Paps 004 en Libro

Protected Areas Programme
Protecting Nature
Regional Reviews of
Protected Areas
J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison , P. Dingwall
Editors
IVth World Congress on National Parks and

Protected Areas , Caracas , Venezuela
Protecting Nature
Regional Reviews of
Protected Areas
Protecting Nature
Regional Reviews of
Protected Areas
J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison , P. Dingwall
Editors
IUCN - The World Conservation Union
1994
The designations of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimination of its frontiers and boundaries.
Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK
IUCN
The World Conservation Union
Copyright: ( 1994) International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial

purposes is authorised without prior permission from the copyright holder.
Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without

the prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Citation: McNeely, J.A. , Harrison, J. and Dingwall, P. (eds) . ( 1994), Protecting

Nature: Regional Reviews ofProtected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. viii + 402pp.
ISBN: 2-8317-0119-8
Cover photograph: Mount Makalu, Nepal : J.A. McNeely
Cover design by: IUCN Publications Services Unit
Produced by: IUCN Publications Services Unit on desktop publishing equipment purchased
through a gift from Mrs Julia Ward.
Printed by: Page Brothers (Norwich) Ltd, UK
Available from: IUCN Publications Services Unit

219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 ODL, UK
or
IUCN Communications and Corporate Relations Division
Rue Mauverney 28, CH- 1196 Gland, Switzerland.
The text ofthis book is printed on Fineblade Cartridge 90 gsm low-chlorine paper
Contents
Page
Preface . . . vii
Introduction : Protected Areas in the Modern World . . . 1
Coastal Marine Protected Areas ... 29
Sub-Saharan Africa 43
North Africa and the Middle East 73
Europe 101
North Eurasia 133
East Asia ... 157
South and Southeast Asia 177
Australia ... 205
Antarctica/New Zealand . . . 229
The Pacific ... . 255
North America 277
Central America . 301
Caribbean ... 323
South America 347
Caracas Action Plan . . . 373
Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 381
List of Countries 385
Index 389
Addendum
Readers should be aware that this publication is based on information

provided at the IV World Parks Congress, held in Caracas, Venezuela in
February 1992. Since then , a number of countries have further developed
their protected areas networks. For example, the Lao People's Democratic
Republic is recorded here as lacking a protected areas system . However,
during late 1993 some 18 Biodiversity Conservation Areas were gazetted,
covering approximately 10 per cent of the country.
Readers are encouraged to consult the 1993 United Nations List of

National Parks and Protected Areas (IUCN, 1994) for more recent
statistical data.
It should also be noted that during 1994 IUCN introduced a revised

system of protected areas Management Categories. This is described in
Guidelinesfor Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 1994) .
Preface
Every ten years, professionals involved in the establishment and management of protected areas
meet to assess the current state of protected areas, exchange information about new approaches to
protected areas management, and agree priorities for action in the coming years. The IV World
Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas was held from 10 to 21 February 1992 , in Caracas,
Venezuela. Over 1,800 individuals-protected areas managers, educators, scientists , politicians ,
tourism operators, and many others-reviewed progress and concerns , and agreed on a series of
new approaches to protected areas , building on the experience of the past.
In preparing for the IV World Congress , it quickly became apparent to the Steering Committee
that a significant review was required of the progress that had been made since the holding of the
III World Congress on National Parks in Bali , Indonesia, in October 1982. Three approaches were
used to collect this information:
■ First, to draw out the key issues , to identify important lessons and future directions , and to
draw attention to the highest priorities for action , views were sought from a range of
professionals from within the respective regions , under the overall guidance of IUCN's
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) . CNPPA Chair P.H.C. (Bing)
Lucas asked each of the Regional Vice- Chairs and the Vice- Chair Marine to prepare reviews
of what they considered the major issues in their respective regions , following the outline
agreed by the Steering Committee . This often involved regional meetings and other forms of
consultation, and in some cases also involved engaging others from within the respective region
to help with compilation and drafting.
■ Second,the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) worked with national protected
area management agencies to produce the four-volume Protected Areas of the World, a
systematic country-by-country account of national protected area systems . These volumes
provided the factual basis to support conclusions made in the regional reviews , and helped
ensure that data were consistent across the regions . The data contained in these volumes have
been up-dated where possible for this book.
■ Third, draft regional reviews were presented at Caracas and discussed by participants from
within each region . Based on the comments received , the reviews were subsequently revised,
some of them very considerably. Early drafts of several ofthe regional reviews— notably South
America, North America , and Europe-were prepared in forms that were two or three times
too long for the purposes of this volume . While the editorial process inevitably led to some
loss in detail, it is hoped that the longer versions can themselves be published separately in the
respective regions.
This book is , therefore, the result of an exhaustive round of consultations , meetings , submis-
sions, and discussions held in all parts of the world, and is the most authoritative single volume
on the protected areas of the world.
The regional reviews would not have been possible without the active participation of the
CNPPA Vice- Chairs , often serving primarily in a voluntary capacity under the wise leadership of
the CNPPA Chair, P.H.C. (Bing) Lucas. Numerous members of the CNPPA network and other
protected area professionals contributed to the reviews, and a number of consultants contributed
to the actual preparation of text; these are acknowledged in the respective regional review. The
World Conservation Monitoring Centre played a valuable role in providing the factual background
and helping in numerous additional ways. The texts were prepared for publication by staff at both
IUCN and WCMC, including Caroline Martinet, Joanna Erfani and Sue Rallo, James R. Paine,
Donald Gordon, Chris Sharpe and Harriet Gillet.
A large number of partners ranging from governments to private foundations-provided the

financial resources necessary to organize and hold the Congress, and to support the preparation of
the Regional Reviews. Bilateral assistance came from the Governments of Venezuela, the
Netherlands , Sweden (SIDA), Finland (FINNIDA), Germany (BMZ-GTZ) , Norway (Ministry of
Environment) , Denmark (DANIDA) , the United States of America (United States Department of
State and Department of Interior National Park Service), the United Kingdom (ODA) , Switzerland
(DDA and Interco-operation) , Canada (Canadian Park Service) and France (Ministries ofForeign
Affairs, Co-operation and the Environment) . Multilateral institutions contributing included:
Commission of the European Communities (CEC) , Inter-American Development Bank (IDB ) ,
The World Bank, United Nations Educational , Scientific , and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) ,
the World Heritage Committee, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) , Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) , United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) , and Agence de Co-operation Culturelle et Technique (ACCT) in France . International
non-governmental organizations and foundations supporting the Congress include: The Nature
Conservancy, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) , the MacArthur Foundation , and the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) . British Petroleum helped support Congress documen-
tation. The World Resources Institute and the Bureau of the Ramsar Convention provided
important services to the Congress. Other institutions provided specific support to certain ofthe
regional reviews, and these are acknowledged in the respective review.
J.A. McNeely, Gland, Switzerland

J. Harrison, Cambridge, UK
P. Dingwall, Wellington, New Zealand
June 1994
Introduction
Protected Areas in the
Modern World
Contents
Page
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Objectives and classification of protected areas 7
3. The world's protected areas 10
3.1 Analysis of protected areas coverage 10
4. Protected areas of the world's regions 13
4.1 The regional approach to protected areas • 13
4.2 Regional comparisons of protected areas . 15
5. Regional reviews of protected areas . 17
5.1 Preparation of the reviews 17
5.2 Format and content of the reviews 18
6. International conventions . .. • 18
7. Conclusion : People and protected area systems 23
References 24
Annex: Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by

biogeographic province . 25
Boxes
Box 1. Conservation objectives for protected areas 8
Box 2 . Categories and management objectives of protected areas 9
Box 3. The modified system of protected areas categories approved at the

IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas 10
Tables
Table 1. Summary of the global system of protected areas by CNPPA region • 5
Table 2a. Summary of the protected areas of the world by IUCN management
category (number of sites) 6
Table 2b. Summary of the protected areas of the world by IUCN management
category (area covered) . . • 7
Page
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system of the world by

CNPPA region • • 11
Table 4. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biome type • • 13
Figures
Figure 1. Number and area of the world protected areas system ( 1992) , by IUCN
management category 9
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (non- cumulative) 11
Figure 3. Biogeographical provinces . Those in black have less than one per cent
within protected areas • 12
Figure 4. Geographical responsibilities of CNPPA Vice - Chairs . 14
Figure 5. Relative development of Categories II and V: Europe compared to the

rest of the world (excluding Europe) . 16
Figure 6. Comparison of the growth of protected areas systems in the Sub- Saharan
and South American realms 16
Figure 7. Comparison of size class: Europe and South and Southeast Asia realms
compared ... • 17
Figure 8. Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites (global) . . 19
Figure 9. Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites

(Europe) 20
Figure 10. Adherence to the World Heritage Convention and location of natural
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List . 21
Figure 11.Participation in the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme and
the location of internationally recognized Biosphere Reserves . 22
Introduction
Protected Areas in the Modern World
Jeffrey A. McNeely, Secretary General ,

IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas
Jeremy Harrison , World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Paul Dingwall , CNPPA Vice-Chair for the Antarctic and New Zealand Region
1. Introduction West, at a time when the indigenous population was

being displaced by immigrants. The West had been
In all parts of the world, people have developed ways thoroughly occupied for thousands of years by a rich
to seek a balance between the interests of individuals diversity of different ethnic groups, but to the European
and the larger interests of society. Many societies immigrants it was a " wilderness" which needed to be
throughout history have recognized certain geographi- "conquered". To maintain at least a sample of this
cal areas ofspecial importance to them , often protecting "pristine" wilderness with a minimum of disturbance,
them against abuse by individuals through religious Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872 in
sanction. Modern industrial society , which has greater
an area which was formerly occupied by Shoshone,
power to affect nature than any of the world's previous Crow, and Blackfoot Indians. A key element ofthe new
civilizations, has greatly developed the idea of pro- national park was that people-except for park staff—
tected areas. were not allowed to live permanently in the area. The
North American model of the pristine national park
Protected areas as we know them were born over a (= no resident population) grew slowly at first, but
hundred years ago in the frontier of the North American beginning in the 1960s many more countries established
Table 1. Summary of the global system of protected areas by CNPPA region .
Area of Area in Area in Categories Total area

Country Region Categories I-V % VI-VIII and UA % designated %
North America 23,433,902 2,560,502 10.9 94,312 0.4 2,654,814 11.3

Europe 5,105,551 462,231 9.1 44,371 0.9 506,602 9.9
North Africa and Middle East 13,118,661 440,724 3.4 36,088 0.3 476,812 3.6
East Asia 11,789,524 424,151 3.6 23,622 0.2 447,773 3.8
North Eurasia 22,100,900 237,958 1.1 0 0.0 237,958 1.1
Sub-Saharan Africa 23,927,581 1,247,997 5.2 1,153,421 4.8 2,401,4181 0.0
South and Southeast Asia 8,866,88 4487,437 5.5 351,266 4.0 838,703 9.5
Pacific 573,690 4,858 0.8 16,803 2.9 21,661 3.8
Australia 7,682,487 814,113 10.6 23,816 0.3 837,929 10.9
Antarctic/New Zealand 13,625,961 34,335 0.3 17,921 0.1 52,256 0.4
Central America 542,750 45,871 8.5 58,213 10.7 104,084 19.2
Caribbean 238,620 22,857 9.6 9,138 3.8 31,995 13.4
South America 18,001,095 1,145,894 6.4 2,465,237 13.7 3,611,131 20.1
Total 149,007,606 7,928,928 5.3 4,294,208 2.9 12,223,136 8.2
Prepared from 1992 data

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km . "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned; categories used are the
1978 system and not the revised system. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may
lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover.
Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews ofProtected Areas
national parks which excluded people, following the significant human influence is not always reflected in
1969 IUCN definition of "national park" as a relatively practice; in South America, for example, a recent IUCN
large area which is not materially altered by human study found that some 86% of national parks had per-
exploitation and occupation, and where the highest manent resident human populations (Amend and Amend,
competent authority of the country has taken steps to 1992) . Further, both governments and international
prevent or eliminate exploitation or occupation in the conservation organizations have recognized that new
whole area. management approaches are needed to build a more
positive relationship with the people who live in and
Experience quickly showed, however, that most parts
around protected areas. This new perspective was first
of the world already had people living there, or at least
given full legitimacy in the World Conservation Strat-
had people with legitimate historical claims to the land.
egy (IUCN, 1980) and was converted into practical
In recognition of the reality that conserving nature advice at the III World National Parks Congress (Bali,
required more flexible approaches to management, many
Indonesia, October 1992) . The title of the Congress
countries began to develop ways to augment the strictly
proceedings, National Parks, Conservation and Devel-
protected national parks , including game reserves,
opment: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining
watershed protection forests , indigenous reserves, rec- Society (McNeely and Miller, 1984), gives a clear indi-
reation forests, and many others. Over 25,000 protected
cation ofthe new directions being advocated.
areas have now been established, covering over 5 per
cent of the globe (an area roughly equivalent to twice After a decade of experience with the new approach,
the size ofIndia) . Only 1,470 of these are national parks a numberofimportant lessons have been learned . Many
of the Yellowstone model , while the rest are given a of these were brought together at the IV World Con-
wide variety of other designations (IUCN, 1990) ; Aus- gress on National Parks and Protected Areas, which was
tralia alone has at least 45 named kinds of protected held in Caracas, Venezuela, in February 1992. Several
areas (see Bridgewater and Shaughnessy, this volume). publications have already resulted from the Congress
(McNeely, 1993; Barzetti, 1993 ; Thorsell, 1992; Har-
To bring some order to this chaos of terms, IUCN
mon, 1992) and many more are in progress . The Caracas
(1978) established ten categories of protected areas Congress provided an opportunity to reassess the cur-
based on management objectives . These categories are rent status and trends of protected areas and to synthe-
far more than just names. While continuing to support size the lessons learned to date. This book is one ofthe
the idea that some areas are so important for national major outcomes of the Congress, presenting a region-
objectives that the highest degree of protection from by-region review of the major protected area issues of
human influence is required , IUCN has also recognized the world.
that the ideal of national parks being places without
Table 2a. Summary of the protected areas of the world by IUCN management category
(number of sites)
I II III IV V TOTAL
North America 70 168 228 482 462 1410

Europe 125 152 41 720 1207 2245
North Africa and Middle East 33 37 2 65 42 179
East Asia 28 19 0 1044 71 1162
North Eurasia 138 15 0 5 2 160
Sub-Saharan Africa 21 206 3 397 26 653
South and Southeast Asia 117 207 6 528 30 888
Pacific 16 11 1 62 8 98
Australia 73 351 1 245 64 734
Antarctica/New Zealand 35 11 5 89 0 140
Central America 8 51 7 61 4 131
Caribbean 17 46 4 81 27 175
South America 55 234 24 176 177 666
Total 736 1508 322 3955 2120 8641

Notes: Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km , except for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean where it is 1 sq km.
"UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned; categories used are the 1978 system and not the
revised system. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
Introduction: Protected Areas in the Modern World
Table 2b. Summary of the protected areas of the world by IUCN management category
(area covered)
I II III IV TOTAL
North America 19,724 1,452,628 184,705 696,293 207,150 2,560,502

Europe 31,070 55,130 3,422 66,138 306,473 462,231
North Africa and Middle East 22,958 139,429 62 232,788 45,487 440,724
East Asia 3,746 72,866 0 309,387 38,153 424,151
North Eurasia 218,493 16,444 0 1,8403 1,176 237,958
Sub-Saharan Africa 25,824 758,064 189 439,090 24,831 1,247,997
South and Southeast Asia 73,555 176,508 211 232,493 4,670 487,437
Pacific 1,948 1,281 12 1,543 76 4,858
Australia 25,835 633,210 15 105,679 49,374 814,113
Antarctica/New Zealand 8,858 21,710 210 3,558 0 34,335
Central America 3,558 31,012 175 11,057 67 45,871
Caribbean 494 8,697 13 6,758 6,896 22,857
South America 83,896 546,325 28,076 281,189 206,404 1,145,894
Total 519,939 3,913,304 217,090 2,387,816 890,757 7,928,928

Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included .
2. Objectives and classification of tables and figures of protected area statistics used in this
volume include only those publicly-owned sites over
protected areas
1,000 hectares in IUCN Management Categories I to
The IUCN categories system is based on a set of 12 V-the so-called UN List criteria). Figure1 illustrates
broad objectives which can guide management deci- the proportion of protected areas found within each of
sions (Box 1 ). It is clear, however, that some of these the five management categories.
objectives may be more compatible than others, and that
Analysis of protected areas statistics using the IUCN
uncontrolled implementation of some of them could
criteria has its limitations, and the regional reviews have
lead to over-exploitation or even destruction of the
brought these clearly into focus. Where countries or
natural values the protected area was established to
regions have many small protected areas, the protected
protect. Logging in a national park, for example, is
areasystem is under-represented in these tables. Europe,
clearly inappropriate, whereas wildlife management and
for example, has many thousands of protected areas
certain types of education , training and research may be
smaller than 1,000ha; in Sweden, 1,200 nature reserves
compatible and even help support sustained-yield for-
totalling 430,000ha are too small to be included, and in
estry. On the other hand, a national park established to
the Netherlands, the extent of protected areas is under-
conserve sample ecosystems and ecological diversity
stated by an estimated 30-40% because it excludes the
can often also support tourism and conserve water-
many small reserves in that country.
sheds.
Many protected areas, often within other sectors such

The 1978 categories system has been the subject of a
as forestry, serve an important conservation function
lengthy review by IUCN's Commission on National
but do not fall within IUCN Management Categories
Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) , beginning in 1988
I-V. In Southeast Asia, for example, almost 500 areas,
and culminating in a workshop at the Caracas Congress;
or about 20% of all protected areas, are Category VI to
a revised version of the categories paper will be pub-
Category VIII areas (under the pre-Caracas system) . No
lished early in 1994. A summary of the definitions used
less significant is the case of Central America, with 71
from 1978 to 1993 (including within this volume) can
Category VI to VIII areas, or 43% of the total number
be found in Box 2. The slightly modified system agreed of protected areas; they cover 3.3 million ha or some
at Caracas includes the addition of wilderness areas to 6% of the territory in the region. The North Eurasia
Category I, the definition of a new Category VI , and the review identifies 1950 sanctuary areas which are not
recognition that those areas of interest in the former included in the UN List; these areas cover more than 67
Categories VI to X should fit within the new Categories million ha, nearly triple the area protected under IUCN
I-VI. This new system is presented in Box 3. Categories I-V.
As well as demonstrating the potential range of man- Countries or regions with a high proportion of their
agement "tools " , categories also provide the framework reserves managed by private trusts or other non-govern-
forcomparing protected area systems, and judging change mental bodies are also under-represented by such statis-
over time. So, for example, unless otherwise indicated, tics . In Europe, many very large areas managed for
Box 1. Conservation objectives for protected areas
1. Sample ecosystems. To maintain large areas as representative samples of each major biological region ofthe
nation in its natural unaltered state for ensuring the continuity of evolutionary and ecological processes,
including animal migration and gene flow.
2. Ecological diversity. To maintain examples of the different characteristics of each type of natural com-
munity, landscape and land form for protecting the representative as well as the unique diversity of the nation,
particularly for ensuring the role of natural diversity in the regulation of the environment.
3. Genetic resources. To maintain all genetic materials as elements of natural communities, and avoid the loss
ofplant and animal species.
4. Education and research. To provide facilities and opportunities in natural areas for purposes of formal and
informal education and research, and the study and monitoring of the environment.
Water and soil conservation. To maintain and manage watersheds to ensure an adequate quality and flow of
ம்
fresh water, and to control and avoid erosion and sedimentation, especially where these processes are directly
related to downstream investments which depend on water for transport, irrigation, agriculture, fisheries, and
recreation, and for the protection of natural areas.
6. Wildlife management. To maintain and manage fishery and wildlife resources for their vital role in
environmental regulation , for the production of protein, and as the base for industrial, sport, and recreational
resources.
Recreation and tourism . To provide opportunities for healthy and constructive outdoor recreation for local
residents and foreign visitors, and to serve as poles for tourism development based on the outstanding natural
and cultural characteristics of the nation.
8. Timber. To manage and improve timber resources for their role in environmental regulation and to provide
a sustainable production of wood products for the construction of housing and other uses of high national
priority.
9. Cultural heritage . To protect and make available all cultural, historic and archaeological objects , structures
and sites for public visitation and research purposes as elements of the cultural heritage of the nation.
10. Scenic beauty. To protect and manage scenic resources which ensure the quality of the environment near
towns and cities, highways and rivers, and surrounding recreation and tourism areas.
11. Options for the future. To maintain and manage large areas of land under flexible land-use methods which
conserve natural processes and ensure open options for future changes in land use, incorporate new
technologies , meet new human requirements, and initiate new conservation practices as research makes them
available.
12. Integrated development. To focus and organize conservation activities to support the integrated development
of rural lands, giving particular attention to the conservation and utilization of "marginal areas" and to the
provision of stable rural employment opportunities.
(after Miller, 1980)
conservation objectives are in private ownership . The Clearly, then, the UN List does not document the full
County Nature Trusts in the United Kingdom, for ex- extent of global protection but rather indicates a very
ample, own or lease some 2,000 nature reserves cover- conservative picture of the protected area estate. The
ing 52,000ha. About half of the protected areas in regional reviews in this book demonstrate that reality is
Belgium are not State-owned, and in Switzerland non- only partially reflected in statistics; and that manage-
governmental organizations own 520 nature reserves ment problems bedevil protected areas of all categories.
covering 80,000ha. New Zealand currently has almost The latter issue is discussed in detail in each of the
600 protected areas in reserves or covenants over pri- reviews.
vate land, covering more than 20,000ha, and such areas
are growing rapidly in number.
Box 2. Categories and management objectives of protected areas
I. Scientific Reserve/Strict Nature Reserve. To protect nature and maintain natural processes in an undisturbed
state in order to have ecologically representative examples ofthe natural environment available for scientific
study, environmental monitoring, education, and for the maintenance of genetic resources in a dynamic and
evolutionary state.
II. National Park. To protect natural and scenic areas of national or international significance for scientific,
educational, and recreational use.
III. Natural Monument/Natural Landmark. To protect and preserve nationally significant natural features
because of their special interest or unique characteristics.
IV. Managed Nature Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary. To assure the natural conditions necessary to protect nationally
significant species, groups of species, biotic communities, or physical features of the environment where
these require specific human manipulation for their perpetration.
ས.
Protected Landscapes. To maintain nationally significant natural landscapes which are characteristic of the
harmonious interaction of man and land while providing opportunities for public enjoyment through
recreation and tourism within the normal life style and economic activity of these areas.
VI. Resource Reserve . To protect the natural resources of the areas for future use and prevent or contain
development activities that could affect the resource pending the establishment of objectives which are based
upon appropriate knowledge and planning.
VII. Natural Biotic Area/Anthropological Reserve . To allow the way of life of societies living in harmony with
the environment to continue undisturbed by modern technology.
VIII. Multiple-Use Management Area/Managed Resource Area. To provide for the sustained production of water,
timber, wildlife, pasture, and outdoor recreation , with the conservation of nature primarily orientated to the
support of the economic activities (although specific zones may also be designated within these areas to
achieve specific conservation objectives) .
(after IUCN, 1978)
Figure 1. Number and area of the world protected areas system ( 1992) by IUCN
management category
II
II
III
I
I
III
IV V
V
IV
Number of sites Area covered

Box 3. The modified system of protected areas categories agreed at the IV World
Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas
I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area. Areas of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or repre-
sentative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific
research and/or environmental monitoring; or large areas of unmodified or slightly modified land , and/or
sea, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which are
protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.
II. National Park: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for Ecosystem Conservation and Recreation. Natural
areas of land and/or sea , designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems
for this and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation
of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor
opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.
III. Natural Monument: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for Conservation of Specific Features. Areas
containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding or unique value
because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.
IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for Conservation Through Manage-
ment Intervention . Areas of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as
to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species.
V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for Landscape/Seascape Conservation

and Recreation. Areas of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature
over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, cultural and/or ecological
value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is
vital to the protection , maintenance and evolution of such an area.
VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: Protected Areas Managed Mainly for the Sustainable Use of Natural
Ecosystems . Areas containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of
natural products and services to meet community needs.
3. The world's protected areas practical target for each ofthe biogeographic provinces.
Rather than consolidation , the decade after Bali was one
3.1 Analysis of protected areas of continued growth (Figure 2) . Indeed , Table 3 illus-
coverage trates that more than 50% ofthe area protected has been
established since 1982 in five regions: North Africa/
IUCN has been working for many years to promote Middle East, East Asia, North Eurasia, Central America,
development of a global protected area system that and the Caribbean.
would ensure adequate representation of the full range
of biome types. In 1975 IUCN developed a bio-geo- An analysis of coverage using IUCN's classification
graphic structure for assessing protected areas coverage was presented at the Bali Congress (Harrison et al.,
at the global level (Udvardy, 1975) , dividing the world 1984) , but this was of limited value because at that time
into eight realms, each of which was sub-divided into a no estimate ofthe area of each biogeographical province
number of biogeographic provinces (a total of 193 in the was available, and hence percentage coverage could not
world, as listed in the Annex). Each province is charac- be calculated . These estimates have since been made,
terised by one of 14 major biome types (listed in the and an analysis was first published in 1992 for the
Annex). United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-
opment (WCMC, 1992). Some 46 ofthe 193 terrestrial
At the III World Congress on National Parks and provinces (24 per cent) have reached the 10 per cent
Protected Areas in 1982, many participants were con- target (Annex) .
cerned that the following decade would be one of con-
solidation rather than growth. However, the meeting A summary of coverage by biome (Table 4) gives a
was essentially forward looking, and one of the objec- first approximation of how well the major ecological
tives of the Bali Action Plan (McNeely and Miller, formations are protected, suggesting that particular at-
1984) was to establish by 1992 a worldwide network of tention should be paid to the further development of
national parks and protected areas to cover all terrestrial protected areas in temperate grassland regions, and in
and marine ecological regions. A figure of 10 per cent the major lake systems. Analysis by biogeographical
of the land area was agreed to be an appropriate and province, while still crude, provides a more detailed
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative)

2,500
Number of sites
2,000
Area (x1000sqkm )
1,500
1,000
500
0
1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Five year period beginning.....
picture of coverage. The Annex also highlights a num- However, analysis using biogeographical classifica-
ber of provinces where protection appears to be less tions is not entirely satisfactory, and many habitat/eco-
than adequate, with 38 out of 193 provinces having less system types are not adequately covered by this approach.
than 1% of their area protected; Figure 3 shows the In a study of mountain protected areas, for example,
location ofthose provinces. Review of the Annex indi- Thorsell and Harrison (1992) used altitudinal range as a
cates where priorities might lie for the further develop- means to identify those areas of interest, and provided
ment of protected area systems. an inventory of more than 400 sites. They concluded
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system of the world by CNPPA region
% area % area % area % area Date Total

established established established established established area
up to 1962 1962-1971 1972-1981 1982-1991 unknown designated
North America 19.2 5.1 70.1 5.6 99,367 2,560,500

Europe 15.4 20.9 36.1 27.6 12,918 460,671
North Africa and Middle East 1.4 9.1 28.2 61.4 8,630 440,725
East Asia 7.4 3.3 25.5 63.8 19,574 427,414
North Eurasia 17.0 12.3 19.9 50.8 0 237,956
Sub-Saharan Africa 42.5 24.1 17.1 16.3 13,620 1,247,998
South and Southeast Asia 7.5 4.4 53.5 34.6 9,539 487,435
Pacific 52.4 6.1 26.8 14.8 47 4,857
Australia 4.1 17.3 74.9 3.8 143,057 814,113
Antarctic/New Zealand 73.7 11.3 10.9 4.1 2,033 34,334
Central America 1.3 1.4 21.4 75.9 314 45,869
Caribbean 16.5 6.3 12.4 64.8 4,911 22,857
South America 10.1 14.6 37.8 37.4 3,313 1,145,891
Total 14.3 9.7 38.0 38.0 317,322 7,930,629

Notes: Areas are given in square kilometre. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are
included. Categories used are the 1978 system, not the revised system. Similar tables can be produced based on
number of sites rather than area covered. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in size
has occured, or a change indesignation, this may distort the figures.
protected
areas
cent
within
than
per
one
black
less
have
T
in
provinces
Biogeographical
Figure
.3.hose
Table 4. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biome type
Biome Type Area (sq km) Number Area (ha) %
Tropical humid forests 10,513,210 506 53,833,388 5.1

Subtropical/temperate rainforests/woodlands 3,930,979 899 36,629,731 9.3
Temperate needle-leaf forests/woodlands 15,682,817 429 48,722,746 3.1
Tropical dry forests/woodlands 17,312,538 799 81,755,123 4.7
Temperate broad-leaf forests 11,216,660 1,507 35,823,999 3.2
Evergreen sclerophyllous forests 3,757,144 776 17,758,448 4.7
Warm deserts/semi-deserts 24,279,842 300 98,400,670 4.1
Cold-winter deserts 9,250,252 136 36,472,009 3.9
Tundra communities 22,017,390 78 164,504,267 7.5
Tropical grasslands/savannas 4,264,833 59 23,512,784 5.5
Temperate grasslands 8,976,591 194 6,998,248 0.8
Mixed mountain systems 10,633,145 1,277 85,249,420 8.0
Mixed island systems 3,252,270 530 32,276,920 9.9
Lake systems 517,694 17 663,486 1.3
Based on 1992 data

Notes: Protected areas are excluded from the above analysis if location is unknown.
that further attention needed to be focused on increasing often better served by support activities within the region.
protection in the Atlas range, Antarctica, the Alps, To meet these needs, CNPPA is organized regionally,
Papua New Guinea, the Hindu Kush, and the mountains broadly following the realms of Udvardy ( 1975), but
of Burma. Other habitat-specific reviews at interna- modified by political reality to clearly identify which
tional levels cover wetlands, coastal marine habitats countries lie within which regions (Figure 4 and the List
(see Kelleher and Bleakley, this volume) , and so on. of Countries). The regions can briefly be described as
follows:
BirdLife International (previously the International
Council for Bird Preservation) has been developing South America. A natural unit, including the whole
techniques for identifying key areas for birds (Endemic continent, and corresponding to the southern part of
Bird Areas, or EBAs) through study ofthe distributions Udvardy's Neotropical Realm .
ofbird species with relatively narrow ranges. Some 221
■ Central America . A less natural unit because the
EBAs have been identified and mapped (Bibby et al.,
northern boundary excludes Mexico (which lies
1992), and reviews of the coverage of EBAS by pro-
partly in the Neotropical Realm). However, the
tected areas have been carried out for some countries , countries south of Mexico and north of Colombia
demonstrating that perhaps as many as 20% of the have numerous features in common, and have united
EBAs have no protected areas. Other approaches to to form a regional programme for conservation of
identify important sites at the international level include
biological diversity and protected areas. It therefore
the many species action plans being developed by IUCN's seems sensible to recognize this unity.
Species Survival Commission . The quest for an effec-
tive and representative global system of protected areas ■ Caribbean. This region includes all of the island
is continuing. nations and states ofthe Caribbean sea, but not the
surrounding " mainland" . Although not in the Carib-
bean Sea, Bermuda is also included.
4. Protected areas of the world's
■ North America. This covers the region from Mex-
regions
ico northwards, comprising all of the Nearctic Realm
4.1 and small parts ofthe Neotropical Realm in southern
The regional approach to
Mexico and the Everglades. It is a small region in
protected areas terms of number of countries, but two of the coun-
tries Canada and the USA-are huge, and have
A regional approach to international activities on pro- been world leaders in protected areas.
tected areas has several benefits. Central America is
different from Africa, and each is different from Oceania ■ Europe. A difficult region to define , being attached
and North America; yet a region has many cultural, geographically to Asia and influenced by an extraor-
historical , and biogeographical factors in common . The dinarily complex history. All of it lies within the
needs ofprotected areas managers- especially in man- Palaearctic Realm. For historical reasons, only the
agement and building public support are therefore Baltic republics of the former Soviet Union are
C
Vice
CNPPA
-of
Geographi
4.hairs
Figure ities
cal
responsibil
North
Eurasia
$
Europe
North
America
East
Asla
East
/iddle
M
Africa
North
Garibbean
Centra
America
and
South
Pacific Sub
Saharan
-
Africa East
-
South
Asia Pacific
America
South
Australla
Zealand
N
/ ew
Antarctic
included in this CNPPA region at present, although 4.2 Regional comparisons of

at least the Ukraine, Belarus and parts of the Russian protected areas
Federation are technically within Europe.
■ North Africa and the Middle East. This region lies As these CNPPA regions are defined using political
almost completely within the Palaearctic Realm , but boundaries, it is relatively easy to generate a range of
is nonetheless rather artificial in its geographical protected area statistics which illustrate protected area
boundaries; however, it has sufficient cultural ho- coverage of these regions, and the development of the
mogeneity to be treated as a unit. protected areas over time. Some of this information can
be compared with the global biogeographic tables and
■ Sub-Saharan Africa. This region corresponds closely figures presented above.
tothe Afrotropical Realm , with only a few relatively
minor differences along the northern boundary. It is clearfrom Table 1 , for example, that considerable
differences exist between regions. North America and
■ North Eurasia. This region, all within the Pa-
Australia each have some 10 per cent of their land area
laearctic Realm, includes the Russian Federation—
declared as protected, while Europe, Central America,
still the world's largest country- and most of the
and the Caribbean have over 8.5 per cent. At the other
formerrepublics of the Soviet Union . While most of
end of the scale, North Africa and the Middle East, East
the territory is geographically in Asia, most of the
Asia, North Eurasia, the Pacific, and Antarctica have
population is located within the European part ofthe
region. As can be concluded from the review, this is less than 4 per cent protected , although individual coun-
a region of rapid changes and will certainly be tries, such as New Zealand, have well developed and
presented differently at the next Congress . extensive protected area systems. Comparison with simi-
lar tables within each region highlights the range of
■ East Asia. This region excludes the former Soviet coverage between nations. In fact the area for most
Union but includes all of China. Most of it is within concern is probably North Eurasia (the republics of the
the Palaearctic Realm, but the southern boundary former Soviet Union) , as most of Antarctica is de facto
encompasses two biogeographical provinces that protected (and protected de jure, under the Antarctic
are included within Udvardy's Indomalayan Realm: Treaty), and the Pacific has a range of effective pro-
Taiwan and the South Chinese Rainforest. As with tected areas which do not easily fit within IUCN man-
North Africa and the Middle East, this region as agement categories I-V. Plans certainly existed for
defined has sufficient cultural homogenity to justify development of the protected area system before the
treatment as a single unit. breakup of the Soviet Union (see Nikolskii, this vol-
ume), and it will be interesting to follow developments
■ South and Southeast Asia. This is another difficult
in this region over the next decade.
region to define, with somewhat artificial boundaries. It
includes most ofthe Indomalayan Realm , but India,
The figures in Tables 2a and 2b show the absolute
Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar all have
number of sites and area protected in each of the man-
areas that are technically in the Palaearctic Realm ,
agement categories in each of the regions. These figures
some parts of southern China (East Asia) are in the
Indomalayan Realm but are included in the East reveal many interesting comparisons. For example, North
Asian region, and the Eastern Indonesian islands America has twice as much area in national parks as any
(including Irian Jaya, the Indonesian part of New other of the regions, even though sub- Saharan Africa,
South and Southeast Asia, and South America have
Guinea) are included, although biogeographically in
the Oceanian Realm. more individual national parks than North America, and
Australia has twice as many. Category V is mostly
■ Pacific. This area corresponds closely to the Oceanian European, including more than half of all Category V
Realm , but with the Eastern Indonesian islands ex- areas in the world; Antarctica and New Zealand have
cluded. It is united by collaboration through the none currently included. North Eurasia has the most
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme sites in Category I, twice as many as the next region
(SPREP) and a regular series of South Pacific Con- (South America) and ten times as many as North Amer-
servation Conferences. ica. But North Eurasia also has the fewest Category IV
and only two Category V areas. Category III is a North
■ Australia. This is a natural unit, corresponding
American category, with five times as many as Europe ;
precisely with Australian Realm. It is also unusual
East Asia and North Eurasia have no Category III areas,
in comprising only one country, although the Aus-
tralian states have considerable autonomy. while Australia and the Pacific have just one each . The
differences in categories are the result of a range of
■ New Zealand and Antarctica. This region corre- factors, including population settlement patterns and
sponds precisely to the Antarctic Realm of Udvardy, conservation history, as explained in the individual
though politically it is somewhat awkward because reviews. However, it is clear that the full range of
so many distant countries have claims or interests in categories is not being utilized in many parts of the
Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic islands. world, or at least is not being utilized in the same way.
Figure 5. Relative development of Categories II and V: Europe compared to the rest of

the world (excluding Europe)
1,400
1,200
World Europe
1,000 (excluding Europe)
800
600
400
200
Number — Year — Year

of sites
Category II Category V
Figure 6. Comparison of the growth of protected areas systems in the Sub-Saharan

and South American realms
1,400 South America Sub-Saharan Africa
1,200
Number
sq.km
,000
rea
sites
1,000
of
x
A
1
/
(
)
800
600
400
200
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Five year period begining ...

Figure 7. Comparison of size class: Europe and South and Southeast Asia realms
compared
hectares
covered
Size class frequency
number
)( illion
Area
1000
class
15
sites
each
of
900
m
in
800
T
700
T
10
600
T
500
T
400
300
T
200
100
Palaearctic (Europe) South and Southeast Asia
Table 3 and Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate the substan- confirmed by the IUCN Council and is responsible for
tial differences between regions in rates of establishment coordinating the work of CNPPA within the respective
of protected areas. Especially striking are the differ- region. One ofthe most important tasks during the past
ences in rates of establishment between Africa and the several years has been to compile the regional reviews
other tropical regions, presumably the result of an early which are contained within this volume.
desire to protect areas with " big game" species in the
These reviews are each the result of considerable
Africa savanna, followed by a period of consolidation
consultation within the respective regions. In some re-
and tourism development. Africa therefore would ap-
pear a very high priority for implementing additional gions, this involved special working sessions of CNPPA
(as in South and Southeast Asia and the Caribbean). In
categories of protected areas which meet the needs of
others, it involved convening task forces (Europe, North
local people (see Olindo, this volume).
Africa and the Middle East, Africa, and South Amer-
The information provided on number of areas and ica), while in still others it involved considerable con-
area covered suggests strong regional differences. These sultation among the involved parties, often taking ad-
differences are often a reflection of opportunity, so, for vantage of other meetings being held in the region on
example, the Pacific and the Caribbean do not have related topics (North America, Australia, the Pacific,
much opportunity for establishment of particularly large North Eurasia, East Asia, and New Zealand and Antarctica).
areas, while population density in Europe tends to re-
strict the size of new protected areas there. Figure 7 To ensure that marine protected areas were given
provides a comparison of protected area size class fre- sufficient emphasis, the CNPPA Vice-Chair for coastal
quency between Europe and South and Southeast Asia, marine protected areas was requested to prepare a global
clearly illustrating the bias toward smaller sites in Europe, review for marine protected areas. This involved the
a theme explored further in the European review paper establishment of 13 task forces to cover each of the
(see Synge and Bibelriether, this volume). marine regions. Since the boundaries of these regions
are rather different from the terrestrial areas, we have
kept this report separate, although marine and coastal
5. Regional reviews of protected issues are also dealt with in each of the regional reviews.
areas
This preparatory process was designed to strengthen
5.1 Preparation of the reviews the network of protected areas professionals in each
region, to feed ideas and information to the Caracas
For each of the regions outlined above, the CNPPA Congress, and to make best use of the results of the
Chair has selected a Regional Vice-Chair who has been Congress. It also helped to build consensus about the
Protecting Nature : Regional Reviews ofProtected Areas
major issues facing protected areas in the region, and at both national and international levels from
the approaches needed to address them. The process both private and public institutions, and state the
therefore contributed to the preparation of the Caracas priorities for investment in the region.
Action Plan and the Congress Report (McNeely, 1993)
as well. 8. Major protected areas issues in the region.
Gives each of the regions an opportunity to
5.2 Format and content of the reviews present the most important issues for them, in-
cluding relations between local people and pro-
Each ofthe Regional Vice-Chairs was asked to follow tected areas , involvement by the private sector
a general format, applied to the particular conditions of in the establishment and management of pro-
the region. Each review covers the following: tected areas, the relationship between protected
areas and surrounding lands, protected areas and
1. Historical perspective. Provides a brief geo- science, and threats to effective management
graphical introduction to the region, how the (both internal and external).
protected areas system has been developed over
time, factors influencing the establishment of 9. Priorities for action in the region. Drawing
protected areas systems, participation in major from the analysis in the previous pages, each of
international protected areas programmes, ma- the reviews concludes with a section on action
jor actions that have been taken, and lessons priorities. This section varies somewhat in form ,
learned. length, and content, designed in each case to be
useful to the respective region . For several ofthe
2. Current protected area coverage. Includes regions, this section provides the basis for a
data on the current system of coverage per coun- much more detailed action plan which has been
try, categories of protected areas, and how well developed through a subsequent process ofcon-
current systems cover major habitat types. sultation, discussion, and collaboration.
3. Additional protected areas required. Cov-

ers, in summary form, the major gaps in the
6. International conventions
protected area system of the region: what is
required to ensure that the protected areas ofthe
region are effective in protecting biodiversity, For a wide range of activities, conservation action can
benefit greatly from an international approach or per-
representing the full range of habitats, meeting
the needs of recreation and tourism , protecting spective. Some sites are of such value to mankind that
the global community as a whole should take action for
water supplies and genetic resources, and meet-
ing the many other needs of society that require their protection. Some habitat types are under threat in
maintaining land and water under reasonably many parts of the world, yet can be tremendously pro-
natural conditions. ductive if used in the right way. International coordina-
tion of research and training within protected areas
4. Protected areas institutions. Identifies the networks can have a multipier effect if the results of
kinds of institutions which are involved in the such efforts are shared.
establishment and management of protected ar-
eas, showing a very broad range indeed. The The Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Impor-
linkages between protected area institutions and tance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (signed in Ramsar,
other development sectors is also covered. Iran, in 1971 ) provides a framework for international
co-operation for the conservation of wetland habitats. It
5. Current levels of financial investment in pro-
places general obligations on states relating to the con-
tected areas. Designed to present information servation of wetlands throughout their territories , with
on expenditures by governments and private
special obligations pertaining to those wetlands desig-
organizations on protected areas . However, this nated to the List of Wetlands of International Impor-
kind of information has proved difficult to col- tance.
lect in a reasonably complete way, and the infor-
mation contained here can be considered only a
Wetlands are defined by the convention as: areas of
first approximation.
marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artifi-
6. Human capacity in protected areas manage- cial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static
ment. Intended to highlight the number of or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of
people directly employed by protected areas and marine waters, the depth of which at low tide does not
the numbers indirectly employed as a result of exceed six metres. More than 600 sites are now listed,
the establishment of protected areas; as with in more than 80 countries (Figures 8 and 9) , although
financial investment, such figures are elusive. representation in large parts of Africa and Central and
Southeast Asia is still rather low. By far the greatest
7. Priorities for future investment in protected number of listed sites is to be found in Europe, although
areas. Designed to identify current action plans the larger sites tend to be elsewhere.
Ramsar
(global
)sites
of
location
and
Convention
Figure
to
Adherence
8.
Parties
Contracting
Listed
Wetlands
Monitoring
Centre
Conservation
the
World
Prepared
by
E
) urope
Ramsar
sites
location
(of
Convention
and
Adherence
to
Figure
9.
List
Heritage
on
inscribed
properties
natural
of
location
and
Convention
Heritage
World
the
to
Adherence
10.
Figure
Parties
Contracti ng
Listed
natural
sites
Monitoring
Conservation
World
the
by
Prepared
Centre
Figure
recognized
internationally
of
location
the
Programme
Biosphere
and
Man
UNESCO
the
in
Participation
11.
Reserves
Biosphere
nations
Participating
Reserves
Biosphere
Prepared
by
World
the
Conservat
Monitorin
Centre gion
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the and protected areas in a world of growing human popu-
World Cultural and Natural Heritage (adopted in Paris lations and growing demands for resources. The ap-
in 1972) provides for the designation of areas of "out- proach to protected area management advocated in the
standing universal value" as World Heritage sites, with regional reviews and at Caracas involves partnerships
the principal aim of fostering international co-operation with a wide range of interest groups, for the benefit of
in safeguarding these important areas. Sites are inde- people, protected areas, and biodiversity. This approach
pendently evaluated for their world heritage quality faces formidable challenges. Many protected area staff
before being declared, and include both natural and are convinced that a cooperative approach could ulti-
cultural sites; only natural sites are considered here. mately reduce the quality of the protected area; they
believe that strong legislation supported by vigorous
The World Heritage Convention considers as natural law enforcement is the best option for long-term con-
heritage, among other qualities: servation. And indeed, experience has shown that local
people sometimes are as likely as anyone else to misuse
■ natural features of outstanding scientific value
privileges under cooperative management. Even so,
■ geological or physiographical formations which are given the insufficient staff and logistical support likely
of global significance to be available to most protected areas for the foresee-
■ particularly significant areas for threatened species able future, the "strict preservationist approach" would
not only be impossible to implement, but would even
■ natural features of outstanding natural beauty be of doubtful validity on conservation grounds. The
proposed conciliatory and cooperative approach may be
The World Heritage Convention has more signatories
the only viable option in the conditions of today
than any other conservation convention, with 136 state
(Ishwaran, 1992).
parties as of September 1993. Figure 10 illustrates the
distribution of contracting parties, and of the hundred
This compromise means that the more that basic
or so natural and mixed natural/cultural sites inscribed
human needs can be met by protecting natural areas, the
on the List of World Heritage (there are many more
better are the chances of survival for those areas. Since
cultural sites listed).
demands on resources can only be expected to continue
The establishment of Biosphere Reserves is not cov- to grow, it is necessary tojustify existing protected areas
ever-more convincingly and to establish new areas un-
ered by a specific convention, but is part of an interna-
tional scientific programme, the UNESCO Man and the der a range of management regimes which can adapt to
Biosphere (MAB) Programme. Biosphere Reserves dif- varying local conditions and human requirements.
fer from the preceding types of site in that they are not
exclusively designated to protect unique areas or impor- People should have no illusions about the severity of
tant wetlands, but for a range of objectives which in- the problems protected areas will face in the coming
clude research, monitoring, training and demonstration, years. The conflicts of tomorrow will be even more
as well as conservation roles. Figure 11 illustrates the difficult than those of today, as resource scarcity, climate
distribution of Biosphere Reserves, and of countries change, economic imbalance, population growth, expand-
participating in the programme. ing consumption, and continuing use of inappropriate
technology form a witch's brew of challenges to pro-
tected areas, and to sustainable use of the environment
7. Conclusion : People and as a whole. But such challenges mean that protected
protected area systems areas have an even more important part to play in
securing a productive future for the people of our planet.
The regional reviews contained in this book all reflect The regional reviews contained in this volume suggest
great concern about the relationship between people the most productive way to proceed .
References
Amend, S. and Amend, T. (eds.) 1992. Espacios Sin IUCN, 1990. 1990 United Nations List of National
Habitantes? Parques nacionales de America del Parks and Protected Areas. Prepared by WCMC.
Sur. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 497 pp. IUCN , Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. 275pp.
Barzetti, V. (ed.). 1993. Parks and Progress: Protected McNeely, J. A. and Miller, K.R. (eds.) . 1984. National
Areas andEconomic Development in Latin America Parks, Conservation, andDevelopment: The Role of
Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian
and the Caribbean. IUCN-IADB , Cambridge , UK.
240 pp. Institution, Washington, D.C. 825pp.
McNeely, J. A. (ed.) 1993. Parksfor Life: Report ofthe
Bibby, C. et al . ( 1992) . PuttingBiodiversity on the Map:
Ivth World Congress on National Parks and Pro-
priority areas for global conservation. ICBP ,
tected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 252 pp.
Cambridge, UK.
Miller, K.R. ( 1980) . Planificación de Parques Nacion-
Harmon, D. (ed.) . 1992. Research in Protected Areas: ales para el Erodesarrollo en Latinoamérica.
Results from the IV World Congress on National Fundación para la Ecologia y para la Protección del
Parks and Protected Areas. George Wright Forum Medio Ambiente, Madrid. 500pp.
9(3-4): 17-168. Thorsell , J.W. 1992. WorldHeritage TwentyYears Later.
Harrison, J. , Miller, K.R. and McNeely, J.A. 1984. The IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 191 pp.
World Coverage of Protected Areas: Development Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A Classification of the Bio-
Goals and Environmental Needs. In: National Parks, geographical Provinces of the World. IUCN
Conservation, and Development: The Role ofPro- Occasional Paper No 18. IUCN, Morges, Switzer-
tected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian land. 49pp.
Institution Press , Washington, DC . World Commission on Environment and Development.
1987. Our Common Future (Brundtland Report).
Ishwaran, N. 1992. Biodiversity, protected areas and
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 400pp.
sustainable development. Nature and Resources,
28(1): 18-25. IUCN (1992). Protected Areas ofthe World: a review
of national systems. Vol 3: Afrotropical. IUCN,
IUCN, 1978. Categories, Criteria, and Objectivesfor Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. xxii + 360pp.
Protected Areas. IUCN, Morges, Switzerland. 26 pp. Thorsell, J. and Harrison, J. 1992. National Parks and
IUCN, 1980. The World Conservation Strategy: Living Nature Reserves of the Mountain Regions of the
Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. World. In: Parks, Peaks, and People. East-West
IUCN/UNEP/WWF/, Gland, Switzerland. 48 pp. Center, Honolulu , USA.
Annex
Annex. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biogeographic

province
Biogeographic
Province Area (sq km) Number Area (ha) %
Nearctic Realm
Sitkan 349,903 81 17,200,857 49.2
Oregonian 124,604 28 899,012 7.2
Yukon Taiga 1,019,584 27 20,311,463 19.9
Canadian Taiga 5,127,155 276 18,027,793 3.5
Eastern Forest 2,222,997 192 4,995,285 2.2
Austroriparian 596,892 97 1,220,070 2.0
Californian 526,507 13 864,516 1.6
Sonoran 507,770 38 10,053,623 19.8
Chihuahuan 577,181 19 582,187 1.0
Tamaulipan 210,371 3 50,232 0.2
Great Basin 660,356 21 723,283 1.1
Aleutian Islands 124,511 9 7,909,534 63.5
Alaskan Tundra 958,491 25 30,942,068 32.3
2002
Canadian Tundra 1,733,377 19 19,820,110 11.4
Arctic Archipelago 689,965 0 0.0
Greenland Tundra 498,731 0 0.0
Arctic Desert and Icecap 2,120,078 98,250,000 46.3
Grasslands 2,442,342 69 771,140 0.3
Rocky Mountains 1,578,491 144 13,369,600 8.5
Sierra-Cascade 228,720 81 2,838,038 12.4
Madrean-Cordilleran 763,250 85 2,341,251 3.1
Great Lakes 254,499 12 513,634 2.0
Palaearctic Realm
Chinese Subtropical Forest 862,946 80 1,925,831 2.2

Japanese Evergreen Forest 266,882 481 2,836,969 10.6
WestEurasian Taiga 4,000,000 116 6,569,354 1.6
East Siberian Taiga 5,536,078 11 4,574,986 0.8
Icelandian 101,591 21 916,741 9.0
Subarctic Birchwoods 100,000 13 253,410 2.5
Kamchatkan 283,311 1 1,099,000 3.9
POMENOMONWE
British Islands 266,599 100 3,966,218 14.9

Atlantic 715,955 119 4,476,827 6.3
Boreonemoral 1,285,235 162 1,892,415 1.5
Middle European Forest 1,467,342 394 6,883,956 4.7
Pannonian 102,530 33 352,216 3.4
WestAnatolian 37,610 4 10,691 0.3
Manchu-Japanese Mixed Forest 1,252,284 168 3,275,407 2.6
Oriental Deciduous Forest 2,751,446 201 6,436,349 2.3
Iberian Highlands 316,084 112 2,842,288 9.0
Mediterranean Sclerophyll 1,194,658 218 3,654,932 3.1
Sahara 6,960,804 18 22,908,200
Arabian Desert 2,996,082 31 5,929,560
Anatolian-Iranian Desert 2,203,749 45 20,029,973
Turanian 2,116,829 15 1,394,217
Takla-Makan-Gobi Desert 2,184,554 19 12,000,342
Tibetan 1,268,119 3 24,367
Iranian Desert 403,527 9 980,732
Arctic Desert 195,915 5 3,491,000 17.8
Higharctic Tundra 859,865 2 2,228,650
16
Lowarctic Tundra 2,158,146 1,348,708 0.6

Atlas Steppe 421,541 91,498 0.2

province (cont . )
Biogeographic
Pontian Steppe 1,945,402 25 1,254,610 0.6

Mongolian-Manchurian Steppe 2,605,123 17 2,253,280 0.9
Scottish Highlands 46,791 37 707,955 15.1
Central European Highlands 369,903 390 6,289,887 17.0
Balkan Highlands 221,241 103 983,029 4.4
Caucaso-Iranian Highlands 936,015 69 5,444,834 5.8
Altai Highlands 1,048,263 7 2,282,136 2.2
Pamir-Tian-Shan Highlands 643,207 30 6,091,096 9.5
Hindu Kush Highlands 217,105 5 183,438 0.8
Himalayan Highlands 860,070 79 8,257,297 9.6
Szechwan Highlands 578,558 56 2,687,788 4.6
Macaronesian Islands 14,032 10 111,634 8.0
Ryukyu Islands 2,479 5 39,064 15.8
Lake Ladoga 17,606 1 40,972 2.3
Aral Sea 67,548 1 18,300 0.3
Lake Baikal 32,260 0 0 0.0
Afrotropical Realm
Guinean Rain Forest 607,048 23 1,323,245 2.2
Congo Rain Forest 1,921,970 24 7,017,294 3.7
Malagasy Rain Forest 200,573 15 455,055 2.3
West African Woodland/Savanna 3,247,618 81 17,885,256 5.5
East African Woodland/Savanna 1,510,608 71 14,283,895 9.5
Congo Woodland/Savanna 1,356,749 5 3,774,000 2.8
Miombo Woodland/Savanna 2,432,142 38 14,839,500 6.1
South African Woodland/Savanna 1,694,787 104 8,034,713 4.7
Malagasy Woodland/Savanna 324,074 19 614,774 1.9
Malagasy Thorn Forest 70,676 2 44,950 0.6
Cape Sclerophyll 129,683 52 1,895,490 14.6
Western Sahel 2,814,709 12 6,171,240 2.2
Eastern Sahel 1,169,711 4 4,846,000 4.1
Somalian 2,166,783 27 4,327,969 2.0
Namib 364,602 7 9,596,653 26.3
Kalahari 504,861 10 9,977,287 19.8
Karroo 377,735 18 465,532 1.2
Ethiopian Highlands 505,387 7 1,606,000 3.2
Guinean Highlands 80,030 4 1,394,613 17.4
Central African Highlands 269,463 8 4,435,825 16.5
East African Highlands 65,457 11 267,700
South African Highlands 198,957 38 433,201 2.2
Ascension and St Helena Islands 187 0 0 0.0
Comores Islands and Aldabra 1,860 1 35,000 18.8
Mascarene Islands 4,494 3 9,553
Lake Rudolf 7,331 0 0
Lake Ukerewe (Victoria) 69,504 1 45,700
Lake Tanganyika 3,275
Lake Malawi (Nyasa) 28,949 1 8,700
&
Indomalayan Realm
Malabar Rainforest 223,556 44 1,029,983 4.6
Ceylonese Rainforest 31,104 1 7,648 0.2
Bengalian Rainforest 179,943 18 445,362 2.5
Burman Rainforest 257,585 2 20,455 0.1
Indochinese Rainforest 452,508 61 2,922,444 6.5
Annex
88ERSEEUNNUNE
province (cont .)
Biogeographic
JEAN
South Chinese Rainforest 188,979 53 354,128 1.9

Malayan Rainforest 179,164 23 1,273,648
Indus-Ganges Monsoon Forest 1,412,232 129 5,568,180
Burma Monsoon Forest 297,201 29 580,200
Thailandian Monsoon Forest 959,750 62 2,453,175
Mahanadian 219,436 29 1,096,956 5.0
Coromandel 88,401 4 156,528
Ceylonese Monsoon Forest 34,912 42 776,060 22.2
Deccan Thorn Forest 338,415 9 193,975
Thar Desert 711,809 39 4,567,577 6.4
Seychelles and Amirantes Islands 204 2 2,893
Laccadives Islands 0 0 0 0.0
Maldives and Chagos Islands 36 0 0 0.0
Cocos-Keeling and Christmas Island 0 1 8,700
Andaman and Nicobar Islands 6,225 9 66,777
Sumatra 461,939 36 4,907,720 10.6
Java 137,874 42 1,083,654 7.9
Lesser Sunda Islands 86,613 19 538,540 6.2
Sulawesi (Celebes) 197,144 37 2,523,242
820
Borneo 740,970 62 4,229,634
Philippines 292,156 27 572,866
Taiwan 36,558 5 288,577 7.9
Oceania Realm
Papuan 960,158 35 6,817,897 7.1
Micronesian 2,170 10 4,390 2.0
Hawaiian 16,715 31 283,604 17.0
Southeastern Polynesian 4,162 13 64,745 15.6
Central Polynesian 4,171 6 37,154 8.9
New Caledonian 16,723 29 256,418 15.3
East Melanesian 32,655 4 6,049 0.2
Australian Realm
Queensland Coastal 300,248 74 8,167,080 27.2
Tasmanian 67,979 24 1,389,936 20.4
Northern Coastal 350,382 12 1,288,199 3.7
Western Sclerophyll 410,814 125 2,659,804 6.5
Southern Sclerophyll 246,678 67 1,707,985 6.9
Eastern Sclerophyll 643,808 169 3,592,493 5.6
Brigalow 231,581 12 393,932 1.7
Western Mulga 778,120 15 2,260,773 2.9
Central Desert 1,777,073 17 9,895,645 5.6
Southern Mulga/Saltbush 837,032 14 5,870,350 7.0
Northern Savanna 580,938 10 2,609,598 4.5
Northern Grasslands 966,966 6 669,628 0.7
Eastern Grasslands/Savannas 527,831 51 1,007,736 1.9
Antarctic Realm
Neozealandia 270,000 122 2,897,136 10.7
Maudlandia 10,465,150 5 196,325 0.0
Marielandia 2,193,955 0 0 0.0
Insulantarctica 19,206 10 317,872 16.6
Neotropical Realm
Campechean 259,164 20 1,230,420 4.7

province (cont . )
Biogeographic
Panamanian 40,065 8 1,046,599 26.1

Colombian Coastal 237,201 9 1,127,620 4.8
Guyanan 1,009,104 33 2,499,469 2.5
Amazonian 2,509,392 36 20,091,134 8.0
Madeiran 1,671,819 5 1,212,128 0.7
Serro Do Mar 243,787 57 3,609,676 14.8
Brazilian Rain Forest 1,533,869 59 1,525,542 1.0
Brazilian Planalto 219,152 5 18,207 0.1
Valdivian Forest 111,933 12 4,016,359 35.9
Chilean Nothofagus 123,711 7 3,919,882 31.7
Everglades 6,827 14 807,859 118.3
Sinaloan 192,114 3 176,000 0.9
Guerreran 158,439 6 128,857 0.8
Yucatecan 39,959 2 106,970 2.7
Central American 309,974 56 1,606,618 5.2
Venezuelan Dry Forest 270,319 41 4,636,901 17.2
Venezuelan Deciduous Forest 58,928 16 896,127 15.2
Equadorian Dry Forest 50,343 4 184,314 3.7
Caatinga 899,739 7 249,461 0.3
Gran Chaco 988,513 15 1,380,155 1.4
Chilean Araucaria Forest 32,867 2 45,414 1.4
Chilean Sclerophyll 57,331 8 147,008 2.6
Pacific Desert 290,390 2 48,824 0.2
Monte 1,234,810 26 849,018 0.7
Patagonian 413,118 24 1,319,095 3.2
Llanos 437,988 3 1,141,025 2.6
Campos Limpos 207,269 6 10,863,872 52.4
Babacu 293,021 6 903,050 3.1
Campos Cerrados 1,778,650 28 7,325,611 4.1
Argentinian Pampas 512,152 15 345,795 0.7
Uruguayan Pampas 522,200 12 1,288,780 2.5
Northern Andean 256,507 18 3,738,251 14.6
Colombian Montane 154,776 23 4,465,461 28.9
Yungas 483,142 18 4,410,485 9.1
Puna 464,873 19 2,339,310 5.0
Southern Andean 662,939 51 10,694,145 16.1
Bahamas-Bermudean 12,821 8 136,119 10.6
Cuban 109,758 34 328,128 3.0
Greater Antillean 95,752 49 968,717 10.1
Lesser Antillean 6,604 48 167,919 25.4
Revilla Gigedo Island 196 0 0 0.0
Cocos Island 0* 1 2,400 ?
1207
Galapagos Islands 7,665 766.514 100.0

Fernando De Noronja Island 0* 37,941 ?
South Trinidade Island 11 0 0.0
Lake Titicaca 7,245 36,180 5.0
Notes: Protected areas are excluded from the above analysis if location is unknown.
Based on 1992 data
¹Excludes marine component of the Galapagos Islands National Park
*Area ofbiogeographical province unknown
Coastal Marine
Protected Areas
Location
CNPPA
regions
marine
Figure
of
1.
น
Contents
Page
1. Historical perspective 33
1.1 Management of the marine environment • 33
1.2 Progress since Bali 34
1.3 Participation in major international protected area programmes 35
2. Current protected area coverage . . . 36
3. Additional protected areas required • 36
4. Marine protected area institutions . . . 37
5. Current levels of financial investment in marine protected areas 37
6. Human capacity in protected areas management . 38
7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas 38
8. Major global marine protected area issues . 38
8.1 Public participation in planning and management of the coastal zone • 38
8.2 Marine protected areas and surrounding lands and seas 39
8.3 Marine protected areas and science 39
8.4 Threats to marine protected areas 39
8.5 Legal considerations 40
9. Priorities for action ... 41
References 42
3
30
33
Figure 1. Location of CNPPA marine regions .

