STUDY OF THE
STATUS AND TRENDS OF IN-SITU CONSERVATION
OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY WORLDWIDE

A paper prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment,
Congress of the United States

by

Jeremy Harrison
IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
219c Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL
United Kingdom

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

November 1985

ae es

STUDY OF THE
STATUS AND TRENDS OF IN-SITU CONSERVATION
OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY WORLDWIDE

A paper prepared for the
Office of Technology Assessment,
Congress of the United States
by
Jeremy Harrison
IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
219c Huntingdon Road

Cambridge CB3 ODL
United Kingdom

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

November 1985

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

http://www.archive.org/details/studyofstatustre8 5harr

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 1
INTRODUCTION 3
THE DATABASE 4
The international database 5
The current database content 6
CLASSIFICATION AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL 8
Classification and mapping of environments 8
Classification of protected areas 11
WORLD COVERAGE OF PROTECTED AREAS 12
Growth of the Protected Areas Network 12
Comparisons between countries 14
Biogeographical coverage - Global Review 15
Biogeographical Coverage, application at the local level 17
Other biogeographical considerations 19
USE OF THE INFORMATION 21
Possible U.S. response 24
IMPROVING THE DATABASE 25
Collection, verification and compilation of information 26
Management of information 28
Possible U.S. Response 34
SUMMARY ; 35
REFERENCES 38

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

FIGURES 1 - 5

TABLES 1 - 4

APPENDICES - Monitoring environmental conservation: towards an integrated
global overview (a paper describing the activities of the

IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre)

— An introduction to the work of the Protected Areas Data Unit,
IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

ah
i \ la
coe ;
i :% : |
va ’ h = |
‘ “i
Sie ae a ee er “wasde eh fenctservasal ‘sat
se « Me Sais in ; - 7 - Hi _ SResR99 savdated ‘Mande oat | a \
oie suber i) eae: es pave JAsouD BT TA nosh eam
"he ft i - + =
We SS eae tae anmeiein ice a gatcgam. dae soise ri vineste
: le no er ee Deidiel -badoaterg. 30 ont tssitisnelire

PE hee | =s earaa. QRTAATORT FO acaRmege
sree anes bedzotosi +d? Wo ahs
sefoYauos neewsud rene ism

en jadeih - sgatevo> Leotiqaape

ine 4a naitectiqgs %gsvevo5 teoldqes
daatteeb tence fas igiqer goog bt

BOTT ALM wr 4
oO egatieee’ Sit efdle

SZAKATAS we

i he deltas Yigow ,anise
=i natbakae a As yen

ABSTRACT

The principal aims of this paper are to illustrate the status and trends of
in situ conservation of biological diversity; to look at the information
available and some of the methods of managing it; and to review what is needed
to both improve information availability and information management. The
paper begins with a brief description of the database used for the analysis of
status and trends, that of the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre (CMC). The
work of CMC on protected areas is carried out in cooperation with IUCN's
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. Data collection methods are
also described, as is the requirement for information at all levels.

Some classification of the information is necessary. It is relatively
straightforward to provide lists of protected areas within a country, arranged
by definition (national park, nature reserve, etc.), but this fails to show
three vital things, coverage of natural features, management objectives, and
how well those objectives are being met. It is therefore important to arrange
the information to make it more comparable, and so that it can be used to
assess coverage of the world’s natural features. IUCN uses”~ global
biogeographic maps in making an initial assessment of biogeographical
coverage. These are available for both terrestrial and marine areas, though
CMC has yet to apply the marine biogeographic classification. Some of the
problems of using such maps are discussed. Classification of protection is
also necessary to indicate actual protection of a site (rather than the
protection implied by a site’s name). IUCN have developed a classification of
management categories which is employed here.

The analysis begins with a general description of the rates of growth of
the world's protected areas network. These figures are then split to
illustrate differences between developed and developing countries, between
different biogeographical realms, and between different biome types (e.g.
mountains and tropical humid forest). This illustrates some large
differences, though its value is probably historic rather than predictive.
The value of an international database in presenting the opportunity for
international comparison is also _ introduced. Data derived from various
sources is used here to illustrate differences in protected area network
between countries in South America. However there are problems in making even
this type of analysis, and these are discussed.

The terrestrial biogeographical map adopted by IUCN is then used to study

world coverage of protected areas more closely. In this way a number of gaps

apy ES 8
He qian ie Mine wkd ating fi &¢ ses toys ‘t: Yo only Seyeantage
anithemmign- Pr) iM kod, #4 jet ictes fe - i we woljevrecses
saline 4 Sete: piven oF: bins ves Sit gg eet to mbotite
“rn stan yan sen net tam} ie LT ivetieve gollnemotn. ovopben
ww wbeqenion ‘eat 2 iat ins ine enti 3 es. ae Ad hts fd Bons job Soba a not, noid
i aR, tony oman aries tne naoldew ward ai: ens: te seit -cbustedi “aa
oe te deiw wh batemigei “ni his beoletiege-e}. “mote 09003074 ae - Dae
aad aaianat yo 2099 (ta th Peet bao wawet isociset: on noi rY
hpi tae ba weitomnorat 463. decom inpes od? 24 a2

i of? 89 ses bow ee

wale vy 4

2 : ‘apse * atanee. Melee “Rersazon7 dahl abivery of B
i alley Hird at ate lpprenes span ;A1aq Lenotsan} ooiise
i _——_~ - hehe o% Langéen jo wentove, , weal’ ;
+ CL wilt ied s. hom auted exe eawi sorte sents -
a 18th ce Loaiaanantnael eyom! oP alam ot mel 0

Verdot Feauien® a’ Rirew eT | to <a “ak
ein ~~» Spree «le ldigi ‘he gniton ul open. ote
fi ‘tne Eadsseecce) died gol wldslieve os erent
ae ie attyesprugnld enitem ets qlags 6F a
co Paaoes nieedeswst ona sq¢e doen ag tae ‘Suk 7
waty ate Aeltseteny) Imuton “o3a2i ved ox vise
HH. Nome Afedts «9 be hiquliLla
atte bergen Lenn a tate eolyogeray ft

within the system are highlighted. Lists of biogeographic provinces either
without protected areas, or with few areas or a small area protected are
given. Problems with this approach are touched on, and some of the anomalies
thrown up by such analysis illustrated. The method does however indicate the
patchy nature of current protection and indicate areas that may warrant
further attention. Clearly application of biogeographical approaches at a
lower level can be correspondingly more sensitive, and a number of differing
methods are briefly described. This is followed by a discussion of the
problems and approaches used with ecosystems which are azonal.

It is one thing having the information available, but it is quite another
to actually ensure good use of it. Various conservation groups that make use
of this type of data at the international level are briefly described, as well
as the use made by agencies such as the World Bank. The need for availability
and use of the information at all levels is also discussed, along with the
need for accessibility. A number of recommendations are made.

The final topic dealt with is the potential for improving the database.
Discussion first deals with collection, verification and compilation of data,
and makes a number of recommendations applicable to database efforts at all
levels. This is followed by discussion relating to database management, and
in particular methods of data handling which would greatly improve the value
of current databases (particularly those at the international level, and CMC
specifically). Topics covered include geographical information systems,
habitat classification, ecosystem inventories, species inventories and surveys
of the effectiveness of protected area management. Recommendations made here
cover not only further development of the IUCN database, but also national and
local databases, and the necessary basic research.

Recommendations are drawn together and rearranged/rewritten in a summary

under five headings: availability of information; national and _ local
conservation databases; improvement of information exchange; IUCN's
international database; and use of the information. Perhaps the most

important point to make in conclusion, however, is that if U.S. agencies,
institutions etc. encourage and support the use of environmental data in
decision making, and use such data in their own decision making processes,
this should in itself encourage the development of the information base at all
levels. This will then provide improved tools both for making new planning
decisions, and reviewing the effects of previous decisions. Further use of
such information within the U.S. will hopefully also lead to further use of

environmental information within planning and management elsewhere.

nite sorahiuanyy fife? eorgn o.239G1U yodigt 64 : raceye sey
in betobianly awinh Swe «> enor song

x) Luanniin ai. to, Ore Ban ed Hedeesd Hie FoeeTaTR PANY ees none Leder
“ati! goed ent Hive! adel soitiee od? Ki addwk te & beg ieas: mS

Aen Kem Galt gxoae wceri¥et Way aeitsarerq Ineate
me 88. apeAnoy sin. tana hakiga xagcregers $e ..tnpagriiqua yi i>
| rae Me sacdaine @ fais evi dines, adie Manldasd geran® at im
> mi a) nosengaty a a ever.) 7 gait pO L SAMO, LA saat
; tenons on A Jide resqytene ttle bese cofieo pam
ring es te tf st ‘wink >, wf) Wallowa, wads ott oe gulved. goiel- eae *
tu: tn rete eq epitetibere: svctset fhe se boos semen gi
Sie ae, # buat nt paw Thier fadeitewe ial a4 ia ade’ in :
a id | . 108 ‘bees, st een EG eysh> a <a panier ve

eo ideal
‘de fotanaton ‘i i. ia tw toad alps

pening a shidaxiteah, viet sihaseniits Lo ..aeekenal a
i p wimietah of antzains haerene is ys hewos iat ab ;

oe

iitADIOse!. > wry te Saoes ae jatuods ml ant :
Aeaitawigseg ebalegt bexewoa ieiget . m: ile
99) Pees tokersarrel, mo tuyuoge soreety onl
; a ghntin oe: My keivetenq i, canner,

i inane obied resepren naa, teas ef
bas cadjoge? omgth, exe
Hn ea A MAI TilgSbes,..389

INTRODUCTION

"In situ conservation (natural ecosystem or habitat conservation)
entails the management or conservation of genetic resources within
their natural or original habitat". (Oldfield, 1984)

Clearly any review of the in-situ conservation of biological diversity
needs to be prefaced by three key questions:

a) What do we mean by biological diversity in this context;
b) Why must it be conserved; and
C) Why should it be conserved in situ?

As this is one of a number of papers being prepared for an assessment of
Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity it is assumed that the first two
questions need not be addressed further here. The questions are, of course,
also addressed by a number of key texts on genetics, conservation and
evolution (e.g. IUCN, 1980; Soulé and Wilcox, 1980; Frankel and Soulé, 1981;
Schonewald-Cox et al, 1983; Oldfield, 1984), and by innumerable papers and
reports. It is, therefore, taken as read that conservation of biological
diversity is important. The third question, however, is rather more pertinent
to this paper.

In essence the reasons for needing to conserve biological diversity (or
genetic resources) in situ are as follows:

1. It is not usually possible or practical (or indeed desirable) to protect ex
situ the entire gene pool of a population or species. It therefore follows
that not all of the useful genetic material will be available.

2. Genetic traits, and specific adaptations exhibited by ‘resource’
populations are acquired through dynamic evolutionary processes within
natural environments - by definition a continuous (and _ continuing)
process. Removal of members of a population from their natural environment
will lead to a total change in the dynamic interactions a population
undergoes. This not only results in a reduction in the gene pool available
for adaptive evolution (limiting the possiblitites), but also removes the
Natural influences on the genetic character of the population, thereby
altering the rates and directions of genotypic development.

3. Finally there are numerous problems with both effective sampling of the
available genetic material, and its maintenance ex situ (as a result of
both physical limitations and technical difficulties).

It must therefore be apparent that not only is in situ conservation usually

more effective, but it is also usually more cost-effective. Unless one is

i F ?
Ae he
é P Oris ir! yt iT
a Bd re as % i v zt of
- % ons I rmsdG ) “ nein 4
qites i). devi gods id be: #& > ta" ped
ae j ane - na - ° holt al by
. ee gont tee p -ga4 OTR FS 2
; =) ait nl yt anoeth Tqoteeield wo mem me gb
ting jeovasedes 7) Seeety
— ner f ;
a 4
7 hevrerne es ?7i Sisode ey
G5" Z fr % uC : } es
= , 3 a ¥

a “heen MAME OFF

on Je
i nA gree sis axe?
ior ~

apbinrey ify. > 9am ve. ke recs 8

44 Spies ea alge Raed . patty wong Sinaz 1 ORey si

meat, 2 wee a ome cee ¢3 fn CEASE, Blasio stews a pe
pe ns ‘ : te > I
Caml ta, ~<a int > R08 ca ames

a aan peru cymes a :
ava, 9 as: Aediter ) peuiad ta) > Eashangne he nel in wt
poreee a7. ~satpone oe, Rose soany « ty dowd: "i

hae nn | aa

i

selecting specific genetic traits within a population for defined purposes,
the task of conserving genetic diversity becomes more difficult where genetic
material is removed from its natural environment? This is not to deny the
importance of ex situ conservation in a variety of circumstances (particularly
in genetic improvement programmes, and within populations of species which are
no longer ‘viable’ in natural situations) but it cannot be denied that most
species cannot be conserved effectively by available ex situ methods.

What then is meant by in situ conservation? If we take the definition used
by Oldfield (1984) above, what is immediately apparent is the wide range of
conservation ‘methods’ this encompasses: from international conventions on
protection of sites and species, to preservation of the habitat of the
Californian condor, and from ‘Save the Whale" campaigns to the formal
establishment and management of protected areas and protected areas systems.
It is apparent that this paper cannot cover all of these activities, nor is it
intended that it should. Discussion will therefore be restricted to the
status and trends in the protection of biological diversity by protected areas

and protected area systems.

THE DATABASE

The primary interest in this paper is the status and trends in in situ
conservation at a global level, and therefore it would perhaps initially seem
that only the international database level needs to be discussed. However, a
good supply (i.e. availability and continuity) of information is essential,
and therefore when assessing the international level one must also consider
the local.

Clearly there are at least three levels at which information needs to be
available for effective management of natural resources within protected areas:

a) information on each individual area needs to be available within
the area;
b) information on all areas within a country needs to be available
within that country; and
c) information on all the world's protected areas needs to be
available within an international database.
In each case the information is most valuable where it is managed on one site,
and it should be emphasised again that in the first case it is generally

desirable that that site be within or very near the individual protected area

t viene rt 2ae i VITHBEVIL oIeshagy FLEW TOMNTD 3
eg att oy hee far “4 rity yt veneely ‘ate

seis rt viet Beet? ee es Pte BS. eeeIy: w eR LL) tie te te
WUE OS ye ti ily Ape LS = by tou au on ae om ‘a .
we, | Te ? ie > pee Cextrigaasi yp -Leres en We
Soins "ae ‘ul: Pe ae 51 “h Subetded uray ee ten) a lege * neveeees ‘ot
7 DOU a Apel oH whine etree. gale aay en ity wh ¥ Fen *

{ ae | ¥ 7 : R Sas ta - er —_— ss
7 te Baatiagdiios Tai04capitet mort <x eResineirke bias cieeion’ -

: : ren” eo ;
tet ievtsee +g cet ee Longe onk “ee tie So
ae ist

<4) evst eet base “=
ie tains a 8: Yoo Be a ing. Sobers
gists die wel TPH 8 sings toéle yews Jobnad ita ‘badd

‘ .” ap Sureey th we “al eal Beas

im
ve)

BeBe! wie Maw we ertereds ae
pRininteal wine Magid wheter Kove, wantinget |
ce dis nse cao Pe ag hue seseT teats

concerned. (It should be noted here, and in other discussions in this paper,
that the term database need not necessarily apts the use of computers. )

Obviously each of these databases manages a different set of information,
with points of overlap. Within any given protected area there is a wide range
of information evartatde -— some of it very specific. A subset of this is
required by the protected areas system database - which is made up of the
subsets of information from each protected area compiled together with other
national information (vegetation patterns, geology, weather and climate,
ete). It is a subset of this particular database that is needed at the
international level, compiled with similar information from every other
country and with information at a global level on aspects of vegetation,
climate, and so on.

The primary concern in this paper is the availability of this information
within an international database. It is only by this means, for example, that
it is possible to provide overview papers such as this one, which can indicate
potential gaps within protected areas systems, and indicate status and trends
world-wide. Other reasons are provided in earlier studies (e.g. Harrison et
al, 1982), and include the provision of information to conservation agencies
to help in making judgements on resource allocation, and the provision of
introductory information to aid agencies on the conservation issues/problems
within areas they are working or considering working. Clearly, without the
information being available at the national level, it is extremely problematic
to collect it at international level, and there is a need for good national
databases, in turn leading to a need for good information handling procedures
at an individual area level, but it must not be forgotten that information
needs to be used in decision making and management at all levels. Most
decisions are made at the local or national level, and hence the prime concern
of these databases must be input information for use in these decision making
processes. Provision of information outside this requirement will always be
of secondary importance. It goes without saying that for good information
flow to occur there must be both a willingness to cooperate with the need for
information flow at all levels, and sufficient funding within these operations

to allow for this process.

The international database
IUCN's Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) has been
collecting information on protected areas for more than 20 years, for use in

both its programme development and its publications. Since 1959 IUCN has been

j ‘~
ee | ;
= : 7
We -
] js ahs
. j p ¥ i
y abe os _ I
a =

ee iitsval aaoll ewe fi {on te hi On peaek bosdo wd wih 2) _ oe

“f evi vps te adel oo clan) elise son! Hit vty

(dnolttewmonde” we joe, SHiaera Vt deyncna” Hoewtndeh” ohert uta
ex” opt . eb reas aad Passotarny cme hy its wtdastw f send

’ wee we tendon Res siVivaqe ¢qiev #1 Ae eeog . aliel “vs

RRB ee 24 sine — yorsasen metyes vary besmsnn |

7 7 att me) 7 ” a - ;
tb: retreat baligaor perie bet pesent- dias. worl aot er endl 304 othe

tno > egetony | “4 ser ran y we Glaeteger! trial Saray vet ieee
ae P a

Pros eaedared ae tositaeg -nbis jo. dwedug 2 at
mettnmncai | ed bia bp niger 1 ¢fovell
aes “nso ‘towed tadents ie. eottesnoted ot hes

a9 te + 298g
He 7 “
siT308 SE seni ote sapece7 prdtO. Ml

es

ebheet
abe ae ‘ * shaved Senetaes wuts to efdalieve poised ¢

pe a ae
; —- — fenci senteze! 7a. a

charged by the United Nations with maintenance of a United Nations List of

National Parks and Equivalent Reserves (e.g. IUCN, 1985). Over the years the
information management role has increased to the extent that in 1981 CNPPA set
up the Protected Areas Data Unit (PADU) to manage the information. This unit
is now a part of the Conservation Monitoring Centre (CMC), a division of the
IUCN Secretariat.

The processes of information collection are many and varied, depending
ultimately on how easily management authorities in each country are able to
pass on the information needed, and how accurate (or reliable) that
information is. The first step is close cooperation between PADU and CNPPA at
the latter's regional meetings of parks managers and experts, which are held
twice a year in different parts of the world (this year in India and Western
Samoa, etc). PADU draws together the information currently available for the
region in question, taking ‘draft directories’ of the information to the
meeting for review by the participants.

However, we find that (for a variety of reasons) information obtained at
meetings in this way is not usually sufficient, and correspondence must be
maintained not only with the management authorities within each country, but
also with numerous other individuals and organizations. It is also essential
to be aware of the published literature on protected areas within each
country, and of the numerous reports produced by other international agencies
such as the FAO.

In other words, the collection of information is a very active process, and
necessarily a labour-intensive process. It is also time consuming, especially
when one considers that all information received must be compared with
information already available, and then incorporated as appropriate. If one
were to wait for the information to come flowing in, and were to believe
everything that came, the resulting database would be rather poor both in

terms of information content and accuracy.

The current database content

Measures needed to improve both data collection and management are dealt
with in a later section, but what sort of information is currently available,
and how good is it?

PADU currently has basic information on computer for between nine and ten
thousand protected areas. This is, of course, nowhere near the total number
of protected areas in the world: Sweden alone has 1200 nature reserves, and

1300 natural monuments (Esping and Larsson, in litt), Australia has 1248

fa
‘

~ Ye chad). 2 1 sbadlae ‘me fa exancinten tiv coos) in re

was ae utd. sev.) VORBE] BOVE Cog. e) say peonFe gis ais

‘tem AED S00 s al: Gal is tondes nai 2} Drees at ~od o9 20 coom meth’
tinw obtt~ ¢ ‘noisemodat, Wd GgnDeM Ot (WUE by Sith HteG wads ee)
dv Wo. oohaialtr.< 9 Cen y patent eA seRTAUM nel Mewseqagd, aad Ur dame 108
heaven mAb shee tees ‘Se re rete we oe essa
arte sn sieaheone: hiv ene ietiee tier horsecotat. de Bae

aka we viata owen! et Seles “Yeiem yao Llane word

fats A tthe lines ome yagianseese woe 2sbeti ip PS HH ailamotal ome
team Aen, ON pat ta ques seal «i geta Jeatd asf
“itil | ores ote edit atone vee Sieghol -~ekieg to egeidous iasetge
aseree oie’ 2 ibe Ah shang Sisdt Olive afd YG; eese4 4 siti
re 7 wa, abeatir’ os ght ac i Ae rivint adt sédte : het
ath sashes tte Meisteedsestte 2%. nb*) gentites + eutehiemugs=t ae
Le Ere ee . (aie PM With) (Pea 2! vebarginsy z
"petted ee
a LBenmbvoq eneree2 toes ‘hls fe ¥ ‘haan te Cees tO ed yap ee ot
: Some i Vedi dibs iMmmesganem acatriv al
> me et of WT... cel dedinagre One. tlaah)« 01 aise
= eae atest ors. 7: er wtesehet. bed oi Tdery «ante
near ssa na deoutere BI20497 sHoTEREA

Ane te: Kheihs eim, wvS> fort! BOTT ee

ipibe “ oo weeny ri seme —- —

cv

pow dep wok teeth the #aiba. eebitetoD 9

= aoe be Snakdektons Reve:

nature reserves (Wilson, 1984), and the New Zealand register of protected
natural areas includes some 1660 sites (Department of Lands and Survey,
1984). The PADU files essentially contain information on those sites of over
1000 hectares which are protected by the ‘highest competent authority’ (except
islands, where the size cut-off is 100 hectares).

However, it is fair to say that the information held for some categories of
protected area is much better than for others. The database contains much
better information on national parks and nature reserves, and even natural
monuments, than areas such as forest reserves and game management areas,
which, although not designated for nature protection are usually designated
for nature conservation. We have virtually no information on other types of
‘restricted area’ such as fishing reserves, or rock lobster sanctuaries (South
Africa).

Moreover, PADU has relatively little information at present on 'privately'
protected areas, i.e. those areas protected by individuals or non-governmental
organizations. This may not seem too serious until one realises that this
excludes the many important sites protected by the Nature Conservancy (for
example) in the United States, or the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds or the National Trust in the United Kingdom.

That being said, PADU has reasonably complete lists of protected areas of
over 1000 hectares (100 for islands) which are protected primarily for nature
conservation purposes by the ‘highest competent authority’. These are not the
totally accurate lists which we should have available, and which we are
working towards, but certainly lists that are good enough to demonstrate all
the key points brought out in this paper.

Clearly PADU does not solely maintain lists of protected areas, but has on
file information on the protected areas systems of each country, with basic
details of legislation and administration, as well as further details of each
individual site; location, physical features, flora and fauna, management,
problems, etc. This is described more fully in the attached paper. However,
the most crucial information, information that is often the most difficult to
obtain, is not what is protected and where, but determining how well the area
is protected, and if it is achieving its objectives. PADU, working with
CNPPA, has recently reviewed the information on Africa (IUCN, in press), for
example, and as a result of this work our appreciation of the conservation
status of a number of African sites has changed. Assessment of this sort is
continuing, but currently in a subjective rather than objective manner because

of the patchy nature of the information. This is dicussed further below.

qn
fis, Q
Yo
; ’ . i
id
ie 4
oe i terse: bats it- 3 ‘ 5
Sheen hoe ad.. ( riay eel %
“rw We aedle oete ‘ay HERNIA: 64 2kie Sears eal > ee eS
—— mus iukdde iositeqeon Feadgia’ AY ys SH 490792 sP27
“1 .~ . € : ; Re a 7
= : ‘vr? ion Gus G: iie-2? ais is nae
cone r : _ , : + “
reloads sane ae rbd or jnizdoaoin } #e9 Jad? YER © i aie) 429%

wat. sei tod Sault -

eway aA baat eet eee caseie.a6?).
eid ten mee ea, jesvasiaw origi “tee céeay
a Ww - “Sette cally bee Qnveeer dgamet- an 4
id sila ioe hina ee ay idcs doa Hietad - oT

rae ey ae Sade ' ya vileetalv «vee ¢ a :
hashes niet net ee i “ae 7 we wrort pers :> “48 does “wr

Spee 8a. pe tereaontee “ bévoese @8 = stad? 2 & se be
ys am REA As we aad €5ee Jun cee SIGT> ) cae
gid sdtandandiad tetixn : taetioqed gee ee

aah. +*..4050ad8 bo ucts G0k8

% 9

mene ate detie (sbaeiet +07 664) sate tot
ablonotsns eer 4EtS deutgl ad’ of 68 seeig te 8
5 eral vet wioute ow. olay. atned>. eRe P
F ome + deity: eoees -qbelesios ted.uees
: i | SRefAG eb 1 Aue nigeotd ah
> seeemngeh gxetge Jon, ooh

pint oft as ih t4 re

CLASSIFICATION AT A GLOBAL LEVEL

It is relatively straightforward to provide lists of protected areas within
a country, arranged by definition (national park, nature reserve, etc.), and
even mapped, but this fails to tell us three vital things - coverage of
biological and geographical features, management objectives, and how well
those objectives are being met. It therefore becomes important to try to
arrange the information so that it can be made more comparable across the
world, and so that it can be used to assess coverage of the world's natural

features.

Classification and mapping of environments

A major objective of the protected area system of the world is the
Maintenance of the diversity of species and ecosystems, but the listing of
protected area coverage by country provides little information on how well
natural ecosystems are being conserved. The problem of determining how well
this objective is being met is approached through biogeography, the science of
distribution of species and ecosystems.

Though a useful tool, biogeography has its limitations; many of the world’s
species remain undiscovered (let alone described), species distributions
remain unknown in many parts of the world, and the mapping of natural
ecosystems has been rendered even more difficult by man's alteration of the
environment. Further, botanists and zoologists have their own ways of looking
at species distribution which can make it difficult to reach an agreement on
broad patterns of distribution.

However, biogeographical maps for assessing the coverage of the world's
ecosystems by protected ereas are needed now, not when all of these problems
have been solved. IUCN has therefore commissioned the development of two
systems for assessing coverage, one for terrestrial environments (Udvardy,
1975) and one for marine and coastal environments (Hayden et al, 1984).

Udvardy (1975), following on from the earlier work of Dasmann (1973) and
IUCN (1974), divides the land areas of the world into eight major realms, each
of which is divided into a number of provinces (193 in total). Each province
is characterised by a particular biome type (of which Udvardy describes 14).
For example, the Sequoia National Park in California, within the Nearctic
Realm, is in the Sierra-—Cascade Province, which is characterised by a mixed
mountain and highland system biome.

Hayden et al (1984) divide marine and coastal environments into Ocean

or a JR GA eRe) he Tp ee eee ; se ova c

“ap. th + —_ F “ Kis mi ‘ aie gt cS

tae Sle beth Vina NEES abbeniay 91 Passe ts egies

ha sie ‘pia: inna. ¢ haw. .htiag: Leniaeny: a Po og Hope ae
ne a ee i i
* Lhe, me ee. Ceviv ray: ga L554 3 t De
tH jo +
7 seat ig wna sont ‘ete Tea As, peg Yechet - ow

ime vin “Ale an aH PY en ae Y Sa Ne

Pi tee fie
, Ba A Rae

a AR To

tae ae. tia ott. 1», widow see bovadsday att wo
f > Pye
—_e ik Und sciuegoae fas waiesg3 4°

1
A)

ieee eect: “Yar } enieiesil be
need a a ee ee ee
2 tegen rien gave berber we eat.

edie is
te “agen eo
ae rT be scons

noi seth

Realms, Coastal Realms, and Marginal Seas and Archipelagos, with 40 resulting

Faunal Provinces along the coastlines. One of the principal differences in
using this system is that only the faunal provinces are continuous, while
ocean realms, coastal realms, and marginal seas and archipelagos are all
disjunct in nature.

For further information on either system the publications concerned should
be studied, as it is virtually impossible to understand their respective
approaches without studying the associated maps.

Although Udvardy (1975) in defining a biogeographical province uses the
definition given by Dice (1943) for his biotic provinces as_ areas
characterised by peculiarities of vegetation type, ecological climax, flora,
fauna, climate, physiography and soil, it is clear from his work that lack of
source material and data resulted in an emphasis on the use of vegetation
patterns in defining provinces. A wider range of information is now
available, and this has led to IUCN commissioning an update from Udvardy. It
is anticipated that this will be completed soon.

Udvardy's approach is dependent largely on the analysis or interpretation
of the biological/ecological effects of environmental factors. This is rather
different from Hayden et _al's (1984) approach for the coastal and marine
environments where the classification is based on the assumption that the
geophysical structure of the environment gives rise to a particular ecological
response.

Bailey (1976, 1980, 1983) working on the deliniation of ecosystem regions
for North America uses macroclimate for broad-scale subdivision of the
continent. Following Crowley (1967) these areas are termed domains and are
subdivided into divisions, again on the basis of climate criteria (though the
divisions correspond to areas with definite vegetational affinities, and
usually the zonal soils are also related). For example North America is split
into four domains, polar, humid temperate, dry and humid tropical, the dry
domain into semiarid steppe, semiarid steppe regime highlands, arid desert and
arid desert regime highlands. The delimitation of these domains and divisions
is largely based on K6ppen (1931).

Divisions are in turn divided into provinces on the basis of the climax
plant formation - often coincident with the major soil zones, and provinces
are futher subdivided into sections on the basis of differences in the
composition of the climax vegetation type. So, for example, the arid desert
division is divided into the Chihuahuan and American (Mojave—Colorado-Sonoran)

desert provinces, while the Chihuahuan province is divided into the

ah be aniaiabbuan fon) ees Lae brye O82 299.028

|
Ph) ag tyinicre vA to On6 «an Fy Ty 2 guile B35
Ij » siti taos r wn, werneerny Ceands (203: \¢loo . Jedd 32 ReCeEe

a naeapitien Wek: wane “Lnakakuan oie yontuwn totsees

rh a0 Foe ’
yes ia mpotonet thee eed. tient & agaals ne shh eelitaia 90%

; 2 nied rang eorsture wt. ieseil ecentpal. vcteutely l= key a
te Sepeie re ee ro) Hovatiowes ad on Pete ta eee oe
cone tore Kaatdqes yonyots- pr phate. al (NEF) aaah: mm
80 do ne bearer» vitote Sint aoy ifeeh) Gold Yt gum

paneer: JEwvtye tone eet nikicboun Vp eee tical itong” Ye
| iow ett aunt: eth soft .hiee-eae Hiqeigr teeta
and tt 03: oleae dpe oh edt eaes «leh Oee’! fain
. ied Fe a
al qitiotzeter WT ot bol gah abet te

«oe beads Equerin ag t7ie etd Gadd i
edhe cala a0 vient. inobasast «i aesgge . bs
s Nasadne | ear Je-eie Vie fae tga tous cate
. aot donne 40det} oa! Lage mage:
svi se) eawed 64 bt LigviVievel» ade
fe od Tabs awis fodaugttivas os) to s

etd nu yalgzow t090r jae wy

wh Wed std foorse ase oe
a abet avees” CTA. eatwond. ga lwod it
“al ye nlned wd 80 obese csanichnan eat
eedni eb: ati pene of daoghen!
al et dbeiteten. Geta precat tata
oneal sada reget bbetd veto: nahn
mggite beatae e veigpedan?
mdaneoneetuad precesrme

10

Grana-Tobosa and Tarbush-Creosote Bush sections. Further subdivision would be
carried out using criteria such as land-surface form, soils, vegetation
associations etc. though such subdivision is beyond the scope of Bailey (1976,
1980).

Bailey, who works for the U.S. Forest Service, is now hoping to extend his
work to map domains, divisions and provinces for the world at a scale of
1:25,000,000 (as well as investigating more closely the links between
ecosystem boundaries and soil distributions). This would supplement Udvardy
in two ways, firstly the ecosystem regions would be based on correlation of
several landscape features hopefully leading to the identification of units of
greater ecological relevance, and secondly this would give a more detailed
breakdown of the world's ecosystems.

Whatever systems are used, the classifications provided offer nothing more
than an approximation based on a _e series of compromises. Any global
biogeographical or biophysical mapping approach should only be regarded as a
working document open to adaptation and modification. It should also be noted
that completely consistent land and sea classifications are probably not
possible (Hayden et al, 1984), though Bailey and Cushwa's (1982) ecoregions
would seem to tally more closely with the proposed marine and coastal
classification than Udvardy's (1975) provinces (Hayden et al, 1984),
presumably because of a greater use of causal environmental factors in
Bailey's approach (Bailey, 1983).

As it is the only biogeographical system covering the world, Udvardy (1975)
is used here to make an assessment of coverage of the world's environments by
protected areas. Similarly Hayden et al (1984) would be the system used for

marine and coastal environments.

Caution: What must be appreciated in using these approaches, however, is
the very basic nature of the method. These maps make no account of actual
existing environments (e.g. how much of the tropical humid forest actually
remains), nor are they fine enough to provide more than a rather general
overview. It should also be noted that such systems only cover zonal features
of the environment - azonal features such as wetlands, coral reefs, etc.
cannot be covered, by definition. These problems, and others, are discussed
further below. Also discussed below is the need for much more detailed
information available on the distribution of actual ground features (including
vegetation, land forms etc.), and information on distribution = and

conservatiuon status of a wide variety of species ‘of conservation concern’ .

ee: |
i > A
7 ® =» J y - = { a
an SF. 7 = ae ;
~ Rs .
plat wow hidin Wine ae pedo ph aya et ie ns dl yrite~ it : a
st etl aie eaten: ie +4 er kee treed. an New abred2> jake, «sae }
Mie, xebive ay wqeas.. eit Sere Bh shed jade et a9 F ioe
Pe ei eo!

