530
445
25,172
330
1,365
5,518
914

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

8.6 Threats to effective management

of protected areas

The major threats to effective protected area management
include decentralization of the administration structures,
the great number of authorities responsible for protected
area management, uncertainty in inter-relations of legal
executive powers, and the lack of legal instruments
concerning responsibility for protected areas manage-
ment.

Decentralization of protected areas management struc-
tures assumes that nature reserves, national parks, sanc-
tuaries, and natural monuments, are being managed by
different authorities, as mentioned before; and local
authorities of different ranks—from republican to agri-
cultural ones—often interfere in protected areas man-
agement.

In recent years decentralization is growing menac-
ingly, responding to changes in the political situation in
the country. Often "populism" is prevailing in the ac-
tivities of local powers, meaning that they take deci-
sions on changes of protected areas boundaries or man-
agement regime with the aim of satisfying the economic
and social demands of people. Sometimes such deci-
sions violate the law; they are taken hastily, without
agreement with the authorities responsible for protected
area management; and their only aim is to "switch off"
the dissatisfaction of the local people. Imposing the will
of local powers on reserves to provide for hay, wood
and fruits of wild plants is a widespread form of intrud-
ing into protected area management. In many cases
central management bodies have problems in cancel-
ling such orders of local authorities, as the administra-
tion of reserves is dependent on them in their economic
activities.

Information on cases of interference into protected
areas affairs is received from administration and staff
members, as well as from environmental circles con-
cerned with the fate of the reserve. Usually the leaders
of the appropriate environmental agencies use all pos-
sible influences at all levels to prevent interference into
protected areas management. In some cases compro-
mises are found, in others intra-agency agreement is
delayed for years; often it is almost impossible to obvi-
ate interferences into protected areas legally. Too often,
when local authorities intervened with protected area
management measures taken by the former Union
(federal) or republican administrations, the result
looked like diplomatic activities rather than that of
administrators with executive powers.

The situation in Krasnovodsky reserve, a Ramsar site,
is a good illustration. Local inhabitants living on the
territory of the reserve or in its vicinity demanded that
the deputies of the Turkmenian Republic should change
the reserve conservation regime. The deputies put the
problem on the agenda of the republican Supreme Soviets.
The Supreme Soviet instructed the Turkmenian Council

152

of Ministers to take an appropriate decision on making
changes in the regime of the reserve. The governmental
decision was adopted. The USSR State Committee for
Environmental Protection, being in charge of this re-
serve, was confronted by a fait accompli. Neither its
protests, nor appeals of the USSR Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the USSR Procurator’s Office, could affect
the Turkmenian Administration decision.

The same refers to biosphere reserves, whose inter-
national status has no perceived effect on solving man-
agement problems at national level, as the national
legislation has no provisions confirming international
importance of protected areas certified by UNESCO.

The role and the status of protected area management
plans are not high, as major conflicts are related to land
ownership. As a tule, in decision-making priorities,
economic resource utilization, which is part of sectoral
plans or plans of local authorities, predominate over
plans of protected area management.

Unfortunately, at present there is no standardization
of systems and methodology for the evaluation of the
effectiveness of protected areas management. Usually,
these problems are touched upon in periodical publica-
tions of experts on protected areas or in their reports at
expert meetings, symposia, seminars, etc. There is a
hope that in the near future the whole system of pro-
tected areas management will be analysed and super-
vised by committees and commissions on environmental
protection attached to the Republics throughout the
region.

The administrations responsible for protected areas
management in the regional authorities regularly report
to higher level authorities on the management prob-
lems. On the basis of these reports appropriate deci-
sions, aimed at the improvement of protected areas
management, are taken; the efficiency of such decisions
is not adequate. At the same time, being good syntheses
of problems, they are widely distributed in vertical and
horizontal management structures and penetrate the
consciousness of environmentalists and other experts,
thereby providing for the improvement the whole cum-
bersome and mixed-up management structure.

It is proposed to establish an inter-republican Council
for Protected Areas Management. This Council could
become a body to synthesize and analyse problems,
related to the effectiveness of protected area manage-
ment.

8.7 Transfrontier initiatives

In recent years the Soviet Union has been taking prac-
tical steps to develop transfrontier protected areas, In
1989 the Soviet-Finland bilateral nature reserve "Druzhba
— 1" was established; the nature reserve "Druzhba — 2"
will include a large island archipelago in the Finnish
bay. Preliminary research on the territory of a future

Russian-Norwegian nature reserve has been started.
Poland and Belarus have agreed on the establishment of
the bilateral nature reserve "Byelovezhskaya Puscha”
(already a World Heritage Site on both sides of the
border), and the Ukranian-Polish-Slovakian mountain
nature reserve "Beschady" in the Carpathian mountain
system has been proposed.

Early in 1991 representatives of the USSR Goscom-
priroda and Governments of the Tuva and Mongolian
Republic signed a protocol on establishment of the
Soviet-Mongolian Biosphere Reserve "Ubsu-Nur". It
will be a cluster reserve, consisting of 7-8 sites and will
be representative of the natural variety of one of the
largest depressions in the world. Preliminary investiga-
tions were conducted on the territory of the future
Teserve, primarily by scientists of the USSR Academy
of Sciences.

Preliminary investigations have been completed also
for the establishment of the Soviet-Chinese reserve
"Khanka Lake", which is also a Ramsar site. To this end
both neighbouring countries will be able to join their
efforts in improving protection of numerous species of
coastal and water birds, both nesting in the lake or
migrating through it.

Establishment of Beringia International Park with the
USA is of special importance. Work for its establishment
was started as a result of initiatives of Presidents
Gorbachev and Bush. In the Soviet Union intensive
work is being done for creating this protected area.
Preliminary evaluation suggests that this area, totalling
6 million ha, will have a complex zoning.

In total, seven existing, projected or proposed border
natural areas occur along the former USSR boundaries
with Norway, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Mongolia, China and USA. The total length of the state
border line which is supposed to be "broken to pieces"
by international reserves and national parks, comprises
nearly 900km. Anyhow these are natural complexes, in
historic times joining together animal and plant king-
doms and human beings, providing spaces for tradi-
tional life styles. For ages people lived in harmony with
nature in these areas.

The Soviet Union had signed bilateral agreements in
the field of environment with many countries of the
world. To provide for effective implementation of en-
vironmental tasks within the framework of these agree-
Ments joint commissions and working groups were
created. Cooperative programmes on protected natural
areas include mutual exchange of experience in organi-
zation of protected areas and providing for their conser-
vation, conducting joint research in protected areas,
primarily of monitoring the environment, establishment
of databases of rare and endangered species of fauna
and flora in protected areas, animal marking and moni-
toring their migration (including satellite monitoring),
Organisation of nurseries for preservation and restoration

153

North Eurasia

of rare and endangered species, and studies of biologi-
cal diversity in protected areas.

In particular, within the framework of bilateral inter-
governmental environmental agreements, expert groups
of the former USSR are cooperating in the field of
protected areas with the USA, Germany, Bulgaria,
Poland, Sweden, Canada, the former Czechoslovakia
and Finland. Proposals for establishment of similar
working contracts with several other countries were
being discussed.

9. Priorities for action in the region

The most important priorities for the development of the
protected areas system in the region are as follows:

1. Expanding the network of protected
areas

The Act of the USSR Supreme Soviet of 27 November
1989 "On Urgent Measures for the Ecological Rehabili-
tation of the Country” stipulated extending the total area
of protected territories of Categories I and II (nature
reserves and national parks) by up to 2% by 1995, and
up to 3% by 2000. This should be implemented in each
of the countries of the former USSR. The network of
protected areas should be expanded also on the basis of
other conservation categories, i.e. sanctuaries, nature
monuments and territories with traditional resource man-
agement, providing for limited exploitation of natural
resources.

Territories of international importance, including Ramsar
and World Heritage Sites and transfrontier areas, are to
play a significant part in the general system of protected
areas. They should form a continuous network of pro-
tected natural areas, capable of supporting biological
diversity as the basis for the biosphere stability over vast
areas. Special attention is being paid to protected ma-
rine areas, including coastlines, whose area is rather
small in the general system of protected areas in the
region.

2. Development of the national parks
system

The national parks system needs to be developed as an
independent institution, aimed at conserving the natural
complexes and improving man’s environmental culture
through his contacts with nature. Additional efforts will
be needed to develop the infrastructure of national
parks, which require specific service facilities.

3. Establishment of an integrated
environmental monitoring system in
protected areas

The integrated monitoring system should include back-
ground and biological diversity monitoring. This sys-
tem should be based primarily in biosphere reserves. It

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

is expected that the regional system would be integrated
into the worldwide system of ecological monitoring.

4. Considerable increase of investment
into protected areas

An increase of at least 4—5 times, primarily from the
republican budgets, is required to enable protected areas
in the region to attain their objectives. Insufficient in-
vestment will also lead to the failure of the increase in
the protected area network. If the rate of protected area
system development remains at the same level as is was
for the past 15 years (1975-90), then the 3% growth of
protected areas system in the region can be achieved
only by 2025 and not before 2000 as planned.

5. Improvement of protected areas
legal protection

As of the middle of 1991 there was no adopted Law on
Specially Protected Areas in the region. No legal

sanctions were adopted against disturbance of the pro-
tected areas regime. Rangers in nature reserves and
national parks are limited in their rights to catch disturb-
ers, a problem which needs to be addressed urgently.

6. Restructuring Administration/
Management Authorities

Effective coordination of all protected areas manage-
ment in the States of the region is required, consistent
with republican rights for their natural resources. Ac-
tivities agreed upon by Republics for the improvement
of protected areas should become a part of inter-repub-
lican coordinated policies for nature resource manage-
ment and environment protection. New tools for plan-
ning their financial, material and technical security
should be developed with due regard for the transition
period to the market economy, decentralization of
Management Authorities, inter-relations of the Repub-
lics and their relations with federal Authorities.

Table 7. Development of the network of nature reserves and national parks in the
Republics: perspectives up to 2005: North Eurasia

Republic Nature reserves
% of

National parks Total
% of % of

Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan
Moldova

Russian Federation
Tadjikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan

Area
(000ha)

92.3
237.6
319.4
197.0

3,600.2
285.2
21.4
42,637.1
180.7
1,361.4
487.8
1,510.2

50,930.3

Republic Area
total area No. (000ha)

150.0
664.0
393.0
19.4
1,999.9
258.9
38.6
22,947.1
1,430.0
250.0
626.9
932.3

29,710.1

154

Area

total area No. (’000ha)

242.3
901.6
712.4
216.4
5,600.1
544.1
60.0
65,584.2
1,610.7
1,611.4
1,114.7
2,442.5

Republic
total area

8.08
10.36
3.43
3.09
2.06
2.75
1.76
3.84
11.26
3.3
1.85
5.46

North Eurasia

References

Bychkov, V.A. (1991). Conservation resource manage- Imetkhenov A.B. (1991). Natural monuments of Baikal.
ment protection and the restoration of sea mammals. Novosibirsk, Nauka (Science), S.B., 130 pp.
From The review of the state and perspectives for TUCN (1992). Protected areas of the World: A review
the establishment of sea nature reserves in the USSR, of National systems. Volume 2. Palaearctic.
based on the report of VNIIPRIRODA of the USSR Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring
Minpriroda. Moscow, 1991. Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,

UK. 556pp.

155

a sas . ; “ 00 syatnal disnarhance aff Hida
el gi yy gm mn se diane
: P By Sianiratens etl mthetrtiphds ena tis
ore tevamatl AUTOS pee onl ‘gig catiTe egies bod OP eb EF: rererpad «
—_ F: Senet ihe ahi Joni vinend! ime arrwacemary steer Dep evans A bee anisoae sO)
- vay foray het mara: ACPO) oF At “ent ‘aK YA, wie: sheaibita hb ecopsetel emer -
¢ yyceatloy ie en ; alte as Lae ahah sea speeded a
stub ne BERS oe 16 I ACORLE TIM Vio nogatert os bead

Ui wanes
Ceay

AQRL MWESB0ML,

rama eT geil PHOS
of te my? ns rope cau i

oeF hace aneyeel Pesce yeanegeats Aa.
at oy ) Re pmairtic + der par a.

pinata > fatter em,

sat , ele Dey ng mae

a. weeptcront gotad: tet ve

‘wey de rtmard fave
rey coomony, at
iden, inte calm

“with federally

one rr

East Asia

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

seole pajoajoid payeubisep Ajje6a] ulyyim papnjou! AsjuN0d yo eHeyuadseq = “dew

008 00r Oo %\-01 Ee

—
UU ZO0L-S

%O% uDYy e40N fii %S- 10

%OZ-S1 %1'9 uoyy sseq |

peyoejoud ebpjuedsed

158

Contents

Page

i=) Historical perspective ... .ccoslecs eootis scm wie whos fee... allel 161

[ele Vhethistory of{people;and‘nature’ «3 3 2 es se es ee we ee Se 161

1.2. Environmental implications of economic development .............. 162

1.3. The growth of the protected areasystem................22200. 162

PAmeMISCSSONS eam Gc fo costae ecco, So SMR Sk ug et er eal ul ia 165

2. Current protected areacoverage ....................0008. 165

Slane Marine parks igs ester Nats fat Teh. Dass a ee Ps 166

3. Additional protected areas required ....................... 167

4. Protected areainstitutions .......................-...--. 167

5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 168

6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 170

7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 170

8. Major protected areaissuesintheregion .................... 170

Sei tepleanditenurel Syncs: Beek ees a, cena ea oacmecsonsat tietouteg: ld Boe Fg: 170

8.2 Conflicts withdevelopment ...................-.-.-.--00055 172

S'3eRelations withylocaljpeoplei a = | -Wecnne) oncut ey cee uence em ere 172

SrA Protectediareasyand research = eps. =) ueiene i cnn iene mencnt cents 172

See ianagementieffechVenesSeru-m aus <1 Gueurneale nine n(n mrnnsr i emte nite Cenc nT 173

9. Priorities for actioninthe region ......................-.. 173

mexnowledgements 2 "t.8 M2 es 2 eee Pe ee 174

IRIEL CNICOS iets econ ee cdc te an i 3) Se sicee Me weenie CORRE ce ara 174
Tables

Table 1. Summary of the protected areassystem .............--2.2-. 162

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories .............. 162

Table 3. |The development of the protected areas system .............-..- 163

159

Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.

Figures

Map.

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 168
World Heritage sites in East Asia ..............00 00000. 168
Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 169
Protectediareaswnwapan 65505 5 dy Wires) os 9) s,s glenn on 171
Visitors to national parks in Korea .................004- 171
Financial investments in national parks in Korea .............. 171

Percentage of country included within legally designated protected

ATC AS wrote eet ie ee ee i nd a 158
Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 164
Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 164

160

East Asia

Wang Xianpu, Regional Vice-Chair for East Asia,
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas

1. Historical perspective

People in the Far East have always had a strong aware-
ness of nature and of the need for its preservation. Often
this notion was based on simple, aesthetic values of a
particular region or natural feature, rather than a con-
scious awareness of the overriding need for the conser-
vation of natural resources. Nonetheless, it has resulted
in the establishment of certain sites as protected areas
and, moreover, has probably contributed to a greater
understanding and appreciation of protected areas among
the people of the region. It is therefore not surprising to
find that within the East Asia Region, there already
exists a substantial network of protected areas, although
the status, degree of national coverage and public ap-
preciation of such areas vary considerably throughout
the region. Against this background, there is now a
major need for a thorough review of protected area
issues, including an assessment of the problems that
these sites experience and a series of recommended
actions that would help mitigate some of the problems
affecting protected areas in this region.

1.1. The history of people and nature

As a biogeographical region, East Asia covers an area
of almost 12 million sq km, encompassing a diverse
array of climatic zones, topography, ecosystems and
local cultures. It also hosts some of the most spectacular
scenery and wildlife in the world, although this has been
poorly described in general, owing to a combination of
political restrictions on scientific investigation and the-
harshness of the region itself. For these reasons, the
protected area concept is not nearly as well developed
in East Asia as, for example, in the South and Southeast
Asian Region. However, ancient thinking on conserv-
ing nature and natural resources was known at least in
the Golden Age of Classical Learning 2,000 years ago,
in the works of such scholars as Confucius and Lao Zi.
Concept of nature and nature protection are embodied
in the philosophies of Confucianism, Taoism and
Buddhism, leading to de facto protection of mountains
and forests.

161

In China, the modern creation of protected areas dates
from the middle of this century. In 1956, scientists
recognized the growing need for the conservation of
nature and natural resources, and proposed that the
development of a network of reserves might be the most
satisfactory way of achieving this goal (Wang Xianpu,
1989a). The Government approved this proposal and
delimited 40 reserves in the same year. There followed
some changes to the legal status and structure of pro-
tected areas as well as the strengthening of certain
institutions but, for a considerable amount of time, no
additional sites were proclaimed until the rapid devel-
opment of the last few years (see Table 3 and Figures 1
and 2). The real steps toward conservation of nature in
Taiwan took place after 1970; the Forest Bureau estab-
lished Taiwan’s first wildlife protected area in 1974
(Aniruddh 1989). ;

Perhaps some of the first references to wildlife con-
servation dates from the 7th century AD when the
Japanese Emperor organized a “bird hunting and pres-
ervation section” in the Imperial Government. Japan
passed its modern National Parks Law in 1931, enabling
the future establishment of specially protected areas for
aesthetic and recreational purposes. This was based on
the Imperial Game Laws of 1892, ensuring regulation
of hunting reserves. Twelve sites were designated as
protected areas in Japan between 1934 and 1936, in-
cluding several coastal sites. By 1957, there were 19
national parks, comprising 1.8 million ha, or almost 5%
of Japan’s land area, while today there are a range of
protected area categories, bringing the total land cover-
age to 16.2%. (Table 1).

Protected area development in the other countries of
the region began even later, with the Republic of Korea
establishing its first national park (Chiri National Park)
in 1967 and Mongolia in 1975 (the Great Gobi Desert,
encompassing an area of 5.3 million ha), although other
categories of protected areas have been protected for
much longer in Mongolia at least. Development of
protected areas in these latter countries, and in the
Korean DPR, has been a relatively slow process, for a
number of reasons.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: East Asia

Area in
CategoriesI-V %

Country Area

307,670

378

46,656

579

Korea, Republic 7568

Macau 0

Mongolia
Taiwan

61,678
2,885

11,789,524 427,414

Total area
designated %

Area in Categories
VI-VIIandUA %

1,300
0
13,419

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: East Asia

Area No. Area

IV
Area

Vv
Area

TOTAL

No. No. No. Area

393 283,209 38 23,476
- - 12 378 - -
650 26,038 13 7,523 685 46,656

1 140 - 2 579

7,154 26 7,568

434 307,670

- 15 61,678

441 5 2,885

1045 309,857 85 38,972 1179 427,414

1.2 Environmental implications of

economic development

Economic development has not been evenly distributed
throughout this geographical region in recent years, and
has been chiefly concentrated in Japan, the Republic of
Korea and Taiwan. Certain activities such as mining,
logging and fishing have certainly had severe impacts
on local environments, often to the detriment of the
latter as well as to the local inhabitants who rely on these
resources. Conflicts have arisen between park authori-
ties and development organizations, leading to losses of
biological diversity. In general, however, this aspect has
not received adequate attention and has been poorly
documented, but should be treated more seriously in
park establishment, management and planning in future
years.

162

1.3. The growth of the protected area

system

Recent decades have brought about a major expansion
in the East Asian Region (Table 3 and Figures 1 and 2).
Time, too, has brought about some major changes in
peoples’ understanding of protected areas which, cou-
pled with the rapidly escalating population densities of
countries and regions such as China, Japan, Korea and
Taiwan, has resulted in a surge of pressures on existing
protected areas. Development issues concerning hous-
ing, industry and mineral exploitation have also crept
into the issue of protected area management.

In recent years there have been many developments
and achievements within the protected area field in of
East Asia. Since the 1970s, in China, for example,
people have gradually recognized the importance of

East Asia

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: East Asia

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established

Notes:

% area
established
1972-1981

Date
established
unknown

% area
established
1982-1991

19,574

427,415

Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for

environmental conservation and, as a result, the estab-
lishment of protected areas has progressed more quickly
than in preceding years. The conservation, research and
rational utilization of nature and natural resources, as
well as the establishment of protected areas, are now
clearly stated in the national constitution. Likewise,
appropriate legislation relating to environmental pro-
tection has been enacted, while other laws address
specific topics, such as forests or grasslands. During the
1980s, the reform and open policy of China played an
important role in the course of protected areas in this
country.

The establishment of a reserve network in China is
considered as one of the tasks of national economic and
social development. During the past ten years the num-
ber of protected areas has greatly increased and, accord-
ing to official data in 1989, the total number of protected
areas was 381, of which 31 were national reserves
comprising an area of almost 237,000 sq km (2.5% of
the country’s land area) (Department of Nature Conser-
vation in National Environmental Protection Bureau,
1989), with up to 5% of the land area being protected
in some provinces.

Although there have been many changes in the devel-
opment of protected areas in China during the past 40
years, there remains a considerable amount of work to
be done if the economic, cultura! and scientific devel-
opment of these reserves is to be utilized to its best
potential. One of the main outstanding problems facing
all protected area ecosystems in this region is the lack
of public understanding for such sites. Traditional ide-
ology whereby natural resources are seen as a conven-
ient, exploitable resource is still widespread and, in
view of the ever-increasing pressures being imposed on
these sites, people should be made aware of the serious
problems that might occur unless urgent action is taken

163

to protect remaining vestiges of naturalhabitat in each
nation.

The first national parks in this region were established
in Japan in 1934 (Akan, Aso-Kuju, Chubu-Sangaku,
Daisetsuzan, Kirishima-Yaku, Nikko, Seto Nakai and
Unzen-Amakusa National Parks), the most recent—
Kushiro Shilsugen National Park—in 1987. Japan’s
protected area movement itself, however, can be traced
back to 1873, when the Head of the Cabinet issued a
proclamation with regard to preparing public parks,
especially within and around cities.

Since they were first envisaged, the laws and regula-
tions concerning protected areas have been substan-
tially revised and expanded to accommodate additional
categories and responsibilities of protected areas. A
major amendment to the national legislation concerning
protected areas in Japan was again made in 1957, with
the passage of the Natural Parks Law, which defined the
purpose of the parks as “the protection of the places of
scenic beauty and also through the promoted utilization
thereof, as a contribution to the health, recreation and
culture of the people”. In 1972, the Environment Pres-
ervation Law was passed and national parks were incor-
porated under the new Environment Agency, which had
improved means to buy private land in parks.

The passing of this law also resulted in the introduc-
tion of three new conservation categories: wilderness
areas; natural conservation areas; and prefectural nature
conservation areas, which specifically aimed at protect-
ing areas of biological diversity. Decisions governing
the size, layout and management planning of national
parks in Japan are now taken by the Environment Agency,
in collaboration with the respective prefectures, minis-
tries and other agencies. A similar process is undertaken
for matters relating to nature conservation areas, al-
though in this case, public hearings may also be organ-
ized to discuss the matter.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)
500

Number of sites

400 Area (x1000sqkm)

300

200

100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)

1,400

Number of sites

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

164

Today Japan has three main categories of protected
area: national parks; quasi-national parks; and prefec-
ture-owned natural parks. In recent years several addi-
tional categories of conservation areas have been introduced
to protect the nation’s biodiversity, including special
wildfowl and mammal sanctuaries, aimed at protecting
the habitat of endangered species, and wintering grounds
for wildfowl. Areas designated as national parks consist
not only of national and local government lands, but
also private land. In fact, 23% of the land under national
parks in the western part of Japan are privately owned.

Although consideration has been given to the need for
protected areas in the Koreas since the early 1940s, all
development was curtailed with the onset of World War
II. The establishment of protected areas in the Republic
of Korea is therefore a relatively recent innovation
when, in 1967, the country’s first national park, Mount
Chirisan (44,000ha), was established. Three other sites
were declared national parks in 1968 (Kyongju, Mount
Kyeryong andhallyo Marine Reserve), with many more
in subsequent years.

Management of the national parks in Taiwan is gov-
erned by the very comprehensive “National Park Law”,
promulgated in 1972. In addition, there are numerous
customs, traditions and practices, many of which have
been adapted from those of the US National Park Service,
but few of which have been codified in written policy
(The Taiwan Nature Conservation Strategy, 1985).

The national parks of Taiwan have been established
primarily for visitor use, and developments including
settlements and forestry operations are established within
the boundaries of protected areas. Like those of other
industrialized nations, its national parks now face many
threats to the integrity of their resources and natural
processes. These not only include logging, surface min-
ing and hydro-electric development, but also road con-
struction, illegal incursions, vandalism and the dumping
of rubbish.

Because of its high human population, many of
Taiwan’s lowland forests have already been cleared for
agriculture and settlement. The country’s existing and
proposed national parks lie along the central mountain-
ous ridge of the island, extending from the northern
volcanic mountains outside Taipei to the southern tip
(Mackinnon and Mackinnon, 1986). Overall these are
thought to include a variety of representative ecosys-
tems from sub-alpine to marine.

The Government of Taiwan is also committed to the
idea of national parks and has provided adequate fund-
ing and personnel to establish parks. The National Parks
Department, established in 1981, is responsible for the
administration of national parks and the planning and
implementation of the National Conservation Strategy
and the Coastal Zone Management Plan.

165

East Asia

A comprehensive review of the region’s protected
areas systems has been prepared by the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992).

1.4 Lessons learned

The need for improved management of existing re-
serves has become a crucial issue. In many instances
protected areas lack direction and there are often major
shortfalls in funding, as well as uncertainties in the
responsibilities of those in charge of the reserves. Under
such conditions some reserves have no effective man-
agement programmes and are merely considered as
burdens.

Experience in the region has shown that in order to
address these problems, the following steps are required
to improve the situation:

@ National management regulations must be enacted
for protected areas and a series of criteria must be
developed for the design of the reserves;

A procedure for establishing reserves of different
categories should be formulated, and regular inspec-
tions should be made of reserves already estab-
lished;

@ A series of regional meetings should be organized
to discuss how best to identify potential funding
sources, to improve management and to strengthen
international cooperation;

@ Closer working links should be established between
international conservation organizations working in
relevant topics;

A national training system should be established for
protected area managers and conservationists;

@ Conservation issues in protected areas should be
linked to development issues and the needs of local
people;

Local people should be encouraged to contribute to
park planning, management and operating activities.

2. Current protected area coverage

Protected areas are to be found in all countries of the
region, although in the case of Macau, the area protected
is negligible.

The national park system of Japan covers approxi-
mately 14% of the total national land area, while nature
conservation areas cover an additional 0.23% and wild-
fowl and mammal reserves a further 9%. There is,
however, some degree of overlap between several sites.
All of the nation’s parks are carefully zoned into one of
four categories: special protection areas; marine parks;
special areas; and ordinary areas. This classification is
based on the quality and degree of human impact to the
ecosystem, the socio-economic, cultural and economic

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

importance of the site, and its overall attractiveness for
visitors.

Overall, it is believed that the existing protected area
network in Japan is acceptable, protecting representative
examples of all major ecosystems (marine issues are
discussed later). Some parts of the protected areas sys-
tem have apparently experienced some management
problems, although few details are generally available
on this aspect.

With an area of 1,565,000 sq km, Mongolia currently
has 17 protected areas, which offer some degree of
protection to about 70,581 sq km of land, or 4.5% of the
total land area. At the present time, little information is
available on the status of these reserves or whether they
represent a satisfactory coverage of the major biomes,
except to note that little expansion has occurred in the
past decade.

Today there are 20 national parks in the Republic of
Korea, which afford some degree of protection to ap-
proximately 7,154 sq km, about 7.7 of the total country
area. All of these sites are listed under Category V—
Protected Landscape/Seascape—according to IUCN’s
designations. The People’s Democratic Republic of
Korea has two protected areas covering 0.5 of the total
land area.

Taiwan has four national parks accounting for
6% of its land surface, as well as a number of small
coastal reserves protecting mangroves and other habi-
tats. Yushan National Park is the largest (1,055 sq km)
and most remote of Taiwan’s national parks, protecting
many rare and threatened species. True rain forests are
confined to the south of the island, where they are
protected in Kenting National Park and on Orchid
Island. Ta-Wu Mountain in the south-west has been
declared a Nature Preserve (470 sq km).

In recent years, there has been further progress in
developing protected areas in China. In total there are
419 in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Of
those in China, there are now more than 60 national
reserves, comprising a total land area of 289,787 sq km,
over 3% of the national land area. The increasing rate
of protected area establishment is now 36% per annum,
four times that of agricultural and industrial production.
While this is certainly an encouraging sign for environ-
mental protection in China, the effort and momentum
could be lost if these reserves are not properly gazetted,
established and integrated within the local situation.

In China, the existing system of protected areas is
believed to include all the major centres of biological
diversity, as well as representative examples of the
country’s mainhabitat types and endemic species (Wang
Xianpu, 1980b). Reserves are divided into a number of
different categories, but there is no practical application
within these (Department of Edition in North-west Uni-
versity, 1987; Wang Xianpu, 1980a; Zhu Jing et al.,
1981). Indeed, it is felt that this is perhaps one of the

166

most important barriers to the development of pro-
tected areas in China (Zhu Jing et al., 1985), and
probably elsewhere in the region.

In December 1990, the Tibet Autonomous Region
Government designated 240,000 sq km as the Chang
Tang Reserve, which will be administered by the Forest
Bureau in Lhasa (Schaller, 1991). The Forest Ministry
in Beijing is also planning to add this reserve to its
national network of reserves and thus provide financial
assistance. Once established, the Chang Tang Reserve
would be the second largest protected land area in the
world. This region is of particular importance in view
of its unique high mountain flora and fauna.

Bordering the Chang Tang Reserve in the northeast
in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region is the Arjin Shan
Reserve (45,000 sq km), which was established in 1983.
A further recommendation has been made to include an
additional area to the west of the Arjin Shan and pro-
posed Chang Tang reserves, as it is such an important
area for local wildlife populations (Schaller, 1991).

The protected area network in China has suffered
from an ineffective management system for many years
and, as a result, few reserves are currently intact and are
likely to remain in an unsatisfactory state for the imme-
diate future. Some of the major problems that have a
direct impact on reserves in China include: inadequate
boundary demarcation and weak legislation; illegal hunt-
ing and timber felling; the influences of unrestricted
tourism; construction of roads, buildings, dams and
canals; mining; internal population migration; exces-
sive grazing and land reclamation; and uncontrolled
fires. In general, the overall level of management in
reserves is low and most suffer from poor organization,
lack of direction and motivation, lack of funds and
equipment, and poor relationships with local residents
(Wang Xianpu, 1986c).

In Hong Kong, following the enactment of the Coun-
try Park Ordinance, there was the establishment of a
comprehensive network of 19 country parks, covering
37.5% of the territory (40,833ha) over the period 1977—
1981. This has been augmented by 14 special areas and
47 sites of Special Scientific Interest. Note that these are
not recorded in Tables 1 and 2 due to the 10 sq km
minimum size criterion.

Comparative details of the protected area network
within East Asia are provided in Tables 1 and 2.

2.1. Marine parks

International attention was directed to marine parks by
the First World National Parks Conference in 1962 and,
in 1964, the Nature Conservation Society of Japan
(NCSJ) created a marine parks investigation committee.
Today, there are 58 locations within Japan’s national
and quasi-national parks that have been designated Marine
Parks under the Natural Parks Law, encompassing

some 2,418ha in total. Most of these parks are quite
small, averaging 41ha, while the largest (Ogasawara
Marine Park Area) and smallest (Shimokita Taijima
Marine Park Area) measure 463ha and 3ha, respec-
tively. Of the other countries in this region, only Taiwan
and Korea have marine parks, while Hong Kong has
protection of some coastal area with its country parks.

While there are obvious geographical limitations for
developing marine parks within this region, countries
such as China, Korea, and Japan, in particular, should
examine this aspect in more detail, especially in relation
to development issues such as ecotourism and fishing
rights. This subject is treated in more detail in the
Marine Regional Review presented elsewhere in this
volume.

3. Additional protected areas
recommended

Although representative examples of the major floral
and faunal components are included in the existing
system of protected areas in China, there is clearly an
uneven balance in the national choice of sites, as well
as the area of coverage that major habitats receive. For
example, protected areas in many biogeographic prov-
inces occupy less than 1% of the total area of that
province. However, what is probably more important is
the actual content of the reserves—in terms of ecologi-
cal diversity and national heritage—as well as their state
of management. Particular attention in the form of
establishing managed protected areas in China is re-
quired in the northem forest region, the southern lime-
stone mountains, and the north-western dry and
semiarid region. Likewise, attention is required in the
wetland, coastal, marine and island environments,
where the number of protected areas is quite inadequate
(Department of Nature Conservation in National Envi-
ronmental Protection Bureau, 1989; Zhu Jing et al.,
1985).

In Japan, the Environment Agency conducts an ap-
praisal of the national park planning process every five
years, while also examining the need to expand or
designate new nature conservation areas. Opinions are
based on information gathered through national sur-
veys, as well as those conducted by Prefectural Govern-
ments. New proposals for wildfowl and mammal
sanctuaries are also prepared on a five-year basis by the
Environment Agency, which is considering the estab-
lishment of reserves for species other than mammals or
birds, based on new proposals from surveys conducted
by Prefecture Governments and/or research institutions,
as well as information available in Japan’s Red Data
Books (published in 1990).

Specific details concerning additional protected areas
in the other countries within this region are, at present,
unavailable, although studies of natural areas are under-
way in at least Taiwan, and the Hong Kong protected
area system is fairly comprehensive. However, in most

167

East Asia

countries, the relevant authorities urgently need to con-
duct further planning, replenishing the existing reserve
networks and meeting the requirements of economic
development and of cultural and scientific develop-
ment. As human pressures are constantly impinging on
the majority of protected areas in this region, it would
also be advisable if steps were taken to develop an
appropriate infrastructure for conducting environmental
impact assessments within the respective regions.

4. Protected area institutions

The present administrative structure of protected areas
in China is based on unified coordination and decentral-
ized management. In this system, private institutions
have not yet had any influence on protected areas. Until
the 1980’s, the Bureau of Agriculture of the Ministry of
Economic Affairs was the only official agency to set
wildlife policy. The National Parks Department was
founded in 1981 within the Ministry of the Interior.

In China, all protected areas are governed under the
responsible departments of the various provinces, most
of which have, in turn, created special institutions to-
handle such affairs. In recent years, China has seen an
obvious improvement in the level of nature conserva-
tion and scientific research in this country. In some
provinces, laws and regulations have been enacted to
conserve a number of rare and endangered species,
while elsewhere there has also been an improvement in
the management of protected areas (Wang Xianpu,
1987, 1989b and 1990). Some reserves have been des-
ignated as Biosphere Reserves under the UNESCO
MAB Programme and several have been named World
Heritage sites, while others have benefitted from inter-
National cooperation with IUCN, WWF, UNEP and
many other organizations. Participation in international
conventions and programmes is summarised in Table 4,
and a list of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List
is given in Table 5.

The national parks of the Republic of Korea and the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea have been de-
veloped with cultural attractions in mind, and largely
consist of numerous remains and examples of the
Buddhist culture. Historically there have been a number
of bottlenecks to protected area management in the
Republic of Korea, and these have had to be overcome
in ensuring the protection, development of facilities and
administration of the national parks. One of the major
problems arose because all of the land area covered by
the parks was privately owned. Since 1981, however,
new laws have been formulated and set within the single
Natural Parks Law, which now simplifies this process.
The Republic of Korea National Parks Authority was
established in 1987, and has assumed complete control
of affairs related to national parks management. In the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Academy
of Sciences has assumed responsibility for protected
areas.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: East Asia

World Heritage
Date No.

December 1985 4
June 1992 0
Korea, Republic September 1988 0
Korea, DPR - -
Mongolia February 1990 0
Portugal (Macau) September 1980 0
United Kingdom
(Hong Kong)
Taiwan

China
Japan

May 1984 0

Notes:

Biosphere Reserves
Area (ha) No. Area (ha)

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention
Date No. Area (ha)

2,246,772 March 1992
116,000 June 1980
37,430 -
132,000 -
5,300,000

529,457
10,402

November 1980

January 1976

1. Other mixed natural/cultural sites are inscribed on the list of World Heritage, but on the basis of beauty resulting

from the man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. These sites include Mount Taishan in China,

which has not been included in the above table.
2. Only sites lying within the region are listed.

Table 5. World Heritage sites in East Asia

China
Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area
Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest
Area
Mount Huangshan
Mount Taishan

Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area

One of these sites (Mount Taishan) is a mixed natural/
cultural sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty
resulting from man/nature interaction, rather than natural
features alone.

The Japanese Environment Agency is responsible for
all matters relating to protected areas in that country. It
also maintains close links with other governmental min-
istries during the proposal and development stage of
new protected areas. National park management authori-
ties are responsible for the management of national
parks on the ground, which includes such issues as
controlling development, logging and collection of ma-
terials from the various sites. In recent years, interna-
tional cooperation has been extended by Japan to other
countries.

One of the major shortcomings that needs to be ad-
dressed within the existing system of protected area
management in China and Mongolia is the poor level of
support and communication from the relevant central
departments to field staff, as well as a general lack of
communications between the various departments whose
activities might in some way be related to the manage-
ment of a protected area. Indeed, communications
between the relevant government departments in charge
of nature conservation and those responsible for activi-
ties such as development, agriculture, mining, etc., is

168

also a major problem that needs addressing (Wang
Xianpu, 1984).

However, in the Republic of Korea, Japan and Hong
Kong there are thriving non-governmental organiza-
tions concerned with conservation. The National Parks
Association of Korea was created in 1971, being set up
to “ensure the sound development of attractive natural
scenic areas” including national, provincial and country
parks. In Japan there are a large number of local and
national voluntary organizations, some of which own or
manage their own private protected areas. One of the
largest NGOs is the Wild Bird Society of Japan which
owns 10 sanctuaries.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

In Japan, the Environment Agency’s budget for national
park facilities is approximately three billion yen per
annum (US$24.8 million). During the past 19 years, the
Environment Agency and prefectural authorities have
purchased private lands which have cost about ten bil-
lion yen (US$82.6 million).

Protected areas are popular sites in Japan and receive
large numbers of tourists each year, some of the highest
park visitor figures in the world. In 1989 alone, the
following levels were recorded: 387 million visitors to
national parks; 292 million to quasi-national parks; and
276 million to prefectural natural parks. This total of
955 million visitors means that the average Japanese
visits a protected area nearly eight times per year. The
income generated from tourism is unknown but is cer-
tainly substantial. Even if each visitor spend only the
equivalent of US$10, total expenditures would approach
US$10 billion; the true figure could easily be 10 times
that amount.

In Hong Kong the number of visitors to protected
areas has risen to 9.46 million per year, also repre-
senting a significant level of financial investment.

The Republic of Korea also has substantial numbers
of visitors to protected areas, reaching nearly 40 million
in 1990 (almost equivalent to the country’s population)
(Table 8). Expenditures by these tourists can be esti-
mated at US$2 billion per year, far greater than the
annual financial investments in national parks of US$56.5
million (Table 9).

By comparison, tourism is limited in Mongolia. How-
ever, the possibility of establishing organized hunting
for tourists has been initiated. It has been calculated that
foreign currency revenues from tourist hunting parties
in reserves could be over US$500,000 annually.

In Taiwan, the National Park Department and Agri-
cultural Bureau have significant funds, so their budget
for national park and protected area facilities is rela-
tively greater than other countries in the region.

Strictly speaking, in China there is as yet no recog-
nized budgetary allocation to protected areas, because
it is not yet seen as an integral part of the national
economic and social development policy. Unlike the
construction of a factory or school, which are planned
and managed according to a definite plan and predeter-
mined budget, there are no such guidelines for protected
area development and management. Funding prospects
are therefore uncertain and many protected areas re-
ceive additional funds from other sources, which are
often barely adequate to ensure the basic running of the
area. Some key reserves may get an occasional cash
infusion from the government for a specific purpose but,
in the majority of cases, funds are raised from private
sources on the strength of the work and importance of
the site itself. In order to address these inadequacies, the
following steps should be taken:

@ Reserve planning and management should be brought
into line with the state plan of economic construc-
tion and social development. This would result in

East Asia

protected areas receiving an annual financial pack-
age, which would ensure greater security for the
sites and the staff members.

@ Clear budgetary requirements should be prepared
for all protected areas, both for the immediate future
as well as on a longer term basis. Additional funding
sources should also be identified and approached.

@ Every protected area should be provided with a
skilled and enthusiastic team of managers and sup-
port staff, including a public relations officer.

@ Consideration should be given to providing im-
proved tourist facilities and encouraging tourism as
a means of generating additional funds for protected
areas.

@ Stronger links should be forged with international
conservation organizations, with the intention of
receiving increased technical support and training,
and perhaps access to international funding.

@ Public awareness campaigns should be organized to
promote actively the need for nature conservation
and sustainable resource utilization, respecting the
attitudes of local people.

@ Private companies should be encouraged to invest
in the establishment and management of protected
areas.

Of these, perhaps the most concern has been ex-
pressed about the potential role of tourism. If an area
receives adequate scientific management, control and
coordination in its activities, tourism may clearly fulfil
an important function in the protected areas of China
(Wang Xianpu, 1989b). Some reserves have already
developed an element of ecological tourism which has
begun to make a contribution to the upkeep of those
particular sites. However, the impacts or indeed the
potential of this activity have not been fully examined.
Preliminary data for protected areas management agericy
budgets within the region are given in Table 6.

Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets: East Asia

Budget in
national currency

Country/responsible agency

China — Ministry of Forestry/
Environment Protection
Agency

Japan — Nature Conservation Bureau JPY
Korea, Dem People’s Rep KPW
Korea, Rep KRW
Mongolia MNT

Sources:

US Dollar
equivalent Year

The Ministry of Forestry is
responsible for management
of some 90% of terrestrial
protected areas.

[14] Thomback, J. (1986). Report on a Visit to China, 22 June—5 July. Unpublished report. 7pp.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

The human element, whether it concems the traditional
rights of an indigenous tribe or the political affairs of a
decision-maker involved with nature conservation, is
crucial to the entire process of protected area manage-
ment worldwide. In China, for example, some prov-
inces have better developed protected areas than others,
largely as a result of the attention given by the authori-
ties in promoting the values and functions of reserves
and training facilities.

In China, the present number of professional conser-
vationists is over 6,000, and the number of people
indirectly participating in the work of protected areas
exceeds 20,000 people. Each department conducts an
annual training course for the conservation staff, and
some of the training courses are carried out in coopera-
tion with international organizations such as UNESCO,
IUCN, UNEP, and WWF. In recent years, some col-
leges and universities have also begun to offer courses
on nature conservation, aiming to promote and cultivate
trained personnel in the field of conservation and pro-
tected area managers. In many regions, however, the
working and living conditions in the field are still rather
Tustic, and people are often unwilling to endure such
situations. It would appear that this aspect requires
further attention.

Management of protected areas in Japan is carried out
by central and local government authorities. Central
government officials number about 200 people, of which
60 are national park rangers based within the parks, the
remainder working in the Nature Conservation Bureau
in Tokyo. In addition, an estimated 300 local govern-
ment officials are employed in the protected areas.
Through special training institutes for the environment,
the Environment Agency organizes several training courses
for park managers and rangers, as well as for personnel
from local government departments who are involved
with nature conservation and protected area manage-
ment. Each year, approximately 100 officials partici-
pate in 7-10 day training courses. As of 1990, the
Environment Agency also runs an international training
course on nature conservation and national park man-
agement, in cooperation with the Japanese International
Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the Japan Wildlife
Research Centre. To date, trainees from Asian, African,
Latin American and Eastern European countries have
participated in the course.

In relatively small territories such as Hong Kong the
number of staff are significant. Within the Conservation
and Country Parks Branch in 1988 there were 1,276
staff, 1,179 alone in the Country Parks Division. By
contrast staffing levels within Mongolia are relatively
low given the area of the country.

170

7. Priorities for future investment
in protected areas

In all of the countries considered in this review, the most
immediate tasks in protected area management are to
improve the system of existing protected areas through
expansion and inclusion of under-represented habi-
tats, in conjunction with the strengthening and promo-
tion of effective management, so that ultimately the
functions of protected areas can be fully integrated with
ecological, economic and social activities. Thus the
protected areas can perhaps become self-sustaining. In
order to reach that goal, however, representative areas
of different categories should be chosen to exemplify
effective management. In this way, activities and pre-
vailing conditions may be better controlled and any
experience gained in the process might then be shared
among fellow park managers.

In addition, it is necessary to establish new protected
areas in differenthabitat types, particularly those centres
of high biodiversity and endemism, scenic resorts, and
freshwater and marine areas. Particular attention should
be given to remaininghabitats in areas of high popula-
tion density, such as the eastem part of China and the
lowlands of Taiwan. In order to complete those tasks,
however, a carefully planned series of scientific re-
search programmes should be developed.

Future consideration for such development should
give adequate attention to financial concerns and in-
vestment in the natural resources of protected areas. In
particular, governments should be requested to allocate
increased amounts of money for the establishment and
management of protected areas in different regions. In
addition, however, assistance from private, national and
international sponsors should also be sought. Protected
area management is no longer only a national concern
and can rarely be managed as such on a long-term basis.
International assistance and development cooperation
has never been so urgently required to assist with the
management and protection of our national heritage and
every effort should be made to ensure that this is carried
out.

8. Major protected area issues in
the region

8.1 Land tenure

Most of the protected areas in Japan are designated
irrespective of land-ownership or tenure issues. It is felt,
however, that Wilderness Areas should only be estab-
lished on land already owned by the state or local public
authorities. In fact, the majority of the conservation
areas are owned by the state, while approximately 70%
of the area of national and quasi-national parks are
either owned by the state or local public authorities.

Japan’s system of protected areas is based upon a
zoning system similar to that used in city planning

projects. The Japanese Natural Parks Law allows a
range of activities and socio-economic developments
within each type of designated area but, on occasion,
this may lead to a conflict of interests between the
private land owner and the conservation organization.
For example, on private lands within an officially des-
ignated protected area, the activities of the land owner
are greatly curtailed, although a reduction in taxes is
sometimes an incentive in this system. In contrast, if the
land had previously been of some traditional use to local
people, this type of utilization is allowed to continue.

In China, there are no privately-owned reserves, the
tenure of protected areas instead largely belonging to
the country; a few are governed by collectives. Under
such circumstances, activities related to resource utili-

Table 7. Protected areas in Japan

Category

National Parks
Quasi-national parks
Prefecture natural parks

Source: Akai, 1990

East Asia

zation must be approved by the responsible authorities.
Most reserves have a free access policy, but no direct
exploitation is permitted within the protected area. In
order to satisfy the peoples’ needs, this policy must
combine the conservation of natural resources with their
sustainable utilization, planning the process through
appropriate public awareness programmes, education
and legislation in order to satisfy these requirements. It
has become apparent that the long-term prospects for
protected area establishment are not good if the estab-
lishment of a reserve is not supported by the local
residents, especially when the goal and means of imple-
mentation cannot be understood by the people, who
may seek to reclaim the land, cut timber and hunt
wildlife for their own survival (Wang Xianpu, 1986b;
Wang Xianpu et al., 1989a).

Area (sq km)

20,501
12,888
19,906

Table 8. Visitors to national parks in Korea (persons in thousands)

26,197
31,081

Total 31,081
National Population’ 42,082

32,478 27,919
39,147 32,856

39,147 32,856
42,793 N.A.

Population in 000s

Table 9. Financial investments in national parks in Korea

1989 1990

Personnel
Facility
Maintenance
Others

6,772 8,514
32,972 33,639
3,265 2,861
6,438 5,344

Total (US$ in thousands)

49,447 50,358

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

In the Republic of Korea much of the forest area is
privately-owned, and a public body, the Forest Associa-
tion Union, plays an important role in the implementa-
tion of forest protection programmes. Under existing
legislation the government should pay compensation to
land owners if the land designated is privately owned.
There are problems however, due to low budgets of
these authorities.

8.2 Conflicts with development

Law enforcement in Japanese national parks is under-
taken by the national park officials of the Environment
Agency and local governments, in close collaboration
with the private sector. Whenever large-scale national
projects such as the construction of a road, airport or
harbour coincides with an area already designated a
protected site, the Environment Agency, following a
series of detailed surveys of the potential effects on the
environment, is in a position to evaluate and coordinate
the matter further with the ministries or other agencies
concerned.

Japan has already lost a large amount of its original
forest cover, mainly through cultivation in the lowlands,
as well as deforestation on the lower hills. Combined,
both activities have resulted in the loss of a great deal
of natural habitat, especially in the western region. It
has recently been suggested that part of the Tanzawa-
Ooyama National Park has been affected by acid rain
and the Environment Agency is currently investigating
this claim.

Overall, Japan has a relatively well established net-
work of protected areas, many of which have been
designed for and around people. In many cases, how-
ever, these sites are now facing pressures, largely as a
result of the development needs of the population. Local
people derive few direct benefits from the establishment
of protected areas in Japan, although indirect benefits
are expected to increase through expanded tourism fa-
cilities as well as an improved system of communica-
tions.

Hong Kong has made some effort to alleviate the
threat to the environment by designating areas and Sites
of Special Scientific Interest, where its conservation value
can be considered in governmental planning processes.

8.3 Relations with local people

Experience has already shown that if there are no suit-
able ways to address the practical needs of the local
people, the reserve will always exist in a state of uncer-
tainty. Good relationships with local people are an
integral part of successful protected area management;
their support is essential if such schemes are to succeed
and prosper. In many cases, protected area managers
and their staff may learn how certain problems might
be better approached from studying the traditional ac-
tivities of local people and from seeking their advice on
certain subjects. Likewise, local people should, when-

172

ever possible, be encouraged to work within the pro-
tected area as part of the staff composition so that they
may see and experience at firsthand how beneficial such
sites could be to the long-term survival of their culture.

The establishment of any reserve should always con-
sider local styles, attitudes and national heritage. Des-
ignated sites will often have people already living in
them, which requires very careful monitoring and skil-
ful management. Despite the common assumption that
it is necessary to remove people from a protected area,
this is not always the case. In fact, special allowances
are often made on how best to protect local cultures
when establishing new protected areas.

Alarmed by the rapid rate of urbanization threatening
to destroy the countryside of Hong Kong in the 1960s,
it was proposed that forestry policies be revised to
accommodate the recreational demands of an increas-
ingly urban population. From 1971-1972 a number of
recreational (country parks) and conservation (nature
reserves) areas were established.

Isolation is another problem concerning protected
area status which has an important bearing on its future
management. In China, most of the reserves are sur-
rounded by cultivated landscape, and therefore resem-
ble islands in a developed environment. If adequate
attention is not paid to those areas immediately sur-
rounding the reserve, there will always be a threat of
human encroachment for grazing, agriculture, fuelwood
collection, poaching, etc., with the inevitable destruc-
tion that these activities bring. Such sites will, in time,
also be viewed as prime real estate for construction and
development schemes. If, however, the reserve is care-
fully managed, it will certainly play an important pro-
motional role in the development, economy and protection
of the surrounding area and should contribute to the
well-being of local people. This, in itself, is often enough
to encourage local people to support the notion of
protected areas.

Thus, a protected area should not be viewed in isola-
tion, but its establishment should be closely integrated
with the productive development of the surrounding
area, mixing its own management practices with those
of the region, essentially forming a system of ecologi-
cally balanced land-use. In such a way, the protected
area could be viewed as an important and in time, an
indispensable part of the whole system. Above all, it
should not be viewed on its own, merely as a resource
pool to be protected against ruthless exploitation.

8.4 Protected areas and research

Although protected areas are not in themselves scien-
tific research institutions they are, nonetheless, ideal
facilities for promoting scientific research. This might
range from essential research activities related to the
basic requirements of protection, or even to production
and management of the site itself, or extending facilities
and cooperation with scientists from other scientific

research and education institutions. Forging links for
research and communication with other national and
international institutions should be actively encouraged,
not only in anticipation of a greater understanding of the
social, ecological and legislative workings of a pro-
tected area, but perhaps more importantly because of
the increased awareness and attention that such produc-
tive efforts can provide. Protected areas can therefore
offer unique opportunities and facilities for environ-
mental monitoring stations, several of which are already
operational in China (Wang Xianpu et al., 1986, 1989b)
and well advanced in Japan.

The continued existence of national parks and pro-
tected areas face many threats in East Asia, but some of
the most important that have come to light in recent
years are in the form of environmental pollution. At-
mospheric pollution, acid rain and global climate change
are all still poorly researched topics that may have an
immediate, dramatic effect on ecological systems. In
some parts of China, large areas of forest have already
been destroyed, especially in the mountains where pre-
cious and ancient trees have been killed. Reports of acid
tain damage in parts of Japan are also currently receiv-
ing attention. Again, these are issues that cannot be
addressed on a local or even national level, but require
an active internationally coordinated approach based on
scientific research.

8.5 Management effectiveness

If a protected area is to be managed effectively it will
depend on the successful coordination and implemen-
tation of a number of intricately linked variables, in-
cluding adequate levels of investment, an efficient lead
organization to promote and coordinate activities, the
good will and support of the local people, scientists,
decision-makers, and the national departments of legis-
lation, publicity and production and, finally, interna-
tional institutions for the provision of training and
management assistance.

9. Priorities for action in the region

The following points represent regional priorities, and
will be variably applicable to the countries in the region.

1. Improving the existing level of
management of protected areas

Much greater efforts are required to enhance the degree
of protection afforded to existing protected areas. Clear
management plans and operational guidelines should be
prepared for each protected area as a matter of priority.
Model protected areas should be established to demon-
Strate sound management practices.

2. Expanding the protected area network

The protected area network should aim to include viable
examples of all major habitat types and species at a

173

East Asia

national and regional level. This has happened in few
cases and existing networks should be expanded and
strengthened to broaden the scope of the network. In
China, protected areas are largely located in the south-
west, south and north-eastern parts of the country, where
biological diversity is therefore obviously better pro-
tected. However, the protected area network still lacks
some representative terrestrial ecosystems throughout
the East Asian Region. Greater attention should also be
given to establishing protected areas in the marine and
wetland biomes, as well as specific reserves to protect
natural monuments and cultural heritage. The protected
area network should be progressively increased to in-
clude about ten percent of the region’s land area.

3. Promoting awareness of protected
areas

In order to achieve long-term respect and appreciation
for protected areas, education programmes must be
strengthened throughout most of the region by introduc-
ing environmental education topics to the curriculum,
and by creating and mobilizing an effective promo-
tional system to enhance public support for nature
conservation. Suggested approaches include: (a) of-
fering specialist courses in nature conservation at
schools and colleges; (b) holding regular training
courses; (c) publishing textbooks and other materials
promoting conservation awareness; (d) improving rela-
tionships with the media in order to reach a wider and
perhaps more influential audience.

4. Strengthening the national legislation
and means of implementation

National legislation concemed with protected areas should
be strengthened at all levels and greater attention should
be given to its enforcement. A strong, professional
system of leadership and management should be in-
stalled and given responsibility for the protected area
system, following review and consultation with local,
national and international experts.

5. Encouraging international cooperation
and exchange

Management of protected areas is an international con-
cem with many underlying national considerations.
Training courses and information exchange are essen-
tial aspects of protected area management which should
be encouraged at all levels of management. Interna-
tional cooperation should be forged at as many levels
as possible. Japan has over 15 years experience in
dealing with the protection of migratory birds with
partner organizations in Australia, China, the USA and
the USSR. In recent years, the Environment Agency has
also cooperated in a series of wildfowl surveys in south-
east Asia, particularly dealing with Malaysia and Thailand.
Together with JICA and the Government of the People’s
Republic of China, the Environment Agency has started

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

a programme for the protection of the endangered Japa-
nese Crested Ibis (Nipponia nippon). Finally, the Envi-
ronment Agency has also recently begun an
international programme of cooperation for the conser-
vation and management of protected areas in develop-
ing countries such as Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia and
Paraguay. Such programmes should be expanded.

6. Adoption of international conventions
and programmes relating to the
environment

Further efforts are needed in all countries to ensure the
ratification and strengthening of such conventions as
the World Heritage Convention, Ramsar Convention,
the Convention on Biological Diversity, and to further
develop the Man and the Biosphere Programme and the
UNEP Regional Seas Programme.

Acknowledgements

This report is based on original manuscript prepared by Wang Xianpu (Institute of Botany, Academia Sinica, China)
as a contribution to the Regional Review of China and Japan for the IV World Parks Congress. Additional materials

and editorial support have been provided by R. David Stone.

References

Akai, I. 1990. Protected Area management and Com-
munity Development in Japan. FAO Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific.

Aniruddh, D.P. et al. 1989. History of wildlife conser-
vation in Taiwan. COA Forestry Series No. 20.

Collins, N.M., Sayer, J.A., and Whitmore, T.C. 1991.
The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Asia
and the Pacific. MacMillan, UK.

Department of Edition in North-West University. 1987.
Special symposium on the researches of nature
reserves in China. Journal of North-west University
17: 1-158. (In Chinese, with English summary).

Department of Nature Conservation in National Envi-
ronmental Protection Bureau. 1989. List of
Protected Areas in China. China Environment
Science Press. (In Chinese and English).

IUCN. 1990. United Nations List of National Parks and
Protected Areas. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. 284 pp.

IUCN (1992). Protected areas of the World: A review
of National systems. Volume 2. Palaearctic. Pre-
pared by the World Conservation Monitoring
Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK. 556pp.

MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review of the
Protected Area System in the Indo-Malayan Realm.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
284 pp.

National Park System of Japan. 1982. Nature Conser-
vation Bureau, Environment Agency, Japan. 17 pp.

Schaller, G. 1991. The New Chang Tang Wildlife
Reserve in Northwestem Tibet. Unpublished report.

174

The Taiwan Nature Conservation Strategy. 1985. Con-
struction and Planning Administration, Ministry of
the Interior, Taiwan. (English translation, 39 pp.).

Wang Xianpu. 1980a. On the types and management of
protected areas. Journal of North-east Forest Uni-
versity 2: 1-6. (In Chinese with English abstract).

Wang Xianpu. 1980b. Nature conservation in China:
The present situation. Parks 5(1): 1-10.

Wang Xianpu. 1981. On the effective management of
protected areas. Wild Animal 1: 17-19. (In Chinese).

Wang Xianpu. 1982. General review of environmental
education in China. Environmental education in
action. International Studies in Environmental
Education, pp. 45-47.

Wang Xianpu. 1984. The basic concepts of eco-develop-
ment and construction of protected areas. Ecologi-
cal Science 1: 98-102. (In Chinese).

Wang Xianpu. 1986a. The basic concepts of biosphere
reserves and its application. Environmental Protec-
tion 8: 11-13. (In Chinese).

Wang Xianpu. 1986b. Environmental and socioeco-
nomic aspects of tropical deforestation in China.
Environmental and Socio-economic Aspects of Tropical
Deforestation in Asia and Pacific, United
Nations, ESCAP, Bangkok. Pp. 65-71.

Wang Xianpu. 1986c. On the threatened reserves and
reliable measures. Guihaia 6(1—2): 141-146. (In Chinese).

Wang Xianpu et al. 1986. Plant conservation in China.
Species Newsletter of SSC/IIUCN, No. 8: 5-6.

Wang Xianpu. 1987. Some experiences and problems
regarding construction of protected areas in Guizhou
province. Journal of North-west University 17: 34—
37. (In Chinese).

Wang Xianpu. 1989a. Theory and practice of protected
areas. China Environmental Science Press. (In
Chinese).

Wang Xianpu. 1989b. A preliminary experience of
effective management by the method of five com-
bination in Daminhshan Reserve in Quangxi Province.
Gulhaia 9(1): 59-64. (In Chinese).

Wang Xianpu et al. 1989a. Floristic inventory of tropi-
cal China. In Campbell, Ed., Floristic Inventory of
Tropical Countries. Washington, DC.

Wang Xianpu et al. 1989b. The achievement and future
task of conservation phytoecology studies,
Published by The Botanical Society of China.
Pp. 30-34

Wang Xianpu. 1990. The basic characteristic of the
Snake Island and Laotieshan Reserve and the expe-
riences of effective management. Rural Ecological
Environment 3: 9-14. (In Chinese).

175

East Asia

Wang Xianpu. 1991. The influences of global climate
change on ecosystem and biodiversity and its strate-
gies. Symposium on Climate Change and the Envi-
ronment. 166 pp. (In Chinese).

Woo, Bo-Myeong. 1990. Status and Management of the
Protected Areas in the Republic of Korea. FAO
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.

Zhu Jing et al. 1981. Some suggestions regarding the
types of nature reserves. Nature Conservation and
Agriculture Ecology, Ocean Press. Pp. 9-16. (In
Chinese).

Zhu Jing et al. 1985. Programme for establishing a
Nature reserves network in China. Proceedings of
the Symposium on Nature Reserves in China,
China Forestry Press, Beijing.Pp. 7-39. (In Chinese).

Zhu Jing. 1989. Nature conservation in China. Journal
of Applied Ecology 26: 325-333.

ea >
uD Tia to Komi Get PhP ait Ww Wraith Satie GRAN
2 Danae Sv aie Wee toner gree pil) ve FRTON SCAN APU
in a a arias Aine = ersvere. P
,
f t9 ,
sal ya wet "eae
se h nade Ua nol at: Aes ay
AWAY AL ee
a i

vo. se lai. =
ce pritsatie ta .

oeeh P te KES i
ew haher = Vi ceallve mma

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

sale pe}oa}0id payeubisep Ajje6a; ulyyim papnjou! Aujunod jo abeyuedied

008 00r O %4S1—OL
%01—-G
%OZ Uy} a10W %S-L°O

ZOC-SL %1°O udu} sseq

poejyoojoud ebpjuadied

178

Contents

Page
deem Storical PEFSPeCliVe. ... 65. wel. ee eee tel ew Bus we as 181
1.1. The history of people and nature... ..............0.2.20 0008. 181
1.2 Environmental implications of economic development .............. 181
1.3. The growth of the protected areasystem..............2.02 0000 183
eA ueltessonsplearmed tacstar 22h NE A te oh OND Brocco EEE 185
2. Current protected areacoverage ...................-.-4-. 185
Palme OYSlEMS Plan. cose sos. cus) eas is Siisy Sunes ces Sesto > BREN OR MME os cs cee 187
2.2 Coverage of major habitats by protected areas. ................24. 187
Ss eProtectedyareasnidangver, 7a. «, «, - Se Ree eS 2 188
3. Additional protected areas required .....................0.. 188
4. Protected areainstitutions .......................0.005. 189
4.1 Conflict and cooperation with other development sectors ............. 190
5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 190
6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 195
7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 196
8. Major protected areaissuesintheregion .................... 198
8.1 Improving the relationship between protected areas and local

CommuUNitiesPO. . 25. FS ee eR OS , ee ee. wae eee 199
8.2 Improving management of protected areas..............++4+2-.-. 199

8.3. Making protected areas part of modern society: The role of education,
trainin psandiresearch ee ea ie ese cy) en ene mementos 199
S:4emintemationalicooperation teeta)... Var ek -ea: We eye; ~:~] - 2 200
9. Priorities foractionintheregion ......................0.. 200
RCKNOWIEOQEMEOMS «cari cdediedsnonsia wr S Bich dhe Hence nondietlan seauhe Gacbtines one 201
RGEIGICNGCESO Pamerin ts J a. eet Doha bere. ee ee ee 202

Tables

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.
Table 10.

Figures

Map.

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Summary of the protected areas system ......-....--+..-...
Protected areas by IUCN management categories .............
The development of the protected areas system .........--....
Adherence to international/regional conventions ..............
World Heritage sites in South and Southeast Asia. .............
Protected areas management agency budgets ................

Threatened critical wetlands of international importance for
Conservation action, “as, <2... <> eee eel. Ge ncn ke ere ae

Global Environment Facility biodiversity portfolio, South and
Southeast-Asiat a cecucectete ee aee fh cht thot. em ee ee reece

FY 91-93 World Bank projects with biodiversity components .......
Transfrontier protected areas 2... 1. ee ee ee

Percentage of country included within legally designated protected
ATCAS Pie ge is er IES Sine Rote ane tao Wawel ane shay eee

Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)..........
Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............

180

South and Southeast Asia

Presented by Hemanta R. Mishra, Regional Vice-Chair for South and
Southeast Asia, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas

1. Historical perspective

South and Southeast Asia is teeming with people, sup-
porting nearly a third of the world’s humans on just six
per cent of its land surface. The region also contains
some of the planet’s most spectacular nature, ranging
from Mt Everest (Sagarmatha) in Nepal to the tiger
reserves of India, from the tropical rain forests of
Malaysia and Indonesia to the coral gardens of the
Philippines. Indonesia is second only to Australia in its
number of endemic species of vertebrates, and both the
Philippines and India are in the world’s top ten countries
in numbers of mammals and birds found nowhere else.
In this region, the interface between nature and human-
ity is often blurred. The line where nature ends and
human influence begins is indistinct and only an artifact
of our limited perception of time.

1.1. The history of people and nature
The coexistence of people and nature in Asia is the
result of a long history. Humans have occupied Asia for
several hundred thousand years, sometimes playing an
important role in forming the ecosystems that are today
considered "natural". The region saw some of the earli-
est domestication of plants and animals, some of the
earliest cities, and some of the earliest irrigation schemes.
Many protected areas surround the ruins of these an-
cient civilizations; Ranthambore in India, Wilpattu in
Sri Lanka, and Angkor Wat in Cambodia are only three
of the most famous examples, but archaeological sites
are to be found in many of the realm’s protected areas
and many contain religious shrines.

While civilizations ebbed and flowed, the hundreds
of local cultures devised ways to manage their resources
to bring sustainable benefits to the community. Surviv-
ing examples of these traditional conservation measures
include sacred forests in India, community forest man-
agement among the Sherpas in Nepal, hunting rituals in
Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Indonesia, and myth-
ical and spiritual relations with plants and animals
throughout the region (McNeely and Wachtel, 1991).
These traditional approaches once enabled people to
live in a kind of balance with the available resources
through sustainable harvesting.

181

Protected areas have a long history in South and
Southeast Asia. In the year 252 BC the Emperor Asoka
of India passed an edict for the protection of animals,
fish, and forests, the earliest documented establishment
of what we today call a protected area. The practice of
establishing sacred areas as religious sanctuaries or
exclusive hunting reserves has continued throughout
the region to the present day. The first nature reserve in
Indonesia, for example, was established in 684 AD by
order of the king of Srivijaya. Babar, the first Moghul
Emperor of India, is said to have hunted rhinos in
special reserves established for the purpose in the flood-
plains of the Punjab during the 15th century (Gadgil,
1989). Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park was first
established as a ‘shikar’ (hunting) reserve, as were
Ujung Kulon in Java and Ranthambore in India. Many
of these former hunting and forest preserves have been
converted to today’s national parks or wildlife sanctu-
aries.

1.2 Environmental implications of

economic development

Over the centuries natural resources have come under
increasing pressure. The colonial era brought new trad-
ing opportunities to the region, opening world markets
to Asia. Where once local economies were more or less
self-sufficient, today they are part of the global market-
place. Governments, with the intention of mobilizing
natural resources to support development, have become
much more efficient at facilitating the exploitation of
resources, reaching into even the most remote areas
with new roads, new crops, and new technologies. Rural
development has increased the productivity of agricul-
ture, fisheries, and forests, often supported by subsidies
from central governments and funding from interna-
tional development agencies. National economies have
boomed, even when much of the rest of the developing
world has been in recession.

Blessed with good agricultural land and plentiful
water for irrigation, this part of the world also includes
many of the world’s most densely populated regions.
With the human population nearly doubling over the
past 30 years, forests, wetlands, grasslands and other
natural habitats have come under increasing pressure

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

from exploitation and the expanding need for land for mies of the region are built on timber, fisheries, agricul-
agriculture. At the same time, human dependence upon tural and grazing lands, water resources for irrigation
the environment has never been greater, as the econo- and power, and natural attractions for tourism.

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: South and Southeast Asia

Area in Area in Categories Total area
Area CategoriesI-V % VI-VIIIlandUA % designated %

Bangladesh 144,000 . 968 Si " 1,101 0.8

Bhutan 46,620 9,061 i c 9,701
British IOT 60 0 t i 0
Brunei Darussalam 5,765 883 i 2,283
Cambodia 181,000 0 ! : 34,190
i 3,166,830 131,596 i E 139,030
1,919,445 193,385 ; p 330,059
236,725 0 { i 1,940
332,965 14,868 : Y 109,198

298

678,030

141,415

803,940

300,000

616

65,610

514,000

329,565

838,703

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: South and Southeast Asia

Bangladesh 8 968
Bhutan 5 9,061
Bnitish IOT = =

Brunei Darussalam 7
Cambodia
India
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia

883

186 331 131,596
2,700 186 193,385

48 14,868
2 = «:1,733
12 = 11,085
53 36,550
27

[aki ell wel
iS)
is)
n

Singapore
Sri Lanka
Thailand

Viet Nam

565 106 64,751
- 59 8,975

117 73,555 207 ~=—:176,508 211 528 232,493 30 4,670 888 487,437

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection
function are generally included.

182

Economic growth has had an environmental price.
Increased productivity has almost always been accom-
panied by a reduction in biodiversity, both in agricul-
tural ecosystems and in more natural ecosystems. In the
process, local people have also sometimes lost local
autonomy over resources. In Thailand, for example,
subsidized commercial fisheries have all but wiped out
artisanal fisheries (Rowchai, 1989), while in Indonesia,
the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia, logging rights
have been given to concessionaires with little reference
to the traditional ownership rights of resident people,
nor of the impact of logging on them. Thus conflicts
have arisen between modern and traditional forms of
land and resource use, in the name of development.

1.3. The growth of the protected area
system

Recognizing that traditional forms of conservation were
too weak to meet national needs in a time of rapid
economic growth, governments over the past 30 years
have also invested heavily in formal protected areas
(Table 3, Figures 1 and 2). Such sites have been seen as
a means of balancing exploitation with conservation
and a way of extending government influence into the
most remote areas. Indonesia, for example, established
a national goal in the early 1980s of having 18 million
ha protected as conservation areas and 30 million ha as
protection forests, to balance the 65 million ha to be
used as production forest (Sudarsono and Suhartono,
1992).

Many of the first protected area networks grew in an
ad hoc fashion, focusing on remote areas with plentiful
wildlife but little value for development, or building
upon hunting or forest reserves established by local
Tulers or colonial administrators. The first national parks
in South and Southeast Asia were Angkor Wat in
Cambodia (1925), Corbett in India (1938), Taman
Negara in Malaysia (1939), Mt Arayat and Mt
Roosevelt in the Philippines (1933), and Ruhuna and
Wilpattu in Sri Lanka (1938). More recently, as the
impact of development on natural habitats has become
more apparent, many countries have designed and es-
tablished protected area networks to conserve repre-
sentative samples of the country’s biodiversity.
Protected areas have also been recognised as an effec-
tive means of protecting watershed and catchment ar-
eas. Now governments are looking increasingly to
protected areas to provide economic opportunities both
to local communities and to the nation as a whole.

Beginning in the 1960s, several international organi-
zations provided important assistance to governments
to plan protected area networks. FAO was a major
influence in Nepal, India, Myanmar, and Indonesia, and
its regional office in Bangkok provided technical advice
to many countries. WWF, with National Organizations
in India, Pakistan, and Malaysia, and an affiliate Wild-
life Fund Thailand, supported Project Tiger in India and
was especially active in Indonesia and Nepal, often

183

South and Southeast Asia

working in partnership with IUCN. Today the protected
area system of South and Southeast Asia covers 18
countries (Tables 1 and 2), with only the Maldives
lacking a legally designated protected area system.

A major event in the history of protected areas in the
region was the III World Congress on National Parks,
held in Bali, Indonesia in October 1982. This congress,
the first held in a developing country, gave particular
attention to the relationship between protected areas
and human needs, demonstrating that protected areas
are not only of aesthetic significance but are vital to
sustainable forms of development (McNeely and Miller,
1984). The meeting therefore gave protected areas a
new relevance, pointing the way to better integration of
protected areas with other major development issues. It
led to books on protected area management (MacKin-
non et al., 1984) and coastal and marine protected areas
(Salm and Clark, 1984) which have been widely distrib-
uted in the region; the former has been translated into
Indonesian.

The Bali Congress catalysed the formulation of re-
gional action plans and regional reviews. The Corbett
Action Plan, developed by field managers from 13
countries of South and Southeast Asia, provided a re-
gional overview of actions needed to plan and manage
protected areas more effectively (IUCN, 1985). The
1986 IUCN Review of the Protected Area System in the
Indo-Malayan Realm further considered the adequacy
of protected area coverage according to habitat types,
centres of biodiversity, and endemism within each bio-
geographic unit of the realm (MacKinnon and
MacKinnon, 1986). It identified gaps in the protected
area network and listed actions for each country within
the realm, including establishment of reserves, training,
investment and education and awareness needs.

In the decade since Bali, the protected area network
has grown considerably, with the establishment of more
than 500 new protected areas covering some 13 million
ha since 1982 (although not all of these areas meet the
criteria for IUCN Management Category I-V). The
dramatic growth of protected area systems in the past
decade has put many of the most biologically important
areas under protection. The tendency to create more and
larger reserves, however, has thinly spread the available
funds and human resources. For example, protected
areas in Thailand have grown from less than 10 to nearly
200 in 25 years, yet key parks are inadequately pro-
tected and suffering from encroachment, poaching and
development intrusion (Chettamart, 1987).

During the past ten years many countries have ac-
ceded to the various international conventions and pro-
grammes associated with protected areas, including the
Convention Concerning the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (World Heritage Convention), the UNESCO
Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB), and the
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention)
(Table 4). A number of areas are now internationally

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)

300

Number of sites

ae! Area (x1 O000sqkm)

200

150

100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)
1,000

Number of sites

800 Area (x1000sqkm)

400

200

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

184

recognised under these conventions and a list of the
properties that have been inscribed on the World
Heritage List is given in Table 5.

Southeast Asia is the only region other than Europe
to have a regional convention under which protected
areas have been recognised. Acknowledging the out-
standing ecological importance of the region, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei
Darussalam have nominated a number of protected
areas as ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves under the
ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources. The ASEAN countries agree to give
high priority to the preparation of master plans for each
site, including management guidelines, research, and
education. They also agree to cooperate in the manage-
ment of such areas, and to develop a regional mecha-
nism to support national efforts, through the ASEAN
Group on Nature Conservation.

A comprehensive review of the national protected
areas systems throughout the region has been compiled
by WCMC (IUCN, 1992).

1.4 Lessons learned

The past three decades have seen dramatic expansion in
protected areas. Economic and social development have
changed the face of the landscape, and the changes are
accelerating. In seeking to ensure that protected areas
are able to make their best contribution to sustaining the
evolving societies of the region, the following lessons
should be considered.

Enlist local support to make protected areas work.
The most positive trend in conservation in the past ten
years has been the widespread recognition of the envi-
ronmental and ecological values of protected areas and
the increased understanding that national parks and
sanctuaries are often the most appropriate land use for
such areas. Many new protected areas have been estab-
lished, but if they are not to remain “paper parks",
effective management strategies must be developed.
The greatest challenge of the last ten years, and the one
that has still not been addressed adequately, is the need
to involve local communities as active partners in pro-
tected area management. Few, if any, of the region’s
protected areas can really be considered secure.

Link conservation with development. The recogni-
tion at Bali that protected areas should be linked to
development and human needs has led to challenging
and innovative approaches to the establishment and
management of protected areas. Several national parks
and protected areas have been established in association
with major development projects. Dumoga-Bone
National Park in Indonesia, five new national parks in
the Mahaweli region of Sri Lanka, and an extensive
system of protected areas in the lower Mekong drainage
were all linked directly to the development of water
resources (McNeely, 1987).

185

South and Southeast Asia

This does not mean blindly trying to "make parks pay
for themselves". While linking protected areas develop-
ment with tourism can make sound economic sense, it
also places increasing pressure on them. In Nepal, the
formerly closed Shey valley in Dolpo has suffered
environmental degradation since the establishment of a
national park and the opening of this fragile area to
tourism. In many parts of South and Southeast Asia,
national parks have become almost synonymous with
tourism development, and great care must be taken to
ensure that these developments do not degrade the
aesthetic and conservation values of the parks. Even
World Heritage sites like Nepal’s Royal Chitwan
National Park are being threatened by excessive infra-
structure development.

Enable conservation NGO’s to contribute to pro-
tected areas. Government action is not sufficient by
itself to conserve protected areas. While local NGOs
have increased in number, few have the expertise or
capacity to be involved directly with protected area
management. Nevertheless NGOs do have a key role to
play, especially in working with local communities on
buffer zone projects around national parks and other
kinds of protected areas. The Annapurna Conservation
Area Project (ACAP) of Nepal and Ban Sap Tai in
Thailand, both established by NGOs working in col-
laboration with local people, demonstrate the kind of
innovative approaches that can work.

Build the capacity to absorb funding for conservation.
Conservation funds provided to the region from exter-
nal sources have increased dramatically over the past
few years but it has often been difficult to utilize these
funds effectively because of a lack of trained man-
power. Funding alone will not lead to effective conser-
vation. Providing more training and building up man-
agement capacity an urgent need which is expertise.

Follow periods of rapid growth in area with periods
of institutional development. _All of these lessons
lead to one major conclusion: in all parts of the South
and Southeast Asia Region, protected area networks
now need to become part of the foundation of national
development. This will require stronger links with other
sectors; improved career structures, training, and work-
ing conditions; more effective economic incentives;
better international cooperation; and above all, more
effective working relationships with local people.

2. Current protected area coverage

The total land allocated to protected areas has increased
dramatically in South and Southeast Asia over the past
three decades, from 200 sites covering 447,000 sq km
in 1960 to over 850 sites covering 832,607 sq km in
1992 (in IUCN Categories I to V, Figure 1). The rise in
more strictly protected categories (I, II, and III) is
proportionally far higher, with an increase from 17,000
sq km (186 sites) in 1960 to 252,463 sq km (316 sites)
in 1992. The large area of more strictly protected areas
can be attributed mainly to an increase in numbers of

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

national parks in most countries. The establishment of
several very large strict nature reserves by Indonesia
strongly affects the percentage of land included in
Category I.

their watershed functions. For example, 30 million ha
have been established as protection forest in Indonesia.
These protection forests and those in Malaysia and India
further extend the conservation estate, as do corridors

of relatively undisturbed habitat and seed reservoirs left
in production forests, as in Malaysia’s "Virgin Jungle
Reserves".

In addition to these conservation areas many coun-
tries of the region also protect large areas of forest for

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: South and Southeast Asia

% area Date Total
established established area
1982-1991 unknown designated

% area
established
1972-1981

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established
up to 1962

Bangladesh
Bhutan

Bnitish IOT

Brunei Darussalam

967
9,061

882

0
131,595
193,385
0

Ww
okcooo

kW
Wa
NR
i)

14,867

868
0
0
0
0

oooocoo

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for
IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in
size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted.

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: South and Southeast Asia

World Heritage
Date No.

Biosphere Reserves Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention
Area (ha) No. Area (ha) Date No. Area (ha)

Bangladesh August 1983
Bhutan -

Brunei Darussalam = —

Cambodia November 1991 - -
India November 1977 281,012 - October 1981
Indonesia July 1989 297,681 1,482,400 April 1992
Laos March 1987 - - -

Malaysia December 1988 - =

Maldives December 1988 - -

Myanmar - -
Nepal June 1978 208,000
Pakistan July 1976 131,355
Philippines September 1985 -
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Thailand
UK (BIOT)
Viet Nam

192,973
162,700

December 1987
July 1976
1,174,345 -

9,376 June 1990
26,100 -
= January 1976
- September 1988

June 1980 8,864

September 1987 622,200
May 1984 =
October 1987 =

wnt ni

186

2.1. Systems plans

The 1986 Indo-Malayan Review (MacKinnon and
MacKinnon, 1986) provided a system plan for the whole
region, identifying both gazetted and proposed areas,
and making further recommendations aiming to give
adequate protected area coverage. Detailed system plans
for individual countries have been completed for
Indonesia (FAO, 1981/1982), India (Rodgers and
Panwar, 1984), Myanmar (FAO, 1985) and Bhutan
(Forestry Master Plan Annex 1, 1991). Reviews of
national protected area systems including proposed new
areas and extensions have been prepared for Viet Nam
(FAO/TFAP 1991), Lao PDR (Salter and Phanthavong,
1989), and the Philippines (Haribon Foundation and
DENR, 1988). Malaysia is preparing a systems review
through State Conservation Strategies (e.g. Chan et al.,
1985). India has reviewed the status of its national
network (Kothari et al., 1989). Many of these system
plans involved cooperation between local government
agencies and international organisations.

A few countries still do not have a coherent systems
plan. Thailand, for example, probably has too many
national parks (over 60) and would be better served with
only the top 20 to 30 areas under this designation, with
other areas protected at the provincial level. A systems
plan which considers the full spectrum of approaches to
protection will surely lead to a more coherent conserva-
tion approach for the country.

2.2 Coverage of major habitats by

protected areas

While many centres of biodiversity, endemism and
Pleistocene refugia are included within the protected
area networks, certain habitat types are still poorly
Tepresented (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986). These
habitats are often the most species-rich and those most
threatened by development, for example lowland rain-
forests, coastal forests, riverine and wetland habitats
and marine ecosystems. The Indo-Malayan Review iden-
tified major gaps in the system as a lack of protected
areas in nine bio-units, in order of priority: Irrawaddy,
Philippines, Indochina, Bengal, Southern Indochina,
Ceylon Wet Zone, South Himalayas, Western Ghats
and South Myanmar. Since that review many new pro-
posals to establish reserves have been put forward, and
some have already been gazetted, especially in
Myanmar, South Himalayas (Bhutan), Indochina (Lao
PDR, Viet Nam) and Western Ghats. For the other
bio-units with inadequate protection, the ongoing
Integrated Protected Area System (IPAS) review will
address this issue in the Philippines. Bengal and Ceylon
Wet Zone show relatively little scope for further exten-
sion of the protected area network but IUCN is collabo-
tating with the Sri Lankan government to strengthen
management of the Sinharaja National Heritage
Wilderness Area, one of the last extensive areas of
evergreen rain forest in Sri Lanka (in the Ceylon Wet

187

South and Southeast Asia

Zone bio-unit), and to identify other remaining areas of
conservation importance for future protection.

Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand all have
extensive national protected area networks which pro-
vide adequate coverage of most major habitat types. Sri
Lanka, for example, includes some 30 per cent of its
land within the protected area network. Even war-torn
Cambodia has a protected area network planned during
the 1960s and early 1970s although at present these
areas, though legally designated, exist only on paper.
Bhutan’s protected area coverage (21%) is one of the
highest in the region, but it is not representative, nor is
management yet adequate.

Compared with other habitats, the world’s tropical
moist forests are among the least well protected. Not
only do new sites need to be protected, but also pro-
tected areas must be larger than at present if their
biological diversity is to be maintained. Of the two
nations in the sub-region with more than 300,000 sq km
of tropical moist forest, Burma has a poorly developed
protected areas system, whilst Indonesia’s is extensive.
Cambodia, India, Laos, Malaysia and Thailand each has
between 100,000 sq km and 200,000 sq km of tropical
moist forest and in all these the extent of existing and
proposed protected areas system is over 10% of the
remaining tropical moist forest cover. However, it should
be noted that this percentage will rise as forests outside
protected areas are cleared. In some nations with less
than 100,000 sq km of tropical moist forest, existing and
proposed protected areas systems are generally well
developed (Brunei, Darussalam, Sri Lanka) whilst in
others (Bangladesh, Philippines and Viet Nam) this is
not the case (Collins et al., 1991).

Most countries have reasonably sophisticated approaches
to conserving land, with a number of categories of
protected areas managed by different management agen-
cies in ministries or departments of forestry. This com-
plexity is apparent in the wide range of legal des-
ignations used throughout the region, and is also indi-
cated in Table 2, which allocates the protected areas to
the IUCN management category system (although it
should be recognised that it is a simplification of the real
situation). Institutional arrangement and definitions of
the different categories of protected areas can be found
in IUCN (1992).

Marine conservation has so far lagged behind estab-
lishment of terrestrial protected area networks in the
region. Only Indonesia has identified detailed priorities
for marine reserves (Salm and Halim, 1984). A marine
system plan is being prepared for the Philippines as part
of the IPAS programme. Elsewhere in the region, ma-
rine conservation activities have been coordinated un-
der the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, although
practical progress has been disappointing to date. A
particular problem for marine conservation has been
intemational disputes over boundaries which affect some
very extensive and rich marine systems, such as the
Spratly and Paracel Islands and the spectacular coral

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

cliffs of Silabukan Island on the border between Sabah
and Indonesia.

2.3

As pressures on land increase, many protected areas
have come under threat. Some, such as Mt Apo in the
Philippines, have been heavily occupied by illegal set-
tlers; others, such as Kutai National Park in Indonesia,
have been logged and/or burned. In India, Kaziranga
National Park is threatened by plans to build an oil
refinery upstream; this could send pollutants such as
phenolic compounds, oil and suspended solids into the
park. Kaziranga is also threatened by increasing flood
levels along the Brahmaputra, thought to be at least
partially due to increased deforestation in the upper
reaches of the watershed.

Protected areas in danger

In the Philippines, Tubbataha National Marine Park
has lost much of its coral over the past five years due to
the use of explosives to stun fish. Using sodium cyanide
poison to capture ornamental fish for the aquarium trade
has also damaged coral reefs. Illegal harvesting of sea
turtles, giant clams and seabird eggs further threatens
the park. In Bhutan, two dams proposed within the
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary would lead to flooding of
important sites and disturbance from road and canal
construction. These developments would also affect the
adjacent Manas Tiger Reserve in India.

Table 5. World Heritage sites in South
and Southeast Asia

India
Kaziranga National Park
Keoladeo National Park
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary
Nanda Devi National Park
Sundarbans National Park

Indonesia
Komodo National Park
Ujung Kulon National Park

Nepal
Royal Chitwan National Park
Sagarmatha National Park

Sri Lanka
Sinharaja National Heritage Wilderness
Area
Thailand
Thung Yai — Huai Kha Kaeng Wildlife
Sanctuary

The problems facing Thailand’s protected areas are
well illustrated by Doi Inthanon National Park, where
the number of people living in the park has greatly
increased in recent years. The park has been degraded
by poor farming practices, with 15 per cent of the area

188

cleared to grow opium poppies and other crops. Heavy
use of pesticides has also polluted the streams, while all
large mammals have been heavily hunted. Elsewhere
large tracts of Thailand’s largest remaining freshwater
marshes in Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park are being
converted to shrimp farms.

In addition to institutional and jurisdictional issues,
marine conservation is particularly vulnerable to the
environmental impacts of development activities. Ex-
tensive oil exploration is now taking place in Asian
waters and few contingency plans have been prepared
for oil spills and their effects on marine ecosystems. The
issues of coastal and marine conservation are particu-
larly complex because of the impact of activities and
land-use changes far removed from the marine area in
question. Adequate conservation of marine ecosystems
will require the development of integrated coastal zone
management plans and the active participation of local
communities. Thailand and Malaysia already have con-
siderable experience of planning integrated coastal zone
management, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that far more needs to be done to protect the marine
environment.

In conclusion, most countries in the region seem to be
making a serious effort to establish an adequate pro-
tected area system. It is heartening that many of the
priority sites identified as needing protection in the
Corbett Action Plan and IUCN Indo-Malayan Review
have either already been gazetted or are in the process
of gazettement. At the same time, while the protected
area system seems generally adequate on paper, man-
agement capacity is still inadequate to achieve effective
management on the ground. Virtually all protected ar-
eas in the realm are under some threat, and the legal and
administrative systems are insufficient to address all of
these threats. This is likely to be a serious concern for
some time to come, and will only really be tumed
around when the values and benefits of protected areas
are more clearly perceived.

3. Additional protected areas
required

It might seem somewhat presumptuous to discuss the
need for additional protected areas when so many of the
existing ones still lack adequate human and other re-
sources for effective management. With the increasing
pressures on land, it is important that designs for com-
plete systems of protected areas be prepared for each
country in the region even if actual implementation is
still some years in the future. Such systems plans help
other government agencies determine which develop-
ments will be appropriate for which areas, discouraging,
for example, mining and timber concessions in areas
which are identified to be of high value for conservation

purposes.

In seeking to "complete" the region’s system of pro-
tected areas, the first question to ask is how much land

should be allocated for protected areas. Taking into
account the other demands on territory for economic
development and subsistence needs, ten per cent is
probably a realistic guideline (McNeely and Miller,
1984). To date, this target has been reached or ap-
proached by Bhutan, Brunei, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and
Thailand. If protection forests and other multiple pur-
pose conservation areas are included in this total then it
should be, and often is, considerably larger, as illus-
trated in Table 1. The needs and potential for further
expansion are different in each country of the region,
but many countries are in the process of expanding their
protected areas network.

Both Viet Nam and Myanmar have adopted a policy
to more than double the protected area estate in the next
five years. Lao PDR at present has no gazetted protected
areas in the wildlife sector, but is developing and im-
plementing management plans for 10 areas which will
cover 6.6 per cent of the country while aiming ata target
of 10 per cent by the year 2000. Indonesia already has
an impressive system but even this may be inadequate
to conserve all habitats and all species since less than
1.5 per cent of species-rich lowland forests are included
in the protected area network (BAPPENAS, 1991).
Moreover, Indonesia, like many other Asian countries,
has listed marine conservation as a priority for the
immediate future and plans to extend the system of
coastal and marine reserves from 2 million to 20 million
ha by the year 2000.

Throughout the region special attention needs to be
given to conservation of wetland and marine ecosys-
tems. With increasing pressure on land, wetland, and
marine habitats it is doubtful if many Asian govern-
ments will approve further extensive territory for strict
protection as conservation areas. Moreover, many wet-
land and coastal areas of high conservation value sus-
tain high human use and therefore require conservation
management other than protected area status. Conser-
vation of marine and wetland resources will require
innovative approaches to management. Community man-
agement of coral reef resources in some parts of the
Philippines provides a good model. Indonesia is ad-
dressing the sometimes-conflicting need of conserva-
tion and utilisation in the wetlands of Danau Sentarum
Reserve in Kalimantan with assistance from the British
Overseas Development Administration. Regional pri-
orities for protection of critical wetlands are listed in
Table 7.

Although opportunities are becoming limited for fur-
ther extension of the reserve network, much of the land
outside protected areas can and will serve a conserva-
tion function. Nor will all habitats outside reserves be
converted to agriculture, plantations or urban use. Pro-
tection forests, selectively-logged production forests
and other disturbed habitats will come to play an in-
creasing role in conservation as primary forest areas
continue to decrease.

189

South and Southeast Asia

Where opportunities still exist for identifying new
protected areas, a systems plan approach should be
applied to ensure that adequate areas of major habitat
types and centres of biodiversity and endemism are
protected within each major bio-unit. Protected area
design can incorporate a combination of large, medium
and small reserves according to national opportunities
and needs (MacKinnon et al., 1986). When reserves are
smaller, however, greater attention must be paid to
linking reserves together by corridors of relatively un-
disturbed habitat, thereby effectively increasing effec-
tive reserve size.

4. Protected area institutions

Because modern protected areas have tended to be
established by central or provincial governments, they
cannot always reflect local needs and desires. Further,
most protected area management agencies in the South
and Southeast Asia Region are relatively young, with
much of their growth coming only in the past few
decades. They have not yet been tested over time, and
their resources are increasingly stretched by the rapid
expansion in the number and size of protected areas.

Many of the laws establishing protected areas have
been based on models from the industrial nations, often
existing in parallel with traditional laws. This import of
foreign conservation concepts is perhaps not inappro-
priate, as protected areas are designed to provide a
balance to market forces and approaches to resource
exploitation that also have their origins in the industrial
trading nations. But conditions are changing fast, and
new approaches are required to earn the respect, support
and commitment from local people for conservation
activities.

One of the key institutional issues is to ensure that the
appropriate tasks are undertaken at the appropriate lev-
els. A strong central authority is often required to ensure
that an effective protected area network is designed, that
the national legal and policy framework is appropriate,
that appropriate information is built into the national
curriculum and to ensure strong advocacy at the highest
levels of government. More local approaches are re-
quired to implement the protected areas, provide bene-
fits to local communities, design appropriate buffer
zone activities, seek alternative sources of income for
local people, and other such activities that reduce the
pressure of local people on protected areas.

Since most protected areas in the region have been
established in forested areas, it is perhaps understandable
that most protected area agencies are part of ministries
or departments of forestry. This has also facilitated the
allocation of protected status to forest land, as in India,
Indonesia or Thailand. However, many have criticized
this link because forestry departments have tended to
focus on exploitation of timber. Further, legislation for
protected areas has sometimes been incorporated in
more comprehensive environmental protection laws,

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

and this can weaken implementation and enforcement
of the protected areas element if focus and clarity are
lost.

A few countries have given management responsibil-
ity for protected areas to other ministries such as Envi-
ronment (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Philippines)
while others have tried a different arrangement such as
a Special Board (Singapore) or linked parks more to
tourism and recreation (Malaysia). It is difficult, how-
ever, to generalise about what arrangement is most
logical or successful and this will in any case vary
according to national objectives for the protected area
system.

Few countries in the region have yet entrusted pro-
tected area management to private institutions or NGOs.
An exception is Nepal, where the King Mahendra Trust
for Nature Conservation runs the Annapuma Conserva-
tion Area and helps ensure that the park is a centre of
socio-economic development and increased environ-
ment awareness (Norbu, 1989). In the Philippines, three
NGOs have management agreements with the Protected
Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) for the Calauit
Game Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary, Tubbataha
National Marine Park and Bicol National Park. Other
local NGOs that could develop the capability to manage
protected areas include the Royal Society for Protection
of Nature (Bhutan), Wildlife Fund Thailand, and the
Haribon Foundation (Philippines). In India over the past
five years there has been a sharp increase in NGO efforts
to delay the degradation of protected areas by working
with local people in a series of welfare projects, such as
primary health care, family planning and income gen-
eration so as to provide the people with time, space and
sufficient income to consider ecology and the environ-
ment. These NGOs are serving as a vital interface,
connecting local people with protected area manage-
ment.

