Parks 1901

PARKS
The International Journal of

Protected Areas and Conservation
Developing capacity for a protected planet

Issue 19.1: March 2013
2
IUCN PROTECTED AREA DEFINITION, MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES AND
GOVERNANCE TYPES
IUCN DEFINES A PROTECTED AREA AS:

A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through
legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with
associated ecosystem services and cultural values.
The definition is expanded by six management categories VI Protected areas with sustainable use of natural
(one with a sub-division), summarized below. resources: Areas which conserve ecosystems, together
Ia Strict nature reserve: Strictly protected for biodiversity with associated cultural values and traditional natural
and also possibly geological/ geomorphological features, resource management systems. Generally large, mainly in
where human visitation, use and impacts are controlled a natural condition, with a proportion under sustainable
and limited to ensure protection of the conservation natural resource management and where low-level non-
values. industrial natural resource use compatible with nature
Ib Wilderness area: Usually large unmodified or slightly conservation is seen as one of the main aims.
modified areas, retaining their natural character and
influence, without permanent or significant human
The category should be based around the primary
habitation, protected and managed to preserve their
management objective(s), which should apply to at least
natural condition.
three-quarters of the protected area – the 75 per cent rule.
II National park: Large natural or near-natural areas
protecting large-scale ecological processes with
characteristic species and ecosystems, which also have The management categories are applied with a typology of
environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, governance types – a description of who holds authority and
scientific, educational, recreational and visitor responsibility for the protected area.
opportunities.
III Natural monument or feature: Areas set aside to protect
a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, IUCN defines four governance types.
sea mount, marine cavern, geological feature such as a Governance by government: Federal or national ministry/
cave, or a living feature such as an ancient grove. agency in charge; sub-national ministry/agency in charge;
IV Habitat/species management area: Areas to protect government-delegated management (e.g. to NGO)
particular species or habitats, where management reflects Shared governance: Collaborative management (various
this priority. Many will need regular, active interventions degrees of influence); joint management (pluralist
to meet the needs of particular species or habitats, but management board; transboundary management (various
this is not a requirement of the category. levels across international borders)
V Protected landscape or seascape: Where the interaction Private governance: By individual owner; by non-profit
of people and nature over time has produced a distinct organisations (NGOs, universities, cooperatives); by for-
character with significant ecological, biological, cultural profit organsations (individuals or corporate)
and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of Governance by indigenous peoples and local communities:
this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the Indigenous peoples’ conserved areas and territories;
area and its associated nature conservation and other community conserved areas – declared and run by local
values. communities
For more information on the IUCN definition, categories and governance type see the 2008 Guidelines for applying protected
area management categories which can be downloaded at: www.iucn.org/pa_categories
IUCN WCPA’s BEST PRACTICE PROTECTED AREA GUIDELINES SERIES

IUCN-WCPA’s Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines are the world’s authoritative resource for protected area
managers. Involving collaboration among specialist practitioners dedicated to supporting better implementation in
the field, they distil learning and advice drawn from across IUCN. Applied in the field, they are building institutional
and individual capacity to manage protected area systems effectively, equitably and sustainably, and to cope with
the myriad of challenges faced in practice. They also assist national governments, protected area agencies,
nongovernmental organisations, communities and private sector partners to meet their commitments and goals,
and especially the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas.
A full set of guidelines is available at: www.iucn.org/pa_guidelines

Complementary resources are available at: www.cbd.int/protected/tools/
Contribute to developing capacity for a Protected Planet at: www.protectedplanet.net/
3 PARKS 2012 Vol 18.1
PARKS: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROTECTED AREAS AND CONSERVATION
Edited by Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley1, Equilibrium Research and IUCN
WCPA
1
Rock House, Derwenlas, Machynlleth, Powys, SY20 8TN, Wales [email protected],
[email protected]
Editorial: Wildlife crime poses unique challenges to protected areas 7

Nigel Dudley, Sue Stolton and Wendy Elliott
Progress towards the CBD protected area management effectiveness targets 13
Lauren Coad, Fiona Leverington, Neil D. Burgess, Ivon C. Cuadros, Jonas Geldmann, Toby R.
Marthews, Jessie Mee, Christoph Nolte, Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, Nanna Vansteelant, Camilo
Zamora, Mark Zimsky and Marc Hockings
Are governance and management effective within protected areas of the Kanchenjunga 25
landscape (Bhutan, India and Nepal)?
Krishna Prasad Oli, Sunita Chaudhary and Uday Raj Sharma
Protected area management and livelihood conflicts in Ghana: a case study of Digya National 37
Park
Jesse S. Ayivor, Chris Gordon and Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu
Tigers in the Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex: Conservation implications across 51
borders
Jimmy Borah, Dorji Wangchuk, Anindya Swargowari, Tenzing Wangchuk, Tridip Sharma,
Dhritiman Das, Nilmani Rabha, Ajit Basumatari, Niraj Kakati, M. Firoz Ahmed, Amit Sharma,
Anupam Sarmah, Deba Kumar Dutta, Bibhuti Lahkar, Tshering Dorji, Probhod Kumar Brahma,
Labanya Ramchiary, Tshering Tempa, Yeshey Wangdi, Tshering Nedup, Tandin Wangdi,
Lhendup Tharchen, Pema Dhendup, Chitaranjan Bhobora, Bivash Pandav and Joseph
Vattakaven
Placemaking and transnationalism: recent migrants and a national park in Sydney, Australia 63
Denis Byrne and Heather Goodall
Can the IUCN 2008 Protected Areas Management Categories support Pacific island 73
approaches to conservation?
Hugh Govan and Stacy Jupiter
Putting Nature on the Map: Applying the IUCN Protected Areas Management Categories in 81
the UK
Roger Crofts and Adrian Phillips
An Elephant Corridor in a fragmented conservation landscape: Preventing the isolation of 91
Mount Kenya National Park and National Reserve
Maurice O. Nyaligu and Susie Weeks
Collaborative governance and benefit sharing in Liuwa Plain National Park, western Zambia 103
Vincent R. Nyirenda and Bimo A. Nkhata
Lessons from large-scale conservation networks in Australia 115
James Fitzsimons, Ian Pulsford and Geoff Wescott
4
5 PARKS 2012 Vol 18.1
The designation of geographical entities in this journal, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area,
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.
IUCN does not take any responsibility for errors or omissions occurring in the translations in this document whose
original version is in English.
Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
Copyright: © 2013 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is

authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is
fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without
prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Citation: IUCN WCPA (2013). PARKS. The International Journal of Protected Areas and Conservation,
Volume 19.1, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
ISSN: 0960-233X
Cover photo: Deploying camera traps in MNP, India © WWF India
Editing and layout by: Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley, www.equilibriumresearch.com
Produced by: Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley, www.equilibriumresearch.com
Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

Publications Services
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland
Switzerland
Tel +41 22 999 0000
Fax +41 22 999 0002
[email protected]
www.iucn.org/publications
www.iucn.org/parks
6
PARKS is published electronically twice a year by IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas.
For more information see: www.iucn.org/parks
PARKS is published to strengthen international collaboration in protected area development and
management by:
 exchanging information on practical management issues, especially learning from case
studies of applied ideas;
 serving as a global forum for discussing new and emerging issues that relate to protected
areas;
 promoting understanding of the values and benefits derived from protected areas to
communities, visitors, business etc;
 ensuring that protected areas fulfill their primary role in nature conservation while
addressing critical issues such as ecologically sustainable development, social justice and
climate change adaptation and mitigation;
 changing and improving protected area support and behaviour through use of information
provided in the journal; and
 promoting IUCN’s work on protected areas.
Editors External Experts
Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley, UK: Partners, Equilibrium Nikita (Nik) Lopoukhine, Canada: Former Director General of
Research and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas National Parks, Parks Canada and Chair of IUCN WCPA
(WCPA) Capacity Development Strategic Direction Dr Thora Amend, Peru: GIZ – advisor for protected areas and
people in development contexts. Member of IUCN WCPA,
Editorial Board Members and TILCEPA and Protected Landscapes Specialist Group
IUCN Professor B.C. Choudhury, India: Retired scientist
Trevor Sandwith, Switzerland: Director, IUCN Global (Endangered Species Management Specialist), Wildlife
Protected Areas Programme Institute of India and Coordinator of IUCN's National
Committee
IUCN-WCPA Steering Committee Members
Wayne Lotter, Tanzania: Director, PAMS Foundation and Vice
Dr Ernesto Enkerlin Hoeflich, Mexico: Chair, IUCN WCPA,
President of the International Ranger Federation
Dean for Sustainable Development at Monterrey Tech and
Dr Helen Newing, UK: Durrell Institute of Conservation and
former President of the National Commission on Natural
Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation,
Protected Areas of Mexico
University of Kent
Professor Marc Hockings, Australia: Professor and
Dr Kent Redford, USA: Former Director of the Wildlife
Programme Director (Environmental Management),
Conservation Society (WCS) Institute and Vice President,
University of Queensland; IUCN-WCPA Vice-Chair for
Conservation Strategies at the WCS in New York and
Science, Knowledge and Management of Protected Areas
currently the principal at Archipelago Consulting
and Senior Fellow, UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring
Professor Jatna Supriatna, Indonesia: Former Country
Centre
Director for Conservation International, Indonesia
Cyril Komos, USA: Vice President for Policy, WILD Foundation;
Programme and currently heading a Research Center for
IUCN-WCPA Regional Vice-Chair for North American and the
Climate Change at the University of Indonesia
Caribbean and IUCN-WCPA Wilderness Task Force
Bas Verschuuren, The Netherlands: Core Member,
Dr Kathy MacKinnon, UK: Former Lead Biodiversity Specialist
EarthCollective and Co-Chair, IUCN-WCPA Specialist Group
at the World Bank and IUCN-WCPA Vice-Chair for Protected
on Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas
Areas and Climate Change and the CBD
Dr. Eduard Müller, Costa Rica: Rector, Universidad para la
Cooperación Internacional and IUCN-WCPA Capacity Theme
Thanks to: Helen Miller of Miller Design for layout advice and front cover picture production. Patricia Odio Yglesias
and Paula Salnot for abstract translations. And a special thanks to all the reviewers who so diligently helped in the
production of this issue.
7 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
EDITORIAL: WILDLIFE CRIME POSES UNIQUE

CHALLENGES TO PROTECTED AREAS
Nigel Dudley1*, Sue Stolton2 and Wendy Elliott3
* Corresponding author: [email protected]

1.
Industry Fellow, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management at the
University of Queensland, Equilibrium Research and IUCN-WCPA
2
Equilibrium Research and IUCN WCPA, Rock House, Powys, UK, [email protected]
3
Manager, Global Species Programme, WWF International, Avenue du Mont Blanc, Gland, 1196,
Switzerland, [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Wildlife crime is the fifth largest international criminal activity worldwide. Wildlife and timber
poaching is becoming increasingly organised, increasingly global and more ruthless. Protected areas
are suffering most acutely from this crime wave. They frequently contain the richest biodiversity and
many species valued by poachers are now virtually or completely confined to protected areas.
Managers, rangers and their families are intimidated, attacked and killed. Local communities suffer
threats, disturbance and loss of natural resources from community reserves. Protected areas are
further exposed in many countries by weak judicial processes that fail to prosecute wildlife traders
even if they are caught. These developments signal the need for long-term changes in management in
protected areas containing species sought by wildlife traders; more emphasis on patrolling and
enforcement along with efforts to address corruption, strengthen the judiciary and imporove
enforcement along the rest of the trade chain. Many of these changes are unwelcome in institutions
that have spent decades developing softer approaches to management. Addressing wildlife crime
without losing the benefits of more transparent, consultative and participatory approaches is a
challenge that requires concerted efforts by all those affected.
Much of the world’s protected areas network is being system to function with effectiveness and political
deliberately targeted by increasingly violent and ruthless credibility (Huijbregts et. al. 2013).
criminal syndicates, who move their operations around
the world stripping out the most valuable species for sale Over the last two decades, wildlife crime has developed
on the international market. Unless governments, into a multi-billion dollar industry; by some estimates
protected area mangers, law enforcement agencies, the now the fifth largest international criminal activity after
judicial sector and communities can improve their narcotics, counterfeiting, and illicit trafficking of humans
success at addressing these problems, protected areas and oil. (Haken, 2011). As with narcotics, wildlife crime
will fail to deliver effective conservation for a proportion has become increasingly well organised and violent,
of the world’s most iconic species. As protected areas are posing a new level of threat to those responsible for
in many cases the most significant remaining habitat for managing and protecting wildlife. Problems are
these species, failure means consigning them to escalating fast, in terms of both the scale of poaching and
extinction in the wild. Addressing wildlife crime at the the audacity with which poachers take high value, heavily
intensity it currently exists will require a fundamental protected species. Mass killings of hundreds of elephants
realignment in the way in which protected areas do in individual protected areas have now occurred in
business, as well as a significant increase in law several African countries (Haken, 2011). A sudden surge
enforcement effort to tackle the rest of the trade chain in poaching effort in some areas in the last few years has
and strategically designed efforts to reduce demand. caught authorities off guard. It is estimated that up to
30,000 elephants are killed in Africa each year and rhino
Crucially, the pervasive corruption which currently poaching in South Africa has increased from 13 in 2007
permeates nearly every stage of the law enforcement to 668 in 2012, rolling back years of conservation effort.
process in many regions must be combated for the In many parts of the world poachers have extirpated
Nigel Dudley et al 8
The poacher has often been a romantic figure in popular

culture and folklore: someone relieving the rich and
powerful of resources they had expropriated by force,
often in turn suppressed by ruthless force of law
(Thompson, 1976). There is an extent to which this
attitude remains today; local communities taking game
from protected areas set up on their traditional lands
meet with considerable sympathy (Lewis, 1996).
Similarly, both inside and outside protected areas local
bushmeat hunting has been closely correlated with
shortages of other foods or of money (e.g., Brashares et
al; 2004, Nasi et al, 2008). Addressing these problems is
challenging but is ultimately as much about negotiation
and overall levels of development and wellbeing than it is
to do with heavy-handed enforcement.
THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF WILDLIFE CRIME

What is happening now is both of a different type and a
different order of magnitude. Subsistence poaching is
being overtaken by commercial theft of valuable wildlife
products: resources for the exotic pet trade; freshwater
and marine fish; and ivory and rhino horn to supply the
huge markets in Asia, particularly China, Thailand and
Vietnam.
Criminal syndicates involved in wildlife trafficking are

increasingly well organised, with significant networks of
international connections that enable them to gather and
transport large quantities of illegal wildlife products
across continents. Poaching gangs are better equipped,
heavily armed, technologically savvy and prepared to
move quickly between countries to exploit legal
loopholes, areas of weak enforcement or changing
Seized poachers weapons, Gabon © WWF-Canon / James
demand. The amount of money involved has made the
Morgan
trade increasingly sophisticated, more violent and more
species from large parts of their former range. The loss of susceptible to corruption, including of professionals
the last population of a unique sub-species of Javan within the system (such as veterinarian involvement in
rhinoceros from Cat Tien National Park in Vietnam, was illegal rhino horn trade in South Africa). Illegal wildlife
due to poaching (Brook et al., 2012). For several species products are also used by rebel movements, such as the
whose body parts are particularly valuable to the wildlife Sudan People’s Liberation Army and the Janjaweed
trade, criminal activity is now a greater threat than militia (WWF/Dalberg, 2012), and the Maoists in Nepal
habitat loss. (Baral & Heinen, 2006), to fund their activities.
Governments are often either complicit (Smith &
Analysts still only have an approximate idea of the scale Walpole, 2005) or unable to control the trade, which is
of the problem. The legal trade in wildlife was estimated seen as less serious than other criminal activities (e.g.,
to be US$21 billion a year in 2005 (Rosen and Smith, Shepherd and Nijman, 2008): Corruption and abuse of
2010). Estimates of the parallel illegal trade vary from power can be apparent throughout the system, for
US$5-20 billion (Wyler and Sheikh, 2008), with the high example even if poachers are apprehended they often
value products including tiger parts, caviar, elephant never reach court. A recent survey of governments found
ivory, rhinoceros horn and some exotic birds and mounting concern about the implications for security,
reptiles. sustainable development, natural resources and, due to
Poaching has been a controversial issue ever since people the unregulated movement of animal parts, global health
started claiming natural resources as personal property. (WWF/Dalberg, 2012).
PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

9 www.iucn.org/parks
Illegally poached elephant ivory waits to be burned © WWF-Canon / James Morgan
Protected areas are, in many countries, the major, and which were seen as symptomatic of an old-fashioned,
sometimes the only, remaining habitat for species of colonial attitude to wildlife conservation. But
conservation concern that are targeted for the illegal management by consensus only works where there is a
trade. They are therefore the focus of a large proportion broad agreement on values and aims, and where they
of the illegal wildlife trade (e.g., Yi Ming et al., 2000); system is closed to outsiders and free of violations to the
and in many countries protected areas are subject to agreements. The rising criminality associated with
highly criminalised poaching. Protected area agencies, wildlife trading, mainly driven by wealthy individuals,
primarily established and run by wildlife experts and jeopardises a consensus approach to management.It also
insufficiently equipped or completely unarmed threatens indigenous and community conserved areas as
government park rangers, are now expected to respond much as it does state-run reserves; many coastal
to heavily armed criminal gangs; something akin to communities are finding their traditional fishing reserves
expecting social workers to deal with cross border drug under threat from mobile, offshore fleets and fishing
smuggling cartels. Protected area rangers are killed every collectives are mounting armed patrols to protect their
year in attempts to control poaching and there are resources.
increasing reports of intimidation against family
members. Managers and rangers frequently feel Uncomfortable though it may be, many protected area
unsupported by police and judiciary, and even their own agencies responsible for species valued by the wildlife
hierarchies who may be complicit in the trade, and have trade need to elevate enforcement much higher up their
little incentive to undertake dangerous patrolling list of management priorities. There is good evidence
missions. that poaching levels are closely correlated with
enforcement (e.g., Hilborne et al, 2006 reporting on
IMPLICATIONS FOR PROTECTED AREA Serengeti in Tanzania) and that effective enforcement
MANAGEMENT can indeed help stem the tide of poaching.
For the last few decades or more, the emphasis of
protected area management has increasingly been For enforcement to match the current level of threat,
focused on softer approaches, building on negotiation, there is a need to shift protected area management
participation and consensus and consciously moving further towards performance based accountability. It is
away from the rather militarised and top-down critical that all protected areas implement Adaptive
management approach of the past. Many donors have Tactical Patrolling techniques, including strong Law
been reluctant to support law enforcement activities, Enforcement Monitoring systems. The creation of

The Anti Poaching patrol team in Kui Buri National Park, set up by the Thai government in response to the recent escalation of
Tiger and elephant poaching by organised wildlife crime syndicates, Thailand. Over 1,000 rangers worldwide have lost their
lives protecting wildlife and natural places in the last 10 years. © WWF-Canon / James Morgan
protected area agencies that have legal and financial fundamental level, efforts to target the criminal
independence from central government can also help syndicates at the heart of the trade would be greatly
drive effectiveness. Enforcement strategies need to be facilitated by methodologies used to combat other
location-specific, such as recognising the need for heavier serious crimes such as drug and arms trafficking. These
patrolling activities in densely forested areas than in include controlled deliveries, covert investigation
open plains (Jachmann, 2008) Bi- or multi-lateral techniques, intelligence gathering, forensics and crime
government agreements can provide critical frameworks scene investigation, confiscation of assets, appropriate
for transboundary law enforcement where protected sentencing and extradition (ICCWC, 2012).
areas cross one or more national boundaries.
Informant networks around protected area territories are INTERNATIONAL RESPONSES

also an essential tool for effective law enforcement, There are signs that the global community is waking up
ensuring patrolling effort is well targeted and that to the scale of the threat facing wildlife and to the wider
poachers can be apprehended before animals are lost. implications for human society. Formation of the
All intelligence gathered from informant networks or International Consortium for Combating Wildlife Trade,
arrested suspects should feed into national and regional between CITES, the Convention on International Trade
intelligence systems to help articulate links to trafficking on Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna,
syndicates. INTERPOL, The World Bank, the UN Office on Drugs
and Crime and the World Customs Organisation, marks a
Agencies addressing wildlife crime also need to match new determination to bring the full array of enforcement
the criminals in terms of technological sophistication and measures against wildlife crime (UNODC, 2012), and
new tools are becoming available all the time, such as there is increasing engagement of non-environmental
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to facilitate patrolling, DNA fora such as the UN Convention Against Transnational
profiling to track origin of traded animals (Baker et al., Organised Crime and the Commission on Crime
2007; Wasser et al., 2007); use of satellite imagery to Prevention and Criminal Justice. After decades of
track ships involved in illegal fishing; and electronic inaction, governments are starting to be held accountable
coding of logs to track legal shipments. On a more for wildlife crime - the last CITES Conference of the

www.iucn.org/parks
11
Parties put several countries ‘on notice’ due to illegal Baral, N. and J.T. Heinen. (2006). The Maoist people’s war and
ivory or rhino horn trade problems, with specific action conservation in Nepal. Politics and the Life Sciences 24 (1-
required to avoid CITES compliance measures, which 2): 1-11.
include sanctions. Most critically, high level politicians Brashares, J.S., P. Arcese, M.K. Sam, P.B. Coppolillo, A.R.E.
Sinclair and A. Balmford. (2004). Bushmeat Hunting,
are increasingly acknowledging that wildlife crime is a
Wildlife Declines, and Fish Supply in West Africa. Science
serious crime, as outlined by the statements and 306: 1180-1183
commitments made by heads of state in international Brook, S.M., P. van Coeverden de Groot, C. Scott, P. Boag, B.
fora such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Long, R.E. Ley, G. Reischer, A.C. Williams, S.P. Mahood,
Rio+20 Outcome Document, and the UN General Tran Minh Hien, G. Polet, N. Cox and Bach Thanh Hai.
(2012). Integrated and novel survey methods for
Assembly, although this political commitment still needs rhinoceros populations confirm the extinction of
to be comprehensively translated into action. Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus from Vietnam.
Biological Conservation 155: 59-67
On a more practical level, penalties for criminals Haken, J. (2011). Transnational Crime In The Developing
World. Washington, DC, USA: Global Financial Integrity
convicted of wildlife trafficking are beginning to improve:
Hilborn, R., P. Arcese, M. Borner, J. Hando, G. Hopcraft, M.
in April 2013 Japan increased the maximum penalty for Loibooki, S. Mduma and A.R.E. Sinclair. (2006). Effective
wildlife trafficking from one to five years and there is a Enforcement in a Conservation Area Science 314: 1266.
growing (yet still small) number of highly significant Huijbregts B., Bour P., Drori O., Elkan P., Feistner A., Froment
prosecutions, such as the 40 year jail sentence given in J.M., Greer D., Gotanegre A., Douglas Hamilton I., Honing
N., Ilambu O., Mathot L,. Nzooh Z., Ononino A., Pélissier
South Africa late last year to a convicted Thai national
C., Scholte P., Roulet P.A., De Wachter P. (2013). The ivory
kingpin in a rhino horn poaching racket. On-ground traffic crisis and wildlife management in Central Africa.
responses to these crimes have increased significantly in Technical paper, March 2013
some areas – several African countries have launched International Consortium on Combatting Wildlife Crime
elite military responses to large scale poaching threats, (ICCWC). (2012). Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic
Toolkit. Vienna, Austria: UN Office on Drugs and Crime
the latest in Cameroon involving 600 elite troops.
Jachmann, H. (2008). Illegal wildlife use and protected area
management in Ghana. Biological Conservation 141: 1906-
So far the unique role of protected areas has received less 1918
attention. We need urgent steps to bring protected area Lewis, C. (ed.) (1996). Managing Conflicts in Protected Areas.
agencies more centrally into strategic discussions about Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
Nasi, R., D. Brown, D. Wilkie, E. Bennett, C. Tutin, G. van Tol
controlling trade; without their support – and without and T. Christophersen. (2008). Conservation and use of
greater support for them in turn – these efforts are likely wildlife-based resources: the bushmeat crisis. Secretariat
to be wasted. of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, and
Technical Series no. Bogor, Indonesia: 33Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Rosen, G.E. and K.F. Smith. (2010). Summarising the evidence
The authors would like to thank the following people for on the internationalisation of illegal wildlife. EcoHealth 7:
commenting and contributing to the text: Barney Long, 24-32.
Manager Asian Species Conservation Programs, WWF- Shepherd, C.R. and V. Nijman. (2008). The trade in bear parts
from Myanmar: an illustration of the ineffectiveness of
US; Craig Bruce, Tiger NI Protected Area and Law
enforcement of international wildlife trade regulations.
Enforcement Specialist, WWF; Bas Huijbregts, Head of Biodiversity Conservation 17: 35-42
Policy Engagement, Illegal Wildlife trade Campaign Smith, R.J. and M.J. Walpole. 2005. Should conservationists
Congo Basin, WWF-Central Africa Regional Programme pay more attention to corruption?. Oryx 39 (3): 251-256.
Office; David Greer, Coordinator African Great Apes Thompson, E.P. 1976. Whigs and Hunters: The origins of the
Black Act. Pantheon
Programme, WWF-International; Elisabeth McLellan,
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). (2012).
Manager, Species Programme, WWF-International and Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit. New York, USA:
Jo Shaw, Rhino Co-ordinator, WWF-South Africa. United Nations
Wasser, S.K., C. Mailand, R. Booth, B. Mutayoba, E. Kisamo, B.
Clark and M. Stephens. (2007). Using DNA to track the
origin of the largest ivory seizure since the 1989 trade
ban. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104
REFERENCES (10): 4228-4233.
Baker C.S., J.C. Cooke, S. Lavery, M.L.Dalebout, Y.U. Ma, N. Wyler, L.S. and P.A. Sheikh. (2008). International illegal trade
Funahashi, C. Carraher and R.L. Brownell Jr. (2007). in wildlife: threats and US policy. Washington DC, USA:
Estimating the number of whales entering trade using Congressional Research Service
DNA profiling and capture–recapture analysis of market Yi-Ming, L., G. Zenxiang, L. Xinhai, W. Sung and J. Niemela.
products. Molecular Ecology 16(13):2617-26., (2000). Illegal wildlife trade in the Himalayan region of
doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03317.x. China. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 901-918

WWF/Dalberg. (2012). Fighting illicit wildlife trafficking: A Environmental, Economic and Social Policy and works
consultation with governments. Gland, Switzerland: WWF with Equilibrium Research in the UK. Her work focuses
International particularly on assessment of the effectiveness and wider
benefits of protected areas, particularly in association
ABOUT THE AUTHORS with WWF, UNESCO and IUCN.
Nigel Dudley is Industry Fellow, School of Geography,
Planning and Environmental Management at the Wendy Elliott is a manager for the Global Species
University of Queensland, vice chair for natural solutions Programme of WWF International, and is currently one
for the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and of the co-leaders of the WWF/TRAFFIC Illegal Wildlife
works with Equilibrium Research in the UK. His work Trade Campaign. Wendy has been with WWF for around
focuses principally on integration of protected areas into 9 years, based from the UK, Italy and now
wider environmental management strategies. Switzerland. Wendy’s role includes supporting WWF’s
field programmes for flagship species, as well as
Sue Stolton is lead editor of PARKS journal, a member international species related policy and advocacy.
of IUCN WCPA and the IUCN Commission on
RESUMEN
Los delitos contra la vida silvestre son la quinto actividad delictiva internacional más grande del mundo. La caza furtiva
y la explotación maderera ilegal son actividades cada vez más organizadas, más globales y más despiadadas. Las áreas
protegidas están sufriendo de forma más aguda los embates de esta ola delictiva. Con frecuencia contienen la
biodiversidad más rica y muchas especies apreciadas por los cazadores furtivos están ahora práctica o totalmente
confinadas a las áreas protegidas. Los administradores y los guarda parques y sus familias son intimidados, atacados y
asesinados. Las comunidades locales sufren amenazas y alteraciones y la pérdida de los recursos naturales de las
reservas comunitarias. Las áreas protegidas se ven más expuestas en muchos países por la debilidad de los procesos
judiciales que no logran enjuiciar a los comerciantes de vida silvestre, incluso si son atrapados. Estos hechos señalan la
necesidad de cambios a largo plazo en la gestión de las áreas protegidas que contienen especies buscadas por los
comerciantes de vida silvestre, incluyendo más énfasis en el patrullaje y la aplicación de la ley, junto con la creación de
capacidades tendientes a asegurar el apoyo eficaz de la comunidad judicial en general. Muchos de estos cambios no son
bienvenidos en las instituciones que han pasado décadas desarrollando enfoques de gestión más blandos. El abordaje
de los delitos contra la vida silvestre sin perder los beneficios de enfoques más transparentes, consultivos y
participativos es un reto que precisa de los esfuerzos concertados de todos los afectados.
RÉSUMÉ
La criminalité contre les espèces sauvages est la cinquième activité criminelle internationale dans le monde. Le
braconnage d’espèces sauvages ainsi que le trafic de bois illégal deviennent de plus en plus organisés, mondiaux et sans
pitié. Les aires protégées souffrent davantage de cette vague criminelle. Elles abritent en effet souvent la plus riche
diversité biologique et accueillent de nombreuses espèces valorisées par les braconniers, aujourd’hui pratiquement –
voire complètement – confinées aux aires protégées. Les gestionnaires d’aires protégées, les gardes et leurs familles sont
intimidés, attaqués, et même assassinés. Les communautés locales sont menacées, perturbées et dépossédées des
ressources naturelles de leurs réserves communautaires. Les aires protégées sont davantage exposées dans les
nombreux pays où la justice défaillante ne condamne pas les trafiquants d’espèces sauvages, même lorsque ceux-ci sont
arrêtés. Il est donc essentiel de changer à long-terme la gestion des aires protégées accueillant des espèces
particulièrement recherchées par les trafiquants ; de mettre davantage l’accent sur les patrouilles et l’application de la
loi ; et de renforcer les capacités pour fournir un soutien efficace à la communauté judiciaire dans son ensemble.
Cependant, beaucoup de ces changements ne sont pas les bienvenus dans des institutions qui adoptent depuis des
décennies des approches de gestion plus souples. Lutter contre la criminalité liée aux espèces sauvages sans perdre les
avantages des approches transparentes, consultatives et participatives mises en place est donc un défi qui demande,
pour être relevé, des efforts concertés de toutes les parties prenantes.

13 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE CBD PROTECTED

AREA MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS TARGETS
Lauren Coad1,2,3*, Fiona Leverington2, Neil D. Burgess3, Ivon C. Cuadros2,
Jonas Geldmann4, Toby R. Marthews1, Jessie Mee5, Christoph Nolte6,
Susanne Stoll-Kleemann7, Nanna Vansteelant4, Camilo Zamora2, Mark
Zimsky8, and Marc Hockings2,3
* Corresponding author, [email protected]

1
Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography, University of Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK
2
School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
3
The United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
Cambridge. UK
4
Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Department of Biology, University of
Copenhagen, Denmark
5
Environment and Energy Group, United Nations Development Programme, New York, USA
6
School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
48109, United States
7
Institute for Geography and Geology, University of Greifswald, D-17487 , Germany
8
Natural Resources Division, The Global Environment Facility, Washington DC, USA
ABSTRACT
The management effectiveness of protected areas is a critically important consideration for their
conservation success. Over 40 different protected area management effectiveness (PAME) data
collection tools have been developed to systematically assess protected area management
effectiveness. Many of these assessments have recently been collated into the Global IUCN Protected
Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) database. We use the PAME database together with and the
World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) to assess current progress towards the Convention on
Biological Diversity’s (CBD) 2010 and 2015 targets for PAME, which call for at least 30 per cent and 60
per cent of the total area of protected areas to have been assessed in terms of management
effectiveness, respectively. We show that globally 29 per cent of the area protected has been assessed
and 23 per cent of countries have reached the 60 per cent target. In addition 46 per cent of countries
have reached the 30 per cent target. However, analytical results show that there are biases in the type
of protected area assessed; protected areas with larger areas, and protected areas designated as
National Parks (IUCN category II) are much more likely to have conducted a PAME assessment. In
addition there is a paucity of PAME assessments from Europe and North America, where assessments
of protected area management may already be integrated into protected area planning and monitoring
systems, creating a challenge for reporting to the CBD. We further discuss the potential and limitations
of PAME assessments as tools for tracking and evaluating protected area management, and the need
for further assessment tools to address the ‘equity’ elements of Target 11 of the CBD.
INTRODUCTION By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland

Protected areas have long been regarded as an important water, and 10 percent of coastal and marine areas,
tool for biodiversity conservation (e.g. WCED, 1987), and especially areas of particular importance for
are used as indicators of progress in the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved
biological diversity by a number of international through effectively and equitably managed,
agreements, including the Convention on Biological ecologically representative and well connected systems
Diversity (CBD). The CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets, of protected areas and other effective area-based
agreed on by Parties to the Convention in October 2010, conservation measures, and integrated into the wider
include the following target for protected areas: landscapes and seascapes’. Target 11, CBD (emphasis
(www.cbd.int/sp/targets/): added).

Lauren Coad et al 14
This new Aichi target was developed from the earlier their management regime. In some cases assessments
CBD Target 1.1 (set in 2003), which called for: ‘at least 10 are undertaken in response to donor requirements
per cent of each of the world's ecological regions [to be] associated with project support for a protected area or as
effectively conserved’. Target 1.1, Decision VII/30, CBD part of an NGO sponsored assessment and improvement
project (Hockings et al., 2004a, Leverington et al.,
Analyses of progress towards Target 1.1 have to date 2010b). Assessments are also undertaken in response to
tended to measure protected area coverage (Chape et al., central government requirements to monitor and report
2005, Coad et al., 2008, Spalding et al., 2008, Coad et on protected area management (e.g. NSW Audit Office,
al., 2009a, Coad et al., 2009b, Jenkins and Joppa, 2009) 2004, Auditor General of Queensland, 2010). In 2000,
and ecological representativeness (Rodrigues et al., the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
2004, Spalding et al., 2007, Schmitt et al., 2009, Herbert (WCPA) developed an overarching framework to guide
et al., 2010) facilitated by the availability of open-access assessment of management effectiveness that has been
global datasets on protected area locations (e.g. The widely used around the world (Hockings et al., 2000,
World Database on Protected Areas – WDPA) and global Hockings et al., 2006). According to this framework, the
frameworks of ecological regions and key areas for evaluation of management effectiveness can be carried
biodiversity (Olson et al., 2001, Eken et al., 2004). In out for a variety of reasons, including providing better
terms of global protected area coverage, Parties have management in a changing environment, effective
made significant progress towards achieving Target 1.1 resource allocation, improved accountability and
for terrestrial biodiversity: over 50 per cent of terrestrial transparency, community involvement, and promotion of
ecoregions have 10 per cent or more of their area within protected area values.
protected areas, although marine ecosystems are still
severely under-represented (Spalding et al., 2008, Coad The WCPA framework was developed to provide overall
et al., 2009b). guidance for the evaluation of management, the selection
of appropriate indicators and the analysis and
However, protected area coverage alone is not a application of assessment results. It has been used to
sufficient indicator for meeting global biodiversity develop over 40 different protected area management
targets. There has been a growing concern amongst effectiveness (PAME) data collection tools to
protected area managers and conservation scientists that systematically assess protected area management
many protected areas around the world are not achieving effectiveness at the individual protected area level and at
the conservation objectives for which they were a national system level (Leverington et al., 2010a; also
established, because of a lack of effective management see www.wdpa.org/me).
(Hockings et al., 2004b, Dudley & Stolton, 2009). In
response to this concern, in 2004 the CBD established A global study into management effectiveness evaluation
the Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) was launched in late 2005 and completed in 2010
and set a preliminary global target for 30 per cent of the (Leverington et al., 2008, Leverington et al., 2010a,
world’s protected areas to have assessed the effectiveness Nolte et al., 2010). The aim of the study was to obtain a
of their management by 2010 (Goal 4.2, CBD PoWPA) global picture of protected area effectiveness and to track
(see Coad et al., 2009). This targeted was updated at the CBD targets and reporting needs on behalf of the
CBD’s COP 10, when addition to introducing the call for international conservation community. To achieve this
‘effective and equitable’ management of protected areas aim, all existing PAME assessments were collated into a
in Target 11, the CBD Aichi targets expanded the single database. The resulting database has since been
mandate for management effectiveness assessment. updated as part of a collaborative research effort between
Inviting “...Parties to…expand and institutionalize the University of Queensland and the University of
management effectiveness assessments to work towards Oxford, with inputs from various other NGO,
assessing 60 per cent of the total area of government and intergovernmental partners 1. The
protected areas by 2015 using various national and database contains PAME assessments from 1991 to 2012.
regional tools and report the results into the global There are likely to be recent assessments that have not
database on management effectiveness…” CBD Aichi yet been located and added to the PAME database,
Targets, COP 10 Decision X/31, 19a (emphasis added). despite the authors’ best efforts. However, we believe
that as a result of the high level of outreach to protected
Undertaking an assessment of management effectiveness area managers, donors, NGOs, government and
allows conservation agencies to understand better their intergovernmental partners and the wider conservation
strengths and weaknesses and to adapt and improve community during the Global Study, which has been

Gathering data for a management effectiveness assessment in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and World Heritage Site in
Uganda © Marc Hockings
followed with regular updates from partners such as  WDPA

IUCN, The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the We used the December 2012 version of the WDPA for
Global Environment Facility (GEF), the majority of analysis (IUCN & UNEP, 2012). The WDPA is provided
assessments up to 2010 are now contained in the as two separate GIS shapefiles: ‘WDPA polygons’ for
database. protected areas where the boundary and shape of the
protected area is known, and ‘WDPA points’ for
In this paper we use the updated IUCN PAME database, protected areas where only the point location is known.
together with the UNEP WCMC / IUCN WDPA (IUCN & Where sites only existed in the WDPA as a point location,
UNEP, 2012), to conduct a spatial analysis of national we used the ‘buffer’ tool in ArcGIS to create a circular
and global progress towards the ‘effectiveness’ element of polygon of the same size as the given area of the
Aichi Target 11 and the PoWPA. We ask specifically protected area (as recorded in the WDPA), with the point
whether countries have achieved the CBD 60 per cent location as its centroid. We then used the ‘Merge’ tool to
Aichi target for management effectiveness assessments of add the buffered points to the existing WDPA polygon
nationally designated protected areas. We then explore shapefile. We included protected areas with a
the protected area characteristics that significantly designation status of ‘adopted’, ‘designated’, ‘inscribed’
predict whether a protected area has been evaluated. We and ‘not reported’, and excluded ‘proposed’ protected
discuss the results in terms of the future work required to areas. All reserves with international designations
measure progress toward the CBD Aichi Target for 17 per (World Heritage, Ramsar and Man and Biosphere) were
cent of the world’s protected areas to be effectively and removed leaving only nationally designated reserves, as
equitably managed. most international designations either duplicate national
reserves or may not meet the requirements for full
METHODS protected area status (selection of nationally designated
 Data preparation areas has also been applied in previous analyses of
All spatial analyses were carried out using the ESRI protected area coverage: see Jenkins & Joppa, 2009, and
ArcGIS 10.1 programme (ESRI, 2012). We used the Schmitt et al., 2009, among others). The final version of
Mollweide Equal Area projection for all analyses. Results the WDPA for analysis contained 168,054 nationally
are displayed in the Robinson projection. designated protected areas, of which 12 per cent were

Figure 1: The location of protected areas that have conducted a PAME assessment. Marine and terrestrial nationally designated
protected areas are included.
buffered points. Where detailed polygons in the ‘WDPA  Calculating assessed area per country
polygon’ shapefile exist, this results in large numbers of GIS overlay analyses (assessments with WDPA
vertices in the shapefile, which can produce ID): We followed the analyses steps outlined by Bubb et
geoprocessing errors during analysis. To avoid these al. (2008) for global protected area coverage analyses.
errors we used the ArcGIS ‘Repair Geometry’ tool to We linked the WDPA shapefile with the list of assessed
check and correct for any further geometry errors (ESRI, PAs, by WDPA ID, using the ‘join’ tool. From this, we
2012). then created a new shapefile of all assessed PAs. We used
the ‘dissolve’ tool to dissolve all assessed protected area
 PAME data
polygons within each country. We repeated this dissolve
Management effectiveness assessments have been
for the total WDPA. This resulted in two final shapefiles:
systematically collated in the IUCN PAME database,
one providing the total area of assessed nationally
which is maintained and hosted by the University of
designated protected areas (for those with WDPA IDs)
Queensland (UQ). Data held in the database includes
for each country, and a second providing the total area of
protected area name, WDPA Unique Identifier (WDPA
all nationally designated protected areas for each
ID), year of assessment, methodologies, indicators and
country.
assessment tools used and, where available, assessment
results. In this analysis we used all assessments entered
into the IUCN PAME database up until 30th November Assessments without WDPA ID: The area (km2) of
2012. The November 2012 version of the PAME database assessed protected areas without a WDPA ID was
holds 10,501 assessments for 6,741 sites. summed for each country, using the area of the protected
area provided in the IUCN PAME database. This area
In the IUCN PAME database, for each PAME assessment was then added to the total area of protected areas
we recorded the WDPA ID for the appropriate national assessed for each country, and the total area of protected
protected area record in the WDPA. For those areas for each country. In total, 232 nations were
assessments where no WDPA ID existed we noted the assessed, using the International Organisation for
area of the protected area in hectares, either from the Standardisation (ISO) 3166-1 A3 list to define nations.
original PAME assessment, or from a reputable Dependent territories were added to their parent nations.
government or NGO data source. We only included countries that had protected areas

Figure 2: Regional progress towards the CBD 30 per cent and 60 per cent targets for PAME assessments. Progress is measured
by the percentage of the total area of the nationally designated protected area network that has been assessed in each region.
recorded in the WDPA; Countries with no recorded predominantly established for strict biodiversity
protected areas were excluded from the analyses. conservation, and those which allow for some level of
sustainable use and/or human intervention. These
 Calculating assessed area globally and per groupings have previously been used in analyses of
region protected area coverage (see Scharlemann et al., 2010
Countries were grouped into regions according to the and Joppa & Pfaff, 2011 for examples). We included UN
United Nations geoscheme. The area of assessed and region and UN Human Development Index (HDI) as
unassessed protected areas for countries within each regional and country-level predictors.
region was summed to find the percentage of assessed
area for each region. All statistical analyses were carried out using the R
statistical package (R Development Core Team, 2012).
Surprisingly, given the heterogeneity of the regions
 Identifying predictors of PAME
analysed, the data were not overdispersed (dispersion
assessment
parameter = 1) so no correction for this was necessary
To identify which protected area characteristics
(Gelman & Hill, 2007).
significantly predict whether a PAME assessment had
been carried out in a protected area, we used a
generalized linear model (GLM) with a binomial error
RESULTS: GLOBAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
structure (i.e. multivariate logisitic regression, Pinheiro PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 60 PER CENT AICHI
& Bates, 2000). At the level of an individual protected TARGET
area we were limited in our predictors to those with Globally, 29 per cent of the area of nationally designated
characteristics that have been routinely documented by protected areas has been assessed for PAME. The
the WDPA: area (in km2), IUCN management category location of assessed and unassessed protected area s is
and year of establishment (converted into ‘age of shown in Figure 1. Regionally, Africa has assessed the
protected area (years)’ for the purposes of these largest proportion by area (44 per cent). Latin America,
analyses). We grouped IUCN categories (Dudley, 2008) Asia and Europe have also reached the 2010 CBD
into two factor levels category I – II and III – VI, to PoWPA target of 30 per cent assessed (Figure 2). Oceania
distinguish between protected areas which have been has not yet met the 30 per cent target, with 17 per cent of

Figure 3: National progress towards the CBD 30 per cent and 60 per cent targets for PAME assessments. Progress is measured
by the percentage of the total area of the nationally designated protected area network that has been assessed
the protected area assessed. Northern America has the all sites assessed (Figure 6). There was also a significant
least assessed area of all regions, with less than 3 per effect of protected area age (year of establishment) on the
cent of its area assessed, according to PAME records probability of assessment, with younger protected areas
currently held in the database. slightly less likely to have been assessed, although the
effect was very small (Table 1). Protected areas in
Nationally, 46 per cent of the countries listed (90 developing countries were more likely to be assessed
countries in total) met the 2010 target of 30 per cent, than those in more developed countries, the frequency of
with 23 per cent (45) already achieving the 60 per cent assessment declining significantly with increasing HDI
target of 2015 (Figures 3 and 4). However, for 52 scores (Table 1). However, there were significant regional
countries (26 per cent) no assessments have been biases in the results in addition to the differences in
recorded in the PAME database. terms of development between nations. In relation to
African protected areas in general, Latin American,
PREDICTORS OF ASSESSMENT Caribbean and Oceanian protected areas were also more
Wald test statistics, which indicate the relative weights of likely to have carried out a management assessment with
the explanatory variables in the model, showed that the Asian, European and, especially Northern American,
size of the protected area was the most significant protected areas were less likely.
predictor of whether an assessment had been carried out;
followed by IUCN protected area management category DISCUSSION
(Table 1). Larger protected areas were significantly more In this paper we measured progress towards the CBD
likely to have conducted a PAME assessment (Figure 5 2010 and 2015 PAME targets. The results of our analyses
Table 1). Protected areas with an IUCN protected area are encouraging, suggesting that for over 23 per cent of
management category of I - II were also significantly countries the 60 per cent target for 2015 has already
more likely to have been assessed than protected areas been achieved, according to the PAME assessments
with another management category, even when currently held in the database. A much higher proportion
controlling for area (Table 1). National Parks (category (46 per cent) has achieved the 30 per cent target for
II) had the highest assessment rate, with 30 per cent of 2010. In addition, we continue to receive data from a

Figure 4: The number of countries reaching the CBD 30 per cent and 60 per cent targets for PAME assessments
number of sources, including regular updates from the and Central Africa reaching the 60 per cent target. This is
GEF, and hence the number of assessments in now likely to a large extent due to the strong efforts of IUCN in that
to be greater than that held in the November 2012 region through the PAPACO project 2 (Leverington et al.,
version of the PAME database. 2010b), which has collated and conducted evaluations as
part of a targeted programme. Latin America and Asia
However, progress towards the targets is not evenly have also assessed a large proportion of their total
spread across the globe. Africa has the highest protected areas by area. Additionally, protected areas
percentage area assessed, with many countries in West were more likely to be assessed if they were from
Table 1: Parameter estimates of a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) with binomial error structure, showing the significant
predictors of whether an individual protected area has conducted a management effectiveness assessment
Predictor Variables
(minimal model) Estimate S.E. z p
Intercept -2.42 0.19 -12.82 <0.001
2
Ln (protected area in km ) 0.96 0.02 48.62 <0.001
Protected area IUCN Category I - II 1.62 0.04 38.55 <0.001
Protected area age (years) 0.01 0.00 10.65 <0.001
Country Human Development Index -2.35 0.30 -7.87 <0.001
Region:
Asia -0.82 0.11 -7.61 <0.001
Europe -1.48 0.14 -10.68 <0.001
Latin America and the Caribbean 0.77 0.12 6.57 <0.001
Northern America -3.64 0.25 -14.43 <0.001
Oceania 1.04 0.15 6.77 <0.001
Notes: N = 168,054, of which 4,922 protected areas (with WDPA ID) had a management effectiveness assessment. Reference level
for UN Region is Africa, and for IUCN category is III – VI. Note that all these predictors were highly significant in the full model (p-
values very close to zero), therefore no model selection step was required (Pinheiro & Bates, 2000), z values are Wald test scores
showing the degree of association between the predictor and the probability of having had a management assessment (= square
roots of χ2 statistics).