3
Box 1. Basic definitions for marine protected areas 34
Table 1. Distribution of marine protected areas 36

Coastal Marine Protected Areas
Graeme Kelleher, Vice- Chair Marine , IUCN Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas; and Chris Bleakley, IUCN Special Projects Officer ,
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
1. Historical perspective World Cultural and Natural Heritage (known as the

World Heritage Convention) was developed to give
international recognition to areas "of outstanding uni-
1.1 Management of the marine
versal value"; these could include marine areas.
environment
Also in 1972, the Governing Council of the United
The need to devise methods to manage and protect Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was given
marine environments and resources became widely re- the task of ensuring that emerging environmental prob-
cognized internationally during the course ofthe 1950s
lems of wide international significance received appro-
and early 1960s. Thus, the First World Conference on
priate and adequate consideration by Governments.
National Parks (1962) considered the need for pro- UNEP thus established its Regional Seas Programme to
tection of coastal and marine areas but the development address problems on a regional basis, by the establish-
of practical responses to this need required a legal
ment of Action Plans with a particular emphasis on
framework for addressing the sovereignty and juris-
protecting marine living resources from pollution and
dictional rights of nations to the seabed, beyond the
over-exploitation . The first such Action Plan was adopt-
customary three-mile territorial sea. In 1958 four con-
ed for the Mediterranean in 1975. Some 14 Regional
ventions, known collectively as the Geneva Conven-
Seas Projects now cover all of the world's marine
tions on the Law of the Sea were adopted : the Conven-
regions.
tion on the Continental Shelf; the Convention on the
High Seas; the Convention on Fishing; and the Conven- In 1975, IUCN conducted a conference on Marine
tion on Conservation of the Living Resources of the Protected Areas in Tokyo. The report of that conference
High Seas. noted increasing pressures upon marine environments
and called for the establishment of a well-monitored
Increasing technical capability to exploit mineral re-
system of Marine Protected Areas representative of the
sources on or beneath the sea bed and to exploit fishery world's marine ecosystems.
resources in deep waters led to the long-running Third
United Nations Conference of the Law ofthe Sea, held In 1981 , a workshop was organized as part of the
between 1973 and 1982. The outcome of the nego- UNESCO Division of Marine Science COMAR (Coastal
tiations was to enable nations to take a number of and Marine) Programme to consider research and train-
measures, including those related to regulation of fishing priorities for coral reef management. An outcome
ing and the protection of living resources of the con- of this workshop , which was held in conjunction with
tinental shelf, to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the IV International Coral Reef Symposium, was the
their national jurisdictional baseline . These measures publication of the UNESCO Coral Reef Management
provide a legal basis upon which the establishment of Handbook (Kenchington and Hudson, 1984).
marine protected areas and the conservation of marine
resources could be developed in areas beyond territorial In 1982, the IUCN Commission on National Parks
seas. and Protected Areas (CNPPA) organized a series of
workshops on the creation and management of marine
During the 1970s there was increasing recognition and coastal protected areas as part of the III World
and mounting concern regarding the regional nature of Congress on National Parks held in Bali, Indonesia.
the environmental problems of the marine living re- This led to the publication by IUCN of Marine and
sources ofthe world. In 1971 , the Convention on Wet- Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and
lands of International Importance Especially as Water- Managers (Salm and Clark, 1984).
fowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) was developed , de-
fining wetlands to include many coastal marine habi- UNESCO organized the First World Biosphere Reserve
tats. In 1972 , the Convention for the Protection of the Congress in Minsk, USSR in 1983. At that meeting it
Box 1. Basic definitions for marine protected areas
Primary goal of marine conservation
The primary goal of marine conservation and management is: "To provide for the protection , restoration, wise
use, understanding and enjoyment of the marine heritage of the world in perpetuity through the creation ofa global,
representative system of marine protected areas and through the management, in accordance with the principles
ofthe World Conservation Strategy, of human activities that use or affect the marine environment".
Definition of marine protected areas
The term " marine protected area" is defined as: "Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying
water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective
means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment".
Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN General Assembly also recommended that as an integral component of marine
conservation and management, each national government should seek cooperative action between the public and
all levels of government for development of a national system of marine protected areas. This resolution and
primary goal have provided the focus for CNPPA's marine programme.
was recognized that the Biosphere Reserve concept is statement of a primary goal and defined the term " ma-
potentially applicable to the marine environment and rine protected area" (Box 1).
that an integrated , multiple use Marine Protected Area
can conform to all of the scientific, administrative and 1.2 Progress since Bali
social principles that define a Biosphere Reserve under
the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Pro- The Bali Action Plan was the product of the III World
gramme. Congress on National Parks and called for the incor-
poration of marine and coastal protected areas into the
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and worldwide protected areas network. The following sec-
Development (WCED) published its report Our Common tion is a summary of activities that have been under-
Future, which highlighted the importance of marine taken in pursuit of this objective:
conservation . In November of the same year, the Gen-
Develop and distribute concepts and tools for establishing
eral Assembly of the United Nations welcomed the
marine protected areas
WCED report. At the same time, it adopted the " En-
vironmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond" , The development and distribution of concepts and tools
which was developed by UNEP in tandem with the relating to marine conservation and marine protected
WCED report. In 1988 UNEP and IUCN published the areas has proceeded steadily since 1982. Some of the
three volume Coral Reefs ofthe World, a global direct- major publications since that time include: Kenchington
ory of coral reefs prepared by the then IUCN Conser- and Hudson ( 1984) , Salm and Clark ( 1984) and Kelleher
vation Monitoring Centre. These and other publications and Kenchington ( 1992).
have highlighted the serious threats which confront
marine areas around the world. Although a significant information base exists to
guide the planning and management of marine pro-
Despite these initiatives, conservation in the marine tected areas, concepts that are accepted by the ma-
environment has lagged far behind that forthe terrestrial majority of marine conservationists are still sometimes
environment, and an integrated approach to the man- met with suspicion. To overcome this further effort is
agement of the global marine ecosystem is yet to be required to make information available to those respon-
implemented. As a result, many marine areas now face sible for marine protected areas, particularly in develop-
serious problems, including: stress from pollution degra- ing countries, to decision makers , other resource man-
dation; depletion of resources, including species; con- agers and to the public in general.
flicting uses of resources; and damage and destruction
of habitat. Develop a classification system for categories ofmarine
protected areas
Recognizing these problems, the IVWorld Wilderness The IUCN Protected Areas classification adopted by
Congress in 1987 passed a resolution which established CNPPA (McNeely and Miller, 1984) can be applied to
a policy framework for marine conservation. A similar the marine environment with little conceptual diffi-
resolution was passed by the 17th General Assembly of culty. In doing so it should be recalled that marine
IUCN in February, 1988. These resolutions adopted a conservation is most often successful when it is based
CoastalMarine Protected Areas
upon large-scale, integrated , multiple-use regimes , of environmental problems, particularly as relates to the
which more highly protected areas are one component. management of MPAs.
Category V and Category VIII protected areas fulfil an
important role in providing a means to address the Encourage the establishment of marine protected
areas
problems of resource allocation and management of
conflicting uses that are the fundamental source of There has been considerable progress in establishing
many ofthe threats to marine environments.
new marine protected areas. In 1970 , 27 nations had 118
marine protected areas. By 1985, 430 MPAs had been
Further develop and distribute biogeographical clas-
sification systems for marine protected areas proclaimed by 69 nations, with another 298 proposals
under consideration. A recent estimate from data gath-
In seeking to develop a globally representative system ered by CNPPA and GBRMPA, in cooperation with
of marine protected areas the eventual aim is to cover WCMC and the World Bank, is that 1,182 MPAs have
and represent biogeographic variation and biodiversity been established in over 120 countries.
at all levels. The first step is to examine broad bio-
geographic variation. 1.3 Participation in major
international protected area
CNPPA's approach has been to encourage the use of
programmes
biogeographic classification systems already in exist-
ence, rather than trying to impose a single global clas-
sification system. The intention is to support the use of Biosphere reserves
systems which have already been developed and are in
The applicability of UNESCO's biosphere reserve con-
use, recognising that the practical results of the applica-
cept-in which human activity is specifically provided
tion of different rationally-based biogeographic clas-
for within buffer and transition zones surrounding highly
sification systems are likely to be very similar. This
protected core areas-is particularly high in the marine
approach has the advantage of building on the activities
environment. WCMC lists 101 biosphere reserves with
of regional and national bodies who have developed
a marine (including estuarine) or littoral component. Of
systems to best suit their own particular conditions and
these, 10 areas have a substantial sub-tidal compo-
requirements.
nent.
There is no doubt that further refinements of ap-
proaches to marine biogeographic classification will World Heritage sites
continue to be made. Such improvements should be
encouraged to proceed in parallel with efforts to es- The World Heritage List is one mechanism used to
tablish and improve the management of MPAs. provide protection to outstanding examples of import-
ant marine ecosystems and habitats . Nomination of an
Incorporate scientists, managers, administrators, and area to World Heritage status can provide significant
supporters of marine conservation into the protect- impetus to conservation measures because it places an
ed areas community obligation on signatory nations to provide effective
management. Member countries commit themselves to
Strengthening the marine protected areas community ensuring the identification, protection, conservation,
remains as important now as it was ten years ago at Bali, presentation and transmission to future generations of
although significant progress has been made since that World Heritage properties.
time. CNPPA has established a network of 18 working
groups across major geopolitical marine regions , with Twenty-three World Heritage sites are listed byWCMC
the specific objective of promoting the establishment of as having a marine or littoral component. Of these , 10
a global representative system of marine protected areas. include a sub-tidal area as a substantial component of
IUCN also has a network of individuals who promote the site. This represents a small proportion of the total
its activities in marine conservation generally. number ofWorld Heritage sites (90 " natural " sites as of
December 1992) .
The greatest challenge facing those concerned with
building support and involvement in marine protected The Ramsar Wetlands Convention
areas remains increasing the participation of user and
industry groups. In many instances these groups view In adhering to the Ramsar Convention, governments
marine protected areas with suspicion, and see their undertake, among other things, to promote the wise use
own interests directly threatened by the establishment ofwetlands and to create wetland reserves. An area can
ofMPAs. Such groups need to be convinced of the need be listed by having identified international significance
for management of the marine environment and of the in ecological, botanical, zoological, limnological or
role of MPAs in management, and reassured that pro- hydrological values. For the purposes ofthe Convention
vision will be made for existing uses, on an ecologically "wetlands" are defined as "areas of marsh, fen, peatland
sustainable basis, within a nation's marine areas. There or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or
is also a need to increase the involvement of scientists temporary ... including areas of marine water the depth
and the application of science to the solution of marine of which at low tide does not exceed six metres ".
WCMC record that 23 Ramsar sites include a marine Table 1. Distribution of marine protected
or littoral component. Of these, only 3 areas are listed areas
as having a substantial sub-tidal component. The bene-
fits to signatories of the Convention can include assist- Approximate
Marine Region number of MPAS
ance with monitoring, production of management re-
ports, direct funding assistance to improved manage-
ment of listed sites, designating new sites, promoting 1 Antarctic 23
wise use, and regional and promotional activities. 2 Arctic 10
3 Mediterranean 46
4a NW Atlantic 45
The International Maritime Organisation 4b NE Atlantic 34
4c N Atlantic-Baltic 24
5 Wider Caribbean 76
The concept of Sensitive Areas and Particularly Sensitive
6 West Africa 125
Areas has been adopted by the International Maritime
7 South Atlantic 25
Organisation (IMO) to enable the development of com-
8a Indian Ocean 25
mon jurisdictional and enforcement regimes for en-
8b North West Indian Ocean 24
vironmentally significant marine areas. The manage-
8c South East Africa 9
ment measures for international shipping which may
9 Southeast Asia 83
then be considered by the IMO for application within
10 Central & South Pacific 49
such areas include compulsory pilotage, traffic separa-
11a NE Pacific 54
tion schemes, the declaration of areas to be avoided by
11b NW Pacific 201
international maritime traffic and controls on substances
12 SE Pacific 25
discharged from shipping. The initiative provides an
13 Australia 304
important mechanism for gaining recognition by the
IMO, and indeed the wider international community, of Total 1,182
the need for special protective measures in environ-
mentally sensitive marine areas. The Great Barrier Reef These areas are also shown on Figure 1 .
was identified by MEPC as the world's first Particularly
Sensitive Area in November 1990. Other areas con- In none of the marine regions can there be said to be
sidered for this status are the Galapagos Islands and adequate representation of biogeographic variation, let
parts ofthe Baltic Sea. alone of more detailed levels of biodiversity. Even in
the Wider Caribbean and in the Baltic Sea, where the
initial step of achieving representation of broad bio-
Regional conventions geographic types has generally been achieved, there is
a need to look in greater detail at ecosystem properties
and processes, at habitats and at species. In the Mediter-
Under UNEP's Regional Seas Programme several re-
ranean region, where around 6 per cent of the coastline
gions now have conventions which include a protocol
is included in protected areas, some of the most critical
which support the establishment of marine protected
ecosystems, the seagrass meadows and the wetlands,
areas. These regions include the Mediterranean, Carib-
bean, the South East Pacific and East Africa. In the urgently require protection (Batisse and de Grissac,
1991).
South Pacific the ' Convention for the Protection ofthe
Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific
Region ' (SPREP Convention) provides a similar found- 3. Additional protected areas
ation, while in the Baltic the recently revised Helsinki
required
Convention now includes provisions calling for habitat
and species conservation. Action is now urgently required to identify the marine
areas which require protection and to determine priorities
for the implementation of appropriate protective mea-
sures. In doing so, criteria under the following broad
2. Current protected area coverage
headings need to be considered: naturalness, biogeographic
importance, ecological importance, economic importance,
Adataset ofprotected areas with marine (including estuarine) social importance, scientific importance, international or
and littoral components has been provided by WCMC as national significance, and practicality/feasibility.
a contribution to this review. Further data have been
gathered by CNPPA and the GBRMPA under a project In selecting areas a degree of pragmatism is required.
for the World Bank Environment Department. Approxi- Selection ofareas should not be based on degrees ofthreat
mate figures forthe number of MPAs in each ofCNPPA's alone. Inthe case where two equally valuable marine areas
marine regions are listed in Table 1. It must be emphasized are being considered for inclusion in marine protected
that the data in Table 1 do not give any indication of the areas, declaration of an area which is less "threatened", and
effectiveness of the protection afforded by these marine for which there is less competition from other user groups,
protected areas. may be more likely to succeed politically, while at the
same time achieving conservation objectives. An MPA of representatives of local government and community
which is opposed by the local community is unlikely to interests, with the specific function of achieving in-
achieve such objectives. tegrated planning, research and management of the
marine coastal zone in accordance with the principles
International experience has shown that it is often a of ecologically sustainable development.
mistake to postpone , by legislation or otherwise, the estab-
lishment and management of MPAs until extensive re- Because of the proven difficulty that organisations
search and survey programmes have been completed. and individuals have in simultaneously attempting to
Often, sufficient information already exists to make stra- achieve two goals-in this case , economic development
tegically sound decisions regarding the boundaries of andecological protection-these Authorities should not
MPAs andthe degree of protection to be provided to zones be responsible for detailed management of individual
or areas within them. Postponement of such decisions sectoral activities, such as fisheries or tourism. Such
often leads to increasing pressure on the areas under activities should continue to be managed by existing
consideration and greater difficulty in making the even specialist agencies. However, the Marine Management
tual decision. Authorities could have the following responsibilities
and functions:
New objectives are also stimulating the creation of
new marine protected areas. Marine biodiversity is now ■ development, in association with interest groups
recognized to be an important aspect of marine con- and the community generally, of a strategic plan for
servation. In considering marine biodiversity and the the marine coastal zone;
role of marine protected areas it is important to recog-
nise on the factors that make particular areas critical ☐ oversight of coastal development to ensure that it is
both in terms of ecosystem processes and properties. ecologically sustainable ;
Marine areas of relatively low diversity, such as salt
■ design and management of comprehensive moni-
marshes, mangroves and seagrass beds, are crucial to
toring programmes which will define the state ofthe
the health of marine ecosystems because their high marine coastal environments and the trends in en-
productive capacity contributes greatly to the food chain. vironmental parameters ;
Other areas that must come under consideration are
those sites of importance to breeding cycles and to ■ design and management of contracted, multidiscipli-
migratory species. Courtship areas , spawning grounds, nary, ecological research programmes aimed at solv-
nursery areas, migratory corridors and stopover points ing environmental problems;
are examples. Identifying the critical ecosystem pro-
design and implementation of comprehensive com-
cesses is a challenge in itself, and yet it is one that must
munity involvement and education programmes de-
be addressed inthe search to develop a system of marine
signed to achieve voluntary acceptance by the com-
protected areas which adequately represents and pro-
tects global marine biodiversity. munity of policies, programmes and actions which
will lead to ecologically sustainable development.
Particular emphasis should be placed on educating
4. Marine protected area the young .
institutions
To the maximum extent practicable, specific man-
Most marine protected areas are managed by govern- agement programmes and actions should be carried out
ment. This responsibility can rest with either a single by existing agencies, with the Marine Management
agency or with several, and can include Fisheries and Authorities concentrating on policy, strategy, planning,
Forestry or Agriculture ministries. The responsibilities design and supervision of research programmes and
of the agencies are not always clearly defined, and the co-ordination . The enabling legislation should override
conservation aspects of management may conflict with conflicting provisions of existing legislation.
the resource optimisation objectives of such agencies.
These government agencies are in some instances bureau- In the absence of an organisational framework that
cratic and very slow to respond to management chal- provides for integrated management, the energies of
lenges. people and governments will continue to be dissipated
in intersectoral conflicts, incompatible activities, inef-
In many regions the institutions and legislative frame- ficient developments, and research that is not relevant
work for developing integrated marine protected areas to achieving ecologically sustainable development.
system have not been established. Even where such
agencies are established they must still compete with
5. Current levels of financial
sectoral administrations such as tourism, mariculture
and fishing which often are expanding at a rapid rate. investment in marine protected
areas
As the first step towards fully integrated coastal zone
management, one option is the establishment of Marine It has not been possible for this review to determine the
Management Authorities, with representatives of na- level of investment within marine protected areas on a
tional and state governments as well as a small number detailed regional or global basis due to a lack of available
information . However, the phenomenon of " paper management and the skills to undertake and super-
parks" is not confined to terrestrial protected areas vise the conduct of management tasks.
alone, and may be even more prevalent among marine
■ Rangers, enforcement personnel , volunteers-for
protected areas. As a general statement, even in count-
an understanding of management and to develop the
ries which are establishing marine protected areas, man-
special skills appropriate to the tasks to be under-
agement is often inadequate, or totally lacking, due to
taken.
insufficient resources, staff, training and equipment.
Effective management of an MPA requires adequate Education

funding levels for management planning, research, moni-
toring and assessment of impacts and public educa- To be effective, management must be supported by
tion/information. Many MPAs have opportunities for educational measures to ensure that those affected are
generating this revenue through activities such as tour- aware oftheir rights and responsibilities under the man-
ism fishing, and other forms of use. The user-pays agement plan and that the community supports the goal
principle is increasingly being applied in natural re- of the legislation. Few countries could afford the cost
sources management. Unfortunately, it is not often the of effective enforcement in the presence of a generally
case that revenue generated is directed towards man- hostile public. Conversely, costs of enforcement can be
agement of the area; more typically it is directed into very low where public support exists .
general revenue. Directing these fees towards man-
A well-designed education and public involvement
agement provides an incentive to the managing agency
programme can generate political and public enthu-
to develop efficient and effective forms of charging.
siasm forthe MPA and its goal and objectives. Estab-
lishment of the idea that it is the people's MPA will
6. Human capacity in protected generate pride and commitment.
areas management
7. Priorities for future investment
Training in protected areas
There is a world-wide shortage of trained staff to develop A global representative system of marine protected
and implement management measures in marine pro- areas will make an important contribution to the con-
tected areas. The pressing need , particularly in devel- servation of marine biodiversity and ecologically sus-
oping countries, is for marine management training as tainable development. Each nation has a contribution to
opposed to marine science training (Kenchington, 1990). make towards the establishment of this global repre-
sentative system by ensuring that its marine habitats are
Different forms of training are needed for different adequately protected in MPAs.
levels within the management structure. The objective
must be to achieve the understanding needed for effective The highest priority for future investment in MPAs
implementation of management. Such training should should be to ensure that each national government with
include: a stretch of coastline has the financial and institutional
capacity, and the political commitment, to develop a
■ Policy makers, heads of state , government min- national system of marine protected areas.
isters, parliamentarians, congressmen, local govern-
ment and community leaders-for understanding
8. Major global marine protected
the purpose of management and the importance of
area issues
the managed environment.
At a high level, those responsible for management 8.1 Public participation in planning
within the designated agency-for detailed under-
and management of the coastal
standing and philosophical framework of the man- zone
agement task.
At a high level, those responsible for management Many marine areas, especially those in the coastal zone,
are characterized by rich resources and a complex array
in related or interacting agencies-for understand-
ofhuman uses. Any use ofthe coastal zone will have an
ing the interaction of management with the function
of their own agencies. impact on the natural resources and on other competing
uses. It therefore follows that planning for use of the
■ At the level ofthose responsible for oversight of the marine coastal zone, and protected areas in particular,
management programme-for an understanding of requires a carefully orchestrated process of participa-
the roles of management and of the components of tion.
the management task.
Involvement and active participation of users ofmarine
At the level of those responsible for undertaking environments in development of legislation and in es-
management- for an understanding of the roles of tablishing, maintaining, monitoring and implementing
management of MPAS is almost always of key im- 8.2 Marine protected areas and
portance to the acceptability and success of manage- surrounding lands and seas
ment. It is thus highly desirable that the concept of
public or user participation be established in legislation.
In the sea, currents constantly carry sediments, nutri-
This should be expressed in terms appropriate to the ents, pollutants and organisms through an area, and
social structure, conventions and government structure because of the ability of wind and tide generated cur-
relevant to the area in question. The key requirement is rents to mix water masses, particularly in continental
that procedures are sufficiently detailed to ensure ef- shelf areas , events originating outside the boundaries of
fective and appropriate public participation. a MPA often affect populations within it. The principle
of a buffer zone protecting a core site from impact is
Accordingly, opportunities should be provided for the well established, and should be applied to MPAs.
public to participate with the planning or management
agency in the process of preparing management and Integrated coastal management and planning which
zoning plans for MPAs including: the preparation ofthe promotes a comprehensive, multi-sectoral, integrated
statement of MPA purpose and objectives; the pre- approach to the use and conservation of coastal areas,
paration of alternative plan concepts; the preparation of habitats and resources is required . The scale and link-
the final plan; and any proposed major changes to the ages of marine environments makes their conservation
plan. clearly a matter of broad-based management of human
uses and impacts. The basic requirement for marine
environment and resource protection is the manage-
It is essential to include the needs of traditional users
ment of human use and impacts in very large areas.
of the marine resources within the framework of coastal-
zone management. In most cases an approach to pro- The development of institutional regimes to achieve
tection is only likely to be successful if it is based upon such integrated management ofthe marine environment
traditional patterns of ownership. The cultures of the and adjacent lands must be a top priority for the coming
Pacific Islands, Japan, and of other areas throughout decades.
Asia and Africa are intimately related to the natural
resources ofthe open sea and the coastal zone, and have
8.3 Marine protected areas and
a long tradition of using these resources on a sustainable
basis. Attempts to impose management regimes which science
conflict with these traditions will not be accepted by
local populations and will prove impossible to im- The level ofunderstanding of the ecology of the marine
plement. Given the general shortage of resources which world is a great deal lower than it is for terrestrial
afflicts many management agencies, the most efficient environments. Improving this situation will be import-
use of these resources will be achieved when working ant in providing the basis for developing sustainable
in harmony with the needs of the local human pop- management regimes and in attempting to repair the
ulation. damage caused in the past. Both marine scientists and
marine managers must realise the central role played by
marine science in assisting the rational management of
The form and content of legislation under which the oceans and the need for marine scientists to direct
MPAs are established should also be consistent with the
their energies towards the solution of environmental
legal, institutional and social practices and values ofthe problems.
nations and peoples enacting and governed by the legis-
lation . Wheretraditional law and management practices Extensive research is required to improve our know-
are consistent with the goals and objectives of the ledge of how marine systems work. Such knowledge is
legislation, these traditional elements should be drawn the basis on which decisions concerning types and
upon to the greatest practicable extent. This applies to levels of use of marine resources are made. Monitoring
both the traditional, perhaps unwritten, law of abori- the state ofthe marine environment provides the consi-
ginal communities and the more recent traditions of a derable volume of data required to make accurate pre-
country or people. Further, the customary or accepted diction ofthe operation of marine systems.
ownership and usage rights of a marine area which is to
be managed are critical considerations . Legislation should
8.4 Threats to marine protected areas
reflect this.
As a general comment, one can summarise the state of

The use offishery reserves can be an important aspect the world's marine environment as suffering from a
of such traditionally based management controls. Fish- number of stresses caused by human activity resulting
ery Protected Areas, which may be based on a long in observable and in many cases gross reductions in
tradition of stewardship for fish and similar resources, environmental quality. In many cases these factors place
can provide a better opportunity for development of a marine protected areas under severe stress . Especially
marine protected areas system in that country than a important threats include pollution, overfishing, and
system based purely on conservation principles. physical alteration of the seabed or coastline.
Pollution tons were taken, and of the 16 major global fishing

regions, the estimated annual catch exceeded the esti-
By far the greatest source of pollution of the sea is mated sustainable production in nine of them (World
land-based human activity. Not surprisingly, the degree Resources Institute, 1990).
of marine pollution at different parts of a coastline is
often closely related to the size of the adjacent human Apossible answer to the problems ofover-fishing and
population. destruction of habitat is to combine multiple-use pro-
tected area management processes with traditional fish-
Forms of human-induced pollution include nutrients ery management practices. Such an integrated process
(mainly nitrogen and phosphorus), herbicides and pesti- would allowthe various interest groups to agree on what
cides and their derivatives, and toxic chemicals and areas and levels of protection should be provided to
heavy metals, most of which are created in industrial critical habitat and to areas that are representative of
processes including mining. Outfall sewers cause local major habitat types. Such protected areas fill the mul-
eutrophication , loss of seagrass beds, build- up of toxic tiple roles ofproviding baselines against which to mea-
metal levels in sediments and organisms and loss of sure ecological changes caused by human activity, pro-
public amenity. tecting critical life stages in commercially or recre-
ationally fished species, providing sites in which to
Nutrients in sewage , combined with contribution of
carry out ecological research and allowing tourists and
nutrients from other sources, particularly affect coral
the public to appreciate and enjoy relatively undis-
reef ecosystems adversely, resulting in reductions in
turbed marine environments.
strength of calcium carbonate skeletons and smothering
of corals by algae. However, in some circumstances
addition of nutrients to marine areas may be seen as Physical alteration of the seabed or
coastline
beneficial . For instance, deep outfall sewers can con-
tribute to the nutrient budget which may result in larger
Destruction of coastal wetlands, removal of mangrove
fish catches. However, the risk of toxic substances
areas and alteration of the coastline for coastal devel-
entering the food chain is high in these instances.
opment continue to occur in a largely unplanned, un-
Mainland environmental problems are usually re- coordinated and disintegrated fashion. Decisions are
flected in marine problems. Soil erosion results in sus- made without taking into account adverse ecological
pended sediments being conveyed to the sea. Nutrients and economic consequences of destruction of natural
in the form ofions are often attached tothe soil particles, coastal environments. Activities such as dredging and
leading to nutrient enrichment. The effects can include harbour construction change water patterns and sedi-
degradation of coral reefs and the destruction of sea- ment regimes , often with ecologically undesirable results.
grass beds.
Such activities occurring in proximity or within the
Great amounts of oil are carried in tankers around the boundaries of MPAs can have devastating effects onthe
world's coastline . There is the ever-present risk of a marine ecosystems they are designed to protect. To
major oil spill with potentially disastrous ecological prevent this situation from arising the legislation under
consequences. No country in the world has the capacity which an MPA is declared must be effective in regu-
to combat adequately a major oil spill . The International lating activities likely to cause such disturbances, both
Maritime Organisation (IMO) estimates that 6.7 per within the boundaries ofthe MPA, and preferably out-
cent of the total offshore production is lost through oil side the boundaries of the MPA as well.
spills into the marine environment as a consequence of
pipeline accidents, blowouts, platform fires, overflows, mal- 8.5 Legal considerations
functions and other minor occurrences (World Resources
Institute, 1990). For most countries a broad, integrated approach to
conservation, management and protection of marine
Fishing resources is a new endeavour which is not adequately
covered in existing legislation . Thus review and revi-
Virtually every international marine fishery is con- sion of existing legislation and the development of new
sidered by most experts to be inadequately managed for legislation are often necessary before a programme of
ecological sustainability. The evidence of inadequate management can be undertaken.
management is decreasing catch/effort ratios followed
by stock collapse. Input/output controls by themselves Whatever the detail of the legal system , a number of
have usually not worked because pressure from the issues need careful attention if satisfactory legislation
industry prevents imposition of sufficiently stringent is to be created. Issues that must be addressed include
controls until after the point of no return in the process the need for policy, management arrangements , regu-
of stock collapse has been paszed. lations, enforcement and penalties to be included in the
legislation. Other issues warranting further attention
The estimated sustainable yield of the world's fish- include:
eries is inthe region of 60 to 100 million metric tons per
year. In the period 1985-87 approximately 80 million ■ Statement of objectives . Objectives encompassing
conservation, recreation, education and scientific ofresources. The provisions of zoning plans should
research should be written into legislation . If this is over-ride all conflicting legislative provisions , with-
notdone and ifconservation is not given precedence in the constraints of international law.
the establishment ofareas may be an empty political
■ Monitoring, research and review. The legislation
gesture.
should provide for surveillance of use and for peri-
■ Multiple use protected areas. It is strongly recom- odic review of management and zoning plans in
mended that legislation be based upon sustainable order to incorporate desirable modifications indi-
multiple use managed areas as opposed to isolated cated from the results of surveillance, monitoring
highly protected pockets in an area that is otherwise and research .
unmanaged or is subject to regulation on a piece-
meal or industry basis. In designing such umbrella
legislation the following goals merit consideration: 9. Priorities for action
- provideforconservation-based management over As the world's human population continues to increase

large areas; into the next century, the proportion of people who
- provide for a number of levels of access and of depend on the sea's resources is likely to increase. The
fishing and collecting in different zones within sea's capacity to provide those resources is already
a large area; and diminished by pollution, overfishing and habitat des-
truction. The urgency of applying the full range of
provide for continuing sustainable harvest of measures necessary to protect the sea's life support
food and materials in the majority ofa country's systems cannot be overstated . Marine protected areas
marine areas. are one ofthe most effective ways of contributing to that
protection.
■ Coordination . The legislation must provide co-
ordination of planning and management, by all gov-
Insufficient attention has been given to the desig-
ernment, intergovernment and international agen-
nation, planning and management of marine protected
cies with statutory responsibilities within areas to be
areas. The public and governments, in particular, need
managed. Provision should be made to define the
to recognise the importance of the marine environment
relative precedence of the various pieces of legis-
and the present inadequacies of protected area cover-
lation which may apply to such areas.
age.
■ Activities external to MPAS. Because of the link-
The interdependence of the marine environment and
ages between marine environments and between
marine and terrestrial environments it is important the strong influence of the land on marine areas must be
that legislation include provisions for the control of recognized. The achievement of ecological sustainabi-
activities which occur outside an MPA which may lity and maintenance of biodiversity in the marine en-
adversely affect features, natural resources or acti- vironment will depend on integrated planning and man-
vities within the area. A collaborative and inter- agement regimes . Marine protected areas encompas-
active approach between the governments or agen- sing complete Large Marine Ecosystems and including
cies with adjacent jurisdictions is essential. The highly protected areas (categories I-III) can achieve
ideal is to have integration of objectives and ap- such integration, when coupled with administrative ar-
proaches within a formal system of coastal zone rangements for coordination between the different ju-
management within each country , with collabor- risdictions of adjacent land and sea areas.
ation between countries.
The major challenge facing marine protected area
■ Responsibility. Legislation should identify and es- planners for the next decade will be to establish a global
tablish institutional mechanisms and specific res- system of marine protected areas representative of all
ponsibility for management and administration of major biogeographic types and ecosystems and to pro-
marine areas. Responsibility, accountability and vide the requirements for their competent planning and
capacity should be specific and adequate to ensure that management. This will include sound scientific research
the basic goals, objectives and purposes can be and long-term monitoring and the application of the
realized. results in decision making, and the conduct of strong
public education and involvement programmes.
■ Management and Zoning Plans. Legislation should
require that a management plan be prepared for each
International organisations, governments and NGOs
managed area and should specify constituent ele- should collaborate in:
ments and essential considerations to be addressed
in developing the plan. Where the multiple use ■ identifying the role of marine protected areas in
protected area concept is to be applied, legislation protecting marine biological diversity and achiev-
should include the concept of zoning as part of ing ecologically sustainable use;
management. The legislation should require zoning
arrangements to be described in sufficient detail to ■ establishing a global system of marine protected
provide adequate control of activities and protection areas representing all major biogeographic types
and ecosystems, using biogeographic classification ■ creating management regimes for the coastal land
schemes adopted in each region; and seathat will be compatible with local and regional
cultures and will cater for access to resources without
■ establishing national systems of marine protected having detrimental effects on marine protected areas;
areas which preferably encompass complete marine
ecosystems or habitats:
■ ensuring that local and indigenous people are strongly
■ developing institutional arrangements within each involved in all aspects of planning and managing a
country to achieve integrated management of each nation's marine protected areas.
marine protected area and to provide coordination
mechanisms to ensure that adjacent land areas are
bringing managers and scientists together to begin
managed in a complementary way;
integrated, multidisciplinary, management-orientated
research and monitoring programmes to provide a
☐ensuring that the designated management agency
scientific basis, to the maximum extent practicable,
has the legislative power, the human resources and
for selection, planning and management of marine
the responsibility for managing each marine pro-
protected areas; and
tected area with the overriding objective of achiev-
ing ecological sustainability; wherever possible this
agency should not have the conflicting responsi- ■ commencing a coordinated scientific and admin-
bility of economic optimisation of any activities istrative effort to insure that existing marine pro-
within the marine protected area; tected areas meet their management objectives.
References
Batisse, W. and de Grissac, A.J. 1992. Marine Protected Kelleher, G.K. & Kenchington , R.K. 1991. Guidelines
Areas in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea- for establishing Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland,
Past, Present Status and Prospective. Switzerland and GBRMPA, Canberra, Australia.
Ch'ng, Kim-Looi. 1992. Establishing Marine Parks Malaysia: Kenchington, R.A. 1990. Managing Marine Environments.
Issues, Problems and Possible Solutions. Taylor and Francis, New York, USA.
Croom, M., Wolotira, R. and Henwood, W. 1992. Pro- McNeely, J.A. & Miller, K.R. 1984. National Parks,
posed Biogeographic Subdivision of the North East Conservation and Development The Role ofPro-
Pacific Marine Realm . (Draft) tected Areas in Sustaining Society.Smithsonian In-
Diegues, A.C.S & Moreira, A.C. 1991. Global Repre- stitution Press, Washinton D.C.
sentative System of Marine Protected Areas: South Mondor, C.A, Mercier, F.M. & Croom, M.M. 1991.
Atlantic Marine Realm-The Brazilian Coast. Proposed Subdivision of the Northwest Atlantic
Dingwall, P., 1992. Global Network of Marine Pro- Marine Realm for Planning a Global System of
tected Areas-the Antarctic Region. Marine Protected Areas.
Elder, D.E & Pernetta, J. 1991. Oceans. Mitchell Beazley Robinson G.A. & de Graaff, G. 1991. The IUCN-
Publishers. London, UK. CNPPA Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
Esping, L.E. & Gronqvist, G. 1991. The Baltic Sea and Area 6 (West African Marine Realm).
the Skagerrak. IUCN-CNPPA- Network of Marine Salm, R.V. 1984. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas:
Protected Areas. AGuideforPlanners and Managers. IUCN, Gland,
Holthus, P.F. 1992. Marine Protected Areas in the South Switzerland.
Pacific Region: Status and Prospects . Holthus, P.F. Simard, F. 1991. State of the Marine Protected Areas in
1992. Marine Biological Biodiversity Conservation the North-West Pacific Realm .
in the Central South Pacific Realm (With Emphasis van't Hof, T. 1992. Coastal and Marine Protected Areas
on the Small Island States). in the Caribbean: How Can We Make Them Work.
IUCN, UNEP, WWF 1991. Caring for the Earth. A Parks (3) 1 .
Strategyfor Sustainable Living. Published in Part- WRI, UNEP & UNDP 1990. World Resources 1990-91.
nership by IUCN, UNEP and WWF. Oxford University Press, Oxford , UK.
IUCN ( 1991 ) . Directory ofProtected Areas in Oceania. WRI, IUCN & UNEP 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy.
Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use Earth's
Centre. IUCN, Gland , Switzerland. xxiii -447pp. Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. Published
Kelleher, G.K. 1991. Marine Management-Problems , by WRI, IUCN & UNEP in consultation with FAO
Solutions and the Contribution of Science . Paper and UNESCO.
delivered to the 2nd Westpac Symposium , Penang,
Malaysia.
Sub-Saharan Africa
Percentage
protected
Less
%
0.1
than %
15-20
%
0.1-5 More
%
20
than
5-10
%
Km
%
10-15
0 1000
2000
areas
protected
designated
within
legally
included
country
P
of
Map
. ercentage
Contents
Page
1.1 The history of people and nature 47
1.2 Environmental implications of economic development • 47
1.3 The growth of the protected areas system . 49
1.4 Participation in international conventions and programmes 51
1.5 Lessons learned . 52
2. Current protected area coverage ... 52
2.1 Systems plans 54
2.2 Coverage of major habitats by protected areas 54
2.3 Protected areas in danger . . . 54
3. Additional protected areas required 55
4. Protected area institutions . . . 55
888888
4.1 Conflict and cooperation with other development sectors . 58
5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas 58
8. Major protected area issues in the region 61
8.1 Improving the relationship between protected areas and local communities • . 61
8.2 Improving management of protected areas . . . . 63
8.3 Making protected areas part of modern society: The role of education,
training and research 63
8.4 International co-operation 64
9. Priorities for action in the region ... 65
10. Conclusion 65
Acknowledgements • 66
Page
References 71
Box
Box. 1 Tourism in Francophone Africa .60
Tables
Table 1 . Summary of the protected areas system . . . 48
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories . . 53
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system .56
Table 4 . Adherence to international/regional conventions 59
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in Sub-Saharan Africa . . .62
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets .67
Figures
Map. Percentage of country included within legally designated protected

areas . . . .44
Figure 1 . Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) • • 50
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 50

Sub-Saharan Africa
Presented by Perez Olindo , Vice-Chair (anglophone) and

Mankoto ma Mbaelele , Vice- Chair (francophone) for Sub-Saharan Africa ,
IUCN , Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
1. Historical perspective 1.1 The history of people and

nature
Africa is a vast continent, predominantly comprising
woodlands and grasslands, although rain forests repre- Protection of nature, in the form of traditional creeds
sent nearly one-fifth of the total remaining global re- and taboos, has a long history throughout the region.
source. The rain forest ecosystem also accommodates Examples include the protection of mountain forests
more than half of the continent's biota, and contains and peaks in Madagascar, the protection of "kayas" or
over 8,000 plant species. This, therefore, represents one coastal forests as sacred groves in Kenya, and the estab-
of the botanically richest ecosystems in the world. In lishment of a "monkey sanctuary" at Boabeng-Fiema,
addition, Madagascar itself is considered to be one of Ghana, to protect the mona, and black and white colobus
the seven major world centres of biodiversity (O'Conner, monkeys, considered sacred in that area. More formal
1990). laws and regulations also have a long history in Africa,
one excellent example being the "305 Articles Code " of
Within Africa, a number of World Heritage sites are the Ancient Malagasy Kingdom, which provided pro-
of such value and importance that they transcend the tection for forests in Madagascar (WCMC, 1992).
region. Examples include: the Banc d'Arguin National
Park in Mauritania, an ecosystem comprising a desert It was under colonial rule, however, primarily by the
zone and coastal wetland; Tai National Park in Côte French and British, that the structure for modern pro-
d'Ivoire, the best remaining example ofthe West African tected areas was established for the great majority of
rain forest; Niger's Aïr-Ténéré Nature Reserve, the only African countries. During the colonial period, the creation
protected mountain desert in Sub-Saharan Africa, and ofprotected areas was enshrined in such notable pieces
the last refuge for large desert animals ; Serengeti National of legislation as the London Convention of 1933 , later
Park in Tanzania, which represents the African Savanna superseded by the African Convention on the Conser-
in the minds of many people; and Zaire's Virunga vation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1968.
National Park with its mountain gorillas and Montane
rainforests. This African Convention, which provides a frame-
work for defining a range of conservation areas, has
been adopted widely by many African states for the
With a current population of 646 million, and a growth
continued management of protected areas in the post-
rate of 2.9%, Africa is witnessing an ever-increasing
colonial era, or has served as a model from which new
human demand on the resources of both forest and
legislation has emerged. Clearly, however, the Conven-
savanna ecosystems. One of the manifestations of this
tion, which has served as a valuable point of departure,
is deforestation, which currently stands at about 1 % per
is becoming outdated as a model in countries which are
annum in the closed rain forest zone (Sayer et al. , 1992).
looking to protected areas to satisfy both conservation
Further, it has been estimated that over half of the
and local development needs .
original wildlife habitat in Africa has already been lost
to logging, charcoal burning, and conversion to agri-
culture and livestock grazing (Kiss, 1990) . 1.2 Environmental implications of
economic development
Given this background, the role of protected areas is
being closely examined in every country of the region. Prominent economists and statesmen have described
Reaching a balance between the conservation of bio- the 1980s as the lost decade for Africa. The continent
logical diversity and supporting the local development was confronted by a series of natural calamities like
needs of an expanding population base is now a fore- droughts and diseases, inhibiting the economic
most consideration. development ofthe region. During the last decade, many
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : Sub-Saharan Africa
Area in Area in Categories Total area

Country Area Categories I-V % VI-VIII and UA % designated %
22223
Angola 1,246,700 26,410 2.1 36,200 2.9 62,610 5.0
Benin 112,620 8,435 7.5 18,806 16.7 27,241 24.2
Botswana 575,000 102,250 17.8 4,555 0.8 106,805 18.6
Burkina Faso 274,122 26,619 9.7 9,704 3.5 36,323 13.3
Burundi 27,835 889 3.2 53 0.2 942 3.4
Cameroon 475,500 20,504 4.3 18,606 3.9 39,110 8.2
Cape Verde 4,035 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Central African Rep. 624,975 61,060 9.8 9,664 1.5 70,724 11.3
Chad 1,284,000 29,800 2.3 89,445 7.0 119,245 9.3
Comoros 1,860 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Congo 342,000 11,774 3.4 0 0.0 11,774 3.4
Côte d'Ivoire 322,465 19,929 6.2 34,371 10.7 54,299 16.8
Djibouti 23,000 100 0.4 0 0.0 100 0.4
Equatorial Guinea 28,050 0 0.0 3,167 11.3 3,167 11.3
Ethiopia 1,023,050 25,341 2.5 168,708 16.5 194,049 19.0
Gabon 267,665 10,450 3.9 6,950 2.6 17,400 6.5
Gambia 10,690 184 1.7 0 0.0 184 1.7
Ghana 238,305 10,746 4.5 25,554 10.7 36,300 15.2
Guinea 245,855 1,635 0.7 8,807 3.6 10,442 4.2
Guinea- Bissau 36,125 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Kenya 582,645 34,702 6.0 27,255 4.7 61,957 10.6
Lesotho 30,345 68 0.2 0 0.0 68 0.2
Liberia 111,370 1,292 1.2 14,286 12.8 15,578 14.0
Madagascar 594,180 11,148 1.9 1,245 0.2 12,393 2.1
Malawi 94,080 10,585 11.3 7,039 7.5 17,624 18.7
Mali 1,240,140 40,120 3.2 17,348 1.4 57,468 4.6
Mauritania 1,030,700 17,460 1.7 0 0.0 17,460 1.7
Mauritius 1,865 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Mayotte 376 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Mozambique 784,755 20 0.0 17,411 2.2 17,431 2.2
Namibia 824,295 103,706 12.6 7,842 1.0 111,548 13.5
Niger 1,186,410 96,967 8.2 0 0.0 96,967 8.2
Nigeria 923,850 30,624 3.3 7,172 0.8 37,796 4.1
Reunion 2,510 59 2.4 0 0.0 59 2.4
Rwanda 26,330 3,270 12.4 1,501 5.7 4,771 18.1
Sao Tome-Principe 964 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Senegal 196,720 21,803 11.1 600 0.3 22,403 11.4
Seychelles 404 379 93.8 30 7.5 409 101.3
Sierra Leone 72,325 820 1.1 2,733 3.8 3,553 4.9
Somalia 630,000 1,800 0.3 3,444 0.5 5,244 0.8
South Africa 1,184,825 74,134 6.3 761 0.1 74,895 6.3
Sudan 2,505,815 93,825 3.7 28,665 1.1 122,490 4.9
Swaziland 17,365 459 2.6 142 0.8 601 3.5
St Helena ? 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Tanzania 939,760 130,000 13.8 235,115 25.0 365,115 38.9
Togo 56,785 6,469 11.4 2,689 4.7 9,158 16.1
Uganda 236,580 18,708 7.9 45,390 19.2 64,098 27.1
Zaire 2,345,410 99,166 4.2 37,082 1.6 136,248 5.8
Zambia 752,615 63,609 8.5 232,193 30.9 295,802 39.3
Zimbabwe 390,310 30,678 7.9 28,888 7.4 59,566 15.3
Total 23,927,581 1,247,997 5.2 1,153,421 4.8 2,401,418 10.0
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km . "UA" indicates that no IUCN category
has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
Note that extent of protected areas may include marine components not included within the country total; this may lead
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover (eg. Seychelles).
Sub-Saharan Africa
countries suffered food shortages while others were Fortunately, there is increasing dialogue throughout the
bailed out with food donations from friendly countries. region, aimed at integrating the multiple use of such
areas with the over-riding objective of maintaining the
In Liberia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Mozambique, Angola ecological attributes of these lands.
and Southern Sudan, the infrastructure was largely dis-
rupted by civil war, while in countries like Uganda and The fact that no substantial areas were formally re-
Rwanda, civil disorder either led to the overthrow of moved from protected areas to agriculture over the past
governments or the extensive dislocation of commu- decade is in itself a major achievement for the countries
nities. This ledto much suffering and distress. So much concerned . For Africa, therefore, the consideration should
wentwrong in so many countries that the preoccupation not be as much that the continent did not achieve the
of caring for protected areas receded into the distant minimum worldwide target of 10% of each country's
background. Even in countries like Kenya, Tanzania land area under legal protection, but that under great
and Zimbabwe, where wildlife-based industries like pressure, African countries have maintained as designated
tourism and hunting thrived , major foreign exchange protected areas whatever lands they had already committed
earnings from this sector were used to subsidize other to conservation. This is remarkable, given that African
national priorities rather than being reinvested in main- governments and people see the future oftheir environment,
taining and enhancing the resources which generated including their national parks and other protected areas,
this wealth. as being absolutely intertwined with the performance of
the region's economy.
As 1991 cameto a close, media headlines showed that
Africa's earnings from international trade had fallen by In the final analysis, two major factors which will
some US$54 billion between the 1986 and 1990 fiscal ensure the survival and continued well-being of pro-
years, compared to the region's earnings in the previous tected areas throughout the region . The first is full
five year period ( 1981-1985). This prompted countries international support for the African economic recovery
to place increased emphasis on diversification away programme, with increased resources being channelled
from such heavy dependence on production of low- to countries with good governance and transparent financial
value commodities. This trend, however, has directly management; the second is how well protected areas
involved the conversion of scarce land to alternative respond to changing circumstances and the needs of
economic agricultural production, a fact which has in- local populations. Otherwise, the world must brace
itself for a decline not only in the area coverage of
tensified the serious competition for the available pro-
ductive land in each country. This is not easy for wild- protected areas, but a further decline in the quality of
life or protected areas, which do not enjoy high priority the values such areas protect. Indeed, the threat that
natural areas may disappear altogether in the 21st Cen-
at the national level, even in countries like Kenya where
wildlife-based tourism has become the largest foreign tury is a real one for much ofthe continent.
exchange earner.
1.3 The growth of the protected
For the next decade to record a major turn-around in areas system
this negative trend for Africa, additional external re-
sources will be needed from the facilities already in In Africa, the first modern conservation area was estab-
existence as well as from completely new sources of lished in 1898 , later to be known as Kruger National
support. Equally necessary will be courage, in the majo- Park, South Africa. Most of the colonial powers ' acti-
rity of African countries, to display maturity and a high vities to establish national parks and reserves in their
level of political will to achieve stronger control mea- territories took place between the two world wars. Albert
sures over the conditions which have so far governed National Park (now Virunga National Park) was created
the use of and trade in African commodities. Clearly, in the former Belgian Congo (now Zaire) in 1925; Italy
there is a need for national governments must give their created a reserve in Somalia; France was especially
highest priority to improving the economic returns ac- active in Madagascar, where it created four reserves;
cruing to Africa. Countries suffering budgetary de- andthe British created numerous reserves in theircolonies.
ficits will also need to negotiate easier access to devel- Following independence, virtually all countries created
opment resources in order to survive as viable economic additional protected areas, based on new legislation
entities. (Figures 1 and 2).
In common with other developing countries of the By mid- 1991 , participation in international protected
world, rapidly-increasing human population remains areas conventions was reasonably strong in Africa . Far
the largest single threat to the future well-being of the more than half the countries under review are signa-
already established protected areas. It is also perhaps tories to the World Heritage Convention , while slightly
the real generator of alternative land uses in areas with fewer countries participate in UNESCO's Man and
the potential for establishing new national parks and Biosphere Programme. While only about a dozen countries
wildlife reserves . For example, with the extra demand have ratified the Ramsar Convention , well over three-
for food, many important wetlands that sustained migratory quarters ofthe states are signatory tothe African Convention
birds ontheir flywaysto wintering grounds have increasingly on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
became the subject of reclamation for food production. (IUCN, 1992).
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non- cumulative)
300
Number of sites
250
Area (x1000sqkm )
200
150
100
50
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative)
1,400
Number of sites
1,200 Area (x1000sqkm )
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Sub-Saharan Africa
Protected areas in Francophone Africa. A decree to the Aïr-Ténéré desert (7.7 million ha) in the Sahara,
of 10 March 1935 regulated hunting and established are all examples of the so-called third generation of
national parks as refuges for animal species in the protected areas. These sites emphasise economic aspects,
various colonies of French West Africa. There was, and the effective participation of local or integrated
however, no special decree to protect flora in these populations.
refuges similar to the decree of 1927 which created ten
natural zoological and botanical reserves in Madagascar. Protected Areas in Anglophone Africa. Early legis-
lation pertaining to conservation and the establishment
In July, 1953 , the Assembly of the Union Française of both conservation areas and forest reserves dates to
established the pre-eminence ofthe principle of agrono- the turn of the century in a number of Anglophone
mical development of the tropical countries and pro- African countries. While the majority of forest reserve
posed " calling on the government to take all measures networks were in place at an early date, the period from
of a nature to protect forests and spontaneous vege- 1950-1970 witnessed a significant expansion in many
tation, and to carry out the agronomical development of conservation area networks. In countries such as Ghana,
the Overseas Territories". The orientation, however, Lesotho, Malawi, and Uganda, the majority of protected
was such that protected areas were marked out and areas were established between 1962-1971 . In contrast,
regulated on the basis of criteria and jurisdiction adapted the networks of such West African states as The Gambia,
to suit conditions prevailing in Europe. Liberia, and Sierra Leone are new, with most protected
areas being established over the past decade (Table 3).
Apart from certain specific targets, whether econo-
mic (forest in Senegal) or protective (water, soil, rare
A number of protected area networks arose out of
plant and animal species), classification of protected
established forest reserves, examples being the creation
habitats during the colonial period was generally carried
of national parks in Uganda and Malawi, while a num-
out in places where the fewest problems would be
ber ofcountries have regraded game reserves and other
caused to people, for example, in thinly populated re-
protected area categories to national park status. Many
gions. This was done for historical reasons; to create
ofthe protected areas established in the 1980s have been
buffer zones between peoples in areas of local conflict;
gazetted as a result of a recognition of the need to protect
or for ecological reasons, such as disease (sleeping
certain habitats or species, or to establish areas with
sickness and especially onchocerciasis) , natural soil
multiple-use management in mind . Examples of the
depletion, impoverishment as a result of long years of latter include the creation of wildlife utilization areas in
farming, or a lack of water resources.
Mozambique, contractual national parks involving pri-
vate landowners in South Africa, and proposed forest
Designation generally took place in areas where settle-
parks in Uganda .
ment and/or resettlement had been hampered by the
aforementioned constraints. The most characteristic were
Unfortunately, the growth in the protected area net-
eastern Senegal, south-west Mali and south-east and
works throughout the region does not, in any way,
south-west Burkina Faso. These undisturbed areas were
reflect upon how such areas have been managed. For
thus fairly rich in wildlife and were therefore ideal sites
example, despite there being over 10 million ha within
for classification and protection. At a later stage, pro-
conservation areas in Sudan (4% of the country's area) ,
tected areas in the Sahel were often extended to the
many of the country's reserves exist on paper only due
detriment of surrounding villages which were uprooted
to the ongoing civil war. Numerous other conservation
and moved beyond the new limits, thus compromising
areas throughout the region have no management or
the future of certain parks and reserves. A typical case
development plans, no scientific data and no protection
in point is the Niokolo Koba National Park, Senegal,
systems in place. These and other issues are discussed
which was extended seven times and where the dis-
at length in a comprehensive review of national pro-
placed village communities, perhaps understandably,
tected areas systems, prepared by the World Conservation
have carried out heavy poaching.
Monitoring Centre (IUCN , 1992).
Significant protected areas were established in Fran-
cophone Africa during the 1930s and 1950s, followed 1.4 Participation in international
by a slower rate of establishment from the 1960s on-
conventions and programmes
wards. In a number of countries, such as Benin , Burundi ,
Djibouti , Rwanda and Togo, all of their protected areas
were established prior to 1962 (Table 3). Table 4 summarises the international conventions and
programmes that countries of the Afrotropics are party
The most significant creations of protected areas in to . Of the 50 countries ofthe Afrotropics, 33 are signa-
Francophone Africa over the past decade have been in tory to the World Heritage Convention. While 18 of
Niger, Mauritania, Central African Republic and Burkina these countries do not have any World Heritage sites,
Faso. It is no accident that these sites, which are so dif- six have two or more sites listed . Tanzania and Zaire are
ferent in size and environment, ranging from Diawling, noteworthy in having 4 sites each . In total , 27 sites have
Mauritania (13,000ha) onthe fringe ofthe desert,through the been designated for the Afrotropics (Table 5) , covering
dense Bayangaforest, Central African Republic (32,000ha), a total area of 27.8 million hectares.
As far as Biosphere Reserves are concerned, 20 countries for resources to local populations and to enable them to
participate in the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere retain a greater share ofthe benefits.
(MAB) Programme . A total of 36 sites have been estab-
lished, covering a total area of about 13.3 million ha. Hunting on public land, which is banned in many
Ten countries have established more than one site, countries, is a typical example of legislation which
Kenya with five. should rapidly evolve to take account of the traditions
and needs of the people, especially since current bans
The fewest number of Afrotropical countries par- on hunting constitute an incitement to poach and to
ticipate in the Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention. A total organised smuggling, while helping to increase the
of44 sites have been listed in 17 countries, covering 4.1 populations ofthe species most likely to cause damage.
million hectares. Thirteen of these 17 countries with New legislation should be able to distinguish between
Ramsar sites became partyto the Convention on or after traditional and modern hunting, establishing closed and
1986. Ghana has established six Ramsar wetlands, while open seasons, encouraging the population to breed game,
South Africa is the most active with 12 sites. and providing incentives for land-owners to retain wild-
life on their property.
1.5 Lessons learned
At regional or subregional levels, it will be essential
Protected areas and national economies. Some to harmonise legislation and regulations to make States'
conservationists feel that issues of trade and the per- efforts to implement their protected area management
formance of the economy are far removed from the policies more effective. Land-use legislation also needs
planning and management ofprotected areas. However, revising to take account of present socio-economic con-
ditions and conservation needs.
national parks , forest reserves and other protected areas
permanently block off vast areas of land, therein fore-
going competing economic uses, and often excluding
human settlements. Considering that a large portion of
the African continent is either desert, arid or semi-arid
In total, conservation areas in IUCN categories I-VIII
in nature, drought is frequent and recurring, and that the
cover about 10.0% of the area for the region, and
human population increase in Africa has been one of the comprise an area of around 2.4 million ha. A further
highest in the world, it becomes immediately apparent breakdown reveals that 5.2% ofthe area for the conti-
why the conservation of protected areas is a serious nent is in IUCN categories I-V, comprising 645 sites,
front line socio-economic issue.
while 4.8% is in categories VI-VIII or category unas-
Failure to address basic economic issues will inevi- signed (Table 1 and Map) . Within categories I-V, the
tably pose the greatest challenge to the survival of majority of sites are either categories II or IV, with very
Africa's protected areas. Measures to redress the econo- little representation of category III sites (Table 2).
mic balance, which have been discussed on numerous
Within Francophone Africa, protected areas in cate-
occasions, include: restructuring the pricing of com-
gories I-VIII cover more than 15% of the total area in
modities to reflect their true value; exercising control
Benin (24.2%), Rwanda ( 18.1 %) and Côte d'Ivoire
thereafter over any sharp fluctuations in commodity
(16.8%). At the other extreme, countries such as Burundi,
prices; reducing Africa's overwhelming dependence on
Djibouti , Mauritania and Madagascar all have networks
a narrow range of raw materials for its hard currency
which cover less than 5% of their total area. In most
earnings; and diversifying Africa's economies. Africa
Francophone African countries there is a greater percentage
will need external support to achieve these goals.
of land found within categories I-V than in categories
If such measures are not enacted, it is foreseen that VI-VIII . This perhaps reflects the strong tendency towards
the slippage will intensify and most of what we know "preservation" of areas in these countries, although it
now as the great national parks, wildlife reserves and could also be a reflection of the information available.
even the vast protected forests of Africa may be overrun
by a sea of humanity, seeking the barest minimum level The variation in protected areas coverage in IUCN
of survival from that land. categories I-VIII is somewhat greater between coun-
tries in Anglophone Africa. At one end ofthe spectrum
Management plans and legislation. The prepa- lie Zambia (39.3%), Tanzania (38.9%), and Uganda
ration of management plans allowing for the rational (27.1%), while at the other end, The Gambia, Lesotho,
use of protected areas and their surroundings must be and Nigeria all have less than 5% of their respective
based on prior study, properly organised communi- areas covered by protected areas. In between these two
cation infrastructures and public awareness and training extremes are found countries such as South Africa,
campaigns. However, national legislation should be whose system of 574 nature reserves covers an area of
more flexible to permit some limited exploitation ofthe 6.3% ofthe country (Table 1 ) (IUCN, 1992). In coun-
resources of at least some protected areas on the basis tries such as Tanzania (25.0%), Ethiopia (16.5%) and
of specific predetermined criteria. The same would Zambia (30.9%), a large percentage of protected areas
need to be done for the application of regulations inside are in IUCN categories VI-VIII , such areas often serv-
protected areas, tending to give greater responsibility ing multiple-use functions.
Sub-Saharan Africa
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : Sub-Saharan Africa
I II III IV V TOTAL
No. Area No. Area No. Area No. Area No. Area No. Area
159
Angola 1 7,900 2 8,910 2 9,600 5 26,410
Benin 2 8,435 - - - 2 8,435
I
Botswana 4 89,870 5 12,380 - 9 102,250
Burkina Faso 3 4,893 9 21,726 12 26,619
1 I - 889 3 889
17 185 192
Burundi
3
Cameroon 1 14 6 10,304 7 10,186 - 14 20,504
Cape Verde - - -
1
42
Central African Rep. 1 860 4 31,020 29,180 13 61,060
Chad 2 4,140 5 25,660 7 29,800
Comoros -
Congo 1 1,266 10,508 - 10 11,774
Côte d'Ivoire 2 1,280 8 17,625 1,024 - 12 19,929
Djibouti 1 100 1 100
Equatorial Guinea - -
1
I
Ethiopia 11 25,341 11 25,341

