(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The World's Protected Areas. Status, Values and Prospects in the 21st Century"

m 



-* i:fZ~JSi^^ 




W0'**. 






The World's 






PROTECTED AREAS 

STATUS, VALUES AND PROSPECTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 



i 



mm 



- « "' 




Edited by STUART CHAPE, MARK SPALDING and MARTIN JENKINS 

Foreword by ACHIM STEINER and JULIA MARTON-LEFEVRE 



xtensively illustrated with maps, color 
photographs, and graphics, this state- 
of-the-art reference offers a compre- 
hensive and authoritative status report 
on the world's ioo,ooo parks, nature reserves, 
and other land and marine areas currently des- 
ignated as protected areas. Now covering over 
12 percent of the Earth's land surface, protected 
areas are the strongholds of biodiversity and 
landscape conservation. They also provide a wide 
range of valuable ecosystem services: protecting 
food and water supplies; regulating weather pat- 
terns; protecting watersheds and coastlines from 
erosion; maintaining places of historical or cul- 
tual significance for recreation, solace, or spiritual 
well-being; generating income and employment 
from tourism; and more. This timely volume of- 
fers a wide-angle picture of these protected areas 
around the globe and shows what they have and 
have not accomplished, what threats they face, 
and how they can be better managed to achieve 
the goals of conserving biodiversity and other 
natural resources. 



V f Vj f_<i 



THE 

WORLD'S 

PROTECTED AREAS 

Status, values and prospects in the 2ist century 




Published in association with UNEP-WCMC 
by University of California Press 

University of California Press 
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California 
University of California Press, Ltd. 
London, England 

© 2008 UNEP World Conservation 
Monitoring Centre 

UNEP-WCMC 
219 Huntingdon Road 
Cambridge CBS ODL, UK 
Tel; +ai01 1223 277 3U 
Fax: +44 101 1223 277 136 
E-mail; info0unep-wcmc.org 
Website; www.unep-wcmc.org 



University of California Press, one of the most 
distinguished presses in the United States, 
enriches lives around the world by advancing 
scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and 
natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the 
UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic 
contributions from individuals and institutions. 
For more information visit www.ucpress.edu. 



No part of this book may be reproduced by any 
means, or transmitted into a machine language 
without the written permission of the publisher 

The contents of this volume do not necessarily 
reflect the views or policies of UNEP-WCMC. 
contributory organizations, editors or publishers. 
The designations employed and the presentations 
do not imply the expression of any opinion 
whatsoever on the part of UNEP-WCMC or 
contributory organizations, editors or publishers 
concerning the legal status of any country, 
territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning 
the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries or the 
designation of its name or allegiances. 

Clothbound edition ISBN: 978-0-520-24660-7 

Cataloging-in-Publication data is on file with the 
Library of Congress 



Citation: Chape S.. Spalding M.. Jenkins M.D. 
[20081 The World's Protected Areas. Prepared by 
the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 
University of California Press. Berkeley, USA. 



Photograph, pages i and lii 

Kinabatu Park World Heritage Site. Malaysia 

© S. Chape 



THE 

WORLD'S 

PROTECTED AREAS 

Status, values and prospects in the 21st century 




Edited by SlUART ChaPE, MARK SPALDING and MARTIN JENKINS 
Foreword by Achim Steiner andJutia Marton-Lefevre 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS 
Berkeley Los Angeles London 



The worlds protected areas 



The World's Protected Areas 

Status, values and prospects in the 21st century 



PREPARED AT 



SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS 



UNEP World Conservation 
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 
219 Huntingdon Road 
Cambridge CBS ODL, UK 
Website: www.unep-wcmc.org 
Director Jon Mutton 
Programme Director Tim Jolnnson 



UNEP 

PO Box 30552 


Co) 


Nairobi 00100. Kenya 


UNEP 


Tel: +25^10120 7621234 




Fax: +254 101 20 7623927 




Website: www.unep.org 




lUCN 


V 


Rue Mauverney 28 


lUCN 


1196 Gland, Switzerland 


Tel: +41 22 999 OOOG 




Fax: +41 22 999 0002 




Website: www.iucn.org 





Total Corporate Foundation 

2. place de la Coupole, 

La Defense 6, Total 

92078 Paris La Defense Cedex. France 

Tel: +33 101 1 44 47 44 24 

Fax: +33 101 1 44 47 25 32 

Website: www.total.com/fondation/en 



A Banson production 
17fSturton Street 
Cambridge CB1 2QG, UK 
bansonOourplanet.com 

Production editors 

Christine Hawi^ins 
Angela Jameson-Potts 
Lucia Leade 
Brigid Barry 
Karen Eng 

Index 

Jill Dormon 

Printed and bound 

Sirivatana Interpnnt Public Co. Ltd.. 
Ttiailand 



Anglo American pic 

20 Carlton House Terrace 

London SW1Y 5AN. UK 

tel: +44(0120 7968 8888 

fax: +44(0120 7968 8500 

Website: www.angloamerican.co.ul; 

The World Bank 

1818 H Street. NW 
Washington. DC 20433. USA 
tel: +1 202 473 1000 
fax: +1 202 477 6391 
Website: www.worldbank.org 



ANGLO 
AMERICAN 



m 



The Nature Conservancy 

4245 North Fairfax Drive. 
Suite 100. Arlington. 
VA 22203-1606. USA 
tel: +1 (7031 841 5300 
fax: +1 (7031812 1283 
Website: www.nature.org 



TheNature (*ii 

Conservancy %iF 

Protecting nature. Preserving life' 



The World's Protected Areas 



AcknowLedgements 



This publication lias been made possible by the 
generous support and cooperation of a large 
number of organisations and individuals. In 
particular, the partnership between UNEP, lUCN 
and UNEP-WCMC on protected area and biodiversity 
issues has provided the impetus for the develop- 
ment and completion of this review of the world's 
protected areas. However, it would not have been 
possible to gather the wealth of information needed 
to cover the wide-ranging topics discussed in the 
book without the input of the more than 80 
contributing authors whose work has been 
synthesised within these pages. 

The editors thank contributors and their 
organisations for generously providing their time 
and technical expertise, and for their patience in 
waiting for the final product. We thank those who 
also took the time to review final drafts. Contributors 
are individually credited elsewhere. However, the 
editors wish to thank Graeme Worboys, Michael 
Lockwood and Oxford University Press for 
permission to use extracted material from 
Protected Area Management: Principles and 
Practice 12nd edition] for Chapters A and 5. NASA 
generously provided satellite imagery, and special 
thanks are due to the time and effort of Gary Geller 
and Mike Abrams at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
in California in dealing with our reguests. The 
editors and UNEP-WCMC take responsibility for any 
licence taken, and errors arising, in order to produce 
an integrated coherent publication. 

The protected areas data presented in the book 
is sourced from the World Database on Protected 
Areas (WDPAl held at UNEP-WCMC. Thanks are due 
to the many protected area agency staff around the 
world that provide national statistical updates for the 
WDPA as part of the periodic United Nations List of 
Protected Areas process. Since 2002 this process 
has been supplemented by the work of the WDPA 



Consortium, a group of international conservation 
organisations that have agreed to cooperate to 
improve the quality of global protected areas data, 
and all Consortium members are thanked for their 
input. Thanks are due to Silvio Olivien of 
Conservation International, who has chaired the 
Consortium during this period, and to Carola Borja, 
who ensured that regular updates were sent to the 
WDPA. 

Lucy Fish, Simon Blyth and Corinna Ravilous at 
UNEP-WCMC worked long and hard on data input, 
analysis and preparation of the book's maps, and 
Igor Lysenko undertook the extensive work required 
for the habitat analyses in Chapter 2. Jerry Harrison 
provided valuable comments on the various drafts 
as well as specific contributions. 

Mary Cordiner, the Centre's former librarian, 
helped with sourcing important reference materiaL 
Thanks are also due to Mark Collins, former 
Director of UNEP-WCMC, and Tim Johnson, Deputy 
Director, for fully supporting the project from its 
inception. Thanks are also due to The Nature 
Conservancy, which generously supported the 
continued work of Mark Spalding on the book from 
October 200^1. 

The project has been generously supported by 
David Sheppard, Pedro Rosabal and Peter Shadie of 
the lUCN Programme on Protected Areas. We would 
also like to thank Kenton Miller, Chair of the lUCN 
World Commission on Protected Areas during 2001- 
200i, for his interest in and support for effective 
global protected areas information and its 
application, and Nikita Lopoukhine, the current 
WCPA Chair, for his support. 

Thanks are also due to Achim Sterner, 
Executive Director of UNEP, and his predecessor, Dr 
Klaus Tdpfer; and to Svein Tveitdal, former Director 
UNEP DEC/DEPI, for their institutional and financial 
support of the project. 



University of California Press gratefully acknowledges the generous contribution to this book 
provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Fund in Environmental Studies. 



The worlds protected areas 



Contributors 



Editors 

Stuart Chape 
Mark Spalding 
Martin Jenkins 

Contributors 

Octavio Aburto-Oropeza 

Tom Allnutt 

Rolando Fernandez de Arcila 

Mohamed Bakarr 

Jinn Barborak 

Juan C. Barrera 

Liz Bennett 

Mictielle Bennett 

Mictiael Beresford 

K. BerkmuUer 

Seema Bhatt 

Andrew Bignell 

Delnnar Blasco 

Grazia Bornni-Feyerabend 

Timothy Boucher 

Charlotte Boyd 

Peter Bridgewater 

Philip Bubb 

Neil Burgess 

Georgina Bustamante 

Chris Carpenter 

Eleanor Carter 

Roberto B Cavalcanti 

Pete Coppolillo 

Roger Crofts 

Natalia Danilina 

Will Darwall 

Paul K. Dayton 

Philip Dearden 

Ruth DeFries 

Eric Dinerstein 

Nigel Dudley 

Bud Ehler 

Reinaldo Estrada 

Simon Ferrier 

Monica T. da Fonseca 

Gary N. Geller 

Jose Luis Gerhartz 



Ed Green 
Larry Hamilton 
Elery Hamilton-Smith 
Jeremy Harrison 
William Henwood 
Enrique Hernandez 
Juan Antonio Hernandez 
Juan Carlos Godoy Herrera 
Mark Hockings 
Jonathan Hoekstra 
Natarajan Ishwaran 
Rodney Jackson 
Jargal Jamsranjav 
Jim Johnston 
Sam Kanyamibwa 
Val Kapos 
Margaret Kinnaird 
Rebecca Kormos 
Ashish Kothari 
Alessandra Vanzella Khouri 
Carmen Lacambra 
Fiona Levenngton 
Ken Lindeman 
Esthenne Lisinge 
Ghislaine Llewellyn 
Michael Lockwood 
Colby Loucks 
Igor Lysenko 
Ricardo B. Machado 
Andy Mack 
John MacKinnon 
Chris Magin 
John Marsh 
Elaine Marshall 
Ed McManus 
Kenton Miller 
Les Molloy 
John Morrison 
Carolina Murcia 
Tim O'Brien 
Silvio Qlivieri 
Jeanne Pagnan 
Michael Painter 
Gustavo Paredes 



Ivan Parra 

Arthur Paterson 

Antonio Perera 

Adrian Phillips 

Luiz Paulo de S. Pinto 

George Powell 

Bob Pressey 

Allen Putney 

Alan Rabinowitz 

Madhu Rao 

Carmen Revenga 

Jane Robertson Vernhes 

Ana Rodrigues 

Pedro Ruiz 

Anthony Rylands 

Enric Sala 

Elsa Sattout 

Roger Sayre 

Samuelu Sesega 

Sue Stolton 

Holly Strand 

Mohammad S. A. Sulayem 

Effendy A, Sumardja 

Michelle Taylor 

Russell Taylor 

Michele Thieme 

Jim Thorsell 

Pragati Tuladhar 

Tony Turner 

Alan Tye 

Carlos Castaho Uribe 

Amy Vedder 

D. Watting 

Graeme Worboys 

David Zeller 

Shin Wan 



Cartography 

Lucy Fish 
Simon Blyth 
Igor Lysenko 



The World's Protected Areas 



Foreword 



Achim Steiner 

UN Under-Secretary-General 

and Executive Director of the 

United Nations Environment Programme 



Julia Marton-Lefevre 

Director-General 

International Union for 

the Conservation of Nature 



For centuries people all over the world have set 
aside places to which they ascribe special values. In 
many cases these values have been spiritual or 
cultural in nature, but many places have also been 
set aside for practical purposes - to conserve 
essential everyday resources such as fish, wildlife 
and non-timber forest products. Some have been 
set aside for the excusive use of an elite minority, in 
other cases for the benefit of many Nonetheless, all 
have been set aside for one purpose - to protect 
something that humankind perceives as valuable. 

Over the last 100 years or so the pace of 
establishment of such areas has increased, partly as 
a result of human population growth, but more 
particularly because of a greater appreciation of the 
natural world, changing patterns of resource use, 
broader understanding of the impacts of man on 
nature, and increasing globalization. Since the 
foundation of the original Yellowstone National Parl< 
in 1872. well over 100 000 sites have been estab- 
lished as parl<s, resen/es and sanctuaries by all 
levels of government, by many types of organization 
and institution, and by civil society 

Over the same period of time, our impact on 
the Earth's natural systems, and on the biodiversity 
that comprises them, has grown exponentially This 
has prompted a broadening of approaches to 
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and 
has encouraged the development of clearer linl^ages 
between protected areas and human development 
goals. Protected areas are now being increasingly 
seen as one of the tools for supporting sustainable 
development, rather than as something set aside 
from the mainstream. 

This brings with it major challenges for those 
involved in all aspects of the establishment and 
management of protected areas; from the govern- 
ments setting national policy to practitioners on the 



ground. When protected area professionals met in 
1962 at the first World Par(<s Congress the concerns 
and issues were very different from those on the 
agenda at the fifth World Parks Congress in 2003. 
And perhaps more significantly for many, thirty 
years ago there were few international agreements 
concerned with biodiversity conservation and the 
protection of the world's special places, and few 
international organizations working on the ground. 
Now there is a plethora of international activity and 
interest impacting on conservation on the ground. 

Because of the nature of the changes affecting 
the world's protected areas it is essential that we 
periodically make the effort to review their status 
and to understand the challenges that these special 
places face. This is what The World's Protected 
Areas aims to do. It not only provides us with a 
status report of our progress in establishing 
protected areas, but also discusses their role in 
biodiversity conservation, the threats they face, and 
the complex issues of management. Importantly it 
delivers a frank assessment of our likely progress in 
achieving the goals that we have collectively set. 

The World's Protected Areas challenges any 
complacency that we may have about our apparent 
success in establishing effective protected area 
systems around the world. There is much to be 
applauded, but also considerably more that needs 
to be done to ensure effective biodiversity conserv- 
ation, to integrate protected areas into landscape 
planning and human development, and to make 
protected areas part of our mitigation strategy for 
climate change. These are some of the real 
challenges of our time. 

In September 2003, more than 3 000 people 
interested in protected areas, from 157 countries, 
participated in the fifth World Parks Congress 
that took place in Durban. South Africa. They were 



The worlds protected areas 



concerned not only with reviewing progress and 
stnaring experience, but also with planning for the 
future - identifying the actions necessary in the 
coming years to ensure effective networks of 
protected areas, conserving biodiversity and 
meeting human needs. 

But, vital though it is, the goodwill and commit- 
ment of professionals in the field is not enough, 
and the understanding and commitment of 
governments is also essential, A year after the 
Durban Congress, the Parties to the Convention on 
Biological Diversity ICBDl adopted a Programme of 
Work on Protected Areas. In this, governments 
commit themselves to a range of activities and time- 
bound targets which, if they are all achieved, will do 
much to ensure biodiversity conservation and 
environmental sustainability 

So the pieces are in place. We have many 
experienced professionals working in protected 
areas and we have the commitment of governments. 



We have a wide range of both national and inter- 
national organizations working to achieve effective 
protected areas and protected area networks. We 
have both the private sector and civil society 
increasingly recognizing the value of protected 
areas. And we have an understanding of what we 
need to do. 

There is now a compelling imperative to 
resolve our global environmental issues. The 
World's Protected Areas was being researched and 
written as the fifth World Parks Congress was taking 
place, and as the CBD Conference of Parties was 
adopting its Programme of Work on Protected 
Areas. It sets the scene, telling us where we are at 
the start of this period of renewed action for 
protected areas. A fundamental message of this 
book IS that protected areas are a key part of our 
strategy to ensure biodiversity consen/ation and to 
secure a sustainable future for biodiversity 



The World's Protected Areas 



Contents 



Acknowledgements v 

Contributors vi 

Foreword vii 

Key to regional maps xii 

Introduction xiii 

Dedication xv 

1 History, definitions, values and 
global perspective 1 

What is a protected area? 4 

The global balance sheet: how many 

protected areas? 9 

Values and benefits of protected areas U 

Intangible values of protected areas 19 

International dimensions 21 

Antarctica - a special case 32 

A global rerview 3^ 

Figures 

1.1 The 'human footprint' as a percentage 
of human influence in every biome on 

the Earth's land surface 2 

1 .2 Global growth in protected areas 11 

1.3 Global growth in the number of 
protected areas 11 

1.4 The world's protected areas by region ... 13 

1.5 Global protected areas 

by lUCN Category U 

1 .6 Global protected areas, level of 
protection, management and use 14 

1.7 The constituent elements of total 
economic value 15 

1 .8 The relationship of World Heritage 

sites to other types of protected areas ... 26 

1 .9 Biosphere reserje zonation - 

concept and practice 29 

Tables 

1.1 Historic milestones in the 
development of protected areas 6 

1.2 Old and new paradigms 10 

1.3 The world's 20 largest protected areas .19 

1.4 International environmental 
conventions, treaties and agreements, 

and associated protocols 20 



Boxes 

1.1 lUCN categories 12 

1.2 Current protected area definitions 16 

2 Protected areas and biodiversity 36 

Habitat coverage by the protected areas 46 

Figures 

2.1 Global distribution of protected sites 
of high urgency for consolidating the 
global networl< of protected areas 44 

2.2 Global distribution of unprotected 

sites of high urgency 44 

2.3 Global distribution of wetlands 67 

2.4 Protected areas by river basin 68 

2.5 Ramsar sites by river basin 69 

Tables 

2.1 Major habitat types, their global 
coverage and the areas protected 47 

2.2 Protection of temperate and boreal 
needleleaf forests 51 

2.3 Protection of temperate broadleaf 

and mixed forests 52 

2.4 Tree species in tropical moist 

forests 53 

2.5 Protection of tropical moist forest 53 

2.6 Protection of tropical dry forest 55 

2.7 Protection of boreal and sub-boreal 

open forests 56 

2.8 Protection of tropical open forests 57 

2.9 Protection of tropical savannas 58 

2.10 Protection of temperate grasslands 58 

2.11 Protection of warm deserts and 
semi-deserts 59 

2.12 Protection of cold deserts and 
semi-deserts 59 

2.13 Protection of tundra 61 

2.14 Protection of subtropical and tropical 
shrublands 62 

2.15 Protection of boreal shrublands 62 

2.16 Barren habitat in Himalayan and 
Tibetan Plateau ecoregions and 
protected areas 65 

2.1 7 Proportion of mountain areas within 



The worlds protected areas 



protected areas 66 

2.18 Estimated distribution of freshwater 
resources by continent 66 

2.19 Protection of wetlands 69 

2.20 Ramsar sites of dominant 

wetland types 70 

2.21 Marine ecoregions of the world 72 

2.22 Breakdown of marine protected areas. . . .lU 

Boxes 

2.1 WWF and biogeographic regions 45 

2.2 Biodiversity consen/ation in the 
Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau bh 

2.3 Marine ecosystems 71 

3 Threats to protected areas 76 

Human settlement and incursion 76 

Changes in fire regimes 79 

Infrastructure development 79 

Tourism and recreation 80 

Resource extraction 81 

Alien species 88 

Impacts from beyond the boundaries 90 

Climate change 92 

Tables 

3.1 Types of threats to protected areas 78 

3.2 Threats to protected areas from 

tourism and recreation 80 

Boxes 

3.1 Forest conversion to coffee in Dong 

Hua Sao protected area, Lao PDR 82 

3.2 World Heritage in danger 86 

k Protected areas in the wider context 98 

Social context and changing paradigms 98 

Establishing protected areas 101 

lUCN protected area management 

categories 1 06 

Protected area management as 

governance 108 

Working with the community 109 

Indigenous people and protected areas 113 

Community conserved areas IK 

International trends in protected area 
governance 115 

Tables 

4.1 Matrix of protected area management 
objectives and lUCN categories 108 

4.2 Modes of protected area governance ... 109 



Boxes 

4.1 Private protected areas 102 

4.2 The Baja to Bering marine 
conser^/ation initiative 105 

4.3 Species consen/ation and traditional 
resource ownership in the 
Pacificlslands 110 

4.4 Kaa-iya del Gran Chaco National 

Park and Management Area 112 

4.5 Alto Fragua-lndiwasi; Colombia 
recognizes a community conserved 

area as a national park 115 

4.6 Participatory planning and 
management: the Galapagos 116 

5 The functions and processes of 

protected area management 120 

Obtaining and managing information 122 

Management planning 123 

Finance and economics 126 

Administration 130 

Sustainable management 131 

Operations management 132 

Managing threats 132 

Cultural Heritage Management 133 

Tourism and recreation 133 

Evaluating management effectiveness 138 

Figures 

5.1 Data and information flow in 
the UWA management 

information system 124 

5.2 A typical planning process 127 

Tables 

5.1 WCPA management effectiveness 
framework 140 

5.2 Methods of data collection, 
participants involved and WCPA 
framework elements 141 

5.3 Case studies of management 
effectiveness evaluation 142 

Boxes 

5.1 The role of rangers in protected 

area management 134 

5.2 Developing capacity and training for 
protected areas 136 

6 Managing the marine environnnent 146 

Management interventions 146 



The World's Protected Areas 



Marine management areas - a broad array . . U6 
Establishment and management issues U9 

Tables 

6A lUCN protected areas 

management categories in ttie 

Great Barrier Reef Marine Parl< 155 

Boxes 

6.1 Ttie international framework 148 

6.2 Fisfieries benefits and limitations U9 

7 Prospects for protected areas in 
the 21st century 158 

Assessing the global environment: 

the challenges of change 158 

Global "blueprints" for protected areas . , 164 
Can the "blueprint" be implemented'' . . . 167 
Climate change and ecological 

networks 171 

Resourcing the future 172 

Future prospects 1 76 



Figures 



7.1 



7.2 

7,3 



Relative loss of biodiversity of 
vascular plants between 

1970 and 2050 160 

Species extinction rates 160 

Pan-European ecological network . . 172 



Boxes 

7.1 The Durban action plan outcomes 

and key targets 165 

7.2 CBD programme of work on protected 
areas: elements and goals 166 

7.3 CBD programme of work on protected 
areas time-bound targets 168 

7.4 The role of remote sensing 

in protected areas management 

in the 21st century 174 



REGIONAL ANALYSIS 

Introduction 177 

1 North America 179 

Canada, Greenland (Denmarkl, Mexico. 

St Pierre and Miquelon IFrancel, United 

States of America 

Map Protected areas 180 

2 The Caribbean 190 

Anguilla lUKl, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba 
(Netherlands), Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda 
(UK), British Virgin Islands (UK), Cayman Islands 
(UK), Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
Grenada, Guadeloupe (France), Haiti, 
Jamaica, Martinique (France), Montserrat (UK), 
Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands), Puerto Rico 
(USAl, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent 
and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, 
Turks and Caicos Islands (UK), United States 
Virgin islands (USA) 
Map Protected areas 192 

3 Central America 199 

Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama 

Map Protected areas 202 

4 Brazil 208 

Map Protected areas 210 

5 South America 218 

Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, 
French Guiana (France), Guyana, Paraguay, 
Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela 
Map Protected areas 210 

6 Europe 227 

Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Faroe Islands 
(Denmark), Finland, France, Germany, 
Gibraltar (United Kingdom], Greece, Hungary, 
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia - FYR, 
Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, 
Norway, Poland, Romania, San Marino, 
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Svalbard 
and Jan Mayen Islands (Norway), Sweden, 
Switzerland, United Kingdom, Vatican City State 
Map Protected areas 228 



The worlds protected areas 



7 West and Central Africa 238 

Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 
Cameroon, Cape Verde. Central African 
Republic, Chad, Congo. Cote d'lvoire. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo. 
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon. Gambia. Ghana, 
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau. Liberia, Mali, 
Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, 
Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra 
Leone. Togo 
Map Protected areas 240 



8 Eastern and Southern Africa 248 

Botswana. Comoros. Djibouti, Eritrea, 
Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, 
Malawi. Mauritius. Mayotte IFrancel, 
Mozambique, Namibia. Reunion IFrancel. 
Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa. Sudan. 
Swaziland. Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, 
Zimbabwe 
Map Protected areas 250 



9 North Africa and the Middle East 258 

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, 
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, 
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, 
Occupied Palestinian Territories. Qatar, Saudi 
Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic. Tunisia. Turkey, 
United Arab Emirates, Western Sahara, Yemen 

Map Protected areas. North Africa 260 

Protected areas. Middle East 262 

10 Northern Eurasia 268 

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian 
Federation. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, 
Uzbekistan 



Map Protected areas 270 

1 1 South Asia 277 

Bangladesh, Bhutan, British Indian Ocean 
Territory lUKI, India, Maldives. Nepal. 
Pakistan. Sn Lanka 
Map Protected areas 278 

12 East Asia 285 

China. Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea. Japan. Mongolia. Republic of Korea. 
Taiwan POC 
Map Protected areas 286 

13 Southeast Asia 293 

Brunei Darussalam. Cambodia. Indonesia. Lao 
PDR. Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, 
Timor-Leste, Thailand, Viet Nam 
Map Protected areas 294 

U Australia and New Zealand 302 

Map Protected areas 304 

1 5 Pacific Islands 312 

American Samoa, Cook Islands, Federated 
States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, 
Guam, Hawaii, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, 
Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern 
Mariana Islands. Patau. Papua New Guinea, 
Pitcairn, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, 
Tonga, Tuvalu, United States Minor Outlying 
Islands, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna 
Map Protected areas 314 

Bibliography 320 

Index 339 



Key to regional maps 



National protected areas 

nm • lUCN cateroties la-VI 
HM • No category 



International protected areas 

^ • Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar) 

^ • World Heritage Sites 

^ • UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves IMABI 



The World's Protected Areas 



ntroduction 



With the increasing recognition of the importance 
of protected areas, it is timely to review their global 
status, not only in terms of location and extent but 
also of the range of issues that are critical in 
understanding their values, threats, management, 
and future prospects. There are many thousands 
of publications on protected areas, ranging from 
site-specific assessments of design and manage- 
ment; through broader issues of species and 
ecosystem conservation, the involvement of local 
and indigenous peoples, and the design of 
protected areas networks; to global issues 
addressing extent, status, threats, and manage- 
ment effectiveness. The purpose of this book is to 
present, in one volume, a comprehensive overview 
of the worlds protected areas in relation to these 
and many other issues, not only highlighting their 
importance to humanity but also examining the 
critical issues that will determine their relevance 
and long-term viability. 

The World's Protected Are^s is a review of the 
current state of knowledge, especially in relation to 
regional and global numbers and extent. The rapid 
growth in the number of conservation areas in the 
latter part of the 20th century, and the commit- 
ments made at the Vth World Parks Congress in 
2003. suggests that governments and communities 
remain committed to establishing further protected 
areas. The critical issues and imperatives con- 
cerning the role of protected areas in conserving 
biodiversity, the effectiveness of their management, 
and their relationship to local-to-global develop- 
ment agendas will also intensify. This book 
therefore not only provides an overview of the 
current global protected areas situation but will 
also provide a benchmark for future evaluation of 
how well we have addressed these critical issues 
and imperatives. The book is made up of the 
following chapters: 

O Chapter 1 provides an overview of the develop- 
ment of protected areas; it discusses current 
definitions; provides global statistics on the 
numbers, extent, and types of protected areas; 
considers the values of protected areas and 
describes the various international efforts that 



strengthen the global protected areas estate. 

G Chapter 2 examines the critical role of 
protected areas in conserving global biodiv- 
ersity, provides an analysis of the extent of 
protection provided to the worlds terrestrial 
and marine habitats, and highlights the gaps 
in the global network of protected areas. 

G Chapter 3 reviews the diverse range of threats 
confronting protected areas in virtually all 
areas of the world. 

3 Chapter i deals with the issues associated 
with establishing and managing protected 
areas and the importance of governance. 

G Chapter 5 looks at management planning, the 
management of threats, and the evaluation of 
management effectiveness. 

3 Chapter 6 reviews the special management 
issues and opportunities relating to the 
marine environment, the realms in which 
most work needs to be done to develop a 
global marine protected areas network. 

3 Chapter 7 offers an assessment of what the 
future may hold for protected areas in the 21st 
century, examining the key issues of their 
roles and values, conservation effectiveness, 
resourcing, and the need for political 
commitment to ensure that protected areas 
achieve their goals. 

3 The Regional Analysis provides an assessment 
of the status of protected areas, and a review 
of major issues and prospects, by the regions 
of the world as defined by the lUCN World 
Commission on Protected Areas. 

The World Database on Protected Areas IWDPAl is 
compiled from multiple sources and is the most 
comprehensive global dataset on marine and 
terrestrial protected areas available. It is a joint 
venture of UNEP and lUCN, produced by UNEP- 
WCMC and the lUCN World Commission on Pro- 
tected Areas IIUCN-WCPAI working with govern- 
ments and collaborating NGOs. The WDPA is 
continually updated. The regional protected areas 
maps and statistics have been produced using the 
2004 and 2006 editions of the WDPA. 



The World's Protected Areas 



Dedication 



This publication is dedicated to those whose commitment makes protected areas around the world a reality 
on the ground or in the seas. These are the field staff - the superintendents, field scientists and, above all, 
the rangers and wardens. Most protected areas around the world are under-resourced and under-staffed, 
and many lie in conflict zones, only surviving because of the devotion of field staff that protect the values of 
these special places against frequently overwhelming odds. 

Every year field staff are l<illed or injured while protecting conservation areas that are now almost 
universally recognised as having a critical role in our survival, and the survival of the millions of species with 
which we share this planet. We recognize their dedication and commitment to ensuring that collectively we 
can achieve a truly effective global protected areas network in the 21st century. 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



Chapter 1 

History, Definitions, Values and 
Global Perspective 



Contributors: S- Ctiape; Values and benefits of protected areas: M. Spalding, M. Taylor and A. Putney: World 
hieritage Convention: N. Ishwaran, J. Thorsell, S. Chape: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: D. Blasco: Biosphere 
reserves: J. Robertson Vernhes and P. Bridgewater; Transboundary protected areas, biological corridors and 
networl<s: J. Harrison; Antarctica: E. McManus. 



The human desire to protect and revere special 
places is as old as our species, but it has become 
even more important as human impact on the 
planet continues its relentless change of natural 
ecosystems and destruction of biological diversity. 
The global population now exceeds 6 billion people 
and is predicted to rise to 9 billion by 2050. Not 
surprisingly, mapping of the 'human footprint' on 
the planet has concluded that more than 80 percent 
of the Earth's land surface is directly influenced by 
humans (Sanderson et al., 20021 (see Figure 1.11. 
We already use an estimated AO percent of the 
Earth's net primary productivity (Rojstaczer, 
Sterling, and Moore, 20011, 35 percent of oceanic 
shelf productivity (Pauly and Christensen, 19951, 
and 60 percent of freshwater runoff IPostel, Daily, 
and Ehrlich, 19961. As well as natural resource con- 
sumption, human-induced climate change is 
bringing changes to temperature, precipitation, sea 
levels, and the distribution and intensity of extreme 
events to all corners of the globe, and threatening 
much greater change in the coming decades. 

As a result, remaining natural landscapes are 
rapidly being modified, and the Earths biological 
diversity Ibiodiversityl continues to decline at an 
alarming rate. However, the factors driving this 
modification and change are complex, and not only 
related to the simple equation of increasing human 
numbers. Global poverty and inequitable develop- 
ment are fundamental drivers for negative environ- 
mental change and loss of natural landscapes, 
species, and the benefits that we derive from them. 
The economic, health, and educational disparities 
between wealthy and poor countries continue to 
grow, with increasing pressure on limited resources 



and living space. The eminent American scientist 
E.O.Wilson has observed: 'for the entire world 
population to enjoy US consumption with existing 
technology, the present-day human population 
would have to spread itself over two more planet 
Earths' (Wilson, 20001. With such enormous pres- 
sure on the planet, what are our chances of cons- 
erving the natural world in which we have evolved? 
Fortunately, recognition of the need to protect 
the world's remaining natural places is almost 
universal among the nations of the Earth. We now 
have thousands of nature reserves, national parks, 
protected landscapes, and other forms of desig- 
nated conservation areas. There are now more than 
1 000 such designations that we collectively refer to 
as 'protected areas.' Protected areas are not only 
the last strongholds of nature; they also have a vital 
role in providing humankind with a range of valuable 
ecological services. In the face of the human- 
induced global change that has occurred since the 
Industrial Revolution, governments, organizations, 
and community groups recognize that if concerted 
action is not taken, only scattered remnants of 
natural ecosystems will remain, and most of those 
will be in the most inhospitable and economically 
unproductive areas of the planet. This recognition 
has been reflected in a number of international and 
regional environmental and conservation agree- 
ments over the past two decades and, more 
importantly, by the decisions of governments to 
establish or expand national protected area 
systems. As well as formal intergovernmental 
and governmental responses, non-governmental 
organizations [NGOsl and community groups 
have become instigators of conservation action. 



The world's protected areas 




FIGURE 1.1: THE "HUMAN FOOTPRINT" AS A PERCENTAGE OF HUMAN 
INFLUENCE IN EVERY BIOME ON THE EARTH'S LAND SURFACE 

Derived from "a quantitative evaluation of human influence on the land surface, 
based on geographic data describing human population density, land trans- 
formation, access, and electrical powder infrastructure, and normalized to reflect 
the continuum of human influence across each terrestrial biome defined within 
biogeographic realms". Source Sanderson elal. 2002 

including tine establishment and management of 
protected areas. 

In September 2003, more than 3 000 people 
from 157 countries gathered in Durban, South 
Africa, for the Fifth World Parks Congress. It was 
the largest and most diverse gathering in history of 
people concerned with conservation of the worlds 
natural heritage through the establishment and 
management of protected areas. The Congress was 
a milestone in a process that has seen the devel- 
opment of the modern conservation movement, 
initiated by the establishment of the first national 
parks and reserves in the 19th century. At the time 
of the meeting the worlds protected area network, 
which is still growing, had exceeded 100 000 sites, 
covering 12.5 percent of the Earth's land surface, 
although only a tiny fraction (0.5 percent) of the 
ocean surface IChape et ai, 2003). 

In terms of terrestrial area, protected areas 
are now one of the most important land-use 



allocations on the planet. However, while this 
concrete commitment to global conservation is a 
remarkable achievement, we must also recognize 
that setting aside conservation areas is just the 
beginning - effective management action and 
provision of financial and technical resources are 
essential if conservation objectives are to be 
achieved. Moreover, we also need to ensure that the 
location and extent of protected areas effectively 
conserves the Earth's remaining biodiversity. The 
existing protected area system still falls short of 
this objective; a recent study (Rodrigues etal., 20031 
identified more than 700 threatened species 
believed not to occur in any protected area. 

The Durban Congress adopted wide-ranging 
recommendations to improve the coverage and 
management of protected areas, and reinforced the 
need for a spectrum of different types of protected 
areas to effectively conserve natural and cultural 
values. The outcomes of Durban were supported in 
February 2004 by the Seventh Meeting of the 
Conference of the Parties lCoP71 to the Convention 
on Biological Diversity (CBDI (SCBD, 200A). The CBD 
CoP7 not only adopted a Programme of Work on 
Protected Areas to be implemented by the 188 
Parties to the Convention, but also endorsed the key 
role of protected areas as indicators for measuring 
success in significantly reducing the loss of global 
biodiversity by 2010. This latter target is closely 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 




S Chape 



Hin Namno National Protected Area, Lao PDR. 



The world's protected areas 



associated with two other intergovernmental 
initiatives: the Plan of Implementation of the World 
Summit on Sustainable Development and the 
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Thus, a 
critical link has been made at international policy 
level between development and protected areas. 

WHAT IS A PROTECTED AREA? 
An old but evolving concept 

The concept and practice of setting aside natural 
and semi-natural areas for protection, special or 
restricted use have a long history Isee Table 1.11. 
From 300 BC. the Mauryan kings of northern India 
established reserves to protect forests, elephants, 
fish, and wildlife IGrove, 1995; Dhammika, 19931, 
and the Al Hema form of land management, 
practiced for at least 2 000 years across the Ivliddle 
East, set aside large tracts of rangeland to prevent 
overgrazing. Similarly in Oceania, placing 
permanent and seasonal restrictions on access to 
certain areas and/or resources, such as reefs, 
lagoons and certain marine species, was practiced 
extensively. Often these historic reservations and 
prohibitions, such as the hunting reserves of Europe 
and India, were for the benefit of a ruling elite, in 
some ways, this approach was replicated, in the 
19th century, in the establishment of the large 
game reserves in southern and eastern Africa by 
European colonial powers; for example, Sabi Game 
Reserve in South Africa Hater to become Kruger 
National Park) was established by President Kruger 
in 1892. 

As the human population continues to grow, 
and our ecological impact on the planet's resources 
increases, our living space is reduced and natural 
resources are depleted. The phrase 'island Earth' is 
no longer a poetic metaphor - it describes the hard 
reality that faces humankind, as it did historically for 
many societies who had to manage their 
populations and natural resources within physically 
limiting conditions (for example, on atolls and in 
Arctic and desert environments). We should not be 
surprised, therefore, that there has been increasing 
awareness of the need to conserve nature. The first 
'modern' protected areas were often inspired by the 
very clear ecological impacts of Western conquest 
and colonization on Africa, the Americas, Asia, 
Australia, and numerous oceanic islands IGrove, 
19951. Parks were established to preserve 
permanent remnants of the local ecosystems that 
many of these colonists saw disappearing under 
cities, farms, and plantations. 



Yellowstone National Park in the USA is 
recognized as the first of these new parks. 
Established in 1872, the area was reserved and 
withdrawn from settlement, occupancy or sale... 
and dedicated and set apart as a public park or 
pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment 
of the people' (from the establishing Act of 
Congress). Declaration of the Royal National Park 
in Australia followed in 1879, with other well- 
known parks established in the closing decades of 
the 19th century and the early ones of the 20th 
century. These include New Zealand's Tongariro 
National Park (1894), Canada's Banff National 
Park (1898), Yosemite National Park in the USA 
(1890, although the original federal grant was 
signed in 1864 by Abraham Lincoln), and the 
Gorilla Sanctuary in the then Belgian Congo 
11925). Other protected areas were established in 
Asia and other parts of Africa. 

In Europe early reserves included those in 
Laponia in Sweden (1909), the Swiss National Park 
(19U), and the Bialowieza Forest in Poland 11947). 
The dominant underlying philosophy in establishing 
protected areas until the second half of the 20th 
century, especially in the USA and other 'new world' 
countries, remained the preservation of "nature 
islands of solitude and repose [as] an indispensable 
ingredient of modern civilization" (Udall, 1964), 
while recognizing their potential economic values 
for tourism and for science. Unfortunately, in quite 
a few cases these early national parks were 
established in areas where indigenous peoples had 
been removed or were excluded. 

In his keynote address to the First World 
Conference on National Parks held in Seattle, 
Washington, in 1962, Stewart Udall, Umited States 
Secretary of the Interior, advised: So great is the 
power of men and nations to enlarge the machine- 
dominated portion of the world that it is not an 
exaggeration to say that few opportunities for 
conservation projects of grand scope will remain 
by the year 2000 ...with few exceptions the places 
of superior scenic beauty, the unspoiled land- 
scapes, the spacious refuges for wildlife, the 
nature parks and nature reserves of significant 
size and grandeur that our generation saves will 
be all that is preserved. We are the architects who 
must design the remaining temples; those 
who follow will have the mundane tasks of 
management and housekeeping.' (Udall, 1964). 

In 1962 there were almost 10 000 parks and 
reserves worldwide; 45 years later the World 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



Database on Protected Areas, maintained by the 
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 
holds information on more than 100 000 protected 
sites. In addition, there are novi/ almost 5 000 
internationally designated areas, including World 
Heritage sites, biosphere reserves and Ramsar 
sites. In some ways Udall was correct in his assess- 
ment of the prospects for global conservation. Many 
of the large, high conservation value areas of the 
globe were protected by the early 1990s. Yet the 
number of designated areas has continued to grow 
and we know that there is still much more to 
conserve. The average size of protected areas has 
been decreasing as newer sites tend to be much 
smaller However, even here there are exceptions 
with, for example, Brazil recently adding large areas 
of the Amazon to its protected area system. The 
coverage of protected areas also varies between 
different biomes, with some, such as marine and 
freshwater, being particularly poorly represented 
Isee Chapter 2). 

Of course the function of protected areas, and 
their role in wider society, has changed over time. 
As McNeely 11998] has noted: 'Protected areas are 
a cultural response to perceived threats to nature. 
Because society is constantly changing, so too are 
social perspectives on protected areas and the 
values that they are established to conserve.' The 
current concept of a protected area has evolved 
significantly from that originally proposed by 19th- 
century American and European visionaries. 

What was not apparent even through the 
1950s and 1960s was the evolution of the protected 
area concept and the repackaging' of conservation 
concerns under the umbrellas of sustainable 
development and biodiversity that would occur 
from the 1970s through to the 1990s. This was 
heavily influenced by a number of international 
events and agreements, including: the Stockholm 
Conference on Environment and the adoption of the 
World Heritage Convention in 1972; the 1980 World 
Conservation Strategy; the 1992 UN Conference on 
Environment and Development, and the adoption of 
the CBD that same year. Another critical factor has 
been the expansion of the World Commission on 
Protected Areas (WCPAl network (originally formed 
as the Commission on National Parks in 19581, and 
the technical and scientific outputs from World 
Parks Congresses held in 1972, 1982, 1992, and 
2003. All of these factors have resulted in: 
n the formulation of specific protected area 

management categories that recognize the 




scope and values of different approaches to 

conserving natural areas; 
CJ 'mainstreaming' of conservation concerns into 

development agendas; 
3 rethinking the role of protected areas vis-a-vis 

conservation and sustainable human use; 
3 recognition of the importance of cultural 

values; 
3 recognition of the role of protected areas as 

key indicators for assessing achievement of 

global sustainable development objectives, 

and as contributing measures for combating 

desertification, climate change, and loss of 

genetic diversity. 

In a sense, we have come full circle in recognizing 



Yosemite National Park, 
USA - one of the world's 
first protected areas. 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 1.1: HISTORIC MILESTONES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS 

10 000 BC As agriculture began to transform ttie relationstiip between people and nature, local communities recognized specific 
sites as "sacred", and protected them from certain human uses. Applied differently in different places over the 
subsequent millennia, the concept was a widespread practical measure that people found beneficial in both material 
and spiritual ways. 

252 BC Emperor Asoka of India established protected areas for mammals, birds, fish, and forests, the earliest recorded areas 

where a government protected certain resources. 

684 AD First Indonesian nature reserve was established by order of the King of Snvijaya, on the island of Sumatra. Sumatra is 

now recognized as one of the world's centers of megadiversity. with numerous protected areas - the major sites 
comprising the recently declared 25 000 km^ Tropical Rainforest of Sumatra World Heritage site. 

1079 William the Conqueror claimed the New Forest [Englandl as a royal hunting reserve and protected it against illegal 

harvesting from rural people; poaching became a major law enforcement issue, but timber from the forest was 
essential to England's war efforts in the 17-19th centuries. Today the New Forest is still a valued protected area and 
became the UK's newest national park in 2005. 

1865 Yosemite ICalitornial was established by US Congress as effectively the first of a new national-level model of protected 

areas; Yellowstone 118721 was first to be called a national park. 

1882 El Chico National Park established in Mexico, the first in Latin America. 

1 903 The Society for the Protection of the Wild Fauna of the Empire was established in the UK, the first non-governmental 

organization devoted to international conservation - now known as Fauna and Flora International IFFI). Hundreds of 
other civil society conservation organizations now support protected areas in all parts of the world. 

1925 First "modern" national park was established in Asia lAngkor Wat, Cambodial. 

1926 South Africa's Kruger National Park was established. 

1934 Argentina's Iguazu National Park was established. 

1948 lUCN - The World Conservation Union was founded las the International Union for Protection of Nature! as a means of 

promoting conservation worldwide, but especially in the former colonies gaining independence in the post-war world, 
based on the prediction of significant habitat loss if nothing were done. The establishment of protected areas has 
always been seen as an important area of focus. 

1961 WWFwas set up las the World Wildflife Fund] as a new international non-governmental organization to mobilize 

support for conservation, especially from the general public. This marked the beginning of an era of growing funding 
for international conservation. 

1962 The First World Conference on National Parks, in Seattle, Washington, began a more formal worldwide movement in 

support of protected areas, called for a UN List of Protected Areas, and recommended a category system. Prior to this, 
each country kept its own records, so nobody knew the extent of the world's protected area system. 

1963 College of African Wildlife Management at Mweka, Tanzania was established. By 2003, more than 4 200 Africans had 
graduated from Mweka. 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 




the spectrum of values and benefits provided by 
lands and waters protected from unsustainable use 
and despoliation - not as isolated societies but as a 
global community, and recognizing the diversity of 
social values that are placed on protected areas. 
Phillips 120031 suggests that such concerns have 
been reflected in a 'new paradigm' of protected 
areas (see Table 1.21. But in view of the long 
history of resource protection over thousands of 
years, it is perhaps not so much a new paradigm as 
one rediscovered. 

Definitions of protected areas 

More generalized, internationally accepted, 
definitions of protected areas were first provided in 
some of the early international conventions 
relating to protected areas, notably the London 
Convention in 1933 and the Western Hemisphere 
Convention in 1940 (see Table 1.^1. The first lUCN 
protected areas definition focused on national 
parks, adopted at the 10th General Assembly of 



iUCN in New Delhi in 1969 and subsequently 
endorsed by the Second World Conference on 
National Parks in 1972. The definition placed 
emphasis on prevention or elimination of resource 
exploitation or occupation by people, and did not 
include privately owned land. 

In more recent decades, an understanding of 
the importance and role of protected areas has 
broadened considerably It is now acknowledged 
that there are many places where humans have a 
vital role in the landscape and are part of ecosystem 
processes, and that these places and systems are 
also in need of protection. This, in turn, has led to 
the understanding that nature protection needs to 
be part of a complex system of management all- 
owing for different levels of human interaction. This 
realization led to the adoption of the present IUCN 
definition of a protected area at the IVth World Parks 
Congress in 1992, with its emphasis on protection of 
both natural and cultural assets.- 
"An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to 



Biodiversity of the seas 
more than matches that 
on land. Yet less than 
one per cent of marine 
environments are 
protected. Mamanuca 
Islands, Fiji. 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 1.1: (continued) 

1968 UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme began, establishing biosphere reserves 1529 reserves in 105 countries 

covering more than 5 million km^as of 20071. 

1 971 Ramsar Convention adopted; 1 708 sites covering more than 1 .5 million km^ and 157 contracting parties at the end of 2007. 

1972 UN Conference on Environment and Development, Stockholm, Svyeden endorsed nev^ conventions affecting protected 

areas and led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme lUNEPI based in Nairobi. 
World Heritage Convention adopted. By 2006. 166 natural World Heritage sites and 25 mixed natural and cultural sites 

had been recognized, covering more than 1.8 million km^ 
Second World Conference on National Parks. Yellowstone and Grand Teton, USA. promoted development assistance for 

protected areas in the tropics. 

1977 Training program for protected area personnel established at CATIE. Turnalba, Costa Rica; continues until the present 

time and has provided trained staff for much of Central America, 

1978 lUCN system of categories of protected areas published; set framework for worldwide assessment of protected 

area coverage. Latest revision in 199i. now being promoted for other management applications, 

1980 World Conservation Strategy, published by lUCN, WWF, and UNEP, popularized the concept of sustainable development 

and a partnership between conservation and development. 

1981 Protected Areas Data Unit established by lUCN and its Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, at the 
lUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre, UK; this provided first worldwide database on protected areas. 

1982 Third World National Parks Congress , Bali. Indonesia emphasized the importance of protected areas as a key element 

in national development plans; set 10 percent protected area coverage of each of the world's biomes as a target. 

1987 Our Common Future (the Brundtland Reportl, the report of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development calls for 

12 percent of the land to be given protected area status and advocated global action to conserve biodiversity. 

1991 Global Environment Facility (GEFI created by World Bank. UNDP, and UNEP. providing a major new intergovernmental 

funding mechanism for protected areas, especially through the CBD then under negotiation, 

1992 IVlh World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Caracas, Venezuela. Emphasized linkages between 

protected areas and other sectors of society 

1992 The Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, produced Agenda 21 and approved the CBD and Framework Convention on 

Climate Change, both highly relevant to protected areas. 

2000 UN General Assembly approves Millennium Development Goals, with Goal 7 calling for environmental sustainability 

2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, called for loss of biodiversity to be reversed by 

2010, and for a comprehensive system of marine protected areas to be established by 2012. 

2003 Vth World Parks Congress held in Durban, South Africa. Focused on "benefits beyond boundaries." re-emphasizing the 

importance of protected areas for sustainable development. 

2004 Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD adopts a comprehensive Programme of Work for 

Protected Areas to support implementation of the in-situ conservation components of the CBD. 



Source Adapted from McNeeiy. 2003. 



History, Definitions. Values and Global Perspective 



the protection and maintenance of biological 
diversity, and of natural and associated cultural 
resources, and managed througfi legal or other 
effective means. " 

This definition, which is used throughout this 
publication, is now widely accepted at international, 
regional, and national levels, and provides the basis 
for the worl< of lUCN, the WCPA, and the inclusion 
of sites on the periodic UN List of Protected Areas- 
It is particularly significant as the starting point for 
the definitions and objectives included within the 
lUCN Protected Area Management Category system 
(Box 1.1), discussed in Chapter A. 

Although widely accepted, other definitions for 
protected areas have been developed, including 
those in legal frameworks for regional and global 
agreements, a number of which are listed in Box 
1.2. Among them is the protected area definition of 
the CBD: A geographically defined area which is 
designated or regulated and managed to achieve 
specific conservation objectives.' The CBD has been 
adopted by 188 countries and this definition clearly 
carries considerable weight. It is, however, less 
precise than the lUCN definition and does not refer 
to cultural aspects of protected areas. 

THE GLOBAL BALANCE SHEET: HOW MANY 
PROTECTED AREAS? 

The value in measuring the numbers and extent of 
protected areas on a global basis was first formally 
recognized in 1959 by the 27th Session of the UN 
Economic and Social Council lECOSOCI, in a 
decision that called for compilation of a World List 
of National Parks and Equivalent Reserves (UN 
ECOSOC, 19591. It recommended the list be pro- 
duced on a periodic basis through the collaboration 
of national and UN agencies and lUCN, The res- 
olution was subsequently endorsed by the UN 
General Assembly in 1962 (UN General Assembly 
19621, starting a process that produced 13 editions 
of the UN List of Protected Areas between 1962 and 
2003 - probably the first and longest-running global 
environmental reporting mechanism. This early UN 
recognition, supported by lUCN, has also provided 
an important impetus for the establishment of new 
protected areas over the past ^0 years. 

The global reporting in the UN List has, from 
the outset, been undertaken by lUCN and the 
WCPA (and its precursors], and since 1981 the 
actual data collection and collation have been the 
responsibility of the UNEP-WCMC in partnership 




with lUCN and the WCPA. The information is 
managed in the World Database on Protected 
Areas (WDPA), maintained by UNEP-WCMC on 
behalf of the international community In 2002, a 
WDPA Consortium of international non-govern- 
mental stakeholders involved with global pro- 
tected area issues was formed to strengthen the 
quality and reliability of the data holdings. 
(Membership includes: lUCN, UNEP-WCMC, 
Conservation International, The Nature Conserv- 
ancy, American Museum of Natural History, Fauna 
& Flora International, BirdLife International, WWF, 
and Wildlife Conservation Society.) 

Despite the apparently straightforward nature 
of basic protected area data (latitude, longitude, 
area, name, etc.), obtaining accurate and up-to-date 
information remains a challenging task, highly de- 
pendent on the cooperation of national govern- 
ments and their protected area agencies, private 
organizations, and the support of the WCPA 
network. Obtaining accurate boundary information 
is particularly problematic. Knowing the location 
and extent of existing protected areas is essential 
for undertaking gap analyses to ensure that 
important habitats and species are included in 
conservation areas, and to implement effective 
protected area system planning. At present the 
WDPA holds boundary data on about 40 percent of 
the protected areas held in the database, although 
this includes most of the largest and most 
important protected areas. Central geographic 
coordinates are known for the vast majority of sites. 



The lUCN protected area 
definition Includes both 
natural and cultural 
values. Uluru-Kata Tjuta 
National Park World 
Heritage Area, Australia. 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 1.2: OLD AND NEW PARADIGMS OF PROTECTED AREAS 






As it was: 


As it is becoming: 




protected areas were... 


protected areas are... 


Objectives 


Set aside for consen/ation 


Run also with social 




Established mainly for spectacular 


and economic objectives 




wildlife and scenic protection 


Often set up for scientific. 




Managed mainly for visitors 


economic, and 




and tourists 


cultural reasons 




Valued as wilderness 


Managed with local 




About protection 


people more in mind 
Valued for the cultural 

importance of so-called 

"wilderness" 
Also about restoration and 

rehabilitation 


Governance 


Run by central government 


Run by many partners 


Local people 


Planned and managed against people 


Run with, for. and in 




Managed without regard for 


some cases by local people 




local opinions 


Managed to meet the needs of 
local people 


Wider context 


Developed separately 


Planned as part of national, 




Managed as "islands" 


regional, and international 
systems 
Developed as "networks" 
Istrictly protected areas, 
buffered and linked by green 
corridors! 


Perceptions 


Viewed primarily as a national asset 


Viewed also as a community 




Viewed only as a national concern 


asset 
Viewed also as an international 
concern 


Management techniques 


Managed reactively within short 


Managed adaptively in long- 




timescale 


term perspective 




Managed in a technocratic way 


Managed with political 
considerations 


Finance 


Paid for by taxpayer 


Paid for from many sources 


Ivlanagement skills 


Managed by scientists and 


Managed by multiskilled 




natural resource experts 


individuals 




Expert led 


Drawing on local knowledge 


Source; Phillips. 2003 



10 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



FIGURE 1.2: GLOBAL GROWTH IN PROTECTED AREA, 1872-2005 



20 



I Cumulative area of documented sites Ikm'l 
I Cumulative areas of non-dated sites Ikm^l 



■ ■■II 



ll 



1872 '75 85 '95 1905 '15 



■25 



'35 '45 



'55 '65 '75 '85 



'95 2005 



Improving information held in the WDPA is 
an ongoing process and, as the quality of data 
is refined, these improvements can lead to 
adjustments to the knov^n global numbers and 
extent of protected areas. Sometimes these 
adjustments can result in a reduction of protected 
area numbers in specific localities as errors are 
removed, but the overall trends of cumulative 
grovjth are clear 



Figure 1.2 shows the grovifth in the global 
protected areas estate over time, while Table 1.3 
provides a listing of some of the worlds largest pro- 
tected areas. By the end of 2005, the WDPA had re- 
corded over 114 000 sites. These protected areas 
covered more than 19 million km^, or 12.9 percent of 
the Earth's land surface. It is apparent that nature 
conservation has become one of the most important 
human endeavors on the planet, and the area under 



FIGURE 1.3: GLOBAL GROWTH IN THE NUMBER OF PROTECTED AREAS, 1872-2005 



80 



60 



.t: 40 



20 



I Cumulative number of documented sites COOOI 
I Cumulative number of non-dated sites I'OOOI 




1872 '75 



'85 



'95 1905 '15 '25 '35 



45 



'55 '65 



'75 



'85 '95 2005 



11 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 1.1: lUCN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES 

CATEGORY la 

Strict Nature Reserve: protected area managed mainly for science 

Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological 
or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or 
environmental monitoring. 

CATEGORY lb 

Wilderness Area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection 

Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its natural character and 
influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to 
preserve its natural condition. 

CATEGORY II 

National Parl<: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation 

Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to la) protect the ecological integrity of one or more 
ecosystems for present 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. 

CATEGORY III 

Natural Monument: protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features 

Area containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature that is of outstanding 
or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural 
significance. 

CATEGORY IV 

Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through 

management intervention 

Area 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. 

CATEGORY V 

Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation 

and recreation 

Area 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, ecological and/or cultural 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. 

CATEGORY VI 

Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural 

ecosystems 

Area containing predominantly 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 meet community needs. 



12 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



FIGURE ^M■. THE WORLD'S PROTECTED AREAS BY REGION, 2005 

Isee Ctiapter 7 for regional definitions! 

la lb II III IV 

Area 


V 


VI 


No 
Category 


Total 


%of 
land area 
protected 


Antarctic 

Area TOOO km^l 
No. sites 


68.14 
87 


- 


0.16 

4 


0.01 
2 


0.47 
19 


0.01 
5 


0.00 

1 


1.53 
4 


70.32 
122 


0.50 


Australia/New Zealand 

Area I'OOO km-1 
No. sites 


217.04 
2 136 


41.90 
38 


347.41 
701 


33.81 
3 946 


269.25 
1 657 


22.50 
217 


596.25 
489 


9.70 
411 


1 537.85 
9 595 


19.19 


Brazil 

Area I'OOO km^j 
No. sites 


112.02 
182 


- 


160.68 
179 


0-70 
5 


5.07 
259 


135.71 
115 


212.55 
70 


984.81 
476 


1 611.55 
1 286 


18.85 


Caribbean 

Area I'OOO km-'j 
No. sites 


0.18 
11 


0.09 
18 


26.97 
163 


0.50 
40 


11.20 
283 


3.57 
37 


22.22 
192 


3.47 
223 


68.20 
967 


29.05 


Central America 

Area I'OOO knn2) 
No. sites 


4.13 
18 


0.34 
3 


40.03 
104 


2.22 
48 


13.25 
225 


1.25 
5 


44.62 
100 


52.11 
280 


157.93 
783 


30.28 


East Asia 

Area I'OOO km^l 
No. sites 


62.84 
43 


43.40 
34 


98.82 
79 


19.51 
34 


6.11 
121 


1 444.75 
2144 


59.34 
78 


29.87 
734 


1 764.64 
3 267 


15.00 


Eastern and Southern Africa 

Area I'OOO km^j 
No. sites 


2.79 
17 


1.25 
7 


508.60 
220 


0.15 
24 


265.11 
497 


12.56 
30 


543.87 
219 


354.55 
3 053 


1 688.88 
4 067 


14.70 


Europe 

Area I'OOO km2) 
No. sites 


85.84 
1577 


39 95 
542 


108.57 
275 


4.46 
3 570 


70.59 
16331 


348.59 
3 035 


22.01 
203 


194.48 
27 527 


874.47 
53 060 


16.72 


North Africa and Middle East 

Area I'OOO km^j 
No. sites 


3.50 
28 


0.03 
2 


215.87 

71 


12.43 
50 


69.81 
269 


114.76 
162 


790.66 
30 


78.69 
712 


1 285.75 
1 324 


10.02 


North America 

Area I'OOO km^l 
No. sites 


68.86 
841 


473.01 
702 


1 658.85 
1349 


72.59 
591 


614.73 
1334 


135.06 
2 083 


1 015.14 
1425 


70.56 
5 229 


4 108.82 
13 554 


17.31 


North Eurasia 

Area I'OOO km^j 
No. sites 


362.22 

195 


- 


125.42 

66 


24.44 
11321 


841.56 
5 256 


14.79 
407 


84.22 
54 


302.46 
398 


1 755.10 
17 697 


7.94 


Pacific 

Area I'OOO km2| 
No. sites 


1.15 
29 




8.13 
38 


0.52 
23 


1.10 
86 


10.52 
16 


11.70 
59 


33.02 
160 


66.13 
411 


11.95 


South America (excL Brazil) 
Area I'OOO km^J 
No. sites 


12.48 

55 


14.75 
4 


505.12 
220 


74.35 
72 


185.55 
143 


126.20 
96 


586.30 
314 


593.69 
546 


2 098.44 
1 450 


22.55 


South Asia 

Area I'OOO km^l 
No. sites 


2.49 
19 


0-83 
2 


67.34 
133 


- 


160.88 
661 


1.39 
11 


26.13 
12 


51.23 
379 


310.28 
1 217 


6.91 


South East Asia 

Area I'OOO km^l 
No. sites 


22.53 
292 


11.40 
12 


254.66 
329 


24.85 
83 


142.53 
206 


20.84 
129 


200.83 
985 


184.09 
859 


861.71 
2 895 


18.60 


Western and Central Africa 

Area I'OOO km^l 
No. sites 


21.74 
19 


11.74 
7 


348.46 
91 


0.40 
4 


347.80 
119 


0.19 
3 


67.81 
45 


322.80 
2313 


1 120.94 
2 601 


8.75 


TOTAL 

Area COOO km2| 

No. sites 


1048 
5 549 


639 
1371 


4 475 
4 022 


271 
19 813 


3 005 
27 466 


2 393 
8 495 


4 284 
4 276 


3 267 
43 304 


19 381 
114 296 


12.90 


1 



13 



The world's protected areas 



FIGURE 1 .5: GLOBAL PROTECTED AREAS BY 
lUCN CATEGORY, 2005 



No 
category 



FIGURE 1.6: GLOBAL PROTECTED AREAS. 
LEVEL OF PROTECTION, MANAGEMENT, AND 
USE, 2005 




protection now exceeds the total area of permanent 
crops and arable land. What is also clear is the 
great disparity between terrestrial and marine 
conservation efforts, with only 0.5 percent of the 
worlds marine area in protected areas. The global 
distribution of protected areas on the basis of the 
world's major habitats is discussed in Chapter 2, 
and detailed protected area statistics by region are 
presented in the regional overviews in Part 2. 

Statistics about protected areas can tell us 
more than "how many and how much" at global, 
regional, and national levels. If protected area man- 
agement categories (Box 1.1) are properly assigned 
on the basis of protected area management 
objectives, then statistical information about pro- 
tected areas can reveal a great deal about how con- 
servation objectives are being applied. If the 
categories are consistently and accurately applied 
by all countries we will have a clear understanding 
of why individual protected areas have been 
established and the type of conservation role that 
they fulfill. The history of the categories and their 
application are discussed in Chapter 4. 

Currently about two thirds of the protected 
areas in the WDPA are assigned categories, 
covering just over 80 percent of the total area 
protected. Analyses of the data reveal some 
interesting global and regional trends (Figures 1 .4, 
1.5 and 1.6). There are relatively few strictly 



protected areas (la and Ibl, and they cover a small 
percentage of the Earths surface. However, in the 
case of Category II (into which most of the "trad- 
itional" national parks falll, there is a stark differ- 
ence between the relatively low numbers of these 
sites and the large global area that they cover - 
reflecting the fact that national parks tend to 
encompass large geographic areas. The reverse is 
true for Category III and to a lesser extent Category 
IV, which are characterized by numerous smaller 
sites. Of particular interest is the growth in 
Category VI, with its emphasis on sustainable use 
of natural resources, which was adopted by lUCN 
in 1994. This category is also characterized by a 
small number of larger sites, eight of which are 
among the current 20 largest protected areas in 
the world (Table 1.31. Figure 1.6 summarizes the 
three main groups of categories by their primary 
emphasis: strict protection, intensive manage- 
ment, and sustainable use. 

VALUES AND BENEFITS OF PROTECTED AREAS 

In addition to their specific contribution to global 
biodiversity conservation, protected areas have a 
number of wide-ranging values and benefits. As 
early as 1959, the UN ECOSOC noted that national 
parks and equivalent reserves were an important 
factor in the wise use of natural resources, and they 
"contribute to the inspiration, culture and welfare of 



U 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



mankind". lUCN I199il defines the mam purposes 
of protected areas as: 

□ scientific research; 

O wilderness protection; 

O preservation of species and genetic diversity; 

G maintenance of environmental services; 

□ protection of specific natural and cultural 
features, 

□ tourism and recreation; 

□ education; 

□ sustainable use of resources from natural 
ecosystems; 

□ maintenance of cultural and traditional 
attributes. 

Attempts to place a value on protected areas and 
the ecosystems they encompass invariably expand 
to consider many functions and activities essen- 
tial for human existence, broadly defined as eco- 
system goods and services. They provide us with 
food, water, and other resources, regulate our 
weather patterns, and provide us with precious 
medicines and crop varieties. Tourism, now one 
of the world's largest industries, is dependent in 
many areas on the attractions of protected areas, 
and sites generate income, foreign exchange 
earnings, and employment at local, regional, and 
national levels. 

The quantitative values of protected areas 



are increasingly being used as a tool to justify 
and support the development of protected area 
networks. Information on values to different user 
groups, and on the driving forces behind these 
values, is also important in enabling better man- 
agement and in avoiding threats or conflicts. The 
most powerful arguments for establishment and 
retention of protected areas in many circles are 
economic. However, it is quite widely accepted that, 
at present, "ecosystem services are not fully 'cap- 
tured' in commercial markets or adequately quant- 
ified in terms comparable with economic services 
and manufactured capital, they are often given too 
little weight in policy decisions" ICostanza e( a/., 
1 9971. The concept of total economic value ITEV) has 
been widely used to attempt to convert all values 
and benefits into simple economic terms. Figure 1 .7 
shows the main categories of values and benefits 
that contribute to TEV. However, many values are 
notoriously difficult to evaluate in economic terms, 
and results remain somewhat subjective. ISee, for 
example, Munasinghe and McNeely 1994; lUCN, 
1998; Putney, 2000.1 Although typically expressed in 
economic terms, it is important to consider other 
approaches to valuation. Differences in available 
wealth to particular communities and differences in 
overall wealth between countries, mean that the 
use of simple "dollar values" can be misleading. 
Protected areas may be the only source of employ- 



FIGURE 1,7: THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE (TEV) 



Total economic value 



Use values (material values) 






1 










1 


Direct use 
values: e,g, 

grazing, 
harvesting, 

tourism, 

research 




Indirect use 

values: e.g. 

carbon 

sequestration, 

water 
replenishment 




Option values: 

Value assigned 

for future 

direct or 

indirect uses 



Source: Adapted from lUCN 119981 



Non-use values [non-material values) 



Existence 
values: 
aesthetic, 
spiritual, 
cultural 



Bequest 
values: 
future values 
(use and non- 
use) as legacy 

to future 
generations 



15 



The world's protected areas 



ment in some areas, or may provide a critical source 
of fuelwood, or of animal protein in local diets. 
Converted to dollar values on open markets, such 
measurements may appear trivial, but their loss 
could be devastating to many people. 

Direct use values and benefits 

Recreation/tourism: Sometimes simply expressed 
as the receipts in terms of park fees, it is important 
to include the combined economic impact of 
park-related tourism for regional economies, 
including travel and accommodation costs, and 
other expenditure. Such values can also be viewed 
in terms of employment of local populations. 
Harvesting: Depending on its management object- 
ives it IS often feasible and desirable to allow sus- 



tainable extraction of selected natural resources 
from protected areas. This, for example, is the case 
with lUCN Category V and VI protected areas. 
Activities may include grazing of livestock, fishing, 
hunting, the use of non-timber forest products, 
agriculture, water extraction, and extraction of 
genetic resources. An example of such renewable 
resource use is in the Danayiku Nature Park 
at Shan-Mei in Taiwan. Years of community 
cooperation and investment have changed a once 
depleted and unsustainably harvested stock of 
freshwater game fish, kooye minnow {Varicorhinus 
barbatulus], into a financially lucrative sport fishing 
and ecotourism venture ITai, 20021. 

Extraction of non-renewable resources: Certain 



BOX 1.2: EXAMPLES OF CURRENT PROTECTED AREA DEFINITIONS 

GLOBAL 

O lUCN 

"An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological 
diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other 
effective means." 

G Convention on Biological Diversity (CBDl 

"A geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific 
conservation objectives." 

d Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 

"For the purpose of this Convention wetlands are areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether 
natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or 
salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres." 

G UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme 

Biosphere resen/es: "Areas of terrestrial and coastal-marine systems which are internationally 
recognized for promoting and demonstrating a balanced relationship between people and nature." 

REGIONAL 

O Europe 

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe: "Protected or protective forest" 
definition allows for non-permanent designation, although requires protection for at least 20 years. 

Natura 2000 Common Database on Designated Areas: "Designated area" is based on lUCN definition 
but can be extended to cover, for example, complete distribution of certain habitats. 

Helsinki Convention on Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area: Natural 
coastal areas where land and sea meet are in a constant dynamic relation to each other and are: 
systems of great biological richness, variety and productivity; form the habitats of highly specialized 
and often endangered species of wild fauna and flora as well as large populations of breeding and 



16 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



extractive activities are non-sustainable, notably of 
petroleum products and minerals. In general, this 
appears to be contrary to the concept of "protection 
and maintenance" associated vi(ith the definition of 
protected areas. There may be a few cases v^fhere 
the extraction process has limited Impacts and the 
material being extracted may not be essential to the 
objectives and functioning of the protected area. In 
such cases it may be argued that economic benefits 
(direct payments! for the extraction process may 
justify this activity. However, considerable debate on 
the Issue of mineral and hydrocarbon extraction In 
protected areas continues (see Chapter 31. 

Scientific research: Protected areas offer some of 
the best opportunities to understand and explain 




One of the many values 
of protected areas is the 
provision of recreational 
experience, especially 
in an Increasingly urban 
world. Linnansaari 
National Park, Finland. 



migratory birds; landscapes of great natural beauty; highly important for public recreation; a natural 
resource which is becoming more and more scarce." 

Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats: Areas of special 
conservation Interest should: "a. [contribute] substantially to the survival of threatened species, 
endemic species, or any species listed in Appendices I and II of the convention; b. (support] significant 
numbers of species in an area of high species diversity or [support] important populations of one 
or more species; c. [contain] an important and/or representative sample of endangered habitat types; 

d. [contain] an outstanding example of a particular habitat type or a mosaic of different habitat types; 

e. [represent] an Important area for one or more migratory species; f. otherwise [contribute] 
substantially to the achievement of the objectives of the convention." 

Southeast Asia 

ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: National Parl<s: "natural 
areas that are sufficiently large to allow for ecological self-regulation of one or several ecosystems, 
and which have not been substantially altered by human occupation or exploitation." Reserves: "for 
the purpose of preserving a specific ecosystem, the critical habitat of certain species of fauna or flora, 
a water catchment area or for any other specific purpose relating to the conservation of natural 
resources or objects or areas of scientific, aesthetic, cultural, educational or recreational interest." 

South Pacific 

Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia Convention): "al Protected area' 
means national park or national reserve; bl 'National park' means an area established tor the 
protection and conservation of ecosystems containing animal and plant species, geomorphological 
sites and habitats of special scientific, educative and recreational interest or a natural landscape of 
great beauty, which is under the control of the appropriate public authority and open to visits by the 
public; cl 'National reserve' means an area recognized and controlled by the appropriate public 
authority and established for protection and conservation of nature, and includes strict nature reserve, 
managed nature reserve, wilderness reserve, fauna or flora reserve, game reserve, bird sanctuary, 
geological or forest reserve, archaeological reserve and historical reserve, these being reserves 
affording various degrees of protection to the natural and cultural heritage according to the purposes 
for which they are established." 



17 



The world's protected areas 



Canopy walk, 
Bukit Lagong Forest 
Reserve, Malaysia. 



natural ecosystem processes. They also offer a 
natural baseline against wfiicfi to measure changes 
in natural environmental systems - an issue of 
growing importance in this period of unprecedented 
global environmental change. 

Indirect use benefits and option values 

Climate influences: Many protected areas play a 
role in maintaining microclimatic or climatic 
stability, including rainfall patterns. Protected areas 
are also w/idely cited as playing a critical role in 
mitigating the impacts of climate change, acting as 
carbon reservoirs or sinl<s. 

Water services and erosion control: In addition to 
climatic influences, protected areas play an 
important role in water catchment protection, 
guaranteeing the supply of water to adjacent 
populations and stabilizing steep slopes. The 
presence of natural vegetation, notably forests and 
wetlands, reduces extremes of water flow and plays 
a role in flood control. These services can help 
ensure water provision to the local vicinity Without 
them, flooding in rainy seasons becomes more 
likely, as does drought in dry seasons. Canaima 




National Parl< and World Heritage site in Venezuela 
protects the Caroni River catchment. This, in turn, 
provides over 70 percent of the country's electricity 
needs through hydroelectricity production. 

Coastal processes: Protected habitats such as 
salt marshes, mangroves, dune systems, and coral 
reefs are widely cited for their role in coastal 
protection. The retention of mangrove systems 
played a significant role in buffering the impact of 
the tsunami that devastated many parts of South 
and Southeast Asia in 2004. 

Wider ecological influences: Protected areas can 
have positive benefits for adjoining land and 
seascapes. This is particularly the case in marine 
communities. The declining state of the oceans and 
the collapse of many fisheries create a critical need 
for more effective management of marine 
biodiversity, populations of exploited species, and 
the overall health of the oceans. There is now 
widespread international scientific consensus that 
the establishment of highly protected Marine 
Protected Areas (MPAsl can be essential in 
sustainable fisheries management through 
protection of sensitive habitats and species, the 
provision of reference sites, and assistance with 
stock management (Murray ef a/., 1999; Halpern, 
2003; Gell and Roberts, 20031. For example, a 
network of five small reserves within the Soufriere 
Marine Management Area in St Lucia increased 
adjacent artisanal fisheries by 49-90 percent over a 
wider area, depending on the fishing gear utilized 
(Roberts eta/., 2001). 

In Tanzania, poaching and uncontrolled 
hunting of elephants to the southeast of Tarangire 
National Park led to an increase in woody plants 
within the park. This is believed to have caused an 
increase in tsetse flies and livestock losses for local 
people. Conservation of elephants may well have 
enhanced the productivity of the livestock industry 
(lUCN, 19981. 

Genetic resources: Protected areas have a role as 
in-situ reservoirs of important genetic material, 
such as wild crop progenitors and pharmaceuticals. 
Although impossible to calculate in its entirety, the 
global protected areas estate is of great importance 
for the maintenance of food resources and supply of 
medicines. For example, by the early 1990s, 3 000 
plants had been identified by the US National 
Cancer Institute as being active against cancer 



18 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



TABLE 1.3: 
Country 


THE WORLD'S 20 URGEST PROTECTED AREAS IN 2005 

Protected National Size 
area designation (km^l 


IUCN management 
category 


Greenland 


Northeast Greenland 


National park 


972 000 


II 


Saudi Arabia 


Ar-Rubal-Khali 


Wildlife management area 


6A0 000 


VI 


Australia 


Great Barrier Reef 


Marine park 


3Ai 360 


VI 


USA 


Northwestern Hawaiian 
Islands 


Coral reef 
ecosystem reserve* 


3il 362 


VI 


China 


Qiangtang 


Nature reserve 


298 000 


V 


Australia 


Macquane Island 


Marine park 


162 060 


IV 


China 


Sanjianqyuan 


Nature reserve 


152 300 


V 


Ecuador 


Galapagos 


Marine reserve 


133 000 


VI 


Saudi Arabia 


Northern Wildlife 
Management Zone 


Wildlife 
management area 


100 875 


VI 


Australia 


Nqaanyatiarra Lands 


Indigenous protected area 


98 129 


VI 


Venezuela 


Alto Onnoco-Casiquiare 


Biosphere reserve 


8i000 


VI 


Brazil 


Vale do Javari 


Indiqenous area 


83 380 


No category 


Chad 


Ouadi Rime-Ouadi Achim 


Faunal reserve 


80 000 


IV 


Brazil 


Yanomami 
lAM-ROI 


Indigenous park 


77 519 


No category 


USA 


Yukon Delta 


National wildlife refuge 


77A25 


IV 


USA 


Arctic 


National wildlife refuge 


72 8A3 


IV 


Venezuela 


Sur del Estado Bolivar 


Protective zone 


72 62/i 


V 


Algeria 


Tassili N'A||er 


National park 


72 000 


II 


Angola 


Coutada 


Integral nature reserve 


68164 


Nocategon/ 


USA 


Tongass 


National forest 


67 404 


VI 


Note: These areas represent 0,02 percent of the total number of the world's protected areas, but 
L million km2or21 percent of the total area protected. 

' Site designation changed to National Monument iUCN Category III in 2006, 


comprise more than 



cells; 70 percent of these plants came from 
rainforests, which are best conserved in protected 
areas IBird, 19911. 

Refugia: With growing concerns about climate 
change, together with more immediate and widely 
reported impacts such as pollution incidents, 
the potential importance of protected areas as 
refugia for future restoration and recovery of 
adjacent areas is being increasingly understood 
and realized. 

INTANGIBLE VALUES OF PROTECTED AREAS 

The WCPA has defined "intangible values" 
(Harmon antJ Putney, 20031 as those which enrich 
"the intellectual, psychological, emotional, 
spiritual, cultural and/or creative aspects of 
human existence and well being" IWCPA 2000). 



Such values have been fundamental to the 
recognition and protection of special places by 
many cultures for millennia. Intangible values of 
protected areas include: 

Recreational values: the intrinsic qualities of 
natural areas that interact with humans 
to restore, refresh, or create anew through 
stimulation and exercise of the mind and body. 

Spiritual i/a/ues: those qualities of protected areas 
that inspire humans to relate with reverence to the 
sacredness of nature. 

Cultural i/a/t'es: qualities, both positive and nega- 
tive, ascribed to sites by different social groups, 
traditions, beliefs, or value systems that fulfill 
humankind's need to understand and connect in 



19 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 1.4: INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS, 
AND ASSOCIATED PROTOCOLS WITH PROTECTED AREA PROVISIONS 



Title IShort title) 


Place of adoption 


Adopted 


Notes 


European Landscape Convention 








(Council of Europe) 


Florence 


2000 


1 


Southern Africa Wildlife Protocol 


Maputo 


1999 


2 


Statutory Framework of tfie World Networl< 








of Biosptiere Reserves 


Seville 


1995 


2 


Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas 








and Biological Diversity in ttie Mediterranean 








(SPA and Biodiversity Protocol] 


Barcelona 


1995 


2 


Agreement on tfie Consen/ation of African-Eurasian 








Migratory Waterbirds 


The Hague 


1995 


1 


Agreement on tfie Preparation of a Tripartite 








Environmental Management Programme for 








Lal<e Victoria 


Dar-es-Salaam 


199^ 




Convention for the Conservation of the Biodiversity 








and the Protection of Wilderness Areas 








in Central America 


Managua 


1992 




Convention on Biological Diversity (CBDi 


Nairobi 


1992 


1 


Council Directive on the Consen/ation of natural 








habitats of wild fauna and flora (EU) (Habitats Directivel Brussels 


1992 


2 


Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea 








Against Pollution (Bucharest Convention) 


Bucharest 


1992 


4 


Convention for the Protection of the Marine 








Environment of the Northeast Atlantic - Oslo 








and Paris Conventions (OSPAR Convention) 


Paris 


1992 


U 


Convention on the Protection of the Marine 








Environment of the Baltic Sea Area 








(Helsinki Convention) 


Helsinki 


1992 


t. 


Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty on 








Environmental Protection 


Madrid 


1991 


3 



Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas 
and Wildlife to the Convention for the Protection 
and Development of the Marine Environment 
of the Wider Caribbean Region (SPAW Protocol) 



Kingston 



Convention for the Protection. Management and 
Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment 
of the Eastern African Region (Nairobi Convention) Nairobi 

Protocol Concerning Protected Areas 
and Wild Fauna and Flora in the Eastern 
African Region Nairobi 



1990 



Protocol for the Conservation and Management of 








Protected Marine and Coastal Areas of the 








Southeast Pacific 


Paipa (Colombia) 


1989 


2 


Convention for the Protection of Natural Resources 








and Environment of the South Pacific Region 


Noumea 






(Noumea or SPREP Convention) 


(New Caledonia) 


1986 


4 



1985 



1985 



20 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 




The Mekong River 
and its ecosystems 
Link China and a 
number of Southeast 
Asian countries. 



meaningful ways to the environment of its origin 
and tfie rest of nature. 

Identity values: natural sites that link people to their 
landscape through myth, legend, or history. 

Existence values: the satisfaction, symbolic import- 
ance, and even willingness to pay, derived from 
knowing that both outstanding natural and cultural 
landscapes have been protected, and exist as 
physical and conceptual spaces where all forms of 
life and culture are valued and held sacred. 

Artistic values: the qualities of nature that inspire 
human imagination in creative expression. 

Aesthetic values: an appreciation of the harmony, 
beauty, and profound meaning found in nature. 

Educational values: the qualities of nature that 
enlighten the careful observer with respect to the 
relationships of humans with the natural environ- 
ment and, by extension, relationships of humans with 
one another, thereby creating respect and 
understanding. 

Peace values: encompass the function of protected 
areas in fostering regional peace and stability 
through cooperative management across inter- 
national land or sea boundaries (transfrontier or 
transboundary protected areas); as "intercultural 
spaces" tor the development of understanding 
between traditional and modern societies, or 
between distinct cultures; and peace between 
society and nature. Transboundary protected areas 



have played a role in the peaceful settlement of 
disputes among a number of countries in the last 
ten years. Recognizing the importance of trans- 
boundary protected areas for peace and coop- 
eration, the WCPA has developed guidance based 
on the experiences of managers around the world. 

Therapeutic values: the relationship between 
people and natural environments in protected areas 
that creates the potential for healing, and en- 
hancing physical and psychological well-being. 

INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF PROTECTED 
AREAS 

Terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems and 
species are rarely confined within human political 
boundaries. Often, the success of conservation and 
sustainable resource management of these 
ecosystems and species depends on collaboration 
between countries, especially in the joint manage- 
ment of major ecosystem divides such as rivers, 
watersheds, and mountain ranges, for example the 
Mekong River Basin, the Amazon River system, the 
Andes, and the Himalayan Mountain range. 
Conservation of migratory species also requires 
international collaboration. At the same time, 
lessons learned by one country in managing 
particular species or ecological systems often have 
a value elsewhere and need to be shared. 

In fact, such international collaboration has 
formed the basis of numerous environmental 
agreements going back many decades, including 
agreements that specifically address the need for 
protected areas (Table T^l. The role of protected 
areas within a wider framework of global biodiversity 



21 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 1.4: (continued) 








Title (Stiort title) Place of adoption 


Adopted 


Notes 


ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature 








and Natural Resources 


Kuala Lumpur 


1985 


1 


ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parl<s and Reserves 


Bangl<ok 


1984 


5 


Convention for ttie Protection and 








Development of the Marine Environment of 








the Wider Caribbean Region 








ICartagena Convention] Cartagena de Indias IColombial 


1983 




Protocol concerning Mediterranean 








Specially Protected Areas ISPA Protocol] 


Geneva 


1982 


2 


Benelux Convention on Nature Conservation 








and Landscape Protection 


Brussels 


1982 




United Nations Convention on the Law 








oftheSealUNCLOS] 


Montego Bay 


1982 


1 


Regional Convention for the Conservation of 








the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment 








IJeddah Convention] 


Jeddah 


1982 


L 


Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and 








Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment 








of the West and Central African Region 








(Abidjan Convention] 


Abidjan 


1981 


i. 


Convention for the Protection of the Marine 








Environment and Coastal Area of the Southeast 








Pacific (Lima Convention] 


Lima 


1981 


k 


Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine 








Living Resources ICCAMLR] 


Canberra 


1980 


1 


European Outline Convention on Transfrontier 








Co-operation betvtfeen Territorial Communities 








or Authorities 


Madrid 


1980 




Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife 








and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention] 


Bern 


1979 


1 


Council Directive on the conservation of wild birds 








lEU] (Wild Birds Directive] 




1979 


2 


Convention on the Conservation of Migratory 








Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention! 


Bonn 


1979 




International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 








from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 








relating thereto IMARPOL 73/78) 




1978 


3 





conservation is innplicit or explicit in all of these. 
More recently still, the role of protected areas within 
the frannework of human well-being and 
development has been given clear prominence in the 
United Nations Millennium Development Goals 
(MDGs), agreed by all 191 Member States. Under 
MDG Goal 7, Member States are committed to 
ensuring environmental sustainability by 2015, and 



must "integrate the principles of sustainable 
development into country policies and programs and 
reverse the loss of environmental resources (Target 
9)." One key measure for success (Indicator 26) is the 
"land area protected to maintain biological diversity." 
International conservation agreements at 
global, regional, and bilateral levels, and almost 50 
international environmental conventions, treaties. 



22 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



TABLE 1.4: (continued) 








Title (Short title) Place of adoption 


Adopted 


Notes 


Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on 








the Protection of ttie Marine Environment from 








Pollution (Kuwait Convention] 


Kuwait 


1978 


4 


Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean 








Sea Against Pollution IBarcelona Convention) 


Barcelona 


1976 




Convention on Conservation of Nature in the 








South Pacific lApia Convention) 


Apia 


1976 


1 


European Network of Biogenetic Reserves: 








Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers 








Council of Europe* 




1976 


2 


Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals 


London 


1972 


1 


Convention Concerning the Protection of the 








World Cultural and Natural Heritage 








[World Heritage Convention] 


Paris 


1972 


2 


Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 








especially as Waterfowl Habitat IRamsar Convention] 


Ramsar 


1971 


2 


Man and the Biosphere Programme' (MAB) 




1970 


2 


African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and 








Natural Resources' 


Algiers 


1968 


1 


European Diploma: Resolutions of the Committee of 








Ministers of the Council of Europe* 




1965 


2 


Agreed Measures for the Conservation of 








Antarctic Fauna and Flora 


Brussels 


196/1 


3 


The Antarctic Treaty 


Washington 


1959 


3 


International Convention for the Protection of Birds 


Paris 


1950 


1 


International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 


Washington 


19i6 


3 


Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life 








Preservation in the Western Hemisphere 








(Western Hemisphere Convention] 


Washington 


19i0 


1 


Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna 








and Flora m their Natural State (London Convention) 


London 


1933 


1 


Notes: 

1 : Text encourages states either directly or in equivalent language to establish protected areas, 

2: Text establishes a defined fornn of protected area (specific to that convention or agreement] 

3: Encourages protection of areas, but such areas not recognized by lUCN, 

i: General text simply exhorts environmental protection, often linked to protocols or other measures that require designation 

of protected areas. 
5: Text specifies a list of sites. 

' Regarded as a "non-treaty agreement", or "soft law", not legally binding under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 
t Revision adopted fvlaputo 2003 - not yet in force 



agreements, and associated protocols now exist, 
which encourage the protection of land or sea for 
nature conservation (see Table 1.4]. A number of 
these include specific protected area definitions and 
provide a legal framework for the designation of 
sites. Here we consider four of the most important 
agreements in more detail, before considering the 
interactions between such agreements and then 



looking more closely at finer-scale agreements 
associated with transboundary protected areas, 
networks, and corridors. 

Convention on Biological Diversity 

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was 
signed by 150 government leaders at the United 
Nations Conference on Environment and Develop- 



23 



The world's protected areas 



Ecological linkages: 
improved conservation 
of elephants in 
Tanzanian protected 
areas has led to a 
reduction in tree cover 
to historic Levels, 
decreasing populations 
of tsetse flies and 
thereby benefitting 
domestic livestock in 
adjacent areas. 



ment lUNCEDl in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 
1992, and entered into force on 29 December 1993. 
The CBD was an attempt not just to raise the 
profile of environmental concerns at the global 
level but also to embrace a range of disparate 
perspectives on vi/hat aspects of the natural v\/orld 
w/ere important and why. To this end it uses a very 
broad definition of biological diversity, namely: 
"the variability among living organisms from all 
sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine 
and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological 
complexes of which they are part; this includes 
diversity within species, between species and of 
ecosystems." It emphasizes not just the intrinsic 
value of biological diversity, but also the goods and 
services that biological diversity supplies, 
stressing the need for these to be maintained for 
future generations. Reflecting this, it has 
established three parallel objectives, namely the 
conservation of biological diversity, the sust- 
ainable use of its components, and the fair and 
equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the 
utilization of genetic resources. 

As of 2006, the CBD had 188 Parties, including 
all but a handful of the world's countries (the 
exceptions are Andorra, Brunei Darussalam, Holy 
See, Iraq, Somalia and the USA|. Eight ordinary 
meetings of the Conference of Parties and 1 1 meet- 
ings of the Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical 
and Technological Advice had been held. 




The CBD is the broadest-ranging environ- 
mental agreement and second only to the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 
in terms of membership. Consequently, the 
Convention has established a significant political 
momentum. While the CBD establishes no specific 
network of sites. It is one of the most Important 
developments for protected areas in the last 
decade. The Convention implicitly acknowledges 
the Importance of protected areas, and explicitly 
recognizes their fundamental role in the 
conservation of biological diversity, devoting a 
major part of Article 8, on in-situ conservation, to 
them. Under this Article, Parties to the Convention 
are called on to, among other things: establish a 
system of protected areas or areas where special 
measures need to be taken to conserve biological 
diversity; develop, where necessary, guidelines for 
the selection, establishment, and management of 
protected areas or areas where special measures 
need to be taken to conserve biological diversity; 
and promote the protection of ecosystems, natural 
habitats, and the maintenance of viable populations 
of species in natural surroundings. 

In April 2002, the Sixth fi^eetlng of the Confer- 
ence of Parties IC0P6I to the CBD adopted a stra- 
tegic plan for the Convention. Within the strategic 
plan. Parties commit themselves to "achieve by 
2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of 
biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national 
levels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to 
the benefit of all life on Earth." This target was 
endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable 
Development in September 2002. 

At the Seventh fs/leeting of the Conference of 
Parties ICoP7l to the CBD In February 200^, pro- 
tected areas were one of the main themes for 
discussion. The Parties at the meeting adopted a 
Programme of Work on Protected Areas to 
Implement the relevant articles of the Convention, 
Including endorsement of the lUCN protected areas 
management category system and encouragement 
of countries to adopt these categories. They also 
endorsed protected area coverage as an indicator 
for "immediate testing" in relation to the globally 
adopted target of significantly reducing the loss of 
biodiversity by the year 201 0. 

International site-based conventions and 
programs 

At the global level the principal site-based 
conservation area conventions and programs are: 



24 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 




Jungfrau-Aletsch- 
Bietschhorn World 
Heritage Area in 
Switzerland, designated 
in 2001. 



The World Heritage Convention 
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the 
World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World 
Heritage Convention) was adopted by the General 
Conference of UNESCO in 1972 and entered into 
force on 17 Decennber 1975. By October 2006, 18i 
States vi/ere party to it, making it the most globally 
adopted international instrument for protecting the 
world's cultural and natural heritage. A study 
ll^agin and Chape, 20041 noted that, whUe the total 
number of natural and mixed World Heritage sites - 
172 at the time of the study - comprised only 0.17 
percent of the total number of the w^orld's protected 
areas, their combined area of 1.7 million km^ Vi(as 
just over 9 percent of the total area protected. 

The Convention is governed by the World 
Heritage Committee, w/hich revievi^s and admin- 
isters operational guidelines and assesses nomin- 
ations for World Heritage Listing presented by 
States Parties at its annual meetings. The Com- 
mittee is assisted in its evaluation of nominations by 
Advisory Bodies: 
Q for Natural World Heritage: lUCN - The World 

Conservation Union; 
□ for Cultural World Heritage: the International 
Council on Monuments and Sites IICOMOSI 
and the International Centre for the Study of 
the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural 
Property (ICCROM). 



For a site to be included on the World Heritage List, 
the World Heritage Committee must find that it has 
"outstanding universal value." The recently revised 
Convention Operational Guidelines define out- 
standing universal value as: 

...cultural and/or natural significance which is so 
exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and 
to be of common importance for present and future 
generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent 
protection of this heritage is of the highest importance 
to the international community as a whole. 

At the time of inscription of a property on the 
World Heritage List, the Committee will agree on a 
statement of outstanding universal value. 

Sites can also be nominated and listed as mixed 
sites: those that have outstanding natural and 
cultural values. Since 1992, significant interactions 
betvi/een people and the natural environment have 
also been recognized as cultural landscapes. In 
2007, the World Heritage List consisted of a total of 
851 properties in U1 States Parties. Of these, 660 
were inscribed as cultural properties, 166 as 
natural sites, and 25 as mixed properties. 

It is on the basis of the overriding principle of 
outstanding universal value that the Committee 
has defined ten criteria for inclusion of cultural 
and natural properties on the World Heritage List. 
The Convention Operational Guidelines define 



25 



The world's protected areas 



the following criteria for sites nominated for 

natural values: 

Ivii) Contain superlative natural phenomena or 
areas of exceptional natural beauty and 
aesthetic importance, 

(viiil Be outstanding examples representing major 
stages of the Earth's history, including the 
record of life, significant ongoing geological 
processes in the development of landforms, or 
significant geomorphic or physiographic 
features. 

(ix| Be outstanding examples representing sign- 
ificant ongoing ecological and biological 
processes in the evolution and development of 
terrestrial, freshv\/ater, coastal, and marine 
ecosystems and communities of plants and 
animals. 

Ixl Contain the most important and significant 
natural habitats for in-situ conservation of 
biological diversity, including those containing 
threatened species of outstanding universal 
value from the point of view of science or 
conservation. 

As well as fulfilling one or more of these criteria, 
the protection, management, and integrity of a site 
are also important considerations that are tal<en 



into account by the Committee when assessing 
nominations for listing. The World Heritage List 
represents the pinnacle of the worlds natural and 
cultural heritage, hence the need for rigorous 
application of stringent criteria. The fundamental 
difference between Natural and Mixed World 
Heritage sites and other types of protected areas is 
the use of the frameworl< of outstanding universal 
value and site integrity as a determinant for 
inscription. Figure 1.8 illustrates one conceptual 
view of the relationship of World Heritage sites to 
other types of national and international protected 
areas in terms of relative scale (global numbers] 
and the application of outstanding universal value 
as the key determinant for moving protected areas 
on to the World Heritage List. Below the outstanding 
universal value line, all protected areas are vital for 
ecosystem, landscape, and species conservation 
based on the principle of effective representivity. Of 
course. World Heritage sites also have a vital role in 
conserving landscapes and biodiversity. 

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 
The Convention on Wetlands of International 
Importance, adopted In Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, Is an 
intergovernmental treaty that provides the frame- 
work for national action and international cooper- 



FIGURE 1.8: THE RELATIONSHIP OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES TO OTHER TYPES OF PROTECTED AREAS 



Determinant: 
Outstanding 
Universal Value 

Sites nominated 
individually or 
serially can 
cress the 
threshold if 
they meet one 
or more WH 
criteria and 
stringent 
requirements 
of integrity. 



OUTSTANDING 



Source: Magm 
& Chape 200i 





World \ UNIVERSAL VALUE 



other International 
(e.g. Ramsar Sites, \ 
Biosphere reserves, Geoparksl 

Regional sites and netv/orks 
(e.g. Nature 2000, ASEAN Heritage Parks! 



Sub-regional sites 
(e.g. transboundary PAs, peace parks) 



Emphasis: 
Representivity 

Ecosystem, 

landscape, 

habitat, and 

species 

conservation 

through 

effective PA 

systems and 

ecological 

networks. 



National sites/PA systems 

(e.g. national parks, nature reserves, private reserves, monuments, 

NGO designations such as IBSs, ecological networks) 

Sub-national sites 
(e.g. regional parks, provincial and district reserves) 




26 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



ation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands 
and tfieir resources. Parties to ttie Convention fiave 
adopted a vision "to develop and nnaintaln an 
international network of wetlands that are 
important for the conservation of global biological 
diversity and for sustaining human life through the 
ecological and hydrological functions they 
perform." In 2007, there were 157 Contracting 
Parties to the Convention, with 1 708 wetland sites 
covering 1.53 million km^ included on the Ramsar 
List of Wetlands of international Importance. The 
target is to have 2.5 million km^ by 2010. 

The Convention requires that each member 
state designate suitable wetlands within its territory 
for inclusion in the List, which is maintained by the 
Convention Secretariat. The listed wetland sites 
range from one hectare of some of the world's 
largest and oldest mangroves, found on Australia's 
Christmas Island, to the 68 640 km^ of the Okavango 
Delta Ramsar Site in Botswana. 

The Ramsar definition of "wetland" is very 
broad: "areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, 
whether natural or artificial, permanent or temp- 
orary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, 
brackish or salt, including areas of marine water 
the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six 
metres." Thus, the Ramsar Convention applies to 
coastal zones as well as inland waters. The key 
determinant for inclusion on the Ramsar List is that 
sites should be selected on the basis of "their 
international significance in terms of ecology, 
botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology." This 
provision is implemented through the Ramsar 
Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International 
Importance: 

□ Group A - Sites containing representative, 
rare, or unique wetland types 
Criterion 1: A wetland should be considered 
Internationally important if it contains a 
representative, rare, or unique example of a 
natural or near-natural wetland type found 
within the appropriate biogeographic region. 
Q Group B - Sites of International Importance 
for conserving biological diversity 
Criteria based on species and ecological 
communities 

Criterion 2: [The wetland] supports vulner- 
able, endangered, or critically endangered 
species or threatened ecological communities. 
Criterion 3: [The wetland] supports pop- 
ulations of plant and/or animal species 
Important for maintaining the biological diver- 




sity of a particular biogeographic region. 
Criterion U: [The wetland] supports plant 
and/or animal species at a critical stage in 
their life cycles, or provides refuge during 
adverse conditions. 

Q Specific criteria based on waterblrds 

Criterion 5: [The wetland] regularly supports 
20 000 or more waterbirds. 
Criterion 6: [The wetland] regularly supports 
1 percent of the individuals in a population of 
one species or subspecies of waterbird, 

J Specific criteria based on fish 

Criterion 7: [The wetland] supports a 
significant proportion of indigenous fish 
subspecies, species, or families, life-history 
stages, species interactions and/or popul- 
ations that are representative of wetland 
benefits and/or values, and thereby con- 
tributes to global biological diversity. 
Criterion 8: [The wetland] is an important 
source of food for fishes, spawning ground, 
nursery, and/or migration path on which 
fish stocks, either within the wetland or 
elsewhere, depend. 

Almost 90 percent of the current Ramsar sites have 



Winter in Dalalven- 
Farnebofjarden Ramsar 
Site in Sweden, 
designated in 2001. 



27 



The world's protected areas 



Red-and-green macaws 
[Ara chioropterus) in 
Manu Biosphere Reserve, 
Peru. 




other forms of protected area status (for example 
national parks, nature reserves, and wildlife 
sanctuaries). Tliis leaves around 110 000 \<.m^ thai 
do not fiave other forms of protection, other than 
their designation as Wetlands of International 
Importance. Ramsar site status reinforces other 
forms of protected area categories by adding an 
international dimension and creating additional 
commitments by national governments to the 
international community 

Biosphere reserves 

Nominated by governments, biosphere reserves are 
areas of terrestrial, coastal, or marine ecosystems 
that are internationally recognized under UNESCO's 
Man and the Biosphere (MABI Programme. By 
2007, there were 529 reserves in 105 countries. The 
philosophy underlying biosphere reserves has 
evolved over more than 30 years since the first 
reserves were established. However, it has always 
sought to combine biodiversity conservation, rural 
development, and support for scientific research, 
training, and education. The original intention of the 
World Networl< of Biosphere Reserves in the 1970s 
was to promote a systematic approach to conser- 
vation, such that biosphere reserves would be 



internationally designated "representative eco- 
logical areas" for each of the 193 biogeographical 
provinces of the Udvardy (19751 classification. The 
idea was also to set up an operational networl< of 
MAS sites for cooperative research in similar 
ecosystem types or in areas facing comparable 
ecological problems. To carry out the complem- 
entary activities of nature conservation and use of 
natural resources, biosphere reserves are organ- 
ized into three interrelated zones, known as the 
core area, the buffer zone, and the transition area 
(see Figure 1.91. 

In 1 995, the conservation function of biosphere 
reserves evolved to embrace natural and cultural 
values. New emphasis was placed on the sus- 
tainable use of natural resources in buffer zones 
and on the role of the outer transition area for 
maintaining cultural values and for ecosystem 
rehabilitation or redevelopment. The biosphere 
reserve was defined as being "more than a 
protected area," with a new task of providing 
concrete testing grounds for regional approaches to 
sustainable development in the wake of UNCED in 
1992. Biosphere reserves are also viewed as field 
laboratories for the implementation of the eco- 
system approach advocated by the CBD. With this 
expanded definition of biosphere reserves, it is 
obvious that the criterion of "representativeness" 
and the degree of world "coverage" are less easy 
to evaluate. 

With this background, it can be understood 
why there are numerous "old generation" biosphere 
reserves in the temperate broadleaf forests, ever- 
green forests, and mountain systems, corre- 
sponding to where the traditional types of protected 
areas and scientific research sites (lUCN Protected 
Area Management Categories I and III were first 
established. As MAB is a voluntary, intergovern- 
mental program, coverage of the World Network is 
also linked to the willingness of countries to 
participate, which has also evolved. The 
participation of a number of countries since 1992, 
incuding Brazil, the Dominican Republic, India, 
Morocco, South Africa and Vietnam, has improved 
geographic representation. The majority of 
countries have adopted a pragmatic, systematic 
approach at the national level to give more or less 
"representative" coverage of their main environ- 
mental and developmental features: examples of 
national networks can be found in Argentina, 
Canada, China, Cuba, France. Mexico, and the 
Russian Federation. However, while MAB is an 



28 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



Biosphere reserve zonation 



TRANSITION AREA 
BUFFER ZONE 
CORE AREA 



REA 1 





^* Human settlements 

[i] Research station 
or experimental 
research site 

[m] Monitoring 

[i] Education and training 

[7] Tourism and recreation 



The zonation scheme 
of the Guadeloupe 
Archipelago Biosphere 
Reserve 



Deshaies 



Pointe-Noire 



Bouillante 



Vieux-Habitants 




I I Core area 
I [ Buffer zone 
I 1 Transition area 



Basse-Terre 



FIGURE 1 .9: BIOSPHERE RESERVE ZONATION - CONCEPT AND PRACTICE 



intergovernmental UN program and hence bio- 
sphere reserve nominations need to be made 
through national governments, increasingly the 
nomination process is initiated and led by local 
communities, seel<ing official international recog- 
nition of their efforts. More and more biosphere 
reserves contain a combination of protected area 
categories and cover large landscapes and 
seascapes, with an increasing number corresp- 
onding to Category V (protected landscapes). Many 



are set up without reference to a pre-existing 
protected area. 

in recent years, the MAB International 
Coordinating Council has called attention to the 
need to create biosphere reserA/es in areas under 
intense human pressure, such as wetlands, 
coastal systems and islands, and semi-arid and 
arid lands. In response, new biosphere reserves 
have been designated that include these features. 
Examples include the Cienaga de Zapata 



29 



The world's protected areas 




Plains zebra (Ei/uua Biosphere Reserve In Cuba, the Seaflower (San 

quaggal in Serengeti Andres Archipelago) in Colombia, and the Hustal 

National Parl< in Nuruu Biosphere Reserve in Mongolia. More 

Tanzania. attention Is paid to in-situ conservation of plants 

and animals of economic Importance (for example 

the Argania spinosa woodlands of Morocco), as 

well as to traditional use areas of indigenous 

peoples (for example Bosawas. Nicaragua). There 

IS a recent upsurge of interest in transboundary 

biosphere reserves as a flexible tool for 

coordinating the conservation and sustainable use 

of ecosystems that straddle national boundaries: 

the most recent Is the 'W Region Transboundary 

Biosphere Reserve of Benin, Burkina Faso. and 

Niger In West Africa. 

Today, there are still noticeable gaps in global 
geographic coverage, for example in the eastern 
Mediterranean, the Arabian Gulf region. Southern 
Africa, and the Pacific Islands. Work at the national 
level to fill these gaps Is spurred by regional MAB 
networks - AfriMAB, ArabMAB, East Asian Bio- 
sphere Reserve Network (EABRN), EuroMAB, the 
South and Central Asia MAB Network (SACAMI, 
IberoMAB (Latin America plus Portugal and Spain], 
and the Southeast Asian Biosphere Reserve 
Network (SeaBRnet). Over the last few years, an 
average of 1 5-20 new biosphere reserves have been 
designated each year 

Since 1995, a quality control examination of 



biosphere reserves has been implemented 
through the ten-year periodic review of the 
Statutory Framework for the World Network, the 
"soft" law governing the development of 
biosphere reserves. As a result, many older sites 
have been completely revised - expanding in size. 
Involving new stakeholders, and adding new 
functions. In recent years, a number of countries 
have voluntarily withdrawn sites that did not and 
could not meet the up-to-date biosphere reserve 
criteria. Thus, the World Network of Biosphere 
Reserves Is evolving in coverage and quality. 

Strengthening cooperation between international 
site-based agreements 

Although each international site-based convention, 
agreement, or program serves a different purpose, 
they clearly complement one another. Failure to 
coordinate approaches at national or international 
levels may lead to confusion and duplication of 
effort, while connecting the work associated with 
these conventions and their related site-based 
activities can produce considerable synergies. 

The value of achieving joint implementation of 
International instruments providing for in-situ 
conservation has already been recognized by the 
secretariats of many of these agreements and pro- 
grams, and by their technical and scientific advisory 
committees. In many cases there Is already bi- 
lateral cooperation, as for example between the 
Bern Convention and Natura 2000 in Europe, or 
between the World Heritage and Ramsar Con- 
ventions in their support to sites underthreat. There 
is also synergy between these conventions and the 
MAB Programme. In 2004, 78 biosphere reserves 
included, wholly or partially, Ramsar wetlands, 75 
included World Heritage sites, and 18 had both 
Ramsar and World Heritage sites. 

There remains significant opportunity for 
developing this cooperation further, through: 

□ Seeking ways to integrate implementation of 
Initiatives on the ground, or at least to Increase 
cooperation in implementation at the national 
level. 

Q Identifying opportunities for sensible multiple 
designation, and for using one network to help 
bridge gaps In another 

□ Building collaboration on review and defining 
mechanisms for deciding what are key sites. 

□ Ensuring close cooperation In the review of 
those sites under threat, and recommendation 
on actions to be taken. 



30 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 



□ Seeking ways to harmonize and streamline 
the nomination and reporting procedures. 

□ Ensuring the improved sharing of information, 
both on sites and key documents such as 
strategies, guidelines, and other publications. 

Q Building an improved understanding at the 

national level, in particular, on hovs/ the 

initiatives relate one to another 
Q Improving the sharing of information between 

site managers, including the sharing of case 

studies and best practice. 

Transboundary protected areas, biological 
corridors, and networks 

In 1932, the Governments of Canada and the USA 
established the worlds first "international peace 
park" by combining the Waterton and Glacier 
National Parks on the border of the two countries in 
the Rocky Mountains. Established to commemorate 
the long history of peace and cooperation between 
Canada and the USA, the initiative owed much to 
people who saw the value of the concept for 
cooperative management of humankind's natural 
heritage, and for advancing international under- 
standing and goodwill. 

Seven years earlier, the Governments of 
Poland and then Czechoslovakia had signed the 
Krakow Protocol, which set the framework for 
management of protected areas along their joint 
border Although the first park was not fully 
established until after the Second World War (and 
one of the countries has since split into two), this is 
still one of the more active areas of cross-border 
collaboration in the protected areas of the Krkonose 
and Tatra Mountains, and in the East Carpathians. 

Since then, protected areas along inter- 
national borders have provided a focus for coop- 
eration between countries ISandwith et at., 2001). A 
recent global survey IBesancon and Savy, 2005) 
identified 188 internationally adjoining protected 
area complexes, composed of 818 protected areas 
in 112 countries. While not all of these have coop- 
erative arrangements in place, this is an important 
development, and a key area tor future action. 

For example, in southern Africa, opportunities 
are being actively sought to use transboundary 
protected areas to promote cross-border coop- 
eration, at the same time as promoting job creation 
and biodiversity conservation. In May 2000, the 
Presidents of Botswana and South Africa opened 
the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, 38 000 km^ in the 
southern Kalahari Desert, with joint management 



and tourists moving freely from one country to 
another In 2002, South Africa, Mozambique, and 
Zimbabwe established the Great Limpopo 
Transfrontier Park. 