88 Hawes. : gerde aw <a Tie varahcite Avtew EM is whes 7
“g tee ween “mitt oe ee ee Wong: Bas. aadiul etd ang
wnites ent anz Ueeats eset Qeboegivseinl ta. iis =}

t a oe tomes ines divow eter {ited tedtctalo- Eioe tn soiawt ined .

pte Nokecation we, Ce ad sahahailltahahd st ickal tenealalt ‘ :

nu ; J ee aegsgiaiagial ‘acts 3 Rita L 2 NO :

a 7 (ts Sea . v% a hee ow ed as yibseor tie saawien La
Pv \ 5

~ Sa pees i apm 42 ys 4 re Tee

mony sdnijas(ticail> 983 bese 824 SRP SEER) hp i
. il we ane ny benr> io. seiner «tu ed: aoisen ronqge
oe” oa: yire bend doeorae yebaqec: las
a 4 _— seats SL eodddedatbom bee oo) i jedane* nays
| tgpaitasfiteesio. 2x be veal J@eteaens “ehevndq

= _

oe 1 gen) ch baa : goto 4 Mauats aaot te +2 vel
» oan he toga 44 af? -@div eteecte evom 4kte Er ur +1
; wipenean > . Prekiwor | 4UNOLF - a yoravit. Gedy 7
bmoearetee Saturs 40 \-eay e073 « te speuesndn
> aoce Get) teaes quinn 1s ror
WOR hdisephiaiti awiaes faci dgerg;0ersid: Gian wn
pwtadna at Se" ‘agenavos So Jaemepeana: gs) whee ix

. ‘nl 8 om, sens os Be ante Ere a

20 err

leon ae

at

Classification of protected areas

Around the world there are many different designations of protected area.
In Kenya, for example, the terms used include national parks, national
reserves, nature reserves and forest reserves, whilst in Spain, national parks
(parque nacional), nature parks (parque natural) and national hunting reserves
(reservas nacionales de caza). There are ‘no hunting areas' in Thailand and
game management areas in Uganda, while similar areas in Kiribati are
designated wildlife sanctuaries - very different in conservation terms from
the wildlife sanctuaries of India. In the same way the designated national
parks of the United Kingdom are in no way similar to the national parks of the
United States.

In an attempt both to clarify this situation, and to promote use of the
full range of protected area ‘types’, IUCN (1978; 1984) identified a series of
ten management categories defined according to management’ objectives
{categories nine and ten being biosphere reserves and world heritage sites
respectively). Although these ten categories have ‘'names' associated with
them (eg. strict nature reserve, national park), categories are assigned
according to management objectives, and not according to the designation of
the area (see Table 1). In other words the national parks of the United
Kingdom are placed under Category V (protected landscapes and seascapes)
rather than Category II (national parks). This facilitates international
comparisons, providing a framework into which all protected areas should fit.
It also enables us, for the purposes of this paper to define which areas will
be included in the analysis, those in Categories I through V, the areas of
particular interest to CNPPA (IUCN, 1978).

For various reasons, any one ‘type’ of protected area defined by a
particular country could belong to more than one category - this means that,
of a number of national parks within any one country, some could be within
Category II, and some within Category V depending on the objectives of their
management. Within New Zealand, for example, scenic reserves can be in any of
Categories I through IV, scientific reserves in Category I or III, and
wildlife refuges in category IV or VIII (Department of Lands and Survey,
1984). It should also be noted that the system is currently used by IUCN
according to the application of the management objectives, and not necessarily
according to a sites legal definition (though Wetterberg et al (1985), for
example, apply the defined categories according to management intent rather
than management practice). To take an example from a country with some fairly

severe management problems, Angola has six designated national parks, six

i s2 t 7

i aan
it] P : % =
ay a - i : we i We PP) ao f oy, ii 1 Se A ae | 7th iii ae Bd iy
deaialnaibaaaie a “ut geen $peReTAis guee aim + a hey ke:
Kates pen Myteioeg © ‘anol saa: Abul set beni weed ld wviquits— 4 mer a fe |
Ly,

wes Kaqobtan ythege’ ip Sell tee, PAPA ERED don 9” “Here avorston. ap LW, OR
veya wok dean tame h4aa. hae: tanutes gupiey) <toag oot Seng as a
ban ‘Bowciaay it Masta BN LSien he re SfudT CoE ee eae
trl yet at: ginny A Obie bbe wi eee ete
Bont -smtin ae FrewseoD: | et PNPWATIN ay. Welase toner oi! lo be ont
Be ee a piteecaaiae
| es ee est ene Shdiod tebleake Penaeus medina bt ree ee a
we a By asa ee ak sia
| ais ey ohio of time prokdpb ity wute ness ,
ds Bho oed bode fant ane CRITE), MOT swayed? wr
ee . iimameigieniie: Noe ‘ggutbvowne weabieh relsvopern a
‘ einem bre sain WUbOPGIE Sola wer ban onta voby
bi seanm, Yeoman” avait eetvogeles, age ont? dpvetsla
~ Bi roRegeo iieg Cenc fae -wexeres edtdes sofsce
‘ Pitt wd) gaibrpoos FOR bag AOei spwLlO fenengewet nd val
“ Wott he tng Lemoidon 84 stew mete Wi i’ what ove)
vr emir ‘oekuggner Vi giagade? wdhay beag tg om
. ((ampeg

fwadifer) i3 yousbens. sede? ’

a eieh bu ithacnaten i? 2) oo Ge
ome gete dhs owadd rekiniinge one ad
wee (ARSC SET) MAO oy Yerrame
A ale Paice al Sa liedahie, romiawe |

‘ hebhbdks «le: '
a
" iat hakstend ¥t hea
Bert + vit Seas

ie

designated reserves, and one nature park. Of these only one area is listed as
Category II, three as Category IV and one as Category V (IUCN, 1985; in
press). Within the other areas, the Management authorities have too many

problems to enable them to achieve their Management objectives (Braga, pers.

comm., 1983).

Caution: As is apparent from these examples, the system is currently
applied in a way which attempts to represent both the management objectives of
an area, and how well these objectives are being achieved. This has its
problems. There is a basic need to separate out these two aspects so that we
can look at both the management objectives, and the effectiveness of an area

independently. This is discussed further below.

WORLD COVERAGE OF PROTECTED AREAS

Growth of the Protected Areas Network

Since the first two national parks were established in the 1870s, around
3500 areas have been created which IUCN's Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas considers to be of sufficient status to be included in the
1985 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas (IUCN, 1985).
The total area protected includes some 4.25 million square kilometres. The
rate of this growth is illustrated in Figure 1, which shows both the number of
sites protected and the total area of these sites, piotted cumulatively from
1870. Figure 2 illustrates the number and area of sites added during each
five year period since 1870.

Little needs to be said about these figures. Growth was slow in the early
years, but began to pick up in the 1920s and 1930s, before being brought
almost to a halt by the Second World War. By the early 1950s, momentum had
begun to gather again and the decade from 1970 to 1980 saw about twice as many
new areas created as had existed in 1969. The growth rate seems to have
slowed a little over the last few years.

This rather crude overview can be broken down a number of other ways to
illustrate particular aspects of this development. For example, Figure 3
shows the differences in rate of establishment between the ‘developed’ world
and the ‘developing’ world (based on whether the country is a member of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or not). What

is, perhaps, most interesting here is the difference in shape between the

' a ‘

Pr

hee if one ° a A ' if ap? st bed

cateiee pa a, eC : tT

xe oot: oved dit tired tia: Seemgnties. « ony amth Y ate oe
\ jee aad seinrooks 1Gk> gaoe / fey andy etdane od

habe eo aces ‘a * erhqne de F aed ° <n : sae 7 | x i
Be wes de tein herreeninnn sik din avesoaens of wdaurten © » + nee
2 Re ctie om a Someotntes UR ear tow ta puede pews pone =
tee poapeates: a wy 3 ae hy hdd. Atveeerad © sit! ise -
é eT, wee '

ha ia: view nad tient ‘Sut atevecmue ot tea 2 mot
oe eb wy ” hi

Y Daow int sey

‘Satby Veansen cua oan fbn often Ged gette.
welase> @’ vi ddd ‘borne /nond ovat >

oP el ee

inna Aasisitien w ed ut wu bi eos 055K
5 Aatse_Doinsna 20 Alok 2G),

v

@ perry bobot a ‘ patoudosg s "1
fn pabale ai beanies tons ft) vai" drwy!

aes a oer “e fe2o3 nas brite beds
as ade

m ody werectectlt &
~ ‘ é Wnt

BSR evate bole 7
Dias wb oboen!

curves illustrating the number of areas protected, which increases slowly and
steadily for OECD countries, but which has a very distinct break in it (around
the second world war) for non-OECD countries. In fact the number of areas
protected in non-OECD countries has remained below that in OECD countries
right up to around 1970, but not only are numbers now higher, the rate of
establishment is also greater. It is also apparent that if the Greenland
National Park (70,000,000 ha) were removed from the OECD data the average size
of areas in OECD countries would be considerably less. This illustrates the
importance of looking at both size and number of protected areas.

Figure 4 categorises the figures by biogeographical realm, and clearly
demonstrates differences. In the Afrotropical Realm, for example, while the
number of protected areas established has increased steadily to around 360 in
1982, the average area protected is much greater than that in any realm other
than the Nearctic (and that only because of the large effect of the inclusion
of the Greenland National Park in 1974). These graphs also illustrate large
differences in timing of the development of protected areas within each
region. One should note, for example, the differences between the Australian
and Nearctic realms, and the sudden increase in the Indomalayan realm after
1970.

A closer look at the situation within each biome can also be illustrative.
For example, Figure 5 shows the situation in each of four major biomes defined
by Udvardy (1975): tropical humid forest (biome 1); temperate broad—leaf
forests (biome 5); mixed mountain and highland systems (biome 12); and mixed
island systems (biome 13). The differences are very pronounced. Biome 5
(temperate broad-leaf forests), for example, covers large areas of the eastern
United States, and much of Europe; highly populated areas, and hence
containing a fairly high number of small areas with a steady pattern of
development. The development pattern is the same in biome 12 (mixed mountain
and highland systems) but starting to increase nearly 10 years earlier, and
having much larger areas. Development of protected areas in both these biomes
began earlier than in either biome 1 (tropical humid forest) or biome 13
(mixed island systems) where numbers of protected areas did not really
increase until after 1920. Particularly noticeable is the sudden increase in
the area protected in the tropical humid forest biome from 1970 onwards,
indicating the establishment of much larger protected areas since 1970.

Analysis of this work continues, and will be reported elsewhere.

« Sa : wi
"glewts anne ane dolae bi tue ori Tes ' ' 2 saeh) Is <i
¥ St, oi dow ms Heh Gandy « Be Aside ig sip bry j ) sot
; — Se “Wado co Hn " elViaweo GIMNGCemm wit i ro! bes pa
wbpnoe Woe: 4 * is wor F vel fie (ea site. vad--ebias 7 es .
Owner «nd 2 layin a ea) rn a in toa gud aS bias
| ‘pean is ad ry Sl fart. me VNTR «fg sieeizg nella Bi

GHA /Sjasour “> rrr ay ots wot? teveses sae - (ee SUD 6 Be) $289,
“mae gies fe: Heat Clieiwhieden ef. Bivoe: osizincse WoR8 ab

al + E Sat» red aekerey ‘eo pee bie ati? dtad ja yal dood
rire

i Laan: tansy See tod tetqaees jagetd- 42° ewsvk (Void ) i ToeIes
wT sllew vedeewigs ae (etna ‘besiqans tehta. aff al ne TetVID>
Sim Web-hiovae ot: ehsbonss vate ai wid-bedeiidases ‘eaere be9>
mee wie. wtaon: you 27), ber Wh: oars pry asa doom wt beFea%C7Ty FOG0
; ‘aaa alos gah \e aot. eves aa 20 sepeoed ai a0 tad5 be
7 a ol Seaviciti outa adage a A kM St ale
; » dene aahvincte, hatin. bore vidan, ie, aiaimotvre e4) to. gaimt? ab’

ene att ame ad wash owarba'd 1 on) gate jem tO teu btoeds.

qe

ieee hee een ites ne miieeste at) owndy ¢ osaght “
turedin “0 Fs Ce Kwotigerts i fererhy”
ry sete anata ‘bey sel: Miso Dorin wit wore

; (Re

meted} “1

14

Comparisons between countries

One particular advantage achieved with an -international database is the
opportunity for international comparison. Table 2 gives the number of areas
protected in South America in IUCN management Categories I-V, and their total
area, also presenting these figures as a function of the area of the country,
and its population. The data are derived from various national reports, from
information provided at the 18th Working Session of CNPPA, and from Wetterberg
et al (1985). The wide differences between one country and another even
within one continent are quite obvious.

However, care must be taken in making such comparisons in the absence of
background information as hard figures such as these can be misleading. For
example, although undoubtably valuable conservation areas, the national
reserves of Peru are excluded. This is because national reserves in Peru,
while being areas designated for protection and propagation of species of
wildlife whose conservation is of national interest, are also areas where
utilization of products is being carried out by the State. Thus these areas

do not therefore fit into Categories I through V (Wetterberg et al, 1985).

Biogeographical Coverage - Global Review

The first approach to assessing coverage of the world’s biota by protected
areas using Udvardy (1975) is to examine coverage by biome, and by biome
within realm. These figures are presented in Table 3. It is important to
appreciate that biome type is not synonymous with habitat type; a protected
area within a tropical humid forest biome may not necessarily contain tropical
humid forest, and an area containing tropical humid forest could occur in
another biome altogether (such as Mixed Island Systems).

It is also important to realize that the total area of each biome in each
realm has not yet been determined with sufficient precision to assess
percentage coverage. This can hide important differences in the figures.
There are, for example, 122 areas covering 84,634 square kilometres in the
Temperate needle-leaf forests/woodlands biome in the Palaearctic, but only
nine areas covering 521 square kilometres in the mixed island systems biome.
It would obviously be misleading to assume that temperate needle-leaf
forests/woodlands are therefore better protected than the mixed islands system
biome in the Palaearctic, since most of Asia between 55°N and the Arctic
Circle and much of Europe, is within this biome, while only the Macronesian
Islands and the Ryukyu Islands (in total about 17,820 square kilometres) are

defined by Udvardy as within the mixed island systems biome; less than the

: rf y rf
t f 7 ,
' i ~
> won ,
ek
f
os iN
) © Ld 9. - 4 i.

: 4 ‘al inhouse ah Sao rere Don Hii Layerive hea
é i je san: ane ‘erts hata AOMERE WOR bam ineeent. Sos
awh jus : ; : d }
; be as x” ani an Wei) Yeteaneine WML ob: ecldent Jook: eee
7 ee, vhod ad ‘ay aig .
‘ae ay : ds. nis er Of Me Reh yt an wes soetetl 4? deka

*

gh eyed y BI: tary hivin. Kuotiiey, mio). bavigieh wee ited «it
aetna ae tina ee M4 ‘#e cart yar tew wee ads ts bye beeen
. = seer rela sg) dhewsead sodkaxettii obin off. 88a

: > git wees es begcene Aten aaie eee
re

eA! ‘i rad

as wil es, ‘wl ‘Sapamasdens AES de Siee nd. Malet 24 tee etes |

| ‘er pe tiongs ie: om =e we ty th de wonpath byeq oe med ino tal ol ;
; tnarchat ad nbn. : Danaimessi gen kaon at... bdaminodan
or gee nt Rien Tame ltahs eos eo to let buhafogs ete,
ah 30 ese han Raitomddyy set betaattyed otorie | .
oe: sao ane eae, paewetni fetid Fo ef aolsavrmeny ou tiee .
a eaeet ener: “ota Mae ree Gf tun Rabid) goted 2) # tenor: fey od
; AGHA ss Lt grades AE YAR AE tee 2989889 agai tH waned

PE Se. wie Rr | eile SHA TETOS
. gee | 2" Gia wd je Ope aateD griteonee ©% éxeeugqe
syn eit pyatoven jeter’ ah af. Loken) ehsnetil ri

€ abelick, As Atanas Bry 2weuy ss wt )
dns Ltt, ity smu gre emai el oye uo ba saa
an et Mae nied demsa) bs owes! taatqoad | a.

LS

area of Temperate needle-leat forest on the Soviet island of Sakhalin! In the
same way, care should be taken when making comparisons within biomes.

Comparison of the biogeographic provinces suffers from the same limitations
noted for biome comparisons; a 5000 hectare protected area in the relatively
small Malagasy Thorn Forest (3.10.4), for example, would protect a much larger
section of that province than an equivalent-sized reserve would in the huge
Somalian province (3.14.7).

In fact there are protected areas within all biomes, although the number of
areas and the total area protected varies considerably. Turning to coverage
of biomes within realms, the only occasion where no protected areas are
recorded is in the Lake systems biome within the Neotropical Realm. Only one
lake, Lake Titicaca, is involved. It would be misleading, however, to assume
that this lake was completely unprotected, as the Reserva Nacional de Titicaca
extends along about 10% of the Peruvian shore. (As noted above, Peru's
national reserves do not fit into IUCN management Categories I-V.)

Further analysis of the figures based on a knowledge of the area of each
biome is clearly required, one would be concerned, however, at the low area
protected (and the low numbers of protected areas) in certain of the biomes
within particular realms (following IUCN, 1980, defined as having less than

1000 square kilometers protected). These are:

Temperate broadleaf forests Neotropics (Province 22)
Cold winter deserts Neotropics (Province 26)
Temperate Grasslands Neotropics (Province 31-32)
Mixed island sysytems Palaearctic (Province 40-41)
Afrotropical (Province 23-25)
Lake systems Palaearctic (Province 42-44)
Afrotropical (Province 26-29)
Neotropical (Province 47)

However, one should note that but for the Cold winter deserts of Patagonia,
and the Temperate Grasslands of Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, these
are all relatively small provinces. In the case of the Mixed Islands system
in the Palaearctic, for example, nearly 3% of the biome is already receiving
protection. It should also be noted, however, that there are fewer than five
protected areas within the majority of these areas.

Analysis by biogeographical province is rather more ‘fine grain', and,
therefore, as expected more gaps in the system are highlighted (Table 4).

Provinces without any areas within our definition are:

Arctic Archipelago 1.15.6 Greenland Tundra 1.16.6
Lake Ladoga 2.42.14 Lake Baikal 2.44.14

/ 1 at ms NeERegae® in tore f ipiyo= ad! we ' 4 oni ay
¢ ; s cmt alantn oa i ag > 2 Faove | tre ;

¥. apltintawd hae dient: ay ant) owt" a). Ban fee, shtregec gold oud
I tebe cae MY Wi tate bulnyiirg wiers me peges Se

PT fee einn Wines astewny yok ct 01.08 tom
{ - _

ayuit wits mi | uty wrrsw ont bes piste lerieps . women

Re rattan « “as dqvensts wield filp whttiw Gace re bers a» ox
epeiaves a2: wets Oeeea tub bi war satiny beto63004 te Caine
Fad ‘coors Ralkoas or an vant wore plnd ‘od? rate
ons eine acho ip ‘ajprdooe edt yp lteie weal sn aye odeJ
ented an aieaend sn ibheds * 0 Siow’ << jheutavwt af Wesci ed
Sugqiaset: ob (pues vail ae ghana pas ia hws ~wierdan yiote lems caw
4 at a) rain vf aay >: J aepenta aebvorw ! in #0! tuody
ue “id a: ar rf “a ) sl we (4 panemnenes Woy -odmh 399 sve a a "

* dike heh cise oar Apion a0 eed arg tt, add An siey
“| ~ ier: wet set! a8 voted (head suins cM -Glaew wee 4 be Fegea ees -
Siete etl Sn iaaag HE dear Beinerom Mm wnedara wit Sas
er) ee <a boa) tot Ate: dF Se arit: scteatoe

rae M+ .9 ‘mis egeny ve" dont aves eee ,

7 5 = (esa

=n “gen: loge a3e¢e394 oe
dads’ are : ets” re
41 ge yI04K ‘

16

Ascension/St Helena 323/13 Lake Rudolf 3.26.14
Lake Tanganyika 3.28.14 Burman Rainforest 4.4.1
Laccadive Islands APT] 3 Maldives/Chagos 4.18.13
Pacific Desert 8.24.7 Argentinian Pampas 8. Sly led:
Revilla Gigedo Island 8.42.13 South Trinidade 8.46.13
Lake Titicaca 8.47.14

There are some changes which will be apparent from Harrison et al (1982),
in particular the appearance of some provinces in this list that were not in
it before. The two Africa Lakes are added as the reserves on their shores
protect little of the lakes themselves (Lake Baikal and Lake Ladoga also have
reserves on part of their shorelines). Although there are _ legislated
protected areas in Burma, it has_ been reliably reported that these are
currently not effectively managed because of a number of difficulties within
the country (and hence their categories have been modified within our files).
Both the provinces in Peru have national reserves, which have also had their
categories modified in our file for the reasons stated above.

30 provinces have 5 or fewer protected areas and an area of less than

1000 sq.km protected. These are:

Tamaulipan 1.10.7 West Anatolian 2.13.5
Atlas Steppe 2.28.11 Hindu Kush Highlands BS ils
Szechwan Highlands 2.39.12 Ryukyu Islands 2.41.13
Aral Sea 2.43.14 Malagasy Thorn Forest 3.10.4
Comores/Aldabra 3.24.13 Mascarene Islands 325,13
Lake Ukerewe (Victoria) 3.27.14 Lake Malawi 3.29.14
Ceylonese Rainforest 4.2.1 Seychelles/Amirantes 4.16.13
Cocos -Keeling/Christmas 4.19.13 Taiwan 4.27.13
Micronesian §.2.13 Central Polynesian Seals
East Melanesian olf odds: Insulantarctica 7.4.9
Campechean 6.1.1 Brazilian Planalto 8.9.2
Guerreran 8.14.04 Chilean Araucaria Forest 8.22.5
Chilean Sclerophyll 8.23.6 Patagonian 8.26.8
Cuban 8.39.13 Cocos Island 8.43.13
Fernando de Noronja 8.45.13

A further 10 provinces have less than 1000 square kilometers protected but
have more than 5 protected areas, while a further 29 have 5 or fewer protected
areas but an area of over 1000 square kilometers protected. Again there are
some anomalies, all of Cocos Island is protected, for example, as is a
sizeable part of Christmas Island, parts of several of the Ryukyu Islands and
the Atol das Rocas close to Fernando de Noroja. Most of the islands of
Insulantarctica also already receive a fair degree of de facto protection
(Clark and Dingwall, 1985).

Nevertheless, this rather crude application of what is a rather crude tool

suggests that a number of these provinces may be poorly protected, and

:
ia? a : ' (ick vias £4.25, ahem xB
; i 1.0% peer GH cae viel by. B.e ALOR
ee ve Oe ew . wenigesA ear TL hart Lye « tat
a iia - . |) . eelgen natadanoy 1% TBS. 5. ITS OAM
ri ' Ghaib tates root t. She ubicl ohapid shia
f & .te.8 ' “Saves a

pen ow werent Ce jee veqge wd, Tile A>idw aogneds emus
ak wae ore ebE Wiad Hi geqividg amon Wo scasiecye oft 4
heal dfeas te aa a stA cet at f
oveh naka mgelen! cee ons fastem ~tat) aayeaen if? o tal ont Te igi :
"coals ual et igs A /layationoge siati Yo fyag Ae "
- rT w “qtiat ies. aacd een 4h mite 4 enens ae
’ ut sole a Vo. sabe ord bugeden yievi tts jon %
‘ isis Rei loom geud oved a tai ryoge ts ? sions donned bas} nl
’ f ; ide, sev Tean7 ino jen oved ered ai 320 19H
i; is avon bejate eocRnes #42 30% ei li 100 wi bot tides |

ty ue we be proery besoetong towel .m 2 evad assnly
heen pt toy &

[ete .oenct .b03sn3085

H, AR Mubetn eee . 94q99%
ee, oe Sat vyduys. £1.87. . wane Lagi :
a a
a.) BRNOLal AeEASeee. th a8
I $i. tt
J RRP RETA Re Ly yp92 tA.

ise

aia

\elaoI>e ts
Seater tae ea ‘

heat e hacia \ oak

17

therefore may be areas where attention should be focused. This should not be
interpreted to mean that it is more important to establish a protected area in
Lake Ladoga than in the Congo rainforests for example (as might be understood
from Map 3 in the World Conservation Strategy, IUCN, 1980), this sort of
decision would depend on numerous other arguments such as the vulnerability
and fragility of the biome type, and the threats (and hence the urgency).

This brief survey shows us that the coverage is patchy, but to determine
exactly how patchy, more analysis of the figures is required, based on
accurate estimations of the size of the provinces; this work is in progress.

Turning to the marine biophysical approach of Hayden et al (1984), it has
not yet been possible to carry out the research necessary for a similar review
of marine and coastal protected areas, though the necessary information is

available to CMC. IUCN is actively seeking funds for this project.

Biogeographical coverage —- application at the local level

It is clear that the global biogeographic approach provides’ useful
information primarily at the global level. For application of this
information on the ground, we need to turn to either the regional or national
level where the same biogeographic principles can be applied with considerably
greater precision, yielding proportionally more useful results (though again,
in many cases, much of the basic information such as species distribution,
remains to be collected).

Various countries have produced biogeographical maps for use in the
assessment and planning of their own protected area systems, and various
assessments of coverage have been made (or attempted) for a wide range of
countries. (See for example recent papers on Pakistan, Indonesia and India in
Thorsell, 1985a).

Rodgers (1985) describes a biogeographical classification for India which
has been designed by the Wildlife Institute of India for conservation planning
purposes. The Institute is coordinating a national inventory of protected
area coverage in relation to this biogeographical approach. Based on the
results of this inventory, and the described biogeographical approach, a
"consultant team’ will be able to make recommendations concerning the
protection (or increased protection) of particular areas.

Wetterberg et al (1981) describe how the protected area coverage of the

Amazonian region was assessed using the phytogeographic regions of Prance
(1977). This was followed up by the definition and mapping of ‘Pleistocene

refugia’ (in effect centres of endemism and/or diversity) for birds, lizards,

qs
» y,
al ton wide 44 <3 dang ome. ard 47 ,
<¢ . .
| sh ore bets stom, © HAS Ad be pets ne 7?
t = if " a ‘
: bare atin wl idgin ex? wines oe) 2tadasteiae agacs -ts
+ > / 4 . = ‘
a dior a sil Ps Ot (OT ,eeete fh ? enn rh om wr ail .
pine te . 2 a done ae ee ho Sroqges ila
ih ~~ 4 ptesepagaae hs i: annie Dak eroetd? oA O00 ey in < aot CF,

J nici ot et to: ited Gd wgvewres edi rete ne wreds o> oe

Fes a abating ct sauayl) ' ri
. Foaeaenen aa’ fe mn witht pewos sy u ef! to #ibe.vti ia aac iva: om ade
yates satinde % xofoof it eat dae suee QA) doo ¥yI8> ©2 9 |
Ay Tearciodei “pampzasen bt Abnody yi ds besae0 lon fxigaos baa.
anton, if a aieut guitove xievitoe 24 yen

\ Raw * tadot ) ea ote Ul Piaten ‘
a ile aid, te whe ot toad ow”, bavi g* oii) nas
wrias > Wola tuo iq tithe rqosgots sepa’ st .
Sjwbinrs -m vens tee Cihanetsroqess gaidinty 5M

, oe r aned ‘PEE Sauron! Slead ons We tom"
Lae , i = (toms ne a
SE ee by swbe wad aety hace
antigay mye whoa i gninaatq: pire
11° Gy sw when: need wwaud sarieras | is:
aah sa ers moors ogame % y sen)

S ae i

18

butterflies and woody plants, derived from the available literature. The
points of overlap were noted, and after further refinement (taking into
consideration rural development plans and other factors), 30 general areas
were identified where efforts to establish protected areas could be
concentrated. Brazil was able to incorporate much of this work into its
protected areas system plan (IBDF, 1982), and several protected areas
(covering several million hectares) have since been set up - mainly within

recommended regions.

Terborgh and Winter (1983) use the distribution patterns of bird species
having ranges of less’ than 50,000km~ in Ecuador and Colombia to make
recommendations on the siting of reserves within these countries -— based on
the premise that such species (which over the continent as a whole comprise
about a quarter of the terrestrial avifauna) are more vulnerable to
deforestation than more widespread species. Within these two countries, 156
such species were identified, and their distributions mapped, and then a
‘concentration map’ was prepared by superimposition of all individual species
maps. Zones of maximum overlap obtained are described as areas obviously
meriting protection in a rational conservation plan, though the authors also
note areas of importance not immediately apparent from this approach.
Terborgh and Winter (1983) clearly show that while a large majority of these
species could be protected in a few well-situated reserves, virtually none of
the crucial areas are contained within the existing or proposed protected area
systems of either country.

Huntley and Ellis (1983) used the then available vegetation maps of
southern Africa (Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South
Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) to estimate the total area of each
country covered by each vegetation type (out of a total of 189). Maps of the
protected areas in each of these countries were then accurately plotted on the
vegetation maps so that the total area protected of each vegetation type in
each country could be estimated. This analysis served to highlight the
tremendous emphasis on conservation of areas with large and spectacular
ungulate and carnivore species. Some of those areas with the greatest biotic
diversity and most complex ecological processes were the most poorly conserved.

Following on from the work of Huntley and Ellis (1983), and also from the
earlier work of Lamprey (1975) and others, IUCN is working on a systems plan
for the Afrotropical region based on a wide range of published and unpublished
work including the Unesco/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa (White, 1983),
and the Afrotropical Directory prepared by CMC and CNPPA (IUCN, in press).

ee"

a oe momen eras tf efseliane cfd. meat bonts Sinett. eho” dual

nk: ep / Seetthnat 0% qe tau?) cate -acs bitsy aye yalrave- Seat

Raat Jeyeirop | Of.- “Terivine®. vodsn Gig wikia: diseiejpotoush Genes rie! ;

‘i titan seine basueloag apiféntha ee oe SF Gor bet® boa "

sev ahd ae Sit De eum -wlanmoons at wtte, +i hee vat

tibet has harevin “bi ORE A087 x: dans raivtl gal - el
tse Yeotee.) eee ' evade ones reat, (Bde Anied yee LP Oe a

abet tale te: nated tea, Ssh ots wets wes SORBET

ee ee ee Taibo 62 twit eek Rex
wks, Beige ‘ae Tatauen ead where ‘Siow ena he pales StF on Be

mae BD efonw! a doeatsaoy \ ues tide dShind~ veksons Anaie eet

8S peg emaeckire a aia shite eden Aeiiteorias “she te tet
ehccmmesisees aes Sisaecn past odes bosyqauhde acilwe, hr
tain, 8 aD: eh bra” Lop ttametes,

ee i Coat : | od i ivlanesin’ eek Sooo apap sae. het
nh _ damekete, penn Malina: ore bgaitheto qarkdbus oii eee
os ae wae 2 tawny lie Fates oe ae
(denon aime) oven. ‘pba tasioina’ -roe dsviastaegelie- te
puna. pr bies-stindcal tex edemeaeenimale ice

son 0089 9 sett we te ‘Rival sees: mpi darian’ ps

: ae a beet: ' :

Hf

19

Similar work is also under way in both the Indomalayan and Oceania regions.
The methods and intentions are described more fully by MacKinnon (1985), and
have been summarised for OTA by Thorsell (1985b). Similar activities are

under way in the Neotropical region.

Other biogeographic considerations

There are a number of ‘kinds’ of ecosystem that do not fall easily within
the types of biogeographical system described so far at the international
level, these are ecosystems such as wetlands and coral reefs, and to a certain
degree mountains and oceanic islands. In each case the ecosystem concerned
forms a sort of mosaic of ‘islands’ superimposed onto other biogeographic
considerations, and is thereby azonal.

The approach to studying the protection of these systems therefore has to
be correspondingly different. The method used most frequently is the listing
and studying of all potentially important sites, followed by analysis of what
is protected, and what needs protection. A good example of this approach
would be the lists of important wetland sites drawn up by a number of
countries (often at least partially as a result of the efforts under the
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl
Habitat (Ramsar Convention)).

Few studies of this kind have been carried out at an international level
(though there are notable exceptions over certain regions). However, over the
last year or two attempts have been made to carry out this type of survey for
several major ecosystem types including wetlands, coral reefs and oceanic
islands. In essence the approach has been to collect information on all sites
of international importance in each ecosystem type, but as the exact approach
varies these initiatives are described separately.

Collection of information on coral reefs has been directly coordinated by
CMC, working with the IUCN Commission on_ Ecology. This has involved
collection of information on all reefs protected within national parks and
reserves, all those proposed for protection, and all those recommended by
qualified experts as requiring protection or management on the basis of their
scientific interest or economic importance. Much of the information made
available so far is compiled as the First Version of the IUCN Directory of
Coral Reefs of International Importance (three volumes each of about 500
pages) prepared for the Sth International Coral Reef Congress in Tahiti, May
1985.

Collection of information on wetlands of international importance has

enh ad mitonnt i} ong - <p a
oe ehhed econ bad livi

SRT. Lowe

edi ooo

me, sb. hb ane yal 3 oad

enste teagan el
, vied Foaters oan iudw
t hi “ale ‘eeoke Snake w dea) cul
sili hileaalinaal Mawes * 2 ti ele tioag tanet

Casual ananiinn cabin’ aliiaen aes

fics a

: bane rere caning, ewer
-tH99 Saal Wie ftes -ahivo i cliy wtice- ia vente

apa: ee stn Ae, " w vert j eye » Si
sl “py Mh Four ; eoget Hd. 34 eenas:
ied ae. tune cr a wid mine

\" 4

fe

20

continued for a number of years under projects partially or wholly supported
by IUCN, the International Wildfowl Research Bureau (IWRB), the International
Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), and UNEP. U.S. Federal agencies and
NGOs have also been involved in funding some of the work in south and central
America and the Caribbean. In this case, definition of a wetland of
international importance is essentially based on the ‘'Heiligenhafen’ criteria
as modified by the first conference of contracting parties to the Convention
on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat,
Cagliari, 1980 (IWRB, 1980).