Gabon 1 150 - 5 10,300 6 10,450
13
Gambia - 3 184 - - - 3 184

Ghana 1 324 5 10,298 2 124 8 10,746
3 1
Guinea 2 1,253 1 382 1,635
Guinea-Bissau - - -
I
51
Kenya 31 34,113 5 589 36 34,702

Lesotho - 68 1 68
Liberia 1 1,292 - 1 1,292
1
Madagascar 10 5,688 6 1,713 20 3,747 36 11,148

Malawi 5 6,962 4 3,623 9 10,585
Mali - 1 3,500 10 36,620 - 11 40,120
Mauritania 1 3,100 2 11,860 1 2,500 4 17,460
Mauritius
Mayotte
1 20 - 1 20
Mozambique
Namibia - 6 89,777 3 6,100 2 7,829 11 103,706
Niger 1 12,805 1 2,200 4 81,962 - - 6 96,967
Nigeria - 7 23,175 13 7,449 20 30,624
22
Reunion 2 59 - 59
Rwanda 2 3,270 3,270
-
152
Sao Tome-Principe
Senegal 10,120 4 11,683 9 21,803
Seychelles 350 2 29 3 379
Sierra Leone 2 820 - 2 820
Somalia 1 1,800 - 1 1,800
South Africa 20 32,521 210 39,793 5 1,821 235 74,134
Sudan 8 84,990 1 150 6 7,525 1 1,160 16 93,825
Swaziland 4 459 4 459
St. Helena - - 0 0
Tanzania 11 39,100 17 90,900 - 28 130,000
Togo 3 3,573 8 2,896 - 11 6,469
Uganda 6 8,336 23 10,296 3 76 32 18,708
Zaire 8 99,166 8 99,166
Zambia 19 63,590 1 19 20 63,609
Zimbabwe - 10 27,019 1 20 4 183 10 3,456 25 30,678
Total 21 25,824 206 758,064 3 189 397 439,090 26 24,831 653 1,247,997
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection
function are generally included.
In addition to conservation areas, more than 3% ofthe form of marine national parks and reserves, and in
total area for Africa is found within forest reserve proposing that reefs such as Kanamai and Vipingo be
networks serving protection or conservation functions. included in a large fishing reserve system, are excep-
Such forest reserves account for 12% in Benin, 6% in tional , not representative of efforts throughout Africa.
Senegal, 5% in Malawi, and 3% of total area in Kenya. More usual are countries such as Sudan where marine
Another 2.5% or so is covered by forest reserves serving resources have only been partially surveyed , or
production functions (WCMC , 1992). Mozambique which has yet to develop a comprehen-
sive coastal resources policy.
2.1 Systems plans A number of countries throughout the region have
developed protected area networks which comprise most
At the pan-African or regional level, recommendations
of the habitat types found within their national bounda-
for new protected areas are encompassed within reports
ries. For example, of the 29 major biotic communities
by MacKinnon and MacKinnon ( 1986) , IUCN ( 1987),
in Malawi, 18 occur in the protected area system and a
MacKinnon and MacKinnon ( 1986) , and Stuart and
number of others are found in the forest reserve network.
Adams (1990) .
In Namibia, the state-owned protected areas cover about
For a number of countries, national reviews are avail- 14% of the country and include 11 of the 14 major
able regarding priorities for increased protected area vegetation zones , while, in theory, the protected areas
coverage. Examples include Ethiopia's ten year National of Ethiopia protect most of the country's vegetation
Programme for the Conservation and Management of types and total 19 million ha. Other examples of com-
Forests, Wildlife, Soils and Water, Kenya's A Policy prehensive protected area networks are those of Kenya,
Zambia and Zimbabwe . Within francophone African,
Framework and Development Programme 1991-1996,
and a systems plan is currently being prepared for Senegal, Côte d'Ivoire, Zaire and Cameroon are the
Ghana under the auspices of a Forest Resources Man- countries where the most complete representation has
been achieved in the field.
agement Project (IUCN , 1992).
2.2 Coverage of major habitats by 2.3 Protected areas in danger

protected areas
Poaching, forest destruction and general encroachment
A number of habitat types are poorly represented within are reported from almost every African country, due
Africa, and for the majority of countries in the region , largely to rapid population growth, and the conflict
gaps in protected area coverage remain. For example , between traditional hunting practices and modern legis-
although Uganda has many national parks and reserves, lation which has been superimposed upon peoples with
the present network was gazetted before any analysis of different cultural values and outlook. In a few countries,
ecosystems had been made. Consequently, only 36 of political instability, which has led to the destruction of
the 94 major non- aquatic ecosystems are within natio- normal food supplies as well as a collapse in surveil-
nal parks with a further 23 in game reserves at the lance of protected areas, has made this situation worse.
present time.
This, for example, resulted in IUCN's Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) placing
The most common terrestrial habitat types identified
the entire park system of Angola on its Threatened
as needing further protection throughout the region
Protected Areas list in 1988.
include montane, evergreen and lowland forest areas;
mountain systems (e.g. the Eastern Arc Mountains,
Drought over much of the continent has had direct
Tanzania); coastal forests; savanna and desert ecosys-
tems, particularly in the case of the Sahelian countries; detrimental impacts on protected areas, and lead to an
increased level of human use of them . Lack of appre-
grasslands; deciduous miombo woodlands; and swamps
ciation ofthe long-term benefits of, for example, catch-
and freshwater lakes, including the need for increased
ment protection forests and exploitation of short-term
protection ofthe Okavango Delta, and lakes Tanganyika
benefits also plays a part. Even where protected areas
and Malawi, respectively . Further, habitats associated
themselves remain fairly intact, their isolation due to
with offshore islands have received little protection . Ex-
habitat alteration in surrounding areas threatens their
amples include woodland habitat on Rodrigues, Mauritius, and
viability for migrant species which require large ranges.
forest thicket and mangrove habitat on the islands of
A casein point is Nigeria, where the total area offorest
Pemba and Zanzibar , Tanzania.
declined from 60 million ha to under 10 million ha
On the marine side, coastal wetlands, mangroves, between 1976 and 1985. The net effect of this has been
turtle and bird nesting areas, sand dunes, and coral reefs to create a forest reserve network of isolated entities,
have been identified as needing further protection through- therein reducing their capacity to conserve effectively.
out the continent. This is becoming ofparamount impor- Further, severe reduction of large herbivore habitat
tance in the face of industrial and commercial developments, outside reserves has led to overgrazing and habitat
pollution, and exploitation of marine resources. The destruction by elephants and other species inside pro-
efforts of Mauritania in establishing the Banc d'Arguin tected areas in countries where their populations remain
National Park and of Kenya in some 114,000ha in the relatively high.
Sub-Saharan Africa
In contrast to the more industrialised continents , pol- which will help to address existing shortcomings in the
lution generally poses little threat for most of the pro- protected area networks. In Kenya, for example, a recent
tected areas in Africa. This is apart from special cases review has recommended that an additional 500,000ha
where, for example, tsetse fly control programmes have of forest land (22% Government and 78% Trust land)
introduced large amounts of undesirable chemicals , and be gazetted, including areas of coastal forest. In addi-
in marine areas near busy ports. Marine areas are, tion, various forest inventories and management plans
however, subject to over fishing and reef damage , and are scheduled (World Bank, 1988b) . In Uganda, an
the large land-locked lakes of the continent are particu- inventory of the distribution and status of wetlands is
larly vulnerable to pollution. River barrages have signifi- planned in order to develop a wetland reserve network;
cantly affected ecosystems in a few areas, and their currently, only about 2% of wetlands are afforded pro-
impact is likely to increase as more large-scale attempts tection within the country. In Namibia, the Ministry of
are made to harness water resources. A number of these Wildlife and Tourism has identified various priorities
have already been proposed. for action, including extension of the protected areas
network to include at least 10% of each ofthe country's
Other common threats to protected areas include ex-
traction of timber, fuelwood and other forest resources; habitat types, joining up more reserves via corridors,
and creating buffer zones. And, parts of Lesotho, which
illegal settlement; mining; military disturbances; un-
include important catchment areas, are scheduled for
authorised fires; commercial fishing; and development
protection by an expansion of the Drakensberg/Maluti
activities (e.g. road construction) . There is also an in-
Catchment Conservation Programme (jointly with South
creasing recognition that a lack ofparticipation by local
Africa) (Bainbridge et al. , 1989) .
communities in the management of protected areas
leads to decreased levels of protection , and may indeed
If 10% of total area for each country is taken as a
be a root cause of the more visible threats (Besong and
reasonable standard for protected area coverage , then a
Wencélius , 1992).
good number of African countries have either reached
More localised threats include the development ofthe or surpassed this mark (Map) . In order to improve the
proposed trans-Kalahari railway in Botswana, which management and investment in these areas, however, a
would affect the Central Kalahari Game Reserve; the number of countries are considering regrading specific
construction of several large dams which has caused sites. In Uganda, for example, there are proposals to
changes to ecosystems in and around Kora National regrade certain reserves (e.g. Bwindi Forest Reserves)
Park and Lake Turkana, Kenya; threats to Manova- to national parks and give total protection to some
Gounda-St Floris National Park in the Central African important water catchment areas. However, while a
Republic, as a result of invasion by nomads from Chad significant percentage of the country may be designated,
and Sudan with their herds of livestock carrying bovine this does not in itself ensure conservation , and many areas
rinderpest; the invasion of exotics in Mauritius, which is lack effective management for one reason or another.
causing a significant threat to the native flora and fauna;
tourist pressure, for example in protected areas such as
Amboseli National Park, Kenya, and Makgadikgadi
Pans Game Reserve , Botswana; diamond mining in the 4. Protected area institutions
Loma Mountains and Gola Forest Reserves of Sierra
Leone, which has greatly increased soil erosion; the
reconsideration of a hydro-electric scheme which would FrancophoneAfrica. In francophone Africa, national
devastate Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda; and parks and wildlife are rarely managed autonomously;
chemical pollution and river diversion schemes which their management structures are generally associated
are threateningthe Okavango Delta (IUCN, 1992). with another, dominant entity, for example within Tour-
Internal threats to the integrity of protected areas ism and Environment in Senegal, Burkina Faso , Central
African Republic, Cameroon, and Togo, and within
include inadequate legislation , enforcement and infra-
structure; lack of technical expertise and management Rural Development, Water Management and Agricul-
ture in Guinea-Conakry, Chad, Mauritania, Senegal ,
plans from which to carry out management activities;
Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Mali, and Côte d'Ivoire.
staff involved in incompatible and/or illegal activities
within protected areas; and in extreme cases, such as
civil war, abandonment by staff. By the early 1990s, no
Only Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi have more or less
fewer than a dozen protected areas in Anglophone
autonomous structures: Institut Zairois de Conservation
Africa and at least eight in Francophone Africa had been
de la Nature (IZCN); Office Rwandais des Parcs Nationaux
placed on CNPPA's Threatened Protected Areas list.
(ORPN) ; and Institut Burundais de la Conservation de
la Nature et de l'Environnement (IBCNE), respectively.
3. Additional protected areas Central Africa and Congo have integrated these concerns
required into, respectively, a Ministry for Water, Forests, Hunting,

Fisheries and Tourism , and a Ministry for Forest Economics,
A number of countries have proposals to increase the thus highlighting the link between the target and its
amount of land covered under protected area status, environment.
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : Sub-Saharan Africa

Angola 67.3 32.3 0.4 0.0 0 26,410

Benin 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8,435
Botswana 50.7 49.3 0.0 0.0 85 102,250
Burkina Faso 28.6 62.2 9.1 0.0 0 26,619
Burundi 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 488 888
Cameroon 48.8 28.6 16.4 6.2 160 20,504
Cape Verde 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Central African Rep. 93.9 0.0 4.1 2.0 0 61,060
Chad 3.7 90.1 4.5 1.7 0 29,800
Comoros 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Congo 85.2 2.5 12.3 0.0 0 11,773
Côte d'Ivoire 0.4 64.5 35.1 0.0 0 19,928
Djibouti 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 100
Equatorial Guinea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Ethiopia 0.0 60.5 29.4 10.0 0 25,341
Gabon 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 10,450
Gambia 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 0 184
Ghana 0.0 94.8 5.2 0.0 0 10,746
Guinea 76.6 0.0 0.0 23.4 0 1,635
Guinea-Bissau 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Kenya 71.8 4.5 11.6 12.0 0 34,702
Lesotho 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 68
Liberia 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 1,292
Madagascar 84.8 8.2 0.0 6.9 0 11,147
Malawi 24.9 59.9 15.2 0.0 0 10,585
Mali 96.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0 40,119
Mauritania 14.3 0.0 67.2 18.5 0 17,460
Mauritius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Mayotte 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Mozambique 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 20
Namibia 21.5 21.3 55.9 1.3 0 103,706
Niger 3.1 4.0 0.0 93.0 0 96,967
Nigeria 4.8 5.3 31.2 58.6 175 30,623
Reunion 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 59
Rwanda 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3,270
Sao Tome-Principe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Senegal 42.8 23.8 33.4 0.0 465 21,802
Seychelles 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 378
Sierra Leone 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 820
Somalia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,800 1,800
South Africa 73.5 3.9 13.0 9.6 6,247 74,134
St. Helena 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Sudan 43.7 0.0 13.4 42.9 250 93,825
Swaziland 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 459
Tanzania 60.1 24.4 9.7 5.9 800 129,999
Togo 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,014 6,469
Uganda 38.1 53.5 0.6 7.9 823 18,707
Zaire 24.7 55.5 6.1 13.8 0 99,166
Zambia 35.2 0.0 58.2 6.5 0 63,609
Zimbabwe 51.4 0.0 48.6 0.0 308 30,678
Total 42.5 24.1 17.1 16.3 13,619 1,247,998
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria for
IUCN management categories I-V are included . Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in
size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted.
Sub-Saharan Africa
Several years ago, Senegal and Côte d'Ivoire adopted tected areas management is split between more than one
full ministerial structures, each creating a Secretary of ministry, making it difficult to administer; in any one
State for National Parks followed by a Ministry for country, they may come under a national parks autho-
Nature Protection. Senegal is the only country in the rity, a forest department, a lands department, a district
francophone part of the region with a corps of national council, or a tourism department, depending on the
park rangers independent of the water and forest rangers. category of protected area. A case in point is Uganda,
where wildlife management is carried out by two agen-
In general terms, then, protected area management cies within the Ministry of Wildlife and Tourism: the
structures in Francophone Africa are governmental; parastatal Uganda National Parks; and the Game De-
they are associated with the forest services whose ad- partment, the latter maintaining staff in some forest
ministrative structures vary from country to country, reserves. Nature reserves and forest reserves are man-
and, within one country, from one government to the
aged by the Forest Department within the Ministry of
next. None of the options chosen can be taken as a Environment Protection. A lack of co-operation between
model. There is a need for management structures which these three agencies has been reported as inhibiting
fit in with other national administrative entities and
protected area management. This has prompted recommen-
sectoral policies to provide overall coverage for devel- dations forthe establishment of aNational Advisory Com-
opment problems and land-use planning. Such structures mittee on Natural Resource Conservation, which has
will have to be more democratic and ensure greater
been endorsed by the Prime Minister's office . In other
participation in the future.
countries, various protected areas are managed by such
These deficiencies are reflected in current protected divergent groups as the Fisheries Division (marine areas)
in Mauritius , Kenya National Museums (responsible for
area legislation throughout most of francophone Africa.
managing over 300 sacred forests) , and the Instituto
In general, legislation and regulations on protected areas
and wildlife are ill-suited to present-day socio-economic Investigaçao de Mozambique and various port captains ,
who are responsible for coral reef protection in that
realities. Regardless of whether or not the legislation
dates back to colonial times, it allows for strict protection country.
for a large number of habitats and species but is still Throughout the region , the trend is towards collab-
unsuitable for designing and implementing modern man-
oration between agencies involved in protected areas
agement methods, particularly those which actively in- management, particularly in the forestry and wildlife
volve local populations in the running of protected
sectors. This has come about partly due to a conver-
areas.
gence of interests in conserving critical habitat areas,
and a recognition that areas cannot be managed effect-
Anglophone Africa. Protected areas legislation
ively where the jurisdiction is shared by agencies with
in a number ofcountries of anglophone Africa is in need
divergent mandates. In Sudan, for example, multiple
ofrevision; in about half of these states it dates from the
use management areas, developed in conjunction with
early 1970s or before. In Nigeria, for example , nature
forest reserves, have been recommended to reduce pres-
reserves, forest and game reserves are still designated
sure on forests . In Kenya, where nature reserves are
in accordance with the 1933 London Convention,
managed by staff from the Ministry of Wildlife and
although in the Northern Region , forest reserves are
Tourism , Kenya Wildlife Service , and the Forest De-
governed by the Northern Nigerian Forestry Ordinance partment, collaboration is being fostered through initia-
(1960).
tives such as the Kenya Indigenous Forest Project.
Further, closer co-operation is being developed to con-
In a number of other countries of Anglophone Africa,
serve the particularly threatened and fragmented coastal
such as Kenya, Nigeria and Liberia, new protected area
limestoneforests in the country (WWF, 1991) . In Botswana,
legislation has recently been passed . This legislation
the aims of the draft Conservation Strategy, recently
will take time to become effective, however, partic-
approved by Cabinet and now going through parliament,
ularly with administration being in the hands of new
include integrating the many sectoral ministries and
organizations in Kenya (Kenya Wildlife Service) and
NGOS involved in conservation and protected areas
Nigeria (National Parks Board), and with the role ofthe
management, and the formation of a National Conservation
Forest Development Authority being redefined in Liberia.
Strategy Advisory Board . This Board, together with the
In countries such as Mauritius, further legislation is
present Co-ordination Agency, will be directly responsible
being passed in relation to marine nature reserves and to Cabinet.
turtle reserves .
Forestry legislation in some cases (e.g. Malawi) dates Within anglophone Africa, there are generally few
from the 1930s or 1940s. The 1980s has seen some incentives for the private sector to own land in protected
revision of legislation , but in a few countries where it is areas; in a few cases such as Lesotho there are disin-
in the process of being updated , it is taking a long time centives. In most countries, legislation does not permit
to finally become law. private ownership in national parks, or at least their core
areas. In only a very few states, such as Mauritius,
Apart from management problems on the ground , Malawi and South Africa, is there specific legislation
institutional problems affecting efficiency are reported designed to encourage individuals to own protected
from many anglophone African countries . Often, pro- land .
Nevertheless, there are a number of examples ofpar- Africa's Natal Parks, Game and Fish Preservation Board,
ticipation in protected areas management on the part of which had a budget of US$36 million in 1991 ; the
the private sector. In 1990 , 359 farms covering 46,000 Kenya Wildlife Service with a 1989 budget of US $ 18.2
sq km were registered as private hunting and guest million; the Ministry of Wildlife, Conservation and
farms in Namibia; Uganda has about 2,000 sq km of Tourism , Namibia, with a budget of US$ 11 million in
private forests; and in South Africa, about 0.2% of all 1990; and the Office of Tourism and National Parks,
conservation areas are in private reserves, and of the Rwanda with a 1990 budget of US $4.7 million . At the
nearly2 million ha in forest reserves, around 620,000ha other extreme, the Wildlife Conservation Branch, Sierra
is catchment forests on private land. Leone made do with US$4,590 in 1991 , while the Forest
Development Institute, Angola had a budget of US$20,000
The NGO sector is poorly developed in many coun-
in that same year (Table 6). Overall, most African
tries of Africa. Notable exceptions include the Kalahari countries spend less than one fifth ofthe annual investment
Conservation Society, Botswana, the East African Wildlife
of$230 per square kilometre of protected area considered
Society, and the Wildlife Society of Zimbabwe (IUCN,
to be necessary to achieve effective conservation (Leader-
1992). Village or local reserves involving collective Williams and Albon, 1988).
non-governmental ownership have been developed in a
few countries, Ghana and South Africa (Natal) being Investment in protected area infrastructure is particu-
examples. larly difficult for administrations with minimal budgets,
as most funds are spent on staff salaries and adminis-
4.1 tration. In 1990, annual personnel costs for the Institute
Conflict and co-operation with
for the Conservation of Nature of Zaire was US$ 1
other development sectors million. This left US$2,000 as recurrent budget.
Currently, linkages with other development sectors is Not surprisingly, a great deal of investment for pro-
uncommon, although the need for collaboration with tected areas comes from international agencies for many
government departments in such areas as land-use plan- African countries . For example, funding in support of
ning is increasing. In Botswana, for example, wildlife Ghana's Forest Resources Management Project has been
management areas have been proposed for areas of allocated by the World Bank to the tune of US$64.6
marginal land around parks and reserves as buffer zones. million over a six-year period (World Bank, 1988a;
Increasing conflicts with grazing demands of domestic EPC , 1989). Although this funding is targeted at both
cattle need redressing and may lead to wildlife manage- the forestry and wildlife sectors, implementation of
ment areas becoming mainly the responsibility of Dis- recommendations will need further investment. Sim-
trict authorities. ilarly, the Southern African Wetlands Project, Malawi,
which aims to identify important areas for conservation
action, is supported by SADCC, IUCN and NORAD.
investment in protected areas Currently, very little investment comes from private
conservation-oriented organizations within Africa. Further,
For a number ofcountries in Africa, protected areas play there are only a handful of self-financing administrations,
a vital economic role. This is manifest in the income such as the Office ofTourism and National Parks, Rwanda,
accrued from tourism, in the protection of watershed which is able to invest in protected areas from tourist
areas in support of other development sectors , and in revenue.
conserving valuable plants and animals which are uti-
lised in a number of ways. For example , total earnings
ofthe Wildlife Division , Tanzania for 1990/1991 were 6. Human capacity in protected
about US$2.6 million from tourist and resident hunting, areas management
trophy sales, live animal trade, park entry and camping
fees. Tanzania National Parks earned around US$3.5 Throughout anglophone Africa, protected areas man-
million from tourism , while Ngorongoro Conservation agement is in need of strengthening, and there is a
Area Authority earned in excess of US$ 1.8 million over general lack of well -qualified and trained staff in most
the same period (Table 6). In contrast, countries suffer- countries. Fortunately, a number of training institutions
ing from civil disorder and any number of environ- which are attempting to address this situation. These
mental calamities, usually expressed in terms of severe include the College of African Wildlife Management at
poverty, have not reaped such benefits. In these coun- Mweka, Tanzania, and the Institute of Renewable Natu-
tries, protected areas exist primarily as " paper parks" , ral Resources (IRNR), in Kumasi, Ghana. As part of
with little staff, infrastructure and apparent value per se their program, IRNR offers post- graduate training in
for residents living in and around such areas. areas of wildlife , forestry and fisheries management.
Various workshops and training courses, in English and
There is wide discrepancy in the budgets ofprotected French, are also organised by organizations such as
area administrations throughout the region, reflecting IUCN and WWF. The bilingual FAO publication Na-
the general level of support available to protected areas. ture et Faune provides a forum for discussion on con-
Well-financed administrations include those of South servation and protected area issues throughout the region.
Sub-Saharan Africa
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions : Sub-Saharan Africa
Country World Heritage Biosphere Reserves Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention

Date No. Area (ha) No. Area (ha) Date No. Area (ha)
Angola November 1991 0

Benin June 1982 0 1 880,000
Botswana
Burkina Faso April 1987 0 1 16,300 June 1990 3 299,200
Burundi May 1982 0
Cameroon December 1982 1 526,000 3 850,000
Cape Verde April 1988 0
Central African Rep December 1980 1 1,740,000 2 1,640,200
Chad June 1990 1 195,000
122
Comoros
││││▬ 100m I
Congo December 1987 0 172,000
Côte d'Ivoire January 1981 3 1,485,000 2 1,480,000
11 - Ooooo | NO | | --11 1010OIINNI I1014
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia July 1977 22,000
France (Mayotte) June 1975 0 October 1986 0
France (Reunion) June 1975 0 October 1986 0
Gabon December 1986 0 15,000 December 1986 3 1,080,000
- -
1112511
Gambia July 1987 0

Ghana July 1975 0 7,770 February 1988 6 ???
Guinea-Bissau May 1990 1 39,098
Guinea March 1979 1 13,000 133,300 November 1992 5 225,007
Kenya June 1991 0 1,334,559 June 1990 1 18,800
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar July 1983 152,000 140,000
Malawi January 1982 9,400
Mali April 1977 0 771,000 May 1987 3 162,000
Mauritania March 1981 1,200,000 October 1982 1 1,173,000
Mauritius - 3,594
Mozambique November 1982
Namibia
Niger December 1974 7,736,000 April 1987 1 220,000
Nigeria October 1974 1 460
Rwanda 15,065
Sao Tome & Principe
Senegal February 1976 2 929,000 3 1,093,756 July 1977 4 99,720
Seychelles April 1980 2 35,018
Sierra Leone
12
Somalia
12
South Africa March 1975 12 228,344

Sudan June 1974 1,900,970
Swaziland -
Tanzania August 1977 7,380,675 2 2,337,600
Togo
Uganda November 1987 0 1 220,000 March 1988 15,000
UK (St Helena) May 1984 0 0 January 1976
3 1
Zaire September 1974 5,482,000 297,700 -

Zambia June 1984 1 3,779 December 1991 2 333,000
Zimbabwe August 1982 2 1,095,381
Notes: 1. Other mixed natural/cultural sites are inscribed on the list of World Heritage, but on the basis of beauty resulting
from the man/nature interaction , rather than natural features alone. These sites , which have not been included
in the above table , include Bandiagara in Mali.
2. Several world heritage sites lie across international borders. To simplify this table these have been counted under
each country, and the total number of sites is therefore inflated . These sites are Mount Nimba (Côte d'Ivoire/
Guinea), and Victoria Falls/Mosi-Oa-Tuna (Zambia/Zimbabwe).
3. Only sites lying within the region are listed.

Box 1. Tourism in Francophone Africa
Beyond current attempts in the countries of the region to promote the economic integration ofprotected areas,
tourism , which is supposed to provide economic benefit, is extremely marginal . Of the francophone countries,
Senegal receives most tourists , 250,000-300,000 per annum , but only 0.1% of them visit the national parks,
and international tourism only contributes 3% to GDP, compared with 35% in Kenya. Overall, tourism on the
continent represents about 2% oftourism worldwide.
In the light of these figures, further development of tourism needs to be a major point of consideration in
Francophone Africa. Apart from Rwanda, no country seriously promotes wildlife tourism , and often nothing
has been done in protected areas to make wildlife easier to observe, guides have received little or no training,
infrastructure either works badly or not at all, prices are high compared with what is provided in return, and
performance is rarely on a par with expectations.
Wildlife tourism has often been viewed through the experiences of Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe,
countries difficult to compete with. Rather than trying to attract the same clientele, however, infrastructures
should support local resources, experience and innovation. Indeed, the promotion of local cultural resources,
together with improved protected area management and better- quality guide services would go a long way to
promoting tourism which was better adjusted to local economic, social and cultural environments. Further, a
dynamic wildlife tourism policy should not be solely in state hands, but should involve all those concerned in
partnership.
Within francophone Africa, there is a lack of senior, graduate course in wildlife management, and by streng-
high-quality managers for national parks and protected thening the school in general.
areas, and training opportunities are clearly inadequate.
Currently,there is only one school in Garoua, Cameroon, In summary, training for all managers and staff through-
which trains field workers. In addition, there is a low out the region needs to ensure the acquisition of skills
quota of study grants available for staff from each which can be adapted to local conditions. This training
should enhance individual job satisfaction , and encour-
country to attend the school. On-the-job training or
agethe involvement ofhighly motivated people, therein
training for junior staff is non-existent in many coun-
tries. guaranteeing a good return on investment. The quality
oftraining may be enhanced by exchanging information
Two significant factors account for the low level of with those institutions like Mweka College who already
training provided for protected areas managers . First, in have experience, and by discussing common problems.
certain countries, no social or professional recognition Twinning the protected areas of the region with those
is given for the training received in Garoua. This is due in other regions, and creating a partnership system
to the fact that most politicians underestimate the im- between managers from the North and South for the
portance of training in wildlife management, consi- conduct of field studies may prove useful.
dering it as neither a mark of success nor a necessity.
Second, there has never been any assessment or follow-
up of graduates from Garoua, and some past students 7. Priorities for future investment
have reported that their training is not adapted to new in protected areas
approaches in protected areas management.
The majority of countries in Africa are well aware of
Existing institutions need to be strengthened, especi- what is needed in terms of appropriate legislation, sup-
ally those with a regional mandate like Garoua. During port for protected area institutions, and weaknesses in
staff training, more attention needs to be given to social their current protected area networks. Against this re-
and management problems, therein enabling staff to cognition is the reality that protected area networks need
encourage NGOs, the rural population and individuals considerable development in many countries. Some, such
to participate more in the rational use ofprotected areas. as Sierra Leone, are dominated by production forest
Other recommendations include an increase in the reserves, having developed few reserves for wildlife or
country grant quotas for Garoua, and the establishment conservation. Even in those countries with wide cover-
of an assessment and follow-up system for graduates. age, important habitats are still inadequately protected .
The use of structures such as the Nazinga game ranch
(Burkina Faso) as field laboratories for practical work, Management plans for individual protected areas are
the provision of post-graduate studies, and an increase few, investment portfolios even rarer, and many states
in the value of managerial, supervisory and development are in need of developing overall system plans for their
posts in national parks and protected areas is desirable. protected area networks. Even in those countries which
In response to these needs, Garoua's traditional partners had once prepared management plans, these are now
are reportedly considering an increase in their com- usually out-of-date and of little value. Uganda is a case
mitment to training, in particular by starting up a post- in point.
Sub-Saharan Africa
Many protected areas throughout the region require 8.1 Improving the relationship
additional investment for infrastructure and personnel
between protected areas and
as poaching and encroachment are commonly reported. local communities
Development projects to decrease population pressure
on protected areas by, for example, supplying alter-
native sources of fuelwood, water or grazing need to be The extensive African experience of local communities
linked to protected area management in more areas, and living in harmony with their environment has generally
include the increased use of buffer zones. been acknowledged and well-documented. Until re-
cently, however, there was little evidence that com-
With peace and stability returning to some of those petent authorities took local communities and their ex-
countries which were politically unstable during the periences into their confidence by giving them a parti-
1980s, large amounts of investment will now be re- cipatory role in the management of national parks and
quired to reinstate proper management in the various protected areas. As a rule, no stake in the direct econo-
protected areas. mic returns accruing from the use of such protected
areas was offered or forthcoming to these communities.
Both government and national NGOs need to increase
their level ofdevelopment funding, but, due to a number
As a result, antagonistic relationships have often de-
of constraints and other priorities, this often proves
veloped between park authorities and local commu-
unrealistic. Other possibilities, as yet little exploited,
nities. A classic example involves people living in
include the involvement of other development sectors
grasslands or savannas, who have developed cultures
and collaboration with other countries. One potential
revolving around livestock such as sheep, goats and
example of this is in Mozambique where negotiations
are in progress between the National Directorate for cattle. For such people, a constant pre-occupation is the
Forestry and Wildlife, Mozambique, and South African grazing and watering of their animals. Under drought
NGOs, the Endangered Wildlife Trust and WWF/South conditions, these people look across park or reserve
Africa, concerning possible privatization for exploiting boundaries to see green pastures , flowing rivers, and
Mozambique's wildlife resources . Funding towardsthe dams full of water. They assume it proper for them to
establishment of the Kruger/Limpopo International Park move their livestock to utilize some of these natural
is being considered by the World Bank, involving a sum resources. Indeed, these local communities remember
of US$ 12 million, and this interest should be encour- their ancestral use ofthese same grazing grounds , unim-
aged. peded . They remember the seasonal migrations of wild-
life over their own lands and how they accommodated
Fortunately, there are numerous examples of how them and shared their own grazing and water year in
international assistance is being used in support of and year out. Thus, they fail to understand the logic
protected area networks. This is in respect of site man- behind their exclusion from national park lands, even
agement, systems planning, and institution building. when it becomes absolutely necessary for them to do so.
Specific examples include the ODA/World Bank- Consequently, they see protected areas as preserves set
supported Forest Resources Management Project in aside for the luxury enjoyment of the rich who tend to
Ghana, the goals of which are to consolidate the pro- show no sympathy for local communities' basic sur-
tected areas network, improve management, and pro- vival needs. It is perhaps paradoxical that communities
vide guidelines to sustainable development through who share their lands with wildlife find their activities
documents such as the National Forest Strategy State-
conflicting with protected areas, now considered the
ment; the preparation of a National Systems Plan in
main means of biodiversity conservation.
Liberia; and the formulation of national conservation
strategies in numerous countries throughout the region
In a number of countries, certain categories of pro-
(IUCN, 1991) . FINNIDA is providing support to Na-
tected area include provision for the continuance of
mibia in order to examine development issues in rela-
tion to forests and woodlands in the north ofthe country, traditional ways of life. Examples include the Maasai
while IUCN and NORAD have been involved in the de- peoples in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania,
velopment of a coastal management plan in Mozambique and the Bedouins in Jebel Elba National Park, Sudan.
(Stuart and Adams, 1990). Certain uses such as controlled fishing may also be
carried out legally , as in the case of some Kenyan
marine reserves and the Hadejia- Nguru wetlands in
8. Major protected area issues in Nigeria. However, population expansion within sub-
the region sistence communities and pressures from tourism or
drought have been increasing conflicts between tradi-
The predominant issue in the region today is the role of tional peoples and protected area management. In parti-
protected areas in reaching a balance between conser- cular cases, where human presence and management
vation on the one hand, and support of local devel- are incompatible, enclaves have occasionally been des-
opment needs on the other. Issues are explored within ignated, an example being the exclusion of fishing
this context under the following headings. villages from a national park on Lake Malawi.
Table 5. World Heritage sites in Sub- driven populations further south . It is tempting for these
Saharan Africa migrants searching for new land to consider protected
areas and their environs as land with a supposedly rich
Cameroon potential for cultivation, grazing and water. Today, the

pressure they exert on protected areas and surrounding
Dja Faunal Reserve
Parc National de Manovo-Gounda-St Floris villages is particularly acute in the south of Chad, Niger
and Burkina Faso, and in the south-west of Mali. In
Côte d'Ivoire
those countries which have been politically unstable
Comoe National Park
during the 1980s, considerable numbers of people have
Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (with Guinea)
moved into protected areas and little is being done to
Tai National Park
change this. For governments and those concerned with
Ethiopia nature conservation, these trends and the need to res-
Simen National Park
pond to them will represent some of the greatest chal-
Guinea lenges in the foreseeable future insofar as ecosystem
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (with Côte conservation, land development policy and natural re-
d'Ivoire) sources management are concerned .
Madagascar
Although there may be criticism of the fact that
Bemaraha Integral Nature Reserve
national parks have not been adapted to local con-
Malawi
ditions, and they are certainly not a panacea for nature
Lake Malawi National Park
conservation, they are nevertheless one of the elements
Mali in the solution to the problem of people's coexistence
Falaise de Bandiagara with their natural environment. Giving protected areas
Mauritania back to the farmers would only provide a temporary
Banc d'Arguin National Park solution to their problem : it would only take a fewyears
for the land to degrade as badly as present village
Niger
farmland.
Reserve de l'Aïr et Ténéré
Senegal South Africa has the most sophisticated system of

Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary private land management in support of conservation on
Niokolo-Koba National Park the continent. The 1983 National Parks Act Amend-
Seychelles ment provides for the purchase or acquisition of private
Aldabra Atoll land in core areas, and the designation of privately
Vallée de Mai Nature Reserve owned land to form " contractual national parks" which
Tanzania can act as buffer zones. A large number of private areas
Mt Kilimanjaro National Park are of conservation significance, some of which are
Ngorongoro Conservation Area registered as Natural Heritage Sites under the South
Selous Game Reserve African Natural Heritage Programme . Management as-
Serengeti National Park sistance is available for these, but sites can be dereg-
Zaire istered if damaged, or at the owner's request. Less
Garamba National Park important private areas are registered under the Sites of
Kahuzi-Biega National Park Conservation Significance Programme. In 1984 , there
Salonga National Park was a total of 620,000ha of mountain catchment in
Virunga National Park private ownership, but administered by the Directorate
Zambia of Forestry. Many private game reserves, including the
Victoria Falls /Mosi-oa-Tunya (with Zimbabwe) largest in the world in eastern Transvaal, are financed
Zimbabwe by hunting and tourism . The South African Defence

Force is also a major landowner and is taking steps to
Mana Pools NP, Sapi and Chewore Safari Areas
improve the conservation status of many of its 60 sites,
Victoria Falls /Mosi-oa-Tunya (with Zambia)
in consultation with the Wildlife Society of South
One of these sites (Bandiagara) is a mixed natural/cultural Africa. Natal has a system of conservancies in which
sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty resulting private individuals form cooperatives to ensure the ef-
from man/nature interaction, rather than natural features fective conservation management of their properties; in
alone. 1984 this scheme involved 800,000ha of land, over
1300 owners and 280 game guards.
The human and livestock population explosion in the
Sahelian region over the past 20 years has created a For protected areas to survive the pressure of com-
search for new land to clear and cultivate. The pheno- peting land uses, it is now necessary to engage in exten-
menon has been exacerbated since the middle of the sive dialogue with affected communities . The greatest
1970s by sharp climate changes, and has inexorably issue for discussion revolves around the affected
Sub-Saharan Africa
community's place and role in their local environment. long-term donor commitment, a sound policy environ-
In response, more action is now being taken in buffer ment (area of influence planning) , and a focused, well-
zone development and in the involvement of local com- designed project approach which includes technical
munities in management activities. Examples of this are assistance.
found in Nigeria, where the management plan for Oban
National Park includes a strategy for sustainable devel- 8.2 Improving management of
opment around the park; and Niger, where around the
protected areas
Aïr-Ténéré Nature Reserve , there has been an attempt
to promote multiple use activities. In Guinea-Bissau,
The preparation of management plans is one ofthe most
projects for the creation of protected areas are looking effective steps toward ways of improving management.
towards the setting up of biosphere reserves, therein
Throughout the region, a variety of plans have been
integrating rural communities with conservation re-
prepared which are site-specific, revolve around parti-
quirements. Other people and park projects include cular habitat types, or are larger national or regional ini-
initiatives around Amboseli National Park and Mount tiatives. In Namibia, for example, the Caprivi Man-
Kulal Biosphere Reserve, Kenya; Queen Elizabeth Park, agement Plan is under review and will link conservation
Uganda; Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda; and the to regional development in the area; while in Nigeria,
Dzanga-Sangha Dense Forest Reserve in the Central the area around the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands is the focus
African Republic (Kiss, 1990; McNeely, 1992). for a scheme of sustainable development aimed at con-
serving wetland resources. Other examples include sup-
Interestingly enough , where this integration has been port from the Frankfurt Zoological Society and WWF
successful, such as at Aïr-Ténéré, Niger and around
for a regional conservation strategy for the Serengeti ,
forest areas in the Central African Republic, the popu-
Tanzania; and in Liberia, the Tropical Forestry Action
lations in these surrounding areas are increasingly cal- Plan aims to link forest reserve management to local
ling for an extension of the protected areas concerned land use management units. Forest reserves are in-
so that they too can benefit from the effects of con- creasingly becoming recognised for their catchment
servation. As McNeely ( 1992) has pointed out, con- protection value and provided for in multiple resource
servation measures are likely to be most successful management plans.
when they provide real and immediate benefits to local
people.
8.3 Making protected areas part of
In other countries, more elaborate integrated devel- modern society: The role of
opment schemes are being tried, as a means of gener- education , training and research
ating food and income for rural communities and, in
part, to reduce pressure on core areas within protected Education. Apart from university departments and
sites (Kiss, 1990) . One example includes the Southern national administrations involved in protected areas
management, national and international NGOs are in-
African Wetlands Project, covering Botswana, Malawi,
Zambia and Zimbabwe. The aims of this project are to strumental in providing educational materials and run-
ning courses, both in the formal and informal sectors .
identify important wetlands and develop integrated land
use programmes around them. This is likely to include For example, organizations involved in environmental
education include the African Wildlife Foundation in
wetlands located both within and outside protected areas.
East Africa, the Southern African Nature Foundation in
Two other examples are the Luangwa Integrated Rural
countries of Southern Africa, and BirdLife International
Development Project, Zambia, which is a multi-sector
(ICBP) , which is involved in educational activities in a
programme for economic development, including South
number ofAfrican countries, including Ghana, where it
Luangwa National Park and Lupanda Game Manage- provides assistance to local wildlife clubs.
ment Area; and the Communal Areas Management
Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) , Training. As mentioned earlier, a few institutions
Zimbabwe. The CAMPFIRE programme involves dis- and training programmes are available in protected
tricts developing more rational land use policies in areas management throughout the region. However,
inhabited areas outside protected areas. At the begin- these institutions frequently experience shortages of
ning of 1990, 13 districts had the right to implement funds, equipment and technical expertise. Further, there
CAMPFIRE projects, which need approval from the is often a lack of interest and motivation on the part of
parks department and relate only to communally-owned national researchers and university staff for activities
lands. These have been most successful in areas with which may require long stays in the field under difficult
low population densities adjacent to protected areas conditions.
with good wildlife populations.
Research . Currently, scientific investigations are un-
In total , there are currently over 30 people and parks evenly distributed and lack co-ordination throughout
projects being undertaken throughout the region . Based the region. Within Francophone Africa, there are a
on a number of case studies, Hannah (1992) has iden- number of ongoing research and study programmes ,
tified that the prerequisites for their success include includingthose at: Nazinga Game Ranch, Burkina Faso;
Banc d'Arguin National Park, Mauritania; Dimonika species or habitats is also required to ensure their best
Biosphere Reserve, Congo; and Tai National Park, Côte conservation management. It is also necessary to de-
d'Ivoire. Despite these initiatives, research and know- velop research into the social, economic and political
ledge are generally inadequate, results are not properly aspects ofresource management in protected areas, and
disseminated, if at all, and field research is still in the
to give emphasis to research which has a direct impact
hands of foreign structures. There are no databases on on socio-economic life. In the final analysis, research in
such topics as genetic resources, biodiversity, and so- protected areas will only achieve its socio-economic
cio-economic issues, which would make it easier to
aims if it manages to acquire the parameters needed to
define the nature of protected areas and ways of sus-
master management techniques, and also improves the
tainably exploiting them. In some countries, not enough community's living conditions.
use is made of local expertise, possibly due to lack of
realization overseas of the presence of competent resi- The procedure involved in the collection of data for
dent scientists. Further, there may be a lack of under- the region is important. In the first place, efforts need to
standing that the training of local staff is important in be concentrated on the design of analytical methods and
developing the management capacity ofthese countries.
their effective implementation, depending on ecocli-
matic zones. Following from this, there is a need to
Within anglophone Africa, there is a wide spectrum create, in each country, a structure to co-ordinate re-
of research interests, involving foreign and local scien- search on national parks and protected areas; and
tists, as well as a whole host of organizations, both
strengthen existing research structures, or create new
national and international. This research encompasses
ones, based on a national or regional station network.
species considerations, habitats, and site-specific as- Finally, these initiatives need to be recorded in a data
pects. Examples include: study by Kenyan and foreign bank(s), supported by national and international docu-
scientists into issues such as tourist impact, rhino ecol- mentation funds.
ogy, and involvement in such long-running initiatives
(18 years) asthe Amboseli elephant monitoring project
by AWF; a collaborative WWF/ Forest Development 8.4 International co-operation
Authority survey of large mammals in Liberia in order
to make management recommendations, including the A number of international cooperative schemes are in
creation of new protected areas; in Mauritius, a coastal force, but there is still great potential for further co-
area survey, supported by UNESCO, will help assess operation where protected areas are adjacent or nearly
the status of reefs so that increased protection can be so across international borders . This is especially so for
implemented; an investigation of forest utilization by the creation of World Heritage sites, Ramsar sites and
rural communities and timber companies under the Biosphere Reserves. As protected areas become in-
auspices ofthe Gola Rainforest Conservation Programme, creasingly isolated by changing land uses around them,
Sierra Leone, jointly management by the Government, the maintenance of migration routes and seasonal graz-
Conservation Society of Sierra Leone, BirdLife Inter- ing areas for certain species may be particularly assisted
national (ICBP) , and RSPB; and collaboration between by cross border co-operation. A number of lakes and
the Makerere Institute of Environment and Natural Re- wetlands are part of more than one country and would
sources, the Uganda Institute of Ecology, the Ministry benefit from joint conservation efforts which are in-
of Environment Protection, IUCN and WWF in the creasingly being encouraged.
development of broad-based research into management

To date, there are no fewer than 20 countries involved
problems in and around protected areas. In many coun-
tries of anglophone Africa, this research is being sup- in management of trans-boundary protected areas in the
ported by elaborate temporal and spatial datasets. Within region. The countries of Southern Africa are particu-
South Africa, for example, the Jankershoek Forestry larly active in this regard. Noteworthy among these
Research Centre is in the process of digitising all nature include discussions between Mozambique, South Africa
conservation areas in the country. and Zimbabwe for the creation of the proposed
Kruger/Limpopo International Park. If established, this
Protected areas in many countries of Africa tend to would represent the largest international park in the
become the focus for ecological studies because they world. Between Kenya and Tanzania, there are co-
usually include the most intact examples of natural operative agreements to conserve and strengthen the
habitats. At present, research activities are primarily Mara-Serengeti ecosystem, including the development
focused on the ecology and distribution of the more of an action plan, and a protected corridor between the
endangered species, including captive breeding require- national parks of Amboseli (Kenya) and Kilimanjaro
ments, biological inventories, and habitat assessment (Tanzania) to aid elephant migration is planned . Zambia
for management purposes. However, in many protected and Zimbabwe share a World Heritage site in the
areas, basic faunal surveys and plant inventories are still Victoria Falls area, while in West Africa, Nigeria has
lacking: these represent basic prerequisites for sound man- signed an agreement with Chad, Niger and Cameroon
agement. Further research on resource evaluation , and over the joint control of the flora and fauna of the Lake
more detailed ecological investigations of particular Chad basin.
Sub-Saharan Africa
The momentum behind wildlife management and ■ inadequate training for technical and field person-
protected area policies of the 1970s and 80s, which led to nel;
the creation of new structures for regional co-operation
■ inadequate and ill-adapted legislation and regula-
(African Wildlife Commission) and the conclusion of
tions for protected area management;
numerous agreements on conservation and the rational
use of resources, still exists. However, these structures ■ little consideration ofthe interests and aspirations of
have shown themselves to be ineffective, and the pro- local populations;
visions ofthe agreements have not always been applied.
■ inadequate scientific knowledge and, consequently, a
The causes for this include:
lack of management and development plans for
an absence of political will , related to a lack of protected areas;
awareness of the economic importance of protected ☐ a lack of resources for wildlife-related activities.
areas;
Secondary priorities include the following:
■ financial constraints;
■ technical constraints, in particular a lack of know- ■ development of public awareness programmes ;

how, and the small number of experts, particularly ■ better definition of buffer zones and migration cor-
from francophone Africa, at the international level ; ridors;
and
■ consideration of the living conditions for protected
an absence of adequate information on access to area personnel;
international aid, and on successful experience and
progress, again especially in francophone Africa. addressing the indifference or collusion of local
authorities in the destruction of wildlife;
International co-operation is much more in evidence
than regional or subregional efforts . It has, however, not ■ understanding the link between poaching, wildlife
and the closure of the hunting season;
yet reached the desired level, allowing for significant
progress in protected area management. ■ condemnation of classical protection ; and
For international co-operation to be effective, it needs ■ a movement away from marginalizing the economic
to concentrate on the following activities: role of wildlife and protected areas.
■ ensuring that decision-makers understand and ac- Other key considerations for francophone African coun-
cept the importance of protected areas; tries include:
■ involving national NGOs, local populations (espe- ■ considering what sort of effective solutions there are
cially women), and individuals in the use and under-
to the problem of monitoring and ensuring the integ-
standing of protected areas;
rity of transboundary national parks;
■ seeking more effective co-operation forms, such as clarifying the type of protected areas which should
debt/in-kind swaps and donation financing for con- be promoted; and
servation projects;
■ debate given to protected area criteria, such as mini-
■ ensuring greater donor involvement in francophone mum size, to ensure the continued survival of par-
African countries; ticular species.
ensuring proper representation at the international

level of francophone Africa, and co-ordinating ac- 10 . Conclusion
tion in favour of conservation and rational use of
national parks and protected areas in French-language Partnerships need to be established among state, NGOs,
institutions such as ACCT; local populations, individual and private initiatives for
the cooperative management of protected areas in
☐ adhering to international conventions on natural re-
Africa, fulfilling the roles of conservation and, increas-
source conservation; and
ingly, sustainable development. The role of government
is to provide the socio-economic framework for all
■ strengthening links between protected areas and other
development sectors. those involved in protected area management.
Given the political and social upheavals in Africa

9. Priorities for action in the today, there is a clear risk that populations will demand
tracts of protected areas, which are often seen as sym-
region
bols of totalitarian power. To avert such risks, ways
Deficiencies and Needs. A number of concerns and need to be found to ensure that, when population aspir-
items for consideration are to be found in practically all ations are taken into consideration, the very existence
countries. These are: of these areas is not called into question.
International initiatives and support are, at present, maintenance of protected area networks will stem primar-
crucial to the development of protected areas through- ily from national and regional initiatives. Until these
out the region, particularly within francophone African conditions are satisfied, however, protected area sys-
countries. As environmental problems are alleviated tems will continue to develop in an uncoordinated and
and national economies stabilise , the development and piecemeal manner.
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this review depended heavily on wards. A special thanks goes to Hugh Lamprey, who
contributions from our colleagues from throughout the gave generously of his time and wisdom . The support
region, both before the Caracas Congress and after- of UNDP is also gratefully acknowledged.
Africa
S
S ub
-: aharan
budgets
agency
managem
areas
Protected
6.
Table ent
in dget
Bu Dollar
US
Country
r
/ esponsible
agency equivalent
currency
national Year Notes Source
I DF
Institute
Development
)(-orest
FAngola AON 20,000 1991 .
1991
in
available
IDF
to
total
budget
Constitutes
the K1
Hunting
and
Protection
for
Nature
-nspectorate
IBenin XOF 34,000 and
Hunting
Water
Directorate
,Fof
the
by
administered
isorests
1991
Funding
Rural
Development
.theof
Ministry
)a(DtEFC K1
and
National
Wildlife
of
-epartment
D
Botswana BWP
Parks
D
)( WNP
Burkina
Faso XOF
150,000,000 500,000 1991 Constitutes
personnel
annual
.
costs K1
Burundi BIF
Tourism
of
-inistry
MCameroon XAF 408,800 1991 and
costs
personnel
for
allocated
are
U
$ S270,000
some
figure
total
this
Of
.$S33,000
for
Uexpenditure
recurrent
other 62
Ver e
Capde CVE
for
Centre
-ational
NAfrican
Republic
Central CFA
130,000,000 482,148 Management
Centre
Fauna
of
and
Protection
the
The
for
National
Fauna
.of
Mmt
and
Prot
the )iself-
Faune
sde
Protection
et
pour
la
Nl'Amnagement
(aational
and
ivory
hunting
funded
by
budget
being
,the
organisation
financing
taxes
. ,K5
38K1
Chad CFA
31,000,000 100,000 1991
Comoros KMF
,F
M
& ish
Forestry
in
Fauna
and
ir
Dlora
.-
Congo
d'Ivoire
C CFA 1,321,428 1991 costs
9(U53,571
).$ S
includes
personnel
annual
Recurrent
budget K1
. ote
Env
and
Djibouti DJB
Forestry
Equatorial
Directorate
-
Guinea
of CFA the
is
which
,o
ofne
sections
four
combines
Forestry
Directorate
The
Ay reas
Caza
de
( ervicio
SService
Areas
Protected
and
Hunting
Protegidas
). K2
Conservation
Wildlife
-thiopian
EEthiopia ETB 251,171 1991 remaining
recurrent
97,948
$
US
costs
,and
Constitutes
personnel
annual
Organisation US153,623
.
budget K1
Fauna
(D
Chasse
la
de
)etFC
Gabon
Direction
- CFA
69,213,000 276,852 1989 conservation
.%
11 orest K1
approximately
fplans
development
1987-90
Under
)w
million
as
budget
(C
of FA312
forestry
the 1989-90
at
remain
tounding
likely
is
f
crisis
,economic
current
the
Given
for
budgeted future
foreseeable
.the
for
levels
francs
CFA
of
provision
is
there
budget
projected
above
to
addition
In
period
the
during
education
and
awareness
public
fS US60,000
)( or
.
1991-1993
the
and
Resources
Natural
of
-inistry
MGambia GMD
7,354,490 48,384 370,820
:G
budget
estimated
Conservation
ofDM
Wildlife
Department
1990
budget
1expected
:Forestry
Dept.
U
$4
)a S
nd
1,000
the
(,708,200
environment
$1U S
)( 90,000 J2
Wildlife
and
Game
of
D
-epartment
Ghana GHC 1,051,582 $6xcluding
budget
erecurrent
(,a nd
36,255
US
costs
personnel
Annual
.5
$ S
)U5,327
personnel K1
the
and
Resources
Natural
of
-inistry
MGuinea GNF
Environment
B
- issau
Guinea GWP
Service
Wildlif
K
-enyane
Kenya KES 18,200,000 1989 recurrent
budget
million
r
;$ emaining
:U0.0
1costs
S
personnel
Annual
million
8U S
personnel
e$ xcluding
.):(.2 K1
Sub-Saharan Africa
(c
SAfrica
.)
-S ont
aharan
ub
budgets
agency
management
Protected
:areas
Table
6.
in
Budget Dollar
US
Country
r
/ esponsible
agency currency
equivalent
Lesotho LSMLib
Liberia
Forestry
-
Authority
Development LRD
Madagascar MGF
resources
Natural
and
Forestry
Malawi
Ministry
-
of MWK 456,000 1989 49
Mali CFA
Mauritania MRO
Forest
Servive
-auritius
MMauritius MUR In
of
%
0.3
for
accounted
Service
Forest
the
1983/4
budget
national
total
the
Natural
Ministry
Agriculture
,Fof
and
oisheries
%
13.5
the
f
Resources
b
.' udget J3
Mayotte
and
Forestry
for
Directorate
National
-
Mozambique MZM 448,000 1986 resources
of
allocation
annual
total
the
was
figure
This
govemment
to
available
Wildlife hostilities
.
current
the
to
prior
conservation
agencies
for J4
and
Wildlife
onservation
C,of
inistry
MNamibia
- ZAR 11,000,000 1990 declined
has
funding
State
years
recent
terms
real
in
. 49
Tourism
Fish
and
,of
FWildlife
D epartment
-isheries
Niger XAF 1,423,000 1991 K1
Farming
million
submitted
InNGN42.0
of
roposal
ap1991
Forestry
Department
the
Federal
-
Nigeria
forestry
of
Department NGN
10,000,000 1,000,000 1991
Tthe 4(U
)f$
.million
budget
years
following
or
.2
his
S
subsequently
was
million
U
million
)($
NGN12
ofand
treasury
afthe
rejected
by S1.2
igure
approved
. K1,51
National
Parks
Rwanda
Office
-
and
Tourism
of RWF 4,730,000 1990 from
funds
upon
dependent
and
authority
financing
self
is
management
The
.
tourism K1
Réunion
Tome
Sao
and
Principe
Senegal XOF 623,986 1991 K1
Seychelles SCR
Sierra
Wildlife
-
Leone
(W
Branch
)Conservation
CB SLL
1,492,073 4,590 1991 .The
expenditure
reccurent
other
and
costs
personnel
annual
Constitutes
Branch
aminimum
on
operating
spent
is
which
of
much
budget
salaries
.on K1
Somalia SOS
Board
B)-
Parks
ophutatswana
South
NAfrica
(ational 3,234,000
ZAR 1982 salaries
of
Inclusive 49
Env
and
Nature
of
South
. ape
(Dept.
Africa
C
)-
Conservation ZAR
10,474,000 1982 .Inclusive
salaries
of 49
South
(Corestry
FAfrica
)-
Boards
iskei 509,700
ZAR 1984 .
salaries
excluding
Budget
Fish
South
Gatal
(and ame
NAfrica
,)-
Parks ZAR
93,000,000 1991 research
staff
permanent
There
.are
no 49
Preservation
Board
Nature
OO
)- FS
State
Free
range
South
(Africa
Conservation
Di
and
Environmental ZAR
8,000,000 1991 .
salaries
of
Inclusive 49
Nature
of
DSouth
(Tivision
Africa
)–ranskei 683,000
ZAR 1982 conservation
inclusive
areas
Total
and
areas
forest
for
budget
-
Conservation salaries
.of 49
Table
:Sont
budgets
agency
management
areas
Protected
6.
S
-
c
(
Africa
.) aharan
ub
in
Budge t Dollar
US
Country
r
/esponsible
agency national
currency Year
equivalent Notes Source
South
(Transvaal
Africa
C
)-
of
Directorate
hief
.Conservation
Env
and
Nature 30,000,000
ZAR 1990 .
salaries
excludes
figure
The 49
South
(Vature
NAfrica
)-
Division
Conservation
enda ZAR
80,000 Budget
.
salaries
including 49
Sudan SDP
68,000,000 1,250,000 1987 Forestry
National
annual
The
SDN68
approximately
is
budget
Corporation
$1(U2.5
).(T
million
administering
for
responsible
agencies
he
S
Ministry
Wildlife
of
Regional
areas
the
are
protected
managing
and
Wildlife
Tourism
)a
Sudan
outh
nd
Conservation
(s,Fisheries
and
).
Forces
Park
National
and
Conservation K1,53
Swaziland SZL
Tanzania TZS 3,478,000 1990 Tourism
Allatural
,Nnatural
of
Ministry
the
by
administered
are
resources
Environment
the
and
Resources
departments
seperate
six
has
.which
ministry
Division
Wildlife
the
is
Also
this
of
jurisdiction
under
falling
National
,N
Parksgorongoro
including
Tanzania
and
agencies
other
five
Conservation
.
Company
Wildlife
Tanzanian
the
and
Authority
Area
TZS591,676,500
were
1990/1
for
Division
Total
Wildlife
the
of
earnings
t
hunting
resident
sales
,tourist
.U
$2
)f
and
(arophy,572,506
pprox
rom
S
live
,park
trade
animal
.A
fees
camping
and
entry
retention
the
from
part
of
.
treasury
the
to
returned
are
finances
these
most
fees
hunting
some
Tanzania
US3.5
$
around
earned
Parks
National
from
1990/1
in
million
earned
Conservation
Authority
Area
tourism
.Ngorongoro
US1.84
.$
1991/91
in
tourism
from
million J5,49
Tourism
and
Environment
of
M
-inistry
Togo 162,328,000
CFA 579,742 1991 imposition
In
.The
administration
on
spent
was
budget
the
of
most
1990
%
involved
2
a
August
have
1991
measures
in0
austerity
government
of
cut
.
budgets
government
in K1,42
Antiquities
and
Tourism
of
inistry
WMUganda
,-ildlife UGS 1,846,000 1990 K1
I.o-
Cons
(the
Zaire
of
Nature
fZCN
I)nst.for ZRZ 1,002,000 1990 :U.0
costs
personnel
.R$1Annual
(emillion
figure
budget
xcluding
ecurrent
S
. ,000
2$):U S
personnel 43
Zambia ZMK
Mmt
Wildlife
.and
Parks
National
of
D
Zimbabwe
-epartment ZWD 9,117 1986 allocation
Total
resources
of
availible
government
to
agencies
for
1986
.
conservation
in J4
:
Sources
1991
Conservation
Review
. frican
Group
).(1 991
Coordinating
AElephant
Conservation
][Kfrican
1
,J]E.H.
)T(1
b
-
Plan
Action
Forestry
U
Bpaper
report
3
Rome
ropical
2anjul
991
npublished
ackground
0pp
dens
.[and
.x,U
3
+ )P(1
R
:A
][4xii 60pp
K
World
the
Areas
V
Systems
National
of
.I
Afrotropical
3.
SG
C
&rotected
witzerland
992
land
ambridge
9
eview
olume
UCN
UCN
7
Cummings
.Du
.,R
Stuart
S.N.
and
Toit
Conservation
C
Plan
Action
D.H.M.
by
Elephants
]I
/S 2pp
.F
ompiled
Rhinos
and
Survey
:S)A(1 frican
4
990
SC
UCN
[Jtatus
Council
,A
.6
Nconservation
:).E(1]N igeria
6pp
Conservation
Resources
W
&
Agriculture
of ater
Fplan
Ministry
ederal
991
lephant
1buja
RCC
[5atural
[5ers
)P(1]A
.c991
li
3omm
Sub-Saharan Africa
)
c
.(
SAfrica
S
- ub
aharan
budgets
agency
managem
areas
Protected
:6.ont
Table ent
T-e,D
Wildlife
EDivision alam
47pp
ar
anzania
Plan
.Conservation
s991
5anzanian
:)(1][JSlephant
C.8
,Y
Nationaux
Parcs
des
et
Faune
la
Tourisme
Plan
Tourisme
du 3pp
aounde
de
irection
ameroon
MConservation
u ndated
lephant
2
D:)E(][6inistere
R.,B
Fof
P &
Water
en
Mde CA
angui
inistry
Centrafricaine
Republique
L'elephant
Conservation
Forests
)(1
andlan
8992
][3orests
de Faune
Parcs
N
Tourisme
,des
etdu
Dl'elephant
Tchad
au ationaux
irection
.Conservation
)(1de
MReserves
][Klan
991
Pl'Environment
inistere
5
Ndjamena
,T9pp
.4 chad
Forestry
,M
Plan
.:)(]M
[K4pp
quitorial
alabo
4isheries
and
FLAgriculture
of ivestock
inistry
quatorial
MEConservation
1Guinea lephant
991 2
ALFF
1
MNatural
Resources
FAgriculture
the of
PService
:).(1
M.,[and 4pp
auritius
Ministry
orestry
980-84
report
rogress
985
Forestry
]Jisheries
auritius
3
Reserves
Parks
National
DT of
Environment
&
plan
).(for
n1,F aunal
irection
ourism
inistry
raft
Mconservation
elephant
:a
Togo
plan
action
A]M 991
frican
2ET
[4ational
T
H
&
,L ogo
ome
.7unting
7pp
ZK.,la
IdeNatureaïre
inshasa
Conservation
pour
Zaïrois
Zaïre
au
l'elephant
).P1
4
(]I991
lan
ZCN
3
[nstitute
Sub-Saharan Africa
References
Bainbridge, W.R. , Motsami , B. and Weaver, L.C. 1989. KWS 1990. Kenya Wildlife Service-A policy frame-
Draft Policy Statement for a Managed Resource workanddevelopment programme 1991-96: Annex6
Areaforthe Maluti Mountains ofLesotho. Ministry -Community conservation and wildlife manage-
of Agriculture, Cooperatives and Marketing, Gov- ment outside parks and reserves. KWS , Nairobi.
ernment of the Kingdom of Lesotho. 55pp. 181 pp.
Besong, J.B. and Wencélius, F.L. 1992. Realistic stra- Leader-Williams, N. and Albon, S. 1988. Allocation of
tegies for conservation in the tropical moist forests Resources for Conservation. Nature 336:533.
of Africa: regional review. In : Cleaver, C. , Lusigi ,Walter J. (ed.) . 1992. Managing Protected Areas
Munasinghe, M., Dyson, M., Egli, N., Peuker, A., in Africa. Report from a workshop on Protected
and Wencelius, F. (Eds.) . Conservation ofWest and Area Management in Africa, Mweka, Tanzania.
Central African Rainforests. The World Bank, UNESCO, Paris, France. 200pp .
Washington, DC. Pp . 21-31. MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review ofthe
EPC 1989. Environmental Protection Council Action protected areas system in the Afrotropical Realm.
Plan (Draft). EPC , Accra. 9 pp. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
FDA/IUCN ( 1986. Integrated management and devel- 259 pp.
opmentplanfor Sapo National Park and surround- McNeely, J.A. 1992. Economic incentives for con-
ing areas inLiberia. IUCN/WWF, Gland, Switzerland. serving biodiversity: Lessons for Africa. Paper pre-
66pp. sented to " Conservation of Biodiversity in Africa" ,
Hannah, L. 1992. African people, African parks: An Nairobi, Kenya, 31 August-3 September, 1992. 18 pp.
evaluation ofDevelopment Initiatives as a Means of O'Conner, S. 1990. Madagascar: Beza Mahafaly and
Improving Protected Area Conservation in Africa. Andohahela Reserves. In: Kiss, A. (Ed.) . Livingwith
USAID , Washington. 76 pp. Wildlife: Wildlife resource management with local
Hilty, S.L. 1982. Draft Environmental Profile ofthe participation in Africa. Draft. World Bank, Washington,
Kingdom ofLesotho . Office of Arid Land Studies , DC. Pp. 41-52.
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Stuart, S.N. and Adams, R.J. 1990. Biodiversity in Sub-
IUCN 1987. Action strategyfor protected areas in the saharanAfricaand its Islands. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Afrotropical Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and 242 pp.
Cambridge, U.K. 51 pp. WCMC 1992. Tropical Managed Areas Assessment
IUCN/UNEP 1987. The IUCN Directory ofAfrotropical Part 1. Subregional Reviews. Tropical Africa (Sec-
Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and tions 6-10) . Assessing the conservation status ofthe
Cambridge, U.K. 1034 pp. world's tropical forest: A contribution to the FAO
IUCN 1990. The Nature ofBotswana a guide to con- Forest Resources Assessment 1990. Draft. WCMC,
servation anddevelopment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Cambridge , U.K. 428 pp.+ maps.
77 pp. World Bank 1988a. Staff Appraisal Report: Ghana Re-
Sayer, J.A. , Harcourt , C.S. , and Collin N.M (Eds) 1992 . source Management Project. Report No. 7295-GH.
The Conservation Atlas ofTropical Forests- Africa. World Bank, Washington, DC. 119 pp.
MacMillan Publishers Ltd., London. 288 pp. World Bank 1988b. Kenya-Forestry subsector review.
IUCN 1992. Protected Areas ofthe World: A review of Report No. 6651-KE. Agriculture Operations Division,
national systems. Volume 3: Afrotropical. Prepared World Bank Eastern Africa Department. 41 pp.
bytheWorldConservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, WWF 1991. Kenya Coastal forests: status, conser-
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge , U.K. xxii + vation and management. Project No. 3256. Summary
360pp. sheet in: WWF List ofApproved Projects Vol.6: Africa/
Kiss, A. (Ed.) . 1990. Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Madagascar, April 1991. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
resource management with local participation in
Africa. Draft. World Bank, Washington, DC. 215 pp.
North Africa
and the
Middle East
‫ת‬
protected
Percentage
%
0.1
than
Less 15-20
%
%
0.1-5 %
20
than
More
%
5-10
Km
%
10-15
400
0
800
‫سر‬
legally
areas
protected
designated
Map
.Percentage
within
included
country
of
Contents
Page
Introduction . . 77
1.1 History of man and nature 78
1.2 Growth of protected area systems 79
1.3 Participation in major international protected area programmes 82
2. Current protected area coverage . . . 84
2.1 Protected area systems 84
2.2 Coverage of major habitats and biological diversity . • 84
2.3 Categories 84
2.4 Protected areas in danger . 85
4. Protected area institutions . . . 88
5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas • 88
6. Human capacity in protected areas management . . 89
6.1 Staff .. 89
6.2 Training . • 89
8. Major protected areas issues in the region . 92