4.1 Conflict and cooperation with

other development sectors

Linkages with other powerful interests can have both
positive and negative influences. Protected area agen-
cies have tended to be relatively low in the government
hierarchy and thus subject to shrinking government
budgets, and subjugated to the priorities of other depart-
ments. However, more effective linkages with other
more powerful sectors can often be fostered through
education and other mechanisms, and help to strengthen
protected area management.

In some countries, protected area authorities work
with the army to protect key sites, as occurs in Nepal’s
Chitwan National Park. In many coastal countries, the
navy could play a more effective role in enforcing
certain marine conservation legislation, especially be-
cause of its mobility and mandate. Military personnel
can also cause problems. In Thailand, for example,
military personnel may be among the worst poachers,
using sophisticated military equipment and being

190

immune to the law enforcement efforts of protected area
staff. In countries such as Cambodia and Myanmar,
where government control of remote areas is tenuous,
or in disputed border zones as between India and
Pakistan in Kashmir, both military and opposition
forces can take a heavy toll of forests and wildlife.

The widespread adoption of environmental impact
assessment (EIA) procedures has helped to improve the
relationship between conservation and development sec-
tors, sometimes averting threats to protected areas. For
example, widespread opposition from NGOs helped to
avert the proposed routing of the Indus Highway through
Kirthar National Park in Pakistan in 1991. Similarly, a
last-minute reassessment of the impact of a US$30
million irrigation project on Chitwan National Park in
Nepal led the Asian Development Bank to cancel its
loan and encouraged the National Planning Commis-
sion to formally drop the project.

Other cases have not been so successful. India’s pow-
erful Rajastan Ministry of Mines has granted some 300
mining licenses in Sariska Sanctuary (49,200ha) in the
past six years, in violation of the national Forest Con-
servation Act. Hundreds of people who were earlier
paid compensation to move out of the sanctuary have
now returned, and reports of poaching are now wide-
spread (Sharma, 1991). This is just one example of the
kinds of institutional problems that can arise in federal
systems of government.

Throughout Asia, protected areas institutions are be-
ing put under great pressure, and being asked to do more
with less. This has led to a re-examination of the role of
government in protected areas. Different institutional
arrangements are being attempted, including considera-
tion of a growing role for private land owners. These
new institutional arrangements require new legislation,
and new enforcement mechanisms which may be more
cost-effective than conventional approaches which have
too often led to conflict and inadequate protection.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

Protected areas are economically important throughout
the region, providing destinations for the multi-billion
dollar tourist industry, protecting watersheds which
support the irrigation systems upon which Asian coun-
tries depend, and conserving species of plants and ani-
mals which make numerous contributions to society.
They are thus a national economic asset and this should
be used as a strong justification for government invest-
ment in protected areas (BAPPENAS, 1991; MacKinnon
et al., 1986).

Yet the investment being made by governments falls
far short of what is required to enable protected areas to
make their optimal contribution to modem societies.
While it is exceedingly difficult to find precise figures
on expenditures for protected areas, the best available
information suggests that two of the region’s least wealthy

South and Southeast Asia

Z96'PLS'8$SN (Sed [euONeN] pur oFITPIIM JO wourredag amp Aq
pola stumupe) eIske[e|y Jemsuluag:3ulpnjout ‘seare poroajoid 10J 1a8pnq [e10|

6V *IOMIOU Seale po}sej0id eB Jo JUDWIYsT]qQuise pue
Suyuueld oyp Joy a[qisuodsar st uorstatp OY], “GOAM Uf JO 198pnq [enuuy
LS “soueyes UO
quods st yorym Jo sou ‘ueUBUNTTE y UT qN FEIN Joy poyeooyye st areiooy
Jad ;p dy A[meunxoidde oa[durexo 1oJ—Mo] st os 13d JUDUNISOAUT OU],
“seg [euoneN oy pue sloyenbpeay 0} paieooyye ase saamosal 1sO|]
‘(06/681 894 UT ssa] %0E) (000'OP9SNS “V'D)
000'668'0ST'O1da Alu sem reaK [easy 16/0661 M1 Joy 103pnq VdHd [e101
SUL “UOTIMU O'OSNS PUNoLE We PayeUNsa st aINjoMUIse UT WISUNO} 1Oj
seole pajoajald ul JUAUNSAAM BY] “SuIpuTy JO}9as o7ealid FeuoNneUaUI
SurIpnyoxe ‘766 1-Z61 Polad ayy 10J amt pusdxa qusWUIAA03 poreUsy
OV “Z86I Ut 1981] 100folg Jopun sy UOTTTTW 7-9] PoTeoo][e alam santesal [| BWOS

€V ‘uMOUyUN
SI seaze pajoajaid 0) payeooy[e uoruodoud oy, (UOT [TL TANd$)
S2OUYO INST pure (UOT TW O'P>ONAS) eUnTedad sarioysty ‘(uorT TU
0'LZGNG$) eunredeg amynousy ‘(UOT ¢LQNE$) WnosnyA tour g
‘(UOT [TW 0 PQN$) lUeunredag ANsaio.j 0} UOITEDOT[e JUDUIUIDAOD sasudwio|d

IV *soummeldald [e190s 0) UDAIS ale
sjuougsaaut A\uoud pur jsopoul are sanUaaal JUDUIUIAAO3 aseq 9aINOSa1
[eumeu payruny & pue uone[ndod [jews & ypIM ‘Ia2AdMOY “eIsy ul AQuNOD

Jomo Aue Ajjemmiia ueyy Jaysty—sasodind uonearasuoo Joj Ja3pnq jenuue
SWI JO % ¢ DUIOS apise jas sey UOUMUIAAOS ayy “A[2ANNdadsal (OO'8OL' I$
PUE QOE'LZ$SN Sea sopalio OFITPIIAA WoyyNog puke WYyYON Joy 193pnq ay],

ERX UIS

BIsy }SBeUuINOS puke INOS :sjebpngq Aouebe jueweHeuew Seale pej}oa}01q “9 e1qe1

000'00¢'T
SOT BLE'E
908'902'S

OLL'ZEZ'6I

000°0T

000° £6E'FE

quayeainba
aenod Sn

UOISTAI “JOURS pUe *SUOD 2T[PIIAA “Idoq 1salo0,j — ewe Ay
soalpleW
yemeles
-(soaismu, JO prvog syzeq Yeqes a1 Aq parmsturupe) yeqes

MOT2Q 92g — BIsAR[RIA]
nese

UOISTAIC] UOIBAIOSUOD SOLOYsT{ PUP 2TPILA — SOP]

(WdHd) ‘SuoD ame N pue IOlq IsAlo-J JO “UdH “I — BIsaUOpUT
“OTPITM Pure Sisalo.j ‘UoWUOT AU Jo JUsUnTedaq — eIpUy
Suoy SuoyH

SupunH pur sisalo,j JO eojoaNq — eIpoquie}

AM 000'00S'6S rou g
Axoiuia J, uea0Q UeIpUuy Ys

ON 000°821°7 quowyedaq isar0.j — uemyg
Lad ysope sue g

Aguase aqisuodsas/A1jun0Z

AQUAIIND [BUOTEU
ul yadpng

191

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Ansaio,j jo ANstury wen 191A,
"S861 212] OM ur syed feuoneU
Jo} Zutseaiout [[Ns 1am Aayy ysnowye ‘neneyd e premoy Sulpesy
aq 0) Jeadde ‘1onomoy ‘[e1ous3 ul s}a3pnq [enuuy ‘uoNdse}0Id Jopun
pur] jo eae oy ueIp osealoul SuIpucdsaO sy] Wey} 97eI 191SeJ Be
‘apeoop ised oy Joao Alferueisqns poseasour aavy s}adpnq seare poioalald 000°L60'ST aH UOISIAI]
UONRAIDSUOD AJTIPTIAA 29 ‘Sxl [euoNeN — puepley |,
“syred Jeuoneu p Joy uoneoo]e 198pnq [ROL 000'69L'9€ GML ue MeL
“‘UOITBAIOSUOD 2ITPT A JO WauNTedag oy Jo 198pnq [e101 Bp saTMNsUCD 000'9¢9 WAT 000' $78" LZ UoNeALasUOD aJTPIIA JO Wounredag — eyxUeT] Us
dos aiodesuis
“MOMIOU Seale paiomaid
OY Ul poysaautal pur siojsta yIed WO pade][09 219M SOsed 88'960'L
JO [R10) & BgGI BOUTS ‘toUIeD ONUDAeI JUeVOUIT UP SI SAAIOSAl UI WSIMO], dHd 000‘000'€Z (GM Vd) neamg
FPL pur seary paronorg — sourddy yg
cSt “uoneAIaSUOD
FIPIEM 01 poreooye a19m (%9'9T) UOrTTIU ZEESY PWOS'(€661-8861)
ue g Jed J -9Al,J UIA aU} Ul JO}as-qns ANsaloj sp 01 poyedo][e
UOII[G Z SY 2 JO BG Lp :1809 waurdojoaap eydeo pue %¢7Z¢ :sisoo UaUNsey
“syzed feuoneu atp 01 paresoyye sem UOTT[TUW €° T$SN YoIYM Jo ‘andy [eo L Wid 000'00r' €6 OF IPIAA JO UoHBAIasUuO()
ay JOJ [louNOD [eure N—(siuy) [eJape.{) UeIsIyed
6S SOLV “papnfoxe are situn
uonoaaid op Jo sjsoo ay Jt aimtpuadxe poposoxe Apurisisuoo sey
Soainos INO pur s}TULad ‘suOIssadUOd ‘WISUNO) WAI] payeioued SUIOSUT
“UOTTMU O'ZZSYN P2[2101 Davy soatosar pue syed woy sayeumMsa anusAdd
JUD00y “SUDUTEJUTeEW! aITMONAseyUI pue uoTesturupe uo quads st
Joputewiol sy] “situn uonoaaid Auury [edayy [eAoy 01 pareooyye st pg
1Nq ‘UIQTS'OT JO Youu seare payoaiald ei 10y amrpuadxe sjuasosdoy 000'006'Z YdN 000'00E'rZ1 "suoD
OFIPILM Pur sxe euoNeN Jo juaunredag — jedan]

ERE LIS qwaX = guayeainba = Aduatand jeuoneu
1e70q Sn ul jaspng Ajuase aqisuodsas/A.1jun0

(1U09) eis JseeUuINOS puke YINOS :sjeHpnq Aouebe jusweHeuew Seale pajda}01d “9 2/921

192

South and Southeast Asia

(P861) Spe uemrey [gy]
*pue[IIZIIMS
: : : Soy “elTesNY “(7661) ‘d ‘Jowemaspug [gC]
: 5 NZNUIA ‘SedBIED ‘AI a4 1 ] ‘Sealy poionolg pue sysed [euOneN] UO ssalduoD POM MAJ Wp 10} paredaid sMataal euorsay “et
he ores : cee wae ‘ddg ‘puepozimg ‘pue[D ‘WddNO-NONI ‘seutddipyg :woder Anun09 *(1661) VddNO [09]
‘ddop (0661 t9quiacaq 1-01 ‘Yoysue g ‘oyploeg aI pur eIsy JO} JoLJO [eUCIZoy OVA

‘uorday o1sloeg-RIsy OIp Ul Sealy paloalalg Jo sWaseUR] UO UONEINsUOD Iiodxgq [euoIZoy Je paiuasosd Jodeg “ueIsIyeY UI seale pojomaid Jo snqeis UsWaseURY] (0661) ‘WW UW [ZW]

‘ : - ; QuTAUd JO} ABaqeNI¢ * [6s]

‘ddo, ‘Tedayy ‘npueunpe y ‘uoneaissuoD aime yy 1OJ is, EIPUSYe|] Bury yy ‘Ue[d UONOR Iv9K-oAy [eITUT aUp :[edayy Ul UOIIBAIOSUOD [e]USWUOIIA y S ey ON
; 1 si 3 : yoaysny ‘niuna2Q ‘vkpjpuopul ‘| aumjo, ‘swaisks jouoijony fo maiaay Y :pj4om ayi so svasy patza1o1d (7661) NON [Ss]
MN ‘e8puqureD pur puepoziims ‘purely ‘NOMI ‘224M pup py Dasny ‘vIuDaI0 ‘vkpjDWIOpU Sg eee a a
‘ddj¢ yesp Areururtoig “uordal eIsy—sear paoaald 10y ASqens v :AsI9Alp BOISOJoI SutAlosuoD *(1661) Ue POM [Sv]
“uodas poysyqnduy) “Jaquisceq 7 ‘Yousur g ‘uoIssag SUMO WddNO NONI W9¢E ap e papracid uoneunojuy (1661) ‘UouY [6V]
‘I0dOg ‘UOIBAIOSUOD sIMeNY PUe UOIJONOIg 1SA10,j 10} [eJaUIH Aelo\saliq] ep [euL] “etsauopuy 10J ueyd Ayssoatporg “(166 1) uouW [LS]
‘(parepun) etpuy Jo jusWIIAOD [9]

“ddgg ‘1aquis90q] 4-7

‘yoxsur g ‘ 0 UOISsag SUDPOM INE 0} poqvasarg “Weyessneq lounrg UT seale poldajoid pue syed [euoryeU UO Wodal [eUONIeN (1661) ‘Wf A ‘SoWey pue ‘AL He) [ev]
SEguSe Beate tn b ‘ddgy awoy ‘OVA ‘UEINYg [eNUDD pue WOON Ul UOIeAIasUOD amMeN (6861) ‘Hf 29Mo1g [TV]

$sao4unog

("]U09) BIS JSBaUu}NOS pue UINOS :sjeHpnq Aouebe yuswebeuew seole pa}d9}01g “9 sIGeL

193

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

countries—Sri Lanka and Bhutan—spend a far higher
proportion of their national budgets on conservation
than do wealthier countries such as Thailand or
Malaysia (Table 6).

At the site level, protected area budgets are similarly
elusive, though a few figures are available. Full imple-
mentation of acomprehensive conservation programme
in the upper Arun region of Nepal, for example, will
cost US$14.6 million over the next decade, including
US$426,000 to establish the Makalu-Barun National
Park. Annual operating budgets for major protected
areas in Indonesia vary from US$5 per sq km in Kerinci
Seblat (budget: US$79,606) to US$794 per sq km in
Gunung Gede-Pangrango (budget: US$120,714).

More conservation funds are becoming available from
international sources, including the World Bank, the
Asian Development Bank, the Global Environment Fa-
cility, UNESCO’s World Heritage Fund, several bilat-
eral development agencies, and international conservation
NGOs such as WWF, IUCN, Conservation Interna-
tional, Asian Wetlands Bureau, and BirdLife Interna-
tional (formerly ICBP). Universities, research
institutions, zoos, and others are also increasingly inter-
ested in supporting projects in protected areas.

It is apparent that simple shortage of funds is no
longer the only limiting factor for protected areas in the
region, though other economic factors can prevent the
available funds from being used in the most productive
way. In Sri Lanka, for example, financial support from
USAID to establish five new national parks came at the
same time that IMF controls on hiring of new civil
servants came into force; as a result, staff were diverted
from existing parks to the new ones and the new biolo-
gists, education specialists, and others required could
not be hired in permanent positions.

In many parts of the region, the funding problems of
the protected areas are part of a larger picture of rural
poverty. The remote areas adjacent to reserves are often
financially neglected and poorly managed, and their
under-development is a source of pressure on the pro-
tected areas. Such problems may best be addressed by
funding development projects in the surrounding lands,
thereby reducing pressure on the protected area. Stress-
ing a multi-agency approach to these surrounding lands
and waters could increase the resources available to
effectively increase the area of protected area core and
bringing adjacent areas under more formal manage-
ment, e.g. ICAD (Integrated Conservation And Develop-
ment Project) in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Indonesia.

Despite generous support from many sources, the fact
remains that few, if any, protected areas are provided
with sufficient trained staff, equipment, and rural devel-
opment projects in the surrounding lands. Therefore, a
regional priority is to ensure the sustainability of fund-
ing programmes. Funds from international sources for
protected areas must be allocated and utilised more

194

effectively if biodiversity conservation is to be ecologi-
cally and economically viable. Since governments and
foreign investors are likely to allocate substantial funds
for protected areas only if they are convinced of the
long-term socio-economic benefits, modules such as
those highlighted by Payapvipapong et al. (1988) and
McNeely and Dobias (1991) for Thailand will become
increasingly useful.

Further, protected areas may "go out of style" for the
major funding agencies, especially if governments in-
sist on other priorities. It is incumbent on protected area
managers to use the current flow of major funding to
develop long-term funding strategies, to leam how to
become more sophisticated when presenting their fund-
ing requests to the central government treasuries, to
seek ways to increase the self-reliance of individual
protected areas, and to enlist more partners in the fund-
ing of certain aspects of protected areas.

Private sector investment is one important source that
may increase substantially in the coming years, espe-
cially if given incentives by government policies. Fig-
ures for investment by private organisations in protected
areas vary from country to country, and in any case are
difficult to come by. For Indonesia the private sector
investment in protected areas is estimated at US$16
million to date with an expected investment of US$120
million for 1992-1997 (mostly on development of tour-
ism facilities). If this figure is realised it will exceed
projected government investment (including interna-
tional funds) for the same period.

The private and commercial sector is increasingly
being encouraged to become more involved in conser-
vation in cooperation with government agencies and
NGOs to strengthen park and protected area manage-
ment. Kaltim Primacoal, a mining company working
adjacent to Kutai National Park, has assisted the
Indonesian conservation authorities to develop an ac-
tion and investment plan for the park. The company is
now seeking to establish a consortium of investors
drawn from local industries and international agencies
to fund conservation activities in the park.

Other innovative funding mechanisms tried or pro-
posed within the region include:

w "Adopta Park". The Minnesota Zoo has "adopted"
Ujung Kulon National Park in Indonesia, the best
remaining habitat for the Javan Rhino, and is pro-
viding a variety of forms of support to the park.

Debt-for-Nature Swaps. In the Philippines, WWF
and national NGOs have utilised this mechanism to
purchase external debt at a discount and make funds
available in local currency to fund the IPAS pro-
gramme and protected areas such as St Paul subter-
ranean National Park. Other countries may be
concerned that debt swaps could infringe on
national sovereignty.

@ Adoption of "Flagship Species" . Charismatic spe-
cies can be used to raise funds for conserving the
habitats where these species are found. In this re-
gard, Project Tiger, Project Snow Leopard, and Pro-
ject Elephant in India are demonstrations of how to
build action plans into five-year development plans
and thus strengthen the conservation of numerous
less "glamorous" species.

gw Environmental levies on logging and oil revenues.
Stumpage fees from Indonesia’s forest concessions
are reported to have reached a total capital of US$1
billion; such funds could provide a useful source for
long-term financing of protected areas.

Entrance fees. Nepal has successfully introduced a
user’s fee (about US$4) levied on all non-national
visitors to the Annapurna Conservation Area Pro-
ject. Unlike most national park fees, these user fees
do not go to the government treasury but are recycled
back to the protected area by the King Mahendra Trust
which oversees 4633 sq km of protected area with
over 100 staff without any financial burden to the
national government.

Tourism. Tourism can be a valuable source of in-
come for protected areas as well as a source of
economic benefits to local people in the region.
Revenues from tourism are difficult to estimate,
especially as they often return to national treasuries
rather than to the parks authorities. Nevertheless,
some parks do pay their way. Mt Kinabalu National
Park in Sabah, Malaysia, for example, generates
sufficient funds from tourism to cover the whole
Sabah Parks budget.

The following points summarize the finance issue:
@ Funds must be directed from the central office to the
field more efficiently. Too many of the "protected
area” funds remain in the capital cities to cover

administrative costs and do not filter down to the
protected areas themselves.

"One-off" projects would be much more useful if
they were part of a reliable long-term package of
financial support to entire national systems of pro-
tected areas.

Innovative financial strategies for protected areas
should be explored and made part of management
Strategies for both individual sites and protected
area systems.

Funding for a protected area should be considered
as part of regional development, drawing on addi-
tional funds outside the protected area budget. For
example, the Asian Development Bank now tries to
include protected areas into its project boundaries
rather than excluding them, as this permits specific
funding of protection for the area as part of the
overall project funding.

195

South and Southeast Asia

In summary, a stronger financial commitment from
the national governments and the multilateral and bilat-
eral funding agencies remains central to the improved
funding situation for protected areas. Governments that
expect financial returns for their investments in conser-
vation must be encouraged to realize that safeguarding
the environment is worth a larger investment. They
willingly spend billions to preserve their territorial se-
curity but are still reluctant to allocate the few millions
needed to preserve environmental security through con-
servation. Finally, it is also the responsibility of the
protected area planners and conservation community to
utilize more effectively the funds which are already
available for protected areas and to tap into new and
untraditional financial sources, expanding the overall
funding pool for the protection of biodiversity.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

Protected areas employ many people directly even though
many governments pay only meagre salaries. Although
the total numbers of staff may seem large and some
protected areas even appear over-staffed, management
needs strengthening in virtually all countries. This is
often a result of lack of well-qualified and trained staff
as well as poor deployment of human resources. To date
most senior protected area staff have been students of
forestry or biological sciences. In view of the complexi-
ties of issues faced in conservation area management,
protected areas also need access to staff trained in other
disciplines, particularly administration, tourism, social
services, economics, rural development, and public re-
lations.

In addition to employing local people as park staff,
many protected areas provide indirect employment op-
portunities at the local and regional level through tour-
ism and other employment opportunities such as construc-
tion and maintenance work, seasonal grass cutting or
harvesting of other natural resources. Some authorities
keep data on number of visitors and revenue in pro-
tected areas, but only a few attempts have been made to
estimate how many people in total benefit from tourism
and other sectors. Total direct and indirect employment
generation at Khao Yai National Park in Thailand in
1987 was estimated at 1,200 people, who received a
total income of approximately 24 million baht (nearly
US$1 million) (Dobias et al., 1988). Local communities
may also require and benefit from training to improve
their services for tourists, e.g. training to teahouse own-
ers in Nepal.

Training both in protected area management and
buffer zone activities have been identified as priorities
throughout the region. Regional courses for protected
area managers are run by the Wildlife Training Institute
(Dehra Dun, India), the School of Environmental Con-
servation Management (Bogor, Indonesia) and the Asian
Institute of Technology (Bangkok, Thailand). Relatively

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 7. Threatened critical wetlands of international importance for conservation action

Major sites which are very seriously threatened
or require swift action (over 1,000ha)

Bangladesh
Wetlands of Sylet Basin

Myanmar
Irrawaddy Delta

Cambodia
Tonlé Sap

India
Chilka Lake

Kollero Lake

Southem Gulf of Kutch

Sundarbans

Wetlands of Andamans and Nicobar

Indonesia
Riau coastal wetlands

Way Kambas

Musi Banyuasin Delta

Wasur & Rawa Biru
Malaysia

Sarawak Peat Swamp Forest

Southeast Pakary Swamp Forest
Pakistan

Outer Indus River
Philippines

Agusan Marsh
Viet Nam

Mekong Delta

Size in ha

1,000,000
3,500,000
1,500,000

116,000

90,000
735,000
450,000
115,000

500,000
123,500
200,000
431,000

340,000
300,000

400,000
undertermined

3,900,000

Source: Asian Wetland Bureau

few countries in the region have training facilities spe-
cifically for protected area management, but many
countries have courses that are relevant to park manage-
ment. For example, the Nepal Forestry Institute and
King Mahendra Trust run courses on parks and park
management. Peninsular Malaysia has a wildlife train-
ing centre in the Krau Game Reserve which provides
in-service training. In-service courses are run in many
other parks within the region, and WWF has developed
training course material for protected area guards
(MacKinnon, 1991).

In addition, numerous regional workshops and courses
address specific topics, such as wildlife conservation
and management (Smithsonian Institution in Malaysia),
wetlands (Asian Wetland Bureau) and coastal zone
management (ICLARM in the Philippines). Study tours,
exchange visits and training courses within the region
are also sponsored by UNESCO, UNEP (Regional Seas
Programme) and FAO. The magazine Tigerpaper, spon-
sored by FAO, provides a regional forum for exchange
of information on protected area management. Other

196

training is provided through bilateral arrangements; for
example, Nepal park staff receive training in New
Zealand and park staff from throughout the region
attend higher degree courses at Los Banos, Philippines.

7. Priorities for future investment
in protected areas

The major issues and required actions for the region
have been identified above. Investment needs will re-
quire a partnership between national governments and
the private sector, leading to a substantial increase in
budgets and a higher priority for protected areas.

The most significant source of investment today is the
Global Environment Facility (GEF), which may pro-
vide some US$100 million for conserving biodiversity
in the region over the next several years. These funds
provide, for example, direct support to protected areas
(Indonesia), training (Viet Nam), and establishment of
trust and endowment funds (Bhutan) (Table 8). The

GEF projects show the kinds of activities which are
likely to be of interest to major international investors.
It is also possible that the Biodiversity Convention
which was signed at the UN Conference on Environ-
ment and Development in June 1992 will lead to new
sources of funding for investment in protected areas.

The Asian Development Bank’s environmental
action plan for the 1990s calls for preparation of con-
servation master plans and identification of viable biodiver-
sity management projects (both terrestrial and marine)
for short-term and long-term investments, including
policy options for developing and managing biological
tesources. ADB is convinced that increasing the eco-

South and Southeast Asia

nomic benefits from (or attributable to) protected areas
may be the optimum strategy to avoid jeopardizing the
viability of natural resource systems. With protected
areas seen as an economic asset they will no longer be
regarded as a burden on state coffers and suffer from
benign neglect. However, economic utilization of pro-
tected areas will only succeed where allocation of prop-
erty rights provides sufficient incentives for sustainable
management of biodiversity as well as increased eco-
nomic benefits. Property rights which favour economic
exploitation over biodiversity, or provide insufficient
economic interest to retain long-term involvement, will
equally lead to eventual degradation of the natural
system.

Table 8. Global Environment Facility biodiversity portfolio, South and Southeast Asia

Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation

Ecodevelopment

Indonesia _ Biodiversity Action Plan, preparation work,

for integrated conservation and development

Wildlife protected area management

Makalu-Barun Conservation Area and
Conservation Strategy

Conservation management of priority
protected areas

Wildlife conservation and protected area
management

Forest reserve conservation

Protected area and wildlife conservation
technical assistance

Preserving Coastal Ecosystem
Coastal Biodiversity

up to US$10m

Innovation/Demonstration

Use of a financial instrument to address
long-term sustainability issues

US$20m
US$2m preparation; Development of large-scale model

US$20m investment

US$5.5m

up to US$20m

of integrating protected areas manage-
ment with economic development
of local smallholders.

Also smaller innovative components

Establishment of a protected area
system; land tenure and use of forest
land; participation by communtities
in management of forest land.

Development of national plan for
biodiversity conservation and of
model conservation area, integrating
conservation and development.

Policy-based lending package tied to
legislative conditionality to ensure
means of better mangement and
sustainability through contractual
arrangements with NGOs and
establishment of endowment funds.

Minimize conflict between wildlife/
humans; training and institutional
technical assistance support.

Changes in policies governing forest
occupants and increased participation;
protection of forest areas representing
different forest incursions and occupancy.

Combination of training and development
of biodiversity Action Plan to provide
foundation of effective biodiversity
protection.

US$7.5m
US$11.50m

197

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 9. FY 91-93 World Bank projects with biodiversity components

Country
Bangladesh Forestry III
India

Narmada River Basin Devleopment
Maharashtra State Forestry Sector

West Bengal

Indonesia Integrated swamps

Forest management and conservation

Lao PDR Forest management

Nepal Arun III — Hydro Power/ Access Road

Philippines Environment and Natural Resource
Management Programme (SECAL)

Thailand _—_ Land reform and protection of forests

The World Bank has also been incorporating pro-
tected area components into many of its projects, illus-
trating a productive linkage between protected areas
and investments in other development sectors such as
agriculture, forestry, and energy (Table 9).

In many parts of the region, the private sector might
be encouraged to take over those parts of protected area
management which can be made to pay—such as eco-
tourism infrastructure—but this needs close control of
concessions to maintain management standards in parks.
The Tourism Authority of Thailand has given the Royal
Forest Department approximately 40 million baht (US$
1.6 million) over 3 years for tourism development at
national parks (Dobias et al., 1988). The industrial and
commercial sector should also be encouraged to play a
greater role in subsidising conservation and protected
area costs as part of their increasing concern for the
environment. This can be arranged either through direct
donations and/or sustained support, such as linking
protected areas budgets to income from sale of electric-
ity from dams whose watershed is protected by a na-
tional park, or assistance from mining companies as in
Kutai and Gunung Lorentz in Indonesia, or indirectly
through environmental levies.

Current action plans at both national and international
levels identify national and regional priorities and in-
vestment needs. The Corbett Action Plan and the IUCN
Indo-Malayan Regional Review provide the best re-
gional overviews. The regional priorities for wetland
conservation have been identified by the Asian Wet-
lands Bureau (Scott and Poole, 1989), supported by
country reports by AWB. Detailed national action plans
have been prepared for India (Department of Environ-
ment, n.d.), Indonesia (BAPPENAS, 1991), Laos (Salter

Component

Protection of Sundarbans mangrove forests and establishment
of wildlife conservation unit.

Wildlife sanctuary establishment and protecton.

Protection of representative wildlife nature reserves; institutiona
strengthening.

Protection of Sundarbans Tiger Reserve.

Protection of key wetland sites.
Strengthening management of ten national parks.

Establishment and management of conservation—priority forest

nature reserves and human resource development.

Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area: strength-

ening of national park and buffer zone areas.

Establishmen of Integrated Protected Areas System (IPAS);

manpower development; and protection of 10 priority
protected areas.

Protection and management of conservation forest.

and Phanthavong, 1989), Viet Nam (Anon., 1985), and
Sri Lanka (Kotagama, et al., 1990). A number of
species-oriented action plans have also been developed
which have elements relevant to the region; the Asian
Elephant Action Plan prepared by IUCN’s Species Sur-
vival Commission is an excellent example of such a
plan (Santiapillai and Jackson, 1990)

8. Major protected area issues in
the region

The single over-riding issue is the quest for a balance
between the generalized desire to live harmoniously
with nature and the need to exploit resources to sustain
life. The problems facing protected areas are thus inti-
mately related to socio-economic factors like poverty,
land tenure, and equity. Within this context the follow-
ing are the major issues which need to be addressed
urgently if protected areas are to contribute to the fur-
ther development of the countries in the Asian region.

8.1. Improving the relationship
between protected areas and local

communities

One result of establishing protected areas at the initia-
tive of central or provincial government authorities has
been to alienate local people from the areas which they
had traditionally considered ’ their territory’. In extreme
cases, this has led to violence and bloodshed.

@ In Assam, India, a large rebel force from an extrem-
ist faction of the Bodo tribe recently invaded Manas
Sanctuary, killed 12 members of the forest staff,
cleared the land, and opened the reserve to poachers.
The Bodos claimed the park as their ancestral lands,

198

stolen from them during the British rule of India.
They were merely reclaiming their rightful prop-
erty, they contended (Dang, 1991).

In many other cases, villages have been removed
from their traditional lands to establish protected
areas. In almost all cases, local people have been
expected to curb traditional uses of the resources
contained within the new protected areas. Further
problems arise when new immigrants and recent
settlers move into an area, increasing pressure on
available agricultural land and forest and aquatic
resources.

Lacking any significant involvement in the design
and management of protected areas, local people have
not been strong supporters of their establishment and
are sceptical of the capacity of governments to manage
local resources on their behalf. But following the rapid
creation of protected areas in the 1970s and 1980s,
greater attention is now being given to the sustainability
and viability of protected areas. It has become widely
agreed that conservation is likely to be most effective
when it reinforces traditional rights and conservation
practices. This in turn is leading to many efforts to
involve local people more thoroughly in protected area
management (see, for example, the papers in Thorsell,
1985, and McNeely, Thorsell, and Chalise, 1985).

mw In Nepal’s Sagarmatha National Park, a World
Heritage Site, initial hostility to the park was con-
verted into strong support through economic incen-
tives such as employment in tourism-related
activities, preferential employment as park staff,
registration of land to establish tenure rights, resto-
ration and protection of religious structures inside
the park, a return of forest management to the
village, and community development activities
clearly linked to the park (Norbu, 1985).

In Indonesia’s Irian Jaya province, the Arfak Moun-
tains Nature Conservation Area exemplifies the mod-
em approach, fully involving local people in the
preparation of the management plan, marking and
maintaining the boundary, and benefiting from eco-
nomic incentives designed to support the area. This
effort has shown that building local support from the
outset of protected area establishment can reduce
the costs of boundary demarcation and enforcement
of regulations (Craven and De Fretes, 1987).

Despite these examples, and several others that could
be cited, far more needs to be done to build support from
local communities for protected areas. This will require
a combination of incentives and disincentives, eco-
nomic benefits and law enforcement, education and
awareness, employment in the protected area and em-
ployment opportunities outside, and enhanced land ten-
ure and control of new immigration (especially if the
buffer zones around protected areas are targeted for
special development assistance). The key is to find the
balance among the competing demands, and this will
usually require a site-specific solution.

199

South and Southeast Asia

8.2 Improving management of

protected areas

With the establishment of representative systems of
protected areas in most Asian countries, the major issue
being faced by most protected area agencies is how to
manage these areas effectively. As suggested above, it
is no simple matter to protect the remaining areas of
high value for conservation in a time when populations
are growing quickly and demands on resources are
growing even more rapidly.

One approach to improving management is the prepa-
ration of management plans. The standard approach to
preparing management plans is now well known, but
few plans are prepared through an appropriate process.
Too often, the management planning team consists
primarily of outsiders, rather than including the man-
ager who will be responsible for implementation; and
few management plans have been prepared in consult-
ation with local people who are likely to be affected by
the plan. Even where a reasonable planning process has
been followed, as at Khao Yai National Park in
Thailand, the experience is not replicated in other pro-
tected areas in the country. As a result, many manage-
ment plans have failed because they are unrealistic,
never fully approved by the protected area agency,
insufficiently funded, and inadequately integrated with
regional plans.

8.3. Making protected areas part of
modern society: The role of

education, training, and research

Throughout the region, considerably greater attention is
required to erect the three pillars of successful protected
areas: education; training; and research. These pillars
will remain standing only if an appropriate career struc-
ture is built upon them, to encourage well-trained staff
to remain in protected area management.

Education. Education and awareness programmes
are scarce in the region, though some notable efforts are
being implemented around some protected areas in
India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Far more
needs to be done to make conservation a part of all
subjects in the school curricula, with particular attention
being given to highly specific material for schools lo-
cated around protected areas. While "flagship species”
such as rhinos, orangutans, elephants, and tigers have
been useful to symbolize conservation issues, far more
needs to be done to support protected areas in general.
Better information must be seen as the foundation of
influential public support of protected areas.

Public education about protected areas is provided
primarily by the private sector, with numerous environ-
mental NGOs carrying out campaigns on various issues.
However, these tend to be aimed at rather specific
targets—such as opposing dams in India and Thailand,
or fighting for the rights of forest-dwelling peoples in

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Sarawak—tather than at protected areas in general.
Most countries have active press and other media, though
again they are often more interested in specific issues
rather than general information about protected areas.
The Asian Forum of Environmental Journalists is one
useful mechanism which has been developed. Pakistan
has established a Journalists Resource Centre, and Sri
Lanka an Environment Joumalists Forum.

Training. As discussed in section 6, major training
institutions have been established in the region and
several universities provide courses of study relevant to
protected areas. Nevertheless, training opportunities are
still inadequate, and few protected area agencies are
able to provide the specific training that is required for
modern protected area managers and their staff. Topics
such as conflict resolution, fund-raising, tourism man-
agement, and community relations still need far more
attention. A particular need in the region is for training
in marine conservation. The establishment of a regional
training school for coastal and marine management is a
priority for the region. SECM has already initiated a
short marine course which could be expanded.

Some countries, such as India, include conservation
issues in training for military officers and senior admin-
istrators, but few include protected areas issues as a
regular part of the training curricula for the full range
of civil servants. The lack of such training means that
many government officials have only a very superficial
understanding of the role that protected areas play in
modern society, and how their day-to-day activities
affect protected areas.

Research. Knowledge about the natural systems of
the region has increased remarkably over the past dec-
ade with several important regional publications having
appeared, including reviews on tropical forests (Collins
etal., 1991), wetlands (Scott, 1989), and coral reefs and
UNEP/IUCN, 1986). While most countries have a rea-
sonable foundation of ecological scientists, few (India
being a notable exception) have adequate floral or fau-
nal inventories. More systematic inventory work is
urgently needed in most countries of the realm. This
requires trained staff and well-maintained herbaria and
zoological collections, though few such institutions have
flourished in recent years.

Even so, for most countries sufficient data are avail-
able to identify areas of high biodiversity and endemism
and to start to prepare system plans to give adequate
coverage of the full range of habitat types. Lack of
survey data cannot be an excuse for inaction in the
realm. Sri Lanka, for example, has imposed a ban on all
logging in the wet zone while a conservation review of
remaining natural forests is undertaken. This review is
designed to identify centres of biodiversity and ende-
mism which will be safeguarded from future exploita-
tion.

A far more serious omission is translating scientific
results into management action. This requires a much

200

more sophisticated combination of science and practice,
biology and sociology, theory and practice, ecology and
economics. Even countries with a rich research tradi-
tion, such as India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Malaysia, are
facing challenges in bringing science into protected area
management. Pioneering work in Sri Lanka (Eisenberg
and Lockhart, 1972; McKay, 1973) led to greatly in-
creased fieldwork by Asian scientists in South Asia, but
few protected areas have working relationships with
local universities, though both Indonesia and Malaysia
are developing such links. While several biosphere
reserves have been established with research as a major
focus, few have permanent research facilities or long-
term research relevant to protected area management.

On the other hand, Sinharaja Natural Heritage Wil-
demess Area, a World Heritage Site and Biosphere
Reserve which is managed by Sri Lanka’s Forest De-
partment rather than the Department of Wild Life Con-
servation, has long been the site of management- oriented
research and this has ensured its survival against threats
from logging (Ishwaran and Erdelen, 1990).

It is apparent that far more needs to be done to
promote research in protected areas in the region, and
to apply that research to management issues ranging
from wildlife biology to habitat restoration to tourist
management to economic values of protected areas.
Few protected area authorities will be able by them-
selves to undertake programmes to fulfil research needs.
Long-term research programmes need to be established
by universities or research institutions to assess the
long-term consequences of land-use changes both within
and outside protected areas. This will be especially
relevant to wetland and marine protected areas. Ex-
change of research information among countries in the
region would appear to be a highly cost-effective way
of improving the application of science to management.

8.4 International cooperation

The countries of South and Southeast Asia have so far
shown relatively little regional cooperation, with inse-
cure national borders often leading to conflict rather
than coordinated conservation action. Nevertheless, a
number of protected areas adjoining international bor-
ders provide opportunities for improved cooperation.
At least nine such areas have been identified (Table 10)
in the region, and could themselves become a focus for
improved international cooperation. Considerable op-
portunities also exist for greater exchange of informa-
tion and expertise within the region.

9. Priorities for action in the region

Maintaining and strengthening the protected area sys-
tems of the region requires attention to several priority
issues:

1. Extending the protected area coverage of repre-
sentative terrestrial and marine ecosystems, in-
volving the preparation of national system plans.

Table 10. Transfrontier protected areas

Sundarbans (India)

Barnadi (India)

Manas (India)

Wasur (Indonesia)

Udaipur & Volmiki Nagar (India)
Samunsam & Tanjung Datu (Sarawak)

Kayan Mentarang (Kalimantan)
Gunung Bentang & Karimun (Kalimantan)

1.
245
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Source: Thorsell and Harrison, 1990

2, Integrating protected area design and manage-
ment within the context of regional development
planning.

3. Integrating conservation with development to
provide benefits to local and regional communi-
ties to relieve pressures on protected areas and
reduce degradation of natural habitats and loss
of biodiversity.

4. Giving greater emphasis to marine conservation,
especially on integrating conservation with coastal
zone development.

5. Fostering participation of local communities and
NGOs as partners with government agencies in
protected area management.

6. Building a career structure for protected area
staff.

The Establishing training and research facilities for
protected area management and buffer zone ac-
tivities including training for protected area staff,
local government, local NGOs, community or-
ganisers and training for trainers.

8. Extending education and awareness programmes
targeted at all levels of society (local communi-
ties to government planners) to increase recog-
nition of the values and roles of protected areas

Yot Dom & Khao Phanom Dong Rak (Thailand)

South and Southeast Asia

Sundarbans (Bangladesh)

Shumar (Bhutan)

Manas (Bhutan)

Tonda (Papau New Guinea)
Royal Chitwan (Nepal)

Prop. Hutan Sambas (Kalimantan)
Preah Vihear (Kampuchea)

Prop. Pulong Tau (Sarawak)
Lanjak Entimau (Sarawak)

in biodiversity conservation and sustainable de-
velopment.

9. Increasing financial and institutional support for
protected areas and buffer/support zone activi-
ties, including improved allocation of existing
resources and the long-term sustainability of
funding.

10. | Strengthening protected area legislation and its
enforcement.

11. | Promoting regional collaboration and coopera-
tion to encourage exchange of expertise through
study tours, regional training, consultancies, and
international programmes.

12. _ Fostering more active participation in global
conventions and other conservation programmes.

The activities that will convert these priorities into
action in each country will vary according to national
conservation objectives, history, and political will. In
every case, action needs to follow the general directions
outlined above.

Remarkable progress has been shown in the develop-
ment of the protected areas of South and Southeast Asia
over the past several decades. The challenge now is to
convert ideas, concepts, proclamations, laws, gazette
Notices, and maps into a new and positive relationship
between people and the rest of nature.

Acknowledgements

This review was developed from a regional meeting
held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 1 to4 December 1991,
under the co-sponsorship of IUCN, the Asian Institute
of Technology, and the World Bank. Some 58 partici-

pants from 16 countries contributed to the discussions
that led to this draft. Many of the data were provided by
the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

References

ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1989. Minimum Quality
Criteria for Ecologically Sensitive Areas. Asian De-
velopment Bank, Manila. 96 pp.

Anon. 1985. Viet Nam: National Conservation Strat-
egy. Committee for Rational Utilization of Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection.

ASEAN. 1988. ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves.
JICA and UNEP, Bangkok. 173 pp.

BAPPENAS. 1991. Biodiversity Action Plan for Indo-
nesia. BAPPENAS, Jakarta, Indonesia. 120 pp.
Chettamart, S. 1987. Assessment of National Parks,
Wildlife Sanctuaries and Other Preserves Develop-
ment in Thailand. Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart
University, Royal Forest Department, and Office of
the National Environment Board, Bangkok. 138 pp.

Collins, N.M., J.A. Sayer, and T.C. Whitmore. 1991.
The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Asia
and the Pacific. MacMillan, London. 256 pp.

Craven, I. and de Fretes, Y. 1987. Arfak Mountains
Nature Conservation Area. Jrian Jaya Management
Plan 1988-1992. WWF, Bogor, Indonesia.

Dang, Himraj. 1991. Human Conflict in Conservation:
Protected Areas, the Indian Experience. Develop-
ment Alternatives, New Delhi. 255 pp.

Department of Environment n.d. National wildlife action
plan. Government of India, New Delhi. 28 pp.

Dobias, R. Wangwacharakul, V. and Sangswang, N.
1988. Beneficial use quantifications of Khao Yai
National Park. Report to World Wide Fund for
Nature, Switzerland. Pp. 14-15.

Eisenberg, J.F. and M. Lockhart. 1972. An ecological
reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon.
Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 101:1-118.

FAO. 1981/1982. National Conservation Plan for
Indonesia. FAO, Bogor. (8 vols.)

FAO. 1985. Myanmar: Survey data and conservation
priorities: Nature Conservation and National Parks.
FO:DP\BUR\80\006 Technical Report 1.

Gadgil, M. 1989. The Indian heritage of a conservation
ethic. In Allchin, B., F.R. Allchin, and B.K. Thapar
(eds). Conservation of the Indian Heritage. Cosmo
Publishers, New Delhi. Pp. 13-21.

IUCN 1990. IUCN Directory of South Asian Protected
Areas. Prepared by the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. 294 pp.

Haribon Foundation/DENR. 1988. Development of an
Integrated Protected Areas System (IPAS) for the
Philippines. DENR/Haribon Foundation/WWF-US,
Manila.

Ishwaran, N and Erdelen, W. 1990. Conserving
Sinharaja. An experiment in sustainable develop-
ment in Sri Lanka. Ambio 19(5): 237-244.

IUCN, 1985. Corbett Action Plan. YUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 24 pp.

IUCN. 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A Review
of National Systems. Volume 1 : Indomalaya, Oceania,
Australia and Antarctic. Prepared by the World

202

Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xx + 352pp.

Kotagama, S.W., V.P. Fernando, and N. Ishwaran. 1990.
A Five-Year Development Plan for the Wildlife
Conservation and Protected Area Management Sector
of Sri Lanka. Ministry of Lands, Irrigation, and
Mahaweli Development, Colombo. 50 pp.

Kothari, A. P. Pande, S. Singh, and D. Variava. 1989.
Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in
India: A status report. Environmental Studies Divi-
sion, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New
Delhi. 298 pp.

Mackinnon, J. 1991. Protected Area Guards Training
Course for Asian Countries. Draft. WWF, Gland,
Switzerland.

Mackinnon, J, Mackinnon,K. Child, G. and Thorsell,
J.W. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Also available in
Indonesian (Gadjah Mada Press, 1990).

MacKinnon, J and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review of the
Protected Areas System in the Indo-Malayan Realm.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP, Nairobi. 284 pp.

McKay, G.M. 1973. Behavior and ecology of the Asiatic
elephant in south-eastern Ceylon. Smithsonian Con-
trib. Zool. 125: 1-113.

McNeely, J.A. 1987. How dams and wildlife can co-exist:
Natural habitats, agriculture, and water resources de-
velopment projects in tropical Asia. J. Conservation
Biology 1(3): 228-238.

McNeely, J.A. and Dobias, R. 1991. Economic incen-
tives for conserving biological diversity in Thailand.
Ambio 20(2): 86-90.

McNeely, J.A. and Miller, K. 1984. National Parks,
Conservation and Development: The role of pro-
tected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington DC. 852 pp.

McNeely, J.A., Thorsell, J.W. and Chalise, S. 1985.
People and Protected Areas in the Hindukush
Himalaya. King Mahendra Trust and ICIMOD,
Kathmandu. 189 pp.

McNeely, J.A. and Wachtel, P.S. 1991. Soul of the
Tiger. Doubleday, New York. 390pp.

Mishra, H. 1985. The fragile mountain revisited: Nepal’s
agenda for halting the slide. In McNeely, Thorsell, and
Chalise. Pp. 111-116

Norbu, Lhakpa Sherpa. 1985. Management issues in
Nepal’s National Parks. In McNeely, Thorsell, and
Chalise. Pp. 123-127.

PHPA 1991. The Development of a Protected Areas
System in Indonesia. Country Report for Indonesia,
Asian Regional Experts Meeting, Bangkok 2-4 Dec.

Praween Payapvipapong, Tavatchai Traitongyoo and
Dobias R.J. 1988. Using economic incentives to
integrate park conservation and rural development
in Thailand. Paper presented at IUCN General
Assembly, Costa Rica.

Rowchai, S. 1989. Economic incentives for the conser-
vation and use of marine fishery resources. A

contribution to IUCN Project on Economic Incen-
tives for Biological Resource Conservation in
Thailand. (Mimeo, in Thai).

Salm, R. and Clark, J. 1984. Marine and Coastal Pro-
tected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 302 pp.

Salm, R and Halim, M. 1984. Marine Conservation
Data Atlas: Planning for the Survival of Indonesia’ s
Seas and Coasts. 1UCN and WWF, Bogor.

Salter, R.E. and Phanthavong, B. 1989. Needs and Priori-
ties for a Protected Area System in Lao PDR. Forest
Resources Conservation Project, Vientiene.

Santiapillai, C. and Jackson, P. 1990. The Asian Ele-
phant: An Action Plan for its Conservation. 1UCN,
Gland. 79 pp.

Scott, D.A. (ed.) 1989. A Directory of Asian Wetlands.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
1,181 pp.

Scott, D.A. and C.M. Poole. 1989. A Status Overview
of Asian Wetlands. Asian Wetland Bureau, Kuala
Lumpur.

Sharma, Devinder. 1991. Quarrying threatens India’s
tigers. New Scientist, 28 September.

Sudarsono, M.A. and Suhartono, T.R. (1992). Forestry
policy and conservation in Indonesia. Paper prepared

203

South and Southeast Asia

for the IV World Parks Congress, Caracas, 7-21
February.

Thorsell, J.W. 1985. Conserving Asia’ s Natural Heritage.
IUCN, Gland. 248 pp.

Thorsell, J.W. and J. Harrison. 1990. Parks that promote
peace: A global inventory of transfrontier nature
reserves. Pp. 3-23 in Thorsell, J.W. (ed.). Parks on
the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Con-
servation. TUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge
UK. 98 pp.

Udvardy, Miklos. 1975. A classification of the bio-
geographical provinces of the world. JUCN Occa-
sional Paper. 18 1-48 pp.

UNEP/IUCN. 1988. Coral Reefs of the World. (Volume 2).
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK and
UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 389 pp.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and De-
velopment). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford
University Press, London. 383 pp.

World Bank. 1991a. Asia Region Biodiversity Portfolio.
World Bank, Washington.

World Bank. 1991b. Conserving Biological Diversity:
A Strategy for Protected Areas in the Asia Region.
(Draft).

i ie 0 is
: ae! ee quay! ener we raderet WIUT ob coiiamody: 6a
as) in id aioe) qa, drcigolned. 2 envi ie
a evath Merl 7 LLG Aa ae EL re ee) that ai oon) dnalledte ;
ia —— ae lint ia Nae ae twa viv hile eT) we, lk
= Nipamse ely agp anh MS © mR IN A ata MNF Chee ial taba neg ty ery tera
a ald he rn bop —_—_ feet ie Age SS at geal Sh
i \ shal ees we hq Le AS Pee. Arey Loppers sip uel Le DUD sO age tail
yO oS ape Spe ARIMA Mote STARA day Me NON xg), A My pee lbp a TRAE, Wha out ars Mie La

a Oho

wikiag ") cum Ae ree PN 50 ick rf HY crept a ‘qa Mibane WAU

ie neve! dl say .

arg 2: eas eines myth is + ahtzd eyes vale
Ay | diame: pasipeharere meaheary pate tnt
i ae Leena Rehisintes-t> i

he it ae ae ee fiat “Aste FE + Na oe rain ie A
jt Siarmcvnt et alee Seach ete om rind sibs chilal fecha ih

oy ish es Wet ey jie Pa ea am sh ;
“aye ae sprig patil ‘deaeiala” _
: i aon acne or abil

. sid ya, Ala

i, fore uz At fi

U istcial tan Brey,

i: 2a hui iP rine

| ae err

Australia

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

seaie pe}9e}01d payeubisap Ajje6a; wiyjyim papnjou! Ayjun0d Jo ebejusdJed

%GL-OL

MOT VEY} SIO %G-1°O

%02-SL % LQ ueU} Sse

pa}da}01d aBeJUadJaq

‘dew

206

Contents

Page

aa rustorical perspectivers ees Oe ww ee 209

1.1 Development of the protected areas system overtime ............... 209

1.2 Factors influencing the establishment of protected areasystems ......... 216

2. Current protected areacoverage .......................0.4. 216

Del ETOLEC ted, ATCAISYSIEMS) lv yanrges Gin se ee ee Ce BN 216

Dem Gate Foniesioleprotected:areas aes — 5 saaNei naam a a 217

3. Additional protected areas required ....................... 218

Protected area institutions os ee eee ae we ee gen eg ee 221

5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 221

6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 222

7. Priorities for future investments in protected areas .............. 223

8. Major protected areas issuesintheregion ................... 224

SulmmbcopleinuprotectediarcaS = 2s 4-5 Seu ewe uy oe eee 224

See lnvolvement by the private Sector =.) weneneeen hcl een enna 224

Some Lrotectediareassand surrounding lands) nes a Cee Reena eee 225

or me ErotectedrareastandiSsCienCemen oy - “renee cree co 3) oe ce eee 225

8.5 Threats to effective management of protected areas ................ 226

SiOpembransfronuerimitiatives «(s8e soos: 2 = <pect eulSalterainns Gachemoucyonerceices AN 226

9. Priorities foractionintheregion ......................... 226

BEICTENCOS mmmsry: Posh. cls, ce Sg A fae © yansue whee tae ueangees apace 227
Tables

Table 1. Summary of the protected areassystem ................... 210

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories .............. 211

Table 3. |The development of the protected areas system ............... 73)

Table 4. | Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 213

207

Table 5.
Table 6.

Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Figures

Map.

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

World Heritage sites in Australia ....................00. 214

Government funding provided to the nine principal nature conservation
agencies and the GBRMPA for management of protected areas,

yearending dune 1990 snr imeem. 5) 6 ca an amet eee 215
The sites first named "national park" in each State... .........2.. 219
Area occupied by terrestrial protected areas, 1968 and 1978......... 219
Protected areas under the jurisdiction of government agencies,

Zl DecemberlO88.7 oj ek cs = i ee. OSLO NIE: 219
Categories of protected areas in Australia, December 1988. ........ 220

Government agencies with jurisdiction for protected areas in
Australias iyo 528 46 een ren eh a ee A? Ee Et cae 221

Visitor numbers to protected areas managed by the nine principal
nature conservation agencies and the GBRMPA, year ending
Tunes G90 ew ee se re eo aah a ee 222

Numbers of staff of the nine principal nature conservation agencies
and the GBRMPA who were directly concerned with management
of protected areas, yearending June 1990 ................ 223

Percentage of country included within legally designated protected

ATCAS, 2 <a. c Uscee acinar) ke aap 206
Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... DAD,
Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 212

208

Australia

Peter B. Bridgewater, Regional Vice-Chair for Australia, IUCN Commission
on National Parks and Protected Areas; and Gwennyth L. Shaughnessy,
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service

1. Historical perspective

The terrestrial area of the Australian Region covers
more than 7.68 million sq km. It includes two major land
masses: mainland Australia and Tasmania, and hun-
dreds of islands in the surrounding seas, as well as more
distant groups of tropical coral cays and oceanic islands.
The marine area included in the Australian Region
covers more than 8.5 million sq km. It includes an
extensive continental shelf and the Australian Fishing
Zone, which was proclaimed in 1979 and extends sea-
wards for 200 nautical miles from the coast of all
Australian land masses and islands. It includes the
Australian territorial sea, which extends 12 nautical
miles seawards from the coast.

While Australia is the only country in the Region, the
federal system of government divides responsibilities
for protected areas among nine political jurisdictions,
namely, the Australian Government (i.e. the Federal
Government), the six States (New South Wales, Queensland,
South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western
Australia), and two self-governing Territories (Australian
Capital Territory and Northern Territory).

The States and self-governing Territories have juris-
diction over the land within their boundaries and over
that part of the Australian territorial sea which lies
within three nautical miles of their coast, except for any
area for which there is an overriding Australian Gov-
ernment responsibility consistent with the Constitution.
Such areas include certain lands in the Northern Terri-
tory and the Australian Capital Territory which were
retained by the Australian Government at the time that
those territories attained self-government, as well as the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

In addition to such areas within the States and self-
governing Territories, the Australian Government has
jurisdiction over: the land and territorial seas of the
Territory of Jervis Bay and the Australian External
Territories; the territorial sea and Australian Fishing
Zone beyond a distance of three nautical miles from the
coasts of the States and the Northern Territory; and the
Australian continental shelf.

209

1.1 Development of the protected

areas system over time

The Period 1879-1915. The network of protected
areas in Australia is generally considered to have origi-
nated with the dedication of The National Park at Port
Hacking near Sydney, New South Wales, in 1879 (Black
and Breckwoldt, 1977; Goldstein, 1979; Ovington, 1980).
The term "national park" was soon being applied to
areas reserved for public recreation in the other colonies
in Australia and the adoption of the term is generally
taken to mark the beginning of the protected area system
in each State.

Table 7, which is based on Black and Breckwoldt
(1977), provides information on the site first given the
name "national park" in each State. It shows that four
of the States established their first national park before
the federation of the Australian colonies occurred in
1901. Thus, the term "national park" became widely
used at a time when what are now the States of Australia
were separate, self-governing British colonies. All of
the States and Territories continue to use that term
today, generally for the most significant terrestrial pro-
tected areas under their jurisdiction.

The Period 1915-1967. The impetus for establishing
national parks in New South Wales in the first half of
the twentieth century came particularly from the pio-
neers of bushwalking (i.e. wilderness backpacking).
Recognising that many wildemess areas were threat-
ened by alienation for forestry, agriculture, army train-
ing grounds and water storage schemes, they formed the
National Parks and Primitive Areas Council with the
aim of lobbying the government to establish parks.
Their inspiration came from the United States National
Park Service and from the concept of wilderness areas
adopted by the United States Forest Service. Fourteen
major parks were established largely as a result of the
Council’s campaigns to preserve them as wilderness for
recreational purposes (Dunphy, 1979).

In the other States, interest groups also placed pres-
sure on their governments to establish parks. Ovington
(1980) listed 24 examples of important nature conser-
vation areas in all States and the Northern Territory that

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Australia

Area in
CategoriesI-V %

Country

Australia 814,026
Christmas Island 87
Cocos (Keeling) Island 0
Norfolk Island 0

7,682,300

7,682,487 814,113

Total area
designated %

Area in Categories
VI-VIIIandUA = %

0.3 837,843

nature protection function are generally included.

Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover.

were given protection between 1900 and 1940, and
became the nucleus of the national park system in later
years.

The parks were established by a variety of legislative
mechanisms. In New South Wales, for example, each
park was the responsibility of a group of trustees ap-
pointed by the Department of Lands. During the period
1955 to 1965 a more structured approach to national
parks administration became evident in three jurisdic-
tions, with the passage of legislation specifically pro-
viding for the establishment of national parks.

The Wild Life Preservation Society of Australia sought
to convince the New South Wales government to estab-
lish reserves specifically for the protection of wildlife.
This goal was eventually achieved in 1949 with the
passing of the Fauna Protection Act (Strom, 1979).
Similar developments occurred in other States, e.g.
Wester Australia (Ride, 1975).

The Period 1967-1979. In 1967, New South Wales
passed the National Parks and Wildlife Act, which
integrated the management of national parks and wild-
life throughout the State under the newly established
National Parks and Wildlife Service. This comprehen-
sive nature conservation legislation was later used as a
model by the other States and Territories (Turner, 1979
cited in Frawley, 1988).

The Australian Conservation Foundation (a national,
non-government conservation organisation) issued a
publication concerning the national parks of Australia
(Mosley, 1968) and the Australian Academy of Science
published more detailed information soon afterwards
(Australian Academy of Science, 1968). The two pub-
lications provided a summary of the achievements of
the previous ninety years since the establishment of the
first national park in 1879.

The Academy’s report showed that in each State
separate systems of terrestrial protected areas had de-
veloped, one comprising national parksestablished largely

210

for recreational and aesthetic purposes and the other
comprising reserves for the protection of wildlife. They
also showed that a variety of terminology was employed
to categorise parks and reserves. Only in New South
Wales had an integrated approach to the management
of national parks and wildlife been achieved, and that
only in the previous year. The report stressed that all of
the protected areas provided protection to habitat largely
in a natural state, and thus were of critical importance
to nature conservation. The report also showed that the
concept of marine parks was in its infancy.

Data in the Academy’s report showed that the per-
centage of the land area of each State that was devoted
to protected areas at June 1968 ranged from a low of
0.6% in Queensland (which is the second largest State
in terms of total area) to 4.2% in Tasmania (the smallest
State). The Australia-wide average was 1.2%.

In 1967, an annual series of conferences of govern-
ment Ministers having responsibility for national parks
was initiated. At first, only the States were involved, but
the Australian Government also participated from 1969,
as a result of its responsibility for parks and reserves in
the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.
In 1969, a parallel series of meetings concerning wild-
life conservation commenced. The mutual interest of
the two groups was such that by 1974 it was decided to
combine forces and establish the Council of Nature
Conservation Ministers, with all Australian Govern-
ment and State Ministers having responsibility for na-
tional parks and/or wildlife conservation participating.
By that time, several of the States had followed the lead
of New South Wales and combined the two responsi-
bilities in one agency.

Major conflicts over nature conservation matters
sparked public debate during the 1970s. Many were
concemed with mining, timber harvesting or construc-
tion of hydro-electric dams on public lands that were
essentially wilderness, but not adequately protected. Be-
cause of concern about the impact of these developments,

Australia

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Australia

I Il

Area No. Area

Australia 73 25,835 350
Christmas I
Cocos (Keeling) Is

Norfolk I

633,123
87

Notes:
function are generally included.

national park status was sought in order to prevent
exploitation, but the respective State governments were
not always sympathetic to this tactic (Ovington, 1980).
Indeed, in some situations, national park status provided
no guarantee of protection, as governments sought to
revoke parks or change their boundaries in order to
accommodate the requirements of resource exploitation.

There was also concern about wildlife management,
particularly in relation to the commercial exploitation
of kangaroos. Management of kangaroos is the respon-
sibility of the States, but if the products are exported
from Australia, they become an Australian Government
responsibility because trade with other countries is a
power specifically vested in the Australian Government
by the Constitution. The Australian Parliament appointed
an Inquiry inio Wildlife Conservation which reported
in 1972. The terms of reference covered not only kan-
garoos, but also other native wildlife, survey methods,
adequacy of reserve systems, threats to survival, and
mechanisms to ensure better conservation management
(House of Representatives Select Committee, 1972).

Two significant actions in 1975 had their origins in
the recommendations of the Inquiry. They were the
establishment of the Australian National Parks and Wild-
life Service (ANPWS) and the Great Barrier Reef Ma-
rine Park Authority (GBRMPA) as Australian Gov-
ernment agencies.

In 1974 another Inquiry issued its report. The Com-
mittee of Inquiry into the National Estate had been
appointed by the Australian Government and it now
urged that government to "press on with all speed in the
work of identifying and conserving" Australia’s cul-
tural and natural heritage of national and international
significance (Committee of Inquiry into the National
Estate, 1974). An important outcome of the Inquiry was
the passing of legislation enabling the Australian Gov-
emment to provide financial assistance to the States for
Nature conservation programmes. The legislation was
used for several years during the late 1970s to assist with
the acquisition of land for incorporation into parks or
reserves (Goldstein, 1979).

211

IV
No. Area

Vv
No. Area

TOTAL

Area No. Area

245 105,679 64 49,374 733 814,026

245

105,679

64 49374 734 814,113

Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection

In 1974 the results of a project initiated by the
Australian Academy of Science during the 1960s to
consider the conservation status of the major plant com-
munities of Australia, as part of its contribution to the
International Biological Programme, became available
(Specht et al., 1974). The conservation status of each
major plant community in each State was assessed
according to the degree to which it was represented in
a park or reserve. The Academy recognised that it would
be preferable to survey ecosystems rather than plant
communities, but because of resource constraints it was
decided to concentrate on vegetation, with the expecta-
tion that conserving plant communities adequately would
result in the conservation of the habitat of most animal
species, provided that special provision was made for
migratory species (Specht et al, 1974).

At a symposium organised by the Australian Acad-
emy of Science, Specht (1975) recommended that at
least one reasonably large sample of each major ecosys-
tem in each biogeographical division of each State
should be incorporated into an "ecological reserve",
either by designating the whole or part of existing
national parks and other nature conservation reserves as
ecological reserves, or, where necessary, by acquisition
of land. It was recognised that the ecological reserves
proposed by Specht were similar in concept to Bio-
sphere Reserves (Frankel, 1975; Slatyer, 1975). The
Australian Man and the Biosphere Committee was es-
tablished and it approached State and Australian Gov-
ernment authorities to seek suggestions for prospective
Biosphere Reserves. Five areas were nominated to UNESCO
in 1976 and accepted in the following year and seven
more nominations were accepted in subsequent years.

During the 1970s Australia became a party to two
international treaties with significant implications for
protected areas, the Ramsar Convention and the World
Heritage Convention, but only one site was nominated
for listing during the decade. This was the Cobourg
Peninsula Fauna and Flora Reserve in the Northern
Territory, which was the first site included on the List
of Wetlands of International Importance. The relative

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)

500

Number of sites

400

300

200

100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)

1,000
Number of sites

300 Area (x1 000sqkm)

600

400

200

0 Ss ee Bee
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

212

Australia

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Australia

% area Date Total
established established area
1982-1991 unknown designated

% area
established
1972-1981

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established
up to 1962

Australia

Christmas Island
Cocos (Keeling) Island
Norfolk Island

143,056 814,026
87

143,056 814,113

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for
IUCN management categories I—V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in
size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted.

powers of the Australian Government and the State
governments in relation to international treaties became
a topic of intense debate at this time, which inhibited
further nominations. Australia’s adherence to interna-
tional conservation treaties and programmes is summa-
rized in Table 4.

By the end of the period 1967-1979, every State had
revised its protected areas legislation and administra-
tion and three more States (Queensland, South Australia
and Tasmania) had established an integrated National
Parks and Wildlife Service. In the other two States
(Victoria and Western Australia), updated national parks
legislation had been passed and National Parks Authori-
ties established, but wildlife management still remained
the responsibility of a separate agency.

Several of the States established mechanisms for
systematically evaluating the need for additional pro-
tected areas and began programmes to acquire addi-
tional land for this purpose. In Western Australia, for
example, the government appointed the Conservation
Through Reserves Committee to make recommenda-
tions for new parks and reserves. In Victoria, the Land
Conservation Council was established to investigate
and make recommendations on the balanced use of
public land and it recommended several new protected
areas which would contribute to a truly representative
system derived from existing public land (Goldstein,
1979). During this period there was a marked increase

in the area occupied by terrestrial protected areas in
Australia, as Table 8, derived from Ovington (1980),
indicates.

The data in Table 8 should be interpreted cautiously
because of differences in terminology and definitions
relating to parks and reserves in the various States, but
nevertheless, they show considerable gains during the
period 1968-1978; this trend is further confirmed in
Table 3, derived from data held at WCMC, which
indicates a rapid growth in the period 1972-1981, when
some 74.9% of the present protected areas system was
established. For Australia as a whole, the area added to
terrestrial parks and reserves in the decade was almost
twice as great as that added during the 90 years previous
to 1968 (Figures 1 and 2). In Western Australia there
had been an increase from only 0.5% of the State in
protected areas in 1968 to 5.0% in 1978. Tasmania still
had the largest percentage, having more than doubled
the area of its protected areas to reach 10% of the State
in 1978.

During this period, the Australian Government began
to adopt a higher profile in respect of protected areas.
Until 1975, its role was limited to its territorial respon-
sibilities in the Australian Capital Territory and the
Northern Territory. By the end of the period, both the
ANPWS and the GBRMPA had been established and
for the first time the Australian Government was play-
ing a national role in relation to nature conservation and
to protected areas.

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Australia

World Heritage
Date No. Area (ha) No.

Biosphere Reserves Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention
Area (ha) Date No. Area (ha)

August 1974 10 42,167,718 12 4,743,223 4,481,346

May 1974 40

213

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

The period also saw growing awareness of the need
for marine conservation. This was reflected in the es-
tablishment of the GBRMPA and procedures to create
a major marine park to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
The IUCN International Conference on Marine Parks
held in Japan in 1975 provided an opportunity for
Australia to establish contact with marine park expertise
elsewhere in the world.

The non-government conservation movement contin-
ued to grow. The Tasmanian Wildemess Society began
to coordinate campaigns to protect wilderness areas of
Tasmania, particularly from hydro-electric development
schemes. The Australian Conservation Foundation in-
creased its influence as it brought many conservation
issues to public attention and it instigated a series of
National Wilderness Conferences (Mosley, 1978; Messer
and Mosley, 1980).

In the mid-1970s, concern about competing land-use
claims in the area known as the Alligator Rivers Region,
in the tropical north of the Northern Territory, resulted
in a major public Inquiry initiated by the Australian
Government. The recommendations of the Inquiry led
to a resolution which sought to balance the interests of
Aboriginal people, the mining and tourism industries,
and the significant conservation values of the area.
Uranium mining was allowed under strictly controlled
conditions in a specified location. The traditional
Aboriginal owners of land in the Region were identi-
fied under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights
Act and were granted title to that land, which they then
leased to the ANPWS for the purposes of a national
park. In April 1979 Stage 1 of Kakadu National Park
was declared under the National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Act of the Australian Parliament.

In 1979 the centenary of the establishment of Australia’s
first national park was celebrated. By that time there
were two national parks under the legislation adminis-
tered by the ANPWS, both in the Northern Territory.
The first had been established at Ayers Rock in 1977
and the second was Kakadu. The Northern Territory had
been granted self-government in 1978 and the Territory’s
nature conservation agency had responsibility for all
other national parks, and for nature conservation gener-
ally, throughout the Territory.

Thus, by the centenary year of 1979 there were eight
nature conservation agencies with responsibility for
national parks in Australia, representing the six States,
the Northern Territory, and the Australian Government.
To mark the centenary, Australia’s 100 Years of
National Parks was published. It contained historical
accounts of the growth of national parks in Australia
and information on the park estate, policies, legislation,
administrative structures and plans for the future
(Goldstein, 1979).

The Period 1980-1991. During the 1980s the World
Heritage Convention had a major influence on attitudes

214

towards protected areas in Australia. Some of the diffi-
culties between the Australian Government and the
States which had inhibited nominations to the World
Heritage List were resolved and the first nominations
were made in 1980. Further nominations followed in
subsequent years and there are now nine sites on the
List. (Table 5).

Table 5. World Heritage sites in Australia

Australia
Australian East Coast Temperate and Sub-
Tropical Rain Forest Parks
Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region
Great Barrier Reef
Kakadu National Park

Lord Howe Island Group

Shark Bay

Uluru (Ayers Rock Mount Olga) National
Park

Tasmania Wilderness

Wet Tropical Rain Forests of Queensland

Willandra Lakes Region

In 1983 intense public concern developed over plans
by the Tasmanian Government to proceed with a major
hydro-electric dam project within the Tasmanian World
Heritage Area. Non-government conservation organi-
sations urged the Australian Government to take action
to prevent the dam from being built, arguing that, al-
though the site was under Tasmanian jurisdiction, the
Australian Government was obliged to intervene be-
cause of its ultimate responsibility, as the national gov-
ernment, for implementation of international treaties.

The Australian Parliament enacted a law providing
the power to prohibit actions which might damage or
destroy a World Heritage site, even though situated in
a State, and used that power to prohibit construction of
the dam. The Constitutional validity of the legislation
was subsequently upheld by the High Court. This con-
firmation of the Australian Government’s power in
relation to the World Heritage Convention encouraged
non-government conservation organisations to seek World
Heritage Listing as a means to safeguard significant
sites which they considered were inadequately pro-
tected by State governments. This approach led to the
World Heritage Listing of the rainforests of the wet
tropics region of Queensland in 1988 and a major ex-
pansion of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area in 1989,
with concomitant cessation of forestry activities in both
areas.

The State and Australian Government Ministers re-
sponsible for nature conservation had issued a report in
1979 which concluded that there was strong justifica-
tion for the establishment of a system of marine parks
and reserves in Australia (Ivanovici, 1984) and the

1980s saw a significant expansion in that respect. The
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which covers 34.5
million hectares, was established to protect the world’s
largest expanse of living coral reefs and their associated
marine life. In 1982 and 1983 the first national nature
reserves were established under ANPWS legislation to
protect coral cays, reefs, territorial waters and parts of
the continental shelf in two of the Australian External
Territories: the Coral Sea Islands in the South Pacific
Ocean; and Ashmore and Cartier Islands in the Timor
Sea. State agencies, including those responsible for
fisheries as well as nature conservation agencies, began
to assess their existing marine protected areas and to
plan for more.

In 1984, the ANPWS published an inventory of ma-
rine and estuarine protected areas established by legis-
lation and managed by government agencies responsible
for national parks, wildlife, fisheries or historic ship-
wrecks, as well as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
as at30 November 1983 (Ivanovici, 1984). This was the
first time that such information for all jurisdictions in
Australia had been brought together.

As well as establishing several marine national nature
reserves, which included coral cays, the ANPWS also
established national parks on two oceanic islands in
External Territories: Norfolk Island in the South Pacific
Ocean and Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean. The

Australia

creation of the ANPWS as the Australian Government
nature conservation agency now provided the means by
which protection could be achieved for the significant
conservation values of some of the oceanic islands and
cays for which Australia is responsible.

In 1989, the Australian Capital Territory attained
self-government, and responsibility for protected areas
in that Territory was transferred from the Australian
Government to the Territorial government.

In the early 1980s the ANPWS undertook the role of
collecting statistics on protected areas in Australia.
They have been published approximately every two
years in a series entitled Nature Conservation Reserves
in Australia. At first, only terrestrial reserves managed
by the principal nature conservation agencies were in-
cluded in the survey, but subsequently coverage was
extended to include all reserves that are terrestrial,
marine and/or estuarine, managed primarily for nature
conservation purposes, and under the jurisdiction of an
Australian Government, State or Territory agency res-
ponsible for nature conservation, forestry, fisheries, or
regional management.

The latest edition of the series provides statistics as at
31 December 1988 (Mobbs, 1989). The series shows
that the area of Australia protected in parks and reserves
continued to expand during the 1980s. A summary of
information from the latest edition is provided in Section 2.

Table 6. Government funding provided to the nine principal nature conservation
agencies and the GBRMPA for management of protected areas, year ending

June 1990 (after Wescott, 1991)

Jurisdiction

Funding (US$ million)

Australian Government
ANPWS

GBRMPA

New South Wales
Queensland

South Australia
Tasmania

Victoria

Western Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

OF
7.0
44.4
20.6
10.8
12.1
25.5
11.1
39
6.6

Note: Figures are approximate and are not comparable between jurisaictions because of differences in the
structure and responsibility of agencies. The table does not include State and Territory agencies
which have responsibility only for marine areas or for forests.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Active participation in the Ramsar Convention in-
creased markedly during the period 1980-1991 and all
States except one nominated sites for inclusion in the
List of Wetlands of International Importance. There are
now 40 wetlands on the List and there is a strong
possibility that sites in Queensland may be nominated
soon.

During this period, Australia became a party to two
regional treaties which require commitment to the es-
tablishment of protected areas: the Convention for the
Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment
of the South Pacific Region (the SPREP Convention)
and the Convention on Conservation of Nature in the
South Pacific (the Apia Convention).

1.2 Factors influencing the
establishment of protected area

systems

The factors influencing the establishment of the various
protected area systems in Australia have been men-
tioned in the historical survey above. Black and Breck-
woldt (1977) identified four features that seemed to be
common to the national parks systems of the various
States:

@ atendency for policies and practices to diffuse from
the USA to Australia and from one State to another
within Australia;

movement away from a situation in which control of
national parks was decentralised and in the hands of
trustees or statutory boards to one in which control
is centralised and in the hands of a government
minister;

movement away from viewing the primary purpose of
national parks as recreational and towards increasing
recognition of their scientific significance and their
nature conservation function; and

an increasing trend to provide protection for parks
against revocation and antithetical uses, although
parks were still not absolutely secure.

Hall (1988) considered that Australia’s national parks
are not purely the result of aesthetic and ecological
considerations, but also reflect the materialist percep-
tion that only lands that have no perceived alternative
economic value should be used for national parks. While
this rather negative view may have some validity, the
nature conservation agencies themselves cannot be ac-
cused of such motives. The accounts of their policies
provided in Goldstein (1979) shows that they were
seeking, within the constraints of limited resources, to
establish a network of reserves that protected a repre-
sentative sample of ecological systems within their
areas of jurisdiction, as well as providing protection for
sites of aesthetic and cultural value and catering for
recreational needs.

216

A motivating factor behind the establishment of ma-
rine protected areas in earlier years was the protection
of fish nursery areas. Now there is increased emphasis
on a broader range of values, and many marine pro-
tected areas are managed as multiple use areas, with a
zoning system to provide for separation of activities.

2. Current protected area coverage

2.1. Protected area systems

Each of the nine jurisdictions (the Australian Govern-
ment, six States and two self-governing Territories), has
a government agency having principal responsibility
for nature conservation. Together, they are responsible
for the management of a large proportion of the pro-
tected areas in Australia. In addition, the Australian
Government has the GBRMPA, which is responsible
for the largest protected area in the Region, the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park. Several State and Territory
forestry and fisheries agencies also maintain protected
area systems. Mobbs (1989) provides information on all
of those protected areas systems as at 31 December
1988. Data from that publication, with certain modifi-
cations, are presented in Table 9 to show the number of
protected areas, both terrestrial and marine, and their
total area, for which the various agencies are responsi-
ble in each of the nine jurisdictions.

In the table, protected areas established under
Australian Government legislation are listed against the
Australian Government even though they are situated
in a State or self-governing Territory. The only excep-
tion is that areas situated in the Australian Capital
Territory are listed against that Territory, even though
the Australian Government was technically responsible
for parks and reserves there until the following year,
when self-government was granted. Another difference
between the data in the table and those provided by
Mobbs (1989) is that an area counted as one marine park
by the latter is treated as two separate marine parks in
the table, because it actually comprises two adjoining
areas which are proclaimed separately under State and
Australian Government legislation.

The table indicates that at 31 December 1988, there
were 3,225 terrestrial protected areas in Australia, oc-
cupying 40,781,000ha, that is, about 5.3% of the land
area (Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of total land
area within protected areas in 1992). In addition, there
were 229 marine protected areas covered a total area of
36,605,410ha, that is, about 4.1% of the Australian
Fishing Zone. About 94% of that total area is occupied
by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which has an
area of approximately 34,500,000ha. The total of 229
includes 89 areas that form marine components of pro-
tected areas which are predominantly terrestrial and
which are included in the total of 3,225 terrestrial pro-
tected areas referred to in the previous paragraph. Those
89 areas occupy 172,900ha.

The total number of protected areas in the Region at
the end of 1988 can be calculated by adding the 3,225
terrestrial areas and 229 marine areas and subtracting
the 89 marine areas that are double-counted, as ex-
plained in the previous paragraph. This gives a total of
3,365 protected areas. Similarly, those 3,365 protected
areas occupy (40,781,000 + 36,605,410 —172,900)ha,
that is, 77,213,510ha.

Subsequently an updated set of figures have been
published (Hooy and Shaughnessy, 1992). This indi-
cates an increased level of protection as of 30 June 1991,
with 3,429 terrestrial protected areas (50,139,421ha),
and 158 marine protected areas (39,638,652), giving a
total 89,778,073ha. The largest increase has been in
South Australia, from 11.1 million ha in terrestrial
protected areas (Mobbs, 1989) to 16.7 million ha (Hooy
and Shaughnessy, 1992).

2.2 Categories of protected areas
Australia has no universally agreed classification sys-
tem for protected areas. Each agency within each juris-
diction has adopted terminology that suits its particular
circumstances, resulting in a large variety of protected
area designations or categories. The most widely used
categories are "national park" and "nature reserve".
There are more than 500 national parks distributed
throughout all nine jurisdictions and about 1,400 nature
reserves in four jurisdictions.

In the preparation of this Review, the question of
classification of protected areas inevitably arose
(Tables 1 and 2 summarise the Australian protected area
system according to the IUCN management category
scheme). Of particular concem was how to relate the
classifications used within Australia to the IUCN cate-
gories of protected areas, and to the selection of pro-
tected areas that appears in the United Nations List of
National Parks and Protected Areas. The classification
of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park caused some
debate. The whole of the Marine Park is protected and
it conforms to the definition of a marine protected area
as adopted by the IUCN General Assembly:

“Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together
with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna,
historical and cultural features, which has been reserved
by legislation to protect part or all of the enclosed
environment.”

Five per cent of the area of the Marine Park falls
within IUCN Categories I and II, while the remainder
lies within Categories IV and V. The legislation under
which the Marine Park is established provides for all
parts of the Park to be subject to a zoning plan. Protec-
tion of the entire Marine Park is the overriding respon-
sibility of the GBRMPA, as defined in its legislation.
The Authority is empowered to create the levels of
protection needed to achieve its conservation goals.
Furthermore, the legislation specifically provides that
no mining or mineral prospecting may occur in the Park.

217

Australia

Clearly the Park is a protected area, but equally clearly,
the entire Park cannot be characterised as Category I or
II. Does such categorisation matter? The fact that the
Great Barrier Reef is also inscribed on the World Heri-
tage List is perhaps significant in trying to understand
the relative importance of the protected area classifica-
tion. According to Hooy and Shaughnessy (1992), the
Great Barrier Reef is currently classified as Category V,
as defined in the interim 1990 IUCN reclassification of
protected areas management categories.

Less well known internationally, the Regional
Reserves in South Australia also do not appear to fall
into the categories given most attention in the United
Nations List, yet they perform a vital function in the
protected area network in the central arid region of
Australia.

This raises the question whether classifications are
necessary or relevant. Perhaps we should aim to de-
emphasise protected area categorisation and concen-
trate instead on the management and functionality of the
protected areas and their context in the surrounding
landscape and/or seascape.

The application of the World Heritage Convention
has been a contentious issue in Australia at times. The
original nominations of the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu
National Park Stage 1, Uluru National Park and Lord
Howe Island aroused little comment within Australia,
and were well regarded internationally. Nomination of
the East Coast Rainforests of New South Wales created
more attention, especially the decision not to include the
adjacent parts of Queensland, even though they are
ecologically continuous. Nevertheless, the nominated
site was inscribed on the List.

In comparison witness the controversy over the
Tasmanian World Heritage Area, with the State Gov-
emment fiercely contesting the Australian Govern-
ment’s right to protect it, the nomination of Kakadu
Stage 2, opposed by the Government of the Northern
Territory, and the Wet Tropics of Queensland, whose
nomination was opposed with particular tenacity by the
Queensland Government. Internationally, there was no
doubt over the worth of these areas, and they were
appropriately inscribed on the List.

Much of the opposition, if analysed critically, was
less to do with World Heritage values, and more to do
with a perception that the Australian Government was
ignoring the wishes of the States. There are still residual
tensions over these issues, but the opposition from the
State Governments has diminished from the peak of the
mid- to late 1980s. Indeed, some States are now arguing
for areas to be nominated which would probably not
qualify! The lesson here is that protected area designa-
tions, especially those of international status, need care-
ful treatment, and explanation to an often largely ignorant
public.

Table 10 uses data from Mobbs (1989) to show the
categories of protected areas, both terrestrial and

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

marine, in the various jurisdictions in Australia, as at
31 December 1988.

As noted earlier, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
which covers some 34.5 million hectares, accounts for
94% of the total area occupied by marine protected
areas. The Marine Park is managed as a multiple-use
region which allows for reasonable human use while
still ensuring the protection of the Reef. Zoning enables
conflicting activities to be separated, and allow for uses
such as diving, reef-walking, recreational and commer-
cial fishing and for general tourist activities. There are
three major categories of zones:

1. Preservation and Scientific Zones (equivalent to
IUCN Category I), with a total area of 66,400ha,
or 0.2% of the Marine Park.

2. Marine National Park Zones, including Buffer
Zones (equivalent to IUCN Category II), with a
total area of 1,668,700ha, or 4.8% of the Marine
Park.

3. General Use Zones (equivalent to IUCN Cate-
gories IV and V), with a total area of 32,746,900ha,
or 95% of the Marine Park.

Table 5 summarises the number of sites that have
achieved international recognition as Biosphere Re-
serves, World Heritage Sites or Wetlands of Interna-
tional Significance. In most cases the sites are also
designated protected areas in one of the categories listed
in Table 10.

3. Additional protected areas
required

While the acquisition of protected areas has not neces-
sarily been carried out on a systematic basis in the past,
several of the agencies now have a formal commitment
to the establishment of a protected area system which
represents all major ecosystems within their area of
jurisdiction. One of the corporate goals of the New
South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service is to
work towards the development of a reserve system
which samples the complete range of natural and cul-
tural environments of the State. The Queensland Na-
tional Parks and Wildlife Service has recently been
charged by its government with the task of doubling the
national park estate of Queensland to achieve maximum
representation of the State’s biodiversity within the park
system. In Victoria, the Department of Conservation
and Environment has stated that one of its aims is to
establish a network of parks that protects a representative
sample of Victoria’s habitats and scenic and cultural
features, while providing opportunities for environ-
mental education, research and public recreation. The
Department of Conservation and Land Management in
Westem Australia has a commitment to establish and
maintain a system of secure reserves which protect
viable representative samples of all the State’s natural
ecosystems and species, both terrestrial and aquatic, as

218

well as areas of archaeological, historic or scientific
importance, or of natural beauty suitable for recreation,
and areas for the production of renewable natural re-
sources.

At the national level, the ANPWS initiated the Na-
tional Index of Ecosystems programme in 1984 in order
to assist the States and Territories to adopt a systematic
approach to their protected area network. The pro-
gramme is reviewing the application of major ecosys-
tem classifications covering Australia and developing
methods and providing assistance to State and Territory
agencies to identify and conserve major ecosystems
within their jurisdiction. The programme uses the com-
puterised database facilities of the Environmental Re-
sources Information Network which was established in
1990 to provide geographically-related environmental
information for planning and decision-making.

In 1990 the Australian Government initiated a pro-
gramme to incorporate the philosophy of ecologically
sustainable development into all facets of Australian
life. Working groups were established to consider how
to apply that philosophy to the various sectors of the
Australian economy. The programme recognises that
conservation of biological diversity is essential for eco-
logically sustainable development and there is increas-
ing acknowledgement that the conservation of biologi-
cal diversity requires that landscapes and seascapes be
managed within a bioregional framework with a net-
work of protected areas representative of all major
ecosystems integrated into that framework.

For marine areas, the Australian Government recently
launched the Ocean Rescue 2000 programme, which is
expected to run for the next decade. The Government is
to provide significant financial resources to enable the
development of a marine conservation strategy, a state-
of-the-marine-environment report, and a national sys-
tem of marine protected areas. The programme is being
implemented through cooperative working groups with
representatives from Australian Government, State and
Territory agencies. A major conference on marine and
estuarine protected areas in 1991, sponsored by the
Australian Committee for IUCN and attended by sev-
eral hundred people, provided a significant stimulus to
this process.

Studies of ecological coverage also point to increases
needed in the protected area system. The study by
Specht er al. (1974), mentioned earlier, attempted to
assess the extent to which the terrestrial plant alliances
of Australia were conserved in protected areas. The
results indicated that Tasmania was at that time the only
State where more than a quarter of the plant alliances
could be considered to have an excellent conservation
status and that, even there, the percentage was only
28%. In four States, less than 3% of alliances rated as
excellent. At the other extreme, the percentage of alli-
ances whose conservation status was classed as poor or
nil ranged from 25% in Tasmania to 78% in Queensland.

Australia

Table 7. The sites first named "national park" in each State (after Black and Breckwoldt,
1977)

Location

New South Wales Port Hacking
South Australia Belair

Victoria Tower Hill
Westem Australia Greenmount
Queensland Witches Falls
Tasmania Mount Field

Note: In several cases, the name of the park has changed and/or the area of the park has increased, since the
original proclamation.

Table 8. Area occupied by terrestrial protected areas, 1968 and 1978 (after Ovington,

Total Area Percentage of Total Area in Terrestrial
State or Territory (x 000 ha) Protected Areas

Australian Capital Territory 243
New South Wales 80,177
Northern Territory 134,809
Queensland 172,826
South Australia 98,483
Tasmania 6,836
Victoria 22,771
Westem Australia 252,870
Australia 769,015

Table 9. Protected areas under the jurisdiction of government agencies, 31 December
1988 (after Mobbs, 1989)

Terrestrial Marine
Jurisdiction Protected Areas Protected Areas
Area (ha) is Area (ha)
Australian Government — ANPWS 1,895,489 2,105,410
Australian Government -GBRMPA 0 34,500,000
New South Wales ‘ 3,812,165 7,255
Queensland 3,663,769 1,088,294

South Australia 11,117,167 33,717
Tasmania 966,997 24,060
Victoria 1,829,983 49,586
Wester Australia 15,252,213 241,395
Australian Capital Territory 107,321 0
Northern Territory 2,135,826 229,251

219

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 10. Categories of protected areas in Australia, December 1988 (from Mobbs, 1989)

Category Jurisdiction b Area (ha)

Terrestrial Protected Areas
Aboriginal areas 11,520
Aboriginal sites 1,243
Conservation areas 32,456
Conservation parks 4,078,109
Conservation reserves 33,778
Cons./recreation res. WA 12,611
Environmental parks Qld 48,057
Fauna refuges Qld 6,445
Fauna reserves Qld 25,906
Feature protection areas Qid 1,198
Flora reserves NSW 35,012
Flora & fauna reserves Vic 48,806
Forest reserves Tas 17,151
Game reserves SA, Tas 25,273
Historic sites NSW, Tas 3,365
Historical reserves NT 5,726
Hunting reserves 1,605
Muttonbird reserves 9,288
National parks 18,611,655
Native forest reserves 17,610
Nature parks 23,841
Nature reserves 11,123,781

Other areas 1,528,663
Other parks 442,953
Other reserves 7,021
Recreation parks 4,536
Reference areas 27,291
Regional reserves 4,345,965
Reserves 7,821
Scientific areas 18,400
Scientific reserves 41 634
State recreation areas 59,880
State reserves 20,534
Wildlife reserves 101,796

Marine Protected Areas
Aquatic life reserves 151
Aquatic reserves NSW, SA,WA 16,495
Conservation areas Tas 3,481
Fish habitat reserves Qld 426,943
Fish sanctuaries Qld 3,343
Historic shipwreck Aust, NT, Qld
protected zones SA,Vic, WA 896
Marine parks Aust, NT, 35,104,200
Qld, Vic, WA
Marine reserves Vic, Tas 6,502
National nature reserves Aust 1,975,500
Waters managed in sympathy ACT 800
Wetland reserves Qld 567,774
Marine components of terrestrial reserves All 172,883

Notes: ACT = Australian Capital Territory; Aust = Australian Government; NSW = New South Wales;
NT = Northem Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; Vic = Victoria;
WA = Wester Australia

220

Since that time, the nature conservation agencies have
committed themselves to improving the representation
of ecosystems in their protected area networks, but their
ability to achieve that aim is constrained by lack of
resources, by competition for land-use and by past
land-use decisions which limit the areas now available
for reservation. The National Index of Ecosystems pro-
gramme and comparable State programmes are attempt-
ing to bring a systematic approach to the classification
of ecosystems.

A project carried out in 1991 used computerised data
in the Environmental Resources Information Network
concerning land tenure and vegetation types to assess
the representation in nature conservation reserves,
Australia-wide, of 24 vegetation growth form classes.
The results showed that for four of those classes more
than 20% of the total area was included in reserves. For
another seven classes, between 10% and 20% of the
total area was included in reserves. Seven classes had
less than 5% representation.

As the concept of ecologically sustainable develop-
ment becomes broadly accepted throughout the nation,
the importance of developing a system of protected
areas that is representative of all major ecosystems will
assume increasing importance nationally. Such a sys-
tem would require increased coordination among the
various management agencies to ensure that the pro-
tected area networks in the various political jurisdic-
tions complement each other to form a national system.
At the same time, those agencies will need to combat a
developing tendency among industry-oriented groups
to claim that the aim of achieving ecologically sustain-
able development justifies revocation of protected ar-
eas, excisions from them, and the conversion of totally
protected sites to multiple-use areas.

South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland
have recently developed proposals for a significant
expansion of their protected area networks involving
new parks in the arid, northern and subtropical regions
of their States.

Australia

4. Protected area institutions

The protected areas summarised in Tables 1, 2 and 10
are managed by a variety of government agencies. Each
of the nine jurisdictions has a principal nature conser-
vation agency with responsibility for the establishment
and management of national parks and other protected
areas (Table 11). In some cases, itis a statutory authority
in its own right while in others it is a part of a larger
government department.

In two instances, forestry is also the responsibility of
the principal nature conservation agency, whereas in the
other jurisdictions that function is carried out by a
separate government agency. Some of those forestry
agencies have established protected areas for nature
conservation purposes within the native forests which
they manage. In some cases the principal nature conser-
vation agency has responsibility for marine areas as
well as terrestrial areas, but in other jurisdictions, ma-
rine protected areas are administered by separate fish-
eries agencies. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is
managed by the GBRMPA, a regional management
agency established by the Australian Government.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

The nine governments in Australia provide funding for
their agencies in their annual budgets, part of which is
applied to the management of the protected areas for
which they are responsible. Table 6 gives approximate
figures for government allocations to the principal
Nature conservation agencies and the GBRMPA spe-
cifically for the management of protected areas in the
year ending 30 June 1990. The values are in millions of
United States dollars (one Australian dollar = approxi-
mately 77 United States cents).

Table 11. Government agencies with jurisdiction for protected areas in Australia

Australian Government
e@ Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service
(ANPWS)

@ Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)

New South Wales

@ National Parks and Wildlife Service

e@ Forestry Commission

e@ Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

Queensland

e@ National Parks and Wildlife Service

e@ Forest Service, Department of Primary Industries

e Division of Fisheries and Wetlands Management,
Department of Primary Industries

South Australia

e@ National Parks and Wildlife Service
e@ Woods and Forests Department

221

e@ Department of Fisheries

Tasmania

e Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage
e Forestry Commission

Victoria
@ Department of Conservation and Environment

Western Australia
e Department of Conservation and Land Management

Australian Capital Territory
e Parks and Conservation Service

Northern Territory

e@ Conservation Commission
e Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 12. Visitor numbers to protected areas managed by the nine principal nature
conservation agencies and the GBRMPA, year ending June 1990 (after

Wescott, 1991)

Australian Government
ANPWS

GBRMPA

New South Wales
Queensland

South Australia
Tasmania

Victoria

Wesiern Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

Note:

Jurisdiction Visitor Numbers

Total 47,210,000

500,000
2,500,000
17,500,000
6,570,000
2,000,000
740,000
8,800,000
3,600,000
2,500,000
2,500,000

Figures are approximate and are not comparable between jurisdictions because of differences in the structure and

responsibility of agencies. The table does not include State and Territory agencies which have responsibility only

for marine areas or for forests.