So far, information on wetlands of international importance has been
collected and published for the Western Palaearctic (Carp, 1980; Scott, 1980),
and for all sites listed under the Wetlands Convention (IUCN, 1983). The
initial collection of information is completed for the neotropics and is now
with IUCN for publication (Scott and Carbonell, in press). Work is also under
way for Africa, assisted by the availability of much limnological information
collected by SCOPE which is also due to be published next year (Burgis and
Symoens, in _ press). Work will begin shortly on the Indomalayan region,
building on work already being done by ICBP, the Interwader project and others.

Oceanic islands are an ‘ecosystem group' for which information is widely
scattered, even within a single region (e.g. Dahl, 1980), and where there are
Many particularly urgent problems. There is a therefore a real need to
reestablish the database initiatives of the International Biological Programme
(Douglas, 1969; Nicholson and Douglas, 1970). ICBP have already carried out
the pilot project for an oceanic islands database (jointly planned with the
IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre), and therefore with the earlier IBP work
much of the necessary groundwork has been done. IUCN and ICBP are actively
seeking funding for the extension of this work to establish a fully developed
database.

Concommitant with these database developments is the need for IUCN to
develop computer software to help in handling the information. This is
discussed further below, and again IUCN are actively seeking funding to carry
out this work. This is particularly important, as in all cases the
information derived from the above projects, when linked with other
information available to CMC, can be used to assess the current conservation
situation in each of the different ecosystems types, not only in terms of what
is protected and what is not, but in terms of values, threats and so on. This
type of database approach is clearly applicable to any discrete habitat type,

and is an important development area for CMC.

ieee wing ta bead a euRey awbee et: sodmens a Me thew
al Eepaitsorosnt ont IW? HenenD -dotangsS Temthlis : ots st0ttt
. on batamnge Da ehiu. OP) Wek VOID: hte lel
| Bazan. ban, Hees 7 stew add Yn sae gnthisy a ov teat Tre

ou 1 ane Lei Ne WOE hat Vb nis eanAas)
ahiesivs Faudwaiinge fon! wit | (0h enna senna eee tt '
_ aE Daye ae a3, eeb Smt ai Pon Bie. i how otis erry nt
5 ; ie, " enssiion Dowtae rus oe 2a teeqat woes youm?: iaco) tvavdbod
qi at 4 i the thes i Ae R
o em oh; Bourn Sry Prone ieee nd The shnetoawe as ib arte
: AAORE Saeae! 2ORUC 4909) ahha kw Stands ott 209 ositeitedaal

an qt tae yy Boat: sot iiwvsle's ee ee ec od Feet we:
o Ti stipe edgy tere wht myd teen ove i gare tat | Pee ogee
| eas ayia: ile ae baageg- ab: sh:bbaedas bax s4esa) 01 a eng
sf leaitncetsi | Ladino Berens. § Aaa edi ttl hey uke, od Cate team al
; Lenn Saye Apart: nit hd Tid A O25 wets ete 'E. ity, dita rg he a
nee OTe a Wo LINOde. Agee Deke. dat Pt
oe Saft tae topiong ehiwrde. t aad caDY ger oy at ante quaceent
oe :#D ae ‘GUC 1s mageydoun’” as ene chee i
7 Med ga Ntger vtgate @. aap
” Lae ‘ Re vet b et Sreat tev Edoug oes ee ’

Savigoteta- farses Sauryo gern dl Jo epev ead Sand a2 sft bade
Be Sane eee’ nadia : ‘yet hia bere ~asenaney

, ve pe ovehetads iad metres jonnbee F
| i: arene ‘Watch weet aati Pea ee

21
USE O: THE INFORMATION

Assuming that the information is available, improvement in the use of the
available information on status and trends of the in situ conservation of
ecosystems depends on two groups of people: those who manage the information,
and those who use it. At the international level, and in the case of IUCN the
information on protected areas is managed by CMC's Protected Areas Data Unit,
but it is used by several other groups, in particular IUCN's Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA).

CNPPA carries out and fosters a wide range of activities for IUCN including
development of international priorities for management, focussing of public
attention on protected area issues, training, development of publications,
support for regional expert meetings, provision of advice to international
protected area programmes, and so on. The Commission's activities are largely
spelled out in detail in the Bali Action Plan (Miller, 1984), and have been
further described for OTA by Thorsell (1985b). As has been noted earlier
there is close contact between CNPPA and PADU, with joint work including the
use of global biogeography to identify areas where there is inadequate
protected areas coverage, and the development of publications which help to
identify priorities and to publicise what is being done. Information on
specific sites or groups of sites is also of value to CNPPA in making
evaluations of world heritage nominations, and was used in 1984 in preparing a
presentation on the world’s most threatened protected areas.

However, it will be apparent, and has been indicated above, that
information on protected areas has much wider application than in the further
management and development of protected area systems. Such areas aiso have a
key role to play in wider land-use management and planning, a role that is
implicit in much of the work of IUCN and others on protected areas, and which
was a central theme in the World National Parks Congress held in Bali,
Indonesia, in 1982 (McNeely and Miller, 1984). This role is discussed in a
wide variety of publications already quoted, and the aims are well stated in
the Bali Action Plan (Miller, 1984) and Action Plans subsequently developed
for Africa (in IUCN, 1983), Indomalaya (in Thorsell, 1985a) and more recently
for Oceania.

One international programme of particular relevance to this theme is
Unesco's Man and the Biosphere Programme, and in particular MAB Project 8;
Biosphere Reserves. In summary, biosphere reserves are areas where there can

be long-term in situ conservation of plant and animal genetic resources,

ites p: oat Moa Teeocus ae"
eur -
ani he Re ale ai Seem ner eyes ! pivetiows: ah cei damawte| ost dod =
ie aakanrvenses etka. gi aft YH ebnni tae ene ae + error ed a
ORES eee ne ee ee,
} iy pres Ae wae wit! wt inne! fewed. Heine et wht A ba.
: ee ete vers ‘pedepses® WOH) eet eabiay, 67 seers os oevotgea ge
; mannan ie vt nelnotte g. 8) equpig <ette. | svaven- ¥e |
Pa a (YSU) wicoeth tis 78 07 tee Al
perce enreres wh BELEARIOn Yo igner Wiey euv7e~ Ons J
pi tabon Piscamlanoon MaeiONNnIIR. MAR. Hees ing kie” tres res tn)
, bi sam syme ey i sds toons akotas c Covet Bas Se ae aS
‘ Fivine Se-ndieivets: jeairttaen Mmoqr ‘Call gore ae ,
Svan re Ans 200) 998 wrath: olf (ae ot has, commas pig SINE
we nn ARM L veers ee Gol4 aot Eom, id at Tistgh ot tam
yaar) Pieris wt ATO war wet Bop i
oe “(stone tadet si OAM Bae WED owed tesa
a oa Carat ee ee Ce eee giles pp ogee
‘ Ro Fisingrad ay: 1 ‘of% (bap, santerow deeete
ir) aL a grind +i Sade galpifidng of he -soti eee
Di! Sacrarie, Ag oath 91 2éiin Yo sQilone ee woah
rap ew Bae. .umiotsanimon 675.9 (yet: biroe | di

;
i

a

ste" lpia i Ne town i

a wed mi, rata

Nate. “pratinan: Bea Satie er

.

<b yieag | ‘eases writ f sent Rey we!
; a eae. aut “enenr any Co

22

together with research on ecosystem management and conservation, monitoring of
changes in the biosphere, training of specialists, and environmental education
(Batisse, 1985). The aims and achievements of the Biosphere Reserve programme
so far were extensively discussed during the First International Biosphere
Congress held in- Minsk, Byelorussia/USSR, in 1983 (Unesco-UNEP, 1984). The
congress derived an Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves which has now been
adopted by the International Co-ordinating Council of the MAB Programme
(Unesco, 1984). The need for an international database on biosphere reserves
to help implement this plan is clear, and was addressed at the congress by
Harrison (1984), who also discussed standardisation in research’ and
monitoring. In the same session Gregg (1984) discussed the development of
scientific programmes to support the multiple roles of biosphere reserves.
Both papers make mention of the plan developed by the US National MAB
Committee (1979) for development of a staged programme for monitoring and
research in biosphere reserves. Unesco are now working with various groups
including the US MAB Committee, the Nature Conservancy and the Smithsonian
Institution, as well as IUCN, to develop and implement an information system
for biosphere reserves which should considerably enhance their value for in
situ conservation of biological diversity.

The Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) was set up at UNEP,
Nairobi, with the specific aim of coordinating environmental monitoring at the
global level in order to standardize data collection techniques and to make
quality control, monitoring methods and data accessible (Croze, 1984), in
order to be able ultimately to produce information necessary and sufficient
for the understanding and management of ecosystems. GEMS, therefore, aims to
coordinate and direct existing talent and facilities, making use, for example,
of other specialised agencies of the United Nations; the World Health
Organisation, the World Meterological Organisation, the Food and Agriculture
Organisation, Unesco, and so on. The ‘nature conservation' part of this
database is provided by the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre. To be
useful, this central database must also be run on computer, so GEMS has
embarked on a two-year pilot project to set up a computerized Global Resource
Information Database (GRID).

Because the input is from a far wider range of resources than is currently
available to the IUCN database (for example satellite imagery, aerial
photographs), once GEMS have the GRID fully implemented this will lead to a
far better understanding of the status and trends within each ecosystem.

Combined with the information IUCN now has, and the improved information it

‘ ve a

lic: phndaerrynne> hee “Soetiose ced. arr Her in ve EOE
hee een Gatownaasrs site oe ei OM a a Natit tad:

: 1 palatine ane PeenTOel! bqt Sel Mixcasvairae Sue tte

| vie

aii aaled fade sonsn tin’ fears \ ATA ‘Heanyarsh, Elev igdste me

ae reer SPP coeeee)) GWer 8), Wilthemncktsd sys |. Te et bt

hae, woe bell alae ad eee orden te wt welt. dng ok ot

cconpeial Ld oe hd Eyshacy wing sd ated nae ate ee a

i yal Hiss f de/ hearers nw sigan oF gmt a ote
“et ' we ous | | |

hy a Aaa raf: Gata sods! Ye: cals

47 ee onejoaiyo' ae oe "O.-Aney ined re AM
i) ei toting taney hte: RON CONOR edn! Seer qwHeD srsdqantti
i aae

nila

“ly aoe ar

=
ni nt iD. bra Cake viqean) “eta wad oto ddr IW BU»,
Gelveraia: 06 Ysv lant bye aatsieh ot AD or [hee =)

ar.
RET ees Nite: nice itd tawlaailo binwdda. totes entaaont :
: Kiera tieecin i : Serbatewd® Seoegetott Io" eokte
fa age nae see Vantin meTsys > Driers pack See Seeds b
wii pe HAP mab? betin vere 1 ile 2) Rene
' cate Rep sahhan « Ay Dati dao yan ab % avi
1 Maeseedsay: &hnb Win Steps io ee aes
2 i ao ttemrate? Anebend it: ¢ievemioky 1
A peapeeicyoow: Leh Fqaesey wel ‘a Sasa ward
rewidigice Bae anslad aide hes dpoait

23

will have by the time GRID is operational (on protected areas, species of
concern, discreet habitats and so on) this will-enable information users to be
much more effective in their use of information to implement conservation
action.

Other key users of environmental information are the major development
banks. Where these agencies can be provided relatively quickly with
background information on conservation concerns within the region - in terms
of protected areas, species, habitats etc. - they may be influenced to modify
projects to take this sort of information into account, or to obtain and use
this information in project development. This stage does not and cannot
replace the use of expert consultants on field missions, but provides the
necessary background and advance information necessary in project development
and planning. The importance the World Bank attaches to environmental aspects
of development projects is discussed by Goodland (1984), who also discusses
the role of wildlands management in economic development (Goodland, 1985).
Additionally, CMC's recent experience is that the private sector is also
interested in having such an information service available.

It is clear therefore that the potential for use of information on the
situation, status and trends in ecosystems, and the situation, status and
trends of in situ conservation in ecosystems, is both wide-ranging and varied,
and potentially involves many organisations at the national, regional and
international level, as well as governments and individuals.

Because of the wide range of potential users, it would be rather
presumptive to suggest how use of the information could be improved, except to
say that the better the information and the better the handling of that
information, the more effectively it can be used (measures for improvement of
the international database which IUCN is already developing are detailed in
the next section). What can be stressed however, is the need to:

1. Encourage and support those organisations which use or foster use of

environmental data in conservation of ecosystems; and

2. Encourage both wider use of the available information and further

research into the land-use, management and planning aspects of the
application of that information.
The majority of decisions affecting development and use of natural resources
are made at the national or local level, and it should therefore also be noted
that there is a specific need to:

3. Encourage the use of a wide range of environmental data in the making of

decisions affecting the management and use of natural resources at all

levels.

oe,

ake yeas Reirateng, re) deeei yao os

a) Wes Mepis ib Nt ait pldniy hdd - dyer awe et oder
nein :2 akan pe Pee ee Lies, ean and : 710

lg wine wt wi rt pine Bee) he tapontiert bute

a eA aang Mbpette brs ek bce ot eo. Benita oe"
; a iin ye nolgres was RiGr ins LOWY (RTO WOM s Fee. Pees
ip caent organ wi eae qari? Se patel tae: , bee do sqet
0) ibe dts . .y) Bei Mnsidaras Oath wt Sear Wee WO seme «weds
| Mans <a ate! BRET. wR ay dave Yiveas sae
di eosin meri eeo hes jemee 2eikews
whi 4Siemsabo0 ek tambotne: weeny
ob.dotowtte Agett bE at cotiig Avge
eoiune Diribess ed GeamWoelS o< 6/09 LeeR~ Sey
bo Scape ee Rien oF sft tie Dba vee
clive oe. feats e: arses oo grease. 0S a !
: ieeha),. sla tinue ssivese soidtwmta: og dsuc ye baat a
PetGrGeu 103, Peisastog oft, amit tes mtd 0 ip

# aldrtient)s Mit BAe... paetegsooe fi. ubrew tan <bsaae
ak

iy Ajtai pameinguiewe <9) worl tes 3ethes gS egg

atiagh oe -secllerbeaase yaa eewlesat, ie
- > abe wba Spe, itnearjetaa! en flow ca howe
shag eer: hadigetag Ser saner, gttv sat ae

ans Ca) bore. solJamsotni sis) reddedU
a > freee at ene fl (lawl tie ie sce nutd
ab phthandn eh WOUT Hurd once d wtp fame tf
gives sureeodt af nhs etn, ieee #
+ anode exinag Dy wast reqs ‘som .
MPase Ve aol sevowrios of etob. bag
— vce ahkiw Dee
tye han “poye-beal ai) ale

Lo ee tes ea ahi
Wh paargitty Spt adowd

24

Needless to say, many organizations, government departments, etc., are
already working in this area, and what is needed in may case is the additional
support and encouragement (both financial and otherwise) to ensure that such
activities become an integral and essential part of land-use planning.

Clearly another factor affecting the use of the data available is its
accessibility. Information held by the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
is, in principle, available to anyone, though the need to both maintain the
database and to prepare information for those needing it inevitably leads to
the need to make some charge for it. At present we normally respond to
written queries from external users offering to provide either packages of
basic -— largely uninterpreted - data, or by writing reports tailored to a
user's requirements. We are however investigating the use of direct access
methods with the U.S. National Park Service. It should nevertheless be noted
that direct access methods can only provide a ‘quick and dirty' answer to any
given query at present because information cannot currently be incorporated by
CMC as fast as it is being received. This is detailed further below.

These comments will apply to most databases, so even though the networking
of information sources is desirable, and probably inevitable, one should never
loose sight of the fact that it is unlikely that the computer files will ever
contain all the information available to a database, nor is it likely that a
computer will ever be able to replace the interpretive ability of an expert
familiar with the data. Added to this is the additional problem of different
databases using different conventions in the interpretation of their data for
codifying it. It should therefore be stressed that

4. Close cooperation between all organisations managing information on

conservation issues should be actively encouraged and supported, to
ensure good flow of information, avoidance of duplication of effort, and
use of similar methods of interpreting data where necessary, with the

ultimate aim of improving the use of information.

Possible U.S. response
Recommendations on actions that can/should be taken by various U.S.

institutions, development banks, non-governmental groups etc. have been

prepared for Congress in two recent documents, the U.S. Strategy on the

Conservation of Biological Diversity (an interagency Task Force Report, 1984)

and Conserving International Wildlife Resources: The United States Response (a
report by The Secretary of State and The Secretary of the Interior, 1984).

Within these documents a number of the recommendations clearly relate to the

hie Pte Ey vg pn foe
nt bi versie vals one he Dane Gh asi ca sate 1) oe ee 301
omen wee Co Cue OR. hegapods: Ok Eon toes fimenae er
ny Ns Op heaalg, casper! te tg tess pide has Doge io! oo aavpe
: b 7 sibibie ie wi Hh Gea 9s gel teem | -a0b enna
PN pera ‘omsiaraiy oie. LO NNER HART (og Hien olson hth
Pelham: Advair Wine: wt pias pyeRna cf site steve. atl
vm , ened thaenbowind ah pation: RRA sat. telteano tnt «s0 qo ya
que tsi RETR RIE Heung TA eth 50% oytens omen icmem .
ee ee pad bay 2 sabre veges od sai aot oe dynte Uninetee et eel
is i lenoseeaell ohgen antdide Nd me vite verenmusiniag gil
ead ae: wot teh fay Shyittownt) aprccad: ore ~aete
ent eet yeh beso tel Bw

oo bad pee soe dopa’

lie pay: bi en, get sonia “heer. od ONE tiene
om PSUR IY ne eUaioay Bee he 9 wi
al a ns aa tal meth Sees: pS aa Bias 08 rt mad tos? WR gala
. jets wh at Sie Ont ap bole snlisearrstols r

aise J [Grinteieniedigan’ ihe’ arent: F
—— oeetoad ev Neaee oor

25

importance of information on the status and trends of ecosystems and their
conservation, and directly relate to use of that information. As noted by
Thorsell (1985b), IUCN is in general agreement with the thrust of the whole
range of recommendations contained within these documents.

Thorsell also recommends a number of actions that could be taken within the
United States which would involve use of information directly provided by the
IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre. This includes wider use of the database
within the ongoing programmes of USAID, the State Department, and the
Department of the Interior. It .is also suggested that all U.S. missions
abroad should hold up-to-date information on conservation issues within the
countries concerned, and that such information could be provided by IUCN/CMC
on a subscription basis. As has been noted, IUCN is currently investigating
with U.S. National Park Service the possibility of on-line access to protected
areas information. Clearly other U.S. organizations may also be interested in
using this sort of access, including other federal agencies, the Nature
Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund.

However, perhaps the most important point to make here is that if the
United States agencies, institutions etc. encourage and support the use of
environmental data in decision making, and use such data in their own decision
making processes, this should in itself encourage the development of the
information base at all levels. This information base will then provide an
improved tool both for making new planning decisions, and reviewing the
effects of previous decisions. Further development of the use of information
within the U.S. will hopefully also lead to further use of environmental

information within planning and managment in other parts of the world.

IMPROVING THE DATABASE

Within the protected areas database now run by IUCN we already have an
international database which we believe to be of some value, and which was
recognised by the World National Parks Congress as being a valuable tool in
the implementation of the Bali Declaration (Recommendation 1, World National
Parks Congress, 1984).

The IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre is also recognised by Conserving
International Wildlife Resources: The United States Response (a report by The
Secretary of State and The Secretary of the Interior, 1984) as the “principal

focal point for information on the status of plants and animals, existing

Behe Bee Reber chin netsis ets wo socieencte So: eal
aaa aha tnd iaGd Se. wee At & Ln cere Iq ei
: mnie mph: Mon dard) itd. ita bw ri OMre? 16 Le ve ; ¢ 2 ite

e i axhiek »eAnsavoub saonk! ni

4 aie ve ‘bhoon aon. weed 9

Bae

aie siete od) (Gina

ala injenss ao niin yao wd 4dei
af ed atv RE aL Maan tad.

% Andie 6 dln acd
30%
elon vores
/ persee ~ 2 id >)
f dome ong kee: sai tom toebais
(eta ‘Viesst. wt. bs
sd: nck tererai atit .ctovws!
Athos yuinnnts oo goitee 207.
ohevet jellOF = . winied seh
edict nes ql ivtngod
‘ Wet tuomyenin so anda [4- ava tae" ci

; con bot sn Jorg.
Wd wi nists wendareh ie rs |
al fants biscte nit. ee

A hket ods 30. ai.iadial

a 2

‘7

26

parks and protected areas". Recommendation 2.1 of that report, which
emphasisies the value of collecting “in one -world repository, sources of
information concerning conservation status of species and habitat" also notes
that CMC has already made "important strides in this regard and, because of
sovereignty sensitivities, would be more likely to receive information freely
from all countries” than a similar database in Washington.

This being the case, it is worthwhile discussing further here a number of
requirements/shortcomings in the existing database which are apparent to us.
Many of these points could equally apply to other databases at local, national
and regional levels, and several of the recommendations at the end of the
section also apply to these databases. Other recommendations relate to the
actual groudwork necessary for the collection of information, which is not
discussed in much detail here (it is presumably covered by other papers
solicited by OTA).

Assuming that the aims and objectives of the database are clear, there
remain three main parts to its development and maintenance:

a) continual collection, verification and compilation of information on

protected areas;

b) the management of that information; and

c) use of that information.

The last item has already been discussed.

Collection, verification and compilation of information on protected areas

As was emphasised earlier, good flow of information to an international
database ultimately depends on the availability of information within each
country; ideally with good information flow from each area to the national
level, and from here on to the international database. At each level this
information is of value when stored within a database of some form (not
necessarily a computer database). Decisions are generally made at the local
or national level, therefore within a specific area that information is of
value in the management of that site (and of similar sites elsewhere), while
at the national level the information is of value in assessment, management
and planning within the national system. It is clear that not only must these
databases exist, but the wherewithal must be provided for them to interrelate
with each other, and with the international database.

In some countries information flow is currently good, in others it is not.
It therefore follows that the flow of information to the international level

is itself rather variable. The information that comes to CMC also comes from

ae > ener, besoesorg SOR

pre gettestios io. gulev sto oe ie bene 2:

ie Yor abatacia aeksawweee so paliarvesnes eae
gab t an dnatrogin!” sate ybasata wast De
7 ‘ante demas 94 Oho a8 fivitianes Ying Lig be
te vada eattate « cats “ori tzecoo Doe
) ebhietiane @ioel .meeo ote auted sine.)
b gotiates a4 al ¢g6 here ods \storeee
aid ahaae eiteiine Blew, oisicq saedtviy
tht Ae presen Lie, stewsl Tenehgem,
‘Go, eeuindah vandd of glqqe cote
, ee Pol YPrassevon ATOvEy!
a @teml Lbegeh come ff
(ae et bed
ayy te cooritntne: bon arly ott Jedd gates
sad Sait faived 33: 7) a7ieqa lam 49
— »nuttesi ies ian

my | 7 ebatR baroe

(OA oat .
x ey hig mom pa Anbérampiasiensan 5001 Jo docmayacam ;
atte "| peo ddaersetat jadd te. “i
VAR
ae ———. tout yososle- ont most >

¥ +e eas )7abdans perce ae BA
WK B04) Oo. wheetud ylotenit ty sam
eo taid hoo, fidiw ¢ttanhh
F-28302 no #20, mort tents
fl i. ve pie wetaw Yo af

accenee

27

a variety of different sources, from the Management authorities, from NGOs,
from individual scientists, and so on. In -other words, the process of
information collection is rather labour intensive, since information must be
compared and often verified before the work of incorporating it into either
data files or protected area information sheets begins. As a result of this
and low staff numbers (PADU is currently limited to a staff of four) this
becomes rather a slower process within the IUCN database than is desirable.

In many cases it is also necessary to review the relevant literature on
parks and reserves, and to have it to hand for further information,
verification of facts, etc. Much of this literature is available in
libraries, but it would be sensible in the future to ensure receipt of many
more unpublished reports, and other papers and publications direct from the
protected areas authorities, international organisations and others
responsible. IUCN's Conservation Monitoring Centre does not currently have
any set budget for purchase of relevant publications, but this clearly needs
to be a future budgetary item.

As well as the national databases mentioned above, a number of regional
databases, or ‘specialist’ databases also exist with which it is important to
interrelate. Currently, interrelationship is often hampered by the lack of
available funds for the necessary travel to make effective contact between
those responsible for organisation of these databases. This is unfortunate
not only because of the resulting lower level of interaction, but also as it
may result in several international groups approaching a country for
essentially similar information.

Within the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre we are currently in the
process of reviewing data collection procedures on protected areas and are
already implementing some improvements. These procedures will also be an item
for discussion by a working group set up by IUCN's Commission on National
Parks and Protected Areas to look into data collection, management and
dissemination. It is intended that this working group will be an advisory
body for the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre's work on protected areas.

The above would suggest that some of the key actions needed to ensure that
good information is available at the international level are to:

1. Strengthen and encourage national and local conservation database
development;

2. Foster the free exchange of information and maintain its flow from the
local to the national and on to the international level (including
support for regional meetings such as those organized by IUCN's

Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas);

ig ‘ © ] Woe
i} + ‘
{ 6 a ie
: a Ff
fa oa

00m wont aad Spemgo nae odd aoet
® anno - _ ptivtow wes o at to

ot Sena, ale aoKite mblenstns i

; maddie oant vi get sarsesy vo ond eo drow nde

a wt biden a os eal: asende aii

¥ whe en" Yo pina eo A pastes Epo»
a ae “atten wt adits sender tub WOT Giks wha iw
; * wmdanen ik ‘Sqave tos oat: we leet ad vader
“leapt nameieas, a wt wi be Cd PP ey
ak ofderiaee ey did vine te

a one Re) agtanes wee we wou) ois 6 ihixuoe od
ay -—r any dooxth wapisoul tse hoo nie 3 welkio
Ne i; ;
le

r bad eee visiiae or 2 Gaieb :

~ bn odiabeye” ddiw Sstee nets SeuNintak “Fails
cepa eee ro Dereqund mete eh gitenotral es
aren note deltestte when 97 Tenand Yoeeso™ ;

+ toh vumansiotnb Geatde Aa acitariaagw 70% oldive

all!

i ints iol sears iBe! Faves grvat goiter i
'
est
“Eswe tte et 2d 4 ft
b 7s * ae 80) foarw si ; rin »

etna? pit eestace gubdevrees0d MOUs, was
> ewbe2074 uptioe Loo eitab 'geivety
rig sent “yen a raat So. 4A? Promo Ben
1 gee sae. ape geldass vio
‘ b edad deol 08 ead hete0da949
vat Riad Ube dohkestnt. ci 2h debe
2D gatseNwett weidgaricanct): S207 oud: te
$id He imietsit dragons creow wendesalp
dervese? MS Fay: ofdultave at ont Samaria
vt “saaweons hace redttpdbind

‘2 owe arena
ae nigella 0 i sd cedeet
be hata d aie ess ny Lenwhe -
- Enasibg yes aay na
col oneal ” wo kaol eae

28

3. Encourage closer ties between the various regional and international
databases dealing with conservation issues; and

4. Strengthen existing database capability of IUCN with the provision of
more staff time to improve the capacity to collect and compile
information on protected areas, and the provision of proper library
facilities.

It should finally be noted here, that the current limiting factor on
collection (and management) of information on protected areas by the IUCN
Conservation Monitoring Centre remains inadequate staffing levels. There is
urgent need for at least two further senior research staff and appropriate
support.

As has been mentioned above, the development of national and/or regional
conservation databases is a logical step for a variety of reasons, and many
are being, or have been, set up in many countries (note for example the work
of the U.S. Nature Conservancy in this regard). IUCN's experience in
development of its conservation database could be put to good use in assisting
in this national/regional development. It is also worth noting that there is
still a general lack of use of computers in management of conservation
information.

IUCN's Computer Service Unit (within the Conservation Monitoring Centre)
has the capability but not the opportunity to develop a standard software
package which could be used on micro-computers for establishment of national
databases. Apart from the obvious advantage of the simplicity of being able
to get a system ‘off the shelf" (once the software has been developed) this
would also mean that the information would be stored within these databases in
a form which could be readily understood within IUCN's computers. It would be
likely that CMC would cooperate closely with the U.S Nature Conservancy

(International Programme) in this sort of activity.

Management of information

Geographical Information System: Clearly to be of maximum benefit in the
analysis of the status and trends of in situ conservation of biological
diversity, all of the information available on protected areas must be tied as
closely as possible (preferably within the computer database) with information
on species and ecosystems, so that comparisons and analyses can be readily
carried out. Various ‘classification’ systems exist which can be used in the
assessment of the protected area coverage of various ecosystems. These can be

divided into two forms, those that are map based and those that are not.

a

" i
fanolinaradal bas Leteige? seoiay .of
Oi hy £ 7 pleas he S¢ J,eaevedd. " mw

te: not mina ahh ‘bain WUE Wn esti bigs oaads

E bao . y teens toh fan é od Mieeeqeo = =6FaT ywreecnnt
eka wont a A ote lyand | 1 dd PHA, cerns ’ at
t ve rat ae x =
he pene ‘ya Rory) ig area 9 one dps and

i]

wt died asain’, be ayeae 1) moidewnoial
“a ovedt aboot pattie idevpebes! ‘selucws
aaniaqonaye be .
Lifeline dk PS alpen! sha :
4 | faootns renin spon mn siaclinitaitteed ders ayrids Gus
ene. ie (9 enon ews Aeoiigpa tien * wo oridy Lesisei wd %
il te os hana wok, wieah ee igbeven ytam’ wl qe gos ya
jewae ” o thongs aie oi ycae 7
sEsonied | bow bong 4 Tey of bhuos earvas witagHy
ved dai gaitoa dtyey oxie si a ieee o ftv F
i te nal ck cuepeniaaa oi > tn i a |

: p :

y)

dinars stinse ned .9?

ie
Yih torreon of) néedind Aled woiwiee. i493

aaa ae gatewnir iO} Wkwetewnqe, yds son jot eiiticona:

Me idenae oe 7; aiaype boost

via? ody 4a ad:

Aan esanto a2e9E40e 9D oi ies

eo = bd ora niet at Comm

wee lie bidird - has) eujate.-odd
Wie ettecinss asisuaw int ef to RLe ~
; rnagpeel wide» 901 10 widtunig: ey

i

29 hows Bek;
i Hast enesc: 2 hepa 200 eli
hire, bedoete yay .0d3 Ya 4
mass suods 010% aici b

29

Mention has already been made of the maps and methodologies of Udvardy
(1975), Bailey (1983) and Hayden et al (1984). Other major regional maps
which may be important in this sort of analysis are, for example, those for
the ecoregions of the United States (Bailey, 1976) and North America (Bailey
and Cushwa, 1981), the physical geographical regions of the Nordic countries
(Nordic Council of Ministers, 1983), the physical geographical regions of the
Soviet Union (Gvozdetskiy, 1968), and so on.

Clearly IUCN needs the capability to handle maps so that information within
their database can be quickly located on any part of any map. The ideal
solution, and the best long term solution, is the availability of computer
hardware and software to handle the maps and their information content, and
the necessary support staff to assist in their use. Once this software and
hardware is available, in theory any map can be input (including vegetation
maps, species distribution maps, distribution of remaining ‘virgin' forest,
geological maps, soils maps, climatic maps, etc.), and analysis can then be
made of protected area coverage using any combination of maps required.

It is also of value to consider information on non-biological or
geographical aspects such ‘as distribution of the human population, relative
effect of man on different regimes, desertification, estimated productivity,
etc. in analysis of in situ conservation. Much of this information can be
input as maps, and therefore could be easily handled with full Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) capability.

An improved Geographical Information System (GIS) will also bring a series
of other benefits. It will make it much easier to relate one area to another,
making the database more able to indicate where areas meet, overlap or fall
one within another. For example, when asked for a list of conservation areas
over 1 million hectares it will not only provide a list of those over this
figure, but also a list of sites where their contiguity to other sites takes
them over this figure. It will similarly simplify analysis of ‘percentage
cover’ of any given geographical region.

Such a system would also enable us to determine where within a given area
another smaller area lies. That this capability is important can be
demonstrated by two simple examples. Firstly, it will be able to tell us very
quickly which protected areas are on international borders, or the coast and
s0 on. Secondly it will enable IUCN to identify not only which areas are
within which biogeographical regions, but which are near the boundaries of
those regions. As Pielou (1979) pointed out the areas where transitions occur

are important in their own right and deserve special attention.

wan ytesei wrede ii : 3; eaeed

jae oe Bas .fehel 5 fat cower yt
. 2 RELI idege yet bean WO af :
| ie 24 \an.. Piipdaiae f iieies - ‘ Le da 4) da

PhS enon ton ates ywsel Jat ex bet 4
pA. ogee SEP ekbadd of sxanstos bok
4 simsees mt Viet. Pogqu poacuesen Wi
unten gna yroed? ai sideliwra al
neeth unew voltedioiei® esha y
vee ‘hiteetiy .eqen vlice ..qan eDky
a got) a BusItVOo ees bs
Hariena igebiewes® ©) auiavw %o onte-=
oe ' ' idl ‘tieccupmeme ins Ge vous “worse:
nF t Dotegtias, ,qotsesi tit: Pretiges tortetlih no neon 36
a i a ‘RRS Ie WO9 agi of to elogisaw 4
. Pade Dives suoteset? hee. aque
heel Bah FE Fdaque (B32; ote te netted
tke ful. Eesidqeiaes? | aieeeen
e326 miem iitv tt as haned>
eiitdd eld, eogom inndstab sh4s
imei \etqeaze 20% 39 teddnee we
sons itiw 41 So'nsoe8 nuk tial
aatie. 26 vets outer’ 28g
! Bite 92 wwgid «bee
a festiddetzocy asviy Yaa

are vb Bay ub, o 09h

“af eee
B! hia yy Wy Woe eee Ti ay

‘Vaeif sew ital
‘wtanls our ied 's
ee een hetondorg | date
rliw #1 ytenteeh 4
Ede ldysrgenad id ts hewo ww
«pala polwls wh .aholgen amy
sel tee Redvsid aly

30

Another valuable corollary of the development and use of a full GIS would
be the capability of relating the information on the size of an area with that
on its relative isolation from other protected area, and perhaps also its
shape. This should allow further detailed assessment of reserve networks and
their efficiency, especially when combined with further information on the
effectiveness of management, and eventually on species and_ species

numbers/trends.