2
2
5
2
8
8
8.1 Oil and water • 92
8.2 Armed conflict • 93
8.3 Site integrity 93
8.4 Science and protected areas 94
8.5 Traditional de facto protection • 95
8.6 Public participation-people and protected areas 95
8.7 Habitat restoration and species re-introduction . 96
8.8 International tourism . 96

Page
9. Priorities for action in the region ... 97
Acknowledgements 97
References .98
Tables
Table 1 . Summary of the protected areas system .78
Table 2 . Protected areas by IUCN management categories . • 81
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system . .82
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions .83
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in North Africa/Middle East • .83
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets .90
Figures

areas . 74
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) .80
Figure 2 . Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) • .80

North Africa
and the Middle East
Presented by Mohammad Sulayem , Vice-Chair for North Africa and the Middle
East, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas , with support
from Mustapha Saleh , Faisal Dean and Graham Drucker
Introduction The region provides important migration routes for a

huge number ofbirds of a great variety of species. It has
This Regional Review focuses on that part of the Pal- been estimated that some 2-3,000 million migrants
aearctic Realm that covers the Middle East and North move in a southerly direction across Arabia each autumn,
Africa. The region is perhaps one of the most diverse involving up to 200 species. Equally high numbers pass
on the globe, being at a junction between three conti- through Turkey and down the Levant across Syria,
nents: Africa, Asia and Europe. Its marine component Lebanon, Israel and Egypt as well as across the Straits
reflects this great diversity, centering on the Mediterra- of Gibraltar from Europe to Morocco and beyond.
nean Sea but including the Atlantic Ocean, the Red Sea,
Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, Black Sea, Caspian However, North Africa and the Middle East's natur-
Sea and the Indian Ocean. ally diverse vegetation has been profoundly influenced
by human activity. Today, the only extensive areas of
North Africa and the Middle East has remarkable vegetation that are essentially unaltered by human im-
diversity, not just of nature , but of civilizations, cultures pact are some areas of desert ecosystems in Arabia and
and languages, reflecting its long and complicated his- the Sahara; parts of the Mediterranean coniferous for-
tory. The Middle East has been the cradle of western est; some wetlands in Iran and Turkey; high montane
civilization and the birthplace of its science, but it has habitats in the circum Mediterranean region, the central
also probably experienced more wars than any other Arabian peninsula and of Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan;
continent. Situated at a geographical and historical "cross- some broadleaf forests in Afghanistan; and some wet-
roads",the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Asia Minor lands, marine and sea habitats in north -west Africa , Iran
and the Levant harbour a varied fauna and flora, with and Turkey. Elsewhere, unaltered vegetation is found
over 18% invertebrate endemism out of 3,027 recorded only on mountain tops above the tree line, in some
species in Saudi Arabia alone (Miller and Nyberg, wetland areas, in isolated patches of woodland and on
1991). Partly this is due to relict flora and fauna which some parts of the coast.
survived from the last Ice Age when the Region was
wetter and cooler than currently with a temperate Medi- In the Middle East and North Africa the most signi-
terranean-type climate. The terrain is also varied, from ficant changes to vegetation and landscape occurred
desert plains, covered in sparse scrub with perennial, thousands of years ago in the Sahara and other desert
and often salt-tolerant herbs and ephemerals of the areas. For the most part, they led to varied and biolo-
Arabian Peninsula, to broad-leaved forests of the up- gically diverse continents, in many areas increasing
lands of NW Africa and SW Asia where biodiversity is biological diversity, at least on the local scale.
very great. Dry forest and steppe cover large areas of
the Region but includes vast stretches of degraded scrub However, in the past 50 years or so, there has been a
and remnant wood savanna. The Arabian Gulf is rep- steady degradation in much of this rich landscape. In
resented by at least four critical marine habitats: coastal the Mediterranean, notably in parts of Algeria, Morocco,
marshes and mudflats, coral reefs, seagrass beds and Tunisia, Cyprus and Turkey, mechanized agriculture
mangroves. Tidal flats and hypersaline wetland areas has reduced the rich patchwork quilt of woodlands,
are distributed throughout the more arid zones of the hedges and small fields to an agro-industrial prairie
region, as in the Sahara desert and along the north and largely devoid of wildlife. In much of the Levant and
west Arabian Gulf. Much of the lowland areas are Egypt drainage has spared only remnants of the previ-
cultivated in the less arid lowlands and livestock graz- ously extensive wetlands. In NW Africa and in Turkey,
ing is prevalent throughout in all but the most hyper-arid the massive expansion of tourism is causing great
zones. damage to the fragile Mediterranean coast.
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : North Africa and Middle East

Country Area Categories I-V % VI-VIII and UA
V % designated %
Afghanistan 652,225 1,834 0.3 0 0.0 1,834 0.3

Algeria 2,381,745 127,193 5.3 30 0.0 127,223 5.3
Bahrain 661 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Cyprus 9,250 20 0.2 90 1.0 110 1.2
Egypt 1,000,250 8,004 0.8 0 0.0 8,004 0.8
Iran 1,648,000 79,794 4.8 3,199 0.2 82,993 5.0
Iraq 438,445 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Israel 20,770 2,067 10.0 0 0.0 2,067 10.0
Jordan 96,000 1,004 1.0 0 0.0 1,004 1.0
Kuwait 24,280 250 1.0 0 0.0 250 1.0
Lebanon 10,400 35 0.3 0 0.0 35 0.3
Libya 1,759,540 1,550 0.1 170 0.0 1,720 0.1
Morocco 458,730 3,621 0.8 156 0.0 3,777 0.8
Morocco (Saharan Provinces) 252,120 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Oman 271,950 540 0.2 27,823 10.2 28,363 10.4
Qatar 11,435 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Saudi Arabia 2,400,900 211,974 8.8 643 0.0 212,617 8.9
Syria 185,680 0 0.0 150 0.1 150 0.1
Tunisia 164,150 444 0.3 1,312 0.8 1,756 1.1
Turkey 779,450 2,394 0.3 2,388 0.3 4,782 0.6
UAE 75,150 0 0.0 127 0.2 127 0.2
Yemen 477,530 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 13,118,661 440,724 3.4 36,088 0.3 476,812 3.6
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category
has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included .
However, the decade since the 1982 World Parks Con- sequence of climatic change. A number of scholars saw
gress in Bali was remarkable in many ways: at the end it differently and attributed the decline to man's poor
ofthe 1980s, environmental issues started to rise up the management, despite the efforts of many of these cul-
political agenda in most North African and Middle East tures to allocate and control the scarce resources ofthis
countries. Even with economic recession, they appear arid region. Examples of these controls include the
to be staying there during the 1990s even in the event strictly rationed water rights, access to grazing, cutting
of military conflict, civil strife and war. of trees, collection of firewood, and selective ownership
of agricultural land. Unfortunately those controls did
not apply to everyone in this vast region . Many rural
1. Historical perspective inhabitants unwittingly destroyed their forests through
clear-cutting for timber and charcoal, and they were
1.1 followed by herdsmen whose goats, sheep, cattle, and
History of man and nature
camels grazed and browsed any remaining vegetation .
These practices continue to this very day, giving nature
The Middle East, North Africa and Southwest Asia were
little chance to regenerate its vegetative cover.
settled and ruled by a number of ancient civilizations:
Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians,
Romans, Byzantines, and Arabs, to name just a few. The epitome ofthe impact of man on his environment
These empires prospered and were maintained by the is the Levant. Overlooking the eastern Mediterranean is
partnership that had developed between man and nature. MountLebanon which was once carpeted with a rich stand
Their people mastered the skills of irrigation, agri- ofstately cedars whose height, strength, and utility became
culture, domestication of plants and animals, as well as legendary throughout the Old World. The felling of the
hunting and fishing to harness and use the bounty of trees began as early as 3000 BC when the Phoenicians
their land and sea. The development of these skills and began a lucrative trade in cedar wood with the Pharaohs
their widespread use eventually took their toll on the ofancient Egypt, the Assyrians, the Biblical King Solomon,
available resources which were either degraded or com- and many others. Five thousand years of service to civili-
pletely depleted . The process of desertification had set zation has left the Lebanese highlands a permanently
in and was viewed primarily as an inevitable con- degraded vestige of their former glory (Eckholm , 1976).
North Africa and the Middle East
1.2 Growth of protected area 6th century AD and subsequent caliphs were very strict
in keeping the hima system protected.
systems
One of From 1000AD- 1700. During this period there was

Ancient civilisations (2000BC-200AD).
the earliest large towns yet discovered by archaeologists a prevalence of protected areas in the form of hunting
is Catal Huyuk in central Turkey, believed to be at least reserves. Beginning in 1240, under the reign of Abdallah
8,400 years old. Vultures, foxes, weasels, leopards, Abou Zakaria of the Hafside dynasty, hunting reserves
were maintained at Lake Ichkeul in Tunisia and their
rams and bulls were found in the many shrines of that
ancient town, either in effigy or as bones. The temple management continued throughthe period ofthe Ottoman
inscriptions of the Egyptian Queen Hatsephut in 1540 Empire into the 20th century.
BC illustrates a wildlife expedition to the Land of Punt.
1700-1900. During the 18th and 19th centuries es-
It was sometime after that, about two thousand years
tablishment of forest and hunting reserves were facili-
ago, that reserves and protected areas were developed
tated across the Ottoman Empire as far west as Algeria
aroundthe Mediterranean and in the Arabian peninsula,
as a result of Article 1243 of the Ottoman civil code,
many of which have survived to the present century.
within the body of Islamic law, which stipulated that
The principles that governed those reserves provide the
land and associated trees growing wild in mountains were
basis for new and expanded systems of protected areas
not to be possessed and should remain ownerless.
in the region today.
The Greeks and Romans were perhaps the first to set The first of the more recent conservation legislation
up organised protected areas. Caius Plinius Secondus took place in Tunisia, which came into existence on 12
(Pliny the Elder) wrote the Natural History, of which December 1884. The object of this Ordinance was to
37 volumes survive, recording everything known about regulate hunting throughout the country.
the world. At that time throughout the Roman Empire
The early 20th century. It was not until this
there were forest administration structures, delimited
century that the region witnessed the establishment of
forests, wardening systems, and programmes of tree
planting, along with areas set aside for wildlife (Drucker, the first modern protected areas. (See Figures 1 and 2
in litt. , 1985; Mallett, in litt. , 1991) . on the growth of the protected areas network) .
It is reported that the Roman Emperor Hadrian (117- Examples can be found in Algeria originally dating
138 AD) was so struck by the destruction ofthe Lebanese from as early as 1920, in Iran in 1927, and in Morocco
in 1942. Other countries have since followed suit. The
Cedar forests during a visit to the eastern realm of his
empire that he ordered nearly one hundred rock inscrip- impetus to set up protected areas at this time was more
tions to be placed in the northern half ofMount Lebanon for recreation than for nature conservation, as in the
to designate the surviving forests as imperial domain, colonial periods of a number of countries, such as with
one of the world's earliest recorded efforts at estab- the national parks of Chrea (Algeria) and Toubkal
lishing a protected area. Today only scattered remnants (Morocco). Subsequently, the Forestry Service of the
of these once extensive forests endure, leaving Hadrian's French administration set up a network of legal provi-
inscriptions as a silent memorial to a failed conservation sions for the protection of the environment, such as
effort. those for the ' Defence des végétaux ' (Tunisia) on 11
July 1932 and Ordinance on National Parks of 17 March
Traditional forms of protected area or resource reserve 1936 (Tunisia). In 1936 Ahmed Pacha Bey decreed that
(hima, hema, hujrah or ahmia) may have origins over Bou Hedma be declared a state park of 5,000ha in order
2,000 years ago in the pre-Islamic period, and devel- to protect its unique forest ecosystem . In many cases
oped as an ancient acknowledgement of the scarcity of these series of acts have been largely repealed after
renewable resources and the need to conserve and use independence, and either reenacted or superseded in
them wisely in support of sustainable rural economic subsequent presidential and Ministerial decrees or regu-
development. lations.
The early Islamic period (500-1000AD). Nature The 1950s-1970s. One of the most encouraging
conservation has had a long tradition in the Arabian trends ofthe past thirty years is the steady growth in the
peninsula. The Koran and Arabic poetic literature attach number and size of protected areas in the region , clearly
great importance to the value of man preserving his showing that as a whole these countries are moving in
natural heritage. The concept of the hima was given a the right direction. The most rapid increase in protected
more solid legal standing according to Islamic law areas at this stage was in Iran, where at the end of 1965
(shari'ah) throughout the regions conquered by Islam. there were 11 protected sites with a total area of
The Prophet Muhammed abolished the ancient private 600,000ha; then up to 1976, five rivers were protected ,
himas belonging to powerful individuals and estab- in addition to all marshes, wetlands, waterways and
lished a legal system that continues to govern these bays along the Caspian Sea. By 1977, the number of
protected areas designed to provide communal benefits. protected areas had risen to 69 sites covering a total area
He also set up a protected area hima near Medina in the of 7,998,168ha or 5% of the country.
50
Number of sites
40 Area (x1000sqkm )
30
20
10
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
500
Number of sites
400 Area ( x1000sqkm )
300
200
100
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : North Africa and Middle East
I II III IV V TOTAL
46 1194
410 -
Afghanistan TIME 1 1,424 5 1,834
Algeria 4 368 8 125,645 415 1 764 19 127,193
Bahrain
Cyprus - - 20 1 20
Egypt 3 370 1 197 7,437 13 8,004
72
Iran 17 19,042 7 10,753 2 4 11,449 32 38,488 62 79,794
Iraq - -
121
Israel 1 31 19 1,953 1 84 21 2,067

Jordan 1 12 6 792 1 200 8 1,004
Kuwait 1 250 1 250
35 -
123
I 12
Lebanon 1 1 35
I
I5
Libya 1 350 1,200 - - 3 1,550

Morocco 553 2,370 698 10 3,621
I
Morocco
12 12 1600 1
1216 113 I
(Saharan Provinces) –
Oman 540 540
Qatar - - -
Saudi Arabia 2 2,600 204,874 1 4,500 9 211,974
-
113 1
Syria
Tunisia 6 444 - 444
Turkey 1 13 11 1,564 314 3 503 18 2,394
UAE
Yemen -
Total 33 22,958 37 139,429 2 62 65 232,788 42 45,487 179 440,724
A typical example of the rapid increase in protected In Turkey although nature protection sites were slow
area establishment was in Turkey, where studies on the to develop, in 1987 five natural reserve area sites had
selection and establishment of sites began in 1956, by been designated and a further two were in the process
1987, eleven natural, one historic , two landscape, one ofbeing approved by the Ministry. This had risen to 18
reserve and one natural monument were set aside as sites totalling 25,492ha in 1991. In 1988 the first two
national parks, covering a total ofover 250,000ha . This special protected areas were declared, rising to 11 by
rose to a total of 21 national parks in 1990 with a total 1991. In 1981 at least 295,759ha were protected in 36
area of 263,575ha. national forests.
The most major omission to major protected area

The 1980-1990s. At the present time, most countries
conservation plans and protected areas networks con-
in the region have some kind or other of protected area,
although there are major gaps in some of the Arabian tinues to be Iraq, with a continued lack of develop-
Gulf states and the Levant (IUCN, 1992). ments towards protected areas in Afghanistan: an early
start civil strife from 1979 onwards completely halted
the protected area developments of three wildlife areas
In many countries this decade has been the start of the and one national park which were well protected at that
development of the modern protected area network, time.
with Bahrain, North Cyprus, Kuwait, Lebanon , Libya,
Oman, Qatar and UAE. Currently Yemen is actively Overall , the activities from the early 1990s onwards
working towards its protected areas establishment centred appears to be positive, not just by almost every country
on work in Jebel Bura. Some major examples of wide- now having protected areas but by also looking at the
spread activities include those of Oman and Saudi Arabia methods for strengthening the existing networks and
with their Nature Conservation strategies and lists of methods to improve administration , management, and
almost 200 proposed protected areas. conservation of biological diversity.
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : North Africa and Middle East

Afghanistan 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 1,834

Algeria 0.0 0.0 63.1 36.9 31 127,192
Bahrain 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Cyprus 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 20
Egypt 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 475 8,004
Iran 7.1 49.1 42.6 1.2 6,275 79,793
Iraq 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Israel 10.1 16.9 73.0 0.0 1,117 2,067
Jordan 0.0 1.5 2.7 95.8 200 1,004
Kuwait 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 250
Lebanon 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 35
Libya 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 1,550
Morocco 10.5 65.6 2.7 21.2 0 3,621
Morocco (Saharan
Provinces) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Oman 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 530 540
Qatar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.0 2.1 97.9 0 211,974
Syria 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Tunisia 0.0 0.0 89.7 10.3 0 444
Turkey 8.4 28.0 43.9 19.7 0 2,394
UAE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Yemen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Total 1.4 9.1 28.2 61.4 8,629 440,725
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Only protected areas meeting criteria
for IUCN management categories I-V are included . Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change
in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted.
Table 3 illustrates the development of the protected ■ The establishment by UNEP, with assistance from
area system in the 20th century. IUCN, WCMC, and the Tunisian government, of
the Regional Activities Centre for Specially Pro-
tected Areas established in Salammbo , Tunis (Tunisia)
1.3 Participation in major international
in 1985.
protected area programmes
■ The development by UNESCO- MAB of regional
North Africa and Middle East country participation in programmes for the conservation of marine turtles,
major international protected area programmes has been birds and marine mammals; and a Mediterranean
very limited . Table 4 illustrates the adherence to inter- Biodiversity Conservation Programme and the ap-
national/regional conventions within the region. In sum- proval of funding from the Global Environment
mary, the major specific actions which have been taken Facility in Jordan.
in the North Africa and Middle East Region over the
last decade include: ■ The adoption of the UNEP sponsored Kuwait Action
Plan in Kuwait in 1978 with the promotion and
Adoption of the Ramsar (Wetland) Convention held safeguarding of biological integrity as one of its
at the town of Ramsar in Iran in 1971. functions.
■ International meeting on Ecological Guidelines for ■ The adoption of the UNEP sponsored Red Sea and
the Use ofNatural Resources in the Middle East and Gulf of Aden Action Plan in 1982 at Jeddah (Saudi
Southwest Asia held in Persepolis (Iran) in 1975 and Arabia) with the promotion and safeguarding of
sponsored by IUCN. biological integrity as one of its functions.
The establishment of the UNEP sponsored ■ Regional Workshops on Mediterranean Biosphere

Mediterranean Action Plan adopted in Barcelona Reserves held by UNESCO in 1991 (Tunis, Tunisia),
(Spain) in 1975 with the promotion and estab- 1986 (Florac, France) and 1979 (Side, Turkey) . In
lishment of protected areas as one of its functions . the third reunion (1991) there was the first informal
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions : North Africa and Middle East

Afghanistan March 1979 0 - -

Algeria June 1974 1 300,000 2 7,276,438 November 1983 2 4,900
Bahrain May 1991 0
128
Cyprus August 1975 0
Egypt February 1974 0 1 1,000 September 1988 2 105,700
Iran, Islamic Rep February 1975 0 2,609,731 June 1975 1,357,550
Iraq March 1974 0
Israel
Jordan May 1975 January 1977 1 7,372
Kuwait -
114
Lebanon February 1983 0
Libya October 1978 0
Morocco October 1975 0 June 1980 10,580
Oman October 1981 0
Qatar September 1984 0
Saudi Arabia August 1978 0
Syrian Arab Rep August 1975 0
Tunisia March 1975 1 12,600 4 32,425 November 1980 1 12,600
Turkey March 1983 1 9,576 -
United Arab Emirates -
Yemen Arab Rep October 1980 January 1984 0 -
from the man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. These sites, which have not been included
in the above table, include Hierapolis- Pamukkale in Turkey.
2. Only sites lying within the region are listed .
gathering of IUCN CNPPA members from the country, except Egypt, has established more than one
Middle East and North Africa. site, Iran the most with nine. However, there is growing
interest in this Programme and the benefits it has to
38th CNPPA Working Session , on North Africa and
offer, particularly in relationship to applied scientific
Middle East at Etna Regional Park, Sicily in October
study, sustainable development, and the harmonization
1992 organised by the International Park Docu- of man and his environment.
mentation Centre (CEDIP) , Sicilian Regional Authori-
ties, NCWCD, IUCN Secretariat, and WCMC. Table 5. World Heritage sites in North
Africa/Middle East
Of the international conventions and programmes ,
only six countries have signed the Ramsar (Wetlands)
Algeria
Convention. However, there are up to 28 sites listed, of
Tassili N'Ajjer
which by far the most active country is Iran, with 18
sites covering 1.4 million hectares. Of the 18 countries Tunisia
that have signed the World Heritage Convention, only Ichkeul National Park
five were signed in the decade after 1980, and only one
after 1990. At present all countries, barring Israel, Kuwait Turkey
and United Arab Emirates, have signed the Convention. Goreme National Park
Inscription of sites, however, has been limited to Algeria, Hierapolis-Pamukkale
Tunisia and Turkey. Potential World Heritage Sites
have been identified in Horsh Arz el-Rab (Forêt des One of these sites (Hierapolis-Pamakkale) is a mixed natural/
cultural sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty
Cèdres de Dieu) in Lebanon, and Jiddat al Harrasis in resulting from man/nature interaction, rather than natural
Oman, and they proposed for submission in 1992/1993. features alone.
Table 5 lists sites inscribed on the World Heritage

List. The Middle East and North Africa region is unusual
in as much that being represented by more than one
As far as Biosphere Reserves are concerned, only four continent it is applicable to a range of regional European,
countries actively participate with Biosphere Reserves African, and Asian conventions and programmes which
listed in the Unesco Man and the Biosphere (MAB) specifically encourage the establishment of protected
Programme. A total of 16 sites have been established, areas. The Barcelona Convention (Convention onPollution
covering a total area of about 9.9 million ha. Each in the Mediterranean) entered into force in February
1976, and includes under additional protocol which of species and their habitats is variable from country to
entered into force in 1986 (Protocol Concerning country. Algeria, Turkey, Oman, Israel, and Saudi Arabia
Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas) the provision perhaps being the most progressive. For example, the
to encourage the establishment of specially protected Omani government initiated in 1984 a survey for pro-
areas which together with existing protected areas will posing a system of nature conservation areas. Up to 43
safeguard representative samples of the natural ecosys- different land classes and 12 marine habitats were iden-
tems. tified, described and mapped, and populations of threat-
ened and endemic wildlife of interest for conservation
All the countries around the Mediterranean Sea ex- totalled 94 plant and 100 animal taxa.
cept Syria and Lebanon have now ratified. Many ofthe
24 Specially Protected Areas of the Middle East and However, right across the region protected area, or
North Africa are existing protected areas, but some are even unprotected site specific, inventories are patchy
newly designated , as in Turkey. and illustrate a major need for rationalisation of review-
ing the coverage and level of protection of biological
Turkey and Cyprus are members of the Council of diversity across the region. Towards redressing part of
Europe. The Council of Europe awards the European this balance is the BirdLife International (ICBP) Pro-
Diploma to protected areas. One site has been awarded grammeto identify Important Birds Areas of the Middle
the Diploma and two sites designated under the Council East (see below).
ofEurope Biogenetic Reserves network.
Even where information exists the lengthy delays in
Other than these initiatives, there has been little in- gazettement of sites over 1-10 years or more have not
volvement with international protected areas programmes
infrequently been attained too late to conserve that
which perhaps reflects the low priority accorded pro- wildlife that the site was originally of note for, such is
tected area establishment by many of the Middle East the case in Gebel Elba (Egypt), a number of sites in
and North Africa governments and a reluctance to be- Saudi Arabia and Dilek Peninsula (Turkey) .
come party to any international programmes which may
involve additional financial commitments. Converse- Perhaps some of the major gaps in the protected areas
ly, the international programmes may find it difficult to system is for the marine are coastal environment. A
justify the resources necessary to undertake initiatives limited number of coastal/marine sites exist in the
in a region which is vast, little studied, sparsely popu- Mediterranean, and one or two in the Red Sea and
lated, and politically insecure and so in global terms Arabian Gulf. However, given the enormous biodiverse
does not appear to have a high priority for conservation wealth and threats from tourism and marine pollution
action although rich in biological diversity. these are priority areas for future conservation.
Other examples of note of areas without significant

2. Current protected area coverage protection, and under pressure from agricultural
"improvements" are, the steppic habitats of the Atlas,
2.1 Protected area systems Anatolia, and Arabia; the wetlands ofthe Mediterranean
and Anatolia; and the exceptional biodiverse and en-
Ten countries in the region are implementing com- demic rich montane refugia of the Atlas, Dhofar and
prehensive systems plans for protected areas. Seven Afghan mountain chains (Green and Drucker, 1991 ;
others have systems plans that are either incomplete, Bates, 1991 ) . However, proposed new areas in Egypt,
inadequate, or not being implemented. The remaining Morocco, Algeria, Oman, and Saudi Arabia will cer-
countries appear not to have any such plans; instead, tainly address some of these concerns and help improve
protected areas have been selected and established on the situation.
an individual basis to protect specific areas of interest
(see map for the percentage of country included within
2.3 Categories
legally designated protected areas) .
Much is being made in the Western World of the desig-
2.2 Coverage of major habitats and nation of a site as a national park, whereby it can only
biological diversity reach this status once it has been promulgated by legis-
lation passed through parliament. It is important to
Effectively, there is no regionwide protected areas net- realise that legislation in many of the Middle East and
work and only limited proposals towards extending EC North African countries follow patterns and procedures
wide initiatives to the region (see below) . It is to be which differ completely from the West and so the
expected that such a collection of protected areas does concept of "designated area" may then be misleading or
not necessarily cover all major or critical habitats, nor even invalid. In many countries, protected areas recog-
are they fully representative or geographically balanced . nized by organizations such as the NCWCD (Saudi
Arabia) can be accepted as being legal, and having
At the national level approximately half ofthe coun- similar status to national parks for example even though
tries have now published national flora and faunal in- they do not necessarily have complete gazettement
ventories, however details on the status and distribution (Abuzinada, in litt., 1993).
National Designations in Middle East and North Africa*
Designation No. Designation No.
Amenity forest reserve 1 Natural monument 1

Biological reserve 6 Natural reserve 1
Bird sanctuary 4 Natural area 6
Botanical reserve 2 Natural nature reserve 2
Breeding station 30 Nature reserve 180
Conservation area 3 Other area 110
Faunal reserve 6 Permanent hunting reserve 7
Forestpark 2 Private reserve 7
Forest reserve 17 Protected landscape 6
Forest sanctuary 1 Protected park 7
Game management area 2 Protected area 90
Game reserve 59 Recreational area 177
Hunting reserve 20 Regional park 1
Managed nature reserve 8 Reserve 35
Marine park 6 Scientific reserve 2
Marine reserve 5 State forest 4
Multiple use area 2 Underwater park 1
2185
National marine park 3 Waterfowl sanctuary 3

National scenic reserve 6 Wetland reserve 1
National nature reserve 27 Wetland zone of importance 12
National monument Wildlife sanctuary 1
National park 38 Wildlife refuge 22
National reserve Wildlife reserve 13
*Based on the WCMC database
Summary of the protected area system is found in Sites meeting IUCN criteria include 178 in categories
Table 1. Of the national designations by far the com- I-V and 34 in categories VI-VIII . There are also 27
monest was the nature reserve (19% ) , followed by internationally recognized Ramsar sites, six World
recreational area ( 18%), other areas (12%), protected Heritage sites and 12 Biosphere Reserves. As indicated
area (9%), game reserve (6%) , national park (4%), above regionally recognized designations include
reserve (3%) and breeding station (3%). Of these the the Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas under the
primary function was up to 47% for biological diversity Barcelona Convention, Council of Europe Diploma
protection, 20% for amenity or recreation , 13% as game sites and Council of Europe Biogenetic Reserves.
or hunting areas, 3% for forest conservation , and only
2% for marine protection. Trends in biological conservation in the Middle East
and North Africa in many instances is away from site
Only 19% ofthe nationally designated sites reach the protection and more towards integrated regional ap-
IUCN criteria standards for protected areas and consist proaches, such as Oman Coastal Zone Management
largely of small sites or those which are not formally Plan (Oman) , Zuhrah (Yemen) and Southeast Anatolia
gazetted (such as traditional protected areas) or where - GAP (Turkey) . In densely populated areas with limited
multiple-use management or recreation is the primary land availability, such as Israel , other forms of area
interest. designation are evolving. In order to conserve bio-
diversity and the visual resources, an approach has been
Available estimates indicate that protected areas (IUCN formulated to integrate development and conservation
of the natural and cultural landscape diversity. Open
categories I-VIII) total about 475,982 sq km, or just
spaces throughout the country were classified into four
3.6% ofthe total area ofthe region . Ofthe 24 countries
categories in accordance to their value, importance ,
and provinces of the region only two have at least 10%
sensitivity and vulnerability: protected areas, open space
of their land area under protection as recommended by
landscape areas, controlled development areas, build-
the Bali Action Plan of 1982. The coverage varies from
ing, and development areas.
a maximum of 10.4% in Oman to no IUCN recognized
protected areas in Bahrain, Iraq, Qatar, and Yemen.
2.4 Protected areas in danger
Table 2 summarises the number and area of the pro-
tected areas in the region by IUCN management Siteprotection is reasonably well implemented in less than
categories . one third of the countries of the region. The remainder
vary inthe degree of protection they provide , with some joint Government of Egypt and European Community
receiving practically no protection at all . This is largely funded programme the situation is that the site is being
due to lack of financial resources, inadequate training expanded and used as a role model for wise-use of
of personnel or pressure from lands and peoples sur- protected areas throughout the rest of the country.
rounding the sites (Sulayem, 1991) .
From the available information, it can be concluded 3. Additional protected areas

that: required
■ Sharp differences exist in the coverage and manage- The Middle East and North Africa have vast tracts of
ment effectiveness ofprotected areas from one country land and sea which offer numerous opportunities for
to another. large new protected areas. Many ofthe countries ofthe
The part ofthe Middle East and North Africa where region are planning substantial increases to their pro-
the protected area network seems to be least effec- tected area systems. Prominent amongst these are the
tive, in both coverage and management, is in the Levant countries of Lebanon , Syria, and Turkey. Egypt
Arabian Mountain refugia and eastern Mediterra- even intends to create bilateral or trilateral parks with
nean countries, where species diversity is greatest. its neighbours Saudi Arabia , Sudan, and Jordan.
Those sites listed as in greatest danger by IUCN No overview is available to accurately identify gaps
include those such as Gebel Elba with armed conflict in representation of main habitat types for the region as
and Ichkeul with disputes over water rights. However a whole (as indicated above) . In some countries im-
these are only selected examples and in fact the variety portant work has been done to identify the most im-
of threats to protection is immense. portant centres ofbiodiversity. However, major informa-
tion gaps exist across the region as a result of the
Several countries in the Region have inadequate sys- absence of baseline ecological data. Without filling
tems, particularly given their global importance for these gaps of information, a comprehensive systems
biological diversity. They include: plan for the region as a whole will be difficult to
achieve. Comprehensive field surveys of areas where
■ Iraq , where almost all proposed and recommended
knowledge is inadequate are therefore necessary to
protected areas are under severe threat due to lack
provide the basic information needed to identify ad-
of political and social support, and are in danger of
ditional areas to be protected. In many cases, infor-
losing their natural vegetation through misuse, de- mation to do this is lacking. Data on the coverage of
struction and armed conflict. For example, marsh-
habitats, especially around the Mediterranean , is ad-
lands in the recommended Hor al Hammar National
equate and there are various aridland-wide regional
Park west of Basra are threatened by drainage , poli-
studies , such as on the Sahara desert lands , and on
cies to alter the traditional lifestyles of the local
Mediterranean , Arabian Gulf, Red Sea marine and
communities, and habitat destruction including through
coastal ecosystems such as seagrasses or corals .
chemicals. Not one protected area has been estab-
lished so far, and the legislative base is inadequate . Protected area networks have been developed at a
■ Yemen , again areas of nature conservation value are national level, with little consideration given to a
under threat due to limited central political support regional Middle East and North Africa perspective.
and are in danger of losing their natural vegetation. The systems approach has not yet been taken at a
For example, natural forests in proposed protected regional level, and monitoring of protected areas
areas are threatened by tourism developments . Only across the Middle East and North Africa is inadequate.
one major protected area is in the process of estab-
lishment so far, and the legislative base is inade- To inform decision-makers and planners at all levels
quate. of the existence and importance of sites and to en-
courage the development and implementation of natio-
Morocco is one of Africa's most biologically di-
nal conservation strategies, various studies and source
verse countries but its protected areas are poorly
data is already available or in the process of preparation
staffed, often with part-time personnel, who have
that would contribute to such an analysis include:
inadequate resources to look after the areas. The
protected areas generally do not have their own
■ The IUCN/WWF Centres of Plant Diversity Project,
administration but come under local forest officers;
which is identifying large areas that should be pro-
most are not implemented on the ground, and some tected for their plant wealth, especially in the plant-
are in danger from impact of the surrounding land rich Mediterranean and Arabian Peninsula countries.
outside ofprotected areas. Also, the existing protected
areas (such as Toubkal NP) need to be strengthened, Published directories of Important Bird Areas
extended and additional parks created. (Grimmett & Jones, 1989) and of wetlands (Carp,
1980), covering sites both large and small .
On a favourable note, previously Ras Mohamed was
widely regarded as a site under threat through over ■ Published directories of Coral Reefs of the World by
fishing, tourism and habitat destruction, following a IUCN.
Published inventories of Mediterranean Specially ■ The marine and coastal areas of all subregions;
Protected Areas under the Barcelona Convention
(UNEP, 1989). The wetlands of North Africa;
■ Ornithological Society of the Middle East (OSME) ■ The wetlands of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran;
sites register scheme from 1982-1992.
■ The mountain coniferous forests of Lebanon, Cyprus
☐ West Palaearctic waterfowl census database com-
piled byInternational Waterfowl and Wetlands Research and Syria. At present only small areas of these
coniferous forests are protected; in Lebanon the
Bureau of1992.
Parliament recently decided to protect part ofthis as
■ Published lists in Current Status ofProtected Areas is the Syrian National MAB Committee, a portion
and Threatened Mammal Species in the Sahara- considered insufficient by biologists and conser-
vationists;
Gobian Region (Green and Drucker, 1991) .
Attempts to fill the gaps in the evaluation of the The marshes of Mesopotamia (Iraq/Iran) . A large
natural and semi-natural habitats ofthe Middle East and area of flat and gently undulating wetland of reeds
North Africa region as a whole include: and bogs, the largest expanse of reedbed and marsh-
land in the world.
■ Drafts of the Middle East Important Birds Areas
Directory of BirdLife International (Evans , in litt.,
Encouraging progress has been made on marine pro-
1993) and the Middle East and North Africa Protected
tected areas in the Mediterranean, though here, as else-
Areas Directory ofthe World Conservation Monitoring where in the world, efforts lag behind those on land.
Centre (Drucker, in litt. , 1993): projects to produce
With the exception of the Iranian coast, the situation is
databases of sites of international, regional and na- poor in the Arabian or Persian Gulf; the Atlantic has
tional importance for biological diversity, providing
been poorly addressed-although Morocco has estab-
key information for the conservation of the region's
lished sites overthe past decade at Oued Sous; the Black
fauna, flora and habitats.
Sea has been partly reviewed by Turkey, the Caspian
by Iran, Red Sea by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
In 1992 the World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
BirdLife International, and the UK Institute of Terrestrial
Ecology proposed to extend the EC CORINE Biotopes Of the other countries of the region, for example in
methodology developed for Europe to the eleven Middle Oman, one could suggest the areas listed under the
East and North African Mediterranean countries covered government proposals for a system of nature conser-
by the EC Avicenne Initiative . The principal objectives vation areas (NCA) which were to form part of a total
of any such project are to systematically identify and land-use strategy. Plans included proposed details for
list key threatened species and biotope types of the policy and law, the designation of nature conservation
region to ensure their future conservation; improve the area systems. If this was to be fully implemented 91
country-level and regional availability of environ- NCAS would be protected , including 59 national nature
mental conservation data; promote improved data qual- reserves, 20 national scenic reserves, and 12 national
ity by use of standard field techniques, habitat resource reserves, representing about 37% of Oman. In
classifications and protocols for data capture; and promote Saudi Arabia a number of proposals have been made,
the ready flow of data for in-country applications; de- including that based on a large-scale survey of water
velop regional communications and thematic databases resources covering 1,248,000 sq km in the mid- 1970s.
on sites with regionally important biotopes so as to A review by Meteorological and Environmental Pro-
assist the development of an integrated conservation tection Agency (MEPA) led to 46 marine and coastal
strategy for the region; provide the basis for a coordi- sites being recommended for protection, along with six
nated framework for species and ecosystem conserva- offshore areas in the Arabian Gulf. Subsequent work by
tion, development of regional databases, and promotion NCWCD (1990) on the terrestrial ecosystems identified
of cooperation between the international community, 56 terrestrial and 47 marine and coastal sites for pro-
and associations of the countries in the region. tection in one offive different reserve categories. Under
this scheme 4% of the country would be fully protected ,
In general, further protected areas are most needed in with another 4% partially protected (Abuzinada and
the Mediterranean , Levant, and Southwest Asian area Child, 1991 ) . In the Mediterranean major gaps occur
of Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. (However, Iran has along the Mediterranean coast of Libya and Morocco.
particularly good representation of arid and wetland Recommendations have been made for a series of pro-
ecosystems, and Turkey of Mediterranean and sub- tected areas in Lebanon by individuals and by NGOs.
Mediterranean sites) . As for the type of protected areas Aside from the established Mashgara National Park of
needed, throughout the continent the greatest need is a 3,500ha other sites under consideration include: Ile du
major extension of Multiple Use and Wilderness Areas. Palmier, mountain forests of cedar and fir in the north,
Barouk cedars in the Shouf mountains, and the remnant
Key areas in the region where better protection is marshlands of Ammik (one ofthe principal bird migra-
most needed include: tion routes in the Near East).
4. Protected area institutions Traditionally, legislation pertaining to national parks

and protected areas developed in a piecemeal fashion,
In the Middle East and North Africa the institutions and tended to concentrate on the protection of a few
responsible for protected area management vary greatly outstanding sites of scenic or recreational value. In
from one country to another. In the majority of cases, many cases the legal basis for protection was not suffi-
protected areas are the responsibility of central govern- cient, or was totally lacking. In those situations the in-
ment, but in others, such as Turkey and the North stitutions responsible for protected areas have remained
African Territories of Spain, the system is highly decen- weak and have failed to secure influence over other
tralized. There is a dichotomy between nature conser- branches ofgovernment, resulting in a distinct handicap
vation, natural resource conservation and recreation for their administration and staff.
institutions, and only rarely are they combined . The
institutional structures often evolved one from the other Voluntary conservation groups have provided a cost-
as in the case of national park agencies from forest effective way for government to implement conser-
departments in Morocco, Turkey and Cyprus. vation policies. For example, government grants enable
the NGO Society for Protection of Nature in Israel
Responsibility for the management and protection of (SPNI) to manage nature reserves in Israel and for the
such areas have often been divided among various Royal Society for Conservation of Nature (RSCN) in
branches of government, primarily the Ministry of Agri- Jordan to acquire protected areas, which is also a partner
culture, but also Interior, Finance, Defence , Housing or with the Government in running all protected areas and
Tourism. In some countries, protected areas are under provides the wardens.
the direct administration of the office of the Prime
Minister or Head of State. In those countries where Overall:
tourism plays an important part in the national eco-
nomy, the Ministry of Tourism has become involved in ■ In much of the Middle East and North Africa, there
protected area administration . However, as in Jordan has been an emphasis on national parks for recrea-
and Israel, protected areas are administered by non- tion in the historic past at the expense of areas set
governmental agencies. In most cases, however, there is up primarily to protect nature.
insufficient coordination and cooperation among the dif- The management of most protected areas falls be-
ferent government agencies (IUCN, 1992). low acceptable international standards and does not
have the relevant legislative framework of support.
Protected area institutions, as well as central govern-
ments themselves, in parts of Levant and Southwest Overall there continues to be a major need for the
Asia tend to be weaker than those in North Africa. majority of the countries upgrade their legislation
Institutions in the former often have inadequate laws, relating to protected areas.
structures or budgets with which to combat serious
threats to their sites. In countries where tourism is im-
portant, such as Turkey,Tunisia, Morocco and Cyprus, the 5. Current levels of financial
buoyant economy and the need for recreation has some- investment in protected areas
times taken precedence over conservation , as with the
Table 6 shows the information currently available on
high profile attempt at Dalyan (Turkey) . However, tour-
protected areas management agency budgets in the
ism has also provided sufficient funds to support pro-
Middle East and North Africa. It also shows, however,
tected areas and conservation, as in Egypt, through
entrance fees and tourist taxes. In the Arabian penin- that it is very difficult to separate spending on protected
areas from spending on nature conservation in general ,
sula, with the abundance of oil-monies, protected areas
agencies have rapidly evolved although with declining especially in countries with complex nature conser-
oil prices in the world economy and armed conflicts, as vation systems. Some of the figures are probably mis-
in Kuwait, there has been severe decline in economies, leading for this reason.
protected area agencies such as the NCWCD and MEPA
Detailed data on the exact budgetary allocations of
(Saudi Arabia) having to reduce staff and retrench their
specific countries are limited , or even regarded as State
activities.
security. Nevertheless, the figures show dramatic dif-
Protected areas in the region are often subjected to ferences across the region and in comparison to other
competing pressures from government agencies that global regions. Even high GNP states such as Saudi
carry out large- scale development schemes, such as Arabia, which spend over US$9m per year on its pro-
reservoir and agricultural land reclamation and indust- tected areas agency NCWCD, is small in comparison
rial development. The destruction resulting from these with Europe or America, such as in the UK with
activities is often irreversible and valuable habitats and US$ 150m per year on protected areas alone and Mexico
species are lost. Areas subject to these incursions are with US$20m for 17 protected areas. This causes the
usually found in the more arid countries of the region, budget available to the Yemen, about US$ 0.1m per year
where the demand for water or development is most for all its forestry department activities, pale into insig-
pressing and the impact on protected areas are seen as nificance even though it is a country rich in biological
a low priority. diversity. Clearly protected areas in some Arabian and
Southwest Asian countries are totally underfunded , al- should play a much greater role in supporting the region's
though there is one exception, that of Kuwait which has protected areas by sharing their expertise and providing
spent US$3m on the establishment of a single national financing to all the countries concerned.
park.
The financial involvement by the private sector in 6. Human capacity in protected

protected areas is also very limited . The main income areas management
for the operators of this sector comes from the man-
agement ofhunting reserves, and it is questionable as to 6.1 Staff
how much of this revenue is recycled to the protected
area system. As an example, the income from such As with levels of financing, there are large differences
reserves in Algeria is US$0.5m annually. Egypt has an in protected area staffing from one country to another.
innovative financing mechanism whereby all interna- Tunisia employs 400 people in 33 protected areas, com-
tional air tickets issued in local currency in the country pared to three people who are employed in Yemen's
have a 25% levy imposed, and the money thus raised is embryonic protected areas system. Some countries, for
directed towards financing the protected areas . In Turkey example, have no rangers in their protected areas. Others,
a significant percentage ofprotected area finance comes in contrast, not only have large, paid staffs but also
systems of volunteers as in Israel.
from revenues raised by the park entry fees and other
tourist/visitor expenditures (IUCN, 1992).
In most countries, though, staffing to protect the
■ Few Middle East and North African protected areas natural heritage has lagged behind staffing to protect the
charge for entry, but this could be a good option for cultural heritage. Especially in Mediterranean coun-
Mediterranean countries, taking advantage of the tries, a knowledge of nature is not regarded as part of
the cultural awareness of citizens. Nature conservation
massive numbers of tourists each year and the boom
in nature tourism experienced in other parts of the is too often an interest of hobbyists and specialists, not
world. Turkey, for example, charges entrance for its of the general public, and this is reflected in staffing
national parks, and it receives over 10 million visitors levels.
per year to these areas.
6.2 Training
In some cases, national parks have brought strong
economic benefits to the region. In the case of Ras With the proposals for an expansion of the protected
Mohammed NP (Egypt), the coral, tropical marine fishes area network across the region throughout the next
and mangrove have proved a great attraction. The local decade, the necessary management is perhaps too highly
villages were almost abandoned 10 years ago, but now sophisticated for the existing agencies skills or experi-
has a growing economy and emigrants are returning. ence. As a result, more training is needed in a broad
According to Pearson, some US$ 10 million LE over 5
range of skills, from management planning to com-
years of park budget developed a local economic impact, munity relations , from languages to information tech-
creating jobs in the park itself. nology. The urgent need for such training courses was
unanimously endorsed by all the participants at the 38
Funds generated by international organizations have
CNPPA Working Session at Etna Regional Park, Sicily
not played a major role in aiding protected areas in this
in October, 1992.
region until recently with the involvement of the EC,
World Bank and UNEP, such as 0.8m ECU to one site The present level of training throughout the region is
on Egypt by the EC and US$0.2m in Algeria by the inadequate. Current provision of training is patchy.
GEF. Otherinternational funding is being used to support Specialist degrees and technical courses in conservation
protected areas in Jordan, Morocco and Cyprus. Whilst management are non existent, with exceptions such as
feasibility studies by the World Bank have also looked in Israel. Provision for in-service training is ad hoc and
at Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Algeria. training opportunities are available to a very limited
staff who usually have to train overseas. Best provided
In some countries which have had their debts re-
for are rangers and guides: Israel, Egypt, Turkey and
scheduled, notably Egypt and Morocco, debt-for-nature or Morocco all offer some basic training. In Israel , the
debt-for-development conversions are theoretically
NRA and SPNI have promoted a national training policy,
possible. However, no country in the region has so far
but such broad initiatives are otherwise unheard of.
attempted to benefit from this type oftransaction. Never-
theless, all the seriously indebted countries could benefit from Conferences and seminars, regional, national or inter-
a comprehensive debt reduction programme. Prompt at- national, have been held on behalf of FAO, UNESCO
tention should be given to securing the same level ofdebt and UNEP but are mostly attended by senior staff, the
reliefto the countries in need, as was extended recently exception being the Mediterranean Specially Protected
by the Paris club to Egypt and Poland. Areas MEDPAN Managers seminars.
However, the international community has not been Short-term staffexchanges are feasible between parks, but
overall forthcoming and it is urged that these agencies to date few have taken place because staff time is short,
Middle
East
and
Africa
budgets
:N
agency
management
areas
Protected
Table
6.orth
Country
r
/ esponsible
agency in
Budget US
Dollar
equivalent
national
currency Year Notes Source
the
of
for
Protection
Agency
ational
NAlgeria
- ᎠᏃᎠ 250,000 1990 was
motion
in
set
collaborative
project
plan
management
In
projected
a
1990
Environment with
total
A
funding
GEF
$2
US
.of
budgeted
was
50,000
yr
/1990
in
dA
million
10.8
is
hunting
from
Direct
.revenue 2
Bahrain BHD
D
Forestry
of
-epartment
Cyprus CYP
775,000 1,595,000 and
d evelopment
establishment
,for
the
budget
Agriculture
of
Ministry
1990
of
Mmillion
).$(U
6
£
:Cinistry
.28
S
37,000
areas
protected
of
1conservation
).0.28
U
($
1
£
:C S
38,000
facilities
recreational
parkfor
budget
Agriculture
L
Reserve
:area
protected
principal
;for
the ara
expenditure
Running
U
$S0.035 B3
Service
Wildlife
E
-gyptian
Egypt EGP10,000,000 development
marine
Mohammed
Ras
of
1989
the
towards
contribution
State
T
Egyptian
National
,from
.Park he
completion
to
inception
project
30,000
£
:E
budget
annual
Service
Wildlife
the
from
principally
.
Agriculture
of
Ministry B4,2
Iran IRR
Iraq IQD
NAuth
Reserves
&ature
Parks
.Authority
Israel
-ational ILS 28,000,000 1990
,including
budget
annual
overall
the
constitutes
figure
The
for
proportion
an
million
US
was
1985
in
$1.T4.5
.budget
naturehe
conservation B5
and
Historic
D
NPks
of
Jordan
Repartment
-
& SCN JOD
32,326 1 1990 implementation
the
of
The
for
funding
state
constitutes
figure
above
Monuments was
This
1990.
to
up
period
the
during
Strategy
Environmental
Jordanian
.T
IUCN
and
US
UAIDhe
from
$S123,798
some
with
supplemented
environment
aprotected
includes
.strategy
component
areas
,government
fees
membership
from
is
RSNC✶
The
budget
technical
assistance
.and
gunavailible
igures
fallocation
),(ifts
the
Agriculture
of
Ministry
The
Department
Range
and
Forestry
(*
establishment
management
and
areas
protected
delegate
for
responsibility
RSCN
the
to
body
private
,).a B6
Kuwait KWD
3,090,000 898,000 annual
origional
the
for
1986
in
proposal
Breakdown
:The
follows
as
0.9
between
and
0.7
parks
.were
national
first
budget
the
for
running
million
park
all
for
allocated
were
one
1991
In
KD
maintainence
wardening
and
. B7
Lebanon .LBP 700,000 the
1990.
to
assistance
Includes
FAO
in
1990
Constitutes
institutional
for
Resources
Natural
Forests
and
of
Department
activities
forestry
for
million
assistance
and
$ S
strengthening
0:U.5
million
U
.$ S
:0.2
conservation
including B8
Libya LYD
M
5,
Pr
of
Huan
,.o
Mo
D
- A
Fis
f00
ot
iv
nt D
dro0,
hi
ec
in00
ti
ng
cc 0
goon 640,000 1991 towards
reserves
and
parks
In
of
%
,8
1988
went
budget
Forests
Water
the
Nature allocated
areas
are
budgets
management
rotected
administration
.Pand
and onstruction
fences
nstalling
,roads
aintaining
cimfollowing
to
:the
c
and ommunication
accomodation
alaries
ransport
maintainence
,tsof
staff
environmental
.
education B9
Middle
c
(
East
.) ont
budgets
:N
and
Africa
orth
management
agency
Table
areas
Protected
6.
Country
r esponsible
/agency in
Budget US
Dollar
currency
equivalent
Oman OMR
Administration
Agricultural
and
Qatar
Mfin
-
.o
Industry QAR
NCWCD
-
Arabia
Saudi SAR 9,060,000 1990 budget
NCWCD
including
year
per
total
of
aspects
all
areas
protected
,
.The
management
and
administration
two
support
IUCN
for
budget
years
(Uaudi
SAR1,444,304
was
3
$
).S
a
makes
probably
Arabia
80,000
S
other
any
than
conservation
to
committment
financial
greater
country
region
the
.in B10
Syria SYP
Subdirectorate
-
Tunisia
Parks
National
and
Hunting
of TND
500,000 575,000 1991 Maximum
,Ichkeul B11
NP
key
the
for
available
budget
maintainance
.state
General
-
Turkey
Forestry
of
Directorate TRL
300,000,000 875,000 1985 management
Directorate
General
the
by
Annual
park
on
nded
exp
budget
of
.Iotal
tForestry
a
1990
administrative
on
spent
was
TL
550,000,000
N
salaries
relation
in
protected
areas
.to B12
United
Emirates
Arab AED
Yemen
Rep
A
, rab YER
2,000,000 165,975 1988 riel
million
one
Aurther
fbudget
1988.
in
state
forestry
Comprised
the
1991-1992
between
technicians
was
.allocated
forest
of
training
for B13
Sources
:
]
[2 (1xviii
)PIUCN
R
:A
World
the
Areas
V
Systems
National
of
I
Palaearctic
2.
SG
,U
Cambridge
xand
5
.+rotected
witzerland
992
eview
land
56pp
olume
UCN
K
B
[] 3 Antoniou
(1991
.).I
litt
n
][B4 Reserves
IUCN-
First
the
and
Mediterranean
on
Meeting
Biosphere
Man
Third
at
EEAA
.P).(1rotected
Egypt
of
Republic
Arab
in
areas
presented
991
aper
CNPPA
Africa
North
and
East
Middle
the
for
meeting
,TOctober
.1unisia
unis
8pp
4-19
]5
[B Development
(1
)NAnon
.R
Israel
in
forestry
on
report
Land
the
by
Congress
Forestry
World
Tenth
the
for
-Heport
990
,Kational
Authority
iryat
9pp
ayim
][B6 J.ational
McEachem
(1
N).R
activities
project
Jon
-
D
o
/
,c
Strategy
Environment
National
1990.
January
through
1989
September
of
ordan
eport
990
epartment
,Environment
Office
Project
I1UCN
.3January
1990
][B7 Alsdirawi
)(1, irst
.P
Kuwait
of
state
Fareas
/
Mediterranean
in
Reserves
Biosphere
Meeting
MAB
Third
the
at
presented
-C
IUCN
on
Workshop
.rotected
991
aper
NPPA
-Munis
T.1Africa
North
the
in
Areas
Protected
Region
,East
October
iddle
4-19
0pp
B
][ 8 .litt
,Gn
Child
(1
)I .
990
]B
[9 the
First
Meeting
and
Mediterranean
in
Reserves
Biosphere
on
Maroc
.P
Biosphere
and
Man
Third
at
presented
Eauxaper
(1991
Forêts
et
)R
au
protégées
aires
les
sur
apport
C4-19
IUCN
-M
Africa
North
the
in
Areas
Protected
on
,Workshop
Region
East
.1
October
8pp
iddle
NPPA
T
D.1
s
a
Arabia
Saudi
in
areas
A
,G 6pp
protected
of eveloping
ystem
Child
)(and
991
.H.
buzinada
.10
][Bunis
1985
à Tunisie
,3
.S)Lnational
forestier
patrimoine
du
conservation
la
sur
octobre
]B 0-31
Kacem
Hadj
(1
en
sauvages
flore
la
et
faune
de
conservation
985
el
11
a
[.éminaire
l'INPPSA
-Thabet
Sidi
.de
]T[Borestry
(1
Forestry
General
M)Directorate
Turkey
Fin
Agriculture
of
,A
Affairs
Rural
.and
orestry
inistry
urkish
987
nkara
12
.litt
1
F)I(]B AO
13
[ n991
financial resources are rarely available for them and the The World Bank's Mediterranean Biodiversity action
language barrier is an ever-present difficulty. Franco- plan for the 1990s calls for preparation of conservation
phone initiative are perhaps the only functioning mech- master plans and identification of viable biodiversity
anisms based on aid and support by the french Atelier management projects (both terrestrial and marine) for
technique which develops training for the staff of national short-term and long-term investments, including policy
parks. Study visits and exchanges have much potential options for developing and managing biological resources.
for exchanging information and developing expertise
but are not well used at present and to date most have In many parts of the region, the private sector might
been organized informally. Perhaps one option is the be encouraged to take over those parts of protected area
funding under the World Heritage Fund and through management which can be made to pay-such as eco-
exchanges under the MAB Biosphere Reserve Pro- tourism infrastructure-but this needs close control of
gramme. concessions to maintain management standards in parks.
Examples of where this may work include Egypt and
A major goal for every country should be to train a the Yemen.
sufficient number of qualified staffeach year to manage
their protected areas. In designing an effective training The industrial and commercial sector should also be
programme, the following recommendations were pre- encouraged to play a greater role in subsidising con-
sented by the above mentioned meeting: servation and protected area costs as part of their in-
creasing concern for the environment. This can be arranged
■ Determine specific needs and tailor the training either through direct donations and/or sustained sup-
courses to those needs bearing in mind the limita- port, such as linking protected areas budgets to income
tions ofthe staff. from sale of electricity from dams whose watershed is
protected by a national park, or assistance from engin-
■ Include all levels of staff in training activities , with eering companies as in the GAP Region of Anatolia
emphasis on recruiting and training local people to (Turkey) , or indirectly through environmental levies.
work in the protected area.
■ Involve scientists from local universities, as well as