Figure 5: Boxplot showing the median area (and IQ range) of assessed and unassessed protected areas. Median
area of assessed protected areas = 74.7 km2, median area of unassessed protected areas = 0.30 km 2
countries with a lower HDI score. The role of many large CBD via these intergovernmental organizations. For
donor organizations, which predominantly work in example, at a national level, Canada undertakes
developing countries, in carrying out PAME assessments assessments through their State of the Parks systems
(Belokurov and Besancon, 2009) could partly explain and, where available, these assessments are included in
this geographic bias in reported assessments. For the PAME database.
example, all protected area targeting projects funded by
the GEF since 2004 have been required to complete the These analyses did not consider the different
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) organizations undertaking PAME assessments, but this
(Stolton et al., 2007) at least three times for each topic warrants further investigation. Although many
targeted protected area. As the single largest source of PAME assessments may be carried out on a protected
finance for biodiversity and ecosystem management area-by-protected area basis, in some countries
globally, the GEF makes a significant impact in achieving assessments have been integrated into regional and
PAME targets through this reporting requirement in national management of protected area systems (for
partner developing and in-transition countries; more example, NSW DEC, 2005). The case of Australia, which
than 300 protected areas in approximately 100 countries as a country has achieved the 30 per cent target (Figure
around the world are currently required to regularly 1), clearly shows a regional difference in assessments,
complete METTs in line with the GEF reporting with eastern Australia accounting for the majority of
requirement. Australian assessments (of which the Great Barrier Reef
assessment accounts for a significant area). In Victoria,
Our results also show that only few assessments on New South Wales and Queensland, PAME assessments
PAME have been undertaken for protected areas in have been adopted as a planning tool for state protected
North America and Western Europe, despite a dedicated area management and are conducted every few years.
effort, particularly for Europe (Nolte et al., 2010) to bring
together all PAME information. This may not imply that As well as a geographical bias, we also found a bias in the
these countries do not evaluate the effectiveness of their type of protected area being assessed. National Parks
protected area networks; they may already have were much more likely to have been assessed (30 per
systematic assessments of effectiveness as part of their cent of protected areas assessed) than those with another
internal protected area monitoring systems, independent IUCN management category (1 – 7 per cent of protected
from the IUCN or donor networks. Even where these areas assessed). Protected areas with a larger area were
data exist in North America and Europe, they may not be also more likely to have been assessed. This bias towards
available through IUCN or UNEP WCMC networks and larger protected areas and National Parks is not
this creates a challenge for a seamless reporting to the surprising; National Parks could be described as the

Figure 6: The percentage of protected areas that have undertaken a PAME assessment, by IUCN management
category
‘charismatic mega fauna’ of protected areas. They are current sample of assessed protected areas is strongly
often designated for their high biodiversity value or biased towards large protected areas and National Parks.
spectacular landscapes, but also for their recreation and/ Some or all of these limitations in the data can be
or spiritual value, and are therefore likely to attract more overcome; however, they must be considered when using
funding and attention (and more likely to have PAME assessments to track progress towards
monitoring and assessment structures in place, or have international biodiversity targets.
been given funding which requires a PAME assessment
to be completed) than smaller areas with less emphasis The PAME database, and the kind of information it
on visitation and tourism. Older protected areas were contains, is valuable, but not in itself sufficient, for
also slightly more likely to have been assessed. This effect tracking CBD Target 11. To address the “equity” element
is possibly driven by the low rate of assessment in very of the Target 11, there is an urgent need for more detailed
recently designated protected areas, in which protected and systematic assessment of the social and governance
area management is more likely to be in the preliminary aspects of protected area management. IUCN and others
stages and management effectiveness assessments may are currently working to improve both the social
not yet be a priority, and/or the time lag between an indicators of management effectiveness and to create
assessment being completed and its entry into the PAME additional tools for the social assessment of protected
database. areas (IUCN TILCEPA, 2010). Information on
biodiversity outcomes is captured, in part, in
Target 11 of the CBD’s Aichi targets calls for ‘effectively management effectiveness assessments but will be better
managed’ protected areas and protected area networks to informed by the work of the IUCN WCPA-SSC Task
be conserved. PAME evaluations, although not designed Force on Biodiversity Outcomes of Protected Areas 3.
as a tool for collecting scientific data, may provide the With these initiatives currently in the design stages, the
first global-scale sample of data on protected area time is ripe for a discussion within the wider
providing data for over 6,700 protected areas on core conservation community as to how we evaluate protected
management inputs, context, process, outputs and area management at local, regional and global levels,
outcomes. However, most PAME assessments were not what we are hoping to achieve with these evaluations,
primarily designed to track CBD target progress, but and which tools might help us best achieve our aims.
rather as a tool to help protected area managers start the
process of adaptive management at a site and system
level. Most of the assessments are completed by
protected area managers, and this may introduce
reporting biases. In addition, as these analyses show, the

NOTES Hockings, M., S. Stolton, and N. Dudley. (2000). Evaluating

1 Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management of
Some records in the dataset were provided on the basis that
protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
they were only used for global analyses and access to site
Hockings, M., S. Stolton, and N. Dudley. (2004b).
data is restricted. For information on the database, contact
Management Effectiveness - assessing management of
Marc Hockings at [email protected]
2 protected areas. Journal of Environmental Policy and
For more information see: http://cms.iucn.org/fr/papaco/
3 Planning 6: 157 - 174.
For more information see: http://www.iucn.org/about/
Hockings, M., S. Stolton, F. Leverington, N. Dudley, and J.
work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_biodiversity/
Courrau. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework
gpap_wcpabiodiv/gpap_pabiodiv/
for assessing management effectiveness of protected
areas. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
IUCN and UNEP. (2012). The World Database on Protected
REFERENCES Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. http://
Auditor General of Queensland. (2010). Sustainable www.protectedplanet.net.
management of national parks and protected areas: A IUCN TILCEPA. (2010). Joint PAEL-TILCEPA workshop on
performance audit. Report to Parliament No 9 for 2010. Protected Areas Management Evaluation & Social
Brisbane, Australia: Auditor General of Queensland Assessment of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Belokurov, A. and C. Besancon. (2009). New resources for Jenkins, C. N. and L. Joppa. (2009). Expansion of the global
assessing the effectiveness of management in protected terrestrial protected area system. Biological Conservation
areas. Oryx 43:14 - 14. 142:2166-2174.
Bubb, P., L. Fish, and V. Kapos. (2008). Coverage of protected Joppa, L. N. and A. Pfaff. 2011. Global protected area impacts.
areas. Guidance for national and regional use. Cambridge, Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences
UK: UNEP-WCMC 278:1633-1638.
Chape, S., J. Harrison, M. Spalding, and I. Lysenko. (2005). Leverington, F., K. Costa, J. Courrau, H. Pavese, C. Nolte, M.
Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected Marr, L. Coad, N. D. Burgess, B. Bomhard, and M.
areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity Hockings. (2010a). Management effectiveness evaluation
targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B- in protected areas: a global study. Second edition. St.
Biological Sciences 360:443-455. Lucia, Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland,
Coad, L., N. D. Burgess, B. Bomhard, and C. Besancon. (2009a). IUCN- WCPA, TNC, WWF
Progress Towards the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Leverington, F., K. Costa, H. Pavese, A. Lisle, and M. Hockings.
2010 and 2012 Targets for Protected Area Coverage. (2010b). A global analysis of protected area management
Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC effectiveness. Environmental Management 46:685 - 698.
Coad, L., N. D. Burgess, L. Fish, C. Ravilious, C. Corrigan, H. Leverington, F., M. Hockings, and K. Costa. (2008).
Pavese, A. Granziera, and C. Besancon. (2008). Progress Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas -
towards the Convention on Biological Diversity terrestrial a global study. Brisbane, Australia: University of
2010 and marine 2012 targets for protected area Queensland
coverage. PARKS 17. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Nolte, C., F. Leverington, A. Kettner, M. Marr, G. Neilsen, B.
Coad, L., N. D. Burgess, C. Loucks, L. Fish, J. P. W. Bomhard, S. Stolton, S. Stoll-Kleemann, and M. Hockings.
Scharlemann, L. Duarte, and C. Besancon. (2009b). The (2010). Protected area management effectiveness
ecological representativeness of the global protected assessments in Europe. A review of application, methods
areas estate in 2009: progress towards the CBD 2010 and results. Bonn, Germany: Federal Ministry of the
target. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
Dudley, N. (ed.) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area NSW Audit Office. (2004). Performance audit: managing
Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. natural and cultural heritage in parks and reserves:
Dudley, N. and S. Stolton (eds). (2009). Protected area National Parks and wildlife service. Sydney, Australia: The
management effectiveness: METT. NORAD. Audit Office of New South Wales
Eken, G., L. Bennun, T. M. Brooks, W. Darwall, L. D. C. NSW DEC. (2005). State of the Parks 2004. Sydney, Australia:
Fishpool, M. Foster, D. Knox, P. Langhammer, P. Matiku, E. NSW Department of Environment, Conservation (NSW DEC)
Radford, P. Salaman, W. Sechrest, M. L. Smith, S. Spector, Olson, D. M., E. Dinerstein, E. D. Wikramanayake, N. D.
and A. Tordoff. (2004). Key biodiversity areas as site Burgess, G. V. N. Powell, E. C. Underwood, J. A. D'Amico, I.
conservation targets. Bioscience 54:1110-1118. Itoua, H. E. Strand, J. C. Morrison, C. J. Loucks, T. F. Allnutt,
ESRI. (2012). ArcGIS Desktop. Release 10.1. Environmental T. H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J. F. Lamoreux, W. W. Wettengel, P.
Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA. Hedao, and K. R. Kassem. (2001). Terrestrial ecoregions of
Gelman, A. and J. Hill. (2007). Data Analysis Using Regression the worlds: A new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51:933-
and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge, 938.
UK:Cambridge University Press Pinheiro, L. and D. Bates. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S
Herbert, M. E., P. B. Mcintyre, P. J. Doran, J. D. Allan, and R. and S-Plus. Springer Verlag, New York, USA.
Abell. (2010). Terrestrial Reserve Networks Do Not R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and
Adequately Represent Aquatic Ecosystems. Conservation environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R
Biology 24:1002-1011. Foundation for Statistical Computing
Hockings, M., J. Ervin, and G. Vincent. (2004a). Assessing the Rodrigues, A. S. L., S. J. Andelman, M. I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.
management of protected areas: the work of the World M. Brooks, R. M. Cowling, L. D. C. Fishpool, G. A. B. da
Parks Congress before and after Durban. Journal of Fonseca, K. J. Gaston, M. Hoffmann, J. S. Long, P. A.
International Wildlife Law and Policy 7:31 - 42. Marquet, J. D. Pilgrim, R. L. Pressey, J. Schipper, W.

Sechrest, S. N. Stuart, L. G. Underhill, R. W. Waller, M. E. J. of science to address conservation questions from the
Watts, and X. Yan. (2004). Effectiveness of the global local to global scales.
protected area network in representing species diversity.
Nature 428:640-643. Ivon Cuadros is research assistant in the School of
Scharlemann, J. P. W., V. Kapos, A. Campbell, I. Lysenko, N. D.
Geography, Planning and Environmental Management at
Burgess, M. C. Hansen, H. K. Gibbs, B. Dickson, and L.
Miles. (2010). Securing tropical forest carbon: the the University of Queensland. Her research interests are
contribution of protected areas to REDD. Oryx 44:352 - centred on monitoring the effectiveness and
357. management of protected areas.
Schmitt, C. B., N. D. Burgess, L. Coad, A. Belokurov, C.
Besancon, L. Boisrobert, A. Campbell, L. Fish, D. Gliddon, Jonas Geldmann is a PhD student at the Center for
K. Humphries V. Kapos, C. Loucks, I. Lysenko, L. Miles, C.
Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of
Mills, S. Minnemeyer, T. Pistorius, C. Ravilious, M.
Steininger, and G. Winkel. (2009). Global analysis of the Copenhagen, working on linking temporal biodiversity
protection status of the world's forests. Biological data and management effectiveness in protected areas.
Conservation 142:2122-2130.
Spalding, M. D., L. Fish, and L. J. Wood. (2008). Toward Dr. Toby Marthews has a PhD in Plant Science and
representative protection of the world's coasts and
oceans-progress, gaps, and opportunities. Conservation works as a research Post-doc at the Environmental
Letters 1:217-226. Change Institute, University of Oxford. His research
Spalding, M. D., H. E. Fox, B. S. Halpern, M. A. McManus, J. involves all aspects of Tropical Forest Ecology, from
Molnar, G. R. Allen, N. Davidson, Z. A. Jorge, A. L. conservation science to carbon cycle analysis to land
Lombana, S. A. Lourie, K. D. Martin, E. McManus, J.
surface modelling and micrometeorology.
Molnar, C. A. Recchia, and J. Robertson. (2007). Marine
ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal
and shelf areas. Bioscience 57:573-583. Jessie Mee (MSc) is a programme analyst with the
Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., Whitten, UNDP Ecosystems and Biodiversity team. Her work
T. and F. Leverington. (2007). Reporting progress in includes the review and analysis of METTs completed by
Protected areas. A site level Management Effectiveness UNDP supported biodiversity projects in developing
Tracking tool: second edition. Gland, Switzerland: World
countries around in the world.
Bank/WWF Forest Alliance and WWF. http://
www.wdpa.org/ME/PDF/METT.pdf
WCED. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Christoph Nolte is a PhD candidate and research
Environment and Development: Our Common Future. associate with the International Forestry and Resource
Oxford, UK: UN World Commission on Environment and Institutions (IFRI) network at the School of Natural
Development (WCED)
Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. His
research empirically evaluates the ecological and social
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
impacts of protected area management in the Andes-
Dr. Lauren Coad is a research fellow with the Forest
Amazon region.
Governance Group, Oxford University and an honorary
fellow with UNEP WCMC. Her research focuses on
Professor Susanne Stoll-Kleemann is a Professor of
understanding how management inputs and processes
Sustainability Science and Applied Geography at the
influence the effectiveness of protected areas in
Institute of Geography and Geology at the University of
conserving forests, and on the socio-economic drivers of
Greifswald. She leads several research projects on
bushmeat hunting in African tropical forests.
Sustainable Land Management and Ecosystem Services,
Dr. Fiona Leverington currently works as manager of especially in protected areas and biosphere reserves.
planning and strategy at the Queensland Parks and
Wildlife Service and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Nanna Granlie Vansteelant is an MSc student at the
University of Queensland (UQ). Together with Marc Freshwater Biology Section at Copenhagen University.
Hockings, she led the project investigating the global Her thesis looks at the effects of deforestation on
picture of management effectiveness at UQ between 2006 macroinvertebrate diversity and leaf litter breakdown in
and 2010. Her research interests also include reserve streams in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania.
planning, management planning and community relations.
Camilo Zamora is biologist and research assistant in
Professor Neil Burgess works in the Science the School of Geography, Planning and Environmental
Programme at UNEP-WCMC in Cambridge, on practical Management at the University of Queensland. His
field conservation projects with WWF and UNDP GEF in research interests are focused on the design and
Africa, and as a part time staff member of Copenhagen establishment of marine protected areas, and their
University. His research interests cover the practical use effectiveness in biological conservation.

Mark Zimsky is a Senior Biodiversity Specialist at the Professor Marc Hockings is Professor of
Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Coordinator Environmental Management in the School of Geography,
of the biodiversity program at the GEF. His work Planning and Environmental Management at the
includes monitoring of GEF's biodiversity portfolio and University of Queensland. He is a long-term member of
GEF support to protected area management the IUCN WCPA where he leads the global program on
effectiveness. Most recently, he led two missions to India Science and Management of Protected Areas.
and Zambia to investigate the evolution of the METT at
the national level in these two countries with the aim of
revising the METT for use throughout GEF's protected
area portfolio (www.thegef.org/gef/BIO_results_learning)
RESUMEN
La eficacia de la gestión de áreas protegidas es una consideración de importancia crítica para el éxito de los esfuerzos de
conservación. Se han desarrollado más de 40 instrumentos de recolección de datos relacionados con la eficacia de la
gestión de áreas protegidas (PAME) para la evaluación sistemática de la eficacia de la gestión de áreas protegidas.
Muchas de estas evaluaciones han sido recogidas recientemente en la base de datos mundial sobre la Efectividad del
Manejo de las Áreas Protegidas de la UICN (PAME). Utilizamos la base de datos de PAME junto con la Base de Datos
Mundial de Áreas Protegidas (WDPA) para evaluar el progreso actual hacia las metas sobre PAME para 2010 y 2015 del
Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB), que requieren que al menos el 30 y el 60 por ciento, respectivamente, de
la superficie total de áreas protegidas haya sido evaluada en términos de efectividad de la gestión. Señalamos que a
nivel mundial el 29 por ciento de las áreas protegidas han sido evaluadas y el 23 por ciento de los países han alcanzado
la meta del 60 por ciento. Además, el 46 por ciento de los países han alcanzado la meta del 30 por ciento. Sin embargo,
los resultados analíticos reflejan la existencia de sesgos en torno al tipo de áreas protegidas evaluadas; las áreas
protegidas con áreas más grandes y las áreas protegidas designadas como Parques Nacionales (Categoría II de la UICN)
tienen mayor probabilidad de haber realizado una evaluación de PAME. Por otra parte, hay pocas evaluaciones de
PAME de Europa y América del Norte, donde las evaluaciones sobre la gestión de áreas protegidas pueden estar ya
integradas en los sistemas de planificación y monitoreo de áreas protegidas, lo que dificulta el suministro de
información al CDB. También analizamos con detenimiento las posibilidades y limitaciones de las evaluaciones de
PAME como instrumentos para el seguimiento y la evaluación de la gestión de áreas protegidas, y la necesidad de
nuevos instrumentos de evaluación para abordar los aspectos relativos a la “equidad” de la meta 11 del CDB.
RÉSUMÉ
Pour garantir le succès de la conservation des aires protégées, il est extrêmement important de prendre en compte
l’efficacité de leur gestion. Plus de 40 outils différents de collecte de données sur l’efficacité de la gestion des aires
protégées ont été élaborés pour évaluer de façon systématique cette dernière. Un grand nombre de ces évaluations ont
récemment été réunies dans la base de données mondiale de l’UICN sur l’efficacité de la gestion des aires protégées
(PAME). Nous avons utilisé la base de données PAME ainsi que la Base de Données Mondiale sur les Aires Protégées
(WDPA) pour évaluer les progrès réalisés quant aux objectifs de la Convention sur la diversité biologique pour 2010 et
2015 sur l’efficacité de la gestion des aires protégées. Selon ces objectifs, au moins 30 et 60 pour cent respectivement de
la superficie totale des aires protégées doivent être évalués en termes d’efficacité de leur gestion. Nous démontrons ainsi
que, à l’échelle mondiale, 29 pour cent des aires protégées ont été évaluées, et 23 pour sont des pays ont atteint l’objectif
de 60 pour cent. En outre, 46 pour cent des pays ont atteint l’objectif de 30 pour cent. Cependant, les résultats
analytiques montrent certaines limites – notamment dans le type d’aire protégée évaluée. Les aires protégées les plus
vastes, ainsi que les aires protégées classées Parc National (catégorie II de l’UICN) sont beaucoup plus susceptibles
d’avoir mené une évaluation PAME. En outre, on observe un déficit d’évaluations PAME provenant d’Europe et
d’Amérique du nord, ce qui s’explique probablement par le fait que les évaluations sur la gestion des aires protégées
sont déjà intégrées dans des systèmes de planification et de suivi des aires protégées – et il est donc plus compliqué de
demander à ces acteurs de faire état de la situation auprès de la Convention sur la diversité biologique. Enfin, nous
examinons le potentiel et les limites des évaluations PAME en tant qu’outils de suivi et d’évaluation des aires protégées,
et étudions l’importance de mettre en place d’autres outils d’évaluation pour aborder les éléments liés à l’équité
mentionnés dans l’Objectif 11 de la Convention sur la diversité biologique.

25 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
www.iucn.org/parks ##
ARE GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

EFFECTIVE WITHIN PROTECTED AREAS OF THE
KANCHENJUNGA LANDSCAPE (BHUTAN, INDIA
AND NEPAL)?
Krishna Prasad Oli1*, Sunita Chaudhary1 and Uday Raj Sharma1
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

1
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), GPO Box 3226,
Khumaltar, Kathmandu, Nepal
ABSTRACT
An assessment was undertaken of the governance and related management effectiveness of four
protected areas of the Kanchenjunga landscape shared by Bhutan, India and Nepal, using a simple site
level tracking tool. The study was further supported by focus group discussion, a survey of key
informants and site visits. The management assessment revealed that protected areas are consistently
weak in inputs such as number of staff, equipment, financial provision and infrastructure. The results
indicate that management improvements are needed. Khangchendzonga biosphere reserve and
Singhalila National Park in India scored 41.98 per cent and 32.44 per cent respectively. Slightly higher,
Kanchenjunga Conservation Area of Nepal and Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve of Bhutan scored 67.59
per cent and 58.02 per cent respectively. Weak institutional capacity, depredation by wildlife, livestock
grazing and illegal harvesting of resources were identified as threats. Limited participation of local
people in decision making and protected area management were seen as major challenges. The
findings support the recommendation that efforts should be made to move from a protectionist
approach to a community-based conservation approach for conservation and sustainable use of
biological resources in the landscape.
INTRODUCTION in India and western Bhutan (Figure 1 overleaf).

There are now some 160,000 protected areas listed on Protected areas are established in the landscape for
the World Database of Protected Areas, covering nearly protection of globally threatened species, ecosystem
13 per cent of the world’s terrestrial surface areas. Many restoration, recreation and to provide ecosystem services
of these are embedded in comprehensive national and to the communities. They are managed in a variety of
regional networks of connected protected areas and ways including by the government, co-managed, private
corridors (Bertzky et al., 2012). This connectivity has management by local NGOs and community conserved
been established by promoting, through participatory areas (Kothari, 1999), under different rules and
approaches, sustainable forest management and other regulations. Spread over three countries, issues,
conservation efforts along protected area boundaries challenges and governance vary based on each country’s
(Bruner et al., 2001) and developing biological corridors own context. However, these areas face similar
to link habitats and ecosystems (Boyle et al., 2010). conservation threats, many of which are transboundary
Despite these efforts it is not easy to answer the question in nature such as park-people conflict, wildlife poaching,
of how effectively parks are being managed in the context illicit trade of species and their products and unregulated
of growing human pressure. Governance and tourism. Until recently there had been no assessment of
management are as important to the planning and how well these protected areas were managed or whether
operation of protected areas as biodiversity conservation. they have achieved the goals and objectives set at their
establishment.
The Kanchenjunga Landscape (KL) which encompasses
the southern stretch of landscape surrounding Mount The evaluation of the management effectiveness of
Kangchenjunga (8,586 metres) spreads over diverse protected areas is one critical tool to ensure protected
ecological zones in eastern Nepal, Darjeeling and Sikkim areas are managed for biodiversity conservation,

Krishna Prasad Oli et al 26
Boundaries are for guidance only and do not imply any opinion concerning legal status of any country or territory or the delineation of its boundaries
Figure 1. Kanchenjunga Landscape showing protected areas and corridors
maintenance of vital ecosystem services, and provision of 2005; WWF-US, 2005). The landscape has 14 protected
socio-economic benefits (BIP, 2011). Although the areas covering 6,037.96 km2 representing 40.9 per cent
protected areas in KL are separated, the transboundary of the total area (Table 1). The landscape provides habitat
movement of bio cultural resources and sharing of for more than 100 mammal species, 550 birds and 600
environmental services has kept the landscape intact and butterflies (Chettri et al., 2008). Some of them are
alive. The landscape approach, and assessment of the globally threatened species (Rana, 2008). Two-thirds of
effectiveness of management across the landscape, the protected areas in KL are IUCN category IV (Habitat/
provides opportunities to learn from best practices to Species Management area) (Sharma, 2010). Other
address conservation, ecological integrity and protected areas fall under category Ia (Strict Nature
sustainable use of biological resources issues at a broader Reserve), II (National Park) and VI (Protected Area with
level defined by ecosystems rather than by political Sustainable use of Natural resources). The management
boundaries. Well managed protected areas harbouring responsibility for most of the protected areas in the
participatory and equitable governance mechanisms landscape rests with the government although a few
yield significant benefits far beyond their boundaries, areas are co-managed. The landscape supports over 1.5
which can be translated into cumulative advantages million people (Sharma, 2008). Agriculture and animal
across a national economy and contribute to poverty rearing are the dominant occupation, and there is a high
reduction and sustainable development including dependency on biological resources for subsistence
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals livelihoods.
(Leverington et al, 2010). Considering these issues in
particular, the assessment reported here intended to (i) For this study, four protected areas in India, Nepal and
assess the management effectiveness, (ii) assess Bhutan were selected:
governance status and its effectiveness, and (iii) identify 1. Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve, Bhutan (IUCN category
threats, strengths, and weakness of current management Ia)
and governance of the protected areas of the
2. Singhalila National Park, Darjeeling, India (IUCN
transboundary KL.
category II)
STUDY AREA 3. Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, India

KL is part of Hindukush Himalayan region (Chettri et al., (IUCN category V and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve)
2008) shared by Nepal, Bhutan and India and is a part of 4. Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, Nepal (IUCN
the Himalayan Biodiversity Hotspot (Mittermeier et al., category VI)

Table 1: Protected areas of the Kanchejunga Landscape

2
Country Name of the protected area IUCN category Area km
1. Nepal Kangchenjunga Conservation Area VI 2,035
2. India (Sikkim) Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve II 2,620
3. India (Sikkim) Barsey Rhododendron Sanctuary IV 104
4. India (Sikkim) Fambong Lho Wildlife Sanctuary IV 51.76
5. India (Sikkim) Kyongnosla Alpine Sanctuary IV 31
6. India (Sikkim) Maenam Wildlife Sanctuary IV 35.34
7. India (Sikkim) Singhba Rhododendron Sanctuary IV 43
8. India (Sikkim) Pangolakha Wildlife Sanctuary IV 128
9. India (Sikkim) Kitam Bird Sanctuary IV 6
10. India (WBengal) Singhalila National Park II 79
11. India (WBengal) Senchal Wildlife Sanctuary IV 39
12. India (WBengal) Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary IV 127
13. India (WBengal) Neora Valley National Park II 88
14. Bhutan Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve Ia 651
Total 6,037.96
Source: Adapted from Chettri et al. (2008) and GOS (2007)
These protected areas represent the majority, 89 per cent effectiveness of tiger reserve (MoEF, 2011), and Nepali
(over 5,385 km2), of the protected area system in KL. (2005) followed a similar approach for evaluating the
Each has a different management regime and unique protected areas of Nepal. The METT follows the structure
biodiversity resources. The management responsibility of of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA)
Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve and Singhalila National management effectiveness framework (Hockings et al.,
Park rest with the government, while Khangchendzonga 2006); and considers the six elements of the
Biosphere Reserve is managed by the government in management cycle (context, planning, inputs, process,
collaboration with local communities. The Kanchenjunga outputs and outcomes) (Stolton et.al, 2007). In this
Conservation area in Nepal is managed by a local NGO in study, the tool was adapted for use in the KL. A set of 37
collaboration with the local communities. questions considering each of these elements was
developed and administered through a questionnaire
METHODS survey (Annex I). A four-point scale: 0 (no or negligible
The assessment, which focussed on governance and progress), 1 (slight progress), 2 (good) and 3 (very good)
livelihood issues, was made up of six separate activities: was assigned to the elements. The METT was completed
by the protected area managers and other stakeholders
1. Literature review (e.g. residents, farmers/cattle herders, EDC/FPC
The first step in the assessment was a thorough review of officials, NGO officials, protected area field staff, and
available literature including management plans, local body representatives such as Panchayat or Gewak
national and international journal articles, research leaders) during the field visits and discussions (see
papers, theses, and project proposals to assess major below). The scores were then tabulated by the authors
aspects of management and governance of protected along with the participants.
areas.
3. Governance survey
2. Site level tracking tool In addition to the adapted METT, a governance survey of
The second step was the application of a simple site level 27 questions was developed following protected area
management effectiveness tracking tool (METT) in the governance principles and United Nations principles of
protected areas. This tool was developed by WWF and governance (Annex II). The survey was conducted with a
World Bank and has been applied since 2003 (Stolton et mixed group of stakeholders including park staff, local
al., 2007); adaptations of the tool have been used in people, herders, representatives of community-based
India in 2006 and 2011 to assess management organisations, NGOs and youth clubs. Representatives

Focus group discussion with local communities, park rangers and key informants © Durga P. Sharma
from local government body such as Panchayat or process, outputs and outcomes) and governance (do-no-
Gewak leaders (leaders from local level bodies) were also harm, accountability, legitimacy and voice, equity,
surveyed. Altogether 100 individuals from different direction and performance) were discussed along with
locations of KL took part in the survey. strengths, challenges and threats.
4. Reconnaissance survey For the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area (KCA) in

The fourth step of the assessment was to visits the four Nepal, a meeting was held in March 2010 under the
protected areas to gather initial information on chairmanship of the warden of the KCA. 10 government
management resources, the administration system and officials including past and current employees of the KCA
other values that could not be ascertained from the took part in the discussion. Similarly for the Toorsa Strict
literature review. During these visits the METT was Nature Reserve, the discussion was held in Haa village in
completed, focus group discussion held and key April 2010 under the chairmanship of the Gewak. Two of
informants survey completed. the 12 participants were women and the discussion was
facilitated by the local forest officer and Nature
5. Key informants survey Conservation Division official. Four discussions were
During the reconnaissance survey, key informants were held in Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve in Sikkim
chosen for semi-structured and one-on-one interview. in June 2010, with 56 targeted participants including
Besides management and governance issues, the range of panchayat leaders, NGO officials, reserve staff, local
topics focused on strengths, challenges and threats in the residents and the Khangchendzonga conservation
protected areas such as community involvement in committee staff. Finally, discussions were conducted in
decision-making, benefit sharing, perception of local late June with the local villagers, local NGO staff,
people towards protected areas and behaviour of park farmers/cattle herders and the conservation committee
staff towards the local people. The key informants for the Singhalila National Park of Darjeeling, India.
included local community leaders (men and women),
shop keepers, researchers working for community based RESULTS: EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT
organisations and park authorities. EFFECTIVENESS
An overall rating (given as a percentage of the total score)
6. Focus group discussion was given to each protected area based on set evaluation
Focus group discussions were held for each of the parameters focussed primarily on protected area
selected protected areas. Altogether 12 themes for governance, community relations and livelihood issues
management effectiveness (context, planning, inputs, (Table 2).

Table 2: Evaluation of Protected Areas of Kangchenjunga Landscape for Management Effectiveness

Evaluation Parameters
Context Planning Inputs Process Outputs Outcomes Overall
Protected Areas Rating and %
Toorsa SNR, Bhutan Excellent Fair Fair Good Good Excellent Good
76.19 38.10 38.89 57.14 66.67 75.00 57.40
Singalila NP, Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair
Darjeeling, India 57.14 47.62 38.89 42.86 46.67 58.33 48.15
Khangchendzonga Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair
BR, Sikkim, India 61.91 55.43 35.11 31.67 35.47 27.67 42.82
Kanchenjunga CA, Excellent Good Fair Good Good Good Good

Nepal 80.95 71.43 38.89 66.67 60.00 66.67 64.82
Average Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Good

69.05 53.15 37.95 49.59 52.20 56.92 53.30
Rating criteria: Excellent: 75-100%, Good: 50-74.9%, Fair: 25-49.9%, and Poor: <25%
The adapted METT assessment resulted in Toorsa Strict protecting the reserve’s important ecosystems. Local
Nature Reserve scoring 57.40 per cent, which can be NGOs play a crucial role in promoting responsible
regarded as good (management above 50 per cent was tourism as well as bridging the gap in communication
considered good). The rating was validated during the between local people and park authorities. However, the
focus group discussion where local people showed conventional management regime in which local people
positive attitudes towards the park and commitment to are excluded from management processes resulted in the
participating in conservation and management. management effectiveness score to be 42.82 per cent.
Implementation of Integrated Conservation and The transhumance system 1 of animal rearing, which
Development Programmes (ICDPs) in which people’s is an important part of landscape management, existed
concerns are taken into consideration shows the in the area for centuries but has been banned in the
government is committed to the conservation of the reserve and herders have not been compensated or
reserve’s resources and livelihoods of people. provided with new income sources. This has created
negative attitudes among local people, which were
KCA Nepal, which is fully managed through participatory expressed during discussions and the informants’ survey.
conservation approaches by local people, scored 64.82 People reported that the wildlife populations have been
per cent. From the questionnaire survey of protected area increasing, resulting in an increase in human-wildlife
staff, it was found that local values (including ecological, conflict including retaliatory killings. Furthermore, a
cultural and spiritual) have been considered carefully in comprehensive approach to settle such disputes has not
management. Local people expressed that their economic been put in place.
well being has improved since the establishment of
conservation area. The overall assessment shows that inputs in all the
protected areas were weak with an inadequate number of
Singhalila National Park of India, in which the staff, equipment and infrastructure, and poor financial
government holds authority, responsibility and provisions. The management system of the protected
accountability for management, received a ‘fair’ rating of areas in India shows room for improvement, whilst the
48.15 per cent. Management in this case was dependent management systems in the protected areas of Bhutan
on policy and governance structures at state and national and Nepal were in a satisfactory condition.
level. The informants reported that people’s participation
was inadequate, especially in the preparation of KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES
management plan and decisions related to providing Most of the protected area officials reported a lack of
access to resources in the park or its buffer zone. The funds to meet the increasing responsibilities related to
local people further expressed that they are not consulted assessing and managing the protected areas and
for on-going planning and management decisions. purchasing equipment. With increased eco-tourism,
regular patrolling, vigilance and law enforcement are all
The results of the assessment in the Khangchendzonga important. For this the required trained manpower is not
Biosphere Reserve found staff were committed to available in almost all the protected areas. All these

protected areas are in remote areas, and the assessment negligible, especially in the preparation of the
found office infrastructure was insufficient and the living management plan and decisions related to providing
conditions of workers inadequate. There was little access to park resources.
motivation and staff expressed their frustration at
conditions. The findings of this study was similar to With involvement of local people, conservation goals in
those reported by Nepali et al. (2005) who found limited India could be effectively achieved while providing
staff and office facilities were one of the limitations for maximum benefits from biodiversity conservation to the
effective management in Nepalese protected areas. local communities at the same time. However legal
Surveyed staffs also reported limited training frameworks make this difficult. The protected area
opportunities which have made them less aware of authorities expressed their mandate to ensure effective
changing realities of protected area management, implementation of the Wildlife Protection Act which
especially in the areas of monitoring wildlife populations, prohibits settlements inside national park as well as
changes in forest compositions and team building. access to resources within parks. The local communities
in Sikkim and Darjeeling expressed their willingness to
Except for KCA in Nepal and Toorsa Strict Nature get involved in park management. However, many
Reserve in Bhutan, local participation during annual people are too scared to speak with park officials and
planning was limited and management plans were have no avenue or voice to report wrong-doings or
prepared without their consultation. Some locals in introduce innovative activities. This can be validated by
Singalila National Park reported they are even not aware the expression of one woman who said, “I feel that they
of the park. Although NGOs play an important role in are dealing with wilderness and have guns with whom
raising conservation awareness and in community we feel scared even to greet”. The governance structures
development around the protected areas, it was found of these Indian protected areas thus have ample room for
that there is limited coordination between the park improvement leading towards more participatory
administration and NGOs. management. As local people expressed a willingness to
participate in protected area management, their opinions
Serious human-wildlife conflict issues were recorded in should be considered in major decisions. A focus should
Sikkim, Darjeeling (GOS, 2008) where locals complained also be placed on sharing benefits with local
about their limited access to forest resources and the communities.
depredation of domestic animals and crops by wildlife for
The KCA Nepal scored 67.59 per cent. Issues of equity
which they receive little or no compensation. By contract,
and performance have been adequately addressed in its
the livestock insurance plan in KCA Nepal is an
management approach in which the government acts as a
innovative scheme in which local people have developed
facilitator for local communities to responsibly manage
a finance mechanism through which they receive
the protected area (DNPWC, 2000). Encouraging results
compensation for the depredation of livestock by wildlife
from community-based conservation and development
without having to wait for the government. The Royal
initiatives in KCA have increased local people’s sense of
Government of Bhutan is also piloting a livestock
ownership towards the conservation area. Local people
insurance policy programme in Toorsa and its biological
are satisfied with its management and mechanisms for
corridor to reduce human-wildlife conflicts by
the distribution of benefits seem to be satisfactory.
formulating a policy of compensation.
However, the accomplishments should be monitored and
evaluated regularly in order to continue to manage the
EVALUATION OF GOVERNANCE SYSTEM area sustainably.
The analysis of the governance survey shows that
governance parameters in India scored below 50 per cent Similarly, Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve scored 58.02 per
which reflects the predominance of the conventional cent showing a satisfactory governance structure. Local
approach to making protected area management people in the reserve are confident about their
decisions. In the Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, continuous access to resources and are gradually
which scored 41.98 per cent, communities have limited realizing their roles in the management of reserve and
involvement in governance. People are excluded from taking decisions related to management, boundary
management and have limited access to resources from delineation, choice of supporting activities in ICDP and
the reserve or its buffer zone. Similarly, in Singhalila periodic evaluations. However, it has taken time for
National Park, which scored 32.44 per cent (Table 3), protected area officials to understand their accountability
people’s participation in park management is almost towards the communities.

Table 3: Evaluation of Protected Areas of Kangchenjunga Landscape for Governance
Do no Legitimacy Perform- Account- Overall

harm and voice Equity Direction ance ability Rating
Protected Areas Rating and %
Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Good
Toorsa SNR, Bhutan 66.67 60.00 73.33 66.67 33.33 33.33 58.02
Fair
Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair
Singalila NP, 41.98
46.67 33.33 46.67 46.67 33.33 44.44
Darjeeling, India
Khangchendzonga Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair
BR, Sikkim, India 26.53 24.40 46.67 42.13 22.17 29.56 32.44
Kanchenjunga CA, Excellent Good Good Good Good Good Good
Nepal 86.67 73.33 66.67 73.33 50.00 55.56 67.59
Good Fair Good Good Fair Fair Good
Average 56.64 47.78 58.34 57.20 34.71 40.72 50.01
Rating criteria: Excellent: 75-100%, Good: 50-74.9%, Fair: 25-49.9%, and Poor: <25%
Table 4: Threats to protected areas in the Kangchenjunga Landscape

Sikkim PAs, Darjeeling Toorsa SNR,
Identified threats KCA, Nepal India PAs, India Bhutan
Livestock grazing √ √ √ √
Poaching of wildlife √ √ √
Illegal harvest of fuelwood and timber √ √
Illegal harvest of NTFPs √ √ √ √
Diversion of rivers and streams, dam √ √
construction
Settlement and forest encroachment √ √
Tourism √ √
Crop/livestock depredation by wildlife √ √ √ √
Forest fires √ √ √ √
Weak institutional capacity √ √ √ √
THREATS amongst local people, the conservation effort has

Threats were identified based on discussions with received huge boost in the area” reported one park
different focus groups; the most prominent threats were ranger. This clearly shows that when confidence and
weak institutional capacity, depredation by wildlife, responsibility are placed in local communities, they are
livestock grazing and illegal harvesting of resources (see more compelled to protect biological resources and
table 4). enhance ecosystem function. However overall protection
mechanisms also need to be strengthened in KL to deter
The results of the study show that many of the threats to illegal hunting from the protected areas.
protected areas are similar to those observed at the time
of their designation. However, the results also showed Illegal harvest of non-timber forest products, fuelwood
that the severity of threat is not uniform across all the and timber are prevalent in all the protected areas to
studied protected areas. For example in KCA, Nepal, varying degree. The issue remains unresolved due to a
hunting was a major problem before the conservation lack of policy intervention. There has been some attempt
area was declared and handed over to the communities. in Nepal at the policy level to promote the sustainable
This problem was greatly reduced along with the harvest of forest resources from forests (Sharma et al.,
meaningful engagement of communities (WWF-Nepal, 2004), but implementation has been far from
2007). “With the communal harmony and unity satisfactory.

Blue sheep main prey species of snow leopard in KCA 2010 © KamalThapa
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESS OF PROTECTED their impacts on the conservation and development
are yet to be realised
AREA MANAGEMENT
The strength of each protected area varied based on  Efforts by NGOs have helped bridge the gap between
available funds, human resources and participation of protected area officials and local communities, and
community in park management. The strengths and foster sustainable development in the KL.
challenges across all protected areas are summarised as  However, management planning processes seldom
follows: include local communities and management plans do
 During the discussion and interview, the key not have adequate provisions to deal with local
informants and park authority representatives resource use and programmes for better livelihoods.
reported that the legal status and ownership of the Except for KCA in Nepal management structures are
protected area in each country is clear and defined. not designed to promote participatory modes of
Protection in each country is substantially high and working.
effective at protecting the ecosystems and species  There is a general lack of field staff, inadequate
within their borders despite land use pressure along provision of equipment and physical infrastructures,
the borders. Similar results were reported by Bruner and limited capacity building training.
et al (2001) from the evaluation of 93 parks in 22  Limited budgets mean that most available resources
tropical countries. are spent on patrolling and supervisory activities and
 All the four parks have management plans and not on research, monitoring and evaluation.
governments have set aside annual budgets with  Eco-development committees in India are not fully
allocation for permanent staffs. functional and self-governing organizations and have
 Conservation Area User Committees (KCA Nepal) are limited legal rights.
active in conservation activities which have helped  Human–wildlife conflicts in and around protected
reduce the over harvesting of resources and wildlife areas have increased and more comprehensive
poaching. They also provide economic benefits to approaches to address this issue should be
communities through projects. In India Eco- introduced, including schemes for community-based
development Committees are institutionalised, but compensation.

STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF PARK approaches, which include anthropogenic activities, have
not been scientifically assessed or validated due to the
GOVERNANCE
lack of research and monitoring in the area. Sustainable
 People are gradually realizing the value of protected
harvesting and the removal of higher and lower plants
areas and their role in management and are willing to
and animals will have impacts and is a major issue to
engage in major decision making.
address in the future. Similarly, traditional land use
 Community based conservation and development practices such as pastoralism as a tool to managing the
initiative in KCA, Nepal have shown that local people ecosystem have been abandoned; studies are required on
can be trusted in protected areas management. In the augmentation or reduction of biological resources as
KCA, people’s feeling of ownership of the protected a result.
areas is high, a situation which can be seen as an
example for the rest of the KL.
Strengths and challenges of management and
 The ‘preservation’ mind set of authorities is gradually governance revealed by the assessment provide future
changing towards one of greater “inclusiveness”.
courses of action to be taken to improve management
 However, in some cases limited coordination and across the landscape. For example, weak institutional
consultation between protected areas officials and capacity was identified as a major challenge in all
local people is triggering park people conflicts. protected areas reflected inadequate staffing, equipment
 Governance structures that include local people are and infrastructure. This also reflects limited training
lacking, especially in Indian protected areas. opportunities for field based park staff, EDC and NGO
 Eco-development committees (EDCs) and Forest officials, and other community workers. Inadequate
Protection Committees (FPCs) which are formed to funding and inadequate access to research-based
help the park administration for the protection of information for protected area management were also
forests in India are not considered partners in noted. Other barriers inhibiting effective management
protected areas governance and management, but include government policies and legal frameworks
rather considered as separate entities. evolved from conventional models that still undermines
 There is a lack of clear legally binding mechanisms of the full participation of local communities. The process
sharing the cost and benefits between EDCs, FPCs of integrating relevant actors in protected area
and protected areas. management needs to be promoted.
DISCUSSION It is still too early to say if the ICDP approach of

management in Nepalese and Bhutanese protected areas
The METT has been applied in more than 85 countries
has maintained the balance between conservation and
with some modifications in Asian countries (Leverington
development. Nevertheless, the findings of the study
et al., 2010). The tool proved useful in assessing the
provide base-line information for future evaluation and
management effectiveness of protected areas that are
to raise awareness among protected area and other
part of large, transboundary landscape with different
stakeholders on the methodology applied in the study.
national jurisdictions and legal frameworks. With the
overall aim of improving protected area management in
the KL, the application of the METT gave a clear view of In addition the study outlines strengths and weakness of
the management status, threats, strengths and weakness all protected areas, which will help the managers to
of protected areas within the landscape. The tool was improve management and accountability and to
supported by the governance survey, field visits, focus influence policy. The results suggest that protected area
group discussions and key informant’s survey which gave authorities should also be prepared to listen to their
a clear picture of management and governance critics, be willing to adopt new ways of managing and
structures. governing protected areas, be motivated in
understanding anthropological dynamics of the local
Almost all the respondents reported that the ecosystem community and be respectful to their traditional ways of
has been maintained or restored due to the presence of conserving biological resources. There are progressive
protected areas. This fact was obvious when viewing the methods being applied within the landscape, for example
other land uses along the protected area borders during biological corridor policies of Bhutan (Wangchuk, 2007)
the field trip. Where in place, participatory approaches to and Nepal. If successful methodologies are adapted and
park management have increased support for the monitored, protected area management can be made
protected area but the ecological impacts of such more effective and governance can be greatly improved.

Finally, the study showed a clear need to increase 1.20: Is the current budget adequate to implement
support for protected areas to improve effectiveness programmes?
against all threats. The findings suggest that protected 1.21: If there is a funding shortfall, is there a plan to ensure
the growth of income matches or exceeds the growth of
areas should remain a central component of conservation expected costs of PA management?
strategies to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem Process
functioning. Bringing local communities into protected 1.22: Is there a planned outreach programme linked to
area management and helping protected areas perform objectives and needs?
1.23: Is the role of indigenous people and local communities/
better will provide a significant contribution to long-term
marginalized people in the PA management synergetic,
biodiversity conservation in the transboundary constructive?
landscapes in the Himalayas. 1.24: Are there sufficient programmes to address the welfare
needs of the local communities?
1.25: How is tourism in the PA perceived?
NOTES 1.26: Do tour operators’ activities contribute to PA
1
Transhumance, a developed form of pastoralism, which management?
describes the seasonal movement of people with their 1.27: If fees are applied for entrance or other services, does a
livestock between fixed summer and winter pastures, or the share return to the benefit of the communities and/or to the
cyclic movement of people and livestock to maintain a PA?
balance between demand and supply of pasture. 1.28: Are management activities actively monitored against
performance?
ANNEX I: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS Outputs
1.29: Do local people and/or indigenous/marginalized people
QUESTIONNAIRE actively support PA?
Context 1.30: Is the PA seen as a source of providing economic
1.1: Legal status: Notification done? Protected area (PA) rules benefits, employment or other opportunities for local
and regulations available? people’s wellbeing?
1.2: Are there enough staff and equipment to enforce PA law? 1.31: Is the PA seen as the provider of environmental
1.3: Are there boundary disputes? services?
1.4: Are the demarcation posts/marks readily identifiable and 1.32: Are visitor facilities adequate for the demand?
known to people? 1.33: Based on your interactions with visitors and tour
1.5: Level of acceptance or resentment towards the PA? operators, how do you rate visitor satisfaction?
(include in the answer what they had to forgo for the PA: Outcome
hunting, fishing, collection of NTFP, firewood, timber, stones/ 1.34: Is it the belief that the condition of important PA values
boulders, etc.) (especially biodiversity and cultural values) is enhanced
1.6: Were people displaced during the establishment of the because of the presence of the PA?
PA? (Include in the answer any details provided) 1.35: How do people perceive the role of PA authorities?
1.7: Assess the current human footprint in the PA due to 1.36: If not happy, where they see the need to improve?
infrastructure and activities that include roads/irrigation 1.37: What is the best impact the PA has made in their
canals, illegal harvest of resources, land encroachment, community, in the neighborhood, and/or in livelihood in
modification of forests, mining and pollution (entering or general?
generated)?
1.8: If 1.7 is true, was there any provision of EIA for activities ANNEX II: GOVERNANCE QUESTIONNAIRE
that have direct impacts on biodiversity. If EIA was
Do no harm
undertaken, was the mitigation planned implemented?
1.1: What was the role of local communities and indigenous/
[Only additional information, not for score purpose]
marginalized/influential people when the PA was notified?
Planning
1.2: Were people re-settled? If yes, how they have taken this
1.9: Is there a management plan and is it being implemented?
move?
1.10: Does the plan clearly identify key threats?
1.3: Is there anyway local communities feel humiliated due to
1.11: Is there a plan to abate these threats?
PA?
1.12: What are the key species protected? Is the PA of the
1.4: What good happened to local people after PA was
right size and shape to protect these species?
established?
1.13: Does the PA represent a unique ecosystem and/or
1.5: Does PA legislation respect customary laws, age-old
protect endangered species?
practices?
1.14: Do people understand the core values of the PA and do
Legitimacy and Voice
they believe in them?
1.6: Who makes major decision in PA management, especially
1.15: Is there a rolling operational work plan and is it being
when it comes to using PA resources?
implemented?
1.7: Are people allowed to use the PA resources?
Inputs
1.8: Is there discrimination of ethnic groups and social class,
1.16: Are staff and community leaders trained/oriented on a
gender?
regular basis?
1.9: Are the PA management objectives, strategies, activities
1.17: Are there enough staff members to manage the PA?
developed through collective agreements between different
1.18: Is the natural resource actively managed?
stakeholders?
1.19: Is equipment sufficient?