The simple concept of transboundary 
protected areas envisages a contiguous area of 
protection irrespective of political boundaries, with 
resultant much-expanded ecological space. Moving 
beyond this concept, there are an increasing 
number of efforts to expand such connectivity - and 
to further reduce the fragmentation of natural 
ecosystems - through the development of biological 
corridors and networks of connected protected 
areas. The ecological and design aspects of such 
approaches are considered in more detail in 
Chapter A, but as such processes have become 
established within nations, many have also taken 
root in international collaborations. 

A recent study analyzed 38 ecological 
networks around the world (Bennett and Wit, 20011. 
A good example is the Mesoamencan Biological 
Corridor, a cooperative initiative between the seven 
countries of Central America. While the basic 
concept IS the development of a protected area 
network throughout the region to ensure 
conservation of its biodiversity, linked to this is a 
program of capacity building, improved site 
management, promoting sustainable human 
development, and increased regional cooperation. 
This program is attracting significant international 
attention and funding. 

The concept of protected areas networks does 
not necessarily imply physical connections between 
sites, but rather a more holistic approach to 
designing systems of protected areas that ensure 
representation of the full range of biodiversity and 
functionality of ecosystems, with a clear vision of 
longer-term viability (which may, of course, require 
increased physical connections between particular 
sites or ecosystem components). 

A number of international initiatives are 
specifically aimed at the systematic development of 
networks of sites for the protection of identified 
species and/or habitats, and ensuring the 
protection of key features. The Ramsar Convention 
on Wetlands of International Importance is an 
excellent example of this and has been discussed 
above. Two related initiatives within Europe, the 
European Union (EU) Birds and Habitats Directives 
and the Bern Convention, led to the identification of 
protected areas that conserve the species and 
habitats listed in annexes to the agreements. The 



31 



The world's protected areas 



resulting Emerald Network and Natura 2000 net- 
work are complementary to each other. Particularly 
significant is the fact that EU Directives are stat- 
utory measures, and if a Member State fails to meet 
its obligations in identifying and protecting sites, it 
can be taken to the European Court and fined. 

While these initiatives are leading to 
identification of what are, in effect, core protected 
areas right across Europe, another initiative, the 
Pan-European Ecological Network, aims to 
promote their implementation within a network 
approach also incorporating buffer zones, cor- 
ridors, and, where appropriate, re-created habitats. 
This concept, which builds on the Netherlands 
Nature Policy Plan adopted in 1990, has led to a 
substantial increase in the planning and implem- 
entation of a network approach to protected areas 
over the last ten years, particularly in Central and 
Eastern Europe. Other conservation networks have 
been established for rather narrower aims. For 
example, the prime aim of the East Asian- 
Australasian Shorebird Site Network is to conserve 
key sites for migratory shorebirds, and to enable 
those involved in their protection and management 
to obtain international recognition and support for 
their sites and conservation efforts. 

Some networks of sites have been established 
for various research purposes, including the 
International Long-Term Ecological Research 
Network. The Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring 
Sites directory, managed by the Global Terrestrial 
Observing System, identifies a significant number of 
such sites and networks. While such networks have 
existed for many years, international collaboration 
has recently increased significantly 

One of the key issues in site networks that are 
concerned with long-term monitoring and inte- 
grated research is the exchange of information. 
The last decade has seen substantial discussion 
of mechanisms and protocols for information 
sharing and exchange, as well as the development 
of on-line tools for access to information from 
multiple sources. This is particularly important in 
the context of using protected areas as key 
indicators for global environmental assessment 
processes linked to achievement of biodiversity 
conservation targets. 



entirely buried by snow and ice, and so cold and 
hostile that it has no permanent human population. 
Importantly, it has no internationally recognized 
sovereign states within its boundaries, although 
seven nations have claimed territory: Argentina, 
Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and 
the UK. These claims are legal insofar as they are 
incorporated into national law; some of them - such 
as those of Argentina, Chile, and the UK - overlap. 

All human activities on and around the 
continent are governed by a system of international 
agreements known as the Antarctic Treaty System. 
This means that a unilateral decision-making 
process for the designation of protected areas, as 
seen elsewhere on the globe, does not occur here. 
The Antarctic Treaty System began with the 
signature in 1959 of the Antarctic Treaty itself, 
negotiated following an 18-month international 
study program organized by the International 
Council of Scientific Unions. The original signat- 
ories were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, 
France, Great Britain, Japan, New Zealand. Norway, 
South Africa, the USA, and the USSR. The treaty 
entered into force on 23 June 1961 and covers the 
entire area south of the latitude line 60°S. 

The Antarctic Treaty is open to accession by 
any United Nations Member State or any other state 
invited to accede by the consent of all of the 
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties lATCPs). The 
ATCPs comprise the original 12 Parties and a 
further 15 States that have subsequently acceded 
to the Treaty and demonstrated their interest 
in Antarctica by carrying out substantial scientific 
research. In recent years, the treaty system has 
become more publicly accessible, and non- 
governmental environmental organizations are now 
represented at most meetings through the Antarctic 
and Southern Ocean Coalition lASOCl. The Treaty 
remains in force indefinitely, and its objectives are 
simple yet unique in international relations: 

□ to demilitarize Antarctica, to establish it as a 
zone free of nuclear tests and the disposal of 
radioactive waste, and to ensure that it is used 
for peaceful purposes only; 

□ to promote international scientific cooperation 
in Antarctica; 

□ to set aside disputes over territorial sovereignty. 



ANTARCTICA - A SPECIAL CASE 

The management regime for Antarctica is a unique 
example of international cooperation. The continent 
is a largely undisturbed wilderness region, almost 



While the Antarctic Treaty itself does not contain 
any provisions for protection of the environment, it 
does allow for the Parties to develop agreements 
on such issues. More than 200 recommendations 



32 



History, Definitions, Values and Global Perspective 




Emperor penguins 
[Aptenodytes forsterii 
on Ross Island, 
Antarctica. 



and five separate international agreements have 
been adopted. These, together with the original 
Treaty, are vi/hat constitute the Antarctic Treaty 
System, and provide the rules that govern 
activities in Antarctica. Three ot the agreements 
relate specifically to protected areas: 

1 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the 
Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol): 1991 

The Madrid Protocol, to which there are currently 
29 Contracting Parties, was negotiated to provide 
for comprehensive protection of the Antarctic 



environment. Its objectives are to: 

3 designate Antarctica as a "natural reserve, 

devoted to peace and science"; 
Q establish environmental principles for the 

conduct of all activities; 

□ prohibit mining; 

Q subject all activities to prior assessment of 
their environmental impacts; 

□ provide for the establishment of a Committee 
for Environmental Protection ICEPI to advise 
the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting 
(ATCM); 



33 



The world's protected areas 



□ require the development of contingency plans 
to respond to environmental emergencies; 

□ provide for tfie elaboration of rules relating to 
liability for environmental damage. 

Annex V of the Protocol came into force in May 2002 
and is intended to rationalize the system of 
protected areas into three categories: Antarctic 
Specially Protected Areas lASPAs), of vifhich 66 
have so far been designated; Antarctic Specially 
Managed Areas, of which there is one; and Historic 
Sites and Monuments, of w/hich there are 76. In 
total, these cover an area of about 3 000 km^. ASPAs 
are designated according to the following criteria: 
Q outstanding wilderness; 
1^ scientific or environmental values; 

□ important or unusual plant communities or 
habitats; 

□ unusual landforms; 

□ historic, aesthetic, or wilderness values. 

A permit of entry is required to enter such an area, and all 
activities must be conducted in accordance with the area 
management plan. Antarctic Specially Managed Areas 
require the coordination of human activities in order to 
avoid the risk of mutual interference, and are regulated by 
a code of conduct set out in their management plans. 
Historic Sites and Monuments are designated in order to 
preserve and protect historic sites and monuments 
from damage. 

Under the Antarctic Treaty System, a pro- 
posing party can nominate a site for protection by 
submitting a draft management plan to the CEP 
in accordance with established guidelines. The CEP 
has established a contact group to review the draft, 
which is chaired by the proponent and includes the 
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and, 
where marine areas are involved, the Convention for 
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living 
Resources. On the acceptance of the management 
plan (following a review process taking 12 months 
or morel, the revised management plan becomes 
law under the Agreed Measures. 

2 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic 

Marine Living Resources ICCAMLRI: 1980 
CCAMLR aims to conserve Antarctic marine living 
resources, including their rational use. There are 
currently 31 Parties to the Convention, 24 of 
whom are members of the CCAMLR Commission. 
The Convention is concerned not only with the 
regulation of fishing but is a pioneer of the 



ecosystem approach, and considers the Antarctic 
ecosystem and the Southern Ocean as a suite of 
interlinked systems. The need for CCAMLR was 
identified following an increase in krill fishing in the 
early 1970s. Krill move beyond the 60°S line of 
latitude Ithe Antarctic Treaty Areal but within an 
area known as the Antarctic Convergence. The 
CCAMLR area therefore extends beyond that 
specified under the Antarctic Treaty and is 
applicable to the Antarctic Convergence. Two other 
important fisheries - for Patagonian toothfish and 
icefish - are managed within this region. Strict 
measures are in place to reduce bycatch and 
seabird mortality Under the Convention, CCAMLR 
Ecosystem Monitoring Programme ICEMP) sites 
can be designated. Entry to CEMP sites is prohibited 
without a permit, and an appropriate authority can 
only issue permits for its own nationals. Each CEMP 
site has a management plan that must be complied 
with. Currently there are two such sites: Seal 
Islands, South Shetland Islands (90 hectares], and 
Cape Shirreff and Telmo Island, South Shetland 
Islands (3A7 hectares]. 

3 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic 
Seals ICCAS]: 1972 

The aims of CCAS are to promote and achieve the 
protection, scientific study, and rational use of 
Antarctic seals, and to maintain a satisfactory 
balance within the ecological system of the 
Antarctic. The Convention has 17 Contracting 
Parties and has three sites covering some 
215 OOP km2 under its jurisdiction. These areas, in 
which it is forbidden to kill or capture seals, are 
breeding sites or sites where long-term scientific 
research on seals is carried out. 

A GLOBAL REVIEW 

Although their lineage traces back at least two 
millennia, the final decades of the 20th century 
represented the coming of age of protected areas as 
a global category of land use and management. This 
period saw vast increases in the numbers of 
protected areas and a burgeoning of international 
efforts to support, encourage and harmonize site 
designation and management. A phenomenal 
growth has happened as a direct result of growing 
knowledge of the threats to the natural world, as 
well as increasing awareness of the considerable 
values that protected areas bring to humanity The 
result is a vast estate, covering almost 13 percent 
of the Earth's land surface where, at least in 



36 



History, Definitions. Values and Global Perspective 




Melchlor Island, 
Antarctica. 



principle, natural processes are allowed to continue 
unaltered or are managed in a sustainable nnanner 
Collaboration between peoples, partners, organ- 
izations and countries enable us to see this once 
highly fragmented estate, for the first time, as a 
global network. In some places direct or close 
connections enable free movement of species and 
wider maintenance of ecological processes, but the 
networking extends beyond the ecological, to the 
collaboration in management, in support, and in the 
sharing of knowledge. 

In the remainder of this work we examine the 
phenomenon of the global protected areas estate in 
more detail. Chapter 2 takes an ecological 
perspective, looking at species and the major 
biomes that make up the Earth's surface and 
considering both the particular challenges they 
face, and the efforts to date in developing protected 
areas to represent this biodiversity Chapter 3 
provides a framework for considering the broad 



array of human threats to biodiversity, and 
considers the particular changes that individual 
threats pose in protected areas design and 
management. Chapters U and 5 look at protected 
areas from the perspective of design and 
management, considering how systems can be 
designed to support a functioning ecology, and 
managed to support human needs, while rising to 
the challenges of the many and varied threats that 
impinge upon them. Chapter 6 focuses on the 
specific challenges facing the marine environment, 
currently massively under-represented, but 
receiving growing attention at national and 
international levels. Chapter 7 concludes the global 
review with an assessment of the prospects for 
effectively maintaining the world's protected areas. 
Following this global review, the book focuses on 
protected areas around the world provided by 
regional experts. 



35 



The world's protected areas 



Chapter 2 



Protected areas 
and biodiversity 

Contributors: M. JenkinsiTerrestnai species coverage by the global protected area network: A. Rodrigues et al.,- How 
WWF is using large-scale biogeographic approaches: J. Morrison: Habitat coverage by the protected areas network 
lintroductionl: I- Lysenko and M. Spalding; Forests: M. Jenkins and V. Kaposi Non-forested habitats lintroductionl, 
grasslands and savannas, and deserts and semi deserts: Henwood et al.; Wetlands: W. Darwall and C. Revenga: 
Caves and karst: E. Hamilton-Smith; Mountain ecosystems: L Hamilton et al; Biodiversity conservation in the 
Himalayas: T.F. Allnutet al; Marine and coastal ecosystems: M. Spalding. 



An historical perspective 

As the outline presented in Chapter 1 has made 
clear, the global protected area network has, with 
exceptions in a few countries, developed in an ad 
hoc rather than in a planned and systematic 
manner. From the very beginning, protected areas 
have been established for a range of different 
reasons and were, and continue to be, expected to 
serve different and sometimes conflicting functions. 
Historically, two major impulses in the 
designation of protected areas can be identified. The 
first is essentially concerned with landscape and 
notions of the wild and untamed, but is in itself 
the product of different ideas and ideals. In the 
modern world this can be traced back to the 
growing alienation from nature associated with the 
Industrial Revolution and the rapid growth in 
urbanization during the 19th century. During the 
latter half of that century the need was increasingly 
felt both for the provision of open space that could 
be enjoyed for its own sake, particularly by urb- 
anized working peoples, and for the protection from 
development of areas of outstanding natural 
beauty, particularly those with dramatic landscape 
features. Although these two roles were essentially 
seen as complementary, the emphasis in individual 
cases might differ - the Royal National Park in 
Australia is an early example of an area set aside 
primarily to provide open space for the inhabitants 
of a large conurbation ISydneyl, while the Grand 
Canyon and the geysers of Yellowstone in the USA 
are early examples of landscapes protected in the 
public name, but primarily for their own sake. 



During the 20th century, these two functions, 
particularly the latter, continued to be among the 
most important reasons for the designation of 
protected areas almost everywhere, as exemplified 
by many of the world's best known national parks, 
such as Torres del Paine in Chile (protected 
primarily for its mountain peaks and glaciers!, 
Iguacu/lguazu on the Brazilian/Argentinean border 
Iwaterfallsl, Gunung Mulu, Sarawak, Malaysia 
llimestone caves), and Uluru, Australia Ithe mega- 
lithic Ayres Rock). In colonial Africa the notion of 
national phenomena worth preserving on a large 
scale was extended to include dramatic wildlife 
concentrations, perhaps most famously in 
Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, and the assoc- 
iated Masai Mara Game Reserve, Kenya. By and 
large, however, the presence of populations or 
assemblages of particular species of animals, 
plants, or other organisms has played relatively 
little part in the choice of such areas. 

The second main historical impulse in the 
setting aside of areas was to ensure control over 
some harvested living natural resource. On land the 
most important such resources are game and 
timber It is not surprising, therefore, that many of 
the earliest accounts of protected areas are of what 
are essentially game reserves and forest reserves. 
In almost all cases for which we have evidence, the 
intention behind the setting aside of the former was 
not to manage game species for maximum 
productivity, that is as an important source of 
protein for society at large, but to maintain 
populations of them as quarry for hunting by elites. 



36 



Protected areas and biodiversity 




Grand Canyon National Park World Heritage Site, USA, which started as a federal forest reserve in 1893. 



37 



The world's protected areas 




Yellowstone National 
Park, USA, 1881. 



This concept was Introduced widely in the European 
colonies in the 19th century and the first half of the 
20th century, particularly in the French and British 
empires, so that many existing protected areas 
in the former colonies have their origins in hunting 
or game reserves {Reserves de chasse and 
Reserves de faune], and indeed often retain such 
designations. The focus for their establishment was 
usually the presence of substantial populations of 
large mammals, particularly ungulates, but also 
sometimes of game birds such as pheasants, 
grouse, bustards, and various kinds of waterfowl. 

Governments everywhere have also had a long 
tradition of tal<ing control of a nations timber 
resources, with much of the forest estate in many 
countries considered government land (often 
regardless of any traditional tenure claims], and 
with timber production and processing either 
directly under government control or, more often, 
operated through a system of licensing concess- 
ionaires. Under many such systems, the forest 
estate was divided into a number of categories, for 
example areas designated for clear-felling or 
conversion to plantation forestry, areas identified 
for selective timber production, and forest reserves 
not intended for commercial timber extraction. The 



last of these may have been set aside because the 
terrain was considered unsuitable for most kinds of 
logging, because the areas were perceived to be of 
importance for the protection of water catchments, 
or as samples of particular forest types, of interest 
in practical forestry studies. Typically, only small 
areas were set aside as samples of forest types. 

As well as these two main motivations for the 
designation of protected areas, a third, historically 
less prominent, reason has been the setting aside of 
areas primarily for scientific interest. Such areas 
may contain representative samples of different 
habitats or ecosystems, or unusual and particularly 
interesting species or species assemblages, or 
geophysical phenomena. Sometimes the factors 
leading to their designation maybe of wider interest 
- that is, they may also be considered important 
public attractions in the way described above - but 
often they may not. 

Relatively early examples of this systematic, 
science-based approach can be found in the 
zapovednik system established in the former Soviet 
Union from 1919 onwards, and in the network of 
reserves set up in various parts of the world under 
the French colonial regime. In Madagascar, for 
example, a network of strict nature reserves 
{Reserves naturetles integrates] was established, 
mainly in the 1930s, containing representative 
samples of the major vegetation types present on 
this extraordinarily diverse island. These were 
intended essentially as a resource for scientific 
research with access granted only under strictly 
controlled permit. In addition, a small number of 
special reserves [Reserves speciates] were set up 
to protect features considered of particular interest, 
for example the Reserve speciate de Perinet, 
established specifically to protect an accessible 
population of indri {Indri indri], the worlds largest 
lemur species. These examples notwithstanding, 
until the second half of the 20th century, relatively 
few protected areas were established for what 
might be regarded as pure, science-based conser- 
vation ends, that is without other considerations 
being taken into account. 

Moreover, the establishment of protected 
areas, for whatever reason, has always had to be 
made in the face of other competing interests. 
Allocation of land to this function has generally 
been accorded a low priority, particularly where that 
land is of potentially high value for other purposes, 
for example is agriculturally productive, rich in 
mineral resources, or well sited for residential or 



38 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



industrial development. This means that such areas 
are generally poorly represented in protected area 
networl<s. Conversely, networks tend to have heavy 
representation of areas that are not considered 
valuable for other uses, or at least v/ere not 
considered so at the time they were gazetted. Such 
areas tend to be infertile, with difficult terrain, and 
often isolated. Where they are inhabited, the 
inhabitants are (or werel usually people with little 
political power 

Modem approaches 

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the past 
few decades have seen great changes in the way 
that global environmental issues and the roles 
of protected areas are perceived, or at least 
articulated. I^ost importantly, discussions about 
nature and living natural resources are almost 
invariably cast in the rubric of biological diversity, or 
"biodiversity", a term whose meaning has become 
more diffuse as its political currency has grown. The 
major international expression of this has been 
the negotiation and entry into force in 1993 of the 
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBDI, one of 
the three so-called Rio conventions that emerged 
from the 1992 United Nations Conference on 
Environment and Development lUNCED, or the 
Earth Summit!. 

In 2004, the Parties to the Convention 
decided on an extensive and ambitious work 
program on protected areas. In this they expanded 
the requirement for the development of national 
protected area systems as set out in Article 8 of 
the convention to a call to support the estab- 
lishment and maintenance of a comprehensive, 
effectively managed, and ecologically repre- 
sentative global network of protected areas. In 
particular they recognized that such a network 
would play a vital contribution in meeting the 
target agreed by the Parties to the Convention and 
echoed at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable 
Development of having mechanisms in place by 
2010 to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity 
loss at the global, regional, and national levels, 
and to establish an effective global marine 
protected area network by 2012. The program of 
action developed in 2003 as part of the Vth World 
Parks Congress similarly urged governments, 
non-governmental organizations, and local 
communities to maximize representation and 
persistence of biodiversity in comprehensive 
protected area networks. 



These decisions, which reflect the current 
thinking of the world's governments and the 
protected areas community at large, have the effect 
of highlighting the role of protected areas in 
maintaining biodiversity, and have effectively 
brought the science-based approach, which was 
traditionally regarded as of minor importance, to 
the fore. 

Central questions in assessing the role of 
protected areas in meeting the 2010 target, applic- 
able at all levels from the local to the global, are: 
J How well does any existing protected area 

network cover biodiversity? 
3 What are the major gaps in the network? 

Because protected area networks were not 
usually designed to carry out this function of 
maintaining biodiversity, it is to be expected that 
there will generally be gaps. Identifying what 
these gaps are is not straightforward, chiefly 
because biodiversity is not a single entity. Rather, 
it is an expression of the extraordinary complexity 
and variability of living systems at all scales and at 
a range of hierarchical levels from the molecular 
through individuals, populations, and species to 
communities, habitats, and ecosystems, and 
ultimately the entire biosphere. 

There are many ways to try to capture this 
variability and express it in a quantifiable way Most 
generally, and as singled out by the CBD, three 




The indri {Indri indri], 
endemic to Madagascar, 
is the world's largest 
lemur species. 



39 



The world's protected areas 



different levels are considered important: genes, 
species, and ecosystems. Altfiough genetic diversity 
is recognized as a fundamental underpinning of 
organismal diversity, it has to date proved very diffi- 
cult to come up vi/ith useful measures for analysis. 
Most current approacfies to assessing hovj v^ell 
covered biodiversity is in protected areas therefore 
emphasize either species or habitats, communities, 
and ecosystems. 

Ultimately, it is difficult to separate the two 
approaches: habitats and communities are often 
defined largely on the basis of their predominant 
species, while ecosystems can be considered as 
populations of species, the interactions between 
them, and the physical environment in which they 
exist. Nevertheless, these approaches do differ, and 
each has its advantages and disadvantages, as is 
discussed in further detail below. 

Identifying and filling gaps 

Any analysis of coverage should result in identifying 
major gaps - that is species, groups of species, 
habitats, communities, or ecosystems that are 
believed not to be represented or are inadequately 
represented in protected areas. Even given the 
various constraints outlined above, identifying gaps 
is, in theory at least, relatively straightforward. 
Determining how these gaps should be filled and, in 
particular, identifying priorities - that is singling out 
the most important areas to be protected - is a 
different matter entirely. 

This is largely because it is difficult to reach 
agreement over which aspects or components of 
biodiversity are considered the most important. This 
applies both to judgments of the intrinsic value of 
the particular components being discussed and to 
the perceived urgency or intensity of the need to 
protect them. Different approaches may emphasize 
some or all of the following: 
Q areas of occurrence of individual species, 

particularly large, charismatic, and threatened 

ones; 

□ areas that are particularly rich in species; 

□ areas that have a significant number of local or 
endemic species; 

Q areas that contain unique communities, 
ecosystems, or landscape features; 

□ representative samples of identified comm- 
unities, ecosystems, or landscapes. 

There may also be debate as to whether it is more 
important or worthwhile to invest in vestigial or 



highly threatened systems or to concentrate efforts 
on maintaining still healthy and expansive systems 
or populations. 

The plan of action developed in 2003 as part of 
the Vth World Parks Congress drew on a number of 
different approaches to set a series of species- and 
habitat-based targets: 

1. All globally threatened species are effectively 
conserved in situ with the following immediate 
targets: 

□ All critically endangered and endangered 
species confined to single sites are effectively 
conserved in situ by 2006. 

G All other critically endangered and endan- 
gered species are effectively conserved in situ 
by 2008. 

□ All other globally threatened species are 
effectively conserved in situ by 2010. 

□ Sites that support internationally important 
populations of congregatory and/or restricted- 
range species are adequately conserved by 
2010. 

2. Viable representations of every terrestrial, 
freshwater, and marine ecosystem are effectively 
conserved within protected areas, with the following 
immediate targets: 

Q A common global framework for classifying 
and assessing the status of ecosystems is 
established by 2006. 

CJ Quantitative targets for each ecosystem type 
are identified by 2008. 

□ Viable representations of every threatened or 
underprotected ecosystem are conserved by 
2010. 

W/hichever aspect, or combination of aspects, is 
chosen - it may be all the species in a particular 
plant family, or different vegetation communities in 
a particular region - information is needed on the 
spatial distribution of those components and on 
the distribution of existing protected areas in the 
district under analysis. On the basis of this, using 
more or less complicated algorithms, areas of high 
priority for protection can be identified. 

A number of different approaches has been 
used, of which three of the most commonly applied 
are minimum-set analysis, richness, and 
irreplaceability Minimum-set analysis attempts to 
identify the smallest set of areas, which together 
contain at least one example of each of the 
elements of biodiversity chosen; richness priorit- 



AO 



Protected areas and biodiversity 




A cheetah [Acinonyx 
jubatus], Serengeti 
National Park, Tanzania. 



izes sites on the basis of the number of unprotected 
elements that would be protected if that site were 
protected; irreplaceability prioritizes sites on the 
basis of the number of elements of biodiversity that 
would be lost within the planning region if that site 
were lost. 

Each approach has advantages, but each also 
has limitations when applied in the real world. As 
noted above, it is rare for there to be complete 
information on even limited subsets of biodiversity 
in any given region. This is particularly the case in 
the tropics. Where detailed information is available, 
determining optimal solutions to protected area 
networl< design rapidly becomes computationally 
intractable unless scenarios are quite simple (i.e. a 
small number of elements and a small number of 
areasl. There is also no single, unequivocal way of 
combining priorities established through analysis of 
different subsets of biodiversity: in a particular 
region, priorities determined through analysis of. 
say. the distribution of bird species will undoubtedly 
be different from those established using plant 
communities. Most importantly, it is often very 
difficult for such analyses to take into account real- 
life constraints on the availability of sites for 
protection, the costs of obtaining and maintaining 
such sites, and the fact that the landscape, in its 
broadest sense, is constantly changing, so that, for 
example, a site identified as high priority in a one- 
off analysis may no longer be of value once the 
opportunity arises for protecting it. 

It Is. nevertheless, clear that systematic 
planning In creating networks of protected areas 
is preferable to a completely opportunistic or ad 



hoc approach and. where certain conditions can 
be satisfied, these techniques can and have been 
successfully applied on the ground. 

The following sections outline species-based, 
blogeographic. and habitat-based analyses of 
protected area coverage at the global level. 

Species-based approaches 

Species-based approaches have the advantage that 
species are in general the best characterized 
components of biodiversity, at least when it comes 
to groups such as animals and plants. In these 
cases, there is normally reasonable agreement on 
what constitutes a species and it Is generally 
possible to distinguish one from another It could 
theoretically be possible, therefore, to enumerate 
all the species in a given area and identify those that 
have populations included in protected areas and 
those that do not. However. In reality this is not 
possible because our knowledge of species and 
their distributions is incomplete. 

To date, some 1.7 million species of all forms 
of life have been named and described scientifically 
This is believed to include a high proportion of the 
true number of the worlds larger terrestrial plants 
and animals, particularly the so-called higher 
vertebrates (birds, mammals, reptiles, and 
amphibians), but a far smaller percentage of other 
groups, especially invertebrates, fungi, and micro- 
organisms, which between them comprise the vast 
majority of living species. Estimates for the total 
number of species on Earth vary widely, but there 
may be between 10 and 20 million In total, the 
majority of these invertebrate animals. Even among 



41 



The world's protected areas 



Areas with high diversity 
of butterflies do not 
necessarily indicate high 
diversity of birds. 



the best known taxonomic groups (birds and 
mammals) new discoveries are stiU regularly being 
made. Detailed or complete information on distri- 
bution is available for only a very small proportion of 
described species - again mostly large and conspi- 
cuous ones - and there is reliable information on 
total population numbers for even fewer 

Knowledge of biodiversity is geographically, as 
well as taxonomically, biased. Most information is 
available for terrestrial temperate regions, with far 
less known about other parts of the world, 
particularly the tropics and aquatic regions. Even 
within temperate latitudes, there are extremely few 
areas, or sites, for which anything approaching 
complete species inventories exist, even if micro- 
organisms are excluded. Moreover, such invent- 
ories as do exist for particular sites are often 
unpublished or hidden in the "gray literature" and 
may use different taxonomic systems. Collating, 
reconciling, and then analyzing this information is a 
major undertaking, although one that is becoming 




easier thanks to the spread of the internet. 

Because of these limitations, analyses of 
coverage of species by protected areas invariably 
use surrogate measures for the whole of 
biodiversity, usually particular taxonomic groups 
that are well characterized in that area, often birds, 
sometimes other vertebrates (especially mam- 
mals], butterflies, and some groups of vascular 
plants. The assumption is that knowledge of these 
groups may give some indication of how well 
covered other taxonomic groups are. Empirical 
tests of this assumption, for example in the UK and 
South Africa, indicate that it often does not hold up 
very well - that is, for example, areas with a high 
diversity of butterflies do not necessarily have a 
high diversity of birds, and vice versa. However, 
other findings have been somewhat more 
encouraging - in Uganda, for example, it was found 
that protected areas that were rich in one group of 
species tended also to be rich in others. 

Species-based analyses should, ideally, be 
based on actual records of species in protected 
areas. There is generally not enough information to 
do this, other than in a few intensively studied parts 
of the world. The alternative, much more approx- 
imate, approach is to map distributions of species 
using available information and then to overlay 
maps of protected areas on to these, in a way 
similar to that widely used for assessing habitat 
coverage. This approach allows first-order assess- 
ments of coverage, but in most cases is of limited 
accuracy. This is because, unless extremely detailed 
data are available, distributions of species are 
normally mapped as polygons showing the limits of 
their ranges. These ranges may be based entirely 
on field observations or may be extrapolated from 
them, generally using models of habitat suitability 
based on parameters such as climate, altitude, and 
soil type. Because species are virtually never 
ubiquitous within these limits, however the latter 
are derived, there is no guarantee that they will 
occur in any given protected area within or 
overlapping with the mapped range. 

Terrestrial species coverage by the global 
protected areas network 

Although global level data on species distributions 
are necessarily approximate, they can still yield 
valuable insights into the effectiveness of the 
existing protected area network in maintaining 
biodiversity, as in the global gap analysis carried out 
by Rodrigues et al. (20031. The analysis combined 



62 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



four very large datasets that are themselves the 
culmination of information-gathering efforts by 
thousands of individuals and dozens of institutions: 
the World Database on Protected Areas IWDPA); 
and global distribution maps for all mammals, 
amphibians, and globally threatened birds. The data 
on the world's globally threatened bird species were 
compiled by the BirdLife International partnership 
(BirdLife International. 2000L 

Of the 1 183 globally threatened birds included 
in this analysis. 182 are critically endangered, 321 
are endangered, and 680 are considered vulnerable 
species. Distribution maps for all mammal species 
were compiled as part of the lUCN Global Mammal 
Assessment (Boitani and Amori. unpublished; 
Sechrest. unpublished: Boitani et ai, 1999; 
Patterson et ai, 2003). All maps used were in draft 
form. In total. U 734 mammal species were 
analyzed, including 131 critically endangered 
species, 229 endangered, and 618 vulnerable 
species. Distribution maps for amphibian species 
have been compiled by the ongoing Global 
Amphibian Assessment IIUCN-SSC and CI-CABS. 
20031. with NatureServe providing the distribution 
maps for species in North America. Part of these 
correspond to reviewed data; others were still 
to be formally reviewed by experts. The analysis 
included 5 25A amphibians, including 291 critically 
endangered. A9A endangered, and 682 vulnerable 
species. 

The analysis overlaid species distribution 
maps on to protected area maps using geographic 
information systems IGISI to assess how well each 
species is represented in protected areas, and to 
identify gap species that are not covered in any part 
of their ranges. 

The spatial units used in this analysis were 
of two types: protected and unprotected sites. 
Protected sites are individual or clusters of 
several protected areas, of variable area, while 
unprotected sites correspond to half-degree cells 
I- 3 000 km' near the equator] from which protected 
sites were cut (i.e. there is no spatial overlap 
between protected and unprotected sites). 
Assessment of the highest priority areas for 
consolidation and expansion of the protected area 
network was based on information regarding 
irreplaceability and threat IPressey, Johnson and 
Wilson, 1994; Margules and Pressey. 2000). Threat 
was calculated as the number of threatened species 
present at a site, weighting those with higher 
extinction risk. Sites of exceptional irreplaceability 



and threat were identified as the most urgent 
conservation priorities IPressey and Taffs. 2001). 
These include currently protected sites, which are 
clear priorities for strengthening the existing 
global network of protected areas, and unprotected 
sites which present priorities for the expansion of 
the global network. 

The global gap analysis found on the basis of 
available data that at least 1 310 species 1709 at risk 
of extinction) were not protected in any part of their 
ranges. In addition, a few thousand other bird, 
mammal, and amphibian species were represented 
only by marginal overlaps with existing protected 
areas. Amphibians overall were the group least 
covered by protected areas compared with birds or 
mammals. This is mainly due to their smaller 
ranges (higher levels of endemism), but also 
because they have received much less conservation 
attention than either birds or mammals. 

Tropical forests, especially in regions of 
topographic complexity, and islands make up most 
of the areas highlighted as urgent priorities, both 
for strengthening and for the expansion of the 
global network of protected areas. Proportionally, 
Asia is a higher priority for the expansion of the 
global network, while the need for strengthening 
the existing network is mainly emphasized in Africa 
and South America. 

Areas highlighted as urgent priorities for the 
expansion of the global protected area network 
(Figure 2.2) are mainly located in regions long 
recognized to be centers of endemism that are 
suffering high levels of habitat destruction. In the 
Americas, these include parts of Central America, 
the Caribbean, the Andes, and the Atlantic Forest 
region of Brazil. In Africa, identified important 
areas are mainly located in eastern Madagascar, 
the Cape Fynbos, the Succulent Karoo, Maputaland- 
Pondoland, the Eastern Arc, the Albertine Rift, the 
Ethiopian Highlands, the Cameroon Highlands, and 
the Kenyan Highlands. In Asia, highlighted areas 
include the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka, the east- 
ern Himalayas, southwest, southeast, and central 
China, and continental and insular Southeast Asia. 
In Australia, urgent priority areas are mainly around 
coastal areas, particularly the Queensland Wet 
Tropics, the Kimberley tropical savanna, and the 
southeastern and southwestern regions. 

These areas should be priorities for finer scale 
assessments, to investigate the feasibility and 
viability of expanding the existing protected area 
network while effectively protecting the species 



43 



The world's protected areas 



Figure 2.1: Global 
distribution of protected 
sites of high urgency for 
consolidating the global 
network of protected 
areas in covering 
mammals, amphibians 
and threatened birds. 
These are protected 
sites (single or clusters 
of several protected 
areasi of high 
irreplaceability, for 
which it is fundamental 
to ensure that proper 
management is in place. 




in each area that trigger their high values of 
irreplaceability and threat. 

Protected sites identified as urgent for the 
consolidation of the global network (Figure 2.11 
Include some large complexes of protected areas in 
western North America, the Guyana Shield of South 
America, and areas In tropical and subtropical 
Africa. In addition, many smaller protected areas 
Inot so visible at the global scale of Figure 2.1) are 
also highlighted as highly irreplaceable and 
threatened among the global network of protected 
areas, and these tend to be located In centers of 
endemism such as Southeast Asia, the Western 
Ghats (India], Madagascar, the Atlantic Forests of 
Brazil, the Andes, and Central America. 



The results obtained in this analysis clearly 
demonstrate that the number of endemic species In 
a country is a powerful predictor of how much more 
protection is needed to ensure coverage of 
vertebrate species (Figure 2.2). 

Habitat and ecosystem-based approaches 

An alternative to the species-based approach is 
to use higher levels of biological organization: 
communities, habitats, and ecosystems. There are 
a number of advantages. In the first instance 
they may help to capture more of the ecological 
processes that contribute to the maintenance of 
ecosystem function (although this is still under 
debate). Secondly, they can In theory be mapped 



Figure 2.2: Global 
distribution of 
unprotected sites (at 
half-degree resolution) 
of high urgency for the 
expansion of the global 
network of protected 
areas, in order to cover 
mammals, amphibians 
and threatened birds. 




lA 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



more easily over wide areas, particularly in light of 
the growing availability of remote-sensing data, and 
the growing sophistication of techniques for 
analyzing such data. 

There are, however, persistent and non-trivial 
problems of definition and classification. Certainly, 
at global level, a universally accepted global habitat 
classification system has yet to be developed. This is 
not surprising - these systems are all essentially 
predicated on the assumption that the natural 
environment can be divided into a series of discrete, 
discontinuous units that can be given a label, either 
one that is highly simplified, for example forest or 
wetland, or a detailed and specific one, such as 
mixed alder-willow scrub. 



In reality, the natural world is generally better 
represented as a highly variable natural continuum, 
where it is often virtually impossible to say where 
one habitat type begins and another ends. Even 
where simplified categories are used, it is extremely 
difficult to define and delimit them in a universally 
agreed way: for example, it is not possible to deter- 
mine for how long, how regularly, and how inten- 
sively an area must be flooded before it can be 
classified as aquatic rather than as a terrestrial 
ecosystem. Similarly, the amount of tree cover 
present before an area is classified as a woodland 
rather than, say, a savanna or parkland, cannot be 
defined other than arbitrarily Furthermore, almost 
all parts of the terrestrial world, at least, are to 



BOX 2.1 : WWF AND LARGE-SCALE BIOGEOGRAPHIC REGIONS 

Comprehensive representation of existing habitats in protected area networks is one of the key goals of 
biodiversity conservation. Maps of biogeographic units at various scales can provide a useful framework 
for assessing such representation. They take into account the fact that the distributions of species and 
biological communities rarely coincide with political units and they approximate the dynamic arena within 
which ecological processes most strongly interact. This means that designing protected area networks 
within them is one of the best ways of ensuring the persistence of populations and ecological processes, 
although it does present significant challenges in working across administrative boundaries ISoule and 
Terborgh, 1999; Groves et at. 2000; Margules and Pressey, 2000). Since the late 1990s, WWF has devoted a 
substantial proportion of its energies and resources to an effort now called Ecoregion Conservation, which 
uses what are essentially biogeographic regions for conservation planning. WWF has defined an ecoregion 
as a large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities 
that; share a large majority of their species and ecological dynamics; share similar environmental 
conditions; and interact ecologically in ways that are critical for their long-term persistence. Ecoregion 
Conservation aims to address the four goals of biodiversity conservation as espoused by Noss (1992): 
representation of all habitats in protected areas; maintenance of ecological and evolutionary processes; 
maintenance of viable populations of all species, and accounting for environmental change. 

Believing that none of the existing global maps of biogeographic units provided the appropriate 
tractable spatial resolution necessary to plan protected area networks, WWF went about creating its own 
map of terrestrial ecoregions. For this it relied predominantly on a patchwork of existing regional 
classification systems used as a baseline for ecoregion boundaries, combined with other data and 
consultations from regional experts. Most existing systems required aggregating or dividing units, or 
modifying boundaries. It was acknowledged from the beginning that no single biogeographic framework 
would be optimal for all taxa - the WWF ecoregions reflect what the organization considered the best 
compromise for as many taxa as possible. It recognizes 825 terrestrial ecoregions around the globe, with 
a mean size of around 150 000 km^ and a median size of just over 56 000 km^. Working with The Nature 
ConseiA/ancy and other partners, comprehensive maps for freshwater and marine ecoregions have now 
also been developed. 

WWF's Global 200 analysis [Olson and Dinerstein, 1998) relied heavily on the comprehensive 
terrestrial ecoregion framework. The Global 200 analysis scored the terrestrial ecoregions for species 
endemism, richness, and intact ecological phenomena. It also identified similarly outstanding freshwater 
and marine regions of the world. The resulting map of 238 ecoregions has become WWF's roadmap for the 
focus of its conservation activities, at least for the next decade or so. 



i5 



The world's protected areas 



some extent modified by human activity. Habitat 
classification systems tiave to decide whether to 
take this into account - describe actual conditions in 
any given place - or try to shovif potential conditions, 
that is the kind of habitat that might historically 
have been present or that might be expected in the 
absence of human influence. 

Habitat or ecosystem analysis at the global 
level is also not easy to relate to other levels of 
biodiversity, particularly species. This is because 
similar habitats in different parts of the w/orld may 
be formed by quite different assemblages of 
species. Because of this, what proportion of the 
world's tropical moist forests, for example, are 
protected gives relatively little information in itself 
on what proportion of the world's tropical moist 
forest species are protected. 

Performing habitat or ecosystem analyses at 
continental, regional, or smaller scales helps to 
overcome this problem. In these cases, similar hab- 
itats are likely to share a significant proportion of 
their species, so that there is likely to be quite a 
good relationship between assessments of cover- 
age of biodiversity at the habitat or ecosystem level 
and that at the species level. In addition, it is easier 
to produce consistent and widely acceptable habitat 
classification systems and associated maps at 
these scales. This regional, habitat-based approach 
was first used in the protected areas systems 
reviews undertaken in the 1980s by lUCN - The 
World Conservation Union. 

Biogeographic approaches 

Biogeographic approaches are essentially exten- 
sions of regional habitat- or ecosystem-based 
approaches. They are based on the observation 
that particular groups or associations of plants 
and animals are characteristic of particular 
regions and often confined to them. The protected 
area coverage in each of these regions is then 
measured, with the assumption that this will pro- 
vide a measure of the degree of protection aff- 
orded to those groups or associations. Typically, 
such biogeographical approaches have a hier- 
archical character, and can be used to analyze 
coverage at a range of spatial scales. 

For many years, the basis for such analyses 
when carried out for terrestrial ecosystems was 
that developed by Udvardy in 1975. Under this the 
land area of the world is divided into eight 
biogeographical realms, continent or subcontinent- 
sized areas, which are further subdivided into 193 



provinces defined by significant differences in flora, 
fauna, or vegetation structure. The provinces range 
in size from a mere 11 km' in the case of South 
Trinidade Province in the Neotropical Realm to over 
10 million km' in the case of Maudlandia Province, 
one of the two provinces in the Antarctic Realm. 
More recently, this concept has been modified and 
refined in the ecoregion approach developed 
principally by WWF, the global conservation 
organization Isee Box 2.1). 

HABITAT COVERAGE BY THE PROTECTED AREAS 
NETWORK 

Assessing habitat coverage of protected areas at the 
global level requires, at the very least, a compre- 
hensive and consistent habitat classification system 
that can be applied across the world, a reliable 
global map based on such a system, and a similarly 
reliable global map of protected areas. Each of 
these presents difficulties. 

Once a single global habitat classification 
system is agreed upon, a reliable map needs to be 
created using such a system. Before the widespread 
availability of remote-sensing technologies this was 
quite problematic; although there were many 
excellent national or local land-cover or habitat 
maps, these had been produced using a whole 
range of different classification systems, with 
different methodologies and with different degrees 
of accuracy and resolution. Reconciling these to 
produce one consistent system applicable across 
national boundaries proved challenging. 

Remote-sensing technologies have, in the last 
two decades, revolutionized our ability to observe 
the surface of the planet and to monitor changes. 
However, their use still depends on careful analysis 
and on the application of agreed classification 
systems. For the analysis used in this volume the 
Global Landcover 2000 IGLC2000I dataset was 
taken as a starting point for the land-based habitat 
information. This dataset was developed through 
the European Commission's Joint Research Centre 
and has been produced through a partnership of 
more than 30 institutions. It is based on SPOT A 
satellite imagery taken between November 1999 
and December 2000. In order to establish a 
consistent base, all participants have agreed to 
work towards a globally consistent legend based on 
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations (FAO) Land Cover Classification 
System (FAO 20001. At the same time, the use of 
considerable regional expertise has ensured a 



66 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



TABLE 2.1 : MAJOR HABITAT TYPES, THEIR GLOBAL COVERAGE, AND THE AREAS PROTECTED 
(in all sites including lUCN Categories l-VI and those with no category assigned! 



Habitat 



Total area 
Ikm2) 



Area protected 
|km2) 



lUCN categories 
l-IV Ikm2) 



% of total % of total 
area protected in l-IV 



Temperate and boreal 
needleleaf forest 


10 749 000 


1 539 000 


1 263 000 


14 


12 


Temperate broadleaf 
and mixed forest' 


10 322 000 


1 256 000 


1 107 000 


12 


11 


Tropical moist forest 


12 104 000 


2 798 000 


1 579 000 


23 


13 


Tropical dry forest 


3 172 000 


342 000 


230 000 


11 


7 


Open forests^ 


3 815 000 


605 000 


455 000 


16 


12 


Savanna 


13 010 000 


1 653 000 


1 178 000 


13 


9 


Grassland Itemperatel 


7 551 000 


1 175 000 


1 094 000 


16 


14 


Warm desert and 
semi-desert 


22 269 000 


2 242 000 


2 123 000 


10 


10 


Cold desert and 
semi-desert 


7 285 000 


606 000 


550 000 


8 


8 


Tundra 


4 682 000 


710 000 


668 000 


15 


14 


Shrubland 


6 970 000 


914 000 


621 000 


13 


9 


Inland waters-^ 


5 078 000 


628 000 


545 000 


12 


11 


Permanent snow 
and ice 


15 404 000 


1 130 000 


1 118 000 


7 


7 


Predominantly 
anthropoqenic^ 


24 581 000 


1 413 000 


1 020 000 


6 


4 


Ocean 


362 630 000 
509 622 000 


1 639 000 


1 578 000 


0.5 


0.4 


Total 


18 650 000 


15129 000 


4 


3 



1 Includes some subtropical and tropical predominantly needleleaf forest. 

2 Includes tropical savanna/tree-cover mosaic, 

3 Includes non-marine water bodies, wetland, and mangroves 

4 Includes cropland and natural vegetation mosaic, 

NB Figures for area protected, rounded to ttie nearest ttiousand km^ are based on the World Database on Protected Areas 2003 
Table excludes some 400 ODD km' for whictl no habitat data are available. 



much greater degree of quality assurance than 
earlier land-cover assessments, while information 
from other sensors has been used to refine 
particular elements (Barolome etal., 20021. 

Although GLC2000 was a base, various 
alterations were made in this map in order to 
produce habitat classes that were more closely 
allied to the habitat classes used by the contributors 
to this chapter. There were also some gaps in the 
overall coverage provided by this map, most notably 
for the far northern parts of Eurasia and some of 
the island groups. It was possible to fill some of 
these gaps with data available at UNEP-WCIVIC from 
other sources, in addition to the basic habitat 
analysis, some additional analyses using non- 
GLC2000 data were undertaken. These included 
those of mountains and marine environments and 



these are presented in the relevant sections of 
this chapter 

Like all datasets, the GLC2000 contains error. 
Probably the greatest source of error comes from 
problems of interpretation and, despite the 
considerable involvement of regional expertise in 
the development of habitat layers, ground-truthing 
on a project of this scale is limited. It is therefore 
quite likely that some areas have been mis- 
identified. The resolution of the image analysis 
further compounds such error With findings being 
summarized by single square kilometer (km'l 
pixels, patchwork landscapes and transitional areas 
can create contusing spectral signatures, leading to 
misidentification. Fine-scale habitats, such as 
riparian and coastal habitats, are generally missed 
or underrepresented. Finally there may be errors of 



47 



The world's protected areas 



Mangrove forests lining 
a tidal creek, Bowling 
Green Bay National 
Park, Queensland, 
Australia (leftl. 

Mixed conifer- 
deciduous forest, 
Kolovesi National Park, 
Finland (right). 




spatial location - particularly noticeable when any 
single layer is combined with another. In the present 
study the nnlsmatch between the GLC2000 and the 
higher resolution ocean layer held at UNEP-WCMC 
led to the occurrence of a considerable area of "no 
data" along the coastline in many areas. 

The data on protected areas used in the 
analysis were derived from the World Database on 
Protected Areas as it stood In 2003. Of the just over 
100 000 sites in this database, boundary inform- 
ation is held in a GIS for some iO 000 sites. For a 
further 37 000 or so, information is available 
describing the geographic coordinates of the 
central point, and there is also information on the 
size of the site. With this information it was possible 
to create buffered points (circles of the correct size 
centered on the known central pointl. Combining 
these two data sources provided approximate 
spatial extent and location information for over 70 
percent of the sites in the database. This includes 
most of the largest sites and hence it can be 
assumed that it represents a minimum estimate of 
the total protected area coverage assessed in this 
study. lOf the remaining sites a further 15 percent 
have a known area, but location is not known 
(beyond the country); 12 percent have a location, but 
the size of the site is unknown, and 2 percent have 
no known size or location.) 

The sources of the information within the 
database are highly varied, and it must be assumed 
that the spatial accuracy of the information contains 
similar variation. Errors are likely to arise both from 



inaccuracy (points are simply wrong, with errors 
potentially varying from tens of meters to tens of 
kilometers) and from issues of resolution (with 
effectively the same results - maps prepared for 
low-resolution use may show increasing levels of 
spatial misplacement associated with "pushing" 
them beyond their true resolution). At the present 
time it IS not possible to provide an assessment of 
the level of these errors within the database. 

Forests 

Under natural conditions, about half of the Earth's 
land surface would be expected to be covered 
with forest and woodland. Under human influence 
this proportion has been reduced to around one 
quarter. Remaining forests provide habitat for 
more than half of the world's species, generate 
about half of the global terrestrial annual net 
primary production, and house about 50 percent of 
the world's terrestrial carbon stocks. As global 
loss and degradation of forests is continuing, 
establishment and effective management of 
protected areas will be key to ensuring the 
preservation of global biodiversity and main- 
tenance of forest ecosystem functions. 

What and where are forests? 
Despite their importance to people and the large 
amount of research focused on forest ecosystems, it 
has proved difficult to agree a precise definition of 
"forest". While the term clearly indicates an 
ecosystem in which trees are the predominant life 



68 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



form, the problem arises because of the broad 
range of systems in which trees occur For example, 
tree species may dominate at high attitude, but be 
barely recognizable as trees because of their 
spreading prostrate forms; savannas may have a 
significant presence of trees, but it is problematic to 
define where trees are predominant. 

Problems in defining forest make it difficult to 
carry out consistent analyses at global or regional 
scale of remaining forest cover or rates of loss. 
FAO, which has an international mandate to assess 
and monitor global forest resources, has defined 
forest as area with greater than 10 percent tree 
crown cover IFAO, 2001 1, but this definition includes 
sparse tree cover not considered as forest by many 
other organizations. 

Forests and woodlands were originally 
distributed throughout the temperate and tropical 
latitudes of the Earth, except for areas of desert 
climate or extreme high altitude or latitude, as well 
as some areas of prairie and steppe. The factors 
determining their distribution are largely climatic: 
tree establishment and growth require a minimum 
number of days in the year with adequate climatic 
conditions for active growth. Substrate character- 
istics are also important: trees require access to 
enough soil for nutrient and water supply. Other 
non-anthropogenic factors limiting the distribution 
of forests include flooding, the incidence of wildfire, 
and the presence of toxic minerals in the substrate. 

The forms and types of forest vary greatly 
throughout the world. A number of global class- 
ification systems have been suggested, but as yet 
none has gained universal acceptance. The 
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization] system proposed by 
Ellenberg and Mueller-Dombois (UNESCO, 19931 
includes nearly 100 forest and woodland 
"subformations " and allows for yet finer sub- 
divisions, but many of the characteristics that 
separate categories can only be determined in the 
field. Other classifications, such as the Earth 
Resources Observation and Science (EROSI Data 
Centre seasonal land-cover regions, with nearly a 
thousand classes, reflect more strongly the nature 
of land-cover data obtained from Earth-orbiting 
satellites and the processes involved in their 
classification (Loveland ef ai, 2000). The vast range 
of physiognomic, phenological, and other variation 
among forest types that these classifications 
identify within the very broad FAO definition of 
forest can be aggregated loosely into five wide 



categories: temperate and boreal needleleaf 
forests; temperate broadleaf and mixed forests; 
tropical moist forests; tropical dry forests; and 
sparse trees and parklands. Each of these broad 
categories has a particular distribution and 
encompasses many different specific forest types 
that have some characteristics in common. 

Threats to forests and their biodiversity and 
rates of loss 

The principal pressures on forests and their 
biodiversity are conversion to other land uses, prin- 
cipally forms of agriculture, logging, and other 
types of natural resource extraction, such as 
hunting. These factors are of varying importance in 
different parts of the world and in different forest 
types. For example, conversion of forest to agri- 
culture is the main cause of tropical moist forest 
loss, but is of negligible importance in boreal 
needleleaf forests. Timber extraction is an 
important pressure on biodiversity in both tropical 
and temperate forests. In 2000, global consumption 
of industrial roundwood was more than 
1 500 million m^ (FAO, 20031, and was projected to 
continue to rise. 

Approaches to timber extraction vary among 
forest types, from clear-cutting in temperate 
needleleaf forests to selective logging in most 
tropical forest types. The impacts on logged eco- 
systems can be severe, though practices designed 
to reduce the negative effects are becoming more 
widely used. There is also strong evidence that 
logging can increase the probability of wildfire in 
temperate forests and even in tropical moist forests 
not usually subject to burning (Holdsworth and 
Uhl, 1997; Cochrane eO/., 20021. Many tree species 
have suffered extensive population and genetic 
losses as a result of commercial exploitation. 
Furthermore, logging operations create access to 
forest areas that may otherwise have remained 
isolated. This improved access facilitates hunting 
and other activities that exert pressure on forest 
biodiversity, and may ultimately lead to colonization 
and conversion of the land to agricultural use. 

In addition to loss of area, forest conversion and 
logging lead to changes in the condition or quality of 
the remaining forest. These can include fragmenta- 
tion of large areas of continuous forest. Tropical 
forest fragments are distinct from continuous forests 
in both ecology and composition (Laurance and 
Bierregaard, 19971. There are physical and biotic 
gradients associated with fragment edges, and forest 



49 



The world's protected areas 




Old-growth coastal 
temperate rainforest, 
Koeye River, British 
Columbia, Canada. 



structure undergoes radical change near edges as a 
result of the impacts of wind and increased tree 
mortality. Fragments are also more vulnerable to fire 
(Cochrane, 20011. Some animal species are "edge 
avoiders" and decline in abundance in forest 
fragments, while others become more abundant. 
Some non-forest and even non-native species of 
plants and animals successfully invade forest 
fragments but not continuous forest. In addition to 
affecting canopy composition directly, removal of 
large timber trees may also affect the availability of 
seed for regeneration and may affect animal species 
that depend on the timber species. 

In many areas, wildfire is an important factor 
affecting the state and dynamics of forest eco- 
systems. It is particularly important in high-latitude 
coniferous forest, Mediterranean ecosystems, and 
in tropical dry forests. Logging activity and other 
forms of forest disturbance that alter the forest 
microenvironment increase the susceptibility to fire 
of many forest ecosystems and thus alter both the 
frequency and intensity of wildfire damage. 

In countries with low forest cover, fuelwood 
collection combined with grazing is the principal 
cause of forest degradation IFAO, 20031. Globally, 
fuelwood and charcoal consumption more than 
doubled between 1961 and 1991, and was projected 
to rise by another 30 percent to 2 400 million m> by 
2010 (FAO, 20011. 

Other factors that affect forests and their 
biodiversity include acid rain and global climate 
change. So far, most of the effects of acid precip- 
itation, which is caused by industrial air pollutants. 



have been documented in temperate needleleaf 
forests and associated waterways of Europe and 
North America. Data on current trends in forest 
cover change reveal that the rates of deforestation 
continue to be high in the developing countries of 
the tropics, in both absolute and proportional 
terms. In contrast, temperate countries are losing 
forests at lower rates, or indeed showing a net 
increase in their forest area, principally due to active 
programs of plantation establishment, but also 
because of some natural afforestation in abandoned 
agricultural lands or areas logged during the 19th 
and early 20th centuries. FAO (2001) estimated the 
annual global loss of natural forest cover during the 
1990s at 160 000 km^ , leading to a total loss over 
the decade of just over 4 percent of global natural 
forest cover The bulk of this loss Ic. IBOOOOkm^l 
was in the tropics, with 9 000 km' of natural forest 
lost outside the tropics. FAO suggests, therefore, 
that the rate of loss of natural forest has remained 
steady or declined slightly in comparison with the 
previous decade. 

Forest protection status 

Combining the most recent version of the World 
Database on Protected Areas with an approximate 
map of global forest cover derived from the Global 
Landcover database, it can be estimated that in 
the order of 1 1 to 1 2 percent of the worlds current 
forest area falls within protected areas in lUCN 
Categories l-VI with an estimated additional 4 to 5 
percent included in protected areas that have not 
been assigned to any one of the lUCN categories. 
Based on the combined WDPA/GLC2000 
analysis (using 2003 WDPA data), tropical moist 
forests are the forests that have the highest 
proportion of remaining cover protected, with 
around 13 percent of their extent recorded as 
included in protected areas belonging to lUCN 
Management Categories l-VI (Table 2.11. In addition, 
a further 10 percent is recorded by the analysis as 
occurring in protected areas for which no lUCN 
management category has been assigned. Globally, 
tropical dry forests are the least protected with only 
around 7 percent of their area apparently included 
in Categories l-VI and another A percent in areas 
with no category assigned. Temperate broadleaf 
and mixed forests, and temperate and boreal 
needleleaf forests, are intermediate, with around 
11 to 12 percent protected in areas with Categories 
l-VI and a further 1 or 2 percent in areas with no 
category assigned. 



50 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



Temperate and boreal needleleaf forests 
Temperate and boreal needleleaf forests are 
estimated to cover around 11 million km^ with a 
further 1 .6 million km^ or so of sparse forest. They 
mostly occupy the higher latitude regions of the 
northern hemisphere, as well as high-altitude 
zones and some warm temperate areas, especially 
on nutrient-poor or otherwise unfavorable soils. 
These forests are composed entirely, or nearly so, 
of coniferous species IPinophyta). In the northern 
hemisphere, pines Pinus, spruces Picea, larches 
Larix, silver firs Abies, Douglas firs Pseudotsuga, 
and hemlocks Tsuga dominate the canopy, but 
other taxa are also important. In the southern 
hemisphere coniferous trees, including members of 
the Araucanaceae, Cupressaceae, and Podocar- 
paceae, often occur in mixtures with broadleaf 
species in systems that are classed as broadleaf 
and mixed forests. 

Although tree species richness is low in most 
temperate and boreal needleleaf forests, old 
growth conifer stands, which may be many 
centuries old, represent an irreplaceable gene 
pool and an important habitat for many other 
organisms. Botanical species richness in these 
forests is commonly increased by a relatively high 
diversity of mosses and lichens, which grow both 
on the ground and on tree trunks and branches. 
For example, there are at least 100 species of 
moss growing in the coniferous forests between 
1 300 and 2 000 m altitude on Baekdu Mountain, 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea iHoang 
Ho-dzung, 19871. Vertebrate richness is generally 
lower in boreal needleleaf forests than in broadleaf 
temperate and tropical forests, and many species 
are wide-ranging generalists, often with a 
Holarctic distribution, for example, wolf Cams 
lupus, brown bear Ursus arctos. 

Some of the conifer species within these 
forests, notably the giant redwood Sequoiaden- 
dron giganteum, are considered vulnerable to 
extinction (Farjon and Page, 19991, and a number 
of animals of conservation concern are dependent 
on temperate needleleaf forests. For example, the 
northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina 
requires large expanses of old-growth coniferous 
forest in the northwest USA to provide nesting 
habitat and adequate food resources. Kirtlands 
warbler Dendroica kirtlandii needs young re- 
growing jack pine as a nesting habitat, and fire 
suppression programs have reduced the available 
habitat for this species to critical levels. While 



TABLE 2.2: PROTECTION OF TEMPERATE AND BOREAL NEEDLELEAF 
FORESTS 

Ecosystem Protected 

area area % 
Region Ikm^) (km^) protected 

Australia/New Zealand 8 000 400 5 


East Asia 


ibl 000 


64 000 


14 


Europe 


824 000 


99 000 


12 


North Africa and 
Middle East 


42 000 


1 500 


3 


North America 


3 660 000 


835 000 


23 


North Eurasia 


5 756 000 


539 000 


9 


Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^ 



there is relatively little information available on 
the conservation status of invertebrates, many 
common old-growth species are known to become 
much rarer in modern managed forests, often 
through the loss of essential microhabitats 
IVaisanen et ai, 19931. 

Temperate needleleaf forests have lost about 
30 percent of their potential area lUNEP-WCMC, 
2002). The principal factors affecting them are 
clear-felling and fire. They are also susceptible to 
the impacts of acid rain and are believed likely to be 
particularly vulnerable to global climate change 
through both range restrictions and increasing fire 
frequency IIPCC, 20011. 

Important protected areas for needleleaf 
forests include the Virgin Komi Forest complex, a 
World Heritage site in the northern Urals in Russia, 
which covers nearly 3 million hectares in total; 



Beech forest, Rock 
Cities of the Bohemian 
Paradise Protected 
Landscape, Czech 
Republic. 




51 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 2.3: PROTECTION OF TEMPERATE BROADLEAF AND MIXED 
FORESTS 

Ecosystem Protected 

area area % 
Region (km^l (km^j protected 

Australia/New Zealand 616 000 15^000 25 


Caribbean 


37 000 


11 000 


29 


Central America 


55 000 


8 000 


U 


East Asia 


1 836 000 


192 000 


10 


Eastern and Southern Africa 


95 000 


7 000 


7 


Europe 


985 000 


112 000 


11 


North Africa and Middle East 


61 000 


2 000 


4 


North America 


3 302 000 


469 000 


14 


North Eurasia 


2 926 000 


239 000 


8 


South America 


275 000 


45 000 


16 


South Asia 


129 000 


13 000 


10 


Southeast Asia 


5 000 


4 000 


82 


Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^ 



Redwood National Park and World Heritage Site in 
California, USA, which includes important old- 
growth stands of redwood Sequoia sempervirens, 
Including the world's tallest known living tree; and 
Wood Buffalo National Park and World Heritage Site 
In Canada, which also includes important wetland 
areas. Including the only breeding site of the 
endangered whooping crane Grus americana. 

Temperate broadteaf and mixed forests 
Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests now cover 
about 10 million km^ of the Earth's surface. They 
Include such forest types as the mixed deciduous 
forests of the USA and their counterparts in China 
and Japan, including freshwater swamps and 
bottom-land forests throughout the temperate 
zone, the broadleaf evergreen rainforests of Chile, 
Japan, New Zealand, and Tasmania, and the 
sclerophyllous forests of Australia, California, USA, 
and the Mediterranean. Many of these forests have 
a significant presence of needleleaf and other con- 
iferous species. Depending on the precise forest 
type, these forests tend to be structurally more 
complex than pure coniferous forests, having more 
layers In the canopy 

As might be expected from their structural 
diversity, temperate broadleaf and mixed forests 
are generally richer in species than coniferous 
forests. Southern mixed hardwood forests in the 
USA are commonly composed of as many as 20 



canopy and subcanopy tree species and may 
include as many as 30 overstory species (Barnes, 
1991). In comparison, European forests tend to be 
less species rich, while the deciduous forests of 
East Asia may be the richest of all (Ching, 1991; 
Schaefer, 1991). While many species in northern 
broadleaf forests are widespread In distribution, 
the more isolated temperate forests of southern 
South America, Australia, and New Zealand 
contain a significant number of restricted-range 
and endemic species. 

About 60 percent of the potential cover of 
temperate broadleaf and mixed forests has 
disappeared, much of It having been converted to 
agriculture at various times during the Holocene. In 
parts of Europe and North America, however, the 
area of forest of this kind has stabilized or even 
increased in the past few decades. 

A number of species from temperate 
broadleaf and mixed forests are of conservation 
concern. Japan alone has 43 threatened endemic 
tree species, which are mostly characteristic of Its 
temperate broadleaf forests lOhba, 1996), while 
most of the 140 globally threatened conifer taxa 
(Hilton-Taylor, 20001 occur in mixed forests, 
particularly those in the southern hemisphere. 
Threatened animal species of these forests Include 
several New Zealand forest birds, such as the 
kakapo [Strigops fiabroptilus] and some kiwi 
species lApteryx spp.l; Leadbeater's possum 
[Gymnobetideus leadbeaten], an arboreal mars- 
upial from southeastern Australia; the AmamI 
rabbit Pentalagus furnessi of Amami Island 
(Japanl; and several deer, including the South 
American southern huemul Hippocamelus bisulcus 
and southern pudu Pudu puda. Loss of habitat, 
hunting, and introduced predators are major 
threats to these and other animals of temperate 
broadleaf and mixed forests. 

Notable protected areas include the complex 
of national parks and other areas that make up the 
1.4 million hectare Tasmanian Wilderness World 
Heritage Area, with Important stands of Eucalyptus- 
dominated temperate rainforest, the combined 
Belovezhskaya Puscha (Belarus) and Bialowleza 
Forest (Poland! National Parks, Biosphere Reserve 
and World Heritage Site, home of the European 
bison Bison bonasus, and Los Glaclares National 
Park and World Heritage Site In Argentina, which 
contains extensive areas of southern beech 
Nothofagus harboring a vestigial population of 
southern huemul. 



52 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



Tropical moist forests 

Tropical moist forests cover perhaps 12 miUion km; 
of the humid tropics and include many different 
forest types. The best known and most extensive are 
the lowland evergreen broadleaf rainforests 
including, for example, the seasonally inundated 
varzea and igapo forests and the terra firme forests 
of the Amazon Basin, the high forests of the Congo 
Basin, and the peat forests and moist dipterocarp 
forests of Southeast Asia. Together these make up 
more than half of the total remaining area of 
tropical moist forest, the great majority in two 
areas: the Amazon Basin in South America and the 
Congo Basin in Africa. Most mountain forests in the 
tropics are moist forests. These include cloud forest 
- the middle- to high-altitude forests that derive a 
significant part of their water supply from the 
clouds, and support a rich abundance of epiphytes. 
Mangrove forests and other swamp forests also fall 
within this broad category. 

Many tropical moist forests have canopies ^lO 
to 50 m tall, and some have emergent trees that 
rise above the main canopy to heights of 60 m or 
more. Such large-stature forests are character- 
istic of lowland forests and some lower montane 
forests on relatively nutrient-rich soils. Another 
characteristic of these forests is a relatively high 
frequency of woody lianas and, especially in the 
neotropics, palms (Gentry, 1988al. Moist tropical 
forests are also known tor a high abundance and 
diversity of vascular epiphytes, which take 
advantage of the higher light availability found in 
the canopy and can survive because of abundant 
rainfall and high atmospheric moisture. On more 
nutrient-poor soils and at higher altitudes, forest 
stature decreases substantially; communities in 
upper montane environments (elfin forests! may 
be no more than a few meters tall. 

In numerical terms, global terrestrial species 
diversity is concentrated in tropical rainforests. 
Generally speaking, the wet tropical forests of 
Africa have a lower tree species richness than those 
of Asia and America (Table 2.41, but there is great 
local variation. Within the Amazon Basin, for 
example, tree species richness ranges from 87 
species per hectare in the east (Pires, 1957] to 285 
species in central Amazonia (de Oliveira and Mori, 
19991 and nearly 300 species in the west (Gentry, 
1988bj. The high diversity of epiphytes and lianas in 
lowland evergreen rainforests adds to the total 
botanical richness and parallels the pattern for 
trees, being much higher in neotropical forests than 



TABLE 2M: 


TREE SPECIES RICHNESS IN 


TROPICAL MOIST FORESTS | 


latter Phillips 


etal. 


19941 


No. of tree species 
l>10 cm diameter 
at breast height) 


Region 






per hectare 


Africa 






56-92 


Americas 






56-285 


Southeast Asia 




108-240 


1 



in other regions (Benzing, 1989). Not all tropical 
moist forests are so rich in species. Mangrove eco- 
systems have low tree species diversity and 
generally low animal diversity despite their some- 
times high productivity. Extremely nutrient-poor 
soils, such as white sands, lead to the development 
of low-diversity forests including bana and campina 
(Prance, 1989). As climate becomes more seasonal, 
tree species richness tends to decline (see dry 
forests, below); increasing altitude also tends to 
reduce species richness although isolated high- 
altitude areas tend to have a high proportion of 
endemic species (Jenkins, 19921. 

Tropical moist forests are equally important 
for animal diversity. In Africa, the Guineo- 
Congolean forest block contains more than 
80 percent of African primate species, and nearly 
70 percent of African passerine birds and butterflies 



TABLE 2.5: PROTECTION OF TROPICAL MOIST FOREST 



Region 
Australia/New Zealand 



Ecosystem 
area 
Ikm2) 

160 000 



Protected 
area 
(km2l 

29 000 



% 
protected 



Caribbean 




12 000 


3 000 


25 


Central America 




246 000 


83 000 


34 


East Asia 




72 000 


13 000 


18 


Eastern and Southern Africa 


193 000 


42 000 


22 


North America 




204 000 


15 000 


7 


Pacific 




372 000 


35 000 


9 


South America 




6 846 000 


1 924 000 


28 


South Asia 




172 000 


25 000 


U 


Southeast Asia 




1 577 000 


319 000 


20 


Western and Gen 


tral Africa 


2 250 000 


310 304 


14 



Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^. 



53 



The world's protected areas 




Lowland tropical forest, 
Tetepare Island 
community-conserved 
area, Solomon Islands. 



(Jenkins, 19921. About half of ttie 1 100 South 
American reptile species are found in moist forests, 
with around 300 of these endemic to the habitat 
IHarcourt and Sayer, 1996). 

Tropical moist forest cover is now about 
^5 percent of its potential extent (UNEP-WCMC, 
20021. Conversion to agriculture is the major cause 
of tropical moist forest loss. This is due both to 
large-scale agricultural expansion and to expanding 
rural populations using shifting cultivation at an 
intensity that does not permit adequate fallow 
periods. Government resettlement programs that 
have moved large numbers of poor farmers have 
increased the rate of land colonization and clear- 
ance in parts of Southeast Asia and Latin America. 
In some areas, land has been converted to ranching 
principally as a means of gaining title in order to 
permit speculation in land values. Thus, population 
growth, poverty, and inequitable land tenure are 
among the causes underlying deforestation by 
conversion to agriculture. 

In most regions, tropical forests at low altitude 
on fertile soils are those subject to major pressure 
as they are the prime targets for conversion to agri- 
cultural land. In many areas (e.g. Java and Sumatra 
in Indonesia, eastern Madagascar, West Africa, and 
southeastern Brazil! they have already been almost 
entirely cleared, leaving remnants in increasingly 
isolated protected areas. There are exceptions, 
however: in New Guinea the highest human 



population densities occur, and most forest 
conversion has taken place, at higher altitudes, with 
many lowland areas relatively undisturbed until 
recently, although these too are now under 
increasing pressure. 

Because of the high rates of diversity in 
tropical moist forests and, often, high rates of local 
endemism, there are protected areas of global 
importance for biodiversity in every biogeographic 
region in which such forests occur However, 
precisely because of this high diversity, and because 
of the difficulties of sampling and surveying species 
in tropical moist forests, the biota of such areas is 
almost invariably incompletely known. It is probably 
safe to say that there is, for example, no remotely 
comprehensive list of invertebrate species for any 
tropical moist forest protected area. For some areas 
that have been the focus of study and interest for 
many years there may be reasonably good 
inventories of some animal groups - usually birds, 
primates, and crodocilians: sometimes carnivores, 
ungulates, and chelonians; and occasionally butter- 
flies (though rarely all Lepidopteral, amphibians, 
and lizards. 

The siiuation is essentially similar for plants. 
For a tiny number of small, well-studied protected 
areas (usually associated with research stations, 
such as Barro Colorado Nature Monument, 
Panama) there are complete or nearly complete 
floristic inventories; for some other areas there may 
be reasonably good lists of tree species, often based 
on forest inventory work; here and elsewhere part- 
icular groups (e.g. cycads, palms, ferns, orchids) 
may be well known if they have been the focus of 
particular interest. 

Despite this incomplete knowledge, it is 
possible to identify in each region protected areas 
that are certainly of particular importance for biod- 
iversity, at least when measured in terms of species 
diversity. Some have been declared World Heritage 
sites, although this has not necessarily guaranteed 
effective protection, and in 2007 a significant num- 
ber of these areas were on the World Heritage In 
Danger List, including all the sites in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo. 

On paper at least, a remarkably high pro- 
portion - nearly one quarter - of remaining tropical 
moist forest cover is included in some kind of 
protected area. However, caution must be exercised 
when interpreting this figure, and in particular in 
concluding that the overall conservation status of 
tropical moist forests is satisfactory, or at least 



56 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



better ttian that for other forest types. In the first 
instance, because las with the statistics presented 
for other biomesl this figure is a proportion of exis- 
ting forest cover protected, it does not indicate what 
percentage of original or potential forest is covered 
- indeed, if, as is evidently the case, forest continues 
to be cleared outside protected areas at a faster rate 
than forest inside protected areas, then the 
percentage of forest protected will continue to 
increase, even if the actual area protected remains 
static or even decreases (through deforestation 
within protected areas). If all forest outside pro- 
tected areas were cleared, the proportion protected 
would rise to 100 percent with no additional forest 
having been protected. 

Second, nearly half of protected forest is in 
areas for which no lUCN management category 
has been assigned. Much of this undoubtedly 
comprises forest reserves of various kinds - areas 
that are slated for timber production and other 
extractive uses. These do not have biodiversity con- 
servation as their major aim, although they may still 
be important for many components of biodiversity. 

Third, a global-level analysis of this kind does 
not differentiate between different categories of 
tropical moist forest. As noted above, lowland 
tropical moist forests are generally under much 
higher pressure than montane forests and, con- 
versely, a much higher proportion of the latter is 
likely to be included in protected areas. In Southeast 
Asia, for example, montane areas overall are far 
more highly protected than non-montane areas 
Iroughly 19 percent protected compared with 8 
percent for non-montanel. 

Protected areas that are important for tropical 
moist forests include: Manu National Park, a 
biosphere reserve and World Heritage site in 
Peru, which covers some 1.8 million hectares in 
total, and is home to over 800 species of bird as well 
as globally threatened mammals such as the 
endangered giant otter Pteronura brasiliensis; the 
1.3 million hectare Okapi Faunal Reserve and World 
Heritage Site in the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, which covers around one fifth of the Ituri 
Forest in the Congo River basin, and has important 
populations of okapi Okapia johnstoni and 
chimpanzee Pan troglodytes, and was included in 
1998 on the World Heritage In Danger List; and 
Ujong Kulon National Park and World Heritage Site 
in Indonesia, which is believed to be the last 
viable natural refuge of the critically endangered 
Javan rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus. 



Tropical dry forests 

Tropical dry forests are those forests in the tropics 
that are subject to prolonged, usually seasonal 
drought. Such seasonal climates characterize 
much of the land between 10° and 30° latitude in all 
three major tropical regions, but only around 
3 million km2 of tropical dry forests remain. 
Throughout the tropics they have been converted for 
agriculture and pasture land. The principal zones of 
tropical dry forest in the Neotropics are along the 
Pacific coast of Central America and northern 
Colombia and Venezuela, in southeastern Bolivia, 
Paraguay, and northern Argentina, and in the 
northeast of Brazil. In Africa, the denser categories 
of miombo woodland are tropical dry forest as is 
some of the transitional forest at the edge of the 
Sahel. Large expanses of tropical dry forest were 
once characteristic of India and the seasonally dry 
areas of Southeast Asia, including northern 
Thailand and Cambodia. Dry forests occur in ram- 
shadow areas throughout the world, including some 
intermountain valleys, for example in the Andes, 
and the leeward sides of many tropical islands. 

Though of lower species richness than tropical 
moist forests, tropical dry forests still have 
appreciably more tree species than most temperate 
forests. The richest neotropical dry forests are not 
the wettest ones, but those in western Mexico and in 
the Chaco of southeast Bolivia. These forests have 
around 90 woody species per 0.1 ha sample (Gentry, 
19951 and have high rates of plant species 
endemism relative to wet forests in the tropics. 
Vertebrate species diversity is lower in dry forests 
than in moist forests, but many dry forests have high 



TABLE 2.6: PROTECTION OF TROPICAL DRY FOREST 



Region 

Central America 



Ecosystem 
area 
(km^l 

3 000 



Protected 
area 
(kmZ) 

700 



% 
protected 

21 



East Asia 




8 000 


3 000 


34 


Eastern and Southern 


Africa 


620 000 


155 000 


25 


North America 




275 000 


18 000 


6 


South America 




875 000 


72 000 


8 


South Asia 




500 000 


a 000 


9 


Southeast Asia 




188 000 


22 000 


12 


Western and Central Africa 


632 000 


22 000 


3 



Analysis based on GLC2a00 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest ttiousand km- 



55 



The world's protected areas 




Dry forest, Bemahara 
National Park, 
Madagascar. 



rates of endemism among mammals, especially 
among groups such as insectlvores and rodents 
ICeballos, 19951. Remaining areas of dry forest are 
often important refuges for once widespread 
species. The Gir Forest of Gujarat [India! contains 
the only population of Asiatic lion Panthera teo 
persica, which was once found throughout much of 
southern Asia and the Middle East; the dry forests of 
western Madagascar are inhabited by around ^0 
percent of the island's endemic lemurs. Invert- 
ebrate species richness In tropical dry forests tends 
to be poorly known, but in groups such as Lepld- 
optera (butterflies and mothsl and Hymenoptera 
lants, bees, and waspsi, richness may be com- 
parable to adjacent wet forest iJanzen, 19881. 

Their seasonal climates and the resulting 
relatively slow rates of tree growth make tropical 
dry forests especially susceptible to degradation by 



TABLE 2.7: PROTECTION OF BOREAL AND SUB-BOREAL 




OPEN FORESTS 










Ecosystenn 


Protected 






area 


area 


% 


Region 


Ikm2) 


Ikm2) 


protected 


East Asia 


29 000 


3 000 


10 


Europe 


5 000 


1 000 


20 


North America 


1 164 000 


174 000 


15 


North Eurasia 


377 000 


40 000 


11 


Analysis based on GLC2000 


and WDPA 2003 data 






Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^. 







overgrazing and overcollection of fuelwood. Of the 
major types of closed forest, tropical dry forest is 
believed overall to have lost the greatest proportion 
of Its potential area, nearly 70 percent (UNEP- 
WCMC, 2002). It is also the major forest type with 
the lowest remaining proportion included in 
protected areas. 

Because of their high degree of endemism and 
because degradation and conversion of tropical dry 
forests has progressed further than in wet forests, 
their biota are often highly threatened. Threatened 
dry forest species Include Spix's macaw Cyanopsitta 
spixii (now almost certainly extinct in the wild], the 
Chacoan peccary Catagonus wagneri, Verreaux's 
sifaka Propithecus verreauxi, and the Madagascar 
flat-tailed tortoise Pyxis planicauda, all of which are 
at risk from habitat destruction and hunting. 

Notable protected areas with dry tropical 
forest include Guanacaste Conservation Area and 
World Heritage Site in Costa Rica, Ankarafantsika 
National Park in western Madagascar, with popul- 
ations of at least seven lemur species, and the GIr 
Forest In India. 

Open forests 

Open forests with tree canopies of around 10-30 
percent crown cover occur principally In areas 
of transition from forested to non-forested 
landscapes. The two major zones In which these 
ecosystems occur are the boreal region and the 
seasonally dry tropics. 

At high latitudes, north of the main zone of 
boreal forest or taiga, growing conditions are not 
adequate to maintain a continuous closed forest 
cover, so tree cover is both sparse and discont- 
inuous. This vegetation is variously called open 
taiga, open lichen woodland, and forest tundra 
(Tukhanen, 19991. It is species poor, has high bryo- 
phyte cover, and is frequently affected by fire. It is 
important for the livelihoods of a number of groups 
of Indigenous people, including the SaamI and some 
groups of Inuit. Current analysis Indicates around 
1.5 million km' of such forest, of which something 
over 200 000 km^ Is included In protected areas. 

In the seasonally dry tropics, decreasing soil 
fertility and Increasing fire frequency are related 
to the transition from closed dry forest through 
open woodland to savanna. The open woodland eco- 
systems Include the more open Brachystegia and 
Isobertinia miombo woodlands of dry tropical Africa 
and parts of both the caatinga and cerrado vege- 
tations of Brazil (Menaut et ai, 19951. There is est- 



56 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



imated to be just over 2 million km- of this open tree 
cover, most of it In Eastern and Southern Africa. 

Based on WDPA 2003 data, we can estimate 
that nearly 400 000 km; of tropical open forests are 
included in protected areas. Important areas 
include; Chapada dos Veadeiros and Emas National 
Parks in Brazil, w/hich together constitute a single 
World Heritage site with significant populations of 
threatened cerrado species such as the giant arma- 
dillo Priodontes maximus, maned wolf Chrysocyon 
brachiurus, and giant anteater Myrmecophaga 
tridactyla. the Selous Game Reserve and World 
Heritage Site in Tanzania, the largest game reserve 
in Africa with enormous expanses of miombo 
woodland; and Kaziranga National Park and World 
Heritage Site in Assam, India, which is largely a 
mosaic of seasonally flooded grassland and open 
forest, and contains the world's largest population 
of Indian rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis as well 
as many other threatened species, including the 
endangered hispid hare Caprolagus hispidus. 

Non-forest habitats 

Around 75 percent of the world's land surface is 
not forested, either because it has been converted 
by humans for other purposes, or because 
conditions are not suitable for forest growth, 
usually because the climate is too arid or too cold, 
or both. Of the cold climate areas, some 
15 million km^ are currently permanent snow and 
ice cover (although the proportion may decrease 
as global climates warm). Some 60 million km^ of 
the remainder, or just under half of the land 
surface, consists of a range of dryland biomes. 
These comprise natural or semi-natural, but in 
places often heavily disturbed and degraded, 
vegetation types. These biomes are present in 
approximately half the countries in the world and 
include almost 70 percent of Africa, 35 percent of 
Asia, 80 percent of Australia, 20 percent of the 
Americas, and 8 percent of Europe. 

These systems have a wide spectrum of 
moisture availability. They are often broken down 
into hyperarid, arid, semi-arid, or dry subhumid 
regimes, with numerous different habitats recog- 
nized within them. The distinction between many of 
them and more open forest habitats is arbitrary. 
Using a modified version of the GLC2000 analysis 
we recognize the following; shrublands, savannas, 
and tropical grasslands (including savanna/tropical 
shrubland mosaic, but excluding savanna/tree cover 
mosaic, which is included under open forests], 



TABLE 2.8: PROTECTION OF TROPICAL OPEN FORESTS 



Region 
Australia/New Zealand 



Ecosystem 
area 
Ikm^l 

323 000 



Protected 
area 
Ikm2) 

29 000 



% 
protected 

9 



East Asia 




70 000 


5 000 


7 


Eastern and Southern 


Africa 


1313 000 


31 A 000 


24 


Pacific 




3/iOOO 


2 000 


5 


South America 




247 000 


9 000 


3 


South Asia 




28 000 


2 000 


6 


Southeast Asia 




220 000 


26 000 


12 



Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest tfiousand km^. 



temperate grasslands, warm deserts and semi- 
deserts, cold deserts and semi-deserts, and tundra. 

Protected areas in non-forested habitats 
Analysis using the GLC2000 and the 2003 WDPA 
indicated that around 10 percent of the area of non- 
forested natural or semi-natural habitat was 
included in protected areas with lUCN Management 
Categories I to VI. This is slightly less than the 
12 percent of forested habitats. Moreover, a much 
smaller additional area - some 1.2 million km^ or 
two percent of the total area - is included in pro- 
tected areas for which no management category 
has been assigned, giving an overall coverage of 
12 percent for non-forested habitats as opposed to 
around 16 to 17 percent for forested habitats. 



Blue wildebeest 

1 Connochaetes taurinus] 

grazing on tropical 

grassland, Ngorongoro, 

Tanzania. 




57 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 2.9: PROTECTION OF TROPICAL SAVANNAS 

Ecosystem Protected 
area area 
Region Ikm^l (km^l 

Australia/New Zealand 2 006 000 138 000 


% 
protected 

7 


Caribbean 


27 000 


1 700 


6 


Central America 


11000 


800 


7 


East Asia 


194 000 


21 000 


11 


Eastern and Souttiern Africa 


3 743 000 


667 000 


18 


North Africa and Middle East 


109 000 


3 000 


2 


North America 


961 000 


1 1 1 000 


12 


Pacific 


10 000 


700 


8 


South America 


1 984 000 


196 000 


10 


South Asia 


581 000 


66 000 


11 


Southeast Asia 


205 000 


17 000 


8 


Western and Central Africa 


3 177 000 


430 000 


14 


Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^ 



Comparing different habitat types, the present 
data indicate that cold deserts and semi-deserts 
are the least well protected, with only around 8 
percent of the total included in protected areas. 
Preliminary analysis of the size of protected areas 
over 100 km^ indicates considerable variation. 
Current data show that the average size of such 
protected areas globally in all bionnes is about 
570 km2. The average size for temperate grassland 
protected areas is much less, only around 180 km-. 
In striking contrast, protected areas in the tropical 
grasslands and savannas biome, while fewer in 
number, are significantly larger with an average 



TABLE 2.10: PROTECTION OF TEMPERATE GRASSLANDS 



Region 

Australia/New Zealand 



Ecosystem 
area 
(km2) 

619 000 



Protected 
area 
(km2| 

100 000 



% 

protected 

16 



East Asia 




2 477 000 


742 000 


30 


Eastern and Southern 


Africa 


460 000 


19 000 


4 


Europe 




396 000 


49 000 


12 


North Africa and Middle East 


679 000 


15 000 


2 


North America 




1 300 000 


120 000 


9 


North Eurasia 




1 277 000 


76 000 


6 


South America 




299 000 


44 000 


15 


South Asia 




43 000 


9 000 


21 



Analysis based on 6LC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^. 



size of more than 3 000 km^. Protected areas for 
deserts also tend be much larger than the norm, 
with the average size of protected areas in both 
warm and cold deserts being just under 2 000 km'. 

Grasslands and savannas 

Grasslands are dominated by grasses and shrub 
vegetation, and are maintained by fire, low rainfall, 
freezing temperatures, and grazing by herbivores, 
acting in various combinations. They currently con- 
stitute perhaps 15 percent of the worlds terrestrial 
cover and are one of the most extensive of all the 
terrestrial biomes. Natural temperate grasslands 
generally occur in the interior of the large contin- 
ental land masses, and in the rainshadow of the 
world's main mountain ranges where the contin- 
ental climate brings harsh winter conditions along 
with hot, dry summers. Examples include North 
America's prairies lor Great Plains], the pampas of 
Argentina and southern Uruguay, the vast steppe 
of eastern Europe and Asia, the grasslands of 
southeastern Australia, the tussock grasslands of 
New Zealand, and the veld in South Africa. 

Temperate grasslands are currently 
estimated to cover around 7.5 million km', around 
half of this 13.75 million km'l in East Asia and 
North Eurasia, and some 1.3 million km' in North 
America. Tropical savannas and grasslands cover 
around twice the area of temperate grasslands, 
although some 2 million km' are classified as 
savanna/tree cover mosaic and treated here under 
open forests. The best known tropical grasslands 
are the African savannas; the llanos and cerrados 
of Brazil and northern Uruguay; the grasslands of 
inner India, home to the Asian tiger; and the 
hummock grasslands or spinifex of central and 
northern Australia. 

Natural grasslands can be very rich in plant 
species. A square meter of meadow steppe in 
Russia may have AO-50 species. The tall grass 
prairie in North America has been known to contain 
up to 300 species in 3 hectares. However, over large 
areas, grasslands tend to be homogeneous; 
therefore diversity does not rise steeply with 
increasing area. 

Most natural grasslands support or originally 
supported large and diverse populations of native 
grazing mammals. Historically, the temperate 
grasslands of North America's interior were home 
to tens of millions of bison Bison bison, pronghorn 
antelope Antilocapra americana, mule deer Odo- 
coileus hemionus, and elk Cervus elaphus. The 



58 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



Serengeti continues to sustain an impressive 
assemblage of ungulates and predators, with one 
and a half million blue wildebeest Connochaetes 
taurinus still making their extraordinary annual 
migration across the plains of Tanzania and Kenya. 
The saiga antelope Saiga tatarica, once numbering 
in the millions, were a common sight on the steppes 
of eastern Europe and western Asia. Hundreds of 
thousands of Mongolian gazelle Procapra gutturosa 
still roam the steppes of eastern Mongolia. Though 
lesser known, their annual migration is considered 
one of the last great wildlife spectacles on earth. 

A high proportion of plant biomass in 
grasslands, in the form of roots and rhizomes. Is 
located underground; there Is a high turnover of 
those parts of the plant above ground. One Imp- 
ortant consequence of this Is that grassland soils, 
especially In more humid environments, are often 
rich in organic matter and are therefore particularly 
prone to conversion to cropland. Where not con- 
verted, grasslands are almost invariably used, often 
heavily, for domestic livestock grazing. Little temp- 
erate grassland, in particular. Is now In anything 
like its natural or undisturbed state. 

The impact of livestock grazing and other 
human activities on grassland biodiversity is 
variable. Livestock have an impact on grassland 
ecosystems through trampling, removal of plant 
biomass, alteration of plant species composition 
through selective grazing, competition with native 
species, and spread of pathogens. In some areas 
where the native vegetation Is well adapted, the 
impact on plant diversity may be relatively small: 
elsewhere, where the native vegetation has not 
evolved In the presence of hoofed herbivores, the 
Impact has been great. Much anthropogenic grass- 
land used for grazing consists of short-term mono- 
specific sown pasture, with low diversity. However, 
other areas may support specles-rlch semi-natural 
grassland created over centuries by pastorallsts In 
conjunction with livestock grazing. 

As well as suffering Impacts from habitat con- 
version and competition with livestock, large animal 
species In grasslands and savannas have been int- 
ensively hunted almost everywhere for their 
products (e.g. skins or meat), for sport, and as com- 
petitors with other predators of livestock. 

Important grassland protected areas include 
the Serengeti National Park and World Heritage 
Site in Tanzania; the Eastern Mongolian Steppe 
Strictly Protected Area, which covers some 570 000 
hectares and provides important habitat for 



TABLE 2.1 1 : PROTECTION OF WARM DESERTS AND SEMI-DESERTS 



Region 

Australia/New Zealand 



Ecosystenn 
area 
(km2) 

2 862 000 



Protected 




area 


% 


(km2) 


protected 



267 333 



East Asia 




516 000 


223 036 


43 


Eastern and So 


jthern Africa 


2 681 000 


208 559 


8 


Europe 




12 000 


2 299 


19 


North Africa an 


i Middle East 


10 265 000 


1 Ul 500 


11 


North America 




236 000 


41 696 


18 


North Eurasia 




109 000 


4 028 


4 


Pacific 




9 000 


1 267 


14 


South America 




1 683 000 


139 188 


8 


South Asia 




389 000 


20 225 


5 


Southeast Asia 




58 000 


4 603 


8 


Western and Central Africa 


3 as 000 


188 231 


5 



Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km^ 



migratory Mongolian gazelles; and the Tallgrass 
Prairie National Preserve, Kansas, USA, which 
covers only 4 400 hectares but protects one of the 
few unplowed remnants of North American 
tallgrass prairie left anywhere. 

Deserts and semi-deserts 

The world's hot, subtropical deserts and semi- 
deserts are distributed along the high pressure 
zone between 15° and 30° North and South 
latitudes. In the north along the Tropic of Cancer 
are the Sahara, the Arabian Peninsula, the Great 
Indian or Thar Desert, the Sonoran, Chlhuahuan, 
and Mojave Deserts. South, along the Tropic of 
Capricorn, lie the Kalahari Desert In southern Africa 
and the Interior deserts of Australia: the Great 



TABLE 2.12: PROTECTION OF COLD DESERTS AND SEMI-DESERTS 
Ecosystem Protected 

area area % 
Region (km^) (km^) protected 

Australia/New Zealand 9 000 6 000 67 


East Asia 


2 850 000 


306 000 


11 


Europe 


91000 


26 000 


29 


North America 


339 000 


89 000 


26 


North Eurasia 


3 643 000 


176 000 


5 


South America 


353 000 


3 000 


1 


Analysis based on GLC2000 and V\/DPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km-' 



59 



The world's protected areas 




Tundra Lacks trees but 
contains woody species 
in dwarf or prostrate 
forms. Purinsl<i Park, 
Western Taimyr 
Peninsula, Russian 
Federation. 



Victoria, Gibson, Great Sandy, and the Simpson. 
Also found in this subtropical belt is a remarkable 
form of desert, the hyperarid coastal desert, which 
forms on the western margins of Africa and South 
America: the Namib Desert in Namibia and the 
Atacama Desert in Chile. Overall, warm deserts and 
semi-deserts cover more than 20 million km^ 
80 percent of this in Africa and the Middle East, and 
around half comprises the Sahara Desert and 
surrounding arid lands. 

At higher latitudes, chiefly between 35° and 
50° North and South of the equator, and in some 
high-altitude areas, are the cold deserts, which may 
be warm or hot in summer, but become frigidly cold 
in winter These cover in total around 7 million km', 
or roughly one third of the area of warm deserts and 
semi-deserts. The largest of these cold deserts are 
located in Asia, and include the Taklamakan, 
Turkestan, Iranian Plateau, and the Gobi. In western 
North America, the Colorado Plateau and Great 
Basin Deserts lie in the rainshadow of the coastal 
mountain ranges. In South America, the Monte and 
Patagonian Deserts are formed in response to the 
moisture barrier of the Andes. 

Biodiversity, assessed in terms of species 
numbers, tends to be moderate in semi-desert 
regions and to decline to low or very low levels as 
aridity increases. In contrast to this general rule, 
diversity in some groups, such as scorpions and 
other predatory arthropod invertebrates, tenebri- 
onid beetles, ants, termites, snakes, and lizards, 
and annual plants, tends at first to increase as arid- 
ity increases. Desert animals are often wide ranging 



but occur at low population densities because of the 
low primary productivity of these areas. 

The low productivity and inhospitable climate 
of true deserts means that, like tundra, they are 
less affected by conversion to alternative land uses 
than more productive ecosystems. Semi-desert 
areas are, however, susceptible to factors such as 
persistent overgrazing and may be slow to recover 
from adverse impacts. Many large vertebrates in 
and lands are threatened with extinction through 
hunting; the openness of these areas means that 
animals such as antelopes and other ungulates 
are more conspicuous than forest species and thus 
more vulnerable. The nomadic peoples that often 
inhabit such areas usually have strong hunting 
traditions; when combined with modern weapons 
and all-terrain vehicles their impact can be catas- 
trophic, as evidenced by the extinction or near 
extinction of species such as the scimitar-horned 
oryx Oryx dammah, addax Addax nasomaculatus, 
and dama gazelle Gazella dama in North Africa, 
the Arabian oryx Oryx pseudoryx in the Arabian 
Peninsula, and Przewalski's gazelle Procapra 
przewalski m the sub-desert steppes of China. 

Notable desert and sub-desert protected 
areas include the Ouadi Rime-Ouadi Achim Faunal 
Reserve in Chad, one of the largest protected areas 
in the world, and one which may still contain 
populations of the critically endangered addax and 
endangered dama gazelle, and the Great Gobi 
Strictly Protected Area in Mongolia, This has been 
designated as one of the world's largest biosphere 
reserves, and includes important populations of 
Argali sheep Ovis ammon, Saiga antelope Saiga 
tatarica and wild Bactrian camel Camelus 
bactnanus. A small human population lives 
traditional nomadic lifestyles within the boundaries. 

Tundra 

Tundra is the vegetation found at high latitudes 
beyond the low-temperature limits of forest growth; 
the same term is sometimes used for outwardly 
similar vegetation at high elevation at lower 
altitude. In both areas it grades into cold-desert 
formations as average annual temperature and 
rainfall decrease. GLC2000/UNEP-WCMC's analysis 
indicates some A.? million km^ of tundra worldwide. 
Apart from a small amount in South America, 
tundra is essentially confined to the northern 
hemisphere, most laround 3.2 million km<) in North 
America and virtually all the remainder in North 
Eurasia and northern Europe. 



60 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



Tundra lacks trees but contains woody species 
|in the northern hemisphere chiefly birches Betula. 
willows Salix, and alders 4/nusl growing in dwarf or 
prostrate fornns, especially in locations with less 
extreme climates. As latitude or altitude increases, 
grasses, sedges, bryophytes, and lichens increase 
in importance while shrubs decrease. Many plants 
have tussock or cushion growth forms. Plants 
typically cover 80-100 percent of the ground, 
although the proportion decreases along the 
climatic gradient to desert conditions. 

Compared with forest ecosystems, tundra is 
relatively species poor. A few groups, however, 
most notably shorebirds, can exploit the high 
biomass of invertebrates found in tundra soils 
during the brief summer months and can be both 
diverse and abundant at that time of year. In the 
wading bird family Scolopacidae (the sandpipers 
and their allies], 55 of the 87 species occur in the 
Arctic, and all 2it species of sandpiper are present, 
17 breeding exclusively in the region. There are 
relatively few globally threatened species that 
are completely dependent on tundra. An exception 
is the once abundant Eskimo curlew Numenius 
borealis, which nests - or perhaps nested - 
exclusively in this habitat. There have been no 
confirmed sightings of the bird since the 1980s, so 
it may well now be extinct. Two other globally 
threatened birds, Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri 
and the spectacled eider Sornateria fischeri, 
remain in the Arctic throughout the year and breed 
largely in tundra ecosystems. 

Tundra ecosystems have a high biomass 
underground, and high soil carbon content. Thus, 
although such systems account for only around 
2 percent of global net annual primary production, 
they make an important contribution to global 
carbon stocks, capable of storing more than 200 
metric tons of carbon per hectare. 

Because of its inhospitable climate, tundra is 
not widely subject to pressure for conversion to 
other land uses. However, there is a lack of eco- 
logical resilience, so that disturbances such as 
those associated with settlenrient or long-distance 
pipelines tend to have long-lasting effects. Global 
warming is also already having an impact, as such 
high-latitude areas are being subjected to the most 
rapid levels of climate change anywhere on Earth, 
causing melting of the permafrost, the loss of snow 
and ice cover (including access to adjacent marine 
resources via sea-ice), and replacement of habitat 
by non-tundra species. 



TABLE 2.13: PROTECTION OF TUNDRA 
Ecosystem 
area 
Region Ikm^l 

East Asia 23 GOO 


Protected 
area 
Ikm2| 

^000 


% 
protected 

19 


Europe 


130 000 


22 000 


17 


North America 


3 228 000 


525 000 


16 


North Eurasia 


1 267 000 


153 000 


12 


South America 


33 000 


6 000 


18 


Analysis based on 
Figures rounded tc 


GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
nearest thiousand km-. 







Important protected areas in the tundra zone 
include Wrangel Island Natural Reserve and World 
Heritage Site in the far eastern part of the Russian 
Federation, the core zone of which covers nearly 
one million hectares and which is the northernmost 
breeding site for over 100 migratory bird species. 

Shrublands 

Shrub communities, where woody plants, usually 
adapted to fire, form a continuous cover, occur in all 
parts of the world where annual rainfall lies in the 
range 200-1 000 mm. In more arid areas, including 
some semi-desert ecosystems, shrubs are the 
dominant life form, but cover is discontinuous. 
Areas dominated by shrubland systems may be 
found in boreal regions, where they form a 
transition between forests and tundra; in 
subtropical areas, particularly those with a 
Mediterranean-type climate; and in parts of the dry 



Clanvrilliam daisy 
[Euryops specio- 
sissimus] in the 
Cedarberg Wilderness 
Area, South Africa. 




61 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 2.U: PROTECTION OF SUBTROPICAL AND TROPICAL 
SHRUBLANDS 



Region 



Ecosystem 
area 
Ikm2| 



Protected 




area 


% 


Ikm2| 


protected 



Australia/New Zealand 


5U000 


i2 000 


8 


East Asia 


2/i9 000 


18 000 


7 


Eastern and Southern Africa 


99 000 


7 000 


7 


Europe 


119 000 


8 000 


7 


Nortli Africa and Middle East 


118 000 


1 000 


1 


Nortfn America 


237 000 


A9 000 


21 


South America 


36ii 000 


15 000 


4 


Western and Central Africa 


1 032 000 


113 000 


11 



Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest thousand km-. 



TABLE 2.15: PROTECTION OF BOREAL SHRUBLANDS 

Ecosystem Protected 
area area 
Region (km^j (km^) 

Australia/New Zealand 22 000 1000 


% 
protected 

5 


East Asia 


150 000 


16 000 


11 


Europe 


158 000 


32 000 


21 


North America 


2 061 000 


430 OOC 


21 


North Eurasia 


1 784 000 


174 000 


10 


South America 


59 000 


7 000 


12 


Analysis based on GLC2000 and WDPA 2003 data 
Figures rounded to nearest thousand l<m^. 



tropics where a shrubland/savanna mosaic occurs. 
Under the GLC2000/UNEP-WCMC analysis used 
here, the last of these are included in savannas, 
discussed above. There are around 7 million km^ 
of other shrubland in total, of Vi^hich just over 
4 million km' are in boreal regions and just under 
3 million km^ in the subtropics. 

While boreal shrublands, like other cold or 
cold-temperate ecosystems, tend to have relatively 
low/ levels of biodiversity, subtropical shrublands, 
notably those in areas with a Mediterranean 
climate, have very high levels of biodiversity, being 
exceptionally rich in plant species. 

Mediterranean-type drylands occur in only 
five regions in the world, characterized by cool, 
wet winters and warm, or hot, dry summers. 
These are: the Mediterranean basin itself, south- 
central and southwestern Australia, the Cape 
Floral Kingdom, or fynbos, of southern Africa, the 



Chilean Matorral, and some parts of California. 
Mediterranean-type plants have attained extra- 
ordinary levels of both diversity and endemism. It 
has been estimated that as many as 20 percent of 
the Earth's plant species are residents of 
Mediterranean systems. The fynbos alone features 
8 600 different plants, nearly 70 percent of which 
are endemic. The Mediterranean basin harbors 
about 25 000 species of vascular plants, of which 
60 percent are endemic to the region. The arid 
Australian southwest has around 2 500 vascular 
plants that exist nowhere else in the world. More 
than 2 000 of just under 3 500 plant species native 
to California are endemic. 

Because Mediterranean climates are so 
equable, areas with such climates are invariably 
heavily settled, with land under intense pressure 
for agriculture (particularly citrus fruit crops and 
winel and building development. Protected areas 
in these regions are often small reserves or 
recreational parks. Nevertheless, because of the 
high diversity and endemism of the flora in 
particular, even small areas may be of great 
importance for the conservation of biodiversity. In 
South Africa the recently declared 16 000 hectare 
Cape Peninsula National Park is home to more 
than 2 000 vascular plant species, of which 90 
occur nowhere else and more than 140 are 
considered threatened with extinction. 

Caves and karst 

The term karst refers to land systems that are 
predominantly formed by solution and these 
mostly occur in limestone or other carbonate 
rocks. Carbonic acid that forms in rainwater, 
largely from the solution of carbon dioxide, is 
critical to the solution process; however, sulfur- 
based acids formed from the oxidation of sulfides 
or by bacterial metabolism in the presence of 
sulfur are also commonly involved. Other solution 
processes are driven by rising hydrothermal 
waters, again often carrying acids formed from 
bacterial or volcanic action. The solution process 
often occurs underground, and caves are probably 
the best known of all karst features. However, a 
wide range of other features, including surface 
depressions, collapses into caves below, cliffs and 
gorges, pinnacles, hills or terraces of striking and 
distinctive shapes, and distinctive forms of rock 
pavements, can commonly be seen. 

Karst scenery with its accompanying caves 
also occurs, though much less frequently, in some 



62 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



sandstones and quartzites, gypsum, and salt. 
Other caves are found in lava flows, or some other 
special contexts such as underneath talus, in 
cavities resulting from tectonic action, and in ice. 
The sea often carves out caves along coastal cliffs, 
whAe some caves are "constructed" in the course 
of coral deposition in the ocean. Other marine 
caves, including the "blue holes" found across the 
Caribbean, are probably terrestrial systems 
formed during sea-level lows and then flooded by 
the ocean, Karst is found on all continents and 
many oceanic islands, and there are few countries 
with no i<arst. 

Quite apart from their outstanding geo- 
diversity, caves and karst house important biodi- 
versity. Surface karst systems often have a rich 
flora and fauna, largely because of the extent to 
which solutional erosion has carved out a great 
number of microhabitats, each with its own 
distinctive microclimate and soil. Surface water, 
lakes, and rivers are often absent from karst areas 
and this in turn has driven specific adaptations. In 
cave systems, although biodiversity is low, there 
are extraordinary levels of endemism with a 
remarkable variety of specially adapted species 
living in total darkness in the caves and other 
fissures in the rock. Such adaptations often 
include loss or reduction of eyes, expanded 
appendages, improved olfactory organs, loss of 
pigmentation, and sometimes reduction in 
metabolic rate. Terrestrial cave species include 
harvestmen, spiders, and scavenging beetles. 
Aquatic cave fauna Istygofaunal includes fish and 
numerous crustaceans. Perhaps the most 
interesting are relict communities, typically of 
crustaceans, which have been found in karst 
groundwaters, whose origins date back to ancient 
oceans such as the Tethys Sea. 

Karst biodiversity, and even the karst Itself, 
suffers extensive impact through quarrying, 
cement manufacture, and flooding, and through 
exploitative land uses. Including forestry and 
agriculture, which disturb the overlying soils and 
hence lead to sedimentation and changes In 
patterns of groundwater movement. In addition, 
the use of chemical fertilizers or pesticides further 
degrades groundwater quality and may lead to loss 
of biodiversity. Even misguided visitors can cause 
immense damage - while efforts are commonly 
made to protect stalactites and other spel- 
eothems, the floors, which are potentially the most 
important part of the cave from the scientific 



perspective, are trampled, dug out to improve 
access, or otherwise damaged. 

Despite these pressures, there Is a relatively 
high level of protection for the more spect- 
acular cave and karst systems in many countries. 
Thousands of caves are now developed with paths 
and lighting for tourist visitors and a number of the 
most important and spectacular systems are listed 
as World Heritage sites. Overall, some 43 World 
Heritage sites are either karst or cave systems 
or have such systems within their boundaries 
(although in the latter case these systems would 
not necessarily have been the main reason for 
listing). This represented a significant proportion of 
the total number of natural |U9) and mixed cultural 
and natural (23) sites inscribed on the list at mid- 
2004. Such representation is considerably higher 
than would be expected given the proportion of the 
land's surface covered by such systems, which is 
certainly far less than 25 percent. 

Nine World Heritage sites were inscribed 
primarily because of caves and other karst features: 
J Plitvice Lakes, Croatia - a series of terraced 

lakes; 
3 Mammoth Cave National Park, USA; 
J Skocjanske Jame, Slovenia; 

□ Ha Long Bay, Vietnam - some 1 600 limestone 
pinnacle islands; 

□ Aggtelek-Domica Caves, which cross the 
border between Hungary and Slovakia; 

-I Carlsbad Caverns National Park, USA; 

Q St Paul's Cave iPuerto-Princesa Underground 

Riverl, Philippines; 
Q Desembarco del Granma and the Cabo Cruz 

coastal terraces, Cuba; 



Many cave species, such 
as this Georgia blind 
salamander, 
{Haideotiton watlacei], 
are restricted to very 
narrow ranges. 




63 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 2.2: BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE HIMAUYAS AND 
TIBETAN PLATEAU 

In many montane regions, as elsewhere, protected areas tiave generally been 
established where productivity and human use is low. The complex topography of 
mountains makes this an especially pertinent issue as protected areas will 
invariably include barren areas of rock and ice that are biologically depauperate, 
overrepresentation of barren habitats in protected areas can be detrimental to 
conservation efforts, placing an undue burden on conservation management and 
resources. It is also difficult to justify additional protected areas to address gaps 
when existing portfolios are inflated by the inclusion of barren habitats. 