Many protected areas in Australia are important tour-
ist destinations and thus important generators of reve-
nue. The Great Barrier Reef, Kosciusko, Kakadu and
Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Parks, and
the Tasmanian Wildemess World Heritage Area, in
particular, are well-known and attract thousands of
visitors from overseas every year, as well as large
numbers of people from all over Australia.

Table 12, summarises estimates of visitor numbers to
protected areas managed by the nine principal nature
conservation agencies and the GBRMPA in the year
ended 30 June 1990. The total of some 47 million can
be compared to Australia’s population of 16.7 million.

The management agencies derive income from fees
imposed on visitors (e.g. entry fees and camping fees)
but these are not charged at all parks. In the more remote
areas of Australia the cost of collecting fees could
exceed the income derived from them. Permit charges
imposed on commercial tourism operators who take
groups of visitors into parks, and thus use the parks as
a resource, also provide revenue to park management
agencies. In some parks commercial photographers are
required to pay fees for the right to use those parks as a
resource.

Figures on the revenue derived from tourism in
protected areas is not generally available, but the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park derives about US$ 3.9 million
annually from charges, and Kakadu and Uluru National
Parks earned a total of US $1.65 million in the year
ending 30 June 1991 as direct revenue, mainly from

222

park use fees, including those charged to commercial
operators.

In some States, non-government organisations raise
funds to assist government agencies. For example, in
recent years the National Parks and Wildlife Foundation
of New South Wales has provided financial support to
the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife
Service for the operation of a seasonal ranger pro-
gramme and for the construction of walking tracks and
interpretative displays in national parks.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

All nature conservation agencies have a head office in
their capital city with staff mainly engaged in adminis-
trative and policy matters. In some cases, head office
staff also prepare management plans, educational and
publicity materials, and interpretative displays and they
may be responsible for research programmes in parks.
Other agency staff are stationed in regional headquar-
ters while park superintendents and rangers generally
reside in, or adjacent to, many of the larger parks.

Table 13 provides an indication of the number of
people employed to manage protected areas, whether
based in head office, the regions, or the protected areas
themselves, at 30 June 1990.

As noted above, many protected areas in Australia are
important tourist destinations and they thereby generate
significant employment opportunities in tourist-related

Australia

Table 13. Numbers of staff of the nine principal nature conservation agencies and the
GBRMPA who were directly concerned with management of protected areas,

year ending June 1990

Jurisdiction

Australian Government
ANPWS

GBRMPA

New South Wales
Queensland

South Australia

Tasmania

Victoria

Western Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

No. of Staff

«Not possible to identify these staff separately from those engaged in other activities of the agency.

Note:

Figures not comparable between jurisdictions because of differences in the structure and responsibility of agencies. The

table does not include those agencies which have responsibility only for marine areas or for forests.

industries, such as hotels, coach companies and tour
guide companies.

Training of personnel engaged in park management
is achieved in a variety of ways. There is no specific
qualification required for staff to be employed by park
management agencies. Instead, a range of courses of-
fered by universities and colleges is accepted as provid-
ing appropriate training. Atleast 28 institutions in Australia
provide courses which provide suitable initial qualifi-
cations for rangers or supplementary qualifications in
particular areas of resource management.

The park management agencies themselves also offer
training for their staff and now have an additional
incentive to do so because the Australian Government
has imposed a legal requirement on all but the very
smallest organisations to spend 1.5% of their gross
salary budget on training for their staff.

For park and wildlife managers at a senior level, a
series of Regional Seminars on National Parks and
Wildlife Management is held biennially. They provide
a training forum of international standard for approxi-
mately 30 delegates nominated by the nature conserva-
tion agencies of Australia and neighbouring countries.
The Australian Government provides financial assis-
tance to allow overseas delegates to attend. The Semi-
Nars are coordinated through standing arrangements
involving all of the government Ministers responsible
for nature conservation, but each seminar is organised
by a specific agency. The Seminars generally operate
on a case-study basis, with delegates visiting various
parks and reserves in the host State and examining at
first hand a variety of management issues.

223

A significant new focus in training for nature conser-
vation in the 1980s has been the development of ranger
training programmes for Aboriginal people. The ANPWS
initiated these programmes at Kakadu and Uluru Na-
tional Parks, both of which are situated on Aboriginal
land leased to the ANPWS. The ANPWS has also
provided officers to conduct training programmes for
Aboriginal rangers in South Australia and Western Aus-
tralia and several States now conduct their own pro-
grammes.

The magazine Australian Ranger Bulletin, which is
published twice yearly by the ANPWS on behalf of all
of the nature conservation agencies of Australia, con-
tributes to ranger training by providing a forum for
training, communication and the sharing of ideas. Arti-
cles are contributed by park management staff, based
on their own experience and the magazine is distributed
to all rangers in the country.

7. Priorities for future investments
in protected areas

Wescott (1991) carried out an assessment of the terres-
trial national parks and other conservation reserves of
Australia and made comparisons with the national park
systems of the United States and Canada, on the basis
that the three countries are comparable in size and
culture and that the percentage of their land area de-
voted to sites designated as national parks is approxi-
mately the same (2%). Despite these similarities, the
number of national parks in Australia is more than ten
times greater than the number in either of the other two
countries. Conversely, the average size of the national
parks is much less. He also found that Australia expends

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

far less on national park management (less than half the
amount expended by Canada and one seventh that by
the United States).

Wescott (1991) concluded that these two charac-
teristics of Australia’s national parks (lower funding
levels and proliferation of small national parks) prob-
ably emanate from the fact that the national park sys-
tems are run by the State/Territory governments rather
than the Australian Government. He observed that the
different States tend to run their parks systems as if they
were separate countries, rather than members of the
same country and noted that the reasons for this were
largely historical. He suggested that interstate political
rivalry may also have played a role, as individual States
"have attempted to demonstrate a better-than-others
environmental record by claiming a greater number of
national parks."

As aresult of his analysis, Wescott (1991) concluded
that the only way to resolve the problem of low re-
sources for Australia’s national parks was for the
Australian Government to take over responsibility for
the funding of the system. This would not necessarily
mean direct management of the parks (which in any
case would hardly be feasible). He suggested a system
whereby the Australian Government would provide tied
funding to the States’ parks agencies to operate their
systems in return for the States allowing that Govern-
ment to rationalise the systems to form one integrated
national system. The result, he considered, would be
that the already substantial and distinctive Australian
national parks system would be improved even further.

8. Major protected areas issues in
the region

8.1 People in protected areas

The culture that has dominated Australia over the last
200 years is derived from western Europe. The Aborigi-
nal culture that has been present in Australia for 50,000
years or more has tended to be ignored or subsumed by
that European culture. In recent years, however, there
has been a revitalisation of Aboriginal culture and gov-
emment programmes and community attitudes now
acknowledge its values. The Australian Government’s
Aboriginal Land Rights legislation of 1976 was a major
factor in this change. It applies to the Northern Territory
and enables formal hearings to be held to examine
claims by Aboriginal people to traditional ownership of
areas of land. If there are no encumbrances on the land
the traditional owners identified through this process
may be granted inalienable title to it.

Two of Australia’s most important national parks,
Kakadu and Uluru, are established on land that was
granted to its traditional Aboriginal owners under the
process described above. The traditional owners, after
being granted title to the land, have entered into an
arrangement with the ANPWS so that the land can be

224

managed as a national park. The land has been leased
for 99 years to the ANPWS in return for an annual lease
payment and a percentage of the park use fees paid by
visitors. The agreed arrangements for each park also
include a Board of Management having a majority of
Aboriginal representatives of the traditional owners,
and employment of traditional owners as rangers, guides
and advisers.

In both parks the traditional knowledge and skills of
the Aboriginal people are being applied directly to park
management, particularly in relation to the use of fire.
Where possible, the burning patterns followed by gen-
erations of Aboriginals to manipulate wildlife habitat,
before European management practices interceded, are
being reintroduced. The recollections of Aboriginal
elders concerning the past distribution of wildlife are a
key influence on wildlife restoration programmes. The
traditional Aboriginal owners live in the parks and have
the right to undertake subsistence hunting and gathering
under certain conditions.

Elsewhere in the Northern Territory, the Conserva-
tion Commission has made arrangements to manage
certain other Aboriginal lands as national parks on
behalf of the traditional owners. In Western Australia,
Aboriginal people live in two national parks (Purnululu
and Rudall River), and a similar arrangement is being
negotiated in a third park. In both Queensland and New
South Wales the feasibility of establishing national
parks on Aboriginal lands is currently being investi-
gated.

In the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park provision is
made for traditional fishing and/or hunting in certain
zones. To qualify as traditional, the fishing or hunting
must not be carried out for purposes of sale or trade and
must be conducted in an area by a traditional inhabitant
or a group of traditional inhabitants in accordance with
Aboriginal tradition or Islander tradition, as the case
may be, governing the entry and use of that area by that
traditional inhabitant or group of traditional inhabitants.
A traditional inhabitant is defined as an Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander who lives in an area or areas in
accordance with Aboriginal tradition or Islander tradi-
tion.

8.2 Involvement by the private sector
In Australia the concept of national parks and nature
reserves is closely linked to public ownership. Procla-
mation of an area of land or sea as a park or reserve
under special purpose legislation has been the means of
retaining that area under public ownership and prevent-
ing exploitation of resources by the private sector. Thus,
there has been a dichotomy between publicly owned
parks and reserves which are generally protected from
exploitation, and areas outside those parks and reserves,
where exploitation can occur.

Today, it is being increasingly recognised that the
conservation of biological diversity cannot be achieved

solely within parks and reserves and that the manage-
ment of all areas of land and sea must be carried out in
a manner which is conducive to the conservation of
biological diversity, even while resource exploitation
by the private sector occurs. Landscape and seascape
management on a regional basis is receiving increasing
support. Multiple-use protected areas, in which certain
exploitative activities may be carried out under speci-
fied conditions are also becoming more common. Two
terrestrial Regional Reserves in the arid region of South
Australia provide for commercial activities (such as
natural gas exploitation and cattle grazing) to occur
under controlled conditions, while the wildlife and natural
and historical features of the land are protected.

Because the natural features of Australia are a major
attraction for visitors from overseas, tourism is a com-
mercial activity that has a close relationship with pro-
tected areas. Tourist operators are generally required to
pay a fee for the right to carry out their activities in parks
and reserves.

The various government nature conservation agen-
cies have instituted a variety of schemes to encourage
private landowners to protect wildlife and its habitat on
their land. Those schemes range from simple agree-
ments by farmers that they will prevent hunting on their
land, to legally imposed requirements to protect stands
of native vegetation (Thackway and Stevenson, 1989).
In practice, only schemes that are backed by legislation
(principally in South Australia and Victoria) appear to
be truly effective.

In South Australia a landholder must apply for per-
mission before any natural vegetation is cleared. The
conservation values of the vegetation are assessed and,
if they are significant, permission to clear is refused.
The landholder then has the option of entering into a
Heritage Agreement, which means that the legal title to
the land incorporates a proviso that the area of natural
vegetation is to be protected in perpetuity, even though
ownership of the land may change. Once a Heritage
Agreement is made, the government must provide
financial compensation to the landholder, equivalent to
any reduction in the market value of the land, provided
that the land would have been suitable for agriculture
on a permanent basis if clearing had been allowed.

South Australia is also the setting for a different type
of private involvement in natural area management. A
private individual has devoted himself to the task of
rehabilitating an area of land to restore natural ecosys-
tems. He has provided secure fencing to keep out exotic
predators and competitors such as cats, foxes and rab-
bits. Animals native to the region are bred in captivity
for release on to the land. Entry fees paid by visitors
help to defray the cost of operating this privately-owned
wildlife sanctuary.

The Australian Government has recently initiated
programmes which enable the ANPWS to provide
financial assistance to community groups and local

225

Australia

governments to rehabilitate and protect areas of natural
vegetation on land outside protected areas.

8.3 Protected areas and surrounding

lands

While the late 1960s and the 1970s were significant for
the emergence of government nature conservation agen-
cies as identifiable entities in the various jurisdictions
in Australia, the 1980s witnessed a trend towards incor-
porating those agencies into larger departments, having
wider environmental and natural resource concerns,
including, in some cases, forestry. In all States, except
New South Wales, and in both of the Territories, the
nature conservation agency is now part of, or closely
allied to, a much larger agency.

A major advantage of this integrated approach to land
management is that, by providing flexibility in resource
allocation, it can increase the resources committed to
protected areas and nature conservation generally. It
also provides access to specialist expertise. For exam-
ple, forestry personnel can contribute significantly to
the management of forested areas in national parks and,
conversely, wildlife officers can assist with the conser-
vation of wildlife in State forests. Integrated agencies
are well placed to conduct environmental management
on a regional basis, with protected areas forming part of
the mosaic of land management categories in the region.

In some quarters, there are concerns that the interests
of protected areas may be threatened by this type of
regional administration. In particular, non-government
conservation organisations fear that placing responsi-
bility for forestry and national parks with the same
agency is disadvantageous to the latter, because of the
pressure experienced by such agencies to maximise the
economic return from the land they manage. Non-gov-
emment conservation organisations have actively op-
posed government proposals to amalgamate the Forestry
Commission with the National Parks and Wildlife
Service in New South Wales.

8.4 Protected areas and science

The agencies responsible for protected areas endeavour
to manage those areas on a scientific basis, using both
published research and the results of special purpose
studies. Most of the agencies employ some scientists on
their staff and their work is supplemented by consult-
ants engaged on contract to carry out specific projects.
Those consultants are generally from universities, the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO) or private consulting firms.

Some examples of topics on which research is con-
ducted to assist in the management of protected areas
include: ecology of the crown of thorns starfish, a
significant predator of coral in the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park; experimental burning to determine the
conditions that allow spread of wildfire in the Stirling

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Range National Park, Western Australia; ecology of the
brush-tailed bettong prior to its reintroduction into Nuyts
Archipelago Conservation Park, South Australia; and
visitor use of Uluru National Park, Northern Territory.

The possibility of using protected areas as key sites
in a nation-wide network of environmental monitoring
stations is currently being investigated by the ANPWS
and the CSIRO. This will have particular relevance to
studies of global change.

8.5 Threats to effective management

of protected areas

The management agencies attempt to prepare plans of
management for their protected areas, and some have a
statutory requirement to do so. Generally, those plans
are prepared through a process of public consultation,
which includes issuing a draft plan for comment before
preparing the final plan. Constraints of both finance and
staff limit the rate at which such plans can be prepared
and the ability of the agencies to implement the plans.
To a certain extent, this is inevitable in such a large
country with many protected areas situated in remote
areas.

Another more subtle threat to effective management
comes from a developing tendency for the mining in-
dustry to argue that all existing protected areas should
be open to exploration for minerals and that no new
protected area should be established until the area has
been subject to assessment for minerals. Such an ap-
proach fails to acknowledge that the long-term role of
protected areas in conserving biological diversity can
be far more important to humanity than short-term
economic gains from mining.

8.6 Transfrontier initiatives

The Australian Alps National Parks represent a signifi-
cant transfrontier initiative in protected area manage-
ment in Australia. A memorandum of understanding
has been signed by Ministers from four jurisdictions,
New South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital
Territory, and the Australian Government, which com-
mits their nature conservation agencies to cooperate in
the management of seven national parks and other re-
serves that are contiguous with each other along the
borders of the two States and the Territory. The parks
and reserves protect the only alpine habitat in mainland
Australia. While the parks and reserves remain the
responsibility of the jurisdictions in which they are
situated, the agencies are cooperating to ensure consis-
tent standards of management across the borders. The
Australian Government role, through the ANPWS, is
primarily to coordinate these cooperative activities and
to provide some financial assistance.

Another example of transborder cooperation is at
Ningaloo Marine Park in Western Australia. The Park
actually comprises two adjoining parks declared

226

separately under State and Australian Government leg-
islation because the Park includes both State waters
inside the three nautical mile limit and Australian Gov-
ernment waters beyond that limit. Separate plans of
management apply to the two separate parks, but their
preparation involves close cooperation. The State na-
ture conservation agency manages the Australian Gov-
ermment component of the Park, on behalf of the
ANPWS, as well as its own component.

The arrangements for management of the Great Bar-
rier Reef Marine Park and adjacent areas of water and
land, require a close and cooperative relationship be-
tween the GBRMPA and Queensland government agen-
cies, particularly since many of the islands that are
situated inside the boundaries of the Marine Park are
part of Queensland. The arrangement has been very
successful despite intense jurisdictional conflict be-
tween the Australian and Queensland governments when
the GBRMPA was established in the mid-1970s. Com-
plementary planning and management are carried out,
there is shared funding and responsibility, and Queens-
land agencies act as agents for the GBRMPA in the
day-to-day management of the Marine Park.

A developing form of cooperation involves the sepa-
rate agencies within some States which are responsible
for terrestrial and marine protected areas. Increasingly,
itis recognised that effective management of the coastal
zone requires integration across the land/sea boundary.
To achieve this integration in protected areas manage-
mentin some States requires cooperation between sepa-
rate agencies responsible for national parks and fisheries.

9. Priorities for action in the region

The European Review notes that it is "more difficult to
establish and manage a nature reserve than a land-
scape." Yet, in Australia, the obverse is true, whether
on land or sea. The opportunities to establish protected
areas are rapidly diminishing, because of competing
land-use claims. Within the next decade, we must de-
velop a methodology to provide care and management
for landscapes and seascapes if we are to have the safety
net to allow our protected areas to survive and flourish.

The Australian Government, in partnership with State
and Territory governments, has embarked on three in-
ter-related programmes to achieve this aim. There is a
programme each for the terrestrial and marine environ-
ments, and a major emphasis on developing an ecologi-
cally sustainable future. Central to the achievement of
such a future is a sound and secure protected area
system: one which knows no boundary between land
and sea, and which, in functional terms, ignores political
boundaries, while recognising the sovereign rights of
all governments.

In the terrestrial environment, we have recently made
a first attempt to screen, nationally, the existing pro-
tected area network against a classification of environ-
ments. Those environments are derived by combining

a wide range of climatic and biophysical variables and
then classifying the data. The results will be presented
by Thackway and Cresswell (in press). They show that
we have been successful as a nation in achieving pro-
tected areas in alpine and temperate forest environ-
ments. But Australia is largely a semi-arid tropical and
subtropical land. Forty-five per cent of Australia has
less than one per cent protected area coverage. This
Situation obviously deserves more attention.

We are about to embark on a similar programme for
marine areas, which will help determine the key areas
for protection in the littoral and EEZ components of the
continent and associated territories. The Australian Gov-
emment has announced Ocean Rescue 2000, a decade-
long programme to achieve this aim. This is on top of
the 26% increase in Australian Government-managed
marine protected areas (outside the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park) and the 300% increase in State-managed
Marine protected areas over the last five years. Of
particular concern for marine conservation will be man-
grove ecosystems. Australia has the greatest areas of
undisturbed mangrove ecosystems in the world, with an
extraordinary species diversity, even if the majesty of
the forest is less than that of fully tropical areas.

In both terrestrial and marine environments, we rec-
ognise that protected areas, on their own, are insuffi-
cient. We are developing a regional management approach,

Australia

which embraces some of the principles of Biosphere
Reserve management. To help with this, the Australian
National Commission for UNESCO has recently com-
missioned a review of the existing network of Biosphere
Reserves in Australia with an assessment of how to
determine options for the future.

The brightest star for the future in Australia is the
increasing involvement of Aboriginal people in man-
agement of protected areas. We have made a small
beginning in the last decade, but the developments will
accelerate. Aboriginal involvement is important not
only for a recognition of the rights of the indigenous
peoples, but also because of the inestimable value of
their knowledge of and respect for the land. They have,
after all, lived over most of Australia for at least 50,000
years.

In the next decade, completion of ecological invento-
ries, and greater uniformity of administrative approaches
between Federal and second order jurisdictions, will
combine to refine and improve the nations protected
areas. Australia, as a mega-diverse country, has the
potential to have the finest protected area system in the
world. We look forward to an exciting decade ahead for
protected areas in Australia, both within our own coun-
try, and also in partnership with our neighbouring re-
gions, and indeed globally, to secure an ecologically
sustainable future.

References

Australian Academy of Science. 1968. National Parks
and Reserves in Australia. Canberra.

Black, A. and Breckwoldt, R. 1977. Evolution of sys-
tems of national park policy-making in Australia.
Pp. 190-9 in Mercer, 1977.

Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate. 1974.
Report of the National Estate. Australian Govern-
ment Publishing Service, Canberra.

Davis, B. W. and Drake, G. A.. 1983. Australia’s Bio-
sphere Reserves: Conserving Biological Diversity.
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Dunphy, M. 1979. The bushwalking conservation move-
ment, 1914-1965. Pp. 54-64 in Goldstein, 1979.

Fenner, F, (ed). 1975. A National System of Ecological
Reserves in Australia. Australian Academy of Science,
Canberra.

Frankel, O. 1975. Conservation in perpetuity: ecologi-
cal and biosphere reserves, Pp. 7-10 in Fenner,
1975.

Frawley, K. J. and N. M. Semple, (eds.). 1988. Australia’s
Ever Changing Forests. Australian Defence Force
Academy, Campbell, ACT.

Frawley, K. 1988: The history of conservation and the
national park concept in Australia: a state of knowledge
review, pp. 395-417 in Frawley and Semple, 1988.

227

Goldstein, W. (ed.). 1979. Australia’s 100 Years of
National Parks. National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Sydney.

Hall, C. M. 1988. The "Worthless Land Hypothesis”
and Australia’s national parks and reserves, pp 441—
56 in Frawley and Semple, 1988.

Hooy, T. and Shaughnessy, G. (Eds) 1992. Terrestrial
and marine protected areas in Australia (1991).
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Canberra. 81pp.

House of Representatives Select Committee. 1972.
Wildlife Conservation. Australian Government
Publishing Service. Canberra.

Ivanovici, A. M. (ed.). 1984. Inventory of Declared
Marine and Estuarine Protected Areas in Australian
Waters. Australian National Parks and Wildlife
Service, Canberra.

Mercer, D. (ed.). 1977. Leisure and Recreation in
Australia. Sorrett. Malvern. Victoria.

Messer, J. and G. Mosley, (eds.). 1980. The Value of
National Parks to the Community. Australian
Conservation Foundation. Melbourne.

Mobbs, C. (ed.). 1989. Nature Conservation Reserves
in Australia (1988). Australian National Parks
and Wildlife Service. Canberra.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Mosley, G. (ed.). 1978. Australia’ s Wilderness. Australian
Conservation Foundation, Hawthom, Victoria.
Mosley, J. G. 1968. National Parks and Equivalent
Reserves in Australia: Guide to Legislation,
Administration and Areas. Australian Conservation

Foundation, Canberra.

Ovington, J. D. 1980. A national perspective, pp. 45-56
in Messer and Mosley, 1980.

Ride, W. L. D. 1975. Towards an integrated system: a
study of the selection and acquisition of national
parks and nature reserves in Western Australia,
pp. 64-85 in Fenner, 1975.

Slatyer, R. O. 1975. Ecological reserves: size, structure
and management. pp 22-38 in Fenner, 1975.

Specht, R. L. 1975. The report and its recommenda-
tions. Pp. 11-21 in Fenner, 1975.

Specht, R. L., E. M. Roe and V. H. Boughton, (eds.).
1974. Conservation of Major Plant Communities in

228

Australia and Papua New Guinea. CSIRO,
Melbourne.

Strom, A. A. 1979. Some events in nature conservation
over the last forty years, pp. 65-73 in Goldstein,
1979.

Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I. in press. Regionalisation
of the Environments of Australia—a User Defined
and Integrated Approach.

Thackway, R. and Stevenson, P.. (eds.). 1989. Nature
Conservation Outside Reserves. Australian National
Parks and Wildlife Service. Canberra.

Turner, A. 1979. National Parks in New South Wales,
1879-1979: Participation, Pressure Groups and
Policy. PhD Thesis, Australian National University,
Canberra.

Wescott, G. C. 1991. Australia’s distinctive national
park system. Environmental Conservation. 18(4):
331-340 pp.

Antarctica/New Zealand

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

%OT UY} B10/;\

ZOl-GI

ZOL-S
25-10

%1°O uoy} ssaq

payoajoud aBpjuedied

seaie pajde}01d payeubisep Ajje6a) uiyjyim paepnyjou! AsjuN0Dd Jo abeyUadseg

O08 O0v O
C
oo)

‘dew

Contents

Page

ipeerdistoricaliperspective (oo. 2. 2. ke ee ee eee 233
2. Current protected areacoverage ....................0..00. 234
2a stheexisting network; Adequateicoverageioniland =. 45-45... 0 eae 234

eee VarinesResenves/Amplesroomifonerowthia-) rs sen neni) Senn cee es 237
PSmeebrotected areaimanagement(catepOries) surance ein ncaa cue ne 2ST

APs Sitesiunderintemationalirecopnition| > 4.) se) ele) eee een nen ene 237,

Zoos) | LERCH NG WARN, Go 6 ea goedok boob o bose ao aoe ee es 237

3. Additional protected areas required ....................... 238
4. Protected areainstitutions .................-.-..-.2220202. 239
5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 240
6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 240
7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 241
8. Major issues in protected areas .....................-.-.. 242
Solueelntroducedanimalsiandiplants) ae) 2 cities eee eee 242

See Impacts OMtOUTISM) Rass posters 4 Eu a eyes + une hie Soa 242

9. Priorities foractionintheregion ......................... 243
Annex 1. Protected areas in the Antarctic Treaty Area ............... 245
1. History of the protected area system in the Antarctic Area ............ 245

2. Deficiencies and threats in protected areamanagement .............. 246

OM embrotectedvareacoverag ery jewiues. 95 iten sco) srs ac, ct ce CR alco 247

ASP LTOpOsed protectediareasn nua) eee) een etn acetal aren 247

5. | Management planning and design of protected areas ............... 248

6. Institutional capacity for establishment and management of protected areas 248

7. Integration of protection and other activities. ................... 248

Sele Informationymanapementss.ayances << 4 sacyes ty 4 erie) eee snes © ess enen sa 249

Annex 2. Protected areas on islands of the Southern Ocean ........... 251
1. ~~ Introduction—the!SouthemIslandsi, . = .) 3-5 3 = sickeucacr ones Garten 251
2 Biogeographicalise tin gare ecm aoe) yecirm cco ee irel eaten ree 251
3.0 J Extentofi protection) etucy a <5 sich ce amana i, mayen ate tom eer eis ete eee ean ern 251
49) JHistoryiofiprotectione yas con ee coe ec ac ne 251
550s Status Ofprotectionpwasweu ot ccueye) cn coe sie aces) our Mee mee ee a 251
6 — Institutionallarrangementss 4 75265 oe Ce nie es owes eee 252
7. Management issues'and priorities for future action”. -- . «2... - . aee 252
References! 5. ie ees ke ee es ee eg re 253
Tables
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system ................... 235
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories.............. 235
Table 3. The development of the protected areassystem............... 238
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 238
Table 5. | World Heritage sites in Antarctica/New Zealand .............. 240
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 241
Table 7. Relationship between New Zealand protected area class and revised
TUCN category 2 ci. aces. SE CMRI eR 247
Table 8. | Antarctica—Specially Protected Areas (SPA). ............... 249
Table 9. Antarctica—Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)........... 250
Figures
Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected
areas... « shes ates ee adioenhe eho Haeegioe ee fae 230
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 236
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 236

232

Antarctica/New Zealand

Paul R. Dingwall, Regional Vice-Chair for Antarctica/New Zealand,
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas

1. Historical perspective

The year of 1987, which stands mid-point between the
Parks Congresses in 1982 in Bali and 1992 in Caracas,
was a Significant milestone in the history of protected
areas and conservation in New Zealand. The nation
celebrated the 100th anniversary of a gift from the
Maori people of sacred mountain lands, which were to
form the core of Tongariro National Park, the country’s
first national park and now a World Heritage site (Thom,
1987). In that year also, two new national parks were
added to the network of protected areas, the first in 23
years. Further, the Department of Conservation was
established as the single agency for protected areas,
thereby giving administrative effect to a greaily en-
larged protected areas system, and one which was na-
tionally integrated—a trend which had begun emerging
early in the past decade (Dingwall, 1981).

Thus 1987 signified a coming of age of protected
areas in New Zealand. But it also ushered in a new era,
characterised by wholesale review and consolidation of
the system, and readjustment within a climate of eco-
nomic recession.

The evolution of New Zealand’s protected area net-
work has gone through several phases (Roche, 1984;
Devlin et al., 1990). An Acquisition Phase, beginning
in the early years of European colonisation, during the
latter half of last century and culminating in the period
1890-1920, laid the foundation for the modem pro-
tected area system. Several motivating forces were behind
the rapidly emerging network of protection. Utilitarian
concems, particularly interest in conservation of timber,
soil and water resources, gave rise to the earliest ex-
tensive reserves, protected under forestry legislation
and located primarily in forested mountain catchments.
Concems over the protection of surrounding farmland
from flooding by numerous mountain streams were
instrumental in gazettement of Egmont National Park
in 1900. Mountains were also favoured for protection
by a concern to avoid alienation of lands of potential
importance as farms in an expanding agricultural col-
ony. Thus, reservation of two huge tracts of mountain-
ous "wastelands" of the South Island in 1901 and 1905,
respectively, formed the basis of what eventually

233

became Arthur’s Pass and Fiordland National Parks and
reflect an emerging interest in protection of lands of
high scenic and wilderness value as tourist attractions,
following the traditions of America’s Yellowstone Na-
tional Park. But scenery protection was to reach its
zenith with enactment of the Scenery Preservation Act
1903, and scenic reserves extended progressively along
road and rail corridors and in coastal areas, notably in
Taranaki, Westland and the Marlborough Sounds Rec-
reational; and tourism interests also focused attention
on geothermal phenomena in the Rotorua region valued
as health resorts, and the Thermal Springs District Act
1881 provided some of the country’s earliest reserves.
Scientific influences prompted the establishment of "na-
tional-domains" for protection of flora and fauna, and
also secured some of the earliest nature sanctuaries on
offshore islands, such as Resolution Island in 1891,
Secretary Island in 1893, Little Barrier Island in 1894
and Kapiti Island in 1897. A pioneering survey of the
central North Island by the Government’s leading bota-
nist, Leonard Cockayne, was to have a major influence
in determining the eventual scope of Tongariro National
Park, and Cockayne was also prominent in the estab-
lishment of Arthur’s Pass National Park (Department of
Lands 1908). Responding to these combined influences,
the reservation system evolved rapidly. By 1907, re-
serves extended over more than half the area contained
in national parks in 1980, and by 1920 already more
than half the extent of today’s scenic reserves was
protected.

Then followed a Maintenance Phase during the 1930s
and 1940s, characterised by a caretaking role over pre-
viously acquired areas. But it closed in an era of "park
ascendancy" ushered in by the passing of the National
Parks Act 1952, an innovative measure which provided
for an integrated parks system and led to creation of six
new parks in rapid succession: Fiordland and Mount
Cook in 1953; Urewera in 1954; Nelson Lakes in 1956;
Westland in 1960, and Mt Aspiring in 1964. The Act
also clearly enunciated the twin responsibilities of parks
for serving the needs of nature and of people, and it
provided for constitution of a National Parks Authority
and individual Park Boards, thereby initiating citizen
involvement in park management—a feature of the
protected areas system today.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Beginning in the late 1960s, a Management Phase
was notable for the increasing professionalism in parks
and reserve management. Planning as a basis for park
establishment and management became fundamentally
important in resolving conflict among competing inter-
ests in land and resource use, and in meeting the de-
mands for socio-economic justification to expand the
protected estate. A growing scientific capacity provided
the essential knowledge base for supporting protection
initiatives. Science also brought increasing realisation
of the needs for survey to document both the scope and
the condition of protected ecosystems and species and
itexposed the imbalance in the ecological representativeness
of protected areas. This led, in turn, to efforts at identi-
fying and securing protection for those fast-diminishing
remnants of indigenous biota and landscape on unpro-
tected lands. Establishment of a well-trained uniformed
ranger service became crucial for coping with growing
numbers of park visitors and the attendant rapid expan-
sion of recreational and tourist facilities. A surge in
development of State Forest Parks at this time was
prompted in part by the requirement to ease recreational
pressure on the national parks.

Other patterns emerging at this time are symbolized
by the events surrounding establishment of Papery
National Park in 1987, marked by often acrimonious
conflict among competing interests in the use and pro-
tection of resources, the vital role of consultation in
fostering cooperation among widely divergent sector in-
terest groups (political, non-governmental, local com-
munity, industry and scientific), and the eventual at-
tainment of acceptable compromise in park boundary
demarcation, giving due weight to long-term objectives
for both protection and development of resources.

Several distinctive processes and patterns which quickly
emerged from the sweeping 1987 reform of environ-
mental administration included:

@ intense competition for limited financial and
human resources;

introduction of business-like approaches to con-
servation in an increasingly commercialized eco-
nomic and social environment;

relative increase in the contribution of funding
and support from user charges to supplement the
increasingly limited contribution from Govern-
ment;

forging of partnerships and cooperative ventures
between Government and local and regional au-
thorities, local communities, conservation inter-
est and lobby groups, sector groups in the re-
source and service industries, and private citi-
zens, especially landowners; and

increasing recognition of and respect for the
rights and traditions of the Maori, bringing some
new responsibilities but more importantly en-
riching an emerging bi-cultural perspective on
conservation, which in turn opens opportunities
for innovative approaches in protected area man-
agement.

234

These, and other, developments are further explored
in the analysis which follows.

2. Current protected area coverage

2.1 The existing network: Adequate

coverage on land

At the core of New Zealand’s conservation estate is a
comprehensive series of protected natural areas—de-
fined as areas of land or sea with a legal status and
management regime intended to maintain their indige-
nous state. Compilation of a register of some of those
areas gazetted by March 1983 (essentially at the time of
the Bali World Parks Congress) revealed that at that
time the network comprised 1,660 areas, covering ap-
proximately 4.6 million ha, equivalent to 17 % of the
country’s total land area. By 1986, when the register
was last updated, the network had expanded by about
2.5%, to include more than 2,000 areas covering ap-
proximately 5 million ha. This trend is likely to have
continued until the present day, but it is not possible to
be equally precise about the full extent of the network
in 1992 because updating of the register database has
ceased temporarily, pending development of a compre-
hensive conservation lands register. Summary data for
the entire region are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and
Figures 1 and 2. These do not fully reflect the data
presented here because of the exclusion of sites less than
1,000ha in extent or which do not comply with the
IUCN management category definitions.

However, enactment of the Conservation Act in 1987
resulted in a very substantial increase in the extent of
the protected areas system by giving protection to pub-
lic lands not previously included in the register. This
includes a new category of Conservation Area held for
stewardship purposes. A further element of this growth
was the creation of Conservation Covenants over Crown
forests (commercial), and land being sold to State-
owned Enterprises. Protection was also given to ripar-
ian areas as Marginal Strips.

Major additions to the protected area system during
the past decade include:

@ Two new national parks established in 1987:
Whanganui National Park protecting 81,000ha
of riverine landscape of high scenic and recrea-
tional value and of great cultural significance for
the Maori people; and Papery National Park,
30,000ha in extent, containing magnificent cave
and karst features and large tracts of lowland
forest.

Addition of Waikukupa and Okarito lowland
podocarp forests, which extended Westland
National Park from the mountains to the sea.
Protection of more than 300,000ha of former
State forest in South Westland, later incorpo-
rated in a World Heritage Site.

Antarctica/New Zealand

@ A 65,000ha addition to Mt Aspiring National Less conspicuous but no less important in their aggre-
Park in 1989, through inclusion of the Red Hills gate was the host of smaller reserves of various kinds
and Haast Range areas. added incrementally over time. In 1988/89 for example,

@ Protection status for almost 50,000ha of beech 40 separate areas, acquired at a cost of almost $1 mil-
forests in Western Southland, with potential for lion, added 7,000ha of protected lands comprising six
addition to Fiordland National Park. areas of Protected Private Land, two Historic Reserves,

@ Between 1983 and 1986, establishment of 40 one Conservation Covenant, 15 new Reserves, three
new Ecological Areas representative of State additions to National Parks, and six additions to reserves.

forests, particularly in North Westland.

@ Amore than four-fold increase in the number of
Open Space Covenants over private lands, from
112 areas covering about 4,500ha in 1983 to 490
areas incorporating 18,200ha today.

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Antarctica/New Zealand

Area in Area in Categories Total area
Area CategoriesI-V % VI-VIIlandUA % designated %

Antarctic Treaty Territory 13,340,000
Bouvet I

Falklands/South Georgia

French Southem Territory
Heard-McDonald Is

Macquarie Is

Marion-PEI

New Zealand 265,150
Tristan da Cunha 176

0.0 2,632 0.0
0.0 50 100.0
0.0 0 0.0
0.0 367 5.1
0.0 388 8694.1
0.0 128 71.8
0.0 390 113.4
6.2 45,399 17.1
0.0 65 369

onoooooco

13,625,726 33,032 . 49,419 0.37

Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover.

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Antarctica/New Zealand

I I
Area No. Area

South Georgia
French Southern

Territory
Heard-McDonald Is

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection
function are generally included.

235

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)

Number of sites

40 Area (x1000sqkm)

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)
500

Number of sites

400 Area (x1000sqkm)

300
200

100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

236

Complementing protected natural areas is a series of
206 Historic Reserves, 50% of which protect traditional
Maori occupation sites dating from prior to 1820. Also
under protection are 52 Classified Buildings and Struc-
tures representing a wide range of European history
from 1840. The protected areas estate also includes
some additional areas, generally of lesser conservation
quality or integrity and with lower security, such as
Recreation Reserves. These areas, together with the
protected natural areas, constitute a total protected areas
network today of some 8 million ha, or equivalent to
30% of the country’s land area. This represents an
expansion of about 50% in New Zealand’s terrestrial
protected areas system over the past decade.

2.2 Marine Reserves: Ample room

for growth

In sharp contrast to the extensive system of terrestrial
protection, the marine reserves network is extremely
rudimentary, comprising today just four marine re-
serves; a marine sanctuary established in 1988 to protect
the Hector’s dolphin; two small marine parks estab-
lished under fisheries regulations; and a Conservation
Park under the Conservation Act. Thus, only a small
fraction of the country’s 33,000km of coastline is under
legal protection.

Current policies of the Department of Conservation
include a commitment to expanding marine reservation.
Attention is being given to long-overdue reform of the
principal legislation, which emphasises value to sci-
ence, and makes secondary the broader mandate for
protection of areas with natural, scenic, recreational and
cultural values. Several marine reserve proposals are
under preparation, and approximately 30 other sites
have been selected for evaluation in the next ten years.
The process of identifying potential reserves benefits
from a broad-scale survey of natural and cultural con-
servation values on the coast. Although it is being
conducted systematically on a regional basis, the survey
lacks a biogeographical framework essential for judg-
ing ecological representativeness of areas. A national
3-tier habitat classification scheme, designed for this
purpose; is available (King et al. 1985) and a new
scheme giving greater attention to latitudinal variation
in ecosystems throughout the country is under prepara-
tion as a guide to incorporating the full range of eco-
logical diversity of coastal waters in marine reserves
(C. Ray, pers. comm.).

2.3 Protected area management
categories

Table 7 shows that the diverse series of protected area
classes spans almost the full spectrum of IUCN’s pro-
tected area management categories. There is no precise
match between classes of protected area and manage-
ment categories, as some classes include areas of mark-
edly different size, character and/or quality. There is no
exact equivalent in New Zealand of Category V areas,

237

Antarctica/New Zealand

i.e. where human settlement interacts with nature, but
Recreation Reserves and Marginal Strips come closest
to this concept.

2.4 Sites under international

recognition

New Zealand has two areas listed as World Heritage
Sites (natural property category) under the World
Heritage Convention (Table 5). The Government deci-
sion to extend protection to some 300,000ha of former
State Forest in South Westland, and a pledge of $1.5
million over three years for recreation and tourism
development, paved the way for nomination of the
South-West New Zealand area (Te Wahipounamu),
which was accepted by UNESCO in 1990. The Site
incorporates the formerly listed (in 1986) Fiordland
National Park, and combined Westland/Mount Cook
National Parks, together with Mt Aspiring National
Park and most of the intervening Crown-owned land.
Covering 2.6 million ha, or some 10% of the total New
Zealand land area, this Site is among the largest World
Heritage properties. Tongariro National Park was also
accorded World Heritage status in 1990. Although sev-
eral other areas are regarded worthy of nomination—the
Subantarctic Island Groups in particular—an indicative
list of potential natural and cultural properties, as re-
quired under the Convention, has not yet been prepared.

With the designation of two new sites in 1989 and one
in 1990, New Zealand now has five areas listed under
the Ramsar Convention as "wetlands of international
importance, especially as wildfowl habitats". These
range in size from 3,556ha to 11,388ha, and cover a total
of almost 40,000ha. Several further sites are under
active investigation.

New Zealand has no Biosphere Reserves established
within the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme.
Interest in applying the concept has waxed and waned,
and potential opportunities have been explored in moun-
tain, grassland, forest and coastal environments
(Dingwall and Simpson, 1988). No formal proposals
have been forthcoming, however, probably because of
an inability to demonstrate what benefits their science-
based approach to multiple-use management would add
to an already well-established and highly diversified
protected areas system.

Adherence to international conservation conventions
or programmes in the region is summarised in Table 4.

2.5 Protection of private land

Increasing success in extending protection to private
lands is one of the more remarkable achievements in
protected area development in New Zealand over the
past decade. Outstanding in this regard has been the
performance of the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust,
an independent, Statutory body funded by private do-
nation, subscription and Government grant. The Trust’s
principal responsibility is negotiation of Open Space

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Antarctica/New Zealand

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established

Antarctic Treaty

Bouvet I

Falklands/South Georgia

French Southem
Territory

Heard-McDonald Is

Macquarie Is

Marion-PEI

New Zealand

Tristan da Cunha

% area
established
1972-1981

Date
established
unknown

% area
established
1982-1991

Total
area
designated

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Antarctica/New Zealand

(including Antarctic Treaty)

World Heritage

Date No. Area (ha)

August 1974
June 1975
November 1984
May 1977

May 1984

2,676,504

United Kingdom

Note: Only sites lying within the region are listed.

Covenants, which are legal contracts whereby land-
owners voluntarily agree to the land being managed to
retain its natural character. Aspects such as the degree
and duration of protection (usually in perpetuity) and
provisions for public access are negotiable. At present
490 Covenants are established over 18,200ha and a
further 470 cases amounting to 55,000ha are under
action.

In 1991, the New Zealand Forest Accord between the
NZ Forest Owners’ Association and a coalition of 17
non-governmental organisations established a policy of
excluding from land development a number of classes
of indigenous vegetation and areas that qualify as po-
tential protected areas.

Biosphere Reserves

238

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention

No. Area (ha) Date No. Area (ha)

May 1974
October 1986
August 1976
July 1974
March 1975
January 1976

3. Additional protected areas
required

In 1984, an ambitious Protected Natural Areas (PNA)
programme was launched to survey remaining unpro-
tected natural areas and identify those meriting protec-
tion, particularly in grasslands, wetlands and coastal
sites less well represented in the existing system. It was
stimulated by the National Parks and Reserves Author-
ity, which was concerned about the accelerating loss of
indigenous areas and the ecological imbalance in existing
protected areas, and it derived its statutory mandate
from the Reserves Act 1977. A conceptual framework
of Ecological Regions and Districts was devised, and a
rapid ecological survey technique was designed for
implementation by small multidisciplinary survey teams,
with oversight provided by a Scientific Advisory
Committee (Kelly and Park, 1986).

A review of the programme last year revealed that it
had fallen well short of its target. Of the 136 Districts
selected for priority attention by 1990 only 34 had been

surveyed. Only modest success has been achieved in
formally protecting sites where this is recommended.
Priority has been given to protection of areas on pastoral
leasehold land in the South Island high country, where
nine sites have been protected by purchase, transfer or
inter-agency agreement, and agreements have been reached
on a further 60 cases, those in Central Otago and north
Southland covering some 40,000ha. In the North Island
six protected private land agreements have been com-
pleted in the Egmont region, and at least one area in
Coromandel purchased for reserve.

Financial constraints appear to have been the princi-
pal cause of the programme’s limited success. A revised
approach is now being devised to make use of less costly
survey techniques and greater support from other re-
source administering authorities, accompanied by an
enhanced awareness campaign.

Although the PNA programme has had only limited
success in adding to the ecological diversity of reserves,
rather more has been achieved through the substantial
park additions, reported above, with parks extending to
include coastal, lowland forest and grassland areas, and
geological landscapes not previously protected. There
is the prospect of more to come in the two current
proposals for new national parks and five proposed park
additions—all under active investigation.

Of particular significance is the proposal to extend
national park protection to remaining kauri forests in
northern New Zealand—a unique sub-tropical forest
community, much reduced by former timber extraction
and of great scenic, ecological and spiritual value. The
park would represent a radical departure from previous
approaches, in focusing on a natural community type
rather than on a geographically contiguous area. The
proposed park incorporates more than 30 individual
sites, ranging from some 44ha to 23,000ha in size, and
covering a total of about 100,000ha. The other new park
proposal would upgrade the status of North West-Nelson
Forest Park and add surrounding lands of complex
geological character and with diverse endemic flora.

Also under investigation are proposals to create two
new Conservation Parks over the colder, drier grass-
lands of the Torlesse and Remarkable Ranges of the
Souther Alps.

Important among the five proposals for park additions
are those to extend Fiordland National Park to lowland
forests and marine terraces; addition of grasslands to the
Arthur’s Pass National Park; and inclusion in Tongariro
National Park of a huge, forest-mantled lava field.

4. Protected area institutions

In 1987 a radical change occurred in the administration
of protected areas in New Zealand, when responsibility
for them passed from the Ministers of Lands, Forests,
Fisheries and Internal Affairs to the Minister of Conser-
vation. The new Department of Conservation was a

239

Antarctica/New Zealand

Statutory mandate and mission to conserve the natural
and historic heritage of New Zealand. Other independent
agencies with some protected area responsibilities are
the Historic Places Trust, and Queen Elizabeth II
National Trust.

In 1990, the New Zealand Conservation Authority
and 17 regional Boards were established as citizen
bodies for protected areas, replacing among others the
former National Parks and Reserves Authority and Boards,
the Nature Conservation Council, Forest Park Advisory
Committees, the New Zealand Walkways Commission,
and Marine Reserves Management Committees. The
Conservation Authority has oversight of policy and
planning for protected areas and otherwise advises the
Department and Minister of Conservation. Similar citi-
zen bodies, the Fish and Game Councils, which replaced
former Acclimatisation Societies, were established to ap-
prove policies and management plans for sports fish and
game and their habitats.

Links between the tourism industry and the Depart-
ment of Conservation are maintained through a Tourism/
Conservation Liaison Committee established under the
Conservation Authority, and similar mechanisms exist
for linking the Department with the farming, forestry
and fisheries sectors.

Most of the land in New Zealand protected areas is in
Crown ownership. Some areas are subject to claims
under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, which established
the basic principle of a partnership between the Crown
and the Maori. Government has recognised the validity
of many Maori grievances relating to ownership of
tribal lands and a Tribunal established in 1976 is work-
ing to redress them.

Increasing recognition is also being given to the rights
of the Maori for access to cultural materials for use in
canoe building, carving and weaving, for example. In
some legislation exceptions are being made which dis-
criminate in favour of Maori traditional rights.

Owners of private land, including Maori owners, may
give protection to their land through Protected Private
Land provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, or through
voluntary Conservation Covenants under that Act, or
Open Space Covenants under the Queen Elizabeth II
National Trust Act 1977. The remarkable success of
these mechanisms in adding to the protected estate has
already been noted. In return for protecting land, owners
may receive financial support and advice in matters
such as fencing, landscaping, rehabilitating or other-
wise managing their property. Relief from Local Body
taxes is a further incentive to protect land. Tax incen-
tives are also provided for protection of privately owned
historic buildings. For some significant reserves, citizen
Boards may undertake management responsibilities on
behalf of the Crown. A large number of small reserves
are under Local Government control.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Protected area management is reasonably well-served
by research in New Zealand. The Department of Con-
servation has about 50 research scientists and techni-
cians, including a multidisciplinary core group and
advisory scientists in the regional conservancies to fa-
cilitate the application of science to management. In the
current year the research programme comprises about
160 projects, supported by a budget of $6.8 million (6%
of the total Department budget) of which $2.3 million
is committed to contract research with universities and
other Government science agencies. The research pro-
gramme covers a wide range of conservation science,
particularly in support of threatened species and habitat
management, though less emphasis is given to biologi-
cal survey and monitoring and to socio-economic re-
search. Restructuring of Government’s principal science
agency into sector-based institutes may have adverse
consequences for Conservation research, but there is
growing support for research supporting protected areas
from corporate sponsors and from non-governmental
conservation organisations, notably WWF-New Zealand.

New Zealand is active in international protected areas
programmes, either through memberships of interna-
tional organisations, such as or through its obligations
as a party to conservation instruments such as the World
Heritage Convention and Ramsar Convention In 1990
New Zealand ratified the Convention for the Protection
of the Environment and Natural Resources of the South
Pacific (SPREP Convention) and the Department, and
others, have been contributing to programmes for spe-
cies management, habitat survey and research, and other
advisory roles in several Pacific Island nations, notably
the Cook Islands, Solomon Islands and Western Samoa.
In recent years the Department of Conservation has
contributed to protected area management in Indonesia
and Papua New Guinea. The Department also has re-
sponsibility to promote conservation in the Ross De-
pendency of Antarctica, and with other Government
agencies and non-governmental groups has contributed
significantly to the development of policy for conserva-
tion in the Antarctic.

Liaison between New Zealand and Australia in pro-
tected areas matters is fostered through a Council of
Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) and its Standing
Committee, allowing an exchange of experience in
policy development and management, and the estab-
lishment of joint training programmes.

Table 5. World Heritage sites in Antarctica/
New Zealand

New Zealand

South West New Zealand (Te Wahipounamu)
Tongariro National Park

240

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

For the year ended June 1991, the budget of the Depart-
ment of Conservation was about $116 million, of which
$74 million was spent directly on protected areas man-
agement, with the balance directed to policy advice,
advocacy, education and information, and servicing
Crown agencies. Of the total budget, $21 million was
revenue eamed from user charges and rents, retail sales,
resource sales, and donations. In undertaking its activi-
ties the Department uses business, strategic and corpo-
rate planning approaches to management with rigorous
testing of performance against responsibilities and goals.
This data, and the other scant information available
from the region as a whole, is summarised in Table 6.

Programmes are increasingly being developed by the
Department to allow individuals, companies, and non-
governmental organisations to contribute to sponsor-
ship of projects, especially those aimed at recovery of
threatened indigenous species and their habitats. An
outstanding example is the Tasman Conservation Ac-
cord established among the Tasman Forestry Company,
Minister of Conservation, Royal Forest and Bird Pro-
tection Society, Maruia Society and Federated Moun-
tain Clubs. The Accord extends protection to 52 areas
of indigenous forest throughout the country, totalling
over 40,000ha in area. Of particular significance was
the sale of a 3,500ha area to the Department of Conser-
vation to safeguard the largest remaining population of
the rare blue-wattled crow, the kokako. Additionally,
the Accord provides $150,000 over a 3-year period for
kokako research and management and $175,000 is made
available for development of recreation facilities. Com-
pany sponsorships are also contributing to recovery
programmes for the rare forest parrot, the kakapo, and
the kiwi, New Zealand’s national bird.

Government has announced two sources of support
for protecting private lands as part of its 1990 indige-
nous forest policy, both of which are already proving
effective. The Forest Heritage Fund, currently standing
at $5 million per annum, is intended in particular to
protect forest that is threatened or under-represented in
existing protection. To December 1991, the Committee
administering the Fund had considered 203 applications
and recommended protection for 8,800ha of land.

Nga Whenua Rahui is a fund, currently of $2.1 mil-
lion, to assist Maori owners to protect their native
forests that respect their traditional rights, customs and
chiefly authorities. Currently under consideration are
17 cases which would extend protection to 18,000ha of
forest.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

Currently, the Department of Conservation has about
1,650 staff. Staff resources are deployed among a Head

Antarctica/New Zealand

Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets: Antarctica/New Zealand

Budget in
national currency

Country/responsible agency

Antarctica

Bouvet Island

Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
French Southern Territories
Heard and McDonald Islands

New Zealand — Department

of Conservation 116,000,000 NZD

Saint Helena 7,000 SHP

Source:

69,461,000

12,000

US Dollar
equivalent

Year

1991 Some NZD74.0 million are spent
directly on management. Of

this total figure, NZD21.0 million
was revenue from user charges
and rent, retail sales, resource
sales and donations.

1983 Funding (through Project-UK)
from WWF/UK, ODA, FFPS
and the British Council for
conservation purposes

[58] Bridgewater, P. (1992). Australia. Regional reviews prepared for the [Vth World Congress on National Parks and
Protected Areas, 10-2 February, Caracas, Venuzuela. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Office, which has primarily policy development roles,
and 14 regional Conservancies, which undertake con-
servation action.

Staff capacity is greatly enhanced by voluntary labour
ina Conservation Volunteers programme and a Conser-
vation Corps youth development scheme, assisted by
Government and others such as Maori Trusts. In 1991
some 10,000 volunteers participated in more than 400
projects, and six Conservation Corps projects involved
work in vegetation survey and rehabilitation, historic
site protection, track maintenance and warden staffing
at recreation huts, among others.

The Department of Conservation has a legal respon-
sibility to respect the rights of the Maori people, and is
committed to the inclusion of a Maori conservation
ethic in management practices and corporate planning.
Maori are employed at all levels of the Department and
play a particularly valuable role in the Conservancies in
establishing dialogue and mutually beneficial relation-
ships with local communities. Maori are also repre-
sented on the NZ Conservation Authority and they
make up one-third of the members of Conservation
Boards (Maori comprise 15% of New Zealand’s popu-
lation).

The use of statutory citizen bodies to provide com-
munity input to management is a distinguishing feature
of the New Zealand protected areas system and an
object-lesson for administrations elsewhere. The New
Zealand Conservation Authority, widely representative
of Local Government, Maori, tourism, recreational, con-
servation and scientific interests, and 17 Boards with

241

members appointed by public nomination, allow more
than 200 New Zealanders to have direct input to policy
formulation and management planning, and to perform
a range of advisory functions for the Department and
Minister of Conservation. During the past decade, the
former National Parks and Reserves Authority and Boards
were influential in virtually every major initiative in
development of the protected areas system and provided
a vital channel for dialogue between Government and
the public.

Non-governmental conservation and user groups have
continued to mount strong campaigns on behalf of
protected areas. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection
Society, now entering its 70th year and with more than
60,000 members, has been a powerful voice for protec-
tion of indigenous forests, marine reserve establishment,
threatened species management and World Heritage
promotion, among many others. A recently revitalised
national organisation of World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF) has developed a strong capacity in conservation
education and advocacy and is making a substantial
contribution to conservation research, The Federated
Mountain Clubs, with a long history of influencing
national park development, continues to exercise an
effective voice in the interests of recreational user groups.

7. Priorities for future investment in
protected areas

Government’s aims and desired achievements in pro-
tected areas are established through a corporate plan-
ning mechanism, which forms a framework for develop-
ment of annual business plans that guide conservation

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

action. Plan preparation is a wide-ranging consultative
process both internally in the Department among its
various policy divisions, and extemnally with the Con-
servation Authority and Boards, non-governmental in-
terest groups, the Maori community and the resource
development sector. The planning process also serves
educational and advocacy roles for generating support
for conservation from the public of New Zealand. Pre-
viously, corporate plans have had a one-year time hori-
zon, but the Department is now drawing up a five-year
strategy to determine medium-term priorities and goals,
in areas such as species and habitat management, con-
trol of introduced animals, recreation and tourism de-
velopment and research.

The Conservation Act makes management planning
mandatory for all protected areas. Developing site-
specific plans for all units in the system is impractical,
and attention has turned to preparation of regional con-
servation management strategies. These facilitate co-
ordinated planning for regional groupings of protected
areas, and allow for integration of protected area plan-
ning and regional land use planning. Management plans
will still be required for national parks, and all but one
park currently have an approved and operative plan.

Currently, efforts are underway to develop a national
conservation strategy, based on an earlier proposal
(Nature Conservation Council 1981), which recognises
the vital role of protected areas in sustainable develop-
ment. The Conservation Authority is taking a leading
role in this, in conjunction with other governmental and
non-governmental bodies. These efforts guide New
Zealand’s investments in protected areas.

8. Major issues in protected areas

8.1. Introduced animals and plants
Unquestionably, the presence of introduced alien spe-
cies of animals and plants remains the greatest threat to
the integrity of New Zealand’s protected areas. Animals
of particular concern are the Australian brush-tailed
possum, now spreading into the last remaining possum-
free areas; red deer, increasing in numbers following
reduction by commercial live recovery operations; and
feral goats spreading as a result of accidental releases
from commercial herds. Others of concern are rabbits,
rats, stoats, feral cats and dogs, and wasps. Problem
plants of greatest concern are the smothering vine
Clematis vitalba; marram grass on dunelands, heather
and Pinus contorta in Tongariro National Park, the
flatweed Hieraciwn which invades grassland; and oxy-
gen weeds in lakes and other waterways.

During the past decade concern has been mounting
about the deteriorating condition of affected eco-
systems, particularly from the National Parks and Re-
serves Authority and Boards which have called for
greater injection of resources to combat the problem.
Government responded last year by making additional

242

funds available and this allowed localised successes in
controlling possum, goat and wasp populations. This
year the Department of Conservation will spend $20
million on several hundred control operations applying
to about 1 million ha.

Despite localised gains, the overall problem remains
and it is still impractical to achieve adequate controls
over large areas. The nature and extent of impacts are
such that resources will never be adequate. Emphasis is
now being given to designing control programmes which
match maximum effort against areas of highest conser-
vation value or vulnerability to impact. An ecosystem
assessment and ranking system has been designed to
select priority areas for applying controls. Government
has also made funding available to develop a national
possum control programme, which includes a formal
agreement among Government, Regional Authority and
farmer groups to coordinate planning and control opera-
tions, and is backed by an associated national research
programme.

Animal control on offshore islands has met with
remarkable success. Veitch and Bell (1990) report eradi-
cation of 12 mammals and one bird (the weka) from 60
islands. Outstanding recent examples are removal of
cats from Little Barrier Island (3,000ha); possums from
Kapiti Island (2,000ha); possums and weka from
Codfish Island (1350ha); and Norway rats from Break-
sea Island (170ha) in Fiordland National Park. Preda-
tor-free islands are then available as refuges for
recovery of species endangered on the mainland. Out-
standing success has been achieved in the case of the
ram kakapo, threatened with extinction on Stewart Is-
land but now breeding on Little Barrier Island.

Corporate sponsorship through the Royal Forest and
Bird Protection Society Threatened Species Trust has
been fundamental in the success of this programme,
illustrating the benefits from new partnerships among
Government, non-governmental organisation and the
private sector. The programme also reveals the value of
species recovery plans, which are now being widely
used by the Department of Conservation to coordinate
management action, research and funding elements in
threatened species management.

8.2 Impacts of tourism

Protected areas in New Zealand are at the heart of a
burgeoning tourism industry, which is among the coun-
try’s fastest-growing industries and contributes $3.3
billion (5.2%) of Gross Domestic Product. Tourist num-
bers have doubled since 1980 to about 1 million annu-
ally at present, and numbers are expected to double
again by the end of the century.

More than half of overseas tourists visit a national
park or forest park. The Department of Conservation
spends about 25% of its budget on tourism and recrea-
tion management, and there is a large infrastructure to
maintain, including more than 1,000 huts and camp-

sites, many thousands of kilometres of walking tracks
and 60 visitor centres. Some 350 concessionaires oper-
ate tourist facilities and programmes in protected areas.

While tourism presents no real problem over much of
the protected estate, evidence is mounting of serious
localised impacts. A 1989 departmental report revealed
severe impact on existing facilities at 21 sites. The
Department will have increasing difficulty maintaining
and improving these to cope with projected increased
in visitor use, and this will probably be the most impor-
tant requirement for new investment of funds and re-
sources.

There will also be a need to combat any development
of tension between the ambitions of the tourism industry
for continued growth, and the requirements of protec-
tion in parks. This calls for broad consultation and
cooperation among all interests. The Department has
taken the initiative in preparing a tourism management
strategy to explain the legal obligations and policy goals
and outline the ways in which it will approach tourism
development. The strategy has been released for public
comment, and will be the focus of consultation with the
Ministry of Tourism, the tourism industry, the Conser-
vation Authority and conservation organisations. The
Department has also prepared a handbook of manage-
ment techniques for tourism impact assessment and
control.

9. Priorities for action in the region

Based on the significant and extensive protected area
system, and taking into consideration the current insti-
tutional structure and major issues, the following eleven
points are the highest priorities for action in New Zealand.

1. Further support for animal and plant pest control
programmes, including increased funding, clearly
defined objectives, well-coordinated planning
and operations at national and regional levels,
and a strong associated research and monitoring
programme.

Di Continued development and implementation of
recovery plans for threatened species of animals
and plants.

3: Renewed efforts to extend the ecological repre-
sentativeness of protected areas particularly in

243

11.

AntarcticalNew Zealand

grassland, wetland and coastal environments,
through progress with the Protected Natural
Areas Programme. This should include estab-
lishment of well-defined targets and timetables
for surveys, prompt follow-up action to apply
legal protection to recommended reserves, enlist
greater cooperation from regional government, and
streng- then public awareness programmes to gen-
erate wider public support, especially from land-
owners.

Concerted effort to extend the marine protected
areas network, development of a biogeographi-
cal framework to guide selection of representative
Sites setting target for additional reserves over next
decade, and examination of a range of legal and
regulatory measures for providing protection.

Continued legislative reform to integrate and
simplify the plethora of existing laws for pro-
tected area establishment and management.

Further development of a tourism management
strategy for protected areas, including extensive
consultation with the tourism industry, and inte-
gration with national and regional tourism de-
velopment plans.

Continued integration of Maori perspectives in
protected areas legislative and policy develop-
ment through strengthened consultative process
with the Maori community.

Strengthen partnerships between the Department
of Conservation and the Conservation Authority,
Fish and Game Councils and other protected
area agencies.

Maintain constructive working relationships be-
tween government and non-governmental con-
servation agencies, and develop programmes of
joint action, including greater use of voluntary
management support.

Hamess increased financial support for protected
areas from private-sector sponsorship, based on an
investment portfolio.

Compilation of a comprehensive database on
protected areas.

Pi nnemels . eat lu és eo rae a i phaineia N Oy \ Nate ie
(av la F u v sox, SoirGa =). Yee eS em | de f ceenhs spitacenantT hel ;
Ptoscole ti? asim (® tec ~ cara senteyont onkanitn agama

un tim c ert es

ee ee siti Tie é bi duaene ph haga ie 190 Gast ARECIIGE
rea aa wpe Ueki ast ag <—— a qs O pein wf edlahes ountas ‘bets
; eae geul — Fer ger Seeker CON) A stag
ty ‘s : — sabi cimulimatioge: < wi? hk @, patio’ ucled> Opp
2 cin Ng SiR Diz =i wna save mo ‘hd

hie ae i
nein we ct
ee it. surest

nifA sata eA) mer oe wt) zis Patho x
{02h 1 -9S> ios bt ah at BaD or tial ‘
ee wise ht bles ie ath Ps in \ hit Sea aniteg Ae la
, a SNS Dgtrrgg Bbw Gone &
av atinne) mag a _ ne ‘SRR a Sleeping hrm te eo staal-gy
ORNS HE ae A a a
‘alee i2 pins | Peele ah ie ny, ke 4

* bee g. 0 (round ° a taal ioe Walige, ;
{ Ce Me asim a

i je) dal (WY a
wet 1% a) ly — er

Salis '
ag Cutts Siw ee. nye ‘ bl Rt SES
ee lvls mS isles ae .* Sa

Pam rege eis ey. ad
ra in ‘fas hor) Seal? ae :
2 ing bra es , ‘items eit ni clan wa est att
= J ee cents og 2 Reyer

airs taue,

| Geman pen

Antarctica/New Zealand

Annex 1.
Protected areas in the Antarctic Treaty Area

1. History of the protected area
system in the Antarctic Area

On 15 January 1956 the first area for protection of
nature in the region which subsequently became the
Antarctic Treaty Areas was declared around Haswell
Island, in territory claimed by Australia. However, con-
servation measures had been in place for some time
prior to that date (Holdgate and Roberts, 961; Keage,
986; Headland, 1989). Dating from the 1870s, the ear-
liest conservation measures were almost exclusively
intended to protect marine mammals from indiscrimi-
nate exploitation by the burgeoning sealing and whaling
industries in the Southern Ocean. Attention focused
first on Australia’s Macquarie Island, but extended
progressively to waters around the Falkland Islands and
Dependencies; French Antarctic Territory; the Norwe-
gian Bouvetgya and Peter I @y; and to Argentinean
Antarctic Territory when, in 1953, that Government
declared a prohibition on killing native animals.

In the first decades of this century, while several
subantarctic islands were declared wildlife reserves, the
earliest protection measures in the Antarctic were prin-
cipally directed at species protection. With the advent
of greatly expanded scientific activity from the mid-
1950s, however, more attention was given to area pro-
tection. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
(SCAR), formed in 1958 to promote and coordinate
science in the Antarctic, immediately expressed a con-
cern for the protection of representative areas of natural
environments. Signatories, consultative and acceding
parties to the Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force
on 23 June 1961, are listed in Table 4.A 1960 SCAR
report on Conservation of Nature in Antarctica outlined
the general principles of nature conservation, which
formed the basis of the first major conservation regime
under the Antarctic Treaty—the Agreed Measures for
Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora—formally
adopted by the Treaty Parties in 1964.

The Agreed Measures stipulate that the Antarctic
Treaty Area, i.e. south of latitude 60°S, is to be consid-
ered a "Special Conservation Area" (Handbook of the
Antarctic Treaty System, 1990). Article VIII of the
Agreed Measures provides for the establishment of
Specially Protected Areas (SPAs), thereby laying the
foundation for an Antarctic protected areas system.
According to objectives refined in 1972, SPAs are
intended to preserve unique or outstanding natural eco-
logical systems of scientific interest, which are to in-
clude representative examples of major Antarctic land
and freshwater ecological systems; unique complexes
of species; the type locality or only known habitat of
any plant or invertebrate species; especially interesting
breeding colonies of birds or mammals; and areas which
should be kept inviolate so that in future they may be

245,

used for purposes of comparison with localities dis-
turbed by humans.

By definition, SPAs are confined to protection of
biological phenomena. It is also a requirement that the
number of such sites be kept to the minimum required
and that they be as small an area as possible to serve
their designated purpose. The first SPAs were approved
in 1966 and by 1991 23 SPAs had been established,
although four of these had been re-designated as Sites
of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Table 8).

Based on SCAR proposals, the Seventh Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Meeting in 1972 (ATCM Recom-
mendation VII-—3) approved provisions for designation
of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). This
category of protected area is intended to recognise the
need for protection of scientific investigations from
damage. Thus, SSSIs are areas of exceptional scientific
interest, which require long-term protection from harm-
ful interference. They can be designated to cover arms
of current or planned scientific activity where there
exists a demonstrable risk of interference, or where sites
of exceptional scientific interest are considered to merit
long-term protection. ATCM Recommendation XIV-6
(1987) makes specific provision for the establishment
of marine SSSIs.

Protection of SSSIs is for a specified period, normally
10 years, though it has been general practice to renew
protection after the expiry date. The first group of seven
SSSIs was approved in 1975. By 1991 a total of 35
SSSIs had been established, 24 of these being added to
the network since 1985 (Table 9).

In 1989, the XV ATCM, agreed upon a new category
of protected area, known as a Specially Reserved Area
(SRA). This category extends the protection provisions
of SPAs and SSSIs to allow inclusion of geological,
geomorphological, glaciological, aesthetic, scenic, and
wilderness features and landscapes. No such areas have
yet been designated.

At the XV ATCM the Treaty Parties also reached
agreement on designation of Multiple-use Planning Areas
(MPAs). The MPA concept reflects a SCAR recom-
mendation for a category of protected area to provide
for coordinated management which would minimise
harmful environmental impacts. While they are not
protected areas in the strict sense, MPAs would allow
for application of planning and management procedures
in Antarctic localities where multiple human activities
could interfere with one another or cause undesirable
cumulative environmental impacts. Thus, an MPA might
contain one or more scientific stations, transport net-
works and facilities, research sites (possibly SSSIs),
SPAs, historic sites and zoned tourist areas. No MPAs
have yet been designated, but areas such as Ross Island

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

and the Palmer Peninsula have been suggested as prime
candidates.

Recognition of the need for historic protection came
at the first meeting of the Treaty Parties in 1961, when
ATCM Recommendation I—9 called on Governments
to consult, exchange reports and adopt measures to
protect tombs, buildings or objects of historic interest.
This provision was further elaborated by a series of
recommendations at subsequent ATCMs, which pro-
vided for a progressive listing of Historic Sites and
Monuments, and their appropriate identification. De-
spite repeated calls for site protection and buffering,
these provisions continue to apply only to historic fea-
tures and not to areas per se. By 1991 more than 50 Sites
and Monuments were listed. The most conspicuous of
these are huts used by early polar explorers, but monu-
ments also include abandoned stations, rock shelters,
caims, graves, memorial crosses and plaques and stat-
ues.

The additional protected area measures available un-
der the Antarctic Treaty System all relate specifically
to the marine environment. These include Seal Re-
serves, established under the 1972 Convention for the
Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS), within which
it is forbidden to take seals. To date three such oceanic
reserves have been created at the South Orkney Islands,
and at two locations in the Ross Sea, respectively, with
a combined area of 190,000 sq km and in 1990 the
Commission under CCAMLR adopted a measure pro-
viding protection to sites where colonies of seabirds and
seals are being monitored under the CCAMLR Ecosys-
tem Monitoring Programme (CEMP). Yet to be imple-
mented, this measure provides for introduction of a site
management plan specifying conditions of access and
activities that are prohibited.

Atan historic meeting in Madrid in October 1991, the
Treaty Parties concluded a series of special consultative
meetings by adopting a Protocol on Environmental
Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Developed in re-
sponse to a combination of influences—including calls
from a number of non-governmental organisations for
an Antarctic World Park, the Parties’ rejection of the
Minerals Convention, and their recognition of the need
for comprehensive revision of existing conservation
measures—the protocol constitutes the most extensive
reform of protection measures in the Antarctic since the
1964 Agreed Measures. Indeed, the comprehensive le-
gal regime it establishes for environmental protection is
tantamount to that invoked by the World Park concept.

Annex V of the Protocol, adopted by the XVI ATCM
at Bonn in October 1991, addresses Area Protection and
Management. Once it comes into force, this measure
has the potential to revolutionise the current protected
area provisions and overcome the major deficiencies in
the existing protected area system. Outstanding among
the innovative rules contained in the Annex are:

246

@ Provision for replacing the existing multiple-
category system with a simplified system compris-
ing just two categories of protected area: Antarctic
Specially Protected Area (ASPA) intended to pro-
vide strict protection and accessible only under per-
mit; and Antarctic Specially Managed Area
(ASMA) intended to promote coordination of mul-
tiple-use activities and avoid mutual interference,
where permits for entry would not be required.

The requirement that both major categories of pro-
tected area have approved management plans. Such
plans would guide management action and be the
legal mechanism for establishing Areas in that des-
ignation of Areas would be achieved through ap-
proval of the management plan.

While responsibility for designation of Areas would
be with ATCMs, they would be advised by the
Committee for Environmental Protection, established
under the Protocol, and by other elements of the
Treaty System including SCAR.

Extensive rules are provided to cover information
and publicity requirements and arrangements for
collecting and exchanging information on the con-
dition and use of protected areas.

Designation of Antarctica as a World Park has been
a long-sought goal of most non-governmental organisa-
tions with an interest in Antarctic conservation. Given
the recent sweeping environmental protection reforms,
this is now a highly unlikely prospect. There is, how-
ever, continuing interest in the potential for designation
of areas in the Antarctic under the World Heritage
Convention. Unquestionably, several areas in the Ant-
arctic are of exceptional universal value and would
qualify for World Heritage status. While management
principles inherent in the Convention are consistent
with the Antarctic Treaty System, existing legal mecha-
nisms preclude the application of World Heritage status
in the Antarctic Treaty Area. IUCN has urged UNESCO
and the Treaty Parties to collaborate in seeking solu-
tions to this unfortunate impasse.

2. Deficiencies and threats in
protected area management

A critical review of the Antarctic protected area system
is a key element in the IUCN Antarctic Conservation
Strategy (IUCN, 1991). This comprehensive account,
drawn up over several years in response to IUCN General
Assembly resolutions, took advantage of extensive con-
sultation throughout the IUCN membership network,
including significant input from non-governmental
sources—particularly WWF, the Antarctic and Southem
Ocean Coalition (ASOC) and Greenpeace International,
and benefited from close collaboration with SCAR.
Advice contained in the strategy provides a useful
framework for reviewing inadequacies in the estab-
lishment and management of Antarctic protected areas
and the remedial action required or in train.

Antarctica/New Zealand

Table 7. Relationship between New Zealand protected area class and revised IUCN

Category.

IUCN Category Class of NZ protected area

Scientific Reserves and Wilderness Areas

National Parks and Equivalent Reserves

Natural Monuments

Habitat and Wildlife Management Areas

Protected Land/Sea Scapes

3. Protected area coverage

In the absence of an overall protected areas systems
plan, the Antarctic protected areas network has devel-
oped in piecemeal fashion (see Tables 1 to 3). Designa-
tion of protected areas normally occurs through devel-
opment of national proposals, which are reviewed by
SCAR and forwarded to ATCMs for approval by the
Treaty Parties. Note that data in Tables 1-3 do not
exactly correspond with that given in Tables 8 and 9,
due to the minimum size criterion applied to the former.

While ecological representation has been a long-
sought goal in protecting the Antarctic environment,
protected area system planning has lacked an adequate
biogeographical framework. A habitat classification sys-
tem designed by SCAR, covering terrestrial, inland
water and marine environments (SCAR, 1977), has
proven useful for semi-quantitative characterisation of
individual areas (Keys, 1988), but it lacks a spatial or
geographical component. Suggested improvements for
relating habitat type to geographic regions (Hayden et
al., 1984; Ray, 1985; Keage, 1987) have not been
pursued.

Consequently, the biogeographic distribution of ex-
isting protected areas is distinctly uneven (Lucas and
Dingwall, 1985; Bonner and Lewis-Smith, 1985; Keage,
1987). Overwhelming attention is given to protection of

247

Scientific Reserves

Nature Reserves

Sanctuary Areas

Ecological Areas

Wildlife Sanctuary

NP Specially Protected Areas
Marine Reserves

Wildemess Areas (in National
Parks and Conservation Areas)
Conservation Covenants (some)
Protected Private Lands (some)

National Parks
Conservation Parks

Large Scenic Reserves
Conservation Areas (some)

Historic Reserves

Scenic Reserves (most)
Conservation Areas (some)
Scientific Reserves (some)

Wildlife Management Reserves
Wildlife Refuges

Marginal Strips
Recreation Reserves

unique or scientifically significant sites in the coastal
environment, especially to seabird and seal breeding
localities and, to a lesser extent, vegetated sites. Thir-
teen of the 19 SPAs and 20 of the 35 SSSIs are either
entire or part of islands. Littoral zones are well repre-
sented, but near-shore marine environments are included
in only three SPAs and 13 SSSIs, while exclusively ma-
rine protected areas are limited to five SSSIs. Geologi-
cal features are the focus of protection in only one SPA
and seven SSSIs.

Inland sites, including aquatic ecosystems, marine
areas and representative biota and landscapes figure
more prominently in recently designated protected
areas, but along with geological, landform, glaciologi-
cal, scenic and wilderness landscapes, they remain pri-
orities for filling gaps and ensuring protection of the full
range of environmental diversity in the Antarctic.

4. Proposed protected areas

To date, no comprehensive or systematic attempt has
been made to identify further areas meriting protection.
The New Zealand authorities have drawn up an indica-
tive list of 15 potential protected areas in the Ross Sea
Region (Keys et al., 1988), and a workshop to be jointly
convened by SCAR and IUCN in 1992 will give atten-
tion to future protection needs.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

The 1991 Protocol expressly provides a legal man-
date for this task and promises much improvement.
Criteria for establishing ASPAs make specific refer-
ence to the inclusion of representative examples of
major terrestrial and marine ecosystems identified within
a systematic environmental-geographical framework,
and allowance is made for inclusion of the widest pos-
sible range of biological, physical, historical, aesthetic
and wilderness features and values.

5. Management planning and
design of protected areas

Management planning is only rudimentary in Antarctic
protected areas. Plans have traditionally been required
only for SSSIs and these are generally limited in scope.
In 1989 the XV ATCM approved the application of
management planning to other major categories. SCAR
is currently preparing a handbook to guide management
plan preparation. The 1991 Protocol takes a major for-
ward step in requiring the universal application of man-
agement plans, and it details the matters to be covered
and requirements for plan review and updating.

These provisions will help overcome several design
problems in established protected areas. With few ex-
ceptions, protected areas are restricted in size, lack
internal zoning, and are delimited by straight-line bounda-
ries rather the natural features.

6. Institutional capacity for
establishment and
management of protected areas

In Antarctica no single institution oversees establishment
and management of protected areas. The region is ad-
ministered under the 1961 Antarctic Treaty, a remarkable
international legal agreement among 26 Consultative Par-
ties who are active in Antarctica, and 13 Acceding
States.

The ultimate decision-making authority is the ATCM
of the Parties, previously biennial but now an annual
round, at which the Parties adopt recommendations by
consensus with voting rights restricted to Consultative
Parties. Recommendations are hortatory only and re-
quire national legislation for ratification and entry into
force. Management action is variously undertaken as
part of national Antarctic programmes. The parties are
advised on scientific matters, including area protection,
by SCAR, and a Council of Managers of National
Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP) meets to coordinate
and address management needs.

A Commission established under the 1980 CCAMLR
agreement is responsible for conservation measures in
management of marine areas and resources, and it too
is assisted by a Scientific Advisory Committee.

No Antarctic protected area management service ex-
ists. Surveillance and monitoring of areas, and enforce-

248

ment of regulations, are undertaken by national authorities.
They are assisted in this by entry permit and inspection
procedures, which have tended to be incompletely ap-
plied in the past, and by reports of scientists. More
recently, reports from inspection teams and from unof-
ficial inspections by Greenpeace International have in-
cluded reports on visits to protected areas.

Collated evidence from inspection and visit reports
(Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System, 1990) sug-
gests that so far problems are few and amenable to
solution. Among the most commonly reported concerns
are those referring to boundaries that are inappropri-
ately located, inaccurately mapped, or inadequately
demarcated; littering of sites; evidence of vegetation
trampling by people and animals; and observations on
tourist and recreational use of areas.

The 1991 Protocol provides for much improved insti-
tutional and procedural arrangements for monitoring
the condition and use of protected areas. Permits, issued
by an appointed authority of the Parties, are made
mandatory for entry to and use of ASPAs. Management
plans, which are to be initially approved by the Envi-
ronmental Committee under the Protocol, in consult-
ation with SCAR and the CCAMLR Commission, will
specify the conditions under which permits may be
granted, and may also require submission of reports
following visits to areas.

7. Integration of protection and
other activities

Most protected areas are isolated and widely dispersed
in Antarctica. Some, however, are in close proximity to
scientific stations and other areas frequented by scien-
tists and tourists.

Scientists and supporting personnel—the humans who
are present in greatest numbers in Antarctica— have the
highest potential for disturbance. Protected areas are
important research sites and SSSIs are established spe-
cifically for scientific purposes. Evidence to date sug-
gests that problems are minimal. While some areas are
regularly visited, for census or related studies of wildlife
for example, the majority are used as reference sites or
for long-term monitoring programmes rather than inten-
sive field research, and the impacts tend to be benign.
Some protected areas are not being used to their full
potential for science. Many, including some SSSIs,
have no current or planned research, and some serve
primarily to prevent indiscriminate research activities
or over-zealous collecting of specimens, or to guard
against potential tourist interference.

Experience with tourism reveals that, despite bur-
geoning tourist numbers—some 2000-3000 tourists now
visit Antarctica annually—and despite a tendency for
tourists to favour areas such as wildlife colonies with
high protection values, disruption to station routines is
far more significant than damage to protected areas and
their values.

However, where protection and other activities are
associated, coordinated management is needed. Provi-
sions in the 1991 Protocol for establishing ASMAs hold
the key to solving this potential problem. The ASMA
concept is specifically intended to allow integrated land
use practices to be applied and to facilitate cooperative
action which will minimise environmental impacts in
multiple-use areas.

8. Information management

Management of Antarctic protected areas lacks the
support of a dedicated information management system
for recording, storing and retrieving management-related
information from research and monitoring, or for use in
education, training and publicity programmes—all
fundamentally important given the steadily increasing

Antarctica/New Zealand

pace of activity and interest in the region. Instead,
information must be sifted from scientific papers, in-
spection reports and Treaty documents, many of which
are not readily available.

Again, the 1991 Protocol responds effectively to this
need by requiring Parties to publicise site details and
management regulations, particularly by means of widely
distributed management plans. Parties are also required
to arrange the exchange of information on permits
issued, reports of visits including inspections, and re-
cords of changing circumstances, and to report annually
to other Parties and to the Committee for Environmental
Protection on these and other management actions
taken. Further promising developments include plans to
create a comprehensive Antarctic protected areas data
system at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

Table 8. Antarctica—Specially Protected Areas (SPAs)

Taylor Rookery, MacRobertson Land
Rookery Is., Holme Bay

Ardery Is. and Odbert Is,. Budd Coast
Sabrina Is., Balleny Islands

Beaufort Is., Ross Sea

Cape Crozier (now SSSI #4)

Cape Hallett, Victoria Land

Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay

Green Is., Berthelot Islands

Byers Peninsula, S. Shetlands (now SSSI #6)
Cape Shirreff, S. Shetlands (now SSSI #31)
Fildes Peninsula, S. Shetlands (now SSSI #5
Moe Is., S. Orkneys

Lynch Is., S. Orkneys

S. Powell Is. Group, S. Orkneys
Coppermine Peninsula, S. Shetlands
Litchfield Is., Palmer Archipelago

N. Coronation Is., S. Orkneys

Lagotelleri Is., Marguerite Bay

Caughley Beach, Ross Island

Avian Is., N-W Marguerite Bay

Cryptogam Ridge, Victoria Land

Forlidas Ponds and Davis Valley Ponds

Total: 19 SPAs

Year designated

Area (ha)

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 9. Antarctica—Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

Area
(ha)

Year
of expiry

Year
designated

1 Cape Royds, Ross Island 1975 1995 2

2 Arrival Heights, Ross Island 1975 1997 175

3 Barwick Valley, Victoria Land 1975 1995 32,500

4 Cape Crozier, Ross Island 1975 2001 2,000

5 Fildes Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1975 2001 180

6 Byers Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1975 2001 7,100

a Haswell Island, Queen Mary Land 1975 2001 80

8 Admiralty Bay, S. Shetlands 1979 1995 1,360

9 Rothera Point, Adelaide Island 1985 1995 5
10 Caughley Beach, Ross Island 1985 2001 50
11 Tramway Beach, Mr. Erebus, Ross Island 1985 2001 1
12 Canada Glacier, Victoria Land 1985 2001 100
13 Potter Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1985 1995 200
14 Harmony Point, S. Shetlands 1985 1995 25,000
15 Cierva Poinht, Danco Coast 1985 1995 1,450
16 N-E Bailey Peninsula, Budd Coast 1985 1995 55
17 Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast 1985 1995 1,000
18 N-W White Is., McMurdo Sound 1985 2001 12,500
19 Linnaeus Terrace, Victoria Land 1985 1995 300
20 Biscoe Pont, Anvers Island 1985 1995 275
21 Deception Is. (parts), S. Shetlands 1985 1995 130
22 Yukidori Valley, Lutzow-Holm Bay 1987 2003 300
23 Svarthamaren, Dronning-Maud Land 1987 1997 390
24 Mt. Melbourne Summit, N. Victoria Land 1987 1997 100
25 Marine Plain, Mule Peninsula, Princess Elizabeth Land 1987 1997 1,500
26 Chile Bay, S. Shetlands 1987 1997 60
27 Port Foster, S. Shetlands 1987 1997 50
28 South Bay, Doumer Is., Palmer Archipelago 1987 1997 115
29 Albation Pt-Ganymede Hts., Alexander Is. 1989 1999 18,000
30 Mt. Flora, Hope Bay, Antarctic Peninsula 1989 1999 55
31 Cape Shirreff, S. Shetlands 1989 1999 590
32 Ardley Is., S. Shetlands 1991 2001 145
33 Lions Rump, S. Shetlands 1991 2001 150
34 West Bransfield Strait, S. Shetlands 1991 2001 57,600
35 East Dallmann Bay, Brabant Is. 1991 2001 96,300

Total: 35 SSSIs 259,820

250

Antarctical/New Zealand

Annex 2.
Protected Areas on islands of the Southern Ocean

1. Introduction — the Southern
Islands

Within the vast Southern Ocean, beyond the Antarctic
Treaty Area and extending north to the Subtropical
Convergence at latitude 35—40°S, are 20 major islands
or island groups. Collectively these incorporate more
than 800 individual islands or islets, with a total land
area of approximately 27,000 sq km, or double the
extent of the Hawaiian archipelago. The islands are
administered as sovereign territory of six states—United
Kingdom, Norway, South Africa, France, Australia and
New Zealand (see Tables 1 to 3). Sovereignty over the
Falklands Islands (Islas Malvinas), South Georgia and
the South Sandwich Islands is claimed both by the
United Kingdom and Argentina.

2. Biogeographical setting

In the context of the IUCN global biogeographical
system (Udvardy, 1975), the islands lie within the Prov-
ince of Insulantarctica. This wide-ranging region can be
more used fully subdivided into three zones, as outlined
below:

= Cool temperate. Containing islands lying between
the Subtropical and Antarctic Convergences; mean
monthly temperature rarely below 5°C; trees, shrubs

and tussock grasslands dominate the vegetation.

Subantarctic. Containing islands lying in the vicin-
ity of the Antarctic Convergence; mean annual
temperature 1—-5°C; grasslands and herb-field
vegetation without trees.

Maritime Antarctic. Containing islands apprecia-
bly south of the Antarctic Convergence; mean annual
temperature below O°C; sparse vegetation cover
dominated by mosses and lichens.

3. Extent of protection

A directory of protected areas in the Southern Ocean
was first published by IUCN in 1985 (Clark and Ding-
wall, 1985), and was partially updated at a CNPPA
working session in New Zealand in 1987 (Dingwall,
1987). Recent reviews of the conservation status of the
islands have also been undertaken in a SCAR atlas of
Antarctic conservation areas (Bonner and Lewis-Smith,
1985) and at a joint SCAR/IUCN workshop in France
in 1986 (Walton, 1986), which will meet again in 1992.

Approximately 1,900 sq km, or about 7% of the total
area of the islands, are included within legally protected
areas. Within island groups the proportion of strictly
protected land varies widely, from 100% (e.g. New
Zealand islands, Macquarie, Bouvetgya) to less than 1%
in the Falklands/Malvinas. Only Marion, Prince

251

Edward and the South Sandwich Islands are without
Statutory land protection; but all have a conservation
man- agement regime.

There are no formally declared marine reserves around
the islands. At Macquarie Island an area extending three
nautical miles offshore is managed as a marine buffer
zone for the reserve, and at Tristan da Cunha, Gough,
Heard, McDonald, Bouvetgya, Marion and Prince
Edward Island, land protection provisions extend also
to territorial waters. At the Snares Islands, mooring of
vessels and fishing in near shore waters are strictly
controlled, and at the Auckland Islands a fishing ban is
imposed within a 12 nautical miles surrounding zone.
Similar controls have been imposed around the French
islands since 1978. Eight island groups are in the region
covered by CCAMLR, which regulates exploitation of
marine resources on the high seas south of the Antarctic
Convergence. A restricted fishing zone was established
at South Georgia under CCAMLR in 1985.

4. History of protection

With a few exceptions, protected areas establishment is
a recent phenomenon on islands in the Southern Ocean.
The Auckland Islands were fully protected in 1934 (part
protection from 1910) and at the French Islands a 1924
protection decree was replaced by legislation in 1938
declaring them to be a "Parc national antarctique francais”.
Macquarie Island became a nature sanctuary in 1938.
The other New Zealand islands were reserved in the
1950s and 1960s and reserves in the Falklands/Malvinas
were established periodically from 1964. For all other
islands, legal protection dates from the 1970s.

5. Status of protection

Most protected areas may be classed as IUCN Category I
areas (Scientific Reserve/Wildermess) (Table 2). Marion
and Prince Edward Islands are not formally protected
but their management regime satisfies the criteria for
this class of protection also. The French islands are
declared national parks but the management approach
is akin to that of Category V areas (Protected Land-
scape/ Ecosystem Conservation). The New Zealand
islands are declared National Reserves, according them
the status and security equivalent to a national park.
Macquarie Island was designated a Biosphere Reserve
(MAB, UNESCO) in 1977. No islands have World
Heritage status. Proposals for Heard and McDonald,
and Macquarie Islands are under assessment by UNESCO,
and an informal assessment has been made of World
Heritage values of the New Zealand islands (Molloy
and Dingwall, 1990).

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

6. Institutional arrangements

All islands are governed as external territories of sov-
ereign states. Some, such as the UK and French islands,
have resident administrations. Macquarie Island is man-
aged as part of the State of Tasmania. The New Zealand
islands and Macquarie are administered by protection
agencies, but in other cases Foreign, Justice and Envi-
ronmental Ministries have primary responsibility for
management, either solely or jointly. It is common
practice for administering authorities to be assisted in
island management by Antarctic (or Polar) agencies or
advised by scientific and/or environmental committees.
Only Tristan da Cunha, Macquarie Island and Campbell
Island are known to have permanently resident rangers
or wardens with responsibility for administering pro-
tected area regulations.

7. Management issues and
priorities for future action

The following are the principal issues of management
concern requiring attention on Southern Islands, as
assessed by SCAR and IUCN (e.g. Clark and Dingwall,
1985; Walton, 1986; IUCN, 1991).

Strengthening legislation, policy and management
planning. _In several instances legislation for island
protection is outmoded or inadequate. Authorities at the
Falklands/Malvinas, for example, have recognised the
need for a major revision of legislation applying to
wildlife and area protection. A 1987 Environment Pro-
tection and Management Ordinance for Heard and
McDonald Islands has greatly improved their legal
standing as protected areas. But management protection
in the Prince Edward and Marion Islands protection
management relies upon a voluntary code of conduct
which, although extensive, requires full backing of
legislation.

While conservation management guidelines exist for
most islands, detailed, officially approved and legally
binding management plans exist only for the New
Zealand islands and (recently) at Macquarie Island.
Management planning is under consideration for
Marion and Prince Edward, and Gough Islands. The
planning process should be universally applied
throughout the network. Existing plans serve as useful
models, as does the planning prescription contained in
the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the
Antarctic Treaty.

Extending of the protected area network. Currently
only 7% of the total island area is formally protected,
and protection is biogeographically uneven. For exam-
ple, less than 4% of the islands in the subantarctic zone are
under legal protection. Given the broad biogeographical
scope of the realm, and the high degree of endemism in
island biota, it is important that plans for extending the
network give consideration to including representative
examples of the full range of ecological diversity.

Several islands have been identified as having high
priority for protection, some of them smaller offshore

252

islands free of human modification. They include, in the
Crozet Group, Ile de 1’Est, Ile aux Cochons, Ilot des
Apotres, Ile des Pingouins and part of Ile de la Posses-
sion. At Iles Kerguelen, the offshore Ile Nuageuses, free
of introduced mammals which are so destructive else-
where in the Group, are proposed for protection.

Controlling of introduced species. Virtually all
island groups have been affected by human contact at
some stage, and the introduction of alien plants and
animals, whether deliberate or accidental, has been
ecologically disastrous in places. Land mammals, largely
absent from native biota on islands, have had the great-
est impacts, especially on islands with human settle-
ments (e.g. Falklands and Tristan) and at the French
Islands (e.g. Kerguelen has seven species of introduced
mammals). Uncontrolled grazing has often encouraged
the spread of alien plants among modified vegetation
communities. Predation by cats and rats has greatly
reduced bird numbers, particularly the smaller burrow-
ing petrels. Introduced plants, though widespread and
numerous (e.g. Tristan and Campbell Islands have more
than 100 and 80 species, respectively) have generally
been of much less concer.

At the other extreme are the relatively few islands
remaining in an essentially natural state—particularly
Heard and McDonald Islands, the Snares, Bouvetgya
and the S. Sandwich Island, which are free of introduced
species, and the Bounty and Prince Edward Islands with
no animal introductions. Several islets in the Crozet and
Kerguelen Groups may also be free of such introduc-
tions.

Active management is required to address the most
pressing needs, which are to cease all further introduc-
tions, quarantine all undamaged islands, institute con-
trol measures for areas under immediate threat and
restore native communities as far as possible.

Rapid vegetation recovery after removal of sheep and
cattle from Campbell Island and intensive control of
rabbits on Macquarie Island reveal the benefits which
can be derived from imposing control measures. The
recent removal of feral cattle and goats, and plans for
eradicating rabbits, from the Auckland Islands are fur-
ther illustrations of a concerted effort to restore the
vegetation on New Zealand islands. Other encouraging
developments are the commencement of intensive con-
trols on cats at Marion Island and preparation of a
comprehensive plan of restoration of Amsterdam
Island. WWF and IUCN have published a guide to
rodent prevention and control measures, based largely
on New Zealand experience (Moors et al., 1989).

Regulating of tourism. The islands of the Southern
Ocean are being drawn inexorably into the orbit of
global tourism and, along with fishing, tourism is now
a well-established commercial enterprise in the region.
Visits to islands are usually a component of more ex-
tensive Antarctic voyaging. Experience to date reveals
that tourism has had a benign influence on the islands,

but vigilance and controls are necessary, particularly to
avoid disturbance to biota and introductions of alien
plants and animals.

Current management approaches to tourism vary con-
siderably among islands. Tourism is not encouraged at
the South African islands. At Macquarie Island, limited

Antarctical/New Zealand

supervised by persons authorised by the management
authorities. These policies offer a useful guide for other
island administrators.