Habitats: It is clear that all information within a database must not only
be linked to all geographical information based on maps, but on actual ground
features. We need to know for example which protected areas actually contain
tropical rain forest, elfin forest or mangroves, which contain sea grass beds,
glaciers or limestone karst topography and so on. It therefore follows that
information on each protected area needs to be linked with a ‘habitat’
classification system or with numerous partial systems such as vegetation
systems (e.g. IUCN, 1973; Unesco, 1973), geomorphological systems, island
systems (e.g. Dahl, 1980), wetland systems (e.g. Cowardin et al, 1975) etc.
Information on each protected area is very variable, as we have noted, so
classifications clearly need to be hierarchical so that information can be
used, however crude or sophisticated. It has been suggested that a single
system should be developed which will be used not only by IUCN for management
of its information on protected areas and species, but also by the GRID.

Once such a scheme is available, this will form a major ‘skeleton’
throughout the CMC database, with both protected areas and species linked to
the habitat types which they contain, or are found associated with,
respectively. Implementation will be a very time consuming task, however, and

one for which outside funding will be required.

Ecosystem inventories: As was noted earlier, IUCN has also been involved in
projects concerning management of information on specific ecosystem types such
as coral reefs, wetlands and oceanic islands. Work like this clearly needs to
be improved and extended so that information on ecosystems of concern can be
more effectively collected and managed, and linked with information on both
the species and protected areas in those ecosystems. Only in this way can
full assessment of the conservation status of these particular systems be
made, and only when much of this information is together can recommendations

and advice be given to conservation and development agencies and other

interested groups.

a =e
‘epee wie yh » %e aan bed sqvemeferss st2 Ie ¥

tne thee poe ‘we We axle wa #0 407 bem
ett ovld, Waeanes hae diene eiestewy wwiin-
how ednearen” gee Yo Ieemanedee pet te pad Sobe
oe wo eatdemmntad srw. ith bes fen ldwos in iis, gg Dhaba
Dds bon sabosie fl "ps Enued nwo: bar pitta: f

; edeael sem intial . widete Golscaie wt Fie tun
i: A

leash meee: al betad vettinmota: th>it ~ Foe

asin on: bri» Sadie wed dens wei
; ‘8 wd ~ abana eese bhodorien +
1 mses Tetorea werner 4s 10 eeinke
(bara ge iaeeromesg » Stes aobens. (Obe ALE
pn Prewod > anetare aE toner , tna
igo ott beue 4 ¢tow” et naa betsatos; dons oo
ow dbutiounreid mbes bees ¢ y ane
Seeds anit: H. cbeasafteidqos 2 ete
bre POR Deow-ad: MLiw duties baqotnvab- ed bivada
2 eh sent ot Sah wEpTA BoID93009 NO ool samo tet!
Sip five vitae aidediavs al scotse & ‘dene
) be rabsw2g ota. ds?te\ceesdeJe® 2D of 4 oes
~ pitlatnos ‘ait deidw weg? ted bad
ad te cl Riri t 9 Deus ve Legend et
_ pt <sh anim = odisiyo “ee
z rae eee i
Fate dates gen an ommaitO 130 6
4 tevsoe bee. ebant vows «ehowel
polnk ded? oa “ba bonine baa ot
“Pee bedgeitos sevigse
iene bot tadasg bas, sie
raereiOes ass % sammnnvews
Soe te dove. Gate cine

er

sien ol oovlg: od ovivh

31

Species inventories: One of the principal justifications given for the
establishment and maintenance of protected areas is the conservation of
genetic resources in_ situ. Therefore, it is of vital importance that
information on what is found where is available to those needing it. The
amount of information available at the local level is growing, and with the
increasing availability of improved information handling methods it would seem
likely that local and national database activity on the location of genetic
resources will increase.

It is obvious, however, that an international database maintaining links
with local, national and regional database activity is essential. The role of
such a database would be to provide an overview; to demonstrate what is found
where (i.e. an information retrieval service); to highlight resources that do
not appear to be protected; and to draw the attention of management
authorities to the relative importance of some of the species they protect
(important resources that may not be protected elsewhere, for example).

CMC already has growing databases on both species and protected areas,
while other groups such as Unesco (MAB programme), FAO and IBPGR are also
exploring this type of database activity for either particular species groups
or particular areas. Unesco (MAB), for example, are interested in developing
a much more detailed information system for biosphere reserves. The U.S.
National Committee for MAB have just funded an initial project between the
Smithsonian Institution, the U.S. Nature Conservancy and the U.S. National
Park Service to look at methodologies for developing and storing information
on biosphere reserves (including the status of plant and animal taxa). A
pilot testing of the methodologies will be carried out in selected biosphere
reserves in China, Mexico and the U.S.A., but the system will be extended in
time to cover all biosphere reserves. The IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
will be involved in this project, and it is intended that CMC become an
integral part of the international database on biosphere reserves.

IUCN already has on file large amounts of information on species of
conservation concern (threatened species, economic plants/animals and other
"genetic resources’, etc.). The most visible part of this database is the
well known Red Data Book series (Lucas and Synge, 1978; Thornback end Jenkins,
1982; Groombridge, 1982; Wells et al, 1983; Collar and Stuart, 1985; Collins

and Morris, 1985). However, to be able to establish to what degree particular
species are actually represented in protected areas requires both a large
increase in the amount of information collected and maintained by CMC, and the

full linking of the information on protected areas and species within the

sa 1 Ldn Des:
wh 2enug) 7

+ ere in KS

batapaise ‘iinaan dons s dawns Fad: cen ;
2 * r talianaienen: nd wi bvbtas eoetmhed! Fanioige on ie f
hha sSetdencat oh 540 iws wy ge shiver, of + So tobe, tage

pee ges
enwones Met laahe ob chentvnes fave Cy wnedie

petege atl Wh eats or
ihe poten so amnion tm. Setetergsd fon yan 4 poses HH
sone perosiora one aeons Hod OO Bons tt efworg *

ole aaecliaadl oy Kommaregere SAR? oom’ cs Asus
ast nan: » Fae eiyzen syadafel 10 eet

tv xoesaaes, saenqeots . a8 siete. ett Moris? bad bad
(denies ieisiot Be beWaeh: Mout weed any 10% weds iomod
ai. teal eee: raptor Vet malt atonal

eae
; ‘ \ esivest
St a 4 a. age
eebives ed LiiW.eeigelobodsam +t 4
ada sat ae ads bao «sine anid,
, eat wee /geevaeees wundgeoid iis
eo hse pstaetorg sia) ai beviovai-28
0 ensinted Leaoi tens: ab ot? Ioiduag
* asav0m ‘nga btit ome, ead 7
ie webeoge shears tees) ayesnoy ook
piilhaty. seem Sat kote, senwoseeed
ine wn — etre food n305 tal
whtow peaer 49 bind
eae organ;

32

computer.

In many cases, however, this information may not actually exist yet -
especially when information on species population size, status and trends are
required. Also, the amount of information that could be included is infinite,
and the process must therefore be restricted. However, no full assessment has
yet been made on what species it would be valuable for such a database to
include (though some work on this has been done for plant species), or from
what types of areas. It is therefore necessary initially to carry out a study
of what information is required for what species and from what areas, followed
by an implementation stage which would involve a computer programming
component, as well as the information collection and management. This work
would be carried out in close collaboration with other international groups
and agencies working in this field.

It should be noted, however, that establishment of a full species-area
database would be a long term. labour intensive programme of work at all
levels, from the information collectors, to local databases, and right through
to the international level. Speeding up the process would require better
information at the ‘field’ level, improved database activity, and improved
coordination. IUCN, in cooperation with others, can assist in ensuring
improved coordination, but perhaps of as much value would be the development
by the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre of database software which could be
used not only within CMC's database, but at all levels - thus ensuring

increased compatability.

Effectiveness of management: It was noted above that IUCN‘'s application of
the system of management categories also currently attempts to take into
account elements of management effectiveness rather than just management
objectives. It would seem sensible to actually look at these issues
separately, and IUCN's Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas are
working on a questionnaire which can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
an area in achieving its management objectives. Wide use of such a
questionnaire should lead to a better understanding of how effective the
conservation effort is within different ecosystems. Again, as with most of
these improvements in available information, implementation will be a time

intensive process at all levels.

Additional key actions needed to ensure good management of information at

the international level are therefore to:

iuen4 @ ’
tie be on owt balan
P hte. ;
" f i hi
nea on ‘etltntrte’ vTMeOHOd wee Te
ae tie ant ventana on Le aot bw
ies a we ern: . ea)

Anwetiga ccc: v: “ a pane ani ceuriatat

ir nals
Yee ier ar
— Powel dviegn sng cerry ‘Siu adtdevede tte

merry a 2 |
ij eneonatoone run eae! deeditings detested
= Ray teetri * ornatog | eteaSed wealeT aie) aes!
a ce ope sae dx teb- Syne! 0) . etedoei! i ried
eat wala Bs Seedot Ad (qual brow! rot ts

ee Pemeteh” Peden? fowe ft *e!
i deed ale Padewn #o> rete @iie wolis

i -
evass |

;

a
x
id

ear” wt pions outer ice ke Yor -eyetiny tan tt
Sid vn tea bstndah ao sitae? + P 7 Ay
7 ¥ a ,
ft. 0ee th det, weed
Te

bicdhemel ee we me es aun So
oe out ‘Quliagete> fedge}scen
AH0n! Jnbmemvisnetse coe somm So

fs bigade -
\GeOATED Ridsiuse? trove

‘ae ional wi acto

° sic “enki ) esi er

\
i

=< 4%

33

5. Strengthen existing database capability of IUCN with the provision of a
full GIS, the hardware to run it on, and.the support staff to implement

it.
6. Support the development of a comprehensive ‘habitat information’
classification, and once developed, support its implementation by

international databases, and where relevant by national and regional
databases.

7. Encourage application of improved methods to assess the achievement of
Management objectives for use at all database levels.

Also, to answer the full series of relevant questions on in situ conservation
of ecosystems all this information relies on the available information on
species and ecosystems. It is therefore necessary to:

8. Strengthen the existing database capability of IUCN to improve the
capacity to collect and compile information on species of conservation
concern, and ecosystems, and to link it more fully with information on
protected areas.

Implicit in all of this discussion is that the information is of value at
all levels - not just internationally, and therefore there is a need as
recommended above to:

9. Encourage the development of national and local databases managing
information for use in decision making and planning at those levels.

What must also be apparent, however, is the need for large amounts of
information on species and habitat distribution. The more accurate and
complete the records are, the more objective the biogeographical analyses can
be, and hence the better the proposals/judgements made based on these
analyses. This information depends on two factors, collection/identification,
and coordination of information. There is therefore a need to:

10. Encourage and support the necessary’ basic research requiring
systematists (to classify the species in the first place), fieldworkers
and other scientists to identify and locate items of the biota
(including habitats), and biogeographers and other scientists to analyse
the available information) ;

and to:
11. Encourage the development of effective cross-linking/networking of

databases maintaining information on species/habitat,
location/distribution.
Clearly both of these activities are at the very core of information work

in conservation, and involve a wide body of people from a wide range of

- su taaaror ‘ Ho
eat.) ome hae
hon his An vad
mw ne ae ohodion wawonqn: *
4 eeeowind meedn te b Liaise gry *
oe Reo d dm Ge JInevelar- do rain
aires said eather, soideagss%
a > pay iat bo. hashasues ate ‘rus an ne
mn Jo at Rilige nada y gotiai Senn. a
von 0 md ferritin’ wliwmoe bre tow: ' 4) LENO

Somers al “ avis ea by

*

fing eseneet ots sie | qoiageon is rm
negeigeeai a eaerties moat

f o
pay (0g

| esa rae fanoteen: ie. Neerao

ie Je

ia — wai stain. golatoed ;
a gone ot ai. .<tevuwod oft
* usizveld Jasised :
“a ipetasetee. wine oft ory Oboe
} Hh N ek parc etd aelted, wii

ea UT}, ‘7
o oped fem 7 *
vaste owt aw RhOeqee Avisemietns viel -
eo | a
ae

i gaat, Grol gaanctat Yo. woltans

i bel na te dod ehaes
r * ne ats ban’ _stobtatecbe

f

34

organizations. In particular one should note the role of museums and
universities, as well as government offices. such as parks and wildlife

departments. The funding sources for these activities are similarly diverse.

Possible U.S. response
As was mentioned in the previous section, recommendations on actions that
can/should be taken by various U.S. institutions, development banks,
non-governmental groups etc. have been prepared for Congress in two recent
documents, the U.S. Strategy on the Conservation of Biological Diversity (an
interagency Task Force Report, 1984) and Conserving International Wildlife
Resources: The United States Response (a report by The Secretary of State and
The Secretary of the Interior, 1984). Many of the recommendations of these
reports, if carried out, will lead to great improvement in the available
information, and hopefully an improvement in information flow to the IUCN
Conservation Monitoring Centre, and an improvement in information quality.
Clearly, however, CMC needs further resources to carry out these tasks.
Direct core funding is perhaps the most obvious aspect of this requirement,
and the most useful, but there are others. The possible input that could be
made by U.S. agencies is therefore:
1. Contribution of additional core funding;
2. Payment of subscription fees to CMC for provision of information on a
number of agreed topics over a given period of time;
3. -Provision of funding for specific projects where CMC provides
information to U.S. agencies;
4. Placement of U.S. personnel to work with the IUCN Conservation
Monitoring Centre for given periods of time on specific agreed projects
(or financial support for the same post).
In addition U.S. agencies should take an active role in development of the
whole information network through:
5. Providing encouragement and support for those organisations actively
involved in the development of such databases.
6. Providing support for international meetings of experts which foster the
exchange of information.
7. Encourage and support the basic research necessary to provide much of
the required background information.

This last point is a major one, and could in itself take up a whole paper.

a bares oy aay

2 eae
nis USSG ai UES
BHEOO

P

mae aa series

ae Kae, a

| dha Oo geet i é

ad Seem vec : : id Bade

SWZ ih 152

7 y = kger barat wre ive be Yo aol
‘ al oo af £099 } ass eo -39
waa. owen 3. #viqe? bes;

settonas

ate

40% gnihan

+. 20 AGRA. uo

youd Pog et oor damm Ral
Sig Srewe wow) oi sarod Die

velchiwenaane ohh aka” sad tronek ey
osat MOT droqaea’ gat

35

SUMMARY

The following recommendations have been made in the preceeding discussion, but
have been rearranged here in order to clarify their meaning when stated

without the accompanying text. Several dealing with similar issues have been

amalgamated.

Recommendations relating to the availability of information

1. Encourage and _ support the necessary basic’ research, requiring
systematists (to classify the species in the first place), fieldworkers
and other scientists to identify and locate items of the biota
(including habitats), and biogeographers and other scientists to analyse

available information.

2. Encourage and support the development of effective cross-linking and
networking of all databases maintaining information on species/habitat

locations/distributions.

Recommendations relating to national and local conservation databases

1. Encourage and support national and local conservation database

development.

2. Encourage the use of a wide range of environmental data in the making of
decisions affecting the management and use of natural resources at all

levels.

Recommendations relating to improvement of information exchange

1. Foster the free exchange of information and maintain its flow from the
local to the national and on to the international level (including
support for regional meetings such as those organized by IUCN's

Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas);

ee

HAV han aoe era gan f seks 10 i

ur oie oh wit —dehermisel fh
9aes- guigweqancu git’

phe ed. an ater a0 roel

yedqes = Find
gtietets of) etek,

ehigenat SF <¥eltunton pute

2 wie ~tapetldnd gak

36

2. Encourage and support close cooperation between all organisations
managing information on conservation issues to ensure good flow of
information, avoidance of duplication of effort, and use of similar

methods of interpreting data where necessary.

Recommendations relating specifically to IUCN’s international database

1. Strengthen existing database capability of IUCN with the provision of
more staff time to improve the capacity to collect and compile
information on protected areas, and the provision of proper library

facilities.

2. Strengthen the existing database capability of IUCN to improve the
capacity to collect and compile information on species of conservation
concern, and ecosystems, and to link it more fully with information on

protected areas.

3. Strengthen existing database capability of IUCN with the provision of a
full Geographical Information System, the hardware to run it on, and the

support staff to implement it.

4. Support the development of a comprehensive ‘habitat information’
classification, and once developed, support its implementation by
international databases, and where relevant by national and regional

databases.

5. Support the development and application of improved methods to assess

the achievement of management objectives within protected areas for use

at all database levels.

Recommendations relating to use of the information

1. Encourage and support those organisations (at all levels) which use or

foster use of environmental data in conservation of ecosystems.

2. Encourage both wider use of the available information and further
research into the land-use, management and planning aspects of the

application of that information.

ing pe oe Vey notwurs iwi 44 70 we ny seer eed a

}GNENAE TON >» lias

/ : , 1
miei - |
J |

a eons eb, {slept race bed. =f ‘gita & acts eel a .
si antnode.. Luci Wel tovmeree a | mi gras Ded Tine 4 ¢otgeyey, =
ae tit ere a i anit" ie “bre Ace ee Be ‘ 5 é (9609 2S

ra ttl . ; ¢ r ;
i a“ dota a. Th EAT hituge>, Saeco ies gril oi es onttgewree
od nei po erenbred oct pages aid vntee te itqee el
NS : : ie HT She ram . ie tt rete

Ine ia wAh ei

elie Kono bite
rn VER

5 eae

fronds eet

CR OT ae

abe Saisie ley ot Mit Seem

seca imcall Qe trewgwel dee)

herd oasis Ton

37

However, perhaps the most important point to make in conclusion is that if
United States agencies, institutions etc. encourage and support the use of
environmental data in decision making, and use such data in their own decision
making processes, this should in itself encourage the development of the
information base at all levels. This information base will then provide an
improved tool both for making new planning decisions, and reviewing the
effects of previous decisions. Further development of the use of such
information within the U.S. will hopefully also lead to further use of

environmental information within planning and management in other parts of the

world.

fuad>

cb “ perenne "a
tints si oem dove ohh WA D
nent wiht’ sige bu oes We ye
ana oe. want “ elaihtepriat ad nist

min ett |
Mt

2a pony

38

REFERENCES

Bailey, R.G. (1976). Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture.

Bailey, R.G. (1980). Description of the ecoregions of the United States.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 1391, Washington
D.C. 77 pp.

Bailey, R.G. (1983). Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environmental
Management 7: 365-373.

Bailey, R.G. and Cushwa, C.T. (1981). Ecoregions of North America. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior.

Batisse, M. (1985). The Biosphere Reserve: A tool for Environmental
Conservation and Management. Environmental Conservation 9(2): 101-111.

Burgis, M.J. and Symoens, J.J. (In press). African wetlands and shallow water
bodies. Volume 2: Directory. ORSTOM, Paris. i

Carp, E. (1980). A Directory of Western Palaearctic Wetlands. IUCN, Gland.

Clark and Dingwall (1985). Conservation of islands in the Southern Ocean.
IUCN, Gland.

Collar, N.J. and Stuart, S.N. (1985). Threatened Birds of Africa and Related
Islands: The ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. ICBP/IUCN, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Collins, N.M. and Morris, M.G. (1985). Treatened Swallowtail Butterflies of
the World: The IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
United Kingdom.

Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C., LaRoe, E.T. (1975). Classification
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Crowley, J.M. (1967). Biogeography. Canadian Geographical 11: 312-326.

Croze, H. (1984). Global Monitoring and Biosphere Reserves. In: Unesco—UNEP
(loc cit).

Dahl, A.L. (1980). Regional Ecosystem Survey of the South Pacific Area.
South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia.

Dasmann, R.F. (1973). <A system for defining and classifying natural regions
for purposes of conservation. IUCN Occasional paper No. 7.

Department of Lands and Survey (1984). Register of protected natural areas in
New Zealand. Wellington, N.Z.

Dice, L.R. (1943). The Biotic Provinces of North America. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

MW eRe se bodiati- ads vo. sre cae 23! 4
‘s re - a met

Laie spanhiamiags afr de notialeass) — '°% TE
a A sac er eran aad bea tsee ty Ateyerey

, mos (inet)
“abeeses Ye tneetyeped .ao:¥

‘st tons " touneost ‘exetg or8 ont (cei
kot iva . sree 9 a0at

Tha: teeeed oi) .4.% -envoeys tas
,eiset ,foTse0 .erotoasin > oemdav

—_ ati nda ite ec (ome

obIav22neoy tamer) tiewget® te

a5 Brn eee AeBeL) 7 , Freese Oe.
> .WOUTLIEOT. ann asad ee “wey 7 got.

paut .¢288r) .6.1 igiinmes hate 08 Ws. x
OUR ees aad >of MOU ere oe
eer: |

ee 4 jewite.d “- * * ,etod oa 4-9 SO01S 2 i 4 7 r
A cael oft vere) sniewqoe? ban vhea lS )
=o saobsee ot on) - to tuomtaaged .2.0 eg v

it ied. atqetgquego ty -(toer) MR

esi bat ieientan | tadols ~ (OaRh?
(ge |

a i lilies Lenetged 10000). Ll
82 Wal, ,aemwOK , ac ian! rao! 21 ttaa

ay

get modeye A (ASOT)
80 davieano: 10. iL

y apne) perez te phased de
a ss: * amatpal ite fae te

Aine) ata
z- cA ach’ .weerd

39

Douglas, G. (1969). Check List of Pacific Oceanic Islands. Micronesica 52)

327-463. Reprinted by the International Biological Programme/Conservation
Section.

Frankel, O.H. and Soulé, M.E. (1981). Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge
Unbiversity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Goodland, R. (1984). The World Bank, Environment, and Protected Areas. In:
McNeely and Miller (loc cit).

Goodland, R. (1985). Wildlands Management in Economic Development. Paper
presented to the First International Wildlife Symposium, IX World Forestry
Congress, Mexico, May 1985.

Gregg, W. (1984). Building science programmes to support the multiple roles
of biosphere reserves. In: Unesco-UNEP (loc cit).

Groombridge, B. (1982). The IUCN Amphibia-Reptilia Red Data Book. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.

Gvozdetskiy, N.A. (1968). Nekotoriye obshchiye teoreticheskiye i
metodicheskiye voprosy fiziko-geograficheskogoe rayonirovaniya. In:
Fiziko-geograficheskoye rayonirovaniye SSSR. Nauka, Moscow.

Harrison, J (1984). An international data bank on biosphere reserves and the
need for standardization. In: Unesco—-UNEP ‘(loc cit).

Harrison, J., Miller, K. and McNeely, J (1982). The World Coverage of
Protected Areas: Development Goals and Environmental Needs. Ambio 11(5):
238-245.

Hayden, B.P., Ray, G.C., Dolan, R. (1984). Classification of Coastal and
Marine Environments. Environmental Conservation 11(3): 199-207.

Huntley, B.J. and Ellis, S. (1983). Conservation Status of Terrestrial
Ecosystems in Southern Africa. Unpublished paper prepared for IUCN.

IBDF (1982). Plano do sistema de unidades de conservacao do Brasil.
Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal, Ministerio da

Agricultura.

IUCN (1973). A Working System for Classification of World Vegetation. IUCN
Occasional Paper No. 5, IUCN, Morges, Switzerland.

IUCN (1974). Biotic Provinces of the World. IUCN Occasional paper No. 9.

IUCN (1978). Categories, objectives and criteria for protected areas
IUCN, Morges, Switzerland. 26 pp.

IUCN (1980). World Conservation Strategy. IUCN, Gland.

IUCN (1983). Draft Directory of Wetlands of International Importance. IUCN,
Cambridge, United Kingdom.

IUCN (1983). Proceedings of the Twenty-second working session, Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. IUCN,

Switzerland.

| Dem

imac! rh +

“eat tor vv

he eaqe
erage

ERD

“steroid We

neon) | @ opies Ete
peau dah, |

oe

be ibaa Atel Lave ( 2arr
= deaid Sgotanaacne oq?

elvan a bra
bab afar Seemiaveavat 24

(cate) 2 ellen bnew |
patois cowesee" of ee

; seed yb emede is ou sasee
ee ee paeztal ts wens?!

a oft WL md “a michal ah :
wD thf a ee © aon
: _aaeane mae © © .odl a al ies Y |

“ 6 oT
wig aesntvot mister

40

IUCN (1984). Categories, objectives and criteria for protected areas. In:
McNeely and Miller (loc cit).

IUCN (1985). The United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas.
IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.

IUCN (In press). . The IUCN Directory of Afrotropical Protected Areas. IUCN,
Cambridge, United Kingdom.

IWRB (1980). Conference on the Conservation of Wetlands of International
Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Cagliari, Italy. IWRB,
Slimbridge, United Kingdon.

Koppen, W. (1931). Grundriss der Klimakunde. Walter de Gruyter Co., Berlin.
388 pp.

Lamprey, H.F. (1975). The distribution of protected areas in relation to the
needs of biotic community conservation in Eastern Africa. IUCN Occasional
Paper No. 16.

Lovejoy, T., Bierregaard, R.O., Rankin, J. and Schubart, H.O.R. (1983).

Tropical Rain Forest: Ecology and Management. Special Publication Number
2 of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell Scientific Publications,

Oxford.

Lucas, G, and Synge, H. (1978). The IUCN Plant Red Data Book. IUCN, Morges,
Switzerland.

MacKinnon, J. (1985). Outline of a methodology for preparation of a “Review
of the Protected Areas System of the Indomalayan Realm". In: Thorsell
(1985a).

McNeely, J.A. and Miller, K.R. (1984). National Parks, Conservation, and

Development: The role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society.
Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Miller, K.R. (1984). The Bali Action Plan: A Framework for the Future of
Protected Areas. In: McNeely and Miller (loc cit).

Nicholson, E.M. and Douglas, G.L. (1970). Conservation of Oceanic Islands.
In: Elliott, H.F.I. (Ed.) IUCN Eleventh Technical Meeting. IUCN
Publications New Series No. 17. IUCN, Morges.

Nordic Council of Ministers (1983). Physical-geographical regions. Nordic
Council of Ministers.

Oldfield, M.L. (1984). The value of conserving Genetic Resources. National
Park Service, United States Department of the Interior.

Pielou, E.C. (1979). Biogeography. Wiley Interscience, New York, U.S.A.

Prance, G. (1977). Extinction is Forever. New York Botanic Garden, New York.

Rodgers, W.A. (1985). Biogeography and protected area planning in India. In:
Thorsell (1985a).

0 7 | = &
oo! it :
( > =| y
2 ai. enka batoeteng, rot + pia Pa 4
ociaabrng Gi bv 3 aoe 3 ’
iby oe Sore "i ep me ve / =
sarah betas tert bow a? te bah — iv i oF (eae
: ae oa’ ar sO ‘4 .
= wer — patos fee PoktA wp hg i Bi (Sat Se
> a4 eS “¥ "= eis GE, si tines ) ae 5 aod agba

a tes Io dbcatate ediet’ ja whale io oos inv
Bs mc eer atin lae ,ietidert

pri’ q es eee
‘nce 1: hal

iar leet tZ si retin, bt : ;
pais “oun Rpnain. eS “lO Dao Wye otk piAtoebigtte

a ; he 7 ae : ( dha

OU AS Eh a
eonlise |. ~~ 3 res Sa ae “Steel ae ee -
ay ren 1 thos xoim int.

ah aetntin notre piwtt mir. wane a '
i ietoue Bie ar ing *:

oes taint
MS 'tes ingot i Ati wou pedal tees
Mig x ov weit?

jiieeve any eet
faa oe be i =

| pe
aaa a
ip oN her

41

Schonewald-Cox, C.M., Chambers, S.M., Macbryde, B. and Thomas, W.L.

(eds. ) (1983). Genetics and Conservation: A reference for managing wild
animal and plant populations. The Benjamin cummings Publishing Company,
California.

Scott, D.A. (1980). A preliminary inventory of Wetlands of International
Importance for Waterfowl in West Europe and Northwest Africa. IWRB Special
Publication No. 2. IWRB, Slimbridge, United Kingdom.

Scott, D.A. and Carbonell, M. (In press). A Directory of Neotropical
Wetlands. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.

Soulé, M.E. (1984). Applications of genetics and population biology: The
what, where and how of nature reserves. In: Unesco-UNEP (loc cit).

Soulé, M.E. and Wilcox, B.A. (Eds)(1980). Conservation Biology: An

Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,
Massachusetts.

Terborgh, J. and Winter, B. (1983). A Method for Siting Parks and Reserves

with Special Reference to Colombia and Ecuador. Biological Conservation
27(1): 45-58.

Thornback, J. and Jenkins, M. (1982). The IUCN Mammal Red Data Book. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.

Thorsell, J. (ed.)(1985a). Conserving Asia's Natural Heritage: Proceedings
of the twenty-fifth working session of CNPPA. IUCN, Gland.

Thorsell, J. (1985b). The Role of Protected Areas in Maintaining Biological
Diversity in Tropical Developing Countries. A paper prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.

U.S. National MAB Committee (1979). Long term ecological monitoring in
biosphere reserves. Washington, DC.

Udvardy, M.D.F. (1975). A classification of the Biogeographical Provinces of
the World. IUCN Occasional Paper No. 18.

Unesco (1973). Classification and Mapping of Vegetation on a World Basis.
Unesco paper SC/WS/269, Paris.

Unesco (1984). Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves. Nature and Resources
XX(4): 1-12.

Unesco-UNEP (1984). Conservation, Science and Society. Contributions to the
First International Biosphere Reserve Congress, Minsk, Byelorussia/USSR.

Unesco, Paris.

Wells, S.M., Pyle, R.M. and Collins, N.M. (1983). The IUCN Invertebrate Red
Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Wetterberg, G.B., Jorge Padua, M.T., Bernardes Quintao, A.T. and Ponce del
Prado, C.F. (1985). Decade of Progress for South American National Parks.
National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior.

1a

A eee ee 9. ohegdoas

sectors Lae demelig 8... Aol M AYO nto" ies pan): (CRAG Me
a. AAIGRABI: Aeatoaesy Hino (9% ago Sa Tio. athe hee Ss
‘i oft = : ; ; +,
‘a
i tine resaeegas to | “ebateh saw ‘te vadianve! ausreeit wile tell
fa toaga: nas aa cae re eps hae gdoouh, tote ns LNo aw eS 2062 TNMs '
oe ; moh tt bes ttl. wigth ahhlte it sR da

is ates tae A. (nitions, at M. > Loge)

PY Lede aT pbb wae is calieneg Fo Ses fas LASS ve
: ‘gue Z yt, adie i ol Date 1 eh EN 9) rsacne ¥€ wai Dua @ 2d

or ey 70) Lottie A (CsCl) .o tad ee

ion rare Bis «tidmelo « ratip a |

“het ose on oat Wt agp (S501) n ,avitwet hae 1%

pin, Powel» 4 Seis guive: BEADD . (niBeiyi a>
i wont ANG) In pore antiiow (792)-~yhnewe

eM Ri aaode Bator io rd te e454 oT ‘Hi Bee)
A wer valine yriqeteyul, [torqgost— ini

ag ‘Pesca auke a vee Pe mBGry ‘yerR HOt ORRS

> ‘Ti -
(ea se ; ; A ,
- LP rs ivi? i ] =~ 5 ames é ipl
a i Bod ¥ # , ;

au wOGigogh dae © <qawpu he ca

esi? a5 Goisaats ipeaz, A (CtPE> a 0
al ae oie") lacnéanen® WORE aN

ve ~— ee nt Paria Tete
as - cetaat, Aynhawo? niche

i) ae ma
2 nai ,

42

Wetterberg, G.B., Prance, G.T. and Lovejoy, T.E. (1981). Conservation
progress in Amazonia: A structural Review. Parks 6(2): 5-10.

White, F. (1983). The Vegetation of Africa. A descriptive memoir acompanying
the Unesco/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa. Unesco, Paris.

Wilson, J.L. (1984). Nature conservation reserves in Australia (1984).
Occasional paper No. 10. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Canberra.

World National Parks Congress (1984). Recommendation 1: Information on
Protected Areas. In: McNeely and Miller (loc cit).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

UNEP Global Environment Monitoring System

Geographical Information System

GEMS Global Resource Inventory Database

International Biological Programme

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources

International Council for Bird Preservation

International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources

International Waterfowl Research Bureau

Man and the Biosphere (a Unesco programme)

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

CMC's Protected Areas Data Unit

United Nations Environment Programme

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization

U.S. National Park Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Vet fA a nt aoe
' oy = A 4 :
5 Td B.
welds &. ‘ib = ;
Pa ey al i
age
Bay me TOY aa

|) frcanvasng, 1 i212 -

1 ated ar gnttedticot! woldewre virat a i
— Se

; iy shia B Haae% Kanoldal ao actveieno 10 - ee
pie Sa bs es AEN wes inoixg’s San Boot - : oe

*\ =

if} . mrotivaa Faded tet ae
| i a 2 ‘ier ginko 7” su - Eves ‘ . rae

Goltewwial Iyotdqers

pJaevel stivaren fadile &

7 fevigeloi® Lexctiaccetal ;] > ie

‘el

; vA h nk ‘wri Irsace Laapi deme + a

t (iat Fat : ~ 4
Loe. ie aap) Fhomyod Leaoljoaral 939i -.F EE
se eno os asiw Lenohs ee o7 UT :

wi 7
i>) derayeesd feawien Te

wi fants ia Lene! gud) giet
: all Ad : z f 7
eee | * paromanete ade has fakh60OCl-lC} A

} otmone GB wi aottuxi nga? oye
™ — osaa Sant, | beioefow! 4° ow Waa
deimo7 (yan arolsem stint THM)

1 ; Ni
§><Cenoitesubtt nnottsn band Dats gohan = «©

¥
ry

is ae dateags

_ patrwoe 4399 feroidae 2.4 P< 31) ”
ne oti ths iM hen

Table 1: Categories and Management objectives of protected areas

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

IX.

