Download as a PDF - Apache 2 Test Page powered by CentOS - WWF

319 Pages·2001·1.48 MB·English

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Forest Protected Areas: Time is Running Out (Jeffrey Sayer) 1
Locating and designing an ecologically representative network of forest
protected areas
Towards a Framework for Implementing a Representative System of Forest Protected Areas
13
(Bob Pressey)
The National Protected Area System Plan in Madagascar (Martin Nicoll, Rasolofo Louis
31
Andriamahaly, Brigitte Carr-Dirick)
Economic Design Principles for Forest Protected Areas (Amar Inamdar) 43
Ecological aspects of design
WWF-Canada's Endangered Spaces Campaign (Arlin Hackman) 57
Protected Area System Planning in Lao PDR (Klaus Berkmuller) 73
Integrating forest protected areas within national development strategies
Integrating Forest Protected Areas within National Development Strategies (Thomas McShane
87
and Gonzalo Oviedo)
Is it Always Right to Kill the Goose? Or IUCN Categories V and VI versus community based
89
resource management (Antoine Leclerc and Baptiste Noël Randrianandianina)
The Tropical Forestry Action Programme - lessons from Ethiopia and Zambia (Ermias Bekele) 101
Balancing Wildlife Conservation with Local Use when Designing Protected Area Systems in
119
Tropical Forests (Elizabeth Bennett)
People and Totally Protected Areas in Sarawak (Oswald Braken Tisen and Elizabeth Bennett) 129
Economic sustainability of forest protected areas
ANGAP’s Approach to a Sustainable Future (Antoine Leclerc and Tiana Razafimahatratra) 139
Real World Conservation: Combining Biological, Economic and Social Criteria in Planning a
147
National System of Forest Nature Reserves for Uganda (Peter Howard)
Nature Tourism and Protected Area Pricing: Lessons learned from Africa (Wolf Krug) 159
Parastatal Governance of State Protected Areas in Africa and the Caribbean (Alexander James,
175
Sam Kanyamibwa and Michael Green)
Assessing management effectiveness of forest protected areas
Caring for the Assets – the Effectiveness of Protected Areas Management (Adrian Phillips) 189
The WCPA Management Effectiveness Framework – Where to from here? (Marc Hockings,
205
Nigel Dudley and Sue Stolton)
Meeting global information and reporting needs
Managing and Applying Information on Protected Area Management Effectiveness at Global and
215
Regional Levels: The Role of WCMC and WCPA (Jeremy Harrison and Marc Hockings)
Page
Maintaining the Integrity of Natural World Heritage Sites (Bing Lucas) 227
Site Conservation Planning - A Framework for Developing and Measuring the Impact of Effective
241
Biodiversity Conservation Strategies (Jeffrey Parrish)
The Use of Certification of Sustainable Management Systems and their Possible Application to
259
Protected Area Management (Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley)
Institutional and utilization issues for assessment systems
Institutionalizing Assessments within Protected Area Management Regimes (Robbie Robinson) 269
Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas (Jamie Ervin) 277
Management Effectiveness and Institutional Credibility – Assessment of Management
289
Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Finland (Stig Johansson)
NGOs and PA Management Agencies Working Together to Assess Protected Area
Effectiveness; Successes, Problems and Prospects - the Experience of WWF-Brazil (Rosa 303
Lemos de Sá, Nurit Bensusan, Leandro Ferreira)
Evaluate, Change and Propagate – Three Steps to Better Parks (Fiona Leverington and Terry
311
Harper)
Park Effectiveness in The Tropics (Aaron Bruner, Richard Rice, Ted Gullison and Gustavo
327
Fonseca)
Assessing management effectiveness of protected areas at the site level
Implementation of a Framework to Monitor the Management of Protected Areas in Central
333
America (José Courrau)
Management Effectiveness of the Dja Reserve, Cameroon (Elie Hakizumwami) 341
Outcomes-based Evaluation of Management for Protected Areas – a Methodology for
349
Incorporating Evaluation into Management Plans (Glenys Jones)
PAN Parks – Well-managed Protected Areas Ideal for Sustainable Tourism (Harri Karjalainen) 359
Foreword
Human impact is so considerable, and there are so many links between the biosphere and the
atmosphere – in both directions – that it is clear that the only course is to manage them jointly. The role
of forests is large in that equation, not just in terms of the global carbon cycle, but also in terms of
biological diversity. They also play critical roles in ecosystem services such as watershed management,
erosion and flood control as well as disaster prevention. So the Forest Protected Areas Initiative
represents a global conservation priority of the highest order.