The protected area system of the Himalayan range and the Tibetan Plateau 
was assessed to determine whether the current configuration adequately 
represents the biologically important habitats, or if there is an overemphasis on 
rock, permanent snow, and ice, 

Ecoregions were used as the ecological units for the analysis, A digital 
landcover map of 1 km resolution was used to identify areas classified as snow, 
permanent ice, barren, and sparse vegetation (hereafter "barren habitat") within 
the ecoregions. All protected area categories were considered (eg, iUCN 
category! and types of protected areas equally. 

Because of the complex topography in montane ecoregions, inclusion of 
barren habitat in protected areas is virtually inevitable, especially if the protected 
areas are large and representative of the ecoregions landscape mosaic. We 
therefore created an index by dividing the percent of barren areas within the 
protected areas system of each ecoregion by the percent of barren ground within 
that ecoregion. A value of 1 indicates that the barren ground within the protected 
areas is in direct proportion to that within the ecoregion as a whole; values less 
than 1 indicate the protected areas include proportionately less barren ground 
than occurs in the ecoregion as a whole; and values greater than 1 indicate that 
barren areas are overrepresented in the protected areas system of that ecoregion. 

The results showed that in ten of 18 ecoregions in the Himalayas and the 
Tibetan Plateau the protected areas systems overrepresent barren habitat (Table 
2.161. In five of these the absolute extent of excess barren land within the 
protected areas systems was considerable, ranging from almost 1 000 km-' to 
more than i 000 km^, areas far greater than many of Asia's protected areas. 

With three exceptions, the ecoregions with overrepresentation of barren 
habitat were from the montane grasslands and shrublands biome. The other 
three comprised two subalpine conifer forest ecoregions and a temperate forest 
ecoregion, but the extent of overrepresentation in these three was marginal. 

The analysis showed that several of the high-elevation ecoregions in the 
Himalayan range overrepresent barren habitat within the protected areas system. 

Eventually, conservation success in the world's tallest mountain range will 
depend on the ability and the will to include its threatened biodiversity, rather than 
to protect extensive areas of barren habitat. 



□ Gunung Mulu, Malaysia, which includes both 
above-ground karst landscapes and caves, 
including the world's largest cavern, over 
600 m across and 80 nn in height, which is 
also extremely important for biodiversity. 



There remain a number of countries where karst 
sites are not protected, or where protection is ineff- 
ectual. This is at least partly linked to a lack of 
understanding of the values of karst in many 
countries. In addition, traditional protection has 
focused on large and spectacular caves, with small 
caves often neglected even if they are of consid- 
erable importance scientifically or for conservation. 

Mountain ecosystems 

As with so many natural features, mountains are 
easy to recognize but hard to define for purposes of 
analysis. The definition of mountains used here is 
that developed by Kapos ef al. (20001, which is based 
on height and slope, and includes all areas above 
2 500 m. as well as lower altitudes if their average 
slopes are sufficiently great'. Using this definition, 
some 27 percent of the world's land surface 
[including Antarctica, almost all of which is mount- 
ainous] can be classified as mountains. 

fvlountain ecosystems are characterized by 
altitudinal belts of vegetation [and corresponding 
faunal components), largely determined by the 
changing climatic parameters associated with 
increasing elevation. Different aspects (compass 
directions) on a mountain add to climatic and ecol- 
ogical variation. Thus many different ecosystems 
can be represented on a single mountain or over 
relatively short distances. This high biodiversity is 
further enhanced by high levels of endemism, as 
many mountain habitats are isolated, even from 
adjacent mountains, by deeper valleys with different 
ecosystems, allowing for highly localized patterns of 
species divergence. 

In the humid tropics the bases of mountains 
are dominated by lower montane rainforest, 
followed in ascending order by montane rainforest 
and then upper montane rainforest. This may 
merge into montane cloud forest, where there are 
persistent clouds. (These may be known as mossy, 
dwarf, or elfin forests, or a host of local names.) 
Here also can occur the bamboo forests of the 
tropics and subtropics. The treeline ecotone occurs 
at varying elevations depending on latitude, aspect, 
and exposure. In the Central Andes, Po/y/ep/s trees, 
the highest in the world, are found at up to 5 000 m. 

Above treeline is the zone of alpine grasses, 
herbs, shrubs, and tall rosette plants. Here, in the 
tropical Andes, Puya ramondi, the world's tallest 
herb, grows reaching 9 m in height. Here too, the 
paramo [humid, cold grasslands] and puna (cold, 
arid areas with low vegetation) occur, roughly from 



66 



1: Lower altitude areas are included based on ttie following cnteria, elevations between 1 500 and 2 500 m where the slope zl". 
elevations between 1 500 and 1 000 m wtiere the slope >5° or the local elevation range (7 km radius! >300 m; elevations between 300 
and 1 000 m wtiere ttie local elevation range 17 km radius! >300 m; isolated inner basins <25 Wm'' that are surrounded by mountains 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



TABLE 2.16: BARREN HABITAT IN HIMALAYAN AND TIBETAN PLATEAU ECOREGIONS AND PROTECTED AREAS 

The representation index indicates the proportion of barren habitat in the protected areas system, relative to the ecoregion. The excess lor 
deficit if negative) barren habitat represents the amount of barren habitat that is more lor less) than that expected under an equitable 
representation of amount found in the ecoregion. 

Ecoregion Ecoregion in Representation Excess barren 
area protected area index habitat in 
Biome/Ecoregion (km^) 1%) lO-ll protected areas Ikm^) 

Deserts and xeric shrublands 


Qaidam Basin semi-desert 


192 072 


7 


0.9 




-778 1 


Montane grasslands and shrublands 


Central Tibetan Plateau alpine steppe 


653 994 


8 


0.7 




-1 108 


Eastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadovi/s 


U2 265 


32 


1.5 




3 380 


Karakoram-West Tibetan Plateau alpine steppe 


172 265 


19 


1.3 




4 192 


North Tibetan Plateau-Kunlun Mountains 
alpine desert 


385 851 


52 


0.7 




-23 959 


Northwestern Himalayan alpine shrub 
and meadows 


52 271 


9 


1.5 




717 


Pamir alpine desert and tundra 


125 999 


6 


1.6 




1 912 


Qilian Mountains subalpine meadow 


73 232 


11 


2.2 




1 483 


Southeast Tibet shrublands and meadow 


A61 96i 


2 


0,8 




-20 


Tibetan Plateau alpine shrublands and meadows 


27A174 


D 


0.0 




- 


Western Himalayan alpine shrub and meadows 


77 854 


12 


1.5 




954 


Yarlunq Zambo and steppe 


59 427 


8 


4.5 




112 


Temperate coniferous forests 


Eastern Himalayan subalpine conifer forests 


27 735 


30 


2.6 




71 


Northeastern Himalayan subalpine conifer forests 


46 280 


4 


0.2 




-32 


Western Himalayan subalpine conifer forests 


39 865 


7 


9.4 




265 


Temperate broadleafand mixed forests 


Eastern Himalayan broadteaf forests 


83 036 


11 






- 


Northern Triangle temperate forests 


10 730 


3 






- 


Western Himalayan broadleaf forests 


55 867 


6 


8.6 




88 


Protected area data based on WOPA 2003 



3 000-3 500 m up to 4 800-5 000 m. These corre- 
spond to the Afroalpine vegetation belt above 
5 000 m in Africa. Many alpine meadows are also 
important w/etland habitats. At the highest eleva- 
tions barren ground occurs, with scattered cushion, 
tuft, and rosette plants, and then permanent snow, 
ice, or bare rock. In addition, at different elevations 
are topographically dependent freshwater eco- 
systems, such as tarns, ponds, and lakes. 

Mountains in the protected areas networl< 
Mountains are well represented in the global 
protected area network. Excluding Antarctica, 



which is almost entirely mountainous, according to 
the definitions used here, but not subject to a 
conventional protected areas regime, some 
IB percent of the worlds montane area is included 
in protected areas, compared with a global average 
forthe worlds terrestrial biomes of 12 percent. At a 
regional scale, of the mountain area of Eurasia and 
Africa only 10-15 percent is protected, compared 
with 23-32 percent in the other regions. 

The fairly substantial extent of mountain 
protected area must not be grounds for com- 
placency. Of the total, 970 000 km^ are in the 
Greenland National Park, and many significant 



65 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 2.17: PROPORTION OF MOUNTAIN AREAS WITHIN PROTECTED AREAS 



WCPA region 
Australia/New Zealand 



Mountain 
area 
Ikm2| 

387 437 



Protected 

mountain area 

Ikm2) 

115 279 



Mountain area 

protected 

1%) 

30 



Non-mountain 

area protected 

l%l 



Caribbean 


48 681 


8 259 


17 


13 


Central America 


220 996 


48 539 


22 


22 


East Asia 


6 158 088 


1 375 130 


22 


9 


Eastern and Southern Africa 


2 667 385 


396 477 


15 


15 


Europe 


1 564 138 


239 889 


15 


9 


North Africa and Middle East 


3 121 156 


180 817 


6 


11 


North America 


394 360 


1 952 950 


31 


13 


North Eurasia 


5 461 429 


510 826 


9 


7 


Pacific 


244 172 


27 113 


11 


8 


South America linct. Brazil! 


3 422 280 


305 993 


19 


8 


South Asia 


1 170 684 


123 333 


11 


6 


Southeast Asia 


1 583 691 


305 993 


19 


8 


Western and Central Africa 


907 937 


97 093 


11 


10 


Total lexcl. Antarctica! 


33 352 434 


5 996 075 


18 


12 



Protected area data based on WDPA 2003 

Lower altitude areas are included based on the following criteria: elevations between 1 500 and 2 500 m where the slope >2°, 
elevations between 1 500 and 1 000 m where the slope >5° or the local elevation range (7 (<m radiusi >300 m; elevations 
between 300 and 1 000 m where the local elevation range [7 l<nn radius! >300 m; isolated inner basins <25 l<m2 that are 
surrounded by mountains- 



mountain areas are either not represented or 
are poorly represented, for example the Atlas 
Mountains of North Africa, and montane regions of 
Papua New Guinea and the Middle East. 

Wetlands 

Inland water ecosystems incorporate highly 
productive habitats with a wide variety of physical 
and chemical characteristics, including lakes and 
rivers, wetlands and floodplains, small streams. 



ponds, springs, and underground aquifers. All in 
turn support a wide diversity of species that 
provide valuable goods and services to people. 

Many information sources have used "inland 
waters" and "freshwaters" interchangeably, so in 
this review we define inland water ecosystems to 
include all inland aquatic systems extending to the 
upper limit of tidal reaches within river estuaries 
and including the world's inland saline lakes 
and lagoons such as Lake Magadi and the Caspian 



TABLE 2.18: ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF FRESHWATER RESOURCES BY CONTINENT 



Resource 

Large lakes 











North 


South 


Africa 


Europe 


Asia 


Australia 


America 


America 


30 000 


2 027 


27 782 


154 


25 623 


913 



Rivers 


195 


80 


565 


25 


250 


1 000 


Reservoirs 


1 240 


422 


1 350 


38 


950 


286 


Groundwater 


5 500 000 


1 600 000 


7 800 000 


1 200 000 


4 300 000 


3 000 000 


Wetlands! 


341 000 


925 0002 




4 000 


180 000 


1 232 000 



1 Wetlands are defined as including marshes, swamps, lagoons, bogs, floodplains. etc, 

2 Eurasia. 

Source: Groombndge and Jenkins. 1 998. Data refer to volume in km~\ except for wetlands whicfi refer to area in km-. 



66 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



KEY 



Lake 

Reservoir 

River 

Freshwater marsh, floodplain 

Swamp forest, flooded forest 

Coastal wetland 

Pan, brakish/saline wetland 

Bog, fen, mire 

Intermittent wettand/lake 

50-100% wetland 

25-50% wetland 

Wetland complex {0-25% wetland) 












Sea. Where "freshwater" is used, saline habitats 
and their associated taxa are excluded. The ternn 
"wetland", often used to define an aquatic system, 
is used here to describe a particular group of 
aquatic habitats representing a variety of shallow, 
vegetated systems such as bogs, marshes, 
swamps, floodplains, and coastal lagoons that are 
often transitional areas and can flood, seasonally or 
intermittently (Groombridge and Jenkins, 19981. 

In spite of their clear economic value, many 
inland water ecosystems, especially wetlands, have 
long been considered a wasteful use of land and 
are rarely protected. Lack of recognition of the value 
of these systems has already led to the estimated 
loss of 50 percent of the world's shallow-water 
wetlands, and rates of species loss have, in some 
cases, been estimated at five times the rates seen in 
other ecosystems le.g. Myers 1997; Ricciardi and 
Rasmussen, 19991. 

Extent and distribution of inland water ecosystems 
Freshwater makes up an estimated 3 percent of 
the Earth's total water volume, a large proportion 
of which is stored In the polar ice caps. The fresh- 
water that is free to supply the world's lakes and 
rivers constitutes less than 0.01 percent of the 
total water volume. This small proportion supp- 
orts all the world's freshwater ecosystems. 
Regional differences in the volume of precip- 
itation, and the area and geomorphology of 
continental land surfaces have led to large 



regional differences in the distribution of these 
ecosystems (see Table 2.181. 

Mapping and inventorying of wetland eco- 
systems, particularly seasonal wetlands, presents 
significant problems and it is very difficult to come 
up with consistent estimates of wetland extent at 
global and regional levels. The most comprehensive 
recent attempt is that of Lehner and Doll I200AI, 
whose Global Lakes and Wetlands Database draws 
on a wide range of sources. They estimated that 
wetlands covered around 1 1-13 million km' 
globally, that is between 8 and 10 percent of global 
land surface area excluding Antarctica and 
glaciated Greenland. Of this, around 2.7 million km- 
was lakes and reservoirs and the remainder rivers, 
included flooded forests, floodplains, intermittent 
wetlands and wetland complexes (Figure 2.31. Their 
estimate of total wetland extent Is around twice that 
produced by earlier analyses, including GLC2000. 
This is a reflection of different criteria and 
definitions used rather than major differences in the 
underlying data - the former analysis incorporates 
a range of wetland complexes including partially 
flooded and seasonally flooded areas that are not all 
labelled as wetlands under GLC2000. The latter, 
however, still provides a useful conservative 
estimate for wetland extent. 

The biogeographic and ecological classifica- 
tion of Inland water ecosystems is less well 
developed than that for terrestrial ecosystems 
and, although there are more than 50 classl- 



Figure 2.3: Global 
distribution of 
wetlands 

Source: Global lakes and 
wetlands database GWLD 
ILehner and Doll. 200il 



67 



The world's protected areas 



KEY 

Area protected, % 

<io% 

10-25% 
■i >25% 



..-.tw:^^ 




'€' '»"*■■■ — ^. ' ■■ 



^^'■,&^ 



% 










.^ 



Figure 2.A: 
Protected areas by 

river basin, 2003 

Note, This analysis does 
not include all protected 
areas Protected areas 
without polygon 
iboundaryl information 
were excluded as it 
was only possible to 
determine the geographic 
extent of the polygon data 
in relation to the river 
basins. This analysis 
includes all nationally 
and internationally 
designated protected 
areas with polygon 
information. Australia's 
most recent national 
polygon data could not be 
used for the analysis due 
to licensing restrictions 

Source- Revenga et at,. 
1998: UNEP-WCMC, 
2002. 



fications in use, there is no globally accepted hier- 
archical classification tor this group of habitats. 
Some of the better l<nown wetland classification 
schemes include the Canadian wetland class- 
ification system (Zoltai and Vitt, 19951, the Asian 
wetland classification system (Finlayson et at. 
2002a and 2D02bl, and the US national wetland 
classification scheme (Cowardin et al. 1979, 
Cowardin and Golet 1995|. 

Extent of existing protected areas 
Because of the difficulty in defining and mapping 
wetlands, it is not possible at present to come up 
with a single agreed estimate of the global 
percentage of inland water ecosystems under 
protection. The WDPA (2003 figures! indicates that 
roughly 1 2 percent of wetland area as recognized in 
GLC2000 (including open water bodies and 
mangroves! is under protection, almost all in 
protected areas that have been assigned to lUCN 
Management Categories I to VI. Preliminary 
analysis using the the Global Lakes and Wetlands 
Database (Lehner and Doll, 200^! and a slightly 
though not significantly modified version of the 
WDPA indicates a somewhat higher proportion 
(around 20 percent! protected. A third approach, 
extrapolating from the proportion of land area per 
river basin that is under protection in a subset of the 
world's larger river basins (Figure 2.A], indicates 
global protection of around 13 percent, in line with 
the GLC2000-based analysis. 



At a regional level the three analyses show 
good agreement on percentage of wetland area 
protected in some regions, notably Australia. North 
America and North Eurasia but considerable 
variation elsewhere with, for example, estimates of 
protection in North Africa and the Middle East 
varying from 2 percent to 34 percent (Table 2.191. In 
very general terms, all three analyses agree that 
protection is relatively high (15 percent or more! in 
Australia/New Zealand, the Caribbean. East Asia. 
Eastern and Southern Africa. South America and 
Southeast Asia. The analyses also agree that 
protection is relatively low in North America and 
North Eurasia (the two regions with the largest 
areas of wetlands overall!. Figures for the 
remaining regions are either incomplete (Central 
America! or confict (North Africa and Middle East. 
Pacific, South Asia and Western and Central Africa!. 

As might be expected, the river basin analysis 
shows that the rates of protection in different river 
basins varies greatly both within and between 
regions. Of the 115 basins analyzed, 73 (just over 
60 percent! had less than 10 percent of their area 
protected, 33 (30 percent! had between 10 and 25 
percent of their area protected, and only nine basins 
(8 percent! had more than 25 percent of their area 
protected (Figure 2.5!. In all, over 90 percent of the 
basins analyzed had less than 25 percent of their 
land area protected. 

Although superficially it might appear 
from GIS analysis that inland water ecosystems are 



68 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



TABLE 2.19: PROTECTION OF WETLANDS 

Estimate 



Region 



Low 
COOO km^l 



High 
COOO km21 



Estimated % of wetland included 
in protected areas 

Based on Based on Using 

GLC2000 Global lakes and river basin 

wetlands database analysis 



Australia/New Zealand 


120 


280 


18 


20 


18 


Caribbean 


22 


34 


25 


53 


50 


Central America 


16 


-iO 


n/a 


39 


20 


East Asia 


200 


1000 


27 


49 


26 


Eastern and Southern Africa 


260 


600 


19 


27 


17 


Europe 


160 


200 


15 


28 


10 


North Africa and Middle East 


110 


450 


2 


18 


34 


North America 


UOO 


2 900 


10 


32 


10 


North Eurasia 


1800 


2 200 


9 


13 


11 


Pacific 


8 


120 


26 


13 


40 


South America 


625 


1 700 


15 


35 


17 


South Asia 


100 


600 


27 


13 


12 


Southeast Asia 


70 


500 


16 


28 


18 


Western and Central Africa 


150 


900 


10 


20 


7 



Figures are rounded- Low estimate based on GLC2000, High estimates based on GLWD2006, 



relatively well protected connpared with some other 
nnajor biomes, there are a number of important 
caveats. In the first instance, some areas that are 
extremely important for inland water biodiversity 
are very inadequately protected. Examples include 
species-rich basins such as the Parana in South 



America, the Fly in Papua New Guinea, and the 
Mahakam and Salween Basins in Southeast Asia, 
all of which have less than 10 percent of their basin 
areas protected. More generally, inland water 
systems are rarely accorded priority in protected 
areas management plans; rivers, for example, often 



Figure 2.5: Rannsar 
sites by river basin, 
2003. 

Source: Revenga, 1998^ 
UNEP-WCMC, 2002. 



^'^-^^^ 



KEY 

Number of Ramsar sites 

■i 

1-6 
■I 7-1 ( 
^ 17-33 
^ 3i-iS 




69 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 2.20: RAMSAR SITES OF DOMINANT WETLAND TYPES, 2006 

Number of 
designated 

Wetland types sites 

Estuanne waters 106 


Intertidal mud, sand, or salt flats, and/or intertidal marshes 




178 


Intertidal forested wetlands 




76 


Coastal brackish/saline laqoons 




144 


Coastal freshwater laqoons 




26 


Inland deltas 




26 


Permanent and/or seasonal rivers/streams/creeks 




127 


Permanent and/or seasonal freshwater lakes 




346 


Permanent and/or seasonal saline/brackish/ 
alkaline lakes and flats 




123 


Permanent and/or seasonal saline/brackish/ 
alkaline marshes/pools 




43 


Permanent and/or seasonal freshwater 
marshes/pools 




185 


Peatlands, non-forested and/or forested 




200 


Alpine wetlands 




7 


Tundra wetlands 




16 


Shrub-dominated wetlands 




27 


Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands 




72 


Freshwater springs; oases 




9 


Geothermal wetlands 




2 


Subterranean karst and cave hydroloqical systems 




21 


Human made wetlands lall types] 




125 


There are 520 Ramsar sites with one or more coastal/marine wetland type 
Source: Ramsar Secretariat 2006. 


dominant. 



adjacent areas Icf both land and seal that are 
not wetlands per se. The greatest number of sites 
(60 percent of the total! were in Europe, but many 
of these are small in size, such as Llyn Idwal 
114 hectares], a small nutrient-poor mountain 
valley lake in Wales. Other regions may have fewer 
but larger sites, such as the Pacaya Samiria 
National Reserve in Peru 12 080 000 hectares!, 
making the land area distribution of sites more 
evenly distributed at the global level. 

Sites are designated using a flexible 
approach to scale and may range from individual 
springs or ponds of less than 1 hectare to wetlands 
such as the Okavango Delta and Brazilian 
Pantanal, more than 6 million and 3 million 
hectares, respectively 

The river basins with the greatest number of 
Ramsar sites include the Amur, Danube, Elbe, 
Niger, fviurray-Daring, Paraguary sub-basin and 
Rhine-Maas, all of which have at least ten, with the 
Danube alone having more than 60. At the other 
extreme, many important river basins have no 
Ramsar sites at all IWRI et ai. 2003] (Figure 2.6). 

Marine and coastal ecosystems 

lUCN defines a marine protected area as: 
"Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together 
witti 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. " 



merely form the boundary of an area and are not 
themselves afforded any notable protection status. 
Furthermore, even in those cases where a relatively 
large proportion of the basin is included within 
protected areas, if associated habitats such as 
forests and river headwaters are not also protected, 
then the protected area may be largely ineffective. 
Indeed, inland water ecosystems perhaps more 
than any others call for an integrated approach to 
protection as they are almost invariably heavily 
influenced by factors beyond their boundaries. 

Wetlands of International Importance 
[Ramsar sitesi 

Inland water bodies are well represented among 
Ramsar sites (Table 2.201. The total land area 
under Ramsar designation in 2005 covered app- 
roximately 8.5 percent of the estimated minimum 
total global wetland resources of around 1 300 
million hectares IGroWl, 19991. Some sites include 



This definition thus includes all sites, even largely 
terrestrial sites that include any intertidal 
element; they need not include any subtidal 
waters. This clearly differs from certain 
widespread perceptions of marine protected areas 
(MPAsI as sites with predominantly subtidal 
coverage. It remains a valuable definition, 
however, because coastal and intertidal areas 
include extensive and important habitats, 
including mangrove forests, rocky shores, and 
saltmarshes, which play a critical role in marine 
biodiversity functioning. Ivtany protected areas 
have been designated to include these habitats, 
but would not be classified as "marine" if such a 
definition required the presence of subtidal 
waters. Here we consider marine and coastal 
areas to include all marine waters including semi- 
enclosed seas (but not the Caspian Seal as well as 
intertidal habitats including estuarine waters. 



70 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



BOX 2.3: MARINE ECOSYSTEMS 



BENTHIC MARINE ECOSYSTEMS 



Intertidal: 

Unvegetated sediments These include mud, sand, or salt flats, and beaches Isand and pebble). 

Saltmarsh Areas vegetated by herbs, grasses or low shrubs. Commonly developing in the upper 

tidal frame on finer sediments along protected coasts. 

Mangrove Area vegetated by woody plants Imcluding Nipa palms and mangrove ferns], typically 
in upper tidal frame. Can form large forests. 



Rocky shores 



Subtidal: 
Bare sediments, 
mud sand, or rubble 



Large rock structures provide a secure base for a considerable diversity of species. 
Zoned across the tidal frame, further modified by patterns of exposure and the 
location of rock pools. 



These represent the most widespread habitat on the surface of the globe. In all but the 
shallowest waters they dominate, without any cover of benthic algae. 



Algal-dominated In places where sufficient light reaches the ocean floor tvlay include encrusting algae, 
sediments cyanobacteria, and microalgae. 



Seagrass beds 



Shallow sediments with a cover of seagrass Isubtidal vascular plantsl. 



Rocky benthos. Quite rare in the open ocean, often associated with seamounts. Provides a holdfast for 
largely unvegetated a great range of species including corals, bryozoans. worms, and mollusks. 



Rocky benthos 
with macroalgae 



Often referred to as kelp forests. 



Coral reefs Physical structures built from the carbonate skeletons of corals, often alongside other 

calcifying organisms, in shallow waters. 

Chemoautotrophic Associated with seismic activities including volcanic vents and cold seeps. Primary 

communities productivity utilizes chemical compounds rather than light as a source of energy. 

Other biogenic These include the deep-sea coral communities, but also structures built by worm and 

structures mollusk shells Ivermitid reefs, oyster reefsl. 

PELAGIC ECOSYSTEMS 

A range of classification schemes has been developed, with subdivisions based on oceanographic patterns of 
temperature, wind, or chlorophyll content in the waters. Longhurst (19981 has developed a global system based 
on sea-surface productivity information derived from satellites. This system divides the world into four major 
oceanic realms lAtlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Southern] and within each presents four primary biomes. Three, the 
Polar, Westerly Winds, and Trade Winds biomes. are approximately latitudinally divided, while a fourth recognizes 
the unique processes associated with coastal biomes. 

These pelagic subdivisions can only be seen as generalized markers, partly because of the low resolution 
at which they have been prepared, but equally importantly because the boundaries are determined by fluid 
processes which change over timescales from days to decades. This latter point is of considerable importance 
when considering the designation of protected areas for pelagic ecosystems. 



The marine and coastal realm 
Around 71 percent of the Earth's surface is marine 
waters, with an average depth of 3 900 m. The vast 
majority (67 percent of the Earth's surface! lies oft 
the continental shelf. From a political perspective 
about 37 percent of the ocean area lies within 200 
nautical miles of a coastline and hence may fall 
under some level of national jurisdiction. 



There is little agreement on a habitat classif- 
ication scheme for the oceans, and even greater 
problems arise in the presentation of marine habi- 
tats on maps at the global level. Part of the 
problem stems from the very nature of the marine 
environment which, being three-dimensional, can 
be host to multiple different ecosystems through 
the water column. Such dimensions cannot be 



71 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 2.21 : MARINE ECOREGIONS OF THE WORLD 






The 12 Realms and 62 Provinces ot the M 


arine Ecoregions of the World c 


lassification, which covers all coastal | 


seas. Within these, some 232 ecoregions 


have been identified. 






ARCTIC 


WESTERN INDO-PACIFIC 


TROPICAL EASTERN PACIFIC 


1 Arctic 


18 


Red Sea and Gulf of Aden 


43 


Tropical East Pacific 




19 


Somali/Arabian 


44 


Galapagos 


TEMPERATE NORTHERN 


20 


Western Indian Ocean 






ATLANTIC 


21 


West and South Indian Shelf 


TEMPERATE SOUTH AMERICA | 


2 Northern European Seas 


22 


Central Indian Ocean Islands 


45 


Warm Temperate 


3 Lusitanian 


23 


Bay of Bengal 




Southeastern Pacific 


It, Mediterranean Sea 


24 


Andaman 


46 


Juan Fernandez and 


5 Cold Temperate Northwest 








Desventuradas 


Atlantic 


CENTRAL INDO-PACIFIC 


47 


Warm Temperate 


6 Warm Temperate Northwest 


25 


South China Sea 




Southwestern Atlantic 


Atlantic 


26 


Sunda Shelf 


48 


Magellanic 


7 Blacl( Sea 


27 
28 


Java Transitional 
South Kuroshio 


49 


Tristan Gough 


TEMPERATE NORTHERN PACIFIC 


29 


Tropical Northwestern 


TEMPERATE SOUTHERN AFRICA | 


8 Cold Temperate Northwest 




Pacific 


50 


Benguela 


Pacific 


30 


Western Coral Triangle 


51 


Agulhas 


9 Warm Temperate Northwest 


31 


Eastern Coral Triangle 


52 


Amsterdam-St Paul 


Pacific 


32 


Sahul Shelf 






10 Cold Temperate Northeast 


33 


Northeast Australian Shelf 


TEMPERATE AUSTRALASIA | 


Pacific 


34 


Northwest Australian Shelf 


53 


Northern New Zealand 


1 1 Warm Temperate Northeast 


35 


Tropical Southwestern 


54 


Southern New Zealand 


Pacific 




Pacific 


55 


East Central Australian 




36 


Lord Howe and Norfolk 




Shelf 


TROPICAL ATLANTIC 




Islands 


56 


Southeast Australian Shelf 


12 Tropical Northwestern 






57 


Southwest Australian Shelf 


Atlantic 


EAbltKN INDO-PACIFIC 


58 


West Central Australian 


13 North Brazil Shelf 


37 


Hawaii 




Shelf 


U Tropical Southwestern 


38 


Marshall. Gilbert and Ellis 






Atlantic 




Islands 


SOUTHERN OCEAN | 


15 St, Helena and Ascension 


39 


Central Polynesia 


59 


Subantarctic Islands 


Islands 


40 


Southeast Polynesia 


60 


Scotia Sea 


16 West African Transition 


41 


Marquesas 


61 


Continental High Antarctic 


17 Gulf of Guinea 


42 


Easter Island 


62 


Subantarctic New Zealand 



captured on a maps flat surface. In addition, the 
l^nowledge base for many of these ecosystems 
remains remarkably poor. The most widespread 
ecosystem on Earth is made up of deep-ocean 
muddy benthos and yet our knowledge of this is 
restricted to a minuscule area which has been 
trawled or cored with costly equipment. A further 
difficulty in the development of maps is the fact 
that biological boundaries in the fluid ocean 
environment shift constantly, season to season, 
year to year, and over longer timescales. 



Most habitat classification schemes are based 
on a combination of physical and biological criteria. 
Although apparently simple, this system is both 
hierarchical and three-dimensional. We cannot map 
this from the air on a single sheet as there are 
multiple overlapping habitats. A protected area 
drawn on the water surface could incorporate these 
multiple systems, although in many cases protected 
areas may be targeted at only a single system, such 
as coral reefs, and tail to protect other systems 
such as overlying pelagic ecosystems. 



72 



Protected areas and biodiversity 




Fringing coral reefs in 
Ningaloo Marine Park, 
Western Australia. 



The vast majority of MPAs lie in near-coastal 
waters within the shallow photic zone or in the 
intertidal zone. Here more detailed habitat 
definitions have been developed. A simple schema 
derived from a number of these, including the 
Ramsar wetlands classification scheme, is 
presented in Box 2.3, together with brief notes 
about their definitions, biodiversity importance, and 
available l<nowledge of their distribution and status. 

Another approach for classifying the marine 
environment, which avoids the challenges of 
detailed habitat mapping, looks at taxonomic or 
evolutionary patterns and describes areas of 
homogeneity across a range of habitats. This is the 
approach used in the Marine Ecoregions of the 
World classification, developed by a consortium of 
NGO scientists and academics ISpalding et at., 
20071. This classification divides coast and shelf 
waters into a tiered system of 12 realms, 62 
provinces and 232 ecoregions (Table 2.211. The 
system has good synergies with other class- 
ifications, such as the Large Marine Ecosystems, 
while the finest-scale ecoregions have already been 
widely used in a number of regions (Australia, North 
and South America, East Africa) for conservation 
planning and for monitoring conservation progress. 

To a very large degree, coastal and contin- 
ental shelf waters are of greatest importance for 
biodiversity, and to human interest. The intertidal 
zone is a region of high productivity and biodiversity 
Mangrove forests and saltmarshes are among the 



most productive ecosystems in the marine realm. 
Adjacent waters are generally nutrient rich and 
suffused with light, enabling high levels of 
productivity and supporting, in many areas, a vast 
array of life forms. Pelagic ecosystems can also be 
highly productive, particularly in areas of regular 
upwelling such as the western continental shelves 
of South Africa and South America. 

Until the 1960s it was generally believed that 
deep-ocean silaceous muds were largely devoid of 
species. This was because of the sampling methods 
used, in which filters allowed most species to 
escape sampling. It is now suggested that there 
could be 10 million species living in these 
communities, almost entirely undescribed by 
scientists. The first hydrothermal vents were 
discovered in 1977 - these, together with cold 
seeps, are now l<nown to be widespread, the 
only ecosystems on the planet that are totally 
independent of light and based rather on chemo- 
synthesis. Also, in offshore waters, are large 
numbers of seamounts that rise great distances 
from the sea floor These structures often include 
rocky benthos and play host to numerous species 
still little known to science. 

Human impacts on the seas are pervasive and 
rapidly increasing. Overfishing is perhaps the most 
obvious case FAO (20071 estimates that in 2005 
"around one quarter of the stock groups monitored 
by FAO were underexploited or moderately exploited 
and could perhaps produce more, whereas about 



73 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 2.22; BREAKDOWN OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS BY WCPA REGION, 2004 

Number Protected Marine area 
of marine area in WCPA region 
WCPA region sites (km^j Ikm^approx.l' 

Antarctic 59 65 093 


Marine 

area protected 

(%l 


Australia/New Zealand 


A37 


423 350 


12 398 000 


3.4 


Brazil 


83 


14 190 


3 661 000 


0.4 


Caribbean 


357 


42 037 


3 976 000 


1.1 


Central America 


104 


16018 


1 501 000 


1.1 


East Asia 


283 


31389 


5 523 000 


0.6 


Eastern and Southern Africa 


139 


5317 


8 339 000 


0.1 


Europe 


848 


67 490 


9 548 000 


0.7 


North Africa and Middle East 


134 


23 542 


3 459 000 


0.7 


North America 


695 


212 125 


1 7 740 000 


1.2 


North Eurasia 


82 


217 839 


7 719 000 


2.8 


Pacific 


168 


357 203 


32 372 000 


1.1 


South America 


115 


72 209 


8 432 000 


0.9 


South Asia 


184 


5 160 


4 692 000 


0.1 


Southeast Asia 


387 


75 934 


8 652 000 


0.9 


Western and Central Africa 


41 


10 169 


3 606 000 


0.3 


1 , These estimates are based on pre 
coastlines using unofficial EEZ boun 


iminary and unverified estimates of marine waters within 200 nautical m 
daries. These are crude approximations only 


les of the 



half of the stocks were fully exploited and therefore 
producing catches that were at, or close to, their 
nnaximum sustainable limits, with no room tor 
further expansion. The remaining stocks were 
either overexploited, depleted or recovering from 
depletion and thus were yielding less than their 
maximum potential" owing to excess fishing 
pressure. Other studies have suggested that the 
situation may, in fact, be far worse. Recent studies 
on larger predatory fishes (including tuna and codi 
have suggested that almost all stocks worldwide 
have declined by 90 percent from their pre- 
industrial levels. Nearshore fisheries have probably 
undergone similar collapses in many areas, 
although reporting is more difficult. 

Some fishing techniques, particularly bottom 
trawling, may have serious collateral impact 
through habitat loss and degradation. In a recent 
study of traw/ling in 24 countries it was estimated 
that 57 percent of the continental shelf area was 
within trawling grounds. A separate study 
estimated that the total area actually damaged by 
these trawls was some 14.8 million km^ lone and a 
half times the area of the USAl each year. In many 
ecosytems the use of trawls is highly destructive, 
destroying benthic species such as corals, sponges. 



and seagrasses. Such Impacts were until recently 
largely confined to Inshore and continental shelf 
habitats, but are now extending into deeper waters 
(up to 1 500 m or more) on continental slopes and 
around seamounts. In such waters, recovery from 
these impacts could take centuries. 

Habitat destruction is also widely reported In 
intertidal areas. Although there are no accurate 
global estimates it has been suggested that 30-50 
percent of the world's mangrove forests have been 
lost. Although there have been various suggestions 
that between 1 and 30 percent of the world's coral 
reefs have also been lost, these are not based on 
any rigorous calculations. Many areas of mangrove, 
saltmarsh, and other habitat have been lost to land 
reclamation and/or the building of aquaculture 
ponds or salt-pans. Coastal construction and sand 
mining in wide areas has led to erosion and beach 
loss. A further cause for concern in inshore waters 
and semi-enclosed seas such as the Mediter- 
ranean and Black Sea is the rapidly Increasing 
introduction of alien species, often In ships' ballast 
waters. The impact of the comb jelly Mnemiopsis 
teidyi or\ the Black Sea is a well-known case. 

Human impacts on pelagic systems are more 
difficult to discern or to quantify. Habitat loss Is 



74 



Protected areas and biodiversity 



no longer a relevant term in this environment; 
however, degradation is widespread, perhaps 
ubiquitous. The collapse of many pelagic fish stocl<s 
is one such indicator Another is the presence of 
pollutants. Many coastal areas are afflicted by 
nutrient and chemical pollution arising from 
untreated sewage, industrial waste, and agricul- 
tural run-off. Certain highly persistent organic 
pollutants IPOPsI can now be detected in all oceans, 
and there are particular concerns where these are 
building up in polar regions. 

Marine protected areas 

Major updates on marine protected areas in WDPA 
are underway, but unfortunately were not available 
for this work and so the information presented in 
Table 2.22 represents information from 2003. At this 
time there were just over ^ 000 MPAs covering an 
estimated 1 600 000 km', or rather less than 0.5 
percent of the world's ocean surface. 

Regionally, there is considerable variation in 
the application of MPAs. with Australia/New 
Zealand currently the most highly protected region 
in terms of aerial coverage. The total marine area 
protected amounts to more than 3 percent of the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZI of this region. 
Although this is heavily weighted by the influence of 
the Great Barrier Reef, there remains a large 
number of other sites, some quite big. throughout 
this region. While Europe has the highest number of 
sites, the average marine area covered by these 
sites remains small. In fact, caution is also nec- 
essary here, as many of these sites are essentially 
terrestrial, with only minor intertidal or subtidal 
areas, while few have any meaningful restrictions. 
The UK. for example, is listed as having 2A2 MPAs. 
and yet the vast majority have no restrictions on 
fishing or anchoring activities and must be 
considered to be of little value in offering direct 
protection to marine biodiversity 

North Eurasia also shows considerable 
protection in terms of area coverage. This is 
dominated by a few very large sites along the 
Russian Arctic. The Caribbean and Central America, 
being some of the smallest regions in geographic 
extent, show better protection than many other 
areas, both with about 1.1 percent of their EEZ 
areas protected, but this protection is broadly 
dispersed with sites across each region. The Indian 
Ocean represents perhaps the least protected 
region in the world, with the Eastern and Southern 



Africa and the South Asia regions protecting only 0.1 
percent of their EEZ areas. 

Many of the statistics relating to MPAs are 
skewed by the influence of a few very large sites, 
notably the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and 
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National 
Monument. These two sites make up more than 
680 000 km', or A] percent of the entire MPA 
estate 10.2 percent of the global ocean surface). In 
reality most MPAs are relatively small - even the 
median size of sites assessed here 129 km'l is 
clearly inflated as most of the 1 000 sites of 
unknown area in this dataset lie at the smaller end 
of the spectrum. 

Gaps and priorities: The existing global "network" 
of protected areas is, to date, very small indeed, 
and woefully inadequate in its coverage of marine 
ecosystems. Perhaps the most immediate gap is 
the lack of sites in the open sea. Few of the existing 
MPAs fall outside the 3-12-nautical-mile territ- 
orial waters that are claimed by most countries. 
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law 
of the Sea (UNCL05). nations are allowed to 
manage waters up to 200 nautical miles. They have 
exclusive jurisdictional rights over living resources 
within this zone, and these rights are further 
weighted by obligations to conserve those 
resources. Despite this, only a few MPAs extend 
into the EEZ. and typically these are the largest 
sites, such as the Great Barrier Reef, the 
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, the Heard Island 
and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve, and the 
Galapagos Marine Resource Reserve. The 
application of international conventions has been 
similarly limited outside territorial waters; there 
are precedents, however, including the Seaflower 
Biosphere Reserve in Colombia and the Pracel 
Manoel Luis Ramsar Site in Brazil. 

There are. however, signs of change (see 
Chapter 61 - new and larger sites, and more 
comprehensive networks of MPAs are now being 
established. This may partly be in response to 
the commitments made at the World Summit 
for Sustainable Development to establish repre- 
sentative networks of MPAs by 2012. There are 
also growing moves to establish a legal and 
administrative framework for protection in the 
high seas. 



75 



The world's protected areas 



Chapter 3 

Threats to 
protected areas 



Contributors: S. Stolton and N. Dudley: Wildlife: E.L Bennett; Alien species: J. Jamsranjav and M. Spalding; Impacts 
from beyond the boundaries: N. Dudley, B. Pressey, 5. Stolton; Climate change: M. Spalding and S. Chape; Forest 
conversion, Lao PDR: K. Berkmuller; Resource extraction: Liz Bennett; World Heritage in Danger: N.lshwaran 



As we have seen in the preceding chapter, protected 
areas have been established, among other reasons, 
for the purpose of conserving natural heritage. For 
this conservation role to be fulfilled, essential 
natural and evolutionary processes and biodiversity 
composition (species and habitats) must be 
retained. A variety of factors can act on protected 
areas and the biodiversity they contain to 
compromise their functional integrity. This chapter 
reviews the most important threats and suggests 
ways in which some of these can be addressed. 

This chapter gives an overview of some of the 
threats and pressures facing protected areas but 
does not attempt to discuss their underlying causes 
or to apportion blame. While we can be justifiably 
angry if a large company flagrantly degrades a pro- 
tected area for profit, the relationship between 
many local communities and protected areas is far 
more complex. In some countries, people have lost 
land and resources during the creation of protected 
areas, often with little or no compensation; often 
the poorest members of society bear the brunt 
of such changes. Their continued "illegal" use of 
such resources is sometimes hard to criticise. We 
highlight here the real and serious threats to 
protected areas but recognise that these have many 
and varied causes, some of which are outside the 
control of the people actually involved in carrying 
out the degradation. Responding to pressures 
requires a wide range of different strategies that 
extend well beyond simple punitive actions. 

HUMAN SETTLEMENT AND INCURSION 

Protected areas are often the home or resource 
base for thousands of people. These populations 



may be an integral part of a protected area and may 
contribute to the successful functioning of the site, 
but elsewhere the close proximity of humans and 
protected areas can be the source a broad suite of 
problems. Research suggests that 80 percent of 
Latin America's protected areas are inhabited 
(Amend & Amend, 1992), and the agricultural 
frontier has moved into many protected areas In 
Central America (Rojas & Cruz, 1998). Most African 
national parks contain human communities, some 
of whom may be oblivious to the aims of protection 
(Sournia, 19981. There is also extensive settlement 
within many protected areas In Asia and the Pacific. 
Research in India found human populations in 56 
percent of national parks and 72 percent of 
sanctuaries, often at higher population densities 
than the average for the country (Singh, 2000). Even 
when protected areas remain un-settled, clearance 
of land up to the borders Is common, leaving them 
as "islands" in a sea of altered landscape and 
undermining the concept of buffer zones or a 
protected area network. 

In some areas humans are an integral part of 
the ecosystem, and Indeed their presence may be 
vital for ecosystem function to be maintained, but 
human settlement can also act detrimentally 
on protected areas. Adverse impacts can arise 
through: 

□ Expansion of numbers or influence of existing 
settlements within or around protected areas, 
either through illegal activities, such as 
hunting, or because agreed activities increase 
in scope and Impact; 
J Increase in permanent settlement within 
protected areas because of land shortages In 



76 



Threats to protected areas 




S. Chape 



Clearing on edge of Dong Hua Sao National Protected Area, Lao PDR. 



77 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 3.1 : TYPES OF THREATS TO PROTECTED AREAS 
Threat type Examples of threats 


Physical 


Fire larsoni, severe storm events, geological incidents. 


Biological 


Introduced plants, introduced animals and organisms. 


Direct human threats 


Habitat fragmentation, mining, poaching, hunting, and disturbance to fauna, 
fishing, collecting, grazing, and harvesting of flora, trampling, structure 
development, access development, utility corridors, communications structures, 
urbanization, pollution, collecting, managerial damage, vandalism, emergency 
response damage, arson, squatting, drug cultivation and trafficking, terrorism, 
and damage from violent conflict 


Indirect human threats 


Adjoining community and land-use encroachments, impacts to climate, 
catchments, air and water quality, and poor land-use planning 


Legal status threats 


Absent or inadequate legal protection, lack of clarity of ownership, inadequate 
legislation 


On-ground 


Absence of on-ground management, absence of law enforcement, difficulty of 
monitoring management threats illegal activities 


On-ground social 
threats 


Conflict of cultural beliefs and practices with protected area objectives, presence 
of bribery and corruption, pressures placed on managers to exploit protected 
area resources, difficulty of recruitment and retention of employees 


Socio-political- 
economic threats 


Lack of political support, inadequate funding, inadequate staffing, inadequate 
resources, absent or unclear policies, and community opposition 


Design threats 


Inadequate geographic size, shape, location, connectivity, or replication of an 
individual protected area and/or a system of protected areas to achieve effective 
conservation of biodiversity and other heritage 


Managerial threats 


Absence of strategic planning, human resource and budget systems, plans of 
management, effective operations, and effectiveness evaluation systems 


Sources: Hocl<ing5, Stollon & Dudley 2000. Ervin 2003, Worboys 200A. 



surrounding areas or because protected areas 
offer particular benefits; 

□ Sudden, temporary incursions of human 
populations for a particular purpose, such as 
transhumance and search for good pasture, 
or seeking particular economic goals such 
as mining; 

□ Temporary settlements around protected 
areas, including, for example, of war refugees 
or refugees following disasters such as 
flooding, hurricanes, or the impacts of drought. 

Agriculture in its various forms consistently 
emerges as the number-one "threat" to biodiversity 
and natural ecosystems In terrestrial habitats, with 
agricultural pollution also a significant damaging 
factor in many aquatic ecosystems. Although an 
increase in agricultural activity is often assumed to 
be the result of human population growth - causing 
an apparently simple tension to arise between food 
and wildlife - most of the impacts, particularly on 
protected areas, are more complex. Agriculture can 



influence protected areas in a number of ways. 

Q Incursion and settlement by farmers 
or landless migrants is a critical problem in 
those areas where land is scarce either as a 
result of total population size or because 
land ownership is concentrated in the hands 
of just a few people. For example, the need 
for more agricultural production to meet the 
increasing demand of buffer-zone com- 
munities in Pakistan has resulted in felling of 
forest patches within protected areas 
(Ahmad Khan, 19971. 

□ Incursion by nomadic people and grazing 
animals can conflict with wild animal 
populations and have an impact on grass- 
lands. Nomadic people use virtually all the 
protected areas in West Africa, and this is a 
particular pressure on wildlife in Niger, Togo, 
and Benin (Sournia, 19981. 

G Increases in the intensity of agricultural 
pressure can affect protected areas where 
traditional agriculture is still allowed. 



78 



Threats to protected areas 



Research in India found that the average 
density of livestock inside national parks in 
India is higher than outside (Singh, 19991. 

□ Illegal cultivation, for example of narcotics and 
other high value crops [See Box 3.1], can take 
place in protected areas. Drug production has 
been identified as a problem in at least 16 of 
Colombia's protected areas ICastafio Uribe, 
19921. 

□ Illegal land clearance to establish agricultural 
operations can affect protected areas. The 
majority of the important forest fires that 
occurred in Brazil, Indonesia, and other 
countries at the end of the 1 990s were created 
to establish plantations or cattle ranches; 
some of these spread to protected areas 
(Dudley, 1997). 

□ Drainage for agriculture can be a threat, 
particularly to wetlands where small changes 
in the water table can be disastrous. An 
extensive system of drainage channels est- 
ablished in the Neusiedler See region between 
1900 and 1970 has led to a marked drop in 
groundwater levels. This poses a serious long- 
term threat for the shared Austrian and 
Hungarian Seewinkel/Fertd-Hansag Trans- 
boundary National Park's soda lakes, season- 
ally flooded alkaline steppes, calcareous fens, 
and wet meadows (Dick et al., 1994). 

□ Water extraction for irrigation can have 
serious impacts in some areas, either 
through the rapid exhaustion of groundwater 
resources or because irrigation has led 
to changes such as salmization, aband- 
onment of land, and eventual desertification. 
The Sunderbans Wildlife Sanctuary in 
Bangladesh is threatened by changes to 
water flow and salinity as a result of abs- 
traction and use in the Ganges Basin (Rashid 
& Kabir, 19981. 

Q Agricultural pollution runs off into fresh- 
water and eventually also marine systems, 
and affects protected areas through eutro- 
phication, pesticide pollution, and deposition 
of heavy metals. Intensive agriculture is 
suspected of causing a dramatic decline in 
amphibians in Point Pelee National Park in 
Canada, with 6 out of 11 species having 
disappeared (Parks Canada, 1998). 

□ In some areas, particularly in Europe, the 
abandonment of agriculture in protected areas 
is resulting in a reduction in biodiversity in 



areas where traditional cultural practices have 
become an established part of the ecosystem 
IStolton, Geier & McNeely, 2000). 

CHANGES IN FIRE REGIMES 

The frequency of natural fires depends on climate, 
geography, and ecology. Under natural conditions 
some ecosystems almost never catch fire, whilst in 
others fire plays an important role, for instance by 
facilitating germination and release of seeds, or 
opening the canopy to allow in light and stimulate 
growth. Changing fire regimes can have a major 
impact on ecosystems. Changes are often assoc- 
iated with increased human creation of fire - for 
land clearance, through vandalism, or simply by 
accident - or may be because of more subtle 
changes in fire ecology resulting from particular 
management practices, agricultural systems, or as 
a result of climate change. Reduction of frequency 
and concomittant increase in intensity of fires 
can have particularly adverse effects on fire- 
adapted ecosystems. 

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 

Badly planned roads or other routes into protected 
areas can increase damage, through tourist 
pressure or by increased incursion, illegal use, and 
settlement. A European Development Fund project 
to upgrade a road in southern Cameroon led to 
increased logging and poaching, with 27 poaching 
camps observed within the Dja World Heritage Site 
(Rice & Counsell, 1998). Problems are worse when 
people have no proper land tenure rights, sug- 
gesting that disenfranchised and resentful 
communities on the edge of protected areas are 
likely to use roads to remove salable resources. 
Research by the University of Florida, for example, 
found that subsistence farmers holding title to 
land along the Transamazon Highway in Brazil are 
more likely to maintain valuable wood and 
undertake reforestation activities, and are less 
likely to participate in the timber markets 
(Resources, 1999). 

In Australia, the entire local population 
(estimated at 19 individuals) of the eastern quoll 
[Dasyurus wvernnusl in a part of Cradle Mountain 
National Park, Tasmania, was extirpated within 17 
months of upgrading three kilometers of road in 
the protected area, apparently as a direct result of 
greatly increased road mortality Introduction of 
remedial measures led to the species reestab- 
lishing itself within six months (Jones, 2000). 



79 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 3.2: Tht 

Element 


■eats to Protected Areas from Tourism and Recreation 

Examples of threat from tourism and recreation activities 


Ecosystems 


The construction of accommodation, visitor centers, infrastructure, fences, access roads, 

w;alking tracks, and other services has a direct effect on the environment, by vegetation 

removal, animal disturbance, elimination of habitats, and changes to drainage patterns. 

Wildlife habitat may be significantly changed (travel routes, feeding areas, breeding areas, 

etcl by tourist development and use. 
Tourism and recreational activities including boaling, off-road vehicle use. mountain-bike 
riding, horse riding, caving, mountaineering, hiking and camping, and loud noise affect 
natural values- 
Weeds (garden flow/ers and non-native grasses! and pest animals Icats and dogs) can be 
introduced by residents accommodated within protected areas. 


Soils 


Trampling and soil compaction can occur in certain well-used areas. Soil contamination 
can occur with fertilizers, pesticides, and pollution from vehicles. Soil removal and soil 
erosion also occur, and may continue after the disturbance is gone. 


Geology 


Damage to cave formations and mineral sites can occur from illegal fossil collecting. 
Sand dunes and reefs are also susceptible to damage. 


Vegetation 


Concentrated use around facilities has a negative effect on vegetation. 
Transportation may have direct negative effects on the environment (vegetation removal. 
weed introduction, animal disturbance!. 
Fire frequency may change due to tourists and park tourism management. 


Water 


Visitation increases demands for fresh water 

Disposal of sewage causes environmental effects even if it is within license limits. 
Visitation can also lead to solid waste dumped in waterways, erosion of stream banks, 
and increased turbidity. 


Air 


Motorized transportation may cause pollution from emissions; smoke from lodge fires 
can cause pollution in mountain valleys. 
Visitor use can increase energy consumption and cause greenhouse gas emissions. 


Wildlife 


Major issues include handfeeding. spotlighting, disturbance to nesting birds, disruption 

of foraging, and loss of energy reserves and local habitat disturbance. 
Fishing may change population dynamics of native species. 
Fishers may demand the introduction of foreign species, and increase populations of 

target animals. 
Impacts occur on insects and small invertebrates from effects of transportation and 

introduced species. 
Disturbance by visitors can occur for all species, including those that are not attracting 

visitors. Disturbance can be of several kinds: noise, visual, or harassing behavior 
Habituation to humans can cause changed wildlife behavior, such as approaching 

people for food. 
Vehicle traffic gives rise to wildlife road kills. 


Cultural 
impacts 


Theft, vandalism, and overuse can adversely affect cultural sites, while culturally insensitive 
or inappropriate behavior can undermine cultural traditions and rules. 


Sources: Buckley & Pannell, 1990; Gee. Makers & Choy. 1997. Green & Higginbottom. 2001; Eagles & McCool, 2002; 
Eagles, McCool & Haynes, 2002; Newsome, Moore & Dowling, 2002; Buckley Pickering & Weaver. 2003; Christ et aL. 2003. 



TOURISM AND RECREATION 

While tourism and recreation bring much-needed 
recognition and considerable financial benefits to 
protected areas and local economies in most 
parts of the world, they are not without drawbacks. 
Without effective management and responsible 
action, growth in tourism can lead to the 
destruction of environments and destinations and 



may provide few benefits to local communities 
(Haroon, 2002; UNEP, 2002). The tourism industry, 
like many other industries, uses resources such 
as water and energy, contributes to greenhouse 
gas emissions, and produces solid wastes. 
International and national tourists use the 
equivalent of 80 percent of Japans yearly primary 
energy supply (5 000 million kWh/yearl, produce 



80 



Threats to protected areas 



the same amount of solid waste as France 135 
million tons per year], and consume three times 
the amount of fresh water as is contained in Lake 
Superior, between Canada and the USA, in a year 
110 million cubic meters! (Christ etai, 20031. Major 
threats arising from tourism and recreation are 
examined in Table 3.2. 

RESOURCE extraction 

Resource extraction includes extraction by local 
people or park dwellers, and by outsiders. Local 
people tend to impact through hunting, fishing, 
fodder and fuelwood collection, water extraction, 
and in forests also by logging - all of these, however, 
can also have a commercial aspect. Resource 
extraction can have a wide range of impacts on both 
target and non-target resources. 

Fuelwood 

Fuelwood is the primary energy source for almost 
half the worlds population. It is often collected from 
protected areas, either legally through agreements 
or illegally. Low-level collection for domestic use by 
surrounding communities probably has little long- 
term impact, except if particular types of wood are 
targeted over time Ifor example, if all dead wood is 
collected thus removing an important microhabitatl. 
However, fuelwood collection can become prob- 
lematic when demand becomes unsustainable. 
After the Rwandan war, refugee camps set up next 
to protected areas created major fuelwood demands 
(Kanyamibwa, 1998). Similarly, conditions of 
economic crisis can increase reliance on fuelwood: 
for example, many people in Romania turned to 
protected forests for fuel supplies as a result of an 
abrupt downturn in the economy (Radu, 1995). In 
Vietnam, the commercialization of fuelwood 
collection was reported to be putting stress on the 
forests in parts of the Ba Vi National Park 
(Poffenberger, 19981. 



Timber 

The wide-ranging threats to the Earth's forest 
ecosystems were discussed in Chapter 2. These 
threats remain significant in many parts of the world 
even when forests are placed within protected 
areas. Illegal or semi-legal felling of timber - for 
local use, local sale, or for export in the inter- 
national timber trade - threatens many natural 
forests in conservation areas. Most illegal logging 
targets a few valuable species, although larger 
operations sometimes take place in protected areas 
where management is very poorly implemented or 
where the reserve is weakly protected by law. In 
Cambodia, civil war resulted in massive illegal 
logging during the 1990s (Global Witness, 1995; 
1996; 1998), including within protected areas 
established by Royal Decree in 1993. A recent report 
(ICEM, 20031 concluded that "the past five years has 
seen a steady eating away at the quality of natural 
systems within protected areas and the surrounding 
environment, by major government and private 
development interests and local communities". In 
some countries, governments allow logging in 
protected areas, resulting in many "protected 
areas" not actually attaining the kind of old-growth 
characteristics that are essential for some species. 
In Gabon, logging activities are allowed within all 
protected areas and logging activities have affected 
sites in varying proportions [Brugiere, 19991. A 
combination of logging and agricultural incursion 
often results in devastating impacts on tropical 
forest ecosystems as in Sumatra, Indonesia. 

Wildlife 

The presence of an intact-looking protected area on 
a map, or even in a satellite photo, is not necessarily 
indicative of conservation objectives being achieved. 
Across the tropical world, hunting is draining 
wildlife at ever-increasing rates, due to a synergetic 
linkage of many recent changes, including growing 



Forest fragmentation in 
Sumatra, Indonesia 
betwreen 1982 and 2001. 

KEY 

■ 1 Highly fragmented 

mi 
■•5 

6 
7 
8 
9 

■ 10 High spatial 

integrity 

Source: UNEP-WCMC 



















X-.. 









81 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 3.1: FOREST CONVERSION TO COFFEE IN DONG HUA SAO PROTECTED AREA , LAO PDR 



The Lao People's Democratic Republic, or Laos, has 
20 National Protected Areas or NPAs declared in 
1993, 1995 and 1996. Dong Hua Sao IDHSI NPA was 
among the first 18 sites designated in October 1993, 
with an area of 1100 \<m^. The area contains two rare 
habitats: lowland dry-evergreen forest interspersed 
with wetlands and the upland evergreen forest of the 
Boloven Plateau. Even at that time, only around 500 
km^ of the upland forest remained on the 3,800 km^ 
plateau in large and contiguous tracts, having been 
subject to shifting cultivation for centuries. Approx- 
imately 100 km^of the upland forest was within DHS. 
Over the past decade this area has continued to 
decline as a result of incursions and clearance for 
commercial small-holder coffee plantations. 

The problem and its causes 

By the time DHS came under management in mid- 
1995, it already faced a major problem of upland 
deforestation. Aerial photographs from 1995 indicated 
that about 50 km^ of upland forest inside the reserve 
area had been partly converted to coffee plantations. 
Protected area staff continued to locate new clearings 
but were unable to keep up with the pace of defor- 
estation. It was evident that encroachment of prime 
upland forest posed a real threat to the conservation 
values of DHS, and at a scale far beyond that which 
the protected area staff could effectively deal with. 

DHS is located on fertile volcanic soils. Despite 
the fact that the area of such soils with the protected 
area is much smaller than that outside, most of the 
expansion in coffee cultivation in Paksong, the major 
coffee growing district, between 1995 and 1999 was at 



the expense of the protected area. By 1997 a land and 
forest allocation drive by the government had 
formalized the boundaries for all villages adjacent to 
or near DHS. This campaign also marked the 
beginning of formal land-use planning and control by 
government through province, district and village 
organizations. However, the allocation failed to assign 
privileges and responsibilities for sections of the pro- 
tected area to individual villages. It thus left DHS 
without even the protection of village custodianship 
and protected area staff were unable to fill the 
vacuum. Anyone in search of land with a minimum of 
fuss and expense turned to the protected area. 

The risk associated with encroachment was 
taken as slight compared to the inconvenience of 
negotiating with villages or the cost of buying land. 
Land in the protected area also offered the option of 
clearing prime forest. Coffee planting becomes profit- 
able more rapdly on cleared mature forest than on 
secondary forest, with a break-even point of just 3 to 
4 years, as opposed to 5 or 6. For the smallholder 
without capital to tide them over, the clearing of 
secondary forest is not an attractive proposition. 

The management response 

The beginning of management in DHS coincided with 
a government drive against illegal clearing and 
logging in the uplands. While central government 
supported the expansion of cash crop agriculture it 
also clearly asserted that protected areas and prime 
natural forest were not the place to do it. In March 
1996 more than 300 persons were found guilty of the 
illegal clearing of 216 ha of forest and fined the 



human populations, protected areas increasingly 
becoming accessible fragments of natural habitat, 
the use of modern hunting technologies such as 
firearms and wire snares, and all of these 
compounded by vastly increased commercialization 
of hunting for pets, meat, skins, pelts, parts for 
traditional medicines, and anything else that will 
fetch a price (Robinson & Bennett, 2000al. Political 
instability and warfare can be further elements 
driving up hunting rates iHart, 2002|. 

The problem is especially acute in tropical 
forests because of their very low productivity for 
large vertebrates. A tropical forest sustainably 
produces about 150 kg/km^ of vertebrate biomass 



per year (Robinson & Bennett, 2000bl, yet annual 
hunting rates in many tropical forest reserves 
are much higher than this: about 200 kg/km^ in 
parts of the Okapi Wildlife Reserve, the Democratic 
Republic of Congo (Hart, 20001, 349 kg/km2 in 
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve, Kenya (FitzGibbon 
et al., 20001, and 701 kg/km^ in Menembonembo 
Nature Reserve. Sulawesi. Indonesia. This is 
leading to population declines (Robinson & Bennett, 
2000al. and local (Peres, 2000; Maisels et ai, 2001) 
and even global (Gates et al., 20001 extinctions. 

This has a wider impact on the ecology of the 
protected areas. Animals hunted preferentially in 
such forests are the large vertebrates, which 



82 



Threats to protected areas 




equivalent of about US$ 6A,000. 

A land claims registration was initiated by the 
DHS management in 1996 to provide ttie basis of a 
problem-solving strategy, which was submitted to 
province and district level decision-mal<ers in 1997. 
The fact that a considerable proportion of coffee plots 
and other types of cultivation predated the protected 
area, massive vested interest; a commitment to part- 
icipatory management and the lacl< of enforcement 
capacity precluded a purely law and order approach. 

Under the strategy, agriculture in the protected 
area would be legalized on the majority of established 
plots while a minority of plot owners would have to 
vacate theirs. Plot abandonment was advocated only 
when it fell inside a proposed core zone. Elsewhere, 
cultivation could continue on a permit system at 
present levels and, in the longer term, be phased out 
or regularized through excision from the protected 
area. It was also proposed that permit holders 
contribute to a fund to implement and enforce the 
permit system. This approach reduced the area slated 
for abandonment to manageable proportions and 
promised to generate funds for implementation. 

The abandonment of plots and the issue of 
permits in priority sectors was a work plan target 
from mid-1998 onwards. While seemingly inching 



closer to action, by the end of 1999 not a single plot 
had been abandoned nor had a single cultivation 
permit been issued. It had become clear that 
management was probing the very limits of district 
and province capacity to control land use and/or 
that vested interests were simply too strong. 
Management was reduced to documenting the 
situation on the ground and outlining options for 
maximum conservation benefits from inevitable 
boundary adjustments. 

A boundary adjustment for the area of Dong Hua 
Sao from 1100 km^ to to 910 km^ was recommended 
in the Protected Area Status Report of 1995 based on 
SPOT satellite images dated 1990 or earlier In mid 
1 999. another boundary revision proposal was made, 
based on observations by field patrols, aerial 
inspection, and 1995 aerial photos of the upland 
sections. The information on which boundary 
recommendations were made had always been dated 
and incomplete until February 2000 when high 
resolution IKONOS satellite data were obtained. Using 
GIS software, these data were reanalysed, recent 
clearings identified and the area of all clrearings 
calculated. The results suggested that further excis- 
ions to 816 km2 may be unavoidable, further eroding 
the conservation values of the area. 



typically play vital roles as browsers, pollinators, 
and dispersers (Redford, 19921; 75 percent of the 
plant species in African rain forests depend on 
animals for seed dispersal (White, 20011. Loss of 
wildlife is also detrimental to people who live in 
or near protected areas who depend on hunting for 
their subsistence, either from hunting inside the 
reserve, or in the "sinks" surrounding the 
protected "source". Those who suffer most when 
the resource goes are the marginalized forest 
peoples who have few or no alternatives (Robinson 
& Bennett, 20021. Efforts to alleviate the problem 
can back-fire and exacerbate the problem if they 
result in increased access to the reserve and 



increased human populations around it, e.g. 
through badly planned integrated conservation 
and development projects IICDPsl (Dates, 1995; 
19991, or inappropriate ecotourism developments 
(Wildlife Conservation Society & Sarawak Forest 
Department, 19961. Given the low management 
capacity in protected areas across much of the 
tropics, often the only protection for wildlife lies in 
the inaccessibility of these areas. 

The problems and issues are complex, so 
solutions must be multifaceted, and individually 
tailored to take account of the unique local 
biological, cultural, socioeconomic, and political 
conditions (van Schaik ef ai, 20021. Core elements 



83 



The world's protected areas 



Mining often poses tlie 
first threat to natural 
ecosystems and can be 
responsible for major 
changes to ecology. 




¥-' 










i 



include education, enforcement, and, as necessary, 
development of sustainable sources of income and 
nutrition for local communities. Education must be 
at many levels, from senior land planners to local 
communities. Enforcement can be by a government 
agency (Karanth, 20021, non-governmental 
agencies, the private sector (van Schail< etal., 20021, 
or local communities empowered or working witfi 
partners to exclude outsiders iBodmer & Puertas, 
20001. Buffer zones that control hunters going into 
reserves and wildlife products coming out can also 
be highly effective (e.g. Ell<an, 20001. 

Overfishing 

A large proportion of marine and inland water 
protected areas are affected by overfishing. 
Remarkably few have extensive fishing regulations, 
and strict "no-take" protection is provided in only a 
small fraction of sites. Overfishing may thus be 
perfectly legal within many sites. Fishing regula- 
tions, where they do exist, can be hard to enforce. 
Illegal fishing may take place in remote areas, 
where enforcement is difficult and expensive, while 
at smaller scales reluctance by local communities 
to accept regulations can create problems. 



Aside from the direct impacts of the 
excessive removal of aquatic species, many fishing 
methods are destructive and wasteful to the wider 
environment. Benthic trawling has destroyed vast 
areas of continental shelf habitat. Coral reef areas 
have been plagued by blast-fishing where the use of 
explosives destroys years of coral growth for a one- 
off catch of all species in an area. Poison-fishing 
has similar indiscriminate impacts in other areas. 
Bycatch (which may be of no commercial value) 
makes up a substantial proportion of many 
fisheries, and because it is not directly targeted, 
may also not be covered by legal regimes of fishing 
in protected areas: turtles, sharks, seabirds and 
other species are regularly killed in nets and on 
longlines. Lost fishing gear continues to snag and 
catch species, perhaps for many years, and can drift 
into protected areas. 

Minerals 

Non-renewable mineral deposits and hydrocarbon 
reserves are found in all of the world's terrestrial 
and marine biomes. Mining often poses the first 
threat to natural ecosystems and can be 
responsible for m^ajor changes to ecology through 



84 



Threats to protected areas 



its direct impacts, pollution, and its role in 
promoting unplanned and uncontrolled develop- 
ment (Finger, 1999; Brandon, Redford & Sanderson, 
19981. The search for new resources has continued 
to expand into increasingly remote regions, 
including many sensitive environments rich in bio- 
diversity or harboring threatened species. It has 
been suggested, for example, that by 2007 more 
than 80 percent of new oilfield development will 
take place in the tropics, where most of the 
world's biodiversity is concentrated (Conservation 
International, 1997). 

There are environmental and social impacts at 
each stage of the mining process. The trends toward 
open-pit mining and low-grade ores has increased 
tailings or waste products, including crushed rock, 
cyanide (in gold and silver mines), radioactive 
waste (in uranium mines), sulfuric acid, and heavy 
metals. Similarly, the wide-ranging methods of 
extraction of fossil fuels, on land and underwater, 
and the high risks of pollution during transport, use, 
and disposal mean that a very wide range of 
impacts is possible. 

Many of the proposed locations for new or 
expanded natural resource extraction are in, 
or adjacent to, protected areas. Conflicts clearly 
arise between extractive activities and the need to 
maintain biodiversity values. As the demand for 
mineral resources continues to rise, and as existing 
reserves become exhausted, it seems unlikely that 
natural resource extraction can be kept out of all 
protected areas. Increasingly, however, there have 
been moves to engage with extractive industry, to 
develop a dialogue and establish agreements and 
protocols to restrict activities, mitigate damage, and 
restore exploited areas. While conflicts will doubt- 
less continue in some areas, the extractive industry 
is increasingly being treated as a key stakeholder 
with interests in protected areas. 

To date it has been impossible to fully gauge 
the true scale of these impacts on the world's 
thousands of individual protected areas. However, 
at an international level, the impacts on World 
Heritage sites have been well documented 
(Philips, 2001). Those affected by mining in recent 
years include: Kakadu National Park (Australia), 
Mt Nimba iGuinea/Cote d'lvoire], Kamchatka 
National Park (Russian Federation], and Lorentz 
National Park (Indonesia] [Rossler, 2000; Philips, 
2000). These sites are among the most highly 
valued protected areas in the world in terms of 
their universal biodiversity value. If these most 



prized of sites suffer pressures from extractive 
industry activities it must be assumed that the 
problems of mining relative to other national and 
international protected areas (such as Wetlands of 
International Importance (Ramsar sites] and/or 
UNESCO Man and Biosphere reserves (MAB 
reserves] occur widely. 

lUCN Amman Recommendation - "go and no-go 
areas" 

Frequently, national legislation determines 
whether natural resource extraction activities are 
permitted within protected areas or their buffer 
zones. Mining may be prohibited within many 
protected areas in some countries but acceptable 
in others. Concern about mining within protected 
areas persuaded lUCN members to propose a 
recommendation at the 2000 World Conservation 
Congress in Amman that, among other things, 
governments ban mining in Category l-IV 
protected areas (Dudley & Stolton, 2002). 
Significant efforts by lUCN over the previous four 
years or so led to the adoption of the Amman 
Recommendation in 2000. Resolution 2.82, on the 
protection and conservation of biological diversity 
of protected areas from the negative impacts of 
mining and exploration, identifies that mining 
should not take place in lUCN Categories l-IV 
protected areas and only under strict conditions in 
Categories V and VI. This Declaration and the work 



Volunteers at Cotwall 
End Local Nature 
Reserve, Dudley, 
clearing Japanese 
Knotweed [Fallopia 
japonica), an invasive 
alien species in the 
United Kingdom. 




85 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 3.2: WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 

One of the tools available to the World Heritage 
Committee to support States Parties to the World 
Heritage Convention (see Chapter 11 is the "List of 
World Heritage in Danger". Frequently dubbed as the 
"Danger List", it is a "list of the property appearing in 
the World Heritage List for the conservation of which 
major operations are necessary and for which 
assistance has been requested under the Convention" 
(Article 1 1 . paragraph A of the Convention). 

In early 2006 there were 13 natural sites in the 
"Danger List" in 9 countries, including one 
transboundary site (Mount Nimba in Cote d'lvoire and 
Guinea). Four of the these countries, incorporating 
nine sites, were affected by armed conflicts. The 
remainder were threatened by a range of factors, 
including water diversion, poaching, illegal 
settlements, unsustainable tourism and invasive 
species. A number of sites have recently been 
removed from the list, including Djoudj Bird 
Sanctuary in Senegal and Ichkeul National Parl< in 
Tunisia, as a result of improved management. 

The why and how of the Committee's decisions to 
place sites on the "Danger List" have been subjects of 
heated debate in recent years. States Parties to the 
Convention and other stakeholders in World Heritage 
conservation have often taken diametrically opposite 
views on whether or not the Committee has the legal 
authority to declare a site to be "in Danger" when the 
State Party does not agree, or when it explicitly 
opposes the Committee's decision on the matter A 
precedent was set as early as in 1992, when the 
Committee placed several sites on the "Danger List" 
without the explicit agreement of the States Parties 
concerned. Since 1999 the Committee undertook a 
complete revision of the Operational Guidelines for 
the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. 



While this presented an opportunity, and provoked 
considerable debate, the clauses pertaining to this 
issue were left unchanged in the Guidelines and the 
Committee's option to place a site any time in the 
"Danger List " remains open. 

In October 1996, when a World Heritage 
workshop was convened at lUCN's First World 
Conservation Congress in MontreaL Canada, the 
Committee was deliberating on the need to declare 
Ecuador's Galapagos National Park, a flagship World 
Heritage site, as a "Danger site". At that workshop a 
site-representative insisted that Galapagos is like any 
other protected area in a less developed country 
facing a range of threats; immigration due to 
economic opportunities offered by a booming tourist 
industry, introduction of alien species, illegal and 
unsustainable fisheries etc. But his management's 
commitment to mitigate those threats was quite 
deliberate and hence he maintained that Galapagos 
did not deserve to be declared as a site In Danger. 

Questions regarding the merits and justifiability 
of the inclusion of a site in the List of World Heritage 
in Danger have been raised in many other cases such 
as: Yellowstone (USA); Simen (Ethiopia); Kakadu 
(Australia) and El Viscaino (Mexico), The Committee, 
in response to specific actions taken by the respective 
States Parties, decided against including Galapagos, 
Kakadu and El Viscaino in the "Danger List". 
Yellowstone was included in the List with the consent 
of the State Party In the case of Simen, Ethiopia, the 
Amhara Regional authorities, who assumed 
responsibility tor its management following 
decentralization of administration from Addis Ababa 
in 1996, objected to the Committee's decision 
although authorities in Addis Ababa did not take a 
strong view on the matter. However, difference of 



proceeding from it has shaped the development of 
many of the initiatives described, their proposed 
aims, and delivered outputs. 

Following the Amman Recommendation, no 
single perspective on conservation and extractive 
industry Impacts was agreed (Philips, 2001). 
However a broad consensus has started to emerge 
and protected areas are beginning to be recog - 
nized by the extractive industry as "sensitive 
areas". A number of extractive industry multi - 
nationals are starting to identify and screen where 



their existing operations are in relation to current 
protected areas and identify where proposed 
extractive industry operations may impact 
protected areas (BP, 2003). Some companies are 
making firm commitments not to undertake 
operations in international protected areas such 
as World Heritage sites or lUCN Management 
Category l-IV protected areas. 

In addition, a number of companies have 
begun to formulate biodiversity policies and intro- 
duce innovative operating management strategies 



86 



Threats to protected areas 



opinion between the Committee's position on the 
site's "in Danger" status and that of IRegional 
authorities closest to the site slowed communications 
between the World Heritage Centre and site- 
management on conservation problems and 
mitigation actions needed to restore the outstanding 
universal values of Simen. 

In October 2000, the role of the World Heritage in 
Danger Listing in promoting international co- 
operation for the conservation of World Natural 
Heritage became the subject of another workshop at 
lUCN's Second World Conservation Congress in 
Amman, Jordan. There a representative from the 
Amhara Region of Ethiopia re-iterated his displeasure 
on the lack of consultation and inadequate verification 
of information provided by consultant missions that 
seem to have led to the Committee's declaration of 
Simen as a site "in Danger". Discussions during that 
workshop however, convinced the Amhara auth- 
orities, as well as representatives of other natural 
World Heritage in Danger, that the intentions of the 
Committee in declaring sites to be "in Danger"" was to 
call for international action to conserve the site and 
remove prevailing threats to their integrity. Soon after 
the workshop a World Heritage Centre/IUCN mission 
was able to visit Simen and establish a rehabilitation 
program including benchmarks and indicators for 
measuring progress and determining the time in the 
future for removing Simen from the List of World 
Heritage in Danger 

Participants at the Amman workshop invited 
States Parties, World Heritage Centre and lUCN to 
reflect on the conditions under which threats to out- 
standing universal values of sites could rise to levels 
that may justify the declaration of a site as World 
Heritage in Danger. A monitoring regime for con- 
tinuous threats-analysis and threats-status assess- 
ment, including triggers that signify changes in 



threat-levels meriting the declaration of the site as 
World Heritage in Danger, needs to be part of the 
management of any area nominated for World 
Heritage designation. They also felt that the 
Committee must promote steps to make systematic 
monitoring regimes an integral part of World 
Heritage area management practice and invited the 
Committee to describe in sufficient detail, at the time 
when it decides to include a site in the List of World 
Heritage in Danger, the reasons for the listing along 
with practical actions to be taken, guidelines for 
implementing the actions and benchmarks for 
measuring progress. 

International debates surrounding the possible 
"Danger Listing" of Galapagos, El Viscaino, 
Yellowstone and other sites have improved responses 
of the global conservation community and donors to 
support actions to conserve sites "in Danger". In 
1999, the UN Foundation lUNFI targeted World 
Heritage sites containing biodiversity values of global 
significance as priorities for grant-aid. Since then 
several World Natural Heritage sites included at one 
time or another in the "Danger List" have received 
financial support 

There is still an urgent need to communicate the 
meaning and the value of "Danger Listing" to key 
partners, i.e. governments, NGOs, site-staff, local 
communities, private sector, donors and foundations 
etc. Special emphasis in any such campaign should 
be placed on removing the perception that the 
Committees interest in monitoring the state of 
conservation of World Heritage sites is an attempt 
to police the heritage conservation performance of 
less developed countries but rather to foster 
international co-operation to protect and effectively 
conserve World Heritage. 



and design principles and criteria. These are often 
in addition to existing company efforts in bio- 
diversity research and conservation relative to 
their operations. Whilst encouraging, such actions 
as these still remain restricted to a small selection 
of major multinationals. 

The issue of "no-go" for oil, gas, and mineral 
mining activities in protected areas will remain a 
key area of debate between extractive industry and 
conservation stakeholders. Indeed, it was keenly 
discussed at the World Parks Congress, Durban, 



South Africa, in 2003. Areas of divergence remain 
within and between industry and conservation 
groups. However, several proposals on how to 
move forward continue to be presented. The 
development and availability of decision-making 
frameworks and mechanisms, "best practice" 
guidelines, and metrics that consider protected 
areas may well assist with the more effective 
consideration of the relative costs and benefits of 
extraction at the planning stage. There remains a 
need tor their continued development, as well as 



87 



The world's protected areas 



In the Galapagos 
National Park goats, 
pigs, dogs, cats, rats, 
and many other species 
have altered ecosystem 
characteristics and 
contributed to the 
extinction of numerous 
endemic species. 




an Improved understanding and more widely 
available mechanisms of interpreting and applying 
lUCN Protected Area Management Categories. 

ALIEN SPECIES 

In the last few hundred years humans have greatly 
accelerated the rates and patterns of movements of 
a wide range of species. Dramatic increases in 
human migration, travel, and trade have begun to 
mix flora and fauna at the global level, across 
natural geographical barriers such as mountains, 
oceans, deserts, and rivers. In some cases, the 
barriers themselves have been removed with the 
building of canals or bridges. Although many 
introductions have been accidental, bringing so- 
called "silent invaders", there are also many cases 
of deliberate introductions of species, "purposeful 
invaders", including crops and livestock, but also 
wild species, to support new settlements or to 
"enhance" natural environments. In recent decades 
the constant trickle of species from one place to 
another has become a flood, following the boom in 
international trade and travel. It is estimated that at 
any given moment some 10 000 different species 
are being transported between biogeographic 
regions in ballast water tanks alone (Carlton, 19991. 
Only a proportion of species that are 



translocated from their natural habitats become 
established elsewhere - so-called alien species, 
and only a proportion of alien species become 
sufficiently abundant to have a major impact on 
the ecosystems in which they find themselves. 
Those that do, however, can be extremely dam- 
aging, to the extent that invasive alien species are 
now recognized to be one of the major threats 
to global biological diversity as well as a driving 
force behind declining quality of human life in 
many places. While larger species often receive 
attention, smaller or more hidden species, partic- 
ularly various kinds of pathogen, can be equally or 
more destructive. 

Islands have often been particularly sus- 
ceptible to the impacts of alien and invasive species. 
Remote islands are often home to endemic species. 
Ivlany are also used by seabirds as nesting colonies. 
Without natural predators, characteristics such as 
flightlessness have developed among birds, and 
species have not developed adequate defense 
responses to cope with an invasion of predators, 
grazers, or other competitors. In the Galapagos 
National Park goats, pigs, dogs, cats, rats, and 
other species have altered ecosystem charact- 
eristics and driven endemic species, including 
several endemic tortoise species, to extinction 



88 



Threats to protected areas 



(Schotield, 1989; Mauchamp, 1997). Feral pigs also 
threaten endemic species by eating the eggs of 
ground-nesting birds, giant tortoises, and sea 
turtles. In the 1970s, it was observed that a single 
pair of pigs destroyed 23 tortoise nests on Santa 
Cruz Island over a one-month period. 

In the Seychelles, endemic birds and reptiles 
were once widespread across the islands. The 
impact of rats, mice, and cats have decimated the 
bird populations. Today the five remaining rat-free 
islands of the Seychelles are all protected areas, 
and provide a critical resource for the survival of 
several species. Similarly, nesting seabirds have 
proved highly susceptible, and rat-free islands 
remain some of the only major breeding grounds for 
petrels, terns, and boobies in all oceans. The 11 
small rat-free islands of the British Indian Ocean 
Territory have all recently been declared protected 
areas and are used by up to 200 000 pairs of 
breeding seabirds, whereas, by contrast, the 
remaining rat-infested islands are largely devoid of 
nesting birds. The fire tree or fayatree Myrica faya 
has increased within Hawaii Volcanoes National 
Park from one tree in 1 967 to cover 1 5 900 hectares, 
reducing the available space for the many endemic 
species that once thrived in this environment 
(Camrath et at., 20011. The number of naturalized 
exotic plants species 12 0711 in New Zealand now 
exceeds the number of native vascular plants 
12 0551 IWilliams & West, 20001. 

Four major management options are available 
for the prevention or control of alien species; 

Prevention - legal measures, combined with 
intensive policing, may help to prevent many 
introductions. The the International Maritime 
Organization IIMOl has developed the International 
Convention for the Control and Management of 
Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments to minimize the 
transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and 
pathogens. Many countries and sub-national 
jurisdictions had unilaterally developed or are 
developing national or local legislation. These 
include Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, New 
Zealand, the USA, various individual states within 
the USA, and various individual ports around the 
world, such as Buenos Aires in Argentina, Scapa 
Flow In Scotland, and Vancouver in Canada IGlobal 
Ballast Water Management Programme, 20051. The 
International Convention for the Control and 
Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments 
will both harmonize and improve controls at a 
global level. 



In order to prevent future invasion of alien 
species into protected areas, public education is 
critical. Tourists and visitors are frequently unaware 
of laws and regulations to prevent introductions of 
alien species, or of the serious biological harm such 
species can create. In the last decade, successful 
public awareness campaigns on native biodiversity 
have been conducted in New Zealand. 

Accurate information to support identifying 
and highlighting problem species can be very 
valuable. Databases of invasive alien species with 
information on distribution, pathways, and manage- 
ment options are proving helpful for prevention; the 
global database produced by the Global Invasive 
Species Programme is one such instrument. 

Early detection - can be a critical tool 
leading to action. When the marine algae 
Caulerpa taxifoUa was first observed in the 
Mediterranean, close to the marine aquarium in 
Monaco, in 1984, it covered only a single square 
meter. Unfortunately nothing was done, and there 
are now well over 100 separate colonies in six 
different Mediterranean countries, and the 
species is causing local devastation to native 
species as well as to fisheries and the diving 
industry. Identifying alien species in the early 
stages of establishment is the most economically 
efficient method to prevent potential threats. 

Eradication - is an option in certain circum- 
stances, notably before an invasion has become too 
large, or on small islands. Eradication is the 
removal of invasive species from the invaded place 
or a reduction of their density below sustainable 
levels. New Zealand, in particular, has led the world 
in developing techniques for the successful removal 
from small islands of alien species such as the 
house mouse Mus muscuius, black rat Rattus 
rattus. Norway rat Rattus norvegicus. and European 
rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus. In mid-1997 the pig 
eradication program on Santiago island in the 
Galapagos National Park, Ecuador, was given 
priority status. In May 2002 Santiago Island was 
declared pig free - the first time in at least 127 
years, and the largest ever island from which an 
established pig population was successfully 
eradicated (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 20051. 

In Australia, rapid detection (within six 
monthsl, isolation, and intensive chemical 
treatment led to the successful control of an out- 
break of black striped mussel in Darwin in 1999. 
In California, a sabellid worm Terebrasabella 
heterouncinata. which encrusts native gastropod 



89 



The world's protected areas 



mollusks, reducing their growth rates and weak- 
ening their shells, was introduced in the 1980s. 
Manual removal of infested shells and of other 
susceptible individuals was undertaken by large 
numbers of volunteers Isome 1.6 million mollusks 
were removed from the waters around the 
infestation). It is believed that the large reduction in 
density of available hosts led to the demise of the 
invader Following the demise, the area was relat- 
ively rapidly repopulated by gastropod mollusks 
from adjacent areas (Myers et al., 20001. 

Control - is the only remaining option for many 
invasive species. If numbers can be kept sufficiently 
low and certain areas can be kept clear, then native 
species and ecosystems can continue to function. 

Efforts to eradicate or control invasive alien 
species include mechanical removal (tree felling, 
hunting, and trapping], the use of chemical 
controls (poisons, herbicides, etc.], and the use of 
biological controls. There are problems and risks, 
particularly associated with the use of chemical 
and biological controls. The release, for example, 
of cats to control rats has invariably led to a wider 
suite of problems from two invasive aliens rather 
than one. In the Pacific, the deliberate introduction 
of the predatory snail Euglandina rosea, often 
known as the rosy wolf snail, to control feral 
populations of the giant African land snaAAchatina 
fuUca had little impact on the latter, but led to the 
extinction of many endemic partulid snails 
{Partula and Samoana spp.j, particularly in French 
Polynesia (Civeyrel & Simberloff, 1996; Murray et 
al., 19881. Chemical controls can have con- 
siderable success leg. the use of the poison 1080 
to control populations of Red foxes Vulpes vulpes 
and other species in Western Australia], but unless 
carefully used may have undesirable impacts on 
non-target species. 

Growing awareness of the problems of 
invasive aliens has led to the establishment of a 
number of groups, including the lUCN Invasive 
Species Specialist Group and the Global Invasive 
Species Programme (GISP), coordinated by the 
Scientific Committee on Problems of the 
Environment (SCOPE], in collaboration with lUCN, 
and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux Inter- 
national ICAB International]. The problems of 
invasive alien species are also highlighted within 
the Convention on Biological Diversity 11992] and 
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 
Sea (Montego Bay, 1982]. In addition, GISP's Global 
Strategy on Invasive Alien Species (2001) lists a 



further A2 international conventions, resolutions, 
and agreements which address or mention alien 
invasive species. 

IMPACTS FROM BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES 

Many of the most fundamental threats come from 
outside protected area boundaries, and cannot be 
tackled effectively by management choices made 
within the protected area or its buffer zones. These 
can range from relatively local issues, such as 
changes to the hydrology of a watershed, through to 
national or global issues such as water and air 
pollution, and climate change. 

Management of such problems inevitably 
relies on often-distant political decisions, and 
protected area managers have, until recently, done 
little more than add their voices to those calling for 
better pollution control or rational watershed 
management. However, as the reality of issues such 
as climate change becomes increasingly accepted, 
managers are recognizing that they must consider 
potential impacts in the design and management of 
protected areas. 

Dams and drainage 

Freshwater protected areas are particularly 
vulnerable to impacts originating elsewhere in the 
catchment, sometimes far distant from the area 
itself and quite possibly in a different country. For 
example, the environmental and social impacts of 
large-scale hydroelectric schemes have received 
increasing attention, with critics arguing that their 
costs outweigh the potential benefits. Large dams 
are identified as causing major social upheaval 
through displacement of human communities, 
environmental damage by diverting rivers and 
flooding land, and more generally, impacts to the 
hydrological cycle and to local climate patterns 
(World Commission on Dams, 2000]. Over half of the 
world's large river systems are affected by dams, 
including the eight most biogeographically diverse 
(Nilsson et al 2005] and dams have affected a 
number of important protected areas IGujja & 
Pernn, 1999]. 

Because they affect protected areas or 
potential protected areas downstream, sometimes 
creating dramatic changes in ecology, dams are 
seen as a significant threat. Although the large 
reservoirs associated with dams can themselves 
create important habitats for waterfowl and fish, the 
constantly fluctuating levels make it difficult for 
shoreline species to survive, simplifying and 



90 



Threats to protected areas 




Dam construction, 
either outside or wittiin 
protected areas, can 
have significant short 
and long term impacts 
on protected areas. 



limiting biodiversity. By flooding existing wetlands. 
dams can dramatically reduce the environmental 
richness of a particular area. In India, Keoladeo 
National Park and World Heritage Site, although 
once a flood-prone area, now faces drought 
following the construction of the Panchna Dam in 
the catchment (Brar, 19961. However, in some 
instances, dams can support the establishment and 
long-term maintenance of protected areas that 
form their catchments, as is the case with Canaima 
National Park and World Heritage Site in Venezuela, 
Blue Mountains National Park and World Heritage 
Site in Australia and Nakai-Nam Theun National 
Protected Area in Lao PDR. 

Marine and freshwater pollution 

Marine and freshwater protected areas are also 
susceptible to water-borne pollution arising from 
beyond their boundaries. This includes both 
occasional pollution events that destroy large 
numbers of plants and animals in a short time and 
chronic pollution that gradually degrades and imp- 
overishes the biodiversity. A number of important 
pollutants include concentrated nutrients, pest- 
icides, and trace metals and other toxic chemicals. 
Concentrated nutrients cause excessive algal 
growth and, when the algae die and decay. 



shortages of oxygen: a process known as eutrophic- 
ation. Key pollutants are sewage, soluble fertilizers, 
and pulp mill effluent. For example, the discharge 
of wastewater from paper mills and sugar plants 
into East Dongting Lake has seriously polluted the 
ecosystem in Dongdongtinghu Nature Reserve in 
China IChen&Yan, 19961. 

Pesticides and other biocides that have 
leached or drifted from their point of application - 
typically agricultural land, but also as a result of 
urban pest controls and even aquaculture - can 
cause pollution in protected areas far away. 
Persistent pesticides such as those based on 
organochlorines are particularly dangerous. The 
latter are now found in high concentrations in the 
body fat of marine mammals thousands of kilo - 
meters from where they were used (Johnston & 
McRea, 19921. Some freshwater species are 
extremely sensitive to pesticides IManson, 19961. 
The Wadden Sea Trilateral Conservation Area, 
which straddles Denmark, Germany, and the 
Netherlands, is currently being polluted by tribu- 
tyltin (TBTj and pesticides. There now is increasing 
evidence that some pesticides are hampering the 
grazing ability of zooplankton, and herbicides are 
interfering with the photosynthesis of phyto- 
plankton lEnemark, WesemiJller & Gerdiken, 1 9981. 



91 



The world's protected areas 




Climate change is 
believed to be affecting 
food supplies for polar 
bears iUrsus maritimus] 
in the Arctic. 



Trace metals and other persistent toxic 
chemicals enter water systems from mining 
operations, factories, domestic waste, or from 
shipping and boat maintenance. In Lake Nakuru 
National Park in Kenya, settlement and devel- 
opment of industry around the lake has increased 
levels of organic and chemical pollutants, 
especially oil and heavy metals, plus increased 
sewage discharges (Stolton, Dudley & Rowell, 
19971. In April 1998, a tailings dam burst at the Los 
Frailes mine in Spain, spilling 5 million m^ of toxic 
waste into rivers near the Dohana National Park 
and World Heritage Site. The resulting floods 
affected 5 000-7 000 hectares of farmland and 
marsh, destroyed bird habitats, and killed large 
numbers of fish (Carey, Dudley & Stolton, 2000). 

Atmospheric pollution 

Atmospheric pollution is an important threat to 
both terrestrial and marine protected areas, 
particularly in the more developed countries, 
including industrialized parts of Europe, North 
America, and Asia. One of the most detailed surveys 
to date assessed the impacts on wildlife through a 
literature survey, which identified effects on 1 300 
species, including 11 mammals, 29 birds, 10 
amphibians, 398 higher plants, 305 fungi, 238 
lichens, and 65 invertebrates. The results showed 
that among plants alone more than 100 species 



have been extirpated, sometimes from quite large 
areas, due to air pollution in the UK (Tickle, 19961. 
Protected areas have tended to be established on 
land that is less suitable for agriculture or other 
commercial uses and thus often on acidic or base- 
poor soils, where the effects of acidification are 
generally more acute. 

Connected ecosystems 

Many mobile animal species spend a part of 
their lives outside protected areas. These include 
migratory species, but also others which depend on 
different areas at different phases in their life 
history, such as pelagic fish species, that come into 
coastal channels or into mangrove forests to breed. 
In some cases the daily movements of species may 
take them in and out of protected areas. In all these 
cases, the adjacent protected area becomes 
irrelevant, and legitimate activities such as hunting 
and fishing, or the destruction of a critical habitat, 
can severely reduce the numbers of a species able 
to return to, or to utilize, a protected area. This in 
turn may undermine the entire raison d'etre of a 
site, and even undermine its ecological functioning. 
The solution to such problems can only be derived 
from the design of more holistic measures, such as 
the establishment of protected area networks and 
migratory corridors (often international), or other 
legal protection regimes such as seasonal or 
species-based hunting restrictions outside of 
protected areas. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

During the course of the 20th century, the average 
surface temperature (combining surface air 
temperature over land and sea) across the planet 
increased by 0.6°C. The rate of change is accel- 
erating: ten of the eleven warmest years since acc- 
urate records began in 850 have been since 1995 
with 1998 almost certainly the single warmest year 
in the past millennium. The two second warmest 
years on record have both been since then (2003 and 
2005). Since the 1960s there has been an estimated 
1 percent decrease in the extent of snow cover and 
a two-week decrease in the average duration of 
snow and ice cover (northern hemisphere). The 
extent of Arctic sea ice has declined by 10-15 
percent since the 1950s, with a 40 percent decline in 
sea ice thickness during the late summer/early 
autumn. Sea levels have risen during this period. 
Changes around the UK, when adjusted for isostatic 
rebound, vary from 0.3 mm/year to 1 .8 mm/yean 



92 



Threats to protected areas 



Such changes have already occurred, and 
have been accurately measured. There Is little 
doubt about their veracity. They tally closely with 
expected changes predicted from the observations 
of atmospheric change. Most notable has been a 
31 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the 
start of the industrial revolution 117501. This is 
largely linked to the burning of fossil fuels, with a 
further 25 percent coming mainly from land-use 
change and specially from deforestation. Other 
greenhouse gases , including methane and nitrous 
oxide, have also increased dramatically. There is 
good evidence that these gases have not existed in 
these concentrations in the global atmosphere for 
at least A20 000 years, and probably not for 20 
million years. With these atmospheric changes 
there are also the beginnings of changes in ocean 
chemistry - a higher partial pressure of CO2 has 
already led to a 0.1 unit reduction in the pH of 
ocean surface waters. 

Models have been built to simulate future 
change in atmospheric conditions, taking into 
account anthropogenic and natural forcing. The 
best available models predict temperature rises in 
the range 1.-4 to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100. 
Such figures are global averages. They will be 
considerably higher over larger land areas than 
over the ocean. They will also be more extreme at 
higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Over 
the same period sea levels are projected to rise 
between 9 and 88 centimeters. Other changes are 
predicted, but with lower reliability. These include 
higher precipitation in northern latitudes and the 
Antarctic over the winter, but more variable 
changes at lower latitudes, with greater inter- 
annual variation. Changes in the extent, strength, 
and distribution of extreme events such as 
droughts, forest fires, floods, and tropical storms 
are difficult to predict. Similarly, although some 
models predict changes to some of the main ocean 
circulation patterns (with potentially massive 
regional climatic impacts], most predict gradual 
shifts rather than rapid cessation or reversal. 

Innpacts on biodiversity and protected areas 
Some impacts of climate change have already been 
widely observed. In Europe, studies showed an 
increase in the growing season of some 11 days 
between 1959 and 1996. Of a sample of 35 butterfly 
species in Europe, about two thirds were found to 
have shifted their ranges northwards by distances 
of 35-340 kilometers during the 20th century. 



Changes in the incidences of pests and diseases 
have also been observed. The likely impacts of 
global climate change on forests are still being 
debated, but there seems to be general consensus 
that the boreal coniferous forests are particularly 
vulnerable to both range restrictions and increasing 
fire frequency. Another forest type that is especially 
vulnerable to climate change is tropical montane 
cloud forest, which depends upon clouds to supply it 
with atmospheric moisture. Research has shown 
that the mean cloud base is moving upwards on 
tropical mountains as a result of climatic shifts. The 
forest species are not able to migrate at a com- 
parable rate and. in any case, range shifts will be 
limited by the land area existing at higher 
elevations. Local extinctions in cloud forest 
amphibians, including the Costa Rican golden toad 
Bufo periglenes, not recorded since 1989, have been 
attributed to climatic fluctuations that may be 
linked to long-term global climate change (Pounds 
etai. 19991. 

Future ecosystem changes are likely to be far 
more extreme, and also more complex, as climate 
change accelerates. In many cases there are likely 
to be synergistic responses where the impacts of 
multifaceted change may be different from any 
apparent "sum of the parts". 

Protected areas represent static surfaces that 
are increasingly hemmed in by human land uses, 
like islands. Quite aside from the problems of small 
or isolated populations, such islands are. to varying 
degrees, closed off from the sorts of dynamic 
responses that may be required for ecosystem 
survival in the face of changing climates. Small 
fragments also lack the resilience that comes from 
the genetic diversity and broad spatial extent of 
unimpacted ecosystems. 

In a recent analysis. WWF (2003) categorized 
the types of climate change impacts on protected 
areas as: 

Disappearance of Habitats and Ecosystems 
This is clearly the most drastic of impacts for 
protected areas, and one which is anticipated to 
affect low-lying, coastal and marine areas, 
principally coral reefs, mangroves and saltmarshes. 
Indeed, these kinds of impacts are already being 
recorded at a number of sites as a result of sea- 
level rise, unseasonable flooding and increased sea 
temperature. Examples include the Sundarbans 
National Park and World Heritage Site, where an 
estimated 75 km^ of mangroves has been lost to 



93 



The world's protected areas 



Fires viewed from space 
in the Blue Mountains 
National Park, 
Australia. 




sea-level rise (although aggravated by deltaic 
subsidence). In a worst-case scenario the Inter- 
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCCI pre - 
diets that 75 percent of the mangroves will 
disappear as a result of sea-level rise. As well as 
the loss of biodiversity and natural heritage values, 
it has been estimated that it would cost almost $300 
million to construct 2 200 km of cyclone/ flood 
embankments. A further annual cost of $6 million 
would be required for maintenance to mitigate the 
impacts of tropical storms (Dudley and Stolton, 
20031. We have already seen, in December 200^, the 
value of natural coastal ecosystems, especially 
mangroves, in mitigating the impacts of the Asian 
tsunami. Although the cause of tsunamis is 
geological, the predicted increase in the frequency 
and intensity of cyclonic storms and resulting sea 
surge arising from climate change is likely to have 
similar impacts on low-lying ecosystems and 
human communities. 

Catastrophic Long-Term Changes to Ecosystems 
Even where ecosystems are not completely 
eliminated, there are a range of impacts that may 
cause major and irreversible damage. One of the 
most alarming predictions is the complete loss of 



summer ice in the Arctic within 50 years, with 
potentially catastrophic impact on polar bears, 
seals, and other species, as well as on indigenous 
communities. Similarly, break-up of the Antarctic 
ice sheet will impact on penguin populations. In 
1998 it was reported that the Adelie Penguin 
population had declined by 33 percent in the last 25 
years as a result of reduced winter sea ice habitat. 
More recently, we have seen satellite images of 
major ice fractures in the Antarctic. 

Coral bleaching events are now recorded with 
increased frequency, but notably in 1998 when 
tropical sea surface temperatures were the highest 
on record. Climate change is postulated to be the 
primary cause of steadily rising marine temp- 
eratures, in concert with more frequent El Nino and 
La Nina-type events. The death of coral reefs would 
have a severe impact on the world's most valuable 
protected coral reef ecosystems, such as the Great 
Barrier Reef in Australia and the Aldabra Atoll in the 
Seychelles. It would also affect the innumerable 
reefs that provide subsistence and livelihoods for 
island and coastal communities in the tropical 
regions of the world. 

A rise in water levels in estuaries and shallow 
coastal areas will reduce the size and connectivity of 



U 



Threats to protected areas 



small islands and protected areas ILal, Harasawa & 
Murdiyarso, 20011. A study in tlie USA concluded 
that over 11 000 linear km of protected coastline, 
including 80 coastal protected areas, are at risk 
from sea-level rise (Beavers. 20011. 

Catastrophic Temporary Changes to Ecosystems 
This includes the impacts of more frequent long- 
term drought events on ecosystems and species. 
especially vs/etlands, but also a wide range of other 
ecosystems that already have a fine balance of 
ecosystem dynamics and seasonal aridity. The con- 
sequences of sustained droughts can result not only 
in impacts associated with water deficits but also 
the frequency of catastrophic fires that can 
potentially change even fire-adapted ecosystems. 
This occurred in Eastern Australia where wildfires 
caused by lightning strikes following sustained 
drought resulted in severe damage to alpine 
vegetation in Kosciusko National Park where such 
vegetation was already located at the edge of an 
ecological range and susceptible to climate change. 
The Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage 
Site also suffered major damage from forest fires, 
and water levels in the catchments protected within 
the national park, which provide water to Sydney's i 
million people, fell drastically. 

The impacts on ecosystems that are less fire- 
adapted are likely to be long lasting. The IPCC 
predicts that the frequency of forest fires is likely to 
increase in the coniferous forests of boreal Asia. We 
have already seen the catastrophic impacts of 
anthropogenic tires on the tropical forests of 
Southeast Asia and the subsequent regional smoke 
haze, causing major environmental and health 
problems costing millions of dollars. Further 
deforestation in the Amazon region is predicted to 
result in less evapotranspiration and less rainfall in 
dry periods, estimated to decrease average rainfall 
by 32 percent (Lean e( a/., 19961. These examples 
highlight the circular nature of climate change, as 
humans continue to reinforce and worsen the root 
causes of climate change through large-scale forest 
clearance and burning. 

It is predicted that changes in fire regimes in 
Africa will impact on forest plant communities that 
form centres of endemism, many of which contain 
protected areas. More than 90 percent of world 
antelope and gazelle species are concentrated in 
Africa and it is predicted that climate change- 
induced habitat alteration will alter the distribution 
range of many of these (Desanker & Madadza, 




20011. Considering that wild biodiversity forms an 
important resource for African people, both con- 
sumptive and non-consumptive, major changes in 
the distribution and availability of key species could 
further impact negatively on the economy and liveli- 
hoods of societies in Africa. 

Dramatic Changes to l-labitats and Ecosystems 
These changes cover issues such as melting 
montane ice caps and glaciers, and species shifts 
to cooler latitudes and altitudes. There are now 
stark examples of retreating glaciers, and 
disappearing ice and snow cover on the mountains 
of the world. For example, the snow and ice cap on 
Mount Kilimanjaro has been in retreat for several 
decades and is predicted to completely disappear 



The southeastern side of 
Kibo, the highest peak of 
Kilimanjaro ItopI, and 
(below) Kilimanjaro's 
icecap in 1962 (yellow), 
and 2000 (black outline). 



95 



The world's protected areas 



The golden toad [Bufo 
periglenes] in the 
Monleverde cloud 
forest, Costa Rica. It 
has not been recorded 
since 1989. 




by 2020; it formed more than 1 1 000 years ago, but 
tias decreased by 82 percent over the past century 
(Thompson et al., 2002). Thus, some of the most 
iconic protected naturat heritage places in the 
world are lil<ely to undergo major transformation. 
In many protected areas the values for which they 
were established will alter or diminish as species 
that are able to shift their range outside the 
boundaries of established protected areas. The 
extent of such shifts has been measured in some 
areas. For example, in the European Alps global 
warming is believed to be the cause for the up- 
ward altitudinal movement of some plant species 
by ^-A meters per decade and the loss of some 
taxa restricted to high elevations, threatening the 
values in areas such as the Swiss National Parl< 
IWWF, 20031. 

Responses 

Efforts to slow and halt climate change are being 
addressed by the UN Framework Convention on 
Climate Change and its protocols. 

At the same time, there is an urgent need to 
consider more practical responses to the ongoing 
problem. Climate change will not cease even when 
greenhouse gas emissions are halted. The impacts 
of climate change will be great, and protected areas 
will suffer particularly from these impacts. A 
number of responses are being considered to 



reduce the impacts. These can be considered under 
three broad headings. 

Avoidance 

Certain aspects of climate change may be pre- 
vented through direct physical intervention. 
Examples of this include the building of barriers to 
prevent flooding of adjacent sites by sea-level rise; 
riverine management, including diversion or 
irrigation to maintain stable conditions in wetland 
areas. Other forms of impact avoidance might 
include the removal of species that migrate into 
sites, the control of pests that benefit from benign 
climatic conditions, or the building of fire 
management systems in the face of increasing 
threats from fire. 

Another means of avoiding impacts is to 
prevent or remove the synergistic threats that might 
be enhanced through a changing climate. By 
minimizing other disturbances, such as alien 
invasive species introductions or unnatural sources 
of fire, the impacts of climate change may be 
avoided, or at least delayed. 

Alleviation 

In other cases change may be unavoidable, but 
direct measures may allow for the amelioration of 
impacts, often taking action at a systematic level 
rather than responding at individual sites. By 2050 
many species are predicted to have changed their 
ranges by tens of kilometers, or by hundreds of 
meters in altitude. This may take them beyond the 
natural boundaries of existing protected areas, or 
into the boundaries of others. 

One of the most important measures to deal 
with such changes, which is now being addressed 
by a number of protected area systems plans, is the 
concept of biological corridors (discussed further in 
Chapter 41. By ensuring connectivity between pro- 
tected areas, the natural migration of species and 
even entire ecosystems may be supported. Even if a 
species is threatened by change in one site, 
changing conditions may favor its survival at 
another, while migration corridors will support its 
movement to that new location over years or 
perhaps decades. 

Such knowledge should also be used in the 
planning of individual new protected areas. Where 
there is some idea of direction in climate change 
trends, and hence in potential changes in species 
range, it is logical to try to encompass a broad part 
of key species ranges, over latitudinal, altitudinal, or 



96 



Threats to protected areas 



other gradients. It may also be reasonable to look 
for edge-of-range areas if these areas are likely to 
become Increasingly hospitable to key species, or 
even to produce potential future range maps to help 
in system design. 

There is quite good evidence that certain 
species, notably long-lived sedentary species such 
as trees, may not be able to migrate as fast as the 
changing climatic conditions. Under certain 
circumstances it may be considered necessary to 
enhance natural migration to accommodate this, 
by transporting tree species to new locations 
where climatic conditions permit. lAlthough this 
may sound like unacceptable interference, there is 
good evidence that "natural" migration patterns 
have often followed such rare "long jumps", but 
that these same processes are today thwarted by 
habitat fragmentation). 

It is only a small step from this to consider the 
creation of new habitats where natural migration 
might not occur sufficiently quickly (e.g. islands). 
Conservationists are also becoming engaged in the 
current dialogues relating to carbon sequestration. 
There are a number of schemes that are proposing 
to create or to restore forest ecosystems as a 
means of offsetting CO2 production. With proper 
planning, such new habitats could provide a critical 
benefit for biodiversity conservation. 

Adjustment 

Perhaps linked to the processes of alleviation are 
the processes of adapting to change. It may be 
necessary to "let go" of some key species or 
habitats from protected areas under changing 
conditions, allowing for drying out. flooding, and 
emigration or immigration processes, and changing 
management regimes appropriately. With sea-level 
rise, it may be appropriate to allow flooding of 
coastal habitats, but where possible efforts should 
be made to support migration rather than a 
squeezing of the coastal habitat zonation. It may 



also be relevant to designate, or even to create, 
areas of new habitat, and new protected areas, as 
new patterns of climatic conditions evolve. 