Scientific Reserve/Strict Nature Reserve: To protect nature and
maintain natural processes in an undisturbed state in order to have
ecologically representative examples of the natural environment
available for scientific study, environmental monitoring, education, and

for the maintenance of genetic resources ina dynamic and evolutionary
state.

National Park: To protect natural and scenic areas of national or

international significance for scientific, educational, and recreational
use.

Natural Monument/Natural Landmark: To protect and preserve nationally

significant natural features because of their special interest or unique
characteristics.

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

Protected Landscape or seascape: To maintain nationally significant
natural landscapes which are characteristic of the harmonious

interaction of man and land while providing opportunities for public

enjoyment through recreation and tourism within the normal life style
and economic activity of these areas.

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

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

Multiple—Use Management Area/Managed Resource Area: To provide for the
sustained production of water, timber, wildlife, pasture, and outdoor

recreation, with the conservation of nature primarily oriented to the
support of the economic activities (although specific zones may also be
designed within these areas to achieve specific conservation objectives).

Biosphere Reserve: To conserve for present and future use the diversity
and integrity of representative biotic communities of plants and animals
within natural ecosystems, and to safeguard the genetic diversity of
species on which their continuing evolution depends.

World Heritage Site: To protect the natural features for which the area
was considered to be of World Heritage quality, and to provide
information for world-wide public enlightenment.

Adapted by Thorsell (1985) from IUCN (1984)

vr ad at fafivredy pa MAD

ite I ew:

pee

‘ (ithe dha’ oppor oT
SEO! herts

iY i
oy ahem ET 4A

yeah ye. 40%

Cbatomaw, ss ;
iv jutro Bcisans Pr
vases “rove

+
ae = pained
Jyon annie
of -aaeet ©

1-87 Ae
Bobal ry wing ee

Fea id) Br, r 4 ; vas
ue
he ie =e

g oa ; i a. > gal) vent ‘puing@@ rec wt * ae
ee nc a Ti Ge eee (me ine ees dame o
api tam ¢ + awit aa. ov eon wted tant’ Bee
a hacks - ‘sinirqennie cay)
7 ir : |
4 rr, be
4] ee
y
_ a i f
i eee |
7 ‘
Lia ee soit =
ay a e =i ‘
' . Wn
Ly i
A \ ,

3000

2000 400
300
Jovo0 200
loo
oO cry] to}
1870 1890 1910 19 30 1950 1970 1990
Figure 1 Growth of the world coverage of protected areas

Number of protected areas (~~ ) and total area
protected ( ifiiiillilll| ) im IUCN management categories I-V

Area (millions of hectares)

aaa eu
Lorin

Number of Areas

500
125
=~
400 “
100 wo
re
®
ae)
oO
a
cS
300 6
75 oe)
no
c
ro)
=
Lom
Lom
“A
200 E
50 -
©
rd]
&
x
loo ae

oO

1870 1890 1900 1930 19.50 1970

Figure 2 Number of protected areas established ( ——— ) and their
total area (ct{ /{)) in each five year period since 1870.
IUCN management categories I-V.

ure 3

OECD countries

2000
| 600
n
ice}
Qa
L
<x
Ye 1200
o
os
fel]
Be}
5
(ore)
S 8
400
°
18 Ro 1900 1920 1940 figigo
Non—OECD countries
2000
o 1600
rol)
‘=
cous
qe
c 1200
‘=
cel)
Q
iS
=)
2
x00
400

oO

[RRO gan 1920 1940 1Yoo

Number of protected areas ( _——— )
protected (|{//[[{!) im IUCN management

are members of O€CD or not.

19RO
—
200 n
Qa
‘=
pS)
oO
fot)
£
we
o
wn
c
as 2
Lom
cml
=
E
=
©
fol)
c
a
total

categories

OO

meke)

oO

Area (millions of hectares )

area
I-v
broken down by whether the sites are within countries which

Suv 193 30 SNOITTIW Ni O3193108d VIb¥
x & ° &

S3¥V1939H 4O SNOINIIW Ni 031991060 Vin
& °

S38¥193H 40 SNO! IW

NI Q91939108d Vinv

area
categories I-V,

and total

)

See =
Obl
16s
ee =
8 g ~] o
2 8 3 > 5 PS > ° S
z 5 3 3 g 3 3 8 3 g g g & g
O3HSINBWLS3 Svabv 03193 10 83SWAN 1 5310 ) 438 O3HSIWV1IS3 Svadv 0319910bd 0 HIBWAN Q3HSI1aviS3 Svauv
wey M ‘ sont S sas 1 Wal
> LS OF P NO IEISNS O3HSIAV1S3 Sv3¥V 031991080 40 w38V ERNEST
— Sas
S3¥V1939H JO SNOITIIW Ni O3199100d V3NV
3 & 8 S3UVLI3H 40
. = = is Bu & $3¥V193H 40 SNONNTIW NI O31 99108 Vie S3YV193H 30 SNOITIW Ni G3193910ud Va8¥ SNOI IW NI 031 93108d Va¥¥
Ry & ° a ° a °
861
—— 085
ace! — 086)
eae oS e=3 0L61 Sears
— 0961 0961
Sara =
OS61 0561
Sees
OveL Orel :
tei = < < =
a Océ) 3 oe6\ 5 ore =
061 5 i x =
oz6i = el 4 pete
OBL > a
OleL O16!
0061.
pos 0061
0681 *
0881
3 3 g 8g 8 2:

600

O3HSIN8V1S3 SvdeV O3199108d 10 BIBWON

8 g 3 2.

Q3HSI18V1S3 SV3dv G3I1939108d 10 YIBWON

8

§ g 8 =

Q3HSI18V1S3 Sv3¥V O3L9310Hd 30 HIBWNN

8
Q3HSIN8W1SISVabV
03193104d 40 HIAWON

°c

(

of protected areas

Number

Figure 4

IUCN management

in

protected (//IIIIfI! )

1 realm (after Udvardy, 1975).

broken down by biogeographica

‘
i
RY
a
“y
“

VUUNVaas

Biome 1: Tropical Humid Forest Biome 5: Temperate Broad-leaf Forests or

400 Woodlands and Sub-polar Deciduous Thickets 40
=
wo
Q
Pe
£
3 300 Be) Oo
& £
t ra
< °
S 200 20 @
°
iS -
y Comd
2 lomel
§ _
e }O0 jo ~
©
@
re
<x
oO oO
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1¥60 188o 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
Biome 12: Mixed Mountain and Highland
400 f ‘ : : land Systems
Systems with Complex Zonation Biome 13: Mixed Isla y 40
“no
”
rT)
rs
3
2 pine =
C <£
S ra
S °
‘ ro} 2
ie .
2 a)
(= _-
=) ‘A
eS €
jo iit
(i)
Q
fe
«
°
| fo)
860 188 1yoo 1920 1940 1960 1980 1860 18 80 |900 1920 1940 1960 1980

Number of protected areas (_—_—~

Figure 5

A-I Se{1090q¥D yUoWeIvUBW NONI ‘(S86T) NONI vo peseg

vg. SS ew eee S88 ES ee ean

atdoad QooT/BYy yl‘ 6Tz
wy'bs/peqoeq03d By g/°Z

89189994

wy bs

uoyzetndod yzyM uosyseduoD
paqo0q01d a3Bquadled

€¥2‘'6S0°0S pe qoeqzosd vase [BOL
192 svaie pajzoaqz0ad jo Jaqunu [8 j0L
000‘ Ovy* 822 uoyqetndod [eo]
992‘866'LT Botiewy yynos jo Baie [BqOL

See SS ee

Z2T6'88e'L
BLL‘ 82
00¥'28S
BES‘O2T'T
209‘ LOv'Z
SS9‘TT

0
s9e'l29'%
0S2'8S6'€
o9e dec‘ 2t
zoe‘ ves‘ Tt
069'L0L'Y
Tse‘ v6S‘Z

ve (82461) 000‘22T‘ ET Lv0°Z2T6
9 (826T) 000'¥98‘Z $26‘98T
6 (LL6T) 000'844 oz8* cot
6 (826T) 000'888'Z 0S2‘90¥
TT (8L6T) 000'6T8‘9T STZ*S82'T
T (8261) 000'6T8 696‘ HZ
0 (LL6T) 000'6S 000° 06
eT (826T) OOO'¥T8*L Z20S‘SS¥
oe (LL6T) 000'8¥0'S2 Lo6‘set't
49 (LL6T) 000°9S9‘OT €v6'9SL
Os (846T) OOO'LGE'STT 896'TTS'S
ra (826T) OOO'ETT'S SLS‘860°T
62 (8261) 000'C6E'92 £09'9LL°2

WIaNZINAA
Avnonun
aMVNIUNS
AVNOVUVd
nad
WNVANS
WNYINS HONS
yodwnogy
VIaHOTOD
aTIHO
TIZVagd
VIAI1I098
WNIINIOUV

ioe

60°€9S Ot's
SO‘OT St'0
00°00€‘T 9S°€
00'88¢ SL'2
ST eel Le't
€2' yt S0'0
y2°9€E 40'S
50° 8st ab'€
ZEUGETT “€8°9T
Lo" cot Ov't
LE OU 6z'¢
Of 86 £6'0
peey QOO'T sed (%)

paqo2aqoad By

wybs/ey

(89318 {20Y )

Bore [BIOL

Aaqyunoo jo
azts

sBaIy

jo ON uoy qe tndog

Aa uno)

2 Ee Ee

BO}Jewy YyANnos UT sB¥ate paq2eq01d

:Z eTQeL

. yaaa sei te F886, 22

“0 So ee

ug

=F
&

pave
ae
Lay

TALE
.

Sie

6 Frife: ,
Lhe oct
coe, ects

Table 3: Analysis by biome type

Biome and Realm

Number Total area
of areas (hectares )
Tropical humid forests
Afrotropical 44 8,905,733
Indomalayan 122 5,092,774
Australian 53 7,776,347
Neotropical 61 17,277,197
280 39,052,051
Subtropical/temperate rainforests/woodlands
Nearctic 18 4,250,171
Palaearctic 48 1,742,994
Australian 26 904,976
Antarctic 145 2,783,281
Neotropical 38 8,848,838
275 18,530,260
Temperate needle—leaf forests/woodlands
Nearctic 53 30,321,679
Palaearctic 122 8,463,690
ILS) 38,785,369
Tropical dry forests/woodlands
Afrotropical 240 48,673,552
Indomalayan 238 10,420, 406
Australian 10 934,272
Neotropical 93 5,501,447
581 65,529,677
Temperate broad—leaf forests
Nearctic 82 1,890,216
Palaearctic 400 9,631,346
Neotropical 1 5,415
483 11,526,977
Evergreen sclerophyllous forests
Nearctic 6 52,010
Palaearctic 122 3,374,156
Afrotropical 41 1,620,967
Australian 301 6,918,823
Neotropical 5 38,795

475 12,004,751

© eetled

tee De ee A

rae ; oom
ee =—_ -
i ~ “phlen boa ser

cree u Kp anart fepk #3

m eviy df Wink azeewn ay tae ie tervegore tN dma
: ; 33:

‘ Hey ich tawcios' Py a AL 1 tuet-olbawet a i ot

Aum boone tgp ei
hie

Table 3 (cont.): Analysis by biome type

Biome and Realm : Number Total area
of areas (hectares )

Warm deserts/semi—deserts

Nearctic 22 3,962,948
Palaearctic y/ 616,534
Afrotropical 57 23,783,085
Indomalayan 35 1,628,854
Australian 33 10,165,383
Neotropical 7 1,446,751

161 41,603,555

Cold-winter deserts

Nearctic 15 657,128
Palaearctic 57 12,854,167
Neotropical 4 36,700

76 13,547,995

Tundra communities

Nearctic 20 107,924,951
Palaearctic 8 7,247,904
Antarctic 12 295,034

40 115,467,889

Tropical grasslands/savannas

Australian 12 2,041,393
Neotropical 18 7,011,403
30 9,052,796

Temperate grasslands

Nearctic 25 387,751
Palaearctic 22 805,408
Australian 34 670,163
Neotropical 9 70,516

90 1,933,838

Mixed mountain systems

Nearctic 81 8,321,078
Palaearctic 231 8,071,815
Afrotropical 38 5,104,626
Neotropical 86 11,037,282

436 32,534,801

a , ay fi
i : en) - |
‘4 agy aunty i ali jcal ave " br
gee +t i ay) ao

eee inant |. Pree
Caan! ry. ee ay

; Vio) ft; - = oth
dobems ph donelhE <r; hh i's .
/ ‘ te aier :
ae Cale eee,
We
¥ wv

i ee
sg! ‘a ht ar a ae
" ge (00) as iam

aan y Pe eeovard a ‘ ae y ;

FE ok chips al

US? IN

ad es may vi
Ba =
ay fen %
rg 2A iv ie f
t ecekopermtciaad

4)
“i

Table 3 (cont.):

Analysis by biome type

Biome and Realm

Number Total area
of areas (hectares)
Mixed island systems
Palaearctic 9 52,142
Afrotropical 4 23,033
Indomalayan 177 10,426,372
Oceanian 54 4,127 602
Neotropical 26 1,190,599
270 15,819,748
Lake systems
Nearctic 7 444,713
Palaearctic 1 18,300
Afrotropical 2 55,100
Neotropical
10 518,113
Biogeographical classification unknown 132 7,866,578
TOTAL 3,514 423,774,398

|

eqe> eneks ed receded Lanes). & atdet

ee Liable ae

)
|
|
{

ee ee ee

NNNONNNNNNHNNHNNN NHN NHNNDND NW

Table 4: Analysis by biogeographical province

Number Total area

of areas (hectares)

Sitkan 12 3,869,827
Oregonian 6 380,344
Yukon Taiga 12 21,010, 636
Canadian Taiga 41 9,311,043
Eastern Forest 39 1,155,364
Austroriparian 43 734,852
Californian 6 52,010
Sonoran ilal 3,464,499
Chihuahuan 10 493,332
Tamaulipan 1 5,117
Great Basin 15 657,128
Aleutian Islands 7 7,025,370
Alaskan Tundra 9 25,292,471
Canadian Tundra 2 4,557,110
Arctic Archipelago (0)
Greenland Tundra fe)
Arctic Desert and Icecap 2 71,050,000
Grasslands 25 387,751
Rocky Mountains 46 6,783,793
Sierra—Cascade 16 1,251,492
Madrean—Cordilleran 19 285,793
Great Lakes 7 444,713
329 158,212,645

Chinese Subtropical Forest 10 312,509
Japanese Evergreen Forest 38 1,430,485
West Eurasian Taiga 106 5,061,090
East Siberian Taiga 16 3,402,600
Icelandian 22 791,431
Subarctic Birchwoods 14 258,590
Kamchatkan 1 964,000
British Islands 34 IAG! lnliz:
Atlantic 96 1,063,740
Boreonemoral 55 743,047
Middle European Forest 97 W232), 282
Pannonian 22 245,056
West Anatolian 1 11,338
Manchu—Japanese Mixed Forest 22 1,480,074
Oriental Deciduous Forest 36 1,378,671
Iberian Highlands 42 1,835,557
Mediterranean Sclerophyll 80 1,538,599
Sahara 2 117,094
Arabian Desert 5 499, 440
Anatolian—Iranian Desert 32 5,499,190
Turanian 13 1,170,858
Takla—Makan-—Gobi Desert 2 4,507,850

a0

sett eLfi-d

HettentD

S:ieereT

“iced “thats

emer a4 rier ie
“aabener bo wnael A
ave? saith?
ggetagitow ot? ot
eH 7 Bee 4 caperey
Phen -tregell ait aw
ruin § ae

oy eer eee

en Tee As}
veer tal
iP poe oa

~*

Pees jecign vias evi Al:
famle? dueanayd Gcareget
> Seat’ Neca ed tree

wee! a toa

ee ‘iad ture a?

‘ neta Si tyre
Gerd Ta (toveu de

ehirnt ently io i

areas 78.

: re ‘feck
ikl anal aes eqeatuneleatt 9 ,
‘i em Quah se) Late ee Pye a
j eh cee peli ea
ad i iia ey ipa ig ; &,

Table 4 (cont.): Analysis by biogeographical province

NNYNYNHNNNYNHNMNNHMNNM NNN NNN ND LH

www Ww WwW Ww WwW WwW Ww WwW ww www Ww

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

01
O01
01
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
06
07
07
07
07
07
07
12
12
12
12
12

Tibetan

Iranian Desert
Arctic Desert
Higharctic Tundra
Lowarctic Tundra
Atlas Steppe
Pontian Steppe

Mongolian—Manchurian Steppe

Scottish Highlands
Central European Highlands
Balkan Highlands
Caucaso-Iranian Highlands
Altai Highlands
Pamir—Tian—-Shan Highlands
Hindu Kush Highlands
Himalayan Highlands
Szechwan Highlands
Macaronesian Islands
Ryukyu Islands

Lake Ladoga

Aral Sea

Lake. Baikal

Guinean Rain Forest
Congo Rain Forest
Malagasy Rain Forest

West African Woodland/Savanna
East African Woodland/Savanna

Congo Wood land/Savanna
Miombo Woodland/Savanna

South African Wood land/Savanna

Malagasy Woodland/Savanna
Malagasy Thorn Forest
Cape Sclerophyll

Western Sahel

Eastern Sahel

Somalian

Namib

Kalahari

Karroo

Ethiopian Highlands
Guinean Highlands

Central African Highlands
East African Highlands
South African Highlands

Number Total area
of areas (hectares)
1 266,913

9 1,409,356

5 3,491,000

1 795,650

2 2,961,254

3 By IAS
16 581,053
3 172,580
20 81,723
105 2,037,182
32 390,241
42 2,236,152
2, 935,093
17 616,490
1 14,786
10 1,708,148
2 52,000

7 48,095

¥2 4,047
(0)

i 18,300

(@)

10217 52,878,456
iS) 907,720
23 en bakin HTS
6 243,238
53 13,543,787
36 7,873,091
5 2,990,700
33 13,396,995
105 10,437,555
i 388,224

1 43,200
41 1,620,967
7 1,726,000

2 1,719,700
18 4,142,182
7 6,768,070

8 9,282,803
15 144,330
5 636,000
me 335,625

9 3,622,985

9 431,108
13 78,908

PrprprpPpPrpPprerrprrprrerhrpPrrPrerrh HP RHP HS wWwwww Ww w

Onnnnnm

23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Ol
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

op
02
03
04
05
06

13
13
13
14
14
14
14

Ol
Ol
Ol
opt
01
O01
O01
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
07
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13

13
13
13
13
13
13

Table 4 (cont.): Analysis by biogeographical province

Name of Province

Number Total area

of areas (hectares)

Ascension and St Helena Islands (0)
Comores Islands and Aldabra 1 19,000
Mascarene Islands 3 4,033
Lake Rudolf fe)
Lake Ukerewe (Victoria) iL 45,700
Lake Tanganyika (@)
Lake Malawi (Nyasa) 1 9,400
426 88,166,096

Malabar Rainforest 30 1,303,273
Ceylonese Rainforest 1 97,956
Bengalian Rainforest 22 657,352
Burman Rainforest (0)
Indochinese Rainforest 28 1,780,756
South Chinese Rainforest 21 165,709
Malayan Rainforest 20 1,087,728
Indus—Ganges Monsoon Forest 136 6,835,608
Burma Monsoon Forest 18 515,429
Thailandian Monsoon Forest 20 942,417
Mahanadian 17 1,022,379
Coromandel 3 105,828
Ceylonese Monsoon Forest 36 544,709
Deccan Thorn Forest 8 454,036
Thar Desert 35 1,628,854
Seychelles and Amirantes Islands 2 2,893
Laccadives Islands (0)
Maldives and Chagos Islands te)
Cocos—Keeling and Christmas Islands 1 1,600
Andaman and Nicobar Islands 8 28,592
Sumatra 29 4,253,807
Java 38 644,930
Lesser Sunda Islands 10 174,155
Sulawesi (Celebes) 22 1,093,265
Borneo 39 3,791,061
Philippines 26 390,932
Taiwan 2 45,137
572 27,568,406

Bamtan 24 3,747,672
Micronesian 5 13,258
Hawaiian 4 214,502
Southeastern Polynesian 8 53,977
Central Polynesian 4 44,055
New Caledonian 7 48,796

Table 4 (cont.): Analysis by biogeographical province

Name of Province Number Total area

of areas (hectares )

5 07 13 East Melanesian Ds 5,342
54 4,127 602

6 01 01 Queensland Coastal 53 7,776,347
6 02 02 Tasmanian 26 904,976
6 03 04 Northern Coastal 10 934,272
6 04 06 Western Sclerophyll 138 2,444,584
6 05 06 Southern Sclerophyll 56 Tey 5 7/727/
6 06 06 Eastern Sclerophyll 95 2,741,356
6 O07 06 Brigalow 12 319,156
6 08 O07 Western Mulga 10 2,144,280
6 09 O07 Central Desert 13 3,657,703
6 10 07. Southern Mulga/Saltbush 10 4,363,400
6 11 10 Northern Savanna 9 1,458,655
6 12 10 Northern Grasslands 3 582,738
6 13 11 Eastern Grasslands and Savannas 34 670,163
469 29,411,357

7 01 02 Neozealandia 145 2,783,281
7 02 09 Maudlandia 6 34,959
7 03 09 Marielandia 1 160,000
7 04 09 Insulantarctica 5 100,075
157 3,078,315

8 01 01 Campechean 4 63,918
8 02 01 Panamanian 6 660,902
8 03 01 Colombian Coastal 6 1,019,000
8 04 01 Guyanan 21 2,155,078
8 05 01 Amazonian 14 12),.73'3:, 681
8 06 01 Madeiran 2 448,150
8 07 01 Serro Do Mar 8 196,468
8 08 02 Brazilian Rain Forest 16 447,233
8 09 02 Brazilian Planalto 2 15,839
8 10 02 Valdivian Forest 13 4,018,459
8 11 02 Chilean Nothofagus z/ 4,367,307
8 12 04 Everglades 9 774,279
8 13 04 Sinaloan 5 462,994
8 14 04 Guerreran 5 66,873
8 15 04 Yucatecan 2 106,970
8 16 04 Central American 23 825,207
8 17 04 Venezuelan Dry Forest 26 1,125,794
8 18 04 Venezuelan Deciduous Forest 11 546,930

Table 4 (cont.): Analysis by biogeographical province

Name of Pravince Number Total area

of areas (hectares)

8 19 04 Equadorian Dry Forest 3 181,300
8 20 04 Caatinga 3 236,100
8 21 04 Gran Chaco 6 1,175,000
8 22 05 Chilean Araucaria Forest 1 5,415
8 23 06 Chilean Sclerophyll 5 38,795
8 24 O07 Pacific Desert (0)
8 25 07 Monte 7/ 1,446,751
8 26 08 Patagonian 4 36,700
8 27 10 Llanos 3 1,207,000
8 28 10 Campos Limpos 3 3,192,000
8 29 10 Babacu 1 155,000
8 30 10 Campos Cerrados 11 2,457,403
8 31 11 Argentinian Pampas (0)
8 32 11 Uruguayan Pampas 9 70,516
8 33 12 Northern Andean 9 913,288
8 34 12 Colombian Montane 8 1,397,050
8 35 12 Yungas 9 1,108,268
8 36 12 Puna 13 1,168,439
8 37 12 Southern Andean 47 6,450,237
8 38 13 Bahamas—Bermudean 4 122,540
8 39 13 Cuban 4 24,305
8 40 13 Greater Antillean 9 225,230
8 41 13 Lesser Antillean 6 87,875
8 42 13 Revilla Gigedo Island (6)
8 43 13 Cocos Island 1 3,200
8 44 13 Galapagos Islands 1 691,200
8 45 13. Fernando De Noronja Island 1 36,249
8 46 13 South Trinidade Island 0
8 47 14 Lake Titicaca ie)
348 52,464,943

Biogeographical classification unknown 132 7,866,578
TOTAL 3,514 423,774,398

F ; ae
~ -

mogtbearna hes liigeereo nee fe et tieelens { anes » ofta®l

t

.
) hi " a hp
ne eer cate mame ~~ ‘o
tines ; ae qdivt wees a Pay -
pai p: > Whee 70 ,
“ Ay : Pr ; P re : ain '
: Sr pepe <itomerme 1 . : ‘

le Homann t. 40 Bh @
; apn iim), te ob /8
pe? 6A? ae

6%
ae
ork

BRSSRERS AS ARRSK

egSeenee

PeBNOL Sieg enh pagel
if ¥oQs map Fie ai
* pypne Do Thoeh

ai eS eA eS at
a3eeei
sacar ae

= oti
Anime
wate 3

ecnitre i cays. ar

z uoeded Ba

{ \ byeeme) ror Bt

‘entnat Weiner Et
sees Aayougarw ff
dearth chetpatt

grntrutt btamo ied Gt

ety G}

era =9§t

read oma we Sf

nesiawisi-cbewist =
ned}

f Meni iivar «aimed
qual Ligier

bradal obgpi® of bival
. Boel er isgeads
oyenmebe z ro pyebedl,
rheted wine 46 nbearne —
i heeletT sLabiatal Mayuee-
‘Uk “A eog>tail ovat, #

LS

ere.

—,
=
Sil

a!

pa e

—

ed a wer

Pet Fe eat Rak hay Rh
ivos Gemwerces Lom Mond poring Centre, ;

An introduction to the
Protected Areas Data Unit,

IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

Jeremy Harrison
IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
219c Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL
United Kingdom

The work of the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre is
a contribution to the Global Environmental Monitoring System
of the United Nations Environment Programme

Cambridge, 1985

i
tf

4

agen ives) aise aad

Ald cra viet (9 Het ara

sonar ei pith ye) bay weet

? re sii he 1% —
by 7 hos haere es
ne i
re |
Tee hy Lagi

INTRODUCTION

For well over two decades IUCN has been collecting information on the world's
conservation sites, both for use in its own programmes, and to assist in its
work with other conservation organizations. During the late 1970s, IUCN's
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) was reorganized ona
regional basis and, as a part of this process, data-gathering on protected
areas was made more systematic. The resulting increased flow of information
created the need for an office to handle it, and the Protected Areas Data Unit
(PADU) was set up in 1981 with the assistance of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) and the US Nature Conservancy. The unit now
forms part of the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre (CMC) and is based in
Cambridge, in the United Kingdom. The information handling capabilities of
the unit depend on a Wang VS mini-computer which provides an integrated
data-processing and word-processing system. The following paragraphs give a
brief outline to some of the work carried out by PADU, and provide an
introduction to how the unit is integrated within IUCN's conservation
monitoring activities. Further details on the development of the CMC computer
database are discussed by Mackinder (1984).

HANDLING THE INFORMATION

IUCN has a worldwide network of contacts, many of whom can provide information
on protected areas within their respective regions. Many of these contacts
are members or consultants of JIUCN's Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas (CNPPA), and PADU receives much of its information through the
regional working sessions of the Commission which PADU staff attend, and where
the participants are asked to review information on the region. Information
collected in this way is added to through correspondence and literature
research, and in discussion with scientists and land managers from around the
world.

Information is received in a variety of forms ranging from departmental
reports to scientific papers, though many contacts provide information on
standard forms, or correct draft information sheets prepared by PADU staff.
Although it is easier to deal with information sent on standard forms, it is
important to also receive original information such as management plans, maps,
departmental reports, scientific papers, and species lists. The availability
of such documentation not only enables extraction of further information, and
verification of information where necessary, it also means that if detailed
information is required by IUCN for any given region the original documents
can be quickly found and used.

Initially basic data are abstracted from the information received, and entered
into the main data file on the computer. These files are constantly being
extended, and the programs which handle them improved, but the core
information includes the name of the protected area, the country it lies
within, its size, year of establishment, management category (according to
IUCN/CNPPA, 1984), its definition within the country (eg National Park, Nature
Reserve), and its biogeographic code (according to Udvardy, 1975). Various
other codes, such as document addresses (explained shortly), those indicating
what sort of maps PADU has on file, and a unique number (one for each
protected area) are used in cross—referencing information.

Using the computer this information can be handled in a wide variety of ways,
and data items can be selected and sorted using any character or group of
characters within the data file. It is possible, for example, to obtain a

= 9)

list of protected areas of over 100,000 hectares within the Tropical Humid
Forest biome in Latin America, a list of sites in Burma and Thailand in IUCN
Management category I, or a list of all the protected areas established
between 1954 and 1972. By sorting the data, it is relatively straightforward
to put together volumes like the UN List (IUCN, 1982a; 1985b). In this case
information is first selected from the data file, then sorted by country, by
Management category within country, by size within management category within
country, and so on. The material which has been sorted can then be put into
the right format by careful programming so that it is ready for publication.

Programs can also be written to summarise the information in a wide variety of
ways, and several summaries have already been published by IUCN (1982a;
1985b), Harrison, Miller and McNeely (1982) and Unesco (1983). Two examples
will perhaps illustrate this capability. By mid 1982, over 2,600 areas had
been created which were considered to be of sufficient status to be included
in the 1982 UN List, and the total area protected as of October 1982 included
some 4 million square kilometres. The rate of growth to achieve this is
illustrated in Figure 1 from information held and sorted by the computer.
These data can be further broken down to illustrate the situation in each of
the different realms (Figure 2), again using information selected from data
files, and sorted appropriately. Using other programs, protected areas in
IUCN management categories I-V can be sorted into size classes facilitating
the plotting of frequency histograms (Figure 3).

220
2000 400
|

* 1750 | 3130 ~
a | =
2 H =
. 300

1300 2
rs 2
s —
G 1250 250) -=
S E
3. ~
°
a 200
a 1000 -

J

ra -
t) vv

750 so 8
~ _
* °
2 <=
— 500 oo 6
a
z a

250 soe

<

1870 1860 18690 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Figure 1 Growth of the world coverage of protected areas
( ) number, (quillll) total area in hectares.

NUMBER OF PROTECTED AREAS [STABLISHED

Figure 2

of reserves

Number

Figure 3

2000

1960

iw

ou

SOMBER OF PACTECTEO AMEAS ESTABLISHED

APEA PROTECTED NS MILLIONS OF HECTARES,

ke

Growth of regional protected areas coverage

¢

~ ow © Oo

J
VN) NOI

<0
<i
<12
<')
<ta
<'5

Size class of reserve («1,000 sq km)

Size distribution of protected areas
in IUCN management categories I-—V

ee

) number, ({IlI[) total area in hectares.

<0)

2

>I1¢

er

?

210%.$ OF MECTAAES

iG

Sapa PATE

i

¥ ao te }

» ! ~— > i
°z * j

. A } ve

2 4 f aA) 4

i

Wea hidiae neT WINS, hare pon. le TaN
Padsae tote Laetehe OMT) taint mit

—% *
Oe ee el, A

—- 4 —

Use of the data files is only half the story.

into an ‘information sheet! where information is grouped under a number of
specific headings (Figure 4). As noted earlier, the information may already
have been. supplied to in this format. Each of these information sheets is
entered into the computer as a word processing document or text file. The
text can be stored by the machine and recalled for correction or reformating
whenever necessary. Each text file has a document identification, and it is
this number which we enter into our data file as the document address

mentioned above. This gives is the essential cross-link between the basic
information and the detailed text.

Data on each area are compiled

The information in these text files is regularly checked and added to, using
material from various sources. More systematic checking is accomplished by
taking all of the sheets for any given region to each CNPPA meeting in that
region for review. In this way, material can be prepared for publication.

The IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas was published at the time of
the World National Parks Congress in Bali, Indonesia (IUCN, 1982b), and during

1984 final drafts of both the Directory of Wetlands of International

Importance (IUCN, 1984) and the IUCN Directory of Afrotropical Protected Areas
were prepared. The Afrotropical Directory will be published shortly (IUCN,

1985a), and work is now in progress on both the Indomalayan and Oceanian
regions.

Name of protected area Noteworthy flora

Management category Noteworthy fauna
Biogeographic province Conservation management

Legal protection Zoning

Date established Disturbances and deficiencies
Geographical location Visitor facilities

Altitude Scientific research/facilities
Size of area Principal reference material
Land tenure Staff

Physical features Budget

Habitat/Vegetation Local administration

Figure 4 The major headings under which information is
collected on protected area information sheets

The word-processing system is also being used to manage the documentation on
World Heritage sites for the secretariat at Unesco, and plans are under way to
carry out similar projects for biosphere reserves and sites listed under the
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfow]
Habitat.

USE OF THE INFORMATION

It is abundantly clear that any one country will have far more information
available on its own protected areas than could ever be handled by a few
people in an office in the United Kingdom. Similarly many countries have the
capacity to establish computer systems and are able to maintain aa i
information on protected areas in ways that meet their own needs. How en

ut r

btiabin: we ‘eam (one 16 wield yaa Fa! eel ia tee eke ATED «3
aly veins. 6 ee ee ee Sei iatert aisniies fete Nos SRNR

Ax yea ridtewerter) ahh ve fida Behe, sj : raga
w? met head Hanoy cape ~ saphatta Pe Ale Mette CY, ORE) tia th kJ aque ean inl 7
pent, VW © PetemeTtiy thay pi) ray 1) ech rh ey / Eek mn ‘
sean mn MOP rows oy wie eee ee Se ity eae teil sR
' a bein’ faba ei vy Ade traieli ok ‘mph b Biwt-doet j ;

Reeds Joomirioh oct” ee aft Bib jee Os ven Tee uo), Ad bw

+ U pint Langue

Ce icresl Salas nantes aes 27077. fal Waeun ald ed 284 lees
aa ~ Beet fal Let of) eel

¥ % 1

i (CERO yl minicar 22 aoe. .ae?- inore wd noida
* ak. onc Same uh Saar. | eeuwbe, . guodiew oi
/ ; Bs savig cma A: Starts wait ae
*) topyatia’ _M Gals etc se wa ive?
Maen: Kasey Lert: ipshauctoap. fp Wk
1 " ie arsen' a0 . ms | Sie ke
- Tenmiaerneded 46,7 cue! ieee deeety a ata hee he Ry:
aid Reece, | Fol ysesovrid Wd on tis, oaee asa
P : WS eh tril a ° a Se penndaa bet fdakgonde xin ont oak
AP hs FESIPO Wy Ni wo OPP ’

auen He voui tok: ree get ae

SRB aR OH ea Wren ts,
asnikwe ye .> ae

ta: apis A thwart
x acne ee ees

does

= §n=

PADU aid conservation? There are in fact a variety of reasons, of

varying levels of importance, for Maintaining a global overview.

a)

b)

Broad comparisons of protected areas networks

Around the world there are many different designations of protected
area. In Kenya, for example, the terms include national parks, national
reserves, nature reserves, forest reserves, and in Spain national parks,

natural parks and national hunting reserves. In Thailand there are
areas known as no hunting areas, in Uganda game management areas, while
in Kiribati similar areas are designated wildlife sanctuaries. However,

the definitions of any one designation will vary country to country, for
example the national parks of the United Kingdom are certainly not
national parks in any international sense.