1.10: Is there preference for jobs for local people? Is the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
procedure transparent? (DNPWC)
Equity Government of Sikkim (GOS). (2008). Management Plan of the
1.11: Do all men and women have fair opportunity to improve Khangchendzonga National Park 2008-2018. Gangtok,
or maintain their well-being within and outside the PA? India: Wildlife Circle, Forests, Environment and Wildlife
1.12: Are people allowed to live within the PA? Management Department
1.13: Is the law enforcement just? Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., and J.
1.14: Is there a fair and equitable system(s) of distribution of Courrau. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework
costs and benefits of conservation? for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected
1.15: Is there a fair management practice of PA staff? Areas: Second edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
Direction Kothari, A. (1999). Towards participatory conservation in
1.16: How sympathetic is PA management towards local India: National scenario and lessons from the field. Pages:
people’s concerns and innovative ideas? 117-149. In: Oli, K.P. (ed.), Collaborative Management of
1.17: Does the PA provide effective leadership by fostering Protected Areas in the Asian Region. Kathmandu, Nepal:
and maintaining an inspiring and consistent vision for the PA IUCN
in long-term management? Leverington, F., K. Costa, J. Courrau, H. Pavese, C. Nolte, M.
1.18: Does PA management make efforts to mobilize support Marr, L. Coad, N. D. Burgess, B. Bomhard, and M.
for the vision and garner funds? Hockings. (2010). Management effectiveness evaluation in
1.19: Are PA objectives clear to the stakeholders? protected areas: a global study. Second edition. St. Lucia,
1.20: Provide best examples of partnership and/or taking Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland, IUCN-
initiatives. WCPA, TNC, WWF
Performance Mittermeier R. A., Gils P. R., Hoffman M., Pilgrim J., Brooks T.,
1.21: Is the capacity of staff ensured to carry out roles and Mittermeier C.G., Lamoreaux J. and G. A. B. da Fonseca
assume responsibilities? (eds.). (2005). Hotspots Revisited. Earth’s biologically
1.22: How is the PA management structure rated? Robust, Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. USA:
resilient, etc? University of Chicago Press
1.23: How does the PA management deals with the MoEF, Government of India. (2011). Management
complaints and criticism? Effectiveness Evaluation of 39 tiger reserves in India. New
1.24: Are people involved in the monitoring and evaluation as Delhi, India: Government of India.
part of an adaptive management strategy? www.projecttiger.nic.in/whtsnew/meetr_tiger_2011.pdf
Accountability Nepali, S. C. (2005). Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of
1.25: Is the PA management accountable to the public at Protected Area Management in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal:
large? WWF
1.26: How are the media entertained for any investigative Rana, L. N. (2008). Biodiversity status in the potential
reporting? conservation corridors of the Kanchenjunga Landscape: a
1.27: Are PA officials rewarded for their exceptional work distribution model of flagship and indicator species. In
benefitting communities or punished for any wrongdoing Biodiversity conservation in the Kanchenjunga Landscape.
that especially affects communities. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD
Sharma, U. R. (2010). Kangchenjunga landscape: opportunities
for transboundary sharing of knowledge and skills.
REFERENCES Biodiversity Conservation Efforts in Nepal Newsletter,
Bertzky, B., Corrigan, C., Kemsey, J. et al. (2012). Protected special issue for the 15th. Kathmandu, Nepal: DNPWC
Planet Report 2012: Tracking progress towards global Sharma, U. R., Malla, K. J. and R. Uprety. (2004). Conservation
targets for protected areas: Key protected area facts for and management efforts of medicinal and aromatic plants
decision makers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Cambridge, in Nepal. Banko Janakari 14(2): 3-11
UK: UNEP WCMC Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., Whitten,
Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E. and G. A. B. da T. and F. Leverington. (2007). Reporting progress in
Fonseca. (2001). Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Protected areas. A site level Management Effectiveness
Tropical Biodiversity, Science 291, 5 January 2001 Tracking tool: second edition. Gland, Switzerland: World
Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP). (2011). Guidance for Bank/WWF Forest Alliance and WWF. http://
national biodiversity indicator development and use. www.wdpa.org/ME/PDF/METT.pdf
Cambridge, UK: UNEP WCMC Wangchuk, S. (2007). Maintaining ecological resilience by
Boyle, M., Ervin, J. and C. M. Hogan. (2010). Biological linking protected areas through biological corridors in
corridor. In: Ed. C. J. Cleveland., Encyclopedia of Earth. Bhutan. Tropical Ecology 48(2): 176-187
First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth May 20, 2010; WWF-Nepal. (2007).Understanding the changes in Livelihood
Revised September 20, 2010; Retrieved March 9, 2013 assets with Locals: A case study for Kanchenjunga
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biological_corridor? Conservation Area Project, Nepal. Sacred Himalayan
topic=58074.com Landscape in Nepal. Series No.3.
Chettri, N., B. Shakya, R. Thapa, and E. Sharma. (2008). Status WWF-US, Asia Programme. (2005). Ecosystem Profile. Eastern
of a protected area system in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Himalaya Region. Final report. Critical Ecosystem
an analysis of PA coverage. International Journal of Partnership Fund. www.cepf.net/Documents/
Biodiversity Science and Management 4: 164-178 final.ehimalayas.ep.pdf. Accessed on 22nd Feb 2013,
DNPWC. (2000). Government Managed Conservation Area Washington DC, USA: WWF-US
Management Regulations. Kathmandu, Nepal:

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. He has been a
Krishna Prasad Oli, Ph.D has a background in biodiversity management consultant at ICIMOD, served
agriculture, animal science, geography and law and has under several different portfolios including the Director
worked extensively In the Hindukush Himalayan region General of the Department of National Parks and
and beyond promoting biodiversity conservation, ABS Wildlife and worked as a protected area management
policy , participatory management of protected area with consultant with UNDP. He also served as regional vice
governments, NGO’s and local communities. He has chair of WCPA South Asia. Currently he is a freelance
worked with ICIMOD for the last eight years as a consultant.
professional in Transboundary landscape management.
Currently he is engaged in promoting the Sunita Chaudhary, M.Sc holds a Master’s in
implementation of ABS mechanism, CBD Nagoya management of protected areas from the University of
protocol and CITES in the Himalayan countries. Klagenfurt, Austria and a Bachelor’s in Forestry from
Nepal. She is also a graduate of the University of Hawaii,
Uday Raj Sharma, Ph.D is a wildlife biologist trained United States. Since 2010, she has worked at ICIMOD as
in USA. He has spent a large part of his career supporting a research associate on ecosystem services and
the government of Nepal in setting up protected area transboundary biodiversity conservation and
systems and building on participatory protected area management. She has worked in Europe, Southeast Asia
management. He is now retired from government civil and Hindu Kush Himalaya region of South Asia she has
service, after reaching the top post of secretary under the numerous publications to her credit.
RESUMEN
Se hizo una evaluación sobre la gobernanza y la eficacia de la gestión en cuatro áreas protegidas del paisaje del monte
Kanchenjunga compartido por Bután, India y Nepal, empleando una herramienta sencilla de seguimiento a nivel de
sitio. El estudio se reforzó tanto con discusiones de grupos focales, como con un estudio de participantes clave y visitas
de campo. La evaluación de la gestión reveló que las áreas protegidas son sistemáticamente débiles en lo referente a
insumos como cantidad de personal y equipo, provisión financiera e infraestructura. Los resultados sugieren la
necesidad de mejoras en materia de gestión. La Reserva de la Biosfera de Khangchendzonga y el Parque Nacional
Singhalila en la India obtuvieron un 41,98 y 32,44 por ciento, respectivamente. El Área de Conservación Kanchenjunga
de Nepal y la Reserva Natural Estricta Toorsa de Bután obtuvieron una calificación un poco más alta: 67,59 y 58,02 por
ciento, respectivamente. La escasa capacidad institucional, la depredación de la vida silvestre, el pastoreo de ganado y la
tala ilegal de los recursos fueron señalados como amenazas. Entre los principales problemas destacan la limitada
participación de la población local en la toma de decisiones y en la gestión de las áreas protegidas. Los resultados
apoyan la recomendación de que se deben hacer esfuerzos para pasar de un enfoque proteccionista a un enfoque de
conservación basado en la comunidad para la conservación y el uso sostenible de los recursos biológicos en el paisaje.
RÉSUMÉ
Une évaluation a été menée sur la gouvernance et l’efficacité de la gestion de quatre aires protégées du paysage de
Kanchenjunga, qui se partage entre le Bhoutan, l’Inde et le Népal, grâce à l’utilisation d’un outil de suivi très simple à
l’échelle locale. L’étude s’est ensuite appuyée sur des discussions thématiques de groupes, une enquête auprès des
principaux répondants et des visites sur le terrain. L’évaluation de la gestion a ainsi révélé que les aires protégées
manquent systématiquement de personnel, d’équipement, de réserves financières et d’infrastructures. Des
améliorations de la gestion sont donc nécessaires : la réserve de biosphère de Khangchendzonga et le Parc national de
Singhalila en Inde ont ainsi des taux respectifs de 41,98% et 32,44%. La zone de conservation de Kanchenjunga au
Népal et la Réserve naturelle intégrale Toorsa au Bhoutan ont des taux légèrement supérieurs, de 67.59% et 58.02%
respectivement. Les principales menaces sont la faiblesse des capacités institutionnelles, la dégradation par la faune
sauvage, le pâturage du bétail et la récolte illégale de ressources. Par ailleurs, la participation limitée des populations
locales dans la prise de décision et la gestion des aires protégées est un défi de taille à relever. L’étude préconise donc de
faire des efforts et d’abandonner l’approche protectionniste pour adopter une approche basée sur les communautés qui
favorise la conservation, afin de conserver et d’utiliser de manière durable les ressources biologiques du paysage.

37 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT AND

LIVELIHOOD CONFLICTS IN GHANA: A CASE
STUDY OF DIGYA NATIONAL PARK
Jesse S. Ayivor1*, Chris Gordon2 and Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu3

1
Research Fellow, Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies, University of Ghana, Legon,
Accra
2
Director, Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
3
Founder and Chair, Centre for African Wetlands; Professor, Department of Animal Biology and
Conservation Science, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra
ABSTRACT
The Digya National Park in Ghana has been the scene of conflicts between local communities and
wildlife managers ever since its establishment in 1971. The conflicts range from apprehension of local
people by Wildlife Officials for entry into the park to collect non-timber forest products, to serious
confrontation with poachers, arrests and evictions that occasionally result in deaths. Documented
information on these conflicts, however, is scanty. This study examines the root causes of conflict in
Digya National Park, with a view to recommending policy interventions that will help curtail the
conflicts. Data for the study were derived from focused group discussions, direct interviews with
stakeholders, on-site observations, as well as, from a management effectiveness evaluation exercise
that involved administration of a pre-designed questionnaire to protected area managers and
administrators. The results revealed that a major underlying source of conflict in the park was poverty
in neighbouring communities. This, together with unresolved issues of compensation payment, animal
raids on farmlands and exclusion of local communities in the management process, have fuelled illegal
activities, mainly hunting and encroachment, leading to several conflict situations. Arrest of culprits
and forced evictions by Wildlife Officials had not helped in curtailing illegal activities and conflicts.
The study recommends linking wildlife management to community development to ensure that local
economies and livelihoods of fringe communities are sustained while seeking to attain the objectives of
wildlife conservation in order to minimize conflicts.
INTRODUCTION of the preservationist approach, otherwise referred to as

Protected areas constitute a major component of national ‘fences and fines’, ‘fences and guns’ and/or ‘colonial
and regional strategies to counter biodiversity loss. They approach’, which promoted the establishment of
are considered as in situ repositorys of genetic wealth as protected areas with little or no regard for local people
well as relics of pristine landscapes that deeply touch the (King, 2009; Vig & Kraft, 2012). Research has shown that
spiritual, cultural, aesthetic and relational dimensions of such a militaristic defence strategy only heightens
human existence (Chape et al., 2003; Putney, 2003). In conflict between park managers and local communities
recent times however two terminologies ‘paper parks’ living within and around protected areas (Sharachandra
and ‘island parks’ have become synonymous with many et al., 2010). A different approach of protected area
protected areas, depicting how most protected areas have management, the utilitarian view, which respects the
failed to maintain their ecological character (Laurance, rights and existence of the local people emerged later to
2008). Invariably, humans are the main agents of park avert conflicts and to encourage mutual respect and
degradation and are responsible for the failure or benefit sharing between local people and protected areas
abysmal performance of most protected areas. management (Nelson & Hossack, 2003).
Past conservation efforts viewed local people as The two divergent approaches have influenced the
destroyers of the forest, who must be ‘excluded’ in order philosophical underpinnings in protected area
to conserve biodiversity. This mindset led to the adoption management and have so far dominated the nature

Jesse S. Ayivor et al 38
Figure 1. Map of Digya National Park in Ghana
conservation discourse in contemporary times. The food insecurity (Mukherjee, 2009). Conflicts between
preservationists believe in the intrinsic beauty and value protected area managers and local communities in
of all things within ‘the one great unit of creation’, and Ghana arise out of the externally enforced exclusion of
hold the view that nature should be preserved for its own the communities from the protected area and the
sake and that man should be able to live in harmony with resources they had access to before the designation of the
nature without destroying it (Fox, 1981). The utilitarians, areas. The conflicts range from disagreements over
on the other hand, believe that wild nature is not to be illegal entry and development of settlements in the park,
preserved but actively managed through scientifically to major confrontations, arrests, prosecutions and even
based interventions to improve and sustain yields deaths (see Box 1). According to Stern (2008), conflicts
(Pinchot, 1910). The preservationists adopted the arise as a result of struggles over access to resources or
‘exclusive model’ in which human activities are excluded historical land disputes. Though other divergent views
whereas advocates of the utilitarian view adopted the have been expressed to explain causes of the conflicts,
‘inclusive model’, which sees the interests of local the dominant view attributes conflict to the system of
societies and sustainable management as central to protected area governance (West & Brechin, 1991;
protected area management (Borrini-Feyerabend, 2003). Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004).
Earlier works on conflicts in nature conservation focused

Conflicts between protected area managers and fringe on the concept of ‘economic rationalization’ suggesting
community members generally suggest that there are that fringe communities respond foremost to economic
significant lapses in the strategies adopted by protected livelihood issues, and arguing that only strict regulations
area officials in integrating local residents in the overall would prevent local residents from being a threat to park
management framework. Conflict in this context refers to management (Brandon & Wells, 1992; Terborgh, 1999).
disagreements or disputes arising over access to, and An alternative solution to conflict is benefit-sharing
control over natural resources, loss of livelihoods and (Brandon, 2002; McShane & Wells, 2004).

BOX 1. EXAMPLES OF CONFLICTS IN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT IN GHANA

Conflict in between protected area officials and local communities living close to protected areas is a major issue in
nature conservation. These conflicts involve disagreements and disputes over access to and control over resources
and may lead to arrests and prosecution, and violent confrontation sometimes resulting in death.
In 2006, a border dispute in Kyabobo National Park resulted in the tragic death of two Wildlife Officials (Ghanaweb,
2006). Another incident occurred in Bui National Park in 2007, when a poacher lost his life for resisting arrest and
attacking a Wildlife Official (Ayivor, 2007). Local communities attacked Wildlife Officials and burnt down one of their
camp sites. Both incidents were resolved through the intervention of local chiefs and Wildlife Officials from the
national headquarters.
In 1989, 2002 and 2006, three major eviction exercises were carried out in Digya to move mainly migrant
communities and their families (squatters) who were allowed entry into portions of the park by local chiefs. These
chiefs claimed that cash compensation for expropriation of their lands had been paid to wrongful claimants and,
therefore, considered themselves as rightful owners of these portions of the park. The exercises mostly targeted
squatters who often resisted eviction, thus, compelling Wildlife Officials to seek the support of the military to evict
them. During the 2006 eviction exercise, nine people lost their lives through a boat accident that occurred while
they were being ferried across Volta Lake. The eviction exercise of 2006 was abandoned due to public outcry and a
court injunction (Myjoyonline, 2006, CHRE/CHRIPD, 2006).
Animal raids, particularly elephants and rodents, on farms adjacent to protected areas in Ghana have also been a
source of disenchantment between fringe communities and Wildlife Officials. Farmers suffer economic losses but
they risk prosecution if they are found to have killed animals raiding their farms. This situation creates antagonism
between Wildlife Officials and local people leading to mistrust, hatred and sometimes violent confrontations.
Other schools of thought reflect a human-centred inform policy makers about possible interventions that
approach, focusing on: economic empowerment of could avert or minimize future conflicts.
residents (Pimbert & Pretty, 1995; Kothari et al., 1997;
Borrini-Feyerabend, 2003); changing relationships MATERIALS AND METHODS
between fringe communities and protected area  Site description
managers (Hulme & Murphree, 2001; Barrow & The study focused on Digya National Park, one of the six
Fabricius, 2002); and the complex links between national parks legally designated in Ghana. This park is
biodiversity degradation and rural poverty (Wood et al., situated on a peninsular off the central section of the
2000; Hartman, 2002; Rachman, 2002; Adams et al., western shore of Lake Volta (Figure 1). The park had an
2004). According to Gillingham & Lee (2003), local area of 65,000 ha when it was first established in 1909
people who disproportionately bear the cost of protection during the British colonial era (Twumasi et al., 2005).
and feel ‘excluded’ cannot be expected to provide the The creation of the Volta Lake in 1965 resulted in
needed support if the costs of doing so outweigh the expansion of the park to its present size of 347,830 ha,
benefits they derive. including the original location of some sixteen
settlements. The reserve was legally gazetted as a
A number of national parks in Ghana have been scenes of national park in 1971 on the basis of its importance as
conflicts between Wildlife Officials and local wild animal habitat and also as part of the complex policy
communities in recent times (box 1). However, there is a related management issues of the Volta basin. Digya is
paucity of information on these conflicts in the literature considered as very strategic in the stabilization of the
in spite of the widespread media attention such conflicts shores of the Volta Lake. It is surrounded by a large
normally receive, see for example Amnesty Press Release human population made up of fishers and farmers,
(2006a; 2006b), Myjoyonline.com (2006) and CHRE/ comprising indigenous communities as well as migrants
CHRIPD (2006). This paper investigates conflicts who moved into the area with the creation of the Volta
between local communities and protected area managers dam. Most of the people in the fringe communities live in
using the Digya National Park as a case study, with a houses constructed out of improvised local materials,
view to understanding the nature, causes and notably switch for wall construction and thatch for
consequences of such conflicts. The ultimate goal is to roofing.

Mud/thatch houses are a common feature in the fringe communities of Digya National Park where poverty levels, according
national statistics, are relatively high © J. S. Ayivor
The park supports low populations of the African Digya spans three political regions, and five
Elephant (Loxodonta africana), together with a number administrative districts of Ghana: the Atebubu and Sene
of ungulates including Hartebeests (Alcelaphus Districts in the Brong Ahafo Region, Afram Plains
buselaphus), Roan Antelope (Hippotragus equines), District in the Eastern Region, and Sekyere East and
Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), Bay Duiker Sekyere West Districts in the Ashanti Region. The park
(Cephalophus dorsalis), Bush Duiker (Sylvicapra has two main parts, the northern and southern sectors,
grimmia), Red-flanked Duiker (Cephalophus rufilatus), and is managed by the Wildlife Division (WD) of Ghana
Waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) and Burron's Kob Forestry Commission through the Atebubu office of the
(Kobus kob). The African Buffalo (Syncerus caffer), Oribi Division. There are 13 camp sites spread around the
park. Camp sites are sub-stations established at strategic
(Ourebia ourebi) Bongo (Tragelaphus euryceros), Bush
points within and along the boundaries of the park to
Pig (Potamochoerus larvatus) and Common Warthog
ensure the day-to-day protection of the park. The
(Phacochoerus africanus) are also known to occur in the
Atebubu office is headed by a Park Manager who has
park. Additionally, the park harbours aquatic species of
oversight responsibility over all the 13 camp sites
conservation significance such as the Manatee
(Wildlife Department, 1995).
(Trichechus senegalensis),Hippopotamus
(Hippopotamus amphibious) and African Clawless Otter
 Methods
(Aonyx capensis) together with numerous fish species in
Field work was carried out within selected communities
the adjoining Lake Volta (Wildlife Department, 1995;
bordering the park by a three-member research team,
EPA, 1996). At least six primate species including Olive
between August 2010 and March 2011. The field-based
Baboon (Papio anubis), Velvet Monkey (Cercopithecus
approach employed focused group discussions, direct
pygerythrus), Mona Monkey (Cercopithecus mona),
interviews and on-site observations to extract qualitative
Lesser Spotnosed Monkey (Cecopithecus nictitans), the
data. Twelve focused group discussions were carried out
Western Pied Colobus (Colobus polykomos) and Patas in nine communities involving 139 individuals between
Monkey (Cercopithecus (Erythrocebus) patas) are the ages of 18 and 75. The discussants were made up of
reported to occur in the park. Common carnivores are 27 per cent females and 73 per cent males. Female
the Cusimanse (Crossarchus obscures) and some representation was low because most of the married
mongoose species. The park is reported to be the women whose husbands participated said that they
historical home of two species that are presently locally shared the same views about the subject matter as their
extinct namely the Black Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) husbands and therefore saw no need to participate. In
and the Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) 1 (Twumasi order to increase female participation, separate female
et al., 2005). group discussions were organised. Seven separate

Participants at a focus group discussion in one of the fringe communities of Digya National Park © J. S. Ayivor
interviews were carried out also with two traditional indicator for poverty, for example Simanowitz et al.,
chiefs and their elders and five WD officials. (2000) used CASHPOR House Index (CHI) and
Communities surveyed were selected with the help of a Participatory Wealth Ranking (PWR) as means for
base map and advice from Wildlife Officials on identifying the very poor. Nearness of communities and
accessibility. Four of the communities located about 8 farm units to the park was also recorded to give an
km apart on the average, were selected from the northern indication of likelihood of conflicts between farmers and
sector. In the southern sector where the landmass is wild animals (see for example Parry & Campbell (1992)
more extensive, five communities located about 12 km in Botswana, Hill (1997) in Uganda, and Gillingham &
apart, were selected to ensure a fair geographical Lee (2003) in Tanzania).
representation. The Community Liaison Officer of the
Wildlife Division, who already had a good rapport with Data for pressure and threats facing the park were
the communities, led the research team into the derived from an evaluation of protected area
communities, but as a result of existing tensions, the management effectiveness , which employed the Rapid
team considered it best that he was not present at the Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area
discussions. Participants comprised women and youth Management (RAPPAM) methodology (Ervin, 2003).
group leaders, representatives of the Collaborative This assessment covered eight protected areas in the
Resource Management Area (CREMA), members of Volta Basin of Ghana and was carried out from 16th to 17th
District Assembly Unit Committee, and other prominent April 2009, in a workshop setting held at the University
and knowledgeable citizens of the communities. The of Ghana. Twenty-five participants comprising protected
discussions, which generated qualitative data mostly, area managers and administrators from Wildlife Division
focused on the nature, causes and effects of conflicts Headquarters, and personnel from NGOs and academics
between communities and park managers; individual participated in the workshop. The RAPPAM
perceptions about the national park concept; methodology is based on a pre-designed questionnaire
community’s relationship with Wildlife Division officials; covering six main assessments elements, of which the
and measures to curb future conflicts. On-site evaluation of pressure and threats constitute just a part
observations recorded the types of living structures, of one of the elements. Based on the methodology, every
availability of utility services and road network. Housing activity which is a pressure or threat to the park has three
condition was used as an indicator of poverty and lack of main attributes namely: extent, impact and permanence.
social infrastructure as a sign of community The extent could be localized, scattered, widespread or
marginalization (also alluded to by the discussants). throughout. Impact could be mild, moderate, high or
These indicators are supported by national and regional severe, whereas permanence, which refers to time scale,
poverty indices (GSS, 2007). Housing structures and could be short-term, medium term, long-term and
external housing conditions have been used as an permanent. Each of the four elements describing the

Figure 2. Pressures and threats Facing Digya National Park. Note: Numbers on Y axis represent the product of scores for all three
attributes (i.e. extent, impact and permanence) on the scale of 1-64, based on the RAPPAM methodology.
nature of the attributes carries a score ranging from one events that have already had a detrimental impact on the
to four. For each activity, the product of scores given by integrity of the protected area. Threats, on the other
respondents for all three attributes gives the degree of hand, are potential processes, activities or events in
pressure or threat that the activity poses. Each pressure which a detrimental impact is likely to occur or continue
or threat has a score of between 1 and 64, which is the in the future (Ervin, 2003). In terms of pressure, poverty
product of the extent (scale 1 to 4: localized, scattered, in nearby communities had the highest score, followed by
widespread, throughout) the impact (scale 1 to 4: mild, annual bush fires and livestock grazing. Other factors or
moderate, high, severe) and the permanence (scale 1 to activities that exerted pressure on the park included
4: short term, medium term, long term or permanent). It illegal entry including poaching, high human population
is therefore not a linear scale. A score from 1-3 is weak, 4 density, agricultural encroachment, charcoal production
-9 moderate, 12-24 high and 27-64 severe (figure 2). and settlement establishment (Figure 2).
Institutional data in relation to illegal activities in the A critical look at illegal activities and encroachment
park were obtained from unpublished official reports of reveals that they are fundamentally linked to poverty and
the district and divisional offices of Wildlife Division economic livelihood issues. Most of the houses were
responsible for Digya covering the period 2005-2009. constructed using improvised local materials, notably
This information was provided by Wildlife Officials. mud/swish for wall construction and thatch for roofing, a
Secondary data were extracted from both published and common feature in poorer rural communities in Ghana.
unpublished sources such as Wildlife Division field
The participants at the management effectiveness
records and annual reports. The quantitative data
evaluation workshop based their assessment of poverty
obtained from the RAPPAM assessment and
in fringe communities on a regional poverty index (GSS,
institutional sources were entered into Microsoft Excel
2008). While the poverty index in Ghana has decreased
(2007) and were used to generate bar graphs to
from 52 per cent in 1991/92 to 28 per cent in 2005/06
illustrate the distribution of elements that were
(GSS, 2008), incidence of poverty in rural savannah
measured (figure 3).
areas, which include the northern parts of Brong Ahafo
Region where Digya National Park is located, had
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS remained pervasive according to earlier studies
 Pressure and threats facing Digya (Coulombe & McKay, 2004).
Results from the evaluation of management effectiveness
of Digya indicated that the park faced a lot of pressures Of the threats facing the park, the one that scored highest
and threats emanating from surrounding communities. was illegal entry, including poaching, followed by poverty
Pressure in this context refers to processes, activities, or in nearby communities and livestock grazing. Other

Figure 3. Illegal activities encountered in Digya National Park in 2009
threats in order of severity were annual bush fires, high Park monitoring records in Digya, from 2005 to 2009 as
human population density, agricultural encroachment, illustrated in Figure 4, show that although a large
charcoal production and settlement establishment number of illegal activities were encountered annually,
(Figure 2). It was clear from the findings that poverty in only a few culprits were arrested. In 2005, there were a
nearby communities and human population pressure total of 360 illegal activities compared to 21 arrests; in
were the main underlying causes of the threats facing 2006, the numbers were 345 and 23; 280 and 18 in
Digya. On population growth, available figures of 2007; 358 and 23 in 2008; while 2009 recorded 310
selected fringe communities from Ghana Statistical illegal activities and 22 arrests. The small number of
Service have shown that in Nsogyaso, Hwanyaso and arrests suggest that Digya lacks the requisite law
Kpatsakope, for instance, the population increased from enforcement capacity to prevent illegal activities in the
75 to 1,121; 185 to 750; and 82 to 295, respectively, park. In 2006 for instance, the park had only 0.016
between 1970 and 2000 (GSS, 2005). effective patrol staff per km2 and an operational budget
of UD$2.5/km2 compared to 0.198 patrol staff and
While some of the threats and pressures such as UD$58/km2 operational budget for Shai Hills Resource
agricultural encroachment are direct illegal activities, Reserve in the coastal savannah region of Ghana
others such as poverty in nearby communities and high (Jachmann, 2008). The ideal cost of effectively managing
population density may not be direct, but may aggravate a protected area is estimated at US$250/km2 (James et
illegal activities. Protected area officials are required to al., 2001). The lower number of poachers arrested in
enforce a set of regulations which prohibit local people 2007 could be the result of the backlash from both local
from engaging in illegal activities but more often, the and international media following a forced eviction
prohibitions are flouted and result in conflict. exercise, and boat disaster (see box 1) in 2006 (Ayivor,
2007). This might have forced Wildlife Officials to
 Prohibited activities carried out by Local exercise some restraint. It is worthwhile to note that
People though the arrests recorded may be considered as
Figure 3 shows a frequency chart of illegal activities successful law enforcement efforts, continuous arrests
encountered within the park based on records of field and prosecutions of local people only aggravate conflict
monitoring and law enforcement by officials of the park (Stern, 2008), which negates the principles of the
in 2009. The activities include snaring of animals, ‘inclusive concept’ (Borrini-Feyerabend, 2003).
establishment of camps by poachers within the park,
littering of spent cartridges from gun shots and animals  Other causes of conflict
found killed, bushmeat confiscated and poachers Reports from the field discussion indicate that the
arrested, among others. damming of the Volta at Akosombo in 1964 and its

Figure 4: Illegal activities encountered in Digya National Park Compared to number of arrests from 2005-2009
aftermath resulted in the influx of three categories of Apart from the fact that no housing was provided to
migrants: (i) those displaced by inundation of the Volta those who had to be moved, some of those affected
Lake and resettled in four communities within the claimed they have been detached from their traditional
vicinity of the southern sector of the park; (ii) fisher folks roots. A number of communities in the southern sector of
from lower Volta area who were affected by downstream the park were living within the park in a location that was
hydrological changes as a result of damming; and (iii) part of the Ashanti Region. After the demarcation of the
famers and petty traders who were attracted generally by park between 1974 and 1976, they were relocated to
the new economic opportunities provided by the dam. Kwahu lands in the Eastern Region. Presently, these
These migrants, together with indigenes who were communities consider themselves as half Ashantis and
displaced after the establishment of the park, live in over half Kwahus. These are ethical issues bordering on
200 communities within the vicinity of the park. human rights and respect for local people, which
according to Beltran (2000) have to be properly handled
For those who had to be relocated, the issue of to avoid conflict.
compensation had been a major source of conflict.
According to the Ghana legal system, persons displaced Human-wildlife conflict was another source of
as a result of government acquisition/expropriation of disaffection among local residents. Studies have shown
land are entitled to cash compensation from the that when fringe communities of protected areas are
government for both loss of property, including crops, forced to absorb the costs of living with wildlife, local
paid to individuals, and land expropriation (paid mainly support for conservation may be seriously undermined
to the chiefs). Some local residents claimed that (Brandon et al., 1998; Ogra & Badola, 2008). Elephant
compensation due them was paid to undeserved raids were common in communities within the southern
claimants. They have vowed, therefore, to continue to sector, where damage to crops was reported to be
annex the portions of the park belonging to them until extensive. Though actual data on elephant raids were
they received their compensation. This confirms the scanty, every cocoa farmer who was at the focus group
observation by Kiss (1990) that local people are not discussion in the southern sector reported being a victim
motivated to conserve wildlife resources if they have not at one time or the other. Additionally, rodents, ungulates,
been compensated for the sacrifices they had made. As primates and birds were reported to destroy crops within
Muller & Albers (2001) noted, ecologically valuable lands all the fringe communities. When farmers kill these
are also economically valuable and so in the absence of animals pests, they are arrested and are sometimes
development interventions that would provide the openly paraded and humiliated before being prosecuted,
residents with alternative means of livelihood, illegal thus, deepening conflict. As Naughton et al., (1999),
activities, which aggravate conflict, would continue. noted, human–wildlife conflicts remain a major obstacle
The poor handling of resettlement arrangement was to community support for conservation. This requires the
another source of conflict according to local residents. establishment of another form of compensation system

Two poachers arrested by Wildlife Guards with their carcasses awaiting prosecution © W D Kyabobo
that pays for part or all of the losses suffered by local establishment did not bring any tangible benefits to
farmers from wild animal activities in particular elephant them. A 42 year old woman reported: “I derive no benefit
raids, which often means the loss of the entire crop of the from the park but instead crop losses. When I get to my
farmer for the year. farm and encounter an elephant feeding on my crops, I
can only create noise to drive it away; if that fails, I just
Another issue of concern that tends to reduce local look on helplessly as my farm is destroyed. Often, I get
support for protected area management is the high so devastated and have no option but to weep all the
handedness by Wildlife Officials. Some respondents at way back home”.
the focus group discussions narrated the ordeal they
went through including physical assaults and imposition The only tangible benefit according to them was
of fines when they were arrested for protected area bushmeat hunting, which, in itself, is an illegal activity.
offences. As Stern (2008) noted, when potential Respondents from four out of the 12 groups indicated
collaborators who should help achieve a common goal that they disliked the establishment of the park in their
are criminalized for offenses that border on livelihood, neighbourhood because it has reduced their land size,
the chances are that they will not cooperate. In Digya, exposed their farm produce to raids by wildlife, denied
protected area officials were determined to clamp down them access to bushmeat and restricted their access to
on offenders, by advocating for the imposition of a more traditional economic activities such as harvesting of non-
deterrent punishment on culprits. Unfortunately, stiffer timber forest products. Their apprehension was rooted in
punishment will not engender the win-win-win solutions the fact that poverty within the fringe communities had
advocated by Meffe et al., (2002) but would only deepen worsened as a result of the protected area establishment,
conflict. whilst they were paying an additional price of high
handedness and arrest for encroachment. Though all the
During field discussions, all the participants in eight out participants shared similar sentiments regarding
of the 12 groups were emphatic that protected area livelihood challenges resulting from the establishment of

the park, five of the groups indicated that they liked the Unfortunately the action was ad hoc as the Wildlife
park establishment concept, while three groups were Division lacked the capacity in terms of staff and logistics
indifferent. Groups which had accepted the concept to enforce the eviction order. Communities along the
indicated that periodic outreach programmes organized Sene River arm of the park complied because of the
by Wildlife Officials had sensitized them to support proximity of the Tato Bator wildlife camp site, which
nature conservation. enabled effective monitoring. On the other hand, about
twelve communities at the Digya River arm of the park
The fisher folks along the lakeshores of the park also returned to the park after the exercise because of lack of
claimed that the protected sections of the lake were more monitoring. The main challenge according to Wildlife
productive in terms of fish size and abundance. This Officials was the high financial cost of accessing the
confirms Roberts et al., (2001) assertion that prohibiting Digya River arm which was possible only by means of a
fishing in reserves lead to increase in biomass, high powered motor boat over the Volta Lake.
abundance and average size of fishes. According to the
fisher folks, whenever they encroached into these areas Another eviction order was announced in 2002, with the
and were caught, apart from being manhandled by ‘gun support of the local political heads. The plan was not
wielding’ Wildlife Officials, their fishing gears were also implemented due to budgetary constraints. However, in
destroyed, which put a lot of economic burden on them. 2006, there was yet another eviction exercise, which
Clearly, this situation only deepens the animosity resulted in ten of the evacuees losing their lives through a
between local people and the officials. boat disaster. The settlers were allegedly overloaded in a
boat by private operators, apparently, to escape the
EXISTENCE OF SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS AND wrath of the task force that was set up to enforce the
eviction order. This attracted a lot of public outcry and
FORCED EVICTION
condemnation and had to be discontinued as a result of a
The establishment of illegal settlements inside Digya
court injunction by human rights activists. From the
National Park has been another major source of conflict
research team’s interactions with community members,
between the settlers and Wildlife Officials. The squatter
it could be inferred that the squatter settlements had the
settlements emerged after the creation of the Volta Lake,
backing of some traditional leaders who claimed
which provided fishing and farming opportunities. It was
ownership of those portions of the park where the
reported that in 1971, when the park was gazetted, the
squatters were and collected rent from them.
settlers were notified to vacate the area. Most of them did
not comply with the eviction order because there were no
resettlement arrangements in place. Whilst CONCLUSION
compensation was paid by government to some of the The study identified two main sources of conflict in Digya
chiefs who owned the lands, the settlers who were National Park. The first relates to residents of fringe
directly affected were left out and were expected to communities acting individually or as groups to carry out
return to their original lands. In 1989, the Wildlife illegal activities for economic survival, which exerted
Division embarked on an eviction exercise with the pressure on the park and posed threats on its survival.
backing of the military government that was in power. The authors concluded that poverty, population growth
According to resident victims, the exercise was rather and livelihood issues were the root causes of most of the
highhanded and traumatic. Below is a quote from a 55 pressures and threats identified. The second source of
year old man at one village about the ordeal they went conflict involved squatter communities living inside the
through: “We were served an eviction notice without us park. This group had experienced at least three major
being told where to go. Two weeks after the notice, we eviction exercises, but would always return once the
were forcefully evicted and were not allowed even to exercise was over.
salvage our belongings, including food crops and
livestock. Wildlife Officials were highhanded on us and There was no evidence of attempts to mainstream local
there was no one to speak for us. We had to move at community participation in the management of Digya, or
night to the opposite bank of the Sene River with our systematically address their needs and expectations.
children without any protection against the harsh Under these circumstances, it is likely that the illegal
environment. We had to pitch tents using improvised activities within the protected areas will continue,
local materials as temporary houses. It took the goodwill leading to arrests and prosecutions, which in turn will
of the paramount chief of Dwan, to give us this land to fuel the antagonism and lack of cooperation from the
resettle ourselves. We had to start life all over again”. local people. Instead of Wildlife Officials seeing local

Children in fringe communities of Digya National Park look into the future with optimism in spite of poor living conditions
© J. S. Ayivor
communities as allies in the management of the park, establishment and property lost, but also to consistent
what pertains is distrust on both sides. damages caused by wildlife to farm crops.
An important way forward to resolve some of these issues Opportunity costs for conservation should not be the
would be to link community development to wildlife burden of only the communities living close to the
management. This includes the promotion of self- protected area, but should be a national as well as an
sustaining economies in these remote areas including international concern. Programmes aimed at supporting
alternative livelihoods such as bee keeping, local those whose livelihoods were directly affected by
handicraft production and small livestock raising. protected area establishment, therefore, have to be the
Enhancing income generating opportunities and quality collective responsibility of local, regional and national
of life for human populations in proximity to protected administrative institutions backed by international
areas will contribute to the attainment of the objectives financial mechanisms. The concept of empowering
of wildlife conservation in the park. communities around protected areas (Community
Resource Management Area –CREMA) recently adopted
Dialogue with local communities affected by nature by the Wildlife Division of the Ghana Forestry
conservation is also vital in curtailing conflicts. Alongside Commission, has a lot of potential to minimize conflicts
provision of alternative livelihood enhancement with surrounding communities and to encourage
opportunities, Wildlife Officials need to have the capacity collaboration. The CREMA concept seeks to build the
to embark on regular outreach programmes to dialogue capacity of, and provide incentives for, local communities
with community members and to listen to their concerns. to sustainably manage and conserve natural resources.
Regular dialogue will help to promote mutual trust,
reduce acrimony and curtail conflict situations. This will
require the assignment of Community Liaison Officers to
each wildlife protected area. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Volta
Payment of compensation to groups and individuals who Basin Research Project of the University of Ghana (UG)
were seriously disadvantaged as a result of protected area and the UG-Carnegie Next Generation of Academics in
establishment would be vital also in reducing conflicts. It Africa Project, for the research. The Wildlife Officials at
would be necessary first to develop pricing and Atebubu, Tato-Bator and Donkorkrom are also
compensation mechanisms that take into account the acknowledged for their assistance during field work.
value of ecosystem services as well as the lost livelihood
services and separates the issues of indigenes and NOTES
migrants. The compensation system would not be limited 1
All the species names are based on Kingdon’s nomenclature
only to lands expropriated for protected area (Kingdon, 1997)

REFERENCES Ghanaweb, (2006). Assailants of Kyabobo Park Guards would

face justice-DC assures. Regional News of 2006-07-12.
Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, Hohoe, Ghana.
J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B. and Wolmer, W. (2004). Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), (2005). Population and
Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. housing census of Ghana. Accra, Ghana: GSS
Science, 306, p 1146-1149. Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), (2007). Pattern and trends of
Amnesty International, (2006a). Africa: Forced evictions reach poverty in Ghana: 1991-2006. Accra, Ghana: GSS
crisis levels. 10th April, 2006 Press Release. http:// Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), (2008). Ghana Living Standard
news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAFR010092006. Survey Report of the Fifth Round. Accra, Ghana: GSS
Amnesty International, (2006b). Ghana: Forced evictions in Gillingham, S. and Lee, P. C. (2003). People and protected
the Digya national park area must stop Public Statement areas: a study of local perceptions of wildlife crop-damage
AI Index: AFR 28/001/2006 (Public) News Service No: 098 conflict in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve,
19 April 2006. Tanzania. Oryx 37:3, pp 316-325.
Ayivor J. S. (2007). An Exploration of Policy Implementation in Hartman, B. (2002). Degradation narratives. Over-simplifying
Protected Watershed Areas: Case Study of Digya National the link between population, poverty and the
Park in the Volta Lake Margins in Ghana: Master Thesis environment. Newsletter of the international human
Presented to the College of Arts and Sciences. Athens, dimensions programme on global environmental change:
USA: Ohio University IHDP Update, April, 2002.
Barrow, E., and Fabricius, C. (2002). Do rural people really Hill, C. M. (1997) Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: the
benefit from protected areas - rhetoric or reality? PARKS farmer’s perspective in an agricultural community in
12(2), 67-79. western Uganda. International Journal of Pest
Beltrán, J. (2000). Indigenous and traditional peoples and Management 43, 77–84.
protected areas: Principles, guidelines and case studies. Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (eds.) (2001). African wildlife
Gland and Cardiff: World Commission on Protected Areas and livelihoods: The promise and performance of
and Cardiff University community conservation. Oxford: James Currey.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (2003). Governance of protected Jachmann, H., (2008). Monitoring law-enforcement in nine
areas: Innovations in the air. Policy Matters 12(3):92–101. protected areas in Ghana. Biological Conservation 141, p
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G. (2004). 89-99.
Indigenous and local communities and protected areas: James, A., Gaston, K. J. and Balmford, A. (2001). Can we afford
Towards equity and enhanced conservation. Gland, to conserve biodiversity? BioScience 51: 43–52.
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Kindon, J. (1997). The Kingdon field guide to African
Brandon, K. and Wells, M. (1992). Planning for people and mammals. London: A&C Black Publishers Ltd.
parks. World Dev. 20:357–370. King, B. (2009). Conservation geographies in Sub-Saharan
Brandon, K.; Redford, K. H. and Sanderson, S. E. (ed). (1998). Africa: The politics of national parks, community
Parks in peril. People, politics and protected areas. conservation and peace parks. Geography Compass. 3, pp.
Washington, D.C: Island Press. 1-14.
Brandon, K. (2002). Putting the right parks in the right places. Kiss, A., (1990). Living with wildlife: Wildlife resource
In Terborgh, J. van Schaik, C. Davenport, L. and Making M. management with local participation in Africa. Technical
(eds.). Strategies for protecting tropical nature, Rao, Paper, 130. Washington DC: World Bank
Washington, DC: Island Press. 443–467. Kothari, A., Vania, F., Das, P., Christopher, K. and Jha. S.
Centre for Housing Rights & Evictions, Commonwealth Human (1997). Building bridges for conservation: Towards joint
Rights Initiative and Peoples Dialogue (CHRE/ CHRIPD), management of protected areas in India. New Delhi, India:
(2006). Forced eviction of settlers from the Digya National Indian Institute of Public Administration.
Park. Statement of facts and recommendations . April 19 Laurance, W. F. (2008). Theory meets reality: How habitat
2006. http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/new/2006/ fragmentation research has transcended island
media_release_forced_evictions_in_ghana.pdf. biogeography theory. Biological Conservation 141: 1731-
Chape, S., Blyth, S., Fish, L. and Spalding, M. (Compilers). 1744.
(2003). 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas. McShane, T. and Wells, M. (eds). (2004). Getting biodiversity
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, UNEP- projects to work: Towards more effective conservation and
WCMC development. Biology and Resource Management Series.
Coulombe, H. and McKay A. (2004). Selective poverty New York: Columbia University Press.
reduction in a slow growth environment: Ghana in the Meffe, G., Nielsen, L., Knight, R. and Schenborn, D. (2002).
1990s. Paper presented at ISSER-Cornell International Ecosystem management: Adaptive, community-based
Conference on “Ghana at the Half Century”, Accra, July conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
2004. Mukherjee, A. (2009). Conflict and coexistence in a national
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (1996). park. Economic and Political Weekly. Xliv:23. p 52-59.
Environmental Protection Agency at a Glance. Accra, Muller J, and Albers, H. J. (2001). Enforcement, payments, and
Ghana: EPA development projects near protected areas: how the
Ervin, J. (2003). WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of market setting determines what works where. Resource
Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. and Energy Economics 26. p 185–204.
Gland, Switzerland: WWF Myjoyonline.com, (2006). Volta Lake disaster survivors appeal
Fox, S. (1981). The American Conservation Movement: John for food aid. http://www.myjoyonline.com/news.
Muir and his legacy. Madison, USA: University of Naughton, L., Rose, R. and Treves, A. (1999). The social
Wisconsin Press. dimensions of human-elephant conflict in Africa: a

literature review and case studies from Uganda and Wood, A., Stedman-Edwards, P., and Mang, J. (eds.). (2000).
Cameroon, A Report to the African Elephant Specialist The root causes of biodiversity loss. London: Earthscan
Group, Human-Elephant Conflict Task Force, Gland, Publications Ltd.
Switzerland: IUCN
Nelson J. and Hossack, L. (eds.). (2003). From principle to ABOUT THE AUTHORS
practice: Indigenous peoples and protected areas in Africa.
Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme Jesse S. Ayivor is a Research Fellow at the Institute for
Ogra, M. and Badola, R. (2008). Compensating human-wildlife Environment and Sanitation Studies, University of
conflict in protected area communities: Ground-level Ghana. His major research interests are in social
perspectives from Uttarakhand, India. Hum Ecol, 36:5 dimensions of wildlife protected area management,
Parry, D. & Campbell, B. (1992) Attitudes of rural communities
mangrove ecosystems management, climate change
to animal wildlife and its utilization in Chobe Enclave and
Mababe Depression, Botswana. Environmental adaptation and policy, land use and land cover change
Conservation, 19, p 245–252. analysis. Ayivor has researched extensively in the Volta
Pimbert, M. and Pretty, J. N. (1995). Parks, people and Basin of Ghana, on environmental and social impact
professionals: Putting ‘‘participation’’ into protected area assessment.
management. UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 57. Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social
Professor Christopher Gordon is an environmental
Development.
Pinchot, G. (1910). The fight for conservation. New York: scientist with many years of experience in limnology, eco
Doubleday, Page & Company. -toxicology and aquatic resource management, with
Putney, A. (2003). Introduction: Perspective on the values of special interest in biodiversity of coastal, wetlands,
protected areas. In: Harmon, D. and A. Putney (Eds). The freshwater systems and the functioning of such systems.
full value of parks: From economics to the intangible.
He is the founding Director of the Institute for
Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Rachman, A. A. (2002). Poverty and environment linkages: An Environment and Sanitation Studies of the University of
emerging concern needs greater attention and focused Ghana, and has provided policy guidance on climate
action. Newsletter of the international human dimensions change, aquatic resources and their management as well
programme on global environmental change: IHDP as wetland and biodiversity conservation issues to
update, April, 2002.
government and non-governmental organisations. He
Roberts, C. M., Bohnsack, J. A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J. P. and
Goodridge, R. (2001). Effects of marine reserves on serves on the scientific steering committees of Future
adjacent fisheries. Science. 294, p 1920-1923. Earth-Africa and PROVIA-UNEP.
Sharachchandra L., Wilshusen, L., Brockington, D., Seidler, R.
and Bawa, K. (2010). Beyond exclusion: alternative
Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu is a Professor of Zoology at the
approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing
tropics. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability University of Ghana, Chair of the Centre for African
2:1-7. Wetlands, a Fellow of the Ghana Academy of Arts and
Simanowitz, A., Nkuna, B. and Kasim, S. (2000). Overcoming Sciences and Birdlife International’s Vice-President for
the obstacles of identifying the poorest families. Africa. Her extensive experience in biodiversity and
Washington, DC: Microcredit Summit Campaign
environmental conservation and research spans across
Stern, M. J. (2008). The power of trust: Toward a theory of
local opposition to neighboring protected areas. Society & practical field work as a Warden in the Ghana Wildlife
Natural Resources: An International Journal, 21:10, p 859- Department, through training and capacity development
875. as a university lecturer, to international conservation
Terborgh, J. (1999). Requiem for nature. Washington, DC: policy and advocacy as Director of WWF International
Island Press.
Africa and Madagascar Programme. Her current research
Twumasi, Y.A., Coleman, T. L. and Manu, A. (2005).
Biodiversity management using remotely sensed data and interests are wetlands and waterbird ecology,
GIS technologies: the case of Digya National Park, Ghana. biodiversity conservation and development.
In Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on
Remote Sensing of Environment. June 20-21. Saint
Petersburg, Russia Federation.
Vig, N. J., Kraft, M. E. (2012). Environmental Policy. New
direction for the twenty-first century (8th ed.) Washington
DC: CQ Press
West, P. C. and Brechin, S. R. (Eds.) (1991). Resident peoples
and national parks. University of Tucson, USA: Arizona
Press
Wildlife Department, (1995). Digya National Park
Management Plan. Accra, Ghana: Wildlife Division.
Wildlife Division, (2007). Bui National Park Annual Report
2007. Accra, Ghana: Wildlife Division.