Other priorities for action. | Among other identified
needs for improved protection are:

tourism is permitted, though quarantine regulations put @ Increased research with emphasis on completing bio-
the island off-limits for some time after 1982. At South logical inventories, assessing impacts, conducting
Georgia visits are restricted to designated Areas of ecological studies of native and introduced commu-
Special Tourist Interest. Seaborne tourism is well estab- nities, and investigating land-sea interrelationships;
lished in the Falklands and there have been reports of F : E
localised disturbance to wildlife. In the New Zealand @ Increased information exchange to promote wider
islands, comprehensive policies have been adopted to application of successful management programmes,
cope with growing tourist numbers. The number of and encourage coordinated conservation effort;
MASHS.AS pauied aomually and Becessito|pesine ais @ Controls on station development and conduct and
unsafe islands (e.g. Snares, Bounties) is restricted to sae : :

A ae ie : application of environmental impact assessment to
shoreline cruising. Elsewhere, visits are strictly regu- nya

: : z : : re all human activities;
lated by permits, which require compliance with a mini-
mum impact code, stipulate those islands or areas that @ Wider application of conservation education and
are off-limits, and direct tourists to preferred landing training for island residents and visitors including
sites. These are selected to maximise tourist experience scientists;
but also to allow limited development of facilities, such
as boardwalks to protect vulnerable soil and plant cover. m Extension of protective measures to surrounding
A modest charge is levied for tourist permits to offset waters, including imposition of controls and formal
associated management costs and permits must be establishment of marine protected areas.
References

Bonner, W.N. and Lewis-Smith, R.I.. 1985. Conserva-
tion areas in the Antarctic. SCAR, Scott Polar Re-
search Institute, Cambridge. 299 pp.

Clark, M.R. and Dingwall, P.R. 1985. Conservation of
islands in the Southern Ocean. IUCN, Cambridge,
U.K. 188 pp.

Department of Lands and Survey. 1984. Register of
Protected Natural Areas in New Zealand. Wellington.
N.Z. 468pp.

Department of Lands 1908. Report on a botanical sur-
vey of the Tongariro National Park. N.Z. Parliament
House of Representatives, Appendices to Journals
C-11, 22 June 1908.

Devlin, P.J., Dingwall, P.R. Lucas, P.H.C.. 1990. New
Zealand. In International Handbook of National
Parks and Nature Reserves. Allin, C.W. (ed.). Greenwood
Press, New York. Pp. 272-293.

Dingwall, P.R. and Simpson, P.G.. 1988. The potential
role for Biosphere Reserves in environmental moni-
toring in New Zealand. In Proceedings of Sympo-
sium on Environmental Monitoring, Dept of Conser-
vation. Pp.264—273

Dingwall, P.R. 1987. Directory of protected areas on
islands of the Southem Ocean—an update 1987. In
Dingwall, P.R. (ed.) Conserving the Natural
Heritage of the Antarctic Realm. Proc. 29th Work-
ing Session of CNPPA, New Zealand, August 1987.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Pp. 75-84.

253

Dingwall, P.R. 1981. Evolving a national system of
protected natural areas in New Zealand. Proc. CNPPA
Working Session, Christchurch, N.Z. 24 pp.

Headland, R.K. 1989. Chronological list of Antarctic
expeditions and related historical events. CUP, Cambridge,
U.K. 730 pp.

Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System 1990. Part 3
The Antarctic Protected Area System. (7th Edition
Oct. 1990). Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge.

Hayden, B.P. et al. 1984. Classification of coastal and
marine environments. Environmental Conservation
11: 199-207.

Holdgate, M.W. and Roberts, B.B.. 1961. Wildlife laws
relating to the Antarctic and Subantarctic. SCAR,
Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge University.

IUCN, 1991. A Strategy for Antarctic Conservation.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. 85 pp.

IUCN. 1992. Protected Areas of the World: Volume I:
Indomalaya, Oceania, Australia and Antarctic Pre-
pared by WCMC, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and
Cambridge, U.K. xx + 352 pp.

Keage, P.L. 1986. Antarctic protected areas: future
options. Environmental Studies, University of
Tasmania, Occasional Paper No. 19. 109 pp.

Keage, P.L. 1987. Environmental Zones and planning
units : a basis for an Antarctic terrestrial protected
area network. In Dingwall, P.R. (ed.) Conserving the
natural heritage of the Antarctic Realm. Proc. 29th

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Working Session, CNPPA, Wairakei, New Zealand
(August 1987), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Pp. 135-140

Kelly, G.C. and G.N. Park. 1986. The New Zealand
protected natural areas programme—a scientific fo-
cus. N.Z. DSIR, Biological Resources Centre Pub.
4, 68 pp.

King, K.J. et al. 1985. Coastal and marine ecological
areas of New Zealand, a preliminary classification
for conservation purposes. N.Z. Department of Lands
& Survey, Info. Series 15, 47 pp.

Keys, H. 1988. An analysis of the present network of
protected areas and its ecological representation in
the Ross Sea Region. Pp. 7-14 in Keys, J.R. et al.
(eds.), Improving the protected area system in the
Ross Sea Region, Antarctica. Department of Con-
servation Technical Report No.2. Wellington, New
Zealand.

Keys, J.R. et al. (eds.) 1988. Improving the protected
area system in the Ross Sea Region, Antarctica.
Department of Conservation, Technical Report No.
2, Wellington, New Zealand. 48 pp.

Lucas, P.H.C. and Dingwall, P.R. 1985. Protected areas
and environmental conservation. In Antarctica and
the Southern Ocean. in Nelson, J.G. et al. (eds.),
Antarctic Heritage: Proceedings of a Symposium
(August 1985), Banff, Alberta, Canada. Pp. 219-241.

Nature Conservation Council. 1981. Integrating Con-
servation and Development—a proposal for a New
Zealand Conservation Strategy. Nature Conserva-
tion Council, Wellington, 92 pp.

Molloy, L.F. and Dingwall, P.R.. 1990. World heritage
values of New Zealand islands. In Towns, D.R. et

254

al. (eds.), Ecological restoration of New Zealand
islands. Conservation Sciences Pub. No. 2, Depart-
ment of Conservation, Wellington. Pp. 194-206.

Moors, P.J. et al. 1989. Prohibited immigrants: the rat
threat to island conservation. WW-NZ publication,
Wellington, New Zealand. 32 pp.

Ray, G.C. 1985. Identification and selection of pro-
tected areas for Antarctica and the Southern Antarc-
tic Ocean. Proceedings of the SCAR/IUCN Symposium
on Antarctic Conservation, Bonn, Germany (April 1985).

Roche, M.M. 1984. Some historical influences on the
establishment of protected natural areas. In People
and Parks. Dingwall, P.R. (ed.), Dept Lands & Survey,
Information Series No. 10. Pp. 7-14.

SCAR. 1977. Report of SCAR Working Group on
Biology. Cambridge, U.K., May 1976. SCAR Bulletin
No. 55: 165-172.

Thom, D. 1987. Heritage: the Parks of the People: A
Century of National Parks in New Zealand. Lansdowne
Press, Auckland, N.Z. 264 pp.

Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A classification of the bio-
geographical provinces of the world. [UCN Occasional
Paper No. 18. Gland, Switzerland.

Veitch, C.R. and B.D. Bell. 1990. Eradication of intro-
duced animals from islands of New Zealand. In
Towns, D.R. et al (ed.), Ecological Restoration of
New Zealand islands. Conservation Sciences Pub.
No.2, Wellington. Pp. 137-146.

Walton, D.W.H. (ed.). 1986. The biological basis for
conservation of subantarctic islands. Report of SCAR/
IUCN Workshop, Paimpont, France, Sept. 1986.

The Pacific

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

o.
oa)

“Ere olsaudkjog youes4

%OT UBY} S10

ZOC—-G1

seaie pa}oa}01d payeubisep Ajjeba; uum pepnyjou! A1jUNOD Jo aHe}UsdI0q

%16-0 BBUCY .%0S'E DIuapa|Dg

4000 PIN wD i
‘i K.x00'0 monuo,

%69'0 6] 4009

4tT TT OWLS uddWaWYy

©. %00°0 S| UNyN4—sII1OM *
%00'0 DOWDS Usa}saM 4 es ~
: 5

0 “WS.
%00'O.NIDANL N Sea

%00'0 SI uowiojos S84

%00°0:N4INON

UST< OUI

ZSC< §| JOUIN SN

%O0'O DIBQUAIIIW $O 69}0}S Pa}DJapay4

%00'O S| IlOYSsOW

%EC'E NO|Dd
c

‘

%6L°C Wwonsd

‘

%LT'E SPUDIIOW YON

‘dew

256

Contents

Page
Historical’ perspective”... . 5. :. 4. aoe Slaten eat Pee 259
ile Introduction ce yk ee ee ee 4 eo 259
1.2 Countries which have developed protected area systems ............. 260
1.3. Factors influencing the establishment of protected areasystems ......... 263
1.4 Participation in major international protected area programmes .......... 265
iE: «Major lessons learned vie niae Swe UAE Aan Seer ee 265
Current protected areacoverage......................... 266
Zales Systems plansiandCOverage. «2 St ee-e Mid oe Geers aes eee ee 266
2 ee Adequacy, ofcurrentsystemicoverage sen et ee ee 266
2 See UCP OLIeS Of Protected areds . -i. ., (see eee ieee 267
irae mProtectedrareasin dancer we. | o.oo acid tswy cent ee eee 267
Additional protected areas required/recommended .............. 267
3.1 Requirements for new protected areas ...................000. 267
Protected areainstitutions ................0002 ccc ee eeee 269
2s eee EROLCCUIOM IMCCAAMISINS) oe cuties =. atc. s/n eA Seucuneeoein> SC ae ee ee 269
aa Totected area: administraglONn as. vey ee eae acny emt a oe en 269
473) Linkagesiwith'other developmentisectors) 5155 54-22-5550 0. oe 270
Current levels of financial investment in protected areas........... 270
Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 271
GyleeDrainin ovfacilittestandineedSmmesesi sheen ne nace enn een nnn Pai |
Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 271
Major protected areas issuesintheregion ................... 273
SaleuePcopleriniprotected’areas*a) sew. eS 2 eee ee 273
FO nVOLVeCMeng Dy the Private SCCtOls li. a -lse) ca cme eons es Sue ene uence 273
8.3. Protected areas and surrounding lands and waters ................. 273

257

R’4e ProtectediareasianG!scienCen 1c) -) ak aie cin eect sone ccm I 274

8.5 Threats to effective management of protected areas. ......-.-.------ 274
9. Priorities for actioninthe region ...............5------25- 274
References = 3x58 oS ee See oS eS BOS 5 eee 276
Tables

Table 1. Summary of the protected areassystem ........-.-.----+----- 261

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories ............. 264

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system ............+.-.-. 266

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 268

Table 5. World Heritage sites inthe PacifiC...........2....--+--: 270

Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ...............-. 272
Figures

Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected

ATEAS... 2. =. Ry bioackeech cach pcm cos cla: Lieto deuce See ACE 256
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) .......... 262
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 262

258

The Pacific

Presented by losefatu Reti, Regional Vice-Chair for the Pacific,
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
with contributions from Peter Thomas, Director Pacific Field Programme,
The Nature Conservancy, and Paul Holthus, Project Officer (Scientist),
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme

1. Historical perspective

1.1. Introduction

The establishment of protected areas in South Pacific
island countries has been a relatively new phenomenon
(Figures 1 and 2). Perusal of the JUCN Directory of
Protected Areas in Oceania ({UCN, 1991) shows a
large number of the protected areas listed today were
established in the 1970s, when the island countries of
Tonga, Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, the
Cook Islands and Vanuatu were active in establishing
protected areas, some of which were for coastal and
marine areas (Table 3). This activity reflected the inter-
est in protected areas which was generated as a direct
result of the First South Pacific National Parks and
Reserves Conference, hosted by the government of
New Zealand in 1975.

It is also apparent that following this initial interest,
the decade of the 1980s has seen much slower progress
with protected area establishment, despite a number of
regional initiatives aimed at stimulating the growth of
protected areas. These include the Third South Pacific
National Parks and Reserves Conference held in Apia,
Western Samoa, in 1985 and the Fourth South Pacific
Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected
Areas held in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in 1989. Both of these
important regional meetings produced Action Strate-
gies for protected area establishment in the region and
the 1985 conference led to the strengthening of the
protected area function of the South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP), the region’s inter-
governmental organization for the protection and man-
agement of the environment.

The 1980s have also seen a strong interest by regional
and international organizations in the development of
protected areas and the conservation of natural resources
in the region. This has led to efforts to acquire new data
on the ecosystems and species of the region and the
adoption of a more scientific approach to the selec-
tion and design of protected areas systems in several

259

countries. There is now a great deal more knowledge of
the ecosystems and habitats of the island countries than
in the 1970s. This information has been used to identify
and target conservation priorities in some countries and
to design several proposed representative protected area
systems. It is therefore most unfortunate that the gov-
ernments of the region have not been able to respond to
these initiatives and actively promote the establishment
of new protected areas.

In general, protected area establishment has been
achieved under a variety of different forms of national
legislation. Where it exists, this legislation is often
closely aligned to the protected area legislation of either
the previous colonial administrations or the existing
legislation of the metropolitan countries administering
territories or protectorates. This situation has not been
entirely satisfactory as the legislation has been devel-
oped on the basis that the government of the day either
controls the land or is in a position to acquire it for
conservation purposes. In the South Pacific this has led
to misguided attempts by colonial administrations to
establish protected areas without proper consultation
and negotiation with the traditional land and resource-
owning groups. Few of these attempts have been suc-
cessful and most have failed conclusively.

However, in those cases where the governments have
either legitimately controlled the lands and marine areas
or been able to satisfactorily negotiate their protection,
there have been some successes. For example, in West-
em Samoa, the government in the early 1980s, sup-
ported by assistance from New Zealand, established a
nucleus protected area system comprising one national
park and five reserves on available government-owned
lands.

The development of marine protected areas (MPAs)
in the Pacific Region has been similarly limited and has
proceeded sporadically over the past few decades. In the
early and mid-1970s, several protected areas were de-
clared in French and US territories, some of which
included marine and lagoonal areas. As was the case

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

with terrestrial protected areas, a few MPAs were de-
clared during periods of colonial or trusteeship control
of island states, particularly in Palau.

In spite of the direction provided by the Action Strat-
egy for Nature Conservation in the South Pacific Re-
gion (SPREP, 1985; SPREP, 1989), during the past ten
years there has been little new development of MPAs
in the Pacific Region. For the most part, factors which
have impeded progress in MPA establishment in the
region are the same as those which have been noted as
problems inhibiting the development of protected areas
of any kind in the South Pacific. In addition, issues
particular to the marine context include the lack of
information on the kinds and status of marine ecosys-
tems and species and the absence of officers or pro-
grammes dedicated to marine conservation at the national
level.

In recent years, the coastal/marine and biodiversity
conservation programme activities of the South Pacific
Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) have re-
sulted in increasing activities in the area of coastal
management in the region, with particular implications
for the conservation of coastal and marine areas, habi-
tats and species. These include marine surveys and
inventories, the development of proposals for the estab-
lishment of marine protected areas and drafting of man-
agement plans for important coastal and marine areas,
some of which are existing or proposed protected areas.

1.2 Countries which have developed
protected area systems

The status of protected areas in the South Pacific region,
both terrestrial and marine, has been described in a
number of recent documents (UNEP/IUCN, 1986; IUCN,
1991), and summarised in Table 1 and Figure 3. In
general and with the exception of Hawaii, very few
island countries or territories have well developed pro-
tected area systems or system plans. This is even more
true when considering MPAs.

Western Samoa has one of the earliest established
systems of protected areas in the South Pacific. In
addition to the National Park and five reserves (includ-
ing a marine reserve) managed by the government, two
private conservation areas have been established on the
island of Savai’i. Western Samoa has also been the
subject of several recent protected area system design
studies which have recommended new priorities for
conservation based on the need to achieve ecosystem
representation. However, to date, no specific action has
been taken to implement these.

A similar situation exists in the Kingdom of Tonga
which has had a Parks and Reserves Act since 1976.
This provided the legal basis for the establishment of
five coastal/marine reserves in 1979 to complement
three reserves already in existence. However, again,
despite recommendations for the improvement of the

260

system, no new areas have been added since then and
in fact, one has been lost.

The Cook Islands has just one national park, a remote
atoll gazetted as such in 1978 and which is under threat
from development for mariculture. However, like most
other Pacific Island countries, the Cook Islands boasts
several proposed protected areas and has been active in
strengthening its conservation capability in recent years.

In Guam and American Samoa, both United States
Territories, various US Federal wildlife, natural area
and marine protection legislation has been used to es-
tablish systems of protected areas which are generally
adequately managed. However, as with all other sys-
tems in the South Pacific region, they do not cover a
fully representative range of the island ecosystems. The
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a
protectorate of the USA, has proclaimed four uninhab-
ited outer island preserves under its Commonwealth
Code. However, protected areas on the heavily popu-
lated and developed main island of Saipan, and the
populated islands of Tinian and Rota, are non-existent.

New Caledonia, a French Territory, has one of the
most extensive and representative systems of protected
areas in Oceania. The system contains a range of differ-
ent protected area categories including strict nature
reserves, territorial parks, special reserves and marine
reserves, all of which are established through specific
declarations by the Territorial Assembly. It is interest-
ing to note that in New Caledonia, which has one of the
highest levels of plant endemism in the world as well as
some of the world’s most extensive nickel reserves, all
protected areas are subject to mining unless specifically
included in a mining reserve established under the min-
ing legislation. French Polynesia, also a French Terri-
tory, has a nucleus protected area system which includes
five remote or uninhabited atolls and one recently-
established (1989) Territorial Park. However, no pro-
tected areas have yet been established on the islands of
principal conservation interest.

One of the more interesting protected area systems of
the region is that of the Republic of Kiribati. Kiribati
has a total land area of a mere 684 sq km spread over a
vast oceanic area of some 5 million sq km. Much of the
land is located in the Line and Phoenix Island group and
in 1975 the government established a comprehensive
system of representative protected areas (closed areas
and wildlife sanctuaries) over all or part of many of the
main islands in these groups. The system included
Kiritimati, a large island with a wide diversity of habi-
tats and of intemational importance for seabird breed-
ing. Howe er, as is the case with a number of the
countries of the region, no attempt has been made
subsequently to review or expand the original system.

The Republic of Vanuatu has an extremely limited
protected area system comprising five recreation sites,
all established in the mid-1980s. These are very small
in area and fail to provide the scale of protection which

is necessary to protect the extensive diversity of tropical
ecosystems and biota to be found in the archipelago.

The Solomon Islands, which lie several hundred kil-
ometres to the north and west of Vanuatu, is credited
with having a protected area system which includes a
national park and a wildlife sanctuary. With one
exception, all the protected areas were established
under the colonial rule on lands which were under
customary ownership. In the absence of adequate con-
sultation with the landowners, or compensation for
them, together with inadequate or non-existent manage-
ment over the years since they were established (1930s
and 1954), all are now ineffective.

The massive continental island of Papua New Guinea
with its area of 462,842 sq km, great ecosystem and
species diversity and high levels of endemism, has, on
paper at least, the most extensive protected area system
in the region. This comprises a mix of five small na-
tional parks (each less than 5,000ha), some extremely
small (less than 15Oha) special purpose reserves and
sanctuaries, and an extensive network of Wildlife Man-

The Pacific

agement Areas which vary in size from the smallest at
15ha (Baniara Island) to the largest at 590,000ha (Tonda)
with most being in the range of 3,000 to 10,000ha.
In addition to the existing protected areas, over 80
further areas have been proposed as a result of various
studies in the 1970s and 80s.

The present system has evolved largely since 1975
and is woefully inadequate for a country of the size and
conservation importance of Papua New Guinea. This is
especially so when the management effectiveness of the
system is considered. Most of the Wildlife Management
Areas suffer from a lack of professional and trained
local management and inadequate financial resources,
and have been sorely neglected by the central govern-
ment since their establishment. The establishment of
new Wildlife Management Areas and other forms of
protected areas suffers from the same lack of resources
and government priority. Despite these problems the
Department of Environment and Conservation man-
aged to establish 11 new protected areas in the 1980-89
period.

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Pacific

Area in
Area CategoriesI-V %

American Samoa 197
Cook Is 233
Easter Is 68
Federated States of Micronesia 702
Fiji 18,330
French Polynesia

Guam

Hawaii

Kiribati

Marshall Is

Nauru

New Caledonia

Niue

North Marianas

Palau

Papua New Guinea

Pitcairn Is

Solomon Is

Tokelau

Tonga

Tuvalu

US Minor Is

Vanuatu

Wallis-Futuna Is

Western Samoa

oS
cooNRONSGCSO

Total area
designated

Area in Categories
VI-VIIlandUA %

N
~ w
oormworcocceonm

Ww
N

6,365

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
"UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are

generally included.

Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover (eg. Kiribati and US Minor Is.).

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)
30

Number of sites

ce Area (x1000sqkm)

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)

100

Number of sites

80 Area (x1000sqkm)

10) OC CCC COPA
1900 1910 1920

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

1930

262

1.3 Factors influencing the
establishment of protected area

systems

As mentioned above, the series of National Parks and
Reserves conferences held in the region since 1975 has
been a major factor in the development of protected area
systems in Oceania. They have served to remind gov-
ermnments of their responsibilities in this area and to
provide a valuable and regular regional focus on pro-
tected areas. However, despite the conferences and
other important regional initiatives, only limited pro-
gress has been made with protected area establishment
and most of this was in the 1970s. Governments have
Not seen nature conservation and the establishment of
protected areas as a particularly relevant or high priority
in the face of mounting overseas debts and social and
economic hardship. The financial and human resources
needed to negotiate and create protected areas have not
been available, let alone the resources for effective
management of any system which may have been cre-
ated.

Until recently and with one or two notable exceptions,
technical assistance organizations which have the re-
sources to support governments in this field have ignored
nature conservation as a legitimate form of natural re-
source development, opting instead to channel assis-
tance to the traditional development sectors of forestry,
fishing, agriculture and infrastructural development.
Ironically, these activities have made the need for pro-
tected areas even more critical. The low priority given
to conservation and environmental management in aid
programmes has also acted as a disincentive for govern-
ments to build protected area and resource management
agencies.

A third and particularly important factor for the lack
of progress is the nature of land and resource (including
marine resources) ownership. In many Pacific Island
countries very little land is owned or controlled by the
government. In many cases particular groups can lay
claim to the ownership of the resources of the land and
coastal marine areas including reefs and fishing grounds.
Pacific Island people have unusually strong cultural,
spiritual and economic links with their land and coastal
marine environment resulting from their dependence on
terrestrial and marine resources for subsistence. In such
circumstances the compulsory acquisition of land for
protected areas and the denial of resource user rights is
out of the question and governments have not seen
protected areas establishment as a high enough priority
to warrant expenditure on compensation or the possible
political impact of difficult or failed negotiations.

Perhaps the most important event in the past 10 years
influencing protected area establishment has been the
establishment of the South Pacific Regional Environ-
ment Programme (SPREP) in 1982. As the regional
organization for environment and conservation, SPREP
has been instrumental in promoting the establishment
of protected areas and the conservation of biological

263

The Pacific

diversity. Particular attention has been given to the
improving the scientific basis for protected areas and to
strengthening the institutional basis for their establishment
and management.

Every four years SPREP organizes the South Pacific
Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected
Areas at which the Action Strategy for Nature Conser-
vation in the South Pacific Region is reviewed and up-
dated. The Strategy provides a guide for action on
protected areas development in the region for SPREP
and interested governments and international organiza-
tions (e.g. IUCN, UN agencies, international NGOs) for
which SPREP is the region’s clearing house and
co-ordinating unit.

Over the past 10 years SPREP has taken the lead on
a number of regional initiatives including the Third
South Pacific National Parks and Reserves Conference
in 1985, the Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature
Conservation and Protected Areas in 1989, both of
which led to the preparation of joint SPREP/CNPPA
Action Strategies for Oceania. The implementation of
these Strategies has been undertaken through SPREP’s
extensive work programme, the activities of the South
Pacific government conservation and environment agen-
cies and through the work of several international and
local conservation NGOs. Financial and technical assis-
tance has been provided from a number of sources,
notably the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand
governments.

Although the specific protected area establishment
goals in both Action Strategies were not achieved, there
has been great progress in other related areas. These
include developing inventories of the island ecosys-
tems, the planning of systems of representative and
priority conservation areas, strengthening of environ-
ment and conservation agencies, public awareness of
conservation issues and the development of a regional
perspective on the role of protected areas in sustainable
development. In this latter respect, strong interest in the
linkage between tourism and protected areas has emerged
in the region. Not surprisingly given the diversity and
natural beauty of their islands, several Pacific Island
governments have developed national tourism strate-
gies based on the development of nature tourism. These
include Western Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji and Solomon
Islands.

In summary, the major specific actions which have
been taken in the Pacific Region over the last decade
include:

@ The establishment of the South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP) in 1982 with the
promotion and establishment of protected areas as
one of its functions

The Third South Pacific National Park and Reserves
Conference held in Apia, Western Samoa in 1985
and the development of the Action Strategy for

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Protected Areas in the South Pacific at that confer-
ence.

The establishment by SPREP, with assistance from
the New Zealand government, of a full time Pro-
tected Areas Management Officer position in 1986.

Action Strategy for Nature Conservation and Pro-
tected Areas in the South Pacific.

Surveys and recommendations for representative
protected area systems for The Marshall Islands
(1988), Fiji (1989), Solomon Islands (1990) and

Western Samoa (1990/91).

B The 3-month Intemational Parks Management Train-
ing Course held in conjunction with the New
Zealand National Parks Centenary year celebrations
in 1987 together with the provision by SPREP of
scholarships for two Pacific Islanders to undertake
training for a year in New Zealand.

@ The entry into force of both the Convention on the
Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia
Convention) and the Convention for the Protection
of the Environment and the Natural Resources of the
South Pacific (the SPREP Convention) in 1990

@ The development by SPREP of regional programmes
for the conservation of marine turtles, birds and
marine mammals; regionally appropriate terrestrial
and coastal and marine ecosystem classification sys-
tems; anda South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation

@ The Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature Programme and the approval of funding of $10
Conservation and Protected Areas held in Port Vila, million from the Global Environment Facility in
Vanuatu in 1989 and the development of a revised 1991.

mw Aregional Workshop on the Customary Land Tenure,
Traditional Knowledge and Protected Areas held by
SPREP in 1988.

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Pacific

I I IV
Area No. Area . Area No. Area No.

American Samoa

Cook Is

Easter Is

Federated States
of Micronesia

Fiji

French Polynesia

Marshall Is
Nauru

New Caledonia
Niue

North Marianas
Palau

Papua New Guinea
Pitcaim Is
Solomon Is
Tokelau

Tonga

Tuvalu

US Minor Is
Vanuatu
Wallis—Futuna Is
Western Samoa

Pini

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.

264

A number of these actions are of particular import-
ance to the development of MPAs in the region. The
coastal and marine ecosystem classification system for
the South Pacific region will provide a comprehensive
framework for identifying the presence of habitat at
local, national and regional scales and determining the
conservation status of those habitats. The application of
these classification systems to the countries and territo-
ries of the region in the 1990s will provide a means of
setting priorities for action. The South Pacific Regional
Marine Turtle Conservation Programme and the recently-
launched Regional Marine Mammal Conservation Pro-
gramme will spur activities in marine endangered
species conservation education and research and is
likely to result in additional impetus for MPA development.

1.4 Participation in major international

protected area programmes

South Pacific island country participation in major in-
ternational protected area programmes has been limited
(Table 4). However, there is growing interest in the
World Heritage Convention and the benefits it has to
offer developing countries particularly in relation to the
development of nature-based tourism. The inscription
of Henderson Island in the Pitcairn Group (a British
territory) on the World Heritage List was a first for the
region (Table 5). Solomon Islands is interested in be-
coming the first country in the region to accede to the
World Heritage Convention. Two potential World
Heritage Sites have been identified in that country, East
Rennell Island and Marovo Lagoon, but there are still
many obstacles to overcome before their designation
becomes a reality.

The South Pacific is unusual inasmuch that two re-
gional conventions have come into force in recent years,
both of which specifically encourage the establishment
of protected areas (Table 4). The Apia Convention
(Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South
Pacific) entered into force on 26 June 1990, and in-
cludes the provision to "encourage the creation of pro-
tected areas which together with existing protected
areas will safeguard representative samples of the natu-
ral ecosystems occurring therein" (Article II). The
SPREP Convention (Convention for the Protection of
the Natural Resources and Environment of the South
Pacific Region) entered into force on 19 October 1990.
Article 14 refers to specially protected areas and protec-
tion of wild flora and fauna, as follows "...the Parties
shall, as appropriate, establish protected areas, such as
parks and reserves, and prohibit or regulate any activity
likely to have adverse effects on the species, ecosystems
or biological processes that such areas are designed to
protect”.

The compilation of the Oceania Wetlands Directory
which is currently being prepared under the auspices of
a range of international initiatives, including the Ramsar
Convention, will provide a much-needed boost to the

265

The Pacific

conservation of South Pacific wetlands. These include
wetland and lagoon systems of global significance such
as the Marovo lagoon in Solomon Islands and the salt-
water and super-saline lagoons of Kiritimati (Kiribati)
which are habitat for some of the largest populations of
tropical seabirds in the world.

Other than these initiatives, there has been little in-
volvement with international protected areas programmes
which perhaps reflects the low priority accorded protected
area establishment by many of the South Pacific gov-
ernments and a reluctance to become party to any inter-
national programmes which may involve additional finan-
cial commitments. Conversely, the international pro-
grammes may find it difficult to justify the resources
necessary to undertake initiatives in the Pacific Region
which is remote, vast and sparsely populated and in
global terms, does not have a high priority for conser-
vation action.

1.5 Major lessons learned

One of the major lessons learned during the past decade
is that the establishment of protected areas in the island
countries of the Pacific Region will require the consent
of the customary or other land or resource owning
groups. The corollary to this is that the permanent
alienation of the land for protection is unlikely to occur.
Furthermore, landowner involvement in the future man-
agement of such areas is important as is flexibility in the
management regime to allow continued access to im-
portant subsistence resources and the sustainable utili-
zation of some commercially important resources.

It is clear that innovative models for protected area
establishment will need to be developed if these require-
ments are to be met. It is equally clear that unless
government conservation agencies are dramatically
strengthened through the increased allocation of finan-
cial and manpower resources, little progress can be
expected with the establishment of new protected areas
in the region let alone with the effective management
of existing areas.

Under present circumstances, progress with the estab-
lishment of protected areas is most likely to be made by
the international conservation NGOs working with their
local partners at the community level. The potential of
non-government organizations to work and negotiate
with customary owners at the community level for the
establishment of conservation areas is greater than that
of many government agencies. NGOs have already
demonstrated their ability to plan and achieve protected
area establishment and their endeavours should be fur-
ther enhanced and encouraged through support from
international and regional donor agencies and the inter-
national conservation community. In particular, resources
need to be applied to the strengthening and support of
domestic NGOs involved in the conservation of biologi-
cal diversity and to encourage the establishment of such
organizations where they don’t already exist.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Pacific

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established
up to 1962

American Samoa
Cook Is

Easter Is

Fiji

French Polynesia
Guam

Hawaii (USA)
Kiribati

Marshall Is
Micronesia
Nauru

New Caledonia
Niue

North Marianas
Palau

Papua New Guinea
Pitcairn Is
Solomon Is
Tokelau

Tonga

Tuvalu

US Minor Is
Vanuatu
Wallis-Futuna Is
Western Samoa

% area
established
1972-1981

Date
established
unknown

% area
established
19821991

Sooo OC OCC COC COR CCOSGSCCCCCCS

RS
ofBao

e~S
=
oooronoo

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I—V are included. Sites are only in the data-
base once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by

the table, the figures may be distorted.

The establishment of new and viable conservation
areas in the Pacific will depend on our ability to work
with customary land-owning groups to develop co-
operative agreements for private conservation areas.
These will need to be linked to the development of
sustainable economic activity which benefits those
groups. Government environment agencies will have an
important role to play in coordinating and channelling
resources to assist these initiatives and in developing a
policy and legislative environment which will support
and encourage both government and private conserva-
tion initiatives. However, NGOs will have a greater and
more direct role to play in the actual negotiation and
development of cooperative and innovative agreements
for conservation as they are better placed to work at the
“grassroots” level necessary for success in this difficult
area.

266

2. Current protected area coverage

2.1 Systems plans and coverage

As outlined in 1.2 above, very few of the South Pacific
island countries have scientifically based and profes-
sionally prepared protected area system plans. Exceptions
are Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea, the Marshall
Islands, Fiji, American Samoa, and the Solomon Islands. In
all these cases the system plans were produced as a result
of projects undertaken in conjunction with the govern-
ments concemed and funded externally, using external
expertise. Few of the recommendations have yet been
implemented.

2.2 Adequacy of current system

coverage

There is a general lack of information on species and
habitat type, distribution and status for the protected
areas of the region and this precludes any detailed
analysis of how well existing protected areas cover
major habitat types, centres of diversity or centres of
endemism. However, it is clear from the paucity of

protected areas generally in the region and from the
failure of those countries with comprehensive protected
area system plans to implement the recommendations,
that the current systems fail to adequately cover the
major habitats in the region. Application of the recently-
developed SPREP ecosystem classification system to
the region over the next few years should provide some
indication of the situation and enable priorities to be
determined. In addition, the status of coral reef related
protected areas has also been reviewed (UNEP/IUCN,
1988).

2.3 Categories of protected areas

Most of the IUCN protected area categories are repre-
sented in the region (Table 2). The most common cate-
gories are National Park (Category II), Managed Nature
Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary (Category IV), Protected
Landscape (Category V) and Multiple-use Manage-
ment Area/Managed Resource Area (Category VIII)
and Scientific Reserve/ Strict Nature Reserve (Category
I). There are no Biosphere Reserves (Category IX) nor
are there any Natural Biotic Areas/ Anthropological
Reserves (Category VII) (though in light of the discus-
sion of customary ownership above, this would seem to
be an exceptionally promising category for this region).

It is interesting to note that protected area categories
and their applicability to the region were a main point
of discussion at the Fourth South Pacific Conference on
Nature Conservation and Protected Areas held in Vanu-
atu in 1989. It was felt strongly that Pacific Island
countries needed a more flexible definition which rec-
ognized the dependence of the people on their environ-
ment and its resources for their subsistence. Accordingly,
the delegates at the Conference preferred to use the term
"conservation area” to "protected area", considering
this better defined the rationale of management for
resource conservation which needed to be developed if
protective status was to be accepted for customary or
traditionally-owned lands in the region.

The existing MPAs in the region have been informally
categorized based on their function, location and level of
protection (Holthus, 1989) as the following: 1) tourism/
recreation oriented MPAs; 2) general marine re-
source/habitat conservation areas near major population
centres, 3) outlying/uninhabited islands, 4) MPAs to pro-
tect harvested species, and 5) fully developed MPAs.

2.4 Protected areas in danger

There is very little action occurring in the field of
scientific monitoring of the health of habitats and spe-
cies populations in the existing protected areas, includ-
ing MPAs. It is therefore difficult to single out specific
protected areas which are in danger and why. As has
already been pointed out, there is a general lack of
management resources and virtually all protected areas
are under threat from human misuse. One such case is
the J.H. Garrick Memorial Reserve in Fiji which

267

The Pacific

suffered from illegal logging operations made possible
by a lack of an active management presence. Another
example is the Queen Elizabeth II National Park in the
Solomon Islands which has been devastated by fire,
gardening and illegal firewood gathering since its estab-
lishment in 1954. There are numerous other examples.

It is difficult to identify which, if any, MPAs in the
region are in danger and how. Nevertheless, it is very
likely that nearshore MPAs in the Pacific, especially
those supporting coral reefs, are being damaged by the
effects of adjacent land and shore use. In particular,
water quality is often degraded due to increased sedi-
mentation, nutrient inputs, organic and industrial pollu-
tion and sewage discharge. In addition, as most MPAs
in the region lack effective or enforced management
plans, and habitat disturbance resulting from boating,
anchoring, souvenir collecting and other recreational
and tourist activities is common in MPAs near major
population centres.

Mangroves are another important habitat under wide-
spread threat in the region, especially where they occur
near urban areas. Although mangrove ecosystems play
an important role in the life cycle of many marine
species and provide many of the resources needed for
subsistence, their role is not well understood. Man-
groves are destroyed to make way for landfill and
reclamation activities and are frequently used for gar-
bage dumping.

3. Additional protected areas
required/recommended

3.1. Requirements for new protected

areas

A survey by Dahl (1980) identified over 70 ecosystem
or biome types to be found in the South Pacific and it is
estimated that less than 20 of these are under any form
of protection. There is clearly a long way to go before
the region even approaches the goal of achieving the
protection of a representative range of its ecosystems.
There is a great range and wealth of natural diversity to
be found in the South Pacific region although there is
considerable disparity in the distribution of that diver-
sity. The large island nations of Melanesia in the westem
Pacific—Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu,
Fiji and New Caledonia— have the greatest diversity of
ecosystems, flora and fauna while the small atoll coun-
tries of the eastern Pacific—Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the
Marshall Islands—have extremely low ecosystem di-
versity, at least on land. The extensive tropical lowland
and mid-altitude forests of the former group of countries
are under the greatest threat of loss or modification in
the region and their protection is of the highest priority.
Unfortunately our knowledge of the threatened animal
and plant species of the region is at best only sketchy
and apart from a few notable examples, insufficient for
the identification of habitat reserves.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

“poist] axe Uordal amp UNIT BurAy says AUQ “T :930N

9861-T1-Sz 0661-L-07 9L61-9-71 BOWS Wasa
= = = TyeNUe A
986I-TI-SZ 9861 “9° (nemeH)
9861-1 I-Sz 9861 “9° (weny)
9861-T1-Sz 9861 “99d i (eoureg ueoLauTy)
986I-T1-S$z 9861 °d : BoOUDUy
JO saws pay)
= SLOT “uel urentd $n
L861-L-9T 9L6I “URL wopsury pay
L861-8- v1 = nyeany,
= esuol,
6861-38-01 = SPURS] UOWIO[OS
6861-6-ST L861-11-€ eouIng Man ended
— 986I-TI-Sz ne[ed
= seuruey] Walon
= ant
- nepeyxo],
0661-S-€ 986I-I1-S@ 9L6I “‘3ny P86I ‘AON
L861-7 SI = = ny
8861- I 1-62 L861-7-6 = = — — saeig parelapey
‘eISOUOIOTAy
L861-S-b 986I1-IT-S7 7 = a =: spurys] [[eyszeyy
= = = = = = nequry
O66I-L-LI = 986I-TIT- $7 6861-1-02 9L61-9-71 9861 2°O CLOT ung (eunm./sT eM)
O66I-L-LI = 986T-TT-Sz 6861-1-07 9L61-9-71 9861 20 SLOT euny Bruope[e) MON
O66I-L-LI = 9861-1 T-Sz 6861-1-02 9L6I-9-71 9861 PO GL6I Fung —-BISaUATO Youaly
O66I-L-LI = 986I- I I-$z 6861-1-07 9L61-9-71 9861 290 CLOT ouny souBly
6861-681 = 6861-681 = = 0661 “AON Why
— 986I1-TI-Sz L861-9-v7@ a = = spurs] YOOD
6861-L-61 L86I-Il-¥2 0661-£-87 = = = eyensny

UOISS2IDY auneugs - WOJSsa00 Y ainjeusig (ey) Bay ‘ON ned (vy) Bay ‘ON (ey) vay “ON
/WOPBOYHEY ow HEY
uoljUsAUND daudS UOIJUSAUO,) eidy UuoljUaAU0;) (spueyjaAA) Jesuey SaA1ISoyY asaydsorg ase PIIOAA

(sjoo0}01d pejejas pue UO}JUBAUOD
daudS eu} pue uoNueAuod eldy ay) jo smeys Bulpnjou!) o1!9ed :SUO}JUBAUOD jeuoibes/jeuoneusaju! 0} soUaJEypY “bh 9IGeL

268

Improved, expanded protection of marine areas in the
South Pacific region is undoubtedly needed due to the
importance of marine habitats and resources to the
peoples, economies and ecosystems of the region. Of
particular importance is the need to protect marine
habitat for subsistence and commercial fishery resources
and for use in tourism and recreation. The development
of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem classification
systems for the South Pacific will allow priorities for
the establishment of new protected areas to be deter-
mined on a scientific, systematic basis. The classifica-
tion system categorizes the full suite of terrestrial fresh-
water and marine habitats and ecological communities
which exist in the region. The occurrence of these can
then be documented for any particular island or country,
as well as their presence or absence in existing protected
areas. Gaps in protection at a local, national or regional
level can then be identified. When coupled with a
process to indicate the status of the habitats and ecologi-
cal communities, whether protected or not, conserva-
tion priorities will be able to be determined at the
various levels.

4. Protected area institutions

4.1 Protection mechanisms
Widespread customary land tenure has meant that inno-
vative ways to achieve protection goals have had to be
developed. One of the most interesting of these has been
the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) concept devel-
oped by the government of Papua New Guinea. WMAs
recognize the need to involve local communities in the
management and conservation of their own resources.
They provide a legal mechanism through which central
government and local communities can work together
to define conservation goals, establish WMAs and pro-
vide for their management. Following the gazettement
of a WMA a local management committee is estab-
lished by the community which works in consultation
with government Conservation Officers to manage the
area. However, a lack of staff and the financial re-
sources necessary to undertake the cadastral surveys for
gazettal purposes have meant that only a few of the
many proposed WMAs in Papua New Guinea have been
established or are operating successfully. In the case of
the Wildlife Management Areas established by the local
communities of Papua New Guinea, the purpose of the
protected area is to protect species from hunting by
outsiders and to provide for the sustainable harvest of
that species.

Recently the South Pacific region has seen an in-
crease in the involvement of international and local
non-government organizations in the establishment of
conservation or protected areas. The activities of these
organizations have led to the development of further
innovative approaches for dealing with the difficult
issues affecting the achievement of conservation objec-
tives on customary lands. These include the need to find
ways to compensate entire communities for foregoing

269

The Pacific

the immediate benefits of resource exploitation such as
logging and to provide sustainable alternatives for in-
come generation. For example, in Western Samoa the
Swedish Conservation Foundation has built a school for
a local community in return for a covenant protecting
an area of lowland coastal rainforest on the island of
Savai’i. In another district of the same island, the same
organization is actively assisting the local community
in the development of nature tourism and associated
infrastructure in another conservation area.

The management of protected areas by private indi-
viduals, organizations and trusts is, as indicated above,
uncommon in the region. One exception is the National
Trust of Fiji which is an ad hoc statutory body charged
with the management of national parks and other re-
serves in Fiji. The two privately-owned and managed
conservation areas on Savai’i Island in Western Samoa
referred to earlier in this paper are also notable excep-
tions.

4.2 Protected area administration

The administration and management of protected areas
in the South Pacific region is carried out by a variety of
government agencies. In the past there has been a ten-
dency for these to be agencies having responsibilities
for the management and development of natural re-
sources such as Ministries of Natural Resources. These
have responsibility for various combinations of primary
industry sectors such as forestry, agriculture, fisheries
and lands and may include small one-to five-person
conservation or environment units. However, this situ-
ation is slowly changing. Governments are beginning
to realize the importance of natural resource conserva-
tion and sound environmental management polices and
practices and to recognize the inherent conflicts in
having conservation and environment units located within
resource development agencies.

As a consequence, there has been a recent trend
towards the establishment of new conservation and
environment agencies either in their own right, as with
the Cook Islands Conservation Service which is a statu-
tory ad hoc body, or as divisions of Government agen-
cies not involved directly with primary sector development.
Examples of the latter are the Environment Section of
the Ministry of Home Affairs and Planning in Vanuatu
and the Environment Division of the Department of
Lands and Environment in Westem Samoa.

The importance of marine resource management in a
region which relies heavily on marine resources for
subsistence and commercial benefits is reflected in the
generally well established and relatively powerful fish-
eries/marine resource agencies within governments of
the region. In many instances these agencies have the
potentially conflicting mandate to undertake both ma-
rine resource development and conservation. At the
same time, the environment or conservation agencies
are relatively young within governments and have less
well-defined mandates and jurisdictions, especially when

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

concerned with marine areas or resources. The devel-
opment of MPAs in the South Pacific has thus some-
times resulted in jurisdictional conflicts between fishery
and environment agencies where there are overlapping
and ill-defined mandates.

Some MPAs which have been developed entirely for
fishery management purposes predate the establishment
of environment agencies and are managed by fisheries
agencies. With the development of protected area sys-
tems, there is a need to integrate fishery management
MPAs into more comprehensive MPA systems devel-
opment.

In some parts of the Pacific the tourism industry is
emerging as a significant institution promoting both
marine and terrestrial conservation. In the case of ma-
rine conservation this is usually linked to existing hotels
with ocean sports-oriented programmes and dive tour
operators. These enterprises seek to have popular visitor
destinations protected from overfishing, destructive fish-
ing, degradation due to off-site influences, or other
reduction of the site’s attractiveness for visitors, which
is usually compatible with other MPA objectives. The
means to integrate this emerging private sector support
for MPA establishment and development in the region
has not yet been well defined or pursued.

Table 5. World Heritage sites in the Pacific

United Kingdom (Pitcairn)
Henderson Island

USA
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

4.3 Linkages with other development
sectors

The strength and effectiveness of linkages between
conservation and environment agencies and other de-
velopment agencies vary from country to country. How-
ever, it would be realistic to say that there is a growing
awareness in the public sectors throughout the region of
the roles of the various resource conservation and envi-
ronmental management agencies and the need for con-
sultation on some issues. For example, in Western Samoa,
the Visitors Bureau works with the Environment Divi-
sion to finance the development of park facilities to
ensure these are of a high standard and to promote
visitor enjoyment. Promotion of the sites through tourist
brochures is also coordinated.

Where conservation agencies are located within a
multi-sector ministry the linkages with the various di-
visions of the ministry tend to be better than when the
agency is independent. In such cases the conservation
agency often benefits from access to the resources and
equipment of the usually better endowed development
divisions, particularly when field activities are being

270

undertaken which require transport and logistical sup-
port in outer islands.

With the growing awareness of the role of environ-
mental management and resource conservation as a
component of national development, there is a trend in
many South Pacific countries to pay greater attention to
these issues in national planning policy. There is also a
trend towards the introduction of basic Environmental
Impact Assessment procedures. These are policy initia-
tives which will assist conservation agencies to develop
linkages with other government agencies.

However, a huge gulf remains to be overcome in the
development of the vital linkages between these agen-
cies and the public. Although most agencies undertake
some form of public education activities, public con-
sultation on environment and conservation policy and
issues, this is still in its infancy. However, some prom-
ising initiatives suggest that progress is being made in
this direction. The National Conservation Strategy for
Vanuatu is being developed on a solid foundation of
public consultation and grassroots involvement and the
conservation programme of the Republic of Palau is
encouraging Palauans to become involved in defining
future directions for development in their country. Both
these and other similar embryonic initiatives in the
region auger well for strong public input and support for
resource conservation and protected area policies in the
future.

Finally, it must be remembered that some Pacific
Island governments as yet have no environment or
conservation agencies at all, which is an important
institutional constraint impeding the development of
any kind of protected areas, including MPAs. In addi-
tion, very few local NGOs are concerned with environ-
mental issues and resource conservation in the Pacific
region, although this situation is slowly changing.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

Little information is readily available on current invest-
ment levels to complete this section. This highlights the
need to improve the collection of such data at the
regional level. See Table 6.

In 1991 SPREP obtained funding ($10 million) from
the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for an ambi-
tious programme for the conservation of biological
diversity in the South Pacific. The main focus of this
Programme is the identification, evaluation and estab-
lishment of new conservation areas in the region. The
programme offers the region the opportunity to dramati-
cally advance the cause of natural area conservation and
to build cooperation and collaboration between all the
Parties concerned and involved in this field.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

The low priority given to the establishment of protected
areas and the relative weakness of the conservation
institutions in the region is also reflected in the human
capacity to manage the limited number of protected
areas which exist. There are very few trained or partially
trained park rangers or wardens, perhaps no more than
20-25 throughout the region. Most of these are located
in just six countries, Fiji (2), Kiribati (3), Papua New
Guinea (8-10) American Samoa (2), Guam (4) and
Western Samoa (3). In these and other countries, casual
workers are often employed to undertake maintenance
work and in a number of cases local caretakers receive
a stipend to look after protected areas. This lack of
personnel is even more evident in the case of MPAs. Of
the 15 independent countries in the region, only 2 have
marine conservation officers.

On current knowledge it is not possible to estimate
the number of people who may be indirectly employed
as a result of protected areas in the Pacific region. The
number would be probably be low and would reflect the
limited development of the protected areas systems in
the region and the relatively undeveloped nature-based
tourism industry. There are, however, small numbers of
people who earn a portion of their living as a result of
providing access and guiding services to natural areas
or cultural features. In addition, the growing tourist use
and interest in marine visitor attractions, which include
some of the few MPAs in the region, provides income
for the guides and operators associated with the diving
industry.

Access to technical and scientific assistance to ad-
dress the problems of conservation area management is
important in this region as this expertise does not exist
in the small island countries. The region relies heavily
on the support of its neighbouring metropolitan coun-
tries and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
The establishment of cooperative agreements with lead-
ing conservation agencies (the Department of Conser-
vation, New Zealand, the New South Wales National
Parks and Wildlife Service, the Australian National
Parks and Wildlife Service) for access to scientific,
technical and training assistance has been undertaken
by SPREP. These agreements will greatly enhance the
resources available to the region for scientific research
and the management of protected areas.

6.1. Training facilities and needs

The issue of training in protected areas management is
a vexed one in the region. The problem of extremely
limited protected area personnel is compounded by the
fact that these people are spread between a number of
countries separated by vast distances. Despite these
difficulties, several training activities have been under-
taken in the past decade. In 1985 some 20 participants
attended a three-week training course in protected area

271

The Pacific

management held in conjunction with the Third South
Pacific National Parks and Reserves Conference. How-
ever, very few of these were directly involved with
direct protected areas management although all were
involved with environment and conservation agencies
in their home countries. This highlights a problem with
the selection process for such regional courses. The
accepted procedure calls on central governments to
nominate participants and because of the difficulties of
communication, time and travel this tends to result in
the nomination of headquarters, rather than field, per-
sonnel.

While there are no protected area training facilities in
the island countries of the South Pacific, the region is
fortunate to have close links with the principal protected
area management agencies in New Zealand and Austra-
lia. The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
has developed Memoranda of Understanding with these
agencies which specify cooperation in a number of
technical areas and in particular, protected area man-
agement training. It has become clear that given the
state of protected area development in the region, these
agreements will provide the most valuable and effective
training opportunities for the region for some time to
come. On the one hand they offer the opportunity for
short-to medium-term training secondments for regional
personnel which are designed to meet specific training
and work-elated needs. On the other hand, they offer the
region access to training personnel from those organi-
zation for the conduct of in-country courses where there
is aneed to provide basic training to anumber of people.
It is recognized by SPREP and its Australian and New
Zealand partners that training opportunities will not be
confined to government personnel and will embrace
persons sponsored by NGOs and the private sector
where appropriate.

Finally, in 1987 SPREP conducted a survey of pro-
tected area training needs in the region which reinforced
the need for training opportunities to be developed at a
number of levels. These included training in basic pro-
tected area development and management, the need for
mid-level management training for a few people who
may be called upon to manage and supervise protected
areas systems,and the need for graduate and post-gradu-
ate level study opportunities for the future managers of
government protected area programmes.

7. Priorities for future investment in
protected areas

Governments of the region must take a strong lead in
the promotion and establishment of protected areas.
This must be heralded by a re-direction of resources and
greater priority and attention being given to protected
areas as a vital part of the conservation and sustainable
development of natural resources. In the short term at
least, the capacity of government environment and
conservation agencies to actually become involved in
the establishment of new protected areas is limited.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets: Pacific

Budget in
national currency

Country/responsible agency

American Samoa

Cook Islands

Fiji — National Trust & Forestry
Department

French Polynesia

Guam

Kiribati

Marshall Islands

Micronesia, Federated States of

Nauru

New Caledonia

Niue

Northern Marianas Islands

Palau

Papua New Guinea

Pitcairn

Solomon Islands

Tokelau

Tonga

Tuvalu

United States Minor Outlying Is.

Vanuatu

Wallis and Futuna

Western Samoa—Department of
Agriculture, Forests and
Fisheries

Sources:

(11)

43,000

US Dollar
equivalent

Year

1990 Proposed budget

SPREP (1989). Country review: Western Samoa. Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and

Protected Areas. SPREP, Noumea, New Caledonia. 12pp.

However, these agencies can certainly work towards
supporting and stimulating the involvement and interest
of other agencies and organizations, particularly NGOs,
in protected area establishment. This can be achieved
by the development of national plans and policies to
promote protected areas such as National Conservation
Strategies, National Tourism Plans and the provision of
economic incentives to do so. Governments can also
provide logistical assistance and information to groups
involved in protected area negotiations and with access
to training opportunities.

Because of the complicated community-based sys-
tems of land and resource ownership which prevail in
the region, the impetus for establishment of new pro-
tected areas in many countries will come from those
organizations able to devote the time and resources to
identify appropriate areas and negotiate a conservation
Status with the owners. In many cases this will be tied
back to the development of realistic sustainable re-
source management options for the local community
which may or may not include the use of resources for
income generation. Clearly there is also a role for the
private sector to be involved where the maintenance of
the natural asset is vital for the viability of tourism
development.

272

Government must continue to play a lead role in the
development of MPAs in the South Pacific due to the legal
control governments generally have over nearshore waters
and submerged lands. However, in many Pacific island
areas, real control over marine areas and resources is
exercised through traditional ownership patterns and cus-
tomary use practices, so these need to be investigated and
documented as a part of MPA development.

More detailed indications of action required, at both
a national and regional level, for development of MPAs
and terrestrial protected areas in the region are reflected
in the SPREP work programme, based on government
requests to SPREP for action. These requests are devel-
oped into SPREP programme areas for funding and
implementation. The SPREP programmes on coastal/
marine conservation and biological diversity conserva-
tion both feed into the actions required for protected
area development in the region.

Potential exists for the establishment of protected
areas as a component of externally-funded development
projects. In many cases the proponents of such projects
have access to significant sources of development fund-
ing, have the backing of the governments and have
negotiated agreements with the landowners. The identifi-
cation of protected areas as a component of such

schemes should be included in the project brief. This
can be easily done for aid-supported projects and there
is a reasonable chance that the protected area compo-
nent will receive support. However, it would prove
much more difficult to achieve in the case of private
sector development agreements unless there was strong
government policy to this effect and a will to enforce it.

8. Major protected areas issues in
the region

8.1 People in protected areas

Understanding and incorporating human use of terres-
trial and marine areas and resources in the Pacific is
essential to protected area development in the region.
Overall, socio-economic considerations are of primary
importance to resource conservation, including pro-
tected area establishment. In the South Pacific, this is
even more so due to the intimate linkage of societies
and economies with land and marine areas and the
resources they support.

Efforts to establish or manage protected areas in the
Pacific without the involvement of local people have
been unsuccessful or fraught with difficulties and dis-
putes. Recent initiatives to pursue conservation action
in the region including MPA development, recognize
this and attempt to integrate traditional resource knowl-
edge and constraints with modem resource use tech-
niques. There is also a growing recognition that the
early and meaningful involvement of local communi-
ties who own and control the resources in decision
making is an absolute prerequisite to conservation
action.

The benefits flowing to local people from the existing
protected areas in the region are limited. Local commu-
nities use some areas for recreation and in some cases
income is generated from access and guiding fees, and
the provision of local accommodation. In a few cases,
tourism and adventure recreation facilities (e.g. diving)
are closely tied to protected areas and there are obvious
benefits for local communities providing the staff and
food for such ventures.

8.2 Involvement by the private sector

To date there has been only very limited involvement
by the private sector in the ownership, establishment
and management of protected areas. One exceptional
case involves a resort established on an island in Fiji.
The lease over the island calls for it to be managed by
the resort as a nature reserve and this has proved a
satisfactory condition for all the involved parties. NGO
involvement in the establishment of the conservation
areas in Western Samoa referred to earlier in this paper
constitute another form of private sector involvement.

The considerable potential of the private sector to
contribute to protected area establishment needs to be

273

The Pacific

harnessed. At present however, there are no direct eco-
nomic incentives such as tax relief available in the
region to encourage private sector interest.

8.3 Protected areas and surrounding

lands and waters

Integrated land use planning is not widely practised in
the countries of the South Pacific. The policy frame-
work for integrated regional planning does not exist in
most countries and where it does, it receives scant
attention or priority by the governments. Although there
are exceptions to this rule, the customary nature of land
and marine area tenure is such that it mitigates against
the imposition of planning controls which could regu-
late the resource use options of the landowners. Land
use planning is therefore confined to site-specific activi-
ties associated with development projects, some town
planning in the larger municipal areas and the develop-
ment of sectoral plans for activities such as forestry.

National Development Plans often mention the im-
portance of sustainable resource development but rarely
identify protected areas as a component of the develop-
ment process. In many instances the necessary institu-
tional framework and technical expertise is not in place
to give effect to the sustainable development philoso-
phy of a plan. Despite these problems it is important that
protected areas are given consideration and recognized
as acomponent of the development process. To achieve
this requires developing stronger linkages between the
conservation goals and objectives of the National De-
velopment Plans and those of sectorial development
plans, which are meant to give effect to the conservation
goals set out in the National Plan.

The role of MPAs in resource use planning ina region
where the population is concentrated on the coast de-
serves special mention. Due to the aquatic nature of
MPAs and the relative ease by which the influence of
off-site activities and pollutants can be transported by
water, the management of surrounding lands and waters
is of particular importance. In general, the development
of MPAs in the South Pacific is increasingly being
pursued as part of comprehensive integrated coastal
zone management planning. In this manner MPAs are
the protected area zones in a system of zones ranging
from full protection to multiple use and development.

By developing MPAs as part of a comprehensive
zoning scheme within a coastal area management plan,
the interactive role of MPAs with surrounding areas is
taken into consideration and enhanced in a number of
ways. For example, the role of MPAs as fishery re-
source "seed areas" which provide stock to surrounding
areas of sustainable fishery use is possible if considered
as part of a comprehensive management regime. The
negative effect of off-site influences can be better con-
trolled if protected areas are surrounded by buffer zones
of low disturbance uses.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Comprehensive coastal management planning pro-
motes Environmental Impact Assessment as a major
tool to ensure sound, sustainable development projects.
Thus if MPAs are being developed as part of compre-
hensive coastal plans, the impacts of development pro-
jects should be fully taken into consideration, including
the impacts of those projects on existing or potential
MPAs. SPREP has developed a comprehensive set of
guidelines for the application of EIA in tropical insular
countries to assist in the development of EIA capability
in the region.

8.4 Protected areas and science

The small islands of the South Pacific contain a high
number of endemic plants and animals. The abundance
and distribution of many of these are poorly known, if
at all. Small islands also provide natural laboratories for
studying the process of evolution. Unfortunately, little
research is being carried out in protected areas in the
South Pacific region. For the most part, adequate inven-
tories of flora and fauna have not been conducted in the
protected areas that exist. This lack of baseline informa-
tion is an impediment to effective management of pro-
tected areas in the region. Management-oriented research
is not being undertaken in the region. Few management
plans exist and those that do are usually undertaken by
outside agencies.

The level of endemism in the region and the limited
physical extent of most habitats makes it all the more
important to monitor the status of species and habitats.
Unfortunately there is almost no effort to undertake
scientific monitoring within protected areas. In fact,
Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve (Palau) may be
one of the only protected areas in the region where both
permanent terrestrial and marine transects have been set
up, although these have yet to be resurveyed following
their initial establishment in 1988.

Virtually no information is available on the effects of
pollutants on protected areas in the South Pacific. For
terrestrial protected areas this is less of a concern as
there is relatively little atmospheric pollution in the
region. However, because water pollution has the po-
tential to have serious impacts on protected marine
ecosystems, a major regional marine water quality moni-
toring programme is now underway through SPREP
(although this does not focus on MPAs for monitoring
or reference sites).

8.5 Threats to effective management

of protected areas

The principal threat to the effective management of
protected areas in the region is that posed by human use.
Unauthorized activities such as fuelwood gathering,
subsistence gardening, illegal settlement and the har-
vest of wildlife and marine resources place pressure on
protected areas which the management authority can
do little about. Development activities in the form of

274

logging, road-building, plantation establishment, min-
ing, etc., often lead to the destruction of habitat and the
loss of species and can occur in protected areas.

Aside from the threat posed by human use, the intro-
duction of alien plant and animal species poses a direct
threat to the biological values of conservation areas.
The island biodiversity of the South Pacific and its
component species has evolved in isolation and is re-
nowned for its high degree of endemism. These features
place it at great risk and examples of the disastrous
impact of introduced species abound in the region.
Perhaps the most well known is that of the relatively
recent introduction of the Brown tree snake Boiga
irregularis to the island of Guam which has led to the
decimation of the native avifauna of that island. Other
examples include the spread of the central American
plant species Miconia flavences in Tahiti and the impact
of rats on the endangered population of the Rarotongan
flycatcher (Pomarea dimidiata).

No formal mechanisms are in place in most countries
to identify, report, document or monitor threats to pro-
tected areas. These activities are most commonly under-
taken on an ad hoc basis as a result of requests from
Governments to aid agencies or regional and interna-
tional conservation organizations to either investigate a
perceived problem or undertake such work in the course
of scientific surveys. Very little information is available
on the threats to existing MPAs in the South Pacific and
how these threats are identified, reported, documented
and monitored. The lack of effective management of
most MPAs in the region means that there is no estab-
lished mechanism for responding to any but the most
obvious and serious threats.

The most pressing need in terms of a response to these
threats is to improve management through the strength-
ening of management institutions where these exist and
by promoting landowner participation in management.
The recruitment and training of staff to government
positions in conservation agencies together with the
training of local people to manage conservation areas is
vital if there is to be progress with protected area estab-
lishment. Similarly, acquisition of sufficient resources
to function effectively is a pressing need in the region
and a priority for most conservation area management
agencies.

9. Priorities for action in the region

The identified priorities for action recognize that
within the region, the sustainable use of natural re-
sources and the establishment and effective manage-
ment of protected areas involves a close working rela-
tionship between governments and communities in the
planning and management of natural resources and
protected areas. They call for the development of an
effective integrated policy and legal framework; streng-
thened conservation institutions; the integration of modern
and traditional resource management skills; and support
for education, training, research and information serv-
ices. Pacific countries also have a need to consider more
flexible categories of protected areas, which allow for
the sustainable use of important subsistence and cultural
resources.

The Action Strategy identified seven principal goals
which recognize the need to address fundamental issues
relating to the conservation of biological diversity in the
region if future progress is to be significant and long
lasting. These are:

@ Incorporating conservation values and the concepts
of self reliance and sustainability into national re-
source management policies and plans;

ensuring the continued viability of the full range of
ecosystem types and species in the region;

integrating traditional knowledge and customs into
sustainable resource conservation practiceand pro-
tected areas management,

fostering links between tourism and nature conser-
vation;

improving the level of environmental awareness in
the region to assist individuals, communities and
government agencies to participate in the achieve-
ment of conservation goals;

planning, developing and maintaining appropriate
training and education in nature conservation and
protected area management; and

strengthening cooperation in the promotion of con-
servation in the region and support from interna-
tional agencies.

The Pacific

Objectives relating to each of these goals have been
developed and specific activities for the achievement of
the objectives have been identified. A number of these
relate directly to the priorities for the establishment and
management of protected area and recognize the need
to:
w@ Secure greater government commitment to the es-
tablishment of protected areas as an important and
legitimate component of sustainable resource devel-
opment.

Strengthen the institutional framework for protected
area establishment and management including the
provision of greater financial resources, more trained
staff and the development of appropriate legislation
and policy.

Develop models for protected area establishment on
customary lands and in marine areas which link
protected areas to the development aspirations of
local communities in a sustainable manner.

Involve the private sector and NGOs in protected
area establishment and management and where ap-
propriate, develop the linkages between tourism,
protected areas and sustainable development.

Obtain more scientific data on the ecosystems and
species of the region and record this in a systematic
way which will allow use of the data for the planning
of representative systems of protected areas and the
setting of protected area priorities.

Promote and strengthen cooperation and informa-
tion exchange among the countries and organiza-
tions working in natural resource conservation and
protected area development in the region.

Finally and perhaps most important, action to meet
these needs over the next ten years will require the
concerted efforts of the countries and people of the
Pacific region together with the support and assistance
of the international conservation and development as-
sistance agencies and the many non-governmental or-
ganizations and individuals dedicated to achieving the
conservation of the region’s biological and physical
resources and the protection of its unique environment.

275

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

References

Dahl, A.L. 1986. Review of the Protected Areas System
in Oceania. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. 328pp.

Dahl, A.L. 1980. Regional ecosystem survey of the
South Pacific Region. SPC/IUCN Technical Paper
179. South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New
Caledonia. 99pp.

IUCN 1991. Directory of Protected Areas in Oceania.
Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring
Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK. 447 pp.

Lees, A. (Ed.) 1991. A representative protected forest
system for the Solomon Islands. Prepared by the
Maruia Society, Nelson, New Zealand, for the
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Canberra, ACT. 185 pp.

Maruia Society 1989. A representative national parks
and reserves system for Fiji’ s tropical forest. Maruia
Society Report Series No.9. Maruia Society,
Nelson, New Zealand. 110pp.

Pearsall, $.H. and Whistler, W.A. 1991. Terrestrial
ecosystem mapping for Western Samoa: Summary,
project report, and proposed national parks and

276

reserves plan. Prepared for the Government of Western
Samoa by the South Pacific Regional Environment
Programme and the East West Centre, Environment
and Policy Institute.

SPREP. 1985. Action strategy for protected areas in the
South Pacific Region. South Pacific Commission,
noumea, New Caledonia, 24 pp.

SPREP. 1989. Action strategy for nature conservation
in the South Pacific Region. South Pacific Commis-
sion, noumea, New Caledonia, 49 pp.

Thomas, P.E.J., Fosberg, F.R., Hamilton, L.S., Herbst,
D.R., Juvik, J.O.,Maragos, J.E., Naughton, J.J. and
Strack, C.J. 1989. Report on the Northern Marshall
Islands natural diversity and protected areas survey:
7-24 September 1988. South Pacific Regional En-
vironment Programme, Noumea, New Caledonia
and East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. 133 pp.

UNEP/IUCN 1988 Coral Reefs of the world; Volume 3.
Central and Western Pacific. UNEP Regional Seas
Directories and Bibliographies. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK/UNEP, Nairobi,
Kenya. 378pp.

North America

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

%OT UBY} S40/W

20E—G 1

2GL—-OL

ZOL-G

45-10

%|'Q uby} sseq

peyoejoud abpjuadssy

seaile po}oej0id pajyeubisap Ajje6a; uiyjim papnjou! Aujunod jo abejusds0g ‘dew

gees a
Beseses Se

Sete

retest

: BeCRRESEME ech bebe

0002 Oool 0
— US
yy

278

2 Nw

Contents

Page
Historical perspective + a nea. Serao cues asks He 281
PPI Mpe LN ITOMUCHON G5. toyccicec daa Cite < Su cuit Soca, hes Seti oh, Eee mE 281
IBZ eesTINC CONCEP Ui rast cay co es Rigen ok vgs, oun ee oe aoe el gia 281
irS , Growth/of the protected:areas system). 5 22 eae cee 282
1.4 Development of state/provincial protected areas. ................. 285
Current protected areasystems ........................0.. 286
Additional protected areas required ....................... 289
Protected areainstitutions .........................0000. 289
4\e-sthe principalinationaliagenciesy 4. 261-204-700 96 oe ee 289
422—, Statejand'provinciallagencies.. . 5. . .. a4 eee 2 os ene 290
4.3 Non-governmental organizations.................++2222002 290
Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 293
Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 293
Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 293
Major protected areaissuesintheregion .................... 294
Sole wbhreatsito;protected areas) pcs -ce.. « « seAvene Cale Sai. tune ee eeerey ieee 294
Stein anclaliiSSUCS' on. cee ye ee ah ae eae oy es ese MU eres eee 295
S*3pege Sciencesin the: parks - 2%... .-. 2 ts Re ee ed Bee ae 295
S:4 People and protectediareaSy = 49). suey ee) oo ie neon 296
Priorities foractionintheregion ....................2000. 297
Olle Systenmplanning ies ol ees. BS... LI CR CO ee 297
OD ae MANA PEIMICNE re ccpucphss 108 <, (epispesetsh. <b Siva ies Beit hen elk open owe he ee ae eae 297
9.3. Public participation and awareness... ...........-.-0202-22200. 297
OA SMP INANCE sence) iy cassie, s cose =, = 6 RE Seciope iba © Cocwdenes keepers 298
OS ma Researchtandimonitoringe: oe eeenaen tice ee ce ne eco 298

279

TOMGONCIUSIONS 25 cots) ote as. + Sasha) Cuemepaee eager melee ae ol tuey eee 298
ROIGRENnCOS Mens ois ce sce BA cise wice wo sores Go Autediet stein ora dumemoule tegen otemeu mee 299
Tables
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system .... 2... .. 2-2 ee eee 283
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories ............. 283
Table 3. |The development of the protected areas system .............. 286
Table 4. | Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 286
Table 5. World Heritage sites in North America .............-2.220.. 291
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 291
Table 7. | Gaps in protected areas coverage inCanada.............-.--. 292
Table 8. Priority conservation areas in Mexico .............-2-2-2-0-- 292
Table 9. | Recommended new protected areas in the United States .......... 296
Figures
Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected
Plc yi Ba GP an GSI BY Gano 0 Gis ney od SORE ROEM YOREN EES FeO a. 278
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 284
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 284

280

North America

Rob Milne, Regional Vice-Chair for North America, IUCN Commission
on National Parks and Protected Areas and John Waugh,
Protected Areas Programme Officer, IUCN-US

1. Historical perspective

1. Introduction

North America contains the oldest and most extensive
network of protected areas in the world. It is a complex
system; virtually hundreds of government agencies and
private organizations have a role in protected area man-
agement. All sites share common threats: lack of under-
standing of the ecological processes that affect them;
pressures upon the areas from human interests compet-
ing for resources; and lack of integration of protected
areas in the matrix of regional development activities.
Momentum in preserving a representative system of
wildlands is being lost and protected area institutions
throughout the region are fighting defensive battles.

In the US and Canada, protected area agencies have
played an important role in moulding public opinion,
and public support for protected areas remains generally
strong. Affecting the way North Americans have looked
at nature, protected areas are a cultural symbol of the
public’s right to enjoy nature unimpaired. But now the
same cultural values that have supported the develop-
ment of a system of protected areas threaten to over-
whelm management systems. Significant cultural changes
are needed if remaining ecosystems are to remain un-
impaired. Protected areas are needed as midwives to
these changes, educating the public to appreciate the
multiple values of nature.

In Mexico land is a powerful metaphor for Mexico’s
tural poor. It was taken away from the indigenous
inhabitants during the Conquest; land reform was a
critical issue during the Revolution. Land issues relate
to community and well-being in very direct ways, and
conservation efforts must tap this wellspring of
Mexican culture to succeed. The growth of a regional
economy may earn Mexico the resources to protect its
environment, but the rate of environmental deteriora-
tion may well outstrip growth in capacity.

Protected area institutions can do much to strengthen
their constituencies and build support. To a greater or
lesser degree, all protected area institutions have recog-

281

nized this need; most are adjusting their programmes to
fit the changing paradigm of government. Protected
areas are, by nature, sensitive to their constituencies.
Despite financial difficulties, there is plenty of cause yet
for optimism for the future of the protected areas of
North America, but they are likely to be substantially
different from conventional national parks. It remains
to be seen how well wilderness, representing a rejection
of the twentieth century consumer society, adapts to the
cultural demands of the twenty-first century.

1.2 Theconcept

To understand the established network of North Ameri-
can protected areas, it is important to know something
about the history of the concept of protection. In pre-
hispanic times, Mayan culture incorporated manage-
ment and protection of key areas as extractive reserves
and as "untouchable" reserves. At the time of the Span-
ish Conquest, the Aztec Emperor Montezuma main-
tained protected areas, including a zoological park and
a botanical garden. Colonization of Mexico brought
drastic impacts in the transformation of complex eco-
systems into monocultures favouring penetration and
exploitation of natural areas, and threatening many
areas. As a result, in 1876 the forests surrounding
Mexico City were protected to preserve water re-
sources. National parks in Mexico did not become part
of the popular culture, and a paradigm for a system of
protected areas rooted in indigenous cultural roots re-
mains a tantalizing, but unrealized, prospect for Mex-
ico.

Frontier artist George Catlin was one of many who
moumed the passing of the great frontier of the Ameri-
can west. Foreshadowing events to come, Catlin wrote
in 1832 of his concern about the loss of indigenous
culture and the wild open spaces it implied (Mackintosh,
1985). This sentiment, rooted in 19th century European
romanticism, says more about the imagination of the
European settlers than it does about the concerns for
North America’s native peoples. Indeed, the decline of
indigenous populations in the North probably did much
to facilitate the establishment of many large national
parks.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

It arose not out of a strong sense of scientific or natural
values, but as a nationalistic impulse. Sensitive to their
perceived inferiority in the face of the millennia of
European culture, the descendants of immigrants from
the Old World found consolation in a rugged and mar-
vellous landscape whose features strained credulity.

Runte (1987) concluded that the opening of the Far
West, coupled with the long search for an American
identity, gave form and meaning to nature appreciation.
The United States might have originated the national
park idea in the absence of cultural nationalism; with it,
however, the nation had clear and immediate justifica-
tion to go beyond simply appreciating its natural won-
ders to preserving them. It took landmarks of unques-
tioned uniqueness to form the cornerstones of a nation-
alistic park idea.

Early US and Canadian parks fulfilled the need for a
monumentality that, to the romantic spirit of the time,
imparted a sense of moral superiority. Parks were alle-
gories for the superiority of pristine nature, imparted to
the enlightened breed of man that took pleasure there.
This sense of superiority helped to mould and shape the
mind of the descendants of North America’s settlers in
the twentieth century. To indigenous Americans, this
cultural tonic must have been an alien notion. And in
Mexico, the motive for early parks may have had less
to do with cultural needs than with the desire of the
tuling classes to adopt northern affectations.

Romantic sentimentality in North America did not,
however, interfere with pragmatism. In the history of
protection in North America, parklands have largely
been limited to what is considered barren and economi-
cally useless for other purposes. The pioneer spirit of
the late 19th century would not understand preservation
of the richest lands, but it did allow a utility for every-
thing. A use for "worthless lands" fit well with the
prevailing utilitarian attitudes. The progressive view of
valuable resources was that they should be used, albeit
wisely.

Partnerships with business for the provision of serv-
ices constituted an early and enduring success for the
national parks. The powerful railway companies of the
continent recognized very early that parks were an
important business opportunity, and became early al-
lies. They built grand hotels to encourage the emerging
middle class to vacation in America. Within a few
decades, parks were to become a symbol of national
pride. By 1923, Robert Sterling Yard could write "no
other trademark ... pays such dividends of business,
national prestige, and patriotism" (Runte, 1987).

1.3 Growth of the protected areas
system

The growth of the protcted areas system in North Amer-
ica is illustrated in figures 1 and 2, and in Table 3. These
show a progressive development from 1900, but dra-
matic increases from 1970. Table 3 shows that Canada

282

and the USA both had significant proportions of the
protcted areas systems in place by 1962, whilst the
network in Mexico has dveloped more recently. Finally,
it should be noted that the Greenland National Park
(700,000sq km), established in 1974 distorts the data
due to its extreme size.

Canada. Canada created its first national park at Banff
in 1885. Within the decade, Rocky Mountains Park was
enlarged and three other units added. In the early years,
hewing to a pragmatic approach, grazing, logging and
mining were allowed within Canadian parks. By 1911,
Canada had established the world’s first modern park
management agency, the Canadian Parks Service.

Reserves to protect game for Canada’s indigenous
inhabitants were established as early as 1894. By 1938,
these reserves covered 1.35 million sq km, but the
system was reduced in size after 1948. Only a few of
the smaller of these reserves remain (Environment Canada,
1991b).

In 1923, the first organized opposition to industrial
development in parks took place, when the Canadian
National Parks Association was formed to oppose a dam
in Banff NP. The government approved the dam and
reduced the size of the park to exclude the reservoir
from park boundaries. It was not until 1930, however,
that the Canadian government passed a National Act
prohibiting logging, mining, or hydropower develop-
ment within national parks. Federal policy here di-
verged from that of the provincial parks, "which often
tried to meet the needs of both resource extraction and
conservation" (Environment Canada, 1991a). In the
1930s, Canada began to add national parks to its eastern
provinces.

By the 1960s, Canada had begun to apply an organ-
ized set of principles to park management, and a sense
of a system of parks emerged. The National Park Sys-
tems Planning Framework was published in 1971. The
1970s was a pivotal decade for parks, witnessing the
introduction of public participation in planning, the
recognition of the traditional rights of aboriginal groups,
and the direct purchase of lands for new parks. Growth
of the system continued under the system plan in the
1980s, and innovative arrangements continue to be
made, especially in the establishment of protected areas
under native land-claim agreements, and in the planning
for a system of marine protected areas. Amendments to
the National Parks Act in 1988 made ecological integ-
rity of parks the principal management objective.

Mexico. In 1898 Monte Vedado el Mineral de El
Chico, in Hidalgo State, became Mexico’s first national
park. Until the 1930s, only nine more parks were added,
with a disproportionately high representation of conif-
erous forests, mainly in parks established for recreation
and scenic values (Flores 1989).

Mexico embarked on the development of a protected
areas network in earnest in the late 1930s, when most
of the national parks of the country were established. In

North America

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: North America

Area in
Area CategoriesI-V %

9,922,385
2,175,600 982,500
1,972,545 98,966

242 0
9,363,130 984,557

2,560,502

Canada 494,479
Greenland

Mexico

St Pierre-Miquelon

USA
23,433,902

Area in Categories
VI-VillandUA %
0.6 554,369
982,500
124,396
0

10.9

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: North America

No.

Canada

Greenland

Mexico

St Pierre—Miquelon
USA

263,086
972,000
16,232

70 19,724

201,310 225 184,632

168 1,452,628 228 184,705 482 696,293

IV
No. Area

Vv
No. Area

TOTAL

Area No. Area

153. 185,040 126 41,321 411 494,479

- = - - 2 982,500
11 38,745 7 40,373 60 98,966

329 125,456 937 984,557

318 472,508

462 207,150 14102,560,502

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection

function are generally included.

1938 alone sixteen national parks and protected forests
were declared. The management of protected areas
remained under the forestry sector of government from
1935 until 1976, when five different government agen-
cies were given responsibility for the administration of
different categories of protected areas.

In the mid-seventies, the establishment of new types
of protected areas (e.g., biological stations and bio-
sphere reserves) allowed biological and ecological cri-
teria to be incorporated into the justification for the
establishment of protected areas. The first biosphere
reserves, Mapimi and Michilia, were established by the
Institute of Ecology in Durango, incorporating the con-
servation of biodiversity, research, education and par-
ticipation of local institutions and people.

In 1982, the Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia
(SEDUE) and its Subsecretaria of Ecologia were cre-
ated. This represented the first effort by the Federal
Government to incorporate ecological criteria into de-
velopment schemes. Within the Subsecretaria, two units
were also created, DIPARES, dealing with Parks, Re-
serves and Protected Ecological Areas, and Flora and

283

Fauna, addressing wildlife. New general regulations
were proposed in 1992 which will, when adopted, result
in further reorganization of Mexico’s protected area
authorities. One change is the possibility of concessions
for the management of individual units by non-govern-
mental entities.

United States. On June 30, 1864, US President Abra-
ham Lincoln signed a law granting the Yosemite Valley
and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias to the State
of California to be held for "public use, resort, and
recreation . . . inalienable for all time." But even as
President Lincoln signed the act transferring Yosemite
to a state government, the United States was in the grips
of a civil war that occurred at least in part over the issue
of sovereignty. That issue resounded through the years,
manifesting itself today in debates over the right of the
Federal government to legislate land use in the public
interest.

It is generally held that, had there been a state which
included the territory of the Yellowstone in 1872, that
area would have been handed over just as Yosemite had
been eighteen years earlier. That Yellowstone did not

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)
1,200

Number of sites ee

YAeed) Area (x1000sqkm)

800
600
400

200

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)

2,500

Number of sites

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

284

fall under the jurisdiction of a state created the condi-
tions for a historic precedent, creating the world’s first
modem national park.

In 1891, the US Congress, driven by concerns that the
nation’s natural resources were being depleted, gave the
President the authority to create forest reserves within the
public domain. By 1893, the government had reserved
5,250,000ha of western forest land. In 1905, the US
Forest Service was created. This service, with a
mandate to manage the forest estate, was dedicated to
‘utilitarian conservation’. In the first decade of the 20th
century, the system of National Forests swelled to
60,000,000ha.

In 1906, the President was granted additional powers
to declare national monuments by Executive Order.
President Theodore Roosevelt used this law aggres-
sively, and by 1916, the protected area estate had grown
considerably.

In 1916, the National Park Service (USNPS) was
created, over the opposition of Forest Service head
Gifford Pinchot, who argued for the efficiency of utili-
tarian management by the Forest Service. The new
agency inherited responsibility for 35 national parks
and monuments, and had a mandate to "conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild
life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations".
Responsibilities for cultural and historical monuments
were added in 1933.

A public outcry in the early 1960s over the shooting
of elk in Yellowstone National Park, precipitated a
special advisory board on wildlife management, chaired
by A. Starker Leopold. The Leopold committee recom-
mended "as a primary goal, that the biotic associations
within each park be maintained, or where necessary
Tecreated, as nearly as possible in the condition that
prevailed when the area was first visited by the white
man.... A national park should represent a vignette of
primitive America". Their report was an early reflection
of a change in the way North Americans were looking
at the environment. Its lasting significance lay not in its
own romantic images of pristine America but in its
guiding principle that the biological management of the
national parks was just as important as the strict protec-
tion of their natural features for the enjoyment of the
public (Runte, 1987).

By the 1970s, the environmental awareness presaged
by the Leopold Committee had produced a powerful
constituency for protected areas. Mexico responded to
similar national awareness by establishing a network of
biosphere reserves to accommodate the need for a bal-
ance between nature conservation and development.
Canada expanded into its seemingly limitless wilder-
ness lands during this period, as protected areas contin-
ued to preserve the best of the monumentality of the
Canadian frontier.

285

North America

In the US, the concems of the public and government
were driven by the growth in popularity of outdoor
recreation. Equity of access to outdoor recreation op-
portunities and the loss of open space to urban sprawl
became key issues, leading to an appetite for more and
more protected areas. This demand could not be easily
met by national parks, and newer, innovative types of
protected areas were created, frequently administered
outside the National Park Service. Large-scale addi-
tions led to charges that the quality of the system as a
whole was diminished by the inclusion of areas without
the monumental aspect that was the system’s concep-
tual underpinning.

Politicians anxious to satisfy the demand for new
parks pushed for inclusion of new units of the system
within their constituencies. The result was an unprece-
dented expansion of USNPS, which groaned under the
burden of absorbing new units. Concerned that the
Service was losing its focus on stewardship of existing
units, USNPS abandoned the expansionist park plan in
1982 in favour of additional resources to stabilize and
upgrade existing properties. (Table 3 and Figures 1 and
2 show the growth of the protected area systems in
North America).

International cooperation has long been an important
feature in North America. Canada, Mexico and the
United States are all party to the World Heritage Con-
vention and the Ramsar Convention and all participate
in UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Pro-
gramme. Table 4 lists adherence to international con-
ventionsd and prgrammes, whilst Table 5 indicates the
sites listed for each country under the stated interna-
tional conventions and programmes.

These and other issues relating to the entire region are
discussed at length in a comprehensive review of na-
tional protected areas systems, prepared by the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992).

1.4 Development of state/provincial

protected areas

Enthusiasm for National Parks translated to increased
interest in state and provincial parks. In 1883, the State
of New York created the Niagara Falls Reservation to
address the stinging criticisms from European visitors
over the seedy commercialism practiced at this popular
attraction. Two years later, New York established Adi-
rondack Park, the first major protected area in the
eastern part of the continent. By 1907, the state of
Wisconsin had developed a park system plan (Myers
and Green, 1989). A (US) National Conference on State
Parks in 1921 adopted the slogan "A State Park Every
Hundred Miles," reflecting the new-found mobility brought
by the automobile. By the 1920s, the development of
state parks was following to some extent the develop-
ment of highways. In 1893, Ontario established Can-
ada’s first provincial park, Algonquin, with Quebec
following suit with Laurentides Provincial Park in 1895.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Thereafter, provincial parks were added in the rest of
Canada’s provinces.

2. Current protected area systems

Canada. _ The Canadian Parks Service has divided
the country into 39 terrestrial natural regions, of which
21 are represented in the system, and 29 marine natural
regions, of which two are represented. Some type of
protected area exists in 33 of the 39 terrestrial regions,
and a proposed site has been identified in four more.

Table 3.

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established
up to 1962

Canada

Greenland

Mexico

St Pierre-Miquelon
USA

% area
established
1972-1981

Analysis of coverage according to the Canadian Eco-
logical Land Classification System shows that 67 out of
177 ecoregions have no strictly protected areas, and that
in 138, less than 3% is strictly protected. When all
categories are used, 41 ecoregions have more than 12%
protected, and less than 3% is represented in 97
eco-regions, and in total about 5.6% of Canada’s area
is protected within IUCN Categories I-VIII (Tables 1
and 2). The largest gaps are in the boreal, tundra,
grassland, and lower arctic regions (Environment Canada,
1991b).

The development of the protected areas system: North America

Date
established
unknown

% area
established
1982-1991

Total
area
designated

494,478
982,500
98,965
0

984,556

99,366 2,560,501

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for
IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in
size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted.

World Wildlife Fund Canada’s Endangered Spaces
Program has identified 91 natural regions (out of ap-
proximately 350) where 50,000ha contiguous roadless
areas can no longer be found. The option of protecting
a large contiguous block of wilderness is threatened in
many other regions. Some 400,000 Canadians have
signed the Canadian Wilderness Charter, which calls

for a national effort to establish a completely repre-
sentative system by the year 2000, comprising 12% of
Canada’s land (WWF — Canada, 1991; 1992). More
than 99% of tall-grass prairie, 82% of short-grass prairie,
90% of fescue grassland, and 76% of mixed-grass prai-
rie and aspen parkland have already been converted to
agricultural uses (Environment Canada, 1991b).

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: North America

World Heritage

Date No.

Canada
Denmark

(Greenland) July 1979 0
Mexico

February 1984
France

(St Pierre/Miquelon) June 1975 0
United States December. 1973 10

July 1976 6 14,710,321
528,000

4,356,688

Biosphere Reserves
Area (ha) No. Area (ha)

44 22,334,755

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention
Date No. Area (ha)

1,049,978 January 1981 30 13,015,681

70,000,000
1,288,454

September 1977 11
July 1986 1

1,044,500
47,480

October 1986 0
December 1986 11

0
1,192,093

Notes: 1. The World Heritage site Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias lies across the international border between Canada and the
United States. To simplify this table, each part of the site has been entered within the appropriate country.

2. Note that sites in Hawaii are included in this table, although technically they lie within the Pacific region,
otherwise only sites lying within the region are listed.

286

In the Northern Territories, land claim settlements
between aboriginal people and the federal government
are under negotiation. For claims now being drafted,
communities and governments are identifying natural
areas and cultural features, and terms are being set for
the establishment and management of national parks
and other protected areas. Under the claim of the Tun-
gavik Federation of Nunavut, in the eastern Arctic, at
least three national parks will be established (Environ-
ment Canada, 1991b).

Canada’s Green Plan recommends that Canada allo-
cate 12% of its total area in a network of protected areas
to protect representative samples of its ecosystems. The
government of Canada estimates that the national park
system, when completed, could occupy between 2.8 and
3.4% of the Canadian landscape, compared with the
current 1.8% (Environment Canada, 1991b).

In addition, Canada’s Green Plan calls for the govern-
ment to:

@ Complete the terrestrial parks system by 2000, es-
tablish at least five new national parks by 1996,
negotiate agreements for the remaining 13 parks
required to compete the terrestrial park system, and

establish three additional marine parks by 2000;

Develop an enhanced resource management pro-
gramme for national parks involving applied studies
for ecological integrity and regional integration;

Work with the provincial governments to establish
a network of forest ecological reserves to preserve
in their natural state the genetic stock of Canadian
forest ecosystems; and

Work with the provinces to develop a programme to
transfer to farmers agricultural practices compatible
with wildlife habitat needs.

Canada has made significant gains in protecting the
wetlands that cover 14% of its land area. Most provinces
have inventoried and classified remaining wetlands,
and some have formulated policies to protect the most
valuable examples. The recently adopted Federal Policy
on Wetland Conservation will promote the develop-
ment of a system of protected wetlands of national
significance.

Mexico. _In Mexico, the Nearctic and Neotropical
biogeographic realms meet in an area with a complex
topography and a range of climates, conditions that
create a great variety of habitats and promote tremen-
dous species diversity. SINAP, the Mexican Govern-
ment’s System of Protected Areas, is designed to integrate
protected natural areas of Mexico into a coherent, rep-
resentative whole. SINAP’s objectives include building
the capacity in each area for recreation, culture, research
and citizen involvement (Perez Gil and Jaramillo, 1992).

The General Environmental Law (1988) provides for
the nine categories of protected area, but the legal
categories have serious limitations. More than 100 dif-

287

North America

ferent denominations have been employed in designat-
ing protected areas in Mexico, and there is no actual
correspondence between the name or category and the
management objectives pursued in each area. The areas
currently decreed have not been formally reclassified,
in accordance with SINAP, or simply do not fit within
the recognized categories. Correspondence between these
categories and those internationally accepted and widely
used is unclear and reconciliation is not entirely feasible
at this point.

As a result of this confusion, there are differences in
opinion with regards to the number and type of pro-
tected areas in Mexico. Information available to the
World Conservation Monitoring Centre indicates a total
of 60 areas in IUCN Management Categories I-V,
covering 9.8 million ha or 5.0% of the country. A further
2.5 million ha (1.3%) are covered by protected areas in
Categories VI-VIII (Table 1). The Mexican Govern-
ment, however, in its National Program for Environ-
mental Protection 1990-1994, considers SINAP to consist
of 65 areas. The Ministry of Agriculture (SARH) and
some State Governments protect an additional 8 million
ha through 59 forest reserves and protected watersheds
and other categories that the law includes as subcate-
gories within the SINAP. If all of them are considered,
approximately 7% of the territory could be considered
to have a degree of legal protection due to natural
features (Perez Gil and Jaramillo, 1992).

Mexico’s strategy emphasizes the need to strike a
balance between conservation and exploitation of the
resources contained in its protected areas. At present,
there is a lack of planning in protected areas, and no
specific criteria are applied for the selection or ranking
of priorities to guarantee that the protected area system
is truly representative. Recommendations have been
made to restructure and improve the functioning of
SINAP (Perez Gil and Jaramillo, 1992). SINAP re-
quires revised criteria for inclusion, revised categories,
review of the existing parks and of the regulations and
policies pertaining to parks. Under the framework of the
General Ecology Law of 1988, SINAP has the opportu-
nity to improve regulations, norms and policies for the
identification, selection, evaluation, monitoring and man-
agement of protected areas. Additional action is re-
quired in such regulation. Areas that have lost the
characteristics for which they were originally protected
are to be decommissioned, and protected areas will be
given categories which conform to management prac-
tices and priorities.

United States. Over 10% of the United States is
protected in national parks and related areas (Table 1).
This figure is somewhat misleading, because of the
extensiveness of the protected estate in Alaska. Blockstein
(1989), citing a Department of the Interior report on
areas of more than 10,000ha, notes that "land adminis-
tered by the four largest Federal land management
agencies failed to include 22% of the recognized eco-
system types in the United States and under-represented

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

another 29%." A National Parks and Conservation As-
sociation (NPCA) review identified fifty-four of 133
ecoregions in the US as having little or no representation
in the national park system (NPCA, 1988). Some of
these regions are so small that representation is imprac-
tical, and others have largely been lost, having been
converted to other uses or otherwise degraded. Notwith-
standing these exceptions, a significant number of eco-
regions lack adequate representation in protected area
systems (see Section 3 for a discussion of gaps in
coverage). The extent of under-representation is diffi-
cult to quantify, owing to the number of agencies and
jurisdictions that might provide protection. These agen-
cies do not necessarily share common data sets for their
protected areas, nor do they necessarily share the same
sets of maps. The Federal protected area estate has not
been entered onto any single series of maps in over
twenty years.

The 1964 (US) Wilderness Act established a national
policy "to secure for the American people of present and
future generations the benefits of an enduring resource
of wilderness.” It stipulated that wilderness areas be
“administered for the use and enjoyment of the American
people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired
for future use and enjoyment as wilderness." Eligibility
criteria for the National Wilderness Preservation System
include pristine character, opportunities for solitude,
and sufficient size to allow management as a wilderness
unit. The Wilderness Act recommends a minimum of
2,000 contiguous roadless ha as a guideline. Approxi-
mately 4 per cent of the United States is preserved within
the National Wilderness Preservation System. As of 30
June 1989, 91.5 million ha (Alaska has 59 million ha),
or 10% of the US land area, was de facto wilderness and
had either been designated as wilderness, recommended
for wilderness, or was under study as possible wilder-
ness (CRS, 1989). Currently in the US, 36,626,500ha of
public land is statutory wilderness, included in the
National Wilderness Preservation System covering 81
out of 233 distinct ecosystems recognized by the Forest
Service in the 50 states and Puerto Rico (TWS, 1989c).

The Nature Conservancy has its own Heritage Data-
base system in all 50 states, using it to set protection
priorities for The Nature Conservancy, state agencies,
and many federal agencies (including some managing
de facto protected lands of the Department of Defense).
In combination with the USFWS work and other gov-
ernment agency data sets, a foundation for a scientifi-
cally based interagency planning programme exists.