In an attempt to clarify this situation, and to encourage the use of a
wide range of protected area ‘types', IUCN (1978) identified a series of
ten management categories defined according to management objectives.
PADU is using these ten categories to classify areas, and hence is able
to give a better comparative picture of the protected area situation
country to country than could be achieved by use of the national
designations.

Biogeographical analysis of protected area coverage

A major objective of the global protected area system is to maintain the
diversity of species and ecosystems, but listing protected area coverage
by country does not provide much information on how well natural
ecosystems around the world are being conserved. IUCN has therefore
been using the system of biogeographical provinces described by Udvardy
(1975) to make a first estimate of the coverage of major living
resources by protected areas. This system divides the world into eight
major realms, each of which is divided into a number of provinces. Each
province is characterised by a particular biome type. Hence the Akagera
National Park in Rwanda, for example, is within the Afrotropical
Realm, in the East African Woodland/Savanna Province, which is
characterised by a tropical dry or deciduous forests or woodlands
biome.

A first approach to assessment of coverage of the world's biogeographic
variety by protected areas is to examine coverage by province and
biome. At present such comparisons are relatively crude, and it is
important to note, for example, that biome type is not synonymous with
habitat type, and also that the total area of each province or biome is

‘not the same; problems which can hide important differences in the

figures (Harrison et_al, 1982). However, for all of its limitations the
approach through biogeographic provinces does provide a useful tool for
identifying major holes in the protected area network. For example 13
of the biogeographical provinces did not have protected areas included
in the 1982 UN List, and some 34 provinces had 5 or fewer protected
areas covering an area of less than 100,000 hectares. The rather crude
tool of global biogeography could therefore suggest that these poorly
protected provinces may be where international attention should be
focussed. We know that coverage is patchy. To determine exactly how
patchy, more analysis of the figures is required, based on more accurate
estimations of the size of the biomes and provinces; this work is in

progress.

t

:

‘ 7) | eer by aa esr

mais

ka

jokPotwee Furl) Seow F

c)

d)

Gus

It is clear that the global biogeographical approach provides useful
information primarily at the global level. For national systems, the
same biogeographic principles can be applied with considerably greater
precision yielding proportionally more useful results; examples of such
applications include those in Costa Rica, Canada, New Zealand, and in
the Amazonian region of Brazil. Also, with more detailed continent—wide
biogeographic maps, such as the vegetation map of Africa
(Unesco/AETFAT/UNSO, 1983), it is possible to make more accurate
assessments of protected area cover at this level. The information held
by PADU is currently being used in the development of protected areas
systems plans for two of the major tropical regions, the Afrotropical

and Indomalayan realms. This project is described in detail by
MacKinnon (1985).

The system of marine biophysical provinces and coastal biogeographical
provinces described at the World National Parks Congress in Bali,

Indonesia (Hayden et al, 1984), has important applications in
identifying the major gaps and weaknesses in the present coverage of
coastal and marine ecosystems. This is something that has not been

systematically tackled before for the whole world, and should lead to a
significant increase in the number and size of protected areas in these
aquatic habitats. Work will begin on this shortly.

Development of publications on protected areas

Having all this information available on one site enables PADU to work
with CNPPA in developing a variety of publications on protected areas.
The United Nations List has already been mentioned, as has the series of
directories of protected areas. The directories, which give basic
details on the protected area networks of each country and one or two
pages of information on each protected area, are intended to serve as
handbooks for the protected areas of each major land mass. Volumes on
the Neotropical Realm and the Afrotropical Realm have been produced so
far (IUCN, 1982b; 1985a), and work is now under way on volumes to caver
the Indomalayan and Oceanian realms.

PADU is also in a good position to prepare or help prepare general
overview papers on protected areas issues.

It is also possible to produce publications on request; a volume ona
particular country; on the vegetation of parks and reserves of South
East Asia; on the protected areas of tropical rain forest around the
world; on the threats to all protected areas containing tigers,
bowerbirds, or coco de mer; or on those areas set up to protect
important watersheds, or protected under specific international
conventions or programmes. Some of these would be more difficult to
produce than others, but we already hold much of the necessary

information.

Providing information to conservation agencies

IUCN, the World Wildlife Fund, and other international conservation
agencies need a basis for determining high priority areas for allocation
of scarce conservation funds. Using PADU, TUCN is in a position to
supply essential background information on protected areas. For
example, the results of the projects mentioned above to evaluate

=

ra?)

4

tulecy: eohiwiy ‘rove | ee wee ;

wiht enol eee Peetu 5 pre ahh , ~ iriruye * pdm:

whee ¢idevetiniw> 7 : ’ ae ere

Asia Yo watered: 72) crew: thw , 3 pete:

ee ae, ee ee eacctigt Wadi Se eek ae

Ab tere ere r hadi atue va. cA : NG) MR ES I RS ty one °

ws A - i ‘een oh OS: Tie : bi boxy apaadt niger pao paage mE ,

ems ae Kew rt GE gery nt) LacpdstPMiabeibile healer spe 4
yells ' dies! be Teer Ye NE SOLED i

bbe rcpt PS, PY «ff rd cow

eneg peraeyG. Mev vptige bees,’ + 1 hae RATed of Coy of od flow

Latent: Pht [ereret Te te Tame aed 4 i, Te. CORE
aobeg: Artie

ud) PENNE. WL Weenies ei toh ares ns Hn BG
a ale gre iG ' s- (2a Pee iinet a
Wi i ee is 4 ", - a Sau ‘ ab Se :
daa ivingpe tll beatin: tis er tf Setheglasit otha No ere Re ot f
Fisk ok sbedtutia Debeh tanei ta bh! ow “ot hewdinorek cei ia
WU eA PUTO he n ee, em rere a
| iene einai hd Gli mien biniicis tenes ean “TCH at enna Oo
wae tony eae bide ts Po emadTystoe. cart Mee iapeeol
oe od tat: ilar ae Panis Ghost no) aha ind bes sciet el Daeieeieaa utd

oronltni eeery beds way ears fe DO etait: belt 21 eileen “tages a

As ieee 3 CH) ape! cet ho Apa le a

r ry

oom daquite Pa he Wi ORI nek Mish Tomei, GSM OES
eatin’ f A ee ae a gts Saye 7 Are iany & ahah avon | ey Aibiaes

Rta

We gel b my Sant ee! WARN) Aatinr: saith Pieits yw! wttlen tet J: pei Raa RE
ah a t= Hs Fe Mere sat AMT - avg 8, betsetoty As. seo
be Pe Rea e hues en te Sgt cll erhe me to A eS Re 2}t
114 1 . , i eat oe ee Bee 1602.0 Pochette S ‘te

Trav \ “to, paw it oto noe Py ie |) Oa 2 Oa
ay, Goiet" iiss nel TSH Ree TTA OH Hon Ties ee
i pai Bhs oe at TCO oe A) ww eta bf ‘PAO SSeS.
= i Co 6. Aaa) hye Mie

e" a ee P-,

SC Ge, PRR ee ae a ST

tage) ceete Bets o toda, fo: 2 tg

" ‘etiam Iyer sh F,p Feduity vapiewy GY wfdliceng ost
ie Bah a aD i | we da tI we? Pe Spe Paes? .
Wey 0! Pe baie 1 ii ey ct edt “Aas
iets date Pit 4 Water? tet hatn aeoL RE a: gee. Ame
Ce i a cr ee
Hh 24) caeges rhe har sodinagy "Ae abate awe
i OAH at ptiiot ee MR |e a
og mete tet ae) ee

ct * fe nme te
1 i ace: “4 Pinta i
t te of ALS Birch ‘he.
a ead Paci, 3 Mes teat aires in. Daw ah.
Mid otek oT -ivit @ Boon om:

9 rats fate arenas

e)

iy

protected area coverage in the tropics will have direct effects on the

conservation efforts made by IUCN and others in different parts of each
region.

The World Heritage Convention requires global information in order to
ensure that sites inscribed on the World Heritage List are of truly
“outstanding universal significance". IUCN is responsible for the
technical evaluation of natural sites nominated for inclusion on this
list, and the information held on these sites by PADU is an important
component of this work. In the future, analyses of the information
available on natural World Heritage Sites will be required in order to
assess the working of the Convention, and to systematise the information
on what is listed under it. Because of its developing expertise in this
field, PADU is perhaps in the best position to do this type of work — in
particular because of the possibilities for comparison of World Heritage
Sites with other protected areas.

Unesco's Man and the Biosphere Programme requires global information to
ensure that representative areas of all biogeographic provinces are
established as Biosphere Reserves. Much of the information available on
Biosphere Reserves also needs to be analysed. PADU is already ina
position to carry out some of this work, and produced analyses of
Biosphere Reserve information for the First International Congress on
Biosphere Reserves in Minsk, Byelorussia (Unesco, 1983). As with World
Heritage Sites there is a need for a more systematic monitoring system,
and it is hoped that in the future PADU will be able to provide this
type of service.

PADU also acts as the repository for information on sites listed under
the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as
Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 1971), and is responsible for maintaining an
up-to-date list of sites. As with all other areas discussed, an
information sheet for each site is also prepared, and a draft directory
of these sites was presented to the second conference of contracting
parties to the convention in Groningen (IUCN, 1984).

Providing information to aid agencies

If international development agencies such as the World Bank and US—AID

could be provided with quick, accurate, large-scale overviews of
protected areas needs and problems, they would be in a position to avoid
adversely affecting particularly sensitive areas. Also, if they could

be given the right background on all the conservation issues in the area
concerned, they would perhaps be able to design their projects to
enhance sustainable development.

PADU would not be in a position to supply all of the information itself,
but by incorporating data held by PADU with that held by other units of
CMC, IUCN could give the agency concerned a good introduction to
conservation needs and problems in the region, and perhaps help further
by suggesting consultants to carry out the vital field assessments.
Reports of this kind prepared so far by CMC include preliminary
environmental profiles of the Sind-Kutch region of the India-Pakistan
borderlands, and of the Madhya Pradesh region of central India.

This type of information might also be of interest to a wide range of
multinational companies.

a 4

- wats Pata viaalt ) Sitat Fe a7 aDeYT ey “3 (Dike F s e

es] a epee rere TTtt 2m 1 Hehe: WO oe ahi hag | ome
a wr : art
‘we ia eb) hr Mey See aT | f ‘ pan ,
tae: To) om 9 ~t vy bat yas he pie
anh? ern widie ng MG pee > eerie Yhrare s pT tS ‘ ‘aw ,

ee ity Cod even yoheete

4 pape sini ey hd
erie rou) pum al
Wik Terteth wes

ay. salen. ites li | ian ho wide
i Ali mae tak ‘eels 4 TA ara ide nt’ View Gri ie 7
(ye Soh pears SOna alee be t itvake wa)’ VO benny
pt wnt * row Te: a Bl ere ae. o Lag Phe im oy
ie. gad iwe me Cae a Gin Ps owe “wv ; ie ale
ie ryt ees ates | Biss 4 ; ily ted
if ree we Si

‘oe norsnee
oma #8
ai iat Ml “ <— ae ; en at pos My ‘h ; t paws

nN ; ae RE aah Fay itor, ure: yee
haat rave bs i Heese bist
Sah LAREN cata Pix aKos | Yeh i

id, Bera fi hioe me) fies we 6: Sill
sore eet va fUty AAR sie ate nh Pear beg

“ ne ris A

AM fal dpa lars tho Ue Rigdqay are ne se hae

Amat Anagh OPHT A oe ~htoy ae sient avael
emit. 8 OMS ee a a eu?
(tte ore eh seelle So cre wpb’
taco bie ae ype 40) one ri (eet tie
wed ow “hetde Me wowhe ne f
eth Poe Wik valtivayins ‘wh aa ee 3

f)

g)

h)

=a Gis

Providing information to governments

Many governments need to know what is being done in the field of

protected areas Management elsewhere, in order to enhance their own

efforts and to avoid repeating mistakes. In particular, information is
required by two groups of people, the decision makers and the Management
agencies, who require background information on which to base and
justify decisions. The biogeographical analyses mentioned above will be
of relevance here, for example, as they can be used as strong arguments
for the siting of protected areas in given regions. Management agencies
may be more in need of technical assistance, for example on some
particular management problem. A centralised source of information will
hopefully be able to detail where this type of work has been done before.

In large countries (such as the United States of America) there are many
different types of protected area, run by a variety of agencies. In
some cases, our efforts to collect this type of information may mean
that such national information is being collected together in one site
for the first time.

Manipulating conservation data by computer is still a relatively new
field and it may be some time before governments develop their own
information systems. IUCN is developing a strong capability in the use
of computers for conservation, and this expertise could be made
available to those needing assistance in setting up their own systems.

Providing information to scientists

Scientists often need to make comparisons over a wide range of habitat
types, or over complete species ranges. Information on the species and
habitats in protected areas may therefore be of particular use in
pinpointing research sites or illustrating distributions. Analyses of
site protection are also being carried out, and information held by PADU
has helped in projects as diverse as the identification of coastal
wetland protected areas in the Neotropics, and an assessment of the
workability of the Gunung Mulu management plan.

There are also numerous examples of the application of a protected area
database in the area of genetic resource conservation. A plant breeder,
for example, may need to know where wild ancestors of particular
domestic agricultural crops can be found in protected areas, in order to
locate sources of genetic diversity for improving crop breeds. This
type of information is not available at present, but we are work ing
towards it, and various proposals made to IUCN and others, if carried
out, will increase the available information considerably.

Information is also required by scientists planning expeditions.
Provision of such advance information can be important in project
development, and may lead to a greater emphasis on conservation and
Management needs.

Providing information for education and training

It is of particular value both in the teaching of nature conservation
and in the training of nature conservation personnel to put what is
being taught into a global or regional context. Analyses and syntheses

gore es? il

“hee Whey dite ol:
me ets qearctine ;
et neler ind aga) ¥ +b D Ape)

eas

Aiydemnisiniernhem aed ee Lh ar ls

weed | aa ichies al ve fait

foth, Ldas: enn Nome aie’ 2
ite N Ce oe tie aS Bj ae
Vet ee
- ve yt.

sodiigte a ry

aes
Eien, ne aeeORe! Caen Ml ie Fe

Be Re boall aes av. fax tie esschee Lt 69h «2 kas «9

if ee

Heh ; sewn Roe Oe olde: tent eal p> COUP et 6 Abe

A t i He Wi Pt hae Te a Hed OE a eet eo

ta i anne Sx oho) AT toseles, DF. el io ea
one hy aan haan 72 ans dd je neha Seri [ede 3a he
ES ae: Sa aan ; wai Te

aed:

oe nas: Weed
: sla 4:
os ae

ey

ig. Aeeeo
sets e,

Nor jae th sep gp unr Pee he
\ ; a i, eS
' Ss tee Uae a v¢ ig ‘ yoy
’ % 7
fay x eo Bt yay tesnf

tae i

Bad re Wena

7 a iF lai

eagle rab one re ti
w Trae eee :

ih ta hh Aye =

Po ese EeLT

Onean titi Series ache ie |
vesanadl yen, se ann

Princesa) hs ope tt BAS ita dl es
7 ¥ , 7 < -
Dn” Sa
qth, e

s ias'rath

Be, | We

La 4 Aes. rs?
; Hise be aan

saeuan ee

wid coke |
amie. off
opener
ah. na Heer ee, :
eee ae Deke yet of

ete RL
he” Ak ewe %
sit reli at |

= Op=

of the information held by PADU can be used by teachers and trainers to
provide that context. PADU can also make available original material
such as maps and management plans which can be used in developing
education and training programmes.

i) Providing information to the media

The international effort to promote protected areas requires a
centralized source of information for publications, requests from
journalists, and other promotional and publicity uses. If this type of
information is available from a central office, journalists, writers and
broadcasters can quickly obtain information on both the issue concerned
and the background to it. For instance during the recent South-West
Tasmania argument, PADU was able to give not only information on the
national parks of that area, but also on the World Heritage Convention
(and to further draw attention to the fact that the UK had not at the
time ratified the convention). In addition lists were provided of a
number of other sites that had been (or were) threatened by damming
projects, together with some background information on these areas. In
other words a central information office on protected areas is of value
in ensuring adequate and accurate media coverage of issues concerning
protected areas.

Any of PADU's outputs could be produced by other individuals or organizations
given sufficient time and energy, and sufficient back-up — PADU only provides
what is fed into it. But the amount of information already available to PADU,
and the fact that much of it is already on computer, means that we have the
capability of reproducing the data quickly, providing analyses as necessary,
and providing the outputs in a wide variety of configurations. We will not
replace any of the human element in protected area management, but should
allow managers, development planners, conservationists, and scientists to be
more efficient by providing the data they require, when it is needed, and in
the form required.

Perhaps more importantly, collection and presentation of protected areas
information in a- professional and competent manner demonstrates to
governments, development agencies, and individuals around the world that
national parks and reserves are valuable land-use tools for managing areas
which should, for various reasons, be kept in a natural or semi-natural
state. Making data on protected areas more accessible will help to ensure
that the reserves can play their proper role in resource management and
development.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

PADU is still developing, and is not yet in a position to do all we would
like. For example, currently information cannot be sorted by habitat or
vegetation type. As noted earlier, this means that it is not possible to
produce lists of protected areas protecting tropical rain forests, although we
can produce lists of areas within a tropical humid forest biome. Therefore a
future need is the development and implementation of a coding system which
would allow us to do this. Implementation will involve sorting through our
files manually and assigning habitat codes for each protected area, codes
which can then put into the computer files. This process will take some time.

at enenkerd iw ee de trey 68, cairn owt, pd Riert noses wet Wee
delaetan fanigtre aldnibove «tee ” : ao Dae : i vert? cbrVvEI@e ae
er t ‘ie a OCR

éunien ped at Hine, cht pachapiaee

‘ pertqatowat mi bepcas el vast i

" i“

¥ - 7 1%. ig eters Hits d oi 2ersetys Pee oe wis :
* panctin its “ganite fein), AY a? eon, ah dette snes inne. Re
mon, corey nae unt cipeley <i “iter le Ying Pane 2 haar ‘
Xe ea 7 mr a site test hs tail Pana tomsty: fate he cok Leer ge
‘y i BoP tlermeot. <u oy looted ov) ofdatiawe ss emai
od ited a Rotts. arig’nt ‘aces 5 elisrup > Tee ;
hee. mT PAPGR aunty NOP FE od bus aad sit: to
Ti - - drome Be

if eine ‘peer vit oy wre 464
twit? Ye eehae' patient
vadd wt | Oe 3

ae a ane ea tet ay

we atid “a S50 ditt ot pind terd a wer

Sebineng wees aoei) erent ee: rt treliaawriom td - ee Pipe
switd to

fear (ee wo) “ond ban. sats 2atie :
oN Seedices cadet Bewonplost:ntio are wt oes es7eg
; : Laide s &. GeO

eine fot rehs gai Ve trerntanney na
se stn on whesiae en. “Ota qu yibeee

Pye arene agit yO Bagubotg 26 Dhuye e tuatus.2 "UGE
heh: e a a s2V ae ha Xone bok ent? mers
ch ponrtiis, DOF isamCter Ac |-yOeTe iad. Puli se orl
utengad fc ytww’ ri 0) Ye Ape teks ae
in ~ ensahugea aahston Shh wid. jb aeregaen pase
sank Wate ms [ Ro ere weiskoy til, Sater wea aire

Pave hetodtong nk trample icemat” ott
Pisano einen: eqnnmeha Sieqelawate 5
thea Pers sl eit ‘ootit Fi aaa - nei

es

bel 4 . ih 7 ; v “3 > a A ?
meres . rin, & B ia » We, oP iatraentin "one Ait ts ties Atpensteel

Rae - 4 maid: suemte’ vs . Peg sinning hss bed towe tr owt eo ake gol
ie 23h iy. ba ;eedowone rnameo level! “*
4 ru agin tov “te, (eooet > bre ears

prey pd aps aah aah Prrwemen Ha Pe Bak
Ny Asin erine emu: - tensed era iy sD
mt yet cali) tos ee Said yoin. fas savrvosal
is oe E Se Yes Ae = » Po, don via

Hi se

58 Aon kt ee entqolevet: 4

a yiteerie olquus
ue yaerisat baton 8A - 8

yee Kye votowlons Yo ReeNT |

= ee haere “Wo evedk
ce, We towmyfevel wit ©
‘: oak. (tel. ob oF: ee ¥
fetid prinpiers tee
) Poatugros eit oft sug
aa Meee es stp lee ra “s Ti
Ce aa Se an ee is Y }

- 10

Information is gradually being extracted from our manual files and from the
text files on the computer so that the data sorting and selection facilities
can become even more useful. In the future, for example, we hope to be able
to sort information on criteria such as the practical benefits accruing from a
protected area (watershed management, inshore fisheries protection, etc), on
climatological or geomorphological characteristics, and of course on the
indigenous flora and fauna. Work is already underway on pilot projects to
link the protected area data files with those on threatened animals and plants
managed by other parts of the Conservation Monitoring Centre. CMC is rapidly
working towards greater integration at all levels (see Mackinder, 1984), and
we use a number of common programs and files on the computer (particularly
those concerned with geographical location, and with bibliographies). Future

developments will include the integration of computer mapping and map handling
techniques.

National conservation databases are now being developed or planned in several
countries, and CMC is already working with a number of these. Working with
such databases has the dual advantage that not only is much of our information
coming from one source, but also that it can be sent to us in computer
compatible form. Information on parks and reserves in both New Zealand and
South Africa, for example, has been supplied on computer diskette, and most of
the information on the subantarctic islands has also been supplied in this
way. CMC's senior programmer has been assisting warious conservation
organizations in managing information on micro—computers, and again we are
able to accept information directly from many of these machines.

Despite all these developments and the evident usefulness of PADU and CMC, the
ability to carry out all of the tasks required ultimately depends on the
information available, and our capacity to make use of that information. For
outputs to be of most use to conservation planners at all levels, the data
need to be both flexible and broadly based. This is a central aim of our
operation. Crucial to this aim is the maintenance of high quality, accurate,
information, and this is leading to the development of an ever broadening
contact network. Currently our information is patchy, and we know that much
more work must be done in improving it. This work is under way.

THE WIDER IMPLICATIONS

As the number and extent of protected areas continues to increase, and as the
existing networks develop, management will in the future need to be much more
effective, and integrated on an international scale. Managers must define
clear objectives for each site, and make hard decisions to attain these
objectives (especially where there are many alternative demands on an area).
Effective management depends ultimately on knowledge, and the disseminaton of
that knowledge, be it on management techniques, or on ecosystems and their

Management needs.

This knowledge can be, and is being, gleaned at the local level by scientists
and conservationists throughout the world, but can be put to best use if it is
gathered and disseminated not just at a local level, but also through a
central office (facilitating, for example, the application of global arguments
to local issues). If this is done through the framework of international
organizations, then the results can in many instances be even more powerful
and useful than if those same functions were performed independently at
national or regional level. IUCN is aiming to provide such an international
framework through its Conservation Monitoring Centre.

att peor Ww ‘bela “aanee wb ont bass 23» Ye matp Ws f
eh SEL gah netietad i Bad Tr Fai: mobo beat were hnyanS ane iva
fide ees cl 3 ieee Ripe 4S ahha wien st i inte ral nae mye f

, ‘4 +S) oer eye pba)

oe Lavi neta ve

Ppa rents ny f
ie ‘wah wha p s joe Swi ela WOP Ne aout Gen She nee, aes
ey Senate Tene ae hfe kewesennarin’. sepatars secure 2° baci
Poe | te fq (ay Sepertebey ier Le beiiead wrod" Oye wnt Ps

‘

; Onn? haewhy ‘i i j iW" a. 5 i
f innate cP ca AN iar Heb l pe rest nay)
it igor ae) Pie ee ee
aig nies wh) fet otal it. Verh ae
prilard ste bu wefaess * my c As
pric bev ene nT arypa sa alle teed ie

ee pea Gi! ey, RET Ce reo oa A a ate
ij nw Bete por kid) hed tue’ h &4 wo. bee

, ® setoes ic
ak yrs. aN Seeks iets ee Pearle wi) een Sete
OT i hs ea ae '
AE vas ee snes: ho dobteerwlatl .. ew ae
m4 A: ' aeey Leanne cs bas spel. POLK ® +e yee
gait Devnet. Fie iets 3 grt 1 mae
} Taos hee gee | peel a
Sgr araim © vege we palpate 1) -aeeeier
pare’ Avs Wola 7 " aha bt ee vanity At LT:

Re oa ‘peta ao te ney nama 8 © we ora 7
gu DF MK.0--8ett a eres
Cy OP adend ee bee olde ious
Neerany aia ae nna S80 en ab a
ee nis deraad> dted
Pah) Clty orth wn id nest
fort on one se cone Pe &
“ ah i nech a ai qh tea oe

thos ear a al erat id. ener: v4

3 ae e ubneap:
ial Wier oe at

—- hl —

However, for conservation ideals to become more fully integrated into
Management and management planning on a global scale, information is required
from a far wider range of disciplines than those normally associated with

‘nature conservation'. The Global Environment: Monitoring System (GEMS) was
set up by the United Nations Environment Programme to “keep track of
environmental trends, to be able to predict events and to provide

decision-makers with sound information upon which to base environment action
plans" (UNEP, 1982). They are now in the process of establishing a Global
Resource Information Database (GRID), of which CMC will be a part. GEMS is
not an organization, but a programme, coordinating and directing existing
talent and facilities, making use of organizations such as the World Health
and Meteorological Organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization,
Unesco, and of course IUCN (Croze, 1984).

If GEMS is the hub of the wheel of organizations associated with the
environment, CMC occupies a similar position with respect to organizations and
government departments associated with nature conservation, and within CMC,
PADU deals with that sector of CMC work relating to protected areas and
protected area issues. The organization is involved, and acronyms abound, but
this should not detract from the value, and indeed the necessity of the work.
For many reasons our environment requires management; the key to successful
Management of the environment is information.

REFERENCES

Croze, Harvey (1984). Global monitoring and biosphere reserves. In
Unesco—UNEP, Conservation, science and society. Unesco, Paris.

Hayden, B.P., Ray, Carleton & Dolan, R. (1984). Classification of Coastal and
Marine Environments. Environmental Conservation 11(3): 199-207.

Harrison, J., Miller, K. & McNeely, J. (1982). The world coverage of protected
areas: Development goals and environment needs. fAmbio XI(2), 238-245.

IUCN (1982a). 1982 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas.
IUCN, Gland.

IUCN (1982b). IUCN Directory of Neotropical Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland.

IUCN (1984). Draft Directory of Wetlands of International Importance. IUCN,
Cambridge.

IUCN (1985a). IUCN Directory of Afrotropical Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland
and Cambridge.

IUCN (1985b). 1985 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas.
IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.

IUCN/CNPPA (1984). Categories, objectives and criteria for protected areas.
In McNeely, Jeffrey A. and Miller, Kenton R. (Eds.) National Parks,

Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining

Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Mackinder, D.C. (1984). The database of the IUCN Conservation Monitoring
Centre. In Allkin, R. and Bisby, F.A. (Eds.) Databases in Systematics.
Academic Press, London.

y re Peg iy | Mee | te ai 2 oe
Bay ener af Heirs fronts. “ERA. np ‘ my whan J j ‘ S~ 74
thw: toya isons ca i
ee Se ‘
Np, doar * nut ne
‘birdie i
HOE Hom) For
bedoto * eet
awe) e othe :
. watteine bs

re i it ~ 2) ee ee ‘Keed sap

Vt iisp kh by ako” 167 - sg Ee

ot At! > at retictesss ngage evteul ornare

pe

iat: ea Vet
a ‘heme nto

; nrg pioistg Ar We: eye sa ef es
oe’ vy» t4 1

ont

o “algerie Ti
—

i

1D: =

MacKinnon, John (1985). Outline of methodology for preparation of a review of
the protected areas syslem of the Afro—tropical realm. Proceedings of the
twenty-fifth working session of IUCN's Commission on National Parks and

Protected Areas, Corbett National Park, India, 4-8 February, 1985. IUCN,
Gland.

Udvardy, M.D.F. (1975). A classification of the biogeographical provinces of
the world. IUCN Occasional Paper No. 18. UCN, Morges.

UNEP (1982). GEMS. UNEP, Nairobi.

Unesco (1983). MAB Information System: Biosphere Reserves. Compilation 3.

Unesco, Paris. (Prepared for Unesco by the IUCN Conservation Monitoring
Centre. )

Unesco/AETFAT/UNSO (1983). Vegation Map of Africa. Unesco, Paris.

The first version of this paper was prepared from a
presentation made to the World National Parks
Congress, October 1982, and presented to the Bureau
of the World Heritage Committee in 1983. A revised
version was prepared for the 16th TIWCN General
Assembly in Madrid, October 1984. The paper has
again been revised May 1985 for presentation to a
CNPPA Working Group on Data Collection and Monitoring.

ee. py ¥en, Bat giv ee 4a)

{owe fue’ & VO 18) tert HY it

eid, cet Pape’ Peet a Ba
Kt a yur 4. a # P eOe ei amy

70 <3 me beg PAB TED aS

é red tail hegre ge Pinwen eh Hasse: ffi
dnietlont Veber: <M VET Ee

pw WR athe ue ep rait

yy ean Oe +e
er ok ir atic
ie ue? wate olf ‘Pies ‘hatresreg aL
heriiee & ROOK 0 POF Ep.) ) eS he
{erate . ane? ST er Deen
i a an). OEE presin ty... barca
ee | a. o0 ci Yat Sue ty
graetioa? hire, he FF Sif as) agen vm

\
by
' I —
&
Y AS.
c om i * .
ye “y
a. J .
= As
\
|) <
7 i
4
Why
j
+
4
a
A *
4 ‘
p
f : A Be .
i i .
:
F -
*
y
-
tax
7 Re
+
i . Prt
i |
rere ae : i
ar
o eo a O)

E SGA cpr:

t

PUA TORT «i su. Eo

COMSERWAT IA -
URIS AY TH cKTES

Ml, OVE Tem

oo At.

- (ft ae tiiun ror Alar eae te. ae Mature > and fe buras an FO
pot. MUON) ~ is” edeutitiala free. netterk af SeVernien ao |
i agenciws. > Awe Sere a) coTRBhnl at hiag, BC) ant Pet's, peng! ij tb
BOM ervat ii; > SO Led” Reena “Le, Tita -cOnmor Sauserat cat ie 5 Oe
Beech cot end rustaineble cee oF Vilas -paturel ewnOlericeg( :
River thee! miscior Pe: OF DNAs coe nee functions. tues eades
Bins. of data on *Pet er Wt babies wader thegebe inorder ne
Beraetificalty—-bawoe cov, servation Botton Right te taken, F ies
4 ; $ Tene ae rou
at Members tories in isk POUnT Soo phe hewine ie abil
BewEtise of he somes 080 tom Vick) gaberts comprd sing
MG Stern cite Shei wel je -ootiaaes 5 ga fas
y east amount oe thForwat ion whyteh!! ied pte: “tre
Al coOhsdrvaticn, # hes tor pent Bt ficolty 7
ESE bHEh the Lack Ah ulltentl ve subeieRe archio sont jaa?
hem arn FSRiEy reveiove view wits required. The:
EP Pacue-deve rise > 1uCR! & VorenPvaigod
hac the ‘sinsien of hand hice sind Mickie hack ponte
‘ Pe? sarn be ing “neeslvad

. nee

rind this Cark!) CS 4age otiiieng
Me ibrar” database on ieetizes, “41g ite tragie;,
Si Peeivetome of Conserved par forcern,
tothe ‘abl lity. to Thtngritis nid ove niiagy
RAR iestique | wid s Ot ty) thie
Bievti sits about « gingire terkes 9
pte toapiex” i> skh
eonstats” of identity tray:

' a av ieatsine the ‘Toesesiaage:
Pts citas ohampiar af Rind:

Ot. glahal CHNSOr wae ee
tdtwork Mlaht be pea bac ah
ABP provides gtouini vorSpeenhta ::

Pars of ONC de } ae a
ae oe of, Yabinas 62 babis for ana
. er mr oe OT.) *élevant. metal 'a! watton ce Toes,
FOr peel Seay dic Gham ie - baleen
thinday OU 1s Sy ee Ge A
a: Ave : qnin a og

- » Ge. 4
al c it
a ay
OM es)

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION:
TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED GLOBAL OVERVIEW

IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
219c Huntingdon Road
Cambridge, United Kingdom

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) is essentially a global network of governments,
governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations, scientists and
other conservationists joined together in the common cause of promoting
the protection and sustainable use of living natural resources. In
undertaking this mission, one of IUCN's principal functions has been
the gathering of data on species and habitats under threat, in order
that scientifically—based conservation actions might be taken.

With 537 members located in 116 countries and having the ability to tap
the knowledge of the some 2,000 technical experts comprising IUCN's six
Commissions and their working groups, this network is capable of
gathering a vast amount of information which is directly relevant to
environmental conservation. & historical difficulty of the network,
however, has been the lack of an effective ability to archive the data,
update them and rapidly retrieve them when required. The need for this
central focus gave rise to IUCN's Conservation Monitoring Centre (CMC)
which now has the mission of handling and putting to best advantage the
amount of data being received.

In undertaking this task CMC has utilised computer technology to
develop a global database on species, wildlife trade, protected areas,
habitats and ecosystems of conservation concern. Such computerisation
has led to the ability to integrate and overlay the data in a variety
of new and unique ways. CMC is thus not constrained merely to
considering questions about a single species or area, but is capable of
analysing quite complex issues. For example, an application recently
undertaken consists of identifying the 100-200 sites globally whose
protection would do most for plant conservation.