As with all aspects of protected areas 
management, it is critical to monitor change, 
including climatic parameters, the ecological 
responses, and the impacts of management inter- 
ventions in as many sites as possible. The transfer 
of knowledge and information, including planning 
tools and successes and failures in management 
response, between sites will greatly improve 
management efficiency in the face of changing 
climates, and will reduce costs. The wider 
application of models to develop predictive surfaces 
and support management planning or network 
design will enable an increase in pre-emptive 
management responses. 

These responses to climate change may 
appear drastic. In many cases they will not be 
needed for years or decades, while our own 
systems for avoiding, alleviating, or adjusting may 
have become far more sophisticated. It will be 
necessary, in all cases, to proceed carefully - 
interference with natural processes can lead to 
greater problems. 

Climate change is bringing into focus some of 
the key problems of reliance on protected areas as 
the main tool for in situ biodiversity conservation, 
most notably those associated with trying to 
maintain small isolated populations in a 
"wilderness" of agricultural, degraded, or urban 
landscapes. Discussions about avoiding or miti- 
gating the impacts, or even of adapting, are some- 
what belittled by the sheer magnitude of the 
problems, but there is little choice. Climate change 
will doubtless claim many victims in the efforts to 
preserve natural landscapes. It will be essential to 
keep up the pressure to halt greenhouse gas 
emissions, but immediate action may also need to 
be considered in many sites. 



97 



The world's protected areas 



Chapter U 



Protected areas in the wider context 



Contributors. M. Lockwood and G. Worboys: Kaa-lya del Gran Ctiaco National Parl<: M. Painter: Species conservation 
and traditional resource ownership. Yadua Taba. 0. Watling; Private protected areas: M. Spalding and £ Carter. 
International trends in protected area governance: P. Dearden. M. Bennett, and J. Johnston: Corridors: C. Boyd: 
Community Conserved Areas: A. Kothariet ai: lUCN PA Management Categories: S. Chape: Participatory planning and 
management - the mixed experience of the Galapagos Marine Reserve: G. Bornni-Feyerabend and A. Tye. 



The progress made In setting up protected areas 
was celebrated at the lUCN Vth World Parks 
Congress (WPCl, in Durban, South Africa in 2003. 
The 3 000 people present also recognized the many 
values of protected areas and their role in bringing 
"benefits beyond boundaries" to millions of people. 
But, as we have seen in Chapter 3, protected areas 
are under threat as never before. They are exposed 
to pollution and climate change, irresponsible tour- 
ism, insensitive infrastructure, and ever-increasing 
demands for land, water, and other resources. 
Many protected areas lack political support and are 
short of financial and other resources. There are 
still too many gaps in the global protected areas 
system, management is often poor, and too often 
local communities are alienated from, rather than 
linked to, protected areas. 

The Parties to the Convention on Biological 
Diversity recognized this when they agreed their 
Programme of Work on Protected Areas at Kuala 
Lumpur in 2004. One of the program's goals was "to 
substantially improve site-based protected area 
planning and management". An ambitious target 
was adopted, namely: all protected areas to have 
effective management in existence by 2012, using 
participatory and science-based site planning 
processes that incorporate clear biodiversity 
objectives, targets, management strategies, and 
monitoring programs, drawing upon existing 
methodologies and a long-term management plan 
with active stakeholder involvement. This chapter 
presents the wider context, both ecological and 
social, in which protected areas need to operate, 
while Chapter 5 provides a brief overview of pro- 
tected area management and the challenges faced 
by management agencies. 



SOCIAL CONTEXT AND CHANGING PARADIGMS 

Protected area policy and management is strongly 
influenced by prevailing social and economic 
circumstances, as well as cultural and ethical 
norms. Managing protected areas is essentially a 
social process. The meanings, purposes, and 
management of protected areas are not static, but 
develop in conjunction with wider social, 
economic, and cultural influences. There is a 
plurality of views about how we should relate to 
the natural world, why we should protect natural 
environments, and how we should manage and 
use them. Protected area managers must take 
account of politics, the legal system, the internal 
dynamics of institutions, and broad social and 
political structures and trends. 

In many parts of the world, the declining 
power of nation states has been associated with an 
expansion of market capitalism. Major forces 
affecting all areas of society include the internat- 
ionalization of capital and markets through the 
development of an international financial sector; 
the expansion of free trade agreements; the emerg- 
ence of dominant transnational corporations; and 
the development of power blocs based on economic 
association, such as the European Union lEU) and 
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APECl. 
These forces have fostered such changes as a 
reduction in the size of government, corporatization 
of public agencies, and the redefinition of the role of 
the public sector A key policy debate throughout the 
world is, and has been for many years, about a 
desirable balance between the public sector and 
private sector How much power should the public 
and private sectors have? How should they relate to 
each other? The debate is crucially important to 



98 



Protected areas in the wider context 




5 Chape 



Village in Nam Et National Protected Area, Houaphan Province, Lao PDR. 



99 



The world's protected areas 



Protected areas are now 
seen as part of a mosaic 
of land and natural 
resource uses that are 
interdependent with 
communities and 
economies. 




protected area managers. It influences, among 
other things: who is given the responsibility for 
managing protected areas; what resources are 
allocated for managing protected areas; who pays 
for these resources; who has the power to make 
decisions and how those decisions are made. 

The traditional view of protected areas as 
isolated repositories for natural and cultural 
heritage protection and conservation ignores the 
interactions between protected areas and regional 
and local communities. Protected areas are now 
conceived as a long-term societal endeavor that 
goes well beyond the original 'Yellowstone" vision 
of what a national park should be. As noted in 
Chapter 1, this shift has been summarized by 
Phillips 120031, who characterizes the old and new 
paradigms according to factors such as the 
objectives of protected areas, their governance, 
attitudes towards local people, and management. 
In the context of conserving natural and cultural 
heritage, important elements of the shift 
encompass building a wide constituency that 
supports protected areas, locating protected areas 
within the wider agenda of sustainable develop- 
ment, and responding to calls from indigenous 



peoples and local communities for more 
recognition of their rights, needs, and cultures. 

In all, these constitute a "paradigm shift" in 
thinking about protected areas. Protected areas, 
with their conservation emphasis, are now seen as 
part of a mosaic of land and natural resource uses 
that are interdependent with communities and 
economies. Increasing recognition is being given to 
the importance of protected areas in furthering 
regional development. Protected area managers 
have a responsibility to explain the local and reg- 
ional benefits that protected areas provide, as well 
as engaging more fully with local communities to 
minimize costs and maximize the flow of these 
benefits. Managers must recognize and meet 
responsibilities concerning regional communities 
and indigenous peoples. The fact that many prot- 
ected areas are being managed by indigenous and 
local communities is also gaining recognition. 

There is a two-way relationship between 
regional communities and protected areas. For the 
values of a protected area to be maintained, it must 
function as part of its community. Protected areas 
cannot be divorced from local and regional land 
uses. Most exist in a matrix of multiple-use public 
lands and private lands devoted to agriculture, 
private forestry, urban development, and other 
uses. Protected areas typically require trans- 
portation routes, energy grids, water supply, and 
waste disposal systems. They can create employ- 
ment, housing needs, and business opportunities, 
particularly those related to the supply of goods and 
services needed to support visitor activities. These 
needs and opportunities in turn trigger develop- 
ment requirements within a region for infra- 
structure, waste disposal, and natural resources, 
such as water iMachlis and Field. 2000al. 

Management issues ranging from fire 
protection and prevention to the spread of 
introduced species can arise from such develop- 
ment activity. This implies that management policies 
for protected areas should be integrated into the 
broader context of community sustainability. 
Strategic planning is required to integrate those 
concerns within the boundaries of the protected 
area network (biodiversity conservation, visitor 
service provision, environmental protection] with 
wider environmental, economic, and social 
sustainability Machlis and Field |20D0bl advocate 
that protected area managers should: 
Zi take responsibility to influence development in 

rural areas and aggressively seek to maintain 



100 



Protected areas in the wider context 



the viability of communities that surround 
protected areas; 

□ promote a sense of focal identity that allows 
people to determine their own destinies; 

□ create allies among local citizens, especially 
local leaders, to develop a management 
capability at a landscape scale; 

Q emphasize the local and regional benefits of 
protected areas; 

□ adopt a collaborative approach to planning, 
with citizen participation understood as being 
crucial to the development of leadership and 
capacity for sustainable development; 

Q contribute to preserving the overall character 
and lifestyle adjacent to protected areas while 
maintaining opportunities for planned growth; 

□ give technical assistance to rural and gateway 
regions, train staff in rural development and 
collaboration skills, and assess progress in 
achieving sustainable rural development. 

ESTABLISHING PROTECTED AREAS 

Chapter 2 discussed the need for systematic 
planning of protected area networks with respect to 
the coverage of biodiversity, particularly in relation 
to the targets under the protected areas work 
program adopted by the Parties to the Convention 



on Biological Diversity in 200/* and the action plan 
developed in 2003 as part of the Vth World Parks 
Congress. However, as well as identifying gaps in 
the existing network, a variety of other factors need 
to be taken into consideration when planning a 
comprehensive system of protected areas at the 
national level. These include: 

□ defining the priority of protected areas as a 
worthwhile national concern - but often linked 
to international concerns and obligations; 

J defining the relationships between various 
categories of protected area; 

□ defining the relationships between protected 
areas and other land-use and tenure categories; 

3 habitat requirements of rare or other species 
and their minimum viable population sizes; 

ZS connectivity between units (corridors) to 
permit wildlife migration; 

□ perimeter/area relationships; 

□ natural system linkages and boundaries; 

□ traditional use, occupancy, and sustainability; 

□ cost of achieving protected area status (Davey, 
19981. 

In general, most protected areas have been 
established through political processes: that is, 
government agencies and/or interest groups have 




The meaning, purpose, 
and management of 
protected areas develop 
within wider social, 
economic, and cultural 
influences. Bukit Timah 
Nature Reserve, 
Singapore, at ^6i ha, 
may be small but it 
fulfills important 
conservation and 
social objectives in 
one of the world's 
smaller countries. 



101 



The world"s protected areas 



BOX /..l : PRIVATE PROTECTED AREAS 

In 2003 the World Parks Congress defined a private 
protected area IPPA) as "a land parcel of any size ttiat 
is 11 predominantly managed for biodiversity con- 
servation; 21 protected with or without formal 
government recognition; and 31 is owned or otherwise 
secured by individuals, communities, corporations or 
non-government organizations" (WPC, 2003). Carter 
ef al. lin press! further consider the governance 
regime of PPAs and introduce the term "private sector 
conservation enterprise IPSCE)" for the diverse array 
of "non-state actors or organizations that might be 
involved in either the management and/or ownership 
of PPAs; from corporate institutions and limited 
companies, through to private individuals and trusts". 

PPAs have the potential to supplement 
government initiatives to protect natural ecosystems, 
particularly in areas where remaining natural lands 
are already held in private ownership. Although not 
new Ithe first land trust in the USA dates back to 1891, 
while the National Trust established the first nature 
reserve in the United Kingdom in 1899), PPAs have 
become widespread in recent decades and in many 
countries they now represent a significant proportion 
of the total protected areas estate. 

In North America and a number ot European 
countries, many such reserves are owned and 
managed by membership organizations. In the United 
Kingdom some 2 250 private local nature reserves are 
owned or managed by a group of A7 local wildlife 
trusts while hundreds more are managed by other 
national conservation NGOs - the National Trust, with 
over 3 million members, owns some 2,480km2. 



Although many such sites are smaller than national 
protected areas, they may be critically important for 
certain species, or for the role they may play in a wider 
network, or for public education. 

In the United States, a system of more than 
1 600 private, non-profit organisations known as "land 
trusts" hold large areas in PPAs and have transferred 
ownership of even larger areas to public authorities 
(see Regional Analysis, North America). The Nature 
Conservancy (TNC) has successfully exported many 
of its PPA approaches, working with partners, to 
other countries. TNC is also undertaking important 
work on private sector approaches in marine 
environments, including the purchase of fisheries 
leases around shellfish beds, kelp communities and 
offshore trawling grounds. 

In Southern and Eastern Africa private reserves 
make up a significant area of the total protected areas 
network - in Tanzania PPAs cover and estimated 
126 000 km^ - 13.3 percent of all terrestrial land 
(Carter et al., in press). Several large private reserves 
in South Africa lie adjacent to the Kruger National 
Park allowing free movement of game and adding 
1 800 km^ to the total area protected. Worldwide, the 
largest sites of all include the Pumalin Park in Chile 
(3 000 km^); the NamiRand Nature Reserve in 
Namibia II 800 km'); and the Diamond A Ranch in 
New Mexico USA (1 300 km'). 

Funds for purchase and management of PPAs 
comes from a range of sources. Many are purchased 
or supported by grants from the private and/or the 
public sector, and from membership fees of the 



supported the reservation of an area, and this 
support has ultimately been manifested in declar- 
ation of the area under appropriate legislation or 
alternative governance arrangements. Such polit- 
ical approaches to selecting protected areas are 
often acf hoc or opportunistic, heavily influenced by 
threat and availability, and primarily determined by 
economic and cultural factors (Margules, 1989; 
Pressey, Bedward, and Keith, 1994). While many 
important natural areas have been protected in this 
manner, regional conservation of biodiversity and 
consideration of other significant conservation 
values are not guaranteed. In many countries, 
protected area systems reflect bias towards some 
types of landscapes and ecosystems rather than 



others. Many large parks are in mountainous or 
relatively inaccessible areas or in areas of low 
productivity for other uses. 

Formal selection procedures, while not a 
substitute for the political process, can allow for 
more informed land-use decisions based on key 
biological and social criteria. A procedure for the 
selection of protected areas should be explicit, 
systematic, and straightforward, and should con- 
sider the extent to which the options for reservation 
are lost if a particular site is not preserved, while 
also recognizing the values of efficiency and 
flexibility (Pressey, Johnson, and Wilson, 1994). 
Systematic approaches to protected area selection 
are characterized as being: 



102 



Protected areas in the wider context 



supporting NGOs. In some countries a major drive for 
PPA establishment has been the economic value of 
nature-based tourism, wildlife-based photo tourism 
and recreational hunting (Christiansen ef a/., 20051. 
Nearly half of the reserves in Southern Africa and 
South America surveyed by Langholz 119961 received 
90 percent of their revenues from tourism and many 
sites are considered more profitable than, for 
example, agriculture. 

Approaches to visitor access are highly varied. 
Those relying on tourism may charge high entry tees 
and may limit visitor densities: in Kenya 84 percent of 
PPAs exhibited a high level of control over 'access' to 
the area (Carter et ai, in press). Others are open 
access and may see such access as a critical means of 
strengthening local support for conservation or for 
encouraging membership or donations. 

Although sometimes controversial, hunting is an 
important driver behind PPA establishment in many 
countries. Properly managed, hunting can be entirely 
sustainable, and in some cases may actually 
contribute to maintaining ecosystem processes, for 
example the removal of invasive mammals, or the 
maintenance of stable large-herbivore numbers in the 
absence of a natural predator population. In Tanzania 
some hunting companies provide dividend flow/s to 
local community projects, as well as providing 
employment in the region. 

Concern is sometimes expressed at the 
possibility that private protected areas may be less 
secure than public sites over the long-term, 
particularly in the case of individual private 
landholders, w/ho may decide to sell the land, or 
change its use. In many countries such change of use 



may be prevented by the granting, or imposition, of 
legal status on to such lands, incorporating them into 
the national protected areas system, while allowing 
certain private property rights to be maintained. An 
increasingly popular system in North America is that 
of the conservation "easement" whereby certain 
rights typically associated with private property are 
relinquished in a manner that is binding on all 
subsequent landowners, in perpetuity Such agree- 
ments vary on a case-by-case basis, but often restrict 
the right to building, mining, timber extraction or 
agricultural use. In some cases these are given 
voluntarily by the land owners, but recognizing the 
cost in terms of loss of resale value, and the 
potentially great conservation benefits, such 
easements are often paid for by state and federal 
agencies, or by conservation groups . 

Given the complex range of governance regimes 
and management mechanisms exhibited in PPAs, 
categorizing them and gathering concrete information 
on their scale and scope is challenging. Carter ef al. 
(in press) have developed an outline typology for PPAs 
that differentiates the various approaches observed in 
East Africa, ranging from "Individual Private Protected 
Areas" through to "Community Conservation Con- 
cessions". However, considerable work is needed to 
understand the scale and scope of PPA growth 
internationally and the efficacy of PPAs in meeting 
biodiversity imperatives and the associated social 
impacts of such initiatives. To date a very large 
number of PPAs remain unreported within the WDPA 
and remain unrepresented in the global statistics 
presented in this volume. 



□ data-driven, using features such as species, 
vegetation types, reserve size, or connectivity; 
and selection units that are divisions of the 
landscape that are to be evaluated for their 
contribution to satisfying sonne objectives; 

□ objective-led, based on a set of criteria that 
have quantitative targets for each feature; 

□ efficient, in that they attempt to achieve the 
goals at a minimum cost in terms of other 
potential land uses; 

Q transparent, in that reasons behind selection 
of each reserve are explicit; 

□ flexible, because features and targets can be 
varied to explore how changing these 
parameters influences the configuration and 



extent of the selected reserve networl< 
IPressey, 1998). 

Formal criteria are used to assess whether each 
unit should be included in the reserve network. 
Biophysical criteria include factors such as: rarity 
of species; representativeness of ecosystems; div- 
ersity of habitat, and naturalness. Social criteria 
include; threat of human interference; community 
appeal; aesthetics; education value; and recreation 
and tourism. Planning criteria include: adherence 
to catchment principles; bioregional boundaries; 
natural boundaries; fire control; and availability of 
the land. Reserve design criteria are concerned 
with the spatial placement and characteristics of 



103 



The world's protected areas 



Blue wildebeest 
{Connochaetes taurinus) 
in the Serengeti, Kenya. 



protected area networks and individual units, 
including their size, boundaries, shape, con- 
nectivity, and geographic relationship to other 
units. The use of these criteria reflects the import- 
ance of considering the relationship of individual 
units to a networl< as a whole and to the landscape 
or seascape in which each protected area sits. 
From the perspective of biodiversity, one useful 
conceptual approach is that of biological and 
conservation corridors. 

Biological corridors 

As habitat conversion and alteration outside 
protected areas land often within theml continues, 
protected areas themselves can increasingly be 
seen as isolated islands of habitats. This affects 
their ability to maintain biodiversity as even the 
largest protected areas may be too small to support 
important ecosystem processes and viable 
populations of some species in the long term. 

Small isolated populations of species are 
vulnerable to extinction due to inbreeding 
depression and random demographic and environ- 
mental variation - analysis carried out by popul- 
ation biologists indicate that anywhere from 50 to 
5 000 individuals may be the minimum population 




size for the long-term survival of a species in any 
area, depend on the biology of the species 
concerned and prevailing environmental conditions. 
However, populations can persist below this level 
where there Is sufficient movement between areas 
to allow regular replenishment or recolonization. 
Linked fragments are therefore expected to support 
greater numbers of species in the long-term than 
Isolated fragments of the same size. 

Wide-ranging or migratory animal species face 
a particular challenge. Such species typically move 
periodically or seasonally from one core habitat 
area to another These areas may be widely 
separated from each other - by thousands of 
kilometers in the case of some migratory species. 
Effective connectivity between core areas is 
determined by the relative ease with which 
individuals or populations can move from one to 
another through the Intervening areas. Where such 
movement is made difficult or impossible, the 
survival of the population may be threatened even If 
the core areas remain intact. 

From a biodiversity perspective, the ideal 
response to such problems would be the expansion 
of existing protected areas, but often this Is not 
feasible, particularly In the case of wide-ranging 
migratory species. One alternative approach has 
been to focus on biological corridors or movement 
pathways between core areas. These may be 
continuous or a series of "stepping stones" (for 
example, the Western Hemisphere Shorebirds 
Network In North America provides stepping stones 
of protected habitat along a continental flywayl. 

Design of biological corridors aimed at 
conserving particular species may be based on 
direct studies or simulations of their migration or 
dispersal pathways. Designing biological corridors 
is more challenging when the goal is wider 
biodiversity conservation. This is particularly the 
case In marine environments - some species are 
active dispersers, others passive, and species 
disperse at different times and for different periods, 
interacting with seasonally variable currents. In this 
context, one option Is to clearly Identify priority 
species, such as globally threatened, keystone or 
umbrella species. Another is to look at core areas 
and biological corridors in the wider landscape or 
seascape - the so-called conservation corridor 
approach, discussed below. 

There has been significant controversy about 
the concept of biological corridors. The value of 
connectivity Is not in question as much as whether 



106 



Protected areas in the wider context 



corridors actually provide connectivity and, from an 
economic perspective, whether investing in 
corridors makes the best use of scarce conserv- 
ation resources. The problem of demonstrating 
connectivity in part reflects the difficulty of 
designing rigorous studies of corridor use by target 
species in real landscapes, and the poor design 
of many studies. It is also difficult to generalize from 
existing studies, because the results are both 
species and landscape-specific. Further concerns 
have been raised about the potential dangers 
of corridors - they may stimulate an influx of 
invasive species; expose animals to poachers; 
or encourage dispersal to sink habitats (those in 
which mortality rates exceed reproduction rates). 
The stepping stone approach may perpetuate 
habitat fragmentation. 

Conservation corridors 

Some of these concerns can be addressed by care- 
ful design of corridors within a protective matrix of 
compatible land and resource uses: the conser- 
vation corridor approach. Delineation of the 
boundaries of conservation corridors is most 
effectively undertaken with a rigorous scientific 
base, including the assessment of the habitat 
requirements of minimum viable populations of 
target species, the ecological processes required 
and disturbance patterns. Mapping the overlapping 
habitat and connectivity needs of a number of 
different target species may lead to the identifi- 
cation of large-scale biodiversity conservation 
corridors whose boundaries will often correspond 
to biogeographical frontiers. Biogeographlcal 
frontiers may therefore offer a useful first-cut at 
corridor boundaries while further information is 
being compiled. 

The key components of a conservation corridor 
are core areas, biological corridors or linkages, and 
compatible land or resource use areas. In planning 
corridors, ideally such areas should be identified for 
all target species and key ecological processes, 
although identifying priority ecological processes 
and locating them in the landscape or seascape for 
the purposes of spatial planning has been a real 
challenge for conservationists. Analyses should 
include an assessment of the area required to 
enable species and ecosystems to recover from 
expected disturbance patterns, whether natural or 
anthropogenic. Of particular importance is the need 
to try to build in the capacity to respond to global 
climate change, discussed in detail in Chapter 3. 



BOX k.l: the BAJA to BERING MARINE 
CONSERVATION INITIATIVE 

The Baja to Bering Marine Conservation Initiative 
IB2BI ainns to support the creation of a fully 
representative network of marine protected areas 
iMPAs) (including core no-take areas and 
connecting corridorsi and the protection of fully 
functioning marine ecosystems, including the full 
range of species, by strengthening existing MPAs. 
fostering the creation of new areas and linking 
these with related marine conservation Initiatives 
In Canada, the United States and Mexico. As 
scientific underpinning, the Marine Biology 
Conservation Institute has compiled data on blue 
whale and sea turtle migration patterns, deep sea 
corals, major current patterns, blogeographic 
regions and other biological, biophysical and 
socio-economic variables. Research has focused 
on identifying areas that are important for 
migratory species over many years, despite 
variable conditions. This research Is combined with 
information on threats and opportunities to identify 
priority conservation areas. 



Orca {Orcinus area] 
off Vancouver Island, 
Canada. 




105 



The world's protected areas 



The identification and definition of connpatible 
land or resource uses has also often proved 
something of a challenge. Considerable research 
may be required to provide a comprehensive 
picture as different species groups are likely to 
have very different needs. Canopy bird species, for 
example, may be satisfied with intermittent 
patches of natural or semi-natural canopy in an 
agroforestry landscape, whereas ground-dwelling 
species may need more or less continuous natural 
or semi-natural groundcover 

The design process for conservation corridors 
depends on the local context. It is often iterative, 
with boundaries and areas refined as more 
information becomes available. In many regions of 
high biodiversity importance, there are a number 
of competing pressures on land and resources, 
and poverty elimination and development goals 
are priorities. In these contexts, large-scale 
conservation plans are only likely to be realized if 
they are compatible and even contribute to these 
objectives. Fortunately, the large scale of 
conservation corridors provides greater flexibility 
to identify areas where conservation may 
generate both conservation and development 
benefits, for example, through ecosystem services 
such as the protection of water catchments or 
fisheries stock recovery. They also allow for 
targeting of development activities at areas with 
minimum negative impacts. 

Conservation corridor design in context 

Within conservation corridors, all efforts should be 
made to ensure that core areas are legally protected 
with biodiversity conservation as the primary goal. 
Corridors and linkages also need legal protection 
with biodiversity conservation as a recognized goal 
to protect them from incursions that erode their 
contribution to connectivity. The selection of impl- 
ementation mechanisms tor compatible land and 
resource use areas needs to be based on a 
systematic threats-and-opportunities analysis, 
which traces direct threats to underlying causes 
and pinpoints the most effective entry point. 
Compatible land or resource uses may be promoted 
through incentives or regulation and through 
spatially targeted approaches or higher-level policy 
initiatives. For example. Conservation International 
has targeted its Conservation Coffee Program at 
farmers in high biodiversity areas, such as those in 
Mexico's El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve. In return for 
reducing agrochemicals, diversifying the shade 



canopy with native tree species, conserving on-farm 
forest, and respecting the rules and regulations of 
the adjacent protected area, farmers receive access 
to higher and more stable prices. Where the policy 
framework allows, planning restrictions or special 
planning requirements, such as those on certain 
types of development and more rigorous require- 
ments for environmental impact assessments or 
more stringent environmental quality standards, 
can help secure compatible land/resource uses. 
Usually, spatially specific strategies will be 
strengthened by policy action at a higher level, such 
as addressing "perverse" incentives or subsidies 
that encourage non-sustainable resource use. 

lUCN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT 
CATEGORIES 

The plurality of roles for protected areas is 
reflected in the lUCN Protected Areas Manage- 
ment Category system, which identifies a range of 
protected areas based on management objectives. 
The category system has been incorporated into 
national legislation and policy of a number of 
countries and accommodates a range of levels 
of human intervention. Thus, we have protected 
areas that include highly protected nature 
reserves, modified landscapes, manipulated eco- 
systems and resident peoples. 

Despite the growth in global agreements on 
nature conservation and establishment of 
protected areas, protected area designations are 
not necessarily directly comparable across 
countries because legislative regimes may differ. 
More than 1 000 different terms are used around 
the world to designate protected areas. These 
terms are often defined within national legislation 
with respect to objectives and legal protection for 
the area in question. Sometimes there may be only 
marginal differences between countries for 
essentially the same type of protected area. For 
example, there are managed nature reserves in 
the Bahamas, strict nature reserves in Bhutan, 
nature reserves in Ontario, Canada, national 
nature reserves in the Czech Republic, nature 
reserves and marine nature reserves in Indonesia, 
nature conservation areas in Japan, and strict 
natural reserves in Sri Lanka, which are all strictly 
protected and accessible primarily for scientific 
research (Green and Paine, 1997). However, in 
many cases the same terms have very different 
management objectives. The classic example is 
the term 'national park" which is used for 



106 



Protected areas in the wider context 



protected areas such as the large, predominantly 
natural areas in Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, 
and the USA, but also for areas in Europe where 
intensively managed and transformed landscapes 
have been created through continuous 
modification by people for thousands of years. 

The need for internationally standardized 
protected area nomenclature and definition was 
raised at the First World Conference on National 
Parks in 1962 IBrocl<man and Curry-Lindahl, 196-11. 
The conference recommended that the then 
International Commission on National Parks 
(today's World Commission on Protected Areas 
(WCPAII "establish a clarification of terms con- 
cerning national parks and equivalent reserves". A 
debate on the issue then ensued for the next 30 
years. Initially, in 1978, lUCN adopted a class- 
ification system based on ten categories. Following 
a review process that ran from 1984 to 1990, a 
proposal was made to reduce the number of cate- 
gories to five. The present system of six categories, 
as follows, was finally adopted in 1 994: 
Category la: Strict nature reserve 
Category lb: Wilderness area 
Category II: National park 
Category III: Natural monument 
Category IV: Habitat/species management area 
Category V: Protected landscape/seascape 
Category VI: Managed resource protected area (see 

Chapter 1 for details). 
These categories also serve a range of secondary 
management objectives as illustrated in Table 4.1 . 

lUCN management categories serve a critical 
role in regional and global analyses. They provide a 
common language and enable the comparison and 
summary of management objectives for the con- 
servation estate. They also enable the interpretation 
of national protected area definitions and introduce 
an element of compatibility within them. The lUCN 
WCPA has provided long-term international guid- 
ance on the categorization of protected areas to: 

□ alert governments to the importance of 
protected areas; 

□ encourage governments to develop systems of 
protected areas with management aims tail- 
ored to national and local circumstances; 

□ reduce the confusion that has arisen from the 
adoption of many different terms to describe 
different kinds of protected area; 

□ provide international standards to help global 
and regional accounting and comparisons 
between countries; and 




Zl provide a framework for the collection, hand- 
ling and dissemination of data about protected 
areas; and generally to improve commun- 
ication and understanding between all those 
engaged in conservation' (lUCN, 1994). 

In any overarching categorization system, the 
application of the basic principles to the real world 
is not straightforward, for example the application 
of multiple classifications. Many protected areas, 
especially larger sites, include a range of values and 
management objectives that are often reflected in 
use and management zonation schemes within the 
park Thus, a single protected area can legitimately 
be subdivided into a number of lUCN management 
categories that reflected the range of management 
objectives applied to substantial components of 
its total area. The 1994 lUCN guidelines noted that 
this is "entirely consistent with the application of 
the system, providing such areas are identified 
separately for accounting and reporting purposes". 



Taveuni Forest Reserve, 
Fiji - an uncategorised 
protected area with 
high biodiversity 
conservation values. 



107 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 4.1 : MATRIX OF PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND lUCN CATEGORIES 



Management objective 
Scientific research 



lb 

3 



IV 

2 



VI 

3 



Wilderness protection 


2 


1 


2 


3 


3 


- 


2 


Presen/ation of species and qenetic diversity 


1 


2 


1 


1 


1 


2 


1 


Ivlaintenance of environmental seraces 


2 


1 


1 


na 


1 


2 


1 


Protection of specific natural and cultural features 


na 


na 


2 


1 


3 


1 


3 


Tourism and recreation 


na 


2 


1 


1 


3 


1 


3 


Education 


na 


na 


2 


2 


2 


2 


3 


Sustainable use of resources from natural ecosystems 


na 


3 


3 


na 


2 


2 


1 


Maintenance of cultural and traditional attributes 


na 


na 


na 


na 


na 


1 


2 



Key: 1 ^ Primary objective. 2 = Secondary objective. 3 = Potentially applicable, na = Not applicable 
Source' lUCN 1994. 



In 2001 , WCPA agreed that a nnultiple categorization 
approach could be applied to MPAs. 

A number of countries have formally adopted 
the lUCN management categories as the basis for 
planning and managing their national protected 
area systems. In July 2003, the international credi- 
bility of the categories was further strengthened by 
the formal adoption of the system for African 
protected areas in the revised African Convention on 
the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 
approved by the Assembly of the African Union. The 
importance of the lUCN categories was also 
highlighted by Recommendation 2.82 of the Amman 
World Conservation Congress held in 2000, which 
called on lUCN state members to prohibit explo- 
ration and extraction of mineral resources in areas 
with lUCN Protected Areas Management Categories 
I to IV and recommended that they restrict such 
activities in those with Categories V and Vl. 

Category assignment does not equate to man- 
agement effectiveness ISection 171. The 199i lUCN 
guidelines noted that they are "two separate judge- 
ments: what an area is intended to be; and how it is 
run". However, they are interrelated, because if a 
protected area is not managed to achieve its defined 
objectives - the basis of the category system - and 
its values are degraded or otherwise significantly 
changed, then the validity of the original category 
assignment in real terms is questionable. Clearly, to 
be an effective international system, lUCN's man- 
agement categories need to be applied consistently 
to protected areas that are managed effectively to 
achieve their stated objectives. 

lUCN and the WCPA membership continue to 
review and refine the protected area category 



system to ensure that it is relevant and able to 
be implemented effectively. Since the 2003 
World Parks Congress there have been numerous 
meetings and debates on the categories, culmin- 
ating in a global "summit" in Spain in May 2007, 
attended by over a hundred experts from around the 
world. As a result of this process revised guidelines 
will be released in 2008. 

PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT 
AS GOVERNANCE 

Good governance has emerged as a key issue in 
protected area management over the last decade. 
Attaining protected area objectives, such as bio- 
diversity protection and support for and by local 
communities, is strongly influenced by governance. 
Many of the challenges related to ecosystem-based 
management of protected areas also hinge upon 
improving governance. Protected area manage- 
ment IS more than just an activity of the state. 
Governance modes range from the traditional 
exercise of government authority, through to a 
wide variety of partnership, co-management, and 
informal arrangements involving multiple agencies, 
interest groups, and individuals (Ostrom, 1990; 
Reeve, Marshall, and Musgrave, 20041. Graham, 
Amos, and Plumptre 120031 defined governance as: 
"the interactions among structures, processes 
and traditions that determine how power and 
responsibilities are exercised, how decisions 
are tal<en, and how citizens or other stake- 
holders have their say. Fundamentally, it is 
about power, relationships and accountability: 
who has influence, who decides, and how 
decision-maliers are held accountable. " 



108 



Protected areas in the wider context 



Government management is the traditional mode 
of protected area governance, and remains the 
dominant mode in many developed countries. 
Government agencies can be established within 
national, provincial or local tiers of government. 
Governments can also delegate their authority to 
another government agency, statutory authority, or 
non-governmental organization. 

Co-managed protected areas are where authority, 
responsibility, and accountability are shared among 
two or more parties, which may include government 
agencies, Indigenous people, non-governmental 
organizations, and private Interests. There are two 
types of co-management. With collaborative 
management, authority is held by one party (often a 
governmental agency], but this party is required to 
collaborate with other parties. Joint management 
Involves true sharing of authority among two or 
more parties, with none of these parties having 
ultimate authority In Its own right. 

Private management can be done voluntarily by 
Individuals, not-for-profit organizations, or 
commercial enterprises (see Box AA]. Generally, 
the authority of these parties to identify and manage 



land arises from the private property rights they 
hold over an area of land or water Protected area 
designation can be formalized through mechanisms 
such as a covenant on the title of the property In 
some cases, government agencies provide manage- 
ment and financial support to the private owners. 

Community managed protected areas (also called 
community conserved areas] are managed 
voluntarily by indigenous or local communities. 
Management regimes may be established through 
customary laws and institutions using traditional 
knowledge, or through partnership agreements 
among consortia of local people. 

Examples of protected areas managed under 
various governance modes are given In Table 4.2. 

WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY 

The Millennium Development Goals highlight the 
importance of addressing social issues in order to 
achieve sustainabillty. The goals include eradicating 
poverty and hunger, and improving access to health 
services. These goals are now a major focus of most 
International programs and protected area 
organizations have a role In their implementation. 



TABLE 4.2; 
Mode 


MODES OF PROTECTED AREA GOVERNANCE 

Type Example 


Government 




National 


Taman Negara National Park, Malaysia 






State or province 


Big Basin Redw/oods State Park, California, 
USA 






Local 


Waipa, New Zealand 






Delegated (to another 
government agency] 


Heard Island and McDonald Islands 
Marine Reserve, Australia 






Delegated (to statutory authority] 


Peak District National Park, UK 






Delegated (to local government 
or community group] 


Pare Naturel Regional 
Normandie-Maine, France 


Co-management 


Collaborative 
Joint 


Bwindi impenetrable National Park, Uganda 
Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal 


Private 




individual 


Winlaton Grassland, Northern Victoria. 
Australia 






Not-for-profit organization 


Big Courtin Island, Prince Edward 
Island, Canada 






Commercial organization 


Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd, 
Zanzibar Tanzania 


Community 




Indigenous 


Reserve Etnica Forestal AvKa, Ecuador 






Local 


Shimshal Community Conservation Area. 
Pakistan 



109 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 4.3: SPECIES CONSERVATION AND TRADITIONAL RESOURCE OWNERSHIP IN THE PACIFIC 
ISLANDS: THE CASE OF THE CRESTED IGUANA ON YADUA TABA ISLAND, FIJI 



Land is a sacred inheritance to most Pacific Islanders 
and is treasured tor its social, cultural, historical and 
development values. Many of these values do not sit 
comfortably with modern norms of land management, 
and use and/or ovs/nership change whether permanent 
or temporary. These problems are often compounded 
by factors such as rapidly increasing populations, 
development and/or cash income requirements, which 
challenge ill-equipped traditional management 
structures. Most Pacific Island governments are loud 
in their rhetoric for conservation and environmental 
protection, but provide minimal technical and financial 
resources to effect it. 

It is not surprising therefore that, in general, 
protected area management in the Pacific Islands has 
travelled, and continues to travel, on a bumpy road 
with no clear direction or destination. 

In Fiji, the colonial response was to declare 
Nature Reserves under forestry legislation, and six of 
these persist to this day, but not one of them has a 
management plan and not one of them is under any 
form of active management. In the modern era, there 
has been a welcome shift to community-managed 
protected areas, but in many cases the switch has been 
total and without much thought. The success remains 
limited, in large part due to the lack of benefits accrued 
by the landowners. So often well-meaning 
conservationists try to convince landowners that 
official protection of a particular area will bring extra 
benefits over and above those that the landowners 
already enjoy from the area. In many cases landowners 
are asked to reduce extractive uses of land or sea 
areas with only fuzzy indications of future benefits. 
Until such time as Pacific land or marine owners can 



receive immediate and tangible benefits, community- 
managed protected areas are unlikely to be any more 
successful than traditional western approaches. 

What is clear is that a lot more innovation is 
required in enabling land and marine owners to be 
tangible and immediate beneficiaries of protected 
area initiatives, than has hitherto been the case. 

Conservation of Fiji's crested iguana [Brachy- 
lophus vitiensis] on Yadua Taba island illustrates some 
of the typical challenges which all Pacific island 
countries are facing. Yadua Taba is a 70 ha island that 
supports the world's last viable population of crested 
iguana , which number some 7 000-8 000. The island 
also contains a fine stand of dry littoral forest, a 
habitat that has been almost completely lost 
elsewhere in Fiji. When the iguana population was first 
"discovered" in 1979, it received worldwide attention 
and the Fiji government moved quickly to establish a 
sanctuary through a traditional approach to the Bull 
Raviravi (the title of the landowning chief of the 
islandl. Thereafter, management was delegated to the 
National Trust for Fiji but minimal, or no resources 
were provided other than a payment of approximately 
US$ 1 500 annually to the Bull Raviravi. 

The problem here was that the landowners 
receiving the rental lived on the mainland of Vanua 
Levu some 60 km away while the inhabitants of the 
immediately neighboring Yadua Island who main- 
tained usufruct rights on the island received nothing. 
They were even asked to remove their goats from the 
island. This they eventually did in 1989, but only after 
receiving payment from the Worldwide Fund for 
Nature. The National Trust appointed a warden from 
the community, but he received no regular pay and, 



At the 2003 Vth WPG there was a focus on social 
issues and encouraging community participation in 
protected area management. Some of the topics 
included recognition and integration of indigenous 
conservation practices and the concept of com- 
munity conserved areas. 

As the population continues to grow, involving 
the community in protected area management 
and the creation of protected areas becomes 
increasingly important. The demands of an ever- 
increasing population, for infrastructure and serT/- 
ices, place pressure on natural and cultural spaces. 



Protected area managers and community groups 
need to work together if the values of such spaces 
are to be maintained. 

The success or failure of protected areas as a 
land use will be dependent on public support. 
Although protected areas bring a rich array of 
benefits, experience shows that the task of 
engaging support among some communities is not 
easy. Investment in communicating and involving 
the community in the benefits of parks, their 
management, and activities is an ongoing priority 
for agencies. The needs and desires of people must 



110 



Protected areas in the wider context 



although the Trust managed to attract some small- 
scale grants from a variety of international donors 
and agencies, little or none of this saw its way to 
either the landowning or neighboring communities. 
Meanwhile, relations between the Yadua villagers and 
the landowners deteriorated as a result of the annual 
payment, which was believed to be much greater than 
it actually was. 

In 1992, WWF funded a management plan for the 
island, which officially recognized for the first time that 
a lease of the island from the landowners was 
desirable if not essential. This at a time when 
"community management" was the universal answer, 
and western approaches of land alienation considered 
totally inappropriate. But for Yadua Taba it was 
essential to ensure that the rightful landowners, 
although "absent", were benefited through the receipt 
of lease rentals, thus enabling all attention to be paid 
to engaging the neighboring community in 
management and tourism initiatives on the island. It 
took over ten years for the National Trust to effect a 
lease, but in the meantime they entered into a five-year 
association with Greenforce, an NGO supplying 
volunteers for conservation action. The Greenforce 
Camp was on Yadua Island and they were ostensibly 
tasl<ed with baseline data collection and monitoring of 
the marine environment around Yadua Taba, such that 
a combined island-marine protected area could be 
considered for World Heritage listing. The association 
proved an effective initiative, not so much for the 
biological data collected as for the diverse benefits it 
brought to the community, which were associated with 
Yadua Tabas status as a protected area. 

Currently Yadua Taba is leased to the National 
Trust for Fiji, with the landowners enjoying an annual 
rental with clauses allowing a share of any 
commercial take from the island. A full-time ranger is 




S. Chape 



employed from the local community and there are 
management, restoration, and research initiatives on 
the island using community labor The leasing 
arrangement has brought some stability and purpose 
to the conservation of the island and has attracted an 
NGO to assist in long-term iguana research and dry 
forest restoration activities. 

Yadua Taba provides several interesting lessons, 
including: 

□ even a situation with the very highest 
conservation priority and urgency is unlikely to 
gain active management support from a Pacific 
Island nation with limited resources; 

IJ each site needs a conservation arrangement 
tailored to its needs, and this may be traditional or 
a western-oriented approach or a combination of 
both; 

Q money, in even small amounts, can easily 
disrupt traditional relationships; 

Q legal distinctions between landowners and 
usufruct rights holders are of little significance 
in effecting conservation outcomes; and, 

□ indirect conservation benefits to communities 
can be as important as direct ones. 



be considered from the outset and throughout the 
management process. Agencies, in working with 
the community to achieve conservation outcomes, 
must understand the community and be part of it. 
To communicate effectively, agencies need to 
understand the community's needs, attitudes, 
values, and behavior. 

Constituency-building is a global trend that 
involves establishing broadly based coalitions and 
partnerships directed towards sustainable envir- 
onmental management, including conservation 
through various forms of protected area. Long-term 



conservation at the landscape scale requires 
genuine support and commitment from a wide 
range of constituencies. Protected area managers 
must secure widespread community support, both 
to legitimize their work and to gain approval for 
them to expand and strengthen their activities. It is 
acknowledged that achieving satisfactory conserv- 
ation outcomes will require considerable expend- 
iture of funds - funds that will only be raised if there 
is community understanding of, and support for, 
protected area management objectives. But no 
matter how much funding is available, protected 



111 



The world's protected areas 



BOX l*A: KAA-IYA DEL GRAN CHACO NATIONAL PARK AND INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT AREA 



The Wildlife Conservation Society IWCS) and the 
Capitania de Alto y Bajo Izozog (CABI) have been 
collaborating in the design and implementation of a 
major community-based w/ildlife management 
program in Bolivia's Chaco region. WCS is an inter- 
national conservation organization recognized for 
research on vi/ildlife populations and ecology, and site- 
based approaches to the conservation of wild areas. 
CABI is the indigenous organization that represents 
some 9 000 izocetio-Guarani people living in 23 
communities along the Parapeti River, south of the 
Bafiados de Izozog wetlands. 

A key accomplishment was the establishment of 
Kaa-lya del Gran Chaco National Park and Integrated 
Management Area (KINPl, in 1995. With technical 
support from WCS, CABI successfully proposed 
the establishment of the park to the Bolivian 
government. Subsequently, CABI was named KINP 
co-adminlstrator, under an agreement with the 
government. At 3A million hectares. KINP is the 
largest protected area in Bolivia, and contains the 
largest area of dry tropical forest under protection in 
the world. Establishing the KINP was part of a broader 
CABI land management strategy. In early 1997, under 
the terms of Bolivia's agrarian reform law, CABI 
claimed for a 1 .9 million hectare indigenous territory, 
in contrast to other cases in Bolivia, where parks and 
indigenous territorial claims overlap and are a source 
of conflicts, CABI's approach created the opportunity 
to manage 5.3 million hectares of the Bolivian Chaco 
based on principles of conservation and sustainable 
use of wildlife and other natural resources. 

Moving beyond the political success of having 
created this vast area, the major focus of continuing 
CABI-WCS collaboration has been to assume the 
technical and administrative challenges of effectively 
managing it. At the local level, this effort has focused 
on: strengthening CABI's technical and administrative 



capacities; participatory wildlife population and 
ecology research and defining wildlife management 
practices; environmental planning and monitoring; 
and environmental education. Since 1995, USAID/ 
Bolivia has provided critical financial support in each 
of these areas. 

However, these local efforts needed to occur in 
the context of addressing larger regional issues 
affecting land use, specifically the rapid expansion of 
natural gas exploitation and export, deeply rooted land 
conflicts, and weak government capacity to maintain 
basic funding levels for national parks. With support 
from WCS, CABI led indigenous organizations affected 
by the Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline in negotiating a 
landmark agreement with pipeline sponsors, which, 
among other things, created a private trust fund with 
an initial capital of US$ 1 million to provide a perma- 
nent revenue source for the park, and established a 
US$ 1 .5 million fund for the titling of indigenous lands. 
CABI and WCS worked with Bolivia's National 
Agrarian Reform Institute to design an approach for 
land titling that reduced the cost from an official 
estimate of US$ 3 per hectare to US$ 0.36 per 
hectare. CABI and WCS also pioneered a participatory 
land use zoning approach, which allowed CABI to 
reach agreements with almost all the ranchers and 
farmers in the area, creating a basis for broad part- 
icipation in the management of the KINP, and settling 
conflicts that obstructed titling its territorial claim. 

In 2001, these efforts led to the International 
Association of Impact Assessment recognizing the 
Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline for excellence in address- 
ing environmental and social impacts associated with 
a major infrastructure project. In 2002, CABI received 
the XI Annual Bartolome de las Cases prize from the 
Government of Spain, for extraordinary contributions 
to environmental conservation and the defense of 
indigenous cultures. 



area management will not be successful in the long 
term unless it is recognized as a core part of a wider 
social, cultural, economic, and political agenda. 
Protected areas are already widely supported, yet 
they need to become more internalized in popular 
consciousness and acceptance, so that they are 
recognized as a key element in people's quality of 
life, linked to their personal identity and aspirations. 
For protected area managers to work in 



isolation from the community is neither practical, 
desirable, nor usual. Apart from legal processes 
that prescribe formal consultation procedures, 
managers are interacting with the community every 
day on what are regarded as routine matters. Five 
important questions are: 

J Who are the stakeholder groups and what is 
there about the ways they perceive and behave 
that may affect the protected area? 



112 



Protected areas in the wider context 



□ What community or environmental issues and 
attitudes may affect tfie relationship? 

□ How are decisions made and power shared in 
the community? 

Q Which media can best reach all potential 

stakeholder groups? 
Q What impacts will management plans have on 

the local and wider community? 

Interpretation is also an aspect of communication 
that has long been at the heart of managing 
protected areas. Interpretation is a means of com- 
municating to the community the exceptional 
heritage values of protected areas. It thereby faci- 
litates conservation outcomes by helping to develop 
a keener awareness, and greater understanding 
and appreciation, of protected areas, as well as 
enriching the visitor's experience. Interpretation 
helps orientate visitors, allowing them to find the 
recreation they prefer, and to do so safely and with 
enjoyment. It can persuade visitors to treat sites 
respectfully, without the need for regulations and 
policing. It can be used to subtly direct most visitors' 
attention towards less fragile sites. 

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND PROTECTED AREAS 

Indigenous or "first peoples" are "the original or 
oldest surviving inhabitants of an area, who have 
usually lived in a traditional homeland for many 
centuries"" (Stevens, 19971. Their subsistence 
practices Inow or until relatively recently at least! 
rely on the use of local resources and ecosystems. 
The actual number of indigenous people surviving 
today is a matter of definition (Kempf, 19931. In 
1997, it was estimated that between 200 and 600 
million of the 5.5 billion people living on Earth were 
indigenous (Stevens, 1 997). Constituting only 5 to 10 
percent of the world"s population, indigenous 
groups contribute as much as 90 to 95 percent of 
the world"s cultural diversity (Stevens, 19971. They 
inhabit more than 70 countries, in habitats ranging 
from the Arctic to the Amazon, claiming as 
traditional homelands 20 to 30 percent of the 
Earth"s surface: four to six times more territory than 
is encompassed within the entire global protected 
area system. Many of these environments are 
fragile or under threat from development and are 
characterized by high levels of biodiversity; they are 
therefore significant to global conservation. 
Typically, indigenous groups have suffered from the 
colonization of their land by others, with their 
populations decimated by violence and disease 



(Kempf, 1993; Furze, de Lacy, and Birckhead, 19961. 

Recognition is increasingly being given to 
the special situation of indigenous people in relation 
to land and sea management. Indigenous involve- 
ment in conservation and protected area manage- 
ment has emerged as a much lauded, but highly 
charged, domain of policy and practice (Birckhead 
et ai. 20001. There is growing international and 
national recognition of the rights of indigenous 
peoples, and the realization that the conservation of 
biodiversity is unlikely to succeed without the 
support of local and indigenous communities, and 
that denying their resource rights eliminates 
incentives to conserve these resources (Ghimire 
and Pimbert, 19971. 

Although indigenous rights are far from 
secure, indigenous people are Increasingly active on 
the world stage, fighting for rights to land and self- 
determination, and the preservation of the 
environment (Burger, 19901. 

For some time the issues of rights and 
responsibilities in natural resource management, 
as well as issues of rights to information and part- 
icipation in decision-making, have been addressed 
internationally. The United Nations Declaration on 
Government and Development, Principle 2.2 states: 
"Indigenous people and their communities, 
and other local communities, have a vital role in 
environmental management and development 
because of their knowledge and traditional 
practices. States should recognize and duly support 
their identity, culture and interests and enable their 
effective participation In the achievement of 
sustainable development. " 

The rights of indigenous people are also addressed 
in the work of the UN Working Group on Indigenous 
Peoples and its Permanent Forum as well as under 



Involving the local 
community has become 
an important component 
In protected area 
planning. 




113 



The world's protected areas 



Ecotourists in the 
Kinabatangan Wildlife 
Sanctuary, Sabah, 
Malaysia. 




the United Nations Charter, Resolution 169 of the 
International Labour Organisation, the Arhus 
Convention and the Convention on Biological 
Diversity, in the last of these specifically in Article 
8ljl, which states that: 

"Each Contracting Party stiall [...] Subject to its 
national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain 
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous 
and local communities embodying traditional 
lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sust- 
ainable use of biological diversity and promote their 
wider application with the approval and involvement 
of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and 
practices and encourage the eguitable sharing of 
the benefits arising from the utilization of such 
knowledge, innovations and practices. " 

Traditional knowledge and wisdom of indigenous 
peoples can help us to develop more sustainable 
relationships between people and resources. It can 
also help us to understand that cultural diversity 
itself serves as a form of insurance, which can 
expand the capacity of our species to change 
iMcNeely, 1995). 

As already noted, indigenous communities are 
significant managers of protected areas. When they 
do not have ultimate governance responsibilities, 
recognition must be given to their special situation, 
rights, and interests. Co-management of protected 
areas has proved to be one effective means of 
respecting the rights of indigenous people as well 
as achieving conservation outcomes. For non- 
indigenous protected area managers, co-manage- 
ment translates Into greater access to traditional 
management knowledge, and assistance in con- 



ducting environmental research and in interpreting 
cultural and natural history information ICordell, 
19931. For Indigenous owners, co-management 
arrangements may include funding for community 
projects, income from tourism, control of cultural 
sites, and support for the continuity of traditional 
resource management practices. Jointly managed 
protected areas have achieved, and can continue to 
achieve, much for both indigenous peoples and for 
conservation. Success requires people with good- 
will, flexibility, and much dedication. In Australia, for 
example, three of the six federal national parks - 
Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta, and Booderee - are 
jointly managed by the Department of Environment 
and Heritage and traditional Aboriginal owners. 

COMMUNITY CONSERVED AREAS 

Community Conserved Areas can be broadly defined 
as "natural and modified ecosystems including 
significant biodiversity, ecological services and 
cultural values voluntarily conserved by concerned 
Indigenous and local communities through customary 
laws or other effective means". These initiatives vary 
widely In their origin, purpose, and form but there are 
three essential characteristics defining them: 

□ Relevant indigenous and local communities are 
concerned about the given ecosystem — It 
usually being culturally significant or Important 
for livelihoods; 

□ Voluntary management decisions and efforts by 
communities are effective in conserving 
habitats, species, ecological services, and 
associated cultural values — although the 
stated objective of the management practice 
may be unrelated to conservation; 

Zl Indigenous and local communities are the 
major players (hold power) in decision making 
and implementation of decisions on the 
management of the ecosystem at stake Isome 
form of community authority exists and Is 
capable of enforcing regulations). 

Examples of Community Conserved Areas include: 
sacred sites, for example the kaya forests of coastal 
East Africa; communally managed rangelands and 
forests, found in many parts of the world; community 
fisheries areas, such as the communally managed 
reef fisheries prevalent In much of the South Pacific; 
and community run green spaces in urban areas, 
such as City Gardens In the USA. 

Community Conserved Areas can serve many 
important functions, as repositories of important 



1U 



Protected areas in the wider context 



components of biodiversity in their own right, as parts 
of conservation corridors linking format protected 
areas and as sites of great cultural and economic 
importance for local peoples. They can offer valuable 
lessons in participatory governance of official PAs, 
providing examples of multilayered legal systems of 
conservation, which integrate customary laws with 
statutory laws and are often built on sophisticated 
ecological knowledge systems, elements of which 
have wider potential application. 

They do, however, face several critical chall- 
enges to their continued existence and growth. 
Despite a long history, in many parts of the world 
Community Conserved Areas are fast eroding, as 
inappropriate "development" and "education" 
inputs are sweeping aside the knowledge systems 
that helped manage them. This is exacerbated by 
the tendency of colonial or centralized political 
systems to undermine traditional institutions by 
taking over many of the customary functions and 
powers of communities. A lack of official recognition 
often hampers community efforts to maintain such 
areas and, where incentive programs are in place, 
they are typically underresourced. Rapid social 
change can mean that communities themselves 
attach less value than before to such areas, and may 
prefer to convert them into some commercial use. 
Social changes often also lead to increased strat- 
ification and growing inequities within communities, 
making sustained management of Community 
Conserved Areas even more difficult. 

INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREA 
GOVERNANCE 

Governance was a major theme of the 2003 World 
Parks Congress. The Congress endorsed the 
acceptance of a range of governance types as a 
means of expanding the global protected area 
network and increasing its legitimacy. In 
preparation for the WPC, a survey of international 
protected area agencies was undertaken to assess 
the main changes in protected area governance 
around the world during the previous decade 
(1992-20021, highlight the main trends In protected 
area governance, and identify whether these trends 
were leading to more effective decision making 
and management. Because of the variability In 
management responses to some lUCN categories, 
the survey concentrated on Categories i-lll. 

Forty-eight protected area agencies - just 
under half of those approached - responded, split 
almost equally between highly developed nations 



BOX 4.5: ALTO FRAGUA-INDIWASI - 
THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA 
RECOGNIZES A COMMUNITY CONSERVED 
AREA AS A NATIONAL PARK 

(adapted from Oviedo, 2003) 

The Alto Fragua-lndiwasi National Park was 
created in February 2002, after negotiations 
involving the Colombian government, the Assoc- 
iation of Indigenous Inganc Councils and the 
Amazon Conservation Team, an environmental 
non-governmental organization focusing on 
projects to assist the Ingano Indians and other 
indigenous groups in the Amazon basin. The 
Park is located in the Colombian Amazon Pied- 
mont on the headwaters of the Fragua River The 
park is part of a region that has the highest 
biodiversity in the country and is also one of the 
top global biodiversity hotspots. The site will 
protect various ecosystems of the tropical Andes 
including highly endangered humid sub-Andean 
forests, endemic species such as the spectacled 
bear [Tremarctos ornatus], and sacred sites of 
cultural value. 

Under the terms of the decree that created 
the park, the Ingano will be the principal actors 
in the design and management of the park. The 
area, whose name means "House of the Sun" in 
the Ingano language, is a sacred place for the 
indigenous communities. This is one of the 
reasons why traditional authorities have insisted 
that the area's management should be entrusted 
to them. Although several protected areas of 
Colombia share management responsibilities 
with indigenous and local communities, this is 
the first one where the indigenous people are 
fully in charge. 

The creation of Indiwasi National Park has 
been a long-time aspiration of the Ingano comm- 
unities of the Amazon Piedmont, for whom it is a 
natural part of their Lite Plan {Plan de Vida]; that 
is, a broader, long-term vision for the entirety of 
their territory and the region. In addition, the 
creation of the Park represents an historic 
precedent for the indigenous people of Colombia, 
as for the first time an indigenous community. In 
this case the Ingano Indians, is the principal 
actor in the design and management of an 
official protected area that is fully recognized by 
the state. 



115 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 4.6: PARTICIPATORY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT: THE MIXED EXPERIENCE OF THE 
GALAPAGOS MARINE RESERVE 



Located approximately 1 000 km from mainland 
Ecuador, the volcanic Galapagos Islands contain 
remarkable terrestrial and marine ecosystems 
Inscribed as a World Heritage site in 1978 and 
extended in 2001. Some years ago the islands 
became the focus of complex and violent 
stakeholder conflicts. Rapid demographic and 
economic change, unregulated fishing, the 
appearance of high-value fisheries for Asian 
markets, state-Imposed policies and regulations 
and general non-compliance w/lth the management 
plan of the Marine Reserve were all factors fuelling 
those conflicts. 

Response 

In 1998, in response to national and International 
concern about the threats facing Galapagos, 
Ecuador passed Innovative legislation through a 
Special Law that, amongst other measures. 
Introduced the control of migration to the Islands, 
created one of the largest marine reserves in the 
world of about 130 000 km^ prohibited industrial 
fishing and established institutions for participatory 
management of the Marine Reserve. The creation of 
the Galapagos Marine Reserve was the result of a 
local participatory planning process, which took two 
years, 74 meetings of a multi-stakeholder planning 
group, two fisheries summit meetings and three 
community workshops, and produced a consensus 
management plan IHeylings and Bravo, 2001]. 

Implementation 

Its Implementation, through a legally based 
participatory management regime, has been In 
progress since then, but with mixed results. 
Conflicts still remain, although the management 
regime In theory provides a better forum for trying to 
resolve these. The Galapagos co-management 
institution consists of a tripartite arrangement 
uniting a local Participatory Management Board 
IPMBI, an Inter-lnstltutlonal Management Authority 
IIMAl and the Galapagos National Park (GNP). The 
PMB is made up of the primary local stakeholders, 
while the IMA comprises representatives of 
ministries and local stakeholders. In the PMB, the 
members present specific management proposals, 
for example regulations of fisheries and tourism. 



which are analyzed, negotiated and eventually 
agreed upon by consensus. In principle, proposals 
are channeled for approval to the IMA and then for 
Implementation and control to the GNP. Proposals 
that have reached a consensus In the PMB carry 
important weight at the IMA level. However, if no 
consensus Is reached in the PMB, the different 
stakeholder positions are submitted to the IMA, 
where the decision is left In the hands of a majority 
of mainland ministerial officials. The consensus- 
based co-management setting is intended to create 
a strong incentive tor local stakeholders to develop 
and agree on viable proposals in the PMB. 

However, despite the establishment of 
participatory management 10 years ago, fishery and 
tourism interests still manage to force through 
their own requirements either. In the case of 
fisheries, by the threat or actual use of violence 
and non-compliance or, for tourism, by political 
manipulation. Unfortunately, every fishery that Is 
being monitored in Galapagos has shown continuing 
decline since the establishment of participatory 
management, while tourism In the marine reserve 
is still largely unregulated and continues to expand. 
One of the key issues when Initially establishing the 
participatory approach was the mis-identiflcatlon 
of the fisher group as wholly artisanal whereas 
it includes a large proportion of economic oppor- 
tunists Imainly recent migrants to the islands). 

Presidential Decree 

In April 2007 the government issued a Presidential 
Decree declaring the conservation and environ- 
mental management of the Galapagos ecosystem in 
a state of risk and a national priority, and outlined an 
agenda to systematically address the various factors 
affecting the state of conservation of the area. 
UNESCO also sent a mission that confirmed the 
threats to the outstanding value and physical 
integrity of the World Heritage site. Including 
increasing human immigration, uncontrolled devel- 
opment of tourism, and the failure of various instit- 
utions and agencies to deal with these threats. The 
World Heritage Committee subsequently placed 
Galapagos on the List of World Heritage In Danger In 
2007 (Watkins and Cruz 20071. 



116 



Protected areas in the wider context 



and others, with no discernible pattern of response. 
Some of the largest, oldest, and most active 
protected area agencies did not respond, while 
some of the smallest and most resource- 
challenged agencies did. However, overall the 
results were a good representation of the current 
perception of global protected area governance. 

Protected area agency structure and decision 
making 

Park agencies vary greatly in organizational 
structure and range of responsibilities. Just over 80 
percent are part of a larger government ministry. 
Significant changes have occurred since 1992, with 
65 percent of countries having experienced changes 
in structure over the decade to 2002, and almost 
three quarters having enacted new legislation or 
altered existing legislation. 

Central government agencies have the 
greatest overall responsibility for protected area 
systems. Over 1992-2002, many countries encour- 
aged greater attention to regional differences 
through the decentralization of protected area 
agencies, and more than one third of the survey 
respondents suggested that their agency structure 
was currently less centralized than it was in 1992. 
As a result, decision-mal<ing power has been 
increasingly delegated to various levels of govern- 
ment and other stakeholder groups, allowing for the 
differences between individual protected areas 
within a country to be taken into consideration in 
management. 

Protected area management has also 
engaged a wider range of stakeholders in decision 
making. The amount and strength of stakeholder 
involvement have dramatically increased over the 
past ten years, and participatory management is 
now legally required in more than half the protected 
area agencies surveyed. The survey also highlighted 
a general trend towards increased private sector 
involvement, specially in the development of 
lecoltourism opportunities. Services such as park 
maintenance are also increasingly contracted out to 
the private sector 

Many protected area governance issues 
revolve around the balance of responsibility for 
management between protected area agencies and 
other interests. A continuum exists, ranging from 
full control by the official state agency to full control 
by other interests. During 1992-2002 there was a 
shift towards greater involvement of other interests 
in decision making. Some i2 percent of agencies in 



1992 reported that the government was the sole 
decision-making authority, compared with only 12 
percent a decade later Furthermore, 2002 saw an 
increase to 30 percent of agencies involved with 
cooperative decision making, against 12 percent in 
1992, and some agencies (15 percent) indicated they 
now had a joint decision-making regime, whereas 
none had had one a decade earlier 

Overall, the results suggest that managers 
recognize that community support is a require- 
ment of "good governance", and more effort is 
being directed at involving various stakeholder 
groups. The general perception is that increased 
participation has resulted in more effective decision 
making and management overall. 

Accountability mechanisms 

An important aspect of effective protected area 
governance is the accountability of decision makers 
to the public they represent. The purpose of 
accountability mechanisms is to ensure that tasks 
and objectives are completed on time and that 
funds are spent appropriately. During the last 
decade, a trend towards the increased use of such 
mechanisms is evident. Accountability measures 
designed to involve the local community, improve 
communication between protected area managers 
and the public, and make the process more 
inclusive for stakeholders have become increas - 
ingly popular Currently, approaches such as State 
of the Parks reports, annual reports, external 



Wildlife rangers in 
Zimbabwe. 




117 



The world's protected areas 



There has been a sharp 
increase In the 
involvement of a range 
of stal<eholders in 
protected area planning 
and management over 
the last decade. 




audits, national advisory committees, staketiolder 
roundtables, and parliamentary debates are more 
commonly used than they were a decade ago. More 
than [vjo thirds of the survey respondents perceived 
that these changes in accountability measures had 
helped to achieve more effective protected area 
management overall. 

Protected area management plans Isee 
Chapter 51 play an important role in effective 
governance by holding decision makers accoun - 
table to the public. More than two thirds of 
respondents indicated that both the formation and 
implementation of management plans were now 
required by law, with these requirements having 
changed over the last decade for about a third of the 
agencies. However, public participation in the 
creation of these plans is required by law by fewer 
than half of the agencies, even though, for over a 
third, this has changed over the last decade. 

Influence 

A variety of "players" are involved in the decision- 
making process for protected area systems. Since 
decision making ultimately drives management, a 
variety of sources exert influence on the manage - 
ment of protected areas. Survey respondents were 
asked to estimate the influence of various forces on 
decision making in 1992 and 2002. The results 



indicate that the sphere of influence surrounding 
the management of protected areas has increased. 
In 1992, more than one third of respondents 
perceived that global forces, local communities, the 
private sector, and various stakeholders had no 
influence on protected area decision making in their 
country. By 2002, these proportions had decreased, 
often dramatically For example, while in 1992, 41 
percent of local communities had no influence, by 
2002 this proportion had dropped to 2 percent. 

Governance capacity building 
Almost three quarters of protected area agencies 
have programs in place to improve the capacity of 
their staff, including workshops, seminars, and 
collaboration with scientific organizations. 
Capacity-building programs are also increasingly 
common among stakeholder groups and within 
other government agencies closely related to the 
management of protected areas. 

Nonetheless managers recognize significant 
gaps in training opportunities. The results suggest a 
variety of training needs for protected area agencies 
including: environmental education; community 
involvement; park planning and administration; 
enforcement and conflict management; and 
detailed training in of remote sensing and 
geographical information systems IGISI. 



118 



Protected areas in the wider context 



Funding 

Funding is a critical component of effective gover- 
nance, as adequate funding allovi/s managers to 
fulfill protected area objectives by meeting tfieir 
operating, research, and staff salary requirements. 
Thus, the degree and strength of financial support 
that a protected area agency receives strongly influ - 
ence, and are strongly influenced by, governance. 
The survey highlighted several trends relating to the 
funding of protected area systems during 
1992-2002. The proportion of total funds provided 
by both government agencies and private donors 
decreased during this period, while non- 
governmental organizations and user fees provided 
an increased amount of funding. 

Significant changes in the overall budgets of 
protected area agencies also occurred between 
1992 and 2002. Twenty-six percent of survey 
respondents indicated that the protected area 
budget decreased during the period, U percent 
suggested it had remained the same, while 60 
percent saw budget increases. Despite these 
increases, respondents indicated that the number, 
size, and complexity of protected areas had 
increased during the period; the use of the 
protected areas had increased; and the respon- 
sibilities of the protected area agencies had 
increased as well. Almost two thirds of respondents 
suggested that, as a result, the budget for their 
protected area did not keep pace with the growth 
and additional use of the system, and stressed that 
additional funding is required to ensure the 
maintenance of protected area values. 

Current and future challenges 
In addition to highlighting the main trends in 
protected area governance, it is important to 
assess whether such changes have led to more 
effective decision mal<ing and management 
overall. More than 90 percent of respondents felt 
that the governance of their protected area system 
was more effective in 2002 than in 1992. 
Respondents were also asked about the main 
challenges to protected area governance and to 
identify the strategies that may be required to 
address these challenges. The main challenges 



over the next decade included |in descending order 
of frequency of mention): 

J the involvement of, and cooperation with, 
stakeholder groups; 

□ obtaining adequate funding; 

Zi achieving institutional transformation within 
protected area agencies and improving 
relationships between government bodies; 

□ ensuring adequate and effective training of 
park management and personnel (capacity 
building); 

G enforcement of protected area rules, policies, 
regulations, and mandates. 

The main strategies required to address these 
challenges included: 

□ securing funds on an ongoing basis; 

J increasing capacity-building and training 
opportunities for park staff and managers at 
all levels; 

Q increasing the involvement of local 
communities and providing adequate educ- 
ation opportunities for stakeholder groups; 

^ promoting collaborative efforts between 
protected area agencies and various govern- 
ment agencies related to protected areas; 

~i improving accountability and providing trans- 
parent decision making for protected areas. 

Overall the survey has helped confirm many of the 
suspected trends in governance with a greater 
degree of stakeholder involvement in all aspects of 
protected area management, greater use of 
accountability mechanisms, growing influence of 
global forces, and the need for more capacity 
building and funding. The last decade has been a 
period of rapid change, with many agencies 
experiencing changes in legislation and policy 
direction. Managers indicate that, overall, these 
changes have led to more effective management, in 
all likelihood the next decade will see a slowing 
down and consolidation of these changes. There is a 
need not only for change, but also for a degree of 
stability, to allow managers opportunity to learn 
from these changes and adopt the most effective 
governance tools for the challenges they face. 



119 



The world's protected areas 



Chapter 5 

The functions and processes of 
protected area nnanagennent 



Contributors: M. Lockwood and C- Worboys: The role of rangers-. D. Zellen Developing capacity: J. Marsh: Evaluating 
management effectiveness: M- Hackings, F. Leverington, 5. Stolton. and N. Dudley. 



To manage protected areas effectively requires 
organizations, individuals, or communities ttiat 
operate under a recognized set of policies, 
powers, and/or traditions. A variety of protected 
area management organizations exist for this pur- 
pose. International coordinating bodies also exist 
to promote conventions and other means of 
establishing protected areas. They develop and 
disseminate effective management standards, 
strategies, and sl<iUs. 

An understanding of management processes 
is fundamental to successful management, partic- 
ularly with respect to government, co-managed, 
and private protected areas. Management is about 
people. It is a process through which goals are 
achieved. It involves coordinating all human and 
technical resources to accomplish specific results. 

The establishment of a protected area is just 
the start of the process for achieving the objectives 
for which it was reserved. Active management is 
required. There is a multiplicity of threats and other 
actions that need to be dealt with to maintain the 
purpose and integrity of protected areas 
(MacKinnon et at. 1986; Brandon, Redford, and 
Sanderson, 1998; Van Schaik et ai. 2002; Du Toil, 
Rogers, and Biggs, 20031. The phenomenon of 
"paper parks" - where protected areas are desig- 
nated but never managed - is recognized as a 
serious issue (Dudley, Hockings, and Stolton, 19991. 
Simply designating protected areas does not ensure 
their survival, nor guarantee that social and 
economic benefits are derived from them. 

It is therefore worthwhile to consider the 
general process of management, as well as how 
management concepts can be applied specifically 
to protected areas. The four basic management 



functions are planning, organizing, leading, 
and controlling (Bartol et at, 1998; Robbins e( 
ai. 20031. 

Planning 

Planning is commonly undertaken at three levels of 
detail within an organization. An organization 
cannot achieve its primary goal unless each level of 
management carries out the appropriate level of 
planning. Theorists of management often prescribe 
a top-down system whereby senior executives turn 
the organization's goals into a series of high-level 
"strategic" plans. These plans, as they pass down 
the hierarchy, are translated first into a series of 
"tactical" and then "operational" plans, which finally 
become the instructions to the frontline staff (Bartol 
et ai, 19981. Such a system can only work if each 
level in the agency clearly understands its role and 
is provided with the freedom to manage. 

Organizing 

As a management function, organizing is concerned 
with how managers allocate and arrange human 
and other resources to enable plans to be imple- 
mented (Bartol et ai, 1998). It involves managers 
determining the range of tasks to be performed and 
allocating the available resources to obtain the best 
results most efficiently. Organizing never stops. In a 
fast-changing world, managers and staff are 
constantly refining how their organizations work 
towards required goals. 

Demands on protected area agencies are 
somewhat different from those facing most 
organizations. There is a need to ensure other 
public and private sector organizations are aware of 
these differences, and that standard organizational 



120 



The functions and processes of protected area management 




5 Chape 



Te Wahipounamu, South West New Zealand World Heritage Area, South Island, New Zealand. 



121 



The world's protected areas 



models are not inappropriately applied to undertake 
protected area management. Some of the special 
cliaracteristics are listed here: 

□ Protected area lands and waters are dynamic, 
living systems, and the dynamics of natural 
events are superimposed on the routine 
bureaucratic timetable of events. 

Q Protected areas are often rugged and remote, 
requiring special management needs related 
to organizational time and resource allocation, 
as well as staff competencies and capacities. 

Q Protected areas are 2i4-hours-a-day, seven- 
days-a-weel< operations, and operational 
matters that arise on protected area lands or 
waters often need a rapid response. 

Q Terrestrial protected areas are usually 
surrounded by neighbors, and, again, a round- 
the-clock response capability is usually 
required. 

□ Protected areas are used by a wide range of 
recreational and other users, with peak use 
periods often clashing with peak incident 
periods. 

□ Unplanned incidents, such as fires, are normal 
occurrences, and they may cut across 
bureaucratic process timetable events. 

Q The practical and experiential knowledge 
accumulated by protected area staff is crucial 
for wise decision making. 

□ Protected areas need planning and manage- 
ment investments that are continuous and 
long term - much longer than election and 
budget cycles, for example. 

Leading 

Leading involves influencing others' work behavior 
towards achieving organizational goals IBartol 
ef a/., 1998). In the process of leading, effective 
managers become catalysts in encouraging 
innovation. Leaders kindle the dynamic spirit 
needed for success. How well an organization per- 
forms depends on the motivation and commitment 
of staff. 

Controlling 

Controlling is concerned with monitoring the 
performance of an organization against manage- 
ment benchmarks. Managers need to set perform- 
ance measures and the criteria for how they will be 
evaluated. Controls help managers and staff cope 
with uncertainty, detect irregularities, identify 
opportunities, handle complex situations, and de- 



centralize authority IBartol ef a/., 1998; Robbins et 
al.. 20031. The basic process involves establishing 
standards, measuring performance, and comparing 
performance to those standards. It also involves 
responding with corrective actions. 

OBTAINING AND MANAGING INFORMATION 

Obtaining and managing data is essential for most 
protected area management. Knowledge is 
synthesized from information derived from data 
analysis. Data on visitor numbers, behavior, and 
attitudes, for example, are collected and stored. 
These data provide information about comparative 
visitor use of resources and responses to 
management actions and this can be used to help 
managers prioritize investment decisions in 
relation to the provision of infrastructure and 
services for visitors. Vital to this process is an 
information management system that provides a 
framework for collecting and analyzing data of 
importance to protected area management. This is 
not a simple process and often considerable 
resources and expert knowledge need to be 
invested in information management systems. 

Where there are already sufficient reliable and 
relevant data, managers need to know how to find 
and organize them, otherwise they need to arrange 
or commission research to produce the data. 
Managers need data management skills to Identify 
the facts relevant to a given decision. They must be 
able to spot the gaps where more research is 
needed and to interpret data, especially where there 
are no "black or white" conclusions. Managers 
should be familiar with different types of data, the 
different ways they may be accessed or organized, 
and the different places where they may be 
collected and stored. 

A range of information is required for 
managing protected areas, from detailed scientific 
knowledge of flora and fauna to visitation figures 
and financial records. Information requirements 
include physical inventory, biological inventory, 
environmental condition, cultural inventory, social 
and land-use history, visitor use, non-recreational 
uses, socio-economic costs and benefits, and 
infrastructure and facilities. 

Accurate and comprehensive data are crucial 
as is the capacity to store and retrieve them quickly 
and simply. This is true at local, state, national, and 
international levels. Local systems are just as 
important as the more sophisticated information 
systems that cover national and international 



122 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



areas. Research collections, even In the simplest 
form, are valuable aids for managers. The larger 
systems are used more for setting priorities and 
close comarative analysis. By contrast, local data 
are used directly by local managers as a basis for 
the actions they take. The development of a local 
information system and establishing databases on 
which they depend, is of vital importance. 

Electronic systems for storing and retrieving 
data range from the simple to the sophisticated. 
Information can be stored using a range of 
computer programs and hardware, and there are as 
many ways of retrieving information, especially with 
the use of the internet and electronic library and 
journal catalogues. Researchers have developed a 
range of systems for accessing this information. 

Ideally, individual protected area managers 
should also have a well-developed Information 
management system. For example, German Tech- 
nical Cooperation, in conjunction with the Uganda 
Wildlife Authority lUWAl, has developed a manage- 
ment information system, termed MIST, to provide 
managers and planners at all levels with timely and 
up-to-date information for planning, decision- 
making, and evaluation (see Figure 5.1). All users 
have easy access to a central database through the 
local area network, or by using digital data transfer 
or zip-disks. The system Integrates information on 
the ecological, social, and economic dimensions of 
wildlife conservation as well as tourism data, and 
literature and address databases. IvllST includes 
data collected by frontline staff, air surveillance, 
communities, and researchers. Practical data 
sheets have been generated for use by ranger law- 
enforcement patrols and by communities. Outputs 
from MIST Include monthly/quarterly/annual 
reports, and routine or specific requests for Inform- 
ation. MIST Improves management and measures 
management effectiveness by providing baseline 
data for planning and Information tor decision 
making, as well as monitoring and evaluation of 
annual operations and management plans, and 
creating a culture of Information exchange. MIST 
has also been adapted for use in two national parks 
in Cambodia (Schmitt and Sallee, 20021. 

In general, obtaining and managing infor- 
mation for protected area management should be 
based on the following principles. 
□ Effective stewardship requires the best 
available information on all aspects of 
protected areas and their surrounding 
environments, including natural heritage, 



cultural heritage, economics, and social 
aspects such as visitor values, attitudes, and 
behavior. It Is critical to understand the 
limitations of the data. 

□ Access to and the ability to use the most 
relevant, recent, and cutting-edge information 
is vital In achieving management objectives. 

Zi A systematic approach to collecting, organ- 
izing, storing, accessing, and analyzing data Is 
fundamental to delivering useful Information. 
Recent advances, such as GIS and electronic 
databases, are important tools. 

□ Research Is a core function of protected 
area management and should be facilitated 
by protected area organizations. Research 
priorities should be clearly documented. 
Research partnerships should be developed 
with universities, science organizations, and 
other research providers. 

Zi Monitoring llncluding the appropriate 
selection of indicators] provides critical 
Information for evaluating progress, under- 
standing the consequences of management 
actions, and establishing the basis for 
adaptive management. 

□ Processes should be in place to ensure that 
Information Is easily accessible to all 
interested parties. It needs to be recognized 
that those accessing the data have different 
levels of skill and access, and hence the 
information needs to be provided in different 
formats. 

□ Agencies should ensure that staff have the 
capability to access, understand. Interpret, and 
apply Information made available from 
research, monitoring, and other sources. 

MANAGEMENT PLANNING 

In essence, planning is concerned with the future, 
and, In particular, future courses of action. Planning 
Is a process for determining "what should be" 
(usually defined by a series of objectives], and for 
selecting actions that can help achieve objectives. 
Planning can occur at various geographic scales 
and for different planning goals. 

Land use planning is the process of deciding in 
a broad sense which areas of land will be used for 
what purpose. Including the designation of pro- 
tected areas. This may be undertaken at a national, 
state, or regional scale. 

Area management planning is concerned with 
how to manage these areas once their land-use 



123 



The world's protected areas 



FIGURE 5.1: DATA AND INFORMATION FLOW AND USER ACCESS IN THE UWA MANAGEMENT 
INFORMATION SYSTEM 



MINISTRY 



Data 



Management 



BOARD OF TRUSTEES 



Management 




BOARD OF TRUSTEES 





Management 


* * 





PROTECTED AREAS 



Management 



KEY 



Data provision. Data entry and data import lonly protected areas and UWA HQI 

Database reptication 

Information for ttie management cycle - maps, graphics, tables, reports 

Access to information at protected area level 

Access to the information system (UWA computer network) 

Access to the information system through direct dial-in and wireless link 



Source: Schmitt and Sallee, 2002 



designation has been determined. A park 
management plan for a national park is an example 
of an area management plan. Both land-use and 
area management planning typically deal with a 
wide range of management issues. 

Site planning deals with design details 
associated with, for example, the development of a 
visitor facility. A park management plan might 
recommend the establishment of a camping area of 
a certain standard In a particular location to provide 
for a specified number of people. A separate and 
subsidiary site plan will specify the location and 



design of access, barriers, campsites, toilets, and 
so on within the camping area. 

Functional planning focuses on a particular 
Issue, for example, fire management or conserving 
a significant species. 

Organizational planning is concerned with the 
purpose, structure, and procedures of a manage- 
ment agency. Within an organization responsible 
for managing natural areas there may be several 
levels and types of management planning doc- 
uments and activities. If the organization Is working 
well, all these activities and documents should be 



126 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



coordinated and Integrated. For example, the 
objectives of a plan for an individual park should 
relate to, and be consistent with, a plan at a higher 
level such as a regional, tactical, or corporate plan. 
A corporate plan Identifies an organization's 
collective goals, objectives, policies, and activities, 
and provides a context and guidelines for area 
management and functional plans. 

There are many other types of planning and 
related activities associated with establishing and 
managing protected areas. Examples include 
impact assessment, economic planning, financial 
planning, business planning, species recovery 
planning, and incident planning. Here we will focus 
on area management planning. 

There are several reasons why it is necessary 
to plan for the management of protected areas. In 
general, planning can help conserve a resource 
while providing for its appropriate use. More 
specific reasons for embarking on a planning 
project include: 

□ meeting global responsibilities under such 
agreements as the Convention on Biological 
Diversity; 

□ meeting statutory obligations; 

□ directing management towards achieving the 
goals established in legislation or elsewhere; 

Q refining broad goals into specific, achievable 

objectives; 
Q facilitating the making of sound decisions; 

□ facilitating the resolution of conflicts over 
resource management; 

□ aiding communication between different levels 
within a hierarchical organization, eg. between 
top-level staff and front-line staff such as 
rangers who are often responsible for on- 
ground implementation of actions; 

□ providing continuity of management despite 
staff changes; 

□ making explicit decisions and the means by 
which they were arrived at - important 
components of management that might 
otherwise remain hidden; 

□ giving the community, interested groups, and 
individuals an opportunity to take part in 
decisions; 

□ providing for public accountability. 

Protected area management planning has gone 
through several phases. Plans in the 1970s and 
early 1980s tended to be dominated by extensive 
inventories of natural and cultural resources. They 



were developed with little community participation 
and the data collection effort tended to be at the 
expense of strategic considerations and subs- 
tantive management decisions. From the mid- 
1980s until the early 1990s, plans were more foc- 
used on specific management objectives and 
actions, often framed by a zoning scheme. 
Community participation also became an 
important component of planning processes. 
While these plans provided more management 
guidance than the earlier plans, they often quickly 
became out of date, and were generally written 
with little regard for available management 
resources. They tended to be "wish lists' rather 
than realistic management prescriptions. Such 
rigidity and implementation difficulties meant that 
they often "sat on the shelf" and so did little to 
guide day-to-day management. 

As a reaction to these failings, and under the 
influence of wider trends, such as the increasing 
popularity of strategic planning derived from 
business management, plans from the mid-1990s 
were typically much leaner documents. They 
articulated a strategic direction, but often did not 
detail specific outcomes or management decisions. 
Such plans were politically expedient in that, in the 
absence of any performance measures, agencies 
could not be held to account. Their lack of specificity 
meant that they were also of little use in guiding 
management. Of course specific decisions were still 
needed - these tended to be made in within-agency 
operational planning processes that took place out 
of the public gaze. 

We are now entering an era where plans are 
attempting to address these various limitations. 
State-of-the-art planning now seeks to produce 
relatively short strategic documents that 
nonetheless contain a realistic set of objectives to 
enable performance evaluation, as well as actions 
that, in the immediate future, are considered the 
best options to meet the objectives. Ideally, the 
plans are also flexible enough to allow modification 
of actions on the basis of experience and new 
information, as well as some adjustment of 
objectives and performance measures. 

Important influences on the approaches that 
are adopted include agency traditions, the pre- 
vailing mode of public policy development, instit- 
utional structures, and the intellectual traditions 
most influencing the people directing the planning 
process. There are four major approaches to a 
planning project: rational comprehensive; incre- 



125 



The world's protected areas 



mental; adaptive; and participatory IBriassouUs, 
1989). These are rarely used in their pure form - in 
general, planning projects can be described as of 
mixtures of them them all. The approach or mixture 
of approaches adopted will determine the particular 
stages undertaken in the planning process, as well 
as the relative importance given to each stage. 

Planning is often connected with the word 
"process". This means that planning is not simply 
an event or an outcome. Planning is best seen as 
an interrelated sequence of stages. These stages 
are linked in a dynamic fashion - the interactions 
between them may occur in one or more directions 
and change over time. In addition, while there may 
be a clearly defined starting point, it is often 
difficult to define an end point. Indeed, many 
planning practitioners emphasize the adaptive 
nature of planning, with the need to regularly 
review the success and relevance of both a 
particular plan and even the planning process 
itself. An illustration of a typical planning process is 
given in Figure 5.2, 

There is no consensus on the best approaches 
and processes - there is also no single best way to 
undertake a planning project. Nonetheless, there 
are some basic principles of good practice. 

1, Planners should consciously adopt a suitable 
mix of planning approaches that are: 

□ participatory at a level that matches the 
interests and concerns of stakeholders; 

□ cognizant of the multi-value, multicultural 
context of protected area management; 

□ rational and participatory in the collection and 
identification of information to inform 
management; 

□ rational in the application of formal pro- 
cedures to assess any changes in land use or 
major investment issues; 

□ rational and participatory in the assessment 
of options and selection of preferred actions; 

□ adaptive in the implementation, assessment, 
refinement, and modifications of objectives 
and actions; 

□ incremental in addressing urgent or minor 
management requirements that, given infor- 
mation, organizational, or resource const- 
raints, cannot be dealt with in any other way 

2. Effective linkages should be established across 
planning levels such that: 

□ strategic planning occurs at the organ- 
izational and regional levels, including 



specification of goals and guidelines; 

□ specific planning occurs at the local level, 
including development of measurable and 
realistic objectives that are framed in the 
context of strategic goals and have clear 
performance indicators; 

□ explicit linkages are present between 
objectives and actions and outcomes; 

□ actions are consistent with strategic guide- 
lines, and at a level of detail that allows for 
consistent interpretation and application. 

3. Effective implementation of actions arises from: 

□ availability of suitably trained staff to guide 
the planning process and implement the plan; 

□ links between actions, resources, the budget 
process, and performance evaluation; 

□ definitions of roles and lines of responsibility 
in the managing agency regarding imple- 
mentation of particular actions; 

Zl works programs that are linked with the plan, 
contain dates for completion of actions, and 
are fed back into the performance evaluation. 

i. Formal evaluation of success or otherwise is an 
essential part of a successful planning process 
and involves: 

□ lines of responsibility in the managing agency 
regarding evaluating performance against 
objectives; 

Q mechanisms for formal recognition (and 
removal from the plan] of objectives that 
have been met and completed; 

□ mechanisms for addressing unmet 
objectives and/or actions, including, where 
appropriate, their modification; 

□ clear guidelines for reviewing plans, 
objectives, and actions, including partic- 
ipants, responsibilities, and periodicity of 
revisions. 

FINANCE AND ECONOMICS 

Although the number of community conserved, co- 
managed and private protected areas are 
increasing most protected areas are still managed 
by government agencies. As such, they rely heavily 
on government funds - although these are often 
limited in many developing countries. In general, 
this situation should continue. Governments must 
fund protected areas because of the public good 
benefits that they provide and to maintain the 
intrinsic values of natural areas. Funding to 



126 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



FIGURE 5.2: A TYPICAL PLANNING PROCESS 










Establish mechanisms and structures 

that enable all stakeholders to engage 

with the process 






1 






Collect relevant data 






\ 






Identify set of issues 






y^ 








^^ 






Assess the degree to which each 

action contributes towards achieving 

the objectives 




Develop ob|ectives that address 
selected issues 












' 






Implement the actions 




Identify possible actions loptionsl that may 
be effective in meeting the objectives 














' 






Develop an implementation program that 

integrates the selected actions and 

experiments 




Select one or more options for each issue 






\ 








X 






Establish an experimental design 

to enable the effectiveness of the 

actions to be tested 



















government departments is typically provided 
through annual appropriations from a provincial 
or national treasury. When available, these appro- 
priations are usually divided into recurrent and 
capital expenditure components. Agencies res- 
ponsible for protected area management may 
also be able to attract support funding through 
various grant and donor programs, especially in 
developing countries. 

The private sector Isee Box U.\\, while making 



a contribution, cannot and should not be expected to 
meet many of the costs associated with protected 
area management. Non-use values of natural 
areas, for example, are pure public goods. They 
reflect the value people place on the existence of 
such an area, regardless of the importance of other 
values related to consumption, either of products 
Isuch as timber) or experiences (such as 
recreation). Such values would be undersupplied by 
private nature reserves. 



127 



The world's protected areas 



However, political and fiscal realities mean it 
is unlikely that the funding needed to satisfactorily 
meet all protected areas acquisition and manage- 
ment requirements wilt ever be made available by 
governments. Financial resources often constrain 
effective management of protected areas and fall 
well short of needs. Increasing taxes is always 
politically difficult, even with community support for 
additional conservation expenditure, and there are 
always many other calls on government from 
health, education, social welfare, and so on. In fact, 
the proportion of public funding going into protected 
areas is in decline in many countries (lUCN, 2000). 

There are opportunities to expand on this 
public funding base and generate further revenue to 
meet agency needs. Funding sources include 
national environmental funds, multilateral banks. 
Global Environment Facility, debt swaps, bilateral 
development cooperation agencies, philanthropic 
foundations, non-governmental organizations, 
grants from private foundations, corporate don- 
ations, and individual donations IIUCN, 20001. Both 
public and private revenue need to be optimized, 
with public revenue linked to public goods and 
private revenues to private goods. While govern- 
ments will continue to have a primary role in 
ensuring the supply of pure public goods, the 
private sector is becoming increasingly important 
for providing visitor services and facilities, and for 
contributing to resource management and the rest- 
oration of sites. The provision of public incentives to 
support conservation activities on private property 
is also crucial. Further opportunities exist for 
protected area management agencies to develop 
constructive partnerships with the private sector 

Business plans are used to guide business 
development activities. They are being more widely 
adopted by conservation agencies. Business plans 
must be developed in the context of a wider man- 
agement plan that has clearly defined goals and 
objectives (see above). This ensures that generating 
revenue is a means toward the end of more effective 
management, and does not become an end in itself. 
A key component of a typical business plan is a 
financial plan. The financial plan determines the 
amount and timing of funding required to achieve 
management objectives, and identifies income 
sources to meet these needs. Financial planning 
differs from budgeting in that it is more focused on 
forecasting-required funding, as well as the best 
potential sources to meet short, medium, and long- 
term needs. 



Different sources of funding have different 
characteristics: some are more reliable; some 
sources are easier to raise; and some can be used 
freely according to management priorities, while 
others come with strings attached, such as inability 
to pay for recurrent costs. The short term 13-5 years 
in most cases) nature of most donor funding, 
including the GEF, often limits its effectiveness in 
producing sustainable protected area management 
outcomes. Some funding mechanisms take a long 
time and a lot of effort to establish; they therefore 
do not provide a short-term return, but over the 
longer term they offer the possibility of steady, 
reliable financing to meet recurrent costs. A good 
financial plan identifies these characteristics, and 
builds a revenue stream that matches both the 
short- and long-term requirements of the protected 
area, or protected area system IIUCN, 2000). 

Pricing services and facilities 

Conservation of natural and cultural resources is 
rightly regarded as a community service obligation 
for government agencies, and a user-pays system 
is not applicable to secure the continued supply of 
these values IQPWS, 2000). However, the costs of 
providing appropriate infrastructure, facilities, and 
services, repairing environmental damage, and 
limiting congestion are generated by private con- 
sumption of protected area values. The beneficiary- 
and polluter-pays principles suggest that these 
costs should not be borne by the taxpayer, but by 
users who either gain benefits from the infra- 
structure, facilities, and services (beneficiaries pay) 
or impose environmental or congestion costs on 
others (polluter pays). 

Resource managers are under increasing 
pressure to adopt user-pays approaches and, where 
possible, to recover the costs of providing recreation 
and other services. Managers should be able to 
justify their pricing of recreation goods and 
services, so that decisions are neither arbitrary nor 
inequitable (Loomis and Walsh, 1997). Some 
agencies charge a fixed fee for all parks, some 
charge for only certain parks, and some have fees 
for particular uses or value-added services. 

Demand for the recreation opportunities aff- 
orded by protected areas is likely to continue to 
rise. This growth is promoted by, among other 
things, enhanced information availability about 
the attractions of protected areas and improved 
access and transport connections, together with a 
growing consumer preference for "quality-of-life 



128 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



experiences", Including outdoor recreation. 
Increased visitor numbers will impose additional 
costs on protected area management agencies. 
Services and facilities (car parks, walking tracks, 
toilets, visitor centers, and so on) will require 
upgrading and expansion. Environmental damage, 
and therefore the need to expend resources on 
rehabilitation, will increase. Costs may also be 
imposed on visitors in areas of high use, as 
congestion diminishes the quality of recreational 
experiences. 

These increased costs make the problem of 
who should pay for them particularly pressing. Non- 
users effectively subsidize users when fees are not 
charged. Subsidies may be justified to enable low- 
income earners to visit natural areas. However, at 
sites primarily visited by high-income earners, the 
poor may be worse off as they subsidize the free 
entry of rich visitors through their taxes. A related 
issue arises when sites have a significant number of 
foreign visitors who are wealthier than the local 
people - an issue when visitors from developed 
countries visit developing ones iLindberg, 19981. 

Recreation activities are not the only uses that 
impose environmental costs. Some protected areas 
are subject to honey production, fishing, cattle 
grazing, and other extractive uses. Again, the user- 
pays principle has potential application here. 
However, while local communities may benefit from 
such uses, they often also have to forgo potential 
benefits to ensure biodiversity and other public- 
good values are maintained. Equity and strategic 
considerations make it generally inappropriate to 
impose additional costs on locals. 

As noted in Chapter 1, protected areas provide 
a range of ecosystem services that benefit people 
some distance away For example, the quality of 
water supply is often partly due to the catchment 
protection afforded by national parks and other 
reserves some distance from the city In this case, 
applying the beneficiary-pays principle is not easy, 
but there are examples where a mechanism has 
been developed. In 1998, Inversiones La Manguera 
Sociedad Anonima (INMANI, a Costa Rican hydro- 
electric company, signed a contract with the 
Monteverde Conservation League IMCL] to pay for 
ecological services provided by the Bosque Eterno 
de los Nihos IChildren's Eternal Rain Forest), a 
22 000-hectare private reserve managed by MCL. 
Approximately 3 000 hectares of the protected 
forest Is part of a watershed that Is used by INMAN 
for generating electric power Recognizing the ben- 



efits they receive from protection of this watershed, 
INMAN entered Into an agreement with MCL to pay 
for the protection of the ecological services provided 
by Bosque Eterno de los Nifios IIUCN, 19981. 

The level of charges in a user-pays system 
should be determined by a clear set of objectives. 
An agency's choice of revenue objectives can vary 
according to the type of value and the beneficiary. 
Objectives for developing a user-fees policy may 
include: 

□ equitable allocation of costs; 
J cost recovery; 

J economic efficiency through identification of a 
market rate; 

□ generation of revenue in excess of costs so 
that other activities such as biodiversity 
conservation can be financed; 

^ improving facilities and management; 

Zi generation of foreign exchange and/or tax 

revenues from tourist purchases; 

J demand management - that is, using fees to 

limit or redistribute the number of visitors, in 

order to reduce environmental damage, 

congestion, or user conflicts ILindberg, 1998; 

QPWS, 20001. 

The cost of collecting user fees Is an important 

factor In establishing a pricing policy. Costs 

associated with the implementation and 

administration of a user-pays system are called 

transaction costs. There is no point charging user 

fees if the transaction costs are such that they 

substantially offset the revenue collected. For a 

park with many entrances, the transaction costs 

associated with establishing numerous fee 

collection stations would be high. For a park with 



Differential pricing for 
access and use can 
help spread the use 
of and impact on 
protected areas. 




129 



The world's protected areas 




Protected areas provide 
a range of ecosystem 
services that benefit 
people some distance 
away, for example, the 
quality of water supply. 



low annual use, the revenue generated would be 
low. In both cases, transactions costs are likely to be 
a high proportion of total costs. Full recovery of 
these costs is difficult to justify, relative to the value 
of the damage being caused and/or the services 
being provided. Of course, transaction costs are 
also dependent on the collection method employed 
and, with changing technology, opportunities may 
arise to significantly reduce transaction costs. 

If demand management is the objective, peal<- 
load pricing can be used to control visitor numbers 
or redistribute them over different time periods. 
Peal<-load pricing refers to the practice of charging 
different prices at different times for the same 
service. The cost of having excess capacity during 
off-peal< periods can be covered by increasing the 
amount charged to peak users. Charging higher 
fees for prime camping sites can help to spread use 
more evenly Higher peak-period prices can also be 
used to perform a rationing function. 

Another common practice is price discrim- 
ination - that is, charging different prices for the 
same goods or services where the price differences 
are not proportional to differences in costs. There 



are a number of reasons why price discrimination 
may be used. For equity reasons, certain individuals 
may be charged low prices, or given goods or 
services free of charge. Such equity-based price 
discrimination may apply to the very old or very 
young, local residents, or low-income earners. 

ADMINISTRATION 

Administration lies at the heart of a protected 
area organization's capacity to operate. As is the 
case with much in this chapter, this section is 
primarily written with a government or major non- 
governmental organization in mind. 

People are needed to implement an 
organization's primary mission. Staff land contr- 
actors] often need to be hired and paid. They need a 
base from which to operate. Hence offices and 
workshops must be either purchased, constructed, 
or leased. People need to be mobile and to have 
access to equipment and materials. This requires 
the hire or purchase of vehicles, plant, and other 
equipment. Staff also need a supportive operating 
framework, which ranges from employment 
contracts to skills training. 

All of this requires well-designed admin- 
istration systems. Budgets need to be secured and 
managed. Bills need to be paid. Staff need to be 
treated fairly Workplaces need to be safe. Systems 
need to be in place to evaluate and monitor staff 
performance so that professional standards remain 
high. Numerous routine administrative tasks and 
systems are needed to support the conservation of 
a protected area. Organizations need to operate 
fairly and equitably, and to be accountable. 

For long-term success, an organization must 
invest in capacity building and development of its 
staff. Staff across an organization need to be up to 
date with advances in computer software, legisla- 
tion, project management techniques, accounting 
systems, and other organizational aspects. Training 
helps create an internal culture focused on constant 
improvement. It can also be used to give staff 
background information on the history of the 
organization. Training is usually administered 
through the organization's human resources 
section. Capacity building for a protected area org- 
anization needs to be strategic and long term. It 
should be a systems approach linked to organiz- 
ational needs and the demography of the workforce. 

Local area managers may also run their own 
training programs, for example to train new staff in 
basic operational skills such as using a chainsaw. 



130 



J 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



operating a four-wheel drive, or conducting cust- 
omer service. Training needs of staff sfiould be 
recognized in performance development agree- 
ments or other similar arrangements with their 
supervisors. Most organizations foster such an 
environment of continuous learning, and they 
reward or explicitly recognize their staff's 
vocational training. Staff may also benefit from 
time-release schemes that allow them to be 
seconded to other organizations or undertake 
specialist study or project work. 

Asset management should be part of an 
integrated management system. Assets are items 
of value that an organization owns or controls. 
Assets include constructed items such as roads, 
sewer lines, bridges, buildings, trails, and various 
cultural heritage structures, as well as tools, 
vehicles, or even intellectual property. Most 
organizations have a range of assets to manage, 
and typically these are inventoried. Asset 
management systems allow managers to predict 
when assets will need to be refurbished or replaced 
(maintenance cycles!. They can allow for these 
expenses in their annual budget. They can also keep 
track of the total value of assets, which is important 
in accrual accounting. 

SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT 

The major objectives of protected area managers 
are to ensure biodiversity and cultural heritage 
conservation. At the same time, sustainable man- 
agement principles need to be adhered to, as the 
very process of conservation management con- 
sumes energy and natural resources and produces 
wastes, thus impacting upon the global environ- 
ment. Sustainable protected area management 
considers these impacts and focuses on reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy 
consumption, minimizing waste production, and 
ensuring maximum benefits to local communities. 
Protected area managers operate within the wider 
context of environmental management and, as 
such, there are a number of International environ- 
mental policies that govern their operations. 

Protected area organizations should be 
leaders in the field of sustainable management 
practice. Sustainable environmental management 
needs to be part of the dally operations of protected 
area management. Managers have a responsibility 
to address environmental issues, provide lead- 
ership, and be accountable to the community 
Reduction In the use of fossil-based energy 




decreases the amount of greenhouse gases 
generated; consuming less water will assist in 
maintaining the health of catchment and river 
systems; and creating less waste helps preserve 
our ecosystems. Protected area managers are 
accountable for the resources that they utilize and 
they have a responsibility to limit the environmental 
impacts of their activities. 

Strategies to reduce greenhouse gases and 
ensure sustainabilify outcomes need to be 
developed and implemented for park management 
operations. An important component of this is 
environmental performance assessment and 
monitoring. Energy, water, and other resource use, 
waste production, and greenhouse gas emissions 
need to be assessed for operations. These can then 
be benchmarked and continual improvement 
systems implemented. Such sustainablllty assess- 
ment should be an Integral part of park man- 
agement planning and operations. 

Sustainable development criteria need to be 
part of the planning, design, and construction of 
new facilities. Issues considered include design for 
natural lighting, ventilation, and heating; the use of 



Haleakala National 
Park, Hawaii. 



131 



The world's protected areas 



renewable energy sources; the use of recycled 
materials; water minimization, recycling, and 
retention systems; and life cycle assessments of 
building products to reduce the ecological footprint 
of a development and its continued operation. 

Environmental performance reporting on a 
regular basis will ensure that management 
continues to operate at the highest sustainability 
standards and that protected areas assist in 
educating the community on sustainability prin- 
ciples and practices. Such performance achieve- 
ments should be made publicly available. 

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 

Operations are essential activities and tasks that 
underpin the conservation management of pro- 
tected areas. Managed correctly, operations directly 
help in achieving conservation outcomes. They are 
the major difference between so-called "paper 
parks" (legally reserved areas with no active man- 
agement) and parks that are effectively managed 
and contributing to conservation outcomes. 

Operations management is defined as the 
management of the productive processes that 
convert inputs into goods, services, and activities 
(Slack, Chambers, and Johnston, 2001 litis consid- 
ered to be part of the "controlling" function of man- 
agement, because much of the emphasis is on 
regulating the productive processes that are critical 
to reaching organizational goals (Bartol etat., 19981. 
Protected area management operations are those 
inputs, processes, and systems that directly con- 
tribute to the achievement of conservation out- 
comes. Such operations should recognize the 
following principles. 

Q Effective protected area management 
operations are an essential and integral part 
of the conservation of natural and cultural 
heritage. Protected areas require active, 
effective, and continuous management if the 
purposes for which they were reserved are to 
be retained. 
Q Operational standards, best-practice systems, 
staff competencies, operational procedures, 
on-site leadership, and operations team 
discipline are all integral and essential parts 
of effective protected area operational man- 
agement, 

□ Leadership, inclusiveness, and attention to 
operational detail are essential parts of 
successful operational management. 

□ Research, operational performance monit- 



oring, and adaptive management are essential 
parts of successful operational management. 

□ Local knowledge and local community 
involvement is a fundamental part of an 
operation. 

MANAGING THREATS 

The wide range of threats facing protected areas 
was reviewed in Chapter 3. A number of these 
threats are generated well beyond the boundaries 
of individual protected areas, and their ultimate 
resolution needs to be dealt with in the context of 
national- and regional-level planning, and global 
collaboration (such as threats from climate 
change and pollution). However, the impact of 
threats often needs to be dealt with and managed 
at the individual protected area level, as well as 
within the context of regional land-use planning 
and development. 

Management responses for dealing with 
threats and unwanted change to maintain 
conservation values may involve some or all of the 
following (ACiUCN, 20021. 

Q Regeneration, which involves the recovery 
of natural integrity following disturbance 
or degradation, with minimal human 
intervention. 
Q Restoration, which requires returning existing 
habitats to a known past state or to an approx- 
imation of the natural condition by repairing 
degradation, by removing introduced species, 
or by reinstatement. 

□ Reinstatement, which means reintroduction to 
a place of one or more species or elements of 
habitat or geodiversity that are known to have 
existed there naturally at a previous time, but 
that can no longer be found at that place. 

Q Enhancement, which involves introduction to a 
place of additional individuals of one or more 
organisms, species, or elements of habitat or 
geodiversity that naturally exist there. 

□ Preservation, which means maintaining the 
biodiversity and/or an ecosystem of a place at 
the existing stage of succession, or main- 
taining existing geodiversity. 

□ Modification, which involves altering a place to 
suit proposed uses that are compatible with 
the natural significance of the place. 

J Protection, which requires taking care of a 
place by maintenance and by managing 
impacts to ensure that natural significance is 
retained. 



132 



J 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



Maintenance, which involves continuous 
protective care of the biological diversity and 
geodiversity of a place. 



CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT 

As well as maintaining natural heritage, protected 
areas are important for the perpetuation, repres- 
entation, and conservation of cultural heritage 
values. Cultural heritage values refer to qualities 
and attributes possessed by places or items that 
have aesthetic, historic, scientific, or social value 
for past, present, and future generations. These 
values may be seen in places and physical 
features, but can also be associated with 
intangible qualities such as people's associations 
with or feelings for a place or item, or in other 
elements such as cultural practices, knowledge, 
songs, and stories. When natural elements of the 
landscape acquire meaning for a particular group, 
they may become cultural heritage. These may 
include land forms, flora, fauna, and minerals 
ISullivan, 20051. 

Cultural heritage resources need active 
management because they are essentially non- 
renewable, and often perishable. They are 
manifestations of past events, and only a limited 
number of them were created. Their material fabric 
also suffers with time, incidents, and disasters. If 
destroyed, they may be copied or reconstructed, but 
we cannot renew the spiritual, social, and historical 
moments in which they were created. Each site may 
be a unique physical manifestation of the activities, 
ideologies, technologies, and social practices of a 
particular place and time. 

In most areas, natural and cultural heritage 
are inextricably entwined. They form a continuum 
rather than being separate entities. The interaction 
between the natural and cultural heritage values of 
a protected area add richness and depth to the story 
of the place (Sullivan and Lennon, 20031. 

Successful conservation of cultural heritage 
requires: 

□ an objective assessment of all the elements of 
significance, both natural and cultural, of the 
protected area; 

□ development of policies and priorities, which 
protect both the natural and cultural heritage 
and strike a balance in cases of conflict; 

□ close consultation with, and involvement of, 
the people whose cultural heritage is 
represented in the protected area; 

□ development among park staff of specialized 




skills, or access to specialized advice, to 
effectively protect cultural heritage; 
□ familiarity, on the part of the manager, with 
best-practice methodology for cultural herit- 
age identification and conservation. 

TOURISM AND RECREATION 

Tourism is travel away from home for recreation or 
associated activities, and industries and services 
that aim to satisfy the needs of tourists. Growth in 
global tourism has been one of the great 
phenomena of the late 20th and early 21st 
centuries. In 2002, there were 715 million inter- 
national arrivals worldwide - 22 million more than 
in 2001 and 690 million more than in 1950 
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2003). The World 
Travel and Tourism Council (WTTCl has forecast 
that the number of international arrivals will 
increase to nearly 1.6 billion by 2020, despite a 
potential scarcity of petroleum by this time 
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2003; Mason 20031. 
Many tourist destinations are protected areas. 

In an era of (relatively! cheap petroleum-based 
fuel, transport systems have delivered visitors 



The demand for 
the recreational 
opportunities afforded 
by protected areas 
is forecast to rise 
rapidly. Kaziranga 
National Park World 
Heritage Area, India. 



