Protected Areas Programme Protecting Nature Regional Reviews of Protected Areas J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison, P. Dingwall Editors IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela IUCN The World Conservation Union AIN S342 Protecting Nature Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge http://www.archive.org/details/protectingnature94mcne Protecting Nature Regional Reviews of Protected Areas J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison, P. Dingwall Editors IUCN — The World Conservation Union 1994 The designations of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimination of its frontiers and boundaries. Published by: Copyright: Citation: ISBN: Cover photograph: Cover design by: Produced by: Printed by: Available from: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK IUCN The World Conservation Union (1994) International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior permission from the copyright holder. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. McNeely, J.A., Harrison, J. and Dingwall, P. (eds). (1994), Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. UCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. viii + 402pp. 2-8317-0119-8 Mount Makalu, Nepal: J.A. McNeely IUCN Publications Services Unit IUCN Publications Services Unit on desktop publishing equipment purchased through a gift from Mrs Julia Ward. Page Brothers (Norwich) Ltd, UK IUCN Publications Services Unit 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL, UK or IUCN Communications and Corporate Relations Division Rue Mauvemey 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland. The text of this book is printed on Fineblade Cartridge 90 gsm low-chlorine paper Contents Page ECO re oe a ee na a WO ee, See er Vii Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World.................. 1 Coastal Marine Protected Areas.................2.....00..0.. 29 Sub-SaharancAthicars crc ecyry:. J del aytteh slg EE bee dress eiade a A. 43 North Africa and the Middle East ............................ 13. SUTTON) eh ARR AS Saige eee tienen Bartell ramet cd 9 oR. Uhl oi BMe, 101 INO TRIMEUNASIC arity ete a ase cre. & Grete, oct ogee an eee 133 EaswAsial: aw. 0st!a5 Res Sete, ois aor, et, 2 ee 157 south,and SoutheastiAsia’! 65.) 005. BL Re SR ON Des of BE 177 UIST ALA. 2 < (reed Koha) b VIER UN Ak TA RA OTA Paya) Ue) CN 205 AntarcticaiNew Zealand...) ce ce ce ere cee ee ee 229 MRETPACHICM I, RY 1 Sheth Oi 5h TPE OR EARN g ETS TPN) WU ee eee 255 NOMMPAINCNI Cale 22 ies ene, be WE AS, @ gam cue Sn Cun anar meereee 277 CentFalVAMON CAs cacestors co: vex lyce ears thar eae Sede Araceae ene 301 GaliDDOON eo od ce rs es etm es PON Joes lek re ae ee 323 SOUMMAMICLICA™ cre tm eee ced cen ete hee at here eee ore eer eee 347 Caracas’ACtion! PAN: « v6...° «joe ok hae. Set Be oe Se 373 Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................... 381 MIStON COUTMEIOS a5 teas acoder eel Ne ia ai i er ee er a 385 TRY? ER% 3a een ci adel dMRanal ete ote a area meen in, “Sit thes be Seta 389 Addendum Readers should be aware that this publication is based on information provided at the IV World Parks Congress, held in Caracas, Venezuela in February 1992. Since then, a number of countries have further developed their protected areas networks. For example, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic is recorded here as lacking a protected areas system. However, during late 1993 some 18 Biodiversity Conservation Areas were gazetted, covering approximately 10 per cent of the country. Readers are encouraged to consult the 1993 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas (IUCN, 1994) for more recent statistical data. It should also be noted that during 1994 IUCN introduced a revised system of protected areas Management Categories. This is described in Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 1994). vi Preface Every ten years, professionals involved in the establishment and management of protected areas meet to assess the current state of protected areas, exchange information about new approaches to protected areas management, and agree priorities for action in the coming years. The IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas was held from 10 to 21 February 1992, in Caracas, Venezuela. Over 1,800 individuals—protected areas managers, educators, scientists, politicians, tourism operators, and many others—reviewed progress and concerns, and agreed on a series of new approaches to protected areas, building on the experience of the past. In preparing for the IV World Congress, it quickly became apparent to the Steering Committee that a significant review was required of the progress that had been made since the holding of the III World Congress on National Parks in Bali, Indonesia, in October 1982. Three approaches were used to collect this information: w First, to draw out the key issues, to identify important lessons and future directions, and to draw attention to the highest priorities for action, views were sought from a range of professionals from within the respective regions, under the overall guidance of IUCN’s Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA). CNPPA Chair P.H.C. (Bing) Lucas asked each of the Regional Vice-Chairs and the Vice-Chair Marine to prepare reviews of what they considered the major issues in their respective regions, following the outline agreed by the Steering Committee. This often involved regional meetings and other forms of consultation, and in some cases also involved engaging others from within the respective region to help with compilation and drafting. ma Second, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) worked with national protected area management agencies to produce the four-volume Protected Areas of the World, a systematic country-by-country account of national protected area systems. These volumes provided the factual basis to support conclusions made in the regional reviews, and helped ensure that data were consistent across the regions. The data contained in these volumes have been up-dated where possible for this book. a Third, draft regional reviews were presented at Caracas and discussed by participants from within each region. Based on the comments received, the reviews were subsequently revised, some of them very considerably. Early drafts of several of the regional reviews—notably South America, North America, and Europe—were prepared in forms that were two or three times too long for the purposes of this volume. While the editorial process inevitably led to some loss in detail, it is hoped that the longer versions can themselves be published separately in the respective regions. This book is, therefore, the result of an exhaustive round of consultations, meetings, submis- sions, and discussions held in all parts of the world, and is the most authoritative single volume on the protected areas of the world. Vil The regional reviews would not have been possible without the active participation of the CNPPA Vice-Chairs, often serving primarily in a voluntary capacity under the wise leadership of the CNPPA Chair, P.H.C. (Bing) Lucas. Numerous members of the CNPPA network and other protected area professionals contributed to the reviews, and a number of consultants contributed to the actual preparation of text; these are acknowledged in the respective regional review. The World Conservation Monitoring Centre played a valuable role in providing the factual background and helping in numerous additional ways. The texts were prepared for publication by staff at both IUCN and WCMC, including Caroline Martinet, Joanna Erfani and Sue Rallo, James R. Paine, Donald Gordon, Chris Sharpe and Harriet Gillet. A large number of partners—ranging from governments to private foundations—provided the financial resources necessary to organize and hold the Congress, and to support the preparation of the Regional Reviews. Bilateral assistance came from the Governments of Venezuela, the Netherlands, Sweden (SIDA), Finland (FINNIDA), Germany (BMZ-GTZ), Norway (Ministry of Environment), Denmark (DANIDA), the United States of America (United States Department of State and Department of Interior National Park Service), the United Kingdom (ODA), Switzerland (DDA and Interco-operation), Canada (Canadian Park Service) and France (Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Co-operation and the Environment). Multilateral institutions contributing included: Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), The World Bank, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Heritage Committee, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Agence de Co-operation Culturelle et Technique (ACCT) in France. International non-governmental organizations and foundations supporting the Congress include: The Nature Conservancy, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the MacArthur Foundation, and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). British Petroleum helped support Congress documen- tation. The World Resources Institute and the Bureau of the Ramsar Convention provided important services to the Congress. Other institutions provided specific support to certain of the regional reviews, and these are acknowledged in the respective review. J.A. McNeely, Gland, Switzerland J. Harrison, Cambridge, UK P. Dingwall, Wellington, New Zealand June 1994 viii Introduction Protected Areas in the Modern World ee ene | mie pmenengation.of (Wen MPA Vice Ohne: Pe re ly a r- : a ; ote GIG A optwerk Gad t 4 _ : ca p ~ wa) alrores a =e t Wel mview ae Ok te wl becheer ‘tiga a ty ott pans nia! * 2 na Leabe| avy MEAT? rash Piet Snr faves) Raaca Dog il aie ees, a yeh 4 ae a adel A fe SAE Tn sie ‘ODAy'S hg aoe Cyn Dt, SRM (akan levies apt Mente: 5) ryiaties er, Ts —_ “se eerily Sea eh be tatters Con: TINY — Year >> of sites Category Il Category V Figure 6. Comparison of the growth of protected areas systems in the Sub-Saharan and South American realms 14007 Gouth America Sub-Saharan Africa 800 600 400 200 Number of sites/Area sq.km (x 1,000) 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 0 Five year period begining... 16 Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World Figure 7. Comparison of size class: Europe and South and Southeast Asia realms compared Size class frequency &jjnumber of sites in each class CEEOL COR OO SZ KOO Palaearctic (Europe) Table 3 and Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate the substan- tial differences between regions in rates of establishment of protected areas. Especially striking are the differ- ences in rates of establishment between Africa and the other tropical regions, presumably the result of an early desire to protect areas with "big game" species in the Africa savanna, followed by a period of consolidation and tourism development. Africa therefore would ap- pear a very high priority for implementing additional categories of protected areas which meet the needs of local people (see Olindo, this volume). The information provided on number of areas and area covered suggests strong regional differences. These differences are often a reflection of opportunity, so, for example, the Pacific and the Caribbean do not have much opportunity for establishment of particularly large areas, while population density in Europe tends to re- Strict the size of new protected areas there. Figure 7 provides a comparison of protected area size class fre- quency between Europe and South and Southeast Asia, clearly illustrating the bias toward smaller sites in Europe, a theme explored further in the European review paper (see Synge and Bibelriether, this volume). 5. Regional reviews of protected areas 5.1 Preparation of the reviews For each of the regions outlined above, the CNPPA Chair has selected a Regional Vice-Chair who has been 17 Od \\Area covered (million hectares) j j gWA_. South and Southeast Asia confirmed by the IUCN Council and is responsible for coordinating the work of CNPPA within the respective region. One of the most important tasks during the past several years has been to compile the regional reviews which are contained within this volume. These reviews are each the result of considerable consultation within the respective regions. In some re- gions, this involved special working sessions of CNPPA (as in South and Southeast Asia and the Caribbean). In others, it involved convening task forces (Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, Africa, and South Amer- ica), while in still others it involved considerable con- sultation among the involved parties, often taking ad- vantage of other meetings being held in the region on related topics (North America, Australia, the Pacific, North Eurasia, East Asia, and New Zealand and Antarctica). To ensure that marine protected areas were given sufficient emphasis, the CNPPA Vice-Chair for coastal marine protected areas was requested to prepare a global review for marine protected areas. This involved the establishment of 13 task forces to cover each of the marine regions. Since the boundaries of these regions are rather different from the terrestrial areas, we have kept this report separate, although marine and coastal issues are also dealt with in each of the regional reviews. This preparatory process was designed to strengthen the network of protected areas professionals in each region, to feed ideas and information to the Caracas Congress, and to make best use of the results of the Congress. It also helped to build consensus about the Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas major issues facing protected areas in the region, and the approaches needed to address them. The process therefore contributed to the preparation of the Caracas Action Plan and the Congress Report (McNeely, 1993) as well. 5.2 Format and content of the reviews Each of the Regional Vice-Chairs was asked to follow a general format, applied to the particular conditions of the region. Each review covers the following: 1. Historical perspective. Provides a brief geo- graphical introduction to the region, how the protected areas system has been developed over time, factors influencing the establishment of protected areas systems, participation in major international protected areas programmes, ma- jor actions that have been taken, and lessons learned. 2. Current protected area coverage. Includes data on the current system of coverage per coun- try, categories of protected areas, and how well current systems cover major habitat types. 3. Additional protected areas required. Cov- ers, in summary form, the major gaps in the protected area system of the region: what is required to ensure that the protected areas of the region are effective in protecting biodiversity, representing the full range of habitats, meeting the needs of recreation and tourism, protecting water supplies and genetic resources, and meet- ing the many other needs of society that require maintaining land and water under reasonably natural conditions. Protected areas institutions. Identifies the kinds of institutions which are involved in the establishment and management of protected ar- eas, showing a very broad range indeed. The linkages between protected area institutions and other development sectors is also covered. Current levels of financial investment in pro- tected areas. Designed to present information on expenditures by governments and private organizations on protected areas. However, this kind of information has proved difficult to col- lect in a reasonably complete way, and the infor- mation contained here can be considered only a first approximation. Human capacity in protected areas manage- ment. Intended to highlight the number of people directly employed by protected areas and the numbers indirectly employed as a result of the establishment of protected areas; as with financial investment, such figures are elusive. 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas. Designed to identify current action plans 18 at both national and international levels from both private and public institutions, and state the priorities for investment in the region. Major protected areas issues in the region. Gives each of the regions an opportunity to present the most important issues for them, in- cluding relations between local people and pro- tected areas, involvement by the private sector in the establishment and management of pro- tected areas, the relationship between protected areas and surrounding lands, protected areas and science, and threats to effective management (both internal and external). Priorities for action in the region. Drawing from the analysis in the previous pages, each of the reviews concludes with a section on action priorities. This section varies somewhat in form, Iength, and content, designed in each case to be uscful to the respective region. For several of the regions, this section provides the basis for a much more detailed action plan which has been developed through a subsequent process of con- sultation, discussion, and collaboration. 6. International conventions For a wide range of activities, conservation action can benefit greatly from an international approach or per- spective. Some sites are of such value to mankind that the global community as a whole should take action for their protection. Some habitat types are under threat in many parts of the world, yet can be tremendously pro- ductive if used in the right way. International coordina- tion of research and training within protected areas networks can have a multipier effect if the results of such efforts are shared. The Convention on Wetlands of International Impor- tance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971) provides a framework for inter- national co-operation for the conservation of wetland habitats. It places general obligations on states relating to the con- servation of wetlands throughout their territories, with special obligations pertaining to those wetlands desig- nated to the List of Wetlands of Intemational Impor- tance. Wetlands are defined by the convention as: areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artifi- cial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine waters, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres. More than 600 sites are now listed, in more than 80 countries (Figures 8 and 9), although representation in large parts of Africa and Central and Southeast Asia is still rather low. By far the greatest number of listed sites is to be found in Europe, although the larger sites tend to be elsewhere. Figure 8. Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites (global) Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World entre ~ ~ D Cc ‘= fe) ast iS io) = iS fe) a) fe) > = ) “ c fe) oS) ne) = o) = co) oo + > a U o — ce) a o) = a Listed Wetlands | Contracting Parties Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 9. Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites (Europe) 20 Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World sujuag BuoyUO;W UoIyDAIeSUOD POM ey} Ag peiodeid S9}IS |DINJOU pajsiq e SalDg HuljoduyUuog Ea 1SI7] aHeyWaH POM Oy} UO paqiosu! Sa!ledoud jeunjyeu JO UO}}BDO] Puke UO!}UBAUOD abey9H POM 8u) 0} BoUaJeUpY “O01 aNbi4 21 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 24jUaQ BHuvoyuUoW UoNDAJeSUOD PJ4omM ey Aq peindaig SaAlesay siaudsoig e suol}ou Bulyodioiog a SaAJaSoYy aaydsolg paziubooa, Ajjeuoneuseju! jo UONeD0) oy} pue aUWesBHO1g aiaydsolg ay} pue UBW ODSANN ey} ul UONedioWe, “11, anbi4 D2, The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (adopted in Paris in 1972) provides for the designation of areas of "out- standing universal value" as World Heritage sites, with the principal aim of fostering international co-operation in safeguarding these important areas. Sites are inde- pendently evaluated for their world heritage quality before being declared, and include both natural and cultural sites; only natural sites are considered here. The World Heritage Convention considers as natural heritage, among other qualities: natural features of outstanding scientific value geological or physiographical formations which are of global significance particularly significant areas for threatened species natural features of outstanding natural beauty The World Heritage Convention has more signatories than any other conservation convention, with 136 state parties as of September 1993. Figure 10 illustrates the distribution of contracting parties, and of the hundred or so natural and mixed natural/cultural sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage (there are many more cultural sites listed). The establishment of Biosphere Reserves is not cov- ered by a specific convention, but is part of an interna- tional scientific programme, the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. Biosphere Reserves dif- fer from the preceding types of site in that they are not exclusively designated to protect unique areas or impor- tant wetlands, but for a range of objectives which in- clude research, monitoring, training and demonstration, as well as conservation roles. Figure 11 illustrates the distribution of Biosphere Reserves, and of countries participating in the programme. 7. Conclusion: People and protected area systems The regional reviews contained in this book all reflect great concem about the relationship between people 23 Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World and protected areas in a world of growing human popu- lations and growing demands for resources. The ap- proach to protected area management advocated in the regional reviews and at Caracas involves partnerships with a wide range of interest groups, for the benefit of people, protected areas, and biodiversity. This approach faces formidable challenges. Many protected area staff are convinced that a cooperative approach could ulti- mately reduce the quality of the protected area; they believe that strong legislation supported by vigorous law enforcement is the best option for long-term con- servation. And indeed, experience has shown that local people sometimes are as likely as anyone else to misuse privileges under cooperative management. Even so, given the insufficient staff and logistical support likely to be available to most protected areas for the foresee- able future, the "strict preservationist approach" would not only be impossible to implement, but would even be of doubtful validity on conservation grounds. The proposed conciliatory and cooperative approach may be the only viable option in the conditions of today (Ishwaran, 1992). This compromise means that the more that basic human needs can be met by protecting natural areas, the better are the chances of survival for those areas. Since demands on resources can only be expected to continue to grow, itis necessary to justify existing protected areas ever-more convincingly and to establish new areas un- der a range of management regimes which can adapt to varying local conditions and human requirements. People should have no illusions about the severity of the problems protected areas will face in the coming years. The conflicts of tomorrow will be even more difficult than those of today, as resource scarcity, climate change, economic imbalance, population growth, expand- ing consumption, and continuing use of inappropriate technology form a witch’s brew of challenges to pro- tected areas, and to sustainable use of the environment as a whole. But such challenges mean that protected areas have an even more important part to play in securing a productive future for the people of our planet. The regional reviews contained in this volume suggest the most productive way to proceed. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas References Amend, S. and Amend, T. (eds.) 1992. Espacios Sin Habitantes? Parques nacionales de America del Sur. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 497 pp. Barzetti, V. (ed.). 1993. Parks and Progress: Protected Areas and Economic Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. 'UCN-IADB, Cambridge, UK. 240 pp. Bibby, C. et al (1992). Putting Biodiversity on the Map: priority areas for global conservation. ICBP, Cambridge, UK. Harmon, D. (ed.). 1992. Research in Protected Areas: Results from the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. George Wright Forum 9(3-4): 17-168. Harrison, J., Miller, K.R. and McNeely, J.A. 1984. The World Coverage of Protected Areas: Development Goals and Environmental Needs. In: National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Pro- tected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Ishwaran, N. 1992. Biodiversity, protected areas and sustainable development. Nature and Resources, 28(1): 18-25. IUCN, 1978. Categories, Criteria, and Objectives for Protected Areas. UCN, Morges, Switzerland. 26 pp. IUCN, 1980. The World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN/UNEP/WWF/, Gland, Switzerland. 48 pp. 24 IUCN, 1990. 1990 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas. Prepared by WCMC. TUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. 275pp. McNeely, J. A. and Miller, K.R. (eds.). 1984. National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 825pp. McNeely, J. A. (ed.) 1993. Parks for Life: Report of the Ivth World Congress on National Parks and Pro- tected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 252 pp. Miller, K.R. (1980). Planificacién de Parques Nacion- ales para el Erodesarrollo en Latinoamérica. Fundaci6n para la Ecologia y para la Proteccién del Medio Ambiente, Madrid. SOOpp. Thorsell, J.W. 1992. World Heritage Twenty Years Later. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 191 pp. Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A Classification of the Bio- geographical Provinces of the World. I\UCN Occasional Paper No 18. IUCN, Morges, Switzer- land. 49pp. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future (Brundtland Report). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 400pp. IUCN (1992). Protected Areas of the World: a review of national systems. Vol 3: Afrotropical. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. xxii + 360pp. Thorsell, J. and Harrison, J. 1992. National Parks and Nature Reserves of the Mountain Regions of the World. In: Parks, Peaks, and People. East-West Center, Honolulu, USA. Annex Annex. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biogeographic province ; Biogeographic Province Area (sq km) Number Area (ha) Nearctic Realm Sitkan 349,903 17,200,857 Oregonian 124,604 899,012 Yukon Taiga 1,019,584 20,311,463 Canadian Taiga 5,127,155 18,027,793 Eastern Forest 2,222,997 4,995,285 Austroriparian 596,892 1,220,070 Californian $26,507 864,516 Sonoran $07,770 10,053,623 Chihuahuan 577,181 582,187 Tamaulipan 210,371 50,232 Great Basin 660,356 723,283 Aleutian Islands 124,511 7,909,534 Alaskan Tundra 958,491 30,942,068 Canadian Tundra 1,733,377 19,820,110 Arctic Archipelago 689,965 0 Greenland Tundra 498,731 0 Arctic Desert and Icecap 2,120,078 98,250,000 Grasslands 2,442,342 771,140 Rocky Mountains 1,578,491 13,369,600 Sierra-Cascade 228,720 2,838,038 Madrean-Cordilleran 763,250 2,341,251 Great Lakes 254,499 513,634 Palaearctic Realm Chinese Subtropical Forest 862,946 1,925,831 Japanese Evergreen Forest 266,882 2,836,969 West Eurasian Taiga 4,000,000 6,569,354 East Siberian Taiga 5,536,078 4,574,986 Icelandian 101,591 916,741 Subarctic Birchwoods 100,000 253,410 Kamchatkan 283,311 1,099,000 British Islands 266,599 3,966,218 Atlantic 715,955 4,476,827 Boreonemoral 1,285,235 1,892,415 Middle European Forest 1,467,342 6,883,956 Pannonian 102,530 352,216 West Anatolian 37,610 10,691 Manchu-Japanese Mixed Forest 1,252,284 3,275,407 Oriental Deciduous Forest 2,751,446 6,436,349 Iberian Highlands 316,084 2,842,288 Mediterranean Sclerophyll 1,194,658 ° 3,654,932 Sahara 6,960,804 22,908,200 Arabian Desert 2,996,082 5,929,560 Anatolian-Iranian Desert 2,203,749 20,029,973 Turanian 2,116,829 1,394,217 Takla-Makan-Gobi Desert 2,184,554 12,000,342 Tibetan 1,268,119 24,367 Iranian Desert 403,527 980,732 Arctic Desert 195,915 3,491,000 Higharctic Tundra 859,865 2,228,650 Lowarctic Tundra 2,158,146 1,348,708 Atlas Steppe 421,541 91,498 25 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Annex. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biogeographic province (cont.) Biogeographic Province Area (sq km) Number Area (ha) % Pontian Steppe 1,945,402 25 1,254,610 0.6 Mongolian-Manchurian Steppe 2,605,123 17 2,253,280 0.9 Scottish Highlands 46,791 37 707,955 15.1 Central European Highlands 369,903 390 6,289,887 17.0 Balkan Highlands 221,241 103 983,029 44 Caucaso-lranian Highlands 936,015 69 5,444,834 5.8 Altai Highlands 1,048,263 7 2,282,136 22 Pamir-Tian-Shan Highlands 643,207 30 6,091,096 9.5 Hindu Kush Highlands 217,105 5 183,438 08 Himalayan Highlands 860,070 79 8,257,297 9.6 Szechwan Highlands 578,558 56 2,687,788 46 Macaronesian Islands 14,032 10 111,634 8.0 Ryukyu Islands 2,479 5 39,064 15.8 Lake Ladoga 17,606 1 40,972 2.3 Aral Sea 67,548 1 18,300 0.3 Lake Baikal 32,260 0 0 0.0 Afrotropical Realm Guinean Rain Forest 607,048 23 1,323,245 22 Congo Rain Forest 1,921,970 24 7,017,294 3.7 Malagasy Rain Forest 200,573 15 455,055 2.3 West African Woodland/Savanna 3,247,618 81 17,885,256 5.5 East African Woodland/Savanna 1,510,608 71 14,283,895 95 Congo Woodland/Savanna 1,356,749 5 3,774,000 28 Miombo Woodland/Savanna 2,432,142 38 14,839,500 6.1 South African Woodland/Savanna 1,694,787 104 8,034,713 47 Malagasy Woodland/Savanna 324,074 19 614,774 1.9 Malagasy Thorn Forest 70,676 2 44,950 0.6 Cape Sclerophyll 129,683 52 1,895,490 14.6 Western Sahel 2,814,709 12 6,171,240 2.2 Eastern Sahel 1,169,711 4 4,846,000 4.1 Somalian 2,166,783 Dili 4,327,969 2.0 Namib 364,602 7 9,596,653 26.3 Kalahari 504,861 10 9,977,287 19.8 Karroo 377,735 18 465,532 1.2 Ethiopian Highlands 505,387 7 1,606,000 3.2 Guinean Highlands 80,030 4 1,394,613 17.4 Central African Highlands 269,463 8 4,435,825 16.5 East African Highlands 65,457 11 267,700 4.1 South African Highlands 198,957 38 433,201 BP) Ascension and St Helena Islands 187 0 0 0.0 Comores Islands and Aldabra 1,860 1 35,000 18.8 Mascarene Islands 4,494 3 9,553 2.1 Lake Rudolf 7,331 0 0 0.0 Lake Ukerewe (Victoria) 69,504 1 45,700 0.7 Lake Tanganyika 3,275 Lake Malawi (Nyasa) 28,949 1 8,700 0.3 Indomalayan Realm Malabar Rainforest 223,556 44 1,029,983 46 Ceylonese Rainforest 31,104 1 7,648 0.2 Bengalian Rainforest 179,943 18 445,362 2.5 Burman Rainforest 257,585 2 20,455 0.1 Indochinese Rainforest 452,508 2,922,444 26 Annex Annex. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biogeographic province (cont.) Biogeographic Province South Chinese Rainforest Malayan Rainforest Indus-Ganges Monsoon Forest Burma Monsoon Forest Thailandian Monsoon Forest Mahanadian Coromandel Ceylonese Monsoon Forest Deccan Thom Forest Thar Desert Seychelles and Amirantes Islands Laccadives Islands Maldives and Chagos Islands Cocos-Keeling and Christmas Island Andaman and Nicobar Islands Sumatra Java Lesser Sunda Islands Sulawesi (Celebes) Borneo Philippines Taiwan Oceania Realm Papuan Micronesian Hawaiian Southeastern Polynesian Central Polynesian New Caledonian East Melanesian Australian Realm Queensland Coastal Tasmanian Northern Coastal Wester Sclerophyll Southern Sclerophyll Easter Sclerophyll Brigalow Western Mulga Central Desert Southern Mulga/Saltbush Northern Savanna Northern Grasslands Eastern Grasslands/Savannas Antarctic Realm Neozealandia Maudlandia Marielandia Insulantarctica Neotropical Realm Campechean Area (sq km) 188,979 179,164 1,412,232 297,201 959,750 219,436 778,120 1,777,073 837,032 580,938 — 966,966 527,831 270,000 10,465,150 2,193,955 19,206 259,164 27 Number Area (ha) 354,128 1,273,648 5,568,180 580,200 2,453,175 1,096,956 156,528 776,060 193,975 4,567,577 2,893 0 0 8,700 66,777 4,907,720 1,083,654 538,540 2,523,242 4,229,634 572,866 288,577 6,817,897 4,390 283,604 64,745 37,154 256,418 6,049 8,167,080 1,389,936 1,288,199 2,659,804 1,707,985 3,592,493 393,932 2,260,773 9,895,645 5,870,350 2,609,598 669,628 1,007,736 2,897,136 196,325 0 317,872 1,230,420 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Annex. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biogeographic province (cont.) Biogeographic Province Area (sq km) Number Area (ha) Panamanian 40,065 1,046,599 Colombian Coastal 237,201 1,127,620 Guyanan 1,009,104 2,499,469 Amazonian 2,509,392 20,091,134 Madeiran 1,671,819 1,212,128 Serro Do Mar 243,787 3,609,676 Brazilian Rain Forest 1,533,869 1,525,542 Brazilian Planalto 219,152 18,207 Valdivian Forest 111,933 4,016,359 Chilean Nothofagus 123,711 3,919,882 Everglades 6,827 807,859 Sinaloan 192,114 176,000 Guerreran 158,439 128,857 Yucatecan 39,959 106,970 Central American 309,974 1,606,618 Venezuelan Dry Forest 270,319 4,636,901 Venezuelan Deciduous Forest 58,928 896,127 Equadorian Dry Forest 50,343 184,314 Caatinga 899,739 249,461 Gran Chaco 988,513 1,380,155 Chilean Araucaria Forest 32,867 45,414 Chilean Sclerophyll 57,331 147,008 Pacific Desert 290,390 48,824 Monte 1,234,810 849,018 Patagonian 413,118 1,319,095 Llanos 437,988 1,141,025 Campos Limpos 207,269 10,863,872 Babacu 293,021 903,050 Campos Cerrados 1,778,650 7,325,611 Argentinian Pampas $12,152 345,795 Uruguayan Pampas 522,200 1,288,780 Northern Andean 256,507 3,738,251 Colombian Montane 154,776 4,465,461 Yungas 483,142 4,410,485 Puna 464,873 2,339,310 Southem Andean 10,694,145 Bahamas—Bermudean 136,119 Cuban 328,128 Greater Antillean 968,717 Lesser Antillean 167,919 Revilla Gigedo Island 0 Cocos Island 2,400 Galapagos Islands I 766,514! Fernando De Noronja Island 37,941 South Trinidade Island 0 Lake Titicaca 36,180 Notes: Protected areas are excluded from the above analysis if location is unknown. Based on 1992 data Excludes marine component of the Galapagaos Islands National Park * Area of biogeographical province unknown 28 Coastal Marine Protected Areas Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas suoibes auleW YWddNO Jo uoNes07 *} eunbi4 Contents Page Hee tiStoriCal DErSPeCtiVS ooo. ee cay ou cy ones Wrens, Seeeueraeees «se a ee OR 33 ile Management of the marine environment’. - =... 4 «eee 33 (PR PTOPTESS SINCE Bale Je)... ss Ses 2 ee oe eee ane ae ee 34 1.3. Participation in major international protected area programmes .......... 35 2. Current protected areacoverage.......................... 36 3. Additional protected areas required........................ 36 4. Marine protected areainstitutions ......................... 37 5. Current levels of financial investment in marine protected areas ...... 37 6. Human capacity in protected areas management................ 38 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 38 8. Major global marine protected areaissues.................... 38 8.1 Public participation in planning and management of the coastal zone. ...... 38 8.2 Marine protected areas and surrounding lands andseas .............. 39 8.3 Marine protected areas andscience ...............--2.2.-2--2-.-. 39 S'4eeclinreatstoumarine protectediareaSaa) 4 4.250 a oie ic eel eee 39 StomeivecaliconsiderationS=«5 «24. « s, st eheaees Chee ee eee ne 40 SPPCIOUUECS TOT ACTION) occ Cp sec coat conde, we) ol oy scope ens toy os Sascha iden ou yee aa 41 BEICLONCES » Ausisus eS) swam ae eh Ret A! Bok See eee a 42 Figure 1. Location of CNPPA marine regions. ..................... 30 Box 1. __ Basic definitions for marine protected areas... ............... 34 Table 1. Distribution of marine protected areas. .................2... 36 31 (li sonia west mal cn nytt “nr anhumled to tiotraggn Coastal Marine Protected Areas Graeme Kelleher, Vice-Chair Marine, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas; and Chris Bleakley, IUCN Special Projects Officer, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 1. Historical perspective 1.1 Management of the marine environment The need to devise methods to manage and protect marine environments and resources became widely re- cognized internationally during the course of the 1950s and early 1960s. Thus, the First World Conference on National Parks (1962) considered the need for pro- tection of coastal and marine areas but the development of practical responses to this need required a legal framework for addressing the sovereignty and juris- dictional rights of nations to the seabed, beyond the customary three-mile territorial sea. In 1958 four con- ventions, known collectively as the Geneva Conven- tions on the Law of the Sea were adopted: the Conven- tion on the Continental Shelf; the Convention on the High Seas; the Convention on Fishing; and the Conven- tion on Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. Increasing technical capability to exploit mineral re- sources on or beneath the sea bed and to exploit fishery resources in deep waters led to the long-running Third United Nations Conference of the Law of the Sea, held between 1973 and 1982. The outcome of the nego- tiations was to enable nations to take a number of measures, including those related to regulation of fish- ing and the protection of living resources of the con- tinental shelf, to a distance of 200 nautical miles from their national jurisdictional baseline. These measures provide a legal basis upon which the establishment of marine protected areas and the conservation of marine resources could be developed in areas beyond territorial seas. During the 1970s there was increasing recognition and mounting concern regarding the regional nature of the environmental problems of the marine living re- sources of the world. In 1971, the Convention on Wet- lands of International Importance Especially as Water- fowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) was developed, de- fining wetlands to include many coastal marine habi- tats. In 1972, the Convention for the Protection of the 33 World Cultural and Natural Heritage (known as the World Heritage Convention) was developed to give international recognition to areas "of outstanding uni- versal value"; these could include marine areas. Also in 1972, the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was given the task of ensuring that emerging environmental prob- lems of wide international significance received appro- priate and adequate consideration by Governments. UNEP thus established its Regional Seas Programme to address problems on a regional basis, by the establish- ment of Action Plans with a particular emphasis on protecting marine living resources from pollution and over-exploitation. The first such Action Plan was adopt- ed for the Mediterranean in 1975. Some 14 Regional Seas Projects now cover all of the world’s marine regions. In 1975, IUCN conducted a conference on Marine Protected Areas in Tokyo. The report of that conference noted increasing pressures upon marine environments and called for the establishment of a well-monitored system of Marine Protected Areas representative of the world’s marine ecosystems. In 1981, a workshop was organized as part of the UNESCO Division of Marine Science COMAR (Coastal and Marine) Programme to consider research and train- ing priorities for coral reef management. An outcome of this workshop, which was held in conjunction with the IV International Coral Reef Symposium, was the publication of the UNESCO Coral Reef Management Handbook (Kenchington and Hudson, 1984). In 1982, the IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) organized a series of workshops on the creation and management of marine and coastal protected areas as part of the III World Congress on National Parks held in Bali, Indonesia. This led to the publication by IUCN of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers (Salm and Clark, 1984). UNESCO organized the First World Biosphere Reserve Congress in Minsk, USSR in 1983. At that meeting it Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Box 1. Basic definitions for marine protected areas Primary goal of marine conservation The primary goal of marine conservation and management is: "To provide for the protection, restoration, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of the marine heritage of the world in perpetuity through the creation of a global, representative system of marine protected areas and through the management, in accordance with the principles of the World Conservation Strategy, of human activities that use or affect the marine environment". Definition of marine protected areas The term "marine protected area" is defined as: "Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment". Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN General Assembly also recommended that as an integral component of marine conservation and management, each national government should seek cooperative action between the public and all levels of government for development of a national system of marine protected areas. This resolution and primary goal have provided the focus for CNPPA’s marine programme. was recognized that the Biosphere Reserve concept is potentially applicable to the marine environment and that an integrated, multiple use Marine Protected Area can conform to all of the scientific, administrative and social principles that define a Biosphere Reserve under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Pro- gramme. In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published its report Our Common Future, which highlighted the importance of marine conservation. In November of the same year, the Gen- eral Assembly of the United Nations welcomed the WCED report. At the same time, it adopted the "En- vironmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond”, which was developed by UNEP in tandem with the WCED report. In 1988 UNEP and IUCN published the three volume Coral Reefs of the World, a global direct- ory of coral reefs prepared by the then IUCN Conser- vation Monitoring Centre. These and other publications have highlighted the serious threats which confront marine areas around the world. Despite these initiatives, conservation in the marine environment has lagged far behind that for the terrestrial environment, and an integrated approach to the man- agement of the global marine ecosystem is yet to be implemented. As a result, many marine areas now face serious problems, including: stress from pollution degra- dation; depletion of resources, including species; con- flicting uses of resources; and damage and destruction of habitat. Recognizing these problems, the [V World Wilderness Congress in 1987 passed a resolution which established a policy framework for marine conservation. A similar resolution was passed by the 17th General Assembly of IUCN in February, 1988. These resolutions adopted a 34 statement of a primary goal and defined the term "ma- rine protected area” (Box 1). 1.2 Progress since Bali The Bali Action Plan was the product of the III World Congress on National Parks and called for the incor- poration of marine and coastal protected areas into the worldwide protected areas network. The following sec- tion is a summary of activities that have been under- taken in pursuit of this objective: Develop and distribute concepts and tools for establishing marine protected areas The development and distribution of concepts and tools relating to marine conservation and marine protected areas has proceeded steadily since 1982. Some of the major publications since that time include: Kenchington and Hudson (1984), Salm and Clark (1984) and Kelleher and Kenchington (1992). Although a significant information base exists to guide the planning and management of marine pro- tected areas, concepts that are accepted by the ma- majority of marine conservationists are still sometimes met with suspicion. To overcome this further effort is required to make information available to those respon- sible for marine protected areas, particularly in develop- ing countries, to decision makers, other resource man- agers and to the public in general. Develop a classification system for categories of marine protected areas The IUCN Protected Areas classification adopted by CNPPA (McNeely and Miller, 1984) can be applied to the marine environment with little conceptual diffi- culty. In doing so it should be recalled that marine conservation is most often successful when it is based upon large-scale, integrated, multiple-use regimes, of which more highly protected areas are one component. Category V and Category VIII protected areas fulfil an important role in providing a means to address the problems of resource allocation and management of conflicting uses that are the fundamental source of many of the threats to marine environments. Further develop and distribute biogeographical clas- sification systems for marine protected areas In seeking to develop a globally representative system of marine protected areas the eventual aim is to cover and represent biogeographic variation and biodiversity at all levels. The first step is to examine broad bio- geographic variation. CNPPA’s approach has been to encourage the use of biogeographic classification systems already in exist- ence, rather than trying to impose a single global clas- sification system. The intention is to support the use of systems which have already been developed and are in use, recognising that the practical results of the applica- tion of different rationally-based biogeographic clas- sification systems are likely to be very similar. This approach has the advantage of building on the activities of regional and national bodies who have developed systems to best suit their own particular conditions and requirements. There is no doubt that further refinements of ap- proaches to marine biogeographic classification will continue to be made. Such improvements should be encouraged to proceed in parallcl with efforts to es- tablish and improve the management of MPAs. Incorporate scientists, managers, administrators, and supporters of marine conservation into the protect- ed areas community Strengthening the marine protected areas community remains as important now as it was ten years ago at Bali, although significant progress has been made since that time. CNPPA has established a network of 18 working groups across major geopolitical marine regions, with the specific objective of promoting the establishment of a global representative system of marine protected areas. IUCN also has a network of individuals who promote its activities in marine conservation generally. The greatest challenge facing those concerned with building support and involvement in marine protected areas remains increasing the participation of user and industry groups. In many instances these groups view marine protected areas with suspicion, and see thcir own interests directly threatened by the establishment of MPAs. Such groups need to be convinced of the need for management of the marine environment and of the role of MPAs in management, and reassured that pro- vision will be made for existing uses, on an ecologically sustainable basis, within a nation’s marine areas. There is also a need to increase the involvement of scientists and the application of science to the solution of marine 35 Coastal Marine Protected Areas environmental problems, particularly as relates to the management of MPAs. Encourage the establishment of marine protected areas There has been considerable progress in establishing new marine protected areas. In 1970, 27 nations had 118 marine protected areas. By 1985, 430 MPAs had been proclaimed by 69 nations, with another 298 proposals under consideration. A recent estimate from data gath- ered by CNPPA and GBRMPA, in cooperation with WCMC and the World Bank, is that 1,182 MPAs have been established in over 120 countries. 1.3. Participation in major international protected area programmes Biosphere reserves The applicability of UNESCO’s biosphere reserve con- cept—in which human activity is specifically provided for within buffer and transition zones surrounding highly protected core areas—is particularly high in the marine environment. WCMC lists 101 biosphere reserves with a marine (including estuarine) or littoral component. Of these, 10 areas have a substantial sub-tidal compo- nent. World Heritage sites The World Heritage List is one mechanism used to provide protection to outstanding examples of import- ant marine ecosystems and habitats. Nomination of an area to World Heritage status can provide significant impetus to conservation measures because it places an obligation on signatory nations to provide effective management. Member countries commit themselves to ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of World Heritage properties. Twenty-three World Henitage sites are listed by WCMC as having a marine or littoral component. Of these, 10 include a sub-tidal area as a substantial component of the site. This represents a small proportion of the total number of World Heritage sites (90 "natural" sites as of December 1992). The Ramsar Wetlands Convention In adhering to the Ramsar Convention, governments undertake, among other things, to promote the wise use of wetlands and to create wetland reserves. An area can be listed by having identified international significance in ecological, botanical, zoological, limnological or hydrological values. For the purposes of the Convention "wetlands" are defined as "areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary ... including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide docs not exceed six metres". Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas WCMC record that 23 Ramsar sites include a marine or littoral component. Of these, only 3 areas are listed as having a substantial sub-tidal component. The bene- fits to signatories of the Convention can include assist- ance with monitoring, production of management re- ports, direct funding assistance to improved manage- ment of listed sites, designating new sites, promoting wise use, and regional and promotional activities. The International Maritime Organisation The concept of Sensitive Areas and Particularly Sensitive Areas has been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to enable the development of com- mon jurisdictional and enforcement regimes for en- vironmentally significant marine areas. The manage- ment measures for international shipping which may then be considered by the IMO for application within such areas include compulsory pilotage, traffic separa- tion schemes, the declaration of areas to be avoided by international maritime traffic and controls on substances discharged from shipping. The initiative provides an important mechanism for gaining recognition by the IMO, and indeed the wider international community, of the need for special protective measures in environ- mentally sensitive marine areas. The Great Barrier Reef was identified by MEPC as the world’s first Particularly Sensitive Area in November 1990. Other areas con- sidered for this status are the Galapagos Islands and parts of the Baltic Sea. Regional conventions Under UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme several re- gions now have conventions which include a protocol which support the establishment of marine protected areas. These regions include the Mediterranean, Carib- bean, the South East Pacific and East Africa. In the South Pacific the “Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region’ (SPREP Convention) provides a similar found- ation, while in the Baltic the recently revised Helsinki Convention now includes provisions calling for habitat and species conservation. 2. Current protected area coverage A data setof protected areas with marine (including estuarine) and littoral components has been provided by WCMC as a contribution to this review. Further data have been gathered by CNPPA and the GBRMPA under a project for the World Bank Environment Department. Approxi- mate figures for the number of MPAs in each of CNPPA’s marine regions are listed in Table 1. It must be emphasized that the data in Table 1 do not give any indication of the effectiveness of the protection afforded by these marine protected areas. 36 Table 1. Distribution of marine protected areas Approximate number of MPAs Marine Region 1 Antarctic 2 ‘Arctic 3 Mediterranean 4a NW Atlantic 4b NE Atlantic N Adlantic-Baltic Wider Caribbean West Africa South Atlantic 8a Indian Ocean 8b North West Indian Ocean 8c South East Africa 9 Southeast Asia 10 Central & South Pacific lla NE Pacific 11lb NW Pacific 12. SE Pacific 13. ~— Australia These areas are also shown on Figure 1. In none of the marine regions can there be said to be adequate representation of biogeographic variation, let alone of more detailed levels of biodiversity. Even in the Wider Caribbean and in the Baltic Sea, where the initial step of achieving representation of broad bio- geographic types has generally been achieved, there is a need to look in greater detail at ecosystem properties and processes, at habitats and at species. In the Mediter- ranean region, where around 6 per cent of the coastline is included in protected areas, some of the most critical ecosystems, the seagrass meadows and the wetlands, urgently require protection (Batisse and de Grissac, 1991). 3. Additional protected areas required Action is now urgently required to identify the marine areas which require protection and to determine priorities for the implementation of appropriate protective mea- sures. In doing so, criteria under the following broad headings need to be considered: naturalness, biogeographic importance, ecological importance, economic importance, social importance, scientific importance, intemational or national significance, and practicality/ feasibility. In selecting areas a degree of pragmatism is required. Selection of areas should not be based on degrees of threat alone. In the case where two equally valuable marine areas are being considered for inclusion in marine protected areas, declaration of an area which is less "threatened", and for which there is less competition from other user groups, may be more likely to succeed politically, while at the same time achieving conservation objectives. An MPA which is opposed by the local community is unlikely to achieve such objectives. International experience has shown that it is often a mistake to postpone, by legislation or otherwise, the estab- lishment and management of MPAs until extensive re- search and survey programmes have been completed. Often, sufficient information already exists to make stra- tegically sound decisions regarding the boundaries of MPAsand the degree of protection to be provided to zones or areas within them. Postponement of such decisions often leads to increasing pressure on the areas under consideration and greater difficulty in making the even tual decision. New objectives are also stimulating the creation of new marine protected areas. Marine biodiversity is now recognized to be an important aspect of marine con- servation. In considering marine biodiversity and the role of marine protected areas it is important to recog- nise on the factors that make particular areas critical both in terms of ecosystem processes and properties. Marine areas of relatively low diversity, such as salt marshes, mangroves and seagrass beds, are crucial to the health of marine ecosystems because their high productive capacity contributes greatly to the food chain. Other areas that must come under consideration are those sites of importance to breeding cycles and to migratory species. Courtship areas, spawning grounds, nursery areas, migratory corridors and stopover points are examples. Identifying the critical ecosystem pro- cesses is a challenge in itself, and yet it is one that must be addressed in the search to develop a system of marine protected areas which adequatcly represents and pro- tects global marine biodiversity. 4. Marine protected area institutions Most marine protected areas are managed by govern- ment. This responsibility can rest with either a single agency or with several, and can include Fisheries and Forestry or Agriculture ministries. The responsibilities of the agencies are not always clearly defined, and the conservation aspects of management may conflict with the resource optimisation objectives of such agencies. These government agencies are in some instances bureau- cratic and very slow to respond to management chal- lenges. In many regions the institutions and legislative frame- work for developing integrated marine protected areas system have not been established. Even where such agencies are established they must still compete with sectoral administrations such as tourism, mariculture and fishing which often are expanding at a rapid rate. As the first step towards fully integrated coastal zone management, one option is the establishment of Marine Management Authorities, with representatives of na- tional and state governments as well as a small number Coastal Marine Protected Areas of representatives of local government and community interests, with the specific function of achieving in- tegrated planning, research and management of the marine coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. Because of the proven difficulty that organisations and individuals have in simultaneously attempting to achieve two goals—in this case, economic development and ecological protection—these Authorities should not be responsible for detailed management of individual sectoral activities, such as fisheries or tourism. Such activities should continue to be managed by existing specialist agencies. However, the Marine Management Authorities could have the following responsibilities and functions: @ development, in association with interest groups and the community generally, of a strategic plan for the marine coastal zone; @ oversight of coastal development to ensure that it is ecologically sustainable; @ design and management of comprehensive moni- toring programmes which will define the state of the marine coastal environments and the trends in en- vironmental parameters; @ design and management of contracted, multidiscipli- nary, ecological research programmes aimed at solv- ing environmental problems; @ design and implementation of comprehensive com- munity involvement and education programmes de- signed to achieve voluntary acceptance by the com- munity of policies, programmes and actions which will lead to ecologically sustainable development. Particular emphasis should be placed on educating the young. To the maximum extent practicable, specific man- agement programmes and actions should be carried out by existing agencies, with the Marine Management Authorities concentrating on policy, strategy, planning, design and supervision of research programmes and co-ordination. The enabling legislation should override conflicting provisions of existing legislation. In the absence of an organisational framework that provides for integrated management, the energies of people and governments will continue to be dissipated in intersectoral conflicts, incompatible activities, inef- ficient developments, and research that is not relevant to achieving ecologically sustainable development. 5. Current levels of financial investment in marine protected areas It has not been possible for this review to determine the level of investment within marine protected areas on a detailed regional or global basis due to a lack of available Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas information. However, the phenomenon of "paper parks" is not confined to terrestrial protected areas alone, and may be even more prevalent among marine protected areas. As a general statement, even in count- ries which are establishing marine protected areas, man- agement is often inadequate, or totally lacking, due to insufficient resources, staff, taining and equipment. Effective management of an MPA requires adequate funding levels for management planning, research, moni- toring and assessment of impacts and public educa- tion/information. Many MPAs have opportunities for generating this revenue through activities such as tour- ism fishing, and other forms of use. The user-pays principle is increasingly being applied in natural re- sources management. Unfortunately, it is not often the case that revenue generated is directed towards man- agement of the area; more typically it is directed into general revenue. Directing these fees towards man- agement provides an incentive to the managing agency to develop efficient and effective forms of charging. 6. Human capacity in protected areas management Training There is a world-wide shortage of trained staff to develop and implement management measures in marine pro- tected areas. The pressing need, particularly in devel- oping countries, is for marine management training as opposed to marine science training (Kenchington, 1990). Different forms of training are needed for different levels within the management structure. The objective must be to achieve the understanding needed for effective implementation of management. Such training should include: @ Policy makers, heads of state, government min- isters, parliamentarians, congressmen, local govern- ment and community leaders—for understanding the purpose of management and the importance of the managed environment. @ Ata high level, those responsible for management within the designated agency—for detailed under- standing and philosophical framework of the man- agement task. @ Ata high level, those responsible for management in related or interacting agencies—for understand- ing the interaction of management with the function of their own agencies. @ Atthe level of those responsible for oversight of the management programme—for an understanding of the roles of management and of the components of the management task. @ At the level of those responsible for undertaking management—for an understanding of the roles of 38 management and the skills to undertake and super- vise the conduct of management tasks. w Rangers, enforcement personnel, volunteers—for an understanding of management and to develop the special skills appropriate to the tasks to be under- taken. Education To be effective, management must be supported by educational measures to ensure that those affected are aware of their rights and responsibilities under the man- agement plan and that the community supports the goal of the legislation. Few countries could afford the cost of effective enforcement in the presence of a generally hostile public. Conversely, costs of enforcement can be very low where public support exists. A well-designed education and public involvement programme can generate political and public enthu- siasm for the MPA and its goal and objectives. Estab- lishment of the idea that it is the people’s MPA will generate pride and commitment. 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas A global representative system of marine protected areas will make an important contribution to the con- servation of marine biodiversity and ecologically sus- tainable development. Each nation has a contribution to make towards the establishment of this global repre- sentative system by ensuring that its marine habitats are adequately protected in MPAs. The highest priority for future investment in MPAs should be to ensure that each national government with a stretch of coastline has the financial and institutional capacity, and the political commitment, to develop a national system of marine protected areas. 8. Major global marine protected area issues 8.1. Public participation in planning and management of the coastal zone Many marine areas, especially those in the coastal zone, are characterized by rich resources and a complex array of human uses. Any use of the coastal zone will have an impact on the natural resources and on other competing uses. It therefore follows that planning for use of the marine coastal zone, and protected areas in particular, requires a carefully orchestrated process of participa- tion. Involvement and active participation of users of marine environments in development of legislation and in es- tablishing, maintaining, monitoring and implementing management of MPAs is almost always of key im- portance to the acceptability and success of manage- ment. It is thus highly desirable that the concept of public or user participation be established in legislation. This should be expressed in terms appropriate to the social structure, conventions and government structure relevant to the area in question. The key requirement is that procedures are sufficiently detailed to ensure ef- fective and appropriate public participation. Accordingly, opportunities should be provided for the public to participate with the planning or management agency in the process of preparing management and zoning plans for MPAs including: the preparation of the statement of MPA purpose and objectives; the pre- paration of alternative plan concepts; the preparation of the final plan; and any proposed major changes to the plan. It is essential to include the needs of traditional users of the marine resources within the framework of coastal- zone management. In most cases an approach to pro- tection is only likely to be successful if it is based upon traditional patterns of ownership. The cultures of the Pacific Islands, Japan, and of other areas throughout Asia and Africa are intimately related to the natural resources of the open sea and the coastal zone, and have along tradition of using these resources on a sustainable basis. Attempts to impose management regimes which conflict with these traditions will not be accepted by local populations and will prove impossible to im- plement. Given the general shortage of resources which afflicts many management agencies, the most efficient use of these resources will be achieved when working in harmony with the needs of the local human pop- ulation. The form and content of legislation under which MPAs are established should also be consistent with the legal, institutional and social practices and values of the nations and peoples enacting and governed by the legis- lation. Where traditional law and management practices are consistent with the goals and objectives of the legislation, these traditional elements should be drawn upon to the greatest practicable extent. This applies to both the traditional, perhaps unwritten, law of abori- ginal communities and the more recent traditions of a country or people. Further, the customary or accepted ownership and usage rights of a marine area which is to be managed are critical considerations. Legislation should reflect this. The use of fishery reserves can be an important aspect of such traditionally based management controls. Fish- ery Protected Areas, which may be based on a long tradition of stewardship for fish and similar resources, can provide a better opportunity for development of a marine protected areas system in that country than a system based purely on conservation principles. Coastal Marine Protected Areas 8.2 Marine protected areas and surrounding lands and seas In the sea, currents constantly carry sediments, nutri- ents, pollutants and organisms through an area, and because of the ability of wind and tide generated cur- rents to mix water masses, particularly in continental shelf areas, events originating outside the boundaries of a MPA often affect populations within it. The principle of a buffer zone protecting a core site from impact is well established, and should be applicd to MPAs. Integrated coastal management and planning which promotes a comprehensive, multi-sectoral, integrated approach to the use and conservation of coastal areas, habitats and resources is required. The scale and link- ages of marine environments makes their conservation clearly a matter of broad-based management of human uses and impacts. The basic requirement for marine environment and resource protection is the manage- ment of human use and impacts in very largé areas. The development of institutional regimes to achieve such integrated management of the marine environment and adjacent lands must be a top priority for the coming decades. 8.3 Marine protected areas and science The level of understanding of the ecology of the marine world is a great deal lower than it is for terrestrial environments. Improving this situation will be import- ant in providing the basis for developing sustainable management regimes and in attempting to repair the damage caused in the past. Both marine scientists and marine managers must realise the central role played by marine science in assisting the rational management of the oceans and the need for marine scientists to direct their energies towards the solution of environmental problems. Extensive research is required to improve our know- ledge of how marine systems work. Such knowledge is the basis on which decisions concerning types and levels of use of marine resources are made. Monitoring the state of the marine environment provides the consi- derable volume of data required to make accurate pre- diction of the operation of marine systems. 8.4 Threats to marine protected areas As a general comment, one can summarise the state of the world’s marine environment as suffering from a number of stresses caused by human activity resulting in observable and in many cases gross reductions in environmental quality. In many cases these factors place marine protected areas under severe stress. Especially important threats include pollution, overfishing, and physical alteration of the seabed or coastline. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Pollution By far the greatest source of pollution of the sea is land-based human activity. Not surprisingly, the degree of marine pollution at different parts of a coastline is often closely related to the size of the adjacent human population. Forms of human-induced pollution include nutrients (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus), herbicides and pesti- cides and their derivatives, and toxic chemicals and heavy metals, most of which are created in industrial processes including mining. Outfall sewers cause local eutrophication, loss of seagrass beds, build-up of toxic metal levels in sediments and organisms and loss of public amenity. Nutrients in sewage, combined with contribution of nutrients from other sources, particularly affect coral reef ecosystems adversely, resulting in reductions in strength of calcium carbonate skeletons and smothering of corals by algae. However, in some circumstances addition of nutrients to marine areas may be seen as beneficial. For instance, deep outfall sewers can con- tribute to the nutrient budget which may result in larger fish catches. However, the risk of toxic substances entering the food chain is high in these instances. Mainland environmental problems are usually re- flected in marine problems. Soil erosion results in sus- pended sediments being conveyed to the sea. Nutrients in the form of ions are often attached to the soil particles, leading to nutrient enrichment. The effects can include degradation of coral reefs and the destruction of sea- grass beds. Great amounts of oil are carried in tankers around the world’s coastline. There is the ever-present risk of a major oil spill with potentially disastrous ecological consequences. No country in the world has the capacity to combat adequately a major oil spill. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) estimates that 6.7 per cent of the total offshore production is lost through oil spills into the marine environment as a consequence of pipeline accidents, blowouts, platform fires, overflows, mal- functions and other minor occurrences (World Resources Institute, 1990). Fishing Virtually every international marine fishery is con- sidered by most experts to be inadequately managed for ecological sustainability. The evidence of inadequate management is decreasing catch/cffort ratios followed by stock collapse. Input/output controls by themselves have usually not worked because pressure from the industry prevents imposition of sufficiently stringent controls until after the point of no return in the process of stock collapse has been paszed. The estimated sustainable yield of the world’s fish- eries is in the region of 60 to 100 million metric tons per year. In the period 1985-87 approximately 80 million 40 tons were taken, and of the 16 major global fishing regions, the estimated annual catch exceeded the esti- mated sustainable production in nine of them (World Resources Institute, 1990). A possible answer to the problems of over-fishing and destruction of habitat is to combine multiple-use pro- tected area management processes with traditional fish- ery management practices. Such an integrated process would allow the various interest groups to agree on what areas and levels of protection should be provided to critical habitat and to areas that are representative of major habitat types. Such protected areas fill the mul- tiple roles of providing baselines against which to mea- sure ecological changes caused by human activity, pro- tecting critical life stages in commercially or recre- ationally fished species, providing sites in which to carry out ecological research and allowing tourists and the public to appreciate and enjoy relatively undis- turbed marine environments. Physical alteration of the seabed or coastline Destruction of coastal wetlands, removal of mangrove areas and alteration of the coastline for coastal devel- opment continue to occur in a largely unplanned, un- coordinated and disintegrated fashion. Decisions are made without taking into account adverse ecological and economic consequences of destruction of natural coastal environments. Activities such as dredging and harbour construction change water patterns and sedi- ment regimes, often with ecologically undesirable results. Such activities occurring in proximity or within the boundaries of MPAs can have devastating effects on the marine ecosystems they are designed to protect. To prevent this situation from arising the legislation under which an MPA is declared must be effective in regu- lating activities likely to cause such disturbances, both within the boundaries of the MPA, and preferably out- side the boundaries of the MPA as well. 8.5 Legal considerations For most countries a broad, integrated approach to conservation, management and protection of marine resources is a new endeavour which is not adequately covered in existing legislation. Thus review and revi- sion of existing legislation and the development of new legislation are often necessary before a programme of management can be undertaken. Whatever the detail of the legal system, a number of issues need careful attention if satisfactory legislation is to be created. Issues that must be addressed include the need for policy, management arrangements, regu- lations, enforcement and penalties to be included in the legislation. Other issues warranting further attention include: @ Statement of objectives. Objectives encompassing conservation, recreation, education and scientific research should be written into legislation. If this is not done and if conservation is not given precedence the establishment of areas may be an empty political gesture. Multiple use protected areas. It is strongly recom- mended that legislation be based upon sustainable multiple use managed areas as opposed to isolated highly protected pockets in an area that is otherwise unmanaged or is subject to regulation on a piece- meal or industry basis. In designing such umbrella legislation the following goals merit consideration: — provide for conservation-based management over large areas; — provide for a number of levels of access and of fishing and collecting in different zones within a large area; and — provide for continuing sustainable harvest of food and materials in the majority of acountry’s marine areas. Coordination. The legislation must provide co- ordination of planning and management, by all gov- emment, intergovernment and international agen- cies with statutory responsibilities within areas to be managed. Provision should be made to define the relative precedence of the various pieces of legis- lation which may apply to such areas. Activities external to MPAs. Because of the link- ages between marine environments and between marine and terrestrial environments it is important that legislation include provisions for the control of activities which occur outside an MPA which may adversely affect features, natural resources or acti- vities within the area. A collaborative and inter- active approach between the governments or agen- cies with adjacent jurisdictions is essential. The ideal is to have integration of objectives and ap- proaches within a formal system of coastal zone management within each country, with collabor- ation between countries. Responsibility. Legislation should identify and es- tablish institutional mechanisms and specific res- ponsibility for management and administration of marine areas. Responsibility, accountability and capacity should be specific and adequate to ensure that the basic goals, objectives and purposes can be realized. Management and Zoning Plans. Legislation should require that amanagement plan be prepared for each managed area and should specify constituent ele- ments and essential considerations to be addressed in developing the plan. Where the multiple use protected area concept is to be applied, legislation should include the concept of zoning as part of management. The legislation should require zoning arrangements to be described in sufficient detail to provide adequate control of activities and protection 41 Coastal Marine Protected Areas of resources. The provisions of zoning plans should over-ride all conflicting legislative provisions, with- in the constraints of international law. @ Monitoring, research and review. The legislation should provide for surveillance of use and for peri- odic review of management and zoning plans in order to incorporate desirable modifications indi- cated from the results of surveillance, monitoring and research. 9. Priorities for action As the world’s human population continues to increase into the next century, the proportion of people who depend on the sea’s resources is likely to increase. The sea’s capacity to provide those resources is already diminished by pollution, overfishing and habitat des- truction. The urgency of applying the full range of measures necessary to protect the sea’s life support systems cannot be overstated. Marine protected areas are one of the most effective ways of contributing to that protection. Insufficient attention has been given to the desig- nation, planning and management of marine protected areas. The public and governments, in particular, need to recognise the importance of the marine environment and the present inadequacies of protected area cover- age. The interdependence of the marine environment and the strong influence of the land on marine areas must be recognized. The achievement of ecological sustainabi- lity and maintenance of biodiversity in the marine en- vironment will depend on integrated planning and man- agement regimes. Marine protected areas encompas- sing complete Large Marine Ecosystems and including highly protected areas (categories I-III) can achieve such integration, when coupled with administrative ar- rangements for coordination between the different ju- risdictions of adjacent land and sea areas. The major challenge facing marine protected area planners for the next decade will be to establish a global system of marine protected areas representative of all major biogeographic types and ecosystems and to pro- vide the requirements for their competent planning and management. This will include sound scientific research and long-term monitoring and the application of the results in decision making, and the conduct of strong public education and involvement programmes. International organisations, governments and NGOs should collaborate in: @ identifying the role of marine protected areas in protecting marine biological diversity and achiev- ing ecologically sustainable use; @ establishing a global system of marine protected areas representing all major biogeographic types Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas and ecosystems, using biogeographic classification schemes adopted in each region; w establishing national systems of marine protected areas which preferably encompass complete marine ecosystems or habitats; w developing institutional arrangements within each country to achieve integrated management of each marine protected area and to provide coordination mechanisms to ensure that adjacent land areas are managed in a complementary way; @ ensuring that the designated management agency has the legislative power, the human resources and the responsibility for managing each marine pro- tected area with the overriding objective of achiev- ing ecological sustainability; wherever possible this agency should not have the conflicting responsi- bility of economic optimisation of any activities within the marine protected area; B creating management regimes for the coastal land and sea that will be compatible with local and regional cultures and will cater for access to resources without having detrimental effects on marine protected areas; @ ensuring that local and indigenous people are strongly involved in all aspects of planning and managing a nation’s marine protected areas. w bringing managers and scientists together to begin integrated, multidisciplinary, management-orientated research and monitoring programmes to provide a scientific basis, to the maximum extent practicable, for selection, planning and management of marine protected areas; and @ commencing a coordinated scientific and admin- istrative effort to insure that existing marine pro- tected areas meet their management objectives. References Batisse, W. and de Grissac, A.J. 1992. Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea— Past, Present Status and Prospective. Ch’ng, Kim-Looi. 1992. Establishing Marine Parks Malaysia: Issues, Problems and Possible Solutions. Croom, M., Wolotira, R. and Henwood, W. 1992. Pro- posed Biogeographic Subdivision of the North East Pacific Marine Realm. (Draft) Diegues, A.C.S & Moreira, A.C. 1991. Global Repre- sentative System of Marine Protected Areas: South Atlantic Marine Realm—The Brazilian Coast. Dingwall, P., 1992. Global Network of Marine Pro- tected Areas—the Antarctic Region. Elder, D.E & Pernetta, J. 1991. Oceans. Mitchell Beazley Publishers. London, UK. Esping, L.E. & Gronqvist, G. 1991. The Baltic Sea and the Skagerrak. IUCN-CNPPA—Network of Marine Protected Areas. Holthus, P.F. 1992. Marine Protected Areas in the South Pacific Region: Status and Prospects. Holthus, P.F. 1992. Marine Biological Biodiversity Conservation in the Central South Pacific Realm (With Emphasis on the Small Island States). IUCN, UNEP, WWF 1991. Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Published in Part- nership by IUCN, UNEP and WWF. IUCN (1991). Directory of Protected Areas in Oceania. Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. xxiii — 447pp. Kelleher, G.K. 1991. Marine Management—Problems, Solutions and the Contribution of Science. Paper delivered to the 2nd Westpac Symposium, Penang, Malaysia. Kelleher, G.K. & Kenchington, R.K. 1991. Guidelines for establishing Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and GBRMPA, Canberra, Australia. Kenchington, R.A. 1990. Managing Marine Environments. Taylor and Francis, New York, USA. McNeely, J.A. & Miller, K.R. 1984. National Parks, Conservation and Development—The Role of Pro- tected Areas in Sustaining Society.Smithsonian In- stitution Press, Washinton D.C. Mondor, C.A, Mercier, F.M. & Croom, M.M. 1991. Proposed Subdivision of the Northwest Atlantic Marine Realm for Planning a Global System of Marine Protected Areas. Robinson G.A. & de Graaff, G. 1991. The IUCN- CNPPA Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Area 6 (West African Marine Realm). Salm, R.V. 1984. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. 1UCN, Gland, Switzerland. Simard, F. 1991. State of the Marine Protected Areas in the North-West Pacific Realm. van’t Hof, T. 1992. Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in the Caribbean: How Can We Make Them Work. Parks (3) 1. WRI, UNEP & UNDP 1990. World Resources 1990-91. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. WRI, IUCN & UNEP 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy. Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use Earth’s Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. Published by WRI, IUCN & UNEP in consultation with FAO and UNESCO. Sub-Saharan Africa Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas o00c OOOL C eo seoie pajoe}oid payeubisap Ajje6a; uum papnjou! Asjun0d Jo eHeyuadJed %OTZ YOY, 240; 2 Oc—-Sl peyoajoud 42S1—-Ol 201-S 25-10 %L°O uby} sseq aBplUsd404 ‘dew 44 Contents Page PMN STON CAL PETSPECHVS aca: oo. icy si 55.05 Hayne yu sented Mesos oheed Rema «ls 2s 47 ele the history ofpeople:and natures. -) ees eee eee eee 47 1.2 Environmental implications of economic development .............. 47 £3) | Uhesrowth/of the protected/areas system’ 5) ./syees..... s+ 44 o nn ae 49 1.4 Participation in international conventions and programmes ............ 51 IPS ee IVESSONSHIEAINEM I ee te se a 5 =. aes ee Se eG ee, Cnn 6 et a 52 2. Current protected areacoverage.......................... 52 PALMS YSLEMS plans: qeamshaKG see lhA Savi.» Agathe: Liraeuneh ie sceecue: eer elie 54 2.2 Coverage of major habitats by protected areas. .................. 54 oes me brotectediareassinidan eer sa 7.) ee er 54 3. Additional protected areas required ........................ 55 a>. Protected area institutions. 2. 2 os. a ee ate De en Te 55 4.1 Conflict and co-operation with other development sectors............. 58 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ............ 58 6. Human capacity in protected areas management................ 58 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 60 8. Major protected areaissuesintheregion .................... 61 8.1 Improving the relationship between protected areas and local communities... . 61 8.2 Improving management of protected areas. .................... 63 8.3 Making protected areas part of modern society: The role of education, trainin pvandinesearch armen yy yet) wie eevee mma oer rete 63 84s" Intemationalico-operation: 2.5 sche ah: 2) amen) Eames ee Cie) 64 9. Priorities foractionintheregion.......................00. 65 LOACONCIISION ee Ws PRIS cs RETIN WA Me Gis 65 CKTIOWICOGEINENIS: saeco aes ahh gi ey eh tye sy Qo de ater mre ,ovee. ase gem eue olka ae oh Sp mee 66 References Box Box. 1 Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Figures Map. Figure 1. Figure 2. Bs he MORNE ee Ca CRE ea ATOMIC ELON EISG GS ole oo 71 ‘Tourismin;Francophone,Africa .. . -ssiska cocked fe ecles eo ee 60 Summary of the protected areas system ..............-0000. 48 Protected areas by IUCN management categories............... 53 The development of the protected areas system ............... 56 Adherence to international/regional conventions ............... 59 World Heritage sites in Sub-Saharan Africa... 2... ..........0.. 62 Protected areas management agency budgets ................. 67 Percentage of country included within legally designated protected ATCASetie tae Aine noes Gane Mona ea © See ee 44 Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)........... 50 Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............. 50 46 Sub-Saharan Africa Presented by Perez Olindo, Vice-Chair (anglophone) and Mankoto ma Mbaelele, Vice-Chair (francophone) for Sub-Saharan Africa, IUCN, Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas 1. Historical perspective Africa is a vast continent, predominantly comprising woodlands and grasslands, although rain forests repre- sent nearly one-fifth of the total remaining global re- source. The rain forest ecosystem also accommodates more than half of the continent’s biota, and contains over 8,000 plant species. This, therefore, represents one of the botanically richest ecosystems in the world. In addition, Madagascar itself is considered to be one of the seven major world centres of biodiversity (O’Conner, 1990). Within Africa, a number of World Heritage sites are of such value and importance that they transcend the region. Examples include: the Banc d’ Arguin National Park in Mauritania, an ecosystem comprising a desert zone and coastal wetland; Tai National Park in Céte d'Ivoire, the best remaining example of the West African rain forest; Niger’s Air-Ténéré Nature Reserve, the only protected mountain desert in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the last refuge for large desert animals; Serengeti National Park in Tanzania, which represents the African Savanna in the minds of many people; and Zaire’s Virunga National Park with its mountain gorillas and Montane rainforests. With a current population of 646 million, and a growth rate of 2.9%, Africa is witnessing an ever-increasing human demand on the resources of both forest and savanna ecosystems. One of the manifestations of this is deforestation, which currently stands at about 1% per annum in the closed rain forest zone (Sayer et al., 1992). Further, it has been estimated that over half of the original wildlife habitat in Africa has already been lost to logging, charcoal burning, and conversion to agri- culture and livestock grazing (Kiss, 1990). Given this background, the role of protected areas is being closely examined in every country of the region. Reaching a balance between the conservation of bio- logical diversity and supporting the local development needs of an expanding population base is now a fore- most consideration. 47 1.1. The history of people and nature Protection of nature, in the form of traditional creeds and taboos, has a long history throughout the region. Examples include the protection of mountain forests and peaks in Madagascar, the protection of "kayas" or coastal forests as sacred groves in Kenya, and the estab- lishment of a "monkey sanctuary" at Boabeng-Fiema, Ghana, to protect the mona, and black and white colobus monkeys, considered sacred in that area. More formal laws and regulations also have a long history in Africa, one excellent example being the "305 Articles Code" of the Ancient Malagasy Kingdom, which provided pro- tection for forests in Madagascar (WCMC, 1992). It was under colonial rule, however, primarily by the French and British, that the structure for modern pro- tected areas was established for the great majority of African countries. During the colonial period, the creation of protected areas was enshrined in such notable pieces of legislation as the London Convention of 1933, later superseded by the African Convention on the Conser- vation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1968. This African Convention, which provides a frame- work for defining a range of conservation areas, has been adopted widely by many African states for the continued management of protected areas in the post- colonial era, or has served as a model from which new legislation has emerged. Clearly, however, the Conven- tion, which has served as a valuable point of departure, is becoming outdated as a model in countries which are looking to protected areas to satisfy both conservation and local development needs. 1.2 Environmental implications of economic development Prominent economists and statesmen have described the 1980s as the lost decade for Africa. The continent was confronted by a series of natural calamities like droughts and diseases, inhibiting the economic development of the region. During the last decade, many Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Sub-Saharan Africa Area in Area in Categories Total area Country Area CategoriesI-V % VI-VillandUA % designated % Angola 1,246,700 26,410 : 62,610 Benin 112,620 8,435 f 27,241 Botswana 575,000 102,250 } 106,805 Burkina Faso 274,122 26,619 : : 36,323 Burundi 27,835 889 : } 942 Cameroon 475,500 20,504 : t 39,110 Cape Verde 4,035 0 : ; 0 Central African Rep. 624,975 61,060 : ; 70,724 1,284,000 29,800 : 119,245 1,860 0 t i 0 342,000 11,774 : x 11,774 Céte d'Ivoire 322,465 19,929 : 34,371 54,299 Djibouti 23,000 100 i 0 ! 100 Equatorial Guinea 28,050 0 t 3,167 3,167 Ethiopia 1,023,050 25,341 : 168,708 194,049 Gabon 267,665 10,450 : 6,950 3 17,400 Gambia 10,690 184 ; 0 ! 184 Ghana 238,305, 10,746 : 25,554 36,300 Guinea 245,855 1,635 } 8,807 ! 10,442 Guinea-Bissau 36,125 0 t 0 d 0 Kenya 582,645 34,702 d 27,255 5 61,957 Lesotho 30,345 68 : 0 ! 68 Liberia 111,370 1,292 : 14,286 15,578 Madagascar 594,180 11,148 : 1,245 E 12,393 Malawi 94,080 10,585 7,039 f 17,624 Mali 1,240,140 40,120 ; 17,348 d 57,468 Mauritania 1,030,700 17,460 : 0 i 17,460 Mauritius 1,865 0 ! 0 ! 0 Mayotte 376 0 ! 0 0 Mozambique 784,755 20 r 17,411 H 17,431 824,295 103,706 7,842 : 111,548 1,186,410 96,967 : 0 i 96,967 923,850 30,624 : 7,172 } 37,796 2,510 59 : 0 59 26,330 3,270 1,501 5 4771 Sao Tome-Principe 964 0 : 0 i 0 Senegal 196,720 21,803 600 F 22,403 Seychelles 404 379 30 : 409 Sierra Leone 72,325 820 : 2,733 i 3,553 Somalia 630,000 1,800 ; 3,444 \ 5,244 South Africa 1,184,825 74,134 : 761 : 74,895 Sudan 2,505,815 93,825 : 28,665 : 122,490 Swaziland 17,365 459 : 142 } 601 ? 0 i 0 ! 0 939,760 130,000 235,115 : 365,115 56,785 6,469 2,689 : 9,158 236,580 18,708 A 45,390 64,098 2,345,410 99,166 : 37,082 d 136,248 752,615 63,609 : 232,193 295,802 390,310 30,678 i 28,888 i 59,566 23,927,581 1,247,997 K 1,153,421 2,401,418 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover (eg. Seychelles). 48 countries suffered food shortages while others were bailed out with food donations from friendly countries. In Liberia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mozambique, Angola and Southern Sudan, the infrastructure was largely dis- rupted by civil war, while in countries like Uganda and Rwanda, civil disorder either led to the overthrow of governments or the extensive dislocation of commu- nities. This led to much suffering and distress. So much went wrong in so many countrics that the preoccupation of caring for protected areas receded into the distant background. Even in countries like Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, where wildlife-based industries like tourism and hunting thrived, major foreign exchange earnings from this sector were used to subsidize other national priorities rather than being reinvested in main- taining and enhancing the resources which generated this wealth. As 1991 came to aclose, media headlines showed that Africa’s earnings from intermational trade had fallen by some US$54 billion between the 1986 and 1990 fiscal years, compared to the region’s earnings in the previous five year period (1981-1985). This prompted countries to place increased emphasis on diversification away from such heavy dependence on production of low- value commodities. This trend, however, has directly involved the conversion of scarce land to alternative economic agricultural production, a fact which has in- tensified the serious competition for the availabie pro- ductive land in each country. This is not easy for wild- life or protected areas, which do not enjoy high priority at the national level, even in couniries like Kenya where wildlife-based tourism has become the largest foreign exchange eamer. For the next decade to record a major turn-around in this negative trend for Africa, additional external re- sources will be needed from the facilities already in existence as well as from completely new sources of support. Equally necessary will be courage, in the majo- rity of African countries, to display maturity and a high level of political will to achieve stronger control mea- sures over the conditions which have so far governed the use of and trade in African commodities. Clearly, there is a need for national governments must give their highest priority to improving the economic returns ac- cruing to Africa. Countries suffering budgetary de- ficits will also need to negotiate easier access to devel- opment resources in order to survive as viable economic entities. In common with other developing countries of the world, rapidly-increasing human population remains the largest single threat to the future well-being of the already established protected areas. It is also perhaps the real generator of alternative land uses in areas with the potential for establishing new national parks and wildlife reserves. For example, with the extra demand for food, many important wetlands that sustained migratory birds on their flyways to wintering grounds have increasingly became the subject of reclamation for food production. 49 Sub-Saharan Africa Fortunately, there is increasing dialogue throughout the region, aimed at integrating the multiple use of such areas with the over-riding objective of maintaining the ecological attributes of these lands. The fact that no substantial areas were formally re- moved from protected areas to agriculture over the past decade is in itself a major achievement for the countries concemed. For Africa, therefore, the consideration should not be as much that the continent did not achieve the minimum worldwide target of 10% of each country’s land area under legal protection, but that under great pressure, African countries have maintained as designated protected areas whatever lands they had already committed to conservation. This is remarkable, given that African governments and people see the future of their environment, including their national parks and other protected areas, as being absolutely intertwined with the performance of the region’s economy. In the final analysis, two major factors which will ensure the survival and continued well-being of pro- tected areas throughout the region. The first is full international support for the African economic recovery programme, with increased resources being channelled to countries with good governance and transparent financial management, the second is how well protected areas respond to changing circumstances and the needs of local populations. Otherwise, the world must brace itself for a decline not only in the area coverage of protected areas, but a further decline in the quality of the values such areas protect. Indeed, the threat that natural areas may disappear altogether in the 21st Cen- tury is a real one for much of the continent. 1.3. The growth of the protected areas system In Africa, the first modern conservation area was estab- lished in 1898, later to be known as Kruger National Park, South Africa. Most of the colonial powers’ acti- vities to establish national parks and reserves in their territories took place between the two world wars. Albert National Park (now Virunga National Park) was created in the former Belgian Congo (now Zaire) in 1925; Italy created a reserve in Somalia; France was especially active in Madagascar, where it created four reserves; and the British created numerous reserves in their colonies. Following independence, virtually all countries created additional protected areas, based on new legislation (Figures 1 and 2). By mid-1991, participation in international protected areas conventions was reasonably strong in Africa . Far more than half the countries under review are signa- tories to the World Heritage Convention, while slightly fewer countries participate in UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Programme. While only about a dozen countries have ratified the Ramsar Convention, well over three- quarters of the states are signatory to the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, 1992). Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 300 Number of sites 200 Area (x1000sqkm) 200 150 100 50 0 ee E: 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 1,400 Number of sites 1,200 Area (x1 000sqkm) 1,000 800 600 400 200 = 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Five year period begining... 50 Protected areas in Francophone Africa. A decree of 10 March 1935 regulated hunting and established national parks as refuges for animal species in the various colonies of French West Africa. There was, however, no special decree to protect flora in these refuges similar to the decree of 1927 which created ten natural zoological and botanical reserves in Madagascar. In July, 1953, the Assembly of the Union Francaise established the pre-eminence of the principle of agrono- mical development of the tropical countries and pro- posed "calling on the government to take all measures of a nature to protect forests and spontaneous vege- tation, and to carry out the agronomical development of the Overseas Territories". The orientation, however, was such that protected areas were marked out and regulated on the basis of criteria and jurisdiction adapted to suit conditions prevailing in Europe. Apart from certain specific targets, whether econo- mic (forest in Senegal) or protective (water, soil, rare plant and animal species), classification of protected habitats during the colonial period was generally carried out in places where the fewest problems would be caused to people, for example, in thinly populated re- gions. This was done for historical reasons; to create buffer zones between peoples in areas of local conflict; or for ecological reasons, such as disease (sleeping sickness and especially onchocerciasis), natural soil depletion, impoverishment as a result of long years of farming, or a lack of water resources. Designation generally took place in areas where settle- ment and/or resettlement had been hampered by the aforementioned constraints. The most characteristic were eastern Senegal, south-west Mali and south-east and south-west Burkina Faso. These undisturbed areas were thus fairly rich in wildlife and were therefore ideal sites for classification and protection. At a later stage, pro- tected areas in the Sahel were often extended to the detriment of surrounding villages which were uprooted and moved beyond the new limits, thus compromising the future of certain parks and reserves. A typical case in point is the Niokolo Koba National Park, Senegal, which was extended seven times and where the dis- placed village communities, perhaps understandably, have carried out heavy poaching. Significant protected areas were established in Fran- cophone Africa during the 1930s and 1950s, followed by a slower rate of establishment from the 1960s on- wards. In a number of countries, such as Benin, Burundi, Djibouti, Rwanda and Togo, all of their protected areas were established prior to 1962 (Table 3). The most significant creations of protected areas in Francophone Africa over the past decade have been in Niger, Mauritania, Central African Republic and Burkina Faso. It is no accident that these sites, which are so dif- ferent in size and environment, ranging from Diawling, Maunitania (13,000ha) on the fringe of the desert, through the dense Bayanga forest, Central African Republic (32,000ha), 51 Sub-Saharan Africa to the Air-Ténéré desert (7.7 million ha) in the Sahara, are all examples of the so-called third generation of protected areas. These sites emphasise economic aspects, and the effective participation of local or integrated populations. Protected Areas in Anglophone Africa. _ Early legis- lation pertaining to conservation and the establishment of both conservation areas and forest reserves dates to the turn of the century in a number of Anglophone African countries. While the majority of forest reserve networks were in place at an early date, the period from 1950-1970 witnessed a significant expansion in many conservation area networks. In countries such as Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Uganda, the majority of protected areas were established between 1962-1971. In contrast, the networks of such West African states as The Gambia, Liberia, and Sierra Leone are new, with most protected areas being established over the past decade (Table 3). A number of protected area networks arose out of established forest reserves, examples being the creation of national parks in Uganda and Malawi, while a num- ber of countries have regraded game reserves and other protected area categories to national park status. Many of the protected areas established in the 1980s have been gazetted as a result of arecognition of the need to protect certain habitats or species, or to establish areas with multiple-use management in mind. Examples of the latter include the creation of wildlife utilization areas in Mozambique, contractual national parks involving pri- vate landowners in South Africa, and proposed forest parks in Uganda. Unfortunately, the growth in the protected area net- works throughout the region does not, in any way, reflect upon how such areas have been managed. For example, despite there being over 10 million ha within conservation areas in Sudan (4% of the country’s area), many of the country’s reserves exist on paper only due to the ongoing civil war. Numerous other conservation areas throughout the region have no management or development plans, no scientific data and no protection systems in place. These and other issues are discussed at length in a comprehensive review of national pro- tected areas systems, prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992). 1.4 Participation in international conventions and programmes Table 4 summarises the international conventions and programmes that countries of the Afrotropics are party to. Of the 50 countries of the Afrotropics, 33 are signa- tory to the World Heritage Convention. While 18 of these countries do not have any World Heritage sites, six have two or more sites listed. Tanzania and Zaire are noteworthy in having 4 sites each. In total, 27 sites have been designated for the Afrotropics (Table 5), covering a total area of 27.8 million hectares. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas As far as Biosphere Reserves are concemed, 20 countries participate in the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. A total of 36 sites have been estab- lished, covering a total area of about 13.3 million ha. Ten countries have established more than one site, Kenya with five. The fewest number of Afrotropical countries par- ticipate in the Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention. A total of 44 sites have been listed in 17 countries, covering 4.1 million hectares. Thirteen of these 17 countries with Ramsar sites became party to the Convention on or after 1986. Ghana has established six Ramsar wetlands, while South Africa is the most active with 12 sites. 1.5 Lessons learned Protected areas and national economies. Some conservationists feel that issues of trade and the per- formance of the economy are far removed from the planning and management of protected areas. However, national parks, forest reserves and other protected areas permanently block off vast areas of land, therein fore- going competing economic uses, and often excluding human settlements. Considering that a large portion of the African continent is either desert, arid or semi-arid in nature, drought is frequent and recurring, and that the human population increase in Africa has been one of the highest in the world, it becomes immediately apparent why the conservation of protected areas is a serious front line socio-economic issue. Failure to address basic economic issues will inevi- tably pose the greatest challenge to the survival of Africa’s protected areas. Measures to redress the econo- mic balance, which have been discussed on numerous occasions, include: restructuring the pricing of com- modities to reflect their true value; exercising control thereafter over any sharp fluctuations in commodity prices; reducing Africa’s overwhelming dependence on a narrow range of raw materials for its hard currency earnings; and diversifying Africa’s economies. Africa will need external support to achieve these goals. If such measures are not enacted, it is foreseen that the slippage will intensify and most of what we know now as the great national parks, wildlife reserves and even the vast protected forests of Africa may be overrun by asea of humanity, seeking the barest minimum level of survival from that land. Management plans and legislation. The prepa- ration of management plans allowing for the rational use of protected areas and their surroundings must be based on prior study, properly organised communi- cation infrastructures and public awareness and training campaigns. However, national legislation should be more flexible to permit some limited exploitation of the resources of at least some protected areas on the basis of specific predetermined criteria. The same would need to be done for the application of regulations inside protected areas, tending to give greater responsibility 52 for resources to local populations and to enable them to retain a greater share of the benefits. Hunting on public land, which is banned in many countries, is a typical example of legislation which should rapidly evolve to take account of the traditions and needs of the people, especially since current bans on hunting constitute an incitement to poach and to organised smuggling, while helping to increase the populations of the species most likely to cause damage. New legislation should be able to distinguish between traditional and modern hunting, establishing closed and open seasons, encouraging the population to breed game, and providing incentives for land-owners to retain wild- life on their property. At regional or subregional levels, it will be essential to harmonise legislation and regulations to make States’ efforts to implement their protected area management policies more effective. Land-use legislation also needs revising to take account of present socio-economic con- ditions and conservation needs. 2. Current protected area coverage In total, conservation areas in IUCN categories I-VIII cover about 10.0% of the area for the region, and comprise an area of around 2.4 million ha. A further breakdown reveals that 5.2% of the area for the conti- nent is in IUCN categories I-V, comprising 645 sites, while 4.8% is in categories VI—VIII or category unas- signed (Table 1 and Map). Within categories I-V, the majority of sites are either categories II or IV, with very little representation of category III sites (Table 2). Within Francophone Africa, protected areas in cate- gories I-VIII cover more than 15% of the total area in Benin (24.2%), Rwanda (18.1%) and Céte d’Ivoire (16.8%). At the other extreme, countries such as Burundi, Djibouti, Mauritania and Madagascar all have networks which cover less than 5% of their total area. In most Francophone African countries there is a greater percentage of land found within categories I-V than in categories VI-VII. This perhaps reflects the strong tendency towards "preservation" of areas in these countries, although it could also be a reflection of the information available. The variation in protected areas coverage in IUCN categories I-VIII is somewhat greater between coun- tries in Anglophone Africa. At one end of the spectrum lie Zambia (39.3%), Tanzania (38.9%), and Uganda (27.1%), while at the other end, The Gambia, Lesotho, and Nigeria all have less than 5% of their respective areas covered by protected areas. In between these two extremes are found countries such as South Africa, whose system of 574 nature reserves covers an area of 6.3% of the country (Table 1) (IUCN, 1992). In coun- tries such as Tanzania (25.0%), Ethiopia (16.5%) and Zambia (30.9%), a large percentage of protected areas are in IUCN categories VI-VIII, such areas often serv- ing multiple-use functions. Sub-Saharan Africa Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Sub-Saharan Africa Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad Comoros Congo Céte d’Ivoire Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Reunion Rwanda Sao Tome-Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland St. Helena I Area No. I Area 7,900 8,435 89,870 4,893 10,304 31,020 4,140 1,266 17,625 100 25,341 184 10,298 89,777 2,200 23,175 3,270 10,120 39,100 3,573 8,336 99,166 63,590 27,019 758,064 No. Area Nol No} rnlwonln 8,910 12,380 21,726 10,186 29,180 25,660 10,508 1,024 11,148 10,585 40,120 17,460 = 8 SCP AMKEF NWO] NN - — 0 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. 53 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas In addition to conservation areas, more than 3% of the total area for Africa is found within forest reserve networks serving protection or conservation functions. Such forest reserves account for 12% in Benin, 6% in Senegal, 5% in Malawi, and 3% of total area in Kenya. Another 2.5% or so is covered by forest reserves serving production functions (WCMC, 1992). 2.1 Systems plans At the pan-African or regional level, recommendations for new protected areas are encompassed within reports by MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986), IUCN (1987), MacKinnon and MacKinnon (1986), and Stuart and Adams (1990). For a number of countries, national reviews are avail- able regarding priorities for increased protected area coverage. Examples include Ethiopia’s ten year National Programme for the Conservation and Management of Forests, Wildlife, Soils and Water, Kenya’s A Policy Framework and Development Programme 1991-1996, and a systems plan is currently being prepared for Ghana under the auspices of a Forest Resources Man- agement Project (IUCN, 1992). 2.2 Coverage of major habitats by protected areas A number of habitat types are poorly represented within Africa, and for the majority of countries in the region, gaps in protected area coverage remain. For example, although Uganda has many national parks and reserves, the present network was gazetted before any analysis of ecosystems had been made. Consequently, only 36 of the 94 major non-aquatic ecosystems are within natio- nal parks with a further 23 in game reserves at the present time. The most common terrestrial habitat types identified as needing further protection throughout the region include montane, evergreen and lowland forest areas; mountain systems (e.g. the Eastern Arc Mountains, Tanzania); coastal forests; savanna and desert ecosys- tems, particularly in the case of the Sahelian countries; grasslands; deciduous miombo woodlands; and swamps and freshwater lakes, including the need for increased protection of the Okavango Delta, and lakes Tanganyika and Malawi, respectively. Further, habitats associated with offshore islands have received little protection. Ex- amples include woodland habitat on Rodrigues, Mauritius, and forest thicket and mangrove habitat on the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar, Tanzania. On the marine side, coastal wetlands, mangroves, turtle and bird nesting areas, sand dunes, and coral reefs have been identified as needing further protection through- out the continent. This is becoming of paramount impor- tance in the face of industrial and commercial developments, pollution, and exploitation of marine resources. The efforts of Mauritania in establishing the Banc d’Arguin National Park and of Kenya in some 114,000ha in the 54 form of marine national parks and reserves, and in proposing that reefs such as Kanamai and Vipingo be included in a large fishing reserve system, are excep- tional, not representative of efforts throughout Africa. More usual are countries such as Sudan where marine resources have only been partially surveyed, or Mozambique which has yet to develop a comprehen- sive coastal resources policy. A number of countries throughout the region have developed protected area networks which comprise most of the habitat types found within their national bounda- ries. For example, of the 29 major biotic communities in Malawi, 18 occur in the protected area system and a number of others are found in the forest reserve network. In Namibia, the state-owned protected areas cover about 14% of the country and include 11 of the 14 major vegetation zones, while, in theory, the protected areas of Ethiopia protect most of the country’s vegetation types and total 19 million ha. Other examples of com- prehensive protected area networks are those of Kenya, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Within francophone African, Senegal, Céte d’Ivoire, Zaire and Cameroon are the countries where the most complete representation has been achieved in the ficld. 2.3 Protected areas in danger Poaching, forest destruction and general encroachment are reported from almost every African country, due largely to rapid population growth, and the conflict between traditional hunting practices and modem legis- lation which has been superimposed upon peoples with different cultural values and outlook. In a few countries, political instability, which has led to the destruction of normal food supplies as well as a collapse in surveil- lance of protected areas, has made this situation worse. This, for example, resulted in IUCN’s Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) placing the entire park system of Angola on its Threatened Protected Areas list in 1988. Drought over much of the continent has had direct detrimental impacts on protected areas, and lead to an increased level of human use of them. Lack of appre- ciation of the long-term benefits of, for example, catch- ment protection forests and exploitation of short-term benefits also plays a part. Even where protected areas themselves remain fairly intact, their isolation due to habitat alteration in surrounding areas threatens their viability for migrant species which require large ranges. A case in point is Nigeria, where the total area of forest declined from 60 million ha to under 10 million ha between 1976 and 1985. The net effect of this has been to create a forest reserve network of isolated entities, therein reducing their capacity to conserve effectively. Further, severe reduction of large herbivore habitat outside reserves has led to overgrazing and habitat destruction by elephants and other species inside pro- tected areas in countries where their populations remain relatively high. In contrast to the more industrialised continents, pol- lution generally poses little threat for most of the pro- tected areas in Africa. This is apart from special cases where, for example, tsetse fly control programmes have introduced large amounts of undesirable chemicals, and in marine areas near busy ports. Marine areas are, however, subject to over fishing and reef damage, and the large land-locked lakes of the continent are particu- larly vulnerable to pollution. River barrages have signifi- cantly affected ecosystems in a few areas, and their impact is likely to increase as more large-scale attempts are made to harness water resources. A number of these have already been proposed. Other common threats to protected areas include ex- traction of timber, fuelwood and other forest resources; illegal settlement; mining; military disturbances; un- authorised fires; commercial fishing; and development activities (e.g. road construction). There is also an in- creasing recognition that a lack of participation by local communities in the management of protected areas leads to decreased levels of protection, and may indeed be a root cause of the more visible threats (Besong and Wencélius, 1992). More localised threats include the development of the proposed trans-Kalahari railway in Botswana, which would affect the Central Kalahari Game Reserve; the construction of several large dams which has caused changes to ecosystems in and around Kora National Park and Lake Turkana, Kenya; threats to Manova- Gounda-St Floris National Park in the Central African Republic, as a result of invasion by nomads from Chad and Sudan with their herds of livestock carrying bovine rinderpest; the invasion of exotics in Mauritius, which is causing a significant threat to the native flora and fauna; tourist pressure, for example in protected areas such as Amboseli National Park, Kenya, and Makgadikgadi Pans Game Reserve, Botswana; diamond mining in the Loma Mountains and Gola Forest Reserves of Sierra Leone, which has greatly increased soil erosion; the reconsideration of a hydro-electric scheme which would devastate Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda; and chemical pollution and river diversion schemes which are threatening the Okavango Delta (IUCN, 1992). Internal threats to the integrity of protected areas include inadequate legislation, enforcement and infra- Structure; lack of technical expertise and management plans from which to carry out management activities; staff involved in incompatible and/or illegal activities within protected areas; and in extreme cases, such as civil war, abandonment by staff. By the early 1990s, no fewer than a dozen protected areas in Anglophone Africa and at least eight in Francophone Africa had been placed on CNPPA’s Threatened Protected Areas list. 3. Additional protected areas required A number of countries have proposals to increase the amount of land covered under protected area status, 55 Sub-Saharan Africa which will help to address existing shortcomings in the protected area networks. In Kenya, for example, a recent review has recommended that an additional 500,000ha of forest land (22% Government and 78% Trust land) be gazetted, including areas of coastal forest. In addi- tion, various forest inventories and management plans are scheduled (World Bank, 1988b). In Uganda, an inventory of the distribution and status of wetlands is planned in order to develop a wetland reserve network; currently, only about 2% of wetlands are afforded pro- tection within the country. In Namibia, the Ministry of Wildlife and Tourism has identified various priorities for action, including extension of the protected areas network to include at least 10% of each of the country’s habitat types, joining up more reserves via corridors, and creating buffer zones. And, parts of Lesotho, which include important catchment areas, are scheduled for protection by an expansion of the Drakensberg/Maluti Catchment Conservation Programme (jointly with South Africa) (Bainbridge et al., 1989). If 10% of total area for each country is taken as a reasonable standard for protected area coverage, then a good number of African countries have either reached or surpassed this mark (Map). In order to improve the management and investment in these areas, however, a number of countries are considering regrading specific sites. In Uganda, for example, there are proposals to regrade certain reserves (e.g. Bwindi Forest Reserves) to national parks and give total protection to some important water catchment areas. However, while a significant percentage of the country may be designated, this does not in itself ensure conservation, and many areas lack effective management for one reason or another. 