In addition to reviewing the structure, function and operations of CMC,
this paper thus cites examples of how the database has contributed to
the resolution of global conservation concerns. Also discussed is how
the monitoring network might be improved in order to enhance CMC's
abilities to provide a global perspective.

WHAT DOES THE CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE DO?

The primary function of CMC is the continuous collection, analysis,
interpretation and dissemination of data as a basis for conservation,
Species, habitats and areas of relevant conservation concern include
those having current or potential economic import as well as those
believed to be under threat.

% \s
ror 5
hl - 4 ‘
* y é ' 7 “s t
7

j \ ws
Shy a9 y S - 5

ea) f “ J

x ™ i +

put oP yt Re “ey 3 y iy } ’ - ; i ile
7 w ay i ‘ dad ¥
a bh aay tes wi
af —eOrERE ; cay
Ae Al Page ' f ei

Me
1 ay = ag |
; oe a
' ' ; ha i@ ng
et i ae z vt err yd coe

7 Fe pease

2% cite

ree ca Meek a i i

LD Ord ee fen c)

Aa Ras, A SL LR, eee a

CMC undertakes its function by integrating four monitoring activities
(our major management units) which cover the status of:

* Animal species (Species Conservation Monitoring Unit)
* Plant species (Threatened Plants Unit)

* Wildlife trade (Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit)

* Protected areas (Protected Areas Data Unit)

Data resulting from these activities are linked by common geographical
and taxonomic coding systems within the computer. The result is a
highly sophisticated database capable of producing integrated outputs
on a wide range of contemporary conservation issues.

CMC disseminates this information through a series of publications,
including the renowned IUCN Red Data Books on plants and animals, and
by producing special reports tailored to the needs of clients.

WHERE DOES THE INFORMATION COME FROM?

The accuracy and relevance of CMC's data are owed to an unrivalled

network of organizations and specialists all over the world. These
include:

HK The network of IUCN members, which include governments, government
agencies and non-governmental organizations that make IUCN the
international union of conservation organizations.

KK The international network of scientists and other cooperators
affiliated to IUCN and its six commissions. Our principal
contacts, the combined memberships of the Species Survival
Commission, the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
and the Commission on Ecology, number over 2,000 individuals
worldwide.

*K The researchers under contract for over 300 JIUCN/WWF field
projects annually.

** The IUCN Environmental Law Centre, which provides a similar
service to ours but on legal matters, and the IUCN Conservation
for Development Centre, which maintains a roster of consultants
able to undertake conservation and development projects.

#* The network of TRAFFIC offices (Trade Records Analysis of Flora
and Fauna In Commerce). Established in several countries, each
office monitors trade in wildlife to and from its region, CMC
co-ordinates them and draws on their data.

** The professional contacts set up by CMC staff with colleagues
around the world. CMC staff call upon the knowledge and
experience of scientists and conservation experts who work in
government agencies, universities, zoos and botanic gardens, and
museums and libraries.

** International organizations with whom we cooperate. In particular
CMC works with the International Council for Bird Preservation
(ICBP), the International Wildfowl Research Bureau (WRB), the UN
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN Environment

= 2 —

tet el: gees paapturtta

yn | Becrem i? th ee sat
j Piwty tare Vo per

Pee ee

OF wuiheety ule “paar iad vi ee | e
Cie eres Pre: hy TG che) eee OW rej ioe Lamenn > yy
oe i Teo ae we “ ait © pyri
‘ Ce cris the! 7: Ai A Raat t Tay toR4 CWA F :
Be) a eT) Tae Ame at ee ase he ae tl, wee LE tad uF We
a " Aagiet a Pel Aieueds Hae) 1%) Rpartet te Tove e) 4 Mi ee ih
ll gaierteertye“ 2, eames “Wh bevdive i ped oy py 'ya ae me ) oT nah Tewihes "eo
Pe ee ae CmMminuniprG a wrk! ALAN ER | mine eet ay nt > NCS 7 BYE:
Lea ne Meade entary V' AEbies somes
han) ia! pene Yeon rae
ennideseline ‘ha vie eas ‘ agra cies ake Tet ae cen
am eben. hive arty 7 wg abet hat, CE hee ae pert
Bice say tae? Doi hes bie oa, ads OF ‘bemihtaa aay 1 ‘aye pri berg
; ~ i ; - ‘ ; - ar i
yee eh A areal HORA aeOO MOT ANCE, Ser ead
ru? Panes : es ae Meal i) vei : : Pee
hi a i) 4 7 s a: q
12 a “eat pie a “at begin eh je aie Ve Aanavetes tom - phen
Mag to a Coup a. (hel. coe) aiowse bie. donptecicyeue Rage
ey ayeinbl alae eens MSit tn *eqpwen.
Aes ane cs Rib Res Sirveyne bwh TeNeven- fea Ane eaten
me Mi “eRe LIs4 HEED Antaey web ayant eves Teens
ffi ad ngitne ies ELIOT SD, Ie iecuiten Ceicinssalesecint
: Ae wrote hentia! greets * Bike “AGT “ape arch
3 by Tet ot in wtb et ihe at, caries: 2 Ot “E

Pens FA409 pres com pict alee comp) Gale. ged
aoe ke” ay Wht ‘epein a wy ia eaten oft

Oh o Ftd Ap yin eteoney OB
me 4 bang ete

' oars ee Car .
zi absiyng jared = Sar | daeteondiseynd WOME

spr Cnt ee . pla fo Fad em ad. "ead
¥ uhh seo AState - Daca Pomareo sh

sare ay oth #4 Aveeanr ig shed
hy ode Ut aera Pe, ;
1a gp ta Por WON.

is pre hetp THOS ni: mint tg ohh 5
= | ee + hnabnib> > Laci pare!

ot hie, mee ee a2

Rite terns Was sce danpive 9 -

a: bas ATO NRE OT» welomme |
cone woprendth 2

Programme (UNEP), and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (Unesco),

Although CMC staff are not usually sent into the field themselves they
are thus in direct contact with those individuals who are at the
forefront of conservation action. On any one subject CMC staff can
seek the guidance of the foremost experts in the world.

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE INFORMATION?

Once the raw data have been collected and verified, they are critically
interpreted, summarised and entered into the computer in two different
yet complementary forms:

HK Text is handled ina word-processing system and can be as detailed
and extensive as required. It can be rapidly modified to
incorporate new information.

HK Data files. Summaries of the information are coded into data

files, permitting rapid processing and analysis. This is done
because computers cannot efficiently extract and sort information
from plain text.

The two types of file are linked by common geographical and taxonomic
coding systems. This dual approach produces an unusually flexible
system, giving CMC the advantage of rapid computer selection and
sorting of information but avoiding the problem of forcing variable
biological data into a rigid data processing format. The information
on computer is backed up by more detailed material on manual files and
the capability to locate and contact the relevant experts on any
particular issue. CMC is thus well equipped to respond rapidly and
accurately to requests for information.

HOW IS CMC ORGANISED?
a) Monitoring the status of animals

Animals, particularly vertebrates, have been the traditional focus of

Many IUCN/WWF conservation projects. This emphasis has generated a
demand from many sectors for quite specific data on the conservation
status of a wide range of animal species. Monitoring activities have

consequently developed to answer this demand and led to the publication
of the internationally respected IUCN Red Data Books, a series of
authoritative references on threatened species. Collection of data for
this series continues to provide an important focus for CMC's work.

However, the collection of data is not confined just to threatened
species. The database includes information on all species of
conservation concern, including widespread but depleted wild taxa of
economic importance, and wild relatives of domestic stock.

Although continually under development, the animal datafile currently
contains summary information on 17,000 taxa of conservation concern.
Detailed ‘Red Data Book' accounts have been prepared for 2,000 of these
taxa. These sheets provide comprehensive information on distribution,
population status, habitat needs, ecology, threats to survival and

Sra eae :

lamdatuacbew 96249 tain’ Lee he DAY ‘ itt ie We)
2 : ail) 7 1 oerere@. i di
edie galahaerettd WAAL) ur hod terme ohh pei 1 ‘wc!
wt O68 bin ate ootean aire 4 b! ileee (Tauagettnt. ene : hiv %

oe A mi en wo rnovterw#

we are oe! ‘cciGak ww yes rad 3 :
hve sa aceuecot ah vor wonogeede tent

a eee '

gitexntty> ek. Gar’ parey 43% ipavits
mevekiah bad wg Rateaaee ors dtd Haan 4 kei frente

.

ant ii nt. Fan ana ned ds ceed Oa Ber > 1Me
oe sha 7 |

LE |

ie 7 ed cook baviapey | = t
‘ ; sod HOM tA) aes adie an y

he eal with :2'ta » bor yatta? ei EY..
j ‘ote ean) ot ston Sige Pal to ioe iF
te en) ford 84 ay, “OS

~~ yee Wins
sxed sri niga

By:
ta a ners even ain wit wointh- ee. alt? %S- suet: @
fork at Pra ha Westenia” A racqae Leu), eee
ee o. Heres ibaa" % xeetmve Gell OD. eiiweg
iy 1 . ys ery Se nh ey. arb puvahove Sag ef +more TE ey
= 7 aa ant). wy " oy) ale epee & ja. wears & ord bp: ws! is
La re eens (vet ‘Meal beduy Ste ts. Gu a. FE
‘! ie Hs al wadaler > ae “Ha gaos: Gye aterdls car
i ky i 7 Sg

esindiah i) “Gepetage (1 Lo gett»
pi tee he aE

yi)
i slgnine Ye suse ens mine
h <3 Be
3 he. need “aves: uge taper ine. pied eet eeeme
te Ss ee ll adighosg iikth ened: | ARE
eral) oi Veciiages Shia RO yEee Geen 2080
te Sl aene “Fein Yo meses - piekee
{ hae hala eket, Teety «© | Bayes oN)
ofl 8. iene pai Wohi L- Riot reryen 9 ‘Loca sae
a oe” ‘adad Get pymetwende ees ¥ gage tet ee
eine ah sec #7 Pangan ee dca we Ai FRO

shag eaten ps Hany lla ‘sea ~ neiveelind
ee Es erect e | aA yet epdntas: “
7? : - Fel Wate. Soe, pestle ¢ revearetainy

Ane ees? ony 2P, mpgpaatn's Whe om esate

! h i x ie iyo buvaR apie. ubie

in Ph avids rile de AG nakteeratnd vy eat
ePwicipon dealt o/s 9

2. etivaet ataede a

wer ee ae

proposed conservation measures, along with a

comprehensive reference
list.

Information on individual species is readily available for the higher
vertebrates (birds and mammals) but different approaches have had to be
developed for the less well studied lower vertebrates (fish, reptiles
and’ amphibians) and invertebrates. These approaches have included the
collection of data on an area basis, e€.g. on such specific places as
the Banks Peninsular in New Zealand or the Usambara Mountains in
Tanzania, or on specific habitats such as coral reefs. This work links

up with other area—based information in the CMC database, particularly
that on plant sites and protected areas.

b) Monitoring the status of plants

The increasing demand for information on the conservation status of
plants has accompanied the growing realisation that plant species are
critical for maintaining the ecosystems upon which mankind relies. In
1970 only Belgium had produced a list of its threatened plants. Today,
virtually all countries of the geopolitical 'North' (including
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) have produced threatened
plants lists, often as national Red Data Books. Many countries of the
‘South' are now taking similar action. This rapid progress has
coincided with a decade of intense activity by IUCN on threatened
plants, much of it dedicated to encouraging and helping countries to
document their threatened plants.

With estimates of the world's threatened flora ranging up to 40,000
species, no one book could attempt to list them all, let alone describe

them in detail. However, with computer assistance, CMC is able to
monitor a major proportion of the key species identified by our
information networks. Although still under development, the CMC

database now holds basic information on 30,000 plant taxa and provides
a basis on which to plan the conservation of plants around the world.

Knowing which species are threatened in the wild also enables CMC to
monitor their status ex situ (off-site), principally in botanic
gardens. The plant data-file is used to produce lists of threatened
species which are circulated to the 130 gardens that subscribe to
IUCN's Botanic Gardens Conservation Co-ordinating Body. Gardens then
return lists of the threatened species that they grow. The aim is to
help gardens work as a network, avoiding duplication and contributing

to the cause of preserving plant genetic resources.

Whereas the plant data-file contains many species found in temperate
and subtropical climates or on islands, most of the world's plants
occur in the less studied mainland tropics where habitat destruction is

accelerating. Because of the size of the flora involved in these
areas, a species approach is less practical, and alternatives are being
investigated. These include gathering data on specific groups of

plants such as those of economic or medicinal value, or those
threatened by trade or habitat destruction. These floristic data are
being used to identify key sites for conservation, leading to the
publication of a Plant Sites Directory that identifies which areas of
the world are most significant for plant conservation.

®

ih ‘patie

e aie » AG

| eee

anne ove sil ¢ O an eeg
vatig ist eft “<2 -

of ods Wim ik ay ter
col ites. lett) vo 14

ont. tievhus! wk. ra pacer
‘he race lio hd tay ye
eb ee CPA «he etetteed i e
pe ae a) ee A
yee {us eae witseta tei) wt

Pa

ed Be ee

Sara antag? =

pil preter bel}. Pie A090 aria |

yes ‘ganaley Bunn ther tt
Siterimice) ics faire Tt}

heats (oti Pes Oe i pi Sel oe

eisai eer Br toh eit

nile Piety. deep 1) Del Py a

Pe ad a baie rhino
ont to yas es woot wi ot) “be
wal Ae et y iit pene

bor agora a!

reek

re aegis :
ogee,

ae ie ie x)
ete » Bete. Brie ons) 19s lene f
>
yebes a ¥ Rar mee ownk
7 re she Pa he satnala..
is -oficeasnree sa Fi
taf ' igto® = had
py ars Phe Kv ‘
2 bres ime Sse ait
beg Bae -wite ebedt
} oo) ten ma Re
wee atte. as RSE &
: ) rT get CT oa ree, 7 i

ca ie) Rope eS

er ie <n. ed Pi). Man ay teh ya aS osama
hanaks Mas atta anit Seth Tye diss xe ee os
4 é yt banwse is iy. per uy As ee | in teb |
ey paren Pero ele, ety 2 1a The weber “PORIS!) iaeh
me A Seated si othr it pte eet ch viet ory - REQ
Rag ost Biiesarhs hts Sh Sah uae ary) CaN EA Le: DC OE eT
lad uA Wik (1h) BIN fan) Aes SAA) aA nai a= 4 ake im
ee 4 = i iF
seth Badin eal Wirt Voit! ii Porras lpateky. oeshy- wok ana pare
aye Sgt Tok etc be? =f Ca) Se _ re ald GPa eds

"Grobasd: aN
(ee ne 6)

io eS ee
bed 0 ae ise raha,

Br agniy ne. chbied an
Y eet: Ane duke: “et

Deana

eat® i ys ba ty
re rN eve re
a

sent th} ie) fe yi - ny

Ce a

vie Saree ate

Ehed aeae? soils - Fa
oy hah: tee Gare are

satel earls

int Dire jeg ty aT
EE. SR: bot itt ah Vt ee roti

“iw fio 2A ys otas, SO nah Shan Le An Sc a Ma
ae ; erwae 9 roanbets ty aes Be ep, ee oe
; deetniea tr: is ie! * at ini Vitae Gad aha ‘tub, t Lt) dete | Petts)
Sihiwila = bY ies i ers Bhs -sonke RE, AB. S eb rye ia
a ah jaws Ast ae ty Lee “ties Laat its ied Sods Spiess
‘wenitt, eh Bary | peas) eu 07 ait 1” angeees er he wee: ra, mv
ee = MW %) E47 7 a ue
una Edie See ® ivaitueug 2495 ¢i Pale ae bs

+ stashanida mr ete
= $s at? st] h a
aks 48 veer nti

AT) ate rs. ee:

re mda REA yer ARN meet Fo or
ae tat” wae ~ ant PES, pate! ean =F nj ny
Semcd we (oe ‘ ; ae gi i weetay tp re ote hte it +e) some oe:
i ks re pees Foes it wapte a ‘
a4 a hs i
i, a i! -
a hel j } -< eis | : a
e* { ger 5 ; my ® *
= a, 3
ee: f ‘ale Re
Sy PSs Oe ee i ' ae ae

c) Monitoring wildlife trade

Trade in wild species and their products has become an immense,
multi-million dollar enterprise, encompassing many diverse products
ranging from rhino horn to coral and from exotic butterflies to
tropical hard woods. Trade in threatened species of animals and plants
has particularly aroused public concern. Through its Wildlife Trade
Monitoring Unit, CMC coilects information on the volume and trends of

all such trade, and especially on the implementation and effectiveness
of the international measures designed to control it.

One of the major initiatives in this area is the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
(CITES). Parties to CITES are required to submit annual reports to the
CITES Secretariat, detailing permits issued for international trade in
taxa protected by the Convention. Data from these reports are managed
by CMC under contract to the CITES Secretariat. Currently 210,000
records of wildlife trade transactions are logged on the computer,
representing reports submitted te CITES over the last nine years.

The analysis of these data provides an indication of the impact of
trade on the species listed on the CITES appendices. It also allows
comparisons to be made between trade statistics for importing and
exporting countries. The discrepancies revealed give an insight into
how well the Convention is being implemented. The presentation of such
analyses enables the Parties to pinpoint ways in which the Convention
is not working and to identify measures for making it more effective.

The CITES data are complemented by information collected from
consultants and correspondents around the world, from the ‘TRAFFIC’
network of national trade monitoring offices, from reports on wildlife
trade and from the published import and export statistics for a number
of countries. Coupling this extensive data-file with those for animals
and plants has enabled CMC to undertake a wide variety of special trade
analyses under contract to international and governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, and trade associations. Such projects
recently included analyses of wildlife farming and ranching,
international trade in elephant ivory, international trade in marine
mammals, and the extent of trade in kangaroos, seals and corals. The
TRAFFIC Bulletin, published five times per year, carries reports on
these special analyses, as well as recent trade news.

d) Monitoring protected areas

A principal method used for the conservation of species and ecosystems
is the protection of sites. To be able to plan effectively, both
conservation and development agencies need to know which sites are
already protected, how successfully they are managed, and what they
contain in terms of animals, plants and critical habitats. CMC
Maintains a comprehensive overview of protected areas around the world,
with summary data in the computer on over 10,000 sites and detailed

accounts on 3,000 of these areas so far.

At the request of the United Nations, a summary of the protected areas
data-file is published periodically as the UN List of National Parks
and Protected Areas. CMC also publishes, with IUCN's Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas, detailed accounts of sites

j Le Sl > per ena sd
= i ah
yvrit ‘ rary 5 % ‘ ~*~,
1a PAs re wiki OTe vy } } } tan swt Lp
¥ s) —,"
an * wala a7 dor be rt
y Le ral \ a H
pinata aw hel my { ¥ r Neat
"peur ya LEW by ete . ee ets i
Ye wines iA tied " ym t hae O- ov} a
; l ; .
1 Te a ay Tb A Ae v4 id @ ) \ a Ty Here knw
1 : ‘ te 4 3 | i i q ha aa :
nt Veh Curtee > s ¢ j % )
at e
fe Aer t ’
Yash tah tpbadat: tr!) +/ &
fs } U
es inyte/di *eaek Wi
1 { ’ Weety nu 7 et a
.
} - a Ties } > we
5 $x) | i Pera oF rm) ae A a hae
yea Sippel: RE iS Nem L. O47 tie use) whe iw
Cuan ay ent bah ord) : ) marke jee ‘oge® COEF
A ‘ fe ,
} i aa | . al : j a 4 : o
iy oaae ‘aks <S>aoitehings “a es, 2 Be - hat)
i yd “pi ogee

‘pmelta cure 2 ys Homer CLT atts Ye, ye 2a, OAR
ae ate ide ih donk cd Rene a CP eed fry tistad given alt a - ere
2 d | Payee: ns ALY ae) cya wy PERS Seize (ots wit ee TASS i
ae ee tno tay?) ret ae O79 RVR BAST:
Si are MW Sacha a okt eY ott celdankt
nd fa vt) ry! oe 47> pO nt gadkeo Lae oa” Be erhaaee

yf eh Tale Naa Dape'ns je) bor rerhaiad: pri ee en

ce | Mea Re ata ae Li aes se psu Lear ere
an sete) OTOH aw wary fake rans ay

: ie | id ghee

_ ce SO Bee | pels = este leks AR Sata rary Lea ae est

: : pt ipa byphd. wha ae SE Seal tye a ef) ee anid {quem +

=I DasbAe Say AAD) Ai iol oe ded ote. “OF MO fe here ~ ety
Se 5 Bigtin Lahey a0 OE By, 4% Wer itaethe (te 2 aie aie:

| 2 RRR My! AURRRE SS rs Ube Lem... erie et siemens he telaciet
2 eat : vo) iattne i tittin » ror ghar Weehete os

‘a es ‘af oles. tae GES MITE) pL d onesies cn ie ete - Peave:

Se taper; ‘het: phir’ H wi peING A: ne geet “to. tateo at? fee

aero ssa uiah aay! ian cits gl . gedenbaug ened Bae
at nga: erty Tey ine Ge lta ae) sacra Ded

at y er} iy Wee j
ee a : ah Se eee Rie WPA? oe

occurring in various realms of the world in the series of IUCN
Directories on Protected Areas.

Apart from the ability to provide information on protected areas to
interested parties, the linking of this information with other files in
the database enables CMC to help CNPPA identify significant gaps in
protected area coverage worldwide and subsequently to help plan
conservation action. In particular, new approaches are being
undertaken to survey protected area coverage in various parts of the

tropics using CMC data to provide the initial overview on which further
study can be based.

CMC has also developed databases on sites of concern under contract to
other organizations. Such efforts have recently included maintaining a
database for Unesco on natural sites listed under the World Heritage
Convention, assisting them further by managing information on Biosphere

Reserves, and establishing a prototype database on sites listed under
the Ramsar Wetlands Convention.

e) Monitoring the status of significant ecosystems

Certain ecosystem types are of particular conservation interest and it
therefore becomes important to try to inventory and describe the major
sites where these ecosystem types occur. CMC has been involved for
several years in the development of an information base on coral reefs,
for example. More recently CMC has also become involved in the
development of a wetlands database, based on the results of various
projects to inventory and describe internationally important wetlands
in various parts of the world.

These aspects of the database are of particular importance in assessing
the conservation status of the respective habitat types covered. They
also facilitate the development of proposals to protect, or to better
conserve such areas.

HOW DOES IT ALL FIT TOGETHER?

CMC is capable of producing integrated outputs which draw upon all
files within the database. This is possible because the information is
linked by a common skeleton of taxonomic and geographic names. The
system also records the relationship of these taxonomic or geographical
names to others within a variety of hierarchical systems (e.g., species
within families, counties within states). Sorting of data files to
obtain the information needed by clients can thus be accomplished
relatively quickly, and the linkage of data files with the text files
enables reports to be developed rapidly.

CMC is also developing new database components, drawing information
from the four existing major data files. In particular, as has been
mentioned, area—based information is being synthesized for specific
habitats which will be the subject of new international conservation
initiatives: coral reefs, wetlands, oceanic islands, etc.

ie

ey Td cai) ee ee cal apt au vi
uh a a w Mut ‘ ' , a
ey Ce ema x By Oak #4
eer me eee a pghogs die
3 rh Wau e jaGhre 4 wih oie ;
et eta" re wey” tals 2h et dob jibe ‘0 ERR,
easy s rf ivan a Ley I GAR ¥ iy wie eI es
rayne ee ea pe > 5 Rl Ee a it
went } "ane ee i ype
‘ : ~ 4 ale
a4 Amel mi etry: timo Me rahi ey ate ae brane sw
het ear ny et ute ae eT FE 2 ped Sah
(an colts ~vauiie at dat Cah fay \\2 denied
Tigh a } laws Tee, tee ie Se aha i 4
petite Vl er acny Be hay 5) ok: outst fon “ite
‘ in ‘ Cee mtv e
ene Powe Cn Nie ge Toes: te. urs
i wee : ;
Rreyioepnod. ws wr | yy ty j2e f7oaut see
3 Mae NSOU ne yL oe eee ab J4Rkicget. oa so
a aE RRS t “hyped ae? ep f rent hagyd howl gpore serait yg
a eet eves he 4 he Sener scent + yy Sieeinten (ee “We? 6k seen gy
Ra Fem tad hg tee ite. Syl OMY gfinade edeth: oe
= iin: Ne «1 Gite i | pore elt. ? tty Vek au ae Te A
Fa, thy Kapa Paria sey adios. Bin omaha
ae : gi Tee U . ype) 26 emg 2
we bet a mets | ‘is 8 ah bee Tac

2 % a er

: :
ie i +
p oe ye ae
aw
i

eevee
‘to

Pals i Aan

ii syqsayet i
oe y

oan aT Mew i oa
f i 7

peat ye party:

od Leh Ba
nis}. Lys (aye
ety gti ,

Mbit

Wekiies
: ete Wh wah 4,

Te Se

Le

ne

wy

San eb ote, fein
te marie ef ra. ied atin.

zu207 - OOERaY

as
dies wal BeOP wig wt EE
eae &

= lee a
Ag sree am sah TE

7

7

Bissidandia Sera
abat Abaca eds

ps io
oo

WHAT HAS CMC ACHIEVED?

CMC

is a young organization and has spent much time developing the

conservation database. Nevertheless the following achievements
illustrate that the Centre has already progressed well towards the goal

of being able to provide timely advice on conservation and development
lssues. We have:

HK

HK

we

Defined new areas of conservation concern. CMC published the IUCN
Invertebrate Red Data Book in 1983 as the first attempt to bring
the international problem of threatened invertebrates to public
attention. It has sold well and has been reviewed internationally
from Chile to Hong Kong. Many important initiatives including
field projects, surveys, captive breeding programmes, meetings and
legislation followed its publication.

Developed a lead in plant conservation. During 1983-84 CMC helped
prepare the IUCN/WWF programme and campaign to promote plant
conservation around the world. The database showed which places
in the world had the greatest diversity of plant life and where
among these places the threats were most acute, a vital ingredient
for choosing the limited number of countries in which
TUCN/WNF could reasonably sponsor projects. The programme is now
running and with its combination of strategic and field projects,
it not only sets. new ground for IUCN/WWF, but is beginning to make
plant conservation a more accepted part of conservation as a whole.

Provided background information and a rationale for new

legislation. Based on CMC data, IUCN submitted a _ formal
memorandum to the Council of Europe describing how their Bern
Convention could work for plants. IUCN suggested criteria to
select plants for inclusion under the Convention and applied these
to the database to produce a list of 119 species. These were
accepted without dispute. This illustrates how CMC can act as a
bridge between scientists and politicians. Only scientists know

which plants are threatened, but politicians can only work to
avert the threats if appropriately informed.

Helped conservation organizations lobby governments better. In
early 1983 a wealthy American asked the British Government for
permission to settle on Henderson Island, an uninhabited coral
island in the middle of the Pacific. At the request of WWF, CMC
assisted in the preparation of a report for submission to the
British Government regarding the island's unique flora and fauna.
These and other efforts were rewarded when the Government
announced that Henderson Island would not be settled.

Provided crucial statistics on success of conservation measures
In 1983, CMC informed the Parties to CITES at their regular
biennial meeting that as much as 45% of transactions in animal
trade and 79% in plant trade in species of concern to CITES were
not being reported as required. The analysis indicated that the
Parties had far to go in making CITES an effective conservation
body. CMC's ability to supply such precise figures provides
powerful incentive for concerned governments and bodies to improve
their compliance with agreed measures.

aa te at, ie pred ia) sch is MRM DK Pa, TET

A vane £ shy 1) pe Sic age tiaonet gr
ska

Ae: ied: sip hagmenscat a iiod inordasinapre Noite tenes “Wh
ES Papier felytne nt es ale yA teehee GARE
.* Ppina opt ection pray is {tnalelTo (RH ADAGL ho OhieN. OF olen
eee ae ee 0TH eit Mo, GRAM, SNE. th

SUvaTHON Seo 2ath TA

aul? enkyct ut ah Hert Ace Ty Re i" ‘i 4 gp W. ee 7 i ui
W Paarl anon ee Poesat Lave, yacht Awd» “Le awl eegtnget 1 a EE ;
Rinneg> wid eek ot Fy Lisi 1° it pporbie ways bens ar 1 stort
be scab r= tite lad Foie iggy Wey lpr Ma Pane? ae j y iste pnd Ww,

; Aba tela & %

1

ral . + Z

He eC LRAe eR Tar

te; irae Eelivey Bet ipa saan ig! omchen earth PONE ® ee
Bin? sth ef, Tent Beas Sen k: wid , NRT! eS are teeth ponte eet ie
arr.) ei ey ey wider ayes Ae aeons TO. wee Bie Wy ee ee
ah} fared Per ated Faint Wa ‘ark’ Cert bere’ t Fae) Glee meh TE re Seiad Pam
na ht art eu th) Dhiider ATT ak hd «ad oh ia ge a eer:
wins Sh etaeutaal , Aira meee dig Brat’ ie beat! eRe terq bhatt os ‘hl ve
i fa E ria Havel $eiky! alex. Weyer te? not oniatenel rit Py
a : , Te
dient Ta tesiqe LS
aie Ee ae ot Din es a bows al rhe NL ~ e
ew eek a “data, Haye - meant} ety (out! Palate’; tt theente: oak ACS ERO Te a
arity teri: avii + Te Phy" Whiainas eh (3 +9 eu i AR ead) Gino ond a
‘ i) gsonlq Sea grant)

eory peta! «Pea | aed Aa toqhaa
Ngo pa pee bat: aimee eae Gree ro STE ie

SRT. Birk. +e hette hie ral vanpied eat 7 te) bee gethoe
it: igriungei ‘e} aut” ann Sa. <u kde wa eae! hor Ferry
. Ae ae Horan ogee lo tay SMARIIE HOM e no} derreends

Ao Siy |

j ee wi: “ataastt es ey bie Reni oiapleed beee om!

isk bediledin “WORT; elke PO ao" Unset ~pktel
y pant basi ape ivo beh) age ie oT tae, ett OF ORB
4taiari 4 steht riggs Vout = findtg te iF Coby Rio otk bene

Meainggaviaae Peeauiplntoad: a ye tate Tis Feait mort 70% Tetley ica
pra; capized® LOL Ig pedi h Suited cot qaetlntiny any

~

eee fhe mu! Si or A Pots ed 2anT waqakt: jeeps a

pee grees arse, Biv) RAMI ido. bos, Fer habs sae taoyl
Pat sea Vino ae awn itieg~, Ok [pete A? mote ebtet
ra he

atte: yt yi ehermisowons Ve eden?

iat

Be i fet CRAB COMB wot MORE»: “i CALE AL hs al!
aie ie Nidky supa renee Ai} eethts * meres
Pi ee ods! eae, DEPT hI AION hd

ee” igh Mises sd ng, oS Ia a ERMAN kt

Jee Z “ ae r : ¥ t
“genitaan ~ eilebia nae mp8) 1g, ieee DLs i Peeorye a tei
a" oy 22.2 rata 2 eit atl ott Kagel,
Relies, ae Poke: tea BAL ES" "gk

i. Me ay, a m ears “nit a
Te yh nan aff vert uae. ee
‘eer aes yaar ey, bain 4m oie
“Wped Ter THY, OW ae
ay ai “eal

« i a!
* u, ‘ An
et rr -
Ne , i
*~ * rs
te Re = 1
"hes ©
ey -/
aa oi y i 4 4y
_ at I ag
% ro ie a
Va ai 2 T ey _

HK Assisted forward planning for development projects. During
1984-1985 CMC assisted the development community through the
provision of conservation briefings. These are resumes of

available information on threatened species, critical habitats,
parks and reserves, along with pertinent bibliographic citations
and contact names, which indicate the key conservation issues that
a potential development might encounter, Clients, ineluding the
World Bank and firms in the oil industry, have indicated that such
briefings tailored to their specific needs have been extremely
useful in pre—project planning and evaluation.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

CMC is still developing and not yet in a position to do everything that
is planned. To take one example, information on protected areas or
species cannot currently be easily sorted by habitat or vegetation type
using the computer, and if this needs to be done it must be done by

hand. A future -need is the therefore development and implementation of
a coding system which would allow us to do this.

Information is gradually being extracted from our manual files and from
the text files on the computer so that the data sorting and selection
facilities can become even more useful. In the future, for example, we
hope to be able to sort information on criteria such as the practical
benefits accruing from a protected area (watershed management, -inshore
fisheries protection, etc) or specific habitat type such as a wetland.
Projects are also underway to link more closely the protected area data
files with those on threatened animals and plants, and, as noted above,
we use a number of common programs and files on the computer
(particularly those concerned with geographical location, and with
bibliographies). Future developments will include the integration of
computer mapping and map handling techniques.

National conservation databases are now being developed or planned in
several countries, and CMC is already cooperating with a number of
these. Working with such databases has the dual advantage that not
only is much of our information coming from one source, but also that
it can be sent to us in computer compatible form. Information on parks
and reserves in both New Zealand and South Africa, for example, has
been supplied on computer diskette, and most of the information on the
subantarctic islands has also been supplied in this way. CMC is also
starting to assist in the development of some of these databases.

Despite all these developments and the evident usefulness of CMC, the
ability to carry out all of our tasks required ultimately depends on
the information available, and our capacity to make use of that
information. For outputs to be of most use to conservation planners at
all levels, the data need to be both flexible and broadly based. This

is a central aim of CMC's operation. Crucial to this aim is the
Maintenance of high quality, accurate information, and this is leading
to the development of an ever broadening contact network. Currently

the information is patchy, and much more work must be done in improving
it. This work is under way.