8. Major protected areas issues in
experienced protected area managers from the re- the region
gion in the programme.
Follow-up with on site evaluations to determine the 8.1 Oil and water
effectiveness of the training courses and need for
change. The epitome ofthe Middle East and North Africa is oil
and water. Resource scarcity in this largely arid region
■ Provide moral and financial incentives for partici- has resulted , at a very early date, in the development of
pants oftraining courses, so they can take pride in complex systems for land and critical resource allo-
who they are. cation and use. Water rights, land access for grazing,
collection of timber and firewood, and ownership of
The IUCN members from the region at the meeting agricultural land became strictly controlled.
in Sicily also discussed the organization of appropriate
training courses for the region. The participants strongly Following the discovery of oil at the turn of the
urged that regional capabilities based within the region century, the economies of many of the countries have
were to be used to the maximum extent, such as the changed tremendously and oil now plays a central role
wildlife centre at Taif (Saudi Arabia) and SPNI field to activities within the region. On a per capita basis
stations (Israel) . Kuwait is perhaps the richest of the oil rich states ofthe
region. In Kuwait the Ministry of Petroleum and Kuwait
Oil Company manage the oil fields of the country. Its
7. Priorities for future investment six main exclusive rights areas act as defacto protected
in protected areas areas , through prohibition of livestock grazing around
oil fields. Patrolling of areas is maintained by the mili-
The major issues for the region have been largely iden- tary authorities. The Kuwait Oil Company has spon-
tified above. Investment needs will require a partner- sored various NGOs to encourage field studies, maintain
ship between national governments and the private sector, contact with other institutions and help disseminate
leading to a substantial increase in budgets and a higher knowledge and to act as a conservation forum.
priority for protected areas.
Changing lifestyles throughout the arid zones of the
The most significant source ofinvestment today is the region have in part been a consequence of increased
Global Environment Facility (GEF), which has started access to permanent water supplies, including the trans-
to provide funding for conserving biodiversity in some portation of water tanks into the hinterland. In the past
ofthe countries ofthe region over the next several years. water was a scarce resource carefully tended and fought
These funds provide, for example , direct support to over. In Tunisia oases still survive which have water
protected areas in Jordan and Algeria. management regimes over 1,000 years old. Greater
availability of water has led to an expansion of livestock and chemical weapons were reportedly used . The 1990/
numbers throughout the region and to stocks remaining 91 hostilities in the Kuwait/Iraq area had a significant
the year round on rangeland without undergoing seas- environmental impact. A number of designated conser-
onal movements . For example, in Kuwait alone this had vation areas were adversely affected in both Iraq and
resulted in livestock overgrazing by 1.3 million sheep, Kuwait as well as bird sanctuaries and turtle nesting
0.3 million cattle and 0.6 million goats by 1987. beaches affected by oil slicks along the Saudi Arabian
coast. The burning of oil installations in Kuwait gener-
In Kuwait reserve areas for exploitation of known ated large smoke clouds which were reported to have
underground water are identified under a master plan. had significant local and downwind effects upon spe-
The Ministry of Water and Electricity has rights over cies and habitats.
these underground water areas which, by the very nature
ofrestricted access, have formed havens for wildlife. In
8.3 Site integrity
all forms of environmental protection, police posts are
used in coordination with protected area management.
The Saudi Arabia Ministry of Agriculture and Water Since many protected areas in the North Africa and
(MAW) is involved in protected area management and Middle East are small or at the edge of their range or in
has a key role for water management. The Ministry delicate ecosystems, they are particularly vulnerable to
undertook water resources surveys in the mid- 1970s as damage.
well as a complete land survey to determine the nature
of soil and prepare an extensive agricultural develop- One of the greatest concerns over protected area
maintenance is whether or not a sufficient sized area has
ment programme for the country.
been incorporated, so as to ensure protection of the
whole environment-a land where rainfall may be so
8.2 Armed conflict
intermittent that unless vast tracts of land are incor-
porated many ofthe species may not survive decades of
Throughout history the Middle East and North Africa
drought. A case in point is for the larger desert ungulates
has had major periods of military and civil strife, even
which travel between favourable resources which may
today localised and regional levels of armed conflict
be may hundreds of miles apart. In these cases the
continue. Under these conditions biological diversity
either thrives or is exterminated in various forms of ecological network or corridor system , as being grad-
ecocide. On the one hand such instability leads towards ually applied in Europe , may be an option forthe future.
Alternatives already being applied in the region include
a low priority by the government to conserve areas
unless they have direct strategic value, on the other hand the establishment of large areas which form ecological
bythe very nature of any conflict areas being " set aside" units with a full range of resources (eg the Northern
to form exclusion zones the wildlife can survive un- Wildlife Management Zone (Saudi Arabia) at 15.2 mil-
lion ha, the Jiddat al Harasis (Oman) at 2.8 million ha
disturbed as with the frontiers between two neighbour-
ing states. A supreme example of this last point is Gebel and Tassili N'Ajjer (Algeria) at 8.0 million ha). How-
Elba sandwiched between Egypt and Sudan. In many of ever, at present across the region as a whole, more than
the countries of Arabia and North Africa precise coun- 45% ofprotected areas are less than 1000ha. Given this
try boundaries have yet to be defined . So that as between situation options must be looked at in the near future,
so as to prevent complete habitat fragmentation and
Morocco and Algeria, Afghanistan and the former USSR
and Yemen/Saudi Arabia and Oman/Yemen, areas are widespread biodiversity loss.
very rich in wildlife.
The following examples indicate the range and scale
Military conflict as in Afghanistan from 1979 on- of the threats which have been identified in the region:
wards caused a breakdown in administration in many
areas ofthe country, depopulation and abandonment of Water extraction . Lowering of the water table has af-
agricultural land, laying millions of land-mines through- fected large parts of the desert regions of the Sahara and
out the country, uncontrolled timber and wood use, and Arabian Peninsula. For example , the Azraq wetland
hunting ofwildlife. All protected areas were reported to reserve (Jordan) suffers from a lowered water-table.
have been abandoned. In 1991 , environmental consult- Water extraction in river deltas, often for irrigated agri-
ants for IUCN investigated environmental management culture, threatens vital wetlands like the renown Nile
measures for Afghanistan. Only limited activities could Delta protected areas such as Burulus Ramsar Site
be recommended including the clearing of land mines (Egypt), the El Kala wetlands (Algeria) , the Ichkeul NP
from selected key areas of natural forest, and that the (Tunisia), Goksu Delta Special Protection Area (Turkey)
planning for the preservation of the remaining natural and Gala Golu/Evros Delta (Turkey/Greece). Specific pro-
forests should commence as soon as the security situ- jects funded or coordinated by international aid agen-
ation permitted. cies are also threatening the environment ofthe region.
Following completion of the Salam Peace Canal (Egypt) ,
Perhaps the most pronounced example ofthe impact for an irrigation project on the west bank of the Suez
of armed conflict on the environment over the last canal , an extension will form the core of the North Sinai
decade has been the wars involving Iraq. During the Agricultural Development Project (NSADP) funded by
Iran-Iraq war of the mid 1980s, marshlands were drained the World Bank which will irrigate 0.25 million feddan in
North Sinai, and may seriously damage the Bardawil Tourism and development. Hotel and road-building
Ramsar site and surrounding natural habitats. programmes have been immensely damaging, both in-
side and outside protected areas. This is, for example,
Agricultural and livestock grazing activities. Agri- now the most serious threat to semi-natural areas in
cultural exploitation originated in the region at the dawn southern and western Turkey, in Cyprus, Egypt, Morocco
of history yet intensification and conversion of grazed and Tunisia.
steppe and mountain pasture to ploughed arable fields
has been a threat to many arid and mountain refugia Water pollution . Several vital Mediterranean coastal
particularly in the Atlas Steppe, Afghan mountains and parks are close to industrial plants; flamingoes in Tunisia
Iranian Highlands. Sheep, goat and camel free ranging have been contaminated by heavy metals and other
and farming is a problem in most national parks and chemicals . Oil slicks have caused catastrophes to coast-
protected areas, with associated over-grazing, use of al protected areas in the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf. In
vehicles and fencing. Tunisia at Lac Tunis eutrophication caused by extensive
use of chemicals threatens aquatic life in the lake. In
Hunting. Many protected areas suffer from being North Africa the streams and rivers are under threat.
totally unable to regulate hunting. This is particularly
the case in Egypt, where BirdLife International esti-
8.4 Science and protected areas
mated that many million small birds may be shot each
year. Hunting is allowed in many sites such as those of
Scientific studies have been long been undertaken in the
Turkey's national parks. Ammiq (Lebanon) continues
region by the ancients of Egypt, Carthage, the Levant
to be under threat from widespread indiscriminate and
and Asia Minor. For example, between 370 and 285BC
uncontrolled shooting of all migratory birds. Raptors
Theophrastus of Erosos was the first great botanical
are particularly at threat, even though they are legally
writer of classical antiquity and his works on botany,
protected. Estimates indicate that up to 15-20 million
plant ecology and the environment were known through-
birds are shot per year by some 500,000 hunters.
out Asia Minor. More recently Pedanios Dioscorides of
the first century AD, a native ofCilicia near present day
Military activities. An example of a park threatened
by military activities and manoeuvres is the Negev Adana (Tunisia), was renowned for his work on botany,
these were followed by renown Arab and Byzantine
(Israel), where a large part of the desert is used for
scientists of great repute.
military testing, including live firing. Other threatened
protected areas include Akamas (Cyprus) and sites in
Kuwait. Perhaps one of the oldest scientific centres to under-
take research in protected areas, is the Institut Scienti-
Forest damage. Legal and illegal felling causes dam- fique Cherifien of Mohammed V University, Rabat
age to many protected areas, especially in the (renamed Institut Scientifique) , commenced activities
Mediterranean and Southwest Asia to Afghanistan. in 1920. It nowhas six departments: zoology and animal
Particularly threatened are the forest and scrub ecology, botany and vegetative ecology, geology, geog-
national parks in Morocco and Algeria, Yedigoler raphy, physics and satellite imagery (Beaubrun et
(Turkey) and woodland parks in Iran , Cyprus , Thevenot, 1982) . The Biological Institute (Israel) was
Syria and Lebanon . Forest fires are on the increase established in 1949 is concerned with botanical gardens
and zoos; the Institute for Nature Conservation Re-
in Mediterranean countries , partly because of the
increased susceptibility of conifer plantations to search, established in 1974 as part of Tel-Aviv Uni-
fire. versity, a body which undertakes research on the pro-
tection of birds of prey and larger mammals including
Air pollution. Levels of air pollution in protected leopard.
areas are generally low except where in the vicinity to
More than 500 institutions and organizations have
major urban centres such as in Egypt and Turkey.
Protected areas in western Turkey suffer from acid rain been identified as working in the field of biodiversity in
caused by emissions , principally local industrial sites North Africa, Middle East, and Southwest Asia
and car emissions. No details are available on trans- (Montague and Bruun, 1987). In each case scientific
boundary pollution. academies, specialist desertification research centres , or
oceanographic institutes exist. The National Wildlife Re-
Dam construction. Protected areas under threat from search Centre at Taif (Saudi Arabia) and the King Khalid
the construction of sluices and dams include Massa NP Wildlife Research Centre at Thumamah (Riyadh) under-
(Morocco) dammed beyond the bounds of the park, of take ecological research, conservation surveys within
the Nile delta reserves (Egypt) which were seriously and outside protected areas, and reintroduction pro-
affected by the construction of the Aswan dam and grammes. In some cases such as Assuit (Egypt) and
Ichkeul NP (Tunisia) which is being affected by the Omayed (Egypt) protected areas have actually been set
damming of its feeder rivers. The present damming of up specifically by institutes or universities for research
the Tigris and Euphrates in Anatolia (Turkey) is re- purposes. Many of the countries of the region have
garded as having a major impact on the environment, forestry research stations such as at Rabat- Agdal
not only in Turkey itself but also in neighbouring Syria (Morocco) and Ankara Forestry Research Institute
and the Mesopotamian marshes (Iraq). (Turkey) . Other research institutes which undertake
activities within protected areas include the Institut the same communal land use theme (IUCN, 1992).
National de la Recherche Agronomique (Morocco) and Community protection is also known to exist in Yemen.
National Zoological Park of Rabat (Morocco), with
priority for conservation and research on wildlife and To the present day in Yemen, a powerful social con-
science based on widespread acceptance of local
their biotopes. Research in and adjacent to protected
areas has also been undertaken by various individuals sheikhs ' values greatly facilitate protected areas admin-
or groups attached to national or foreign universities. istration and management . In many areas ofthe Yemen
Their work has included studies on threatened large sheikhs ban entry into certain areas. In some forest
mammals, threatened bird species, on flora, palaeotology, protected areas fines levied against infringements.
palaeobotany, forestry, geology and on geography.
Land and habitat conservation has long been in ex-
Many countries are compiling much-needed inven- istence in Lebanon. Cedar forest protection has been
tories of species within their protected areas and in the practised by local religious communities for many cen-
country as a whole. The results of such research should turies, and a number continue to be maintained, such as
be disseminated and made use of to help identify other the renowned Bshari Cedar Grove. Boundary stones, origi-
valuable habitats. Few mechanisms exist for making natingfrom the time ofthe Emperor Hadrian ( 138 AD), still
sure that scientific findings are fed back to manage- demarcate the ancient protected forest domain.
ment, thus enabling the results to be constructively
In Egypt, Mount Sinai is sacred to three monotheistic
integrated into protected area policy. The problem is
religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; a site which
due primarily to lack of communication between gov-
has subsequently been incorporated into the modern
ernment institutions , management agencies and scien-
protected areas network of the country.
tists. There is also a tendency among visiting scientists
to use protected areas as a laboratory and to publish their
Small scale examples of community protection may
papers overseas.
be found in Tunisia. A private reserve , Rocher à Mérou,
has been established offthe western coast by the Yacht-
8.5 Traditional de facto protection ing Club of Tabarka, a site protected by voluntary
fishing bans in order to promote international diving
De facto protection is quite widespread in the Region tourism in the area by ensuring that there is abundant
and take a number of forms: marine wildlife to be seen. Management includes con-
trolling entry into the area, and permitting foreign divers
Traditional forms of protection continue to include a to see the fish and feed them. Fishing is totally prohib-
limited number of ' sacred groves ' and trees which are ited in the area and closely regulated by the community
which works in close association with the Tunisian
still protected in Turkey, including at Harbiya near
Diving Club.
Antakya, and traditional forms of rangeland protection
which were prevalent amongst the nomadic steppe and
mountain tribes (cfthe Mahmeya of Syria and the Hema 8.6 Public participation -people and
protection ofthe Arabian Peninsula). protected areas
■ Existing hemas continue to be respected by local tra- Most ofthe land in the region is effectively owned and
dition ("ourf") and are maintained under five types managed bythe State . This leaves little opportunity for
where: a) animal grazing is prohibited; b) grazing private organizations to own and manage protected
and/or cutting is permitted; c) grazing is allowed all areas in a way that may enhance conservation of wild-
the year round; d) bee-keeping is undertaken; and life and their habitats and next to no opportunities how
e) forests are protected . the land is managed.
The hema system and variants on it were widely Despite isolated examples of individual interest in
practised in and around the Arabian Peninsula. In Oman, promoting and establishing protected areas such as in
it is the practice of communal range control by villagers Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Lebanon, it remains a risky
of eastern oases , and there are other areas called and expensive investment for the private sector in the
"hawtah" where hunting, cutting or grazing has been absence of a comprehensive conservation plan for the
proscribed. Similar social regulations governing range- whole country. Non-governmental bodies hardly ever
land have been recorded in Syria, locally named mahmia feature in protected areas management of the region,
or mara, and from the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Turkey exceptions being Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Israel and
where they are referred to as koze (Draz, 1978 ; IUCN, Lebanon. The SPNI of Israel is perhaps the largest
1992). In North Africa, traditional forms of protected non-political voluntary organization in the region , with
rangeland, common land or hereditary lands-called over 700,000 members and a network of 25 field study
aqdal, habous, or guich— had early origins among the centres , nature tours and community education projects.
tribal systems. In Tunisia, range reserves called ghidal In Jordan, the Royal Society for the Conservation of
or zenakah are found, and a tradition of " lineage reserves" Nature supervises and enforces many laws that are
occurs among nomads of the eastern deserts of Egypt. directly related to the conservation of nature, such as
These are just a few examples of the many variations of the enforcement of the hunting law. Following the
Royal proclamation of protected areas, it has been es- were underway to bring some of them back to Arabia.
tablishing sites for wildlife conservation , undertaking The site chosen for their reintroduction was a distinct
activities including the reintroduction of globally en- ecological unit of about 25,000 sq km at the eastern side
dangered and locally extinct species to their natural ofthe Jiddat-al-Harasis and animals were introduced in
habitat, and protecting old buildings, and sites that are the early 1980s. Similar efforts are taking place in Saudi
considered part of the national heritage. In Lebanon a Arabia and Jordan.
number of privately-owned nature reserves have been
established in the past including Khallet Khazem Farm 8.8 International tourism
and Natural Reserve, which had been protected for at
least the last 50 years. Currently, the Society for the
In many ofthe countries of North Africa and the Middle
Protection ofNature in Lebanon is very active in recom-
East tourism is next to non-existent. However around
mending sites for future protection.
the Mediterranean visitors are an enormous potential
Hunting associations have long been involved in pro- source of wealth for the protected areas system with
tected area management throughout the region, most billions of visitors per year. In Tunisia for example,
notably in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria , Tunisia, Iran and tourism plays an important part in the national econ-
Afghanistan to name but a few. In the case of Tunisia omy, representing TD 68.7 m in 1977 rising to TD855
they are largely under the auspices of the Federation of m by 1989 with 3.2 million tourists. The intention ofthe
Regional Hunting Associations (Fédération des Asso- Ministry ofAgriculture has long been to expand interest
ciations Régionales de Chasse). Given the remit of in ecotourism in its national parks. Three ecomuseums
managing private hunting reserves for wildlife further have been constructed, and the first in Ichkeul was
investigations ought be undertaken to realise the exact opened in 1989. Visitors to Ichkeul NP number 20,000
contribution such areas make to the overall protected annually and an average of4,000 tourists visit the other
areas system in the region. parks each year. In Turkey during the 1960s the num-
bers of visitors to national parks approached 500,000;
by 1985 about 10 million visitors made use of the
8.7 Habitat restoration and species
national parks. Forest recreation areas are established
re-introduction
for touristic, cultural and public recreational purposes
and by 1987 there were 30 million visitors to these
The present preponderance of steppe reflects the degra-
areas . In Israel national and international tourism is of
dation of the environment over millenia by grazing,
major importance to the region , with up to 1.65 million
browsing and cutting of wood. Rangeland, on which the
visitors in 1988. Visitors are catered for at many of the
majority of North Africans and Arabians depend di-
nature reserves and national parks, indeed in the legis-
rectly or indirectly, has been degraded and misused. In
lation for national parks they are described as being
more arid regions, dry land farming has exhausted soils
"first and foremost intended for the enjoyment of the
which has led to erosion.
visitor". Well over 200,000 visitors per year visit En
With the realization that activities such as overgraz- Gedi. Ecotourism is a major element of the activities
ing has destroyed or seriously damaged habitats there organised by SPNI and associated tourist companies.
is some attempt across the region to rectify the situation,
through active tree and shrub planting, fencing of habitats Some natural areas in Egypt are becoming major
and re-introduction of extirpated species. Case study tourist attractions. In 1989, 30,000 tourists visited Mount
examples include Bou Hedma NP (Tunisia), Hai Bar Sinai/St. Catherine's Conservation Area and 60,000
(Israel), Shaumari R (Jordan) , Jiddat al Harrasis (Oman) , visited Ras Mohammed Natural Park. The figure for St.
Takerkhort (Morocco) , Omayed (Egypt) and Harrat al Catherine's may rise to 565,000 if plans are followed
Harrah NR (Saudi Arabia) on the Jordan frontier. for development of the area, and whereas current reve-
nue is US$25,000 at Ras Mohammed, that is expected
Re-introduction programmes for globally endan- to rise to US$313,000 as proposed plans are imple-
gered species have been started in many ofthe countries mented into effect. Conservationists are concerned that
of the region. Examples of successful re-introduction intensive development in these areas, to accommodate
programmes into protected areas include Libya, Algeria, the increased tourist load, could seriously affect and
Jordan, Israel, Tunisia, Turkey, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In possibly destroy the fragile ecosystems of those areas
Tunisia it was initiated by the Direction des Forêts (Mishinski, 1989).
(species include scimitar-horned oryx , ostrich, addax ,
Barbary sheep and Barbary stag). In Oman, on-the- Out of the Mediterranean, international tourism is
ground projects were initially aimed at specific, high variable and even banned from certain countries of
profile species, commencing with Arabian Tahr in 1976, Arabia and Southwest Asia. Tourism is gradually de-
four species of marine turtle from 1977 and on the veloping inthe Yemen , with an estimated 43,500 entries
reintroduction of Arabian oryx from 1978. "Operation in 1986-7. There are proposals to incorporate nature
Oryx" was organized by a group of international wild- conservation and ecotourism into future tourism pro-
life organizations to capture some of the remaining wild grammes. Since 1990 the Ministry of Tourism has been
oryx in Arabia in 1972, and send them to the US to involved in developing plans for landscape protection
establish a captive breeding herd . By 1980 preparations and is currently investigating potential activities in the
Bura region. Other nature protection initiatives are be- and the maturation of the profession of protected
ing undertaken by a private company in the Al Zuhrah area managers, scientists and experts in the region.
coastal area.
■ Launch an urgent campaign to enhance environ-
mental awareness throughout the region . Otherwise
9. Priorities for action in the region the average person will continue to regard conser-
vation as a costly luxury, thereby giving political
■ Reevaluate all development plans, past and present,
leaders the excuse to continue ignoring these issues.
in light of conservation needs, stressing to all con-
cerned the enormous costs that will be incurred if Local information media, especially television, should
conservation of the environment is not integrated in be required to highlight the need to conserve wild-
life species and their habitat, expose threatening
national development. No development project should
be implemented unless a proper environmental im- environmental problems and suggest solutions where
pact assessment is first carried out. possible.
■ Develop more flexible concepts for protected area ■ Strengthen the role of NGOs in achieving citizen
management are needed such as those that integrate participation through mobilizing the public to assist
conservation, traditional land use and development. in fulfilling conservation goals .
Rigid plans that only contain restrictions and prohi-
bitions should be avoided. ■ Protected area agencies should focus on local people
as agents of conservation by encouraging and train-
■ Develop ways to protect areas outside the standard ing them to benefit from their resources without
protected areas in each country through appropriate destroying them. As participants they can make the
zoning to discourage the over-exploitation of certain difference between the success or failure of most
sensitive areas. conservation projects.
Refrain from using protected areas for military ex-

It is furtherrecommended that all relevant documents
ercises which harm the environment, and where
including the North Africa and Middle East section of
such activities are inevitable, then appropriate safe-
Protected Areas of the World: a review of national
guards should be adopted to protect the natural
systems (IUCN, 1992) be translated to Arabic, and other
resources.
appropriate languages. This would provide an impor-
■ Participate in international activities that encourage tant learning experience for everyone involved with
greater involvement , networking and cooperation. protected areas in the region . Copies should be made
This would allow the region to exercise a greater available to decision makers, policy make all individuals
influence over the global growth of conservation involved with protected areas, universities and libraries.
Acknowledgements
In October 1991 the informal gathering of CNPPA In particular the authors would like to thank the
members from North Africa and the Middle East in following who contributed so much to the success ofthe
collaboration with the MAB meeting on Mediterranean regional activities: particular thanks to the organiser of
Biosphere Reserves (Tunis, Tunisia) provided a good the third Mediterranean Biosphere Reunion, to
opportunity to produce the first draft of this paper with Mohammed Skouri and Jane Robertson ofUNESCO.
the valuable assistance of Mustapha Saheh and Graham For the CNPPA 38th Working Session, firstly to Bino li
Drucker. That version was tabled and discussed at Calsi and Franco Russo of Etna Regional Park, Nunzio
Caracas. Subsequently the International Park Docu- Spam Spinosato , Major of Nicolosia, Dr Burtone of
mentation Centre (CEDIP) , Sicilian Regional Authori- the Ministry of Environment, Prof Campione of the
ties, NCWCD , IUCN Secretariat and WCMC organised Regione Siciliana and to Giovanni Valdre and his col-
the 38th CNPPA Working Session, a North Africa and leagues ofthe International Park Documentation Centre
Middle East forum at Etna Regional Park , Sicily in (CEDIP) . Thanks also go to Jeff McNeely, Danny
October 1992, providing a valuable opportunity to re- Elder, Laura Battlebury, Caitlin Williams, Frances
view the draft paper. A subsequent updating of the Parakatil, Caroline Martinet, Sue Rallo, Justin Mundy,
document was kindly prepared by Faisal A. Dean on Alain Jeudy de Grissac and Mike Evans.
behalf ofthe region.
References
Abdel-Noor, L., Al-Khoshman , M.A. , Mirkarimi, Africa-Middle East Region, 14-19 October 1991 ,
R. and Picardi , A.P. 1991. Environmental conse- Tunis.
quences ofthe war and the impact on Iraqi civilians. Eckholm , E.P. 1976. Losing Ground. W.W. Norton and
Harvard Commission on Civilian Casualties. 39 pp. Co. Inc. New York.
Abuzinada , A.H. , Child , G. and Grainger, J. 1992. The Evans, M. 1993. Important Bird Areas in the Middle
Approach to Planning and Initiating a System of East. Newsletter No. 1. ICBP. Cambridge, UK.
ProtectedAreas in Saudi Arabia. NCWCD , Riyadh . Firouz, E. , Hassinger, J.D. and Fergusson, D.A. 1970.
Alsidrawi, F. 1992. The Negative Impact ofThe Iraqi The wildlife parks and protected areas of Iran. Bio-
Invasion on Kuwait's Protected Areas. Kuwait logical Conservation 3( 1 ) :37-45.
Institute for Scientific Research , Kuwait. General Directorate ofForestry. 1987. Forestry in Turkey.
Batisse, M. and Jeudy de Grissac , A. c.1991 . Marine Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Rural Affairs.
Protected Areas in the Mediterranean and the Black Ankara.
Sea: Past, present status and perspective. Report Grainger, J. and Llewellyn, O. 1992. Sustainable Use:
prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. 23 pp. Lessonsfrom a Cultural Tradition in Saudi Arabia.
Bates, P.J.J. 1991. Mountain refugia in Southern Arabia: NCWCD , Riyadh.
their zoogeographical significance and special im- Green, M.J.B and Drucker, G.R.F. 1991. Current Status
portance for conservation. In McNeely, J.A and of Protected Areas and Threatened Mammal Spe-
Neronov , V.M. (Eds .) . Mammals in the Palaearctic cies in the Sahara-Gobian Region. In McNeely, J.A
Desert: Status and trends in the Sahara-Gobian and Neronov, V.M. (Eds. ) Mammals in the
region. The Russian Committee for the Unesco Palaearctic Desert: Status and trends in the Sahara-
Programme on Man and Biosphere. pp. 209-218. Gobian region. The Russian Committee for the
Bayer, M.Z., Istanbul , T. and Akesen, A. 1991. National Unesco Programme on Man and Biosphere.
Parks and Protected Areas in Turkey. Manuscript. pp. 5-69.
Bel Hadj Kacem , S. 1991. Liste des parcs nationaux et Haddane, B. 1992. National Parks and Protected Areas
aires protegees Tunisie 1991. Direction Generale in North Africa. Strategy, Management and Eco-
des Forêts, Ministere de l'Agriculture , Tunis. nomic Aspects. Rabat, Morocco.
Carp , E. 1980. Directory ofWestern Palaearctic Wet- Harrington, F.A. 1975. Iran: Surveys of the Southern
lands . IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Iranian coast line with recommendations for addi-
Child, G and Grainger J. 1990. A system plan for pro- tional marine reserves. IUCN Publications New
tected areas for wildlife conservation and sustain- Series No. 35.
able rural development in Saudi Arabia. NCWCD, IUCN . 1992. Protected Areas ofthe World: a review of
Riyadh. 389pp. national systems. Volume 2: Palaearctic. Prepared
Clarke, J.E. , al-Lamki, F.M.S., Anderlini, V.C. and bytheWorldConservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN,
Shepperd, C.R.C. 1986. Proposals for a system of Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK 556 pp.
nature conservation areas in the Sultanate ofOman. Jungius, H. 1987. The establishment of national parks
Prepared by the International Union for Conserva- and protected areas in the arid zone: a contribution
tion of Nature and Natural Resources for the Diwan to conservation and recreational utilization of natu-
of Royal Court, Sultanate of Oman. 368 pp. ral resources. First symposium on the potential of
Dean, F.A. 1993. Arab Sheiks-Hunters and Conserva- wildlife conservation in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, 15-
tionists. Landscape International. 3(1). College Park, 18 February 1987. National Commission for Wild-
Maryland. life Conservation and Development. 11pp.
Draz, O. 1978. Revival ofthe "Hima" System ofRange McNeely, J.A. and Miller, K.R. 1984. National Parks,
Reserves as a Basisfor the Syrian Range Develope- Conservation and Development : The role ofpro-
mentProgramme. Proc. 1st International Range Con- tected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian
gress. Denver, Colorado. Institution Press. Washington , DC . 838pp.
Draz , O. 1985. The hema system of range reserves in Miller, A.G. and Nyberg, J.A. 1991. Pattern of ende-
the Arabian Peninsula, its possibilities in range im- mism in Arabia. Flora et Vegetatio Mundi IX: 264-
provement and conservation projects in the Near 278.
East. Pp 109-121 . In: McNeely, J.A. and Pitt, D. Mishinski, J. 1989. A drop in the Ocean. Cairo Today.
(eds.), Culture and conservation : the human dimen- June. pp. 38-40.
sion in environmentalplanning. Croom Helm , London. Porat , M. and Agasi, V. 1992. Protected Areas inIsrael.
308pp. NRA and SPNI , Israel. pp. 17.
Duvall, L. 1988. The status ofbiological resources in Posner, S. 1988. Biological diversity and tropical
Morocco, constraints, and options for conserving forests in Tunisia . USAID, Washington, DC.
biological diversity. USA, Washington , DC. Ramade , F. , 1984. Keynote Address: The Palaearctic
Eaux et Forêts. 1991. Rapport sur les aires protegees Realm . In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (Eds.) ,
au Maroc. Paper presented at the First IUCN- National Parks, Conservation and Development:
CNPPA Workshop on protected Areas in the North The Role ofProtected Areas in Sustaining Society.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC,
USA. 418-425 USA. 486-490
Ramade , F. , 1990. Conservation des Ecosystèmes Stanley-Price, M.R. 1986. The reintroduction of the
Méditerranéens: Enjeuxetperspectives. Les Fascicules Arabian oryx into Oman. International Zoo Year-
du Plan Bleu 3. Economica, Paris. 144 pp . book 1986. No. 24/25: 179-188.
Ramsar Convention Bureau. 1987. Conference re- Sulayem, M.S.A. 1991. Regional Review: North Africal
port, Third Meeting of the Conference of the con- Middle East. Draft IUCN-CNPPA. Gland, Switzer-
tracting parties. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, land.
27 May-5 June. Tavakoli, E. 1987. Iran environment. Iran Almanak.
Sagi, Y. 1992. Protection ofOpen Space Landscape in 44 48.
Areas Exposed to Massive Development Pressure. UNEP/IUCN ( 1988) . Coral reefs ofthe world. Volume
SPNI, Israel. 2:Indian Ocean, Red Sea and Gulf. UNEP Regional
Segnestam, M. 1984. Future Directions for the Western Seas Directories and Bibliographies. IUCN, Gland,
Palaearctic Realm . In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller Switzerland and Cambridge, UK . [Prepared for UNEP/
(Eds), NationalParks, Conservation andDevelopment : IUCN by WCMC ]
The Role ofProtected Areas in Sustaining Society.
Europe
protected
Percentage
Less
%
0.1
than
0.1-5
%
%
5-10
10-15
%
15-20
%
More
%
20
than
Km
0 800
400
protected
designated
included
legally
within
country
of
Map
P
.areas
ercentage
Contents
Page
2. Current protected area coverage . 105
2.1 Overview .. • . 105
2.2 A lack of system plans . 107
2.3 The types of protected areas 109
2.4 Protected landscapes (Category V) : A European specialty . . • 110
2.5 Marine protected areas • 111
2.6 Other mechanisms to protect conservation sites : The link to regional

planning 111
2.7 Evaluating the effectiveness of the protected areas 112
4. Protected area institutions 114
4.1 Decentralization 115
4.2 A strong voluntary sector . 115
6. Human capacity in protected areas management 116
6.1 Staffing of protected areas 116
6.2 Training opportunities and needs 116
7.1 Pressures on protected areas 116
7.2 The special case of tourism . • 119
7.3 Coping with change in Eastern and Central Europe 120
7.4 Benefiting from a surplus of farmland 121
7.5 Creating a peace dividend for conservation 121
7.6 The value of frontier and transboundary parks • 121

Page
8. Initiatives between European countries 127
8.1 The European Community . . . 127
8.2 Other agreements and organizations at European level 127
9. Priorities for action in the region 129
Acknowledgements . 131
References 131
Tables
Table 1 . Summary of the protected areas system . . . 106
Table 2 . Protected areas by IUCN management categories 109
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system • 114
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions 117
Table 4a. Adherence by European countries to regional treaties relevant to

protected areas 118
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in Europe 120
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets 122
Table 7. Protected areas in Europe created from 1982 to 1991 126
Table 8 . Comparison for selected countries in Europe of protected areas

eligible and not eligible for the UN List 128
Figures

areas 102
Figure 1 . Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) . • 108
Figure 2 . Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) 108

Europe
Presented by Hans Bibelriether , Regional Vice-Chair for Europe,

IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas . Prepared by
Hugh Synge, IUCN Consultant, under the direction of Hans Bibelriether
1. Historical perspective arctic vegetation, parts of the Scandinavian coniferous

forest, and some broadleaf forest in SE Europe, notably
In the past ten years, Europe has experienced political in Bulgaria and parts of former Yugoslavia. Elsewhere,
changes as dramatic as those anywhere in the world. unaltered vegetation is found only on mountain tops
The collapse ofthe Communist regimes in Eastern and above the tree line, in some wetland areas, in isolated
Central Europe and with it the closing of the east-west patches of woodland and on some parts of the coast.
divide, the re-emergence ofthe forces of nationalism in
parts of former Communist Europe, and the greater In Europe the most significant changes to vegetation
integration of the European Community (EC) are pro- and landscape occurred thousands of years ago . For the
found events in Europe's history. most part, they led to a varied and biologically diverse
continent, in many areas increasing biological diversity,
The decade since the 1982 World Parks Congress in at least on the local scale. However, in the past 50 years
Bali was also remarkable in another way: at the end of or so, there has been a steady degradation in much of
the 1980s, environmental issues suddenly rose to thetop this rich landscape. In Northern Europe, notably in parts
or nearthe top of the political agenda in most European of eastern England, northern France, Belgium, Nether-
countries. Despite economic recession, they are likely lands and N Germany, mechanized agriculture has re-
to stay there during the 1990s. duced the rich patchwork quilt of woodlands, hedges
and small fields to an agro-industrial prairie largely
Europe has remarkable diversity, not just of nature, devoid of wildlife. In much of Scandinavia and the
but of civilizations, cultures and languages, reflecting Baltic States, drainage has spared only remnants of the
its long and complicated history. Europe is the cradle of previously extensive marsh forests. In southern Europe,
western civilization and the birthplace of science , but it the massive expansion of tourism is causing great dam-
has also probably experienced more wars than any other age to the fragile Mediterranean coast. Large amounts
continent. of EC regional aid in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece-
now boosted to US$76 billion over 5 years- continue
To an ecologist, much of Europe is a young continent. to bring environmental damage.
North of the Alps, its present ecosystems developed
only after the retreat ofthe ice sheets some 10,000 years As a result much of Europe's natural heritage has
ago. Nevertheless, there is great diversity in Europe's been devastated. For example, in Britain and the Nether-
natural heritage, varying from the arctic tundra to the lands, only 4 per cent of lowland raised bogs remain
evergreen oak forests of the Mediterranean. Europe has undamaged. In Italy, three-quarters of the wetlands
spectacular mountains-Mont Blanc, the highest moun- have disappeared since 1900 and in Greece half since
tain in Europe; Mt Etna, the largest active volcano in the 1960s. In Finland, despite a forested landscape, only
Europe; and Mt Olympus, the national park with the fragments of the old forest survive. Similar examples
most vascular plant species in Europe. The region con- could be found for most other European countries.
tains outstanding wetlands, such as Cota Doñana in
Spain, the Danube Delta on the Black Sea and the
Sjaunja mire complex in Sweden. And it contains valu- 2. Current protected area
able forests such as the Bohemian and Bavarian Forest coverage
in Austria, Czech Republic and Germany. Its coastline
is complex, with numerous inland seas and islands. 2.1 Overview
However, Europe's naturally diverse vegetation has Europe has had protected areas for centuries, for exam-
been profoundly influenced by human activity. Today, ple as royal hunting reserves or as forest reserves. Since
the only extensive areas of vegetation that are essen- the first part of the 19th Century, small areas or even
tially unaltered by human impact are some areas of single features such as trees and rocks have been declared
asprotected. However, the national park concept emerged Despite this late start, there is today an extraordinary
later in Europe than in many other parts of the world. diversity of approaches to the conservation of nature
The first national parks were set up in the early years of across Europe from one country to another. This reflects
this century and progress was slow. Some countries a diversity in geography, history, law and political sys-
started their protected areas systems even later-Portugal, tems . The protected area systems in Europe are also very
for example, only about 20 years ago. complicated, with many different forms of designation.
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : Europe

Country Area ofRegion Categories I-V % VI-VIII and UA % designated %
• q •••
Albania 28,750 445 1.5 0.0 445 1.5
Andorra 465 0 0.0 20 4.3 20 4.3
Austria 83,855 21,184 25.3 0.0 21,184 25.3
Belgium 30,520 771 2.5 0.0 771 2.5
Bulgaria 110,910 2,614 2.4 0.0 2,614 2.4
Czechoslovakia 127,870 20,588 16.1 0 0.0 20,588 16.1
Denmark 43,075 4,094 9.5 21 0.0 4,115 9.6
Estonia 45,100 3,595 8.0 0 0.0 3,595 8.0
Faeroe Is 1,399 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Finland 337,030 8,504 2.5 0 0.0 8,504 2.5
France 543,965 53,002 9.7 88 0.0 53,090 9.8
Germany 356,840 87,806 24.6 0 0.0 87,806 24.6
Gibraltar 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Greece 131,985 1,025 0.8 1,246 0.9 2,272 1.7
Hungary 93,030 5,770 6.2 0 0.0 5,770 6.2
Iceland 102,820 9,156 8.9 384 0.4 9,540 9.3
Ireland 68,895 387 0.6 0 0.0 387 0.6
Italy 301,245 20,083 6.7 0 0.0 20,083 6.7
Latvia 63,700 1,746 2.7 4,000 6.3 5,746 9.0
Liechtenstein 160 60 37.5 0 0.0 60 37.5
Lithuania 65,200 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Luxembourg 2,585 0 0.0 360 13.9 360 13.9
Malta 316 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Monaco 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Netherlands 41,160 3,526 8.6 0 0.0 3,526 8.6
Norway 323,895 16,094 5.0 0 0.0 16,094 5.0
Poland 312,685 22,417 7.2 35,835 11.5 58,252 18.6
Portugal 91,630 5,598 6.1 161 0.2 5,759 6.3
Romania 237,500 10,886 4.6 13 0.0 10,899 4.6
San Marino 61 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Spain 504,880 35,044 6.9 0 0.0 35,044 6.9
Svalbard-Jan Mayen 62,380 34,910 56.0 0 0.0 34,910 56.0
Sweden 449,790 29,605 6.6 0 0.0 29,605 6.6
Switzerland 41,285 7,529 18.2 0 0.0 7,529 18.2
UK 244,755 46,355 18.9 0 0.0 46,355 18.9
Vatican City 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Yugoslavia (Former) 255,805 7,878 3.1 2,243 0.9 10,120 4.0
Total 5,858,166 524,281 8.9 276,564 4.7 800,845 13.7
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a
nature protection function are generally included. Note that extent of protected areas may include marine
components not included within the country total; this may lead to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage
cover.
Note: This table was prepared by WCMC prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and the changes in
former Yugoslavia.
Europe
Since the Third World Parks Congress in 1982, Europe's ofBelgium, nearly 65 per cent ofreserves are not owned
protected area estate has grown rapidly. In some cases, by the state.
the new protected areas have been the result of imple-
menting long-standing plans, as in Scandinavia. In others In total, sites excluded from the UN List add up to an
they have come about through political upheaval , for extensive area; for example 30-40 per cent of the pro-
example: tected areas in the Netherlands (by area) are not on the
UN List. Excluded areas are often important sites for
As the last agenda item of its last session, in threatened species and habitats, as in the 2,000 County
September 1990, the former East German parlia- Trust nature reserves in the United Kingdom .
ment, a freely elected assembly, created 5 new
Extrapolating from these figures leads to an estimate
national parks and 3 nature reserves;
of 10,000-20,000 protected areas in Europe, of which
The day after the collapse of Ceausescu regime in about 2200 are on the UN List. The growth of protected
Romania, the government declared 11 new national areas in Europe is graphically shown in Figures 1 and 2,
parks, fulfilling a proposal that conservationists had both non-cumulatively and cumulatively, respectively.
been promoting for 20 years.
Although the period 1972-1982 witnessed the great- 2.2 A lack of system plans
est rate of growth in the protected areas network (see
Table 3), Table 7 shows that in the last ten years nearly
Countries in Western and Southern Europe have tended
10 million ha have been added to the protected area
not to prepare system plans for developing their pro-
estate, an area larger than Hungary (Heiss, 1991 ). The
tected areas, although some have prepared detailed
area of national parks has increased 50% in the same
assessments of sites important for nature conservation.
period, with over 50,000ha created each in Austria,
In contrast, Bulgaria, Czech Republic , Hungary, Po-
Bulgaria, former Czechoslovakia, Finland, Germany,
land, Slovakia and the Baltic States have good system
Norway, Romania and former Yugoslavia. Before 1982,
plans.
two-thirds of the national parks were in mountains at
high or middle elevations, and only a sixth in coastal Some of the best examples of the systems approach
areas . Of the areas created since 1982, about half are are in Scandinavia. Furthest advanced in implementa-
montane and half are lowland (though 81 per cent ofthe tion is Finland, where 13 ofits planned 19 national parks
lowland areas created are in one country, Germany) . In have already been established. In Norway, a systematic
contrast, along the much threatened Mediterranean coast- conservation programme for natural habitats began in
line, only two new areas have been created, covering the 1970s. Sweden published a nature conservation plan
only 14,375ha. in 1991 (Naturvardsverket, 1991) , under which it plans
to increase its national parks to cover about 5 per cent
On other protected areas, predominantly nature re- of the country .
serves, Table 7 is likely to underestimate the gains since
most countries have reported only their larger areas. Most of the rest of Europe does not have extensive
Some gains are most encouraging: Sweden, for exam- tracts of natural vegetation from which large areas can
ple, has doubled the size of its nature reserves, from be selected for protection . System plans may therefore
846,000 to 1,910,000ha. need to contain proposals for the protection of large
numbers of small areas.
Table 1 summarizes the current protected areas in all
Especially in areas of predominantly altered ecosys-
categories, including the multiple use areas, whilst
tems, conservationists also need to think more of eco-
Table 2 shows the relative occurence of protected areas
logical networks than of individual nature reserves . The
in IUCN Management Categories I-V; in particular,
Netherlands, based on its great experience in creating
data in Table 2 underscores the importance ofCategory V
and in recreating terrestrial habitats, is planning a com-
in the European context. The map shows the percentage
prehensive national ecological network across the country,
of each country included within protected areas that
with corridors connecting one protected area to another
meet these same criteria. These data are based on the
(Ministry ofAgriculture, Nature Management and Fish-
best information available to the WCMC Protected
eries, 1990) . In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, ecolo-
Areas Data Unit, but the situation in some countries, e.g.
gists have been planning a similar system over the past
Germany, is so complex that the figures are not fully ten years, comprising both natural and landscape areas
comprehensive. as a Territorial System of Ecological Stability.
Moreover, the areas on the UN List are only part of To promote the idea of corridors and networks more
the protected area estate in Europe. Many other pro- widely, the Netherlands Government commissioned the
tected areas do not qualify for the UN List, either because Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) to
they are less than 1000ha in size (some examples of prepare a proposal on this theme. Their report proposes
these areas are given in Table 8) or because they are the concept of a European ecological network (EECONET)
owned by non- governmental organizations (NGOs) . in which the most important sites for each habitat type
For example, in Switzerland NGOs own 520 nature are conserved, and where the sites are linked by corri-
reserves covering 80,000ha, and in the Flemish region dors to permit dispersal of species (Bennett, 1991 ) .

500
Number of sites
300
200
100
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

2,500
Number of sites
2,000 Area ( x1000sqkm )
1,500
1,000
500
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Europe
2.3 The types of protected areas on the UN List, reflecting in part the much greater
difficulty of establishing a nature reserve than a pro-
tected landscape, and in part the fact that protected
Table 2 shows that the main types of protected areas landscapes are inherently extensive. The predominance
used in Europe are Category II (often called national of protected landscapes, especially in Austria, France,
parks), Category IV (managed nature reserves) and Germany, Poland and UK, means that any figures for
Category V (protected landscapes). However, it has not the proportion ofa European country that is in protected
been easy to apply the CNPPA categories, in particular areas can be deeply misleading unless it separates pro-
to make the distinction between Category II and Cate- tected landscapes from areas protected primarily for
gory V. In fact protected landscapes account for over nature.
half of the protected area estate, at least that included
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : Europe
I II III IV V TOTAL
61
Albania 230 7 215 13 445

Andorra - - - - -
Austria 1 12 353 46 2,541 140 18,631 187 21,184
Belgium 1 40 2 732 3 771
Bulgaria 24 499 2 1,133 2 44 21 670 1 268 50 2,614
Czechoslovakia 5 141 7 2,745 1 15 10 248 42 17,438 65 20,588
Denmark 4 99 - 2 63 18 823 41 3,110 65 4,094
Estonia 5 529 1 1,120 27 1,385 4 561 37 3,595
1
Faeroe Is - -
Finland 15 1,519 21 3,930 2 3,056 38 8,504
France 4 279 5 2,613 47 2,644 32 47,466 88 53,002
Germany 1 131 60 1,992 411 85,683 472 87,806
Gibraltar - - - - -
Greece 8 604 2 180 3 95 5 147 18 1,025
-
1615
Hungary 5 1,591 6 138 43 4,040 54 5,770

Iceland 3 1,801 5 386 4 519 8 6,450 20 9,156
Ireland 4 345 - 2 42 - 6 387
Italy 6 2,935 1 70 3,155 66 1,3978 143 20,083
Latvia 385 1 920 16 441 21 1,746
Liechtenstein 1 60 1 60
Lithuania
I
11130
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands 42 1 54 22 2,206 41 1,224 67 3,526
Norway 36 978 16 11,676 5 181 24 3,259 81 16,094
Poland 1 16 15 1,483 19 649 45 20,269 80 22,417
- 211 11 11 4,163
101
Portugal 1 1,224 23 5,598

Romania 9 516 1 544 17 6,190 13 3,637 40 10,886
- - -
1934 1
San Marino
Spain 1,228 53 15,747 99 18,069 161 35,044
Svalbard-Jan Mayen 2 25,410 9,500 - 5 34,910
Sweden - 4,948 154 21,721 25 2,935 193 29,605
Switzerland 1 169 52 2,681 59 4,679 112 7,529
UK 36 1,336 95 45,019 131 46,355
Vatican City - - - -
Yugoslavia (Former) 7 268 17 4,055 6 513 10 678 21 2,364 61 7,878
Total 121 30,862 166 117,387 42 3,441 720 66,138 1206 306,455 2255 524,281
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
Note: This table was prepared by WCMC prior to the separation ofthe Czech and Slovak Republics , and the changes in former
Yugoslavia.
National parks in Category II and nature reserves in replace it (e.g. alpine meadows), or because it is the
Category I are usually the best way to protect wilderness habitat of a rare species (e.g. bittern in reed beds) .
areas. In addition to the extensive natural forests in
Scandinavia, other parts of Europe still have areas of In other cases the manager may wish to allow succes-
wilderness left, such as in the mountains of southern sion. Even here, some management is often needed . For
Europe. Reflecting this, Bulgaria, Finland and Norway example, almost throughout Europe, deer populations
all have a high proportion of Category I areas. In con- are so high that forests are unable to regenerate without
trast, countries such as Germany, Netherlands and UK, some culling of deer. The manager here is fulfilling the
with little semi-natural vegetation left, tend to have ecological role of the absent wolf, lynx and bear. In
large numbers of small reserves and large areas of other cases, the manager may deviate the succession ,
protected landscapes, with few if any large Category I for example by removing introduced trees to prevent
or II sites. them from seeding . The point is that the manager has to
choose.
The management and protection of most Category II

areas in Europe is far from adequate. A recent report for In many cases Category IV reserves can be greatly
the European Commission found that only about 10 per improved by management, creating ecosystems of high
cent ofthe 200 protected areas in Western Europe which interest and restoring values which have been lost.
call themselves "national parks" truly attain the objec- Indeed, some wildlife-rich habitats have been entirely
created by human effort; in the Netherlands , for exam-
tives forCategory II areas as set by IUCN (Heiss , 1988) .
In Scandinavian national parks, for example, hunting is ple, the Oostvaardesplassen nature reserve was created
usually permitted . In Central and Southern Europe, from the sea as part of the reclamation of polders and is
now an outstanding wetland for birds.
cutting of natural forests for timber is common, and
some parks are being planted with exotic timber spe-
cies. Over-grazing is also a major problem, especially 2.4 Protected landscapes (Category V):
in Mediterranean countries. A European specialty
Some of the 200 " national parks" may be Category V As a consequence of the long history of human settle-
protected landscapes (as in UK, for example) and others ment over much of Europe's countryside, many areas
may need forms of traditional management to retain contain outstanding landscapes fashioned by people but
their biological diversity. But these are in the minority. in harmony with nature. In such areas, the local com-
The author ofthe EC Report, Heiss, believes that about munities have evolved over the centuries a balance with
two-thirds of the national parks could, and should, be the natural world based upon traditional patterns of land
managed to fulfil the objectives of Category II areas. use. This has resulted in a subtle blend of natural and
Clearly great improvements are needed . cultural elements, exemplified by areas as diverse asthe
hills of Tuscany, the Cotswolds in UK and the Hungar-
The second main type of protected area used in Europe ian puzsta. These landscapes, which express the historic
is the managed nature reserve (Category IV) . Manage- as well as the natural qualities of the continent, are one
ment is needed to maintain the biodiversity ofthese sites ofEurope's most distinctive features.
in Europe, for two main reasons. First, most ecosystems
in Europe are greatly changed from their original con- Many of them are now protected. Particularly well
dition; very often, human intervention has increased developed are the 11 national parks of England and
biodiversity by extending the amount of "edge" or tran- Wales (as outlined by Poore, 1992) . These Category V
sition areas between plant communities. Second, many areas cover nearly 10 per cent of England and Wales,
ofthe previous herbivores or carnivores are absent, and are home to nearly 250,000 people, and have an annual
their effect has to be substituted. budget of around US$70 million . The great value of
protected landscapes, as recognized in the Lake District
Habitats like heathlands, nature's response to cutting Declaration of 1987 (Anon, 1987) , is that they provide
and grazing in forests on the poor soils in parts of models of sustainable living in harmony with nature,
northern Europe, need grazing, cutting and even burn- albeit usually at relatively low population densities.
ing to maintain their structure and floristic composition. They are also vital "green lungs " for recreation, at a time
Grasslands depend on grazing for their survival. Reed when most Europeans live in cities.
beds need regular cutting for thatch to prevent succes-
sion to woodland. However, many protected landscapes provide little
more than paper protection . For example, nature parks
In each of these habitats, for centuries the traditional in Germany have no administration, no money, very
land management arrested the natural succession . As small staffs and no legal status. Many were created by
these forms ofland use become no longer economic , the municipalities primarily to attract tourists , and contrib-
modern protected area manager has to mimic the tradi- ute little to conservation of nature or landscape. It is
tional land use by mowing, grazing, cutting or burning. arguable that many of the nature parks, regional parks
The justification for doing so is to maintain the habitat and regional nature parks in Europe are not genuine
because it is in danger of disappearing (e.g. heathland), CategoryV protected areas at all, since they do not fulfil
because it is more species-rich than that which would the objectives of that designation.
Europe
Most protected landscapes were first set up primarily Denmark, Germany and Netherlands is well protected
to conserve scenery rather than nature, and the degree by national laws and by its designation as a Ramsar site .
of nature conservation varies greatly from one to an- The UK has some marine protected areas, both existing
other.While parts of some protected landscapes are run and proposed, but only two of them have statutory
on lines comparable to Category II or IV areas, even in protection. Further south, the French, Spanish and Por-
the well-run protected landscapes only a small part of tuguese coasts have only a few marine protected areas.
the budget and effort is specifically for conservation of The Azores and Canaries both have marine protected
nature. areas, but Madeira only has coastal reserves.
Protected landscapes are important and reflect well The marine protected areas of the North East Atlantic
the needs ofEurope's rich landscape heritage, but there cover only a negligible proportion of the total area. As
is a danger of paper designations that offer no real Gubbay points out, a far more extensive network is
additional protection. An upgrading of the approach is needed to represent adequately all the various marine
required, together with a deeper commitment to nature biogeographic regions and community types.
conservation in the existing protected landscapes. The
development of some Europe-wide agreement or stand- In the Mediterranean marine region , Batisse and de
ards to reinforce national efforts would be useful; at Grissac report a doubling in the number of coastal and
present several linked initiatives, including one of the marine protected areas from 65 in 1981 to 127 in 1991.
Council of Europe , are considering such an agreement. The total area now protected is over 1.7 million ha,
divided between land (1.1m) , wetland (0.4m) and ma-
2.5 Marine protected areas rine (0.2m) . About 3000km or 6 per cent ofthe coastline
is now protected. This good progress in the region is in
The great length of Europe's coastline , and its diversity part due to the work of the UNEP Regional Activity
of coastal ecosystems, means that marine protected Centre for Specially Protected Areas and the implemen-
areas are particularly important in Europe . For marine tation of the Barcelona Convention.
purposes, CNPPA divides Europe into three: the Baltic
Sea, the North East Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The
At least half the protected areas suffer from poor
account below summarizes reports prepared for the management and a lack of trained staff. Since 1990, the
Caracas Congress on the Baltic (Esping and Grönqvist, World Bank, within the framework of the Mediterra-
1991) , on the North East Atlantic (Gubbay) and on the nean Environment Technical Assistance Programme
Mediterranean (Batisse and de Grissac).
(METAP), has been assisting some of the southern and
eastern countries of the Mediterranean in developing
The Baltic is one of the world's smallest seas. It is
their networks of protected areas, institutions and leg-
almost entirely cut offfrom the open ocean and contains islation. Batisse and de Grissac are optimistic that de-
archipelagos of great natural interest. Esping and Grön- spite great tourist pressures and problems of water
qvist divide it into 9 regions, and list 46 existing and 16 pollution, "the beginning of the next millennium could
proposed marine protected areas, with at least one re- see an amelioration of the environmental quality and a
serve in each ofthe 9 regions. However, in Sweden, the real conservation of species and habitats". For this to
country with perhaps the most developed conservation happen, though, more intensive regional cooperation
infrastructure in the region, only one of the reserves, and stronger international assistance will be necessary.
Gullmar Fjord Marine Reserve, has proper manage-
ment.
2.6 Other mechanisms to protect
In 1981 the Nordic Council of Ministers started a conservation sites: The link to
project to select Nordic Marine Reserves, and this work regional planning
is now being revised. The Helsinki Convention on the
Protection of the Marine Environment ofthe Baltic Sea Most land in Europe is in private ownership. Conserva-
Area has established an environmental monitoring pro- tionists have had to evolve a variety of mechanisms for
gramme for the Baltic Sea. This Convention has re- working with private landowners.
cently been enlarged to cover the whole drainage basin
of the Baltic and its designated experts also make rec- Many European countries have regulations to con-
ommendations on the creation of protected areas. serve the habitats of officially protected plants and
animals, even on private land, but in many cases it is
The North East Atlantic region includes the coasts unlikelythe regulations are enforced (de Klemm, 1990).
of UK and Ireland, and the Atlantic coasts of Denmark, Also, much land is effectively conserved through own-
Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Portugal and ership by the military, by private or public forestry
Spain. All these countries have either established ma- concerns, or for hunting .
rine protected areas or are considering doing so. How-
ever, there are notable differences in the extent of the Some States have powers to buy land for nature
reserves and the level ofprotection afforded to them. At conservation by compulsion. In at least two such coun-
one extreme, the famous Wadden Sea on the coast of tries, France and Britain, this power has virtually never
been used, but in Sweden, the authorities do use com- too much that protected areas are not sufficient in them-
pulsory purchase of private lands to establish national selves to conserve nature: they must be backed up by
parks. Most States, however, have tended to evolve a planning and administration of land use for the whole
variety of mechanisms for protecting key sites without country.
forcing a change in ownership.
2.7 Evaluating the effectiveness of
In France, the local préfet (the central government the protected areas
representative in the departement) can issue orders es-
tablishing an arrêté de biotope to protectthe site of any The literature on protected areas in Europe is immense,
species on a special schedule prepared by the Govern- but there seems to be little or no single evaluation of the
ment in Paris. The préfet may prohibit or regulate a wide effectiveness of Europe's protected areas network, in
range of activities, such as vehicle traffic, farming, terms of management and coverage.
drainage or construction, and no compensation is paid
to the land-owner (de Klemm, 1990).
In many cases, information to do this is lacking. For
example, virtually no countries have datasets on the
One ofthe most developed systems of this kind is that extent to which their listed threatened plants are in
ofthe Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIS) in UK. protected areas. Data on the coverage of habitats , espe-
These are wildlife sites designated by the relevant gov- cially in northern Europe, may be better and there are
ernment agency. Owners of a site have to consult with various Europe-wide regional studies, such as on heath-
the conservation service before carrying out certain lands and on coastal dunes. Of particular importance is
activities that could be harmful. In most cases, both the European Community's CORINE system , which
sides reach agreement and the conservation service pays provides several vital databases relevant to protected
regular compensation thereafter. Where agreement can- areas.
not be reached, the owner may be forbidden to carry out
those activities for a certain period of time. From the available information, it can be concluded
that:
These forms of designation are vital to conservation.
There are sharp differences in the coverage and
In UK, for example , it is mainly the SSSIS, rather than
management effectiveness of protected areas from
the national parks, that provide the main defence for
one country to another.
sites important in wildlife. It is likely that forms of
protection like these will be of increasing importance in
■ The part of Europe where the terrestrial protected
the years to come. In particular, as the new democracies
area network seems to be least effective, in both
of Eastern and Central Europe restore land to former coverage and management, is in Mediterranean
private owners, they may need to evolve mechanisms
countries, where species diversity is greatest.
ofthis type.
■ Several countries in the European Community have
inadequate systems. They include:
In Denmark, any destruction of certain habitats re-
quires permission from the local authority, irrespective
Portugal, where almost all protected areas are under
of who owns the land, and with no compensation if
severe threat due to lack of political and social support,
permission is refused. So far the regulations cover heath-
and are in danger of losing their natural vegetation. For
land, salt marshes, peat bogs, lakes and watercourses
example, broadleaved forests in protected areas are
(Koester, 1984). This is an ideal way to protect endan-
threatened by replacement with eucalyptus and pine.
gered habitats, enabling all their occurrences to be
Only one national park has been established so far, and
effectively "protected areas". It is the most far-reaching
the legislative base is inadequate .
piece of such legislation in Europe, but many countries,
notably Germany, Austria and Switzerland, are devel-
Greece is one of Europe's most biologically diverse
oping systems whereby land-owners are required to
countries but its protected areas are poorly staffed, often
maintain certain habitat types on their land, often in
with part-time personnel, who have inadequate resources
return for compensation. In effect, Denmark is using
to look after the areas. The protected areas do not have
this mechanism rather than conventional protected ar-
their own administrations but come under local forest
eas to conserve rare habitats .
officers; most are not implemented on the ground, and
some are in great danger. Also, the existing protected
These examples show that, as systems for conserving areas (such as Mt Olympus NP-3998ha) need to be
nature become more complex and developed, it be- extended and additional parks created .
comes more difficult to separate the protected areas part
as a distinct sector. It is essential to see protected areas ■ Outside the European Community , a country whose
as an integral part of nature conservation policy, rather system is well below what is needed is Albania; it
than as a sector oftheir own. Moreover, protected areas has an adequate legal base but staff are lacking and
should also be integrated into the land-use policy and government regulations cannot be implemented on
regional planning. And finally, it cannot be emphasized the ground.
Europe
■ In much of Europe, there has been an emphasis , Categories I to IV. In future, the typical national park in
perhaps too strong an emphasis, on protected land- Europe may have a remote core area, managed as Cate-
scapes (Category V areas) at the expense of areas gory I (no visitors) and/or Category II (visitors permit-
set up primarily to protect nature. ted), some Category IV managed nature reserves (e.g.
alpine meadows in the mountains, heath lands in North-
The management of most Category II areas, the
ern European lowlands), and the whole surrounded by
areas of most importance for conservation of nature ,
a protected landscape of Category V.
falls below acceptable international standards.
Encouraging progress has been made on marine As part ofthe follow-up to the Caracas Action Plan,
protected areas in the Baltic Sea and in the Mediter- IUCN and FNNPE are planning a critical review of
ranean, though here, as elsewhere in the world, which additional areas in Europe should be protected,
efforts lag behind those on land. With the exception principally as large Category II national parks. In gen-
of the Wadden Sea, the situation is very poor in the eral, further protected areas are most needed in the
North-East Atlantic. Mediterranean region (though Bulgaria has particularly
Protected area networks have been developed at a good representation of Mediterranean and sub-Mediter-
ranean areas), as outlined by Ramade ( 1990) . For ex-
national level, with little consideration given to a
ample, in Greece, one could suggest the large area from
European perspective. The systems approach has
the Rhodopi Mountains to the Nestos Delta. In France
not yet been taken at European (or EC) level, and
and Italy, one could suggest a large transboundary park
monitoring of protected areas across Europe is in-
for the Maritime Alps, extending from Argentera NaP
adequate.
in Italy and Mercantour NP in France.
3. Additional protected areas