4. Protected area institutions Francophone Africa. In francophone Africa, national parks and wildlife are rarely managed autonomously; their management structures are generally associated with another, dominant entity, for example within Tour- ism and Environment in Senegal, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cameroon, and Togo, and within Rural Development, Water Management and Agricul- ture in Guinea-Conakry, Chad, Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Mali, and Céte d’ Ivoire. Only Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi have more or less autonomous structures: Institut Zairois de Conservation de la Nature (IZCN); Office Rwandais des Parcs Nationaux (ORPN); and Institut Burundais de la Conservation de la Nature et de l’Environnement (IBCNE), respectively. Central Africa and Congo have integrated these concerns into, respectively, a Ministry for Water, Forests, Hunting, Fisheries and Tourism, anda Ministry for Forest Economics, thus highlighting the link between the target and its environment. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Sub-Saharan Africa % area % area % area Date Total established established established established established area up to 1962 1962-1971 1972-1981 1982-1991 unknown Angola 67.3 32.3 0.4 0.0 0 26,410 Beuin 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8,435 Botswana 50.7 49.3 0.0 0.0 85 102,250 Burkina Faso 28.6 62.2 9.1 0.0 0 26,619 Burundi 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 488 888 Cameroon 48.8 28.6 16.4 6.2 160 20,504 Cape Verde 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Central African Rep. 93.9 0.0 41 2.0 0 61,060 Chad 3.7 90.1 45 1.7 0 29,800 Comoros 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Congo 85.2 2.5 12.3 0.0 0 11,773 Céte dIvoire 0.4 64.5 35.1 0.0 0 19,928 Djibouti 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 100 Equatorial Guinea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Ethiopia 0.0 60.5 29.4 10.0 0 25,341 Gabon 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 10,450 Gambia 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 0 184 Ghana 0.0 94.8 5.2 0.0 0 10,746 Guinea 76.6 0.0 0.0 23.4 0 1,635 Guinea-Bissau 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Kenya 118 45 11.6 12.0 0 34,702 Lesotho 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 68 Liberia 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 1,292 Madagascar 84.8 8.2 0.0 6.9 0 11,147 Malawi 24.9 59.9 15.2 0.0 0 10,585 Mali 96.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0 40,119 Mauritania 14.3 0.0 67.2 18.5 0 17,460 Mauritius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Mayotte 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Mozambique 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 20 Namibia 21.5 21.3 55.9 1.3 0 103,706 Niger 3.1 4.0 0.0 93.0 0 96,967 Nigeria 48 5:3 31.2 58.6 175 30,623 Reunion 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 59 Rwanda 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3,270 Sao Tome-Principe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Senegal 42.8 23.8 33.4 0.0 465 21,802 Seychelles 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 378 Sierra Leone 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 820 Somalia 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1,800 1,800 South Africa 73.5 3.9 13.0 9.6 6,247 74,134 St. Helena 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Sudan 43.7 0.0 13.4 42.9 250 93,825 Swaziland 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 459 Tanzania 60.1 24.4 97 5.9 800 129,999 Togo 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,014 6,469 Uganda 38.1 53.5 0.6 7.9 823 18,707 Zaire 24.7 55.5 6.1 13.8 0 99,166 Zambia 35.2 0.0 58.2 6.5 0 63,609 30,678 1,247,998 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas mecting criteria for TUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted. 56 Several years ago, Senegal and Céte d’Ivoire adopted full ministerial structures, each creating a Secretary of State for National Parks followed by a Ministry for Nature Protection. Senegal is the only country in the francophone part of the region with a corps of national park rangers independent of the water and forest rangers. In general terms, then, protected area management structures in Francophone Africa are governmental; they are associated with the forest services whose ad- ministrative structures vary from country to country, and, within one country, from one government to the next. None of the options chosen can be taken as a model. There is a need for management structures which fit in with other national administrative entities and sectoral policies to provide overall coverage for devel- opment problems and land-use planning. Such structures will have to be more democratic and ensure greater participation in the future. These deficiencies are reflected in current protected area legislation throughout most of francophone Africa. In general, legislation and regulations on protected areas and wildlife are ill-suited to present-day socio-economic realities. Regardless of whether or not the legislation dates back to colonial times, it allows for strict protection for a large number of habitats and species but is still unsuitable for designing and implementing modern man- agement methods, particularly those which actively in- volve local populations in the running of protected areas. Anglophone Africa. Protected areas legislation in anumber of countries of anglophone Africa is in need of revision; in about half of these states it dates from the early 1970s or before. In Nigeria, for example, nature reserves, forest and game reserves are still designated in accordance with the 1933 London Convention, although in the Northern Region, forest reserves are governed by the Northern Nigerian Forestry Ordinance (1960). Ina number of other countries of Anglophone Africa, such as Kenya, Nigeria and Liberia, new protected area legislation has recently been passed. This legislation will take time to become effective, however, partic- ularly with administration being in the hands of new organizations in Kenya (Kenya Wildlife Service) and Nigeria (National Parks Board), and with the role of the Forest Development Authority being redefined in Liberia. In countries such as Mauritius, further legislation is being passed in relation to marine nature reserves and turtle reserves. Forestry legislation in some cases (e.g. Malawi) dates from the 1930s or 1940s. The 1980s has seen some Tevision of legislation, but in a few countries where it is in the process of being updated, it is taking a long time to finally become law. Apart from management problems on the ground, institutional problems affecting efficiency are reported from many anglophone African countries. Often, pro- 57 Sub-Saharan Africa tected areas management is split between more than one ministry, making it difficult to administer; in any one country, they may come under a national parks autho- rity, a forest department, a lands department, a district council, or a tourism department, depending on the category of protected area. A case in point is Uganda, where wildlife management is carried out by two agen- cies within the Ministry of Wildlife and Tourism: the parastatal Uganda National Parks; and the Game De- partment, the latter maintaining staff in some forest reserves. Nature reserves and forest reserves are man- aged by the Forest Department within the Ministry of Environment Protection. A lack of co-operation between these three agencies has been reported as inhibiting protected area management. This has prompted recommen- dations for the establishment of a National Advisory Com- mittee on Natural Resource Conservation, which has been endorsed by the Prime Minister’s office. In other countries, various protected areas are managed by such divergent groups as the Fisheries Division (marine areas) in Mauritius, Kenya National Museums (responsible for managing over 300 sacred forests), and the Instituto Investigacao de Mozambique and various port captains, who are responsible for coral reef protection in that country. Throughout the region, the trend is towards collab- oration between agencies involved in protected areas management, particularly in the forestry and wildlife sectors. This has come about partly due to a conver- gence of interests in conserving critical habitat areas, and a recognition that areas cannot be managed effect- ively where the jurisdiction is shared by agencies with divergent mandates. In Sudan, for example, multiple use management areas, developed in conjunction with forest reserves, have been recommended to reduce pres- sure on forests. In Kenya, where nature reserves are managed by staff from the Ministry of Wildlife and Tourism, Kenya Wildlife Service, and the Forest De- partment, collaboration is being fostered through initia- tives such as the Kenya Indigenous Forest Project. Further, closer co-operation is being developed to con- serve the particularly threatened and fragmented coastal limestone forests in the country (WWF, 1991). In Botswana, the aims of the draft Conservation Strategy, recently approved by Cabinet and now going through parliament, include integrating the many sectoral ministries and NGOs involved in conservation and protected areas management, and the formation of a National Conservation Strategy Advisory Board. This Board, together with the present Co-ordination Agency, will be directly responsible to Cabinet. Within anglophone Africa, there are generally few incentives for the private sector to own land in protected areas; in a few cases such as Lesotho there are disin- centives. In most countries, legislation does not permit private ownership in national parks, or at least their core areas. In only a very few states, such as Mauritius, Malawi and South Africa, is there specific legislation designed to encourage individuals to own protected land. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Nevertheless, there are a number of examples of par- ticipation in protected areas management on the part of the private sector. In 1990, 359 farms covering 46,000 sq km were registered as private hunting and guest farms in Namibia; Uganda has about 2,000 sq km of private forests; and in South Africa, about 0.2% of all conservation areas are in private reserves, and of the nearly 2 million ha in forest reserves, around 620,000ha is catchment forests on private land. The NGO sector is poorly developed in many coun- tries of Africa. Notable exceptions include the Kalahari Conservation Society, Botswana, the East African Wildlife Society, and the Wildlife Society of Zimbabwe (IUCN, 1992). Village or local reserves involving collective non-governmental ownership have been developed in a few countries, Ghana and South Africa (Natal) being examples. 4.1 Conflict and co-operation with other development sectors Currently, linkages with other development sectors is uncommon, although the need for collaboration with government departments in such areas as land-use plan- ning is increasing. In Botswana, for example, wildlife management areas have been proposed for areas of marginal land around parks and reserves as buffer zones. Increasing conflicts with grazing demands of domestic cattle need redressing and may lead to wildlife manage- ment areas becoming mainly the responsibility of Dis- trict authorities. 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas Fora number of countries in Africa, protected areas play a vital economic role. This is manifest in the income accrued from tourism, in the protection of watershed areas in support of other development sectors, and in conserving valuable plants and animals which are uti- lised in a number of ways. For example, total earnings of the Wildlife Division, Tanzania for 1990/1991 were about US$2.6 million from tourist and resident hunting, trophy sales, live animal trade, park entry and camping fees. Tanzania National Parks earned around US$3.5 million from tourism, while Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority earned in excess of US$1.8 million over the same period (Table 6). In contrast, countries suffer- ing from civil disorder and any number of environ- mental calamities, usually expressed in terms of severe poverty, have not reaped such benefits. In these coun- tries, protected areas exist primarily as “paper parks", with little staff, infrastructure and apparent value per se for residents living in and around such areas. There is wide discrepancy in the budgets of protected area administrations throughout the region, reflecting the general level of support available to protected areas. Well-financed administrations include those of South 58 Africa’s Natal Parks, Game and Fish Preservation Board, which had a budget of US$36 million in 1991; the Kenya Wildlife Service with a 1989 budget of US$18.2 million; the Ministry of Wildlife, Conservation and Tourism, Namibia, with a budget of US$11 million in 1990; and the Office of Tourism and National Parks, Rwanda with a 1990 budget of US$4.7 million. At the other extreme, the Wildlife Conservation Branch, Sierra Leone made do with US$4,590 in 1991, while the Forest Development Institute, Angola had a budget of US$20,000 in that same year (Table 6). Overall, most African countries spend less than one fifth of the annual investment of $230 per square kilometre of protected area considered to be necessary to achieve effective conservation (Leader- Williams and Albon, 1988). Investment in protected area infrastructure is particu- larly difficult for administrations with minimal budgets, as most funds are spent on staff salaries and adminis- tration. In 1990, annual personnel costs for the Institute for the Conservation of Nature of Zaire was US$1 million. This left US$2,000 as recurrent budget. Not surprisingly, a great deal of investment for pro- tected areas comes from international agencies for many African countries. For example, funding in support of Ghana’s Forest Resources Management Project has been allocated by the World Bank to the tune of US$64.6 million over a six-year period (World Bank, 1988a; EPC, 1989). Although this funding is targeted at both the forestry and wildlife sectors, implementation of recommendations will need further investment. Sim- ilarly, the Southern African Wetlands Project, Malawi, which aims to identify important areas for conservation action, is supported by SADCC, IUCN and NORAD. Currently, very little investment comes from private conservation-oriented organizations within Africa. Further, there are only a handful of self-financing administrations, such as the Office of Tourism and National Parks, Rwanda, which is able to invest in protected areas from tourist revenue. 6. Human capacity in protected areas management Throughout anglophone Africa, protected areas man- agement is in need of strengthening, and there is a general lack of well-qualified and trained staff in most countries. Fortunately, a number of training institutions which are attempting to address this situation. These include the College of African Wildlife Management at Mweka, Tanzania, and the Institute of Renewable Natu- ral Resources (IRNR), in Kumasi, Ghana. As part of their program, IRNR offers post-graduate training in areas of wildlife, forestry and fisheries management. Various workshops and training courses, in English and French, are also organised by organizations such as IUCN and WWF. The bilingual FAO publication Na- ture et Faune provides a forum for discussion on con- servation and protected area issues throughout the region. Sub-Saharan Africa Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Sub-Saharan Africa Country Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep Chad Comoros Congo Céte d'Ivoire Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia France (Mayotte) France (Reunion) Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea-Bissau Guinea Kenya Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome & Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda UK (St Helena) Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe Notes: World Heritage Date No. Area (ha) November 1991 0 - June 1982 0 - April 1987 0 = May 1982 0 - December 1982 1 526,000 April 1988 0 = December 1980 1 1,740,000 December 1987 0 - January 1981 3 1,485,000 July 1977 1 22,000 June 1975 0 - June 1975 0 - December 1986 0 = July 1987 0 - July 1975 0 - March 1979 1 13,000 June 1991 0 - July 1983 1 152,000 January 1982 1 9,400 April 1977 0 - March 1981 1 1,200,000 November 1982 0 - December 1974 1 7,736,000 October 1974 0 - February 1976 2 929,000 April 1980 D, 35,018 June 1974 0 - August 1977 4 7,380,675 November 1987 0 - May 1984 0 0 September 1974 4 5,482,000 June 1984 1 3,779 August 1982 2 1,095,381 Biosphere Reserves No. Area (ha) UGS dl Wa ee te) mI i yn | lLunitieledl il (Po a ay te) (ee Le| 15,000 7,770 133,300 1,334,559 140,000 771,000 3,594 1,900,970 2,337,600 220,000 297,700 Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention Date June 1990 October 1986 October 1986 December 1986 February 1988 May 1990 November 1992 June 1990 May 1987 October 1982 April 1987 July 1977 March 1975 March 1988 January 1976 December 1991 No. Area (ha) 3 299,200 1 195,000 0 0 0 0 3 1,080,000 6 ™ 1 39,098 5 225,007 1 18,800 3 162,000 1 1,173,000 1 220,000 4 99,720 12 228,344 1 15,000 2 333,000 1. Other mixed natural/cultural sites are inscribed on the list of World Heritage, but on the basis of beauty resulting from the man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. These sites, which have not been included in the above table, include Bandiagara in Mali. 2. Several world heritage sites lie across international borders. To simplify this table these have been counted under each country, and the total number of sites is thercfore inflated. These sites are Mount Nimba (Cote d’Ivoire/ Guinea), and Victoria Falls/Mosi-Oa-Tuna (Z.ambia/Zimbabwe). 3. Only sites lying within the region are listed. 59 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Box 1. Tourism in Francophone Africa Beyond current attempts in the countries of the region to promote the economic integration of protected areas, tourism, which is supposed to provide economic benefit, is extremely marginal. Of the francophone countries, Senegal receives most tourists, 250,000-300,000 per annum, but only 0.1% of them visit the national parks, and international tourism only contributes 3% to GDP, compared with 35% in Kenya. Overall, tourism on the continent represents about 2% of tourism worldwide. In the light of these figures, further development of tourism needs to be a major point of consideration in Francophone Africa. Apart from Rwanda, no country seriously promotes wildlife tourism, and often nothing has been done in protected areas to make wildlife easier to observe, guides have received little or no training, infrastructure either works badly or not at all, prices are high compared with what is provided in return, and performance is rarely on a par with expectations. Wildlife tourism has often been viewed through the experiences of Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, countries difficult to compete with. Rather than trying to attract the same clientele, however, infrastructures should support local resources, experience and innovation. Indeed, the promotion of local cultural resources, together with improved protected area management and better-quality guide services would go a long way to promoting tourism which was better adjusted to local economic, social and cultural environments. Further, a dynamic wildlife tourism policy should not be solely in state hands, but should involve all those concemed in partnership. Within francophone Africa, there is a lack of senior, high-quality managers for national parks and protected areas, and training opportunities are clearly inadequate. Currently, there is only one school in Garoua, Cameroon, which trains field workers. In addition, there is a low quota of study grants available for staff from each country to attend the school. On-the-job training or training for junior staff is non-existent in many coun- tes. Two significant factors account for the low level of training provided for protected areas managers. First, in certain countries, no social or professional recognition is given for the training received in Garoua. This is due to the fact that most politicians underestimate the im- portance of training in wildlife management, consi- dering it as neither a mark of success nor a necessity. Second, there has never been any assessment or follow- up of graduates from Garoua, and some past students have reported that their training is not adapted to new approaches in protected areas management. Existing institutions need to be strengthened, especi- ally those with a regional mandate like Garoua. During staff training, more attention needs to be given to social and management problems, therein enabling staff to encourage NGOs, the rural population and individuals to participate more in the rational use of protected areas. Other recommendations include an increase in the country grant quotas for Garoua, and the establishment of an assessment and follow-up system for graduates. The use of structures such as the Nazinga game ranch (Burkina Faso) as field laboratories for practical work, the provision of post-graduate studies, and an increase in the value of managerial, supervisory and development posts in national parks and protected areas is desirable. Inresponse to these needs, Garoua’s traditional partners are reportedly considering an increase in their com- mitment to training, in particular by starting up a post- graduate course in wildlife management, and by streng- thening the school in general. In summary, training for all managers and staff through- out the region needs to ensure the acquisition of skills which can be adapted to local conditions. This training should enhance individual job satisfaction, and encour- age the involvement of highly motivated people, therein guaranteeing a good return on investment. The quality of training may be enhanced by exchanging information with those institutions like Mweka College who already have experience, and by discussing common problems. Twinning the protected areas of the region with those in other regions, and creating a partnership system between managers from the North and South for the conduct of field studies may prove useful. 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas The majority of countries in Africa are well aware of what is needed in terms of appropriate legislation, sup- port for protected area institutions, and weaknesses in their current protected area networks. Against this re- cognition is the reality that protected area networks need considerable development in many countries. Some, such as Sierra Leone, are dominated by production forest reserves, having developed few reserves for wildlife or conservation. Even in those countries with wide cover- age, important habitats are still inadequately protected. Management plans for individual protected areas are few, investment portfolios even rarer, and many states are in need of developing overall system plans for their protected area networks. Even in those countries which had once prepared management plans, these are now usually out-of-date and of little value. Uganda is a case in point. Many protected areas throughout the region require additional investment for infrastructure and personnel as poaching and encroachment are commonly reported. Development projects to decrease population pressure on protected areas by, for example, supplying alter- Native sources of fuelwood, water or grazing need to be linked to protected area management in more areas, and include the increased use of buffer zones. With peace and stability returning to some of those countries which were politically unstable during the 1980s, large amounts of investment will now be re- quired to reinstate proper management in the various protected areas. Both government and national NGOs need to increase their level of development funding, but, due to anumber of constraints and other priorities, this often proves unrealistic. Other possibilities, as yet little exploited, include the involvement of other development sectors and collaboration with other countries. One potential example of this is in Mozambique where negotiations are in progress between the National Directorate for Forestry and Wildlife, Mozambique, and South African NGOs, the Endangered Wildlife Trust and WWF/South Africa, concerning possible privatization for exploiting Mozambique’s wildlife resources. Funding towards the establishment of the Kruger/Limpopo International Park is being considered by the World Bank, involving asum of US$12 million, and this interest should be encour- aged. Fortunately, there are numerous examples of how international assistance is being used in support of protected area networks. This is in respect of site man- agement, systems planning, and institution building. Specific examples include the ODA/World Bank- supported Forest Resources Management Project in Ghana, the goals of which are to consolidate the pro- tected areas network, improve management, and pro- vide guidelines to sustainable development through documents such as the National Forest Strategy State- ment; the preparation of a National Systems Plan in Liberia; and the formulation of national conservation strategies in numerous countries throughout the region (IUCN, 1991). FINNIDA is providing support to Na- mibia in order to examine development issues in rela- tion to forests and woodlands in the north of the country, while IUCN and NORAD have been involved in the de- velopment of a coastal management plan in Mozambique (Stuart and Adams, 1990). 8. Major protected area issues in the region The predominant issue in the region today is the role of protected areas in reaching a balance between conser- vation on the one hand, and support of local devel- opment needs on the other. Issues are explored within this context under the following headings. 61 Sub-Saharan Africa 8.1. Improving the relationship between protected areas and local communities The extensive African experience of local communities living in harmony with their environment has generally been acknowledged and well-documented. Until re- cently, however, there was little evidence that com- petent authorities took local communities and their ex- periences into their confidence by giving them a parti- cipatory role in the management of national parks and protected areas. As a rule, no stake in the direct econo- mic retums accruing from the use of such protected areas was offered or forthcoming to these communities. As a result, antagonistic relationships have often de- veloped between park authorities and local commu- nities. A classic example involves people living in grasslands or savannas, who have developed cultures revolving around livestock such as sheep, goats and cattle. For such people, a constant pre-occupation is the grazing and watering of their animals. Under drought conditions, these people look across park or reserve boundaries to see green pastures, flowing rivers, and dams full of water. They assume it proper for them to move their livestock to utilize some of these natural resources. Indeed, these local communities remember their ancestral use of these same grazing grounds, unim- peded. They remember the seasonal migrations of wild- life over their own lands and how they accommodated them and shared their own grazing and water year in and year out. Thus, they fail to understand the logic behind their exclusion from national park lands, even when it becomes absolutely necessary for them to do so. Consequently, they see protected areas as preserves set aside for the luxury enjoyment of the rich who tend to show no sympathy for local communities’ basic sur- vival needs. It is perhaps paradoxical that communities who share their lands with wildlife find their activities conflicting with protected areas, now considered the main means of biodiversity conservation. In a number of countries, certain categories of pro- tected area include provision for the continuance of traditional ways of life. Examples include the Maasai peoples in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania, and the Bedouins in Jebel Elba National Park, Sudan. Certain uses such as controlled fishing may also be carried out legally, as in the case of some Kenyan marine reserves and the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands in Nigeria. However, population expansion within sub- sistence communities and pressures from tourism or drought have been increasing conflicts between tradi- tional peoples and protected area management. In parti- cular cases, where human presence and management are incompatible, enclaves have occasionally been des- ignated, an example being the exclusion of fishing villages from a national park on Lake Malawi. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 5. World Heritage sites in Sub- Saharan Africa Cameroon Dja Faunal Reserve Parc National de Manovo-Gounda-St Floris Cote d’ Ivoire Comoe National Park Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (with Guinea) Tai National Park Ethiopia Simen National Park Guinea Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (with Céte d'Ivoire) Madagascar Bemaraha Integral Nature Reserve Malawi Lake Malawi National Park Mali Falaise de Bandiagara Mauritania Banc d’ Arguin National Park Niger Reserve de I’ Air et Ténéré Senegal Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary Niokolo-Koba National Park Seychelles Aldabra Atoll Vallée de Mai Nature Reserve Tanzania Mt Kilimanjaro National Park Ngorongoro Conservation Area Selous Game Reserve Serengeti National Park Zaire Garamba National Park Kahuzi-Biega National Park Salonga National Park Virunga National Park Zambia Victoria Falls /Mosi-oa-Tunya (with Zimbabwe) Zimbabwe Mana Pools NP, Sapi and Chewore Safari Areas Victoria Falls /Mosi-oa-Tunya (with Zambia) One of these sites (Bandiagara) is a mixed natural/cultural sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty resulting from man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. The human and livestock population explosion in the Sahelian region over the past 20 years has created a search for new land to clear and cultivate. The pheno- menon has been exacerbated since the middle of the 1970s by sharp climate changes, and has inexorably 62 driven populations further south. It is tempting for these migrants searching for new land to consider protected areas and their environs as land with a supposedly rich potential for cultivation, grazing and water. Today, the pressure they exert on protected areas and surrounding villages is particularly acute in the south of Chad, Niger and Burkina Faso, and in the south-west of Mali. In those countries which have been politically unstable during the 1980s, considerable numbers of people have moved into protected areas and little is being done to change this. For governments and those concerned with nature conservation, these trends and the need to res- pond to them will represent some of the greatest chal- lenges in the foreseeable future insofar as ecosystem conservation, land development policy and natural re- sources management are concerned. Although there may be criticism of the fact that national parks have not been adapted to local con- ditions, and they are certainly not a panacea for nature conservation, they are nevertheless one of the elements in the solution to the problem of people’s coexistence with their natural environment. Giving protected areas back to the farmers would only provide a temporary solution to their problem: it would only take a few years for the land to degrade as badly as present village farmland. South Africa has the most sophisticated system of private land management in support of conservation on the continent. The 1983 National Parks Act Amend- ment provides for the purchase or acquisition of private land in core areas, and the designation of privately owned land to form "contractual national parks" which can act as buffer zones. A large number of private areas are of conservation significance, some of which are registered as Natural Heritage Sites under the South African Natural Heritage Programme. Management as- sistance is available for these, but sites can be dereg- istered if damaged, or at the owner’s request. Less important private areas are registered under the Sites of Conservation Significance Programme. In 1984, there was a total of 620,000ha of mountain catchment in private ownership, but administered by the Directorate of Forestry. Many private game reserves, including the largest in the world in eastern Transvaal, are financed by hunting and tourism. The South African Defence Force is also a major landowner and is taking steps to improve the conservation status of many of its 60 sites, in consultation with the Wildlife Society of South Africa. Natal has a system of conservancies in which private individuals form cooperatives to ensure the ef- fective conservation management of their properties; in 1984 this scheme involved 800,000ha of land, over 1300 owners and 280 game guards. For protected areas to survive the pressure of com- peting land uses, it is now necessary to engage in exten- sive dialogue with affected communities. The greatest issue for discussion revolves around the affected community’s place and role in their local environment. In response, more action is now being taken in buffer zone development and in the involvement of local com- munities in management activities. Examples of this are found in Nigeria, where the management plan for Oban National Park includes a strategy for sustainable devel- opment around the park; and Niger, where around the Air-Ténéré Nature Reserve, there has been an attempt to promote multiple use activities. In Guinea-Bissau, projects for the creation of protected areas are looking towards the setting up of biosphere reserves, therein integrating rural communities with conservation re- quirements. Other people and park projects include initiatives around Amboseli National Park and Mount Kulal Biosphere Reserve, Kenya; Queen Elizabeth Park, Uganda; Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda; and the Dzanga-Sangha Dense Forest Reserve in the Central African Republic (Kiss, 1990; McNeely, 1992). Interestingly enough, where this integration has been successful, such as at Air-Ténéré, Niger and around forest areas in the Central African Republic, the popu- lations in these surrounding areas are increasingly cal- ling for an extension of the protected areas concemmed so that they too can benefit from the effects of con- servation. As McNeely (1992) has pointed out, con- servation measures are likely to be most successful when they provide real and immediate benefits to local people. In other countries, more elaborate integrated devel- opment schemes are being tried, as a means of gener- ating food and income for rurai communities and, in part, to reduce pressure on core areas within protected sites (Kiss, 1990). One example includes the Southern African Wetlands Project, covering Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The aims of this project are to identify important wetlands and develop integrated land use programmes around them. This is likely to include wetlands located both within and outside protected areas. Two other examples are the Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project, Zambia, which is a multi-sector programme for economic development, including South Luangwa National Park and Lupanda Game Manage- ment Area; and the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), Zimbabwe. The CAMPFIRE programme involves dis- tricts developing more rational land use policies in inhabited areas outside protected areas. At the begin- ning of 1990, 13 districts had the right to implement CAMPFIRE projects, which need approval from the parks department and relate only to communally-owned lands. These have been most successful in areas with low population densities adjacent to protected areas with good wildlife populations. In total, there are currently over 30 people and parks projects being undertaken throughout the region. Based on a number of case studies, Hannah (1992) has iden- tified that the prerequisites for their success include 63 Sub-Saharan Africa long-term donor commitment, a sound policy environ- ment (area of influence planning), and a focused, well- designed project approach which includes technical assistance. 8.2 Improving management of protected areas The preparation of management plans is one of the most effective steps toward ways of improving management. Throughout the region, a variety of plans have been prepared which are site-specific, revolve around parti- cular habitat types, or are larger national or regional ini- tiatives. In Namibia, for example, the Caprivi Man- agement Plan is under review and will link conservation to regional development in the area; while in Nigeria, the area around the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands is the focus for a scheme of sustainable development aimed at con- serving wetland resources. Other examples include sup- port from the Frankfurt Zoological Society and WWF for a regional conservation strategy for the Serengeti, Tanzania; and in Liberia, the Tropical Forestry Action Plan aims to link forest reserve management to local land use management units. Forest reserves are in- creasingly becoming recognised for their catchment protection value and provided for in multiple resource management plans. 8.3. Making protected areas part of modern society: The role of education, training and research Education. _ Apart from university departments and national administrations involved in protected areas management, national and international NGOs are in- strumental in providing educational materials and run- ning courses, both in the formal and informal sectors. For example, organizations involved in environmental education include the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa, the Southern African Nature Foundation in countries of Southem Africa, and BirdLife International (ICBP), which is involved in educational activities in a number of African countries, including Ghana, where it provides assistance to local wildlife clubs. Training. As mentioned earlier, a few institutions and training programmes are available in protected areas management throughout the region. However, these institutions frequently experience shortages of funds, equipment and technical expertise. Further, there is often a lack of interest and motivation on the part of national researchers and university staff for activities which may require long stays in the ficld under difficult conditions. Research. Currently, scientific investigations are un- evenly distributed and lack co-ordination throughout the region. Within Francophone Africa, there are a number of ongoing research and study programmes, including those at: Nazinga Game Ranch, Burkina Faso; Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Banc d’Arguin National Park, Mauritania; Dimonika Biosphere Reserve, Congo; and Tai National Park, Cote d’Ivoire. Despite these initiatives, research and know- ledge are generally inadequate, results are not properly disseminated, if at all, and field research is still in the hands of foreign structures. There are no databases on such topics as genetic resources, biodiversity, and so- cio-economic issues, which would make it easier to define the nature of protected areas and ways of sus- tainably exploiting them. In some countries, not enough use is made of local expertise, possibly due to lack of realization overseas of the presence of competent resi- dent scientists. Further, there may be a lack of under- standing that the training of local staff is important in developing the management capacity of these countries. Within anglophone Africa, there is a wide spectrum of research interests, involving foreign and local scien- tists, as well as a whole host of organizations, both national and international. This research encompasses species considerations, habitats, and site-specific as- pects. Examples include: study by Kenyan and foreign scientists into issues such as tourist impact, rhino ecol- ogy, and involvement in such long-running initiatives (18 years) as the Amboseli elephant monitoring project by AWF; a collaborative WWF/ Forest Development Authority survey of large mammals in Liberia in order to make management recommendations, including the creation of new protected areas; in Mauritius, a coastal area survey, supported by UNESCO, will help assess the status of reefs so that increased protection can be implemented; an investigation of forest utilization by rural communities and timber companies under the auspices of the Gola Rainforest Conservation Programme, Sierra Leone, jointly management by the Government, Conservation Society of Sierra Leone, BirdLife Inter- national (ICBP), and RSPB; and collaboration between the Makerere Institute of Environment and Natural Re- sources, the Uganda Institute of Ecology, the Ministry of Environment Protection, IUCN and WWF in the development of broad-based research into management problems in and around protected areas. In many coun- tries of anglophone Africa, this research is being sup- ported by elaborate temporal and spatial datasets. Within South Africa, for example, the Jankershoek Forestry Research Centre is in the process of digitising all nature conservation areas in the country. Protected areas in many countries of Africa tend to become the focus for ecological studies because they usually include the most intact examples of natural habitats. At present, research activities are primarily focused on the ecology and distribution of the more endangered species, including captive breeding require- ments, biological inventories, and habitat assessment for management purposes. However, in many protected areas, basic faunal surveys and plant inventories are still lacking: these represent basic prerequisites for sound man- agement. Further research on resource evaluation, and more detailed ecological investigations of particular species or habitats is also required to ensure their best conservation management. It is also necessary to de- velop research into the social, economic and political aspects of resource management in protected areas, and to give emphasis to research which has a direct impact on socio-economic life. In the final analysis, research in protected areas will only achieve its socio-economic aims if it manages to acquire the parameters needed to master management techniques, and also improves the community’s living conditions. The procedure involved in the collection of data for the region is important. In the first place, efforts need to be concentrated on the design of analytical methods and their effective implementation, depending on ecocli- matic zones. Following from this, there is a need to create, in each country, a structure to co-ordinate re- search on national parks and protected areas; and strengthen existing research structures, or create new ones, based on a national or regional station network. Finally, these initiatives need to be recorded in a data bank(s), supported by national and international docu- mentation funds. 8.4 International co-operation A number of international cooperative schemes are in force, but there is still great potential for further co- operation where protected areas are adjacent or nearly so across international borders. This is especially so for the creation of World Heritage sites, Ramsar sites and Biosphere Reserves. As protected areas become in- creasingly isolated by changing land uses around them, the maintenance of migration routes and seasonal graz- ing areas for certain species may be particularly assisted by cross border co-operation. A number of lakes and wetlands are part of more than one country and would benefit from joint conservation efforts which are in- creasingly being encouraged. To date, there are no fewer than 20 countries involved in management of trans-boundary protected areas in the region. The countries of Southern Africa are particu- larly active in this regard. Noteworthy among these include discussions between Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe for the creation of the proposed Kruger/Limpopo International Park. If established, this would represent the largest international park in the world. Between Kenya and Tanzania, there are co- operative agreements to conserve and strengthen the Mara-Serengeti ecosystem, including the development of an action plan, and a protected corridor between the national parks of Amboseli (Kenya) and Kilimanjaro (Tanzania) to aid elephant migration is planned. Zambia and Zimbabwe share a World Heritage site in the Victoria Falls area, while in West Africa, Nigeria has signed an agreement with Chad, Niger and Cameroon over the joint control of the flora and fauna of the Lake Chad basin. The momentum behind wildlife management and protected area policies of the 1970s and 80s, which led to the creation of new structures for regional co-operation (African Wildlife Commission) and the conclusion of numerous agreements on conservation and the rational use of resources, still exists. However, these structures have shown themselves to be ineffective, and the pro- visions of the agreements have not always been applied. The causes for this include: @ an absence of political will, related to a lack of awareness of the economic importance of protected areas; w financial constraints; @ technical constraints, in particular a lack of know- how, and the small number of experts, particularly from francophone Africa, at the international level; and @ an absence of adequate information on access to international aid, and on successful experience and progress, again especially in francophone Africa. International co-operation is much more in evidence than regional or subregional efforts. It has, however, not yet reached the desired level, allowing for significant progress in protected area management. For international co-operation to be effective, it needs to concentrate on the following activities: @ ensuring that decision-makers understand and ac- cept the importance of protected areas; @ involving national NGOs, local populations (espe- cially women), and individuals in the use and under- standing of protected areas; @ seeking more effective co-operation forms, such as debt/in-kind swaps and donation financing for con- servation projects; @ ensuring greater donor involvement in francophone African countries; @ ensuring proper representation at the international level of francophone Africa, and co-ordinating ac- tion in favour of conservation and rational use of national parks and protected areas in French-language institutions such as ACCT; @ adhering to international conventions on natural re- source conservation; and @ strengthening links between protected areas and other development sectors. 9. Priorities for action in the region Deficiencies and Needs. A number of concerns and items for consideration are to be found in practically all countries. These are: Sub-Saharan Africa @ inadequate training for technical and field person- nel; @ inadequate and ill-adapted legislation and regula- tions for protected area management; @ little consideration of the interests and aspirations of local populations; @ inadequate scientific knowledge and, consequently, a lack of management and development plans for protected areas; @ a lack of resources for wildlife-related activities. Secondary priorities include the following: @ development of public awareness programmes; @ better definition of buffer zones and migration cor- ridors; @ consideration of the living conditions for protected area personnel; @ addressing the indifference or collusion of local authorities in the destruction of wildlife; @ understanding the link between poaching, wildlife and the closure of the hunting season; ® condemnation of classical protection; and @ amovement away from marginalizing the economic role of wildlife and protected areas. Other key considerations for francophone A frican coun- tries include: ® considering what sort of effective solutions there are to the problem of monitoring and ensuring the integ- rity of transboundary national parks; ® clarifying the type of protected areas which should be promoted; and @ debate given to protected area criteria, such as mini- mum size, to ensure the continued survival of par- ticular species. 10. Conclusion Partnerships need to be established among state, NGOs, local populations, individual and private initiatives for the cooperative management of protected areas in Africa, fulfilling the roles of conservation and, increas- ingly, sustainable development. The role of government is to provide the socio-economic framework for all those involved in protected area management. Given the political and social upheavals in Africa today, there is a clear risk that populations will demand tracts of protected areas, which are often seen as sym- bols of totalitarian power. To avert such risks, ways need to be found to ensure that, when population aspir- ations are taken into consideration, the very existence of these areas is not called into question. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas International initiatives and support are, at present, maintenance of protected area networks will stem primar- crucial to the development of protected areas through- ily from national and regional initiatives. Until these out the region, particularly within francophone African conditions are satisfied, however, protected area sys- countries. As environmental problems are alleviated tems will continue to develop in an uncoordinated and and national economies stabilise, the development and piecemeal manner. Acknowledgements The preparation of this review depended heavily on wards. A special thanks goes to Hugh Lamprey, who contributions from our colleagues from throughout the gave generously of his time and wisdom. The support region, both before the Caracas Congress and after- of UNDP is also gratefully acknowledged. Sub-Saharan Africa “UOTTTIW 7 BSS) :([euuosied Zurpnjoxe) Ja3pnq juauMoal SurUTeWal ‘UOIT[IW ('Q1$S/ ‘S180 JeuUOsIod [enuuy “LUE SS$SN (Teuuosiod Zurpnjoxa) 193pnq JaLMIaI puke '¢CZ7'9E9$S/ S1SO9 [auUOsIod [enuUY (000‘061$SN) 00Z'80L'1 193pnq parcadxa adaq Ansar, ap pur (000'Lr$SM) 078'0LE WD 3193pnq pareuMse uoITeAIasUOD 2jTPT MA JO lusUTEdaq ‘€66I-1661 pouad ai) 3uunp uoneonpa pur ssouare me o11qnd 103 (000'09SNS) souBy WD JO uotstaaid st aap 1a3pngq paisefaid anoge 01 uoNIppe Uy “aMMNY a[QU2aSa10J DY) JO} S[DAI] 06-6861 18 UTeWal 0} A[axT] St SuUIpuNy ‘sIsUd SILWOUODe 1UALIND dy] USAID “WONBAIDSUOD 1890} % [| Ajneunxaidde suejd juswidojsaap 06-861 J9PUN "€Z9'ESTSN 198pnq JuaLMse1 SuTUTeUal pur ‘PG L6$S/N S1SOo [ouUOsIod Jenuue sajmNsuO; ‘(sepisaiorg sealy A 8282 OP OIDIAI9G) BdIAIaS sealy polomoig pue JunuNY alp SI YOTYM JO DUO ‘sUONdaS INO] SaUIqUIOD AQS2I0,J JO NBIO}SAIG SY ‘(ILS‘€S6$SM) S1soo JauUOsIad [enuUe sopnjout 193pnq jUaLNIOY OM T8E “Saxe Asoat pue 3ununy Aq popuny 3uteq 123pnq sup ‘uoNestuedio JuloueUy -Jlas & st (oun, eB] ap UoWaseUUTY [19 UONSMaI Be] Mod [euoNeN) anuas eune,j Jo jUoWaseURPy puke UONDS01I0Ig BY) 10} oQUI_D [euoNeN oy], (4) ‘gummipuadxa JUaLMdaI J9YIO 10J YOO'EESNS pur s}s09 [auUOSIad J0J paredo|[e Ae YOO'OLZSNS Awos andy [eo sIN JO >, | *s]SO9 aUUOSJod JenuuR saaMNsUOD 1D. | quaudojaaaqg [emmy Jo Asturyy amp ye (DGC) SurjUN}P pure s1s210,] ‘Jaye AA JO aVIO}DeNG ay) Aq paloistulupe st SulpuN{ >. “1661 Ut ACT ON 01 e[geTeAe 1a8pnq [HOI aI saMNSUOD 3a4n0g Bolly ueseYyeS-qns :sjeHpnq Aouebe }usweHbeuew Seale pa}d9}0ld “9 a/qeL 78S‘ ISO'T p8E'8r 6861 ZSB'9LZ 1661 TILT 162 82 IZE'T 000°001 8rl'%8Pr 008'80r 00000 ava =. quayeainba ae0d Sn SOIAIDG ATPL UeKUay — BAUDy ness g-eouIny juswuOMAUg olf pue ssamosay [wmMeN Jo ANsturpy — voulny 2JTPIAA pue owed Jo 1usunIedaq — eueysy JUSWUOIIAUS AWD 06¢'PSE'L ay] pur soamosoy femeN Jo Anstuiyy — eIquie Joy paio3pnq sem (uor[Mw 71 ¢ VAD) 1@8pnq ANsosoj ap Jo (DAC) PsseYD e] ep 19 euNe.{ ap UOloaNG — uoqeH uonesiuesi1¢—) uoneAlasuo) aj N1PIIM Uedonng — eidorng Vdd 000°€17'69 Anjsaio,J JO ae10}901G — BaUINH |eUOeNby nnoqiq SHOAT,P NOD “aug pue ysiy ‘Ansasoy ul] 7 Buney pue e1O]{ “1G — O3u0D SOIOWOZ VAD 000'000' TE peyd Bune] JO IW] pue Old oy) WAd 000'000'0€ 1 Joj oQuUaD jeuoNeN — oqndoy ueouyy fenusD apisa ode uisuno] jo Anstuyj] — uoalowes; tpurun q osey BUEN (dNM) Hed [BuOTIeN pure 2J11P]iAA JO IUsWedaq — euREMSIOg AOX 000'000'0ST SuIQUNY puke uoroAOLg aMIeN 10} ae1O}90dsuy] — uluag (JQ) amnsuy yusudojaaag 1salo,j — ejoduy Ajuase ajqisuodsas/A1jun0. AdUaLIND [eUOeU ul jadpng 67 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas “Soules Jo DATSNIOU! SEATV UONBAISUOD pure seare JsalOj JOJ 199pNq [FOL “SaLIe[eS JO DAISNIOUT ‘Yeis youeasal JuoueULad ou are AlsY], “soueyes SuIpn[oxe 1aspng “SaLJe[eS JO JAISNISU] SoLIe[eS JO DAISNIOU] *sare[es UO quads st yorym Jo yonul Ja3pnq wMUTUIU B UO ZuNeIado sI youRIg OUL ‘amuIpusdxa yuamnd9e1 Jay}0 puke s}soo JauUOSIad [enuUe sa]MINsSUOD ‘wisuno} woyg spunj uodn juspuadap pure 3utoueuy jas st Auo Ne juawoSeueul aul IST “poacidde (wor Z'TS$M$) UoNTw ZINON Jo amay e pue Ainsean ay fq parsofar Apuanbasqns sem styy “1a3pnq s1eak SuIMOTOJ By] 1Oj (UOTT[T ZP$Sf) UOT [MW O'ZPNON JO [esodaid & pontuigns Ansaio,j Jo uoumedeg ey) 1661 Ul LD. 6b “sreaX 1U90aI Ul SUID] [BOI UI poul[oap sey SuIpuny 31e1¢ tf “SON T[NSOY JUAaLM ay} 0} JOLId UOTE AIasUoD IO} saIquade JUSUIUIDAOS O} JIQETeAR SoaMOSaI JO UONRIOT[e [eNUUE [k10] DY] sem AINSI sty], €f ‘jo3png ssomosay [eimeN pure sarioysty ‘amiynoidy jo ANSIUT] ay) JO %C ET pue yadpng [BUHL [101 DY JO % EQ JOJ PaUNOOe SdIAIVg 189104 BM $/€ 861 Ul (\UOd) Boy UBIeYeS-qns :s}jea{pnq Aouebe jueweheuew Seale pajde}0ld “9 9/421 06S 7 986 €79 000°000'T 000°€Zr'T 000°000' IT 000°8rr aeaX = juaeainba = Adua.Lind jeuoneu aed sn uoneAlasuoZ aime NY JO uorstarq — (toyxsues]) BoUZY YNOG Iq UoNeAIasUO_D [EIUSWUOLIAUY pue ame N SAO — (SAO) 2S Paty edueIQ) eoUyY Nog peog uonealasalg Ystj pure ouren ‘syed [ee N — (Te1eN) BOL nog spreog Ansoio4 — (1axsID) BOL W YNog uonealasuoZ “aug pue amen jo 1daq eded —(adeD) eouyy ynog UVZ OOO'PETE Preog Seg [euHEN — (eUeMsieNYdog) OLY INOS SOs BI[eulos UVZ 000'¢ 89 UVZ 000'000'8 UVZ 000'000' 6 UVZ 00L'60S UVZ 000'rLr'01 TIS €L0°26t'I (GOM) YouRlg UoNeAlasUOD aJT[PIIAA — PUI] BLAIS yOs sap]ayokag 4OX [e3ouag adiouug pue suo] org uoTUn?y syueg [BuO N| puk WISLMO J JO 201]jQ — EPUEMY Anjsaioy Jo uaunredag [elopay — BuddINy Suluuej Ysly pue sauayst ‘ax TPL JO uoWedaq — JodIN wsuno], pur uONeAIAsUOD ‘ay TPIIM JO Anstutjy — eiqrure N OF IPI pue Ansolo,j oj aIe1O}DeNG [eUONeN] — onbiqurezojy anokeyy NON 000'000'01 PALAlag ISAO] sNUUNeY] — sMUUNePy Bluejune| TREN soomnosoi [eIMEN pue Ansao,j Jo ALstulyAy — IMeTe YY Jeosesepey| Ayuouny iuswidojaasq Anseioj — eU9qt] omosa'] Ajuase ajqisuodse1/A.13un0d ul jodpng 68 Sub-Saharan Africa vf ev 1D, | 6b Sf “WOO “SI2g (1661) HW [ES] ‘'ddgg “e1931N ‘einqy ‘TounoD uonealsuoD saamnosay [emeN ‘ssamMosay Jae AA 7% amTynousy Jo Anstur] [eJopey ‘eUdSIN :upyd uorwasasuos puyda}y (1661) DUN [IS] ‘dd7/ “uems ‘N's pue nol. ng Fy ‘ssurwUMS ‘WrH' Aq papdwiog -unjg uray uoyDasasuoD pun Kanung sninig :somyy pun sruoydayy uvotfy (0661) DSS/NONL [+f] ‘ddog¢ + nxx “yf ‘e8puqure| 7p pueliaziims ‘pur|D ‘NONI 1221douody “¢ sumo, ‘swasks pouonvy fo maaay y -pl4om 2yi fo svaay pa12a1044 (7661) NOMI [6b] ‘ddog ‘owoy pue [nfueg ‘uodar paystiqnduy s9ded punar8yoeq—uejg uonoy Ansaro, feordory (1661) Hf ‘suepa [Zr] “1661 Malady UORRAasuioD Iueyday UBLyY *(1661) dnoip suneuIpiooD UoNeAsasuoD iueydergq uesUyY [Ty] 986] Ul uOneAIAZSUOD JOJ SatgUuase JUDWIWIIAOS 0} JIG AR SoaINOSal JO UONESOT[E [FIO]. 986 ‘000'7$S/N :(leuuosied SuIpnjoxa) amsyy 193pnq jUaLMsey “UOT [IW Q' [GSf) :S1s0o [aUUOSIOd [enUUY (661 (Aae| *s}o8pnq JUOUIUDA08 UT Nd %0Z B PEA[OAUT aaky [66] IsN3Ny u samsvou AUasne JUDWDAOS JO uontsodun oy ‘uorenstuTupe uo juads sem 193pnq dy JO 1SOW OGG] UT “16/1661 Ul WstNo} Waly UOT pg TSS pews AUOIINY ealy UONBAIASUOZ O1OZUOIOSY “WsUNO} Woy 1/0661 Ul UOT CES Ms PuNore poures syeg [euONe Ny eluezue | “AMseay sy} O} pouMjal ake saoueuly asay] JO IsOu! saay SuNUNY IWOS Jo uonuajal ay) Woy ed ‘seoj 3uidwres pue Anuo yed ‘apen jeumue at] ‘sojes Aydon ‘dununy 1uspisal pue suo Way (90¢'7L5'7$SN “xordde) 00S'9L9' 16SSZL UM 1/0661 J0J UOISTAI AJNPILAA Mp JO ssurusea [eo], ‘Auedwod asp ueluezuey ap pue AWoyNy evaly uoreAlasu0Z olosual0s NN ‘seg [BUOITeNY eIUBZUR ] SUIpNyoUT satoudse Jao aay pue UOISIAI AFTPEAA Mp st Ansturus sty Jo uonoIpsimf ap Japun Buryey Os|y ‘suoumedap areladas x1s sey yoy IWOUTUOMAUY aI) pue ssamosoy Temeny ‘wisumoy jo Aqsturpy ou Aq posaistumupe are soomosal [enyeu [TY €Clm ‘(S9010,J peg [BUONIe NY pue uoTTeAIgsUOD 6+ 6b OF IPILAA Pur (UepNg YIMos) WsuNO], pue sauayst ‘UoHeAssuOD 2ITPI A JO Ansturpy feuorsay oy are seare pojomoid 3uiseuew pue duuaisiuTUpe 10J aqisuodsar sarouage ay) ‘(uo'|NU ¢°71$S(}) UOT S9NAS Ala1eunxoidde si y98pnq uonesodioD Ansaio, [euoneN [enuue oy], ‘soliejes SuIpn[out jospng “Soueles sapnjoxa am3ij ay], ("JUO09) Boy UBeYeS-qns :s}eHpnq Aouebe juewebeuew seose pa}de}01g 9 a1qeL 0661 1661 ¢S9I4NOGg LIT'6 CGMZ = WIN AINPIIAA ue syed [euOLIeN Jo 1usUNIedeq — emqequir, | WZ viquieZ 000'Z00'I ZAZ (NOZD 21eZ Jo aime yy JO suoD ap JoJIsuy — o1Te7 000°9¢8'T son sanimbnuy pure ayipiiAy ‘wstmoy Jo Ansiuty — epues TPL'6LS Vdd 000'8Z€'791 WsILMo], pue JUouUOMAUY jo Anstur] — 080], BIURZUR |, puelizems 000'0SZ'I dds 000'000'89 uepng UVZ 000'08 UOIStAIC] UONBAIasUOD alTMeN — (epus,) ou yINOS UVZ 000'000'0E UONRAIISUOD “AU pur amen Jo a1e10I09N Jory — (TeeasuesL) Buy YINOg quayeainba = AQuaaind jeuoneu Aduase aqisuodsas/A1jyuno.) aenog Sn ul jaspng 69 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas ‘aMleZ, ‘eseYSUTY| ‘aININ &] Op UONEAIaSUOD BI Mod sioneZ aAMNsUT “azeZ Ne iUeYdoyp, | op UONEAIasUOD ap URId (1661) NOZI [Et] ‘dd 1 ‘o80], ‘awo7] ‘3ununy 2 Soalosoy [RUN ‘swe [BUOTIEN JO UOTDaNG ‘WsIMO] 7 JUeWUONAU Jo ANsturp] *(yeIq) ‘UoIeAIasUCD queydeye J0j ued [euoneu e :o80], 10) uejd uonoe iueydaja uesuyy (1661) LAW [Zr] ‘ddp] ‘snnumeyy ‘soamosay [eimeN pur soroysty ‘omynousy Jo Ansturp] ap Jo sotasag Ansa, “pY-0R6 ‘UOodas ssadorg ($R6T) Parag ANsazoy sue] [Ef] ‘ddpp voumny jeuornby ‘ogeyeyl ‘Ansaio.4 pure saoysty ‘Yooisaary] ‘amynousy Jo Anstury] “vouny [euorenby -ue[q uoNeArasuoD rueydeyq *(1661) ATTVW [7x] ‘ddgp peyoy, ‘euourlpy ‘aunt, ap Soalasoy 19 xNeUONRN ‘Saeg Sop UISLMO], Np uorjoaNg “peyoy ne weyd2[9,| 2p UoNeAIasUOD ap uel *( 166[) uawWUONAUA, | op 19 awWsuNO] np aaistuly] [Cy] “WOU ‘Indue g ‘sisalog 2p Je Jo Anstury] ‘aureoUyeNUDD onbyqnday uo weydeya,"] ap uonearasuoD ap ue[d “(766 1) SIsAOJ pur rem Jo ANstuW [8E] ‘dd¢g ‘uoarsures ‘apunoe X ‘xneuoneN sae sop 19 oune,j B] op UOTOAN( ‘aWSLNO], Np alsisIUlp] “UOIOWe) -Ue[q UONBAIOSUOD) queydelq ((paepun) ouisunoy np siaisiuly, [79] dd/p] ‘wreypeg-so-seq ‘UOIstAl OFIPTAA URIURZUE | “eIURZUR | :Ue]q UoIeAIasUOD 1ueYydery (1661) UOISTAI OFIPILMA UeLUEZUEL [Cf] ("UO9) Bola UBIeyeS-qns :sjeHpnq Aouebe juswaheuew Seale pajoej0ld “9 a/qe1 70 Sub-Saharan Africa References Bainbridge, W.R., Motsami, B. and Weaver, L.C. 1989. Draft Policy Statement for a Managed Resource Area for the Maluti Mountains of Lesotho. Ministry of Agriculture, Cooperatives and Marketing, Gov- ernment of the Kingdom of Lesotho. SSpp. Besong, J.B. and Wencélius, F.L. 1992. Realistic stra- tegies for conservation in the tropical moist forests of Africa: regional review. In: Cleaver, C.., Munasinghe, M., Dyson, M., Egli, N., Peuker, A., and Wencelius, F. (Eds.). Conservation of West and Central African Rainforests. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Pp. 21-31. EPC 1989. Environmental Protection Council Action Plan (Draft). EPC, Accra. 9 pp. FDA/IUCN (1986. /ntegrated management and devel- opment plan for Sapo National Park and surround- ing areas in Liberia. TUCN/WWF, Gland, Switzerland. 66 pp. Hannah, L. 1992. African people, African parks: An evaluation of Development Initiatives as a Means of Improving Protected Area Conservation in Africa. USAID, Washington. 76 pp. Hilty, S.L. 1982. Draft Environmental Profile of the Kingdom of Lesotho. Office of Arid Land Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. IUCN 1987. Action strategy for protected areas in the Afrotropical Realm. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 51 pp. TUCN/UNEP 1987. The IUCN Directory of Afrotropical Protected Areas. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 1034 pp. IUCN 1990. The Nature of Botswana—a guide to con- servation and development. UCN, Gland, Switzerland. 77 pp. Sayer, J.A., Harcourt, C.S., and Collin N.M (Eds) 1992. The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests— Africa. MacMillan Publishers Ltd., London. 288 pp. IUCN 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A review of national systems. Volume 3: Afrotropical. Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. xxii + 360pp. Kiss, A. (Ed.). 1990. Living with Wildlife: Wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. Draft. World Bank, Washington, DC. 215 pp. 71 KWS 1990. Kenya Wildlife Service—A policy frame- work and development programme 1991-96: Annex 6 —Community conservation and wildlife manage- ment outside parks and reserves. KWS, Nairobi. 181 pp. Leader-Williams, N. and Albon, S. 1988. Allocation of Resources for Conservation. Nature 336:533. Lusigi, Walter J.(ed.). 1992. Managing Protected Areas in Africa. Report from a workshop on Protected Area Management in Africa, Mweka, Tanzania. UNESCO, Paris, France. 200pp. MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review of the protected areas system in the Afrotropical Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 259 pp. McNeely, J.A. 1992. Economic incentives for con- serving biodiversity: Lessons for Africa. Paper pre- sented to "Conservation of Biodiversity in Africa", Nairobi, Kenya, 31 August—3 September, 1992. 18 pp. O’Conner, S. 1990. Madagascar: Beza Mahafaly and Andohahela Reserves. In: Kiss, A. (Ed.). Living with Wildlife: Wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. Draft. World Bank, Washington, DC. Pp. 41-52. Swart, S.N. and Adams, R.J. 1990. Biodiversity in Sub- saharan Africa and its Islands. TOCN, Gland, Switzerland. 242 pp. WCMC 1992. Tropical Managed Areas Assessment Part 1. Subregional Reviews. Tropical Africa (Sec- tions 6-10). Assessing the conservation status of the world’s tropical forest: A contribution to the FAO Forest Resources Assessment 1990. Draft. WCMC, Cambridge, U.K. 428 pp.+ maps. World Bank 1988a. Staff Appraisal Report: Ghana Re- source Management Project. Report No. 7295-GH. World Bank, Washington, DC. 119 pp. World Bank 1988b. Kenya—Forestry subsector review. Report No. 6651-KE. Agriculture Operations Division, World Bank Eastern Africa Department. 41 pp. WWF 1991. Kenya—Coastal forests: status, conser- vation and management. Project No. 3256. Summary sheet in: WWF List of Approved Projects Vol.6: Africa/ Madagascar, April 1991. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. gab tyr dvoid! Aw. pine = sina a wetalnall, laren oA iratwelol, vatbon) fii _ 7 ' afi ty, rer va Me Vin ei ‘VUE D aes Fy) einen Wi a rh ay 1k : dha : ew lew eo oe ee 3 wi fa 2 1 ") 2u) oa ee. na ean a Ste itera To mokegniN ade JARI, C : ; ellis ni , ‘ I dade SOOT O23 el sas hele at iF) e + wih ty) iegaml ty's i } ; Bob? ae a V3 Te ‘ ' 1 0F Mrimup ; ay radi! in $i lm a ari. Oa Ty toe necy VON ee i ohare 208 Che caw hal... scene alles wave, lenotges Leora iy ead in aa 5 LA Ay sui po: qvt,l ar EY, il dy sah reea Sel dal ht i : ae fe niki pean (a5 3 asilpod hon = iri, faa? Se ial (GR Go VE oT 2anciieS ‘nollie iL ae age ; (t. pars gp pagal Aig yt a aa dsvatenit” hii! na en: ' R. | ake ery iD y¢ ; ay es ei prt, eal yepn’t ah | pear ead re ying resin AAP T): Pe ee ee > ( kaa nga anf hl rca > ieee MiaakO) SWINE “ieee 4 id he ah sa Weel ie Ardler erriie ee vee i 5 P ROPE Et 1é: rahyare Wee ma Oe a le ne on 1 ait Set 25 j SAAR A pe ya iy ) Aw daainiiis Pep uti ek) ates tinny wlow sh Yo wel it epetear wlawintant RA mh trey ee 3 Ww wih eer wont Bsa Hira: ET - 20 iain whan ish Se ee ‘erty dha’ t-lmendunies Ss Ayyd SRE: Se ee Eas = nd that bhiA Io IO .eMrand ee Ta i ry A, 52 ant : Bea eomenTT nes A, iee moti - Sisal pre desire, 2) castor weliglhy ( : ‘> MRD thr Cit ta tine 4 a: WOU ada ase ie qolt 2.0 sgh Ld etie ‘trl aolggunyh§p rena WN nN A) ‘ie ‘tilventiw? eos CUE ae 2 7s a ng MeO, eny aaa nas ie contoviant to trails & ji pet Smt) ABI enoclen ORE (pti MM nile’) hing 29 cn a ah —ageA \elgotl opati ne fail . ARE seeabow bid eal . Soyer A Sahel aap nek 5 hee Saaleyrin hh | MY senile? sorta SAU remitted niin eect las its saubidreg) ben briahs ‘AIR. daw yotvigh oner alan been iragar ae North Africa and the Middle East Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 008 OO” O Co Wy seaie pe}0a}01d payeubisap Ajjeba; uum pepnjou! AsjuNod jo abejUsdIed “SL—-Ol 201—-S ZOE UBUY s40W i 45-10 Z0C—-SL 210 UY} ssa] poayoajoud ebpjuadse,d “dew Contents Page MEOOUCUON ry Sin tantiese st BS ipecnsi,: ise 9g dotee ae Mae eee 77 ape d StOrical) DerSpective.“ Gace. Me cee! Exe eee. 78 Ile Eistony ofmaniandnature(-. 2.425 <=. oS onfacnke es ee 78 2 se Oorow th of protected! area) Sy Ste MS si. see a wae ge e a 79 1.3 Participation in major international protected area programmes ......... 82 2. Current protected areacoverage.......................... 84 2s lWoeProtectedtarears VStemisym rz pteti..5y snr bee cae ee ee 84 2.2 Coverage of major habitats and biological diversity ................ 84 Dee CAteCOn eS a BS AR... TR ee es ee eee ee ee 84 pia Protected areas in Ganser +... |... -» =; sis enema Ace De ee a ee 85 3. Additional protected areasrequired........................ 86 aeerotected area institutions... =... ww ee ee ee 88 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas........... 88 6. Human capacity in protected areas management................ 89 hil, ASUEILe sauescheaa pe Pai aig ate ets Une RT ION ents Due te pee a a 89 GM Mama TAINS fee Ae, Fayed MENINGS SS 4: le, thieves» ny ed hee ep epee ee 89 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 92 8. Major protected areas issuesintheregion.................... 92 Shea Okandiwiate hectare soewr cEche whe are. fw ek aS ae, le eee ers 92 SeD eR ATIMEG CONT Clier enc, Ganats cs ee a eae ciara a er 93 Sa SS teu Nteprity wi week PARAS cages. 2) Pi ee Ty ae ees OE Ae 93 $:40 Science and! protectedjareaS: v0.8). 2 les cc) casi en ees wad neal 94 S25 eeiraditionalldelacto protectionter 4) yee eee elena cnn 95 8.6 Public participation—people and protected areas ................. 95 8.7 Habitat restoration and species re-introduction. .................. 96 8:5) intemational:toursm:.: . =. 4 © 6 = « .eSeeeeecec ey ceegen eee eee eee ae 96 9. Priorities for actionintheregion..........................0. 97 Acknowledgements: 2.4 5.55.5. 2. os ls eles, seen 3, 2 97 References 22.5 .26 ie © cee a Se oO) 6 ote na BE Ree: 98 Tables Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system .................0.-. 78 Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories. .............. 81 Table 3. The development of the protected areassystem................ 82 Table 4. | Adherence to international/regional conventions ............... 83 Table 5. | World Heritage sites in North Africa/Middle East .............. 83 Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ................. 90 Figures Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected ATCAS Iss laa a sd ee Scns hv Re Mme ie SP PETS LS OR en 74 Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)........... 80 Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............. 80 76 North Africa and the Middle East Presented by Mohammad Sulayem, Vice-Chair for North Africa and the Middle East, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, with support from Mustapha Saleh, Faisal Dean and Graham Drucker Introduction This Regional Review focuses on that part of the Pal- aearctic Realm that covers the Middle East and North Africa. The region is perhaps one of the most diverse on the globe, being at a junction between three conti- nents: Africa, Asia and Europe. Its marine component reflects this great diversity, centering on the Mediterra- nean Sea but including the Atlantic Ocean, the Red Sea, Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, Black Sea, Caspian Sea and the Indian Ocean. North Africa and the Middle East has remarkable diversity, not just of nature, but of civilizations, cultures and languages, reflecting its long and complicated his- tory. The Middle East has been the cradle of western civilization and the birthplace of its science, but it has also probably experienced more wars than any other continent. Situated at a geographical and historical "cross- roads", the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Asia Minor and the Levant harbour a varied fauna and flora, with over 18% invertebrate endemism out of 3,027 recorded species in Saudi Arabia alone (Miller and Nyberg, 1991). Partly this is due to relict flora and fauna which survived from the last Ice Age when the Region was wetter and cooler than currently with a temperate Medi- terranean-type climate. The terrain is also varied, from desert plains, covered in sparse scrub with perennial, and often salt-tolerant herbs and ephemerals of the Arabian Peninsula, to broad-leaved forests of the up- lands of NW Africa and SW Asia where biodiversity is very great. Dry forest and steppe cover large areas of the Region but includes vast stretches of degraded scrub and remnant wood savanna. The Arabian Gulf is rep- resented by at least four critical marine habitats: coastal marshes and mudflats, coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves. Tidal flats and hypersaline wetland areas are distributed throughout the more arid zones of the region, as in the Sahara desert and along the north and west Arabian Gulf. Much of the lowland areas are cultivated in the less arid lowlands and livestock graz- ing is prevalent ‘hroughout in all but the most hyper-arid zones. 77 The region provides important migration routes for a huge number of birds of a great variety of species. It has been estimated that some 2-3,000 million migrants move ina southerly direction across Arabia each autumn, involving up to 200 species. Equally high numbers pass through Turkey and down the Levant across Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt as well as across the Straits of Gibraltar from Europe to Morocco and beyond. However, North Africa and the Middle East’s natur- ally diverse vegetation has been profoundly influenced by human activity. Today, the only extensive areas of vegetation that are essentially unaltered by human im- pact are some areas of desert ecosystems in Arabia and the Sahara; parts of the Mediterranean coniferous for- est; some wetlands in Iran and Turkey; high montane habitats in the circum Mediterranean region, the central Arabian peninsula and of Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan; some broadleaf forests in Afghanistan; and some wet- lands, marine and sea habitats in north-west Africa, Iran and Turkey. Elsewhere, unaltered vegetation is found only on mountain tops above the tree line, in some wetland areas, in isolated patches of woodland and on some parts of the coast. In the Middle East and North Africa the most signi- ficant changes to vegetation and landscape occurred thousands of years ago in the Sahara and other desert areas. For the most part, they led to varied and biolo- gically diverse continents, in many areas increasing biological diversity, at least on the local scale. However, in the past 50 years or so, there has been a steady degradation in much of this rich landscape. In the Mediterranean, notably in parts of Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Cyprus and Turkey, mechanized agriculture has reduced the rich patchwork quilt of woodlands, hedges and small ficlds to an agro-industrial prairie largely devoid of wildlife. In much of the Levant and Egypt drainage has spared only remnants of the previ- ously extensive wetlands. In NW Africa and in Turkey, the massive expansion of tourism is causing great damage to the fragile Mediterranean coast. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: North Africa and Middle East Area in Country Area 652,225 2,381,745 661 9,250 1,000,250 1,648,000 438,445 20,770 96,000 24,280 10,400 1,759,540 458,730 Morocco (Saharan Provinces) 252,120 Oman 271,950 Qatar 11,435 Saudi Arabia 2,400,900 211,974 Syria 185,680 0 Tunisia 164,150 444 Turkey 779,450 2,394 UAE 75,150 Yemen 477,530 Afghanistan 13,118,661 CategoriesI-V % Total area designated % Area in Categories VI-VIII and UA % 1,834 127,223 0 110 8,004 82,993 0 2,067 1,004 250 35 1,720 3,777 0 28,363 0 212,617 150 1,756 4,782 127 0 0 30 0 90 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 476,812 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover. However, the decade since the 1982 World Parks Con- gress in Bali was remarkable in many ways: at the end of the 1980s, environmental issues started to rise up the political agenda in most North African and Middle East countries. Even with economic recession, they appear to be staying there during the 1990s even in the event of military conflict, civil strife and war. 1. Historical perspective 1.1. History of man and nature The Middle East, North Africa and Southwest Asia were settled and ruled by a number of ancient civilizations: Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Byzantines, and Arabs, to name just a few. These empires prospered and were maintained by the partnership that had developed between man and nature. Their people mastered the skills of irrigation, agri- culture, domestication of plants and animals, as well as hunting and fishing to harness and use the bounty of their land and sea. The development of these skills and their widespread use eventually took their toll on the available resources which were either degraded or com- pletely depleted. The process of desertification had set in and was viewed primarily as an inevitable con- 78 sequence of climatic change. A number of scholars saw it differently and attributed the decline to man’s poor management, despite the efforts of many of these cul- tures to allocate and control the scarce resources of this arid region. Examples of these controls include the strictly rationed water rights, access to grazing, cutting of trees, collection of firewood, and selective ownership of agricultural land. Unfortunately those controls did not apply to everyone in this vast region. Many rural inhabitants unwittingly destroyed their forests through clear-cutting for timber and charcoal, and they were followed by herdsmen whose goats, sheep, cattle, and camels grazed and browsed any remaining vegetation. These practices continue to this very day, giving nature little chance to regenerate its vegetative cover. The epitome of the impact of man on his environment is the Levant. Overlooking the eastern Mediterranean is Mount Lebanon which was once carpeted with arich stand of stately cedars whose height, strength, and utility became legendary throughout the Old World. The felling of the trees began as early as 3000 BC when the Phoenicians began a lucrative trade in cedar wood with the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt, the Assyrians, the Biblical King Solomon, and many others. Five thousand years of service to civili- zation has left the Lebanese highlands a permanently degraded vestige of their former glory (Eckholm, 1976). 1.2. Growth of protected area systems Ancient civilisations (2000BC-200AD). One of the earliest large towns yet discovered by archaeologists is Catal Huyuk in central Turkey, believed to be at least 8,400 years old. Vultures, foxes, weasels, leopards, rams and bulls were found in the many shrines of that ancient town, either in effigy or as bones. The temple inscriptions of the Egyptian Queen Hatsephut in 1540 BC illustrates a wildlife expedition to the Land of Punt. It was sometime after that, about two thousand years ago, that reserves and protected areas were developed around the Mediterranean and in the Arabian peninsula, many of which have survived to the present century. The principles that governed those reserves provide the basis for new and expanded systems of protected areas in the region today. The Greeks and Romans were perhaps the first to set up organised protected areas. Caius Plinius Secondus (Pliny the Elder) wrote the Natural History, of which 37 volumes survive, recording everything known about the world. At that time throughout the Roman Empire there were forest administration structures, delimited forests, wardening systems, and programmes of tree planting, along with areas set aside for wildlife (Drucker, in litt., 1985; Mallett, in litt., 1991). It is reported that the Roman Emperor Hadrian (117— 138 AD) was so struck by the destruction of the Lebanese Cedar forests during a visit to the eastern realm of his empire that he ordered nearly one hundred rock inscrip- tions to be placed in the northern half of Mount Lebanon to designate the surviving forests as imperial domain, one of the world’s earliest recorded efforts at estab- lishing a protected area. Today only scattered remnants of these once extensive forests endure, leaving Hadrian’s inscriptions as a silent memorial to a failed conservation effort. Traditional forms of protected area or resource reserve (hima, hema, hujrah or ahmia) may have origins over 2,000 years ago in the pre-Islamic period, and devel- oped as an ancient acknowledgement of the scarcity of renewable resources and the need to conserve and use them wisely in support of sustainable rural economic development. The early Islamic period (500-1000AD). Nature conservation has had a long tradition in the Arabian peninsula. The Koran and Arabic poetic literature attach great importance to the value of man preserving his natural heritage. The concept of the hima was given a more solid legal standing according to Islamic law (shari’ah) throughout the regions conquered by Islam. The Prophet Muhammed abolished the ancient private himas belonging to powerful individuals and estab- lished a legal system that continues to govern these protected areas designed to provide communal benefits. He also set up a protected area hima near Medina in the 79 North Africa and the Middle East 6th century AD and subsequent caliphs were very strict in keeping the hima system protected. From 1000AD-1700. During this period there was a prevalence of protected areas in the form of hunting reserves. Beginning in 1240, under the reign of Abdallah Abou Zakaria of the Hafside dynasty, hunting reserves were maintained at Lake Ichkeul in Tunisia and their management continued through the period of the Ottoman Empire into the 20th century. 1700-1900. During the 18th and 19th centuries es- tablishment of forest and hunting reserves were facili- tated across the Ottoman Empire as far west as Algeria as a result of Article 1243 of the Ottoman civil code, within the body of Islamic law, which stipulated that land and associated trees growing wild in mountains were not to be possessed and should remain ownerless. The first of the more recent conservation legislation took place in Tunisia, which came into existence on 12 December 1884. The object of this Ordinance was to regulate hunting throughout the country. The early 20th century. It was not until this century that the region witnessed the establishment of the first modern protected areas. (See Figures 1 and 2 on the growth of the protected areas network). Examples can be found in Algeria originally dating from as early as 1920, in Iran in 1927, and in Morocco in 1942. Other countries have since followed suit. The impetus to set up protected areas at this time was more for recreation than for nature conservation, as in the colonial periods of a number of countries, such as with the national parks of Chrea (Algeria) and Toubkal (Morocco). Subsequently, the Forestry Service of the French administration set up a network of legal provi- sions for the protection of the environment, such as those for the "Defence des végétaux’ (Tunisia) on 11 July 1932 and Ordinance on National Parks of 17 March 1936 (Tunisia). In 1936 Ahmed Pacha Bey decreed that Bou Hedma be declared a state park of 5,000ha in order to protect its unique forest ecosystem. In many cases these series of acts have been largely repealed after independence, and either reenacted or superseded in subsequent presidential and Ministerial decrees or regu- lations. The 1950s—1970s. One of the most encouraging trends of the past thirty years is the steady growth in the number and size of protected areas in the region, clearly showing that as a whole these countries are moving in the right direction. The most rapid increase in protected areas at this stage was in Iran, where at the end of 1965 there were 11 protected sites with a total area of 600,000ha; then up to 1976, five rivers were protected, in addition to all marshes, wetlands, waterways and bays along the Caspian Sea. By 1977, the number of protected areas had risen to 69 sites covering a total area of 7,998,168ha or 5% of the country. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 50 Number of sites 40 Area (x1 000sqkm) 30 20 10 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 500 Number of sites 400 Area (x1000sqkm) 300 200 100 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... 80 North Africa and the Middle East Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: North Africa and Middle East II No. Area IV Area No. Area 410 125,645 197 10,753 eS) | 1 1 (Saharan Provinces) — Oman - Qatar - Saudi Arabia 2 Syria - Tunisia = Turkey 1 UAE Yemen 1,424 415 127,193 20 7,437 11,449 20 8,004 1,953 792 nol Por l art 1,200 2,370 Wn 211,974 444 2,394 - 1 on!i olni 139,429 45,487 179 440,724 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. A typical example of the rapid increase in protected area establishment was in Turkey, where studies on the selection and establishment of sites began in 1956, by 1987, eleven natural, one historic, two landscape, one reserve and one natural monument were set aside as national parks, covering a total of over 250,000ha. This rose to a total of 21 national parks in 1990 with a total area of 263,575ha. The 1980-1990s. At the present time, most countries in the region have some kind or other of protected area, although there are major gaps in some of the Arabian Gulf states and the Levant (IUCN, 1992). In many countries this decade has been the start of the development of the moder protected area network, with Bahrain, North Cyprus, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Qatar and UAE. Currently Yemen is actively working towards its protected areas establishment centred on work in Jebel Bura, Some major examples of wide- spread activities include those of Oman and Saudi Arabia with their Nature Conservation strategies and lists of almost 200 proposed protected areas. 81 In Turkey although nature protection sites were slow to develop, in 1987 five natural reserve area sites had been designated and a further two were in the process of being approved by the Ministry. This had risen to 18 sites totalling 25,492ha in 1991. In 1988 the first two special protected areas were declared, rising to 11 by 1991. In 1981 at least 295,759ha were protected in 36 national forests. The most major omission to major protected area conservation plans and protected areas networks con- tinues to be Iraq, with a continued lack of develop- ments towards protected areas in Afghanistan: an early start civil strife from 1979 onwards completely halted the protected area developments of three wildlife areas and one national park which were well protected at that time. Overall, the activities from the early 1990s onwards appears to be positive, not just by almost every country now having protected areas but by also looking at the methods for strengthening the existing networks and methods to improve administration, management, and conservation of biological diversity. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: North Africa and Middle East % area established 1962-1971 % area established up to 1962 Morocco (Saharan Provinces) Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia % area established 1972-1981 Date established unknown Total area designated % area established 1982-1991 211,974 0 444 2,394 0 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted. Table 3 illustrates the development of the protected area system in the 20th century. 1.3. Participation in major international protected area programmes North Africa and Middle East country participation in major international protected area programmes has been very limited. Table 4 illustrates the adherence to inter- national/regional conventions within the region. In sum- mary, the major specific actions which have been taken in the North Africa and Middle East Region over the last decade include: @ Adoption of the Ramsar (Wetland) Convention held at the town of Ramsar in Iran in 1971. @ International meeting on Ecological Guidelines for the Use of Natural Resources in the Middle East and Southwest Asia held in Persepolis (Iran) in 1975 and sponsored by IUCN. @ The establishment of the UNEP sponsored Mediterranean Action Plan adopted in Barcelona (Spain) in 1975 with the promotion and estab- lishment of protected areas as one of its functions. 82 The establishment by UNEP, with assistance from IUCN, WCMC, and the Tunisian government, of the Regional Activities Centre for Specially Pro- tected Areas established in Salammbo, Tunis (Tunisia) in 1985. The development by UNESCO-MAB of regional programmes for the conservation of marine turtles, birds and marine mammals; and a Mediterranean Biodiversity Conservation Programme and the ap- proval of funding from the Global Environment Facility in Jordan. The adoption of the UNEP sponsored Kuwait Action Plan in Kuwait in 1978 with the promotion and safeguarding of biological integrity as one of its functions. The adoption of the UNEP sponsored Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Action Plan in 1982 at Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) with the promotion and safeguarding of biological integrity as one of its functions. Regional Workshops on Mediterranean Biosphere Reserves held by UNESCO in 1991 (Tunis, Tunisia), 1986 (Florac, France) and 1979 (Side, Turkey). In the third reunion (1991) there was the first informal North Africa and the Middle East Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: North Africa and Middle East World Heritage Date No. March 1979 June 1974 May 1991 August 1975 February 1974 February 1975 March 1974 May 1975 October 1978 October 1975 October 1981 September 1984 August 1978 August 1975 Saudi Arabia Syrian Arab Rep Tunisia March 1975 Turkey March 1983 United Arab Emirates — Yemen Arab Rep October 1980 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 February 1983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Notes: Biosphere Reserves Area (ha) No. Area (ha) Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention Date No. Area (ha) 4,900 7,276,438 November 1983 105,700 1,357,550 September 1988 June 1975 1,000 January 1977 7,372 June 1980 November 1980 January 1984 1, Other mixed natural/cultural sites are inscribed on the list of World Heritage, but on the basis of beauty resulting from the man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. These sites, which have not been included in the above table, include Hierapolis-Pamukkale in Turkey. 2. Only sites lying within the region are listed. @ gathering of IUCN CNPPA members from the Middle East and North Africa. @ 38th CNPPA Working Session, on North Africa and Middle East at Etna Regional Park, Sicily in October 1992 organised by the International Park Docu- mentation Centre (CEDIP), Sicilian Regional Authori- ties, NCWCD, IUCN Secretariat, and WCMC. Of the international conventions and programmes, only six countries have signed the Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention. However, there are up to 28 sites listed, of which by far the most active country is Iran, with 18 sites covering 1.4 million hectares. Of the 18 countries that have signed the World Heritage Convention, only five were signed in the decade after 1980, and only one after 1990. At present all countries, barring Israel, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, have signed the Convention. Inscription of sites, however, has been limited to Algeria, Tunisia and Turkey. Potential World Heritage Sites have been identified in Horsh Arz el-Rab (Forét des Cédres de Dieu) in Lebanon, and Jiddat al Harrasis in Oman, and they proposed for submission in 1992/1993. Table 5 lists sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. As far as Biosphere Reserves are concerned, only four countries actively participate with Biosphere Reserves listed in the Unesco Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. A total of 16 sites have been established, covering a total area of about 9.9 million ha. Each 83 country, except Egypt, has established more than one site, Iran the most with nine. However, there is growing interest in this Programme and the benefits it has to offer, particularly in relationship to applied scientific study, sustainable development, and the harmonization of man and his environment. Table 5. World Heritage sites in North Africa/Middle East Algeria Tassili N’Ajjer Tunisia Ichkeul National Park Turkey Goreme National Park Hierapolis-Pamukkale One of these sites (Hierapolis-Pamakkale) is a mixed natural/ cultural sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty resulting from man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. The Middle East and North Africa region is unusual in as much that being represented by more than one continent it is applicable to a range of regional European, African, and Asian conventions and programmes which specifically encourage the establishment of protected areas. The Barcelona Convention (Convention on Pollution in the Mediterranean) entered into force in February Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 1976, and includes—under additional protocol which entered into force in 1986 (Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas)—the provision to encourage the establishment of specially protected areas which together with existing protected areas will safeguard representative samples of the natural ecosys- tems. All the countries around the Mediterranean Sea ex- cept Syria and Lebanon have now ratified. Many of the 24 Specially Protected Areas of the Middle East and North Africa are existing protected areas, but some are newly designated, as in Turkey. Turkey and Cyprus are members of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe awards the European Diploma to protected areas. One site has been awarded the Diploma and two sites designated under the Council of Europe Biogenetic Reserves network. Other than these initiatives, there has been little in- volvement with international protected areas programmes which perhaps reflects the low priority accorded pro- tected area establishment by many of the Middle East and North Africa governments and a reluctance to be- come party to any international programmes which may involve additional financial commitments. Converse- ly, the international programmes may find it difficult to justify the resources necessary to undertake initiatives in a region which is vast, little studied, sparsely popu- lated, and politically insecure and so in global terms does not appear to have a high priority for conservation action although rich in biological diversity. 2. Current protected area coverage 2.1 Protected area systems Ten countries in the region are implementing com- prehensive systems plans for protected areas. Seven others have systems plans that are either incomplete, inadequate, or not being implemented. The remaining countries appear not to have any such plans; instead, protected areas have been selected and established on an individual basis to protect specific areas of interest (see map for the percentage of country included within legally designated protected areas). 2.2 Coverage of major habitats and biological diversity Effectively, there is no regionwide protected areas net- work and only limited proposals towards extending EC wide initiatives to the region (see below). It is to be expected that such a collection of protected areas does not necessarily cover all major or critical habitats, nor are they fully representative or geographically balanced. At the national level approximately half of the coun- tries have now published national flora and faunal in- ventories, however details on the status and distribution 84 of species and their habitats is variable from country to country. Algeria, Turkey, Oman, Israel, and Saudi Arabia perhaps being the most progressive. For example, the Omani government initiated in 1984 a survey for pro- posing a system of nature conservation areas. Up to 43 different land classes and 12 marine habitats were iden- tified, described and mapped, and populations of threat- ened and endemic wildlife of interest for conservation totalled 94 plant and 100 animal taxa. However, right across the region protected area, or even unprotected site specific, inventories are patchy and illustrate a major need for rationalisation of review- ing the coverage and level of protection of biological diversity across the region. Towards redressing part of this balance is the BirdLife International (ICBP) Pro- gramme to identify Important Birds Areas of the Middle East (see below). Even where information exists the lengthy delays in gazettement of sites over 1-10 years or more have not infrequently been attained too late to conserve that wildlife that the site was originally of note for, such is the case in Gebel Elba (Egypt), a number of sites in Saudi Arabia and Dilek Peninsula (Turkey). Perhaps some of the major gaps in the protected areas system is for the marine are coastal environment. A limited number of coastal/marine sites exist in the Mediterranean, and one or two in the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf. However, given the enormous biodiverse wealth and threats from tourism and marine pollution these are priority areas for future conservation. Other examples of note of areas without significant protection, and under pressure from agricultural "improvements" are, the steppic habitats of the Atlas, Anatolia, and Arabia; the wetlands of the Mediterranean and Anatolia; and the exceptional biodiverse and en- demic rich montane refugia of the Atlas, Dhofar and Afghan mountain chains (Green and Drucker, 1991; Bates, 1991). However, proposed new areas in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Oman, and Saudi Arabia will cer- tainly address some of these concerns and help improve the situation. 2.3 Categories Much is being made in the Western World of the desig- nation of a site as a national park, whereby it can only reach this status once it has been promulgated by legis- lation passed through parliament. It is important to realise that legislation in many of the Middle East and North African countries follow patterns and procedures which differ completely from the West and so the concept of "designated area" may then be misleading or even invalid. In many countries, protected areas recog- nized by organizations such as the NCWCD (Saudi Arabia) can be accepted as being legal, and having similar status to national parks for example even though they do not necessarily have complete gazettement (Abuzinada, in litt., 1993). North Africa and the Middle East National Designations in Middle East and North Africa* Designation Amenity forest reserve Biological reserve Bird sanctuary Botanical reserve Breeding station Conservation area Faunal reserve Forest park Forest reserve Forest sanctuary Game management area Game reserve Hunting reserve Managed nature reserve Marine park Marine reserve Multiple use area National marine park National scenic reserve National nature reserve National monument National park National reserve *Based on the WCMC database Summary of the protected area system is found in Table 1. Of the national designations by far the com- monest was the nature reserve (19%), followed by recreational area (18%), other areas (12%), protected area (9%), game reserve (6%), national park (4%), reserve (3%) and breeding station (3%). Of these the primary function was up to 47% for biological diversity protection, 20% for amenity or recreation, 13% as game or hunting areas, 3% for forest conservation, and only 2% for marine protection. Only 19% of the nationally designated sites reach the IUCN criteria standards for protected areas and consist largely of small sites or those which are not formally gazetted (such as traditional protected areas) or where multiple-use management or recreation is the primary interest. Available estimates indicate that protected areas (IUCN categories I-VIII) total about 475,982 sq km, or just 3.6% of the total area of the region. Of the 24 countries and provinces of the region only two have at least 10% of their land area under protection as recommended by the Bali Action Plan of 1982. The coverage varies from a maximum of 10.4% in Oman to no IUCN recognized protected areas in Bahrain, Iraq, Qatar, and Yemen. Table 2 summarises the number and area of the pro- tected areas in the region by IUCN management categories. 85 Designation Natural monument Natural reserve Natural area Natural nature reserve Nature reserve Other area Permanent hunting reserve Private reserve Protected landscape Protected park Protected area Recreational area Regional park Reserve Scientific reserve State forest Underwater park Waterfowl sanctuary Wetland reserve Wetland zone of importance Wildlife sanctuary Wildlife refuge Wildlife reserve a rPndr Wer NUKE pe Ny wn Sites meeting IUCN criteria include 178 in categories I_-V and 34 in categories VI-VIII. There are also 27 internationally recognized Ramsar sites, six World Heritage sites and 12 Biosphere Reserves. As indicated above regionally recognized designations include the Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas under the Barcelona Convention, Council of Europe Diploma sites and Council of Europe Biogenetic Reserves. Trends in biological conservation in the Middle East and North Africa in many instances is away from site protection and more towards integrated regional ap- proaches, such as Oman Coastal Zone Management Plan (Oman), Zuhrah (Yemen) and Southeast Anatolia - GAP (Turkey). In densely populated areas with limited land availability, such as Israel, other forms of area designation are evolving. In order to conserve bio- diversity and the visual resources, an approach has been formulated to integrate development and conservation of the natural and cultural landscape diversity. Open spaces throughout the country were classified into four categories in accordance to their value, importance, sensitivity and vulnerability: protected areas, open space landscape areas, controlled development areas, build- ing. and development areas. 2.4 Protected areas in danger Site protection is reasonably well implemented in less than one third of the countries of the region. The remainder Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas vary in the degree of protection they provide, with some receiving practically no protection at all. This is largely due to lack of financial resources, inadequate training of personnel or pressure from lands and peoples sur- rounding the sites (Sulayem, 1991). From the available information, it can be concluded that: w Sharp differences exist in the coverage and manage- menteffectiveness of protected areas from one country to another. w The part of the Middle East and North Africa where the protected area network seems to be least effec- tive, in both coverage and management, is in the Arabian Mountain refugia and eastern Mediterra- nean countries, where species diversity is greatest. Those sites listed as in greatest danger by IUCN include those such as Gebel Elba with armed conflict and Ichkeul with disputes over water rights. However these are only selected examples and in fact the varicty of threats to protection is immense. Several countries in the Region have inadequate sys- tems, particularly given their global importance for biological diversity. They include: w Iraq, where almost all proposed and recommended protected areas are under severe threat due to lack of political and social support, and are in danger of losing their natural vegetation through misuse, de- struction and armed conflict. For example, marsh- lands in the recommended Hor al Hammar National Park west of Basra are threatened by drainage, poli- cies to alter the traditional lifestyles of the local communities, and habitat destruction including through chemicals. Not one protected area has been estab- lished so far, and the legislative base is inadequate . @ Yemen, again areas of nature conservation value are under threat due to limited central political support and are in danger of losing their natural vegetation. For example, natural forests in proposed protected areas are threatened by tourism developments. Only one major protected area is in the process of estab- lishment so far, and the legislative base is inade- quate. @ Morocco is one of Africa’s most biologically di- verse countries but its protected areas are poorly staffed, often with part-time personnel, who have inadequate resources to look after the areas. The protected areas generally do not have their own administration but come under local forest officers; most are not implemented on the ground, and some are in danger from impact of the surrounding land outside of protected areas. Also, the existing protected areas (such as Toubkal NP) need to be strengthened, extended and additional parks created. On a favourable note, previously Ras Mohamed was widely regarded as a site under threat through over fishing, tourism and habitat destruction, following a 86 joint Government of Egypt and European Community funded programme the situation is that the site is being expanded and used as a role model for wise-use of protected areas throughout the rest of the country. 3. Additional protected areas required The Middle East and North Africa have vast tracts of land and sea which offer numerous opportunities for large new protected areas. Many of the countries of the region are planning substantial increases to their pro- tected area systems. Prominent amongst these are the Levant countries of Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. Egypt even intends to create bilateral or trilateral parks with its neighbours Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Jordan. No overview is available to accurately identify gaps in representation of main habitat types for the region as a whole (as indicated above). In some countries im- portant work has been done to identify the most im- portant centres of biodiversity. However, major informa- tion gaps exist across the region as a result of the absence of baseline ecological data. Without filling these gaps of information, a comprehensive systems plan for the region as a whole will be difficult to achieve. Comprehensive field surveys of areas where knowledge is inadequate are therefore necessary to provide the basic information needed to identify ad- ditional areas to be protected. In many cases, infor- mation to do this is lacking. Data on the coverage of habitats, especially around the Mediterranean, is ad- equate and there are various aridland-wide regional studies, such as on the Sahara desert lands, and on Mcditerranean, Arabian Gulf, Red Sea marine and coastal ecosystems such as seagrasses or corals. @ Protected area networks have been developed at a national level, with little consideration given to a regional Middle East and North Africa perspective. The systems approach has not yet been taken at a regional level, and monitoring of protected areas across the Middle East and North Africa is inadequate. To inform decision-makers and planners at all levels of the existence and importance of sites and to en- courage the development and implementation of natio- nal conservation strategies, various studies and source data is already available or in the process of preparation that would contribute to such an analysis include: @ The IUCN/WWF Centes of Plant Diversity Project, which is identifying large areas that should be pro- tected for their plant wealth, especially in the plant- rich Mediterranean and Arabian Peninsula countries. @ Published directories of Important Bird Areas (Grimmett & Jones, 1989) and of wetlands (Carp, 1980), covering sites both large and small. S Published directories of Coral Reefs of the World by IUCN. @ Published inventories of Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas under the Barcelona Convention (UNEP, 1989). @ Onmithological Society of the Middle East (OQSME) sites register scheme from 1982-1992. w West Palaearctic waterfowl census database com- piled by Intemational Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau of 1992. @ Published lists in Current Status of Protected Areas and Threatened Mammal Species in the Sahara- Gobian Region (Green and Drucker, 1991). Attempts to fill the gaps in the evaluation of the natural and semi-natural habitats of the Middle East and North Africa region as a whole include: @ Drafts of the Middle East Important Birds Areas Directory of BirdLife International (Evans, in litt., 1993) and the Middle East and North Africa Protected Areas Directory of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (Drucker, in litt., 1993): projects to produce databases of sites of international, regional and na- tional importance for biological diversity, providing key information for the conservation of the region’s fauna, flora and habitats. In 1992 the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, BirdLife International, and the UK Institute of Terrestrial Ecology proposed to extend the EC CORINE Biotopes methodology developed for Europe to the eleven Middle East and North African Mediterranean countries covered by the EC Avicenne Initiative. The principal objectives of any such project are to systematically identify and list key threatened species and biotope types of the region to ensure their future conservation; improve the country-level and regional availability of environ- mental conservation data; promote improved data qual- ity by use of standard field techniques, habitat classifications and protocols for data capture; and promote the ready flow of data for in-country applications; de- velop regional communications and thematic databases on sites with regionally important biotopes so as to assist the development of an integrated conservation strategy for the region; provide the basis for a coordi- nated framework for species and ecosystem conserva- tion, development of regional databases, and promotion of cooperation between the international community, and associations of the countries in the region. In general, further protected areas are most needed in the Mediterranean, Levant, and Southwest Asian area of Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. (However, Iran has particularly good representation of arid and wetland ecosystems, and Turkey of Mediterranean and sub- Mediterranean sites). As for the type of protected areas needed, throughout the continent the greatest need is a major extension of Multiple Use and Wildemess Areas. Key areas in the region where better protection is most needed include: 87 North Africa and the Middle East @ The marine and coastal areas of all subregions; @ The wetlands of North Africa; @ The wetlands of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran; @ The mountain coniferous forests of Lebanon, Cyprus and Syria. At present only small areas of these coniferous forests are protected; in Lebanon the Parliament recently decided to protect part of this as is the Syrian National MAB Committee, a portion considered insufficient by biologists and conser- vationists; @ The marshes of Mesopotamia (Iraq/Iran). A large area of flat and gently undulating wetland of reeds and bogs, the largest expanse of reedbed and marsh- land in the world. Encouraging progress has been made on marine pro- tected areas in the Mediterranean, though here, as else- where in the world, efforts lag behind those on land. With the exception of the Iranian coast, the situation is poor in the Arabian or Persian Gulf; the Atlantic has been poorly addressed—although Morocco has estab- lished sites over the past decade at Oued Sous; the Black Sea has been partly reviewed by Turkey, the Caspian by Iran, Red Sea by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Of the other countries of the region, for example in Oman, one could suggest the areas listed under the government proposals for a system of nature conser- vation areas (NCA) which were to form part of a total land-use strategy. Plans included proposed details for policy and law, the designation of nature conservation area systems. If this was to be fully implemented 91 NCAs would be protected, including 59 national nature reserves, 20 national scenic reserves, and 12 national resource reserves, representing about 37% of Oman. In Saudi Arabia a number of proposals have been made, including that based on a large-scale survey of water resources covering 1,248,000 sq km in the mid-1970s. A review by Meteorological and Environmental Pro- tection Agency (MEPA) led to 46 marine and coastal sites being recommended for protection, along with six offshore areas in the Arabian Gulf. Subsequent work by NCWCD (1990) on the terrestrial ecosystems identified 56 terrestrial and 47 marine and coastal sites for pro- tection in one of five different reserve categories. Under this scheme 4% of the country would be fully protected, with another 4% partially protected (Abuzinada and Child, 1991). In the Mediterranean major gaps occur along the Mediterranean coast of Libya and Morocco. Recommendations have been made for a series of pro- tected areas in Lebanon by individuals and by NGOs. Aside from the established Mashgara National Park of 3,500ha other sites under consideration include: Ile du Palmier, mountain forests of cedar and fir in the north, Barouk cedars in the Shouf mountains, and the remnant marshlands of Ammik (one of the principal bird migra- tion routes in the Near East). Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 4. Protected area institutions In the Middle East and North Africa the institutions responsible for protected area management vary greatly from one country to another. In the majority of cases, protected areas are the responsibility of central govern- ment, but in others, such as Turkey and the North African Territories of Spain, the system is highly decen- tralized. There is a dichotomy between nature conser- vation, natural resource conservation and recreation institutions, and only rarely are they combined. The institutional structures often evolved one from the other as in the case of national park agencies from forest departments in Morocco, Turkey and Cyprus. Responsibility for the management and protection of such areas have often been divided among various branches of government, primarily the Ministry of Agri- culture, but also Interior, Finance, Defence, Housing or Tourism. In some countries, protected areas are under the direct administration of the office of the Prime Minister or Head of State. In those countries where tourism plays an important part in the national eco- nomy, the Ministry of Tourism has become involved in protected area administration. However, as in Jordan and Israel, protected areas are administered by non- governmental agencies. In most cases, however, there is insufficient coordination and cooperation among the dif- ferent government agencies (IUCN, 1992). Protected area institutions, as well as central govern- ments themselves, in parts of Levant and Southwest Asia tend to be weaker than those in North Africa. Institutions in the former often have inadequate laws, structures or budgets with which to combat serious threats to their sites. In countries where tourism is im- portant, such as Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco and Cyprus, the buoyant economy and the need for recreation has some- times taken precedence over conservation, as with the high profile attempt at Dalyan (Turkey). However, tour- ism has also provided sufficient funds to support pro- tected areas and conservation, as in Egypt, through entrance fees and tourist taxes. In the Arabian penin- sula, with the abundance of oil-monies, protected areas agencies have rapidly evolved although with declining oil prices in the world economy and armed conflicts, as in Kuwait, there has been severe decline in economies, protected area agencies such as the NCWCD and MEPA (Saudi Arabia) having to reduce staff and retrench their activities. Protected areas in the region are often subjected to competing pressures from government agencies that carry out large-scale development schemes, such as reservoir and agricultural land reclamation and indust- rial development. The destruction resulting from these activities is often irreversible and valuable habitats and species are lost. Areas subject to these incursions are usually found in the more arid countries of the region, where the demand for water or development is most pressing and the impact on protected areas are seen as a low priority. 88 Traditionally, legislation pertaining to national parks and protected areas developed in a piecemeal fashion, and tended to concentrate on the protection of a few outstanding sites of scenic or recreational value. In many cases the legal basis for protection was not suffi- cient, or was totally lacking. In those situations the in- stitutions responsible for protected areas have remained weak and have failed to secure influence over other branches of government, resulting in a distinct handicap for their administration and staff. Voluntary conservation groups have provided a cost- effective way for government to implement conser- vation policies. For example, government grants enable the NGO Society for Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI) to manage nature reserves in Israel and for the Royal Society for Conservation of Nature (RSCN) in Jordan to acquire protected areas, which is also a partner with the Government in running all protected areas and provides the wardens. Overall: @ In much of the Middle East and North Africa, there has been an emphasis on national parks for recrea- tion in the historic past at the expense of areas set up primarily to protect nature. @ The management of most protected areas falls be- low acceptable international standards and does not have the relevant legislative framework of support. @ Overall there continues to be a major need for the majority of the countries upgrade their legislation relating to protected areas. 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas Table 6 shows the information currently available on protected areas management agency budgets in the Middle East and North Africa. It also shows, however, that it is very difficult to separate spending on protected areas from spending on nature conservation in general, especially in countries with complex nature conser- vation systems. Some of the figures are probably mis- leading for this reason. Detailed data on the exact budgetary allocations of specific countries are limited, or even regarded as State security. Nevertheless, the figures show dramatic dif- ferences across the region and in comparison to other global regions. Even high GNP states such as Saudi Arabia, which spend over US$9m per year on its pro- tected areas agency NCWCD, is small in comparison with Europe or America, such as in the UK with US$150m per year on protected areas alone and Mexico with US$20m for 17 protected areas. This causes the budget available to the Yemen, about US$ 0.1m per year for all its forestry department activities, pale into insig- nificance even though it is a country rich in biological diversity. Clearly protected areas in some Arabian and Southwest Asian countries are totally underfunded, al- though there is one exception, that of Kuwait which has spent US$3m on the establishment of a single national park. The financial involvement by the private sector in protected areas is also very limited. The main income for the operators of this sector comes from the man- agement of hunting reserves, and it is questionable as to how much of this revenue is recycled to the protected area system. As an example, the income from such reserves in Algeria is US$0.5m annually. Egypt has an innovative financing mechanism whereby all interna- tional air tickets issued in local currency in the country have a 25% levy imposed, and the money thus raised is directed towards financing the protected areas. In Turkey a significant percentage of protected area finance comes from revenues raised by the park entry fees and other tourist/visitor expenditures (IUCN, 1992). gw Few Middle East and North African protected areas charge for entry, but this could be a good option for Mediterranean countries, taking advantage of the massive numbers of tourists each year and the boom in nature tourism experienced in other parts of the world. Turkey, for example, charges entrance for its national parks, and it receives over 10 million visitors per year to these areas. In some cases, national parks have broughi strong economic benefits to the region. In the case of Ras Mohammed NP (Egypt), the coral, tropical marine fishes and mangrove have proved a great attraction. The local villages were almost abandoned 10 years ago, but now has a growing economy and emigrants are returning. According to Pearson, some US$10 million LE over 5 years of park budget developed a local economic impact, creating jobs in the park itself. Funds generated by international organizations have not played a major role in aiding protected areas in this region until recently with the involvement of the EC, World Bank and UNEP, such as 0.8m ECU to one site on Egypt by the EC and US$0.2m in Algeria by the GEF. Other international funding is being used to support protected areas in Jordan, Morocco and Cyprus. Whilst feasibility studies by the World Bank have also looked at Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Algeria. In some countries which have had their debts re- scheduled, notably Egypt and Morocco, debt-for-nature or debt-for-development conversions are theoretically possible. However, no country in the region has so far attempted to benefit from this type of transaction. Never- theless, all the seriously indebted countries could benefit from acomprehensive debt reduction programme. Prompt at- tention should be given to securing the same level of debt relief to the countries in need, as was extended recently by the Paris club to Egypt and Poland. However, the international community has not been overall forthcoming and it is urged that these agencies 89 North Africa and the Middle East should play a much greater role in supporting the region’s protected areas by sharing their expertise and providing financing to all the countries concerned. 6. Human capacity in protected areas management 6.1 Staff As with levels of financing, there are large differences in protected area staffing from one country to another. Tunisia employs 400 people in 33 protected areas, com- pared to three people who are employed in Yemen’s embryonic protected areas system. Some countries, for example, have no rangers in their protected areas. Others, in contrast, not only have large, paid staffs but also systems of volunteers as in Israel. In most countries, though, staffing to protect the natural heritage has lagged behind staffing to protect the cultural heritage. Especially in Mediterranean coun- tries, a knowledge of nature is not regarded as part of the cultural awareness of citizens. Nature conservation is too often an interest of hobbyists and specialists, not of the general public, and this is reflected in staffing levels. 