A type of protection attracting increasing attention
in the US and Canada is landscape preservation
(IUCN Category V). This approach, often applied to
traditional or historic sites, emphasizes sustainability
and harmony between human activity and the natural
environment. Landscape preservation activities are
particularly strong in the northeastern states and ad-
jacent provinces of eastern Canada, where traditional
settlement patterns are being disrupted by intensified,
centralized development. Landscape-level conservation

288

may provide important opportunities for habitat con-
servation in areas where large tracts of wildlands no
longer exist. River corridors frequently provide focal
points for landscape protection, and protection of rivers
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has been an area
of intense activity for over twenty years. Landscape
preservation will be a key growth area in coming dec-
ades as communities become more active in addressing
quality of life issues and bioregional planning becomes
widely practiced.

The proliferation of agencies and jurisdictions in the
US has made the evolution of a coordinated system of
protected areas difficult. Diffusion of responsibilities
has created a leadership vacuum. No single body exer-
cises satisfactory oversight over protected areas within
the Federal government. Such oversight and coordina-
tion is needed to create a unified, representative system.
Non-governmental groups such as the National Parks
and Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, The
Nature Conservancy, the Wildemess Society, and the
Defenders of Wildlife (to name only a few) have stepped
in with their own data sets and systems reviews, and
have made very significant contributions to understanding
the gaps in the protected estate.

The protected area system in the US evolved in an ad
hoc fashion, and without the benefit of any scientific
analysis of coverage and objectives during most of the
twentieth century. Congressional prerogative in the se-
lection of protected areas preempts most efforts to set
priorities scientifically. During the 1970s, an effort was
made to create a comprehensive system plan for the
National Park Service. This process was terminated
when expansion of the system outstripped managerial
capacities and budgets, but much relevant work was
produced.

In celebration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the
USNPS, a symposium was convened in Vail, Colorado
in September 1991 to evaluate the NPS critically and
identify a course of action for the agency. The sympo-
sium was jointly convened by the National Park Service,
National Park Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, and
Harvard University. A key recommendation, the estab-
lishment of an Office of Strategic Planning, has already
been realized, setting the stage for serious consideration
of other recommendations made in Vail.

Non-governmental organizations in the US are im-
portant constituencies for land management agencies
working to build support for their conservation pro-
grammes. An important tool in this effort has been the
alternative action plans and agendas they have devel-
oped for the politically constrained government agen-
cies. These plans, which tend to be more aggressive in
support of conservation goals than are the agency plans,
are important tools in influencing the appropriation of
funds from the Treasury. Examples of these plans in-
clude the National Parks and Conservation Associa-
tion’s Investing in Park Futures: A Blueprint for
Tomorrow (a nine-volume study of the National Park

system), and the National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion’s annual Fisheries and Wildlife Assessment, an
assessment of the needs of the federal agencies key to
the wildlife estate. Governmental processes in the US
are very susceptible to constituent pressure. The exist-
ence of these action plans and the efforts they represent
to influence government is an important reason for
protection gains in the contemporary history of the
nation.

3. Additional protected areas
required

Canada. Of Canada’s 39 natural regions, 18 have no
representative portion protected. These are shown in
Table 7, along with sites recommended to fill the gaps.

Mexico. A tentative ranking of proposed protected
areas was undertaken by Perez Gil and Jaramillo (1992),
using as criteria importance, urgency of action, and
feasibility. The tentative survey identified sixteen areas
of top priority for conservation (Table 8). Of the sixteen,
nine sites are proposed as new protected areas, six are
existing protected areas for which expansion and recate-
gorization are recommended, and expansion without change
in status is recommended for one additional area. The
priority areas are located in 11 states of Mexico and
include regions considered to have the highest biologi-
cal importance for the country. Inclusion/extension of
these areas would protect as much as 2,695,000 addi-
tional ha, increasing by up to 47% the area presently
under protection. The authors identified an urgent need
to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of Mexico’s
protected area estate.

United States. The natural history (distinct from the
cultural and historic components) component of the US
National Park Service’s National Park System Plan
(1972) addressed representative coverage according to
thematic criteria covering both physiological (e.g. geo-
graphic) and biological features. A 1980 revision
cited underground ecosystems, tropical ecosystems,
estuaries, marine environments, and grasslands as
under-represented. The NPCA undertook an analysis of
coverage in the late 1980s using the NPS thematic
regions, Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV) types, and
National Park Service natural regions (NPCA, 1988).
NPCA’s analysis indicated that eight of twelve large-
scale ecosystems had relatively low representation in
federal lands. They are Coastal Prairies and Salt Marshes,
Tropical Ecosystems, Freshwater Ecosystems, Wetlands,
Chaparral, Desert, Eastem Deciduous Forest, Pacific Forest,
and "miscellaneous." NPCA reported that apart from
Eastern Deciduous Forest, these ecosystems are also the
least common of the original ecosystems of the United
States. Of the natural regions of the NPS occurring in
the continental US, the Mississippi Alluvial Plain,
Piedmont, New England-Adirondacks, Wyoming
Basin, Interior Low Plateaux, and Atlantic Coastal
Plain were under-represented in the national park sys-
tem. All appeared, however, to have representation in

289

North America

the national forests or lands administered by the Bureau
of Land Management.

At a higher level of resolution, NPCA found when
large-scale ecosystems were subdivided by the NPS
natural regions, 54 out of 133 regions had little or no
representation in the park system. Eight have little
representation in all federal lands, sometimes due to
original rarity of the ecosystem. Using the PNV classi-
fication system, 33 of 135 types were found to be poorly
represented in the federal estate, including nine with
almost no representation in the federal estate. Of the
nine PNV types reported as not represented, three were
forested tropical ecosystems in Hawaii and six were
savanna grasslands and shrub lands in Texas. Table 9
gives a list of recommended additional protected areas
for the United States.

4. Protected area institutions

4.1. The principal national agencies

a. Canadian Parks Service. The oldest of the
world’s modern protected area agencies, CPS is
responsible for both the cultural and the natural
heritage at the national level. CPS has 59 units
and 3500 staff, and is responsible for 18,072,037ha
of protected areas. CPS will undergo a major
growth period over the coming decade as the
system plan for Canada is developed and imple-
mented.

b. Canadian Wildlife Service. | The Canadian
Wildlife Service is responsible for Canada’s net-
work of national wildlife areas and migratory
bird sanctuaries. Its policy guidelines are set
forth in A Wildlife Policy for Canada (Wildlife
Ministers Council of Canada, 1990). The Wild-
life Service, in partnership with other govern-
ment and non-government organizations, implements
the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan in Canada, and provides technical assis-
tance for conservation on private lands. The
CWS has responsibility for 11,462,484ha of pro-
tected lands.

Cc. The Mexican National Park System (SINAP).
In May, 1992, in a reorganization of the Federal
Government, the Ministry of Urban Develop-
ment and Ecology (SEDUE) was eliminated.
Most major environmental responsibilities were
taken over by the newly-created Ministry of
Social Development (SEDESOL). Further, the
creation of a National Commission on Ecology
has been proposed. The proposed Commission
would be a semi-autonomous body under
SEDESOL, with regulatory and control capabili-
ties and capacities. Under the reorganization, the
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
(SARH) is expected once again to take respon-
sibility for the management of most parks, while

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

SEDESOL will manage biosphere reserves and
special biosphere reserves. The Ministry of Fish-
eries will take over responsibility for the promo-
tion, conservation and development of the marine
and aquatic (freshwater) flora and fauna, and the
establishment of breeding grounds, nurseries,
refugia and aquatic and marine reserves. Under
the new Forestry Law, non-governmental groups
will be permitted to manage federal protected
areas, under the policies of SEDESOL and the
managerial oversight of SARH.

The US National Park Service. The USNPS
is charged with the dual and sometimes contrary
roles of protection and promotion of enjoyment
of the finest natural areas of the nation. An
increased emphasis on parks as critical sites for
conservation of biological diversity, as well as
scenic and recreational resources, will expand
the scope of duties of the 9000 people who make
up the Service. The USNPS has 358 units, cov-
ering nearly 32.5 million ha.

e. The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
BLM is responsible for over 100 million ha of
federal land, including one-fourth of the western
United States. Only a small proportion of BLM
land is considered protected under IUCN cate-
gories. Much of the growth potential within the
wilderness system in the decade ahead is in BLM
lands. BLM’s capacity to incorporate new pro-
tected wilderness areas was sharply restricted by
a 50% cut in its planning budget in the 1980s.

f. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The USFWS has a staff of approximately 7,000
in more than 460 wildlife refuges and 13 field
stations/research centres. The USFWS began
work in 1990 on a combined plan and environ-
mental impact statement for management of the
system through the year 2003, the 100th anni-
versary of the first national wildlife refuge on
Pelican Island, Florida.

g. The US Forest Service (USFS). Of the 77 mil-
lion ha managed by the national forest system,
seventeen per cent or nearly 13 million ha is
designated wilderness. The USFS is responsible
for more than a third of the wilderness system,
nearly 80 per cent of the wilderness area outside
Alaska (CRS, 1989). The Forest Service also has
significant holdings in national monuments and
national recreation areas, and an extensive net-
work of research natural areas to provide base-
line information on natural ecosystems. The USFS
is the only federal agency with a specific direc-
tive to maintain biological diversity on its lands,
working to identify effective ecosystem approaches
to management of its land resources that can
serve as models for anchoring protected areas in
the management considerations of the broader
landscape.

290

h. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). NOAA is responsi-
ble for the newest reserve network within the
federal system, the national marine sanctuaries
and the national estuarine reserves. This pro-
gramme, authorized in 1972, now includes eight
designated national marine sanctuaries, 10 pro-
posed sites or study areas, and 18 national estu-
arine research reserves. The latter are cooperative
programmes with the states for long-term scientific
research and education.

4.2 State and provincial agencies

In North America, more than 100 agencies at the state/
provincial or federal level are authorized to manage
protected areas. Until the expansion period of the 1970s,
these agencies were pre-eminent in providing the public
with access to open spaces for recreation. In 1985, state
parks in the US hosted 650 million visitors on 4.1
million ha of land, twice as many people as visited the
national park system (Myers and Green, 1989). Some
provincial/state parks rival the great national parks in
significance. Frequently, especially in the US, their role
gives a higher priority to recreational services.

4.3. Non-governmental organizations

Long-term protection of biodiversity on many land-
scapes in North America must include a well-organized
stewardship effort, as part of any protected areas strat-
egy (Cox, 1992). As the large blocks of publicly held
land that have been the focus of the protection debate
over the past 100 years are allocated to resource extrac-
tion or protection, activities have swung toward the
conservation of the spaces between large wildland ar-
eas, protection of a historic scene in a protected land-
scape, the conservation of the overlooked, relict tracts
of biologically rich wildlands in the more densely-settled
parts of the region, and the smaller blocks with features
attractive to the nature-oriented tourist. These types of
sites tend to be in private hands, and are small enough
to be acquired either through donation or through pur-
chase by private bodies, and managed by a small enter-
prise, either for purposes of profit or as a charitable
activity.

There are many excellent examples of successful
private partnerships for conservation in North America.
Ducks Unlimited, for example, is active in preserving
wetland habitat throughout North America. In Canada
alone it is responsible for 2.9 million ha of protected
lands (3.9% of all protected areas in Canada). The
Nature Conservancy of Canada is responsible for 32,400ha
(it generally hands over lands it has acquired to appro-
priate public agencies). Over 120 different government
and private programmes in Canada alone are involved
in acquisition and management of lands for conserva-
tion (Environment Canada, 1991b).

Table 5. World Heritage sites in North
America

Canada
Canadian Rockies
Dinosaur Provincial Park
Gros Mome National Park
Kluane-Wrangell/St Elias (with USA)
Nahanni National Park
Wood Buffalo National Park

Mexico

Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve
USA

Everglades National Park

Grand Canyon National Park

Great Smoky Mountain National Park

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (actually in the
Pacific region)

Kluane-Wrangell/St Elias National Park (with
Canada)

Mammoth Cave National Park

Olympic National Park

Redwood National Park

Yellowstone National Park

Yosemite National Park

In Mexico, the decade of the 1980s was an important
one for private organizations as NGOs began success-
fully promoting the establishment and sometimes man-
agement of protected areas. Significant examples in-
clude:

@ Monarca A.C. (protecting winter habitat of the
Monarch butterfly in Michoacan and Mexico State);

North America

@ Friends of Sian Ka’an (working in the Biosphere
Reserve of the same name, in Quintana Roo);

mw DUMAC (managing and rehabilitating habitat for
waterfowl in the coastal lagoons Ria Lagartos and
Celestum in Yucatdn, in the Don Martin Dam in
Coahuila and at the Ciénega of Tololcingo Pond in
Puebla, among others);

gw PRONATURA (managing small private reserves as
the Cerro Huitepec in the state of Chiapas);

@ The Institute of Ecology, managing the Mapimi and
Michilia Biosphere Reserves;

@ The University of Guadalajara, managing the
Manantlan Biosphere Reserve; and

g FUNDAMAT (raising and channelling funds and
support for the establishment, planning, research
and management of the El Triunfo, La Encrucijada,
Montes Azules and Selva de El Ocote Reserves
among others, in the state of Chiapas).

In the US, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), a private,
non-profit, membership organization, has established
over 1,300 preserves with nearly 650,000ha under strict
protection measures since its founding in 1951. TNC
has conserved over 2 million ha, much of which it has
passed on to federal and state agencies. Their Last Great
Places initiative aims to protect 75 large landscape-level
ecological systems, and plans to invest US$1 billion
in public and private funds over the next five years
(J. Humke, pers. comm. 1992). This represents a shift
in strategy from the protection of core areas for biodi-
versity values to the conservation of functioning eco-
systems, in places with the most biodiversity. This will
be done through the development of partnerships to
extend the influence of core protected sites into the
surrounding landscape.

Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets: North America

Country/responsible agency Budget in

national currency

Canada — Canadian NPS/
Canadian Wildlife Service

Greenland
Mexico

Saint Pierre and Miquelon
United States

Sources:

1,962,700,000

US Dollar
equivalent

Total figure for the Canadian
National Parks Service and the
Canadian Wildlife Service. El

Federal goverment expenditure in
protected areas. Includes estimates
for external funding for the year
1991. USAID contributes an
additional US$1.0 million to the
NGO Pronatura.

Estimates of federal governmen
expenditures in protected areas
(includes USFWS,WWF and
NAWMP).

{E1] Waugh, J.D. and Perez Gil, R. (1992). North America. Regional reviews prepared for the [Vth World Congress on
National Parks and Protected Areas, 10-21 February, Caracas, Venezuela. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 7. Gaps in protected areas coverage in Canada

Western Mountains: Strait of Georgia lowlands, Interior dry plateau, Northern interior plateaux and
mountains;

Interior Plains: Manitoba lowlands.

Canadian Shield: Tundra hills, Central tundra region, Northwestern boreal uplands, Laurentian boreal
highlands, East coast boreal region, Boreal lake plateau, Whale River region,
Northern Labrador Mountains, Ungava tundra plateau, Southampton plain, Hudson
Bay lowlands, Hudson-James lowlands.

Arctic Lowlands: Western Arctic lowlands, Eastern Arctic lowlands.

High Arctic Islands: Western High Arctic region.

Sites under consideration for inclusion in the system are:

Bluenose Lake, Northwest Territory (Tundra Hills)

Wager Bay, Northwest Territory (Central Tundra region)

Churchill, Manitoba (Hudson-James lowlands)

East Arm of Great Slave Lake, NWT (Northwestern Boreal Uplands)
Torngat Mountains, Labrador (Northern Labrador Mountains Region)
Northern Banks Island, NWT (Westem Arctic lowlands)

Norther Baffin Island, NWT (Eastern Arctic lowlands)

(from Environment Canada, 1991] a)

Table 8. Priority conservation areas in Mexico (after Perez Gil and
Jaramillo, 1992)

Area (hectares) Classification

Isla Guadalupe 50,000 Natural Resource
Protection Area

Isla Cedros* 50,000 Biosphere Reserve
Los Pentenes not provided Biosphere Reserve
Cuatro Ciénegas 497,753 Biosphere Reserve
Corredor Yaxchilan-Bonampak 27,067 National Park
Ampliacién El Ocotex 120,000 Biosphere Reserve
Sierra Cojolita 28,900 Biosphere Reserve
Teacapan-Agua Brava not provided Biosphere Reserve
Los Chimalapas-Uxpanapa 800,000 Biosphere Reserve
Sierras Zaachilac-Loxicha 250,000 Biosphere Reserve
Valle de Tehuacdn-Cuicatlan not provided Natural Resource
Protection Area
EI Pinacatex 496,766 Biosphere Reserve
Delta Rio Usumacinta-L.Terminos not provided Biosphere Reserve
Santa Martha* 54,592 Biosphere Reserve
Lox Tuxtlas-Volcan San Martin« Not provided Biosphere Reserve
Arrecife Alacranes 18,000 Marine National Park

* expansion of existing site.

292

The Land Trust Alliance represents local land trusts
across the continent with over 750,000ha under a pro-
tection regime (either held outright or under easements),
where the property holder voluntarily (and sometimes
for payment) surrenders rights to certain types of devel-
opment and use. Operation Stronghold is an alliance of
800-900 private landholders who have undertaken con-
servation measures on private lands estimated to total
up to 2.5 million ha. Partnerships are not restricted to
private organizations, either. A growing area of activity
is in partnerships between corporations and other wild-
life supporters.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

It was not possible to compile data on funding levels
and coverage in all provincial/state and private pro-
tected areas during this review (Table 6). The figures
for Canada are only from the Canadian Parks Service
and Canadian Wildlife Service. The figures for USA
include all federal land management agencies, includ-
ing those managing multiple use lands. The figures for
Mexico are estimates of federal expenditures in pro-
tected areas and support from external donors.

The Global Environment Facility recently approved
a grant for Mexico that is predicated on Mexico’s ability
to continue the recurrent costs indicated in this pro-
gramme ($20 million for seventeen protected areas over
three and a half years, or approximately $336,000 per
unit per year). With the present budget estimates,
Mexico could only afford around seven protected areas
at this level of recurrent cost. For the entire protected
area estate to be funded at this rate, Mexico’s park
system would require an annual operating budget of
over $20 million dollars, nearly ten times the current
budget estimates. It appears that Mexico will be cutting
its protected area budget significantly in 1993.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

Protected area personnel have shown remarkable resil-
ience in responding to the challenges of the past decade,
but strains are apparent. Threats are increasingly com-
plex, requiring increased technical ability. Consequently,
the profession of manager has evolved into professional
specializations in law enforcement, natural resource
management, research, interpretation, and engineering.
This tendency toward specialization must be balanced
to maintain the ability of protected area personnel to
bridge the gap between the protected areas and the
surrounding community.

The eroding capacity to manage from a technical
point of view is linked to eroding financial support for
the protected areas; investments in basic research and
monitoring capacities throughout the region lag behind
identified needs. The public’s understanding of the

293

North America

value of protected areas will depend in the future upon
well-rounded staff trained to articulate the mission of
the areas. Ironically, both the scientific and the public
Outreach capacities of protected area systems seem to
be the most expendable in the short-term when budget
cuts force retrenchment.

In US protected areas, budgets have not kept pace
with growth over the last 20 years, resulting in a 20%
net loss in managerial capacity. One hundred new parks
have been added, doubling the area to cover. Visitation
continues to swell; more than 250 million visitors came
to US national parks in 1990. Pay has not kept pace with
the cost of living for park rangers, either. A decade ago,
there were 200 applications for each ranger position in
the USNPS; today, five may apply, and those may not
be qualified (W. Dabney, pers. comm., 1992). Experi-
enced rangers are leaving; low pay, a stressful work
environment, and a constricted career path are drawing
top talent away from parks in search of higher pay and
better working conditions. Rangers remain committed
to the national parks, but increasingly, they are, as many
rangers have noted recently, “tired of being paid in
sunsets."

In Mexico, training needs have been cited as a prin-
cipal factor limiting the effective management of pro-
tected areas. There is a shortage of research scientists
and trained resource management specialists. No insti-
tution specializes in advanced training in conservation
and management of resources, though a Forestry and
Game Guardians School has been established. Some
NGOs and academic institutions have offered short
courses, but these are being curtailed due to lack of
financing. Mexicans trained abroad do not always re-
ceive training relevant to Mexico’s needs.

In Canada and the US, training is generally available
at universities in field-oriented natural sciences relevant
to protected area management. Priorities are to recruit
a representative sample of the demographic make up of
the society, and to refine the academic and in-service
training to ensure responsiveness to the needs of the
system. Programmes to attract top talent and profes-
sional development programmes to ensure continued
proficiency will be required as the technical demands
of protected area managers grow.

An immediate opportunity for training is in the public
policy arena. Recently scholars of protected area issues
have called for managers to become more outward
looking, and seek to extend their influence beyond
protected area boundaries if they are to ensure the
survival of their units into the next century. The next
generation of protected area manager will require abili-
ties to tolerate ambiguity, manage change, set and com-
municate priorities, handle controversy, and understand
political processes—skills essential to enable land man-
agement agencies to remain relevant in the 21st century
(Smith, 1991; Grey Towers, 1990).

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

7. Priorities for future investment
in protected areas

The costs of implementing the Canadian Green Plan
priorities for protected areas will require an additional
$130,000,000 over the next six years. This will cover
additional studies and the creation of several new parks.
The costs of a fully-representative system has not yet
been assessed. Park advocates in Canada indicate that
significant additional resources will be required if
Canada is to meet its goals.

In the US, NPCA reports that "industrialization and
urbanization are making islands of our national parks
... and impairing natural processes in the larger eco-
systems upon which protected areas depend. Unless
this is halted, encroaching development will alter
some protected area ecosystems forever." USNPS
has a $477 million backlog of resource protection
projects that must be addressed immediately (USDI,
1992). The backlog of repair, maintenance, preserva-
tion, and public health and safety projects in the US
National Parks exceeds $2 billion. According to NPCA,
development of credible fund raising mechanisms for
protected areas worth $250 million is needed to sup-
plement the $1.2 billion appropriated annually. The
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation recommended
an operating budget for 1992 of approximately $1.6
billion (NFWF, 1992), almost $200 million more
than the 1992 fiscal year budget. Additional recom-
mendations push the total amount needed to $2.4
billion. An additional $1.2 billion has been identified
in backlogs in capital investments, including land
acquisition.

The situation is much worse in US state parks, some
of which closed their gates temporarily to users because
of budgetary shortfalls in 1990-91. State park managers
are particularly constrained in the acquisition of lands
deemed important to complete their protected area sys-
tems.

In the private sector The Nature Conservancy plans
to invest $1 billion in public and private resources
(including grants from the Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund) on projects designed to protect major eco-
logical systems in the US and Latin America over the
decade of the 1990s. Significant, but poorly quantified,
voluntary contributions to protected areas have come
from the private enterprises that manage concessions in
parks. Much has been made of the high profits and low
fees paid by concessions. In-kind support to manage-
ment does occur, and may represent a significant, unre-
ported contribution to management in some larger units.
Concession operators are likely to become even more
active, as fiscally-restrained management actively seeks
partnership in functions for which public funds are
scarce, such as interpretation. It is important that a
clearer understanding is developed of the interactions
between these forces, and that all contributions are
factored into accounting. In the rigorous pursuit of
cost-recovery, park managers may risk losing qualita-

294

tive support. Managers must weigh carefully a balance
between strictly enforced contracts and voluntary part-
nerships that will best serve protected areas.

8. Major protected area issues in
the region

8.1. Threats to protected areas

Threats to protected areas can come from outside or
within. They can be the result of activities beyond the
boundary of protected areas which alter the ecosystem
and eliminate some of the prerequisites for the contin-
ued existence of the resource. This type of threat is
diverse, ranging from climate change, through the dis-
ruption of transfer of genetic material, to deterioration
of habitats through edge effects and invasions of exotic
species and loss of scenic values through degradation
of air quality. Internal threats include mismanagement
and overconsumption of resources, such as over har-
vesting or overdevelopment for recreation, and disrup-
tion of ecological processes such as overpopulation of
a species.

Forestry and agriculture tend to be greater problems
than urbanization in Canadian protected areas. This
frequently affects species composition both through
the loss of native species and the introduction of aliens
(C. Stewart, pers. comm. 1992). Several Canadian
parks, primarily in southern Ontario and the Maritimes,
have suffered significant mammalian species loss.
Wood Buffalo National Park is threatened by changing
water levels caused by dams and by pollution from
upstream pulp mills (Environment Canada, 1991b). In
Point Pelee National Park, 43% of plant species are
exotic (Environment Canada, 1991b).

Encroachment affects as much as 25 per cent of
Mexico’s national parks. Because many of Mexico’s
parks are small, they are particularly vulnerable to
resource impact on their boundaries. Direct threats from
encroachment for settlement and poaching are a level
of magnitude more urgent than most other threats in
Mexico, and protected areas are at risk of losing their
value before responses can be mounted.

Mexico’s protected areas lack personnel to conduct
the administrative, protection, monitoring, management
and development functions. Existing personnel frequently
lack the authority to enforce regulations or apply cor-
rective measures; they usually have little training and
lack the basic equipment to perform their duties. Land-
owners and people living within or around protected
areas have not been involved in the establishment or
management of protected areas and typically derive no
apparent benefits from the existence of such areas.
Taken together with inadequate management, this has
created a condition of intensified degradation within
protected areas and perpetuation of the cycle of poverty
in the areas around them.

In 1988, the US National Park Service (1988) re-
ported a total of 1,696 individual threats to natural

resources in parks; 200 parks reported that one or more
of their natural resources either were affected or would
become threatened within five years. Some 90 per cent
of national park scenic vistas monitored in the 48 con-
tiguous states show man-made air pollution. Water
quality is also threatened by pollution from industrial
development, and urban and agricultural activities lo-
cated both inside and outside protected area boundaries.
Sediment and contaminated run-off from urban and
agricultural activities on protected area watershed lands
threaten the quality of surface and ground waters. Oil
development and transportation continue to present the
serious risk to coastal waters and shoreline ecosystems
shown in the aftermath of the 1990 grounding of the
Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, and the ensu-
ing, almost undeterminable damage done to surround-
ing area, including two national park units, from spilled
oil.

A report by the Inspector General of the Department
of the Interior in 1992 found that "the Park Service’s
protection of natural resources in selected parks was not
sufficient to mitigate the degradation of those resources."
The report noted that the Park Service "had no assur-
ance” that threats were being corrected and that the Park
Service had not instituted a monitoring programme
(USDI, 1992).

8.2 Financial issues

Throughout North America, budget reductions result-
ing in cutbacks in staff and backlogs in critical planning,
resource management, maintenance, and land acquisi-
tions have amplified threats, and have sometimes re-
sulted in temporary closure of protected areas. Delisting
of protected areas due to financial pressure has become
an issue, and is increasingly likely in smaller jurisdic-
tions. At least three Canadian provinces have reduced
park area for fiscal reasons. More ominous still is the
temptation for protected area authorities to enter into
inappropriate arrangements with resort developers that
result in privatization for industrial tourism in all but
name. Ontario has flirted with contract management,
and it remains a perennial threat to the integrity of
protected areas throughout the region (C. Stewart, pers.
comm., 1992).

Inflation, the debt crisis, and massive unemployment
have created a difficult situation in Mexico, where
protected area officials struggle for resources to fulfil
their mandate. The economic stagnation and debt crisis
of Mexico in the 1980s has created circumstances in
which major support for protected areas from within
Mexico is liable to be slow in forthcoming.

While the effect of under-funding is most poignant in
Mexico, its northern neighbours are not immune. Not
only are protected area systems struggling for support
in the United States, but incidents of encroachment by
the homeless poor in the US appear to be on the rise,
causing fears of lawlessness and damage to resources.
Protected areas compete for financial support with so-
cial services, and protected area supporters are called

295,

North America

upon to defend expenditure of public funds on protected
areas against charges that it takes food from children
and medicine from the sick.

On the other hand, fiscal retrenchment also forces
management to develop innovative programmes that
may ultimately have beneficial effects. It forces pro-
tected area managers to develop a constituency that
supports protected areas directly, as well as in an ab-
stract fashion through payment of taxes. Italso provides
strong incentives for managers to work with local juris-
dictions in the co-management of resources necessary
for protection of the protected areas boundaries.

8.3. Science in the parks

In Canada, protected area research is ordinarily under-
taken jointly with provincial/territorial authorities, aca-
demic institutions, and consultants (Environment Canada,
1991a). Canada’s National Parks Act mandates that
park management plans be reviewed and revised every
five years. Park authorities are therefore required to give
resources and attention to structured research to ensure
that adequate information for review of management
plans can be undertaken within mandated time periods
(Environment Canada, 1991a). As part of the legally-
required management planning process, each park de-
velops and maintains a resource atlas (Colin Stewart,
pers. comm. 1992).

Canada’s research programme includes a social sci-
ence component. Visitor behaviour studies and market
surveys help planners to provide better services to visi-
tors. Data collected by researchers is coordinated with
other research programmes to help integrate Canada’s
protected areas into national plans and analyses (Envi-
ronment Canada, 1991a).

Mexico’s data needs are profound, given its richness
in biological resources. Mexican protected area and
research institutions lack the resources to undertake the
detailed monitoring and evaluation required to ensure
that biodiversity is preserved in Mexican parks, and that
key areas outside the system of protected areas are
brought under protection regimes. The National Coun-
cil for Science and Technology spent roughly US$100
million in 1992 for scientific projects and institutions,
but just four projects totalling approximately US$280,000
related to protected areas (one for community partici-
pation, one for archaeology, and two for geology and
vulcanism).

Despite Mexico’s shortage of trained scientists and
resource management specialists, a few research efforts
have taken place, primarily on the biosphere reserves.
Basic studies that aim to provide necessary information
for boundary delimitation and zoning have taken place
in the Michilia and Mapimi Biosphere Reserves in
Durango, where the Institute of Ecology has studied
biogeography, species abundance, sustainable use of
natural resources and agricultural practices for over a
decade. Areas with similar programmes include El Vizcaino
Biosphere Reserve in Baja California, Sur, El Triunfo
Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Sian Ka’an Biosphere

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Reserve in Quintana Roo and Manantlan Biosphere
Reserve in Jalisco. Biological stations were established
in the 1970s in Chamela, Jalisco and los Tuxtlas,
Veracruz, which have maintained continuous and de-
fined research programmes.

Table 9. Recommended new protected
areas in the United States

This is an indicative list, based upon a National Parks
and Conservation Association study (NPCA, 1988).
It gives special emphasis to the National Park Service,
and was not intended to be an overall system review,
developed in consultation with all protected area
agencies.
National Parks
Tallgrass Prairie N.P., Oklahoma
Jemez Mountains N.P., New Mexico
Florida Keys N.P., Florida
Blackrock Desert N.P., Nevada
Michigan Peninsula N.P., Michigan
Siskiyou N.P., Oregon
Great Plains N.P, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Kansas,
Wyoming
Other Protected Areas
Escalante Canyons, Utah
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana
Currituck Banks, North Carolina
Mojave Desert, California
Montauk, New York
Hells Canyon, Oregon
Big Sur, California
Loess Hills, lowa or Nebraska
Sonoran Desert/Pinacate, Arizona
Lower Altamaha River, Georgia
San Juan Mountains, Colorado
Lake Tahoe, Nevada
Owyhee Canyonlands, Oregon
Mobile-Tensaw Bottomlands, Alabama
Nipomo Dunes, California
Sawtooth Mountains, Idaho
Mount Edgecombe, Alaska
Two-Hearted River, Michigan
City of Rocks, Idaho
Cobscook Bay, Maine
Connecticut River, Connecticut, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts
Machias River, Maine
Kings Range/Cape Mendocino, California
Mississippi River, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa,
Missouri

Adapted from NPCA, 1988

296

In 1990, the National Research Council established a
multi-disciplinary committee to undertake a review of
the NPS programme. The report of the committee found
that research was of critical importance in protecting
park resources against growing threats. It concluded
that the National Park Service lacked a distinct science
programme, and recommended that the science pro-
gramme receive separate funding and autonomy (NRC,
1992).

National Park Service science programmes have not
kept pace with demand, and are chronically under-
funded, being only one-third the size of the National
Wildlife Refuge system research budget, and one-eighth
the size of the National Forest system research budget.
Sixty-five per cent of NPS units report inadequate data
on at least one major resource. Seven per cent report
inadequate data on all major resource categories present
(NPS, 1988).

The National Research Council recommended that no
less than ten per cent of the operations budget of the
National Park Service be reserved for science pro-
grammes (NRC, 1992). The Forest Service research
programme, on the other hand, has benefitted from
efforts to promote forestry as a profession with a scien-
tific orientation. With a network of research natural
areas and forest experiment stations, it is better posi-
tioned to monitor biological diversity on its lands than
most other federal agencies.

8.4 People and protected areas

A new threat to protected areas has arisen from the loose
coalition of exploitation oriented organizations in the
United States and Canada sometimes known as the
"Wise Use" or the "Share" movement. Many of these
groups are opposed in principle to public land steward-
ship, favouring instead unimpeded private ownership of
land. The movement has its base in the rural west, but
is gaining a following in parts of the rural east and even
in urban areas. Wise Use activists portray themselves as
true conservationists, advocating a multiple use phi-
losophy that is superficially sympathetic to the sustain-
able development objectives of the World Conservation
Union’s first and second World Conservation Strate-
gies. Closer examination indicates that this movement
is fundamentally opposed to any regulation of the indi-
vidual’s right to develop or otherwise alter the land for
personal purposes, without regard to the public good.

The Wise Use Agenda, published in 1989, calls for the
opening of national parks and wildemess areas to min-
eral extraction, and redesignation of nearly ninety per
cent of the National Wilderness Preservation System for
development and motorized vehicle use. Wise Use groups
have also been active in opposing wetlands and other
types of environmental regulation, wilderness legisla-
tion, and conservation finance measures such as bond
issues. Financing of these opposition campaigns have
been traced to many large industrial concerns, belying
their claims to represent rural communities and small
private landholders. The Wise Use Movement provides

acautionary example to any who would ignore commu-
nity participation in land management decisions, even
when the decisions are being taken with the interests of
an entire nation in mind.

Mexico’s history regarding public lands differs
sharply from that of its neighbours in North America.
The backbone of the public lands system in Mexico is
the ejido system of communal lands. An enduring leg-
acy of Mexico’s revolutionary heritage, the ejidos were
a key feature of land reform, comprised of lands once
in private hands, as well as public lands. In 1992, the
President of Mexico proposed controversial new re-
forms to the Constitutional Article 27, permitting a
degree of privatization of the ejidos. The implications
are likely to be extensive. Proponents of the privatiza-
tion measures suggest that more efficient production in
the rural sector will have conservation benefits, as their
intensified use will remove pressure on natural areas by
subsistence farmers. Critics of the measure claim that it
will merely accelerate environmental degradation in the
tural areas. The reforms to Article 27 open the possibil-
ity for land acquisition for protected areas and for the
establishment of communally-managed protected areas.
This is extremely relevant because most existing pro-
tected areas and some proposed areas are comprised of
ejido lands. Often the best land use option for the ejidos
is the operation of a protected area, where the land,
though biologically valuable, is unsuited for traditional
production schemes.

9. Priorities for action in the region

The following list of recommendations addresses only
tegion-wide priorities, based on recommendations made
by the following individuals and organizations: the
National Parks and Conservation Association (USA),
the work of Oscar Flores Villela and Patricia Gerez
sponsored by Conservation Intemational and INIREB
(Mexico), Ramon Perez Gil and Fernando Jaramillo
Monroy (Mexico), the Canadian Ecological Areas Coun-
cil, Environment Canada, the US National Park Service
and the National Science Foundation (USA). For a
detailed analysis at the national level, refer to the fol-
lowing: NRC, 1992; NPS, 1988; NPCA, 1988; the NPS,
1992; Environment Canada, 1991a and b, Taschereau,
1985; and USDI, 1992.

9.1 System planning

@ Establish, in every jurisdiction, a participatory proc-
ess involving major interests to set criteria for inclu-
sion of protected areas within a system, covering the
ecological, economic, social and cultural dimen-
sions of nature conservation;

Undertake an analysis of representativeness, utiliz-
ing the above criteria, to identify major gaps in
coverage. Desirable sites for inclusion in each sys-
tem, and necessary revisions to boundaries of estab-
lished protected areas where necessary to more fully
protect protected resources; The analysis should

297

North America

harmonize classification and nomenclature systems
within each nation and assess the degree to which
the present systems meet the needs of major inter-
ests;

Develop the comprehensive planning processes, in-
frastructure, and skills required to create a repre-
sentative network of marine and coastal protected
areas;

Include a comprehensive needs assessment and fi-
nance strategy as part of each park management plan
and protected area systems plan; and

Create uniform databases and a map series showing
the protected area estates.

9.2. Management

@ Assess the mechanisms available to each jurisdic-
tion to intervene in activities that threaten the wel-
fare and integrity of parks, and the options to address
shortfalls, including regional and interagency coop-

eration and expanded legal authority;

Undertake system-wide analyses of visitor impacts
and develop a comprehensive plan to manage their
impact, including mass transit alternatives in pro-
tected areas where automobiles threaten protected
resources;

Redefine and broaden the way the private sector and
local organizations participate in protected area man-
agement,

Conduct independent evaluations of every protected
area agency, including review of resource manage-
ment practices.

9.3. Public participation and
awareness
@ Develop a programme of incentives in each nation

to foster collaboration between federal agencies,
states or provinces, local governments and the pri-
vate sector in planning and protection programmes;

Develop programmes that demonstrate the compati-
bility between sustainable economic development
and wildlife conservation, employing: the recovery
of traditional knowledge and natural resources utili-
zation practices; community participation; and re-
cycling of income from protected areas into the
communities;

Undertake management planning processes in all
jurisdictions that are more sensitive to the needs of
both the communities and the protected resources;

Enhance the level of professionalism of interpreta-
tion, and conduct periodic assessments of the effec-
tiveness of education and interpretive programmes.
Educate visitors about the impact they have on park
resources, and about scientific findings as a means

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

of developing and strengthening constituencies for
new policies and programmes;

@ Form partnerships between governments and NGOs
to obtain resources for research, monitoring, and
management;

@ Include a well-organized stewardship effort in any
protected areas strategy; and

mw Expandand upgrade interpretation facilities system-
wide.

9.4 Finance

@ Intensify government efforts to identify alternatives
to exploitation of resources identified as critical in
the systems planning process, including sustainable
multiple-use regimes and benefits from protection
of sites;

@ Where long-term benefits are not commercially re-
alizable, consider additional incentives such as tax
relief;

@ Correct the weaknesses of the financial approach to
analysis of alternative uses, employing economic
tools that estimate economic benefits not measured
by the market. Ensure that this knowledge is used to
improve the decision-making processes that con-
cem the allocation of natural resources;

@ Provide significant additional resources for science,
community outreach, and enforcement activities across
the board. Include long-term funds that permit man-
agers to plan programmes to meet minimal opera-
tional requirements for park protection. Create endow-
ments for this purpose to supplement any capital-
intensive investment in parks;

@ Ensure that any expansion of commercial activity in
protected areas be undertaken only after careful
consideration, and kept consistent with the manage-
rial objectives for which the sites were established;

B Involve corporations and individuals in the finance
and management of protected areas;

@ In Mexico, augment management capacity, includ-
ing support for the establishment of training facili-
ties and support for park operations at an adequate
level immediately through increased international
assistance; and

B InMexico, develop a portfolio of basic infrastructu-
ral investments and annual operating costs of each
protected area.

9.5 Research and monitoring

@ Immediately inventory the flora, fauna, ecosystems,
and habitat types of all protected areas. Upgrade
systems for data collection and retrieval;

@ Streamline information management and make in-
formation management systems compatible between
agencies within all regions for effective coordinated
conservation. Establish or upgrade and standardize
monitoring and evaluation systems;

@ Publicly report indicators of the general health of
protected area systems annually in State of the Parks
reports in each nation;

@ Intensify the analysis of economic issues in research
programmes for protected areas;

@ Develop mechanisms to coordinate, cooperate, and
disseminate the findings of scientific efforts. Park
agencies should support publication of research, and
encourage scientific sabbaticals and participation in
scientific fora by park staff;

@ Establish closer relations between protected area
agencies and the scientific community, make coop-
erative arrangements for research with other organi-
zations and agencies, in the interests of maximizing
resources, and encourage regular, open reviews of
science issues bringing together scientists and man-
agers;

w@ Apply the principles of conservation biology to protect
habitat, sustain populations and identify and moni-
tor indicator species sensitive to change; and

@ Improve the basic infrastructure in all protected
areas for research and monitoring.

10. Conclusions

As financial resources available to governments decline
and costs rise, spending for conservation programmes
will increasingly compete against needs such as educa-
tion and social services. The window of opportunity for
protection of remnant wild areas is closing. If degraded
by development, fragile and marginal lands will require
tremendous investments to restore their ecological val-
ues.

Additional investments are required throughout the
region. The amounts required now will be a great bar-
gain compared with the costs of delay. In the 21st
century, the resources we take for granted may be
looked on as riches beyond the dreams of avarice.
History will not judge us kindly if, for want of modest
investment, we allow this patrimony to slip through our
fingers. We must build alliances to secure financial
commitment for a broad, scientific programme that
integrates protected areas and land-use planning within
our economic zones, in a logical, step-wise fashion.
Only then can we replace the practice of ad hoc creation
of protected areas with a structured programme that
protects the best of what nature offers us for the future.

North America

References

Blockstein, D. E. 1989. Toward a Federal Plan for
Biological Diversity in Jssues in Science and Tech-
nology 5(4). National Academy of Sciences,
Washington.

Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. 1991. A
Protected Areas Vision for Canada. Ottawa.

Conservation Foundation, The. 1985. National Parks
for a New Generations: Visions, Realities, Pros-
pects. Conservation Foundation, Washington.

Cox, K. 1992. Stewardship: An old concept with new
meaning. Paper presented at IV World Congress on
National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas,
Venezuela 10-22 February 1992.

CRS. 1989. Wilderness: overview and statistics by Ross
W. Gorte. Washington, DC: US Government Print-
ing Office. Congressional Research Service report
for Congress 89-460 ENR, August 4, 1989.

Environment Canada. 1991a. State of the Parks Report
1990 (Canada’s Green Plan) Vols. 1 and 2. Environ-
ment Canada, Parks Service, Ottawa.

Environment Canada. 1991b. The State of Canada’s
Environment, Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Flores Villela, O. and Gerez, P. 1988. Conservacion en

Mexico: sintesis sobre vertebrados terrestres, vege-
tacion y uso del suelo. Instituto Nacional de Inves-
tigaciones Sobre Recursos Bioticos and Conservation

International, Xalapa, Veracruz.

Flores Villela, O. and Gerez, P. 1989. Mexico’ s Living
Endowment: an overview of biological diversity.
Conservation International and Instituto Nacional
de Investigaciones Sobre Recursos Bioticos
Washington.

GEF. 1992. Mexico Protected Areas Program Project
Document. Global Environment Facility Adminis-
trator, World Bank, Washington.

Grey Towers. 1990. The Conservation Legacy: news-
letter of the National Friends of Grey Towers. No.
8, Springfield, Virginia USA.

TUCN 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A review of
national systems. Vol. 4: Nearctic and Neotropical.
Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring
Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK. xxiv + 460 pp.

Kusler, J. A. 1983. Our National Wetland Heritage: a
protection guidebook. Environmental Law Institute.
Washington D.C.

Mackintosh, B. 1985. The National Parks: shaping the
system. US Department of the Interior, National
Park Service. Washington.

Myers, P. and Green, S.N. 1989. State Parks in a New
Era. The Conservation Foundation, Washington.

NFWF. 1992. FY 1993 Fisheries and Wildlife Assess-
ment (8 vols.) National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion, Washington.

299

NPS. 1988. Natural Resources Assessment and Action
Program Report, US Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Office of Natural Resources,
Washington.

NPS. 1992. Steering Committee of the 75th Anniver-
sary Symposium National Parks for the 21st Cen-
tury: the Vail Agenda. National Park Service.

NPCA. 1988. Investing in Park Futures: A Blueprint for
Tomorrow. National Parks and Conservation Asso-
ciation, Washington.

NRC (National Research Council). 1992. Science and
the National Parks. Board on Environmental Studies
and Toxicology. National Academy Press. Washington.

Perez Gil R. and Monroy, F.J. 1992. Natural Resources
in Mexico—A report to IUCN and the Interameri-
can Development Bank. in mimeo.

Runte, A. 1987. National Parks: the American experi-
ence. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln NE.
Scott, J. M., Csuti, B., Smith,K., Estes, J.E. and Caicco,

S. 1989. Endangered Species Update 5(10).

Smith, R. 1991. "Public Land Management Skills for
the 21st Century” in The George Wright FORUM,
vol 8 no 1.

Taschereau, P.M. 1985. The Status of Ecological Re-
serves in Canada Canadian Ecological Areas Coun-
cil, Ottawa.

The Nature Conservancy. A Conservation Strategy for
the 1990s. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,
Virginia.

USDI. 1992. Audit Report: Protection of Natural Re-
sources, National Park Service Report Number 92-
I-1422. US Department of the Interior, Washington,
September.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. America’s
Wetlands: our vital link between land and water.
Public Information Center, Washington, DC.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Wetlands of the
United States: current status and recent trends. US
Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.

Wilderness Society, The. 1989a. America’s Wilder-
ness: Twenty-five years of wilderness preservation
1964-1989. The Wilderness Society, Washington,
DC.

Wilderness Society, The. 1989c. Wilderness America:
A Vision for the future of the nation’s wildlands.
Washington, DC.

Wildlife Ministers’ Council of Canada. 1990. A Wildlife
Policy for Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa.

WWF-Canada. 1991. Endangered Spaces Progress Re-
port Number Two, 1991. World Wildlife Fund, Toronto,
Canada.

WWF-Canada. 1992. Endangered Spaces Progress Re-
port Number Three, 1992. World Wildlife Fund,
Toronto, Ontario. 42 pp.

ACK

Sac a hae ane Len
in i SS maha: ‘(rye gem é

ataned odo® la a

a a wet he Rivne fa
Sei sh
oa, PE

) ames

Central America

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

ZOZ UBYY S4OW

ZO0C—-G1

2S1—O1

ZOL-G

payoajoud abpjuaesdied

sease pa}9e}0/1d payeubisap Ajjeba; uiyyim papnyjou! Ayjunod jo ebejuadI0g «= ‘dew

0Ov OOS 00Z OO! O
lS
UU

Hy:
Seats

302

Contents

Page

IntrOdLCTIONWALE AY Goa dln So. Bee ee a, 8 305
BliStorical/ PErSPeCliVve. Fo 5 6 oe 3 as ee ap 305
Current protected areacoverage ......................... 306
Pale Declarationsvsetield:manapement™ 4 7 4-05 a eee ee eee eee 307
De Dee SY SLEMYDIANS wersiicactkor sesacesory agst + a Ve Ok eee, Cakes Ae 307
DS me Vianagcmentsplansvacsite levelic ei iricm elmore ir ea 309
pr Amewihreatenedrareas" 23S s.45 os at fe ee a eee 309
Additional protected areas required ....................... 309
SMM eIneSthial ARCAS cy cpceks Pimerclie, ee) «sr os BS RO, Wee ees, Se, Pees, Pee 309
See Wwetlandrandicoastal-marinejareas =). -ey-iey aac) oan awe a eee 310
3:3 eBorden protected areas mcr sev, ils, speaks Desde meee Garena ee 310
Protected areal institutions en saa. yeu eos eyed cscnilecesqieme ee 311
Current levels of financial investments in protected areas .......... 311
Su Minancin pamechanismsrees 29e) sees ys Pecos! Sassee es ol goes Ge eeic oes sia 311
SP a Intemal invVeStmMentiycoaucas ce 4 acmees: see Oe Te Cees amen en te mers 313
Sts) eeboretonvassistarice sf. 2 ek Seo uane SHY ses) SIRES Eonar ee 313
Aaa Mix edunvestimentSic. ¢ccset seceaecn af) 2) eee ee eee ee ee tl een 313
Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 314
6.1 Institutional personnel and participation ...................06. 314
Oe INET Saco nner en ericies: 5 cuniSOCnamar MEMOS USMC tGNAMdt dhckans alolid ts 314
Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 314
Major protected areaissuesintheregion .................... 316
8.1 Policies, macroeconomics and territorial order... ................ 316
8.2 Reviewing the functions of protected areas .......---..-+-+-----. 316
8.3. Population growth and demand for resources .........-.--+---2+--- 317

303

S24 a Teanditenure er cisco dk sce ttcss, 6 es eee a eas st eee ra, ie eee 317

8:5) iCommunity;participation’: 0.) 0) © ees. se oe yeas) cei Rae Ce 317

8.6 War, conflict, and expectations of peace... ..........-2.2.2.2000. 318

8.7 Weakening of government institutions... .............222006. 318

8.8 Private sector participation in protected areas management ............ 318

$:9); Tourism), © os Ss es See ee eee Sere 319
9. Priorities for actionintheregion .....................2.... 319
Acknowledgements”: o. 55 $e 6.28.5 SS S22 ae oS SS Re ee 320
References: 5 oo hens we Fee eS a ee 4s + 3 ee ee 320
Box.

Box 1. Estimates of priority "Unmet Needs" for top priority projects ....... 315
Tables

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system ................... 306

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories. ............. 307

Table 3. The development of the protected areassystem............... 310

Table 4. | Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 310

Table 5. World Heritage sites in Central America .................. 311

Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 312
Figures

Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected

RICAS Reming ae ek as oe io ad a 302
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 308
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 308

304

Central America

Alvaro Ugalde, Regional Vice-Chair for Central America, IUCN Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas, and Juan Carlos Godoy,
Biodiversity Coordinator, IUCN Regional Office for Central America

Introduction

The purpose of this review is to assess the current status
of protected areas in each country of the region, analyse
both positive and negative factors that influence the
development of the regional protected areas system, and
propose elements for a plan of action to improve the
coverage and management effectiveness of protected
areas.

Geographically, Central America is a narrow strip of
land covering 533,000 sq km, joining two continents
and separating two oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific.
It has a rich variety of habitats with Nearctic and
Neotropical faunal and floral elements. In general
terms, it includes the highlands of the interior with its
volcanic chain which is very cold in some areas with
extremely humid forests and mountains, descending to
the coastal plains of the Pacific Ocean which are narrow
and dry, and the plains of the Caribbean coast, which
are wide and humid.

Central America had an estimated population of 30
million in 1991, most of them a mixture of pre-Colombian
native Americans and post-Colombian immigrants
from Europe, Africa and Asia. It is estimated that more
than half of the population live in extreme poverty.
Agricultural land, economic development and popula-
tion growth are concentrated in the central volcanic
areas and the Pacific coast, where environmental prob-
lems are more acute and the original vegetation cover
is very scarce outside the protected areas. In general, the
Caribbean slope is less populated and developed, and
therefore, its natural resources have not been affected
as much as on the Pacific side.

1. Historical perspective

The establishment of protected areas at the national
level goes back to the end of the last century and the
beginning of this century (Table 3; Figures 1 and 2). The
earliest records refer to the establishment of the Munici-
pal Sawmills (Astilleros Municipales) in Guatemala in
1870 (natural forests under a special regime for the
management of wood products), and to the enactment

305

of the first forest laws in the region, between 1905 and
1940.

By 1923, Barro Colorado Island, located in the
Panama Canal basin, was declared a biological reserve.
In 1928, the British Colonial Administration in Belize
declared Half-Moon Key to be a "Crown Reserve".
Also in 1928, some mountains of Costa Rica were
declared to be "inalienable by Law". In 1957, the areas
of some volcanic craters in Costa Rica were declared to
be National Parks, which were later ratified as Protected
Areas in the 1970s.

In Honduras, the San Juancito Forest became a re-
serve in 1952, later becoming La Tigra National Park.
In Guatemala, the first 10 national parks were estab-
lished in 1955; and Nicaragua established its first national
park in 1958.

In the 1970s the first regional meetings were held to
discuss protected areas development. Also in these same
years the organization of agencies and institutions for
national parks management began.

The most significant legislative changes covering
protected areas in the region occurred in the 1980s. In
1981, Belize enacted its Law for Protected Areas; and
between 1983 and 1985, Costa Rica legally reinforced
its system through the establishment of Wildlife Sanc-
tuaries. Also during that decade and at the beginning of
the 1990s, Honduras enacted legislation establishing its
most important protected areas, such as the Rio Platano
Biosphere Reserve (1980) and the Cuero y Salado
Reserve (1987) and declared 37 rain forests as perpetual
reserves. In 1987 El Salvador declared its first legal
Protected Area (Montecristo National Park). In 1989,
Guatemala enacted the Law for Protected Areas, which
in turn enabled the creation of two Biosphere Reserves
in 1990. Between 1980 and 1988, Panama issued legisla-
tion declaring 14 of its 20 Protected Areas, or 95% of
the land now in the protected area system, for conser-
vation.

Also in the 1980s, the basic ideas regarding national
systems and the regional system of protected areas
were developed. By October 1991, Nicaragua had also

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Central America

Area in

Country Area
22,965
50,900
21,395
108,890
112,085
148,000
78,515

2,912
6,208
194
8,330
5,433
9519
13,275

542,750 45,871

CategoriesI-V %

Total area
designated %

Area in Categories
VI-VillandUA %

4,100 17.9
10,353 20.3
0 0.0
8,431 1.7
12,330 11.0
8,646 5.8
14,353 18.3

7,012
16,560
194
16,761
17,764
18,165
27,628
$8,213

10.7 104,084

established two of the largest reserves in the country,
equivalent to more than half of the country’s system,
and covering more than 40 natural areas in the hills,
peaks and volcanoes supplying important water re-
sources.

Protected areas development in the Central American
region has followed a different road from country to
country. Historical factors most influencing the creation
of protected areas in Central America started in the
1950-60s based on growing possibilities of recreation
and meditation in natural environments, protection of
archaeological sites and/or outstanding natural resources
and the need to manage lumber and fuelwood demands.

Beginning in the 1970s, an important factor influenc-
ing the creation of protected areas was to curtail the
process of degradation of natural resources. Also, it was
considered necessary to safeguard significant invest-
ments in strategic water basins and protect endemic,
rare or endangered species. More recently, another im-
portant factor for protected areas creation has been the
inclusion in the national and regional political agendas
of the need to curtail biodiversity loss and environ-
mental degradation in general.

Recent factors in the region that have made possible
the creation and development of additional protected
areas in Central America include generating tourism
attracted to natural protected areas, developing research
on biodiversity, preserving essential ecological proc-
esses for the economic development of the region and
the potential benefit for local communities, training of
qualified personnel, developing minimum legal frame-
works and acceding to international conventions.

A comprehensive review of the region’s protected
areas systems has been prepared by the World Conser-
vation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992).

306

2. Current protected area coverage

By 1992 there were 131 recognized protected areas,
declared or managed under IUCN Categories I-V, cov-
ering 45,871 sq km or the equivalent of 8.5% of the
Central American territory. If the land included in For-
est Reserves, Indigenous Reserves, Protection Zones,
and Multiple Use Areas (IUCN categories VI-VIII) is
added, the total coverage is 104,084 sq km, equivalent
to 19.2% of the Central American territory (Tables 1
and 2; Map).

Panama (16.9%) and Costa Rica (12.2%) are the
countries in the region which have the highest propor-
tion of land as Categories I-V protected areas. Recent
information show that in theory, Panama, Costa Rica,
and Belize have each placed one-third of their land
under the Central American Protected Areas System
(SICAP). Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua each
have between 4.8% to 7.6% protected and only El
Salvador is lagging far behind with less than 1% (Table 1).

The 131 Category I-V protected areas in the region
have shown a creation rate of about 4.5 per year over
the last 36 years, but the rate of growth has been much
faster in recent years. Between 1955 and 1960, Il units or
protected areas were recognized; only six during 1960—
1970; 43 between 1970 and 1980; 37 between 1980-1985;
and 76 between 1985 and 1991. Of these areas, 26 are
considered Biological or Scientific Reserves; 69 are
National Parks; II are either Natural or Cultural Monu-
ments and 36 are Forest or Wildlife Sanctuaries or
reserves; 29 are National Natural Reserves; and 2 are
Biosphere Reserves.

One of SICAP’s characteristics is that most protected
areas are relatively small, with some 70% being under
10,000ha in size. On the other hand, SICAP’s five
largest areas, (El Tigre National Park in Guatemala, Rio
Platano Biosphere Reserve in Honduras, Darién National

Central America

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Central America

Area’ No.

I
No.

Area No. Area

2,912

6,208

194

8,330

5,433

9519

15 13,275

67 131

45,871

Note: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection

function are generally included.

Park in Panama, Marine Biological Reserve of the
Miskito Keys and Bosawas Natural Reserve in
Nicaragua), cover a total of 2.7 million ha, equivalent
to 50% of the Regional System.

Since 1977, many countries in the region have ac-
ceded to the various international conventions and pro-
grammes associated with protected areas, including the
Convention Concerning the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (World Heritage Convention), ratified by all
countries, the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Pro-
gramme (MAB), and the Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
(Ramsar Convention) (Table 4). A number of areas are
now intemationally recognized under these conven-
tions and a list of the properties that have been inscribed
on the World Heritage List is given in Table 5.

2.1. Declaration vs. field management
While many protected areas have been declared in the
region, most of them are not being adequately managed.
Basing management efficiency on key elements (legis-
lation, land ownership, management objectives, pres-
ence of physical limits, infrastructure, management plan,
local support, personnel, load capacity and financial
viability), although not a systematic evaluation or as-
sessment, permits a satisfactory evaluation of manage-
ment structure. Several pertinent observations can be
made.

Many of the areas have no clear physical limits in the
field, most of them do not have legal property titles, and,
worst of all, many do not have a permanent institutional
presence. In Panama, for instance, only half of the
conservation units have field personnel; in Nicaragua,
out of 36 declared areas late in 1991, only 8 have field
personnel.

Based on existing information, we must conclude that
over 30% of the region’s declared areas continue to be

307

“paper parks" and more than 60% have not cleared their
property titles. Darién National Park in Panama, the
Volcan Pacaya National Monument in Guatemala, the
Zapatera and Cerro Saslaya (Bosawas) National Parks
in Nicaragua and the Cerro Agalta National Park in
Honduras are some examples of areas which have been
declared and are not adequately managed, requiring
urgent efforts.

Some declared areas have never been managed and
should be transferred to a different management cate-
gory or else disappear as protected areas. Such might be
the case for Gandoca-Manzanillo in Costa Rica; Los
Cobanos in El Salvador; Bahia de Santo Tomas, Atitlan,
Rio Dulce, and Sipacate in Guatemala; Yuscardn in
Honduras; Chiltepe in Nicaragua; and parts of the
Amistad National Park in Panama.

Experience also shows that mass declaration of pro-
tected areas, such as mangrove protection in Costa Rica
or rain forests in Honduras, is not very effective. On the
other hand, some small protected areas have not been
declared as such but are reasonably well managed by
government or private institutions. Such is the case of
Lachua National Park in Guatemala; the Barra de
Santiago Sanctuary in El Salvador; the case of Mon-
teverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica (CCT);
partial management of Islas de la Bahia in Honduras
(BICA); El Faro Sanctuary in Guatemala (FIIT); and
the Bowen Lands (Rio Bravo Project) of the Belize
Program.

2.2 System plans

Practically all the countries in the region have prelimi-
nary drafts of a Protected Areas System Plan. Panama,
Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and Belize have docu-
ments identifying potential areas, most of them drafted
by consultants or experts in the field, but which have
never become system plans, furnishing only background
information.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)
50

Number of sites

40 Area (x1000sqkm)

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)

250

Number of sites

200 Area (x1000sqkm)
150
100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

308

Costa Rica, the country with the best consolidated
system, has some documents which have separately
analysed its sub-systems, including current manage-
ment status. This country has also defined the concept
of Conservation Units as a tool for the improvement of
the region’s protected areas and a better coordination of
management procedures, while at the same time trying
to furnish the communities near the Protected Areas
with the benefits of the most efficient conservation
guidelines.

EI Salvador, the country with the least forest cover in
the region and the lowest number of protected areas, has
nevertheless developed a System Plan through a multi-
disciplinary and inter-institutional team, based on land
with protection potential, identified through the agrar-
ian land reform programmes.

In order to improve management efficiency of the
protected areas of the region as a whole, a new concept
has been developed to consider them along the whole
Central American isthmus as a biological bridge, both
terrestrial and coastal-marine, over both the Pacific and
Atlantic Oceans and between North America and South
America. This bridge would be made up by all areas for
possible management of all protected area categories in
the region, both inland and along the shorelines on both
the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, including buffer zones
and degraded zones which would be managed through
ecological restoration activities.

2.3. Management plans at site level
In spite of substantial efforts in the region between 1970
and 1985, only some areas had drafted management
plans and their respective follow-up plans. Yearly op-
erational plans, as a more realistic short-term tool, have
shown better results. Since the late 1980s the idea of
Plans as documents has been modified somewhat to-
ward the idea of planning as a process, wherein the Plan
as document is only a temporary profile of the optimum
development of the conservation unit.

2.4

Many protected areas in the region are considered threat-
ened. An example is the Sierra Lacand6n National Park
in Guatemala, an area with as yet undefined boundaries,
no field personnel and illegal exploitation of the forest
from hardwood cutting. The area is being invaded by
former refugees, with official or government approval.

Threatened areas

Other protected areas threatened by colonization or
by changes in land use in their vicinity include
Consiguina in Nicaragua, Agalta in Honduras, Barra del
Colorado in Costa Rica and Darién and Portabello in
Panama.

In countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua, conser-
vation officials believe that their whole protected areas
system is threatened. In Belize, a less populated coun-
try, its protected areas are less threatened.

309

Central America

Among the most important threats in the region are
the concessions for tourist development; conflicts be-
tween private ownership of land and national parks;
concessions to transnationals for petroleum exploration
and extraction; illegal deforestation; drug production
and traffic; spontaneous land colonization by impover-
ished peasants; pirate fish and shrimp fishing; expan-
sion of livestock and banana industries; forest fires;
urban growth; threat of chemical waste imports; and the
increasing isolation of most conservation units through
the fragmentation of their surrounding lands.

To this may be added the very limited political sup-
port and interest, contradictory policies among govern-
ment sectors, and the limited authority and low priority
given to conservation and environmental protection.

3. Additional protected areas
required

3.1 Terrestrial areas

More than 91 additional proposed areas have been iden-
tified in detail and more than 300 conservation units
have been proposed in the region, which would cover
more than 100,000 sq km, equivalent to 20% of Central
America’s land mass. If all these proposals were en-
acted, SICAP would cover nearly 40% of Central America’s
land area.

The region’s protected areas as a whole have empha-
sized the protection of mountain ecosystems, such as
peaks and volcanoes containing cloud or mist forests,
and low tropical rain forest. However, many endemic
areas or unique ecosystems are not well represented
within the Central American System of Protected Areas.
Good examples are the dry and semiarid zones, the
humid mountain forest of the cold highlands, zones of
Nearctic vegetation (oaks, pines, and others), or rare
plant combinations.

Therefore, important additions must be made to the
SICAP, such as the natural areas known as Los Morrales
de Chalatenango in El Salvador; the area of Morazan in
the semiarid highlands of Honduras; Los Cuchumatanes
mountain range in Guatemala; the Pine Woods in Guanaja
and the mountainous region of the Tawanka Reserva-
tion in Honduras; the Mayan Mountains in Southern
Belize; and Arenal mountain range in Costa Rica.
Nicaragua and Guatemala have the best potential in
Central America for the establishment of additional
conservation areas in the future, both for the protection
of ecosystems in the mountain zones and of the forests
of the low central plains in the Caribbean coast. Studies
carried out in Costa Rica point out the need to change
some limits in the protected areas in order to protect
more diversified plant life, expand key habitats, protect
endemic species, link strategic ecosystems, and include
ancient cultural resources, among other criteria.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Central America

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established
up to 1962

% area
established
1972-1981

% area Date Total
established area
designated

established

1982-1991 unknown

The protected areas in the region’s populated zones
(central highlands and the Pacific coastal plains) are the
smallest and most threatened due to human settlements
from historical times to the present time. Urgent action
is required to protect what little is left of the vegetation
or to stimulate the creation or establishment of new
areas through ecological restoration, providing such
goods and services as are required for the development
of these areas.

3.2 Wetland and coastal-marine
areas

In general, few wetland protected areas or coastal-ma-
rine protected areas have been established and the man-
agement authorities have relatively little expertise in
these habitats. Ecosystems such as the mangroves and
other humid coastal areas need better protection and
efficient management throughout the region. Declared
coastal marine protected areas include the Miskito Keys
in Nicaragua, Cuero y Salado in Honduras and Isla del
Coco and Cafio Negro in Costa Rica. A few national
parks, such as Tortuguero and Corcovado in Costa Rica,
have declared some marine areas which are not yet
being managed efficiently.

Useful additions to the Central American System
include the wetlands of Caratasca, La Laguna de
Guaymoreto and the Islas del Cisne (Swan Island) in
Honduras; the Gulf of Fonseca, as a tri-national micro-
region between El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua;
Los Cobanos in El Salvador; Punta de Manabique-La
Graciosa and Manchén in Guatemala; the Rio Grande
Lake in Matagalpa, Tapamlaya, Kukalaya in Nicaragua;
some mangrove areas in southern Belize; and many of
the keys and small reef islands in that country.

3.3 Border protected areas

The need to establish border protected areas has been
recognized since 1974, both terrestrial, coastal and ma-
rine, but not until the last five years has interest has been
shown in this subject. The Trifinio or Bidsfera de la
Fraternidad Reserve between Guatemala, Honduras and
EI Salvador; the Reserve of Amistad between Costa
Rica and Panama; and the creation of the Protected
Areas for Peace System (SIAPAZ) between Nicaragua
and Costa Rica, are now some of the world’s best
examples of trans-border cooperation in protected areas.

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Central America

World Heritage
Date No. Area (ha)

November 1990 0
August 1977

Biosphere Reserves
No. Area (ha) Date No.

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention
Area (ha)

728,955 March 1991 29,769

1,236,300 June 1990 48,372
500,000 - -

November 1990 80,765

597,000

The region’s interest to work jointly and to give
priority to information exchange to improve manage-
ment of natural resources seems evident through efforts
such as the Rio Coco/Bosawas/Rio Platano/Tawanka
Project between Honduras and Nicaragua; the Chiquibul/
Mayan Mountain project between Guatemala and Belize;
and the initiative for the establishment of a Protected
Area System of Gran Petén (SIAP) between Mexico,
Guatemala and Belize (Calakmul, Mirador/Rio Azul
and the Rio Bravo/ Lamanai).

4. Protected area institutions

Between 1950 and 1970 the protected areas in Central
America were managed with national funds and some
foreign support, mainly channelled through the govern-
ment agencies in charge of national parks management.
During the 1980s, the government natural resources
agencies in general were weakened to critical levels by
intemal and external economic policies, "structural ad-
justment" and government size reduction, hindering
their institutional growth at a time when many more
protected areas were being declared. This resulting
situation has caused a loss of the operative capacity of
the Government Agencies to such a degree that many
of them at present lack even the minimum capacity to
absorb or develop new projects and even to efficiently
continue the existing ones.

At present, protected areas in Central America are
managed through a great number of agencies such as
Central Government, Autonomous Institutions, Private
Foundations, Municipalities and mixed organizations.
The picture is complex since there is a tendency to
manage areas in a co-financing and co-management
manner.

Parallel to the Government efforts, several institu-
tions, both government and private, are managing sys-
tems of protected areas to complement the traditional
approaches. These include: Audubon Society in Belize;
Defensores de la Naturaleza and FIIT in Guatemala;
FESA in El Salvador; FUCSA in Honduras; the Liga de
Conservacién de Monteverde (Monteverde Conserva-
tion League) in Costa Rica; and the Smithsonian Institution
in Panama. Furthermore, the Anthropology, Archaeology
and History Institutes of Guatemala and Honduras are
managing historical pre-Colombian sites such as Tikal
National Park and the Copdn Ruins National Monu-
ment, both declared as World Heritage Sites.

Some universities, research and educational centres,
both national and with international linking, also coop-
erate in the protected area management, in some cases
like private institutions. A good example is the San
Carlos University of Guatemala (USAC). Through its
Center for Conservation Studies (CECON), it manages
seven protected areas (Biotopos) covering more than
120,000 hectares, equivalent to 1.2% of the country.
The Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) manages
La Selva Biological Reserve in Costa Rica; and the

311

Central America

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) man-
ages the Barro Colorado Island Reserve in Panama.

Other lesser known examples include the activities
carried out by the different Energy Institutes of the
region and those of the Water and Drainage Agencies,
which often work in reforestation and conservation
management of the strategic basins for energy genera-
tion and/or drinking water supply for urban communi-
ties. A good example is La Fortuna Forest Reserve in
Panama, managed by the Energy and Hydric Resources
Institute (IRHE).

Due to insufficient communication some problems
arise when NGOs, because of the weakening of the
GOs, try to force their own as national policies or to
perform government responsibilities. In the future, clarifi-
cation of the roles corresponding to the government and
to the NGOs must be defined as to management of the
national protected areas systems. NGOs participation
continues to grow offering good advantages when used
correctly.

There are only a few examples of local community
participation in identification, planning and manage-
ment of protected areas, in spite of the great need such
communities have for the goods and services derived
from the areas. Some exceptions are found in a few
indigenous communities, like the Kunas in Panama, and
in some local groups like the Manabique fishermen in
Guatemala.

Table 5. World Heritage sites in
Central America

Costa Rica
Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves

Guatemala
Tikal National Park

Honduras
Rio Platano
Panama
Darien National Park
La Amistad International Park

5. Current levels of financial
investments in protected areas

5.1. Financing mechanisms

At present conventional financing mechanisms are used
in Central America, such as government budgets and
donations by international development agencies and
conservation organizations. Activities such as food sale
franchises or souvenirs and art crafts are not common.
Also, income from entrance fees to the sites and indi-
vidual donations are small. The establishment of trusts
is more frequent every day, as are private administration

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

‘ddcgt “vsn ‘uoiduryse yy
aIMNSU] Ssamosoy PHoM/UsWUON AU pue yuaurdo[aaeq [eUOTeUIAUT J0y NUD. ‘sjuauIssasse Isa10} [eordon pue Aiisi9Atp [eo1Boporg -e[ewWareNd ut Arsroatporg (8861) IUM/AGIO [+7]
*sofeuotoe yy sonbieg
ap Olotalag ‘seut] A wrdioug ‘sofemeN] sosmooy 2p OUAISTUIYY “(066 1-6L61) BY FISD ap sepr3aioid sansaafis sear op PUINSTS [op OTOLEsIQ “(1661) SAfBUOITeN| sonbseg ap o1dtAlag [¢Z]
‘dd{z vary e1s05 ‘uonepuno,| syzeg [euoNeN] “‘wodar [enuuy “(p861) YOddN [ZZ]

‘Saa4unog

eureueg

wenden

semnpuoy
ve P7000 TIL TSN$ sem
886] Ul UOITeAIaSUOS spuB]P[IM UO amtpusdxe eUONeU [e01 OY], ‘sams
Teo1dojoovyare Jo uonoaaid arp Joy (BUOIsIH{ BISojoaeYys1y ap oITINsUT)
HAVCI % 000'00S* TSN PuB (seistUCIse AL2sUOD soIpms q ep ONUaD)
NOOO 9 000'OSSN$ your paeuop sdnaiz uoneasssuco
[EUOTTEUSIUT SIL) OF UONIPpe U] “SALETES IOJ sem %/6 BWOS YOIYM

JO L861 Wt usuNIedap syed oI 0) pareooye 1a8pnq aieis sreuIxaiddy 1 g6] LIT OLO 000'0E quountedag syeq [euoneN — eyewareny

OAS Jopeares [4
0661 Ul
sped [euoneu samp ul suoneiedo 1s0ddns 0 do1alag syeg [euoneN
dlp 0} UOJOS OYO'T | AWOs paLajsuen AMNSU] WIsLMO] BU] ‘sare
paraiaid optoeds 18 poune sjoafoid jo Jaquinu & jo 3uipuny oy) pue puny
uontsinbe pur] & Jo 1UsUTYsT|QeIso al] papnjout YoIYM ORP'ESTSNS SEM
seaze pojoajoid uo durpuads 10} 193pnq Nd P86l A a[dwexo 104
‘apecop ised ay] J9A0 UOI][TUL XIS Sg 0} O19Z WOIJ UAs sey ‘(Nd-J)
sojeuolse N Seg Op UoloepuN] ay} Je[Norued ut ‘s‘QON Aq Butpusds
ISTLYM ‘S,OR61 Ales ay) 2ouns o1ye1s AToane[al poureulal sey sty],

"S,0861 272] Ul seare pajomaid uo Butpuads a1e1s qeunxosdde poymnsuosd DOIAING syed [PUOTIEN — BdIY eISOD

eZ e

ad1n0g aeaX = quayeainba = Aduad.and jeuoneu
4e0qg Sn ul jaspng Aduase aqisuodsas/Aajyuno

BOLOWIY [21]UBD :sjebpnq Aouebe jusweHeuew Seale pa}de}0Jq “9 aIqeL

312

of funds from debt swaps and international donations.
In this regard there are many opportunities to improve
the income for protected areas. Protected areas manage-
ment agency budgets are summarised in Table 6.

5.2 Internal investment

The present investment levels in protected areas in the
region are higher in gross amounts than ten years ago.
Nevertheless, due to substantial growth of the protected
area system, inflation and devaluation of national cur-
rencies, net investment per area is lower than before.

The general conclusion in the region is that at least 90
per cent of the government budget for these pro-
grammes is directed exclusively to salaries. The opera-
tional capacity has been reduced to extreme and critical
levels. In cases where the situation is better, such activi-
ties are often financed with international donations
channelled through local or extra-regional NGOs.

There are great differences in budgets. In Guatemala,
for example, the University (USAC) and the Archaeol-
ogy Institute (IDAEH) invest more in protected areas
than the National Parks Agency of DIGEBOS, or the
National Secretariat of the Council for Protected Areas
(CONAP). Another country with the same situation is
Belize, with a great difference of investment between
the Government and an NGO, the Belize Audubon
Society (BAS).

An assessment carried out in Nicaragua in 1990 showed
that between 1981 and 1989 foreign funding for pro-
tected areas was above US$400,000.

In Costa Rica, the multi-million dollar investment in
protected areas made through Fundacién de Parques
Nacionales and Fundacién Neotrépica in the last five
years exceeds the investment made by National Park
Service through its government budget (SPN-MIRENEM).
It must be stated, however, that many of the funds
invested through foundations and NGOs are also gov-
ernment funds derived from debt swap.

One of the few private foundations investing in pro-
tected areas is Fundacién Ecoldgica Salvadorefia Activo
20-30 (FESA), channelling funds donated by banks and
businessmen from El Salvador towards management of
the "El Imposible" National Park.

In Costa Rica an excellent example is the Monteverde
Conservation League and the Tropical Science Center,
which channel individual and private enterprise dona-
tions for the management of the Monteverde Reserve,
especially to buy lands to increase the reserve area.

In San Pedro Sula, Honduras, the Fasquelle Founda-
tion is another good example, helping in the manage-
ment of the Cusuco National Park.

In Guatemala, for the first time and by means of an
Act of the Congress, a foundation (Defensores de la
Naturaleza), is officially participating in the manage-

313

Central America

ment of the Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve
(250,000ha) and is establishing a budget of more than
US$200,000 for 1990-91 (US$70,000 as the basic op-
erational budget). These funds are donated by foreign
NGOs and national private enterprise.

5.3 Foreign assistance

During the past few years many organizations in Central
America have invested in protected areas and in their
surrounding zones. The most significant have been aid
agencies such as USAID, ACDI, ASDI, DANIDA and
NORAD; also non-governmental conservation organi-
zations from the USA such as WWF, TNC, CI, Audubon
and WCI, many of which have donated their own funds,
channelled USAID funds or obtained them from private
foundations such as MacArthur Foundation, Alton Jones,
Tinker and others.

The Dutch Government and the German Reconstruc-
tion Bank (KfW), with the partnership of GTZ; the
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB); the World
Bank (WB) and the European Economic Community
(EEC); and USAID, all make significant investments in
regions with protected areas of great importance in
Central America.

According to a WRI study in 1989, US$16 million
from American foundations, NGOs and the US Govern-
ment, was invested in projects to study or protect bio-
diversity in Central America, from the total of US$62.9
million invested worldwide.

It is evident that Costa Rica was the country which
benefited most, not only regionally but worldwide, since
it received US$6.2 million (US$1,217 per thousand ha
of protected area). Belize received US$1.1 million (US$
526 per thousand ha). Panama received US$125 per
thousand ha; Guatemala received US$114; and Honduras
US$38.00 per ha. Investment in Nicaragua and
El! Salvador was practically none.

5.4 Mixed investments

Debt for nature swaps as a national funding mechanism
have been used in Costa Rica in negotiation for more
than US$85 million, obtaining good benefits both for
the government and the NGOs administering these funds.

There are strong initiatives for similar efforts in
Panama and El Salvador, but these have been unsuc-
cessful to date. The Fundacion Vida has been organized
in Honduras for the purpose of negotiating and channel-
ling funds from this type of initiative, to develop envi-
ronmental education, protected areas programmes and
similar activities. Because of the political situation in
the past several years in Nicaragua, USA forgave its
bilateral debt (US$ISm) and is negotiating for part of
the multilateral or foreign debt to be swapped to develop
conservation programmes, among others. In Guatemala
debt swap as a main mechanism has been practically
discarded as it is not competitive with other countries

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

because of the debt value in the secondary market;
however, an NGO consortium (FUNDARY-DEFEN-
SORES-FIIT-WWF) has been able to achieve the first
swap for a US$1 million.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

6.1 Institutional personnel and

participation

It is estimated that in 1991 between 40 to 300 persons
per country were employed in the National Parks Serv-
ices of the region, and in other similar systems. If we
add to this number those employed by the Tourism and
Archeology Institutes, universities and NGOs, each coun-
try might have between 100 and 900 persons dedicated
to protected areas, in their different management cate-
gories.

The National Parks Service of Costa Rica has 312
field personnel, fully covering the national parks and
biological reserves system. The National Forestry
Directorate has about 55 officers in the units under its
management. Foundations and NGOs have about 160
persons managing private protected areas. Panama has
at least 100 field personnel in its national parks and
wildlife sanctuaries. Nicaragua has at least 70, of which
almost half are in one conservation unit.

In Guatemala the situation is as follows: CECON has
74, CONAP 160 and DIGEBOS 80, making a total of
300 field personnel, most with insufficient training; in
addition, IDAEH has more than 275 persons perma-
nently in care of more than 40 archaeological sites and
surrounding natural areas. El Salvador has a total of 75
field personnel in the six declared conservation units.
Honduras is improving in a significant manner the
actual number of technical and field personnel support-
ing conservation units.

The number of field personnel per unit is still very
low, taking into account external pressures caused by
exploitation of resources and the technological level of
management facilities. The regional spectrum may go
from 800 hectares per employee in one country to 15,000
hectares in another (100 hectares per employee would
be a standard toward which the countries should strive).

Although there are no statistics, it is widely consid-
ered that labour conditions for forest personnel working
at conservation units throughout the region are unac-
ceptable. Salaries have deteriorated due to high infla-
tion levels, and in many cases equipment and housing
are in very bad shape. This often creates emotional
burdens for the staff. The lack of public services in
general (drinking water, electricity, drainage, commu-
Nications, etc.) is a reflection of national standards.
Contrasts are evident in different units, according to the
institution managing it, and they vary from one country
to another.

314

6.2 Training

Since human resources are the most valuable assets with
which to develop efficient management in protected
areas, training needs must be identified. In many in-
stances staff have to learn to read and write as well as
learn the basic environmental subjects, at a practical
level, including operational planning, the prevention
and handling of forest fires, and community relations.
Training makes insufficient use of indigenous knowl-
edge about nature and natural resources management.

In Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica,
the universities include relevant courses in their pro-
grammes to obtain Bachelor’s degrees in Geography,
Biology, Forest Sciences or Agronomy, Tourism and
Architecture. These courses often cover protected areas
and the economic importance of landscape protection
and preserving biodiversity. At post-graduate level, the
University of San Carlos in Guatemala has recently set
up a Master’s Degree in Environmental Design and
Management with a specific course on Planning and
Development of Protected Areas.

At the regional level, the Tropical Agronomic Centre
for Research and Training (CATIE) offers post-gradu-
ate courses in Planning and Management of Protected
Areas. Approximately 20 professionals have obtained
their Master’s degree in the last 10 years and more than
300 technicians have taken CATIE’s intensive course
(though many of them are no longer working in the
field). Also, the National University of Heredia in Costa
Rica, UNA, is developing a Master’s programme on
wildlife management. The Universidad para la Paz in
Costa Rica also runs protected area training courses.

In 1992, the National School of Forest Sciences in
Honduras (ESNACIFOR), the UNED University in
Costa Rica, and the National School of Agriculture in
Guatemala, will begin to offer training for protected
area technicians. Starting 1993-94, the School of El
Zamorano in Honduras will also offer such courses.

At the operational level, Costa Rica and Guatemala
are endeavouring to strengthen their capacity to train
forest rangers. Costa Rica is working through the Min-
istry of Natural Resources, and Guatemala through
CECON. Other field training initiatives are being de-
veloped with the cooperation of the United States Peace
Corps, particularly in Honduras and Guatemala.

7. Priorities for future investment
in protected areas

In Central America, government financial participation
in identifying, declaring, planning and managing pro-
tected areas has been very weak, with few exceptions.
Even so, during the 1970s government investment was
8 to 10 times more in dollars per year and by country,
than international contributions.

Box 1.

Item

REGIONAL NEEDS (US$37.1 million)
1.1. Land Purchase
1.2

1.3. Technical Assistance

Regional Co-operation
Assistance to Communities
Infrastructure

1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7

Total

Central America

Estimates of priority "Unmet Needs” for top priority projects: Central America

Cost Estimate

Management Planning and Finanical Structures

Operations (Personnel, Equipment, Materials and Fuel)
Training Extension & Public Awareness

INTERNATIONAL NEEDS - International Programmes
required in support of national endeavors (US$25.5 million)

2.1
2a
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7

Institutional Strengthening
Training and Management Capacity
Investigation and Management
Environmental Education

Total

Source:

By the beginning of the 1980s when economic growth
in the region slowed down and then declined, govern-
ment conservation institutions stopped receiving even
the modest budgetary allocations of the preceding dec-
ade. This coincided with an increase in international
financial contributions for the development of the Pro-
tected Areas System. By 1985, the government and
non-government financial support was of similar mag-
nitude, a situation that remains the same in some of the
Tregion’s countries.

During the next few years it is expected that interna-
tional financial support in the region will increase.
Donations from private foundations and from bilateral
and multinational agencies and other organizations will
ensure the protection of tropical biodiversity for the
benefit of humanity.

Investment should be concentrated on improving the
management capacity of local institutions; the estab-
lishment of indigenous policies and regulations for natural
resources and protected areas management; to reinforce
planning and managing protected areas to generate

Legal, Financial & Economic Instruments
Planning: Coastal & Mountainous Areas
Extensions & Management Activities

315

CNPPA Regional Vice-Chair for Central America, July 1992.

local and regional benefits; to change institutional im-
plementation and coordination of existing mechanisms;
and to seek new ways to obtain financing (Box 1).

Investments in regional conservation must stimulate
improvement in living conditions and economic growth
in Central America, besides fulfilling extra-regional
requirements for the protection of our planet. Often,
such requirements imply great sacrifices or are openly
contrary to the developmental aspirations and interests
of the region’s governments.

As a matter of principle, priority should be given to
urgent investment in the Central American countries
with greatest diversity and which have not yet devel-
oped an adequate system of protected areas. The main
priorities are listed below.

@ Technical Assistance and Support Services. It is
necessary to promote mid- and long-term technical
assistance programmes, setting up adequate guide-
lines for planning and managing protected areas,
both systems and individual units. The few regional
institutions offering these types of services should

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

be reinforced. Investment must be channelled to-
ward operational planning and to regional sub-
systems involved in territorial development and
regional conservation and development strategies;
drafting of proposals will be a very important aspect.

Pilot Projects. The region needs to develop pilot
projects to provide valuable field experience in natural
resources and protected areas management. Exist-
ing projects need to reinforce their capacity to pro-
vide information to other agencies and projects in
order to have a multiplying effect of creative ideas.

Regional Integration. At present, regional devel-
opment of projects in Central America is adequate,
but as new initiatives are implemented in the future,
their coordination may pose some problems. Some
projects have obtained financial support while others
have no technical assistance or other types of support.
Efforts to support the Central American Commission
for Environment and Development (CCAD), the Inter-
Parliamentary Commission (CICAD), and other in-
stitutions such as the newly formed "Central
American Council on Protected Areas", working
toward integration, efficient distribution and man-
agement, will be rewarded by significant improve-
ments in political support for protected areas, and
better linkages with development policies.

Human Resources Training. Good technicians are
needed to develop management, research activities
and environmental monitoring services, in connec-
tion with both land and water resources. Any im-
provement in education and training of technicians
and forest rangers will up-grade the Central American
system of protected areas. It is urgent to invest in
some countries where the number of projects is
increasing but human resources to manage them are
not keeping pace with this growth.

Institutional Support. Actions should be taken to
ensure an acceptable minimum in the development
of facilities for the implementation of conservation
actions. Buildings and other facilities are necessary
in the most accessible areas to take adequate care of
visitors; it is necessary to provide transportation and
telecommunications equipment for the efficient man-
agement of such buildings and facilities. It is neces-
sary to buy land and establish boundaries of protected
areas to provide permanent protection. These and
other actions require immediate and massive inter-
national backing and support. Priority should be
given to investments ensuring institutional presence
within the conservation units to improve manage-
ment efficiency and a responsible participation of
interested regional and national groups.

316

8. Major protected area issues in
the region

8.1 Policies, macroeconomics and

territorial order

In general terms, the region’s protected areas have been
developed outside the context of territorial order and
within contradictory government policies and lately,
outside world economic trends. A historical perspective
of regional economic development and the establishment
of protected areas in the region indicates that many
conservation units have been recognized as such by the
Central Governments on the basis of recommendations
by forestry technocrats, or by other experts on natural
history and, more recently, under pressure from inter-
national environmental or development agencies.

In recent times, it has become evident that agrarian
policies (such as those related to land tenure, agricul-
tural credits, colonization or settlements), have been
implemented without regard to concepts of sustainable
development, working against conservation of biodi-
versity and even against elementary interests to main-
tain essential ecological processes that make agricultural
development and economic growth feasible.

Numerous examples of duplication of responsibilities
in government institutions or of conflicting sectorial
legislation show the lack of comprehensive policies for
the development and conservation of natural resources.
Following this trend, sectoral cooperation is every day
a more urgent matter.

Communications and joint work between the national
parks and similar agencies with other ministries, state
agencies and NGOs or private associations is necessary.
Evidence of the lack of such coordination includes the
development of the banana and/or citrus industries in
areas bordering national parks; the possibility that re-
tuning refugees may be resettled in the vicinity of other
parks; hotel and tourist development along the coasts;
the building of commercial ports and other facilities to
receive and process local and foreign toxic wastes; and
development of shrimp farms bordering some of the
exceptional mangrove and wetland areas in the Central
American.

8.2 Reviewing the functions of
protected areas

For many years, protected areas have been considered
as limiting factors to the region’s development. How-
ever, the idea of total protection (through national parks
or biological reserves), has prevailed among the popu-
lation and in the mind of most officers connected with
the development of protected areas and other environ-
mental fields.

For the last few years a new concept has been growing
whereby protected areas can be managed as instrumen-
tal in the general development of the region, especially

because it is estimated that more than 60% of the
population live under conditions of extreme poverty.
This new concept has led to the an increasing trend for
the establishment of conservation units, with different
management categories, geared to include or be linked
with multiple uses or an administrative reorganization
of protected areas as "Conservation Areas" (as a policy
to regionalise and decentralize the management respon-
sibilities for protected areas).

In this manner, protected areas are being seen as areas
involved in the production of strategic resources such
as water, wood and electric energy. Moreover, these
protected areas are considered as raw materials for the
tourist industry and ecotourism, potentially generating
both employment and foreign exchange.

Extractive reserves (which are government property),
and on the other hand, "environmental activities" as
business ventures or with the participation of either
corporations or individuals will become increasingly
common because of the demand for "natural" goods and
services. All these ideas will require conceptual changes
in the short term, as well as new methodologies for
conflict resolution and modification of management
approaches.

8.3. Population growth and demand

for resources

It is estimated that over 20 million people (60% of the
total population) in Central America use wood as the
primary source of energy for cooking. Because of a
human pcpulation growth rate of 2.8%, the demand for
resources is increasing. This demand increases continu-
ously, without a corresponding increase in the per capita
supply; this situation is the reason for the pressure
existing in conservation units at present or that may be
exerted on potential units in the future.

Even more conflictive situations are developing in the
more densely populated areas of Guatemala, El Salvador,
Honduras and Nicaragua (both in the highlands and the
Pacific coast), where demand for land is increasing.
Exploitation of natural forests or woodland (either ille-
gal or with license) will be increasingly more intense in
view of national demand and foreign demand for raw
materials.

The consequences of inadequate planning and man-
agement of the catchment basins is being felt in drinking
water shortages or by increases in the energy charge
rates or rationed hours of service in several of the
countries in the Central American region. This growing
demand is opening the door for political decisions at the
highest level to plan protected areas and improve man-
agement policies and procedures. Massive reforestation
programmes are being promoted, both because their
environmental benefits and those generated from pri-
vate entrepreneurs engaged in reforestation activities
and taking advantage of fiscal incentives granted to
private enterprise by the governments.

317

Central America

8.4 Land tenure

A substantial amount of land included within the na-
tional parks and other protected areas in the region is
still in the hands of private parties. Many parks that were
established in public lands are being invaded by impov-
erished segments of the populations without the finan-
cial means to obtain land otherwise, and because of the
lack of institutional presence and management in those
areas.

In Costa Rica the situation is better because 85% of
lands reserved for national parks and biological reserves
belong to the Government and neither these nor the
remaining 15% in private hands are inhabited. In other
management categories, the percentage of land in pri-
vate hands is a great deal higher.

In other countries, and especially in some conserva-
tion units, the land tenure situation is more conflictive.
For instance, in some of Guatemala’s parks, more than
70% of the land is in private hands or has been invaded
in the last 15 years. Guatemalan law establishes the
possibility of private reserves and provides fiscal incen-
tives to these investing in private protected areas, but
this initiative is not being used in its proper spirit to
stimulate the creation of these units.

Costa Rica, Panama and Guatemala are trying to
acquire and consolidate land tenure in some of the high
priority areas. In most instances, a strong political deci-
sion is necessary in this complex situation, as well as
involvement from national and international organiza-
tions, including those related to the debt for nature swap
and with agrarian reform programmes. In many cases,
there is no information on the number of settlements,
inhabitants in national parks or other existing conserva-
tion units; often land registry information is not avail-
able to take decisions on lands to buy or swap. In other
cases, conservation units are declared in spite of know-
ing that a private ownership situation or inhabitants
exist.

In Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica and
Panama, private enterprise is identifying means to de-
velop ventures related with natural areas, such as Rara
Avis project near Braulio Carrillo National Park, and
Monteverde Private Reserve, in Costa Rica; or the
Posada de Mateo (Mateo Inn) at Punta Chimino,
Guatemala.

8.5 Community participation

In the past, creating national parks meant displacing
tural inhabitants from some areas, moving them to other
places or, as the best option, limiting their right to the
traditional use of the resources. Citizens and commu-
nity participation was limited to "consultation" at some
moment during the planning stage. Inthe 1970s and 1980s,
environmental education became a vehicle to create
awareness in people living around the conservation

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

units in order to obtain their support for the projects or,
at minimum, so that they would not oppose them.

However, in the past several years the need for the
participation of the local communities has been identi-
fied as essential for the success of the conservation
projects and the realization of its benefits, an approach
that radically changed the environmental education ap-
proach in the region. In spite of the new approaches,
actions taken in the field to promote community partici-
pation are still scarce. Often, the national parks officers
are the only ones visiting or working in remote marginal
areas that lack practically all basic services (drinking
water, electricity, public health, public transportation);
therefore, they have to divide their control and monitor-
ing work in the field with taking care of basic needs of
the communities settled inside or around the conserva-
tion units.

Some indigenous groups had been and are tradition-
ally settled within or around very important protected
natural areas such as the Kekchis in the Maya Biosphera
Reserve, in Guatemala; Payas in Rio Platano Biosphere
Reserve, in Honduras; Miskitos and Sumos in the Bosawas
Reserve in Nicaragua; Bribris in La Amistad Biosphere
Reserve in Costa Rica; and the Kunas in the Kuna Yala
coast in Panama, to mention a few. In general, so far
indigenous people have not played a dynamic role in
making decisions on the use of the natural resources in
their own regions; however, this is slowly changing and
will undoubtedly continue to do so. In cases where land
tenure is identified with the presence of indigenous
population, the criteria is to return or respect their
traditional rights over natural areas.

Religious groups, cooperatives, small enterprises and
local conservation associations are also becoming more
and more interested in effective environmental manage-
ment, including protected areas as a valuable means for
It.

Municipalities have also developed an interest in
preserving resources of great value for their communi-
ties. It is expected that for the 1990s, the participation
of municipal governments in conservation and manage-
ment of their areas will be more active in all the Central
American region; many of these municipal protected
areas will have more flexible management categories
compared to the national ones, as they will have to
supply local needs such as woodfuel extraction and
management of strategic watersheds.

All these factors are stimulating decentralisation of
protected areas management, including creation of mixed
management structures.

8.6 War, conflict, and expectations of

peace

The historical structural crisis of the Central American
region has produced war and armed conflicts in at least
four of the countries. Better known because of its high

318

impact are the conflicts in the last decade in Guatemala,
El Salvador and Nicaragua, which might decrease or
end in the 1990s.