Not only in the Mediterranean , however, are more
required protected areas needed . Ireland has a protected area
estate of only 6 sites on the UN List totalling 29,474ha,
It might be thought that a small and crowded continent
like Europe offers few opportunities for large new pro- 0.4 per cent of the country (but soon to increase to about
tected areas. It is surprising to find that this is far from 40,000ha, plus small nature reserves amounting to about
another 14,000ha) . As Table 1 shows, this is still much
the case . Many countries are in fact planning substantial
less than any other comparably sized country in Europe.
increases to their protected area systems. Prominent
here are the new democracies of Eastern and Central What appears to be needed are (a) a considerable ex-
pansion in the network of nature reserves, either as
Europe: Bulgaria plans two more national parks and
marine parks, the Czech Republic and Slovakia both Category I or IV areas, (b) one or more large national
parks on the European continental model, and (c) the
plan to expand their already extensive park networks,
creation of a complementary system of Category V
Hungary wants to create bilateral or trilateral parks with
its neighbours, Poland will shortly create two new na- protected landscapes. A particularly important area is
tional parks (Stolowe Mountain and Mazurian Lakes), the Burren, the largest area of limestone pavement in
and Romania is implementing its massive Danube Delta Western Europe and a unique plant site. A small portion
Biosphere Reserve. of it, 1300ha, has recently been made a national park,
but some degree of protection is needed for its whole
This is encouraging but there has been little if any 52,000ha.
Europe-wide analysis of what areas should be added to
the network. Studies and proposals that would contrib- Other key areas in Northern Europe where better
ute to such an analysis include: protection is needed include:
■ The " Ecological Bricks" proposal for Eastern and

■ The coniferous forests in Norway. At present only
Central Europe , which describes 24 large areas pro-
small areas of Norway's coniferous forests are pro-
posed for protection (Anon, 1990);
tected . Only about 100,000ha (1.5 per cent) of po-
The IUCN/WWF Centres ofPlant Diversity Project, tentially productive coniferous forest is believed to
which is identifying large areas that should be pro- remain more or less untouched; Parliament recently
tected for their plant wealth, especially in the plant- decided to protect only 28,000ha of this, a portion
rich Mediterranean countries; considered insufficient by biologists and conserva-
tionists.
■ Published directories of Important Bird Areas
(Grimmett & Jones, 1989) and of wetlands (Carp, The Flow Country (UK) . A large area of flat and
1980) , covering sites both large and small. gently undulating peat bogs in north Scotland, the
largest expanse of such bog in the world . In the late
As forthe type of protected areas needed, throughout 1970s, foresters started planting a dense carpet of
the continent the greatest need is a major extension of non-native trees on a large scale . By 1988 they had
Category II national parks, and possibly changing some planted 60,000ha and are permitted to plant a further
Category V sites to the management standards of 40,000ha in all about a quarter of the whole area.
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : Europe

Albania 13.0 87.0 0.0 0.0 215 445

Andorra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Austria 61.0 6.9 12.2 20.0 2,009 21,184
Belgium 5.2 0.0 0.0 94.8 0 771
Bulgaria 20.9 19.3 9.5 50.4 0 2,614
Czechoslovakia 5.2 16.4 57.1 21.3 0 20,587
Denmark 18.4 4.3 40.8 36.5 397 4,093
Estonia 26.5 34.3 36.3 3.0 0 3,595
Faeroe Is 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Finland 58.7 0.0 0.0 41.3 0 8,504
France 0.0 30.5 45.1 24.4 256 53,001
Germany 18.3 46.9 20.2 14.6 1,246 87,806
Gibraltar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Greece 11.0 21.3 46.0 21.7 0 1,025
Hungary 0.3 1.6 63.8 34.3 0 5,769
Iceland 0.5 19.2 78.3 2.0 0 9,155
Ireland 26.2 0.0 7.0 66.8 0 386
Italy 13.6 6.3 18.8 61.3 102 20,083
Latvia 16.6 0.9 64.8 17.6 0 1,746
Liechtenstein 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 60
Lithuania 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Luxembourg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Malta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Monaco 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Netherlands 13.9 2.2 61.5 22.5 623 3,525
Norway 0.5 22.0 50.2 27.3 0 16,093
Poland 4.6 2.2 35.0 58.1 0 22,417
Portugal 0.0 13.4 57.0 29.6 0 5,598
Romania 10.3 0.2 1.2 88.3 89 10,886
San Marino 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Spain 2.3 26.5 20.3 50.9 69 35,043
Svalbard-Jan Mayen 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 34,910
Sweden 14.6 13.0 31.1 41.3 537 29,604
Switzerland 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7,360 7,528
UK 41.4 16.9 27.7 14.0 0 46,354
Vatican City 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Yugoslavia (Former) 35.6 14.5 24.0 25.9 12 7,877
Total 15.4 20.9 36.1 27.6 12,918 460,672
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific and the
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km . Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are
included. Similar tables can be produced based on number of sites rather than area covered. Sites are only in the
database once, therefore if a major change in size has occured, or a change in designation, this may distort the figures
Note: This table was prepared prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics , and the changes in former
Yugoslavia.
4. Protected area institutions There is also a split between landscape conservation

and nature conservation, with two separate systems in
In Europethe institutions responsible for protected area parallel in some countries. The two systems often had
management vary greatly from one country to another. different origins, landscape conservation tending to have
In some countries, protected areas are the responsibility emerged from a desire to protect landscapes and so
of central government, but in others, such as Germany provide recreation opportunities and encourage rural
and Austria, the system is highly decentralized. development.
Europe
Protected area institutions in southern Europe tend to local administrations. A national system for identifying
be weaker than those in Northern Europe. Institutions national priorities, partnership between different levels,
in the former often have inadequate laws, structures or devolved responsibility for regional planning and pro-
budgets with which to combat serious threats to their tected area management, proper resourcing at all levels ,
sites. In Eastern and Central Europe, with the severe and arrangements for monitoring and review, are essen-
decline in the economies, protected area agencies are tial elements of protected area planning and manage-
having to reduce staff and retrench their activities. ment in a country with a decentralized constitution.
4.1 Decentralization 4.2 A strong voluntary sector
Asin otherparts ofthe world, many European countries As part ofthe growth in environmental awareness, the
are decentralizing their administrations. This is both an membership of voluntary conservation groups grew at
opportunity and a danger for protected areas. It is an astronomical rates in the 1980s, in some cases at 20-30
opportunity for conservation because it is often easier per cent per year. Today, in Britain and Denmark, as
at local level than at national level to integrate conser- many as 1 in 10 citizens belong to conservation groups.
vation into regional land-use planning systems, and to And in Eastern and Central Europe, popular environ-
bring the administration of conservation " nearer the mental groups were at the forefront of calls for demo-
people". cratic reform . Yet in Mediterranean countries, member-
ship of conservation groups still remains small, for
Spain shows the benefits of decentralization . After example less than 1 in 250 in Greece.
the restoration of democracy, many government func-
tions were passed to the Autonomous Communities. In As a result, conservation groups in the north enjoy
the environmental field, only national parks and na- political muscle, especially as their memberships now
tional hunting reserves remain under the control of the often exceed that of political parties. The pressure they
national government in Madrid. This has released crea- have been able to exert has helped tighten laws on
tive energy into finding new forms of safeguarding protected areas and removed some ofthe more flagrant
nature and landscapes, as the experiences of Andalucia threats that may have been tolerated a decade before.
and the Canary Islands show. Support groups have been set up for individual pro-
tected areas and a growing band of volunteers do prac-
Decentralization may also facilitate cooperation be- tical conservation work. Some conservation groups have
tween governmental and non-governmental agencies bought nature reserves.
over protected areas. For example, the regional nature
parks in France bring together the national government, Conservation groups can provide a cost-effective way
the departement administration and local bodies, such for government to implement conservation policies. For
as the Chambers of Commerce . Local interests are fully example, government grants enable the Swiss League
represented right from the beginning . for the Protection of Nature to acquire nature reserves.
The Swiss League is also a partner with the Federal
A danger, however, is that the local authorities may Government in running the Swiss NP, and provides
not have sufficient trained personnel to take on their many of the wardens.
responsibilities. It may be difficult (or virtually impos-
sible as in the case of Austria) for decentralized nations
to fulfil their obligations under international conven- 5. Current levels of financial
tions if the central government cannot ensure the pro- investment in protected areas
tection of certain areas. Also, the protected areas can be
harder to defend against external threats, de-gazetting Table 6 shows the information currently available to
even, than if they are created by the national govern- WCMC on levels of state financing to protected areas
ment. in Europe.It also shows, however, that it is very difficult
to separate spending on protected areas from spending
Local communities may not always appreciate the on nature conservation in general , especially in coun-
international importance of some ofthe assets they hold. tries with sophisticated and complex nature conservation
To encourage broad support, central government and systems. Some of the figures are probably misleading
international agreements (such as EC Directives) should for this reason .
specify what needs to be protected at international level
and provide financial support so that local communities Nevertheless, the figures show dramatic differences
are not disadvantaged. across the region . On the one hand UK spends over
US$150m per year on protected areas, yet Greece spends
Ideally, sites of international and national importance about $ 1m per year, giving a per capita difference of
should be established by the national government, even about 30: 1 . Clearly protected areas in some Mediterra-
if regional institutions are charged with their manage- nean countries are grossly underfunded: a UNEP study
ment. Likewise, regional institutions (provinces, can- found that in many protected areas in the Mediterranean
tons or lander) should themselves be encouraged to there is a budget for staff and other running expenses,
develop sites of regional importance, working with but virtually no money for investment (Ramade , 1990) .
The leading economies in Europe-France, Germany, of the general public, and this is reflected in staffing
Italy and UK-tend to provide about US$2-6 million levels.
annually for each national park. With a budget of US$6
million, Bayerischer Wald NP (Germany) ( 13,100ha) 6.2 Training opportunities and needs
receives the highest park budget in Europe.
The extent ofthe protected area network in Europe and
However, a large budget does not guarantee effective the number of staff required to manage them have
protection. The Swiss NP ( 16,087ha), on a budget of increased in the past decade and techniques for resource
US$700,000 a year, achieves a very high standard of and visitor management have become much more so-
protection, while Calabria NP (Italy) , which is about the phisticated. As a result, more training is needed in a
same size (15,892ha) and has similar problems, achieves broad range of skills, from management planning to
a much lower standard on US$2 million a year. In many community relations, from languages to information
European parks, the lion's share of the budget is taken technology .
up with measures which may not be urgent. For exam-
ple, in Stelvio NP (Italy) , nearly all the annual invest- Yet current provision of training is patchy. Specialist
ment of US$ 1.2 million is spent on maintaining paths. degrees and technical courses in conservation manage-
A large part ofthe budget in French parks in the Alps is ment are still relatively rare. Provision for in-service
spent on research into attractive, but not threatened , training is ad hoc and training opportunities are seldom
animal species. available for all the staff. Best provided for are rangers
and guides: Belgium , Denmark, France and UK all offer
Few European protected areas charge for entry, but special training. In England and Wales, the Countryside
this could be a good option for Mediterranean countries, Commission has promoted a national training policy
taking advantage of the massive numbers of tourists (Countryside Commission, 1989) and the National Park
each year and the boom in nature tourism experienced Authorities have adopted targets for improving training
in other parts of the world. Greece, for example, only for all their staff (Association of National Park Officers,
charges entrance for the Samaria Gorge NP, which may 1989), but such broad initiatives are uncommon.
have received as much as US$650,000 in 1991 from
entrance fees. Numerous conferences and seminars-regional, na-
tional or international-are held but are mostly attended
In some cases, national parks have brought strong by senior staff. In 1990-1 , a "travelling" European
economic benefits to the region . Tassi ( 1991 ) relates the Protected Area Managers Seminar for senior managers
case of Abruzzo NP (Italy), where the bears and wolves was organized by Wye College (UK). Training courses
have proved a great attraction . One small village, Civitella are generally run regionally or nationally, for example
Alfedena, was almost abandoned 20 years ago, but now the Atelier technique in France develops training for the
has a growing economy and emigrants are returning. staff of the parcs nationaux (L'Atelier techniques des
According to Tassi, some US$4.2m of park budget espaces naturels, 1991) . Study visits and exchanges
developed a local economic impact of US$ 170m, cre- have much potential for exchanging information and
ating over 100 jobs in the park itself and about 1000 developing expertise but are not well used atpresent and
more in related activities. to date most have been organized informally. For a
number of years FNNPE has promoted short-term staff
exchanges between parks, but few have taken place
6. Human capacity in protected because stafftime is short, financial resources are rarely
areas management available for them and the language barrier is an ever-
present difficulty.
6.1 Staffing of protected areas In summary, as expressed in various FNNPE confer-

ence resolutions , European protected areas have a grow-
As with levels of financing , there are large differences ing number of training needs which are not yet fully
from one country to another. Some countries, for exam- matched by training opportunities.
ple, have no rangers in their national parks. Others, in
contrast, not only have large paid staffs but also systems
of volunteers. For example, the British Trust for Con- 7. Major protected area issues in
servation Volunteers has over 50,000 volunteers each the region
year, working in over 3000 sites, many of them pro-
tected areas. 7.1 Pressures on protected areas
In most countries, though, staffing to protect the The natural wealth of Europe is under threat and the
natural heritage has lagged behind staffingto protect the protected areas do not escape these pressures. Accord-
cultural heritage . Especially in Mediterranean coun- ingtothe results of an FNNPE questionnaire, a majority
tries, a knowledge of nature is not regarded as part of of national park managers believe that ecological con-
the cultural awareness of citizens. Nature conservation ditions in protected areas in Europe have deteriorated
is too often an interest of hobbyists and specialists , not over the last ten years.
r
/
international
to
Adherence
4.
Table
:Eegional
conventions
urope
Ramsar
W
)( etlands EC UNEP Biogenetic CoE
Country Herita
World ge Reserves
Biosphere Convention SPAS SPAS Reserves Diploma
Date No.
Area
)(ha No. (ha
)Area Date )Area
a
(hNo. No. No.
Area Area No. Area No.
Area
Albania 1989
July - 2 1000
Andorra 96
Austria 27,600 December
1982 102,528 186465
18
Belgium 1986
March 9,607 4292306 18 7279
276
/Herzegovina
Bosnia
? ?
Bulgaria March
1974 40,660 17 25,201 1975 4
September 2,097
Croatia 1992
July 19,200 1 150,000 1991
October 4 112,125
Czechoslovakia November
1990 0 9 July
562,728 1990 8 16,958
Denmark 1979
July 0 1977
September27 734,468 111 792505
2100
Estonia ? ?
1,560,000 1 48,634
Finland 1987
March 1974
350,000 May 11 101,343
'
France 1975
June 12,000 575,583 1986
October 8 423,135 61 519741 267641
10 35 44143
Germany 1976
August 1,158,349 1976
February 31 660,569 412 324739 1 677
Greece 1981
July 8,840 1975
August 11 107,400 191637
26 8 11463 16 22272 1
111622
See
Holy 1982
October
Hungary 1985
July 128,884 1979
April 13 110,389
Iceland 1977
December
2 57,500
Ireland September
1991 8,808 November
21
1984 13,028 20 5548 14 6587
Italy 1978
June 3,798 46
1976
December 56,950 310378
74 37 33569
5123
001100100
Latvia ? ?
Liechtenstein 1991
December
1 101
1
Lithuania 1992
March 0
Luxembourg 0
1983
September - 356 75
Malta 1978
November 0 1
1988
September 11 2023402 2 11
Monaco 1978
November0 46
122
Netherlands 1992
August May
260,000 1980 15 312,918 9 52865 18 20379
Norway 1977
May 0 1 1974
1,555,000July 14 16,256 1567423
11
17
Poland 1976
June 1 5,316 4 160,720 5
1977
November 7,141
Portugal 0
1980
Septemb er 1 395 November
1980 2 30,563 318872
34 36469
Romania 1990
May 1 547,000 3 614,268 1991
September
1 647,000
Marino
San 1991
October 0
ཙ ། །
Slovenia ? 1 200 1991

June 1 850
Spain 1982
May 1 3,984 11 1982
716,277 May 17 102,198 135 2307087 21045 3
Sweden 1985
January 0 1 96,500 1974
December30 382,750 95046 4
Switzerland 0
1975
Septemb er 1 16,870 1976
January 8 7,049 9 7210 1
United
Kingdom 1984
May 2 923 13 44,258 1976ary
Janu 57 215,277 128848
58 5
1
71111001
2001
Yugoslavia
S&
(erbia
1975
)Montenegro May 2 1
32,000 200,000 March
1977 128,094 - 10
68281
1
Notes
: 1.
cultural
natural
mixed
bOther
Heritage
World
list
inscribed
are
/nsites
man
from
resulting
beauty
of
basis
the
,ron
interaction
than ather
ature
ut
Snatural Bay
its
(Fand
baie
sa
),M
/e-:haveAthos
rance
ichel
ount
.Ttaint
alone
features
w
asites
table
above
the
in
included
been
not
re
hese
hich
ont
ugoslavia
hrid
otor
reece
eteora
OG).(Y,KM(reece
situation
unclear
cases
some
in
is
Yugoslavia
current
the
that
mean
Soviet
former
and
Union
,in
Europe
both
2.
changes
political
Recent
.
sites
listing
and
adherence
of
Europe
dates
regarding
Table 4a. Adherence by European countries to regional treaties relevant to protected

areas
Nordic Helsinki Barcelona Rhine Bonn Bern
Albania n-a n-a 1990 n-a XX XX

Andorra n-a n-a n-a n-a *
22
Austria n-a n-a n-a n-a XX (R)
**
2
Belgium n-a n-a n-a n-a XX (R)
*
n-a n-a * n-a *
Bosnia/Herzegovina
Bulgaria n-a n-a n-a n-a XX
Croatia n-a n-a * n-a
*
Czechoslovakia n-a n-a n-a n-a XX XX
Denmark 05.10.76 03.05.80 n-a n-a 01.11.83 01.01.83
Estonia n-a (A) n-a n-a XX XX
Finland (R) (R) n-a n-a (R) (R)
France n-a n-a 02.10.86 01.02.79 (P) (R)
Germany n-a 03.05.80 n-a 01.02.79 01.10.84 01.04.85
Greece n-a n-a 25.02.87 n-a (P) 01.10.83
Holy See n-a n-a n-a *
Hungary n-a n-a n-a n-a (R) (R)

Iceland n-a n-a n-a n-a XX XX
Ireland n-a n-a n-a n-a 01.11.83 01.08.82
Italy n-a n-a 23.03.86 n-a 01.11.83 01.06.82
Latvia n-a (A) n-a n-a XX XX
Liechtenstein n-a n-a n-a n-a XX (R)
Lithuania n-a (A) n-a n-a XX XX
Luxembourg n-a n-a n-a 01.02.79 01.11.83 01.07.82
Malta n-a n-a (R) n-a XX XX
Monaco n-a n-a (S) n-a XX XX
Netherlands n-a n-a n-a 01.02.79 XX 01.06.82
Norway (R) n-a n-a n-a (R) (R)
Poland n-a (R) n-a n-a XX XX
Portugal n-a n-a n-a n-a 01.11.83 01.06.82
Romania n-a n-a n-a n-a XX XX
San Marino n-a n-a * n-a n-a *
Slovenia n-a n-a n-a n-a
Spain n-a n-a 22.01.88 n-a 01.11.83 2.09.86
Sweden (R) (R) n-a n-a (R) (R)
Switzerland n-a n-a n-a (R) XX (R)
United Kingdom n-a n-a n-a n-a 01.11.84 01.09.82
Yugoslavia n-a n-a (R) n-a XX XX
Key:
Nordic: Nordic Environmental Protection Convention ( 1984)
Helsinki: Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area ( 1974)
Barcelona: Convention on the Protection ofthe Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, Protocol concerning Mediterranean
Specially Protected Areas (Convention 1976, Protocol 1982)
Rhine: Convention on the Protection of the Rhine Against Chemical Pollution (1976)
Bonn: Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979)
Bern: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979)
(R): Country has ratified

(S): country is a signatory
(A): Originally covered by the USSR's ratifications of Ramsar ( 11.10.76), World Heritage (12.10.88) and Helsinki ;
n-a: 'not applicable'
*
Indicates data not available to WCMC at present
XX not party to the agreement
Europe
Since many protected areas in Europe are small, they defeating efforts to eradicate it. False acacia (Robiniapseu-
are particularly vulnerable to damage . Some 40 per cent dacacia) is a troublesome pest in Central Europe.
of national parks are less than 10,000ha in size, and 88
per cent less than 100,000ha (Heiss , 1991) . CNPPA has Military activities. See section 7.5, below. An ex-
identified 15 protected areas in Europe as threatened ample of a park threatened by military activities is
(Thorsell, 1990). However, protected area professionals Dartmoor NP (UK) , where a large part of the moorland
in the region feel that most protected areas in Europe is used for military testing, including live firing. Other
are under some degree of pressure and threat. The 15 threatened parks include Dovrefjell NP (Norway) and
Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer (Germany) .
are in a sense the " tip of the iceberg" . The following
examples indicate the range and scale of the threats.
Mining. Numerous protected areas suffer from min-
ing and quarrying. In Cevennes NP (France), there are
Agricultural activities . Agricultural intensification
quarries within the park and uranium mining on the
has been a threat to many protected landscapes, and may
border. Alvao and Arrabida NaPs (Portugal) have open
be an increasing threat in eastern, central and southern
quarries.
Europe, in some cases promoted by EC funding.
Transport links. Road-building programmes can be
Air pollution. Most protected areas in southern
immensely damaging, both inside and outside protected
Scandinavia suffer from acid rain caused by emissions,
areas . This is, for example , now the most serious threat
principally from other countries. Scandinavian coun- to semi-natural areas in southern England.
tries suffer particularly badly since their bedrock is
predominantly of granite and gneiss. In Eastern and Water extraction . Lowering of the water table has
Central Europe, damage to some parks has been very affected large parts of Europe, and not only wetlands.
severe due to local pollution from electric power sta- For example, Kiskunsag NP (Hungary) suffers from a
tions, as at Krkonose NP (Czech Republic and Poland), lowered water-table. Water extraction in river deltas,
as well as from transboundary pollution. often for irrigated agriculture, threatens vital wetlands
like the famous Cota Doñana NP in Spain.
Dam construction . Protected areas under threat
from the construction of sluices and dams include Water pollution. Several vital Mediterranean coastal
Mercantour NP (France) , Montezinho NaP (Portugal) , parks are close to industrial plants; flamingoes in the
Vicos Aoos, Pindos and Mikra Prespa NPs (Greece), Camargue RNAP & NR have been contaminated by
and Pieniny NP (Poland) . heavy metals and other chemicals in the River Rhone.
Oil slicks have nearly caused catastrophes to other
Forest exploitation . Legal and illegal felling causes coastal protected areas. In Central Europe , eutrophica-
damage to many protected areas, especially in Central tion caused by extensive use of fertilizers threatens
and Southern Europe . Particularly threatened are the aquatic life in streams and rivers. Particularly badly
national parks in former East Germany, Bükk NP affected is Circeo NP (Italy).
(Hungary), Stelvio NP (Italy) and woodland national
War and violence. It has been reported that protected
parks in Czech Republic , Poland and Slovakia. Forest
fires are on the increase in Mediterranean countries, areas were damaged by the fighting in Croatia in 1991-
2, in particular that the Kopacki rit Special Zoological
partly because of the increased susceptibility of conifer
Reserve, a unique wetland and bird sanctuary , has been
plantations to fire, as in Estrela NaP (Portugal).
destroyed. As in the war over Kuwait in 1990-1 , dam-
Hunting, ranching and grazing. Many protected age to the fragile ecology of the region is often a
consequence of war and the present conflict in former
areas suffer from not being able to regulate hunting as
much as they would wish . This is particularly the case Yugoslavia is bound to threaten protected areas and
nature as well as human life.
in Italy, where the Italian Bird Protection League esti-
mates that as many as 150 million small birds may be
shot each year. Hunting is allowed in Austrian parks and 7.2 The special case of tourism
of some game species in 14 of Norway's 21 national
parks . Reindeer farming is a problem in national parks Tourism has grown at astonishing rates in the last ten
in North Scandinavia, with associated over-grazing, use years, especially on the fragile Mediterranean coast.
of vehicles and fencing. In Mediterranean countries, The World Tourism Organization forecasts a continued
erosion caused by over-grazing is serious, as at Mercan- annual growth of 3-4.5 per cent and the World Bank a
tour NP (France), Oiti NP (Greece) and Peneda-Geres doubling of tourists in the Mediterranean by 2025.
NP (Portugal). Tourists, jaded from crowded beaches and fearful of
sun-bathing because of the increasing risk of skin can-
Invasive species. European ecosystems are relatively cer, may turn in mass towards Europe's wilderness
resistant to invasive species introduced from other coun- areas.
tries. Yet some parks are under threat, for example
Killarney NP (Ireland) , which is heavily invaded by Some ofthe severest problems have been in Mediter-
Rhododendron ponticum, and Peneda- Geres NP ranean countries, for example protecting the turtle beaches
(Portugal), where Acacia dealbata from Australia is on the Greek island of Zakynthos. Motorcycles, 4-wheel
drive vehicles and snow-mobiles can be a problem in more positive attitude to tourism and to cooperate more
sensitive areas, especially in northern Scandinavia. Often, closely with tourist agencies, so as to encourage sustain-
however, the most severe damage is caused not by the able tourism and deter inappropriate tourism.
visitors themselves but by the accompanying facilities,
such as hotels, guest houses, restaurants and roads. The
7.3 Coping with change in Eastern
infrastructure associated with downhill skiing can be
and Central Europe
particularly damaging, as at Krkonose (Giant Moun-
tains) NP (Czech Republic), Triglav NP (Slovenia) and
Vanoise NP (France). Other parks acutely threatened by The dramatic changes in Central and Eastern Europe
tourist developments include Pyrenees-Occidentales have created great opportunities for conservation but
(Spain), Pallas-Ounastunturi (Finland) , Peneda-Geres also pose dangers, because of the rapid development
(Portugal), Circeo (Italy) and protected areas in the now likely in agriculture, trade and tourism .
German part of the Waddensea.
In Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and
An FNNPE study on sustainable tourism (1993) , con- Slovakia, the new governments inherited extensive and
cludes that many current forms oftourism in and around well-planned protected area systems, in some cases
protected areas are damaging and therefore cannot be more extensive and better managed than comparable
sustained. Yet tourism is both a threat and an opportu- areas in western Europe (for details see IUCN, 1990b,
nity. The report argues for new forms of sustainable 1990c and 1991 ) . The Baltic States-Estonia, Latvia
tourism that would benefit conservation and local com- and Lithuania also had good systems, much of them
munities. It calls on protected area managers to take a created before the Soviet takeover in 1945, but progress
had been slowed down by the enforcement of Soviet
standards. In former Yugoslavia, protected areas were
Table 5. World Heritage sites in Europe
always managed by the individual Republics, and never
had strong federal coordination; standards varied greatly
Bulgaria from one Republic to another. In Albania and Romania,
Pirin National Park the poor economic situation had precluded the develop-
Srebarna Nature Reserve ment of effective protected area systems.
Croatia
Plitvice Lakes National Park As early as the 1970s, some of the countries had
France started creating protected landscapes, mainly for recrea-
Cape Girolata, Cape Porto & Scandola NR tion purposes , since citizens could not easily leave the
(Corsica) country for holidays. Although some parts ofthe coun-
Mont-Saint-Michel and its bay tries were (and still are) appallingly polluted by heavy
industry, large areas of attractive countryside, with some
Greece
natural and much semi-natural vegetation , remained.
Meteora Group of Monasteries
Mount Athos
Today, the new conservation authorities face strong
Poland
forces that could jeopardize their protected areas. The
Bialowieza National Park (with Belarus)
governments are keen to decentralize their administra-
Romania tions, but there is not yet the management expertise at
Danube Delta the local level. The countries all need hard currency and
Slovenia may come under pressure to sell off natural resources,
Skocjan Caves such as timber, in a non-sustainable way. Equally seri-
ous is the possibility of privatization: the previous gov-
Spain
ernments took much of the land for the protected areas
Garajonay National Park
illegally, and there is great pressure to restore land to
UK
the former owners or to compensate them . Doing so will
Giant's Causeway
be extremely difficult in some cases: for example, in
St. Kilda
Bulgaria, there were about half a million owners of
Yugoslavia forest before land was nationalized in 1948, with on
Durmitor National Park average only about 1ha each. At one time it looked as
Kotor though national parks would be broken up, but
Ohrid Hungary, for example, has now decided to keep the
parks in state ownership; in Slovakia, only about a third
ofthe High Tatra NP will be returned to the communes;
Five of these sites (Mont-Saint-Michel and its bay, Mount
Athos , Meteora, Kotor and Ohrid) are mixed natural/cultural in Estonia new park laws have proscribed reclaim by
sites, inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty resulting previous owners; in the Czech Republic a fund is being
from man/nature interaction, rather than natural features planned to secure continued state ownership of pro-
alone. tected area land that would otherwise revert to private
owners.
Europe
At a meeting in Hungary , in May 1991 , organized by on the buffer zones of protected areas could stop much
FNNPE with support from WWF and IUCN, delegates of the damage caused to those areas by the drift of
from Central and Eastern European countries outlined agricultural chemicals, and could allow those areas to
the priority needs of their protected areas and identified expand and thus increase the chances that all their
opportunities for external assistance . Overall , a much species survive in the long term.
greater proportion of aid, bilateral and multilateral, The reduction in the amount of land needed for farm-
should be spent on nature conservation. And if the
ing in Europe is mirrored by similar reductions in land
countries need funds to buy out the previous owners of needed for timber, fuelwood, rough grazing and other
national parks, where the owners were illegally dispos- uses. Indeed, all over Europe the observant traveller
sessed of their land, western governments should con-
sees land returning to nature. Overall, Europe is moving
tribute generously. It would be tragic to lose key parts into an era of immense opportunities for nature conser-
ofexisting protected areas at this promising and critical vation, opportunities matched in few other regions of
time.
the world. But all these opportunities will only be used
Nevertheless, some protected area systems in the to best advantage if done to a coherent strategy. The lack
"East" are older, more extensive and in places better of such a broad land-use strategy for conservation and
managed than comparable areas in the "West". What sustainable development is a major impediment.
most countries in the "East" need, therefore, is not
advice but equipment and funds. Indeed, the "West" can 7.5 Creating a peace dividend for
learn much from them. For this reason, fewer "western"
conservation
experts should be sent "East" and more policy-makers
and park managers from the " East" invited to visit the
A similar trend may occur with the thousands of hec-
"West" and to learn for themselves about what works
tares of military land in Europe. France alone has
well for protected areas in a free-market economy and 300,000ha which no-one outside the forces can enter.
what does not.
With the collapse of the divide between east and west,
most European countries are now planning or imple-
7.4 Benefiting from a surplus of menting substantial reductions in their armies, navies
farmland and air forces.
In fact some of the best natural areas in Europe are

The 12 countries of the European Community produce
held by the military. Prevention of access by citizens
so much food that they propose to remove some 15 per
cent oftheir arable land from agriculture . The land will has permitted enclaves of natural vegetation to remain
in areas of great agricultural change. Good examples are
not be evenly spread throughout the Community, but
the Evros Delta (Greece) and Salisbury Plain (UK).
will be mainly concentrated in the cereal-producing
Some Ministries of Defence have conservation officers ,
regions of northern Europe. In France, for example, it
often with considerable powers over how the military
may be as much as 3-5m ha. Similar policies may be
look after their large land holdings.
needed outside the Community; for example, Sweden
plans to reduce farmland by 500,000ha. The opportunities are perhaps greatest in the coun-
tries of Eastern and Central Europe. For example, a
Conservationists believe that the best option for na- staggering 8 per cent of the former East Germany was
ture would be a reduction in the intensity of farming, used by the military. As the troops return home, conser-
rather than taking land out of cultivation . In fact this is vationists are finding some areas in which nature had
beginning to happen: the level of subsidies is now recovered well (e.g. the former Soviet bases in Ralsko
decreasing, encouraging farmers to farm less inten- and Mladá in the Czech Republic) and others in which
sively, with beneficial effects on nature. Furthermore, it had been protected in a near pristine state (e.g a
under the EC's Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) 7000ha piece of Hungarian puzsta grassland in Horto-
scheme, farmers in certain regions are now being paid bagy NP, which had not been grazed for 40 years). In
subsidies to farm in traditional ways that do not harm others, however, the departing military have left behind
wildlife, like refraining from the use of pesticides and vast amounts ofpollution , in particular from untreated
artificial fertilizers. UK , for example, has just agreed to sewage, oil and aviation fuel. In the most acute cases,
treble the area of ESAS to over 1 million ha, and to health concerns and the danger of unexploded muni-
increase the environmental subsidies to them to US$ 116m tions may prevent human access for decades.
per annum by 1994, taken from the agriculture budget.
Other EC Member States, such as Denmark, France, 7.6 The value of frontier and
Germany, Ireland, Italy and Netherlands, are following
transboundary parks
this approach .
However, large areas of land will undoubtedly be In Europe, frontiers are often in remote areas, such as
taken out of agriculture, either temporarily or perma- mountain ranges , in which the natural ecological unit is
nently under " set-aside" schemes. Wherever possible, in both countries. As a result, frontier and transboun-
priority should be given to land in areas of importance dary parks are ofparticular importance in Europe. They
for conservation, in particular so as to extend nature are also a visible symbol of peace and cooperation
reserves and other protected areas. Focussing set- aside between nations.
Protected
6.
Table
management
areas
agency
budgets
E
: urope
in
Budget US
Dollar
Country
r
/ esponsible
agency equivalent
currency
Albania ALL
Andorra
Austria ATS
Service
Conservation
N
-ature
Belgium BEF
100,000,000 3,164,500 protection
,o
million
10
some
which
f
Constitutes
nature
for
funding
total
the
equipment
for
authorities
reserve
to
allocated
are
BEF
and
purchase
the
by
complicated
is
situation
national
.The
needs
management
des
Administration
the
as
such
organisations
of
by
grants
provision
help
cover
eaux
,which
forêts
et
NGOs
to
subsidy
optional
an
pays
management
reserve
own
.their
costs 2,13
Environment
the
of
-inistry
MBulgaria 500,000,000
BGL 28,016,000 Budget
1989
nature
protection
.for D2
Croatia
Czechoslovaki
C
Republic
)( zech a CSK
50,000,000 1,751,000 1991 Budget
for
.
areas
protected D3
Czechoslovaki
S
Republic
)( lovak a CSK
74,000,000 2,592,000 1991 Budget
protected
areas
.for D3
Denmark DKK
Estonia
Faroe
Islands
Finland FIM
nFrance
parks
)(ational 89,939,000
FRF 16,716,000 1989 national
for
budget
state
.Annual
parks D4
nFrance
reserves
)( ature 14,500,000
FRF 2,695,000 1989 Annual
reserves
nature
for
budget D4
rFrance
(egional
)parks FRF
6,386,000,000 1987
1,186,880,000 expenditure
including
heritage
natural
the
protecting
on
Total
.
parks
regional
on D4
R/
(N
-ofhine
orth
Republic
FGermany
, ederal
Westphalia
) DEM
68,686,000 38,372,000 1987 .The
areas
protection
nature
on
expenditure
state
total
the
is
This
expendi-
,
preservation
landscape
and
protection
nature
ture
of
promotion
on
acquisition
-state
non
by
that
(iincluding
bodies
ncluding
,pland
reserva-
DEM106,415,000
s
compensation
payment
development
)iand
tion
S
)( US67,634
Gibraltar
(Gibraltar
N
)-
Council
Conservancy
ature GIP
300,000 542,000 (including
conservation
landscape
1990
and
nature
on
expenditure
Constitutes
protected
area
only
the
of
designation
to
ppublic
)rior
gardens D19
Greece
Forest
-
Service GRD
200,000,000 1,110,000 1991
bodies D6
respective
from
areas
protected
for
budget
of
estimate
Maximum
Hungary HUF
Conservation
Council
Iceland
Nature
- ISK
134,000 242,000 costs
Running
1982
national
three
the
.for
parks D9
Ireland IEP
Italy
)(regions
provinces
and ITL
415,000,000,0 00 348,000,000 1986
provinces
and
regions
all
in
conservation
nature
on
expenditure
Total
tf
)a
expenditure
environmental
on
billion
3,026
Lire
otal
rom
(of D4
Environment
the
of
)-inistry
(tate
MsItaly ITL
3,022,000,000,000 2,573,000 between
,divided
environmental
State
expenditure
ongoing
billion
).2,345
aire
Lexpenditure
(capital
nd
677
ire D4
Latvia
Liechtenstein CHF
Lithuania
:Eont
c
(
.) urope
budgets
agency
management
areas
Table
Protected
6.
in
Budge t Dollar
US
Country
r
/ esponsible
agency national Year
equivalent
currency Notes Source
Luxembourg LUF
Malta MTP
Monaco FRF
Netherlands NLG
41,000,000 23,110,000 in
finances
increases
The ubstantial
that
sstates
"Plan
Policy
Nature
1990
resources
natural
of
."and
management
land
aquisition
the
for
required
are
year
a
over
budget
fcurrent
the
increase
to
significantly
isour
It
proposed
national
allocated
is
budget
the
of
thirds
two
Some
1994.
to
period
areas
sensitive
environmental
and
parks ly D11,2
Norway NOK
41,000,000 6,610,000 the
for
paid
compensation
into
D
. ivided
areas
protected
budget
Total
1991
)a nd
NKr
management
million
(30.0
areas
new
of
establishment
).1million
NKr
(1.0 D12
National
Parks
Poland
PService
-olish PLZ
130,000,000,0 00 11,600,000 1991 some
which
wnetwork
,areas
whole
the
for
Total ithin
protected
expenditure
the
from
parks
national
to
allocated
million
)a$
80(U.1
PLZ reS
7billion
national
the
fmillion
U
)PZL
($
billion
15
around
and
budget
state rom
S1.3
U
($
PZL
.SS2.4
billion
27ome
protection
environmental
of
foundation
billion
18
recieved
areas
protected
Ofunding
generated
.self
i)sther
million
1991
in
budget
.the
)f
state
U
$ S2.4
million
( rom D13
Service
Parks
-ational
NPortugal PTE
3,195,000,000 22,813,000 1991 i64
%
approximately
which,o
servicesf
Park
Portuguese
for
Budgetthe
expenditure
recurrent
.and
for
%
36
investment
capital
total
the
o
%
68
is
around
areas f
protected
on
specifically
spent
amount
The
Madeira
ePortugal
continental
,to
Tis
restricted
budget
. xcluding
he
govern-
local
have
T
Azores
and
Islands
Selvageus
.Santo
,the
Porto hese
.
budgets
seperate
have
therefore
and
ments D14
Romania ROL
Marino
San
Slovenia
)(ational
nSpain 2,579,000,000
ESP 25,611,000 1987 .
expenditure
conservation
nature
National D4
)(rovincial
pSpain ESP
21,734,000,000 215,852,0001987 regions
,
Autonomous
the
expenditure
conservation
by
Total
nature
forest
fires
;of
pfauna
revention
and
flora
covering
: rotection
nature
forests
and
arks
management
of
ccreation
;p, onservation
inland
and
hunting
g
. ame
;fishing
reserves D4
Islands
Mayen
Jan
and
Svalbard NOK
Environmental
-
Sweden
Agency
Protection SEK
223,000,000 38,541,000 1991 c
)(S
million
/ompensation
Kr140
land
purchase
Government
for
funding
million
S
). Kr83
management
areas
and
(protected D15
Switzerland CHF
United
(Eountryside
CKingdom
)-ngland
GBP
30,000,000 57,600,000 National
in
spending
.the ncludes
Icountryside
wider
within
Expenditure
Commission
allocated
is
million
£
A .0
pproximately
5areas
.protected
other
and
Parks
Coasts
Heritage
.)a
A ONB D1
nd
Beauty
Natural
Outstanding
to(Areas
of
Europe
Table
:Eont
budgets
agency
management
areas
Protected
6.
c
.)( urope
in
Budge t US
Dollar
Country
r
/ esponsible
agency national
currency Year
equivalent Notes Source
Nature
E
( nglish
)-ngland
United
Kingdom GBP
46,032,000 83,165,000 1990 Total
management
direct
under
NNRs
of
leases
including
expenditure
under
owners
o/to
payments
,a
1991
2
)i(£ nnual
nccupiers
77,000
owners
payments
lto
sum ump
(£,548,000
),aggreements
7management
interpretive
including
(£73,000
and
i7),purchase
95,000
5l(nfrastructure
field
aand nd
publications
1management
,r)(£,396,000
eserve
centres
on
expenditure
.:£otal
63,000
T3management
involved
in
staff
directly
3
. 52,000
was
£
in
1991
training D17
United
(Isle
Kingdom
D
)-
Man
of
epartment
Forestry
and
fAgriculture
, isheries GBP
10,000 18,000 1991 areas
protected
on
Annual
.government
expenditure D20
Ireland
)-
and
United
CKingdom
(Nountryside
orthern
DOE
Wildlife
.Branch
the
of GBP
4,620,000 8,717,000 1991 of
Department
the
Branch
Wildlife
Countryside
and
Total
budget
the
expenditure
total
Anticipated
Ireland
Northern
for
Environment
broken
will
be
increase
%
22
of
T,a
5 n
million
.64
£his
was
1992-1993
down
:salaries
follows
as
programme
million
2.834
wages
and
million
2
. .806
£
expenditure D16,29
Commission
)- cotland
(Sountryside
CKingdom
United 12,288,000
GBP
6,400,000 man-
the
eviewing
country
parks
,on
and
regional
rIncludes
spending
areas
and
scenic
national
rotecting
pmountain
,of
for
Scotland
C
() CS agement
ESA's
.on
advice
providing 64
United
(Scotland
Kingdom
N
)-
Conservancy
ature
Scotland
for
Council
)(NCCS GBP
19,000,000 35,849,000 1991 of
management
and
the
selection
Annual stablishment
/ebudget
includes
of
notification
Sites
of
and election
Reserves
),s(N NR
National
Nature
marine
of
notification
and SSI
Interest
),(Selection
Scientific
sSpecial
education
environmental
,training
research
and
reserves
nature 17,64
Agriculture
,F
and
ood
Ministry
of
United
-
Kingdom
Fisheries GBP 000
13,000, 24,528,000 1990 Sensitive
Environmental
funding
directly
for
responsible
are
MAFF ly
million
1
£
from
rise
to
expected
is
expenditure
w
E SA
)( 3hose
Areas
1994
million
.1990
65
£
to
in
Vatican
City
State
Yugoslavia YUD
Protected
Table
management
areas
budgets
E
:agency
c urope
6.ont
(
.)
Sources
:
]
[2 Palaearctic
I
SG
,U
Cambridge
.xand
IUCN5
+ R
:Awitzerland
land
56pp
UCN
K
).P(1xviii
World
the
Areas
V
Systems
National
of
2.
rotected
992
eview
olume
[1] 3 .1
W ;W
U
/
,SG
Nin
PooreEurope03–115
land
NEP
Conservation
Western
and WFДUCN
CN
WF
Northern
D.witzerland
-A
)(PGryn
.airobi
ature
980
mbroes
]D
[ 2 .,U
E R
Y
.I
IUCNC
BVolume K
ulgaria
ugoslavia
ambridge
omania
UCN
Report
Status
:A
Two
nvironmental
lbania
1)East
( 990.
Programme
European
991
][D3 B991
,r)I(1Kucera
.litt
questionnaire
review
regional
ton.
esponse
][D4 UK
Ltd
8 97pp
ondon
International
,D ocTer
Environmental
for
Studies
Lnstitute
Yearbook
Cutrera
.I)E
A
(1 uropean
.991
d
,r)I(1J]CD.n991
.litt
questionnaire
review
toortes
esponse
19
[regional
]6
[D questionnaire
Knesponse
Kassioumis
,r)I(1
litt
review
regional
.
991
.to
][D9 IUCN
I ( n982
.).1
litt
Management
,T
Fisheries
.and
Hague
of
MPolicy
).(1
thehe
Netherlands
N
Agriculture
ature
Plan
990
Dinistry
][ 11
103pp
.
questionnaire
[Dnesponse
]L
B
-V
Nord
and
,r)I(1O
litt
review
regional
991
ein
.
arhaug
12
.to
[Dnesponse
]O
,r)I(1C
.litt
questionnaire
review
regional
to 991
.klow 13
]M
R
Moura .
991
anners
14
questionnaire
[Dnesponse
,r)I(1
litt
review
regional
.to
[Dn991
,r)I(1T]L
.litt
questionnaire
review
regional
to .arsson
esponse
15
questionnaire
regional
1.review
litt
to
,r)I(A
]P[Dhillips 991
nesponse
.18
[Dpril
:A)S(]N
Report
P
1990-91
.1eventeenth
eterborough
991
26pp
17
CC
.litt
questionnaire
review
regional
to
,r)I(1N]P[D.J. nesponse
991
inder
20
[D.S.
,r)I(1J]F
.litt
questionnaire
review
regional
to 991
esponse
nurphy
16
][29 ,Mn
Moffat
(1
.).I
litt
992
.
6
[] 4 Perth
,UE
Kingdom
nited
dinburgh
Commission
N
/
Scotland
for
Council
Conservancy
CCS
.C)(1Nature
Partners
atural
ountryside
991
CCS
Europe
Table 7. Protected areas in Europe created from 1982 to 1991
National Parks Nature Parks Other Protected Areas

Area (in 1982) Area Area
Albania 0 (238,000) N-I N-

I
Austria 204,000 (0) 0 I
N-
Belgium 0 (0) 67,854 N
Bulgaria 53,770 (48,793) 0 27.833
Czechoslovakia 135,613 (200,061) 0 321,288
Denmark 0 (0) 0 134,995
Finland 544,540 (121,600) 0 22,800
France 0 (352,689) 764,688 47,687
Germany 697,158 (33,900) N-I N-
Greece 0 (74,973) 0 105,000
Hungary 32,253 (121,443) 0 165,394
Iceland 0 (180,100) 0 17,954
Ireland 11,758 (10,737) 0 4,188
Italy 0 (271,240) 827,560 100,868
Netherlands 24,580 (11,410) 0 39,175
Norway 264,300 (964,330) 0 84,695
Poland 28,452 (136,548) 1,254,308 19,716
Portugal 0 (71,422) 57,370 N-I
Romania 353,900 (54,400) 0 2,276
Spain 9,715 (122,763) 1,902,501 126,488
Sweden 23,361 (618,108) 0 337,568
Switzerland 0 (16,870) 0 N-I
United Kingdom 28,800 (1,364,267) 0 615,062
Yugoslavia 161,360 (360,244) 0 51,245
Total 2,573,560 (5,158,926) 4,874,281 2,224,232
Key: N-I - No Information
Notes: Areas in hectares . Only areas over 1000ha are included. "National Parks " signify areas of that name designated by
national governments most are in IUCN Category II and V, but some are Category IV. "Nature Parks" includes
Regional Parks; all are Category V. "Other protected areas" are predominantly nature reserves, mostly Category IV
Note: This table is prepared prior to the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, and changes in former Yugoslavia.
Source: Gerhard Heiss, 1991,1992.
One of the first examples in Europe is what is nowthe Hungarian government then declared their part a pro-
Peininy NP, between Slovakia and Poland, established tected landscape in 1979, a biosphere reserve in 1979
in 1932. Another good example is the Vanoise NP in and a national park in 1985, and now the Slovak authori-
France and the adjacent Gran Paradiso NP in Italy. In ties are planning to upgrade their part to a national park.
some cases three countries are involved , for example in Thus a virtuous circle is generated .
the complex of the Bayersicher Wald NP in Germany,
the Sumava NPin Czech Republic and the Böhmerwald Some ofthe best opportunities for new transboundary
NaP in Austria, the last of which is now being estab- parks are along the former Iron Curtain, from the Baltic
lished. to the Black Sea. The physical Iron Curtain was in fact
a series of high technology fences, with on the eastern
The countries in Europe which have invested most in side a wide zone in which people were not permitted.
frontier and transboundary parks are the Czech Repub- This lead to 40 years regrowth of natural vegetation
lic and Slovakia, until December 1992 a single state. over large areas. Under the ' Ecological Bricks for a
Today, one third of the frontier around the two states, Common European House' project, WWF-Austria and
about 800km, is within protected areas (Cerovsky et al., other conservation groups, including IUCN, are pro-
1991). moting the concept of frontier parks along this border.
In fact, the first place where the fence ofthe Iron Curtain
Conservation measures in one park can stimulate was removed, in 1989 , was in the Austrian/Hungarian
similar measures in the other park. The largest area of transboundary Biosphere Reserve of Neusiedler See/
karst in Central Europe, on the border between Slovakia Fertő-tö.
and Hungary, has been a protected landscape in
Slovakia since 1973; the Slovak authorities designated Nowthat many of the political barriers in Europe have
their portion as a biosphere reserve in 1977 , the fallen, there is scope for a massive expansion of trans-
Europe
boundary parks. This would be a welcome expression European Commission , the European Court of Justice
of the spirit of international cooperation between na- accepted that a dike could be built in an SPA at
tions and of their concern for mature. Leybucht, on grounds of overwhelming public safety,
in this case to prevent a village from flooding, but ruled
against further damage tothe SPA that had been argued
8. Initiatives between European
for on economic grounds. This decision means that
countries SPAS can be damaged for reasons of overwhelming
public safety, but not for economic reasons. This goes
Many international bodies are active in Europe yet, as
beyond the customs and laws of most European coun-
pointed out by Synge ( 1991 ), there is a great need for
tries. Conservation groups see the Leybucht case as a
integration ofthe various legal instruments and forums.
vital precedent.
Many of Europe's protected areas have international The second key directive is the Flora, Fauna and
or regional designations, as Tables 4 and 4a show, Habitats Directive, which was adopted in June 1992.
respectively. Designation as Ramsar wetland sites and This Directive builds on the Birds Directive by making
UNESCO biosphere reserves have proved popular, but provisions for the conservation of habitats and species
World Heritage sites, with their much tougher condi- (other than birds) . In particular, Member States are
tions for entry, are much less numerous (Table 5) . now required to create Special Areas for Conservation
(SACs , analogous to SPAS) to conserve the sites of a
The accounts below describe those international des-
given list ofthreatened species and of threatened habitat
ignations that are European rather than global in scope. types. The latter aspect, listing literally hundreds of
vegetation types from the CORINE system of vegeta-
8.1 The European Community tion classification, is unique in international law. The
countries ofthe Community now have to implement this
The European Community is the only supra-national Directive; this can be expected to lead to more protected
law-making body in the world and the only body to areas being set up, especially for rare and declining
which nation states have surrendered significant ele- habitat types, and the standards ofprotection in existing
ments oftheir sovereignty. The EC has agreed over 200 protected areas being strengthened.
statutes on the environment and is emerging as a cruci-
SPAS and SACS have two great advantages over
ble in which new ways of international collaboration—
protected areas created under international treaties. On
vital to environmental protection—are being forged. the one hand, as the Leybucht case showed, govern-
The Community at present has 12 members-Belgium , ments damaging them can be taken to the European
Court of Justice. On the other, the Commission is in-
Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and UK. creasingly able to provide funding for their creation and
However, some of the remaining countries are applying implementation.
for membership and more are likely to do so in the
future. 8.2 Other agreements and
The main legal instrument used by the Community is organizations at European level
the Directive, which is a framework law. It is written in
the style of an international convention, and Member
The Council of Europe's Bern Convention (Conven-
States are required to implement it within a specified
tion on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
period oftime. Ifthe Commission believes the national
Natural Habitats) was the precursor to the EC Habitats
law is inadequate to implement a Directive , it can take
Directive, as its provisions cover the protection of threat-
the Member State concerned to the European Court of
ened species and habitats in Europe. However, although
Justice.
the provisions are wide-ranging , most ofthe work of its
Two directives create protected areas: the Birds Di- Standing Committee, which is responsible for monitor-
rective and the Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive. ing its application, has been on endangered species.
Under the Birds Directive, which came into force in Recommendations have been adopted on Gran Sasso
1981 , Member States have to classify as Special Protec- (Italy), Lagunas Bay (Greece) and on 20 sites for en-
tion Areas (SPAs) the most important territories for dangered reptiles and amphibians. (For more details see
some 178 endangered birds, listed on Annex 1 ofthe Synge, 1991. )
Directive. Member States have declared over 600 SPAS
so far, covering about 5 million ha, out of the c.1500 The Council of Europe is also creating a European
sites that conservation groups estimate would qualify. Network of Biogenetic Reserves (totalling 197 sites so
Moreover the actual protection afforded to SPAs is far) and awards the European Diploma to protected
uneven, as at least 2 Member States have not imple- areas. One strong point of the Diploma is that it is only
mented any protective measures in the SPAs they have awarded after an evaluation of a park on the ground and
designated. is reviewed by a further evaluation after five years. If
Nevertheless , conservationists are finding that, if an necessary the Award can be revoked . Not surprisingly,
area is designated in an SPA and then violated, the law this has proved an excellent way of maintaining the
can be invoked. In a case between Germany and the quality ofthe areas awarded the Diploma.
Table 8. Comparison for selected countries in Europe of protected areas eligible and
not eligible for the UN List
UN List Sites Non-UN List Sites

(IUCN Cat. I-V, (IUCN Cat. I-V,
over 1,000ha) under 1,000ha ) Total Date of
No. Area No. Area No. Area information
Czech and Slovak Republics

National Nature Reserves (I or IV) 17 56,808 223 31,714 240 88,522 1989
France
Nature Reserves (I or IV) 20 83,708 67 15,580 87 99,288 1991
Greece
Aesthetic Forest (III or V) 7 30,458 12 2,649 19 33,107 1989
Protected Natural Monuments (III orV) 1 15,000 50 1,624 51 16,624 1989
3
Hunting Reserve (IV) 9,450 4 1,745 7 11,195 1989
Hungary
Nature Conservation Area (IV) 6 13,815 116 17,432 122 31,247 1989
Landscape Protected Area (V) 43 404,013 31 5,658 74 409,671 1990
Italy
National (State) Protected Area (I or V) 64 560,913 143 39,114 207 600,027 1991
Regional protected area (I or V) 101 1,400,634 186 26,774 2871,427,408 1991
Luxembourg
Nature Reserve (IV) 0 0 9 520 9 520 1991
Norway
Marine Reserve (I or IV) 41 115,866 870 27,134 911 143,000 1990
Poland
Nature Reserve (IV) 19 64,887 253 17,314 272 82,201 1989
Sweden
Nature Reserve (IV) 92 1,841,000 1,289 430,000 1,3812,271,000 1991
Wildlife Sanctuary (?) 0 0 891 110,000 891 110,000 1991
United Kingdom
National Nature Reserve (IV) 35 130,339 207 37,768 242 168,107 1991
Notes: Areas in hectares. This table is not extensive and contains only examples . NGO reserves are omitted entirely.
Source: Compiled by WCMC , December 1991
UNEP's Barcelona Convention the Convention for SPAs are existing protected areas, but some are new
the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollu- ones, such as those created by Italy.
tion contains a protocol on protected areas, which
entered into force in March 1986 and which all the Turning to organizations, The Federation of Nature
countries around the Mediterranean Sea except Syria and National Parks of Europe (FNPPE) is a pan-
and Lebanon have now ratified. The Protocol includes European organization whose main membership com-
provisions to establish Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) prises national parks, regional parks and nature parks
ofmarine and coastal areas, and water-courses up to the across Europe. By 1992, 180 sites in 28 countries were
freshwater limit. So far 75 SPAs have been designated, members. Members use the Federation as a forum to
but these include, as a single entity, the 61 properties of share management experience, and to promote and ex-
the Conservatoire de l'Espace Littoral et des Rivages tend the ideals of conservation. It holds yearly assem-
Lacustres along the coast of France. Many ofthe 75 blies, which have a series of workshops on specific
Europe
themes, such as training needs and tourism appropriate cooperation for the protection ofthe environment,
to protected areas . It also arranges seminars, such as one in particular in: (a) The State of the Environment
in Hungary onthe changing agenda for protected areas report, and follow-up work, called for by Euro-
in Eastern and Central Europe. pean Environment Ministers at Dobris Castle ,
Prague, 1991 ; (b) the implementation of the
Regarding information , CORINE, WCMC and
European Community's 5th Action Programme
EUROMAB all have databases on European protected
for the European Environment; and (c) the work,
areas. They work closely with other information centres throughout Europe, of the Task Force for the
around Europe, one of the most active of which is the
European Environmental Agency.
International Park Documentation Centre (CEDIP)
in Florence , Italy.
ACTION 2. Address the protected area

Other organizations active at European level include needs of priority subregions
World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) , which now has
a European Programme based in Brussels, EUROSITE,
Priority should go to:
and the European Union for Coastal Conservation (EUCC).
IUCN itself has an active programme of projects in
2.1 Southern Europe and the Mediterranean: ac-
Eastern and Central Europe, a plan for a programme for
tion is urgently needed in this, Europe's biologi-
all of Europe agreed in 1992; its Commissions, espe-
cally richest sub-region, in particular to:
ciaily the Species Survival Commission and CNPPA,
are very active in the region. Strengthen protected area legislation and institutions at
the national level;
9. Priorities for action in the region