133 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 5.1: THE ROLE OF RANGERS IN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT 



Sustaining the integrity of protected areas is a l<ey 
function of any robust managennent regime and 
differentiates between so-called "paper parks" 
and those parks that truly make a contribution to 
world conservation. Active management requires 
negotiation and persuasion, and sometimes 
coercion and enforcement. It needs to bring 
together disparate and often conflicting aims and 
aspirations for the good of the protected area and 
its linkages to the wider landscape and adjacent 
communities. When dealing with people, it also 
needs a human face. At the grass roots level that 
human face is usually the ranger* 

The primary responsibility of the ranger is to 
maintain the integrity of the protected area where 
they work. In this context, ranger corps often form 
the "Thin Green Line", preserving such areas from 
destruction by outside forces. Many of the different 
titles by which they are known throughout the 
world, such as guardeparques, used throughout 
Spanish-speaking Latin America, reflect their 
guardian or custodian role. 

Over time, however, the focus of the 
ranger's role has expanded, reflecting a much 
greater critical interface with both local and 
broader communities. At any given time a 
ranger may be: an environmental interpreter, 
community liaison officer, field naturalist, 
facilitator, and, when called for, rescuer or 
enforcer. The ranger acts as a day-to-day bridge 
in community liaison programs, developing key 
partnerships and engendering a sense of 
ownership for those living, visiting, and working 
within protected areas. A central part of their role 
includes the development and delivery of 
environmental education, both in terms of the 
protected area and wider conservation principles. 
The ability of rangers to be seen as 
"authoritative" and not "authoritarian" reflects 
this increasingly complex role. It engenders a 
feeling of approachability yet retains respect for 



themselves and the area they are there to protect. 
Rangers are also uniquely positioned and 
qualified to implement, evaluate and advise 
on the effectiveness of management and sus- 
tainable development, and to monitor the health 
of the area. 

Many rangers have, through the course of 
their careers, risen through the ranks to become 
directors and executives of protected area 
administrations, but for the most part the 
dedication and invaluable work of rangers carries 
on unrecognized, reflecting the vocational nature 
of the job. 

Lives on the Line 

As guardians of often highly valuable natural or 
cultural resources, rangers are all too frequently 
faced with combating illegal commercial and non- 
sustainable exploitation of these resources, 
frequently at great personal risk. Regional conflict, 
civil wars, and political upheaval have a profound 
impact on protected areas, but even under these 
circumstances rangers will be found at their posts. 
In Mozambique, rangers stayed at their posts 
throughout the civil war without getting paid. 
Similar stories can be found elsewhere, not just in 
Africa, where dedicated rangers have remained 
resolutely in their parks throughout internal strife 
and conflict, and all too often have paid for their 
dedication with their lives. 

In addition to human threats, rangers often 
have to battle the elements and unforgiving terrain 
at inopportune times, especially when involved in 
activities such as search and rescue, wild fire 
control or wildlife capture operations. Particularly 
in the developing world, rangers often live and 
work in remote and isolated areas, with minimal 
logistical and institutional support. Far too often 
they carry out their work without even the most 
rudimentary equipment or uniform, and often go 
without pay for months at a time. 



quickly and efficiently to visitor destinations around 
the world. Such tourism is important to the econ- 
omies of many nations, and brings many benefits to 
local communities. Managed responsibly, tourism 
can provide many sustainable benefits to protected 
areas, including opportunities for both education 



and the appreciation of nature and cultural 
heritage, as well as fostering a conservation 
constituency (Eagles and McCool, 20021. 

However, as noted in Chapter 3, tourism has 
also led to conflicts and environmental impacts The 
tourism industry's global bodies, the World Tourism 



136 



The functions and processes of protected area management 




Patrolling Ta Phraya National Park in the Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex World Heritage Area, 
Thailand, on the border with Cambodia. Rangers have to contend with armed poachers and illegal 
loggers and are at risk from land mines left over from the Cambodian conflict. 



International Ranger Federation 

Rangers need training, mentoring and knowledge 
to support their efforts. Inadequate resources, 
including linnited financial resources and a 
shortage of skilled personnel, undermine an 
area's integrity and management effectiveness. 
Threats to biodiversity from climate change, 
natural disasters, alien invasive species, and a 
wide array of human activities and impacts also 
pose distinct challenges. 

The International Ranger Federation (IRF), a 
world-wide Federation of National Ranger 
Associations in over 53 countries, has been 
instrumental in the development of key compet- 
encies that define the areas of knowledge a ranger 
must have, with the flexibility to be applied at 
different levels to reflect differing geopolitical 
contexts. The IRF is now actively engaged in the 
dissemination of best practice and the raising of 
professional standards, and using key 
competencies as a benchmark for training and 
mentoring programs in a number of areas around 
the world. The strength of the Federation lies in 



the fact that its member associations also reflect 
regional differences, for example, allowing South 
American rangers of one country to offer 
mentoring to rangers working in other South 
American countries. It also means that the IRF can 
develop locally based prescriptions for generic 
terminologies such as "area integrity". Since its 
inception in 1992, the IRF has been successful in a 
number of initiatives designed to reflect and raise 
the standards of professionalism of rangers. It has 
also been actively involved in the area of youth 
development; for example, jointly hosting a Young 
Conservationist Award with the lUCN World 
Commission on Protected Areas. 



* The IRF defines a ranger as "the person involved 
in the practical protection and preservation of alt 
aspects of wild areas, historical, and cultural sites. 
Rangers provide recreational opportunities and 
interpretation of sites while providing links 
between local communities, protected areas, and 
area administration. " 



Organization (WTOl and WTTC, have responded 
to the substantial environmental problems and 
are aware that growth in tourism is dependent, 
among other considerations, on the sustainability 
of destinations. The WTO has contributed to inter- 
national declarations on the environment. 



environmental codes of ethics, guidelines, and 
policies that promote sustainable tourism. The 
strategic document. Blueprint for New Tourism, 
was launched by the WTTC in 2003 (WTTC, 20031. 
The strategy sets balancing economics with 
environment, people, and cultures as a key goal. 



135 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 5.2: DEVELOPING CAPACITY AND TRAINING FOR PROTECTED AREAS 



The importance of developing capacity for 
protected areas, at individual and institutional 
levels and in the wider enabling environment, 
has long been recognized. At individual-level 
training - the enhancement of knowledge, skills 
and competencies among individuals involved in 
the running of protected areas - is fundamental 
to developing capacity. There are a number of 
initiatives at national, regional, and global levels 
to provide training. 

At national level a number of protected area 
agencies, most but not all in developed countries, 
offer ongoing training, mainly aimed at their own 
staff. Examples include agencies in Australia, 
Canada, Kenya, New Zealand, and the US. Training 
in developing countries may be supported through 
capacity-building projects funded by bilateral or 
multilateral agencies such as the Global 
Environment Facility. In addition, a number of 
universities and colleges offer training in subjects 
relevant to the design and management of 
protected areas, often tailored to conditions in 
their own countries. 

Internationally, apart from the International 
Ranger Federation, there is no agency primarily 
responsible for overseeing training and to 
produce a comprehensive international training 
strategy for protected areas. However, various 
initiatives have been undertaken, chiefly by lUCN 
- the World Conservation Union, UNEP and 
UNESCO. In 1996, the Global Task Force on 
Training was established under the World 
Commission on Protected Areas, but this has 
never had the resources to be effective. In 2001, 
the UNESCO World Heritage Centre prepared a 
Global Training Strategy for World Heritage, and 
in 2003, a strategic process for capacity building. 

Some institutions offer courses aimed at an 
international audience, such as the International 
Short Course for Senior Park Managers, run 
since 1998 by the Glynwood Centre in New York 



State, USA, in cooperation with the US National 
Parks Service. There are also a number of 
regional training centres, some with a long 
history, such as the Centre Agronomico Tropical 
de Investigacion y Ensefiaza (CATIEI in Costa 
Rica (established in 19731, the College of African 
Wildlife Management at Mweka in Tanzania 
(19631, the Garoua Wildlife College, Cameroon 
(19701 and the Southern African Wildlife College 
in Northern Province, South Africa (19971. In 
addition there are several international 
exchange programs for protected area staff 
intended to facilitate training. One of the most 
successful of these has been the Latin American 
Technical Cooperation Network on National 
Parks, other Protected Areas and Wildlife, which, 
since its inception in 1983, has held over 40 
workshops, trained scores of technical staff and 
produced a large number of training documents 
and manuals. 

Despite these various initiatives, a number of 
pervasive problems still need to be solved. These 
include: 

□ inadequate school or tertiary-level training 
or education relevant to protected areas; 

□ lack of a "training culture" in many protected 
area agencies; 

□ lack of resources; 

□ ineffective training because of inappropriate- 
ness to local conditions or lack of effective 
targeting at recipients; 

□ barriers to the application of what has been 
learned in training; 

Q unclear, unspecified and continuously 
changing skill set required to manage 
protected areas; 

□ once trained, people often leave protected 
area agencies, especially in developing 
countries. 



and indicated that "new tourism" should look 
beyond short-term considerations to focus "on 
benefits not only for people who travel, but also 
for people in the communities they visit, and for 
their respective natural, social and cultural 
environments". 



In 1983, Mexican architect and environ- 
mentalist Hector Ceballos-Lascurain coined the 
word "ecotourism". Ecotourism is now a major 
segment of the tourism industry and a major growth 
area. As often happens with an emerging phenom- 
enon, it has several similar names: nature tourism. 



136 



The functions ano processes of protected area management 



green tourism, adventure tourism, sustainable 
tourism, appropriate tourism. In describing its 
evolution. Honey (19991 noted that: "broadly stated, 
the concept of ecotourism can be traced to four 
sources: (1) scientific, conservation, and non- 
governmental organization circles; (2) multilateral 
aid institutions; (3J developing countries; and W the 
travel industry and traveling public." 

The term ecotourism implied a genuine 
attempt to respect nature and to manage for the 
future. It linked the tourism industry with the com- 
munity's concern for the environment, and so was 
popular with both environmentalists and managers. 
Common sense dictated that it was simply not 
sustainable for the tourism industry to degrade its 
own destinations. Around the world, ecotourism has 
been hailed as a panacea: a way to fund conservation 
and scientific research, protect fragile and pristine 
ecosystems, benefit rural communities, promote 
development in poor countries, enhance ecological 
and cultural sensitivity, instill environmental 
awareness and a social conscience in the travel 
industry, satisfy and educate the discriminating 
tourist, and, some claim, build world peace. Although 
green travel is being marketed as a win-win solution 
for developing countries, the environment, the 
tourist, and the travel industry, close examination 
shows a much more complex reality 

For Ceballos-Lascurain 11996), if an activity is 
to be considered as ecotourism: 

It should promote positive environmental 

ethics and foster "preferred" behavior in its 

participants. 

It should not degrade the resource Ithat is, the 

natural environment!. 

Facilities and sen/ices may support the tourist's 

encounter with the "intrinsic resource", but 

should never become attractions in their own 

right. 

Ecotounsts should accept the environment as 

it IS, not expecting it to change or be modified 

for their convenience. 

Ecotourism must benefit the wildlife and 

environment, contributing to their sustain- 

ability and ecological integrity (this may be 

through the effects on the local community or 

economy!. 

It should provide a first-hand encounter with 

nature. Visitor centers and on-site interpretive 

slide-shows may be part of an ecotourism 

activity only if they direct people to a first-hand 

experience. 




It should actively involve and benefit local 
communities, thus encouraging them to value 
their natural resources. 
It should offer gratification through education 
and/or appreciation rather than through thrill- 
seeking or physical achievement. 
It should involve considerable preparation, and 
demand in-depth knowledge on the part of 
leaders and participants. 

Recreation, an aspect of park tourism, is also an 
important part of the human experience of 
protected areas (Pigram and Jenkins, 1999]. 
Visitors undertake an extraordinary diversity of 
recreation activities within protected areas. Most 
activities have a constituency that lobbies in 
support of its continuation or expansion within the 
protected area estate. Staff are often required to be 
involved with facilities supporting bushwalking, 
skiing, boating, canoeing, caving, four-wheel 
driving, and a range of other activities. Adventure 
recreation activities, such as canyoning, white- 
water rafting, cross-country skiing, abseiling, ice 
climbing, and rock climbing, may need manage- 
ment attention for safety reasons (response to 
emergencies in bad weather] and for potential 
environmental impacts. 

The tourism and recreation values of pro- 
tected areas are influenced by a number of geo- 
graphical, social, managerial, and biophysical 
factors, including proximity and accessibility to 
markets, cultural links, availability of services, 
affordability, peace and stability, positive market 
image, pro-tourism policies, and availability of 
attractions (Weaver and Opperman, 2000). Visitor 
attractions in protected areas may be natural 



Diving tourism in 
Jardines de la Reina 
National Park, Cuba. 
Low intensity, low 
impact tourism can 
bring considerable 
benefits to local 
communities, often in 
turn leading to greater 
efforts to protect the 
environment. 



137 



The world's protected areas 




The demands of an ever 
increasing population 
for commodities, 
infrastructure and 
services place pressure 
on species and natural 
and cultural spaces. 
Orangutans \Pongo spp.) 
are now iiigiily 
endangered in the wild. 



features or destinations witli more developed 
facilities and services such as visitor centers, 
boardwalks, and limestone "show caves". Artificial 
attractions or high-impact, derived activities that 
may diminish the natural or cultural heritage values 
of protected areas are Inconsistent with the concept 
and purpose of most protected areas. 

The value of protected areas for tourism and 
recreation use can be described in terms of 
opportunity settings found within them. These can 
be defined as the combination of physical (such as 
scenery], biological Isuch as native plants and 
animals), social (such as family, friends and/or 
other visitors!, and managerial (such as the 
facilities and regulations imposed at a setting) 
conditions that give value to a place (Clarke and 
Stankey, 1979). Managing for tourism and 
recreation opportunity settings is typically 
achieved through the management planning 
process and the use of zoning and recreation 
planning tools. Protected area managers, in 
cooperation with other land managers, should 
ensure that a spectrum of recreation settings is 



available within a region. The setting of planning 
limits for visitor destinations is also an essential 
tool in sustainable visitor-use management. 

EVALUATING MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 

Management effectiveness evaluation measures 
the degree to which a protected area is protecting 
Its values and achieving its goals and objectives. 
Agreed methods of evaluating management effec- 
tiveness will be crucial in the attempt to assess 
whether the world's nations have been successful 
in their CBD target of ensuring that all protected 
areas have effective management In place by 2012. 
More importantly, such methods should actually 
enable managers to Improve conservation and 
management of protected areas on the ground. 
They should enable managers to allocate 
resources efficiently and plan for potential threats 
and opportunities. Because evaluation Involves 
judging management, some people see it as 
negative or threatening. However, management 
effectiveness evaluation should be a positive 
process that allows us to learn from our mistakes 
and build on success. 

Protected area declaration alone does not 
guarantee the conservation of values. Globally, 
substantial Investments of money, land, and human 
effort are being put into protected area acquisition 
and management, and into specific intervention 
projects. It is a remarkable achievement for the 
world's governments and conservation organiza- 
tions that more than 12 percent of the world's land 
surface is in some form of protected area. However, 
in most cases we have little Idea of whether 
management of Individual protected areas, or of 
whole systems. Is effective. 

Managers and authorities, landowners and 
communities, academics, and the general public 
are beginning to ask some serious questions. Are 
the values for which the area is declared being 
protected? Are the current and future impacts on 
the area's values overwhelming It, resulting in loss 
of species and degradation, ecosystems, or cultural 
values? How could management be improved to 
better conserve the values In the face of growing 
social expectations, often scarce resourcing, and 
sometimes significant biophysical change? Are 
interventions and projects, which are often very 
expensive, achieving their objectives? 

To answer these critical questions, an 
increasing number of people have been 
developing ways to monitor and evaluate the 



138 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



effectiveness of protected areas and apply the 
findings. This is leading to a growing awareness 
that evaluation of management effectiveness Is at 
the core of resilient, adaptive, and anticipatory 
protected area management. Four broad 
purposes for undertaking evaluation of manage- 
ment effectiveness can be Identified. 

Promoting better protected area management 
This Includes a more reflective and adaptive 
approach to management. By comparing evalua- 
tions over time, emerging threats may be noticed, 
as well as the Impacts of changes to management. 
For example, an Individual park evaluation may 
indicate that the condition of visitor facilities and 
visitor satisfaction at a particular national park is 
declining. Sometimes, a significant outcome of 
evaluation is to demonstrate effective management 
practices and to provide justification for their 
continued support. 

Guiding project planning, resource allocation, and 
priority setting 

Some conservation organizations are developing 
models to set priorities and allocate resources. 
Evaluation plays a key role in these models, which 
generally establish a minimum acceptable standard 
for different criteria and then assess protected 
areas against these standards. The conservation 
Importance of protected areas, their suitability tor 
particular uses (such as tourism), and their current 
threats are usually taken into account. Findings of 
evaluation can also Influence resource allocation by 
Indicating which programs are most effective In 
achieving objectives. Management effectiveness 
evaluation provides a mechanism for adaptive 
management - feeding the results of research and 
monitoring Into management on the ground and 
giving a basis for decision making. 

Providing accountability and transparency 
Evaluation can provide reliable Information to the 
public, donors, and other stakeholders about how 
resources are being used and how well an area is 
being managed. For example, the public often 
want concrete evidence that funding is benefiting 
conservation or that a particular project Is 
achieving Its goals. Where protected areas are 
managed by more than one party, through joint 
management arrangements. regular and 
Impartial evaluations provide a basis for ensuring 
that obligations are met. 




Increasing community awareness, involvement, 
and support 

Since chronic resource shortage Is a common 
feature of protected area systems, public support - 
sometimes serious public concern - Is needed to 
convince governments to provide better resourcing. 
Evaluation processes can alert the community to 
threats and can demonstrate the need for Improved 
support for protected areas. Results, especially 
from Independent evaluators. can spur public action 
on park management issues. 

Essentially, evaluation enables practitioners to 
reflect on experience, to understand what is 
happening here and now, and to assess potential 
threats and opportunities. Evaluation of manage- 
ment effectiveness can play an important role In 
providing transparency and accountability, and In 
identifying mistakes and dead-end approaches. 
However, it is an essentially positive process, and Is 
best viewed as a critical part of an Improving 
management cycle. Indeed, an increasing number 
of scientists now believe that the application of 
knowledge from multiple sources into management 



Protected area 
status alone does 
not necessarily 
guarantee the 
conservation of 
values. 



139 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 5.1 : THE WCPA MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK 






Elements of 
evaluation 


Context 


Planning 


Inputs 


Processes 


Outputs 


Outcomes 


Explanation 


Where are we 


Where do we 


What do we 


How do we go 


What were the 


What did we 




now'' 


want to be? 


need? 


about It? 


results? 


achieve? 




Assessment of 


Assessment of 


Assessment of 


Assessment of 


Assessment of 


Assessment of 




importance, 


protected area 


resources needed 


the way 


implementation 


outcomes and the 




tfireats. and 


design and 




management is 


of management 


extent to which 




policy 


planning 




conducted 


programs and 


they achieved 




environment 








actions; delivery 
of products and 
services 


objectives 


Criteria assessed 


Significance 


Protected area 


Resourcing of 


Suitability of 


Results of 


Impacts: effects 




Threats 


legislation and 


agency 


management 


management 


of management 




Vulnerability 


policy 




processes 


actions 


in relation to 




National context 


System design 
Reserve design 
Management 
planning 


Resourcing of site 
Partners 




Services and 
products 


objectives 


Focus of 


Status 


Appropriateness 


Resources 


Efficiency 


Effectiveness 


Effectiveness 


evaluation 








Appropriateness 




Appropriateness 


Source: Hockings. St 


olton & Dudley. 2000. 



should be the most critical focus, and that "the 
priority for ecosystenn management is evolving 
improvements through reflection on experience 
that follows decision and action" (Brunner and 
Clarke. 19971. A system of evaluating management 
effectiveness can help to integrate a variety of 
information sources, such as traditional and 
community knowledge, scientific findings, and the 
perceptions and experience of managers and 
stakeholders. Evaluation focuses on relevant 
management-oriented knowledge, and on group 
learning about how this should be practically 
applied to meet future challenges. 

Evolution of management effectiveness evaluation 
The need to develop tools and guidelines to 
"evaluate the ecological and managerial quality of 
existing protected areas" was recognized in the 
Bali Action Plan adopted at the end of the llird 



WPC IBali] in 1982. Following the Bali Congress, 
the issue of management effectiveness of pro- 
tected areas began to appear in international 
literature and particularly within the work and 
deliberations of the WCPA. 

The IVth WPC (Caracas) in 1992 identified 
effective management as one of the four major 
protected area issues of global concern and called 
for lUCN to further develop a system for monitoring 
management effectiveness of protected areas. In 
1996, a Task Force was formed within the 
Commission and in 2000, it published the WCPA 
tvlanagement Effectiveness Framework (Table 5.1] 
and guidelines for assessing the management of 
protected areas (Hockings, Stolton. and Dudley, 
20001 which have been subsequently revised 
(Hockings efa(., 20061. 

The Task Force has now been replaced by a 
thematic program within WCPA, which is continuing 



UO 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



TABLE 5.2: METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION, PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED AND WCPA FRAMEWORK 


ELEMENTS COVERED IN 21 CASE STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION 


Methods of 




WCPA Framework 


data collection % 


Participants % 


elements % 


Workshop 62 


Site managers 100 


Outcomes 81 


Interviews 52 


Off-site managers/agency staff 90 


Inputs 71 


Questionnaires 52 


Local NGO 57 


Process 67 


Field monitoring 24 


International NGO 57 


Context 57 


MIS 19 


Scientists/researchers 57 


Outputs 57 


Map analysis 19 


Local communities and institutions 52 


Planning 52 




Consultants 38 


All 38 




Government bodies 33 






Management advisory committee 10 






Indigenous communities 5 





work on the issue. At the same time as the Task 
Force vi^as preparing these guidelines, a number of 
other groups and individuals around the world were 
addressing the same issue by developing a range of 
methodologies for assessing management effec- 
tiveness. A suite of methodologies now exist, some 
developed using the WCPA Management Effect- 
iveness Framework and others derived Inde- 
pendently (Hockings, 20031. Experience in 
application of these various methodologies is now 
Increasing. Some examples of this application are 
summarized in Table 5.3, based on information 
drawn from case studies prepared for an internatio- 
nal workshop on management effectiveness 
evaluation held in the lead up to the Vth WPC 
IDurbanI In 2003 ILevenngton and Hockings, 2004). 

These methodologies vary considerably in 
their overall approach. Including in the type of infor- 
mation used in the assessment process, in how the 
information is collected, and in who is involved in 
the assessment process (Table 5,21. These 
differences, In part, reflect the purpose and context 
of the evaluation and the resources available for the 
work. Indeed, a variety of approaches that can be 
adapted for use in different blomes and regions, and 
applied with different levels of resources, is one of 
the fundamental ideas behind the development of 
the WCPA Management Effectiveness Framework, 
as opposed to the development of one global system 
for assessing management effectiveness. 

The majority of the case studies reviewed in 
the development of approaches to management 
effectiveness evaluation relied principally on 



existing data and perceptions of participants in 
the evaluation process with less than a quarter of 
the case studies using techniques such as field 
monitoring, use of management Information 
systems, or analysis of mapped data to Inform the 
assessment. This may reflect the relative youth of 
management effectiveness evaluation, with many 
case studies having been undertaken as one-off or 
Initial assessments. Hopefully, more widespread 
and regular application of evaluation systems will 
see a rise in the availability and use of monitoring 
data In the assessment process. 

All the case studies involved site managers in 
the assessment process; local and international 
non-governmental organizations and scientists 
were the next most common participants. Only half 
the studies Involved participation by local com- 
munities and institutions, and only one provided 
explicitly for indigenous communities - although 
indigenous representatives may have been included 
within the local community group in others. Wider 
Involvement of communities and stakeholders in 
evaluation processes should be encouraged. 

Management effectiveness of protected 
areas has been selected by the CBD as one of the 
indicators that will be used to assess achieve- 
ment of the UN 2010 biodiversity target. The 
impetus provided by this decision is leading 
many countries to undertake assessments of 
management of their protected areas. Over the 
next few years we should have a much clearer 
picture of the state of the worlds parks based on 
the results of this work. 



U1 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 5.3: CASE STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION COLLATED AS PART OF A PREPARATORY 
WORKSHOP FOR THE VTH WORLD PARKS CONGRESS 

Reasons for evaluating 
Case study Background information management 


Bwindi Impenetrable National 
Park, Uganda IBINPI evaluation of 
management effectiveness 


World Heritage listed BINP is managed primarily to protect the 
park's montane forests and their diverse wildlife - especially 
nearly half the world's remaining mountain gorillas. It is one of 
the pilot sites in Enhancing Our Heritage; monitoring and 
managing for success in Natural World Heritage sites. 


To improve on existing management 
strategies and reduce resource 
wastage. 




Evaluation of management of 
Protected Areas IPAsI of 
Catalonia. Spam 


Catalonia is a region covering 32 OOOsq km in the north east of 
Spam. Most protected areas are managed by the Catalonian 
Govt, who, since 1992 have attempted to base consereation 
planning on ecological criteria instead of social preferences. 


European Pilot Study; Increase 
information; Assess condition of PA 
system and propose changes. 




Evaluating the management 
effectiveness of PAs in India 


A World Bank-funded project by the Govt of India to assess the 
management effectiveness of PAs in India. 


Reassess results of 198A-1987 
evaluation by applying same 
methodology Recommend areas for 
attention as well as legal and policy 
changes. 




lUCN WCPA-Manne/WWF MPA 
Management Effectiveness 
Initiative 


lUCN WCPA and WWF initiative to improve management of 
Marine Protected Areas (MPAsl. 


To enhance overall capacity of 
adaptive management of MPAs by 
focusing on indicators specific to 
MPAs and their surrounds. 




Conservation Internationals Pilot 
Evaluation of Management 
Effectiveness of Protected Areas in 
Peru and Ecuador 


Peru and Ecuador manage PAs with some of the most 
biologically diverse ecosystems on earth. Some areas of the 
Amazon have liltle human activity, while parts of the Andes and 
coastal forests have major human impacts. This results in very 
different management contexts across the countries. 


To improve understanding and 
management of issues relating to 
social context, physical context and 
budget on PAs. 




Evaluation of Management 
Effectiveness of the Sian Ka'an 
Biosphere Reserve (SKBRI 


WH-listed SKBR covers over 600 ODOha on Mexican Caribbean 
Coast and protects diverse marine, freshwater and terrestrial 
ecosystems. It is threatened by urban growth and tourism. 


Prepare and monitor a Sustainable 
Development Plan - to limit external 
threats to the park. 




Forest Innovations Project; 
Developing a Protected Area 
Effectiveness Methodology for 
Africa 


It was recognized that little work had been done on management 
effectiveness evaluation (MEEI in Africa. A methodology was 
developed by the lUCN/WWF/GTZ Forest Innovations Project and 
tested on a number of African Rese^^/es. 


Develop and field test WCPA 
methodology and promote MEE of 
African PAs. 




Evaluation of World Heritage 
Management program for the 
Tasmanian Wilderness World 
Heritage Area 


The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is one of the 
largest conservation reserves in Australia protecting temperate 
wilderness and cultural heritage. It is managed according to a 
ten-year Statutory Plan, which details policies and actions 
needed to be implemented to achieve the plan's objectives. 


Provide reliable feedback to managers 
and stakeholders about achievement 
of management objectives. Enable 
ongoing management to be more 
effective and accountable. 




Assessment of Federal Protected 
Areas in Brazil 


Brazil has 91 Federal Protected Areas. All 86 PAs created more 
than six years ago were part of this assessment. Six years was 
considered the requisite timeframe to allow for minimum 
implementation of park management measures. 


Support a WWF-Brazil campaign to 
positively highlight PAs before a 
Protected Area Bill in Congress was 
voted on. 




Data collection: W = v^orkshops; 1 = interviews; MIS = management information system; M = field monitoring; Q = questionnaires/surveys; MA = Map Analysis; MP = | 
Existing Management Plan. Participants; SM = site managers/field staff; MA = Management agency staff (off-sitel; NGOILI - local NGO; NGOlll - international NGO; ' 



U2 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



Participants WCPA 
Data in evaluation Frameworl< Identifiable results from 
Methodology collection process elements evaluation process 




Enhancing Our Heritage 
project methodology based on 
WCPA Framework. 


W. 1. MIS 


SM. MA, S, 
NGOIU. 
NGOIII, LC 


C. PUI. PR. OP. 
OC 


Led to increase in staffing, development of 
training plans, infrastructure and equipment 
acquisition, plans for boundary changes to 
resen/e. Refocus on gorilla research and 
monitoring. 




Indicator system based on the 
WCPA Framework. 


1. W 


SM. MA, S, G, 
NGOILI. LC 


C, PL, 1, PR. OP. 
OC 


Too early in process to determine, although 
managers considered issues not previously 
thought about. 




Survey of PA managers and 
experts. 


Q, 1, 


SM. MA 
NGOIII, 

NGOILI, LC. G. 
S 


C, PL 1, PR. OP, 
00 


1984-1987 study led to increased resourcing, 
amendments to law and policy, acceptance of 
ecodevelopment near PAs, 




Based on WCPA Framework 
proposing indicators for 
biophysical, socio-economic 
and governance objectives. 


Q. I.W 


NGOIII. 
NGOILI, C. 
SM, MA, LC. S 


Mostly OP and 
00 


Too early in process to determine. 




Based on WCPA Framework 


MA, 1 


NGOIII. 
NGOILI. SM. 
MA, 


C. PU 1. OC 


Results of the evaluation are being finalized. 
Organization and dissemination of background 
information to allow more informed management 
decisions. 




WWF/CATIE (20001 
methodology 


W 


SM, MA. C 


All - although 
mostly PR 


Action plan to be incorporated into Management 
Plan 




Based on WCPA Framework. 
Used participatory and rapid 
rural appraisal techniques 
concentrating on social aspects 


W, 1, Q 


C. NGOIII, G. 
NGOIU.SM. 
MA. LC 


C, PL 1, PR. 
OP, OC 


Too early in process to determine. 




Primarily outcomes-based 
evaluation focused on 
objectives in the management 
plan for the site. 


MP. M. Q 


SM. MA. C. G. 
WH, IC. 5 


Focuses on OC 
with some 
consideration 
of OP. 1 


Evaluation results are guiding development of 
next management plan. Results are expected to 
influence budgeting and allow stakeholders to be 
more involved with management performance. 




Questionnaire developed for 
this study 


W. Q 


NGOIII. MA. 
SM. G. S 


C. PL 1, PR. 
OP. OC 


Follow-up evaluation has not been done. The 
evaluation was used to determine the status of 
PAs not to directly influence management. 
Results contributed to successful campaign in 
support of legislation. 




G = Govt bodies; LC = Local community; C =CcnsuUants; S = Scientists/Researcher institution; IC = Indigenous communities; AC= independent Management Advisory 
Committee WCPA Frame»/ork elements; C = Context; PL = Planning; 1 = Inputs; PR = Process; OP = Outputs. OC = Outcomes 



U3 



The world's protected areas 



TABLE 5.3: (continued) 

Reasons for evaluating 
Case study Background information management 


Rapid Assessment and 
Prioritization of Protected Areas 
Management IRAPPAMI 
Methodology 


WWF-lnternational has developed a tool for assessing the 
management effectiveness of protected area systems. It is 
intended to: 111 identify strengths and w/eaknesses; 121 analyze 
threats and pressures; 131 identify areas of high ecological and 
social importance and vulnerability; |4| indicate the urgency and 
conservation priority for individual PAs; and (51 help to improve 
management effectiveness. 


Depended on each area, but 
included assessing management 
effectiveness of entire PA systems, 
prioritizing support for critically 
threatened PAs; establishing 
baseline data and identify areas for 
improving management. 




Queensland Parks and Wildlife 
Sen/ice rapid assessment and 
ecological integrity statements 


Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is responsible for 
managing most of the state's natural areas. Two systems of 
management effectiveness evaluation have been piloted across 
the state: evaluation of natural and cultural integrity and rapid 
assessment of management processes. 


To develop an efficient and replicable 
system to encourage - better 
reporting; adaptive management, 
and monitoring for extension and 
community involvement. 




Learning about The Effectiveness 
of Specific Conser^'ation Tools 
across Protected Areas: Lessons 
on Sustainable Agriculture in 
Central America and Mexico 


This study was a three-year field test in two biosphere reserves 
in Guatemala and Mexico. The NGOs responsible for managing 
these PAs conducted the evaluations as part of an adaptive 
management process. They were also learning about the 
application of sustainable agriculture as a conservation tool in 
these areas- 


It was facilitated by the Biodiversity 
Support Program IBSPI to field test 
a framework for conducting adaptive 
management at site and cross-site 
levels. 




Application of the Nature 
Conservancy's consen/ation audit 
process at Cosumnes River 
Project, California. USA. 


For 1 5 years, the Nature Conservancy and partners have 
managed the Cosumnes River area of California's Central 
Valley Lowlands. This evaluation was done as part of a 
Conservation Audit Process being used by the Nature 
Conservancy to assess conservation success. 


Primarily to assess the threat status 
and viability status of the focal 
conservation targets of the 
Cosumnes River Area. 




The Enhancing our Heritage 
Project 


Enhancing our Heritage: monitoring and managing for success 
in Natural World Heritage sites is a four-year project of lUCN 
and UNESCO working in ten pilot sites in Asia Africa and Latin 
America. 


Project aims to demonstrate the use 
of the WCPA Framework to develop 
monitoring and assessment systems 
to improve management and 
reporting in World Heritage sites. 




Evaluation of Management 
Effectiveness in the Oulanka 
National Park, Finland 


Oulanka National Park in the Arctic Circle supports spruce 
forest, peatlands and diverse lake and river habitats. Some 
1 50 000 visitors a year enjoy outdoor activities and provide 
substantial tourist income to the local community 


Obtain PAN Parks certification for 
Oulanka. Balance tourism and 
conservation and improve overall 
management effectiveness. 




Evaluating Management 
Effectiveness of the Eraser Island 
World Heritage Area 


WH-listed Eraser Island is managed by Queensland Parks and 
Wildlife Service. The case study aimed to develop a 
methodology of assessing management effectiveness in PAs by 
building in a process for evaluation and review of the extent to 
which management plan was being implemented and its 
objectives were being achieved. 


Provide information to managers 
and stakeholders on effectiveness of 
management as a basis for 
informed decision making, improved 
management practices, reporting 
and accountability 




Regional Project on Evaluation of 
Management of Protected Areas 
in Central America 


Central America comprises seven countries over half a million 
km.' as a land bridge between North and South America. The 
region's diverse topography and climate supports a range of 
ecosystems. A model was developed for evaluation of 
management of protected areas as part of a regional project. 


National Park authorities requested 
that the model be tested on various 
pilot sites. 




Data collection: W = workshops; 1 = interviews. MIS > management information system. 1^ = field monitoring; Q = questionnaires/surveys; MA = Map Analysis; MP = 
Existing Management Plan. Parlicipanis: SM = site managers/lield staff; MA = Management agency staff [off-sitel; NGOIL] - local NGO; NGOIIl - international NGO; 



MA 



The functions and processes of protected area management 



Participants WCPA 
Data in evaluation Framework Identifiable results from 
Methodology collection process elements evaluation process 




Rapid Assessment and 
Prioritization of Protected Area 
Management (RAPPAMI 
Methodology 


W, Q 


SM, MA, C. 
NGOIIl, 

NGOILI, LC. G, 
S 


C, PL, 1, PR, 
OP, OC 


Although only recently completed, initial 
management changes for various areas include: 
plans to undertake annual management 
effectiveness assessments; using results to set 
priorities for park support; using results to set 
annual budgets. 




Rapid assessment 
questionnaire developed using 
the WCPA Framework 


Q.I 


SM, MA 


1, C, OC 


Too soon to assess, although awareness of 
management issues has been increased and 
managers are thinking about better ways to use 
resources and improve management. 




BSP "Measures of Success" 
framework for conducting 
adaptive management at site 
and cross-site levels. 


W, 1, Q, M 


C, NGOIIl, 
NGOILI, LC, SM 


None specifically 
but Measures of 
Success IS 
similar to the 
WCPA 
framework. 


Adaptive Management principles were integrated 
into routine management. Partners were able to 
compare results using common terminology Able 
to generate concrete guiding principles for using 
sustainable agriculture under varying conditions. 
Able to see why sustainable agriculture did or did 
not work at different sites. 




Conservation Audit process 
built around the Nature 
Conservancy's Five-S 
Framework for Site 
Conservation. 


W, MA 


C, SM, MA, 

NGOdl 


Mostly C and OC 
with considera- 
tion of other 
Framework 
elements 


Helped to focus on indirect threats to biodiversity 
Also helped to focus on conservation needs not 
relating to increasing the size of the protected 
area. 




The Enhancing our Heritage 
Toolkit draws on different 
methodologies designed 
around application of the 
WCPA Framework. 


W, 1. MIS, 
M, MA. 
MP 


S, LC, MA, 
SM, NGOILI, 
NGOIIl 


C. PL, 1, PR, 
OP, OC 


Too early to assess, although suggestions for 
change from the initial assessments will soon be 
implemented at project sites. 




PAN Parks Certification model 
based on specified criteria and 
indicators 


Q, MIS. 1 


C, MA, SM, S, 
LC 


C, PL. 1. PR, 
OC 


Better cooperation between the national park and 
tourism organizations, leading to more 
sustainable tourism. 




Field-monitoring programs 
designed to assess 
achievement of objectives, 
monitoring of management 
inputs and outputs, 
assessment of management 
processes. 


M.W. MP 


SM, S, MA, 
WH 


1, PR, QP, OC 


Used in camping, fire and dingo management 
decisions. Some research programs initiated in 
response to findings. Information used in review 
of management plan and in review of World 
Heritage Values of the site. 




Questionnaire based around 
five broad management 
aspects. Performance in 
relation to indicators within 
each aspect assessed on a 
five-point scale. 


W. MA, MP 


SM, MA, LC, 
NGOILI, IC 


Mostly 1, PR 
with some 
consideration 
ofOC 


A new perception by managers of what could be 
achieved with the same resources. The 
monitoring model is mandatory for protected 
areas in five countries. National annual reports 
on the state of these protected areas draws 
largely on this monitoring. 


G = Govt bodies. LC = Local community; C =Consultant5; S = Scientists/Researcher institution; 10 = Indigenous communities; AC= independent tvlanagement Advisory 
Committee. WCPA Framework elements: C = Context; PL = Planning; 1 = Inputs. PR = Process; OP = Outputs; OC = Outcomes 



U5 



The world's protected areas 



Chapter 6 

Managing the 
marine environment 



Contributors: M. Spalding and E. McManus 



In terms of resource use and management, 
two factors distinguish the marine from the 
terrestrial environment. Firstly, as a liquid 
medium, connectivity is continuous and near 
absolute. Few actions or processes in the oceans 
are spatially restricted in the same way as they 
may be on land - impacts in one part are likely to 
affect those elsewhere. Secondly, marine areas 
and marine resources are typically of open access 
to all. They rarely fall under any form of ownership 
or property regime below that of the state, while 
64 percent of the world's ocean surface lies in 
"international waters", beyond any form of 
national sovereignty. 

As pressures on such "common" resources 
rise, there is an inevitable drive towards over- 
exploitation. Individuals who break the rule of 
sustainability make an individual gain while the 
costs of their actions are buffered by a communal 
loss. This "tragedy of the commons" was noted for 
the sea as it was for land in 1968 by Garrett Hardin: 
"Maritime nations still respond automatically 
to the shibboleth of the 'freedom of the seas'. 
Professing to believe in 'inexhaustible 
resources of the oceans', they bring species 
after species of fish and whales closer to 
extinction. " I Hardin 1968: 12441. 

The problems facing the ocean environment 
are immense. In 2006, the United Nations Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAOl estimated that about 
75 percent of the world's fish stocks were being 
exploited beyond sustainable limits. Pollutants 
including persistent organic pollutants and solid 
wastes are now found in all of the world's oceans. 
Invasive species have decimated natural eco- 
systems and devastated economies. 



MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS 

As on land, numerous management interventions 
have been applied to control resource use and 
human Impacts in the marine environment. These 
include direct conservation measures, but also an 
array of measures whose primary aim may not be 
biodiversity conservation but which, nevertheless, 
have positive "side-effects" for biodiversity - 
fisheries controls; regulations on mineral 
extraction; controls on pollution and the dumping of 
solid waste; to name just a few. 

Many of these management interventions 
have developed in an ad hoc manner, and their 
success is highly variable. Marine protected areas 
(MPAsl may be the most important management 
tool for marine biodiversity conservation, but as has 
already been noted, their global coverage remains 
minimal - a mere 0.5 percent of the global ocean 
surface. Even within this small estate, few sites are 
adequately protected from the many threats that 
arise ex situ from adjacent marine or terrestrial 
areas. Even fewer sites have developed integrated 
management to incorporate the concerns and 
wishes of the broad array of stakeholders, or are 
placed within a wider framework of coastal zone 
management. Without such efforts the positive 
benefits of one intervention can be quickly undone 
by conflicting actions elsewhere. 

MARINE MANAGEMENT AREAS - A BROAD ARRAY 

Strictly speaking, MPAs are defined as areas set 
aside for environmental protection (Chapter 2), 
however the differences between such a definition 
and areas set aside for fisheries protection can be 
subtle. In a few cases a broader suite of regulations 
and management structures may protect more 
extensive areas through forms of integrated coastal 



U6 



Managing the marine environment 




M. Spalding 



Bluestrlped snapper and goatfish. 



147 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 6.1: The International Framework 

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 
lUNCLOSI provides a critical legal framew/orl< for 
establishing legal controls on activities in the marine 
environment. Under this convention, most states 
have now declared territorial seas and exclusive 
economic zones, within which all existing marine 
protected areas have been declared. 

The territorial sea is a belt of water not 
exceeding 12 nautical miles in width measured from 
the territorial sea baseline. Generally the baseline is 
the low-water line along the coast, although 
provisions are included for extending the baseline 
out across narrow embayments, fringing and atoll 
reefs, and between islands of archipelagic states. 



This area lies under full sovereignty of the adjacent 
state, covering the sea, airspace, benthos and sub- 
benthos Isubsoill. 

The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond 
and adjacent to the territorial sea, extending out up 
to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Nations 
maintain sovereign rights over the natural resources 
within this region and have jurisdiction, among other 
things, for the protection and preservation of the 
marine environment. 

Currently the majority of marine protected 
areas are concentrated in the territorial sea of 
nations, but a growing number have been extended 
out into the exclusive economic zone. 



management (ICMl. which again do not conform to 
the definition of an MPA. The term marine 
management area lIvlMAl is sometimes used to 
cover this broader suite of spatially confined 
management interventions which have some 
positive impact on the natural marine environment. 
Here we briefly consider some of the different 
classes of |v/||vlAs before going on to consider the key 
issues that arise in the establishment and 
management of such areas. 

Marine Protected Areas 

As in terrestrial protected areas, a spectrum of 
levels of protection exists in MPAs. Many sites focus 
on fishing as one of the few, relatively easy and 
direct impacts that can be controlled. This may 
consist of partial protection such as protecting 
particular species or size classes, reducing or 
banning access to particular user groups (com- 
mercial, recreational, or local] or to particular 
fishing practices Ispearfishing, trawling, use of nets 
or lines], or it may consist of full closure of all or 
part of a site to any extractive activity. Sites also 
regularly restrict other damaging activities, notably 
anchoring, waste disposal, and sand extraction. The 
use of zoning systems within I^PAs is widespread, 
and can create a challenge in assignation of lUCN 
management categories, though probably no more 
than in zoned terrestrial sites. 

One group of t>/IPAs that has received 
particular attention in recent years are no-take 
marine reserves (variously referred to as fully 
protected marine reserves, no-take zones, or 



sometimes simply marine reserves]. These are 
areas where no natural resource extraction is 
permitted and they typically equate to lUCN 
Categories lA or II. |v/lany of these are small, but they 
have a profound impact on natural resources, 
particularly in heavily exploited regions, typically 
leading to burgeoning fish populations and spillover 
effects to surrounding waters. 

Fisheries Management Areas 

In many cultures, fisheries controls of different 
sorts go back millennia. Such measures have incl- 
uded limiting access (who may fish]; controlling the 
size of the catch; the removal of subsidies; and buy- 
back schemes to take fishers out of the market. A 
further suite of fisheries control measures tackle 
the actual fishing techniques, setting limits on how, 
where, or when fish may be caught. 

A fisheries management area (FfvlAl is a 
geographically defined area where the fishing sector 
(e.g. industrial/artisanal], gear, target or bycatch 
species, effort, and/or seasonality are restricted. 
This term clearly Includes many tvlPAs, but may also 
Include sites designated by the fisheries sector 
without any specific reference to environmental 
protection. As with I^PAs, there is a spectrum of 
interventions, from restrictions on some gears at 
some times through to a completely closed area 
protected from any anthropogenic impact (a no-take 
marine reserve]. The term also includes areas that 
are under national zoning schemes. 

At a national level, FtvlAs can reduce the 
conflict between different fishery sectors (e.g. the 



U8 



Managing the marine environment 



coastal zone in Costa Rica is restricted for the use of 
artisanal fisheries only), and between fishers and 
other users le.g. divers). At a local/smaller level, 
fishery management Interventions are often linked 
to MPAs, but seasonal and temporary closures, or 
monospecific interventions such as the UK cod 
boxes are rarely included in the MPA statistics. 

Integrated Coastal Management 

Concept papers developed prior to the United 
Nations Conference on Environment and Devel- 
opment lUNCEDI In 1992, recognized that the coastal 
zone was too complex to be managed effectively at 
the sectoral level. The term "Integrated coastal 
management" IICMl, was coined to describe a more 
comprehensive approach, to coastal management, 
which Incorporated all sectors Influenced by the 
coastal zone, as well as Integrating economic, social, 
and ecological concerns. 

Conceptually very simple, ICM has yet to be 
widely embraced in formal legal or administrative 
structures. Most examples are sub-national. They 
vary considerably in approach and In the degree of 
integration they provide, but most cases bear 
witness to the considerable social and economic 
benefits to be had from integrating the Interests of 
different sectors and concerns. Some offer only very 
limited additional protection to natural resource 
protection, but others embrace this as a primary 
objective, and many Incorporate MPAs within their 
overall planning framework. 




ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES 

Buiiding stakeholder and community support 
First and foremost In any MMA establishment and 
management process Is the Involvement and 
integration of key stakeholders. A broad array of 
stakeholders, often dispersed over wide areas, may 
be linked to any marine area. Direct stakeholders 
include fishers, recreational users Ifor swimming. 



Fishing in the Jardines 
de la Reina National 
Park, Cuba. 



BOX 6.2: Fisheries Benefits and Limitations 

There is now considerable evidence that marine 
protected areas do benefit the fish populations that 
exist within them. Halpern 120031 has reviewed 76 
studies of protected areas, which were protected 
from at least one type of fishing. On average, he 
found that the abundance of fish doubled, the 
average body size increased by fully one third (which 
can equal increased egg production of 2^0 percent], 
the biomass doubled, and numbers of species 
increased by 33 percent. 

Strict no-take areas have particularly dramatic 
effects on resident fish stocks, and there is growing 
evidence that these effects can lead to considerable 
social and economic benefits to fishers in adjacent 
areas. Benefits may occur through two processes, 
larval export and spillover Larval export occurs when 



the propagules are produced in the marine protected 
area and are then distributed to settlement areas; to 
date it has been hard to prove, but seems very likely. 
Spillover occurs when mature Individuals move from 
the MPA. It seems that in areas under heavy fishing 
pressure, yields will continue to grow, despite the 
reduction in total fishing area, up until some 30 
percent of the area is set aside in this way (Roberts 
and Hawkins. 2000; Roberts. Bohnsack et ai. 20011. 
It is evident that marine protected areas cannot 
readily guarantee the protection of highly migratory 
species, for example tunas or whales. For these and 
many other species, marine protected areas need to 
be seen as tools to be used in combination with other 
management Interventions, for example, effort 
reduction schemes. 



U9 



The world's protected areas 




Aldabra World Heritage 
Site, Seychelles. 



diving, boating, fishing, or scenic values), industry 
Imaritime transport and non-living resource 
extraction), and those with direct interests in 
biodiversity. Indirect stakeholders are those who 
impact the ocean as well as those who rely on the 
ocean or its ecosystems for services such as food 
(consumers), water purification, climatic controls, 
or protection from storm damage (coastal 
communities living near coral reefs, mangroves, 
seagrasses). There are often conflicts of interest 
between these stakeholders, associated with both 
access and exploitation. Dealing with conflict and 
establishing collaboration between stakeholders is 
a key challenge in the development of equitable and 
sustainable management systems. 

Resource ownership 

Private ownership (and the establishment of private 
reserves) in the marine realm is rare. However, 
partial ownership or recognition of stewardship is 
not unusual. From a fisheries perspective this 
ownership can take the form of resource ownership, 
for example in the form of individual transferable 
quotas (ITQs), which effectively give ownership to a 
certain amount of a particular fishery stock. Such 
ITQs may then be fished, or the quota traded. 

From a protected area perspective, the 
establishment of territorial use rights in fisheries 
(TURFs), or other forms of direct ownership are 
particularly interesting and often very effective. 



Problems of overexploitation can be far better 
handled if the user community is small and subject 
to socio-cultural as well as legal controls - limits to 
use can be set by the adjacent community and these 
can be adequately enforced. In some cases this may 
lead to a sort of de facto MPA, with the levels of 
control arising from ownership providing important 
and unprecedented levels of protection. The owners 
of such areas may also choose to establish 
protected areas within their TURF area, giving 
partial or complete protection. Such approaches are 
widely found in traditional societies (see below), 
but are increasingly being established in formal 
legal regimes. 

Raising awareness 

Many "stakeholders" are unaware of their reliance 
on, or use of, particular aspects of the marine 
environment, such as fresh fish or clean beaches, 
before these become degraded or lost. Education 
can be a critical tool in einpowering such stake- 
holders to take control and support management 
efforts, particularly where previously a single 
dominant stakeholder group is driving environ- 
mental degradation to the detriment of others. 

Education and outreach must be focused 
towards the individual needs of target groups. A 
growing number of marine management areas are 
using fishers themselves as communicators. 
Efforts to establish new no-take zones in Fiji were 
greatly advanced when a spokesperson from a 
successful project in a village on Viti Levu was taken 
to talk to chiefs on the island of Kadavu. His words 
were probably far more persuasive than those of 
outside experts in generating interest in establ- 
ishing no-take zones on this island. 

Some of the most enduring MPAs are those in 
which local people are able to benefit. Programs 
such as the Club Mer initiative in Rodrigues in the 
Indian Ocean, in which schoolchildren are trained to 
swim and then to snorkel, should guarantee 
support for MPAs into the next generation. 

Of course, growing recreational interest can 
bring further challenges, but impacts can be greatly 
reduced through education and interpretation 
programs. Diver impacts on coral reefs have been 
greatly reduced through simple instruction by dive- 
schools. Well-designed notification, especially 
where the rules and regulations are placed in a 
positive context of ecological benefits and general 
information about ecology, are powerful tools. A 
number of sites, including the Cerbere-Banyuls 



150 



Managing the marine environment 



Marine Nature Reserve in France, have developed 
underwater trails for snorkelers. 

Operation and enforcement in the marine 
environment 

While community involvement and education may 
reduce levels of infringement, further efforts are 
required to ensure full compliance. Marine areas 
are beset with challenges when it comes to field- 
based management. Access to marine areas is 
costly, requiring boats, engines, navigational equip- 
ment, and other resources. Impacts on the benthos 
and in the water column are not immediately 
detectable. Boundaries cannot be easily marked. 

At the same time, because of the considerable 
benefits to resource users, including many fishers, 
it is possible, more than in many terrestrial parks, 
to engender considerable community support for 
marine management areas. The same community 
can often be used to regulate the area, or to pass on 
information regarding infringements. Other appr- 
oaches to ensuring compliance often take advant- 
age of existing authority patrols such as coast- 
guards. The Strict Nature Reserves in the British 
Indian Ocean Territory have no staff. However, their 
boundaries are known to the Fisheries Protection 
Vessel that operates in these waters, and which 
also occasionally takes members of the British 
army, acting as police, customs, immigration, and 
biodiversity protection officers, to these areas. 

Approaches to enforcement may be very site 
specific. In some cases it may be valuable to take a 
soft approach to first offenders as a means of 
maintaining community support. Elsewhere, strict 
and rapid enforcement at an early stage can be 
invaluable in establishing a clear baseline. If it 
is relevant, the designation or use of customary 
leaders and procedures in enforcement processes 
can be of considerable value. 

Boundary demarcation is often possible 
through the use of buoys, while having a clear 
boundary definition greatly eases policing and 
reduces opportunities for disagreement and 
infringement. For larger sites, this may involve the 
use of lines between named geographic coord- 
inates, while In some cases the use of clear and 
visible landmarks on land serves the same purpose. 

Many MPAs are designed to permit multiple 
sustainable uses within their boundaries, and the 
development of zoning systems provides a cost- 
effective means of managing different uses. Zoning 
systems permit selective control of activities at 



different areas within a site, including both strict 
protection and various levels of use. These may 
include core conservation areas le.g. spawning 
sites! as sanctuaries where all disturbing or 
extractive activities are prohibited, or where 
damaged areas are left undisturbed to enable 
recovery. Zoning systems can also be used to 
separate incompatible recreational activities Isuch 
as waterskiing and snorkelingl. 

A considerable number of marine parks now 
charge user fees, particularly to the generally high- 
value tourist visitors associated with sailing and 
diving activities. The diving industry has led the way 
in many areas and a number of sites, such as the 
Bonaire Marine Park in the Netherlands Antilles, 
levy a user fee on all divers which is paid via the dive 
operators. Many countries have fixed fees for yachts 
and, in those parks with some permitted fishing, 
this may also be license driven. In many cases such 
fees provide a substantial part of the running costs 
for protected areas. A hidden, but also valuable 
function of the fees is to raise levels of expectation, 
which in many cases also leads to increased vigi- 
lance against non-payers and rule breakers within 
protected areas. 

The use of new technology is likely to increase 
in coming years, particularly for more remote sites. 
Ship-borne satellite transponders already play a 
critical role in some pelagic fisheries, and it is 
entirely plausible, at very broad scales, to require 
such technology within the licensing system for 
fishing or recreational vessels, which can enable 
immediate detection of vessels that stray beyond 
particular boundaries. 

Monitoring and response 

Information is critical for any management 
program. A baseline description of a protected area 
provides a foundation for considering change, while 
monitoring provides repeated quantitative assess- 
ment of parameters likely to highlight change. It is 
useful to consider two broad arenas of monitoring: 
ecological and socio-economic. 

Typically, detailed ecological information 
about the marine realm is scarce and often 
anecdotal. Improving such information is often 
highly costly Remotely sensed technology is 
increasingly providing the means to map shallow- 
water resources in areas of clear water even at 
quite high resolutions, although it remains 
expensive. Without such technology simple base 
maps, particularly of smaller sites, can be 



151 



The world's protected areas 



prepared from anecdotal information and direct 
observation. Baseline descriptions sfiould cover 
both physical and ecological parameters, and it is 
important to realize that certain parameters may 
not be detected through a single mapping exercise. 
Habitat maps provide no information at all about 
spatially restricted species, or any of the mobile 
fauna or planl<tonic species. Certain species, 
activities, and even entire communities may 
exhibit seasonal patterns and be missed entirely 
on single surveys. 

Quite often, anecdotal and local knowledge 
provide a further critical basis for planning and for 
establishing monitoring techniques. Following dev- 
elopment of baseline l<nowledge, monitoring 
approaches must be tailored towards specific 
points of Interest or concern, but may include: 
repeat habitat mapping; assessment of numbers or 
blomass of key species; assessment of juveniles; 
spawning aggregations; migratory species; 
invasive species or pathogens. Physical para- 
meters may include water-quality indicators, 
temperature, currents, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, 
and key pollutants. 

Socio-economic monitoring Is necessary to 
understand the uses and potential pressures on 
protected areas and particularly to observe trends 
which may, over time, lead to problems. Some of 
this may take place outside of the protected area, in 
the adjacent communities and fishing ports, but it is 
also important to find geospatial variation in uses 
and impacts within a site. Typical data may Include 
local population size and demographic trends 
fishing methods, locations, and catch details 
tourist activities and numbers; economic para- 
meters associated with fishing, tourism, and other 
activities; perceptions of protected areas; and 
willingness to pay for access and/or resources 
(Wilkinson e( a/., 20031. 

The science of reactive management in 
response to environmental change for marine 
protected areas Is still in its infancy In developing 
management responses the linkage between socio- 
economic and ecological parameters must often be 
established. If rising fishing levels can be clearly 
linked to declines In stocks, there Is a clear and 
powerful argument for Intervention. Similarly, if the 
benefits to fishers of no-take zones can be 
numerically and economically quantified, support 
for these measures will increase. It is very 
important, as with all monitoring and response 
measures, to place the findings for a particular site 



Into a broader context. Other MPAs are highly likely 
to have exhibited similar impacts or changes; many 
may have developed appropriate management 
responses. In ecological surveys, cyclical or 
stochastic factors of change may cause 
considerable concern, but comparison with longer- 
term datasets from other sites may help in 
understanding such change. 

The question of who does the monitoring often 
requires careful consideration. Particularly in coral 
reef protected areas there are a large number of 
Individuals and organizations offering volunteer 
services to undertake monitoring. These provide a 
basic minimum, but many monitoring techniques 
require high levels of accuracy and consistency The 
danger of relying on basic, volunteer-based, 
monitoring Is that this offers only a crude tool, since 
there is often limited capacity and time input for 
noticing subtle change and impacts. 

Managing ex-s/Yu threats 

Some of the greatest concerns of MPA management 
are from threats beyond the boundaries. 
Understanding the distribution of such threats, and 
monitoring changes in them, needs to be 
incorporated into the wider monitoring process 
already discussed. There are, however, significant 
difficulties in dealing with such threats. 

Some ex-s/ft/ threats may be reduced through 
protected area design or through development of 
protected area networks. For example, the incorp- 
oration or expansion of boundaries to include entire 
adjacent watersheds or small Islands within sites 
may greatly reduce the threat of new activities 
creating problems of pollution and sedimentation. 
With more specific ecological knowledge it may also 
be possible to design sites to include elements of 
Interconnected habitats. For example, many coral 
reef species utilize adjacent seagrass and man- 
grove ecosystems as a spawning or larval habitat, 
so inclusion of these within the boundary of an MPA 
can help recruitment of new individuals to the 
ecological community. On a broader scale, some 
countries are now developing networks of protected 
areas. Given the high levels of connectivity In the 
marine environment, the Incorporation of multiple 
sites provides a level of resilience to the system. 
Should a pollution event or even a natural disaster 
such as a hurricane have an impact on a site, 
recovery may be much more rapid it natural 
restocking can occur from other well-protected and 
unlmpacted sites within a system of MPAs. 



152 



J 



Managing the marine environment 




Belize barrier reef, a 
World Heritage site 
since 1996. 



Looking beyond the protected areas them- 
selves, a clear priority must be to place existing 
sites in a wider framevtforl< of coastal management. 
The development of integrated coastal manage- 
ment IICM) can be a critical tool. ICM is ideally a 
broadly inclusive and iterative process that uses the 
informed participation and cooperation of all 
stakeholders to define goals and to balance 
environmental, economic, social, cultural, and 
recreational objectives. It is intended to reduce the 
inefficiencies and damage arising from conflicting 
uses of the coastal zone by harmonizing policy, 
administration, and management in all sectors 

Despite the importance of ICM, and the clear 
societal benefits that it can produce, there are few 
working examples. Belize offers one national-level 
working example. A large number of marine 
protected areas have been declared in this country 
and in 1996 these were collectively incorporated 
into the Belize Barrier-Reef Reserve System, a 
World Heritage site. In 1998 a Coastal Zone Man- 
agement Act was adopted and a Coastal Zone 
Management Authority established. Although still 
somewhat centralized, some degree of integration 
between government agencies has been achieved, 
and public consultation has been undertaken. 

This region is also advancing a new degree of 
international cooperation in the coastal zone 



through the Mesoamencan Barrier Reef Project, in 
collaboration with Guatemala, Honduras, and 
Mexico. In Xiamen, China, the Partnership in Envir- 
onmental Management for the Seas of East Asia 
IPEMSEAI has assisted the city government to 
implement integrated coastal zone management 
[ICZMI, resulting in an integrated zoning scheme for 
the use of both land and coastal resources. 

In many other cases the actual development of 
ICM is an organic process in which the role for the 
individual protected area may provide a critical 
catalyst. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the 
Portland Bight Protected Area in Jamaica, the 
Soufriere Marine Management Area in St Lucia, and 
the Ras Mohammed protected areas complex in 
Egypt all provide examples of protected areas that 
are developing and encouraging levels of integrated 
management and full community involvement that 
provide a basis for what can clearly be seen as ICM. 

Approaches to managing MPAs and other marine 
conservation areas 

Traditional approaches 

In the Asia-Pacific region, traditional marine 
management systems were once widespread and 
many still offer an important model. In Palau in the 
Pacific Ocean two such systems are prevalent in the 
fisheries sector lYoshi 2003): 



153 



The world's protected areas 



Traditional marine tenure systems. The geo- 
graphical boundaries in a fishing area are defined 
by marine or geographical landmarks using the 
fishers' notion of property and ownership of the 
area. Those boundaries are historically constructed 
and enforced by the fishing community as a whole. 

Community control on traditional techniques 
tor fishing within defined areas. Particular fishing 
techniques are considered to be the property of 
certain groups (e.g. clans or families). Thus fishers 
can use these techniques only with the permission 
of those groups in specific sites. This restriction is 
extended even to the authority to "speak about" 
these techniques and thus represents a traditional 
copyright for transmitting knowledge. 

Systems like these are also still widely 
respected in countries such as the Solomon Islands 
and the Cook Islands. Elsewhere, recognition of 
their effectiveness has led to similar systems being 
revitalized. In both Fiji and Vanuatu such customary 
tenure of marine resources is now being upheld 
through the modern legal system, as it is believed 
that traditional owners will provide better protection 
for their natural resources than more centralized 
ownership with open access to all (Spalding, 
Ravilious& Green 20011. 

The same concepts, those of devolving owner- 
ship and management of marine resources to local 
communities, are now also being tried in other 



Cinque Terre National 
Park, Italy, a cultural 
World Heritage Site, 
also provides protection 
for the adjacent Cinque 
Terre Marine Natural 
Protected Area. 




countries with some success. These approaches 
in the Philippines, for example, have led to a 
rapid increase in locally designated fisheries 
restricted areas. 

Modern approaches 

Single objective sites: Leigh Marine Reserve. 
New Zealand 

Frequently, MPAs are designated for a single 
reason, e.g. resource conservation, ecotourism, 
extraction, or water-quality protection. One of the 
world's first no-take fishing reserves was the Leigh 
Marine Reserve in New Zealand, established in 
1975 adjacent to the Leigh Marine Laboratory. The 
campaign to establish the site lasted ten years, and 
was undertaken because of concerns of over- 
extraction and the degradation of natural resources. 
Following establishment, the densities and average 
sizes of fish and invertebrate target species greatly 
increased within the site. Many fishers now choose 
to fish right on the reserve boundaries, and because 
of the increases in their catches in these places the 
fishers have now joined the wider community in 
actively supporting the park. Many fishers even 
report incidents of poaching. Dive tourism to the 
site is a major contributor to the local economy IGell 
& Roberts 20021. 

Multiple objective sites: Sian Ka'an, Mexico 
There is much pressure on aquatic systems in the 
Mexican coastal zone from a number of stake- 
holders. In many areas the stakeholder base is also 
growing with rapid economic development, further 
increasing the potential for resource conflict. 

In the Sian Ka 'an Biosphere Reserve the com- 
munity has developed a co-management system 
that includes a wide variety of stakeholders in 
both decision-making and management activities. 
Stakeholders include: the government; fishers' 
groups; research agencies; the recreational dive 
industry; the tour industry; developers; and land 
owners. One example of how different stakeholders 
are cooperating in the reserve is the agreement 
between the tourism and fishers' organizations. 
This defines a closed period for the lobster fishery 
(between March and June], during which the fishers 
stop fishing for lobster and tourists are allowed to 
participate in recreational catch-and-release fly 
fishing. These activities do not interfere with other 
species that are important to the local community. 
This arrangement greatly reduces the potential for 
conflict between the fishers and the tourism sector 



15A 



Managing the marine environment 



Zoning systems: The Great Barrier 
Reef Marine Parl< 

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park operates a 
zonation scheme originally established under the 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. The 
zoning has recently been completely revised and 
this has led, among other things, to a major 
increase in the total area of no-take "green zones" 
within the park, from less than 5 percent to about 30 
percent. The new zoning includes: 

□ General Use Zone: The least restrictive of the 
zones, this provides for all reasonable uses 
including shipping and trawling. Prohibited 
activities are mining, oil drilling, commercial 
spearfishing, and spearfishing with 
underwater breathing apparatus. 

Q Habitat Protection Zones: These provide for 
reasonable use, including most commercial 
and recreational activities. Trawling and 
general shipping are prohibited as well as 
those activities not allowed in the General Use 
Zone. 

Q Conservation Park Zone; Prevents most 
commercial fishing, but allows recreational 
fishing with lines. 

Q Buffer Zone: All extractive activity is forbidden, 
other than trawling from a moving boat for 
pelagic "game" fish. All recreational visits, 
diving, and snorkeling are permitted. 

□ Scientific Research Zones: Set aside close to 
research locations. Most are open to public 
access and are equivalent to Marine National 
Park Zones. 

□ Marine National Park Zones: All extractive 
activity is forbidden, but non-extractive 
recreational use and passage are permitted 

Q Preservation Zones: All entry is prohibited with 
the exception of scientific research that could 
not be conducted elsewhere. 

These zones can be mapped on to the lUCN 
Protected Areas Management Categories as shown 
in Table 5.1, 

The High Seas 

The high seas are defined as the area of ocean 
beyond national jurisdiction (WWF/IUCN/IUCN 
WCPA 2001). Approximately 64 percent of the 
oceans are beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit of the 
EEZs of coastal states. These high-seas areas are 
open-access areas and so there are few measures 
available to control extractive or other activities. In 



TABLE 6.1: lUCN Protected Areas Management Categories in the Great 
Barrier Reef Marine Park 



Equivalent 
lUCN category 

la 



GBRMP 
zone type 

Preservation zone 
Scientific research zone 



Area 

km» (%) 

710 
155 







Total 


865 


10.31 


II 


Marine national park zone 




1U530 


133.31 


IV 


Buffer zone 
Conservation park zone 




9 880 

5 160 








Total 


15 040 


14.31 


VI 


Habitat protection zone 
General use zone 
Commonwealth islands 




97 250 

116 530 
185 








Total 


213 965 


162.11 




Total all zones 




344 400 





Source: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 



recent years human activities on the high seas have 
intensified and a number of direct and indirect 
human activities now present significant threats, 
including disposal of wastes (obsolete structures, 
radioactive wastes, and munitions], deep-sea 
fishing, oil and gas extraction, mining of marine 
minerals, and climate change. 

A number of geographic features, habitats, 
and biological communities in the high seas are 
regularly identified for their scientific, societal, or 
economic interest and are currently thought to be at 
threat from anthropogenic pressures. They are: 
hydrothermal vents; deep-sea trenches; poly- 
metallic nodules; gas hydrates; seabirds; trans- 
boundary and other migratory marine species fish 
stocks; seamounts; deep-sea "coral reefs"; cold 
seeps and pockmarks; submarine canyons; and 
cetaceans IVWVF, lUCN & WCPA 20011. 

At present there is no clear legal framework 
under which protected areas could be designated in 
the high seas receiving considerable attention from 
the UN and from various member states lUNEP, 
20061. A number of conventions provide a general 
background, notably the United Nations Convention 
on the Law of the Sea and its Fish Stocks 
Agreement, which includes requirements for 
parties to protect biodiversity and implement 
"conservation and management measures" [Fish 
Stocks Agreement Art. I [b]). Similar general 
support is provided under the Convention on 
Biological Diversity, which calls upon parties to 
cooperate in areas beyond national jurisdiction 



155 



The world's protected areas 



Crinold [Florometra 
serratissima] and 
brisingid seastar 
on black coral, 
Davidson Seamount in 
the Monterey Bay 
National Marine 
Sanctuary, USA. 




(Art. 51 and to "establish a system of protected areas 
... including botli marine and terrestrial areas". 
Great impetus to these requirements has been 
provided by the World Summit for Sustainable 
Development commitment to the "establishment of 
a representative netv/crk of MPAs by 2012; and liil 
restoration of fisheries to maximum sustainable 
yields by 2015' (WSSD Plan of Implementation, 
para. 31cl. Proposals under consideration include 
the development of a new implementing agreement 
to UNCLOS to ensure existing commitments are 
realized and to strengthen existing bodies; or 
simple to work with, and possibly add to, some of 
the existing regional bodies lUNEP, 20061. 

Two types of regional agreements can be 
singled out as of particular importance for high 
seas management: the Regional Seas Conventions 
and the regional fisheries agreements. A number 
of the Regional Seas Conventions make provision 
for the establishment of protected areas within the 
waters of member states, but the recently 
declared Pelagos Sanctuary or International 
Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals as 
a Specially Protected Area of Mediterranean 
Interest (Barcelona Convention] provides an 
important precedent. As many of the Medit- 
erranean states have not formally claimed EEZ 
areas, this site can be said to lie in the high seas. 
Apart from representing an important level of 



international collaboration, the site, although still 
only providing protection for a small group of 
species, includes regulations on all activities 
that might impinge on these species, even going 
beyond the boundaries of the site itself 
(Anon. 20031. 

Regional fisheries agreements provide 
another model. A number of existing agreements 
allow, among other things, forthe definition of high- 
seas sanctuaries and management areas for 
various marine species. These include: 
Zl The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 
(NAFOI, which has regulatory responsibility for 
all fish resources (with the exception of 
cetaceans and sedentary species) outside of 
national jurisdiction in a defined area of the 
North Atlantic. 
Q The international Commission for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCATl, whose 
convention applies to all water of the Atlantic 
Ocean and adajacent seas, including the 
Mediterranean Sea. The species covered in 
this agreement are the tuna and tuna-like 
species, and species exploited in tuna fishing 
but not under investigation by any other inter- 
national organization. 

At the global level the only body to have overseen 
the establishment of areas of protection has been 



156 



Managing the marine environment 



the International Wtialing Commission llWCJ, 
established in 1946. The IWC established the Indian 
Ocean Sanctuary in 1979. extending south to 55°S 
latitude, as an area where commercial whaling was 
prohibited. This Sanctuary was initially established 
tor ten years and its duration has since been 
extended twice. At the 46th 119941 Annual Meeting 
the IWC adopted the Southern Ocean Sanctuary 
as another area in which commercial whaling is 
prohibited. One of the arguments in favor of the 
Southern Ocean Sanctuary was to protect the Indian 
Ocean's whales when they migrated south to feed in 
the waters around the Antarctic. Efforts to add new 
whale sanctuaries for the South Atlantic and the 
South Pacific, as well as opposing efforts calling for 
the removal of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, have 
all failed in recent years, as such decisions require 
a clear 75 per cent majority. 

These sanctuaries provide cetaceans with 
protection in their foraging and breeding areas and 
there are proposals to greatly increase the 
sanctuary areas to include a large part of the 
southern hemisphere. Given their highly focused 
protection for only one species group, it is not clear 
if these areas should be considered as protected 
areas in the sense defined by lUCN. Furthermore, 
despite the broad agreement for the estab- 
lishment of these sanctuaries, their strength has 
been undermined by the unilateral decision of one 
member state, Japan, to continue killing hundreds 
of whales each year using the justification of 
scientific research, mainly in the Southern Ocean. 
This points to a much wider problem of potential 
failings with international agreements. 

Managing the high seas: what is stopping us? 
There is a growing acceptance that political div- 
isions across the ocean surface are poor tools for 



natural resource management. Oceanographic 
boundaries, and hence the movement of species 
such as the yellowfin tuna, rarely follow such 
divisions. For marine resources it will be far more 
valuable to utilize oceanographic properties 
representing ecosystems, or even to use activity 
ranges of species themselves, to define areas for 
management. 

As technology develops, humankind's ability to 
gather meaningful information for the management 
of the marine environment increases. Radio- 
tracking and acoustic survey techniques allow 
scientists to know where and how much of different 
species exist. Remote satellite imagery allows for 
detailed analysis of habitat distribution and health 
Icoral and seagrasses, etc.l, the primary product- 
ivity of specific areas, and the location and activities 
of fishing vessels. Other telemetry and sensing 
equipment can predict the presence or absence of 
large pelagics (e.g. tuna species) through the 
collation of information on sea-surface temper- 
atures and current information. All of this tech- 
nology is already being used by the larger fishing 
vessels and fleets to target their quarries with ever- 
increasing accuracy; it could equally be used to 
manage the activities of the fishing fleets as well as 
other marine activities. 

The question for the international community 
is "What are the limiting factors that hinder the 
management of the marine environment on the 
high seas?" The technologies exist, but the inter- 
national frameworks to harness the information 
and manage the marine environment beyond 
national jurisdictions are currently not in place. The 
priority must now be to develop and implement 
equitable, sustainable, and effective ecosystem- 
based agreements that respect the marine envir- 
onment as interrelated ecosystems. 



157 



The world's protected areas 



Chapter 7 

Prospects for protected areas 
in the 21st century 



Contributor: S. Chape 



ASSESSING THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT: 
THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE 

Enormous strides have been made in the last few 
decades in the creation of a global protected area 
network - governments, communities, and organiz- 
ations now protect more than 12 percent of the 
Earth's land surface, making protected areas one of 
the planet's dominant land-use allocations. If 
effectively managed, this network will play a crucial 
role in the conservation of the world's biodiversity, 
providing a service of incalculable value to future 
generations. However, challenges remain. The 
world has changed dramatically in the past 
century- certainly more than during any other 
stage in human history. More changes, some 
predictable, some less so, can be expected in the 
forthcoming century. These changes will not only 
place more pressure on the world's protected areas 
but also bring their role into sharper focus. 

Where are we now, and where are we going? 

Chapter 1 presented a map of the human footprint 
on the world. The study that produced that assess- 
ment IS one of a number of analyses over the past 
decade that have attempted to measure human 
impact on the Earth's ecosystems and resources. 
We live in an age when such impacts, and the pace 
of global environmental change, have generated 
international concern. The most recent and comp- 
rehensive global assessment to be completed is 
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment IMAI, 
requested by the UN Secretary-General in 2000 and 
initiated in 2001. The results published in 2005 
make somber reading and have direct implications 
for the values and prospects of protected areas in 
the 21st century. A principal finding of the MA iMA 
2005al is that: 



"over the past 50 years, humans have changed 
ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in 
any comparable period of time in human history, 
largely to meet rapidly growing demands for 
food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This 
has resulted in a substantial and largely 
irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth. " 

The MA report Ecosystems and Human Well-being: 
Biodiversity Synthesis (MA, 2005b) notes that over 
half of the world's biomes have already undergone 
20-50 percent conversion to human use, and such 
conversion is likely to continue (Figure 7.11. During 
the past few hundred years human-induced species 
extinction rates have increased by up to 1 000 
times background rates occurring throughout 
Earth's history (Figure 7.2), and 10-50 percent of 
mammals, birds, amphibians, conifers, and cycads 
are currently threatened with extinction. How much 
biodiversity will remain by the end of the century 
depends on how much society values biodiversity 
and understands the ecological services that it 
delivers, and what action it takes to ensure 
conservation. Unfortunately, all the scenarios 
examined by the MA "project continuing rapid 
conversion of ecosystems in the first half of the 21st 
century" (MA, 2005b:5l. 

Over the next half century, barring unforeseen 
catastrophe, the world's human population can be 
expected to increase by half as much again, to 
around 9 billion people. This is a much slower rate 
of increase than seen in the previous century, but 
still represents an enormous additional pressure on 
the world's resources, with an extra 3 billion people 
to be fed, clothed, and housed. 

An increase in the food supply is likely to 
be achieved through a combination of agricultural 



158 



Prospects for protected areas in the 21" century 




5 Chape 



In the 21st century the role and values of protected areas will become increasingly important, including intangible values. 
Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex World Heritage Area, Thailand. 



159 



The world's protected areas 



FIGURE 7.1 : RELATIVE LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY 
OF VASCULAR PUNTS BETWEEN 1970 AND 
2050 

Extinctions will continue after 2050, as natural 
populations reach equilibrium with remaining 
habitat. Note that the biomes in this figure are 
from the IMAGE model and are significantly 
different from the biomes mentioned elsewhere 
in this report. 



Afrotropical 

Indo-Malay 

Neartic 

Neotropical 

Australasian/Oceanic 

PaLearctJc 



Warm mixed forest 

Temperate deciduous forest 

Savannah 

Stirub 

Tropical woodland 

Temperate mixed forest 

Tropical forest 

Wooded tundra 

Grassland/steppe 

Cool coniferous forest 

Desert 

Tundra 

Boreal forest 



Percent of 1970 total number of species 
-5 -10 -15 -20 -25 




by realm 




2020 2050 

■ ■ 

by terrestrial bJOmG 

using the IMAGE Land-cover biomes definition 



FIGURE 7.2: SPECIES EXTINCTION RATES 



Source; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 



10 000 



1 000 



100 



"Distant past" refers to average extinction rates as 

calculated from the fossil record. "Recent past" refers 

to extinction rates calculated from known extinctions 1 oo 000 

of species (lower estimate) or known extinctions plus 

"possibly extinct" species (upper bound). A species is 

considered to be "possibly extinct" if it is believed to 

be extinct by experts but extensive surveys have not 

yet been undertaken to confirm its disappearance. 

"Future" extinctions are model-derived estimates 

using a variety of techniques, including species-area 

models, rates at which species are shifting to 

increasingly more threatened categories, extinction 

probabilities associated with the lUCN categories of 

threat, impacts of project habitat loss, and correlation 

of species loss with energy consumption. The time 

frame and species groups involved differ among the 

"future" estimates, but in general refer to either 

future loss of species based on the level of threat that 

exists today or current and future loss of species as a 

result of habitat changes taking place roughly from 

1970 to 2050. Estimates based on the fossil record are 

low certainty. The lower-bound estimates for known 

extinctions are high certainty, while the upper-bound 

estimates are medium certainty; lower-bound 

estimates for modelled extinctions are low certainty, 

and upper-bound estimates are speculative. 



Extinctions per thousand species per millennium 



0.1 



Distant past 

[fossil record) 



Recent past 


Future 




(known extinctions) 


[modeledl 






r 


Projected future 
extinction rate is more 
""than ten times higher 

than current rate 



For every thousand 
mammal species, more 
than one went extinct 



I 



Marine Mammals 
species 



Mammals Birds Amphibians 



All 
species 



Current extinction rate 
is up to one thousand 
times higher than the 
fossil record 



Long-term average 
extinction rate 



Source: Millennium 
Ecosystem AssessmenI 



160 



Prospects for protected areas in the 21=^ century 



intensification and the bringing of new areas into 
production. Most of tfie latter will almost certainly 
take place in the low-lying areas of the humid 
tropics, particularly Amazonia and, if political 
stability permits. Central Africa, these being still 
two of the world's most biodiverse areas with, 
currently, large expanses of forest cover Most of 
this production is lil<ely to be on an industrial scale, 
designed to meet international markets, in many 
areas, exhaustion of existing agricultural land 
through overuse and unsustainable management 
practices means that extensive areas of land will 
be largely abandoned and may begin to revert to 
some, usually degraded, semi-natural state. This 
phenomenon has already occurred extensively in 
temperate parts of the world, particularly North 
America and Europe. This abandonment is accom- 
panied by growing urbanization (or, in the developed 
world, suburbanization) with, in most countries, 
cities growing at a far faster rate than rural popul- 
ations through rural-to-urban migration, in the 
developed world, and in some middle-income 
countries, this has reduced the overall pressure for 
conversion of land to agriculture as marginal lands 
are no longer considered economic (although 
perverse incentives, for example in the form of 
agricultural subsidies, continue to have a distorting 
effect on this]. However, in countries with 
substantial rural populations living in poverty, land 
degradation has increased pressure on marginal 
lands as those people remaining in rural areas are 
forced to try and eke out what living they can. 

Growing demand for food production may lead 
to pressure to de-gazette protected areas on highly 
productive lands. Increasing abstraction of 
freshwater for agriculture will almost certainly lead 
to degradation of wetlands In protected areas. In 
areas with marginalized rural communities, pro- 
tected areas often already represent some of the few 
undegraded areas left. Unless other options can be 
Implemented, such as restoration of productivity of 
existing used lands, the pressure to exploit the land 
in protected areas will intensify. Similarly, growing 
demand for wild products (e.g. timber, medicinal 
plants, and wild or bush meat! and depletion of such 
resources outside protected areas will lead to 
Increasing exploitation of resources within protected 
areas. Although in many protected areas such 
exploitation is a management objective, it is very 
often not undertaken on a sustainable basis. 

While high levels of rural poverty will continue 
to have a direct effect on land use. Increasing wealth 




in other sectors of society will also exacerbate 
pressures on wild lands. In particular, burgeoning 
economic expansion in the two most populous 
nations on Earth, China and India, is likely to 
increase the demand for resources both within 
those countries and elsewhere. 

In the seas, pressure on fishery resources can 
be expected to intensify. There has been little mani- 
fest success to date in sustainable management of 
marine fisheries on a large scale. As stocks become 
further depleted, it is likely that competition to 
squeeze the last few benefits from them will 
increase rather than decrease. Some 50 percent of 
commercial fisheries are already fully exploited and 
25 percent overexploited. 

As an overarching issue, global climate 
change is predicted to have growing impacts both 
on natural ecosystems and areas of agricultural 
production. One major manifestation of this is likely 
to be the shifting of biocllmatic zones so that areas 
suitable or optimal for particular species and 
species assemblages will move from their present 
positions. In the most extreme cases there may be 
no overlap between existing suitable areas and 
future ones. The MA has concluded that by the end 
of the 21st century, climate change and associated 
impacts "may be the dominant direct driver of 
biodiversity loss and changes In ecosystem services 
globally" (MA 2005b:101. Climate change will mean 
that the climatic conditions in many protected areas 
may cease to be optimal or even adequate for some 
proportion of the biota they currently contain. Those 



The Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict has had a major 
impact on environmental 
quality and protected 
areas. In Gaza the Wad! 
Gaza Nature Reserve, 
an important stopover 
point for birds on the 
Africa-Eurasia migratory 
route, has become an 
open sewer. 



161 



The world's protected areas 



for which conditions may cease to be suitable are 
lil<ely to include a disproportionately high number of 
restricted range or threatened species, as these are 
more lil<ely to have more precise requirements than 
widespread and abundant species, and may well 
include those whose preservation was a major 
motivation for the establishment of the area in the 
first place. 

Current analyses suggest that major changes in 
global energy supply are extremely likely to take place 
In the next few decades, with global oil production 
peaking some time between the present and 2030 
and following a continuing decline thereafter. (Some 
analysts believe that the peak has already passed.) 
The implications for human society and the impact of 
humans on the biosphere are unclear, and vigorously 
debated, but are bound to be far-reaching. With the 
increasing demand and a decreasing supply, hydro- 
carbon fuel costs are almost certain to Increase 
sharply and have wide-ranging repercussions on all 
aspects of human endeavor, including development 
economics and the management of protected areas. 
At the very least, a growing scarcity of available oil 
combined with growing demand Is extremely likely to 
lead to increased pressure to open up to production 
any remaining areas with hydrocarbon reserves. This 
will certainly increase pressure to allow extraction 
from existing protected areas, even where this Is 
currently not allowed. This has already manifested 
itself in a decision by the US Government in March 
2005 to permit the opening up of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska for oil exploration. 
Efforts to reverse this decision are ongoing, but 
meanwhile the oil companies are lining up to begin 
offshore drilling in the nearby shallow shelf areas of 
the Beaufort Sea despite concerns of native peoples 
and the large potential threats posed by the impacts 
of spills in such a sensitive region. Oil reserves In the 
Refuge Itself are unlikely to make a major contribution 
to that country's massive levels of consumption, 
raising the Issue of the benefits of very short-term 
alleviation of the US energy problem against the likely 
costs of long-term damage to one of the world's most 
important remaining natural areas, with ecosystems 
that are also highly susceptible to the impacts of 
climate change. 

Apart from the impact of exploitation of 
remaining oil reserves, a major concern for 
biodiversity conservation is the growing shift to 
blofuels. As the cost of fuel rises, large-scale 
production of blodlesel and ethanol-producing 
crops becomes more economical, and indeed the 



process has already started on a large scale In the 
US, China and India. There will be increasing 
pressure to continue to clear natural areas, 
especially in the tropics, to produce a range of crops 
for fuel, such as oil palm, soybean, coconut and 
sugar cane. Brown |2006;36| notes: "in the absence 
of government constraints, the rising price of oil 
could quickly become the leading threat to 
biodiversity, ensuring that the wave of extinctions 
currently underway does indeed become the sixth 
great extinction." 

Other factors that directly impinge on the 
current and future capacity to manage protected 
areas include civil unrest with, in some areas, 
growing threats to the safety and welfare of 
protected areas staff. War and civil conflict have 
had severe Impacts on protected areas and 
ecosystems outside protected areas In Central and 
West Africa, Iraq, and the Occupied Palestinian 
Territories. The Vth World Parks Congress also 
Identified the HIV/AIDS pandemic as a growing 
threat to the capacity to manage protected areas In 
many developing countries through its impact on 
staff numbers. 

Meeting global biodiversity targets: pursuit of 
the unattainable? 

The international community has commendably set 
targets for achieving global biodiversity objectives, 
as well as those for broader human development 
that have implications for biodiversity conservation. 
Thus we have the 2010 target under the Convention 
on Biological Diversity ICBD) for significantly 
reducing the "current rate of biodiversity loss at the 
global, regional and national level as a contribution 
to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on 
Earth" (CBD Decision VI/261; the 2015 Millennium 
Development Goals (MDGsl; and a series of specific 
goals and targets agreed at the 2002 World Summit 
on Sustainable Development, Including, for 
example, the target to establish an effective global 
marine protected area (MPAl network by 2012. 

With the possible exception of this last target, 
which is at least theoretically attainable through 
action by national governments, other targets and 
goals are unlikely to be achieved In the next three 
to eight years. In fact, the MA has concluded that 
without "unprecedented international efforts"" the 
biodiversity targets will not be achieved. The 
assessment observed that "the magnitude of the 
challenge of slowing the rate of biodiversity loss Is 
demonstrated by the fact that most of the direct 



162 



Prospects for protected areas in the 21=' century 



drivers... are projected to either remain constant or 
to increase in ttie near future. Moreover, inertia in 
natural and human institutional systems [often] 
results in time lags - of years, decades, or even 
centuries - between actions being taken and their 
impact on biodiversity and ecosystems becoming 
apparent" (MA, 2005b:UI. Furthermore, there are 
Inherent tensions between the development goals 
and the biodiversity targets, since some of the 
actions needed to reduce poverty in the short to 
medium term - such as the expansion of 
agriculture and the creation of road networks and 
other infrastructure - are likely to accelerate or at 
least continue rates of biodiversity loss. Avoiding 



such problems will require hitherto unachieved 
levels of integrated conservation and development 
planning and action. 

Implications for protected areas 

Paradoxically, the current rate of global change and 
continuing loss of biodiversity presents both threat 
and opportunity for protected areas. On the one 
hand, the predicted continuing loss of biodiversity 
and other impacts threaten the viability of protected 
areas as core elements of national, regional, and 
global conservation strategies. On the other, the 
values and importance of protected areas are 
increasingly recognized, and the constituency of 




There are obvious 
tensions between 
development goals 
and biodiversity targets. 
Some of the actions 
needed to reduce 
poverty In the short 
to medium term, 
Including the expansion 
of agriculture, are 
likely to at least 
continue rates of 
biodiversity loss. Forest 
Incursion In Rondonia, 
Brazil. 



163 



The world's protected areas 



'^ 


it 


:■ ?:f>' 


vi^ 


7 ,^*f^ ;\ 




«i.Vf^ 




^^W- ^|af«MjiBBBB 


1 '^^^ .,■ 


1*^^ 




"^m 


-^ 


<3 


^^IJ^^ " 


V JA,... 


, 


'*!«; 


WM 



Tetepare Island, in the 
Solomon Islands, is an 
outstanding example of 
a community-conserved 
area, protecting 120 km 
of mainly primary 
rainforest - a significant 
area in the insular 
Pacific - and other 
features, and 
addressing Outcomes 
5 (rights of indigenous 
people) and 8 (improved 
governance) of the 
Durban Action Plan. 



support for their establishment has broadened 
considerably, particularly as governments and 
communities become more aware of the ecological 
and economic services provided by these areas, 
notwithstanding significant shortcomings, partic- 
ularly with regard to IvIPA networl<s. Of course, 
if integrated conservation and development 
approaches can be successfully implemented, there 
is considerable scope for synergies between 
protected areas, conservation objectives, and 
achievement of the MDGs - even if the time horizon 
must be made more realistic. 

The importance of protected areas is 
reflected in their use as indicators for both the 
CBD 2010 biodiversity targets and the MDGs, and 
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has also 
emphasized the need to strengthen the global 
protected area system. However, both the 2010 
targets and the MDGs have emphasized changes in 
the number and extent of protected areas as the 
principal indicators to be used to assess progress 
towards targets. Unfortunately, measurements of 
the number and extent of protected areas are 
lil<ely to provide only a superficial indication of 
political commitment to conserving biodiversity 
IChape, 20051 as they do not assess how effectively 



they are conserving biodiversity, or even if they are 
adequately covering priority habitats and species 
(Rodrigues et at., 2003). A comprehensive suite of 
indicators is required that includes conservation 
and management effectiveness in addition to 
numerical and spatial data. 

GLOBAL "BLUEPRINTS" FOR PROTECTED AREAS 

The worldwide interest in protected areas and their 
growth into one of the most important land-use 
allocations on the planet culminated in 2003 and 
200A in agreement on two important global frame- 
works for guiding future directions for protected 
areas. Critically, the first framework, the Durban 
Action Plan, informed the second, the CBD 
Programme of Work on Protected Areas. This was 
an important step in the integration of global civil 
society views on the future direction of protected 
areas into formal intergovernmental decision- 
making processes. 

Outcomes of the Vth World Parks Congress 

The Vth World Parks Congress (WPCI held in 
Durban, South Africa, in September 2003, was 
attended by 3 000 people with direct and indirect 
interests in protected areas. These included 
resource managers, scientists, politicians, min- 
isters, civil servants, and industry leaders from 
U4 countries. However, as a non-intergovern- 
mental meeting, any recommendations and agree- 
ments by participants of the Congress, held every 
ten years, have no international legal status. 
Nevertheless, previous congresses have played an 
important part in guiding the scientific and 
professional development of protected area 
philosophies and methodologies for over iO years. 
The opportunity for the 2003 Congress was the 
linkage of its outputs and recommendations to 
debates at the CBD (C0P71 in February 2004 on the 
proposed Programme of Work on Protected Areas 
to be implemented under the Convention. The 
2003 Congress produced two major outputs: 

Durban Accord 

The Accord was a broad statement of commitment 
from the 3 000 participants to the rest of the world 
and, recognizing rapid global change, proposed a 
new paradigm for protected areas: 

"In this changing wortd, we need a fresh and 
innovative approach to protected areas and 
their rote in broader conservation and 
development agendas. This approach dem- 



164 



Prospects for protected areas in the 21=^ century 



and5 the maintenance and entiancement of 
our core conservation goals, equitably integ- 
rating tliem with the interests of all affected 
people. In this way, the synergy between 
conservation, the maintenance of life-support 
systems and sustainable development is 
forged. We see protected areas as a vital 
means to achieve this synergy efficiently and 
cost-effectively We see protected areas as 
providers of benefits beyond boundaries - 



beyond their boundaries on a map. beyond the 
boundaries of nation states, across societies, 
genders and generations. " 

Durban Action Plan 

The Action Plan adopted at the Congress set an 
international agenda for improving the status of 
protected areas over the next decade, when the 
outcomes will be assessed at the next World 
Parks Congress, to be held in 2013. The Action Plan 



BOX 7.1 : THE DURBAN ACTION PLAN OUTCOMES AND KEY TARGETS 
Outcomes Key Targets 


1 : Protected areas fulfil their full role in biodiversity 
conservation 


1 : A significantly strengthened role for protected areas in implementing the Convention 

on Biological Diversity 
2: All sites whose biodiversity values are of outstanding universal value are inscribed 

on the World Heritage List. 


2: Protected areas mal<e a full contribution to 
sustainable development 


3: The management of all protected areas is reviewed so that they help alleviate 
poverty, and do not exacerbate it. 


3: A global system of protected areas, with links to 
surrounding landscapes and seascapes, is in 
place 


4; A system of protected areas representing all the world's ecosystems is in place. 
5: All protected areas are linked into wider ecological/environmental systems of 
resource management and protection on land and at sea. 


4: Protected areas are effectively managed, «/ith 
reliable reporting on their management 


6: All protected areas have effective management systems in place. 
7: All protected areas have effective management capacity 


5: The rights of indigenous peoples, including 
mobile indigenous, and local communities are 
secured in relation to natural resources and 
biodiversity conservation 


8: All existing and future protected areas are established and managed in full 

compliance with the rights of indigenous peoples, including mobile indigenous 

peoples, and local communities. 
9: The management of all relevant protected areas involves representatives chosen by 

indigenous peoples, including mobile indigenous peoples, and local communities 

proportionate to their rights and interests. 
10: All participatory mechanisms for the restitution of indigenous peoples' traditional 

lands and territories that were incorporated in protected areas without their free 

and informed consent are established and implemented. 


6: Younger generations are empowered in relation 
to protected areas 


11: There is a significantly greater participation of younger people in the governance 
and management of protected areas. 


7: Significantly greater support is secured for 
protected areas from other constituencies 


12: Programsof support for protected areas are achieved among all major stakeholder 
constituencies. 


8: Improved forms of governance are in place 


13: Effective systems of governance are implemented by all countries. 


9: Greatly increased financial resources are secured 
for protected areas 


U: Sufficient resources are secured to identify, establish and meet the recurrent 
operating costs of a globally representative system of protected areas. 


10: Better communication and education are 
achieved on the role and benefits of protected 
areas 


15: All national systems of protected areas are supported by communication and 
education strategies. 



165 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 7.2: CBD PROGRAMME OF WORK ON PROTECTED AREAS: ELEMENTS AND GOALS 

Program Elements Goals 


1 ; Direct actions for planning, selecting, 
establishing, strengthening, and managing 
protected area systems and 
sites 


Goal 1.1 To establish and strengthen national and regional systems of protected areas 

integrated into a global netvaork as a contribution to globally agreed goals. 
Goal 1.2 To integrate protected areas into broader land- and seascapes and sectors 

so as to maintain ecological structure and function. 
Goal 1.3 To establish and strengthen regional networks, transboundary protected 

areas ITBPAsI and collaboration betw/een neighboring protected areas across 

national boundaries. 
Goal 1.4 To substantially improve site-based protected area planning and 

management. 
Goal 1.5 To prevent and mitigate the negative impacts of key threats to protected 

areas. 


2: Governance, participation, equity, and 
benefit sharing 


Goal 2.1 To promote equity and benefit-sharing. 

Goal 2.2 To enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities and 
relevant stakeholders. 


3: Enabling activities 


Goal 3.1 To provide an enabling policy, institutional and socio-economic environment 

for protected areas. 
Goal 3.2 To build capacity for the planning, establishment and management of 

protected areas. 
Goal 3.3 To develop, apply and transfer appropriate technologies for protected areas. 
Goal 3.4 To ensure financial sustainability of protected areas and national and regional 

systems of protected areas. 
Goal 3.5 To strengthen communication, education, and public aviiareness 


k: Standards, assessment, and monitoring 


Goal A. 1 To develop and adopt minimum standards and best practices for national and 

regional protected area systems. 
Goal 4.2 To evaluate and improve the effectiveness of protected areas management. 
Goal 4.3 To assess and monitor protected area status and trends. 
Goal 4.4 To ensure that scientific knowledge contributes to the establishment and 
effectiveness of protected areas and protected area systems. 



identifies ten outcomes and 15 key targets to be 
achieved by that date. See Box 7.1. 

To support these outcomes there are a range 
of recommended actions at global, regional, and 
national levels. As well as the Accord and Action 
Plan, the Congress endorsed 32 comprehensive 
recommendations tabled by participants, covering 
subjects as diverse as the cultural and spiritual 
value of protected areas, mining and energy, 
evaluating management effectiveness, and private 
sector funding. In addition, a number of supporting 
targets were adopted for ecosystems and species: 

Ecosystem-rebted supporting targets 

□ Develop a common global framework for 

classifying and assessing the status of 

ecosystems by 2006. 



Identify quantitative targets for each 

ecosystem type by 2008. 

Ensure that, by 2006, protected area systems 

adequately cover all large, intact ecosystems 

that hold globally significant assemblages of 

species and/or provide ecosystem services 

and processes. 

Ensure that viable representations of every 

threatened or underprotected ecosystem are 

conserved by 2010. 

Ensure an increase in the coverage of 

freshwater ecosystems by protected areas las 

proposed by CBD Recommendation VIII/21 by 

2012. 

Secure a representative network of marine 

protected areas by 2012, as called for in the 

W55D Plan of Implementation. 



166 



Prospects for protected areas in the 21"century 



Species-related supporting targets 

□ Ensure all Critically Endangered and 
Endangered species globally confined to 
single sites are effectively conserved in situ 
by 2006. 

Q Ensure all otfier globally Critically Endangered 
and Endangered species are effectively 
conserved in situ by 2008. 

□ Ensure all otfier globally ttireatened species 
are effectively conserved in situ by 2010. 

Q Ensure that sites that support internationally 
important populations of species that 
congregate and/or have restricted-range 
species are effectively conserved by 2010. 

The main elements of the Action Plan and adopted 
recommendations were reflected in a formal 
message from the Congress to the CBD Cop7. 

CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas 

A Programme of Work on Protected Areas was 
adopted at the CBD Cop7 in Kuala Lumpur in 
February 2004, and largely reflected the recom- 
mendations of the 2003 World Parks Congress. The 
adoption by Contracting Parties to the CBD is an 
important step in further formalizing at the inter- 
governmental level the values and roles of 
protected areas in global conservation, and their 
linkage to conservation and development agendas: 
'T/ie overall purpose of the programme of work 
on protected areas is to support the establish- 
ment and maintenance by 2010 for terrestrial 
and by 2012 for marine, areas of compre- 
hensive, effectively managed, and ecologically 
representative national and regional systems 
of protected areas that collectively, inter alia 
through a global network, contribute to 
achieving the three objectives of the Convention 
and the 2010 target to significantly reduce the 
current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, 
regional, national and sub-national levels 
and contribute to poverty reduction and the 
pursuit of sustainable development, thereby 
supporting the objectives of the Strategic Plan 
of the Convention, the World Summit on 
Sustainable Development Plan of Implem- 
entation and the Millennium Development 
Goals. ■■ fSCBD, 2004bl 

The work program comprises the elements and 
goals outlined in Box 7.2, each of which has a series 
of time-bound targets (Box 7.3). 



CAN THE "BLUEPRINT" BE IMPLEMENTED? 

There is sufficient correlation and synergy between 
the outcomes and recommendations of the 2003 
World Parks Congress and the Programme of Work 
on Protected Areas agreed by the Parties to the CBD 
that the Programme can be considered as a 
defining framework or "blueprint" for protected 
areas for the next decade. The Programme of 
Work has the benefit of intergovernmental endorse- 
ment as part of an international agreement and, as 
such, theoretically brings responsibilities to the 
Parties of the CBD and is subject to the Con- 
vention's reporting processes. If all elements, goals, 
and targets of the Programme of Work are imple- 
mented by 2015, an effective and resilient global 
protected area network could well be in place for 
the remainder of the 21st century. 

The problem with time-bound targets 

A difficulty with the Programme of Work lies in the 
ambitious time-scale of its targets. While it is 
important in any endeavor to set timelines for 
achieving targets, both as an incentive for achieve- 
ment and so that progress can be measured, they 
must be realistic. Most of the Programme of Work, 
to be achieved between 2006 and 2015, is inter- 
linked and sequential, with both national- and 
regional-level objectives. A number are theor- 
etically achievable by the designated target year, 
such as gap analyses and capacity assessments at 
national levels. Others are more problematic - for 
example, it is unlikely that national-level reviews of 
existing and potential forms of conservation and 
types of governance were undertaken "with full and 
effective participation of indigenous and local 
communities" by 2006. Many of the targets will 
require technical and financial support to devel- 
oping countries, which will need allocation and 
mobilization of considerable resources and, in the 
case of many supporting bilateral donor agencies, a 
refocus on funding priorities for conservation 
activities in their assistance programs. The 
inescapable conclusion is that the Programme of 
Work will only be implemented in part within 
currently designated time frames. 

The role of protected areas: stretching the limits? 

In Chapter 1 we discussed the "new paradigm" for 
protected areas - the increasing recognition over 
the past few decades of the full range of values 
provided by protected areas that include many 
social, cultural, and economic benefits. This has 



167 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 7.3: CBD PROGRAMME OF WORK ON PROTECTED AREAS TIME-BOUND TARGETS 



2006 



□ Establish time-bound and measurable national- and regional-level protected area 
targets and indicators. 

□ Establish or expand protected areas in any large, intact, or relatively unfragmented 
or highly irreplaceable natural areas, areas under threat, with threatened species, 
and taking into account migratory species. 

Q Conduct, with full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, 
national-level reviews of existing and potential forms of conservation and types of 
governance. 

Q Address under-representation of inland water ecosystems in national and regional 
protected area systems. 

□ Complete protected area system gap analyses at national and regional levels. 

□ Evaluate national and sub-national experiences and lessons learned on specific 
efforts to integrate protected areas into wider land/seascapes. 

□ Identify legislative and institutional gaps and barriers that impede effective 
establishment and management of protected areas. 

3 Complete national protected area capacity needs assessments, and establish 
capacity-building programmes. 

□ Develop and adopt appropriate methods, standards, criteria, and indicators for 
evaluating protected-area management effectiveness and governance, and set up 
a database. 



2008 



□ Address under-representation of marine ecosystems in national and regional 
protected-area systems. 

□ Identify and implement practical steps for improving integration of protected areas 
into wider land/seascapes, including policy, legal, planning, and other 
measures- 

CJ Effective mechanisms for identifying and preventing, and/or mitigating, negative 
impacts of key threats to protected areas are in place. 

□ Mechanisms established for equitable sharing of costs and benefits of 
establishment and management of protected areas. 

J Full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities in the 

management of existing protected areas, and in the establishment of new 

protected areas. 
J Review and revise policies, including social and economic valuation and incentives, 

to provide a supporting enabling environment for more effective establishment and 

management of protected areas. 

□ Establish and begin to implement country-level sustainable financing plans that 
support national protected-area systems, including necessary regulatory. 



been reflected in the rapid grov^/th in the designation 
of lUCN Managennent Category VI - Managed 
Resource Area protected areas with their emphasis 
on sustainable use. Globally, Category VI protected 
areas now exceed the area of Category II - National 
Parks, and together Category V - Protected 
Landscape/Seascape and category VI protected 



areas account for almost i3 percent of the total area 
protected. While the broadening of the role of 
protected areas - which is also reflected in new lor 
reinstated) approaches to governance - is to be 
applauded, there needs to be a careful approach to 
the promotion of the benefits that can be delivered 
by such areas. 



168 



Prospects for protected areas in the 215t century 



legislative, policy, institutional, and other measures. 
Zl Sufficient financial, tecfinical, and other resources to effectively implement and 

manage national and regional protected-area systems are secured. 
3 Public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the importance and benefits 

of protected areas significantly increased. 
□ Standards, criteria, and best practices for planning, selecting, establishing, 

managing, and governance of national and regional protected-area systems 

developed and adopted. 



2009 



□ Designate protected areas identified through gap analyses. 
Q Effectively address legislative and institutional gaps and barriers that impede 
effective establishment and management of protected areas. 



2010 



-I Global netvi/orl< of comprehensive, representative and effectively managed national 
and regional terrestrial protected areas established. 

-J Establish and strengthen transboundary terrestrial protected areas and other 
forms of collaboration. 

J Develop or update management plans for protected areas. 

-1 Comprehensive capacity-building programs and initiatives implemented. 

3 Development, validation, and transfer of appropriate technologies and innovative 
approaches for effective management of protected areas is substantially 
improved. 

3 Frameworks tor monitoring, evaluating, and reporting protected-area manage- 
ment effectiveness adopted and implemented by Parties. 

□ Management effectiveness evaluations implemented for at least 30 percent of each 
Party's protected areas and ecological networks. 

□ National and regional systems established to enable effective monitoring of 
protected-area coverage, status, and trends at national, regional, and global scales, 
and to assist in monitoring global biodiversity targets. 



2012 



Global network of comprehensive, representative, and effectively managed national 

and regional marine protected areas established. 

Establish and strengthen transboundary marine protected areas and other forms 

of collaboration. 

All protected areas effectively managed using participatory and science-based 

planning processes that incorporate clear biodiversity targets. 



2015 



J All protected areas and protected-area systems integrated into wider 
land/seascapes. 



A major objective of the CBD Programme of 
Work on Protected Areas is to "contribute to poverty 
reduction and the pursuit of sustainable develop- 
ment" in support of the World Summit on 
Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation 
and the MDGs. Indeed, the 2003 World Parks 
Congress was also framed within the concept of 



"benefit beyond boundaries", including the role of 
protected areas in ameliorating poverty. A two-page 
flyer released by the Congress and sponsored by the 
lUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, 
Ramsar, and the UNESCO Man and Biosphere 
Program listed ten target action areas for 
strengthening protected areas over the next decade. 



169 



The world's protected areas 



There needs to be a 
better understanding of 
the opportunities and 
limitations of Linking 
protected areas to 
development outcomes 
and poverty reduction. 




Target 1 was poverty alleviation, with specific 
reference to National Poverty Reduction Strategies, 
while ecological targets were ranked at fifth 
Imarinel and sixth places. 

It is fundamental that we have a holistic and 
integrated approach to resolving the problems of 
poverty, resource access inequities, and global 
environmental change if we are to be successful in 
conserving the world's remaining and rapidly 
diminishing biodiversity. Such an approach must 
include the roles and values of protected areas, and 
the environmental services that many such areas 
provide. Too few protected areas are linked into 
development planning, land use, and other 
resource management decision-making systems 
beyond their boundaries. Many protected areas 
thus function as isolated units, and the ecological 
linkages that they ultimately depend on often have 
no legal protection. 

However, it is essential that we do not demand 
too much. Protected areas cannot be a panacea for 
the world's development problems, even if they can 
significantly contribute to the solutions. Even at the 
local level, delivery of benefits from protected areas 
is problematic. One of the major problems to be 
overcome in developing countries is the inequitable 
distribution of the costs and benefits of maintaining 
protected areas. Most notably, people living in the 
vicinity of a protected area may bear significant 
costs from the presence of that area, chiefly through 
foregoing the often short-term benefits that would 
otherwise accrue if they were allowed to exploit its 



natural resources in an unrestrained way. Solving 
this in an equitable fashion that is sustainable 
(socially, ecologically, and financially) in the long 
term and acceptable to all interest groups has 
proved highly intractable. Sustainable use of wild 
resources, through direct harvesting or tourism, 
has often been promoted as a means by which local 
people and national agencies can derive income to 
offset the immediate and future opportunity costs of 
maintaining protected areas. However, as Hutton 
and Leader-Williams 120031 noted: "Notwith- 
standing the potential financial benefits that often 
flow from the use of living wild resources, such use 
has not often realized its full potential as an 
incentive to support habitat and species con- 
servation objectives, or to benefit the rural poor" In 
some countries, such as Costa Rica, successful 
partnerships have been built with local private 
businesses, resulting in regular income for local 
people and national management agencies. 
However, as McClanahan 12004:4] has noted: 
"Ecological and economic benefits of protected 
areas are often indirect and most relevant at the 
national and international level, making it difficult 
for conservation to pay for itself at the local level." 
Recent reviews of the integrated development 
and conservation experience IWells et a/., 2004; 
MacKinnon, 2002] have concluded that there is little 
evidence that developmental improvements for 
local people near protected areas results in more 
effective biodiversity conservation, based on the 
many integrated conservation and development 



170 



Prospects for protected areas in the 21" century 



programs implemented in the 1980s to 1990s. We 
have to define more achievable goals and have a 
more realistic understanding of the opportunities 
and limitations of linl<ing protected areas to devel- 
opment outcomes and not set the criterion for 
success of protected areas based on their 
alleviation of poverty alone. The fundamental chall- 
enges facing protected areas over the next century, 
and against which most are likely to be assessed by 
future generations, are successfully conserving 
biological diversity and providing sustainable envir- 
onmental services. 