CTE, | POM

pata wiegsd hak Hebb apy, mage Ayr RB He ata 8 ; }

/ “ wee F tf ily wits AP Riat nv +, TO UahaL | DNase! Te Brig) att ( to a! ae ie bill f 5

0 ee Anatase ‘th oval ald is att, eee OURAN ese ELAM, MRED Hf) MEN zt
; itn) ; ae) PEG ee fat pie TSA GZ eta A AAD Ble :

bE ya Pere tigi, > aie
wile > bind eyen men

eben i nneeattinbey eP Me ,
BAe eons Weegee ba,

ira Pa. ere sy Where rgtgy 0 "
ay ee tay iene gen”

ok Fae gina Nii IT) stent pact ve! jay a 4 (ae fart Daa
_, Hagen RAP pig ky ao are.) i Utd TRA. f ment Bea Aa ai sae: =o iy >
ERS: Ansa Bib Shot Pip wie, er ti nde oe » ci eee pets

Pa rca” yom neeaed nine, CR ILD TA 7 74 A SSDNA TAI ad, jahenw eet

& gt Mex) Pixon & eau Rat Choe Ae" Lone act kl
Hee, cee REBAR Hes an ee) ee
MeL Rae che

Piet Len! ya het sp ‘ oe j
‘+7 Pee ae ee ves CD) AY LS gto
yy

Pago ied Hs ell ae ici a RT i
Dabber dek at ike. deta ae Pe Ha ee bisa

aii ie he, dior) aoydiay a Ti i, ms Et ‘ehan
RC oF" ht pees tee A. 2-4 aan ibs; ki [ha

beni tw} one. ob: Ys hare ORES ent
i Heese, shag Es ro col eek» 704-7 lhe
yatie, itn) eats: Aptis Toray. 1 “meee ap hae
pe ith aned Ratt As sa Cost laets opt aiy
SOR yi) BIOL ere, pert ih ttervaiy Oe a eS

i an ’ ieiiok Bh ohare: Sealntihe 3 phe, ee
aA Syed 49d Deca) em ey amen he ¢ inal
4 ee Crake ery sig ite, be: eae % ats

fall ob rath ee pats ae owyee Ak
< ph ate), ‘ined ars sf ae tath.. pee

a :

“ sadly Nyfol saict Skt ait, wee, te ese oan a
em “yh PAINE ete Twit ni" aantauen: ki

| esp ii
; Pins ain yo

i nears
pet, bie tne Sh |
+ fis ede) | as ctit> ‘fhe. :
$ oe pecuie Gant. aa y teed at
7 no Sal

i | si tac aia ee weigele ven mer we Aplate.
my a i : " " ' oc “Ashes git “bint tariwoend ave oneitt

es fe wien hs HOT doo Aerie a
: oy hee a a hited insie * oot tener

ec! ae a Co ke pon
yea) ots oon mr va tod at +g oe ete

to abe heagaes
Sree
p

THE WIDER IMPLICATIONS

As the World population continues to expand, and as development of
available resources continues to increase, use and management of
natural resources will in the future need to be much more effective,
and integrated on an international scale. Effective management depends
ultimately on knowledge, and the disseminaton of that knowledge, be it
on management techniques, or on ecosystems and their management needs.

This knowledge can be, and is being, gleaned at the local level by
scientists and conservationists throughout the world, but can be put to
best use if it is gathered and disseminated not just at a local level,
but also through a central office (facilitating, for example, the
application of global arguments to local issues). If this is done
through the framework of international organizations, then the results
can in many instances be even more powerful and useful than if those
same functions were performed independently at national or regional
level. IUCN is aiming to provide such an international framework
through its Conservation Monitoring Centre.

However, for conservation ideals to become more fully integrated into
management and management planning on a global scale, information is
required from a far wider range of disciplines than those normally
associated with 'nature conservation'. The Global Environment
Monitoring System (GEMS) was set up by the United Nations Environment
Programme to "keep track of environmental trends, to be able to predict
events and to provide decision-makers with sound information upon which

to base environment action plans". GEMS are now in the process of
establishing a Global Resource Information Database (GRID), of which
CMC will be a part. GEMS is not an organization, but a programme,

coordinating and directing existing talent and facilities, making use
of organizations such as the World Health and Meteorological
Organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization, Unesco, and of
course IUCN.

If GEMS is the hub of the wheel of organizations associated with the
environment, CMC occupies a similar position with respect to
organizations and government departments associated with nature
conservation. The organization is involved, but this should not
detract from the value, and indeed the necessity of the work. For many
reasons our environment requires management; the key to successful
Management of the environment is information.

i ee
a) Jenuentips, raiie’: Pi hed wiethe OF peer ‘¢ eta 5's
bu Heyer tiie ea ah oy ek) 7 ; ee “eels !
weriadly ome Shee: ane 8" by aay 5 ae rary
weave Ahvaebinnt sont tert ne) er, +9
ied sghotvon? batt hy eee I HEP yee
as vi Ce ane =) ail? ‘San inte? ryeniae TH. Ys pvp aw?
Have Tiesat Dal tim, Noon et! De OR
Ru ‘wt ie ¢ tet aba * heb Paee eat nett 4 Pay SAY Saw
hy acm Yaak - a abil Waar Apna eae a ee ae ee
; hil wg

sat plurmsir ‘ser gist es ft bow) avin baie
[ fs é (ates Ta

ae), Or 2a ia

wok tt wah. SE cepts | q
* eiluean At eth” Ae rower’ Eee! aan hy neh e
WTS eT Lane Wn I wer oan ee dard) hal
tery "ga nihiaale CM RG ee HI en (etl
seh ciel hie Pareto qo eare Sehyi iwinna oF FRA
dst PIRSA : pu tourex?
|

: st ence ats Oe é64-eiaen7 ft b Pat 7 OS
ae Meee Oo ro. aw ng tor pen: Ste >
ised Ft Li naa Wi ie spay tebiw WE ®. ‘tere
a gt pel a AP = ee ay a PRS wibttion* awe 8
ee wer hes pee ak sae eh ea COPIA) ned eye 2
viol Abn eatin ae yivee 2 25 43 qeeu” oF
olvh tie obteu1g oF me

Hepa ok Phat. Wad nea ad bar eae
a yp). Wen a) BP Muni (an Sreerets write:
fy eet: pred mee yo eT ypwwore® iageld prin
ae tinkinnEam: = Sige wh. Bae j<mqQ a od i
Pe ee ne ied a ae Biigte be eT iseesth tee: wie
vik | Pap ey + oie eb tou onettess
tee RESO erltowsoe Boe bac att £06k

i =
Soe

‘keecelaied nition ve Ah ay Pe pitn wr’ 4a Pa -ortit: ae

fees Laeng Sal ture 4 (inesae | oc ae

aati ata sihoer sen Se ed enaild

ee ont note
ear facrong Ge eerg nya “terew Oud dy alte:

v pov) kes sitteye ORION Fer wa

swat rere 4 ey Pribacin! sia od To"

ee

% YR: OU PRE Fa att OE: NAT (ad APat> WA WEL. }
ORTON HET E+ WA £ POOR LACONSE RY ATION LA Mates £2 Pye gee or
reyee Lori oe curwelliienios av iar ee Caw IEET ation Se ig satire
Betector
ie of Pechknolery Acrassneni
Poe €ite. tnitad Statee
m OC. 20520
E385

encloded tie final essy of ay pxpie on .
eer vation of pawns. ae

This’ if partly because ae eat
5 : outside my brief fe.ge the
Raeetherst to nct claim saftieient.
Yes. (@idcession-on bicqeogrepthiive

mn mn both Ls eeiey and x

ee

a ing reviteers takes, me to tapk
Beene refugia, { voile point.cet
Pabotation marks_aad followed by the
Phd /or diversity’. whether tenes
t Hot high acre
ie for! bonwervation.

i Me ndien jean oe ce

eae cae

2 a dithough 1Vidomea' a
Ho + ates sore on tio actant *g oan

- = Ee Ly

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE ET DE SES RESSOURCES

Conservation Monitoring Centre — Centre de surveillance continue de la conservation de la nature

Dr S. Shen

Project Director

Office of Technology Assessment
Congress of the United States
Washington D.C. 20510

16 December 1985

Dear Dr Shen,

Please find enclosed the final copy of my paper on ‘Status and trends of
in-situ conservation of biological diversity worldwide’.

I have taken account of all review comments sent to me with your letter of

19 September, though I may not have covered all points to the satisfaction of
your reviewers. This is partly because a number of the comments relate to
topics rather outside my brief (e.g. the need for armies of systematists)
while in others I do not claim sufficient competence to do the topic full
justice (e.g. discussion on biogeographical classifications). That being said
I have expanded on both points and I hope this is of value.

One of your reviewers takes me to task for my implied acceptance of
Pleistocene refugia. I would point out that where I use the term it appears
Within quotation marks and followed by the phrase ‘in effect centres of
endemism and/or diversity’. Whether these areas are refugia or not, if they
are areas of high diversity or endemism they must surely be areas of potential
importance for conservation. While noting the same reviewers comments on
island biogeography and design of reserves, this is not the reason I have
taken this section out. The comments would apply much more to the paper by
Jim Thorsell (who I assume you have contacted on this).

In this version I have gone into more detail on the need for national and
local database development (though it should be noted in this context that I
do not necessarily mean computer databases). This is a development area which
is generally thought to be particularly important, and which I have therefore
decided to include although it doesn't fall exactly within my brief. I have
also said a little more on the actual ‘ground level' collection of information.

Bearing in mind your specific query on integration of data, as I said on the
phone, I felt that it would be inappropriate to go into such specific detail
On one item within the paper. I have therefore appended this as a ‘project

concept" along with several other such ‘concepts’. I hope this is of value.
Please note, however, that this is for a feasibility study, not for the full
database you inquire after in your letter. Establishment and maintenance of
such a database would clearly be a very labour intensive task, the magnitude
of which would depend on the number of species we would expect to cover. I

contd.

219(c) Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom Telex 817036 Cables: Redbook Cambridge UK
Tel: (0223) 277314 and 277420 (Species Conservation Monitoring Unit), 277427 (Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit)

toc AS i m= ’ ; *
Bio's " ,
(tute i 4 i
eS =
‘bg CU th ee
' na 5
4
es ‘
et £ : <
Aactee't
oe rn re
og a K * | - - -
nee ye) Ree . oe rae 4: Rett) ce a. 2 jo ae
if @ 3 P<] * Se Ss - iL
tee | el i uae « 1 Jrsie ey WI LID
The Oa at , o

rN _
hy; Ah they sae nk pases ofa een — 4; ii Soh $y [9m ‘in
re a) pudaWs Itunes re eRGL ot ee ee a ee

BE SILDY CRM uate, | Cagmm = i ee
iy ts Rana Peemir em 10) Sata ed eR He wp a) Seles?

BV 2%, “MEG 2 » Ney PES! LE AS | ogre teers oes ious tee ct
au ; oud Me oer Coheed PWG RIGS 5 l, San eee OTT we oe. toes
ate S oguiket AES BO Tus ero a

pie BRR Iotoa bp eee ee ae 2! uewes wWapead
0S ae “ost eh peli pats Bly ieoy. Sloe.
; bee ce a:

SS

would think at a minimum we would be talking about a further US$5,000 to
US$10,000 for overhead expenses, followed by an annual cost in the order of
US$100,000 to US$150,000. Even with this sort of input, implementation would
be "slow and steady'. Perhaps if you want more hard figures at this stage you
could contact me again.

Also, to put some of the other CMC needs into context, I have included
"project concepts’ for the set up and initial running of database sections on
oceanic islands and wetlands, as well as two specific projects related to the
Protected Areas Data Unit (the Africa research officer post, and one on marine
and coastal protected areas). These are examples, however, and I could as
easily have given you a proposal for a database on mangroves and sea-grass
beds, or one for an Indomalayan research officer post within PADU, or one to
provide CMC (or just -PADU) with adequate library facilities.

In other words, although these are real proposals, which we would like to see
implemented, they should not necessarily be construed as being the most
important for CMC's development now. For example our two most pressing needs
currently are not for funding of these proposals, but for sufficient funding
to provide both new accomodation and a new computer system. As you may
already be aware, we currently have a machine on which we cannot implement the
Geographical Information System we need (and which is discussed in my paper),
nor can it support any of the new graphics equipment. We would need something
in the order of US$500,000 to US$750,000 to purchase all the necessary
hardware and software (quite apart from the costs of using it). We also see
development and implementation of a habitat 'skeleton' within the database as
a particularly important project.

Could I suggest, therefore, that if you wish to make specific suggestions
relating to CMC you ought to discuss these with Dr Michael Tillman.

I have now included a summary within the paper, which details the main
recommendations, slightly rearranged and with some amalgamated. These if you
like are the key points - the action strategy - for improving the level of
available information. The fact that there are more recommendations relating
to CMC's needs should not be taken to mean that we see development of CMC as
more important than, say, development of national and local conservation
databases. This is so simply because it is easier to make more detailed
recommendations relating to your own particular sphere of activity than to
others, and also because these relate more specifically to items I was asked
to discuss.

’

You will note that I have not included even approximate costs of achieving any
of the recommendations. This is largely because any estimates would be so
gross that I would not want to include them within a paper which in other ways
attempts to be fairly objective. Within most of the items anyway, the amount
that could be spent is unlimited by anything other than lack of available
finance. I would, however, attempt to put prices to these items if you really
need this.

.

You will also note that in many cases it has not been possible within the
available space to either identify who (specifically) should be carrying out
some of the recommendations, and where funding should come from. This is

contd.

ced Ln ba Swi we We Pays), a Sew Sw siainio w
‘| iia (WE. GA Hop Lak tenengss beat sbn

Mr eae pCa,

A aes inal wey. 9

: albeiinert Bene i. ; SH mei. Wika He
re ade bake peadie eh Pierre SRT a BE p
eer Dit Pe tebe ceed) oth ome ota Pa habe ie

id ae baie bs oe has es uy SE Tae aaa vere heels SP t ~ SSL. dpe an

Coy mer a) ies ea bet ‘ ; “eats bas ae doni’
ey ay ehetponee hh ab ee 440 deeti duis soe Woy COVES

a ie ie ORS, fekeege tn: ie aa Nass tad bef pe 2 bo

Sant ; ¥ alepitig t yea ae hii te Ww teat: ah). :

‘ ae ik nee
: : Bhan yoke
AMEX toa Seton! arse eS, ag
e Bed 2 aga) Tes parm? 427 tom aie
: si Das dhe Reise WO a Ae PE Rh eee Wet ele
Re rt Spalted pe! Ard. Gensou 2 22 08 9) “nowy ee ysl
A. PA Ow Rgsyr Lh. WaLaw nA}: Ben TN SR! ARS Tea BG:
We teh Dive =@ ciate Lee ac iighe;: eageilt Jo ee tseggee
pegs tt Ene Sade be Fac po Eteas-oy con ouezeD bere
cath, ot 2 1T gate 2h eR ee sad rings ahtust saerion:t
t bie, id Hida tae ite eu thee 5. ie apt he sdper vinta
ao. E ae ; “vapakend? DADS TIGHE |
if otincaue $n ye ic te" so 2: “ties nig ad 404
isa thei: echo that) geod’ aaiaeth, S > aR wey mf

pe ee bear oe ainday stain em, Sider xt ato
eae od a sah Sapa + ow:

oketdy Yume 8 Sobplen
iets (Pai aet “yi saeitacgs

largely because these activities cannot be regarded as the responsibility of
any one group, either for funding or for implementation. Again, if you want

me to go into specific detail on any given item I will attempt to do so.

Please get in touch if I can provide further information, assistance, or

clarification.

Yours sincerely,

Wn are

Jeremy Harrison

Protected Areas Data Unit

enc.

Copies of this paper have been sent to the following people, who you may wish
to contact on certain items or projects mentioned:

Dr

Dr

Dr

Mr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Dr

Robert Goodland

Michael Gwynne

Guillermo Mann

Rob Milne

Jane Robertson

John Sullivan

Jim Thorsell

Michael Tillman

Office of Environmental and Scientific Affairs

The World Bank
1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433

GEMS-Programme Activity Centre
United Nations Environment Programme
PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya

Director (Science), International Programme
The Nature Conservancy
1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW, WaShington DC

Chief, International Affairs
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior

Division of Ecological Sciences, Unesco
7 Place de Fontenoy, 75700 Paris, France

Office of Forestry, Environment,
and Natural Resources

U.S. Agency for International Development

Executive Officer CNPPA, IUCN

20036

Avenue du Mont-Blanc, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

Director, IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

lhe. .
ata hee © wera seo be

a)

we ‘wie i,

+ lod,

i

Se siti tain |: 0

mi FTE! ; Te4 7 og

oe Pee a a = ¥
r * i nee We
=e) Gis. ae

PROJECT PROPOSAL SUMMARY

Title Feasibility study on linking species and protected area information
within the CMC database

Proposed project developer IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

Proposed project executant IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

Proposed project duration One year
Short description (Objectives, justification, activities)

One of the principal justifications for protected areas is the conservation of
genetic resources in situ. Therefore, it is of vital importance that
information on what is found where is available to those needing it. The
amount of information available at the local level is growing, and with the
increasing availability of improved information handling methods it would seem
likely that local and national database activity on the location of genetic
resources will increase.

It is obvious, however, that an international database maintaining links with
local, national and regional database activity is essential. The role of such
a database would be fourfold:

a) to provide an overview;

b) to demonstrate what is found where (an information retrieval service) ;
c) to highlight resources that do not appear to be protected;

d) to draw the attention of management authorities to the relative

importance of some of the species they protect (important resources
that may not be protected elsewhere, for example).

CMC already has growing databases on both species and protected areas, while
other groups such as Unesco (MAB programme), FAO and IBPGR are also exploring
this type of database activity for either particular species groups or
particular areas. The species and protected areas databases managed by CMC
are not fully linked yet, though it has already been agreed that this is a
major priority. Indeed CMC has already obtained funding from British
Petroleum to develop better methods for handling area information. This
software improvement will be vital to the proper development of the
species-—area links.

It would clearly be an impossible (and probably valueless) task to document
the occurrence of all species in all protected areas at this time. This is
cetainly at the international level. There are, for example some 4170 mammals
described, approximately 9000 birds, 8240 reptiles and amphibians, 21,000
fish, 250 000 plants, and literally millions of invertebrate species. Also,
much of the information is not currently available, and may never have been
collected. For example there are many protected areas within the United
States that have yet to complete species inventories.

A feasibility study is therefore necessary for the following reasons:
a) to harden up the choices of what species and areas CMC should start
its database activity on;
b) to test the availability of the data;
c) to work closely with other groups (such as Unesco-MAB) to ensure
CMC's activities are complementary to other efforts in this field;
d) for initial development and testing of the basic computer software.

endzaett sARuNONS romvoN

Ae tenet nom Basoatoih uae esigey qaidnzt go wtilen c2lT ‘tana:
‘ : ete. Yo) a wiht w lé iv

wails “wn bles lech ‘WE Eanes His * ES: a ness

oe ae ae Aat
' pr! @Re? Qa aoede oh wit dager ty: ie armament
: - f ENS ‘aeay 4a shag
7 ; safe te mide ee “cabteraos slagetls rat mest

fir ¥ Yo why di peepee ae vee Be vonet: g43s
we ele
49 sitet ss ok arson” hina invleroe. epi

: ie ae (vet fase l: ond) Ts’ a» Sate tas pebaere 5 ti a
: 4 toLtamyot ee beeonel to-go lite ,
yt ee am Wowiz0% : sbaiaioh Paras 1am tie et

ie nll ee ie iy eta
ar

ee Lget spoils! ae ig: scan
et ay Frise Tee tyeotswn mt

“toes. ot 3

Wied’ ls. he
2 ones

Trials of the computer software will require the initial build up of part of
the database for testing purposes. To keep this to manageable proportions,
information researched in detail at this stage will be restricted to protected
areas and some of the threatened animal species of Africa.

tputs

The principal output of this project will be a detailed strategy of how CMC
can proceed with the linking of species and areas information, along with the
development of praject proposals for soliciting the necessary funding. This
is something that would be rather difficult to achieve without an
investigation of approaches and available information, without the development
of guidelines for identifying appropriate species for monitoring in this way,
and without further liasion with other agencies working in this field. This
work will be carried out during the course of the project, along with initial
development of the computer software required.

The feasiblity study is therefore an essential stage in the development of a
database which could, in future years, not only identify which protected areas
species are found within (and their status in those areas), but which could
also be used to investigate how well ‘covered’ any given species is by
protected areas, and to demonstrate to managers which of the species they have
are regarded as being particularly important.

In addition, the improved linking of information that will be used for trial
purposes (threatened species and protected areas of Africa), may be of some
direct value in the planning of conservation in Africa. If this project is
carried out soon enough, the information will be available to the current IUCN
project developing a protected areas systems plan this region. Clearly,
however, the value and importance of this particular aspect of the project
depends on how good the available information is, a factor which the project
itself aims to investigate.

Estimated total budget US$20,000

Status Ready to proceed as soon as funding becomes available

Date of proposal December 1984

A complete copy of this proposal is available from the IUCN Conservation
Monitoring Centre, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom

tn Axet Io du Ofiit: cat Pe ae eur Pale daa NOt oe

ited Pca Ft GEA mpi: Der 4a! ba af Dae ei watt
cusauserg of Gedy Piise mee phd epoae: perry ha Shape: 08” ped oiilind al ie
; aS hu Te neler sia vieehseaieierasaie 2 a ha bs a

ai

a

prs a Sat va ne sedan ‘eid

; a ae Sakon tw avait Pelee: ?
dvr tteiuts "WRI Junie tee Page Saueherteng oe
tae wld oy peat rosieet tad oh Inte ae
game nt ager Rost rte

hae Soil ieacrs ‘is

PROJECT PROPOSAL SUMMARY

Title Assessing the Conservation status of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems
Proposed project developer IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

Proposed project executant IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre

Proposed project duration One year

Short description (Objectives, justification, activities)

It is clear that much remains to be done in the protection of marine and
coastal zones, and for this reason both IUCN and WWF have put some emphasis on
conservation action within this area. To be able to plan conservation action
effectively one needs to have good information on which to base decisions. In
the case of marine and coastal protected areas this means having complete
lists of such areas, and their locations, (as well as more detailed
information on each site). The information must also be arranged within a
biogeographical framework such as has recently been prepared for IUCN.

The objectives of the project are therefore to:

a) ensure that CMC has complete and accurate lists of marine and coastal
protected areas which can be further identified by presence or absence
of island, marine, estuarine, coral etc. components;

b) use the lists developed along with the classification of coastal and
marine environments in order to make a preliminary assessment of the
world coverage of marine and coastal environments by protected area.

This project will therefore involve the hiring of a staff member to go through
all information available to CMC on marine and coastal protected areas, and to
obtain further information from our contacts. This information will then be
analysed using the biogeographical methods mentioned, and a report prepared
analysing the world coverage of marine and coastal environments by protected

areas.

Outputs -—- Full lists of marine and protected areas for limited circulation
and possible publication ;
- Preliminary report analysing the world coverage of marine and

coastal environments by protected areas
— Preparation of a paper for publication from the above (with CNPPA)

The project will also contribute to development of CMC's growing information
base on marine and coastal environments, areas which would appear to be of
particular interest to aid agencies and industry.

Estimated total budget Approximately US$10,000

Status Ready to proceed as soon as funding becomes available
Date of proposal December 1985

he IUCN Conservation

this proposal is available from t i
PRatHne centee! nant CB3 ODL, United Kingdom

Monitoring Centre, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge

awe tegunyd Coregots baw anlwil Fe ded ass Wd eLavsoneeD od4. gota ceed” okene~ ;

= " hand Shite gM, noi seetea nos Wout wanleyee. tontewa :

ie ;
i - sa dana Speiertit ndlswerennn: .- wer Jeatenens. 4 J
ar J
“eg Sey we . ed ma Score 428
. - if

Aa

“uate ROA eae pewvessobeay 3 atta
ini +30) nee wh icity Sat et ‘nitaete ino
Femina bys MOOT HOW diaper etd? yo? Ha”
I ales ete oe et. > +209 loathe gettin
feraesta boug ove of shoon sae”

shane Retéedon Lsteses box yd) tee ‘
a eh) .aavitioul vies! bee Seeds

has PaOE SMFS AT. totte de

a ©, aa one” th “rtsue Aeewonig Td

aa :

tie ? ona! we Yoekerg ait w ®
eu ik tee aJotqnos ead TH

ns Magny? 2d aos dokae snes,

ai Teieo |, entiaudia Soneigeel
ody Whe’ paola 4

n Glam of wbro «fF

iadencs baa vat

etree b Saree: oa) eylovat ‘esd toga
3G dsteayy ban gate TH os leurs

se if eae teon wo wert, mt:

@ shodiea Laobiqas

oY Gas ants To paca =

PROJECT PROPOSAL SUMMARY

Title Creation and maintenance of an Oceanic Islands Database

Proposed project developer IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
Proposed project executant IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
Proposed project duration Three years

Short description (Objectives, justification, activities)

Much has been written on the nature of island ecosystems, and the effect of
time, isolation and small area has on their biota (leading to the development
of unique assemblages of species, varying endemic forms etc.). However,
oceanic islands are particularly susceptible to habitat loss and species
extinction from forest clearance, agricultural and urban encroachment, and
introduced predators and competitors. At the same time, information on these
islands and their conservation status and problems is often widely scattered.

The principal objective of this project is to assimilate and render readily
available much of the existing information on the conservation status of
oceanic islands or island groups. An information base of this sort will not
only be of value for both conservation and development communities in
providing information on what is going on where, and demonstrating which areas
are poorly known (and where efforts can be directed to improve our knowledge
of islands), it would also be instrumental in development of a more detailed
strategy for the conservation of oceanic islands.

It is anticipated that the research and implementation phase of this project
would involve two research staff and a secretary, working closely with staff
of the International Council for Bird Preservation, who would deal with
aspects of the project relating to birds. At the same time, development of
CMC's database software would enable it to also handle information on islands,
which would then be linked in to other parts of the CMC database.

Outputs This proposal does not include publication budgets, but would cover
preparation and circulation of draft directories and lists of oceanic islands
along the lines of Douglas (1969) and Clark and Dingwall (1985).

The principal achievement of the project, however, would be the development of
an accessible database on conservation aspects of oceanic islands.

Information from such a database would be of value to both development and
conservation communities.

Estimated total budget US$350,000 over 3 years; It is expected that
further sources of funding would be identified by the end of the initial three

year period.

Status Ready to proceed as soon as funding becomes available

Date of proposal December 1985

A complete copy of this proposal is available from the IUCN Conservation
Monitoring Centre, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom

Taanieta arencan maine

balance sath whinge! i Wie SOO Rao Dasa wee ame die Lest
yg tenth “ae opie dlr. We 2 Sate Amat: MT ghee op berns.

= gbdealt SRSTRALOM ol jo aee ey: wus F erep *

‘ ams

ti Sey a

* ; j he i ty 5 Fr
a ng bi saints eet ae vignettes
d and a eens autsnis 3) aa? Sgt &
; ee oe ox
hanks, a jaa f

i bt “Ae. Janae
| my

PROJECT PROPOSAL SUMMARY

Title Appointment of a research officer for protected areas in Africa
Proposed project developer IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
Proposed project executant IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
Proposed project duration 1986 onwards

Short description (Objectives, justification, activities)

One of the principal methods used for the conservation of both species and
ecosystems is the legal protection of sites. To be able to plan effectively,
conservation agencies need to know which sites are already protected, how
successfully they are managed, and what they contain in terms of animals,
plants and critical habitats. Similarly development agencies need information
on these areas in order to avoid inadvertently damaging sites when
implementing their projects.

Clearly the maintenance of a database on the protected areas of the world is a
large and complex task, requiring a staff of professionals to carry out the
work. The task is continual, resulting in a need to employ staff for long
periods of time both to increase familiarity with any given region, and to
maintain a continuity of contact with park system managers, scientists etc. in
the field. Unfortunately this continuity has not been possible to date within
CMC's Protected Areas Data Unit.

The aim of this proposal is to obtain funding to appoint a full time research
officer within the Protected Areas Data Unit to work on the African region,
collecting, maintaining and synthesising all information available to CMC on
African protected areas, and maintaining and extending our network of African
contacts. This will be carried out in close collaboration with IUCN's
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. As well as covering the
salary and overheads involved in employment of a research officer, the
proposal also includes provision-for support staff (50% research assistant,
50% secretarial time).

Outputs No specific outputs are envisaged under this proposal, though the
work will lead to an improved database on protected areas within Africa, with

more detailed and more accurate information becoming available for future
publication and reports.

More importantly, the project will lead to the availability of a more detailed
and more accurate body of information, of use, and accessible to, both
conservation and development communities.

Estimated total budget Approximately US$30,000 per annum. The work carried

out under this proposal will continue and build on work carried out by CMC
over the past few years.

Status Ready to proceed as soon as funding becomes available
Date of proposal December 1985

1 is available from the IUCN Conservation

of this proposa i
aa Gon ane don Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom

Monitoring Centre, 219c Hunting

Perch y af ee Retonw feo +a te Cd rt . tee a SO sere ao a was | ui
‘ te

Sgepaaity par rina -olteveengoo © ‘et ganpfoven, 20! ate, aie
a ;

= , Wide gat ae F hie dl heeremad CHEE sonavones. £

ah mier 0 a
SC ie gi i Dia net ey sDeaypewein wee

i

watriatie wot dene hs test awed seen? Bins party ©]

eotvags fad in Al towrevnas 014! sy Bean shader Cacdianyug de

optve gee of ofde ad. oF deste hecpetsuaciony sagel- wth at

‘woe Baltoatey eakTe Gar vorhs dato wend ae ess as tosige
ae

‘

7 a beuihete Ae quaaed shb betids yor? Haier teen Saetac ete 7%
a, enn eee en ageing A ou nll. + Patiala agerider- Mesias Se

oe. pitaereevtonatt Bie oF ilies: at 8
in oy oy meh Orey vi ads pe

Perret) wis we: gedaan mx to-> avers Tehaye
eNtgey Th Wk aon pelatigen:.dass =yee
been a FE gai tlaver Kendhtaos: avd
vo Atrra tf tae penpyoad-as Shag
pers Brag: bi he tun odo 2, ett wer h ee
foe sah ei hua sno afta mTpeent
li “ahah sis cal ee
i + za

a ee perrene dinsdy ad at ts
Ce RE ota! exes bose’

he Ldariae Yok LEA potas eedimty brie | Tn falter r
rate Roa yon tin hapa Nga Dive: an

amet ese gic ri penance Rete

; a é i. Lae?

aie ee | Soe kau sits
_ ae acl taete Cand Ww? -asteiwiing

ions Pre i
ve sidhihaael oe
3 By = sipantietes ;

PROJECT PROPOSAL SUMMARY

Title Creation and maintenance of a Wetlands Database

Proposed project developer IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
Proposed project executant IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
Proposed project duration Three years

Short description (Objectives, justification, activities)

Wetlands are among the world's most productive environments, providing
benefits to mankind through fishery production, maintenance of water tables
for agriculture, water storage and flood control, shoreline stabilisation,
timber production, waste disposal and water purification, and recreational
opportunities. They also provide crucial habitats for waterfowl and other
birds, as well as for countless mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish and
invertebrate species.

Despite this, wetlands are among the world’s most threatened habitats. This
is due mainly to accelerated drainage, land reclamation, pollution and
over-exploitation of wetland species. Yet in the face of this threat, the
conservation network is frequently unable to respond either because we have
little idea where many of the important areas are (or what they contain), or
know what ecological and economic value many of these wetlands have. This
means that not only are conservation agencies not able to easily gauge the
value of any given wetland, they are not able to advise development agencies
and industry on how they can reduce the impact of development projects.

IUCN has been working with a number of other agencies and NGOs to improve the
situation by supporting and planning the development of inventories of the
most important wetlands in many parts of the world. This project aims to draw
together all information gathered under these wetland inventory projects,
particularly those in the Palaearctic, Neotropical, African and Indomalayan
regions, using it to provide a framework for developing a full wetlands
database which can be accessed to provide information of value to both
conservation and development communities. The project also aims to develop
further with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a database on wetlands values.

Outputs The principal achievement of this project would be the development

of an accessible database which can be used both by the conservation community
for conservation planning and directing action, and by the development
community for help in planning to avoid adversly affecting important sites,
and to help ensure maintenance of essential values of wetlands associated with
their projects. This includes preparation and circulation of various draft

directories and lists of wetlands.

Estimated total budget US$255,000 over 3 years. Much initial work has been
carried out under other budgets. It is expected that further sources of
funding would be identified by the end of the initial three year period.

Status Ready to proceed as soon as funding becomes available

Date of proposal December 1985

A complete copy of this proposal is available from the IUCN Conservation
Monitoring Centre, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom

1
; ; a oe, > : *“* : 7, ~
Sepkilecad ayaa) oto ayeere)\ bee dex poi teed 2B

303 got BoddijetaPipesse de> MOUS

t

oiian: quite hie nat mertmde’s HOE see tmpeee _eLeaa, Seana i
. ei ; ‘. . a = A

a ae , tea
en eieey ooMe gakd On ee Nees KT

1 = “
aes — - rare ‘ate BR i i

Griese o' Biuet O62 come om.
elas ésede $3. tact & Ad tat af -&
4. ot7 nee. beult bra Sgro te — Pave .

Facey eh Bia. Leowgeti: ce4asw ‘ae ear

, fad bd Peal. Tebseve sbleneg ocala ywet 5 ee
Banierars: teemect exeftauss “eh ee TT
oe) ae #

ets antes heleve! Oen ok
“3 ak "> sejaede hasliay tc elDe
= : ; iy 3.00 -Sidnwe 9! ienenyed? ar: ret SEG
aL plete ; wes teeth ‘Shadsoun) alt 15. pee ey et
aes i? id te “wuley si hentog Rte ie7 Lewhoae
) ¢ Sou Smdbcege agliséyeadt <4 yiaQs

) OS Bids Jon ya qoes So2itew ergs fi
ia a aes mobs aes Eous wl,

ands i raaitert. oe = a gaan 4

fee! pitt se rapaty; too etl ’
até re eae Soar ot eSsytktae te

+ satat botisay ont teeesaest
HW yoiseigdats? aff at @

i ied at a shiver: $8

ie

nie Ge. ipagecopee _tegtantae,
: Goliad

Ps , fl
t