War has displaced of thousands of rural people through-
out the region; caused direct damage to natural areas;
limited democratic dialogue over land use; halted re-
search in large areas; and limited protected areas man-
agement. As a result of armed conflict, problems of
poverty become worse due to the great need for land
and employment for marginal displaced, repatriated and
expelled rural people; and because of the growing frus-
tration at society’s inability to address their problems.
For more than fifteen years, in the countries where the
conflict between the army and popular groups has oc-
curred, the natural areas have suffered great damage, a
situation affecting also the agencies and people tradi-
tionally managing the conservation units.

8.7 Weakening of government
institutions

For more than five years the weakening of government
agencies has been the cause of decentralisation and, in
some cases, privatization of the main public services,
such as transportation, health, and housing. This policy
has resulted in the reduction of the institutional presence
in the protected areas, though some countries have
better situations than others.

In practice, the National Parks Services or Depart-
ments have limited field personnel, poorly trained and
guided and with little or non-existing logistic support.
Basic budgetary problems prevent acceptable manage-
ment of the conservation units; salaries are very low and
there are few incentives to keep qualified personnel
working in the government programmes. Support for
research in protected areas is practically non-existent,
with the exception of institutions with international
support (such as INBio, STRI, OTS and a few others).

To ensure the future of the Protected Areas System of
Central America it is essential to support the work of
the government agencies managing the natural resources
in each country, even though their role may be changing
from direct management to control, facilitation and
policy definition. Of course, these agencies must be-
come less bureaucratic and have more vision. The needs
are many and the challenge is to join the government
efforts with the efforts of private agencies, focused
toward the fulfilment of public interest in order to
achieve, in the long term, the implementation of conser-
vation work.

8.8 Private sector participation in
protected areas management

In view of the weakening situation of government insti-
tutions and increasing international pressures (often
exerted through the local NGOs), and taking into ac-
count the acute need to preserve the region’s valuable
resources, there is a trend among countries to give a

great deal of responsibility to private organizations and
NGOs. In addition to stimulating the establishment of
small protected areas on privately-owned land, there is
a trend toward transferring the government manage-
ment of protected areas on government land to private
organizations, or in some cases, to mixed joint ventures
(government institutions, regional groups or munici-
palities and private foundations or NGOs). When con-
sidering the management of protected areas and services,
the main priority must be the public interest, without the
governments neglecting their duty of establishing cor-
rect policies and supervising their compliance.

8.9 Tourism

Tourism and its many facets is increasing in the region
and in protected areas. Channelling funds from other
sources, such as tourism, toward the management of
protected areas is a question that must be discussed in
Central America in order to find adequate mechanisms
for this symbiosis. At present only Costa Rica and
Belize are obtaining benefits from ecotourism in natural
areas, since they are the regional leaders in this field.
For Costa Rica tourist trade represents the second lead-
ing foreign income source (US$164 million for 1988 and
US$206 million for 1989), an amount equivalent to 15%
of all exports.

In Honduras some initiatives are being developed
with beach and diving tourism; in Guatemala, mainly in
adventure tourism, using wildlife areas with excep-
tional natural heritage such as Tikal, Yaxa, Dos Pilas
and Ceibal. In El Salvador and Nicaragua, the security
Situation has limited tourism to recreation by present
and former citizens of these two countries.

However, indications are that tourism is contributing
a very small or non-significant amount to management
of protected areas in the region. The support for conser-
vation activities promised by some entrepreneurs such
as travel agencies and tour operators, has not material-
ized so far. As to those areas containing significant
cultural heritage, a greater effort must be made at the
regional level to relate or restore their natural heritage
and thus create areas managed in a more integrated way.

9. Priorities for action in the region

After completing this report, we wish to make the
following comments:

a. Central America lacks monitoring mechanisms to
facilitate evaluating the status of protected areas
in the region, especially regarding the effective-
ness of management systems. In general, national
reports do not include comprehensive data on land
tenure, personnel, delimitation of units, budgets,
equipment, and infrastructure; nor any informa-
tion on monitoring activities carried out in each
unit within the different systems in the region. We
believe that it is urgent to correct this situation to

319

Central America

better determine which activities and financing
priorities should be implemented.

We have no doubts in concluding that the status of
the ecosystems and biological diversity in Central
America have worsened during the past decade.
Unfortunately, we cannot be optimistic in our final
conclusions regarding the present status of the
protected area systems or the level of management
effectiveness required to counteract increasing pres-
sures generated by the population and by the eco-
nomic system.

As for intentions or legal statements, SICAP has
grown a great deal from the time statistics were
presented at the III World Congress on National
Parks in 1982. However, some of the units which
where established a few years or decades ago have
lost all or a great portion of their resources and
must either be removed from the UN List of Na-
tional Parks and Protected Areas or have their
status changed to multiple use protected areas.

Many of the units included in the system, both old
and the more recently declared, still maintain a
large portion of their resources and are salvage-
able, if effective management steps are taken in
the very near future, including implementing eco-
logical restoration measures where required.

There is no doubt that, in general terms, Central
America is now more aware of its environmental
problems and of the value of establishing pro-
tected areas. Evidence of this are the presidential
summit meetings in the region; the establishment
of the Central American Commission for the
Environment and Development; the establishment
of ministries and national commissions for the
protection of the environment and natural re-
sources; the emergence of numerous non-govern-
ment organizations, some of them cooperating in
managing protected areas; and the declaration of
a large number of new units in all the countries.
We believe that this concern and these actions
represent a great opportunity for the consolidation
of SICAP in the next few years.

Because of all the above-mentioned circumstances,
we believe that the Central American system of
protected areas is now more dependent on interna-
tional cooperation than in the past. This situation
is cause for concern, and its solution is a challenge
for both the governments and cooperating institu-
tions from foreign countries. We believe that inter-
national participation must emphasize the establish-
ment of long-term financing mechanisms which
ensure the sustainability of the systems.

We recommend that all countries continue to pre-
pare annual reports, both by country and on the
regional level. We believe that such documents
must emphasize the provision of detailed informa-
tion regarding the real status of each unit in each
system, especially referring to factors which de-
termine the degree of management efficiency.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Acknowledgements

This document is based on consultation meetings held between June and September 1991, with the participation of
more than 170 persons from 48 Central American Government organizations (GOs) and 62 non-government
organizations (NGOs). A draft was reviewed at a meeting of experts, adding new information and reaching a consensus
on the report, prior to its presentation at the [Vth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas.
Further changes were made as a result of discussions at Caracas.

References

Readers wishing to link the references to the text should contact the authors.

AID. 1990. Documento Basico de la Biosfera Maya
(MAYAREMA). Guatemala. 36p.

Alvarado, R. 1989. Procedimiento para la creacion y
manejo inicial de parques nacionales: Dos estudios
de caso en Panama. Tesis URC-CATIE. Turrialba,
Costa Rica.

ANCON. 1990. ANCON en sintesis. Panama. 2p.

Anonimo. 1990. Proyecto Piloto de Desarrollo de la
region del Trifinio; Guatemala-El Salvador-
Honduras; Resumen Ejecutivo. San Salvador. 9p.

Aragon, B. & O. Rodas. 1991. Areas Protegidas Admin-
istradas por DIGEBOS; Informe a la Mesa
Nacional de Consulta. Guatemala. MAGA. 1 1p.

Archibold, G. 1991. Conservacion y Comunidades In-
digenas en Panama. Panama. PEMASKY. 1 1p.

Arias, O. et al. Convenio Centroamericano para la
Proteccion del Ambiente. Guatemala. CCAD. 11p.

Belisel, R. 1991. Historical Perspective of the Protected
Areas of Belize. Forest Deparment, M.A. Belize. 5p.

Benitez, M. et al. 1987. La Conservacion de las Areas
Naturales y Culturales de el Salvador. San Salvador,
El Salvador. 66p. + anexos.

Benitez, M. 1990. Apoyo de la UICN a la elaboracion
de la Estrategia Nacional de Conservacion y Desar-
rollo Sostenible de El Salvador; Perfil de Proyecto.
San Salvador. UICN. 17p.

Bradley, T. et al. 1990. Belize Natural Resources Policy
Inventory. USA. APAP/ROCAP. 47p.

Bradley, T. et al. 1990. Costa Rica Natural Resource
Policy Inventory. Maryland, USA. USAID/ ROCAP.
S4p.

Bradley, T. et al. 1990. Guatemala Natural Resource Policy
Inventory. Maryland, USA. USAID/ROCAP. 117p.

Brenes, C. 1990. Resumen de las Memorias del Primer
Encuentro Forestal Indigena. Heredia, Costa Rica.
UICN/ WWE/ CIDESA/CONAI/ DGF/ ASOINDI. 40p.

Brenes, C. et al. 1991. Prediagnostico Socioambiental
de Punta Sal y Lancetilla. Honduras. UICN/ COHDEFOR/
ESNACIFOR. 69p.

Cardenal, L. et al. 1987. Conservacion de Patrimonio
Natural y Cultural en Nicaragua; Estrategia para el
afio 2000D. In I] Reunion Centroamericana sobre
Manejo de Recursos Naturales y Culturales. Mana-
gua. IRENA. 22p.

320

Cardenal, L. 1990. Diagnostico sobre Areas Protegidas
y Fauna Silvestre en Nicaragua. Managua, Nicaragua.
IRENA-COTLA. 24p. + anexos.

Cardenal, L. 1991. Debt-swaps, Medio Ambiente y De-
sarrollo Sostenible. Managua, Nicaragua. 13p.
CENREN. 1991. Anteproyecto de Ley de Proteccion y
Manejo de la Vida Silvestre. San Salvador. 12p.
CENREN. 1991. Anteproyecto de Ley Forestal. San

Salvador. 25p.

CIDESA. 1990. Diserio y Preparacion del Plan Corredor
Sur Mesoamericano para la Conservacion de la Di-
versidad Biologica; Propuesta. San Jose, Costa Rica.
MIRENEM/CIDESA. 1 5p.

CONAMA. 1988. Decreto # 68-86; Ley de Proteccion
y Mejoramiento del Medio Ambiente. Guatemala.
CONAP/DEFENSORES. 19p.

CONAP. 1990. Decreto # 4-89; Ley de Areas Protegidas
y su Reglamento. Guatemala. CONAP. 68p.

Cornelius, S. 1991. Conservation Priorities for WWF in
Central America. Washington. WWF. 6p.

Costa Rica. 1991. Aprobacion de Convenios Interna-
cionales Ecologicos. Congreso de la Republica. La
Nacion 19.3.91.

Daugherty, H. et al. 1989. Perfil Ambiental de Hondu-
ras. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. SECPLAN- DESFIL-
AID. 346p.

Defensores de la Naturaleza. 1989. Estudio Tecnico
para dar a Sierra de las Minas la Categoria de
Reserva de la Biosfera. Guatemala. Defensores/WWF.
44p. + apendices.

Delegacion de Costa Rica. 1987. Hacia la Consolida-
cion de un Sistema Regional de Areas Protegidas.
In II Reunion Centroamericana sobre Manejo de
Recursos Naturales y Culturales. San Jose, Costa
Rica. 56p.

Detlefsen,G. et al. 1991. Plan de Accion Forestal para
Guatemala; Documento Base y Pefiles de Proyec-
tos. Guatemala. MAGA-AID. 227p.

Ehrlich, P. & E. Wilson. 1991. Biodiversity Studies:
Science and Policy. Science 253: 758-762.

Fundacion Ecologica Salvadorefia. 1991. Informe Anual
de Actividades 1990. San Salvador. FESA. 15p.

Fundaeco. 1991. Documento Basico de la Fundacion y
Proyectos Propuestos. Guatemala. 22p + anexos.

Garcia, R. et al. 1991. Estudio Diagnostico de las Areas
Protegidas de Costa Rica. San Jose, Costa Rica.
MIRENEM-WWE. 3 1p.

GFA. 1991. Proyecto de Manejo y Proteccion de la
Reserva de la Biosfera del Rio Platano. Hamburg,
Alemania. GFA/COHDEFOR. 3 1p.

Godoy, J.C. 1988. Informe sobre Areas Protegidas para
una Evaluacion del Estado de la Diversidad Bi-
ologica y los Bosques en Guatemala. Guatemala.
S4p.

Godoy, J.C. y Castro, F. 1990. Plan del Sistema de
Areas Protegidas de El Peten, SIAP. Guatemala.
CATIE/UICN. 180p.

Gore, P. et al. 1990. Plan de Accion para Desarrollar
una Estrategia Nacional para el Manejo del Ambi-
ente y de los Recursos Naturales de El Salvador.
Florida, USA. AID/TR&D. 20p. + apendices.

Grant, J. 1991. Activities of Programme for Belize.
Belize, PFB. 4p.

Hartshom, G. et al. 1984. Country Environmental Pro-
file; Belize a Field Study. Belize. AID. 152p.

INRENARE. 1991. Proyecto: Manejo de Recursos Naturales
(MARENA 626-0308); Resumen Ejecutivo. Panama. 9p.

IUCN (1992). Protected areas of the World: A review
of National Systems. Volume 4. Nearctic and Neo-
tropical. Prepared by the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
xxiv + 460p.

Johnston, G. et al. 1990. Honduras Natural Resources
Policy Inventory; Draft. Tegucigalpa. ROCAP. 69p.

Leonard, H.J. 1987. Recursos Naturales y Desarrollo
Economico en America Central; Un Perfil Ambien-
tal Regional. San Jose, Costa Rica. IIED-CATIE.
268p.

MAG. 1990. Convenio de Cooperacion entre el Ministe-
rio de Agricultura y la UICN. San Salvador. UICN/
MAG 2p.

Mansur, E. 1990. Plan Nacional de Reforestacion. San
Salvador. FAO (TCP/ELS/0051). 60p. + anexos.
Matola, S. 1991. A quick look into two border park

areas of Belize and Guatemala. Belize, 2p.

Montrero, V. 1990. Las Areas de Conservacion en
Costa Rica. San Jose. MIRENEM. 6p.

Morales, R. 1990. Informe Final de Consultoria Re-
gional sobre Areas Protegidas. San Jose, Costa
Rica. ORCA-UICN. 26p.

Morales, R. & M. Cifuentes. ed. 1989. Sistema Regional
de Areas Protegidas de America Central; plan de
accion 1989-2000. Turrialba, Costa Rica. CATIE-
UICN-WWF. 124p.

Mufioz, E. 1991. Perfil General y Plan Operativo del
Departamento de Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre.
Tegucigalpa, Honduras. COHDEFOR. 7p.

Nations, J. and Komer D. 1984. Conservation in
Guatemala. Texas, USA. WWF. 170p.

Nations, J. et al. 1989. Biodiversidad en Guatemala;
Evaluacion de los Bosques Tropicales. Washington,
USA. IIED/WRI. 185p.

Nufies, R. et al. 1990. El Salvador Natural Resources
Policy Inventory. El Salvador. ROCAP. 101p.

321

Central America

Panama. 1990. Informe sintetizado Mesa Redonda In-
ternacional; PAFT. Panama. INRENARE/PNUD/
FAO. pag. irr.

Partido Unidad Social Cristiano. 1990. Plan de Accion
de Recursos Naturales Renovables 1990-94. San
Jose, Costa Rica. 34p.

Paseo Pantera. 1991. A Strategy for Regional Wildlands
Management; Project Plan. Florida, USA. WRI/
CCC/TR&D. 14p.

Perez, I. 1991. Propuesta Regional de Canje de Deuda
Externa para Conservacion y Desarrollo Sustent-
able; Informe para la CCAD. San Jose, Costa Rica.
CCAD/INCAE. 45p.

Reid, L. et al. 1975. Prefeasibility study for a Master
Plan of the Renewable Natural Resources of
Guatemala. Vol VII National Parks. Guatemala.
BOVAY/ URRUELA/AID. 101p.

Republica de Costa Rica. 1990. Plan de Accion Forestal
de Costa Rica; Documento Base. San Jose, Costa
Rica. MIRENEM-Paises Bajos. 84p.

Republica de EI Salvador. 1990. Decreto #20; Establecimiento
del Parque Nacional El Imposible. San Salvador.
Diario Oficial #53, tomo #302. 2-7pp.

Republica de El Salvador. 1990. Decreto # 73; Creacion
del Consejo Nacional de Medio Ambiente. San
Salvador. MAG. 5p.

Republica de El Salvador. 1991. Reduccion de la Deuda
y Apoyo a Programas de Conservacion del Medio
Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenido; Propuesta. San
Salvador. FUNDESA/MAG. 12p.

Republica de Honduras. 1974. Decreto # 103. Tegucigalpa.
Congreso Nacional. 16p.

Republica de Honduras. 1987. Decreto # 87-87. Tegucigalpa.
Congreso Nacional. 5p.

Republica de Panama. 1990. Plan de Accion Forestal
de Panama; Documento Principal. Panama.
INRENARE-FAO. 101p. + anexos.

Rodriguez, J. y Cabarle, B. 1990. Plan de Accion Forestal
para Centroamerica; Primer Informe de Consulto-
ria. San Jose, Costa Rica. WRI/CCAD/ PAFT- CA.
14p. + anexos.

Rojas, M. et al. 1990. Binational Conservation: Com-
munity Development & Biological Conservation on
the Border Region of Costa Rica & Panama. San
Jose, Costa Rica. NEOTROPICA/MIRENEM/ANCON/
INRENARE. 24p.

Sermefio, A. et al. 1990. Marco Conceptual y Meto-
dologia para la Evaluacion y Analisis de las Areas
Integrantes del Sistema Nacional de Areas Naturales
Protegidas de El Salvador San Salvador. CENREN/UICN.
73p. + anexos.

TNC. 1990. Parks in Peril; A Conservation Partnership
for the Americas. Virginia, USA. 24p.

UICN. 1990. Informe Anual 1989; ORCA San Jose,
Costa Rica. Recursos Edicion Especial. 75p.

UICN. 1990. Planning and Management of Wildlands
and Wildlife Resources in the Trifinio Border of
Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; a Proposal.
San Jose, Costa Rica. ORCA. 22p + anexos.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

UICN. 1990. Suplemento especial de la revista Recur-
sos sobre el Proyecto SIAPAZ. San Jose, Costa Rica.
ORCA. 16p.

UICN. 1990. 1990 United Nations List of National
Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland. 284p.

URBAPLAN. 1989. Plan de Desarrollo Integrado de
Peten; Terminos de Referencia. Lausana, Suiza.
KfW. 30p.

Vallester, E. et al. 1987. Plan Estrategico para un
Sistema de Parques Nacionales y Reservas Equiva-

322

lentes en la Republica de Panama. Panama. DPNVS/
INRENARE. 78p. + apendices.

Vang, K.P.C. 1990. The Legal and Legislative History
of the Costa Rican National Park and Preservation
System. Costa Rica. 5Sp.

World Wildlife Fund. 1990. Propuesta de Reestructura
del Instituto Nicaraguense de Recursos Naturales y
del Ambiente. Managua. WWF/TCF. 343p.

Zisman, 1989. The Directory of Protected Areas and
Sites of Nature Conservation Interest in Belize. Uni-
versity of Edinburgh. UK 110p.

Caribbean

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

seaie pa}9e}01d payeuBbisep Ajje6a; uiyjim pepnjou! AyjuN0D yo abejUsd19q

reer
ZSL—-Ol eee

%OL—-S
%OT UoY} d10/\

%OT—S | %1°Q uby} sseq ee

peyoojoud abpjuadied

324

Contents

Page
TemmILOGUCTION: ocarcsng ct cee cae ane he ae ea ere ee eee keene 327
aenistorical: perspective wk ees cna Shimacs (Oe) & sch 5 Sereno eee 327
2.1 Evolution of the rationale for protected areas ................24. 327
2.2 Protected areas and national development ..................... 329

2.3 Participation in major international and regional conventions and
PEO PTAMIMNIES os eys nc suxsgusny Syed on sprees play seve eee Sch ier ir eats Sa ieee 331
Dray essons learmedys sty a9 Sseuey nen eieasnie-aateareniee: SOEs okt lee 332
3. Current protected areacoverage .....................205. 333
gale eoystemmplansy ir. 5. ne ate. a ee ee EP 8 a 333
3.2 Coverage of habitat types and biological diversity. ................ 333
So) Protectedtareasin'danpers.mare sree Seaien is cosos Pare nae! eee en eutaey cae 335
4. Additional protected areas required ....................... 335
5. Protected areainstitutions .................... 0.022025. 336
6. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 338
Gale wRunding mechaniSMSerwcick .oceane « «yee IeL es Oe Se ee 338
6.2 Current level of investment, regional programmes. ................- 338
7. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 338
8. Major protected areas issues intheregion ................... 339
SulgeExpanding thetconstituency 2 - eh a oe enn Renin 339
See braining and educationa-s-wamarcnel ci) ncn m ements eee tie 339
8.3. Economic values and revenue generation ...............2...0-. 339
Stage Mounsmrandprotectedtareas™: ms .. -to0s ee oe ee eee 339
SS5ivec(CollaboratiOMe ay cucnsdtshoectss: wenceis a. 21 MC Dan SEES Eeseeee Cord Ek oi ent tee 340
9. Priorities foractioninthe region ..................2-.220.. 341
DAE OCIS ION oe tsa cies eisivismciiconsins, laf sige s: © *yity syaries: 2g eee ME eae No te 343

References
Tables

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.

Table 5.*

Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.

Figures
Map.

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

RA ioe ts ty Sac oe PRS ek COE EER, OMA, Olcmamair Gree ramen Sean 344
Summary ofthe protected areasisystem . 23 2 2). fs su cutee 328
Protected areas by IUCN management categories.............. 329
The development of the protected areas system ............... 334
Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 336
Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 337
Habitats within marine protected areas rated as fully managed ....... 340
Institutions taking part in the management of protected areas. ....... 342
Funding mechanisms for Caribbean protected areas by country. ...... 343
Percentage of country included within legally designated protected

ATCASS. ac audicn | sneer eee skh eG ce Sis ge 324
Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) .......... 330
Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 330

*Note that Table 5 is not included in this chapter due to there being no sites inscribed on the World Heritage List
in the Caribbean Region, but is included in the Table of Contents to ensure a numbering system comparable
with other chapters is maintained.

326

Caribbean

Allen D. Putney, Regional Vice-Chair for the Caribbean,
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas

1. Introduction

The purpose of this review is to document, diagnose,
and prescribe. It documents the current status of pro-
tected areas in the insular Caribbean, diagnoses impedi-
ments to the development of a fully effective and repre-
sentative system, and prescribes a regional action plan
to stimulate improved management of existing pro-
tected areas.

The document is the result of a process that started
with a regional meeting of the IUCN Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) in Santo
Domingo, 29 April-3 May, 1990. The meeting pro-
vided an opportunity to update information, identify
key issues, build consensus on priorities, and form a
Steering Committee. The meeting results were the basis
for a first draft document circulated to the Steering
Committee, and other knowledgeable individuals, for
review. Comments were incorporated in the second
draft presented at the IV World Congress. New infor-
mation and consensus recommendations developed at
the Congress have been included in the final draft.

An attempt has been made to assure accuracy, reflect
consensus, and tap the experience of many individuals.
However, the region is too large and complex, and the
time and resources for preparation of this document too
limited, for it to be totally inclusive and accurate. Inevi-
tably, information and creative ideas were missed and
the author’s biases introduced. It is hoped, however, that
the review process that preceded publication of this
document has helped to keep these biases toa minimum.

2. Historical perspective

The Caribbean possesses a rich experience with pro-
tected areas. Each of the region’s 25 political units has
approached protected area management in slightly dif-
ferent ways, starting with imported institutional for-
mats, and later adapting them to local needs and exper-
ience. There are few regions of the world that can match
the variety of this experience!

The first Caribbean protected areas were established
over 200 years ago. The Main Ridge Reserve of Tobago
was set aside in 1765 as "woods for protection of the

327

rain" (Cross, 1991), and the Kings Hill Reserve estab-
lished on St. Vincent in 1791 for "the purpose of attract-
ing the clouds and rain" (Birdsey, Weaver, and Nicholls,
1986). Both reserves remain in existence today.

Additional firsts:

@ marine protected area: Pedro and Morant Banks,

Jamaica, 1907

® national wildlife refuge: Culebra, Puerto Rico, 1909

® forest reserve: Grand Etang, Grenada, 1910

® national park: Sierra de Cristal, Cuba, 1930

The World Conservation Monitoring Center lists a
total of 175 protected areas in the region in IUCN
categories I—V. These areas are spread among 25 politi-
cal units, and cover an area of 22,857 sq km, 9.6% of
the land area of the islands (Tables 1 and 2, and Map).
However, since many are part of the maritime jurisdic-
tion of the islands, the percentage area protected is
somewhat misleading as it is based on land area only.
These figures do not include other categories of pro-
tected areas, such as multiple-use forest reserves or
marine parks, where resource extraction is permitted,
although data for IUCN Management Categories VI—
VIII is given in Table 1, with a further 9,138 sq km
(3.8%) within protected areas. As shown in Figures 1
and 2 and Table 3, the establishment of new protected
areas was most pronounced during the late 1950s and
during the 1980s.

2.1 Evolution of the rationale for

protected areas

The reasons for establishing protected areas in the
Caribbean have evolved over time from watershed pro-
tection to wildlife protection, and then later evolved to
a broader focus on biodiversity protection. More and
more, however, protected areas are seen as integral parts
of the development process and as basic tools for sus-
tainable development. A few examples are beginning to
point to their value as motors for rural development, as
well as critical areas for the reproduction of economi-
cally important fisheries species, as generators of drink-
ing water, and as attractions for tourism.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Caribbean

Area in
Country

Anguilla
Antigua-Barbuda
Aruba

Bahamas
Barbados
Bermuda

British Virgin Is

Guadeloupe

Haiti

Jamaica
Martinique
Montserrat

Neths Antilles
Puerto Rico

St Kitts-Nevis

St Lucia

St Vincent-Grenadines
Trinidad-Tobago
Turks-Caicos Is
US Virgin Islands

238,620 22,857

CategoriesI-V %

Total area
designated %

Area in Categories
VI-Vill and UA

ocoooocoocco

=~
>
N
ess

11
6

—
n
N

generally included.

Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover (eg. Bermuda).

Caribbean societies have a history of questioning,
criticizing the status quo, and struggling to create better
options. Thus, the role of protected areas is a hotly
discussed issue on many islands. From this dialogue, a
conceptual framework has emerged that has been
articulated by Renard (1991):

Protected areas are not an end in themselves, but part
of man’s most basic concerns. Simply stated, they are
tools for development—a special kind of development
that respects both man and nature, and is designed to
meet the needs of today without sacrificing tomorrow’ s
potentials.

Development is both a goal and a process. If protected
areas are to contribute fully to that process, they must
meet people’s needs, for people are not only the creators
of development, but beneficiaries as well. Certainly
food, clothing, shelter, and good health are the most
basic of needs. Yet these material benefiis cannot be
widely enjoyed unless accompanied by sc: mony,
education, security, recreation, cultural , .on, and
artistic creation.

328

Within this kind of holistic development vision, several
basic conditions facilitate the development process.
These include:

@ Peace and harmony among people, and between
people and nature;

Equity in opportunity and in access to resources;

Sovereignty of the nation, community, and individ-
ual, allowing each to participate in the shaping of its
own destiny;

Cultural integrity, providing a shared context for
individual and societal expression; and

Sustainability so that natural resources are maintained,
renewed, and passed on to future generations.

If these conditions are nurtured, the development
context is enriched. Protected areas and their managers
can contribute both to the nurturing of the context, and
to the development process itself.

Caribbean

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Caribbean

II
No.

Anguilla
Antigua—Barbuda

Dominican Rep

Grenada

Guadeloupe

Haiti

Jamaica

Martinique

Montserrat

Neths Antilles

Puerto Rico

St Kitts-Nevis

St Lucia

St Vincent—
Grenadines

Trinidad—Tobago

Turks—Caicos Is

US Virgin Islands

3
4
1
1
4
9
2
8
1
2
1

tai SF

No.

Ln | oohnit wv |
—
NK CON |] PK WN] ONAWANHK A! W

Note: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.

2.2 Protected areas and national

development

What distinguishes islands is limited space, and in the
Caribbean this is accentuated by dense human popula-
tions. Interactions among people, and between people
and natural resources, are complex and intense. Every
space is intimately bound up with the functioning of
both the human and natural systems. Within such a
context, protected areas will only survive if they are
perceived to play an essential role in meeting the eco-
nomic, social, cultural, and personal needs and aspira-
tions of people. If managed properly, they can also
contribute to global agendas.

Protected areas contribute considerably to Caribbean
development. In those cases where the contribution
been measured in economic terms, the true significance
has become apparent (OAS and NPS, 1988). For exam-
ple, the Virgin Islands National Park has produced a
benefit cost ratio of 11:1. The projected ratio for park
development projects in Jamaica is about 10:1. The
enormous value of protected areas to tourism, the Car-
ibbean’s only growth industry, is apparent. The Virgin
Islands National Park has 750,000 visitors per year.
Even the relatively small Cayman Islands marine

329

protected areas attract about 168,000 divers per year.
Projections indicate that the Montego Bay Marine Park
in Jamaica could attract some 96,000 visitors per year
and the proposed Pitons National Park in St. Lucia some
116,000 visitors. Estimates of income have been docu-
mented in a few cases (OAS and NPS, 1991); divers at
the Bonaire Marine Park (Netherlands Antilles) spend
about US$30 million per year while those diving in the
Cayman Island marine protected areas spend about
US$53 million.

Different categories of protected areas contribute dif-
ferent combinations of goods and services to the devel-
opment process. No one area can provide them all.
However, taken as a whole, protected area systems
contribute significantly to the attainment of personal,
societal, and global needs and aspirations. At the most
immediate, personal level, some categories of protected
areas contribute food, raw materials, medicines, em-
pleyment, and recreation. At the larger societal level
they may contribute to the sustained production and
quality of goods such as water, timber, forage, fish and
wildlife. They also may contribute important services
such as the conservation of life-support systems bound
up with the soils, hydrological regimes, marine re-
sources, and air; the preservation of sites of cultural and

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)
50
Number of sites

40 Area (x1000sqkm)

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)
250

Number of sites
200
150

100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

330

spiritual significance or amenities for tourism; and the
maintenance of future options. At the global level,
protected areas may contribute to the maintenance of
genetic diversity, the increase of knowledge of natural
and human systems, and the stability of global climate.

While the potential contributions of protected areas
to development are large, actual contributions are often
much less. Many legally protected areas are neglected,
under-utilized, and irrelevant to the development proc-
ess. Many potentially important areas remain unidenti-
fied and ignored. The steady increase of legally estab-
lished protected areas has not been matched with devel-
opment of effective management capacity.

An inventory of Caribbean marine and coastal pro-
tected areas (OAS and NPS, 1988) rated the manage-
ment effectiveness of 51 marine and coastal areas of the
insular Caribbean’s 158 protected areas. The inventory
concluded that 24% were protected in name only, 43%
were partially managed, and 33% were fully managed.
Thus, fully two-thirds are in need of improved manage-
ment, and it is widely agreed among protected areas
managers that this is representative of the overall situ-
ation in the region. The most common threats were
human settlements, over-fishing and hunting, and chemi-
cal and thermal pollution of marine areas.

Efforts to establish and manage protected areas in-
itially came from efforts by individuals, or small, local
interest groups in response to a threat to a specific area
or resource. During the last decade, a series of regional
initiatives have also been launched by international
conservation organizations. Many have taken the form
of action plans such as the following:

mw IUCN Marine Conservation Strategy for the

Caribbean (IUCN, 1979);

USAID Training Strategy for Natural Resource
Management in Latin America and the Caribbean

(WWF-US, 1980);

Bali Action Plan (global plan for protected areas pro-
duced at the III World Parks Congress) (McNeely and
Miller, 1984);

mw Nahuel Huapi Action Plan (for protected areas of
Latin America and the Caribbean)(IUCN, 1986);
and

Survey of Conservation Priorities in the Lesser
Antilles (Putney, 1982).

None of these action plans have been systematically
promoted, and there is little indication that they have
been the source of inspiration, funding or implementa-
tion for the protected areas in the region as a result.

331

Caribbean

2.3 Participation in major international
and regional conventions and

programmes

As shown in Table 4, few Caribbean islands participate
fully in major international conventions and programmes
even, though they provide technical and financial sup-
port for areas that qualify. Most countries have signed
the World Heritage Convention, but to date no sites have
been incribed. (Table 5 is therefore omitted). There is
clearly much more scope for using international pro-
grammes and conventions to support Caribbean pro-
tected areas.

A number of regional programmes support Caribbean
protected areas. As with national programmes, these
efforts are relatively small and fragmented.

Caribbean Programme, The Nature Conservancy.
The Nature Conservancy, based in Washington, DC,
works with partner conservation organizations to im-
prove the information base for conservation, enhance
local management capacity, and obtain financial re-
sources. The Conservancy has helped establish Conser-
vation Data Centres in Puerto Rico and Curagao and is
currently working with local organizations in Jamaica,
the Dominican Republic and Dominica to establish
national trust funds, develop conservation data centres,
support organizational development, and improve infra-
structure. The Conservancy’s budget for its Caribbean
Program was US$1,200,000 for FY1992 (Northrup,
1991).

The Conservancy’s "Parks In Peril" Programme is an
emergency effort to safeguard imperiled natural areas
by bringing on-site management to 20 critical parks and
reserves each year for a ten-year period (TNC, 1990).
Some 37 "critical parks and reserves" and another 30
"proposed and unprotected sites" of the Caribbean have
been identified for inclusion in the programme.

Marine Parks Program, Caribbean Conservation
Association. The Caribbean Conservation Associa-
tion, supported by Canada’s International Center for
Ocean Development, has developed a marine parks
programme for the 1991-94 period which focuses on
pilot projects in Anguilla, Barbados, British Virgin
Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St.
Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Trinidad and Tobago.
The programme is designed to disseminate information,
train personnel, establish a data base, develop materials
for public awareness and education, and publish tech-
nical articles. The project budget is about US$250,000/
year.

Parks and Protected Areas Program, Caribbean
Natural Resources Institute. One of the two major
programmes of the Caribbean Natural Resources Insti-
tute (CANARI) centres on protected areas. The focus is on
policy, technical cooperation, training, networking, and
field demonstration projects. The Institute’s budget for the
programme during calendar year 1991 was US$165,000.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Field projects to develop biosphere reserves in Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands are being undertaken in
cooperation with the universities of Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands. A project to support non-governmental
organizations for management of the natural heritage in
Jamaica, the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Barbuda,
Dominica, and St. Lucia is being undertaken in coop-
eration with the Caribbean Conservation Association.
Both are funded by the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation.

A newsletter and training exchanges have supported
the regional parks and protected areas network.
CANARIhas served as the Secretariat for the Caribbean
Network of IUCN’s Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas, and coordinated Caribbean participa-
tion in the IV World Congress on National Parks and
Protected Areas.

Caribbean Program, World Wildlife Fund-US. WWF-
US responds to project requests submitted by local
organizations. Current protected area projects support
resource assessment, infrastructure development, and
educational activities. The budget (projects and admini-
stration) related to Caribbean protected areas for FY 91
was about $150,000 (Pinilla, 1991).

Programme for Specially Protected Areas and Wild-
life. | A Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and
Wildlife was adopted by the Governments of the Wider
Caribbean in January, 1990, as part of the Caribbean
Environment Programme (CEP). In follow-up, the CEP
has developed a regional programme on networking,
revenue generation, training, regional standards, and
evaluation and assessment of protected areas (UNEP,
1991). The programme begins during the 1992-93
biennium. A core budget of US$70,000 was projected
for 1992. A further US$510,000 in counterpart funding
is being sought.

Protected Areas Programme, Organization of East-
ern Caribbean States (OECS). The Organization of
Eastern Caribbean States, Natural Resources Manage-
ment Unit, supported by German Technical Coopera-
tion (GTZ), and USAID, has identified protected areas
as a programme focus for 1992. The programme will
concentrate on training and information exchanges at
the regional level, and on a pilot project in one OECS
member country. Through its ENCORE Project
(Environmental Coastal Resources), the OECS will
support environmental education, training, and on-site
development for two protected areas.

2.4 Lessons learned

The variety of political forms, colonial histories, and
institutional approaches in the Caribbean provides a
richness of experience from which numerous lessons
can be drawn.

a. Assessments, strategies, and action plans are dis-
proportionate

832

There have been a plethora of regional assessments,
strategies, and action plans. The situation in the region
is indeed complex, and each organization has felt it
necessary to carry out an independent assessment. The
process is costly, because of the many actors, small
institutions, and high costs of travel. The result has been
a disproportionate amount of assessing and planning
followed by little implementation.

b. Process over project approach

The complexity of management in small island settings
is often severely underestimated by outsiders. Projects
planned in places far from the region commonly focus
on simple and simplistic solutions to complex prob-
lems. Small pieces of the overall picture are targeted
and crucial connections ignored. This is compounded
by the fact that most organizations can only frame
projects for two- or three-year periods. A long-term
process approach is needed that acknowledges the com-
plexity of the task, the long time periods needed to
achieve sustained action, and the need for adjustment
as the process evolves.

c. Priority to manage established areas

With two-thirds of the protected areas not achieving the
objectives for which they were established, consider-
able investment will have to be made to bring them up
to standard. Enhancing local capacity to manage should
thus be given priority over the establishment of addi-
tional "paper parks". This does not mean that important
areas should be ignored if they are not currently in
protected area status. Rather, the point is to focus on the
development of truly effective management rather than
relying on the theoretical power of unenforced laws. In
those cases where plans have been effectively used to
guide projects, these have generally been conceptual in
nature and/or have focused on immediate operations of
individual programmes or protected areas.

d. Issues of scale

Few Caribbean organizations have the resources to
effectively implement protected area programmes. An
important share of the resources for local programmes
is provided by international assistance programmes.
Thus, decisions are commonly made by individuals
with little grasp of the scale of small islands. They find
it difficult to relate to the requirements of institutions
that will never be larger than a handful of individuals.
The smaller the island, the more acute this problem is
likely to be.

e. Regional cooperation

The Caribbean islands together have the human and
financial resources to establish and manage a repre-
sentative system of protected areas. They do not have
these resources on an individual basis, and the multi-
plicity of national jurisdictions severely hampers the
flow of human and financial resources between islands.
Regional cooperation based on stable regional structures

is an essential goal. Even though the costs are high,
donors seldom work together, and most technical assis-
tance programmes draw on human and financial re-
sources from outside the region.

f. Effective cooperation requires a better flow of
information within the region

Effective cooperation depends on the flow of informa-
tion between islands and organizations. While there
have been efforts to develop data bases and communi-
cations networks linked by computers, these have not
worked satisfactorily. Regional meetings remain the
most effective, but most expensive, mechanism for
information transfer. Next in effectiveness is the trans-
fer of information through a central communication
point, such as a travelling consultant, or the offices of
regional organizations. Newsletters are perhaps next in
line in effectiveness, but can cover only a few topics at
one time.

g. Broadening the constituency

The most common complaint of protected area manag-
ers is the lack of human and financial resources. Yet
these resources become available only when there is a
strong and effective constituency to back protected
areas. Thus the focus must be on building the required
base of support, and translating that support into avail-
able human and financial resources.

h. Absolute need for partnerships

In a situation where single institutions cannot effec-
tively mount protected area programmes alone, partner-
ships become a prerequisite for success. Caribbean
protected area managers will thus have to give high
priority to creating low friction inter-institutional envi-
ronments where many inputs can be effectively inte-
grated into an overall programme supported by a variety
of actors.

i. Plans must address both supply and demand

Almost all plans for protected areas in the Caribbean
concentrate on defining what needs to be done and
where. They usually pay little attention to costs, or to
the sources of revenue for implementation. Under these
circumstances, few of these plans have actually been
implemented. Future plans must concentrate equally on
Tealistic definitions of needs (demand) and sources of

support (supply).

j. Revenue for maintenance more elusive than reve-
nue for development

It is generally easier to generate funding to develop new
programmes or infrastructure than to maintain regular
programmes. This means that disproportional effort is
required to raise the resources for maintenance than for
development costs, and this needs to be factored into
operational plans.

333

Caribbean

A comprehensive review of national protected areas
systems in the region has been prepared by the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992).

3. Current protected area
coverage

The current Caribbean islands protected areas system is
summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

3.1 System plans

The reasons for creating protected areas vary from
country to country. It is essential that each develop a
system plan so that the objectives for management,
specific to that country, are clearly defined, and that a
range of areas is identified to meet those objectives.
Broad public support for protected areas is a key ingre-
dient of success and the system plan can be the vehicle
for involving constituents in the design process. Not
only should they be involved in determining objectives
and selecting areas, but in developing the financial
framework as well.

System plans have been developed for 9 of the 25
political units of the region including Haiti (Woods and
Harris, 1986), the Dominican Republic (Departamento
de Vida Silvestre, 1990), the British Virgin Islands
(BVI National Parks Trust(CANARI, 1989), Anguilla
(marine only)(Jackson, 1987), Antigua and Barbuda
(Robinson, 1979), Dominica (Shanks and Putney, 1979),
Grenada (Grenada Government and OAS, 1988), and
Trinidad and Tobago (Thelen and Faizool, 1980). System
plans are currently in the later stages of development in
Jamaica and St. Lucia.

Only the plan for the British Virgin Islands has been
officially endorsed by government. The only plan that
has been developed with the active involvement of a
broad range of constituents is that being developed in
St. Lucia.

3.2 Coverage of habitat types and

biological diversity

There is no single ecosystem, vegetation, habitat, or life
zone Classification that has been applied uniformly within
the region. The question of coverage must, therefore, be
handled in pieces.

Information on marine and coastal protected areas
is relatively good (OAS and NPS, 1988; IUCN, 1982;
WCMC, 1991). Not only is there an up-to-date inven-
tory, but also information on ecosystem coverage and
management effectiveness for each area. The only ex-
ception, and a notable one indeed, is Cuba, the largest
Caribbean island. An analysis (excepting Cuba) of ma-
rine ecosystems within protected areas that are rated as
fully managed is presented by subregion in Table 7. To
facilitate analysis, the marine and coastal protected

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Caribbean

% area

established established

Anguilla
Antigua-Barbuda
Aruba

Bahamas
Barbados
Bermuda

British Virgin Is

Guadeloupe

Haiti

Jamaica
Martinique
Montserrat

Neths Antilles
Puerto Rico

St Kitts-Nevis

St Lucia

St Vincent-Grenadines
Trinidad-Tobago
Turks-Caicos Is
US Virgin Islands

Date
established
unknown

Total
area
designated

established
1982-1991

0
0
0
2
0
5
0
0
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
26

~
a)

22,857

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion for sites inthe Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the data-
base once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by

the table, the figures may be distorted.

areas of continental countries adjacent to the Caribbean
are included.

The analysis indicates that all major ecosystems are
covered by protected areas rated as fully managed. The
subregion of greatest concern is the Guianan. Of the
subregion’s three countries, only Surinam has estab-
lished coastal protected areas. The northwest subregion
would also appear to be relatively lightly covered, but
this may only reflect lack of information on Cuba.

For terrestrial protected areas, the IUCN classifica-
tion of biogeographical provinces (Udvardy, 1975) lists
six units for the insular Caribbean. These are outlined
below.

Guianan. This subregion includes Trinidad and
Tobago. No comprehensive legislation is in place for
protected areas, although a drafi policy and system plan
have been prepared (Thelen and Faizool, 1980a, 1980b).
Currently the protected area system consists of 3 Pro-
hibited Areas, 11 Nature Reserves, and 10 Wildlife

334

Sanctuaries, though none is considered to be fully man-
aged (Cross, 1991).

Venezuelan Dry Forest. The subregion includes Aruba,
Bonaire, and Curacao. The terrestrial life zones of these
islands include mangrove, littoral vegetation, cactus
scrub, and dry forest (ECNAMP, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c).
Each of the terrestrial life zones is covered by protected
areas (Washington-Slagbaai and Christoffel National
Parks; Spaans Lagoon Conservation Area and Ramsar
Site). However, none of these are rated as fully man-
aged.

Bahamas — Bermudian Subregion. The subregion in-
cludes Bermuda (UK), the Bahamas, and the Turks and
Caicos (UK). These are low-lying islands with an average
elevation of only 10m. The vegetation is generally low,
dense, and thomy and is classified as mangrove swamps
and marshes, beach vegetation, mudflats, pine forests and
mixed broad-leaf coppice (Scott and Carbonell, 1986).
Two protected areas rated as fully managed (Exuma Cays
Land-and-Sea Park and Inagua National Park) protect
these habitats, except the pine forests.

Cuban Subregion. Cuba has the richest biota in the
Caribbean with about 50% of the flora and 69% of the
endemic fauna (Figueroa, Ortiz, and Quevedo, 1985).
The Cuban National System of Protected Areas consists
of over 200 areas, covers 12% of the country, and
includes representative samples of 98% of the Cuban
landscape types (Santana, 1991; Perera and Rosabal,
1986a, 1986b). Strictly protected areas cover about
1.02% of the country, but no information is available on
habitats included or management effectiveness for these
areas.

Greater Antillean Subregion. This includes the is-
lands of Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and Hispaniola which
have high rates of endemism with 17%, 27%, and 36%
respectively for flora, and 32%, 46%, and 74% respec-
tively for resident fauna (Figueroa, Ortiz, and Quevedo,
1985). There is no single classification system for judg-
ing the completeness of coverage, and each island must
be considered separately.

Puerto Rico has a system of protected areas that
includes areas managed by the Federal (15,300ha) and
Commonwealth (30,692ha) governments, and those owned
and managed by the non-governmental Puerto Rico
‘Conservation Trust (1,760ha) (Figueroa, Ortiz, and Quevedo,
1985). Six zones of the Holdridge Life Zone System are
found in Puerto Rico (subtropical dry, moist, and wet
forests; subtropical rain forest; and lower montane wet
and rain forests). Each is effectively protected in the
system of Federal and State forests (Birdsey and Weaver,
1982), though management would correspond to IUCN
Category VIII, multiple use management/managed re-
source areas. A more detailed inventory of biotic ele-
ments has been carried out, and additional priority areas
requiring protection identified (Figueroa, Ortiz, and
Quevedo, 1985).

Jamaica initiated an energetic programme two years
ago to develop protected areas legislation and a system
plan, and to manage two pilot areas, one marine
(Montego Bay Marine Park) and the other high moun-
tain (Blue Mountain/John Crow Mountains Proposed
National Park).

The island of Hispaniola is divided between Haiti and
the Dominican Republic. A representative system of
protected areas has been identified in each country, and
management programmes have been in place for many
years. Due to severe limitations on human and financial
resources, especially in Haiti, none of the established
protected areas can be considered to be fully managed.
A detailed review of protected areas of the Dominican
Republic (Departamento de Vida Silvestre, 1990) indi-
cated that all major ecosystems are included in estab-
lished protected areas. The least well represented eco-
systems were the sand dunes, rivers and forests of the
coastal plain. Specific areas have been identified to
increase the representation of these ecosystems in the
protected areas system, and to protect particular endan-
gered species.

335

Caribbean

Lesser Antillean. Coverage of the Lesser Antillean
subregion, with the exception of the US Virgin Islands,
has been analyzed through a Survey of Conservation
Priorities (Putney, 1982). The Survey classifies the
subregion by seven terrestrial life zones (mangroves,
littoral woodland, cactus scrub, dry woodland, moist
forest, rain forest, and cloud forest). The two fully
managed protected areas of the region (Virgin Islands
and Guadeloupe National Parks) protect all seven of the
region’s terrestrial life zones.

3.3 Protected areas in danger

The threats to protected areas in the Caribbean vary
from island to island. The greatest dangers are the
spontaneous colonization of terrestrial protected areas
by people, notably on the island of Hispaniola, and the
widespread die-off of coral reefs in marine parks, due
especially to sedimentation. As noted above, a full
two-thirds of the protected areas of the region are not
achieving the objectives for which they were estab-
lished. All of these areas must be considered in danger
until effective management is in place.

4. Additional protected areas
required

Identification of gaps in coverage requires a clear defi-
nition of management objectives and criteria for deter-
mining when those objectives are met. This is best
accomplished within the national context through a
systems planning process. A participatory approach to
defining objectives provides an opportunity for address-
ing a spectrum of national needs and building a solid
and diversified constituency for protected area manage-
ment. While outside technical and financial assistance
can help animate and support this effort, the definition
of objectives must be decided nationally.

System planning, and the consequent involvement of
the various constituencies in protected area programmes,
is time-consuming. Yet the lack of systematic pro-
grammes has resulted in only a small percentage of
protected areas achieving the objectives for which they
were established. As long as the focus is on areas, not
on the objectives of a spectrum of constituents, and the
programmes, personnel, and institutions needed to
effectively manage those areas, little effective protec-
tion will be achieved.

Using the very limited criteria of habitat coverage, the
legaliy protected areas generally cover the region’s
major habitats. It would be erroneous, however, to
assume that these areas contain the region’s full biologi-
cal diversity. Because of the high degree of endemism
on all islands, many more small areas would have to be
protected to accomplish this more ambitious goal.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Caribbean

World Heritage
Date No.

Antigua and Barbuda November 1983 0
Bahamas - -
Barbados
Cuba
Dominica -
Dominican Rep February 1985
France (Guadeloupe) June 1975
France (Martinique) June 1975
Grenada -
Haiti January 1980
Jamaica June 1983
Netherlands (Aruba) August 1992
Netherlands (Antilles) August 1992
Saint Kitts-Nevis July 1986

Saint Lucia October 1991

Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines -

Trinidad and Tobago —

UK (Anguilla) May 1984
(Bermuda) May 1984
Gritish VirginIs) May 1984
(Cayman Islands) May 1984
(Montserrat) May 1984
(Turks and Caicos) May 1984
(Puerto Rico) December 1973
(Virgin Islands) December 1973 0

March 1981

0
0
0
0
0
0

ocooococ}! |! oo

Note: 1. Only sites lying within the region are listed.

5. Protected area institutions

The Caribbean’s diversity is reflected in the variety of
institutional formats for managing protected areas. These
include:

@ National government agencies of metropolitan coun-

tries (in the case of some dependent territories)
Government agencies (in the case of independent islands)

@ Independent statutory, or quasi-governmental, bodies

Non-governmental organizations (local, regional, and
international)

Local communities
Private entities

Bilateral assistance organizations

Multilateral assistance organizations

None of the areas rated as fully managed are admin-
istered by local government agencies. Instead, they are
managed either by an agency of a metropolitan govern-
ment, such as in the case of Puerto Rico and the US
Virgin Islands, or by non-governmental organizations,
such as the Netherlands Antilles Parks Foundation

Biosphere Reserves
Area (ha) No. Area (ha)

336

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention
Date No. Area (ha)

(see France)
(see France)

May 1980
May 1980

January 1976
January 1976
January 1976
January 1976
January 1976
January 1976
December 1986
December 1986

oorococo!
coScocco!

(STINAPA), or National Trusts in the Bahamas, the
British Virgin Islands, and St. Lucia.

The situation is often complex, with a number of institutions
having important roles to play in the management or
financing of particular areas. Co-management and co-
financing situations are the rule, rather than the excep-
tion, as shown in the table of institutional arrangements
presented in Table 8. Each institutional format has
advantages and disadvantages, but all are needed. The
challenge is to maximize the advantages of the combined
inputs of a variety of institutions, while minimizing disad-
vantages. Unfortunately, the search for better methods for
programme delivery is consistently lost in the press of
immediate concems.

In general, Caribbean protected areas have not been
effectively linked to other development sectors. In a few
isolated cases, productive linkages have been made to
fisheries, forestry, and tourism. However, few mecha-
nisms for long-term linkages are in place even though in
many islands there would appear to be great potential for
productive partnerships with the tourism and education
sectors, potable water authorities, and rural develop-
ment programmes.

Caribbean

‘dd7z ‘oyqndoy uesiuTuog ‘o8uwog oueg ‘UsUTUOMAUY UBaqques sp UO s0UuaIaJUOD
SaIpmg UBaqquED JO UoTBIOOSsYy ay 01 powuasald Jodeq “uoneAtosuod pur juourdojanap a[qeuteisns Ut joofoid B woreuEs UT SuTUUE|d yred eUONEN *(0661) “A ‘ULV [Ta]
‘ddg “uodar poystiqnduy) ‘ednojspeny ve] ep Jeuoneu areg 2] (1661) Uouy [Z4] ‘wud ‘siog (1661) ‘GWEN [SE]

y8pnq aes gg6l 000'0Z1

UOISSTUNUOD UONBAIDSUOD 10} Jo8png

‘(IV S/n waxy
SuIpuny Jo %09) UOT 98°7SN$ 1 pauNOUrE req [EUONEN MZ
UYos/suTEJUMOW] aN] g at) pue weg suUe|] Avg OSqjUOJ] OY) JO TUAW
-YSt]qeise ap Joy (sysoo Jeides) amppusdxq ‘emppuadxe yuouNedap 1sa10,4 Gwe
OLH
“DA of Woy st %OE punoze
ours 3oid JUSUNSIAUI qeak sally JUaLMS ay JO “(SWd Ss, adnojapeny
Joy Apog aanenstunupe) adnojapend ve] ap [euolTeN Weg Wy) 10} 198png Aad 000'000'91
dox
dod
(000'Z6£S/N$) 1weudojenepsyzed [euoneu pue (OOE'PESSNS)
uonBioisal pue seare palsaiaid Jo jawyst{quisa ‘(000'001$D)
Bale PIoaOld Ud SOU] SUIO] JO waudofaaaq] (00‘001$9A)
* Juawonaldum uspred o1uBIOg :sMO][OJ se UMOpyealq yo8pnq e1ide} 810'S%P Ox 00€'9Z1'T

“uoneis prey YvVdOd
OY) pue soIpuy IsaAq OY JO Aisioatuy ‘seureyeg ay) Jo a3a[[0D :suon
“THNSUT SUI MOT[OJ BUN 01 pareooyje st ja8pnq sururen OU] “pCO re IGSAS
pejfeio) syed [euoneu sary 10J (s}soo yUaLMOoal 91) JUaUIdO,aAap
pue aousuTejurew ‘suoneiodo 103 almipuadxe (661 PUL “‘UorOMaid
1SQNOJ JO} UOTeNSTUTUIpe JUSUMLIDAOS oIsIDAdSs OU st BOY],

009‘ PIS/N jo 1uauodwios euondo ue | snjd

SLE-OOISNS St UonBOToUR oseurep Joal pue UOIsOUa Yoroq 3u1yeUSpuN

pus syed ouueuw mou SurysTqeise ‘uorewsoyut oqnd surptacid
‘sisAfeue pue As0JUSAUI [BISBOO B SULyeIapuN Joy 19Spnq poyeuniso sy],

qwaX = yuayeainba = Aduaaind euonEeU
4e70q SN Ul jaspng

ueveqqiied :sjeGpnq Aouebe }uewebeuew seaie paj}oe}0jq “9 e1qe 1

8a94no0g

(Sf) spurts] wd1 A
(ysnug) spuelsy uri,
Sooled pue sym |,
oseqo], pue pepruny,
SoUIPeUAIH otf pue IUZOUI A IUTES
Blom] UTES

SIAQN Pur SHY IUTeS
oory ouleng

so]HUY spuepaIpeN
IWLIs} UO]

onbrumeyy

UDISIAI(] UOTJBAIASUOD SeomMoOsoy [eIME\[—eoreures
nreH

adnojapendy e] ap feuone ny oeg—odnojapeny
Bpeualn
oyqnday uestuTw0g

SFIPILAA ue Ansaso,J Jo uorstatq—#oruTWIO
eqng

spue[sy uewked

epnuLisg

sopeqieg

ISNA, [EUONe N—seure ye |
eqniy
epnqieg pue endnuy

Bpnsuy

Aduade aqisuodsas/A.uN07

337

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

6. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

The overall picture relating to investment in protected
areas is ‘complex both in terms of the large number of
small programmes in the region, and the variety of
funding mechanisms in use.

6.1. Funding mechanisms

Funding mechanisms currently in use to channel finan-
cial investment into the region’s protected areas in-
clude:

w Government budgets

w Grants from bi- and multi-lateral aid agencies, inter-
national conservation organizations, private foun-

dations, and individual donors

User fees (entrance, docking, mooring, and diving
fees, etc.)

Concessions (rentals, leases, rights to provide serv-
ices, rights to erect communications towers or trans-
mission lines, etc.)

Commercial bank loans
Local non-governmental support organizations

Sales (souvenirs, guide books, interpretive materi-
als, refreshments, etc.)

Services from government departments (law en-
forcement, public works, tourism, etc.)

Volunteer services (international, national, and
local)

Trust funds and endowments (capitalized by dona-
tions, aid agencies, blocked funds, debt-for-nature
swaps, other debt reduction programmes, surplus
commodities, etc.)

Universities and research centres (in-kind support
and cost sharing).

The mechanisms used in each country are shown in
Table 9. Grants, government budgets, and volunteer
services are currently the main sources of financial and
human resources. Protected areas management agency
budgets are summarised in Table 6.

While the listing of current mechanisms is long, other
potential means of financing protected areas have yet to
be tried in the region. These include: commercial en-
dorsements and sponsorships (fees charged for the use
of a park’s name or visual images); "voluntary" sur-
charges (added to the bills of users of tourism services
by cooperating businesses); stamps, duties, and proprie-
tary funds (hotel or departure taxes, cruising permits,
firearm and hunting permits, taxes on fuel for recrea-
tional boats, etc.); and loans from multilateral and re-
gional development banks. Several of these proposed

338

funding mechanisms are currently being pursued as
noted in Table 9.

6.2 Current level of investment,

regional programmes

The six regional programmes for protected areas out-
lined in section 2.3 have a combined annual budget of
about US$2 million.

Little success has been achieved in coordinating the
inputs of various sectors and donors at the programme
level. Each has their own programming mechanisms,
schedules, and requirements which tend to be inflex-
ible and varied. Attempts at inter-governmental, inter
-institutional and inter-sectoral coordination have
proven to be expensive and relatively unproductive.

Coordination at the field level has proved to be more
efficient and less costly. By the time funding reaches
the ground, personnel are in place, schedules have been
established, and most of the institutional requirements
have been addressed. Field personnel can often be quite
effective in moulding, or even changing, their project’s
inputs to avoid duplication, meet immediate needs, fill
gaps, or take advantage of new opportunities.

The relative advantages of field over programme
coordination has important implications for training.
The more managers perceive their task as coordination,
and have the necessary attitudes and skills for stimulat-
ing and facilitating it, the more effective they will be.

7. Human capacity in protected
areas management

Information on the number of individuals employed in
the management of protected areas in the Caribbean is
sketchy. The most precise study is more than 10 years
old (WWF — US, 1980). Based on this study and data
contained in the Inventory of Caribbean Marine and
Coastal Protected Areas (OAS and NPS, 1988), it is
estimated that approximately 75 professionals and 300
technicians are employed outside of Cuba. Though no
information is available, it is probable that Cuba has at
least as many employees as the rest of the Caribbean
islands put together. This would give a very rough
approximation of about 150 professionals and 600 tech-
nicians employed region-wide.

However, trained personnel are scarce in the region.
A survey by CANARI (van’t Hof and Gardner, 1991)
indicated that over 80% of the protected area personnel
of the Caribbean do not consider themselves to be
adequately trained for their job. This is not surprising,
given the lack of training institutions for protected area
management in the region.

No facilities or regular programmes exist in the
Caribbean for training protected area personnel. Most
professionals come from an educational background in the
biological sciences, fisheries, forestry, or resource

management. Technical personnel generally have edu-
cational backgrounds in forestry or agriculture.

Training is provided through ad hoc workshops and
short courses at the professional and technical levels,
and in-service at the ranger or guard level. However, the
following problems are evident:

@ No regular protected area training programmes are
available within the region, and those available out-
side are generally inappropriate to the small scale

institutional setting of the Caribbean islands.

Given the project orientation of most donor institu-
tions, only one-time, ad hoc park training courses
are possible.

Attempts at mixing language groups in single train-
ing sessions have not been very successful, though
participants benefit from sharing experiences with
other language groups whenever possible.

In general, participation of park personnel in short
courses and workshops does not lead to career ad-
vancement or pay increases.

@ The few professionals trained in fields related to
natural resource management are in great demand
for a wide spectrum of assignments. Thus the ten-
dency is to remain a generalist rather than special-
izing in protected area management.

The training needs of the region are quite complex,
but the following are paramount:

@ Aninstitutional and financial framework that allows
for a regular and systematic park training programme

in English, Spanish, and French.

Recognition of the training programme by resource
management institutions so that successful comple-
tion of courses leads to career advancement for
trainees.

Course content that recognizes the special institutional
requirements and social and bio-physical characteristics
of the insular Caribbean.

Practical orientation that emphasizes field work and
actual case studies in the Caribbean island context.

@ Low cost facilities.

8. Major protected areas issues in
the region

The issues facing the region are basic and clear. What
is needed in two-thirds of the cases is to build the
Capacity to manage at the local level. Without the es-
sential building blocks of management in place, it is
impossible to address the secondary issues such as
community participation and awareness, involvement
of the private sector, development of buffer zones, the
application of science, amelioration of immediate threats,
and transfrontier initiatives.

339

Caribbean

8.1 Expanding the constituency
Perhaps the most essential building block for the man-
agement and development of Caribbean protected areas
is the mobilization of a committed group of supporters.
While the human and financial resources are potentially
available in the region, they have not been adequately
tapped. Indeed, there may be a preliminary indication
from the information presented in Table 8 that the
Overseas supporters for protected areas have been just
as important for Caribbean protected areas as local
constituencies. Since it is clear that the potential for
increased support to protected area management by
govemments is limited, the key to improved manage-
ment is the mobilization of the private sector through
non-governmental organizations, community groups,
and businesses.

8.2 Training and education

Another of the fundamental building blocks of manage-
ment capacity is skilled manpower. None of the tools
for protected area management can be applied effec-
lively without trained and capable personnel. Even the
most capable individuals cannot implement protected
area programmes on their own. The solutions to the
training and education needs of the region are not simple.
Yet there is no way that protected areas can develop in
general without solving them.

8.3. Economic values and revenue

generation

One of the problems that has resulted in the rather
restricted constituency for protected areas is the diffi-
culty in attributing economic values to protected areas,
and therefore justifying greater expenditures. While this
is a problem of theory and methods in the field of
resource economics the world over, even the more
simple indicators of economic values are not collected
and used as arguments for Caribbean protected areas.
Certainly simple statistics, such as the numbers of over-
seas visitors to protected areas and their contributions
to national economies, can be powerful arguments in
favour of protected areas. Relatively basic systems for
gathering, analyzing, and disseminating basic statistics
are extremely important to making the case for pro-
tected areas.

8.4

Tourism is the only growth industry in the Caribbean.
It is an industry built and marketed on the characteristics
and quality of the natural and cultural resources. The
industry thus has a vital interest in preserving the very
features which define the product. At the same time,
uncontrolled tourism could mean the destruction of the
protected areas that they visit. Thus, an essential link
must be developed between the tourism industry, which
has the potential to generate the revenues for manage-
ment, and the managers of protected areas, who are

Tourism and protected areas

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

essential to the presentation and maintenance of the
resource.

8.5 Collaboration

None of the major actors in protected area manage-
ment—government agencies, interest groups, busi-
nesses, and local communities—has the resources at
their disposal to implement effective management of
protected areas on their own. Thus, successful manage-
ment will depend on the ability of resource managers to
encourage the collaboration of various groups in a rela-
tively friction-free environment. Currently, mechanisms

for this are not in place in most countries, and there is
considerable friction between individuals and groups.

The region’s characteristics make regional coopera-
tion more difficult, in many instances, than international
cooperation. Usually the links between individual is-
lands and metropolitan countries are stronger and more
effective than links within the region. This often leads
to a situation of applying temperate continental solu-
tions to small tropical island problems. The challenge,
therefore, is to find ways to translate the much-needed
support from metropolitan countries into mechanisms
for strengthening linkages and cooperation within the
region.

Table 7. Habitats within marine protected areas rated as fully managed

Subregion and Country Protected Area Habitat

Antillean Subregion
British Virgin Islands
US Virgin Islands

Wreck of the Rhone MP
Virgin Island NP

Buck Island National Monument

Netherlands Antilles
Antigua and Barbuda
St Lucia

Barbados

Continental Subregion
Colombia

Saba Underwater Park
Nelson’s Dockyard NP
Maria Islands Nature Reserve
Barbados Marine Reserve

PN Corales del Rosario

PN Tayrona
Bonaire Underwater Park

Curacao Underwater Park

Netherlands Antilles

Northwest Region
Mexico Parque Submarino Cozumel
Res. Ecologica Isla de Contoy
RB Sian Ka’an
Gulf Subregion
Mexico
US, Southern Florida

Res. Ecologica Rio Lagartos

Looe Cay Nat. Marine Sanctuary

Key Largo Nat. Marine Sanctuary

John Pennekamp State Park
Everglades NP
Fort Jefferson Nat. Monument
Biscayne NP
Rockery Bay NERR
Bahamian Subregion
Bahamas Exuma Cay Land & Sea Park
Inagua NP
Guianan Subregion

Surinam Wia Wai Nature Reserve

Coppename-Mouth Nature Reserve

Galibi Nature Reserve

Key:

qaaaaana
QAAMQAAO

qaaan
qaaaga

te 22 £28

C —Coral reef; G — Sea Grass beds; W — Wetlands; R — Rocky shoreline; B — Beaches; L — Bays, lagoons, or estuaries;
H — Critical habitat for endangered species

Principal Source: OAS and NPS, 1988

340

9. Priorities for action in the region

The following agenda for the future of national parks
and other categories of protected areas in the Caribbean
is based on the consensus that has been developed on
issues, priorities and approaches. Previous sections of
this review have served to document and diagnose the
status of Caribbean protected areas.

Action priorities were discussed during the Santo
Domingo meeting of the CNPPA/Caribbean member-
ship, the Guadeloupe and Caracas meetings of the CNPPA/
Caribbean Steering Committee, and at the IV World
Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. The
Action Plan outlined here addresses the issues that have
been identified, and builds on the consensus that has
been developed through regional meetings. The overall
goal of the Action Plan is to increase the number of
effectively managed protected areas in the Caribbean.
This is to be achieved by:

@ Enhancing local capacity to manage protected areas
through networking, regional support, technical coop-
eration, and demonstration;

@ Promoting collaboration and regional self-sufficiency;
and

@ Collecting and analyzing information and opinions
in the region so that priorities can be updated, and
effective programmes defined, funded, and imple-
mented.

@ Implementation of the Plan should be guided by the
following principles:

@ Where possible, on-going regional programmes will
be supported. In cases where there are strong na-
tional programmes that could be expanded or en-
hanced to play a role at the regional or subregional
level, these will be supported before new programmes
are initiated.

@ Decisions on the regional Plan of Action will be
made by the CNPPA/Caribbean Steering Commit-
tee, and guided by the decisions of the full CNPPA
Membership when it meets.

g@ Every effort will be made to coordinate the Plan with
those of the various on-going regional programmes.

® The Plan of Action will form the basis for activities
of the CNPPA in the Caribbean.

@ While the Plan will address immediate needs through
short-term solutions, it will also seek longer-term
solutions.

@ The following plan elements will meet the needs
identified and the guidelines established, and build
on on-going activities.

1. Regional network. The regional network of
protected area managers will be energized and
maintained through: meetings of the full network
membership every three years; meetings of the

341

Caribbean

Network Steering Committee (two per year);
reviews of national protected area programmes
on each island; information circulars to network
members from the CNPPA Vice Chair/Caribbean,
and the focal points on each island; development
of regional and sub-regional projects; and, capi-
talization of a regional Trust Fund.

Support services. Support will be provided to
national programmes through: regional stand-
ards and guidelines; regional assessments; train-
ing and education (university courses, short courses
for professionals, internships, and materials for
park guard courses); technical information and
documentation (newsletter, documentation cen-
ter, basic references); public awareness materi-
als; and assistance in development of national
projects.

Technical cooperation. Technical cooperation
will take the form of short-term consultancies,
internships, and case studies.

Demonstration projects. Existing demonstra-
tion projects will be strengthened so that the
experience gained and lessons learned are trans-
ferred to other islands. Those currently in place
include:

- Biosphere reserves (Cuba, Puerto Rico, and
the US Virgin Islands)

- The Caribbean Heritage Program, a collabo-
rative undertaking of the Caribbean Conser-
vation Association, the Caribbean Natural
Resources Institute, and the governments and
selected quasi- and non-governmental organi-
zations of Jamaica, Anguilla, the British
Virgin Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica,
and St. Lucia

- Parks in Peril (Jamaica and the Dominican
Republic)

- Thematic projects (systems plan and com-
munity participation, St. Lucia).

Those expected to be in place in the near future are:

- Biosphere reserves (Guadeloupe, Haiti, and
the Dominican Republic)

- World Heritage Site (St. Lucia)

- Parks in Peril (Dominica)

— ENCORE (Dominica and St. Lucia)

- Marine parks (Anguilla, Barbados, British
Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica,
Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts-Nevis, and
Trinidad and Tobago).

Implementation. Implementation will be pro-
moted by the Caribbean membership of the CNPPA,
and carried out by cooperating regional and
national institutions. Programming and evalu-
ation will be the responsibility of the CNPPA/

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Caribbean Steering Committee in consultation
with national and regional organizations. Activi-
ties will be coordinated by the CNPPA Regional
Vice Chair with the assistance of a small Secre-
tariat.

The basic strategy for implementing the Plan is two-
fold. First, ongoing networking, regional support serv-
ices, technical cooperation, and demonstration projects
will be promoted and enhanced where possible by a
more active and better-funded CNPPA Network in part-
nership with interested national and regional institu-
tions. Second, a longer-term effort will be undertaken
to support the development of a new and innovative
regional initiative, the Caribbean Heritage Park System
and Trust Fund.

Table 8.

Country

Anguilla

Antigua and Barbuda
Aruba

Bahamas

Barbados

Bermuda

British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Cuba

Dominica
Dominican Republic
Grenada

Guadeloupe

Haiti

Jamaica

Martinique
Montserrat
Netherlands Antilles
Puerto Rica

St Kitts-Nevis

St Lucia

St Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
Turks and Caicos
US. Virgin Islands

Key:

Though the CNPPA/Caribbean will take the lead in
promoting the regional Action Plan, the Plan itself can
only be implemented in partnership with national and
regional programmes. At the national level partnerships
will be forged with governmental and non-governmen-
tal organizations, as well as with private enterprise. At
the regional level, partnerships will be sought with the
on-going and upcoming regional programmes. Individ-
ual projects and activities will be carried out through
cooperative agreements with partner organizations, con-
tracts with organizations and individuals, and directly
by the Network Secretariat.

Institutions taking part in the management of protected areas

MG: National government agencies of metropolitan countries; GA: Government agencies;
QC: Independent statutory, or quasi-governmental, bodies; NG: Non-governmental organisations;
LC: Local communities or resource user groups; PE: Private entities; BA: Bilateral aid organisations;

MA: Multilateral aid organisations.

Source: WCMC, 1991a.

Caribbean

10. Conclusion to manage. This review has called particular attention

to the over-riding need for cooperation within countries,
This document presents an overview of a region where among islands, and between regional programmes to
efforts to establish and manage national parks and pro- improve the management of already established areas.
tected areas have been frustrated by fragmentation of If that call is heard, the reasons for it understood, and a
effort. In spite of this, a system of protected areas, consensus on the actions required to overcome it has
relatively representative of the region’s major habitats, developed, then this effort will have served a good
has been legally established. Unfortunately, the willing- purpose.

ness to legislate has not been matched by the capacity

Table 9. Funding mechanisms for Caribbean protected areas by country

Country GB GR UF CN CB LN SL GS VS TF ID CE SR PF DB RS

Anguilla x x P P

Antigua and Barbuda x x 4 x x x x

Bahamas x x x Xx

Barbados x x x

Bermuda x x x x x x
British Virgin Islands x x x P x x x x x x
Cayman Islands x x x

Cuba x xX x

Dominica x x x P x
Dominican Republic x x x x x x x P P x
Grenada xX x

Guadeloupe x x x
Haiti x x
Jamaica x xX x x P x
Martinique x x x
Montserrat x

Netherlands Antilles x XK % x xX x x x X
Puerto Rica x x x x x Xi AbXe BX x
St Kitts-Nevis x x x > x
St Lucia x x

St Vincent and the Grenadines xX xX

Trinidad and Tobago x x x
Turks and Caicos x x P P x P P

USS. Virgin Islands x x x x x x

Regional

Key:
GB:Government budgets; GR: Grants; UF: User fees; CN: Concessions; CB: Commercial bank loans;

LN: Local non-governmental support groups; SL: Sales; GS: Services of other Government departments;

VS: Volunteer services; TF: Trust funds; ID: Individual donors; CE: Commercial endorsements and sponsors;
SR: Surcharges; PF: Proprietary funds; DB: International and regional development banks; Universities and
research centres. X = existing funding mechanisms; P = proposed funding mechanism

Sources: Geoghegan, 1991; WCMC, 1991a.

343

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

References

Birdsey, R. and P. Weaver, 1982. The forest resources
of Puerto Rico. Resource Bulletin SO-85, US De-
partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Forest Exp. Station, New Orleans, LA.

Birdsey, R., Weaver, P. and Nicholls, C. 1986. The
forest resources of St. Vincent, West Indies. Re-
search Paper SO-229. US Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Exp. Station,
New Orleans, LA.

BVI National Parks Trust and CANARI, 1989. A parks
and protected areas system plan for the British
Virgin Islands. Caribbean Natural Resource Institute, St.
Croix, VI.

Challenger, B., 1991. Personal communication. Memo-
randum of 14.XI.91, Organisation of Eastern
Caribbean States, Natural Resource Management
Unit, St. Lucia.

Cross, R. Personal communication. 35th Working Session,
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected
Areas, Santo Domingo, 29 April—3 May, 1991.

Departamento de Vida Silvestre, 1990. La diversidad
biologica en la Republica Dominicana. Sec. de Est.
de Ag., Subsec. de Rec. Nat, Departamento de Vida
Silvestre, Santo Domingo.

ECNAMP, 1980. Aruba data atlas. Eastern Caribbean
Natural Area Management Programme. St. Croix,
Wag

ECNAMP, 1980. Bonaire data atlas. Eastern Caribbean
Natural Area Management Programme. St. Croix, V.I.

ECNAMP, 1980. Curacao data atlas. Eastern Caribbean
Natural Area Management Programme. St.Croix, V.I.

Figueroa, J., Ortiz, P. and Quevedo, V. 1985. Programa
pro-patrimonio natural de Puerto Rico. Diversidata
2(2): 2-5, The Nature Conservancy, Washington,
DC.

Geoghegan, T., 1991. Information on financing for
Caribbean overview. Intemal memo., 7.X.91, Caribbean
Natural Resource Institute, St. Croix, V.I.

Grenada Government and OAS, 1988. Plan and policy
for a system of national parks and protected areas.
Department of Regional Development, Organisa-
tion of American States. Washington, DC.

Harrison, J. Personal communication. Facsimile of 10.X11.91,
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge,
U.K.

Howell, C., 1991. Personal communication. Letter of
10.X1.91, Caribbean Conservation Association. Barbados.

IUCN, 1979. A strategy for the conservation of living
marine resources and precesses in the Caribbean
region. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN, 1982. IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected
Areas. Tycooly Intemational Publications Ltd., Dublin.

IUCN, 1986. Nahuel Huapi action plan for the protected
areas of the Neotropical Realm. 1UCN, Gland,
Switzerland.

TUCN 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A review of
national systems. Volume 4: Nearctic and Neo-
tropical. Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring

Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
xxiv + 460pp.

Jackson, I., 1981. A preliminary management strategy
for the utilization of the critical marine resources of
Anguilla. Unpublished paper by ECNAMP for the
Government of Anguilla.

McNeely, J.A., and K.R. Miller (eds.). 1984. National
parks, conservation and development, the role of
protected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Northrup, B., 1991. Personnel communication. Letter
of 1.XII.91, The Nature Conservancy Washington,
DC.

OAS and NPS, 1988. Inventory of Caribbean marine
and coastal protected areas. Department of Re-
gional Development, Organisation of American States,
Office of International Affairs, National Park Service,
Washington, DC.

Perera, A. and P. Rosabal, 1986. La areas protegidas en
Cuba. Flora, Fauna y Areas Silvestres 2: 13-17.

Perera, A. and P. Rosabal, 1986. Panoramica de las
areas protegidas en la Republica de Cuba. In: Con-
servando el patrimonio natural de la region Neo-
tropical. Proceedings of the 27th Working Session
of the IUCN Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas, Bariloche, Argentina.

Pinilla, M., 1991. Personal communication. Facsimile
of 16.XII.91, World Wildlife Fund, Washington,
DC.

Putney, A., 1982. Final report, survey of conservation
priorities in the Lesser Antilles. Caribbean Conser-
vation Association, Caribbean Environment, Tech-
nical Report 1, ECNAMP, St. Croix, V.I.

Renard, Y., 1991. Parks and development, towards a
Caribbean agenda. Paper presented, 35th Working
Session, IUCN Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas, Santo Domingo, 29 April—3 May,
1991.

Robinson, A., 1979. Identification and development of
a national park system in Antigua and Barbuda.
Unpublished Project Report, Government of Antigua-
Barbuda.

Santana, E., 1991. Nature conservation and sustainable
development in Cuba. Conservation Biology, 5(1):
13-16.

Scott, D. and Carbonell, M. (Compilers), 1986. A

Directory of Neotropical Wetlands. IUCN
Cambridge and IWRB Slimbridge, UK.

Shanks, D., and Putney, A., 1979. Dominica forest and
park system plan. Dominica For. and Wildlife Divi-
sion and ECNAMP, St. Croix, V.I.

Sergile, F. Personal communication. [V World Con-
gress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas.

Thelen, K. and S. Faizool, 1980. Plan for a system of
national parks and other protected areas in Trini-
dad and Tobago. Ministry of Agriculture, Land and

Fisheries, Forest Division Technical Document. Port
of Spain, Trinidad.

Thelen, K. and Faizool, S.1980. Policy for the estab-
lishment and management of a national park system
in Trinidad and Tobago. Ministry of Agriculture,
Land and Fisheries, Forest Division, Port of Spain,
Trinidad.

TNC, 1990. Parks in peril, a conservation partnership for
the Americas. The Nature Conservancy, Washington,
DC.

Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A Classification of the Bio-
geographical Provinces of the World. IUCN Occa-
sional. Paper. 18: 48pp.

UNEP, 1991. Report of the ninth meeting of the moni-
toring committee on the action plan for the
Caribbean Environment Program, Kingston 12-14
June, 1991, UNEP (OCA)/CAR IG.8/5.

345

Caribbean

van’t Hof, T. and Gardner, L. 1991. Enhancing the skills
of protected area professionals in the insular Caribbean.
Parks 2(1): 28-31.

WCMC, 1991. Draft review of protected areas systems in
the Caribbean islands. World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Cambridge, U.K. Unpublished

WCMC, 1991. Protected area summary statistics, Neo-
tropical Caribbean. Unpublished report, World
Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.

Woods, C.A., and L. Harris, 1986. Stewardship plan for
the national parks of Haiti. University of Florida,
Gainesville.

WWF/US, 1980. Strategy for training in natural re-
sources and environment. World Wildlife Fund,
US., Washington, DC.

South America

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

seale pajde}01d pajyeubisap Ajje6a] ulyjim papnjou! Ayjunod Jo obe}u9010q «= ‘dew

%OZ UBY} 210

20T—-G1L

2SL—-OL

201—-S

%2S—1L°O

%10 uouy sseq |]

peyoejoud ebpjuedsed

348

Contents

Page

i-a Historical perspective ......@0s%.. sm acmeesrew boon... ek 351

2. Current coverage of protected areas in South America ............ 352

3. Additional protected areasneeded ........................ 355

3.1 Regionaliinitiatives” 2 "."."2" >... . ae eS, Ae 355

See me Nationalineedsiwew. mies Brevis «cas us eae ee al gis a ae 355

4:> Protected area institutions ...........5..00000. 005 e see eas 357

5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 359

6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 362

7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 363

8. Major protected areas issuesintheregion ................... 364

8.1 Human populations in protected areas ..............2.0000004 364

Sele RCS ATChiin Protected areaS i macnete «<<< user) Sc caes mien escuela RCE ous 366

Sede Resional imitialiVes. + fe. 5:0) « Pa ae Pee 366

8.4 Importance of environmental non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) ... . 367

Sie LOUTISM and protected:areas, quds ee se ee eee 367

9. Priorities foractionintheregion .....................00.. 368

SNM CCTILICAlSSUCS 1. ne cco ue cues lch ne cee eee nee Ae Cae tae ee 368

Oring UStrategic‘actionsineeded® 20.0)... . faien eecened me Se eae or ee 368

9.3 Principles for implementing the strategic actions. ................ 369

BAB ICT OT COS oie oases es mute cs tigeiicg | <i> ERO oe heme Gaia omer Race 369
Tables

Table 1. Summary of the protected areassystem ................... 353

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories .............. 353

Table 3. | The development of the protected areas system ............... 356

349

Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.

Table 9.
Figures

Map.

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 356
World Heritage sites in South America ................... 357
Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 358
First protected areas established in South America ............. 361
South American critical areas considered in The Nature

Conservancy’s "Parks in Peril" campaign ................ 361
Officially sanctioned debt for nature swaps todate ............. 362

Percentage of country included within legally designated protected

ATCAS so) Diana ls ee es See Be Ol ete. COE 348
Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 354
Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 354

350

South America

Cristina Pardo, Regional Vice-Chair for South America, IUCN Commission
on National Parks and Protected Areas, with contributions from
Hernan Torres and Cesar Ormazabal

1. Historical perspective

South America covers nearly 18 million sq km, extend-
ing from the sunny beaches of the Caribbean Sea to
Tierra del Fuego, where permanent winter prevails;
from the driest environment on Earth—the Atacama
desert in Chile—to one of the most humid—the Choc6é
in Colombia. The most important natural features of
South America are the 7,000km long Andes, the longest
mountain chain in the world; and the rivers Orinoco,
Amazon, and Parana-La Plata, all flowing into the
Atlantic, and their flood plains. The 25,432km of coast-
line include extensive areas of mangroves, many coastal
lagoons, and deltas of the enormous fluvial systems.

The Amazon region includes about six million sq km
of tropical forest, 56% of the world’s total. Besides
being among the oldest forests in the world, these
forests comprise the world’s most species-rich habitats.
The humid subtropical forest areas of Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, and Paraguay greatly increase the continent’s
diversity since they contain a large number of species
different from those of tropical forests, including nu-
merous endemic species.

In general, South America has experienced a trend
towards social and economic concentration in metro-
politan areas, which has led to growing consumption of
the region’s resources—both renewable and non-
renewable (Latin American and Caribbean Commis-
sion on Development and Environment, 1990). One of
the limiting factors for the establishment of protected
area systems is the deep social-economic crisis that has
affected the region since the beginning of the 1970s.
This has relegated environmental actions to a lower
priority in the majority of South American countries,
leading to destruction of large forest areas, pollution and
degradation of coastal ecosystems—which in turn has
reduced biological diversity (MOPU, 1990).

Many experts contend that the destruction of natural
environments in South America is a consequence of
agricultural colonization which was intended to rein-
force national sovereignty. Thus, several countries have
pushed government projects to relocate farmers in the
forested lands of the interior, most of which are already

351

occupied by indigenous tribes living a simpler exist-
ence. But more frequently, the opening of forested lands
for cultivation and grazing is spontaneous, driven by
poverty, growing populations, and government policies
(Southgate, 1991). The region confronts numerous pro-
blems resulting from the processes that are transforming
the land: agriculture, ranching, forestry, mining, explo-
ration for oil, industrialization and urbanization (Latin
American and Caribbean Commission on Development
and Environment, 1990; Hajek, 1991). Perhaps as a
result of this rapid change in land use, concern is in-
creasing about environmental problems and more con-
servation activities are being carried out, despite the
meagre funds and scarcity of trained personnel that
characterize most institutions in charge of protecting the
environment.

Conserving biological diversity and meeting human
needs sustainably requires protected areas to play a role
of increasing importance. Unfortunately, this growing
role does not guarantee the protection and sustainable
use of the valuable natural resources of South America,
especially in times when the demand for these resources
is growing rapidly. Progress will depend upon linking
protected areas in a harmonious way with other means
of protecting nature so that South America’s outstand-
ing natural heritage will not continue to diminish in both
quality and quantity.

The protected area concept has been based on the
national park ideal developed in the United States at the
turn of the last century. The first protected areas in the
region were created at the beginning of this century in
Argentina and Chile (Table 7). Gradually the other
countries began to establish them, sometimes in catego-
ries other than the National Park.

Protected area systems grew quickly beginning in the
1960s, building on strong government support (Figures
1 and 2; Table 3). In the 1970s, the idea of international
protection systems gained strength and the biosphere
reserve concept appeared. Almost all of the countries in
the region have ratified at least one of the major interna-
tional conventions and programmes which address pro-
tected areas (Table 4), and a number of protected areas
have been inscribed on the World Heritage List (Table 5).
Among the most outstanding are the Convention on

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the
Western Hemisphere (Western Hemisphere Conven-
tion) (Washington, 1940); the creation of IUCN in
1948; and an FAO Regional Project which published
two very useful technical documents: "Planning Systems
of Forest Areas" and "Planning National Parks."

In 1982, the III World Congress on National Parks,
held in Indonesia, prepared the Bali Action Plan. This
plan constituted the conceptual framework for pro-
tected areas for the following ten years. During the 27th
Working Session of IUCN’s Commission on National
Parks and Protected Area, held in Nahuel Huapi
National Park in Argentina, the Action Plan for
Protected Areas of the Neotropical Realm was prepared
by members of the CNPPA (IUCN, 1986). The Plan
recommended actions required at the regional level in
order to effectively plan and manage protected areas of
the region, complementing the Bail Action Plan and
helping put it into practice. While not all of the Plan’s
goals have been attained, the terrestrial area under pro-
tection has nearly tripled in the decade from 1982 to
1992 (see below).

The ineffective management of most protected areas
is one of the disappointing aspects of the past decade,
due especially to the lack of trained personnel, lack of
political will and the inadequate budgets of the institu-
tions in charge of preparing or executing management
plans. Rapid tumover of employees, due primarily to
low salaries, is the most decisive factor in the loss of
already-scarce qualified personnel.

2. Current coverage of protected
areas in South America

In the first attempts to establish protected areas in the
region, management categories were somewhat arbi-
trary, not only among countries, but also within them.
Protected areas, particularly national parks, were estab-
lished simply to protect scenic beauty and provide
recreational possibilities in a natural environment. This
situation is changing, and in recent years, national pro-
tected areas systems plans have been carried out for
Brazil (Wetterberg and Jorge-Padua, 1978; Wetterberg
et al. 1976; Chile (Thelen and Miller, 1976; Oltremari,
Paredes and Real, 1981), Ecuador (Putney, 1976;
Cifuentes et al., MAG/Fundacién Natura, 1989), Peri
(CDC-UNALM, 1991), and Venezuela (MARNR, 1989).
Today, biological diversity and richness is seen as the
most important reason to conserve natural areas in
South America (Torres, 1990). South American coun-
tries have generally felt that tourism should be a secon-
dary objective, developed in accordance with the primary
objective of conserving existing ecosystems (Oltremari,
1993).

352

The level of development and the legal support for
protected areas in the region is highly heterogeneous.
Most countries do not possess a parks system that was
legally created and structured as such, although some
bills are being considered to correct deficiencies (Moore
and Ormazébal, 1988). Without a doubt, the majority of
institutions charged with administration of a protected
areas system are burdened with a legal framework that
is scarcely appropriate, discouraging them from taking
the actions that are needed to effectively manage and
develop their areas. Where laws have formally created
protected area systems, they often are obsolete and
present gaps and contradictions, especially in aspects
related to indigenous populations, penalties for viola-
tions, tourism use, and utilization of flora, fauna, and
water resources (Marchetti, Oltremari, and Peters, 1992).
Unquestionably, deficiencies in the legal systems threaten
the very integrity of individual protected areas.

South America has a total of at least 53 different
protected area management categories, the most com-
mon of which is the national park (Ormazabal, 1988).
Of the 666 South American protected areas (Table 2)
recognized by IUCN, 234 belong to that category (UCN
category II). Other categories aim at the integral protec-
tion of areas in their natural state; protect specific living
resources; or protect tourist resources.

The protected areas network has grown from 41 mil-
lion hectares in 1982 to 114 million hectares (in IUCN
management Categories I-V) in 1992, covering 6.4%
of the region. The percentage of each country included
in Categories I—V are illustrated graphically in the map.
In addition, a further 247 million hectares (13.7% of the
region) are included in the IUCN Management Categories
VI-VII, reflecting the extensive network of indigenous
reserves (Table 1).

Despite the fact that the area under protection in some
countries represents an important percentage of their
national territories, in general the national systems do
not well reflect the outstanding biological diversity
which is characteristic of South America. This is due to
deficiencies in the geographic distribution of protected
areas, the lack of representation of many key ecosys-
tems and a selection process which did not consider
criteria such as diversity, endemism, and the degree to
which species are threatened. For example, although
18.2% of Chile’s territory is included in its national
system of protected wildlands, only 51 of the 83 plant
formations that are recognized by the country are pro-
tected. The 13.7 million hectares that are protected are
concentrated in only 2 of 13 administrative regions of
the country (Ormazabal, in press). In addition, in some
cases, the areas assigned to a specific category do not
fulfil the basic requirements and do not conform to the
international definition of that category, so they can
neither function as they should nor accomplish the goals
assigned to their respective categories (Ormazabal, 1988).

South America

Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: South America

Area

2,777,815
1,098,575
8,511,965
751,625
1,138,915
461,475

Area in
CategoriesI-V %

93,360
92,496
277,420
137,155
93,911
111,356

91,000
214,970
406,750

1,285,215
163,820
186,925
912,045

Venezuela 275,337

Total area
designated %

Area in Categories
VI-VIII and UA

132,224 48
246,208
1,430,167
137,155
818,346
140,536
1,872
586
14,830
127,201
8,043
466
553,496

18,001,095 1,145,894

3,611,131

to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage

cover.

Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: South America

I II

Area No. Area

I
No.

IV
No. Area

TOTAL

Area No. Area

Area

Argentina 18,416 24

1,350 7
38,234 74
29

20,691
36,385
145,480
83,517
70,438
24,625

19,470
6,426

Colombia
Ecuador
French Guiana -
586
13,628
23,811
866

Venezuela

24 28,076

126,298 1

1
7
2
0

16,299

11,203

53
16
45

39,691
54,462
44,423
53,502

574
79,946

14,301
299
49,282

3,429
359

25 877
898

88
136,871

153

281,189 177 206,404 6661,145,894

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection

function are generally included.

Although none of the countries has specifically incor-
porated the marine national park category into its legisla-
tion, approximately 25% of protected areas protect marine,
coastal or insular ecosystems; protected areas in Argen-
tina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, French Guiana,
Peni, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela protect marine,
coastal or insular ecosystems. Most of the coastal pro-
tected areas in the region have human settlements either

353

within their limits or on their periphery, sometimes
accelerating degradation of the areas (FAO/ UNEP,
1988). Numerous government organizations are in-
volved with coastal zone management in South America,
ranging from those related with tourism to those in
charge of national defence; this sometimes causes serious
conflicts of interests.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)

300

Number of sites

elo Area (x1000sqkm)

200

150

100

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 ‘1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)

1,400

Number of sites South America

1,200 Area (x1000sqkm)

1,000
800
600
400

200

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Five year period begining...

354

3. Additional protected areas
needed

Due to the scale of current degradation, each day natural
environments in a pristine state become more scarce so
opportunities for creating protected areas must be taken
advantage of as soon as they appear. However, those
countries which have a great number of protected areas
"on paper"—areas which were created legally, but with-
out the necessary measures to allow effective protec-
tion—need to work first on effective management of
areas already legally created before proposing new ones.

3.1. Regional initiatives

At the regional level, the South American countries that
share the Amazon basin have proposed to create 94 new
areas and to enlarge nine existing areas within the
framework of the Amazonian Cooperation Treaty. The
signatories of this agreement are Bolivia, Brazil,
Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peri, Suriname, and
Venezuela (Rojas and Castafio, 1990). Of these coun-
tries, Brazil has the most ambitious plans for expansion.
A total of 54 new areas have been proposed reflecting
both the outstanding biological value of the Amazon
region and the degree of threat to these fragile ecosys-
tems which face the processes of human occupation.
These countries have been supported by FAO’s Re-
gional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Recently, an important programme providing technical
assistance for the planning and management of pro-
tected areas in the Amazon Basin was agreed upon with
the financial support of the European Community.

The countries of the Amazon region have made an
incomparable effort to establish a system of protected
areas. In terms of coverage, the Amazon system of units
of conservation is one of the best in the world. The
negative side is that, due to lack of financial resources
during the last decade, this system is very poorly admin-
istered and directed (Comisién Amazénica de Desarrollo
y Medio Ambiente, 1992). Thus while the protected
area system in the Amazon represents its biological
richness reasonably well, the area protected is insuffi-
cient in size to guarantee ecological sustainability or to
address the multiple objectives of the diverse categories
of management that compose this system. From this
point of view, the support manifested by the Amazon
nations for the establishment of protected areas has been
important, but has been insufficient due to especially a
lack of human and financial resources it has been insuf-
ficient (Rojas y Castafio, 1990).

The recent creation of the Sub-network for Natural
Fauna of the Southern Cone, established under the
framework of the FAO Latin American Network of
Technical Cooperation in National Parks, other Pro-
tected Areas, and Natural Flora and Fauna, is also
noteworthy. The main objective of the Group—made
up of representatives from Argentina, Chile, Paraguay,
and Uruguay—is to promote conservation and manage-

355

South America

ment of natural fauna and its habitat under the umbrella
of sustainable development. They see their work as a
form of both preservation of biological diversity and
betterment of the quality of life of surrounding popula-
tions (FAO/UNEP/US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993).
The activities carried out under the supervision of this
group will have a beneficial influence on the estab-
lishment of new protected areas—particularly where
animals are seen as a resource with an important role.