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS 

As well as the issues relating to the problematic 
interface between protected areas and develop- 
ment, over the coming century a major global 
challenge facing protected areas and the bio- 
diversity that they conserve is adapting to climate 
change. This is, of course, a predicament that 
affects all aspects of human endeavor, not only 
protected areas, and is dependent upon the 
resolution of wide-ranging issues at the highest 
political levels and across all strata of society. 
Nevertheless, protected areas need to be a central 
strategy in the amelioration of climate change 
impacts on ecosystems. 

Climate change provides a critical argument 
for, and underscores the urgency of, not only 
ensuring the protection and management of our 
existing conservation areas, but also expanding 
present national systems into an effective global 
network. Even though protected areas are wide- 
ranging across the Earth's biomes, they are highly 
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and 
tend to already exist as remnants in modified 
landscapes. Adaptation to climate change at the 
species and ecosystem levels, where adaptation is 
feasible, will include the ability of species to shift 
latitudinally and altitudinally. One of our greatest 
challenges, therefore, is to strengthen the capacity 
of protected areas to provide for these potential 
lateral and vertical shifts. This will require 
enhanced levels of cooperation within and between 
countries to develop effective ecological networks 
and corridors that work across intranational and 
international geopolitical boundaries, and to 
engage in landscape-scale ecological restoration. 

In recent years, the concept of ecological 
networks has gained increasing support as a 
mechanism for enhancing connectivity between 
protected areas, and protecting remaining bio- 



diversity not contained within declared conservation 
sites. While many existing networks are based on 
contiguous landscape connectivity, others help to 
conserve migratory species by protecting breeding 
and stopover sites scattered across the globe; for 
example, migratory waterbird agreements such as 
the East Asian-Australasian Shorebird Site Network 
and the Bonn Convention Agreement on the Con- 
servation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds 
iBennettand Wit, 2001). 

Almost 50 percent of the total number of the 
world's protected areas are in Europe, although 
most are very small and collectively they constitute 
only 4 percent of the total global area protected. The 
ecological network approach has therefore gained 
considerable momentum in Europe with the devel- 
opment of the Pan-European Ecological Network 
IPEENI Isee Figure 7.31 to enhance ecological 
connectivity in the region, and in Central America, 
with the establishment of the Meso-American 
Biological Corridor These examples provide an 
indication of what can be achieved, and it is this type 
of large-scale cooperative ecological planning that 
must occur across all continents if we are to build 
adaptability into protected area networks to meet 
the challenges of climate change and existing 
issues associated with habitat fragmentation. 

In addition to developing and implementing 



As a result of global 
climate change, the 
ecological viability 
of small protected 
areas will likely be 
dependent on effective 
connectivity through 
ecological networks - 
Mt Egmont National 
Park, New Zealand. 




171 



The world's protected areas 



FIGURE 7.3: 
PAN-EUROPEAN 
ECOLOGICAL 
NETWORK 

The Pan-European 
Ecological Network 
is an example of 
the transnational 
cooperative ecological 
planning that must 
occur if we are to 
build adaptability into 
protected-area 
networks to meet the 
challenges of climate 
change and habitat 
fragmentation. 



■ill Alpine gras5l3ndB and shrubs 
^111 

Ml S3ll marshes and salmes 

^11 

^111 Aillorests 

■ilV 

^■1 MoisI grasslands 

^11 

^■111 Olher gresslands and shrubs 

^IV 

Size classes (related to core areasi 

surface area requirement of the Indicator 

species 

I less than 70% 

II between 70% and 90% 

III between 70% and 100% 

IV 5 times threshold 111 

• Internationally acknowledged areas 
Internationally and nationally designated 



Corridors 

i — > Search areas tor corridors (tor lorest 
habitatsi 




strategies tor improving connectivity of protected 
areas anid proviiding for the movement of species, 
protected areas have value in mitigating some of the 
broader impacts of climate change. Almost all are 
fundamental for human development and survival, 
through, for example: 

□ retention of vegetated catchments, especially 
forests, to protect water supplies; 

Q retention of large forest and wetland eco- 
systems to reduce levels of emissions (from 
deforestation or breakdown of below-ground 
carbon reserves); assist in absorption of 
Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2; and 
ameliorate changes In regional rainfall patterns; 

□ protection of upland forests and other 
vegetation to reduce the Impact of storms on 
soil and slope stability; 

□ protection of inland areas from the Impacts of 
cyclonic waves and storm surge by mangroves 
and other coastal systems. Allowance for 
natural (managed) retreat of these systems as 
sea levels rise will continue this role Into the 
future; 

□ protection of fish breeding and migration 
areas, and associated habitats, allowing 
greater resilience of important fish-stocks 
against changes in water temperature and 
current patterns; 

□ provision of livelihood buffers of managed 



natural resources - Including non-timber 
forest products, wild foods, and water supplies 
- tor local rural communities In times of food 
crop deficits arising from droughts and 
depredation by pests; 

□ retention of genetic diversity for restoring 
degraded ecosystems; and 

Q the potential for better control of disease 
vectors (predicted to extend their ranges as a 
result of climate change) by natural predators 
In protected areas. 

In the coming decades there will be Increased 
availability of monitoring technology to protected- 
area managers especially In developing countries, 
such as interactive satellite Imagery (see Box 7.A]- 
This will greatly assist monitoring and modelling of 
ecosystem changes In protected areas to enable 
better management responses to deal with 
environmental change Issues. 

RESOURCING THE FUTURE 

Support for effective management and protection of 
conservation areas still requires a permanent, 
widespread solution. Participants at the Vth World 
Parks Congress concluded that there was almost 
universal underinvestment by governments In 
protected areas, with the result that they often 
lack effective protection and management and 



172 



Prospects for protected areas in the 21=^ century 



therefore fail to meet their conservation and social 
objectives. This situation undoubtedly stems in 
large measure from the fact that protected areas 
often lack broad public support. Indeed, specific 
groups, from local peoples to multinational 
corporations, often see protected areas as actual 
barriers to their activities and aspirations. It is 
scarcely surprising, therefore, that protected areas 
are generally accorded low investment priority by 
governments. Not only is there acknow/ledged to be 
inadequate direct investment, but a range of 
subsidies and other financial instruments and 
institutional arrangements often act perversely and 
have a negative impact on protected areas and 
more generally biodiversity. 

Participants at the Vth World Parks Congress 
estimated that an annual sum in the region of 
US$ 20-30 billion would be required over the next 
3D years to establish and maintain a comprehensive 
protected-areas system including terrestrial, wet- 
land, and marine ecosystems. This is of a similar 
order of magnitude for, but somewhat lower than, 
an estimate of some US$ 45 billion made by 
Balmford etai in 2002. They estimated that US$ 6.5 



billion was actually spent annually on the existing 
protected area network. Not only is this 
considerably less than the amount needed, it is 
also highly inequitably distributed, with half spent 
in the USA alone. 

The sum required might seem large, but it 
pales into insignificance when set against the 
economically and ecologically perverse subsidies, 
estimated globally at US$ 950-1 950 billion 
annually, that continue to drive habitat loss. For 
example, the MA I2005bl reports that agricultural 
sector subsidies paid to the OECD countries 
alone between 2001 and 2003 averaged over 
US$ 32A billion annually, with a significant 
proportion leading to overproduction, reducing the 
profitability of agriculture in developing countries 
and thus helping to perpetuate rural poverty that 
leads to much of the pressure on protected areas in 
those countries. The amount required to better 
conserve the world's natural heritage is also 
insignificant compared to global expenditure on the 
most destructive human activity: war and conflict, 
estimated at US$ 1 035 billion in 2004 I5IPRI 20051. 

The problem of chronic under-resourcing and 



The Vth World Parks 
Congress estimated that 
an annual sum in the 
region of US$ 20-30 
billion v\fould be 
required over the next 
30 years to establish 
and maintain a 
comprehensive 
protected-areas system, 
including terrestrial, 
wetland, and marine 
ecosystems. Los 
Gtaciares National Park 
and World Heritage 
Area, Argentina. 




173 



The world's protected areas 



BOX 7.4: THE ROLE OF REMOTE SENSING IN PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT 
IN THE 21st CENTURY 

Gary N. Geller, Protected Areas Conservation Liaison, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA 



Observations of Earth from space or aircraft are 
playing an increasingly significant role in protected 
areas management. The main uses include a range 
of sophistication levels, from simply lool<lng at color 
images to detailed quantitative analysis and 
computer modeling. Extracting the full value from 
these observations, however, requires mal<ing the 
data and tools more user-friendly so they are 
accessible to users whose expertise is in 
conserAOtion management. 

Perspective and context. An image facilitates 
understanding of a site and its context. For example. 
It puts the size of a protected area, which may seem 
large from the ground, into perspective, and helps 
the viewer to recognize the significance of finite 
boundaries. Because features withm a protected 
area are often obvious from space, an image may 
help provide an understanding of problems or 
potential problems that may otherwise be missed, 
such as the extent of agricultural encroachment 
around and within a protected area. 

Communication. Satellite images can be a powerful 
communication aid because they can convey certain 
problems much better than words can. For example, 
an image showing agricultural encroachment into a 
protected area can be immediately understood, and 
have more impact than words. Such an image can 
also be very difficult to argue with. mal<ing images a 
useful advocacy tool. 

Historical value. For conservation management, an 
image should be considered as a biophysical dataset 
captured at a particular point in time. An image 



archive can thus be extremely valuable in 
understanding how an area has changed over time, 
or for establishing a "baseline" condition to be used 
as a reference for historical and future comparisons. 

Maps and measurements. Satellite images can be 
used for a variety of maps and measurements. One 
of the most significant is the classified vegetation or 
land-use map, where each pixel in an image is 
assigned a particular "class" representing its 
vegetation type or land use. However, generating 
such maps typically requires fairly intensive 
groundwork to achieve sufficient accuracy. This is 
due to the limitations of the available and affordable 
technology, primarily spatial and spectral resolution, 
though also image processing and analysis tools. 
But there are many simpler uses for images, 
including generating maps of roads or management 
units, measuring area and distance, assessing 
encroachment, or as an aid to fieldworl<. Also, 
images make an excellent "base map" upon which 
other kinds of data - such as management units, 
poaching incidents, fire history, census, poverty, or 
any type of spatially referenced dataset - can be 
overlaid. Bringing these datasets together with a 
satellite image can be very revealing. 

Modeling and ecological forecasting. One active 
area that is likely to change much over the next 
decade is the use of remote sensing data in 
predictive models that will help protected-areas 
managers assess the consequences of alternate 
scenarios. For example, past trends in deforestation, 
as determined from a series of satellite images, can 
be used to predict future forest extent in and around 



lack of political commitment is most clearly seen in 
(but not limited to) developing countries, which hold 
much of the world's threatened biodiversity and 
most important protected areas, and many of which 
are faced with rapidly growing populations often in 
rural areas, high levels of poverty and 
unemployment, and low levels of health, education, 
and basic infrastructure. The stability of governance 
in a number of these countries, at national. 



provincial, and community levels, is further strained 
by conflict, epidemic diseases, and/or endemic 
institutional corruption. As a result, the resources 
available for effective management of conservation 
areas are usually minimal - despite the best 
intentions at the national policy level in initially 
establishing protected areas. 

Currently the viability of protected areas is 
often maintained through the efforts of dedicated 



174 



Prospects for protected areas in the 21=^ century 







Source: NASA/GSFC/ METI/ERSDAC/JAR05. and US/Japan ASTER Science Team 



a park. Somewhat more sophisticated is the 
potential to use models in assessing the impact of 
climate change. For example, a variety of satellite- 
derived environmental parameters can be used to 
determine the relationship between environmental 
variables and species habitat; then, using climate 
models, the range of an important species under 
various climatic regimes can be predicted. Such 
environmental measurements can also be used to 
predict a variety of parameters that may be of use to 
protected areas managers, such as water availability 
for wildlife, or fire risl< Ifor example, seeecocast.arc. 
nasa.govl. As new models become available, existing 
models improve, and all become easier to use, more 
and more model-based tools will become available 
for protected areas management. 

[Monitoring. Another active area is the use of remote 
sensing for monitoring protected areas. Monitoring 
can be done in two ways. The simplest, which could 
be called "watchful eye" monitoring, is to manually 
review images for problems and changes (good and 
badi in and around a protected area. A step up in 
sophistication is to automate this process, which is 
just getting underway, with, for example, the use of 
an automated fire detection and reporting system 
Isee http://map5.ge0g. umd.edul. Monitoring may 
also be more formalized and extract specific. 



quantitative indicators such as deforestation or 
reforestation, fragmentation and connectivity, and 
threats such as density of road networl<s or 
agricultural expansion. Indicator development using 
Earth observation data is an area of much research 
activity with a range of sophistication levels. For 
satellite-aided monitoring to become widespread 
among the 100 000-plus protected areas, however, 
the data and tools to use it will need to become more 
accessible. An excellent reference on satellite-aided 
biodiversity monitoring is available at http://biodiv. 
org/doc/ publications/cbd-ts-32.pdf. 

Addressing the access problem. For remote sensing 
to become a widespread technology among protected 
areas managers it will need to be made easier to 
use. Currently, most of the tools for finding and 
using satellite images are for experienced users, 
and while training is gradually increasing the 
capacity of the conservation community, the tools 
need to become both simpler and friendlier One 
recent approach to addressing this problem is called 
TerraLool<. TerraLook combines collections of 
images on a particular theme Isuch as the protected 
areas of a particular country or region] with simple 
tools to find and use them. It is designed for users 
who have no experience using satellite images. 
TerraLook is available at http://terralook.crusgs.gov. 



Ichkeul National Park 
World Heritage Site in 
Tunisia badly 
deteriorated as ttie 
result of the 
construction of ttiree 
dams on rivers 
supplying it and its 
marslies. The dams cut 
off almost all inflow of 
fresh water, causing a 
destructive increase in 
the salinity of the lake 
and marshes. Reed 
beds, sedges and other 
freshwater plant 
species have been 
replaced with salt- 
loving plants, with a 
consequent sharp 
reduction in the 
migratory bird 
populations dependent 
on the habitat the lake 
formerly provided. The 
Tunisian Government 
plans to undertake 
various measures to 
retain freshwater in the 
lake on a year-round 
basis and reduce the 
salinity of the lake. The 
two ASTER 3-2-1 RGB 
composites depict 
vegetation in shades of 
red. In 2005, the water 
level is higher than 
2001, but a large part of 
the lake appears red 
due to the presence of 
aquatic plants. 



staff in head offices in capital cities and in the field, 
and in many developing countries supported by 
bilateral or multilateral donors. Often the problem 
with donor support is its short-term nature, often 
tied to three-to-five-year funding cycles, the 
political agendas of the donor countries 
themselves, loan conditions lin the case of the 
multilateral banks), and the frequent inability of 
donor funds to meet recurrent management costs. 



In 1999, James et al. estimated that donor funding 
only supported about 20 percent of total expenditure 
on nature reserves in developing countries. In some 
countries, official development assistance is sup- 
plemented or even replaced by direct financial and 
technical assistance from privately funded inter- 
national conservation organizations. Although the 
Global Environment Facility (GEF) has provided 
millions of dollars for conservation activities. 



175 



The world's protected areas 



Balmford and Whitten (2003) noted that in the case 
of tropical conservation, there is little evidence that 
the level of donor support has increased signif- 
icantly since the first commitments in the early 
1990s. They also suggested that the recent broad- 
ening of the scope of GEF funding to cover land 
degradation and persistent organic pollutants will 
dilute the funds available for conservation. 

The ecological benefits of protected areas are 
global and their value will increase as pressures 
intensify on unprotected natural resources and as 
global environmental change continues. There is a 
need for equity in the disbursement of the real costs 
of developing countries maintaining protected areas 
for the global good - the high level of global benefits 
accruing from protected natural ecosystems needs 
to be reflected in the way we support protected 
areas. Balmford ef a/. 12002) calculated that a 
"hypothetical global reserve network" costing some 
US$ 20-45 billion per year would ensure the delivery 
of goods and services with an annual value (net of 
benefits from conversion) of between about US$ U 400 
billion and U5$ 5 200 billion, depending on the level 
of resource use permitted within protected areas - a 
cost benefit ratio of around 100:1. 

FUTURE PROSPECTS 

As a species, we are faced with enormous 
challenges to manage the Earth sustainably and 
equitably in the coming century and beyond. 
Increasing realization of the scale of our problem 
has prompted considerable international agree- 
ment on what needs to be done, including estab- 
lishment and effective management of protected 
areas as a key mechanism for conserving what 
remains of our dwindling biodiversity - with hopes 
that such action wilt also have wider "benefits 
beyond boundaries". 

International discussion now focuses on the 
role of protected areas as part of global con- 
servation strategies and ecological networks, and 
the extensive growth of the conservation estate 



has reflected increasing political commitment at 
national levels. But, as always, political commit- 
ment needs to be followed by action - simply 
adding more areas to comply with the statistical 
objectives of global agreements will not do. This 
means action at all levels of protected area 
planning and management, as well as effective 
integration of site-based conservation into wider 
development planning and broader response 
strategies to fundamental Issues such as climate 
change, poverty reduction, energy, and cessation 
of armed conflict - and not as a competing or 
lower priority. Most Importantly, the values and 
Importance of protected areas must be reflected in 
the provision of sufficient resources, and the 
recognition of and support for diverse governance 
models. In short, we need to apply the adopted 
principles and goals of the CBD Programme of 
Work on Protected Areas, but within realistic and 
manageable time frames. 

If these issues are addressed, building on the 
obvious synergies with all elements of environ- 
mental and development agendas, protected areas 
will succeed over the long term as key global, 
national, and local conservation mechanisms . 

Certainly there is cause for optimism in the 
recent actions of some governments, such as the 
2006 announcement by Para State in Brazil to 
conserve almost 150 000 km in Amazonia and the 
2005 decision by Micronesian countries in the 
Pacific to conserve 30 percent of near shore marine 
areas and 20 percent of forests by 2015. Equally, at 
the community level more and more communities 
are conserving areas and placing them under 
sustainable use regimes, such as the locally 
managed marine areas In Fiji and other countries. 
What we are seeing, and what needs to be fostered 
and strengthened at all levels of society, are crucial 
cultural, political, and scientific responses to the 
interrelated threats to nature and human survival 
as we deal with the enormous environmental and 
social challenges of the 21 st century. 



176 



Regional analysis 



Regional Analysis 



This chapter assesses the extent of the 
world's protected area coverage, and 
planning and management issues, on a 
regional basis. There are a number of 
different schemes used by international organiz- 
ations to divide the w/orld into regional units, but 
most of these are very broad scale. For its 
purposes, the lUCN World Commission on Pro - 
tected Areas IWCPA) has divided the world 
(excluding Antarctica, see Chapter II into 15 
regions on the basis of geographical, geopolitical, 
and/or linguistic factors: 

North America 

Caribbean 

Central America 

Brazil 

South America 

Europe 

West and Central Africa 

Eastern and Southern Africa 

North Africa and Middle East 

Northern Eurasia 

South Asia 

East Asia 

Southeast Asia 

Australia and New Zealand 

Pacific 

Overall these divisions are a useful way of 
reviewing the global status of protected areas. 



However, for the purposes of presenting coherent 
geographic analyses, they are not without 
difficulties when the basis for defining a region 
includes a linguistic criterion. For example, the 
West and Central Africa region includes the 
francophone island states of the Indian Ocean, 
which from a geographic perspective are more 
efficiently dealt with in the context of Eastern and 
Southern Africa. Similarly, Brazil is an artificially 
separated region within the South American 
continent. In the case of West and Central Africa 
adjustments have been made in this chapter to 
improve geographic coherence. 

The regional analyses follow a standard 
format covering regional description, historical 
perspective, extent of national and international 
protected areas, and an assessment of future 
directions. These analyses have been undertaken 
by regional experts, including WCPA regional 
vice chairs. 

The protected area data used here for each 
region are derived from analyses undertaken in 
2007 using 2005 information held in the World 
Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). It should be 
noted that revision and updating of the database, 
using national agency and other sources, is an 
ongoing process and statistical information 
currently held in the WDPA for individual countries 
and for regions may vary from the information 
presented in these analyses. 



177 



North America 



North America 

Canada, Greenland (Denmark), Mexico, 

St Pierre and Miquelon (France), 

United States of America 



Contributor: A. Turner 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

North America has a combined population of more 
than 425 million people and is primarily governed by 
three federal, 82 state, 10 provincial, and three 
territorial governments with responsibilities for 
protected areas. Greenland, although closely tied to 
Denmark, has self rule, with a population of 57 000 
in three regions. St Pierre and Miquelon is a tiny 
territorial collective' of France with a population of 
some 7 000. IThe US state of Hawaii is considered in 
the statistics to be part of the Pacific region.) 

North America is distinguished from other 
continents by the diversity of its ecosystems, 
ranging from tundra to tropical. Many terrestrial, 
freshwater, and marine ecosystem types are shared 
among the countries, in addition to the pathways of 
migratory species, ranging from songbirds and 
butterflies to waterfowl and whales. 

Permanent snow and ice cover more than 
80 percent of Greenland, and are also widespread 
on some of the Arctic islands of northern Canada. 
The Arctic tundra and taiga north of the treeline 
gives way to boreal forests throughout the lower 
two thirds of Canada. Temperate forest eco- 
systems stretch from the Great Lakes region to 
cover much of the eastern third of the USA, and 
extend southward through the western mountains 
into Mexico. 

Mountain ranges form a spine dividing the 
western quarter of the continent, giving rise to 
complex ecosystems such as the Cordillera and 
Sierras. Mountains also strongly influence the 
climate of the northwest temperate rainforests as 
well as the intermontane desert ecosystems and 



Great Plains that stretch down the continent from 
Canada to Mexico. 

Tropical dry forest ecosystems begin near the 
Mexican-USA border in the foothills of western 
Mexico's mountains, spreading southwards to 
Central America. Tropical humid forest ecosystems 
are found primarily along the Gulf of Mexico coast 
and the Yucatan Peninsula. 

North American marine ecosystems are 
equally diverse - Arctic waters, under permanent 
to semi-permanent sea ice, give way to productive 
open water that supports large populations of 
marine mammals. The western Atlantic, with an 
extensive continental shelf, and warm Gulf Stream 
Current and cold Labrador Current, has produced 
a highly productive marine environment and, as a 
result, a centuries-old fisheries industry, now 
heavily depleted. 

The eastern Pacific's cold temperate to 
tropical waters are influenced by the North Pacific 
Current, Alaska Gyre, and Davidson and California 
currents. Many species such as gray whales and 
sea otters range along the entire western coast. 
Upwellings within the Alaska Gyre have created one 
of the world's most productive areas for marine 
invertebrates. 

Coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico feature 
biologically diverse estuarine ecosystems, man- 
groves, saltmarshes, and tidal marshes, while the 
Caribbean Sea contains extensive coral reef and 
seagrass bed habitat. 

In terms of identifying and prioritizing areas 
for conservation importance, there are some 50 
centers of plant diversity located right across the 



179 



The world's protected areas 



30°N 



BE.iUFORTSE.-l 



UNITED STATES 
r AMERICA 




Greenland (DNK) 




' 'e 



& 



■^'i 



f r 



• •=' CANADA 



"dP 







* -UNITED STAfES .4 ••»"** " ■" 



PACIFIC 
OCE4N 



.:>n , OF AMERICA 



• r/« v> 










*•' Saint Pierre & 
Miquelon (ERA) 



■Bd 



180° w lyo'w'*^ 



Aleutian ' . 

»_ Islands (USA) JW 



300 600 900 km 



Source 



130"W 

UNEP-WCMC 



120°W 



110°W 



100*W 90*W 



-I- 



300 600 900 km 



80°W 



180 



North America 



region. By contrast, endemic bird areas are largely 
restricted to Mexico, with only two in the US 
nnainland and none elsewhere. At a broader level 
some 31 priority ecoregions (WWF Global 2001 
have been recognized, covering wide areas of 
Mexico, the western seaboard and mountains of 
the USA, the Appalachian region, and wide areas 
of Arctic biomes. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

Prior to European settlement in North America, 
indigenous peoples recognized and respected 
special areas such as productive wild game areas 
and sacred sites. European settlement brought 
temporary protection of selected areas in response 
to advancing settlement and resource harvesting. 
Formal long-term protection began about UO years 
ago when areas were set aside for their outstanding 
scenery, and economic and recreational benefits. In 
1864 the natural landscape of the Yosemite Valley 
and the giant sequoias of Mariposa Grove in 
California were first protected. The first national 
parks (Yellowstone (18721, Banff (1885), and 
Desietro de Los Leones (19171 were all protected 
natural landscapes around springs. 

Other sites were soon established for the 
protection of wild species. Last Mountain Lake 
(1 8871 in Saskatchewan protected critical habitat for 
migratory waterfowl, while Pelican Island In Florida 
was established as a federal bird reservation In 
1903. Isla Guadalupe (19281 protected the unique 



biodiversity of the island and surroundings. 
Including three varieties of seal. 

The protection of forest and freshwater 
resources were also seen as Important criteria for 
setting up protected areas. Examples Include many 
CordiUeran mountain parks and the Algonquin 
Provincial Park in Ontario. Areas protected for their 
Intrinsic ecological or wilderness values began with 
Gila Wilderness in New Mexico in 1924. 

Protecting marine ecosystems dates back to 
the earliest coastal wildlife refuges (Pelican Island, 
19031 and bird sanctuaries that protected the Inter- 
tidal habitat of migratory and other species, 
although the first sites to offer protection to subtidal 
resources came later. Today there are marine 
protected areas across the regions, including parks, 
marine ecological areas, no-take reserves, and 
multiple-use zones. 

THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

In the past 30 years the number of sites (lUCN 
Protected Area Management Categories l-VIl 
across North America has almost tripled to 13 554, 
and the area protected has increased to more than 
4.10 million km2, to Include about 17.3 percent of 
the total land area. Protected areas that prohibit 
extractive activities (primarily lUCN Categories l-llll 
account for just under half of this area. 

Protected area statistics for the region are 
heavily Influenced by one site, the Greenland 
National Park, which is the largest protected area in 



North America: Growth of protected areas network, 1872-2005 
3 500 



3 000 
2 500 

2 000 

E 

o 1500 
p 

1000 
500 



■ Cumulative area of sites witli known establisiiment date (km^)) 

_ ■ Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA (km^) 



■■■■lllllll 




187275 '80 '90 ■951900r05'10'15 '20 '25 '30 '35 ■40'45'50'55 ■60'65 ■70 75 '80 ■85'90'9520DO'05 



181 



The world's protected areas 




S Chape 



Yosemite National Park, USA, a World Heritage Site. 



182 



North America 



■ Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

■ Cumulative number of sites with unl<nown establishment date 

dates based on date entered into WDPA 

nil 












1 



7 000 

6 000 

5 000 

„ 4 000 

V 

'in 

3 000 

2 000 

1 000 



1872'75 '80 90 •951900'05'10'15'20 25 ■30'35 •40'45'50'55 iOiS ■70 75 '80 •85'90952000'05 

North America: Growrth In the number of protected areas. 1872-2005 



the world at 972 000 km^. If Greenland is left out, 
the proportion of the land surface of the region 
protected comes closer to 15 percent. In addition to 
this, designated in 197^, several other large pro- 
tected areas in the vast northern areas of Canada 
and Alaska have been declared since the 1980s. 

None of the countries can yet claim full 
representation of ecological regions within their 
protected area systems, although boreal habitats 
are generally well represented at the regional level. 
Only about 1 .2 percent of the region's very extensive 
marine areas (out to 200 nautical milesl are 
protected In 754 marine protected areas covering 
218 000 km2 (not including Hawaiil. 

In Canada the federal agency Parks Canada 
has responsibility for some 300 000 km^ of lUCN 
Category II protected areas. Along with many of its 
provincial and territorial counterparts, it has 
adopted park establishment strategies based on the 
representation of various ecosystem types. Parks 
Canada also has a newly legislated National Marine 
Conservation Areas program, also based on 
ensuring ecosystem representation. The Canadian 

Areas of North America protected (by country], 2005 



Wildlife Service manages a network of national 
wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries. The 
Department of Fisheries and Oceans has recently 
begun establishing a network of marine protected 
areas IMPAsl. The Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks 
Canada. British Columbia, and Newfoundland have 
all designated MPAs, but the total still represents 
only a very small fraction of Canada's enormous 15.6 
million km2| exclusive economic zone (EEZl. Almost 
all provinces and territories have ecological or 
wilderness area programs (lUCN II and wildlife 
areas (lUCN IVl. 

The most comprehensive protection in the 
USA is found within the national park network 
administered by the US National Parks Service. 
However, very large tracts of the landscape (lUCN 
Categories V and VI) are managed through other 
federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land 
Management, the US Forest Service, and the Fish 
and Wildlife Service. Except for national parks, only 
a small fraction of the total area is managed as 
wilderness, although many areas contain sub- 
stantial biodiversity conservation value. The Depart- 



Country/territories 

Canada 



Land area (km^) 

9 970 610 



Total protected area Ikm^) 

861 300 



Total number of sites 

5A55 



Greenland 


2 175 600 


980 099 


7 


Mexico 


1 958 200 


195 950 


193 


St Pierre and Miquelon 


240 


127 


6 


USA 


9 612 453 


2 063 337 


7 833 



183 



The world's protected areas 



Agreements and policies (by country) 



Convention, legislation, agreement, or policy Coverage 

North American Agreement on Environmental North America 
Cooperation Iside agreement to NAFTAl 



Key role re protected areas IPAs) 

Commission on Environmental 
Cooperation facilitates continental 
cooperation on land and marine PA 
systems and biodiversity protection 



Western Hemisphere Shorebird Network 


North America 


Links PAs within hemispheric migratory 
routes 


UN Convention on Biological Diversity 


Canada/Mexico 


Agree to complete PA systems to 
protect biodiversity 


Cartagena Convention 


Mexico/USA 


Protocol on specially protected areas & 
wildlife 


Canada National Parks Act 


Canada 


Protects ecological integrity in national 
parks 


Canada Oceans Act 


Canada 


Enables establishment of marine 
protected areas 


Species at Risk Act 


Canada 


Identifies critical habitat requiring 
protection 


National Park Sen/ice Organic Act 


USA 


Balances protection of nature and visitor 
use 


Land and Water ConseiA/ation Fund 


USA 


Protects land and recreational activities 


MPA Executive Order 13158 


USA 


Strengthens and expands a national MPA 
system 



General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and 
Environment Protection (Ley General del 
Equilibrio Ecologico y la Proteccion al 
Ambiente - LGEEPAl 



Mexico 



Directs a multi-stakeholder approach to 
PA management 



Federal Fisheries Law (Ley Federal de Pascal 



Mexico 



Uses reserves and fishing bans to 
repopulate and preserve fisheries 



ments of Commerce and the Interior through other 
agencies, especially the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAAl and the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, are strengthening and 
expanding a national system of MPAs by vi/orking 
closely with state, territorial, local, tribal, and other 
stakeholders. When complete, such a system will 
include most existing terrestrial-based design- 
ations as well as fishery management zones, 
marine sanctuaries, critical habitats, research and 
no-take reserves. 

Mexico's protected areas network comprises 
six federal categories - biosphere reserves, 
national parks, flora and fauna protection areas, 
sanctuaries, natural monuments, and natural 
resource protection areas - making up a national 
system of protected areas ISINAPI. Of these 
categories, the first four have been applied in the 
marine environment. The Comision Nacional de 
Areas Naturales Protegidas (CONANPl is the main 
agency establishing Mexico's protected areas. 



including MPAs. A total of 193 sites are listed in the 
World Database on Protected Areas, and although 
these probably include most or all of the federal 
sites, and the largest sites, it is estimated that 
there may be more than 500 protected areas if 
all state, municipal, and private protected areas 
are included. 

Significant gaps in protection remain to be 
addressed. These include tallgrass and shortgrass 
prairie, Sonoran desert, freshwater areas such as 
the Mississippi watershed, temperate forests, 
tropical dry forests, coastal estuaries, and marine 
ecosystems. 

The past decade has seen a number of 
important political and legislative changes that are 
influencing protected areas at the continental, 
regional, and national levels. Some major examples 
are outlined in the table. 

There are also a growing number of players 
involved in the establishment and management of 
protected areas, including local and indigenous 



184 



North America 



peoples, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 
such as land trusts, and an increasing number of 
stakeholders who are practicing land and sea 
stewardship. New agencies, such as CONANP in 
Mexico, have been created to oversee diverse 
protected area activities. Securing protected areas 
has thus become an increasingly complex business; 
however cooperation has greatly improved, at 
scales from local to Americas-wide. 

Other forms of protection 

Innovative protected area strategies involving 
NGOs, landowners, coastal communities, local 
agencies, and indigenous communities are an 
increasingly important complement to govern- 
ment efforts. Private protected areas, particularly 
those established and run by NGOs, are wide- 
spread across the region. Information on many 
of these is held in the WDPA, but the work 
remains incomplete. There is a lack of coord- 
ination within and between NGOs, and at the 
present time the gathering of such information 
requires approaching (and getting responses from) 
hundreds of separate sources. 

In Canada private non-government work is 
most active and effective in southern Canada. 
Organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, numerous 
nature trusts, and private conservancies are 
obtaining protection through mechanisms ranging 
from land purchases to landowner agreements. 
Initiatives such as the North American Waterfowl 
Management Plan (NAWMP) provide funding to 
facilitate such agreements. Changes to federal tax 
laws have attracted the donation of private, 
ecologically valuable land to registered con- 
servation agencies. The total land area secured 
through private means is unknown but reaches 
many tens of thousands of square kilometers. 

Government agencies are now routinely 
collaborating with stakeholders, including indig- 
enous and local communities, in the establishment 
of national parks and MPAs, and there are growing 
numbers of examples of co-management. Multi- 
stakeholder partnerships have become an imp- 
ortant means of reconciling diverse interests on 
working landscapes and seascapes. 

In the USA there is a long history of including 
private sector ownership within protected areas. 
The Nature Conservancy ITNC) has established 
more than 1 500 preserves in the USA with nearly 
39 000 km2 protected. Other private land con- 
servation programs include the Conservation Fund, 



North America: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category, 2005 



lUCN category 


Total 


Total 




sites 


area Ikm^) 


la 


839 


66 384 



lb 


700 


472 435 


II 


1 3A5 


1 657 785 


II 


590 


72 589 


IV 


1 33A 


611315 


V 


2 075 


134 971 


V! 


1 425 


1 015 141 


No category 


5 206 


70 193 


Total 


13 554 


4 100 813 



North America: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category (percentage of total area protected), 2005 



No 

cat (2%) 



la 12%) 



lb 111%) 



VI (25%) 




II 140%) 



ill (2%) 



North America: Protected areas by lUCN category 
(percentage of protected areas), 2005 



6 000 r 



5 000 



6 000 



3 000 



2 000 



1 000 - 



la lb II 




IV V IV category 



185 



The world's protected areas 



Ducks Unlimited, and Trout Unlimited. The Land 
Trust Alliance, a national collective, controls devel- 
opment on some 20 000 km^ secured through 
landowner agreements. Operation Stronghold, an 
alliance of 800 to 900 private landholders who have 
undertaken conservation measures, protects an 
estimated further 20- 25 000 km^ of private land. 
Some marine protection is now being gained 
through leasing arrangements. 

Community protected areas within the 
Mexican communal landholding system lEjidos 
and Comunidadesl are rapidly gaining importance 
in states with large indigenous populations such 
as Oaxaca. Private conservation mechanisms 
are also now increasingly being adopted in Mexico, 
mainly through TNC's in-country partners, incl- 
uding conservation easements llegally binding 
agreements where landowners can permanently 
limit the type and amount of development on their 
property in perpetuity], transfer of development 
rights, and direct acquisitions. An innovative 
compensation mechanism has been established to 
protect the core zone of the Monarch Butterfly 
Biosphere Reserve, in which landowners are 
compensated for not harvesting timber with winter 
habitat value. 

International sites 

Large tracts of the region have been designated 
under one or more of the three major international 
conventions, totaling some 1.85 million km^, 
although this statistic is once again dominated by 
Greenland and the 972 000 km^ Greenland 
Biosphere Reserve. Most of this area is also legally 
protected through in-country designations. 

Collectively there are 73 biosphere reserves 
across the region, the first dating back to 1976. 
The continental USA has A3; Mexico has 16; 
Canada 13; and Greenland one. Mexico has 
implemented a national Biosphere Reserve 
program, consisting of 26 sites, that is modeled on 
the UNESCO program. 

The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of 
International Importance has designated 134 sites 
across North America, with sites dating back to 
the 1980s. Most recent sites have been in Mexico, 
which designated 3A new sites in 2004, including 
some very large coastal and marine sites such 
as Laguna Madre, Archipielago de Revillagigedo, 
and Laguna de Terminos. Canada's 37 sites 
under Ramsar have remained stable since 1996. 
The largest Ramsar site is Queen Maud Gulf 



North America: Internationally protected areas, 
2005 



Country No. of 

sites 

Biosphere reserves 



Protected 
area Ikm^l 



Canada 


13 


48 529 


Greenland 


1 


972 000 


Mexico 


16 


71 697 


USA' 


a 


312 250 


TOTAL 


73 


1 404 476 



Ramsar sites 



Canada 


37 


130 666 


Greenland 


1 1 


13 423 


Mexico 


65 


52 639 


USA2 


21 


13 031 


TOTAL 


134 


209 759 



World Heritage sites 



Canada^ 


8 


106 635 


Greenland 


1 


4 024 


Mexico 


o 


27 370 


United States^.' 


11 


100 407 


TOTAL 


23 


238 436 



1 Four further biosphere reserves are found in the US Virgin 
Islands, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii and are not included here. 

2 One further Ramsar site is found in Hawaii and is not included 
here 

3 There are two transboundary V\'orld Heritage sites between the 
USA and Canada - Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/ 
Tatshenshlni-Atsek; and Waterton Glacier International Peace 
Park - and hence the total figure for numbers of sites is lower 
than the sum of all country totals 

^ One further World Heritage site is found in Hawaii and is not 
included here. 

in Canada's Northwest Territories which extends 
over 62 000 km?. 

UNESCO's World Heritage program has 
designated 23 sites for their natural heritage 
values. The largest of these is Kluane/Wrangell- 
St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek, with 
86 000 km2, straddling parts of British Columbia, 
Yukon, and Alaska. One of the most recent, the 
llulissat Icefjord in Greenland inscribed in 2004, is 
one of the world's most active glaciers - moving at 
19 meters per day. 

In addition to the three major global protected 
area agreements, other global and regional 
conventions and treaties include provisions to 
safeguard species and ecosystems, thereby 
influencing protected area efforts. Examples 



186 



North America 



include the Migratory Birds Convention (Canada, 
USA), the Cartagena Convention (Caribbean, 
Mexico, USA), the North American Plant Protection 
Agreement, and the UN Convention on Biological 
Diversity [Canada, Mexico). 

An increasing number of species and eco- 
system conservation agreements exist between 
the countries, including the North American 
Waterfowl Management Plan and the Western 
Hemisphere Shorebird Initiative. The countries 
are also linked through economic, social, and 



cultural interaction. The Commission tor Environ- 
mental Cooperation (CEO was created under the 
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTAI to 
facilitate this cooperation with respect to the 
conservation, protection, and enhancement of the 
North American environment. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

The extent and complexity of North America's 
natural diversity demands an ecosystem approach 
to selecting new areas and to managing all 




Hoh Rainforest, Olympic National Park World Heritage Site, Washington State, USA. 



187 



The world's protected areas 



areas. Managing for ecological integrity while 
including socioeconomic interests will be a 
significant challenge. 

The need for an ecosystem approach is 
heightened by a significant increase in the level of 
threat to the species and ecosystems that protected 
areas are designed to protect. These threats include 
land and marine uses surrounding and within 
protected areas, visitor impacts, resource har- 
vesting practices, invasive species, pathogens, 
pollution, and climate change. Impacts from these 
threats include habitat degradation and fragment- 
ation, species losses, and reduced ecological 
integrity. Assessing and managing the combined 
impact of all threats is an ongoing challenge to 
ecologists and managers. 

Key continental directions are discussed 
below. 

Connecting nature 

Large-scale programs are linking protected areas 
and the landscapes or seascapes in-between. The 
Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative has 
provided a large-scale vision of both protection and 
sustainable use. The North American MPA Network 
and the Baja to Bering initiatives seek to protect 
ecologically critical ecosystems and promote 
integrated management for the marine and coastal 
waters of North America and the eastern Pacific, 
respectively. Mexico is involved in the Meso- 
american Biological Corridor and the Meso- 
american Caribbean Coral Reef Systems Initiative 
as well as having its national biosphere reserve 
program. The North American Bird Conservation 
Initiative INABCII, the Western Hemisphere 
Shorebird Network, and other migratory species 
initiatives create functionally connected networks of 
protected areas across North America. Initiatives 
that connect nature and people, and land and 
ocean connections, are maturing and become 
proving grounds for putting ecosystem manage- 
ment principles into practice. 



striving for a systems approach that could influence 
other agencies throughout North America. 
Mexico, through the National Commission for the 
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity 
ICONABIOJ and other priority conservation exer- 
cises, has identified a large number of candidate 
sites waiting for the appropriate social or political 
opportunity to secure them. 

Establishment criteria based on other factors 
such as ecological importance and uniqueness will 
complement systematic approaches. CEC's 
trinational focus on species of common conserv- 
ation concern for grasslands, NABCIs priority- 
setting exercise, and the Marine Species of 
Common Conservation Concern program are 
examples. Systematic planning for networks of 
marine protected areas, such as through the North 
American MPA Network initiative, and urban 
protected areas are two growth areas. 

Partnerships 

The 100 or so major government agencies that 
manage protected areas are developing closer ties 
with scores of non-governmental agencies, special 
interest groups, aboriginal peoples, and an 
increasing number of individual stakeholders 
committed to stewardship. Cooperation in 
conservation appears to be the key operating 
principle associated with marine protected areas' 
identification, designation, and management. 

Examples of agencies and programs whose 
success relies on partnerships include NAWMP, 
NABCI, Mexico's National Council of Nature 
Protected Areas, the Neotropical Migrants Manage- 
ment Plan, the US National Parks and Conservation 
Association, the Wilderness Society, and Defenders 
of Wildlife, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the 
Canadian Prairie Conservation Action Plan, and the 
Mexican Biosphere Reserve model. For marine 
areas, the North American MPA Network enables 
the collaboration of more than 200 stakeholders 
concerned with conserving marine biodiversity 



Systematic planning 

Common terrestrial and marine ecoregional 
frameworks, which now exist for North America, 
are instrumental in protected area systems 
planning and connecting nature on a larger scale. 
Completing federal, state, provincial, and territorial 
protected area networks throughout North America 
requires a well-planned systematic approach. The 
NCAA's National Marine Sanctuaries Program is 



Science, information, communication, and 
education 

Protected area experts must demonstrate through 
good science and creative communication 
methods that protected areas contribute to 
emerging issues such as protecting endangered 
species, conserving biodiversity, improving the 
knowledge of climate change impacts, in addition 
to contributing to a healthy economy. Developing 



188 



North America 



effective information management technology and 
procedures at multiple scales requires increased 
sophistication to support the underlying science 
and the development of ecological indicators. 
Increasing use of state of environment, state of 
parks, state of forests, and other reports helps to 
assess and convey key messages about protected 
areas. These and other means are aiding the 
communication of science to the public and 
decision makers, and support shifting societal 
attitudes towards sustainability. 

Financing 

The rapid growth of North American protected 
areas has generally been matched by decreasing 
resources available to manage these areas. Finding 



innovative financing mechanisms is critical to all 
future work on protected areas. Harnessing public 
support, lobbying, and education will help convince 
government decision makers of the need for more 
financing. A hopeful sign in Mexico has been a 
1 500 percent growth of the federal budget assigned 
for protected areas during the last decade, an 
endowment fund to establish up to 22 areas, and 
entrance fees earmarked for management needs, 
resulting in improved management capacity for 61 
protected areas. Other creative approaches such as 
the generation of green revenue from protected 
areas, providing more tax incentives for 
conservation, and engaging the non-profit sector 
will help ensure protected areas are fulfilling their 
intended purposes into the future. 



189 



The world's protected areas 



The Caribbean 

Anguilla (UKl, Antigua AND Barbuda, 

Aruba (Netherlands), Bahamas, Barbados, 

Bermuda (UK), British Virgin Islands (UK), 

Cayman Islands (UK), Cuba, Dominica, Dominican 

Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe (France), Haiti, 

Jamaica, Martinique (France), Montserrat (UK), 

Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands), 

Puerto Rico (USA), St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, 

St Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and 

Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands (UK), 

United States Virgin Islands (USA) 



Contributors: R. Estrada, J. i Gerhartz, E. Hernandez, R. Fernandez de Arcita, J. A. Hernandez, P. Ruiz, A. Perera, 
G. Bustamante, K. Lindeman, A. Vanzella Khouri 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION present-day landforms. The Greater Antilles were 

The Caribbean region, as defined by the World largely formed by the strike-slip motion of the 

Commission on Protected Areas (WCPAl, Caribbean Tectonic Plate against the North 

incorporates the two major island chains that American Plate. By contrast the Lesser Antilles 

border the north and the east of the Caribbean Sea, were formed by a more active subduction process, 

the Greater and Lesser Antilles, and also the island and contain a number of active volcanoes, including 

territories of the western Atlantic: the Bahamas, Morne Trois Pitons in Dominica, Soufriere in St 

the Turks and Caicos Islands, and Bermuda. Lucia, Mont Pelee in Martinique, Soufriere in 

Plate tectonics have created many of the Montserrat (which has been undergoing continuous 



190 



Caribbean 




Jakub Jasinski/UNEP 



Rainforest at El Yunque, Puerto Rico. 



191 



The world's protected areas 




Source: UNEP-WCMC 



Caribbean 



destructive activity since 1 995), and the underwater 
volcano 'Kick 'em Jenny,' near Grenada. 

Limestone deposition tias also shaped this 
region. The Bahamas archipelago Is built over a 
series of shallow carbonate banks formed from 
both coral deposits and the chemical precipitation 
of limestone particles loolltesl. These limestone 
deposits have also been modified into a wide variety 
of karst landforms, including the marine terraces at 
MaisI and Cabo Cruz, Cuba; the cavern systems In 
Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and the 
Bahamas; and the more complex landforms of hills 
and caves found In Vlhales (Cuba], Los Haitlses 
(Dominican Republic], Pepino Hills (Puerto Rico), 
and Cockpit Country (Jamaica). Collapsed sink- 
holes or dollnes which have since been filled by the 
sea have also formed the famous blue holes which 
are found across the Bahamas. 

The region includes more than 5 000 islands 
and cays, with some 700 being more than 1 km^, 
which constitute 25 Island nations or overseas 
territories. Biogeographically the region traverses 
the Tropic of Cancer, and encompasses a unique 
and diverse array of landscapes, ranging from 
ocean basins and deep troughs, coral reefs, 
seagrass ecosystems, mangroves, and extensive 
beaches, to mountains, forests, and semi-deserts. 
Located between two continents the region has 
been both a bridge and a barrier for species 
movements, and a center of evolutionary processes. 

Although occupying only about 0.1 percent of 
the Earth's terrestrial surface, it is home to 2 to 3 



percent of all known vertebrates and plant species. 
The region includes five of the 237 ecoregions (the 
Global 200) classified by WWF as areas of 
conservation priority (Greater Antillean Marine, 
Greater Antillean Freshwaters, Greater Antillean 
Moist Forests, Greater Antillean Pine Forests, 
Southern Caribbean Seal, while the entire region is 
described by Conservation International as a 
hotspot. About 58 percent of the 12 000 plant 
species and about 51 percent of the 1 500 terrestrial 
vertebrates are endemic. Cuba Is particularly 
Important in terms of endemic species, and about 
half of the region's 6 550 single-island endemic 
plants are from Cuba. Taking the relation between 
endemism and area, the insular Caribbean has one 
of the highest endemism Indices In the world 
(MIttermeler, Meyers & Mittermeier, 19991. Many 
species, including lizards and birds such as trogons, 
todies, and parrots, are endemic to single Islands, 
or island groups. Almost all of the region has been 
Incorporated Into a series of six endemic bird areas 
by BIrdllfe International, and many species of bird 
are restricted to single islands. For plants a slightly 
different pattern has been recognized, with 12 
centers of plant diversity. 

Prior to European 'discovery' there had 
already been several waves of human settlement, 
with the first arrivals In Cuba dating back to 5 000- 
6 000 BC. Three major groups were present before 
the European arrival - the Clboney people, 
restricted to parts of Cuba; the Arawak (Taino or 
Lucayan) people across the Greater Antilles and the 



Caribbean: Growth of protected areas network, 1910-2005 
40 



35 



30 



■ Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date (km^) 
— ■ Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm^) 



25 
20 
15 
10 — 
5 — 



il 



ml 



1910 '15 '20 '25 30 '35 '40 45 50 55 '60 '65 '70 '75 80 85 90 '95 2000 05 



193 



The world's protected areas 



800 
700 
600 
500 

0) 

■5 400 
300 
200 
100 



I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

i Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA 



- - ■ ■ 




I 



1910 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 



Caribbean: Grovrth In the number of protected areas, 1910-2005 



Bahamas; and the Carib people in the Lesser 
Antilles. European settlement wrought massive 
changes, with the disappearance of these peoples 
from most islands within one or two generations. A 
few remain, but today the islands have developed a 
complex mosaic of cultures and ethnic groups 
combining indigenous American, Hispanic, African, 
Anglo-Saxon, French, and Asian cultures. 

Human influences on the natural environment 
have been widespread, and most particularly over 
the last three decades. There is evidence of 
localized overfishing in a few islands even before 
the arrival of Europeans, but since this time the 
changes have been profound. Wide tracts of land 
were cleared for plantation agriculture, while 
population growth has driven agricultural clear- 
ances high up on mountain slopes. Today less than 
10 percent of the original vegetation remains, and 
overfishing is reported everywhere. 

The driving forces behind these problems 
include local issues such as poverty, economic 
inequality, or uncontrolled development, but inter- 
national issues also impinge heavily on this region, 
due to the small size and high degree of 
connection between countries. Some issues, such 
as fisheries, require attention at regional level. 
Others, such as climate changes, the depletion of 
the ozone layer, globalization, and the creation of 
socioeconomic blocl<s and trade barriers, are 
problems facing most parts of the world. There 
remain, however, great opportunities for the 



region including ongoing efforts for regional 
integration, sustainable tourism, and the existing 
and enhanced protection of unique and highly 
valuable natural resources. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

With the widescale loss of traditions and cultures 
from the original inhabitants of the Caribbean, there 
is little information regarding any efforts they may 
have made at natural resource management, such 
as the closure or protection of wild areas. The 
history of protected areas in the Caribbean thus 
dates back to the colonial era, and to the first 
protected area established in 1765. This site, the 
Main Ridge Reserve of Tobago, was established as 
woodlands for the protection of the rain' (Cross 
1991). In 1791, the Kings Hill Reserve was 
established in St Vincent for 'the purpose of 
attracting the clouds and rain... for the benefit and 
advantage of the owners and possessors of lands in 
the neighborhood thereof (Birdsey, Weaver & 
NIcholls, 19861. 

The earliest marine protected area in the 
western hemisphere were the Sea Gardens which 
lay between Hog and Athol Islands in the Bahamas, 
established in 1892 (although no longer regarded as 
a protected area, these waters are still very popular 
with tourists). Other protected areas were 
established in Jamaica in 1907 (the Morant and 
Pedro Cays, still nominally protected), Puerto Rico 
(the Caribbean or Luquillo National Forest, 1907), 



194 



Caribbean 



Grenada (Grand Etang Forest Reserve, 19101, and 
Cuba (Sierra Cristal National Park, 19301. 

Despite these relatively early origins, the 
widescale declaration of protected areas was 
relatively slow in the Caribbean region - even by the 
mid-1980s fewer than ^00 sites had been declared 
in the 25 territories. The monnentum for their 
establishment has increased tremendously over the 
last 20 years, however, particularly since the Earth 
Summit held in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro. This interest 
has been enhanced in some cases by increasing 
evidence of the economic and social value of 
protected areas in supporting valuable ecotourism, 
and in improving fisheries. 



Caribbean: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category, 2005 



lUCN category 


Total 


Total 




sites 


area Ikm^l 


la 


11 


183 



lb 


18 


92 


II 


163 


26 972 


III 


iO 


497 


IV 


283 


11 195 


V 


37 


3 567 


VI 


192 


22 222 


No cateqory 


223 


3 467 


Total 


967 


68 196 



THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) 
lists some 967 protected areas in the region, 
covering 68 196 km^. Over half of this area is 
marine; however, the total land area protected is 
still more than 36 000 km^, or almost 15.5 percent 
of the region's terrestrial surface. 

Notably, protected areas are concentrated in 
(UCN Management Categories li, IV, and VI, and 
indeed the stricter levels of protection (l-lil| make 
up less than one third of the total number of sites. 

The breakdown of sites by country shows that 
there is considerable variation in the total area 
protected. Figures appear relatively high in relation 
to land areas, but it should be remembered that 
many sites are marine and coastal ones, and a 
number of countries and territories, including the 
Bahamas, Cuba, the Cayman Islands, Netherlands 
Antilles, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Bermuda, 
include extensive marine areas in their boundaries. 

There are an estimated 370 marine and 
coastal sites in total, and they play a very important 
role in the conservation of coastal biodiversity 
resources for human use both locally and regionally 
The number of strictly protected areas (no-take 
zones) is estimated to be more than 25 in this 
region. These include a number of sites, such as the 
Soufriere Marine Management Area in St Lucia, 
which have been highlighted for their positive 
contribution to both conservation and to improved 
livelihoods for fishers, by breaking the cycle of 
overfishing. Among other sites there is consid- 
erable variability in management effectiveness 
(Appeldoorn & Lindeman, 20031. 

Despite the progress, networks of protected 
areas have developed unevenly and are incomplete 
in many parts of the insular Caribbean (WCPA, 



Caribbean: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category (percentage of total area), 2005 



No Category (5% 



VI 133%) 




II K0%) 



V 15% 



111(1%) 



IV (16%) 



Caribbean: Number of protected areas by lUCN 
category, 2005 

300 



250 



200 



150 



100 



50 




la lb 



IV V VI category 



195 



The world's protected areas 




M Spalding 

SPAW PROTOCOL 

The Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean 
Region (Cartagena Convention. 19831 is one of the only region-wide environmental treaties that protects 
critical marine and coastal ecosystems, while promoting regional cooperation and sustainable 
development. 

in April 1990, Parties to the Cartagena Convention adopted 'the Protocol Concerning Specially 
Protected Areas and Wildlife ISPAW Protocoll,' a regional agreement for biodiversity management and 
conservation. This Protocol became international law in June 2000. 

The governments of the Caribbean recognize SPAW as a significant vehicle to assist with implem- 
entation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBDl, and an important complementary tool to 
implement the protected area national plans. Cooperative agreements exist with other global initiatives 
related to and collaborating with SPAW including the Ramsar Convention and the Intergovernmental 
Oceanographic Commission HOC). Further collaboration exists with the Convention on International Trade 
in Endangered Species ICITESl, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 
iBonn Convention), the International Coral Reef Initiative HCRI). and ICRI's Global Coral Reef Monitoring 
Network. The mam objectives of SPAW are as follows: 

a Safeguard sensitive habitats. Protect, preserve, and sustainably manage critical ecosystems such 
as coral reefs and mangroves, and promote their value to ecological health and economic well- 
being. 
Q Protect endangered and critical species. Undertake conservation measures to protect threatened 
and endangered species of plants and animals, as well as measures to prevent species from 
becoming threatened or endangered, and to ensure recovery and restoration. 
□ Provide support to the Caribbean Environmental Programme ICEPI member governments in the 
following areas: 

promotion of best practices and training for sustainable tourism within the public and private 

sectors; 

monitoring and management of coral reef ecosystems; 

establishing a regional network of marine protected areas and an accompanying database to 

assist these areas with information sharing and problem solving; 

strengthening of protected areas through technical assistance, training, capacity building, and 

revenue generation; 

developing guidelines and recovery plans for species conservation; 

linking to other protocols of the Cartagena Convention; 

education and public awareness on species and ecosystems conservation and sustainable 

management. 

(Modified from SPAWBrochurel 



196 



Areas of the Caribbean protected (by country), 2005 



Caribbean 



Country/territories 

AnquiLla 



Land area Ikm^) 

90 



Total protected area Ikm^l 

<1 



Total number of sites 

8 



Antigua and Barbuda 



UU^ 



66 



Aruba 


190 


3 


4 


Batiamas 


13 880 


2 832 


45 


Barbados 


430 


3 


7 


Bermuda 


50 


154 


132 


Cayman Islands 


260 


241 


48 


Cuba 


110 860 


35 192 


70 


Dominica 


750 


204 


7 


Dominican Republic 


^8 730 


20 451 


62 


Grenada 


340 


7 


2 


Guadeloupe 


1 710 


456 


22 


Haiti 


27 750 


74 


9 


Jamaica 


10 990 


3 909 


168 


Martinique 


1 100 


774 


25 


Montserrat 


100 


11 


18 


Netherlands Antilles 


800 


144 


15 


Puerto Rico 


8 950 


2 187 


58 


Saint Kills and Nevis 


270 


26 


2 


Saint Lucia 


620 


104 


52 


Saint Vincent and the Grenad 


ines 390 


83 


28 


Trinidad and Tobaqo 


5 130 


322 


86 


Turks and Caicos Islands 


430 


717 


34 


Virgin Islands IBntish) 


150 


52 


35 


Virgin Islands lUSI 


340 


183 


17 



20031. Only 30 percent of the nnarine protected 
areas in the region are considered to be adequately 
managed (PNUMA, 2000). Ongoing assessments of 
biodiversity and its protection are producing a more 
detailed vision of the creation and efficient 
management of protected areas, individually or as 
national systems, as tools to preserve the 
interrelated suite of biodiversity values in the 
region. However, national and regional strategies 
developed to date for protected areas have not been 
entirely successful IWCPA, 2003). 

International efforts 

Certain of the region's characteristics, such as its 
consisting of small nations with high connectivity, 
mean that the Caribbean requires the joint 
cooperation of all its nations, territories, and other 
regional jurisdictions to achieve integrated 
biodiversity management. Despite this, partici- 
pation in some of the major global agreements for 
the establishment of protected areas has been 
relatively poor across the Caribbean. The larger 
countries, notably Cuba, and also several of the 



smaller territories of France, the UK, the Nether- 
lands, and the USA, are more actively involved, but 
many of the smaller independent nations are not. 
This may reflect some of the difficulties and costs of 
working at the global level for small, low-income 
countries rather than pointing to any lack of 
interest. For this reason regional cooperation may 
be more important in the Caribbean than for many 
other regions. 

In 1990 the Caribbean states adopted the 
Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAVi/) 
Protocol as one important measure for 
collaborative biodiversity protection (see box). This 
protocol has become the main cooperation 
mechanism for many aspects of conservation in the 
region, with a key leadership role. 

Other regional groupings include a number 
of intergovernmental organizations such as the 
Association of Caribbean States lACS), the Carib- 
bean Community ICARICOM), the Caribbean 
Forum (CARIFORUMl, and the Organization of 
Eastern Caribbean States (DECS). There are a 
number of important regional non-governmental 



197 



The world's protected areas 



Caribbean: InternationaUy protected areas, 2005 



Country/territories No. of 
sites 

Biosphere resenes 

Cuba 6 



World Heritage sites 



Protected 
area Ikm^l 

13 837 



Dominican Republic 


1 


i767 


Guadeloupe 


1 


697 


Puerto Rico 


2 


A] 


US Virgin Islands 


1 


61 


TOTAL 


11 


19 539 


Ramsar sites 
Antigua and Barbuda 


1 


36 


Aruba 1 1 


Batiamas 


1 


326 


Barbados 


1 





Bermuda 


7 





Cayman Islands 1 1 


Cuba 


6 


11 88^ 


Dominican Republic 


1 


200 


Jamaica 


2 


132 


Netherlands Antilles 


5 


19 


St Lucia 


2 


1 


Trinidad and Tobaqo 


3 


159 


Turks and Caicos Islands 


1 


586 


TOTAL 


32 


13 346 



Cuba 


2 


1 038 


Dominica 


1 


69 


St Lucia 


1 


29 


TOTAL 


A 


1 136 



Blue Mountains, Jamaica 




organizations including the Caribbean Con- 
servation Association ICCAI, the Island Resources 
Foundation |IRF|, and the Caribbean Natural 
Resources Institute ICANARI). External inter- 
national conservation organizations are also 
increasingly active in the Caribbean, including The 
Nature Conservancy (TNCI, the Ocean Con- 
servancy, WWF, Conservation International (Cil, 
and Environmental Defense |ED|. 

One important regional project is the 
Caribbean Regional Environment Programme 
ICREPI being implemented by CARIFORUM. A 
major component of this project are the amenity 
areas demonstration activities, which focus on 
existing or proposed protected areas that provide 
benefits to local communities. CREP is undertaking 
ten demonstration activities in ten insular 
Caribbean countries during a 30-month period 
which started in July 2003. 

UNEP-CEP, the Caribbean Environment 
Programme, is jointly operated as a UNEP Regional 
Seas Programme and the implementing mech- 
anism for the Cartagena Convention. The SPAW 
program is coordinated by a Regional Co-ordinating 
Unit IRCUl in Jamaica. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

In October 2002 a WCPA Caribbean Regional 
Planning in Nassau, Bahamas, considered how it 
might take protected area issues forward in the 
region, providing tangible benefits for members, 
and enhancing the development of protected areas. 
Critical among the conclusions were the develop- 
ment of a strategic program which would link 
regional protected areas in general and marine 
protected areas in particular. It was seen as 
especially critical to: 

□ work toward the development of a 
comprehensive network of protected areas 
with full ecological representation; 
Q use existing policy targets as well as existing 
regional alliances (such as, but not limited 
to, the World Summit on Sustainable 
Development, SPAW, and CARICOMj; 
u elevate the Caribbean region in global 

conservation policy decision making; 
J build short-term deliverables tor early 
success on which expanded, long-term work 
could then be founded. 



198 



Central America 



Central America 

Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama 

Contributor: J. C. Godoy Herrera 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

The seven countries of Central America make up 
one of the smaller World Commission on 
Protected Areas (WCPA) regions, covering a 
combined territorial area of 521 600 km^. Within 
this area they are home to 8 percent of the Vi^orld's 
known plant species and an extraordinary diversity 
of landscapes and habitats. This region forms the 
land bridge connecting the Americas, but also 
stands as a barrier between the Caribbean Sea 
and the Pacific Ocean. 

The land area has largely been formed by the 
subduction of the Cocos and Nazca tectonic plates 
beneath the Caribbean Plate. This process has 
thrown up extensive areas of highlands close to 
the Pacific coast, including a conspicuous volcanic 
chain rising to more than 4 000 meters. The 
mountain slopes are home to extensive areas of 
rainforest with cloud forests on the higher areas. 
There are typically narrow, dry lowlands along the 
Pacific coast and the more extensive and humid 
lowlands of the Caribbean. Mean precipitation 
ranges are between 500 and 7 500 millimeters per 
year. There are mangrove areas (more than 
500 000 hectares] along both coasts and coral 
reefs in the offshore waters. The latter are 
extensive in the Caribbean waters, and the region 
includes large numbers of coral islands, 
particularly off Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, and 
Panama. There are few islands close to the Pacific 
coast, but the volcanic Isla del Coco National Park 
and World Heritage site is an important exception. 

Almost the entire region has been included in 
the Conservation International Mesoamerican hot- 
spot, which also extends far into Mexico. There are 



an estimated 15 000-17 000 plant species (others 
estimate 20 0001 and rates of endemism have been 
estimated at about 19 percent. Eight separate 
centers of plant endemism have been described. 
Six important ecoregions have been singled out in 
Central America (WWF Global 200 ecoregions], 
including the Mesoamerican pine-oak forests, 
Talamancan-lsthmian Pacific forests, and the 
Choco-Darien moist forests extending from eastern 
Panama into Colombia. The marine waters include 
parts of the Southern Caribbean ecoregion, the 
Mesoamerican reef, and the Panama Bight. 

Central America also possesses a rich array 
of animal species, with elements from North and 
South America as well as many endemics. Birdlife 
International has identified some eight endemic 
bird areas in the region. Guatemala has some 250 
mammal species, and 929 bird species have been 
described from Panama. 

The region is one that is exposed to 
considerable natural threats - hurricanes, earth- 
quakes, volcanic eruptions, flooding, and even 
localized drought have all ravaged parts of the 
region in recent times. Human pressures come on 
top of these natural problems, and often greatly 
exacerbate their impact. 

The combined population of 38 million is 
heavily centered in the central volcanic chain and 
along the Pacific coast. Population growth rates are 
high, and industrial development is growing in the 
areas of highest population density, and along 
coasts. More than 70 percent of the region's sewage 
remains untreated, while solid waste is a problem 
in many areas. Agriculture is critical to the region, 
including the production of export crops such as 



199 



The world's protected areas 



150 r— 



120 — 



90 — 



60 — 



30 — 



I Cumulative area of sites with l<nown establishment date (km^) 
I Cumulative area of sites with unl<nown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm'I 



" 1945 '50 




'55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 



Central America: Growth of protected areas network, 1945-2005 



coffee, cocoa, sugar, and bananas. Unfortunately, 
this agriculture, particularly for export markets, is 
linked to high levels of agrichemical use, further 
adding to pollution problems. 

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 

The date of the first human arrivals in Central 
America is still disputed, although it seems likely 
that populations were widespread by 8 000-9 000 
BC. Unlike the Caribbean islands, many indigenous 



peoples of Central America still remain, and some 
continue to practice traditional lifestyles, with 
simple agriculture, hunting, and fishing. Such life- 
styles for the most part remain highly sustainable, 
and territorial ownership and rights have been 
given back to these people. These lands are often 
listed as part of the protected areas coverage. 

Protected areas came to Central America very 
slowly. The oldest site is Barro Colorado Island in 
Panama which was first established as a biological 



Central America: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1945-2005 



600 r— 



500 



■ Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

■ Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered Into WDPA 



400 — 



2 300 



200 



100 




1945 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 



200 



Central America 




Bo L Chnstiensen/UNEP 



Cloud forest, Costa Rica. 



201 



The world's protected areas 



■■ZU'J^ 




Source: UNEP-WCMC 



202 



Central America 



reserve in 1923. Belize established a more syste- 
matic approach of Crown reserves and forest 
reserves, beginning with the declaration of Half 
Iv'loon Cay Crown Reserve in 1928. Panama gave 
recognition and partial autonomy to the Kuna 
people and their land (the Kuna Yala Indigenous 
Commarc) In 1938. In 1955 Guatemala declared ten 
national parks and the protected area systems In 
most countries began after this date. In 1964 there 
were still fewer than 100 protected areas in Central 
America but, despite this late start, the region has 
become one of the most extensively protected In 
the world. 

Forest clearance for timber or agricultural 
development has been very high since the 1960s 
and 1970s, although rates of loss are a little lower 
today 12 500-3 000 km^ per year for the region]. In 
many areas the only natural forests remaining are 
those within protected areas, but the protected 
areas themselves are also subject to considerable 
pressures. These include problems of poor site 
demarcation and disputes over land ownership. 
Pressures for development within protected areas 
come from sectors ranging from tourism to 
mineral extraction. Illegal forestry, clearance, 
and settlement by small-scale farmers, drug 
cultivation, and illegal hunting and fishing are all 
problems, and, as the Intervening land areas are 
converted to other uses, habitat fragmentation Is a 
growing problem. 

THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

In total there are some 783 protected areas across 
Central America, covering a total of 157 933 km^; 
103 of these sites are marine or coastal. Terrestrial 
sites, however, predominate, and cover in total 
more than 30 percent of the land area, making this 
the most extensive terrestrial protected areas 
network of any WCPA region. 

Less than one third of sites fall into the stricter 
lUCN Protected Area Management Categories ll-llll, 



with the remainder having some degree of multiple 
use. A very large proportion of sites are of 
unassigned lUCN management category, and these 
include a number of sites which may have relatively 
low levels of protection such as biological corridors 
and buffer zones. 

Looking at Individual countries. El Salvador 
stands out for its low levels of protection, although 
there are a large number of sites In this country 
which are currently being considered for protection. 
Costa Rica has the largest number of protected 
areas, although for Its size Belize has better 
protection. The high figures for Belize Include a 
number of sizable marine protected areas. 

In terms of ecosystem cover, well represented 
ecoregions include Belize Wetlands iBelize); 
Panama Humid Forests (Costa Rica, Panama); the 
Central American Pacific dry forest (Nicaragua, 
Costa Rica); the pine forests of La Mosqulta 
(Honduras, Nicaragua); the mangroves of Golfo de 
Fonseca (El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua] and 
the Yucatan (Belize, Guatemala); and the Southern 
Reefs (Costa Rica, Panama). Less well represented 
ecoregions include: the Sierra Madre Humid Forest 
(Guatemala and El Salvador); the high forests of 
Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, 
Honduras, Nicaragua); the Nicoya Seasonal Humid 
Forest (Costa Rica); the Nenton dry mountain 
(Guatemala); the Panama dry forest (Panama); 
the pine forest Islas de la Bahia (Honduras); the 
Peten savannas (Guatemala); the Cuchumatanes 
Paramo (Guatemala); and the Valley of Motagua 
(Guatemala). 

Administrative regimes vary considerably 
between the countries. In Belize protected areas fall 
under three different ministries: the Forestry 
Department in the Ivllnistry of Natural Resources 
and Environment; the Fisheries Department in the 
[vlinistry of Fishing, Agriculture and Co-operatives; 
and the Archaeology Department in the Ministry of 
Tourism. Each one maintains its financial and 



Areas of Central America protected (by country), 2005 



Country 

Belize 



Land area (km^) 

22 960 



Total protected area (km^l 

320 



Total number of sites 

106 



Costa Rica 


51 100 


17 724 


183 


El Salvador 


21040 


280 


77 


Guatemala 


108 890 


35 941 


163 


Honduras 


112 090 


29 762 


99 


Nicaraqua 


130 000 


29 406 


93 


Panama 


75 520 


33 501 


62 



203 



The world's protected areas 



Central America: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category, 2005 



lUC 


N category 


Total 


Total 






sites 


area (km^l 


la 




18 


'I 125 



lb 


3 


3A2 


II 


lOA 


d0 028 


III 


i8 


2 222 


IV 


225 


13 247 


V 


5 


1 2A8 


VI 


100 


M 615 


No category 


280 


52 106 


Total 


783 


157 933 



Central America; Protected areas network by lUCN 
category (percentage of total area), 2005 



No Category 15%) 



VI (33%) 




II |A0%) 



V(5%) ■ 111(1%) 

IV 116%) 



Central America: Number ot protected areas by 
lUCN category, 2005 



300 



250 



200 



150 



100 



50 - 




la lb 



No 
VI category 



administrative independence and defines its own 
policies. By contrast, in Costa Rica, El Salvador, 
Nicaragua, and Panama protected areas all fall 
under the remit of a single ministry. 

In both Guatemala and Honduras there is 
some coordination of effort between the various 
responsible agencies. Guatemala has a Protected 
Areas National Council (CONAPl, which is made up 
of government and academic representatives, 
including the ministries responsible for protected 
areas. In Honduras the Environment Natural Res- 
ources Secretariat ISERNA] coordinates and 
assesses policies related to the environment, 
although implementation of protected areas falls 
under both agriculture and forestry sectors. 

A number of countries have also declared 
protected areas at the subnational level, including 
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. It is not 
clear how well these have been recorded within the 
WCPA; however their total contribution to protected 
area statistics across the region is probably still 
relatively small. 

Other forms of protection 

Private reserves have now been established in a 
number of countries. In Costa Rica there are more 
than 90 private reserves covering about 650 km^, 
some 22 percent of which have some level of state 
recognition. In Guatemala private reserves have 
been recognized by protected areas legislation 
since 1989: by 2003 more than 50 reserves were 
recognized, covering 207 km^. 

Non-governmental organizations (NGOsl are 
important in coordinating and supporting the 
development of protected areas, including the 
Voluntary Reserve Net in Costa Rica and the Private 
Reserve Association in Guatemala. In Belize there 
is only one private reserve, although this site covers 
some 926 km^. 

International approaches 

Considering the relatively small size of the region, a 
large number of sites have been designated under 
international agreements. The largest are two 
biosphere reserves, the 22 000 km^ Bosawas 
Biosphere Reserve in northern Nicaragua, dom- 
inated by lowland forests, and the 21 000 km^ Ivjaya 
Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala. The latter site 
includes the Tikal National Park, a mixed 
World Heritage site, and the Natural Park Laguna 
del Tigre, a Ramsar site. 

In addition to these global efforts, there is 



204 



Central America 



considerable coordination of protected area 
activities within the region, particularly since the 
establishment of the Convention for the Conserv- 
ation of the Biodiversity and the Protection of Wild- 
erness Areas in Central America (Managua, 19921. 

This convention requires, inter alia, that: 

Q Each country should develop conservation 
strategies... that should include, as a 
priority, the creation and management of 
protected areas (Article 141. 

Q Efforts should be made to ensure repres- 
entative samples of the regional ecosystems 
are protected (Article17l. 

Q Particular areas are singled out for att- 
ention, including: Resen/a de la Biosfera 
Maya; Reserva de la Biosfera Fraternidad 
c Trifinio; Golfo de Honduras; Golfo de 
Fonseca; Reserva Rio Coco o Solidaridad; 
Cayos Misl^itos; Sistema internacional de 
Areas Protegidas para la Paz; Reserva Bahia 
Salinas; Reserva de la Biosfera La Amistad; 
Reserva del Sixaola; Region del Darien 
(ArticlelS). 

QThe Central American Commission on 
Environment and Development (CCADI is 
responsible for ensuring the development 
and implementation of the Action Plan 1 989- 
2000 for the creation and strengthening of a 
Central American Protected Areas System 
ISICAP) (Article 201. 

Q Associated to the CCAD it establishes a 
Central American Council of Protected 
Areas (CCPAl, to work with the WCPA, to 
help coordinate regional efforts and ensure 
that SICAP becomes an effective Meso- 
american Biological Corridor (Article 211. 

In 1997, during the Presidents' Summit in Panama, 
a conceptual plan for the Mesoamerican Biological 
Corridor (CBMl was adopted. This provides "A 
system for territorial planning, made up of natural 
areas. ..nucleus areas, buffer zones, multiple use 
areas and connecting areas that together provide 
environmental goods and services to the Central 
American society and the wider world." The 
CBM thus offers a strategic program to support a 
better balance between local socioeconomic 
needs, development, and the maintenance of 
natural resources. 

Transboundary initiatives have also grown 
considerably since 1974, notably with the Trifinio 
or La Fraternidad Biosphere Reserve between 



Central America: Internationally protected areas, 
2005 



Country 


No. of 


Protected 




sites 


area (km^l 


Biosphere reserves 






Costa Rica 


2 


7 290 



Guatemala 


2 


23 496 


Honduras 


1 


8 000 


Nicaragua 


2 


35 744 


Panama 


2 


15 149 


TOTAL 


9 


89 678 


Ramsar sites 
Belize 


1 


167 


Costa Rica 


11 


5 053 


El Salvador 


1 


16 


Guatemala 


/. 


5 027 


Honduras 


5 


1 797 


Nicaragua 


8 


4 055 


Panama 


i, 


1 599 


TOTAL 


34 


17714 


World Heritage sites 
Belize 


1 


963 


Costa Rica' 


3 


8 433 


Guatemala 


1 


576 


Honduras 


1 


5 000 


Panama' 


2 


8 040 


TOTAL 


7 


23 012 



1 The Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves/La 
Amistad National Park is a transboundary World 
Heritage site between Costa Rica and Panama and 
hence the total figure for number of sites is lower than 
the sum of all country totals. 

Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador; La Amistad 
Reserve between Costa Rica and Panama; and the 
Protected Areas System for Peace (SIAPAZI, 
between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Other 
transboundary areas being considered for more 
active development include Rio Coco/Bosawas/ 
Rio Platano/Tawanka, between Honduras and 
Nicaragua; the Area Chiquibul/Montanas Mayas 
between Guatemala and Belize; and the initiative to 
create a Protected Areas System in Gran Peten 
(SIAPI, between Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize 
(Calakmul, Mirador/Rio Azul, y Rio Bravo/Lamanail. 
Another form of international collaboration 
comes from the support provided by international 
agencies. During the 1990s it was estimated 
that at least 33 international organizations (notably 



205 



The world's protected areas 




SGR Warner/UNEP 



Rio Chagres, Panama 



from Germany, the EU, Canada, the USA, Spam, the 
Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries] 
contributed technical and financial assistance to 
approximately 70 projects that benefited roughly 
145 protected areas. Such support has encouraged 
national, binational, and multinational projects 
through the region. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

Despite the large extent of protected areas, a 
number of important or unique ecosystems are not 
adequately covered. Priorities for improved pro- 
tection include Los Morrales de Pasaquina in 
Chalatenango, El Salvador; the Morazan region in 
the semi-arid zone and Los Cuchumatanes cold 
high plateau in Guatemala; the pine forests in 
Guanaja Island in Honduras; the Maya Mountains in 
the south of Belize; and the Volcanic Cordillera of 
Guanacaste or Tilaran in Costa Rica. Coastal wet- 
lands are another priority for protection. 

In the most densely populated areas, typically 
along the Pacific coast and the medium-to-high 
plains, protected areas are often small and are also 
more threatened by various human pressures. In 



these areas there is an urgent need to protect 
remaining vegetation relicts, create corridors, and 
restore degraded areas. 

Many sites are still not clearly demarcated in 
the field and there may still be disputes over land 
ownership and registration. Only about one third 
of sites have even a minimal institutional or 
staffing presence on the ground and, even among 
these, management may be poor. There are a 
growing number of initiatives to promote co- 
administration and management as a means of 
bringing in further support and utilizing the 
growing interest of civil society in protected areas. 
Many ground staff are already paid by NGOs or 
other partners rather than by central govern- 
mental sources. 

Priorities for the future 

Protected areas conservation in Central America 
has improved considerably during the last decade. 
Critical issues facing the future of protected areas 
management are those of funding, sustainable 
management, local and stakeholder involvement, 
and international cooperation. 



206 



Central America 



From a management perspective the states 
can no longer afford sole responsibility for 
protected areas. At the same time adjacent 
communities are increasingly interested in 
becoming involved. For both of these reasons it 
will be important to broaden stakeholder 
participation and encourage co-management. 
While states may need to remain the final arbiters 
of protected areas issues, decentralization of 
technical and administrative tasks to local 
stakeholders (including indigenous peoples] and 
local governments should reduce costs and 
improve efficiency. There may also be calls to hand 
over management of certain sites to private non- 
profit initiatives, vi'hich may be able to offer 
independent funding and other resources to 
ensure good management. 

There is a considerable need to improve the 
capacity for management on the ground. This 
should include better pay and living conditions for 
staff, including training programs and even 
exchanges with other protected areas to encourage 
the transfer of ideas. Linked to such improvements 
will be the development of greater professionalism 
within the workforce, which is currently dominated 
by young, temporary personnel, no doubt in part 
due to poor funding and a lack of secure or tenured 
management positions. Many sites also need 
transport and telecommunications equipment to 
improve administration efficiency. 

Park boundaries and legal systems also need 
improvement. Clearer demarcation of boundaries 
is required, and in many cases funds and admin- 
istrative support are needed to buy, or 
compensate, individuals whose land falls within 
sites. Communication between administrative 
agencies must be improved, and the level of 
penalties must be raised to reduce levels of 
infringement within protected areas. Greater 
support at the levels of highest political authority 
is needed to ensure the stability and security of 
protected areas management. 

A broad array of efforts will be needed to 
improve funding. Large-scale international support 
may be required for land purchase and the 
development of large new sites. International 
partners may also help in more general manage- 
ment costs. It will be important to support conserv- 
ation in private lands, including the possibility of 
subsidies, tax breaks, or payment for environmental 
services on these lands. Protected areas balance 
sheets must be moved away from simply paying 



salaries (currently 90-97 percent of states' budgets) 
to a more balanced spending on other resources, 
outreach, and training. More innovative funding, 
including entrance tees, tourism, or other con- 
cessions, permitted sustainable uses, and handi- 
crafts need to be developed. 

Additionally, technical studies which provide 
proper economic valuations of goods and services 
provided by protected areas, including water pro- 
duction, carbon fixation, and recreational values, 
will help to convince national agencies of the need 
for adequate funding for protected areas. As tour- 
ism grows across the region such activities must be 
developed in harmony with the environment, while 
mechanisms must be found to ensure that a share 
of the benefits accrued from tourism is returned to 
offset protected areas management costs. 

It is necessary to build capacity for monitoring 
and assessing status and change in protected 
areas, in order to direct management. Linked to this 
IS a need for biological inventories for each 
protected area. There is also a need to be able to 
further adjust and refine the national systems of 
protected areas. In particular it may be necessary to 
ensure full ecosystem representation and support 
projects that build connectivity between sites, 
perhaps establishing minimum targets of 
protection for all ecoregions and supporting the 
development of biological corridors. 

Outreach and education to the wider society 
will help build support for protected areas, and 
increase the benefits these areas provide, while 
engendering greater environmental responsibility. 
Visitor facilities should be constructed in the more 
accessible areas, and environmental education in 
civil society should be broadened. 

Regional collaboration is already good in 
Central America, and should continue - there are 
considerable economies of scale from such 
collaboration, enabling the sharing of planning, 
training, management, and technical assistance. 
The region would benefit from information 
exchange as a form of capacity building between 
sites and countries. 

Global climate change is likely to affect many 
Central American protected areas, although 
changes may not be evident for some years. The 
region must be aware of these threats, particularly 
in mountain and cloud-forest ecosystems, and in 
coastal ecosystems (river deltas, brackish waters, 
or small islands, coral reefs]. Possible manage- 
ment interventions must be considered. 



207 



The world's protected areas 



Brazil 



Contributors: A. B. Rytands. M. T. da Fonseca, R. a Machado, L P. de S. Pinto, R. B. Cavatcanti 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world, 
occupying more than half of South America, with a 
land area of 8 547 400 km^. The Amazon Basin, 
bounded by the ancient crystalline shields of 
Guyana (in the north! and Brazil lin the south], and 
the Andes to the west, occupies slightly more than 
half the country. The tropical forests there, along 
with the Atlantic coast forests (including Araucaria 
pine forests], and further forest areas inland in the 
south and southeast, cover some 3.6 million km^. 

The natural vegetation of the central plateau 
of Brazil is sclerophytic savanna and savanna forest 
(the Cerradol, and to the west, on the borders with 
Bolivia and Paraguay, is the enormous floodplain of 
the Rio Paraguay, the so-called Pantanal. The 
northeast of Brazil is characterized by tropical 
xerophytic vegetation and deciduous thorn scrub 
(the Caatinga], much of it being secondary vege- 
tation, formed over former humid and dry forest 
areas that existed in pre-Columbian times. Both the 
Atlantic forest and the Cerrado rank as biodiversity 
hotspots: both have extraordinary levels of diversity 
and endemism, and both have been devastated by 
human activities. The Atlantic forest is today 
reduced to about 7 percent of its original extent of 
1.2 to 1.6 million km^. Subtropical grasslands (the 
Campos Sulinos) predominate in the far south. 

The Brazilian coastline extends for 7 491 km, 
characterized by restinga (scrub and forest on 
sandy soils] and globally significant estuaries, 
mudflats, and mangroves. Cliffs and rocky shores 
are found, especially in the south, associated with 
the southern hills, the Serra do Mar Oceanic 
islands include the Archipelago of Fernando de 
Noronha and the Island of Trindade; important reef 
complexes of the western Atlantic include those of 
the Atol das Rocas and Abrolhos. 

Mountain ranges are found in the northern 
Amazon on the frontiers of Venezuela and Guyana 
(Serras Pacaraima and Parima], which include 
sandstone tepuis such as Monte Roraima and Pico 
da Neblina, and the Serra Tumucumaque on the 



border with the Guyanas. Further mountains are 
widespread in southeast Brazil - the Serra do 
Espinhaco, Serra do Mar, Serra da Mantiqueira, and 
Serra Geral. The major freshwater ecosystems are 
rivers, with extraordinary diversity in terms of 
their structure, chemistry, and biodiversity. These 
include the gigantic black-water, white-water, and 
clear-water rivers of the Amazon Basin, and the 
Rios Sao Francisco, Paraguay, Parana, and Doce in 
the south. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

The legal basis for national parks was established 
under the 1934 Forest Code, and the first site was 
established in Itatiaia in 1937. Two more were 
established in 1939, a further three in 1959, and 
eight in 1961, although detailed regulations for this 
protected area category were published only in 
1 979. The category of biological reserve was created 
in the 1 965 revision of the Forest Code, but the first 
site, Poco das Antas in Rio de Janeiro, was created 
only in 1974. National parks and biological reserves 
were the responsibility of the Forest Service of the 
Ministry of Agriculture until 1967, when this became 
the charge of the Department of National Parks and 
Equivalent Reserves of the Brazilian Forestry 
Development Institute (IBDF]. 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, national 
and international attention was drawn to the 
Brazilian Amazon with the construction of the 
Trans-amazonica highway, and the creation of the 
"Altamira Polygon": 60 000 km^ were placed under 
the jurisdiction of the National Institute for 
Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRAI, while 
key components of the National Integration 
Programme (PIN] were established by decree in 
1 970. Plans for the widespread development of the 
Amazon were based on "development poles," the 
■Polamazonia" program (under the Superint- 
endency for the Development of Amazonia - 
SUDAM, established in 1974]. The Amazonia 
National Park was created in 1974 within the 
Tapajos Agricultural Pole, but the IBDF's response 



208 



Brazil 




M Wendler/UNEP 



Ocelot [Leopardus pardatis], Brazil. 



209 



The world's protected areas 




300 600 MOkm 



100'W 9G°W 

Source: UNEP-WCMC 



SOW MLT 40°W 



30°W 20°W 



210 



Brazil 



was to draw up a similarly ambitious proposal in 
1976 for a system of protected areas using biogeo- 
graphic principles: representation of phytogeo- 
graphic regions and vegetation types; and focusing 
on Pleistocene refuges - forests identified by tiigh 
endemism believed to have resulted from their 
persistence through drier climates during the last 
major ice age around 18 000 years ago. Until 1979, 
there were only two protected areas in the 
Brazilian Amazon, but a further seven national 
parks 169 12U km^j and six biological reserves 
(22 398 km^l were decreed for the region in the 
following ten years. Nine of these fell within nine of 
the 25 Brazilian Amazonian priority areas of IBDF's 
1976 proposal. 

Ten forest reserves were created in the 
Amazon by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1911 and 
1961, but this category was not given legitimacy in 
the 1965 Forest Code, which instead recognized the 
national forest and equivalent categories at the 
state level. The original forest reserves have been 
abandoned, settled, or converted into biological 
reserves or indigenous reserves. The first national 
forest was Araripe-Apodi, Ceara, created in 19^6. 
Caxuiana, Para, was decreed in 1961 and a further 
61 national forests have been created since then. 
In 1981, the National Environment Policy created 
the category of environmental protection area, 
roughly equivalent to a biosphere reserve, while 
the category of "area of particular ecological 
interest" was created in 1984. 



In 1973, the government created the Special 
Environmental Secretariat ISEMAl within the 
Ministry of the Interior In 1981, SEMA set up a 
program for ecological stations to protect repres- 
entative samples of Brazilian ecosystems, while 
promoting ecological research and environmental 
education. Twenty-five ecological stations and 
reserves 17 579 km^l were created from 1981 to 
1989. In 1989, IBDF and SEMA were combined to 
form the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and 
Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMAl, now within 
the Ministry of the Environment. 

Provision for private reserves was first 
established in the 1965 Forest Code through the 
little-used category of the private fauna and flora 
reserve. The concept and regulations were revised 
by IBAMA in 1990 and it was replaced by the private 
natural heritage reserve (RPPN), a more robust 
legal mechanism for a landowner to protect, in per- 
petuity, forests, watersheds, and areas of natural 
beauty, with the additional incentive of exemption 
from land tax. 

Extractive reserves were first established in 
1 987, not as protected areas, but as an instrument 
for agrarian reform, attending particularly to the 
needs of rubber tapper communities suffering 
encroachment and the destruction of their forests 
by cattle ranchers in the southwest Amazon. In 
1989, extractive reserves were included in the 
National Environment Programme (PNMA) and 
placed under the responsibility of IBAMA, and 



Brazil: Growth of protected areas network, 1900-2005 



1200 



1 000 



800 



E &00 



400 



200 



■ Cumulative area of sites with l<nown establishment date Ikm^l 

■ Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date, 
~ dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm') 



111 



1900 '05 '10 '15 '20 75 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 55 '60 65 '70 75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 



211 



The world's protected areas 



1000 |— 



800 



600 



wo 



200 



I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 
I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA 



±1 



1900 05 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 05 



Brazil: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1900-2005 



were regulated as part of the protected areas 
system in 1990. 

A revision of the protected areas system was 
proposed as part of the National Environment 
Programme, begun in 1 987 in collaboration with the 
United Nations Environment Programme lUNEP). In 
1988, the Brasilia-based non-governmental organ- 
ization (NGOl, Fundacao Pro-Natureza IFunatural 
was given the task of drawing up a consolidated 
national protected areas system for Brazil ISistema 
Nacional de Unidades de Conservacao da Natureza 
- SNUCl, and after more than ten years of 
discussion and deliberations it was officially 
established in July 2000. The system included the 
private RPPN category as an official protected area. 
A subsequent decree 12001 1 determined that IBAMA 
should adjust the categories of protected areas 
which do not comply with the definitions and 
determinations of the new system. 

THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) 
contains information on 1 286 protected areas 
across Brazil, covering a total area of 1 611 547 km^. 
Only 88 sites have marine or coastal elements, and 
the total marine area protected is less than 
16 000km2. The protection of terrestrial areas 
amounts to 15.3 percent of the total country, a little 
higher than the global average, but actually the 
lowest proportion of any of the American World 
Commission on Protected Areas (WCPAl regions. 



In terms of the levels of protection provided, 
less than 17 percent falls into strict lUCN 
Protected Area Management Categories ll-lll). 
Over 61 percent of the total protected areas have 
not been given an lUCN category 

National parks 152, covering 166 324 km^) are 
the largest strictly protected areas, allowing for 
education, recreation, and scientific research. Their 
equivalent at the state level is the state park 1130, 
totaling 56 959 km^l. Biological reserves and 
ecological stations (58 federal areas covering 
70 970 km2, and 1 20 state areas covering 6 353 km^l 
protect representative and threatened ecosystems, 
and sometimes target particular species Ifor 
example, the Ivlico-Leao Preto Ecological Station 
was created specifically to protect the black lion 
tamarinl. National forests and state forests are 
generally large reserves for silviculture, sustainable 
logging, protection of watersheds, research, and 
recreation. Thirty-six of the 63 national forests are 
in Amazonia, accounting for 172 820 km^ or 99 
percent of the area given over to this category. 

Extractive reserves focus on protecting areas 
for sustainable resource use, both terrestrial and 
marine Ifor example, Brazil nuts, copaiba oil, latex, 
and palm fruits], under joint administration of 
government and local communities, currently, there 
are 30; 23 in Amazonia (96 percent of their total 
area]. A further eight sites of various denominations 
have been declared with similar objectives at the 
state level (all in Amazonia, covering 43 567 km^l. 



212 



Brazil 



Environmental protection areas (EPAsI restrict 
human activities to a[[ovj the conservation of 
natural resources and environmental quality for 
local communities, using management plans and 
zoning, including areas of strict protection for 
wildlife. This mechanism has been vi^idely adopted 
in Brazil, increasingly as a buffer for parl<s and 
reserves. Areas of particular ecological interest 
(ARIEsI are small (50 I<m2 or less] and provide 
protective measures for notable natural phen- 
omena, or wildlife populations and habitats in 
areas where human populations are minimal (while 
still allowing public use). Private natural heritage 
reserves (more than 500, state and federal, covering 
about i 500 km2) are important instruments to pro- 
tect forest fragments, which now predominate in 
the once continuous Atlantic forest. The majority 
of still unprotected forest in this area is now in 
private hands. 

The national protected areas system (SNUC), 
established in 2000, is administered by three 
government institutions. The National Council for 
the Environment (CONAMAl (a consultative and 
deliberative organ of the National Environment 
System - SISNAMA, linked directly to the 
Presidency) monitors its implementation, which is 
coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment 
(MMAl. Within the MMA, the Directorate of 
Ecosystems of IBAMA is responsible for the 
creation and management of the federal protected 
areas. Analogous secretariats and forestry 
institutes are responsible for the equivalent areas 
at the state and municipal levels. 

Indigenous reserves, historically not listed 
among protected areas, have been included in the 
present analysis. The majority, in both area and 
number, are located in Amazonia, and admin- 
istered by the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI). 
Some Ai] indigenous reserves, areas, and territ- 
ories total 989 546 km2 (11.8 percent of Brazil's 
land surface]. Of these 361 cover about 20 percent 
of the Brazilian Amazon, and some are playing a 
significant role in protecting the forest from 
ongoing destruction and development, particularly 
those in northern Mato Grosso and southern 
Para. A remarkable example is the 100 000 km^ 
Kayapo Indigenous Reserve, intact but now 
isolated - entirely surrounded by roads, cattle 
ranches, and farms. A further 139 indigenous 
areas are currently under evaluation. 

The major threat to public protected areas is 
unresolved ownership by the state of the lands they 



Brazil: Protected areas network by lUCN category, 
2005 



lUCN category 



Total 
sites 

182 



Total 
area Ikm^) 

112 033 



lb 


11 


179 


160 677 


III 


5 


704 


IV 


259 


5 070 


V 


115 


135 707 


VI 


70 


212 548 


No category 


476 


9 848 809 


Total 


1 286 


1 611 547 



Brazil: Protected areas network by lUCN category 
(percentage of total area), 2005 



la 17%) 



No cat 161% 




Brazil: Number of protected areas by lUCN 
category, 2005 



500 



600 



300 



200 



100 




la II 



IV V VI category 



213 



The world's protected areas 




Firewood gathering in degraded former Atlantic forest, Brazil. 



encompass. Five national parks, two biological 
reserves, the Ique Ecological Station, and 16 
national forests in Amazonia overlap partly or 
entirely witln indigenous land claims (totaling 
close to 1 1 000 km2|. Problems of land title, lack of 
infrastructure, management, guards, fiunting, 
squatters, indigenous claims (three covering more 
than 50 percent of the park), gold mining (erosion 
and mercury pollution), highways, military occu- 
pation, and immense mineral deposits are all 
threats to the Pico da Neblina National Park. 

Most of the Amazonian protected areas are 
subject to diverse combinations of these threats. 
The Gurupi Biological Reserve has lost more than 
half of its forest due to logging. In the rest of 
Brazil, well-established parks still have substantial 
portions under private ownership owing to the state 
not having paid the indemnities required for 
stewardship. Examples include the Chapada dos 
Veadeiros, Serra da Canastra, and Serra da Bocaina 
national parks, and Una Biological Reserve. Other 
medium- to long-term threats include efforts to 
fragment or reduce the extent of the parks, for inst- 
ance the operation of the 'Colono' road in Iguacu 
National Park, presently closed by court order 
Other systemic threats are fire and Invasive species. 



Other forms of protection 

Numerous consen/ation areas are maintained and 
administered by a broad range of groups and 
institutions. Examples include: 
a Scientific and agricultural research 
institutions - for example the Adolfo Ducke 
and Walter Egler Forest Reserves admin- 
istered by the National Institute for Amazon 
Research (INPAI, Manaus; the Ecological 
Reserve of the Brazilian Institute for 
Geography and Statistics (IBGEj in Brasilia; 
and the Santa Lucia Biological Station of 
the Museu de Biologia Mello Leitao in Espirito 
Santo. 
Q Universities - the Tapacura Ecological 
Station of the Federal Rural University of 
Pernambuco. 
J NGOs - examples include the Mata do 
Sossego Biological Station of the Fundacao 
Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte; the Fazenda Rio 
Negro (Pantanall of Conservation Inter- 
national do Brasil; and a network of wildlife 
refuges maintained by Funatura, Brasilia. 
Industries with governance over large areas of land, 
such as those in the energy and mining sectors, and 
pulp and paper with large timber plantations, also 



2U 



Brazil 



maintain reserves where wildlife and the maint- 
enance of ecosystem functions are given priority. 
Examples are the Linhares Forest Reserve of the 
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, and a number of 
small reserves of the Aracruz Cellulose Company, 
both in Espirito Santo, 

The 1965 Forest Code defined areas of perm- 
anent preservation to protect particularly sensitive 
or important natural areas, such as vegetation 
along rivers; lakes and areas of spring water; steep 
slopes and the edges of raised plateaus; coastal 
shrub \restinga] for the stabilization of dunes; 
mangrove ecosystems; and forests above 1 800 
meters. The National Environment Policy of 1981 
determined that these areas, and localities used by 
migratory birds protected by international 
conventions, be turned into ecological reserves and 
areas of particular ecological interest. 

Another important legal instrument is that of 
the 'legal reserve' (Law 7.803, July 18 19891 which 
determines the preservation of the natural 
vegetation of 80 percent of any rural property in 
Amazonia, 35 percent in the Cerrado, and 20 
percent in the Atlantic forest. A Provisional Measure 
of the Presidency IMay 20001 defined the functions 
of this legal reserve as essentially for the sustain- 
able use of natural resources and biodiversity 
conservation, and allowed for a compensatory 
mechanism of creating a protected area of similar 
ecological relevance and in the same hydrographic 
basin, when all or part of the legal reserve of a 
property has been, or needs to be, destroyed. 

International sites 

The Ramsar Convention was ratified by Brazil in 
1993. Currently there are eight Ramsar sites, 
totaling 6^ 341 km^. The largest of these sites, the 
27 000 km2 Reentrancias Maranhenses, is coastal, 
protecting mudflats, islands, and mangroves. 
Others cover a broad range of habitats including the 
alluvial floodplains of the Pantanal Matogrossense; 
the 18 000km2 Baixada Maranhense Ramsar site 
protecting flooded grassland, lagoons, mangroves, 
and babassu palm forest; and the llOOOkm^ 
Mamiraua Ramsar Site protecting a significant area 
of varzea Iwhite-water flooded forest). One site, the 
coral reefs of the Parcel Manuel Luis off the coast of 
Maranhao, is one of the only Ramsar sites to lie in 
open ocean, with no intertidal waters or dry land. 

Seven natural World Heritage sites are listed, 
but a further 10 have been declared under cultural 
criteria. As is often the case, sites designated under 



Brazil: Internationally protected areas, 2005 



Agreement 


No. of 


Protected 




sites 


area Ikm^) 


Biosphere reserves 


6 


1 280 419 



Ramsar sites 



6A341 



World Heritage sites 



85 957 



cultural criteria only may still hold important 
natural resources, such as the Serra da Capivara 
National Park, designated a cultural site in 1991 
due to its archaeological significance, but which is 
also an important natural site in the Caatinga. 

Brazil is also host to five of the 10 largest 
biosphere reserves in the world, which have been 
established for all the major terrestrial biomes. 
They cover about 1.25 million km^, or nearly 15 
percent of the land surface of the country. These are 
the 295 000 km^ Reserva da Biosfera da Mata 
Atlantica; the 297 000 km2 Cerrado Iwith varied 
savanna and forest ecosystems); the 252 000 km^ 
Pantanal; the 199 000 km^ Caatinga (deciduous 
forest and desert scrub in the northeast of Brazil); 
and the Central Amazon Corridor la range of 
contiguous protected areas in the Amazon basin). 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

Brazil is the megadiversity country of the world, 
with global responsibility for three major wild- 
erness areas: the large majority of the Amazon 
(about 20 percent lost to date), the world's largest 
wetland - the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, and the 
Caatinga of the northeast. It also contains two bio- 
diversity hotspots: the remains of the decimated 
Atlantic forest, and the richest tropical savanna in 
the world in terms of plant diversity and endemism 
- the Cerrado. Protected areas are the key to 
conserving what remains of these hotspots, and to 
counterbalancing huge, ambitious infrastructure 
development schemes such as the Avanca Brasil 
program 12000-07) for Amazonia, which envisions 
doubling the extent of paved roads in the region, the 
construction of dams, waterways, ports, and rail- 
ways to advance its occupation and development 
over enormous areas. Deforestation in Amazonia 
proceeds apace, with an average annual rate of loss 
of 18 051 km2 since 1977. The Brazil Ministry of 
Science and Technology has estimated that 23 750 
km^ were deforested in 2002-2003 alone. 

Key challenges include expanding the 
protected areas system, essentially through 
securing additional baseline information on the 



215 



The world's protected areas 



The Amazon is home 
to more than more than 
100 000 invertebrate 
species (top) and 
perhaps as many as 30 
million. (Center) Male 
black caimans 
[Melanosuchus niger\ 
can grow to 6 m. 
Frequent rain and high 
humidity have enabled 
many frog species 
(bottom! to live and 
breed in the trees. 




country's biodiversity, besides refining policies and 
guidelines and improving tfie capacity of the 
governmental institutions for their management 
and protection. The future and integrity of many of 
the protected areas are threatened. Improving 
connectivity between protected areas, the chief aim 
of the Corridors project (see below], will also be vital 
for the viability and success of these areas over the 
long term. 

Five workshops, compiling data on biodiv- 
ersity, socioeconomic variables, and land use, 
were held during 1998-2000 to identify and 
prioritize conservation areas in the major biomes 
in Brazil (Brazil, MMA, 20021. Nine hundred areas 
were identified as of priority for the conservation 
of the country's biodiversity: 385 in the Brazilian 
Amazon; 182 in the Atlantic forest and Campos 
Sulinos; 16^ in the coastal and marine zones; 87 
in the Cerrado and Pantanal; and 82 in the 
Caatinga. The creation of orotected areas was the 
most frequent recommendation for conservation 
measures for these areas in all the regions, 
except Amazonia where it came second after 
sustainable resource use'. By 2002, 55 protected 
areas had been created as a result of these 
workshops, and the priority areas will be targets 
for new areas over the coming years. 

Two other major initiatives underway are the 
Biological Corridors Project of the Pilot Programme 
for the Protection of Brazilian Tropical Forests 
PP-G7 (IBAI^A, Sociedade Civil Mamiraua, and 
Conservation International do Brasil) and the 
Amazon Region Protected Areas (ARPAI Prog- 
ramme (MMA and WWF Brazil!. Both began in 1997 
and are supported by the World Bank, and the latter 
also by the Global Environment Facility. The 
Corridors project idealized seven major corridors 
[very large stretches of contiguous protected areas 
of diverse categories): five in the Amazon and two in 
the Atlantic forest. The rationale was to avoid the 
creation of island' protected areas, doomed to lose 
their species over the long term. The corridors were 
placed strategically to maximize representation of 
the biodiversity of the Atlantic forest and Amazonia. 
Their initial design has been modified as a result of 
the workshops mentioned above, and the project 
has already resulted in some major advances in 
consolidating the protected areas system. 

The ARPA program was officially launched at 
the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 
Johannesburg (2002), and aims to increase the area 
of the Amazon rainforest under federal protection to 



216 



Brazil 



500 000 km2 (12 percent), based on the repres- example, the national parks of Pico da Neblina 

entation of 23 Amazonian ecoregions identified by (22 000 km^l, Jau (22 720 km^l, the tvlountains of 

WWF, besides support for the development of man- Tumucumaque (38 670 km^l, and the Mamiraua 

agement plans and protective measures for some (112i0km2| and Amana (23 500 km^l State 

existing areas, such as the Serra da Cutia and the Sustainable Development Reserves. The PP-G7 

Ivjountains of Tumucumaque National Parks, and Corridors Project and ARPA are underpinning 

the Cautario Extractive Reserve. the last chance to protect Brazil's natural 

As can be seen from this brief report, over the biodiversity. Over the next 20 years, it will be the 

last 30 years Brazil has considerably expanded its parks and reserves which will draw the map of the 

parks system, with some of the largest tropical natural areas that will remain. 
forest protected areas in the world, including, for 



217 



The world's protected areas 



South America 

Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, 

French Guiana (France), Guyana, Paraguay, 

Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela 

Contributors: C. Castano Uribe. C. Lacambra 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

South America, as defined by the World 
Commission on Protected Areas (WCPAl, includes 
all of the countries of continental South America 
except Brazil. Although this definition is used here, 
a number of issues deal with the entire continent, 
including Brazil. 

The continent of South America can be divided 
into two quite distinct geological parts. The large 
eastern areas consist of a series of ancient Ipre- 
Cambrianl shield formations with higher ground, 
separated by wide alluvial basins. The largest of 
these is the Amazon Shield (in Brazil), with the 
Guyana Shield to the north and the Plata Shield to 
the south. The western part of the region is much 
smaller, but dominated by the Andes Cordillera, a 
vast mountain range that emerged 230 million 
years ago as the result of the subduction of the 
Pacific Plate beneath the South American Plate. 
The Andes extend for 7 240 km from the sub- 
Antarctic lands of southern Chile through seven 
countries to Colombia and Venezuela (where the 
chain turns eastwards!. They range from 200 to 
400 km wide; many peaks are above 5 000 meters 
and the highest, at 6 960 meters, is Aconcagua in 
Argentina. Between the mountains are areas of high 
plateaus (Altiplanol. The average altitude is 
3 660 meters. There are numerous volcanoes and 
the region is regularly impacted by earthquakes. 

Many of the important rivers that run across 
the subcontinent have their headwaters in the 
Andes. The rivers running down the western slopes 
into the Pacific Ocean tend to be more turbulent and 
short. Rivers running eastwards traverse the 



continent, feeding or receiving waters from other 
rivers before they arrive at the Atlantic. Among 
these are the Amazon, Rio Negro, Magdalena, and 
some of the tributaries of the Parana. 

The continent is bounded by the Pacific and 
Atlantic Oceans and by the Caribbean Sea to the 
north. The Pacific coastline is dominated by the cold 
Humboldt Current, and by upwelling water close to 
the coastline. Typically, these are nutrient-rich and 
highly productive waters, but during the irregularly 
timed El Nino years these upwellings are reduced 
or absent; warmer waters predominate and 
weather patterns across much of the region are 
significantly altered. 

The continent has a remarkably diverse and 
complex mosaic of fauna and flora. Among the very 
important and unique ecosystems found in the 
region are the Peruvian, Ecuadorian, Colombian, 
and Venezuelan Paramo (wetlands and wet 
grasslands with distinctive species such as 
frailejones, Espeletia sp.l 3 000 meters above sea 
level; and the snow chains along the subcontinent 
from Argentina to the Colombian Caribbean at 
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. The tropical Andes 
make up one of the most diverse ecosystems in the 
world, ranging from forested foothills and humid 
cloud forests to cold paramos, punas (cold, arid 
areas above the treeline with low plant formations), 
and glaciers sometimes within a very short 
distance. Other important habitats include the 
Colombian and Venezuelan plains and savannas; 
the tepuis or rocky formations in the Formacion 
Roraima on the Guyana Shield; the Brazilian, 
Uruguayan, and Paraguayan Pantanal (probably the 



218 



South America 




J Rores/UNEP 



Patagonia, Argentina. 



219 



The world's protected areas 



2 000 



1500 — 



E 1 000 — 



500 — 



I Cumulative area of sites witti l<nown establishment date (km^) 
I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA (km'l 



1907 '10 '15 20 25 '30 35 '40 45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 05 



South America: Growth of protected areas network, 1907-2005 



world's largest wetland), and the vast dry Chaco 
region with thorn forests and savanna, shared by 
Bolivia, Paraguay, and Argentina. The Amazonian 
forest comprises 5.5 million km^ shared by Brazil. 
Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, 
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Due to its 
vast area and productivity, this region plays an 
important role in regulating the world's climate. 