A key element in the initiative is the goal of protection of at least 10% of the world’s forest
types. Ambitious as this may sound, it is also insufficient. Species-area curves tell us that in the end
10% would conserve only 50% of the species in the forests. In addition, if there is no other forest other
than that in protected areas, it would be impossible to ward off the demands for the many products and
services forests provide.
So the art of the exercise will rest on managing entire forested landscapes in ways which
engage the local communities and provide basic human needs while at the same time providing a haven
for forest biological diversity. It also means improving management of existing parks where the
presence of government is thin to nonexistent. At the same time it is important not to concentrate on
improved management at the expense of creating important new protected areas. Opportunities to do
the latter are rare, fleeting and may never come again. So it is important to think boldly, although not to
the point of foolishness.
Based squarely on past experience of what works and what does not, this initiative comes just
in the nick of time. In contrast, the benefits will last for countless generations.
Thomas E. Lovejoy
175
Forest Protected Areas: Time is Running Out
Jeffrey Sayer
Abstract
Extensive areas of forest in the tropics have been legally classified as protected areas;
however, in many cases it has been difficult to achieve their conservation. This paper
argues that the priority for forest conservation should not be to maximize the area
totally protected but rather to focus on improved management effectiveness. The keys
to improved management will be greater clarity in defining objectives and a greater
commitment to finding locally appropriate conservation approaches. This in turn will
suggest that a portfolio of different approaches to forest protection will have a higher
chance of success than maximizing the area allocated to arbitrary international
frameworks. Practical realities will dictate that the portfolio will include a range of
options from elite sites given exemplary protection through to well-managed multiple-
use areas where protection and use are balanced. I will argue that in tropical countries
with large populations of poor people multiple-use areas will have an especially
valuable role to play. An “ecosystem approach” to the management of these areas is
proposed and practical ways to develop this approach are suggested. An ecosystem
approach will require that conservation agencies move away from “command and
control” management and adopt output-based systems based on effective
collaboration between all stakeholders.
Jeffrey Sayer
Director General
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
Bogor
INDONESIA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
email: [email protected]
176
Forest Protected Areas: Time is Running Out
Jeffrey Sayer
INTRODUCTION
This paper will focus on the problems of conserving natural areas in the less
developed countries of the tropics. It will deal particularly with the problems of
conserving forests. This is partly because forests are by far the dominant terrestrial
ecosystems in these countries, but also because these are the systems whose
conservation has attracted most international attention.
The conservation community repeatedly claims that more money is needed for forest
conservation. The contention of this paper is that it is equally important to make
better use of those resources that are already available. After several decades of
international action to conserve wild nature in tropical developing countries we are
still losing ground. The Global Environment Facility and several major development
assistance agencies have channelled billions of dollars towards conservation, yet even
the sites that have been the targets of this expenditure often remain in danger (for
instance see Wells et al. 1999). I will argue that there are major weaknesses in the
conceptual underpinnings of many international conservation programmes. In
particular the following generic problems:
• Attention has focused on establishing global targets for conservation, for instance
to conserve 10 per cent of all forests, but clarity in defining the objectives of
these areas is often lacking. Rigorously defined measures of the desired outcomes
of conservation programmes are surprisingly rare (Wells et al. 1999).
• Little is invested in learning from the experiences of our attempts to achieve
conservation action on the ground. The sort of information that would be of
practical value to the field manager is difficult to access.
• Attempts to define global conservation programmes are often insensitive to local
interests and costs. We espouse the principles of local involvement and
participation, but we often make unfounded assumptions about where the
interests of local people really lie.
• Investments have been made in building capacity for sophisticated, “big-picture”
conservation professionals. Little has been done to develop capacity for practical
conservation action on the ground. There is a lack of practical conservation field
practitioners. Conservation needs its equivalent to the “bare-foot doctors” who
have helped address health problems in the developing world.
• Attention has focused on a few simple models for conservation management – the
North American National Park model – and not enough in a diversity approach
adapted to local political, social, economic and biophysical conditions.
• We make unwarranted assumptions about what will work in practice. In
particular, we try to transport solutions that have worked in a certain economic or
political setting to totally different conditions. We ignore the realities of
processes of social learning.
177
GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT SITES AND THE WORLD HERITAGE
CONVENTION
We still need global monitoring, internationally accepted standards for managing
priority sites, conferences to share our experience, and knowledge and targets to
which all countries can subscribe. Indeed CIFOR et al. (1999) and Sayer et al. (in
press) have argued for greatly increased international attention to be given to the elite
set of forest sites listed under the World Heritage Convention. They argue that this
list should be expanded and that significant international resources be mobilized to
ensure the integrity of the sites. If this could be achieved then a major proportion of
the world’s forest biodiversity would be protected. However these authors also argue
that few of these elite conservation sites are pristine forests, undisturbed by humans.
In most cases the biodiversity has evolved in the presence of humans for millennia.