RESUMEN
El Parque Nacional Digya de Ghana ha sido escenario de conflictos entre las comunidades locales y los administradores
de la fauna silvestre desde su creación en 1971. Los conflictos que van desde la detención de los pobladores locales por
las autoridades de vida silvestre por ingresar al parque para la recolección de productos forestales no maderables, hasta
confrontaciones serias con cazadores furtivos, arrestos y desalojos que a veces resultan en muertes. Sin embargo, la
información documentada sobre estos conflictos es escasa. Este estudio examina las causas fundamentales de los
conflictos en el Parque Nacional Digya, con vistas a recomendar intervenciones normativas que ayuden a reducir los
conflictos. La información para el estudio se obtuvo a través de discusiones con grupos focales, entrevistas con los
interesados directos, observaciones sobre el terreno, además de un ejercicio de evaluación de la eficacia de la gestión
que implicó la administración de un cuestionario pre diseñado para administradores de áreas protegidas. Los
resultados revelaron que una de las causas fundamentales de los conflictos en el parque era la situación de pobreza que
agobiaba a las comunidades vecinas. Esto, sumado a las cuestiones pendientes en lo referente al pago de
indemnizaciones, las incursiones de animales en las tierras agrícolas y la exclusión de las comunidades locales del
proceso de gestión, han impulsado actividades ilegales, principalmente la caza y la invasión, que han resultado en
frecuentes situaciones de conflicto. La detención de los culpables y los desalojos forzosos por parte de las autoridades de
vida silvestre no había ayudado a reducir las actividades ilegales y los conflictos. El estudio recomienda vincular la
gestión de la vida silvestre al desarrollo comunitario para garantizar que se mantengan las economías locales y los
medios de subsistencia de las comunidades marginales al tiempo que se procura alcanzar los objetivos de conservación
de la vida silvestre para reducir los conflictos.
RÉSUMÉ
Le Parc national de Digya au Ghana est le théâtre de conflits entre communautés locales et gestionnaires de la vie
sauvage depuis sa création en 1971. Les conflits vont de l’appréhension des responsables de la vie sauvage envers les
habitants locaux, qu’ils soupçonnent de vouloir entrer dans le parc pour récolter des produits forestiers non ligneux, à
de graves confrontations avec les braconniers, avec des arrestations et des expulsions se soldant parfois par la mort
d’hommes. Néanmoins, une information sérieuse sur ces conflits fait défaut. Cette étude examine les origines du conflit
dans le Parc national de Digya, dans l’optique de recommander des interventions politiques qui puissent y mettre un
terme. Les données utilisées pour l’étude sont tirées de débats menés avec des groupes ciblés, d’entretiens directs avec
les parties prenantes, d’observations sur le terrain ainsi que d’un exercice d’évaluation d’efficacité de la part des
gestionnaires, où les gestionnaires et administrateurs d’aires protégées devaient répondre à un questionnaire pré-
rempli. Les résultats ont ainsi révélé que la pauvreté des communautés voisines est une des sources principales de
conflits dans le parc. Cette pauvreté, associée à des questions non résolues de paiements compensatoires, de raids des
animaux sur les fermes et d’exclusion des communautés locales dans le processus de gestion, a nourri les activités
illégales, notamment la chasse et l’empiétement de propriétés, aboutissant à plusieurs situations conflictuelles.
Cependant, les arrestations des coupables et les expulsions forcées par les gardes de la vie sauvage n’ont pas permis de
réduire les activités illégales et les conflits. L’étude recommande donc d’établir un lien entre la gestion de la vie sauvage
et le développement communautaire afin de préserver les économies locales et les moyens de subsistance des
communautés avoisinantes, tout en cherchant à atteindre les objectifs de la conservation de la vie sauvage, ce qui
minimiserait les conflits.

51 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
TIGERS IN THE TRANSBOUNDARY MANAS

CONSERVATION COMPLEX: CONSERVATION
IMPLICATIONS ACROSS BORDERS
Jimmy Borah1*, Dorji Wangchuk2, Anindya Swargowari3, Tenzing
Wangchuk2, Tridip Sharma1, Dhritiman Das4, Nilmani Rabha4, Ajit
Basumatari5, Niraj Kakati4, M. Firoz Ahmed5, Amit Sharma1, Anupam
Sarmah1, Deba Kumar Dutta1, Bibhuti Lahkar5, Tshering Dorji2, Probhod
Kumar Brahma3, Labanya Ramchiary3, Tshering Tempa6, Yeshey
Wangdi2, Tshering Nedup2, Tandin Wangdi7, Lhendup Tharchen8, Pema
Dhendup6, Chitaranjan Bhobora3, Bivash Pandav9 and Joseph
Vattakaven1
*Corresponding author: [email protected], Coordinator-Tiger Programme, WWF-India
1
WWF India, 172 B Lodhi Estate. New Delhi, India
2
Royal Manas National Park, Department of Forest and Park Services. Royal Government of
Bhutan
3
Manas National Park, Department of Environment & Forest. Government of India
4
UNESCO World Heritage Project, ATREE, Guwahati. Assam, India
5
Aaranyak. Guwahati, Assam, India
6
UWICE, Royal Government of Bhutan
7
WWF Bhutan, Thimpu. Bhutan
8
Wildlife Conservation Division, Thimpu. Royal Government of Bhutan
9
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India
ABSTRACT
Tiger Panthera tigris, is used as a flagship or umbrella species in conserving wildlife and wild areas in
many parts of Asia. We used remotely triggered camera traps and capture-recapture framework within
Manas National Park in India and Royal Manas National Park in Bhutan to estimate the abundance
and density of tigers in the Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex (TMCC). A total of 102
camera traps pairs were used in three ranges to cover more than 400 km 2 area. We captured 87
photographs of 14 individually identified tigers (eight males and six females), during the 5,955 camera-
trap night survey period. The population estimated was 15 (±SE 2.64) individuals with a 95 per cent
confidence interval range of 15 to 29. Tiger density estimates using ½ MMDM (Mean Maximum
Distance Moved) and using MLSECR (Maximum Likelihood Spatially Explicit Capture Recapture)
analysis was 1.9 (±SE 0.36) and 0.75 (±SE 0.21) individuals/100 km2 respectively. TMCC is an
important landscape, crucial for the future of tigers, and effective management of biodiversity should
extend beyond the borders of protected areas and across political boundaries.
INTRODUCTION In the Indian subcontinent, conservation of the Royal

Knowledge of what species is present, their relative Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) is at a crucial stage.
abundance and distribution within an area is essential The extirpation of tigers from tiger reserves has led to the
for effective conservation management (Sheng et al., growing realization that this subspecies is declining
2010). Well-designed monitoring programmes can rapidly where they were thought to be thriving (Wright,
obtain such information and provide robust scientific 2010). It was found that due to massive forest
data to wildlife managers on the long-term population or destruction in India, as well as poaching of tigers and the
biodiversity trends (Pereira & Cooper, 2006; Marsh & loss of their prey base, much of the tiger populations
Trenham, 2008). In the absence of species abundance disappeared in the last decade. In Bhutan, the tiger can
information, conservation management decisions are be found from sub-tropical jungles near the Indian plains
often based on educated guesses, which may result in to above tree line on the Tibetan border (Dorji &
erroneous decisions that can be counterproductive for Santiapillai, 1989). The Royal Government of Bhutan
conservation (Blake & Hedges, 2004). (RGoB) is committed to conserving this species and has

Jimmy Borah et al 52
Deploying camera traps in Manas National Park, India © WWF India
set aside more than 51 per cent of the country’s total

STUDY AREA
geographic area as protected areas in the form of
TMCC straddles the Indo-Bhutanese border from the
National Parks and Biological Corridors. Global
Ripu Reserve Forest in India in the west, to Bhutan’s
initiatives to conserve tigers by international
Khaling Wildlife Sanctuary in the east, to Jigme Singye
organizations and NGOs have helped in raising
Wangchuk National Park in Bhutan to the north. Thus,
awareness of the precarious state of this species.
the TMCC encompasses the whole of India’s Manas Tiger
However, despite huge financial investment and effort
Reserve and the group of protected areas in southern
from these agencies and nations, tiger numbers continue
Bhutan. The area is home to one of the richest diversity
to dwindle in most of the tiger range countries.
of wildlife and vegetation in the region.
Global and regional level initiatives will need to be

The TMCC is located at the junction of Indo-Gangetic
anchored to on the ground actions at the local level.
and Indo-Malayan realms and is a key conservation area
Conservation actions and initiatives at the local level are
in the Jigme Dorji-Manas-Bumdaling conservation
crucial to realize the global mission of preventing
landscape in the eastern Himalayan eco-region
extinction of tigers in the wild. It is with this objective
(Wikramanayake et al., 2001). It is also an identified
that we initiated a tiger monitoring study in the Royal
Tiger Conservation Landscape (#37 Northern Forest
Manas National Park (RMNP) in Bhutan and the Manas
Complex – Namdapha - Royal Manas, Sanderson et al.,
National Park (MNP) in India as the core area of the
2006). Habitats range from tropical grasslands at 40 to
Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex (TMCC)
150 m through subtropical forest at 300 m to warm
(Borah et al., 2012). The complex is an important tiger
broad-leaved forest above 1000 m reaching up to 2000
conservation unit stretching across India and Bhutan. It
m. The Manas River flows through RMNP and MNP with
is also supposed to be the only landscape in South East
both parks functioning as important watershed areas.
Asia sustaining the occurrence of tigers living close to the
timberline and predating upon mountain ungulates
(Wikramanayake et al., 1998). Tigers in this complex are The complex is home to endemic and globally threatened
known to traverse between the political boundaries since species like Golden langur (Trachypithecus geei), Pygmy
the whole complex is a contiguous stretch of habitat hog (Porcula salvania) and the endangered Bengal
conducive for its survival. florican (Houbaropsis bengalensis) as well as of Royal

Bengal tiger, Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa),

Leopard (P. pardus), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus),
Asiatic water buffalo (Bubalis bubalis), Gaur (Bos
gaurus), Greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) and White bellied heron (Ardea insignis). The
landscape is noted for its spectacular scenery with a
variety of habitat types that support a diverse fauna with
nearly 30 threatened mammals and about 35 threatened
birds.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used remotely triggered camera-traps and a capture-
recapture framework to estimate the population size of
tigers. Photographic capture-recapture sampling is a
reliable technique for estimating the abundances of tigers
and other secretive animal species that can be identified
individually from their natural markings (Karanth &
Nichols, 1998; O’Brien et al., 2003; Karanth et al., 2004;
Chauhan et al., 2005; Jhala et al., 2008, 2011; Sharma et
al., 2009). The camera-trapping programme was Camera trap © WWF India
designed primarily to determine the abundance and
density of tigers in TMCC, but also provided extensive as sufficiently short to assume that no population change
data on the occurrence of co-predator’s and prey species. occurs during the study (Karanth, 1995; Karanth &
Using these data our intention was to establish baseline Nichols, 1998; Silver et al., 2004). In MNP, all camera
information that would facilitate the conservation of units were mounted on trees, on poles or in steel cages
tigers and several other species in TMCC as a single made specifically for the cameras. The cameras were
conservation unit. placed 3-4 m apart on either side of a path or trail, with
the sensor set at 20-40 cm from the ground. In RMNP,
The camera-trapping study across the trans-boundary the cameras were placed 6-7 m away from each other at a
area was conducted within Bansbari and Bhuyanpara height of 45 cm from the ground and positioned in such a
Ranges of MNP in India and the Manas Range of RMNP, way that two cameras were not in the same line of view to
comprising a minimum convex polygon (MCP) area of avoid the flash of one disturbing pictures on the other
436 km2. Camera-traps were put in 102 locations across camera. Efforts were made to place two cameras at each
the three ranges within TMCC from November 2010 to location, but sometime in RMNP, certain camera stations
February 2011. A pair of camera traps was put in each 4 could accommodate only one camera. In such cases, we
to 6 km2 grid cell size, with the distance between each placed the other camera few metres away from the
camera varying from a minimum of 1.75 km to maximum location (10-15 m), forward or backwards, along the same
of 3.15 km. The camera-traps were deployed in the best trail.
possible locations within each grid to ensure coverage of
the entire sampling area, avoiding gaps large enough so In addition to monitoring tigers, this exercise was also
as to satisfy the assumption that no animal had a zero meant to record biodiversity, particularly the fauna of
probability of being photographed. The survey was, TMCC, so we set the sensitivity of camera to ‘high’ for
therefore, designed to cover the study area maximizing capture of wildlife in the area. To deter and
homogeneously to maximize the chance of avoid damage from elephants in RMNP, we placed fresh
photographing all animals present in the area (Karanth & elephant dung on our cameras and camouflaged them to
Nichols, 1998). We kept all the cameras operational for blend with surrounding environment. The cameras were
24 hours a day for 64 days, except in cases of checked on a daily basis by a team of researchers at MNP
malfunction or damage caused by elephants. Each day and monitored twice a month where ever possible in
(24 h) was therefore defined as a sampling occasion (Otis RMNP (some of the cameras traps could only be
et al., 1978). Our duration of camera-trapping for 64 days monitored once a month due to logistical constraints).
was adequate for assuming demographic closure (Otis et Although the same camera locations were maintained
al., 1978) of the study population, as previous studies on throughout the study duration, we shifted the cameras
large cats has suggested trapping periods of 2-3 months 100-200 m from the original location whenever a sign of

Researchers recording data © WWF India
trap shyness was observed. We identified the photo models, we compared Akaike Information Criteria
captured individual tigers by its stripe pattern. Every corrected for small sample size (AICc) scores between a
photo-captured tiger was given a unique identification model in which recruitment and survival were
number (e.g. TM1M, TM2F etc) after carefully examining constrained to zero and to one, respectively (representing
the position and shape of stripes on the flanks, limbs, population closure), and an open model in which these
forequarters and sometimes even tail (Schaller, 1967; parameters were estimated based on observed data. The
Karanth, 1995; Franklin et al., 1999). parameters, recruitment and survival, correspond to
immigration and fidelity, assuming a population is
DATA ANALYSIS demographically closed (Boulanger & McLellan, 2001;
 Abundance estimation Harihar et al., 2009; Borah et al., in press). Jackknife
We developed individual capture histories for tigers in a estimator (Otis et al., 1978) has been used successfully in
standard ‘X-matrix format’ (Otis et al., 1978; Nichols, earlier photographic capture studies (Karanth, 1995;
1992). These were analyzed using models developed for Karanth & Nichols, 1998; Karanth et al., 2004; Maffei et
closed populations in the programme CAPTURE al., 2004; Simcharoen et al., 2007; Wang & Macdonald,
(Rexstad & Burnham, 1991). An issue with the use of 2009) to estimate capture probabilities and population
standard closed population models to estimate size. However, it has been seen that the Jack-knife
abundance is the assumption of demographic and heterogeneity model appears less robust than other
geographic closure within the study period. In the models when data are sparse or capture probabilities low
majority of population studies on large, long-lived and strongly heterogeneous (Boulanger et al., 2002,
mammals, such as tigers, the sampling period is Harmsen et al., 2010, Gray & Prum, 2011). Based on the
generally adequately short that the assumption of capture recapture history generated from our study, we
demographic closure (i.e. no births or deaths within the generated parameter estimates under the Mb model
sample population) is logical. However, violation of the which turned out to be the best-fit model for the present
assumption of geographic closure (i.e. no animals move study in the programme CAPTURE.
in or out of the study area during sampling) is much
more likely. We assumed that the sampled population  Density estimation
was demographically closed, as tigers are long-lived We estimated tiger densities (per 100 km2) by dividing
animals (Otis et al., 1978; Karanth, 1995) and our the population size (N) by the effective sampled area,
sampling period was relatively short. We formally tested based on our abundance estimates. The effective sample
population closure using open Pradel models area was computed following the approach developed by
implemented in the programme MARK. In Pradel Wilson & Anderson (1985), using the half of the mean

maximum distance moved (HMMDM) method, in which DISCUSSION

a buffer of HMMDM for all individuals captured at more  Future monitoring and management
than one camera-trap location is added to the trapping
The study produced the first abundance and density
grid polygon (Karanth & Nichols, 1998). We also
estimate for tigers from TMCC within India and Bhutan
obtained density estimates using full maximum
using capture recapture framework (Table 1). We
likelihood spatially explicit capture recapture (MLSECR)
estimated tiger density based on conventional
in the programme DENSITY (DENSITY 4.4,
approaches. The camera trapping study yielded 87
www.otago.ac.nz/density), which did not rely upon
pictures of tigers comprising of 14 individuals in a total
closed population estimates from CAPTURE. The buffer
trapping effort of 5,955 trap night out of possible 6,592
width around the trapping grid was set at 10 km and we
trap nights. The four common tigers in TMCC were
assumed a half-normal spatial capture probability
found to be sharing territory with each other. Based on
function and a Poisson distribution of home-range
the photo captured data the tigers were avoiding the
centres for estimating density.
southern boundary of MNP and the concentration was
high towards the centre of TMCC indicating presence of
RESULTS good prey and the least disturb area. Further studies
We photo captured 14 individually identified tigers annually would provide more data on the movement
comprising of eight males and six females, during the patterns of these tigers. We recommend joint exercises,
5,955 camera-trap night survey period (see Annex). Four in form of monitoring as well as patrolling, to be carried
out of the 14 tiger identified were found to be using both out in TMCC to generate meaningful information for
the areas in MNP and RMNP. Capture frequencies varied management purpose. Such joint exercises would also
from one to five for the individuals. In MARK, the open help in promoting the conservation initiatives in the
Pradel model estimated survivorship (θ) at 0.98 (±SE landscape.
0.008) and recruitment (f) at 0.02 (±SE 0.008) for the
tiger population. The constrained Pradel model, in which
 Diversity of mammals and relationship
θ was set at 1.0 and f at 0.0 (the closed model), was
with tigers
better supported (ΔAICc 771.93) than the open model
Apart from tigers, other carnivore species photographed
(ΔAICc 856.5). Therefore, we found it reasonable to
included Leopard (including melanistic leopard),
consider the population closure for tigers to justify
Clouded Leopard, Golden Cat (Pardofelis temminckii),
analysis within a closed capture recapture framework.
Marbled Cat (Pardofelis marmorata), Leopard Cat
 Abundance (Prionailurus bengalensis), Jungle Cat (Felis chaus),
The overall model selection test ranked Mb (behavioural Dhole (Cuon alpinus), Himalayan Black Bear (Ursus
response to capture) as the best model (Criteria rated 1) thibetanus), Sloth Bear (Melursus ursinus), Jackal
in CAPTURE. Tests for the affect of a behavioural (Canis aureus) and Civets. Herbivore prey species photo
response (Х2 = 15.77, df=1, P=0.00007) supported the captured included Gaur, Wild pig (Sus scrofa), Sambar
suitability of the model in CAPTURE. The probability of (Rusa unicolor), Barking Deer (Muntiacus muntjak),
detecting an individual on at least one sampling occasion Goral (Naemorhedus goral), Serow (Capricornis thar),
(Average p-hat) was 0.03, while the estimated Asian Elephant and Porcupines. Such wide variety of
probability of recapture (average c-hat) was 0.12. The mammal species in the landscape could be attributed to
population estimate using Mb with the zippin estimator the varied geographical topography as well as the
was 15 (±SE 2.64) individuals with a 95 per cent different vegetation type present in the landscape.
confidence interval range of 15 to 29.
This could be the only landscape in the world with eight
 Density species of cats (felids) co-existing in the same area. The
The maximum distance moved (MDM) by recaptured eight species being: Tiger, Leopard, Clouded Leopard,
individuals between photo captures was between 2.1 km Marbled Cat, Golden Cat, Leopard Cat, Jungle Cat and
and 30.7 km (mean 8.4; ±SE 2.9). Based on HMMDM, Fishing Cat. All of them, except the fishing cat, were
the total sampling area was estimated to be 789.20 km2 photo captured in the camera traps. The fishing cat,
(±SE 50.98). Tiger density estimates based on estimate however, was sighted directly by one of our co-author in
from model Mb in CAPTURE was 1.9 (±SE 0.36) MNP, confirming its presence. Other important
individuals/100 km2. Tiger density based on MLSECR carnivores like dhole, sloth bear and black bear also
analysis in DENSITY, was estimated at 0.75 (±SE 0.21) share the same habitat with these cats making this
individuals/100 km2. landscape unique.

Table 1: Summary of camera trapping to estimate abundance and density of tigers from Trans-boundary Manas Conservation
Complex
Total number of camera traps 102

Sampling occasion 64 days
Sampling effort (number of traps x sampling occasions) 5,955
2
Camera trap polygon area 436.37 km
Estimated buffer width (1/2 MMDM) 4.2 km
Effective sampled area 789.20 (±50.98)
Number of individual tigers captured 14
Estimated numbers of tigers in the sample area using model Mb 15 (95% CI: 15-29)
2
Estimated tiger density in sampled area using ½ MMDM 1.9 (±0.36) tigers/ 100 km
2
Estimated tiger density using MLSECR 0.75 (±0.21) tigers/ 100 km
We were able to determine the abundance and density immigration and fidelity was estimated. The overall
estimates for leopards and clouded leopards from MNP. model selection test ranked M b (behavioural response to
We photo captured 27 individually identified leopards capture) as the best model in CAPTURE. Model Mb
comprising of 11 males and 13 females (three allows the animal to exhibit a behavioural response to
unidentified) and 16 individually identified clouded capture and the model deals with the failure of the
leopards comprising of four males and five females assumption that the initial capture does not affect
(seven unidentified), during the same survey period. The subsequent capture probabilities. Based on our data we
abundance estimate using Mh Jack-knife and Pledger assume that the individual tigers in the TMCC may be
model Mh was 47 (±SE 11.3) and 35.6 (±SE 5.5) exhibiting behavioural response. The probability of
respectively for leopards and 21 (±SE 6.6) and 25.03 detecting an individual on at least one sampling occasion
(±SE 6.8) for clouded leopards. Density estimates using (Average p-hat) was 0.03, and comparable to that
MLSECR was 3.4 (±SE 0.82) and 4.73 (±SE 1.43) recorded for the studies undertaken in rainforest areas in
individuals/100 km2 for leopards and clouded leopards South East Asian countries, Malaysia (Kawanishi, 2002),
respectively (Borah et al., 2013 in press). We intend to Sumatra (O’Brien et al., 2003) and other sites (Karanth
determine the estimates of these species across TMCC et al., 2004). The current study at TMCC in an effectively
soon. sampled area of 789.20 km2 (±SE 50.98) revealed a
population estimate (Nˆ) of 15 tigers with a standard
Based on the higher abundance and density estimates for error (SEˆNˆ) of 2.64, while the estimated density (Dˆ
leopard and clouded leopard compared to tigers, we (SEˆDˆ)) was 1.9 (0.36) tigers/ 100 km2 (based on ½
assume that there may be sympatric competition for food MMDM) and 0.75 (0.21) tigers/100 km2 (based on
and space in predator guilds. It would be interesting to MLSECR) .
understand the intra-guild competition among these top
predators and see how restricted habitat use and dietary Estimating densities from abundance estimates from
overlap influence the abundance and distribution of closed population capture recapture models is largely
tigers and other carnivores in TMCC and we would based on observed animal movements (Borchers &
recommend such studies in future. Efford, 2008; Karanth & Nichols, 2010). The best
approach of Maximum Likelihood is to use the spatial
 Monitoring method capture histories of camera traps in a likelihood-based
Photographic capture-recapture sampling is a reliable density estimation framework (Borchers & Efford, 2008;
technique for estimating the abundances of tigers and Efford et al., 2009). Since the spatial likelihood approach
other secretive animal species that can be identified does not depend on adding a buffer to the trapping
individually from their natural markings. The present polygon for estimating effective trapping area, the
study further supports earlier studies (Karanth & resultant estimates are least biased by trap layout and
Nichols, 1998; O’Brien et al., 2003; Karanth et al., 2004; density (Efford, 2004). We, therefore at present,
Chauhan et al., 2005; Jhala et al., 2008, 2011; Sharma et recommend park managers to utilize the densities
al., 2009) on tigers using capture recapture framework. estimated by MLSECR approach, in order to assess
There was enough evidence for population closure conservation intervention effectiveness for efficient
assumption from the open Pradel models in MARK management decisions. However, MLSECR remains
where recruitment and survival corresponding to inhibited by different assumptions relating to spatial use

Monitoring team on patrol in Royal Manas National Park, Bhutan © Royal Manas National Park, Bhutan
and animal distributions (Efford, 2004) in spite of latest productive ecosystem. Future studies should also address
developments for intrinsically estimating density. For connectivity issues between landscapes in addition to
studies on monitoring large carnivores, these continuation of long term monitoring of tiger
assumptions needs to be taken into account based on the populations and other associated species.
ecology of study species as well as the features of study
area (Gray & Prum, 2011). TMCC is vital for regional and global conservation of
tigers in the wild. The region forms an indispensible
CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS corridor for the Terai-Arc Tiger Conservation Landscape
For monitoring the success of conservation activities in between Terai regions (of Nepal and India) with
various areas, baseline data on abundance and density landscapes in North eastern India, Myanmar and South
estimates are crucial for various species of concern. Our East Asia. The future plan should evolve a lasting
estimates provide evidence that tigers in TMCC are commitment by the two national governments of India
effectively using the landscape along India and Bhutan. and Bhutan for wildlife conservation and monitoring.
Further research studies in TMCC are of immediate need Beside tiger and prey monitoring, immediate activities
and would facilitate better understanding of all the major should include local-level exchanges and the
carnivore assemblages including that of tigers. Further, formalisation of exchanges at a higher level. Future
annual abundance and density estimation of tigers in programmes should also concentrate on developing
TMCC will help monitor changes in populations and specific field of skills and practical training, to report
trends of these large carnivore population dynamics. The poaching and illegal trade of species. These initial steps
present study has also established a baseline for will inspire confidence to build partnerships and
initiating a long-term monitoring programme for tigers commitment to a long-term process of collaboration.
and co-predators in TMCC. Whatever monitoring Finally, efforts need to be made to develop a sustainable
interventions are planned and implemented in future, it funding mechanism to ensure transboundary monitoring
will be important to monitor the consequences for tigers and co-operation between both the governments. In
and associated animal’s abundance, and our study general terms, a strategy that consolidates and then
presents the baseline for such future comparison. Our expands the present achievements can be followed to
results show that the TMCC is an extremely rich and strengthen the transboundary conservation initiatives.

TM7M
ANNEX I
Identified tiger individuals from Transboundary Manas

Conservation Complex
TM4M

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS involved conservation organizations World Wide Fund

MNP: The authors express their gratefulness to Shri for Nature (WWF) - India, Ashoka Trust for Research in
Khampa Borgoyari, Honourable Deputy Chief, Bodoland Ecology and Environment (ATREE) and Aaranyak as
Territorial Council (BTC), Shri Suresh Chand, IFS, PCCF partners, while in RMNP it was carried out for
(Wildlife) and CWLW, Assam and Shri Girish Chandra monitoring the tiger population by the Department of
Basumatary, CCF and Council Head of the Department, Forest and Park Services, RGoB, in collaboration with the
Department of Environment and Forests, BTC, India for Ugyen Wangchuk Institute for Conservation and
their support in the study. The authors are grateful to Environment (UWICE) and the Bhutan Foundation.
following persons for assisting in field in MNP: Sushila, Supporting information on the study is available on
Manoj, Rehman, Jamir, Yusuf, Bipul, Upen, request.
Bhabananda, Tulen, Manas, Arif, Bedabrata and Kamal.
Thanks to various field guards and frontline staffs for REFERENCES
their help during the survey period. Thanks to Eric Blake, S. and Hedges, S. (2004). Sinking the flagship: the case
Wikramanayake, WWF-United States and Ambica of the forest elephants in Asia and Africa. Conservation
Paliwal, WWF-India for helping with GIS map. Biology, 18, 1191–1202.
Borah J., Wangchuk D., Swargowari A., Wangchuk T., Sharma
T., Das D., Rabha N., Basumatari A., Kakati N., Ahmed M.
RMNP: The authors extend their appreciation and
F., Sharma A., Sarmah A., Dutta D. K., Lahkar B., Dorji T.,
gratitude to Director General, Department of Forest and Brahma P. K. Ramchiary L., Tempa T., Wangdi Y., Nedup T.,
Park Services, Hon’ble Secretary and Hon’ble Minister, Wangdi T., Tharchen L., Dhendup P., Bhobora C. R.,
Ministry of Agriculture and Forest, Royal Government of Pandav B. and Vattakaven J. (2012). Tigers in Indo-Bhutan
Bhutan for their support and guidance. The authors also Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex. 2012.
Technical report. New Delhi, India: MNP, RMNP, WWF-
remain in-depth gratitude to the staff of RMNP for their India, Aaranyak, ATREE, UWICE and Bhutan Foundation
assistance in field, and to WWF-Bhutan and Bhutan Borah, J., Sharma, T., Das, D., Rabha, N., Kakati, N., Basumatri,
Foundation for their continued financial assistance for A., Ahmed, M.F. and Vattakaven, J. (in press). Evaluating
the study, conservation and park management. abundance and density estimates for leopard and clouded
leopard in Manas National Park, India: Conservation
implication for rare carnivores. Oryx: in press.
Note: The camera trapping in MNP was conducted as a Borchers, D.L., and Efford, M.G. (2008). Spatially explicit
part of All India Tiger Estimation exercise of maximum likelihood methods for capture–recapture
Government of India, in collaboration with the National studies. Biometrics, 64:377–385.
Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Wildlife Institute Boulanger, J., and McLellan, B. (2001). Closure violation in
DNA-based mark–recapture estimation of grizzly bear
of India (WII) and Assam Forest Department, and
populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79: 642-651.
Boulanger, J., White, G.C., McLellan, B.N., Woods, J., Proctor,
M. and Himmer, S. (2002). A meta-analysis of grizzly bear
DNA mark-recapture projects in British Colombia, Canada.
Ursus 13:137–152.
Chauhan, D.S., Harihar, A., Goyal, S.P., Qureshi, Q., Lal, P. and
Mathur, V.B. (2005). Estimating leopard population using
camera traps in Sariska Tiger Reserve. Dehra Dun, India:
Wildlife Institute of India, p. 23.
Dorji, D. P. and Santiapillai, C. (1989). The Status, Distribution
and Conservation of the Tiger Panthera Tigris in Bhutan.
Biological Conservation, 48: p 311-319.
Efford, M. (2004). Density estimation in live-trapping studies.
Oikos, 106: 598–610.
Efford, M. G., Dawson, D. K. and Borchers, D. L. (2009).
Population density estimated from locations of individuals
on a passive detector array. Ecology, 90: p 2676-2682.
Franklin, N., Bastoni, Sriyanto, Siswomartono, D., Manansang,
J. and Tilson, R. (1999). Using tiger stripes to identify
individual tigers. In Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. & Jackson,
P. (Eds). Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human
Dominated Landscapes: p 138-139. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press
Gray, T.E., and Prum, S. (2011). Leopard Density in Post-
Conflict Landscape, Cambodia: Evidence from Spatially
Explicit Capture-Recapture. The Journal of Wildlife
Panthera tigris tigris © National Geographic Stock / Michael Management, 9999: p 1–7
Nichols / WWF

Harihar, A., Pandav, B. and Goyal, S.P. (2009). Density of Rexstad, E. and Burnham, K.P. (1991). User’s guide for
leopards (Panthera pardus) in the Chilla Range of Rajaji interactive program CAPTURE. Fort Collins: Colorado State
National Park, Uttarakhand, India. Mammalia, 73: 68-71. University, USA. <http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/
Harmsen, B. J., R. J. Foster and Doncaster, C. P. (2011). software.html>.
Heterogeneous capture-rates in low density populations Sanderson, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Ginsberg, J., Dinerstein,
and consequences for capture-recapture analysis of E., Seidensticker, J., Leimgruber, P., Songer, M., Heydlauff,
camera-trap data. Population Ecology 53:1, p 253-259. A., O’Brien, T., Bryja, G., Klenzendorf, S. and
IUCN (2005). Benefits Beyond Boundaries. Proceedings of the Wikramanayake, E. (2006). Setting Priorities for the
Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. Gland, Switzerland and Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005-2015. The
Cambridge, UK: IUCN Technical Assessment. New York, USA and Washington,
IUCN (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version D.C, USA: WCS, Smithsonian and NFWF-STF and WWF
2010.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Schaller, G. B. (1967). The deer and the tiger. Chicago, Illinois,
Jhala, Y.V., Gopal, R. and Qureshi, Q. (2008). Status of tigers, USA: University of Chicago Press
co-predators and prey in India. New Delhi, India and Dehra Sharma, R. K., Jhala, Y. V., Qureshi, Q., Vattakaven, J., Gopal,
Dun, India: National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt. of R. and Nayak, K. (2009). Evaluating capture-recapture
India and Wildlife Institute of India population and density estimation of tigers in a
Jhala Y. V., Qureshi Q., Gopal R. and Sinha P. R. (2011). Status population with known parameters. Animal Conservation
of tigers, co-predators and prey in India. TR 2011/003 pp- 13: p 94-103.
302. New Delhi, India and Dehra Dun, India: National Tiger Sheng, L., Dajun, W., Xiaodong, G., William, J. and McShea, W.
Conservation Authority, Govt. of India and Wildlife J. (2010). Beyond pandas, the need for a standardized
Institute of India monitoring protocol for large mammals in Chinese nature
Karanth, K. U. (1995). Estimating tiger (Panthera tigris) reserves. Biodiversity Conservation 19: p 3195-3206.
populations from camera trapping data using capture- Silver, S. C., Ostro, L. E. T., Marsh, L. K., Maffei, L., Noss, A. J.,
recapture models. Biological Conservation 71: p 333-338. Kelly, M. J., Wallace, R. B., Gomez, H. and Ayala, G. (2004).
Karanth, K. U. and Nichols, J. D. (1998). Estimation of tiger The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar (Panthera
densities in India using photographic captures and onca) abundance and density using capture/recapture
recaptures. Ecology, 79: p 2852-2862. analysis. Oryx 38: p 1–7.
Karanth, K. U. and Nichols, J. D. (2002). Monitoring tigers and Simcharoen, S., Pattanvibool, A., Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D.
their prey: a manual for researchers, managers and and Sambar Kumar, N. (2007). How many tigers Panthera
conservationists in tropical Asia. Bangalore, India: Centre tigris are there in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary,
for Wildlife Studies Thailand? An estimate using photographic capture–
Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., Kumar, N. S., Link, W. A. and recapture sampling. Oryx 41: p 447-453.
Hines, J. E. (2004). Tigers and their prey: Predicting Stanley, T. R., and Burnham, K. P. (1999). A closure test for
carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of time-specific capture-recapture data. Environmental and
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Ecological Statistics 6: p 197–209.
America, 101: 4854-4858. Sunquist, M. E. (1981). Social organization of tigers Panthera
Karanth, K. U. and Nichols, J. D. (2010). Non-invasive survey tigris in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Smithsonian
methods for assessing tiger populations. in R. Tilson and P. Contribution Zoology 336: p 1–98.
Nyhus, (Eds). Tigers of the world: the science, politics and Wang, S. A. and Macdonald, D. W. (2009). The use of camera
conservation of Panthera tigris. Second edition. New York, traps for estimating tiger and leopard populations in the
USA: Elsevier, P 461–481 high altitude mountains of Bhutan. Biological
Kawanishi, K. (2002). Population status of tigers (Panthera Conservation 142: p 606-613.
pardus) in a primary rainforest of peninsular Malaysia. Ph. Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J. G., Karanth,
D thesis. Florida, USA: University of Florida p 126. U., Rabinowitz, A., Olson, D., Mathew, T., Hedao, P.,
Maffei, L., Cuellar, E. E. and Noss, A. (2004). One thousand Conner, M., Hemley, G. and Bolze, D. 1998. An Ecology-
jaguars (Panthera onca) in Bolivia’s Chaco? Camera Based Method for Defining Priorities for Large Mammal
trapping in the Kaa-Iya National Park. Journal of Zoological Conservation: The Tiger as Case Study. Conservation
Society 262: p 295–304. Biology 12: 4, p 865–878.
Marsh, D. M. and Trenham, P. C. (2008). Current trends in Wikramanayake, E. D., Carpentert, C., Strand, H., and
plant and animal population monitoring. Conservation McKnight, M. (2001). Ecoregion-based conservation in the
Biology 22: p 647–655. Eastern Himalaya. Identifying important areas for
Nichols, J. D. (1992). Capture–recapture models: using marked biodiversity conservation. Kathmandu, Nepal: WWF and
animals to study population dynamics. Bioscience 42: p 94 ICIMOD.
–102. Wilson, K. R. and Anderson, D. R. (1985). Evaluation of two
O’Brien, T., Kinnaird, M. and Wibisono, H. (2003). Crouching density estimators of small mammal population size.
tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations Journal of Mammalogy 66: p 13–21.
in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation 6: p Wright, B. (2010). Will the tiger survive in India? In Tilson R,
131-139. and Nyhus J., P. (Eds) Tigers of the World, USA: Elsevier. p
Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C. and Anderson, D. R. 87-100
(1978). Statistical inference from capture data on closed
animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62: p 1–135.
Pereira, H. M. and Cooper, H. D. (2006). Towards the global
monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 21: p 123–129.

The Transboundary Manas Conservation Complex (TMCC) team in RMNP Park Manager’s office at Geluphu, Bhutan © WWF-
India
ABOUT THE AUTHORS M. Firoz Ahmed have been conducting inventory and
Jimmy Borah interest is on understanding the research on amphibians and reptiles in northeast India
population dynamics of large carnivores, and also on the and has contributed in discovery of at least 10 new
sympatric carnivore’s relationship with prey and habitat species of amphibians. Currently he is coordinating the
in landscape level. He is a member of IUCN’s WCPA . tiger conservation and research initiative work for
Aaranyak.
Dorji Wangchuk is with Department of Forests and
Park services, Royal Govt of Bhutan. He has interest in Amit Sharma is working on different conservation
landscape based studies on wildlife. issues and liaisoning with the government to address
those. His primarily interest is on rhino conservation.
Anindya Swargowari is the Field Director of Manas
Tiger Reserve, India. He is with Indian Forest Service Anupam Sarmah has been working with landscape
and has served in different protected areas in Assam, based conservation programmes of large mammals in the
India as manager and has vast experience on biodiversity landscapes of North east India.
conservation.
Deba Kumar Dutta works on understanding
Tenzing Wangchuk is the Chief Forestry Officer and
behaviour of translocated rhinos in Manas National Park,
park manager for Royal Manas National Park, Bhutan.
India.
His interest is on understanding issues related to
transboundary biodiversity conservation.
Bibhuti Lahkar interest is on engaging local
Tridip Sharma interest is on studying animals using communities to solve conservation related issues. He also
camera traps. works on elephant conservation in the landscape.
Dhritiman Das primary research interest is in Tshering Dorji is with Department of Forests and Park
ecosystem ecology and interdisciplinary approach to services, Bhutan and works in Royal Manas Park.
biodiversity conservation.
Probhod Kumar Brahma interest is in conservation
Nilmani Rabha research interest includes large of parks and works in Basbari Range of Manas National
mammal biology and carnivore ecology. Park, India.
Ajit Basumatary interest is in conducting field work on Labanya Ramchiary interest is in working with
photographic capture recapture of tiger. communities and works in Bhuyanpara Range of Manas
National Park, India.
Niraj Kakati research interest relates to the field of
environment policy and governance, protected area Tshering Tempa research interest lies in large
management and the sustainability of conservation. carnivore ecology in the landscape.
Yeshey Wangdi is interested in understanding tiger Pema Dhendup interest lies in working on
and prey abundance in the landscape. conservation related matters in Bhutan.
Tshering Nedup interest lies in working on Chitaranjan Bhobora interest is on working with
conservation related matters in Bhutan. communities and wildlife.
Tandin Wangdi interest is on working on conservation Bivash Pandav interest is on carnivore biology, field
related matters in the Himalayan region. sampling techniques and marine turtle conservation.
Lhendup Tharchen works with forest department on Joseph Vattakaven has been working with large
conservation values of wildlife in Bhutan. carnivore ecology in different landscape. He has been
studying the ecology of tigers in central India.
RESUMEN
El tigre Panthera tigris, se utiliza como especie emblemática o sombrilla para la conservación de la fauna y las áreas
silvestres en muchas partes de Asia. Utilizamos cámaras trampa accionadas a control remoto y un marco de captura y
recaptura dentro del Parque Nacional Manas en India y el Parque Nacional Royal Manas en Bután para estimar la
abundancia y densidad de los tigres en el Complejo de Conservación Transfronteriza de Manas (TMCC). Se utilizó un
total de 102 pares de cámaras trampa en tres rangos para cubrir un área de más de 400 km 2. Capturamos 87 fotografías
de 14 tigres individualmente identificados (ocho machos y seis hembras), durante el período del estudio que abarcó
5955 noches de cámaras trampa. La población estimada fue de 15 (± SE 2,64) individuos con un 95 por ciento de
intervalo de confianza de 15 a 29. La estimación de la densidad de los tigres mediante la utilización de ½ MMDM
(distancia media máxima recorrida) y empleando el MLSECR (método de máxima probabilidad de captura y recaptura
basado en datos espacialmente explícitos) fue de 1,9 (± SE 0,36) y 0,75 (± SE 0,21) individuos/100 km 2,
respectivamente. El TMCC es un paisaje de crucial importancia para el futuro de los tigres, y la gestión eficaz de la
biodiversidad debe ir más allá de los límites de las áreas protegidas y a través de fronteras políticas.
RÉSUMÉ
Le tigre (Panthera tigris) est utilisé comme une espèce emblématique ou parapluie pour conserver la faune et les aires
sauvages dans de nombreuses régions d’Asie. Au sein du Parc national de Manas, en Inde, et du Parc national Royal
Manas, au Bhoutan, nous avons utilisé des caméras-pièges pouvant être déclenchées à distance et la méthode capture-
recapture, afin d’estimer le nombre et la densité des tigres dans le Complexe transfrontalier de conservation de Manas.
Au total, ce sont 120 caméras-pièges qui ont été utilisées dans trois domaines, permettant ainsi de couvrir une zone de
plus de 400 km2. Nous avons ainsi pu prendre 87 photos de 14 tigres identifiés individuellement (huit mâles et six
femelles), au cours de la période d’étude nocturne des 5 955 caméras-pièges. La population estimée était de 15 (±Erreur
-type 2,64) individus, avec une fourchette d’incertitude de 95 pour cent de 15 à 29. Les estimations relatives à la densité
des tigres, en utilisant ½ MMDM et l’analyse MLSECR étaient de 1.9 (±Erreur-type 0,36) et 0.75 (±Erreur-type 0,21)
individus/100 km2, respectivement. Le Complexe transfrontalier de conservation de Manas est un paysage crucial pour
l’avenir des tigres, et il est donc essentiel que la gestion de la diversité biologique s’étende au-delà des limites des aires
protégées et des frontières politiques pour être véritablement efficace.