The South American coastline covers a broad 
range of habitats. There are coral reefs, principally 



in the Caribbean Sea, but also in scattered comm- 
unities in Pacific waters. Mangroves are wide- 
spread, botn in the tropical and subtropical Atlantic 
waters and in the Pacific as far south as northern 
Peru. Chilean and Peruvian waters provide one of 
the most important fisheries worldwide. Some of 
the most productive estuaries in the world are also 
found in the region: La Plata River estuary in the 
Atlantic and in the gulfs of Guayaquil and Fonseca in 
the Pacific, among others, in addition to many 



South America: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1907-2005 



1200 



1000 



800 



a 600 



400 



200 



I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 
I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA 



jj. 



j_a 



ll 



il 



1907 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 



220 



South America 



coastal islands, notably in southern Chile and 
Argentina, oceanic islands are found, including 
Juan Fernandez and Easter Island/lsla de Pascua 
Iboth Chllel, Galapagos lEcuador), as well as the 
San Andres and Providencia Archipelago IColombial 
in the Caribbean Sea. 

Biological diversity in this region is almost 
unparalleled. Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and 
Peru are all considered megadiverse countries, 
with among the highest levels of both diversity and 
endemism of any nations. Most of the land surface, 
and the adjacent waters, fall within priority 
ecoregions as identified by WWF (the Global 2001. 
There are some 37 endemic bird areas, many of 
which overlap some 36 centers of plant diversity 
These centers are particularly concentrated along 
the Pacific coast and the Andes, where the 
mountains have created a great array of isolated 
and unique habitats and communities. 

The human population of South America is a 
mix of the indigenous peoples who were present 
when the European explorers first arrived, along 
with peoples of European (mainly Spanish, except 
for Brazil! and African descent. As a consequence of 
Spanish colonization, the main language in South 
America is Spanish, while in Guyana, Suriname, and 
French Guiana it is English, Dutch, and French 
respectively. The indigenous peoples are still a 
major part of the population, particularly in Peru 
[iS percent), Bolivia (over 50 percent], and Ecuador 
125 percent], and many still live traditional lifestyles, 
often highly sustainable. Most countries achieved 
independence during the 19th century - periods of 
instability, totalitarian regimes, and civil disruption 
have now largely given way to relative stability and 
democracy across the region. 

The value of some of these lands with reliable 
water sources and fertile soils led to anthropogenic 
pressures on some ecosystems even before 
European colonization. In the last 50 years, the 
human population has tripled to 181 million (2002 
estimate, excluding Brazil]. Population density is 
not homogeneous - there are extensive territories 
with low populations, and some large cities such as 
Santiago de Chile, Bogota, Buenos Aires, and Lima. 
Most of the population is concentrated in the 
Andean region or in coastal areas, adding particular 
pressures to natural ecosystems in these places. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

It is very likely that indigenous peoples in many 
parts of South America had developed a variety of 




A Gellweiler/UNEP 



systems to ensure natural resource protection, 
which in some places may have included protection 
of specific areas. 

The first modern protected areas were 
established in Argentina and Chile. In 1 903, a public 
natural park was created in Argentinian Patagonia 
(renamed Parque del Sur in 1922 and now part of 
the Nahuel Huapi National Park]. In Chile the 
Malleco Forest Reserve (now a national reserve] 
was established in 1907. Many of the first national 
parks were established in the 1920s and 1930s, 
including the Vicente Perez Rosales National Park 
in Argentina (1926], the Kaiteur National Park in 



Blue-footed booby 
{Suta nebouxiil, 
Galapagos Islands 
National Park, Ecuador. 



221 



The world's protected areas 



South America; Protected areas network by lUCN 
category, 2005 



lUCN category 


Total 


Total 




sites 


area Ikm^) 


la 


55 


12 478 



lb 


U 


U754 


II 


220 


505 116 


III 


72 


74 349 


IV 


U3 


185 554 


V 


96 


126 204 


VI 


3U 


586 300 


No category 


5';6 


593 690 


Total 


1 450 


2 098 445 



South America: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category (percentage of total area), 2005 



Guyana (1929), the Galapagos National Park 
in Ecuador (1936), and the Sajama National Park in 
Bolivia (1939). Many more protected areas, such as 
the Sierra de la Macarena (originally a biological 
reserve, now a national park) in Colombia, were 
created after the Washington Convention in 1940, 
which also led to an assessment and rearrange- 
ment of management processes in the existing 
protected areas. 

Rapid increases in the protected area 
systems in almost all countries began in the 
1960s, and from this period onwards the 
declaration of protected areas became a more 
systematic process. Ivjost countries now have 
technical and scientific criteria and guidelines 
for protection that have evolved over time. Most 
also have national-level organizations with tech- 
nical expertise that monitor and administer 
national parks and other protected areas. 



No Category 
(28%) 




la 11%) 

lb(1%l 



II 12/^%) 

-III(4%1 
IV (9%) 



VI (28% 



V (6%) 



South America: Number of protected areas by lUCN 
category, 2005 



600 




la lb II III IV V VI category 



THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

South America has the second highest proportion 
of Its land area under protection of any V\/CPA 
region. There are 1 450 protected areas, which 
extend over 2 million square kilometers, covering 
almost 23 percent of the land area. Despite this, 
being such a diverse region, there are several 
ecosystems that remain poorly protected or not 
even included in this network. 

Thirty-seven percent of protected areas in the 
South America region in the World Database on 
Protected Areas (WDPA) have no assigned 
management category These include a broad 
range of types of protection, including lands of 
indigenous peoples, forest reserves, and buffer 
zones around other protected areas. The region 
also includes a large number of Category VI 
protected areas, where a broad suite of 
sustainable-use practices may be undertaken, 
particularly where there are local communities, 
such as indigenous groups, living within, or 
adjacent to, sites. As a general rule, certain non- 
extractive activities are permitted even in Category 
l-lll sites, although these may be restricted to 
research, restoration, education, recreation, eco- 
tourism. or craftwork. 

Marine areas are still very poorly protected 
across the region. There are 1U marine protected 
areas, covering a total of over 161 000 km^. 
However, this latter figure is considerably skewed 
by the Galapagos Marine Reserve, which makes up 
133 000km2. 



222 



South America 



Areas of South America protected (by country), 2005 



Country/territory 

Argentina 



Land area (km^) 

2 780 400 



Total protected area Ikm^l 

182 052 



Total number of sites 

328 



Bolivia 


1 098 580 


230 509 


50 


Chile 


755 630 


143 565 


103 


Colombia 


1 138 910 


439 666 


414 


Ecuador 


283 560 


209 497 


140 


French Guiana 


90 000 


5 306 


34 


Guyana 


214 970 


4 860 


3 


Paraguay 


406 750 


23 664 


37 


Peru 


1 285 220 


179 257 


61 


Sunname 


163 270 


19812 


15 


Uruguay 


176 220 


725 


29 


Venezuela 


912 050 


659 530 


236 



Other forms of protection 

In addition to protected areas declared at the 
national level, almost all countries have other 
systems of regional, non-governmental organiza- 
tion (NGOI, and private protected areas. For the 
most part, these sites are included in the statistics 
provided above. 

In Colombia there are 32 regional autonomous 
corporations administering 122 natural protected 
areas, v^hile municipalities add a further 79. There 
are also 89 private reserves that cover 245 km^. The 
provincial system of natural protected areas in 
Argentina is very significant, covering some 
120 000 km2. In Chile, the Private Protected Areas 
Network IRAPPl, an NGO, coordinated by the 
National Committee for the Defense of Fauna and 
Flora ICODEFFl, protects 3 222 km^, including many 
sites that do not have any official recognition. In 
Peru the Natural Protected Area Law promotes the 
existence of complementary systems through 
regional conservation areas and municipal conserv- 
ation areas. This law also recognizes private 
reserves, although none is recorded. 

International sites 

All countries except Guyana have declared 
protected areas under one or more of the major 
international protected areas agreements. 

The 37 biosphere reserves make up the 
largest area of any of the international categories. 
However, the figure is dominated entirely by the two 
largest sites. The Galapagos Islands in Ecuador 
(U8 000 km^l and the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve 
in Colombia 1300 000 km2| are predominantly 
marine areas with only a small portion of land. 

The 71 Ramsar sites are spread across the 



region, and include a number of coastal and marine 
sites. The largest Ramsar sites are the Complejo de 
Humedales del Abanico del Rio Pastaza in Peru 
Imore than 38 000 km2| and the 32 000 km^ 
Pantanal Boliviano in Bolivia. 

Apart from the global agreements, there are a 
number of treaties, conventions, commissions, and 
regional and international programs that have 
active participation from Latin American countries. 
One highly important regional development has 
been that of the Latin American Network for 
Technical Cooperation on National Parks, other 
Protected Areas, Wild Fauna and Flora. This net- 
work, created in 1983 as an initiative from the FAO 
Regional Office and the UNEP Office for Latin 
America and Caribbean, is made up of more than 
1 000 public and private specialist institutions 
relating to biodiversity conservation and protected 
areas management. The network has been working 
officially since 1985 as a way of complementing 
traditional technical assistance by supporting 
technical cooperation among developing nations. It 
has had a number of important impacts: supporting 
an increase in technical cooperation between 
countries; the establishment of joint projects and 
the exchange of knowledge and experience between 
national specialists and institutions; and in 
strengthening and modernizing national technical 
capacities and training opportunities. 

Further mechanisms under development 
include the Iberoamerican Network (which 
incorporates Spain and Portugal as additional 
countries for international cooperation); and the 
National Parks and Other Protected Areas 
Foundation [FUPANAPI. The latter has established 
links between former senior executives from 



223 



The world's protected areas 



South America: Internationally protected areas, 
2005 



Country/territory 

Biosphere reserves 
Arqentina 


No. of 
sites 

11 


Protected 
area (km^) 

41 770 


Bolivia 


3 


7 350 


Chile 


8 


73 792 


Colombia 


5 


333 323 


Ecuador 


3 


173 751 


Paraguay 


2 


77 723 


Peru 


3 


32 684 


Uruguay 


1 


2 000 


Venezuela 


1 


82 662 


TOTAL 


37 


825 055 


Ramsar sites 
Arqentina 


U 


35 829 


Bolivia 


8 


65 181 


Chile 


9 


1 592 


Colombia 


3 


4 479 


Ecuador 


11 


1 585 


French Guiana 


2 


1 960 


Paraguay 


6 


7 860 


Peru 


10 


67 774 


Suriname 


1 


120 


Uruguay 


2 


4 249 


Venezuela 


5 


2 636 


TOTAL 


71 


193 265 


World Heritage sites 
Arqentina 


U 


11362 


Bolivia 


1 


15 230 


Colombia 


1 


540 


Ecuador 


2 


145 384 


Peru 


k 


21 799 


Suriname 


1 


16 000 


Venezuela 


1 


30 000 


TOTAL 


U 


240 315 



national protected area systems to channel their 
experiences in support of Soutti American and 
Central American protected areas. 

Another important development has been 
the Amazonian Protected Areas Sub-Network 
(SURAPA). In a process developed between 1989 
and 1998, this was one of the first regionally 
coordinated activities supported by the Amazonian 
Environment Special Commission (GEMMA) under 
the Amazonian Cooperation Treaty (TCA) signed by 
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, 



Suriname, and Venezuela. The project encouraged 
development of regional criteria, parity, and 
standardization for the establishment and 
management of protected areas. It further 
supported capacity building and training; the 
formation of areas of excellence; publication of 
technical support documentation; exchange of 
staff and provision of scholarships between 
countries, and the expansion of protected areas 
cover and representativeness. 

The region includes parts of three regional 
seas, two of which have legally binding conventions; 
the Convention for the Protection of the Marine 
Environment and Coastal Zone of the South-East 
Pacific (Lima Convention) and the Convention for 
the Protection and Development of the Marine 
Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region 
(Cartagena Convention). Both conventions have 
been signed by the relevant South American nations 
adjoining the region and both provide a broad range 
of provisions for coastal protection. Importantly, 
both have specific protocols dealing with the 
establishment of protected areas. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

In a region where the spatial area of protection is 
already high, many of the key requirements for the 
future are aimed towards strengthening manage- 
ment. Under a proposed action plan for the World 
Parks Congress in 2003, ten key points were 
outlined to give orientation and assistance to all 
those institutions working on protected areas in 
the region for the next ten years. 

1: Construction of protected area systems 

□ Design and implement national systems of 
protected areas across a range of manage- 
ment categories, or enforce the existing 
ones; these should include sites that allow 
sustainable use of resources and those that 
restrict resource extraction. Management 
objectives and selection criteria should be 
clearly defined. Private areas should receive 
special attention to ensure their long-term 
future. 

a Analyze the possibility of including comm- 
unity conservation areas as a natural 
protected area category of each country. 

J Obtain financial, scientific, and technical 
support to assess the biogeographic, eco- 
system, and biome coverage in protected 
area systems. 



226 



South America 



2: Assessment of management effectiveness 

Q Design and implement systems to assess 
the management effectiveness of natural 
protected areas orientated to improve 
management of such areas. 

Q Share experiences, prepare guidelines and 
principles, and apply rapid and efficient 
methodologies to assess natural protected 
areas. 

3: Institutional strengthening 

□ Consolidate a political framework for 
protected area systems. 

Q Strengthen protected area institutions and the 
technical, operative, and administrative capa- 
bilities of employees. 

□ Develop and publish concepts, tools, and 
methods for designing and implementing 
protected areas management plans. 

a Establish strategic alliances between global, 
regional, and national training and research 
centers, and provide advice on protected areas 
management. 

Q Promote the establishment of regional centers 
for protected areas personnel. 

Q Address the needs of protected areas staff in 
relation to their health and safety, quality of 
life, salaries, accommodation, and opportuni- 
ties for professional development. 

a Encourage technical exchange between 
countries to support training and the exchange 
of ideas and techniques for protected area 
management. 

6: Encourage local participation in planning 
and management 

Q Enhance the decentralization of public entities 
in charge of protected areas administration 
and strengthen local organizations to 
encourage their involvement, 

Q Promote strategic alliances among protected 
areas management agencies, local com- 
munities, NGOs, government institutions, the 
private sector, and corporate bodies. 

Q Study the experiences of protected areas 
co-management in the region, and establish a 
database accessible to all stal<eholders. 

5: Ensure financial sustainability for 
protected areas 

□ Produce and assess financial sustainability 
experiences in the region's protected areas. 



Establish strategic, solid, and permanent 
alliances among protected areas, govern- 
mental institutions, and the private sector 
J Design and establish economic instruments to 
enhance conservation and consolidation of 
protected area systems. Design regional 
strategies for sustainably financing protected 
areas at the level of shared ecosystems or 
pilot areas shared by a group of countries, 
using international funding sources and 
bilateral cooperation agencies. 

6: Increase marine and coastal protected areas 

J Propose, design, and adopt an ecological 
classification system for South American 
coastal and marine environments. 

3 Develop and broadly disseminate concepts, 
guidelines, and tools for the establishment of 
marine and coastal protected areas at national 
and regional levels. 

J Establish representative national systems 
of marine protected areas and develop 
regional approaches that multiply benefits 
in terms of biodiversity conservation and 
resource productivity. 

J Create a regional specialist group on coastal 
and marine protected areas, to produce 
guidelines and orientation on the subject. 

J Revise existing legislation or develop a new 
law that includes recommendations for man- 
agement categories, establishment mecha- 
nisms, zoning and management plans, 
community participation, research regula- 
tions, financial arrangements, allowed and 
forbidden activities, sanctions and incentives, 
conservation awareness and education. 

7: Establish or strengthen national and regional 
information systems 

J Strengthen technical cooperation networl<s in 
financial, operative, institutional, and 
functional terms. 

J Promote and develop a regional information 
system on declared areas, that also provides a 
forum for sharing information on priority 
setting, professional contacts, new declared 
areas, events, etc. 

Q Design, develop, and implement national 
information systems that allow the rapid 
dissemination of information in useful 
formats. National and international institu- 
tions should coordinate this data sharing. 



225 



The world's protected areas 



Henri Pittier National 
Park, Venezuela. 




8: Strengthen legislation and 
effective implementation 

Q Assess existing legislation in relation to 
protected areas, seeking opportunities for 
improvements and additions, or to use 
existing measures more broadly, to address 
international agreements, and to address 
global change. 

Q Revise internal legislation to ensure 
effectiveness and efficiency, and to facilitate 
access and utilization of economic resources, 
and establish connections between protected 
areas and financial plans at local and national 
levels. 

9: Develop economic and ecological valuation 
methods for environmental goods and services 

Q Design and implement, as a planning and 
management tool, a regional system for the 
economic valuation of protected areas' goods 
and services. 



10: Support control and vigilance in protected areas 

J Organize, tram, and empow/er teams spec- 
ialized in control and vigilance issues on 
illegal settlement, hunting, logging, 
archeological theft, pollution, illegal 
fisheries, etc. Provide the means for 
education and environmental interpretation 
at local levels. 

□ Promote the involvement of local 
communities, governmental organizations, 
and different social sectors in natural res- 
ources protection, including training for 
preventative action, ensuring awareness of 
existing legislation. 

□ Provide adequate mechanisms to supervise 
and follow up permits, licenses, or authoriz- 
ations granted to users of protected areas. 

J Supply protected areas with the infrastructure 
and technological resources needed for the 
development of control and protection 
activities within their boundaries. 



226 



Europe 



Europe 

Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and 

Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, 

Denmark, Estonia, Faroe Islands (Denmark), 

Finland. France, Germany, 

Gibraltar (United Kingdom), Greece, Hungary, 

Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, 

Lithuania. Luxembourg, 

the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 

Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, 

Norway, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, 

Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Svalbard and Jan 

Mayen Islands (Norway), Sweden, Switzerland, 

United Kingdom, Vatican City State 



Contributor: R. Crofts 



227 



The world's protected areas 



30°W 



20°W 



10°W 



20°E 



30°E 



20°W 0' 20'E 



4' 



Svalbard & Jan Mayen 
Islands (NOR) 

70°N 

.300 600,15^0 k?!; 



200 400 




ALB Albania 


AND Andorra 


AUT Austria 


BEL Belgium 


BGR Bulgaria 


BIH Bosnia & Herzegovina 


CHE Switzerland 


CZE Czech Republic 


DEU Germany 


DNK Denmark 


ESP Spam 


EST Estonia 


FIN Finland 


FRA France 


GBR Umted Kmgdom of Great 


Bntam & Northern Ireland 


GRC Greece 


HRV Croatia 


HUN Hungary 


IRL Ireland 


ISL Iceland 


FTA Italy 


LIE Liechtenstein 


LTU Lithuania 


LUX Luxembourg 


LVA Latvia 


MCO Monaco 


MKD Former Yugoslav Republic 


ofMacedonia 


MLT Malta 


NLD Netherlands 


NOR Norway 


POL Poland 


PRT Portugal 


ROU Romania 


SCO Serbia & Montenegro '- 


SMR San Marmo 


SVK Slovakia 


SVN Slovenia 


SWE Sweden 


VAT VaUcan City State 


(Holy See) 



BLACK 
SEA 



Gibraltar (GBR) 

Source: UNEP-WCMC 



228 



Europe 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPAI 
European region comprises 35 countries stretching 
from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, and from the 
northeast Atlantic to the Black Sea. Although 
generally classified as temperate, the region 
extends from dry scrubland to Arctic tundra. Marine 
areas include the northern and central waters of the 
Mediterranean Sea. the Baltic Sea. and the complex 
of seas around the northeast Atlantic including the 
Irish Sea. North Sea. Norwegian Sea. and Barents 
Sea. Oceanic islands include Iceland, the Faroe 
Islands (Denmark), and Svalbard and Jan Mayen 
Islands iNorwayl in the North Atlantic, as well as 
the Azores and Madeira [Portugal], and the Canary 
Islands (Spain). The last lie in subtropical waters 
just off the coast of southern Morocco. 

Geologically the region divides into an ancient 
(pre-Cambrian) shield in the north; Fennoscandia. a 
wide, relatively simple plain of sedimentary strata 
dominating the central and eastern areas; and a 
topographically complex region in the western and 
southern areas. The last includes a number of 
mountain ranges, notably the Alps. Carpathians. 
Balkans, and Pyrenees, all formed by tectonic 
activities dating back to the Tertiary. 

The Europe region is biogeographically diverse 
as a result primarily of its geological history and 
rock strata, and the degree of oceanic or 
continental, and Arctic or Alpine, influences on its 
climate. Various classifications of the major 
biogeographic regions exist. These can be used as a 
basis for selecting protected areas and ensuring 
that there is adequate coverage in each of the 
regions. The standard regions for Europe are: 
boreal, humid mid-latitude, and Mediterranean. 
These are rather too broad for identifying protected 
areas, particularly as they ignore the Alpine and 
extreme oceanic components. The European Union 
(EU) has used a sixfold approach as the basis for the 
implementation of the Natura 2000 protected area 
network: boreal, continental. Atlantic. Alpine, 
Macaronesia, and Mediterranean. A detailed natural 
vegetation map has been compiled which can be 
used to define habitats. Individual countries have 
developed more detailed divisions to represent 
the subtleties of biogeography, e.g. Norway and 
Scotland. Overall, there is no systematic application 
of a biogeographical framework for the selection of 
protected areas, with the exception of the Natura 
network, as each country has developed its own 
approaches over a long period of time. 



Despite millennia of human interactions with 
the natural environment, there remain high levels of 
biodiversity, particularly around the Mediterranean 
basin. Some 12 500 vascular plants have been 
described, about 28 percent of which are endemic. 
Centers of diversity and endemism are particularly 
concentrated in the mountain ranges and around 
the Mediterranean coast - 25 centers of plant 
diversity have been recognized, and nine important 
ecoregions (WWF Global 200). Vertebrate endem- 
ism tends to be much lower, however, and only one 
endemic bird area has been recognized, around 
Madeira and the Canary Islands. 

With a long history of human settlement, 
including 10 000 years of agriculture, there has 
been continuous modification of natural habitats. 
Many of the original habitats of Europe have been 
lost or highly modified, and very little of the land 
surface remains in a purely natural state. Species 
have proved to be adaptable to changing habitats, 
even developing niches in entirely man-made 
habitats, and today many human-modified cultural 
landscapes have a critical role in the maintenance 
of Europe's biodiversity. 

Despite this history, profound changes have 
affected natural habitats, species, and cultural 
landscapes in recent decades. Most significant have 
been the growth of coastal resort complexes, 
particularly along the shores of the Mediterranean 
Sea; the rapid intensification of agriculture 
supported by financial incentives provided for food 
production; the development of transport infra- 
structures to speed public and private transit over 
long distances; the continuing high exploitation of 
marine fish stocks; and the effect of armed conflict 
in certain parts of the region. 



Keswick, Lake District 
National Park, United 
Kingdom. 




The world's protected areas 



The single most significant change in the 
distribution of population is the growth of major 
urban areas through infilling within the urban 
space, expansion on the periphery, and amalgam- 
ation of settlements. The space for green areas has 
been reduced with consequent diminution in 
landscape quality and species niches. 

Politically, the independence achieved by 
many countries in eastern Europe and the desire of 
many of them to join the European Union Inow 
including 25 out of 35 countries in the region] will 
have long-term significance for protected areas. 
Under the EU Directives on the Protection of Wild 
Birds 11979] and on the Conservation of Natural 
Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora 11992], a 
coherent European ecological network is being est- 
ablished, known as Natura 2000. Its implementation 
requires countries to update and strengthen their 
nature conservation laws and implement monit- 
oring of scheduled species and habitats. 

There remains concern among the conser- 
vation community, led particularly by the large 
international charities such as Birdlife International 
and WWF, that the distribution of protected areas 
inadequately represents key habitats and species, 
and that the gaps in the system should be filled. 
These organizations have been instrumental in 
pressing for the implementation of already agreed 
systems, such as the Natura network. In addition to 
these concerns, there are still many protected areas 
that, in effect, exist only on paper, and measures to 
make them effective for biological and landscape 
diversity conservation are not being taken. 

Perhaps of even greater significance is the 
continuation of land uses which degrade the natural 
environment and undermine its natural functioning. 
Foremost amongst these pressures is the contin- 
uation of intensive agriculture with very substantial 
public funding under the EU Common Agricultural 
Policy. It is too early to tell whether the reform 
package agreed in mid-2003 will have the beneficial 
effects on species, habitats, and landscapes which 
have been claimed. In addition, commercial press- 
ures are resulting in a reduction in the remaining 
remnants of natural forests. 

Political will to ensure that areas are protected 
from development has strengthened in a number of 
countries with the tightening of existing law or the 
implementation of new law. The implementation of 
the European Union birds and habitats directives 
resulting in the Natura 2000 network, with strong 
challenges on the inadequacy of some countries' 



proposals, has been an important driver in a largely 
positive direction. However, other EU policies and 
financial support, especially for agriculture, for 
roads and other infrastructure, for economic devel- 
opment, and for fisheries, have resulted in a 
reduction in biological and landscape diversity and 
the fragmentation of habitats. There are clear 
dangers of this pattern occurring in the countries 
newly joined or about to join the EU. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

During most of the last millennium, national rulers 
established protected areas to safeguard their 
hunting grounds; particularly significant were the 
deer and other hunting forests in, for example, 
Germany, Poland, and England (the New Forest was 
first established as a royal hunting reserve in 1079 
and has been protected ever since]. 

Modern protected areas took a long time to 
become established compared with other 
continents - in some parts these delays may have 
been linked to the near-complete ownership and 
use of the landscape going back for many centuries. 
Some of the first sites were small nature reserves, 
mostly established under private ownership. The 
first national parks were established early in the 
20th century (seven were established in Sweden in 
1909, one in Switzerland in 19U, and one in Italy in 
19221, while Poland had established 39 small nature 
reserves by 1918. Many other countries did not 
begin to establish protected area networks until the 
19i0s or later 

THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

There are many different types of protected area 
networks in Europe arising from international, 
regional, national, and local initiatives developed for 
a variety of reasons to safeguard species, habitats, 
and landscapes. For example, many countries have 
national parks comprising large areas representing 
the most significant habitats and landscapes of the 
country; nature reserves representing small areas 
devoted primarily to nature protection; natural 
monuments to protect special features, often pres- 
enting key stages in the Earths history and the 
representative landforms; and regional or nature 
parks, and landscape parks or protected landscape 
areas, combining landscape conservation, recre- 
ation, and other economic activity. 

With more than 53 000 protected areas, 
Europe has one of the most complex systems of 
protected areas in the world. At the same time the 



230 



Europe 




S, Chape 



Hikers in Kolovesi National Parl(, Finland. 



231 



The world's protected areas 



1000 



800 



600 



o 400 — 



200 — 



I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date (l<m') 
I Cumulative area of sites with unl<nown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA (l<m') 



± 



" 1894'95 1900'05'10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 iO '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000'05 

Europe: Growth ot protected areas networl<, 1894-2005 



total area covered by these sites, 874 473 km^, only 
represents about 1 7 percent of the land area, close 
to the global average, and the average size of sites 
in Europe is much smaller than in any other region. 
Almost 52 percent of the sites do not have 
lUCN management categories. For many this may 
indicate a lack of information; these also include a 
large number of sites, such as the sites of special 
scientific interest in the UK, for which legal 
protection is quite limited, and hence they do not 
easily fit into the lUCN scheme. The stricter 



categories of protection (l-lil| make up about 11 
percent of the total area. Category V, although 
making up only 6 percent of sites, covers 40 percent 
of the total protected area - these large protected 
landscapes reflect the importance of cultural 
landscapes and semi-natural habitats across this 
region. By contrast with the global position. 
Category II sites constitute only 12 percent of the 
total area, reflecting the relative weakness of 
protection of many national parks and landscape 
protection areas. 



Europe: Growth In the number of protected areas, 1894-2005 

40 000 1— 

H Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

35 QQQ B Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 

dates based on date entered Into WDPA 

30 000 — 
25 000 — 

.r 20 000 — 

1/1 

15000 — 

10 000 — 

5 000 — 



i_L 




" 1894 '95 190005 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 200a'05 



232 



Europe 



Some 829 sites are classed as coastal and 
marine, and these are distributed through all of 
the regional seas - Mediterranean, Baltic, North, 
Irish - and around the coasts of most countries. 
There remain significant gaps in the systems for 
the coastal and marine environment, however, 
and a large number of these sites are only coastal 
and do not include significant marine areas. The 
total marine surface area protected is some 
66 000 km2. 

Most protected areas in Europe are on land 
ovi/ned by national or regional governments and 
state organizations. There is now/ a greater diversity 
of ownership types as a result of the expansion of 
the protected areas to implement the Natura 2000 
network, for example on private land In Finland; the 
growth of charitable environmental organizations In 
countries such as the UK that own and manage 
land; and the privatization of land following the 
changes of government in central and eastern 
Europe. A good deal of cooperation exists between 
the protected areas authorities and the owners and 
managers of sites. 

With the development of devolved decision 
making, particularly in Austria, Germany, Italy, and 
Spain, and more recently In the UK, protected 
area jurisdiction has passed to the provincial level 
of government. However, national responsibility 
remains due to international obligations. 

The Natura 2000 network has been largely 
established across 15 countries and preparations 
are well advanced for Implementation in a further 
ten. Some 236 000 km2 have been classified as 
sites under the birds directive; this represents 
between 5 and IL, percent of the national territory 
in the 15 countries. Under the habitats directive 
some 458 000 km^ have been classified, repres- 
enting 1-lli percent of the territory In the 
15 countries. 

A number of lessons can be learned from the 
Implementation process. EU Member States have 
had to Implement the new measures but have done 
so at a variable pace. Consultation with stake- 
holders was not a formal part of the process and, as 
many sites In some countries were on private land, 
there was a great deal of resentment and also many 
legal challenges. From a slow initial pace, the 
implementing authorities were forced to quicken 
the process under threat of legal challenge either 
from non-governmental organizations or from the 
European Commission. A number of cases were 
subject to proceedings at the European Court and 



Europe: Protected areas network by lUCN category, 
2005 



lUCN category 



Total 
sites 

1 577 



Total 

area Ikm^l 

85 835 



lb 


542 


39 9A5 


II 


275 


108 569 


III 


3 570 


4 455 


IV 


16 331 


70 586 


V 


3 035 


348 593 


VI 


203 


22 010 


No cateqon/ 


27 527 


194 479 


Total 


53 060 


874 473 



Europe: Protected areas network by lUCN category 
(percentage of total area), 2005 



No Category 122%) 



VI 13%) - 




la 110%) 

lb 15%) 



11112%) 

- Ill 13%) 
IV (8%) 



V 140%) 



Europe: Number of protected areas by lUCN 
category, 2005 

30 000 



25 000 



20 000 - 



15 000 - 



10 000 



5 000 




la lb 



III IV V VI category 



233 



The world's protected areas 



Areas of Europe protected (by country), 2005 



Country/territories 

Albania 



Land area Ikm^) 

28 750 



Total protected area Ikm^) 

1 029 



Total number ot sites 
52 



Andorra 


/.50 


33 


2 


Austria 


83 860 


23 475 


1087 


Belgium 


30 510 


1052 


618 


Bosnia and Herzegovina 


51 130 


271 


31 


Bulgaria 


110910 


11 184 


754 


Croatia 


56 5i0 


5 721 


200 


Czech Republic 


78 870 


12451 


1 768 


Denmark 


43 090 


7 156 


357 


Estonia 


45 100 


21473 


11 242 


Finland 


338 150 


30 698 


3 466 


France 


551 500 


75 277 


1 334 


Germany 


357 030 


114914 


7 261 


Gibraltar 


10 


<1 


1 


Greece 


131 960 


6 884 


147 


Hungary 


93 030 


8 300 


236 


Iceland 


103 000 


9 807 


79 


Ireland 


70 270 


810 


91 


Italy 


301 340 


59 886 


780 


Latvia 


64 600 


10 583 


542 


Liechtenstein 


160 


64 


10 


Lithuania 


65 200 


7 170 


297 


Luxembourg 


2 590 


441 


63 


Macedonia FYR 


25 710 


1 833 


83 


Malta 


320 


59 


93 


Monaco 


2 


1 


3 


Montenegro. Rep- 


n/a 


1 034 


38 


Netherlands 


41 530 


7 844 


1 596 


Norw/ay 


323 880 


20 703 


1 795 


Poland 


323 250 


90 712 


1822 


Portugal 


91 980 


7 639 


69 


Romania 


238 390 


12 277 


181 


San Marino 


60 








Serbia, Rep 


n/a 


2 837 


140 


Slovakia 


49 010 


12 347 


1 176 


Slovenia 


20 250 


1 496 


48 


Spain 


505 990 


54 400 


621 


Svalbard and Jan Mayen 


Islands 62 010 


116 076 


29 


Sweden 


449 960 


49 137 


5 032 


Switzerland 


41 290 


11852 


2 190 


United Kingdom 


242 910 


75 546 


7 7263 



these helped to clarify the terms of the directives in 
favor of species and habitat protection and against 
commercial pressures. The definition of habitats 
varies from the very detailed to the broad brush, and 
some major inshore habitats are missing. The sites 
have been identified without complementary 
measures to adjust policies and land uses which 



impact unfavorably on them, such as financial 
support tor agriculture. The financial resources and 
associated instruments for implementing the 
network have only just been investigated, many 
years after the start ot the process of designation, 
and there is no guarantee that the substantial costs 
can be met. 



236 



Europe 



Europe: Biosphere reserves, 2005 



Europe: World Heritage sites, 2005 



Country 



Austria 



No. of 
sites 



Protected 
area Ikm^) 

528 



Country 



No. of 


Protected 


sites 


area Ikm^) 


2 


/.lO 



Bulgaria 


16 


378 


Croatia 


1 


2 000 


Czech Republic' 


6 


4 505 


Estonia 


1 


15 600 


Finland 


z 


7 700 


France^ 


7 


7619 


Germany- 


U 


17716 


Greece 


2 


89 


Hunqar/ 


J 


1 289 


Ireland 


2 


111 


Italy 


8 


5 659 


Latvia 


1 


i7l& 


Montenegro, Rep 


2 


2 367 


Netherlands 


1 


2 600 


Poland'.^,* 


9 


3 980 


Portugal 


1 


6 


Romania 


3 


6 620 


Serbia, Rep, 


z 


2 367 


Slovakia^'^ 


A 


2413 


Slovenia 


2 


1 957 


Spam 


33 


22 717 


Sweden 




1 965 


Switzertand 


1. 


2 121 


United Kingdom 


9 


435 


TOTALS 


138 


117 486 



1 Krkonose/Karkonosze Biosphere Reserve is transboundary 
between Czech Republic and Poland- 

2 Vosges du Nord/Pfalzerwald Biosphere Reserve is 
transboundary between France and Germany. 

3 East Carpathian Biosphere Reserve is transboundary 
between Poland, Slovakia, and the Ukraine. 

A Tatra Biosphere Reserve is transboundary between Poland 

and Slovakia. 
5 Because of the transboundary sites, the total figure for 

number of sites is lower than the sum of the country totals. 
Overseas territories, departments, and dependencies [notably of 
France, the Netherlands, and the UK| are only included in this 
table if they lie within the geographic boundaries of Europe: 
otherwise they are included in the relevant WCPA region. 



International sites 

More than any other region, Europe has embraced 
the concept of working internationally and 
collaboratively in the designation of protected 
areas. It has a greater number of World Heritage 
and Ramsar sites and biosphere reserves than any 
other region, although, mirroring the national 
protected areas, these are generally not very large 
and so the total area they occupy is much lower than 
for many other regions. A number of these sites 



Croatia 


295 


France' 


231 


Germany 


1 


Greece 


? 7 


Hungary' 


<1 


Italy 


<1 


Macedonia FYR 


380 


Montenegro, Rep 


320 


Norway 


1 227 


Poland^ 


55 


Portugal 


150 


Romania 


6 792 


Serbia 


320 


Slovakia-' 


<1 


Slovenia 


4 



Spam' 


4 


869 


Sweden 


2 


12 769 


Switzerland 


2 


561 


United Kingdom 


3 


189 


TOTAL' 


29 


24 580 



1 Pyrenees-Mont Perdu World Heritage Site is transboundary 
between France and Spain. 

2 Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst World Heritage 
Site IS transboundary between Hungary and Slovakia and 
comprises a small area of the cave system, 

3 Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest World Heritage 
Site 15 transboundary with Belarus, 

4 Because of the transboundary sites, the total figure for 
number of sites is lower than the sum of the country totals. 

Overseas territories, departments, and dependencies Inotably of 
France, the Netherlands, and the UKI are only included in this 
table if they lie within the geographic boundaries of Europe; 
otherwise they are included in the relevant WCPA region. 



have been developed on the borders with 
neighboring countries, and many are managed as 
transboundary sites. 

In addition to the major international conven- 
tions, most countries have additional requirements 
for establishing protected areas under various 
European obligations. These include Natura 2000, 
the Convention on the Conservation of European 
Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), 
and the establishment of the Emerald network 
(within EU countries this network is, in effect, 
established under the Natura 2000 network]. The 
importance of cultural landscapes in Europe is 
recognized through the European Landscape 
Convention, signed in 2000 but not yet ratified to 
bring it into operation. 



235 



The world's protected areas 



Europe: Ramsar sites, 2005 



Country/territories 



Albania 



No. of 


Protected 


sites 


area Ikm^l 


2 


335 



Austria 


19 


1 382 


Belgium 


9 


429 


Bosnia and Herzegovina 


1 


74 


Bulgaria 


10 


203 


Croatia 


li 


805 


Czecli Republic 


11 


434 


Denmark 


27 


7 365 


Estonia 


11 


2 183 


Finland 


^9 


8 022 


France 


20 


6 203 


Germany 


32 


8 400 


Greece 


10 


1 635 


Hungary 


23 


1 772 


Iceland 


3 


590 


Ireland 


45 


670 


Italy 


lib 


571 


Latvia 


6 


1 492 


Liechtenstein 1 1 


Lithuania 


5 


505 


Luxembourg 


2 


172 


Macedonia FYR 


1 


189 


Malta 


2 


<1 


Monaco 


1 


<1 


Montenegro, Rep, 


5 


408 


Netherlands 


43 


8 169 


Norway 


32 


1 159 


Poland 


13 


1 258 


Portugal 


17 


738 


Romania 


2 


6 646 


Serbia, Rep 


5 


408 


Slovakia 


13 


389 


Slovenia 


2 


10 


Spam 


49 


1 731 


Svalbard and 
Jan Mayen Islands 


5 


6 


Sw/eden 


51 


5 145 


Switzerland 


11 


87 


United Kingdom 


150 


7 790 


TOTAL 


738 


77 374 



Overseas territories, departments, and dependencies [notably of 
France, the Netherlands, and the UKI are only included in this 
table if they lie within the geographic boundaries of Europe: 
otherwise they are included in the relevant WCRA region. 

Other international agreements operate in 
parts of the region. The cohesion mechanisms in 
the Mediterranean under the Barcelona Convention 
have resulted in the development of Special 



Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance. 
Marine and coastal areas of the Baltic are covered 
under the Helsinki Convention, The Alpine Network 
of Protected Areas has been established under the 
Alpine Convention. The Carpathian Convention, 
signed in 2003, will result in the establishment of a 
Carpathian National Park Convention. 

All of these initiatives have reinforced the role 
of national governments and authorities in 
protected area identification and management, and 
can bring about tensions between the different 
levels of legal jurisdiction in each country, 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

The protection of the marine environment will be a 
major priority for the future. New approaches are 
required rather than transferring the terrestrial 
approach. Marine systems are more dynamic and 
unpredictable in space and time, and reflect major 
global climatic and ocean circulation changes. The 
ownership of the water column, the sea bed, and 
marine natural resources add further challenges. 
Third party access is a critical issue, especially 
with respect to navigation and fishing rights. 
Scientific information on the key marine features 
and their management needs is required. With 
this, development of mechanisms tor safeguarding 
biomass and recruitment, including no-take zones 
and zoning for different levels of sustainable 
exploitation, should form the basis for the new 
approaches. Completion of the designation of 
protected areas within territorial limits alongside 
the implementation of protection within the 
exclusive economic zones and on the high seas 
will be necessary. Effective engagement with key 
interests, especially the various fishing and 
aquaculture interests, will be essential. 

For terrestrial protected areas the emphasis 
must change from the identification and designation 
of sites to improving their management to achieve 
conservation and wider environmental goals. It will 
be essential to ensure that natural processes and 
functions are maintained, and restored where they 
have become degraded (notably those Natura 2000 
sites designated for their restoration potential], 
species reinstated, and some translocated to 
take into account climate changes. This will 
require changes in those land uses and financial 
incentives which impact natural resources and 
processes in and adjacent to protected areas. Such 
changes are essential in the operation of agri- 
culture policies to stimulate environmental 



236 



Europe 




Adamello Brenta 
Natural Park, Italy. 



management. Management improvement will need 
to embrace all components of protected areas: fund 
raising, economic activity, business planning and 
management, stakefiolder engagement. It will 
be necessary to ensure that the skills needed 
are available among protected area staff and 
cooperative training programs established 
throughout the region. 

Terrestrial protected areas are too often seen 
in isolation from each other in space. Therefore the 
further implementation of connectivity measures, 
such as the Pan-European Ecological Network, and 
where appropriate the physical development of 
corridors connecting protected areas, will be 
necessary. Also, protected areas should be seen 
increasingly as part of whole environmental 
systems; it will be prudent to develop and imple- 
ment strategies and plans for biogeographical 
regions rather than the slavish adherence to 
administrative boundaries which often have no 
relevance in nature. National and regional efforts 
will also be required to identify any gaps in the 
systems of protected areas. A biogeographical 
framework should be adopted for this work. None of 
these improvements can be achieved without a 
substantial increase in financial resources from all 
sources: public, private, and charitable. 



There are many different structures for the 
governance of protected areas in Europe. Future 
challenges will be to ensure a greater degree of 
meaningful involvement by local and other 
stakeholders. This will require a change from the 
present governance structures in many protected 
areas to those which are representative and 
inclusive of all relevant interests. Increasing the 
engagement of other stakeholders, especially local 
communities, and improving their capacity to 
contribute to management, will be vital. 

Action is likely to be taken at different scales. 
Within the expanding European Union, the Natura 
2000 network will be implemented, and monitoring 
regimes established, with the focus of attention on 
management effectiveness in relation to the species 
and habitats of significance. Informal approaches 
through corridors and networks are likely to 
continue, for instance for the major river systems 
such as the Danube, and in the regional seas such 
as the Mediterranean, which cross many national 
boundaries. Attention should also be paid to the 
further possibilities of "peace parks" as part of the 
environmental and societal reconstruction in the 
Balkans, and cooperation on transboundary 
protected areas where the management is out of 
step between the adjacent authorities. 



237 



The world's protected areas 



West and Central Africa 

Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 

Cameroon, Cape Verde, 

Central African Republic. Chad, Congo, 

Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 

Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia. Ghana, 

Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, 

Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and PrIncipe, 

Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo 

Contributors: M. Bakarr, R. Kormos. and E. Lisinge 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

In total, this WCPA (World Commission on Protected 
Areas] region includes 31 countries, including the 
francophone African countries of Djibouti on the 
east coast, and the Indian Ocean island nations of 
Madagascar, Comoros, and Mauritius, based on an 
administrative decision by lUCN. In this study, these 
countries have been included in the Eastern and 
Southern Africa region analysis for reasons of 
geographic logic. 

West Africa stretches from the Cape Verde 
islands and Mauritania in the west to Niger and 
Nigeria in the east; vi^hile Central Africa extends 
from Cameroon and Chad in the north to Rwanda 
and Burundi in the east, and Angola in the south, 
including the island nation of Sao Tome and 
Principe. West and Central Africa are endowed with 
a rich biological heritage, with representation of 
most of the world's major tropical biomes, including 



deserts, mountains, forests, lal<es, rivers, and 
coastal marine ecosystems. 

The ecology of West and Central Africa's 
biomes is primarily determined by rainfall 
gradients. In West Africa, the climate is wettest in 
the southwest and becomes progressively drier to 
the north and east, transitioning from lowland 
rainforest in the southwest into savanna woodlands 
further north. In Central Africa, the climate 
becomes drier to the north. The rainforests in Africa 
are drier than those on other continents, receiving 
on average between 1 600 and 2 000 millimeters of 
rain per year. Most areas experience two peal< 
rainfalls and a dry season of three months. 

The Congo Basin contains the second largest 
continuous tropical rainforest in the world, where 
dense forest covers more than 1 .9 million km^. The 
southern fringes of the Sahara Desert and savanna 
woodlands of the Sudano-Sahelian region also 



238 



West and Central Africa 




M Harvey/StfU Pictures 



Orphaned western lowland gorilla [Gorilla gorilla gorilla). 



239 



The world's protected areas 




SENEi 



GUINEA-" *^Xr 
BISSAU . f«,' ., 

SIERRA 
LEONE 

LIBERIA ' 



COTE D'lVOIRE 



•°"\' ^ENIN t**'' 
TOGO ,';: 



1 



NIGERIA 
; EQUATORL\L GUINEA,^ 
SAO TOME & PRINCIPE & GABON SCONGO, 



' CENTRAfflkFRICAN 

republic 
;rook. 



ATLANTIC OCEAN 



DEl!«IOCRATIC REPUBLJ" 
OP THE CONGO 



BURUNDI 



25»30W 24°W 22°30'W 

IS'SQiN - 

CAPE VERDE 



50 100 150 hm 



10W 




Source: UNEP-WCMC 



240 



West and Central Africa 



support large populations of wildlife, including a 
diverse array of megafierbivores such as elepfiants, 
antelopes, and filppopotamus. The region is drained 
by dozens of major rivers, including the Gambia, 
Niger, and Congo. Further north the region grades 
into the dry deserts of the southern and central 
Sahara, Including the TIbesti Mountains rising to 
over 3 iOO meters in northern Chad, with a slightly 
more reliable water supply and an important array 
of desert species, including several rare antelopes. 

The Gulnea-Congollan lowland rainforests are 
one of Earth's biologically richest ecosystems. They 
form a belt along the Gulf of Guinea coast and Into 
the vast Congo Basin wilderness, within which 
several distinct vegetation units have been defined 
(White 1983, Sayer, Harcourt & Collins 19921. The 
lowland rainforests occur in two major blocks: the 
Upper Guinea forest to the west; and the Nigeria- 
Cameroon coastal forests from western Nigeria 
through southwestern Cameroon. These are 
separated by the 'Dahomey Gap,' an area of savanna 
and degraded dry forest In Togo and Benin. 

The Central Africa or Congolian' forests are 
relatively more extensive and constitute several 
distinct units: the Cameroonlan highlands (along 
the Nigeria-Cameroon border, and Including the 
offshore Island of Bioko], the Albertine Rift high- 
lands (eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo 
IDRCI, Rwanda, Burundi, and western Uganda), 
forests of the Angolan Escarpment (northwestern 
Angola!, and lowland Congolian forests. The 
lowland forests are further subdivided Into the 
western equatorial forest, the eastern lowland 
forest, and the so-called 'Cuvette Centrale' (low- 
lying area within the curve of the Congo Riverl. 

The freshwater systems are extremely rich. At 
the heart of Africa, the Gulnea-Congolian forested 
rivers are some of the richest waters on the 
continent, with species adapted to life in rapids, 
swamp forests, large and small rivers, and lateral 
lakes. More than 700 fish are recorded from the 
Congo Basin alone, about 500 of which are endemic. 
Other important systems Include the floodplalns 
of the Inner Niger Delta (Mall), the crater lakes of 
the Cameroonian highlands, the forested rivers of 
Upper Guinea, and the swamp forests of the Niger 
Delta. In the drier areas beyond the forests, water is 
a more precious resource, but there remain some 
Important wetland areas, notably the large riverine, 
lacustrine, and flooded grassland ecosystems 
around the Inner Niger Delta and Lake Chad. 

This region is also endowed with rich coastal 



and marine communities. There are extensive 
mangrove habitats in most countries. Offshore 
waters are highly productive, centered around the 
Canary Current, Guinea Current, and Benguela 
Current large marine ecosystems. Despite their 
tropical location, both the Canary and Benguela 
Current systems are dominated by temperate 
waters, and by powerful upwellmgs creating 
nutrient-rich waters with valuable, although already 
overexplolted, fisheries. The Guinea Current eco- 
system Is tropical, with considerable terrestrial 
Inputs of both freshwater and nutrients, but also 
seasonal upwelllngs of cooler, nutrient-rich waters. 
No large coral reefs are found here, but there are 
important and unique coral communities around 
some rocky shores and the offshore islands. Sites 
such as Bijagos Archipelago Biosphere Reserve and 
Banc D'ArguIn World Heritage Site provide a critical 
staging post and overwintering site for migrating 
birds and are home to many wetland species. 

In attempting to quantify and map the diversity 
of the region, almost all surveys have drawn 
particular attention to the areas of rainforest. Some 
41 centers of plant diversity and 21 priority 
ecoregions (from the WWF Global 200) have been 
mapped. There is important regional endemism, 
but smaller scale pockets of local endemism are 
not so common, and only ten endemic bird areas 
have been identified, including the oceanic offshore 
islands of Cape Verde, Sao Tome and Principe, and 
Annobon (Equatorial Guinea). 



Topi iDamatiscus 
lunatus], Akagera 
National Park, Rwanda. 




H Jhomashoff/StiU Pictures 



241 



The world's protected areas 



1000 



800 



iOO 



/lOO 



200 



I Cumulative area of sites with Icnown establishment date Ikm'l 

I Cumulative area of sites with unl<nown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm^) 




" 1908 10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 55 '60 65 70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 



West and Central Africa: Growth of protected areas network, 1908-2005 



The biological richness in West and Central 
Africa is rivaled by the region's cultural heritage. 
More than 352 nnillion people are found in the two 
regions combined la little over half of the sub- 
Saharan population). Use of traditional resources is 
widespread in many ethnic groups, from the Tuaregs 
of the Sahel to Pygmies in the Congo Basin, including 
hunting for bushmeat, fishing, collection of medicinal 
plants, and harvesting of products for food and 
shelter. In addition, habitat clearance for growing 
crops is also widely practiced, particularly in the West 
African forest region where slash-and-burn farming 



IS the dominant form of land use. Though the 
exploitation of resources by people has been 
sustainable in the past, current patterns suggest that 
the rich natural heritage is facing increasing 
degradation. The lowland rainforests constitute one 
of the world's most threatened ecoregions (Myers 
ef a/., 20001. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

Conservation efforts in West and Central Africa date 
back to the colonial era. Early protection was 
established to regulate the use of, or prevent 



West and Central Africa: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1908-2005 



2 000 1— 



1500 — 



1 000 



500 



I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA 



ll 






1908 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 85 '90 '95 2000 05 



242 



West and Central Africa 



depletion of. natural resources. Elephant reserves 
were established in what is now the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo in the late 1 9th century, while 
a series of game reserves was established in Ghana 
in 1909. Timber protection was also an early priority 
and the first forest reserve systems were 
established in Nigeria at the turn of the 19th century 
and in Sierra Leone in 1910. Gambia established a 
water catchment area in 1916, in what was to 
become the Abuko Nature Reserve. These trends 
continued through the 1920s and 1930s, but this 
period also saw the declaration of some of the first 
national parks. 

Today's Virunga National Park in ORG and 
Rwanda's Volcans National Park were founded as 
one in 1925 as Albert National Park, Africa's first, 
followed by Odzala National Park in Congo in 1935. 
Burkina Faso established five pares de refuge 
in 1926, one of which now forms part of the 'W 
National Park, while Niger's portion of the same 
transboundary park dates back to 1937. Many of 
these sites were located in remote areas and often 
accessible only to isolated human settlements. 

These protected areas, established under 
colonial rule, were often bounded by arbitrary and 
artificial boundaries, with only limited under- 
standing of local political and cultural sensitivities. 
In most countries, the colonial governments cre- 
ated centralized Forest Departments, usually com- 
bining wildlife management and protected areas 
under Water and Forestry as part of the Ministry of 
Agriculture. Wildlife was generally claimed as 
Crown property and local hunting was often banned. 
In many places little has changed since colonial 
times; the management of protected areas remains 
centralized in most countries and there is very 
uneven division of resources, with little local owner- 
ship or involvement in protected areas. 

As in other parts of Africa, protected area 
creation increased during the post-colonial period 
in West and Central Africa, and indeed many 
countries continue to add new areas as oppor- 
tunities emerge. However, protected areas are 
facing increasing management challenges assoc- 
iated with the expansion of human populations and 
agricultural systems, often right up to protected 
area boundaries. Subsistence activities, such as the 
hunting of bushmeat, have become increasingly 
commercialized, resulting in uncontrolled over- 
exploitation of biological resources. This in turn has 
fueled poverty and threatens the subsistence 
livelihoods of millions of people. More recently, civil 



unrest has greatly impacted the protected area 
systems of this region. Protected areas in Liberia, 
Sierra Leone, and the DRC, for example, have faced 
increased pressure as displaced people try to eke 
out a living under the most difficult circumstances. 
It is against this backdrop - of a rich natural 
heritage facing overexploitation, ecosystem degra- 
dation, and civil crisis - that conservation in West 
and Central Africa must now take place. Innovation 
IS needed in the institutions, the policies, and the 
management strategies to integrate conservation 
with mainstream initiatives in other sectors. The 
growing challenge of addressing human livelihood 
needs (often couched as 'poverty alleviation' by the 
development community! implies that protected 
area management must accommodate the prior- 
ities and interests of local people living across the 
broader landscape. Governments, development 
agencies, and local communities need to under- 
stand the significance of protected areas not just for 
preserving the unique natural heritage, but also for 
maintaining ecosystem processes that are vital to 
local, national, and regional economies. 

THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

The World Database on Protected Areas IWDPAI 
holds information on some 2 601 protected areas in 
West and Central Africa, which cover a total of 1.1 
million km2. This represents almost 9 percent of the 
total land area - a lower proportion than most other 
regions, which is exacerbated by the large number 
of sites in which effective, strict protection is absent. 

The majority of sites (89 percent) have no 
assigned lUCN management category, and repre- 
sent 29 percent of the total area protected. These 
sites are dominated by around 2 000 forest reserves 
where levels of protection are probably very low. 
lUCN Management Categories II and IV are well 
represented. All countries have designated some 
proportion of their territory as protected areas with 
the exception of Sao Tome and Principe. However, 
only a few have very extensive protected area 
systems, with Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African 
Republic, Congo, Cote d'lvoire. Equatorial Guinea, 
and Ghana all exceeding 15 percent of their total 
territory protected. 

There are only i3 marine and coastal 
protected areas, covering a marine area estimated 
at only 9 600 km^ - these are among the lowest 
figures of any region. The few sites which cover 
open ocean areas are almost entirely restricted 
to countries affected by the Sahelian upwelling. 



2/^3 



The world's protected areas 



Areas of West and Central Africa protected (by country), 2005 



Country 

Angola 



Land area (km^l 

1 246 700 



Total protected area (knn^) 

1 54 580 



Total number of sites 

16 



Benin 


112 620 


26 428 


59 


Burkina Faso 


274 000 


42 082 


83 


Burundi 


27 830 


1 548 


15 


Cameroon 


475 440 


43 816 


37 


Cape Verde 


4 030 


14 


51 


Central African Republic 


622 980 


97 769 


69 


Chad 


1 284 000 


119 773 


32 


Conqo 


342 000 


48 740 


22 


Cote d'lvoire 


322 460 


54 854 


325 


DR Congo 


2 344 860 


191 406 


83 


Eguatonal Guinea 


28 050 


5 860 


13 


Gabon 


267 670 


41 464 


22 


Gambia 


11 300 


565 


72 


Ghana 


238 540 


36 872 


321 


Guinea 


245 860 


17 075 


153 


Guinea-Bissau 


36 120 


4 040 


10 


Liberia 


1 1 1 370 


15 785 


16 


Mall 


1 240 190 


26 333 


13 


Mauritania 


1 025 520 


17 730 


9 


Niger 


1 267 000 


84 141 


6 


Nigeria 


923 770 


55 891 


1 007 


Rwanda 


26 340 


2 008 


5 


Senegal 


196 720 


22 422 


14 


Sierra Leone 


71 740 


3 244 


55 


Togo 


56 790 


6 501 


93 



where fisheries conservation priorities have 
helped raise awareness for increased protection. 
Pare National du Banc dArguin 11 200 I<m2| in 
Mauritania and the Bolama Bijagos Archipelago 
Biosphere Reserve |1 046 km^) in Guinea-Bissau 
are among the most important marine protected 
areas in the region. 

As noted in other regions, there have been 
some recent developments in several countries 
where the protected area systems are being 
expanded to enhance coverage and representation 
of existing biodiversity. In West Africa, the 
government of Ghana has launched a major 
initiative to designate 12 of its forest reserves as 
globally significant biodiversity areas (GSBAsI that 
will be managed exclusively for protection of 
biodiversity In Central Africa, the government of 
Cameroon recently added two new protected 
areas to its existing system - Campo-Ma'an 
12 700 km2| and Mbam et Djerem (4 165 km^l 
national parks. In the Congo, the Odzala National 
Park was significantly expanded fivefold to 



13 600 km^ in 2000, making it one of the largest 
tropical forest parks in Africa. In Gabon, the govern- 
ment announced in 2002 the creation of 13 new 
protected areas totaling 40 000 km^. enlarging the 
system to cover 1 percent of the country. 

Other forms of protection 

Throughout West and Central Africa, many coun- 
tries have historically maintained a system of 
habitat reserves that are designated primarily to 
regulate exploitation of resources. For example, 
most forest countries in the regions have forest 
reserves or foref classees (classified forests) that 
are often protected from exploitation and encroach- 
ment until assigned to a concessionaire. There are 
some 2 000 such reserves in West and Central 
Africa, and, although these areas seldom have any 
form of management in place, their existence has 
been crucial for maintaining forests that would 
otherwise be converted to other uses. In addition to 
the national system, the people of West and Central 
Africa are also known for protecting natural habi- 



246 



West and Central Africa 



tats as 'sacred groves' that are either revered for 
spiritual reasons or used for ceremonial purposes. 
The crucial importance of these non-conventional 
protection strategies is gaining momentum 
throughout the region as countries face increasing 
challenges with management of conventional 
protected areas. 

In the last five years, at least two regional- 
scale conservation priority-setting processes for 
West Africa's Upper Guinea region and the Central 
African forests, respectively, have helped promote 
the value of forest reserves for biodiversity protec- 
tion (Bakarr ef al., 2001, Kamdem-Toham ef a/., 
2003). Also, a meeting on the Niger River Basin 
inspired the need for freshwater protection across 
much of the Sahelian region of West Africa llssa 
Sylla, 20021. Because these processes are largely 
driven by expert opinion and analysis of biodiversity 
distribution data, they are facilitating the creation of 
new protected areas that maximize the coverage 
and representation of both species and habitats. 

International sites 

Most of the countries in West and Central Africa 
are party to several major International treaties, 
including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the 
World Heritage Convention, and the Wetlands 
IRamsarl Convention. In an effort to meet the 
commitments associated with these conventions, 
many countries have made progress in expanding 
and strengthening their protected area networks. 
There are 16 natural and mixed World Heritage 
sites covering more than 211 000 km^ (some 70 
percent of the total land area for World Heritage 
sites in sub-Saharan Africa). In addition, there are a 
total of 73 Ramsar sites and 31 biosphere reserves. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

The challenges for protected areas in West and 
Central Africa are similar to other regions, yet the 
opportunities for meeting them remain limited as a 
result of major civil conflicts across the region. 
Nevertheless, important progress has been made 
through the regional initiatives that have been 
underway during the last decade. These Include 
large-scale conservation planning processes such 
as the Upper Guinea, Niger River Basin, and Congo 
Basin priority-setting workshops; regional initia- 
tives such as the Central Africa Regional Program 
for the Environment ICARPE); and the lUCN- 
coordinated Regional Marine Conservation Pro- 
gram in West Africa. To build upon the momentum 



West and Central Africa: Protected areas network 
by lUCN category, 2005 



lUCN category 

la 


Total 
sites 

19 


Total 

area Ikm^l 

21 7A2 


lb 


7 


11 740 


11 


91 


348 462 


III 


A 


398 


IV 


119 


347 801 


V 


3 


185 


VI 


45 


67 806 


No category 


2 313 


322 805 


Total 


2 601 


1 120 942 



West and Central Africa: Protected areas network 
by lUCN category (percentage of total area), 2005 



la 12%) 



No Category 

(29% 



VI (6% 




lb(1%l 



11(31%) 



IV 131%) 



West and Central Africa: Number of protected 
areas by lUCN category, 2005 

2 500 



2 000 



1500 



1000 



500 




la lb II III IV V VI category 



245 



The world's protected areas 



West and Central Africa: Biosphere reserves, 2005 
Country 



West and Central Africa: Ramsar sites, 2005 



No. of 


Protected 


Country 


No. of 


Protected 


sites 


area (km^) 




sites 


area Il<m2| 






Benin 


2 


1 391 



Benin' 




2 


29 283 


Burl<ma Faso 




2 


5 320 


Canneroon 




3 


8 760 


Central African 


Republic 


2 


16A02 


Conqo 




2 


2 460 


Cote d'lvoire 




2 


17 700 


DR Conqo 




3 


2 827 


Gabon 






150 


Ghana 






78 


Guinea 




U 


11 927 


Guinea Bissau 






1 012 


Mall 






25 000 


Mauritania 






<1 


Niger' 




2 


251 281 


Nigeria 






1 306 


Rwanda 






125 


Senegal 




h 


10 938 


TOTAL 




31 


384 568 



Region "W" is a transboundary site shared between Benin. 
Burkina Faso and Niger 



West and Central Africa: World Heritage sites, 2005 



Country 



Cameroon 



No. of 


Protected 


sites 


area ll<m2| 


1 


5.260 



Central African Republic 


1 


17 400 


Cote d'lvoire' 


3 


14 843 


DR Congo 


5 


68 546 


Guinea' 


1 


130 


Mall 


1 


4 000 


Mauritania 


1 


12 000 


Niger 


2 


79 560 


Senegal 


2 


9 290 


TOTAL 


17 


211 029 



1 Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve is a transboundary 
World Heritage site and hence the total number of sites in 
the region is less than the sum of the nattonal sites 

generated by tliese regional initiatives, an integ- 
rated strategy for developing a compreliensive pro- 
tected area systems is needed to maximize 
biodiversity and ecosystem representation across 
the region. 

A crucial step in this regard will be to mobilize 
government agencies, donors, conservation 
organizations, and research institutions to jointly 
identify and refine targets based on an adequate 



Burkina Faso 


3 


2 992 


Burundi 


1 


10 


Central African Rep. 


1 


1013 


Chad 


4 


49 571 


Congo 


1 


4 390 


Cote d'lvoire 


6 


1 273 


DR Congo 


2 


8 660 


Eguatonal Guinea 


3 


1 360 


Gabon 


3 


10 800 


Gambia 


1 


200 


Ghana 


6 


1 784 


Guinea 


14 


55 879 


Guinea-Bissau 


1 


391 


Liberia 


1 


761 


Mall 


1 


41 195 


Mauritania 


3 


12311 


Niger 


12 


4 3179 


Nigeria 


1 


581 


Senegal 


4 


997 


Sierra Leone 


1 


2 950 


Togo 


2 


1 944 


TOTAL 


73 


243 631 



understanding of biodiversity patterns, ecosystem 
processes, and socioeconomic realities. The extinc- 
tion risks facing many large mammals in West and 
Central Africa suggest that biodiversity-driven 
targets will need to become a primary focus of any 
comprehensive protected area strategy. Such an 
effort will also help establish baseline information 
and strengthen local institutional capabilities for 
effective long-term management and monitoring. 
Regional-scale ecosystem assessments have 
already shown the need to increase the proportion 
of lowland rainforests in the existing network 
because of their crucial role in protecting water- 
sheds and providing a range of ecological services. 
In West Africa's Upper Guinea region, options 
for forest protection are already very limited due to 
the highly fragmented nature of the ecosystem, and 
one critical response will be to target forest 
reserves for biodiversity conservation. The GSBA 
approach in Ghana provides a valuable model, as 
this has enabled forest reserves to be quickly 
upgraded and managed without major infusions of 
external funding. Although deforestation trends are 
still relatively slow in Central Africa (0.02-0.45 



246 



West and Central Africa 




The future of protected 
areas in West and 
Central Africa will 
increasingly depend on 
the commitment of civil 
society toward 
understanding and 
appreciating their value 
to livelihoods, 
environmental stability, 
and rural development. 



percent per year] compared with most West African 
countries, the potential for rapid clearance exists 
due to rising populations in the region. 

Other l<ey targets include coastal marine 
habitats (primarily mangroves] along the entire Gulf 
of Guinea, freshwater habitats (e.g. floodplains, 
lateral lakes, swamp forests], and the montane 
ecoregions (notably the Fouta Djallon highlands in 
Guinea and Mount Cameroon, and adjacent high- 
lands in the Nigeria-Cameroon cross-border area). 

The potential for transboundary conservation 
also needs further development (van der Linde et al. 
2001]. In addition to improving management across 
borders, transboundary protected areas tend to 
foster integrated landscape approaches, and help 
secure large areas for wide-ranging species such 
as elephants. Efforts are already under way in the 
West Africa region between Benin, Burl<ina Faso, 
and Niger (Park W], Guinea and Senegal (Niokolo- 
Badiar]; and in Central Africa between Cameroon, 



Central African Republic, and Congo (Sangha River 
Trinational Area]. Transboundary conservation will 
obviously present new challenges, particularly in 
respect to governance and institutional issues. And 
while decentralization of power is becoming more 
common in other parts of Africa, it is still relatively 
nascent in West and Central Africa. There will be a 
need to reconcile roles of wildlife and forestry 
departments to help improve the management of 
protected areas in a landscape context. 

Finally, the future of protected areas in West 
and Central Africa will increasingly depend on the 
commitment of civil society toward understanding 
and appreciating the value of such areas to 
livelihoods, environmental stability, and rural devel- 
opment. Because of the potential to mainstream 
protected areas in national development, govern- 
ment investment in protected area agencies will 
likely improve considerably when the interest of civil 
society is enhanced. 



247 



The world's protected areas 



Eastern and Southern Africa 

Botswana, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, 

Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, 

Malawi, Mauritius, Mayotte (France), 

Mozambique, Namibia, Reunion (France), 

Seychelles, Somalia. South Africa, Sudan, 

Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, 

Zambia, Zimbabwe 

Contributors: N. Burgess, S. Kanyamibwa, G. Llewellyn, M. Thieme, R. Taylor 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

The WCPA administrative region covers 19 
territories. However, for the purpose of better 
geographic coherence for this study, four countries 
from the West and Central Africa region have also 
been included: Comoros, Djibouti, Madagascar, and 
Mauritius. On the African mainland, countries in the 
region range from Sudan in the north through the 
countries of the Horn of Africa, eastern Africa, and 
into southern Africa to the Cape of Good Hope. Aviray 
from the coastal plains, most of the region is found 
at altitudes over 1 000 meters, in particular across 
the vast Central Plateau of southern Africa. 

The vegetation of mainland Eastern and 
Southern African is dominated by the Somali-Masai 
and Zambezian biomes - large arid to seasonally 
arid regions supporting savanna vi/oodland habitats 
with high plant endemism distributed across a 
dynamic landscape mosaic. Moving south, the 
Zambezian vegetation types are replaced by those 
of the Karoo-Namib regional center of endemism, 
with low shrubs and grasses; the grassland- 



dominated Kalahari-Highveld regional transition 
zone; and finally by the Cape Floral Kingdom (White, 
19831. This region, in particular, contains an amaz- 
ing diversity of short shrubby vegetation types 
supporting globally exceptional levels of plant and 
invertebrate endemism. Lowland rainforests are 
restricted to the Lake Victoria region and along the 
coastal strip of eastern Africa (Sayer, Harcourt, and 
Collins, 19921. 

In the midst of a predominantly dry region 
there are a number of moist mountain ranges, 
which, because of their isolation, have formed 
archipelago-like centers of endemism (White, 
1983). The most important of these, biologically, are 
the Eastern Arc (Tanzania and Kenya), the Albertine 
Rift (Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, western Tanzania, 
and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo!, and 
the Ethiopian highlands. These areas all possess 
high rates of species endemism; the Eastern Arc 
and Albertine Rift are globally exceptional in this 
regard (Burgess et at., 200A). 

The Indian Ocean islands are highly distinct 



268 



Eastern and Southern Africa 




M Spalding 



An Aldabra Sacred Ibis ( Threskiornis bernieri abbolti), Aldabra Atoll World Heritage Site, Seychelles. 



249 



The world's protected areas 




I.- 



Reunion (FRA) 

r ^ MAURITIUS .5g,g 



-3QtS 

- ATLANTIC 

, '; OCEAN 



10°E 20°E 

Source: UNEP-WCMC 



300 600 900 km 



4Q°E 



250 



Eastern and Southern Africa 



from the African mainland, and have over 70 
percent of all their species as strict endemics. 
These endemic species are often found vi^ithin 
endemic genera and families, including those with 
ancient lineages within families, such as the lemurs 
of Madagascar, that have been extinct on the 
mainland for millions of years iMittermeier et at., 
19991. The offshore islands have witnessed high 
rates of recent extinction, especially the smaller 
islands of Seychelles, Mascarenes, and Comoros 
(Burgess et ai, 20041. 

Within the freshwater realm, Eastern and 
Southern Africa contains the large Rift Valley lakes 
and an extensive network of rivers and streams with 
associated wetlands and swamps. The Great Lakes 
of eastern Africa (Lakes Victoria, Tanganyika, and 
Malawi) are the most important in the world in 
terms of their concentrations of endemic fish, with 
Lake Malawi alone possessing upwards of 700 
endemic cichlids (Turner ef ai 2001 1. Further north 
in the highlands of Ethiopia, Lake Tana hosts the 
only intact cyprinid species flock in the world. 

Extensive wetlands are found in Kilombero 
Valley, Moyowosi/Malagarasi system, and the 
Ugalla River, the Okavango Delta, the Sudd, Lake 
Chilwa, the Barotse Floodplain, the Kafue Flats, 
Busanga and Lukanga swamps, and Lakes Mweru 
and Bangweulu and associated swamps. These 
contain large congregations of wetland birds and 
other wildlife. In addition to large freshwater 
wetlands, saline water bodies such as Etosha, 



Natron, and Makgadikgadi provide specialized 
habitats for most of the world's flamingos. 
Madagascar's rivers and lakes are also home to a 
distinctive freshwater fauna - including endemic 
taxa of crayfish, aquatic insects, amphibians, and 
fish. Endemic fish and frog species also survive in 
the Mediterranean climate of the Cape region at the 
southern tip of the continent. 

The marine and coastal habitats of the region 
are part of a western Indian Ocean center of 
biodiversity. Subcenters of marine endemism occur 
around the border between South Africa and 
Mozambique, and the Mascarene Islands (Roberts 
et ai, 20021. The South Equatorial Current hits the 
eastern African coast at Cabo Delgado in 
Mozambique, and then splits to flow north and 
south. There is considerable coral reef develop- 
ment, primarily of the fringing reef type, concen- 
trated around the islands and along portions of the 
coasts of Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique. 
Seagrass beds are also extensive in shallow marine 
areas. Southern Mozambique is dominated by 
muddy waters and coastal dune fields, caused by 
localized upwellings, combined with nutrient input 
from major rivers such as the Zambezi. 

The eastern African region is also the cradle 
of humanity with the oldest fossils of hominids 
extending back over five million years. Over the 
millions of years that hominids and humans have 
inhabited this region, they developed the use of fire 
to facilitate hunting and farming, which may have 



Eastern and Southern Africa: Growth of protected areas network, 1895-2005 



1500 r— 



1200 — 



900 — 



iOO — 



300 — 



I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date Ikm'l 

I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm^l 



Il 



ll 



"1895 1900 05 '10 '15 '20 25 '30 '35 iO '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 ■90'95 2000'05 



251 



The world's protected areas 



2 500 I— 



2 000 



1500 — 



1000 — 



500 — 



I Cumulative number of sites with Icnown establishment date 
\ Cumulative number of sites with unl<nown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA 



lAl 



ll 



" 1895 1900 05 '10 '15 '20 '25 30 '35 40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 70 75 80 85 ■90'95 2000 '05 
Eastern and Southern Africa: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1896-2005 



changed the appearance of the landscape. Due to 
this ancient interaction between hunnans and their 
environment, the habitats and species composition 
of this region may be far more anthropogenically 
altered than is currently accepted. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

Traditional African societies used a variety of 
systems to protect habitats and species. For 
example, most (perhaps all] villages maintained 
small patches of habitat as burial areas or for 
traditional religious purposes. Many habitat man- 
agement systems are still operational, for 
example those of the Masai of eastern Africa and 
the San Bushmen of southern Africa. However, 
strictly protected areas were generally small in 
traditional societies, and these approaches to 
conservation are gradually being lost over many 
parts of the region. 

With European colonization, the creation of 
government-designated protected areas began. 
The first protected area in Africa, the Greater St 
Lucia Wetland Park, was declared in 1895. During 
the early 20th century, large protected area systems 
were developed in colonial African countries. The 
primary motivation of the colonial governments was 
the preservation of 'wilderness' to provide oppor- 
tunities for hunting big game animals (Neumann, 
19981, and to a lesser extent for the protection of 
water supply (e.g. Rodgers, 19931. Most reserves 
dating from this period are located in areas 
unsuitable for farming or commercial forestry, but 



suitable for large game mammals - principally the 
savanna woodland habitats that extend over large 
parts of the region. For example, the Selous 
Game Reserve (44 ODD km^) and the Kruger 
National Park [19 000km21 both date from this 
period. At the end of the colonial period in the early 
19605, Eastern and Southern Africa possessed over 
500 parks and reserves spanning more than 
400 000 km2 of land. 

The newly independent African nations have 
continued to create government-controlled pro- 
tected areas. At the same time there has been an 
increasing effort to develop community-managed 
reserves to support both human development and 
achieve conservation goals. The majority of these 
community-managed areas are found in southern 
Africa, but they are increasing in number in eastern 
Africa as v>/ell. Even more recently, companies and 
individuals have started to create private reserves, 
especially in southern Africa. 

THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

In total, there are more than 4 000 protected areas 
in a well-developed network across Eastern and 
Southern Africa. More than 200 of these are lUCN 
Category II national parks covering very large tracts 
of land with high levels of protection. More than 
3 000 sites lack lUCN management categories and 
these include many forest reserves, wildlife 
management areas, hunting areas, and private 
reserves. In total, these different protected lands 
cover 14.7 percent of the region. 



252 



Eastern and Southern Africa 



In the marine realm, the declaration of 
reserves has lagged behind that of terrestrial 
habitats, with the first known marine protected area 
(MPAl being the Tsitsikama National Park in South 
Africa, first designated in 196^. However, over the 
past decade there has been a dramatic increase 
in the number and size of MPAs in the region. The 
World Database on Protected Areas currently lists 
139 MPAs, covering some 12 000 km^ of coastal and 
oceanic water This figure represents some 0.15 
percent of the exclusive economic zone areas 
claimed by the region's countries, and the majority 
are focused in coastal waters and around high- 
profile ecosystems such as coral reefs (more than 
2 000 km^, or 14 percent of all coral reefs, are 
protected]. In several cases (e.g. St Lucia in South 
Africa, Sadaani in Tanzania, and Maputo Elephant in 
Mozambique), marine components are in the 
process of being added to existing terrestrial parks. 

Eastern African protected areas are not 
randomly distributed; they are clumped geograph- 
ically and disproportionately cover certain habitat 
types. For example, the protected area networks of 
Tanzania and Kenya cover much larger percentages 
of those countries than the corresponding areas in 
Sudan or Somalia - due mainly to political instability 
in the latter countries. In terms of habitat coverage, 
reserves cover disproportionate areas of savanna 
woodland habitat with large mammals. In recent 
decades, governments have worked to address this 
situation and have increased the coverage of less- 
represented habitats within their protected area 
systems. New reserves have been established to 
cover montane forest (e.g. Udzungwa Mountains 
National Park in Tanzania! and Mediterranean 
habitats in South Africa (e.g. the Knersvlakte and 
Groenefontein Provincial Nature Reservesl. 
Countries emerging from war are also enhancing 
their protected area networks. For example, 
Mozambique declared its new Quirimbas National 
Park in 2002; it covers about 7 500 km^ of miombo 
woodland, eastern African coastal forest, mangrove, 
and marine habitats. 

Despite these advances, recent analyses 
indicate that the current protected area network 
does not fully cover the distribution of biodiversity 
in the region. Using data from all mammals, 
amphibians, and threatened birds, significant 
gaps in the protected area network are found in 
the montane habitats of the region (the Eastern 
Arc, the Albertine Rift, the Ethiopian highlands, 
and the Kenyan highlands], the eastern African 



Eastern and Southern Africa: Protected areas 
network by lUCN category, 2005 



lUCN category 

la 


Total 
sites 

17 


Total 

area Ikm^l 

2 787 


lb 


7 


1 251 


II 


220 


508 603 


III 


2i 


150 


IV 


U<^1 


265 115 


V 


30 


12 560 


VI 


219 


543 869 


No category 


3 053 


354545 


Total 


A 067 


1 688 879 



Eastern and Southern Africa: Protected areas 
network by lUCN category (percentage of total 
area], 2005 



No Category 121%) 



VI (32%l "^ 




II (3)%l 



IV (16%) 



VI1%) 



Eastern and Southern Africa: Number of protected 
areas by lUCN category, 2005 



3 500 
3 000 
2 500 
2 000 
1500 
1 000 
500 




la lb 



No 
VI category 



253 



The world's protected areas 



Areas of Eastern and Southern Africa protected Iby country), 2005 



Country/territories 

Botswana 



Land 



area Ikm^l 

581 730 



Total protected area (km^) 

175 650 



Total number of sites 

71 



Comoros 




2 230 


404 


1 


D|ibouti 




23 200 


13 


3 


Eritrea 




117 600 


5 006 


3 


Ethiopia 




1 10A300 


186 198 


40 


Kenya 




580 370 


75 221 


348 


Lesotho 




30 350 


68 


1 


Madagascar 




587 040 


18 458 


60 


Malawi 




118 480 


19 405 


130 


Mauritius 




2 040 


162 


26 


Mayotte 




370 


64 


8 


Mozambique 




801 590 


65 260 


42 


Namibia 




824 290 


123 563 


173 


Reunion 




2 510 


246 


40 


Seychelles 




450 


453 


20 


Somalia 




637 660 


5 246 


16 


South Africa 




1 221 040 


81606 


562 


Sudan 




2 505 810 


1 198 424 


26 


Swaziland 




17 360 


601 


8 


Tanzania, United 


Republic of 


945 090 


378 520 


811 


Uganda 




241 040 


63 368 


747 


Zambia 




752 610 


312 002 


683 


Zimbabwe 




390 760 


57 525 


249 



lowland coastal forests and Maputaland- 
Pondoland, and in the Cape Fynbos and Succulent 
Karoo of South Africa (Rodrigues et al.. 2003; see 
also Chapter 101. 

Ambitious conservation plans already exist 
and are being implemented for the Cape Fynbos 
and Succulent Karoo of South Africa leg. Cowling et 
a/.. 20031. Similar planning and implementation 
processes are underway in the eastern African 
marine ecoregion, the eastern African coastal 
forests, the Albertine Rift Mountains, and the 
Eastern Arc Mountains. In all of these plans the 
creation of new reserves and the upgrading of some 
types of resen/es (e.g. forest reserves) to higher 
levels of conservation are being advocated. 

Another problem is that that many protected 
areas are 'paper parks' with almost no operational 
budget, few or no staff, and often with problems of 
encroachment and poaching of large mammals. In 
some countries there is pressure to reduce the area 
of protected land. For example, the Kenyan 
government tried to degazette sections of several 
forest reserves for allocation to local farmers. 
Although Kenyan public outcry prevented most of 
this, it could have resulted in significant loss of 



forest, biodiversity, and watershed protection. 
Similar issues have been seen in Uganda, Tanzania, 
and Zimbabwe. 

Other forms of protection 

Many countries in Eastern and Southern Africa 
possess large numbers of legally gazetted forest 
reserves managed by Forestry Departments. 
Outside of South Africa these reserves are not 
assigned an lUCN protected area management 
category (l-VIl, and hence are often overlooked in 
assessments of government protected area 
networks. Throughout eastern Africa there are 
more than 3 300 forest reserves (the majority of 
which are included in the WDPA statistics) that 
cover approximately 340 000 km^ of moist forest 
and savanna woodlands. In some parts of the 
region, forest reserves are the main type of 
habitat protection. For example, in the globally 
distinctive Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and 
Kenya there are tew lUCN l-IV protected areas. 
Nonetheless, more than 3 300 km^, or 14 percent, 
of the mountain range is contained within forest 
reserves, and these reserves include up to 90 
percent of the remaining forest. These reserves 



256 



Eastern and Southern Africa 



may contain as much biodiversity as the network 
of lUCN l-VI coded wildlife reserves. 

A less well quantified form of protection that is 
particularly widespread in this region is that 
provided by private protected areas. Although some 
of these are included in the statistics from the 
WDPA, not all are held in this database. 

Another important form of protection, which is 
becoming more popular, is the wildlife manage- 
ment area. In these areas land under local control is 
established as a community-managed area with 
conservation objectives, but management remains 
at the local level and benefits are derived directly 
by the communities themselves, in some parts of 
the region, especially in southern Africa, this mech- 
anism represents the most promising way to 
augment the well-developed government protected 
area network. 

International sites 

Within the region only Djibouti and Somalia are not 
party to the World Heritage Convention, with 10 
countries having natural or mixed World Heritage 
sites (43.5 percent of the countries!. A total of 22 
natural or mixed World Heritage sites are located in 
the region, including Ngorongoro, Kilimanjaro, 
Selous, and Serengeti in Tanzania, Greater St Lucia 
Wetland Park in South Africa, and Aldabra Atoll in 
the Seychelles. 

Sixteen countries are also signatories of the 
Ramsar Convention, with a total of 49 sites 
designated in 2005, 17 in South Africa. There is an 
ongoing effort to expand the number of sites, 
particularly in new signatory countries such as 
Tanzania. Wetlands under this convention include 
Lake Natron, and the Kilombero Valley and 
Malagarasi-Moyowosi wetlands in Tanzania; Lakes 
Naivasha, Baringo, Bogoria, and Nakuru in Kenya; 
Etosha Pan in Namibia, the St Lucia System in 
South Africa, and the Okavango Delta in Botswana. 

Eight countries in the region also have 
biosphere reserves under the UNESCO Man and the 
Biosphere Programme. These sites cover both 
terrestrial and marine areas, and include the 
28 000 km2 Lake Manyara in Tanzania. 

Apart from the major international agree- 
ments, there is growing cooperation at the 
regional level, notably through the designation of 
transboundary parks. A number of ambitious trans- 
boundary parks and conservation areas are being 
promoted in southern Africa, including seven very 
large areas covering more than 200 000 km^. These 



Eastern and Southern Africa: Internationally 
protected areas, 2005 

Country No. of Protected 

sites area Ikm^j 

Biosphere reserves 



Kenya 




6 


15 434 


Madagascar 




3 


4 938 


Malawi 




1 


451 


Mauritius 




1 


36 


South Africa 




U 


33 711 


Sudan 




2 


12 509 


Tanzania. United 


Republic of 3 


52 281 


Uganda 




2 


2 465 


TOTAL 




22 


121 825 


Ramsar sites 


Botswana 




1 


68 640 


Comoros 




1 


<1 


D|ibouti 




1 


30 


Kenya 




5 


1 018 


Lesotho 




1 


4 


Madagascar 




5 


7 856 


Malawi 




1 


2 248 


Mauritius 




1 


<1 


Mozambique 




1 


13 000 


Namibia 




A 


6 296 


Seychelles 




1 


<1 


South Africa 




17 


4 987 


Sudan 




1 


10 846 


Tanzania, United 


Republic 


of i 


48 684 


Uganda 




2 


370 


Zambia 




3 


5 930 


TOTAL 




i9 


169 911 


World Heritage sites 
Ethiopia 


1 


136 


Kenya 




2 


3 050 


Madagascar 




1 


1 520 


Malawi 




1 


94 


Seychelles 




2 


350 


South Africa 




7 


10 655 


Tanzania, United 


Republic 


of 4 


68 605 


Uganda 




L 


1317 


Zambia' 




1 


38 


Zinnbabwe' 




2 


6 797 


TOTAL 




22 


92 562 



1 MosJ-oa-TunyaA'ictoria Falls is a transboundary World 
Heritage site oetween Zambia and Zimbabwe and hence the 
total of World Heritage sites is less than the sum of the 
individual countries 

are the Ai-Ais/Richtersveld Transfrontier Conserv- 
ation Park between South Africa and Namibia 



255 



The world's protected areas 



uKhahlamba/ 
Drakensberg Park 
World Heritage Site, 
South Africa. 




(5 921 km^l; the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park 
between Soutfi Africa, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe 
135 000 km^h the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park 
between Botswana and South Africa (37 991 km^l; 
the Limpopo/ Shashe Transfrontier Conservation 
Area between Botswana, South Africa, and 
Zimbabwe (4 872 km^l; the Lubombo Transfrontier 
Conservation Area between South Africa, 
Swaziland, and Mozambique (4 195 km^l; the 
Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation 
and Development Area between South Africa and 
Lesotho (13 000 km^l; and an area from Lake 
Malawi/Nyasa to the Indian Ocean through southern 
Tanzania and northern Mozambique (100 000 km^l. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 
Filling reservation gaps 

Despite the impressive protected area network of 
this region, gaps in the coverage of biodiversity 



remain. These gaps are most serious in the 
mountain areas where there are many species of 
narrow distribution range and few protected 
areas. Most existing protection in mountains is in 
forest reserves, and altering the status of some of 
these to nature reserve or national park would 
raise the level of protection and help to fill one of 
the key gaps in the region's protected area 
system. The same is generally true for the eastern 
African coastal forest mosaic habitats; here, too, 
there are many species with small distribution 
ranges, and once again most important habitat 
is either found within forest reserves or is 
unprotected. 

Several countries announced the designation 
of new protected areas at the September 2003 Vth 
World Parks Congress, which will help to fill some 
of the gaps in protection. For example, the president 
of Madagascar stated that his country would triple 



256 



Eastern and Southern Africa 



its protected area coverage. In addition, Mozam- 
bique announced the creation of new MPAs to fill 
key gaps in protection along its coastline, and 
Tanzania said that it would increase its coverage 
of marine habitats to 10 percent by 2010 and 
20 percent by 2025. In addition, South Africa will be 
expanding the existing St Lucia reserve northwards 
to the border with Mozambique. 

Improving management effectiveness 

Improving the management of paper parks in the 
region is a serious challenge, given the high 
demand for natural resources and extensive 
poverty. Government budgets are inadequate to the 
task such that other sources of funding are needed. 
Innovative market mechanisms, such as water pay- 
ments, biodiversity markets, carbon sequestration, 
tourism, and revenue-sharing approaches are 
being, tested. Other novel financing systems, 
including combining private business partnerships 
with conservation trust funds, must also be 
investigated and used when appropriate. 

Transboundary protected areas 

Many border regions across Africa have been 
areas of conflict. These are also areas that have 
been politically and economically neglected, have 
low population densities, and have relatively 
undamaged ecosystems. A number of trans- 
boundary parks have already been designated and 
others are being considered. Such sites represent 
opportunities for enhancing peace and coop- 
eration between nations , as well as conserving the 
natural environment. 

Private reserves and land purchase 

In Africa, land purchase for conservation is 
relatively common in the savanna-woodland 
habitats of southern Africa, and in South Africa, for 
example, there are many private nature reserves. In 
eastern Africa land has traditionally been either 
communally owned or vested with the state; 
however, changes in the land laws of many eastern 
African nations are now making land purchase 
possible. Carefully targeted land purchase might 
achieve much for conservation in eastern Africa. For 
example, an Italian non-governmental organization 
purchased the Mkwaja Ranch in coastal Tanzania 
and donated it to the Tanzanian government as an 



extension to the Sadaani Game Reserve, which was 
declared a national park in 2003. 

Hunting concessions 

Hunting concessions occur within government- 
managed game and hunting reserves in all 
southern African nations and in Tanzania. 
Companies or private individuals buy concessions 
and then sell the hunting rights to tourists. Local 
communities and private landowners, especially 
in southern Africa, are developing a similar 
approach to conservation. The financial benefits 
are clear, and these are giving an easily measured 
value to wild habitat and species. However, there 
remain challenges to ensuring sustainability, and 
preventing changes to the ecosystem from 
activities such as re-stocking, changes in natural 
fauna, or even vegetation clearance to encourage 
target species. 

Community conservation 

There has been a paradigm shift to community- 
based conservation in this region. Strictly prot- 
ected areas remain a core component of 
conservation efforts, but more socially just and 
participatory approaches are increasingly pract- 
iced, with a number of emerging consequences. 
Incentive and utilization-based approaches to 
conservation are now common within comm- 
unities and also among large private landowners. 
The economic importance of wildlife, fisheries, 
and watershed protection are also driving land 
restoration and purchases for conservation. 
Southern Africa is a world leader in community- 
based conservation, in which both communities 
and wildlife benefit, and similar community 
conservation areas are also common in Namibia, 
Botswana, and Zimbabwe. Changes in the laws of 
a number of eastern African countries are also 
providing communities with a greater role in 
establishing and managing their own protected 
areas. Both village forest reserves and 
community-based wildlife management areas are 
now being promoted as conservation areas in 
eastern African countries. These wildlife 
management areas can provide both wild meat 
and tourist viewing opportunities, and hence bring 
income to rural populations. 



257 



The world's protected areas 



North Africa and the Middle East 

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain. Cyprus, Egypt, 

Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, 

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, 

Occupied Palestinian Territories, Qatar, 

Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, 

Turkey, United Arab Emirates, 

Western Sahara, Yemen 

Contributors: E. Sattout, M. S. A. Sulayem, M. Spaiding 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

Stretching across five time zones, the 23 countries 
and territories of the North Africa and Middle East 
region span a considerable portion of the 
continents of Africa and Asia, but are united by 
common strands of geology, climate, and ecology, 
as well as culture, history, and traditions. 

Geologically the region covers parts of the 
African and Eurasian Tectonic Plates, as well as the 
entire Arabian Plate. The region encompasses a 
long coastline with the Atlantic, the entire southern 
and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, the 
southern shores of the Blacl< and Caspian Seas, and 
the seas surrounding the Arabian Peninsula - the 
Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, part of the Arabian Sea, 
the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Gulf. Most of the 
region consists of drylands and deserts, including a 
large part of the Sahara Desert across North Africa, 
and the largest unbroken sand desert in the world, 
the Rub al Khali in southern Arabia. Mountains are 
also widespread, including the Atlas Mountains 
across Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia (reaching to 



A 165 meters), the Hejaz and Asir Mountains in 
southwestern Arabia 13 760 meters), the Zagros 
Mountains and Elburz Mountains of Iran (5 681 
meters), and the various mountain ranges of 
Afghanistan reaching into the Karakoram 
Mountains (6 504 meters). The lowest land surface 
on Earth is also found in the region - the shores of 
the Dead Sea are some iOO meters below sea level. 

Although dominated by arid and semi-arid 
conditions, the region does include more humid 
areas, and there are forests in some of the 
mountain areas, notably across Turkey, and 
important wetlands, such as the marshes and 
deltas of Mesopotamia (mostly in southern Iraq). 

Lying between Europe, Africa, and Asia the 
region has a great range of biogeographical 
influences, reflected in the diversity of plants and 
animals from each of these regions. Other species 
are unique, having evolved, or having survived, as 
relicts from earlier times. During the last Ice Age 
this region was cooler and wetter, with more 
widespread savanna and woodland, and isolated 



258 



North Africa and the Middle East 




' Spalding 



Wadi Rum National Park, Jordan. 



259 



The world's protected areas 








J^'. 



f^~ 



•V 



Source: UNEP-WCMC 



260 



North Africa and the Middle East 



pockets of more amenable climate still remain. The 
region has also given rise to many important crop 
species, including wheat, barley, certain legumes, 
olives, figs, pomegranate, and almonds. Significant 
genetic diversity in these species remains, both as 
wild progenitors of these crops, and as varieties still 
grown in traditional agricultural systems across the 
region. The Mediterranean Basin forms an imp- 
ortant center of biodiversity, while other key 
ecoregions include the temperate forests and 
freshwaters of Anatolia iTurkeyl, the Mesopotamian 
wetlands and deltas, the highlands of southern 
Arabia, and the small island of Socotra (Yemeni with 
its highly distinct flora. 

The marine ecosystems also encompass 
considerable diversity. The Atlantic coast is domin- 
ated by the south-flowing Canary Current which 
brings relatively cool waters and produces 
nutrient-rich upwellings that support highly prod- 
uctive ecosystems. The region's Mediterranean 
coast has suffered less from extensive coastal 
development than the European shores, and supp- 
orts important shallow-water Mediterranean 
ecosystems. Coral reefs, mangroves, and sea- 
grasses are found on all the shores around the 
Arabian Peninsula. The greatest marine bio- 
diversity is found in the Red Sea with ideal 
conditions for coral growth and a rich fauna that 
includes a large number of endemic species. 
Cooler, nutrient-rich upwellings mean highly 
productive waters off the southern shores of the 
Arabian Peninsula, and onshore there are highly 
unusual algal-dominated communities alongside 
the coral reefs. These marine ecosystems support 
important fisheries, and are also home to a large 
number of charismatic species, including many 
cetacean species, marine turtles, dugongs, and 
the last remaining Mediterranean monk seals. The 
Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Mediterranean, and Canary 
Current areas are all listed as important marine 
ecoregions by WWF. 

Humans have shaped the landscape of this 
region over many millennia. The earliest known 
human settlements, such as Jericho, are found 
here. As well as the cultivation of the first crop 
plants, it was in the region known as the Fertile 
Crescent, stretching from the Mediterranean to the 
Arabian Gulf, following the Tigris, Euphrates, and 
Jordan Rivers, that the first known domestication of 
livestock (including sheep, goats, cattle, and 
donkeys] occurred. 

The degree of human usage and influence on 



the landscapes is highly varied; even in the human- 
dominated landscapes, biodiversity remains impor- 
ant, while away from regular water supplies, 
pastureland replaces arable farming, and in drier 
areas temporary grazing is undertaken with mobile 
or nomadic herders. There are still wide areas of 
wilderness in the driest areas, and on the high 
mountain peaks. 

Unfortunately dramatic changes have taken 
place on many of these landscapes in recent 
decades. Massive alterations to water supplies, 
including dam building and drainage, have led to the 
loss of vast areas of wetlands. The annual Nile 
flooding, which built the vast Nile Delta and revital- 
ized soils over the Nile valley, has ceased, affecting 
not only the immediate areas but the coastline and 
the Mediterranean offshore waters. The vast wet- 
lands of southern Iraq have been heavily drained, 
destroying the landscape and culture of the people 
who once lived there, and even today these areas 
are contracting due to upstream dams and water 
extraction. Patchwork landscapes have been con- 
verted to industrial agriculture in wide areas of 
North Africa, the Levant, and Turkey. 

Coastal areas have undergone rapid develop- 
ment in a few areas - tourism is a major driving 
force in Turkey, the Sinai Peninsula, and parts of 
North Africa. Around the Arabian Peninsula wide 
areas of coastal land have been altered by urban 
and industrial growth, as well as by the extensive 
development of the petroleum industry. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

Efforts to protect the landscape go back to ancient 
history - there are records from Pliny the Elder of 
efforts to administer forests, including programs 
of wardens, tree planting, and the setting aside 
of areas for wildlife. The Roman Emperor Hadrian 
(AD 117-1381 was reported to have demanded 
protection for some of the remaining cedar forests 
on Mount Lebanon (though only a few remnants 
remain today). 

One traditional form of land management, 
known as at henna {hima, hurah, or ahmia], has 
been used for more than 2 000 years, and was given 
a clearer legal standing by the Prophet Mohammed. 
This involves the setting aside of large tracts of 
rangeland and restricting their use to prevent 
overgrazing. In 1969, it was estimated that there 
were more than 3 000 hema in Saudi Arabia. A later 
survey in 198^, conducted in the mountain areas 
west of the country (where most of the hema 



261 



The world's protected areas 



F- 




Source: UNEP-WCMC 



North Africa and the Middle East 



1500 



1 200 — 



900 



600 



300 



I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date (km^) 

I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA (km') 



- - ■ ■ ■ 



1880'85'90'95 19aO'05'1015'2Q253035'4a'45 '50 55 60 ■45'70 '75 80 85 90 ■95 2000 05 
North Africa and the Middle East: Growth of protected areas network, 1880-2005 



existed), found only 71 hema, under varying degrees 
of protection. Many of these have been now been 
formally recognized, however, and are included in 
the statistics below. Islann, which is the predom- 
inant religion across the region, preaches respect 
for creation, and in a few places this has been used 
to support conservation efforts. Hunting reserves 
dating bacl< to 12^0 were established at Lake 
Ichkeul in Tunisia. 

Many more forest reserves and hunting 
reserves were declared in the 18th and 19th 
centuries when wide parts of this region fell under 



the Ottoman Empire. Protected areas focused more 
on biodiversity, however, have been slow to catch 
on. Some were established under French colonial 
rule in North Africa in the 1920s and 1930s, but the 
legislation behind these has largely been repealed 
post-independence. 

Historically, and in present times, war and civil 
unrest have affected large parts of the region, and 
ongoing occupation and unrest in countries such as 
Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Iraq, 
and Afghanistan are preventing the establishment 
and secure management of protected areas. 



North Africa and the Middle East: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1880-2005 



1000 



800 — 



600 — 



400 — 



200 — 



I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered Into WDPA 



1880'85'90'95190005'10'15'20'25'30'35'40'45 '50 '55 '60'65'70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 05 



263 



The world's protected areas 



Areas of North Africa and the Middle East protected (by country), 2005 



Country/territories 

Afghanistan 


Land area Ikm^l 

652 090 


Total protected area Ikm^l 

2 186 


Total 


number of sites 

7 


Algeria 


2 381 740 


119 726 




26 


Bahrain 


690 


60 




4 


Cyprus 


9 250 


920 




19 


Egypt 


1 001 450 


103 939 




48 


Iran, Islamic Republic of 


1 633 190 


112 878 




142 


Irag 


438 320 


5 




8 


Israel' 


21 060 


4 145 




288 


Jordan 


89 210 


9 734 




36 


Kuv^ait 


17 820 


597 




7 


Lebanon 


10 400 


78 




24 


Libyan Arab Jamahinya 


1 759 540 


2 209 




12 


Morocco 


446 550 


6 107 




35 


Oman 


212 460 


29 828 




6 


Qatar 


11 000 


137 




13 


Saudi Arabia 


2 149 690 


826 432 




81 


Syrian Arab Republic 


185 180 


3 583 




28 


Tunisia 


163610 


2 579 




42 


Turkey 


774 820 


3 3532 




474 


United Arab Emirates 


83 600 


4559 




19 


Western Sahara 


266 000 


18 889 




1 


Yemen 


527 970 


527 970 




4 



1 Under the current, volatile, political situation, the Palestinian territories have only limited autonomy and protected areas largely (all 
under the control of Israel, where they are listed in this table. 



THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

Most protected areas have been established since 
the 197Qs and 1980s. Today there are 1 324 
protected areas in the region which cover an estim- 
ated 10 percent of the land area. The protection sta- 
tistics, however, are heavily dominated by a small 
number of very large sites. If the two largest sites 
(both Category VI Wildlife Management Areas in 
Saudi Arabia) are excluded, the proportion of the 
region which is protected drops to around 4 percent, 
making it one of the most poorly protected regions 
in the world. 

The large number of sites with no lUCN 
category represent a broad mix, including sites 
which probably offer only low levels of protection 
(recreation zones, game reserves, wetland zones, 
hunting reserves, and forest reserves), but also 
including a considerable number of sites which are 
in all likelihood well protected. These include 
nature reserves, marine reserves, and national 
parks in countries for which information on lUCN 
management categories is not available. 

It is readily apparent from the national-level 
statistics that the total area protected in different 



countries is highly varied. While a few countries 
[Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Oman, and Saudi Arabia) 
have extensive protected areas, often in well- 
developed networks, a much greater number of 
countries have only a few small sites. Afghanistan, 
Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 
Morocco, Qatar, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the 
United Arab Emirates, and the Yemen all have less 
than 2 percent of their land area within protected 
areas. Even where there are protected areas there 
remain problems of management and enforcement. 
Land ownership is a far more complex issue in 
this region than in many parts of the world. Large 
numbers of mobile peoples live across the region 
and their lifestyles of shifting pastoralism require 
open access, at least to the drier parts of the region. 
Most protected areas recognize this, and allow for 
continued access - there are fewer sites in lUCN 
Categories l-ll in this region, and even some of the 
well-known Category II sites such as the Arabian 
Oryx Sanctuary in Oman and the Tassili N'Ajjer 
National Park in Algeria have resident human 
populations. Some level of continued human use 
is entirely compatible within most of these areas. 



ZU 



North Africa and the Middle East 



but levels of protection may not allow for sufficient 
control of problenns such as overgrazing and 
unsustainable hunting. 

Other forms of protection 

One of the best know/n forms of protection, the al 
hema system described above, is still important in 
some areas, and indeed has been given legal 
recognition in places. Even without such explicit 
protection, the nomadic or mobile peoples who 
are widespread across the region often practice a 
variety of measures to ensure environmental and 
livelihood sustainability. In many cases these 
peoples and their traditional activities have 
created or modified the particular biodiversity and 
landscape values of these areas over centuries. 
While changes to traditional societies may 
be reducing the effectiveness of such lifestyles 
in maintaining landscapes and biodiversity, 
there is an increasing number of examples 
of mobile peoples becoming more actively 
involved in conservation. 

One example of this is that of the Kuhi sub- 
tribe of Qashqai nomadic pastoralists in southern 
Iran which has developed more effective internal 
organization and is now requesting government 
support for the continued traditional use and 
maintenance of its tribal lands, including an 
important wetland, as a community-conserved 
area. In another example, however, the Harasis 
tribal peoples in Oman took a leading role in the 
reintroduction and protection of the Arabian oryx in 
the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary. Their efforts have not 
been successful however, oryx numbers have 
declined dramatically since 1996, due to poaching 
and habitat degradation, while 90% of the site is 
about to loose its protected status, with opportunies 
for hydrocarbon prospecting in the site adding a 
further level of threat. 

Another form of protection is the de facto 
protection provided by the landscape itself. Harsh 
environments, where human activities are scarce, 
such as dry desert and mountain landscapes, 
dominate a large part of this region. Such areas 
have been spared many of the impacts faced in 
more humid and productive parts of the world. 

International sites 

Only about half of the countries in the region are 
actively involved in any of the major international 
protected areas agreements and programs. In 
terms of the total number of sites, the Ramsar 



North Africa and the Middle East: Protected areas 
network by lUCN category, 2005 



lUCN category 


Total 


Total 




sites 


area Ikm^J 


la 


28 


3A96 



lb 


2 


31 


II 


71 


215 87i 


II 


50 


12 432 


IV 


269 


69 806 


V 


162 


1U762 


VI 


30 


790 662 


No category 


712 


78 687 


Total 


1 324 


1 285 749 



North Africa and the Middle East: Protected areas 
network by lUCN category (percentage of total 
area), 2005 



No Category 16%) 



VI (62%) 




II (17%) 

,111(1%) 
'."^ IV (5%) 



V (9%) 



North Africa and the Middle East: Number of 
protected areas by lUCN category, 2005 

800 



700 



600 



500 



400 



300 



200 



100 



-J I I _L 




la lb 



III IV V VI category 



265 



The world's protected areas 



North Africa and the Middle East: Internationally 
protected areas, 2005 



Country 

Biosphere reserves 
Algeria 


No. of 
sites 

6 


Protected 
area [km^l 

73 547 


Eqypt 


2 


24 558 


Iran, Islamic Republic of 


9 


27 534 


Israel 


1 


266 


Jordan 


1 


308 


Lebanon 


1 


523 


Morocco 


2 


97 542 


Tunisia 


U 


756 


Turkey 


1 


272 


Yemen 


1 


26 816 


TOTAL 


28 


252 121 


Ramsar sites 


Algeria 


LP 


29 596 


Bahrain 


2 


68 


Cyprus 


2 


38 


Egypt 


2 


1 057 


Iran, Islamic Republic of 


22 


14811 


Israel 


2 


4 


Jordan 


1 


74 


Lebanon 


/, 


11 


Libyan Arab Jamahinya 


2 


1 


Morocco 


2U 


2 720 


Syrian Arab Republic 


1 


100 


Tunisia 


1 


126 


Turkey 


12 


1 796 


TOTAL 


117 


50401 


World Heritage sites 
Algeria 


1 


80 000 


Eqypt 


1 


259 


Oman' 


1 


27 500 


Tunisia 


1 


126 


Turkey 


2 


96 


TOTAL 


6 


107 981 



1 In August 2007, m the first case of its kind in the history of the 
World Heritage Convention, the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary was 
removed from the World Heritage List, based on collapsing oryx 
numbers, increasing threats and a decision to degazette 90% 
This change has not been incorporated into the statistics in this 
volume 

Convention is clearly very important - indeed the 
convention was first agreed in Ramsar, Iran, in 
1971. Both Iran and Algeria have been heavily 
involved in designating sites under this convention. 
Only six natural and mixed World Heritage 
sites have been declared to date. The largest, the 



Tassili N'Ajjer National Park in Algeria, also 
incorporates a biosphere reserve and Ramsar site. 
It is somewhat representative of the tight inter- 
linkage between people and environment in the 
region. The site includes some of the most exten- 
sive and best-preserved prehistoric cave art in the 
world, spanning a period from 8 000 to 1 500 years 
ago. It also includes relict flora and fauna in an 
"island" of relatively high diversity in the central 
Sahara Desert. 

The marine waters of the region are almost 
entirely incorporated into three UNEP Regional 
Seas Programmes with associated conventions: 
Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention); the Red Sea 
and Gulf of Aden (Jeddah Conventicnl; and the 
Arabian Gulf and Arabian Sea IROPME Sea Area, 
Kuwait Convention). While all of these are supp- 
ortive of conservation measures, only one is actively 
promoting the development of protected areas: the 
Mediterranean Action Plan has a specific protocol 
calling on states to designate Mediterranean 
Specially Protected Areas. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

The WCPA Regional Action Plan for the region 
identifies the following priorities for improving the 
planning and management of protected areas 
within the region. 

Training and capacity to manage 

Lack of skilled staff is a major constraint on the 
effective establishment and management of 
protected areas. The management of many pro- 
tected areas falls below acceptable international 
standards. Such disciplines as protected area 
planning and management, wildlife management, 
and environmental sociology are not yet widely 
recognized by the region's academic institutions. 
One training center has recently been established in 
the region, but there are almost no university 
courses or degree programs in the subjects most 
closely related to protected area management. 

Skills are particularly needed in the following 
areas: involvement of local stakeholders; conflict 
resolution; planning and management of protected 
areas including marine protected areas; application 
of information arising from research and monit- 
oring programs; and development of environmental 
awareness and education programs. The develop- 
ment of skills must embrace legal and socio- 
economic as well as the ecological aspects of 
protected area management. 



266 



North Africa and the Middle East 



The primary focus of training must be on those 
directly involved in the management of protected 
areas, such as upper-level managers and admin- 
istrators, middle-level managers, researchers, 
rangers, and tourist guides. However, there are 
other important target groups. These should 
include decision makers and legislators who work 
in other agencies but whose decisions may 
influence the establishment and management of 
protected areas. They should also include local 
stakeholders, educators, women, and youth. 

Legislation 

The legislative basis for protected areas is still weak 
in the region. Even though most countries have 
some protected area legislation, others do not have 
enough provisions to make creative use of the 
region's rich heritage of traditional institutions and 
indigenous conservation practices. There are also 
few provisions to involve local citizens as partici- 
pants in the establishment and management of 
protected areas, or to ensure that any benefits gen- 
erated from the use of protected areas be equitably 
shared with the local people. In many instances, 
implementation and enforcement are given 
insufficient attention. 