The objective of conservation should not, therefore, be to exclude people, but to
conserve examples of harmonious and sustainable human-forest relations. Zuidema et
al. (1997) and Sayer et al. (in press) also argue that caution should be exercised in
adding too many sites to protected area systems. There will be diminishing returns if
conservation investments are spread over too many sites, especially if many of these
sites are viewed as being of less than exemplary value. In this paper I will further
develop the hypothesis that the ideal portfolio of conservation areas will consist of a
small number of truly outstanding sites – the cornerstones of the system – the World
Heritage sites and other national level exemplary areas. But these must be supported
by a much larger network of smaller, more highly targeted nature reserves and much
larger areas of locally adapted, multiple-use forests.
These second order sites will require different types of management institutions and a
different culture of “management”. Buffer zone and Integrated Conservation and
Development Projects (ICDPs) have broken some of the ground in helping us to
understand how locally relevant, multiple-use sites might be operated. One
fundamental need for such conservation programmes will be the capacity to make
decisions, adapt objectives to meet local realities, interact meaningfully with local
stakeholders, and design and achieve locally adapted solutions. They will require the
empowerment of local managers within a framework of national-level regulations to
ensure equity and the maintenance of non-local benefits.
HOW MANY PROTECTED AREAS DO WE NEED?
Other things being equal it would be best for biodiversity conservation to maximize
the number and extent of pristine, totally protected areas. Unfortunately all other
things are not equal. The number and extent of protected areas that is feasible and
desirable will differ between a poor country with a large population and little
remaining natural habitat and a richer country with fewer people and large remaining
natural areas. The extent to which protected areas incur costs for local people has
been widely under-estimated. In reality many of the benefits of strict protection
accrue to the global community whilst the costs are met by local people. When these
local people are already poor the injustice of the situation becomes apparent. Many
acute and intransigent conservation problems occur in areas where large populations
of poor people are putting pressure on declining areas of forests and other natural
systems. Unfortunately global patterns of population growth and resource use suggest
that these situations are likely to become more widespread in the future. This
178
suggests that we have to be far more pragmatic in our attitude to conservation in these
situations. We cannot conserve everything and we have to make choices. Surely it
makes sense for a major criterion in making these choices to be the maintenance of
future options. And surely the best way of achieving this is to protect the broadest
range of components of the natural systems. Perhaps the vast pristine national parks
located in remote frontier areas of developing countries should receive less attention
in our conservation programmes. More attention should be given to strategically
located, smaller, highly targeted nature reserves spread more broadly throughout the
landscape and including a relatively high density of small sites in the more densely
populated areas (Zuidema et al. 1997, Corbet and Turner 1996). Many of these sites
will inevitably be highly modified by human activity. This does not diminish their
value for conservation but it may indicate that the intensity of conservation
management will need to be high. The viability of small, modified nature reserves
will be highly dependent on the nature of surrounding land uses. Conservation
programmes in these situations will require a good understanding of linkages and
interactions at the landscape level. Conservation programmes for Java, Vietnam,
Thailand, large parts of China, coastal West Africa, and the Andean mountains,
should probably have more in common with the carefully managed nature reserves of
the United Kingdom or the multiple use “parcs naturels” of France than with the vast
wilderness parks of the western USA.
If one accepts the hypothesis that for much of the tropical developing world it will be
difficult to defend large pristine wilderness areas, then it is axiomatic that much
conservation will have to be achieved in various sorts of multiple-use managed
natural systems. Trees on farmlands, riparian woodland strips, forests where timber
harvesting is subject to restrictions to favour biodiversity etc, will all be important
instruments for conservation. Conservation programmes on this model will require
quite different institutions and management capacity to the para-military command
and control cultures of traditional conservation agencies. They will require a greater
degree of devolution of decision making than has been common in the past. Local
conservation programmes will have to be tailored to local needs and negotiated with
local stakeholders. Conservation professionals will have to have the independence to
make agreements with local people and the judgement to decide upon the trade-offs
between local needs and national-level conservation objectives. Success must be
defined in terms of quality of management rather than on the basis of the extent of the
area legally protected.