6.2 Training With the proposals for an expansion of the protected area network across the region throughout the next decade, the necessary management is perhaps too highly sophisticated for the existing agencies skills or experi- ence. As a result, more training is needed in a broad range of skills, from management planning to com- munity relations, from languages to information tech- nology. The urgent need for such training courses was unanimously endorsed by all the participants at the 38 CNPPA Working Session at Etna Regional Park, Sicily in October, 1992. The present level of training throughout the region is inadequate. Current provision of training is patchy. Specialist degrees and technical courses in conservation management are non existent, with exceptions such as in Israel. Provision for in-service training is ad hoc and training opportunities are available to a very limited staff who usually have to train overseas. Best provided for are rangers and guides: Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Morocco all offer some basic training. In Israel, the NRA and SPNI have promoted a national training policy, but such broad initiatives are otherwise unheard of. Conferences and seminars, regional, national or inter- national, have been held on behalf of FAO, UNESCO and UNEP but are mostly attended by senior staff, the exception being the Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas MEDPAN Managers seminars. Short-term staff exchanges are feasible between parks, but to date few have taken place because siaff time is short, 6a “uoneoNps [BJUSUTUAIIAUS pue uoneorMuNuoo ‘Wodsuen ‘souepes ‘UOnEpoOwWOdoe JJeIS JO SOUDUTEIUIBUL pue uononysuoo ‘soouay SUT] eISUT ‘spor SUTUTEJUTEUL :3UIMOT[OJ SU) 01 pawooye are sjo8pnq sea pajoajolg JUsWESeUeUI puke UOTTeIISTUTUpe Soarosal puke syed spreMo} JUDM Jadpnq s}salo,j pue INeAA BUY JO %¥ ‘8R6I UT "SNG UOT 79 :uoNearesuoo SuIpnjout somtanoe ANsaloj JOJ QOUE)sISsB pUe UOTT[IW COPS: :3ulussuaNs [BUOIMINSUT 10} soamMosay [BINIAY PUL s}sal0,j Jo JSUTTEd|q OUP 0) DOURISISSE SAPNISUT "OGG Ul 2oUuRIsIsse OV SaITMNsSUO|) “Surluapre mM puke JOUdUIEIUIeU sped [Te 10} poresoye aiom CY UOT[IW suo [66] UT Gy UOT “60 pure 9 U2eMIOq alam sysed [eUONeU IsITy DY) 10J Jo3pnq SuUUTI [enuue stp 103 996] ut jesodoid [euorsu0 ay], :sMOT[OJ se UMOpyBalg ‘(Apog aieaud & ‘NOSu au 01 JuWa Seu! puke JUSUTYST]GeIsa seare payoajaid 10} AytTiqrsuodsal ae 3a[op almfnousy jo Anstunpy au) Jo jWounredag o8uey pue Ansoio,j oy], x) “QOUR]SISSE [BOIUYOA} puke s}sId ‘(a[qrTeaeuN samsy) uoTesOT]e 193pnq JUUIIDAOS ‘soaj drysioquisw Waly st193pNq xONSU ALL *yUoUOdUIOO seare pojoajaid B sapnjout AZaieNs JUOWUOIIAUS UL “NONI Pu CIV SN Woy g6L'EZISNF wos IM paruaute[ddns Sem SIL “0661 01 dn poriad oy Suunp ABZoreNg [eUSWUON AUG UeTUepIOL alp Jo uoneyuowa|dun ap 10j SuIpuny aes SaMIISUOS any dAoge BY], “UOT[IW CHISSN Sem CR6I ULIBSpNq oY] “UOITeAIZSUOO almMeU Joy uotuodoid ue 3urpnjout ‘ja3pnq [enuue [TeI9A0 9YY SamMINSUOD aM3Ij BY], ‘armynousy Jo Anstutyy] oy waxy ATTediouud 900 OE FA *93pnq [enuue eotAlog OTP uendA3q sy] ‘uonajduroo 0} uotd2our joofoid wy ‘yeg FeuOneN QUUPU poumeYyos] sey JO JUsWIdO]aAEp oy] Spre Mo} UONNQUyUO 3e1S seo osn$ TOAIQSOY BIE] Seare poyooiod jediouud ayy 10j aimipusdxe Suu Yy (8Z'0 SNS) 000'8ETFO ‘santpory [euoneaisay wed Joy 198pnq amnousy Jo Ansturyy ‘(UOT[IW 87 [$SM) 000' LE9FO ‘seare poroaaid Jo uonearasuod pur yuowidojaaap ‘USUIYSTIqQEIS2 BY 10} Jo3pngq aImmousy Jo ANstuIy "0661 WAA/Yp UOT TW g OT st SuNUNY Wo anuaaes joallq “porospng sem 000'0S7$SN JO IOI y “Surpuny FAH ym UOOU! UT 98 sem joo Id UE]d yUDUISSeUEUI 2ANeIOgET[OD pojoefald & QGGI U] amen CVW 000'000'S = Jo Uonomalg pue suryst,y ‘Suu Jo “Ald —O20010j] dXxT vAqry] sjusUMUOP dof 9z¢'%e O1OISTH PUB S¥qN JO wounredaq 2 NOSY — veplog sTl ‘YY sonrosoy aMeN 2 Alsowny syed [UONEN — [22S] dol bey] wi ued] 000'000'01dD4 SOIAIOS 9ITIPTLM uenidxsg —1dA3q dAD 000°SLL Ansaio,j jo juounredaq — snidk> dHd urerye g JuouuOAUg aza amp JO uoNoa Org 10y Aouad y TeuoneN — elas, y 90 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas a21n0g avaX = quayeainba = Aduad.ind jeuoneu aeyog sn ul jaspng Aduase aqisuodsas/A1yun0d }SCq SIPPIW Puke edly YON :sJeHpnq Aouebe juewebeuew sease pe}de}01d “9 8/G21 North Africa and the Middle East “MM UT (1661) OWA [etal eIEyUY ‘sHEyY TeMy pue ANsaio.j ‘amypnousy jo Answunyy Kayan] us K4ysas0J (1861) ANsaiog Jo [eI9UIH a1eIO}20NG YsTIM] [ZI] “"ORUL-IPIS OP WSdd NII % $861 1Q0100 TE—O¢E ‘TPUONeU JoNsaloy auroUNUTed Np UONBALasUOd BI IMs aMTeUTUIZS ‘aisIUN] wa sa8vanvs auo}f D ap 1a aunD{ DJ ap UCI AlasuoD VT “(SR6I) “S ‘wacky [peH 19g [II] ‘ddg | ‘stun | ‘wiqoay ipnog ur svasp parsaoad fo wasks v Surdojanaq (1661) "9 ‘PID Pur "HW ‘epeuznqy [oI] ‘ddg] 1990190 6 [—H] “UoI3ay 1seq 2[PPI-POLYY YUON aM Ut seary paromiaig uo doysyso~, WddNO-NOMI IsILJ otf pue UBsUeLoN pay] ay] Ul soalasay aoydsoig uo Suna] aloydsorg pue uel PAIN, 21 18 poyussaid Jadeg ‘oomy ne sag8qaId sare sa] ins uoddey *( 1661) Sigiog ia xneq [6g] ‘ON UT (0661) “O‘PEUD = [sa] “dg “stunt ‘1990190 6 1-F] ‘vOIZay 1seq A[PPIA-LOLYY YUON amp UT seary paoai0lg uo doys1om Wdd NO- NONI 1s4/UesuELOUpay] Ip Ut soniesoy a1aydsorg Uo SuMIaA TVW PMY 21 18 pauasaid sodeg TeMNY Jo AMIS aN UI seare paromolg (1661) ‘4 “!Menps|y [zg] 0661 Arenues [¢ ‘20NjQ 19ef arg NON] JuouUOMAUY Jo juounredag 0/9 ‘Adareg 1wouuoNAUY feuonRN 0661 Arenuer y3naip 696] JoqQuiaidag ueploy—Adaqeng jUoWUOLIAUG [eUONeN ‘sontanoe 19afoid uo uoday “(066 1) ‘f ‘wayseqoyy «= [9g] ‘ddg] “unkeHrekny ‘Auoymy iowdojaaaq puey aip Aq ssarBuod Ansaroy pyony nual ayn Joy uoday ‘Jaess] ut Ansaroy uo y4oda1 feuoMeN (0661) ‘UouY [cg] ‘ddgy ‘eisruny ‘stun ‘39q2Q 61-F1 “POLY YUON pue iseq [Ppl] Mp 10y Sung0UI VWddNO “NONI Sty olf pur saaiasoy aoydsorg uBsueLoNpe; Uo Sune] aroydsorg pue ue PAY] 1p 1 poruasoad 1adeg 1d48q Jo o1qndoy quiy Ip Ul sear parooody (1661) Vad [bal “NY Uy (1661) nomouy [Eg] ‘ddgce + miaxx “yf ‘e8puqureD pu purlsozims ‘puro ‘NONI ‘2I4DanIVg 7 aumjo, ‘swassks jouoNDN fo maiaay Y :P40M ays Jo svasy parzaIo1g (2661) NOI _—*Zd 8a24n0g eld ‘7661-1661 UseMI9q SUBIOTUYSa IsAOy Jo SuTUTeN JOJ payeooyye sem [eH UOT] MW auO JoUyUTY W “gg6] UI 1e3pnq Ansaroy a1e1s aI pesudwoD SL6S9T AA 000'000'7 day qeiy ‘uauta 7 dav sore qery paituy) Za “seaie paloajoid 0) uone[al UT soueyes SAHeNSIUTUPE UO JUads sem TL 000'000'0SS JO 11M B 0661 NI“ Atisaz0,4 Jo ABODalIg [e1IUIH wp Aq jUsWsseueU yIed UO papu dxa1a3pnq jenuuy TUL 000'000'00€ Aysaio,j JO s1810}9aNG [elauaH — Koy], 11d ‘THOAYS] ‘AN Ao ou Joy o[quyreak yo8pnq soueureyurew aye1s UMN Xe] CGNL000'00$ Seq [euoneN pue SunuNH Jo ayesoioanpgng — eistun | dAS BIAS old “uorgar at ul Anumoo 1940 Aue ueyp UOITeAIaSUOO Oo} }UDUNITWUOO [eloURUY I91e313 ® sayeur A[qeqaid eiqery Ipneg *(00'O8ESSM) FOE Prr TUVS sem sieak 0m) Joy woddns NONI 10j 198pnq sy], Juawo8euEW pu UOITeNIsIUTUpE ‘seare poloaioid Jo sjoadse [Je Surpnyout JeaX Jad [eon 1o8pnq COMIN GOMON—21qzIV Ipneg uoneasiutupy [emnousy pue Ansnpuy Jo ‘wy — 1e1ed uewIC, 31N0S qeaX = quayeainba = Adua.1ind jeuoneu ae9q SN ul jaspng Aduase aqisuodsas/A1jun0Z (}U09) JSey S|PpIW Ppue Boy YWON :s}eHpng Aouebe }uowebeuew seose P9}99}]01d “9 aIGeL 91 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas financial resources are rarely available for them and the language barrier is an ever-present difficulty. Franco- phone initiative are perhaps the only functioning mech- anisms based on aid and support by the french Atelier technique which develops training for the staff of national parks. Study visits and exchanges have much potential for exchanging information and developing expertise but are not well used at present and to date most have been organized informally. Perhaps one option is the funding under the World Heritage Fund and through exchanges under the MAB Biosphere Reserve Pro- gramme. A major goal for every country should be to train a sufficient number of qualified staff each year to manage their protected areas. In designing an effective training programme, the following recommendations were pre- sented by the above mentioned meeting: w@ Determine specific needs and tailor the training courses to those needs bearing in mind the limita- tions of the staff. m Include all levels of staff in training activities, with emphasis on recruiting and training local people to work in the protected area. @ Involve scientists from local universities, as well as experienced protected area managers from the re- gion in the programme. @ Follow-up with on site evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the training courses and need for change. @ Provide moral and financial incentives for partici- pants of training courses, so they can take pride in who they are. The IUCN members from the region at the meeting in Sicily also discussed the organization of appropriate training courses for the region. The participants strongly urged that regional capabilities based within the region were to be used to the maximum extent, such as the wildlife centre at Taif (Saudi Arabia) and SPNI field stations (Israel). 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas The major issues for the region have been largely iden- tified above. Investment needs will require a partner- ship between national governments and the private sector, leading to a substantial increase in budgets and a higher priority for protected areas. The most significant source of investment today is the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which has started to provide funding for conserving biodiversity in some of the countries of the region over the next several years. These funds provide, for example, direct support to protected areas in Jordan and Algeria. 92 The World Bank’s Mediterranean Biodiversity action plan for the 1990s calls for preparation of conservation master plans and identification of viable biodiversity management projects (both terrestrial and marine) for short-term and long-term investments, including policy options for developing and managing biological resources. In many parts of the region, the private sector might be encouraged to take over those parts of protected area management which can be made to pay—such as eco- tourism infrastructure—but this needs close control of concessions to maintain management standards in parks. Examples of where this may work include Egypt and the Yemen. The industrial and commercial sector should also be encouraged to play a greater role in subsidising con- servation and protected area costs as part of their in- creasing concern for the environment. This can be arranged either through direct donations and/or sustained sup- port, such as linking protected areas budgets to income from sale of electricity from dams whose watershed is protected by a national park, or assistance from engin- eering companies as in the GAP Region of Anatolia (Turkey), or indirectly through environmental levies. 8. Major protected areas issues in the region 8.1 Oil and water The epitome of the Middle East and North Africa is oil and water. Resource scarcity in this largely arid region has resulted, at a very early date, in the development of complex systems for land and critical resource allo- cation and use. Water rights, land access for grazing, collection of timber and firewood, and ownership of agricultural land became strictly controlled. Following the discovery of oil at the tum of the century, the economies of many of the countries have changed tremendously and oil now plays a central role to activities within the region. On a per capita basis Kuwait is perhaps the richest of the oil rich states of the region. In Kuwait the Ministry of Petroleum and Kuwait Oil Company manage the oil fields of the country. Its six main exclusive rights areas act as de facto protected areas, through prohibition of livestock grazing around oil fields. Patrolling of areas is maintained by the mili- tary authorities. The Kuwait Oil Company has spon- sored various NGOs to encourage field studies, maintain contact with other institutions and help disseminate knowledge and to act as a conservation forum. Changing lifestyles throughout the arid zones of the region have in part been a consequence of increased access to permanent water supplies, including the trans- portation of water tanks into the hinterland. In the past water was a scarce resource carefully tended and fought over. In Tunisia oases still survive which have water management regimes over 1,000 years old. Greater availability of water has led to an expansion of livestock numbers throughout the region and to stocks remaining the year round on rangeland without undergoing seas- onal movements. For example, in Kuwait alone this had resulted in livestock overgrazing by 1.3 million sheep, 0.3 million cattle and 0.6 million goats by 1987. In Kuwait reserve areas for exploitation of known underground water are identified under a master plan. The Ministry of Water and Electricity has rights over these underground water areas which, by the very nature of restricted access, have formed havens for wildlife. In all forms of environmental protection, police posts are used in coordination with protected area management. The Saudi Arabia Ministry of Agriculture and Water (MAW) is involved in protected area management and has a key role for water management. The Ministry undertook water resources surveys in the mid-1970s as well as a complete land survey to determine the nature of soil and prepare an extensive agricultural develop- ment programme for the country. 8.2 Throughout history the Middle East and North Africa has had major periods of military and civil strife, even today localised and regional levels of armed conflict continue. Under these conditions biological diversity either thrives or is exterminated in various forms of ecocide. On the one hand such instability leads towards a low priority by the government to conserve areas unless they have direct strategic value, on the other hand by the very nature of any conflict areas being "set aside" to form exclusion zones the wildlife can survive un- disturbed as with the frontiers between two neighbour- ing states. A supreme example of this last point is Gebel Elba sandwiched between Egypt and Sudan. In many of the countries of Arabia and North Africa precise coun- try boundaries have yet to be defined. So that as between Morocco and Algeria, Afghanistan and the former USSR and Yemen/Saudi Arabia and Oman/Yemen, areas are very rich in wildlife. Armed conflict Military conflict as in Afghanistan from 1979 on- wards caused a breakdown in administration in many areas of the country, depopulation and abandonment of agricultural land, laying millions of land-mines through- out the country, uncontrolled timber and wood use, and hunting of wildlife. All protected areas were reported to have been abandoned. In 1991, environmental consult- ants for IUCN investigated environmental management measures for Afghanistan. Only limited activities could be recommended including the clearing of land mines from selected key areas of natural forest, and that the planning for the preservation of the remaining natural forests should commence as soon as the security situ- ation permitted. Perhaps the most pronounced example of the impact of armed conflict on the environment over the last decade has been the wars involving Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war of the mid 1980s, marshlands were drained 93 North Africa and the Middle East and chemical weapons were reportedly used. The 1990/ 91 hostilities in the Kuwait/Iraq area had a significant environmental impact. A number of designated conser- vation areas were adversely affected in both Iraq and Kuwait as well as bird sanctuaries and turtle nesting beaches affected by oil slicks along the Saudi Arabian coast. The burning of oil installations in Kuwait gener- ated large smoke clouds which were reported to have had significant local and downwind effects upon spe- cies and habitats. 8.3 Site integrity Since many protected areas in the North Africa and Middle East are small or at the edge of their range or in delicate ecosystems, they are particularly vulnerable to damage. One of the greatest concerns over protected area maintenance is whether or not a sufficient sized area has been incorporated, so as to ensure protection of the whole environment—a land where rainfall may be so intermittent that unless vast tracts of land are incor- porated many of the species may not survive decades of drought. A case in point is for the larger desert ungulates which travel between favourable resources which may be may hundreds of miles apart. In these cases the ecological network or corridor system, as being grad- ually applied in Europe, may be an option for the future. Alternatives already being applied in the region include the establishment of large areas which form ecological units with a full range of resources (eg the Northern Wildlife Management Zone (Saudi Arabia) at 15.2 mil- lion ha, the Jiddat al Harasis (Oman) at 2.8 million ha and Tassili N’ Ajjer (Algeria) at 8.0 million ha). How- ever, at present across the region as a whole, more than 45% of protected areas are less than 1000ha. Given this situation options must be looked at in the near future, sO as to prevent complete habitat fragmentation and widespread biodiversity loss. The following examples indicate the range and scale of the threats which have been identified in the region: Water extraction. Lowering of the water table has af- fected large parts of the desert regions of the Sahara and Arabian Peninsula. For example, the Azraq wetland reserve (Jordan) suffers from a lowered water-table. Water extraction in river deltas, often for irrigated agri- culture, threatens vital wetlands like the renown Nile Delta protected areas such as Burulus Ramsar Site (Egypt), the El Kala wetlands (Algeria), the Ichkeul NP (Tunisia), Goksu Delta Special Protection Area (Turkey) and Gala Golu/Evros Delta (Turkey/Greece). Specific pro- jects funded or coordinated by international aid agen- cies are also threatening the environment of the region. Following completion of the Salam Peace Canal (Egypt), for an irrigation project on the west bank of the Suez canal, an extension will form the core of the North Sinai Agricultural Development Project (NSADP) funded by the World Bank which will irrigate 0.25 million feddan in Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas North Sinai, and may seriously damage the Bardawil Ramsar site and surrounding natural habitats. Agricultural and livestock grazing activities. Agri- cultural exploitation originated in the region at the dawn of history yet intensification and conversion of grazed steppe and mountain pasture to ploughed arable fields has been a threat to many arid and mountain refugia particularly in the Atlas Steppe, Afghan mountains and Iranian Highlands. Sheep, goat and camel free ranging and farming is a problem in most national parks and protected areas, with associated over-grazing, use of vehicles and fencing. Hunting. Many protected areas suffer from being totally unable to regulate hunting. This is particularly the case in Egypt, where BirdLife International esti- mated that many million small birds may be shot each year. Hunting is allowed in many sites such as those of Turkey’s national parks. Ammiq (Lebanon) continues to be under threat from widespread indiscriminate and uncontrolled shooting of all migratory birds. Raptors are particularly at threat, even though they are legally protected. Estimates indicate that up to 15—20 million birds are shot per year by some 500,000 hunters. Military activities. _Anexample of a park threatened by military activities and manoeuvres is the Negev (Israel), where a large part of the desert is used for military testing, including live firing. Other threatened protected areas include Akamas (Cyprus) and sites in Kuwait. Forest damage. Legal and illegal felling causes dam- age to many protected areas, especially in the Mediterranean and Southwest Asia to Afghanistan. Particularly threatened are the forest and scrub national parks in Morocco and Algeria, Yedigoler (Turkey) and woodland parks in Iran, Cyprus, Syria and Lebanon. Forest fires are on the increase in Mediterranean countries, partly because of the increased susceptibility of conifer plantations to fire. Air pollution. Levels of air pollution in protected areas are generally low except where in the vicinity to major urban centres such as in Egypt and Turkey. Protected areas in western Turkey suffer from acid rain caused by emissions, principally local industrial sites and car emissions. No details are available on trans- boundary pollution. Dam construction. Protected areas under threat from the construction of sluices and dams include Massa NP (Morocco) dammed beyond the bounds of the park, of the Nile delta reserves (Egypt) which were seriously affected by the construction of the Aswan dam and Ichkeul NP (Tunisia) which is being affected by the damming of its feeder rivers. The present damming of the Tigris and Euphrates in Anatolia (Turkey) is re- garded as having a major impact on the environment, not only in Turkey itself but also in neighbouring Syria and the Mesopotamian marshes (Iraq). 94 Tourism and development. Hotel and road-building programmes have been immensely damaging, both in- side and outside protected areas. This is, for example, now the most serious threat to semi-natural areas in southern and western Turkey, in Cyprus, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. Water pollution. Several vital Mediterranean coastal parks are close to industrial plants; flamingoes in Tunisia have been contaminated by heavy metals and other chemicals. Oil slicks have caused catastrophes to coast- al protected areas in the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf. In Tunisia at Lac Tunis eutrophication caused by extensive use of chemicals threatens aquatic life in the lake. In North Africa the streams and rivers are under threat. 8.4 Science and protected areas Scientific studies have been long been undertaken in the region by the ancients of Egypt, Carthage, the Levant and Asia Minor. For example, between 370 and 285BC Theophrastus of Erosos was the first great botanical writer of classical antiquity and his works on botany, plant ecology and the environment were known through- out Asia Minor. More recently Pedanios Dioscorides of the first century AD, a native of Cilicia near present day Adana (Tunisia), was renowned for his work on botany, these were followed by renown Arab and Byzantine scientists of great repute. Perhaps one of the oldest scientific centres to under- take research in protected areas, is the Institut Scienti- fique Cherifien of Mohammed V University, Rabat (renamed Institut Scientifique), commenced activities in 1920. Itnow has six departments: zoology and animal ecology, botany and vegetative ecology, geology, geog- raphy, physics and satellite imagery (Beaubrun et Thevenot, 1982). The Biological Institute (Israel) was established in 1949 is concerned with botanical gardens and zoos; the Institute for Nature Conservation Re- search, established in 1974 as part of Tel-Aviv Uni- versity, a body which undertakes research on the pro- tection of birds of prey and larger mammals including leopard. More than 500 institutions and organizations have been identified as working in the field of biodiversity in North Africa, Middle East, and Southwest Asia (Montague and Bruun, 1987). In each case scientific academies, specialist desertification research centres, or oceanographic institutes exist. The National Wildlife Re- search Centre at Taif (Saudi Arabia) and the King Khalid Wildlife Research Centre at Thumamah (Riyadh) under- take ecological research, conservation surveys within and outside protected areas, and reintroduction pro- grammes. In some cases such as Assuit (Egypt) and Omayed (Egypt) protected areas have actually been set up specifically by institutes or universities for research purposes. Many of the countries of the region have forestry research stations such as at Rabat-Agdal (Morocco) and Ankara Forestry Research Institute (Turkey). Other research institutes which undertake activities within protected areas include the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (Morocco) and National Zoological Park of Rabat (Morocco), with priority for conservation and research on wildlife and their bio- topes. Research in and adjacent to protected areas has also been undertaken by various individuals or groups attached to national or foreign universities. Their work has included studies on threatened large mammnals, threatened bird species, on flora, palaeotology, palaeobotany, forestry, geology and on geography. Many countries are compiling much-needed inven- tories of species within their protected areas and in the country as a whole. The results of such research should be disseminated and made use of to help identify other valuable habitats. Few mechanisms exist for making sure that scientific findings are fed back to manage- ment, thus enabling the results to be constructively integrated into protected area policy. The problem is due primarily to lack of communication between gov- ernment institutions, management agencies and scien- tists. There is also a tendency among visiting scientists to use protected areas as a laboratory and to publish their papers overseas. 8.5 Traditional de facto protection De facto protection is quite widespread in the Region and take a number of forms: Traditional forms of protection continue to include a limited number of ‘sacred groves’ and trees which are still protected in Turkey, including at Harbiya near Antakya, and traditional forms of rangeland protection which were prevalent amongst the nomadic steppe and mountain tribes (cf the Mahmeya of Syria and the Hema protection of the Arabian Peninsula). @ Existing hemas continue to be respected by local tra- dition ("ourf") and are maintained under five types where: a) animal grazing is prohibited; b) grazing and/or cutting is permitted; c) grazing is allowed all the year round; d) bee-keeping is undertaken; and e) forests are protected. The hema system and variants on it were widely practised in and around the Arabian Peninsula. In Oman, itis the practice of communal range control by villagers of eastern oases, and there are other areas called "hawtah" where hunting, cutting or grazing has been proscribed. Similar social regulations governing range- land have been recorded in Syria, locally named mahmia or mara, and from the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Turkey where they are referred to as koze (Draz, 1978; IUCN, 1992). In North Africa, traditional forms of protected rangeland, common land or hereditary lands—called aqdal, habous, or guich—had early origins among the tribal systems. In Tunisia, range reserves called ghidal or zenakah are found, and a tradition of "lineage reserves" occurs among nomads of the eastern deserts of Egypt. These are just a few examples of the many variations of 95 North Africa and the Middle East the same communal land use theme (IUCN, 1992). Community protection is also known to exist in Yemen. To the present day in Yemen, a powerful social con- science based on widespread acceptance of local sheikhs’ values greatly facilitate protected areas admin- istration and management. In many areas of the Yemen sheikhs ban entry into certain areas. In some forest protected areas fines levied against infringements. Land and habitat conservation has long been in ex- istence in Lebanon. Cedar forest protection has been practised by local religious communities for many cen- turies, and a number continue to be maintained, such as the renowned Bshari Cedar Grove. Boundary stones, origi- nating from the time of the Emperor Hadrian (138 AD), still demarcate the ancient protected forest domain. In Egypt, Mount Sinai is sacred to three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; a site which has subsequently been incorporated into the modern protected areas network of the country. Small scale examples of community protection may be found in Tunisia. A private reserve, Rocher a Mérou, has been established off the western coast by the Yacht- ing Club of Tabarka, a site protected by voluntary fishing bans in order to promote international diving tourism in the area by ensuring that there is abundant marine wildlife to be seen. Management includes con- trolling entry into the area, and permitting foreign divers to see the fish and feed them. Fishing is totally prohib- ited in the area and closely regulated by the community which works in close association with the Tunisian Diving Club. 8.6 Public participation—people and protected areas Most of the land in the region is effectively owned and managed by the State. This leaves little opportunity for private organizations to own and manage protected areas in a way that may enhance conservation of wild- life and their habitats and next to no opportunities how the land is managed. Despite isolated examples of individual interest in promoting and establishing protected areas such as in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Lebanon, it remains a risky and expensive investment for the private sector in the absence of a comprehensive conservation plan for the whole country. Non-governmental bodies hardly ever feature in protected areas management of the region, exceptions being Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Israel and Lebanon. The SPNI of Israel is perhaps the largest non-political voluntary organization in the region, with over 700,000 members and a network of 25 field study centres, nature tours and community education projects. In Jordan, the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature supervises and enforces many laws that are directly related to the conservation of nature, such as the enforcement of the hunting law. Following the Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Royal proclamation of protected areas, it has been es- tablishing sites for wildlife conservation, undertaking activities including the reintroduction of globally en- dangered and locally extinct species to their natural habitat, and protecting old buildings, and sites that are considered part of the national heritage. In Lebanon a number of privately-owned nature reserves have been established in the past including Khallet Khazem Farm and Natural Reserve, which had been protected for at least the last 50 years. Currently, the Society for the Protection of Nature in Lebanon is very active in recom- mending sites for future protection. Hunting associations have long been involved in pro- tected area management throughout the region, most notably in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Iran and Afghanistan to name but a few. In the case of Tunisia they are largely under the auspices of the Federation of Regional Hunting Associations (Fédération des Asso- ciations Régionales de Chasse). Given the remit of managing private hunting reserves for wildlife further investigations ought be undertaken to realise the exact contribution such areas make to the overall protected areas system in the region. 8.7 Habitat restoration and species re-introduction The present preponderance of steppe reflects the degra- dation of the environment over millenia by grazing, browsing and cutting of wood. Rangeland, on which the majority of North Africans and Arabians depend di- rectly or indirectly, has been degraded and misused. In more arid regions, dry land farming has exhausted soils which has led to erosion. With the realization that activities such as overgraz- ing has destroyed or seriously damaged habitats there is some attempt across the region to rectify the situation, through active tree and shrub planting, fencing of habitats and re-introduction of extirpated species. Case study examples include Bou Hedma NP (Tunisia), Hai Bar (Israel), Shaumari R (Jordan), Jiddat al Harrasis (Oman), Takerkhort (Morocco), Omayed (Egypt) and Harrat al Harrah NR (Saudi Arabia) on the Jordan frontier. Re-introduction programmes for globally endan- gered species have been started in many of the countries of the region. Examples of successful re-introduction programmes into protected areas include Libya, Algeria, Jordan, Israel, Tunisia, Turkey, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In Tunisia it was initiated by the Direction des Foréts (species include scimitar-horned oryx, ostrich, addax, Barbary sheep and Barbary stag). In Oman, on-the- ground projects were initially aimed at specific, high profile species, commencing with Arabian Tahr in 1976, four species of marine turtle from 1977 and on the reintroduction of Arabian oryx from 1978. "Operation Oryx" was organized by a group of international wild- life organizations to capture some of the remaining wild oryx in Arabia in 1972, and send them to the US to establish a captive breeding herd. By 1980 preparations 96 were underway to bring some of them back to Arabia. The site chosen for their reintroduction was a distinct ecological unit of about 25,000 sq km at the eastem side of the Jiddat-al-Harasis and animals were introduced in the early 1980s. Similar efforts are taking place in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. 8.8 International tourism In many of the countries of North Africa and the Middle East tourism is next to non-existent. However around the Mediterranean visitors are an enormous potential source of wealth for the protected areas system with billions of visitors per year. In Tunisia for example, tourism plays an important part in the national econ- omy, representing TD 68.7 m in 1977 rising to TD855 m by 1989 with 3.2 million tourists. The intention of the Ministry of Agriculture has long been to expand interest in ecotourism in its national parks. Three ecomuseums have been constructed, and the first in Ichkeul was opened in 1989. Visitors to Ichkeul NP number 20,000 annually and an average of 4,000 tourists visit the other parks each year. In Turkey during the 1960s the num- bers of visitors to national parks approached 500,000; by 1985 about 10 million visitors made use of the national parks. Forest recreation areas are established for touristic, cultural and public recreational purposes and by 1987 there were 30 million visitors to these areas. In Israel national and international tourism is of major importance to the region, with up to 1.65 million visitors in 1988. Visitors are catered for at many of the nature reserves and national parks, indeed in the legis- lation for national parks they are described as being "first and foremost intended for the enjoyment of the visitor". Well over 200,000 visitors per year visit En Gedi. Ecotourism is a major element of the activities organised by SPNI and associated tourist companies. Some natural areas in Egypt are becoming major tourist attractions. In 1989, 30,000 tourists visited Mount Sinai/St. Catherine’s Conservation Area and 60,000 visited Ras Mohammed Natural Park. The figure for St. Catherine’s may rise to 565,000 if plans are followed for development of the area, and whereas current reve- nue is US$25,000 at Ras Mohammed, that is expected to rise to US$313,000 as proposed plans are imple- mented into effect. Conservationists are concerned that intensive development in these areas, to accommodate the increased tourist load, could seriously affect and possibly destroy the fragile ecosystems of those areas (Mishinski, 1989). Out of the Mediterranean, international tourism is variable and even banned from certain countries of Arabia and Southwest Asia. Tourism is gradually de- veloping in the Yemen, with an estimated 43,500 entries in 1986-7. There are proposals to incorporate nature conservation and ecotourism into future tourism pro- grammes. Since 1990 the Ministry of Tourism has been involved in developing plans for landscape protection and is currently investigating potential activities in the Bura region. Other nature protection initiatives are be- ing undertaken by a private company in the Al Zuhrah coastal area. 9. Priorities for action in the region @ Reevaluate all development plans, past and present, in light of conservation needs, stressing to all con- cerned the enormous costs that will be incurred if conservation of the environment is not integrated in national development. No development project should be implemented unless a proper environmental im- pact assessment is first carried out. @ Develop more flexible concepts for protected area management are needed such as those that integrate conservation, traditional land use and development. Rigid plans that only contain restrictions and prohi- bitions should be avoided. @ Develop ways to protect areas outside the standard protected areas in each country through appropriate zoning to discourage the over-exploitation of certain sensitive areas. @ Refrain from using protected areas for military ex- ercises which harm the environment, and where such activities are inevitable, then appropriate safe- guards should be adopted to protect the natural resources. @ Participate in international activities that encourage greater involvement, networking and cooperation. This would allow the region to exercise a greater influence over the global growth of conservation North Africa and the Middle East and the maturation of the profession of protected area managers, scientists and experts in the region. @ Launch an urgent campaign to enhance environ- mental awareness throughout the region. Otherwise the average person will continue to regard conser- vation as a costly luxury, thereby giving political leaders the excuse to continue ignoring these issues. Local information media, especially television, should be required to highlight the need to conserve wild- life species and their habitat, expose threatening environmental problems and suggest solutions where possible. @ Strengthen the role of NGOs in achieving citizen participation through mobilizing the public to assist in fulfilling conservation goals. @ Protected area agencies should focus on local people as agents of conservation by encouraging and train- ing them to benefit from their resources without destroying them. As participants they can make the difference between the success or failure of most conservation projects. It is further recommended that all relevant documents including the North Africa and Middle East section of Protected Areas of the World: a review of national systems (IUCN, 1992) be translated to Arabic, and other appropriate languages. This would provide an impor- tant learning experience for everyone involved with protected areas in the region. Copies should be made available to decision makers, policy make all individuals involved with protected areas, universities and libraries. Acknowledgements In October 1991 the informal gathering of CNPPA members from North Africa and the Middle East in collaboration with the MAB meeting on Mediterranean Biosphere Reserves (Tunis, Tunisia) provided a good opportunity to produce the first draft of this paper with the valuable assistance of Mustapha Saheh and Graham Drucker. That version was tabled and discussed at Caracas. Subsequently the International Park Docu- mentation Centre (CEDIP), Sicilian Regional Authori- ties, NCWCD, IUCN Secretariat and WCMC organised the 38th CNPPA Working Session, a North Africa and Middle East forum at Etna Regional Park, Sicily in October 1992, providing a valuable opportunity to re- view the draft paper. A subsequent updating of the document was kindly prepared by Faisal A. Dean on behalf of the region. In particular the authors would like to thank the following who contributed so much to the success of the regional activities: particular thanks to the organiser of the third Mediterranean Biosphere Reunion, to Mohammed Skouri and Jane Robertson of UNESCO. For the CNPPA 38th Working Session, firstly to Bino li Calsi and Franco Russo of Etna Regional Park, Nunzio Spam Spinosato, Major of Nicolosia, Dr Burtone of the Ministry of Environment, Prof Campione of the Regione Siciliana and to Giovanni Valdre and his col- leagues of the International Park Documentation Centre (CEDIP). Thanks also go to Jeff McNeely, Danny Elder, Laura Battlebury, Caitlin Williams, Frances Parakatil, Caroline Martinet, Sue Rallo, Justin Mundy, Alain Jeudy de Grissac and Mike Evans. 97 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas References Abdel-Noor, L., Al-Khoshman, M.A., Mirkarimi, R. and Picardi, A.P. 1991. Environmental conse- quences of the war and the impact on Iraqi civilians. Harvard Commission on Civilian Casualties. 39 pp. Abuzinada, A.H., Child, G. and Grainger, J. 1992. The Approach to Planning and Initiating a System of Protected Areas in Saudi Arabia. NCWCD, Riyadh. Alsidrawi, F. 1992. The Negative Impact of The Iraqi Invasion on Kuwait's Protected Areas. Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait. Batisse, M. and Jeudy de Grissac, A. c.199]. Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea: Past, present status and perspective. Report prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. 23 pp. Bates, P.J.J. 1991. Mountain refugia in Southern Arabia: their zoogeographical significance and special im- portance for conservation. In McNeely, J.A and Neronov, V.M. (Eds.). Mammals in the Palaearctic Desert: Status and trends in the Sahara-Gobian region. The Russian Committee for the Unesco Programme on Man and Biosphere. pp. 209-218. Bayer, M.Z., Istanbul, T. and Akesen, A. 1991. National Parks and Protected Areas in Turkey. Manuscript. Bel Hadj Kacem, S. 1991. Liste des parcs nationaux et aires protegees Tunisie 1991. Direction Generale des Foréts, Ministere de 1’ Agriculture, Tunis. Carp, E. 1980. Directory of Western Palaearctic Wet- lands. \UCN, Gland, Switzerland. Child, G and Grainger J. 1990. A system plan for pro- tected areas for wildlife conservation and sustain- able rural development in Saudi Arabia. NCWCD, Riyadh. 389pp. Clarke, J.E., al-Lamki, F.M.S., Anderlini, V.C. and Shepperd, C.R.C. 1986. Proposals for a system of nature conservation areas in the Sultanate of Oman. Prepared by the International Union for Conserva- tion of Nature and Natural Resources for the Diwan of Royal Court, Sultanate of Oman. 368 pp. Dean, F.A. 1993. Arab Sheiks—Hunters and Conserva- tionists. Landscape International. 3(1). College Park, Maryland. : Draz, O. 1978. Revival of the "Hima" System of Range Reserves as a Basis for the Syrian Range Develope- ment Programme. Proc. 1st International Range Con- gress. Denver, Colorado. Draz, O. 1985. The hema system of range reserves in the Arabian Peninsula, its possibilities in range im- provement and conservation projects in the Near East. Pp 109-121. In: McNeely, J.A. and Pitt, D. (eds.), Culture and conservation: the human dimen- sion in environmental planning. Croom Helm, London. 308pp. Duvall, L. 1988. The status of biological resources in Morocco, constraints, and options for conserving biological diversity. USA, Washington, DC. Eaux et Foréts. 1991. Rapport sur les aires protegees au Maroc. Paper presented at the First IUCN- CNPPA Workshop on protected Areas in the North $8 Africa-Middle East Region, 14-19 October 1991, Tunis. Eckholm, E.P. 1976. Losing Ground. W.W. Norton and Co. Inc. New York. Evans, M. 1993. Important Bird Areas in the Middle East. Newsletter No. 1. 1CBP. Cambridge, UK. Firouz, E., Hassinger, J.D. and Fergusson, D.A. 1970. The wildlife parks and protected areas of Iran. Bio- logical Conservation 3(1):37-4S. General Directorate of Forestry. 1987. Forestry in Turkey. Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Rural Affairs. Ankara. Grainger, J. and Llewellyn, O. 1992. Sustainable Use: Lessons from a Cultural Tradition in Saudi Arabia. NCWCD, Riyadh. Green, M.J.B and Drucker, G.R.F. 1991. Current Status of Protected Areas and Threatened Mammal Spe- cies in the Sahara-Gobian Region. In McNeely, J.A and Neronov, V.M. (Eds.) Mammals in the Palaearctic Desert: Status and trends in the Sahara- Gobian region. The Russian Committee for the Unesco Programme on Man and Biosphere. pp. 5-69. Haddane, B. 1992. National Parks and Protected Areas in North Africa. Strategy, Management and Eco- nomic Aspects. Rabat, Morocco. Harrington, F.A. 1975. Iran: Surveys of the Southern Iranian coast line with recommendations for addi- tional marine reserves. [UCN Publications New Series No. 35. IUCN. 1992. Protected Areas of the World: a review of national systems. Volume 2: Palaearctic. Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK 556 pp. Jungius, H. 1987. The establishment of national parks and protected areas in the arid zone: a contribution to conservation and recreational utilization of natu- ral resources. First symposium on the potential of wildlife conservation in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, 15— 18 February 1987. National Commission for Wild- life Conservation and Development. 1 1pp. McNeely, J.A. and Miller, K.R. 1984. National Parks, Conservation and Development: The role of pro- tected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC. 838pp. Miller, A.G. and Nyberg, J.A. 1991. Pattern of ende- mism in Arabia. Flora et Vegetatio Mundi IX: 264— 278. Mishinski, J. 1989. A drop in the Ocean. Cairo Today. June. pp. 38-40. Porat, M. and Agasi, V. 1992. Protected Areas in Israel. NRA and SPNI, Israel. pp. 17. Posner, S. 1988. Biological diversity and tropical forests in Tunisia. USAID, Washington, DC. Ramade, F., 1984. Keynote Address: The Palaearctic Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (Eds.), National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA. 418-425 Ramade, F., 1990. Conservation des Ecosystémes Meéditerranéens: Enjeuxet perspectives. Les Fascicules du Plan Bleu 3. Economica, Paris. 144 pp. Ramsar Convention Bureau. 1987. Conference re- port, Third Meeting of the Conference of the con- tracting parties. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 27 May-S June. Sagi, Y. 1992. Protection of Open Space Landscape in Areas Exposed to Massive Development Pressure. SPNI, Israel. Segnestam, M. 1984. Future Directions for the Western Palaearctic Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (Eds), National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. 99 North Africa and the Middle East Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA. 486-490 Stanley-Price, M.R. 1986. The reintroduction of the Arabian oryx into Oman. /nternational Zoo Year- book 1986. No. 24/25: 179-188. Sulayem, M.S.A. 1991. Regional Review: North Africal Middle East. Draft 1UCN-CNPPA. Gland, Switzer- land. Tavakoli, E. 1987. Iran environment. Jran Almanak. 44-48. UNEP/IUCN (1988). Coral reefs of the world. Volume 2: Indian Ocean, Red Sea and Gulf. UNEP Regional Seas Directories and Bibliographies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. [Prepared for UNEP/ IUCN by WCMC] P~. ry Lae hie wip ra ‘ =A. a | Europe Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas seaie pe}oej}0id payeubisap Ajje6a; uiyyiM papnjou! Asjunod jo aHejusdieq «=~dew %OZ UY} o10/ Z0E—-G1L 102 2S1—-Ol ZOL-S %2S—L'0 %1°Q UDY} Ssseq Ee peyoejoid abpjusacseg Contents Page ae Historical perspective) cic ishesr. sec Gee sels OR OS Si ee 105 2. Current protected areacoverage......................005. 105 male ON CIVICWE mete ey Oi ial ie aie h eRe Sk pres ey eee eee nee On eta ea ee 105 DMN lacksolsystemi plans rsh or eM. ©... . 18 eg ek Aa ea at ee a 107 2S mesliheity pesiotprotectedsateaS wioe-mod-) =) « che) Gus obeLS Ol neo nee Re 109 2.4 Protected landscapes (Category V): A European specialty. ............ 110 Dee Matine;protectediareaSims. sts oem. 2. = v cueieai eee ticles) teeter nets er PS 111 2.6 Other mechanisms to protect conservation sites: The link to regional Plannin Ge Meester cso, shy a, Sass, 6 Ae (oS deat emote ok aE ie eRe 111 2.7 Evaluating the effectiveness of the protected areas ................ 112 3. Additional protected areas required ........................ 113 4. Protected areainstitutions ..........................0.. 114 Asie Decentralization sce PSA Ss... SE AR ei ee ee 115 AD) IN Sons olinele7/Kedes so ge bib a blob oe bode oho 65 oe eo bo u © 115 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 115 6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 116 GuldemS taftinpiofyprotectediareass mum suwi i) km ene icnran al Re Cn 116 6.2 Training opportunities andneeds.............---2055---04, 116 7. Major protected area issues intheregion .................... 116 7.1 Pressures on protected areas ... 2... 25.2522 eee ee ee ee te eee 116 po eee SPeCial(GASe Ol tOUNISHIt emits acer eee) 0 ea en on mee 119 7.3 Coping with change in Eastern and Central Europe ........-..------ 120 7.4 Benefiting from a surplus of farmland ........+---.---++--+-+-+-+--- 121 7.5 Creating a peace dividend forconservation .......-.----++-+-++--- 121 7.6 The value of frontier and transboundary parks................2-..- 121 103 8. Initiatives between European countries ..................... 127 851 | The|European’Community =) 55-202) set ee ee 127 8.2 Other agreements and organizations at European level .............. 127 9. Priorities for actionintheregion ......................... 129 Acknowledgements... 25 cece ees; cee Les Raeey2 toane) Ate 131 Reterences 95 2. 6. cade tae ee «ot SS, cs ns Gu 131 Tables Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system ..................0. 106 Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories ............. 109 Table 3. The development of the protected areassystem............... 114 Table 4. | Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 117 Table 4a. Adherence by European countries to regional treaties relevant to protectedianeaSey. tay sites oe Sere os wks woos be aos See 118 ilable‘5}) a) World Heritage/sites;invEUrope) ee ) Se 120 Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 122 Table 7. Protected areas in Europe created from 1982 to 1991 ............ 126 Table 8. | Comparison for selected countries in Europe of protected areas eligible and not eligible forthe UN List ................. 128 Figures Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected ATC AS Eos hagae fern se, th vo ge ei ae a eae 102 Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 108 Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 108 104 Europe Presented by Hans Bibelriether, Regional Vice-Chair for Europe, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. Prepared by Hugh Synge, IUCN Consultant, under the direction of Hans Bibelriether 1. Historical perspective In the past ten years, Europe has experienced political changes as dramatic as those anywhere in the world. The collapse of the Communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe and with it the closing of the east-west divide, the re-emergence of the forces of nationalism in parts of former Communist Europe, and the greater integration of the European Community (EC) are pro- found events in Europe’s history. The decade since the 1982 World Parks Congress in Bali was also remarkable in another way: at the end of the 1980s, environmental issues suddenly rose to the top or near the top of the political agenda in most European countries. Despite economic recession, they are likely to stay there during the 1990s. Europe has remarkable diversity, not just of nature, but of civilizations, cultures and languages, reflecting its long and complicated history. Europe is the cradle of western civilization and the birthplace of science, but it has also probably experienced more wars than any other continent. To an ecologist, much of Europe is a young continent. North of the Alps, its present ecosystems developed only after the retreat of the ice sheets some 10,000 years ago. Nevertheless, there is great diversity in Europe’s natural heritage, varying from the arctic tundra to the evergreen oak forests of the Mediterranean. Europe has spectacular mountains—Mont Blanc, the highest moun- tain in Europe; Mt Etna, the largest active volcano in Europe; and Mt Olympus, the national park with the most vascular plant species in Europe. The region con- tains outstanding wetlands, such as Cota Dofiana in Spain, the Danube Delta on the Black Sea and the Sjaunja mire complex in Sweden. And it contains valu- able forests such as the Bohemian and Bavarian Forest in Austria, Czech Republic and Germany. Its coastline is complex, with numerous inland seas and islands. However, Europe’s naturally diverse vegetation has been profoundly influenced by human activity. Today, the only extensive areas of vegetation that are essen- tially unaltered by human impact are some areas of 105 arctic vegetation, parts of the Scandinavian coniferous forest, and some broadleaf forest in SE Europe, notably in Bulgaria and parts of former Yugoslavia. Elsewhere, unaltered vegetation is found only on mountain tops above the tree line, in some wetland areas, in isolated patches of woodland and on some parts of the coast. In Europe the most significant changes to vegetation and landscape occurred thousands of years ago. For the most part, they led to a varied and biologically diverse continent, in many areas increasing biological diversity, at least on the local scale. However, in the past 50 years or so, there has been a steady degradation in much of this rich landscape. In Northern Europe, notably in parts of eastern England, northern France, Belgium, Nether- lands and N Germany, mechanized agriculture has re- duced the rich patchwork quilt of woodlands, hedges and small fields to an agro-industrial prairie largely devoid of wildlife. In much of Scandinavia and the Baltic States, drainage has spared only remnants of the previously extensive marsh forests. In southern Europe, the massive expansion of tourism is causing great dam- age to the fragile Mediterranean coast. Large amounts of EC regional aid in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece— now boosted to US$76 billion over 5 years— continue to bring environmental damage. As a result much of Europe’s natural heritage has been devastated. For example, in Britain and the Nether- lands, only 4 per cent of lowland raised bogs remain undamaged. In Italy, three-quarters of the wetlands have disappeared since 1900 and in Greece half since the 1960s. In Finland, despite a forested landscape, only fragments of the old forest survive. Similar examples could be found for most other European countries. 2. Current protected area coverage 2.1 Overview Europe has had protected areas for centuries, for exam- ple as royal hunting reserves or as forest reserves. Since the first part of the 19th Century, small areas or even single features such as trees and rocks have been declared Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas as protected. However, the national park concept emerged later in Europe than in many other parts of the world. The first national parks were set up in the early years of this century and progress was slow. Some countries started their protected areas systems even later—Portugal, for example, only about 20 years ago. Despite this late start, there is today an extraordinary diversity of approaches to the conservation of nature across Europe from one country to another. This reflects a diversity in geography, history, law and political sys- tems. The protected area systems in Europe are also very complicated, with many different forms of designation. Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Europe Area in Categories I-V Country Area of Region 28,750 465 83,855 30,520 110,910 127,870 43,075 45,100 1,399 337,030 543,965 356,840 Czechoslovakia Denmark Estonia Faeroe Is Finland France 131,985 93,030 102,820 68,895 301,245 63,700 160 65,200 2,585 316 Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania San Marino Spain Svalbard-Jan Mayen Sweden Switzerland UK Vatican City Yugoslavia (Former) 255,805 5,858,166 524,281 Notes: Total area designated Area in Categories VI-VIII and UA oo nN i] comooorcocec°o - nN oSS an is = Ww oe oo oofo 800,845 Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage COVET. Note: former Yugoslavia. 106 This table was prepared by WCMC prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and the changes in Since the Third World Parks Congress in 1982, Europe’s protected area estate has grown rapidly. In some cases, the new protected areas have been the result of imple- menting long-standing plans, as in Scandinavia. In others they have come about through political upheaval, for example: @ As the last agenda item of its last session, in September 1990, the former East German parlia- ment, a freely elected assembly, created 5 new national parks and 3 nature reserves; The day after the collapse of Ceausescu regime in Romania, the government declared 11 new national parks, fulfilling a proposal that conservationists had been promoting for 20 years. Although the period 1972-1982 witnessed the great- est rate of growth in the protected areas network (see Table 3), Table 7 shows that in the last ten years nearly 10 million ha have been added to the protected area estate, an area larger than Hungary (Heiss, 1991). The area of national parks has increased 50% in the same period, with over 50,000ha created each in Austria, Bulgaria, former Czechoslovakia, Finland, Germany, Norway, Romania and former Yugoslavia. Before 1982, two-thirds of the national parks were in mountains at high or middle elevations, and only a sixth in coastal areas. Of the areas created since 1982, about half are montane and half are lowland (though 81 per cent of the lowland areas created are in one country, Germany). In contrast, along the much threatened Mediterranean coast- line, only two new areas have been created, covering only 14,375ha. On other protected areas, predominantly nature re- serves, Table 7 is likely to underestimate the gains since most countries have reported only their larger areas. Some gains are most encouraging: Sweden, for exam- ple, has doubled the size of its nature reserves, from 846,000 to 1,910,000ha. Table 1 summarizes the current protected areas in all categories, including the multiple use areas, whilst Table 2 shows the relative occurence of protected areas in IUCN Management Categories I-V; in particular, data in Table 2 underscores the importance of Category V in the European context. The map shows the percentage of each country included within protected areas that meet these same criteria. These data are based on the best information available to the WCMC Protected Areas Data Unit, but the situation in some countries, e.g. Germany, is so complex that the figures are not fully comprehensive. Moreover, the areas on the UN List are only part of the protected area estate in Europe. Many other pro- tected areas do not qualify for the UN List, either because they are less than 1000ha in size (some examples of these areas are given in Table 8) or because they are owned by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). For example, in Switzerland NGOs own 520 nature reserves covering 80,000ha, and in the Flemish region 107 Europe of Belgium, nearly 65 per cent of reserves are not owned by the state. In total, sites excluded from the UN List add up to an extensive area; for example 30-40 per cent of the pro- tected areas in the Netherlands (by area) are not on the UN List. Excluded areas are often important sites for threatened species and habitats, as in the 2,000 County Trust nature reserves in the United Kingdom. Extrapolating from these figures leads to an estimate of 10,000-20,000 protected areas in Europe, of which about 2200 are on the UN List. The growth of protected areas in Europe is graphically shown in Figures 1 and 2, both non-cumulatively and cumulatively, respectively. 2.2 Alack of system plans Countries in Western and Southern Europe have tended not to prepare system plans for developing their pro- tected areas, although some have prepared detailed assessments of sites important for nature conservation. In contrast, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Po- land, Slovakia and the Baltic States have good system plans. Some of the best examples of the systems approach are in Scandinavia. Furthest advanced in implementa- tion is Finland, where 13 of its planned 19 national parks have already been established. In Norway, a systematic conservation programme for natural habitats began in the 1970s. Sweden published a nature conservation plan in 1991 (Naturvardsverket, 1991), under which it plans to increase its national parks to cover about 5 per cent of the country. Most of the rest of Europe does not have extensive tracts of natural vegetation from which large areas can be selected for protection. System plans may therefore need to contain proposals for the protection of large numbers of small areas. Especially in areas of predominantly altered ecosys- tems, conservationists also need to think more of eco- logical networks than of individual nature reserves. The Netherlands, based on its great experience in creating and in recreating terrestrial habitats, is planning a com- prehensive national ecological network across the country, with corridors connecting one protected area to another (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fish- eries, 1990). In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, ecolo- gists have been planning a similar system over the past ten years, comprising both natural and landscape areas as a Territorial System of Ecological Stability. To promote the idea of corridors and networks more widely, the Netherlands Government commissioned the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) to prepare a proposal on this theme. Their report proposes the concept of a European ecological network (EECONET) in which the most important sites for each habitat type are conserved, and where the sites are linked by corri- dors to permit dispersal of species (Bennett, 1991). Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 500 Number of sites 400 300 200 100 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 2,500 Number of sites 2,000 Area (x1 O00sqkm) 1,500 1,000 500 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... 108 2.3. The types of protected areas Table 2 shows that the main types of protected areas used in Europe are Category II (often called national parks), Category IV (managed nature reserves) and Category V (protected landscapes). However, it has not been easy to apply the CNPPA categories, in particular to make the distinction between Category II and Cate- gory V. In fact protected landscapes account for over half of the protected area estate, at least that included Europe on the UN List, reflecting in part the much greater difficulty of establishing a nature reserve than a pro- tected landscape, and in part the fact that protected landscapes are inherently extensive. The predominance of protected landscapes, especially in Austria, France, Germany, Poland and UK, means that any figures for the proportion of a European country that is in protected areas can be deeply misleading unless it separates pro- tected landscapes from areas protected primarily for nature. Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Europe Albania Andorra Austria Belgium Bulgaria Czechoslovakia iS) kml nrAhrunsl] & | tedlrnnil 2 1 5 1 8 5 3 4 6 1 Lolreawil Svalbard-Jan Mayen Sweden Switzerland UK Vatican City - Yugoslavia (Former) 7 [Ieitlni 166 117,387 = 3,526 3,259 16,094 20,269 22,417 4,163 5,5 98 3,637 10,886 18,069 35,044 34,910 2,935 29,605 4,679 7,529 45,019 46,355 2,364 7,878 1206 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note: This table was prepared by WCMC prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and the changes in former Yugoslavia. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas National parks in Category II and nature reserves in Category I are usually the best way to protect wilderness areas. In addition to the extensive natural forests in Scandinavia, other parts of Europe still have areas of wilderness left, such as in the mountains of southern Europe. Reflecting this, Bulgaria, Finland and Norway all have a high proportion of Category I areas. In con- trast, countries such as Germany, Netherlands and UK, with little semi-natural vegetation left, tend to have large numbers of small reserves and large areas of protected landscapes, with few if any large Category I or II sites. The management and protection of most Category II areas in Europe is far from adequate. A recent report for the European Commission found that only about 10 per cent of the 200 protected areas in Western Europe which call themselves "national parks" truly attain the objec- tives for Category II areas as set by IUCN (Heiss, 1988). In Scandinavian national parks, for example, hunting is usually permitted. In Central and Southern Europe, cutting of natural forests for timber is common, and some parks are being planted with exotic timber spe- cies. Over-grazing is also a major problem, especially in Mediterranean countries. Some of the 200 "national parks" may be Category V protected landscapes (as in UK, for example) and others may need forms of traditional management to retain their biological diversity. But these are in the minority. The author of the EC Report, Heiss, believes that about two-thirds of the national parks could, and should, be managed to fulfil the objectives of Category II areas. Clearly great improvements are needed. The second main type of protected area used in Europe is the managed nature reserve (Category IV). Manage- mentis needed to maintain the biodiversity of these sites in Europe, for two main reasons. First, most ecosystems in Europe are greatly changed from their original con- dition; very often, human intervention has increased biodiversity by extending the amount of "edge" or tran- sition areas between plant communities. Second, many of the previous herbivores or carnivores are absent, and their effect has to be substituted. Habitats like heathlands, nature’s response to cutting and grazing in forests on the poor soils in parts of northern Europe, need grazing, cutting and even bum- ing to maintain their structure and floristic composition. Grasslands depend on grazing for their survival. Reed beds need regular cutting for thatch to prevent succes- sion to woodland. In each of these habitats, for centuries the traditional land management arrested the natural succession. As these forms of land use become no longer economic, the modern protected area manager has to mimic the tradi- tional land use by mowing, grazing, cutting or burning. The justification for doing so is to maintain the habitat because it is in danger of disappearing (e.g. heathland), because it is more species-rich than that which would 110 replace it (e.g. alpine meadows), or because it is the habitat of a rare specics (e.g. bittern in reed beds). In other cases the manager may wish to allow succes- sion. Even here, some management is often needed. For example, almost throughout Europe, deer populations are so high that forests are unable to regenerate without some culling of deer. The manager here is fulfilling the ecological role of the absent wolf, lynx and bear. In other cases, the manager may deviate the succession, for example by removing introduced trees to prevent them from seeding. The point is that the manager has to choose. In many cases Category IV reserves can be greatly improved by management, creating ecosystems of high interest and restoring values which have been lost. Indeed, some wildlife-rich habitats have been entirely created by human effort; in the Netherlands, for exam- ple, the Oostvaardesplassen nature reserve was created from the sea as part of the reclamation of polders and is now an outstanding wetland for birds. 2.4 Protected landscapes (Category V): A European specialty As a consequence of the long history of human settle- ment over much of Europe’s countryside, many areas contain outstanding landscapes fashioned by people but in harmony with nature. In such areas, the local com- munities have evolved over the centuries a balance with the natural world based upon traditional patterns of land use. This has resulted in a subtle blend of natural and cultural elements, exemplified by areas as diverse as the hills of Tuscany, the Cotswolds in UK and the Hungar- ian puzsta. These landscapes, which express the historic as well as the natural qualities of the continent, are one of Europe’s most distinctive features. Many of them are now protected. Particularly well developed are the 11 national parks of England and Wales (as outlined by Poore, 1992). These Category V areas cover nearly 10 per cent of England and Wales, are home to nearly 250,000 people, and have an annual budget of around US$70 million. The great value of protected landscapes, as recognized in the Lake District Declaration of 1987 (Anon, 1987), is that they provide models of sustainable living in harmony with nature, albeit usually at relatively low population densities. They are also vital "green lungs" for recreation, ata time when most Europeans live in cities. However, many protected landscapes provide little more than paper protection. For example, nature parks in Germany have no administration, no money, very small staffs and no legal status. Many were created by municipalities primarily to attract tourists, and contrib- ute little to conservation of nature or landscape. It is arguable that many of the nature parks, regional parks and regional nature parks in Europe are not genuine Category V protected areas at all, since they do not fulfil the objectives of that designation. Most protected landscapes were first set up primarily to conserve scenery rather than nature, and the degree of nature conservation varies greatly from one to an- other. While parts of some protected landscapes are run on lines comparable to Category II or IV areas, even in the well-run protected landscapes only a small part of the budget and effort is specifically for conservation of nature. Protected landscapes are important and reflect well the needs of Europe’s rich landscape heritage, but there is a danger of paper designations that offer no real additional protection. An upgrading of the approach is required, together with a deeper commitment to nature conservation in the existing protected landscapes. The development of some Europe-wide agreement or stand- ards to reinforce national efforts would be useful; at present several linked initiatives, including one of the Council of Europe, are considering such an agreement. 2.5 The great length of Europe’s coastline, and its diversity of coastal ecosystems, means that marine protected areas are particularly important in Europe. For marine purposes, CNPPA divides Europe into three: the Baltic Sea, the North East Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The account below summarizes reports prepared for the Caracas Congress on the Baltic (Esping and Grénqvist, 1991), on the North East Atlantic (Gubbay) and on the Mediterranean (Batisse and de Grissac). Marine protected areas The Baltic is one of the world’s smallest seas. It is almost entirely cut off from the open ocean and contains archipelagos of great natural interest. Esping and Grén- qvist divide it into 9 regions, and list 46 existing and 16 proposed marine protected areas, with at least one re- serve in each of the 9 regions. However, in Sweden, the country with perhaps the most developed conservation infrastructure in the region, only one of the reserves, Gullmar Fjord Marine Reserve, has proper manage- ment. In 1981 the Nordic Council of Ministers started a project to select Nordic Marine Reserves, and this work is now being revised. The Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area has established an environmental monitoring pro- gramme for the Baltic Sea. This Convention has re- cently been enlarged to cover the whole drainage basin of the Baltic and its designated experts also make rec- ommendations on the creation of protected areas. The North East Atlantic region includes the coasts of UK and Ireland, and the Atlantic coasts of Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain. All these countries have either established ma- rine protected areas or are considering doing so. How- ever, there are notable differences in the extent of the reserves and the level of protection afforded to them. At one extreme, the famous Wadden Sea on the coast of 111 Europe Denmark, Germany and Netherlands is well protected by national laws and by its designation as a Ramsar site. The UK has some marine protected areas, both existing and proposed, but only two of them have statutory protection. Further south, the French, Spanish and Por- tuguese coasts have only a few marine protected areas. The Azores and Canaries both have marine protected areas, but Madeira only has coastal reserves. The marine protected areas of the North East Atlantic cover only a negligible proportion of the total area. As Gubbay points out, a far more extensive network is needed to represent adequately all the various marine biogeographic regions and community types. In the Mediterranean marine region, Batisse and de Grissac report a doubling in the number of coastal and marine protected areas from 65 in 1981 to 127 in 1991. The total area now protected is over 1.7 million ha, divided between land (1.1m), wetland (0.4m) and ma- rine (0.2m). About 3000km or 6 per cent of the coastline is now protected. This good progress in the region is in part due to the work of the UNEP Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas and the implemen- tation of the Barcelona Convention. At least half the protected areas suffer from poor management and a lack of trained staff. Since 1990, the World Bank, within the framework of the Mediterra- nean Environment Technical Assistance Programme (METAP), has been assisting some of the southern and eastern countries of the Mediterranean in developing their networks of protected areas, institutions and leg- islation. Batisse and de Grissac are optimistic that de- spite great tourist pressures and problems of water pollution, "the beginning of the next millennium could see an amelioration of the environmental quality and a real conservation of species and habitats". For this to happen, thougi, more intensive regional cooperation and stronger international assistance will be necessary. 2.6 Other mechanisms to protect conservation sites: The link to regional planning Most land in Europe is in private ownership. Conserva- tionists have had to evolve a variety of mechanisms for working with private landowners. Many European countries have regulations to con- serve the habitats of officially protected plants and animals, even on private land, but in many cases it is unlikely the regulations are enforced (de Klemm, 1990). Also, much land is effectively conserved through own- ership by the military, by private or public forestry concerns, or for hunting. Some States have powers to buy land for nature conservation by compulsion. In at least two such coun- tries, France and Britain, this power has virtually never Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas been used, but in Sweden, the authorities do use com- pulsory purchase of private lands to establish national parks. Most States, however, have tended to evolve a variety of mechanisms for protecting key sites without forcing a change in ownership. In France, the local préfet (the central government representative in the departément) can issue orders es- tablishing an arrété de biotope to protect the site of any species on a special schedule prepared by the Govern- ment in Paris. The préfet may prohibit or regulate a wide range of activities, such as vehicle traffic, farming, drainage or construction, and no compensation is paid to the land-owner (de Klemm, 1990). One of the most developed systems of this kind is that of the Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in UK. These are wildlife sites designated by the relevant gov- ernment agency. Owners of a site have to consult with the conservation service before carrying out certain activities that could be harmful. In most cases, both sides reach agreement and the conservation service pays regular compensation thereafter. Where agreement can- not be reached, the owner may be forbidden to carry out those activities for a certain period of time. These forms of designation are vital to conservation. In UK, for example, it is mainly the SSSIs, rather than the national parks, that provide the main defence for sites important in wildlife. It is likely that forms of protection like these will be of increasing importance in the years to come. In particular, as the new democracies of Eastern and Central Europe restore land to former private owners, they may need to evolve mechanisms of this type. In Denmark, any destruction of certain habitats re- quires permission from the local authority, irrespective of who owns the land, and with no compensation if permission is refused. So far the regulations cover heath- land, salt marshes, peat bogs, lakes and watercourses (Koester, 1984). This is an ideal way to protect endan- gered habitats, enabling all their occurrences to be effectively "protected areas”. It is the most far-reaching piece of such legislation in Europe, but many countries, notably Germany, Austria and Switzerland, are devel- oping systems whereby land-owners are required to maintain certain habitat types on their land, often in return for compensation. In effect, Denmark is using this mechanism rather than conventional protected ar- eas to conserve rare habitats. These examples show that, as systems for conserving nature become more complex and developed, it be- comes more difficult to separate the protected areas part as a distinct sector. It is essential to see protected areas as an integral part of nature conservation policy, rather than as a sector of their own. Moreover, protected areas should also be integrated into the land-use policy and regional planning. And finally, it cannot be emphasized 112 too much that protected areas are not sufficient in them- selves to conserve nature: they must be backed up by planning and administration of land use for the whole country. 2.7 Evaluating the effectiveness of the protected areas The literature on protected areas in Europe is immense, but there seems to be little or no single evaluation of the effectiveness of Europe’s protected areas network, in terms of management and coverage. In many cases, information to do this is lacking. For example, virtually no countries have datasets on the extent to which their listed threatened plants are in protected areas. Data on the coverage of habitats, espe- cially in northern Europe, may be better and there are various Europe-wide regional studies, such as on heath- lands and on coastal dunes. Of particular importance is the European Community’s CORINE system, which provides several vital databases relevant to protected areas. From the available information, it can be concluded that: @ There are sharp differences in the coverage and management effectiveness of protected areas from one country to another. @ The part of Europe where the terrestrial protected area network seems to be least effective, in both coverage and management, is in Mediterranean countries, where species diversity is greatest. w@ Several countries in the European Community have inadequate systems. They include: Portugal, where almost all protected areas are under severe threat due to lack of political and social support, and are in danger of losing their natural vegetation. For example, broadleaved forests in protected areas are threatened by replacement with eucalyptus and pine. Only one national park has been established so far, and the legislative base is inadequate. Greece is one of Europe’s most biologically diverse countries but its protected areas are poorly staffed, often with part-time personnel, who have inadequate resources to look after the areas. The protected areas do not have their own administrations but come under local forest officers; most are not implemented on the ground, and some are in great danger. Also, the existing protected areas (such as Mt Olympus NP-3998ha) need to be extended and additional parks created. @ Outside the European Community, a country whose system is well below what is needed is Albania; it has an adequate legal base but staff are lacking and government regulations cannot be implemented on the ground. @ In much of Europe, there has been an emphasis, perhaps too strong an emphasis, on protected land- scapes (Category V areas) at the expense of areas set up primarily to protect nature. m The management of most Category II areas, the areas of most importance for conservation of nature, falls below acceptable international standards. @ Encouraging progress has been made on marine protected areas in the Baltic Sea and in the Mediter- ranean, though here, as elsewhere in the world, efforts lag behind those on land. With the exception of the Wadden Sea, the situation is very poor in the North-East Atlantic. @ Protected area networks have been developed at a national level, with little consideration given to a European perspective. The systems approach has not yet been taken at European (or EC) level, and monitoring of protected areas across Europe is in- adequate. 3. Additional protected areas required It might be thought that a small and crowded continent like Europe offers few opportunities for large new pro- tected areas. It is surprising to find that this is far from the case. Many countries are in fact planning substantial increases to their protected area systems. Prominent here are the new democracies of Eastern and Central Europe: Bulgaria plans two more national parks and marine parks, the Czech Republic and Slovakia both plan to expand their already extensive park networks, Hungary wants to create bilateral or trilateral parks with its neighbours, Poland will shortly create two new na- tional parks (Stolowe Mountain and Mazurian Lakes), and Romania is implementing its massive Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. This is encouraging but there has been little if any Europe-wide analysis of what areas should be added to the network. Studies and proposals that would contrib- ute to such an analysis include: m The "Ecological Bricks" proposal for Eastern and Central Europe, which describes 24 large areas pro- posed for protection (Anon, 1990); @ The IUCN/WWF Centes of Plant Diversity Project, which is identifying large areas that should be pro- tected for their plant wealth, especially in the plant- rich Mediterranean countries; @ Published directories of Important Bird Areas (Grimmett & Jones, 1989) and of wetlands (Carp, 1980), covering sites both large and small. As for the type of protected areas needed, throughout the continent the greatest need is a major extension of Category II national parks, and possibly changing some Category V sites to the management standards of Europe Categories I to IV. In future, the typical national park in Europe may have a remote core area, managed as Cate- gory I (no visitors) and/or Category II (visitors permit- ted), some Category IV managed nature reserves (e.g. alpine meadows in the mountains, heath lands in North- ern European lowlands), and the whole surrounded by a protected landscape of Category V. As part of the follow-up to the Caracas Action Plan, TUCN and FNNPE are planning a critical review of which additional areas in Europe should be protected, principally as large Category II national parks. In gen- eral, further protected areas are most needed in the Mediterranean region (though Bulgaria has particularly good representation of Mediterranean and sub-Mediter- ranean areas), as Outlined by Ramade (1990). For ex- ample, in Greece, one could suggest the large area from the Rhodopi Mountains to the Nestos Delta. In France and Italy, one could suggest a large transboundary park for the Maritime Alps, extending from Argentera NaP in Italy and Mercantour NP in France. Not only in the Mediterranean, however, are more protected areas needed. Ireland has a protected area estate of only 6 sites on the UN List totalling 29,474ha, 0.4 per cent of the country (but soon to increase to about 40,000ha, plus small nature reserves amounting to about another 14,000ha). As Table 1 shows, this is still much less than any other comparably sized country in Europe. What appears to be needed are (a) a considerable ex- pansion in the network of nature reserves, either as Category I or IV areas, (b) one or more large national parks on the European continental model, and (c) the creation of a complementary system of Category V protected landscapes. A particularly important area is the Burren, the largest area of limestone pavement in Wester Europe and a unique plant site. A small portion of it, 1300ha, has recently been made a national park, but some degree of protection is needed for its whole 52,000ha. Other key areas in Northern Europe where better protection is needed include: @ The coniferous forests in Norway. At present only small areas of Norway’s coniferous forests are pro- tected. Only about 100,000ha (1.5 per cent) of po- tentially productive coniferous forest is believed to remain more or less untouched; Parliament recently decided to protect only 28,000ha of this, a portion considered insufficient by biologists and conserva- tionists. ag The Flow Country (UK). A large area of flat and gently undulating peat bogs in north Scotland, the largest expanse of such bog in the world. In the late 1970s, foresters started planting a dense carpet of non-native trees on a large scale. By 1988 they had planted 60,000ha and are permitted to plant a further 40,000ha—in all about a quarter of the whole area. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Europe % area % area established established up to 1962 1962-1971 Albania 13.0 87.0 Andorra 0.0 0.0 Austnia 61.0 6.9 Belgium 5.2 0.0 Bulgaria 20.9 19.3 Czechoslovakia 2 16.4 Denmark 18.4 43 Estonia 26.5 34.3 Faeroe Is 0.0 0.0 Finland 58.7 0.0 France 0.0 30.5 Germany 18.3 46.9 Gibraltar 0.0 0.0 Greece 11.0 21.3 Hungary 0.3 1.6 Iceland 0.5 19.2 Treland 26.2 0.0 Italy 13.6 6.3 Latvia 16.6 0.9 Liechtenstein 0.0 0.0 Lithuania 0.0 0.0 Luxembourg 0.0 0.0 Malta 0.0 0.0 Monaco 0.0 0.0 Netherlands 13.9 2?) Norway 0.5 22.0 Poland 4.6 24?) Portugal 0.0 13.4 Romania 10.3 0.2 San Marino 0.0 0.0 Spain 2.3 26.5 Svalbard-Jan Mayen 0.0 0.0 Sweden 14.6 13.0 Switzerland 100.0 0.0 UK 41.4 16.9 Vatican City 0.0 0.0 Yugoslavia (Former) 35.6 14.5 Total 15.4 20.9 % area % area Date Total established _ established established area 1972-1981 1982-1991 unknown ___ designated 0.0 0.0 215 445 0.0 0.0 0 0 12.2 20.0 2,009 21,184 0.0 94.8 0 71 9.5 50.4 0 2,614 57.1 21.3 0 20,587 40.8 36.5 397 4,093 36.3 3.0 0 3,595 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 41.3 0 8,504 45.1 24.4 256 53,001 20.2 14.6 1,246 87,806 0.0 0.0 0 0 46.0 21.7 0 1,025 63.8 34.3 0 5,769 78.3 2.0 0 9,155 7.0 66.8 0 386 18.8 61.3 102 20,083 64.8 17.6 0 1,746 0.0 100.0 0 60 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 61.5 22.5 623 3,525 50.2 27.3 0 16,093 35.0 58.1 0 22,417 57.0 29.6 0 5,598 1.2 88.3 89 10,886 0.0 0.0 0 0 20.3 50.9 69 35,043 100.0 0.0 0 34,910 31.1 41.3 537 29,604 0.0 0.0 7,360 7,528 27.7 14.0 0 46,354 0.0 0.0 0 0 24.0 25.9 12 7,877 36.1 27.6 12,918 460,672 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are included. Similar tables can be produced based on number of sites rather than area covered. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size has occured, or a change in designation, this may distort the figures Note: This table was prepared prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and the changes in former Yugoslavia. 4. Protected area institutions In Europe the institutions responsible for protected area management vary greatly from one country to another. In some countries, protected areas are the responsibility of central government, but in others, such as Germany and Austria, the system is highly decentralized. There is also a split between landscape conservation and nature conservation, with two separate systems in parallel in some countries. The two systems often had different origins, landscape conservation tending to have emerged from a desire to protect landscapes and so provide recreation opportunities and encourage rural development. 114 Protected area institutions in southern Europe tend to be weaker than those in Northern Europe. Institutions in the former often have inadequate laws, structures or budgets with which to combat serious threats to their sites. In Eastern and Central Europe, with the severe decline in the economies, protected area agencies are having to reduce staff and retrench their activities. 4.1 Decentralization As in other parts of the world, many European countries are decentralizing their administrations. This is both an opportunity and a danger for protected areas. It is an opportunity for conservation because it is often easier at local level than at national level to integrate conser- vation into regional land-use planning systems, and to bring the administration of conservation "nearer the people”. Spain shows the benefits of decentralization. After the restoration of democracy, many government func- tions were passed to the Autonomous Communities. In the environmental field, only national parks and na- tional hunting reserves remain under the control of the national government in Madrid. This has released crea- tive energy into finding new forms of safeguarding nature and landscapes, as the experiences of Andalucia and the Canary Islands show. Decentralization may also facilitate cooperation be- tween governmental and non-governmental agencies over protected areas. For example, the regional nature parks in France bring together the national government, the departément administration and local bodies, such as the Chambers of Commerce. Local interests are fully represented right from the beginning. A danger, however, is that the local authorities may not have sufficient trained personnel to take on their responsibilities. It may be difficult (or virtually impos- sible as in the case of Austria) for decentralized nations to fulfil their obligations under international conven- tions if the central government cannot ensure the pro- tection of certain areas. Also, the protected areas can be harder to defend against external threats, de-gazetting even, than if they are created by the national govern- ment. Local communities may not always appreciate the international importance of some of the assets they hold. To encourage broad support, central government and international agreements (such as EC Directives) should specify what needs to be protected at international level and provide financial support so that local communities are not disadvantaged. Ideally, sites of international and national importance should be established by the national government, even if regional institutions are charged with their manage- ment. Likewise, regional institutions (provinces, can- tons or lander) should themselves be encouraged to develop sites of regional importance, working with 115 Europe local administrations. A national system for identifying national priorities, partnership between different levels, devolved responsibility for regional planning and pro- tected area management, proper resourcing at all levels, and arrangements for monitoring and review, are essen- tial elements of protected area planning and manage- ment in a country with a decentralized constitution. 4.2 Astrong voluntary sector As part of the growth in environmental awareness, the membership of voluntary conservation groups grew at astronomical rates in the 1980s, in some cases at 20-30 per cent per year. Today, in Britain and Denmark, as many as 1 in 10 citizens belong to conservation groups. And in Eastern and Central Europe, popular environ- mental groups were at the forefront of calls for demo- cratic reform. Yet in Mediterranean countries, member- ship of conservation groups still remains small, for example less than 1 in 250 in Greece. As a result, conservation groups in the north enjoy political muscle, especially as their memberships now often exceed that of political parties. The pressure they have been able to exert has helped tighten laws on protected areas and removed some of the more flagrant threats that may have been tolerated a decade before. Support groups have been set up for individual pro- tected areas and a growing band of volunteers do prac- tical conservation work. Some conservation groups have bought nature reserves. Conservation groups can provide a cost-effective way for government to implement conservation policies. For example, government grants enable the Swiss League for the Protection of Nature to acquire nature reserves. The Swiss League is also a partner with the Federal Government in running the Swiss NP, and provides many of the wardens. 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas Table 6 shows the information currently available to WCMC on levels of state financing to protected areas in Europe. It also shows, however, that it is very difficult to separate spending on protected areas from spending on nature conservation in general, especially in coun- tries with sophisticated and complex nature conservation systems. Some of the figures are probably misleading for this reason. Nevertheless, the figures show dramatic differences across the region. On the one hand UK spends over US$150m per year on protected areas, yet Greece spends about $1m per year, giving a per capita difference of about 30:1. Clearly protected areas in some Mediterra- nean countries are grossly underfunded: a UNEP study found that in many protected areas in the Mediterranean there is a budget for staff and other running expenses, but virtually no money for investment (Ramade, 1990). Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas The leading economies in Europe—France, Germany, Italy and UK—tend to provide about US$2-6 million annually for each national park. With a budget of US$6 million, Bayerischer Wald NP (Germany) (13,100ha) receives the highest park budget in Europe. However, a large budget does not guarantee effective protection. The Swiss NP (16,087ha), on a budget of US$700,000 a year, achieves a very high standard of protection, while Calabria NP (Italy), which is about the same size (15,892ha) and has similar problems, achieves a much lower standard on US$2 million a year. In many European parks, the lion’s share of the budget is taken up with measures which may not be urgent. For exam- ple, in Stelvio NP (Italy), nearly all the annual invest- ment of US$1.2 million is spent on maintaining paths. A large part of the budget in French parks in the Alps is spent on research into attractive, but not threatened, animal species. Few European protected areas charge for entry, but this could be a good option for Mediterranean countries, taking advantage of the massive numbers of tourists each year and the boom in nature tourism experienced in other parts of the world. Greece, for example, only charges entrance for the Samaria Gorge NP, which may have received as much as US$650,000 in 1991 from entrance fees. In some cases, national parks have brought strong economic benefits to the region. Tassi (1991) relates the case of Abruzzo NP (Italy), where the bears and wolves have proved a great attraction. One small village, Civitella Alfedena, was almost abandoned 20 years ago, but now has a growing economy and emigrants are returning. According to Tassi, some US$4.2m of park budget developed a local economic impact of US$170m, cre- ating over 100 jobs in the park itself and about 1000 more in related activities. 6. Human capacity in protected areas management 6.1 Staffing of protected areas As with levels of financing, there are large differences from one country to another. Some countries, for exam- ple, have no rangers in their national parks. Others, in contrast, not only have large paid staffs but also systems of volunteers. For example, the British Trust for Con- servation Volunteers has over 50,000 volunteers each year, working in over 3000 sites, many of them pro- tected areas. In most countries, though, staffing to protect the natural heritage has lagged behind staffing to protect the cultural heritage. Especially in Mediterranean coun- tries, a knowledge of nature is not regarded as part of the cultural awareness of citizens. Nature conservation is too often an interest of hobbyists and specialists, not 116 of the general public, and this is reflected in staffing levels. 6.2 Training opportunities and needs The extent of the protected area network in Europe and the number of staff required to manage them have increased in the past decade and techniques for resource and visitor management have become much more so- phisticated. As a result, more training is needed in a broad range of skills, from management planning to community relations, from languages to information technology. Yet current provision of training is patchy. Specialist degrees and technical courses in conservation manage- ment are still relatively rare. Provision for in-service training is ad hoc and training opportunities are seldom available for all the staff. Best provided for are rangers and guides: Belgium, Denmark, France and UK all offer special training. In England and Wales, the Countryside Commission has promoted a national training policy (Countryside Commission, 1989) and the National Park Authorities have adopted targets for improving training for all their staff (Association of National Park Officers, 1989), but such broad initiatives are uncommon. Numerous conferences and seminars—tegional, na- tional or internationai—are held but are mostly attended by senior staff. In 1990-1, a "travelling" European Protected Area Managers Seminar for senior managers was organized by Wye College (UK). Training courses are generally run regionally or nationally, for example the Alelier technique in France develops training for the staff of the parcs nationaux (L’ Atelier techniques des espaces naturels, 1991). Study visits and exchanges have much potential for exchanging information and developing expertise but are not well used at presentand to date most have been organized informally. For a number of years FNNPE has promoted short-term staff exchanges between parks, but few have taken place because staff time is short, financial resources are rarely available for them and the language barrier is an ever- present difficulty. In summary, as expressed in various FNNPE confer- ence resolutions, European protected areas have a grow- ing number of training needs which are not yet fully matched by training opportunities. 7. Major protected area issues in the region 7.1. Pressures on protected areas The natural wealth of Europe is under threat and the protected areas do not escape these pressures. Accord- ing to the results of an FNNPE questionnaire, a majority of national park managers believe that ecological con- ditions in protected areas in Europe have deteriorated over the last ten years. ‘soils JO SuNsy] pue Dduaroype jo sayep Suipmesai Jeg[OUN SasBd IWOS UT SI UONENIS JUALMS oY} BY) UBSUL BIAB[SOSN A JOULOY IY) PUB UOIUL) 191AOG JULIO} ON 0g UI ‘adamy UT souBYo FeonTOd us00y 7 ‘(Btae]so8n xX ) PUYC *(BLAE[sOIN J) NOY *(209a19) WODAj *(20001D) soupy INO] ‘(20ueI{) afeq Bs 10/ABg SII puB fOYOIA-WUIES-IUOW] :are ‘3[qQeI DAOge aI UI Popn[oUuT Usaq 10U JABY YOTYM ‘sais soy] ‘UO saImBay [ENIEU UBIN Joylel “UONOBIAUT aNjeu/UEW ap Woy SuNJNsar Amba JO SIseq 2p UO Ing ‘aBEILIOH PIJOAA JOIST] Ot UO pogisosu aue saps [eMy[No/feIMBU POXTU INO “| :SaON Europe ¥60'81 LL61 Yue] 000'002 SLO AEW (c18aua uo] 29 BIQI9G) BIAR[SOSN 861 Ae wop3ury poruy SL61 Jequindas PUuBLZIMs C861 Arenuer U2pPemMs 7861 AB ureds é BIUSADIS 1661 4990199, ouuey] UBS 0661 ABW BIUBWIOY 0861 Jequiadag [88m30q 9L61 Sung puzjog LL61 Ae ABm10n] 7661 isn3ny spuepompon 861 Joquianoyy ooBuopy 8261 J9qQuIdA0N] Bye €861 J2quiades Zinoquiaxny] 7661 YorBAy BrueNyNT] = Ula}sUN YsoIT] 8P88Z1 LLT SIZ 9L61 Arenuey 8S7' bb = 6b0'L 9L61 Arenues OL8‘9T = OSL'78E PL61 12qQuis90q 00596 L80LOEZ 861'Z01 7861 ABW LLT9IL = oss 1661 oune = 000'L¥9 1661 toquindag 897'b19 69b9E ZLB8IE €9¢'0€ 0861 J2qQuianony - = WIL LLOI 2Quiaaon] EZPLISI = 9ST 91 PL6l Aine c98zs SIOZIE 0861 SEW 6LE07 = 4 4 at COPETOT 7 = IT 8861 Joquiaidas SL = 74 OSE = = loooo 1o7rO7 O72 O0N = 101 1661 J2quiaceq é BIAIET] 8261 aun¢ Aye] 1661 J9quindag purjaly = puelao] 86 Aing AreSuny 7861 2290199 aog AJOH 1861 Aing aooalQ 961 isnsny Ausuiion SL61 oung 20UBL] L861 YY pugyulj b wUoIsy 6L6I Ainge yreurusq 0661 Joquianony BIYBAO]SOYDEZ>) - é BLEOIE 0s6'9s 9161 42quiaseq 86L'E 8rss 8Z0'EI $861 J2qQU2AON, 808'8 = 00S'LS LL61 J9qQuia90q] - - 68€'0I1 6L61 Udy 88'8Z1 LEST6I 00+ LOI SL6Lasn3ny O88 6ELbZE 695'099 9L61 Arenuge.4 Ore BSI'I IPL6IS SEL Et 9861 19q010Q EBS'SLS = Eve 101 PLol Avy 000'0SE = vE9' 8b : d 000'09S'T GOSZ6L 89F' PEL LL61 toquiandag = ce 85691 0661 Aing 8ZL'79S = SUZ , 1661 2990100 000'0ST 661 Ang BIwAlD = L60'% SL61 Jequiadag 107 Sz PL6l YOR euBsing - t 4 BulA039zD}//EIUSO g S0EZEZP L09'6 9861 yore - a = umnig}oq = 8ZS'Z01 7861 Joquiaceg 009'LZ wasny 96 = = = suopuy = = = - 6861 Aing mUBqIY nIinn RAD 1 ee onn Ne Ooo o-mocoooco!1coo Biy ‘ON way ‘ON Bay ‘ON Bay (By) BIy ‘ON 28q (By) Bary ‘ON (By) BIW ‘ON 278q Buojdiq SdA1IS9Y SVdS SVdS uoljuaAu0; Saclay a1aydsoig 338}113}] PIJOMA c (U0) anjauasorg dann OIC | (SpueyjaA4) TeswieY edoing :suolNuaAuod jeuo!6es/jeuo!jeusaju! 0} BDUaJOUPY “pb 2108. 117 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 4a. Adherence by European countries to regional treaties relevant to protected areas Nordic Rhine Helsinki Barcelona Albania n-a n-a 1990 n-a xX Andorra n-a n-a n-a n-a * Austria n-a n-a n-a n-a (R) Belgium n-a n-a n-a n-a XX. (R) Bosnia/Herzegovina n-a n-a * n-a - * Bulgaria n-a n-a n-a n-a XX ®) Croatia n-a n-a te n-a * * Czechoslovakia n-a n-a n-a n-a XX XX Denmark 05.10.76 03.05.80 n-a n-a 01.11.83 01.01.83 Estonia n-a n-a n-a Finland (R) n-a n-a France n-a 02.10.86 01.02.79 Germany n-a .05. n-a 01.02.79 01.10.84 Greece n-a 25.02.87 n-a (P) Holy See n-a n-a = * Hungary n-a n-a n-a (R) Iceland n-a n-a n-a Ireland n-a n-a n-a Italy n-a 23.03.86 n-a XX 01.11.83 01.11.83 Latvia n-a n-a n-a XX XX Liechtenstein n-a n-a n-a XX (R) Lithuania n-a n-a n-a XX XX 01.08.82 01.06.82 01.02.79 Luxembourg n-a n-a Malta Monaco Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania San Marino Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Yugoslavia Key: Nordic: Nordic Environmental Protection Convention (1984) Helsinki: Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1974) Barcelona: Convention on the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, Protocol conceming Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas (Convention 1976, Protocol 1982) Rhine: Convention on the Protection of the Rhine Against Chemical Pollution (1976) Bonn: Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979) Bern: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979) (R): Country has ratified (S): (A): n-a: * XX country is a signatory ‘not applicable’ n-a n-a n-a (R) n-a n-a n-a n-a n-a n-a (R) n-a n-a n-a (R) (S) n-a n-a n-a n-a n-a * * 22.01.88 n-a n-a n-a (R) Indicates data not available to WCMC at present not party to the agreement 118 n-a n-a 01.02.79 n-a n-a n-a n-a n-a n-a n-a n-a (R) n-a n-a 01.11.83 XX XX XX (R) XX 01.11.83 XX n-a n-a 01.11.83 (R) XX 01.11.84 XX 01.07.82 XX XX 01.06.82 R) XX 01.06.82 Originally covered by the USSR’s ratifications of Ramsar (11.10.76), World Heritage (12.10.88) and Helsinki; Since many protected areas in Europe are small, they are particularly vulnerable to damage. Some 40 per cent of national parks are less than 10,000ha in size, and 88 per cent less than 100,000ha (Heiss, 1991). CNPPA has identified 15 protected areas in Europe as threatened (Thorsell, 1990). However, protected area professionals in the region feel that most protected areas in Europe are under some degree of pressure and threat. The 15 are in a sense the "tip of the iceberg". The following examples indicate the range and scale of the threats. Agricultural activities. Agricultural intensification has been a threat to many protected landscapes, and may be an increasing threat in eastern, central and southern Europe, in some cases promoted by EC funding. Air pollution. Most protected areas in southern Scandinavia suffer from acid rain caused by emissions, principally from other countries. Scandinavian coun- tries suffer particularly badly since their bedrock is predominantly of granite and gneiss. In Eastern and Central Europe, damage to some parks has been very severe due to local pollution from electric power sta- tions, as at Krkonose NP (Czech Republic and Poland), as well as from transboundary pollution. Dam construction. Protected areas under threat from the construction of sluices and dams include Mercantour NP (France), Montezinho NaP (Portugal), Vicos Aoos, Pindos and Mikra Prespa NPs (Greece), and Pieniny NP (Poland). Forest exploitation. Legal and illegal felling causes damage to many protected areas, especially in Central and Southern Europe. Particularly threatened are the National parks in former East Germany, Biikk NP (Hungary), Stelvio NP (Italy) and woodland national parks in Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. Forest fires are on the increase in Mediterranean countries, partly because of the increased susceptibility of conifer plantations to fire, as in Estrela NaP (Portugal). Hunting, ranching and grazing. | Many protected areas suffer from not being able to regulate hunting as much as they would wish. This is particularly the case in Italy, where the Italian Bird Protection League esti- mates that as many as 150 million small birds may be shot each year. Hunting is allowed in Austrian parks and of some game species in 14 of Norway’s 21 national parks. Reindeer farming is a problem in national parks in North Scandinavia, with associated over-grazing, use of vehicles and fencing. In Mediterranean countries, erosion caused by over-grazing is serious, as at Mercan- tour NP (France), Oiti NP (Greece) and Peneda-Geres NP (Portugal). Invasive species. | European ecosystems are relatively resistant to invasive species introduced from other coun- tries. Yet some parks are under threat, for example Killarney NP (Ireland), which is heavily invaded by Rhododendron ponticum, and Peneda-Geres NP (Portugal), where Acacia dealbata from Australia is 119 Europe defeating efforts to eradicate it. False acacia (Robinia pseu- dacacia) is a troublesome pest in Central Europe. Military activities. See section 7.5, below. An ex- ample of a park threatened by military activities is Dartmoor NP (UK), where a large part of the moorland is used for military testing, including live firing. Other threatened parks include Dovrefjell NP (Norway) and Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer (Germany). Mining. Numerous protected areas suffer from min- ing and quarrying. In Cevennes NP (France), there are quarries within the park and uranium mining on the border. Alvao and Arrabida NaPs (Portugal) have open quarries. Transport links. Road-building programmes can be immensely damaging, both inside and outside protected areas. This is, for example, now the most serious threat to semi-natural areas in southern England. Water extraction. Lowering of the water table has affected large parts of Europe, and not only wetlands. For example, Kiskunsag NP (Hungary) suffers from a lowered water-table. Water extraction in river deltas, often for irrigated agriculture, threatens vital wetlands like the famous Cota Dofiana NP in Spain. Water pollution. Several vital Mediterranean coastal parks are close to industrial plants; flamingoes in the Camargue RNaP & NR have been contaminated by heavy metals and other chemicals in the River Rhone. Oil slicks have nearly caused catastrophes to other coastal protected areas. In Central Europe, eutrophica- tion caused by extensive use of fertilizers threatens aquatic life in streams and rivers. Particularly badly affected is Circeo NP (Italy). War and violence. It has been reported that protected areas were damaged by the fighting in Croatia in 1991— 2, in particular that the Kopacki rit Special Zoological Reserve, a unique wetland and bird sanctuary, has heen destroyed. As in the war over Kuwait in 1990-1, dam- age to the fragile ecology of the region is often a consequence of war and the present conflict in former Yugoslavia is bound to threaten protected areas and nature as well as human life. 7.2 The special case of tourism Tourism has grown at astonishing rates in the last ten years, especially on the fragile Mediterranean coast. The World Tourism Organization forecasts a continued annual growth of 3-4.5 per cent and the World Bank a doubling of tourists in the Mediterranean by 2025. Tourists, jaded from crowded beaches and fearful of sun-bathing because of the increasing risk of skin can- cer, may turn in mass towards Europe’s wilderness areas. Some of the severest problems have been in Mediter- ranean countries, for example protecting the turtle beaches on the Greek island of Zakynthos. Motorcycles, 4-wheel Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas drive vehicles and snow-mobiles can be a problem in sensitive areas, especially in northern Scandinavia. Often, however, the most severe damage is caused not by the visitors themselves but by the accompanying facilities, such as hotels, guest houses, restaurants and roads. The infrastructure associated with downhill skiing can be particularly damaging, as at Krkonose (Giant Moun- tains) NP (Czech Republic), Triglav NP (Slovenia) and Vanoise NP (France). Other parks acutely threatened by tourist developments include Pyrénees-Occidentales (Spain), Pallas-Ounastunturi (Finland), Peneda-Geres (Portugal), Circeo (Italy) and protected areas in the German part of the Waddensea. An FNNPEstudy on sustainable tourism (1993), con- cludes that many current forms of tourism in and around protected areas are damaging and therefore cannot be sustained. Yet tourism is both a threat and an opportu- nity. The report argues for new forms of sustainable tourism that would benefit conservation and local com- munities. It calls on protected area managers to take a Table 5. World Heritage sites in Europe Bulgaria Pirin National Park Srebama Nature Reserve Croatia Plitvice Lakes National Park France Cape Girolata, Cape Porto & Scandola NR (Corsica) Mont-Saint-Michel and its bay Greece Meteora Group of Monasteries Mount Athos Poland Bialowieza National Park (with Belarus) Romania Danube Delta Slovenia Skocjan Caves Spain Garajonay National Park UK Giant’s Causeway St. Kilda Yugoslavia Durmitor National Park Kotor Ohrid Five of these sites (Mont-Saint-Michel and its bay, Mount Athos, Meteora, Kotor and Ohrid) are mixed natural/cultural sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty resulting from man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. 120 more positive attitude to tourism and to cooperate more closely with tourist agencies, so as to encourage sustain- able tourism and deter inappropriate tourism. 7.3 Coping with change in Eastern and Central Europe The dramatic changes in Central and Eastern Europe have created great opportunities for conservation but also pose dangers, because of the rapid development now likely in agriculture, trade and tourism. In Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, the new governments inherited extensive and well-planned protected area systems, in some cases more extensive and better managed than comparable areas in western Europe (for details see IUCN, 1990b, 1990c and 1991). The Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—also had good systems, much of them created before the Soviet takeover in 1945, but progress had been slowed down by the enforcement of Soviet standards. In former Yugoslavia, protected areas were always managed by the individual Republics, and never had strong federal coordination; standards varied greatly from one Republic to another. In Albania and Romania, the poor economic situation had precluded the develop- ment of effective protected area systems. As early as the 1970s, some of the countries had started creating protected landscapes, mainly for recrea- tion purposes, since citizens could not easily leave the country for holidays. Although some parts of the coun- tries were (and still are) appallingly polluted by heavy industry, large areas of attractive countryside, with some natural and much semi-natural vegetation, remained. Today, the new conservation authorities face strong forces that could jeopardize their protected areas. The governments are keen to decentralize their administra- tions, but there is not yet the management expertise at the local level. The countries all need hard currency and may come under pressure to sell off natural resources, such as timber, in a non-sustainable way. Equally seri- ous is the possibility of privatization: the previous gov- ernments took much of the land for the protected areas illegally, and there is great pressure to restore land to the former owners or to compensate them. Doing so will be extremely difficult in some cases: for example, in Bulgaria, there were about half a million owners of forest before land was nationalized in 1948, with on average only about lha each. At one time it looked as though national parks would be broken up, but Hungary, for example, has now decided to keep the parks in state ownership; in Slovakia, only about a third of the High Tatra NP will be returned to the communes; in Estonia new park laws have proscribed reclaim by previous owners; in the Czech Republic a fund is being planned to secure continued state ownership of pro- tected area land that would otherwise revert to private owners. At a meeting in Hungary, in May 1991, organized by FNNPE with support from WWF and IUCN, delegates from Central and Eastern European countries outlined the priority needs of their protected areas and identified opportunities for external assistance. Overall, a much greater proportion of aid, bilateral and multilateral, should be spent on nature conservation. And if the countries need funds to buy out the previous owners of national parks, where the owners were illegally dispos- sessed of their land, western governments should con- tribute generously. It would be tragic to lose key parts of existing protected areas at this promising and critical time. Nevertheless, some protected area systems in the "East" are older, more extensive and in places better managed than comparable areas in the "West". What most countries in the "East" need, therefore, is not advice but equipment and funds. Indeed, the "West" can learn much from them. For this reason, fewer "western" experts should be sent "East" and more policy-makers and park managers from the "East" invited to visit the "West" and to learn for themselves about what works well for protected areas in a free-market economy and what does not. 7.4 Benefiting from a surplus of farmland The 12 countries of the European Community produce so much food that they propose to remove some 15 per cent of their arable land from agriculture. The land will not be evenly spread throughout the Community, but will be mainly concentrated in the cereal-producing regions of northern Europe. In France, for example, it may be as much as 3—5Sm ha. Similar policies may be needed outside the Community; for example, Sweden plans to reduce farmland by 500,000ha. Conservationists believe that the best option for na- ture would be a reduction in the intensity of farming, rather than taking land out of cultivation. In fact this is beginning to happen: the level of subsidies is now decreasing, encouraging farmers to farm less inten- sively, with beneficial effects on nature. Furthermore, under the EC’s Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) scheme, farmers in certain regions are now being paid subsidies to farm in traditional ways that do not harm wildlife, like refraining from the use of pesticides and artificial fertilizers. UK, for example, has just agreed to treble the area of ESAs to over 1 million ha, and to increase the environmental subsidies to them to US$116m per annum by 1994, taken from the agriculture budget. Other EC Member States, such as Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Netherlands, are following this approach. However, large areas of land will undoubtedly be taken out of agriculture, either temporarily or perma- nently under "set-aside" schemes. Wherever possible, priority should be given to land in areas of importance for conservation, in particular so as to extend nature reserves and other protected areas. Focussing set-aside 121 Europe on the buffer zones of protected areas could stop much of the damage caused to those areas by the drift of agricultural chemicals, and could allow those areas to expand and thus increase the chances that all their species survive in the long term. The reduction in the amount of land needed for farm- ing in Europe is mirrored by similar reductions in land needed for timber, fuelwood, rough grazing and other uses. Indeed, all over Europe the observant traveller sees land returning to nature. Overall, Europe is moving into an era of immense opportunities for nature conser- vation, opportunities matched in few other regions of the world. But all these opportunities will only be used to best advantage if done to a coherent strategy. The lack of such a broad land-use strategy for conservation and sustainable development is a major impediment. 7.5 Creating a peace dividend for conservation A similar trend may occur with the thousands of hec- tares of military land in Europe. France alone has 300,000ha which no-one outside the forces can enter. With the collapse of the divide between east and west, most European countries are now planning or imple- menting substantial reductions in their armies, navies and air forces. In fact some of the best natural areas in Europe are held by the military. Prevention of access by citizens has permitted enclaves of natural vegetation to remain in areas of great agricultural change. Good examples are the Evros Delta (Greece) and Salisbury Plain (UK). Some Ministries of Defence have conservation officers, often with considerable powers over how the military look after their large land holdings. The opportunities are perhaps greatest in the coun- tries of Eastern and Central Europe. For example, a staggering 8 per cent of the former East Germany was used by the military. As the troops return home, conser- vationists are finding some areas in which nature had recovered well (e.g. the former Soviet bases in Ralsko and Mlada in the Czech Republic) and others in which it had been protected in a near pristine state (e.g a 7000ha piece of Hungarian puzsta grassland in Horto- bagy NP, which had not been grazed for 40 years). In others, however, the departing military have left behind vast amounts of pollution, in particular from untreated sewage, oil and aviation fuel. In the most acute cases, health concerns and the danger of unexploded muni- tions may prevent human access for decades. 7.6 The value of frontier and transboundary parks In Europe, frontiers are often in remote areas, such as mountain ranges, in which the natural ecological unit is in both countries. As a result, frontier and transboun- dary parks are of particular importance in Europe. They are also a visible symbol of peace and cooperation between nations. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas ‘(uorT!g Sre'z 2D) amutpuadxe fendes pue (uo 119 an]) aim tpusdxa Suto3uo useMmIeq paplalp ‘ami pusdxa [eUSUTUOMAUD ALIS (aim puadxe [eUsUTUON AUD UO UOT 970'¢ A117] JO [B01 B Wa) sooulaoid pure suorgal [[e Ul UONeAIISUOD aNyeU UO aNpudsdxa [e10 | “syed [euoneu 201) ay) JO} sisoo SuTUUMY Sapog aatisedsai Woy svare po}soioid Joy 1a3pnq jo aeumMso UNUT XE] Bae pasajoid A]Uo ayy Jo UONeUsIsap oI 0) Joud (suopred oqnd SuIpnyour) UotTealasuco adedspug] pue amyeu UO amIpusdxs smmnNsuos (v€9'L9SN$) 000°ST + SOIWA St (QuowAed uotyesusdwioo pure jusuidojanap pur uor -Basaid ‘uonismboe pur] Surpnyout) sarpog ayeis-uou Aq yep BuIpnyout ‘uonealosaid adeospur| pus uotjsq)a1d amyeu Jo uonowoid uo 2m) -Ipuadxe ay] “seare uonsaqoid amyeu uo ammipusdxe ajes [210) DU st STU], “syed yeuorga1 uo amypusdxs Surpnyout a8equoy [emyeu sy) Sun oHo1d uo ampusdxo [RO], SoAloSal aINyeU JO] Jo3pnq |enuuy *swred [Buoryeu 10 193pnq aes |enUUY ‘seare palsaioid Joy yo8png “seare pajsajaid 10} jospng “uonoajaid aimyeu 10] 1a3png *S]SOO JUDWISBUBUL 9AIDSII UMO Toy} 1200 diay 01 SOON 01 Aptsqns jeuondo ue sked yorym ‘syaioy 19 xneo sop uoTeNsTUIUpY ol] se Yons suonesiue do Aq sjues3 jo uorstacid ain Aq poyeoyduioo st uonemis [euotTeU ay], “spoou jUSWIa Seu pure oseyaind jusuidinbs Joy saruowpne aasasal 0] poreoole ae 44g UOT QT 2Wos Yorym Jo ‘Uonsajaid amreu Joy SuTpuNy [eIO at saIMNSUOD 18a X 000'ZLE'8E 000'088'981'T 000'S69'7 000°91L'9T 000'76S'Z O00'TSL'T 000'910'8Z quayeainba = Adua.ind jeuoneu ul jaspng aenod Sn Bruen] dHO Ula|sua}YOoI] BLATT “LLI 000'000'000'720'€ quauluomAUg amp Jo Anstuy] — (aes) Ape] “LLI 000'000'000' ST (saoutaoid pure suor3a1) Aye] dal purlauy MSI 000'rET [lounoD uonealasuos amyeny — puryacy dNH Axe3unyy uD 000'000'00z Qd1Alag Salo, — 990015) dID 000'00€ [ounoD Aouralasuod amen — (se1[2IgI) TeIeIqI (enreychisay /2uTY-YUON) Jo oyqnday [e1ape.y ‘AueuLaH WA 000'989'89 (syed Jeuor3ax) sour] dud 000'00S' FI (SoAlosad aim eU) JOUR] Aad 000°6E6 68 (syzed feuoneu) sours] WIA purjuty Spurys] 2018.4 B1uolsy Wad yreuusq ASD 000'000'rL (o1jqndoy yeao[s) erfeaojsoysez_ MSD 000'000'0S (aqnday yooza) enfeaojsoyseza BIOID qusuUoNAU 2y) Jo Arist] — euesing Aad 000'000'98E'9 TO€ 000'000'00¢ dF 000'000'001 sdlAlag UONBAIASUOD ame — UMIS|ag SLV rLousny elopuy TIV viueq iy Aduase aqisuodsas/A1jun0Z edoung :sjeHpng Aduebe juswefeuew seole pajda}0/dg “9 ajGeL 122 Europe Id _—‘siseop a8eiuoHy pue ({NOY) Anvog [emeN SulpueisinG Jo seary 01 poresoy[e st uo 0°CF Ajaeunxouddy ‘seare poiosjoid Joyo pue syed Jeuoneyy ut Suipueds sopnjouy “apisAnunoo Japim ayn UTI arTarpuadxg sid “(uorTMW EgryS) JUsWSeUEU seare paoolosd pue (UOT TW Op [FWS) UotTesusdusoo/aseyommd pur] Joy Surpuny ouTUIsA0H +a “Sulysy pueput pue Sununy sues ‘soatasal aimeu pue syed ‘s}saloy Jo JUSWaseUBUI PUL UOTE AIASUOO ‘UONBaID ‘sallJ Jsaloy JO UOQUaAaId ‘euTEy PUB BO] Jo UOHOMOId :3uL9A09 ‘suoi3ai snowouomy ap Aq amipuadxe uoneAlasuos ainreu [e101 ra ‘ammipuadxa UOITBAIasUOO aIMeU [EUONE vid ‘sja3pnq aeiodas aary alojosoin pue syusU! -UI9A08 [ed] BABY ISU], *S2JOZY PUR SpUEIS] sNIseaTIg at ‘O1UeS OUOg ‘enapeyA] Surpnjoxe ‘jesnuog [eUsUTIUCS O1 paroNsad st 193png ay, 193pNq [e101 21p| Jo %g9 punoue st seauw paioajoud uo ATfeoytoods quads yunoWE ay], ‘aanmpusdxa juauMdal 50} %9¢ pue USUNISoAUT [endeo JO} St % 9 Aporeurrxaidde yorym Jo ‘ataps peg asangnuodd op) J0j jaspng cd “1661 WE 1eBpngq ams oN Wo (UOT 7S) UOT BI pexswal sears paroooid pC “Surpuny poressuag Jes st (OTT y7SN$) TZd YON LZ 2Wog ‘uonoaaid [BUsUIUOMAUD JO UONEPUNO] Jeuoneu ay) Woy (UOT ¢°1S$) TZd YOUN $1 punose pur 18pnq o1e1s alp Woy syed [euotTeU 0} paredo]]e ase (UOITMU T'L$S) Z Id UH 08 AWOS YORAM UTPIM “POmjou seare popojaid afoym ay) Joy amyipusdxe [eo], cid “(IN UOT OTT) JuoWoSeuBUI pue (Ty N UOTT[TW Q'OE) Seale Mau JO JUAUTYsST]GeISo alp Jo] pred uonesusduioo ot poptaiq ‘seae poyoaiaid 10] 198pnq [OL seam sanisuas A[]euaWUOT AUD pue syed [euoTeu 01 parwooye st 193pnq ayp1 Jo Spm O41 AWOS *PG6G1 01 pouled aeoX moj B 19A0 193pnq juauMd ap asBasout ApuRoIUsis 01 pasodaad st 1] + ssomosal [BINTeU JO JUSWaFeUBU PUB PUR] Jo uoNIsmbe ayy Joy pammbai are SQOUBUT] UT SaseaJOUI [eNUEIsqns,, Tey soTels UeTg Aoyod AMEN 0661 UL 711d anos (1uo9) edoung :sjeHpnq Aouebe juewebeuew seose poe}9e}0ld “9 21021 7661 000'009'LS 1661 000‘ PS 8E L861 000'7S8'S1Z L861 000‘ 19'Sz 1661 000°€ 18°72 1661 000'009' TI 1661 000°019'9 0661 000'OIT'€Z quayeainba ae9d SN 1e3X dD 000'000'0€ HHO AS 000'000' Ez ON dSd 000'000'rEL' 1Z dS 000'000'6L°7 Ou ALd 000'000'S61'E Z1d 000'000'000'0€T MON 000'000'Tr SIN 000'000' Tr ddd dN dn AQuaLIND [RUOHeU ul jadpng UOISSTULUOD apiskgunoZ — (puelsuq) Wopsury pour) pueLoziimg Aoua8y uonoaiolg [UsWUOAUY — Uapamg spurs] uoXkeyy uel pue preqeag (Tetoutaad) uredg (jeuoneu) weds BIUDAO[S Outre] UBS BIUBWIOY QOlAlag syeg [euoneyy — 183M 10g Ad1Alag Syed [PUONEN Yst[Oq — PuelOd Aemion spueHouloNn ooeuoy] BPN sunoquioxn’] Aduade aqisuodsas/A1jun0D 123 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas “P66T Ul UTM COF O1 O661 Ut UOIT]IW ¢ [F Waly asU 0} pajsedxa si ampusdxa asoym (WSq) Sey aanisuag ATeuswUoNnAUY Surpuny AjjoaNp 10J a[qisuodsal ae AAW 9'LI uoneoNpe [eUSWUOIIAUD pues SulUTe ‘YoIeasal puke sorlasal aimeUu DULL JO UONEOTJHOU puw UOND.