The IUCN/SSC South American Camelid Specialist
Group, which includes members from Argentina,
Bolivia, Chile, and Peni—countries that protect both
species of wild South American camelids, the vicufia,
Vicugna vicugna, and the guanaco, Lama guanicoe—
has prepared an Action Plan for the Conservation of the
South American Camelids and has suggested the crea-
tion of nine new protected areas in zones inhabited by
these species (IUCN, 1992). Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,
and Paraguay—which share the Gran Chaco biogeo-
graphical province—have proposed the creation of 13
new areas to ensure adequate protection and manage-
ment of the Chaco ecosystems (FAO/UNEP, 1986).

3.2

At the national level, it is considered urgent for each
country to have a legally established and effectively
managed national protected areas system, including a
variety of management categories and covering repre-
sentative ecosystems (Ormazébal 1988). Protected area
specialists have identified several gaps in the current
network of protected areas (IDB/IUCN, 1992).

National needs

Argentina. Argentina has recently completed a re-
view of its protected areas, based on ecological repre-
sentativeness. Areas which are insufficiently covered include
the Pampas, the humid portions of the Chaco, the
Yungas and Paranaense forests, and the Andean
Patagonia (National Network of Technical Cooperation
in Protected Areas, 1990).

Bolivia. | Gaps in the Bolivian parks system include
parts of the Bolivian Amazon, swamplands in the Chaco,
the Puna and Andean highlands, inter-Andean dry val-
leys, and sub-Andean foothills. Bolivia is considering
the creation of four boundary parks, adjacent to or
contiguous with protected areas in Brazil, Chile,
Paraguay, and Peri.

Brazil. The ecosystem coverage of protected areas in
Brazil is remarkably uneven. Most parks are located in
the Amazonian section of the country, while other re-
gions such as the araucaria forests and the Atlantic
forests are poorly protected. A 1982 plan drafted by the
Brazilian Forest Development Institute provided guide-
lines for the designation of new parks based on ecologi-
cal criteria. Unfortunately this plan has not been implemented
(Blockhus, et al., 1992).

Chile. | Under-represented ecosystems include the
Patagonian steppe, the Atacama desert, the sclerophyl-
lous forests, the northern Nothofagus forests, and major

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: South America

% area
established
1962-1971

% area
established

% area
established
1972-1981

Date
established
unknown

Total
area
designated

% area
established
1982-1991

93,360
92,495
277,419
137,154
93,910
111,356
0

ocoooooocococo

275,336

3,313 1,145,892

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Sites are only in the database once,
therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the

figures may be distorted.

Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: South America

World Heritage

Date No. Area (ha)

Argentina 655,000
Bolivia

Brazil

Chile

Colombia
Ecuador

France

(French Guiana)
Guyana
Paraguay

Peru

Suriname

Uruguay
Venezuela

August 1978
October 1976
September 1977
February 1980
May 1983

June 1975

170,000

1,038,439

June 1975
June 1977
Apmil 1988
February 1982

March 1989
October 1990

2,179,918

Biosphere Reserves

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention

No. Area (ha) Date No. Area (ha)

May 1992
June 1990

July 1981

September 1988

October 1986

March 1992
March 1985
May 1984
November 1988

2,506,739 2,415,691
12,000
200,000

9,968

200,000

Notes: 1. The World Heritage site Iguagu/Iguazu lies across the international border between Brazil and Argentina. To simplify
this table, each part of the sites has been entered within the appropriate country.

2. Only sites lying within the region are listed.

aquatic ecosystems. The country is carrying out an
in-depth analysis to determine priorities in conserving
terrestrial biodiversity and formulate a plan by the
middle of 1993 that will incorporate these formations
in their system of protected areas.

Colombia. Only 44% of Colombia’s major ecosys-
tems are covered in its protected area network. Ten new

356

areas which have been proposed for inclusion in the
system may inake up for some of this deficiency.

Ecuador. The 1989 Strategy for the National System
of Protected Areas, developed by the Government of
Ecuador and the Fundacién Natura, proposes the crea-
tion of 17 new parks to fill gaps in the current network.

Priority areas for protection include coastal mangroves,
dry southern coastal forests, and lowland wet coastal
forests (MAG/Fundacién Natura, 1989). Other areas
currently not represented are tropical deserts, tropical
dry forests, low mountain rain forests, and pdramo
(alpine moors).

French Guiana. There is no system of national parks
in French Guiana, although a proposal for the creation
of 16 protected area units is under consideration.

Guyana. Guyana has only one national park, but Gov-
emment authorities are considering plans to create an
integrated protected area system consisting of 22 new
management units.

Paraguay. Some 90% of Paraguay’s protected areas
are located in the sparsely-populated western section of
the country, leaving important ecosystems in the eastern
section poorly represented or are not represented at all.
The Paraguayan Conservation Data Center has pro-
posed the creation of 27 new areas for inclusion into the
national parks system (CDC-Paraguay, 1990).

Table 5. World Heritage sites in South
America

Argentina
Iguazu National Park (with Brazil)
Los Glaciares National Park
Brazil
Iguacu National Park (with Argentina)
Ecuador

Galapagos Islands
Sangay National Park

Peru
Huascardn National Park
Manuii National Park
Rio Abiseo National Park
Sanctuario Histérico de Macchu Picchu

Pert. Perti’s 24 protected area units cover only 60%
of the country’s life zones. The national Conservation
Data Center has proposed that 24 new areas be added
to this system in order to fill the gaps, ranging from
tropical dry forests to Pacific deserts and Andean lakes.
The coastal and mountain ecosystems are severely de-
graded and are under-represented in the curzent net-
work. Important gaps range from tropical dry forests to
Pacific deserts and Andean lakes.

Suriname. The Conservation Action Plan for Suriname
proposes the creation of two nature reserves, two new
forest reserves and the expansion of Brownsberg National
Park (Mittermeier, et al., 1990)

Uruguay. If 36 areas proposed are approved by the
government, coverage will still be only 0.7%. The
Atlantic Plain is the most biologically diverse section

357

South America

of the country and should be a priority area for the
establishment of new parks.

Venezuela. Many of Venezuela’s ecosystems are
covered in the current protected area network, but cur-
rent proposals for the creation of 13 new protected area
units will improve the representativeness of the system
(MARNR, 1989). One priority is the creation of biologi-
cal corridors linking protected areas in the Andes.

Recent research and global comparative analyses have
determined the great biological richness of the South
American subcontinent. This research indicates that
Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peri, Bolivia, and Vene-
zuela are among the countries richest in number of
species on a global level—"megadiversity countries".
Colombia and Peni have the highest number of bird
species in the world. Brazil has the highest number of
amphibian and plant species (McNeely, er al., 1990).
Knowledge of these facts has generated a change in
international conservation priorities and, possibly, may
bring about a change at the national level as well.

4. Protected area institutions

Protected area institutions are highly variable in South
America. Ministries responsible for protected areas in-
clude Peasant and Agricultural Affairs (Bolivia), Interior
(Brazil), Agriculture (Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay,
Peri), Communications and Labor (Guyana), Environ-
ment (French Guiana, Venezuela), Natural Resources
(Suriname), and Housing, Land Use Planning, and
Environment (Uruguay). But the real situation is far
more complex. For example, Argentina is a federation,
so the areas in each province are administered by dif-
ferent institutions. At the national level, the National
Parks Administration is in charge of National Parks,
Reserves, and National Monuments; it is a government
institution which is part of the newly-created Natural
Resources and Human Environment Secretariat. At the
provincial level, protected areas are managed by a va-
riety of institutions, resulting from autonomous initia-
tives without following agreed general or national
outlines—although some have followed at least par-
tially the orien- tations assigned to National Parks and
Reserves. In addition, there are two municipal protected
areas, two university protected areas, and four private
areas.

In Colombia, the organization in charge is the
National Institute for Renewable Natural Resources
and the Environment (INDERENA), part of the Minis-
try of Agriculture, through the Natural National Parks
Division. INDERENA has delegated administration of
protected areas in several parts of the country to re-
gional autonomous corporations; protected areas with
territory in the jurisdiction of several corporations are
being administered by up to 4 corporations, as is the
case with Los Nevados National Park.

French Guiana is a dependency of France and is subject
to French legislation. The institution responsible for

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

“MT UT (6861) SANOUVANI [TE]
“WNLIOD “S19q (1661) ‘D ‘odeys [0]
“dd]z ‘oqirewrereg ‘201 Alag 1salo, WeUUNS ‘UoTEMIS Uasaid oY) JO Mataal B :oWeUUNS ul UONeAIosaid amen (8961) ‘d'f ‘Zanyos [95]
ddzz BUT] “1661 Ateruge, puzZ—pg | ‘ejonzeU2A “W]JOO—uolssTunuOD Ansaso,] UEDLAUTY UNE] aI Jo SunsoUr IN/ | Tad [PP 0661-8861 [e1s240J OsarSaud augos suuoyUy (1661) 149d [SD]
‘ddyj ‘umonadioan ‘uois8ury ‘Aoussy iusudojaaag [euoNeWaruy UeIpeuRD/uorsstUMOD Ansaio.4 eURAND ‘0007-0661 UPd UoNoY Ansao4 [euoNeN (6861) VGID/OA9 [P95]
‘dd0T 1 (0661-6861 1aWaIs Adareng yuaudojaasq AnunoD ap o1 xouUY Ue se Jopenog/qIV-SN
Joy paredalg ‘Jopenog Joy siseso, [eoidosy pue Atssoatq] [eo1Zojorg Jo jwauissassy uy (6361) ‘N'[ ‘SAYS pue -q ‘asoy ‘D'D ‘eseunzn] ‘q"H ‘AemeeD ‘W ‘Idsaip ‘fg ‘aLeqeD [¢D]
‘ONAG-ANIG- VIN AI ‘TSeg Op stesope OlSealasuoD op sopepluy) ap eUIaIsIg (1661) ‘O'F ‘SesoUd|| pur “| ‘sodiog ‘YY ‘seajesuoy ‘O'y'T ‘seq [7D]
‘ddg6 ‘Teisaioy opjaxresaq] [2 ered uoIsoy ap Url (6861) “Tf ‘eUOg pue ‘W'f ‘sokoy ‘f'D ‘Teaopues [19]

*SdI24NOG

‘Dad 2 puw JOM “emeNoog ‘SANOUVANI
UZ9MI9q ATMUIA 9aTVOgEI[OO JWIOf B sI sy] ‘ssalZoid wt ATWUaUIND
St SANOUVANI Jo SurustpSuans feuonmnsut 10j 199fosd uous 1S) V qaA (SANOUVAND senbseg op [euotseN omInsuy — ejanzous,
dAn Bune] Jo uoistatq — Aendmup)
“2O1Al2g 18940, a1 JO Wounredap uonsaaid armeu ayy 10J 193png OAS 000'21
Nad

uel uonoy Ansalo,j euoneN auf Jo wed se ‘uraisAs vale pojonoid
B Jo waudofaaap oy BuIpnfout santanoe UONeAIAsUOd 10J 198pnq paisalag GAD S27 7St'l
dad bury youaty
waisfs syed Teuoneu ayy J0j 1a3png SOd 000'008'0S —->JIPIEA, puke sealy [eM] Jo usUUEdaq — Jopendgq
BIqUIC]OD
dT) (uone|suen Joy saioUu Jye1s 298) YNOOD — YD
*(SIQABAOUDY SIBINJe AY SOSMIOyY SOp 9 NusIquiy
Old] OP ONETISeIg OITUNSUT) VIN AI AN 01 193pnq aieis [eI ap sasudwoD DUM OOT6ENIZL — (VONEIsueN Joy sou 198pnq 22s) YW AI — IZ
“Zulpuny [eutajxa apit] Alaa sonatsel JD ouL ‘QJOyM
B se JOINS JUSWISeUBUL FaINOsal [LIMeU ap 10J 193pnq aieis ay saTMNsSUOD dO” S16 196'Z (4D) 20U9D lusudojanagq 1S8910,j — BIATOg
suv eunuadly

221N0S qeaX = quayeainba = Aduiat.ind yeuoneu
4en0q sn ul jaspng Ajuase aqisuodsas/A1jun0d

Boewy YyINOS :sjeHpnq Aouefhe yuewebeuew sease pe}de}0Jdg “9 IGeL

358

establishing parks and reserves in France is the Direc-
tion of Nature Protection, a division of the Ministry of
the Environment. In this dependency, the National For-
est Office, under the supervision of the Ministry of
Agriculture, is responsible for the management of forest
lands. The creation of protected areas is a recent process
here.

In Suriname, the management of natural protected
areas is the responsibility of the Forest Service, part of
the Ministry of Natural Resources. One exception is
Brownsberg National Park, administered by the Foun-
dation for the Preservation of Nature (STINASU), a
semi-governmental agency.

5. Current levels of financial
investment in protected areas

Most of the governments assign a budget that covers
only the minimal needs for managing protected areas;
practically no budget is available for investments in
most countries (Table 6). The information compiled in
the region indicates that a great number of protected
areas do not even have the basic infrastructure, e.g.,
access roads, permanent personnel, housing for person-
nel, communications equipment, guard posts, and patrol
vehicles. Moreover, it is recognized that the majority of
protected areas possess only minimal installations for
recreational or educational public use (Oltremari, 1993).

Several major international organizations are techni-
cally and financially supporting protected areas in the
region. Among the most outstanding are:

International organizations

mw FAO. FAO has been the most important interna-
tional agency for protected areas in South America
since the mid-1960s. It now organizes workshops
about different topics related to management of
protected areas with focus upon developing strategies
for the rational management and utilization of vari-
Ous species. Support is channelled through the Latin
American Network of Technical Cooperation in
National Parks, other Protected Areas, and Natural
Flora and Fauna. Through the network, with the help
of its Regional Office for Latin American and the
Caribbean and UNEP, numerous training and tech-
nical interchange programmes have been carried
out. They have also published several technical bul-
letins that promote exchange of information.

UNEP. UNEP supports different projects and pro-
grammes of great importance for the management
of protected areas in the region. It has formulated an
Action Plan for the Environment in Latin America
and the Caribbean. For several years, UNEP has
supported activities carried out by FAO’s Regional
Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, princi-
pally those which deal with protected area training
programmes.

359

South America

@ World Bank. The World Bank provides financial
support to special projects. One of the largest pro-
viding support for protected areas is the Pilot Pro-
gramme to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest. In
March 1992, the Executive Directors of the World
Bank established the Rain Forest Trust Fund as a
financial mechanism to support the Pilot Programme,
with US$60 million now committed to finance the
Fund. Several countries are providing co-financing
to the Pilot Programme through regular bilateral
assistance mechanisms, now totalling over US$280
million. Only a portion of these funds will directly
support protected areas.

The Bank also provides support to conservation
efforts through its regular lending programme. For
instance, the states of Rondonia and Mato Grosso have
recently signed loan agreements for US$167 million
and US$205 million respectively. The funds will be
used to finance agriculture, rural development and con-
servation activities, including protection of both pri-
vately and publicly held properties.

The National Environmental Project of Brazil is a
US$166 million combination grant and loan initiative
financed jointly by the World Bank and the government
of Germany. The Bank is providing US$117 million of
loans; Germany will provide approximately US$20 mil-
lion equally divided between grants and loans plus
US$3 million in technical assistance; the government
of Brazil will fund the balance. The purpose of the
project is to protect the natural environment of Brazil
by strengthening relevant government agencies, sup-
porting specific conservation units, and protecting threat-
ened ecosystems. The three main regions covered are
the Pantanal, the Atlantic forests and the coastal zone.

@ Inter-American Development Bank. The IDB
has recently increased its institutional capability to
address environmental issues. Current proposals un-
der consideration call for US$400 million of invest-
ments in conservation activities in Latin America.
The IDB loaned US$100 to Brazil on concessional
terms to finance a national environmental fund. The
IDB also provides financial and technical support to
special projects. This Bank has an active programme
of technical cooperation for environmental coopera-
tion at the regional and subregional level. It re-
sponds to requests both from borrower countries and
regional organisms such as the Amazonian Co-
operation Treaty, the Andean Pact (Cartagena Accord),
and others.

European Community. The EC recently has
agreed a project on planning and management of
protected areas in the Amazon Basin, to be carried
out by the Interim Secretariat of the Amazonian
Cooperation Treaty, the Special Commission for
Amazonian Environment (CEMAA), and the re-
spective national organisms of the nations which are
signatories of the Treaty. It will develop a plan for
the establishment of a system of protected areas in

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

the Amazon which will include the most important
ecosystems and will strengthen the management and
administration of its integral units. Emphasis will be
given to the preparation of development and man-
agement plans which address natural, cultural, and
socio-economic factors in an integrated fashion.
The programme will also include pilot areas, dem-
onstration centres, training programme and a sub-
network for Planning and Management of Protected
Areas in the Amazon Region as a mechanism for
coordination and technical interchange between pro-
fessionals and institutions linked to these protected
areas.

Global Environmental Facility. The largest mul-
tilateral fund for environmental projects is the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF), jointly sponsored by
the World Bank, UNDP, and UNEP. In South America,
the international community has made commit-
ments to six major projects as part of the biodiversity
component of the GEF. Not all of these projects are
devoted exclusively to protected areas, and none of
these monies had yet been disbursed as of early
1993. Listed below are the total dollar amounts
committed and brief descriptions of the projects:

Amazon Region. "Regional Strategies for the Con-
servation and Sustainable Management of Natural
Resources in the Amazon" (US$45 million): The objec-
tive is to build sub-regional capacity to preserve biodi-
versity, monitor territory, and manage natural
resources. Activities include bolstering government
capacities to protect and manage habitats.

Argentina. "Patagonian Coastal Zone Management
Plan" (US$2.8 million): This projects concerns the de-
velopment of a management plan which will bring this
coastal zone under sustainable management and con-
serve biological diversity.

Brazil. "Conservation Units" (US$30 million): These
funds are intended to support actions to decentralize
management and administration of selected conserva-
tion units, broaden public involvement, and create a
stable financial resource base for ensuring continuity of
key management activities and scientific research.

Colombia. "Conservation of Biodiversity in the Chocé
Biogeographic Region" (US$9 million): Objectives are
to identify biological resources and their potential uses;
to develop human resources and involve of local com-
munities; and to broaden research and management
activities to protect natural resources.

Ecuador. "Biodiversity Protection" (US$6 million):
The main objective is to support the restructuring and
strengthening of the country’s institutional capacity, its
overall policy, and its legal framework for adequate
management of the National Protected Area System.

Uruguay. "Biodiversity Conservation in the Bafiados
del Este" (US$3 million): This project aims to work
with farmers to promote wise stewardship of Uruguay’s

360

Eastern Wetlands. Public and privately chartered pro-
tected areas will be established.

Non-governmental organizations

Several foreign Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
with mandates to work in nature conservation are active
in protected areas in South America. The majority of
these groups come from the United States but European
NGOs are increasingly prominent as well. In 1989, total
NGO funding for biological diversity research and con-
servation in South America was approximately US$3.3
million (Abramovitz, 1991). Much of this money was
spent either directly or indirectly on protected areas.
NGO funding levels have increased since then but have
not been quantified in any comprehensive studies. Some of
the notable NGO groups are listed below:

@ Conservation International. CI supports dif-
ferent projects related with research, planning, and
management of protected areas, and was the force
behind the debt-for-nature swap in Bolivia.

Missouri Botanical Garden. MBG has sup-
ported different research projects including: Rio Utria
National Park, Colombia; macaws; Colombian flora;
Colombian mosses; Bolivian tropical forest; Pilén
Lajas in Bolivia; Yungas in Bolivia; flora inventory
in Paraguay; flora studies in Ecuador; flora studies
in Iquitos, Peri; and botanic research in the Peruvian
and Colombian Amazon.

Wildlife Conservation International. _WCI has
set up conservation courses linked into university
biology programmes in a number of countries,
e.g. Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador. It supports re-
search and conservation projects in South America
involving penguins, crocodiles, cetaceans, flamin-
gos, sea lions, and primates.

Smithsonian Institute. The Smithsonian is de-
veloping a very active project to monitor biodiver-
sity in biosphere reserves through SI/MAB’s Tropical
Forest Biological Diversity Monitoring Programme. It
supports the management of Manu National Park
(Pert), as well as several research and training pro-
jects and activities in Beni Biosphere Reserve (Bolivia),
Pantanal (Brazil), Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), and
Guatopo National Park (Venezuela) (Smithsonian
MAB News, 1992).

The Nature Conservancy. TNC provides sup-
port both to different projects related to protected
areas, and to national foundations such as the
Peruvian Foundation for Nature Conservation
(FPCN) and the Peruvian Association for Nature
Conservation (APECO) in Peni, Moisés Bertoni
Foundation in Paraguay, and Foundation Natura in
Ecuador. It has provided assistance for debt-for-na-
ture swap projects in Ecuador and supported a cam-
paign for Galapagos National Park, among other
projects. TNC has provided US$2 million of support
to protected areas through its “Parks in Peril" pro-
gramme (TNC, 1990). See Table 8.

South America

Table 7. First protected areas established in South America

Year of
Establishment

Country

Name of Protected Area

Argentina
Chile
Uruguay
Guyana
Ecuador
Brazil
Venezuela
Bolivia
Colombia
Suriname
Peru
Paraguay

Public Natural Park (now Nahuel Huapi National Park)
Malleco Forest Reserve

F.D. Roosevelt National Park

Kaieteur Natural Reserve (National Park)
Galapagos National Park

do Itatiaia National Park

Rancho Grande National Park (now Henri Pittier)
Tuni Condoriri National Park

La Macarena National Reserve
Coppename-Mouth Natural Reserve

Cutervo National Park

Tinfunqué National Park

Source: FAO and other sources

gs WWF. WWF - International provides financial
support for protected areas projects in the region.
WWE - United States has supported several a num-
ber of projects over the past 25 years. Current
priorities include: Cuyabeno Reserve, Ecuador;
marine turtles in Ecuador; and a debt-for-nature
swap in Ecuador.

Bilateral assistance

Several governments, principally North American and
European, provide support to protected areas in South
America. The various agencies of the United States
have traditionally played a strong role in this area, with
the US National Parks Service and Fish and wildlife
Service being especially supportive. In 1989, US gov-
emment support for biological diversity research and
conservation projects, including support for protected
areas, totalled approximately US$3.5 million
(Abramovitz, 1991). Reportedly these funding levels
have increased substantially since then. The "Parks in
Peril” Project, which is a collaborative effort between
The Nature Conservancy and the US Agency for Inter-
national Development, has provided a total of US$7
million since September 1990 as management support
for critical parks in Latin America and the Caribbean;
USAID provided US$5 million and the balance came from
TNC.

Under its "Enterprise for the Americas" initiative, the
US government forgives a large portion of its bilateral
debt in exchange for a commitment from beneficiary
countries to implement a package of economic reforms.
So far, Chile and Bolivia have begun to implement this
programme while Uruguay, Colombia, and Argentina
are negotiating agreements. In the case of Chile and
Bolivia a portion of the bilateral debt, US$1.4 and
US$2.2 million respectively, was transformed to
finance environmental funds.

As with NGOs, European donors are now increasing
their efforts. For example, the German GTZ is carrying
out a conservation project for the restoration and man-

361

agement of the Ciénaga de Santa Marta, Colombia and
recently supported a major study of South American
National Parks (Amend and Amend, 1992).

Table 8. South American critical areas
considered in The Nature
Conservancy’s "Parks in Peril"

campaign
Argentina 2
Bolivia 7
Brazil 29
Chile 1
Colombia 8
Ecuador 7
French Guiana 2)
Guyana 1
Paraguay 2
Peri 13
Suriname 5
Venezuela 15

Source: The Nature Conservancy, 1990

Debt-for-nature swaps

Debt-for-nature swaps are a mechanism to finance the
costs of environmental activities in developing coun-
tries. Essentially, they involve the cancellation of debt
in exchange for commitments to nature conservation.
These exchanges are made possible by the existence of
secondary markets for commercial bank debt where
banks will sell debt for prices significantly less than its
face value. The depressed secondary market prices are
a result of a country’s low credit rating and its inability
to make payments on its debt.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Table 9. Officially sanctioned debt for nature swaps to date

Purchaser/
Fund raiser

Country

WWF
WWE/TNC/MBG
TNC

Bolivia
Ecuador
Ecuador
Brazil

Key:

Face Value

$100,000
$354,000
$1,068,750
$739,750

Conservation

Cost of Debt Bonds Generated

$250,000
$1,000,000
$9,000,000
$2,192,000

CI = Conservation International; MBG = Missouri Botanical Gardens;
TNC = The Nature Conservancy; WWF = World Wildlife Fund

Sources: TNC, 1991 and TNC, 1992a and 1992b.

Typically, a fund-raising entity or coalition will pur-
chase heavily discounted debt in a secondary market.
This debt is then turned over to a local NGO or group
of NGOs in the beneficiary country. The NGO, in turn,
will cancel the debt in exchange for certain commit-
ments from the debtor government. The commitment
usually takes the form of the issuance of special gov-
ernment bonds, payments on which are used to finance
conservation activities. The value of the bonds is deter-
mined through negotiation and is based on a percentage
of the face value of the original debt. The mechanism
used is similar to that of the traditional "swaps", con-
sisting of the exchange of debt documents for produc-
tive investments. As of May 1992, Bolivia, Brazil, and
Ecuador have carried out this type of operation. Other
projects were discussed with Colombia, Peri, and
Venezuela, though some of them were officially re-
jected (MOPU, 1990; TNC, 1991; TNC, 1992a; and
TNC 1992b).

In 1987 Bolivia carried out the first debt-for-nature
swap. Conservation International donated US$100,000,
which was used to retire US$650,000 of discounted
Bolivian foreign debt. In exchange, the Government of
Bolivia agreed to a series of commitments related to the
Beni Biosphere Reserve. These commitments included
the expansion of the area under protection; the estab-
lishment of a buffer zone of more than a million ha; and
the creation of a conservation trust fund. The trust fund,
the "Fondo Nacional para el Medio Ambiente" (FONAMA),
was the first of its kind in Latin America. It provides an
ongoing source of finance for biological diversity con-
servation and sustainable development projects.

In August, 1991, FONAMA received a major infu-
sion of funds. At that time, the governments of Bolivia
and the United States struck a landmark agreement to
forgive US$370 million of debt. In a variation on pre-
vious debt-for-nature swap arrangements, the US agreed
to forgive the debt in exchange for acommitment by the
Bolivians to create a US$20 million bond to benefit

362

FONAMA. Part of the agreement stipulated that US$200,000
of annual interest payments on a remainder of the bilat-
eral debt would be funnelled back to FONAMA.

WWE signed an agreement with the Ecuadorian gov-
ernment to convert $1 million in external debt to local
currency bonds. The interest on these bonds was to be
used to fund nature conservation activities. In 1989,
WWFE, TNC, and the Missouri Botanical Gardens un-
dertook a similar initiative to purchase $9 million of
discounted Ecuadorian debt. The beneficiary of this
swap was the Fundacion Natura which agreed to invest
interest generated from the local currency bonds into
activities to support parks and protected areas.

Debt-for-Nature swaps have been highly controver-
sial in some countries. They are perceived by certain
sectors as a mechanism to secure foreign control of
national territory. However, experience has demon-
strated that if adequate standards and mechanisms, based
on national laws, are applied between the beneficiaries
and the operating organisms, financial resources have
gone towards projects that are maintained under na-
tional control. Even when lands are acquired for conser-
vation purposes by means of non-governmental organiza-
tions, these lands must be passed into the hands of the
State, which acts as authorized administrator (Quesada,
1992). Others have opposed the swaps on the grounds
that the foreign debt itself is illegitimate and should not
be subject to this type of bargaining. Despite these
objections, it seems likely that donor groups and con-
servationists will continue to pursue debt-for-nature
swaps as long as external debt is available on the sec-
ondary market at a substantial discount. See Table 9.

6. Human capacity in protected
areas management

South American protected areas are characterized by
limited personnel who receive low salaries and lack the

equipment necessary to fulfil their functions. Training
opportunities are few (Ponce, Gallo and Moore, 1989).
In South America the only facilities exclusively devoted
to personnel working in protected areas are at the Training
Center of Bariloche (Argentina) and the Training Center
of Rancho Grande (Venezuela). Some professionals
have been able to attend the courses given at the Center
for Tropical Agricultural Research and Training
(CATIE), in Costa Rica, or regular programmes offered
at European and American universities. But this is
exceptional, since most of the South American coun-
tries cannot afford the cost of such training and fellow-
ships for these courses have been very scarce.

NGOs are actively cooperating in training efforts. For
example, in Ecuador, Fundacién Natura, with the tech-
nical assistance of The Nature Conservancy, offered
two courses in 1991 for protected area managers, con-
servation officers, and guards. These courses were held
in different protected areas and covered, management-
related themes; the planning process and design of
infrastructure; and environmental interpretation facili-
ties.

Training activities carried out in cooperation with
FAO/UNEP have been significant, including (FAO/
UNEP, 1992a):

@ International workshops on protected areas which
focused on management of mountain ecosystems,
environmental interpretation, project formulation,
research, the Amazon, local communities, manage-
ment of wildlife species for sustainable use, man-
agement of Biosphere Reserves, and tourism policies.
Technical Documents have been published after
each workshop, following its subject matter. These
documents are based on the accounts presented by
each representative of the countries involved, in
accordance with guidelines on format sent previous
to each workshop. By the end of 1992, twelve tech-
nical documents had been prepared.

@ Numerous technical interchanges which have in-
cluded visits by specialists from other countries of
the region to obtain direct knowledge of specific
Situations, to share experiences, or to supply direct
technical advice.

@ Publication of the bulletin "Flora, Fauna y Areas
Silvestres” every four months. Articles include edi-
torials, technical reports, presentations with ideas on
how to resolve practical problems, information on
research projects, notices of general interest, and
information on species of flora and fauna. To date,
sixteen issues of the bulletin— widely distributed in
South America—have been published.

@ Publication of a newsletter which summarizes the
activities of the Network, its future work program-
mes, and other information of general interest to
institutions and professionals linked to its subject
matter. To date, twenty-three issues of the newslet-
ter have been published.

South America

7. Priorities for future investment
in protected areas

The decade of the eighties was characterized by the
uncontrolled increase of external debt in South American
countries, and a growing impossibility to pay it. This
situation produced a tremendous social-economic crisis
that led inevitably to the adoption of adjustment policies
which in turn affected environmental policies. In
some cases, this debt—despite the efforts to reduce it
—continues to increase and is consuming economic
resources. Countries have succeeded in generating the
necessary revenue only at the cost of exporting their
natural resources. Another consequence of this situation
is less funding for the effective management of pro-
tected areas in the region.

During recent years, various studies have been carried
out, of the major threats to protected areas in the region.
In 1990 a survey was conducted, with partial support
from WWF-US, to evaluate the current state of protected
area management in Latin America (Torres, 1990).
Information was gathered from 249 protected areas,
finding that only 30% of the areas had a management
plan, and of these, only 5% were implementing it; 28%
had an annual operational plan; 5% had a research
programme regarding basic resources with the aim of
supporting management objectives; and 4% had ade-
quate educational or interpretative programmes. Fur-
ther, 66% of the areas had no type of equipment to allow
the achievement of management objectives—29% were
partially equipped and 5% were inadequately equipped;
less than 1% had enough trained personnel to attain
management goals; and nearly 70% received neither
financial or technical support of any sort from the
government. Given this alarming situation, major in-
vestment is required in almost all aspects of protected
area management in the region.

Another research project, which was carried out in
1991 with support from GTZ and IUCN, studied local
populations inhabiting South American national parks.
Park administrators were sent questionnaires as a means
to determine the problems afflicting 184 national parks
(Amend and Amend, 1992). According to this survey,
the problems (both proximate and ultimate are included)
detected in the region, in descending order, are:

1) Extraction of natural resources from the park (33.1%);
2) Lack of qualified personnel (27.0%);

3) Land tenure problems (21.6%);

4) Agriculture and Livestock grazing (20.3%);

5) Inadequate planning of the management of the
national park (16.9%);

6) Illegal occupation (16.9%);
7) Inadequate or undefined park boundaries (16.2%);
8) Lack of control and surveillance (16.2%);
9) Fires (12.8%);
10) Legal occupation (12.2%);

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

11) Lack of financial resources (11.5%);

12) Inadequate park infrastructure and on-site facili-
ties (11.5%);

13) Settlement in areas surrounding the park (10.8%);

14) Mining activities and oil drilling (10.1%);

15) Pressure from tourism (8.8%);

16) Pollution (6.1%);

17) Lack of political and institutional support (6.1%);

18) Public constructions (5.4%);

19) Guerrilla or drug trafficking activities (4.7%); and

20) Introduction of exotic species (2.7%).

8. Major protected areas issues in
the region

8.1. Human populations in protected
areas

Regardless of whether they are migrant or permanent
settlers, human populations in South American pro-
tected areas can be basically divided into four groups
which differ in the way resources are used: Tribal groups;
ethnic groups undergoing an acculturation process; exter-
nal occupants who carry out extractive activities look-
ing for a profit, either for personal purposes or as part
of a large-scale business; and occupants who are con-
sidered settlers and carry out agricultural activities.

Indigenous groups with a tribal pattern of life are
found mainly in the Amazon Basin, exploiting natural
resources of the region on a sustainable basis. They
practice hunting, fishing, wild fruit gathering, and sub-
sistence agroforestry (Rojas y Castafio, 1990).

Ethnic groups undergoing an acculturation process
have slowly, over past centuries, incorporated external
material and spiritual values. In most cases, they have
gradually replaced their traditional life patterns with
other models. These groups are found in all the coun-
tries of the region, particularly in the Andes. They have
historically used resources for subsistence, and their
presence in protected areas of different categories is
internationally accepted as long as they live in harmony
with the environment (IUCN, 1990b).

Although the main objective of establishing new pro-
tected areas in the region has been environmental con-
servation and not the protection of their indigenous
inhabitants (Poole, 1990), this situation is now chang-
ing. Cultural values are more frequently incorporated in
decisions to establish or extend protected areas. Two
principal reasons have motivated this change in attitude:
a growing interest with the destiny of local communities
who constitute a part of the cultural and historical
heritage of their nations; and the compatibility of the
traditional activities with the conservation objectives of
protected areas (Rojas y Castafio, 1990).

In addition, indigenous people have had little means
to create a movement in defence of their rights.

However, this situation too is changing. A Coordinating
Group of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon
Basin (COICA) has been created, representing 327
indigenous tribes of Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil,
Ecuador, and Peri. Voices defending indigenous peo-
ple are beginning to be heard in other countries of the
region as well, and several laws are being studied to
protect their territories and their rights.

Indigenous rights are currently being defended by
local and international non-governmental organizations,
by indigenous leaders, and by environmental leaders.
Governments and international organizations are gradu-
ally reacting to this pressure, either by legislating in
favour of these minorities or by providing them with
support.

In Venezuela, MOIIN (Indigenous Movement for
National Identity) has vowed to protect the natural
resources of territories occupied by indigenous commu-
nities, to maintain their territorial as well as social-
cultural unity. In Perd, AIDESEP (Interethnic
Association for Development of the Peruvian Jungle)
considers the best way to protect the environment is to
recognize and defend indigenous territories, promoting
their patterns of life. Moreover, AIDESEP has proposed
that future external debt swaps focus on indigenous
territories, with the goal of returning the stewardship
and care of forests to their ancestral owners. They have
also emphasized that debt swaps should not focus on
land purchase, but on funding to support conservation
in general.

Towards the end of the 1980s, the Colombian govern-
ment explicitly recognized the rights of the indigenous
people that live in the national territory, since they
constitute an important population of nearly 450,000
persons who "represent an invaluable social and cul-
tural facet of the country" (Colombia, 1989). This pol-
icy is closely linked to environmental policy, and its
purpose is to organize, protect, recover, and promote
sustainable use of natural resources, particularly in the
fragile environments of the tropical forests. A total of
81 Colombian indigenous groups occupy extensive
territories in the Amazon Basin, the Pacific coast, the
natural savannas on the eastem side of the country, the
semi-arid peninsula of La Guajira, and the Andean
lands.

In accordance with this general framework, Colombia
has initiated a series of programmes to guarantee in-
digenous people access to the land and ensure the best
interests of renewable natural resources within their
territories. The country has promoted the establishment
of two management categories in particular: "resguar-
dos indigenas" (lands with communal titles, owned by
the indigenous peoples; and "reservas indigenas" (gov-
ernment-owned lands managed by the indigenous peo-
ples). In Colombia, these cover an area close to 26
million ha (i.e. 25 per cent of national territory}—13
million of which are located in the Amazonian region
(Rojas y Castafio, 1990). Some national parks such as
Cahuinari, La Paya, and Chiribiquete share their

borders with "resguardos” or "reservas," or are located
within these territories. The integration of indigenous
communities has been achieved in the management of
Amacayaci National Natural Park and of Cahuinari
National Park.

Ecuador, in its Strategy for the National Protected
Areas System (1989), includes nine management cate-
gories to provide adequate orientation for the manage-
ment of its areas. One of these management categories
—"Indigenous Territories"—is defined as "areas which
maintain their natural characteristics because modern
technological influence has not interfered with the tra-
ditional use of resources and with the patterns of life of
the region’s indigenous inhabitants.” The government
has further stated that, "the aim of these areas is to
ensure that the societies, nationalities, or groups that
inhabit them maintain their singularity and will have the
opportunity to continue to evolve and promote the man/
nature interrelation they have achieved. These lands
should be owned by the community, so as to ensure the
best interests and continued existence of the native
societies which reside there—as a means of promoting
their particular value as a culture. Scientific research is
a secondary objective" (MAG/Fundacién Natura, 1989).

Currently, two indigenous territories have been estab-
lished and three new areas have been proposed. Partici-
pation of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities
of Ecuador (CONAIE) was crucial in guaranteeing the
Awa community’s interests (Poole, 1990).

In Brazil, as a solution to the conflicts between IBAMA’s
environmental policies and FUNAI’s (National Foun-
dation for the Indian) policies related to indigenous
affairs, the creation of "florestas nacional" (national
forests), and "reservas extrativistas" (extractive reserves)
is being promoted. The "reservas extrativistas" are de-
fined as natural areas that have not been greatly dis-
turbed and are occupied by social groups that base their
subsistence on activities that fall under the concept of
sustainable management of resources. These include
the gathering of native fruits anc small-scale fishing
carried out according to traditional practices. The "flore-
Stas nacionais" are areas with a forest cover composed
mainly of native species, suitable for the sustainable
production of wood and other forest products, for the
management of wildlife, and for recreational activi-
ties—in accordance with the objectives of the areas.

External occupants who carry out extractive activities
for commercial or industrial profit constitute threats for
many South American parks—especially when these
activities are supported by large scale businesses. In the
Brazilian Amazon, for example, this type of activity has
produced concentrations of large numbers of "garim-
peiros"—gold miners. This small-scale mining causes
serious mercury pollution, since that element is used to
separate the gold from the sand of rivers. Gold mining
is the fastest growing activity in the Ecuadorian Ama-
zon region. In a short period, it has led to the migration
of thousands of people to primary forest zones. This has

365

South America

also produced indiscriminate logging of tropical for-
ests—either for commercial use of the wood, or to plant
grasses for cattle grazing. In addition, the Ecuadorian
Mining Institute has given out concessions within pro-
tected natural areas of the Amazon—such as Sangay
and Podocarpus National Parks and Cayambe-Coca
Ecological Reserve (Savia, 1990). Intensive gold min-
ing has also occurred in the Colombian Chocé region
and the States of Bolivar and Amazonas in Venezuela.

These extemal occupants also utilize significant quantities
of wildlife. In some areas, many species that have been
widely hunted are being negatively affected—particularly
those that can provide fur and hides. Trade has increased
in live animals for commercial use as pets, and for use
in laboratory experiments, with live primates and par-
rots, and reptile and feline hides, originating especially
from protected areas where effective control of the
territory has not been achieved.

Among the occupants considered as settlers are farm-
ers who maintain small crops for family subsistence and
practice migratory grazing of goats, sheep and cattle.
The presence of these occupants causes conflicts be-
cause their land use patterns, are usually opposed to
conservation objectives. However, in most cases, the
occupants were inhabiting the region before the estab-
lishment of the protected area. Park authorities are
poorly prepared for integrating people into protected
areas, and government funds are lacking for such activi-
ties.

The most serious problem facing some protected
areas is marijuana, amapola, and coca cultivation prac-
tised by settlers within area boundaries—particularly in
Bolivia, Colombia, and Peri. These drugs are inter-
planted with other crops or are simply cultivated in
zones that are not controlled. Settlers linked to these
activities may obtain incomes many times higher than
those they would obtain from other agricultural activi-
ties. The eradication of these cultivation areas involves,
in increasing measure, the use of powerful chemical
agents (herbicides) with polluting effects that are un-
questionable (MOPU, 1990).

In general terms, a "protectionist" mentality persists
in the management of protected areas in South America,
and successful work with local communities has seldom
been achieved. Systematic methodologies to bring about
the efficient participation of local people have not yet
been developed. In the majority of the cases, while these
communities have been considered as an element that
must work for the protection of natural resources, their
own needs have been disregarded. There has been no
real work to inform communities about the direct or
indirect benefits these areas can provide. Instead, exces-
sive emphasis has been placed on the alleged benefits
that would result from mass tourism.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

8.2 Research in protected areas

At the regional level, there is a growing awareness of
the importance of protected areas for scientific research.
Because of their special characteristics, these areas are
expected to remain relatively unaltered from their natu-
ral condition. South American countries have not fully
developed research in protected areas, due to the tradi-
tional lack of human and financial resources and the
lack of national policies and guidelines to regulate
research within protected areas. National protected areas
agencies assign an average of 18% of their budgets for
research. Ecuador assigns 25%, and is among the coun-
tries with highest budgets for research. Argentina and
Venezuela assign 2.2% and 2.5% respectively, and are
among the countries with lowest budgets. Bolivia
assigns no budget for research.

An International Workshop on Research in Protected
Areas, held in Galapagos, Ecuador, in March, 1989,
concluded that: the majority of protected areas in the
region lack infrastructure for adequate development of
scientific research; none of the countries charge for
rights to conduct research; all of the countries have
signed an agreement with national and/or international
organizations— especially universities—to carry out
research in protected areas; six of the countries have
personnel exclusively dedicated to research in protected
areas, but research in the others is carried out through
contracts and/or agreements with universities and re-
search institutes; and research guidelines do not always
coincide with current research needs that address im-
proving management of the areas.

8.3 Regional initiatives

Border protected areas

In South America, nine protected areas are located on
the border of a country, with another protected area
across the borderline (Marchetti, Oltremari, and Peters,
1992). These areas are:

Los Katios/Darién (Colombia/Panama)

El Tama (Colombia/Venezuela)

Do Pico da Neblina/La Neblina (Brazil/Venezuela)

Manuripi Heath/Pampas del Heath (Bolivia/Peri)

Sajama/Lauca (Bolivia/Chile)

Iguazu/do Iguacu (Argentina/Brazil)

Lanin/Villarrica (Argentina/Chile)

Nahuel Huapi/Puyehue and Vicente Pérez Rosales
(Argentina/Chile)

Los Glaciares/Bemardo O’ Higgins and Torres del
Paine (Argentina/Chile)

Marchetti, Oltremari, and Peters, (1992) synthesized
the situation of these border areas in the following
manner:

Each country has followed its own style of develop-
ment in the creation of protected wildlands, using dif-
ferent systems to classify ecological environments and

366

different management categories; the majority of border
protected areas are highly attractive to tourists; the
majority contain human populations of different kinds,
who have migrated from one area to another and gen-
erated important environmental changes; in almost all
of the countries have management plans for protected
wild border areas, though planning processes and later
execution have been carried out in a unilateral manner;
and the legal frameworks that apply to these territories
differ—some countries have specific laws, while others
have incomplete decrees or laws.

The countries participating in the Amazonian Co-
operation Treaty (ACT) have recommended the creation
of the following border protected areas in the Amazon
Basin:

(a) Venezuela-Brazil: The southern border of Canaima
National Park in Venezuela should be expanded
in order for it to connect with Monte Roraima
National Park in Brazil.

Brazil-Perd: Peri has planned a project to estab-
lish to establish a protected area in the vicinity of
Brazil’s Serra Do Divisor National Park.

Brazil-Peri: It is recommended that Peri create an
area that will neighbour with Rio Ocre Ecological
Station in Brazil.

Brazil-Colombia-Peru: In the border areas of these
three countries, there is only one protected area—
Amacayact National Park in Colombia. It is rec-
ommended that similar areas be created in the
other two countries.

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e) Bolivia-Brazil: Bolivia’s Noel Kempff Mercado
National Park is located on the border with Brazil.
It has been recommended that establishment of a
similar protected area in the same zone be consid-

ered by the latter.

The coordinated management, by two or more coun-
tries, of these protected border areas would make use of
resources more effective. Actions that could be carried
out include tourism development, joint scientific re-
search, information exchange, and preparation of co-
ordinated protection programmes and regulations for
the rational use of protected areas and their buffer zones
(Rojas y Castafio, 1990).

Regional agreements

The following regional programmes, treaties, or agree-
ments related to the protection of resources have been
used in South America:

w Amazon Cooperation Treaty (Brasilia, Brazil; 1978).
Ratified by Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana,
Peni, Suriname, and Venezuela.

Convention for the Conservation and Management
of Vicufia (Lima, Peri; 1979). Ratified by Argen-
tina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peni.

Convenci6én del Pacifico Sur. Ratified by Colombia,
Chile, Ecuador, and Peru.

In addition, the Convention on Nature Protection and
Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere
(Western Hemisphere Convention) (Washington, 1940)
has been ratified by all of the South American countries
except Guyana. It has been used to foster significant
cooperation on protected areas.

In October 1990, the Seventh Meeting on the Envi-
ronment in Latin America and the Caribbean approved
an Action Plan for the Environment in Latin America
and the Caribbean, prepared by UNEP upon request
from the Sixth Ministerial Meeting on the Environment
in Latin America and the Caribbean, held in Brasilia,
Brazil, in May 1989. The governments of the region
considered it "appropriate to define a common position
regarding the main political/ environmental issues, at
the regional and global level." The Action Plan includes
the following programmes:

Protection of both natural areas and cultural heritage;
Management of national and international river basins;
Conservation of biological diversity;
Environmental education;

Developmental and environmental planning; and

Management of protected areas.
8.4 Importance of environmental
non-governmental organizations
(NGOs)

Environmental NGOs have experienced a rapid growth
in South America especially during the 1980s as a
response to public concern and to the inefficiency,
short-sightedness, and chronic lack of resources of gov-
emmental organizations. Brazil has the greatest number
of environmental NGOs in South America—there are
more than 500. Among the most important are founda-
tions, which are able to receive donations from the
private sector in exchange for fiscal incentives. Forty-
two South American environmental NGOs are mem-
bers of IUCN and participate in conservation projects
and activities supported by that institution. Major ob-
jectives of South American environmental NGOs in-
clude (FAO/UNEP, 1989b):

= To contribute to the preservation of threatened or
endangered species;

To educate the public about subjects related to the
conservation of nature;

To support and inspire educational and research
projects concerning conservation of nature;

To persuade national governments of the impor-
tance of protected areas and the natural environ-
ment, ie., lobbying;

To promote the establishment of protected areas for
wildlife;

To promote improved legislation dealing with the
conservation of wildlife and its habitat; and

367

South America

@ Tocooperate with governmental organizations, groups,
or persons, in aspects concerning the conservation
of nature.

Nevertheless, environmental NGOs of the region have
been the subject of a wide range of criticism. They have
been accused of being elitist institutions; being driven
more by enthusiasm and passion than by science and
professionalism; lacking a knowledge of natural re-
source management or administration; and being sub-
ordinate to conservation groups in the United States. In
addition, they have been criticized for competing for
international funds and for having very limited or non-
existent public membership (Myers and Bucher, 1989).

A more balanced view is that, during the past decade,
environmental NGOs of the region and many other
non-governmental organizations with international pro-
grammes have had an important role in the defence of
protected areas and other conservation-related issues.
In many countries, they have contributed to the awak-
ening of public awareness, resulting in both greater
public and governmental support to protected areas.

8.5 Tourism and protected areas

In 1992 an International Workshop on the Tourism
Policies in National Parks and other Protected Areas
was sponsored by FAO/UNDP. This meeting, which
was attended by representatives of eight South American
countries, discussed the benefits that are generated by
tourism in protected areas. Principal conclusions drawn
were these (FAO/UNEP, 1992b; Oltremari, 1993):

@ In general, facilities and services for visitors in
protected areas are few. While many wildlands have
installations such as paths, shelters, sites for camp-
ing, visitor centres, parking lots, and lookout points,
these are not sufficient either to satisfy the growing
demands of tourists or to produce economic reve-
nues of any importance. Larger installations, such
as hotels and guest houses, are found only in places
where the investment is very specific. This absence
of large-scale infrastructure is beneficial from the
point of view of conserving areas in their natural
state, but it deprives protected areas of potential
revenues which could be reinvested in management.
Tourism in general, occupies a relatively secondary
place in the economy of most of the countries. The
economic benefits obtained from protected areas are
insignificant, due to the low tariffs which have been
applied and the lack of a developed infrastructure.

Investment in tourism development in protected areas
arises principally from government institutions. How-
ever, this tendency has been changing in recent
years, and much more active participation on the
part of private investors can be envisioned.

In most countries, tourism in protected areas, along
with tourism in general, is a growing activity though

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

@ reliable statistics that measure its magnitude are not
available. The majority of South American coun-
tries consider the growing demand for nature tour-
ism to be still low in relationship to the potential
carrying capacity. But tourism is growing without
much planning, control, or adequate administration
making it difficult to harmonize primary objectives
of conservation with programmes for public use.

Tourism in protected areas has not brought about
significant national and social benefits, but in sev-
eral countries, the contribution of tourism activity
as a generator of social benefits at the local level is
important. Exceptions include Gal4pagos National
Park in Ecuador, which generates annual revenues
close to US$560,000 (Blockhus er al., 1992), and
entry fees for Morrocoy National Park in Venezuela
reach approximately US$50,000 each year.

9. Priorities for action in the region

This chapter has shown that South America supports
important biological diversity, generated by its remark-
able variety of soils, climates, and topography. Conser-
vation of this biodiversity constitutes an essential means
of guaranteeing the economic, social and environmental
security of its people. However, the region is losing
these resources at an accelerated rate, as a result of
over-exploitation of resources, introduction of exotic
species, and pollution in various forms. Governments
are growing to realize the role of protected areas in
maintaining essential ecological processes, conserving
diversity of species and genetic variety, and providing
a tool for defending key environments for sustainable
use of natural resources.

However, apart from the fact that these areas alone
are not sufficient to guarantee the conservation of bio-
diversity, South American protected areas are confront-
ing numerous problems. Outstanding among these are
the insufficient coverage of important ecosystems, a
lack of mechanisms that would permit local communi-
ties to obtain some benefit from this type of land use,
the institutional weaknesses of the organizations in
charge of their management and development, a lack of
planning to confront current challenges, and a scarcity
of trained personnel for their management and protec-
tion. As a consequence of the above, many countries
lack policies, legal instruments, and appropriate strate-
gies to efficiently guide their course of action.

The conclusions presented below summarize the di-
verse requirements that have been discussed at many
regional meetings. This section does not pretend to be
a plan of action, but rather a contribution to stimulate
more definite preparation of the actions required, often
at the national level. As with any programme of this
type, in order to be truly effective and achieve full
application and implementation, ample participation of
all sectors involved and a lengthy process of discussion
and maturation are required.

368

The ultimate goal is to achieve a better quality of life
through activities which: protect the environment and
natural areas; contribute to increasing economic
welfare; and collaborate in improving social equity. To
reach this goal, the following priority actions—ordered
arbitrarily by theme only for presentation purposes—
have been identified.

9.1 Critical issues

The analysis presented in this chapter indicates that,
taking South America as a whole, the following issues
are of central importance:

1) While the biogeographical regions are fully repre-
sented in the South American protected area sys-
tem, analysis at the ecosystem or life zone level
reveals many gaps.

2) National policies and laws are weak and often

contradictory.

3) Government protected area management agencies

are stagnating or declining.
4) Management agencies generally have a protec-
tionist mentality, and relatively little work is being
carried out with interest groups and local commu-
nities.
5) Trained personnel are generally lacking especially
among government agencies.

6) Inmost cases, the field management of protected

areas is either poor or non-existent.

9.2 Strategic actions needed

These critical issues indicate that the support base for
protected areas in South America is weak. To reverse
the negative trends, a strategic approach, based on iden-
tifying, broadening, and mobilizing support groups,
seems to be an essential requirement. This general
approach needs to be implemented by the following
strategic actions:

1) Use of participatory research and planning tech-
niques.

2) Critical attention to funding mechanisms, both at
regional and national levels.

3) Training programmes that emphasize participa-
tory processes, conflict resolution, and harmoni-
zation of interests.

4) Clear definition of the roles and functions of inter-

national organizations, governmental agencies, NGOs,
communities and private enterprise, and the estab-
lishment of mechanisms for coordination.

9.3 Principles for implementing the

strategic actions

In implementing the strategic actions outlined above,
several basic principles should be followed:

South America

9.4 Investment priorities

In order to put into motion the strategic actions outlined
above, the following long-term investments are needed
as a matter of urgency:

1) Existing institutions should be strengthened where 1) Executive training of strategic planning and sup-
possible, especially existing FAO and CNPPA port building for the heads of protected area man-
networks. agement agencies, both governmental and non-

2) Actions should focus on underlying causes as well ENCES,
as symptoms. 2) Reinforcement of the system planning and review

3) Technical assistance projects should, as much as eS 7H ane! country, giving particular empha-
possible, be small-scale and long-term. As a rule, Pewee inthe
eee ee ae bee eects 3) Development of a regional institution to focus

r Pee years ec teases tn specifically on building training capacities at the
suppo! national level.

4) cokers haiesite git sae rae 4) Establishment of a regional investment service to
eOOpStano te eich See among co- promote standards for technical assistance pro-
aS as a Ae jects, facilitate communications between donors

5) Priorities for technical assistance should address and implementing agencies, and assist in develop-
institution building instead of focusing on "bio- ing national trust funds and other innovative fund-
logical hotspots". ing mechanisms.

References

Abramovitz, J.N. 1991. Investing in Biological Diversity:
US Research and Conservation Efforts in Developing
Countries. World Resources Institute. Washington
DC, USA.

Amend, S. & T. Amend, (ed.) 1992. ;Espacios sin Habi-
tantes? Parques Nacionales de América del Sur. Edi-
torial Nueva Sociedad, Caracas, Venezuela. Unién
Mundial para la Naturaleza.

Blockhus, J.M., M.R. Dillenbeck, J.A. Sayer, and P.
Wegge. 1992. Conserving Biological Diversity in
Managed Tropical Forests. YUCN, Gland, Switzer-
land and Cambridge UK.

CDC—Paraguay. 1990. Areas Prioritarias para la Conser-
vacion en la Regién Oriental del Paraguay. Direccién
de Parques Nacionales-Centro de Datos para la Con-
servaci6n (CDC). Asuncién, Paraguay.

CDC-UNALM. 1991. Plan Director del Sistema Nacional
de Unidades de Conservacién (SINUC). Una aprox-
imaci6n desde la diversidad biolégica.

Comisién Amazénica de Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente.
1992. Amazonia sin Mitos. Banco Interamericano de
Desarrollo/Programa de Naciones Unidas para el De-
sarrollo/Tratado de Cooperacién Amazénica.
Washington, DC, New York, N.Y., USA. and Quito,
Ecuador.

Colombia. 1989. Politica del Gobierno Nacional para la
defensa de los derechos indigenas y la Conservacién
Ecolégica de la Cuenca Amazénica. Caja Agraria,
Colombia.

369

FAO/UNEP. 1986. Un Sistema de Areas Silvestres Pro-
tegidas para el Gran Chaco. Documento Técnico Nol.
Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO
para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile.

FAO/UNEP. 1989b. Directorio de Instituciones: Parques
Nacionales, otras Areas Protegidas, Flora y Fauna
Silvestre. Documento Técnico N® 6. Proyecto
FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para
América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile.

FAO/UNEP. 1992a. Informe de la Cuarta Reunidn de la
Red Latinoamericana de Cooperacién Técnica en
Parques Nacionales, otras Areas Protegidas, Flora y
Fauna Silvestres. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina
Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe.
Santiago, Chile.

FAO/UNEP. 1992b. Informe del Taller Internacional so-
bre Politicas de Turismo en Parques Nacionales y otras
Areas Protegidas. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina
Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe.
Santiago, Chile.

FAO/UNEP/US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Informe
de la Mesa Redonda Internacional de Encargados de
Fauna Silvestre de los paises del Cono Sur. Proyecto
FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para
América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile.

Hajek, E. 1991. La situacién ambiental en América Latina.
Algunos estudios de casos. Introduccién. Centro Inter-
disciplinario de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo Latinoameri-
cano (CIEDLA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

IDBAIUCN. 1992. Parks and Protected Areas in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Draft report prepared
by IUCN for the Inter-American Development Bank
based on proceedings from the World Parks Con-
gress in Caracas.

IUCN. 1986. Plan de Accién Nahuel Huapi para las
Areas Protegidas de la Regién Neotropical. IUCN,
Gland, Suiza.

IUCN. 1990b. Manejo de Areas Protegidas en los Trépicos.
IUCN, Gland, Suiza and Cambridge, Royaume Uni.

IUCN. 1992. South American Camelids: An Action
Plan for their Conservation. UCN Species Survival
Commission, Gland, CH. 58pp.

Latin American and Caribbean Commission on Devel-
opment and Environment. 1990. Our Own Agenda.
Inter-American Development Bank/United Nations
Develpment Programme. Washington, DC and New
York, N.Y., USA.

MAG-Fundaci6n Natura. 1989. Estrategia para el Sistema
Nacional de Areas Protegidas del Ecuador, II Fase.
Quito, Ecuador.

Marchetti, B.; Oltremari, J. and Peters, H. 1992. Manejo
de dreas silvestres protegidas fronterizas en América
Latina. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional
de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe.
Santiago, Chile.

MARNR. 1989. Marco Conceptual del Plan del Sistema
Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas. Serie In-
formes Técnicos DGSPOA/IT/295. Documento en
Revisién. Caracas, Venezuela.

McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R.; Reid, W.V.; Mittermeier,
R.A. and Wemer, T.B. 1990. Conserving the World’ s
Biological Diversity. (UCN, Gland, Suiza; WRI, CI,
WWF-US, and the World Bank. Gland, Switzerland
and Washington, DC, USA.

Mittermeier, R.A.; Malone, S.; Plotkin, M.; Baal, F.;
Mohadin, K., MacKnight, J.; Werkhoven, M. and
Werner, T. 1990. Conservation Action Plan for
Suriname. STINASU, CI, LBB, WWF, University
of Suriname.

Moore, A. y Ormazdbal, C.S. 1988. Manual de Planifi-
cacién de Sistemas Nacionales de Areas Silvestres
Protegidas en América Latina. Documento Técnico
N? 4. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de
la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago,
Chile.

MOPU. 1990. Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente en America
Latina y el Caribe. Centro de Publicaciones Minis-
terio de Obras Puiblicas y Urbanismo. Madrid,
Espafia.

Oltremari, J.; Paredes, G. and Real, P. 1981. Meto-
dologia para la reclasificacién y redelimitacién de
parques nacionales y reservas forestales en Chile.
CONAF/UNDP/FAO Project CHI/76/003, Docu-
mento de Trabajo 42. Santiago, Chile.

Oltremari, J. 1993. El turismo en los parques nacionales
y otras areas protegidas de América Latina. Docu-
mento Técnico N® 11. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA.
Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y
el Caribe. Santiago, Chile (en imprenta).

370

Ormazabal, C.S. 1988. Sistemas Nacionales de Areas
Silvestres Protegidas en América Latina. Documento
Técnico N® 3. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Re-
gional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe.
Santiago, Chile.

Ponce, A.S., Gallo, N. and Moore A. 1989. Programa
de Capacitacién del Personal del Sistema Nacional
de Areas Protegidas del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador.

Poole, P. 1990. Desarrollo de Trabajo Conjunto entre
Pueblos Indigenas, Conservacionistas y Planificadores
del Uso de la Tierra en América Latina. CATIE,
Turrialba, Costa Rica.

Putney, A. 1976. Estrategia Preliminar para la conser-
vacién de dreas silvestres sobresalientes del Ecuador.
PNUD/FAO-ECU/71/527. Documento de Trabajo 17.
Quito, Ecuador.

Quesada, C. 1992. Canje de deuda externa por natu-
raleza. Memoria de Seminario/Taller. Oficina Re-
gional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe.
Santiago, Chile.

Rojas, M. y Castafio, C. 1990. Areas Protegidas de la
Cuenca del Amazonas: Diagnéstico preliminar de
su estado actual y revisién de las politicas formu-
ladas para su manejo. INDERENA/FAO/TCA.
Bogota, Colombia.

Savia. 1990. Boletin Trimestral de la Red Latinoamericana
de Bosques Tropicales, N 3, Octubre 1990. Fun-
dacién Natura. Quito, Ecuador.

Smithsonian MAB News. 1992. Biodiversity. N® 2.
Winter 1992. Washington DC, USA.

Southgate, D. 1991. Influencia de las politicas en el uso
y la gestién de los recursos naturales renovables de
América Latina. En: Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente.
Hacia un enfoque integrador. Corporacién de Inves-
tigaciones Econémicas de Latinoamérica (CIEPLAN).
Santiago, Chile.

Thelen, K.D. and Miller, K.R. 1976. Guia para sistemas
de areas protegidas, conuna aplicacion a los parques
nacionales de Chile. Documento Técnico de Tra-
bajo 16, Proyecto FAO-RLAT TF 199. Santiago,
Chile.

TNC 1990. Parks in Peril, A Conservation Partnership
for the Americas. The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington VA., USA.

TNC. 1991. Officially Sanctioned Debt-for-Nature-
Swaps to Date (As of November, 1992). Unpub-
lished paper prepared by the Nature Conservancy.
Arlington, VA., USA.

TNC. 1992a. "Brazil Approves First Debt-Nature-
Swap". TNC News Release. The Nature Conser-
vancy. Arlington, VA., USA.

TNC. 1992b. In lit. 12/14/92. The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington, VA., USA.

Torres, H. 1990. The Status of Protected Areas Man-
agement in Latin America. Yale University, School
of Forestry and Environmental Studies. New Haven,
Connecticut, USA (Unpublished paper).

Wetterberg, G.B. and Jorge Padua, M.T. Soares de
Catro, C. and Vasconcello, J.M. 1976. Uma Andlise
de Prioridades em Conservaao da Natureza na

Amazonia-PNUD/FAO/IBDF/BRA-45, Srie Tcnica
No 8, 62pp.

Wetterberg, G.B. and Jorge Padua, M.T. 1978. Preser-
vacao da natureza na Amazonia Brasileira: situacao
em 1978. PNUD/FAO/IBDF/BRA/76/02 Serie Tec-
nica No. 13. Brasilia. 44pp.

South America

Wetterberg, G.B., M.T. Jorge-Padua y C.F. Ponce del
Prado. 1985. Decade of progress for South Americal
National Parks. International Affairs Office of the
National Parks Service. US. Department of the In-
terior. Washington, DC, USA.

371

yeni:

‘ee chanel cries? vie A canmcuatigrommta.

‘civ ian ony Vere MNS Cotarre ‘iladty AS Aig
ivcreativ abet doh Lancia ~ patie al ht Wh aetna ace ' teat naan
‘ ecantl Aid caine aan Maman cepa Ler =iuipret pteinmnea dh asaIN
— a ee: fa an ae Sieh igi wire iol cape ROSE eh Bat" KOENOAMOL a,
e Fi
_ ee ee + FERED | ‘Si pat a

ae Fel he wy Pnéhicadloneh cai
elirce Laelia! Chr i
hers 1 Pell nit pore ti ages
omar sobeiodun et ana, J
2, Tatyaiettt a =_— 2 as

r: alt ae beads ex ‘cms eg

i) Spi (ieee tor T ee
iets Getina’ ha

ae ’

ak Y

t WT neem en

Wu a"
tom fh Bebe, eae Red
: ie. thr entoere necsbes, St)

feats een, Ces, Ecler
nie ny vy AR News youn Be
rhe Vaahmgion DC USAT
5. AE Snead pal
, Sh pail So ke fre cma putea
> Neticidcs §.takia: en: ‘eginnlo7y Mle
ss e sf Rye youl mya jcuoyradtar. € Caer Cm
“ visa Marea‘ ican de | i ii
us i ate: a
tam, 0h sd MAI ROR Bling
Gp dees feOtmginlas, Covel “pai
Seppe de Ohilic, Beoce 09, ‘Perit
oe mm, Pray nom PAORLAT bai i>
.. oon ie <r
Te Huis in Pog, K Cosiie areata
Eh she havicicas, The Nelave Col
Atunpiat' VA. ma r
Dey. aap 5
seen De

aaa eT
a

oe
7

Caracas Action Plan

1. Introduction

The late 20th century is a time of unprecedented eco-
logical, political, and economic change. In responding
to such change, governments are calling for increased
intemational cooperation to achieve forms of develop-
ment which are sustainable. A significant contribution
to the debate came from the IV World Congress on
National Parks and Protected Areas, held in Caracas,
Venezuela, from 10 to 21 February 1992. Participants
at this once-a-decade meeting reviewed and re-defined
policy and adopted a Declaration and conclusions
which have far-reaching implications for humanity.

A few months later, the policies articulated at the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-
opment (the Earth Summit, held in June 1992 in Rio de
Janiero, Brazil), reaffirmed that protected areas can
actively benefit people everywhere, and should there-
fore be considered an important part of the sustainable
development process. The theme of the Caracas Con-
gress, Parks for Life, underlined that point.

Protected areas are needed in order to safeguard bio-
logical diversity in its own right and as an asset for the
future. They provide many services to humanity, rang-
ing from the practical to the aesthetic: from watershed
protection to spiritual inspiration. Indeed, they are often
the most effective form of land use, in economic as well
as ecological terms. The global list of protected areas
which now includes over 8,500 sites protecting some
850 million hectares in more than 120 countries indi-
cates government commitment to ensuring that this
generation passes on to future generations a world
which is at least as diverse and productive as the one we
enjoy today.

However, these assets are under increasing threat
because of a dramatic expansion in human demands
upon the environment: demands which have their ori-
gins in exponential population growth, waste, and ex-
cessive consumption. As a result, the decade of the
1990s, perhaps more than any previous period in human
history, can be expected to witness intense competition
for the use of natural resources and accelerating rates of
change on a global scale which will affect the even the
most fundamental resources on which people depend:

375

air, soil and water. If protected areas are to be a success-
ful form of land use, they must adapt to these changes.

This Action Plan was generated by the Congress as a
vehicle for converting the rich, diverse, and complex
experience of Caracas into a simple and straight-for-
ward framework for collective action by professionals
involved with protected areas. It is supported by
Recommendations, reports from 49 workshops held at
the Congress, and publications resulting from the Con-
gress (to be issued over the coming several years). It is
a major contribution to implementing Agenda 21 (the
action plan from the Earth Summit), the protected area
elements of the new Convention on Biological Diver-
sity and the Global Biodiversity Strategy, and the phi-
losophy contained in Caring for the Earth.

2. Major protected area issues

The Congress focused on a number of issues of global
concer.

First, what can protected areas contribute to overall
strategies for sustainable development? Environmental
destruction and economic underdevelopment are con-
sequences of relationships between people with diverse
and often conflicting economic interests. Local patterns
of land and sea tenure, income inequities among rural
people, denial of the rights of indigenous peoples to land
and resources, inappropriate interest and exchange
rates, inequities in the commodities trade, and agricul-
tural subsidies can all have major influences on the
success of a protected area. Such factors can seldom be
addressed effectively by the protected area manager, yet
they are critical to the long-term success of the protected
area system. The various economic, physical, and re-
gional planning approaches therefore must provide a
viable framework for fully integrating protected area
programmes into the pursuit of sustainable and equita-
ble development.

Second, how can protected areas command broader
support from society? Resource managers, users, and
beneficiaries all must be involved in generating political
and financial support. Experience shows that planning
which fosters full participation is likely to be most
successful over the long run, though it is sometimes
more expensive and complex initially. Such approaches

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

can consolidate and expand support for protected areas,
especially from international and non-governmental
organizations, private landowners, and private corpora-
tions. Local communities must receive particular con-
sideration and protected area managers must strive to
dignify and give value to local cultures and ways of life.

Third, how can protected area management be made
more effective under current and expected economic
conditions? The magnitude and complexity of protected
area management requires that a broad range of institu-
tions and individuals be involved, using approaches that
increase cooperation and substantially reduce friction.
Protected areas must be managed so that local commu-
nities, the nations involved, and the world community
all benefit. This calls for enhanced management capac-
ity: expanded protected area infrastructure and staffing;
more and better training; additional funding; and im-
proved research and information management systems
to enhance the capacity to predict changes and adapt to
them.

Fourth, how can more effective international support
be mobilized? Protected areas provide many benefits at
the international level, justifying greatly increased in-
vestments from international sources through such
mechanisms as the World Heritage Convention, the
new Convention on Biological Diversity, the Wetlands
(Ramsar) Convention, the Biosphere Reserves Pro-
gramme, the Global Environment Facility, and a wide
range of bilateral supporters. International investment
in protected area systems needs to be promoted through
clearly identifying needs and benefits.

3. Actions for adapting to change

The actions needed to strengthen, improve, and extend
protected areas require both skills and wisdom. The
experts on protected area management present at the
Caracas Congress recognized the futility of prescribing
general actions that would be both meaningful and
relevant to all protected areas. Each country needs its
own Action Plan, with measurable objectives, timeta-
bles, and budgets. Each protected area has different
requirements, and general prescriptions need to be
adapted to meet specific needs. However, based on the
issues identified above, four basic objectives emerged
as being particularly worthy targets for worldwide co-
operation in support of field action. These basic objec-
tives and a checklist of the highest priority actions and
associated tasks follow.

376

Objective 1. Integrate protected areas
into larger planning frameworks

Action 1.1. Develop and implement
national protected area system plans.

Develop national system plans as the primary national
policy document for strengthening management and
extending protected area coverage. Base state or pro-
vincial plans on the national plan.

Identify all the groups with a particular interest in
protected areas and enable them to participate actively
in the system planning process. Review the system plan
widely with all potential interest groups and agencies
before final adoption and periodically thereafter.

Mobilize the best available science to identify critical
sites that need to beincluded in the system if the nation’s
full range of biodiversity is to be protected, and to
provide guidance on appropriate management policies
for the individual sites and their surrounding lands.

Include within the system a range of terrestrial and
marine protected area categories that addresses the
needs of all interest groups, including agriculture, for-
estry, and fisheries. Ensure that all sites managed for
conservation objectives are incorporated, including
tribal lands, forest sanctuaries, and other sites managed
by agencies other than the main protected areas man-
agement authority (for example, private land-owners,
local communities, and the military).

Action 1.2. Integrate national protected
area system plans into economic
development planning frameworks.

Seek to ensure that protected areas are fully considered
in development planning through working closely with
relevant ministries and presenting system plans to con-
cerned agencies, organizations and individuals.

Seek opportunities to influence development plans to
ensure that protected area concems are reflected.

Support efforts of all relevant support institutions and
organizations to identify clearly their responsibilities
under the system plan, and to obtain sufficient funding
to carry out the necessary actions.

Action 1.3. Plan protected areas as part
of the surrounding landscapes.

Recognize the landscape scale incorporating one or
more protected areas and sufficient surrounding lands
to maintain the integrity of the region’s ecosystems as
the level at which the benefits of biodiversity and bio-
logical resources can be provided to local communities,
and ecosystem services can be protected and managed.

Develop buffer zones around protected areas, and
corridors joining them.

Develop means appropriate to local communities to
ensure that any use of wild resources is sustainable both
within and outside protected areas.

Promote the restoration of degraded ecosystems in
protected areas and extend restoration activities to ad-
jacent regions.

Action 1.4. Develop techniques for
assessing and quantifying benefits of
protected areas.

Assemble existing studies of benefits derived from pro-
tected areas, including benefits which cannot be ex-
pressed in purely monetary terms. Disseminate
information on benefits associated with different man-
agement categories, and prepare guidelines on how
such benefits can be determined.

Prepare comprehensive inventories of the assets of
each protected area landscapes, cultural and historic
Sites, ecosystems, species and genetic resources and
recognize these resources as capital assets.

Develop methodologies for economic evaluation of
protected areas and use these to determine and defend
resource use priorities.

Objective 2. Expand support for
protected areas

Action 2.1. Identify the key protected
area interests of various groups.

Determine the potential range of products and services
that can be provided by protected areas, including those
relevant to non-traditional interest groups, such as re-
ligious groups, artisans, users of traditional medicines,
and the military.

Identify the groups that have a stake in these services
and products. Promote the sharing of views and experi-
ences, and the development of organizations to repre-
sent the interests of groups not yet organized.

Explore means for enhancing the benefits obtained by
some groups from protected areas without diminishing
those of others.

Action 2.2. Recognize priority concerns
for local communities.

Work with local communities to determine how man-
agement of the protected area can help meet local needs.
Develop an understanding of local resource issues
through building on local knowledge and perceptions
of needs. Develop consultative processes that encourage

377

Caracas Action Plan

competing groups to identify optimal management so-
lutions acceptable to a majority.

Promote attitudes among protected area managers
that encourage recognition of the need of local commu-
nities for equitable and sustainable development.

Seek the support of local communities in promoting
protected areas by offering opportunities for influenc-
ing decision-making, for example through repre-
sentation on local protected area management boards
and at public debates on management issues.

Based on examples of success, publish guidelines for
establishing co-management and co-financing arrange-
ments that take into account all interested groups.

Develop participatory research, involving local peo-
ple and institutions, as a tool for planning, a means of
sharing basic information, and a mechanism for build-
ing working relations among interest groups.

Action 2.3. Stimulate informed advocacy.

Assess the vested interests of groups and take account
of these in seeking greater political and financial sup-
port for protected area programmes. Reinforce the sup-
port of key interested groups through award schemes,
public ceremonies, and personal communications.

Strengthen education and information programmes
within protected areas, and widely disseminate infor-
mation on protected area issues.

Objective 3. Strengthen the capacity
to manage protected areas

Action 3.1. Expand training opportunities
at all levels.

Establish clear career development possibilities, with
associated training opportunities and commensurate
scales of remuneration.

Expand and strengthen the global network of regional
(multicountry) protected area training colleges to pre-
pare protected area personnel for senior posts.

Provide diverse training opportunities for field staff.

In training courses, emphasize skills in participatory
and collaborative management at all levels.

Action 3.2. Improve management of
protected areas.

As an essential prerequisite for effective management,
prepare a management plan for each protected area
setting out what needs to be done, why, by whom, when,
and with what resources.

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Establish a set of professional standards for protected
area staff, and improve the capacity of protected area
managers to monitor their own performance through
indicators of management effectiveness.

Develop innovative ways of accomplishing manage-
ment tasks by using other than regular staff, such as
conservation volunteers, youth corps groups, prisoners,
the army and the unemployed (where appropriate).

Action 3.3. Develop means of increasing
financing and generating revenue.

Include strategies and investment plans for the financ-
ing of protected areas in the national system plan.
Where feasible, develop innovative financing mecha-
nisms such as debt-for-nature swaps, trust funds, and
earmarked taxes.

Develop means such as service fees and voluntary
green taxes to capture the potential contributions of
environmentally sensitive corporations and individuals.

Establish concessions for products and services pro-
duced by protected areas, including payments from
hydroelectric generating facilities which benefit from
the watershed protection services provided by the pro-
tected area.

As a supplement to budget allocation, introduce con-
cession and entrance fees andreinvest them in manage-
ment.

Work with non-governmental organizations to de-
velop funding campaigns, special tours, trust funds, and
the sale of arts, crafts, and souvenirs to support pro-
tected area management.

Action 3.4. Improve the application of
science to management.

Ensure that management is science-based, and that re-
search carried out in protected areas can contribute
effectively to management. Where feasible, extend re-
search results to assist surrounding communities and
resource users.

Give priority to research on acute and chronic man-
agement problems, including land-based marine pollu-
tion and other pollution outside protected areas, control
of exotic species, and management of small populations
of wildlife.

Develop means for harmonizing the work of the many
institutions active in information gathering and man-
agement. Establish or strengthen global, regional, and
national protected area documentation centres, and im-
prove linkages between them.

Provide basic infrastructure for scientific research in
appropriate categories of protected areas, including
staff assigned to coordinate scientific research pro-
grammes within protected areas.

378

Action 3.5. Give attention to the special
requirements for managing marine
protected areas.

Contribute to a global system for categorizing coastal
marine regions as the basis for assessing the adequacy
of protected areas in these regions.

Participate actively in coastal zone management pro-
grammes and ensure that both marine and terrestrial
protected areas are used as key management tools in suc h
programmes.

Develop and implement integrated management pro-
grammes for marine protected areas.

Objective 4. Expand international
cooperation in the finance,
development, and management of
protected areas

Action 4.1. Clarify the roles and
functions of institutions at all levels.

Support the development of a Global Protected Areas
Investment Service to help coordinate the inputs of
international organizations worldwide in implementing
this Action Plan.

Mobilize multi-institutional support to protected area
management.

Link international technical assistance to the devel-
opment of effective coordinating mechanisms for pro-
moting support to field action.

Action 4.2. Develop international and
regional action plans to support
implementation of the priorities
established in national protected area
system plans.

Support the development of international guidelines for
terrestrial and marine biogeographical coverage, effec-
tive management, and the assessment of threats to pro-
tected areas.

Contribute to an agenda for coordinated international
action based on the priorities identified in national
system plans, and keep the agenda up to date through
regional meetings.

Integrate the contributions of potential international
supporters (inter-governmental institutions, non-gov-
ermental organizations, and multi-national corpora-
tions) into regional and global action plans.

Action 4.3. Re-invigorate existing
frameworks for international cooperation.

Support regional networks of protected area personnel
as a basis for international cooperation.

Give highest priority for international investment to
developing protected area institutions and systems.

Promote greater investment by governments, conser-
vation organizations, and multi-national corporations in
the management of protected areas recognized under
international agreements, extending these agreements
wherever possible.

Distribute information on new technical publications
to protected area managers through newsletters and
other means, and develop means whereby protected
area managers may request copies of relevant technical
publications through regional documentation centres.
Systematically distribute basic technical references to
major protected area documentation centres and man-
agement agencies.

4. Implementation

Implementing this Action Plan requires the involve-
ment of large numbers of international, regional, na-
tional, and local governmental and non-governmental
organizations. Governments must continue taking the
lead in developing overall policy, establishing adminis-
trative structures, monitoring networks and guiding the
financing and management of protected areas.

In discharging this responsibility, they will need to
call upon significantly greater levels of active support
from other organizations than in the past. This could
involve allocation of management responsibility to in-
Stitutions such as non-governmental organizations, cor-
porations, local communities, or private landowners.

IUCN, through its Secretariat and Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas, will promote this
Action Plan and support the preparation of more de-
tailedAction Plans for specific regions of the world.
These will provide guidance for coordinated action, and
stimulate the development and/or review of national
system plans. IUCN will also assist governments, inter-
national agencies, and others to determine how best
they can contribute to the implementation of this Action
Plan and increase their investments in protected areas.

5. Conclusion

This Action Plan seeks to respond to the urgent chal-
lenges identified at the IV World Congress. Can we

379

Caracas Action Plan

maintain the physical, economic, and spiritual re-
sources that sustain us? Can we retain at least repre-
sentative samples of the natural and cultural wealth of
our planet? Or will our natural and human systems
collapse under the weight of increasing competition for
resources and expanding populations? The answers to
these questions depend on how societies respond to the
many challenges before them. While protected areas
alone cannot solve the problems of modern society, they
can make an important contribution to a better future
for all.

The Congress called for replacing the negative image
of protected areas as somehow set aside from the main-
stream concems of society by a more positive recogni-
tion of protection as the process of safeguarding an
area’s distinctive contribution to the human commu-
nity. Such a change in emphasis reflects the many
values provided by wild habitats, and sees conservation
as the process of maintaining essential environmental
resources, benefits, and services. Protected areas must
become demonstrations of how an entire country should
be managed.

Many at the Congress were encouraged by the fact
that a wide range of governments and organizations
through- out the world had made public commitments
to substantially increased support for protected areas.
At the same time, Congress participants were frustrated
by the slowness or inability of governments and insti-
tutions to convert public statements into effective ac-
tion.

Protected area managers from all corners of the Earth
reminded the Congress of one indisputable fact. While
the underlying factors which bring about success or
failure of conservation efforts are to be found in a
country’s approach to economic development, the
struggle to retain meaningful parts of the world’s vast
biological, physical, and cultural wealth will finally be
won or lost in the field. The thousands of dedicated
individuals working to manage protected areas effec-
tively need much stronger support if they are to succeed
in the tasks they have been assigned.

Above all, this Action Plan is an urgent bid for coop-
eration, cooperation in marshalling knowledge, experi-
ence, finance, and human resources, and cooperation in
channelling them simply and efficiently to colleagues
in the field. UCN invites its members and collaborating
organizations to review their own programmes in light
of the IV World Congress on National Parks and Pro-
tected Areas, and to use this Action Plan as a framework
for collective and mutually reinforcing effort.

a5 dh MOU
(5 oy leverth ~

CDC-UNALM

CECON

CEDIP

Glossary of Acronyms and

Abbreviations

Annapuma Conservation Area Project (Nepal)

Agence de Coopération Culturelle at Technique (France)

Agencia Canadiense para Desarrollo Internacional (see CIDA)

Asian Development Bank (Philippines)

Asociaci6n Nacional para la Conservacién de la Naturaleza (National
Association for Nature Conservation) (Panama)

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service

Agencia Sueca para Desarrollo Internacional (see SIDA)

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Antarctic Specially Managed Area

Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition

Antarctic Specially Protected Area

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

Belize Audubon Society

Bay Islands Conservation Association (Honduras)

Bureau of Land Management (USA)

British Virgin Islands

Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources
(Zimbabwe)

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (St Lucia)

Centro Agronémico Tropical de Investigaci6n y Ensefianza (Tropical Agronomic
Centre for Research and Training) (Costa Rica)

Comisi6n Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo (Central American
Commission for Environment and Development) (Guatemala)

1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals

Caribbean Conservation Corporation (Florida)

Commission for the Conservation of Antartic Marine Living Resources

Centro de Ciencias Tropicales (Costa Rica) (see TSC)

Centro de Datos para la Conservacién — Universidad Nacional Agraria
(Conservation Data Centre) (Peru)

Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Centre for Conservation Studies)
(Guatemala)

Centro documentazione internazionale parchi (International Park Documentation
Center) (Italy)

Special Commission for Amazonian Environment (Interim Secretariat of the
Amazonian Co-operation Treaty)

CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (Australia)

Centro de Recursos Naturales (Natural Resources Centre) (El Salvador)

Caribbean Environment Program (Jamaica)

Conservation International (USA)

Comisién Interparlamentaria Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo

Canadian International Development Agency

Coorporacién de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo Socioambiental (Costa Rica)

381

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

COHDEFOR

COMNAP
CONAI

CONAP

CONCOM

DIGEBOS
DPNVS

EEAA

EEZ

EIA
ENCAMP
ENCORE
ESNACIFOR

GEF

Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (IUCN)

Council of Agriculture (Taiwan)

Council of Europe (France)

Corporaci6én Hondurefia de Desarrollo Forestal (Honduran Forest Development
Corporation)

Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes

Comisi6n Nacional de Asuntos Ind{genas (National Commission for Indigenous
Affairs)

Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (National Council for Protected Areas)
(Guatemala)

Council of Conservation Ministers (Australia/New Zealand)

Coordination of Information on the Environment (European Community)

Canadian Parks Service

Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Organisation (Australia)

Canadian Wildlife Service

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of International Development
(Denmark)

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Philippines)

Direcci6n General Forestal (General Forest Directorate)

Direccién General de Bosques (National Directorate of Forests) (Guatemala)

Direcci6én Nacional de Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre (National Directorate
for Protected Areas and Wildlife) (Panama)

European Community

Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency

Exclusive Economic Zone

Environmental Impact Assessment

Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Programme

Environmental Coastal Resources (cf OECS)

Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Forestales (National School of Forest Sciences)
(Honduras)

Fundacién Ecolégica Salvadorefia Activo 20-30 (El Salvador)

Fundacion Interamericana de Investigacién Tropical (Interamerican Foundation
for Tropical Research)

Finnish International Development Agency

Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe (Germany)

Field Study Centres (cf SPNI)

Fundacién Cuero y Salado (Honduras)

Fundacion Chipaneca Miguel Alvarez del Toro para la Proteccién de la
Naturaleza (Mexico)

Fundacién Mario Dary (Guatemala)

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia)

Global Environment Facility

Cooperacién Honduresa de Desarrollo Forestal

Governmental Organisation

Deutsch Gesellschaft fiir Technische Zusammenarbeit Gmbh (German Technical
Co-operation)

Important Bird Areas

Institut Burundais de la Conservation de la Nature et de 1’Environnement

Integrated Conservation And Development Project (Kerinci Seblat National
Park, Indonesia)

Intemational Council for Bird Preservation (renamed BirdLife International (UK)

Intemational Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Nepal)

Intemational Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (Philippines)

Instituto de Arqueologfa e Historia (Institute of Archaeology and History)
(Guatemala)

Inter-American Development Bank (USA)

382

PRONATURA

ROCAP
ROCAP

Glossary

Institute for European Environmental Policy (Germany, France, UK,
Netherlands, Belgium)

International Institute for Environment and Development (UK)

Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (National Biodiversity Institute) (Costa Rica)

Institito Centroamericana de Administraci6n de Empresas (Costa Rica)

Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables y del Medio Ambiente
(National Institue for Renewable Natural Resources and the Environment)
(Colombia)

Instituto Nacional para la Investigacion sobre Recursos Bidticos (National
Institute for Research on Living Resources) (Mexico)

Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables (National Instutute for
Renewable Natural Resources) (Panama)

Integrated Protected Areas System (Philippines)

Instituto de Recursos Naturales (Natural Resources Institute) (Costa Rica)

Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (Ghana)

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (World
Conservation Union) (Switzerland)

Institut Zairois de Conservation de la Nature

Japanese International Co-operation Agency

German Reconstruction Bank

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock)
(El Salvador, Ecuador)

Missouri Botanic Garden (USA)

Ministerio del Ambiente y de los Recursos Naturales Renovables (Ministry for
the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) (Venezuela)

Meteorological and Environmental Protection Agency (Saudi Arabia)

Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energia y Minas (Ministry for Natural
Resources, Energy and Mines) (Costa Rica)

Indigenous Movement for National Identity (Venezuela)

Minisierio de Obras Publicas y Urbanismo (Ministry for Public Works and
Cities) (Spain)

Marine Protected Area

Multiple-use Planning Areas (Antarctica)

Nature Conservation Areas (Oman)

National Parks and Conservation Association (North America)

National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development (Saudi Arabia)

Fundacién Neotrépica (Costa Rica)

Non-governmental organisation

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA)

Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment (Norway)

Organisation of American States (USA)

Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (Caribbean)

See UICN-ORCA

Office Rwandais des Parcs Nationaux

Omithological Society of the Middle East

Organization for Tropical Studies (Costa Rica)

Plan de Acci6n Forestal para Costa Rica (see TFAP)

Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (Philippines)

Programme for Belize (Belize, UK)

Protected Natural Areas Programme (New Zealand)

see UNDP

Asociaci6n Mexicana Pro Conservacién de la Naturaleza (Mexican Association
for Nature Conservation) (Mexico)

Regional Office for Central American Programme (USAID) (Honduras)

US Agency for International Development-Regional Office for Central America
and Panama (USAID)

383

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

ROPME

RSCN
RSPB
SARH
SCAR
SEDESOL
SEDUE

SI
SIAP

SIAPAZ

SICAP

SIDA
SINAP

SPA
SPA

TSC
UICN — ORCA

UNA

The Regional Organisation for the Protection of the Marine Environment
(Arabian Gulf region)

Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (Jordan)

Royal Society for Protection of Birds (UK)

Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (Mexico)

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (Antarctica)

Secretarfa de Desarrollo Social (Ministry of Social Development) (Mexico)

Secretarfa de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologfa (Ministry of Urban Development
and Ecology) (Mexico)

Smithsonian Institution (USA)

Sistema de Areas Protegidas del Gran Petén (Protected Area System of Gran
Petén) (Mexico, Guatemala and Belize)

Sistema de Areas Protegidas para la Paz (Protected Areas for Peace System)
(Nicaragua/Costa Rica)

Sistema Centroamericano de Areas Protegidas (Central American Protected
Areas System)

Swedish International Development Agency

Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas (National Protected Area System)
(Mexico)

Specially Protected Areas (Antarctica)

Specially Protected Area (EC)

Servicio de Parques Nacionales (National Park Service) (Costa Rica)

Society for the Protection of Nature (Israel)

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (Western Samoa)

Specially Reserved Area (Antarctica)

Species Survival Commission (IUCN)

Site of Special Scientific Interest (Antarctica/UK)

Netherlands Antilles Parks Foundation

Foundation for the Preservation of Nature (Suriname)

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (Panama)

Tropical Forestry Action Plan

The Nature Conservancy (USA)

Tropical Research and Development (El Salvador)

Tropical Science Center (Costa Rica)

UICN — Oficina Regional para Centroamérica (IUCN Central American
Regional Office)

Universidad Nacional Auténoma (Autonomous National University of Heredia)
(Costa Rica)

United Nations Development Programme (USA)

Universidad Estatal a Distancia de Costa Rica (Costa Rican State Open
University)

United Nations Environment Programme (Kenya)

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (France)

United States National Park Service

Universidad de San Carlos (Guatemala)

United States Agency for International Development

US Forest Service

US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

World Bank (USA)

World Commission on Environment and Development (1983-88)

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UK)

World Resources Institute (USA)

World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund

384

List of Countries

The following is a list of the countries, islands and other geographical units included in each of
the regions presented in this book. Countries which are recognized by the United Nations are
identified in CAPITAL LETTERS, while those geographical entities in the list of the International
Standards Organisation but not recognized as countries by the UN are given in italics, with the
name of the country in brackets. For example: FIJI, CANADA, New Caledonia (FRANCE), Aruba

(NETHERLANDS)
ANTARCTICA/NEW ZEALAND

Antarctica

Bouvet Island (NORWAY)

Falkland Is. (UNITED KINGDOM)

French Southern Territories FRANCE)
Heard and McDonald Islands (AUSTRALIA)
NEW ZEALAND

Tristan da Cunha (UNITED KINGDOM)

AUSTRALIA

Christmas Island (AUSTRALIA)

Cocos (Keeling) Islands (AUSTRALIA)
Norfolk Island (AUSTRALIA)

CARIBBEAN

Anguilla (UNITED KINGDOM)
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
Aruba (NETHERLANDS)
BAHAMAS

BARBADOS

Bermuda (UNITED KINGDOM)
Cayman Islands (UNITED KINGDOM)
CUBA

DOMINICA

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
GRENADA

Guadeloupe (FRANCE)

HAITI

JAMAICA

Martinique (FRANCE)

Montserrat (UNITED KINGDOM)

Netherlands Antilles (NETHERLANDS)

Puerto Rico (UNITED STATES)

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS

SAINT LUCIA

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Turks and Caicos Islands (UNITED KINGDOM)

385

Virgin Islands (British) (UNITED KINGDOM)
Virgin Islands (US) (UNITED STATES)

CENTRAL AMERICA

BELIZE
COSTA RICA
EL SALVADOR
GUATEMALA
HONDURAS
NICARAGUA
PANAMA

EAST ASIA

CHINA

JAPAN

Hong Kong (UNITED KINGDOM)

KOREA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S
REPUBLIC OF

KOREA, REPUBLIC OF

Macau (PORTUGAL)

MONGOLIA

Taiwan

EUROPE

ALBANIA

ANDORRA

AUSTRIA

BELGIUM

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
BULGARIA

CROATIA

CZECH REPUBLIC
DENMARK

ESTONIA

Faroe Islands (DENMARK)
FINLAND

FRANCE

GERMANY

Gibraltar (UNITED KINGDOM)
GREECE

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

EUROPE (cont.)

HUNGARY
ICELAND
IRELAND

ITALY

LATVIA
LIECHTENSTEIN
LITHUANIA
LUXEMBOURG
MACEDONIA
MALTA

MONACO
NETHERLANDS
NORWAY

POLAND
PORTUGAL
ROMANIA

SAN MARINO
SLOVAKIA
SLOVENIA

SPAIN

Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands (NORWAY)
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
UNITED KINGDOM
VATICAN CITY STATE
YUGOSLAVIA

NORTH AFRICA AND MIDDLE EAST

AFGHANISTAN

ALGERIA

BAHRAIN

CYPRUS

EGYPT

IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
IRAQ

ISRAEL

JORDAN

KUWAIT

LEBANON

LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
MOROCCO

OMAN

QATAR

SAUDI ARABIA

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
TUNISIA

TURKEY

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Western Sahara

YEMEN, REPUBLIC OF

NORTH AMERICA

CANADA

Greenland (DENMARK)

MEXICO

St. Pierre and Miquelon (FRANCE)
UNITED STATES

NORTH EURASIA

ARMENIA
AZERBAIJAN
BELARUS

GEORGIA
KAZAKHSTAN
KYRGYZSTAN
MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
TAJIKISTAN
TURKMENISTAN
UKRAINE
UZBEKISTAN

PACIFIC

American Samoa (UNITED STATES)

Cook Islands (NEW ZEALAND)

FIJI

French Polynesia (FRANCE)

Guam (UNITED STATES)

KIRIBATI

MARSHALL ISLANDS

MICRONESIA

NAURU

New Caledonia (FRANCE)

Niue (NEW ZEALAND)

Northern Mariana Islands (UNITED STATES)

Palau (UNITED STATES)

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Pitcairn (UNITED KINGDOM)

SAMOA

SOLOMON ISLANDS

Tokelau (NEW ZEALAND)

TONGA

TUVALU

United States Minor Outlying Islands (UNITED
STATES)

VANUATU

Wallis and Futuna Islands (FRANCE)

SOUTH AMERICA

ARGENTINA
BOLIVIA
BRAZIL
CHILE
COLOMBIA
ECUADOR
French Guiana (FRANCE)
GUYANA
PARAGUAY
PERU
SURINAME
URUGUAY
VENEZUELA

SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA

BANGLADESH
BHUTAN

SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA (cont.)