MULTIPLE-USE INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREAS OR STRICTLY
PROTECTED SEGREGATED SYSTEMS
Most conservation investments in developing countries focus on strictly protected
areas in IUCN’s categories l, ll and lll (strict nature reserves, national parks etc.). In
industrialized countries we give far more attention to achieving conservation
objectives as a secondary objective in a broad range of land-use situations. Thus most
of the forest biodiversity of Europe is conserved in forests that are managed for timber
and recreation. There is probably no single correct answer to the question of where
the balance of these approaches should lie. Temperate and boreal forest systems have
been subject to greater climatic perturbations in recent millennia than forests in the
tropics. Their biodiversity may therefore have a greater inherent ability to tolerate
disturbance than some tropical forests. But the biological specificity of tropical
179
forests may have been exaggerated in the conservation literature. Some recent
research suggests that the managed landscape mosaics, typical of protected areas in
some European countries, would be a good model for the tropics. A more important
determinant of the best approach may be the strength of conservation institutions and
of civil society in general, rather than the ecology of the forests themselves. The
literature has been dominated by debates about whether “sustainable forest
management” or “strict protection” is the best approach for tropical forests. In
countries with weak legal systems, poorly developed land ownership regimes, large
populations of poor landless people and a high level of corruption, it will be difficult
to make either approach to conservation work in the short term. In these situations,
the conservation portfolio should probably be heavily biased towards damage
limitation at the most important locations, accompanied by heavy investments in the
development of a local conservation constituency. The proposed set of Social
Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for Protected Areas in Table 1 (CIFOR, 1999) may be
more valuable measures of progress than the biophysical measures that are more
commonly used.
Table 1. Proposed Social C&I for Protected Areas
P.1. PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT MAINTAINS OR ENHANCES FAIR INTERGENERATIONAL ACCESS
TO RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS
C.1.1 Local management is effective in controlling maintenance of, and access to, the protected area resources
C.1.2 Forest actors have a reasonable share in the economic benefits derived from protected area use and
management
C.1.3 People link their and their children’s future with good management of local resources
P.2. CONCERNED STAKEHOLDERS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHTS AND MEANS TO MANAGE
PROTECTED AREAS COOPERATIVELY AND EQUITABLY
C.2.1 Effective mechanisms exist for two-way communication related to protected area management among
stakeholders
C.2.2 Local stakeholders have detailed, reciprocal knowledge pertaining to local resource use (including user groups
and gender roles), as well as protected area management plans prior to implementation
C.2.3 Agreement exists on rights and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders
P.3. THE HEALTH OF THE LOCAL PEOPLE, CULTURES AND THE PROTECTED AREA ARE ACCEPTABLE TO
ALL STAKEHOLDERS
C.3.1 There is a recognizable balance between human activities and environmental conditions
C.3.2 The relationship between forest management and human health is recognized
C.3.3 The relationship between forest maintenance and human culture is acknowledged as important
Adapted and excerpted from CIFOR Generic Template, 1999.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGMENTS FOR MULTIPLE-USE LANDSCAPES
Conservation programmes dependent on a complex array of local interactions and
negotiations will clearly require different governance structures and staffing skills
than those focused on the protection of a small number of large sites. Local
management of complex conservation programmes will require a higher intensity of
180
interactions with local governments and resource users and less use of central
government fiat to impose regulations. The complex and somewhat bureaucratic
structures for managing the “national parks” of France and England may be even
more difficult to establish in poorer tropical countries than simpler, centralized “Parks
Departments”. We still have a lot to learn about the implications of devolved and
decentralized governance structures for resource management in poorer countries.
Current work by CIFOR to develop tools for adaptive-collaborative management
(ACM) of forests should contribute to this. Much can be learned from projects to
develop community management of resources. Joint Forest Management in India,
some of the more innovative Integrated Conservation and Development Programs
(ICDPs), for instance the Leuser Project in Indonesia and longer standing programmes
such as the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania can teach us many lessons.
Perhaps some of the most striking conclusions to be drawn from experience in this
area are:
• Central governments cannot abdicate all authority, if they do then conservation
attributes of national or global importance will be lost.
• If large numbers of local stakeholders are going to be empowered to manage
resources then the credibility, authority, transparency and professionalism of
“intermediate organizations” acquires great importance.
• Long-term success will almost always require financial incentives or
compensation for those local stakeholders who forego resource use in the
interests of resource conservation.
A set of more general principles, developed by Elinor Ostrom from the University of
Indiana for the management of common property resources, may have broad
application for the management of complex landscape mosaics, even if none of the
areas concerned are strictly under “common property” regimes.
• There are clearly defined boundaries: both of the resource and who may
appropriate it.
• Appropriation and provision rules are tailored to local conditions.
• The resource users who must abide by appropriation rules have a role in making
them.
• Monitors are accountable to, or are, the appropriators.
• Sanctions for non-compliance are enforceable, and graduated by severity of
offence.
• Low-cost, local mechanisms are available for conflict resolution.
• Government recognizes the local right to organize institutions.
• Resource producers, managers and beneficiaries are the same people.
• Resource management functions are devolved to the lowest level of social
organization at which they can be performed properly.
• Marketing and resource sales are open and competitive.
• Management represents cooperation between local people, the private sector, and
government, with government retaining ultimate authority over natural
resources.
181