[9s ‘([SSS) IseIMU] O1JNUIOG [Bloods JO Soutg JO UOTTEOTJIOU pue UOTIDaIaS “(YNN) S2alasoy omen] Teuone Ny JO JUSWOZeUeU pu JUOUTYST]qQeIS2/UONIg|9s aU] SOpNpou! 1a8pnq jenuUy v9 °S, WSq UO dolape Sutpracid pus seore ua0s euoneU Sunojold ‘seare uteyUNOU Jo JUIUID3e -UBW ay) Bul MatAaL ‘syed AQunod pure [euoIsal uo Sulpuods sapniou] 67910 “VOLT 908°7F aM tpuadxa oumweiZo0id pus UOT [TW pEg'zZ SOBBM PUB SaLIETeS :SMOT[OJ Se UMOP WsyOI 9q [TIM SIUL, %ZZ JO 9seaiUl Uv ‘UOT |TU pO’ CF SEM €661-Z661 Joy amupusdxa [e10) paredionuy purjal] WaIJON] 10} JUoWTUOIIAUY lI) Jo jwounsedag op Jo youelg apply, pue sprsAnuNoD amp Jo 193pnq [RIO], “seore pajoajaid uo aimipuadxe jusWIW9A08 [enuUy ‘000'ZSEF SEM 1661 Ut SuTUTEN uo ammtpusdxs [R10] ‘O00’ E9EF WuowWsseueu ui poafoaut Apap Jyeis Play pue (000'96E 1F) Suoreorgnd pur juswaseueU! ontasal ‘sanus0 eanaidiqqur Surpnjour amonnsegut ‘(000"E LCF) aseyamd pur] (Q0'S6/F) sI9UMO 01 s}JUsWAEd UMs dum] ‘(O00 SPS'LF) Nuswaasse JUoWOseUeW Jopun siatdno90/si9uMo 0} sjuaWAed [enue ‘1661 Ul (000'LLZF) JUDUIDSeULU JOAIP JOpUN SYN JO Sasea] ZuIpn[out aimipusdxa [Ro], ERYULS (u09) edoung :sjaHpnq Aouabe juswebeuew seese pajd9}0/d “9 a/GeL BIAP[SOsN X aig AD wen A 000'8ZS'rZ — dA#D.000'000'E1 souaysty pure poo, ‘ammousy jo Anstur] — wopsury paruy) 000° 68'S dd 000'000'61 (SOON) PuEfIOIg Jo; [louNoD, Aouealasuo_ aime x] — (puepioog) wopsury pour), (SDD) puepoos 40j 000'887'Z1 dD 000'00r'9 uoIsstwUOD apisknUNOD — (puepioog) Wop3ury paruy 000'LIL'8 000'81 000° S9I‘E8 quayeainba aenod Sn ddD 000'079'r "JO 2p Jo yoursg 2PM pue opisXnunoZ — (purjal] WeyuoN) Wopsury pau ddd 000'01 Ansaio,j pue sauaysty ‘annus y Jo uauuedaq] — (uel JO 2[s]) Wopsury paluy) dD 000'7E0'9r amen ysysuq —(pue[suq) wopsury poruy AQUdIIND [BUOTEU Ajuade ajqisuodsas/A1jun02) ul jaspng 124 Europe ‘WOpsUTy patUy ‘Ysmquipy/yuad ‘puepoog 10¥ [louNoD AouwarasuoD ome N/Pue NODS Joy UOIssIUMUOD apisknuNOD ‘siouued [eIMEN (1661) SMON/SDO “MH UT (7661) ‘W TEHOW ‘aleuuonsanb mataal [BuOIsal Oo} asuOdsal ‘NTT Ul (1661) ‘Sf ‘Aydmy ‘omreuuonsanb mataal euorgal 01 asuodsar ‘nT UT (1661) ‘TN ‘19Puldg ‘ddgZ] “‘ysnoroqiaiad *16-0661 [dy suoday yuaaquancg *(1661) DON ‘aleuuonsanb Mataal [euoidal 0) asuodsal 431] UT (1661) “V ‘said ‘ameuuonsanb mataal [euro 0} asuodsal 31] UT (1661) “L ‘UOssIe’] ‘alreuuonsanb Marval [BUOIZal 0} asuOdsal ‘IN| UT (1661) “Y ‘BMOp] siouUePy ‘aleuuonsanb Mataal [euorgal 0} asuodsal 911] UT (1661) “DO ‘MOTAO ‘amreuuonsanb Mmataal [euolsal 0} asuodsal ‘NI] Ul (1661) ‘O ‘Shey A-PlON] pue *g ‘uIaT] ‘ddgot ‘onde } OW], ‘sousYysty pue juswWaSeuRY] amEN ‘ano jo AnstuI ‘spur[JoaN ap JO ueTq AoMOd 2MIEN °(0661) SPUIYSTY Pure JUSWaSeURY] AMEN ‘aMINoBy Jo AnstUT] “mq UT (7861) NONI ‘aareuuonsanb Mataal [euorsar 0} asuodsar ‘nI] UT (1661) “M ‘stumorssey ‘ameuuonsonb mataal [euorsal 0} asuodsal 111] Ul (1661) ‘[ ‘SAUD 'dd/.6g ‘uopucy ‘pry YN [euoneura Uy 19] 90q ‘sarpmig [eWourUoMAUg Joy omINsUT “Yooqiea x [eaWUOMAUY Uvsdoing (1661) (PA) V ‘wanND ‘aleuuorjsanb MaIAal [BUOIZal 0} asuodsal ‘1] UT (1661) “@ ‘Waony “MIN ‘e3puqurey ‘NON BAvjsosn ZX ‘eruewoy ‘eueds[ng ‘elueqiy ‘OM ] FUIN[OA ‘0661 :‘WOdoy smeig feUsWUONAUY (166]) 9UNWealg Uesdaing Iseq NONI STI-€OT “PueHOZIMS ‘PUETD ‘NONI HQO2eN ‘dN ‘NONVAMM/dd NN “edomng waise, pue WayLJoN UI UONeArasUOD ameN (0861) “d ‘S2aiquIy-UAID pur “q ‘arog ddgcc + IAxx “yf ‘e3puquieD pue puepozims ‘purLD ‘NOMI ‘Naear[ed *7 SUINJOA ‘sWaIskg [eUONBN] JO MaIADY W :PHOM Hp JO sealy poromord (7661) NONI ("JuU09) edoing :sjeHpnq Aouaefe jusweheuew Seale paj}de}01dq “9 31qeL [p9] [67] (91d) {oza] (z1q] [sta] (sta] (ria) [ela] (z1a] [11d] [6a] [9a] [61d] {ral [ea] (zal {€1] [z] ssaaanog 125 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 7. Protected areas in Europe created from 1982 to 1991 National Parks Area (in 1982) Albania 0 (238,000) Austria 204,000 (0) Belgium 0 (0) Bulgaria 53,770 (48,793) Czechoslovakia 135,613 (200,061) Denmark 0 (0) Finland 544,540 (121,600) France 0 (352,689) Germany 697,158 (33,900) Greece 0 (74,973) Hungary 32,253 (121,443) Iceland 0 (180,100) Ireland 11,758 (10,737) Italy 0 (271,240) Netherlands 24,580 (11,410) Norway 264,300 (964,330) Poland 28,452 (136,548) Portugal 0 (71,422) Romania 353,900 (54,400) Spain 9,715 (122,763) Sweden 23,361 (618,108) Switzerland 0 (16,870) United Kingdom 28,800 (1,364,267) Yugoslavia 161,360 360,244 Total 2,573,560 (5,158,926) Key: N-I — No Information Nature Parks Other Protected Areas Area Area N-I N- 0 N-I 67,854 No 0 27,833 0 321,288 0 134,995 0 22,800 764,688 47,687 N-I N-I 0 105,000 0 165,394 0 17,954 0 4,188 827,560 100,868 0 39,175 0 84,695 1,254,308 19,716 57,370 N-I 0 2,276 1,902,501 126,488 0 337,568 0 N-I 0 615,062 0 51,245 4,874,281 2,224,232 Notes: Areas in hectares. Only areas over 1000ha are included. “National Parks" signify areas of that name designated by national governments most are in IUCN Category II and V, but some are Category IV. "Nature Parks" includes Regional Parks; all are Category V. "Other protected areas" are predominantly nature reserves, mostly Category IV Note: Source: Gerhard Heiss, 1991,1992. One of the first examples in Europe is what is now the Peininy NP, between Slovakia and Poland, established in 1932. Another good example is the Vanoise NP in France and the adjacent Gran Paradiso NP in Italy. In some cases three countries are involved, for example in the complex of the Bayersicher Wald NP in Germany, the Sumava NP in Czech Republic and the Bohmerwald NaP in Austria, the last of which is now being estab- lished. The countries in Europe which have invested most in frontier and transboundary parks are the Czech Repub- lic and Slovakia, until December 1992 a single state. Today, one third of the frontier around the two states, about 800km, is within protected areas (Cerovsky et al., 1991). Conservation measures in one park can stimulate similar measures in the other park. The largest area of karst in Central Europe, on the border between Slovakia and Hungary, has been a protected landscape in Slovakia since 1973; the Slovak authorities designated their portion as a biosphere reserve in 1977, the This table is prepared prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and changes in former Yugoslavia. Hungarian government then declared their part a pro- tected landscape in 1979, a biosphere reserve in 1979 anda national park in 1985, and now the Slovak authori- ties are planning to upgrade their part to a national park. Thus a virtuous circle is generated. Some of the best opportunities for new transboundary parks are along the former Iron Curtain, from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The physical Iron Curtain was in fact a series of high technology fences, with on the eastern side a wide zone in which people were not permitted. This lead to 40 years regrowth of natural vegetation over large areas. Under the ‘Ecological Bricks for a Common European House’ project, WWF-Austria and other conservation groups, including IUCN, are pro- moting the concept of frontier parks along this border. In fact, the first place where the fence of the Iron Curtain was removed, in 1989, was in the Austrian/Hungarian transboundary Biosphere Reserve of Neusiedler See/ Ferté-t6. Now that many of the political barriers in Europe have fallen, there is scope for a massive expansion of trans- boundary parks. This would be a welcome expression of the spirit of international cooperation between na- tions and of their concern for mature. 8. Initiatives between European countries Many international bodies are active in Europe yet, as pointed out by Synge (1991), there is a great need for integration of the various legal instruments and forums. Many of Europe’s protected areas have international or regional designations, as Tables 4 and 4a show, respectively. Designation as Ramsar wetland sites and UNESCO biosphere reserves have proved popular, but World Heritage sites, with their much tougher condi- tions for entry, are much less numerous (Table 5). The accounts below describe those international des- ignations that are European rather than global in scope. 8.1 The European Community The European Community is the only supra-national law-making body in the world and the only body to which nation states have surrendered significant ele- ments of their sovereignty. The EC has agreed over 200 statutes on the environment and is emerging as a cruci- ble in which new ways of international collaboration— vital to environmental protection—are being forged. The Community at present has 12 members—Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy. Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and UK. However, some of the remaining countries are applying for membership and more are likely to do so in the future. The main legal instrument used by the Community is the Directive, which is a framework law. It is written in the style of an international convention, and Member States are required to implement it within a specified period of time. If the Commission believes the national law is inadequate to implement a Directive, it can take the Member State concemed to the European Court of Justice. Two directives create protected areas: the Birds Di- rective and the Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive. Under the Birds Directive, which came into force in 1981, Member States have to classify as Special Protec- tion Areas (SPAs) the most important territories for some 178 endangered birds, listed on Annex 1 of the Directive. Member States have declared over 600 SPAs so far, covering about 5 million ha, out of the c.1500 sites that conservation groups estimate would qualify. Moreover the actual protection afforded to SPAs is uneven, as at least 2 Member States have not imple- mented any protective measures in the SPAs they have designated. Nevertheless, conservationists are finding that, if an area is designated in an SPA and then violated, the law can be invoked. In a case between Germany and the 127 Europe European Commission, the European Court of Justice accepted that a dike could be built in an SPA at Leybucht, on grounds of overwhelming public safety, in this case to prevent a village from flooding, but ruled against further damage to the SPA that had been argued for on economic grounds. This decision means that SPAs can be damaged for reasons of overwhelming public safety, but not for economic reasons. This goes beyond the customs and laws of most European coun- tries. Conservation groups see the Leybucht case as a vital precedent. The second key directive is the Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive, which was adopted in June 1992. This Directive builds on the Birds Directive by making provisions for the conservation of habitats and species (other than birds). In particular, Member States are now required to create Special Areas for Conservation (SACs, analogous to SPAs) to conserve the sites of a given list of threatened species and of threatened habitat types. The latter aspect, listing literally hundreds of vegetation types from the CORINE system of vegeta- tion classification, is unique in international law. The countries of the Community now have to implement this Directive; this can be expected to lead to more protected areas being set up, especially for rare and declining habitat types, and the standards of protection in existing protected areas being strengthened. SPAs and SACs have two great advantages over protected areas created under international treaties. On the one hand, as the Leybucht case showed, govern- ments damaging them can be taken to the European Court of Justice. On the other, the Commission is in- creasingly able to provide funding for their creation and implementation. 8.2 Other agreements and organizations at European level The Council of Europe’s Bern Convention (Conven- tion on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats) was the precursor to the EC Habitats Directive, as its provisions cover the protection of threat- ened species and habitats in Europe. However, although the provisions are wide-ranging, most of the work of its Standing Committee, which is responsible for monitor- ing its application, has been on endangered species. Recommendations have been adopted on Gran Sasso (Italy), Lagunas Bay (Greece) and on 20 sites for en- dangered reptiles and amphibians. (For more details see Synge, 1991.) The Council of Europe is also creating a European Network of Biogenetic Reserves (totalling 197 sites so far) and awards the European Diploma to protected areas. One strong point of the Diploma is that it is only awarded after an evaluation of a park on the ground and is reviewed by a further evaluation after five years. If necessary the Award can be revoked. Not surprisingly, this has proved an excellent way of maintaining the quality of the areas awarded the Diploma. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 8. Comparison for selected countries in Europe of protected areas eligible and not eligible for the UN List UN List Sites (IUCN Cat. I-V, over 1,000ha) Area No. Czech and Slovak Republics National Nature Reserves (I or IV) France Nature Reserves (I or IV) Greece Aesthetic Forest (III or V) Protected Natural Monuments (III or V) Hunting Reserve (IV) Hungary Nature Conservation Area (IV) Landscape Protected Area (V) Italy National (State) Protected Area (I or V) Regional protected area (I or V) Luxembourg Nature Reserve (IV) Norway Marine Reserve (I or IV) Poland Nature Reserve (IV) Sweden Nature Reserve (IV) Wildlife Sanctuary (?) United Kingdom National Nature Reserve (IV) Notes: Source: Compiled by WCMC, December 1991 UNEP’s Barcelona Convention—the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollu- tion—contains a protocol on protected areas, which entered into force in March 1986 and which all the countries around the Mediterranean Sea except Syria and Lebanon have now ratified. The Protocol includes provisions to establish Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) of marine and coastal areas, and water-courses up to the freshwater limit. So far 75 SPAs have been designated, but these include, as a single entity, the 61 properties of the Conservatoire de |’ Espace Littoral et des Rivages Lacustres along the coast of France. Many of the 75 56,808 83,708 30,458 15,000 9,450 13,815 404,013 1,841,000 130,339 128 Non-UN List Sites (IUCN Cat. I-V, under 1,000ha) No. Area Total Date of No. Area information 31,714 88,522 15,580 99,288 2,649 1,624 1,745 33,107 16,624 11,195 17,432 5,658 31,247 409,671 39,114 26,774 207 600,027 287 1,427,408 520 911 143,000 27,134 17,314 272 = 82,201 430,000 110,000 1,381 2,271,000 0 891 110,000 37,768 242 168,107 Areas in hectares. This table is not extensive and contains only examples. NGO reserves are omitted entirely. SPAs are existing protected areas, but some are new ones, such as those created by Italy. Turning to organizations, The Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe (FNPPE) is a pan- European organization whose main membership com- prises national parks, regional parks and nature parks across Europe. By 1992, 180 sites in 28 countries were members. Members use the Federation as a forum to share management experience, and to promote and ex- tend the ideals of conservation. It holds yearly assem- blies, which have a series of workshops on specific themes, such as training needs and tourism appropriate to protected areas. It also arranges seminars, such as one in Hungary on the changing agenda for protected areas in Eastern and Central Europe. Regarding information, CORINE, WCMC and EUROMAB all have databases on European protected areas. They work closely with other information centres around Europe, one of the most active of which is the International Park Documentation Centre (CEDIP) in Florence, Italy. Other organizations active at European level include World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), which now has a European Programme based in Brussels, EUROSITE, and the European Union for Coastal Conservation (EUCC). IUCN itself has an active programme of projects in Eastern and Central Europe, a plan for a programme for all of Europe agreed in 1992; its Commissions, espe- ciaily the Species Survival Commission and CNPPA, are very active in the region. 9. Priorities for action in the region This Review confirms that: many of Europe’s protected areas are in danger; the network is incomplete; the time is right to reinforce and extend pro- tected areas. The 10 Actions below address these conclusions. Under each action, priority tasks are listed. Although this is not a detailed action plan as costings, targets and so on will need to be elaborated, it does provide a framework for the action plan for Protected Areas in Europe, to be prepared in 1993 by IUCN in cooperation with FNNPE. ACTION 1. Promote a Europe-wide approach to protected areas Priority should go to: 1.1. Anevaluation of the extensive natural and semi- natural habitats of Europe in order to identify gaps in the protected areas network. 1.2. Implementation of a continent-wide European Ecological Network, based on the protection of core areas for conservation, the creation of buff- er zones around these, the establishment of cor- ridors to link them, the restoration of damaged habitats, and the creation of new ones as appro- priate. 1.3. Ensuring that the conservation of biodiversity and the establishment and management of pro- tected areas figure prominently in international 129 Europe cooperation for the protection of the environment, in particular in: (a) The State of the Environment report, and follow-up work, called for by Euro- pean Environment Ministers at Dobris Castle, Prague, 1991; (b) the implementation of the European Community’s 5th Action Programme for the European Environment; and (c) the work, throughout Europe, of the Task Force for the European Environmental Agency. ACTION 2. Address the protected area needs of priority sub-regions Priority should go to: 2.1 Southern Europe and the Mediterranean: ac- tion is urgently needed in this, Europe’s biologi- cally richest sub-region, in particular to: Strengthen protected area legislation and institutions at the national level; Extend protected area coverage in all biological re- gions, but especially wetlands, forests and other terres- trial habitats of the Mediterranean; Exchange experience and information between manag- ers; Improve the level of training of staff; and Extend existing collaboration for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea. 2.2 Central and Eastern Europe: though protected area coverage and standards of management are relatively good in most of these countries, action is needed to reinforce their protection in the face of economic and social changes and external threats. Coastal and Marine Regions: action is needed to identify protected area needs and priorities as part of ongoing inter-governmental cooperation for the protection of the North and Baltic seas and the Arctic Ocean. ACTION 3: Concentrate on the needs of particular countries Priority should go to: 3.1 Countries needing an improved coverage of pro- tected areas. Examples include Ireland and the United Kingdom (Scotland). 3.2. Countries where political support needs rein- forcement. Examples include most of the coun- tries of southern Europe, in particular Portugal and Greece. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 3.3. Countries where decentralization creates pro- tected areas problems. Examples include Germany and Austria, in particular to reinforce cO- operation between national and local authorities responsible for protected areas. 3.4 Countries under great economic pressure, such as Albania. 3.5 Countries recovering from armed conflict: the States that are emerging from the breakup of former Yugoslavia may need international help to assist in the recovery of damaged protected areas once the fighting is over. ACTION 4: Promote higher standards of protected area management Priority should go to: 4.1 A major initiative to raise standards of protec- tion and management in Category II national parks. 4.2. Asmall number of high profile demonstration projects selected for their suitability for interna- tional collaboration and the replicability of les- sons learnt within them. 4.3. Development of techniques of sustainable man- agement for natural or semi-natural ecosystems of high value for nature but under pressure from human impacts. ACTION 5: Promote protected area objectives through other sectors Priority should go to: 5.1 Land use planning: to ensure that protected areas are not treated as "islands", countries should adopt effective land use planning systems so that they can control construction, building, engi- neering, agriculture and forestry, thus reinforc- ing the protection given to all natural and cultural resources, within and outside protected areas. 5.2 Development Funding: The EC Structural Funds for the economic development of less prosper- ous regions of Europe must be sensitized to protected area needs, so that existing protected areas are not damaged and to ensure that this funding puts regional development on an envi- ronmentally sustainable basis. 5.3. Agriculture: the reform of the EC’s Common Agricultural Policy offers a unique opportunity to create new protected areas and extend or reinforce existing ones from land previously farmed. 130 5.4 Tourism: Governments should agree national policies for sustainable tourism, based on re- spect for the natural and cultural heritage, and on using the revenue and public interest generated by tourism to support protected areas. 5.5 Reducing pollution: Governments urgently need to collaborate to combat the air, freshwater and marine pollution which threatens many protec- ted areas in Europe. 5.6 Securing a peace dividend: to convert large areas of land formerly used by the military and part of the land along the former Iron Curtain into protected areas. ACTION 6: Use or develop international legal instruments Priority should go to: 6.1 Adherence by States, which are not yet parties, to the various existing global and regional con- ventions for the protection of the natural envi- ronment, in particular the Ramsar Convention, the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on Biological Biodiversity and the Bern Convention. 6.2 Early implementation of the Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive within the EC countries, and better implementation of the Birds Directive. 6.3. The development of an international agreement on Conservation of Rural Landscapes of Europe. ACTION 7: Improve protected area data collection, monitoring and evaluation Priority should go to: 7.1 Extending the information handling system of WCMC’s Protected Areas Data Unit. 7.2 Improving the data handling capacity of pro- tected area authorities. 7.3. Ensuring that national and international infor- mation activities include monitoring manage- ment effectiveness and threats to protected areas. ACTION 8: Strengthen the training of nature conservation staff 8.1 Priority at national level should go to: A policy statement by each country on training and a commitment of a certain proportion of the protected area budget to training; (an eventual figure of 4 per cent is proposed;) Preparation and implementation of a training strategy to provide training at all appropriate levels; 8.2 Priority at international level should go to pro- viding assistance to countries in achieving 8.1, in particular to: Prepare model training strategies, programmes and materials; Develop and coordinate a range of additional in-service training opportunities for staff, especially at regional level; Set standards for national training centres and for courses they provide. FNNPE should receive support to employ a training coordinator to develop and coordinate staff exchanges, twinning programmes, training courses in priority sub- ject areas and study visits. Europe ACTION 9: Mobilize cooperation at european level Cooperation among all conservation bodies and inter- national funding will be vital to achieving the Actions listed above. Transboundary protected areas, where man- agement of a natural area is shared by two or more States, are a particularly good way of developing inter- national cooperation, and should receive further sup- port. Another good way of achieving European cooper- ation is by regional associations of protected areas or of protected area agencies. ACTION 10: Develop public support for protected areas Priority should go to building a better appreciation by the public of Europe’s natural heritage, through better educative and interpretative programmes in protected areas, aimed both at local people and at visitors from elsewhere. Such programmes should emphasize that on the one hand "Conservation Begins at Home", but on the other that "Nature is a European Heritage”. Acknowledgements This review was prepared in association with the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe (FNNPE). Much of the work of drafting the review was funded by the World Wide Fund for Nature — United Kingdom. IUCN and FNNPE gratefully acknowledge the con- tributions made by many organizations and individuals in the preparation of this report, both those who com- mented on drafts of the text and those who provided the essential data about protected areas which form the foundation of the review. A meeting in September 1991, on Elba, generously arranged by the International Park Documentation Center (CEDIP), provided a valuable opportunity to review a draft outline of the paper. A subsequent questionnaire, sent out to national authorities and rele- vant CNPPA members, provided much additional infor- mation, especially for the tables. Subsequent meetings, involving both FNNPE and IUCN, were held in both Gland and Grafenau, and an open meeting was held at the Caracas Congress. In particular [UCN and FNNPE thank the following, who contributed individual sections: Jan Cerovsky, Gerhard Heiss, Adrian Phillips and Rosie Simpson. Thanks are also due to Zbigniew Karpowicz of the IUCN East European Programme, Graham Drucker of WCMC and David Baldock of the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), and to Marie Knuth, Mario and Antonio Machado, Anna Newman and Alison Suter for translation services. References Anon, 1987. The Lake District Declaration, adopted by the participants at the International Symposium on Protected Landscapes, Grange-over-Sands, England, 5-10 October 1987. Countryside Commission. 3 pp. Anon, 1990. Okologische Bausteine fiir unser gemein- sanes Haus Europa. Miinchen, Verlag fiir Politische Okologie. (Politische Oklogie, Beiheft; 2). Association of National Park Officers (ANPO), 1989. Report of the National Park Staff Training Working Group. ANPO. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas L’ Atelier technique des espaces naturels, 1991. Pro- gramme de formation des personnels des espaces naturels. Ministére de 1’Environnement, Direction de la Protection de la Nature. Batisse, M. and A.J. de Grissac, (undated). Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea: Past, present status and perspective. Report prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. 23 pp. Bennett, G. (Ed.), 1991. Towards the European Eco- logical Network. Institute for European Environ- mental Policy, Amhem, December 1991. Bibelriether, H. and R. Schreiber, 1989. Nationalparke Europas. Siiddeutscher Verlag, Munich. Col. illus. Carp, E., 1990. Directory of Wetlands of International Importance in the Western Palearctic. UNEP/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 506 pp. Cerovsky, J. etal, 1991. Frontier parks in Czechoslovakia. Ministry of the Environment, Czech Republic. 16 pp. Countryside Commission, 1989. Training for tomorrow's countryside. Countryside Commission, Cheltenham, UK. de Klemm, C., 1990. Wild Plant Conservation and the Law. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 24. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 215 pp. Illus. Duffey, E., 1982. National Parks and Reserves of Western Europe. Macdonald, London. 288 pp. Esping, L.E., and G. Grénqvist, 1991. The Baltic Sea and the Skagerrak: IUCN-CNPPA-Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), the Baltic. Report prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. November 1991. FNNPE, 1991. In Nature and National Parks European Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 110. FNNPE 1993. Loving them to death? Sustainable tour- ism in Europe’ s Nature and National Parks. FNNPE, Grafenau, Germany. 96pp. Grimmett, R.F.A. and Jones T.A. , 1989. Bird Areas in Europe. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK. Gubbay, S., undated. North East Atlantic Realm. Report prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. Heiss, G., 1988. Inventur Europdischer Natur- und Nationalparke. Vol. 1 (Greece and Portugal), Vol. 2 (France National Parks), Vol. 3 (France Nature Parks, UK, Belgium, Netherlands), Vol. 4 (Switzerland, Italy, FRG). FNNPE, Grafenau, Germany. Heiss, G., 1991. Situation von Schutzgebieten: Region- albericht Europa. FNNPE. 24 pp. International Park Documentation Center (CEDIP), 1991. A CEDIP contribution to the World Congress on National Parks 1992: For an International Policy on Parks. CEDIP, Florence. 8 pp. IUCN, 1990a. 1990 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas/Liste des Nations Unies des Parcs Nationaux et des Aires Protégées 1990. Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring 132 Centre and IUCN. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland. 275 pp. IUCNN, 1990b. Protected areas in Eastern and Central Europe and the USSR (An interim review). 1UCN East European Programme, Environmental Research Series, No. 1. 100 pp. IUCN, 1990c, 1991. Environmental Status Reports: 1988/1989 and 1990. Vol. 1: Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland. 127 pp. Vol. 2: Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia. 170 pp. (UCN East European Programme. IUCN, 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A review of national systems. Volume 2: Palaearctic. Prepared by The World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 556pp. Koester, V., 1984. Denmark: Conservation legislation and general protection of biotopes in an interna- tional perspective. Environmental Policy and Law 12(4): 106-116. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fish- eries, 1990. Nature Policy Plan of the Netherlands, in outline. 22 pp. Col. illus., col. map. Naturvardsverket, 1991. Naturvardsplan for Sverige (A Nature Conservation Plan for Sweden). Naturvardsverket. 80 pp. (English summary). Poore, D. and P. Gwyn-Ambrose, 1980. Nature Con- servation in Northern and Western Europe. UNEP, IUCN and WWF, Gland, Switzerland. 408 pp. Poore, D. & W., 1992. The Protected Landscapes of the United Kingdom. Countryside Commission. Ramade, F., 1984. Keynote Address: The Palearctic Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (Eds), National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA. 418-425pp. Ramade, F., 1990. Conservation des Ecosystémes Méditerranéens: Enjeux et perspectives. Les Fascicules du Plan Bleu 3. Economica, Paris. 144 pp. Segnestam, M., 1984. Future Directions for the Western Palearctic Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (Eds), National Parks, Conservation and Develop- ment: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 486-490 Synge, H., 1991. Environmental Agreements at Euro- pean Level on the Conservation of Biological Diver- sity. Paper prepared for the European Regional Con- sultation of the WRI-IUCN-UNEP Biodiversity Con- servation Strategy and Action Plan, London, 22-24 July 1991. 23 pp. Tassi, F., 1991. Protected Areas Strategies for Europe 2000. Paper presented to the European Parliament/ WWE conference "Nature Conservation— Europe 2000", September 1991. Thorsell, J., 1990. The IUCN Register of Threatened Protected Areas of the World. YUCN, Mimeo. North Eurasia Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas seaie pe}de}01d pajyeubisep Ajje6a) ulyyim pepnjou! Asyjunod jo abeyuadseq 008 OOF O = Wu %OC UPU} aJ1OW ZOC-SL peyoajoud abpjuacs94 \L_ fo “dew 134 Contents Page PETOGUCTION. Sire re etme sees Bearer en eRe EM hue ek 137 APEMEStOFICAall DEFSPECH VE) a. se esses ve ca aise le Sse ewan e vents, seis velenuiecmouemay 137 2. Current protected areacoverage .......................0.. 139 3. Additional protected areasrequired ....................... 142 4. Protected areainstitutions ..... 2.0... ee ee ee 144 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 145 6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 146 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 146 8. Major protected areas issuesinthe region ................... 147 Solem beopleiniprotectediarcasa, AeUic: .-.<.cika eucueuioes 2 ekklesia ee 147 Sp2aelnvolvementybyithe private sectOns = acl cle Ges Gace Gatien iene enone 148 Sesembrrotectediarcasvand surrounding lands) ye) icy cecil ennui) Cacao 149 Grd erOtectedyareas and science meme cc) Eee heme ot ene en mee 149 Se Eolutionvand protected’ areas... .) . ewes mee penne wee Bae eetas 151 8.6. Threats to effective management of protected areas ................ 152 Sees LrANns (ONUEHINIMAtLVES cogcweayecs > «Gee ees eS eee eee ee ee 152 9. Priorities foractionintheregion .....................00.. 153 REIGN ON CCS oe eee hag tree yin 5 Ta hye eed Coe Recta cle te a ceinare 155 Tables Table 1. Summary of the protected areassystem .........-...-...-.-.-.. 138 Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories .............. 141 Table 3. The development of the protected areas system ............... 143 Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 147 Table 5. World Heritage sites in North Eurasia .................... 149 Table 6. Investment in nature reserves, national parks and game (hunting) reservesnithey Republics . )euecne nen ene nen eeenr nomen memen 151 Table 7. Figures Map. Figure 1. Figure 2. Development of the network of nature reserves and national parks in the Republics: perspectives upto2005 ................ 154 Percentage of country included within legally designated protected ATEAS yoru tees elon, osu bs Sadia! SN. es: Sato ois Heese 134 Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 140 Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 140 136 North Eurasia Alexander A. Nikol’skii, Regional Vice-Chair for North Eurasia, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with assistance from Ludmilla !. Bolshova and Svietlana E. Karaseva Moscow, August, 1992 Note: Many political changes have taken place in this region, so some of the information contained in this report is subject to change. Introduction The North Eurasia region occupies a huge area of 22.4 million sq km. It includes a great variety of natural complexes, including arctic deserts and tundra, taiga, mixed and broad-leaved forests of the temperate zone and subtropical forests, steppes and deserts. This diver- Sity is the result of both latitudinal and altitudinal variety, with the largest mountain regions in Eurasia (Caucasus, Tien-Shan, Pamir, etc). Marine areas, part of three oceans systems—the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific—are of vital importance in the region. At the time when this review was made, the 15 Republics of the region formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with a population of 290 million, but the political situation is changing rapidly and all Union republics have now declared their sovereignty. Furthermore, the regional State system, and its social and economic policies, will change, influencing in their tum the development of the protected areas network. Already marked changes affect the management system for specially protected natural areas. The major tendency is a decentralization of natural resource management and environmental protection. The state of protected areas in the region as of mid- 1991 is discussed and some prognoses for protected areas development are given with due regard to the present tendencies of the political situation. A review of the protected areas system prior to the dissolution of the USSR has been compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992). 1. Historical perspective Protected natural areas first appeared in Russia in the 14th and 15th centuries, the period of the formation of the Russian centralized state. Prototypes of specially protected areas appeared in Russia to preserve and enrich forest, fish and game areas. Sites with limited natural use practices were established in the Urals, in 137 the upper reaches of the Konda and Sos’ va rivers with beaver and sable populations, and in Byeloveza Puscha to protect the European Bison. There were also abatis (protected forests) in the Don, Dnieper and Oka river basins, and monastic "bloodless" (closed for hunting) lands. Many of these early protected areas have been transformed into zapovedniks (nature reserves) (the term "zapovednik” is Russian, meaning "a ban on specific actions"). Primarily, nature reserves and other protected areas (sanctuaries, for example) have been created to preserve the most valuable forest territories and valuable or endangered species, including game animals and plants. The modern concept of protected areas, based upon the necessity to conserve natural ecosystems, began early this century. Expeditions of the Russian Geographic Society, and of the Moscow and Riga Societies for Nature, played a significant role in its development. Between 1910 and 1916, conservation status was given to natural sites in the II’men mountains in the Urals, the Vaika Islands in Estonia, Moriczala in Latvia, the hilly area between the Pechora and Ilych rivers (the only habitat of the European population of the sable) and Pinus eldarica forests in the Caucasus. Considerable knowledge had been obtained on nature monuments in the Caucasus, Pre-Baltia and central regions of Russia. Two large expeditions had been organized to survey sable habitats in the Bargusin, Sayany and Kamchatka regions. For the first time, a law was made in Russia to prohibit hunting of sable in the wild, in 1913-16. Chari- table activity of big land-owners contributed much to providing conservation status to valuable steppe-areas in the Ukraine, in Samara and Voronezh provinces, and forest sites in Urals. By 1917 the protected areas net- work included 30 nature reserves covering 1 million ha. The main approach taken in Russia and then the Soviet Union was the establishment of nature reserves rather than national parks. Nature reserves provide better Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: North Eurasia Area in CategoriesI-V % Country Area Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Russian Fed. Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan 29,800 86,600 207,600 69,700 2,717,300 198,500 33,700 17,075,400 143,100 488,100 603,700 447,400 Notes: Total area designated % Area in Categories VI-VIIIlandUA % oooooooococoo Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover. The complete list of area in categories VI-VIII, including state forestry, reserves, (Zakazniki) is not available. protection to nature than national parks, but their weak point is that the territory is entirely inaccessible to people. This can lead to a negative reaction by the population to protected areas on one hand, and reduces the possibilities for organized educational tourism, on the other. All this has an impact on the environmental education of the population. During the first years of existence of the Soviet State a number of new nature reserves were established, including Astrakhansky (1919), Ilmensky (1920) and Caucasian (1924) in Russia; Berezinsky (1925) in Belarus; Kysyl-Agachsky (1929) in Kazakhstan and others. By the 1930s the total area of nature reserves had doubled. The decrees and by-laws of the Government of the USSR confirmed the principle of inviolability, i.e. en- tire withdrawal of their territories from economic activi- ties. In 1933 the Committee for Nature Reserves, attached to the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, was established. In 1938 it was transformed into the Chief Department for Nature Re- serves, attached to the RSFSR Council of Peoples Com- missars. Unfavourable tendencies subsequently started to develop in protected area management due to wide political and economic reforms, which needed the maximum possible mobilization of all of the resources and led to increased economic exploitation of protected natural areas. The concept of their inviolability came under criticism; tasks for utilization of economically useful animals and plants and self-financing of nature reserves were put forward. In the 1950s, when the network of reserves was relatively representative, the hardest period for their survival had come. Decisions taken in 1951 and 1961 seriously reduced the number 138 of reserves and destroyed their management and scien- tific structures. By 1951 only 40 of the 128 nature reserves survived on an area of 1.5 million ha (formerly 12.5 million ha). In Russia only 17 of the 45 nature reserves survived; in fact, all the biggest nature re- serves with an area over 200,000ha had been abol- ished, among them Pechoro-Ilych, Altaisky and Sikhote-Alinsky. In 1961, 16 nature reserves were abol- ished once more, including Altaisky, Zhygulevsky and Kronotzky. Simultaneously, the area of many reserves was reduced. Scientific research was limited to prob- lems related to hunting, agriculture and forestry. In the mid-1960s, due to the efforts of scientific institutions, the situation began to improve. By the beginning of the 1970s, earlier nature reserves had been re-established and their numbers and total area achieved the level of 1961 (Table 3). This work has been pro- moted by the Commission on Nature Reserves of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which was transformed later into the Commission on Nature Protection, and in 1979 into the All-Union Research Institute for Nature Conservation and Nature Reserves. Expansion of the network of nature reserves continued in the 1970s. The most intensive increase of their numbers was in 1976— 1980, when in Russia such large nature reserves as the Taimyrsky (1,348,300ha), Wrangel Island (795,700ha), Putoransky (1,660,000ha), Baikal’sky (165,700ha), Baikalo-Lensky (600,000ha), Sayano-Shushensky (389,600ha), and Central-Siberian (792,000ha) were created. Nature reserves have been created in Central Asia, in the Ukraine and in the Baltic Republics as well. The national parks network began to develop only in the 1970s. The first national parks were established in the Baltic Republics. They are Lahemaa in Estonia, Gays in Latvia and Lithuvian in Lithuania; later on national parks were created in Russia, the Ukraine, Transcaucasia and Middle Asia. Among them there are Zabaikal’sky (246,000ha), the Baltic (418,000ha), Prielbrusye (100,400ha) and Sevan (150,000ha). More recently Vodlozersky (404,000ha) in Karelia and Shorsky (418,200ha) in Kemerovo region, RSFSR, have been established. The development of the protected areas network in the region is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, although the latter does not reflect the depletion of the protected areas system during the 1950s and 1960s due to the manner in which the data have been recorded. Game (hunting) reserves are a specific type of pro- tected area, equivalent to IUCN Category IV. Histori- cally, these were hunting areas for kings. Up to recent times six areas of this type served as sites for a limited number of persons, which provoked some criti cism. At the same time, being under a highly strict protection regime, these territories played an important role in conserving natural ecosystems and some species of animals and plants. Thus, the Crimean game reserve is the best reserve area for the rare subspecies of the Crimean red deer (Cervus elaphus) and the Byelovezha Puscha is a reserve for the conservation of European bison. Gradually there are now positive trends for the - reorganisation of game reserves into nature reserves. In particular, Zavidovo game reserve near Moscow has been transformed into a nature reserve where shooting is prohibited and now provides for a higher level of scientific research. A decision has been taken on reor- ganisation of the Crimean game reserve into a nature reserve; a similar draft decision is under preparation for Byelovezha Puscha in Byelorussia. Table 1 shows selected data on protected areas in the various Republics. The distribution of nature reserves and national parks, as it is given in the figures, is highly variable, ranging from 0% (Moldova) to 7.4% (Armenia) in the various Republics (Map). In recent decades, as the normal functioning of the global biosphere is becoming increasingly threatened, the role of natural areas as complete "ecosystems" is being promoted. The necessity to coordinate intergov- emmental efforts in protecting nature is also being realized. The most important intergovernmental pro- grammes for our country have been the International Biological Programme, the Man and Biosphere Pro- gramme (23 of our reserves have been declared biosphere reserves), the World Heritage Convention and the Ramsar Wetlands Convention. The main recommendations of the 1982 Bali Con- gress on national parks have been taken into account in furthering state and republican programmes for pro- tected areas. Thus, in 1984 a scheme for rational de- velopment of the system of nature reserves, national parks and equivalent territories was begun. In 1990, a new Programme of Establishment of the Network of Specially Protected Areas for the period up to 2005 was adopted. The scientific principles for their development 139 North Eurasia incorporated the principles of the USSR physical and geographical zoning taking into account biogeogra- phical coverage of major ecosystems within the pro- tected areas network. After the Bali Congress the USSR established 30 nature reserves (including 16 biosphere reserves), 15 national parks and one game reserve with an area of 9,725,000ha throughout the region. Among them were large ones as the Wrangel Island Biosphere Reserve (Pacific) and the Estonian Archipelago Bio- sphere Reserve (Baltic, marine). Their distribution and extent are aimed at protecting major ecosystems, con- serving biodiversity, providing ecological balance, and providing sites for background and biological mon- itoring and for environmental education. The Soviet Union has been a party to the Ramsar Convention since 1975. At present 12 wetlands of in- ternational importance are inscribed on the Ramsar list in 7 Republics, covering about 3 million ha. Now 16 new proposals for the List, resulting from intensive surveys by scientific institutions of the country, are under discussion. In 1989 the USSR signed the World Heritage Con- vention, which came into force in 1990. Over 40 pro- posed areas of outstanding value are being considered in 13 Republics of the former Soviet Union. Some of them have natural importance, while others are of mixed natural and cultural/historic importance. To date only one site has been inscribed on the World Heritage List (Table 5), the Belovezhskaya Puschu, which lies across the border from the Bialowieza National Park in Poland (also a World Heritage Site). The USSR has been a member of the UNESCO/MAB Programme since it started in 1971, and numerous programmes now are being conducted in nature re- serves on multi- and bilateral bases. The basic principles of all biosphere reserves include organizational, scien- tific, monitoring, social and educational aspects which are being followed in this category of protected area. Of the 23 biosphere reserves, 19 were administered by the USSR Ministry of Natural Resources Management and Environmental Protection. Seven new areas are being considered as proposals for Biosphere Reserves within the Region. In 1983, the First World Congress on Bio- sphere Reserves was held in Minsk, Belarus. Since the dissolution of the USSR the situation re- grading international conventions and programmes has become unclear. However, current data held by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre is given in Table 4. 2. Current protected area coverage Throughout the former USSR the same categories of specially protected areas were used in each of the Republics as follows: nature reserves (equivalent to IUCN Category I), national parks (Category II), nature monuments (Category III) and sanctuaries or refuges (Category I'V). Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 100 Number of sites 80 Area (x1000sqkm) 60 40 20 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 500 Number of sites 400 Area (x1000sqkm) 300 200 100 0 exert Hai Bo BS, on Ee 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... 140 Nature reserves (zapovedniks) were established for conserving and studying representative and unique natural ecosystems, preserving the gene pools of organ- isms, and monitoring the dynamics of natural processes and phenomena. Their territories and water spaces were withdrawn from economic use for perpetuity. National parks were established to protect natural complexes of outstanding ecological, historic or aesthetic value as well as to promote environmental education. One of the principal tasks of national parks was outdoor recreation. As a rule, the national park lands were also withdrawn from alternative uses. Nature monuments were small natural sites or natural objects, being of outstanding ecological, scientific, aesthetic and cultural importance. Their protection was under the responsibility of the land-users on whose territories they were found. Sanctuaries were designed for the conservation, re- production and restoration of specific components of wildlife. The 1990 UN List of Protected Areas, published by IUCN and incorporating the first five IUCN manage- ment categories, gives a misleading picture of the rela- tive areas, numbers and categories of protected areas in the USSR. The list includes only nature reserves and national parks (Categories I and II), whose total area is 1.02% of the land. But the list does not include sanctu- aries (which have no assigned IUCN category). They are the most widespread management category in all of North Eurasia the region’s Republics; by including these sites, the total area protected in the region would reach 4.1%. These amendments, change notably the view of the whole system of areas in the USSR. The development of the network of protected areas has long been centralized and accomplished at the na- tional level of the country. Plans for the development of the System of Protected Areas and National Parks were elaborated by the USSR State Environmental Agencies on the basis of proposals by scientific research environ- mental institutions. However since independence of the various republics the network has become decentral- ized. In the process of developing plans for expanding the system of protected areas in the USSR, the social and economic features of a region were taken into account, including industry, agriculture, population structure and urbanization problems, transportation, pollution, and traditional lifestyles. However, the area of a proposed protected area depended to a large extent on the pop- ulation density of specific regions. Comparing the area of 27 nature reserves directed by the USSR Ministry of Natural Resources Management and Environmental Protection to population density shows an inverse ratio; ie. the higher the population density, the smaller the reserve area. The linear regression factor is rather high and reaches 0.77 (significant at the 1% level). Similar results have been received for the other 167 nature reserves in the former Soviet Union but the average coefficient of corre- lation is lower. Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: North Eurasia IV Area No. Area 119 1,778 1,384 1,672 7,899 1,779 187,573 856 11,114 1,587 2,132 218,493 160 237,958 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. The complete list of protected areas in Categories III—V is not available. The complete list of protected areas in Categories III-V is not available. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas These results are not unexpected, but they raise the issue of the objectivity of the process of planning the network of protected areas, suggesting that the institu- tions responsible for planning and managing the pro- tected areas may have been "victims of circumstance". The distribution of nature reserves and national parks indicates that the majority of them are located in the most densely populated regions of the westem part of the country, on the Russian plateau, in the mountains of the Caucasus and in Middle Asia. Some 60% of the total numbers of nature reserves are located in the European part of the former USSR. Being small in size they are surrounded by cultivated landscapes, finding themselves, in some cases, in an "island" position. Relatively monoto- nous vast territories of Siberia have few nature reserves, but the existing reserves are large in size, are not dis- turbed and are representative of the region. Nature reserves and national parks fulfil major tasks in conserving natural complexes. Sanctuaries are also of vital importance. According to their status at the time of the Union they were subdivided into Republic and local sanctuaries; for conservation purposes they were classed as game (or hunting), zoological, botanical, landscape complex, hydrological, or geological reserves. In 1991 the region had almost 2,000 sanctuaries, cover- ing an area of 67,641,000ha; 700 of these sanctuaries are of republican importance. The majority of them are in Russia—nearly 1,000 sanctuaries in all covering an area of 58 million ha. The sanctuaries of republican importance have staff (guards, etc.), their territories are reserved for longer periods, and they are more ade- quately managed. However many of the sanctuaries have limited or no legislation or management, effec- tively "paper parks". Traditionally, sanctuaries were established for the pro-tection of game species and for the conservation of the habitats of migratory species. At present their role in protecting rare and endangered species of animals and plants is increasing. Some 19 of 41 species of mammals and 65 of 109 species of birds included into the USSR Red Data Book have been given protection in republican sanctuaries. Such species as polar bear, European bison, Russian desman, snow leopard, red wolf, hooded crane, Caucasian snow-cock, mountain goose, rare species of birds of prey, numerous forest plant species, and rare and endangered species of her- baceous plants are pro-vided with protection in sanctu- aries. Trends to combine the functions of game and zoological sanctuaries have been outlined. At present the USSR has over 750 botanical sanctuaries, many of which are lha to 100ha in size. Many rare plant species in- cluded in the USSR Red Data Book, are protected in sanctuaries. Natural monuments are related to another widespread category of protected areas. They refer to monuments 142 of union, republican and local importance, and deci- sions on their establishment are adopted at appropriate levels. Obligations for their protection are taken by the organisations on whose lands they are located. The region now has over 5,000 protected natural monu- ments: their number is increasing continuously. The most intensive work is being done by the All-Russian Society for Nature Protection on the territory of the Russian Federation. Other categories of specially protected natural areas can be established in Republics, for example, forest reserves, protected landscapes, nature parks, micro- reserves (for protecting rare populations of animals and plants), vulnerable sea areas, and coastlines. Resource conservation areas, such as soil and forest protection belts, areas to protect water supplies, forests in health resort zones and others play an important part in plan- ning regional conservation schemes. 3. Additional protected areas required Representativeness is one of the major objectives of the protected areas network. It is evaluated at geographical, ecosystem and specific levels. The geographic level provides for evaluation of protected area representa- tiveness in various units of territorial zoning including physical-geographical and landscape. When making an analysis of protected area distribution it was found that some major biogeographic zones are not represented in the network; among them are arctic deserts, tundra, forest-tundra and steppe areas of Western Siberia and North-Eastern Siberian taiga; and there are no nature reserves in the mountain regions of the Polar and Pre- Polar Urals and on the Central Asian upland. At the ecosystem level representativeness is being considered in relation to zonal, intra-zonal and unique associations of specific biogeographical units. Compo- nent maps (vegetation, geobotanical, soil) are being used. Such an analysis has shown, for example, that only two of the 16 forest nature reserves— Berezinsky and Byelovezhskaya Puscha—are representative ones, while others are represented with intrazonal associ- ations. At the specific level, representativeness is analysed in relation to the flora of the nature reserves; to correlation of species specific to definite combinations of zonal, intrazonal and azonal associations; and to rare, relict and endemic species. For these purposes the data on ranges, floristic information and the lists of flora of nature reserves are used. For example, the Astrakhan nature reserve contains 20% of the flora of the appropriate floristic region; in Central-Chernozemny nature reserve this index reaches 49%. On the other hand, the vegetation type in "Galychia Gora" Nature Reserve is azonal and the index is only 2%. North Eurasia Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: North Eurasia % area established up to 1962 Armenia Azerbaijan ' Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Russian Fed, Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukzaine Uzbekistan Notes: % area established 1972-1981 Date established unknown % area established 1982-1991 Total area designated ooooooocoeoco Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I—V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted. Faunistic evaluation is based upon analysis of repre- sentativeness of the fauna species of the protected area in correlation with the fauna in an appropriate region. The assessment of the security of rare species with protection includes indices of the presence of endemic, rare and endangered species on the given territory. The Red Data Book (RDB) of the former USSR and RDBs of the Republics and of major regions are used for this purpose. As a result, the requirements for the estab- lishment of new protected areas are being defined and the conservation category, meeting these requirements, is being determined. Keeping in mind the necessity to fill the gaps in the representativeness of large physical-geographical units as well as of unique natural complexes and monuments, a scheme for the rational distribution of nature reserves and national parks for the period up to 2005 was pre- pared for the country. The results are summarized in Table 7. This network represents typical landscapes, habitats of rare and endangered species of animals and plants and the most valuable natural associations. Nature reserves will be established to protect the environment of arctic islands, such as Franz Joseph Land (over four million ha), Novaya Zemlya, the Kola tundra and Bol’shezemel’sky. Nature reserves are also planned to protect natural complexes of northern taiga and forest tundra, including such large and representative sites as Nenetzk, Kologriva and Emetz. The network of moun- tainous, steppe and forest-steppe nature reserves will be significantly extended. In the former USSR, 16 nature reserves are on coasts and islands (Bychkov, 1991) and also include marine areas. Four of them are in the Black Sea, two in the Caspian Sea and three in the Baltic. The White, Laptev’s, 143 Chukotsk and Azov Seas are each represented by one nature reserve. The Kronotsk Nature Reserve of the Pacific shore of Kamchatka has incorporated a 3km wide marine zone. The Barents, Karsk, East-Siberian, Bering and Okhotsk Seas have no protected areas. The majority of marine protected areas are small in size, exceeding 40,000ha in only five nature reserves. The Dalnevostochny (Far-East) Sea Nature Reserve is the only reserve established specifically for the con- servation of the plants and animals of the sea-shore. Of its total area of 64,360ha, the marine area is 63,000ha. For marine areas adversely affected by anthropogenic impacts, it was proposed by the all-Union to expand the total areas of existing marine and island nature reserves by joining them to neighbouring marine areas. In par- ticular, it was proposed to extend the territories of 15 existing nature reserves in the Black, Azov, Baltic, Caspian, White and Japan Seas, as well as to develop 5 new reserves, thus increasing the area of protected aquatic areas up to 2-3% of the total areas of these seas. Taking into the account the marine buffer zones, this area could represent approximately 5%. Again, prior to the break-up of the USSR it was proposed to expand the areas of 4 existing reserves and to establish 21 new nature reserves in the Barents, Karsk, Laptev’s, East-Siberian, Chulcotsk, Bering and Okhotsk Seas, and in the Pacific areas neighbouring the Kuni islands. Thus in total the protected marine area would have reached 6-8%. If buffer zones are taken into account the total marine area would have reached up to 12%. The former USSR planned to extend considerably the network of national parks. By 1991 the percentage of their territories as related to the total! area of specially Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas protected natural areas was low (0.12%), but future increases of protected areas was anticipated to favour national parks. An important task was the establishment of national parks in the north of Europe, where natural complexes include mixed elements of a historic and cultural heritage. Thus, it was planned to create a na- tional park to the west of Onega Lake, whose territory would include the outstanding Russian architectural monument of Kizhy. The landscapes of the Urals are proposed to be repre- sented in national parks of the polar, northern, middle and southern areas of the Ural mountain country. Seven national parks are proposed to be added to two existing ones in the Norther Caucasus, thus increasing their territory by more than 1 million ha. In the future, it is hoped that the coastal area of Lake Baikal will be provided with a ring of protected areas (including exist- ing ones). In total the network of nature reserves and national parks will achieve over 80 million ha, 3.63% of the region’s total area. It is to be hoped that the new Re- publics will achieve this. 4. Protected area institutions At present there is no united centralized system of protected areas management in the former USSR. Nature reserves, national parks, sanctuaries and natural mon- uments are managed by numerous ministries, agencies, organisations and local authorities. From 1989 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, USSR Goscompriroda had been continuously taking measures for establishing a federal union-republican structure of protected areas management authorities. This process was slow, mainly due to the tendency for decentralization of administration and management in the Soviet Union and the Declarations on Sovereignty by the Republics. The multiplicity of agencies and institutions involved in administration and management of protected areas was also an obstacle in this process. As of 1991, the majority of nature reserves (124 of 172) were part of the union-republican manage- ment system of Goscompriroda (Minpriroda). Of these, 27 state nature reserves, including 19 biosphere re- serves, are under the direct administration of USSR Minpriroda; the remaining 97 reserves are under ap- propriate republican State Committees, Ministries or Departments. Nature reserves not part of the USSR Goskompriroda (Minpriroda) system in 1991 were managed by the USSR State Forest Committee or appropriate republi- can Forest Committees and Ministries, by Academies of Sciences either of the USSR or of the appropriate Republics, by the USSR Academy of Agricultural Sci- ences or by its republican branches, by the USSR De- fence Ministry, by the State Committee for Education, Universities, by the Byelorussian Council of Ministers 144 Managing Department, USSR Ministry of Geology, and by some local authorities. National parks were managed under the union-repub- lican (federal) administration system of the USSR State Forestry Committee (Goskomles). It is implied that in Republics they were administered by appropriate state committees, ministries and departments. "Losiny Os- trov" National Park ("The Moose Island"), located in the vicinity of Moscow, is now managed by Moscow government. Following dissolution of the former USSR, protected area responsibilities were taken over by the various Ministries of the Environment, Agriculture or Forestry in each Republic. Administration and management of sanctuaries was and is exercised at the republican level. The overwhelming majority of sanctuaries are located on the territory of Russia and are subordinated mainly to the Russian Hunting Department. In several Repub- lics, sanctuaries are under the administration of local (district) societies of hunters and fishermen and local tourist boards. Other sanctuaries are subordinated to management authorities of the republican Ministries of Forestry, including various departments and territorial authorities. Several refuges were guided by the former USSR Defence Ministry, the research institutes of the Academy of Sciences, higher school institutions of the State Education Committee and the All-Union Acad- emy of Agricultural Sciences, and local territorial agri- cultural departments. In many Republics sanctuaries were administered by regional, town and countryside Boards of People’s Deputies. Many sanctuaries were established by collective and state farms on their terri- tories. Some sanctuaries, with preservation and restora- tion of fish resources as their primary management objective, were managed by regional Fish Conserva- tion/Management departments. At the time of the Union, attached to the USSR Cabinet of Ministers, the Commission on Emergency Situations had a special division in its structure to supervise affairs related to protected areas manage- ment. The republican Councils or Cabinets of Ministers also had similar divisions with various functions and powers. On the level of Supreme Soviets of the USSR and of the appropriate Republics the coordination (primarily in the field of the law) of protected areas administration was controlled by Committees and Commissions on Environment Protection (having different titles). At the All-Union level this was a Sub-Committee of the Com- mittee on Ecology. Financing of nature reserves and national parks is centralized and provided from the state budget, thus ensuring regular interrelations between the union and republican Ministries of Finance and the appropriate institutions dealing with protected area management. The material and technical supply for protected areas is also centralized. Previously it was provided by the USSR State Committee for Material and Technical Supply. Since 1990 the supply is provided through so-called "horizontal contacts", i.e. based upon direct agreements with suppliers of goods and equipment. Rangers in the majority of reserves and parks, dealing with protection of their territories from poachers and disturbers, are equipped with firearms. The rules of storage and usage of these firearms are strictly control- led by the USSR Ministry of the Interior. Conserving fish resources in protected areas is under the control of the special Fish Supervising Service. Wild animal man- agement in protected areas, primarily of ungulates, is provided by republican Departments of Hunting. Con- servation measures are best organized in nature reserves and national parks. Some 3,000 rangers are involved directly in providing conservation measures. Conserva- tion measures in nature reserves and national parks are complex and carried out variously with the help of patrolling teams, periodical watch method, organisation of cordons (rangers quarters) along protected areas bounda- fies, patrolling from the air, and establishment of con- trolling points. Traditionally wide-scale scientific research is con- ducted in nature reserves. To provide for its implemen- tation, protected area staff collaborate closely with the USSR and republican Academies of Sciences, univer- Sities and institutes of the USSR State Committee for Education and of appropriate republican governmental agencies, as well as with branch industries institutes. The background monitoring of the environment is car- ried out jointly with the USSR State Committee for Hydrometeorology. To implement forest inventories and monitoring, protected areas staff are interrelated with institutions of USSR Goscomles and appropriate forest agencies of the Republics. Aircraft and helicopters are widely used for protected areas conservation and surveys. This work is done in cooperation with republican airline services. One of the major tasks of rangers is preventing fires in protected areas. Nature reserves have their own tech- nical equipment for extinguishing fires, but this is in- adequate for fire control. Thus, 35 forest fires were registered in nature reserves of the USSR Goscompriroda in 1989. 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas Financial investment the Government of the USSR and by the Republican Governments in protected areas had increased continuously for the past 15 years (see Table 6). Investments in the major categories of protected areas—nature reserves, national parks and hunting reserves—increased 4.3 times from 1975 to 1990 (i.e. from 12,036,000 to 54,907,000 roubles). At the same time the average maintenance costs per protected area increased 2.5 times (from 115,000 to 282,000 roubles). 145 North Eurasia Was this a large or small amount? Certainly a small one. As the major expenditures are related to the payment of wages to protected areas staff, this criterion can be a relatively safe index of the level of financing of nature reserves and national parks. In 1991 wages of the staff of nature reserves, administered at the All-Union levei and financed at a higher level than the republican ones, were between 191 and 540 roubles a month (average 310 roubles). The wages of workers responsible for territorial protection, often with risk to their life, aver- age 200 roubles. In comparison, the average financial maintenance per person in the USSR was 232 roubles per month in the second quarter of 1991; a subsistence wage was nearly 300 roubles. Accordingly, taking into account these criteria, the total level of investments in protected areas was recommended to be increased 3 to 4 times. However, following the dissolution of the USSR the economic pressures on protected areas throughout the region has led to significant difficulties for any admini- stration and management in many of the reserves. The level of state investments into protected areas other than Categories I and II is beyond strict counting, so we can provide only an estimate of a few million roubles per year. In total the investment of the Govern- ments of the former USSR and the Republics in all categories of protected areas was an average of 60 million roubles a year in 1990 and 1991, or about 2 roubles per hectare. Voluntary investment by private organisations and persons into protected areas is not yet popular in the region. However, funds for national parks in Estonia and Latvia are the only exceptions to the existing situ- ation (see Europe Regional Review). These Funds are supported by numerous organizations and individuals. Thus, in 1990 the level of investment to "Gaua" National Park in Latvia amounted to 756,000 roubles; of this sum 230,000 roubles came from the state budget of the Republic and 526,000 roubles were provided from other sources. In 1990 in Estonia, 609,000 roubles were invested in the maintenance of the Lahemaa Na- tional Park, of which 155,000 roubles was from the republican budget with the remaining 454,000 roubles provided by other sources, including private ones. Tourism in protected areas is strictly limited in the former USSR. The number of national parks is rela- tively low and the tourist service infrastructure is unde- veloped. In 1989 and 1990 the 27 nature reserves of the USSR Minpriroda received a total of 320,000 visitors annually. Because tourism was not allowed in nature Teserves, people become acquainted with nature re- serves when they visited their nature museums. The payment for museum visits was so low that it could not affect the investment into protected areas. Data in Table 2, which is not fully comprehensive, indicate that the great majority of protected areas in the Republics fall into IUCN Management Category I, indicating the most strict levels of protection. National parks and nature reserves have significant incomes. Their sources comprise selling wood, taken Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas during "cleaning" forests from wind-fallen timber and branches, infested trees and after forest fires; income from catching game species and transporting them out- side protected areas for introduction/ reintroduction purposes, based on contracts with state bodies for game species (bred in captivity in some reserves); income from additional scientific research made by reserve scientists at the request of other organizations; rental and income from public utilities provided to workers of protected areas; and income from transportation facili- ties provided to outsiders and from subsidiary shops and agriculture in reserves and national parks. If all budgetary assignments comprise 100%, then other sources of funds reached 9% in nature reserves and 45% in national parks in 1990. The high level of additional funds in national parks results from timber cutting. Up to now international agencies have not allocated financial resources to protected areas in the former Soviet Union, although the World Bank was reviewing proposals in late 1991. 6. Human capacity in protected areas management By 1990 in the Soviet Union the total personnel of all nature reserves was 8,250, plus 3,470 for the national parks. It is impossible to calculate the total number of people involved in sanctuaries protection, but their num- ber approximates 2,000 in the region. Thus, in total, nearly 14,000 individuals are involved directly in pro- tected area services. An analysis of qualifications of people working in protected areas shows 3 major categories of specialists: administration (directors and their deputies); forest con- servation service; and scientific staff. Not all of the directors of nature reserves have a higher education in biology, forest technology or game biology. Often they are former economic executives or politicians; some of them, nevertheless, appear to be extremely talented and receptive leaders. As a rule, the lack of specialized education of directors of nature reserves causes conflict between scientific staff, work- ers and administrators, as their understanding of the goals and tasks of protected areas often differs. Usually the director has two deputies: a chief forester and a deputy director scientific. Chief foresters usually have a specialized forest-technical higher or secondary edu- cation, and deputy directors scientific have a biological, game biology or geography education. The overwhelm- ing majority of scientific staff have biological educa- tions; many of them are game biologists. This is an old tradition in the former USSR nature reserves, which were created for the conservation and restoration (enrichment) of the game species fauna. This tradition now appears to have become a hin- derance to developing modern methodologies of 146 ecological research in protected areas. In particular, there is a shortage of specialists in invertebrates and lower plants, microbiology, and soil. The forest conservation service, with foresters in charge, is responsible chiefly for the protection of nature areas. But it is mainly among them that one can meet accidental people, romantics in the worst sense of the word, without any special training. Instability and low qualification of workers in this category of pro- tected areas staff is due mainly to the extremely low wages, an average of 200 roubles per month. There are no special professional schools for teaching protected areas staff, but special training courses are attached to several institutes and higher schools. There is an urgent need for special training of foresters. Up to now, No serious attempts have been made to address the real need for specialists for protected areas; moreover, no attempts have been made to create a specialized state system of education for training personnel for protected areas. Finally, the lack of international exchange programmes for experts working directly in protected areas should be noted. 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas Priorities for future investment were due to be, or at least should have been determined by the USSR Supreme Soviet Decision Act of 27 November 1989 "On Urgent Measures for Ecological Rehabilitation of the Country". It was pointed out in the document that by 1995 the area of protected territories should increase up to 2% and by 2000 up to 3% by increasing the network of national parks and nature reserves. Unfortu- nately, investment priorities have not been determined by this Act, and the rapidly changing political and socio-economic situation creates considerable uncer- tainty for priorities for investment in protected areas even in the nearest future. Analysing existing trends, one may hope that the total rate of state investment in protected areas will increase rather slowly but steadily, based on the continuous growth in investment over the past 10-15 years. This relative stability can be ex- plained to some extent by the fact that the protected areas management authorities structure did not change much, and the experts who worked in this field in years prior to perestroika still continue their services in man- agement institutions even after dissolution of the USSR. The input of private organizations into protected ar- eas is expected to increase during the next few years, but it will not be prevailing and will not influence notably the development and investment into protected areas. Public organisations, such as social and ecologi- cal unions, and the Voluntary Nature Protection Brigade, render mainly social and moral assistance to protected areas. North Eurasia Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: North Eurasia World Heritage Date No. Area (ha) October 1988 November 1992 ? B ? October 1988 August 1992 ? October 1988 Notes: Biosphere Reserves No. Area (ha) regarding dates of adherence and listing of sites. A number of States (eg. Georgia) have deposited a notification of succession by which a commitment is made to the World Heritage Convention, ratified by the former Soviet Union on 12 October 1988. At an international level, the plan of action provides for a considerable extension of transboundary protected areas (see section 8), but the investment in international initiatives has been determined only for the near future. Investments in maintaining and developing protected areas within the framework of newly-established eco- nomic relations can also be expected, including invest- ments from selling scientific information, production of environmental films by foreign TV and film-production companies, and environmental educational excursions. 8. Major protected areas issues in the region: legal, social and economic development 8.1 People in protected areas In many cases human access to natural resources is incompatible with nature protection objectives and pro- vides the major source of conflicts arising in protected areas establishment. These conflicts are universal and it is hard to believe that they will be overcome in a general sense. On a planetary scale this is a contradic- tion between man’s right to exploit natural resources and his obligations to Planet Earth. Establishment and broadening the protected areas system often is interpreted by local populations as an encroachment on their rights to use natural resources. Compensation measures are often compromising; as a Tule, satisfying the demands of local populations is detrimental to the conservation status of protected areas. Usually, information is not well used. There is a good understanding that the environment must be clean, rivers inhabited by fish, forests by mammals and birds, but that 147 13 Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention Date No. Area (ha) 132,500 76,201 23,900 ? February 1977 December 1992 34,600 ? 159,585 ? 47,500 ? 9,028,510 211,051 1. Recent political changes in the former Soviet Union mean that the current situation is in some cases unclear all these should be available for man. He should own all this. People are not conscious yet that biological diver- sity is a resource, providing for human survival. The problems of local populations around protected areas are being solved in different ways. People tradi- tionally living in nature reserves and national parks are usually allowed strictly limited rights to gather berries and mushrooms, catch fish, cut hay, graze cattle, and keep bees for private purposes on specially allotted sites. In buffer zones sport hunting and traditional re- source utilization by inhabitants are exercised under the auspices of authorities of nature reserves or national parks. The local population has a preference for hunting in game sanctuaries. Local traditional land-ownership and land tenure are exercised in two ways. First, land tenure plans for ihe proposed nature reserve or national park are subject to an obligatory agreement with land- owners and local authorities. The statutes of each nature reserve and national park have provisions for traditional land tenure and maps indicate boundaries for land ten- ure. Statutes are coordinated with local and republican authorities. Unfortunately, local traditions are not applied in pro- tected areas management, thus leading to serious insuf- ficiency in developing protected areas, especially nature reserves and national parks. This lack of traditional knowledge related to resource management limitations has led to the loss of traditional protected areas. This is aproblem that needs special investigation. For example, until recently the relict fir forest was protected on Zhyma mountain on Ol’khon island in Baikal because the Buryat people believed this place to be sacred and visits were prohibited (Imetkhenov, 1991). It is regrettable that representatives of local people are drawn insufficiently into protected areas management, and that their managers are mainly Russians, especially Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas on the territory of the Russian Republic. In recent years, due to the growing sovereignty of the Republics, the situation is changing slowly and local people more often participate in the administration of protected areas. This process undoubtedly has a slight nationalistic bias, but we hope that it will bring closer a more positive rela- tionship with local people in protected areas administra- tion and will apply traditional knowledge to management. Inhabitants within protected areas have some bene- fits, especially in distant areas and settlements of pro- tected areas where local people, who are not necessarily members of their staff, are involved in the reserve, park or sanctuary infrastructure management. Thus, electric- ity and heating provided to the protected areas are available not only to the staff, but to all residents as well. The same refers to shops, schools and medical help. Usually, local people living in but not serving a pro- tected area equally use transportation facilities of nature reserves and national parks. In any case, some of the houses in protected areas have been given partially by the Councils of People’s Deputies to local residents, and for the majority of residents, protected areas are the source of their livelihood. Several examples illustrate conflicts with local peo- ple who are deprived of their rights to traditional re- source use. In Sayano-Shushensky Biosphere Reserve a mineral water source is traditionally the site of pil- grimage for local people, mainly of Tuvinian national- ity. Traditional medicine says it has curative properties; it is also a sacred place. For a long time managers of the reserve were in conflict with residents, trying to prohibit free access to the source. Finally, they had to provide limited rights for local people to the mineral water source, within special quotas and under supervision. In Sjunt-Khasardag, Turkmenia, a serious conflict arose with the local population as tribal representatives were required to give up rights to pastures that tradition- ally belonged to them for inclusion in the territory of the Reserve. This conflict was decided in favour of the local people. Uncontrolled cattle grazing in protected areas is one of the most widely distributed violations of the conser- vation regime. Native people traditionally used these lands as pastures, and, as a rule, land tenure has been changed only with great difficulty, with local people being unwilling to give up their historic traditions. In some cases, when interests of local people are ignored, groundless decisions are taken in the process of protected area planning. For example, not long ago there was also serious conflict in relation to Ramit Nature Reserve in Tadjikistan. A cemetery is located in the Reserve near its boundary. Visits by former villagers of the settlement neighbouring the cemetery were strictly limited and former villagers could not settle in the vicinity of their beloved graves. This problem was being considered by the Republic Government and compro- mises probably will be achieved. 148 In many cases, the interests of local people should be taken into account, especially on limited traditional resource management, lest sooner or later lack of proper involvement leads to serious conflicts. Such interests should be taken into account during the procedures for allotting lands for nature reserves. However some people may be pursuing their own aims and, having no concer for traditional resource management, may com- promise national interests. 8.2 Involvement by the private sector Problems of involvement by the private sector in the establishment of protected areas were new concepts for the Soviet Union immediately prior to its dissolution, newly permitted under the Law and Acts of the Soviet Union and Union Republics providing for the private sector and private land ownership. In the coming five years these problems will be of great concern in relation to general process of privatization in the economy and land tenure. In the draft "Basis of Law of the USSR and the Republics on Specially Protected Natural Areas” and in appropriate laws of the Union Republics, private own- ership of specially protected areas was envisaged and even up to now there have been no proposals for private persons to manage nature reserves and national parks. At the same time, taking into the account the general trend for commercialization which penetrates nature conservation structures, tendencies are growing for using protected areas for commercial purposes. Experience of the involvement of the private sector in protected areas structures is limited, so it is too early to evaluate properly this new phenomenon. But some examples can be given. In Oksky Biosphere Reserve a group of specialists have taken the breeding centre for rare and endangered species of predatory birds on a lease. In Kronotzk Biosphere Reserve the regional as- sociation undertook obligations to provide helicopter excursions to Geiser Valley (on the territory of the reserve). There are some proposals to organize interna- tional sport hunting in the buffer zones of nature re- serves, although this is reported to have resulted in hunting of RDB species such as the tiger. The central protected areas management bodies are very cautious about the involvement of the private sector in nature reserves, for two reasons. First, no approved mechanism is yet available for financing spe- cially protected areas from non-state sources. It goes without saying that such investments, being additional ones, will be positively accepted by state management authorities. However, investments into the establish- ment and/or development of specially protected areas should not automatically mean acquiring the right for participating in managing of the appropriate territory by the sponsor, for influencing their conservation status/ regime, or attempting some commercial activity on their territories. And second, no legal measures have yet been estab- lished for the relationship between specially protected areas and their financial donors, and for instruments to stimulate non-budgetary investment. These problems need urgent competent elaboration for controlling pri- vate sector involvement into nature reserves and na- tional parks affairs. In any case, protected areas should remain state property independent of the economic struc- tural reforms in the country. Table 5. World Heritage sites in North Eurasia Belarus Belovezhskaya Puscha State National Park (with Poland) 8.3. Protected areas and surrounding lands The distribution and planning of new protected natural areas is connected with the natural and economic con- ditions of specific areas. This is taken into account in developing complex territorial schemes of environ- mental protection, including protected areas. For ex- ample, the new and complex scheme of environmental protection for areas of new oil and gas exploitation in Western Siberia incorporates the interests of reindeer breeding. Protected natural areas planning provided for the protection of reindeer reproduction sites, routes of their migration, and pastures. The territories of new industrial exploitation partially affected the territories of existing sanctuaries. With due regard to this fact, new sanctuaries and refuges have been proposed and the boundaries of the existing ones changed. Prospects for further economic development of the northeastern part of the European part of the former USSR, in particular planning in the region of the Yamal- Western Ukraine gas pipeline, have been taken into account in the process of developing the scheme of distribution of protected areas of the region. Industrial zoning of the territory and evaluation of the existing network of protected areas have been done. This evalu- ation demonstrated the high efficiency of the present sanctuaries. Thus, good progress has been achieved in rehabilitation and protection of cedar populations in sanctuaries, started along the northern limit of its range 20 years ago. It was proposed to expand this network, and to establish new nature reserves on the basis of closely distributed sanctuaries, and to expand territories of existing nature reserves, in particular Pinezhsky. A different approach is taken for urbanized areas, where factors seriously limit the establishment of new protected areas, and it is necessary to establish very small protected natural or semi-natural areas. Within highly urbanized areas the Moscow region is of special 149 North Eurasia importance. This heavily populated region has a dense network of roads, settlements, highly developed indus- try, intensive agriculture and high requirements for recreation. At the same time the region is characterized with high natural diversity, located in the forest and forest-steppe zones, with a variety of typical and unique sites of great scientific and cultural importance. This is also an area of importance for international tourism; the well-known "Golden Ring” runs through historic towns and places, including natural and architectural memori- als and scenic landscapes. We have a challenging task to create the network of specially protected areas in the region to conserve the most valuable natural sites and to provide for the growing demands of recreation and ecological tourism. Scientists of the Moscow State Uni- versity along with other scientific institutions have made wide surveys and constructed a map of the most valu- able natural sites in the Moscow region in order to ensure the development of an integrated development strategy for the area. Present development of agriculture leads to relatively monotonous landscapes with smooth relief and drained lands, seriously affecting biological diversity. In central Russia and Byelorussian Polessie, for example, devel- opment of land-reclamation has led to considerable impoverishment of the gene-pools of animals and plants, decreasing numbers of game species of mammals, birds and fish, loss of wetlands, and decreasing areas of wild berryfields. Rational planning of territories should pro- vide for compensation zones, as is done in the Baltic Republics. For example, if land reclamation objectives are fulfilled, 10-30% of the area should be protected to provide for conservation of the habitats of wild animals and plants. Reserved areas should include also eco- nomically "inconvenient" lands, such as ravines, gorges, steep slopes, sides of roads, river lowlands and lake basins. 8.4 Protected areas and science In the Sovict Union nature reserves traditionally pro- vide conservation of landscapes and ecosystems, but are also scientific research centres. All of them have scien- tific divisions, chaired by deputy directors scientific. Major scientific problems are being discussed by the Scientific Council of the appropriate reserve. The num- ber of scientific workers in such areas vary consider- ably, in some cases reaching 40 scientists, as in the Caucasian and Astrakhansky biosphere reserves; the average is 10. Scientific research is being conducted both by reserve scientists and by researchers from other institutions, primarily scientists from the All-Union Institute for Nature Conservation and Nature Reserves of the USSR Minpriroda, institutes of the Academy of Sciences in each Republic, universities and pedagogical institutes. A great volume of research is being done by students who are allowed in reserves for field training. In recent years direct links between nature reserves and scientists Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas from other countries (Germany, USA, Japan, Norway, Finland, Sweden and France) have been developed and joint research is being conducted. In some regions of the former Soviet Union scientists of nature reserves have established Regional Scientific Councils, providing coordination of scientific research on protected areas in their regions. Among them there are the Caspian, Eastern-Siberian, Middle-Asian, Far- East and Caucasian Regional Scientific Councils. Re- gional Scientific Councils are expected to become re- gional management bodies in the future, thus basing management on geographic principles, and not on ad- ministrative or national ones. The Commission on Co- ordination of Scientific Research in Nature Reserves of the former USSR Academy of Science played an im- portant part in this work. Since the 1930s several nature reserves have publish- ed collections of scientific papers, and some of them issue permanent collections of thematic and regional scientific papers. Scientists of reserves participate ac- tively in symposia, meetings and congresses. Almost all of the reserves have scientific libraries, often compris- ing several thousand books. Many reserves have large zoological collections and herbaria. Traditionally all nature reserves of the former Soviet Union prepare "Annals of Nature", collections of an- nual phenological observations on their territories. An- nals of Nature also include observations on animals and plants, providing a giant data bank on the state and dynamics of the environment in the USSR; this un- doubtedly serves as the basis of the system of ecological monitoring in protected areas. Nevertheless, this unique information is not yet properly organized; there is no centralized archive of the Annals of Nature, no system- atic index, and no unified database for storage and computer treatment of the information. In most nature reserves and national parks standard meteorological stations have been established, and the majority of them are part of the union meteorological system. Since 1981 monitoring stations had been established by the Goscomhydromet throughout the USSR. By the end of 1990 such stations had been established in 10 biosphere reserves. They provide for standard meteoro- logical and environmental pollution data. Results are being published in a special Bulletin. Unfortunately, the equipment is outdated, and as a result reserves are not collecting all of the required information, nor are they getting it out without delay. This impedes analysis of the biomonitoring data, hampering efforts to correlate processes in animal and plant populations and environ- mental changes, including the impact of anthropogenic pollution on the biota. A wide variety of biological research is carried out in nature reserves. These can be subdivided into three major categories: inventories of fauna and flora; moni- toring the state of natural complexes/ecosystems; and 150 observing the status of rare and endangered species of plants and animals. Research into the biology of rare species of plants and animals has provided opportunities for conserving and restoring their numbers, and to rehabilitate the ranges of several species. In particular, scientists of nature reserves have made a significant contribution to con- serving sable (Martes zibellina) in the Bargusin NR, Amur tiger (Panthera tigris) and long-tailed goral (Naemorhedus caudatus) in Sikhote-Alin NR, European bison (Bison bonasus) in Prioksko-Terrasny NR, Japanese white crane (Grus japonensis) in Khingansky NR, Chinese merganser (Mergus squama- tus) in Lazovsky NR, Siberian salamander (Salaman- drella keyserlingii) in Bol’shehehzirsky NR, and whipsnake (Elaphe climaeophora) in Kunashir. The role of nature reserves is also significant in stud- ies of rare and endangered plant species. Thus, the Tertiary flora relict, sacred (in India) Caspian lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) is effectively protected in Astrakhansky and Kyzyl-Agach NRs; in Prymorie na- ture reserves (Lazovsky, Ussuriisky and Kedrovaya Pad) pro- tection measures are given to the wonder- working "root of life" ginseng (Panax ginseng); and Kedrovaya Pad Nature Reserve provides for conserva- tion of the lichen navelwort (Umblicaria esculenta). This list is merely an indication of the protection pro- vided to threatened species by protected areas. Research being conducted in nature reserves proves that habitat protection is extremely important for spe- cies survival. Forest cutting, cattle grazing, recreation and changes in the soil chemistry, are followed by rapid changes of communities and associations, leading to detrimental changes to species with narrow or dispersed ranges. For example, in the Karpatsky Nature Reserve, the level of soil pH has been reduced because of fertil- izer run-off from neighbouring fields, resulting in de- creasing populations of narcissus (Narcissus angusti- folius). Elimination of even one dominant species is often followed by a sharp change in the community compo- sition. Thus, pine cutting on pine-shrub-sphagnum oligotrophic high bogs is accompanied by growing thick low under shrubs, affecting (due to darkening and de- foliation) the sphagnum moss. Tigrovaya Ballka Nature Reserve in southern Tadjik- istan conserves the vanishing subspecies of the Bactrian deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus) by protecting its habi- tat, "tugai” thickets along the Vahsh and Pjandze river valleys. Nevertheless, constructing cotton-fields and water-flow regulation in surrounding areas poses a se- rious threat to the habitats of this extremely rare species. In addition, it is only due to habitat conservation in Berezinsky reserve in Belarus that the European beaver (Castor fiber) populations are numerous. 8.5 Pollution and protected areas Recent research being carried out in reserves shows that industrial and agricultural pollution of protected areas is rather great, and that the densely-populated areas of the European part of the former USSR suffer the great- est anthropogenic impact. The following branches of industry have had a serious impact on protected areas: metallurgy, chemical, mining, construction, cellulose and energy. The most careful studies have been carried out on the consequences of industrial pollution from the Monchegorsk group of enterprises (Severonikel) on the ecosystems of the Laplandsky reserve. Aerosols formed of sulphurous gases are being detected at a distance of 160km from the polluting source. The total area of the Monchegorsk tundra affected by gas and dust pollution discharge is nearly 4000 sq km. Pollution has reduced the life of lichen species in the reserve, destroyed fir trees, and shortened the life of conifer needles from 12 to 2 years (as coming nearer to the source of pollution). Degradation of plant cover affects in its turn animal population structure. In areas suffering industrial pollu- tion discharges, the numbers of red-backed moth (Clethrionomis glareolus) decreased 6.5 times in the past 50 years. Shrews (Sorex sp.) are entirely absent near the emission sources. Northern reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) can be found only in less polluted areas that still have lichens. Increasing alkalinity in soils near the Cherepovetsk metallurgy enterprise influences the radial growth of tree trunks in the Darvinsky NR, making annual rings much thinner. The Baikalsky reserve suffers dust and Table 6. the Republics North Eurasia gas pollution from big enterprises. The impact of the Baikalsky cellulose enterprise, felt 60km to the west of the reserve, is extremely harmful. High mountain firs of the northern slope of Hamar-Daban suffer chronic poi- soning. Atmospheric precipitations have a pH of 5.5»; annual wood growth has decreased 40-60%, naturai renewal to a tenth of its former rate. Excess sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere in the Prioksko- Terrasny reserve causes acid precipitation, leading to necrosis and chlorosis of coniferous needles and leaves, and denudation of branches. New data on the impact of the Chernobyl nuclear power station on the natural complexes of protected areas are now being analysed. Investigations held in the Caucasian NR found an increase in the levels of stron- tium-90 and caesium-137. Experts believe this is the cause of death of red deer (Cervus elaphus) and chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra). The most serious consequences of agricultural pollu- tion (fertilizers and pesticides) in protected areas are observed in the nature reserves of Central Asian Repub- lics. Thus, in Zeravshan NR the level of organochlorine pesticides is several times higher than the rate consid- ered safe to humans. Finally, agricultural water-flows in Tigrovaya Balka NR have influenced the processes of mineralization, substance turnover, composition, numbers, biomass, dominant groups of micro- and macro vegetation in lakes. Investment in nature reserves, national parks and game (hunting) reserves in Thousand rouble Republic 1975 1980 1985 655 597 1,819 1,415 677 439 466 10,587 177 865 3,254 684 12,036 115 154 Average per protected area 16,959 215 1,220 4,811 787 151 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 975 698 1,884 1,603 866 530 445 25,172 330 1,365 5,518 914 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 8.6 Threats to effective management of protected areas The major threats to effective protected area management include decentralization of the administration structures, the great number of authorities responsible for protected area management, uncertainty in inter-relations of legal executive powers, and the lack of legal instruments concerning responsibility for protected areas manage- ment. Decentralization of protected areas management struc- tures assumes that nature reserves, national parks, sanc- tuaries, and natural monuments, are being managed by different authorities, as mentioned before; and local authorities of different ranks—from republican to agri- cultural ones—often interfere in protected areas man- agement. In recent years decentralization is growing menac- ingly, responding to changes in the political situation in the country. Often "populism" is prevailing in the ac- tivities of local powers, meaning that they take deci- sions on changes of protected areas boundaries or man- agement regime with the aim of satisfying the economic and social demands of people. Sometimes such deci- sions violate the law; they are taken hastily, without agreement with the authorities responsible for protected area management; and their only aim is to "switch off" the dissatisfaction of the local people. Imposing the will of local powers on reserves to provide for hay, wood and fruits of wild plants is a widespread form of intrud- ing into protected area management. In many cases central management bodies have problems in cancel- ling such orders of local authorities, as the administra- tion of reserves is dependent on them in their economic activities. Information on cases of interference into protected areas affairs is received from administration and staff members, as well as from environmental circles con- cerned with the fate of the reserve. Usually the leaders of the appropriate environmental agencies use all pos- sible influences at all levels to prevent interference into protected areas management. In some cases compro- mises are found, in others intra-agency agreement is delayed for years; often it is almost impossible to obvi- ate interferences into protected areas legally. Too often, when local authorities intervened with protected area management measures taken by the former Union (federal) or republican administrations, the result looked like diplomatic activities rather than that of administrators with executive powers. The situation in Krasnovodsky reserve, a Ramsar site, is a good illustration. Local inhabitants living on the territory of the reserve or in its vicinity demanded that the deputies of the Turkmenian Republic should change the reserve conservation regime. The deputies put the problem on the agenda of the republican Supreme Soviets. The Supreme Soviet instructed the Turkmenian Council 152 of Ministers to take an appropriate decision on making changes in the regime of the reserve. The governmental decision was adopted. The USSR State Committee for Environmental Protection, being in charge of this re- serve, was confronted by a fait accompli. Neither its protests, nor appeals of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the USSR Procurator’s Office, could affect the Turkmenian Administration decision. The same refers to biosphere reserves, whose inter- national status has no perceived effect on solving man- agement problems at national level, as the national legislation has no provisions confirming international importance of protected areas certified by UNESCO. The role and the status of protected area management plans are not high, as major conflicts are related to land ownership. As a tule, in decision-making priorities, economic resource utilization, which is part of sectoral plans or plans of local authorities, predominate over plans of protected area management. Unfortunately, at present there is no standardization of systems and methodology for the evaluation of the effectiveness of protected areas management. Usually, these problems are touched upon in periodical publica- tions of experts on protected areas or in their reports at expert meetings, symposia, seminars, etc. There is a hope that in the near future the whole system of pro- tected areas management will be analysed and super- vised by committees and commissions on environmental protection attached to the Republics throughout the region. The administrations responsible for protected areas management in the regional authorities regularly report to higher level authorities on the management prob- lems. On the basis of these reports appropriate deci- sions, aimed at the improvement of protected areas management, are taken; the efficiency of such decisions is not adequate. At the same time, being good syntheses of problems, they are widely distributed in vertical and horizontal management structures and penetrate the consciousness of environmentalists and other experts, thereby providing for the improvement the whole cum- bersome and mixed-up management structure. It is proposed to establish an inter-republican Council for Protected Areas Management. This Council could become a body to synthesize and analyse problems, related to the effectiveness of protected area manage- ment. 8.7 Transfrontier initiatives In recent years the Soviet Union has been taking prac- tical steps to develop transfrontier protected areas, In 1989 the Soviet-Finland bilateral nature reserve "Druzhba — 1" was established; the nature reserve "Druzhba — 2" will include a large island archipelago in the Finnish bay. Preliminary research on the territory of a future Russian-Norwegian nature reserve has been started. Poland and Belarus have agreed on the establishment of the bilateral nature reserve "Byelovezhskaya Puscha” (already a World Heritage Site on both sides of the border), and the Ukranian-Polish-Slovakian mountain nature reserve "Beschady" in the Carpathian mountain system has been proposed. Early in 1991 representatives of the USSR Goscom- priroda and Governments of the Tuva and Mongolian Republic signed a protocol on establishment of the Soviet-Mongolian Biosphere Reserve "Ubsu-Nur". It will be a cluster reserve, consisting of 7-8 sites and will be representative of the natural variety of one of the largest depressions in the world. Preliminary investiga- tions were conducted on the territory of the future Teserve, primarily by scientists of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Preliminary investigations have been completed also for the establishment of the Soviet-Chinese reserve "Khanka Lake", which is also a Ramsar site. To this end both neighbouring countries will be able to join their efforts in improving protection of numerous species of coastal and water birds, both nesting in the lake or migrating through it. Establishment of Beringia International Park with the USA is of special importance. Work for its establishment was started as a result of initiatives of Presidents Gorbachev and Bush. In the Soviet Union intensive work is being done for creating this protected area. Preliminary evaluation suggests that this area, totalling 6 million ha, will have a complex zoning. In total, seven existing, projected or proposed border natural areas occur along the former USSR boundaries with Norway, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, China and USA. The total length of the state border line which is supposed to be "broken to pieces" by international reserves and national parks, comprises nearly 900km. Anyhow these are natural complexes, in historic times joining together animal and plant king- doms and human beings, providing spaces for tradi- tional life styles. For ages people lived in harmony with nature in these areas. The Soviet Union had signed bilateral agreements in the field of environment with many countries of the world. To provide for effective implementation of en- vironmental tasks within the framework of these agree- Ments joint commissions and working groups were created. Cooperative programmes on protected natural areas include mutual exchange of experience in organi- zation of protected areas and providing for their conser- vation, conducting joint research in protected areas, primarily of monitoring the environment, establishment of databases of rare and endangered species of fauna and flora in protected areas, animal marking and moni- toring their migration (including satellite monitoring), Organisation of nurseries for preservation and restoration 153 North Eurasia of rare and endangered species, and studies of biologi- cal diversity in protected areas. In particular, within the framework of bilateral inter- governmental environmental agreements, expert groups of the former USSR are cooperating in the field of protected areas with the USA, Germany, Bulgaria, Poland, Sweden, Canada, the former Czechoslovakia and Finland. Proposals for establishment of similar working contracts with several other countries were being discussed. 9. Priorities for action in the region The most important priorities for the development of the protected areas system in the region are as follows: 1. Expanding the network of protected areas The Act of the USSR Supreme Soviet of 27 November 1989 "On Urgent Measures for the Ecological Rehabili- tation of the Country” stipulated extending the total area of protected territories of Categories I and II (nature reserves and national parks) by up to 2% by 1995, and up to 3% by 2000. This should be implemented in each of the countries of the former USSR. The network of protected areas should be expanded also on the basis of other conservation categories, i.e. sanctuaries, nature monuments and territories with traditional resource man- agement, providing for limited exploitation of natural resources. Territories of international importance, including Ramsar and World Heritage Sites and transfrontier areas, are to play a significant part in the general system of protected areas. They should form a continuous network of pro- tected natural areas, capable of supporting biological diversity as the basis for the biosphere stability over vast areas. Special attention is being paid to protected ma- rine areas, including coastlines, whose area is rather small in the general system of protected areas in the region. 2. Development of the national parks system The national parks system needs to be developed as an independent institution, aimed at conserving the natural complexes and improving man’s environmental culture through his contacts with nature. Additional efforts will be needed to develop the infrastructure of national parks, which require specific service facilities. 3. Establishment of an integrated environmental monitoring system in protected areas The integrated monitoring system should include back- ground and biological diversity monitoring. This sys- tem should be based primarily in biosphere reserves. It Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas is expected that the regional system would be integrated into the worldwide system of ecological monitoring. 4. Considerable increase of investment into protected areas An increase of at least 4—5 times, primarily from the republican budgets, is required to enable protected areas in the region to attain their objectives. Insufficient in- vestment will also lead to the failure of the increase in the protected area network. If the rate of protected area system development remains at the same level as is was for the past 15 years (1975-90), then the 3% growth of protected areas system in the region can be achieved only by 2025 and not before 2000 as planned. 5. Improvement of protected areas legal protection As of the middle of 1991 there was no adopted Law on Specially Protected Areas in the region. No legal sanctions were adopted against disturbance of the pro- tected areas regime. Rangers in nature reserves and national parks are limited in their rights to catch disturb- ers, a problem which needs to be addressed urgently. 6. Restructuring Administration/ Management Authorities Effective coordination of all protected areas manage- ment in the States of the region is required, consistent with republican rights for their natural resources. Ac- tivities agreed upon by Republics for the improvement of protected areas should become a part of inter-repub- lican coordinated policies for nature resource manage- ment and environment protection. New tools for plan- ning their financial, material and technical security should be developed with due regard for the transition period to the market economy, decentralization of Management Authorities, inter-relations of the Repub- lics and their relations with federal Authorities. Table 7. Development of the network of nature reserves and national parks in the Republics: perspectives up to 2005: North Eurasia Republic Nature reserves % of National parks Total % of % of Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Russian Federation Tadjikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan Area (000ha) 92.3 237.6 319.4 197.0 3,600.2 285.2 21.4 42,637.1 180.7 1,361.4 487.8 1,510.2 50,930.3 Republic Area total area No. (000ha) 150.0 664.0 393.0 19.4 1,999.9 258.9 38.6 22,947.1 1,430.0 250.0 626.9 932.3 29,710.1 154 Area total area No. (’000ha) 242.3 901.6 712.4 216.4 5,600.1 544.1 60.0 65,584.2 1,610.7 1,611.4 1,114.7 2,442.5 Republic total area 8.08 10.36 3.43 3.09 2.06 2.75 1.76 3.84 11.26 3.3 1.85 5.46 North Eurasia References Bychkov, V.A. (1991). Conservation resource manage- Imetkhenov A.B. (1991). Natural monuments of Baikal. ment protection and the restoration of sea mammals. Novosibirsk, Nauka (Science), S.B., 130 pp. From The review of the state and perspectives for TUCN (1992). Protected areas of the World: A review the establishment of sea nature reserves in the USSR, of National systems. Volume 2. Palaearctic. based on the report of VNIIPRIRODA of the USSR Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Minpriroda. Moscow, 1991. Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 556pp. 155 a sas . ; “ 00 syatnal disnarhance aff Hida el gi yy gm mn se diane : P By Sianiratens etl mthetrtiphds ena tis ore tevamatl AUTOS pee onl ‘gig catiTe egies bod OP eb EF: rererpad « —_ F: Senet ihe ahi Joni vinend! ime arrwacemary steer Dep evans A bee anisoae sO) - vay foray het mara: ACPO) oF At “ent ‘aK YA, wie: sheaibita hb ecopsetel emer - ¢ yyceatloy ie en ; alte as Lae ahah sea speeded a stub ne BERS oe 16 I ACORLE TIM Vio nogatert os bead Ui wanes Ceay AQRL MWESB0ML, rama eT geil PHOS of te my? ns rope cau i oeF hace aneyeel Pesce yeanegeats Aa. at oy ) Re pmairtic + der par a. pinata > fatter em, sat , ele Dey ng mae a. weeptcront gotad: tet ve ‘wey de rtmard fave rey coomony, at iden, inte calm “with federally i one rr East Asia Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas seole pajoajoid payeubisep Ajje6a] ulyyim papnjou! AsjuN0d yo eHeyuadseq = “dew 008 00r Oo %\-01 Ee — UU ZO0L-S %O% uDYy e40N fii %S- 10 %OZ-S1 %1'9 uoyy sseq | peyoejoud ebpjuedsed 158 Contents Page i=) Historical perspective ... .ccoslecs eootis scm wie whos fee... allel 161 [ele Vhethistory of{people;and‘nature’ «3 3 2 es se es ee we ee Se 161 1.2. Environmental implications of economic development .............. 162 1.3. The growth of the protected areasystem................22200. 