63 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
PLACEMAKING AND TRANSNATIONALISM:

RECENT MIGRANTS AND A NATIONAL PARK IN
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
Denis Byrne1* and Heather Goodall2

1
Office of Environment and Heritage NSW, Australia
2
University of Technology Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT
A study of the way Arab and Vietnamese migrants engage with a national park environment in south-
west Sydney, Australia, has highlighted the agency of these people as they not merely adapt to that
environment but actively make places for themselves in it. The concept of placemaking is useful
particularly in showing that ‘place’ can be constructed out of social practice, emotion and affect, and
does not have to entail physical impact on or alteration of the existing environment. Migrants bring
with them into the park many of the perceptual habits, cultural ‘ways’, and expectations about nature
that were formed in their homelands. Participants in the study also reported that certain elements of
the park environment, including the river, strongly evoked and triggered memories of their
homelands. They experienced being in two places at once. The concept of transnationalism allows us to
understand how a national park environment can, for certain people, be situated in transnational more
than national space. Transnational connectivity is helping to destabilise park boundaries much the
way that, from another perspective, wildlife corridors and the theory and practice of connectivity
conservation view them as ideally porous.
INTRODUCTION southwest of the central business district. Steep bush

The idea that national park visitors commonly engage in covered slopes run down to alluvial flats along the river,
‘placemaking’ activity in national parks – activity some of these flats having been extended by reclamation
whereby humans construct cultural habitats for (infilling) of mangrove wetlands in the mid-twentieth
themselves – may seem at odds with the idea of century to form lawned picnic grounds. The picnic
protected areas as refuges safeguarding non-human grounds were retained when the present national park
species from the relentlessness of human placemaking was declared in 1992 in recognition of their importance
elsewhere in the landscape. Most conservationists would to people in the neighbouring suburbs. At the top of the
probably concede, though, that the national park idea slopes the bushland extends for a short distance out into
itself represents a certain Western tradition of the flat surrounding country before it gives way quite
placemaking. Placemaking, as described below, is one of abruptly to a suburban landscape of detached houses.
the most basic characteristics of human culture. In a
recent study of the way Arab and Vietnamese migrants in Pre-colonial Aboriginal occupation along the river has
Sydney engage with a national park in their left traces in the form of rock paintings, shell middens
neighbourhood the authors and their co-researchers and scatters of stone artefacts (Goodall & Cadzow, 2009).
found the placemaking concept useful in understanding The British arrived in Sydney in 1788 and from the early
how these people become familiar with and give value to nineteenth century the suburbs along the northern side
the park landscape. of the Georges River (closest to the city centre) were
being settled by successive waves of low-income Anglo-
The city of Sydney in New South Wales (NSW), one of Celtic 2 working class families. From the 1930s, groups of
Australia’s six states, is unusual in having large areas of these settler campaigned to have areas of bushland along
native bushland surviving in the very heart of the the river reserved as parkland for the health and
cityscape. These include the environment of the Georges enjoyment of their families in a part of Sydney where
River National Park 1, an area of bushland extending parks were few and far between (Goodall & Cadzow,
along both sides of a river approximately 20km 2010). A community Trust managed this reserve until

Denis Byrne & Heather Goodall 64
Figure 1: Map of Georges River National Park. Office of Environment and Heritage NSW
1992 when the government-managed Georges River Arab and Vietnamese migrants living in the suburbs near
National Park was declared. From the 1970s these the Georges River experience the national park there
suburbs received new waves of migrants, including (Byrne et al., 2006; Goodall & Cadzow, 2009, 2010). The
refugees fleeing post-conflict Vietnam (Thomas, 1999) results of this latter study, from which the present article
and Arabic-speakers fleeing civil war in Lebanon and is largely drawn, are available in the open-access on-line
violence elsewhere in the Middle East (Dunn, 2004). publication, Place-making in National Parks (Byrne et
These people are sometimes referred to as ‘recent al., 2013).
migrants’ to distinguish them from early waves of mostly
Anglo-Celtic migrants. A PLACEMAKING PERSPECTIVE
Since the innovative work of Jane Jacobs (1961) and
In the present day, the south-western suburbs of Sydney William H. Whyte (1980), urban planners, community
have the highest concentration of recent migrants in a groups, local governments, geographers and others have
city of 4.4 million people of whom 40 per cent in 2011 made an effort to promote understanding of the way the
were born overseas 3. Of the 360,000 people living in the inhabitants of particular streets, neighbourhoods,
south-west Sydney census area in 2011, 51 per cent were villages and other localities have worked to make these
born overseas and 79 per cent had at least one parent spaces habitable by imprinting them with the patterns of
born overseas 4. In the early 2000s the Office of their own local lives. Placemaking should not, though, be
Environment and Heritage NSW (OEH) began studying thought of simply as something humans do to the
how recent migrants engage with national parks in the environment since it always entails response to the cues
Sydney area (Thomas, 2001; Thomas, 2002). More and possibilities of the environment. The process is
recently, research by OEH and the University of dialectical. Historians, geographers and anthropologists
Technology Sydney carried out by the present authors have sought to better understand human placemaking
and their co-researchers 5, looked in detail at the way (e.g., Feld & Basso, 1996; Ingold, 2000; Massey, 2005;

Stewart, 1996; Tilley, 1994). Place, or ‘locality’, is strategies for. Depending on where they come from,
understood to be a social construct but, more migrants arriving in Australia experience subtle or
pragmatically, it is understood to be an outcome and dramatic differences in climate, seasonality, vegetation
achievement of social ‘work’. According to Arjun and fauna. Those arriving in Sydney from humid-tropical
Appadurai (1996: 181), anthropologists working in many southern Vietnam in the 1970s and 80s often described
different parts of the world have noticed that people their surprise and discomfort with what they perceived to
never take locality for granted; rather ‘they seem to be its dryness (Thomas, 2001). This resonates with
assume that locality is ephemeral unless hard and regular research in the USA which found that many migrants
work is undertaken to produce and maintain its arriving in Los Angeles from humid countries such as
materiality’. This work may involve carrying out rituals Vietnam perceive California’s dry Mediterranean
and other cultural performances that gather people environment to be a ‘wasteland’ (Trzyna, 2007: 39).
together at certain places, or it may consist of more
mundane activities in which people, mostly PLACEMAKING AND PICNICS
unconsciously, become identified with localities via the In the case of both the Arab and Vietnamese migrant
action of memory, emotion, imagination and sociality. groups in our study, picnics in the park tended to involve
The work of making places out of spaces is now seen as a groups larger than the nuclear family. For Arab-
fundamental priority of human existence (Casey, 1993). Australians interviewed, an average picnic would be
attended by 10-50 people who were mostly members of
Placemaking has a special significance in the context of an extended family: ‘cousins and their cousins’, as one
immigration. In leaving their homeland, emigrants are young interviewee put it. Much larger picnics are also
dis-placed in the sense of being temporarily without organised to mark special occasions, such as the birth of
places of their own. Arriving in their destination country a child, or to bring large fraternities of people together.
they cannot immediately adopt its existing place-scape as An example of the latter are the annual picnics held in
their own although over time this can and does occur. the Georges River National Park by the families of
Local placemaking is a priority for recently arrived emigrants from the village of Toula in northern Lebanon.
migrants because it gives them a spatial foothold from Most picnics are held on weekends and public holidays
which they can go about the business of fitting in to the and many people attend one almost every week of the
larger terrain of the new country and society. This, of year. While our interviewees described the picnics
course, is a simplification of a more complex process of primarily as social events, it became clear that for most
adjustment: most recently arrived migrants, for instance, of them the picnics represented the primary vector that
gravitate to residential enclaves already settled by brought them into the national park and into contact
friends, family, fellow-villagers and co-ethnics. They thus with Australia’s natural environment.
borrow places that have already been worked on to
render them culturally felicitous, places that in some Large group picnics have been a feature of migrant
respects are hybrids of home and away. existence in a number of countries. The British Italian
community, for example, has held picnics at Shenley
Migrants are often buffered from the shock of near London (Fortier, 2000: 108). In Los Angeles, large
displacement by socialising with people who are already annual picnics were held by those who had migrated
familiar to them via kin ties or commonality of language from other states, particularly during the Depression
and culture. This socialising often has a placemaking years of the 1930s. These ‘state picnics’ included the
dimension. In the course of our interviews with Arab and famous Iowa Picnic at Bixby Park, Long Beach, which in
Vietnamese recent migrants in south-west Sydney we 1940 attracted 100,000 people. These picnics were not
found that the activity of picnicking in the national park about ethnicity, they were about homesickness, shared
enabled them to maintain and extend social ties and identity and a shared experience of being outsiders in a
contacts at the same time as they acquainted themselves new city.
with the Australian natural environment. The picnics
tended to be held at specific, chosen locations in the park At the picnics staged by recent migrants in the Georges
and as these areas became more familiar they constituted River National Park we observed that a sensory
a foothold for recent migrants in the park environment. environment (sensorium) was created that enveloped the
participants. Its elements included the smell and taste of
One element of the shock of displacement is the food from ‘home’, the sound of music from ‘home’, the
experience of finding oneself in a natural environment sounds of familiar language, and the sight of people of
one neither understands nor possesses adaptive familiar facial features. At picnics by Arab-Australians it

Lebanese-Australians picnicking in Georges River National Park © Denis Byrne
included the aroma of the hookah (sisha in Arabic). The locale’ referred to by Eisenhauer et al. always has the
picnickers might seem to have created a aspect of a culture-nature interactivity – in other words,
microenvironment for themselves that rather than it is an amalgam of human and non-human agency.
linking them to the environment of the park insulates
them from it. The sensorium described above should not,
Our interviewees spoke with great affection of places in
however, be thought of as insulating picnickers from
the park where they had picnicked habitually. One of the
nature’s sensorium: the scent given off by native
authors (Denis Byrne) accompanied a group of young
vegetation baking in the sun, the sound of bird calls, the
second generation Arab-Australians on a visit to a
vision of the cloud patterns over the river and the
location they had often been brought to for picnics when
bushland beyond. Rather, the two sensoria infiltrate each
they were small children, and then later came to by
other and out of this intermingling a new place is made.
themselves when the acquired their first bikes. ‘We grew
In the course of the picnics, associations are created up here’, one of them said of the place. It was part of the
between a locale and the social experiences people have familiar landscape of their growing up, at once
there. Eisenhauer et al. (2000) have documented this in unremarkable to them but also intimately known and
a well-known study of recreational use of public lands in fondly remembered (Byrne et al., 2012: 13). This was a
Utah. Drawing on the work of earlier researchers they close-knit group of young people, a number of whom
stress that ‘activity at a locale is necessary for a space to were now at university, whose social cohesion had partly
be regarded as a place’ (Eisenhauer et al., 2000: 423). been formed during those long-ago afternoons down by
Most park managers presumably would similarly the river. They had this place in common. On the
recognise that the activities engaged in by park visitors occasion of our visit they pointed out to each other how
are constitutive of the bonds they form with a park much certain trees had grown since the days when they
environment. Since the natural environment of a park is were children, implicitly if not consciously registering the
alive, active and ‘vibrant’ (Bennett 2010), the ‘activity at a fact that they and the place had grown up together.

Unlike some of the ‘wilderness’ parks in New South A particular aspect of the places ‘made’ by the activity of
Wales, the Georges River National Park is a mosaic of picnicking is that the making results in few if any
bushland, lawns, car parks and river. One can spend a physical alternations to the landscape. The picnic
great deal of time in the park without ever being in the infrastructure of portable barbeques, folding chairs,
bush. ‘The bush’, in Australian popular parlance, can blankets and straw mats, sun umbrellas, CD and MP3
refer to any rural landscape, including agricultural areas, music players, is packed up and taken home. The picnic
but most of our interviewees understood the term to leaves a footprint only in the form of flattened grass or
refer to the forested country found in the large national scraps of food quickly removed by insects, birds and
parks to the north, south and west of Sydney’s urban other animals. In its physical aspect, the picnic is
expanse. Second and third generation migrants ephemeral. The ‘place’ in one sense dissolves after each
participating in our study who had gone to school in picnic only to reform again at the next staging. These
Sydney were generally relaxed about ‘the bush’ although places do however have a continuous existence in the
for the most part they did not spend much time in it. minds of ‘repeat-picnickers’ who come to think of them
They had little or no interest in ‘bush walking’ (a term as their places. This is a non-exclusive claim, one that
which is Australia generally refers to long-distance walks recognises that other people use the same space at other
in the forested environments, often involving overnight times. There is competition for these spaces, though, and
camping). They identified bush walking as something on summer weekends an advance party of the picnic
only Anglo-Australians did. fraternity may go to the park early in the morning to
stake their claim to the familiar spot. While, as
Speaking with first generation migrants, most of whom mentioned earlier, Appadurai (1996: 181) has stressed
were middle-aged or older, the authors found them the need to maintain the materiality of locality, locality
similarly disinterested in bush walking. In addition, (or placeness) can often be sustained even where
many of them had quite negative views of the bush, often materiality is ephemeral.
regarding it as dangerous, mostly due to the
Anthropologist Setha Low and her co-workers (Low et
presence of venomous snakes and the possibility of
al., 2005) have studied the way Latino and other migrant
wildfires (Byrne et al., 2012: 103). They enjoyed seeing
groups became a presence in parks in New York. In their
the bush from a distance but had little desire to enter
research at Jacob Riis Park, New York, for the US
it. Some said they enjoyed short walks in the bush
National Park Service, they observed that Latino groups
provided there were clearly marked tracks or, preferably,
picnicked in the ‘back beach’ area of the park where they
constructed ‘pathways’. Many spoke of enjoying having
‘enjoy music and dancing – especially Latino rhythms
the bush as a backdrop to picnics taking place on the
and salsa – and would enjoy summer afternoon concerts
wide lawns of the national park. They preferred to
that remind them of home (and bring a bit of home to
observe the bush from a distance. A number of them
their new beach)’ (Low et al., 2005: 125). Low and her
mentioned enjoying a riverside boardwalk which crosses
colleagues make the point that, for all their
a particular area of mangroves because it allowed them
emphemerality, these places are of key importance to
to ‘be in’ nature, while still being somewhat removed
migrant groups at a time when they are tentatively
from it.
establishing a presence in national parks. Low et al.
maintain that park staff should not merely welcome
EMPHEMERALITY AND LOOSENESS people of all ethnicities but be sensitive to the kind of
This disinclination of people to engage directly with the placemaking behaviour their research documented.
bush lends a particular significance to the picnics. They While robust in some ways, there is nevertheless a
provide for people what is perhaps their ‘closest’ particular fragility about places that come into being in
experience of the natural environment. It also lends this way. Their invisibility (to outsiders) means they are
significance to the spaces in the national park where the unlikely to appear on management plan maps and thus
picnics are held: a band of flat, lawn-covered land may be vulnerable to revegetation or park development
situated along a three kilometre length of the north side works.
of the winding river and extending in from the river bank
from about 30 to 200 metres. This space can be If picnic sites have this aspect of emphemerality, it may
considered liminal in that it lies in between the river and also be said that national parks are attractive to recent
the bush-covered slopes but also in that it is conceptually migrants partly because they constitute what Catharine
transitional between the suburban streetscape and the Ward Thompson (2002: 69) calls ‘loose space’ – space
natural environment. that is not ‘fixed’ or ‘constrained’ in the way that built

urban space is. National parks are relatively unstructured NATIONAL PARKS AS TRANSNATIONAL SPACE
and unsupervised spaces that are far more open and In Australia and perhaps other countries with a high and
unconstrained than most of the built public spaces of culturally diverse migrant intake, immigration is widely
cities. From the point of view of the migrant park visitor, perceived as a one-way movement of people that entails a
the river and the native bushland (and its associated process of adaptation to the host country. This is
biodiversity) are also ‘loose’ in that they are culture- reflected in the way ‘migrant heritage’ is framed by
neutral. They can be encompassed by private or state heritage institutions and practitioners under the themes
property rights but their life essence is non-proprietary: of settlement and adaptation, a framing that ‘contains’
it cannot be owned by any one culture group. the migrant story within Australia’s borders.
Multicultural policy in Australia is designed to enable the
SPIRITUALITY AND PARK SPACE continuance of distinctive migrant cultures within the
Vietnamese Buddhists are known to go to national parks broader social fabric of the host country and contained
in the Sydney area to meditate (Thomas 2002: 102) and by its borders. What this view fails to notice is that each
Thai Buddhist ‘forest monasteries’ have been established migrant group is also likely to see itself as belonging to a
in bushland on the outskirts of the city (Byrne et al., diasporic ethnic community, a ‘belonging’ experienced by
2006). The association of forests with meditation is some migrants as intense and pervasive and by others as
deeply established within the Buddhist Theravada situational and less intense.
tradition as it exists in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand,
In Australia, as in Canada, the USA and other settler
Cambodia and Laos. It appears now to have been
colonies, everyone who is not indigenous is a migrant
extended to embrace the Australian bush.
and most migrants belong to diasporic communities.
This of course includes Australia’s Anglo-Celtic majority
In the Georges River National Park it is common to see as well as its Chinese, Greek, Lebanese, Vietnamese and
Muslim Arab migrants standing or kneeling to pray at other minorities. Looked at in this way, Australia sits
the times designated by their religion. One of our within the overlapping fields of numerous diaspora.
Muslim interviewees remarked that since all of nature is Since the 1990s there has been a burgeoning interest in
God’s creation, to be standing or kneeling on the ground the humanities and social sciences in the concept of
in the park is about as close to God as one could be. Islam transnationalism. The term is generally used to refers to
maintains there is no such thing as a profane world: in a kind of cross-border social connectivity that, while it
the words of the Prophet, ‘the whole of this earth is a has long characterised migration and sojourning (for
mosque’ (Wersal, 1995: 545). Muslims praying in the example, that of the Chinese on the nineteenth century
Georges River National Park face towards the Kaaba in goldfields of California and Australia) has from the late
Mecca. The invisible line orienting and connecting twentieth century been amplified by relatively cheap air
them to Mecca, as well as the act of praying itself, might travel and advances in electronic media (Appadurai,
be thought of as bringing Islam into the park or as 1996; Ong, 1999). In this aspect of globalisation, certain
placing the park within the cosmography of Islam. villages in countries like Lebanon and China are now
Meditating or praying are not, however, acts which more intimately connected to suburbs in Sydney than
colonise park space for particular religions, rather these they are to other population centres in Lebanon and
acts occur partly because individual actors experience the China. Transnationalism is a concept with significant
park environment as conducive to spiritual experience implications for the way national parks are socially
(Byrne et al., 2006). Or, in the case of Muslims, it may constituted in Australia: the parks draw migrants to
simply be that they happen to be in the park at prayer them but park space is also drawn into transnational
time and the ‘looseness’ of park space allows them to space.
pray there whereas in another public space, such as a
shopping mall, football stadium, or public library, it The dynamics of transnationalism are perhaps most
would not. easily seen in the setting of urban migrant enclaves.
When, for example, a group of Lebanese men gather in
There seems no question that religious ritual and south-west Sydney to listen to the news from Lebanon on
spiritual experience can play a role in placemaking but, the radio they are situated in a Lebanese diasporic
as in the case of picnicking, the places it helps make in ‘ethnoscape’ (Appadurai, 1996). They can see Beirut
national parks are ephemeral and non-proprietary. In quite clearly in their minds, which is to say they can
this regard they are suited to the ideal of national parks spatialize what they are listening to, often in great detail.
as culturally open spaces. But this is also an embodied experience: the way they sit

TRANSNATIONALISM AND CONNECTIVITY

CONSERVATION
Transnationalism unsettles the idea of the nation as a
spatially bounded entity. It might also be said to
challenge the conventional way of thinking of national
parks as firmly bounded and stable units of space. The
national park concept had its origins partly in Western
romantic conceptions of ‘wilderness’ (Schama, 1995) but
was also very much bound up with the emergence of the
national state. National parks helped provide the
‘imagined community’ (Anderson, 2006) of the nation
with a tangible, iconic topography (Thomas, 2001: 23-25;
Crusin, 2004: 22-29). They helped the nation’s citizenry
to grasp the physical-geographic totality of the nation,
described by Thongchai (1994) as the national ‘geobody’,
and to develop a sense of belonging to it. IUCN and other
international conservation bodies have given the national
park concept an aspect of internationalism but this has
not diminished the close engagement of the concept in
national identity formation.
Arab-Australian children enjoying Georges River
National Park © Denis Byrne We have found it productive to think about
around the table, they way they sip their tea, the gestures transnationalism in relation to the concept of
of their hands in response to what they are hearing, all connectivity as it pertains in the fields of nature
signal that their bodies and minds are in a space that is conservation and protected area management. The
neither Beirut nor Sydney but, rather, a Beirut-Sydney concept of wildlife corridors and the broader theory and
continuum. This is the ‘diasporic state of mind’ that Ien practice of connectivity conservation (Bennett, 2003;
Ang (2011, 86) writes of. Sandwith & Lockwood, 2006) appear to have originated
in an appreciation that the boundaries of protected areas
Moving to the situation of national parks, Vietnamese are more likely to have been drawn in relation to the
migrant interviewees in our study spoke of how the geometrics of a cadastral grid and to political
Georges River would often evoke for them the rivers of considerations than to the spatiality of species
Vietnam on which or near which many of them had distribution and mobility. This view and the
grown up. More than just a remembering of the management approaches flowing from it reconfigure
homeland, this evocation took the form of an embodied national park boundaries as permeable and conditional
experience: they felt like they were in their homeland or, rather than solid and fixed.
in our terms, in a transnational space that transcended
the borders of Vietnam and Australia. For some people, In a parallel development, the field of nature
the simple act of holding a fishing rod triggered conservation has acquired a new consciousness of
‘embodied memories’ (Connerton, 1989) that took them indigenous and local people’s dependency on the
back to those times they had stood beside a river with a resources of protected areas and of their cultural
rod in the old country (Goodall et al., 2009). As connectivity to landscapes, both of which are frequently
researchers, we began to appreciate that when we saw a cut across by protected area boundaries (Peluso, 1995;
Vietnamese person walking beside the Georges River, Zerner, 2003). ‘Countermapping’ approaches have been
while they were ostensibly wholly within the bounds of devised to assist indigenous and local people to contest
the national park they were nevertheless situated in a the kind of state boundary-marking that has often seen
transnational space (see also Low et al., 2005: 33). We protected areas created without local informed consent
could not accurately describe what the national park (Byrne, 2008; Harwell, 2011; Peluso, 1995; Ross et al.,
meant to these visitors without also describing what 2010) and, in Australia, Indigenous Protected Areas have
Vietnam meant to them. The presence of Vietnamese- been created and joint-management agreements over
Australians in the park implied that Vietnam, in national parks negotiated. There is also a growing
transnational form, was also present there. appreciation of the social and emotional connectivity that

exists in places like Australia between national park development in Asia degrades that region’s environment
landscapes and those non-indigenous people who (e.g., Wen and Li, 2007), Australia has come to be valued
formerly owned and farmed that terrain (Brown, 2012). by many in Asia as a tourism and migration destination
on account of its ‘environmental assets’. There is a
While there continues to be an appreciation that what transnational sense here in which Australia is becoming
protected areas are protected from are human processes one of Asia’s protected areas, or a protected area of an
inimical to the wellbeing of humans and other species, Asia-Pacific transnational field. Whatever qualms some
there is an increasing awareness that human social Australians might have at this prospect, it carries the
connectivity with, and valuation of, these spaces is implication of a vastly expanded potential support base
critical to their existence and functioning. The concept of for the county’s protected areas.
transnationality provides a perspective in which social
connectivity can be considered in the wider, cross-border ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
frame that modern-era migration and sojourning has The authors acknowledge the research contribution of
given rise to. their colleagues, Dr Allison Cadzow and Associate
Professor Stephen Wearing, to the project this article is
CONCLUSIONS based on. The project, ‘Parkland, Culture and
In the context of protected area management, Communities’ was co-funded by the Australian Research
placemaking theory offers a useful way of viewing visitor Council under its Linkage program and the Office of
behaviour and values. In the case of national parks, it is Environment and Heritage New South Wales. We
conducive to a management approach that acknowledges gratefully acknowledge all the Arab and Vietnamese
the agency of visitors as they socially reconfigure park Australians who agreed to participate in the study.
space. Rather than simply passively enjoying or actively
NOTES
learning from a park environment whose meaning is 1
For more information see the park homepage: http://
stable and fixed, they make their own places in it and out
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/
of it. It is proposed that for recent-migrant visitors parkHome.aspx?id=N0080
tentatively establishing a presence in parks, placemaking 2
‘Anglo-Celtic’ refers to Australian settlers from Britain and
takes on a particular significance. Their development of a Ireland
3
sense of ownership of park space, via placemaking, is Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Greater Sydney
Statistical Division, 2011 census. http://
fundamental to the development of a sense of
www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/
responsibility for that space. The interest park managers census/2011/quickstat/1GSYD (Consulted Feb 2013)
4
have in respecting and even facilitating migrant ABS Sydney South West Statistical Division, 2011 census.
placemaking lies to a great extent in the fact that these http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/
getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/127 (Consulted Feb 2013)
visitors represent a growing proportion of the 5
The authors’ co-researchers on this project were Dr Allison
constituency national parks rely on for support. Cadzow of the Australian National University and Dr Stephen
Wearing of the University of Technology, Sydney
Transnationalism theory offers its own attractions for
park management. Ideas about national parks now
readily flow backwards and forwards between Australia
REFERENCES
and Vietnam along diasporic lines. The Georges River Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities, revised edition.
London: Verso.
National Park, for instance, is now ‘known’ in southern Ang, I. (2011). ‘Unsettling the national: heritage and
Vietnam courtesy of photographs and phone videos, Diaspora’. In: H. Anheier and Y. R. Isar (eds.) Heritage,
increasingly frequent homeland visitation and other Memory and Identity, pp.82-94. London: Sage.
vectors. At a broader level, ideas about nature Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions
of Globalisation. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of
conservation also flow from Australia to places like
Minnesota Press.
Vietnam and Lebanon via diasporic networks. Moving in Bennett, A. F. (2003). Linkages in the Landscape: the Role of
the other direction, traditions and contemporary Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation, 2nd
practices of nature appreciation and nature visitation in edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Asia and the Middle East now inform patterns of park Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of
Things. Durham NC, USA: Duke University Press.
visitation by many thousands of migrants in Australia.
Brown, S. (2012). ‘Applying a cultural landscape approach in
park management: an Australian scheme’. PARKS 18, p
For park management, multiculturalism and 101-110.
transnationalism are not so much challenges as assets – Byrne, D. (2008). ‘Counter-mapping in the archaeological
assets that we are still learning to capitalise on. As hyper- landscape’. In B. David and J. Thomas (eds.) Handbook of

Landscape Archaeology, Walnut Creek, CAL, USA Left Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and Memory. London, UK:
Coast Press. p 609-616. Fontana.
Byrne, D., Goodall, H, Wearing, S. and Cadzow, S. (2006). Stewart, K. (1996). A Pace on the Side of the Road. Princeton,
‘Enchanted parklands’. Australian Geographer 37(1):103-115. USA: Princeton University Press.
Byrne, D., Goodall, H and Cadzow, A. (2013). Place-making in Thomas, M. (1999). Dreams in the Shadows: Vietnamese-
National Parks. Sydney, Australia: Office of Environment Australian Lives in Transition. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
and Heritage NSW and University of Technology Sydney. Thomas, M. (2001). A Multicultural Landscape: National Parks
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ & the Macedonian Experience. Sydney, Australia: NSW
nswcultureheritage/PlaceMakingGeorgesRiver.htm National Parks and Wildlife Service and Pluto Press.
Casey, E. S. (1993). Getting Back into Place: Toward a http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/
Renewed Understanding of the Place-World. Bloomington nswcultureheritage/MacedonianExperience.htm
IN, USA: Indiana University Press. Thomas, M. (2002). Moving Landscapes: National Parks & the
Connerton, P. (1989). How Societies Remember. Cambridge, Vietnamese Experience. Sydney, Australia: NSW National
UK: Cambridge University Press. Parks and Wildlife Service. http://
Crusin, R. (2004). Culture, Technology, and the Creation of www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/
America’s National Parks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge MovingLandscape.htm
University Press. Thongchai, W. (1994). Siam Mapped: A History of the
Dunn, K. (2004). ‘Islam in Sydney: contesting the discourse of Geobody of Siam. Honolulu, USA: University of Hawai‘i
absence’. Australian Geographer 35:3 p 333-353. Press.
Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich, R. S. and Blahna, D.J. (2000). Trzyna, Ted. (2007). Global Urbanization and Protected Areas.
‘Attachments to special places on public lands: an analysis Sacramento, USA: California Institute for Public Affairs.
of activities, reason for attachments, and community http://www.InterEnvironment.org/cipa/urbanization.htm
connections’. Society and Natural Resources 13: p 421- Ward Thompson, C. (2002). ‘Urban open space in the 21 st
441. century’. Landscape and Urban Planning 60:59-72.
Feld, S. and K. H. Basso (eds.). (1996). Senses of Place. Santa Tilley, C. (1994). A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford, UK:
Fe: School of American Research. Berg.
Fortier, A-M. (2000). Migrant Belongings: Memory, Space, Wen, D. and M. Li (2007). China: hyper-development and
Identity. Oxford: Berg. environmental crisis. Socialist Register 130-146.
Goodall, H., Cadzow, A., Byrne, D. and Wearing, S. (2009). Wersal, L. (1995). Islam and environmental ethics: tradition
‘Fishing the Georges River: cultural diversity and urban responds to contemporary challenges. Zygon 30(3):451-
environments’. In A. Wise and S. Velayutham (eds.) 459.
Everyday Multiculturalism, Houndsmills, UK: Pelgrave. p Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.
177-196. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.
Goodall, H. and Cadzow, A. (2009). Rivers and Resilience: Zerner, C. (ed.). 2003. Culture and the Question of Rights.
Aboriginal people on Sydney’s Georges River. Sydney, Durham, NC. USA: Duke University Press
Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
Goodall, H. and Cadzow, A. (2010). ‘The People’s National
Park: working class environmental campaigns on Sydney’s
urban, industrial Georges River, 1950 to 1967’. Labour ABOUT THE AUTHORS
History 99 p 17-35. Denis Byrne leads the research programme in cultural
Harwell, E. (2011). Forests in Fragile and Conflict-Affected
States. Washington, DC: World Bank. heritage at the Office of Environment and Heritage New
Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment. London: South Wales and is Adjunct Professor at the University of
Routledge. Technology Sydney. He is an archaeologist with a long
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. career in the field of heritage conservation and heritage
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
studies, focussing on Australia and Southeast Asia. He
Low, S. M., Taplin, D. and Scheld, S. (2005). Rethinking Urban
Parks. Austin, TX, USA: University of Texas Press. has a particular interest in the heritage of Aboriginal-
Ong, A. (1999). Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logic of settler relations in NSW and in the heritage of migrancy.
Transnationalism. Durham, NC, USA: Duke University His 2007 book Surface Collection: Archaeological
Press. Travels in Southeast Asia tackles some of the most
Peluso, N.L. (1995). Whose woods are these? Counter-
interesting and difficult issues in the heritage of that
mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Antipode 27(4):383-406. region.
Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: Sage.
Ross, A., Sherman, K.P., Snodgrass, J.G., Delcore H.D. and Heather Goodall is Professor of History at the
Sherman, R. (eds.). (2010). Indigenous Peoples and the University of Technology Sydney, teaching Aboriginal,
Collaborative Stewardship of Nature. Walnut Creek, CAL,
Indian Ocean, colonial and environmental histories. She
USA: Left Coast Press.
Sandwith, T. and Lockwood, M. (2006). Linking the landscape. has published extensively on her collaborative projects
In M. Lockwood, G. L. Warboys and A. Kothari (eds.), with Aboriginal people, focusing on land and water
Managing Protected Areas, London, UK: Earthscan p 574- relationships. Most recently she has researched
602. conflicting perceptions of environmental change. Her

research for the project reported in the present article community. For the ‘Talking Fish’ project she undertook
examined the intersecting histories of four groups in an oral history of fishing among the many communities
south-western Sydney: Arabic-speakers, Vietnamese, on the Murray Darling River system, Australia. Email:
Anglo-Australians and the indigenous Aboriginal [email protected]
RESUMEN
Un estudio sobre la interacción de los migrantes árabes y vietnamitas con relación a un parque nacional en el suroeste
de Sydney, Australia, ha puesto de manifiesto que estas personas no sólo se adaptan al entorno, sino que se hacen lugar
en dicho entorno. El concepto de hacer lugar es útil sobre todo para demostrar que el ‘lugar’ puede construirse a partir
de la práctica social, la emoción y el afecto, y no tiene por qué implicar repercusión física en o alteración del entorno
existente. Los migrantes traen consigo al parque muchos de sus hábitos perceptivos, estilos culturales y expectativas
sobre la naturaleza que fueron formados en su país de origen. Los participantes en el estudio también informaron de
que algunos elementos del entorno del parque, incluyendo el río, evocaban y activaban los recuerdos de su tierra natal.
Experimentaron la sensación de estar en dos lugares al mismo tiempo. El concepto de transnacionalismo nos permite
comprender cómo –para algunas personas– el entorno de un parque nacional puede situarse en un espacio más
transnacional que nacional. La conectividad transnacional está ayudando a desestabilizar los límites del parque de
manera muy parecida a como, desde otra perspectiva, los corredores de vida silvestre y la teoría y la práctica de la
conservación de la conectividad los ven como idealmente porosos.
RÉSUMÉ
Une étude portant sur le comportement des migrants arabes et vietnamiens dans un parc national situé dans la région
sud-ouest de Sydney, en Australie, a mis en avant un phénomène intéressant. En effet, il est apparu que ces populations
font plus que s’adapter à cet environnement : elles y trouvent activement leur place. Le concept de création d’espaces est
donc utile, notamment pour montrer que l’espace peut être construit à partir de pratiques sociales, d’émotions et
d’affect et qu’il n’implique pas nécessairement d’impact physique ou d’altération de l’environnement existant. Lorsqu’ils
sont dans le parc, les migrants apportent avec eux leurs habitudes perceptuelles et culturelles et leurs attentes sur la
nature, qui puisent leurs origines dans leurs pays natals. Les participants à l’étude ont également rapporté que certains
éléments du parc, notamment la rivière, leur faisaient fortement penser à leurs terres natales. Ils avaient ainsi le
sentiment d’être à deux endroits en même temps. Le concept de transnationalisme permet de comprendre comment un
parc national peut, chez certaines personnes, être transnational – et donc dépasser le simple espace national. Ainsi, la
connectivité transnationale nous aide à dépasser les frontières du parc tout comme, considérés sous un autre angle, les
couloirs de la vie sauvage et la théorie et la pratique de la conservation de la connectivité qui considèrent, dans l’idéal,
les frontières comme poreuses.

73 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
CAN THE IUCN 2008 PROTECTED AREAS

MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES SUPPORT PACIFIC
ISLAND APPROACHES TO CONSERVATION?
Hugh Govan1* and Stacy Jupiter2

1
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and Locally Managed Marine Area Network
2
Wildlife Conservation Society, Fiji Country Programme
ABSTRACT
Many Pacific island nations lag behind more developed countries with respect to achieving Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) targets for protected area coverage. The modified definition of protected
areas under the IUCN’s 2008 Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories offers
opportunities for Pacific islands nations to formally recognize indigenous community conserved and
locally managed areas under a range of management styles. However, there are elements to the new
definition and principles that are unlikely to be compatible in the context of customary tenure
prevailing in the Pacific. The first principle requiring nature conservation to be the primary objective
of protected areas runs counter to the majority of functioning Pacific island protected areas that have
been established with sustainable livelihoods as the major driver. Furthermore, the definition of
conservation as perceived by most Pacific island cultures is inextricably linked with ‘sustainable use’.
In this context, we offer suggestions for moving forward, including raising awareness of these issues,
consulting on the appropriate definitions of protected areas that fit the legal and cultural context of
each country, and avoiding incorporating the language of the 2008 Guidelines into definitions or
wording for national policy and legislation until broad consensus and understanding is reached.
because of strong ties to the environment through

INTRODUCTION customary tenure and cultural practice (Ruddle et al.,
In decision VII/30 of the Convention on Biological
1992; Veitayaki et al., 2003). Due to the strength of
Diversity (CBD), the Conference of Parties (COP) participatory planning processes to express community
established a target to effectively conserve at least 10 per aspirations and foster community implementation,
cent of each of the world’s ecological regions by 2010 progress in Fiji, Samoa and Solomon Islands has resulted
(UNEP/CBD, 2004). Although global coverage of
in over 400 locally managed areas documented in these
terrestrial protected areas reached more than 12 per cent countries alone, with considerably more throughout the
in the 2000s, coverage of ecoregions has been uneven region (Figure 1). It has become clear that lasting success
and geographically biased to Europe, North Eurasia and of these initiatives relies on development and
North America (Chape et al., 2005; Jenkins & Joppa, achievement of local objectives, which largely focus on
2009).
improved natural resource availability yet still provide
tangible benefits to biodiversity (Govan et al., 2009a).
The global push to increase the coverage of protected
areas met with little success in most Pacific island In Pacific island countries with scarce government
countries until the late 1990s, when appropriate resources and a majority of land and inshore marine
management approaches for the Pacific were developed areas under customary tenure, these community-based
that recognized the value of customary institutions in approaches offer countries the most cost effective and
decision-making for resource management (Cinner & practicable way of achieving most of their international
Aswani, 2007; Govan et al., 2009a). For example, the obligations to protected area coverage under the CBD
Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA) network grew (Govan et al., 2009a; Govan et al., 2009c). Without
from the principle that local people can be more effective relying substantially on local management, Pacific
than central governments at implementing management countries will not achieve targets from the CBD's new

Hugh Govan & Stacy Jupiter 74
Figure 1: Map showing 743 Pacific Island MMAs recorded as of 2009. The 565 classified as locally managed marine areas
(LMMAs) are shown in red. Source: Govan et al., 2009a and http://pacificgis.reefbase.org
Strategic Plan under Decision X/2 (the Aichi Targets) to OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE IUCN PROTECTED
effectively conserve 17 per cent of terrestrial/inland
AREA GUIDELINES
water areas and 10 per cent of coastal/marine areas by
The IUCN’s 2008 Guidelines seem to offer useful
2020 (UNEP/CBD, 2010).
guidance in the development of appropriate legislation in
the Pacific islands, but also raise a number of issues with
Some national governments such as Samoa, Vanuatu and
potentially serious consequences. In terms of advantages,
Tonga have already incorporated community-based
the 2008 Guidelines provide opportunities for Pacific
approaches into policy and legislation. Others, such as
island resource managers to clarify the status of their
Fiji, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, are in the
protected areas. For instance, Dudley (2008) discusses
process of updating the conservation and resource
how the new definition can provide recognition of ICCAs
management policy and legislation in the light of more
and South Pacific community managed areas, such as
than a decade of experience in community-based
Samoan community fishing reserves, as long as they
management. Developing such legislation represents a
meet the protected area definition and its associated
considerable challenge given current limits on the extent
principles.
to which indigenous communities can regulate activities
that impact species and habitats and resourcing required
The 2008 Guidelines provide a new definition of
to embed institutional support for indigenous
protected area to be “A clearly defined geographical
community conserved areas (ICCAs) within government
space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal
agencies (Clarke & Gillespie, 2008; Vukikomoala et al.,
or other effective means, to achieve the long-term
2012).
conservation of nature with associated ecosystem
In response to worldwide concerns on the impact of services and cultural values”. The definition is applied in
protected areas on indigenous and local people, as well as the context of eleven principles, the first of which reads:
conflicts with extractive industries such as mining, the “For IUCN, only those areas where the main objective is
IUCN developed and modified guidance on the definition conserving nature can be considered protected areas; this
of protected areas and management categories in 2008 can include many areas with other goals as well, at the
(Dudley, 2008; Dudley et al., 2010). These Guidelines for same level, but in the case of conflict, nature
Applying Protected Area Management Categories conservation will be the priority”.
(hereafter 2008 Guidelines) made slight changes to the
definition of a protected area that gives extra weight to Further, the 2008 Guidelines outline and clarify six
long-term and effective management. categories of protected area management with a wide

Community member from Totoya Island, Fiji, places a cibicibi tree into the reef to mark the location of a sacred, no-take
protected area © Keith A. Ellenbogen
spectrum of potential management objectives. The most assigned based on the primary stated management
applicable in the Pacific context may be category V, that objective of the MPA (which must apply to at least 75 per
can include ‘the preservation of long-term and cent of the MPA), or a zone within an MPA.’ Cases where
sustainable local fishing practices or sustainable coral ‘seasonal, temporary or permanent controls are placed
reef harvesting…’, and category VI, that may be on fishing methods and/or access’ could also qualify as
‘predominantly natural habitats but allow the sustainable MPAs if they meet the protected area definition and have
collection of particular elements, such as particular food a primary aim to deliver nature conservation.
species or small amounts of coral or shells’ (Figure 2).
The 2008 Guidelines also open the door to different zones POTENTIAL THREATS OF THE IUCN 2008
within a protected area being placed under different
GUIDELINES TO PACIFIC ISLAND PROTECTED
categories, such as the zones within the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area (Day, 2002), and thus some current
AREAS
In the above respects, the 2008 Guidelines appear to be
closed areas could conceivably be assigned to the most
an opportunity for Pacific islands to ensure that their
restrictive IUCN categories. For marine protected areas
efforts towards sustainable marine resource management
(MPAs), the guidelines were further refined by Day et al.
are more widely recognized as protected areas and,
(2012) such that ‘the appropriate IUCN category is

Figure 2: Schematic of a suite of management actions that may be employed within a Pacific Locally Managed Marine Area
therefore, count towards their international considered protected areas’ sits ill with the bulk of
commitments and obligations. However, there are two functioning Pacific island protected areas that are driven
elements to the new protected area definition and by local aspirations to achieve sustainable livelihoods
principles that are unlikely to be compatible in the Pacific based on healthy resources (Govan et al., 2009c).
context: (1) the primacy of the nature conservation Specifically, the new MPA Guidelines assert that
objective; and (2) the definition of conservation (PIRT, ‘community areas managed primarily for sustainable
2008). Further, there may be constraints to providing a extraction of marine products’ should not be
basis for legal recognition of locally managed areas if it automatically classified as MPAs if they do not have
removes the authority of community decision-makers to nature conservation as the primary objective (Day et al.,
flexibly adapt their management rules and objectives in 2012). The question of how to honestly determine the
response to environmental or social change (Clarke & ‘primary’ objective of a Pacific island locally managed
Jupiter, 2010). area remains a challenge, let alone expressing this in
terms that are compatible with the jargon of western
conservation. The principle and definition also seem to
OBJECTIVES OF PACIFIC PROTECTED AREAS limit the opportunities for strategies based on
The first principle to which protected areas must adhere sustainable use, even if these are more likely to accrue
under the IUCN definition states ‘only those areas where precisely the long-term conservation benefits intended
the main objective is conserving nature can be under the new IUCN definition and guidelines.

gazette their protected areas, including defining

objectives, because of perceived constraints to their
capacity to adapt conservation or other strategies in the
face of variability. For example, under the current Fiji
Fisheries Act, if communities wish to gazette their
marine protected area, they must agree to the
management authority of the government (Clarke &
Jupiter, 2010). Thus, very few communities find this
option acceptable, though this could change in the case of
Fiji which is producing a revised Inshore Fisheries
Decree. Little if any uptake is apparent in Vanuatu, a
country with specific provision for Community
Conserved Areas and the role of custom in its recent
Environmental Management and Conservation Act.
Reasons for this lack of uptake include lack of capacity to
Sign denoting community conservation area in Sisili Village, fill out the requisite paper work, as well as a common
Solomon Islands © Stacy Jupiter perception that that the potential benefits do not
outweigh the risks of entering contractual arrangements
DEFINITION OF CONSERVATION with the State, known to have limited capacity for
The 2008 Guidelines define conservation as ‘the in-situ enforcement (Govan et al., 2009c).
maintenance of ecosystems and natural and semi-natural
habitats and of viable populations of species in their
natural surroundings’. Previously adopted global, as well NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
as Pacific, definitions of conservation included MOVING FORWARD
‘sustainable use’ as an integral component (IUCN/ There have been several instances of Pacific island
UNEP/WWF, 1980; PIRT, 2007). Sustainable use was government and national technical advisers receiving
removed from the 2008 Guidelines owing to concerns encouragement to adopt the 2008 Guidelines as part of
over abuses by large corporations and even governments national policy or legislation, such as during the drafting
in the mining and forestry sectors (Dudley et al., 2010). of the Solomon Islands Protected Areas Act. In the past,
However, in the Pacific context, concepts equating to Pacific legislation that did not recognize the cultural
‘conservation’ have dimensions not contemplated in distinctions between western and Pacific islander world
contemporary western culture. Such is the case of the views created conflict. For instance, the New Zealand
vanua (Fiji), fenua (Tuvalu), enua (Cook Islands), Conservation Act of 1987 directs the Department of
kaitiaki (Maori) and the puava (Marovo, Solomon Conservation to undertake co-management of protected
Islands), with similar concepts in most of the traditional areas with Maori under the principles of the Treaty of
Pacific societies. These cultural beliefs affect resource Waitagi that involve ‘the preservation and protection
allocations and access rights, and environmental of ... resources for the purpose of maintaining their
stewardship is intrinsic to these property rights regimes intrinsic values’, which is at odds with the Maori concept
(Ruddle et al., 1992; Hdiving, 1996; Berkes, 2004). This of sustainable use (Roberts et al., 1995; Berkes, 2004).
contrasts markedly with the demonstrated pitfalls of the
western open access approaches (Keen & Lal, 1992). It is Based on the arguments above, it is clear that further
unlikely that ‘extraction’ and ‘sustainable use’ are facets discussion and written clarification is needed before
that can be meaningfully separated from the Pacific Pacific island governments should adopt the 2008
islanders’ concepts of ‘duty of care’ for the environment Guidelines. Certain interpretations could exclude many,
and conservation in general. if not all, the community managed protected areas that
currently form the major thrust in meeting their CBD
CODIFYING OR GAZETTING PROTECTED AREAS obligations, leaving little in the way of viable alternatives.
Discussions on strengths of cultural approaches often Driving a wedge between conservation and sustainable
highlight the risks involved in trying to define or use/fisheries management also risks dividing the efforts
constrain approaches that function essentially because of of government and non-government agencies that are
their adaptability and flexibility. Many communities may seeking to rationalize approaches and reduce costs
be wary of completing application formalities to codify or through collaboration.