Extend protected area coverage in all biological re-
This Review confirms that: gions, but especially wetlands, forests and other terres-
trial habitats of the Mediterranean;
- many ofEurope's protected areas are in danger;
Exchange experience and information between manag-
the network is incomplete; ers;
the time is right to reinforce and extend pro-

Improve the level of training of staff; and
tected areas.
Extend existing collaboration for the protection of the
The 10 Actions below address these conclusions. Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea.
Under each action, priority tasks are listed. Although
this is not a detailed action plan as costings, targets and 2.2 Central and Eastern Europe: though protected
so on will need to be elaborated, it does provide a area coverage and standards of management are
framework for the action plan for Protected Areas in relatively good in most ofthese countries , action
Europe, to be prepared in 1993 by IUCN in cooperation is needed to reinforce their protection in the face
with FNNPE. of economic and social changes and external
threats.
2.3 Coastal and Marine Regions: action is needed

ACTION 1. Promote a Europe- wide
to identify protected area needs and priorities as
approach to protected areas
part of ongoing inter-governmental cooperation
for the protection of the North and Baltic seas
Priority should go to: and the Arctic Ocean.
1.1 An evaluation of the extensive natural and semi-

natural habitats of Europe in order to identify
ACTION 3 : Concentrate on the needs of
gaps in the protected areas network.
particular countries
1.2 Implementation of a continent-wide European
Ecological Network, based on the protection of Priority should go to:
core areas for conservation , the creation of buff-
er zones around these, the establishment of cor- 3.1 Countries needing an improved coverage ofpro-
ridors to link them, the restoration of damaged tected areas. Examples include Ireland and the
habitats , and the creation of new ones as appro- United Kingdom (Scotland) .
priate.
3.2 Countries where political support needs rein-
1.3 Ensuring that the conservation of biodiversity forcement. Examples include most of the coun-
and the establishment and management of pro- tries of southern Europe, in particular Portugal
tected areas figure prominently in international and Greece.
3.3 Countries where decentralization creates pro- 5.4 Tourism: Governments should agree national
tected areas problems. Examples include policies for sustainable tourism, based on re-
Germany and Austria, in particular to reinforce spect for the natural and cultural heritage, and on
cooperation between national and local using the revenue and public interest generated
authorities responsible for protected areas. by tourism to support protected areas.
3.4 Countries under great economic pressure , 5.5 Reducing pollution : Governments urgently need
such as Albania. to collaborate to combat the air, freshwater and
marine pollution which threatens many protec-
3.5 Countries recovering from armed conflict: ted areas in Europe.
the States that are emerging from the breakup of
former Yugoslavia may need international help 5.6 Securing a peace dividend: to convert large
to assist in the recovery of damaged protected areas of land formerly used by the military and
areas once the fighting is over. part of the land along the former Iron Curtain
into protected areas.
ACTION 4: Promote higher standards of

protected area management ACTION 6 : Use or develop international
legal instruments

4.1 A major initiative to raise standards of protec-
tion and management in Category II national 6.1 Adherence by States, which are not yet parties,
parks. to the various existing global and regional con-
ventions for the protection of the natural envi-
4.2 A small number of high profile demonstration ronment, in particular the Ramsar Convention,
projects selected for their suitability for interna- the World Heritage Convention, the Convention
tional collaboration and the replicability of les- on Biological Biodiversity and the Bern
sons learnt within them. Convention.
4.3 Development of techniques of sustainable man- 6.2 Early implementation of the Flora, Fauna and
agement for natural or semi-natural ecosystems Habitats Directive within the EC countries, and
ofhigh value for nature but under pressure from better implementation of the Birds Directive.
human impacts .
6.3 The development of an international agreement on
Conservation of Rural Landscapes of Europe.
ACTION 5 : Promote protected area
objectives through other
sectors ACTION 7: Improve protected area data
collection , monitoring and
evaluation
5.1 Land use planning: to ensure that protected Priority should go to:
areas are not treated as " islands", countries should
7.1 Extending the information handling system of
adopt effective land use planning systems so that
they can control construction , building, engi- WCMC's Protected Areas Data Unit.
neering, agriculture and forestry, thus reinforc-
7.2 Improving the data handling capacity of pro-
ing the protection given to all natural and cultural
tected area authorities.
resources, within and outside protected areas.
7.3 Ensuring that national and international infor-
5.2 Development Funding: The EC Structural Funds
mation activities include monitoring manage-
for the economic development of less prosper-
ment effectiveness and threats to protected areas.
ous regions of Europe must be sensitized to
protected area needs, so that existing protected
areas are not damaged and to ensure that this
ACTION 8: Strengthen the training of
funding puts regional development on an envi-
ronmentally sustainable basis. nature conservation staff
5.3 Agriculture: the reform of the EC's Common 8.1 Priority at national level should go to:
Agricultural Policy offers a unique opportunity
to create new protected areas and extend or A policy statement by each country on training and a
reinforce existing ones from land previously farmed. commitment of a certain proportion of the protected
Europe
area budget to training; (an eventual figure of4 per cent

ACTION 9: Mobilize cooperation at
is proposed; )
european level
Preparation and implementation of a training strategy

to provide training at all appropriate levels; Cooperation among all conservation bodies and inter-
national funding will be vital to achieving the Actions
listed above. Transboundary protected areas, where man-
8.2 Priority at international level should go to pro-
agement of a natural area is shared by two or more
viding assistance to countries in achieving 8.1 ,
States, are a particularly good way of developing inter-
in particular to:
national cooperation, and should receive further sup-
port. Another good way of achieving European cooper-
Prepare model training strategies, programmes and ation is by regional associations of protected areas or of
materials; protected area agencies.
Develop and coordinate a range of additional in-service

training opportunities for staff, especially at regional ACTION 10: Develop public support for
level; protected areas
Set standards for national training centres and for Priority should go to building a better appreciation by
courses they provide. the public of Europe's natural heritage, through better
educative and interpretative programmes in protected
FNNPE should receive support to employ a training areas, aimed both at local people and at visitors from
coordinator to develop and coordinate staff exchanges, elsewhere . Such programmes should emphasize that on
twinning programmes, training courses in priority sub- the one hand " Conservation Begins at Home", but on
ject areas and study visits. the other that "Nature is a European Heritage".
Acknowledgements
This review was prepared in association with the questionnaire, sent out to national authorities and rele-
Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe vant CNPPA members, provided much additional infor-
(FNNPE). Much of the work of drafting the review was mation, especially for the tables. Subsequent meetings,
funded by the World Wide Fund for Nature - United involving both FNNPE and IUCN, were held in both
Kingdom . Gland and Grafenau, and an open meeting was held at the
Caracas Congress .
IUCN and FNNPE gratefully acknowledge the con-
tributions made by many organizations and individuals In particular IUCN and FNNPE thank the following,
in the preparation of this report, both those who com- who contributed individual sections: Jan Cerovsky,
mented on drafts of the text and those who provided the Gerhard Heiss , Adrian Phillips and Rosie Simpson.
essential data about protected areas which form the Thanks are also due to Zbigniew Karpowicz of the
foundation of the review. IUCN East European Programme, Graham Drucker of
WCMC and David Baldock of the Institute for
A meeting in September 1991 , on Elba, generously European Environmental Policy (IEEP) , and to Marnie
arranged by the International Park Documentation Knuth, Mario and Antonio Machado, Anna Newman
Center (CEDIP) , provided a valuable opportunity to and Alison Suter for translation services.
review a draft outline of the paper. A subsequent
References
Anon, 1987. The Lake District Declaration , adopted by sanes Haus Europa. München , Verlag für Politische
the participants at the International Symposium on Okologie. (Politische Oklogie, Beiheft; 2).
Protected Landscapes , Grange-over-Sands, England, Association of National Park Officers (ANPO), 1989.
5-10 October 1987. Countryside Commission . 3 pp. Report ofthe National Park StaffTraining Working
Anon, 1990. Okologische Bausteine für unser gemein- Group. ANPO.
L'Atelier technique des espaces naturels , 1991. Pro- Centre and IUCN. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland,
gramme de formation des personnels des espaces Switzerland . 275 pp.
naturels. Ministère de l'Environnement, Direction IUCNN, 1990b. Protected areas in Eastern andCentral
de la Protection de la Nature. Europe and the USSR (An interim review) . IUCN
Batisse, M. and A.J. de Grissac, (undated). Marine East European Programme, Environmental Research
Protected Areas in the Mediterranean and the Black Series, No. 1. 100 pp.
Sea: Past, present status and perspective. Report IUCN, 1990c , 1991. Environmental Status Reports:
prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. 23 pp. 1988/1989 and 1990. Vol. 1: Czechoslovakia,
Bennett, G. (Ed. ) , 1991. Towards the European Eco- Hungary, Poland. 127 pp. Vol. 2 : Albania, Bulgaria,
logical Network. Institute for European Environ- Romania, Yugoslavia. 170 pp. IUCN East European
mental Policy, Arnhem , December 1991. Programme .
Bibelriether, H. and R. Schreiber, 1989. Nationalparke IUCN, 1992. Protected Areas ofthe World: A review of
Europas. Süddeutscher Verlag, Munich. Col. illus. national systems. Volume 2: Palaearctic. Prepared
Carp, E. , 1990. Directory ofWetlands ofInternational byTheWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN,
Importance in the Western Palearctic. UNEP/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge , U.K. 556pp.
Gland, Switzerland . 506 pp. Koester, V., 1984. Denmark: Conservation legislation
Cerovsky, J. etal, 1991. Frontierparks in Czechoslovakia. and general protection of biotopes in an interna-
Ministry ofthe Environment, Czech Republic. 16 pp. tional perspective. Environmental Policy and Law
Countryside Commission, 1989. Trainingfortomorrow's 12(4): 106-116.
countryside. Countryside Commission, Cheltenham, Ministry ofAgriculture, Nature Management and Fish-
UK. eries, 1990. Nature Policy Plan of the Netherlands,
de Klemm, C., 1990. Wild Plant Conservation andthe in outline. 22 pp. Col. illus., col . map.
Law. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper Naturvardsverket, 1991. Naturvardsplan for Sverige
No. 24. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, (A Nature Conservation Plan for Sweden).
UK. 215 pp. Illus. Naturvardsverket. 80 pp. (English summary).
Duffey, E., 1982. National Parks and Reserves of Poore, D. and P. Gwyn-Ambrose, 1980. Nature Con-
Western Europe. Macdonald, London. 288 pp. servation inNorthern and Western Europe. UNEP,
Esping, L.E. , and G. Grönqvist , 1991. The Baltic Sea IUCN and WWF, Gland, Switzerland . 408 pp.
and the Skagerrak: IUCN- CNPPA- Network of Poore, D. & W., 1992. The Protected Landscapes ofthe
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), the Baltic. Report United Kingdom. Countryside Commission.
prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. November Ramade, F., 1984. Keynote Address: The Palearctic
1991 . Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (Eds),
FNNPE, 1991. In Nature and National Parks European National Parks, Conservation and Development:
Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 110. The Role ofProtected Areas in Sustaining Society.
FNNPE 1993. Loving them to death? Sustainable tour- Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC , USA.
ism in Europe's Nature and National Parks. FNNPE, 418-425pp.
Grafenau, Germany. 96pp. Ramade , F. , 1990. Conservation des Ecosystèmes
Grimmett, R.F.A. and Jones T.A. , 1989. Bird Areas in Méditerranéens: Enjeux et perspectives. Les Fascicules
Europe. International Council for Bird Preservation, du Plan Bleu 3. Economica, Paris. 144 pp.
Cambridge, UK . Segnestam , M. , 1984. Future Directions forthe Western
Gubbay, S. , undated . North East Atlantic Realm. Report Palearctic Realm. In McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller
prepared for IVth World Parks Congress. (Eds), National Parks, Conservation and Develop-
Heiss, G., 1988. Inventur Europäischer Natur- und ment: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining
Nationalparke. Vol . 1 (Greece and Portugal), Vol. Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
2 (France National Parks), Vol. 3 (France Nature DC , USA. Pp. 486-490
Parks, UK, Belgium, Netherlands), Vol . 4 (Switzerland, Synge, H. , 1991. Environmental Agreements at Euro-
Italy, FRG) . FNNPE, Grafenau, Germany. peanLevelonthe Conservation ofBiologicalDiver-
Heiss, G. , 1991. Situation von Schutzgebieten : Region- sity. Paper prepared for the European Regional Con-
albericht Europa. FNNPE. 24 pp. sultation ofthe WRI-IUCN-UNEP Biodiversity Con-
International Park Documentation Center (CEDIP), 1991 . servation Strategy and Action Plan, London, 22-24
A CEDIP contribution to the World Congress on July 1991. 23 pp.
National Parks 1992 : For an International Policy Tassi, F., 1991. Protected Areas Strategiesfor Europe
on Parks. CEDIP, Florence. 8 pp. 2000. Paper presented to the European Parliament/
IUCN, 1990a. 1990 United Nations List of National WWF conference " Nature Conservation- Europe
Parks and Protected Areas/Liste des Nations Unies 2000" , September 1991 .
des Parcs Nationaux et des Aires Protégées 1990. Thorsell, J. , 1990. The IUCN Register ofThreatened
Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Protected Areas of the World. IUCN, Mimeo.
North Eurasia
-
-
Percentage
protected
%
0.1
than
Less %
15-20
0.1-5
% More
%
20
than
Km
5-10
%
4
800
0 00
%
10-15
Map
.Percentage
areas
protected
designated
legally
within
included
country
of
Contents
Page
Introduction .... 137
1. Historical perspective . 137
2. Current protected area coverage 139
8. Major protected areas issues in the region • 147
8.1. People in protected areas . 147
8.2. Involvement by the private sector . 148
8.3. Protected areas and surrounding lands • • . 149
8.4. Protected areas and science . • 149
8.5. Pollution and protected areas 151
8.6. Threats to effective management of protected areas . 152
8.7. Transfrontier initiatives . . 152
References 155
Tables
Table 1 . Summary of the protected areas system 138
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories . 141
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system 143
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions • 147
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in North Eurasia 149
Table 6. Investment in nature reserves, national parks and game (hunting)

reserves in the Republics . 151
Page
Table 7. Development of the network of nature reserves and national parks

in the Republics: perspectives up to 2005 154
Figures

areas . 134
Figure 1. Growth ofthe protected areas network (non-cumulative) • 140
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) . 140

North Eurasia
Alexander A. Nikol'skii , Regional Vice-Chair for North Eurasia ,

IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with assistance
from Ludmilla I. Bolshova and Svietlana E. Karaseva
Moscow, August, 1992

Note: Many political changes have taken place in this region, so some of the information
contained in this report is subject to change.
Introduction the upper reaches of the Konda and Sos'va rivers with
beaver and sable populations, and in Byeloveza Puscha
The North Eurasia region occupies a huge area of 22.4 to protect the European Bison. There were also abatis
million sq km. It includes a great variety of natural (protected forests) in the Don, Dnieper and Oka river
complexes, including arctic deserts and tundra, taiga, basins, and monastic "bloodless " (closed for hunting)
mixed and broad-leaved forests of the temperate zone lands. Many of these early protected areas have been
and subtropical forests, steppes and deserts. This diver- transformed into zapovedniks (nature reserves) (the term
sity is the result of both latitudinal and altitudinal variety, "zapovednik" is Russian, meaning " a ban on specific
with the largest mountain regions in Eurasia (Caucasus, actions") .
Tien-Shan, Pamir, etc). Marine areas, part of three
oceans systems-the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific-are Primarily, nature reserves and other protected areas
of vital importance in the region. (sanctuaries , for example) have been created to preserve
the most valuable forest territories and valuable or
At the time when this review was made , the 15
endangered species, including game animals and plants.
Republics of the region formed the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics with a population of 290 million,
The modern concept of protected areas, based upon
but the political situation is changing rapidly and all
the necessity to conserve natural ecosystems, began
Union republics have now declared their sovereignty.
early this century. Expeditions ofthe Russian Geographic
Furthermore, the regional State system , and its social
Society, and of the Moscow and Riga Societies for
and economic policies, will change, influencing in their
Nature, played a significant role in its development.
turn the development of the protected areas network.
Between 1910 and 1916, conservation status was given
Already marked changes affect the management system
to natural sites in the Il'men mountains in the Urals , the
for specially protected natural areas. The major tendency
is a decentralization of natural resource management Vaika Islands in Estonia , Moriczala in Latvia, the hilly
area between the Pechora and Ilych rivers (the only
and environmental protection.
habitat of the European population of the sable) and
The state of protected areas in the region as of mid- Pinus eldarica forests in the Caucasus. Considerable
1991 is discussed and some prognoses for protected knowledge had been obtained on nature monuments in
areas development are given with due regard to the the Caucasus, Pre- Baltia and central regions of Russia.
present tendencies of the political situation. A review Two large expeditions had been organized to survey
of the protected areas system prior to the dissolution of sable habitats in the Bargusin, Sayany and Kamchatka
the USSR has been compiled bythe World Conservation regions. Forthe first time, a law was made in Russia to
Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992). prohibit hunting of sable in the wild, in 1913-16. Chari-
table activity of big land-owners contributed much to
providing conservation status to valuable steppe-areas
1. Historical perspective
in the Ukraine, in Samara and Voronezh provinces, and
Protected natural areas first appeared in Russia in the forest sites in Urals. By 1917 the protected areas net-
14th and 15th centuries, the period of the formation of work included 30 nature reserves covering 1 million ha.
the Russian centralized state. Prototypes of specially
protected areas appeared in Russia to preserve and The main approach taken in Russia and then the
enrich forest, fish and game areas. Sites with limited Soviet Union was the establishment of nature reserves
natural use practices were established in the Urals, in rather than national parks. Nature reserves provide better
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : North Eurasia

Armenia 29,800 2,219 7.4 0 0.0 2,219 7.4

Azerbaijan 86,600 1,778 2.1 0 0.0 1,778 2.1
Belarus 207,600 2,370 1.1 0 0.0 2,370 1.1
Georgia 69,700 1,866 2.7 0 0.0 1,866 2.7
Kazakhstan 2,717,300 8,354 0.3 0 0.0 8,354 0.3
Kyrgyzstan 198,500 1,973 1.0 0 0.0 1,973 1.0
Moldova 33,700 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Russian Fed. 17,075,400 200,332 1.2 0 0.0 200,332 1.2
Tajikistan 143,100 856 0.6 0 0.0 856 0.6
Turkmenistan 488,100 11,114 2.3 0 0.0 11,114 2.3
Ukraine 603,700 4,649 0.8 0 0.0 4,649 0.8
Uzbekistan 447,400 2,447 0.5 0 0.0 2,447 0.5
Total 22,100,900 237,958 1.1 0 0.0 237,958 1.1
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover.
The complete list of area in categories VI-VIII , including state forestry, reserves, (Zakazniki) is not available.
protection to nature than national parks, but their weak of reserves and destroyed their management and scien-
point is that the territory is entirely inaccessible to tific structures. By 1951 only 40 of the 128 nature
people. This can lead to a negative reaction by the reserves survived on an area of 1.5 million ha (formerly
population to protected areas on one hand, and reduces 12.5 million ha). In Russia only 17 of the 45 nature
the possibilities for organized educational tourism, on reserves survived; in fact, all the biggest nature re-
the other. All this has an impact on the environmental serves with an area over 200,000ha had been abol-
education of the population. ished, among them Pechoro-Ilych, Altaisky and
Sikhote-Alinsky. In 1961 , 16 nature reserves were abol-
During the first years of existence ofthe Soviet State ished once more, including Altaisky, Zhygulevsky and
a number of new nature reserves were established, Kronotzky. Simultaneously, the area of many reserves
including Astrakhansky (1919) , Ilmensky ( 1920) and was reduced. Scientific research was limited to prob-
Caucasian (1924) in Russia; Berezinsky (1925) in Belarus; lems related to hunting, agriculture and forestry.
Kysyl-Agachsky ( 1929) in Kazakhstan and others. By
the 1930s the total area of nature reserves had doubled. In the mid- 1960s, due to the efforts of scientific
institutions, the situation began to improve. By the
The decrees and by-laws of the Government of the beginning ofthe 1970s, earlier nature reserves had been
USSR confirmed the principle of inviolability, i.e. en- re-established and their numbers and total area achieved
tire withdrawal oftheir territories from economic activi- the level of 1961 (Table 3) . This work has been pro-
ties. In 1933 the Committee for Nature Reserves , moted by the Commission on Nature Reserves of the
attached to the Presidium of the All-Russian Central USSR Academy of Sciences, which was transformed
Executive Committee, was established. In 1938 it was later into the Commission on Nature Protection , and in
transformed into the Chief Department for Nature Re- 1979 into the All -Union Research Institute for Nature
serves, attached to the RSFSR Council of Peoples Com- Conservation and Nature Reserves. Expansion of the
missars. Unfavourable tendencies subsequently started network of nature reserves continued in the 1970s . The
to develop in protected area management due to wide most intensive increase of their numbers was in 1976-
political and economic reforms, which needed the 1980, when in Russia such large nature reserves as the
maximum possible mobilization of all of the resources Taimyrsky (1,348,300ha), Wrangel Island (795,700ha),
and led to increased economic exploitation of protected Putoransky ( 1,660,000ha) , Baikal'sky ( 165,700ha),
natural areas. The concept of their inviolability came Baikalo- Lensky (600,000ha), Sayano- Shushensky
under criticism; tasks for utilization of economically (389,600ha), and Central- Siberian (792,000ha) were
useful animals and plants and self-financing of nature created. Nature reserves have been created in Central
reserves were put forward. In the 1950s, when the Asia, in the Ukraine and in the Baltic Republics as well.
network of reserves was relatively representative, the
hardest period for their survival had come. Decisions The national parks network began to develop only in
taken in 1951 and 1961 seriously reduced the number the 1970s. The first national parks were established in
North Eurasia
the Baltic Republics. They are Lahemaa in Estonia, incorporated the principles of the USSR physical and
Gays in Latvia and Lithuvian in Lithuania; later on geographical zoning taking into account biogeogra-
national parks were created in Russia, the Ukraine, phical coverage of major ecosystems within the pro-
Transcaucasia and Middle Asia. Among them there are tected areas network. After the Bali Congress the USSR
Zabaikal'sky (246,000ha) , the Baltic (418,000ha), established 30 nature reserves (including 16 biosphere
Prielbrusye (100,400ha) and Sevan ( 150,000ha) . More reserves), 15 national parks and one game reserve with
recently Vodlozersky (404,000ha) in Karelia and Shorsky an area of 9,725,000ha throughout the region. Among
(418,200ha) in Kemerovo region, RSFSR, have been them were large ones as the Wrangel Island Biosphere
established. The development of the protected areas Reserve (Pacific) and the Estonian Archipelago Bio-
network in the region is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, sphere Reserve (Baltic, marine). Their distribution and
extent are aimed at protecting major ecosystems, con-
although the latter does not reflect the depletion of the
protected areas system during the 1950s and 1960s due serving biodiversity, providing ecological balance , and
providing sites for background and biological mon-
to the manner in which the data have been recorded.
itoring and for environmental education .
Game (hunting) reserves are a specific type of pro-
The Soviet Union has been a party to the Ramsar
tected area, equivalent to IUCN Category IV. Histori-
Convention since 1975. At present 12 wetlands of in-
cally, these were hunting areas for kings. Up to recent
ternational importance are inscribed on the Ramsar list
times six areas of this type served as sites for a limited
in 7 Republics, covering about 3 million ha. Now 16
number of persons , which provoked some criticism . At
new proposals for the List, resulting from intensive
the same time, being under a highly strict protection
surveys by scientific institutions of the country, are
regime, these territories played an important role in
under discussion.
conserving natural ecosystems and some species of
animals and plants. Thus, the Crimean game reserve is
In 1989 the USSR signed the World Heritage Con-
the best reserve area for the rare subspecies of the
Crimean red deer (Cervus elaphus) and the Byelovezha vention, which came into force in 1990. Over 40 pro-
Puscha is a reserve for the conservation of European posed areas of outstanding value are being considered
in 13 Republics of the former Soviet Union . Some of
bison. Gradually there are now positive trends for the
them have natural importance, while others are of mixed
reorganisation of game reserves into nature reserves. In
natural and cultural/historic importance . To date only
particular, Zavidovo game reserve near Moscow has
one site has been inscribed on the World Heritage List
been transformed into a nature reserve where shooting
(Table 5) , the Belovezhskaya Puschu, which lies across
is prohibited and now provides for a higher level of
the border from the Bialowieza National Park in Poland
scientific research. A decision has been taken on reor-
(also a World Heritage Site).
ganisation of the Crimean game reserve into a nature
reserve; a similar draft decision is under preparation for
The USSR has been a member ofthe UNESCO/MAB
Byelovezha Puscha in Byelorussia.
Programme since it started in 1971 , and numerous
Table 1 shows selected data on protected areas in the programmes now are being conducted in nature re-
various Republics. The distribution of nature reserves serves on multi- and bilateral bases. The basic principles
and national parks, as it is given in the figures, is highly of all biosphere reserves include organizational, scien-
variable, ranging from 0% (Moldova) to 7.4% (Armenia) tific, monitoring, social and educational aspects which
in the various Republics (Map). are being followed in this category ofprotected area. Of
the 23 biosphere reserves, 19 were administered by the
In recent decades, as the normal functioning of the USSR Ministry of Natural Resources Management and
global biosphere is becoming increasingly threatened , Environmental Protection. Seven new areas are being
the role of natural areas as complete " ecosystems" is
considered as proposals for Biosphere Reserves within
being promoted. The necessity to coordinate intergov- the Region. In 1983 , the First World Congress on Bio-
ernmental efforts in protecting nature is also being sphere Reserves was held in Minsk, Belarus.
realized. The most important intergovernmental pro-
grammes for our country have been the International Since the dissolution of the USSR the situation re-
Biological Programme, the Man and Biosphere Pro- grading international conventions and programmes has
gramme (23 ofour reserves have been declared biosphere become unclear. However, current data held by the
reserves), the World Heritage Convention and the Ramsar World Conservation Monitoring Centre is given in Table 4.
Wetlands Convention.
The main recommendations of the 1982 Bali Con-

gress on national parks have been taken into account 2. Current protected area coverage
in furthering state and republican programmes for pro-
tected areas. Thus, in 1984 a scheme for rational de- Throughout the former USSR the same categories of
velopment of the system of nature reserves, national specially protected areas were used in each of the
parks and equivalent territories was begun. In 1990, a Republics as follows: nature reserves (equivalent to
new Programme of Establishment of the Network of IUCN Category I) , national parks (Category II), nature
Specially Protected Areas for the period up to 2005 was monuments (Category III) and sanctuaries or refuges
adopted . The scientific principles for their development (Category IV).

100
Number of sites
60
40
20
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
500
Number of sites
300
200
100
0 T
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
North Eurasia
Nature reserves (zapovedniks) were established for the region's Republics; by including these sites, the total
conserving and studying representative and unique area protected in the region would reach 4.1%. These
natural ecosystems, preserving the gene pools of organ- amendments, change notably the view of the whole
isms, and monitoring the dynamics of natural processes system of areas in the USSR.
and phenomena. Their territories and water spaces were
withdrawn from economic use for perpetuity. The development of the network of protected areas
has long been centralized and accomplished at the na-
National parks were established to protect natural tional level of the country. Plans for the development of
complexes of outstanding ecological, historic or aesthetic the System of Protected Areas and National Parks were
value as well as to promote environmental education. elaborated by the USSR State Environmental Agencies
One of the principal tasks of national parks was outdoor on the basis of proposals by scientific research environ-
recreation. As a rule, the national park lands were also mental institutions. However since independence ofthe
withdrawn from alternative uses.
various republics the network has become decentral-
ized.
Nature monuments were small natural sites or natural
objects , being ofoutstanding ecological , scientific , aesthetic
and cultural importance. Their protection was under the In the process of developing plans for expanding the
system of protected areas in the USSR, the social and
responsibility of the land-users on whose territories they
were found. economic features of a region were taken into account,
including industry, agriculture, population structure and
Sanctuaries were designed for the conservation , re- urbanization problems, transportation , pollution, and
production and restoration of specific components of traditional lifestyles. However, the area of a proposed
wildlife. protected area depended to a large extent on the pop-
ulation density of specific regions. Comparing the area
The 1990 UN List ofProtected Areas, published by of27 nature reserves directed by the USSR Ministry of
IUCN and incorporating the first five IUCN manage- Natural Resources Management and Environmental
ment categories, gives a misleading picture of the rela- Protection to population density shows an inverse ratio;
tive areas, numbers and categories of protected areas in i.e. the higher the population density, the smaller the
the USSR. The list includes only nature reserves and reserve area. The linear regression factor is rather high and
national parks (Categories I and II), whose total area is reaches 0.77 (significant at the 1 % level). Similar results
1.02% ofthe land. But the list does not include sanctu- have been received for the other 167 nature reserves in the
aries (which have no assigned IUCN category) . They former Soviet Union but the average coefficient of corre-
are the most widespread management category in all of lation is lower.
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : North Eurasia
I II III IV V TOTAL
Armenia 3 719 1
1
1,500 4 2,219
Azerbaijan 11 1,778 11 1,778
Belarus 2 1,384 109 876 4 2,370
Georgia 14 1,672 1 194 15 1,866
Kazakhstan 7 7,899 1 455 - 8 8,354
Kyrgyzstan 4 1,779 1 194 5 1,973
1
Moldova - -
Russian Fed. 66 187,573 8 12,458 1 300 75 200,332
Tajikistan 3 856 3 856
Turkmenistan 8 11,114 8 11,114
Ukraine 11 1,587 2 1,328 1,734 17 4,649
Uzbekistan 9 2,132 1 315 - - 10 2,447
1
Total 138 218,493 15 16,444 0 0 5 1,843 2 1,176 160 237,958
function are generally included. The complete list of protected areas in Categories III-V is not available. The
complete list of protected areas in Categories III-V is not available.
These results are not unexpected, but they raise the of union, republican and local importance, and deci-
issue of the objectivity of the process of planning the sions on their establishment are adopted at appropriate
network of protected areas, suggesting that the institu- levels. Obligations for their protection are taken by the
tions responsible for planning and managing the pro- organisations on whose lands they are located. The
tected areas may have been "victims of circumstance". region now has over 5,000 protected natural monu-
ments: their number is increasing continuously. The
The distribution of nature reserves and national parks most intensive work is being done by the All-Russian
indicates that the majority of them are located in the Society for Nature Protection on the territory of the
most densely populated regions of the western part of Russian Federation.
the country, on the Russian plateau, in the mountains of
the Caucasus and in Middle Asia. Some 60% ofthe total Other categories of specially protected natural areas
numbers of nature reserves are located in the European can be established in Republics , for example, forest
part of the former USSR. Being small in size they are reserves, protected landscapes , nature parks, micro-
reserves (for protecting rare populations of animals and
surrounded by cultivated landscapes, finding themselves,
in some cases, in an "island" position . Relatively monoto- plants), vulnerable sea areas, and coastlines. Resource
nous vast territories of Siberia have few nature reserves, conservation areas, such as soil and forest protection
but the existing reserves are large in size , are not dis- belts, areas to protect water supplies, forests in health
turbed and are representative of the region. resort zones and others play an important part in plan-
ning regional conservation schemes.
Nature reserves and national parks fulfil major tasks

in conserving natural complexes. Sanctuaries are also
ofvital importance. According to their status at the time
required
of the Union they were subdivided into Republic and
local sanctuaries; for conservation purposes they were
Representativeness is one of the major objectives ofthe
classed as game (or hunting) , zoological , botanical ,
protected areas network. It is evaluated at geographical ,
landscape complex , hydrological, or geological reserves. ecosystem and specific levels. The geographic level
In 1991 the region had almost 2,000 sanctuaries, cover- provides for evaluation of protected area representa-
ing an area of 67,641,000ha; 700 of these sanctuaries tiveness in various units of territorial zoning including
are of republican importance . The majority ofthem are
physical-geographical and landscape . When making an
in Russia-nearly 1,000 sanctuaries in all covering an analysis of protected area distribution it was found that
area of 58 million ha. The sanctuaries of republican
some major biogeographic zones are not represented in
importance have staff (guards , etc.), their territories are
the network; among them are arctic deserts, tundra,
reserved for longer periods, and they are more ade-
forest-tundra and steppe areas of Western Siberia and
quately managed. However many of the sanctuaries
North-Eastern Siberian taiga; and there are no nature
have limited or no legislation or management, effec-
reserves in the mountain regions of the Polar and Pre-
tively " paper parks ".
Polar Urals and on the Central Asian upland.
Traditionally, sanctuaries were established for the At the ecosystem level representativeness is being
pro-tection of game species and for the conservation of considered in relation to zonal, intra-zonal and unique
the habitats of migratory species. At present their role associations of specific biogeographical units. Compo-
in protecting rare and endangered species of animals nent maps (vegetation, geobotanical, soil) are being
and plants is increasing. Some 19 of 41 species of used. Such an analysis has shown, for example, that
mammals and 65 of 109 species of birds included into only two ofthe 16 forest nature reserves- Berezinsky
the USSRRed Data Book have been given protection in and Byelovezhskaya Puscha-are representative ones,
republican sanctuaries. Such species as polar bear, while others are represented with intrazonal associ-
European bison, Russian desman, snow leopard, red ations.
wolf, hooded crane, Caucasian snow-cock, mountain
goose, rare species of birds of prey, numerous forest At the specific level , representativeness is analysed
plant species, and rare and endangered species of her- in relation to the flora of the nature reserves ; to
baceous plants are pro-vided with protection in sanctu- correlation of species specific to definite combinations
aries. Trends to combine the functions of game and ofzonal , intrazonal and azonal associations; and to rare,
zoological sanctuaries have been outlined . At present the relict and endemic species. For these purposes the data
USSR has over 750 botanical sanctuaries, many of which on ranges, floristic information and the lists of flora of
are 1ha to 100ha in size. Many rare plant species in- nature reserves are used. For example, the Astrakhan
cluded in the USSR Red Data Book, are protected in nature reserve contains 20% of the flora of the
sanctuaries. appropriate floristic region; in Central-Chernozemny
nature reserve this index reaches 49% . On the other
Natural monuments are related to another widespread hand, the vegetation type in " Galychia Gora" Nature
category of protected areas. They refer to monuments Reserve is azonal and the index is only 2%.
North Eurasia
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : North Eurasia

Armenia 24.3 0.0 75.7 0.0 0 2,219

Azerbaijan 74.2 12.5 8.1 5.3 0 1,778
Belarus 32.2 26.3 4.6 37.0 0 2,369
Georgia 45.7 5.2 49.1 0.0 0 1,865
Kazakhstan 30.5 28.4 9.0 32.2 0 8,354
Kyrgyzstan 21.7 0.0 69.0 9.3 0 1,972
Moldova 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Russian Fed. 13.3 12.5 17.2 57.0 0 200,331
Tajikistan 77.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 0 855
Turkmenistan 34.6 0.0 58.4 7.0 0 11,114
Ukraine 47.3 17.0 17.4 18.2 0 4,649
Uzbekistan 21.0 6.6 25.2 47.2 0 2,446
Total 17.0 12.3 19.9 50.8 0 237,957
IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in
Faunistic evaluation is based upon analysis of repre- Chukotsk and Azov Seas are each represented by one
sentativeness ofthe fauna species of the protected area nature reserve. The Kronotsk Nature Reserve of the
in correlation with the fauna in an appropriate region. Pacific shore of Kamchatka has incorporated a 3km
The assessment of the security of rare species with wide marine zone. The Barents, Karsk, East- Siberian,
protection includes indices of the presence of endemic , Bering and Okhotsk Seas have no protected areas . The
rare and endangered species on the given territory. The majority of marine protected areas are small in size,
Red Data Book (RDB) of the former USSR and RDBs exceeding 40,000ha in only five nature reserves.
of the Republics and of major regions are used for this
purpose. As a result, the requirements for the estab- The Dalnevostochny (Far-East) Sea Nature Reserve
lishment of new protected areas are being defined and is the only reserve established specifically for the con-
the conservation category, meeting these requirements , servation of the plants and animals of the sea-shore . Of
is being determined. its total area of 64,360ha, the marine area is 63,000ha.
For marine areas adversely affected by anthropogenic
impacts, it was proposed by the all-Union to expand the
Keeping in mind the necessity to fill the gaps in the
total areas of existing marine and island nature reserves
representativeness of large physical-geographical units
by joining them to neighbouring marine areas. In par-
as well as ofunique natural complexes and monuments,
ticular, it was proposed to extend the territories of 15
a scheme forthe rational distribution of nature reserves
existing nature reserves in the Black, Azov, Baltic,
and national parks for the period up to 2005 was pre-
Caspian, White and Japan Seas, as well as to develop 5
pared for the country. The results are summarized in
new reserves, thus increasing the area of protected
Table 7. This network represents typical landscapes,
aquatic areas up to 2-3% ofthe total areas of these seas.
habitats of rare and endangered species of animals and
Taking into the account the marine buffer zones, this
plants and the most valuable natural associations. Nature
area could represent approximately 5%.
reserves will be established to protect the environment
of arctic islands, such as Franz Joseph Land (over four
Again, prior to the break-up of the USSR it was
million ha), Novaya Zemlya, the Kola tundra and
proposed to expand the areas of4 existing reserves and
Bol'shezemel'sky. Nature reserves are also planned to to establish 21 new nature reserves in the Barents,
protect natural complexes of northern taiga and forest
Karsk, Laptev's, East- Siberian, Chulcotsk, Bering and
tundra, including such large and representative sites as Okhotsk Seas, and in the Pacific areas neighbouring the
Nenetzk, Kologriva and Emetz. The network of moun-
Kuril islands. Thus in total the protected marine area
tainous, steppe and forest- steppe nature reserves will be would have reached 6-8%. Ifbuffer zones are taken into
significantly extended.
account the total marine area would have reached up to
12%.
In the former USSR, 16 nature reserves are on coasts
and islands (Bychkov, 1991) and also include marine The formerUSSR planned to extend considerably the
areas. Four of them are in the Black Sea, two in the network of national parks. By 1991 the percentage of
Caspian Sea and three in the Baltic. The White, Laptev's, their territories as related to the total area of specially
protected natural areas was low (0.12%), but future Managing Department, USSR Ministry of Geology,
increases of protected areas was anticipated to favour and by some local authorities.
national parks. An important task was the establishment
of national parks in the north of Europe, where natural National parks were managed under the union-repub-
complexes include mixed elements of a historic and lican (federal) administration system ofthe USSR State
cultural heritage. Thus, it was planned to create a na- Forestry Committee (Goskomles). It is implied that in
tional park to the west of Onega Lake, whose territory Republics they were administered by appropriate state
would include the outstanding Russian architectural committees , ministries and departments. "Losiny Os-
monument of Kizhy. trov" National Park ("The Moose Island"), located in
the vicinity of Moscow, is now managed by Moscow
The landscapes of the Urals are proposed to be repre- government.
sented in national parks of the polar, northern, middle
and southern areas ofthe Ural mountain country. Seven Following dissolution of the former USSR, protected
national parks are proposed to be added to two existing area responsibilities were taken over by the various
ones in the Northern Caucasus, thus increasing their Ministries of the Environment, Agriculture or Forestry
territory by more than 1 million ha. In the future, it is in each Republic. Administration and management of
hoped that the coastal area of Lake Baikal will be sanctuaries was and is exercised at the republican level.
provided with a ring of protected areas (including exist- The overwhelming majority of sanctuaries are located
ing ones). on the territory of Russia and are subordinated mainly
to the Russian Hunting Department. In several Repub-
In total the network of nature reserves and national lics, sanctuaries are under the administration of local
parks will achieve over 80 million ha, 3.63% of the (district) societies of hunters and fishermen and local
region's total area. It is to be hoped that the new Re- tourist boards. Other sanctuaries are subordinated to
publics will achieve this. management authorities ofthe republican Ministries of
Forestry, including various departments and territorial
authorities. Several refuges were guided by the former
4. Protected area institutions
USSR Defence Ministry, the research institutes of the
Academy of Sciences, higher school institutions of the
At present there is no united centralized system of
protected areas management in the former USSR. Nature State Education Committee and the All-Union Acad-
reserves, national parks, sanctuaries and natural mon- emy of Agricultural Sciences, and local territorial agri-
uments are managed by numerous ministries, agencies, cultural departments. In many Republics sanctuaries
organisations and local authorities. were administered by regional, town and countryside
Boards of People's Deputies. Many sanctuaries were
From 1989 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, established by collective and state farms on their terri-
USSR Goscompriroda had been continuously taking tories . Some sanctuaries, with preservation and restora-
measures for establishing a federal union-republican tion of fish resources as their primary management
structure of protected areas management authorities. objective, were managed by regional Fish Conserva-
This process was slow, mainly due to the tendency for tion/Management departments .
decentralization of administration and management in
the Soviet Union and the Declarations on Sovereignty At the time of the Union, attached to the USSR
by the Republics. The multiplicity of agencies and Cabinet of Ministers, the Commission on Emergency
institutions involved in administration and management Situations had a special division in its structure to
of protected areas was also an obstacle in this process. supervise affairs related to protected areas manage-
ment. The republican Councils or Cabinets of Ministers
As of 1991 , the majority of nature reserves ( 124 also had similar divisions with various functions and
of 172) were part of the union-republican manage- powers.
ment system of Goscompriroda (Minpriroda) . Of these,
27 state nature reserves, including 19 biosphere re- On the level of Supreme Soviets of the USSR and of
serves, are under the direct administration of USSR the appropriate Republics the coordination (primarily
Minpriroda; the remaining 97 reserves are under ap- in the field of the law) of protected areas administration
propriate republican State Committees, Ministries or was controlled by Committees and Commissions on
Departments. Environment Protection (having different titles). At the
All-Union level this was a Sub-Committee of the Com-
Nature reserves not part ofthe USSR Goskompriroda mittee on Ecology.
(Minpriroda) system in 1991 were managed by the
USSR State Forest Committee or appropriate republi- Financing of nature reserves and national parks is
can Forest Committees and Ministries, by Academies centralized and provided from the state budget, thus
of Sciences either of the USSR or of the appropriate ensuring regular interrelations between the union and
Republics, by the USSR Academy of Agricultural Sci- republican Ministries of Finance and the appropriate
ences or by its republican branches, by the USSR De- institutions dealing with protected area management.
fence Ministry, by the State Committee for Education , The material and technical supply for protected areas is
Universities, by the Byelorussian Council of Ministers also centralized . Previously it was provided by the
North Eurasia
USSR State Committee for Material and Technical Wasthis alarge or small amount? Certainly a small one.
Supply. Since 1990 the supply is provided through As the major expenditures are related to the payment of
so-called " horizontal contacts" , i.e. based upon direct wages to protected areas staff, this criterion can be a
agreements with suppliers of goods and equipment. relatively safe index of the level of financing of nature
reserves and national parks. In 1991 wages of the staff
Rangers in the majority of reserves and parks, dealing of nature reserves, administered at the All-Union level
with protection of their territories from poachers and and financed at a higher level than the republican ones,
disturbers, are equipped with firearms. The rules of were between 191 and 540 roubles a month (average
storage and usage ofthese firearms are strictly control- 310 roubles). The wages of workers responsible for
led by the USSR Ministry of the Interior. Conserving territorial protection , often with risk to their life, aver-
fish resources in protected areas is under the control of age 200 roubles. In comparison , the average financial
the special Fish Supervising Service. Wild animal man- maintenance per person in the USSR was 232 roubles
agement in protected areas, primarily of ungulates, is per month in the second quarter of 1991 ; a subsistence
provided by republican Departments of Hunting. Con- wage was nearly 300 roubles. Accordingly, taking into
servation measures are best organized in nature reserves account these criteria, the total level of investments in
and national parks. Some 3,000 rangers are involved protected areas was recommended to be increased 3 to
directly in providing conservation measures. Conserva- 4 times. However, following the dissolution of the USSR
tion measures in nature reserves and national parks are the economic pressures on protected areas throughout the
complex and carried out variously with the help of region has led to significant difficulties for any admini-
patrolling teams, periodical watch method, organisation stration and management in many of the reserves.
ofcordons (rangers quarters) along protected areas bounda-
ries, patrolling from the air, and establishment of con- The level of state investments into protected areas
trolling points. other than Categories I and II is beyond strict counting,
so we can provide only an estimate of a few million
Traditionally wide-scale scientific research is con- roubles per year. In total the investment of the Govern-
ducted in nature reserves. To provide for its implemen- ments of the former USSR and the Republics in all
tation, protected area staff collaborate closely with the categories of protected areas was an average of 60
USSR and republican Academies of Sciences, univer- million roubles a year in 1990 and 1991 , or about 2
sities and institutes of the USSR State Committee for roubles per hectare.
Education and of appropriate republican governmental
agencies, as well as with branch industries institutes. Voluntary investment by private organisations and
The background monitoring of the environment is car- persons into protected areas is not yet popular in the
ried out jointly with the USSR State Committee for region. However, funds for national parks in Estonia
Hydrometeorology. To implement forest inventories and Latvia are the only exceptions to the existing situ-
and monitoring, protected areas staff are interrelated ation (see Europe Regional Review) . These Funds are
with institutions of USSR Goscomles and appropriate supported by numerous organizations and individuals .
forest agencies of the Republics. Thus , in 1990 the level of investment to "Gaua"
National Park in Latvia amounted to 756,000 roubles;
Aircraft and helicopters are widely used for protected
ofthis sum 230,000 roubles came from the state budget
areas conservation and surveys. This work is done in
of the Republic and 526,000 roubles were provided
cooperation with republican airline services.
from other sources. In 1990 in Estonia , 609,000 roubles
were invested in the maintenance of the Lahemaa Na-
One ofthe major tasks of rangers is preventing fires
tional Park, of which 155,000 roubles was from the
in protected areas. Nature reserves have their own tech-
nical equipment for extinguishing fires, but this is in- republican budget with the remaining 454,000 roubles
adequate for fire control . Thus , 35 forest fires were provided by other sources, including private ones.
registered in nature reserves of the USSR Goscompriroda
Tourism in protected areas is strictly limited in the
in 1989.
former USSR. The number of national parks is rela-
tively low and the tourist service infrastructure is unde-
5. Current levels of financial veloped. In 1989 and 1990 the 27 nature reserves of the
investment in protected areas USSR Minpriroda received a total of 320,000 visitors
annually. Because tourism was not allowed in nature
Financial investment the Government of the USSR and reserves, people become acquainted with nature re-
by the Republican Governments in protected areas serves when they visited their nature museums. The
had increased continuously for the past 15 years (see payment for museum visits was so low that it could not
Table 6). affect the investment into protected areas. Data in Table 2 ,
which is not fully comprehensive, indicate that the great
Investments in the major categories of protected majority of protected areas in the Republics fall into
areas-nature reserves , national parks and hunting IUCN Management Category I, indicating the most
reserves-increased 4.3 times from 1975 to 1990 (i.e. strict levels of protection.
from 12,036,000 to 54,907,000 roubles). At the same
time the average maintenance costs per protected area National parks and nature reserves have significant
increased 2.5 times (from 115,000 to 282,000 roubles). incomes. Their sources comprise selling wood, taken
during "cleaning" forests from wind-fallen timber and ecological research in protected areas. In particular,
branches, infested trees and after forest fires; income there is a shortage of specialists in invertebrates and
from catching game species and transporting them out- lower plants , microbiology, and soil.
side protected areas for introduction/ reintroduction
The forest conservation service, with foresters in
purposes , based on contracts with state bodies for game
species (bred in captivity in some reserves); income charge, is responsible chiefly for the protection of
from additional scientific research made by reserve nature areas. But it is mainly among them that one can
scientists at the request of other organizations; rental meet accidental people, romantics in the worst sense of
and income from public utilities provided to workers of the word, without any special training. Instability and
protected areas; and income from transportation facili- low qualification of workers in this category of pro-
ties provided to outsiders and from subsidiary shops and tected areas staff is due mainly to the extremely low
agriculture in reserves and national parks. wages, an average of 200 roubles per month.
If all budgetary assignments comprise 100% , then There are no special professional schools for teaching
other sources of funds reached 9% in nature reserves protected areas staff, but special training courses are
and 45% in national parks in 1990. The high level of attached to several institutes and higher schools. There
additional funds in national parks results from timber is an urgent need for special training of foresters. Up to
now,no serious attempts have been made to addressthe
cutting.
real need for specialists for protected areas; moreover,
Up to now international agencies have not allocated no attempts have been made to create a specialized state
financial resources to protected areas in the former system ofeducation for training personnel for protected
Soviet Union, although the World Bank was reviewing areas.
proposals in late 1991 .
Finally,the lack of international exchange programmes
for experts working directly in protected areas should
6. Human capacity in protected be noted.
areas management
By 1990 in the Soviet Union the total personnel of all 7. Priorities for future investment in
nature reserves was 8,250, plus 3,470 for the national protected areas
parks. It is impossible to calculate the total number of
Priorities for future investment were due to be, or at
people involved in sanctuaries protection , but their num-
least should have been determined by the USSR
ber approximates 2,000 in the region. Thus, in total,
Supreme Soviet Decision Act of 27 November 1989
nearly 14,000 individuals are involved directly in pro-
"On Urgent Measures for Ecological Rehabilitation of
tected area services.
the Country". It was pointed out in the document that
An analysis of qualifications of people working in by 1995 the area of protected territories should increase
protected areas shows 3 major categories of specialists : up to 2% and by 2000 up to 3% by increasing the
administration (directors and their deputies); forest con- network of national parks and nature reserves. Unfortu-
servation service; and scientific staff. nately, investment priorities have not been determined
by this Act, and the rapidly changing political and
Not all of the directors of nature reserves have a socio-economic situation creates considerable uncer-
higher education in biology, forest technology or game tainty for priorities for investment in protected areas
biology. Often they are former economic executives or even in the nearest future. Analysing existing trends,
politicians; some of them, nevertheless, appear to be one may hope that the total rate of state investment in
extremely talented and receptive leaders. As a rule, the protected areas will increase rather slowly but steadily,
lack of specialized education of directors of nature based on the continuous growth in investment over the
reserves causes conflict between scientific staff, work- past 10-15 years. This relative stability can be ex-
ers and administrators, as their understanding of the plained to some extent by the fact that the protected
goals and tasks of protected areas often differs. Usually areas management authorities structure did not change
the director has two deputies: a chief forester and a much, and the experts who worked in this field in years
deputy director scientific. Chief foresters usually have prior to perestroika still continue their services in man-
a specialized forest-technical higher or secondary edu- agement institutions even after dissolution of the
cation, and deputy directors scientific have a biological , USSR.
game biology or geography education . The overwhelm-
ing majority of scientific staff have biological educa- The input of private organizations into protected ar-
tions; many of them are game biologists. This is an old eas is expected to increase during the next few years,
tradition in the former USSR nature reserves, which but it will not be prevailing and will not influence
were created for the conservation and restoration notably the development and investment into protected
(enrichment) of the game species fauna. areas. Public organisations, such as social and ecologi-
cal unions, and the Voluntary Nature Protection
This tradition now appears to have become a hin- Brigade, render mainly social and moral assistance to
derance to developing modern methodologies of protected areas.
North Eurasia
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions : North Eurasia

22
Armenia ? ?
Azerbaijan ? ? 1 132,500
Belarus October 1988 1 87,600 1 76,201
22
Georgia November 1992 ?
Kazakhstan ? ? 3 1,238,300
Kyrgyzstan ? 1 23,900
Moldova ? ?
Russian Federation October 1988 0 13 9,028,510 February 1977 3 1,168,000
Tajikistan August 1992 0 December 1992 1 6,234
Turkmenistan ? 1 34,600 ? 1 188,700
Ukraine October 1988 0 3 159,585 ? 3 211,051
Uzbekistan ? 1 47,500 ?
Notes: 1. Recent political changes in the former Soviet Union mean that the current situation is in some cases unclear
regarding dates of adherence and listing of sites.
A number of States (eg. Georgia) have deposited a notification of succession by which a commitment is made to
the World Heritage Convention, ratified by the former Soviet Union on 12 October 1988.
At an international level, the plan of action provides all these should be available for man . He should own all
for a considerable extension oftransboundary protected this. People are not conscious yet that biological diver-
areas (see section 8), but the investment in international sity is a resource, providing for human survival.
initiatives has been determined only for the near future.
The problems of local populations around protected
Investments in maintaining and developing protected areas are being solved in different ways. People tradi-
areas within the framework of newly-established eco- tionally living in nature reserves and national parks are
nomic relations can also be expected, including invest- usually allowed strictly limited rights to gather berries
ments from selling scientific information , production of and mushrooms, catch fish, cut hay, graze cattle, and
environmental films by foreign TV and film-production keep bees for private purposes on specially allotted
companies , and environmental educational excursions. sites. In buffer zones sport hunting and traditional re-
source utilization by inhabitants are exercised under the
auspices of authorities of nature reserves or national
8. Major protected areas issues parks . The local population has a preference for hunting
in the region : legal , social and in game sanctuaries. Local traditional land- ownership
economic development and land tenure are exercised in two ways. First, land
tenure plans for the proposed nature reserve or national
8.1 park are subject to an obligatory agreement with land-
People in protected areas
owners and local authorities. The statutes of each nature
In many cases human access to natural resources is reserve and national park have provisions for traditional
land tenure and maps indicate boundaries for land ten-
incompatible with nature protection objectives and pro-
vides the major source of conflicts arising in protected ure. Statutes are coordinated with local and republican
areas establishment. These conflicts are universal and authorities.
it is hard to believe that they will be overcome in a

general sense. On a planetary scale this is a contradic- Unfortunately, local traditions are not applied in pro-
tion between man's right to exploit natural resources tected areas management, thus leading to serious insuf-
and his obligations to Planet Earth. ficiency in developing protected areas, especially nature
reserves and national parks. This lack of traditional
Establishment and broadening the protected areas knowledge related to resource management limitations
system often is interpreted by local populations as an has led to the loss of traditional protected areas. This is
encroachment on their rights to use natural resources. a problem that needs special investigation . For example,
Compensation measures are often compromising; as a until recently the relict fir forest was protected on Zhyma
rule, satisfying the demands of local populations is mountain on Ol'khon island in Baikal because the
detrimental to the conservation status of protected Buryat people believed this place to be sacred and visits
areas. were prohibited (Imetkhenov, 1991).
Usually, information is not well used. There is a good It is regrettable that representatives of local people are
understanding that the environment must be clean, rivers drawn insufficiently into protected areas management,
inhabited by fish, forests by mammals and birds, but that and that their managers are mainly Russians, especially
on the territory ofthe Russian Republic. In recent years, In many cases, the interests of local people should be
due to the growing sovereignty of the Republics, the taken into account, especially on limited traditional
situation is changing slowly and local people more often resource management, lest sooner or later lack of proper
participate in the administration of protected areas. This involvement leads to serious conflicts. Such interests
process undoubtedly has a slight nationalistic bias, but should be taken into account during the procedures for
we hope that it will bring closer a more positive rela- allotting lands for nature reserves. However some
tionship with local people in protected areas administra- people may be pursuing their own aims and , having no
tion and will apply traditional knowledge to management. concern for traditional resource management, may com-
promise national interests.
Inhabitants within protected areas have some bene-
fits, especially in distant areas and settlements of pro-
8.2 Involvement by the private sector
tected areas where local people, who are not necessarily
members oftheir staff, are involved in the reserve, park
or sanctuary infrastructure management. Thus, electric- Problems of involvement by the private sector in the
ity and heating provided to the protected areas are establishment of protected areas were new concepts for
available not only to the staff, but to all residents as well. the Soviet Union immediately prior to its dissolution ,
The same refers to shops, schools and medical help. newly permitted under the Law and Acts of the Soviet
Usually, local people living in but not serving a pro- Union and Union Republics providing for the private
tected area equally use transportation facilities of nature sector and private land ownership. In the coming five
reserves and national parks. In any case, some of the years these problems will be of great concern in relation
houses in protected areas have been given partially by to general process of privatization in the economy and
land tenure.
the Councils of People's Deputies to local residents , and
for the majority of residents, protected areas are the
source oftheir livelihood. In the draft "Basis of Law of the USSR and the
Republics on Specially Protected Natural Areas" and in
Several examples illustrate conflicts with local peo- appropriate laws of the Union Republics, private own-
ple who are deprived of their rights to traditional re- ership of specially protected areas was envisaged and
source use. In Sayano-Shushensky Biosphere Reserve even up to now there have been no proposals for private
a mineral water source is traditionally the site of pil- persons to manage nature reserves and national parks.
grimage for local people, mainly of Tuvinian national- At the same time, taking into the account the general
ity. Traditional medicine says it has curative properties; trend for commercialization which penetrates nature
it is also a sacred place . For a long time managers ofthe conservation structures, tendencies are growing for
reserve were in conflict with residents , trying to prohibit using protected areas for commercial purposes.
free access to the source . Finally, they had to provide
limited rights for local people to the mineral water Experience of the involvement of the private sector
source, within special quotas and under supervision. in protected areas structures is limited, so it is too early
to evaluate properly this new phenomenon. But some
In Sjunt- Khasardag, Turkmenia, a serious conflict examples can be given. In Oksky Biosphere Reserve a
arose with the local population as tribal representatives group of specialists have taken the breeding centre for
were required to give up rights to pastures that tradition- rare and endangered species of predatory birds on a
ally belonged to them for inclusion in the territory of the lease. In Kronotzk Biosphere Reserve the regional as-
Reserve. This conflict was decided in favour of the local sociation undertook obligations to provide helicopter
people. excursions to Geiser Valley (on the territory of the
reserve). There are some proposals to organize interna-
Uncontrolled cattle grazing in protected areas is one tional sport hunting in the buffer zones of nature re-
of the most widely distributed violations of the conser- serves, although this is reported to have resulted in
vation regime. Native people traditionally used these hunting of RDB species such as the tiger.
lands as pastures, and , as a rule, land tenure has been
changed only with great difficulty, with local people The central protected areas management bodies are
being unwilling to give up their historic traditions. very cautious about the involvement of the private
sector in nature reserves, for two reasons. First, no
In some cases, when interests of local people are approved mechanism is yet available for financing spe-
ignored, groundless decisions are taken in the process cially protected areas from non-state sources. It goes
of protected area planning. For example, not long ago without saying that such investments, being additional
there was also serious conflict in relation to Ramit ones, will be positively accepted by state management
Nature Reserve in Tadjikistan. A cemetery is located in authorities. However, investments into the establish-
the Reserve near its boundary. Visits by former villagers ment and/or development of specially protected areas
of the settlement neighbouring the cemetery were strictly should not automatically mean acquiring the right for
limited and former villagers could not settle in the participating in managing of the appropriate territory by
vicinity oftheir beloved graves. This problem was being the sponsor, for influencing their conservation status/
considered by the Republic Government and compro- regime, or attempting some commercial activity on
mises probably will be achieved. their territories.
North Eurasia
And second, no legal measures have yet been estab- importance. This heavily populated region has a dense
lished for the relationship between specially protected network of roads , settlements, highly developed indus-
areas and their financial donors, and for instruments to try, intensive agriculture and high requirements for
stimulate non-budgetary investment. These problems recreation. At the same time the region is characterized
need urgent competent elaboration for controlling pri- with high natural diversity, located in the forest and
vate sector involvement into nature reserves and na- forest-steppe zones,with a variety of typical and unique
tional parks affairs. In any case, protected areas should sites of great scientific and cultural importance. This is
remain state property independent of the economic struc- also an area ofimportance for international tourism; the
tural reforms in the country.
well-known " Golden Ring" runs through historic towns
and places, including natural and architectural memori-
als and scenic landscapes. We have a challenging task
Table 5. World Heritage sites in North
to create the network of specially protected areas in the
Eurasia
region to conserve the most valuable natural sites and
to provide for the growing demands of recreation and
Belarus ecological tourism . Scientists of the Moscow State Uni-
versity along with other scientific institutions have made
Belovezhskaya Puscha State National Park
wide surveys and constructed a map of the most valu-
(with Poland) able natural sites in the Moscow region in order to
ensure the development of an integrated development
strategy for the area.
8.3 Protected areas and surrounding
lands Present development of agriculture leads to relatively
monotonous landscapes with smooth relief and drained
lands, seriously affecting biological diversity. In central
The distribution and planning of new protected natural
areas is connected with the natural and economic con- Russia and Byelorussian Polessie, for example, devel-
opment of land-reclamation has led to considerable
ditions of specific areas. This is taken into account in
developing complex territorial schemes of environ- impoverishment of the gene-pools of animals and plants,
mental protection, including protected areas . For ex- decreasing numbers ofgame species of mammals, birds
and fish, loss of wetlands, and decreasing areas ofwild
ample, the new and complex scheme of environmental
protection for areas of new oil and gas exploitation in berryfields. Rational planning of territories should pro-
vide for compensation zones, as is done in the Baltic
Western Siberia incorporates the interests of reindeer
Republics . For example, if land reclamation objectives
breeding. Protected natural areas planning provided for
are fulfilled, 10-30% of the area should be protected to
the protection of reindeer reproduction sites, routes of
their migration, and pastures. The territories of new provide for conservation of the habitats of wild animals
and plants. Reserved areas should include also eco-
industrial exploitation partially affected the territories
nomically " inconvenient" lands, such as ravines, gorges,
ofexisting sanctuaries. With due regard tothis fact, new
sanctuaries and refuges have been proposed and the steep slopes, sides of roads, river lowlands and lake
basins.
boundaries ofthe existing ones changed.
Prospects for further economic development of the 8.4 Protected areas and science
northeastern part of the European part of the former
USSR, in particular planning in the region ofthe Yamal- In the Soviet Union nature reserves traditionally pro-
Western Ukraine gas pipeline, have been taken into vide conservation oflandscapes and ecosystems, but are
account in the process of developing the scheme of also scientific research centres. All of them have scien-
distribution of protected areas of the region . Industrial tific divisions, chaired by deputy directors scientific .
zoning of the territory and evaluation of the existing Major scientific problems are being discussed by the
network of protected areas have been done. This evalu- Scientific Council of the appropriate reserve. The num-
ation demonstrated the high efficiency of the present ber of scientific workers in such areas vary consider-
sanctuaries. Thus , good progress has been achieved in ably, in some cases reaching 40 scientists, as in the
rehabilitation and protection of cedar populations in Caucasian and Astrakhansky biosphere reserves; the
sanctuaries, started along the northern limit of its range average is 10.
20 years ago. It was proposed to expand this network ,
and to establish new nature reserves on the basis of Scientific research is being conducted both by reserve
closely distributed sanctuaries, and to expand territories scientists and by researchers from other institutions,
of existing nature reserves, in particular Pinezhsky. primarily scientists from the All-Union Institute for
Nature Conservation and Nature Reserves of the USSR
A different approach is taken for urbanized areas , Minpriroda, institutes of the Academy of Sciences in
where factors seriously limit the establishment of new each Republic, universities and pedagogical institutes.
protected areas, and it is necessary to establish very A great volume of research is being done by students
small protected natural or semi-natural areas. Within who are allowed in reserves for field training. In recent
highly urbanized areas the Moscow region is of special years direct links between nature reserves and scientists
from other countries (Germany, USA, Japan, Norway, observing the status of rare and endangered species of
Finland, Sweden and France) have been developed and plants and animals.
joint research is being conducted.
Research into the biology of rare species of plants and
In some regions of the former Soviet Union scientists
animals has provided opportunities for conserving and
of nature reserves have established Regional Scientific restoring their numbers, and to rehabilitate the ranges
Councils, providing coordination of scientific research
of several species. In particular, scientists of nature
on protected areas in their regions. Among them there reserves have made a significant contribution to con-
are the Caspian, Eastern- Siberian, Middle-Asian, Far- serving sable (Martes zibellina) in the Bargusin NR,
East and Caucasian Regional Scientific Councils. Re-
Amur tiger (Panthera tigris) and long-tailed goral
gional Scientific Councils are expected to become re- (Naemorhedus caudatus) in Sikhote - Alin NR,
gional management bodies in the future, thus basing
European bison (Bison bonasus) in Prioksko-Terrasny
management on geographic principles, and not on ad-
NR, Japanese white crane (Grus japonensis) in
ministrative or national ones. The Commission on Co-
Khingansky NR, Chinese merganser (Mergus squama-
ordination of Scientific Research in Nature Reserves of
tus) in Lazovsky NR, Siberian salamander (Salaman-
the former USSR Academy of Science played an im- drella keyserlingii) in Bol'shehehzirsky NR, and
portant part in this work. whipsnake (Elaphe climaeophora) in Kunashir.
Since the 1930s several nature reserves have publish-

ed collections of scientific papers, and some of them The role ofnature reserves is also significant in stud-
issue permanent collections of thematic and regional ies of rare and endangered plant species. Thus, the
scientific papers. Scientists of reserves participate ac- Tertiary flora relict, sacred (in India) Caspian lotus
tively in symposia, meetings and congresses. Almost all (Nelumbo nucifera) is effectively protected in
of the reserves have scientific libraries, often compris- Astrakhansky and Kyzyl-Agach NRs; in Prymorie na-
ing several thousand books. Many reserves have large ture reserves (Lazovsky, Ussuriisky and Kedrovaya
zoological collections and herbaria. Pad) protection measures are given to the wonder-
working " root of life " ginseng (Panax ginseng) ; and
Traditionally all nature reserves ofthe former Soviet Kedrovaya Pad Nature Reserve provides for conserva-
Union prepare " Annals of Nature", collections of an- tion of the lichen navelwort (Umblicaria esculenta).
nual phenological observations on their territories. An- This list is merely an indication of the protection pro-
nals of Nature also include observations on animals and vided to threatened species by protected areas.
plants, providing a giant data bank on the state and
dynamics of the environment in the USSR; this un-
Research being conducted in nature reserves proves
doubtedly serves as the basis ofthe system of ecological
that habitat protection is extremely important for spe-
monitoring in protected areas. Nevertheless , this unique
cies survival. Forest cutting, cattle grazing, recreation
information is not yet properly organized; there is no
and changes inthe soil chemistry, are followed by rapid
centralized archive ofthe Annals of Nature, no system-
changes of communities and associations, leading to
atic index, and no unified database for storage and
detrimental changes to species with narrow or dispersed
computer treatment of the information.
ranges. For example , in the Karpatsky Nature Reserve,
In most nature reserves and national parks standard the level of soil pH has been reduced because of fertil-
meteorological stations have been established, and the izer run-off from neighbouring fields, resulting in de-
majority of them are part of the union meteorological creasing populations of narcissus (Narcissus angusti-
system. folius).
Since 1981 monitoring stations had been established