162 PAmeMISCSSONS eam Gc fo costae ecco, So SMR Sk ug et er eal ul ia 165 2. Current protected areacoverage ....................0008. 165 Slane Marine parks igs ester Nats fat Teh. Dass a ee Ps 166 3. Additional protected areas required ....................... 167 4. Protected areainstitutions .......................-...--. 167 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 168 6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 170 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 170 8. Major protected areaissuesintheregion .................... 170 Sei tepleanditenurel Syncs: Beek ees a, cena ea oacmecsonsat tietouteg: ld Boe Fg: 170 8.2 Conflicts withdevelopment ...................-.-.-.--00055 172 S'3eRelations withylocaljpeoplei a = | -Wecnne) oncut ey cee uence em ere 172 SrA Protectediareasyand research = eps. =) ueiene i cnn iene mencnt cents 172 See ianagementieffechVenesSeru-m aus <1 Gueurneale nine n(n mrnnsr i emte nite Cenc nT 173 9. Priorities for actioninthe region ......................-.. 173 mexnowledgements 2 "t.8 M2 es 2 eee Pe ee 174 IRIEL CNICOS iets econ ee cdc te an i 3) Se sicee Me weenie CORRE ce ara 174 Tables Table 1. Summary of the protected areassystem .............--2.2-. 162 Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories .............. 162 Table 3. |The development of the protected areas system .............-..- 163 159 Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Figures Map. Figure 1. Figure 2. Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 168 World Heritage sites in East Asia ..............00 00000. 168 Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 169 Protectediareaswnwapan 65505 5 dy Wires) os 9) s,s glenn on 171 Visitors to national parks in Korea .................004- 171 Financial investments in national parks in Korea .............. 171 Percentage of country included within legally designated protected ATC AS wrote eet ie ee ee i nd a 158 Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 164 Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 164 160 East Asia Wang Xianpu, Regional Vice-Chair for East Asia, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas 1. Historical perspective People in the Far East have always had a strong aware- ness of nature and of the need for its preservation. Often this notion was based on simple, aesthetic values of a particular region or natural feature, rather than a con- scious awareness of the overriding need for the conser- vation of natural resources. Nonetheless, it has resulted in the establishment of certain sites as protected areas and, moreover, has probably contributed to a greater understanding and appreciation of protected areas among the people of the region. It is therefore not surprising to find that within the East Asia Region, there already exists a substantial network of protected areas, although the status, degree of national coverage and public ap- preciation of such areas vary considerably throughout the region. Against this background, there is now a major need for a thorough review of protected area issues, including an assessment of the problems that these sites experience and a series of recommended actions that would help mitigate some of the problems affecting protected areas in this region. 1.1. The history of people and nature As a biogeographical region, East Asia covers an area of almost 12 million sq km, encompassing a diverse array of climatic zones, topography, ecosystems and local cultures. It also hosts some of the most spectacular scenery and wildlife in the world, although this has been poorly described in general, owing to a combination of political restrictions on scientific investigation and the- harshness of the region itself. For these reasons, the protected area concept is not nearly as well developed in East Asia as, for example, in the South and Southeast Asian Region. However, ancient thinking on conserv- ing nature and natural resources was known at least in the Golden Age of Classical Learning 2,000 years ago, in the works of such scholars as Confucius and Lao Zi. Concept of nature and nature protection are embodied in the philosophies of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, leading to de facto protection of mountains and forests. 161 In China, the modern creation of protected areas dates from the middle of this century. In 1956, scientists recognized the growing need for the conservation of nature and natural resources, and proposed that the development of a network of reserves might be the most satisfactory way of achieving this goal (Wang Xianpu, 1989a). The Government approved this proposal and delimited 40 reserves in the same year. There followed some changes to the legal status and structure of pro- tected areas as well as the strengthening of certain institutions but, for a considerable amount of time, no additional sites were proclaimed until the rapid devel- opment of the last few years (see Table 3 and Figures 1 and 2). The real steps toward conservation of nature in Taiwan took place after 1970; the Forest Bureau estab- lished Taiwan’s first wildlife protected area in 1974 (Aniruddh 1989). ; Perhaps some of the first references to wildlife con- servation dates from the 7th century AD when the Japanese Emperor organized a “bird hunting and pres- ervation section” in the Imperial Government. Japan passed its modern National Parks Law in 1931, enabling the future establishment of specially protected areas for aesthetic and recreational purposes. This was based on the Imperial Game Laws of 1892, ensuring regulation of hunting reserves. Twelve sites were designated as protected areas in Japan between 1934 and 1936, in- cluding several coastal sites. By 1957, there were 19 national parks, comprising 1.8 million ha, or almost 5% of Japan’s land area, while today there are a range of protected area categories, bringing the total land cover- age to 16.2%. (Table 1). Protected area development in the other countries of the region began even later, with the Republic of Korea establishing its first national park (Chiri National Park) in 1967 and Mongolia in 1975 (the Great Gobi Desert, encompassing an area of 5.3 million ha), although other categories of protected areas have been protected for much longer in Mongolia at least. Development of protected areas in these latter countries, and in the Korean DPR, has been a relatively slow process, for a number of reasons. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: East Asia Area in CategoriesI-V % Country Area 307,670 378 46,656 579 Korea, Republic 7568 Macau 0 Mongolia Taiwan 61,678 2,885 11,789,524 427,414 Total area designated % Area in Categories VI-VIIandUA % 1,300 0 13,419 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover. Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: East Asia I Area No. Area IV Area Vv Area TOTAL No. No. No. Area 393 283,209 38 23,476 - - 12 378 - - 650 26,038 13 7,523 685 46,656 1 140 - 2 579 7,154 26 7,568 434 307,670 - 15 61,678 441 5 2,885 1045 309,857 85 38,972 1179 427,414 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. 1.2 Environmental implications of economic development Economic development has not been evenly distributed throughout this geographical region in recent years, and has been chiefly concentrated in Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan. Certain activities such as mining, logging and fishing have certainly had severe impacts on local environments, often to the detriment of the latter as well as to the local inhabitants who rely on these resources. Conflicts have arisen between park authori- ties and development organizations, leading to losses of biological diversity. In general, however, this aspect has not received adequate attention and has been poorly documented, but should be treated more seriously in park establishment, management and planning in future years. 162 1.3. The growth of the protected area system Recent decades have brought about a major expansion in the East Asian Region (Table 3 and Figures 1 and 2). Time, too, has brought about some major changes in peoples’ understanding of protected areas which, cou- pled with the rapidly escalating population densities of countries and regions such as China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, has resulted in a surge of pressures on existing protected areas. Development issues concerning hous- ing, industry and mineral exploitation have also crept into the issue of protected area management. In recent years there have been many developments and achievements within the protected area field in of East Asia. Since the 1970s, in China, for example, people have gradually recognized the importance of East Asia Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: East Asia % area established 1962-1971 % area established Notes: % area established 1972-1981 Date established unknown % area established 1982-1991 19,574 427,415 Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I—V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted. environmental conservation and, as a result, the estab- lishment of protected areas has progressed more quickly than in preceding years. The conservation, research and rational utilization of nature and natural resources, as well as the establishment of protected areas, are now clearly stated in the national constitution. Likewise, appropriate legislation relating to environmental pro- tection has been enacted, while other laws address specific topics, such as forests or grasslands. During the 1980s, the reform and open policy of China played an important role in the course of protected areas in this country. The establishment of a reserve network in China is considered as one of the tasks of national economic and social development. During the past ten years the num- ber of protected areas has greatly increased and, accord- ing to official data in 1989, the total number of protected areas was 381, of which 31 were national reserves comprising an area of almost 237,000 sq km (2.5% of the country’s land area) (Department of Nature Conser- vation in National Environmental Protection Bureau, 1989), with up to 5% of the land area being protected in some provinces. Although there have been many changes in the devel- opment of protected areas in China during the past 40 years, there remains a considerable amount of work to be done if the economic, cultura! and scientific devel- opment of these reserves is to be utilized to its best potential. One of the main outstanding problems facing all protected area ecosystems in this region is the lack of public understanding for such sites. Traditional ide- ology whereby natural resources are seen as a conven- ient, exploitable resource is still widespread and, in view of the ever-increasing pressures being imposed on these sites, people should be made aware of the serious problems that might occur unless urgent action is taken 163 to protect remaining vestiges of naturalhabitat in each nation. The first national parks in this region were established in Japan in 1934 (Akan, Aso-Kuju, Chubu-Sangaku, Daisetsuzan, Kirishima-Yaku, Nikko, Seto Nakai and Unzen-Amakusa National Parks), the most recent— Kushiro Shilsugen National Park—in 1987. Japan’s protected area movement itself, however, can be traced back to 1873, when the Head of the Cabinet issued a proclamation with regard to preparing public parks, especially within and around cities. Since they were first envisaged, the laws and regula- tions concerning protected areas have been substan- tially revised and expanded to accommodate additional categories and responsibilities of protected areas. A major amendment to the national legislation concerning protected areas in Japan was again made in 1957, with the passage of the Natural Parks Law, which defined the purpose of the parks as “the protection of the places of scenic beauty and also through the promoted utilization thereof, as a contribution to the health, recreation and culture of the people”. In 1972, the Environment Pres- ervation Law was passed and national parks were incor- porated under the new Environment Agency, which had improved means to buy private land in parks. The passing of this law also resulted in the introduc- tion of three new conservation categories: wilderness areas; natural conservation areas; and prefectural nature conservation areas, which specifically aimed at protect- ing areas of biological diversity. Decisions governing the size, layout and management planning of national parks in Japan are now taken by the Environment Agency, in collaboration with the respective prefectures, minis- tries and other agencies. A similar process is undertaken for matters relating to nature conservation areas, al- though in this case, public hearings may also be organ- ized to discuss the matter. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 500 Number of sites 400 Area (x1000sqkm) 300 200 100 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 1,400 Number of sites 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... 164 Today Japan has three main categories of protected area: national parks; quasi-national parks; and prefec- ture-owned natural parks. In recent years several addi- tional categories of conservation areas have been introduced to protect the nation’s biodiversity, including special wildfowl and mammal sanctuaries, aimed at protecting the habitat of endangered species, and wintering grounds for wildfowl. Areas designated as national parks consist not only of national and local government lands, but also private land. In fact, 23% of the land under national parks in the western part of Japan are privately owned. Although consideration has been given to the need for protected areas in the Koreas since the early 1940s, all development was curtailed with the onset of World War II. The establishment of protected areas in the Republic of Korea is therefore a relatively recent innovation when, in 1967, the country’s first national park, Mount Chirisan (44,000ha), was established. Three other sites were declared national parks in 1968 (Kyongju, Mount Kyeryong andhallyo Marine Reserve), with many more in subsequent years. Management of the national parks in Taiwan is gov- erned by the very comprehensive “National Park Law”, promulgated in 1972. In addition, there are numerous customs, traditions and practices, many of which have been adapted from those of the US National Park Service, but few of which have been codified in written policy (The Taiwan Nature Conservation Strategy, 1985). The national parks of Taiwan have been established primarily for visitor use, and developments including settlements and forestry operations are established within the boundaries of protected areas. Like those of other industrialized nations, its national parks now face many threats to the integrity of their resources and natural processes. These not only include logging, surface min- ing and hydro-electric development, but also road con- struction, illegal incursions, vandalism and the dumping of rubbish. Because of its high human population, many of Taiwan’s lowland forests have already been cleared for agriculture and settlement. The country’s existing and proposed national parks lie along the central mountain- ous ridge of the island, extending from the northern volcanic mountains outside Taipei to the southern tip (Mackinnon and Mackinnon, 1986). Overall these are thought to include a variety of representative ecosys- tems from sub-alpine to marine. The Government of Taiwan is also committed to the idea of national parks and has provided adequate fund- ing and personnel to establish parks. The National Parks Department, established in 1981, is responsible for the administration of national parks and the planning and implementation of the National Conservation Strategy and the Coastal Zone Management Plan. 165 East Asia A comprehensive review of the region’s protected areas systems has been prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992). 1.4 Lessons learned The need for improved management of existing re- serves has become a crucial issue. In many instances protected areas lack direction and there are often major shortfalls in funding, as well as uncertainties in the responsibilities of those in charge of the reserves. Under such conditions some reserves have no effective man- agement programmes and are merely considered as burdens. Experience in the region has shown that in order to address these problems, the following steps are required to improve the situation: @ National management regulations must be enacted for protected areas and a series of criteria must be developed for the design of the reserves; A procedure for establishing reserves of different categories should be formulated, and regular inspec- tions should be made of reserves already estab- lished; @ A series of regional meetings should be organized to discuss how best to identify potential funding sources, to improve management and to strengthen international cooperation; @ Closer working links should be established between international conservation organizations working in relevant topics; A national training system should be established for protected area managers and conservationists; @ Conservation issues in protected areas should be linked to development issues and the needs of local people; Local people should be encouraged to contribute to park planning, management and operating activities. 2. Current protected area coverage Protected areas are to be found in all countries of the region, although in the case of Macau, the area protected is negligible. The national park system of Japan covers approxi- mately 14% of the total national land area, while nature conservation areas cover an additional 0.23% and wild- fowl and mammal reserves a further 9%. There is, however, some degree of overlap between several sites. All of the nation’s parks are carefully zoned into one of four categories: special protection areas; marine parks; special areas; and ordinary areas. This classification is based on the quality and degree of human impact to the ecosystem, the socio-economic, cultural and economic Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas importance of the site, and its overall attractiveness for visitors. Overall, it is believed that the existing protected area network in Japan is acceptable, protecting representative examples of all major ecosystems (marine issues are discussed later). Some parts of the protected areas sys- tem have apparently experienced some management problems, although few details are generally available on this aspect. With an area of 1,565,000 sq km, Mongolia currently has 17 protected areas, which offer some degree of protection to about 70,581 sq km of land, or 4.5% of the total land area. At the present time, little information is available on the status of these reserves or whether they represent a satisfactory coverage of the major biomes, except to note that little expansion has occurred in the past decade. Today there are 20 national parks in the Republic of Korea, which afford some degree of protection to ap- proximately 7,154 sq km, about 7.7 of the total country area. All of these sites are listed under Category V— Protected Landscape/Seascape—according to IUCN’s designations. The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea has two protected areas covering 0.5 of the total land area. Taiwan has four national parks accounting for 6% of its land surface, as well as a number of small coastal reserves protecting mangroves and other habi- tats. Yushan National Park is the largest (1,055 sq km) and most remote of Taiwan’s national parks, protecting many rare and threatened species. True rain forests are confined to the south of the island, where they are protected in Kenting National Park and on Orchid Island. Ta-Wu Mountain in the south-west has been declared a Nature Preserve (470 sq km). In recent years, there has been further progress in developing protected areas in China. In total there are 419 in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Of those in China, there are now more than 60 national reserves, comprising a total land area of 289,787 sq km, over 3% of the national land area. The increasing rate of protected area establishment is now 36% per annum, four times that of agricultural and industrial production. While this is certainly an encouraging sign for environ- mental protection in China, the effort and momentum could be lost if these reserves are not properly gazetted, established and integrated within the local situation. In China, the existing system of protected areas is believed to include all the major centres of biological diversity, as well as representative examples of the country’s mainhabitat types and endemic species (Wang Xianpu, 1980b). Reserves are divided into a number of different categories, but there is no practical application within these (Department of Edition in North-west Uni- versity, 1987; Wang Xianpu, 1980a; Zhu Jing et al., 1981). Indeed, it is felt that this is perhaps one of the 166 most important barriers to the development of pro- tected areas in China (Zhu Jing et al., 1985), and probably elsewhere in the region. In December 1990, the Tibet Autonomous Region Government designated 240,000 sq km as the Chang Tang Reserve, which will be administered by the Forest Bureau in Lhasa (Schaller, 1991). The Forest Ministry in Beijing is also planning to add this reserve to its national network of reserves and thus provide financial assistance. Once established, the Chang Tang Reserve would be the second largest protected land area in the world. This region is of particular importance in view of its unique high mountain flora and fauna. Bordering the Chang Tang Reserve in the northeast in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region is the Arjin Shan Reserve (45,000 sq km), which was established in 1983. A further recommendation has been made to include an additional area to the west of the Arjin Shan and pro- posed Chang Tang reserves, as it is such an important area for local wildlife populations (Schaller, 1991). The protected area network in China has suffered from an ineffective management system for many years and, as a result, few reserves are currently intact and are likely to remain in an unsatisfactory state for the imme- diate future. Some of the major problems that have a direct impact on reserves in China include: inadequate boundary demarcation and weak legislation; illegal hunt- ing and timber felling; the influences of unrestricted tourism; construction of roads, buildings, dams and canals; mining; internal population migration; exces- sive grazing and land reclamation; and uncontrolled fires. In general, the overall level of management in reserves is low and most suffer from poor organization, lack of direction and motivation, lack of funds and equipment, and poor relationships with local residents (Wang Xianpu, 1986c). In Hong Kong, following the enactment of the Coun- try Park Ordinance, there was the establishment of a comprehensive network of 19 country parks, covering 37.5% of the territory (40,833ha) over the period 1977— 1981. This has been augmented by 14 special areas and 47 sites of Special Scientific Interest. Note that these are not recorded in Tables 1 and 2 due to the 10 sq km minimum size criterion. Comparative details of the protected area network within East Asia are provided in Tables 1 and 2. 2.1. Marine parks International attention was directed to marine parks by the First World National Parks Conference in 1962 and, in 1964, the Nature Conservation Society of Japan (NCSJ) created a marine parks investigation committee. Today, there are 58 locations within Japan’s national and quasi-national parks that have been designated Marine Parks under the Natural Parks Law, encompassing some 2,418ha in total. Most of these parks are quite small, averaging 41ha, while the largest (Ogasawara Marine Park Area) and smallest (Shimokita Taijima Marine Park Area) measure 463ha and 3ha, respec- tively. Of the other countries in this region, only Taiwan and Korea have marine parks, while Hong Kong has protection of some coastal area with its country parks. While there are obvious geographical limitations for developing marine parks within this region, countries such as China, Korea, and Japan, in particular, should examine this aspect in more detail, especially in relation to development issues such as ecotourism and fishing rights. This subject is treated in more detail in the Marine Regional Review presented elsewhere in this volume. 3. Additional protected areas recommended Although representative examples of the major floral and faunal components are included in the existing system of protected areas in China, there is clearly an uneven balance in the national choice of sites, as well as the area of coverage that major habitats receive. For example, protected areas in many biogeographic prov- inces occupy less than 1% of the total area of that province. However, what is probably more important is the actual content of the reserves—in terms of ecologi- cal diversity and national heritage—as well as their state of management. Particular attention in the form of establishing managed protected areas in China is re- quired in the northem forest region, the southern lime- stone mountains, and the north-western dry and semiarid region. Likewise, attention is required in the wetland, coastal, marine and island environments, where the number of protected areas is quite inadequate (Department of Nature Conservation in National Envi- ronmental Protection Bureau, 1989; Zhu Jing et al., 1985). In Japan, the Environment Agency conducts an ap- praisal of the national park planning process every five years, while also examining the need to expand or designate new nature conservation areas. Opinions are based on information gathered through national sur- veys, as well as those conducted by Prefectural Govern- ments. New proposals for wildfowl and mammal sanctuaries are also prepared on a five-year basis by the Environment Agency, which is considering the estab- lishment of reserves for species other than mammals or birds, based on new proposals from surveys conducted by Prefecture Governments and/or research institutions, as well as information available in Japan’s Red Data Books (published in 1990). Specific details concerning additional protected areas in the other countries within this region are, at present, unavailable, although studies of natural areas are under- way in at least Taiwan, and the Hong Kong protected area system is fairly comprehensive. However, in most 167 East Asia countries, the relevant authorities urgently need to con- duct further planning, replenishing the existing reserve networks and meeting the requirements of economic development and of cultural and scientific develop- ment. As human pressures are constantly impinging on the majority of protected areas in this region, it would also be advisable if steps were taken to develop an appropriate infrastructure for conducting environmental impact assessments within the respective regions. 4. Protected area institutions The present administrative structure of protected areas in China is based on unified coordination and decentral- ized management. In this system, private institutions have not yet had any influence on protected areas. Until the 1980’s, the Bureau of Agriculture of the Ministry of Economic Affairs was the only official agency to set wildlife policy. The National Parks Department was founded in 1981 within the Ministry of the Interior. In China, all protected areas are governed under the responsible departments of the various provinces, most of which have, in turn, created special institutions to- handle such affairs. In recent years, China has seen an obvious improvement in the level of nature conserva- tion and scientific research in this country. In some provinces, laws and regulations have been enacted to conserve a number of rare and endangered species, while elsewhere there has also been an improvement in the management of protected areas (Wang Xianpu, 1987, 1989b and 1990). Some reserves have been des- ignated as Biosphere Reserves under the UNESCO MAB Programme and several have been named World Heritage sites, while others have benefitted from inter- National cooperation with IUCN, WWF, UNEP and many other organizations. Participation in international conventions and programmes is summarised in Table 4, and a list of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List is given in Table 5. The national parks of the Republic of Korea and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea have been de- veloped with cultural attractions in mind, and largely consist of numerous remains and examples of the Buddhist culture. Historically there have been a number of bottlenecks to protected area management in the Republic of Korea, and these have had to be overcome in ensuring the protection, development of facilities and administration of the national parks. One of the major problems arose because all of the land area covered by the parks was privately owned. Since 1981, however, new laws have been formulated and set within the single Natural Parks Law, which now simplifies this process. The Republic of Korea National Parks Authority was established in 1987, and has assumed complete control of affairs related to national parks management. In the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Academy of Sciences has assumed responsibility for protected areas. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: East Asia World Heritage Date No. December 1985 4 June 1992 0 Korea, Republic September 1988 0 Korea, DPR - - Mongolia February 1990 0 Portugal (Macau) September 1980 0 United Kingdom (Hong Kong) Taiwan China Japan May 1984 0 Notes: Biosphere Reserves Area (ha) No. Area (ha) Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention Date No. Area (ha) 2,246,772 March 1992 116,000 June 1980 37,430 - 132,000 - 5,300,000 529,457 10,402 November 1980 January 1976 1. Other mixed natural/cultural sites are inscribed on the list of World Heritage, but on the basis of beauty resulting from the man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. These sites include Mount Taishan in China, which has not been included in the above table. 2. Only sites lying within the region are listed. Table 5. World Heritage sites in East Asia China Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area Mount Huangshan Mount Taishan Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area One of these sites (Mount Taishan) is a mixed natural/ cultural sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty resulting from man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. The Japanese Environment Agency is responsible for all matters relating to protected areas in that country. It also maintains close links with other governmental min- istries during the proposal and development stage of new protected areas. National park management authori- ties are responsible for the management of national parks on the ground, which includes such issues as controlling development, logging and collection of ma- terials from the various sites. In recent years, interna- tional cooperation has been extended by Japan to other countries. One of the major shortcomings that needs to be ad- dressed within the existing system of protected area management in China and Mongolia is the poor level of support and communication from the relevant central departments to field staff, as well as a general lack of communications between the various departments whose activities might in some way be related to the manage- ment of a protected area. Indeed, communications between the relevant government departments in charge of nature conservation and those responsible for activi- ties such as development, agriculture, mining, etc., is 168 also a major problem that needs addressing (Wang Xianpu, 1984). However, in the Republic of Korea, Japan and Hong Kong there are thriving non-governmental organiza- tions concerned with conservation. The National Parks Association of Korea was created in 1971, being set up to “ensure the sound development of attractive natural scenic areas” including national, provincial and country parks. In Japan there are a large number of local and national voluntary organizations, some of which own or manage their own private protected areas. One of the largest NGOs is the Wild Bird Society of Japan which owns 10 sanctuaries. 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas In Japan, the Environment Agency’s budget for national park facilities is approximately three billion yen per annum (US$24.8 million). During the past 19 years, the Environment Agency and prefectural authorities have purchased private lands which have cost about ten bil- lion yen (US$82.6 million). Protected areas are popular sites in Japan and receive large numbers of tourists each year, some of the highest park visitor figures in the world. In 1989 alone, the following levels were recorded: 387 million visitors to national parks; 292 million to quasi-national parks; and 276 million to prefectural natural parks. This total of 955 million visitors means that the average Japanese visits a protected area nearly eight times per year. The income generated from tourism is unknown but is cer- tainly substantial. Even if each visitor spend only the equivalent of US$10, total expenditures would approach US$10 billion; the true figure could easily be 10 times that amount. In Hong Kong the number of visitors to protected areas has risen to 9.46 million per year, also repre- senting a significant level of financial investment. The Republic of Korea also has substantial numbers of visitors to protected areas, reaching nearly 40 million in 1990 (almost equivalent to the country’s population) (Table 8). Expenditures by these tourists can be esti- mated at US$2 billion per year, far greater than the annual financial investments in national parks of US$56.5 million (Table 9). By comparison, tourism is limited in Mongolia. How- ever, the possibility of establishing organized hunting for tourists has been initiated. It has been calculated that foreign currency revenues from tourist hunting parties in reserves could be over US$500,000 annually. In Taiwan, the National Park Department and Agri- cultural Bureau have significant funds, so their budget for national park and protected area facilities is rela- tively greater than other countries in the region. Strictly speaking, in China there is as yet no recog- nized budgetary allocation to protected areas, because it is not yet seen as an integral part of the national economic and social development policy. Unlike the construction of a factory or school, which are planned and managed according to a definite plan and predeter- mined budget, there are no such guidelines for protected area development and management. Funding prospects are therefore uncertain and many protected areas re- ceive additional funds from other sources, which are often barely adequate to ensure the basic running of the area. Some key reserves may get an occasional cash infusion from the government for a specific purpose but, in the majority of cases, funds are raised from private sources on the strength of the work and importance of the site itself. In order to address these inadequacies, the following steps should be taken: @ Reserve planning and management should be brought into line with the state plan of economic construc- tion and social development. This would result in East Asia protected areas receiving an annual financial pack- age, which would ensure greater security for the sites and the staff members. @ Clear budgetary requirements should be prepared for all protected areas, both for the immediate future as well as on a longer term basis. Additional funding sources should also be identified and approached. @ Every protected area should be provided with a skilled and enthusiastic team of managers and sup- port staff, including a public relations officer. @ Consideration should be given to providing im- proved tourist facilities and encouraging tourism as a means of generating additional funds for protected areas. @ Stronger links should be forged with international conservation organizations, with the intention of receiving increased technical support and training, and perhaps access to international funding. @ Public awareness campaigns should be organized to promote actively the need for nature conservation and sustainable resource utilization, respecting the attitudes of local people. @ Private companies should be encouraged to invest in the establishment and management of protected areas. Of these, perhaps the most concern has been ex- pressed about the potential role of tourism. If an area receives adequate scientific management, control and coordination in its activities, tourism may clearly fulfil an important function in the protected areas of China (Wang Xianpu, 1989b). Some reserves have already developed an element of ecological tourism which has begun to make a contribution to the upkeep of those particular sites. However, the impacts or indeed the potential of this activity have not been fully examined. Preliminary data for protected areas management agericy budgets within the region are given in Table 6. Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets: East Asia Budget in national currency Country/responsible agency China — Ministry of Forestry/ Environment Protection Agency Japan — Nature Conservation Bureau JPY Korea, Dem People’s Rep KPW Korea, Rep KRW Mongolia MNT Sources: US Dollar equivalent Year The Ministry of Forestry is responsible for management of some 90% of terrestrial protected areas. [14] Thomback, J. (1986). Report on a Visit to China, 22 June—5 July. Unpublished report. 7pp. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 6. Human capacity in protected areas management The human element, whether it concems the traditional rights of an indigenous tribe or the political affairs of a decision-maker involved with nature conservation, is crucial to the entire process of protected area manage- ment worldwide. In China, for example, some prov- inces have better developed protected areas than others, largely as a result of the attention given by the authori- ties in promoting the values and functions of reserves and training facilities. In China, the present number of professional conser- vationists is over 6,000, and the number of people indirectly participating in the work of protected areas exceeds 20,000 people. Each department conducts an annual training course for the conservation staff, and some of the training courses are carried out in coopera- tion with international organizations such as UNESCO, IUCN, UNEP, and WWF. In recent years, some col- leges and universities have also begun to offer courses on nature conservation, aiming to promote and cultivate trained personnel in the field of conservation and pro- tected area managers. In many regions, however, the working and living conditions in the field are still rather Tustic, and people are often unwilling to endure such situations. It would appear that this aspect requires further attention. Management of protected areas in Japan is carried out by central and local government authorities. Central government officials number about 200 people, of which 60 are national park rangers based within the parks, the remainder working in the Nature Conservation Bureau in Tokyo. In addition, an estimated 300 local govern- ment officials are employed in the protected areas. Through special training institutes for the environment, the Environment Agency organizes several training courses for park managers and rangers, as well as for personnel from local government departments who are involved with nature conservation and protected area manage- ment. Each year, approximately 100 officials partici- pate in 7-10 day training courses. As of 1990, the Environment Agency also runs an international training course on nature conservation and national park man- agement, in cooperation with the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the Japan Wildlife Research Centre. To date, trainees from Asian, African, Latin American and Eastern European countries have participated in the course. In relatively small territories such as Hong Kong the number of staff are significant. Within the Conservation and Country Parks Branch in 1988 there were 1,276 staff, 1,179 alone in the Country Parks Division. By contrast staffing levels within Mongolia are relatively low given the area of the country. 170 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas In all of the countries considered in this review, the most immediate tasks in protected area management are to improve the system of existing protected areas through expansion and inclusion of under-represented habi- tats, in conjunction with the strengthening and promo- tion of effective management, so that ultimately the functions of protected areas can be fully integrated with ecological, economic and social activities. Thus the protected areas can perhaps become self-sustaining. In order to reach that goal, however, representative areas of different categories should be chosen to exemplify effective management. In this way, activities and pre- vailing conditions may be better controlled and any experience gained in the process might then be shared among fellow park managers. In addition, it is necessary to establish new protected areas in differenthabitat types, particularly those centres of high biodiversity and endemism, scenic resorts, and freshwater and marine areas. Particular attention should be given to remaininghabitats in areas of high popula- tion density, such as the eastem part of China and the lowlands of Taiwan. In order to complete those tasks, however, a carefully planned series of scientific re- search programmes should be developed. Future consideration for such development should give adequate attention to financial concerns and in- vestment in the natural resources of protected areas. In particular, governments should be requested to allocate increased amounts of money for the establishment and management of protected areas in different regions. In addition, however, assistance from private, national and international sponsors should also be sought. Protected area management is no longer only a national concern and can rarely be managed as such on a long-term basis. International assistance and development cooperation has never been so urgently required to assist with the management and protection of our national heritage and every effort should be made to ensure that this is carried out. 8. Major protected area issues in the region 8.1 Land tenure Most of the protected areas in Japan are designated irrespective of land-ownership or tenure issues. It is felt, however, that Wilderness Areas should only be estab- lished on land already owned by the state or local public authorities. In fact, the majority of the conservation areas are owned by the state, while approximately 70% of the area of national and quasi-national parks are either owned by the state or local public authorities. Japan’s system of protected areas is based upon a zoning system similar to that used in city planning projects. The Japanese Natural Parks Law allows a range of activities and socio-economic developments within each type of designated area but, on occasion, this may lead to a conflict of interests between the private land owner and the conservation organization. For example, on private lands within an officially des- ignated protected area, the activities of the land owner are greatly curtailed, although a reduction in taxes is sometimes an incentive in this system. In contrast, if the land had previously been of some traditional use to local people, this type of utilization is allowed to continue. In China, there are no privately-owned reserves, the tenure of protected areas instead largely belonging to the country; a few are governed by collectives. Under such circumstances, activities related to resource utili- Table 7. Protected areas in Japan Category National Parks Quasi-national parks Prefecture natural parks Source: Akai, 1990 East Asia zation must be approved by the responsible authorities. Most reserves have a free access policy, but no direct exploitation is permitted within the protected area. In order to satisfy the peoples’ needs, this policy must combine the conservation of natural resources with their sustainable utilization, planning the process through appropriate public awareness programmes, education and legislation in order to satisfy these requirements. It has become apparent that the long-term prospects for protected area establishment are not good if the estab- lishment of a reserve is not supported by the local residents, especially when the goal and means of imple- mentation cannot be understood by the people, who may seek to reclaim the land, cut timber and hunt wildlife for their own survival (Wang Xianpu, 1986b; Wang Xianpu et al., 1989a). Area (sq km) 20,501 12,888 19,906 Table 8. Visitors to national parks in Korea (persons in thousands) 26,197 31,081 Total 31,081 National Population’ 42,082 32,478 27,919 39,147 32,856 39,147 32,856 42,793 N.A. Population in 000s Table 9. Financial investments in national parks in Korea 1989 1990 Personnel Facility Maintenance Others 6,772 8,514 32,972 33,639 3,265 2,861 6,438 5,344 Total (US$ in thousands) 49,447 50,358 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas In the Republic of Korea much of the forest area is privately-owned, and a public body, the Forest Associa- tion Union, plays an important role in the implementa- tion of forest protection programmes. Under existing legislation the government should pay compensation to land owners if the land designated is privately owned. There are problems however, due to low budgets of these authorities. 8.2 Conflicts with development Law enforcement in Japanese national parks is under- taken by the national park officials of the Environment Agency and local governments, in close collaboration with the private sector. Whenever large-scale national projects such as the construction of a road, airport or harbour coincides with an area already designated a protected site, the Environment Agency, following a series of detailed surveys of the potential effects on the environment, is in a position to evaluate and coordinate the matter further with the ministries or other agencies concerned. Japan has already lost a large amount of its original forest cover, mainly through cultivation in the lowlands, as well as deforestation on the lower hills. Combined, both activities have resulted in the loss of a great deal of natural habitat, especially in the western region. It has recently been suggested that part of the Tanzawa- Ooyama National Park has been affected by acid rain and the Environment Agency is currently investigating this claim. Overall, Japan has a relatively well established net- work of protected areas, many of which have been designed for and around people. In many cases, how- ever, these sites are now facing pressures, largely as a result of the development needs of the population. Local people derive few direct benefits from the establishment of protected areas in Japan, although indirect benefits are expected to increase through expanded tourism fa- cilities as well as an improved system of communica- tions. Hong Kong has made some effort to alleviate the threat to the environment by designating areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, where its conservation value can be considered in governmental planning processes. 8.3 Relations with local people Experience has already shown that if there are no suit- able ways to address the practical needs of the local people, the reserve will always exist in a state of uncer- tainty. Good relationships with local people are an integral part of successful protected area management; their support is essential if such schemes are to succeed and prosper. In many cases, protected area managers and their staff may learn how certain problems might be better approached from studying the traditional ac- tivities of local people and from seeking their advice on certain subjects. Likewise, local people should, when- 172 ever possible, be encouraged to work within the pro- tected area as part of the staff composition so that they may see and experience at firsthand how beneficial such sites could be to the long-term survival of their culture. The establishment of any reserve should always con- sider local styles, attitudes and national heritage. Des- ignated sites will often have people already living in them, which requires very careful monitoring and skil- ful management. Despite the common assumption that it is necessary to remove people from a protected area, this is not always the case. In fact, special allowances are often made on how best to protect local cultures when establishing new protected areas. Alarmed by the rapid rate of urbanization threatening to destroy the countryside of Hong Kong in the 1960s, it was proposed that forestry policies be revised to accommodate the recreational demands of an increas- ingly urban population. From 1971-1972 a number of recreational (country parks) and conservation (nature reserves) areas were established. Isolation is another problem concerning protected area status which has an important bearing on its future management. In China, most of the reserves are sur- rounded by cultivated landscape, and therefore resem- ble islands in a developed environment. If adequate attention is not paid to those areas immediately sur- rounding the reserve, there will always be a threat of human encroachment for grazing, agriculture, fuelwood collection, poaching, etc., with the inevitable destruc- tion that these activities bring. Such sites will, in time, also be viewed as prime real estate for construction and development schemes. If, however, the reserve is care- fully managed, it will certainly play an important pro- motional role in the development, economy and protection of the surrounding area and should contribute to the well-being of local people. This, in itself, is often enough to encourage local people to support the notion of protected areas. Thus, a protected area should not be viewed in isola- tion, but its establishment should be closely integrated with the productive development of the surrounding area, mixing its own management practices with those of the region, essentially forming a system of ecologi- cally balanced land-use. In such a way, the protected area could be viewed as an important and in time, an indispensable part of the whole system. Above all, it should not be viewed on its own, merely as a resource pool to be protected against ruthless exploitation. 8.4 Protected areas and research Although protected areas are not in themselves scien- tific research institutions they are, nonetheless, ideal facilities for promoting scientific research. This might range from essential research activities related to the basic requirements of protection, or even to production and management of the site itself, or extending facilities and cooperation with scientists from other scientific research and education institutions. Forging links for research and communication with other national and international institutions should be actively encouraged, not only in anticipation of a greater understanding of the social, ecological and legislative workings of a pro- tected area, but perhaps more importantly because of the increased awareness and attention that such produc- tive efforts can provide. Protected areas can therefore offer unique opportunities and facilities for environ- mental monitoring stations, several of which are already operational in China (Wang Xianpu et al., 1986, 1989b) and well advanced in Japan. The continued existence of national parks and pro- tected areas face many threats in East Asia, but some of the most important that have come to light in recent years are in the form of environmental pollution. At- mospheric pollution, acid rain and global climate change are all still poorly researched topics that may have an immediate, dramatic effect on ecological systems. In some parts of China, large areas of forest have already been destroyed, especially in the mountains where pre- cious and ancient trees have been killed. Reports of acid tain damage in parts of Japan are also currently receiv- ing attention. Again, these are issues that cannot be addressed on a local or even national level, but require an active internationally coordinated approach based on scientific research. 8.5 Management effectiveness If a protected area is to be managed effectively it will depend on the successful coordination and implemen- tation of a number of intricately linked variables, in- cluding adequate levels of investment, an efficient lead organization to promote and coordinate activities, the good will and support of the local people, scientists, decision-makers, and the national departments of legis- lation, publicity and production and, finally, interna- tional institutions for the provision of training and management assistance. 9. Priorities for action in the region The following points represent regional priorities, and will be variably applicable to the countries in the region. 1. Improving the existing level of management of protected areas Much greater efforts are required to enhance the degree of protection afforded to existing protected areas. Clear management plans and operational guidelines should be prepared for each protected area as a matter of priority. Model protected areas should be established to demon- Strate sound management practices. 2. Expanding the protected area network The protected area network should aim to include viable examples of all major habitat types and species at a 173 East Asia national and regional level. This has happened in few cases and existing networks should be expanded and strengthened to broaden the scope of the network. In China, protected areas are largely located in the south- west, south and north-eastern parts of the country, where biological diversity is therefore obviously better pro- tected. However, the protected area network still lacks some representative terrestrial ecosystems throughout the East Asian Region. Greater attention should also be given to establishing protected areas in the marine and wetland biomes, as well as specific reserves to protect natural monuments and cultural heritage. The protected area network should be progressively increased to in- clude about ten percent of the region’s land area. 3. Promoting awareness of protected areas In order to achieve long-term respect and appreciation for protected areas, education programmes must be strengthened throughout most of the region by introduc- ing environmental education topics to the curriculum, and by creating and mobilizing an effective promo- tional system to enhance public support for nature conservation. Suggested approaches include: (a) of- fering specialist courses in nature conservation at schools and colleges; (b) holding regular training courses; (c) publishing textbooks and other materials promoting conservation awareness; (d) improving rela- tionships with the media in order to reach a wider and perhaps more influential audience. 4. Strengthening the national legislation and means of implementation National legislation concemed with protected areas should be strengthened at all levels and greater attention should be given to its enforcement. A strong, professional system of leadership and management should be in- stalled and given responsibility for the protected area system, following review and consultation with local, national and international experts. 5. Encouraging international cooperation and exchange Management of protected areas is an international con- cem with many underlying national considerations. Training courses and information exchange are essen- tial aspects of protected area management which should be encouraged at all levels of management. Interna- tional cooperation should be forged at as many levels as possible. Japan has over 15 years experience in dealing with the protection of migratory birds with partner organizations in Australia, China, the USA and the USSR. In recent years, the Environment Agency has also cooperated in a series of wildfowl surveys in south- east Asia, particularly dealing with Malaysia and Thailand. Together with JICA and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the Environment Agency has started Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas a programme for the protection of the endangered Japa- nese Crested Ibis (Nipponia nippon). Finally, the Envi- ronment Agency has also recently begun an international programme of cooperation for the conser- vation and management of protected areas in develop- ing countries such as Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia and Paraguay. Such programmes should be expanded. 6. Adoption of international conventions and programmes relating to the environment Further efforts are needed in all countries to ensure the ratification and strengthening of such conventions as the World Heritage Convention, Ramsar Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and to further develop the Man and the Biosphere Programme and the UNEP Regional Seas Programme. Acknowledgements This report is based on original manuscript prepared by Wang Xianpu (Institute of Botany, Academia Sinica, China) as a contribution to the Regional Review of China and Japan for the IV World Parks Congress. Additional materials and editorial support have been provided by R. David Stone. References Akai, I. 1990. Protected Area management and Com- munity Development in Japan. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Aniruddh, D.P. et al. 1989. History of wildlife conser- vation in Taiwan. COA Forestry Series No. 20. Collins, N.M., Sayer, J.A., and Whitmore, T.C. 1991. The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Asia and the Pacific. MacMillan, UK. Department of Edition in North-West University. 1987. Special symposium on the researches of nature reserves in China. Journal of North-west University 17: 1-158. (In Chinese, with English summary). Department of Nature Conservation in National Envi- ronmental Protection Bureau. 1989. List of Protected Areas in China. China Environment Science Press. (In Chinese and English). IUCN. 1990. United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 284 pp. IUCN (1992). Protected areas of the World: A review of National systems. Volume 2. Palaearctic. Pre- pared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 556pp. MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review of the Protected Area System in the Indo-Malayan Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 284 pp. National Park System of Japan. 1982. Nature Conser- vation Bureau, Environment Agency, Japan. 17 pp. Schaller, G. 1991. The New Chang Tang Wildlife Reserve in Northwestem Tibet. Unpublished report. 174 The Taiwan Nature Conservation Strategy. 1985. Con- struction and Planning Administration, Ministry of the Interior, Taiwan. (English translation, 39 pp.). Wang Xianpu. 1980a. On the types and management of protected areas. Journal of North-east Forest Uni- versity 2: 1-6. (In Chinese with English abstract). Wang Xianpu. 1980b. Nature conservation in China: The present situation. Parks 5(1): 1-10. Wang Xianpu. 1981. On the effective management of protected areas. Wild Animal 1: 17-19. (In Chinese). Wang Xianpu. 1982. General review of environmental education in China. Environmental education in action. International Studies in Environmental Education, pp. 45-47. Wang Xianpu. 1984. The basic concepts of eco-develop- ment and construction of protected areas. Ecologi- cal Science 1: 98-102. (In Chinese). Wang Xianpu. 1986a. The basic concepts of biosphere reserves and its application. Environmental Protec- tion 8: 11-13. (In Chinese). Wang Xianpu. 1986b. Environmental and socioeco- nomic aspects of tropical deforestation in China. Environmental and Socio-economic Aspects of Tropical Deforestation in Asia and Pacific, United Nations, ESCAP, Bangkok. Pp. 65-71. Wang Xianpu. 1986c. On the threatened reserves and reliable measures. Guihaia 6(1—2): 141-146. (In Chinese). Wang Xianpu et al. 1986. Plant conservation in China. Species Newsletter of SSC/IIUCN, No. 8: 5-6. Wang Xianpu. 1987. Some experiences and problems regarding construction of protected areas in Guizhou province. Journal of North-west University 17: 34— 37. (In Chinese). Wang Xianpu. 1989a. Theory and practice of protected areas. China Environmental Science Press. (In Chinese). Wang Xianpu. 1989b. A preliminary experience of effective management by the method of five com- bination in Daminhshan Reserve in Quangxi Province. Gulhaia 9(1): 59-64. (In Chinese). Wang Xianpu et al. 1989a. Floristic inventory of tropi- cal China. In Campbell, Ed., Floristic Inventory of Tropical Countries. Washington, DC. Wang Xianpu et al. 1989b. The achievement and future task of conservation phytoecology studies, Published by The Botanical Society of China. Pp. 30-34 Wang Xianpu. 1990. The basic characteristic of the Snake Island and Laotieshan Reserve and the expe- riences of effective management. Rural Ecological Environment 3: 9-14. (In Chinese). 175 East Asia Wang Xianpu. 1991. The influences of global climate change on ecosystem and biodiversity and its strate- gies. Symposium on Climate Change and the Envi- ronment. 166 pp. (In Chinese). Woo, Bo-Myeong. 1990. Status and Management of the Protected Areas in the Republic of Korea. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Zhu Jing et al. 1981. Some suggestions regarding the types of nature reserves. Nature Conservation and Agriculture Ecology, Ocean Press. Pp. 9-16. (In Chinese). Zhu Jing et al. 1985. Programme for establishing a Nature reserves network in China. Proceedings of the Symposium on Nature Reserves in China, China Forestry Press, Beijing.Pp. 7-39. (In Chinese). Zhu Jing. 1989. Nature conservation in China. Journal of Applied Ecology 26: 325-333. ea > uD Tia to Komi Get PhP ait Ww Wraith Satie GRAN 2 Danae Sv aie Wee toner gree pil) ve FRTON SCAN APU in a a arias Aine = ersvere. P , f t9 , sal ya wet "eae se h nade Ua nol at: Aes ay AWAY AL ee a i vo. se lai. = ce pritsatie ta . oeeh P te KES i ew haher = Vi ceallve mma Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas sale pe}oa}0id payeubisep Ajje6a; ulyyim papnjou! Aujunod jo abeyuedied 008 00r O %4S1—OL %01—-G %OZ Uy} a10W %S-L°O ZOC-SL %1°O udu} sseq poejyoojoud ebpjuadied 178 Contents Page deem Storical PEFSPeCliVe. ... 65. wel. ee eee tel ew Bus we as 181 1.1. The history of people and nature... ..............0.2.20 0008. 181 1.2 Environmental implications of economic development .............. 181 1.3. The growth of the protected areasystem..............2.02 0000 183 eA ueltessonsplearmed tacstar 22h NE A te oh OND Brocco EEE 185 2. Current protected areacoverage ...................-.-4-. 185 Palme OYSlEMS Plan. cose sos. cus) eas is Siisy Sunes ces Sesto > BREN OR MME os cs cee 187 2.2 Coverage of major habitats by protected areas. ................24. 187 Ss eProtectedyareasnidangver, 7a. «, «, - Se Ree eS 2 188 3. Additional protected areas required .....................0.. 188 4. Protected areainstitutions .......................0.005. 189 4.1 Conflict and cooperation with other development sectors ............. 190 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 190 6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 195 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 196 8. Major protected areaissuesintheregion .................... 198 8.1 Improving the relationship between protected areas and local CommuUNitiesPO. . 25. FS ee eR OS , ee ee. wae eee 199 8.2 Improving management of protected areas..............++4+2-.-. 199 8.3. Making protected areas part of modern society: The role of education, trainin psandiresearch ee ea ie ese cy) en ene mementos 199 S:4emintemationalicooperation teeta)... Var ek -ea: We eye; ~:~] - 2 200 9. Priorities foractionintheregion ......................0.. 200 RCKNOWIEOQEMEOMS «cari cdediedsnonsia wr S Bich dhe Hence nondietlan seauhe Gacbtines one 201 RGEIGICNGCESO Pamerin ts J a. eet Doha bere. ee ee ee 202 Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Figures Map. Figure 1. Figure 2. Summary of the protected areas system ......-....--+..-... Protected areas by IUCN management categories ............. The development of the protected areas system .........--.... Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. World Heritage sites in South and Southeast Asia. ............. Protected areas management agency budgets ................ Threatened critical wetlands of international importance for Conservation action, “as, <2... <> eee eel. Ge ncn ke ere ae Global Environment Facility biodiversity portfolio, South and Southeast-Asiat a cecucectete ee aee fh cht thot. em ee ee reece FY 91-93 World Bank projects with biodiversity components ....... Transfrontier protected areas 2... 1. ee ee ee Percentage of country included within legally designated protected ATCAS Pie ge is er IES Sine Rote ane tao Wawel ane shay eee Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 180 South and Southeast Asia Presented by Hemanta R. Mishra, Regional Vice-Chair for South and Southeast Asia, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas 1. Historical perspective South and Southeast Asia is teeming with people, sup- porting nearly a third of the world’s humans on just six per cent of its land surface. The region also contains some of the planet’s most spectacular nature, ranging from Mt Everest (Sagarmatha) in Nepal to the tiger reserves of India, from the tropical rain forests of Malaysia and Indonesia to the coral gardens of the Philippines. Indonesia is second only to Australia in its number of endemic species of vertebrates, and both the Philippines and India are in the world’s top ten countries in numbers of mammals and birds found nowhere else. In this region, the interface between nature and human- ity is often blurred. The line where nature ends and human influence begins is indistinct and only an artifact of our limited perception of time. 1.1. The history of people and nature The coexistence of people and nature in Asia is the result of a long history. Humans have occupied Asia for several hundred thousand years, sometimes playing an important role in forming the ecosystems that are today considered "natural". The region saw some of the earli- est domestication of plants and animals, some of the earliest cities, and some of the earliest irrigation schemes. Many protected areas surround the ruins of these an- cient civilizations; Ranthambore in India, Wilpattu in Sri Lanka, and Angkor Wat in Cambodia are only three of the most famous examples, but archaeological sites are to be found in many of the realm’s protected areas and many contain religious shrines. While civilizations ebbed and flowed, the hundreds of local cultures devised ways to manage their resources to bring sustainable benefits to the community. Surviv- ing examples of these traditional conservation measures include sacred forests in India, community forest man- agement among the Sherpas in Nepal, hunting rituals in Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Indonesia, and myth- ical and spiritual relations with plants and animals throughout the region (McNeely and Wachtel, 1991). These traditional approaches once enabled people to live in a kind of balance with the available resources through sustainable harvesting. 181 Protected areas have a long history in South and Southeast Asia. In the year 252 BC the Emperor Asoka of India passed an edict for the protection of animals, fish, and forests, the earliest documented establishment of what we today call a protected area. The practice of establishing sacred areas as religious sanctuaries or exclusive hunting reserves has continued throughout the region to the present day. The first nature reserve in Indonesia, for example, was established in 684 AD by order of the king of Srivijaya. Babar, the first Moghul Emperor of India, is said to have hunted rhinos in special reserves established for the purpose in the flood- plains of the Punjab during the 15th century (Gadgil, 1989). Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park was first established as a ‘shikar’ (hunting) reserve, as were Ujung Kulon in Java and Ranthambore in India. Many of these former hunting and forest preserves have been converted to today’s national parks or wildlife sanctu- aries. 1.2 Environmental implications of economic development Over the centuries natural resources have come under increasing pressure. The colonial era brought new trad- ing opportunities to the region, opening world markets to Asia. Where once local economies were more or less self-sufficient, today they are part of the global market- place. Governments, with the intention of mobilizing natural resources to support development, have become much more efficient at facilitating the exploitation of resources, reaching into even the most remote areas with new roads, new crops, and new technologies. Rural development has increased the productivity of agricul- ture, fisheries, and forests, often supported by subsidies from central governments and funding from interna- tional development agencies. National economies have boomed, even when much of the rest of the developing world has been in recession. Blessed with good agricultural land and plentiful water for irrigation, this part of the world also includes many of the world’s most densely populated regions. With the human population nearly doubling over the past 30 years, forests, wetlands, grasslands and other natural habitats have come under increasing pressure Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas from exploitation and the expanding need for land for mies of the region are built on timber, fisheries, agricul- agriculture. At the same time, human dependence upon tural and grazing lands, water resources for irrigation the environment has never been greater, as the econo- and power, and natural attractions for tourism. Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: South and Southeast Asia Area in Area in Categories Total area Area CategoriesI-V % VI-VIIIlandUA % designated % Bangladesh 144,000 . 968 Si " 1,101 0.8 Bhutan 46,620 9,061 i c 9,701 British IOT 60 0 t i 0 Brunei Darussalam 5,765 883 i 2,283 Cambodia 181,000 0 ! : 34,190 i 3,166,830 131,596 i E 139,030 1,919,445 193,385 ; p 330,059 236,725 0 { i 1,940 332,965 14,868 : Y 109,198 298 678,030 141,415 803,940 300,000 616 65,610 514,000 329,565 838,703 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover. Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: South and Southeast Asia Bangladesh 8 968 Bhutan 5 9,061 Bnitish IOT = = Brunei Darussalam 7 Cambodia India Indonesia Laos Malaysia 883 186 331 131,596 2,700 186 193,385 48 14,868 2 = «:1,733 12 = 11,085 53 36,550 27 [aki ell wel iS) is) n Singapore Sri Lanka Thailand Viet Nam 565 106 64,751 - 59 8,975 - 117 73,555 207 ~=—:176,508 211 528 232,493 30 4,670 888 487,437 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. 182 Economic growth has had an environmental price. Increased productivity has almost always been accom- panied by a reduction in biodiversity, both in agricul- tural ecosystems and in more natural ecosystems. In the process, local people have also sometimes lost local autonomy over resources. In Thailand, for example, subsidized commercial fisheries have all but wiped out artisanal fisheries (Rowchai, 1989), while in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia, logging rights have been given to concessionaires with little reference to the traditional ownership rights of resident people, nor of the impact of logging on them. Thus conflicts have arisen between modern and traditional forms of land and resource use, in the name of development. 1.3. The growth of the protected area system Recognizing that traditional forms of conservation were too weak to meet national needs in a time of rapid economic growth, governments over the past 30 years have also invested heavily in formal protected areas (Table 3, Figures 1 and 2). Such sites have been seen as a means of balancing exploitation with conservation and a way of extending government influence into the most remote areas. Indonesia, for example, established a national goal in the early 1980s of having 18 million ha protected as conservation areas and 30 million ha as protection forests, to balance the 65 million ha to be used as production forest (Sudarsono and Suhartono, 1992). Many of the first protected area networks grew in an ad hoc fashion, focusing on remote areas with plentiful wildlife but little value for development, or building upon hunting or forest reserves established by local Tulers or colonial administrators. The first national parks in South and Southeast Asia were Angkor Wat in Cambodia (1925), Corbett in India (1938), Taman Negara in Malaysia (1939), Mt Arayat and Mt Roosevelt in the Philippines (1933), and Ruhuna and Wilpattu in Sri Lanka (1938). More recently, as the impact of development on natural habitats has become more apparent, many countries have designed and es- tablished protected area networks to conserve repre- sentative samples of the country’s biodiversity. Protected areas have also been recognised as an effec- tive means of protecting watershed and catchment ar- eas. Now governments are looking increasingly to protected areas to provide economic opportunities both to local communities and to the nation as a whole. Beginning in the 1960s, several international organi- zations provided important assistance to governments to plan protected area networks. FAO was a major influence in Nepal, India, Myanmar, and Indonesia, and its regional office in Bangkok provided technical advice to many countries. WWF, with National Organizations in India, Pakistan, and Malaysia, and an affiliate Wild- life Fund Thailand, supported Project Tiger in India and was especially active in Indonesia and Nepal, often 183 South and Southeast Asia working in partnership with IUCN. Today the protected area system of South and Southeast Asia covers 18 countries (Tables 1 and 2), with only the Maldives lacking a legally designated protected area system. A major event in the history of protected areas in the region was the III World Congress on National Parks, held in Bali, Indonesia in October 1982. This congress, the first held in a developing country, gave particular attention to the relationship between protected areas and human needs, demonstrating that protected areas are not only of aesthetic significance but are vital to sustainable forms of development (McNeely and Miller, 1984). The meeting therefore gave protected areas a new relevance, pointing the way to better integration of protected areas with other major development issues. It led to books on protected area management (MacKin- non et al., 1984) and coastal and marine protected areas (Salm and Clark, 1984) which have been widely distrib- uted in the region; the former has been translated into Indonesian. The Bali Congress catalysed the formulation of re- gional action plans and regional reviews. The Corbett Action Plan, developed by field managers from 13 countries of South and Southeast Asia, provided a re- gional overview of actions needed to plan and manage protected areas more effectively (IUCN, 1985). The 1986 IUCN Review of the Protected Area System in the Indo-Malayan Realm further considered the adequacy of protected area coverage according to habitat types, centres of biodiversity, and endemism within each bio- geographic unit of the realm (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986). It identified gaps in the protected area network and listed actions for each country within the realm, including establishment of reserves, training, investment and education and awareness needs. In the decade since Bali, the protected area network has grown considerably, with the establishment of more than 500 new protected areas covering some 13 million ha since 1982 (although not all of these areas meet the criteria for IUCN Management Category I-V). The dramatic growth of protected area systems in the past decade has put many of the most biologically important areas under protection. The tendency to create more and larger reserves, however, has thinly spread the available funds and human resources. For example, protected areas in Thailand have grown from less than 10 to nearly 200 in 25 years, yet key parks are inadequately pro- tected and suffering from encroachment, poaching and development intrusion (Chettamart, 1987). During the past ten years many countries have ac- ceded to the various international conventions and pro- grammes associated with protected areas, including the Convention Concerning the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB), and the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) (Table 4). A number of areas are now internationally Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 300 Number of sites ae! Area (x1 O000sqkm) 200 150 100 50 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 1,000 Number of sites 800 Area (x1000sqkm) 400 200 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... 184 recognised under these conventions and a list of the properties that have been inscribed on the World Heritage List is given in Table 5. Southeast Asia is the only region other than Europe to have a regional convention under which protected areas have been recognised. Acknowledging the out- standing ecological importance of the region, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei Darussalam have nominated a number of protected areas as ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves under the ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. The ASEAN countries agree to give high priority to the preparation of master plans for each site, including management guidelines, research, and education. They also agree to cooperate in the manage- ment of such areas, and to develop a regional mecha- nism to support national efforts, through the ASEAN Group on Nature Conservation. A comprehensive review of the national protected areas systems throughout the region has been compiled by WCMC (IUCN, 1992). 1.4 Lessons learned The past three decades have seen dramatic expansion in protected areas. Economic and social development have changed the face of the landscape, and the changes are accelerating. In seeking to ensure that protected areas are able to make their best contribution to sustaining the evolving societies of the region, the following lessons should be considered. Enlist local support to make protected areas work. The most positive trend in conservation in the past ten years has been the widespread recognition of the envi- ronmental and ecological values of protected areas and the increased understanding that national parks and sanctuaries are often the most appropriate land use for such areas. Many new protected areas have been estab- lished, but if they are not to remain “paper parks", effective management strategies must be developed. The greatest challenge of the last ten years, and the one that has still not been addressed adequately, is the need to involve local communities as active partners in pro- tected area management. Few, if any, of the region’s protected areas can really be considered secure. Link conservation with development. The recogni- tion at Bali that protected areas should be linked to development and human needs has led to challenging and innovative approaches to the establishment and management of protected areas. Several national parks and protected areas have been established in association with major development projects. Dumoga-Bone National Park in Indonesia, five new national parks in the Mahaweli region of Sri Lanka, and an extensive system of protected areas in the lower Mekong drainage were all linked directly to the development of water resources (McNeely, 1987). 185 South and Southeast Asia This does not mean blindly trying to "make parks pay for themselves". While linking protected areas develop- ment with tourism can make sound economic sense, it also places increasing pressure on them. In Nepal, the formerly closed Shey valley in Dolpo has suffered environmental degradation since the establishment of a national park and the opening of this fragile area to tourism. In many parts of South and Southeast Asia, national parks have become almost synonymous with tourism development, and great care must be taken to ensure that these developments do not degrade the aesthetic and conservation values of the parks. Even World Heritage sites like Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park are being threatened by excessive infra- structure development. Enable conservation NGO’s to contribute to pro- tected areas. Government action is not sufficient by itself to conserve protected areas. While local NGOs have increased in number, few have the expertise or capacity to be involved directly with protected area management. Nevertheless NGOs do have a key role to play, especially in working with local communities on buffer zone projects around national parks and other kinds of protected areas. The Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) of Nepal and Ban Sap Tai in Thailand, both established by NGOs working in col- laboration with local people, demonstrate the kind of innovative approaches that can work. Build the capacity to absorb funding for conservation. Conservation funds provided to the region from exter- nal sources have increased dramatically over the past few years but it has often been difficult to utilize these funds effectively because of a lack of trained man- power. Funding alone will not lead to effective conser- vation. Providing more training and building up man- agement capacity an urgent need which is expertise. Follow periods of rapid growth in area with periods of institutional development. _All of these lessons lead to one major conclusion: in all parts of the South and Southeast Asia Region, protected area networks now need to become part of the foundation of national development. This will require stronger links with other sectors; improved career structures, training, and work- ing conditions; more effective economic incentives; better international cooperation; and above all, more effective working relationships with local people. 2. Current protected area coverage The total land allocated to protected areas has increased dramatically in South and Southeast Asia over the past three decades, from 200 sites covering 447,000 sq km in 1960 to over 850 sites covering 832,607 sq km in 1992 (in IUCN Categories I to V, Figure 1). The rise in more strictly protected categories (I, II, and III) is proportionally far higher, with an increase from 17,000 sq km (186 sites) in 1960 to 252,463 sq km (316 sites) in 1992. The large area of more strictly protected areas can be attributed mainly to an increase in numbers of Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas national parks in most countries. The establishment of several very large strict nature reserves by Indonesia strongly affects the percentage of land included in Category I. their watershed functions. For example, 30 million ha have been established as protection forest in Indonesia. These protection forests and those in Malaysia and India further extend the conservation estate, as do corridors of relatively undisturbed habitat and seed reservoirs left in production forests, as in Malaysia’s "Virgin Jungle Reserves". In addition to these conservation areas many coun- tries of the region also protect large areas of forest for Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: South and Southeast Asia % area Date Total established established area 1982-1991 unknown designated % area established 1972-1981 % area established 1962-1971 % area established up to 1962 Bangladesh Bhutan Bnitish IOT Brunei Darussalam 967 9,061 0 882 0 131,595 193,385 0 Ww okcooo kW Wa NR i) 14,867 868 0 0 0 0 oooocoo Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted. Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: South and Southeast Asia World Heritage Date No. Biosphere Reserves Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention Area (ha) No. Area (ha) Date No. Area (ha) Bangladesh August 1983 Bhutan - Brunei Darussalam = — Cambodia November 1991 - - India November 1977 281,012 - October 1981 Indonesia July 1989 297,681 1,482,400 April 1992 Laos March 1987 - - - Malaysia December 1988 - = Maldives December 1988 - - Myanmar - - Nepal June 1978 208,000 Pakistan July 1976 131,355 Philippines September 1985 - Singapore Sri Lanka Thailand UK (BIOT) Viet Nam 192,973 162,700 December 1987 July 1976 1,174,345 - 9,376 June 1990 26,100 - = January 1976 - September 1988 June 1980 8,864 September 1987 622,200 May 1984 = October 1987 = wnt ni 186 2.1. Systems plans The 1986 Indo-Malayan Review (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986) provided a system plan for the whole region, identifying both gazetted and proposed areas, and making further recommendations aiming to give adequate protected area coverage. Detailed system plans for individual countries have been completed for Indonesia (FAO, 1981/1982), India (Rodgers and Panwar, 1984), Myanmar (FAO, 1985) and Bhutan (Forestry Master Plan Annex 1, 1991). Reviews of national protected area systems including proposed new areas and extensions have been prepared for Viet Nam (FAO/TFAP 1991), Lao PDR (Salter and Phanthavong, 1989), and the Philippines (Haribon Foundation and DENR, 1988). Malaysia is preparing a systems review through State Conservation Strategies (e.g. Chan et al., 1985). India has reviewed the status of its national network (Kothari et al., 1989). Many of these system plans involved cooperation between local government agencies and international organisations. A few countries still do not have a coherent systems plan. Thailand, for example, probably has too many national parks (over 60) and would be better served with only the top 20 to 30 areas under this designation, with other areas protected at the provincial level. A systems plan which considers the full spectrum of approaches to protection will surely lead to a more coherent conserva- tion approach for the country. 2.2 Coverage of major habitats by protected areas While many centres of biodiversity, endemism and Pleistocene refugia are included within the protected area networks, certain habitat types are still poorly Tepresented (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986). These habitats are often the most species-rich and those most threatened by development, for example lowland rain- forests, coastal forests, riverine and wetland habitats and marine ecosystems. The Indo-Malayan Review iden- tified major gaps in the system as a lack of protected areas in nine bio-units, in order of priority: Irrawaddy, Philippines, Indochina, Bengal, Southern Indochina, Ceylon Wet Zone, South Himalayas, Western Ghats and South Myanmar. Since that review many new pro- posals to establish reserves have been put forward, and some have already been gazetted, especially in Myanmar, South Himalayas (Bhutan), Indochina (Lao PDR, Viet Nam) and Western Ghats. For the other bio-units with inadequate protection, the ongoing Integrated Protected Area System (IPAS) review will address this issue in the Philippines. Bengal and Ceylon Wet Zone show relatively little scope for further exten- sion of the protected area network but IUCN is collabo- tating with the Sri Lankan government to strengthen management of the Sinharaja National Heritage Wilderness Area, one of the last extensive areas of evergreen rain forest in Sri Lanka (in the Ceylon Wet 187 South and Southeast Asia Zone bio-unit), and to identify other remaining areas of conservation importance for future protection. Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand all have extensive national protected area networks which pro- vide adequate coverage of most major habitat types. Sri Lanka, for example, includes some 30 per cent of its land within the protected area network. Even war-torn Cambodia has a protected area network planned during the 1960s and early 1970s although at present these areas, though legally designated, exist only on paper. Bhutan’s protected area coverage (21%) is one of the highest in the region, but it is not representative, nor is management yet adequate. Compared with other habitats, the world’s tropical moist forests are among the least well protected. Not only do new sites need to be protected, but also pro- tected areas must be larger than at present if their biological diversity is to be maintained. Of the two nations in the sub-region with more than 300,000 sq km of tropical moist forest, Burma has a poorly developed protected areas system, whilst Indonesia’s is extensive. Cambodia, India, Laos, Malaysia and Thailand each has between 100,000 sq km and 200,000 sq km of tropical moist forest and in all these the extent of existing and proposed protected areas system is over 10% of the remaining tropical moist forest cover. However, it should be noted that this percentage will rise as forests outside protected areas are cleared. In some nations with less than 100,000 sq km of tropical moist forest, existing and proposed protected areas systems are generally well developed (Brunei, Darussalam, Sri Lanka) whilst in others (Bangladesh, Philippines and Viet Nam) this is not the case (Collins et al., 1991). Most countries have reasonably sophisticated approaches to conserving land, with a number of categories of protected areas managed by different management agen- cies in ministries or departments of forestry. This com- plexity is apparent in the wide range of legal des- ignations used throughout the region, and is also indi- cated in Table 2, which allocates the protected areas to the IUCN management category system (although it should be recognised that it is a simplification of the real situation). Institutional arrangement and definitions of the different categories of protected areas can be found in IUCN (1992). Marine conservation has so far lagged behind estab- lishment of terrestrial protected area networks in the region. Only Indonesia has identified detailed priorities for marine reserves (Salm and Halim, 1984). A marine system plan is being prepared for the Philippines as part of the IPAS programme. Elsewhere in the region, ma- rine conservation activities have been coordinated un- der the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, although practical progress has been disappointing to date. A particular problem for marine conservation has been intemational disputes over boundaries which affect some very extensive and rich marine systems, such as the Spratly and Paracel Islands and the spectacular coral Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas cliffs of Silabukan Island on the border between Sabah and Indonesia. 2.3 As pressures on land increase, many protected areas have come under threat. Some, such as Mt Apo in the Philippines, have been heavily occupied by illegal set- tlers; others, such as Kutai National Park in Indonesia, have been logged and/or burned. In India, Kaziranga National Park is threatened by plans to build an oil refinery upstream; this could send pollutants such as phenolic compounds, oil and suspended solids into the park. Kaziranga is also threatened by increasing flood levels along the Brahmaputra, thought to be at least partially due to increased deforestation in the upper reaches of the watershed. Protected areas in danger In the Philippines, Tubbataha National Marine Park has lost much of its coral over the past five years due to the use of explosives to stun fish. Using sodium cyanide poison to capture ornamental fish for the aquarium trade has also damaged coral reefs. Illegal harvesting of sea turtles, giant clams and seabird eggs further threatens the park. In Bhutan, two dams proposed within the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary would lead to flooding of important sites and disturbance from road and canal construction. These developments would also affect the adjacent Manas Tiger Reserve in India. Table 5. World Heritage sites in South and Southeast Asia India Kaziranga National Park Keoladeo National Park Manas Wildlife Sanctuary Nanda Devi National Park Sundarbans National Park Indonesia Komodo National Park Ujung Kulon National Park Nepal Royal Chitwan National Park Sagarmatha National Park Sri Lanka Sinharaja National Heritage Wilderness Area Thailand Thung Yai — Huai Kha Kaeng Wildlife Sanctuary The problems facing Thailand’s protected areas are well illustrated by Doi Inthanon National Park, where the number of people living in the park has greatly increased in recent years. The park has been degraded by poor farming practices, with 15 per cent of the area 188 cleared to grow opium poppies and other crops. Heavy use of pesticides has also polluted the streams, while all large mammals have been heavily hunted. Elsewhere large tracts of Thailand’s largest remaining freshwater marshes in Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park are being converted to shrimp farms. In addition to institutional and jurisdictional issues, marine conservation is particularly vulnerable to the environmental impacts of development activities. Ex- tensive oil exploration is now taking place in Asian waters and few contingency plans have been prepared for oil spills and their effects on marine ecosystems. The issues of coastal and marine conservation are particu- larly complex because of the impact of activities and land-use changes far removed from the marine area in question. Adequate conservation of marine ecosystems will require the development of integrated coastal zone management plans and the active participation of local communities. Thailand and Malaysia already have con- siderable experience of planning integrated coastal zone management, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that far more needs to be done to protect the marine environment. In conclusion, most countries in the region seem to be making a serious effort to establish an adequate pro- tected area system. It is heartening that many of the priority sites identified as needing protection in the Corbett Action Plan and IUCN Indo-Malayan Review have either already been gazetted or are in the process of gazettement. At the same time, while the protected area system seems generally adequate on paper, man- agement capacity is still inadequate to achieve effective management on the ground. Virtually all protected ar- eas in the realm are under some threat, and the legal and administrative systems are insufficient to address all of these threats. This is likely to be a serious concern for some time to come, and will only really be tumed around when the values and benefits of protected areas are more clearly perceived. 3. Additional protected areas required It might seem somewhat presumptuous to discuss the need for additional protected areas when so many of the existing ones still lack adequate human and other re- sources for effective management. With the increasing pressures on land, it is important that designs for com- plete systems of protected areas be prepared for each country in the region even if actual implementation is still some years in the future. Such systems plans help other government agencies determine which develop- ments will be appropriate for which areas, discouraging, for example, mining and timber concessions in areas which are identified to be of high value for conservation purposes. In seeking to "complete" the region’s system of pro- tected areas, the first question to ask is how much land should be allocated for protected areas. Taking into account the other demands on territory for economic development and subsistence needs, ten per cent is probably a realistic guideline (McNeely and Miller, 1984). To date, this target has been reached or ap- proached by Bhutan, Brunei, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. If protection forests and other multiple pur- pose conservation areas are included in this total then it should be, and often is, considerably larger, as illus- trated in Table 1. The needs and potential for further expansion are different in each country of the region, but many countries are in the process of expanding their protected areas network. Both Viet Nam and Myanmar have adopted a policy to more than double the protected area estate in the next five years. Lao PDR at present has no gazetted protected areas in the wildlife sector, but is developing and im- plementing management plans for 10 areas which will cover 6.6 per cent of the country while aiming ata target of 10 per cent by the year 2000. Indonesia already has an impressive system but even this may be inadequate to conserve all habitats and all species since less than 1.5 per cent of species-rich lowland forests are included in the protected area network (BAPPENAS, 1991). Moreover, Indonesia, like many other Asian countries, has listed marine conservation as a priority for the immediate future and plans to extend the system of coastal and marine reserves from 2 million to 20 million ha by the year 2000. Throughout the region special attention needs to be given to conservation of wetland and marine ecosys- tems. With increasing pressure on land, wetland, and marine habitats it is doubtful if many Asian govern- ments will approve further extensive territory for strict protection as conservation areas. Moreover, many wet- land and coastal areas of high conservation value sus- tain high human use and therefore require conservation management other than protected area status. Conser- vation of marine and wetland resources will require innovative approaches to management. Community man- agement of coral reef resources in some parts of the Philippines provides a good model. Indonesia is ad- dressing the sometimes-conflicting need of conserva- tion and utilisation in the wetlands of Danau Sentarum Reserve in Kalimantan with assistance from the British Overseas Development Administration. Regional pri- orities for protection of critical wetlands are listed in Table 7. Although opportunities are becoming limited for fur- ther extension of the reserve network, much of the land outside protected areas can and will serve a conserva- tion function. Nor will all habitats outside reserves be converted to agriculture, plantations or urban use. Pro- tection forests, selectively-logged production forests and other disturbed habitats will come to play an in- creasing role in conservation as primary forest areas continue to decrease. 189 South and Southeast Asia Where opportunities still exist for identifying new protected areas, a systems plan approach should be applied to ensure that adequate areas of major habitat types and centres of biodiversity and endemism are protected within each major bio-unit. Protected area design can incorporate a combination of large, medium and small reserves according to national opportunities and needs (MacKinnon et al., 1986). When reserves are smaller, however, greater attention must be paid to linking reserves together by corridors of relatively un- disturbed habitat, thereby effectively increasing effec- tive reserve size. 4. Protected area institutions Because modern protected areas have tended to be established by central or provincial governments, they cannot always reflect local needs and desires. Further, most protected area management agencies in the South and Southeast Asia Region are relatively young, with much of their growth coming only in the past few decades. They have not yet been tested over time, and their resources are increasingly stretched by the rapid expansion in the number and size of protected areas. Many of the laws establishing protected areas have been based on models from the industrial nations, often existing in parallel with traditional laws. This import of foreign conservation concepts is perhaps not inappro- priate, as protected areas are designed to provide a balance to market forces and approaches to resource exploitation that also have their origins in the industrial trading nations. But conditions are changing fast, and new approaches are required to earn the respect, support and commitment from local people for conservation activities. One of the key institutional issues is to ensure that the appropriate tasks are undertaken at the appropriate lev- els. A strong central authority is often required to ensure that an effective protected area network is designed, that the national legal and policy framework is appropriate, that appropriate information is built into the national curriculum and to ensure strong advocacy at the highest levels of government. More local approaches are re- quired to implement the protected areas, provide bene- fits to local communities, design appropriate buffer zone activities, seek alternative sources of income for local people, and other such activities that reduce the pressure of local people on protected areas. Since most protected areas in the region have been established in forested areas, it is perhaps understandable that most protected area agencies are part of ministries or departments of forestry. This has also facilitated the allocation of protected status to forest land, as in India, Indonesia or Thailand. However, many have criticized this link because forestry departments have tended to focus on exploitation of timber. Further, legislation for protected areas has sometimes been incorporated in more comprehensive environmental protection laws, Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas and this can weaken implementation and enforcement of the protected areas element if focus and clarity are lost. A few countries have given management responsibil- ity for protected areas to other ministries such as Envi- ronment (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Philippines) while others have tried a different arrangement such as a Special Board (Singapore) or linked parks more to tourism and recreation (Malaysia). It is difficult, how- ever, to generalise about what arrangement is most logical or successful and this will in any case vary according to national objectives for the protected area system. Few countries in the region have yet entrusted pro- tected area management to private institutions or NGOs. An exception is Nepal, where the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation runs the Annapuma Conserva- tion Area and helps ensure that the park is a centre of socio-economic development and increased environ- ment awareness (Norbu, 1989). In the Philippines, three NGOs have management agreements with the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) for the Calauit Game Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary, Tubbataha National Marine Park and Bicol National Park. Other local NGOs that could develop the capability to manage protected areas include the Royal Society for Protection of Nature (Bhutan), Wildlife Fund Thailand, and the Haribon Foundation (Philippines). In India over the past five years there has been a sharp increase in NGO efforts to delay the degradation of protected areas by working with local people in a series of welfare projects, such as primary health care, family planning and income gen- eration so as to provide the people with time, space and sufficient income to consider ecology and the environ- ment. These NGOs are serving as a vital interface, connecting local people with protected area manage- ment. 4.1 Conflict and cooperation with other development sectors Linkages with other powerful interests can have both positive and negative influences. Protected area agen- cies have tended to be relatively low in the government hierarchy and thus subject to shrinking government budgets, and subjugated to the priorities of other depart- ments. However, more effective linkages with other more powerful sectors can often be fostered through education and other mechanisms, and help to strengthen protected area management. In some countries, protected area authorities work with the army to protect key sites, as occurs in Nepal’s Chitwan National Park. In many coastal countries, the navy could play a more effective role in enforcing certain marine conservation legislation, especially be- cause of its mobility and mandate. Military personnel can also cause problems. In Thailand, for example, military personnel may be among the worst poachers, using sophisticated military equipment and being 190 immune to the law enforcement efforts of protected area staff. In countries such as Cambodia and Myanmar, where government control of remote areas is tenuous, or in disputed border zones as between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, both military and opposition forces can take a heavy toll of forests and wildlife. The widespread adoption of environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures has helped to improve the relationship between conservation and development sec- tors, sometimes averting threats to protected areas. For example, widespread opposition from NGOs helped to avert the proposed routing of the Indus Highway through Kirthar National Park in Pakistan in 1991. Similarly, a last-minute reassessment of the impact of a US$30 million irrigation project on Chitwan National Park in Nepal led the Asian Development Bank to cancel its loan and encouraged the National Planning Commis- sion to formally drop the project. Other cases have not been so successful. India’s pow- erful Rajastan Ministry of Mines has granted some 300 mining licenses in Sariska Sanctuary (49,200ha) in the past six years, in violation of the national Forest Con- servation Act. Hundreds of people who were earlier paid compensation to move out of the sanctuary have now returned, and reports of poaching are now wide- spread (Sharma, 1991). This is just one example of the kinds of institutional problems that can arise in federal systems of government. Throughout Asia, protected areas institutions are be- ing put under great pressure, and being asked to do more with less. This has led to a re-examination of the role of government in protected areas. Different institutional arrangements are being attempted, including considera- tion of a growing role for private land owners. These new institutional arrangements require new legislation, and new enforcement mechanisms which may be more cost-effective than conventional approaches which have too often led to conflict and inadequate protection. 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas Protected areas are economically important throughout the region, providing destinations for the multi-billion dollar tourist industry, protecting watersheds which support the irrigation systems upon which Asian coun- tries depend, and conserving species of plants and ani- mals which make numerous contributions to society. They are thus a national economic asset and this should be used as a strong justification for government invest- ment in protected areas (BAPPENAS, 1991; MacKinnon et al., 1986). Yet the investment being made by governments falls far short of what is required to enable protected areas to make their optimal contribution to modem societies. While it is exceedingly difficult to find precise figures on expenditures for protected areas, the best available information suggests that two of the region’s least wealthy South and Southeast Asia Z96'PLS'8$SN (Sed [euONeN] pur oFITPIIM JO wourredag amp Aq pola stumupe) eIske[e|y Jemsuluag:3ulpnjout ‘seare poroajoid 10J 1a8pnq [e10| 6V *IOMIOU Seale po}sej0id eB Jo JUDWIYsT]qQuise pue Suyuueld oyp Joy a[qisuodsar st uorstatp OY], “GOAM Uf JO 198pnq [enuuy LS “soueyes UO quods st yorym Jo sou ‘ueUBUNTTE y UT qN FEIN Joy poyeooyye st areiooy Jad ;p dy A[meunxoidde oa[durexo 1oJ—Mo] st os 13d JUDUNISOAUT OU], “seg [euoneN oy pue sloyenbpeay 0} paieooyye ase saamosal 1sO|] ‘(06/681 894 UT ssa] %0E) (000'OP9SNS “V'D) 000'668'0ST'O1da Alu sem reaK [easy 16/0661 M1 Joy 103pnq VdHd [e101 SUL “UOTIMU O'OSNS PUNoLE We PayeUNsa st aINjoMUIse UT WISUNO} 1Oj seole pajoajald ul JUAUNSAAM BY] “SuIpuTy JO}9as o7ealid FeuoNneUaUI SurIpnyoxe ‘766 1-Z61 Polad ayy 10J amt pusdxa qusWUIAA03 poreUsy OV “Z86I Ut 1981] 100folg Jopun sy UOTTTTW 7-9] PoTeoo][e alam santesal [| BWOS €V ‘uMOUyUN SI seaze pajoajaid 0) payeooy[e uoruodoud oy, (UOT [TL TANd$) S2OUYO INST pure (UOT TW O'P>ONAS) eUnTedad sarioysty ‘(uorT TU 0'LZGNG$) eunredeg amynousy ‘(UOT ¢LQNE$) WnosnyA tour g ‘(UOT [TW 0 PQN$) lUeunredag ANsaio.j 0} UOITEDOT[e JUDUIUIDAOD sasudwio|d IV *soummeldald [e190s 0) UDAIS ale sjuougsaaut A\uoud pur jsopoul are sanUaaal JUDUIUIAAO3 aseq 9aINOSa1 [eumeu payruny & pue uone[ndod [jews & ypIM ‘Ia2AdMOY “eIsy ul AQuNOD Jomo Aue Ajjemmiia ueyy Jaysty—sasodind uonearasuoo Joj Ja3pnq jenuue SWI JO % ¢ DUIOS apise jas sey UOUMUIAAOS ayy “A[2ANNdadsal (OO'8OL' I$ PUE QOE'LZ$SN Sea sopalio OFITPIIAA WoyyNog puke WYyYON Joy 193pnq ay], ERX UIS BIsy }SBeUuINOS puke INOS :sjebpngq Aouebe jueweHeuew Seale pej}oa}01q “9 e1qe1 000'00¢'T SOT BLE'E 908'902'S OLL'ZEZ'6I 000°0T 000° £6E'FE quayeainba aenod Sn UOISTAI “JOURS pUe *SUOD 2T[PIIAA “Idoq 1salo0,j — ewe Ay soalpleW yemeles -(soaismu, JO prvog syzeq Yeqes a1 Aq parmsturupe) yeqes MOT2Q 92g — BIsAR[RIA] nese UOISTAIC] UOIBAIOSUOD SOLOYsT{ PUP 2TPILA — SOP] (WdHd) ‘SuoD ame N pue IOlq IsAlo-J JO “UdH “I — BIsaUOpUT “OTPITM Pure Sisalo.j ‘UoWUOT AU Jo JUsUnTedaq — eIpUy Suoy SuoyH SupunH pur sisalo,j JO eojoaNq — eIpoquie} AM 000'00S'6S rou g Axoiuia J, uea0Q UeIpUuy Ys ON 000°821°7 quowyedaq isar0.j — uemyg Lad ysope sue g Aguase aqisuodsas/A1jun0Z AQUAIIND [BUOTEU ul yadpng 191 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Ansaio,j jo ANstury wen 191A, "S861 212] OM ur syed feuoneU Jo} Zutseaiout [[Ns 1am Aayy ysnowye ‘neneyd e premoy Sulpesy aq 0) Jeadde ‘1onomoy ‘[e1ous3 ul s}a3pnq [enuuy ‘uoNdse}0Id Jopun pur] jo eae oy ueIp osealoul SuIpucdsaO sy] Wey} 97eI 191SeJ Be ‘apeoop ised oy Joao Alferueisqns poseasour aavy s}adpnq seare poioalald 000°L60'ST aH UOISIAI] UONRAIDSUOD AJTIPTIAA 29 ‘Sxl [euoNeN — puepley |, “syred Jeuoneu p Joy uoneoo]e 198pnq [ROL 000'69L'9€ GML ue MeL “‘UOITBAIOSUOD 2ITPT A JO WauNTedag oy Jo 198pnq [e101 Bp saTMNsUCD 000'9¢9 WAT 000' $78" LZ UoNeALasUOD aJTPIIA JO Wounredag — eyxUeT] Us dos aiodesuis “MOMIOU Seale paiomaid OY Ul poysaautal pur siojsta yIed WO pade][09 219M SOsed 88'960'L JO [R10) & BgGI BOUTS ‘toUIeD ONUDAeI JUeVOUIT UP SI SAAIOSAl UI WSIMO], dHd 000‘000'€Z (GM Vd) neamg FPL pur seary paronorg — sourddy yg cSt “uoneAIaSUOD FIPIEM 01 poreooye a19m (%9'9T) UOrTTIU ZEESY PWOS'(€661-8861) ue g Jed J -9Al,J UIA aU} Ul JO}as-qns ANsaloj sp 01 poyedo][e UOII[G Z SY 2 JO BG Lp :1809 waurdojoaap eydeo pue %¢7Z¢ :sisoo UaUNsey “syzed feuoneu atp 01 paresoyye sem UOTT[TUW €° T$SN YoIYM Jo ‘andy [eo L Wid 000'00r' €6 OF IPIAA JO UoHBAIasUuO() ay JOJ [louNOD [eure N—(siuy) [eJape.{) UeIsIyed 6S SOLV “papnfoxe are situn uonoaaid op Jo sjsoo ay Jt aimtpuadxe poposoxe Apurisisuoo sey Soainos INO pur s}TULad ‘suOIssadUOd ‘WISUNO) WAI] payeioued SUIOSUT “UOTTMU O'ZZSYN P2[2101 Davy soatosar pue syed woy sayeumMsa anusAdd JUD00y “SUDUTEJUTeEW! aITMONAseyUI pue uoTesturupe uo quads st Joputewiol sy] “situn uonoaaid Auury [edayy [eAoy 01 pareooyye st pg 1Nq ‘UIQTS'OT JO Youu seare payoaiald ei 10y amrpuadxe sjuasosdoy 000'006'Z YdN 000'00E'rZ1 "suoD OFIPILM Pur sxe euoNeN Jo juaunredag — jedan] ERE LIS qwaX = guayeainba = Aduatand jeuoneu 1e70q Sn ul jaspng Ajuase aqisuodsas/A.1jun0 (1U09) eis JseeUuINOS puke YINOS :sjeHpnq Aouebe jusweHeuew Seale pajda}01d “9 2/921 192 South and Southeast Asia (P861) Spe uemrey [gy] *pue[IIZIIMS : : : Soy “elTesNY “(7661) ‘d ‘Jowemaspug [gC] : 5 NZNUIA ‘SedBIED ‘AI a4 1 ] ‘Sealy poionolg pue sysed [euOneN] UO ssalduoD POM MAJ Wp 10} paredaid sMataal euorsay “et he ores : cee wae ‘ddg ‘puepozimg ‘pue[D ‘WddNO-NONI ‘seutddipyg :woder Anun09 *(1661) VddNO [09] ‘ddop (0661 t9quiacaq 1-01 ‘Yoysue g ‘oyploeg aI pur eIsy JO} JoLJO [eUCIZoy OVA ‘uorday o1sloeg-RIsy OIp Ul Sealy paloalalg Jo sWaseUR] UO UONEINsUOD Iiodxgq [euoIZoy Je paiuasosd Jodeg “ueIsIyeY UI seale pojomaid Jo snqeis UsWaseURY] (0661) ‘WW UW [ZW] ‘ : - ; QuTAUd JO} ABaqeNI¢ * [6s] ‘ddo, ‘Tedayy ‘npueunpe y ‘uoneaissuoD aime yy 1OJ is, EIPUSYe|] Bury yy ‘Ue[d UONOR Iv9K-oAy [eITUT aUp :[edayy Ul UOIIBAIOSUOD [e]USWUOIIA y S ey ON ; 1 si 3 : yoaysny ‘niuna2Q ‘vkpjpuopul ‘| aumjo, ‘swaisks jouoijony fo maiaay Y :pj4om ayi so svasy patza1o1d (7661) NON [Ss] MN ‘e8puqureD pur puepoziims ‘purely ‘NOMI ‘224M pup py Dasny ‘vIuDaI0 ‘vkpjDWIOpU Sg eee a a ‘ddj¢ yesp Areururtoig “uordal eIsy—sear paoaald 10y ASqens v :AsI9Alp BOISOJoI SutAlosuoD *(1661) Ue POM [Sv] “uodas poysyqnduy) “Jaquisceq 7 ‘Yousur g ‘uoIssag SUMO WddNO NONI W9¢E ap e papracid uoneunojuy (1661) ‘UouY [6V] ‘I0dOg ‘UOIBAIOSUOD sIMeNY PUe UOIJONOIg 1SA10,j 10} [eJaUIH Aelo\saliq] ep [euL] “etsauopuy 10J ueyd Ayssoatporg “(166 1) uouW [LS] ‘(parepun) etpuy Jo jusWIIAOD [9] “ddgg ‘1aquis90q] 4-7 ‘yoxsur g ‘ 0 UOISsag SUDPOM INE 0} poqvasarg “Weyessneq lounrg UT seale poldajoid pue syed [euoryeU UO Wodal [eUONIeN (1661) ‘Wf A ‘SoWey pue ‘AL He) [ev] SEguSe Beate tn b ‘ddgy awoy ‘OVA ‘UEINYg [eNUDD pue WOON Ul UOIeAIasUOD amMeN (6861) ‘Hf 29Mo1g [TV] $sao4unog ("]U09) BIS JSBaUu}NOS pue UINOS :sjeHpnq Aouebe yuswebeuew seole pa}d9}01g “9 sIGeL 193 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas countries—Sri Lanka and Bhutan—spend a far higher proportion of their national budgets on conservation than do wealthier countries such as Thailand or Malaysia (Table 6). At the site level, protected area budgets are similarly elusive, though a few figures are available. Full imple- mentation of acomprehensive conservation programme in the upper Arun region of Nepal, for example, will cost US$14.6 million over the next decade, including US$426,000 to establish the Makalu-Barun National Park. Annual operating budgets for major protected areas in Indonesia vary from US$5 per sq km in Kerinci Seblat (budget: US$79,606) to US$794 per sq km in Gunung Gede-Pangrango (budget: US$120,714). More conservation funds are becoming available from international sources, including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Global Environment Fa- cility, UNESCO’s World Heritage Fund, several bilat- eral development agencies, and international conservation NGOs such as WWF, IUCN, Conservation Interna- tional, Asian Wetlands Bureau, and BirdLife Interna- tional (formerly ICBP). Universities, research institutions, zoos, and others are also increasingly inter- ested in supporting projects in protected areas. It is apparent that simple shortage of funds is no longer the only limiting factor for protected areas in the region, though other economic factors can prevent the available funds from being used in the most productive way. In Sri Lanka, for example, financial support from USAID to establish five new national parks came at the same time that IMF controls on hiring of new civil servants came into force; as a result, staff were diverted from existing parks to the new ones and the new biolo- gists, education specialists, and others required could not be hired in permanent positions. In many parts of the region, the funding problems of the protected areas are part of a larger picture of rural poverty. The remote areas adjacent to reserves are often financially neglected and poorly managed, and their under-development is a source of pressure on the pro- tected areas. Such problems may best be addressed by funding development projects in the surrounding lands, thereby reducing pressure on the protected area. Stress- ing a multi-agency approach to these surrounding lands and waters could increase the resources available to effectively increase the area of protected area core and bringing adjacent areas under more formal manage- ment, e.g. ICAD (Integrated Conservation And Develop- ment Project) in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Indonesia. Despite generous support from many sources, the fact remains that few, if any, protected areas are provided with sufficient trained staff, equipment, and rural devel- opment projects in the surrounding lands. Therefore, a regional priority is to ensure the sustainability of fund- ing programmes. Funds from international sources for protected areas must be allocated and utilised more 194 effectively if biodiversity conservation is to be ecologi- cally and economically viable. Since governments and foreign investors are likely to allocate substantial funds for protected areas only if they are convinced of the long-term socio-economic benefits, modules such as those highlighted by Payapvipapong et al. (1988) and McNeely and Dobias (1991) for Thailand will become increasingly useful. Further, protected areas may "go out of style" for the major funding agencies, especially if governments in- sist on other priorities. It is incumbent on protected area managers to use the current flow of major funding to develop long-term funding strategies, to leam how to become more sophisticated when presenting their fund- ing requests to the central government treasuries, to seek ways to increase the self-reliance of individual protected areas, and to enlist more partners in the fund- ing of certain aspects of protected areas. Private sector investment is one important source that may increase substantially in the coming years, espe- cially if given incentives by government policies. Fig- ures for investment by private organisations in protected areas vary from country to country, and in any case are difficult to come by. For Indonesia the private sector investment in protected areas is estimated at US$16 million to date with an expected investment of US$120 million for 1992-1997 (mostly on development of tour- ism facilities). If this figure is realised it will exceed projected government investment (including interna- tional funds) for the same period. The private and commercial sector is increasingly being encouraged to become more involved in conser- vation in cooperation with government agencies and NGOs to strengthen park and protected area manage- ment. Kaltim Primacoal, a mining company working adjacent to Kutai National Park, has assisted the Indonesian conservation authorities to develop an ac- tion and investment plan for the park. The company is now seeking to establish a consortium of investors drawn from local industries and international agencies to fund conservation activities in the park. Other innovative funding mechanisms tried or pro- posed within the region include: w "Adopta Park". The Minnesota Zoo has "adopted" Ujung Kulon National Park in Indonesia, the best remaining habitat for the Javan Rhino, and is pro- viding a variety of forms of support to the park. Debt-for-Nature Swaps. In the Philippines, WWF and national NGOs have utilised this mechanism to purchase external debt at a discount and make funds available in local currency to fund the IPAS pro- gramme and protected areas such as St Paul subter- ranean National Park. Other countries may be concerned that debt swaps could infringe on national sovereignty. @ Adoption of "Flagship Species" . Charismatic spe- cies can be used to raise funds for conserving the habitats where these species are found. In this re- gard, Project Tiger, Project Snow Leopard, and Pro- ject Elephant in India are demonstrations of how to build action plans into five-year development plans and thus strengthen the conservation of numerous less "glamorous" species. gw Environmental levies on logging and oil revenues. Stumpage fees from Indonesia’s forest concessions are reported to have reached a total capital of US$1 billion; such funds could provide a useful source for long-term financing of protected areas. Entrance fees. Nepal has successfully introduced a user’s fee (about US$4) levied on all non-national visitors to the Annapurna Conservation Area Pro- ject. Unlike most national park fees, these user fees do not go to the government treasury but are recycled back to the protected area by the King Mahendra Trust which oversees 4633 sq km of protected area with over 100 staff without any financial burden to the national government. Tourism. Tourism can be a valuable source of in- come for protected areas as well as a source of economic benefits to local people in the region. Revenues from tourism are difficult to estimate, especially as they often return to national treasuries rather than to the parks authorities. Nevertheless, some parks do pay their way. Mt Kinabalu National Park in Sabah, Malaysia, for example, generates sufficient funds from tourism to cover the whole Sabah Parks budget. The following points summarize the finance issue: @ Funds must be directed from the central office to the field more efficiently. Too many of the "protected area” funds remain in the capital cities to cover administrative costs and do not filter down to the protected areas themselves. "One-off" projects would be much more useful if they were part of a reliable long-term package of financial support to entire national systems of pro- tected areas. Innovative financial strategies for protected areas should be explored and made part of management Strategies for both individual sites and protected area systems. Funding for a protected area should be considered as part of regional development, drawing on addi- tional funds outside the protected area budget. For example, the Asian Development Bank now tries to include protected areas into its project boundaries rather than excluding them, as this permits specific funding of protection for the area as part of the overall project funding. 