Local fishers from Kia Island, Fiji, with a catch from their adjacent LMMA © Stacy Jupiter
As an alternative, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, biodiversity enjoys a higher level of protection than its
Technical and Technological Advice of the CBD (Ad Hoc surroundings” (SCBD, 2004). In addition, at the CBD
Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Protected COP 10, Parties committed to achieving the Aichi
Areas) adopted the following definition: “Marine and Targets, including proportions of each state conserved
Coastal Protected Areas mean any defined area within or through protected areas and “other effective area-based
adjacent to the marine environment, together with its conservation measures” (Target 11). For the moment,
overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, and therefore, and notwithstanding efforts to tighten its
historical and cultural features, which has been reserved interpretation (e.g. Woodley et al., 2012), it appears that
by legislation or other effective means, including the CBD text and definitions are more appropriate for
customs, with the effect that its marine and/or coastal Pacific island policy makers and planners in terms of

protected area accounting, especially as it is to the CBD Locally Managed Marine Area (FLMMA) - IAS, USP sites.
that the main national obligations on protected area IAS Technical Report No. 2009/02. Suva, Fiji: Institute of
coverage pertain. Applied Sciences, University of the South Pacific.
Govan, H., Tawake, A., Tabunakawai, K., Jenkins, A.,
Lasgorceix, A., Techera, E., Tafea, H., Kinch, J., Feehely, J.,
In moving forward, we offer three potential
Ifopo, P., Hills, R., Alefaio, S., Meo, S., Troniak, S.,
recommendations for action. First, Pacific island Malimali, S., George, S., Tauaefa, T. and Obed, T. (2009c).
governments and NGOs should be made aware of the Community conserved areas: a review of status & needs in
issues and implications relating to the current 2008 Melanesia and Polynesia. Suva, Fiji: CENESTA / TILCEPA /
Guidelines. Secondly, the language of the 2008 TGER / IUCN / GEF-SGP.
Hdiving, E. (1996). Guardians of Marovo Lagoon: practice,
Guidelines, particularly the principles, should not be place, and politics in maritime Melanesia. Honolulu, USA:
incorporated into definitions or wording for national University of Hawaii Press.
policy and legislation until broad consensus and IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1980). The World Conservation Strategy.
understanding is reached. Finally, there appears to be a http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/WCS-004.pdf.
Jenkins, C.N. and Joppa, L. (2009). Expansion of the global
need for regionally appropriate guidance to be developed
terrestrial protected area system. Biological Conservation
through wide consultation and discussion in Pacific 142:2166-2174.
island countries which should ensure particular Keen, M. and Lal, P. (2002). Creating supportive frameworks
involvement of land-owning communities, as well as for community based resource management.
government and non-government organizations. Development Bulletin (Canberra) 58:46-51.
PIRT (2007). Action Strategy for Nature Conservation 2008-
2012. Alotau, Papua New Guinea: Pacific Islands Round
REFERENCES Table for Nature Conservation.
Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. PIRT (2008). Letter to the Chair, IUCN World Commission on
Conservation Biology 18:621-630 Protected Areas, Regarding the Application of the
Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M. and Lysenko, I. (2005). Proposed IUCN Protected Area Guidelines in the context of
Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected the Pacific Islands. Suva, Fiji: Pacific Islands Round Table
areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity for Nature Conservation.
targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Roberts, M., Norman, W., Minhinnick, N., Wihongi, D. and
360:443-455. Kirkwood, C. (1995). Kaitiakitanga: Maori perspectives on
Cinner, J.E. and Aswani. S. (2007). Integrating customary conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 2:7–20.
management into marine conservation. Biological Ruddle, K., Hviding, E. and Johannes, R.E. (1992). Marine
Conservation 140:201-216. resource management in the context of customary
Clarke, P. and Gillespie, T. (2008). Legal mechanisms for the tenure. Marine Resource Economics 7:249-273.
establishment and management of terrestrial protected SCBD (2004). Technical Advice on the Establishment and
areas in Fiji. Suva, Fiji: IUCN. Management of a National System of Marine and Coastal
Clarke, P. and Jupiter, S.D. (2010). Law, custom and Protected Areas. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the
community-based natural resource management in Convention on Biological Diversity.
Kubulau District (Fiji). Environmental Conservation 37:98-106. UNEP/CBD (2004). Decision VII/30. Strategic Plan: future
Day, J.C. (2002). Zoning - lessons from the Great Barrier Reef evaluation of progress. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
Marine Park. Ocean & Coastal Management 45:139-156. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, G., Laffoley, D., Diversity, Seventh Meeting.
Stolton, S. and Wells, S. (2012). Guidelines for applying the UNEP/CBD (2010). Decision X/2. The Strategic Plan for
IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Nagoya, Japan: Conference of the Parties to the
Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area Convention of Biological Diversity.
management categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Veitayaki, J., Aalbersberg, B., Tawake, A., Rupeni, E. and
Dudley, N., Parrish, J.D., Redford, K.H. and Stolton, S. (2010). Tabunakawai, K. (2003). Mainstreaming resource
The revised IUCN protected area management categories: conservation: the Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area
the debate and ways forward. Oryx 44:485-490. Network and its influence on national policy development.
Govan, H., Tawake, A., Tabunakawai, K., Jenkins, A., Canberra, Australia: Research School of Pacific and Asian
Lasgorceix A, Schwarz, A.-M., Aalbersberg, B., Manele, B., Studies, The Australian National University.
Vieux, C., Notere, D., Afzal, D., Techera, E., Rasalato, E.T., Vukikomoala, K., Jupiter, S., Erasito, E. and Chand, K. (2012).
Sykes, H., Walton, H., Tafea, H., Korovulavula, I., Comley, An analysis of international law, national legislation,
J., Kinch, J., Feehely, J., Petit, J., Heaps, L., Anderson, P., judgments, and institutions as they interrelate with
Cohen, P., Ifopo, P., Vave, R., Hills, R., Tawakelevu, S., territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and
Alefaio, S., Meo, S., Troniak, S., Malimali, S., Kukuian, S., local communities. Report No. 19 Fiji. Bangalore and Delhi,
George, S., Tauaefa, T. and Obed, T. (2009a). Status and India: Natural Justice and Kalpavriksh.
potential of locally-managed marine areas in the South Woodley, S., Bertzky, B., Crawhall, N., Dudley, N., Londoño,
Pacific: meeting nature conservation and sustainable J.M., MacKinnon, K., Redford, K. and Sandwith, T. (2012).
livelihood targets through wide-spread implementation of Meeting Aichi Target 11: what does success look like for
LMMAs. Suva, Fiji: SPREP/WWF/WorldFish-Reefbase/CRISP. protected area systems? PARKS 18:1.
Govan, H., Tawake, A., Korovulavula, I. and Tawakelevu. S.
(2009b). Summary analysis of site support costs for Fiji
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Stacy Jupiter has been working with the Wildlife
Hugh Govan was born in Scotland, raised in Spain and Conservation Society Fiji Program since 2008, first as an
has worked in Solomon Islands, Central and South Associate Conservation Scientist and then as Program
America and various European and Pacific countries. Director. She specializes in working with local
Hugh was originally a marine biologist but now communities to design networks of protected areas
“generalizes” in governance and participatory processes. tailored to their management needs. She has additionally
He has more than two decades of community-based led the marine working group of the National Protected
conservation work in the Pacific and Latin America. Area Committee to conduct a national gap analysis to
Hugh returned to the Pacific region in 1999 to support assess how well coastal and marine habitats are
community-based adaptation in Fiji where he relocated effectively protected through locally managed marine
in 2003. He now leads the Advocacy strategy for the areas in Fiji. Email: [email protected]
Locally Managed Marine Area Network and is a country
liaison for Solomon Islands.
RESUMEN
Muchas naciones insulares del Pacífico van a la zaga de los países más desarrollados con respecto al logro de metas para la
cobertura de áreas protegidas del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB). La definición modificada de áreas protegidas en
las Directrices para la aplicación de las categorías de gestión de áreas protegidas (UICN 2008), ofrece oportunidades a las
naciones insulares del Pacífico para reconocer formalmente las áreas conservadas y gestionadas localmente por las
comunidades indígenas bajo diferentes enfoques de gestión. Sin embargo, hay aspectos de la nueva definición y
principios que son incompatibles en términos del contexto de la tenencia consuetudinaria prevaleciente en el Pacífico.
El primer principio que requiere que la conservación de la naturaleza sea el objetivo principal de las áreas protegidas va
en contra de la mayoría de las áreas protegidas establecidas en las islas del Pacífico, cuyo principal impulsor es asegurar
medios de subsistencia sostenibles. Por otra parte, la definición de la conservación según la percepción de la mayoría de
las culturas de las islas del Pacífico está inextricablemente ligada con el "uso sostenible". En este contexto, ofrecemos
sugerencias para seguir avanzando, incluyendo aumentar el conocimiento sobre estas cuestiones, realizar consultas en
torno a las definiciones sobre áreas protegidas que más se ajustan al contexto legal y cultural de cada país, y evitar la
incorporación del lenguaje de las Directrices de 2008 en las definiciones o redacción de las políticas y leyes nacionales
hasta alcanzar un amplio consenso y comprensión.
RÉSUMÉ
De nombreuses îles-nations du Pacifique sont moins bien classées que les pays plus développées en ce qui concerne la
réalisation des objectifs de la Convention sur la diversité biologique liés aux aires protégées. La modification de la
définition des aires protégées dans les Lignes directrices pour l’application des catégories de gestion aux aires
protégées de l’UICN, publié en 2008, permet aux îles-nations du Pacifique de reconnaître officiellement les aires
conservées par les communautés autochtones et localement gérées et de les classer ainsi dans plusieurs catégories de
gestion. Cependant, certains éléments présents dans la nouvelle définition et les principes seront certainement
incompatibles avec les régimes fonciers coutumiers qui prévalent dans le Pacifique. Le premier principe, selon lequel la
conservation de la nature doit être le principal objectif des aires protégées, s’oppose à la majorité des aires protégées en
fonctionnement dans le Pacifique, pour lesquelles le principal moteur est la création de moyens de subsistance
durables. En outre, la définition de la conservation est perçue par la plupart des cultures des îles du Pacifique comme
inextricablement liée à « l’utilisation durable ». Dans ce contexte, nous proposons donc d’aller plus loin et de vulgariser
ces questions, de s’interroger sur les définitions appropriées des aires protégées qui correspondent au contexte culturel
et juridique de chaque pays, et d’éviter le langage des Lignes directrices de 2008 dans les définitions ou l’énoncé des
politiques et législations nationales, jusqu’à trouver un consensus et une entente satisfaisants pour tous.
81 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
PUTTING NATURE ON THE MAP: APPLYING THE

IUCN PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT
CATEGORIES IN THE UK
Roger Crofts1* and Adrian Phillips2

1
Roger Crofts, WCPA member and WCPA Regional Vice-Chair Europe 2000-08, Edinburgh,
Scotland
2
Adrian Phillips, WCPA member and WCPA Chair of the Commission 1994-2000, Cheltenham,
England
ABSTRACT
Putting Nature on the Map is the title of the ongoing project for applying the IUCN protected areas
management categories to all protected areas in the UK under state, private, charitable or community
control, in the light of IUCN’s adoption of revised guidance in 2008. The standard two-stage test is
applied: do the designated sites/areas conform to the IUCN definition of a protected area? And, if so,
to which IUCN management category and governance type should they be assigned? The paper
describes the innovative methods used, including a Statement of Compliance to test whether a
designated area system complies with the IUCN definition of a protected area, and an independent
Assessment Panel as a quality control on data input from originating bodies before formal submission
of official data through government to the UNEP-WCMC World Data Base on Protected Areas. The
benefits of the approach, both in applying international standards and providing a basis for increasing
the prominence of protected areas as a key mechanism for nature conservation, are set out and interim
results are presented.
INTRODUCTION under the guidance of a small expert group drawn from

Protected areas are fundamental in safeguarding species the statutory agencies and senior members of WCPA.
and habitats, ecological systems, geodiversity and Many organisations owning protected areas or with
landscapes, and improving the stewardship of natural particular statutory responsibilities for protected areas
resources in defined sites and areas. This has been long are involved in implementation.
recognised in the UK through legislation dating back
more than 60 years beginning with the National Parks THE IUCN PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT
and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. But the UK CATEGORIES SYSTEM
remains behind many other countries in applying the The system established by IUCN is “an important global
international standards set by IUCN in Guidelines for standard by facilitating the planning of protected areas
Protected Areas Management Categories (Dudley, 2008). and associated systems, improving information
Early in 2010, the former Chair (Nik Lopoukhine) of the management about protected areas, and helping to
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) regulate activities in protected areas” (Dudley, 2008). It
challenged the UK protected areas community to rectify has been adopted by the Conference of Parties of the
the situation and place the UK in a leading position Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a global
globally in the implementation of the 2008 IUCN standard and included in its Programme of Work on
Guidelines. In response, a collaborative project was Protected Areas (POWPA) in 2004 and 2010. It is
established, led by the IUCN National Committee for the enshrined in statute in some countries, but not in the UK
United Kingdom (IUCN NC UK). Funded by The and its constituent parts.
Sibthorp Trust, Natural England and The John Muir
Trust, the work began in mid 2010 and is due for The IUCN Guidelines recommend a two-stage approach:
completion in time for the World Parks Congress in The site/area or protected area system must conform to
2014. After initial work undertaken by Middlemarch the IUCN protected area definition. The revised
Environmental, the project is now being taken forward definition now in use is as follows: “A clearly defined

Roger Crofts & Adrian Phillips 82
Table 1: Summary of Protected Area data currently held by the WDPA (2011)
Number
of sites Present
National Geographical on IUCN
description/designation Purpose area data category
base
Area of Outstanding Natural Statutory protection of landscape quality E, W; NI 49 V
Beauty
Area of Special Scientific Statutory protection of bio & geo NI 226 IV
Interest features
Heritage Coast Coastal landscape protection and access E, W 32 V
Local Nature Reserve Statutory nature protection and access UK 1,372 IV
Marine Conservation Area Voluntary for consultation UK 2 unknown
Marine Nature Reserve Voluntary for consultation UK 3 IV

National Nature Reserve Statutory strict nature protection UK 403 IV
National Park Statutory landscape protection, access & E, W, S 14 V

enjoyment
National Scenic Area Statutory protection of natural beauty S 40 V
Regional Park Non statutory landscape protection and S 4 V

access
Site of Special Scientific Statutory protection of bio and geo E, W, S 6,586 IV
Interest features
Biosphere Reserve Non statutory UNESCO designation for UK 9 not
sustainable development classified
Ramsar site International protection of wetlands and UK 158 not

wetland species classified
World Heritage Site UNESCO designation to safeguard UK 3 not
Outstanding Universal Significance classified
Source: UNEP WCMC World Database on Protected Areas with purpose added for clarification
Notes: E = England, NI = Northern Ireland, S = Scotland, W = Wales
geographical space, dedicated and managed, through the designated sites/areas in the UK (Table 1) and most
legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term of them are reported under one of the IUCN
conservation of nature with associated ecosystem Management Categories. However, the UK entry is out of
services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008, p.8). Sites date, does not conform with the 2008 Guidelines and is
recognised as protected areas by IUCN must adhere to a incomplete, thus not giving an accurate picture of the
number of principles. The most important, in this position in the UK. Many sites owned and managed by
context, is recognition of the multiple roles of protected environmental NGOs are not included. Some other areas
areas but with nature conservation (broadly defined) as that are included may not meet the current definition of a
the ultimate priority: “in the case of conflict, nature protected area. Some types are classified generically,
conservation will be the priority” (Dudley, 2008, p.10). regardless of differences in management objectives. For
example, all Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs),
All sites that have been identified as ‘protected areas’ which is the main domestic designation for nature
under the IUCN definition are assigned one of the six protection in the England, Scotland and Wales are
management categories and one of four governance types considered to be Category IV, although some SSSIs have
defined by IUCN. a different purpose to those of that category.
WHY APPLY THE IUCN SYSTEM IN THE UK? By applying the 2008 IUCN Guidelines, the quality of
The World Data Base on Protected Areas (WDPA), information on the UK’s protected areas will be greatly
managed by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring improved, and the data held by the WDPA will provide a
Centre (UNEP WCMC), currently lists some but not all of much more accurate reflection of the position in the UK.

Snowdonia National Park, Wales © Nigel Dudley
This will help in understanding how the UK is meeting the information will also display the full range of places
international commitments, for example in achieving the that can attract tourists seeking contact with nature and
Aichi Target 11 agreed at the Nagoya session of the CBD landscape. It will also identify what needs to be done to
(which set a global target to establish protected areas bring the management of other areas which currently do
covering at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland not meet the IUCN protected area definition up to
water areas and 10 per cent of marine and coastal areas international protected area standards. Finally, the
by 2020) (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011), and outcome of the project should enable UK nature
obligations set by the European Union (EU). The revised conservation to be showcased more effectively.
material will help the UK Government and devolved
administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and
Wales, to understand how they are meeting their country APPROACH ADOPTED
-level nature conservation priorities; for example, in The basic aim of the project is to identify all the places in
relation to Nature Improvement Areas and the new the UK that meet the IUCN definition of a protected area,
Biodiversity Strategy in England (Defra, 2010); and help and then to assign them to one of the six IUCN protected
to build on the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK area management categories and one of the four
National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011). The information protected area governance types. A Handbook (IUCN NC
will also help to raise the public profile of protected areas UK, 2012) has been prepared by the IUCN NC UK to
which meet international standards, especially by giving guide the assessment process. While this Handbook is
free public access to maps and interactive computerised derived from the 2008 IUCN Guidelines, and should be
records (through www.protectedplanet.net the website of regarded as subordinate to it, it is designed to assist UK
the WDPA). Better information for land use strategies users to apply the international guidance in the national
will be available through the database; local people context. It recommends a step by step approach to
should be able to make better informed decisions about supplement the international guidance and make it more
the designation and management of protected areas; and relevant to UK circumstances.

Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park from Ben Lomond owned in part by NGO The National Trust for Scotland
© Roger Crofts
Step 1: Determine what is, what is not, and what  Does the site meet the IUCN definition?
may be a protected area within the UK under the If it is not immediately clear whether the site/area passes
IUCN definition. the IUCN definition some further assessment is required
For this, the material in the IUCN Guidelines (Dudley, to determine the position. Three stages are used in the
2008) should be used. Additional guidance is provided in UK process: first to test the site/area against each
the UK Handbook for some types of designation where element of the IUCN definition, second to test the site/
the fit with the IUCN definition requires very careful area against the common objectives set out in the IUCN
consideration, such as National Parks, Areas of Guidelines, and third to assess the site/area against the
Outstanding Natural Beauty, and Sites of Special optional additional criteria set out in the IUCN
Scientific Interest; this advice was generated following Guidelines. Descriptive text is provided in the UK
workshops with expert groups. Other countries could Handbook to help reviewers, but it is based on the IUCN
usefully use the same approach, annotating the Guidelines to ensure that there is no variation from the
Guidelines to help make decisions on national agreed international system. If the assessment proves
designations. In addition, Statements of Compliance are negative, the site/area is rejected and no further action is
required to aid the assessment (see below). taken. If the assessment proves positive, the site/area is
then assigned to one of the IUCN categories and
Step 2: If the site/area passes the IUCN governance types.
definition, determine its management category
and governance type. For each of the main protected area designations in the
The UK Handbook presents a systematic way for UK where there is some uncertainty about whether they
assigning a site/area to the relevant IUCN category and generically pass the IUCN definition test, the Handbook
governance type, focussing particularly on the fit with the advises that a Statement of Compliance is drawn up
primary objectives of each of the categories. The process to demonstrate conformity with the IUCN definition.
involves answering the following three questions. Since the publication of the Handbook, such statements

Table 2: A key to determine if a site is a Protected Area
1 Is the site a clearly defined geographical area? Yes Go to 2

No FAIL – Not a protected area
2 Is it recognised, dedicated and managed to Yes Go to 3
achieve the long-term conservation of nature?
NB ‘nature’ includes all levels of biodiversity as
well as geodiversity, landforms and broader
natural values (see Appendix 4 for detailed
definition) No FAIL – Not a protected area
3 Is the main management objective nature Yes Go to 4
conservation? Other objectives of equal standing
may be present but they do not cause conflict,
i.e. nature conservation is the priority No FAIL – Not a protected area
4 Does the designation of the site aim to prevent, Yes Go to 5
or eliminate where necessary, any exploitation or
management practice that will be harmful to the
objectives of designation? No FAIL – Not a protected area
5 Is the long-term nature conservation ensured Yes This is a protected area
through legal or other effective means? E.g.
national or international statutory law/
agreement/convention, traditional rules or NGO
policy. No FAIL – Not a protected area
Source: IUCN NC UK, 2012
have been developed, for example, for the domestic  Is long-term nature conservation ensured through
designations of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty legal or other effective means? e.g. through national
(AONBs), National Parks, and Sites of Special Scientific or international statutory law/agreement/
Interest, (SSSIs) as well as for international designations convention, traditional rules or NGO policy?
of Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs) and Biosphere Reserves. In some cases, these statements may conclusively
demonstrate compliance for a whole suite of sites.
Each statement consists of text which addresses the
However, in many cases sites will need to be examined
following questions:
on an individual basis; for this, the Handbook provides a
 Is the site a clearly defined geographical area?
series of step by step keys, accompanied by a descriptive
 Is it recognised, dedicated and managed to achieve text, to aid decisions on whether these sites fit the IUCN
the long-term conservation of nature? ‘Nature’ definition (Table 2).
includes all levels of biodiversity as well as
geodiversity, landforms and broader natural values.
The Statements of Compliance for SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and
 Is the main management objective nature Biosphere Reserves have now been reviewed by the
conservation? Other objectives of equal standing Assessment Panel (see below for details) and approved as
may be present, but when they cause conflict, nature fulfilling the IUCN protected areas definition.
conservation should be the priority?
 Does the designation of the site prevent, or  What IUCN management category should
eliminate where necessary, any exploitation or the site be assigned to?
management practice that will be harmful to the For those sites which meet the IUCN protected areas
objectives of designation? definition, the Handbook provides detailed keys and
 Does the designation of the site aim to maintain or, descriptive material to allow a step by step assessment of
ideally, increase the degree of naturalness of the management objectives to aid the determination of the
ecosystem being protected? most appropriate IUCN management category.

Puffins (Fratercula arctica) on the Farne Island, England © Nigel Dudley
The names that IUCN attaches to the categories are not would provide a good basis for this.” (IUCN NC UK,
used in the Handbook, because of the confusion that can 2012). Those statements are currently in the course of
occur between these names and the national names for development.
protected areas. In the UK, for example, all national
 What is the governance type?
parks are presently classified not as category II (which
Once the category has been established, the type of
IUCN terms ‘national parks’) but as category V, and it
governance should be assigned using one of the four
seems likely that most, if not all, will remain in that
kinds listed in the IUCN Guidelines, along with the
category after assessment under the 2008 Guidelines.
supporting material there and in the UK Handbook.
Also, not all the designations are clear cut and the
example of category V is given below to highlight some of  Governance by government: governance by a
the issues to be resolved during the assignment process. statutory body, such as a government nature agency
or a specifically established body, such as a national
park authority;
Category V poses some specific issues for the UK under
the revised 2008 IUCN definition of a protected area,
 Shared governance: governance by partnership of
with its emphasis on nature conservation objectives. The public bodies, charities and other bodies approved
Handbook gives some general guidance on this as by government agencies because of their
follows: “This category has been used to classify National management capabilities, such as the National
Parks in England and Wales, Areas of Outstanding Trusts and Wildlife Trusts;
Natural Beauty in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,  Private governance: protected areas owned and
National Scenic Areas in Scotland, the two Scottish managed by charities, other non-government
National Parks and some other landscape designations. organisations, individuals and private companies;
Some current category V protected areas may need to re- and
examine their management plans in light of the revised  Governance by local communities: who own land
IUCN definition of a protected area and its greater through traditional rights or more recent
emphasis on nature conservation. The proposed acquisition, or in Scotland have acquired land
Statements of Compliance for AONBs and National Parks through special statutory measures.

Figure 1: Current and future data flows for protected areas
IUCN is currently working on more detail understanding All the data will be included in the WDPA and made
and assigning governance type which will be produced in accessible through the Protected Planet portal
2013. www.protectedplanet.net.
At present, the members of the Assessment Panel are

VERIFICATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE
several long-standing members of IUCN WCPA who have
ASSESSMENTS experience of the category system and its application in
It is important that the information that is generated
different countries (including the authors of this paper).
through the project is checked for accuracy before it is
The Panel reviews, first of all, the Statements of
entered on the WDPA. So, as part of this project, the
Compliance and provides feed back to the originators,
Steering Group has developed a new approach to the
and on resubmission approves them as the basis for
verification of protected areas against the IUCN
assigning individual sites and areas to the appropriate
Guidelines. This follows a number of trials in other areas
IUCN management category. The Panel will, in future,
of the world and is part of an international effort within
review a series of sites and areas to judge the standard of
IUCN WCPA to increase the use of the IUCN Guidelines
assignments and make comments as necessary. Once the
and to improve the accuracy of assessments using
assessments of category and governance assignment are
accredited members of the IUCN WCPA as an
complete, the Panel will pass its views on to the Joint
Assessment Panel (Stolton, 2013). Figure 1 illustrates the
Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) which submits
new system and how it differs from the current one in
the data to UNEP WCMC via the European Environment
use. There are two important innovations in the new
Agency (EEA), or (in the case of NGOs’ data) straight to
process:
UNEP WCMC.
 The inclusion of the IUCN WCPA Assessment Panel
to verify the accuracy of the data provided by UK
bodies for sites and areas to the WDPA against the INTERIM ASSESSMENT
published IUCN guidance; and From the work undertaken to date, we have made an
interim assessment of those designation types which we
 The possibility being offered to NGOs etc. to provide
consider may pass the IUCN definition test (Table 3—
data on their protected areas which are not currently
overleaf) and those that do not (following text). The
put forward to the WDPA as they are not part of the
Handbook states that a number of places with some form
official network of protected sites in the UK (even
of protection do not pass the IUCN protected area test,
though many meet the IUCN definition).

Table 3: Interim assessment of types of UK protected areas in relation to the IUCN Protected Areas definition
Geographical coverage
Northern
Type of site UK England Scotland Wales Ireland
International Sites (Global and EU)
Biosphere Reserves (core and buffer zone) 
Biosphere Reserves (transition zone) x
Ramsar (wetland) site 
European Union Habitats Directive: Special

Area of Conservation (SAC)
European Union Birds Directive: Special

Protection Area (SPA)
World Heritage site

(Natural and Mixed)
National or Country Level Sites
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)   ?
Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI) for

biological & geological interests
Heritage Coast (HC) ? ?
Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) 
National Nature Reserve (NNR) 
National Park (NP)   
National Scenic Areas (NSA) ?
Regional Park (RP) ? ?
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)   
NGOs, Private sites etc with nature conservation as the main objective
John Muir Trust 
Scottish Wildlife Trust 
National Trust land held inalienably when
  
managed for nature conservation
National Trust for Scotland land held
inalienably when managed for nature 
conservation
Land owned by a NGO for nature

conservation
Key:
Probably likely to pass IUCN Protected Area definition test
? Some doubt about fit with IUCN Protected Area definition
x Unlikely to pass the IUCN Protected Area definition test
for example because nature conservation is not the  Agri-environmental and rural development
primary management objective or because they are of a instruments, such as Environmentally Sensitive Areas
temporary nature. These are: or areas covered by Higher Level Stewardship or
 Designations to guide decision making through the Rural Development Contracts-Rural Priorities, as
statutory Town and Country Planning system, such as these are essentially temporary measures under the
Green Belt (safeguarding countryside by halting the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy to encourage
extension of large settlements) or Areas of Landscape environmentally sustainable farming and land-use.
Value (non statutory for protecting valued local and  Measures to protect the built heritage, such as Listed
regional landscapes), as nature conservation is not Buildings (to force consultation on measures which
their main purpose. may affect the quality and surroundings of buildings

of special architectural or historical merit), Scheduled approach in the UK will be of interest to other countries in
Ancient Monuments (to protect features of historical applying the 2008 IUCN Guidelines for Protected Areas
and archaeological importance) or Conservation Management Categories.
Areas (to safeguard historically valued areas within
urban settings). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 Natural Environmental Research Council Act Section Thanks to Helen S. Miller CEnv MIEEM, project manager
42 Priority Habitats as there is no certainty about for Putting Nature on the Map and Principal Technical
protecting nature and the mechanism is rarely used. Ecological Consultant at Middlemarch Environmental Ltd,
 Local sites of nature conservation value determined and the late Andy Tasker Director at Middlemarch
by local government authorities (e.g. EcoSites, Sites Environmental Ltd and also the Director of the GLOBE
of Importance for Nature Conservation, Regionally Program, for their work as consultants on drafts of the
Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites); Handbook. Thanks to Sue Stolton, Nigel Dudley, Richard
these are not protected by legislation (or other Partington and Chris Mahon, our colleagues on this
effective means) and do not offer longer term project.
guarantees of nature protection.
 Local Nature Reserves a statutory designation by the REFERENCES
government nature agencies and run by local Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). Strategic Plan for
government authorities: although gaining some Biodiversity 2011-2020: Aichi Biodiversity Targets,
protection through local government, possibly www.cbd.int/sp/targets
Defra (2010). The natural choice: securing the value of nature.
including bye-laws, these sites generally do not
Cm. 8082. London, England: The Stationery Office.
provide guaranteed long term protection of nature. www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural.whitepaper/
 Any sites of the National Trust/National Trust for Dudley, N. (Ed.) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected
Scotland (charities established by statute to protect Areas Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
IUCN NC UK. (2012). Putting Nature on the Map: Identifying
and preserve natural and built heritage properties,
Protected Areas in the UK - A Handbook to help identify
allow public access and enjoyment) that are not protected areas in the UK and assign the IUCN
owned forever and not managed primarily for nature Management Categories and Governance Types to them.
conservation. London, England: IUCN National Committee for the United
Kingdom
It should be noted that some of the above will sometimes Stolton, S., Shadie, P. and N. Dudley. (2013). IUCN WCPA
Standards on the Process for Recognising Protected Areas
be designated as SSSIs or under other effective nature
and Assigning Management Categories and Governance
conservation legislation, in which case they will be Types, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
recognised as protected areas. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. (2011). UK National
Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key findings.
CONCLUSION Cambridge, England: UNEP – WCMC
A new approach has been developed in the UK to enable
all sites that meet the IUCN definition of a protected area
to be identified and formally included in the WDPA,
replacing the current unreliable data, thus allowing the UK
to declare that its protected areas meet internationally ABOUT THE AUTHORS
recognised standards. A collaborative approach has been Roger Crofts, CBE, is an environmental advisor, writer
used in the development of a comprehensive Handbook to and lecturer, a WCPA Emeritus, former Vice-Chair of
aid users of the system prepared under the aegis of the WCPA and founder CEO of Scottish Natural Heritage. He
IUCN NC UK. The development of Statements of chairs The Sibthorp Trust, the principal funder of the
Compliance and the setting up of an Assessment Panel of project described.
UK based experts represent innovations that could be
replicated elsewhere. Adrian Phillips, CBE, former Chair of WCPA (1994-
2000), and former CEO of the Countryside Commission
The completed data will be available to everyone with an of England and Wales. Lead author of IUCN’s 1994
interest in protected areas, hopefully in time to present to guidance on protected area management categories and
the 2014 World Parks Congress. It will also help promote former editor of the WCPA Best Practice global
the value of protected areas in the UK internationally, guidelines series on protected areas management. Email:
nationally and locally. It is hoped that this practical [email protected]

RESUMEN
Putting Nature on the Map (Poner a la naturaleza en el centro) es el título del proyecto en curso para la aplicación de las
categorías de gestión de áreas protegidas de la UICN para todas las áreas protegidas del Reino Unido bajo control
estatal, privado, de beneficencia o comunitario, a la luz de las definiciones modificadas por la UICN en sus Directrices
de 2008. Se formulan dos preguntas: ¿Se ajustan las áreas o sitios designados a la definición de la UICN de un área
protegida? Y, en caso afirmativo, ¿a qué tipo de categoría de gestión y gobernanza de la UICN deben asignarse? En el
documento se describen los métodos innovadores utilizados, incluyendo una Declaración de cumplimiento para
comprobar si un sistema de áreas designadas cumple con la definición que hace la UICN de un área protegida, y un
Grupo de evaluación independiente para efectos de control de calidad de los datos suministrados por los órganos que
los originan antes de la presentación formal de los datos oficiales por conducto del gobierno a la Base de Datos Mundial
sobre Áreas Protegidas del PNUMA-CMCM. Se exponen los beneficios de este enfoque, tanto para la aplicación de las
normas internacionales como para proporcionar una base para aumentar la importancia de las áreas protegidas como
un mecanismo clave para la conservación de la naturaleza, y se presentan los resultados provisionales.
RÉSUMÉ
Putting Nature on the Map est le titre d’un projet en cours visant à appliquer les catégories de gestion des aires
protégées de l’UICN à toutes les aires protégées au Royaume-Uni – que ce soient des aires contrôlées par l’état, des
organismes privés, à but non-lucratifs ou communautaires – à la lumière des Lignes directrices de l’UICN révisées en
2008. Le test standard en deux étapes est appliqué : les sites/aires désignés sont-ils conformes à la définition de l’UICN
d’une aire protégée ? Si oui, dans quelle catégorie de gestion et type de gouvernance se classent-ils ? La présente étude
décrit les méthodes innovantes utilisées, notamment une Déclaration de conformité, qui permet de tester la conformité
d’une aire désignée par rapport à la définition de l’UICN d’une aire protégée, et un Groupe d’évaluation indépendant qui
contrôle la qualité des données provenant des institutions, avant leur envoi formel par le gouvernement à la Base de
données mondiale sur les aires protégées du PNUE-CMAP. Cette approche permet d’appliquer les normes
internationales et offre une base pour accroître l’importance des aires protégées en tant que mécanisme principal pour
la conservation de la nature. Les avantages et les résultats intermédiaires de cette approche sont présentés dans la
présente étude.

91 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
AN ELEPHANT CORRIDOR IN A FRAGMENTED

CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE: PREVENTING THE
ISOLATION OF MOUNT KENYA NATIONAL PARK
AND NATIONAL RESERVE
Maurice O. Nyaligu1 and Susie Weeks1*
1
Mount Kenya Trust, P.O. Box 690-10400, Nanyuki, Nairobi, Kenya. Mobile + 254 (0)722 436641
and +254 (0)722 688396, www.mountkenyatrust.org
ABSTRACT
Increasing human population, land fragmentation, fencing and the spread of agricultural development
around the lower slopes of Mount Kenya are progressively isolating the fauna and flora of Mount
Kenya National Park and National Reserve. The consequence of this fragmentation around the
mountain is a reduction in the total area available for wildlife and disruption to movements of large
mammals between the mountain and the grassland/savannah habitats of the surrounding plains. The
disappearance of two large mammals from the forest ecosystem over the past three decades, the Black
Rhino (Diceros bicornis) and the African Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus), can in part be attributed to the
isolation of upland forest habitats preventing occasional movements of wildlife from lowlands where
they are more common. A 14 km strip of land on the north-western section of the Mountain has been
developed to help mitigate this islolation. The strip has recently been secured as a habitat and
migratory pathway to the north for wildlife within the 2,000 km2 ecosystem. Using the Elephant
Corridor on Mount Kenya as a case example, the authors highlight issues and theoretical
considerations that have led many scientists, planners and conservation managers to recognize the
importance of maintaining connectivity for species, communities and ecological processes within
rapidly fragmenting conservation landscapes. The principle argument is that connectivity can be
achieved for wildlife species and communities by managing the entire landscape mosaic through
appropriate habitats such as corridors.
INTRODUCTION It is also noteworthy that these concerns are being

The general concern within Kenya’s protected area addressed at a time when fencing as a conservation
landscape of wildlife habitats becoming isolated and in strategy has been adopted in virtually every major
need of conservation redress was brought to light in a wildlife habitat in Kenya including National Parks,
recent initiative by the Government of Kenya. The Private Conservancies and Community lands. The KWS
ongoing process seeks to map all wildlife migratory and Kenya Forest Service (KFS) Management Plan for
pathways, linkages and corridors in the country in light Mount Kenya (2009 - 2019) states that several areas
of recent conservation challenges 1. This initiative also adjoining the park and reserve will be “… fenced off to
comes against the backdrop of continuing efforts at mitigate human- wildlife conflict….”, despite the fact that
protecting the few remaining wildlife and habitat there has always been movement of wildlife between the
linkages between the Mount Kenya forest ecosystem and high country on Mount Kenya and the dry low country to
lowland grassland and savannah habitats by the Kenya the north and west (KWS & KFS, 2008). While the
Wildlife Service (KWS), private wildlife conservancies, ecological consequences of fencing are yet to be fully
large scale farms and non-governmental conservation assessed especially within the Laikipia/Samburu/Mount
bodies including the Mount Kenya Trust 2. The role of Kenya region by conservation practitioners, policy and
corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation is decision makers alike, the complementary role of habitat
seen as a high priority area for the conservation of large and migratory corridors as effective means of promoting
mammal fauna particularly charismatic herbivores such landscape connectivity is just beginning to take
as the African Elephant (Loxodonta africana africana). cognizance amongst policy and decision makers in the

Maurice O. Nyaligu & Susie Weeks 92
Figure 1: General location of the Elephant Corridor in relation to the Mount Kenya/Laikipia ecosystem. The map shows the two
connected ecosystems of Mount Kenya and Laikipia (Lewa wildlife conservancy, Ngare Ndare Forest, Borana and Il Ngwesi all
shown in green). The purple colour shows the boundary of Mount Kenya National Park – which is also the boundary of the
current WH property. Source: Lewa Wildlife Conservancy.
country. Such corridors within Africa have been variously THE SETTING: MOUNT KENYA /LAIKIPIA
termed ‘wildlife corridors’, ‘dispersal corridors’, or CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE
‘movement corridors’ where they are known to be used The Mount Kenya ecosystem which includes the National
by animals for movement (Newmark, 2008). Park and Reserve, is located to the east of the Great Rift
Valley, along Latitude 0’ 10’S and longitude 37’ 20’E. It
This article reflects on an Elephant Corridor on the north bestrides the equator in the central highland zones of
-western side of Mount Kenya; an area of ecological Kenya. The ecosystem is situated in two provinces and
importance linking a core area of Mount Kenya with the five counties of Kenya. The Park and National Reserve 3
surrounding lowland forest of Ngare Ndare and the also serve as a Man and Biosphere Reserve and a Natural
savannah areas of Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and Il World Heritage property 4 (IUCN, 1997).
Ngwesi Community Conservancy (Figure 1). The
Corridor is also seen as central to a nomination for an The forest zone is the largest single contiguous forest
extension of the Mount Kenya World Heritage property stand remaining in Kenya and its ecosystem as a whole
to include the Ngare Ndare Forest and the Lewa Wildlife plays a critical role as a water tower for the two main
Conservancy under natural criteria vii and ix rivers in the country, the Tana and Ewaso Ngiro which
(Government of Kenya, 2012; UNESCO, 2012; Mount are relied upon by millions of Kenyans. Additionally,
Kenya Trust, 2012). varying geographical conditions on Mount Kenya

contribute to a diverse range of flora and fauna. The LINKING THE LANDSCAPE IN MOUNT KENYA/
forest zones alone hosts a rich biological diversity with 81
LAIKIPIA REGION
known endemic bird species (Birdlife International,
For most contemporary conservationists involved with
1998; 2000) 5. There are several wildlife species dwelling
the conservation and management of protected areas, the
within the natural forest including mammals of
inevitable and deeply challenging question is how much
international conservation interest such as Bongo
of the original complement of wildlife habitat /
(Tragelaphus eurocerus isaaci), Elephant (Loxodonta
biodiversity will any given protected area system protect
africana africana), Giant Forest Hog (Hylochoerus
in 50, 100 or 1,000 years time? In the case of the Mount
meinertzhageni) and Leopard (Panthera pardus). Given
Kenya /Laikipia ecosystem, the rapidly receding glaciers
its global significance as a Man and Biosphere Reserve
(Lambrechts et al., 2003) mean that in the not too
complex, a World Heritage Site and a region of
distant future the National Reserve and its surrounding
significance conservation interest, a systematic approach
will be subject to a great deal of change. It is predicted
to the conservation of the landscape is long overdue.
that climate change will have influenced all aspects of
ecosystem structure and function inside the protected
A refinement of the landscape approach within the
areas and under the influence of a growing human
Mount Kenya /Laikipia ecosystem is to consider the need
population, the un-conserved matrix outside the reserve
for movement of species in the face of ongoing threats.
will have been almost entirely transformed. Studies
Owing to land use patterns, population dynamics and
elsewhere have shown the need to manage such systems
political constraints, the expansion of conservation
for overall ecosystem resilience (Stolton & Dudley, 2010).
linkages through corridors in the Laikipia /Mount Kenya
The challenge in Kenya as in many other African
landscape will take time. This constraint requires a
countries is how to provide appropriate connectivity
strategy that maximises the retention of habitat patterns
between the existing protected area networks, so as to
(or minimises loss and extinction) by scheduling the
protect unique compliments of species and habitats, as
allocation of limited conservation resources to areas with
well as absorb the impacts of change within and outside
high biodiversity values (in terms of irreplaceability and
their boundaries and so allow the persistence of species
vulnerability) (Jodi, et al., 2006).
and habitats far into the future.
Providing ecological connectivity via habitat and

migratory corridors to areas with high concentrations of The benefits of protected area connectivity have been
threatened species within the Mount Kenya ecosystem discussed extensively throughout the conservation world
will fulfill conservation goals in the short term but will (e.g. IUCN, 2005; UNEP, 2012; SCBD, 2010; AWF,
not buffer the ecosystem from long term negative 2001). The park management system in Kenya cannot
impacts on biodiversity from changes in climate and land achieve its potential if conservation areas become
use outside of protected areas. Several steps, informed by isolated fragments surrounded by incompatible land
elephant corridor experience and outlined below are uses. While there are numerous definitions of, and
required to identify and implement a conservation approaches to, identifying spatial scales for connectivity
landscape strategy designed for persistence of conservation planning and management (Bennett,
biodiversity. 2003), the Mount Kenya case is primarily concerned with
the role of corridors in linking protected areas to enhance
 Identify types, patterns and rates of threatening
wildlife conservation. One of the earliest practical
processes on Mount Kenya and Laikipia
recommendations on land use to arise from studies of
 Identify natural features to be protected. These habitat fragmentation was the suggestion that fragments
will be elements of biodiversity attributes, e.g. that are linked by corridors of suitable similar habitat are
species, habitats, as well as spatial components of likely to have greater conservation value and be more
the region that act as surrogates for ecological and resilient than isolated fragments of similar size
evolutionary processes (Lindenmayer & Fischer, 2006). This initial
 Set targets for representation and design recommendation was based entirely on theoretical
considerations, primarily stemming from ‘Island
 Lay out options for achieving representation and
biogeography theory’ (McArthur & Wilson, 1967).
design targets
Subsequently, protection or provision of continuous
 Locate and design potential conservation areas to corridors to link isolated habitats has been widely
achieve representation and design targets recommended as a conservation measure to counter the
 Implement conservation actions in priority order. impacts of habitat reduction and fragmentation.

Figure 2: Detailed map of the elephant corridor
There had been no previous holistic conservation This strategy would be in conformity to other global
approach that works with multiple landowners in Kenya, agendas such as the Convention on Biological
and there is therefore a need to learn how to work across Diversity which advocates for protected area systems
fragmented jurisdictional distinctions, such as those and networks as a key strategy for conservation.
between public, communal and private land; national Parties to the convention, including Kenya, have an
park and state forest; or one local government area and imperative to mobilize these at the national scale, and
another. The goal within the Laikipia/Mount Kenya to collaborate with neighbouring countries to achieve
project is to achieve connectivity conservation, to these goals at the scale of regional networks. This
establish networks of protected areas and to manage approach is also in tandem with the 2003 World Parks
these cooperatively in the context of sustainable Congress which had as its central theme ‘Benefits
management of the whole matrix of land uses. The region beyond boundaries’ where concern was raised as to
being a multiple land use area would also benefit how integrated landscape management could support
immensely from conservation strategies at landscape protected areas, and recommend that governments,
level (Sara, et al., 2008). NGO’s and communities:

Aerial view of the underpass © Mount Kenya Trust
 Adopt design principles for protected areas that mechanism, surrounding landowners to the northwest of
emphasize linkages to surrounding ecosystems the National Reserve boundary agreed to cede a critical
and ensure that the surrounding landscapes are part of the northern sections of their farms to serve as
managed for biodiversity conservation migratory pathways for wildlife (mainly Elephant)
 Recognize the need to restore ecological processes (Coulson Harney Advocates, 2011). This corridor 14 km
in degraded areas, both within protected areas in length and an average width of 100 m+ links the
and in the surrounding landscapes, to ensure the existing property to the northern historical dispersal
ecological integrity of protected areas areas of Laikipia and Samburu. The Corridor is entirely
 Recognize that the presence and needs of human fenced and acts as a buffer between adjacent farmlands
populations, consistent with biodiversity and the corridor habitat (Figure 2).
conservation within and in the vicinity of
protected areas, should be reflected in the overall A detailed study and Environmental Impact Assessment
design and management of protected areas and of the corridor was undertaken from 2006 to 2007 with
the surrounding landscapes; and funding to commence fencing of the corridor and
 Recognize the importance of participatory construction of the Elephant underpass procured in
processes that link a diverse array of stakeholders 20086. The project cost was around US$1 million plus
in stewardship of the landscape linkages (IUCN, annual maintenance costs. The formation of this corridor
2005). through to the Ngare Ndare Forest aimed to strengthen
the protection of the protected area and help create a
THE ELEPHANT CORRIDOR more continuous and contiguous protected zone to
Theoretical plans to establish wildlife corridors between enhance conservation in the area. The corridor was
Mount Kenya/Laikipia and the adjacent landscapes were initially envisaged as providing protection for a
conceptualized several years ago by concerned parties significant population of the African Elephant (3,000+)
including the Mount Kenya Trust, Kisima Farm, Marania (Vanleeuwe, 2000); ensuring genetic diversity and
Farm, Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, Ngare Ndare Forest freedom of movement within natural migration zones;
Trust and the Kenya Wildlife Service. Though a World and reducing human-wildlife conflict in the area.
Heritage Site and a Biosphere Reserve, Mount Kenya’s Although the corridor was developed primarily for
rich biodiversity is under extreme threat from external migration of elephants and other large mammals, the
influences. Activities such as poaching, logging, livestock overall integrity of Mount Kenya is enhanced through
grazing, encroachment and charcoal burning continue to improved security, complimentary management regimes,
threaten the integrity of the property and undermine the co-ordinated tourism activities, research and monitoring
values of the ecosystem in the medium and long-term. It between Park /Forest authorities and the private sector
was against this background that through a consultative (Mount Kenya Trust, 2007). Also, conservation

throughway between the Ngare Ndare Forest and Mount

Kenya. The pioneering elephant (known as Tony) walked
the full length of the corridor on 26th January 2011
(Figure 3). Tony was also the first elephant to use the
corridor’s underpass which crosses the Nanyuki - Meru
Highway on New Year’s day, just a couple of days after
the access was opened and joined to the elephant
underpass. The elephant was collared shortly after his
walk beneath the busy highway and has since been
monitored by satellite tracking. His lead resulted in
hundreds of elephants using this vital link between the
historical elephant rangelands. 123 elephants have been
recorded using the underpass (45 towards the Ngare
Ndare and 78 towards Mount Kenya) in May and June of
2011 alone and several more since. Within the corridor
itself there are large numbers of elephants counted on a
daily basis. The most elephants sighted in a single day
were a herd of 26 which included three calves.
Within the Mount Kenya/Laikipia ecosystem, there exist

clear opportunities to connect areas of conservation-
compatible land-use, through strategic investment in
areas of high potential wildlife habitats, where land-use
is currently incompatible with wildlife conservation.
Further opportunities exist, within a regional context, to
assess and build on the gaps created in electrified fences
(constructed around wildlife conservancies) to allow
wildlife movement between areas of similar natural
habitat. Similarly there exist certain fence designs which
appear to allow the movement of most wildlife species,
with the exception of Rhinos. Understanding what
Camera trap evidence of multiple species using the corridor options exist for enabling desirable wildlife movement
in 2012: Hyena (Hyaena hyaena), Caracal (Caracal caracal), through fenced landscapes should be a priority for
and Aardvark (Orycteropus afer) © Mount Kenya Trust further research and conservation action, and
experiences gained through the Elephant Corridor, could
initiatives for charismatic herbivore species continue to feed directly into these processes.
be enhanced under this partnership with the presence of
rare and endangered species at the Lewa Wildlife Work is also ongoing amongst the Elephant Corridor
Conservancy (Grevy’s Zebra – Equus grevyi and the stakeholders on how to utilize incoming data to prioritize
Black Rhino). These, together with similar values within conservation action plans especially for keystone species
Mount Kenya specifically the presence of critically and species of conservation interest. It is well understood
endangered and rare species such as the Bongo that protected areas in the region are under some degree
(Tragelaphus euryceros issaci) made the case for World of threat. This pessimistic analysis is a good common
Heritage extension of a joint property with an additional sense background to any assessment but does not help in
natural criterion very strong (Nyaligu & Abungu, 2007; prioritizing funding or programmatic activities for
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, 2007). conservation. Based on Elephant Corridor data analysis,
threats that are either only of minor consequence or are
USING ELEPHANT CORRIDOR DATA TO IDENTIFY still remote possibilities should receive less attention
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES than major threats that are undermining the whole
Months after opening the Elephant Corridor, reason for protection. Data analysis of the corridor will
conservationists began receiving the first concrete therefore serve to identify migratory patterns of several
evidence of an elephant using the underpass as a species within the ecosystem.