British Indian Ocean Territory (UNITED
KINGDOM)

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

CAMBODIA

INDIA

INDONESIA

LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

MALAYSIA

MALDIVES

MYANMAR

NEPAL

PAKISTAN

PHILIPPINES

SINGAPORE

SRI LANKA

THAILAND

VIET NAM

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

ANGOLA

BENIN

BOTSWANA

BURKINA FASO
BURUNDI

CAMEROON

CAPE VERDE
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
CHAD

COMOROS

CONGO

COTE D’ IVOIRE
DJIBOUTI
EQUATORIAL GUINEA

387

List of Countries

ETHIOPIA
GABON

GAMBIA

GHANA

GUINEA
GUINEA-BISSAU
KENYA
LESOTHO
LIBERIA
MADAGASCAR
MALAWI

MALI
MAURITANIA
MAURITIUS
MOZAMBIQUE
NAMIBIA

NIGER

NIGERIA
RWANDA

Réunion (FRANCE)
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE
SENEGAL
SEYCHELLES
SIERRA LEONE
SOMALIA

SOUTH AFRICA
St. Helena (UNITED KINGDOM)
SUDAN
SWAZILAND
TANZANIA, UNITED REPUBLIC
TOGO

UGANDA

ZAIRE

ZAMBIA
ZIMBABWE

Index

aboriginal people/sites 214, 220, 223-224, 227, 282, 287
Abruzzo National Park 116
Acacia invasion 119
accident 40, 51, 94, 119
accountability 41
ACCT 65, 381
acquire/acquisition 60, 62, 64, 88, 115, 148, 211, 213,

218, 228,233, 235, 259, 263, 274, 290, 294-295, 297, 317, 362

ADB 190, 195, 197, 199, 202, 381
Adelaide Island 250
Adirondack State Park 285
Admiralty Bay 0
advocacy 189, 240-242, 377
aerosols 151
aesthetic 141, 161, 183, 185, 210, 216, 245, 248, 375
aesthetic forest 128
Afghan 84, 94
Afghanistan 73-100, 386
African Convention 47,49
African Wildlife Foundation 64
Afrotropical 15, 24, 51-52, 71
agrarian 309, 316, 317
agricultural 8, 37, 49, 55, 71, 77, 78, 84, 88,

92-94, 96, 98, 105, 107, 119-121, 130, 132, 138, 141, 144, 146,
149, 151, 152, 165-166, 167-169, 172, 175, 181-183, 189, 198-
199, 202, 209, 221, 233, 263, 269, 272, 286, 287, 289, 294-295,
305, 314, 316, 339, 344-345, 351, 357, 359, 363-365, 375-376,

382-384

agro-industrial 71, 105
agroforestry 364
agronomic 51, 314, 381
aid 64, 65, 92, 93, 105, 121, 263,
273-274, 313, 320, 321, 331, 338, 342

Air and Ténéré Reserve 47, 51, 62, 63
Akan National Park 163
Alabama 296
Alaska 287, 288, 290, 296
Albania 101-132, 385
Albation Point-Ganymede Heights 250
Alberta 254
Aldabra 62
Algeria 73-100, 386
Algonquin Provicial Park 285
alkalinity 151
Alligator River 214
alluvial 289
alpine 165, 357
Alps (Europe) 13, 105, 110, 113, 116
Altaisky Zapovednik 138
Alvao Nature Park 119
Amazon 351, 355, 359, 360, 363-366, 369-371, 381
Amboseli National Park 55, 63, 64
amenities 40, 331
amenity forest reserve 85
American Samoa 255-276, 386
Amistad 307, 310, 311, 318
amphibian 127, 357
Anatolia 84, 85, 92, 94
ancient 47, 78, 79, 94-95, 161, 173, 181, 309
Andalucia 115
Andamans 196
Andes 351, 355, 357, 359, 364
Andohahela Reserve 711

389

Andorra 101-132, 385
Angkor Wat 181, 183
Angola 43-72, 387
Anguilla 323-344, 385
Ankara Forestry Research Institute 94
Annapuma 185, 190, 195, 381
antarctic 5, 6, 15, 17, 42, 202, 231, 235-236,

238, 240, 245-254, 381, 382, 384, 385

Antarctic Convergence 251
Antarctic Specially Managed Area 246, 249, 381
Antarctic Specially Protected Area 246, 381
Antarctic Specially Reserved Area 245, 384

Antarctic Treaty Territory 235-236, 238, 245-250

Antarctica 13, 15, 229, 232, 233, 235, 238,

240, 241, 245, 246, 248-250, 254, 383-385
anthropogenic 143, 150, 151
anthropological reserves 267
anthropology 311
Antigua and Barbuda 323-344, 385
Antilles 328, 329, 331, 334-336, 340, 342-344, 384, 385
Apia Convention 216, 264, 265, 268
aquarium 188
aquatic 54, 94, 119, 143, 199, 218, 220,

247, 273, 290, 356, 382

aquatic reserves 220
Arabic 79,97
arable 94,121
Araucaria forest 355
archaeology 8, 79, 181, 218, 295, 306, 313-314, 383
archipelago 111, 139, 152, 226, 249-251, 261
architectural 144, 149, 314
archive 150
arctic 105, 129, 137, 142, 143, 286, 287, 292
Arenal Mountains 309
Arfak Mountains 199, 202
Argentera Nature Park 113
Argentina 245, 251, 344, 347-372, 386
arid 52, 71, 77, 78, 87, 88, 92, 94, 96,

98, 167, 217, 221, 225, 227, 364
Arizona 71, 296
Anin Mountains 166
armed conflict 75, 86, 88, 93, 130, 318
Armenia 133-156, 386
army 190, 192, 209, 121, 318, 378
Amhem 132
Arrabida Nature Park 119
Arrecife Alacranes 292
Arrival Heights 250
Arthur’s Pats National Park 233, 239
artisan 183, 377
Aruba 323-346, 385
Amn 194, 198
ASEAN 185, 202, 381
Ashmore and Cartier Islands 215
Asian Wetlands Bureau 194, 196, 198
Aso-Kuju National Park 163
Assam 198
assessment 38, 60, 71, 97, 107, 143, 161, 167,

190, 202, 223, 226, 227, 242, 243, 251, 253, 270, 274, 289, 297,
299, 307, 313, 332, 341, 378, 382

Assyrians 78
Astrakhansky 138, 142, 149, 150
Aswan Dam 94

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Atacama Desert 351, 355
Atchafalaya Basin 296
ATCM 245, 246, 248, 381
Atlantic 42, 77, 87, 111, 113, 132, 137, 289,

305, 309, 351, 355, 357, 359
Atlas Mountains 13, 84, 94
atmosphere 151, 274, 290, 383
atoll 62, 260, 267
Auckland Islands 251, 252, 254
Audubon Society 311, 313, 381
Australia 5, 6, 15, 17, 42, 119, 173, 181, 202,

205-228, 238, 240-241, 245, 251, 253, 263, 271, 276, 381-382, 385
Australian Alps National Parks 226-227

Austria 101-132, 385
Avicenne Initiative 87
Ayers Rock 214, 222
Azerbaijan 138, 141, 143, 147, 151, 154, 386
Azores 111
Azov Sea 143
Azraq Wetland Reserve 93
Aztec 281
B

Babylonians 78
Bactrian deer 150
Baffin Island 292
Bahamas 323-346, 385
Bahrain 73-100, 386
Baja California 295

Bali (World Parks Congress) 6, 10, 31, 33-35, 78, 85, 105,
139, 183, 185, 233, 234, 319, 331, 352
13, 36, 42, 105, 107, 111, 113, 118,

120, 126, 129, 132, 138, 139, 143, 149

Baltic

Bafiados del Este National Park 360
Banc d’Arguin National Park 47, 54, 62, 63
Bandiagara 59, 62
Banff National Park 282
Bangkok 174, 183, 195, 201, 202
Bangladesh 177-204, 386
Baniara Island 261
Barbados 323-346, 385
Barbary sheep 96
Barbuda 323-346, 385
Barcelona Convention 82-85, 87, 111, 117, 118, 128
Bardawil Ramsar Site 94
Barents Sea 143
Bargusin Zapovednik 137, 150
Bariloche training centre 363
Barouk cedars 87
barrages 55
Barro Colorado 305, 311
Barwick Valley 250
baseline 33, 40, 86, 274
Basra 86
Bavarian forest 105
Bayanga forest 51
Bayerischer Wald National Park 116, 126
beach 93, 119, 249, 250, 319, 334, 340, 351
beaver 137, 150
Bedouin 61
bee-keeping 95
Beijing 166, 175
Belarus 15, 133-156, 386
Belgium 8, 49, 101-132, 385
Belize 301-322, 381, 383-385
Bemaraha Integral Nature Reserve 62
Bengal 187, 198
Beni Biosphere Reserve 360, 362
Benin 43-72, 387
Berezinsky Zapovednik 138, 142, 150
Beringia 153
Bermuda 13, 323-346, 385
Bem Convention 118, 127, 130
Bemardo O'Higgins 366
Bhutan 15, 177-206, 386
Bialowieza National Park 120, 139
BICA 307, 381
Bicol National Park 190
biodiversity 13, 18, 23, 24, 35-38, 41, 42, 47,

390

61, 64, 71, 75, 77, 81-82, 84-88, 92-94, 98, 105, 110, 129, 130,
132, 139, 147, 149, 153, 162-163, 165-166, 170, 173-175, 180,
183, 187, 189, 194-198, 200-203, 218, 224-227, 260, 263-265,
270, 272, 274-275, 283, 290, 291, 295, 296, 299, 305, 306, 313-
316, 319-320, 325, 327, 333, 335, 351-352, 355-356, 360-362,
367-370, 375-376, 383

Biogenetic Reserves 84, 85, 117, 127
biogeography 3, 4, 10-13, 15, 24, 25-28, 35, 36,
41, 42, 111, 142, 161, 167, 183, 203, 211, 232, 237, 247, 251-252,
287, 295, 334, 345, 360, 368, 378

biological reserve 85
biological stations 283, 296
biological reserve 305, 307, 311, 314, 316, 317
biomass 151
biomes 10, 166, 173
biomonitoring 150
biophysical 227
bioregional planning 288

Biosphere Reserve 4, 22, 23, 33, 34-35, 52, 59, 63-64,
83, 85, 92, 97, 113, 126-127, 139, 144, 147-150, 152-153, 167-
168, 174, 186, 200, 211, 213, 218, 227, 237-238, 251, 253, 267,
268, 283, 285-286, 290-292, 295-296, 305-306, 310, 313, 318,
332, 336, 341, 351, 356, 360, 362-363, 376

bird sanctuary 62, 85, 93, 119, 289
Biscayne National Park 340
bison 137, 139, 142, 150
Blackfoot 5
Blackrock Desert National Park 296
Boabeng-Fiema 47
boardwalks 253
boating 267
Bodo people 198
Bogor 195, 202, 203
Bol’shehehzirsky Zapovednik 150
Bol’shezemel’sky 143
Bolivia 347-372, 386
Bonaire 323-346
border 59, 64, 119, 126, 139, 153, 188,

190, 200, 226, 286, 303, 310, 321, 356, 365-366
Bosawas Natural Reserve 307, 311, 318
Bosnia and Herzegovina 101-132, 385

botanic garden 94, 281, 360, 362, 383
botanical reserve 51, 85
Botswana 43-72, 387
boundary 13, 15, 17, 37, 39, 40, 54, 61, 64,

93-95, 127, 145, 147-149, 152-153, 165-166, 187, 195, 199, 209,
211, 226, 234, 248, 282, 293-295, 297, 309, 316, 355, 363, 365

Bouvet 235, 238, 241, 251-253, 385
Brabant Island 250
Brahmaputra 188
Brasilia 366, 367, 371
Braulio Carrillo National Park 317
Brazil 42, 347-372, 375, 386
breeding station 37, 64, 85, 96, 148, 149, 242, 245,
247,260, 290

British 47, 49, 101-132, 182, 186, 189,
199, 209, 241, 265, 305, 328, 329, 331-334, 336, 340-344, 381,
385, 387

British Indian Ocean Territory 177-204, 387
British Virgin Islands 323-346, 381
Brownsberg National Park 357, 359
Brunei Darussalam 177-204, 387
Buddhism 161, 167
budgets 40, 46, 49, 58, 76, 88-89, 92, 104,

110-111, 115-116, 121, 131, 144-146, 149, 154, 160, 168-169,
172, 180, 190, 194-196, 198, 221, 223, 232, 240-242, 258, 272,
280, 288, 290-291, 293-296, 304, 311, 313, 315, 318, 319, 326,
331-332, 338, 343, 350, 352, 359, 366, 376, 378

Buenos Aires 369
buffer/buffer zone 35, 39, 51, 55, 58, 61, 61-63, 65,
121, 129, 143, 147, 148, 185, 189, 195, 198-199, 201, 218, 246,
251, 273, 309, 339, 362, 366, 377

Bulgaria 101-132, 153, 385
Burkina Faso 43-72, 387
Burren 113
Burulus Ramsar Site 93
Burundi 43-72, 382, 387
Buryat 147
Bwindi Forest Reserves 55

by-laws 138
Byelorussia see Belarus
Byeloveha Puscha Zapovednik 137, 139
Byers Peninsula 249, 250
Byzantine 78, 94
Cc
cactus scrub 334, 335
Cahuinarf National Park 365
Calabria National Park 116
Calauit Game Preserve 190
Califomia 283, 295, 296
Camargue 119
Cambodia 177-204, 387
camelids 78, 355, 370
Cameroon 43-72, 387
Campbell Island 252
CAMPFIRE 63, 381
camping 58, 222, 367
Canada 13, 99, 153, 223, 224, 250, 254, 263,
277-300, 331, 381-382, 385, 386
Canaima National Park 366
CANARI (previously ECNAMP) 331-334, 338, 344, 381-382
Canary Islands 111, 115
Canberra 42, 227, 228, 276
capacity building 18, 31, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45, 54, 58,

64, 75, 89, 103, 116, 130, 135, 146, 159, 170, 179, 185, 188, 195,
199, 207, 222, 231, 234, 240, 241, 248, 257, 271, 279, 281, 287,
290, 293, 298, 303, 307, 311, 313-316, 325, 331, 332, 338, 339,

341, 343, 349, 360, 362, 368, 376, 377

Cape Mendocino 296
Cape Verde mie 43-72, 387
Caprivi Strip 63
captive breeding 64, 96
Caracas (World Parks Congress) 6, 7, 17, 18, 23, 66, 97, 111,

113, 131, 203, 233, 241, 291, 299, 320, 332, 341, 344, 369, 370,

373, 375, 376

Caribbean 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 24, 36, 42,
106, 109, 114, 162, 210, 235, 261, 264, 266, 305, 309, 323-346,
351, 355, 359, 361, 367, 370, 381-383, 385

Carpathian Mountains 153
carrying capacity 55, 112, 199, 356, 361, 368
Carthage 78, 94
Cartier Islands, Ashmore and 215
Caspian Sea 71, 79, 87, 143, 150
CATIE 314, 320, 321, 363, 370, 381
cattle 58, 61, 78, 93, 147, 148, 150, 225, 252, 365

Caucasus/Caucasian Zapovednik 137-8, 142, 144, 149-151
Caughley Beach 249, 250
Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve 365
Cayman Islands 323-346, 385
cays 209, 215, 334
CCAD 316, 320, 321, 381
CCAMLR 246, 248, 251, 381
CCAS 246, 381
CDC 352, 357, 369, 381
cedars 78, 87
CEDIP 83, 97, 129, 131, 132, 381
Ceibal 319
CEMAA 359, 381
CEMP 246, 381
Central African Republic 43-72, 387
Central-Siberian Zapovednik 138
Central-Chemozemny Zapovednik 142
CEP 332, 381
cereal-producing 121
Cerro Saslaya National Park 307
Cervus 139, 150, 151
cetaceans 360
Cevennes National Park 119
Ceylon see Sri Lanka

Chaco 355, 369
Chad 43-72, 387
Chamela 296
chamois 151
Chaparral 289
charcoal 47,78
Chemoby1 151
Chewore Safari Area 62

391

Index

Chiapas 291, 295
Chile 247-272, 386
Chilka Lake 196
China 15, 153, 157-176, 385
Chiquibul/Mayan Mountain Project 311
Chiribiquete National Park 364
Chirisan National Park 161, 165
Christchurch 253
Christianity 95
Christmas Island 210, 213, 215, 385
Christoffel National Park 334
Chubu-Sangaku National Park 163
Chukotsk (proposed zapovednik) 143
CIDA 313, 381
Circeo National Park 119, 120
classification 3, 7, 10-11, 24, 34-35, 42, 51, 85,

87, 127, 165, 203, 217-218, 221, 226-227, 237, 247, 253-254,
264-265, 267, 269, 286-287, 289, 292, 297, 333-335, 345, 366
climate change 23, 62, 173, 175, 294

closed areas 260
cloud forest 307, 335
CNPPA 3-5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 30, 31,

33-36, 42, 47, 54, 55, 83, 89, 97-99, 105, 109, 111, 119, 129,
131-132, 137, 251, 253, 254, 263, 315, 327, 341, 342, 351, 352,
369, 382

295, 311, 336, 377
co-financing 201, 311, 336, 359, 377
coast/coastal zone 13, 17, 29-42, 47, 54-55, 57, 61,
64, 71,77, 84, 84-87, 93-95, 98, 105, 107, 111-112, 119, 128-129,
142-144, 153, 161, 165-167, 183, 187-190, 196-197, 200-201,
203, 209, 214, 217, 226, 233, 237-239, 243, 247, 249-250, 253—
254, 259-260, 263-265, 269, 272-274, 289, 291-292, 295, 297,
303, 305, 309-310, 315-318, 331-335, 338, 344, 351, 353, 357,
359-360, 364, 378, 382

co-management

Cobourg Peninsula 211
Cobscook Bay 296
Cocos (Keeling) Islands 210, 211, 213, 385
Codfish Island 242
colobus monkey 47
Colombia 13, 340, 347-372, 383, 386
Colombo 202
colonial 47, 49, 51, 57, 79, 181, 183, 259-261, 305, 332
colonies 49, 51, 209, 233, 245, 246, 248
colonization 233, 281, 309, 316, 335, 351
Colorado 98, 288, 296, 305, 309, 311
commercialization 148, 234, 285
Commonwealth 225, 260, 335, 382
communal forest 63, 79, 95, 297, 364, 381
communes 120
Communist 105
community-based 272
COMNAP 248, 382
Comoe National Park 62
Comoros 43-72, 387
compensation 112, 120, 147, 149, 172, 190, 225,

261, 263, 269

computers/computerization 50, 218, 221, 333

concessions 92, 188, 195, 198, 243, 283, 294,

309, 338, 343, 365, 378
CONCOM 240, 382
Confucianism 161
Congo 43-72, 387
Connecticut 296, 370

conservation area 47, 49, 51-52, 54, 58, 61-62, 64,
84-85, 87, 93, 96, 98, 128, 142, 163, 165, 167, 170, 183, 185-186,
189-190, 195, 197-199, 202, 209, 220, 234, 245, 247, 251, 253,
260, 263, 265-267, 269-271, 273-274, 280, 292, 309, 317, 334,

381, 383

220, 226, 237, 239, 247
211, 215, 220, 221, 223, 228
198, 309, 314

conservation park
conservation reserve

conservation unit
contingency plans 188
convention 3-4, 18, 23, 33, 35-36, 39, 45-47,
49, 51-52, 57, 59, 65, 76, 82-83, 85, 87, 99, 104, 111, 115, 118,
127-128, 130, 135, 139, 147, 160, 167-168 , 174, 180, 183, 185—
186, 197, 201, 208, 211, 213-214, 216-217, 232, 237-238, 240,
246, 258, 264-265, 280, 285-286, 304, 306-307, 310, 325-326,
331, 336, 349, 351-352, 356, 366-367, 375-376, 381
240, 255-276, 386
23, 62, 64-65, 71, 153, 218, 226,
234, 249, 266, 271, 290, 298, 318, 342

Cook Islands
cooperative

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

Coppename-Mouth Nature Reserve 340, 361
coppice 334
coral 33, 34, 40, 54, 57, 77, 86, 89, 99,

181, 187-189, 200, 203, 209, 215, 225, 267, 276, 335, 340

Corbett National Park 183, 188, 198, 202
Corcovado National Park 310
CORINE 87, 112, 127, 129, 382
CORINE Biotopes 87, 112, 132
Coromandel 239
corridor 37, 55, 64-65, 93, 107, 129, 186,

189, 233, 288, 357, 377
cost-effective 115, 190, 200
cost-recovery 294
Costa Rica 202, 301-322, 363, 370, 381, 383-385
Céte d'Ivoire 43-72, 387
Cotswolds 110
country parks 166-168, 170, 172
countryside 110, 116, 120, 131, 132, 144, 172
covenants 8, 234, 235, 238, 239, 247, 269
coverage 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 24, 31, 36,

45, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, 60, 75, 84-86, 103, 105, 112, 129, 135, 139,
159, 161, 165-167, 179, 183, 185, 187, 200, 207, 215, 216, 218,
227, 231, 234, 247, 257, 266, 280, 286, 288, 289, 292, 293, 297,
303, 305, 306, 325, 333, 335, 349, 352, 355, 357, 368, 376, 378

Cozumel Underwater Park 340
craters 305
Crimean 139
crisis 295, 318, 351, 363
criteria 7, 11, 24, 36, 51, 52, 56, 65, 82, 85,

107, 114, 143, 145, 163, 165-166, 183, 186, 202, 213, 238, 247-248,
251, 266, 283, 286-289, 297, 309, 310, 318, 334, 335, 352, 355
critical 36, 37, 39, 40, 57, 77, 84, 92, 113,
121, 180, 189, 196, 210, 246, 263, 281, 290, 295, 296, 298, 311,

313, 327, 331, 340, 344, 349, 350, 361, 368, 375, 376

Croatia 201-132, 385
crocodiles 360
crown reserve 305
Crozet 252
CSIRO 225, 226, 228, 382
Cuba 323-346, 385
Culebra National Wildlife Refuge 327
culture/cultural 8, 13, 15, 23, 33, 39, 42, 47, 54, 59,

61-62, 77-78, 83, 85, 88-89, 93-94, 96, 98, 105, 110, 116, 130,
139, 141, 144, 149, 153, 161, 163, 165, 167-168, 172-173, 181,
183, 211, 216-218, 223-224, 234, 237, 239, 263, 271, 275, 281-
282, 285, 287, 289, 297, 306-307, 309, 319-320, 328-329, 339,

360, 364-365, 367, 376-377, 379, 384

Curacao 334, 340, 344
curriculum 173, 189, 199, 200
customary ownership 261, 264-265, 267
Cusuco National Park 313
Cutervo National Park 361
Cuyabeno Reserve 361
Cyprus 73-100, 386
Czech Republic 101-132, 385
Czechoslovakia 101-132, 153
D
Daisetsuzan National Park 163
Dakota 296
Dalyan 88
dams 55, 61, 92, 94, 119, 166, 188, 198,
199, 202, 210, 214, 282, 291, 294
Daminhshan Reserve 175
DANIDA 313, 382
Danube Delta 105, 113, 120
Darién National Park 306-307, 309, 311, 366
Dartmoor National Park 119
Darvinsky Zapovednik 151
databases 11, 56, 64, 82, 85, 87, 112, 114,
129, 143, 150, 153, 163, 186, 213, 218, 234, 238, 243, 286, 288,
297, 310, 356
de-gazetting 115
debt-for-nature 89, 194, 313, 317, 320, 350,
360-362, 364, 370, 378
decentralization 103, 114-115, 120, 130, 137, 141,
144, 152, 154, 167, 216, 317-318, 360
decision-makers 34, 37, 41, 65, 86, 97, 127, 139,

146, 152, 170, 173, 217-218, 237, 248, 273, 298, 317, 377
defoliation 150

392

deforestation 47, 172, 174, 188, 309
degradation 40, 62, 77-79, 96, 105, 151, 185,
188, 190, 197, 201, 267, 270, 88, 294-295, 297-298, 306, 309,
351, 353, 355, 357, 377
Dehra Dun 195
deltas 54, 55, 93, 94, 105, 113, 119, 121,
196, 292, 351
Denmark 101-132, 286, 382, 385, 386
Denver 98
dependencies 245
desert 13, 25-28, 47, 51, 52, 54, 77, 86, 93-95, 98, 137, 142,
161, 296, 351, 355, 357
desertification 78, 94
desman 142
Diawling 51
Dimonika Biosphere Reserve 64
Dinosaur Provincial Park 291
Dion Islands 249
disease 47, 51
disincentive 199, 263
dispossessed 121
disputes 86, 187, 190, 273
Djibouti 43-72, 387
Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary 62
Dnieper 137
Doi Inthanon National Park 188
Dominica 323-346, 385
Dominican Republic 323-346, 385
donation 49, 65, 92, 149, 198, 237, 240-241,
290, 293, 311, 313, 315, 333, 338, 343, 361-362, 367, 369
Dovrefjell National Park 119
DPNVS 322, 382
drainage TT, 86, 105, 111, 112, 185, 311, 314
Drakensberg 55
Dronning Maud Land 250
drought 47, 52, 54, 61, 93
Dumoga-Bone National Park 185
dumping 165, 267
dunes 54, 112, 242, 296, 335
Dzanga-Sangha Dense Forest Reserve 63
E

EC/EC Directives 84, 87, 89, 105, 110, 113, 115, 117,

119, 121, 127, 129, 130, 313, 359, 382, 384

ECNAMP see CANARI
eco-development 174
ecocide 93

ecological reserves 211, 227, 228, 287, 299, 365
ecological areas 235, 247, 254, 283, 297, 299
ecological station 366
Ecological Bricks 113, 126
economics 23-24, 36-37, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49,
51-52, 55, 57-58, 63-66, 71, 78-79, 88-89, 92, 96, 98, 105, 110,
115-116, 120-121, 127, 129-130, 137-138, 141, 145-149, 152,
154, 159, 162-163, 165, 167, 169-172, 174, 179, 181-183, 185,
189-190, 194-195, 197-200, 202-203, 216, 218, 225-226, 233-
234, 240, 263, 266, 269, 272-273, 282, 295, 297-298, 303, 305-
306, 311, 313-316, 319, 325, 327, 329, 339, 351, 360-361, 363,
367-368, 375-377, 379, 382

ecoregions 286, 288
ecosystems 7-8, 33-37, 40-42, 47, 54-55, 62,
64, 77, 79, 84, 86-87, 93, 96, 105, 107, 110-111, 119, 130, 137,
139, 141-142, 149-151, 161, 163, 165-166, 173, 175, 181, 183,
187-189, 197, 200, 211, 218, 221, 225, 227, 234, 237, 242, 246-248,
251, 259-261, 263-265, 267, 269, 274-276, 281, 287-291, 294-295,
298, 309-310, 319, 333-335, 351-353, 355-357, 359-360, 363,
368, 376-377, 381

ecotourism 96, 167, 198, 265, 271, 317, 319
Ecuador 347-372, 383, 386
education 7-8, 37-38, 41, 45, 63, 95, 131,

138-139, 141, 144-147, 171, 173-174, 179, 183, 185, 190, 194,

199, 201, 218, 222, 240-242, 249, 253, 265, 270, 275, 281, 283,

290, 297-298, 311, 313, 315-318, 325, 328, 331-332, 336, 338
339, 341, 359, 363, 367, 377, 384

EECONET 107, 129
EEZ 227, 382
effectiveness 36, 86, 92, 103, 112, 130, 152, 159,

166, 173, 261, 270, 297, 305, 319, 331, 333, 335, 377
Egmont National Park 233, 239

Egypt 73-100, 382, 386
EIA 167, 190, 274, 382
EI Kala National Park 93
El Salvador 301-322, 381-385
EI Triunfo Biosphere Reserve 291, 295
Elba 61, 84, 86, 93, 131
elephant 54, 64, 195, 198-199, 202, 203
elk 285
emergency 144, 331
emigrants 89, 116
emissions 94,119
enclaves 61, 121
encroachment 54, 61, 147, 172, 183, 294-295
endangered 61, 64, 96, 112, 127, 137, 142, 143,
148, 150, 153, 165, 167, 174, 242, 265, 274, 286, 299, 306, 335,
340, 367

Endemic Bird Areas 13
endemism 13, 77, 84, 98, 142-143, 166, 170,

181, 183, 187, 189, 200, 239, 252, 260-261, 266, 274, 306, 309,
335, 351-352

endowment 196, 197, 270, 299, 338
entrance fee 88, 89, 116, 195, 311, 338, 378
entrepreneurs 317, 319
environmental parks 220
environmentally sensitive areas 121
Equatorial Guinea 43-72, 387
eradication 119, 242, 252, 254, 365
erosion 8, 40, 55, 96, 119
Estonia 101-132, 137, 139, 145, 385
estuaries 35, 36, 215, 218, 227, 289-290, 340
Ethiopia 43-72, 387
ethnic 5, 364
Etna Regional Park 83, 89, 97, 105
Euphrates 94
EUROMAB 129
European Diploma 84-85, 117, 127
EUROSITE 129
eutrophication 40, 94, 119
evaluation 23, 64, 71, 87, 92, 103, 112, 127,

129-130, 142-143, 148-149, 152-153, 172, 213, 237, 270, 287
289, 295, 297-298, 307, 319, 332, 341, 363, 377

Everest 181, 199
Everglades National Park 13, 291, 340
Evros Delta 93, 121
exotic 55, 110, 225, 294, 364, 368, 378, 242, 252, 274
expedition 79, 137, 253
expenditure 18, 89, 145, 168, 169, 190, 263,
291, 293, 295, 339
exploration 17, 61, 188, 195, 226, 234, 237,
246, 309, 351
extraction 93, 119, 239, 281-282, 290, 296,
309, 317-318, 327, 363-365
extractive reserves 281, 317, 365
Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park 334, 340
Exxon Valdez 295
F
Falaise de Bandiagara 59, 62
Falklands/Malvinas 235, 238, 241, 245, 251-253, 385
FAO 42, 58, 71, 89, 174, 175, 183, 187,
196, 202, 321, 352, 353, 355, 359, 361, 363, 367, 369-371
farming 51, 62, 94, 96, 103, 112, 119, 121,
188, 225, 233, 239, 242, 287, 297, 351, 360, 365
Faroe Islands 385
Fasquelle Foundation 313
faunal reserve 62, 85
feature protection area 220
fees 38, 58, 88-89, 116, 195, 222, 224-225,
273, 294, 311, 338, 343, 368, 378
fellowships 363
fertilizers 119, 121, 150, 151
FIT 307, 311, 314, 382
Fiji 255-276, 385, 386
Fildes Peninsula 249, 250
Finland 101-132, 150, 152, 153, 382, 385
FINNIDA 61, 382
Fiordland National Park 233, 235, 237, 239, 242
fire 40, 55, 94, 119, 145-146, 166,

224-225, 267, 309, 314, 363

393

Index

145, 338

firearm

firewood 55, 61, 78, 92, 121, 172, 267, 274,
306, 318

fish habitat reserves 220

fish sanctuaries 220

fisheries 8, 33, 37, 39-40, 55, 57-58, 107,
132, 181-183, 202, 215-216, 221, 226, 237, 239, 269-270, 272
273, 289-290, 299, 327, 336, 338, 344-345, 376

fishermen 144, 311
fishing 33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 54, 55, 61, 78,
86, 95, 162, 167, 209, 216, 218, 224, 251, 252, 263, 210, 309, 331,

364, 365
fishing reserve 54
Flemish 107
flooding 127, 188, 233
floodplains 181
flora reserve 211, 220
Florence 129, 132
Florida 290, 296, 321, 340, 345
Florida Keys 296
fly ways 4
FNNPE 113, 116, 120, 121, 129, 131, 132, 382
forage 329
forest parks 51, 85, 214, 234, 239, 242

forest reserves 5, 6, 51-55, 57, 58, 60, 63, 78, 81,
85, 105, 109, 138, 141, 162, 182, 183, 197, 210, 211, 220, 235, 261,
264, 283, 285, 287, 306-307, 311, 327-329, 353, 357, 361

forest sanctuary 85, 376
forestry 7, 37, 57, 58, 61-64, 71, 79, 88, 94,
95, 98, 111, 130, 138, 144, 165, 169, 172, 174, 175, 187, 189, 195,
196, 198, 202, 203, 209, 214-216, 221, 225, ‘233, 239, 240, 263,
269, 272, 273, 283, 290, 293, 294, 296, 314, 316, 336, 338, 339,
351, 370, 376, 384

forests 5-7, 13, 25-28, 37, 47, 51-55, ‘57-58, 60-64,
71, 77-79, 81, 85-88, 93-96, 98, 105-106, 109-113, 119-120,
128-130, 137-138, 141-147, 149-150, 161-163, 165-167, 169,
172-175, 181-183, 186-187, 189-190, 195-200, 196-200, 202—
203, 209-211, 214-216, 220-223, 225, 227, 233-235, 237-242,
261, 263-264, 267, 269, 272-273, 276, 281-283, 285, 287-290,
293-294, 296, 305-307, 309, 311, 314, 316-317, 320, 327-329,
334-336, 338-339, 344-345, 351-53, 355, 357, 359-361, 364-365,
369-370, 376, 382, 384

Fort Jefferson National Monument 340
France 49, 59, 71, 82, 101-132, 150, 238,
251, 254, 286, 336, 356, 357, 359, 381, 385-387

Fraser Island 214
French Southern Territories 241, 385
French Polynesia 255-276, 386
French Guiana 347-372, 386
freshwater 54, 128, 130, 170, 188, 245, 289, 290
frontier 5, 93, 96, 103, 121, 126, 132, 281, 285
fuelwood 55, 61, 78, 92, 121, 172, 267, 274, 306, 318
G

Gabon 43-72, 387
Galapagos 36, 357, 360-361, 366, 368
Galibi Nature Reserve 340
Gambia 43-72, 387
game management area 85
game sanctuaries 147

game preserve
game reserves

190
6, 51, 54-55, 57, 62, 85, 139, 196, 220
Gandoca-Manzanillo 307

Garamba national park 62
Gardens 94, 181, 362
Garoua 60
GBRMPA 35, 36, 42, 208, 211, 213-217, 219,

221-223, 226, 382
Gebel Elba 61, 84, 86, 93
GEF 89, 92, 196, 197, 264, 270, 293, 299, 360, 382
geological reserves 142
Georgia 133-156, 386
Georgia (USA) 292, 296
geothermal 233
German 101-132, 313, 332, 361, 382, 383
Germany 101-132, 150, 153, 254, 359, 382, 385
Ghana 43-73, 383, 387
Gibraltar T7, 106, 109, 114, 385
Glacier National Park 250

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

glaciological 245, 247
global change 226
goats 61, 78, 93, 242, 252, 365
Goréme National Park 83
Goscomhydromet 150
Goscompriroda 144, 145, 153
Gough Island 251, 252
Gounda-St Floris National Park 55, 62
Gran Paradiso National Park - 126
Grand Canyon National Park 291
grasslands 10, 13, 25-28, 47, 54, 61, 110, 121, 163,

181, 237-239, 242-243, 251, 286, 289
grassroots 266, 270
grazed 78, 94, 121
grazing 47, 58, 61, 62, 64, 78, 92, 94, 95,

110, 119, 121, 148, 150, 166, 172, 182, 225, 252, 282, 351, 363, 365,

Great Barrier Reef Marine 33, 209, 211, 214-218, 221-222,

Park 224-227, 382
Great Gobi Desert 161
Great Smoky Mountain National Park 291
Greece 79, 93, 101-132, 385
Greenland 282, 283, 286, 291, 386
Greenmount National Park 219
Greenpeace 246, 248
Grenada 323-346, 385
Grenadines 328, 329, 334, 336, 342, 343, 385
Gros Mome National Park 291
GTZ 313, 332, 361, 363, 382
Guadalajara 291
Guadalupe Island 292
Guadeloupe 323-346, 385
Guam 255-276, 386
Guatemala 301-322, 381-385
Guatopo National Park 360
guidelines 42, 61, 82, 169, 173, 185, 189, 252,

274, 288-289, 309, 315, 341, 355, 363, 366, 377, 378

Guinea 13, 15, 43-72, 387
Guinea-Bissau 43-72, 387
Gulf of Aden 82
Gulf of Fonseca 310
Gulf of Kutch 196
Gunung Gede-Pangrango National Park 194
Gunung Lorentz National Park 198
Guyana 347-372, 386
H
Haiti 323-346, 385
Hallyo Marine Reserve 165
handbook 33, 243, 245, 248, 253
harmonization 52, 83, 297, 368, 378
Harrat al Harrah Nature Reserve 96
Haswell Island 245, 250
Hawaii 251, 255-276, 286, 289, 291
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 270, 291
Heard and McDonald Islands 235, 238, 241, 251-252, 385
heathlands 110, 112
Hells Canyon 296
Helsinki Convention 36, 111, 118
hema 79,95, 98
Henri Pittier National Park 361
herbaria 150, 200
herbicides 40, 365
herdsmen 78
Hierapolis-Pamukkale 83
High Tatra National Park 120, 126
highlands 25-28, 79, 94, 292, 305, 309, 310, 317, 355
Himalaya 181, 187, 199, 202
Hindu Kush 13, 202
Hispaniola 335
historic 8, 81, 88, 110, 139, 141, 144, 148,
149, 153, 168, 215, 218, 220, 235, 237, 239, 241, 245-247, 285,
288-290, 377
historical reserves 220
Holdridge 335
Honduras 301-322, 381-383, 385
Hong Kong 162, 163, 166-170, 172, 385
Honolulu 24, 276
Hortobagy National Park 121
hotspots 369

394

Huanglong 168
Hungary 101-132, 386
hunters 94, 98, 144
hunting 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 62, 65, 78,

79, 85, 89, 93-96, 105, 110, 111, 115, 119, 128, 136-139, 142, 144,
145, 147, 148, 151, 161, 166, 169, 181, 183, 220, 224, 225, 269,
331, 338, 364

85, 139

79, 85, 89, 96, 105, 115, 128, 145,
161, 181, 220

55, 165, 210, 214, 282, 378

hunting areas
hunting reserves

hydro-electric

I
ICBP 13, 24, 63, 64, 84, 98, 194, 382
iceberg 119
Iceland 101-132, 386
Ichkeul National Park 79, 83, 86, 93, 94, 96
ICIMOD 202, 382
ICLARM 196, 382
IDB 313, 355, 359, 370, 383
TEEP 107, 131, 383
Iguagu/Iguazi National Park 356-357, 366
Ile aux Cochons 252
Tle de la Possession 252
Tle de l’Est 252
Tle des Pingouins 252
ITED 321, 383
Tlot des Apotres 252
IMF 194
immigrants 5, 199, 254, 282, 305
IMO 36, 40
Inagua National Park 334, 340
INBio 318, 383
incentives 38, 52, 57, 71, 92, 171, 185, 194,
197, 199, 202, 203, 223, 239, 272, 273, 295, 297, 298, 317, 318, 367
incursions 88, 165, 197
India 6, 15, 150, 177-204, 387
Indians 5
indigenous 5, 6, 42, 57, 63, 170, 227, 234, 238,

240, 241, 281, 282, 306, 311, 314, 315, 318, 351, 352, 364, 365,
375, 381-383

indigenous areas 238
indigenous forest 57, 240, 241
indigenous reserves 6, 306, 352
Indochina 177-204
Indomalaya 15, 177-204, 253
Indonesia 6, 33, 177-204, 240, 352, 382, 387
Indus 190, 196
industrialized 5, 8, 40, 54-55, 77, 92, 94, 105,

119, 149, 151, 165-166, 189, 198, 221, 225, 267, 282, 294-295,
296, 351, 365

industries 35, 40-41, 49, 120, 141, 145, 149,
151, 162, 190, 194, 214, 221, 223, 226, 234, 239, 242-243, 245,
269-271, 309, 316-317, 329, 339, 382

infrastructure 49, 52, 58, 61, 92, 111, 120, 145,
148, 153, 167, 185, 198, 242, 263, 269, 297-298, 307, 315, 319,
331-333, 359, 363-364, 366-367, 376, 378

infringement 95, 194
Insulantarctica 229-254
Inter-American Development Bank 313, 355, 359, 370, 383
intemational park 61, 64, 83, 97, 129, 131, 132, 153,
264, 311, 381

intemships 341
inventories 13, 55, 64, 84, 87, 145, 150, 175,
200, 203, 215, 227, 253, 260, 263, 274, 287, 298, 320-321, 331,
333, 335, 338, 344, 360, 377

investment 8, 18, 31, 37-38, 45, 55, 58, 60-61,
75, 88, 92, 95, 103, 115-116, 135-136, 145-149, 151, 154, 159-
160, 168-171, 173, 179, 183, 190, 194-198, 207, 221, 223, 231,
240-243, 257, 270-271, 279, 293-294, 298, 303, 306, 311, 313-
316, 325, 332, 338, 349, 359, 362-363 367, 369, 376, 378-379

IPAS 187, 194, 198, 202, 383
Tran 18, 73-100, 386
Iraq 73-100, 386
Ireland 101-132, 386
Irian Jaya 15, 199, 202
Irrawaddy 187, 196
irrigation

8, 78, 93, 119, 181-182, 190, 202
Isla Cedros 292

Isla del Canto 310
Isla del Coco 310
Islam 79, 83, 95, 386
islands 13, 15, 25-28, 36, 39, 42, 54,71,

105, 115, 119, 130, 137-139, 142-144, 147, 152, 165-167, 172,
175, 187-188, 209-210, 213-215, 217, 226, 231, 233, 237, 239-
242, 245-247, 249-254, 259-261, 263-267, 269-274, 276, 290,
292, 294, 305, 310-311, 327-329, 331-336, 338-345, 357, 360,

381, 385-386
isolation 41, 54, 64, 77, 95, 105, 172, 248,

274, 309, 336
Israel 73-100, 384, 386
Istanbul 98
Italy 49, 101-132, 381, 386
Itatiaia National Park 361
IUCN 3-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 24, 33-35,

42, 46, 47, 49, 51-56, 58, 61, 64, 71, 76-78, 81-83, 85, 86, 88, 89,
92, 93, 95, 97-99, 104-107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 120, 121, 126,
128, 129, 131, 132, 135, 137-139, 141, 143, 145, 155, 159, 161-163,
165-167, 170, 174, 180-183, 185-188, 194, 198, 200-203, 207,
209-211, 213, 214, 217, 218, 232-235, 237, 238, 241, 246-248,
251-254 258-261, 263, 264, 266, 267, 274, 276, 280, 281, 283,
285-288, 290, 291, 299, 304-307, 310, 320-322, 326-329, 331-335,
344,345, 349, 351-353, 355, 363, 364, 367, 369, 370, 379, 382-3

IUCN General Assembly 202, 217, 246
IWRB 344
J

Jakarta 202
Jalisco 296
Jamaica 323-346, 385
Japan 39, 143, 150, 157-176, 214, 383, 385
Java 181
Jeddah 82
Jervis Bay 209
JICA 170, 173, 202, 383
Jiddat al Harasis 83, 93, 96
Jiuzhaigou Valley 168
John Pennekamp State Park 340
Johnston Island 321
Jordan 73-100, 384, 386
Judaism 95
jungle reserves 186
K

Kahuzi-Biega National Park 62
Kaieteur National Park 361
Kakadu National Park 214, 217, 222-224
kakapo 240, 242
Kalahari Desert 55, 58
Kalimantan 189, 201
Kamchatka Peninsula 137, 143
Kanamai reef 54
kangaroos 211
Kansas 296
Kapiti Island 233, 242
Karelia 139
Karimun 201
Karpatsky Zapovednik 150
karst 126, 234
Kasetsart University 202
Kashmir 190
Kathmandu 202
kauri forest 239
kaya forest 47
Kayan Mentarang Reserve 201
Kazakhstan 133-156, 386
Kaziranga National Park 188
Kedrovaya Pad Zapovednik 150
Kenya 43-72, 174, 203, 276, 387
Kerguelen 252
Kerinci Seblat National Park 194, 382
Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary 340
Kfw 313, 322, 383
Khallet Khazem Nature Reserve 96
Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park 188
Khao Yai National Park 195, 199, 202
Khingansky Zapovednik 150

395

Index

Killamey National Park 119
Kingston 345
Kiribati 255-276, 386
Kirishima-Yaku 163
Kiritimati 255-276
Kirthar National Park 190
Kiskunsag National Park 119
Kluane-Wrangell/St Elias 286, 291
Kopacki rit Special Zoological Reserve 119
Kora National Park 55
Korea 157-176, 385
Kosciusko National Park 222
Krasnovodsky Zapovednik 152
Krau Game Reserve 196
Krkonose National Park 119, 120
Kronotsk Zapovednik 138, 143, 148
Kruger National Park 49, 61, 64
Kuala Lumpur 203
Kumasi 58
Kuna Yala 318
Kuril Islands 143
Kushiro Shilsugen National Park 163
Kutai National Park 188, 191, 194, 198
Kuwait 78, 81-83, 88, 89, 92-95, 98, 119, 386
KWS 1
Kyongju National Park 165
Kyrgyzstan 133-156, 386
Kysyl-Agachsky Zapovednik 138, 150
L

La Graciosa 310
La Macarena National Reserve 361
La Selva Biological Reserve 311
La Paz 314, 384
La Paya National Park 364
laboratories 60, 95, 274, 365
Labrador 292
Lahemaa National Park 139, 145
Lake Baikal 138, 144, 147, 151, 155
Lake Malawi 54, 61, 62
Lake Turkana 55
land reclamation 88, 149, 166
land tenure 51-52, 62, 111-112, 137, 147-148,

152, 159, 170-172, 190, 197-199, 221, 225, 234, 238-239, 243, 261,
263-266, 269, 273-274, 282, 293-294, 296, 304, 307, 316-319, 363,

376, 379
landfill 267
landscape 8, 77, 81, 85, 96, 98-99, 103, 105,

107, 109-111, 113-115, 119-120, 126, 128, 130-132, 142-144,
149, 166, 172, 185, 217-218, 225-226, 234, 239, 245, 247, 251,
267, 282, 287-288, 290-291, 314, 335, 376-377

landscape protected area 128
landscaping 239
Laos 177-204, 387
Laotieshan Reserve 175
Laplandsky Zapovednik 151
Latvia 101-132, 137, 139, 145, 386
Lauca National Park 366
Laurentides Provincial Park 285
Lazovsky Zapovednik 150
Lebanon 73-100, 128, 386
legislation 23, 33, 37-42, 47, 49, 52, 55, 57,

60, 65, 79, 84, 86-88, 95-96, 106, 111-112, 115, 120, 127, 129,
132, 137-138, 142, 144, 148, 152, 154, 161, 163, 165-167, 171-
173, 189-190, 197, 199, 201, 210-211, 213-217, 224-226, 228,
233, 237, 239, 243, 248, 251-253, 259-260, 266, 275, 283, 285,
287, 290, 293, 296, 299, 305, 307, 316-317, 322, 332, 334-335,

338, 343, 352-353, 357, 362, 364, 366-368

Lesotho 43-72, 387
Levant 77, 78, 81, 86-88, 94
Lhasa 166
Liberia 43-72, 387
Libya 73-100, 386
license 190, 317
Liechtenstein 101-132, 386
Limpopo 61, 64
Lincoln 283, 299
Lithuania 101-132, 139, 386
littoral 35, 36, 128, 227, 247, 334, 335

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

livestock 47, 55, 61, 62, 77, 92-94, 309, 363, 383
local people 17-18, 23, 37, 45, 55, 61, 63, 92,
97, 110, 115, 120, 131, 147-148, 152, 159, 165, 169, 171-173, 183,
185, 188-190, 195, 198-199, 201, 234, 241, 269, 272-275, 306,
311, 317-318, 336, 340, 342, 360, 363-365, 368, 376-377, 379

logging 7, 47, 162, 165, 168, 183, 188-189, 195,
200, 267, 269, 274, 282, 306, 365
Lord Howe Island 214, 217
Los Chimalapas-Uxpanapa Biosphere Reserve 292
Los Glaciares National Park 357, 366
Los Katios National Park 366
Los Tuxtlas Biological Station 296
Losiny Ostrov National Park 144
Louisiana 296
lowlands 54, 77, 105, 107, 113, 149, 165,
170, 172, 187, 189, 234, 239, 267, 269, 292, 357
Luangwa National Park 63
Lupanda Game Management Area 63
Luxembourg 101-132, 386
M
Maasai peoples 61
MAB Programme 23, 34, 49, 52, 82, 83, 87, 92, 97,
139, 167, 183, 211, 251, 285, 307, 360, 370
MacArthur Foundation 313, 332
Macau 157-176, 385
Macchu Picchu 357
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic 101-132, 386
Macquarie Island 245, 251-253
Madagascar 43-72, 174, 387
Madeira 111
Madrid 24, 115, 246, 370
Maharashtra 198
Mahaweli 185, 202
Makalu-Barun National Park 194, 197, 198
Makerere 64
Makgadikgadi Pans Game Reserve 55
Malawi 43-72, 387
Malaysia 42, 173-174, 177-204, 387
Maldives 177-204, 387
Mali p 43-72, 387
Malleco Forest Reserve 361
Malta 101-132, 386
Malvinas/Falklands 235, 238, 241, 245, 251-253, 385
Mammoth Cave National Park 291
Mana Pools National Park 62

managed nature reserve 85, 109, 110, 113, 267
Management categories 4,6, 7,11, 15, 46, 53, 56, 76,
81-82, 104, 107, 109, 135, 141, 143, 145, 159, 162-163, 180,
182-183, 186-187, 207, 211, 213, 217, 225, 231-232, 234-235,
237-238, 258, 264, 266, 280, 283, 286-287, 304, 307, 310, 314,
317-318, 326-327, 329, 334, 349, 352-353, 355, 364-366, 377
management effectiveness 112, 159, 173, 261, 305, 331, 333,
335,377
management plan 41, 52, 61, 63, 85, 165, 199, 202,
226, 242, 246, 248, 273, 289, 297, 307, 360, 363, 377

Managua 320, 322
Manantlan Biosphere Reserve 291, 296
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary/ 188, 198, 201
National Park
Mangroves 37, 40, 54, 77, 89, 166, 198, 227,
267, 307, 310, 316, 334-335, 351, 357
Manila 202
Manitoba 292
Manovo-Gounda-St Floris 55, 62
National Park
Manu National Park 357, 360
Manuripi Heath National Reserve 366
Maori 233, 234, 237, 239-243
Mapimi Biosphere Reserve 283, 291, 295
Mariana Islands 260-261, 264, 266, 272, 386

396

marine 5, 6, 10, 13, 17, 18, 29-42, 54, 55,
57, 61, 77, 78, 82, 84-87, 89, 92, 95, 96, 98, 103, 106, 111, 113,
118, 128-130, 132, 137-139, 143, 153, 159, 162, 165-167, 170,
171, 173, 182, 183, 187-190, 197, 200-203, 209-211, 214227,
231, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245-248, 250, 251, 253, 254, 259-261,
263-265, 267, 269-275, 282, 283, 286, 287, 289, 290, 292, 297,
303, 306, 307, 309, 310, 326-329, 331, 333, 335, 338, 340, 341,

344, 353, 361, 376, 378, 381-384

marine mammals 82, 245, 264

marine parks 33, 42, 54, 85, 113, 159, 165-167,
188, 190, 209-211, 214-218, 220-222, 224-227, 237, 287, 292,

327, 329, 331, 335, 341, 353, 382

marine protected areas 17, 31, 33-42, 98, 103, 111, 113,

132, 143, 183, 200, 215-218, 220-221, 226-227, 243, 247, 253,
259-260, 265, 267, 270-274, 282, 310, 326-327, 329, 331, 333,
340, 376, 378, 383

marine reserves 57, 61, 85, 98, 111, 128, 165, 187,
189, 214, 215, 220, 231, 237, 239, 241, 247, 251, 260, 290, 340

marine sanctuaries 290
marine sanctuary 237, 290, 340
Marion/Prince Edward Islands 235, 238, 251, 252
Mariposa Grove 283
maritime 36, 40, 113, 251, 327
market 121, 154, 181, 189, 225, 295, 298,
314, 361, 362

marram 242
Marshall Islands 255-276, 386
marshes 37, 77, 79, 86-87, 93-94, 112, 188,
289, 334

Martinique 323-346, 385
Maryland 98, 320
Mashgara National Park 87
Massachusetts 296
Mato Grosso 359
Mauritania 43-72, 387
Mauritius 43-72, 387
Mayotte 43-72
meadows 36, 110, 113
MEDPAN 89
megadiversity 227, 357
Mekong 185, 196
Melanesia 267
Mercantour National Park 113, 119
Mesopotamia marshes 87, 94
metals 40, 94, 119, 151
Mexico 13, 88, 277-300, 311, 340, 382-384, 386
Michilia Biosphere Reserve 283, 291, 295
Micronesia 255-276, 386
migrant 54, 62, 77, 364
migration 8, 61, 64-65, 77, 149, 153, 166, 365-366
migratory bird sanctuaries 289
migratory species 37, 118, 142, 211
Mikra Prespa National Park 119
military 55, 78, 93, 94, 97, 111, 119, 121,
130, 190, 200, 376, 377

mining 40, 55, 119, 151, 162, 165, 166,
168, 188, 190, 194, 198, 210, 214, 217, 226, 260, 274, 282, 351,
364, 365

Minnesota 194, 296
Minpriroda 144, 145, 149, 155
Miquelon 283, 286, 291, 386
Mirador/Rio Azul 311
Mississippi 289, 296
Missouri Botanic Gardens 360, 362, 383
Mobile-Tenshaw Bottomlands 296
Mojave Desert 296
Moldova 133-156, 386
Monaco 101-132, 386
Monarca AC 291
Mongolia 153, 157-176, 385
monitoring 5, 8, 23, 33-34, 36, 38-39, 41-42,

51, 64-65, 71, 86-87, 98, 111, 113, 115, 127, 130, 132, 137, 139,
141, 145, 150, 153-155, 165, 172-174, 201-202, 226, 240, 243,
246, 248-249, 253, 267, 274, 276, 279, 285, 287, 293-296, 298—
299, 306, 316, 318-319, 321, 327, 333, 344-345, 360, 377, 379,

381, 384
monocultures 281
Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve 59, 62
montane 47, 54, 77, 84, 107, 335
Montego Bay Marine Park 329, 335, 337
Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve 291

Monteverde Cloud Forest/ 307, 311, 313, 317
Conservation League
Montezinho Nature Park 119
Montserrat 323-346, 385
monuments 81, 85, 128, 137, 139, 141-144,
152-153, 155, 173, 246, 247, 285, 290, 306-307, 311, 340, 357
moorland 119
Morocco 73-100, 386
Morrocoy National Park 368
Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park 59, 62
Mount Apo National Park 188
Mount Arayat National Park 183
Mount Aspiring National Park 233, 235, 237
Mount Cook National Park 233
Mount Huangshan 168
Mount Kilimanjaro National Park 62, 64
Mount Kinabalu National Park 195
Mount Kyeryong National Park 165
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve 59, 62
Mount Olympus National Park 105, 112
Mount Roosevelt National Park 183
Mount Taishan 168
mountains 11, 13, 24, 47, 54-55, 62, 71, 77,

79, 84, 86-87, 94-95, 98, 105, 107, 110, 113, 120-121, 137,
142-144, 147, 151, 153, 161, 165-167, 173, 202, 233-234, 237,
240-241, 282, 291-292, 296, 305, 309, 311, 315, 335, 351, 357,

363, 382
Mozambique 43-72, 387
multilateral 121, 195, 313, 336, 338, 342
multiple use 34-35, 40-41, 49, 51-52, 57, 63,

85, 87, 107, 189, 216, 218, 221, 225, 237, 245, 246, 249, 267, 273,
281, 293, 296, 298, 306, 317, 319, 327, 335, 355

Murchison Falls National Park 55
museums 57, 145
muttonbird reserves 220
Mweka 58, 60, 71
Myanmar 13, 15, 177-204, 387
N

Nahanni National Park 291
Nahuel Huapi National Park 331, 344, 352, 361, 366, 370
Namibia 43-72, 387
national parks/parks 3, 5-7, 9-10, 15, 24, 33-34, 38, 42,

47, 49, 51-52, 54-55, 57-58, 60-65, 71, 77-79, 81, 83-89, 92,
94-99, 103, 105-107, 109-110,

national parks/parks 112-113, 115-116, 119-121,
126-132, 136-139, 141-154, 159-163, 165-174, 181, 183, 185-
188, 190, 194-196, 198-199, 202-203, 208-211, 213-228, 233-
235, 237-243, 246-247, 251, 253-254, 259-261, 263-265, 267,
269-271, 76, 279, 281-283, 285-299, 305-307,309-311, 313-314,
316-322, 327, 329, 31-336, 338-345, 350-353, 355-357, 359-368,
370-371, 375, 379, 381-34

National Research Council 296, 297, 299

nationalism 105, 148, 282
native forest reserves 220
natural areas 8, 23, 49, 85, 94, 96, 119, 121, 131,

137-139, 142, 144, 148-149, 153, 167, 172, 225, 234, 237-238,
253-254, 260, 270-271, 281, 287, 290, 296-297, 306, 309, 314,
317-319, 331, 344, 352, 365, 367-368, 382-383

natural monument 81, 85, 128, 142, 152, 155, 173, 247

natural parks 96, 163, 165-168, 171, 357, 361, 365
natural reserve 81, 85, 96, 306-307, 361
nature areas 146
nature conservation areas 64, 84, 87, 98, 128, 163, 165, 167,

199, 202, 209, 383
nature conservation reserves 211, 215, 221, 228
Nature Conservation Society of Japan 166
nature monuments 137, 141
nature parks 110, 115, 119, 126, 128, 132, 142, 220
nature preserve 166

nature reserves 7-8, 24, 47, 52, 57, 62-63, 85,
87-88, 96, 107, 109-110, 113, 115, 121, 126, 128, 136-139, 141-
155, 172, 174-175, 181, 186, 198, 203, 215, 217, 220, 224, 226,

228, 247, 253, 260, 267, 273, 334, 340, 357

Nauru 255-276, 386
Nazinga Game Ranch 60, 63
Neblina 366
Nebraska 296, 299
Negev Desert 94

397

Index

Nelson’s Dockyard 340
Nenetzk 143
Neotropical 13, 287, 299, 305, 321, 344, 345, 352, 370
Nepal 15, 177-204, 381, 382, 387
Nestos Delta 113
Netherlands 7, 101-132, 329, 336, 340, 342,
343, 384-386
Netherlands Antilles 323-346, 384, 385
Neusiedler/See Fert5-té 126
New Caledonia 255-276, 385, 386
New Orleans 344
New Zealand 5, 6, 8, 15, 17, 196, 229-254, 259,
263, 264, 271, 276, 382, 383, 385, 386
newsletter 98, 174, 299, 332-333, 341, 363, 379
Ngerukewid Islands 274
Ngorongoro Conservation Area 58, 61, 62
Niagara Falls 285
Nicaragua 301-322, 384, 385
Nicobar Islands 196
Niger 43-72, 387
Nigeria 43-72, 387
Nile Delta 93, 94
Ningaloo Marine Park 226
Niokolo Koba National Park 51, 62
Nipomo Dunes 296
Niue 255-276, 386
NOAA 290, 383
nomadic 55, 95
non-sustainable 120
non-profit 291
non-renewable 351
NORAD 58, 61, 313, 383
Nordic Convention 118
Norfolk Island 210, 213, 215, 385
North Carolina 296
Northem Mariana Islands 260-261, 264, 266, 272, 386
Norway 101-132, 150, 153, 238, 242, 251, 383, 385, 386
Noumea 272, 276
Novaya Zemlya 143
Novosibirsk 155
Nunavut 287
oO
OAS 329, 331, 333, 338, 340, 344, 383
oases 92,95
Oban National Park 63
objectives 3, 6-8, 10, 23-24, 34-35, 37-42,

49, 87, 110, 130, 142, 144, 147, 149, 154, 190, 201, 234, 243, 245,
269-270, 273, 275, 282, 287-288, 296, 298, 307, 332-333, 335,
352, 355, 360, 363-365, 367-368, 376-378

obstacle 144, 265
Oceania 13, 15, 42, 202, 253, 259, 260,
263, 265, 276

oceans 39, 42, 94, 137, 209, 215, 246, 260, 290, 305, 309, 383
ODA 61, 189, 241
OECS 332, 382, 383
Ogasawara Marine Park Area 167
oil 40, 75, 88, 92-94, 119, 121, 149,
188, 195, 295, 309, 351, 364

Oiti National Park 119
Okavango Delta 54, 55
Oklahoma 296
Olympic National Park 291
Oman 73-100, 383, 386
Omayed 94, 96
Ontario 285, 294, 295, 299
Oostvaardesplassen Nature Reserve 110
opium 188
orangutans 199
Orchid Island 166
Oregon 296
organochlorine 151
Orinoco River 351
Otago 239
OTS 311, 318, 383
Ottawa 299
over-consumption 294
over-development 294
over-exploitation 7, 33, 97, 368

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

over-fishing 39-41, 270, 331
over-grazing 54, 93, 96, 94, 110, 119
overflows 40
overpopulation 294
overview 86, 103, 105, 183, 198, 203, 299, 343, 344
ownership 8, 39, 57, 58, 62, 78, 92, 111, 112,

120, 147, 148, 152, 170, 183, 224, 225, 239, 261, 263, 267, 272,
273, 296, 307, 309, 317
Owyhee Canyonlands 296

Pacific 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, 36, 39, 42, 106, 109, 114, 137, 139,
143, 162, 174, 175, 202, 210, 215, 216, 235, 240, 255-276, 286,
289, 291, 305, 309, 310, 317, 328, 329, 334, 357, 364, 384, 386

Pakistan 15, 177-204, 387
Palaearctic 13, 15, 77, 87, 98, 99, 132, 155, 174
palaeobotany 95
palaeontology 95
Palau 255-276, 386
Pallas-Ounastunturi National Park 120
Palmer Peninsula 246
Pamir Mountains 137
Pampas 355
Panama 301-322, 366, 381-385
Pantanal 359, 360
Paseo Pantera 310, 321
paper parks 38, 51, 58, 111, 142, 185, 187, 307, 332

Papua New Guinea 13, 228, 240, 255-276, 386
Paracel Islands 187
Paraguay 174, 347-372, 386
parks/national parks 3, 5-7, 9-10, 15, 24, 33-34, 38, 42,
47, 49, 51-52, 54-55, 57-58, 60-65, 71, 77-79, 81, 83-89, 92,
94-99, 103, 105-107, 109-110, 112-113, 115-116, 119-121, 126—
132, 136-139, 141-154, 159-163, 165-174, 181, 183, 185-188,
190, 194-196, 198-199, 202-203, 208-211, 213-228, 233-235,
237-243, 246-247, 251, 253-254, 259-261, 263-265, 267, 269-
271, 276, 279, 281-283, 285-299, 305-307, 309-311, 313-314,
316-322, 327, 329, 331-336, 338-345, 350-353, 355-357, 359
368, 370-371, 375, 379, 381-384

Parks in Peril 321, 331, 341, 345, 350, 360, 361, 370
parrots 240, 365
partnerships 23, 65, 78, 115, 183, 196, 226-227,
234, 239, 242-243, 282, 289-291, 293-294, 298, 313, 321, 333,
336, 342, 345, 370

pastures 61, 94, 148, 149
Patagonia 355, 360
patrolling 92, 145, 395
Pechoro-Ilych Zapovednik 138
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 290
Pemba Island 54
penalties 40, 352
Penang 42
Peneda-Geres National Park 112, 119-120
perestroika 146
permanent hunting reserve 85
Peru 347-372, 381, 386
pest control 242-243, 252
pesticides 121, 151, 188
petroleum 40, 75, 88, 92-94, 119, 121, 149,
188, 195, 295, 309, 351, 364
pH 1 50, 151
Philippines 177-204, 382-383, 387
Phoenicians 78
Piedmont 289
Pieniny National Park 119, 126
pilgrimage 148
Pindos National Park 119
Pinezhsky Zapovednik 149
pipeline 149
Pitcaim 255-276, 386
Pitons National Park 329
plantations 94, 119, 189, 274
plateau 142, 289, 292
Pleistocene refugia 187
PNUD see UNDP
poaching 51, 52, 54, 61, 65, 145, 172, 183,
190, 198, 294
Point Pelee National Park 294
poison 151, 188

Poland 89, 101-132, 153, 386
polders 110
policies 34, 37-38, 40, 52, 54, 57, 62-63,

65, 71, 86-89, 92, 95, 97, 107, 112, 115-116, 121, 130-132, 137,
154, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171-172, 189, 194, 197, 203, 214, 216,
222, 227-228, 237-243, 252-253, 266, 269-270, 272-273, 275-
276, 282, 287-290, 293, 298-299, 303, 309, 311, 315-321, 331,
334, 344-345, 351, 360, 363-368, 375-376, 379, 383

political 13, 15, 36, 38, 41, 49, 54, 61-62,
64-65, 78, 84, 86, 95, 97, 105-107, 112, 115, 126, 129, 137,
146-147, 152, 161, 170, 201, 209, 221, 224, 226, 234, 263, 288,
293, 306, 309, 313, 316-317, 327, 332-333, 352, 364, 367, 375, 377
politicians 60, 146, 285
pollution 33-34, 39-41, 54-55, 83-84, 94, 111,
118-121, 128, 130, 135, 141, 150-151, 172, 173, 188, 267, 273
274, 294-295, 331, 351, 364-365, 368, 378

Polynesia 260, 261, 264, 266, 272, 386
Portugal 101-132, 168, 385, 386
Potential Natural Vegetation (US) 289
Prague 129
prairie 77, 105, 286, 289, 296
pre-hispanic 281
pre-Islamic 719
preserves 61, 137, 166, 181, 190, 195, 202,

209, 245, 260, 274, 281, 285, 287, 291, 318, 360
Prince Edward/Marion Islands 251, 252
Prince William Sound 295
Prioksko-Terrasny Zapovednik 150, 151
priorities 8, 11, 17-18, 24, 31, 33, 36, 38-39,

41, 45, 49, 54-55, 60-61, 65, 75-76, 84, 88, 92-93, 95, 97, 104,
115, 121, 129-131, 135, 146, 152-153, 159, 170, 173, 179, 185,
187-190, 194-198, 200-203, 207, 223, 226, 231-232, 238-239,
241-243, 247, 252-253, 257-261, 263, 265, 267, 269, 271, 273-
275, 279-280, 287-290, 292-294, 297, 303-304, 309, 311, 314—
317, 319-320,325, 327, 331-333, 335, 341, 344, 349, 351, 356-357,
361, 363, 368-369, 376-379

private 7-8, 18, 57-58, 62, 65, 79, 85, 89,
92, 95-97, 111-112, 120, 135, 145-149, 163, 165, 167-172, 190,
194, 196, 198-199, 207, 224-225, 231, 234-235, 237, 239-240,
242-243, 247, 257, 260, 266, 269-273, 275, 281, 289-291, 293-
294, 296-297, 304, 307, 309, 311, 313-319, 336, 338-339, 342,
357, 359-360, 367-368, 376, 379
58, 62, 85, 95, 96, 168, 171, 225,
266, 269, 291, 317

private reserves

privatization 61, 120, 148, 295, 297, 318
production forest 183, 186, 189
profit 290, 291, 294, 364, 365
programmes 4, 13, 15, 18, 23, 31, 33-38, 40-42, 45, 49,

51-52, 54-55, 58, 62-65, 71, 75, 79, 82-84, 86, 89, 92-94, 96, 98,
107, 111, 119, 129, 131-132, 139, 146, 153, 165, 167, 170-175,
183, 187, 194, 196, 198-201, 211, 213, 218, 221-227, 237-243,
246, 248-249, 253-254, 257, 259-260, 263-265, 270-272, 274,
276, 281, 285-288, 290, 293, 295-299, 307, 309, 313-315, 317-
318, 321, 325, 331-333, 335-336, 338-339, 341-345, 351, 355,
359-361, 363-364, 366-368, 370, 375-379, 381-384

92, 95, 97, 112, 137, 139, 147-148,
214, 245, 246, 254, 265, 282, 334

52, 95, 137, 276, 283

85, 103, 109-111, 113, 119-120,

126, 131-132, 142, 166, 251, 267, 290
protected watersheds 287
protection areas 93, 127, 165, 220, 292
protection forests 6, 54, 183, 186, 189

prohibit

protected forests
protected landscape

protection zones 306
provincial parks 282, 285, 286, 291
public parks 163
Puerto Rico 288, 323-346, 385
Punjab 181
Puyehue National Park 366
Q

Qatar 73-100, 386
Quangxi 175
quarantine 252, 253
quarrying 119, 203
Quebec 285
Queen Elizabeth National Park 63
Queen Elizabeth II National Park 267

Queen Elizabeth II National Trust
Queensland see Australia

237, 239

questionnaire 116, 131, 363
Quintana Roo 291, 296
quotas 60, 148
R

rabbits 225, 242, 252
railway 55, 282
rainforest 13, 15, 47, 64, 71, 187, 214, 217, 269, 359
Rajastan 190

Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention 4, , 18-20, 33, 35, 36,
49, 52, 59, 82, 83, 99, 130, 139, 147, 168, 174, 183, 186, 211,
213, 216, 23-238, 240, 265, 268, 285-286, 307, 310, 336, 356

ranching 119, 351
rangeland 93, 95, 96
rangers 38, 57, 89, 116, 145, 154, 170, 222,

223, 234, 252, 271, 293, 314, 316, 339
Ranthambore National Park 181
Ras Mohammed National Park 96, 89, 90
reclassification 217, 287
Tecommendations 54, 58, 60, 64, 87, 92, 98, 111, 127,

139, 166, 187, 211, 213, 214, 228, 245-246, 248, 260, 264, 266,
267, 287, 288, 294, 297, 316, 327, 375

recreation areas 96, 220, 290
recreation forests 6
recreation parks 220
recreation sites 260
recycling 89, 195, 297
red data books 142, 143, 167
Redwood National Park 291
reedbed 87
reef-walking 218
reefs 34, 40, 54, 64, 77, 86, 99, 188, 200,

203, 215, 263, 267, 276, 335

teference areas 220
reforestation 311, 317
reforms 115, 130, 138, 149, 163, 198, 234,

237, 243, 246, 281, 297, 309, 317, 361
refuge 47, 85, 290, 296, 327
refugees 309, 316
Tefugia 84, 86, 94, 98, 187, 290
Regina 99
reindeer 119, 149, 151
reintroduction 96, 99, 146, 224, 226
Teligious 5, 95, 181, 199, 318, 377
Rennell Island 265
Tepresentativeness 142, 143, 234, 237, 243, 297, 357
research 7, 8, 18, 23, 24, 33, 37-42, 45, 63,

64, 87,94, 95, 98, 116, 132, 138, 139, 141, 144-146, 149-153, 159,
163, 167, 170, 172-174, 179, 185, 194, 199-201, 218, 222, 225,
240-243, 245, 248, 249, 253, 265, 271, 274-275, 279, 283, 287,
290-291, 293, 295-296, 298-299, 306, 311, 314, 316, 318, 338,
343, 344, 349, 357, 360, 361, 363, 365-369, 376-378, 381-384

reserved area 142, 149, 209, 217, 245, 251, 285,
296, 317, 384
Teserves 4-8, 23-24, 34-35, 39, 47, 49, 51-55,

57-64, 71, 78-79, 81-85, 87-89, 92-98, 105-107, 109-111, 113,
115, 119, 121, 126-128, 132, 136-139, 141-155, 161-163, 165-
175, 181-183, 185-189, 194, 196-198, 200, 202-203, 210-211,
213-218, 220-221, 223-228, 231, 233-235, 237-239, 241-243,
245-247, 251, 253, 259-261, 263-265, 267, 269, 271, 273, 276,
281-283, 285-287, 290-292, 295-296, 299, 305-307, 310-311,
313-314, 316-318, 320-321, 327-329, 331-332, 334, 336, 340,

341, 351-353, 356-357, 359-363, 365, 376

Teservoirs 88, 186, 282
resettlement 51, 316
restoration 75, 96, 110, 112, 115, 120, 129, 141, 144,

146, 150, 153, 155, 199, 200, 224-225, 252, 254, 298, 309-310,
319, 361, 377

Reunién 43-72, 82, 97, 320
revenue 38, 58, 89, 96, 130, 169, 195, 222,

240-241, 332-333, 339, 363, 367-368, 378
Rhino 64, 181, 194, 199
Rhododendron invasion 119
Rhodopi Moutains 113
Rhone River 119, 340
Tinderpest 55
Rio Abiseo National Park 357
Rfo Platano 305-306, 311, 321
Rio Lagartos Ecological Reserve 340
Riyadh 94,98

399

Index

road-building 119, 274
roadless 286, 288
Romania 101-132, 386
Romans 78, 79
Rondonia 359
Roosevelt National Park 361
ROPME 384
Roraima 366
Ross Island 245, 249, 250
Rothera Point 250
Rotorua 233
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 240-242
Royal Chitwan National Park 181, 185, 188, 190, 201
RSFSR 133-156
RSPB 64, 384
Ruhuna National Park 183
Russian Federation 15, 133-156, 386
Rwanda 43-72, 383, 387
Ss

Saba Underwater Park 340
SADCC 58
safari areas 62
Sagarmatha 181, 199
Sahara 51, 77, 86, 87, 93, 98, 386
Sahel 26, 51, 54, 62
Saint Floris National Park 53, 55-56, 62
Saint Helena 59, 387
Saint Kitts and Nevis 323-346, 385
Saint Lucia 323-346, 385
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 283, 286, 386
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 323-346, 385
Saipan 260
Sajama National Park 366
Salonga National Park 62
Samaria Gorge National Park 116
Samoa 240, 255-276, 386
Samunsam 201
San Marino 101-132, 386
sanctuaries 7, 47, 62, 85, 93, 119, 128, 137,

139, 141-142, 144, 146-149, 152-153, 165, 167-168, 181, 185,
188, 190, 198, 202, 220, 225, 233, 237, 247, 251, 260-261, 267,
289-290, 305-307, 314, 334, 340, 376

sanctuary areas 7, 247
Sangay National Park 357, 365
Santiago 307, 369, 370
Sao Tome and Principe 43-72, 387
Sapi Safari Area 62
Sapo National Park 71
Sarawak 196, 200, 201
Sariska Sanctuary 190
Saskatchewan 99
Saudi Arabia 73-100, 383, 386
savanna 13, 17, 25-28, 47, 54, 61, 77, 289, 364
sawmills 305
Sayano-Shushensky Zapovednik 138, 148
Scandinavia 105, 107, 110, 119, 120
SCAR 245-248, 251-254, 384
scenic areas 168
scenic landscapes 149
scenic reserves 85, 87, 233, 247
scenic rivers 288
Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer 119

science 18, 23, 31, 33-36, 38-39, 41-42,
51, 63-65, 75, 77, 83, 85, 92, 94-95, 97-98, 105, 112, 135, 138-139,
141, 144-147, 149-150, 153, 155, 161, 163, 166-167, 169-170,
172-175, 195, 200, 207, 210-211, 216, 218, 220, 225, 227, 232,
234, 237-238, 240-241, 245, 247-254, 258-259, 263, 266-267,
269, 271, 274-275, 279, 282, 288, 290, 293, 295-299, 306, 313

314, 320, 338-339, 360, 365, 367, 376, 378, 382, 384

scientific areas 220
scientific reserve 85, 220, 247, 251, 267, 306
Scotland 113, 129
seagrass 36, 37, 40, 77, 86
sealing 245
seascape 166, 217-218, 225-226
secondments 271
selectively-logged 189

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

self-financing
self-sufficient
self-sustaining

Selous Game Reserve
semi-arid

semi-deserts

Senegal

Serengeti National Park
set-aside

settlements

121

15, 52, 55, 110, 148-149, 165, 237,

252, 274, 287-288, 294, 310, 316-317, 331, 353, 364

sewage
Seychelles

Shark Bay

Shaumari Reserve

Sherpa

Shetlands

shipwrecks

Shorsky National Park
Shoshone people

shrines

Shumar Wildlife Reserve
Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve
SIAPAZ

Siberia

SICAP

Sicily

SIDA

Sierra Leone
Sikhote-Alinsky Zapovednik
Simen National Park

Sinai

SINAP

Singapore

Sinharaja

Sipacate

Siskiyou proposed national park
Sjaunja Reserve

Skagerrak

skiing

Slimbridge

Slovakia

Slovenia

sluices

Smithsonian Institution

smuggling
Snares Islands
snow-mobiles
social-economic
socio-economic

Solomon Islands
Somalia

Sonoran Desert

South Africa

South Georgia

South Orkney Islands
South Sandwich Islands
Southem Alps
souvenirs

sovereignty

Spain

sparsely populated
spawning area

SPC

special areas

special protection area
special reserves

Specially Protected Areas

40, 121, 267
43-72, 387
214

181, 202

249, 250
215, 220

139

79, 181

201

291, 295, 340
310, 322, 384
138, 142-143, 149-150
306, 309, 319, 384
83, 89, 92, 97
313, 381, 384
43-72, 387
138, 150

93-96

287, 289, 384
177-204, 387
187, 188, 200, 202
307

296

105

42, 132

120

344

101-132, 386
101-132, 386
94, 119

24, 42, 98, 99, 132, 196, 202, 311,

318, 344, 360, 370, 384

120
351, 363

52, 64, 65, 146, 165, 171, 174, 190, 194,
198, 234, 240, 273, 351, 360, 363

240, 255-276, 386
43-72, 387

296

43-72, 238, 251, 387
235, 238, 251, 253
246, 249

251, 252

239

267, 311, 338, 378

33, 127, 137, 144, 148, 194, 251,

283, 328, 351

82, 88, 101-132, 344, 345, 383, 386

84, 265, 357
37

276

127, 165, 166
93, 127, 165
181, 260

82, 84-85, 89, 111, 118, 127-128,

137, 139, 148-149, 154, 161, 232, 245-247, 249, 265, 332, 381, 384

specially reserved area

245, 384

species-rich 110, 187, 189, 351
sponsorship 201, 240, 242, 243, 338
Spratly Islands 187
SPREP 15, 36, 216, 240, 259, 260, 263-265,

67, 270-272, 274, 276, 384
Sri Lanka 177-204, 387
SSC 13, 174, 355, 384
SSSI 112, 232, 245, 247, 166, 172, 249-250, 384

400

state forest 85, 144, 234, 225, 234-235, 237, 335
state forest parks 234
state nature reserves 144
state owned 8, 54, 234
state parks 79, 285, 290, 294, 299, 340
state recreation areas 220
state reserves 220
Stelvio National Park 116, 119
steppe 25-28, 77, 84, 94-96, 137, 142, 143, 149, 355
Stirling Range National Park 225, 226
strategic planning 288, 369
strict nature reserves 62, 186, 260, 267

sub-alpine 165
sub-Saharan 4-6, 15, 43, 46, 47, 53, 56, 59, 387

subantarctic 15, 237, 245, 251-254
subtropical 13, 137, 221, 227, 251, 335, 351
Sudan 43-72, 86, 93, 387
Sumava National Park 126
Sundarbans National Park 188, 196, 198, 201
Suriname 347-372, 384, 386
sustainability 40, 42, 194, 197, 199, 201, 275,

288, 319, 328, 355
sustainable 8, 23, 24, 35, 37, 39-42, 61, 63, 65,

79, 83, 98, 110, 120, 121, 130, 132, 169, 171, 181, 183, 197, 201,
202, 218, 221, 226, 227, 242, 263, 265, 266, 269, 271-275, 295-298,
316, 327, 344, 351, 355, 360, 362-365, 368, 375, 377

sustainable development 24, 37, 61, 63, 65, 83, 121, 201,
202, 218, 221, 242, 263, 271, 273-275, 296, 316, 327, 344, 355,

362, 375, 377
sustainably 42, 351
Svalbard-Jan Mayen 106, 109, 114, 386
swamps 54, 198, 334, 355
Swaziland 43-72, 387
Sweden 7, 101-132, 150, 153, 269, 384, 386
Switzerland 8, 101-132, 241, 291, 386
Sydney 209, 227
Syria 73-100, 128, 386

systems planning 54, 61, 86, 187, 189, 247, 282,

297-298, 335, 341

systems review 187
T

Tadjikistan 133-156, 386
Tahiti 274
taiga 25-28, 137, 142, 143
Taimyrsky Zapovednik 138
Taipei 165
Taiwan 15, 157-176, 382, 385
Tajikistan 133-156, 386
Talamanca National Park 311
tallgrass prairie 286, 296
Taman Negara National Park 183
Tanganyika 54
Tanzania 43-72, 387
Taoism 161
largets 10, 49, 51, 55, 116, 129, 189, 199,

238, 243, 259, 376
Tasmania see Australia

Tassili N’Ajjer National Park 83, 93
Tayrona National Park 340
technical cooperation 331, 332, 341, 342, 355, 359
Tel-Aviv 94
territorial parks 260
TFAP 187, 383, 384
Thailand 173, 177-204, 387
thatch 110

The Nature Conservancy 259, 288, 290, 291, 294, 299, 313,
321, 331, 344-345, 360-363, 370, 384
threats 18, 23, 31, 34-36, 39, 49, 54-55,
57, 84, 86-88, 93-95, 97-98, 107, 112, 115-116, 119-120, 127,
129-130, 132, 135, 139, 150, 152, 165-166, 172-174, 180, 185,
187-188, 190, 196, 200, 203, 207, 209, 211, 225-226, 231, 240-
243, 246, 252, 254, 258, 260, 267, 274, 279, 281, 286, 293-297,
303, 309-310, 331, 335, 339, 352, 355, 359, 363, 365, 367, 375, 378

Tibet 166, 174
Tien-Shan 137
Tierra del Fuego 351
tiger 148, 150, 181, 183, 188, 195,

198-199, 202-203

Tigris 94, 150
Tigrovaya Ballka Zapovednik 150, 151
Tikal National park 311, 319
Timor Sea 215
Tobago 327-329, 331, 333, 334, 336, 341-345, 385
Togo 43-72, 387
Tokelau 255-276, 386
tombs 246
Tonda Wildlife Management Area 201, 261
Tonga 255-276, 386
Tongariro National Park 233, 237, 239, 240, 242, 253
Toronto 299
Tortuguero National Park 310
Toubkal National Park 79, 86
tourism 7-8, 17-18, 37-38, 40, 46, 49, 55,

57-58, 60-62, 64, 75, 77, 84, 86, 88-89, 92, 94-96, 103, 105,
110-111, 116, 119-120, 129-130, 138, 144-145, 149, 166, 168_
169, 172, 182, 185, 190, 194-195, 198-200, 214, 218, 222, 225,
231, 233, 234, 237, 239, 241-243, 245, 248, 252-253, 263, 265,
267, 269-273, 275, 290, 295, 304, 306, 309, 314, 316-317, 319,
325, 327, 329, 331, 336, 338-339, 349, 352-353, 363-370, 383
transects 274
transfrontier 64-65, 103, 113, 119, 121,
126-127, 131, 135, 147, 152, 153, 180, 201, 203, 207, 226, 310, 339

Transvaal 62
Trifinio 310, 320, 321
Triglav National Park 120
Trinidad 323-346, 385
Tristan da Cunha 235, 238, 251, 252, 385
tropical forest atlas 71, 174, 202, 203
trustees 210, 216, 260
TSC 307, 381, 384
Tubbataha National Marine Park 188, 190

tundra 13, 25-28, 105, 137, 142, 143, 151, 286, 292
Tuni Condoriri National Park 361
Tunisia 73-100, 386
Turkey 73-100, 386
Turkmenistan 133-156, 386
Turks and Caicos 328, 334, 336, 342, 343, 385
Turrialba 320, 321, 370
turtle reserves 57
turtles 54, 57, 82, 93, 96, 119, 188, 264-265, 361
Tuscany 110
Tuvalu 255-276, 386
twinning 60, 131
U
Udaipur 201
Uganda 43-72, 387
Ujung Kulon National Park 181, 188, 194
Ukraine 15, 133-156, 386
Uluru National Park 214, 217, 222-224, 226
UN List 7, 8, 24, 104, 107, 109, 113, 128,
132, 141, 174, 217, 319, 322
UNA 314, 321, 369, 384
underground 93, 289
Underwater Park 85, 340
undisturbed 51, 186, 189, 227
UNDP 42, 66, 321, 360, 367, 370-371, 383, 384
UNEP 24, 33, 34, 36, 42, 71, 82, 87, 89,

99, 111, 115, 128, 132, 167, 170, 174, 187, 196, 200, 202, 203, 260,
267, 276, 332, 345, 353, 355, 359, 360, 363, 367, 369, 384
UNESCO 4, 23, 33-35, 42, 49, 52, 64, 71, 82,
83, 89, 97, 98, 127, 139, 152, 167, 170, 183, 194, 196, 211, 227,
237, 246, 251, 285, 307, 384
260, 267

8, 23, 79, 113, 119, 127, 130,
141-143, 149, 150, 166, 173, 239, 245, 247, 275, 282, 309

uninhabited
unique

United Arab Emirates 73-100, 386
United Kingdom 8, 101-132, 168, 238, 251, 270, 385-387
United States 209, 221, 223, 224, 260, 272,

277-300, 314, 351, 360-362, 367, 384-386
Unzen-Amakusa National Park 163
uplands TT, 142, 292
Urals 137, 142, 144
uranium mining 119, 214

401

Index

Urewera National Park 233
Uruguay 347-372, 386
USAID 71, 98, 194, 291, 313, 320, 332, 361, 383, 384
USFS 290, 384
USFWS 288, 290, 291, 384
USNPS/NPS 288-289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 296, 297, 299

329, 331, 333, 338, 340, 344, 361, 384

USSR 33, 93, 118, 132-156, 173, 384
Ussuriisky Zapovednik 150
utilization 8, 51, 61, 64, 98, 138, 147, 152,
163, 169, 171, 185, 189, 195, 197, 202, 265, 297, 344, 352, 359, 365
Uzbekistan 133-156, 386
Vv
Vail Agenda 288, 299
vandalism 165
Vanoise National Park 120, 126
Vanuatu 255-276, 386
Vatican 101-132, 386
Venezuela 6, 291, 299, 347-372, 375, 383, 386
Veracruz 296, 299
Vermont 296
viability 23, 49, 54, 92, 173, 194, 197, 199,
218, 266, 272, 275, 307, 375
Victoria Falls 59, 62, 64
vicugna 355
Viet Nam 177-204, 387
Villarrica National Reserve 366
violation 127, 148, 152, 190, 352
virgin jungle reserves 186
Virgin Islands (British) 323-346, 385
Virgin Islands (US) 323-346, 381, 385
Virginia 299, 321
Virunga National Park 47, 49, 62
Visitation 8, 89, 96, 113, 116, 120, 131, 145,

160, 165-166, 168-169, 171, 195, 208, 222, 224-226, 234, 243,
253, 270-271, 285, 290, 293, 295, 297, 316, 329, 339, 367

Vodlozersky National park 139
volcanic 165, 305
volcanoes 63, 105, 270, 291, 295, 306, 309
Volcanoes National Park 63
volunteers 38, 89, 115, 116, 146, 241, 338, 343, 378
WwW
Wadden Sea 111, 113, 119-120, 199
Wales 110, 116, 209, 210, 215, 217-226,
228, 271
Wallis and Fumma Islands 255-276, 386
war-tom 187
wardens 79, 88, 115, 241, 252, 271
wars 49, 77, 93, 105
Washington-Slagbaai National Park 334
waste 309, 316, 375
wastelands 233
Wasur Game Reserve 196, 201
water table 93, 119
waterfowl 18, 85, 87, 165, 167, 173, 183, 237,
289, 291, 307
waterfowl sanctuary 85

watershed 6-8, 58, 92, 183, 186, 188, 190,
198, 287, 295, 318, 327, 375, 378

waterways 79, 242
Way Kambas Game Reserve 196
WCED 34, 203, 384
WCI 313, 360
WCMC 10, 24, 35, 36, 47, 54, 71, 82, 83, 85, 87,
97, 106, 107, 109, 115, 118, 128-131, 185, 213, 253, 333, 342,

343, 345, 384

Wellington 253, 254
West Indies 344
Westem Ghats 187
Westem Hemisphere Convention 352, 367
Westem Sahara 386
Westland National Park 233-235, 237
wetland reserves 35, 55, 85, 93, 220

wetlands 13, 18, 23, 33, 35-36, 40, 47, 49,52,
54-55, 58-59, 61, 63-64, 77, 79,82-87 93, 98, 105, 110-111, 113,
119, 127, 129, 132, 139, 147, 149, 167-168, 173, 180-181, 183,

Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas

wetlands (cont.) 186-187, 189, 194, 196, 198, 200, 203,
211, 213, 216, 218, 220, 221, 237-238, 243, 265, 286-287, 289-
290, 296, 299, 303, 307, 310, 316, 336, 340, 344, 356, 360, 376

whaling 245
Whanganui National Park 234
wildemess 5, 7, 34, 87, 110, 119, 163, 170,

187, 200, 209, 210, 214, 222, 228, 233, 245, 247, 248, 251, 281,
285, 286, 288, 290, 296, 299
7, 87, 110, 119, 163, 170, 187, 200,
209, 214, 247, 288, 290, 296

wildemess areas

wildfire 225
wildfowl 18, 85, 87, 165, 167, 173, 183, 237, 289, 291, 307
wildland area 290

wildlife area 7, 8, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58,
60-63, 65, 71, 77, 79, 81, 84, 85, 92-98, 105, 110, 112, 118, 121,
127, 128, 141, 161, 166, 167, 170, 171, 174, 181, 183, 188-190,
195-198, 200, 202, 209-211, 213-215, 218, 220-225, 227, 228,
245, 247, 248, 252, 253, 260, 261, 267, 269, 271, 274, 276, 283,
285-291, 293, 294, 296, 297, 299, 305, 306, 314, 319, 321, 322,
327, 329, 332, 334, 344, 345, 352, 355, 360-363, 365, 367, 369,

378, 381-384
Wildlife Management Areas 261, 269
Willandra lakes 214
Wilpattu National Park 181, 183, 202
Wisconsin 285, 296
wise-use 86
Wood Buffalo National Park 291, 294
woodland 13, 47, 54, 61, 77, 94, 105, 110, 119, 317, 335

World Heritage Convention 4, 21, 23, 24, 33, 35, 46, 47, 49, 51,
59, 62, 64, 76, 83, 85, 92, 104, 118, 127, 130, 135, 139, 147, 153,
160, 167, 168, 174, 180, 183, 185, 186, 194, 199, 200, 208, 211,
213, 214, 217, 218, 222, 232-234, 237, 238, 240, 241, 246, 251,
254, 258, 265, 268, 270, 280, 285, 286, 291, 304, 307, 310, 311,

326, 331, 336, 341, 350, 351, 356, 357, 376

world heritage sites 23, 35, 46-47, 51, 59, 62, 64, 76,
83, 85, 104, 127, 135, 139, 153, 160, 167-168, 180, 185, 199, 200,
208, 214, 218, 232-234, 237, 240, 265, 270, 280, 286, 291, 304,

311, 341, 350, 356-357

Wrangel Island Zapovednik 138, 139
Wreck of the Rhone Marine Park 340
WRI 42, 132, 313, 321, 370, 384

Wulingyuan 168
WWF 24, 42, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 71, 86,
113, 121, 126, 129, 132, 167, 170, 183, 194, 196, 202, 203, 240,
241, 246, 252, 286, 291, 299, 313, 314, 320-322, 331, 332, 338,

345, 361-363, 370, 384

Wyoming 289, 296
x

Xalapa 299
Xinjiang 166
Y

Yedigoler National Park 94
Yellowstone National Park 5, 6, 233, 283, 285, 291
Yemen 73-100, 386
Yosemite National Park 283, 291
Yot Dom Wildlife Sanctuary 201
Yugoslavia 101-132, 386
Yushan National Park 166
Zz

Zabaikal’sky National Park 139
Zaire 43-72, 383, 387
zakazniki 138
Zakynthos 119
Zambia 43-72, 387
Zanzibar 54
Zavidovo Zakamik 139
Zeravshan Zapovednik 151
Zhygulevsky Zapovednik 138
Zimbabwe 43-72, 381, 387
zoning 35, 37, 39, 41, 51, 54-55, 58,

61-62, 64-65, 77, 92-93, 97, 121, 129, 139, 142-143, 147-149,
153, 161, 165, 170, 190, 199, 216-218, 220, 224, 245, 247-248,
251, 253, 273, 295, 298, 306, 309-310, 313, 334-335, 339, 355,
357, 365-366, 377

zoological reserve 119

402

im {
me
i
ae
>
= a ;
= 1 ¢

IUCN — The World Conservation Union

Founded in 1948, The World Conservation Union brings together States,
government agencies and a diverse range of non-governmental organizations in a
unique world partnership: over 800 members in all, spread across some 125
countries.

As a Union, IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout
the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any
use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. A central
secretariat coordinates the IUCN Programme and serves the Union membership,
representing their views on the world stage and providing them with the strategies,
services, scientific knowledge and technical support they need to achieve their
goals. Through its six Commissions, IUCN draws together over 6000 expert
volunteers in project teams and action groups, focusing in particular on species
and biodiversity conservation and the management of habitats and natural
resources. The Union has helped many countries to prepare National
Conservation Strategies, and demonstrates the application of its knowledge
through the field projects it supervises. Operations are increasingly decentralized
and are carried forward by an expanding network of regional and country offices,
located principally in developing countries.

The World Conservation Union builds on the strengths of its members, networks
and partners to enhance their capacity and to support global alliances to
safeguard natural resources at local, regional and global levels.

IUCN Communications Division IUCN Publications Services Unit
Rue Mauverney 28 219c Huntingdon Road
CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Cambridge, CB3 ODL, UK
Tel: ++ 41 22-999 00 01 Tel: ++ 44 (1)223-277894
Fax: ++ 41 22-999 00 10 Fax: ++ 44 (1)223-277175
E-mail: mail@hq.iucn.ch E-mail: iucn-psu@wemc.org.uk

IUCN

The World Conservation Union

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Protecting nature : regional reviews of protected areas"

See other formats