195 South and Southeast Asia In summary, a stronger financial commitment from the national governments and the multilateral and bilat- eral funding agencies remains central to the improved funding situation for protected areas. Governments that expect financial returns for their investments in conser- vation must be encouraged to realize that safeguarding the environment is worth a larger investment. They willingly spend billions to preserve their territorial se- curity but are still reluctant to allocate the few millions needed to preserve environmental security through con- servation. Finally, it is also the responsibility of the protected area planners and conservation community to utilize more effectively the funds which are already available for protected areas and to tap into new and untraditional financial sources, expanding the overall funding pool for the protection of biodiversity. 6. Human capacity in protected areas management Protected areas employ many people directly even though many governments pay only meagre salaries. Although the total numbers of staff may seem large and some protected areas even appear over-staffed, management needs strengthening in virtually all countries. This is often a result of lack of well-qualified and trained staff as well as poor deployment of human resources. To date most senior protected area staff have been students of forestry or biological sciences. In view of the complexi- ties of issues faced in conservation area management, protected areas also need access to staff trained in other disciplines, particularly administration, tourism, social services, economics, rural development, and public re- lations. In addition to employing local people as park staff, many protected areas provide indirect employment op- portunities at the local and regional level through tour- ism and other employment opportunities such as construc- tion and maintenance work, seasonal grass cutting or harvesting of other natural resources. Some authorities keep data on number of visitors and revenue in pro- tected areas, but only a few attempts have been made to estimate how many people in total benefit from tourism and other sectors. Total direct and indirect employment generation at Khao Yai National Park in Thailand in 1987 was estimated at 1,200 people, who received a total income of approximately 24 million baht (nearly US$1 million) (Dobias et al., 1988). Local communities may also require and benefit from training to improve their services for tourists, e.g. training to teahouse own- ers in Nepal. Training both in protected area management and buffer zone activities have been identified as priorities throughout the region. Regional courses for protected area managers are run by the Wildlife Training Institute (Dehra Dun, India), the School of Environmental Con- servation Management (Bogor, Indonesia) and the Asian Institute of Technology (Bangkok, Thailand). Relatively Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 7. Threatened critical wetlands of international importance for conservation action Major sites which are very seriously threatened or require swift action (over 1,000ha) Bangladesh Wetlands of Sylet Basin Myanmar Irrawaddy Delta Cambodia Tonlé Sap India Chilka Lake Kollero Lake Southem Gulf of Kutch Sundarbans Wetlands of Andamans and Nicobar Indonesia Riau coastal wetlands Way Kambas Musi Banyuasin Delta Wasur & Rawa Biru Malaysia Sarawak Peat Swamp Forest Southeast Pakary Swamp Forest Pakistan Outer Indus River Philippines Agusan Marsh Viet Nam Mekong Delta Size in ha 1,000,000 3,500,000 1,500,000 116,000 90,000 735,000 450,000 115,000 500,000 123,500 200,000 431,000 340,000 300,000 400,000 undertermined 3,900,000 Source: Asian Wetland Bureau few countries in the region have training facilities spe- cifically for protected area management, but many countries have courses that are relevant to park manage- ment. For example, the Nepal Forestry Institute and King Mahendra Trust run courses on parks and park management. Peninsular Malaysia has a wildlife train- ing centre in the Krau Game Reserve which provides in-service training. In-service courses are run in many other parks within the region, and WWF has developed training course material for protected area guards (MacKinnon, 1991). In addition, numerous regional workshops and courses address specific topics, such as wildlife conservation and management (Smithsonian Institution in Malaysia), wetlands (Asian Wetland Bureau) and coastal zone management (ICLARM in the Philippines). Study tours, exchange visits and training courses within the region are also sponsored by UNESCO, UNEP (Regional Seas Programme) and FAO. The magazine Tigerpaper, spon- sored by FAO, provides a regional forum for exchange of information on protected area management. Other 196 training is provided through bilateral arrangements; for example, Nepal park staff receive training in New Zealand and park staff from throughout the region attend higher degree courses at Los Banos, Philippines. 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas The major issues and required actions for the region have been identified above. Investment needs will re- quire a partnership between national governments and the private sector, leading to a substantial increase in budgets and a higher priority for protected areas. The most significant source of investment today is the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which may pro- vide some US$100 million for conserving biodiversity in the region over the next several years. These funds provide, for example, direct support to protected areas (Indonesia), training (Viet Nam), and establishment of trust and endowment funds (Bhutan) (Table 8). The GEF projects show the kinds of activities which are likely to be of interest to major international investors. It is also possible that the Biodiversity Convention which was signed at the UN Conference on Environ- ment and Development in June 1992 will lead to new sources of funding for investment in protected areas. The Asian Development Bank’s environmental action plan for the 1990s calls for preparation of con- servation master plans and identification of viable biodiver- sity management projects (both terrestrial and marine) for short-term and long-term investments, including policy options for developing and managing biological tesources. ADB is convinced that increasing the eco- South and Southeast Asia nomic benefits from (or attributable to) protected areas may be the optimum strategy to avoid jeopardizing the viability of natural resource systems. With protected areas seen as an economic asset they will no longer be regarded as a burden on state coffers and suffer from benign neglect. However, economic utilization of pro- tected areas will only succeed where allocation of prop- erty rights provides sufficient incentives for sustainable management of biodiversity as well as increased eco- nomic benefits. Property rights which favour economic exploitation over biodiversity, or provide insufficient economic interest to retain long-term involvement, will equally lead to eventual degradation of the natural system. Table 8. Global Environment Facility biodiversity portfolio, South and Southeast Asia Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation Ecodevelopment Indonesia _ Biodiversity Action Plan, preparation work, for integrated conservation and development Wildlife protected area management Makalu-Barun Conservation Area and Conservation Strategy Conservation management of priority protected areas Wildlife conservation and protected area management Forest reserve conservation Protected area and wildlife conservation technical assistance Preserving Coastal Ecosystem Coastal Biodiversity up to US$10m Innovation/Demonstration Use of a financial instrument to address long-term sustainability issues US$20m US$2m preparation; Development of large-scale model US$20m investment US$5.5m up to US$20m of integrating protected areas manage- ment with economic development of local smallholders. Also smaller innovative components Establishment of a protected area system; land tenure and use of forest land; participation by communtities in management of forest land. Development of national plan for biodiversity conservation and of model conservation area, integrating conservation and development. Policy-based lending package tied to legislative conditionality to ensure means of better mangement and sustainability through contractual arrangements with NGOs and establishment of endowment funds. Minimize conflict between wildlife/ humans; training and institutional technical assistance support. Changes in policies governing forest occupants and increased participation; protection of forest areas representing different forest incursions and occupancy. Combination of training and development of biodiversity Action Plan to provide foundation of effective biodiversity protection. US$7.5m US$11.50m 197 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 9. FY 91-93 World Bank projects with biodiversity components Country Bangladesh Forestry III India Narmada River Basin Devleopment Maharashtra State Forestry Sector West Bengal Indonesia Integrated swamps Forest management and conservation Lao PDR Forest management Nepal Arun III — Hydro Power/ Access Road Philippines Environment and Natural Resource Management Programme (SECAL) Thailand _—_ Land reform and protection of forests The World Bank has also been incorporating pro- tected area components into many of its projects, illus- trating a productive linkage between protected areas and investments in other development sectors such as agriculture, forestry, and energy (Table 9). In many parts of the region, the private sector might be encouraged to take over those parts of protected area management which can be made to pay—such as eco- tourism infrastructure—but this needs close control of concessions to maintain management standards in parks. The Tourism Authority of Thailand has given the Royal Forest Department approximately 40 million baht (US$ 1.6 million) over 3 years for tourism development at national parks (Dobias et al., 1988). The industrial and commercial sector should also be encouraged to play a greater role in subsidising conservation and protected area costs as part of their increasing concern for the environment. This can be arranged either through direct donations and/or sustained support, such as linking protected areas budgets to income from sale of electric- ity from dams whose watershed is protected by a na- tional park, or assistance from mining companies as in Kutai and Gunung Lorentz in Indonesia, or indirectly through environmental levies. Current action plans at both national and international levels identify national and regional priorities and in- vestment needs. The Corbett Action Plan and the IUCN Indo-Malayan Regional Review provide the best re- gional overviews. The regional priorities for wetland conservation have been identified by the Asian Wet- lands Bureau (Scott and Poole, 1989), supported by country reports by AWB. Detailed national action plans have been prepared for India (Department of Environ- ment, n.d.), Indonesia (BAPPENAS, 1991), Laos (Salter Component Protection of Sundarbans mangrove forests and establishment of wildlife conservation unit. Wildlife sanctuary establishment and protecton. Protection of representative wildlife nature reserves; institutiona strengthening. Protection of Sundarbans Tiger Reserve. Protection of key wetland sites. Strengthening management of ten national parks. Establishment and management of conservation—priority forest nature reserves and human resource development. Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area: strength- ening of national park and buffer zone areas. Establishmen of Integrated Protected Areas System (IPAS); manpower development; and protection of 10 priority protected areas. Protection and management of conservation forest. and Phanthavong, 1989), Viet Nam (Anon., 1985), and Sri Lanka (Kotagama, et al., 1990). A number of species-oriented action plans have also been developed which have elements relevant to the region; the Asian Elephant Action Plan prepared by IUCN’s Species Sur- vival Commission is an excellent example of such a plan (Santiapillai and Jackson, 1990) 8. Major protected area issues in the region The single over-riding issue is the quest for a balance between the generalized desire to live harmoniously with nature and the need to exploit resources to sustain life. The problems facing protected areas are thus inti- mately related to socio-economic factors like poverty, land tenure, and equity. Within this context the follow- ing are the major issues which need to be addressed urgently if protected areas are to contribute to the fur- ther development of the countries in the Asian region. 8.1. Improving the relationship between protected areas and local communities One result of establishing protected areas at the initia- tive of central or provincial government authorities has been to alienate local people from the areas which they had traditionally considered ’ their territory’. In extreme cases, this has led to violence and bloodshed. @ In Assam, India, a large rebel force from an extrem- ist faction of the Bodo tribe recently invaded Manas Sanctuary, killed 12 members of the forest staff, cleared the land, and opened the reserve to poachers. The Bodos claimed the park as their ancestral lands, 198 stolen from them during the British rule of India. They were merely reclaiming their rightful prop- erty, they contended (Dang, 1991). In many other cases, villages have been removed from their traditional lands to establish protected areas. In almost all cases, local people have been expected to curb traditional uses of the resources contained within the new protected areas. Further problems arise when new immigrants and recent settlers move into an area, increasing pressure on available agricultural land and forest and aquatic resources. Lacking any significant involvement in the design and management of protected areas, local people have not been strong supporters of their establishment and are sceptical of the capacity of governments to manage local resources on their behalf. But following the rapid creation of protected areas in the 1970s and 1980s, greater attention is now being given to the sustainability and viability of protected areas. It has become widely agreed that conservation is likely to be most effective when it reinforces traditional rights and conservation practices. This in turn is leading to many efforts to involve local people more thoroughly in protected area management (see, for example, the papers in Thorsell, 1985, and McNeely, Thorsell, and Chalise, 1985). mw In Nepal’s Sagarmatha National Park, a World Heritage Site, initial hostility to the park was con- verted into strong support through economic incen- tives such as employment in tourism-related activities, preferential employment as park staff, registration of land to establish tenure rights, resto- ration and protection of religious structures inside the park, a return of forest management to the village, and community development activities clearly linked to the park (Norbu, 1985). In Indonesia’s Irian Jaya province, the Arfak Moun- tains Nature Conservation Area exemplifies the mod- em approach, fully involving local people in the preparation of the management plan, marking and maintaining the boundary, and benefiting from eco- nomic incentives designed to support the area. This effort has shown that building local support from the outset of protected area establishment can reduce the costs of boundary demarcation and enforcement of regulations (Craven and De Fretes, 1987). Despite these examples, and several others that could be cited, far more needs to be done to build support from local communities for protected areas. This will require a combination of incentives and disincentives, eco- nomic benefits and law enforcement, education and awareness, employment in the protected area and em- ployment opportunities outside, and enhanced land ten- ure and control of new immigration (especially if the buffer zones around protected areas are targeted for special development assistance). The key is to find the balance among the competing demands, and this will usually require a site-specific solution. 199 South and Southeast Asia 8.2 Improving management of protected areas With the establishment of representative systems of protected areas in most Asian countries, the major issue being faced by most protected area agencies is how to manage these areas effectively. As suggested above, it is no simple matter to protect the remaining areas of high value for conservation in a time when populations are growing quickly and demands on resources are growing even more rapidly. One approach to improving management is the prepa- ration of management plans. The standard approach to preparing management plans is now well known, but few plans are prepared through an appropriate process. Too often, the management planning team consists primarily of outsiders, rather than including the man- ager who will be responsible for implementation; and few management plans have been prepared in consult- ation with local people who are likely to be affected by the plan. Even where a reasonable planning process has been followed, as at Khao Yai National Park in Thailand, the experience is not replicated in other pro- tected areas in the country. As a result, many manage- ment plans have failed because they are unrealistic, never fully approved by the protected area agency, insufficiently funded, and inadequately integrated with regional plans. 8.3. Making protected areas part of modern society: The role of education, training, and research Throughout the region, considerably greater attention is required to erect the three pillars of successful protected areas: education; training; and research. These pillars will remain standing only if an appropriate career struc- ture is built upon them, to encourage well-trained staff to remain in protected area management. Education. Education and awareness programmes are scarce in the region, though some notable efforts are being implemented around some protected areas in India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Far more needs to be done to make conservation a part of all subjects in the school curricula, with particular attention being given to highly specific material for schools lo- cated around protected areas. While "flagship species” such as rhinos, orangutans, elephants, and tigers have been useful to symbolize conservation issues, far more needs to be done to support protected areas in general. Better information must be seen as the foundation of influential public support of protected areas. Public education about protected areas is provided primarily by the private sector, with numerous environ- mental NGOs carrying out campaigns on various issues. However, these tend to be aimed at rather specific targets—such as opposing dams in India and Thailand, or fighting for the rights of forest-dwelling peoples in Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Sarawak—tather than at protected areas in general. Most countries have active press and other media, though again they are often more interested in specific issues rather than general information about protected areas. The Asian Forum of Environmental Journalists is one useful mechanism which has been developed. Pakistan has established a Journalists Resource Centre, and Sri Lanka an Environment Joumalists Forum. Training. As discussed in section 6, major training institutions have been established in the region and several universities provide courses of study relevant to protected areas. Nevertheless, training opportunities are still inadequate, and few protected area agencies are able to provide the specific training that is required for modern protected area managers and their staff. Topics such as conflict resolution, fund-raising, tourism man- agement, and community relations still need far more attention. A particular need in the region is for training in marine conservation. The establishment of a regional training school for coastal and marine management is a priority for the region. SECM has already initiated a short marine course which could be expanded. Some countries, such as India, include conservation issues in training for military officers and senior admin- istrators, but few include protected areas issues as a regular part of the training curricula for the full range of civil servants. The lack of such training means that many government officials have only a very superficial understanding of the role that protected areas play in modern society, and how their day-to-day activities affect protected areas. Research. Knowledge about the natural systems of the region has increased remarkably over the past dec- ade with several important regional publications having appeared, including reviews on tropical forests (Collins etal., 1991), wetlands (Scott, 1989), and coral reefs and UNEP/IUCN, 1986). While most countries have a rea- sonable foundation of ecological scientists, few (India being a notable exception) have adequate floral or fau- nal inventories. More systematic inventory work is urgently needed in most countries of the realm. This requires trained staff and well-maintained herbaria and zoological collections, though few such institutions have flourished in recent years. Even so, for most countries sufficient data are avail- able to identify areas of high biodiversity and endemism and to start to prepare system plans to give adequate coverage of the full range of habitat types. Lack of survey data cannot be an excuse for inaction in the realm. Sri Lanka, for example, has imposed a ban on all logging in the wet zone while a conservation review of remaining natural forests is undertaken. This review is designed to identify centres of biodiversity and ende- mism which will be safeguarded from future exploita- tion. A far more serious omission is translating scientific results into management action. This requires a much 200 more sophisticated combination of science and practice, biology and sociology, theory and practice, ecology and economics. Even countries with a rich research tradi- tion, such as India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Malaysia, are facing challenges in bringing science into protected area management. Pioneering work in Sri Lanka (Eisenberg and Lockhart, 1972; McKay, 1973) led to greatly in- creased fieldwork by Asian scientists in South Asia, but few protected areas have working relationships with local universities, though both Indonesia and Malaysia are developing such links. While several biosphere reserves have been established with research as a major focus, few have permanent research facilities or long- term research relevant to protected area management. On the other hand, Sinharaja Natural Heritage Wil- demess Area, a World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve which is managed by Sri Lanka’s Forest De- partment rather than the Department of Wild Life Con- servation, has long been the site of management- oriented research and this has ensured its survival against threats from logging (Ishwaran and Erdelen, 1990). It is apparent that far more needs to be done to promote research in protected areas in the region, and to apply that research to management issues ranging from wildlife biology to habitat restoration to tourist management to economic values of protected areas. Few protected area authorities will be able by them- selves to undertake programmes to fulfil research needs. Long-term research programmes need to be established by universities or research institutions to assess the long-term consequences of land-use changes both within and outside protected areas. This will be especially relevant to wetland and marine protected areas. Ex- change of research information among countries in the region would appear to be a highly cost-effective way of improving the application of science to management. 8.4 International cooperation The countries of South and Southeast Asia have so far shown relatively little regional cooperation, with inse- cure national borders often leading to conflict rather than coordinated conservation action. Nevertheless, a number of protected areas adjoining international bor- ders provide opportunities for improved cooperation. At least nine such areas have been identified (Table 10) in the region, and could themselves become a focus for improved international cooperation. Considerable op- portunities also exist for greater exchange of informa- tion and expertise within the region. 9. Priorities for action in the region Maintaining and strengthening the protected area sys- tems of the region requires attention to several priority issues: 1. Extending the protected area coverage of repre- sentative terrestrial and marine ecosystems, in- volving the preparation of national system plans. Table 10. Transfrontier protected areas Sundarbans (India) Barnadi (India) Manas (India) Wasur (Indonesia) Udaipur & Volmiki Nagar (India) Samunsam & Tanjung Datu (Sarawak) Kayan Mentarang (Kalimantan) Gunung Bentang & Karimun (Kalimantan) 1. 245 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Source: Thorsell and Harrison, 1990 2, Integrating protected area design and manage- ment within the context of regional development planning. 3. Integrating conservation with development to provide benefits to local and regional communi- ties to relieve pressures on protected areas and reduce degradation of natural habitats and loss of biodiversity. 4. Giving greater emphasis to marine conservation, especially on integrating conservation with coastal zone development. 5. Fostering participation of local communities and NGOs as partners with government agencies in protected area management. 6. Building a career structure for protected area staff. The Establishing training and research facilities for protected area management and buffer zone ac- tivities including training for protected area staff, local government, local NGOs, community or- ganisers and training for trainers. 8. Extending education and awareness programmes targeted at all levels of society (local communi- ties to government planners) to increase recog- nition of the values and roles of protected areas Yot Dom & Khao Phanom Dong Rak (Thailand) South and Southeast Asia Sundarbans (Bangladesh) Shumar (Bhutan) Manas (Bhutan) Tonda (Papau New Guinea) Royal Chitwan (Nepal) Prop. Hutan Sambas (Kalimantan) Preah Vihear (Kampuchea) Prop. Pulong Tau (Sarawak) Lanjak Entimau (Sarawak) in biodiversity conservation and sustainable de- velopment. 9. Increasing financial and institutional support for protected areas and buffer/support zone activi- ties, including improved allocation of existing resources and the long-term sustainability of funding. 10. | Strengthening protected area legislation and its enforcement. 11. | Promoting regional collaboration and coopera- tion to encourage exchange of expertise through study tours, regional training, consultancies, and international programmes. 12. _ Fostering more active participation in global conventions and other conservation programmes. The activities that will convert these priorities into action in each country will vary according to national conservation objectives, history, and political will. In every case, action needs to follow the general directions outlined above. Remarkable progress has been shown in the develop- ment of the protected areas of South and Southeast Asia over the past several decades. The challenge now is to convert ideas, concepts, proclamations, laws, gazette Notices, and maps into a new and positive relationship between people and the rest of nature. Acknowledgements This review was developed from a regional meeting held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 1 to4 December 1991, under the co-sponsorship of IUCN, the Asian Institute of Technology, and the World Bank. Some 58 partici- pants from 16 countries contributed to the discussions that led to this draft. Many of the data were provided by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas References ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1989. Minimum Quality Criteria for Ecologically Sensitive Areas. Asian De- velopment Bank, Manila. 96 pp. Anon. 1985. Viet Nam: National Conservation Strat- egy. Committee for Rational Utilization of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. ASEAN. 1988. ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves. JICA and UNEP, Bangkok. 173 pp. BAPPENAS. 1991. Biodiversity Action Plan for Indo- nesia. BAPPENAS, Jakarta, Indonesia. 120 pp. Chettamart, S. 1987. Assessment of National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Other Preserves Develop- ment in Thailand. Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Royal Forest Department, and Office of the National Environment Board, Bangkok. 138 pp. Collins, N.M., J.A. Sayer, and T.C. Whitmore. 1991. The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Asia and the Pacific. MacMillan, London. 256 pp. Craven, I. and de Fretes, Y. 1987. Arfak Mountains Nature Conservation Area. Jrian Jaya Management Plan 1988-1992. WWF, Bogor, Indonesia. Dang, Himraj. 1991. Human Conflict in Conservation: Protected Areas, the Indian Experience. Develop- ment Alternatives, New Delhi. 255 pp. Department of Environment n.d. National wildlife action plan. Government of India, New Delhi. 28 pp. Dobias, R. Wangwacharakul, V. and Sangswang, N. 1988. Beneficial use quantifications of Khao Yai National Park. Report to World Wide Fund for Nature, Switzerland. Pp. 14-15. Eisenberg, J.F. and M. Lockhart. 1972. An ecological reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 101:1-118. FAO. 1981/1982. National Conservation Plan for Indonesia. FAO, Bogor. (8 vols.) FAO. 1985. Myanmar: Survey data and conservation priorities: Nature Conservation and National Parks. FO:DP\BUR\80\006 Technical Report 1. Gadgil, M. 1989. The Indian heritage of a conservation ethic. In Allchin, B., F.R. Allchin, and B.K. Thapar (eds). Conservation of the Indian Heritage. Cosmo Publishers, New Delhi. Pp. 13-21. IUCN 1990. IUCN Directory of South Asian Protected Areas. Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 294 pp. Haribon Foundation/DENR. 1988. Development of an Integrated Protected Areas System (IPAS) for the Philippines. DENR/Haribon Foundation/WWF-US, Manila. Ishwaran, N and Erdelen, W. 1990. Conserving Sinharaja. An experiment in sustainable develop- ment in Sri Lanka. Ambio 19(5): 237-244. IUCN, 1985. Corbett Action Plan. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 24 pp. IUCN. 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A Review of National Systems. Volume 1 : Indomalaya, Oceania, Australia and Antarctic. Prepared by the World 202 Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xx + 352pp. Kotagama, S.W., V.P. Fernando, and N. Ishwaran. 1990. A Five-Year Development Plan for the Wildlife Conservation and Protected Area Management Sector of Sri Lanka. Ministry of Lands, Irrigation, and Mahaweli Development, Colombo. 50 pp. Kothari, A. P. Pande, S. Singh, and D. Variava. 1989. Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India: A status report. Environmental Studies Divi- sion, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. 298 pp. Mackinnon, J. 1991. Protected Area Guards Training Course for Asian Countries. Draft. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. Mackinnon, J, Mackinnon,K. Child, G. and Thorsell, J.W. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Also available in Indonesian (Gadjah Mada Press, 1990). MacKinnon, J and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indo-Malayan Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP, Nairobi. 284 pp. McKay, G.M. 1973. Behavior and ecology of the Asiatic elephant in south-eastern Ceylon. Smithsonian Con- trib. Zool. 125: 1-113. McNeely, J.A. 1987. How dams and wildlife can co-exist: Natural habitats, agriculture, and water resources de- velopment projects in tropical Asia. J. Conservation Biology 1(3): 228-238. McNeely, J.A. and Dobias, R. 1991. Economic incen- tives for conserving biological diversity in Thailand. Ambio 20(2): 86-90. McNeely, J.A. and Miller, K. 1984. National Parks, Conservation and Development: The role of pro- tected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. 852 pp. McNeely, J.A., Thorsell, J.W. and Chalise, S. 1985. People and Protected Areas in the Hindukush Himalaya. King Mahendra Trust and ICIMOD, Kathmandu. 189 pp. McNeely, J.A. and Wachtel, P.S. 1991. Soul of the Tiger. Doubleday, New York. 390pp. Mishra, H. 1985. The fragile mountain revisited: Nepal’s agenda for halting the slide. In McNeely, Thorsell, and Chalise. Pp. 111-116 Norbu, Lhakpa Sherpa. 1985. Management issues in Nepal’s National Parks. In McNeely, Thorsell, and Chalise. Pp. 123-127. PHPA 1991. The Development of a Protected Areas System in Indonesia. Country Report for Indonesia, Asian Regional Experts Meeting, Bangkok 2-4 Dec. Praween Payapvipapong, Tavatchai Traitongyoo and Dobias R.J. 1988. Using economic incentives to integrate park conservation and rural development in Thailand. Paper presented at IUCN General Assembly, Costa Rica. Rowchai, S. 1989. Economic incentives for the conser- vation and use of marine fishery resources. A contribution to IUCN Project on Economic Incen- tives for Biological Resource Conservation in Thailand. (Mimeo, in Thai). Salm, R. and Clark, J. 1984. Marine and Coastal Pro- tected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 302 pp. Salm, R and Halim, M. 1984. Marine Conservation Data Atlas: Planning for the Survival of Indonesia’ s Seas and Coasts. 1UCN and WWF, Bogor. Salter, R.E. and Phanthavong, B. 1989. Needs and Priori- ties for a Protected Area System in Lao PDR. Forest Resources Conservation Project, Vientiene. Santiapillai, C. and Jackson, P. 1990. The Asian Ele- phant: An Action Plan for its Conservation. 1UCN, Gland. 79 pp. Scott, D.A. (ed.) 1989. A Directory of Asian Wetlands. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 1,181 pp. Scott, D.A. and C.M. Poole. 1989. A Status Overview of Asian Wetlands. Asian Wetland Bureau, Kuala Lumpur. Sharma, Devinder. 1991. Quarrying threatens India’s tigers. New Scientist, 28 September. Sudarsono, M.A. and Suhartono, T.R. (1992). Forestry policy and conservation in Indonesia. Paper prepared 203 South and Southeast Asia for the IV World Parks Congress, Caracas, 7-21 February. Thorsell, J.W. 1985. Conserving Asia’ s Natural Heritage. IUCN, Gland. 248 pp. Thorsell, J.W. and J. Harrison. 1990. Parks that promote peace: A global inventory of transfrontier nature reserves. Pp. 3-23 in Thorsell, J.W. (ed.). Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Con- servation. TUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. 98 pp. Udvardy, Miklos. 1975. A classification of the bio- geographical provinces of the world. JUCN Occa- sional Paper. 18 1-48 pp. UNEP/IUCN. 1988. Coral Reefs of the World. (Volume 2). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK and UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 389 pp. WCED (World Commission on Environment and De- velopment). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, London. 383 pp. World Bank. 1991a. Asia Region Biodiversity Portfolio. World Bank, Washington. World Bank. 1991b. Conserving Biological Diversity: A Strategy for Protected Areas in the Asia Region. (Draft). i ie 0 is : ae! ee quay! ener we raderet WIUT ob coiiamody: 6a as) in id aioe) qa, drcigolned. 2 envi ie a evath Merl 7 LLG Aa ae EL re ee) that ai oon) dnalledte ; ia —— ae lint ia Nae ae twa viv hile eT) we, lk = Nipamse ely agp anh MS © mR IN A ata MNF Chee ial taba neg ty ery tera a ald he rn bop —_—_ feet ie Age SS at geal Sh i \ shal ees we hq Le AS Pee. Arey Loppers sip uel Le DUD sO age tail yO oS ape Spe ARIMA Mote STARA day Me NON xg), A My pee lbp a TRAE, Wha out ars Mie La a Oho wikiag ") cum Ae ree PN 50 ick rf HY crept a ‘qa Mibane WAU ie neve! dl say . arg 2: eas eines myth is + ahtzd eyes vale Ay | diame: pasipeharere meaheary pate tnt i ae Leena Rehisintes-t> i he it ae ae ee fiat “Aste FE + Na oe rain ie A jt Siarmcvnt et alee Seach ete om rind sibs chilal fecha ih oy ish es Wet ey jie Pa ea am sh ; “aye ae sprig patil ‘deaeiala” _ : i aon acne or abil . sid ya, Ala i, fore uz At fi U istcial tan Brey, i: 2a hui iP rine | ae err Australia Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas seaie pe}9e}01d payeubisap Ajje6a; wiyjyim papnjou! Ayjun0d Jo ebejusdJed %GL-OL MOT VEY} SIO %G-1°O %02-SL % LQ ueU} Sse pa}da}01d aBeJUadJaq ‘dew 206 Contents Page aa rustorical perspectivers ees Oe ww ee 209 1.1 Development of the protected areas system overtime ............... 209 1.2 Factors influencing the establishment of protected areasystems ......... 216 2. Current protected areacoverage .......................0.4. 216 Del ETOLEC ted, ATCAISYSIEMS) lv yanrges Gin se ee ee Ce BN 216 Dem Gate Foniesioleprotected:areas aes — 5 saaNei naam a a 217 3. Additional protected areas required ....................... 218 Protected area institutions os ee eee ae we ee gen eg ee 221 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 221 6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 222 7. Priorities for future investments in protected areas .............. 223 8. Major protected areas issuesintheregion ................... 224 SulmmbcopleinuprotectediarcaS = 2s 4-5 Seu ewe uy oe eee 224 See lnvolvement by the private Sector =.) weneneeen hcl een enna 224 Some Lrotectediareassand surrounding lands) nes a Cee Reena eee 225 or me ErotectedrareastandiSsCienCemen oy - “renee cree co 3) oe ce eee 225 8.5 Threats to effective management of protected areas ................ 226 SiOpembransfronuerimitiatives «(s8e soos: 2 = 4.) se) ele) eee een nen ene 237, Zoos) | LERCH NG WARN, Go 6 ea goedok boob o bose ao aoe ee es 237 3. Additional protected areas required ....................... 238 4. Protected areainstitutions .................-.-..-.2220202. 239 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 240 6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 240 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 241 8. Major issues in protected areas .....................-.-.. 242 Solueelntroducedanimalsiandiplants) ae) 2 cities eee eee 242 See Impacts OMtOUTISM) Rass posters 4 Eu a eyes + une hie Soa 242 9. Priorities foractionintheregion ......................... 243 Annex 1. Protected areas in the Antarctic Treaty Area ............... 245 1. History of the protected area system in the Antarctic Area ............ 245 2. Deficiencies and threats in protected areamanagement .............. 246 OM embrotectedvareacoverag ery jewiues. 95 iten sco) srs ac, ct ce CR alco 247 ASP LTOpOsed protectediareasn nua) eee) een etn acetal aren 247 5. | Management planning and design of protected areas ............... 248 6. Institutional capacity for establishment and management of protected areas 248 7. Integration of protection and other activities. ................... 248 Sele Informationymanapementss.ayances << 4 sacyes ty 4 erie) eee snes © ess enen sa 249 Annex 2. Protected areas on islands of the Southern Ocean ........... 251 1. ~~ Introduction—the!SouthemIslandsi, . = .) 3-5 3 = sickeucacr ones Garten 251 2 Biogeographicalise tin gare ecm aoe) yecirm cco ee irel eaten ree 251 3.0 J Extentofi protection) etucy a <5 sich ce amana i, mayen ate tom eer eis ete eee ean ern 251 49) JHistoryiofiprotectione yas con ee coe ec ac ne 251 550s Status Ofprotectionpwasweu ot ccueye) cn coe sie aces) our Mee mee ee a 251 6 — Institutionallarrangementss 4 75265 oe Ce nie es owes eee 252 7. Management issues'and priorities for future action”. -- . «2... - . aee 252 References! 5. ie ees ke ee es ee eg re 253 Tables Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system ................... 235 Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories.............. 235 Table 3. The development of the protected areassystem............... 238 Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 238 Table 5. | World Heritage sites in Antarctica/New Zealand .............. 240 Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 241 Table 7. Relationship between New Zealand protected area class and revised TUCN category 2 ci. aces. SE CMRI eR 247 Table 8. | Antarctica—Specially Protected Areas (SPA). ............... 249 Table 9. Antarctica—Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)........... 250 Figures Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected areas... « shes ates ee adioenhe eho Haeegioe ee fae 230 Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 236 Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 236 232 Antarctica/New Zealand Paul R. Dingwall, Regional Vice-Chair for Antarctica/New Zealand, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas 1. Historical perspective The year of 1987, which stands mid-point between the Parks Congresses in 1982 in Bali and 1992 in Caracas, was a Significant milestone in the history of protected areas and conservation in New Zealand. The nation celebrated the 100th anniversary of a gift from the Maori people of sacred mountain lands, which were to form the core of Tongariro National Park, the country’s first national park and now a World Heritage site (Thom, 1987). In that year also, two new national parks were added to the network of protected areas, the first in 23 years. Further, the Department of Conservation was established as the single agency for protected areas, thereby giving administrative effect to a greaily en- larged protected areas system, and one which was na- tionally integrated—a trend which had begun emerging early in the past decade (Dingwall, 1981). Thus 1987 signified a coming of age of protected areas in New Zealand. But it also ushered in a new era, characterised by wholesale review and consolidation of the system, and readjustment within a climate of eco- nomic recession. The evolution of New Zealand’s protected area net- work has gone through several phases (Roche, 1984; Devlin et al., 1990). An Acquisition Phase, beginning in the early years of European colonisation, during the latter half of last century and culminating in the period 1890-1920, laid the foundation for the modem pro- tected area system. Several motivating forces were behind the rapidly emerging network of protection. Utilitarian concems, particularly interest in conservation of timber, soil and water resources, gave rise to the earliest ex- tensive reserves, protected under forestry legislation and located primarily in forested mountain catchments. Concems over the protection of surrounding farmland from flooding by numerous mountain streams were instrumental in gazettement of Egmont National Park in 1900. Mountains were also favoured for protection by a concern to avoid alienation of lands of potential importance as farms in an expanding agricultural col- ony. Thus, reservation of two huge tracts of mountain- ous "wastelands" of the South Island in 1901 and 1905, respectively, formed the basis of what eventually 233 became Arthur’s Pass and Fiordland National Parks and reflect an emerging interest in protection of lands of high scenic and wilderness value as tourist attractions, following the traditions of America’s Yellowstone Na- tional Park. But scenery protection was to reach its zenith with enactment of the Scenery Preservation Act 1903, and scenic reserves extended progressively along road and rail corridors and in coastal areas, notably in Taranaki, Westland and the Marlborough Sounds Rec- reational; and tourism interests also focused attention on geothermal phenomena in the Rotorua region valued as health resorts, and the Thermal Springs District Act 1881 provided some of the country’s earliest reserves. Scientific influences prompted the establishment of "na- tional-domains" for protection of flora and fauna, and also secured some of the earliest nature sanctuaries on offshore islands, such as Resolution Island in 1891, Secretary Island in 1893, Little Barrier Island in 1894 and Kapiti Island in 1897. A pioneering survey of the central North Island by the Government’s leading bota- nist, Leonard Cockayne, was to have a major influence in determining the eventual scope of Tongariro National Park, and Cockayne was also prominent in the estab- lishment of Arthur’s Pass National Park (Department of Lands 1908). Responding to these combined influences, the reservation system evolved rapidly. By 1907, re- serves extended over more than half the area contained in national parks in 1980, and by 1920 already more than half the extent of today’s scenic reserves was protected. Then followed a Maintenance Phase during the 1930s and 1940s, characterised by a caretaking role over pre- viously acquired areas. But it closed in an era of "park ascendancy" ushered in by the passing of the National Parks Act 1952, an innovative measure which provided for an integrated parks system and led to creation of six new parks in rapid succession: Fiordland and Mount Cook in 1953; Urewera in 1954; Nelson Lakes in 1956; Westland in 1960, and Mt Aspiring in 1964. The Act also clearly enunciated the twin responsibilities of parks for serving the needs of nature and of people, and it provided for constitution of a National Parks Authority and individual Park Boards, thereby initiating citizen involvement in park management—a feature of the protected areas system today. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Beginning in the late 1960s, a Management Phase was notable for the increasing professionalism in parks and reserve management. Planning as a basis for park establishment and management became fundamentally important in resolving conflict among competing inter- ests in land and resource use, and in meeting the de- mands for socio-economic justification to expand the protected estate. A growing scientific capacity provided the essential knowledge base for supporting protection initiatives. Science also brought increasing realisation of the needs for survey to document both the scope and the condition of protected ecosystems and species and itexposed the imbalance in the ecological representativeness of protected areas. This led, in turn, to efforts at identi- fying and securing protection for those fast-diminishing remnants of indigenous biota and landscape on unpro- tected lands. Establishment of a well-trained uniformed ranger service became crucial for coping with growing numbers of park visitors and the attendant rapid expan- sion of recreational and tourist facilities. A surge in development of State Forest Parks at this time was prompted in part by the requirement to ease recreational pressure on the national parks. Other patterns emerging at this time are symbolized by the events surrounding establishment of Papery National Park in 1987, marked by often acrimonious conflict among competing interests in the use and pro- tection of resources, the vital role of consultation in fostering cooperation among widely divergent sector in- terest groups (political, non-governmental, local com- munity, industry and scientific), and the eventual at- tainment of acceptable compromise in park boundary demarcation, giving due weight to long-term objectives for both protection and development of resources. Several distinctive processes and patterns which quickly emerged from the sweeping 1987 reform of environ- mental administration included: @ intense competition for limited financial and human resources; introduction of business-like approaches to con- servation in an increasingly commercialized eco- nomic and social environment; relative increase in the contribution of funding and support from user charges to supplement the increasingly limited contribution from Govern- ment; forging of partnerships and cooperative ventures between Government and local and regional au- thorities, local communities, conservation inter- est and lobby groups, sector groups in the re- source and service industries, and private citi- zens, especially landowners; and increasing recognition of and respect for the rights and traditions of the Maori, bringing some new responsibilities but more importantly en- riching an emerging bi-cultural perspective on conservation, which in turn opens opportunities for innovative approaches in protected area man- agement. 234 These, and other, developments are further explored in the analysis which follows. 2. Current protected area coverage 2.1 The existing network: Adequate coverage on land At the core of New Zealand’s conservation estate is a comprehensive series of protected natural areas—de- fined as areas of land or sea with a legal status and management regime intended to maintain their indige- nous state. Compilation of a register of some of those areas gazetted by March 1983 (essentially at the time of the Bali World Parks Congress) revealed that at that time the network comprised 1,660 areas, covering ap- proximately 4.6 million ha, equivalent to 17 % of the country’s total land area. By 1986, when the register was last updated, the network had expanded by about 2.5%, to include more than 2,000 areas covering ap- proximately 5 million ha. This trend is likely to have continued until the present day, but it is not possible to be equally precise about the full extent of the network in 1992 because updating of the register database has ceased temporarily, pending development of a compre- hensive conservation lands register. Summary data for the entire region are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 and 2. These do not fully reflect the data presented here because of the exclusion of sites less than 1,000ha in extent or which do not comply with the IUCN management category definitions. However, enactment of the Conservation Act in 1987 resulted in a very substantial increase in the extent of the protected areas system by giving protection to pub- lic lands not previously included in the register. This includes a new category of Conservation Area held for stewardship purposes. A further element of this growth was the creation of Conservation Covenants over Crown forests (commercial), and land being sold to State- owned Enterprises. Protection was also given to ripar- ian areas as Marginal Strips. Major additions to the protected area system during the past decade include: @ Two new national parks established in 1987: Whanganui National Park protecting 81,000ha of riverine landscape of high scenic and recrea- tional value and of great cultural significance for the Maori people; and Papery National Park, 30,000ha in extent, containing magnificent cave and karst features and large tracts of lowland forest. Addition of Waikukupa and Okarito lowland podocarp forests, which extended Westland National Park from the mountains to the sea. Protection of more than 300,000ha of former State forest in South Westland, later incorpo- rated in a World Heritage Site. Antarctica/New Zealand @ A 65,000ha addition to Mt Aspiring National Less conspicuous but no less important in their aggre- Park in 1989, through inclusion of the Red Hills gate was the host of smaller reserves of various kinds and Haast Range areas. added incrementally over time. In 1988/89 for example, @ Protection status for almost 50,000ha of beech 40 separate areas, acquired at a cost of almost $1 mil- forests in Western Southland, with potential for lion, added 7,000ha of protected lands comprising six addition to Fiordland National Park. areas of Protected Private Land, two Historic Reserves, @ Between 1983 and 1986, establishment of 40 one Conservation Covenant, 15 new Reserves, three new Ecological Areas representative of State additions to National Parks, and six additions to reserves. forests, particularly in North Westland. @ Amore than four-fold increase in the number of Open Space Covenants over private lands, from 112 areas covering about 4,500ha in 1983 to 490 areas incorporating 18,200ha today. Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Antarctica/New Zealand Area in Area in Categories Total area Area CategoriesI-V % VI-VIIlandUA % designated % Antarctic Treaty Territory 13,340,000 Bouvet I Falklands/South Georgia French Southem Territory Heard-McDonald Is Macquarie Is Marion-PEI New Zealand 265,150 Tristan da Cunha 176 0.0 2,632 0.0 0.0 50 100.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 367 5.1 0.0 388 8694.1 0.0 128 71.8 0.0 390 113.4 6.2 45,399 17.1 0.0 65 369 onoooooco 13,625,726 33,032 . 49,419 0.37 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover. Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Antarctica/New Zealand I I Area No. Area South Georgia French Southern Territory Heard-McDonald Is Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. 235 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 50 Number of sites 40 Area (x1000sqkm) 30 20 10 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 500 Number of sites 400 Area (x1000sqkm) 300 200 100 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... 236 Complementing protected natural areas is a series of 206 Historic Reserves, 50% of which protect traditional Maori occupation sites dating from prior to 1820. Also under protection are 52 Classified Buildings and Struc- tures representing a wide range of European history from 1840. The protected areas estate also includes some additional areas, generally of lesser conservation quality or integrity and with lower security, such as Recreation Reserves. These areas, together with the protected natural areas, constitute a total protected areas network today of some 8 million ha, or equivalent to 30% of the country’s land area. This represents an expansion of about 50% in New Zealand’s terrestrial protected areas system over the past decade. 2.2 Marine Reserves: Ample room for growth In sharp contrast to the extensive system of terrestrial protection, the marine reserves network is extremely rudimentary, comprising today just four marine re- serves; a marine sanctuary established in 1988 to protect the Hector’s dolphin; two small marine parks estab- lished under fisheries regulations; and a Conservation Park under the Conservation Act. Thus, only a small fraction of the country’s 33,000km of coastline is under legal protection. Current policies of the Department of Conservation include a commitment to expanding marine reservation. Attention is being given to long-overdue reform of the principal legislation, which emphasises value to sci- ence, and makes secondary the broader mandate for protection of areas with natural, scenic, recreational and cultural values. Several marine reserve proposals are under preparation, and approximately 30 other sites have been selected for evaluation in the next ten years. The process of identifying potential reserves benefits from a broad-scale survey of natural and cultural con- servation values on the coast. Although it is being conducted systematically on a regional basis, the survey lacks a biogeographical framework essential for judg- ing ecological representativeness of areas. A national 3-tier habitat classification scheme, designed for this purpose; is available (King et al. 1985) and a new scheme giving greater attention to latitudinal variation in ecosystems throughout the country is under prepara- tion as a guide to incorporating the full range of eco- logical diversity of coastal waters in marine reserves (C. Ray, pers. comm.). 2.3 Protected area management categories Table 7 shows that the diverse series of protected area classes spans almost the full spectrum of IUCN’s pro- tected area management categories. There is no precise match between classes of protected area and manage- ment categories, as some classes include areas of mark- edly different size, character and/or quality. There is no exact equivalent in New Zealand of Category V areas, 237 Antarctica/New Zealand i.e. where human settlement interacts with nature, but Recreation Reserves and Marginal Strips come closest to this concept. 2.4 Sites under international recognition New Zealand has two areas listed as World Heritage Sites (natural property category) under the World Heritage Convention (Table 5). The Government deci- sion to extend protection to some 300,000ha of former State Forest in South Westland, and a pledge of $1.5 million over three years for recreation and tourism development, paved the way for nomination of the South-West New Zealand area (Te Wahipounamu), which was accepted by UNESCO in 1990. The Site incorporates the formerly listed (in 1986) Fiordland National Park, and combined Westland/Mount Cook National Parks, together with Mt Aspiring National Park and most of the intervening Crown-owned land. Covering 2.6 million ha, or some 10% of the total New Zealand land area, this Site is among the largest World Heritage properties. Tongariro National Park was also accorded World Heritage status in 1990. Although sev- eral other areas are regarded worthy of nomination—the Subantarctic Island Groups in particular—an indicative list of potential natural and cultural properties, as re- quired under the Convention, has not yet been prepared. With the designation of two new sites in 1989 and one in 1990, New Zealand now has five areas listed under the Ramsar Convention as "wetlands of international importance, especially as wildfowl habitats". These range in size from 3,556ha to 11,388ha, and cover a total of almost 40,000ha. Several further sites are under active investigation. New Zealand has no Biosphere Reserves established within the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme. Interest in applying the concept has waxed and waned, and potential opportunities have been explored in moun- tain, grassland, forest and coastal environments (Dingwall and Simpson, 1988). No formal proposals have been forthcoming, however, probably because of an inability to demonstrate what benefits their science- based approach to multiple-use management would add to an already well-established and highly diversified protected areas system. Adherence to international conservation conventions or programmes in the region is summarised in Table 4. 2.5 Protection of private land Increasing success in extending protection to private lands is one of the more remarkable achievements in protected area development in New Zealand over the past decade. Outstanding in this regard has been the performance of the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust, an independent, Statutory body funded by private do- nation, subscription and Government grant. The Trust’s principal responsibility is negotiation of Open Space Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Antarctica/New Zealand % area established 1962-1971 % area established Antarctic Treaty Bouvet I Falklands/South Georgia French Southem Territory Heard-McDonald Is Macquarie Is Marion-PEI New Zealand Tristan da Cunha % area established 1972-1981 Date established unknown % area established 1982-1991 Total area designated Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I—V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted. Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Antarctica/New Zealand (including Antarctic Treaty) World Heritage Date No. Area (ha) August 1974 June 1975 November 1984 May 1977 May 1984 2,676,504 United Kingdom Note: Only sites lying within the region are listed. Covenants, which are legal contracts whereby land- owners voluntarily agree to the land being managed to retain its natural character. Aspects such as the degree and duration of protection (usually in perpetuity) and provisions for public access are negotiable. At present 490 Covenants are established over 18,200ha and a further 470 cases amounting to 55,000ha are under action. In 1991, the New Zealand Forest Accord between the NZ Forest Owners’ Association and a coalition of 17 non-governmental organisations established a policy of excluding from land development a number of classes of indigenous vegetation and areas that qualify as po- tential protected areas. Biosphere Reserves 238 Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention No. Area (ha) Date No. Area (ha) May 1974 October 1986 August 1976 July 1974 March 1975 January 1976 3. Additional protected areas required In 1984, an ambitious Protected Natural Areas (PNA) programme was launched to survey remaining unpro- tected natural areas and identify those meriting protec- tion, particularly in grasslands, wetlands and coastal sites less well represented in the existing system. It was stimulated by the National Parks and Reserves Author- ity, which was concerned about the accelerating loss of indigenous areas and the ecological imbalance in existing protected areas, and it derived its statutory mandate from the Reserves Act 1977. A conceptual framework of Ecological Regions and Districts was devised, and a rapid ecological survey technique was designed for implementation by small multidisciplinary survey teams, with oversight provided by a Scientific Advisory Committee (Kelly and Park, 1986). A review of the programme last year revealed that it had fallen well short of its target. Of the 136 Districts selected for priority attention by 1990 only 34 had been surveyed. Only modest success has been achieved in formally protecting sites where this is recommended. Priority has been given to protection of areas on pastoral leasehold land in the South Island high country, where nine sites have been protected by purchase, transfer or inter-agency agreement, and agreements have been reached on a further 60 cases, those in Central Otago and north Southland covering some 40,000ha. In the North Island six protected private land agreements have been com- pleted in the Egmont region, and at least one area in Coromandel purchased for reserve. Financial constraints appear to have been the princi- pal cause of the programme’s limited success. A revised approach is now being devised to make use of less costly survey techniques and greater support from other re- source administering authorities, accompanied by an enhanced awareness campaign. Although the PNA programme has had only limited success in adding to the ecological diversity of reserves, rather more has been achieved through the substantial park additions, reported above, with parks extending to include coastal, lowland forest and grassland areas, and geological landscapes not previously protected. There is the prospect of more to come in the two current proposals for new national parks and five proposed park additions—all under active investigation. Of particular significance is the proposal to extend national park protection to remaining kauri forests in northern New Zealand—a unique sub-tropical forest community, much reduced by former timber extraction and of great scenic, ecological and spiritual value. The park would represent a radical departure from previous approaches, in focusing on a natural community type rather than on a geographically contiguous area. The proposed park incorporates more than 30 individual sites, ranging from some 44ha to 23,000ha in size, and covering a total of about 100,000ha. The other new park proposal would upgrade the status of North West-Nelson Forest Park and add surrounding lands of complex geological character and with diverse endemic flora. Also under investigation are proposals to create two new Conservation Parks over the colder, drier grass- lands of the Torlesse and Remarkable Ranges of the Souther Alps. Important among the five proposals for park additions are those to extend Fiordland National Park to lowland forests and marine terraces; addition of grasslands to the Arthur’s Pass National Park; and inclusion in Tongariro National Park of a huge, forest-mantled lava field. 4. Protected area institutions In 1987 a radical change occurred in the administration of protected areas in New Zealand, when responsibility for them passed from the Ministers of Lands, Forests, Fisheries and Internal Affairs to the Minister of Conser- vation. The new Department of Conservation was a 239 Antarctica/New Zealand Statutory mandate and mission to conserve the natural and historic heritage of New Zealand. Other independent agencies with some protected area responsibilities are the Historic Places Trust, and Queen Elizabeth II National Trust. In 1990, the New Zealand Conservation Authority and 17 regional Boards were established as citizen bodies for protected areas, replacing among others the former National Parks and Reserves Authority and Boards, the Nature Conservation Council, Forest Park Advisory Committees, the New Zealand Walkways Commission, and Marine Reserves Management Committees. The Conservation Authority has oversight of policy and planning for protected areas and otherwise advises the Department and Minister of Conservation. Similar citi- zen bodies, the Fish and Game Councils, which replaced former Acclimatisation Societies, were established to ap- prove policies and management plans for sports fish and game and their habitats. Links between the tourism industry and the Depart- ment of Conservation are maintained through a Tourism/ Conservation Liaison Committee established under the Conservation Authority, and similar mechanisms exist for linking the Department with the farming, forestry and fisheries sectors. Most of the land in New Zealand protected areas is in Crown ownership. Some areas are subject to claims under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, which established the basic principle of a partnership between the Crown and the Maori. Government has recognised the validity of many Maori grievances relating to ownership of tribal lands and a Tribunal established in 1976 is work- ing to redress them. Increasing recognition is also being given to the rights of the Maori for access to cultural materials for use in canoe building, carving and weaving, for example. In some legislation exceptions are being made which dis- criminate in favour of Maori traditional rights. Owners of private land, including Maori owners, may give protection to their land through Protected Private Land provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, or through voluntary Conservation Covenants under that Act, or Open Space Covenants under the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Act 1977. The remarkable success of these mechanisms in adding to the protected estate has already been noted. In return for protecting land, owners may receive financial support and advice in matters such as fencing, landscaping, rehabilitating or other- wise managing their property. Relief from Local Body taxes is a further incentive to protect land. Tax incen- tives are also provided for protection of privately owned historic buildings. For some significant reserves, citizen Boards may undertake management responsibilities on behalf of the Crown. A large number of small reserves are under Local Government control. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Protected area management is reasonably well-served by research in New Zealand. The Department of Con- servation has about 50 research scientists and techni- cians, including a multidisciplinary core group and advisory scientists in the regional conservancies to fa- cilitate the application of science to management. In the current year the research programme comprises about 160 projects, supported by a budget of $6.8 million (6% of the total Department budget) of which $2.3 million is committed to contract research with universities and other Government science agencies. The research pro- gramme covers a wide range of conservation science, particularly in support of threatened species and habitat management, though less emphasis is given to biologi- cal survey and monitoring and to socio-economic re- search. Restructuring of Government’s principal science agency into sector-based institutes may have adverse consequences for Conservation research, but there is growing support for research supporting protected areas from corporate sponsors and from non-governmental conservation organisations, notably WWF-New Zealand. New Zealand is active in international protected areas programmes, either through memberships of interna- tional organisations, such as or through its obligations as a party to conservation instruments such as the World Heritage Convention and Ramsar Convention In 1990 New Zealand ratified the Convention for the Protection of the Environment and Natural Resources of the South Pacific (SPREP Convention) and the Department, and others, have been contributing to programmes for spe- cies management, habitat survey and research, and other advisory roles in several Pacific Island nations, notably the Cook Islands, Solomon Islands and Western Samoa. In recent years the Department of Conservation has contributed to protected area management in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. The Department also has re- sponsibility to promote conservation in the Ross De- pendency of Antarctica, and with other Government agencies and non-governmental groups has contributed significantly to the development of policy for conserva- tion in the Antarctic. Liaison between New Zealand and Australia in pro- tected areas matters is fostered through a Council of Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) and its Standing Committee, allowing an exchange of experience in policy development and management, and the estab- lishment of joint training programmes. Table 5. World Heritage sites in Antarctica/ New Zealand New Zealand South West New Zealand (Te Wahipounamu) Tongariro National Park 240 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas For the year ended June 1991, the budget of the Depart- ment of Conservation was about $116 million, of which $74 million was spent directly on protected areas man- agement, with the balance directed to policy advice, advocacy, education and information, and servicing Crown agencies. Of the total budget, $21 million was revenue eamed from user charges and rents, retail sales, resource sales, and donations. In undertaking its activi- ties the Department uses business, strategic and corpo- rate planning approaches to management with rigorous testing of performance against responsibilities and goals. This data, and the other scant information available from the region as a whole, is summarised in Table 6. Programmes are increasingly being developed by the Department to allow individuals, companies, and non- governmental organisations to contribute to sponsor- ship of projects, especially those aimed at recovery of threatened indigenous species and their habitats. An outstanding example is the Tasman Conservation Ac- cord established among the Tasman Forestry Company, Minister of Conservation, Royal Forest and Bird Pro- tection Society, Maruia Society and Federated Moun- tain Clubs. The Accord extends protection to 52 areas of indigenous forest throughout the country, totalling over 40,000ha in area. Of particular significance was the sale of a 3,500ha area to the Department of Conser- vation to safeguard the largest remaining population of the rare blue-wattled crow, the kokako. Additionally, the Accord provides $150,000 over a 3-year period for kokako research and management and $175,000 is made available for development of recreation facilities. Com- pany sponsorships are also contributing to recovery programmes for the rare forest parrot, the kakapo, and the kiwi, New Zealand’s national bird. Government has announced two sources of support for protecting private lands as part of its 1990 indige- nous forest policy, both of which are already proving effective. The Forest Heritage Fund, currently standing at $5 million per annum, is intended in particular to protect forest that is threatened or under-represented in existing protection. To December 1991, the Committee administering the Fund had considered 203 applications and recommended protection for 8,800ha of land. Nga Whenua Rahui is a fund, currently of $2.1 mil- lion, to assist Maori owners to protect their native forests that respect their traditional rights, customs and chiefly authorities. Currently under consideration are 17 cases which would extend protection to 18,000ha of forest. 6. Human capacity in protected areas management Currently, the Department of Conservation has about 1,650 staff. Staff resources are deployed among a Head Antarctica/New Zealand Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets: Antarctica/New Zealand Budget in national currency Country/responsible agency Antarctica Bouvet Island Falkland Islands (Malvinas) French Southern Territories Heard and McDonald Islands New Zealand — Department of Conservation 116,000,000 NZD Saint Helena 7,000 SHP Source: 69,461,000 12,000 US Dollar equivalent Year 1991 Some NZD74.0 million are spent directly on management. Of this total figure, NZD21.0 million was revenue from user charges and rent, retail sales, resource sales and donations. 1983 Funding (through Project-UK) from WWF/UK, ODA, FFPS and the British Council for conservation purposes 58 [58] Bridgewater, P. (1992). Australia. Regional reviews prepared for the [Vth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, 10-2 February, Caracas, Venuzuela. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Office, which has primarily policy development roles, and 14 regional Conservancies, which undertake con- servation action. Staff capacity is greatly enhanced by voluntary labour ina Conservation Volunteers programme and a Conser- vation Corps youth development scheme, assisted by Government and others such as Maori Trusts. In 1991 some 10,000 volunteers participated in more than 400 projects, and six Conservation Corps projects involved work in vegetation survey and rehabilitation, historic site protection, track maintenance and warden staffing at recreation huts, among others. The Department of Conservation has a legal respon- sibility to respect the rights of the Maori people, and is committed to the inclusion of a Maori conservation ethic in management practices and corporate planning. Maori are employed at all levels of the Department and play a particularly valuable role in the Conservancies in establishing dialogue and mutually beneficial relation- ships with local communities. Maori are also repre- sented on the NZ Conservation Authority and they make up one-third of the members of Conservation Boards (Maori comprise 15% of New Zealand’s popu- lation). The use of statutory citizen bodies to provide com- munity input to management is a distinguishing feature of the New Zealand protected areas system and an object-lesson for administrations elsewhere. The New Zealand Conservation Authority, widely representative of Local Government, Maori, tourism, recreational, con- servation and scientific interests, and 17 Boards with 241 members appointed by public nomination, allow more than 200 New Zealanders to have direct input to policy formulation and management planning, and to perform a range of advisory functions for the Department and Minister of Conservation. During the past decade, the former National Parks and Reserves Authority and Boards were influential in virtually every major initiative in development of the protected areas system and provided a vital channel for dialogue between Government and the public. Non-governmental conservation and user groups have continued to mount strong campaigns on behalf of protected areas. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, now entering its 70th year and with more than 60,000 members, has been a powerful voice for protec- tion of indigenous forests, marine reserve establishment, threatened species management and World Heritage promotion, among many others. A recently revitalised national organisation of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has developed a strong capacity in conservation education and advocacy and is making a substantial contribution to conservation research, The Federated Mountain Clubs, with a long history of influencing national park development, continues to exercise an effective voice in the interests of recreational user groups. 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas Government’s aims and desired achievements in pro- tected areas are established through a corporate plan- ning mechanism, which forms a framework for develop- ment of annual business plans that guide conservation Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas action. Plan preparation is a wide-ranging consultative process both internally in the Department among its various policy divisions, and extemnally with the Con- servation Authority and Boards, non-governmental in- terest groups, the Maori community and the resource development sector. The planning process also serves educational and advocacy roles for generating support for conservation from the public of New Zealand. Pre- viously, corporate plans have had a one-year time hori- zon, but the Department is now drawing up a five-year strategy to determine medium-term priorities and goals, in areas such as species and habitat management, con- trol of introduced animals, recreation and tourism de- velopment and research. The Conservation Act makes management planning mandatory for all protected areas. Developing site- specific plans for all units in the system is impractical, and attention has turned to preparation of regional con- servation management strategies. These facilitate co- ordinated planning for regional groupings of protected areas, and allow for integration of protected area plan- ning and regional land use planning. Management plans will still be required for national parks, and all but one park currently have an approved and operative plan. Currently, efforts are underway to develop a national conservation strategy, based on an earlier proposal (Nature Conservation Council 1981), which recognises the vital role of protected areas in sustainable develop- ment. The Conservation Authority is taking a leading role in this, in conjunction with other governmental and non-governmental bodies. These efforts guide New Zealand’s investments in protected areas. 8. Major issues in protected areas 8.1. Introduced animals and plants Unquestionably, the presence of introduced alien spe- cies of animals and plants remains the greatest threat to the integrity of New Zealand’s protected areas. Animals of particular concern are the Australian brush-tailed possum, now spreading into the last remaining possum- free areas; red deer, increasing in numbers following reduction by commercial live recovery operations; and feral goats spreading as a result of accidental releases from commercial herds. Others of concern are rabbits, rats, stoats, feral cats and dogs, and wasps. Problem plants of greatest concern are the smothering vine Clematis vitalba; marram grass on dunelands, heather and Pinus contorta in Tongariro National Park, the flatweed Hieraciwn which invades grassland; and oxy- gen weeds in lakes and other waterways. During the past decade concern has been mounting about the deteriorating condition of affected eco- systems, particularly from the National Parks and Re- serves Authority and Boards which have called for greater injection of resources to combat the problem. Government responded last year by making additional 242 funds available and this allowed localised successes in controlling possum, goat and wasp populations. This year the Department of Conservation will spend $20 million on several hundred control operations applying to about 1 million ha. Despite localised gains, the overall problem remains and it is still impractical to achieve adequate controls over large areas. The nature and extent of impacts are such that resources will never be adequate. Emphasis is now being given to designing control programmes which match maximum effort against areas of highest conser- vation value or vulnerability to impact. An ecosystem assessment and ranking system has been designed to select priority areas for applying controls. Government has also made funding available to develop a national possum control programme, which includes a formal agreement among Government, Regional Authority and farmer groups to coordinate planning and control opera- tions, and is backed by an associated national research programme. Animal control on offshore islands has met with remarkable success. Veitch and Bell (1990) report eradi- cation of 12 mammals and one bird (the weka) from 60 islands. Outstanding recent examples are removal of cats from Little Barrier Island (3,000ha); possums from Kapiti Island (2,000ha); possums and weka from Codfish Island (1350ha); and Norway rats from Break- sea Island (170ha) in Fiordland National Park. Preda- tor-free islands are then available as refuges for recovery of species endangered on the mainland. Out- standing success has been achieved in the case of the ram kakapo, threatened with extinction on Stewart Is- land but now breeding on Little Barrier Island. Corporate sponsorship through the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Threatened Species Trust has been fundamental in the success of this programme, illustrating the benefits from new partnerships among Government, non-governmental organisation and the private sector. The programme also reveals the value of species recovery plans, which are now being widely used by the Department of Conservation to coordinate management action, research and funding elements in threatened species management. 8.2 Impacts of tourism Protected areas in New Zealand are at the heart of a burgeoning tourism industry, which is among the coun- try’s fastest-growing industries and contributes $3.3 billion (5.2%) of Gross Domestic Product. Tourist num- bers have doubled since 1980 to about 1 million annu- ally at present, and numbers are expected to double again by the end of the century. More than half of overseas tourists visit a national park or forest park. The Department of Conservation spends about 25% of its budget on tourism and recrea- tion management, and there is a large infrastructure to maintain, including more than 1,000 huts and camp- sites, many thousands of kilometres of walking tracks and 60 visitor centres. Some 350 concessionaires oper- ate tourist facilities and programmes in protected areas. While tourism presents no real problem over much of the protected estate, evidence is mounting of serious localised impacts. A 1989 departmental report revealed severe impact on existing facilities at 21 sites. The Department will have increasing difficulty maintaining and improving these to cope with projected increased in visitor use, and this will probably be the most impor- tant requirement for new investment of funds and re- sources. There will also be a need to combat any development of tension between the ambitions of the tourism industry for continued growth, and the requirements of protec- tion in parks. This calls for broad consultation and cooperation among all interests. The Department has taken the initiative in preparing a tourism management strategy to explain the legal obligations and policy goals and outline the ways in which it will approach tourism development. The strategy has been released for public comment, and will be the focus of consultation with the Ministry of Tourism, the tourism industry, the Conser- vation Authority and conservation organisations. The Department has also prepared a handbook of manage- ment techniques for tourism impact assessment and control. 9. Priorities for action in the region Based on the significant and extensive protected area system, and taking into consideration the current insti- tutional structure and major issues, the following eleven points are the highest priorities for action in New Zealand. 1. Further support for animal and plant pest control programmes, including increased funding, clearly defined objectives, well-coordinated planning and operations at national and regional levels, and a strong associated research and monitoring programme. Di Continued development and implementation of recovery plans for threatened species of animals and plants. 3: Renewed efforts to extend the ecological repre- sentativeness of protected areas particularly in 243 11. AntarcticalNew Zealand grassland, wetland and coastal environments, through progress with the Protected Natural Areas Programme. This should include estab- lishment of well-defined targets and timetables for surveys, prompt follow-up action to apply legal protection to recommended reserves, enlist greater cooperation from regional government, and streng- then public awareness programmes to gen- erate wider public support, especially from land- owners. Concerted effort to extend the marine protected areas network, development of a biogeographi- cal framework to guide selection of representative Sites setting target for additional reserves over next decade, and examination of a range of legal and regulatory measures for providing protection. Continued legislative reform to integrate and simplify the plethora of existing laws for pro- tected area establishment and management. Further development of a tourism management strategy for protected areas, including extensive consultation with the tourism industry, and inte- gration with national and regional tourism de- velopment plans. Continued integration of Maori perspectives in protected areas legislative and policy develop- ment through strengthened consultative process with the Maori community. Strengthen partnerships between the Department of Conservation and the Conservation Authority, Fish and Game Councils and other protected area agencies. Maintain constructive working relationships be- tween government and non-governmental con- servation agencies, and develop programmes of joint action, including greater use of voluntary management support. Hamess increased financial support for protected areas from private-sector sponsorship, based on an investment portfolio. Compilation of a comprehensive database on protected areas. Pi nnemels . eat lu és eo rae a i phaineia N Oy \ Nate ie (av la F u v sox, SoirGa =). Yee eS em | de f ceenhs spitacenantT hel ; Ptoscole ti? asim (® tec ~ cara senteyont onkanitn agama un tim c ert es ee ee siti Tie é bi duaene ph haga ie 190 Gast ARECIIGE rea aa wpe Ueki ast ag <—— a qs O pein wf edlahes ountas ‘bets ; eae geul — Fer ger Seeker CON) A stag ty ‘s : — sabi cimulimatioge: < wi? hk @, patio’ ucled> Opp 2 cin Ng SiR Diz =i wna save mo ‘hd hie ae i nein we ct ee it. surest nifA sata eA) mer oe wt) zis Patho x {02h 1 -9S> ios bt ah at BaD or tial ‘ ee wise ht bles ie ath Ps in \ hit Sea aniteg Ae la , a SNS Dgtrrgg Bbw Gone & av atinne) mag a _ ne ‘SRR a Sleeping hrm te eo staal-gy ORNS HE ae A a a ‘alee i2 pins | Peele ah ie ny, ke 4 * bee g. 0 (round ° a taal ioe Walige, ; { Ce Me asim a i je) dal (WY a wet 1% a) ly — er Salis ' ag Cutts Siw ee. nye ‘ bl Rt SES ee lvls mS isles ae .* Sa Pam rege eis ey. ad ra in ‘fas hor) Seal? ae : 2 ing bra es , ‘items eit ni clan wa est att = J ee cents og 2 Reyer airs taue, | Geman pen Antarctica/New Zealand Annex 1. Protected areas in the Antarctic Treaty Area 1. History of the protected area system in the Antarctic Area On 15 January 1956 the first area for protection of nature in the region which subsequently became the Antarctic Treaty Areas was declared around Haswell Island, in territory claimed by Australia. However, con- servation measures had been in place for some time prior to that date (Holdgate and Roberts, 961; Keage, 986; Headland, 1989). Dating from the 1870s, the ear- liest conservation measures were almost exclusively intended to protect marine mammals from indiscrimi- nate exploitation by the burgeoning sealing and whaling industries in the Southern Ocean. Attention focused first on Australia’s Macquarie Island, but extended progressively to waters around the Falkland Islands and Dependencies; French Antarctic Territory; the Norwe- gian Bouvetgya and Peter I @y; and to Argentinean Antarctic Territory when, in 1953, that Government declared a prohibition on killing native animals. In the first decades of this century, while several subantarctic islands were declared wildlife reserves, the earliest protection measures in the Antarctic were prin- cipally directed at species protection. With the advent of greatly expanded scientific activity from the mid- 1950s, however, more attention was given to area pro- tection. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), formed in 1958 to promote and coordinate science in the Antarctic, immediately expressed a con- cern for the protection of representative areas of natural environments. Signatories, consultative and acceding parties to the Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force on 23 June 1961, are listed in Table 4.A 1960 SCAR report on Conservation of Nature in Antarctica outlined the general principles of nature conservation, which formed the basis of the first major conservation regime under the Antarctic Treaty—the Agreed Measures for Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora—formally adopted by the Treaty Parties in 1964. The Agreed Measures stipulate that the Antarctic Treaty Area, i.e. south of latitude 60°S, is to be consid- ered a "Special Conservation Area" (Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System, 1990). Article VIII of the Agreed Measures provides for the establishment of Specially Protected Areas (SPAs), thereby laying the foundation for an Antarctic protected areas system. According to objectives refined in 1972, SPAs are intended to preserve unique or outstanding natural eco- logical systems of scientific interest, which are to in- clude representative examples of major Antarctic land and freshwater ecological systems; unique complexes of species; the type locality or only known habitat of any plant or invertebrate species; especially interesting breeding colonies of birds or mammals; and areas which should be kept inviolate so that in future they may be 245, used for purposes of comparison with localities dis- turbed by humans. By definition, SPAs are confined to protection of biological phenomena. It is also a requirement that the number of such sites be kept to the minimum required and that they be as small an area as possible to serve their designated purpose. The first SPAs were approved in 1966 and by 1991 23 SPAs had been established, although four of these had been re-designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Table 8). Based on SCAR proposals, the Seventh Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in 1972 (ATCM Recom- mendation VII-—3) approved provisions for designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). This category of protected area is intended to recognise the need for protection of scientific investigations from damage. Thus, SSSIs are areas of exceptional scientific interest, which require long-term protection from harm- ful interference. They can be designated to cover arms of current or planned scientific activity where there exists a demonstrable risk of interference, or where sites of exceptional scientific interest are considered to merit long-term protection. ATCM Recommendation XIV-6 (1987) makes specific provision for the establishment of marine SSSIs. Protection of SSSIs is for a specified period, normally 10 years, though it has been general practice to renew protection after the expiry date. The first group of seven SSSIs was approved in 1975. By 1991 a total of 35 SSSIs had been established, 24 of these being added to the network since 1985 (Table 9). In 1989, the XV ATCM, agreed upon a new category of protected area, known as a Specially Reserved Area (SRA). This category extends the protection provisions of SPAs and SSSIs to allow inclusion of geological, geomorphological, glaciological, aesthetic, scenic, and wilderness features and landscapes. No such areas have yet been designated. At the XV ATCM the Treaty Parties also reached agreement on designation of Multiple-use Planning Areas (MPAs). The MPA concept reflects a SCAR recom- mendation for a category of protected area to provide for coordinated management which would minimise harmful environmental impacts. While they are not protected areas in the strict sense, MPAs would allow for application of planning and management procedures in Antarctic localities where multiple human activities could interfere with one another or cause undesirable cumulative environmental impacts. Thus, an MPA might contain one or more scientific stations, transport net- works and facilities, research sites (possibly SSSIs), SPAs, historic sites and zoned tourist areas. No MPAs have yet been designated, but areas such as Ross Island Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas and the Palmer Peninsula have been suggested as prime candidates. Recognition of the need for historic protection came at the first meeting of the Treaty Parties in 1961, when ATCM Recommendation I—9 called on Governments to consult, exchange reports and adopt measures to protect tombs, buildings or objects of historic interest. This provision was further elaborated by a series of recommendations at subsequent ATCMs, which pro- vided for a progressive listing of Historic Sites and Monuments, and their appropriate identification. De- spite repeated calls for site protection and buffering, these provisions continue to apply only to historic fea- tures and not to areas per se. By 1991 more than 50 Sites and Monuments were listed. The most conspicuous of these are huts used by early polar explorers, but monu- ments also include abandoned stations, rock shelters, caims, graves, memorial crosses and plaques and stat- ues. The additional protected area measures available un- der the Antarctic Treaty System all relate specifically to the marine environment. These include Seal Re- serves, established under the 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS), within which it is forbidden to take seals. To date three such oceanic reserves have been created at the South Orkney Islands, and at two locations in the Ross Sea, respectively, with a combined area of 190,000 sq km and in 1990 the Commission under CCAMLR adopted a measure pro- viding protection to sites where colonies of seabirds and seals are being monitored under the CCAMLR Ecosys- tem Monitoring Programme (CEMP). Yet to be imple- mented, this measure provides for introduction of a site management plan specifying conditions of access and activities that are prohibited. Atan historic meeting in Madrid in October 1991, the Treaty Parties concluded a series of special consultative meetings by adopting a Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Developed in re- sponse to a combination of influences—including calls from a number of non-governmental organisations for an Antarctic World Park, the Parties’ rejection of the Minerals Convention, and their recognition of the need for comprehensive revision of existing conservation measures—the protocol constitutes the most extensive reform of protection measures in the Antarctic since the 1964 Agreed Measures. Indeed, the comprehensive le- gal regime it establishes for environmental protection is tantamount to that invoked by the World Park concept. Annex V of the Protocol, adopted by the XVI ATCM at Bonn in October 1991, addresses Area Protection and Management. Once it comes into force, this measure has the potential to revolutionise the current protected area provisions and overcome the major deficiencies in the existing protected area system. Outstanding among the innovative rules contained in the Annex are: 246 @ Provision for replacing the existing multiple- category system with a simplified system compris- ing just two categories of protected area: Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) intended to pro- vide strict protection and accessible only under per- mit; and Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA) intended to promote coordination of mul- tiple-use activities and avoid mutual interference, where permits for entry would not be required. The requirement that both major categories of pro- tected area have approved management plans. Such plans would guide management action and be the legal mechanism for establishing Areas in that des- ignation of Areas would be achieved through ap- proval of the management plan. While responsibility for designation of Areas would be with ATCMs, they would be advised by the Committee for Environmental Protection, established under the Protocol, and by other elements of the Treaty System including SCAR. Extensive rules are provided to cover information and publicity requirements and arrangements for collecting and exchanging information on the con- dition and use of protected areas. Designation of Antarctica as a World Park has been a long-sought goal of most non-governmental organisa- tions with an interest in Antarctic conservation. Given the recent sweeping environmental protection reforms, this is now a highly unlikely prospect. There is, how- ever, continuing interest in the potential for designation of areas in the Antarctic under the World Heritage Convention. Unquestionably, several areas in the Ant- arctic are of exceptional universal value and would qualify for World Heritage status. While management principles inherent in the Convention are consistent with the Antarctic Treaty System, existing legal mecha- nisms preclude the application of World Heritage status in the Antarctic Treaty Area. IUCN has urged UNESCO and the Treaty Parties to collaborate in seeking solu- tions to this unfortunate impasse. 2. Deficiencies and threats in protected area management A critical review of the Antarctic protected area system is a key element in the IUCN Antarctic Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1991). This comprehensive account, drawn up over several years in response to IUCN General Assembly resolutions, took advantage of extensive con- sultation throughout the IUCN membership network, including significant input from non-governmental sources—particularly WWF, the Antarctic and Southem Ocean Coalition (ASOC) and Greenpeace International, and benefited from close collaboration with SCAR. Advice contained in the strategy provides a useful framework for reviewing inadequacies in the estab- lishment and management of Antarctic protected areas and the remedial action required or in train. Antarctica/New Zealand Table 7. Relationship between New Zealand protected area class and revised IUCN Category. IUCN Category Class of NZ protected area Scientific Reserves and Wilderness Areas National Parks and Equivalent Reserves Natural Monuments Habitat and Wildlife Management Areas Protected Land/Sea Scapes 3. Protected area coverage In the absence of an overall protected areas systems plan, the Antarctic protected areas network has devel- oped in piecemeal fashion (see Tables 1 to 3). Designa- tion of protected areas normally occurs through devel- opment of national proposals, which are reviewed by SCAR and forwarded to ATCMs for approval by the Treaty Parties. Note that data in Tables 1-3 do not exactly correspond with that given in Tables 8 and 9, due to the minimum size criterion applied to the former. While ecological representation has been a long- sought goal in protecting the Antarctic environment, protected area system planning has lacked an adequate biogeographical framework. A habitat classification sys- tem designed by SCAR, covering terrestrial, inland water and marine environments (SCAR, 1977), has proven useful for semi-quantitative characterisation of individual areas (Keys, 1988), but it lacks a spatial or geographical component. Suggested improvements for relating habitat type to geographic regions (Hayden et al., 1984; Ray, 1985; Keage, 1987) have not been pursued. Consequently, the biogeographic distribution of ex- isting protected areas is distinctly uneven (Lucas and Dingwall, 1985; Bonner and Lewis-Smith, 1985; Keage, 1987). Overwhelming attention is given to protection of 247 Scientific Reserves Nature Reserves Sanctuary Areas Ecological Areas Wildlife Sanctuary NP Specially Protected Areas Marine Reserves Wildemess Areas (in National Parks and Conservation Areas) Conservation Covenants (some) Protected Private Lands (some) National Parks Conservation Parks Large Scenic Reserves Conservation Areas (some) Historic Reserves Scenic Reserves (most) Conservation Areas (some) Scientific Reserves (some) Wildlife Management Reserves Wildlife Refuges Marginal Strips Recreation Reserves unique or scientifically significant sites in the coastal environment, especially to seabird and seal breeding localities and, to a lesser extent, vegetated sites. Thir- teen of the 19 SPAs and 20 of the 35 SSSIs are either entire or part of islands. Littoral zones are well repre- sented, but near-shore marine environments are included in only three SPAs and 13 SSSIs, while exclusively ma- rine protected areas are limited to five SSSIs. Geologi- cal features are the focus of protection in only one SPA and seven SSSIs. Inland sites, including aquatic ecosystems, marine areas and representative biota and landscapes figure more prominently in recently designated protected areas, but along with geological, landform, glaciologi- cal, scenic and wilderness landscapes, they remain pri- orities for filling gaps and ensuring protection of the full range of environmental diversity in the Antarctic. 4. Proposed protected areas To date, no comprehensive or systematic attempt has been made to identify further areas meriting protection. The New Zealand authorities have drawn up an indica- tive list of 15 potential protected areas in the Ross Sea Region (Keys et al., 1988), and a workshop to be jointly convened by SCAR and IUCN in 1992 will give atten- tion to future protection needs. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas The 1991 Protocol expressly provides a legal man- date for this task and promises much improvement. Criteria for establishing ASPAs make specific refer- ence to the inclusion of representative examples of major terrestrial and marine ecosystems identified within a systematic environmental-geographical framework, and allowance is made for inclusion of the widest pos- sible range of biological, physical, historical, aesthetic and wilderness features and values. 5. Management planning and design of protected areas Management planning is only rudimentary in Antarctic protected areas. Plans have traditionally been required only for SSSIs and these are generally limited in scope. In 1989 the XV ATCM approved the application of management planning to other major categories. SCAR is currently preparing a handbook to guide management plan preparation. The 1991 Protocol takes a major for- ward step in requiring the universal application of man- agement plans, and it details the matters to be covered and requirements for plan review and updating. These provisions will help overcome several design problems in established protected areas. With few ex- ceptions, protected areas are restricted in size, lack internal zoning, and are delimited by straight-line bounda- ries rather the natural features. 6. Institutional capacity for establishment and management of protected areas In Antarctica no single institution oversees establishment and management of protected areas. The region is ad- ministered under the 1961 Antarctic Treaty, a remarkable international legal agreement among 26 Consultative Par- ties who are active in Antarctica, and 13 Acceding States. The ultimate decision-making authority is the ATCM of the Parties, previously biennial but now an annual round, at which the Parties adopt recommendations by consensus with voting rights restricted to Consultative Parties. Recommendations are hortatory only and re- quire national legislation for ratification and entry into force. Management action is variously undertaken as part of national Antarctic programmes. The parties are advised on scientific matters, including area protection, by SCAR, and a Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP) meets to coordinate and address management needs. A Commission established under the 1980 CCAMLR agreement is responsible for conservation measures in management of marine areas and resources, and it too is assisted by a Scientific Advisory Committee. No Antarctic protected area management service ex- ists. Surveillance and monitoring of areas, and enforce- 248 ment of regulations, are undertaken by national authorities. They are assisted in this by entry permit and inspection procedures, which have tended to be incompletely ap- plied in the past, and by reports of scientists. More recently, reports from inspection teams and from unof- ficial inspections by Greenpeace International have in- cluded reports on visits to protected areas. Collated evidence from inspection and visit reports (Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System, 1990) sug- gests that so far problems are few and amenable to solution. Among the most commonly reported concerns are those referring to boundaries that are inappropri- ately located, inaccurately mapped, or inadequately demarcated; littering of sites; evidence of vegetation trampling by people and animals; and observations on tourist and recreational use of areas. The 1991 Protocol provides for much improved insti- tutional and procedural arrangements for monitoring the condition and use of protected areas. Permits, issued by an appointed authority of the Parties, are made mandatory for entry to and use of ASPAs. Management plans, which are to be initially approved by the Envi- ronmental Committee under the Protocol, in consult- ation with SCAR and the CCAMLR Commission, will specify the conditions under which permits may be granted, and may also require submission of reports following visits to areas. 7. Integration of protection and other activities Most protected areas are isolated and widely dispersed in Antarctica. Some, however, are in close proximity to scientific stations and other areas frequented by scien- tists and tourists. Scientists and supporting personnel—the humans who are present in greatest numbers in Antarctica— have the highest potential for disturbance. Protected areas are important research sites and SSSIs are established spe- cifically for scientific purposes. Evidence to date sug- gests that problems are minimal. While some areas are regularly visited, for census or related studies of wildlife for example, the majority are used as reference sites or for long-term monitoring programmes rather than inten- sive field research, and the impacts tend to be benign. Some protected areas are not being used to their full potential for science. Many, including some SSSIs, have no current or planned research, and some serve primarily to prevent indiscriminate research activities or over-zealous collecting of specimens, or to guard against potential tourist interference. Experience with tourism reveals that, despite bur- geoning tourist numbers—some 2000-3000 tourists now visit Antarctica annually—and despite a tendency for tourists to favour areas such as wildlife colonies with high protection values, disruption to station routines is far more significant than damage to protected areas and their values. However, where protection and other activities are associated, coordinated management is needed. Provi- sions in the 1991 Protocol for establishing ASMAs hold the key to solving this potential problem. The ASMA concept is specifically intended to allow integrated land use practices to be applied and to facilitate cooperative action which will minimise environmental impacts in multiple-use areas. 8. Information management Management of Antarctic protected areas lacks the support of a dedicated information management system for recording, storing and retrieving management-related information from research and monitoring, or for use in education, training and publicity programmes—all fundamentally important given the steadily increasing Antarctica/New Zealand pace of activity and interest in the region. Instead, information must be sifted from scientific papers, in- spection reports and Treaty documents, many of which are not readily available. Again, the 1991 Protocol responds effectively to this need by requiring Parties to publicise site details and management regulations, particularly by means of widely distributed management plans. Parties are also required to arrange the exchange of information on permits issued, reports of visits including inspections, and re- cords of changing circumstances, and to report annually to other Parties and to the Committee for Environmental Protection on these and other management actions taken. Further promising developments include plans to create a comprehensive Antarctic protected areas data system at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Table 8. Antarctica—Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) Taylor Rookery, MacRobertson Land Rookery Is., Holme Bay Ardery Is. and Odbert Is,. Budd Coast Sabrina Is., Balleny Islands Beaufort Is., Ross Sea Cape Crozier (now SSSI #4) Cape Hallett, Victoria Land Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay Green Is., Berthelot Islands Byers Peninsula, S. Shetlands (now SSSI #6) Cape Shirreff, S. Shetlands (now SSSI #31) Fildes Peninsula, S. Shetlands (now SSSI #5 Moe Is., S. Orkneys Lynch Is., S. Orkneys S. Powell Is. Group, S. Orkneys Coppermine Peninsula, S. Shetlands Litchfield Is., Palmer Archipelago N. Coronation Is., S. Orkneys Lagotelleri Is., Marguerite Bay Caughley Beach, Ross Island Avian Is., N-W Marguerite Bay Cryptogam Ridge, Victoria Land Forlidas Ponds and Davis Valley Ponds Total: 19 SPAs Year designated Area (ha) Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 9. Antarctica—Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Area (ha) Year of expiry Year designated 1 Cape Royds, Ross Island 1975 1995 2 2 Arrival Heights, Ross Island 1975 1997 175 3 Barwick Valley, Victoria Land 1975 1995 32,500 4 Cape Crozier, Ross Island 1975 2001 2,000 5 Fildes Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1975 2001 180 6 Byers Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1975 2001 7,100 a Haswell Island, Queen Mary Land 1975 2001 80 8 Admiralty Bay, S. Shetlands 1979 1995 1,360 9 Rothera Point, Adelaide Island 1985 1995 5 10 Caughley Beach, Ross Island 1985 2001 50 11 Tramway Beach, Mr. Erebus, Ross Island 1985 2001 1 12 Canada Glacier, Victoria Land 1985 2001 100 13 Potter Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1985 1995 200 14 Harmony Point, S. Shetlands 1985 1995 25,000 15 Cierva Poinht, Danco Coast 1985 1995 1,450 16 N-E Bailey Peninsula, Budd Coast 1985 1995 55 17 Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast 1985 1995 1,000 18 N-W White Is., McMurdo Sound 1985 2001 12,500 19 Linnaeus Terrace, Victoria Land 1985 1995 300 20 Biscoe Pont, Anvers Island 1985 1995 275 21 Deception Is. (parts), S. Shetlands 1985 1995 130 22 Yukidori Valley, Lutzow-Holm Bay 1987 2003 300 23 Svarthamaren, Dronning-Maud Land 1987 1997 390 24 Mt. Melbourne Summit, N. Victoria Land 1987 1997 100 25 Marine Plain, Mule Peninsula, Princess Elizabeth Land 1987 1997 1,500 26 Chile Bay, S. Shetlands 1987 1997 60 27 Port Foster, S. Shetlands 1987 1997 50 28 South Bay, Doumer Is., Palmer Archipelago 1987 1997 115 29 Albation Pt-Ganymede Hts., Alexander Is. 1989 1999 18,000 30 Mt. Flora, Hope Bay, Antarctic Peninsula 1989 1999 55 31 Cape Shirreff, S. Shetlands 1989 1999 590 32 Ardley Is., S. Shetlands 1991 2001 145 33 Lions Rump, S. Shetlands 1991 2001 150 34 West Bransfield Strait, S. Shetlands 1991 2001 57,600 35 East Dallmann Bay, Brabant Is. 1991 2001 96,300 Total: 35 SSSIs 259,820 250 Antarctical/New Zealand Annex 2. Protected Areas on islands of the Southern Ocean 1. Introduction — the Southern Islands Within the vast Southern Ocean, beyond the Antarctic Treaty Area and extending north to the Subtropical Convergence at latitude 35—40°S, are 20 major islands or island groups. Collectively these incorporate more than 800 individual islands or islets, with a total land area of approximately 27,000 sq km, or double the extent of the Hawaiian archipelago. The islands are administered as sovereign territory of six states—United Kingdom, Norway, South Africa, France, Australia and New Zealand (see Tables 1 to 3). Sovereignty over the Falklands Islands (Islas Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is claimed both by the United Kingdom and Argentina. 2. Biogeographical setting In the context of the IUCN global biogeographical system (Udvardy, 1975), the islands lie within the Prov- ince of Insulantarctica. This wide-ranging region can be more used fully subdivided into three zones, as outlined below: = Cool temperate. Containing islands lying between the Subtropical and Antarctic Convergences; mean monthly temperature rarely below 5°C; trees, shrubs and tussock grasslands dominate the vegetation. Subantarctic. Containing islands lying in the vicin- ity of the Antarctic Convergence; mean annual temperature 1—-5°C; grasslands and herb-field vegetation without trees. Maritime Antarctic. Containing islands apprecia- bly south of the Antarctic Convergence; mean annual temperature below O°C; sparse vegetation cover dominated by mosses and lichens. 3. Extent of protection A directory of protected areas in the Southern Ocean was first published by IUCN in 1985 (Clark and Ding- wall, 1985), and was partially updated at a CNPPA working session in New Zealand in 1987 (Dingwall, 1987). Recent reviews of the conservation status of the islands have also been undertaken in a SCAR atlas of Antarctic conservation areas (Bonner and Lewis-Smith, 1985) and at a joint SCAR/IUCN workshop in France in 1986 (Walton, 1986), which will meet again in 1992. Approximately 1,900 sq km, or about 7% of the total area of the islands, are included within legally protected areas. Within island groups the proportion of strictly protected land varies widely, from 100% (e.g. New Zealand islands, Macquarie, Bouvetgya) to less than 1% in the Falklands/Malvinas. Only Marion, Prince 251 Edward and the South Sandwich Islands are without Statutory land protection; but all have a conservation man- agement regime. There are no formally declared marine reserves around the islands. At Macquarie Island an area extending three nautical miles offshore is managed as a marine buffer zone for the reserve, and at Tristan da Cunha, Gough, Heard, McDonald, Bouvetgya, Marion and Prince Edward Island, land protection provisions extend also to territorial waters. At the Snares Islands, mooring of vessels and fishing in near shore waters are strictly controlled, and at the Auckland Islands a fishing ban is imposed within a 12 nautical miles surrounding zone. Similar controls have been imposed around the French islands since 1978. Eight island groups are in the region covered by CCAMLR, which regulates exploitation of marine resources on the high seas south of the Antarctic Convergence. A restricted fishing zone was established at South Georgia under CCAMLR in 1985. 4. History of protection With a few exceptions, protected areas establishment is a recent phenomenon on islands in the Southern Ocean. The Auckland Islands were fully protected in 1934 (part protection from 1910) and at the French Islands a 1924 protection decree was replaced by legislation in 1938 declaring them to be a "Parc national antarctique francais”. Macquarie Island became a nature sanctuary in 1938. The other New Zealand islands were reserved in the 1950s and 1960s and reserves in the Falklands/Malvinas were established periodically from 1964. For all other islands, legal protection dates from the 1970s. 5. Status of protection Most protected areas may be classed as IUCN Category I areas (Scientific Reserve/Wildermess) (Table 2). Marion and Prince Edward Islands are not formally protected but their management regime satisfies the criteria for this class of protection also. The French islands are declared national parks but the management approach is akin to that of Category V areas (Protected Land- scape/ Ecosystem Conservation). The New Zealand islands are declared National Reserves, according them the status and security equivalent to a national park. Macquarie Island was designated a Biosphere Reserve (MAB, UNESCO) in 1977. No islands have World Heritage status. Proposals for Heard and McDonald, and Macquarie Islands are under assessment by UNESCO, and an informal assessment has been made of World Heritage values of the New Zealand islands (Molloy and Dingwall, 1990). Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 6. Institutional arrangements All islands are governed as external territories of sov- ereign states. Some, such as the UK and French islands, have resident administrations. Macquarie Island is man- aged as part of the State of Tasmania. The New Zealand islands and Macquarie are administered by protection agencies, but in other cases Foreign, Justice and Envi- ronmental Ministries have primary responsibility for management, either solely or jointly. It is common practice for administering authorities to be assisted in island management by Antarctic (or Polar) agencies or advised by scientific and/or environmental committees. Only Tristan da Cunha, Macquarie Island and Campbell Island are known to have permanently resident rangers or wardens with responsibility for administering pro- tected area regulations. 7. Management issues and priorities for future action The following are the principal issues of management concern requiring attention on Southern Islands, as assessed by SCAR and IUCN (e.g. Clark and Dingwall, 1985; Walton, 1986; IUCN, 1991). Strengthening legislation, policy and management planning. _In several instances legislation for island protection is outmoded or inadequate. Authorities at the Falklands/Malvinas, for example, have recognised the need for a major revision of legislation applying to wildlife and area protection. A 1987 Environment Pro- tection and Management Ordinance for Heard and McDonald Islands has greatly improved their legal standing as protected areas. But management protection in the Prince Edward and Marion Islands protection management relies upon a voluntary code of conduct which, although extensive, requires full backing of legislation. While conservation management guidelines exist for most islands, detailed, officially approved and legally binding management plans exist only for the New Zealand islands and (recently) at Macquarie Island. Management planning is under consideration for Marion and Prince Edward, and Gough Islands. The planning process should be universally applied throughout the network. Existing plans serve as useful models, as does the planning prescription contained in the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Extending of the protected area network. Currently only 7% of the total island area is formally protected, and protection is biogeographically uneven. For exam- ple, less than 4% of the islands in the subantarctic zone are under legal protection. Given the broad biogeographical scope of the realm, and the high degree of endemism in island biota, it is important that plans for extending the network give consideration to including representative examples of the full range of ecological diversity. Several islands have been identified as having high priority for protection, some of them smaller offshore 252 islands free of human modification. They include, in the Crozet Group, Ile de 1’Est, Ile aux Cochons, Ilot des Apotres, Ile des Pingouins and part of Ile de la Posses- sion. At Iles Kerguelen, the offshore Ile Nuageuses, free of introduced mammals which are so destructive else- where in the Group, are proposed for protection. Controlling of introduced species. Virtually all island groups have been affected by human contact at some stage, and the introduction of alien plants and animals, whether deliberate or accidental, has been ecologically disastrous in places. Land mammals, largely absent from native biota on islands, have had the great- est impacts, especially on islands with human settle- ments (e.g. Falklands and Tristan) and at the French Islands (e.g. Kerguelen has seven species of introduced mammals). Uncontrolled grazing has often encouraged the spread of alien plants among modified vegetation communities. Predation by cats and rats has greatly reduced bird numbers, particularly the smaller burrow- ing petrels. Introduced plants, though widespread and numerous (e.g. Tristan and Campbell Islands have more than 100 and 80 species, respectively) have generally been of much less concer. At the other extreme are the relatively few islands remaining in an essentially natural state—particularly Heard and McDonald Islands, the Snares, Bouvetgya and the S. Sandwich Island, which are free of introduced species, and the Bounty and Prince Edward Islands with no animal introductions. Several islets in the Crozet and Kerguelen Groups may also be free of such introduc- tions. Active management is required to address the most pressing needs, which are to cease all further introduc- tions, quarantine all undamaged islands, institute con- trol measures for areas under immediate threat and restore native communities as far as possible. Rapid vegetation recovery after removal of sheep and cattle from Campbell Island and intensive control of rabbits on Macquarie Island reveal the benefits which can be derived from imposing control measures. The recent removal of feral cattle and goats, and plans for eradicating rabbits, from the Auckland Islands are fur- ther illustrations of a concerted effort to restore the vegetation on New Zealand islands. Other encouraging developments are the commencement of intensive con- trols on cats at Marion Island and preparation of a comprehensive plan of restoration of Amsterdam Island. WWF and IUCN have published a guide to rodent prevention and control measures, based largely on New Zealand experience (Moors et al., 1989). Regulating of tourism. The islands of the Southern Ocean are being drawn inexorably into the orbit of global tourism and, along with fishing, tourism is now a well-established commercial enterprise in the region. Visits to islands are usually a component of more ex- tensive Antarctic voyaging. Experience to date reveals that tourism has had a benign influence on the islands, but vigilance and controls are necessary, particularly to avoid disturbance to biota and introductions of alien plants and animals. Current management approaches to tourism vary con- siderably among islands. Tourism is not encouraged at the South African islands. At Macquarie Island, limited Antarctical/New Zealand supervised by persons authorised by the management authorities. These policies offer a useful guide for other island administrators. Other priorities for action. | Among other identified needs for improved protection are: tourism is permitted, though quarantine regulations put @ Increased research with emphasis on completing bio- the island off-limits for some time after 1982. At South logical inventories, assessing impacts, conducting Georgia visits are restricted to designated Areas of ecological studies of native and introduced commu- Special Tourist Interest. Seaborne tourism is well estab- nities, and investigating land-sea interrelationships; lished in the Falklands and there have been reports of F : E localised disturbance to wildlife. In the New Zealand @ Increased information exchange to promote wider islands, comprehensive policies have been adopted to application of successful management programmes, cope with growing tourist numbers. The number of and encourage coordinated conservation effort; MASHS.AS pauied aomually and Becessito|pesine ais @ Controls on station development and conduct and unsafe islands (e.g. Snares, Bounties) is restricted to sae : : A ae ie : application of environmental impact assessment to shoreline cruising. Elsewhere, visits are strictly regu- nya : : z : : re all human activities; lated by permits, which require compliance with a mini- mum impact code, stipulate those islands or areas that @ Wider application of conservation education and are off-limits, and direct tourists to preferred landing training for island residents and visitors including sites. These are selected to maximise tourist experience scientists; but also to allow limited development of facilities, such as boardwalks to protect vulnerable soil and plant cover. m Extension of protective measures to surrounding A modest charge is levied for tourist permits to offset waters, including imposition of controls and formal associated management costs and permits must be establishment of marine protected areas. References Bonner, W.N. and Lewis-Smith, R.I.. 1985. Conserva- tion areas in the Antarctic. SCAR, Scott Polar Re- search Institute, Cambridge. 