Figure 3: Specific location of the Elephant Corridor showing movement of collared elephants. The red lines indicate satellite
tracking movements of the pioneering elephant Tony, while the blue lines indicates the locality of the Elephant corridor in
relation to the two connected ecosystems (Laikipia to the north and Mount Kenya to the south). Source: Save the Elephants
REPLICABILITY OF THE ELEPHANT CORRIDOR TO along this transboundary frontier; the African Wild Dog
SIMILAR SCENARIOS IN THE EAST AFRICAN (Lycaon pictus), the Klipspringer (Oreotragus
oreotragus) and the Mountain Reedbuck (Redunca
REGION
The Mount Kenya Corridor is offered as a conservation fulvorufula) (AWF, 2001). This situation calls for urgent
model in a challenging environment. The position has interventions that will help secure wildlife dispersal areas
been clearly validated by data (acquired via camera traps, and thus ensure wildlife conservation for posterity. In
foot print counts and actual sightings) showing other this regard, the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) has
wildlife species utilizing the corridor and underpass begun a study to specifically examine land use changes
almost on a daily basis in addition to elephants. This and land tenure systems within the unsecured Kitenden
scenario provides a template on the design and use of wildlife corridor and their impacts on conservation of
underpasses as well as stakeholder approaches relevant wildlife (Kiringe & Okello, 2012).
to such fragile ecosystems and offers some hope for
similar plans for a corridor between Laikipia and the INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR
Aberdare Mountain range as well as Aberdare and Mount COLLABORATING WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES,
Kenya within the immediate neighbourhood and for PRIVATE SECTOR AND COMMUNITIES
similar initiatives elsewhere in the country. Other areas Given the international recognition that public/private/
of interest would be the Kilimanjaro/Amboseli ecosystem community partnership arrangements have attained
which is part of the transboundary landscapes of Kenya since the World Parks Congress of September 2003
and Tanzania still endowed with large populations of free especially in relation to the themes: ‘Linkages in the
ranging wildlife species. However, over the past three landscape and seascape’, ‘Building broader support for
decades, significant land use changes coupled with a Protected Areas’ and ‘Governance of Protected Areas –
rapid human population increase have occurred in prime New ways of working together’, (IUCN, 2005);
wildlife dispersal areas creating all manner of threats to Governments and conservation agencies have
wildlife populations. There have been localized increasingly been faced with the question of whether all
extinctions of at least three large mammals reported private wildlife habitats are to be considered protected

areas? This question was the subject of discussion at the having intrinsic value, independent from consideration
World Parks Congress and has been extensively of other human and social interests and concerns. Private
considered and reviewed within fora such as the entities and local communities, on the other hand, are
Elephant Corridor stakeholder committees (Mount motivated by a diversity of interests and concerns, while
Kenya Trust, 2007). The landscape scenario on Mount establishing their own conserved areas, or entering into a
Kenya/Laikipia conforms to ‘Protected Areas’ as defined partnership to manage protected areas established by
by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as ‘a other social actors or the state. These may include one or
geographically defined area which is designated or more of the following motivations:
regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation  A concern for wildlife protection. In this case the
objectives’ and IUCN ‘A clearly defined geographical Elephant Corridor stakeholder’s movement and
space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through dispersal of elephants to and from the Mount
legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term Kenya Forest Reserve
conservation of nature with associated ecosystem  Mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts
services and cultural values’. (Dudley, 2008). Key
 Promotion of tourist related activities.
elements according to these definitions which are equally
relevant to the Elephant Corridor and Mount Kenya are:
EXPERIENCES IN CO-MANAGEMENT
 Geographical limits or boundaries
Co-management by the stakeholders has become
 Predominantly aimed at achieving conservation
entrenched within the Elephant Corridor, where it is seen
benefits, but not excluding other related benefits
as a mechanism of improving management by
 Designation and management by legal or other supplementing the limited resources available to the KFS
effective means and KWS with those of the private wildlife conservancies
 Existence of a body of governing rules; and and NGOs. It also formalizes the rights and
 A clearly identified organization or individual responsibilities of management partners. There exist two
with governance authority. products of a management partnership within the
Elephant Corridor arrangement. The first is a
Sources such as Mount Kenya Trust (2007) suggest that stakeholder structure of large scale farm land owners, the
the Mount Kenya, Ngare Ndare, Elephant Corridor, and Mount Kenya Trust, Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and the
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy have all these elements in Ngare Ndare Forest Trust detailing the management
place. Of equal importance has been the ability of the purpose and the roles, rights and responsibilities of each
Elephant Corridor stakeholders to institutionalize and of the parties. This arrangement is reviewed regularly
manage local and landscape level conservation within the Elephant Corridor Committee meetings and
programmes on Mount Kenya, the Elephant Corridor, engagements. The second is a pluralistic management
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and Ngare Ndare Forest. arrangement structure designed to remain in charge at
Managing protected area challenges within the Mount all times and includes representatives from the principle
Kenya/Laikipia landscape, demands organization at a government agencies – the Kenya Wildlife Service and
number of scales. At the connectivity level, effective the Kenya Forest Service. This arrangement also
management includes identifying the reasons for concerns itself with policy and governance provisions at
establishing the Corridor link, maintaining or putting in the national level.
place a management system, including a statement of
objectives, the implementation options for management, CONCLUSION
the means to ensure adaptive management of the The key issue this article has attempted to illustrate is
protected area in relation to its objectives and purpose, that of community/private/public participation in the
and maintaining relationships with stakeholder groups management of protected area habitats through the
including local communities and KWS. provision of linkages within Kenya’s conservation
landscape.
KEY MOTIVATIONS
National governments often establish and manage The following are some conclusions that can be derived
protected areas with the primary objective of biodiversity from this assessment:
conservation; a concept understood as having a positive  The long-term persistence of biodiversity within
impact for the provision of goods and services to human the Mount Kenya/Laikipia ecosystem depends on
communities, but which may impose local separation a system of conservation links that will capture
between humans and nature. Biodiversity is perceived as not only examples of various habitats but

Some of the first elephants to make it through the underpass © Associated Press
biodiversity that is both irreplaceable and rapidly gaining ground amongst landowners,
vulnerable to various threatening processes policy and decision makers.
throughout the region.  The key to making the system work from the
 These examples could be replicated elsewhere in onset, is to map out, in an explicit and transparent
the country as for example in the Kitenden manner which conservation areas are most
Corridor on the Amboseli – Kilimanjaro urgently in need of linkages and which areas can
ecosystem. be negotiated and traded for other alternatives
 The present capacity of Kenya to provide effective (Jones, et al., 2009). In the Kenyan case, this
conservation links within the wildlife habitat process will require consultations with land
landscape is limited, partly due to complexities in owners, private entities and community members
the land tenure system, rights accorded to private if success is to be registered. Provisions within
land owners, and prohibitive costs of land the proposed wildlife bill provide for the creation
acquisition. However, as capacity and awareness of Community Wildlife Associations (CWA’s) a
to identify potential wildlife migratory corridors mechanism that provides for private and
(based on the ongoing survey in the Ministry of community landowners to conserve wildlife
Environment and Mineral Resources under the outside of mainstream government agencies.
Department of Resource Surveys and Remote
Sensing) increases, the country will be able to add It is also noteworthy that the Elephant Corridor provides
significant areas as corridors and other habitat a crucial link to the application for an extension of the
linkages to enhance the existing network of Mount Kenya World Heritage Property to the Lewa
protected areas in the country. This optimism is Wildlife Conservancy under natural criteria vii and ix.
seen in light of new developments; the new Should this application be successful, the proposed site
constitution and proposed wildlife bill make ‘Mount Kenya - Lewa Wildlife Conservancy World
provision for compulsory acquisition of land to Heritage Site’ will provide a conservation template for
allow for free movement of wildlife and for future private/public partnership arrangement under the
ecosystem services and this understanding is Wold Heritage label. Private natural heritage properties

would serve as an important instrument complementing ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

government efforts in biodiversity conservation, The authors are grateful to the principle stakeholders of
providing as in the case of Mount Kenya Trust, Lewa the Elephant Corridor, the surrounding communities on
Wildlife Conservancy and Ngare Ndare Trust, a the upper and lower ends of the Corridor, the KWS and
conservation benefit that is public in essence but does KFS for transforming what was essentially a conceptual
not originate with the state agencies concerned. theoretical idea into a practical Elephant Corridor.
Special appreciation goes to Marania and Kisima farms
At a more localized level and in line with the 2003 World for dedicating land for conservation posterity, several
Parks Congress theme ‘Benefits Beyond Boundaries’, this donors who made it possible to secure funding for this
arrangement will induce sustainable development, project, other like minded conservation agencies
creating a cluster of activities such as ecotourism, including the Ngare Ndare Forest Trust, the Lewa
scientific research and environmental education, as well Wildlife Conservancy, the organization Save the
as providing non-timber forest materials such as seeds Elephants and the Government of Kenya for creating an
and seedlings that can be profitable to their owners and enabling environment that has in turn led to the creation
local communities. of viable private/public partnership arrangements.
Such landscape linkages through private property are

NOTES
also contributing to a rapid and substantial increase in 1
http://www.environment.go.ke/archives/2030
the amount of protected areas in the country. They 2
The Mount Kenya Trust is a not for profit organization
represent a positive cost/benefit equation to the dedicated entirely to the conservation of the Mount Kenya
Government of Kenya which does not have to buy or ecosystem. http://www.mountkenyatrust.org
3
expropriate important parcels of land for conservation. In 1999, a detailed forest status report by UNEP and other
stakeholders’ highlighted the challenges facing the
At the same time, land owners gain recognition as
conservation of the mountain and brought Mount Kenya to
conservationists and receive support from environmental the national and international limelight. This report in part
law enforcement, and benefit from co-operation with acted as the basis of conservation support by Mount Kenya
local and foreign universities and NGO’s to develop Trust to KWS and KFS.
4
research and sustainable activities on their lands. The The property was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage
List in 1997 and two years later inscribed on the list of World
rights given to private land owners under the new
Heritage in Danger
constitution (Government of Kenya, 2010) and the 5
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?
Wildlife Bill (Government of Kenya, 2011), has facilitated id=6395 accessed 17th December 2012
6
the proactive participation of private land owners in the Major donors for the Elephant underpass were: The Royal
national effort to restore and protect biodiversity Netherlands Embassy through the Laikipia Wildlife Forum,
Virgin Atlantic, The Nature Conservancy and supporters of the
(Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, 2007). Private Lewa Wildlife Conservancy. Maintenance costs since
protected areas and community conservancies constitute construction have been met by the Safaricom Foundation and
one of the most conspicuous types of protected areas in the immediate Corridor stakeholders.
the country, be it by their fast growth in number and area
or by the attention these areas are receiving from REFERENCES
landowners, government, NGO’s and the local and AWF, (2001). Study on the Development of Transboundary
international media. While conservation lands under Natural Resource Management Areas in Africa:
Kilimanjaro Heartland Case Study. The African Wildlife
private ownership may be vulnerable to land-use change,
Foundation. Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.awf.org/
in the context of the Elephant Corridor, this is unlikely to documents
be the case as a deed (covenant agreement) exists and Bennett, A.F., (2003). Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of
this involves the two principle state agencies – KFS and Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. Gland,
KWS. In addition, the Government of Kenya is Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN
BirdLife International, (1998). Endemic Bird Areas of the
encouraging private/public partnership arrangements
World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. ,
along this front (the World Heritage extension is a case Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International
in point). As such, the authors of this article do not BirdLife International, (2000). Threatened Birds of the World.
envisage any change in land-use in the immediate Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and
BirdLife International.
Corridor vicinity for the foreseeable future.
Coulson Harney Advocates (2011). Deed relating to the
establishment and maintenance of a fenced elephant
corridor and buffer zone. Nairobi, Kenya: Coulson Harney
Advocates
Dudley, N. (ed.) (2008). Guidelines for Applying IUCN
Protected Area Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/paps-016.pdf SCBD, (2010). Making Protected Areas Relevant: A guide to

Government of Kenya, (2010). Laws of Kenya: The integrating protected areas into wider landscapes,
Constitution of Kenya 2010. Nairobi, Kenya: The National seascapes and sectoral plans and strategies. CBD
Council for Law Reporting Technical Series No. 44. Montreal, Canada: Convention on
Government of Kenya, (2011). The Wildlife Bill 2011. Biological Diversity
Government Press. Nairobi, Kenya. Stolton, S. and Dudley, N., (2010). Managing for Climate
Government of Kenya, (2012). Mount Kenya – Lewa Wildlife Change – Developing Strategies for Protected Area
Conservancy World Heritage Site: A Nomination Dossier p. Managers. Isle of Vilm, Germany: German Federal Agency
10 – 34. The Kenya National Commission for UNESCO. for Nature Conservation.
Nairobi, Kenya. UNESCO, (2012). Operational Guidelines for the
IUCN, (1997). World Heritage Nomination – Technical Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
Evaluation of Mount Kenya. Programme on Protected WHC.05/2, 1 February 2012. Paris: UNESCO World
Areas, Gland, Switzerland. Heritage Centre.
IUCN, (2005). Benefits Beyond Boundaries: Proceedings of the UNEP, (2012). Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking
Fifth (Vth) IUCN World Parks Congress. Gland, Switzerland progress towards global targets for protected areas.
and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN and UNEP -
Jodi, A.H., et al., (2006). Corridor Ecology: The science and WCMC
practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity Vanleeuwe, H., (2000). Habitat use and movements of the Mt.
conservation. Washington DC, USA: Island Press Kenya Elephant population. Unpublished PhD. Thesis.
Jones, T., et al. (ed), (2009). Wildlife Corridors in Tanzania.
Arusha, Tanzania: Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute
Kiringe, J.W. and Okello, M.M., (2012). Land use and land
tenure changes and their impact on the Kitenden Wildlife ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Corridor between the Amboseli and West Kilimanjaro Maurice Nyaligu has over twelve years of protected
ecosystems. Nairobi, Kenya: The African Wildlife area experience in the Eastern Africa region. His
Foundation. engagements have previously involved work with the
KWS and KFS, (2008). Mount Kenya Integrated Ecosystem
Kenya Wildlife Service, the IUCN and independent
Management Plan 2009 – 2019. Nairobi, Kenya: KWS &
KFS. consultancy assignments for various conservation
Lambrechts, C., Woodley, B., Vanleeuwe, H., and Gachanja, agencies. A Kenyan by birth, Maurice is a member of the
M., (2003). Changes in the State of Conservation of Mount WCPA. He holds a post-graduate degree (MA) in
Kenya Forests: 1999 – 2002. Nairobi, Kenya: DICE International Relations (Washington International
(University of Kent), Kenya Wildlife Service, UNEP, Kenya
Univ.) and a bachelor’s (Bsc.) degree in Wildlife
Forests Working Group.
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, (2007). The Lewa Wildlife Management (Moi Univ.). His interest in the Mt. Kenya
Conservancy Meru District, Kenya: Management Plan. ecosystem stems from a childhood passion. His hobbies
Laikipia, Kenya: The Lewa Wildlife Conservancy include mountaineering and outdoor sports.
Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fischer, J., (2006). Habitat
Fragmentation and Landscape Change. Washington D.C.,
USA: Island Press. Susie Weeks is a Kenyan conservationist with extensive
McArthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O., (1967). The Theory of Island wildlife and environmental knowledge of East Africa. She
Biogeography. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University graduated from the School of Oriental and African
Press. Studies at the University of London with a Bachelor of
Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, (2007). Draft Wildlife Policy.
Arts (BA) and obtained a postgraduate Masters degree in
Nairobi, Kenya: National Wildlife Policy Steering
Committee and Secretariat. Environmental Protection and Management from the
Mount Kenya Trust (2007). An Elephant Corridor linking the University of Edinburgh a few years later. She is a
Mount Kenya National Forest Reserve and the Ngare gazetted Kenya Wildlife Service Honorary Warden, a
Ndare Forest. Nairobi, Kenya: Mount Kenya Trust member of the Kenya Professional Safari Guides
Mount Kenya Trust, (2012). Monthly Progress and Activity
Association. Susie has participated in many private/
Report for October. External evaluation of the Lewa –
Mount Kenya World Heritage extention. Nanyuki, Kenya. public partnership arrangements within conservation
Newmark, W.D., (2008). Isolation in African protected areas. circles in Kenya and has been responsible for the
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6: p 231 – 328. successes of several projects on Mount Kenya since 2001
Nyaligu, M.O. and Abungu, G.O., (2007). Feasibility Report on including playing a major role in the establishment and
the Assessment of Lewa Wildlife Conservancy as a possible
construction of the Mount Kenya Elephant Corridor.
extension to the Mount Kenya World Heritage Property.
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy. Unpublished report p. iii.
Sara J. S., Jeffrey A. M. and Seth S., (2008). Ecoagriculture:
Agriculture, Environmental Conservation, and Poverty
Reduction at a Landscape Scale. In: Galizzi, P. and
Herklotz, A. (eds.). 2008. The Role of the Environment in
Poverty Alleviation. Washington, DC , USA. Fordham
University Press

RESUMEN
El aumento de la población humana, la fragmentación de las tierras, el cercado y la proliferación del desarrollo agrícola
en las faldas del Monte Kenia están aislando progresivamente la fauna y flora del Parque Nacional/Selva Natural del
Monte Kenia. Esta fragmentación alrededor de la montaña se traduce en la reducción de la superficie total disponible
para la fauna silvestre y la interrupción de los movimientos de grandes mamíferos entre la montaña y los pastizales y
sabanas de las llanuras circundantes. La desaparición de dos grandes mamíferos del ecosistema forestal en las últimas
tres décadas, el rinoceronte negro (Diceros bicornis) y el perro salvaje africano (Lycaon pictus), puede atribuirse en
parte al aislamiento de los hábitats forestales de altura que impide los movimientos ocasionales de la fauna silvestre
desde las tierras bajas donde son más comunes. Se ha desarrollado una franja de 14 km de tierra en el sector
noroccidental de la montaña para ayudar a mitigar este aislamiento. La franja ha sido recientemente afianzada como
hábitat y ruta migratoria hacia el norte para la fauna silvestre dentro del ecosistema de 2000 km 2. Usando el Corredor
de Elefantes en el Monte Kenia a modo de ejemplo, los autores destacan cuestiones y consideraciones teóricas que han
llevado a muchos científicos, planificadores y administradores de la naturaleza a reconocer la importancia de mantener
la conectividad para las especies, las comunidades y los procesos ecológicos dentro de paisajes de conservación que son
objeto de una acelerada fragmentación. El principal razonamiento es que la conectividad se puede lograr para las
especies silvestres y las comunidades gestionando el mosaico completo del paisaje a través de hábitats adecuados, como
es el caso de los corredores.
RÉSUMÉ
La croissance de la population humaine, la fragmentation des terres, les clôtures et le développement de l’agriculture
sur les pentes les plus basses du mont Kenya isolent de plus en plus la faune et la flore du Parc national du mont Kenya
et de la Réserve nationale. Cette fragmentation des terres du mont Kenya entraîne une réduction de la surface totale
disponible pour la vie sauvage, et perturbe les déplacements des grands mammifères entre leurs différents habitats – la
montagne et les pâturages/la savane des plaines environnantes. La disparition de deux grands mammifères de
l’écosystème forestier au cours des trente dernières années, le rhinocéros noir (Diceros bicornis) et le chien sauvage
africain (Lycaon pictus), peut d’ailleurs en partie être imputée à l’isolement des habitats forestiers des terres
supérieures, qui empêche les déplacements occasionnels de la faune sauvage occupant les terres plus basses, où elle est
plus commune. Une bande de terre de 14 kms dans la région nord-ouest du mont Kenya a récemment été délimitée pour
atténuer cet isolement. Au sein d’un écosystème de 2000 km2, cette zone a été déclarée couloir d’habitat et de migration
vers le nord pour la faune sauvage. Prenant l’exemple du couloir de l’éléphant sur le mont Kenya, les auteurs soulignent
les problèmes et les considérations théoriques ayant conduit de nombreux scientifiques, planificateurs et gestionnaires
de la conservation à reconnaître à quel point il est important de préserver la connectivité pour les espèces, les
communautés et les processus écologiques au sein de paysages naturels qui se fragmentent rapidement. En effet, il est
possible d’améliorer la connectivité entre les espèces de la vie sauvage et les communautés en gérant l’ensemble de la
mosaïque du paysage par des habitats appropriés comme des couloirs.

103 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND BENEFIT

SHARING IN LIUWA PLAIN NATIONAL PARK,
WESTERN ZAMBIA
Vincent R. Nyirenda1,2* and Bimo A. Nkhata3
* Corresponding author, [email protected]. office phone/fax: +260 211 278 335; mobile
phone +260 977 352 035
1
Department of Nature Conservation, Faculty of Science, Tshwane University of Technology,
Pretoria, South Africa
2
Directorate of Research, Planning, Information and Veterinary Services, Zambia Wildlife
Authority, Chilanga, Zambia
3
Monash University South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa
ABSTRACT
Several models of public private partnerships have emerged focusing on wealth creation from high
value resources, risk distribution through cost and benefit sharing, and prevention of loss of
biodiversity through collaboration among members of the public and private sectors and local
communities. However, there remain many information gaps underlying their social-ecological system
performance. A case study of Liuwa Plain National Park (3,660 km2), western Zambia, to demonstrate
the relationship between social capital and operational management by multiple partners between
2004 and 2011 was carried out. Literature review, expert knowledge and interviews of 57 informants
with historical perspectives of the area were employed. We determined that social-economic-ecological
gains and benefit distribution were influenced by the capacity of partners to negotiate collective
interests. Intra and inter-partnership networking, social learning and differential capacity were also
important factors.
INTRODUCTION objective was stressed at the 2002 World Summit on

The continued loss of biodiversity in most African Sustainable Development in South Africa where civil
countries has triggered policy attempts to experiment societies and local communities were also explicitly
with various forms of partnerships in state owned recognised as being vital elements of traditional
protected areas (Fearnhead, 2009; Leverington et al., partnerships. The notion of partnerships has also been
2010; Lockwood, 2010). Though there has been advanced through other international instruments such
proliferation of partnerships in Africa in the last few as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and
decades, literature on public private partnerships (PPPs) particularly CBD Aichi targets that provide a platform for
in protected areas remained limited (Farlam, 2005). effective conservation, sustainable use and equitable
Experiments with partnerships for protected area sharing of benefits from natural resources (CBD, 1992
management are usually conducted in tandem with and 2011). In addition, community based natural
initiatives that seek to address park-neighbour conflicts resource management (CBNRM) fosters mutually
and natural resources privatisation (Abbot et al., 2000; beneficial partnerships, and collective management of
Barrow et al., 2000; Jones & Murphree, 2001; natural resources by the state, local communities and
Fearnhead, 2009). Partly driven by the notion of other stakeholders (Suich et al., 2009).
‘sustainable’ institutions (Arrow et al., 1995), the main
objective of these partnerships has been to manage the The introduction of the theme of benefit sharing in
carrying capacity and social-ecological resilience of discussions around partnerships has led to research
protected areas (Dearden & Bennett, 2005). This efforts aimed at exploring ways to promote and assess
involves collaborative and legally binding relationships progress towards effective benefit sharing (Farley &
based on shared responsibilities, resources, risks and Costanza, 2010; Howard, 2010; Nkhata et al., 2012),
benefits associated with protected area management particularly in state owned protected areas. These efforts
within a defined period of time (Phillips, 2003). This have incorporated analyses of broader aspects of benefit

Vincent R. Nyirenda & Bimo A. Nkhata 104
sharing initiatives such as social and human COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE FOR
development goals, recognition of social justice and the EXPLORING PARTNERSHIPS FOR BENEFIT
uniqueness of each country’s indigenous culture, and
SHARING
acknowledgment of the limits imposed by natural It is important to acknowledge that the term
resource management (Gruber, 2010). These research collaborative governance means different things to
efforts have further reflected growing recognition that different people (Paavola et al., 2009). In the
benefit sharing initiatives cannot be successful in the environmental sector, the term only emerged in the
absence of well-functioning governmental organisations, recent years in response to perceived failures in policy
local community institutions and free-market making and implementation (Phillips, 2003; Lockwood,
mechanisms (Schuklenk & Kleinsmidt, 2006; Wunder, 2010). The limitations of conventional command and
2007). Given the implications of diverse entities working control approaches to environmental problems played a
together to accomplish common objectives and produce critical role in the emergence of the term. We begin by
greater public value (Turton, 2008), such research efforts breaking down the term into the two concepts on which it
have been identified as belonging to a new area of inquiry is based: collaboration and governance (Armitage et al., 2008).
focusing on the theme of collaborative governance
(Brower et al., 2010). Although a significant amount of Collaboration is essentially a social process that involves
literature on the topic of collaborative governance does different actors working together to create more benefits
exist, there is still much to be learned from studying a than could be produced in unilateral settings (Hall, 1995;
diverse array of these systems to better understand how Imperial & Kauneckis, 2003; Imperial, 2005). This
they function and what it takes for them to be successful process is founded on social relationships in which
(Pomeroy et al., 2010; Lockwood, 2010). different actors influence each others’ behaviour to
promote common interests. The advantages of
In this paper, we use the theory of collaborative collaboration include reduced transactional costs, greater
governance to analyse the partnerships arrangements social–ecological resilience, and enhanced performance.
behind a benefit sharing scheme in Liuwa Plain National Most researchers do not view collaboration as a ‘fix-all’
Park (LPNP) in Zambia. The case study provides useful strategy for all social problems. As such, its significance
information about how collaborative governance systems is usually contingent upon a range of contextual,
are designed and managed so as to function effectively in preferential and contingency factors (Wondolleck &
the context of benefit sharing. It presents an instructive Yaffee, 2000; Imperial, 2005).
example of the complexities of collaborative governance.
The core objective of the partnership in LPNP had a Governance is usually defined as ‘the interactions among
public-oriented focus, while the benefit sharing structures, processes and traditions that determine how
programme was fundamentally a private sector initiative. power is exercised, how decisions are taken on issues of
Although both the public sector and local community public concern, and how citizens or other stakeholders
actors actively participated in the partnership, questions have their say’ (Graham et al., 2003). Essentially,
still remain whether the private sector actor adopted a governance processes reveal the interactions amongst
more competitive or collaborative approach in the social actors, of which government is just a part (Olsson
benefit sharing programme. We argue that a et al., 2004; Imperial & Kauneckis, 2003). This process
collaborative governance perspective illustrates how, can be institutionalised at different levels of human
through the use of cross-sectoral partnerships, the level interaction as a means of social coordination that
of stakeholder participation in benefit sharing schemes engenders ordered rule, collective action (Ostrom, 1990;
can be either enhanced or diminished. Therefore, the Stoker, 1998), and allows members of society to share
questions we consider in this paper are: How does power and make decisions (Berkes, 2009; Plummer &
collaborative governance enhance partnership Armitage, 2007).
performance of a state owned protected area such as
LPNP? What is the role of partnership process in From the above, collaborative governance can be
fostering implementation of the partnership? Are power conceived as societal arrangements where one or more
relations and benefit sharing between parties important public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in
factors in a partnership for protected area management? a collective decision-making process that is formal,
We hypothesise that benefit sharing among the consensus-oriented and deliberative and which aims to
stakeholders influences performance of parts of the socio make or implement public policy or manage public
-ecological system in the LPNP. programmes or assets (Armitage & Plummer, 2010).

Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) © Martin Harvey / WWF-Canon
Plovers (Charadrius asiaticus), Common Pratincoles

LIUWA PLAIN NATIONAL PARK: BIODIVERSITY, (Glareola pratincola), Black-winged Pratincoles
HISTORY AND MANAGEMENT (Glareola nordmanni), Saddle-billed Storks
LPNP (3,660 km2) is one of the 20 National Parks in (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), endemic Clapper
Zambia. It is managed under Wildlife Act. No. 12 of 1998 Larks (Mirafra apiata jappi) and Pink-billed Larks
by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). It is located in (Spizocorys conirostris makawai). Fauna found in LPNP
the western part of Zambia at 14°13’-14°51’S and 22°18’- include migratory Blue Wildebeest (Connochaetes
22°55’E, and is approximately 1050 m above sea level. taurinus), Common Zebra (Equus burchelli), Tsessebe
The Park is characterised by human habitation; (Damaliscus lunatus), Red Lechwe (Kobus leche leche),
sedentary agriculturists practicing mixed farming system Lion (Panthera leo), Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus), Cheetah
but living with wildlife. It is a generally flat grassland (Acinonyx jubatus), Spotted Hyaena (Crocuta crocuta),
landscape, with seasonal floodplain where land is Spotted-necked Otter (Lutra maculicollis), Oribi
inundated from December to June. The floodplain is (Ourebia ourebi) and Southern Reedbuck (Redunca
typified by grass species of Common Russet grass arundinum). The migratory Blue Wildebeest population
(Loudetia simplex) and Oats grass (Monocymbium of LPNP is probably second only from that of Serengeti in
ceresiiforme). Drier areas also develop termite mounds, East Africa (Estes & East, 2009). The plain is drained by
forming wooded islands. Floodplain fringes have two large rivers, Luambimba and Luanginga, dominated
Zambesi Redwood (Baikiaea plurijuga) and Burkea by Syzygium spp.
(Burkea africana) dominated woodlands (van Gils, 1988;
ZAWA, 2009). Liuwa plain was managed by King Litunga Lubosi
Lewanika of the Lozi people as a hunting reserve until its
Liuwa plain has a high biological diversity of establishment as National Park in 1972 (ZAWA, 2009).
conservation importance. According to Leonard (2005), Management was through representatives of traditional
the plain is important bird area for variety of bird species leadership, the area chiefs and traditional advisors,
that include Wattled Cranes (Grus carunculatus), indunas, responsible to the King Litunga. Upon
Southern-crowned Cranes (Balearica regulorum), Spur- establishment of the Park, management of natural
winged Goose (Plectropterus gambensis), Caspian resources was transferred to the government, by legal

statute, and ZAWA was mandated to manage the Park. instruments (e.g. Agreements or Memoranda of
Local communities contested the ownership of the Park Understanding), running for varied periods, ranging
and its resources, some conspired with Angolan from one to 20 years. Documentation on partnerships in
renegades from the neighbouring civil war, who were protected areas was, however, limited compared to those
well equipped with firearms, to plunder the natural in transport infrastructure and agricultural sectors.
resources of Park. This situation went on for several
years. As a consequence of this and inadequate resource The PPP in LPNP was characterised by five discrete but
protection, poor management and tourism interlinked constituencies: LPNP as a part of the Upper
infrastructure, and limited benefits to local communities Zambezi social-ecological system; the ZAWA as LPNP
residing in the Park, the government began to explore management agency; Strichting African Parks
new partnerships towards more effective management. Foundation (SAPF) as a private partner; Barotse Royal
Establishment (BRE) representing local communities in
METHODS the Park; and a Partnership Board which governed the
The study was motivated by information gaps in the partnership on a company basis (Figure 1). The social-
underlying collaborative governance processes of many ecological system of LPNP was characterised by high
partnerships for benefit sharing schemes in Africa. We value common property resources such as migratory blue
employed a literature review and expert knowledge wildebeests, locally utilised through tourism and licensed
coupled with focused interviews with 57 randomly hunting.
selected informants. The authors have worked
extensively in the wildlife sector of Zambia and have There are about 20,000 inhabitants in 432 villages in
amassed technical knowledge in protected area LPNP (Apse & Seybert, 2010), who were originally
management for over two decades. The informants were sanctioned by King Litunga to keep game animals. In
drawn from public sector organisations, private sector 1972 when the hunting reserve was established as LPNP,
lead organisations, NGOs and local communities. An the government allowed human settlements to continue
interview guide was used to generate historical as the local communities were previously entrusted by
perspectives of LPNP for the period between 2004 and their traditional leadership to manage natural resource.
2011 (Annex 1). A case study approach, as described by However, as noted above in the period following the
Noor (2008), was used to develop a detailed account of establishment of the Park, natural resources were
the situation. Qualitative field research methods were depleted due to poorly funded operations and
used to establish the relationships between concepts and disenfranchised local communities. In May 2004, the
themes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) relating to social PPP was established between ZAWA, SAPF and BRE
capital, events and mechanisms in collaborative through a Management Agreement (relationship 1, 2 and
governance and benefit sharing in the partnership. 3 in Figure 1) to help resolve these problems. The
Protocols suggested by Bradburn et al. (2004) were used existence of local communities in the Park who were
to guide interviews with knowledgeable people about managing wildlife prior to establishment of the Park was
LPNP. The scope of the case study was limited to the basis for co-management and shared governance
partnership events and mechanisms, power relations and over the Park resources. BRE, working though the
socio-economic-ecological performance. traditional chiefs and indunas, liaise with local
communities on their inspirations and challenges and
THE PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS UNDERLYING worked in turn with ZAWA and SAPF, to collectively
BENEFIT SHARING IN LIUWA PLAIN NATIONAL discuss and resolve issues. Issues of equity are dealt with
in a transparent manner by disclosure during public and
PARK
Board meetings. The chiefs and indunas are accountable
In Zambia, partnerships for protected area management
to both King Litunga and local communities through
can be traced back to the mid-1980s (Dalal-Clayton &
regular feedback (e.g. through local meetings).
Child, 2003) and were aimed at addressing the poaching
crisis during a time of limited state funding. Partnerships
The 2004 Agreement aimed at providing financial,
were based on emerging decentralisation policies for
ecological and political sustainability for the Park
rural development and poverty reduction (Suich et al.,
governed by the Partnership Board. The main
2009). They usually involved the government,
components of Agreement are given in Annex 2.
philanthropic partners with interest in biodiversity
Operational management function was relinquished to
conservation and local communities co-existing with
SAPF by the government. Three distinctive levels of
natural resources. Partnerships were legitimised by legal

Barotse Royal
Establishment
Liuwa National Park  Community
(Social – Ecological System) representation
 Resource access &
utilization
 Management operations
(law enforcement;
resource monitoring;
infrastructure
development; research &
development) [6]
 Tourism development
[3]
[4]
[5] Zambia Wildlife
Authority
(Government
Partnership Board Management Agency)
Strichting African (Zambia Wildlife
Parks Foundation
Authority; African [1]
(Private Partner)
Parks, Barotse Royal
[2] Establishment)
Figure 1: Operational framework of public private partnership in Liuwa Plain National Park, 2004 -2011.
interactions were identified for the entire partnership: at and sell baskets made from raw materials obtained in the
contractual level relating to the Agreement, decision- Park, catch fish in designated Park fish ponds free of
making level relating to consensus made inter-party and charge and are allowed to hunt animals in the
operational level relating to activities in the field. surrounding Upper West Zambezi Game Management
Area on ‘resident’ licences issued by the government. The
Incentives were a central activity and the basis for other main role for local communities is conducting
collective action. ZAWA maintains the regulatory roles as resource protection and monitoring through village
the employer of the Park’s law enforcement staff, scouts, trained by SAPF. In order to secure funds, SAPF
supplier of animals to restock the Park (relationship 4) was mandated to raise substantial funding from
and provides relevant legislative interpretation to the cooperating partners and recruit technical personnel for
Park management team. SAPF is responsible for park operations and tourism development. Further,
upgrading wildlife tourism development, valorisation of SAPF was responsible for animal population growth,
natural resources, transferring of income generated to capital asset, wildlife translocations, resource economics
benefit local communities and facilitate preservation of and local leadership. Recognising the importance of
cultural heritage (relationship 5). In terms of income garnering conservation support, BRE was involved at the
generation, local communities manage four rice grinding policy making level, facilitating community projects and
mills and five community campsites. They retain participating in conservation programmes (relationship
camping fees, sell firewood to tourists, charge for 6). External support to the partnership and legitimisation
traditional cultural performances at the campsites, weave of its operations were indirectly applied via SAPF.

PARTNERSHIP PROCESSES AND POWER evaluation in the first five years of the PPP gave a
positive assessment of partnership credibility (Apse &
RELATIONS
Seybert, 2010).
In the process of establishing the LPNP partnership,
lessons learnt previously within Southern Africa
The partnership operates at a strategic business unit,
(Fearnhead, 2009) on institutional experiences of
where funds raised from park fees, tourism and private
partners on, for instance, partnership administrative
donations are retained for conservation and rural
structures and park management systems development
development, with the aim that operations became cost
resulted in a shorter ‘learning curve’.
neutral or profit making. Local communities retained
revenues from various income generating activities and
Negotiation processes for the partnership development
community projects noted above. Financial benefits’
lasted for more than one year. Political and traditional
sharing on company profits is based on partner
BRE leadership played a critical role in the establishment
shareholding with 70 per cent going to SAPF and 30 per
and maintenance of the partnership. However, the
cent to BRE. No revenues generated in the Park were
seemingly top down approach of the partnership
shared with ZAWA, although they have expressed a wish
establishment processes undermined ZAWA’s
to be included as a shareholder in the partnership.
participation. SAPF articulated, in substance and
process, roles and responsibilities while other partners
The partnership adopted an adaptive management
struggled with interpretation of the provisions of the
approach. Through innovations and competition, the
partnership. More positively these matters were
management team was able to learn from other parks
redressed through partnership communication channels,
within Zambia and the region on how they were
including regular quarterly Board meetings, though these
managing for instance park law enforcement, tourism
efforts were protracted due to officialdom within ZAWA
development, infrastructure development and
(Annex 2). Regardless of the challenges, high confidence
community relations. This type of cooperative learning
by private donors in SAPF resulted in substantial start-
allowed the testing of various approaches and allowed
up and implementation funds. Early in the partnership
the management team to adapt operations to meet
process, the resources acquired were spent in offsetting
specific circumstances. For example, with an increased
high transaction costs of establishing and implementing
emphasis on discipline, provision of incentives and a
the protected area management partnership, sensitising
targeted patrol system, the management team of LPNP
and training stakeholders, providing operational logistics
were able to effectively manage environmental crimes in
and personnel placements.
the Park. At an operational level, marketing and
planning, whose outputs included business and land use
Though initially parties conceded to the Board’s decision
plans, were core elements in guiding management
making, unbalanced representation caused skewed
decisions. The capture of benefits by elites was avoided
power relations at contractual, decision making and even
by widespread local participation instead of targeting
operational level. Uneven power relations and rights
interventions to a few selected influential individuals.
favoured SAPF, due to what turned out to be a poorly and
The main checks and balances put in place for avoidance
inequitably negotiated partnership contract. ZAWA’s
of capture of benefits by elites were openness and
decision making mostly prevailed at contractual level,
transparency with local communities, through notifying
hence ZAWA embarked on re-engaging partners to
BRE on benefit distribution.
strengthen decision making provisions in the operational
management of LPNP while enfranchising SAPF.
ECOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE
Some people also felt that partnership negotiations were As noted, prior to partnership establishment, large
not adequate. During the implementation of Agreement, mammal populations were overhunted in LPNP by
partnership decision making was undertaken in quarterly Angolan armed factional forces and fugitive refugees.
meetings of the Board. Ground rules for implementation The partnership restored the fragile ecosystem and
of the partnership included upholding by all parties ecosystem processes that threatened the traditional
decisions agreed during the meetings, openness of each cultural and ecological integrity of LPNP. Restoration
party to the other, the agreement of definitive channels activities included wildlife re-introductions of major
of communication and pursuing amicable means to species such as Eland (Taurotragus oryx) (49), Cape
resolve any developing conflict. Despite the initial Buffalo (Syncerus caffer) (50) and Lion (2). Increased
problems, a planned independent performance anti-poaching activities; including use of investigation

Table 1: Changes in animal populations prior to and during the Liuwa Plain National Park partnership
Prior to partnership
implementation During partnership implementation
1
1991 December December April April April
2 3 4 5 6
Wildlife species 2001 2004 2007 2009 2011
Plains Zebra (Equus burchelli) 771 2,500 2,706 3,977 4,992 4,431
Oribi (Ourebia ourebi) 463 116 1,241 1,411 911 935
Red Lechwe (Kobus leche leche) 534 215 966 1,167 1,405 1,272
Tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus) 7,674 300 430 501 1,231 878
Blue Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) 29,369 15,000 23,455 33,088 36,494 42,717
Wattled Crane (Bugeranus caruncalatus) - 588 - - 1,695 1,717
Notes: Adapted from Viljoen (2011) for the period between 1991 and 2011 (1Tembo & Saiwana, 1991; 2Kamweneshe et al.,
2003;3, 4, 5 & 6Viljoen, 2005; 2007; 2009; 2011)
and intelligence information, conducting of regular classrooms and two teachers’ houses were constructed.
‘village sweeps’ (i.e. systematic and legitimised search for Six campsite attendants’ houses were built. A
illegal items such as firearms) and field patrols. Regular reforestation programme in settled areas included the
animal censuses and population monitoring have been supply and planting of 700 fruit and indigenous trees
conducted since the beginning of the partnership. (plus 82 watering cans), 500 of which were planted on
the school grounds of 18 local schools. Kalabo High
Table 1 depicts the changes in animal populations from School computer room and V-Sat internet facility were
baselines in 1991 and 2001, compared with period of constructed, and thirty computers donated. Twenty-six
partnership. The annual operational expenditure reached boreholes were sunk for domestic water supply to 26
US$230 per km2 for LPNP in 2011 from less than US$101 villages and schools. Three water wells were dug at the
per km2 prior to the partnership. In 2007, a management three community campsite at Lyangu, Kwale and
effectiveness tracking tool for protected areas in Zambia Katoyana. Four hundred solar cookers were distributed
(METTPAZ) assessment confirmed through the use of for local communities’ use, to help address the
scorecards and nominal rating that LPNP was effectively unsustainable harvesting of fuel wood. In addition, 79
managed by the partnership, and was effective against energy saving stoves were supplied to local community
threats such as poaching, wild fires, human members for use. Four rice grinding mills were
encroachment and deforestation (Mwima, 2007). As a distributed for use by local communities. Eleven
result of partnership conservation efforts, tourist arrivals women’s clubs were registered, and were financially and
in LPNP increased and averaged at 440 tourists per technically supported in skills and product development.
annum from 291 tourists in 2003 (Apse & Seybert, 2010). LPNP inter-schools drama festivals, community training
Further, establishment of Transfrontier Conservation in conservation and the Liuwa Environmental Education
Area between Mussuma Area in Angola and LPNP in Programme (LEEP) involving 5,000 school children were
Zambia is currently underway. facilitated and all focused on a strong outreach
component. Core conservation values such as traditional
SOCIO-ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE fishing and animal grazing grounds were protected, and
Local communities in LPNP received several financial the historical Libonda Kuomboka and Liyenya annual
and non-financial benefits resulting from the LPNP traditional ceremonies were promoted through provision
partnership between 2004-2011. The transfer of benefits of financial benefit transfers.
for rural development was linked to wildlife
conservation; as a result project development by local These projects were funded from revenues generated
communities is increasingly supporting Park from enterprises such as tourism community campsites
sustainability. The benefits inter alia include: annual and from donor funds. Over the years substantial
jobs increased by 733 per cent from 12 jobs in 2004 to funding has come from donors, and funds generated
100 jobs by 2011 for local people in ‘low volume, high from other revenue streams in LPNP are steadily
value’ tourism development. A total of 37 pupils received increasing. The management team administer the funds
school scholarships. At Lukoko School, one block of two through Liuwa Community Development Fund (Annex 2).

Tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus) © Roger Leguen / WWF-Canon
CONCLUDING REMARKS Since the establishment of the partnership, benefits have

The collaborative governance of LPNP in form of a been generated and transferred to stakeholders. The
tripartite partnership of ZAWA, SAPF and BRE has Park’s profile has improved but stakeholder expectations
contributed to the positive performance of Park still remain very high based on the promises made in
management. The period assessed (2004-2011) is respect to enhancing biodiversity, infrastructure, tourism
relatively short but it provides an indication of the and community development at the beginning of the
impact of such a partnership when collaborative partnership. However, in order to generate substantial
governance is integrated with benefit sharing profits further enhancement of the resource base,
mechanisms. The LPNP partnership is dynamic but tourism and management infrastructure, community
could have probably achieved more if the design was relations and community livelihoods is recommended.
better negotiated by government and BRE. Even though This agenda will require parties to further fine tune their
the partnership negotiations lasted over a year, allowing responsibilities and accountability. In particular, ZAWA
for lengthy but effective negotiations can maximise and BRE will need to be robust enough as ‘institutions of
ownership by stakeholders and minimise future sustainability’ to be able to fairly and firmly negotiate,
bottlenecks in the progression of a partnership (Roe et and counteract external influences.
al., 2001).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
As the partnership formed a nexus of conservation and The authors are grateful to Park Manager, Raquel
rural development, it drew participation from many Filgueiras Seybert; Park Ranger, Jarton Shawa of Liuwa
different stakeholders, whose successful benefit Plain National Park, and Former Area Warden, Agness
depended on the strength of fair collective bargaining of Shawa, for their contribution during data collection. The
their interests. Due to the failure by ZAWA and BRE to study was supported by Zambia Wildlife Authority. A
comprehensively bargain at the beginning of the number of participants responded to study questions.
partnership, however cooperative trust reduced over the
years. According to Glasbergen (1995), effective ANNEX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE ON COLLABORATIVE
performance of protected area management and benefit GOVERNANCE AND BENEFIT SHARING IN LIUWA
equitable sharing is linked to levels of trust between PLAIN NATIONAL PARK FOR THE PERIOD
partners. Hence, the need to constantly discuss and BETWEEN 2004 AND 2011
resolve emerging issues through mechanisms such as the A: Preliminaries
Partnership Board and stakeholder meetings. 1. Disclosure of the purpose and contents of the
Nevertheless, the SAPF demonstrated its capacity to interview
raise funds from cooperating partners and generate 2. Confirmation of the participants’ historical
revenues from LPNP. However, since much of the knowledge of the Park
funding utilised for Park management and community 3. Obtaining participants’ consent
projects remains largely donor contributions, sustainable 4. Assuring participants of confidentiality of their
financing plans will need to emphasis further generation input
of revenues from local LPNP partnership processes. 5. Personal details and affiliations

B: Collaborative governance and benefit sharing development, community support and

1. Elucidate, in timeline, natural resource management of community relations.
management in the Park prior and after partnership  The Agreement’s jurisdiction is over the Park and
establishment. Note the changes in who managed does not include areas surrounding it. In practice,
the resources, how they managed them and impacts however, the partnership operations have spilled
of their management. over to the surrounding areas especially in the
2. Obtain factors that could have brought about area of community projects such as social
changes in the management arrangements. amenities and human wildlife conflict mitigation.
3. Establish what transpired during the process of  The Agreement advocates regular communication
establishing the partnership and what followed among stakeholders, ZAWA, SAPF and BRE,
thereafter. This should include elements of mainly in writing. In practice, besides sharing
partnership negotiations, heads of agreement/ written operational reports, presentations are also
contract, activities and implementation modalities. made when necessary and agreed by the partners.
4. Ascertain who held and exercised the power over For instance, BRE representatives locally known
management and utilization of natural resources, as Silalo Induna Committee report to their
and benefit sharing in the partnership. To what constituencies (area committees) and the Board
degree they exerted such power. [Where did the on various community issues and projects, and so
‘active’ power lie?] do field team of SAPF and ZAWA on park
5. Find out how partners related to each other vis-à- operations. At times, however, internal
vis the partnership Agreement. communication and officialdom among some
6. Establish what were the benefits of the partnership members of parties have been challenging.
and how they were generated and, subsequently,
 The Agreement provides for establishment of a
how they were shared among the parties.
BRE Cultural and Support Fund for support of
7. What were the roles and responsibilities of each
BRE cultural and administrative activities and
party and how were they implemented?
Liuwa Community Development Funds (LCDF) to
8. Obtain the description of ecological and socio-
speedily support anti-poaching and community
economic performance attributed to the
projects. Management team administers both
partnership.
funds. Further, penalties in form of deductions
N.B.: Probe further on each of the above issues
from LCDF are implemented on monthly basis in
depending on the willingness of the participant to be
accordance with the Agreement when poaching
interviewed more, where necessary.
incidents or other unlawful activities by the local
communities occur in the Park. These measures
ANNEX 2: MAIN COMPONENTS OF PARTNERSHIP are supported by the local communities and prove
AGREEMENT IN LIUWA PLAIN NATIONAL PARK to be effective in curbing biodiversity loss in
FOR LOCAL GOVERNANCE LPNP.
 The partnership works under a Company called  The Agreement devolves management authority
African Parks Zambia, established through the to a management team but also further gives the
Companies Act which provides shareholding rights such as granting of tourism concessions to
among parties (SAPF and BRE). ZAWA, however, SAPF. In practice, based on the Agreement,
has in the recent years made a claim to have ZAWA is consulted and approves policy decisions
shareholding position in the Company. such as granting of tourism concession prior to
 The partnership Board constitutes representation implementation.
from SAPF (4), Barotse Royal Establishment (2)
and ZAWA (1). It is the main governance body,
with legal standing. The Chairman is appointed by REFERENCES
SAPF from four of its representative Board Abbot, J., F. Ananze, N. Barning, P. Burning, E. de Merode, A.
members. Decisions are by consensus. Dunn, E. Fuchi, E. Hakizumwami, C. Hasse, R. Mwinyihali,
Management activities are conducted by a M. Sani, D. Thomas, P. Trench and R. Tshombe (2000).
Promoting partnerships: managing wildlife resources in
combined team on the ground. The team is Central and West Africa. Evaluating Eden series no. 3.
responsible for such activities as resource London: International Institute for Environment and
protection, tourism development, infrastructure Development.