Pilot protected areas 

There is an acute need to expand the protected area 
systems to represent those ecosystems where 
there is no protection, and to conserve endangered 
endemic and relict species of plants and animals, 
as well as species of special ecological, economic, 
or cultural value. Especially important is the need to 
conserve key sites of biological productivity - 
wetlands, mountains, and woodlands, and coastal 
sites - that constitute the habitats of the majority of 
the region's flora and fauna. 

Equally great is the need to manage 
protected areas, or suitable parts of them, in a 
manner that brings sustainable and tangible 
benefits to the local people who have in many 
cases been disadvantaged by their establishment. 
Such benefits will give these people incentives to 
become partners in conservation. 

Broad agreement and commitment to these 
objectives exist among conservation agencies 
within the region. Nonetheless there is a need for 
highly successful pilot or "model" protected areas 
that are effective in conserving the region's 
biological diversity and at the same time dem- 
onstrate how community participation in the 




management of protected areas can bring 
tangible sustainable benefits. 

Ecotourism 

One of the most promising ways for protected areas 
to generate tangible and sustainable benefits is 
from nature-based tourism. Ecotourism can provide 
a meaningful incentive and economic justification 
for conservation, as it depends on the maintenance 
of unspoiled nature and thriving communities of 
wild plants and animals. In addition, it can generate 
an influential and articulate clientele who can serve 
as advocates for the conservation of protected 
areas. If it is not managed very carefully, however, 
nature-based tourism tends to degrade the very 
resources upon which it depends, and this has been 
happening in the region. 

According to the World Tourism Organization 
(WTO), one of five major tourism trends will be an 
important growth in adventure tourism and in 
ecotourism. The same organization also forecasts 
solid growth in cultural tourism, and North Africa 
and the Middle East are among the regions where 
this is expected to happen in the near future. 

It is, therefore, critical that tourism be 
carefully planned to ensure that such developments 
and activities do not compromise the natural and 
cultural values for which protected areas were 
established in the first place. This can only be 
ensured through effective management of these 
areas. Emphasis also needs to be placed on the 
development of strong partnerships between 
protected area agencies and tourism agencies, 
including commercial operators. 



Natural and cultural 
landscapes throughout 
the Middle East remain 
poorly covered by the 
protected areas 
network. 



267 



The world's protected areas 



Northern Eurasia 

Armenia, Azerbaijan. Belarus, Georgia, 

Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan. Moldova. Russian 

Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, 

Uzbekistan 

Contributor: N. Daniiina 



Peschanaya Bay, Lake 
Baikal, Pribalkal 
National Park, Russia. 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

The Northern Eurasia region is located from 20 to 
190°E, and from 48 to 90°N, extending from the 
Barents, Baltic, and Black Seas in the west to the 
Pacific Ocean in the east, and from the Arctic Ocean 
in the north to the Caucasus and Pamir Mountains 
in the south. It is one of the largest WCPA regions, 
with a total land area of over 22 million km^. 

The region encompasses all of the landscape/ 
climatic zones of the temperate and Arctic regions 
of the northern hemisphere: Arctic tundra, 
coniferous, mixed, and broadleaf forest, steppe, 
semi-desert, desert, and subtropics. These zones 
exist in tracts that are larger and less disturbed 
than in most other regions, and the northern Arctic 




PArnold/SliU Pictures 



regions are home to some of the largest stretches 
of wilderness in the world. 

The region has an extremely varied relief, 
marked by vast plains covering much of Siberia and 
the Turanian Plain (around the Aral Sea). Elevation 
ranges from 132 meters below sea level to 7 495 
meters above sea level, and mountain ranges 
include part of the Carpathian Mountains and the 
Urals in the west, the Caucasus between the Black 
and Caspian Seas, the Tian Shan to the south, and 
other ranges in southern and eastern Siberia. Near 
the southern borders of the region these mountains 
encompass a broad variety of ecosystems: glacial- 
nival, alpine, subalpine, mountain forest, meadow, 
steppe, and desert. There are a number of active 
volcanoes in the far east along the Kamchatka 
Peninsula, marking the edge of the Eurasian Plate. 

There is an extensive coast along the Arctic 
Ocean, and offshore some large island systems - 
much of this coast is ice-bound for large parts of the 
year There is also a long Pacific coastline, facing 
the Bering Sea and with the complex formation of 
the Kamchatka Peninsula, Sakhalin Island, and the 
Kuril Islands almost entirely enclosing the Sea of 
Okhotsk. In the southwest of the region are found 
the northern coasts of the Black Sea and most of 
the coastline of the Caspian Sea. Inland water 
bodies include a great number of rivers and lakes, 
some of them the world's largest by length and by 
water volume, as well as vast wetlands. 

With such a rich array of ecosystems, the 



268 



Northern Eurasia 




F Bruemmer/Stlii Pictures 



Introduced Przewalski horses \Equus freus przewalskii] on the steppe of Askania Nova Biosphere Reserve, Ukraine. 



269 



The world's protected areas 




Source: UNEP-WCMC 



Northern Eurasia 



1200 I— 



1000 



800 — 



E 600 — 



400 — 



200 



I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date (km^l 

I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm^l 



■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I 



11 



189900 1905 '10 '15 '20 25 '30 35 '40 %5 50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 ■95 2000'05 



North Eurasia: Growth of protected areas network, 1899-2005 



region holds a great wealth of biodiversity. However, 
the vast size of many of these landscapes means 
that relatively few have been registered in investi- 
gations of concentrations of biodiversity. There are 
nine centers of plant diversity and only one endemic 
bird area Ithe Caucasus). Large tracts of the region 
have been singled out for wider ecological 
importance within 19 key ecoregions Ithe WWF 
Global 200). The region is also exceptionally 
valuable as a regulator of biosphere processes that 



maintain ecological stability on a global scale, 
notably as a major carbon sink. 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

The modern history of conservation practice in the 
countries of Northern Eurasia is believed to have 
started in 1886, when Count V. Dzhedushitskii 
dedicated a portion of his estate (now in the 
Ukraine) for the preservation of an old-growth 
forest and the nesting sites of the white-tailed sea 



North Eurasia: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1899-2005 

15 000 r— 

H Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

■ Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
.-._- I dates based on date entered into WDPA 



9 000 



6 000 



3 000 



-_ HL 




1899'001905'10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 200005 



271 



The world's protected areas 



eagle. In 1898, Baron Friedrich Falz-Fein fenced off 
500 hectares of virgin steppe on his estate Askania 
Nova in the vicinity of Kherson, Ukraine. 

In 1909, the zoologist Grigorii Kozhevnikov 
outlined the ecological principles of protected area 
establishment, emphasizing their Importance as 
baseline areas. Some of the first large nature res- 
erves [zapovedniks] were established around Lake 
Baikal in 1916, just before the Russian Revolution. 

In 1917, the geographer Venlamin Semenov- 
Tian-Shanskii proposed the first long-term plan for 
the development of a network of zapovedniks 
representing all the biodiversity of Russian nature 
Isee Shtilmark 20031. Further plans for a nationviiide 
netvi/ork of protected areas were developed over 
time, most recently in 1989 IZabellna, Isaeva-Petrova 
and Karaseva, 19891, but these were typically 
summaries, while most of the network planning 
was undertaken at the level of the Individual 
republics. Some of these proposals survived the 
collapse of the USSR and were eventually put Into 
practice in the newly Independent states. 

Beginning in the 1920s, the Soviet zapovedn//<s 
started implementing a unified program of long- 
term scientific research and monitoring. Today, 
some of them can boast of having conducted 
regular ecological observations (known as the 
'chronicles of nature'! for more than 60 years. 

In the 1970s, the USSR witnessed the 
establishment of Its first national parks: in Estonia, 
Latvia, Lithuania, and Armenia. However, the 
development of national park systems became 
most active in the years following the dissolution of 
the USSR. Zapovedniks and national parks are 
established to protect the most valuable eco- 
systems. Most are federal or national entities, with 
state-employed staff, including rangers, scientists, 
educators, as well as administrative personnel. 

Another traditional type of protected area In 
northern Eurasia Is the zakaznik (nature refuge)'. 
Traditionally these were established as hunting 
refuges, dedicated to the propagation of particular 
game animals. However, this evolved into a more 
Inclusive vision. Today, nature refuges may focus 
on particular zoological, botanical, hydrologlcal, 
geological, or other features, or be designated to 
protect entire landscapes. Even more numerous 
In these countries, and encompassing an even 
greater variety of objects, are nature monuments. 

Beginning in the 1970s, efforts began to 
Integrate individual protected areas into a unified 
network. Under a system of centralized planning it 



was possible to develop tiered systems of protection 
for large territories and to place these within the 
wider planning schemes for different administrative 
units. With the drive towards decentralized plann- 
ing, the Implementation of such Integrated systems 
has now become more difficult. The majority of 
zapovedniks has also been subject to standardized 
ecological monitoring, dating back more than 60 
years. Most have scientific staff, while state Insp- 
ectors (rangers) carry out protection of zapovedniks 
and national parks. 

Today, the protected area networks In all the 
former Soviet republics suffer from limited state 
funding, directly linked to the difficult economic 
circumstances now prevalent In the region. In many 
countries the rate of designation of new protected 
areas has decreased or even stopped since 1990. 
Numerous conservation non-governmental organi- 
zations have emerged, and are now assisting state 
institutions In supporting the existing protected 
areas and developing protected area networks in 
various ways. Including by generating funds from 
both domestic and International sources. 

THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

Northern Eurasia has the second largest land area 
of any WCPA region and, although there are 17 697 
sites In the WDPA, covering almost 1 .76 million km^, 
protected areas represent less than 8 percent of the 
land area. Throughout the former Soviet Union, the 
term specially protected natural area (SPNA) has 
been applied to the range of protected areas 
developed in each state. Most of the old Soviet 
categories of protected area still remain and. in 
general, there are strong similarities In the 
protected area nomenclature between countries: 
a state zapovedniks (nature reserves] (lUCN 

Category I); 
a national parks (lUCN Category II); 
n state nature refuges [zakaznik'] (lUCN 

Category IVl; 
Q nature monuments (III). 

Most of the countries have other categories of 
protected area, for example nature parks (lUCN 
Category III, nature sanctuaries, and refuges (e.g. 
forest, botanical, zoological, complex - Category IV). 
The administrative systems for protected 
areas are also similar In many countries. For the 
most part the national parks and zapovedniks are 
managed by state agencies, typically environment 
ministries, but also agriculture, forestry, or hunting 



272 



I The term zakaznik is derived from the Russian word zakaz. which can be translated into English as prohibition'. 



Northern Eurasia 



departments. Several countries also have a snnaller 
number of sites administered by scientific 
institutions, sucti as the Russian Academy of 
Sciences. In most cases, nature monuments, nature 
refuges, and other small sites are administered at 
subnational or local levels. 

The very large number of sites in three 
countries - Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine - are 
dominated by locally or nationally designated 
nature monuments and nature refuges. Typically 
the former represent very small sites Imostly 
Category llll, and so the area statistics show quite a 
different pattern, with Category III sites making up 
only 1 percent of the area, and Category IV sites 
dominating the statistics. Northern Eurasia also 
has the largest area of strict nature reserves (la) of 
any region - these are largely the zapovednik, a 
protected area category somewhat emblematic of 
the region - inviolable nature reserves dedicated to 
the permanent protection of the native biota within 
their boundaries. 

In Armenia there has been little growth of 
the protected areas network since 1990. The 
Armenian Ministry of Nature Protection IMNPI is 
the governmental agency responsible for the 
management and coordinated development of the 
national network of protected areas, but a small 
number of sites is administered by the Ministry of 
Agriculture, and one by the National Academy of 
Sciences. Azerbaijan has also shown a very slow 
growth of protected areas since 1990. The State 
Committee on Ecology and Nature Management 
Supervision of Azerbaijan administers the protected 
areas, and most sites are staffed. 

Belarus has a considerable number of 
protected areas, and has continued to add to the 
network to the present day. There is an active 
ongoing program of scientific research in national 
parks and zapovedniks. In Kazakhstan the general 
supervision of zapovedniks, refuges, national parks, 
nature monuments, and genetic reserves is carried 
out by the State Committee on Forestry, Fisheries 
and Hunting of the Ministry of Agriculture, although 
their daily management is assigned to the regional 
authorities. The protection of the state nature 
refuges is carried out by the Forest Watch service, 
and by members of the Association on Hunting and 
Fishing, while national nature monuments are 
managed by their landholders. 

Several governmental agencies are involved in 
protected area management in Kyrgyzstan, includ- 
ing the Ministry of Environmental Protection (nature 



North Eurasia: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category, 2005 



lUCN category 


Total 


Total 




sites 


area (km^) 


la 


195 


362 219 



lb 


_ 


_ 


1 


66 


125A16 


111 


11321 


24 ao 


IV 


5 256 


841 562 


V 


/.07 


14 785 


VI 


54 


84 216 


No category 


398 


302 460 


Total 


17 697 


1 755 098 



North Eurasia: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category (percentage of total area), 2005 



No Category (17% 



VI I5%1 
V|1%1 '■ 



I / '01^^^^ 



la 121%) 




II (7%) 
-111(1%) 



IV M%) 



North Eurasia: Number of protected areas by lUCN 
category, 2005 

12 000 



10 000 



8 000 



6 000 



^000 



2 000 




la II 



No 
IV V VI category 



273 



The world's protected areas 



Areas of North Eurasia protected (by country], 2005 



Country 

Armenia 



Land area Ikm^) 

29 800 



Total protected area Ikm^l 

2 991 



Total number of sites 

28 



Azerbaiian 


86 600 


6 328 


42 


Belarus 


207 600 


13 153 


904 


Georgia 


69 700 


3 040 


36 


Kazakiistan 


2 lU 900 


76 275 


76 


Kyrqyzstan 


199 900 


7 152 


93 


Moldova. Republic of 


33 850 


473 


63 


Russian Federation 


17 075/,00 


1 556 904 


11 181 


Tajikistan 


U3 100 


26 029 


23 


Turkmenistan 


488 100 


19 782 


29 


Ukraine 


603 700 


22 468 


5 198 


Uzbekistan 


447 400 


20 503 


24 



Note: Wtiile the overall figures are accurate, it appears tfiat there is some under-reporting of smaller sites, with several hundred 
nature monuments and nature refuges missing from countries such as Belarus. Tajikistan, and Ukraine 



reserves!, the State Forestry Agency IKyrgyz Ata 
National Park, nature parks, forest and some 
botanical refuges!, the Recreation Department 
lAlaarcha Nature Park], the Main Department on 
Management and Regulation of Hunting Resources, 
and the Hunters and Fishermen Union (hunting 
refuges!. Other nature refuges and nature monu- 
ments are administered by municipalities. 

In Moldova the Department of Environmental 
Protection is responsible for the supervision of the 
national protected areas network, although the 
State Forest Service and the Ministry of Natural 
Resources and Ecological Control manage some 
sites, while others are administered by the local 
authorities and funded from local budgets. 

A few hundred sites in Russia fall under 
federal control, mostly of the Ministry of Natural 
Resources of the Federation. These include almost 
all zapovedniks and national parks. In contrast, the 
majority of nature refuges and nature monuments 
are administered at regional and local levels. 

Tajikistan has relatively few protected areas, 
although there are an additional 162 nature 
monuments that are not recorded in the WDPA. 
All large lakes in Tajikistan are included in 
zapovedniks or refuges. Nature reserves and 
nature refuges are administered by the State 
Forestry Enterprise, and national parks by the 
Ministry of Nature Protection. Law enforcement 
was weak during the civil war of 1992-93, and a 
lack of international support, political instability, 
as well as serious levels of pollution in the Takob 
River from the Takobskii mining plant, are 
threatening protected areas in the country. 



Ukrainian protected areas are administered 
by a range of different bodies including: the Min- 
istry of Environment and Natural Resources; State 
Committee on Forestry; National Academy of Sci- 
ences; Agrarian Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; 
Taras Shevchenko National University; and the 
Ministry of Education. In Uzbekistan, most sites are 
administered by the State Committee on Nature 
Protection, while the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Water Management administers six nature reserves 
and two national parks. Overall supervision of 
regime enforcement in SPNA is exercised by the 
State Committee on Nature Protection. 

International sites 

All Commonwealth of Independent States ICISI 
countries have ratified the Convention on Biological 
Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, and other 
international agreements. The Ramsar Convention 
has been widely adopted by countries across the 
region, and in several countries new sites have 
regularly been added since 2000, including all five 
sites in Tajikistan, which were designated in 2001 . 

The biosphere reserves across the region 
include some very large sites, in particular the 
53 000 km2 Tzentralnosibirskii Biosphere Reserve 
in Russia, and the 43 000 km^ Issyk Kul (also a 
Ramsar site! in Kyrgyzstan, designated in 2001. 

World Heritage sites are confined to two 
countries, but cover a broad geographic range. The 
Russian sites include large areas of the central and 
eastern parts of the region, such as Lake Baikal - 
the world's oldest and deepest freshwater lake; the 
Volcanoes of Kamchatka; the Golden Mountains of 



274 



Northern Eurasia 



Altai; and the Central Sikhote-Alin mountains on 
ttie coast of the Sea of Japan. In the west of the 
region a number of nationally designated protected 
areas have also been awarded European Diplomas 
(Type Al by the Council of Europe, including 
Berezinskiy Zapovednik and Belarus' Belovezhskaya 
Pushcha National Park; four zapovedniks in Russia, 
and the Carpathian zapovedniks in the Ukraine. 

There are also many important transboundary 
protected areas within this region and extending 
into neighboring regions. These include the 
Druzhba IFnendshipl Nature Reserve, between 
Russia and Finland; the Dauria Nature Reserve 
between Russia, Mongolia, and China; Khanka Lake 
between Russia and China; the Bolshekhekhtsirsky 
Nature Reserve (Russia! with the Three Parallel 
Rivers Nature Reserve in China; and the Pasvik 
Nature Reserve between Russia, Finland, and 
Norway. Agreements have been elaborated 
between Georgia and Russia, and between Georgia 
and Azerbaijan, to facilitate coordinated 
management of a number of East Caucasian 
protected areas. Two Ukrainian protected areas 
form part of the tri-nation East Carpathian 
Biosphere Reserve with sites in Poland and 
Slovakia. The Danube Delta has also received 
particular attention and there is a biosphere reserve 
between Ukraine and Romania, while in 2000 
Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, and Moldova adopted a 
declaration on cooperation for the establishment of 
the Lower Danube Green Corridor 

Another ongoing project is the Global 
Environment Facility IGEF] Central Asian 
transboundary project 'Establishment of protected 
areas network for biodiversity conservation in the 
Western Tien Shan'. The project plans the creation 
of a transboundary protected area to include 
Kazakhstan's Aksu-Djabagly Nature Reserve, Sary- 
Chelek and Besh-Aral Nature Reserves in 
Kyrgyzstan, and Chatkal Nature Reserve and 
Ugam-Chatkal National Park in Uzbekistan. It is 
supported by bilateral agreements between the 
national governments and the World Bank. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

The regional program for WCPA has identified a 
number of key issues, which in many ways highlight 
the future needs for protected areas in the region. 
Its main objectives include: 
Q Increasing the participation of protected area 
managers in decision making at local, 
regional, national, and global levels; 



North Eurasia: Internationally protected areas, 2005 



Country 

Biosphere reserves 
Belarus' 



No. of 
sites 



Protected 
area (km^j 

3 533 



Kyrgyzstan 



A3 355 



Russian Federation 



37 



252 857 



Turkmenistan 



346 



Ukraine' 



3 324 



Uzbekistan 



574 



TOTAL 



50 



303 989 



Ramsar sites 
Armenia 



A 922 



Azerbaijan 


3 


2 321 


Belarus 


8 


2 831 


Georgia 


2 


342 


Kazakhstan 


2 


6 085 


Kyrgyzstan 


2 


6 397 


Moldova, Republic of 


3 


947 


Russian Federation 


35 


1 03 238 


Tajikistan 


5 


946 


Turkmenistan 


1 


1 887 


Ukraine 


33 


7 447 


Uzbekistan 


1 


313 


TOTAL 


97 


137 676 


World Heritage sites 
Belarus^ 


1 


50 


Russian Federation^ 


8 


209 970 


TOTAL 


9 


210 020 



Ttiree biosptiere reserves in ttie Ukraine and one in Belarus 

are transboundary sites with countries in the WCPA Europe 

region 

The Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest World 

Heritage Site is transboundary with Poland IWCPA Europe!, 

The Uvs Nuur Basin World Heritage Site is transboundary 

with (v/longolia IWCPA East Asial. 



Creation of a favorable image of protected 
areas and raising the involvement of the 
wider public in the work of protected areas; 
Increasing cooperation and the exchange of 
information and experiences between 
protected areas in Northern Eurasia and 
elsewhere; 

Strengthening the role of protected areas in 
conserving biodiversity and maintaining the 
region's ecological stability Establishing 
an ecologically representative network of 
protected areas for the region; 
Enhancing the role of protected areas in 



275 



The world's protected areas 



Mount Kazbak, 
Caucasus, Georgia. 




environmental education and awareness; 
□ Improving the economic basis of protected 

area activities; 
a Improving the institutional and legal 

framework for protected area activities; 

While it is clearly necessary to increase the total 
area of protected areas (as a percentage of national 
territory, but also ensuring representativeness), 



many other strategies must be employed. Critical 
among these will be: improving existing legislation; 
raising the level of involvement and cooperation 
between government agencies, NGOs, and inter- 
national bodies; improving environmental education 
and outreach; developing links with the private 
sector, industry, and particularly ecotourism; and 
the establishment of stronger economic bases, 
including the creation of trust funds. 



276 



South Asia 



South Asia 

Bangladesh, Bhutan, 

British Indian Ocean Territory (UK), India, 

Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka 

Contributors: S. Bhatt, A. Kothari, P. Tuladhar 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

The South Asia region includes the countries of the 
Indian subcontinent, together with the remote 
island archipelagos of the central Indian Ocean. To 
the north the region is bounded by mountains, while 
to the west it borders the Arabian Sea and the 
Laccadive Sea, with the Bay of Bengal to the east. 

The mountain borders stretch from the 
Makran Range in Pakistan to the great sweep of the 
Himalayas running from northern Pakistan along 
the borders of northern India and dominating the 
landscapes of Nepal and Bhutan. The Himalayas 
have been formed by the collision of two gigantic 
land masses, the Indian subcontinent and the Asian 
continent, which began about 70 million years ago. 
In geological terms, they are still relatively young 
and still growing, and the region is prone to 
earthquakes. The main range, or Great Himalayas, 
includes many of the world's highest peaks 
(including Sagarmatha or Mount Everest, 
8 848 meters]. There is also a number of other 
ranges, many with distinctive geological and 
ecological features. Vegetation is highly varied 
through these mountain ranges, influenced by both 
altitude and rainfall. The natural vegetation is 
subtropical in the lower foothills, but dominated in 
most areas by moist temperate forests with both 
broadleaf evergreen and coniferous trees. There 
are extensive areas of such forests, particularly in 
Bhutan. Higher still, the forests give way to alpine 
species and scrub before the bare slopes and 
permanent snow and ice. North of the Himalaya, 
are the vast cold desert areas of Ladakh and Spiti, 
bordering Tibet. 



To the south of these mountain ranges are vast 
level plains, collectively described as the Indo- 
Gangetic Plain, bordering the Indus River in 
Pakistan, and in the center and east including the 
great plain of the Ganges, which flows for more than 
2 800 km out to the Bay of Bengal. These lands were 
once forested, but for millennia have been cleared 
for human agriculture. 

The Thar Desert dominates in northwest 
India and eastern Pakistan, with shifting sands, 
salt flats, rocky deserts, and sparse shrubs. Most 
of central and southern India is made up of the 
Deccan Plateau - a wide undulating terrain built 
largely of ancient rock, but also with more recent 
volcanic intrusions. Hilly or low mountain ranges 
fringe both the western and eastern edges of the 
subcontinent (the Eastern and Western Ghats). 
Forests are again the native vegetation, but less 



Tigers [Panthera tigris], 
India. 




277 



The world's protected areas 



■36"N 



P.^^' 



P.\K]SBTAN 



f 



'-"^a^E-V 


79(°E 


SffE 


93fe 




36°-N- 




^&^>.^: 






'vS^?/ 












'■y^*V^fe^ 


^W-^ 


%' 
















r 












■ ) ,' 


•''*^fe^ 












• y * 










^.jffS 


Cf 




g^*L_NEPAL - 


BHUTAN 


( 


• » 


•-^^ 






H^i^&Wfcji 




•^^ 



22°N 



1 1 



tkf 



" V ^' 



BANGLADESfi 



.4RiBIAXSEA 



IXDIAN OCEAX 



■IS-Jsl.. 



Ik? 




-<>; 



^i%^-' . -^ 



Andaman Islands (IND) tTi 



Vs 



British Indian Ocedfa 
Territory (GBR)' 



so 100 150km 



r>30's 



••rw 

, 65°E 

Source: UNEP-WCMC 



.. v.. 

•' ■ \ULDn'ES 



.. 72.°E ,i'_:.i#«;^ 



Nicobar Islands (IND) f 



79^E- 



-86°E- 



93°E 



278 



South Asia 



than 10 percent of the subcontinent as a whole is 
now covered by forest. Sri Lanka has vegetation 
very similar to the Deccan Plateau and the 
Western Ghats. 

The coastal and offshore waters of the 
Arabian Sea are highly productive, although 
overfishing is a problem, particularly close to the 
coasts. The dominant feature in the offshore 
waters is the Chagos Laccadive Ridge, a near- 
continuous string of coral atolls and associated 
islands, and shallow platforms. The Bay of Bengal 
is another highly productive sea, with substantial 
freshwater input, rich in nutrients, particularly in 
the north. Mangrove forests are widespread along 
these coasts, and include the Sundarbans, 
probably the most extensive mangrove forest in the 
world. In the far south-east of the region, India's 
Andaman and Nicobar Islands are home to a 
remarkable diversity of forest and marine 
ecosystems. Although remote, the islands are 
undergoing rapid immigration and population 
pressure on natural ecosystems is high. 

The species composition of the region is 
influenced by both the Indo-Malayan Realm and, 
over a smaller area towards the north, by the 
Palearctic Realm. Some of the most important 
centers for biodiversity or endemism are the 
various mountain ranges, and especially the 
western Himalayas, the flooded grasslands of the 
Rann of Kutch, and the Western Ghats, which 
house some of the only tropical rainforest in the 
region. In many areas the total numbers of species 
remain poorly known: for example, estimates of 
the number of endemic plant species in the 
Himalayas range from 2 500 to A 000. Marine 
biodiversity is also high, particularly in coral reef 
areas, although rates of endemism tend to be 
relatively low. 

The region is one of the world's most densely 
populated, with a total population of over 1.37 
billion, including the world's second most 
populous country, India. Furthermore, population 
growth rates are still high. A very large proportion 
of the population remains rural, and agriculture 
and pastoralism have transformed most of the 
landscapes away from the steepest mountain 
terrains. Ethnically and culturally the region is 
highly diverse, with numerous religions, and 
with lifestyles varying from wealthy urban 
societies to traditional agricultural, and to tribal 
groups whose lifestyles have remained largely 
unchanged for centuries. 




HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

Human settlement and organized society have a 
long history across the region, and local 
communities have been practicing forms of natural 
resource conservation and management for at least 
three millennia. The first known recommendations 
for protected areas are laid down in the 
Arthashastra written by Kautilya at the end of the 
fourth century BC, while the first known 
government decree tor the protection of wildlife and 
forests was set out by the Emperor Ashoka in the 
year 252 BC in central India. Not long after this, in 
Sri Lanka, King Devanampiyatissa also set up 
wildlife sanctuaries. Religious beliefs, linked to 
each of the main faiths in the region, have often 
supported conservation and the protection of 
features such as forests, or sacred groves, and 
mountains - even today many sacred groves 
remain. Maharajas and Mogul emperors 
established many hunting reserves across the 
region, and in the colonial era, further hunting and 
forest reserves were established - many of these 
now form the basis for the modern system of 
protected areas. 

Many of Sri Lanka's current forest reserves 
date back to the end of the 19th century, such as 



Nanda Devi and Valley of 
Flowers National Parks 
World Heritage Area, 
India. 



279 



The world's protected areas 





3bU 


■ Cumulative area of sites withi known establishment date Ikm^) 




300 


_ H Cumulative area of sites viilh unknov^n establishment date, 

dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm'l . 








250 


- 










200 


— 








E 

o 
o 
o 


150 
100 

50 

n 


Ill 













1875'80 85'90'951900'0510'15 20 25 '30 35 40 45 50 •55'60 '65 ^OTS •80'85 ■9a95 200a'05 



South Asia: Growth of protected areas network, 1875-2005 



Sinharaja Forest Reserve established in 1875, while 
parts of the Bangladesh and Indian Sundarbans 
were designated as forest reserves in 1878. The first 
of the modern conservation-oriented protected 
areas In the region were established in India and Sri 
Lanka from the 1930s, including Corbett National 
Park in India, established In 1936. During the 
1960s-1970s, there was a rapid expansion In both 
the number and size of protected areas; 
Bangladesh established the Sunderbans South 
Wildlife Rese^^/e In 1960; Pakistan, the Ras Koh 



Wildlife Sanctuary in 1962; Bhutan, the Manas 
Wildlife Sanctuary (now a national park] in 1966; 
and Nepal, the Royal Chitwan National Park In 1973 
Ipart of the area had been Included in a royal 
hunting reserve since 18461. By contrast, the 
Maldives and British Indian Ocean Territory did not 
establish any protected areas until the late 1990s. 

Although a number of sites extend to the 
coast, the protection of open marine waters has 
been very slow to come to the region. India has 
some large sites, notably three marine national 



South Asia: Growth In the number of protected areas, 1875-2005 
1200 



1000 — 



800 



£ 600 



400 



200 



I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 
I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA 



■ ■ ■ ■ 




1875'80'85'90'95190a'0510'15 '20 25 '30 '35 '40 '45 50 ■55'60 '65 ■70'75 •80'85'90'95 2000'05 



280 



South Asia 




M GiUes/Bios/StiU Pictures 



Indian rhinoceros [Rhinoceros unicornis] In Royal Chitwan National Parl<. Nepal, a World Heritage site. 



281 



The world's protected areas 



Areas of South Asia protected (by country), 2005 



Country/territories 

Bangladesh 



Land area (km^) 

144 000 



Total protected area (km^l 

2 409 



Total number of sites 

21 



Bhutan 








47 000 


12 408 


9 


British Indian 


Ocean 


Terntor/ 


60 


1 374 


6 


India 








3 287 260 


178 282 


662 


Maldives 








300 


<1- 


25 


Nepal 








147 180 


25 621 


22 


Pakistan 








796 100 


75 311 


208 


Sn Lanka 








65 610 


14 877 


264 



parks, and there are small sites scattered across 
the region. Even among the existing sites there are 
problems associated with weak legal regimes or 
poor enforcement. The dive sites' in the Maldives 
have few regulations, and the large marine 
protected areas in the British Indian Ocean 
Territory, although closed to fishing, have 
exempted the only commercial fishing that takes 
place in the territory. 

THE PROTECTED AREA NETWORK 

The World Database on Protected Areas IWDPAl 
records 1217 protected areas covering 31 282 km^. 
Most of this IS terrestrial and 6.9 percent of the 
region's land surface is protected. This is the lowest 
proportion of any inhabited WCPA region. 

There are 184 marine protected areas 
recorded for the region, but the total area of these is 
the smallest of any WCPA region and also occupies 
the smallest proportion of any region's maritime 
boundaries, only 0.11 percent. 

The majority of the protected areas in the 
region are designated in Category IV, representing 
just half of the total area protected. Category II sites 
are also numerous, covering 22 percent of the total 
protected area. Although there is a large number of 
sites with no known lUCN category, they are 
typically smaller 

Despite the low regional average protected 
area coverage, several countries in the region have 
quite extensive protected area networks, notably Sri 
Lanka, Nepal, and Pakistan, and these incorporate 
most major habitat types. Bhutan has the largest 
coverage in the region: more than 25 percent of the 
land area is protected, with corridors linking all 
protected areas, and modest use by local people 
within the protected areas. The protected areas of 
Sri Lanka are also extensive: about 23 percent of the 
total area is protected for biodiversity conservation, 
with further large areas of natural forest reserved 



for production purposes. Pakistan's protected areas 
network, although extensive, fails to cover some 
critically threatened ecosystems. 

Nepal's protected areas cover 17 percent of its 
total land area, with sites protecting historic, 
natural, and cultural values. Recent developments 
have included the introduction of Buffer Zone 
Management Regulations (19961, allowing for the 
designation of buffer zones around settlements, 
agricultural lands, village open spaces, and other 
land uses, intended to help communities adjacent to 
protected areas (Sharma and Shaw, 19961. A new 
category of protected area - conservation area - has 
enabled communities and non-governmental 
organizations to become more involved in collabo- 
rative management with the government in pro- 
tected areas such as Annapurna Conservation Area 
and the Makalu-Barun National Park and 
Conservation Area. Makalu-Barun was officially 
established in 1992 to implement an innovative 
conservation model integrating protected area 
management and community development. The 
2 330 km2 area ranges from tropical forests to ice- 
bound mountain summits, and is the only protected 
area on Earth with an elevation range of 
8 000 meters [The Mountain Institute, 2004). 

India has significantly expanded its protected 
area network, although it still covers only about 
5 percent of national territory. National reviews 
have suggested that the network is not yet 
representative of the biogeographic regions of the 
country, and needs further expansion. In 2002, India 
added two new categories of protected area: 
community reserves and conservation reserves, 
both of them allowing for much greater 
participation by local people than the existing 
national parks and sanctuaries. 

Establishment and management of marine 
protected areas tends to be weak in the region, 
owing to insufficient attention from governments. 



282 



South Asia 



and deficient funding and capacity building for 
conservation. This is particularly notable in those 
coastal areas where marine resources play a 
critical role in human activities, through tourism or 
fisheries, and v^here more sustainable manage- 
ment, including protected areas if managed in 
participation with local people, could greatly 
improve the livelihoods. 

Other forms of protection 

There are a large number of formal and informal 
arrangements for protecting biodiversity in South 
Asia. Many community forests, forest reserves, 
private forests, buffer zones, jungle corridors, and 
others are included in the WDPA, but it is likely that 
some may have been missed. There are also 
thousands of community conserved areas, either 
traditional ones continuing into the present, or new 
initiatives. These include sacred groves and 
wetlands, catchment forests, village wetlands, 
coastal and freshwater river stretches, and bird and 
turtle nesting sites. Most of these are not yet 
incorporated into PA systems or into the WDPA. 

International sites 

There is involvement in international agreements 
on protected areas across the region. By 2005, 54 
sites were designated under the Ramsar 
Convention, including a number of very large sites 
such as the 5 663 I<m2 Rann of Kutch and the U 728 
km^ Indus Delta Ramsar Sites in Pakistan. 

Biosphere reserves have not been widely 
adopted across the region, despite the fact that 
many nationally designated sites include 
settlements and human activities, and there is 
growing recognition of the use of buffers and 
corridors, all principles widely used in biosphere 
reserves. The largest site in the region is the 
10 500km2 Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve in 
India, an important coastal site incorporating 
fishing villages, mangrove forests, coral reefs, and 
seagrass beds. 

One site, the Sundarbans mangrove forests 
between India and Bangladesh, Is covered under a 
complex array of protection. Including national 
protection In a range of protected areas in both 
countries, a biosphere reserve In India, a Ramsar 
site In Bangladesh, and World Heritage sites in 
both countries. Although the existing natural World 
Heritage sites In the region Include some of the 
most spectacular and ecologically important 
features In the region, from Sagarmatha to 



South Asia: Protected 


areas network by lUCN 




category, 2005 








lUCN category 


Total 


Total 




sites 


area 


(km21 


la 


19 




2 490 



lb 


2 


825 


II 


133 


67 341 


111 


- 


- 


IV 


661 


160 877 


V 


11 


1394 


VI 


12 


26 126 


No category 


379 


51 228 


Total 


1 217 


310 281 



South Asia: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category (percentage of total area), 2005 



No Category 
117% 



VI (8%) 



la(1%l 




II 122%) 



IV 152%) 



South Asia: Number of protected areas by lUCN 
category, 2005 



800 




IV V VI category 



283 



The world's protected areas 



South Asia: Internationally protected areas, 2005 



Country.territories 

Biosphere resen/es 
India 


No. of 
sites 

4 


Protected 
area \V.m>\ 

31 511 


Pakistan 




1 


658 


Sn Lanka 




U 


630 


TOTAL 




9 


32 799 


Ramsar sites 
Bangladesh 




2 


6 112 


British Indian 


Ocean Territory 1 


354 


India 




25 


6 771 


Nepal 




k 


235 


Pakistan 




19 


13 436 


Sn Lanka 




3 


85 


TOTAL 




54 


26 993 


World Heritag 
Bangladesh 


e sites 


1 


1 397 


India 




5 


3 001 


Nepal 




2 


2 080 


Sn Lanka 




1 


113 



TOTAL 



6 591 



the Sundarbans, there are relatively few sites 
considering the vast size of South Asia. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

The national biodiversity strategies and action plans 
of various South Asian countries have stressed the 
need to strengthen their protected area networks, 
notably addressing neglected biomes such as 
marine and freshwater systems. Most also stress 
the need to move into more participatory forms of 
management. These, as well as a number of other 
measures, are considered necessary to strengthen 
and improve the protected area network and to 
safeguard the region's biodiversity. They include the 
following items. 

□ Protected areas must be linked into the larger 
landscape and seascape, built into a broader 



system of management for land and water 
in which the various departments and 
sectors are coordinated, and conservation and 
sustainable use are achieved. One ongoing 
attempt at this, which is providing valuable 
lessons, is the Terai Arc Landscape program in 
Nepal and India. 

□ Collaborative management of protected areas 
and buffer zones must be encouraged and 
improved, in which local communities are 
involved in decision making from the stage of 
conceptualization through to their manage- 
ment and monitoring. These same local 
communities must also become substantial 
beneficiaries of conservation. 

Q Recognition and support must be given to 
community conserved areas, in ways that the 
relevant communities find appropriate. 

□ Policies and programs for the sustainable use 
of genetic/biological resources must be 
established, incorporating systems for the fair 
and equitable sharing of the benefits accrued 
from such use. 

^ Indigenous knowledge and innovations should 

be acknowledged and protected, and, where 

relevant, incorporated in the conservation and 

management system. 
Q Development-related policies and programs 

need to be reoriented to make them more 

sensitive to conservation issues. 
^ Management capacity for all staff, local 

communities, and NGOs involved in protected 

areas needs to be improved. 
^ The public must be made more aware of the 

benefits of conservation. 

□ Research into the threats facing biodiversity, 
including inappropriate development, invasive 
alien species, climate change, and over- 
exploitation, and into possible measures to 
address these threats, must be strengthened. 

A stronger engagement with the international site- 
based conventions would also be desirable in 
the region. 



286 



East Asia 



East Asia 

China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 
Japan, Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Taiwan POC 

Contributors: Shin Wang, J. Jamsramjav 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

This region covers a large part of the Asian 
continent, from the Altai Mountains and the 
Mongolian Plateau in the north, to the Tibetan 
Plateau in the south. The coastline borders the 
Japanese, Yellow, and East China seas in the east, 
and the South China Sea in the southeast. 

The continental land masses lie on the 
Eurasian Tectonic Plate. Japan is located on the 
margins between this plate and the Pacific and 
Philippine plates, and is a land of considerable 
tectonic activity, with more than 60 active volcanoes 
and numerous earthquakes every year The collision 
of the Eurasian and Philippine Plates is also 
responsible for the mountainous landscape on the 
islands of Taiwan POC. 

The north and northwestern part of the region 
is arid, dominated by grassland, and by the Gobi 
Desert (1.3 million I<m2| and theTaklimakan Desert 
(325 000 km^l in Mongolia and China. To the south 
the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau extends to the Himalayas, 
including part of Qomolangma (Mount Everest] in 
China. By contrast, the eastern part of the region 
experiences a monsoon climate, due to the 
proximity of the Pacific Ocean. Tropical evergreen 
rainforest occurs in the lowlands of southeastern 
China, including the eastern sides of Hainan Island 
and Taiwan Island. Subtropical forest is found in 
southern Japan, southeastern China between the 
Yangtze and Hongshui river basins, in Taiwan POC, 
and along the southern coast of the Republic of 
Korea. Mangrove forests fringe parts of the 
southern Chinese coast and the southern Japanese 
islands. Temperate deciduous broadleaf forests are 
found in the northeastern and northern part of the 
region. Various types of sub-Arctic coniferous taiga 
forests and cold temperate mixed forests are found 



in the northern part of the region in northern 
Mongolia, northeastern China, and the northern 
parts of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 

The region is of great biological richness. 
China alone is one of the five richest countries in the 
world in terms of species number Several 
biological hotspots are recognized, including the 
eastern Himalayas, Hengduan Mountains, and 
southwest Yunnan. As well as biologically rich 
tropical and subtropical areas, the region also 
contains by far the richest temperate ecosystems of 
the planet. The rich mesophyll forests of temperate 
central China are amazingly abundant in tree and 
other plant species, including several relict species. 
The Qionglai Mountains have more than 10 000 
plant species - approximately the same as the 
whole of Germany. Both Japan and Taiwan POC 
have high levels of species endemism. 

The eastern part of the region contains a 
diverse range of islands. Japan consists of more 
than 3 800 islands, although 97 percent of the total 
land area is clustered in four main islands. These 
are dominated by sub-Arctic coniferous forest, 
deciduous broadleaved forests, and broadleaved 
evergreen forest. The Republic of Korea also has 
numerous small islands. Most of these are 
uninhabited and they support a variety of indigenous 
species rarely found on the mainland [Dong-Gon 
Hong, 20021. 

There are extensive coral reefs around the 
small Japanese islands of the Nansei Shoto Chain, 
including the Yaeyama and Ryukyu islands. 
Scattered coral reefs are also found in the South 
China Sea, including offshore atolls, but also 
fringing reefs in Taiwan POC and Hainan. 

Population densities vary considerably, from 
very low levels in northwest and western China and 



285 



The world's protected areas 







Source; UNEP-WCMC 



286 



East Asia 



Mongolia (1.5 people per km^ in 20001, to the most 
densely populated places, including Taiwan POC 
1622 per km^, 20021 and the urban region of 
southeastern China, Hong Kong 16 H8.8 per km^, 
20011, and Macao. There is also a diverse range of 
land-use practices. There is little or no agriculture 
in the deserts. Grasslands in the semi-arid parts of 
Mongolia and northwestern China support large 
numbers of free-ranging wild ungulates and 
livestock. By contrast, the eastern part of the region 
has largely been converted to agricultural use, 
including arable and irrigated land for rice, cotton, 
tea, soybeans, and corn. Coastal waters throughout 
the region have been transformed by some of the 
most intensive industrial and artisanal fisheries in 
the world. Many of the major urban areas, and big 
cities such as Hong Kong and Tokyo, are also 
located in the coastal zone. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

Throughout the history of the region, religion 
(including animism, shamanism, Confucianism, 
Taoism, and Buddhism! has played an important 
role in the protection of the natural environment. 
The first protected areas in this region included 
sacred forests, holy mountains, and magnificent 
scenery. One of the first reserves was declared in 
1778 in Mongolia; Bogdo-uul, a mountain taiga 
forest ecosystem that is still protected as a holy 
mountain today. 

The modern creation of protected areas 
largely dates from the second half of the last 
century. However, 12 sites were designated as 
protected areas in Japan between 193^ and 1936. 
Protected area development in the other countries 
of the region began later. In 1 9^6, the government of 
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea passed 
the necessary legislation to create natural 
monuments and designated the first sites. China 
established its first nature reserve in 1956 
(Dinghushan). In Taiwan POC the first wildlife 
protected area was established in 197A. Mongolia 
declared its first nature reserve in 1957 (BatkhanI, 
and the Republic of Korea in 1965 (Soraksan). Since 
the 1970s, there have been rapid increases in the 
number of protected areas established in most 
countries across East Asia, from less than 500 sites 
in 1973 to more than 3 000 by 2003. 

Land ownership varies considerably from 
country to country. For instance, Mongolia 
developed under the Soviet system for more than 70 
years, during which all land, forest, and water were 




the property of the state. As a result, all protected 
areas in Mongolia are state owned. Protected areas 
in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and in 
China are also owned by the state. In contrast, 
private land can be designated as a national park in 
Japan, and some of the forest reserves in the 
Republic of Korea belong to private cooperatives. 

THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

There are 3 267 protected areas listed for the East 
Asia region in the World Database on Protected 
Areas (WDPAl. Most are terrestrial, and represent 
15 percent of the region's land surface. The 
statistics are dominated by a number of very large 
sites: the Qiangtang Nature Reserve 1298 000 km^) 
in the Taklimakan Desert and the Sanjiangyuan 
Nature Reserve 1152 300 km^l on the Tibetan 
Plateau, both in China, are two of the ten largest 
protected areas in the world. Another important site 
is the 53 000 km2 Great Gobi Strict Protected Area in 
Mongolia, the largest Category la protected area in 
the world. 

The degree of protection differs in each 
country, with the lowest proportion of land surface 
protected being in the People's Democratic 
Republic of Korea. Limited funding in most of the 
protected areas in Mongolia and China restricts 
conservation activities, research, and training of 
protected area staff. 

Until recently, the need to protect marine 
biodiversity, including coral reefs, coastal mudflats. 



Protected areas in 
Mongolia date back to 
the late 18th century. 



287 



The world's protected areas 



1 500 



1 200 — 



900 — 



p 600 — 



300 



I Cumulative area of sites with known establisliment date ll<m') 
I Cumulative area of sites with unl<nown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA (km') 



11 



I 



1902 05 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 35 %0 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 



East Asia: Growth of protected areas network, 1902-2005 



and estuarine areas, was not well recognized. At 
present, there are 285 marine protected areas in the 
region, covering an estimated 26 309 km^. However, 
this figure represents less than 0.5 percent of the 
total marine waters of the region (to 200 nautical 
miles). Hong Kong enacted the Marine Parks 
Ordinance in 1995. Taiwan POC is planning marine 
protected areas, and a draft Marine Law was 
prepared in 2002 to direct reasonable development 
of coastal areas, to prevent coastal pollution, and to 
reach the goal of national land security IShin Wang, 



20021. In the last few years, China has designated 
several coral reef and coral ecosystem nature 
reserves, which aim to protect and restore coral 
ecosystems in the South China Sea. China is also 
designating reserves with the aim of protecting 
coastal mudflats and estuarine marshes. Xie Yan 
and Lishu Li 120041 recently mapped 80 marine 
protected areas in China. 

Other forms of protection 

Temple gardens, restricted hunting areas. 



East Asia: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1902-2005 



3 500 


■ Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 


3 000 


_ ■ Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, ■ 
dates based on date entered Into WDPA 




2 500 


- 






2 000 


1 








1500 


■ 










1000 


■ 












500 


..ill 










1 



1902 '05 '10 '15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 



288 



East Asia 




J Thorsell 



Jinsha River, one of the Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas World Heritage Site, China. 



289 



The world's protected areas 



East Asia: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category, 2005 



lUCN category 


Total 


Total 




sites 


area Ikm^l 


la 


43 


62 8A3 



lb 


3i 


43 399 


II 


78 


98 820 


III 


34 


19 507 


IV 


121 


6111 


V 


2 144 


1 444 754 


VI 


78 


59 339 


No cateqor/ 


734 


29 869 


Total 


3 266 


1 764 642 



East Asia: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category (percentage of total area). 2005 



No Category 12%^ ,13 (4%) 
VI (3% 




II (6%) 
111(1%) 



V (82%) 



East Asia: Number of protected areas by lUCN 
category, 2005 



2 500 



2 000 



1 500 



1000 



500 



J I I L_ 



I 



la lb 



No 
III IV V VI category 



landscape forests, and privately owned forests 
play an important role for species protection 
alongside state-protected areas in tfiis region. 
There are also some large private forest reserves. 
At the present time, it is not certain what propor- 
tion of these are represented in the WDPA. 

international sites 

Participation in the three major international 
protected area conventions is generally good, 
and currently there are 77 Ramsar sites, 39 
biosphere reserves, and 12 natural and mixed World 
Heritage sites. 

Mongolia's 11 Ramsar sites include five large 
lake sites designated in 2004; Mongolia's first 
natural World Heritage site is also recent, having 
been designated as a transboundary site in 2003. 
China's eight World Heritage sites include four sites 
of mixed cultural and natural importance, 
incorporating monasteries and temples, and 
landscapes that lie at the center of thousands of 
years of art and culture, showing the close links 
between people and the natural landscape in this 
region. The Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan 
Protected Areas World Heritage Site, designated in 
2003, is the largest World Heritage site in the 
region, and is spread across multiple locations, 
lying in what is probably the most biodiverse 
temperate region of the world, straddling the 
boundaries of the Tibetan Plateau, East Asia, and 
Southeast Asia. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

There is a need to further improve the regional 
protected area system, including greater effort to 
achieve full representation of richer and lower 
altitude habitats, many of which are already highly 
threatened and reduced by human development. 
Ecosystem restoration should be considered in 
many cases. Designation of protected areas within 
comprehensive regional development planning and 
zoning is needed. Selection of protected areas on 
the basis of species needs or habitat cover often 
fails to win essential alliances with other strong 
agencies that can help support protected area 
establishment. Planners therefore need to pay 
much more attention to promoting the ecological 
services, and economic and social benefits that 
habitat protection or restoration can achieve in the 
local development context. 

Many protected areas are too small to retain 



290 



Areas of East Asia protected Iby countryl 



Country.territories 

China 



Land area Ikm'l 

9 562 070- 



Total protected area Ikm^l 

1 Ubl 363 



Total number of sites 

2 027 



Honq Konq 


1 062 


551 


103 


Japan 


377 800 


64 312 


962 


Korea, Democratic People s Republic 


1 20 5A0 


3 159 


31 


Korea, Republic 


99 260 


7 004 


44 


Macao 


20 


- 




Mongolia 


1 566 500 


217912 


51 


Taiwan, Province of China 


35 980 


4 340 


49 



"This figure excludes land area tor Taiwan POC, Hong Kong, and Macao for the purposes ot this analysis 



East Asia 



their original complement ot species. They will lose 
species as a result of island biogeographic 
principles (the number of species that can be 
supported is proportional to the area occupied). But 
this process can be minimized if connectivity can be 
maintained or re-created, if distances to other 



similar habitats are not too great, or habitat islands 
are available to act as stepping stones to provide 
lini<s. Corridors may need to be established 
between protected areas to allow migration and 
genetic exchange between otherwise isolated and 
inbred populations - building ecological networks. 



Thirty three of Japan's 
wetlands are protected 
under the Ramsar 
Convention. 





291 



The world's protected areas 



East Asia: Internationally protected areas. 2005 



Country 



Biosphere reserves 



No. of 
sites 



Protected 
area Ikm^l 



China 


26 


45 540 


Japan 


k 


1 158 


Korea, Democratic 
People's Republic 


2 


1320 


Korea. Republic of 


2 


1 225 


Mongolia 


5 


74 900 


TOTAL 


39 


124 143 



Ramsar sites 
China 



30 



29 375 



Japan 


33 


1 299 


Korea, Republic of 


3 


10 


Mongolia 


11 


14 395 


TOTAL 


77 


45 079 


World Heritage sites 
China 


8 


20 226 


Japan 





838 


Mongolia 


1 


9 467 


TOTAL 


12 


30 531 



1 The Uvs Nuur Basin World Heritage Site is a transboundary 
site between fvtongolia and Russia 



Protected area effectiveness can be greatly 
enhanced if some level of connectivity can be 
established betw/een them, or artificial movement 
of organisms is employed to maintain breeding 
between otherwise isolated populations. In some 
cases where In-situ conservation alone seems 
doomed to fail, higher levels of management 
intervention or ex-situ conservation actions may 
also be required. 



While management capacity varies across the 
region, generally there is a need to raise 
management standards, which will require: 
_l fundraising; 

□ establishment of monitoring systems; 

□ strengthening legal systems and law 
enforcement; 

□ training of staff and capacity building; 
Q increasing international cooperation; 

□ improving public awareness and involving 
local people. 

Much of the regional conservation estate is state 
owned and governments need to pay greater 
attention to the involvement of local communities in 
the establishment and management of protected 
areas. Whether a protected area succeeds or fails 
will depend on whether it is accepted and actively 
supported by local communities. 

l^/tore attention must be paid to the 
development of marine protected areas or marine 
protection measures (quotas, agreements on 
fishing areas, agreements on equipment allowed). 
In this regard it is important to reach international 
agreement about resource use within disputed 
waters. Countries may not agree on who owns an 
area of sea. but. if all agree that in any case it 
should be protected, there can be a basis for 
cooperative research and protection activities. 

New threats such as invasive alien species 
are becoming more important issues. These must 
be tackled at frontiers and by other agencies rather 
than by the management staff of protected areas 
when species have already arrived there. 



292 



Southeast Asia 



Southeast Asia 

Brunei Darussalam. Cambodia, Indonesia, 

Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, 

Singapore, Timor-Leste, Thailand, Viet Nam 

Contributors: EffendyA. Sumardja, J. MacKinnon, S. Ctiape 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

The Southeast Asian region comprises the territ- 
ories of the 10 Association of Southeast Asian 
Nations lASEANI countries, and the newly inde- 
pendent Timor-Leste. Biogeographically, apart 
from artificially dividing the island of New Guinea 
into two regions, these countries closely correspond 
with the Indochinese, Sundaic, Philippine, and 
Wallacean subregions of the Indo-Malayan Realm 
(MacKinnon and MacKinnon 19861, and part of the 
Papuan subregion in the Oceanian Realm. 

The total land area is almost A.5 million l^m^ 
and contains a population of almost half a billion 
people. In addition there is a considerable sea area. 
Most of this region is tropical and moist, but some 
parts have a pronounced dry season, resulting in 
monsoon forests such as those of central Myanmar, 
central Indochina, parts of the Philippines, and 
north Sumatra, east Java, the Lesser Sundas, and 
southeast Irian Jaya (West Papual in Indonesia. 
Several major river deltas and large lakes occur in 
the region and many mountain ranges provide 
distinct habitat types. In both northern Myanmar 
and central West Papua, peaks rise above the snow 
line and permanent glaciers are found. Other peaks 
provide cloud forest habitat. Some mountain ranges 
are volcanic and there are many active volcanoes 
throughout the region. Other distinctive habitat 
types include extensive karst limestone formations 
and some ultrabasic hills. The marine areas include 
shallow seas over the Sunda and Sahul continental 
shelves, with deeper seas elsewhere, and very deep 
sea trenches to the east of the Philippines, north of 
Tanimbar, and south of Java. 



The entire region is regarded as unusually rich 
in biodiversity. The coral reefs, mangroves, and 
seagrass beds of the region are the richest in the 
world. The Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos 
are both rich in terrestrial species and contain very 
high levels of insular endemism. The Indochinese 
subregion, Sundaic subregion, and Papuan sub- 
region contain some of the richest rainforests in the 
world. In total the region contains about 30 percent 
of all known species on the planet. This biodiversity 
importance has been recognized in all global 
biodiversity assessments - there are 37 endemic 
bird areas, and most of the land and sea area of the 
region falls within one or more of 21 terrestrial, 10 
freshwater, and four marine important ecoregions 
[WWF Global 200). 

The human population is generally dense but 
some areas such as Java and the major river deltas 
[Red River, Mekong, Chao Phraya, and Irrawaddyl 
support some of the highest human densities in 
the world, and this places a great pressure on the 
biological resources of the region. The ten ASEAN 
countries contain a diverse collection of different 
races, cultures, religions, political systems, and 
stages in economic development, but have joined 
together in a single association since they share 
similar conditions and aspirations. The region is 
largely a producer of raw materials (timber, econ- 
omic crops, fish, and oil] which are traded mostly 
with China, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. Light 
industries such as processing of economic crops, 
garments, and production of shoes, microchips, and 
other end-products are increasing, whilst tourism 
remains an important growth industry. 



293 



The world's protected areas 




Source: UNEP-WCMC 



296 



Southeast Asia 



800 

700 |— 

600 — 

500 — 

E 400 — 

o 

P 300 

200 — 

100 — 



I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date (l<m^l 

I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm'l 



■ ■mill 



1904 05 '10 '15 '20 25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 60 65 70 75 '80 '85 90 95 2000 05 



Southeast Asia: Growth of protected areas network, 1904-2005 



HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

Apart from Brunei and Thailand, the other 
territories have all experienced a period of 
European colonization. The earliest establishment 
of protected areas dates from this colonial period. In 
1840, for instance, the Governor of Singapore 
"prohibited the further destruction of forests on the 
summit of hills." By 1882 a system of forest res- 
erves was established, although this was revoked 
and reorganized in 1939. Nature reserves were not 



legislated in Singapore until 1951. By Independence 
In the mid-20th century, Malaysia, the Philippines, 
and Indonesia had already established basic 
protected area systems, but virtually no sites - 
with the exception of hunting reserves - were 
established In the Indochina countries while they 
were under French Influence. In Myanmar, only 
wildlife sanctuaries were declared. In which 
wildlife but not habitat was protected. 

Lao PDR and Cambodia have been the latest 



Southeast Asia: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1 904-2005 



2 500 



2 000 



1500 



1000 



500 



I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA 




1904 '05 '10 15 '20 25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 65 '70 '75 80 '85 '90 '95 2000 05 



295 



The world's protected areas 



Areas of Southeast Asia protected (by country), 2005 



Country 

Brunei Darussalam 



Land area Ikm'l 

5 770 



Total protected area (km'l 

3A21 



Total number of sites 

47 



Cambodia 


181 040 


43 465 


30 


Indonesia 


1 904 570 


462 646 


1 162 


Lao PDR 


236 800 


37 904 


27 


Malaysia 


329 750 


87 922 


767 


Myanmar 


676 580 


35 443 


55 


Philippines 


300 000 


56 493 


379 


Singapore 


620 


40 


7 


Thailand 


513 120 


1 1 1 762 


290 


Timor-Lesle 


153 870 


1 876 


15 


Viet Nam 


331 690 


20 742 


116 



countries in Southeast Asia to embark on estab- 
lishing major protected area systems. Viet Nam 
astonishingly found time to open its first national 
park in the middle of the Viet Nam War in 1962. 
Cambodia had made its first protected area as early 
as 1925, but this was replaced by a system of large 
reserves covering 5 percent of the country starting 
in 1960. This was again replaced after the Khmer 
Rouge period by a new system of 23 areas protected 
under royal decree in 1993. Lao PDR's extensive 
system of national conservation areas also dates 
from 1993. 

THE PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 

The growth of protected area systems in the region 
over the last 25 years has been remarkable. There 
are now 2 895 protected areas recorded in the World 
Database on Protected Areas, and the terrestrial 
coverage of these represents almost 19 percent of 
the total land surface. 

The dominant lUCN protected area manage- 
ment categories in terms of area coverage are II and 
VI, the latter including large numbers of forest 
reserves. Sites that have not been assigned a cat- 
egory are also widespread across the region, and 
these also include a number of forest reserve sites. 

Although there are 390 marine protected 
areas across the region, representing all the 
coastal countries, the total area covered is still 
quite small - 76 463 km^ - which represents only 
about 0.9 percent of the marine waters claimed by 
the countries of the region (to 200 nautical miles). 

Although the protected area system continues 
to grow, gap analyses continually point out new 
needs. Current protected area systems are biased 
towards montane areas and weak in protection of 



lowland moist forests, karst limestone, and 
wetlands. Some regions are also poorly covered, 
such as the Mollucas and Lesser Sundas of 
Indonesia, and the Visayas of Philippines. Lao PDR 
has an extensive system, developed through lUCN 
technical assistance in the 1980s-1990s, with most 
areas having high biodiversity value. The protected 
areas along the Annamite Range bordering Viet 
Nam are particularly important for regional conser- 
vation. Since the early 1990s this area has been the 
focus of attention because of the discovery of at 
least one new mammal genus and several new 
species (Duckworth, Salter & Khounboline 1999). 
Despite their high biodiversity values, all Lao 
national protected areas have been assigned lUCN 
Category VI and there is a major emphasis, which is 
yet to be effectively realized, on sustainable use of 
natural resources within the protected areas by 
local communities. 

Analysis of the important bird areas identified 
by BirdLife International indicate that only half of 
the important sites are within protected areas. For 
the Philippines, according to a recently completed 
multi-taxa review of critical areas for conservation, 
only half of the priority areas identified already tall 
within protected areas. It is recommended that each 
country undertakes its own systems review, tries to 
fill identified gaps, and may need to drop some 
degraded sites. 

Many protected areas contain extensive areas 
of degraded or even converted habitats so the total 
area of "natural" protected area is considerably less 
than official figures. Also, levels of protective 
management may be poor, and some countries 
have limited capacity tor effective management. As 
a result, many sites are only protected on paper 



296 



Southeast Asia 




5 Chape 



Nakai-Nam Theun National Protected Area, Lao PDR bordering Viet Nam. 



297 



The world's protected areas 



Southeast Asia: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category, 2005 



lUCN category 


Total 


Total 




sites 


area (km'l 


la 


292 


22 527 



lb 


12 


1 1 1 398 


II 


329 


254 656 


III 


83 


24 8i9 


IV 


206 


U2 526 


V 


129 


20 837 


VI 


985 


200 833 


No cateqon/ 


859 


184 087 



Tolal 



2 895 



861 7U 



Southeast Asia: Protected areas network by lUCN 
category (percentage of total areal, 2005 



No Category 
121%) 



VI 123% 



la (3%) 
— lb 11%) 




II 130%) 



III 13%) 



VI2%) IV II 7%) 



Southeast Asia: Number of protected areas by lUCN 
category, 2005 



1000 



800 



600 - 



400 



200 




la lb 



III IV 



No 
VI category 



Other forms of protection 

There are few private reserves in the region and 
they are very small. However, the Danum Valley 
Conservation area in Sabah, Malaysia, is an 
interesting case. This area of 43 800 hectares of 
lowland and hill dipterocarp forest, surrounded by 
much larger areas of selectively logged timber 
concessions, is part of the forest holding of Yayasan 
Sabah, a state-wide foundation mostly concerned 
with forestry and logging. The Danum Valley site has 
been set aside, placed under a management board, 
and has prepared management plans for pro- 
tection, use as a tourist area, and site of research. 
An excellent research camp, laboratories, and 
tourist lodge are available and a long-term 
relationship with the Royal Society of the UK has 
ensured a record of high-quality research into forest 
ecology, dynamics, and succession, taxonomic 
interests, and low-impact logging. This important 
site has now been officially recognized and given 
nature reserve status. 

Other important examples of local reserves 
can be found among coastal fishing communities. 
Following initial studies and a model established at 
Apo Reef in the Philippines, some 400 locally 
managed no-fishing areas are now established in 
the Philippines, the majority of which are not held 
in the World Database on Protected Areas. Data 
show that within a few years of the establishment 
of no-fishing areas, representing about 20 percent 
of the total fishing area, the local fishermen had 
already realized an increase in total catch and 
catch per unit effort as a result of adult fish 
emigrating out of the protected areas into nearby 
waters. At Apo, after 20 years, the graph of increas- 
ing catch continues to rise. Interestingly, those 
reserves that were taken over by local government 
appear to be less effective than those protected and 
managed by the local fishermen themselves. 

International sites 

The region shows considerable variation in the level 
of participation in international conventions. Brunei, 
Lao PDR, Myanmar, Singapore and Timor-Leste. 
have no sites. The first biosphere reserves in the 
region were declared in 1976 (Thailand) and 1977 
(Indonesia and Philippines), and the current array of 
sites includes important marine and coastal areas, 
including Can Gio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve in 
Viet Nam, Ranong Biosphere Reserve in Thailand, 
Puerto Galera in the Philippines, and Komodo 
National Park in Indonesia. The largest single site is 



298 



Southeast Asia 



Tonle Sap in Cambodia, covering 1A 813 I<m2 of tine 
largest freshwater lake in Southeast Asia and its 
floodplain, with three distinct zones: an open lake at 
its center, a freshwater swamp forest surrounding 
it, and seasonally flooded grasslands at the 
margins, mainly in the eastern shore. The adjacent 
Boeng Chmar Lake, a Ramsar site, merges with 
Tonle Sap Lake in the wet season. 

World Heritage sites in the region cover a 
broad range of natural habitats and landforms, 
including the spectacular Puerto-Princesa Sub- 
terranean River National Park in the Philippines, 
and the karst landforms and surrounding seascape 
of Ha Long Bay in Viet Nam. Important forest sites 
include the 6 222 km^ Thung Yai-Huai Kha Khaeng 
in Thailand and the 26 000 km^ complex of 
protected areas in Sumatra, inscribed in 2004. The 
Lorentz National Park in West Papua covers more 
than 25 000 km^ and spans the ecological gradient 
from the coast to the highest peak of the country at 
U 884 meters, with permanent ice caps. 

In addition to these global agreements, the 
member countries have established another reg- 
ional class of protected area, ASEAN Heritage 
Parks, established under the 1984 ASEAN Declar- 
ation on Heritage Parks and Reserves and selected 
to be typical of the major habitats of the region. 
Currently, 35 sites have been designated (see table). 
13 of which are also World Heritage sites. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

There is still an urgent need to secure new areas for 
conservation; in the coming decades this will 
become increasingly difficult as remaining natural 
areas are diminished and land ownership changes. 
However most countries are already struggling in 
their capacity to manage their existing protected 
areas. In addition, protected area management 
authorities have failed to convince governments and 
planners of the economic value of protected areas 
in national economies. Interest in new proposals for 
protected areas is thus diminishing. 

Efforts to improve capacity include many 
international aid projects; the development of 
ASEAN-endorsed protected area occupational 
standards by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity 
(previously the ASEAN Regional Centre for Bio- 
diversity Conservation!; and regional training 
program. However, more effort is clearly needed 
to address this critical issue since it is fund- 
amental to achieving management effectiveness 
across the region. 



Southeast Asia: Internationally protected areas, 
2005 



Country 


No. of 


Protected 




sites 


area (km^l 


Biosphere reserves 






Cambodia 


1 


U813 



Indonesia 


6 


20 616 


Philippines 


2 


11 740 


Thailand 


U 


845 


Viet Nam 


4 


3 593 


TOTAL 


17 


51 607 


Ramsar sites 
Cambodia 


3 


546 


Indonesia 


2 


2 427 


Malaysia 


5 


554 


Mayanmar 


1 


3 


Philippines 


4 


684 


Thailand 


10 


3 706 


Viet Nam 


2 


258 


TOTAL 


27 


8 177 



World Heritage sites 



Indonesia 


4 


51 924 


Malaysia 


2 


1 282 


Philippines 


2 


534 


Thailand 


2 


11 930 


Viet Nam 


2 


1 500 


TOTAL 


12 


61 170 



Many of the existing, long-term threats to 
natural ecosystems, such as logging and forest 
clearance for agriculture, need addressing. With 
continuing depletion of natural resources outside of 
protected areas, more pressure will be placed on 
existing conservation areas - rather than provide 
scope for needed additions to existing networks. 
The impact of disastrous flooding in upland areas of 
Thailand and China in the past 20 years has led to 
logging bans and limits in those countries, which 
have then procured timber from neighboring 
countries, especially Laos and Cambodia. At the 
same time there are growing numbers of new 
threats including invasive alien species, climate 
change (including impacts of sea-level rise, 
changes in temperature regimes, and forest fires], 
in the marine environment, blasting of reefs and 
catching fish with cyanide poison continue to be 
serious threats, with anchor damage and bleaching 
of corals in El Nino periods, and marine pollution 
also serious problems. Some marine areas are 



299 



The world's protected areas 



ASEAN Heritage Parks, 2003 



Country 

Brunei 



Site 

Tasek Marimbun 



Size Ikm') 

78 



Features/Habitat 

Freshwater swamps 



Cambodia 


Virachey National Park 


3 325 


Montane everqreen and deciduous forest 




Preah Monivong IPhnom Bokor) 
National Park 


1 400 


Mixed deciduous forest and moist evergreen 
forest 


Indonesia 


Barisan Selatan National Park 


3,650 


Lowland rainforest and wetlands 




Leuser National Park 


1G9A7 


Lowland and montane rainforests 




Kennci-Seblat National Park 


13 750 


Lowland and montane rainforests 




Komodo National Park 


2193 


Grass-woodland savannah habitat of Komodo 
Dragon 




Lorenz National Park 


25 056 


Glaciers, montane and lowland rainforests 




U|unq-Kulon National Park 


800 


Lowland evergreen forest habitat of Javan rhino 


Lao PDR 


Nam Ha National Protected Area 


2 224 


Evergreen forest and grassland 


Malaysia 


Kinabalu Park 


754 


Geological and montane rainforest 




Gununq Mulu National Park 


554 


Karst landscape and montane rainforest 




Taman Neqara National Park 


4 525 


Lowland and hills rainforest 


Myanmar 


Alaungdaw Katthapa National Park 


1 607 


Moist mixed deciduous forest, pine and 
everqreen forests 




Meinmahla Kyun Wildlife Sanctuar/ 


137 


Manqrove forest 




Indawgyi Lake Wildlife Sanctuary 


775 


Semi-evergreen forest and moist deciduous 
forest 




Inlay Lake Wildlife Sanctuary 


642 


Swamp forest, evergreen and deciduous 
forests, grassland and pine forest, wetland 




Khakaborazi National Park 


3812 


Conifer forest and evergreen forest 




Lampi Marine National Park 


205 


Mangrove forest, evergreen forest, and marine 


Philippines 


Mt Apo National Park 


632 


Montane and lowland rainforest 




Iqlit-Baco National Park 


970 


Grassland and forest ecosystem 




Puerto Princesa Subterranean 
River National Park 


202 


Limestone karst landscape 




Tubbataha Reef Marine Park 


332 


Reef ecosystems 


Singapore. 


Sunqei Buloh Wetland Reserve 


13 


Mangrove swamp 


Thailand 


Ao Phang-nga Marine National Park 


400 


Coastal forest, karst formations and marine 
ecosystems 




Khao Yai National Park 


2 168 


Lowland and hill rainforest 




Tarutao National Park 


1 490 


Marine ecosystem and islands 




Mu Ko Sunn National Park 


158 


Coral reefs, mangrove forest, and tropical 
evergreen forest 




Kaenq Krachan National Park 


3 027 


Mixed deciduous and evergreen forests 




Thung Yai-Huay Kha Khaeng 
National Park 


2,575 


Semi-evergreen lowland forest, deciduous 
dipterocarp forest and mixed forest 


Viet Nam 


Hoang Lien Sa Pa Nature Reserve 


247 


Savanna, sub-montane dry evergreen forest, 
montane deciduous forest, and subalpine forests 




Ba Be National Park 


76 


Limestone karst forest and lowland 
evergreen forest 




Kon Ka Kinh Nature Reserve 


417 


Mixed coniferous and broadleaf forests 




Ha Long Bay 


1,500 


Limestone islands and karst forest 




Phong Nha-Ke Banq National Park 


2.746 


Tropical moist evergreen forest on limest 



Source: ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity 



300 



Southeast Asia 



further compromised by complex overlapping 
territorial claims whicli prevent important areas 
such as the Spratly Islands being protected. 

The emergence of China as a rich neighbor 
w/ith an insatiable demand for timber, marine 
products, and many types of vj/ildlife as foods or for 
medicines puts a severe strain on protecting 
resources in Southeast Asia. Both legal and illegal 
trade routes drain important species (primates, 
reptiles, pangolins, birds] from natural habitats and 
protected areas of the region. Growing populations 
and higher disposable incomes are also 
increasingly damaging fisheries, with both general 
overfishing and the widescale commercial 
extinction of l<ey target species such as sharks and 
other predatory fish. 

The region is experimenting with various 
models of involvement of local people in planning 
and co-managing protected areas. For example, 
progressive laws in the Philippines ensure that 
protected area management boards with local 
representation direct the program of manage- 
ment, but there are concerns that this may lead to 
a dilution of conservation objectives and 
degradation of some important sites. A number of 
countries have put major international assistance 
resources into developing integrated approaches 
to conservation and development in protected 
areas, with mixed results (MacKinnon & Wardojo 
2001, Chape 20011. Nonetheless, given the 
pressures and expectations placed on protected 
areas in the region, effective mechanisms for 
integrating conservation and development 
objectives need to be pursued. 

Regional cooperation on protected areas, 
within a much-needed cooperative conservation 
and development frameworl<, must continue to be 
developed. There is considerable scope for 
strengthening not only cooperation on transborder 
protected areas (for example, the existing init- 
iatives to establish transborder reserves between 
Malaysia and Indonesia on Borneo, and between 
the Philippines and Malaysia on the Turtle islands! 
but also broader environmental cooperation that 
has a direct impact on the viability of protected 
areas. Regional development cooperation mech- 
anisms, in particular ASEAN, the Mekong River 




Commission, and the Asian Development Bank 
Greater Mekong Subregion (GMSl program, need to 
be harnessed to strengthen regional conservation. 
This must include, as it already does for the GMS, 
the involvement of China if regional issues are to 
be effectively addressed. A recent study (ICEM 
20031 concluded that "a regional conservation 
agreement and special institutional arrangements 
are becoming essential to long-term regional 
development" and proposed establishment of a 
regional conservation fund. 



Lowe's Gully, 
Mt. Kinabalu Park 
World Heritage Site, 
Malaysia. 



301 



The world's protected areas 



Australia 

and 

New Zealand 



Contributors: A.Bignell, L Molloy 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

New Zealand and Australia span five time zones, 
witli ttie mam land masses stretching from 1 13° to 
179°E and from 10° to 47°S. Beyond these land 
masses there are also several remote island groups 
in the Indian Ocean (Australia's Cocos iKeelingl and 
Christmas Islands] and the Pacific (Lord Howe and 
Norfolk Islands of Australia, Kermadec and 
Chatham Islands of New Zealand). Both countries 
also manage a number of sub-Antarctic islands. 

Australia is the most low-lying continent, and 
is dominated by low-relief landscapes, with 
mountain ranges mainly restricted to the eastern 
continental edge. By contrast, large areas of New 
Zealand are mountainous, including the 750 km 
chain of the Southern Alps which runs along the 
western margin of the South Island, rising to 3 754 
meters lAoraki/Mount Cookl and carrying hundreds 
of glaciers. These contrasting structures are related 
to their tectonic settings. Australia lies on the 
Indian/Australian Plate, while New Zealand sits 
astride the boundary between this plate and 
the Pacific Plate. Rhyolitic and andesitic volcanoes 
of the central North Island have a long history of 
extremely violent eruptions, and lava and tephra 
mantle shape much of the landscape. 

Tectonic history has also greatly influenced 
the ecology of this region, with Australia and New 
Zealand becoming separated from most other 
continental land masses during the early to mid 
Cretaceous, and remaining isolated through most 
recent evolutionary history. 

The combined maritime areas of the two 
countries (not including offshore territories) is 
11500 000 km2. Australia has a considerable 
marine area including large tracts of the Indian and 



Pacific Oceans. Along its northern shore the 
shallow waters of the Timor and Arafura Seas 
separate Australia from Indonesia. To the northeast 
lies the Coral Sea, with a number of remote shallow 
banks and reefs, and to the southeast the Tasman 
Sea. For the most part, Australia's continental shelf 
is broad; however, to the southwest and southeast 
the oceanic waters come close to the coast and are 
affected by the south-flowing Leeuwin Current and 
East Australia Current respectively. 

New Zealand's major maritime feature is the 
Subtropical Convergence, where the warm waters 
(of subtropical origin) of the West Wind Drift come 
into contact with the cooler, less saline waters of 
sub-Antarctic origin. This convergence, coupled with 
an extensive continental shelf and very long coast- 
line, results in a wide variety of marine habitats. 

Australia's vast land mass is dominated by 
drylands but some lush tropical, subtropical, and 
temperate areas exist with a considerable diversity 
of ecosystems. Snow is common in the Australian 
Alps where minimum recorded temperatures have 
dropped to -23°C. In the arid northwest summer 
temperatures often exceed 50°C [the maximum 
recorded is 53.1°Cl. The Australian continent under 
the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for 
Australia IIBRA) has been stratified into 85 
biogeographic regions, while the Interim Marine 
and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia IIMCRA) 
has recognized 60 marine biogeographic regions. 

New Zealand has a temperate maritime 
climate, with vegetation strongly influenced by the 
topography. The Southern Alps are a barrier to the 
wet westerly winds, causing sharp landscape 
contrasts - rainforests in the west but semi-arid 
tussock grasslands in the east where the rain- 



302 



Australia and New Zealand 




S. Chape 



Kalbarri National Park, Western Australia. 



303 



The world's protected areas 






m "CO CO" 






CO 


^ a a 




CM 
















T 


i r^ _ ; 








o 


-a- 












m \—^=-' I 




l:i 


1 




, 


^^ 


S 


■»> /?-? ^ = 1 








° <^.ij i 




a^ 


i s 


3 'i :" 


MJ 




■ ° 



































o 
2 





%> 




A\ 



i - ri 






\ 




5 










UJ 




■1 










1=!- 


"1 














LU 


£ a 


i 


5 


- 7 


^^'>>~r 


\ 






UJ 






s. "^ 


/ 


/ " 


/ / \ 


/ / \ 


/ / \ 
















8 is^/ 1 1 












CO 




<0 








---°S- 




S--" 



111 



=-^ 



Source UNEP-WCMC 



306 



Australia and New Zealand 



shadow covers the intermontane basins of 
Canterbury and Otago. 

Evolutionary isolation led to the survival of 
ancient species lost on other parts of the planet, 
and to the evolution of many others found nowhere 
else in the world. Australia has been identified as 
one of 17 "megadiversity" countries IMittermeier et 
al. 19971: 92 percent of Australia's vascular plants 
are endemic and 85 percent of flowering plants 
langiospermsl are also endemic ICommonwealth 
of Australia ICoAl 1996a|; 74 percent of Australia's 
non-fish vertebrates are endemic, ranking them 
first in the world IGroombridge 19921; about 83 
percent of mammals also occur nowhere else, as 
well as 45 percent of birds, 89 percent of reptiles, 
and 93 percent of frogs ICoA 1996a, CoA 1996b). 

Although not possessing the same number of 
species. New Zealand is rich in endemics. The 
islands of New Zealand are among the most 
isolated on Earth. They were separated from the 
continental land mass of Gondwana more than 80 
million years ago, before the ascendancy of 
mammals, and much of the biota has evolved in 
considerable isolation. Endemic species include 
four primitive frogs and all 60 reptiles (including the 
ancient relict reptile order, Sphenodontia - the 
tuataral. Endemism runs to 90 percent of insects 
and marine molluscs, 80 percent of higher plants, 
and 55 percent of indigenous birds. An interesting 
feature is the high proportion of birds that became 
large and flight-less, largely due to the absence of 
mammalian predators. Alpine flora is particularly 
rich, with more than 25 percent of New Zealand's 
higher plants found above the treeline. 

Some 18 priority ecoregions have been 
identified in the WWF Global 200 framework, which 
cover almost all of the freshwater, and a large 
proportion of the terrestrial ecosystems and sur- 
rounding marine areas. BirdLife International has 
identified U endemic bird areas, including most of 
New Zealand and many of the coastal areas of 
Australia, as well as the oceanic Islands. 

New Zealand was probably the last major 
habitable land mass to be settled, probably about 
1 000 years ago. Today the population Is only 4 
million, mostly located in cities around the country's 
extensive coastline. Humans probably first reached 
Australia some 40 000 years ago. However, 
population densities remained low and their 
Impacts on the natural environment, although 
significant, were far less than In many other 
continents. The present population of Australia is 



estimated to be more than 21 million, with 
approximately 460 000 identified as being of 
Aboriginal or Torres Strait descent. The majority of 
the population is concentrated in urban areas In the 
east and southeast of eastern Australia with a 
smaller concentration In the southwest of Western 
Australia. About 84 percent of Australia's population 
live in only 1 percent of Its land area. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

Australia and New Zealand were among the first 
nations to dedicate land as national parks, leading 
the way in protected area systems establishment. 
The first parks in Australia were not the traditional 
protective Institutions they are today, in 1879 the 
National Park, later renamed Royal National Park, 
was established principally as a recreational area 
for Sydney inhabitants. New Zealand's first national 
park was Initiated when the paramount chief of the 
NgatI Tuwharetoa tribe presented the summits of 
the sacred Tongariro volcanoes to the nation as a 
gift in 1887. These volcanoes became the nucleus of 
Tongariro National Park, established In 1894. Both 
Tongariro and Royal National Park were primary 
steps In the development of comprehensive national 
park and reserve networks. 

In New Zealand national parks management 
was consolidated under the National Parks Act of 
1952, and a parallel system of forest reserves and 
forest parks was also set up by the Forest Service. 
A major protected areas controversy arose in the 
1 960s around plans to raise water levels in lakes of 
the Flordland National Park for hydroelectricity 
generation. This debate lasted ten years, but also 
served to raise the issue of natural heritage loss 
within the minds of urban populations and high- 
lighted a skew in the protected area system 
towards mountain and montane forest. The 
Reserves Act 1 977 and a new National Parks Act In 
1980, gave impetus to protecting more repres- 
entative ecosystems, such as coastal, wetland, 
marine, lowland forest, and tussock grassland 
ecosystems. Between 1975 and 1985 a series of 
conflicts occurred as conservation non-govern- 
mental organizations iNGOsI sought to achieve 
protection of New Zealand's remaining lowland 
forests and wild rivers. 

A major advance in protected area admin- 
istration occurred In 1987 when the government 
consolidated all its natural and historic resource 
conservation agencies Into the single Department 
of Conservation IDOCI (subsequently assisted by 



305 



The world's protected areas 



1600 



1 200 



800 



^00 



I Cumulative area of sites with i(nown establishment date (l<m^l 

I Cumulative area of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA Ikm') 



1888'90'951900 051G '15 '20 '25 '30 35 i,0 X5 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 ^O^S 2000 '05 



Australia and New/ Zealand: Growth of protected areas network, 1888-2005 



regional citizen Conservation Boards). Since then, 
DOC has provided leadership in the nrianagement of 
the protected area system and the restoration of 
New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity - often in 
partnership with local iwi (Maori tribes). The New 
Zealand Biodiversity Strategy was accepted 
enthusiastically in 2000 by the government and its 
conservation partners, leading to major improve- 
ments in the management of what is now an 
impressive public land protected area system 



extending across nearly 32 percent of New 
Zealand's terrestrial ecosystems. 

In Australia most state and territory park 
agencies grew from beginnings in State Forest 
Services or similar agencies. It was not until the 
1960s and 1970s that separate national park 
services were established. A growing community 
awareness through improved mobility and access 
to natural areas and through the activities of the 
voluntary conservation movement in the 1960s, 



Australia and New Zealsnd: Growth in the number of protected areas, 1888-2005 

5 000 

I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
^QQQ I dates based on date entered into WDPA 



3 000 



2 000 — 



1000 — 



1888'90'951900'05'10'15 '20 '25 '30 '35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 ■9095 2000 05 



306 



Australia and New Zealand 



1970s, and 1980s led to substantial increases in 
protected areas. Key additions were often related 
to important locations and issues: the Great 
Barrier Reef, coastal sand masses sucfi as Fraser 
Island, Cooloola and Myall Lal<es, old-growth wet 
eucalypt forests, tropical rainforests, wilderness in 
Southwest Tasmania, and the wetlands of Kakadu. 
Through the Commonwealth/State Government 
Regional Forest Agreement process approximately 
2 million hectares of dedicated reserves were 
added to the protected area estate. Between 1968 
and 200^, the total area protected increased from 
9.4 million hectares to 80.89 million hectares, or 
10.5 percent of the land area of Australia. 



Australia and New Zealand: Protected areas 
network by lUCN category, 2005 



lUCN category 


Total 


Total 




sites 


area (km^l 


la 


2 136 


217 035 



b 


38 


41 898 


1! 


701 


347 408 


Ill 


3 946 


33 806 


IV 


1 657 


269 247 


V 


■217 


22 502 


VI 


489 


596 246 


No category 


411 


9 702 


Total 


9 595 


1 537 845 



THE PROTECTED AREA NETWORKS 

The W^orld Database on Protected Areas (WDPA 
llists a total of 9 595 protected areas in Australia 
and New Zealand, although it does not include 
1 244 Category la Heritage Agreement Areas in 
Australia as data were incomplete for these. 
However, these sites cover only 6 000 km^ and so 
do not greatly alter the overall statistics. 

Largely as a result of action taken in Australia, 
this region has the most comprehensive marine 
protection in the world. The WDPA lists 422 marine 
protected areas, covering a total of 568 872 km^. 
This represents 4.6 percent of the total marine area 
claimed by these states and, while some 60 percent 
of the total is protected within the single site of the 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, this still leaves a 
very large area protected in the remaining sites. 

The Australian states and territories operate 
their own systems of terrestrial and marine 
protected areas under their own legislation. The 
Federal Government also manages a small 
number of reserves originally established on 
Commonwealth Crown land or in the Australian 
External Territories, as well as marine reserves 
established in Commonwealth waters. The nine 
separate terrestrial protected area systems are 
collectively known as the National Reserve 
System (NRSI, while the eight separate marine 
protected area systems are collectively known as 
the National Representative System of Marine 
Protected Areas INRSMPAl. These arrangements 
have resulted in a system with more than 40 
categories of protected area nationally. However, 
in 1994 the jurisdictions agreed to adopt the lUCN 
1994 classification of protected areas and to use 
the lUCN system of management categories for 
documenting and reporting on their protected 



Australia and New Zealand: Protected areas 
network by lUCN category (percentage of total 
areal, 2005 



No 
cat(<1%l 



VI (39% 




la (14%) 

lb (3%) 



II (23%) 



V(>1%') " 111(2%) 

IV (17%) 



Australia and New Zealand: Number of protected 
areas by lUCN category, 2005 

4 000 



3 000 



2 000 



1 000 




jHLl^L^Hj 



la lb II III IV V VI No 

category 



307 



The world's protected areas 



Areas of Australia and New Zealand protected (by country, 20051 



Country/territories 

Australia 



Land area IkmO 

7 7/,! 220 



Total protected area (km'l 

1 Ultb 200 



Total number of sites 



Christmas Island 


UD 


87 


1 


Cocos IKeelinql Islands 


U 


1 


1 


New Zealand 


270 530 


92 550 


3 904 


Norfolk Island 


30 


7 


1 



area estates. Data on Australia's protected areas 
are collated into the Collaborative Australian 
Protected Area Database (CAPADI, which is 
maintained and updated biannually by the 
Department of Environment and Water Resources 
for national and international reporting purposes. 

In 1993. the Federal Government, in coop- 
eration with the states and territories, initiated the 
National Reserves System Program, designed to 
further develop the protected area estate and to 
ensure that the different administrative systems are 
working within a common framework in collab- 
oration with other stakeholders. The program pro- 
vided funds for land acquisitions and protected 
areas assessment work, and was given a major 
funding boost with the commencement of the 
Natural Heritage Trust in 1996. 

Australia, along with New Zealand, is 
considered a world leader in joint management of 
protected areas with the land's indigenous 
traditional owners. In 1978, the first joint 
management arrangement was made with the 
traditional owners of Kakadu National Park. Under 
the Kakadu arrangement, traditional owners lease 
the land to the (federal government] Director of 
National Parks in return for an annual lease fee 
plus a proportion of revenue earned from park user 
fees. A Board of Management made up of a majority 
of representatives of traditional owners is resp- 
onsible for the preparation of a management plan 
for the reserve, monitoring the implementation of 
the plan, and making decisions on management 
of the reserve consistent with the plan. Currently 
nine reserves in Australia operate under joint 
management arrangements. 

With a large marine jurisdiction, the 
Commonwealth Government is implementing the 
Australia Oceans Policy (1998), which outlines 
commitments and actions to the ongoing estab- 
lishment of the NRSIMPA for conservation 
purposes and to give regional security for industry 
access to ocean resources and their sustainable 
use. The Commonwealth Government has pro- 



vided extensive funding over the past decade to 
progress establishment of the NRSMPA, including 
funding for work to map habitats, develop 
planning approaches, and declare new marine 
protected areas. 

In New Zealand, as already mentioned, the 
majority of protected areas are managed and 
administered by the Department of Conservation 
(DOCI. DOC now oversees about 86 000 km2 
(excluding marine reserves), or nearly 32 percent of 
New Zealand's land area. Even more striking is the 
achievement of conserving this huge land area 
under unified management and policies (the DOC 
and general policies under the Conservation Act 
and the National Parks Act). 

The terrestrial strict nature reserves 
(Category lal include many of the most important 
remnants of New Zealand's biodiversity, including: 

Q offshore and outlying island nature reserves 
and scientific reserves, such as Codfish Island 
(Whenua Houl the most important habitat for 
the flightless night parrot, the kakapo; 

□ the ecological areas and sanctuary areas 
which primarily protect representative forests, 
shrublands, and wetlands ecosystems; 

□ a number of special areas in national parks, 
including the 518 km^ Murchison Mountains in 
Fiordland National Park, protecting the takahe 
(an endangered flightless rail). 

The 28 existing marine reserves cover around 7.6 
percent of New Zealand's territorial sea (but more 
than 99 percent of this total consists of the two 
very large marine reserves around outlying 
island groups - the 7 480 km^ Kermadec Marine 
Reserve and the 4840 km^ Auckland Islands 
Marine Reserve). 

New Zealand now has 14 national parks, with 
a total area of 30 858 km^ (or 11.5 percent of the 
country's land area). Other important categories for 
wild land protection include extensive wilderness 
areas and conservation parks. Efforts are underway 



308 



Australia and New Zealand 




to secure large areas of the eastern South Island 
high country tussock lands for conservation 
(through a process of 'tenure review' of long- 
standing pastoral leases on public lands!. The 
transfer of 1 300 km^ of West Coast indigenous 
forest, formerly managed tor timber production, to 
the Department of Conservation was completed in 
April 2002. These forests were the largest single 
addition to public conservation land since 1989, and 
around 180 km^ have since been added to 
Kahurangi, Paparoa, and Westland/Tai Poutini 
National Parks. 

Other forms of protection 

Both Australia and New Zealand have actively tried 
to encourage indigenous people to conserve their 
lands. Australia has the Indigenous Protected Areas 
program that provides incentives for indigenous 
people to participate in the National Reserve 
System by voluntarily declaring protected areas and 
becoming involved in the management of existing 
statutory protected areas. So far, 19 Indigenous 
Protected Areas covering 137 900 km^ have been 
added to the National Reserve System. New 
Zealand's DOC has sought to implement the spirit of 
the Treaty of Waitangi by trying to actively engage 
iwi in partnerships of conservation. "Cultural 
redress" under the Ngai Tahu Treaty settlement in 



1998 had a number of very significant implications 
for the management of South Island's protected 
areas, and a wide range of conservation issues are 
currently being negotiated as part of settlements 
for several North Island iwi. Additionally the Nga 
Whenua Rahul fund was established in 1990 to 
facilitate the voluntary protection by Maori of indig- 
enous ecosystems on Maori-owned land. It has 
proved a very appropriate approach to landscape 
and biodiversity protection, particularly through 
protecting and enhancing the cultural and spiritual 
values that tangata whenua associate with their 
natural heritage. 

The Nature Heritage Fund (established in 
19901 has been a key factor in protecting nature on 
private land in New Zealand,. To date more than 700 
projects have protected 2 560 km^ of indigenous 
ecosystems, through direct purchase or 
covenanting, at an average cost to the New Zealand 
taxpayer of only around NZ$388 per hectare. The 
fund ranks the importance of potential acquisitions 
and has thus focused on ecosystems that are 
underrepresented in the DOC-managed protected 
areas system. 

As 60 percent of Australia's land surface is 
privately owned (either as freehold land, approx- 
imately 20 percent, or as Crown leasehold, approx- 
imately 40 percent), the covenanting of private lands 



Tussock Grasslands, 
Soutti Island, New 
Zealand 



309 



The world's protected areas 



Australia and New Zealand: Internationally 
protected areas, 2005 



Country/territories No. of 
sites 

Biosphere reserves 
Australia 13 



Protected 
area (kmi) 

50 063 



TOTAL 



13 



50 063 



Ramsar sites 



Australia 


63 


73 719 


Christmas Island 


1 


>0 


New Zealand 


6 


391 


TOTAL 


70 


lU 110 


World Heritage sites 
Australia^ 


15 


lab 202 


New Zealand^ 


3 


40 66i 


TOTAL 


19 


466 860 



1 Includes Macquane Island, 

2 Includes Heard and McDonald Islands and Macquane Island 

3 Includes the Sub-Antarctic Islands World Heritage Site 

is very important. Recently there has been rapid 
growth in conservation covenants, e.g. National 
Trust of Australia and Bushcare covenants, placed 
on the title of freehold lands, and special conditions 
on leasehold lands, to enable their nnanagement as 
private protected areas. 

Another Australian initiative is the Register of 
the National Estate that contains about 13 000 herit- 
age places, including more than 2 000 natural areas. 
Entry places obligations on Federal Government 
agencies to avoid damaging listed places and requ- 
ires them to consult the Australian Heritage Council 
and comply with the Environment Protection and 
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 about any action 
that might significantly affect a registered place. 

International sites 

Both countries are actively involved in international 
agreements to establish protected areas. Australia 
has 15 natural World Heritage sites, including 
Heard and McDonald Islands, the largest number of 
any country. These sites span a considerable range 
of the country's diversity, including temperate and 
tropical rainforests, marine areas (including the 
world's largest World Heritage site, the Great 
Barrier Reef, at 349 000 I<m2), mountains, and off- 
shore islands. New Zealand itself has one natural 
World Heritage site, the very large 260,000 km^ Te 
Wahipounamu (South West New Zralandl site which 
is 10% of New Zealand's land area;, one mixed site, 



Tongatito National Park, and the New Zealand Sub- 
Antarctic Islands World Heritage Site, consisting of 
five island groups in the Southern Ocean south-east 
of New Zealand. 

Ramsar sites are also well represented, and 
Australia has some very large sites, including the 
Coral Sea Reserves (Coringa-Herald and Lihou 
Reefs and Cays), which are predominantly marine 
sites covering highly remote reefs in the Coral Sea. 
Only Australia has designated biosphere reserves. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS 

From a terrestrial perspective, the Australian 
National Land and Water Resources Audit Report, 
Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment 
2002, concluded that some 46 bioregions (out of 851 
had less than 10 percent of their area in reserves, 
16 bioregions had less than 2 percent, and two had 
no protected areas. The report also concluded that 
only 67 percent of Australia's ecosystems are 
sampled within national parks and formal 
reserves. There thus remains a considerable need 
for establishing more protected areas, and to this 
end the Federal Government has extended the 
successful NRS program under the Natural 
Heritage Trust initiative and will continue to fund 
acquisition/covenanting of land and reserve 
assessment studies that meet the criteria under 
the Australian Guidelines for Establishing the 
National Reserve System. By 2006 the program had 
provided financial assistance of nearly A$105m for 
the acquisition or covenanting of more than 26.5 
million hectares of protected areas estate. 

The Australian Federal and State Govern- 
ments have developed the paper Directions for the 
National Reserve System - A Partnership 
Approach, to assist government agencies, NGOs, 
and the community in the ongoing development and 
management of a comprehensive, adequate, and 
representative protected area system. The paper, 
which was available for public comment until 2004, 
recognizes that NGOs, indigenous landholders, and 
individual property owners can contribute to 
achieving the goals of the NRS through the 
inclusion of private protected areas and Indigenous 
Protected Areas (IPAsI (that meet the NRS 
standards! into the NRS. Both private land and IPAs 
will increase in the future. 

The development of jurisdictional marine 
planning initiatives has seen acceleration in the 
number of areas identified for possible protection. 
This is particularly true for the Commonwealth 



310 



Australia and New Zealand 



Government, with the first Regional Marine Plan 
identifying 11 broad areas of interest off south- 
eastern Australia for further assessment. The 
Victorian State Government has established an 
system of marine protected areas representative of 
the bioregions within its marine jurisdiction. 

For heavily used marine protected areas, 
establishing detailed zoning schemes that 
adequately protect biodiversity while allowing 
ecologically sustainable activities, including fishing, 
is likely to be a priority. Another emerging priority is 
the need to coordinate research efforts to report on 
the performance of the NRSMPA in protecting 
Australia's marine ecosystems. 

Future directions for New Zealand's protected 
areas are largely guided by the NZ Biodiversity 
Strategy 2000. Although a large proportion of the 
land IS already protected, there is no room for 
complacency for two main reasons: la) there are 
still major gaps in the range of ecosystems 
represented; and (b| despite the legal protection 
there remain very significant threats, notably from 
invasive alien species. 

Lowland and coastal forest remnants, dune- 
lands, indigenous shrublands, wetlands, and 
lowland tussocklands are the terrestrial under- 
represented in New Zealand's protected area 
network. Many of these habitats are now scarce and 
often located on private lor Crown leasehold) land. 
Improvements in biodiversity mapping and 
evaluation will further help to identify the gaps to be 
brought into the protected area network. Increasing 
use of the Nature Heritage and Nga Whenua Rahui 
funds, coupled with the continued use of con- 
servation covenants administered by the Queen 
Elizabeth II Trust, is expected to accelerate the rate 
of protection of these habitats on private land. 

The difficulty of getting fishing industry and 
community support for the protection of marine 
ecosystems continues to be one of the greatest 
challenges facing conservation in New Zealand. The 
national Biodiversity Strategy has set marine bio- 
diversity as a high conservation priority To address 



the unsatisfactory marine environment protection 
situation, the New Zealand government has carried 
out wide consultation with all marine stakeholder 
groups and, in January 2006, released a policy and 
implementation plan for developing a network of 
marine protected areas. Proposed new legislation 
will place greater emphasis on the role of marine 
reserves in conserving biodiversity. The policy 
stresses a science-based approach to marine 
habitat and ecosystem classification, and the 
involvement of regional councils, tangata whenua, 
commercial and recreational fishers, and con- 
servation groups in achieving the Biodiversity 
Strategy goal of protecting 10 percent of New 
Zealand's marine environment lunder some type of 
protected area) by 2010. 

Prior to the implementation of the NZ 
Biodiversity Strategy 2000, weed and pest control 
efforts throughout the protected area network were 
insufficient to maintain biodiversity values. The 
government has since provided for a marked 
escalation in control measures including emphasis 
upon species recovery programs for the most 
threatened species Isuch as the kiwi, kokako, 
mohua, and kakapo - the latter benefiting from a 
remarkably successful breeding season in 2002, 
which increased the number of birds by 39 percent, 
to 86 in total). The reputation of DOC as an 
international leader in eradication of animal pests 
has been demonstrated in the successful restor- 
ation of a number of island habitats over the past 20 
years. An ambitious programme to eliminate cats, 
rats, stoats and mice and other mammalian pests 
has seen more than 80 offshore and outlying islands 
secured as biodiversity havens. In 2001, DOC began 
the most ambitious rodent eradication attempt on a 
large oceanic island anywhere in the world and 
successfully removed Norway rats from the rugged 
11,268 ha Campbell Island in the difficult 
subantarctic environment. It is intended to pro- 
gressively apply these pest elimination techniques 
to even larger islands and 'mainland islands' on the 
North and South Islands. 



311 



The world's protected areas 



Pacific Islands 

American Samoa (USA), Cook Islands, 

Federated States of Micronesia. Fiji, 

French Polynesia (France), Guam (USA), Hawaii (USA), 

Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, 

New Caledonia (France), Niue, 

Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, 

Pitcairn (UK), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, 

Tonga, Tuvalu, United States Minor Outlying Islands, 

Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna (France) 

Contributors: S. Sesega, M. Spalding 



REGIONAL DESCRIPTION 

The nations and territories of the Pacific Ocean, 
often collectively referred to as Oceania, extend over 
most of the Viforld's largest ocean, from the shores 
of Asia and Australia towards the Americas. The 
WCPA region comprises 2i countries and territ- 
ories, including the US state of Hawaii. The region 
includes seven overseas territories of France, the 
UK, and the USA, as well as the United States Minor 
Outlying Islands of Howland and Baker, Palmyra 
and Jarvis. The islands cover about 570 000 km^ of 
land area, a total that is dominated by one nation, 
Papua New Guinea {ilQ 000 km^). The vast majority 
of countries have very small land surfaces, but are 
surrounded by extensive marine resources, and the 
combined exclusive economic zones (EEZsl of this 
region total some 32 million km^, over twice that of 
any other WCPA region. 

The region is underlain by complex patterns of 
tectonic plates. Most of the islands are linked either 
to plate margin volcanism and mountain building, 
or to mid-plate hotspots. The western margin of 
the Pacific Plate with a number of smaller plates 
has given rise to island chains ranging from the 



Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Palau, to 
Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, 
and out to Tonga. Hotspots beneath the Earth's 
crust have formed other island groups such as 
Hawaii, Samoa, and French Polynesia. Such islands 
begin as volcanic formations over a mid-plate 
hotspot, but as the hotspot diminishes or changes 
position the islands have been maintained, in many 
areas, by the prolific growth of corals which have 
formed barrier reefs, atolls, and platforms. In a few 
places subsequent uplift has raised these coral 
formations out of the ocean again to build uplifted 
limestone islands [malotea] such as Niue, Nauru, 
and the southern Cook Islands. New Caledonia is 
one of the few fragments of continental rock, which 
broke away from Australia 65 million years ago. 

The terrestrial biodiversity of this region is 
exceptional, especially in view of the relatively small 
land area. Tropical forests are the predominant 
vegetation, but there are also dry forests, shrub- 
land, savannas, and even small areas of montane 
forests and cloud forests. The underlying geology 
further influences the habitats, with volcanic and 
limestone soils predominating. In Micronesia and 



312 



Pacific Islands 




S Chape 



Marovo Lagoon, Solomon Islands 



313 



The world's protected areas 





F 








K 












e n 


;^ 


21 










^^ 


1 






H 


1 

■2 a 


^ 


ol 








V 5.^ 


^* 








,• 


•'S^ 




"■ 


"^ - 


Vh/ _ 


'1 e 






'i.'i 


g 

s 
s 


: 1 


2 






% c 


z 








11 

n 


/ 


^ 'i 


Fad 
5 


■ 




g 


• 


J" 

o 






3»- 










S 






u 

H 

s 
z -- 



s 

o 
o 



:*^' 



15 



tT:* 





A 







Source; UNEP-WCMC 



3U 



Pacific Islands 



Polynesia combined, some 6 500 plant species 
have been described, over half of them endemic. 
Melanesia, which runs from Papua New Guinea to 
Fiji, has considerably higher levels of biodiversity. 
with many of the larger islands still densely covered 
in tropical moist and tropical dry forests, with some 
areas of savanna. New Caledonia is another 
biodiversity hotspot; of its 3 300 plant species some 
2 500 are endemic. The island of New Guinea, which 
includes Papua New Guinea, is the most species- 
rich island on the planet with an estimated 17 000 
plant species and 10 200 endemics. 

Birdlife International lists 24 endemic bird 
areas lEBAs) across the Pacific (excluding New 
Zealand and Australia] and a further six in mainland 
Papua New Guinea. Those around Papua New 
Guinea and the Solomon Islands have the highest 
levels of endemism of any EBAs. with 79 restricted- 
range species recorded from the Solomon group. 

The surrounding marine waters are also home 
to exceptional biodiversity. Coral reefs are the 
dominant nearshore habitat, but there are also wide 
areas of mangrove and seagrasses. There is a clear 
pattern to this marine biodiversity which is highest 
in the west, and diminishes towards the east. The 
coral reefs of Papua New Guinea, although not well 
studied, may have levels of diversity equal to the 
global hotspot of coral reef diversity which 
encompasses the Philippines and central and 
eastern Indonesia. Although less diverse, levels of 
endemism remain high in the marine fauna, 
particularly in more isolated islands such as Hawaii. 

This was one of the last regions of the planet 
to be settled by humans. The first arrivals to New 
Guinea have been traced back some 30-40 000 
years, but most of the smaller islands were settled 
by a range of ethnic groups from about 3 500 years 
ago to about 1 000 years ago. These patterns of 
settlement by different groups have led to one of the 
major recognized subdivisions of the region into 
Melanesia: Papua New Guinea southeast to Fiji; 
Polynesia; Tonga to Hawaii in the north, and French 
Polynesia in the southeast; and Micronesia; the 
northern islands from Patau to Kiribati. 

in many countries, traditional lifestyles have 
been maintained, with a heavy dependence on 
fishing and agriculture. Western-style development, 
however, is growing. Mining is a major industry in 
Papua New Guinea and New Caledonia, while 
tourism is an important sector on many islands. 
Humans have had an impact on the natural 
environment ever since the first arrivals, bringing 



invasive alien species, clearing natural vegetation, 
and causing the extinction of many endemic 
species. In the modern context, population growth, 
development, and the breakdown of traditional 
management systems, have added to these threats. 
Over wide areas, less than 25 percent of the original 
primary vegetation cover remains intact. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 

Traditional methods of natural resource man- 
agement in many parts of the Pacific include 
regulations covering seasons, methods of capture 
or harvest of natural resources, and restrictions on 
who can utilize particular resources. In quite a 
number of cases these regulations include the 
closure of certain areas to activities such as fishing 
or hunting. Such regulations, developed over many 
centuries, thus include the first protected areas of 
the region. In some traditional societies such sites 
are still maintained, although they are not always 
documented. There have been some recent efforts 
to include such protection in new legislation. 

The same traditional systems of tenure 
(including land and sea areas] inhibited many early 
efforts to establish centrally planned protected 
areas systems - local peoples were unwilling to 
relinquish control of lands and waters that were 
traditionally theirs and which, in many cases, they 
were managing perfectly well. The Hawaiian Islands 
National Wildlife Refuge, a bird reservation estab- 
lished in 1909. was the first modern protected area 
in the Pacific Islands, followed in 1916 by the Hawaii 
National Park (now Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala 
National Parks). Following this, sanctuaries, bot- 
anical gardens, and other species-based reserves 
were established in relatively small areas in New 
Caledonia, Fiji, and the Solomon Islands. Between 
1950 and 1960. additional protected areas were 
established in Guam. Kiribati. Palau. and Samoa. 
Widespread development of new protected areas 
took place between 1971 and 1990, when 215 - 
more than 50 percent of all protected areas set 
aside to date - were established in all categories. 

The mid-1990s and early 2000s saw another 
development in area-based conservation. The 
emphasis on parks and strict reserves gave way to 
the concept of "conservation areas." in which 
sustainable harvest, direct involvement of local 
resource owners and users, and the development of 
compatible income-generating activities were 
central to protected area design. This continues, 
with a wide cross-section of stakeholders including 



315 



The world's protected areas 



45 
iO 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 





I Cumulative area of sites with known establishment date ll<m^)) 

I Cumulative area of sites with unl<nown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA (km'l 



■ ■■■■■■III 




1926 30 35 '40 45 50 '55 '60 '65 70 75 'Sa '85 90 '95 2000 '05 



Pacific Islands: Growth of protected areas network, 1926-2005 



indigenous non-governmental organizations and 
local communities becoming engaged in protected 
areas selection and management. Areas hitherto 
inaccessible for conservation purposes due to 
property rights disputes with traditional owners can 
now be brought under conservation management 
without removing traditional rights. 

THE PROTECTED AREA NETWORK 

Information on the extent of the Pacific Islands 
protected area network is somewhat incomplete. 



The total number of protected areas in all 
categories (including uncategorized ones) varies 
among different sources. The WDPA listing of just 
more than 400 sites is probably very conservative, 
and does not include all of the large number of 
community conserved areas. One exception is Fiji, 
where a number of such areas are recorded. The 
vast surface area occupied by these sites is to a 
great extent inflated by the single 341 362 km^ 
marine area of Hawaiian Papahanaumokuakea 
Marine National Monument (excluded from the 



Pacific Islands; Growth in the number of protected areas, 1926-2005 



400 |— 
350 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 



I Cumulative number of sites with known establishment date 

I Cumulative number of sites with unknown establishment date, 
dates based on date entered into WDPA 



Jj_l 




1926 30 35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 65 70 75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 



316 



Pacific Islands 



diagrams). The total land area protected is some 
55 000 I<m2, wtiich is only some 9.6 percent of the 
land area of the region. 

The high number of uncategorized sites is at 
least in part indicative of the various innovations in 
management and protection approach