299 pp. Clark, M.R. and Dingwall, P.R. 1985. Conservation of islands in the Southern Ocean. IUCN, Cambridge, U.K. 188 pp. Department of Lands and Survey. 1984. Register of Protected Natural Areas in New Zealand. Wellington. N.Z. 468pp. Department of Lands 1908. Report on a botanical sur- vey of the Tongariro National Park. N.Z. Parliament House of Representatives, Appendices to Journals C-11, 22 June 1908. Devlin, P.J., Dingwall, P.R. Lucas, P.H.C.. 1990. New Zealand. In International Handbook of National Parks and Nature Reserves. Allin, C.W. (ed.). Greenwood Press, New York. Pp. 272-293. Dingwall, P.R. and Simpson, P.G.. 1988. The potential role for Biosphere Reserves in environmental moni- toring in New Zealand. In Proceedings of Sympo- sium on Environmental Monitoring, Dept of Conser- vation. Pp.264—273 Dingwall, P.R. 1987. Directory of protected areas on islands of the Southem Ocean—an update 1987. In Dingwall, P.R. (ed.) Conserving the Natural Heritage of the Antarctic Realm. Proc. 29th Work- ing Session of CNPPA, New Zealand, August 1987. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Pp. 75-84. 253 Dingwall, P.R. 1981. Evolving a national system of protected natural areas in New Zealand. Proc. CNPPA Working Session, Christchurch, N.Z. 24 pp. Headland, R.K. 1989. Chronological list of Antarctic expeditions and related historical events. CUP, Cambridge, U.K. 730 pp. Handbook of the Antarctic Treaty System 1990. Part 3 The Antarctic Protected Area System. (7th Edition Oct. 1990). Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge. Hayden, B.P. et al. 1984. Classification of coastal and marine environments. Environmental Conservation 11: 199-207. Holdgate, M.W. and Roberts, B.B.. 1961. Wildlife laws relating to the Antarctic and Subantarctic. SCAR, Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge University. IUCN, 1991. A Strategy for Antarctic Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. 85 pp. IUCN. 1992. Protected Areas of the World: Volume I: Indomalaya, Oceania, Australia and Antarctic Pre- pared by WCMC, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. xx + 352 pp. Keage, P.L. 1986. Antarctic protected areas: future options. Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Occasional Paper No. 19. 109 pp. Keage, P.L. 1987. Environmental Zones and planning units : a basis for an Antarctic terrestrial protected area network. In Dingwall, P.R. (ed.) Conserving the natural heritage of the Antarctic Realm. Proc. 29th Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Working Session, CNPPA, Wairakei, New Zealand (August 1987), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Pp. 135-140 Kelly, G.C. and G.N. Park. 1986. The New Zealand protected natural areas programme—a scientific fo- cus. N.Z. DSIR, Biological Resources Centre Pub. 4, 68 pp. King, K.J. et al. 1985. Coastal and marine ecological areas of New Zealand, a preliminary classification for conservation purposes. N.Z. Department of Lands & Survey, Info. Series 15, 47 pp. Keys, H. 1988. An analysis of the present network of protected areas and its ecological representation in the Ross Sea Region. Pp. 7-14 in Keys, J.R. et al. (eds.), Improving the protected area system in the Ross Sea Region, Antarctica. Department of Con- servation Technical Report No.2. Wellington, New Zealand. Keys, J.R. et al. (eds.) 1988. Improving the protected area system in the Ross Sea Region, Antarctica. Department of Conservation, Technical Report No. 2, Wellington, New Zealand. 48 pp. Lucas, P.H.C. and Dingwall, P.R. 1985. Protected areas and environmental conservation. In Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. in Nelson, J.G. et al. (eds.), Antarctic Heritage: Proceedings of a Symposium (August 1985), Banff, Alberta, Canada. Pp. 219-241. Nature Conservation Council. 1981. Integrating Con- servation and Development—a proposal for a New Zealand Conservation Strategy. Nature Conserva- tion Council, Wellington, 92 pp. Molloy, L.F. and Dingwall, P.R.. 1990. World heritage values of New Zealand islands. In Towns, D.R. et 254 al. (eds.), Ecological restoration of New Zealand islands. Conservation Sciences Pub. No. 2, Depart- ment of Conservation, Wellington. Pp. 194-206. Moors, P.J. et al. 1989. Prohibited immigrants: the rat threat to island conservation. WW-NZ publication, Wellington, New Zealand. 32 pp. Ray, G.C. 1985. Identification and selection of pro- tected areas for Antarctica and the Southern Antarc- tic Ocean. Proceedings of the SCAR/IUCN Symposium on Antarctic Conservation, Bonn, Germany (April 1985). Roche, M.M. 1984. Some historical influences on the establishment of protected natural areas. In People and Parks. Dingwall, P.R. (ed.), Dept Lands & Survey, Information Series No. 10. Pp. 7-14. SCAR. 1977. Report of SCAR Working Group on Biology. Cambridge, U.K., May 1976. SCAR Bulletin No. 55: 165-172. Thom, D. 1987. Heritage: the Parks of the People: A Century of National Parks in New Zealand. Lansdowne Press, Auckland, N.Z. 264 pp. Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A classification of the bio- geographical provinces of the world. [UCN Occasional Paper No. 18. Gland, Switzerland. Veitch, C.R. and B.D. Bell. 1990. Eradication of intro- duced animals from islands of New Zealand. In Towns, D.R. et al (ed.), Ecological Restoration of New Zealand islands. Conservation Sciences Pub. No.2, Wellington. Pp. 137-146. Walton, D.W.H. (ed.). 1986. The biological basis for conservation of subantarctic islands. Report of SCAR/ IUCN Workshop, Paimpont, France, Sept. 1986. The Pacific Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas o. oa) “Ere olsaudkjog youes4 %OT UBY} S10 ZOC—-G1 seaie pa}oa}01d payeubisep Ajjeba; uum pepnyjou! A1jUNOD Jo aHe}UsdI0q %16-0 BBUCY .%0S'E DIuapa|Dg . 4000 PIN wD i ‘i K.x00'0 monuo, %69'0 6] 4009 4tT TT OWLS uddWaWYy ~, ©. %00°0 S| UNyN4—sII1OM * %00'0 DOWDS Usa}saM 4 es ~ : 5 0 “WS. %00'O.NIDANL N Sea %00'0 SI uowiojos S84 %00°0:N4INON UST< OUI ZSC< §| JOUIN SN %O0'O DIBQUAIIIW $O 69}0}S Pa}DJapay4 re %00'O S| IlOYSsOW %EC'E NO|Dd c ‘ %6L°C Wwonsd ‘ %LT'E SPUDIIOW YON ‘dew 256 Contents Page Historical’ perspective”... . 5. :. 4. aoe Slaten eat Pee 259 ile Introduction ce yk ee ee ee 4 eo 259 1.2 Countries which have developed protected area systems ............. 260 1.3. Factors influencing the establishment of protected areasystems ......... 263 1.4 Participation in major international protected area programmes .......... 265 iE: «Major lessons learned vie niae Swe UAE Aan Seer ee 265 Current protected areacoverage......................... 266 Zales Systems plansiandCOverage. «2 St ee-e Mid oe Geers aes eee ee 266 2 ee Adequacy, ofcurrentsystemicoverage sen et ee ee 266 2 See UCP OLIeS Of Protected areds . -i. ., (see eee ieee 267 irae mProtectedrareasin dancer we. | o.oo acid tswy cent ee eee 267 Additional protected areas required/recommended .............. 267 3.1 Requirements for new protected areas ...................000. 267 Protected areainstitutions ................0002 ccc ee eeee 269 2s eee EROLCCUIOM IMCCAAMISINS) oe cuties =. atc. s/n eA Seucuneeoein> SC ae ee ee 269 aa Totected area: administraglONn as. vey ee eae acny emt a oe en 269 473) Linkagesiwith'other developmentisectors) 5155 54-22-5550 0. oe 270 Current levels of financial investment in protected areas........... 270 Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 271 GyleeDrainin ovfacilittestandineedSmmesesi sheen ne nace enn een nnn Pai | Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 271 Major protected areas issuesintheregion ................... 273 SaleuePcopleriniprotected’areas*a) sew. eS 2 eee ee 273 FO nVOLVeCMeng Dy the Private SCCtOls li. a -lse) ca cme eons es Sue ene uence 273 8.3. Protected areas and surrounding lands and waters ................. 273 257 R’4e ProtectediareasianG!scienCen 1c) -) ak aie cin eect sone ccm I 274 8.5 Threats to effective management of protected areas. ......-.-.------ 274 9. Priorities for actioninthe region ...............5------25- 274 References = 3x58 oS ee See oS eS BOS 5 eee 276 Tables Table 1. Summary of the protected areassystem ........-.-.----+----- 261 Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories ............. 264 Table 3. The development of the protected areas system ............+.-.-. 266 Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 268 Table 5. World Heritage sites inthe PacifiC...........2....--+--: 270 Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets ...............-. 272 Figures Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected ATEAS... 2. =. Ry bioackeech cach pcm cos cla: Lieto deuce See ACE 256 Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) .......... 262 Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 262 258 The Pacific Presented by losefatu Reti, Regional Vice-Chair for the Pacific, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with contributions from Peter Thomas, Director Pacific Field Programme, The Nature Conservancy, and Paul Holthus, Project Officer (Scientist), South Pacific Regional Environment Programme 1. Historical perspective 1.1. Introduction The establishment of protected areas in South Pacific island countries has been a relatively new phenomenon (Figures 1 and 2). Perusal of the JUCN Directory of Protected Areas in Oceania ({UCN, 1991) shows a large number of the protected areas listed today were established in the 1970s, when the island countries of Tonga, Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, the Cook Islands and Vanuatu were active in establishing protected areas, some of which were for coastal and marine areas (Table 3). This activity reflected the inter- est in protected areas which was generated as a direct result of the First South Pacific National Parks and Reserves Conference, hosted by the government of New Zealand in 1975. It is also apparent that following this initial interest, the decade of the 1980s has seen much slower progress with protected area establishment, despite a number of regional initiatives aimed at stimulating the growth of protected areas. These include the Third South Pacific National Parks and Reserves Conference held in Apia, Western Samoa, in 1985 and the Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas held in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in 1989. Both of these important regional meetings produced Action Strate- gies for protected area establishment in the region and the 1985 conference led to the strengthening of the protected area function of the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), the region’s inter- governmental organization for the protection and man- agement of the environment. The 1980s have also seen a strong interest by regional and international organizations in the development of protected areas and the conservation of natural resources in the region. This has led to efforts to acquire new data on the ecosystems and species of the region and the adoption of a more scientific approach to the selec- tion and design of protected areas systems in several 259 countries. There is now a great deal more knowledge of the ecosystems and habitats of the island countries than in the 1970s. This information has been used to identify and target conservation priorities in some countries and to design several proposed representative protected area systems. It is therefore most unfortunate that the gov- ernments of the region have not been able to respond to these initiatives and actively promote the establishment of new protected areas. In general, protected area establishment has been achieved under a variety of different forms of national legislation. Where it exists, this legislation is often closely aligned to the protected area legislation of either the previous colonial administrations or the existing legislation of the metropolitan countries administering territories or protectorates. This situation has not been entirely satisfactory as the legislation has been devel- oped on the basis that the government of the day either controls the land or is in a position to acquire it for conservation purposes. In the South Pacific this has led to misguided attempts by colonial administrations to establish protected areas without proper consultation and negotiation with the traditional land and resource- owning groups. Few of these attempts have been suc- cessful and most have failed conclusively. However, in those cases where the governments have either legitimately controlled the lands and marine areas or been able to satisfactorily negotiate their protection, there have been some successes. For example, in West- em Samoa, the government in the early 1980s, sup- ported by assistance from New Zealand, established a nucleus protected area system comprising one national park and five reserves on available government-owned lands. The development of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Pacific Region has been similarly limited and has proceeded sporadically over the past few decades. In the early and mid-1970s, several protected areas were de- clared in French and US territories, some of which included marine and lagoonal areas. As was the case Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas with terrestrial protected areas, a few MPAs were de- clared during periods of colonial or trusteeship control of island states, particularly in Palau. In spite of the direction provided by the Action Strat- egy for Nature Conservation in the South Pacific Re- gion (SPREP, 1985; SPREP, 1989), during the past ten years there has been little new development of MPAs in the Pacific Region. For the most part, factors which have impeded progress in MPA establishment in the region are the same as those which have been noted as problems inhibiting the development of protected areas of any kind in the South Pacific. In addition, issues particular to the marine context include the lack of information on the kinds and status of marine ecosys- tems and species and the absence of officers or pro- grammes dedicated to marine conservation at the national level. In recent years, the coastal/marine and biodiversity conservation programme activities of the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) have re- sulted in increasing activities in the area of coastal management in the region, with particular implications for the conservation of coastal and marine areas, habi- tats and species. These include marine surveys and inventories, the development of proposals for the estab- lishment of marine protected areas and drafting of man- agement plans for important coastal and marine areas, some of which are existing or proposed protected areas. 1.2 Countries which have developed protected area systems The status of protected areas in the South Pacific region, both terrestrial and marine, has been described in a number of recent documents (UNEP/IUCN, 1986; IUCN, 1991), and summarised in Table 1 and Figure 3. In general and with the exception of Hawaii, very few island countries or territories have well developed pro- tected area systems or system plans. This is even more true when considering MPAs. Western Samoa has one of the earliest established systems of protected areas in the South Pacific. In addition to the National Park and five reserves (includ- ing a marine reserve) managed by the government, two private conservation areas have been established on the island of Savai’i. Western Samoa has also been the subject of several recent protected area system design studies which have recommended new priorities for conservation based on the need to achieve ecosystem representation. However, to date, no specific action has been taken to implement these. A similar situation exists in the Kingdom of Tonga which has had a Parks and Reserves Act since 1976. This provided the legal basis for the establishment of five coastal/marine reserves in 1979 to complement three reserves already in existence. However, again, despite recommendations for the improvement of the 260 system, no new areas have been added since then and in fact, one has been lost. The Cook Islands has just one national park, a remote atoll gazetted as such in 1978 and which is under threat from development for mariculture. However, like most other Pacific Island countries, the Cook Islands boasts several proposed protected areas and has been active in strengthening its conservation capability in recent years. In Guam and American Samoa, both United States Territories, various US Federal wildlife, natural area and marine protection legislation has been used to es- tablish systems of protected areas which are generally adequately managed. However, as with all other sys- tems in the South Pacific region, they do not cover a fully representative range of the island ecosystems. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a protectorate of the USA, has proclaimed four uninhab- ited outer island preserves under its Commonwealth Code. However, protected areas on the heavily popu- lated and developed main island of Saipan, and the populated islands of Tinian and Rota, are non-existent. New Caledonia, a French Territory, has one of the most extensive and representative systems of protected areas in Oceania. The system contains a range of differ- ent protected area categories including strict nature reserves, territorial parks, special reserves and marine reserves, all of which are established through specific declarations by the Territorial Assembly. It is interest- ing to note that in New Caledonia, which has one of the highest levels of plant endemism in the world as well as some of the world’s most extensive nickel reserves, all protected areas are subject to mining unless specifically included in a mining reserve established under the min- ing legislation. French Polynesia, also a French Terri- tory, has a nucleus protected area system which includes five remote or uninhabited atolls and one recently- established (1989) Territorial Park. However, no pro- tected areas have yet been established on the islands of principal conservation interest. One of the more interesting protected area systems of the region is that of the Republic of Kiribati. Kiribati has a total land area of a mere 684 sq km spread over a vast oceanic area of some 5 million sq km. Much of the land is located in the Line and Phoenix Island group and in 1975 the government established a comprehensive system of representative protected areas (closed areas and wildlife sanctuaries) over all or part of many of the main islands in these groups. The system included Kiritimati, a large island with a wide diversity of habi- tats and of intemational importance for seabird breed- ing. Howe er, as is the case with a number of the countries of the region, no attempt has been made subsequently to review or expand the original system. The Republic of Vanuatu has an extremely limited protected area system comprising five recreation sites, all established in the mid-1980s. These are very small in area and fail to provide the scale of protection which is necessary to protect the extensive diversity of tropical ecosystems and biota to be found in the archipelago. The Solomon Islands, which lie several hundred kil- ometres to the north and west of Vanuatu, is credited with having a protected area system which includes a national park and a wildlife sanctuary. With one exception, all the protected areas were established under the colonial rule on lands which were under customary ownership. In the absence of adequate con- sultation with the landowners, or compensation for them, together with inadequate or non-existent manage- ment over the years since they were established (1930s and 1954), all are now ineffective. The massive continental island of Papua New Guinea with its area of 462,842 sq km, great ecosystem and species diversity and high levels of endemism, has, on paper at least, the most extensive protected area system in the region. This comprises a mix of five small na- tional parks (each less than 5,000ha), some extremely small (less than 15Oha) special purpose reserves and sanctuaries, and an extensive network of Wildlife Man- The Pacific agement Areas which vary in size from the smallest at 15ha (Baniara Island) to the largest at 590,000ha (Tonda) with most being in the range of 3,000 to 10,000ha. In addition to the existing protected areas, over 80 further areas have been proposed as a result of various studies in the 1970s and 80s. The present system has evolved largely since 1975 and is woefully inadequate for a country of the size and conservation importance of Papua New Guinea. This is especially so when the management effectiveness of the system is considered. Most of the Wildlife Management Areas suffer from a lack of professional and trained local management and inadequate financial resources, and have been sorely neglected by the central govern- ment since their establishment. The establishment of new Wildlife Management Areas and other forms of protected areas suffers from the same lack of resources and government priority. Despite these problems the Department of Environment and Conservation man- aged to establish 11 new protected areas in the 1980-89 period. Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: Pacific Area in Area CategoriesI-V % American Samoa 197 Cook Is 233 Easter Is 68 Federated States of Micronesia 702 Fiji 18,330 French Polynesia Guam Hawaii Kiribati Marshall Is Nauru New Caledonia Niue North Marianas Palau Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Is Solomon Is Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu US Minor Is Vanuatu Wallis-Futuna Is Western Samoa oS cooNRONSGCSO Total area designated Area in Categories VI-VIIlandUA % N ~ w oormworcocceonm Ww N 6,365 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover (eg. Kiribati and US Minor Is.). Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 30 Number of sites ce Area (x1000sqkm) 20 15 10 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 100 Number of sites 80 Area (x1000sqkm) 60 40 20 10) OC CCC COPA 1900 1910 1920 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... 1930 262 1.3 Factors influencing the establishment of protected area systems As mentioned above, the series of National Parks and Reserves conferences held in the region since 1975 has been a major factor in the development of protected area systems in Oceania. They have served to remind gov- ermnments of their responsibilities in this area and to provide a valuable and regular regional focus on pro- tected areas. However, despite the conferences and other important regional initiatives, only limited pro- gress has been made with protected area establishment and most of this was in the 1970s. Governments have Not seen nature conservation and the establishment of protected areas as a particularly relevant or high priority in the face of mounting overseas debts and social and economic hardship. The financial and human resources needed to negotiate and create protected areas have not been available, let alone the resources for effective management of any system which may have been cre- ated. Until recently and with one or two notable exceptions, technical assistance organizations which have the re- sources to support governments in this field have ignored nature conservation as a legitimate form of natural re- source development, opting instead to channel assis- tance to the traditional development sectors of forestry, fishing, agriculture and infrastructural development. Ironically, these activities have made the need for pro- tected areas even more critical. The low priority given to conservation and environmental management in aid programmes has also acted as a disincentive for govern- ments to build protected area and resource management agencies. A third and particularly important factor for the lack of progress is the nature of land and resource (including marine resources) ownership. In many Pacific Island countries very little land is owned or controlled by the government. In many cases particular groups can lay claim to the ownership of the resources of the land and coastal marine areas including reefs and fishing grounds. Pacific Island people have unusually strong cultural, spiritual and economic links with their land and coastal marine environment resulting from their dependence on terrestrial and marine resources for subsistence. In such circumstances the compulsory acquisition of land for protected areas and the denial of resource user rights is out of the question and governments have not seen protected areas establishment as a high enough priority to warrant expenditure on compensation or the possible political impact of difficult or failed negotiations. Perhaps the most important event in the past 10 years influencing protected area establishment has been the establishment of the South Pacific Regional Environ- ment Programme (SPREP) in 1982. As the regional organization for environment and conservation, SPREP has been instrumental in promoting the establishment of protected areas and the conservation of biological 263 The Pacific diversity. Particular attention has been given to the improving the scientific basis for protected areas and to strengthening the institutional basis for their establishment and management. Every four years SPREP organizes the South Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas at which the Action Strategy for Nature Conser- vation in the South Pacific Region is reviewed and up- dated. The Strategy provides a guide for action on protected areas development in the region for SPREP and interested governments and international organiza- tions (e.g. IUCN, UN agencies, international NGOs) for which SPREP is the region’s clearing house and co-ordinating unit. Over the past 10 years SPREP has taken the lead on a number of regional initiatives including the Third South Pacific National Parks and Reserves Conference in 1985, the Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in 1989, both of which led to the preparation of joint SPREP/CNPPA Action Strategies for Oceania. The implementation of these Strategies has been undertaken through SPREP’s extensive work programme, the activities of the South Pacific government conservation and environment agen- cies and through the work of several international and local conservation NGOs. Financial and technical assis- tance has been provided from a number of sources, notably the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments. Although the specific protected area establishment goals in both Action Strategies were not achieved, there has been great progress in other related areas. These include developing inventories of the island ecosys- tems, the planning of systems of representative and priority conservation areas, strengthening of environ- ment and conservation agencies, public awareness of conservation issues and the development of a regional perspective on the role of protected areas in sustainable development. In this latter respect, strong interest in the linkage between tourism and protected areas has emerged in the region. Not surprisingly given the diversity and natural beauty of their islands, several Pacific Island governments have developed national tourism strate- gies based on the development of nature tourism. These include Western Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji and Solomon Islands. In summary, the major specific actions which have been taken in the Pacific Region over the last decade include: @ The establishment of the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) in 1982 with the promotion and establishment of protected areas as one of its functions The Third South Pacific National Park and Reserves Conference held in Apia, Western Samoa in 1985 and the development of the Action Strategy for Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Protected Areas in the South Pacific at that confer- ence. The establishment by SPREP, with assistance from the New Zealand government, of a full time Pro- tected Areas Management Officer position in 1986. Action Strategy for Nature Conservation and Pro- tected Areas in the South Pacific. Surveys and recommendations for representative protected area systems for The Marshall Islands (1988), Fiji (1989), Solomon Islands (1990) and Western Samoa (1990/91). B The 3-month Intemational Parks Management Train- ing Course held in conjunction with the New Zealand National Parks Centenary year celebrations in 1987 together with the provision by SPREP of scholarships for two Pacific Islanders to undertake training for a year in New Zealand. @ The entry into force of both the Convention on the Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia Convention) and the Convention for the Protection of the Environment and the Natural Resources of the South Pacific (the SPREP Convention) in 1990 @ The development by SPREP of regional programmes for the conservation of marine turtles, birds and marine mammals; regionally appropriate terrestrial and coastal and marine ecosystem classification sys- tems; anda South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation @ The Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature Programme and the approval of funding of $10 Conservation and Protected Areas held in Port Vila, million from the Global Environment Facility in Vanuatu in 1989 and the development of a revised 1991. mw Aregional Workshop on the Customary Land Tenure, Traditional Knowledge and Protected Areas held by SPREP in 1988. Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Pacific I I IV Area No. Area . Area No. Area No. American Samoa Cook Is Easter Is Federated States of Micronesia Fiji French Polynesia Ww | Marshall Is Nauru New Caledonia Niue North Marianas Palau Papua New Guinea Pitcaim Is Solomon Is Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu US Minor Is Vanuatu Wallis—Futuna Is Western Samoa Pini Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. 264 A number of these actions are of particular import- ance to the development of MPAs in the region. The coastal and marine ecosystem classification system for the South Pacific region will provide a comprehensive framework for identifying the presence of habitat at local, national and regional scales and determining the conservation status of those habitats. The application of these classification systems to the countries and territo- ries of the region in the 1990s will provide a means of setting priorities for action. The South Pacific Regional Marine Turtle Conservation Programme and the recently- launched Regional Marine Mammal Conservation Pro- gramme will spur activities in marine endangered species conservation education and research and is likely to result in additional impetus for MPA development. 1.4 Participation in major international protected area programmes South Pacific island country participation in major in- ternational protected area programmes has been limited (Table 4). However, there is growing interest in the World Heritage Convention and the benefits it has to offer developing countries particularly in relation to the development of nature-based tourism. The inscription of Henderson Island in the Pitcairn Group (a British territory) on the World Heritage List was a first for the region (Table 5). Solomon Islands is interested in be- coming the first country in the region to accede to the World Heritage Convention. Two potential World Heritage Sites have been identified in that country, East Rennell Island and Marovo Lagoon, but there are still many obstacles to overcome before their designation becomes a reality. The South Pacific is unusual inasmuch that two re- gional conventions have come into force in recent years, both of which specifically encourage the establishment of protected areas (Table 4). The Apia Convention (Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific) entered into force on 26 June 1990, and in- cludes the provision to "encourage the creation of pro- tected areas which together with existing protected areas will safeguard representative samples of the natu- ral ecosystems occurring therein" (Article II). The SPREP Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region) entered into force on 19 October 1990. Article 14 refers to specially protected areas and protec- tion of wild flora and fauna, as follows "...the Parties shall, as appropriate, establish protected areas, such as parks and reserves, and prohibit or regulate any activity likely to have adverse effects on the species, ecosystems or biological processes that such areas are designed to protect”. The compilation of the Oceania Wetlands Directory which is currently being prepared under the auspices of a range of international initiatives, including the Ramsar Convention, will provide a much-needed boost to the 265 The Pacific conservation of South Pacific wetlands. These include wetland and lagoon systems of global significance such as the Marovo lagoon in Solomon Islands and the salt- water and super-saline lagoons of Kiritimati (Kiribati) which are habitat for some of the largest populations of tropical seabirds in the world. Other than these initiatives, there has been little in- volvement with international protected areas programmes which perhaps reflects the low priority accorded protected area establishment by many of the South Pacific gov- ernments and a reluctance to become party to any inter- national programmes which may involve additional finan- cial commitments. Conversely, the international pro- grammes may find it difficult to justify the resources necessary to undertake initiatives in the Pacific Region which is remote, vast and sparsely populated and in global terms, does not have a high priority for conser- vation action. 1.5 Major lessons learned One of the major lessons learned during the past decade is that the establishment of protected areas in the island countries of the Pacific Region will require the consent of the customary or other land or resource owning groups. The corollary to this is that the permanent alienation of the land for protection is unlikely to occur. Furthermore, landowner involvement in the future man- agement of such areas is important as is flexibility in the management regime to allow continued access to im- portant subsistence resources and the sustainable utili- zation of some commercially important resources. It is clear that innovative models for protected area establishment will need to be developed if these require- ments are to be met. It is equally clear that unless government conservation agencies are dramatically strengthened through the increased allocation of finan- cial and manpower resources, little progress can be expected with the establishment of new protected areas in the region let alone with the effective management of existing areas. Under present circumstances, progress with the estab- lishment of protected areas is most likely to be made by the international conservation NGOs working with their local partners at the community level. The potential of non-government organizations to work and negotiate with customary owners at the community level for the establishment of conservation areas is greater than that of many government agencies. NGOs have already demonstrated their ability to plan and achieve protected area establishment and their endeavours should be fur- ther enhanced and encouraged through support from international and regional donor agencies and the inter- national conservation community. In particular, resources need to be applied to the strengthening and support of domestic NGOs involved in the conservation of biologi- cal diversity and to encourage the establishment of such organizations where they don’t already exist. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Pacific % area established 1962-1971 % area established up to 1962 American Samoa Cook Is Easter Is Fiji French Polynesia Guam Hawaii (USA) Kiribati Marshall Is Micronesia Nauru New Caledonia Niue North Marianas Palau Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Is Solomon Is Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu US Minor Is Vanuatu Wallis-Futuna Is Western Samoa % area established 1972-1981 Date established unknown % area established 19821991 Sooo OC OCC COC COR CCOSGSCCCCCCS RS ofBao e~S = oooronoo Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I—V are included. Sites are only in the data- base once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted. The establishment of new and viable conservation areas in the Pacific will depend on our ability to work with customary land-owning groups to develop co- operative agreements for private conservation areas. These will need to be linked to the development of sustainable economic activity which benefits those groups. Government environment agencies will have an important role to play in coordinating and channelling resources to assist these initiatives and in developing a policy and legislative environment which will support and encourage both government and private conserva- tion initiatives. However, NGOs will have a greater and more direct role to play in the actual negotiation and development of cooperative and innovative agreements for conservation as they are better placed to work at the “grassroots” level necessary for success in this difficult area. 266 2. Current protected area coverage 2.1 Systems plans and coverage As outlined in 1.2 above, very few of the South Pacific island countries have scientifically based and profes- sionally prepared protected area system plans. Exceptions are Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea, the Marshall Islands, Fiji, American Samoa, and the Solomon Islands. In all these cases the system plans were produced as a result of projects undertaken in conjunction with the govern- ments concemed and funded externally, using external expertise. Few of the recommendations have yet been implemented. 2.2 Adequacy of current system coverage There is a general lack of information on species and habitat type, distribution and status for the protected areas of the region and this precludes any detailed analysis of how well existing protected areas cover major habitat types, centres of diversity or centres of endemism. However, it is clear from the paucity of protected areas generally in the region and from the failure of those countries with comprehensive protected area system plans to implement the recommendations, that the current systems fail to adequately cover the major habitats in the region. Application of the recently- developed SPREP ecosystem classification system to the region over the next few years should provide some indication of the situation and enable priorities to be determined. In addition, the status of coral reef related protected areas has also been reviewed (UNEP/IUCN, 1988). 2.3 Categories of protected areas Most of the IUCN protected area categories are repre- sented in the region (Table 2). The most common cate- gories are National Park (Category II), Managed Nature Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary (Category IV), Protected Landscape (Category V) and Multiple-use Manage- ment Area/Managed Resource Area (Category VIII) and Scientific Reserve/ Strict Nature Reserve (Category I). There are no Biosphere Reserves (Category IX) nor are there any Natural Biotic Areas/ Anthropological Reserves (Category VII) (though in light of the discus- sion of customary ownership above, this would seem to be an exceptionally promising category for this region). It is interesting to note that protected area categories and their applicability to the region were a main point of discussion at the Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas held in Vanu- atu in 1989. It was felt strongly that Pacific Island countries needed a more flexible definition which rec- ognized the dependence of the people on their environ- ment and its resources for their subsistence. Accordingly, the delegates at the Conference preferred to use the term "conservation area” to "protected area", considering this better defined the rationale of management for resource conservation which needed to be developed if protective status was to be accepted for customary or traditionally-owned lands in the region. The existing MPAs in the region have been informally categorized based on their function, location and level of protection (Holthus, 1989) as the following: 1) tourism/ recreation oriented MPAs; 2) general marine re- source/habitat conservation areas near major population centres, 3) outlying/uninhabited islands, 4) MPAs to pro- tect harvested species, and 5) fully developed MPAs. 2.4 Protected areas in danger There is very little action occurring in the field of scientific monitoring of the health of habitats and spe- cies populations in the existing protected areas, includ- ing MPAs. It is therefore difficult to single out specific protected areas which are in danger and why. As has already been pointed out, there is a general lack of management resources and virtually all protected areas are under threat from human misuse. One such case is the J.H. Garrick Memorial Reserve in Fiji which 267 The Pacific suffered from illegal logging operations made possible by a lack of an active management presence. Another example is the Queen Elizabeth II National Park in the Solomon Islands which has been devastated by fire, gardening and illegal firewood gathering since its estab- lishment in 1954. There are numerous other examples. It is difficult to identify which, if any, MPAs in the region are in danger and how. Nevertheless, it is very likely that nearshore MPAs in the Pacific, especially those supporting coral reefs, are being damaged by the effects of adjacent land and shore use. In particular, water quality is often degraded due to increased sedi- mentation, nutrient inputs, organic and industrial pollu- tion and sewage discharge. In addition, as most MPAs in the region lack effective or enforced management plans, and habitat disturbance resulting from boating, anchoring, souvenir collecting and other recreational and tourist activities is common in MPAs near major population centres. Mangroves are another important habitat under wide- spread threat in the region, especially where they occur near urban areas. Although mangrove ecosystems play an important role in the life cycle of many marine species and provide many of the resources needed for subsistence, their role is not well understood. Man- groves are destroyed to make way for landfill and reclamation activities and are frequently used for gar- bage dumping. 3. Additional protected areas required/recommended 3.1. Requirements for new protected areas A survey by Dahl (1980) identified over 70 ecosystem or biome types to be found in the South Pacific and it is estimated that less than 20 of these are under any form of protection. There is clearly a long way to go before the region even approaches the goal of achieving the protection of a representative range of its ecosystems. There is a great range and wealth of natural diversity to be found in the South Pacific region although there is considerable disparity in the distribution of that diver- sity. The large island nations of Melanesia in the westem Pacific—Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and New Caledonia— have the greatest diversity of ecosystems, flora and fauna while the small atoll coun- tries of the eastern Pacific—Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Marshall Islands—have extremely low ecosystem di- versity, at least on land. The extensive tropical lowland and mid-altitude forests of the former group of countries are under the greatest threat of loss or modification in the region and their protection is of the highest priority. Unfortunately our knowledge of the threatened animal and plant species of the region is at best only sketchy and apart from a few notable examples, insufficient for the identification of habitat reserves. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas “poist] axe Uordal amp UNIT BurAy says AUQ “T :930N 9861-T1-Sz 0661-L-07 9L61-9-71 BOWS Wasa = = = TyeNUe A 986I-TI-SZ 9861 “9° (nemeH) 9861-1 I-Sz 9861 “9° (weny) 9861-T1-Sz 9861 “99d i (eoureg ueoLauTy) 986I-T1-S$z 9861 °d : BoOUDUy JO saws pay) = SLOT “uel urentd $n L861-L-9T 9L6I “URL wopsury pay L861-8- v1 = nyeany, = esuol, 6861-38-01 = SPURS] UOWIO[OS 6861-6-ST L861-11-€ eouIng Man ended — 986I-TI-Sz ne[ed = seuruey] Walon = ant - nepeyxo], 0661-S-€ 986I-I1-S@ 9L6I “‘3ny P86I ‘AON L861-7 SI = = ny 8861- I 1-62 L861-7-6 = = — — saeig parelapey ‘eISOUOIOTAy L861-S-b 986I1-IT-S7 7 = a =: spurys] [[eyszeyy = = = = = = nequry O66I-L-LI = 986I-TIT- $7 6861-1-02 9L61-9-71 9861 2°O CLOT ung (eunm./sT eM) O66I-L-LI = 986T-TT-Sz 6861-1-07 9L61-9-71 9861 20 SLOT euny Bruope[e) MON O66I-L-LI = 9861-1 T-Sz 6861-1-02 9L6I-9-71 9861 PO GL6I Fung —-BISaUATO Youaly O66I-L-LI = 986I- I I-$z 6861-1-07 9L61-9-71 9861 290 CLOT ouny souBly 6861-681 = 6861-681 = = 0661 “AON Why — 986I1-TI-Sz L861-9-v7@ a = = spurs] YOOD 6861-L-61 L86I-Il-¥2 0661-£-87 = = = eyensny UOISS2IDY auneugs - WOJSsa00 Y ainjeusig (ey) Bay ‘ON ned (vy) Bay ‘ON (ey) vay “ON /WOPBOYHEY ow HEY uoljUsAUND daudS UOIJUSAUO,) eidy UuoljUaAU0;) (spueyjaAA) Jesuey SaA1ISoyY asaydsorg ase PIIOAA (sjoo0}01d pejejas pue UO}JUBAUOD daudS eu} pue uoNueAuod eldy ay) jo smeys Bulpnjou!) o1!9ed :SUO}JUBAUOD jeuoibes/jeuoneusaju! 0} soUaJEypY “bh 9IGeL 268 Improved, expanded protection of marine areas in the South Pacific region is undoubtedly needed due to the importance of marine habitats and resources to the peoples, economies and ecosystems of the region. Of particular importance is the need to protect marine habitat for subsistence and commercial fishery resources and for use in tourism and recreation. The development of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem classification systems for the South Pacific will allow priorities for the establishment of new protected areas to be deter- mined on a scientific, systematic basis. The classifica- tion system categorizes the full suite of terrestrial fresh- water and marine habitats and ecological communities which exist in the region. The occurrence of these can then be documented for any particular island or country, as well as their presence or absence in existing protected areas. Gaps in protection at a local, national or regional level can then be identified. When coupled with a process to indicate the status of the habitats and ecologi- cal communities, whether protected or not, conserva- tion priorities will be able to be determined at the various levels. 4. Protected area institutions 4.1 Protection mechanisms Widespread customary land tenure has meant that inno- vative ways to achieve protection goals have had to be developed. One of the most interesting of these has been the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) concept devel- oped by the government of Papua New Guinea. WMAs recognize the need to involve local communities in the management and conservation of their own resources. They provide a legal mechanism through which central government and local communities can work together to define conservation goals, establish WMAs and pro- vide for their management. Following the gazettement of a WMA a local management committee is estab- lished by the community which works in consultation with government Conservation Officers to manage the area. However, a lack of staff and the financial re- sources necessary to undertake the cadastral surveys for gazettal purposes have meant that only a few of the many proposed WMAs in Papua New Guinea have been established or are operating successfully. In the case of the Wildlife Management Areas established by the local communities of Papua New Guinea, the purpose of the protected area is to protect species from hunting by outsiders and to provide for the sustainable harvest of that species. Recently the South Pacific region has seen an in- crease in the involvement of international and local non-government organizations in the establishment of conservation or protected areas. The activities of these organizations have led to the development of further innovative approaches for dealing with the difficult issues affecting the achievement of conservation objec- tives on customary lands. These include the need to find ways to compensate entire communities for foregoing 269 The Pacific the immediate benefits of resource exploitation such as logging and to provide sustainable alternatives for in- come generation. For example, in Western Samoa the Swedish Conservation Foundation has built a school for a local community in return for a covenant protecting an area of lowland coastal rainforest on the island of Savai’i. In another district of the same island, the same organization is actively assisting the local community in the development of nature tourism and associated infrastructure in another conservation area. The management of protected areas by private indi- viduals, organizations and trusts is, as indicated above, uncommon in the region. One exception is the National Trust of Fiji which is an ad hoc statutory body charged with the management of national parks and other re- serves in Fiji. The two privately-owned and managed conservation areas on Savai’i Island in Western Samoa referred to earlier in this paper are also notable excep- tions. 4.2 Protected area administration The administration and management of protected areas in the South Pacific region is carried out by a variety of government agencies. In the past there has been a ten- dency for these to be agencies having responsibilities for the management and development of natural re- sources such as Ministries of Natural Resources. These have responsibility for various combinations of primary industry sectors such as forestry, agriculture, fisheries and lands and may include small one-to five-person conservation or environment units. However, this situ- ation is slowly changing. Governments are beginning to realize the importance of natural resource conserva- tion and sound environmental management polices and practices and to recognize the inherent conflicts in having conservation and environment units located within resource development agencies. As a consequence, there has been a recent trend towards the establishment of new conservation and environment agencies either in their own right, as with the Cook Islands Conservation Service which is a statu- tory ad hoc body, or as divisions of Government agen- cies not involved directly with primary sector development. Examples of the latter are the Environment Section of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Planning in Vanuatu and the Environment Division of the Department of Lands and Environment in Westem Samoa. The importance of marine resource management in a region which relies heavily on marine resources for subsistence and commercial benefits is reflected in the generally well established and relatively powerful fish- eries/marine resource agencies within governments of the region. In many instances these agencies have the potentially conflicting mandate to undertake both ma- rine resource development and conservation. At the same time, the environment or conservation agencies are relatively young within governments and have less well-defined mandates and jurisdictions, especially when Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas concerned with marine areas or resources. The devel- opment of MPAs in the South Pacific has thus some- times resulted in jurisdictional conflicts between fishery and environment agencies where there are overlapping and ill-defined mandates. Some MPAs which have been developed entirely for fishery management purposes predate the establishment of environment agencies and are managed by fisheries agencies. With the development of protected area sys- tems, there is a need to integrate fishery management MPAs into more comprehensive MPA systems devel- opment. In some parts of the Pacific the tourism industry is emerging as a significant institution promoting both marine and terrestrial conservation. In the case of ma- rine conservation this is usually linked to existing hotels with ocean sports-oriented programmes and dive tour operators. These enterprises seek to have popular visitor destinations protected from overfishing, destructive fish- ing, degradation due to off-site influences, or other reduction of the site’s attractiveness for visitors, which is usually compatible with other MPA objectives. The means to integrate this emerging private sector support for MPA establishment and development in the region has not yet been well defined or pursued. Table 5. World Heritage sites in the Pacific United Kingdom (Pitcairn) Henderson Island USA Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 4.3 Linkages with other development sectors The strength and effectiveness of linkages between conservation and environment agencies and other de- velopment agencies vary from country to country. How- ever, it would be realistic to say that there is a growing awareness in the public sectors throughout the region of the roles of the various resource conservation and envi- ronmental management agencies and the need for con- sultation on some issues. For example, in Western Samoa, the Visitors Bureau works with the Environment Divi- sion to finance the development of park facilities to ensure these are of a high standard and to promote visitor enjoyment. Promotion of the sites through tourist brochures is also coordinated. Where conservation agencies are located within a multi-sector ministry the linkages with the various di- visions of the ministry tend to be better than when the agency is independent. In such cases the conservation agency often benefits from access to the resources and equipment of the usually better endowed development divisions, particularly when field activities are being 270 undertaken which require transport and logistical sup- port in outer islands. With the growing awareness of the role of environ- mental management and resource conservation as a component of national development, there is a trend in many South Pacific countries to pay greater attention to these issues in national planning policy. There is also a trend towards the introduction of basic Environmental Impact Assessment procedures. These are policy initia- tives which will assist conservation agencies to develop linkages with other government agencies. However, a huge gulf remains to be overcome in the development of the vital linkages between these agen- cies and the public. Although most agencies undertake some form of public education activities, public con- sultation on environment and conservation policy and issues, this is still in its infancy. However, some prom- ising initiatives suggest that progress is being made in this direction. The National Conservation Strategy for Vanuatu is being developed on a solid foundation of public consultation and grassroots involvement and the conservation programme of the Republic of Palau is encouraging Palauans to become involved in defining future directions for development in their country. Both these and other similar embryonic initiatives in the region auger well for strong public input and support for resource conservation and protected area policies in the future. Finally, it must be remembered that some Pacific Island governments as yet have no environment or conservation agencies at all, which is an important institutional constraint impeding the development of any kind of protected areas, including MPAs. In addi- tion, very few local NGOs are concerned with environ- mental issues and resource conservation in the Pacific region, although this situation is slowly changing. 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas Little information is readily available on current invest- ment levels to complete this section. This highlights the need to improve the collection of such data at the regional level. See Table 6. In 1991 SPREP obtained funding ($10 million) from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for an ambi- tious programme for the conservation of biological diversity in the South Pacific. The main focus of this Programme is the identification, evaluation and estab- lishment of new conservation areas in the region. The programme offers the region the opportunity to dramati- cally advance the cause of natural area conservation and to build cooperation and collaboration between all the Parties concerned and involved in this field. 6. Human capacity in protected areas management The low priority given to the establishment of protected areas and the relative weakness of the conservation institutions in the region is also reflected in the human capacity to manage the limited number of protected areas which exist. There are very few trained or partially trained park rangers or wardens, perhaps no more than 20-25 throughout the region. Most of these are located in just six countries, Fiji (2), Kiribati (3), Papua New Guinea (8-10) American Samoa (2), Guam (4) and Western Samoa (3). In these and other countries, casual workers are often employed to undertake maintenance work and in a number of cases local caretakers receive a stipend to look after protected areas. This lack of personnel is even more evident in the case of MPAs. Of the 15 independent countries in the region, only 2 have marine conservation officers. On current knowledge it is not possible to estimate the number of people who may be indirectly employed as a result of protected areas in the Pacific region. The number would be probably be low and would reflect the limited development of the protected areas systems in the region and the relatively undeveloped nature-based tourism industry. There are, however, small numbers of people who earn a portion of their living as a result of providing access and guiding services to natural areas or cultural features. In addition, the growing tourist use and interest in marine visitor attractions, which include some of the few MPAs in the region, provides income for the guides and operators associated with the diving industry. Access to technical and scientific assistance to ad- dress the problems of conservation area management is important in this region as this expertise does not exist in the small island countries. The region relies heavily on the support of its neighbouring metropolitan coun- tries and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The establishment of cooperative agreements with lead- ing conservation agencies (the Department of Conser- vation, New Zealand, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service) for access to scientific, technical and training assistance has been undertaken by SPREP. These agreements will greatly enhance the resources available to the region for scientific research and the management of protected areas. 6.1. Training facilities and needs The issue of training in protected areas management is a vexed one in the region. The problem of extremely limited protected area personnel is compounded by the fact that these people are spread between a number of countries separated by vast distances. Despite these difficulties, several training activities have been under- taken in the past decade. In 1985 some 20 participants attended a three-week training course in protected area 271 The Pacific management held in conjunction with the Third South Pacific National Parks and Reserves Conference. How- ever, very few of these were directly involved with direct protected areas management although all were involved with environment and conservation agencies in their home countries. This highlights a problem with the selection process for such regional courses. The accepted procedure calls on central governments to nominate participants and because of the difficulties of communication, time and travel this tends to result in the nomination of headquarters, rather than field, per- sonnel. While there are no protected area training facilities in the island countries of the South Pacific, the region is fortunate to have close links with the principal protected area management agencies in New Zealand and Austra- lia. The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme has developed Memoranda of Understanding with these agencies which specify cooperation in a number of technical areas and in particular, protected area man- agement training. It has become clear that given the state of protected area development in the region, these agreements will provide the most valuable and effective training opportunities for the region for some time to come. On the one hand they offer the opportunity for short-to medium-term training secondments for regional personnel which are designed to meet specific training and work-elated needs. On the other hand, they offer the region access to training personnel from those organi- zation for the conduct of in-country courses where there is aneed to provide basic training to anumber of people. It is recognized by SPREP and its Australian and New Zealand partners that training opportunities will not be confined to government personnel and will embrace persons sponsored by NGOs and the private sector where appropriate. Finally, in 1987 SPREP conducted a survey of pro- tected area training needs in the region which reinforced the need for training opportunities to be developed at a number of levels. These included training in basic pro- tected area development and management, the need for mid-level management training for a few people who may be called upon to manage and supervise protected areas systems,and the need for graduate and post-gradu- ate level study opportunities for the future managers of government protected area programmes. 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas Governments of the region must take a strong lead in the promotion and establishment of protected areas. This must be heralded by a re-direction of resources and greater priority and attention being given to protected areas as a vital part of the conservation and sustainable development of natural resources. In the short term at least, the capacity of government environment and conservation agencies to actually become involved in the establishment of new protected areas is limited. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets: Pacific Budget in national currency Country/responsible agency American Samoa Cook Islands Fiji — National Trust & Forestry Department French Polynesia Guam Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia, Federated States of Nauru New Caledonia Niue Northern Marianas Islands Palau Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Solomon Islands Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu United States Minor Outlying Is. Vanuatu Wallis and Futuna Western Samoa—Department of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries Sources: (11) 43,000 US Dollar equivalent Year 1990 Proposed budget SPREP (1989). Country review: Western Samoa. Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas. SPREP, Noumea, New Caledonia. 12pp. However, these agencies can certainly work towards supporting and stimulating the involvement and interest of other agencies and organizations, particularly NGOs, in protected area establishment. This can be achieved by the development of national plans and policies to promote protected areas such as National Conservation Strategies, National Tourism Plans and the provision of economic incentives to do so. Governments can also provide logistical assistance and information to groups involved in protected area negotiations and with access to training opportunities. Because of the complicated community-based sys- tems of land and resource ownership which prevail in the region, the impetus for establishment of new pro- tected areas in many countries will come from those organizations able to devote the time and resources to identify appropriate areas and negotiate a conservation Status with the owners. In many cases this will be tied back to the development of realistic sustainable re- source management options for the local community which may or may not include the use of resources for income generation. Clearly there is also a role for the private sector to be involved where the maintenance of the natural asset is vital for the viability of tourism development. 272 Government must continue to play a lead role in the development of MPAs in the South Pacific due to the legal control governments generally have over nearshore waters and submerged lands. However, in many Pacific island areas, real control over marine areas and resources is exercised through traditional ownership patterns and cus- tomary use practices, so these need to be investigated and documented as a part of MPA development. More detailed indications of action required, at both a national and regional level, for development of MPAs and terrestrial protected areas in the region are reflected in the SPREP work programme, based on government requests to SPREP for action. These requests are devel- oped into SPREP programme areas for funding and implementation. The SPREP programmes on coastal/ marine conservation and biological diversity conserva- tion both feed into the actions required for protected area development in the region. Potential exists for the establishment of protected areas as a component of externally-funded development projects. In many cases the proponents of such projects have access to significant sources of development fund- ing, have the backing of the governments and have negotiated agreements with the landowners. The identifi- cation of protected areas as a component of such schemes should be included in the project brief. This can be easily done for aid-supported projects and there is a reasonable chance that the protected area compo- nent will receive support. However, it would prove much more difficult to achieve in the case of private sector development agreements unless there was strong government policy to this effect and a will to enforce it. 8. Major protected areas issues in the region 8.1 People in protected areas Understanding and incorporating human use of terres- trial and marine areas and resources in the Pacific is essential to protected area development in the region. Overall, socio-economic considerations are of primary importance to resource conservation, including pro- tected area establishment. In the South Pacific, this is even more so due to the intimate linkage of societies and economies with land and marine areas and the resources they support. Efforts to establish or manage protected areas in the Pacific without the involvement of local people have been unsuccessful or fraught with difficulties and dis- putes. Recent initiatives to pursue conservation action in the region including MPA development, recognize this and attempt to integrate traditional resource knowl- edge and constraints with modem resource use tech- niques. There is also a growing recognition that the early and meaningful involvement of local communi- ties who own and control the resources in decision making is an absolute prerequisite to conservation action. The benefits flowing to local people from the existing protected areas in the region are limited. Local commu- nities use some areas for recreation and in some cases income is generated from access and guiding fees, and the provision of local accommodation. In a few cases, tourism and adventure recreation facilities (e.g. diving) are closely tied to protected areas and there are obvious benefits for local communities providing the staff and food for such ventures. 8.2 Involvement by the private sector To date there has been only very limited involvement by the private sector in the ownership, establishment and management of protected areas. One exceptional case involves a resort established on an island in Fiji. The lease over the island calls for it to be managed by the resort as a nature reserve and this has proved a satisfactory condition for all the involved parties. NGO involvement in the establishment of the conservation areas in Western Samoa referred to earlier in this paper constitute another form of private sector involvement. The considerable potential of the private sector to contribute to protected area establishment needs to be 273 The Pacific harnessed. At present however, there are no direct eco- nomic incentives such as tax relief available in the region to encourage private sector interest. 8.3 Protected areas and surrounding lands and waters Integrated land use planning is not widely practised in the countries of the South Pacific. The policy frame- work for integrated regional planning does not exist in most countries and where it does, it receives scant attention or priority by the governments. Although there are exceptions to this rule, the customary nature of land and marine area tenure is such that it mitigates against the imposition of planning controls which could regu- late the resource use options of the landowners. Land use planning is therefore confined to site-specific activi- ties associated with development projects, some town planning in the larger municipal areas and the develop- ment of sectoral plans for activities such as forestry. National Development Plans often mention the im- portance of sustainable resource development but rarely identify protected areas as a component of the develop- ment process. In many instances the necessary institu- tional framework and technical expertise is not in place to give effect to the sustainable development philoso- phy of a plan. Despite these problems it is important that protected areas are given consideration and recognized as acomponent of the development process. To achieve this requires developing stronger linkages between the conservation goals and objectives of the National De- velopment Plans and those of sectorial development plans, which are meant to give effect to the conservation goals set out in the National Plan. The role of MPAs in resource use planning ina region where the population is concentrated on the coast de- serves special mention. Due to the aquatic nature of MPAs and the relative ease by which the influence of off-site activities and pollutants can be transported by water, the management of surrounding lands and waters is of particular importance. In general, the development of MPAs in the South Pacific is increasingly being pursued as part of comprehensive integrated coastal zone management planning. In this manner MPAs are the protected area zones in a system of zones ranging from full protection to multiple use and development. By developing MPAs as part of a comprehensive zoning scheme within a coastal area management plan, the interactive role of MPAs with surrounding areas is taken into consideration and enhanced in a number of ways. For example, the role of MPAs as fishery re- source "seed areas" which provide stock to surrounding areas of sustainable fishery use is possible if considered as part of a comprehensive management regime. The negative effect of off-site influences can be better con- trolled if protected areas are surrounded by buffer zones of low disturbance uses. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Comprehensive coastal management planning pro- motes Environmental Impact Assessment as a major tool to ensure sound, sustainable development projects. Thus if MPAs are being developed as part of compre- hensive coastal plans, the impacts of development pro- jects should be fully taken into consideration, including the impacts of those projects on existing or potential MPAs. SPREP has developed a comprehensive set of guidelines for the application of EIA in tropical insular countries to assist in the development of EIA capability in the region. 8.4 Protected areas and science The small islands of the South Pacific contain a high number of endemic plants and animals. The abundance and distribution of many of these are poorly known, if at all. Small islands also provide natural laboratories for studying the process of evolution. Unfortunately, little research is being carried out in protected areas in the South Pacific region. For the most part, adequate inven- tories of flora and fauna have not been conducted in the protected areas that exist. This lack of baseline informa- tion is an impediment to effective management of pro- tected areas in the region. Management-oriented research is not being undertaken in the region. Few management plans exist and those that do are usually undertaken by outside agencies. The level of endemism in the region and the limited physical extent of most habitats makes it all the more important to monitor the status of species and habitats. Unfortunately there is almost no effort to undertake scientific monitoring within protected areas. In fact, Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve (Palau) may be one of the only protected areas in the region where both permanent terrestrial and marine transects have been set up, although these have yet to be resurveyed following their initial establishment in 1988. Virtually no information is available on the effects of pollutants on protected areas in the South Pacific. For terrestrial protected areas this is less of a concern as there is relatively little atmospheric pollution in the region. However, because water pollution has the po- tential to have serious impacts on protected marine ecosystems, a major regional marine water quality moni- toring programme is now underway through SPREP (although this does not focus on MPAs for monitoring or reference sites). 8.5 Threats to effective management of protected areas The principal threat to the effective management of protected areas in the region is that posed by human use. Unauthorized activities such as fuelwood gathering, subsistence gardening, illegal settlement and the har- vest of wildlife and marine resources place pressure on protected areas which the management authority can do little about. Development activities in the form of 274 logging, road-building, plantation establishment, min- ing, etc., often lead to the destruction of habitat and the loss of species and can occur in protected areas. Aside from the threat posed by human use, the intro- duction of alien plant and animal species poses a direct threat to the biological values of conservation areas. The island biodiversity of the South Pacific and its component species has evolved in isolation and is re- nowned for its high degree of endemism. These features place it at great risk and examples of the disastrous impact of introduced species abound in the region. Perhaps the most well known is that of the relatively recent introduction of the Brown tree snake Boiga irregularis to the island of Guam which has led to the decimation of the native avifauna of that island. Other examples include the spread of the central American plant species Miconia flavences in Tahiti and the impact of rats on the endangered population of the Rarotongan flycatcher (Pomarea dimidiata). No formal mechanisms are in place in most countries to identify, report, document or monitor threats to pro- tected areas. These activities are most commonly under- taken on an ad hoc basis as a result of requests from Governments to aid agencies or regional and interna- tional conservation organizations to either investigate a perceived problem or undertake such work in the course of scientific surveys. Very little information is available on the threats to existing MPAs in the South Pacific and how these threats are identified, reported, documented and monitored. The lack of effective management of most MPAs in the region means that there is no estab- lished mechanism for responding to any but the most obvious and serious threats. The most pressing need in terms of a response to these threats is to improve management through the strength- ening of management institutions where these exist and by promoting landowner participation in management. The recruitment and training of staff to government positions in conservation agencies together with the training of local people to manage conservation areas is vital if there is to be progress with protected area estab- lishment. Similarly, acquisition of sufficient resources to function effectively is a pressing need in the region and a priority for most conservation area management agencies. 9. Priorities for action in the region Every four years SPREP organizes the South Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas at which the Action Strategy for Nature Conser- vation in the South Pacific Region is reviewed and up- dated. The Strategy provides a guide for action on protected areas development in the region for SPREP and interested governments and international organiza- tions (e.g. IUCN, UN agencies, international NGOs) for which SPREP is the region’s clearing house and co- ordinating unit. The identified priorities for action recognize that within the region, the sustainable use of natural re- sources and the establishment and effective manage- ment of protected areas involves a close working rela- tionship between governments and communities in the planning and management of natural resources and protected areas. They call for the development of an effective integrated policy and legal framework; streng- thened conservation institutions; the integration of modern and traditional resource management skills; and support for education, training, research and information serv- ices. Pacific countries also have a need to consider more flexible categories of protected areas, which allow for the sustainable use of important subsistence and cultural resources. The Action Strategy identified seven principal goals which recognize the need to address fundamental issues relating to the conservation of biological diversity in the region if future progress is to be significant and long lasting. These are: @ Incorporating conservation values and the concepts of self reliance and sustainability into national re- source management policies and plans; ensuring the continued viability of the full range of ecosystem types and species in the region; integrating traditional knowledge and customs into sustainable resource conservation practiceand pro- tected areas management, fostering links between tourism and nature conser- vation; improving the level of environmental awareness in the region to assist individuals, communities and government agencies to participate in the achieve- ment of conservation goals; planning, developing and maintaining appropriate training and education in nature conservation and protected area management; and strengthening cooperation in the promotion of con- servation in the region and support from interna- tional agencies. The Pacific Objectives relating to each of these goals have been developed and specific activities for the achievement of the objectives have been identified. A number of these relate directly to the priorities for the establishment and management of protected area and recognize the need to: w@ Secure greater government commitment to the es- tablishment of protected areas as an important and legitimate component of sustainable resource devel- opment. Strengthen the institutional framework for protected area establishment and management including the provision of greater financial resources, more trained staff and the development of appropriate legislation and policy. Develop models for protected area establishment on customary lands and in marine areas which link protected areas to the development aspirations of local communities in a sustainable manner. Involve the private sector and NGOs in protected area establishment and management and where ap- propriate, develop the linkages between tourism, protected areas and sustainable development. Obtain more scientific data on the ecosystems and species of the region and record this in a systematic way which will allow use of the data for the planning of representative systems of protected areas and the setting of protected area priorities. Promote and strengthen cooperation and informa- tion exchange among the countries and organiza- tions working in natural resource conservation and protected area development in the region. Finally and perhaps most important, action to meet these needs over the next ten years will require the concerted efforts of the countries and people of the Pacific region together with the support and assistance of the international conservation and development as- sistance agencies and the many non-governmental or- ganizations and individuals dedicated to achieving the conservation of the region’s biological and physical resources and the protection of its unique environment. 275 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas References Dahl, A.L. 1986. Review of the Protected Areas System in Oceania. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 328pp. Dahl, A.L. 1980. Regional ecosystem survey of the South Pacific Region. SPC/IUCN Technical Paper 179. South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia. 99pp. IUCN 1991. Directory of Protected Areas in Oceania. Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 447 pp. Lees, A. (Ed.) 1991. A representative protected forest system for the Solomon Islands. Prepared by the Maruia Society, Nelson, New Zealand, for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra, ACT. 185 pp. Maruia Society 1989. A representative national parks and reserves system for Fiji’ s tropical forest. Maruia Society Report Series No.9. Maruia Society, Nelson, New Zealand. 110pp. Pearsall, $.H. and Whistler, W.A. 1991. Terrestrial ecosystem mapping for Western Samoa: Summary, project report, and proposed national parks and 276 reserves plan. Prepared for the Government of Western Samoa by the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme and the East West Centre, Environment and Policy Institute. SPREP. 1985. Action strategy for protected areas in the South Pacific Region. South Pacific Commission, noumea, New Caledonia, 24 pp. SPREP. 1989. Action strategy for nature conservation in the South Pacific Region. South Pacific Commis- sion, noumea, New Caledonia, 49 pp. Thomas, P.E.J., Fosberg, F.R., Hamilton, L.S., Herbst, D.R., Juvik, J.O.,Maragos, J.E., Naughton, J.J. and Strack, C.J. 1989. Report on the Northern Marshall Islands natural diversity and protected areas survey: 7-24 September 1988. South Pacific Regional En- vironment Programme, Noumea, New Caledonia and East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. 133 pp. UNEP/IUCN 1988 Coral Reefs of the world; Volume 3. Central and Western Pacific. UNEP Regional Seas Directories and Bibliographies. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK/UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 378pp. North America Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas %OT UBY} S40/W 20E—G 1 2GL—-OL ZOL-G 45-10 %|'Q uby} sseq peyoejoud abpjuadssy seaile po}oej0id pajyeubisap Ajje6a; uiyjim papnjou! Aujunod jo abejusds0g ‘dew ae gees a Beseses Se fe Sete retest : BeCRRESEME ech bebe 0002 Oool 0 — US yy 278 2 Nw Contents Page Historical perspective + a nea. Serao cues asks He 281 PPI Mpe LN ITOMUCHON G5. toyccicec daa Cite < Su cuit Soca, hes Seti oh, Eee mE 281 IBZ eesTINC CONCEP Ui rast cay co es Rigen ok vgs, oun ee oe aoe el gia 281 irS , Growth/of the protected:areas system). 5 22 eae cee 282 1.4 Development of state/provincial protected areas. ................. 285 Current protected areasystems ........................0.. 286 Additional protected areas required ....................... 289 Protected areainstitutions .........................0000. 289 4\e-sthe principalinationaliagenciesy 4. 261-204-700 96 oe ee 289 422—, Statejand'provinciallagencies.. . 5. . .. a4 eee 2 os ene 290 4.3 Non-governmental organizations.................++2222002 290 Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 293 Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 293 Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 293 Major protected areaissuesintheregion .................... 294 Sole wbhreatsito;protected areas) pcs -ce.. « « seAvene Cale Sai. tune ee eeerey ieee 294 Stein anclaliiSSUCS' on. cee ye ee ah ae eae oy es ese MU eres eee 295 S*3pege Sciencesin the: parks - 2%... .-. 2 ts Re ee ed Bee ae 295 S:4 People and protectediareaSy = 49). suey ee) oo ie neon 296 Priorities foractionintheregion ....................2000. 297 Olle Systenmplanning ies ol ees. BS... LI CR CO ee 297 OD ae MANA PEIMICNE re ccpucphss 108 <, (epispesetsh. N ess 11 6 — n N Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover (eg. Bermuda). Caribbean societies have a history of questioning, criticizing the status quo, and struggling to create better options. Thus, the role of protected areas is a hotly discussed issue on many islands. From this dialogue, a conceptual framework has emerged that has been articulated by Renard (1991): Protected areas are not an end in themselves, but part of man’s most basic concerns. Simply stated, they are tools for development—a special kind of development that respects both man and nature, and is designed to meet the needs of today without sacrificing tomorrow’ s potentials. Development is both a goal and a process. If protected areas are to contribute fully to that process, they must meet people’s needs, for people are not only the creators of development, but beneficiaries as well. Certainly food, clothing, shelter, and good health are the most basic of needs. Yet these material benefiis cannot be widely enjoyed unless accompanied by sc: mony, education, security, recreation, cultural , .on, and artistic creation. 328 Within this kind of holistic development vision, several basic conditions facilitate the development process. These include: @ Peace and harmony among people, and between people and nature; Equity in opportunity and in access to resources; Sovereignty of the nation, community, and individ- ual, allowing each to participate in the shaping of its own destiny; Cultural integrity, providing a shared context for individual and societal expression; and Sustainability so that natural resources are maintained, renewed, and passed on to future generations. If these conditions are nurtured, the development context is enriched. Protected areas and their managers can contribute both to the nurturing of the context, and to the development process itself. Caribbean Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Caribbean II No. Anguilla Antigua—Barbuda Dominican Rep Grenada Guadeloupe Haiti Jamaica Martinique Montserrat Neths Antilles Puerto Rico St Kitts-Nevis St Lucia St Vincent— Grenadines Trinidad—Tobago Turks—Caicos Is US Virgin Islands 3 4 1 1 4 9 2 8 1 2 1 tai SF No. ue Ln | oohnit wv | — NK CON |] PK WN] ONAWANHK A! W _ Note: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. 2.2 Protected areas and national development What distinguishes islands is limited space, and in the Caribbean this is accentuated by dense human popula- tions. Interactions among people, and between people and natural resources, are complex and intense. Every space is intimately bound up with the functioning of both the human and natural systems. Within such a context, protected areas will only survive if they are perceived to play an essential role in meeting the eco- nomic, social, cultural, and personal needs and aspira- tions of people. If managed properly, they can also contribute to global agendas. Protected areas contribute considerably to Caribbean development. In those cases where the contribution been measured in economic terms, the true significance has become apparent (OAS and NPS, 1988). For exam- ple, the Virgin Islands National Park has produced a benefit cost ratio of 11:1. The projected ratio for park development projects in Jamaica is about 10:1. The enormous value of protected areas to tourism, the Car- ibbean’s only growth industry, is apparent. The Virgin Islands National Park has 750,000 visitors per year. Even the relatively small Cayman Islands marine 329 protected areas attract about 168,000 divers per year. Projections indicate that the Montego Bay Marine Park in Jamaica could attract some 96,000 visitors per year and the proposed Pitons National Park in St. Lucia some 116,000 visitors. Estimates of income have been docu- mented in a few cases (OAS and NPS, 1991); divers at the Bonaire Marine Park (Netherlands Antilles) spend about US$30 million per year while those diving in the Cayman Island marine protected areas spend about US$53 million. Different categories of protected areas contribute dif- ferent combinations of goods and services to the devel- opment process. No one area can provide them all. However, taken as a whole, protected area systems contribute significantly to the attainment of personal, societal, and global needs and aspirations. At the most immediate, personal level, some categories of protected areas contribute food, raw materials, medicines, em- pleyment, and recreation. At the larger societal level they may contribute to the sustained production and quality of goods such as water, timber, forage, fish and wildlife. They also may contribute important services such as the conservation of life-support systems bound up with the soils, hydrological regimes, marine re- sources, and air; the preservation of sites of cultural and Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 50 Number of sites 40 Area (x1000sqkm) 30 20 10 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 250 Number of sites 200 150 100 50 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... 330 spiritual significance or amenities for tourism; and the maintenance of future options. At the global level, protected areas may contribute to the maintenance of genetic diversity, the increase of knowledge of natural and human systems, and the stability of global climate. While the potential contributions of protected areas to development are large, actual contributions are often much less. Many legally protected areas are neglected, under-utilized, and irrelevant to the development proc- ess. Many potentially important areas remain unidenti- fied and ignored. The steady increase of legally estab- lished protected areas has not been matched with devel- opment of effective management capacity. An inventory of Caribbean marine and coastal pro- tected areas (OAS and NPS, 1988) rated the manage- ment effectiveness of 51 marine and coastal areas of the insular Caribbean’s 158 protected areas. The inventory concluded that 24% were protected in name only, 43% were partially managed, and 33% were fully managed. Thus, fully two-thirds are in need of improved manage- ment, and it is widely agreed among protected areas managers that this is representative of the overall situ- ation in the region. The most common threats were human settlements, over-fishing and hunting, and chemi- cal and thermal pollution of marine areas. Efforts to establish and manage protected areas in- itially came from efforts by individuals, or small, local interest groups in response to a threat to a specific area or resource. During the last decade, a series of regional initiatives have also been launched by international conservation organizations. Many have taken the form of action plans such as the following: mw IUCN Marine Conservation Strategy for the Caribbean (IUCN, 1979); USAID Training Strategy for Natural Resource Management in Latin America and the Caribbean (WWF-US, 1980); Bali Action Plan (global plan for protected areas pro- duced at the III World Parks Congress) (McNeely and Miller, 1984); mw Nahuel Huapi Action Plan (for protected areas of Latin America and the Caribbean)(IUCN, 1986); and Survey of Conservation Priorities in the Lesser Antilles (Putney, 1982). None of these action plans have been systematically promoted, and there is little indication that they have been the source of inspiration, funding or implementa- tion for the protected areas in the region as a result. 331 Caribbean 2.3 Participation in major international and regional conventions and programmes As shown in Table 4, few Caribbean islands participate fully in major international conventions and programmes even, though they provide technical and financial sup- port for areas that qualify. Most countries have signed the World Heritage Convention, but to date no sites have been incribed. (Table 5 is therefore omitted). There is clearly much more scope for using international pro- grammes and conventions to support Caribbean pro- tected areas. A number of regional programmes support Caribbean protected areas. As with national programmes, these efforts are relatively small and fragmented. Caribbean Programme, The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy, based in Washington, DC, works with partner conservation organizations to im- prove the information base for conservation, enhance local management capacity, and obtain financial re- sources. The Conservancy has helped establish Conser- vation Data Centres in Puerto Rico and Curagao and is currently working with local organizations in Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and Dominica to establish national trust funds, develop conservation data centres, support organizational development, and improve infra- structure. The Conservancy’s budget for its Caribbean Program was US$1,200,000 for FY1992 (Northrup, 1991). The Conservancy’s "Parks In Peril" Programme is an emergency effort to safeguard imperiled natural areas by bringing on-site management to 20 critical parks and reserves each year for a ten-year period (TNC, 1990). Some 37 "critical parks and reserves" and another 30 "proposed and unprotected sites" of the Caribbean have been identified for inclusion in the programme. Marine Parks Program, Caribbean Conservation Association. The Caribbean Conservation Associa- tion, supported by Canada’s International Center for Ocean Development, has developed a marine parks programme for the 1991-94 period which focuses on pilot projects in Anguilla, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Trinidad and Tobago. The programme is designed to disseminate information, train personnel, establish a data base, develop materials for public awareness and education, and publish tech- nical articles. The project budget is about US$250,000/ year. Parks and Protected Areas Program, Caribbean Natural Resources Institute. One of the two major programmes of the Caribbean Natural Resources Insti- tute (CANARI) centres on protected areas. The focus is on policy, technical cooperation, training, networking, and field demonstration projects. The Institute’s budget for the programme during calendar year 1991 was US$165,000. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Field projects to develop biosphere reserves in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are being undertaken in cooperation with the universities of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. A project to support non-governmental organizations for management of the natural heritage in Jamaica, the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Barbuda, Dominica, and St. Lucia is being undertaken in coop- eration with the Caribbean Conservation Association. Both are funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. A newsletter and training exchanges have supported the regional parks and protected areas network. CANARIhas served as the Secretariat for the Caribbean Network of IUCN’s Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, and coordinated Caribbean participa- tion in the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Caribbean Program, World Wildlife Fund-US. WWF- US responds to project requests submitted by local organizations. Current protected area projects support resource assessment, infrastructure development, and educational activities. The budget (projects and admini- stration) related to Caribbean protected areas for FY 91 was about $150,000 (Pinilla, 1991). Programme for Specially Protected Areas and Wild- life. | A Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife was adopted by the Governments of the Wider Caribbean in January, 1990, as part of the Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP). In follow-up, the CEP has developed a regional programme on networking, revenue generation, training, regional standards, and evaluation and assessment of protected areas (UNEP, 1991). The programme begins during the 1992-93 biennium. A core budget of US$70,000 was projected for 1992. A further US$510,000 in counterpart funding is being sought. Protected Areas Programme, Organization of East- ern Caribbean States (OECS). The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, Natural Resources Manage- ment Unit, supported by German Technical Coopera- tion (GTZ), and USAID, has identified protected areas as a programme focus for 1992. The programme will concentrate on training and information exchanges at the regional level, and on a pilot project in one OECS member country. Through its ENCORE Project (Environmental Coastal Resources), the OECS will support environmental education, training, and on-site development for two protected areas. 2.4 Lessons learned The variety of political forms, colonial histories, and institutional approaches in the Caribbean provides a richness of experience from which numerous lessons can be drawn. a. Assessments, strategies, and action plans are dis- proportionate 832 There have been a plethora of regional assessments, strategies, and action plans. The situation in the region is indeed complex, and each organization has felt it necessary to carry out an independent assessment. The process is costly, because of the many actors, small institutions, and high costs of travel. The result has been a disproportionate amount of assessing and planning followed by little implementation. b. Process over project approach The complexity of management in small island settings is often severely underestimated by outsiders. Projects planned in places far from the region commonly focus on simple and simplistic solutions to complex prob- lems. Small pieces of the overall picture are targeted and crucial connections ignored. This is compounded by the fact that most organizations can only frame projects for two- or three-year periods. A long-term process approach is needed that acknowledges the com- plexity of the task, the long time periods needed to achieve sustained action, and the need for adjustment as the process evolves. c. Priority to manage established areas With two-thirds of the protected areas not achieving the objectives for which they were established, consider- able investment will have to be made to bring them up to standard. Enhancing local capacity to manage should thus be given priority over the establishment of addi- tional "paper parks". This does not mean that important areas should be ignored if they are not currently in protected area status. Rather, the point is to focus on the development of truly effective management rather than relying on the theoretical power of unenforced laws. In those cases where plans have been effectively used to guide projects, these have generally been conceptual in nature and/or have focused on immediate operations of individual programmes or protected areas. d. Issues of scale Few Caribbean organizations have the resources to effectively implement protected area programmes. An important share of the resources for local programmes is provided by international assistance programmes. Thus, decisions are commonly made by individuals with little grasp of the scale of small islands. They find it difficult to relate to the requirements of institutions that will never be larger than a handful of individuals. The smaller the island, the more acute this problem is likely to be. e. Regional cooperation The Caribbean islands together have the human and financial resources to establish and manage a repre- sentative system of protected areas. They do not have these resources on an individual basis, and the multi- plicity of national jurisdictions severely hampers the flow of human and financial resources between islands. Regional cooperation based on stable regional structures is an essential goal. Even though the costs are high, donors seldom work together, and most technical assis- tance programmes draw on human and financial re- sources from outside the region. f. Effective cooperation requires a better flow of information within the region Effective cooperation depends on the flow of informa- tion between islands and organizations. While there have been efforts to develop data bases and communi- cations networks linked by computers, these have not worked satisfactorily. Regional meetings remain the most effective, but most expensive, mechanism for information transfer. Next in effectiveness is the trans- fer of information through a central communication point, such as a travelling consultant, or the offices of regional organizations. Newsletters are perhaps next in line in effectiveness, but can cover only a few topics at one time. g. Broadening the constituency The most common complaint of protected area manag- ers is the lack of human and financial resources. Yet these resources become available only when there is a strong and effective constituency to back protected areas. Thus the focus must be on building the required base of support, and translating that support into avail- able human and financial resources. h. Absolute need for partnerships In a situation where single institutions cannot effec- tively mount protected area programmes alone, partner- ships become a prerequisite for success. Caribbean protected area managers will thus have to give high priority to creating low friction inter-institutional envi- ronments where many inputs can be effectively inte- grated into an overall programme supported by a variety of actors. i. Plans must address both supply and demand Almost all plans for protected areas in the Caribbean concentrate on defining what needs to be done and where. They usually pay little attention to costs, or to the sources of revenue for implementation. Under these circumstances, few of these plans have actually been implemented. Future plans must concentrate equally on Tealistic definitions of needs (demand) and sources of support (supply). j. Revenue for maintenance more elusive than reve- nue for development It is generally easier to generate funding to develop new programmes or infrastructure than to maintain regular programmes. This means that disproportional effort is required to raise the resources for maintenance than for development costs, and this needs to be factored into operational plans. 333 Caribbean A comprehensive review of national protected areas systems in the region has been prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992). 3. Current protected area coverage The current Caribbean islands protected areas system is summarized in Tables 1 and 2. 3.1 System plans The reasons for creating protected areas vary from country to country. It is essential that each develop a system plan so that the objectives for management, specific to that country, are clearly defined, and that a range of areas is identified to meet those objectives. Broad public support for protected areas is a key ingre- dient of success and the system plan can be the vehicle for involving constituents in the design process. Not only should they be involved in determining objectives and selecting areas, but in developing the financial framework as well. System plans have been developed for 9 of the 25 political units of the region including Haiti (Woods and Harris, 1986), the Dominican Republic (Departamento de Vida Silvestre, 1990), the British Virgin Islands (BVI National Parks Trust(CANARI, 1989), Anguilla (marine only)(Jackson, 1987), Antigua and Barbuda (Robinson, 1979), Dominica (Shanks and Putney, 1979), Grenada (Grenada Government and OAS, 1988), and Trinidad and Tobago (Thelen and Faizool, 1980). System plans are currently in the later stages of development in Jamaica and St. Lucia. Only the plan for the British Virgin Islands has been officially endorsed by government. The only plan that has been developed with the active involvement of a broad range of constituents is that being developed in St. Lucia. 3.2 Coverage of habitat types and biological diversity There is no single ecosystem, vegetation, habitat, or life zone Classification that has been applied uniformly within the region. The question of coverage must, therefore, be handled in pieces. Information on marine and coastal protected areas is relatively good (OAS and NPS, 1988; IUCN, 1982; WCMC, 1991). Not only is there an up-to-date inven- tory, but also information on ecosystem coverage and management effectiveness for each area. The only ex- ception, and a notable one indeed, is Cuba, the largest Caribbean island. An analysis (excepting Cuba) of ma- rine ecosystems within protected areas that are rated as fully managed is presented by subregion in Table 7. To facilitate analysis, the marine and coastal protected Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: Caribbean % area established established Anguilla Antigua-Barbuda Aruba Bahamas Barbados Bermuda British Virgin Is Guadeloupe Haiti Jamaica Martinique Montserrat Neths Antilles Puerto Rico St Kitts-Nevis St Lucia St Vincent-Grenadines Trinidad-Tobago Turks-Caicos Is US Virgin Islands Date established unknown Total area designated established 1982-1991 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 26 ~ a) 22,857 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion for sites inthe Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the data- base once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted. areas of continental countries adjacent to the Caribbean are included. The analysis indicates that all major ecosystems are covered by protected areas rated as fully managed. The subregion of greatest concern is the Guianan. Of the subregion’s three countries, only Surinam has estab- lished coastal protected areas. The northwest subregion would also appear to be relatively lightly covered, but this may only reflect lack of information on Cuba. For terrestrial protected areas, the IUCN classifica- tion of biogeographical provinces (Udvardy, 1975) lists six units for the insular Caribbean. These are outlined below. Guianan. This subregion includes Trinidad and Tobago. No comprehensive legislation is in place for protected areas, although a drafi policy and system plan have been prepared (Thelen and Faizool, 1980a, 1980b). Currently the protected area system consists of 3 Pro- hibited Areas, 11 Nature Reserves, and 10 Wildlife 334 Sanctuaries, though none is considered to be fully man- aged (Cross, 1991). Venezuelan Dry Forest. The subregion includes Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao. The terrestrial life zones of these islands include mangrove, littoral vegetation, cactus scrub, and dry forest (ECNAMP, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c). Each of the terrestrial life zones is covered by protected areas (Washington-Slagbaai and Christoffel National Parks; Spaans Lagoon Conservation Area and Ramsar Site). However, none of these are rated as fully man- aged. Bahamas — Bermudian Subregion. The subregion in- cludes Bermuda (UK), the Bahamas, and the Turks and Caicos (UK). These are low-lying islands with an average elevation of only 10m. The vegetation is generally low, dense, and thomy and is classified as mangrove swamps and marshes, beach vegetation, mudflats, pine forests and mixed broad-leaf coppice (Scott and Carbonell, 1986). Two protected areas rated as fully managed (Exuma Cays Land-and-Sea Park and Inagua National Park) protect these habitats, except the pine forests. Cuban Subregion. Cuba has the richest biota in the Caribbean with about 50% of the flora and 69% of the endemic fauna (Figueroa, Ortiz, and Quevedo, 1985). The Cuban National System of Protected Areas consists of over 200 areas, covers 12% of the country, and includes representative samples of 98% of the Cuban landscape types (Santana, 1991; Perera and Rosabal, 1986a, 1986b). Strictly protected areas cover about 1.02% of the country, but no information is available on habitats included or management effectiveness for these areas. Greater Antillean Subregion. This includes the is- lands of Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and Hispaniola which have high rates of endemism with 17%, 27%, and 36% respectively for flora, and 32%, 46%, and 74% respec- tively for resident fauna (Figueroa, Ortiz, and Quevedo, 1985). There is no single classification system for judg- ing the completeness of coverage, and each island must be considered separately. Puerto Rico has a system of protected areas that includes areas managed by the Federal (15,300ha) and Commonwealth (30,692ha) governments, and those owned and managed by the non-governmental Puerto Rico ‘Conservation Trust (1,760ha) (Figueroa, Ortiz, and Quevedo, 1985). Six zones of the Holdridge Life Zone System are found in Puerto Rico (subtropical dry, moist, and wet forests; subtropical rain forest; and lower montane wet and rain forests). Each is effectively protected in the system of Federal and State forests (Birdsey and Weaver, 1982), though management would correspond to IUCN Category VIII, multiple use management/managed re- source areas. A more detailed inventory of biotic ele- ments has been carried out, and additional priority areas requiring protection identified (Figueroa, Ortiz, and Quevedo, 1985). Jamaica initiated an energetic programme two years ago to develop protected areas legislation and a system plan, and to manage two pilot areas, one marine (Montego Bay Marine Park) and the other high moun- tain (Blue Mountain/John Crow Mountains Proposed National Park). The island of Hispaniola is divided between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. A representative system of protected areas has been identified in each country, and management programmes have been in place for many years. Due to severe limitations on human and financial resources, especially in Haiti, none of the established protected areas can be considered to be fully managed. A detailed review of protected areas of the Dominican Republic (Departamento de Vida Silvestre, 1990) indi- cated that all major ecosystems are included in estab- lished protected areas. The least well represented eco- systems were the sand dunes, rivers and forests of the coastal plain. Specific areas have been identified to increase the representation of these ecosystems in the protected areas system, and to protect particular endan- gered species. 335 Caribbean Lesser Antillean. Coverage of the Lesser Antillean subregion, with the exception of the US Virgin Islands, has been analyzed through a Survey of Conservation Priorities (Putney, 1982). The Survey classifies the subregion by seven terrestrial life zones (mangroves, littoral woodland, cactus scrub, dry woodland, moist forest, rain forest, and cloud forest). The two fully managed protected areas of the region (Virgin Islands and Guadeloupe National Parks) protect all seven of the region’s terrestrial life zones. 3.3 Protected areas in danger The threats to protected areas in the Caribbean vary from island to island. The greatest dangers are the spontaneous colonization of terrestrial protected areas by people, notably on the island of Hispaniola, and the widespread die-off of coral reefs in marine parks, due especially to sedimentation. As noted above, a full two-thirds of the protected areas of the region are not achieving the objectives for which they were estab- lished. All of these areas must be considered in danger until effective management is in place. 4. Additional protected areas required Identification of gaps in coverage requires a clear defi- nition of management objectives and criteria for deter- mining when those objectives are met. This is best accomplished within the national context through a systems planning process. A participatory approach to defining objectives provides an opportunity for address- ing a spectrum of national needs and building a solid and diversified constituency for protected area manage- ment. While outside technical and financial assistance can help animate and support this effort, the definition of objectives must be decided nationally. System planning, and the consequent involvement of the various constituencies in protected area programmes, is time-consuming. Yet the lack of systematic pro- grammes has resulted in only a small percentage of protected areas achieving the objectives for which they were established. As long as the focus is on areas, not on the objectives of a spectrum of constituents, and the programmes, personnel, and institutions needed to effectively manage those areas, little effective protec- tion will be achieved. Using the very limited criteria of habitat coverage, the legaliy protected areas generally cover the region’s major habitats. It would be erroneous, however, to assume that these areas contain the region’s full biologi- cal diversity. Because of the high degree of endemism on all islands, many more small areas would have to be protected to accomplish this more ambitious goal. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Caribbean World Heritage Date No. Antigua and Barbuda November 1983 0 Bahamas - - Barbados Cuba Dominica - Dominican Rep February 1985 France (Guadeloupe) June 1975 France (Martinique) June 1975 Grenada - Haiti January 1980 Jamaica June 1983 Netherlands (Aruba) August 1992 Netherlands (Antilles) August 1992 Saint Kitts-Nevis July 1986 Saint Lucia October 1991 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - Trinidad and Tobago — UK (Anguilla) May 1984 (Bermuda) May 1984 Gritish VirginIs) May 1984 (Cayman Islands) May 1984 (Montserrat) May 1984 (Turks and Caicos) May 1984 (Puerto Rico) December 1973 (Virgin Islands) December 1973 0 March 1981 0 0 0 0 0 0 ocooococ}! |! oo So Note: 1. Only sites lying within the region are listed. 5. Protected area institutions The Caribbean’s diversity is reflected in the variety of institutional formats for managing protected areas. These include: @ National government agencies of metropolitan coun- tries (in the case of some dependent territories) Government agencies (in the case of independent islands) @ Independent statutory, or quasi-governmental, bodies Non-governmental organizations (local, regional, and international) Local communities Private entities Bilateral assistance organizations Multilateral assistance organizations None of the areas rated as fully managed are admin- istered by local government agencies. Instead, they are managed either by an agency of a metropolitan govern- ment, such as in the case of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, or by non-governmental organizations, such as the Netherlands Antilles Parks Foundation Biosphere Reserves Area (ha) No. Area (ha) 336 Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention Date No. Area (ha) (see France) (see France) May 1980 May 1980 January 1976 January 1976 January 1976 January 1976 January 1976 January 1976 December 1986 December 1986 oorococo! coScocco! (STINAPA), or National Trusts in the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, and St. Lucia. The situation is often complex, with a number of institutions having important roles to play in the management or financing of particular areas. Co-management and co- financing situations are the rule, rather than the excep- tion, as shown in the table of institutional arrangements presented in Table 8. Each institutional format has advantages and disadvantages, but all are needed. The challenge is to maximize the advantages of the combined inputs of a variety of institutions, while minimizing disad- vantages. Unfortunately, the search for better methods for programme delivery is consistently lost in the press of immediate concems. In general, Caribbean protected areas have not been effectively linked to other development sectors. In a few isolated cases, productive linkages have been made to fisheries, forestry, and tourism. However, few mecha- nisms for long-term linkages are in place even though in many islands there would appear to be great potential for productive partnerships with the tourism and education sectors, potable water authorities, and rural develop- ment programmes. Caribbean td ‘dd7z ‘oyqndoy uesiuTuog ‘o8uwog oueg ‘UsUTUOMAUY UBaqques sp UO s0UuaIaJUOD SaIpmg UBaqquED JO UoTBIOOSsYy ay 01 powuasald Jodeq “uoneAtosuod pur juourdojanap a[qeuteisns Ut joofoid B woreuEs UT SuTUUE|d yred eUONEN *(0661) “A ‘ULV [Ta] ‘ddg “uodar poystiqnduy) ‘ednojspeny ve] ep Jeuoneu areg 2] (1661) Uouy [Z4] ‘wud ‘siog (1661) ‘GWEN [SE] y8pnq aes gg6l 000'0Z1 UOISSTUNUOD UONBAIDSUOD 10} Jo8png ‘(IV S/n waxy SuIpuny Jo %09) UOT 98°7SN$ 1 pauNOUrE req [EUONEN MZ UYos/suTEJUMOW] aN] g at) pue weg suUe|] Avg OSqjUOJ] OY) JO TUAW -YSt]qeise ap Joy (sysoo Jeides) amppusdxq ‘emppuadxe yuouNedap 1sa10,4 Gwe OLH “DA of Woy st %OE punoze ours 3oid JUSUNSIAUI qeak sally JUaLMS ay JO “(SWd Ss, adnojapeny Joy Apog aanenstunupe) adnojapend ve] ap [euolTeN Weg Wy) 10} 198png Aad 000'000'91 dox dod (000'Z6£S/N$) 1weudojenepsyzed [euoneu pue (OOE'PESSNS) uonBioisal pue seare palsaiaid Jo jawyst{quisa ‘(000'001$D) Bale PIoaOld Ud SOU] SUIO] JO waudofaaaq] (00‘001$9A) * Juawonaldum uspred o1uBIOg :sMO][OJ se UMOpyealq yo8pnq e1ide} 810'S%P Ox 00€'9Z1'T “uoneis prey YvVdOd OY) pue soIpuy IsaAq OY JO Aisioatuy ‘seureyeg ay) Jo a3a[[0D :suon “THNSUT SUI MOT[OJ BUN 01 pareooyje st ja8pnq sururen OU] “pCO re IGSAS pejfeio) syed [euoneu sary 10J (s}soo yUaLMOoal 91) JUaUIdO,aAap pue aousuTejurew ‘suoneiodo 103 almipuadxe (661 PUL “‘UorOMaid 1SQNOJ JO} UOTeNSTUTUIpe JUSUMLIDAOS oIsIDAdSs OU st BOY], 009‘ PIS/N jo 1uauodwios euondo ue | snjd SLE-OOISNS St UonBOToUR oseurep Joal pue UOIsOUa Yoroq 3u1yeUSpuN pus syed ouueuw mou SurysTqeise ‘uorewsoyut oqnd surptacid ‘sisAfeue pue As0JUSAUI [BISBOO B SULyeIapuN Joy 19Spnq poyeuniso sy], qwaX = yuayeainba = Aduaaind euonEeU 4e70q SN Ul jaspng ueveqqiied :sjeGpnq Aouebe }uewebeuew seaie paj}oe}0jq “9 e1qe 1 8a94no0g (Sf) spurts] wd1 A (ysnug) spuelsy uri, Sooled pue sym |, oseqo], pue pepruny, SoUIPeUAIH otf pue IUZOUI A IUTES Blom] UTES SIAQN Pur SHY IUTeS oory ouleng so]HUY spuepaIpeN IWLIs} UO] onbrumeyy UDISIAI(] UOTJBAIASUOD SeomMoOsoy [eIME\[—eoreures nreH adnojapendy e] ap feuone ny oeg—odnojapeny Bpeualn oyqnday uestuTw0g SFIPILAA ue Ansaso,J Jo uorstatq—#oruTWIO eqng spue[sy uewked epnuLisg sopeqieg ISNA, [EUONe N—seure ye | eqniy epnqieg pue endnuy Bpnsuy Aduade aqisuodsas/A.uN07 337 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 6. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas The overall picture relating to investment in protected areas is ‘complex both in terms of the large number of small programmes in the region, and the variety of funding mechanisms in use. 6.1. Funding mechanisms Funding mechanisms currently in use to channel finan- cial investment into the region’s protected areas in- clude: w Government budgets w Grants from bi- and multi-lateral aid agencies, inter- national conservation organizations, private foun- dations, and individual donors User fees (entrance, docking, mooring, and diving fees, etc.) Concessions (rentals, leases, rights to provide serv- ices, rights to erect communications towers or trans- mission lines, etc.) Commercial bank loans Local non-governmental support organizations Sales (souvenirs, guide books, interpretive materi- als, refreshments, etc.) Services from government departments (law en- forcement, public works, tourism, etc.) Volunteer services (international, national, and local) Trust funds and endowments (capitalized by dona- tions, aid agencies, blocked funds, debt-for-nature swaps, other debt reduction programmes, surplus commodities, etc.) Universities and research centres (in-kind support and cost sharing). The mechanisms used in each country are shown in Table 9. Grants, government budgets, and volunteer services are currently the main sources of financial and human resources. Protected areas management agency budgets are summarised in Table 6. While the listing of current mechanisms is long, other potential means of financing protected areas have yet to be tried in the region. These include: commercial en- dorsements and sponsorships (fees charged for the use of a park’s name or visual images); "voluntary" sur- charges (added to the bills of users of tourism services by cooperating businesses); stamps, duties, and proprie- tary funds (hotel or departure taxes, cruising permits, firearm and hunting permits, taxes on fuel for recrea- tional boats, etc.); and loans from multilateral and re- gional development banks. Several of these proposed 338 funding mechanisms are currently being pursued as noted in Table 9. 6.2 Current level of investment, regional programmes The six regional programmes for protected areas out- lined in section 2.3 have a combined annual budget of about US$2 million. Little success has been achieved in coordinating the inputs of various sectors and donors at the programme level. Each has their own programming mechanisms, schedules, and requirements which tend to be inflex- ible and varied. Attempts at inter-governmental, inter -institutional and inter-sectoral coordination have proven to be expensive and relatively unproductive. Coordination at the field level has proved to be more efficient and less costly. By the time funding reaches the ground, personnel are in place, schedules have been established, and most of the institutional requirements have been addressed. Field personnel can often be quite effective in moulding, or even changing, their project’s inputs to avoid duplication, meet immediate needs, fill gaps, or take advantage of new opportunities. The relative advantages of field over programme coordination has important implications for training. The more managers perceive their task as coordination, and have the necessary attitudes and skills for stimulat- ing and facilitating it, the more effective they will be. 7. Human capacity in protected areas management Information on the number of individuals employed in the management of protected areas in the Caribbean is sketchy. The most precise study is more than 10 years old (WWF — US, 1980). Based on this study and data contained in the Inventory of Caribbean Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (OAS and NPS, 1988), it is estimated that approximately 75 professionals and 300 technicians are employed outside of Cuba. Though no information is available, it is probable that Cuba has at least as many employees as the rest of the Caribbean islands put together. This would give a very rough approximation of about 150 professionals and 600 tech- nicians employed region-wide. However, trained personnel are scarce in the region. A survey by CANARI (van’t Hof and Gardner, 1991) indicated that over 80% of the protected area personnel of the Caribbean do not consider themselves to be adequately trained for their job. This is not surprising, given the lack of training institutions for protected area management in the region. No facilities or regular programmes exist in the Caribbean for training protected area personnel. Most professionals come from an educational background in the biological sciences, fisheries, forestry, or resource management. Technical personnel generally have edu- cational backgrounds in forestry or agriculture. Training is provided through ad hoc workshops and short courses at the professional and technical levels, and in-service at the ranger or guard level. However, the following problems are evident: @ No regular protected area training programmes are available within the region, and those available out- side are generally inappropriate to the small scale institutional setting of the Caribbean islands. Given the project orientation of most donor institu- tions, only one-time, ad hoc park training courses are possible. Attempts at mixing language groups in single train- ing sessions have not been very successful, though participants benefit from sharing experiences with other language groups whenever possible. In general, participation of park personnel in short courses and workshops does not lead to career ad- vancement or pay increases. @ The few professionals trained in fields related to natural resource management are in great demand for a wide spectrum of assignments. Thus the ten- dency is to remain a generalist rather than special- izing in protected area management. The training needs of the region are quite complex, but the following are paramount: @ Aninstitutional and financial framework that allows for a regular and systematic park training programme in English, Spanish, and French. Recognition of the training programme by resource management institutions so that successful comple- tion of courses leads to career advancement for trainees. Course content that recognizes the special institutional requirements and social and bio-physical characteristics of the insular Caribbean. Practical orientation that emphasizes field work and actual case studies in the Caribbean island context. @ Low cost facilities. 8. Major protected areas issues in the region The issues facing the region are basic and clear. What is needed in two-thirds of the cases is to build the Capacity to manage at the local level. Without the es- sential building blocks of management in place, it is impossible to address the secondary issues such as community participation and awareness, involvement of the private sector, development of buffer zones, the application of science, amelioration of immediate threats, and transfrontier initiatives. 339 Caribbean 8.1 Expanding the constituency Perhaps the most essential building block for the man- agement and development of Caribbean protected areas is the mobilization of a committed group of supporters. While the human and financial resources are potentially available in the region, they have not been adequately tapped. Indeed, there may be a preliminary indication from the information presented in Table 8 that the Overseas supporters for protected areas have been just as important for Caribbean protected areas as local constituencies. Since it is clear that the potential for increased support to protected area management by govemments is limited, the key to improved manage- ment is the mobilization of the private sector through non-governmental organizations, community groups, and businesses. 8.2 Training and education Another of the fundamental building blocks of manage- ment capacity is skilled manpower. None of the tools for protected area management can be applied effec- lively without trained and capable personnel. Even the most capable individuals cannot implement protected area programmes on their own. The solutions to the training and education needs of the region are not simple. Yet there is no way that protected areas can develop in general without solving them. 8.3. Economic values and revenue generation One of the problems that has resulted in the rather restricted constituency for protected areas is the diffi- culty in attributing economic values to protected areas, and therefore justifying greater expenditures. While this is a problem of theory and methods in the field of resource economics the world over, even the more simple indicators of economic values are not collected and used as arguments for Caribbean protected areas. Certainly simple statistics, such as the numbers of over- seas visitors to protected areas and their contributions to national economies, can be powerful arguments in favour of protected areas. Relatively basic systems for gathering, analyzing, and disseminating basic statistics are extremely important to making the case for pro- tected areas. 8.4 Tourism is the only growth industry in the Caribbean. It is an industry built and marketed on the characteristics and quality of the natural and cultural resources. The industry thus has a vital interest in preserving the very features which define the product. At the same time, uncontrolled tourism could mean the destruction of the protected areas that they visit. Thus, an essential link must be developed between the tourism industry, which has the potential to generate the revenues for manage- ment, and the managers of protected areas, who are Tourism and protected areas Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas essential to the presentation and maintenance of the resource. 8.5 Collaboration None of the major actors in protected area manage- ment—government agencies, interest groups, busi- nesses, and local communities—has the resources at their disposal to implement effective management of protected areas on their own. Thus, successful manage- ment will depend on the ability of resource managers to encourage the collaboration of various groups in a rela- tively friction-free environment. Currently, mechanisms for this are not in place in most countries, and there is considerable friction between individuals and groups. The region’s characteristics make regional coopera- tion more difficult, in many instances, than international cooperation. Usually the links between individual is- lands and metropolitan countries are stronger and more effective than links within the region. This often leads to a situation of applying temperate continental solu- tions to small tropical island problems. The challenge, therefore, is to find ways to translate the much-needed support from metropolitan countries into mechanisms for strengthening linkages and cooperation within the region. Table 7. Habitats within marine protected areas rated as fully managed Subregion and Country Protected Area Habitat Antillean Subregion British Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands Wreck of the Rhone MP Virgin Island NP Buck Island National Monument Netherlands Antilles Antigua and Barbuda St Lucia Barbados Continental Subregion Colombia Saba Underwater Park Nelson’s Dockyard NP Maria Islands Nature Reserve Barbados Marine Reserve PN Corales del Rosario PN Tayrona Bonaire Underwater Park Curacao Underwater Park Netherlands Antilles Northwest Region Mexico Parque Submarino Cozumel Res. Ecologica Isla de Contoy RB Sian Ka’an Gulf Subregion Mexico US, Southern Florida Res. Ecologica Rio Lagartos Looe Cay Nat. Marine Sanctuary Key Largo Nat. Marine Sanctuary John Pennekamp State Park Everglades NP Fort Jefferson Nat. Monument Biscayne NP Rockery Bay NERR Bahamian Subregion Bahamas Exuma Cay Land & Sea Park Inagua NP Guianan Subregion Surinam Wia Wai Nature Reserve Coppename-Mouth Nature Reserve Galibi Nature Reserve Key: qaaaaana QAAMQAAO qaaan qaaaga o) Qa te 22 £28 C —Coral reef; G — Sea Grass beds; W — Wetlands; R — Rocky shoreline; B — Beaches; L — Bays, lagoons, or estuaries; H — Critical habitat for endangered species Principal Source: OAS and NPS, 1988 340 9. Priorities for action in the region The following agenda for the future of national parks and other categories of protected areas in the Caribbean is based on the consensus that has been developed on issues, priorities and approaches. Previous sections of this review have served to document and diagnose the status of Caribbean protected areas. Action priorities were discussed during the Santo Domingo meeting of the CNPPA/Caribbean member- ship, the Guadeloupe and Caracas meetings of the CNPPA/ Caribbean Steering Committee, and at the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. The Action Plan outlined here addresses the issues that have been identified, and builds on the consensus that has been developed through regional meetings. The overall goal of the Action Plan is to increase the number of effectively managed protected areas in the Caribbean. This is to be achieved by: @ Enhancing local capacity to manage protected areas through networking, regional support, technical coop- eration, and demonstration; @ Promoting collaboration and regional self-sufficiency; and @ Collecting and analyzing information and opinions in the region so that priorities can be updated, and effective programmes defined, funded, and imple- mented. @ Implementation of the Plan should be guided by the following principles: @ Where possible, on-going regional programmes will be supported. In cases where there are strong na- tional programmes that could be expanded or en- hanced to play a role at the regional or subregional level, these will be supported before new programmes are initiated. @ Decisions on the regional Plan of Action will be made by the CNPPA/Caribbean Steering Commit- tee, and guided by the decisions of the full CNPPA Membership when it meets. g@ Every effort will be made to coordinate the Plan with those of the various on-going regional programmes. ® The Plan of Action will form the basis for activities of the CNPPA in the Caribbean. @ While the Plan will address immediate needs through short-term solutions, it will also seek longer-term solutions. @ The following plan elements will meet the needs identified and the guidelines established, and build on on-going activities. 1. Regional network. The regional network of protected area managers will be energized and maintained through: meetings of the full network membership every three years; meetings of the 341 Caribbean Network Steering Committee (two per year); reviews of national protected area programmes on each island; information circulars to network members from the CNPPA Vice Chair/Caribbean, and the focal points on each island; development of regional and sub-regional projects; and, capi- talization of a regional Trust Fund. Support services. Support will be provided to national programmes through: regional stand- ards and guidelines; regional assessments; train- ing and education (university courses, short courses for professionals, internships, and materials for park guard courses); technical information and documentation (newsletter, documentation cen- ter, basic references); public awareness materi- als; and assistance in development of national projects. Technical cooperation. Technical cooperation will take the form of short-term consultancies, internships, and case studies. Demonstration projects. Existing demonstra- tion projects will be strengthened so that the experience gained and lessons learned are trans- ferred to other islands. Those currently in place include: - Biosphere reserves (Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands) - The Caribbean Heritage Program, a collabo- rative undertaking of the Caribbean Conser- vation Association, the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, and the governments and selected quasi- and non-governmental organi- zations of Jamaica, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, and St. Lucia - Parks in Peril (Jamaica and the Dominican Republic) - Thematic projects (systems plan and com- munity participation, St. Lucia). Those expected to be in place in the near future are: - Biosphere reserves (Guadeloupe, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic) - World Heritage Site (St. Lucia) - Parks in Peril (Dominica) — ENCORE (Dominica and St. Lucia) - Marine parks (Anguilla, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts-Nevis, and Trinidad and Tobago). Implementation. Implementation will be pro- moted by the Caribbean membership of the CNPPA, and carried out by cooperating regional and national institutions. Programming and evalu- ation will be the responsibility of the CNPPA/ Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Caribbean Steering Committee in consultation with national and regional organizations. Activi- ties will be coordinated by the CNPPA Regional Vice Chair with the assistance of a small Secre- tariat. The basic strategy for implementing the Plan is two- fold. First, ongoing networking, regional support serv- ices, technical cooperation, and demonstration projects will be promoted and enhanced where possible by a more active and better-funded CNPPA Network in part- nership with interested national and regional institu- tions. Second, a longer-term effort will be undertaken to support the development of a new and innovative regional initiative, the Caribbean Heritage Park System and Trust Fund. Table 8. Country Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Aruba Bahamas Barbados Bermuda British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Grenada Guadeloupe Haiti Jamaica Martinique Montserrat Netherlands Antilles Puerto Rica St Kitts-Nevis St Lucia St Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago Turks and Caicos US. Virgin Islands Key: Though the CNPPA/Caribbean will take the lead in promoting the regional Action Plan, the Plan itself can only be implemented in partnership with national and regional programmes. At the national level partnerships will be forged with governmental and non-governmen- tal organizations, as well as with private enterprise. At the regional level, partnerships will be sought with the on-going and upcoming regional programmes. Individ- ual projects and activities will be carried out through cooperative agreements with partner organizations, con- tracts with organizations and individuals, and directly by the Network Secretariat. Institutions taking part in the management of protected areas MG: National government agencies of metropolitan countries; GA: Government agencies; QC: Independent statutory, or quasi-governmental, bodies; NG: Non-governmental organisations; LC: Local communities or resource user groups; PE: Private entities; BA: Bilateral aid organisations; MA: Multilateral aid organisations. Source: WCMC, 1991a. Caribbean 10. Conclusion to manage. This review has called particular attention to the over-riding need for cooperation within countries, This document presents an overview of a region where among islands, and between regional programmes to efforts to establish and manage national parks and pro- improve the management of already established areas. tected areas have been frustrated by fragmentation of If that call is heard, the reasons for it understood, and a effort. In spite of this, a system of protected areas, consensus on the actions required to overcome it has relatively representative of the region’s major habitats, developed, then this effort will have served a good has been legally established. Unfortunately, the willing- purpose. ness to legislate has not been matched by the capacity Table 9. Funding mechanisms for Caribbean protected areas by country Country GB GR UF CN CB LN SL GS VS TF ID CE SR PF DB RS Anguilla x x P P Antigua and Barbuda x x 4 x x x x Bahamas x x x Xx Barbados x x x Bermuda x x x x x x British Virgin Islands x x x P x x x x x x Cayman Islands x x x Cuba x xX x Dominica x x x P x Dominican Republic x x x x x x x P P x Grenada xX x Guadeloupe x x x Haiti x x Jamaica x xX x x P x Martinique x x x Montserrat x Netherlands Antilles x XK % x xX x x x X Puerto Rica x x x x x Xi AbXe BX x St Kitts-Nevis x x x > x St Lucia x x St Vincent and the Grenadines xX xX Trinidad and Tobago x x x Turks and Caicos x x P P x P P USS. Virgin Islands x x x x x x Regional Key: GB:Government budgets; GR: Grants; UF: User fees; CN: Concessions; CB: Commercial bank loans; LN: Local non-governmental support groups; SL: Sales; GS: Services of other Government departments; VS: Volunteer services; TF: Trust funds; ID: Individual donors; CE: Commercial endorsements and sponsors; SR: Surcharges; PF: Proprietary funds; DB: International and regional development banks; Universities and research centres. X = existing funding mechanisms; P = proposed funding mechanism Sources: Geoghegan, 1991; WCMC, 1991a. 343 Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas References Birdsey, R. and P. Weaver, 1982. The forest resources of Puerto Rico. Resource Bulletin SO-85, US De- partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Exp. Station, New Orleans, LA. Birdsey, R., Weaver, P. and Nicholls, C. 1986. The forest resources of St. Vincent, West Indies. Re- search Paper SO-229. US Department of Agricul- ture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Exp. Station, New Orleans, LA. BVI National Parks Trust and CANARI, 1989. A parks and protected areas system plan for the British Virgin Islands. Caribbean Natural Resource Institute, St. Croix, VI. Challenger, B., 1991. Personal communication. Memo- randum of 14.XI.91, Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, Natural Resource Management Unit, St. Lucia. Cross, R. Personal communication. 35th Working Session, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Santo Domingo, 29 April—3 May, 1991. Departamento de Vida Silvestre, 1990. La diversidad biologica en la Republica Dominicana. Sec. de Est. de Ag., Subsec. de Rec. Nat, Departamento de Vida Silvestre, Santo Domingo. ECNAMP, 1980. Aruba data atlas. Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Programme. St. Croix, Wag ECNAMP, 1980. Bonaire data atlas. Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Programme. St. Croix, V.I. ECNAMP, 1980. Curacao data atlas. Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Programme. St.Croix, V.I. Figueroa, J., Ortiz, P. and Quevedo, V. 1985. Programa pro-patrimonio natural de Puerto Rico. Diversidata 2(2): 2-5, The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC. Geoghegan, T., 1991. Information on financing for Caribbean overview. Intemal memo., 7.X.91, Caribbean Natural Resource Institute, St. Croix, V.I. Grenada Government and OAS, 1988. Plan and policy for a system of national parks and protected areas. Department of Regional Development, Organisa- tion of American States. Washington, DC. Harrison, J. Personal communication. Facsimile of 10.X11.91, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K. Howell, C., 1991. Personal communication. Letter of 10.X1.91, Caribbean Conservation Association. Barbados. IUCN, 1979. A strategy for the conservation of living marine resources and precesses in the Caribbean region. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN, 1982. IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. Tycooly Intemational Publications Ltd., Dublin. IUCN, 1986. Nahuel Huapi action plan for the protected areas of the Neotropical Realm. 1UCN, Gland, Switzerland. TUCN 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A review of national systems. Volume 4: Nearctic and Neo- tropical. Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xxiv + 460pp. Jackson, I., 1981. A preliminary management strategy for the utilization of the critical marine resources of Anguilla. Unpublished paper by ECNAMP for the Government of Anguilla. McNeely, J.A., and K.R. Miller (eds.). 1984. National parks, conservation and development, the role of protected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Northrup, B., 1991. Personnel communication. Letter of 1.XII.91, The Nature Conservancy Washington, DC. OAS and NPS, 1988. Inventory of Caribbean marine and coastal protected areas. Department of Re- gional Development, Organisation of American States, Office of International Affairs, National Park Service, Washington, DC. Perera, A. and P. Rosabal, 1986. La areas protegidas en Cuba. Flora, Fauna y Areas Silvestres 2: 13-17. Perera, A. and P. Rosabal, 1986. Panoramica de las areas protegidas en la Republica de Cuba. In: Con- servando el patrimonio natural de la region Neo- tropical. Proceedings of the 27th Working Session of the IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Bariloche, Argentina. Pinilla, M., 1991. Personal communication. Facsimile of 16.XII.91, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC. Putney, A., 1982. Final report, survey of conservation priorities in the Lesser Antilles. Caribbean Conser- vation Association, Caribbean Environment, Tech- nical Report 1, ECNAMP, St. Croix, V.I. Renard, Y., 1991. Parks and development, towards a Caribbean agenda. Paper presented, 35th Working Session, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Santo Domingo, 29 April—3 May, 1991. Robinson, A., 1979. Identification and development of a national park system in Antigua and Barbuda. Unpublished Project Report, Government of Antigua- Barbuda. Santana, E., 1991. Nature conservation and sustainable development in Cuba. Conservation Biology, 5(1): 13-16. Scott, D. and Carbonell, M. (Compilers), 1986. A Directory of Neotropical Wetlands. IUCN Cambridge and IWRB Slimbridge, UK. Shanks, D., and Putney, A., 1979. Dominica forest and park system plan. Dominica For. and Wildlife Divi- sion and ECNAMP, St. Croix, V.I. Sergile, F. Personal communication. [V World Con- gress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas. Thelen, K. and S. Faizool, 1980. Plan for a system of national parks and other protected areas in Trini- dad and Tobago. Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, Forest Division Technical Document. Port of Spain, Trinidad. Thelen, K. and Faizool, S.1980. Policy for the estab- lishment and management of a national park system in Trinidad and Tobago. Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, Forest Division, Port of Spain, Trinidad. TNC, 1990. Parks in peril, a conservation partnership for the Americas. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC. Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A Classification of the Bio- geographical Provinces of the World. IUCN Occa- sional. Paper. 18: 48pp. UNEP, 1991. Report of the ninth meeting of the moni- toring committee on the action plan for the Caribbean Environment Program, Kingston 12-14 June, 1991, UNEP (OCA)/CAR IG.8/5. 345 Caribbean van’t Hof, T. and Gardner, L. 1991. Enhancing the skills of protected area professionals in the insular Caribbean. Parks 2(1): 28-31. WCMC, 1991. Draft review of protected areas systems in the Caribbean islands. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K. Unpublished WCMC, 1991. Protected area summary statistics, Neo- tropical Caribbean. Unpublished report, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Woods, C.A., and L. Harris, 1986. Stewardship plan for the national parks of Haiti. University of Florida, Gainesville. WWF/US, 1980. Strategy for training in natural re- sources and environment. World Wildlife Fund, US., Washington, DC. South America Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas seale pajde}01d pajyeubisap Ajje6a] ulyjim papnjou! Ayjunod Jo obe}u9010q «= ‘dew %OZ UBY} 210 20T—-G1L 2SL—-OL 201—-S %2S—1L°O %10 uouy sseq |] peyoejoud ebpjuedsed 348 Contents Page i-a Historical perspective ......@0s%.. sm acmeesrew boon... ek 351 2. Current coverage of protected areas in South America ............ 352 3. Additional protected areasneeded ........................ 355 3.1 Regionaliinitiatives” 2 "."."2" >... . ae eS, Ae 355 See me Nationalineedsiwew. mies Brevis «cas us eae ee al gis a ae 355 4:> Protected area institutions ...........5..00000. 005 e see eas 357 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas ........... 359 6. Human capacity in protected areas management ............... 362 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas ............... 363 8. Major protected areas issuesintheregion ................... 364 8.1 Human populations in protected areas ..............2.0000004 364 Sele RCS ATChiin Protected areaS i macnete «<<< user) Sc caes mien escuela RCE ous 366 Sede Resional imitialiVes. + fe. 5:0) « Pa ae Pee 366 8.4 Importance of environmental non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) ... . 367 Sie LOUTISM and protected:areas, quds ee se ee eee 367 9. Priorities foractionintheregion .....................00.. 368 SNM CCTILICAlSSUCS 1. ne cco ue cues lch ne cee eee nee Ae Cae tae ee 368 Oring UStrategic‘actionsineeded® 20.0)... . faien eecened me Se eae or ee 368 9.3 Principles for implementing the strategic actions. ................ 369 OFA SemInvestment:priGritics + ©. )s os ata [sdeme eee tem NNO ey ce, eae 369 BAB ICT OT COS oie oases es mute cs tigeiicg | ERO oe heme Gaia omer Race 369 Tables Table 1. Summary of the protected areassystem ................... 353 Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories .............. 353 Table 3. | The development of the protected areas system ............... 356 349 Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Figures Map. Figure 1. Figure 2. Adherence to international/regional conventions .............. 356 World Heritage sites in South America ................... 357 Protected areas management agency budgets ................ 358 First protected areas established in South America ............. 361 South American critical areas considered in The Nature Conservancy’s "Parks in Peril" campaign ................ 361 Officially sanctioned debt for nature swaps todate ............. 362 Percentage of country included within legally designated protected ATCAS so) Diana ls ee es See Be Ol ete. COE 348 Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative).......... 354 Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) ............ 354 350 South America Cristina Pardo, Regional Vice-Chair for South America, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, with contributions from Hernan Torres and Cesar Ormazabal 1. Historical perspective South America covers nearly 18 million sq km, extend- ing from the sunny beaches of the Caribbean Sea to Tierra del Fuego, where permanent winter prevails; from the driest environment on Earth—the Atacama desert in Chile—to one of the most humid—the Choc6é in Colombia. The most important natural features of South America are the 7,000km long Andes, the longest mountain chain in the world; and the rivers Orinoco, Amazon, and Parana-La Plata, all flowing into the Atlantic, and their flood plains. The 25,432km of coast- line include extensive areas of mangroves, many coastal lagoons, and deltas of the enormous fluvial systems. The Amazon region includes about six million sq km of tropical forest, 56% of the world’s total. Besides being among the oldest forests in the world, these forests comprise the world’s most species-rich habitats. The humid subtropical forest areas of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay greatly increase the continent’s diversity since they contain a large number of species different from those of tropical forests, including nu- merous endemic species. In general, South America has experienced a trend towards social and economic concentration in metro- politan areas, which has led to growing consumption of the region’s resources—both renewable and non- renewable (Latin American and Caribbean Commis- sion on Development and Environment, 1990). One of the limiting factors for the establishment of protected area systems is the deep social-economic crisis that has affected the region since the beginning of the 1970s. This has relegated environmental actions to a lower priority in the majority of South American countries, leading to destruction of large forest areas, pollution and degradation of coastal ecosystems—which in turn has reduced biological diversity (MOPU, 1990). Many experts contend that the destruction of natural environments in South America is a consequence of agricultural colonization which was intended to rein- force national sovereignty. Thus, several countries have pushed government projects to relocate farmers in the forested lands of the interior, most of which are already 351 occupied by indigenous tribes living a simpler exist- ence. But more frequently, the opening of forested lands for cultivation and grazing is spontaneous, driven by poverty, growing populations, and government policies (Southgate, 1991). The region confronts numerous pro- blems resulting from the processes that are transforming the land: agriculture, ranching, forestry, mining, explo- ration for oil, industrialization and urbanization (Latin American and Caribbean Commission on Development and Environment, 1990; Hajek, 1991). Perhaps as a result of this rapid change in land use, concern is in- creasing about environmental problems and more con- servation activities are being carried out, despite the meagre funds and scarcity of trained personnel that characterize most institutions in charge of protecting the environment. Conserving biological diversity and meeting human needs sustainably requires protected areas to play a role of increasing importance. Unfortunately, this growing role does not guarantee the protection and sustainable use of the valuable natural resources of South America, especially in times when the demand for these resources is growing rapidly. Progress will depend upon linking protected areas in a harmonious way with other means of protecting nature so that South America’s outstand- ing natural heritage will not continue to diminish in both quality and quantity. The protected area concept has been based on the national park ideal developed in the United States at the turn of the last century. The first protected areas in the region were created at the beginning of this century in Argentina and Chile (Table 7). Gradually the other countries began to establish them, sometimes in catego- ries other than the National Park. Protected area systems grew quickly beginning in the 1960s, building on strong government support (Figures 1 and 2; Table 3). In the 1970s, the idea of international protection systems gained strength and the biosphere reserve concept appeared. Almost all of the countries in the region have ratified at least one of the major interna- tional conventions and programmes which address pro- tected areas (Table 4), and a number of protected areas have been inscribed on the World Heritage List (Table 5). Among the most outstanding are the Convention on Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Western Hemisphere Conven- tion) (Washington, 1940); the creation of IUCN in 1948; and an FAO Regional Project which published two very useful technical documents: "Planning Systems of Forest Areas" and "Planning National Parks." In 1982, the III World Congress on National Parks, held in Indonesia, prepared the Bali Action Plan. This plan constituted the conceptual framework for pro- tected areas for the following ten years. During the 27th Working Session of IUCN’s Commission on National Parks and Protected Area, held in Nahuel Huapi National Park in Argentina, the Action Plan for Protected Areas of the Neotropical Realm was prepared by members of the CNPPA (IUCN, 1986). The Plan recommended actions required at the regional level in order to effectively plan and manage protected areas of the region, complementing the Bail Action Plan and helping put it into practice. While not all of the Plan’s goals have been attained, the terrestrial area under pro- tection has nearly tripled in the decade from 1982 to 1992 (see below). The ineffective management of most protected areas is one of the disappointing aspects of the past decade, due especially to the lack of trained personnel, lack of political will and the inadequate budgets of the institu- tions in charge of preparing or executing management plans. Rapid tumover of employees, due primarily to low salaries, is the most decisive factor in the loss of already-scarce qualified personnel. 2. Current coverage of protected areas in South America In the first attempts to establish protected areas in the region, management categories were somewhat arbi- trary, not only among countries, but also within them. Protected areas, particularly national parks, were estab- lished simply to protect scenic beauty and provide recreational possibilities in a natural environment. This situation is changing, and in recent years, national pro- tected areas systems plans have been carried out for Brazil (Wetterberg and Jorge-Padua, 1978; Wetterberg et al. 1976; Chile (Thelen and Miller, 1976; Oltremari, Paredes and Real, 1981), Ecuador (Putney, 1976; Cifuentes et al., MAG/Fundacién Natura, 1989), Peri (CDC-UNALM, 1991), and Venezuela (MARNR, 1989). Today, biological diversity and richness is seen as the most important reason to conserve natural areas in South America (Torres, 1990). South American coun- tries have generally felt that tourism should be a secon- dary objective, developed in accordance with the primary objective of conserving existing ecosystems (Oltremari, 1993). 352 The level of development and the legal support for protected areas in the region is highly heterogeneous. Most countries do not possess a parks system that was legally created and structured as such, although some bills are being considered to correct deficiencies (Moore and Ormazébal, 1988). Without a doubt, the majority of institutions charged with administration of a protected areas system are burdened with a legal framework that is scarcely appropriate, discouraging them from taking the actions that are needed to effectively manage and develop their areas. Where laws have formally created protected area systems, they often are obsolete and present gaps and contradictions, especially in aspects related to indigenous populations, penalties for viola- tions, tourism use, and utilization of flora, fauna, and water resources (Marchetti, Oltremari, and Peters, 1992). Unquestionably, deficiencies in the legal systems threaten the very integrity of individual protected areas. South America has a total of at least 53 different protected area management categories, the most com- mon of which is the national park (Ormazabal, 1988). Of the 666 South American protected areas (Table 2) recognized by IUCN, 234 belong to that category (UCN category II). Other categories aim at the integral protec- tion of areas in their natural state; protect specific living resources; or protect tourist resources. The protected areas network has grown from 41 mil- lion hectares in 1982 to 114 million hectares (in IUCN management Categories I-V) in 1992, covering 6.4% of the region. The percentage of each country included in Categories I—V are illustrated graphically in the map. In addition, a further 247 million hectares (13.7% of the region) are included in the IUCN Management Categories VI-VII, reflecting the extensive network of indigenous reserves (Table 1). Despite the fact that the area under protection in some countries represents an important percentage of their national territories, in general the national systems do not well reflect the outstanding biological diversity which is characteristic of South America. This is due to deficiencies in the geographic distribution of protected areas, the lack of representation of many key ecosys- tems and a selection process which did not consider criteria such as diversity, endemism, and the degree to which species are threatened. For example, although 18.2% of Chile’s territory is included in its national system of protected wildlands, only 51 of the 83 plant formations that are recognized by the country are pro- tected. The 13.7 million hectares that are protected are concentrated in only 2 of 13 administrative regions of the country (Ormazabal, in press). In addition, in some cases, the areas assigned to a specific category do not fulfil the basic requirements and do not conform to the international definition of that category, so they can neither function as they should nor accomplish the goals assigned to their respective categories (Ormazabal, 1988). South America Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system: South America Area 2,777,815 1,098,575 8,511,965 751,625 1,138,915 461,475 Area in CategoriesI-V % 93,360 92,496 277,420 137,155 93,911 111,356 91,000 214,970 406,750 1,285,215 163,820 186,925 912,045 Venezuela 275,337 Total area designated % Area in Categories VI-VIII and UA 132,224 48 246,208 1,430,167 137,155 818,346 140,536 1,872 586 14,830 127,201 8,043 466 553,496 18,001,095 1,145,894 3,611,131 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover. Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: South America I II Area No. Area I No. IV No. Area TOTAL Area No. Area Area Argentina 18,416 24 1,350 7 38,234 74 29 33 20,691 36,385 145,480 83,517 70,438 24,625 19,470 6,426 Colombia Ecuador French Guiana - 586 13,628 23,811 866 Venezuela 24 28,076 126,298 1 1 7 2 0 16,299 11,203 53 16 45 39,691 54,462 44,423 53,502 574 79,946 14,301 299 49,282 3,429 359 25 877 898 88 136,871 153 281,189 177 206,404 6661,145,894 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included. Although none of the countries has specifically incor- porated the marine national park category into its legisla- tion, approximately 25% of protected areas protect marine, coastal or insular ecosystems; protected areas in Argen- tina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, French Guiana, Peni, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela protect marine, coastal or insular ecosystems. Most of the coastal pro- tected areas in the region have human settlements either 353 within their limits or on their periphery, sometimes accelerating degradation of the areas (FAO/ UNEP, 1988). Numerous government organizations are in- volved with coastal zone management in South America, ranging from those related with tourism to those in charge of national defence; this sometimes causes serious conflicts of interests. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 300 Number of sites elo Area (x1000sqkm) 200 150 100 50 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 ‘1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 1,400 Number of sites South America 1,200 Area (x1000sqkm) 1,000 800 600 400 200 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Five year period begining... 354 3. Additional protected areas needed Due to the scale of current degradation, each day natural environments in a pristine state become more scarce so opportunities for creating protected areas must be taken advantage of as soon as they appear. However, those countries which have a great number of protected areas "on paper"—areas which were created legally, but with- out the necessary measures to allow effective protec- tion—need to work first on effective management of areas already legally created before proposing new ones. 3.1. Regional initiatives At the regional level, the South American countries that share the Amazon basin have proposed to create 94 new areas and to enlarge nine existing areas within the framework of the Amazonian Cooperation Treaty. The signatories of this agreement are Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peri, Suriname, and Venezuela (Rojas and Castafio, 1990). Of these coun- tries, Brazil has the most ambitious plans for expansion. A total of 54 new areas have been proposed reflecting both the outstanding biological value of the Amazon region and the degree of threat to these fragile ecosys- tems which face the processes of human occupation. These countries have been supported by FAO’s Re- gional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean. Recently, an important programme providing technical assistance for the planning and management of pro- tected areas in the Amazon Basin was agreed upon with the financial support of the European Community. The countries of the Amazon region have made an incomparable effort to establish a system of protected areas. In terms of coverage, the Amazon system of units of conservation is one of the best in the world. The negative side is that, due to lack of financial resources during the last decade, this system is very poorly admin- istered and directed (Comisién Amazénica de Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente, 1992). Thus while the protected area system in the Amazon represents its biological richness reasonably well, the area protected is insuffi- cient in size to guarantee ecological sustainability or to address the multiple objectives of the diverse categories of management that compose this system. From this point of view, the support manifested by the Amazon nations for the establishment of protected areas has been important, but has been insufficient due to especially a lack of human and financial resources it has been insuf- ficient (Rojas y Castafio, 1990). The recent creation of the Sub-network for Natural Fauna of the Southern Cone, established under the framework of the FAO Latin American Network of Technical Cooperation in National Parks, other Pro- tected Areas, and Natural Flora and Fauna, is also noteworthy. The main objective of the Group—made up of representatives from Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay—is to promote conservation and manage- 355 South America ment of natural fauna and its habitat under the umbrella of sustainable development. They see their work as a form of both preservation of biological diversity and betterment of the quality of life of surrounding popula- tions (FAO/UNEP/US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993). The activities carried out under the supervision of this group will have a beneficial influence on the estab- lishment of new protected areas—particularly where animals are seen as a resource with an important role. The IUCN/SSC South American Camelid Specialist Group, which includes members from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peni—countries that protect both species of wild South American camelids, the vicufia, Vicugna vicugna, and the guanaco, Lama guanicoe— has prepared an Action Plan for the Conservation of the South American Camelids and has suggested the crea- tion of nine new protected areas in zones inhabited by these species (IUCN, 1992). Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay—which share the Gran Chaco biogeo- graphical province—have proposed the creation of 13 new areas to ensure adequate protection and manage- ment of the Chaco ecosystems (FAO/UNEP, 1986). 3.2 At the national level, it is considered urgent for each country to have a legally established and effectively managed national protected areas system, including a variety of management categories and covering repre- sentative ecosystems (Ormazébal 1988). Protected area specialists have identified several gaps in the current network of protected areas (IDB/IUCN, 1992). National needs Argentina. Argentina has recently completed a re- view of its protected areas, based on ecological repre- sentativeness. Areas which are insufficiently covered include the Pampas, the humid portions of the Chaco, the Yungas and Paranaense forests, and the Andean Patagonia (National Network of Technical Cooperation in Protected Areas, 1990). Bolivia. | Gaps in the Bolivian parks system include parts of the Bolivian Amazon, swamplands in the Chaco, the Puna and Andean highlands, inter-Andean dry val- leys, and sub-Andean foothills. Bolivia is considering the creation of four boundary parks, adjacent to or contiguous with protected areas in Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Peri. Brazil. The ecosystem coverage of protected areas in Brazil is remarkably uneven. Most parks are located in the Amazonian section of the country, while other re- gions such as the araucaria forests and the Atlantic forests are poorly protected. A 1982 plan drafted by the Brazilian Forest Development Institute provided guide- lines for the designation of new parks based on ecologi- cal criteria. Unfortunately this plan has not been implemented (Blockhus, et al., 1992). Chile. | Under-represented ecosystems include the Patagonian steppe, the Atacama desert, the sclerophyl- lous forests, the northern Nothofagus forests, and major Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 3. The development of the protected areas system: South America % area established 1962-1971 % area established % area established 1972-1981 Date established unknown Total area designated % area established 1982-1991 93,360 92,495 277,419 137,154 93,910 111,356 0 ocoooooocococo 275,336 3,313 1,145,892 Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted. Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: South America World Heritage Date No. Area (ha) Argentina 655,000 Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador France (French Guiana) Guyana Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela August 1978 October 1976 September 1977 February 1980 May 1983 June 1975 170,000 1,038,439 June 1975 June 1977 Apmil 1988 February 1982 March 1989 October 1990 2,179,918 Biosphere Reserves Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention No. Area (ha) Date No. Area (ha) May 1992 June 1990 July 1981 September 1988 October 1986 March 1992 March 1985 May 1984 November 1988 2,506,739 2,415,691 12,000 200,000 9,968 200,000 Notes: 1. The World Heritage site Iguagu/Iguazu lies across the international border between Brazil and Argentina. To simplify this table, each part of the sites has been entered within the appropriate country. 2. Only sites lying within the region are listed. aquatic ecosystems. The country is carrying out an in-depth analysis to determine priorities in conserving terrestrial biodiversity and formulate a plan by the middle of 1993 that will incorporate these formations in their system of protected areas. Colombia. Only 44% of Colombia’s major ecosys- tems are covered in its protected area network. Ten new 356 areas which have been proposed for inclusion in the system may inake up for some of this deficiency. Ecuador. The 1989 Strategy for the National System of Protected Areas, developed by the Government of Ecuador and the Fundacién Natura, proposes the crea- tion of 17 new parks to fill gaps in the current network. Priority areas for protection include coastal mangroves, dry southern coastal forests, and lowland wet coastal forests (MAG/Fundacién Natura, 1989). Other areas currently not represented are tropical deserts, tropical dry forests, low mountain rain forests, and pdramo (alpine moors). French Guiana. There is no system of national parks in French Guiana, although a proposal for the creation of 16 protected area units is under consideration. Guyana. Guyana has only one national park, but Gov- emment authorities are considering plans to create an integrated protected area system consisting of 22 new management units. Paraguay. Some 90% of Paraguay’s protected areas are located in the sparsely-populated western section of the country, leaving important ecosystems in the eastern section poorly represented or are not represented at all. The Paraguayan Conservation Data Center has pro- posed the creation of 27 new areas for inclusion into the national parks system (CDC-Paraguay, 1990). Table 5. World Heritage sites in South America Argentina Iguazu National Park (with Brazil) Los Glaciares National Park Brazil Iguacu National Park (with Argentina) Ecuador Galapagos Islands Sangay National Park Peru Huascardn National Park Manuii National Park Rio Abiseo National Park Sanctuario Histérico de Macchu Picchu Pert. Perti’s 24 protected area units cover only 60% of the country’s life zones. The national Conservation Data Center has proposed that 24 new areas be added to this system in order to fill the gaps, ranging from tropical dry forests to Pacific deserts and Andean lakes. The coastal and mountain ecosystems are severely de- graded and are under-represented in the curzent net- work. Important gaps range from tropical dry forests to Pacific deserts and Andean lakes. Suriname. The Conservation Action Plan for Suriname proposes the creation of two nature reserves, two new forest reserves and the expansion of Brownsberg National Park (Mittermeier, et al., 1990) Uruguay. If 36 areas proposed are approved by the government, coverage will still be only 0.7%. The Atlantic Plain is the most biologically diverse section 357 South America of the country and should be a priority area for the establishment of new parks. Venezuela. Many of Venezuela’s ecosystems are covered in the current protected area network, but cur- rent proposals for the creation of 13 new protected area units will improve the representativeness of the system (MARNR, 1989). One priority is the creation of biologi- cal corridors linking protected areas in the Andes. Recent research and global comparative analyses have determined the great biological richness of the South American subcontinent. This research indicates that Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peri, Bolivia, and Vene- zuela are among the countries richest in number of species on a global level—"megadiversity countries". Colombia and Peni have the highest number of bird species in the world. Brazil has the highest number of amphibian and plant species (McNeely, er al., 1990). Knowledge of these facts has generated a change in international conservation priorities and, possibly, may bring about a change at the national level as well. 4. Protected area institutions Protected area institutions are highly variable in South America. Ministries responsible for protected areas in- clude Peasant and Agricultural Affairs (Bolivia), Interior (Brazil), Agriculture (Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peri), Communications and Labor (Guyana), Environ- ment (French Guiana, Venezuela), Natural Resources (Suriname), and Housing, Land Use Planning, and Environment (Uruguay). But the real situation is far more complex. For example, Argentina is a federation, so the areas in each province are administered by dif- ferent institutions. At the national level, the National Parks Administration is in charge of National Parks, Reserves, and National Monuments; it is a government institution which is part of the newly-created Natural Resources and Human Environment Secretariat. At the provincial level, protected areas are managed by a va- riety of institutions, resulting from autonomous initia- tives without following agreed general or national outlines—although some have followed at least par- tially the orien- tations assigned to National Parks and Reserves. In addition, there are two municipal protected areas, two university protected areas, and four private areas. In Colombia, the organization in charge is the National Institute for Renewable Natural Resources and the Environment (INDERENA), part of the Minis- try of Agriculture, through the Natural National Parks Division. INDERENA has delegated administration of protected areas in several parts of the country to re- gional autonomous corporations; protected areas with territory in the jurisdiction of several corporations are being administered by up to 4 corporations, as is the case with Los Nevados National Park. French Guiana is a dependency of France and is subject to French legislation. The institution responsible for Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas “MT UT (6861) SANOUVANI [TE] “WNLIOD “S19q (1661) ‘D ‘odeys [0] “dd]z ‘oqirewrereg ‘201 Alag 1salo, WeUUNS ‘UoTEMIS Uasaid oY) JO Mataal B :oWeUUNS ul UONeAIosaid amen (8961) ‘d'f ‘Zanyos [95] ddzz BUT] “1661 Ateruge, puzZ—pg | ‘ejonzeU2A “W]JOO—uolssTunuOD Ansaso,] UEDLAUTY UNE] aI Jo SunsoUr IN/ | Tad [PP 0661-8861 [e1s240J OsarSaud augos suuoyUy (1661) 149d [SD] ‘ddyj ‘umonadioan ‘uois8ury ‘Aoussy iusudojaaag [euoNeWaruy UeIpeuRD/uorsstUMOD Ansaio.4 eURAND ‘0007-0661 UPd UoNoY Ansao4 [euoNeN (6861) VGID/OA9 [P95] ‘dd0T 1 (0661-6861 1aWaIs Adareng yuaudojaasq AnunoD ap o1 xouUY Ue se Jopenog/qIV-SN Joy paredalg ‘Jopenog Joy siseso, [eoidosy pue Atssoatq] [eo1Zojorg Jo jwauissassy uy (6361) ‘N'[ ‘SAYS pue -q ‘asoy ‘D'D ‘eseunzn] ‘q"H ‘AemeeD ‘W ‘Idsaip ‘fg ‘aLeqeD [¢D] ‘ONAG-ANIG- VIN AI ‘TSeg Op stesope OlSealasuoD op sopepluy) ap eUIaIsIg (1661) ‘O'F ‘SesoUd|| pur “| ‘sodiog ‘YY ‘seajesuoy ‘O'y'T ‘seq [7D] ‘ddg6 ‘Teisaioy opjaxresaq] [2 ered uoIsoy ap Url (6861) “Tf ‘eUOg pue ‘W'f ‘sokoy ‘f'D ‘Teaopues [19] *SdI24NOG ‘Dad 2 puw JOM “emeNoog ‘SANOUVANI UZ9MI9q ATMUIA 9aTVOgEI[OO JWIOf B sI sy] ‘ssalZoid wt ATWUaUIND St SANOUVANI Jo SurustpSuans feuonmnsut 10j 199fosd uous 1S) V qaA (SANOUVAND senbseg op [euotseN omInsuy — ejanzous, dAn Bune] Jo uoistatq — Aendmup) “2O1Al2g 18940, a1 JO Wounredap uonsaaid armeu ayy 10J 193png OAS 000'21 Nad uel uonoy Ansalo,j euoneN auf Jo wed se ‘uraisAs vale pojonoid B Jo waudofaaap oy BuIpnfout santanoe UONeAIAsUOd 10J 198pnq paisalag GAD S27 7St'l dad bury youaty waisfs syed Teuoneu ayy J0j 1a3png SOd 000'008'0S —->JIPIEA, puke sealy [eM] Jo usUUEdaq — Jopendgq BIqUIC]OD dT) (uone|suen Joy saioUu Jye1s 298) YNOOD — YD *(SIQABAOUDY SIBINJe AY SOSMIOyY SOp 9 NusIquiy Old] OP ONETISeIg OITUNSUT) VIN AI AN 01 193pnq aieis [eI ap sasudwoD DUM OOT6ENIZL — (VONEIsueN Joy sou 198pnq 22s) YW AI — IZ “Zulpuny [eutajxa apit] Alaa sonatsel JD ouL ‘QJOyM B se JOINS JUSWISeUBUL FaINOsal [LIMeU ap 10J 193pnq aieis ay saTMNsSUOD dO” S16 196'Z (4D) 20U9D lusudojanagq 1S8910,j — BIATOg suv eunuadly 221N0S qeaX = quayeainba = Aduiat.ind yeuoneu 4en0q sn ul jaspng Ajuase aqisuodsas/A1jun0d Boewy YyINOS :sjeHpnq Aouefhe yuewebeuew sease pe}de}0Jdg “9 IGeL 358 establishing parks and reserves in France is the Direc- tion of Nature Protection, a division of the Ministry of the Environment. In this dependency, the National For- est Office, under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture, is responsible for the management of forest lands. The creation of protected areas is a recent process here. In Suriname, the management of natural protected areas is the responsibility of the Forest Service, part of the Ministry of Natural Resources. One exception is Brownsberg National Park, administered by the Foun- dation for the Preservation of Nature (STINASU), a semi-governmental agency. 5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas Most of the governments assign a budget that covers only the minimal needs for managing protected areas; practically no budget is available for investments in most countries (Table 6). The information compiled in the region indicates that a great number of protected areas do not even have the basic infrastructure, e.g., access roads, permanent personnel, housing for person- nel, communications equipment, guard posts, and patrol vehicles. Moreover, it is recognized that the majority of protected areas possess only minimal installations for recreational or educational public use (Oltremari, 1993). Several major international organizations are techni- cally and financially supporting protected areas in the region. Among the most outstanding are: International organizations mw FAO. FAO has been the most important interna- tional agency for protected areas in South America since the mid-1960s. It now organizes workshops about different topics related to management of protected areas with focus upon developing strategies for the rational management and utilization of vari- Ous species. Support is channelled through the Latin American Network of Technical Cooperation in National Parks, other Protected Areas, and Natural Flora and Fauna. Through the network, with the help of its Regional Office for Latin American and the Caribbean and UNEP, numerous training and tech- nical interchange programmes have been carried out. They have also published several technical bul- letins that promote exchange of information. UNEP. UNEP supports different projects and pro- grammes of great importance for the management of protected areas in the region. It has formulated an Action Plan for the Environment in Latin America and the Caribbean. For several years, UNEP has supported activities carried out by FAO’s Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, princi- pally those which deal with protected area training programmes. 359 South America @ World Bank. The World Bank provides financial support to special projects. One of the largest pro- viding support for protected areas is the Pilot Pro- gramme to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest. In March 1992, the Executive Directors of the World Bank established the Rain Forest Trust Fund as a financial mechanism to support the Pilot Programme, with US$60 million now committed to finance the Fund. Several countries are providing co-financing to the Pilot Programme through regular bilateral assistance mechanisms, now totalling over US$280 million. Only a portion of these funds will directly support protected areas. The Bank also provides support to conservation efforts through its regular lending programme. For instance, the states of Rondonia and Mato Grosso have recently signed loan agreements for US$167 million and US$205 million respectively. The funds will be used to finance agriculture, rural development and con- servation activities, including protection of both pri- vately and publicly held properties. The National Environmental Project of Brazil is a US$166 million combination grant and loan initiative financed jointly by the World Bank and the government of Germany. The Bank is providing US$117 million of loans; Germany will provide approximately US$20 mil- lion equally divided between grants and loans plus US$3 million in technical assistance; the government of Brazil will fund the balance. The purpose of the project is to protect the natural environment of Brazil by strengthening relevant government agencies, sup- porting specific conservation units, and protecting threat- ened ecosystems. The three main regions covered are the Pantanal, the Atlantic forests and the coastal zone. @ Inter-American Development Bank. The IDB has recently increased its institutional capability to address environmental issues. Current proposals un- der consideration call for US$400 million of invest- ments in conservation activities in Latin America. The IDB loaned US$100 to Brazil on concessional terms to finance a national environmental fund. The IDB also provides financial and technical support to special projects. This Bank has an active programme of technical cooperation for environmental coopera- tion at the regional and subregional level. It re- sponds to requests both from borrower countries and regional organisms such as the Amazonian Co- operation Treaty, the Andean Pact (Cartagena Accord), and others. European Community. The EC recently has agreed a project on planning and management of protected areas in the Amazon Basin, to be carried out by the Interim Secretariat of the Amazonian Cooperation Treaty, the Special Commission for Amazonian Environment (CEMAA), and the re- spective national organisms of the nations which are signatories of the Treaty. It will develop a plan for the establishment of a system of protected areas in Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas the Amazon which will include the most important ecosystems and will strengthen the management and administration of its integral units. Emphasis will be given to the preparation of development and man- agement plans which address natural, cultural, and socio-economic factors in an integrated fashion. The programme will also include pilot areas, dem- onstration centres, training programme and a sub- network for Planning and Management of Protected Areas in the Amazon Region as a mechanism for coordination and technical interchange between pro- fessionals and institutions linked to these protected areas. Global Environmental Facility. The largest mul- tilateral fund for environmental projects is the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), jointly sponsored by the World Bank, UNDP, and UNEP. In South America, the international community has made commit- ments to six major projects as part of the biodiversity component of the GEF. Not all of these projects are devoted exclusively to protected areas, and none of these monies had yet been disbursed as of early 1993. Listed below are the total dollar amounts committed and brief descriptions of the projects: Amazon Region. "Regional Strategies for the Con- servation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Amazon" (US$45 million): The objec- tive is to build sub-regional capacity to preserve biodi- versity, monitor territory, and manage natural resources. Activities include bolstering government capacities to protect and manage habitats. Argentina. "Patagonian Coastal Zone Management Plan" (US$2.8 million): This projects concerns the de- velopment of a management plan which will bring this coastal zone under sustainable management and con- serve biological diversity. Brazil. "Conservation Units" (US$30 million): These funds are intended to support actions to decentralize management and administration of selected conserva- tion units, broaden public involvement, and create a stable financial resource base for ensuring continuity of key management activities and scientific research. Colombia. "Conservation of Biodiversity in the Chocé Biogeographic Region" (US$9 million): Objectives are to identify biological resources and their potential uses; to develop human resources and involve of local com- munities; and to broaden research and management activities to protect natural resources. Ecuador. "Biodiversity Protection" (US$6 million): The main objective is to support the restructuring and strengthening of the country’s institutional capacity, its overall policy, and its legal framework for adequate management of the National Protected Area System. Uruguay. "Biodiversity Conservation in the Bafiados del Este" (US$3 million): This project aims to work with farmers to promote wise stewardship of Uruguay’s 360 Eastern Wetlands. Public and privately chartered pro- tected areas will be established. Non-governmental organizations Several foreign Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) with mandates to work in nature conservation are active in protected areas in South America. The majority of these groups come from the United States but European NGOs are increasingly prominent as well. In 1989, total NGO funding for biological diversity research and con- servation in South America was approximately US$3.3 million (Abramovitz, 1991). Much of this money was spent either directly or indirectly on protected areas. NGO funding levels have increased since then but have not been quantified in any comprehensive studies. Some of the notable NGO groups are listed below: @ Conservation International. CI supports dif- ferent projects related with research, planning, and management of protected areas, and was the force behind the debt-for-nature swap in Bolivia. Missouri Botanical Garden. MBG has sup- ported different research projects including: Rio Utria National Park, Colombia; macaws; Colombian flora; Colombian mosses; Bolivian tropical forest; Pilén Lajas in Bolivia; Yungas in Bolivia; flora inventory in Paraguay; flora studies in Ecuador; flora studies in Iquitos, Peri; and botanic research in the Peruvian and Colombian Amazon. Wildlife Conservation International. _WCI has set up conservation courses linked into university biology programmes in a number of countries, e.g. Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador. It supports re- search and conservation projects in South America involving penguins, crocodiles, cetaceans, flamin- gos, sea lions, and primates. Smithsonian Institute. The Smithsonian is de- veloping a very active project to monitor biodiver- sity in biosphere reserves through SI/MAB’s Tropical Forest Biological Diversity Monitoring Programme. It supports the management of Manu National Park (Pert), as well as several research and training pro- jects and activities in Beni Biosphere Reserve (Bolivia), Pantanal (Brazil), Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), and Guatopo National Park (Venezuela) (Smithsonian MAB News, 1992). The Nature Conservancy. TNC provides sup- port both to different projects related to protected areas, and to national foundations such as the Peruvian Foundation for Nature Conservation (FPCN) and the Peruvian Association for Nature Conservation (APECO) in Peni, Moisés Bertoni Foundation in Paraguay, and Foundation Natura in Ecuador. It has provided assistance for debt-for-na- ture swap projects in Ecuador and supported a cam- paign for Galapagos National Park, among other projects. TNC has provided US$2 million of support to protected areas through its “Parks in Peril" pro- gramme (TNC, 1990). See Table 8. South America Table 7. First protected areas established in South America Year of Establishment Country Name of Protected Area Argentina Chile Uruguay Guyana Ecuador Brazil Venezuela Bolivia Colombia Suriname Peru Paraguay Public Natural Park (now Nahuel Huapi National Park) Malleco Forest Reserve F.D. Roosevelt National Park Kaieteur Natural Reserve (National Park) Galapagos National Park do Itatiaia National Park Rancho Grande National Park (now Henri Pittier) Tuni Condoriri National Park La Macarena National Reserve Coppename-Mouth Natural Reserve Cutervo National Park Tinfunqué National Park Source: FAO and other sources gs WWF. WWF - International provides financial support for protected areas projects in the region. WWE - United States has supported several a num- ber of projects over the past 25 years. Current priorities include: Cuyabeno Reserve, Ecuador; marine turtles in Ecuador; and a debt-for-nature swap in Ecuador. Bilateral assistance Several governments, principally North American and European, provide support to protected areas in South America. The various agencies of the United States have traditionally played a strong role in this area, with the US National Parks Service and Fish and wildlife Service being especially supportive. In 1989, US gov- emment support for biological diversity research and conservation projects, including support for protected areas, totalled approximately US$3.5 million (Abramovitz, 1991). Reportedly these funding levels have increased substantially since then. The "Parks in Peril” Project, which is a collaborative effort between The Nature Conservancy and the US Agency for Inter- national Development, has provided a total of US$7 million since September 1990 as management support for critical parks in Latin America and the Caribbean; USAID provided US$5 million and the balance came from TNC. Under its "Enterprise for the Americas" initiative, the US government forgives a large portion of its bilateral debt in exchange for a commitment from beneficiary countries to implement a package of economic reforms. So far, Chile and Bolivia have begun to implement this programme while Uruguay, Colombia, and Argentina are negotiating agreements. In the case of Chile and Bolivia a portion of the bilateral debt, US$1.4 and US$2.2 million respectively, was transformed to finance environmental funds. As with NGOs, European donors are now increasing their efforts. For example, the German GTZ is carrying out a conservation project for the restoration and man- 361 agement of the Ciénaga de Santa Marta, Colombia and recently supported a major study of South American National Parks (Amend and Amend, 1992). Table 8. South American critical areas considered in The Nature Conservancy’s "Parks in Peril" campaign Argentina 2 Bolivia 7 Brazil 29 Chile 1 Colombia 8 Ecuador 7 French Guiana 2) Guyana 1 Paraguay 2 Peri 13 Suriname 5 Venezuela 15 Source: The Nature Conservancy, 1990 Debt-for-nature swaps Debt-for-nature swaps are a mechanism to finance the costs of environmental activities in developing coun- tries. Essentially, they involve the cancellation of debt in exchange for commitments to nature conservation. These exchanges are made possible by the existence of secondary markets for commercial bank debt where banks will sell debt for prices significantly less than its face value. The depressed secondary market prices are a result of a country’s low credit rating and its inability to make payments on its debt. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas Table 9. Officially sanctioned debt for nature swaps to date Purchaser/ Fund raiser Country CI WWF WWE/TNC/MBG TNC Bolivia Ecuador Ecuador Brazil Key: Face Value $100,000 $354,000 $1,068,750 $739,750 Conservation Cost of Debt Bonds Generated $250,000 $1,000,000 $9,000,000 $2,192,000 CI = Conservation International; MBG = Missouri Botanical Gardens; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; WWF = World Wildlife Fund Sources: TNC, 1991 and TNC, 1992a and 1992b. Typically, a fund-raising entity or coalition will pur- chase heavily discounted debt in a secondary market. This debt is then turned over to a local NGO or group of NGOs in the beneficiary country. The NGO, in turn, will cancel the debt in exchange for certain commit- ments from the debtor government. The commitment usually takes the form of the issuance of special gov- ernment bonds, payments on which are used to finance conservation activities. The value of the bonds is deter- mined through negotiation and is based on a percentage of the face value of the original debt. The mechanism used is similar to that of the traditional "swaps", con- sisting of the exchange of debt documents for produc- tive investments. As of May 1992, Bolivia, Brazil, and Ecuador have carried out this type of operation. Other projects were discussed with Colombia, Peri, and Venezuela, though some of them were officially re- jected (MOPU, 1990; TNC, 1991; TNC, 1992a; and TNC 1992b). In 1987 Bolivia carried out the first debt-for-nature swap. Conservation International donated US$100,000, which was used to retire US$650,000 of discounted Bolivian foreign debt. In exchange, the Government of Bolivia agreed to a series of commitments related to the Beni Biosphere Reserve. These commitments included the expansion of the area under protection; the estab- lishment of a buffer zone of more than a million ha; and the creation of a conservation trust fund. The trust fund, the "Fondo Nacional para el Medio Ambiente" (FONAMA), was the first of its kind in Latin America. It provides an ongoing source of finance for biological diversity con- servation and sustainable development projects. In August, 1991, FONAMA received a major infu- sion of funds. At that time, the governments of Bolivia and the United States struck a landmark agreement to forgive US$370 million of debt. In a variation on pre- vious debt-for-nature swap arrangements, the US agreed to forgive the debt in exchange for acommitment by the Bolivians to create a US$20 million bond to benefit 362 FONAMA. Part of the agreement stipulated that US$200,000 of annual interest payments on a remainder of the bilat- eral debt would be funnelled back to FONAMA. WWE signed an agreement with the Ecuadorian gov- ernment to convert $1 million in external debt to local currency bonds. The interest on these bonds was to be used to fund nature conservation activities. In 1989, WWFE, TNC, and the Missouri Botanical Gardens un- dertook a similar initiative to purchase $9 million of discounted Ecuadorian debt. The beneficiary of this swap was the Fundacion Natura which agreed to invest interest generated from the local currency bonds into activities to support parks and protected areas. Debt-for-Nature swaps have been highly controver- sial in some countries. They are perceived by certain sectors as a mechanism to secure foreign control of national territory. However, experience has demon- strated that if adequate standards and mechanisms, based on national laws, are applied between the beneficiaries and the operating organisms, financial resources have gone towards projects that are maintained under na- tional control. Even when lands are acquired for conser- vation purposes by means of non-governmental organiza- tions, these lands must be passed into the hands of the State, which acts as authorized administrator (Quesada, 1992). Others have opposed the swaps on the grounds that the foreign debt itself is illegitimate and should not be subject to this type of bargaining. Despite these objections, it seems likely that donor groups and con- servationists will continue to pursue debt-for-nature swaps as long as external debt is available on the sec- ondary market at a substantial discount. See Table 9. 6. Human capacity in protected areas management South American protected areas are characterized by limited personnel who receive low salaries and lack the equipment necessary to fulfil their functions. Training opportunities are few (Ponce, Gallo and Moore, 1989). In South America the only facilities exclusively devoted to personnel working in protected areas are at the Training Center of Bariloche (Argentina) and the Training Center of Rancho Grande (Venezuela). Some professionals have been able to attend the courses given at the Center for Tropical Agricultural Research and Training (CATIE), in Costa Rica, or regular programmes offered at European and American universities. But this is exceptional, since most of the South American coun- tries cannot afford the cost of such training and fellow- ships for these courses have been very scarce. NGOs are actively cooperating in training efforts. For example, in Ecuador, Fundacién Natura, with the tech- nical assistance of The Nature Conservancy, offered two courses in 1991 for protected area managers, con- servation officers, and guards. These courses were held in different protected areas and covered, management- related themes; the planning process and design of infrastructure; and environmental interpretation facili- ties. Training activities carried out in cooperation with FAO/UNEP have been significant, including (FAO/ UNEP, 1992a): @ International workshops on protected areas which focused on management of mountain ecosystems, environmental interpretation, project formulation, research, the Amazon, local communities, manage- ment of wildlife species for sustainable use, man- agement of Biosphere Reserves, and tourism policies. Technical Documents have been published after each workshop, following its subject matter. These documents are based on the accounts presented by each representative of the countries involved, in accordance with guidelines on format sent previous to each workshop. By the end of 1992, twelve tech- nical documents had been prepared. @ Numerous technical interchanges which have in- cluded visits by specialists from other countries of the region to obtain direct knowledge of specific Situations, to share experiences, or to supply direct technical advice. @ Publication of the bulletin "Flora, Fauna y Areas Silvestres” every four months. Articles include edi- torials, technical reports, presentations with ideas on how to resolve practical problems, information on research projects, notices of general interest, and information on species of flora and fauna. To date, sixteen issues of the bulletin— widely distributed in South America—have been published. @ Publication of a newsletter which summarizes the activities of the Network, its future work program- mes, and other information of general interest to institutions and professionals linked to its subject matter. To date, twenty-three issues of the newslet- ter have been published. South America 7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas The decade of the eighties was characterized by the uncontrolled increase of external debt in South American countries, and a growing impossibility to pay it. This situation produced a tremendous social-economic crisis that led inevitably to the adoption of adjustment policies which in turn affected environmental policies. In some cases, this debt—despite the efforts to reduce it —continues to increase and is consuming economic resources. Countries have succeeded in generating the necessary revenue only at the cost of exporting their natural resources. Another consequence of this situation is less funding for the effective management of pro- tected areas in the region. During recent years, various studies have been carried out, of the major threats to protected areas in the region. In 1990 a survey was conducted, with partial support from WWF-US, to evaluate the current state of protected area management in Latin America (Torres, 1990). Information was gathered from 249 protected areas, finding that only 30% of the areas had a management plan, and of these, only 5% were implementing it; 28% had an annual operational plan; 5% had a research programme regarding basic resources with the aim of supporting management objectives; and 4% had ade- quate educational or interpretative programmes. Fur- ther, 66% of the areas had no type of equipment to allow the achievement of management objectives—29% were partially equipped and 5% were inadequately equipped; less than 1% had enough trained personnel to attain management goals; and nearly 70% received neither financial or technical support of any sort from the government. Given this alarming situation, major in- vestment is required in almost all aspects of protected area management in the region. Another research project, which was carried out in 1991 with support from GTZ and IUCN, studied local populations inhabiting South American national parks. Park administrators were sent questionnaires as a means to determine the problems afflicting 184 national parks (Amend and Amend, 1992). According to this survey, the problems (both proximate and ultimate are included) detected in the region, in descending order, are: 1) Extraction of natural resources from the park (33.1%); 2) Lack of qualified personnel (27.0%); 3) Land tenure problems (21.6%); 4) Agriculture and Livestock grazing (20.3%); 5) Inadequate planning of the management of the national park (16.9%); 6) Illegal occupation (16.9%); 7) Inadequate or undefined park boundaries (16.2%); 8) Lack of control and surveillance (16.2%); 9) Fires (12.8%); 10) Legal occupation (12.2%); Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 11) Lack of financial resources (11.5%); 12) Inadequate park infrastructure and on-site facili- ties (11.5%); 13) Settlement in areas surrounding the park (10.8%); 14) Mining activities and oil drilling (10.1%); 15) Pressure from tourism (8.8%); 16) Pollution (6.1%); 17) Lack of political and institutional support (6.1%); 18) Public constructions (5.4%); 19) Guerrilla or drug trafficking activities (4.7%); and 20) Introduction of exotic species (2.7%). 8. Major protected areas issues in the region 8.1. Human populations in protected areas Regardless of whether they are migrant or permanent settlers, human populations in South American pro- tected areas can be basically divided into four groups which differ in the way resources are used: Tribal groups; ethnic groups undergoing an acculturation process; exter- nal occupants who carry out extractive activities look- ing for a profit, either for personal purposes or as part of a large-scale business; and occupants who are con- sidered settlers and carry out agricultural activities. Indigenous groups with a tribal pattern of life are found mainly in the Amazon Basin, exploiting natural resources of the region on a sustainable basis. They practice hunting, fishing, wild fruit gathering, and sub- sistence agroforestry (Rojas y Castafio, 1990). Ethnic groups undergoing an acculturation process have slowly, over past centuries, incorporated external material and spiritual values. In most cases, they have gradually replaced their traditional life patterns with other models. These groups are found in all the coun- tries of the region, particularly in the Andes. They have historically used resources for subsistence, and their presence in protected areas of different categories is internationally accepted as long as they live in harmony with the environment (IUCN, 1990b). Although the main objective of establishing new pro- tected areas in the region has been environmental con- servation and not the protection of their indigenous inhabitants (Poole, 1990), this situation is now chang- ing. Cultural values are more frequently incorporated in decisions to establish or extend protected areas. Two principal reasons have motivated this change in attitude: a growing interest with the destiny of local communities who constitute a part of the cultural and historical heritage of their nations; and the compatibility of the traditional activities with the conservation objectives of protected areas (Rojas y Castafio, 1990). In addition, indigenous people have had little means to create a movement in defence of their rights. However, this situation too is changing. A Coordinating Group of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) has been created, representing 327 indigenous tribes of Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Peri. Voices defending indigenous peo- ple are beginning to be heard in other countries of the region as well, and several laws are being studied to protect their territories and their rights. Indigenous rights are currently being defended by local and international non-governmental organizations, by indigenous leaders, and by environmental leaders. Governments and international organizations are gradu- ally reacting to this pressure, either by legislating in favour of these minorities or by providing them with support. In Venezuela, MOIIN (Indigenous Movement for National Identity) has vowed to protect the natural resources of territories occupied by indigenous commu- nities, to maintain their territorial as well as social- cultural unity. In Perd, AIDESEP (Interethnic Association for Development of the Peruvian Jungle) considers the best way to protect the environment is to recognize and defend indigenous territories, promoting their patterns of life. Moreover, AIDESEP has proposed that future external debt swaps focus on indigenous territories, with the goal of returning the stewardship and care of forests to their ancestral owners. They have also emphasized that debt swaps should not focus on land purchase, but on funding to support conservation in general. Towards the end of the 1980s, the Colombian govern- ment explicitly recognized the rights of the indigenous people that live in the national territory, since they constitute an important population of nearly 450,000 persons who "represent an invaluable social and cul- tural facet of the country" (Colombia, 1989). This pol- icy is closely linked to environmental policy, and its purpose is to organize, protect, recover, and promote sustainable use of natural resources, particularly in the fragile environments of the tropical forests. A total of 81 Colombian indigenous groups occupy extensive territories in the Amazon Basin, the Pacific coast, the natural savannas on the eastem side of the country, the semi-arid peninsula of La Guajira, and the Andean lands. In accordance with this general framework, Colombia has initiated a series of programmes to guarantee in- digenous people access to the land and ensure the best interests of renewable natural resources within their territories. The country has promoted the establishment of two management categories in particular: "resguar- dos indigenas" (lands with communal titles, owned by the indigenous peoples; and "reservas indigenas" (gov- ernment-owned lands managed by the indigenous peo- ples). In Colombia, these cover an area close to 26 million ha (i.e. 25 per cent of national territory}—13 million of which are located in the Amazonian region (Rojas y Castafio, 1990). Some national parks such as Cahuinari, La Paya, and Chiribiquete share their borders with "resguardos” or "reservas," or are located within these territories. The integration of indigenous communities has been achieved in the management of Amacayaci National Natural Park and of Cahuinari National Park. Ecuador, in its Strategy for the National Protected Areas System (1989), includes nine management cate- gories to provide adequate orientation for the manage- ment of its areas. One of these management categories —"Indigenous Territories"—is defined as "areas which maintain their natural characteristics because modern technological influence has not interfered with the tra- ditional use of resources and with the patterns of life of the region’s indigenous inhabitants.” The government has further stated that, "the aim of these areas is to ensure that the societies, nationalities, or groups that inhabit them maintain their singularity and will have the opportunity to continue to evolve and promote the man/ nature interrelation they have achieved. These lands should be owned by the community, so as to ensure the best interests and continued existence of the native societies which reside there—as a means of promoting their particular value as a culture. Scientific research is a secondary objective" (MAG/Fundacién Natura, 1989). Currently, two indigenous territories have been estab- lished and three new areas have been proposed. Partici- pation of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) was crucial in guaranteeing the Awa community’s interests (Poole, 1990). In Brazil, as a solution to the conflicts between IBAMA’s environmental policies and FUNAI’s (National Foun- dation for the Indian) policies related to indigenous affairs, the creation of "florestas nacional" (national forests), and "reservas extrativistas" (extractive reserves) is being promoted. The "reservas extrativistas" are de- fined as natural areas that have not been greatly dis- turbed and are occupied by social groups that base their subsistence on activities that fall under the concept of sustainable management of resources. These include the gathering of native fruits anc small-scale fishing carried out according to traditional practices. The "flore- Stas nacionais" are areas with a forest cover composed mainly of native species, suitable for the sustainable production of wood and other forest products, for the management of wildlife, and for recreational activi- ties—in accordance with the objectives of the areas. External occupants who carry out extractive activities for commercial or industrial profit constitute threats for many South American parks—especially when these activities are supported by large scale businesses. In the Brazilian Amazon, for example, this type of activity has produced concentrations of large numbers of "garim- peiros"—gold miners. This small-scale mining causes serious mercury pollution, since that element is used to separate the gold from the sand of rivers. Gold mining is the fastest growing activity in the Ecuadorian Ama- zon region. In a short period, it has led to the migration of thousands of people to primary forest zones. This has 365 South America also produced indiscriminate logging of tropical for- ests—either for commercial use of the wood, or to plant grasses for cattle grazing. In addition, the Ecuadorian Mining Institute has given out concessions within pro- tected natural areas of the Amazon—such as Sangay and Podocarpus National Parks and Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve (Savia, 1990). Intensive gold min- ing has also occurred in the Colombian Chocé region and the States of Bolivar and Amazonas in Venezuela. These extemal occupants also utilize significant quantities of wildlife. In some areas, many species that have been widely hunted are being negatively affected—particularly those that can provide fur and hides. Trade has increased in live animals for commercial use as pets, and for use in laboratory experiments, with live primates and par- rots, and reptile and feline hides, originating especially from protected areas where effective control of the territory has not been achieved. Among the occupants considered as settlers are farm- ers who maintain small crops for family subsistence and practice migratory grazing of goats, sheep and cattle. The presence of these occupants causes conflicts be- cause their land use patterns, are usually opposed to conservation objectives. However, in most cases, the occupants were inhabiting the region before the estab- lishment of the protected area. Park authorities are poorly prepared for integrating people into protected areas, and government funds are lacking for such activi- ties. The most serious problem facing some protected areas is marijuana, amapola, and coca cultivation prac- tised by settlers within area boundaries—particularly in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peri. These drugs are inter- planted with other crops or are simply cultivated in zones that are not controlled. Settlers linked to these activities may obtain incomes many times higher than those they would obtain from other agricultural activi- ties. The eradication of these cultivation areas involves, in increasing measure, the use of powerful chemical agents (herbicides) with polluting effects that are un- questionable (MOPU, 1990). In general terms, a "protectionist" mentality persists in the management of protected areas in South America, and successful work with local communities has seldom been achieved. Systematic methodologies to bring about the efficient participation of local people have not yet been developed. In the majority of the cases, while these communities have been considered as an element that must work for the protection of natural resources, their own needs have been disregarded. There has been no real work to inform communities about the direct or indirect benefits these areas can provide. Instead, exces- sive emphasis has been placed on the alleged benefits that would result from mass tourism. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas 8.2 Research in protected areas At the regional level, there is a growing awareness of the importance of protected areas for scientific research. Because of their special characteristics, these areas are expected to remain relatively unaltered from their natu- ral condition. South American countries have not fully developed research in protected areas, due to the tradi- tional lack of human and financial resources and the lack of national policies and guidelines to regulate research within protected areas. National protected areas agencies assign an average of 18% of their budgets for research. Ecuador assigns 25%, and is among the coun- tries with highest budgets for research. Argentina and Venezuela assign 2.2% and 2.5% respectively, and are among the countries with lowest budgets. Bolivia assigns no budget for research. An International Workshop on Research in Protected Areas, held in Galapagos, Ecuador, in March, 1989, concluded that: the majority of protected areas in the region lack infrastructure for adequate development of scientific research; none of the countries charge for rights to conduct research; all of the countries have signed an agreement with national and/or international organizations— especially universities—to carry out research in protected areas; six of the countries have personnel exclusively dedicated to research in protected areas, but research in the others is carried out through contracts and/or agreements with universities and re- search institutes; and research guidelines do not always coincide with current research needs that address im- proving management of the areas. 8.3 Regional initiatives Border protected areas In South America, nine protected areas are located on the border of a country, with another protected area across the borderline (Marchetti, Oltremari, and Peters, 1992). These areas are: Los Katios/Darién (Colombia/Panama) El Tama (Colombia/Venezuela) Do Pico da Neblina/La Neblina (Brazil/Venezuela) Manuripi Heath/Pampas del Heath (Bolivia/Peri) Sajama/Lauca (Bolivia/Chile) Iguazu/do Iguacu (Argentina/Brazil) Lanin/Villarrica (Argentina/Chile) Nahuel Huapi/Puyehue and Vicente Pérez Rosales (Argentina/Chile) Los Glaciares/Bemardo O’ Higgins and Torres del Paine (Argentina/Chile) Marchetti, Oltremari, and Peters, (1992) synthesized the situation of these border areas in the following manner: Each country has followed its own style of develop- ment in the creation of protected wildlands, using dif- ferent systems to classify ecological environments and 366 different management categories; the majority of border protected areas are highly attractive to tourists; the majority contain human populations of different kinds, who have migrated from one area to another and gen- erated important environmental changes; in almost all of the countries have management plans for protected wild border areas, though planning processes and later execution have been carried out in a unilateral manner; and the legal frameworks that apply to these territories differ—some countries have specific laws, while others have incomplete decrees or laws. The countries participating in the Amazonian Co- operation Treaty (ACT) have recommended the creation of the following border protected areas in the Amazon Basin: (a) Venezuela-Brazil: The southern border of Canaima National Park in Venezuela should be expanded in order for it to connect with Monte Roraima National Park in Brazil. Brazil-Perd: Peri has planned a project to estab- lish to establish a protected area in the vicinity of Brazil’s Serra Do Divisor National Park. Brazil-Peri: It is recommended that Peri create an area that will neighbour with Rio Ocre Ecological Station in Brazil. Brazil-Colombia-Peru: In the border areas of these three countries, there is only one protected area— Amacayact National Park in Colombia. It is rec- ommended that similar areas be created in the other two countries. (b) (c) (d) (e) Bolivia-Brazil: Bolivia’s Noel Kempff Mercado National Park is located on the border with Brazil. It has been recommended that establishment of a similar protected area in the same zone be consid- ered by the latter. The coordinated management, by two or more coun- tries, of these protected border areas would make use of resources more effective. Actions that could be carried out include tourism development, joint scientific re- search, information exchange, and preparation of co- ordinated protection programmes and regulations for the rational use of protected areas and their buffer zones (Rojas y Castafio, 1990). Regional agreements The following regional programmes, treaties, or agree- ments related to the protection of resources have been used in South America: w Amazon Cooperation Treaty (Brasilia, Brazil; 1978). Ratified by Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peni, Suriname, and Venezuela. Convention for the Conservation and Management of Vicufia (Lima, Peri; 1979). Ratified by Argen- tina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peni. Convenci6én del Pacifico Sur. Ratified by Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru. In addition, the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Western Hemisphere Convention) (Washington, 1940) has been ratified by all of the South American countries except Guyana. It has been used to foster significant cooperation on protected areas. In October 1990, the Seventh Meeting on the Envi- ronment in Latin America and the Caribbean approved an Action Plan for the Environment in Latin America and the Caribbean, prepared by UNEP upon request from the Sixth Ministerial Meeting on the Environment in Latin America and the Caribbean, held in Brasilia, Brazil, in May 1989. The governments of the region considered it "appropriate to define a common position regarding the main political/ environmental issues, at the regional and global level." The Action Plan includes the following programmes: Protection of both natural areas and cultural heritage; Management of national and international river basins; Conservation of biological diversity; Environmental education; Developmental and environmental planning; and Management of protected areas. 8.4 Importance of environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) Environmental NGOs have experienced a rapid growth in South America especially during the 1980s as a response to public concern and to the inefficiency, short-sightedness, and chronic lack of resources of gov- emmental organizations. Brazil has the greatest number of environmental NGOs in South America—there are more than 500. Among the most important are founda- tions, which are able to receive donations from the private sector in exchange for fiscal incentives. Forty- two South American environmental NGOs are mem- bers of IUCN and participate in conservation projects and activities supported by that institution. Major ob- jectives of South American environmental NGOs in- clude (FAO/UNEP, 1989b): = To contribute to the preservation of threatened or endangered species; To educate the public about subjects related to the conservation of nature; To support and inspire educational and research projects concerning conservation of nature; To persuade national governments of the impor- tance of protected areas and the natural environ- ment, ie., lobbying; To promote the establishment of protected areas for wildlife; To promote improved legislation dealing with the conservation of wildlife and its habitat; and 367 South America @ Tocooperate with governmental organizations, groups, or persons, in aspects concerning the conservation of nature. Nevertheless, environmental NGOs of the region have been the subject of a wide range of criticism. They have been accused of being elitist institutions; being driven more by enthusiasm and passion than by science and professionalism; lacking a knowledge of natural re- source management or administration; and being sub- ordinate to conservation groups in the United States. In addition, they have been criticized for competing for international funds and for having very limited or non- existent public membership (Myers and Bucher, 1989). A more balanced view is that, during the past decade, environmental NGOs of the region and many other non-governmental organizations with international pro- grammes have had an important role in the defence of protected areas and other conservation-related issues. In many countries, they have contributed to the awak- ening of public awareness, resulting in both greater public and governmental support to protected areas. 8.5 Tourism and protected areas In 1992 an International Workshop on the Tourism Policies in National Parks and other Protected Areas was sponsored by FAO/UNDP. This meeting, which was attended by representatives of eight South American countries, discussed the benefits that are generated by tourism in protected areas. Principal conclusions drawn were these (FAO/UNEP, 1992b; Oltremari, 1993): @ In general, facilities and services for visitors in protected areas are few. While many wildlands have installations such as paths, shelters, sites for camp- ing, visitor centres, parking lots, and lookout points, these are not sufficient either to satisfy the growing demands of tourists or to produce economic reve- nues of any importance. Larger installations, such as hotels and guest houses, are found only in places where the investment is very specific. This absence of large-scale infrastructure is beneficial from the point of view of conserving areas in their natural state, but it deprives protected areas of potential revenues which could be reinvested in management. Tourism in general, occupies a relatively secondary place in the economy of most of the countries. The economic benefits obtained from protected areas are insignificant, due to the low tariffs which have been applied and the lack of a developed infrastructure. Investment in tourism development in protected areas arises principally from government institutions. How- ever, this tendency has been changing in recent years, and much more active participation on the part of private investors can be envisioned. In most countries, tourism in protected areas, along with tourism in general, is a growing activity though Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas @ reliable statistics that measure its magnitude are not available. The majority of South American coun- tries consider the growing demand for nature tour- ism to be still low in relationship to the potential carrying capacity. But tourism is growing without much planning, control, or adequate administration making it difficult to harmonize primary objectives of conservation with programmes for public use. Tourism in protected areas has not brought about significant national and social benefits, but in sev- eral countries, the contribution of tourism activity as a generator of social benefits at the local level is important. Exceptions include Gal4pagos National Park in Ecuador, which generates annual revenues close to US$560,000 (Blockhus er al., 1992), and entry fees for Morrocoy National Park in Venezuela reach approximately US$50,000 each year. 9. Priorities for action in the region This chapter has shown that South America supports important biological diversity, generated by its remark- able variety of soils, climates, and topography. Conser- vation of this biodiversity constitutes an essential means of guaranteeing the economic, social and environmental security of its people. However, the region is losing these resources at an accelerated rate, as a result of over-exploitation of resources, introduction of exotic species, and pollution in various forms. Governments are growing to realize the role of protected areas in maintaining essential ecological processes, conserving diversity of species and genetic variety, and providing a tool for defending key environments for sustainable use of natural resources. However, apart from the fact that these areas alone are not sufficient to guarantee the conservation of bio- diversity, South American protected areas are confront- ing numerous problems. Outstanding among these are the insufficient coverage of important ecosystems, a lack of mechanisms that would permit local communi- ties to obtain some benefit from this type of land use, the institutional weaknesses of the organizations in charge of their management and development, a lack of planning to confront current challenges, and a scarcity of trained personnel for their management and protec- tion. As a consequence of the above, many countries lack policies, legal instruments, and appropriate strate- gies to efficiently guide their course of action. The conclusions presented below summarize the di- verse requirements that have been discussed at many regional meetings. This section does not pretend to be a plan of action, but rather a contribution to stimulate more definite preparation of the actions required, often at the national level. As with any programme of this type, in order to be truly effective and achieve full application and implementation, ample participation of all sectors involved and a lengthy process of discussion and maturation are required. 368 The ultimate goal is to achieve a better quality of life through activities which: protect the environment and natural areas; contribute to increasing economic welfare; and collaborate in improving social equity. To reach this goal, the following priority actions—ordered arbitrarily by theme only for presentation purposes— have been identified. 9.1 Critical issues The analysis presented in this chapter indicates that, taking South America as a whole, the following issues are of central importance: 1) While the biogeographical regions are fully repre- sented in the South American protected area sys- tem, analysis at the ecosystem or life zone level reveals many gaps. 2) National policies and laws are weak and often contradictory. 3) Government protected area management agencies are stagnating or declining. 4) Management agencies generally have a protec- tionist mentality, and relatively little work is being carried out with interest groups and local commu- nities. 5) Trained personnel are generally lacking especially among government agencies. 6) Inmost cases, the field management of protected areas is either poor or non-existent. 9.2 Strategic actions needed These critical issues indicate that the support base for protected areas in South America is weak. To reverse the negative trends, a strategic approach, based on iden- tifying, broadening, and mobilizing support groups, seems to be an essential requirement. This general approach needs to be implemented by the following strategic actions: 1) Use of participatory research and planning tech- niques. 2) Critical attention to funding mechanisms, both at regional and national levels. 3) Training programmes that emphasize participa- tory processes, conflict resolution, and harmoni- zation of interests. 4) Clear definition of the roles and functions of inter- national organizations, governmental agencies, NGOs, communities and private enterprise, and the estab- lishment of mechanisms for coordination. 9.3 Principles for implementing the strategic actions In implementing the strategic actions outlined above, several basic principles should be followed: South America 9.4 Investment priorities In order to put into motion the strategic actions outlined above, the following long-term investments are needed as a matter of urgency: 1) Existing institutions should be strengthened where 1) Executive training of strategic planning and sup- possible, especially existing FAO and CNPPA port building for the heads of protected area man- networks. agement agencies, both governmental and non- 2) Actions should focus on underlying causes as well ENCES, as symptoms. 2) Reinforcement of the system planning and review 3) Technical assistance projects should, as much as eS 7H ane! country, giving particular empha- possible, be small-scale and long-term. As a rule, Pewee inthe eee ee ae bee eects 3) Development of a regional institution to focus r Pee years ec teases tn specifically on building training capacities at the suppo! national level. 4) cokers haiesite git sae rae 4) Establishment of a regional investment service to eOOpStano te eich See among co- promote standards for technical assistance pro- aS as a Ae jects, facilitate communications between donors 5) Priorities for technical assistance should address and implementing agencies, and assist in develop- institution building instead of focusing on "bio- ing national trust funds and other innovative fund- logical hotspots". ing mechanisms. References Abramovitz, J.N. 1991. Investing in Biological Diversity: US Research and Conservation Efforts in Developing Countries. World Resources Institute. Washington DC, USA. Amend, S. & T. Amend, (ed.) 1992. ;Espacios sin Habi- tantes? Parques Nacionales de América del Sur. Edi- torial Nueva Sociedad, Caracas, Venezuela. Unién Mundial para la Naturaleza. Blockhus, J.M., M.R. Dillenbeck, J.A. Sayer, and P. Wegge. 1992. Conserving Biological Diversity in Managed Tropical Forests. YUCN, Gland, Switzer- land and Cambridge UK. CDC—Paraguay. 1990. Areas Prioritarias para la Conser- vacion en la Regién Oriental del Paraguay. Direccién de Parques Nacionales-Centro de Datos para la Con- servaci6n (CDC). Asuncién, Paraguay. CDC-UNALM. 1991. Plan Director del Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservacién (SINUC). Una aprox- imaci6n desde la diversidad biolégica. Comisién Amazénica de Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente. 1992. Amazonia sin Mitos. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo/Programa de Naciones Unidas para el De- sarrollo/Tratado de Cooperacién Amazénica. Washington, DC, New York, N.Y., USA. and Quito, Ecuador. Colombia. 1989. Politica del Gobierno Nacional para la defensa de los derechos indigenas y la Conservacién Ecolégica de la Cuenca Amazénica. Caja Agraria, Colombia. 369 FAO/UNEP. 1986. Un Sistema de Areas Silvestres Pro- tegidas para el Gran Chaco. Documento Técnico Nol. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. FAO/UNEP. 1989b. Directorio de Instituciones: Parques Nacionales, otras Areas Protegidas, Flora y Fauna Silvestre. Documento Técnico N® 6. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. FAO/UNEP. 1992a. Informe de la Cuarta Reunidn de la Red Latinoamericana de Cooperacién Técnica en Parques Nacionales, otras Areas Protegidas, Flora y Fauna Silvestres. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. FAO/UNEP. 1992b. Informe del Taller Internacional so- bre Politicas de Turismo en Parques Nacionales y otras Areas Protegidas. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. FAO/UNEP/US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Informe de la Mesa Redonda Internacional de Encargados de Fauna Silvestre de los paises del Cono Sur. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. Hajek, E. 1991. La situacién ambiental en América Latina. Algunos estudios de casos. Introduccién. Centro Inter- disciplinario de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo Latinoameri- cano (CIEDLA). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas IDBAIUCN. 1992. Parks and Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean. Draft report prepared by IUCN for the Inter-American Development Bank based on proceedings from the World Parks Con- gress in Caracas. IUCN. 1986. Plan de Accién Nahuel Huapi para las Areas Protegidas de la Regién Neotropical. IUCN, Gland, Suiza. IUCN. 1990b. Manejo de Areas Protegidas en los Trépicos. IUCN, Gland, Suiza and Cambridge, Royaume Uni. IUCN. 1992. South American Camelids: An Action Plan for their Conservation. UCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, CH. 58pp. Latin American and Caribbean Commission on Devel- opment and Environment. 1990. Our Own Agenda. Inter-American Development Bank/United Nations Develpment Programme. Washington, DC and New York, N.Y., USA. MAG-Fundaci6n Natura. 1989. Estrategia para el Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas del Ecuador, II Fase. Quito, Ecuador. Marchetti, B.; Oltremari, J. and Peters, H. 1992. Manejo de dreas silvestres protegidas fronterizas en América Latina. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. MARNR. 1989. Marco Conceptual del Plan del Sistema Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas. Serie In- formes Técnicos DGSPOA/IT/295. Documento en Revisién. Caracas, Venezuela. McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R.; Reid, W.V.; Mittermeier, R.A. and Wemer, T.B. 1990. Conserving the World’ s Biological Diversity. (UCN, Gland, Suiza; WRI, CI, WWF-US, and the World Bank. Gland, Switzerland and Washington, DC, USA. Mittermeier, R.A.; Malone, S.; Plotkin, M.; Baal, F.; Mohadin, K., MacKnight, J.; Werkhoven, M. and Werner, T. 1990. Conservation Action Plan for Suriname. STINASU, CI, LBB, WWF, University of Suriname. Moore, A. y Ormazdbal, C.S. 1988. Manual de Planifi- cacién de Sistemas Nacionales de Areas Silvestres Protegidas en América Latina. Documento Técnico N? 4. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. MOPU. 1990. Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente en America Latina y el Caribe. Centro de Publicaciones Minis- terio de Obras Puiblicas y Urbanismo. Madrid, Espafia. Oltremari, J.; Paredes, G. and Real, P. 1981. Meto- dologia para la reclasificacién y redelimitacién de parques nacionales y reservas forestales en Chile. CONAF/UNDP/FAO Project CHI/76/003, Docu- mento de Trabajo 42. Santiago, Chile. Oltremari, J. 1993. El turismo en los parques nacionales y otras areas protegidas de América Latina. Docu- mento Técnico N® 11. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile (en imprenta). 370 Ormazabal, C.S. 1988. Sistemas Nacionales de Areas Silvestres Protegidas en América Latina. Documento Técnico N® 3. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Re- gional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. Ponce, A.S., Gallo, N. and Moore A. 1989. Programa de Capacitacién del Personal del Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador. Poole, P. 1990. Desarrollo de Trabajo Conjunto entre Pueblos Indigenas, Conservacionistas y Planificadores del Uso de la Tierra en América Latina. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Putney, A. 1976. Estrategia Preliminar para la conser- vacién de dreas silvestres sobresalientes del Ecuador. PNUD/FAO-ECU/71/527. Documento de Trabajo 17. Quito, Ecuador. Quesada, C. 1992. Canje de deuda externa por natu- raleza. Memoria de Seminario/Taller. Oficina Re- gional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. Rojas, M. y Castafio, C. 1990. Areas Protegidas de la Cuenca del Amazonas: Diagnéstico preliminar de su estado actual y revisién de las politicas formu- ladas para su manejo. INDERENA/FAO/TCA. Bogota, Colombia. Savia. 1990. Boletin Trimestral de la Red Latinoamericana de Bosques Tropicales, N 3, Octubre 1990. Fun- dacién Natura. Quito, Ecuador. Smithsonian MAB News. 1992. Biodiversity. N® 2. Winter 1992. Washington DC, USA. Southgate, D. 1991. Influencia de las politicas en el uso y la gestién de los recursos naturales renovables de América Latina. En: Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente. Hacia un enfoque integrador. Corporacién de Inves- tigaciones Econémicas de Latinoamérica (CIEPLAN). Santiago, Chile. Thelen, K.D. and Miller, K.R. 1976. Guia para sistemas de areas protegidas, conuna aplicacion a los parques nacionales de Chile. Documento Técnico de Tra- bajo 16, Proyecto FAO-RLAT TF 199. Santiago, Chile. TNC 1990. Parks in Peril, A Conservation Partnership for the Americas. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington VA., USA. TNC. 1991. Officially Sanctioned Debt-for-Nature- Swaps to Date (As of November, 1992). Unpub- lished paper prepared by the Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA., USA. TNC. 1992a. "Brazil Approves First Debt-Nature- Swap". TNC News Release. The Nature Conser- vancy. Arlington, VA., USA. TNC. 1992b. In lit. 12/14/92. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA., USA. Torres, H. 1990. The Status of Protected Areas Man- agement in Latin America. Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. New Haven, Connecticut, USA (Unpublished paper). Wetterberg, G.B. and Jorge Padua, M.T. Soares de Catro, C. and Vasconcello, J.M. 1976. Uma Andlise de Prioridades em Conservaao da Natureza na Amazonia-PNUD/FAO/IBDF/BRA-45, Srie Tcnica No 8, 62pp. Wetterberg, G.B. and Jorge Padua, M.T. 1978. Preser- vacao da natureza na Amazonia Brasileira: situacao em 1978. PNUD/FAO/IBDF/BRA/76/02 Serie Tec- nica No. 13. Brasilia. 44pp. South America Wetterberg, G.B., M.T. Jorge-Padua y C.F. Ponce del Prado. 1985. Decade of progress for South Americal National Parks. International Affairs Office of the National Parks Service. US. Department of the In- terior. Washington, DC, USA. 371 yeni: ‘ee chanel cries? vie A canmcuatigrommta. ‘civ ian ony Vere MNS Cotarre ‘iladty AS Aig ivcreativ abet doh Lancia ~ patie al ht Wh aetna ace ' teat naan ‘ ecantl Aid caine aan Maman cepa Ler =iuipret pteinmnea dh asaIN — a ee: fa an ae Sieh igi wire iol cape ROSE eh Bat" KOENOAMOL a, e Fi _ ee ee + FERED | ‘Si pat a ae Fel he wy Pnéhicadloneh cai elirce Laelia! Chr i hers 1 Pell nit pore ti ages omar sobeiodun et ana, J 2, Tatyaiettt a =_— 2 as i r: alt ae beads ex ‘cms eg i) Spi (ieee tor T ee iets Getina’ ha ae ’ i ak Y t WT neem en Wu a" tom fh Bebe, eae Red : ie. thr entoere necsbes, St) feats een, Ces, Ecler nie ny vy AR News youn Be rhe Vaahmgion DC USAT 5. AE Snead pal , Sh pail So ke fre cma putea > Neticidcs §.takia: en: ‘eginnlo7y Mle ss e sf Rye youl mya jcuoyradtar. € Caer Cm “ visa Marea‘ ican de | i ii us i ate: a tam, 0h sd MAI ROR Bling Gp dees feOtmginlas, Covel “pai Seppe de Ohilic, Beoce 09, ‘Perit oe mm, Pray nom PAORLAT bai i> .. oon ie = a ; = 1 ¢ IUCN — The World Conservation Union Founded in 1948, The World Conservation Union brings together States, government agencies and a diverse range of non-governmental organizations in a unique world partnership: over 800 members in all, spread across some 125 countries. As a Union, IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. A central secretariat coordinates the IUCN Programme and serves the Union membership, representing their views on the world stage and providing them with the strategies, services, scientific knowledge and technical support they need to achieve their goals. Through its six Commissions, IUCN draws together over 6000 expert volunteers in project teams and action groups, focusing in particular on species and biodiversity conservation and the management of habitats and natural resources. The Union has helped many countries to prepare National Conservation Strategies, and demonstrates the application of its knowledge through the field projects it supervises. Operations are increasingly decentralized and are carried forward by an expanding network of regional and country offices, located principally in developing countries. The World Conservation Union builds on the strengths of its members, networks and partners to enhance their capacity and to support global alliances to safeguard natural resources at local, regional and global levels. IUCN Communications Division IUCN Publications Services Unit Rue Mauverney 28 219c Huntingdon Road CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Cambridge, CB3 ODL, UK Tel: ++ 41 22-999 00 01 Tel: ++ 44 (1)223-277894 Fax: ++ 41 22-999 00 10 Fax: ++ 44 (1)223-277175 E-mail: mail@hq.iucn.ch E-mail: iucn-psu@wemc.org.uk IUCN The World Conservation Union