Apse, C. and R. Seybert (2010). African Parks management of Glasbergen, P. (1995). Managing environmental disputes:
Liuwa Plain National Park. Lusaka, Zambia: The Nature network management as an alternative. Boston: Kluwer
Conservancy. Academic publishers.
Armitage, D. and R. Plummer. (Eds.) (2010). Adaptive Capacity Graham, J., B. Amos and T. Plumptre (2003). Governance
and Environmental Governance. Berlin Heidelberg, principles for protected areas in the 21st Century. A
Germany: Springer-Verlag Discussion Paper. Ottawa: Institute on Governance in
Armitage D., M. Marschke and R. Plummer (2008). Adaptive Collaboration with Parks Canada and Canadian
co-management and the paradox of learning. Global International Development Agency.
Environmental Change 18(1): 86–98 Gruber, J. S. (2010). Key principles of community-based
Arrow, K., B. Bolin, R. Constanza, P. Dasgupta, C. Folke, C. natural resource management: a synthesis and
Holling, B. Jansson, S. Levin, K. Malër, C. Perrings and D. interpretation of identified effective approaches for
Pimentel (1995). Economic growth, carrying capacity and managing the commons. Environmental Management 45
the environment. Science 268: 520-521. (1): 52–66.
Barrow, E., H. Gicholi and M. Infield (2000). Rhetoric or Hall, A.W. (2006). Global experience on governance. In:
reality? a review of community conservation policy and Turton, A.R., H. Hattingh, G. Maree, D. Roux, M. Claasen
practice in East Africa. Evaluating Eden series no. 5. and W. Strydom (eds), Governance as a trialogue:
London: International Institute for Environment and government-society-science in transition. Berlin: Springer.
Development. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: role of 1243-1248.
knowledge generation, bridging organisations and social Howard, J.L. (2010). Managing for justice in community-based
learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5): water planning: a conceptual framework. Environmental
1692-1702. Conservation 37 (3): 356–363
Bradburn, N., S. Sudman and B. Wansink (2004). Asking Imperial, M.T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance
questions: the definitive guide to questionnaire design – strategy: lessons form six watershed management
for market research, political polls, and social and health programs. Administration and Society 37(3): 281-320
questionnaires. California: Jossey-Bass. Imperial, M.T. and D. Kauneckis (2003). Moving from conflict
Brower, A., S. Coffey and B. Peryman. (2010). Collaborative to collaboration: lessons from the Lake Tahoe experience.
Environmental Governance Down Under, in Theory and in Natural Resources Journal 43(4): 1009-1005.
Practice. Lincoln Planning Review, North America, 2, Aug. Jones, B. and M. Murphree (2001). The evolution of policy on
2010. Available at: http://journals.lincoln.ac.nz/ community conservation in Namibia and Zimbabwe. In:
index.php/LPR/article/view/533/389>. Accessed on 2 Hulme, D. & M. W Murphree (eds), African wildlife and
March 2013. African livelihoods: the promise and performance of
CBD (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at community conservation, Oxford, UK: James Currey. p 38-
http://www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml. 58.
Accessed on 3 March 2010. Kamweneshe, B., R, Beilfuss and K. Morrison (2003).
CBD (2011). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Population and distribution of Wattled Cranes and other
Aichi Targets: ‘Living in Harmony with Nature’. http:// large waterbirds and large mammals on the Liuwa Plains
www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/2011-2020/Aichi-Targets- National Park, Zambia. Lusaka: Zambia Crane and
EN.pdf. Accessed on 1 February 2013. Wetland Conservation Project.
Dearden, P. and M. Bennett (2005). Trends in global protected Leonard, P. (2005). Important bird areas in Zambia. Lusaka:
area governance. Environmental Management 36(1):89- The Zambian Ornithological Society.
100. Leverington, F., K.L. Costa, H. Pavese, A. Lisle and M. Hockings
Dalal-Clayton, B. and B.Child (2003). Lessons from Luangwa: (2010). A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management
the story of the Luangwa Integrated Resource Effectiveness. Environmental Management 46: 685–698.
Development Project, Zambia. Wildlife and Development Lockwood, M. (2010) Good governance for terrestrial
Series 13. London: International Institute for Environment protected areas: A framework, principles and
and Development. performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental
Estes, R.D. and R. East (2009). Status of the wildebeest Management 91: 754-766.
(Connochaetus taurinus) in the wild, 1967-2005. Working Mwima, H. K. (2007). Management effectiveness tracking tool
Paper No. 37. New York, USA: Wildlife Conservation for protected areas. Lusaka: Ministry of Tourism,
Society. Environment and Natural Resources.
Farlam, P (2005). Assessing public private partnership in Nkhata, B. A., A. Mosimane, L. Downsborough, C. Breen and
Africa. Nepad policy focus series number 2. Pretoria: D.J. Roux (2012). A typology of benefit sharing
SAIIA. arrangements for the governance of social-ecological
Farley, J. and R. Costanza (2010). Payments for ecosystem systems in developing countries. Ecology and Society 17:
services: From local to global. Ecological Economics 69: Noor, K.B. M. (2008). Case study: a strategic research
2060–2068. methodology. American Journal of Applied Science 5(11):
Fearnhead, P. (2009). Privately managed protected areas. In: 1602-1604.
Suich, H., B. Child, and A. Spenceley (eds), Evolution and Olsson, P., C. Folke and F. Berkes (2004). Adaptive co-
innovation in wildlife conservation: parks and game management for building resilience in social-ecological
ranches to transfrontier conservation areas. London: systems. Environmental Management 34: 75-90.
Earthscan. p 409-424 Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of
institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Paavola J., A. Gouldson and T. Kluvankova-Oranska (2009). Viljoen, P. (2005). Liuwa Plain National Park aerial wildlife
Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the survey – December 2004. White River: African Parks
governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Network.
Governance 19: 148-158. Viljoen, P. (2007). Liuwa Plain National Park aerial wildlife
Phillips, A. (2003). Turning ideas on their head: the new survey – April 2007: survey result summary. White River:
paradigm for protected areas. The George Wright Forum African Parks Network.
20(2): 8-32. Viljoen, P. (2009). Liuwa Plain National Park aerial wildlife
Plummer, R. and D. Armitage (2007). A resilience-based survey – April 2009: survey result summary. White River:
framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: African Parks Network.
linking ecology, economics and society in a complex Viljoen, P. (2011). Liuwa Plains National Park and adjacent
world. Ecological Economics 61: 62-74. Game Management Area, Zambia aerial wildlife survey.
Pomeroy, R., L. Garces, M. Pido and G. Silvestre (2010). White River: African Parks Network.
Ecosystem-based fisheries management in small-scale Wondolleck, J.M. and S.L. Yaffee (2000). Making collaboration
tropical marine fisheries: emerging models of governance work: lessons from innovation in natural resource
arrangements in the Philippines. Marine Policy 34: 298– management. Washington, DC, US: Island Press.
308. Wunder, S. (2007). The efficiency of payments for
Roe, D., M. Grieg-Gran and W. Schalken (2001). Getting the environmental services in tropical conservation.
lion’s share from tourism: private sector – community Conservation Biology 21:48–58.
partnership in Namibia. Poverty, inequality and ZAWA (2009). Land use plan for Liuwa Plain National Park.
environment series 1. London: International Institute for Chilanga, Zambia: ZAWA.
Environment and Development.
Schuklenk, U. and A. Kleinsmidt (2006). North-South benefit
sharing arrangements in bioprospecting and genetic
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
research: a critical ethical and legal analysis. Developing Vincent R. Nyirenda (BSc, M.Sc, PhD) has specialised
World Bioethics 1471-8847 (online): doi:10.1111/j.1471- in environmental systems and nature conservation with
8847.2006.00149.x. Accessed on 15 August 2011. professional experience at local, regional and
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions.
international levels. He has held senior portfolios in
International Social Science Journal 50(155): 17-28.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (eds.) (1998). Basics of qualitative wildlife and environment sectors in government and
research: techniques and procedures for developing international organisations. He published several
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage scientific publications in peer reviewed journals.
Publications.
Suich, H., B. Child and A. Spenceley (eds.) (2009). Evolution
Bimo A. Nkhata (M.Sc, PhD) is Associate Professor in
and innovation in wildlife conservation: parks and game
ranches to transfrontier conservation areas. London: Environment and Development. He has extensive local,
Earthscan. regional and international professional experience in
Tembo, A. and L. Siawana (1991). Abundance, biomass and protected areas management. He has served in wildlife
distribution of common herbivores of the Liuwa National and environment sectors at senior portfolios in
Park, Zambia. Chilanga: Zambia National Parks & Wildlife
government, international organisations and
Service.
Turton, A. (2008). A South African perspective on a possible universities. He published several scientific publications
benefit sharing approach for trans-boundary waters in the in peer reviewed journals.
SADC Region. Water Alternatives 1(2):180-200.
van Gils, H. (1988). Environmental profile of western province,
Zambia. Mongu, Zambia: Provincial Planning Unit.
RESUMEN
Han surgido varios modelos de asociaciones público-privadas centradas en la creación de riqueza a través de recursos
de alto valor, de la distribución del riesgo a través de la participación en los costos y beneficios, y de la prevención de
pérdida de biodiversidad a través de la colaboración entre los miembros de los sectores público y privado y las
comunidades locales. Empero, aún subsisten muchas lagunas de información en cuanto al desempeño de su sistema
socioecológico. Se realizó un estudio de caso sobre el Parque Nacional de Liuwa Plain (3660 km 2), en la zona occidental
de Zambia, para demostrar la relación entre el capital social y la gestión operativa por múltiples asociados entre 2004 y
2011. Se utilizaron análisis biográficos, conocimientos especializados y entrevistas a 57 participantes con perspectivas
históricas sobre el área. Determinamos que tanto los beneficios económicos, ecológicos y sociales como la participación
en ellos se vieron influenciados por la capacidad de los asociados para negociar los intereses colectivos. La creación de
redes de asociaciones inter e intrainstitucionales, el aprendizaje social y la capacidad diferencial también fueron
factores importantes.

RÉSUMÉ
Plusieurs modèles de partenariats public-privé ont fait leur apparition, axés sur : la création de richesses à partir de
ressources à forte valeur ajoutée, la répartition des risques grâce au partage des avantages et des coûts, et la prévention
de la perte de la diversité biologique. Ces partenariats ont été possibles grâce à une collaboration entre membres du
secteur public et privé et les communautés locales. Cependant, peu d’informations sont disponibles quant à leur
performance socio-écologique. Une étude de cas a été réalisée entre 2004 et 2011 dans le parc national de Liuwa Plain
(3 660 km2), en Zambie occidentale, afin de démontrer la relation entre le capital social et la gestion opérationnelle par
des partenaires multiples. Cette étude s’est basée sur un examen des études publiées, les connaissances d’experts ainsi
que des entretiens menés auprès de 57 répondants, en s’appuyant sur une perspective historique de la zone concernée.
Nous avons ainsi pu déterminer que les gains et la répartition des avantages en termes socio-économiques-écologiques
étaient déterminés par la capacité des partenaires à négocier des intérêts collectifs. Par ailleurs, la mise en réseau au
sein et à l’extérieur du partenariat, l’apprentissage social et les capacités différentielles s’avèrent être également des
facteurs importants.

115 PARKS 2013 Vol 19.1
LESSONS FROM LARGE-SCALE CONSERVATION

NETWORKS IN AUSTRALIA
James Fitzsimons 1,2*, Ian Pulsford3 and Geoff Wescott2

1
The Nature Conservancy, Suite 2-01, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
2
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood
VIC 3125, Australia
3
204 Duffy Street, Ainslie ACT 2602, Australia
ABSTRACT
Australia has seen a rapid growth in the establishment of networks of lands managed for connectivity
conservation across tenures, at landscape and sub-continental scales. Such networks go under a
variety of names, including biosphere reserves, biolinks, wildlife corridors and conservation
management networks. Their establishment has varied from state government-led initiatives to those
initiated by non-government organizations and interested landholders. We surveyed existing major
landscape scale conservation initiatives for successes, failures and future directions and synthesized
common themes. These themes included scale, importance of social and economic networks,
leadership, governance, funding, conservation planning, the role of protected areas and
communication. We discuss the emergence of national policy relating to National Wildlife Corridors in
Australia and the relationship of this policy to the long standing commitment to build a
comprehensive, adequate and representative National Reserve System. Finally we outline areas for
further research for connectivity conservation projects in Australia.
and conservation NGOs and occur at various scales from

INTRODUCTION cross continental ‘wildlife corridors’ to regional
The Convention on Biological Diversity Strategic Plan for conservation management networks.
Biodiversity 2011-2020 (Aichi Targets), committed
parties to the convention to establish ‘ecologically Until now there has been relatively little analysis of these
representative and well connected systems of protected diverse and practical initiatives in a single synthesis, but
areas and other effective area-based conservation a recent project has assembled the experiences of
measures’ as part of Target 11. Woodley et al. (2012, p. practitioners from 14 networks and corridor initiatives
29) recommend that ‘countries need to move into the (Figure 1), to fill the void between the theoretical
next phase of protected area and conservation planning ecological proposals and research in technical journals
by incorporating connectivity between protected areas at and the practical projects that have been operating in the
both regional and national scales, including field (i.e. Fitzsimons et al., 2013). The facilitators/
transboundary conservation areas’. coordinators of the connectivity initiatives were asked to
document the history of the initiative, successes,
Australia has seen significant advances in recent times in constraints and directions for the future (Figure 1
creating networks and initiatives that seek to restore and highlights the initiatives surveyed as part of this
link up natural habitats at a landscape scale. These research). These experiences were complemented by
efforts have evolved under a range of names including those of policy makers and organizations seeking to
‘biosphere reserves’, ‘wildlife corridors’, ‘conservation design and implement ‘networks of networks’ beyond the
management networks’, and ‘biolinks’ (see Box 1) and individual initiative, as well as broader perspectives from
collectively seek to achieve many aspects of the emerging researchers in the fields of ecological science and socio-
field of connectivity conservation, amongst other things. economics (see Fitzsimons et al., 2013). This information
Such initiatives have been developed by a range of is synthesised in this paper. Such information is
contributors including governments, private individuals, important to not only inform policy makers, land

James Fitzsimons et al 116
BOX 1. DIFFERENT TYPES AND NAMES OF MULTI-TENURE CONSERVATION INITIATIVES IN AUSTRALIA

Biosphere Reserves are an international UNESCO designation and are concerned primarily with integrating
biodiversity conservation with ecologically sustainable development across a variety of land tenures and uses
(UNESCO; 1995; Brunckhorst et al., 1997). The theoretical biosphere reserve model revolves around a ‘core’
protected area managed primarily for nature conservation, a ‘buffer’ zone where activities that impact on the
biodiversity of the core are minimised, and a ‘transition’ zone, where the sustainable use of natural resources is
encouraged.
Biolinks are identified broad areas of the landscape at the subcontinental scale in which the functional ecological
connectivity for biodiversity is enhanced and/or restored in order to provide space for species to ‘self adjust’ to
changing environmental conditions (e.g. Mansergh et al., 2008).
Conservation Management Networks (CMNs) are biophysical networks of remnant vegetation sites across a variety
of tenures and a social network of managers, owners and interested people (Thiele & Prober, 2000). A CMN brings
together the social and biophysical networks in order to improve land management and biodiversity outcomes. The
term ‘
Wildlife Corridors’ has multiple meanings in Australia. It can refer to narrow bands of native vegetation connecting
core habitat areas but more recently has been adopted by the Australian Government as the label for large-scale
connectivity conservation networks (i.e. National Wildlife Corridors).
See Fitzsimons et al.(2013) for greater detail on each of these models and case studies on where they have been
applied in Australia.
managers, facilitators and scientists, but to stimulate (e.g. Saunders et al., 1996; Bennett, 2003; Soulé et al.,
even greater conservation efforts ‘on the ground’. 2004; Lindenmayer & Fisher, 2006; Mackey et al.,
2010), our focus here is on practical experiences with
The initiatives are being implemented across multiple implementing large scale, on the ground connectivity
land tenures (including public, private and Indigenous initiatives in real landscapes.
owned or leased land) and the aim of the project was to
identify some critical common lessons that have been COMMON THEMES IN AUSTRALIAN
learnt already by practitioners in this new and evolving CONNECTIVITY PROJECTS
field. In particular, we were keen to see if there were There were a number of clearly recurring themes that
emerging models of governance which could potentially emerged from the analysis of operating connectivity
be adapted by new entrants into connectivity projects in Australia. These are described under separate
conservation (nationally and internationally), so that headings below.
they did not need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in establishing
their network.  Scale
The scale of the operation of a network was a topic
This paper describes some of the lessons from practical, discussed by many of the project coordinators. Many of
‘on the ground’ implementation of landscape scale and the larger corridor initiatives highlighted that they
connectivity conservation projects in Australia. We also considered a large scale of operation to be important for
provide an outline of the Australian Government’s ecological function and for creating an inspiring vision.
recently released National Wildlife Corridors Plan However, operating at such a large scale was also
(DSEWPC, 2012) and suggest future research needs for recognized to have significant challenges, particularly for
the evolving field of implementing and managing large- coordination, governance and communication. Almost all
scale, multi-tenure conservation networks. Initiatives of the larger corridor initiatives which operated at
featured include those from all Australian states and continental or sub-continental scale therefore divided
territories, and many initiatives which cross state and their total area into smaller ‘operating units’ or ‘regional
territory boundaries. partnership areas’; landscape zones that reflected
similarities in ecological or social attributes. The
Although there is already a significant literature on identification of groups with their regional landscape was
ecological connectivity and connectivity conservation considered to be important, as was effective and regular
both internationally (e.g. Soulé & Terborgh, 1999; Crooks communication, both of which contribute to the
& Sanjayan, 2006; Hilty et al., 2012) and for Australia important element of social connectedness, .

Figure 1. Australian connectivity conservation initiatives surveyed as part of this project. Differences in shading differentiates
overlapping initiatives. 1 – Gondwana Link, 2 – Fitzgerald Biosphere Reserve, 3 – Territory Eco-link, 4 – South Australian
NatureLinks, 5 – Riverland (Bookmark) Biosphere Reserve, 6 – Habitat 141°, 7 – Tasmanian Midlandscapes, 8 – Wedderburn
Conservation Management Network, 9 – Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network, 10 – Grassy Box Woodlands
Conservation Management Network, 11 – Great Eastern Ranges Initiative, 12 – Slopes to Summit, 13 – Border Ranges Alliance,
14 – Bunya Biolink. Note: ‘Slopes to Summit’ and ‘Border Ranges’ are regional landscape projects within the larger Great East-
ern Ranges Initiative.
 The importance of a shared and guiding  Social and economic networks are critical
vision elements of success
Landscape-scale conservation networks, as well as the Conservation management is required across multiple
larger corridor initiatives, inspire people, help create tenures in order to protect and restore biodiversity on a
conservation communities and provide opportunities landscape-wide basis, and different connectivity
where individuals can see their conservations efforts conservation strategies are needed in different Australian
make a difference. Such ‘stories’ provide a narrative that landscapes. This is because the type of conservation
becomes a powerful basis for engagement, governance actions required in cleared and fragmented forest and
and decision-making. A key element is a shared vision woodland landscapes can be different to the contiguous
that describes a desired future landscape or biodiversity habitats for arid and northern Australia or from peri-
condition and seeks the involvement of people in urban areas. In different landscapes and communities
achieving this outcome. The vision is combined with the social willingness, and economic circumstances of
several subsidiary goals and usually supported by a plan landholders and communities, require quite different
that identifies aspirational targets and priorities for solutions and mixes of programmes. For example, in the
investment. While the vision is an important part of any more intact habitats typical of northern and central
initiatives’ success, it may not be static and can evolve Australia the inclusion of Indigenous Protected Areas
over time and with increased ecological community and pastoral properties, is important if not essential,
understanding and feedback, provided it brings its whilst initiatives in fragmented forest and woodland
communities along with the evolution of the initiative. landscapes of southern and eastern Australia (such as

Kosciuszko2Coast partnership facilitator, Lauren Van Dyke, launching the inaugural Kosciuszko2Coast Open Day event on 13
April 2008 on a landholders property near Bredbo, New South Wales. Kosciuszko2Coast is a regional landscape projects within
the larger Great Eastern Ranges Initiative © Ian Pulsford
Gondwana Link, the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative, results early on. Initiatives also reported on the
Habitat 141° and many Victorian conservation importance of building on past conservation
management networks) utilise an integrated range of programmes and activities that were in operation prior to
voluntary conservation instruments and programmes. the formation of the connectivity/landscape initiative.
These include the establishment of private protected These past activities are likely to have built important
areas by NGOs and/or encouragement of landholders to social networks and shared visions. Finally, it is critical
sign in-perpetuity conservation agreements, and habitat to maintain a core group of volunteers to ensure the
restoration projects through short and long-term grant continuity of the programme if a facilitator, or equivalent
agreements with various funding bodies. government officer, is lost through leave, forced
redundancies, ‘burn-out’ or loss of funding.
A key challenge for some initiatives is to be able to
maintain partner and community interest once initial  Leadership and the notion of ‘champions’
funding sources are discontinued or grant applications Leadership of initiatives was provided usually at several
are unsuccessful due to changing priorities of funding levels. As with so many other endeavours in nature
bodies. There can be mismatch between partner and conservation and natural resources management, many
community expectations when a vision is not matched by initiatives are instigated by an individual (or a few
sufficient funding to make an impact quickly enough, individuals) with drive, energy, passion, commitment
with this loss of social capital being a potential threat to and strong personalities who inspire others to join in. In
the sustainability of the initiative. The strength of addition, they also inspire sponsorsto provide critical
committed leadership over long periods was considered a funds and resources. The challenge is to have succession
key factor for success. planning in these groups in case the leader ‘burns out’
and to build a leadership group that is supported by
Programmes built on trust and openness appear to be external champions. These may include influential
more resilient in hard times, hence investing the time individuals in business, government or wider
and effort early in development to build trust was community. The role of a dedicated ‘facilitator’ was
highlighted by many initiatives. Another critical element highlighted in the various case studies as an essential
is the achievement of visible and tangible on the ground element of success for connectivity initiatives. At the

same time, the often short-term and uncertain security of  Funding

funding for these positions was seen as a major Funding arrangements varied between initiatives but
limitation to the operation of these initiatives. This primarily consisted of government, philanthropic and
situation is not unique to connectivity initiatives; it is corporate funding to varying extents. Not surprisingly, a
cited as a common limitation to natural resource lack of funding for on the ground actions was identified
management activities more generally in Australia (e.g. as a major limitation for many initiatives.
Robins & Dovers, 2007; HC Coombs Policy Forum,
2011). Connectivity initiatives in Australia face a number of
risks in delivering on their potential, due to the need to
 Governance build investment at scale (particularly if a threshold
Connectivity conservation initiatives seek to coordinate investment is needed to achieve benefits), the
many actions, undertaken by diverse players, across organizational challenge of landscape-scale conservation,
multiple scales. Designing collaborative governance scientific and implementation uncertainties, and
arrangements that harness the energies and capacities of misalignment of goals and opportunities and even the
these many players remains a challenge for conservation ability to prioritise actions based on scientific and social
connectivity networks. The case studies revealed that criteria. A number of initiatives are encouraging new
there are a wide variety of governance models for investment tools, such as capitalizing on the emerging
connectivity initiatives in Australia. These ranged from carbon market, although offsets and credits are still a
top down approaches initiated by government (e.g. Great relatively new concepts and these funding opportunities
Eastern Ranges Initiative, Territory Eco-link, South at the scale required for landscape restoration are still in
Australian NatureLinks, Wedderburn Conservation their relative infancy in Australia.
Management Network) to non-government organization-
The two biosphere reserves established under the
initiated networks such as Gondwana Link and Bunya
UNESCO Man and Biosphere programme that were
Biolink, to a mix of both (e.g. Tasmanian
examined (i.e. Fitzgerald and Riverland) both
Midlandscapes).
highlighted a ‘reduction of government funds as a
significantly factor in loss of momentum. As time
Large scale conservation initiatives in Australia need progressed, interest by both the state and national
strong, but not necessarily complex, governance governments waned and most of their input became ‘in-
arrangements. There is currently a diverse array of kind. During the writing of this paper the fragility of
systems which reflects a diverse array of reasons and some corridor initiatives was also demonstrated with the
motivations for establishment and the different mix of withdrawal of funding for Territory Eco-link by the new
groups involved. What works in one place may not easily Northern Territory Government in late 2012 (Conlan,
be transferred as a successful model elsewhere. 2012). This initiative was particularly vulnerable as its
coordinating staff were funded only by the government,
Governance mechanisms must also be flexible and with little if any other funding.
adaptive to changes in knowledge and context, and
evolution of governance arrangements has been The final point concerning funding is the security and
documented for a number of networks (see also nature of current government funding arrangements
Fitzsimons & Wescott, 2008a). The diversity of partners which typically sees funds directed for relatively short
and the range of spatial scales of these initiatives are term projects whose continuity is at risk from change in
likely to require new modes of governance that span government priorities. Several case studies noted the
multiple scales and diverse interests. However, it has significant impact from loss of a facilitator or other staff
been possible to identify some governance principals that when funds cease and the difficulty of sustaining
are common requirements for all successful initiatives. organisations under these circumstances. As well, there
is often little or no provision for operational expenses for
These principals can be framed around the requirements NGOs and government agencies participating in
for communication, collaboration and coordination. connectivity initiatives. Most money is short-term and
Within a few years there may well be enough experience directed at site-specific projects. Without funding for
and data in to draft a ‘template’ of successful governance continuing stewardship programmes and operational
and coordination arrangements so that the ‘wheel is not expenses much of the effort on initial on-ground work
reinvented’ continuously or the same mistakes are not could be wasted. Sustainability should be a key
repeated. requirement to funding.

Habitat links extend from Woomargama National Park into surrounding private farm lands; part of the Slopes to Summit
section of the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative, New South Wales © Ian Pulsford
 Conservation planning and delivery of achieving long-term goals. It is also essential to ensure
broader natural resource management that taxpayers and private investors are receiving value
objectives for money for these long-term investments. For many
The preparation of a conservation plan which contained initiatives, limited and inadequate resources have been
goals and identified areas for conservation activities and made available by funding bodies or agencies to develop
investment was considered important by most initiatives. monitoring, evaluation and reporting systems.
An ability to spatially prioritise conservation actions is Nonetheless, ecological monitoring does often occur at
also important for demonstrating the most efficient the individual site-scale (i.e. protected areas or private
allocation of limited resources when reporting back to conservation lands) within connectivity initiatives and
funding bodies. Methods used by the different initiatives aligning these often disparate efforts and methods
varied considerably depending on the availability of should be a high priority. Under the National Wildlife
spatial information and analytical skills. Connectivity Corridors Plan (see below) the Australian Government
initiatives were also considered to be useful delivery has undertaken to develop guidelines and provide
mechanisms for other natural resource management information on monitoring, reporting and evaluation
objectives, at national and state levels. For example, (DSEWPC, 2012); however it remains to be seen whether
South Australia’s NatureLinks aligned well with the adequate funds will be provided so that suitable
principles underpinning regional natural resource indicators for accurately measuring progress at various
management planning. spatial scales can be established.
 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting  Role of existing and new protected areas
Reporting on progress is a requirement of most funding Protected areas and remnant vegetation provide the
bodies and is essential for demonstrating progress to essential core components for most multi-tenure
partners and to ensure that support is maintained. connectivity initiatives. All initiatives sought to improve
Effective monitoring provided the essential information the conservation and management of areas around and
required so that an adaptive approach to setting between these core protected areas by either focusing on
priorities for further investment can be made for protecting or better managing properties with significant

ecological value and/or actively restoring cleared or

degraded properties that provide strategic linkages.
The mechanisms used varied but included a mix of land

purchase for conservation (as public or private protected
areas), signing of in-perpetuity conservation covenants
or shorter term management agreements linked to
stewardship payments, or non-binding voluntary
agreements. The mix of these options used depended on
the underlying land tenure, types of investment by
government and non-government sectors and social
drivers. For example, in some regions, land purchase was
not an option for social or legal reasons, and new,
innovative approaches were developed to protect
freehold or Indigenous lands. These included partnership Revegetation of woodlands and heathlands in the landscape
between Fitzgerald River and Stirling Range National Parks,
agreements with several non-government conservation part of Gondwana Link and a global biodiversity hotspot
organisations such as Bush Heritage Australia, as well as © James Fitzsimons
government environment agencies.
Corridors Council, and a process for nominating existing
and new partnerships for inclusion on a National Wildlife
 Communication
Corridors list by the Federal Minister for Environment.
A key element of maintaining and enhancing a
They will need to meet a list of scientific and social
connectivity network was to create and maintain a
criteria to be developed by the Council. Listing will assist
communication system so that disparate members often
the government to prioritise funding from a range of
separated by substantial distances are linked together.
existing environmental funding programmes.
This usually required some dedicated resources to run a
web site, prepare newsletters, videos, brochures,
The plan suggests that the following features are
workshops, meetings and publications.
common in successful projects – accountability,
transparency, integrity, efficiency, flexibility, leadership,
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S NATIONAL engagement and social cohesion – although it does not
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS PLAN specify the criteria for success. The plan notably did not
In November 2012, the Australian Government released have any funding for implementation attached to its
a National Wildlife Corridors Plan (DSEWPC, 2012). This publication. Nonetheless the geographic regions in which
plan provides a framework for landscape scale the ‘foundation stone’ corridors occur have been recently
conservation with a vision for ‘diverse, connected, and prioritized for financial investment under the Australian
healthy landscapes that support and sustain biodiversity, Government’s ‘Caring for our Country’ programme and
communities and wellbeing’. It aims to retain and restore the ‘Biodiversity Fund’ (Australian Government, 2012).
ecological connections and emphasizes a ‘new, Future Australian Government funding of initiatives that
collaborative, whole of landscape approach to have been listed as National Wildlife Corridors may lead
biodiversity conservation…’ It states that the role of the to state governments considering the benefits and
Australian Government is to ‘enable and coordinate the commitments to multi-tenure approaches more carefully,
efforts of all participants’ (DSEWPC, 2012, p. 1). especially where strong community support is
demonstrated.
The plan is in two parts, the first describing the guiding
principles, objectives and foundations of the corridors However, the push towards a much needed national
Plan and the second how the government will aid the policy on wildlife corridors may have had an unintended
establishment of a national network of wildlife corridors. negative consequence for protected area establishment
The plan outlines six corridor initiatives (p. 29) that are and conservation in Australia. Although the National
‘considered important foundation stones for the network Wildlife Corridors Plan states that the National Reserve
of wildlife corridors’: Gondwana Link, the Great Eastern System, Australia’s network of public, private and
Ranges Initiative, Habitat 141°, NatureLinks, Trans- Indigenous protected areas, to be a ‘foundation stone’ of
Australia Eco-Link and Tasmanian Midlandscapes. The the future network of National Wildlife Corridors, shortly
plan provides for the establishment of a National Wildlife after its release the Australian Government announced it

Fish River Station, a 180,000 ha property in northern Australia purchased for conservation and a key property in the ‘Territory
Eco-link’ © James Fitzsimons
was ending nearly two decades of dedicated financial 1. Increased research into social dynamics of
support to expand the National Reserve System networks
(Australian Government, 2012). As funding for Further work is needed to understand the social, political
acquisition of high priority properties was either a key and economic dynamics of landscapes and communities.
stimulus for the creation of new connectivity initiatives Improved knowledge of the social and demographic
or an important mechanism used to advance the goals of characteristics of those landowners participating in
existing initiatives, this decision may slow the connectivity conservation initiatives and those that are
advancement of the corridors concept. Perhaps more not could provide important information and allow
significantly it will almost certainly slow the progress approaches to be tailored to attract landowners in the
towards achieving a comprehensive, adequate and future and to enhance the long-term sustainability of
representative network of terrestrial protected areas in connectivity groups and projects.
Australia.
2. Longer term changes in network
DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH characteristics
As research into multi-tenure connectivity initiatives is Long-term research and analysis of ecological, social,
still in its infancy in Australia (and internationally), there governance and land use attributes would enhance our
remains many areas in need of further research. Further understanding of the forces that shape multi-tenure
investigation of three areas in particular would conservation initiatives. Of particular interest is the
complement the work undertaken in this project and identification of reasons for their persistence or failure.
elsewhere (e.g. Fitzsimons & Wescott, 2007, 2008 a,b,c; The impact that the failure of an established network
Worboys and Pulsford 2011; Wyborn, 2011; Fitzsimons et may have on landowners involved is of particular interest
al., 2013), increase our understanding of networks and because disenfranchisement may lead to negative
connectivity initiatives, and would ultimately lead to an outcomes for biodiversity conservation. Longer-term
increase in the effectiveness of multi-tenure conservation research would also enable a more thorough evaluation
efforts. of the contribution of networks to biodiversity

conservation, the ultimate reason for establishing such There is an urgent need to support and strengthen
initiatives. governance capacity of initiatives to continue to achieve
more efficient and effective conservation outcomes.
3. Comparison with other networks in Australia There is also a need to break down the silos that
and internationally currently exist between supposed different approaches to
Multi-tenure connectively initiatives are proliferating in connectivity and landscape-scale conservation (e.g.
Australia, being established at a range of scales and with biosphere reserves, wildlife corridors, conservation
increased interest by government. Further comparisons management networks) and instead take a more holistic
between the types of initiatives and the scales they view of these multi-tenure conservation initiatives in
operate at, both in Australia and with international policy, planning, research and communication.
initiatives (e.g. greenline parks, transboundary protected
areas, large-scale wildlife corridors), will also provide Whilst governmental support for a framework of
greater insight into the characteristics of multi-tenure corridors is crucial, other sources of funding (from
connectivity networks and their role in protecting corporate to philanthropic) will be important to provide
biodiversity. Ultimately, this will assist in identifying the continuity and scale of resources required to
more effective and efficient models for biodiversity operationalize these grand visions. Given the likely
conservation across the landscape. increase in investment in these initiatives, providing
security for the conservation outcomes achieved from
CONCLUSION that investment (e.g. through conservation covenants
Australia is at a developmental phase in experimenting and other binding agreements) will be an increasing
with a range of different approaches to achieving focus. This is particularly so considering the evolving,
connectivity and landscape-scale conservation, at a range and at times fragile, nature of the initiatives. Finally this
of scales from local, ecosystem-based networks to increase in investment in connectivity conservation
massive continent crossing linkages. This is an exciting initiatives needs to be underpinned by strong monitoring
time for conservation tempered by the need to ensure and research frameworks which ensures that best
that these initiatives complement – not replace – efforts practice is identified (and rewarded) and by an effective
to halt vegetation loss, establish a comprehensive, communication network which ensures that these
adequate and representative reserve system, and address findings are dispersed across all projects in the country.
the continuing threat of climate change. Local
communities, NGOs and some state governments have
led the recent drive for real, on the ground connectivity ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
conservation initiatives. The Australian Government has We thank the contributors to the Linking Australia’s
followed with the National Wildlife Corridors Plan that Landscapes project (Fitzsimons et al., 2013) for their
will provide a guiding national framework which in turn insights and considered contribution to this project,
may increase funding and agency support for initiatives specifically Matt Appleby, Lynn Baker, Georgia Beyer,
from the Australian Government. But such a plan will Keith Bradby, Andrew Bridges, Andrew Cameron, Ben
need bi-partisan long-term (decades not years) political Carr, Stuart Cowell, Rosemary Crane, Jim Crosthwaite,
support, and support from state and local governments, Christine Cumming, Erik Doerr, Veronica Doerr, Rob
if it is to meet its lofty ambitions. Dunn, Sarah Eccles, Nick Edgar, Robyn Edwards, Simon
Ferrier, Trish Fox, David Freudenberger, Jody Gates,
Whilst such national-scale plans (sometimes referred to Jane Greacen, Lainie Grigg, Gary Howling, Stella
as ‘natural infrastructure building’) are vital, it is Kondylas, Judy Lambert, Harvey Locke, Duncan
important to note that most of the on the ground Mackenzie, Brendan Mackey, Ian Mansergh, Toni
initiatives in Australia have developed and evolved in the McLeish, Peter Morison, Wendy Murphy, Sam Niedra,
absence of a national policy framework or direct Lorraine Oliver, Hannah Parris, Hugh Possingham, Ralf
Australian Government support. Considering the current Regeer, Rainer Rehwinkel, Angela Sanders, Peter
strong interest in establishing connectivity initiatives, Spooner, Daniel Sprod, Julia Stanley, David Walker,
this will continue to pose challenges in balancing Philippa Walsh, Stuart Whitten, Graeme Worboys,
demand for support from initiatives in areas which may Carina Wyborn and Charlie Zammit. Glenn Johnstone
not be a high priority for conservation at a national level kindly prepared figure 1 We also thank two anonymous
with encouraging the establishment of initiatives in high referees for helpful comments on a draft of this
priority regions but where there is little local interest. manuscript.

REFERENCES Mansergh, I., Cheal, D. and Fitzsimons, J.A. (2008). Future

landscapes in south-eastern Australia: the role of
Australian Government (2012). One Land-Many Stories:
protected areas and biolinks in adaptation to climate
Prospectus of Investment 2013—2014. Canberra:
change. Biodiversity 9 (3-4): 59-70.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Robins, L. and Dovers, S. (2007). Community-based NRM
Population and Communities.
boards of management: are they up to the task?
Bennett, A. (2003). Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 14:
Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. Gland,
111-122.
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. and Mattiske, E.M. (eds) (1996).
Brunckhorst, D.J., Bridgewater, P. and Parker, P. (1997). The
Nature Conservation 4: The Role of Networks. Chipping
UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Program comes of age:
Norton: Surrey Beatty and Sons.
learning by doing; landscape models for sustainable
Soulé, M.E., Mackey, B.G., Recher, H.F., Williams, J.,
conservation and resource use. In P. Hale and D. Lamb
Woinarski, J., Driscoll, D. and Dennison, W.C. (2004). The
(Eds) Conservation Outside Nature Reserves. (Eds).
role of connectivity in Australian conservation. Pacific
Brisbane: Centre for Conservation Biology, University of
Conservation Biology 10: 266–279.
Queensland. P 176-182.
Soulé, M.E. and Terborgh, J. Eds (1999). Continental
Conlan, M. (2012). Parks and Wildlife to receive funding
Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve
increase. Minister for Parks and Wildlife Media Release, 4
Networks. Washington D.C. USA: Island Press.
December 2012. Available: http://newsroom.nt.gov.au/
Thiele, K. and Prober, S. (2000). Conservation Management
index.cfm?fuseaction=viewRelease&id=10126&d=5
Networks—a model for coordinated protection and
[Accessed 7 December 2012]
management of remnant vegetation. In: Balancing
Crooks, K.R. and Sanjayan, M. (eds) (2006). Connectivity
Conservation and Production in Grassy Landscapes,
Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Proceedings of the Bushcare Grassy Landscapes
DSEWPC (2012). National Wildlife Corridors Plan: A
Conference, Clare, South Australia 19-21 August 1999.
framework for landscape-scale conservation. Canberra,
(Eds T. Barlow and R. Thornburn) pp. 58–63. Canberra:
Australia: Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Environment Australia.
Water, Population and Communities.
UNESCO (1995). Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and
Fitzsimons, J., Pulsford, I. and Wescott, G. (eds) (2013).
the Statutory Framework for the World Network. Paris,
Linking Australia’s Landscapes: Lessons and Opportunities
France: UNESCO.
from Large-scale Conservation Networks. Melbourne,
Woodley, S., Bertzky, B., Crawhall, N., Dudley, N., Londoño,
Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
J.M., MacKinnon, K., Redford, K. and Sandwith, T. (2012).
Fitzsimons, J.A. and Wescott, G. (2005). History and attributes
Meeting Aichi Target 11: What does success look like for
of selected Australian multi-tenure reserve networks.
protected area systems? PARKS 18 (1): 23-36.
Australian Geographer 36: 75-93.
Worboys, G.L., Francis, W. and Lockwood, M. (eds) (2010).
Fitzsimons, J.A. and Wescott, G. (2007). Perceptions and
Connectivity Conservation Management: A Global Guide.
attitudes of land managers in multi-tenure reserve
London: Earthscan.
networks and the implications for conservation. Journal of
Worboys, G.L. and Pulsford, I. (2011). Connectivity
Environmental Management 84: 38-48.
conservation in Australian landscapes. Report prepared
Fitzsimons, J.A. and Wescott, G. (2008a). Evolving governance
for the Australian Government Department of
arrangements in multi-tenure reserve networks.
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Environmental Conservation 35: 5-7.
Communities on behalf of the State of the Environment
Fitzsimons, J.A. and Wescott, G. (2008b). The role of multi-
2011 Committee, Sustainability, Environment, Water,
tenure reserve networks in improving reserve design and
Population and Communities, Canberra.
connectivity. Landscape and Urban Planning 85: 163-173.
Wyborn, C. (2011). Landscape scale ecological connectivity:
Fitzsimons, J.A. and Wescott, G. (2008c). Ecosystem
Australian survey and rehearsals. Pacific Conservation
conservation in multi-tenure reserve networks: The
Biology 17: 121-131.
contribution of land outside of publicly protected areas.
Pacific Conservation Biology 14: 250-262.
HC Coombs Policy Forum (2011). Natural Resource ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Management Policy and Planning in Australia. Synthesis of James Fitzsimons is the Director of Conservation for
broad issues and opportunities: Document I, HC Coombs The Nature Conservancy’s Australia Programme and an
Policy Forum-Fenner School of Environment and Society
NRM initiative. Canberra, Australia: Australian National Adjunct Associate Professor at the School of Life and
University. Environmental Sciences, Deakin University. His
Hilty, J.A., Chester, C. and Cross, M. (2012). Climate and particular research interests are in the fields of protected
Conservation: Landscape and Seascape Science Planning area policy, practical conservation planning and
and Action. Washington, D.C. USA: Island Press.
mechanisms to integrate conservation outcomes on
Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fisher, J. (2006). Habitat
Fragmentation and Landscape Change: An Ecological and public and private lands. He has worked in the fields of
Conservation Synthesis. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO conservation policy and planning for government
Publishing. environment departments and agencies, and for non-
Mackey, B., Watson, J. and Worboys, G.L. (2010). Connectivity government environment organisations. His PhD
Conservation and the Great Eastern Ranges Corridor.
research focused on multi-tenure conservation networks
Sydney, Australia: ANU Enterprises Pty Ltd.
and has been involved with Conservation Management
Network policy in Victoria and securing large-scale expert on a panel advising the Australian Government on
conservation outcomes in the Gondwana Link and the preparation of the National Wildlife Corridors Plan.
Territory Eco-link initiatives.
Geoff Wescott is Associate Professor of Environment at
Ian Pulsford is a specialist in protected areas and Deakin University’s Melbourne Campus. He is a former
linking landscapes, with over thirty two years experience Chair of the Victorian National Parks Advisory Council,
in leadership, senior management, conservation Deputy Chair of Parks Victoria and Chair of the Marine
assessment, policy and practice. He was a divisional and Coastal Community Network. He is currently Vice
manager with the NSW Department of Environment and President of the Australian Coastal Society and a member
Climate Change and then the founding manager of the of Zoos Victoria’s Board of Directors. He is also a
Great Eastern Ranges Initiative from 2007 to 2010. He is member of the Wedderburn Conservation Management
a member of the IUCN WCPA and has served on various Network in Victoria.
government committees, including as an independent
RESUMEN
Australia ha experimentado un rápido crecimiento en la creación de redes de tierras gestionadas para la conservación
de la conectividad, a escala de paisaje y subcontinental. Estas redes se denominan de diversas maneras, incluyendo
reservas de biosfera, corredores biológicos (biolinks), corredores de vida silvestre y redes para la gestión de la
conservación. Su establecimiento ha variado desde iniciativas gubernamentales hasta iniciativas promovidas por
organizaciones no gubernamentales y propietarios de tierras. Examinamos las iniciativas de conservación existentes a
nivel de paisaje para determinar éxitos, fracasos y orientaciones futuras y sintetizamos temas comunes. Estos temas
incluyeron escala, importancia de las redes sociales y económicas, liderazgo, gobernanza, financiación, planificación de
la conservación, función de las áreas protegidas y comunicación. Examinamos el surgimiento de la política nacional
relacionada con los corredores de vida silvestre en Australia y su relación con el compromiso a largo plazo para
construir un sistema de parques nacionales integral, adecuado y representativo. Y por último, destacamos áreas para
futuras investigaciones para proyectos de conservación de la conectividad en Australia.
RÉSUMÉ
L’Australie a connu une croissance rapide du nombre de réseaux de terres gérées dans l’optique d’une conservation de
la connectivité, quels que soient les types de régimes fonciers et l’échelle (par exemple à l’échelle du paysage ou sous-
continentale). Ces réseaux peuvent prendre la forme de réserves de biosphère, de bioliens, de couloirs de la vie sauvage
et de réseaux de gestion de la conservation. Leur création peut être le fait d’initiatives de l’État ou d’organisations non
gouvernementales et de propriétaires intéressés. Nous avons évalué les principales initiatives en faveur de la
conservation à l’échelle du paysage, leurs succès, leurs échecs et leurs orientations futures, et avons rassemblé les
thèmes communs. Ces thèmes incluent notamment l’échelle, l’importance des réseaux économiques et sociaux, le
leadership, la gouvernance, le financement, la planification de la conservation, le rôle des aires protégées et la
communication. Nous avons également étudié l’émergence d’une politique nationale relative aux couloirs nationaux de
la vie sauvage en Australie, et la relation entre cette politique et l’engagement à long terme portant sur la construction
d’un système national de réserves significatif, adéquat et représentatif. Enfin, nous avons souligné les domaines
méritant d’être approfondis pour des projets de conservation de la connectivité en Australie.

Parks 1901

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parks 1901

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parks 1901

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARKS

The International Journal of

Developing capacity for a protected planet

IUCN DEFINES A PROTECTED AREA AS:

IUCN WCPA’s BEST PRACTICE PROTECTED AREA GUIDELINES SERIES

A full set of guidelines is available at: www.iucn.org/pa_guidelines

PARKS: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

Editorial: Wildlife crime poses unique challenges to protected areas 7

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is

Cover photo: Deploying camera traps in MNP, India © WWF India

Produced by: Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley, www.equilibriumresearch.com

Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

EDITORIAL: WILDLIFE CRIME POSES UNIQUE

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

The poacher has often been a romantic figure in popular

THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF WILDLIFE CRIME

Criminal syndicates involved in wildlife trafficking are

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

Illegally poached elephant ivory waits to be burned © WWF-Canon / James Morgan

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

Informant networks around protected area territories are INTERNATIONAL RESPONSES

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PROGRESS TOWARDS THE CBD PROTECTED

* Corresponding author, [email protected]

INTRODUCTION By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

followed with regular updates from partners such as  WDPA

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

NOTES Hockings, M., S. Stolton, and N. Dudley. (2000). Evaluating

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

ARE GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Krishna Prasad Oli1*, Sunita Chaudhary1 and Uday Raj Sharma1

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION in India and western Bhutan (Figure 1 overleaf).

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

Figure 1. Kanchenjunga Landscape showing protected areas and corridors

STUDY AREA 3. Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, India

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

Table 1: Protected areas of the Kanchejunga Landscape

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

4. Reconnaissance survey For the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area (KCA) in

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

Table 2: Evaluation of Protected Areas of Kangchenjunga Landscape for Management Effectiveness

Kanchenjunga CA, Excellent Good Fair Good Good Good Good

Average Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Good

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013

PARKS VOL 19.1 MARCH 2013