Elimination of even one dominant species is often
by the Goscomhydromet throughout the USSR. By the followed by a sharp change in the community compo-
end of 1990 such stations had been established in 10
sition. Thus, pine cutting on pine- shrub-sphagnum
biosphere reserves. They provide for standard meteoro-
oligotrophic high bogs is accompanied by growing thick
logical and environmental pollution data. Results are low under shrubs, affecting (due to darkening and de-
being published in a special Bulletin . Unfortunately , the foliation) the sphagnum moss.
equipment is outdated, and as a result reserves are not
collecting all of the required information, nor are they
getting it out without delay. This impedes analysis of Tigrovaya Ballka Nature Reserve in southern Tadjik-
the biomonitoring data, hampering efforts to correlate istan conserves the vanishing subspecies ofthe Bactrian
processes in animal and plant populations and environ- deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus) by protecting its habi-
mental changes, including the impact of anthropogenic tat, " tugai" thickets along the Vahsh and Pjandze river
pollution on the biota. valleys. Nevertheless, constructing cotton-fields and
water-flow regulation in surrounding areas poses a se-
A wide variety ofbiological research is carried out in rious threat to the habitats ofthis extremely rare species.
nature reserves. These can be subdivided into three In addition, it is only due to habitat conservation in
major categories: inventories of fauna and flora; moni- Berezinsky reserve in Belarus that the European beaver
toring the state of natural complexes/ecosystems; and (Castorfiber) populations are numerous.
North Eurasia
8.5 Pollution and protected areas gas pollution from big enterprises. The impact of the
Baikalsky cellulose enterprise, felt 60km to the west of
Recent research being carried out in reserves shows that the reserve, is extremely harmful. High mountain firs of
industrial and agricultural pollution of protected areas the northern slope of Hamar-Daban suffer chronic poi-
is rather great, and that the densely-populated areas of soning. Atmospheric precipitations have a pH of 5.5>;
the European part of the former USSR suffer the great- annual wood growth has decreased 40-60% , natural
est anthropogenic impact. The following branches of renewal to a tenth of its former rate.
industry have had a serious impact on protected areas:
metallurgy, chemical , mining, construction, cellulose Excess sulphurdioxide in the atmosphere in the Prioksko-
and energy. The most careful studies have been carried Terrasny reserve causes acid precipitation , leading to
out on the consequences of industrial pollution from the necrosis and chlorosis of coniferous needles and leaves,
Monchegorsk group of enterprises (Severonikel) on the and denudation of branches.
ecosystems ofthe Laplandsky reserve . Aerosols formed
of sulphurous gases are being detected at a distance of New data on the impact of the Chernobyl nuclear
160km from the polluting source. The total area of the power station on the natural complexes of protected
Monchegorsk tundra affected by gas and dust pollution areas are now being analysed. Investigations held in the
discharge is nearly 4000 sq km. Pollution has reduced Caucasian NR found an increase in the levels of stron-
the life of lichen species in the reserve, destroyed fir tium -90 and caesium- 137 . Experts believe this is the
trees, and shortened the life ofconifer needles from 12 cause ofdeath ofred deer (Cervus elaphus) and chamois
to 2 years (as coming nearer to the source of pollution) . (Rupicapra rupicapra).
Degradation of plant cover affects in its turn animal
population structure. In areas suffering industrial pollu- The most serious consequences of agricultural pollu-
tion discharges , the numbers of red-backed moth tion (fertilizers and pesticides) in protected areas are
(Clethrionomis glareolus) decreased 6.5 times in the observed in the nature reserves of Central Asian Repub-
past 50 years. Shrews (Sorex sp.) are entirely absent lics. Thus, in Zeravshan NR the level of organochlorine
near the emission sources . Northern reindeer (Rangifer pesticides is several times higher than the rate consid-
ered safe to humans.
tarandus) can be found only in less polluted areas that
still have lichens.
Finally, agricultural water-flows in Tigrovaya Balka
Increasing alkalinity in soils near the Cherepovetsk NR have influenced the processes of mineralization ,
metallurgy enterprise influences the radial growth of substance turnover, composition, numbers, biomass,
tree trunks in the Darvinsky NR, making annual rings dominant groups of micro- and macro vegetation in
much thinner. The Baikalsky reserve suffers dust and lakes.
Table 6. Investment in nature reserves, national parks and game ( hunting ) reserves in
the Republics
Thousand rouble
Republic 1975 1980 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Armenia 350 710 655 943 975 1,043 1,179 1,431
Azerbaijan 285 449 597 597 698 766 774 834

Belarus 1,624 1,733 1,819 1,896 1,884 1,964 1,926 2,020
Georgia 400 430 1,415 1,612 1,603 1,674 1,639 1,504
Kazakhstan 313 606 677 882 866 1,027 1,351 1,528
Kyrgyzstan 142 447 439 488 530 506 555 626

Moldova 40 323 466 456 445 512 538 605
Russian Federation 5,725 10,587 16,959 22,345 25,172 25,983 28,704 33,967
Tadjikstan 105 177 215 242 330 328 275 384

Turkmenistan 348 865 1,220 1,386 1,365 1,563 1,456 1,475
Ukraine 2,423 3,254 4,811 4,720 5,518 5,800 6,246 7,233
Uzbekistan 281 684 787 840 914 982 1,153 1,300
Total 12,036 20,265 30,060 36,407 40,300 42,148 45,796 52,907
Average per protected area 115 154 198 223 237 244 258 282
8.6 Threats to effective management of Ministers to take an appropriate decision on making

of protected areas changes in the regime of the reserve. The governmental
decision was adopted . The USSR State Committee for
The majorthreats to effective protected area management Environmental Protection, being in charge of this re-
include decentralization of the administration structures, serve, was confronted by a fait accompli. Neither its
the great number of authorities responsible for protected protests, nor appeals of the USSR Ministry of Foreign
area management, uncertainty in inter-relations of legal Affairs and the USSR Procurator's Office, could affect
executive powers, and the lack of legal instruments the Turkmenian Administration decision.
concerning responsibility for protected areas manage-
ment. The same refers to biosphere reserves, whose inter-
national status has no perceived effect on solving man-
Decentralization of protected areas management struc- agement problems at national level, as the national
tures assumes that nature reserves, national parks, sanc- legislation has no provisions confirming international
tuaries, and natural monuments, are being managed by importance of protected areas certified by UNESCO.
different authorities, as mentioned before; and local
authorities of different ranks-from republican to agri- The role and the status of protected area management
cultural ones-often interfere in protected areas man- plans are not high, as major conflicts are related to land
agement. ownership. As a rule, in decision-making priorities,
economic resource utilization, which is part of sectoral
In recent years decentralization is growing menac- plans or plans of local authorities, predominate over
ingly, responding to changes in the political situation in plans of protected area management.
the country. Often " populism" is prevailing in the ac-
tivities of local powers, meaning that they take deci- Unfortunately, at present there is no standardization
sions on changes of protected areas boundaries or man- of systems and methodology for the evaluation of the
agement regime with the aim of satisfying the economic effectiveness of protected areas management. Usually,
and social demands of people. Sometimes such deci- these problems are touched upon in periodical publica-
sions violate the law; they are taken hastily, without tions of experts on protected areas or in their reports at
agreement with the authorities responsible for protected expert meetings , symposia, seminars, etc. There is a
area management; and their only aim is to "switch off" hope that in the near future the whole system of pro-
the dissatisfaction of the local people. Imposing the will tected areas management will be analysed and super-
of local powers on reserves to provide for hay, wood vised by committees and commissions on environmental
and fruits ofwild plants is a widespread form of intrud- protection attached to the Republics throughout the
ing into protected area management. In many cases region.
central management bodies have problems in cancel-
ling such orders of local authorities, as the administra- The administrations responsible for protected areas
tion of reserves is dependent on them in their economic management in the regional authorities regularly report
activities. to higher level authorities on the management prob-
lems. On the basis of these reports appropriate deci-
Information on cases of interference into protected sions, aimed at the improvement of protected areas
areas affairs is received from administration and staff management, are taken; the efficiency of such decisions
members , as well as from environmental circles con- is not adequate. At the same time, being good syntheses
cerned with the fate of the reserve . Usually the leaders of problems, they are widely distributed in vertical and
of the appropriate environmental agencies use all pos- horizontal management structures and penetrate the
sible influences at all levels to prevent interference into consciousness of environmentalists and other experts,
protected areas management. In some cases compro- thereby providing for the improvement the whole cum-
mises are found, in others intra-agency agreement is bersome and mixed-up management structure.
delayed for years; often it is almost impossible to obvi-
ate interferences into protected areas legally. Too often, It is proposed to establish an inter-republican Council
when local authorities intervened with protected area for Protected Areas Management. This Council could
management measures taken by the former Union become a body to synthesize and analyse problems,
related to the effectiveness of protected area manage-
(federal) or republican administrations , the result
looked like diplomatic activities rather than that of ment.
administrators with executive powers.
8.7 Transfrontier initiatives
The situation in Krasnovodsky reserve, a Ramsar site,
is a good illustration. Local inhabitants living on the In recent years the Soviet Union has been taking prac-
territory ofthe reserve or in its vicinity demanded that tical steps to develop transfrontier protected areas. In
the deputies ofthe Turkmenian Republic should change 1989 the Soviet-Finland bilateral nature reserve "Druzhba
the reserve conservation regime. The deputies put the - 1 " was established; the nature reserve " Druzhba - 2"
problem on the agenda ofthe republican Supreme Soviets. will include a large island archipelago in the Finnish
The Supreme Soviet instructed the Turkmenian Council bay. Preliminary research on the territory of a future
North Eurasia
Russian-Norwegian nature reserve has been started. ofrare and endangered species, and studies of biologi-
Poland and Belarus have agreed on the establishment of cal diversity in protected areas.
the bilateral nature reserve " Byelovezhskaya Puscha"
(already a World Heritage Site on both sides of the In particular, within the framework of bilateral inter-
border), and the Ukranian-Polish- Slovakian mountain governmental environmental agreements, expert groups
nature reserve " Beschady" in the Carpathian mountain of the former USSR are cooperating in the field of
system has been proposed. protected areas with the USA, Germany, Bulgaria,
Poland, Sweden, Canada, the former Czechoslovakia
Early in 1991 representatives of the USSR Goscom- and Finland. Proposals for establishment of similar
priroda and Governments of the Tuva and Mongolian working contracts with several other countries were
Republic signed a protocol on establishment of the being discussed.
Soviet-Mongolian Biosphere Reserve " Ubsu-Nur" . It
will be a cluster reserve, consisting of 7-8 sites and will
be representative of the natural variety of one of the 9. Priorities for action in the region
largest depressions in the world. Preliminary investiga-
The most important priorities for the development ofthe
tions were conducted on the territory of the future
protected areas system in the region are as follows:
reserve, primarily by scientists of the USSR Academy
of Sciences.
1. Expanding the network of protected
areas
Preliminary investigations have been completed also
for the establishment of the Soviet-Chinese reserve
The Act ofthe USSR Supreme Soviet of 27 November
"Khanka Lake", which is also a Ramsar site. To this end
1989 " On Urgent Measures for the Ecological Rehabili-
both neighbouring countries will be able to join their
tation ofthe Country" stipulated extendingthe total area
efforts in improving protection of numerous species of of protected territories of Categories I and II (nature
coastal and water birds, both nesting in the lake or reserves and national parks) by up to 2% by 1995, and
migrating through it. up to 3% by 2000. This should be implemented in each
of the countries of the former USSR. The network of
Establishment of Beringia International Park with the protected areas should be expanded also on the basis of
USA is of special importance. Work for its establishment
other conservation categories, i.e. sanctuaries, nature
was started as a result of initiatives of Presidents monuments and territories with traditional resource man-
Gorbachev and Bush. In the Soviet Union intensive
agement, providing for limited exploitation of natural
work is being done for creating this protected area. resources.
Preliminary evaluation suggests that this area, totalling
6 million ha, will have a complex zoning. Territories ofinternational importance, including Ramsar
and World Heritage Sites and transfrontier areas, are to
In total, seven existing, projected or proposed border play a significant part in the general system of protected
natural areas occur along the former USSR boundaries areas. They should form a continuous network of pro-
with Norway, Finland , Poland , Czechoslovakia, tected natural areas, capable of supporting biological
Mongolia, China and USA. The total length of the state diversity as the basis for the biosphere stability over vast
border line which is supposed to be "broken to pieces" areas. Special attention is being paid to protected ma-
by international reserves and national parks, comprises rine areas, including coastlines, whose area is rather
nearly 900km . Anyhow these are natural complexes, in small in the general system of protected areas in the
historic times joining together animal and plant king- region.
doms and human beings, providing spaces for tradi-
tional life styles. For ages people lived in harmony with
2. Development of the national parks
nature in these areas.
system
The Soviet Union had signed bilateral agreements in The national parks system needs to be developed as an
the field of environment with many countries of the independent institution , aimed at conservingthe natural
world. To provide for effective implementation of en- complexes and improving man's environmental culture
vironmental tasks within the framework of these agree- through his contacts with nature. Additional efforts will
ments joint commissions and working groups were be needed to develop the infrastructure of national
created. Cooperative programmes on protected natural parks, which require specific service facilities.
areas include mutual exchange of experience in organi-
zation ofprotected areas and providing for their conser- 3. Establishment of an integrated
vation, conducting joint research in protected areas, environmental monitoring system in
primarily ofmonitoring the environment, establishment protected areas
of databases of rare and endangered species of fauna
and flora in protected areas, animal marking and moni- The integrated monitoring system should include back-
toring their migration (including satellite monitoring) , ground and biological diversity monitoring. This sys-
organisation of nurseries for preservation and restoration tem should be based primarily in biosphere reserves. It
is expected that the regional system would be integrated sanctions were adopted against disturbance of the pro-
into the worldwide system of ecological monitoring. tected areas regime. Rangers in nature reserves and
national parks are limited in their rights to catch disturb-
4. Considerable increase of investment ers, a problem which needs to be addressed urgently.
into protected areas
6. Restructuring Administration/
An increase of at least 4-5 times, primarily from the
Management Authorities
republican budgets, is required to enable protected areas
in the region to attain their objectives. Insufficient in-
vestment will also lead to the failure of the increase in Effective coordination of all protected areas manage-
the protected area network. If the rate of protected area ment in the States of the region is required, consistent
system development remains at the same level as is was with republican rights for their natural resources. Ac-
for the past 15 years ( 1975-90), then the 3% growth of tivities agreed upon by Republics for the improvement
protected areas system in the region can be achieved of protected areas should become a part of inter-repub-
only by 2025 and not before 2000 as planned. lican coordinated policies for nature resource manage-
ment and environment protection. New tools for plan-
5. Improvement of protected areas ning their financial, material and technical security
legal protection should be developed with due regard for the transition
period to the market economy, decentralization of
As of the middle of 1991 there was no adopted Law on Management Authorities, inter-relations of the Repub-
Specially Protected Areas in the region . No legal lics and their relations with federal Authorities.
Table 7. Development of the network of nature reserves and national parks in the
Republics: perspectives up to 2005: North Eurasia
Republic Nature reserves National parks Total

% of % of % of
Area Republic Area Republic Area Republic
No ('000ha) total area No. ('000ha) total area No. ('000ha) total area
Armenia 7 92.3 3.08 1 150.0 5.03 8 242.3 8.08
Azerbaijan 15 237.6 2.73 5 664.0 7.63 21 901.6 10.36

Belarus 5 319.4 1.54 3 393.0 1.89 9 712.4 3.43
Georgia 21 197.0 2.81 1 19.4 0.29 22 216.4 3.09
Kazakhstan 23 3,600.2 1.33 8 1,999.9 0.73 31 5,600.1 2.06
Kyrgyzstan 8 285.2 1.44 8 258.9 1.3 16 544.1 2.75
Moldova 6 21.4 0.63 4 38.6 1.14 10 60.0 1.76
Russian Federation 165 42,637.1 2.48 55 22,947.1 1.34 220 65,584.2 3.84
Tadjikistan 5 180.7 1.26 4 1,430.0 10 9 1,610.7 11.26
Turkmenistan 11 1,361.4 2.79 2 250.0 0.51 13 1,611.4 3.3
Ukraine 25 487.8 0.81 13 626.9 1.04 38 1,114.7 1.85
Uzbekistan 13 1,510.2 3.38 3 932.3 2.09 16 2,442.5 5.46
Total 304 50,930.3 2.29 107 29,710.1 1.34 413 80,640.4 3.63
North Eurasia
References
Bychkov, V.A. (1991). Conservation resource manage- Imetkhenov A.B. (1991). Natural monuments ofBaikal.
ment protection and the restoration of sea mammals. Novosibirsk, Nauka (Science), S.B. , 130 pp.
From The review of the state and perspectives for IUCN ( 1992) . Protected areas ofthe World: A review
the establishment of sea nature reserves in the USSR, of National systems. Volume 2. Palaearctic.
based onthe report ofVNIIPRIRODA ofthe USSR Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring
Minpriroda. Moscow, 1991 . Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK. 556pp.
East Asia
protected
Percentage
Less
%
0.1
than 15-20
%
%
0.1-5 than
More
%
20
5-10
% Km
10-15 0 400
800
%
.Percentage
Map
areas
protected
designated
legally
within
included
country
of
Contents
Page
1.1 The history of people and nature . 161
1.2 Environmental implications of economic development • 162
1.3 The growth of the protected area system . 162
1.4 Lessons learned . . . . 165
2.1 Marine parks 166
4. Protected area institutions . 167
5. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas . 168
8.1 Land tenure . 170
8.2 Conflicts with development 172
8.3 Relations with local people • 172
8.4 Protected areas and research 172
8.5 Management effectiveness 173
Acknowledgements 174
References 174
Tables
Table 1 . Summary of the protected areas system . .. 162
Table 2 . Protected areas by IUCN management categories • 162

Page
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in East Asia . 168
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets • 169
Table 7. Protected areas in Japan . 171
Table 8 . Visitors to national parks in Korea 171
Table 9. Financial investments in national parks in Korea • 171
Figures

areas .. 158
Figure 1 . Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) • 164
Figure 2 . Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) . 164

East Asia
Wang Xianpu , Regional Vice-Chair for East Asia,

IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
1. Historical perspective In China, the modern creation of protected areas dates

from the middle of this century . In 1956, scientists
People in the Far East have always had a strong aware- recognized the growing need for the conservation of
ness of nature and of the need for its preservation . Often nature and natural resources, and proposed that the
this notion was based on simple, aesthetic values of a development of a network of reserves might be the most
particular region or natural feature, rather than a con- satisfactory way of achieving this goal (Wang Xianpu,
scious awareness of the overriding need for the conser- 1989a). The Government approved this proposal and
vation of natural resources. Nonetheless, it has resulted delimited 40 reserves in the same year. There followed
in the establishment of certain sites as protected areas some changes to the legal status and structure of pro-
and, moreover, has probably contributed to a greater tected areas as well as the strengthening of certain
understanding and appreciation of protected areas among institutions but, for a considerable amount of time, no
the people ofthe region. It is therefore not surprising to additional sites were proclaimed until the rapid devel-
find that within the East Asia Region, there already opment of the last few years (see Table 3 and Figures 1
exists a substantial network of protected areas, although and 2) . The real steps toward conservation of nature in
the status, degree of national coverage and public ap- Taiwan took place after 1970; the Forest Bureau estab-
preciation of such areas vary considerably throughout lished Taiwan's first wildlife protected area in 1974
the region. Against this background, there is now a (Aniruddh 1989).
major need for a thorough review of protected area

issues, including an assessment of the problems that Perhaps some of the first references to wildlife con-
these sites experience and a series of recommended servation dates from the 7th century AD when the
actions that would help mitigate some of the problems Japanese Emperor organized a "bird hunting and pres-
affecting protected areas in this region. ervation section" in the Imperial Government. Japan
passed its modern National Parks Law in 1931 , enabling
the future establishment of specially protected areas for
1.1 The history of people and nature aesthetic and recreational purposes. This was based on
the Imperial Game Laws of 1892 , ensuring regulation
As a biogeographical region , East Asia covers an area of hunting reserves. Twelve sites were designated as
of almost 12 million sq km, encompassing a diverse protected areas in Japan between 1934 and 1936, in-
array of climatic zones , topography, ecosystems and cluding several coastal sites. By 1957, there were 19
local cultures. It also hosts some ofthe most spectacular national parks, comprising 1.8 million ha, or almost 5%
scenery and wildlife in the world, although this has been ofJapan's land area, while today there are a range of
poorly described in general, owing to a combination of protected area categories, bringing the total land cover-
political restrictions on scientific investigation and the- age to 16.2%. (Table 1).
harshness of the region itself. For these reasons , the
protected area concept is not nearly as well developed Protected area development in the other countries of
in East Asia as, for example, in the South and Southeast the region began even later, with the Republic of Korea
Asian Region. However, ancient thinking on conserv- establishing its first national park (Chiri National Park)
ing nature and natural resources was known at least in in 1967 and Mongolia in 1975 (the Great Gobi Desert,
the Golden Age of Classical Learning 2,000 years ago, encompassing an area of 5.3 million ha) , although other
in the works of such scholars as Confucius and Lao Zi. categories of protected areas have been protected for
Concept of nature and nature protection are embodied much longer in Mongolia at least. Development of
in the philosophies of Confucianism , Taoism and protected areas in these latter countries, and in the
Buddhism, leading to de facto protection of mountains Korean DPR, has been a relatively slow process, for a
and forests. number of reasons.
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : East Asia

China 9,597,000 307,670 3.2 1,300 0.0 308,970 3.2

| Hong Kong 1,062 378 36.0 0 0.0 378 36.0
Japan 369,700 46,656 12.6 13,419 3.6 60,075 16.2
Korea, PDR 122,310 579 0.5 0 0.0 579 0.5
Korea, Republic 98,445 7,568 7.7 0 0.0 7,568 7.7
Macau 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Mongolia 1,565,000 61,678 3.9 8,903 0.6 70,581 4.5
Taiwan 35,990 2,885 8.0 0 0.0 2,885 8.0
Total 11,789,524 427,414 3.6 23,622 0.2 447,773 3.8
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: East Asia
I II III IV V TOTAL
China 3 984 393 283,209 38 23,476 434 307,670

Hong Kong - - 12 378
Japan 7 104 15 12,991 650 26,038 13 7,523 685 46,656
Korea, PDR - 1 439 1 140 - - 2 579
Korea, Republic 6 415 20 7,154 26 7,568
Macau - -
Mongolia 12 2,243 3 59,436 - - 15 61,678
Taiwan - 2 1975 1 470 2 441 5 2,885
Total 28 3,746 21 74,841 0 0 1045 309,857 85 38,972 1179 427,414
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
1.2 Environmental implications of 1.3 The growth ofthe protected area

economic development system
Recent decades have brought about a major expansion

Economic development has not been evenly distributed in the East Asian Region (Table 3 and Figures 1 and 2).
throughout this geographical region in recent years, and Time, too, has brought about some major changes in
has been chiefly concentrated in Japan, the Republic of peoples ' understanding of protected areas which, cou-
Korea and Taiwan. Certain activities such as mining, pled with the rapidly escalating population densities of
logging and fishing have certainly had severe impacts countries and regions such as China, Japan, Korea and
on local environments, often to the detriment of the Taiwan, has resulted in a surge of pressures on existing
latter as well as to the local inhabitants who rely on these protected areas. Development issues concerning hous-
resources. Conflicts have arisen between park authori- ing, industry and mineral exploitation have also crept
ties and development organizations , leading to losses of into the issue ofprotected area management.
biological diversity. In general , however, this aspect has
not received adequate attention and has been poorly In recent years there have been many developments
documented, but should be treated more seriously in and achievements within the protected area field in of
park establishment, management and planning in future East Asia. Since the 1970s, in China, for example,
years. people have gradually recognized the importance of
East Asia
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : East Asia

China 2.5 0.9 12.7 83.9 13,546 307,669

Hong Kong 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 378
Japan 47.6 15.5 18.8 18.1 89 46,655
Korea, PDR 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 438 578
Korea, Republic 0.0 28.7 56.5 14.8 0 7,568
Macau 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Mongolia 1.0 2.9 94.4 1.7 5,500 61,678
Taiwan 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 2,885
Total 7.4 3.3 25.5 63.8 19,574 427,415
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km . Only protected areas meeting criteria for
IUCN management categories I-V are included . Sites are only in the database once, therefore if a major change in
size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the figures may be distorted .
environmental conservation and, as a result, the estab- to protect remaining vestiges of naturalhabitat in each
lishment ofprotected areas has progressed more quickly nation.
than in preceding years. The conservation, research and
rational utilization of nature and natural resources, as The first national parks in this region were established
well as the establishment of protected areas, are now in Japan in 1934 (Akan, Aso-Kuju, Chubu-Sangaku,
clearly stated in the national constitution. Likewise, Daisetsuzan, Kirishima-Yaku , Nikko, Seto Nakai and
Unzen-Amakusa National Parks), the most recent-
appropriate legislation relating to environmental pro-
tection has been enacted, while other laws address Kushiro Shilsugen National Park-in 1987. Japan's
specific topics, such as forests or grasslands. During the protected area movement itself, however, can be traced
back to 1873 , when the Head of the Cabinet issued a
1980s, the reform and open policy of China played an
important role in the course of protected areas in this proclamation with regard to preparing public parks,
country. especially within and around cities.
Since they were first envisaged, the laws and regula-

The establishment of a reserve network in China is tions concerning protected areas have been substan-
considered as one of the tasks of national economic and tially revised and expanded to accommodate additional
social development. During the past ten years the num- categories and responsibilities of protected areas. A
berofprotected areas has greatly increased and , accord- major amendment to the national legislation concerning
ing to official data in 1989, the total number of protected protected areas in Japan was again made in 1957 , with
areas was 381 , of which 31 were national reserves the passage ofthe Natural Parks Law, which defined the
comprising an area of almost 237,000 sq km (2.5% of purpose of the parks as " the protection of the places of
the country's land area) (Department of Nature Conser- scenic beauty and also through the promoted utilization
vation in National Environmental Protection Bureau, thereof, as a contribution to the health, recreation and
1989), with up to 5% of the land area being protected culture of the people". In 1972, the Environment Pres-
in some provinces. ervation Law was passed and national parks were incor-
porated under the new Environment Agency, which had
improved means to buy private land in parks.
Although there have been many changes in the devel-
opment of protected areas in China during the past 40 The passing of this law also resulted in the introduc-
years, there remains a considerable amount of work to tion of three new conservation categories: wilderness
be done if the economic , cultural and scientific devel- areas; natural conservation areas; and prefectural nature
opment of these reserves is to be utilized to its best conservation areas, which specifically aimed at protect-
potential . One ofthe main outstanding problems facing ing areas of biological diversity. Decisions governing
all protected area ecosystems in this region is the lack the size, layout and management planning of national
of public understanding for such sites. Traditional ide- parks in Japan are now taken by the Environment Agency,
ology whereby natural resources are seen as a conven- in collaboration with the respective prefectures, minis-
ient, exploitable resource is still widespread and, in tries and other agencies. A similar process is undertaken
view ofthe ever- increasing pressures being imposed on for matters relating to nature conservation areas, al-
these sites, people should be made aware of the serious though in this case, public hearings may also be organ-
problems that might occur unless urgent action is taken ized to discuss the matter.
500
Number of sites
300
200
100
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
1,400
Number of sites
1,200 Area (x1000sqkm )
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Five year period begining...
East Asia
Today Japan has three main categories of protected A comprehensive review of the region's protected
area: national parks; quasi-national parks; and prefec- areas systems has been prepared by the World
ture-owned natural parks. In recent years several addi- Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992).
tional categories ofconservation areas have been introduced
to protect the nation's biodiversity, including special 1.4 Lessons learned
wildfowl and mammal sanctuaries, aimed at protecting
the habitat of endangered species , and wintering grounds The need for improved management of existing re-
forwildfowl. Areas designated as national parks consist serves has become a crucial issue. In many instances
not only of national and local government lands, but protected areas lack direction and there are often major
also private land. In fact, 23% of the land under national shortfalls in funding, as well as uncertainties in the
parks in the western part of Japan are privately owned. responsibilities ofthose in charge of the reserves. Under
such conditions some reserves have no effective man-
Although consideration has been given to the need for agement programmes and are merely considered as
burdens.
protected areas in the Koreas since the early 1940s, all
development was curtailed with the onset ofWorld War
Experience in the region has shown that in order to
II. The establishment of protected areas in the Republic
address these problems, the following steps are required
of Korea is therefore a relatively recent innovation
to improve the situation:
when, in 1967,the country's first national park, Mount
Chirisan (44,000ha), was established . Three other sites
■ National management regulations must be enacted
were declared national parks in 1968 (Kyongju, Mount for protected areas and a series of criteria must be
Kyeryong andhallyo Marine Reserve) , with many more developed for the design of the reserves;
in subsequent years.
A procedure for establishing reserves of different
categories should be formulated , and regular inspec-
Management of the national parks in Taiwan is gov-
tions should be made of reserves already estab-
erned by the very comprehensive "National Park Law",
lished:
promulgated in 1972. In addition, there are numerous
customs, traditions and practices, many of which have ■ A series of regional meetings should be organized
been adapted from those of the US National Park Service, to discuss how best to identify potential funding
but few of which have been codified in written policy sources, to improve management and to strengthen
(The Taiwan Nature Conservation Strategy, 1985). international cooperation ;
■ Closer working links should be established between

The national parks of Taiwan have been established international conservation organizations working in
primarily for visitor use, and developments including relevant topics;
settlements and forestry operations are established within
the boundaries of protected areas. Like those of other ■ A national training system should be established for
industrialized nations, its national parks now face many protected area managers and conservationists ;
threats to the integrity of their resources and natural
processes. These not only include logging, surface min- ■ Conservation issues in protected areas should be
linked to development issues and the needs of local
ing and hydro-electric development, but also road con-
people;
struction, illegal incursions, vandalism and the dumping
of rubbish.
■ Local people should be encouraged to contribute to
park planning, management and operating activities.
Because of its high human population, many of
Taiwan's lowland forests have already been cleared for
agriculture and settlement. The country's existing and
proposed national parks lie along the central mountain- Protected areas are to be found in all countries of the
ous ridge of the island, extending from the northern
region, although in the case of Macau, the area protected
volcanic mountains outside Taipei to the southern tip is negligible.
(Mackinnon and Mackinnon, 1986) . Overall these are
thought to include a variety of representative ecosys- The national park system of Japan covers approxi-
tems from sub-alpine to marine. mately 14% of the total national land area, while nature
conservation areas cover an additional 0.23% and wild-
The Government of Taiwan is also committed to the fowl and mammal reserves a further 9% . There is,
idea of national parks and has provided adequate fund- however, some degree of overlap between several sites.
ing and personnel to establish parks. The National Parks All ofthe nation's parks are carefully zoned into one of
Department, established in 1981 , is responsible for the four categories: special protection areas; marine parks;
administration of national parks and the planning and special areas; and ordinary areas. This classification is
implementation of the National Conservation Strategy based on the quality and degree of human impact to the
and the Coastal Zone Management Plan. ecosystem , the socio-economic, cultural and economic
importance ofthe site, and its overall attractiveness for most important barriers to the development of pro-
visitors. tected areas in China (Zhu Jing et al., 1985) , and
probably elsewhere in the region.
Overall, it is believed that the existing protected area
network in Japan is acceptable, protecting representative In December 1990, the Tibet Autonomous Region
examples of all major ecosystems (marine issues are Government designated 240,000 sq km as the Chang
discussed later). Some parts of the protected areas sys- Tang Reserve, which will be administered by the Forest
tem have apparently experienced some management Bureau in Lhasa (Schaller, 1991). The Forest Ministry
problems, although few details are generally available in Beijing is also planning to add this reserve to its
on this aspect. national network of reserves and thus provide financial
assistance. Once established, the Chang Tang Reserve
With an area of 1,565,000 sq km, Mongolia currently would be the second largest protected land area in the
has 17 protected areas, which offer some degree of
world. This region is of particular importance in view
protection to about 70,581 sq km of land, or 4.5% ofthe of its unique high mountain flora and fauna.
total land area. At the present time, little information is
available on the status ofthese reserves or whether they Bordering the Chang Tang Reserve in the northeast
represent a satisfactory coverage of the major biomes, in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region is the Arjin Shan
except to note that little expansion has occurred in the Reserve (45,000 sq km), which was established in 1983.
past decade. A further recommendation has been made to include an
additional area to the west of the Arjin Shan and pro-
Today there are 20 national parks in the Republic of
posed Chang Tang reserves, as it is such an important
Korea, which afford some degree of protection to ap-
area for local wildlife populations (Schaller, 1991 ).
proximately 7,154 sq km , about 7.7 of the total country
area. All of these sites are listed under Category V- The protected area network in China has suffered
Protected Landscape/Seascape- according to IUCN's from an ineffective management system for many years
designations. The People's Democratic Republic of and, as a result, few reserves are currently intact and are
Korea has two protected areas covering 0.5 of the total likely to remain in an unsatisfactory state for the imme-
land area.
diate future. Some of the major problems that have a
direct impact on reserves in China include: inadequate
Taiwan has four national parks accounting for
boundary demarcation and weak legislation; illegal hunt-
6% of its land surface, as well as a number of small
ing and timber felling; the influences of unrestricted
coastal reserves protecting mangroves and other habi-
tourism; construction of roads, buildings, dams and
tats. Yushan National Park is the largest ( 1,055 sq km)
canals; mining; internal population migration; exces-
and most remote of Taiwan's national parks , protecting
sive grazing and land reclamation; and uncontrolled
many rare and threatened species. True rain forests are
fires. In general, the overall level of management in
confined to the south of the island, where they are
reserves is low and most suffer from poor organization,
protected in Kenting National Park and on Orchid
lack of direction and motivation, lack of funds and
Island. Ta-Wu Mountain in the south-west has been
equipment, and poor relationships with local residents
declared a Nature Preserve (470 sq km).
(Wang Xianpu, 1986c) .
In recent years, there has been further progress in
developing protected areas in China. In total there are In Hong Kong, following the enactment ofthe Coun-
419 in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Of try Park Ordinance, there was the establishment of a
those in China, there are now more than 60 national comprehensive network of 19 country parks, covering
reserves, comprising a total land area of 289,787 sq km, 37.5% ofthe territory (40,833ha) over the period 1977-
1981. This has been augmented by 14 special areas and
over 3% of the national land area. The increasing rate
47 sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest. Note that these are
ofprotected area establishment is now 36% per annum ,
four times that of agricultural and industrial production. not recorded in Tables 1 and 2 due to the 10 sq km
minimum size criterion.
While this is certainly an encouraging sign for environ-
mental protection in China, the effort and momentum
Comparative details of the protected area network
could be lost ifthese reserves are not properly gazetted ,
within East Asia are provided in Tables 1 and 2.
established and integrated within the local situation.
In China, the existing system of protected areas is 2.1 Marine parks

believed to include all the major centres of biological
diversity, as well as representative examples of the International attention was directed to marine parks by
country's mainhabitat types and endemic species (Wang the FirstWorld National Parks Conference in 1962 and,
Xianpu, 1980b). Reserves are divided into a number of in 1964, the Nature Conservation Society of Japan
different categories, but there is no practical application (NCSJ) created a marine parks investigation committee.
within these (Department of Edition in North-west Uni- Today, there are 58 locations within Japan's national
versity, 1987; Wang Xianpu, 1980a; Zhu Jing et al., and quasi-national parks that have been designated Marine
1981). Indeed, it is felt that this is perhaps one of the Parks under the Natural Parks Law, encompassing
East Asia
some 2,418ha in total . Most of these parks are quite countries , the relevant authorities urgently need to con-
small, averaging 41ha, while the largest (Ogasawara duct further planning, replenishing the existing reserve
Marine Park Area) and smallest (Shimokita Taijima networks and meeting the requirements of economic
Marine Park Area) measure 463ha and 3ha, respec- development and of cultural and scientific develop-
tively. Ofthe other countries in this region, only Taiwan ment. As human pressures are constantly impinging on
and Korea have marine parks, while Hong Kong has the majority of protected areas in this region, it would
protection of some coastal area with its country parks. also be advisable if steps were taken to develop an
appropriate infrastructure for conducting environmental
While there are obvious geographical limitations for
impact assessments within the respective regions.
developing marine parks within this region, countries
such as China, Korea, and Japan, in particular, should
examine this aspect in more detail, especially in relation 4. Protected area institutions
to development issues such as ecotourism and fishing
rights. This subject is treated in more detail in the The present administrative structure of protected areas
Marine Regional Review presented elsewhere in this in China is based on unified coordination and decentral-
volume. ized management. In this system, private institutions
have not yet had any influence on protected areas. Until
the 1980's,the Bureau of Agriculture of the Ministry of
3. Additional protected areas Economic Affairs was the only official agency to set
recommended
wildlife policy. The National Parks Department was
founded in 1981 within the Ministry of the Interior.
Although representative examples of the major floral
and faunal components are included in the existing
In China, all protected areas are governed under the
system of protected areas in China, there is clearly an
responsible departments of the various provinces , most
uneven balance in the national choice of sites, as well
of which have, in turn, created special institutions to-
as the area of coverage that major habitats receive. For
handle such affairs. In recent years, China has seen an
example, protected areas in many biogeographic prov-
obvious improvement in the level of nature conserva-
inces occupy less than 1 % of the total area of that
tion and scientific research in this country. In some
province . However, what is probably more important is
provinces, laws and regulations have been enacted to
the actual content of the reserves-in terms of ecologi-
conserve a number of rare and endangered species,
cal diversity and national heritage as well as their state
while elsewhere there has also been an improvement in
of management. Particular attention in the form of
the management of protected areas (Wang Xianpu,
establishing managed protected areas in China is re-
1987, 1989b and 1990) . Some reserves have been des-
quired in the northern forest region , the southern lime-
ignated as Biosphere Reserves under the UNESCO
stone mountains, and the north-western dry and
MAB Programme and several have been named World
semiarid region. Likewise, attention is required in the Heritage sites , while others have benefitted from inter-
wetland, coastal , marine and island environments,
national cooperation with IUCN, WWF, UNEP and
where the number ofprotected areas is quite inadequate
many other organizations. Participation in international
(Department of Nature Conservation in National Envi-
conventions and programmes is summarised in Table 4 ,
ronmental Protection Bureau, 1989; Zhu Jing et al.,
and a list of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List
1985).
is given in Table 5.
In Japan, the Environment Agency conducts an ap-

praisal of the national park planning process every five The national parks of the Republic of Korea and the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea have been de-
years, while also examining the need to expand or
veloped with cultural attractions in mind, and largely
designate new nature conservation areas. Opinions are
based on information gathered through national sur- consist of numerous remains and examples of the
veys, as well as those conducted by Prefectural Govern- Buddhist culture. Historically there have been a number
ments . New proposals for wildfowl and mammal of bottlenecks to protected area management in the
Republic of Korea, and these have had to be overcome
sanctuaries are also prepared on a five-year basis by the
Environment Agency, which is considering the estab- in ensuring the protection, development of facilities and
lishment of reserves for species other than mammals or administration of the national parks. One of the major
birds, based on new proposals from surveys conducted problems arose because all of the land area covered by
by Prefecture Governments and/or research institutions, the parks was privately owned. Since 1981 , however,
as well as information available in Japan's Red Data new laws have been formulated and set within the single
Natural Parks Law, which now simplifies this process .
Books (published in 1990).
The Republic of Korea National Parks Authority was
Specific details concerning additional protected areas established in 1987, and has assumed complete control
in the other countries within this region are, at present, of affairs related to national parks management. In the
unavailable , although studies of natural areas are under- Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Academy
way in at least Taiwan, and the Hong Kong protected of Sciences has assumed responsibility for protected
area system is fairly comprehensive. However, in most areas.
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions : East Asia

China December 1985 4 249,000 9 2,246,772 March 1992 6 529,457

Japan June 1992 0 4 116,000 June 1980 4 10,402
Korea, Republic September 1988 0 1 37,430
Korea, DPR - 1 132,000
Mongolia February 1990 0 1 5,300,000
O
Portugal (Macau) September 1980 0 November 1980 0
United Kingdom
OI
(Hong Kong ) May 1984 0 January 1976 0 0
Taiwan
from the man/nature interaction, rather than natural features alone. These sites include Mount Taishan in China,
which has not been included in the above table.
Table 5. World Heritage sites in East Asia also a major problem that needs addressing (Wang
Xianpu, 1984).
China
However, in the Republic of Korea, Japan and Hong
Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area Kong there are thriving non-governmental organiza-
Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest tions concerned with conservation. The National Parks
Area Association of Korea was created in 1971 , being set up
Mount Huangshan to "ensure the sound development of attractive natural
Mount Taishan scenic areas" including national, provincial and country
Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area parks. In Japan there are a large number of local and
national voluntary organizations, some of which own or
One of these sites (Mount Taishan) is a mixed natural/ manage their own private protected areas. One of the
cultural sites , inscribed on the list on the basis of beauty largest NGOs is the Wild Bird Society of Japan which
resulting from man/nature interaction, rather than natural owns 10 sanctuaries.
features alone.

The Japanese Environment Agency is responsible for investment in protected areas
all matters relating to protected areas in that country. It
also maintains close links with other governmental min-
In Japan, the Environment Agency's budget for national
istries during the proposal and development stage of
park facilities is approximately three billion yen per
new protected areas. National park management authori-
annum (US$24.8 million). During the past 19 years, the
ties are responsible for the management of national
Environment Agency and prefectural authorities have
parks on the ground, which includes such issues as
purchased private lands which have cost about ten bil-
controlling development, logging and collection of ma-
lion yen (US$82.6 million).
terials from the various sites. In recent years, interna-
tional cooperation has been extended by Japan to other
countries. Protected areas are popular sites in Japan and receive
large numbers of tourists each year, some of the highest
One of the major shortcomings that needs to be ad- park visitor figures in the world. In 1989 alone, the
dressed within the existing system of protected area following levels were recorded: 387 million visitors to
management in China and Mongolia is the poor level of national parks; 292 million to quasi-national parks; and
support and communication from the relevant central 276 million to prefectural natural parks. This total of
departments to field staff, as well as a general lack of 955 million visitors means that the average Japanese
communications between the various departments whose visits a protected area nearly eight times per year. The
activities might in some way be related to the manage- income generated from tourism is unknown but is cer-
ment of a protected area. Indeed, communications tainly substantial. Even if each visitor spend only the
between the relevant government departments in charge equivalent of US$ 10, total expenditures would approach
of nature conservation and those responsible for activi- US$ 10 billion; the true figure could easily be 10 times
ties such as development, agriculture, mining, etc., is that amount.
East Asia
In Hong Kong the number of visitors to protected protected areas receiving an annual financial pack-
areas has risen to 9.46 million per year, also repre- age, which would ensure greater security for the
senting a significant level of financial investment. sites and the staff members.
The Republic of Korea also has substantial numbers ■ Clear budgetary requirements should be prepared
ofvisitors to protected areas, reaching nearly 40 million for all protected areas, both for the immediate future
in 1990 (almost equivalent to the country's population) as well as on a longer term basis. Additional funding
(Table 8). Expenditures by these tourists can be esti- sources should also be identified and approached.
mated at US$2 billion per year, far greater than the
annual financial investments in national parks of US$56.5 Every protected area should be provided with a
skilled and enthusiastic team of managers and sup-
million (Table 9).
port staff, including a public relations officer.
By comparison, tourism is limited in Mongolia. How-
ever, the possibility of establishing organized hunting ■ Consideration should be given to providing im-
for tourists has been initiated . It has been calculated that proved tourist facilities and encouraging tourism as
foreign currency revenues from tourist hunting parties a means of generating additional funds for protected
in reserves could be over US$500,000 annually. areas.
In Taiwan, the National Park Department and Agri- ■ Stronger links should be forged with international
cultural Bureau have significant funds, so their budget conservation organizations, with the intention of
for national park and protected area facilities is rela- receiving increased technical support and training,
tively greater than other countries in the region. and perhaps access to international funding.
Strictly speaking, in China there is as yet no recog- ■ Public awareness campaigns should be organized to
nized budgetary allocation to protected areas, because promote actively the need for nature conservation
it is not yet seen as an integral part of the national and sustainable resource utilization, respecting the
economic and social development policy. Unlike the attitudes of local people.
construction of a factory or school, which are planned
■ Private companies should be encouraged to invest
and managed according to a definite plan and predeter-
in the establishment and management of protected
mined budget, there are no such guidelines for protected
areas.
area development and management. Funding prospects
are therefore uncertain and many protected areas re-
ceive additional funds from other sources, which are Of these, perhaps the most concern has been ex-
pressed about the potential role of tourism. If an area
often barely adequate to ensure the basic running ofthe
receives adequate scientific management, control and
area. Some key reserves may get an occasional cash
coordination in its activities, tourism may clearly fulfil
infusion from the government for a specific purpose but,
an important function in the protected areas of China
in the majority of cases, funds are raised from private
sources on the strength of the work and importance of (Wang Xianpu, 1989b) . Some reserves have already
developed an element of ecological tourism which has
the site itself. In order to address these inadequacies, the
following steps should be taken: begun to make a contribution to the upkeep of those
particular sites. However, the impacts or indeed the
■ Reserve planning and management should be brought potential of this activity have not been fully examined.
into line with the state plan of economic construc- Preliminary data for protected areas management agency
tion and social development. This would result in budgets within the region are given in Table 6.
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets : East Asia
Budget in US Dollar
Country/responsible agency national currency equivalent Year Notes Source
China- Ministry ofForestry/

Environment Protection
Agency CNY The Ministry of Forestry is
responsible for management
ofsome 90% of terrestrial
protected areas. 14
Japan - Nature Conservation Bureau JPY
Korea, Dem People's Rep KPW
Korea, Rep KRW
Mongolia MNT
Sources: [ 14] Thornback, J. ( 1986) . Report on a Visit to China, 22 June-5 July. Unpublished report. 7pp.
6. Human capacity in protected 7. Priorities for future investment

areas management in protected areas
In all ofthe countries considered in this review, the most

The human element, whether it concerns the traditional immediate tasks in protected area management are to
rights of an indigenous tribe or the political affairs of a improve the system of existing protected areas through
decision-maker involved with nature conservation, is expansion and inclusion of under-represented habi-
crucial to the entire process of protected area manage- tats , in conjunction with the strengthening and promo-
ment worldwide. In China, for example, some prov- tion of effective management, so that ultimately the
inces have better developed protected areas than others, functions ofprotected areas can be fully integrated with
largely as a result of the attention given by the authori- ecological, economic and social activities. Thus the
ties in promoting the values and functions of reserves protected areas can perhaps become self-sustaining. In
and training facilities. order to reach that goal , however, representative areas
of different categories should be chosen to exemplify
effective management. In this way, activities and pre-
In China, the present number of professional conser- vailing conditions may be better controlled and any
vationists is over 6,000, and the number of people experience gained in the process might then be shared
indirectly participating in the work of protected areas among fellow park managers.
exceeds 20,000 people. Each department conducts an
annual training course for the conservation staff, and In addition, it is necessary to establish new protected
some ofthe training courses are carried out in coopera- areas in differenthabitat types, particularly those centres
tion with international organizations such as UNESCO, of high biodiversity and endemism, scenic resorts , and
IUCN, UNEP, and WWF. In recent years, some col- freshwater and marine areas. Particular attention should
leges and universities have also begun to offer courses be given to remaininghabitats in areas of high popula-
on nature conservation , aiming to promote and cultivate tion density, such as the eastern part of China and the
trained personnel in the field of conservation and pro- lowlands of Taiwan. In order to complete those tasks,
tected area managers. In many regions, however, the however, a carefully planned series of scientific re-
working and living conditions in the field are still rather search programmes should be developed.
rustic, and people are often unwilling to endure such
Future consideration for such development should
situations. It would appear that this aspect requires
further attention. give adequate attention to financial concerns and in-
vestment in the natural resources of protected areas. In
particular, governments should be requested to allocate
Management of protected areas in Japan is carried out increased amounts of money for the establishment and
by central and local government authorities. Central management of protected areas in different regions. In
government officials number about 200 people, of which addition, however, assistance from private, national and
60 are national park rangers based within the parks , the international sponsors should also be sought. Protected
remainder working in the Nature Conservation Bureau area management is no longer only a national concern
in Tokyo. In addition, an estimated 300 local govern- and can rarely be managed as such on a long-term basis.
ment officials are employed in the protected areas. International assistance and development cooperation
Through special training institutes for the environment, has never been so urgently required to assist with the
the Environment Agency organizes several training courses management and protection ofour national heritage and
for park managers and rangers, as well as for personnel every effort should be made to ensure that this is carried
from local government departments who are involved out.
with nature conservation and protected area manage-
ment. Each year, approximately 100 officials partici-
pate in 7-10 day training courses. As of 1990, the 8. Major protected area issues in
the region
Environment Agency also runs an international training
course on nature conservation and national park man-
agement, in cooperation with the Japanese International 8.1 Land tenure
Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the Japan Wildlife
Research Centre . To date, trainees from Asian, African, Most of the protected areas in Japan are designated
Latin American and Eastern European countries have irrespective ofland-ownership or tenure issues. It is felt,
participated in the course. however, that Wilderness Areas should only be estab-
lished on land already owned by the state or local public
authorities. In fact, the majority of the conservation
In relatively small territories such as Hong Kong the areas are owned by the state, while approximately 70%
numberof staffare significant. Within the Conservation of the area of national and quasi-national parks are
and Country Parks Branch in 1988 there were 1,276 either owned by the state or local public authorities.
staff, 1,179 alone in the Country Parks Division. By
contrast staffing levels within Mongolia are relatively Japan's system of protected areas is based upon a
low given the area of the country. zoning system similar to that used in city planning
East Asia
projects. The Japanese Natural Parks Law allows a zation must be approved by the responsible authorities.
range of activities and socio-economic developments Most reserves have a free access policy, but no direct
within each type of designated area but, on occasion , exploitation is permitted within the protected area. In
this may lead to a conflict of interests between the order to satisfy the peoples' needs, this policy must
private land owner and the conservation organization . combine the conservation of natural resources with their
For example, on private lands within an officially des- sustainable utilization, planning the process through
ignated protected area, the activities of the land owner appropriate public awareness programmes, education
are greatly curtailed, although a reduction in taxes is and legislation in order to satisfy these requirements. It
sometimes an incentive in this system . In contrast, if the has become apparent that the long- term prospects for
land had previously been of some traditional use to local protected area establishment are not good if the estab-
people, this type of utilization is allowed to continue. lishment of a reserve is not supported by the local
residents, especially when the goal and means of imple-
In China, there are no privately-owned reserves, the mentation cannot be understood by the people, who
tenure of protected areas instead largely belonging to may seek to reclaim the land, cut timber and hunt
the country; a few are governed by collectives. Under wildlife for their own survival (Wang Xianpu, 1986b;
such circumstances, activities related to resource utili-
Wang Xianpu et al. , 1989a).
Table 7. Protected areas in Japan
Category Number Area (sq km)
National Parks 28 20,501

Quasi-national parks 54 12,888
Prefecture natural parks 299 19,906
Total 381 53,295
Source: Akai , 1990
Table 8. Visitors to national parks in Korea ( persons in thousands)
1987 1989 1990 1991
Land 26,197 32,669 32,478 27,919

Marine 31,081 39,216 39,147 32,856
Total 31,081 39,216 39,147 32,856

National Population ' 42,082 42,380 42,793 N.A.
Population in ' 000s
Table 9. Financial investments in national parks in Korea
1989 1990 1991
Personnel 6,772 8,514 9,691

Facility 32,972 33,639 36,608
Maintenance 3,265 2,861 3,592
Others 6,438 5,344 6,608
Total (US$ in thousands) 49,447 50,358 56,499

In the Republic of Korea much of the forest area is ever possible, be encouraged to work within the pro-
privately-owned, and a public body,the Forest Associa- tected area as part ofthe staff composition so that they
tion Union, plays an important role in the implementa- may see and experience at firsthand how beneficial such
tion of forest protection programmes. Under existing sites could be to the long-term survival of their culture.
legislation the government should pay compensation to
land owners if the land designated is privately owned. The establishment of any reserve should always con-
There are problems however, due to low budgets of sider local styles, attitudes and national heritage. Des-
these authorities. ignated sites will often have people already living in
them, which requires very careful monitoring and skil-
ful management. Despite the common assumption that
8.2 Conflicts with development
it is necessary to remove people from a protected area,
this is not always the case. In fact, special allowances
Law enforcement in Japanese national parks is under-
taken by the national park officials of the Environment are often made on how best to protect local cultures
when establishing new protected areas.
Agency and local governments, in close collaboration
with the private sector. Whenever large- scale national
Alarmed by the rapid rate of urbanization threatening
projects such as the construction of a road, airport or
to destroy the countryside of Hong Kong in the 1960s,
harbour coincides with an area already designated a
it was proposed that forestry policies be revised to
protected site, the Environment Agency, following a accommodate the recreational demands of an increas-
series of detailed surveys of the potential effects on the
ingly urban population . From 1971-1972 a number of
environment, is in a position to evaluate and coordinate
recreational (country parks) and conservation (nature
the matter further with the ministries or other agencies
reserves) areas were established .
concerned.
Isolation is another problem concerning protected
Japan has already lost a large amount of its original
area status which has an important bearing on its future
forestcover, mainly through cultivation in the lowlands,
management. In China, most of the reserves are sur-
as well as deforestation on the lower hills. Combined,
rounded by cultivated landscape, and therefore resem-
both activities have resulted in the loss of a great deal
ble islands in a developed environment. If adequate
of natural habitat, especially in the western region. It
attention is not paid to those areas immediately sur-
has recently been suggested that part of the Tanzawa-
rounding the reserve, there will always be a threat of
Ooyama National Park has been affected by acid rain
human encroachment for grazing, agriculture, fuelwood
and the Environment Agency is currently investigating
this claim . collection, poaching, etc. , with the inevitable destruc-
tion that these activities bring. Such sites will, in time,
Overall, Japan has a relatively well established net- also be viewed as prime real estate for construction and
work of protected areas, many of which have been development schemes. If, however, the reserve is care-
designed for and around people. In many cases, how- fully managed, it will certainly play an important pro-
ever, these sites are now facing pressures, largely as a motional role in the development, economy and protection
result ofthe development needs of the population . Local of the surrounding area and should contribute to the
people derive fewdirect benefits from the establishment well-being of local people. This, in itself, is often enough
of protected areas in Japan, although indirect benefits to encourage local people to support the notion of
are expected to increase through expanded tourism fa- protected areas.
cilities as well as an improved system of communica-
tions. Thus, a protected area should not be viewed in isola-
tion, but its establishment should be closely integrated
Hong Kong has made some effort to alleviate the with the productive development of the surrounding
threat to the environment by designating areas and Sites area, mixing its own management practices with those
of Special Scientific Interest, where its conservation value of the region, essentially forming a system of ecologi-
can be considered in governmental planning processes. cally balanced land-use. In such a way, the protected
area could be viewed as an important and in time, an
8.3 indispensable part of the whole system. Above all, it
Relations with local people
should not be viewed on its own, merely as a resource
Experience has already shown that if there are no suit- pool to be protected against ruthless exploitation.
able ways to address the practical needs of the local
people, the reserve will always exist in a state of uncer- 8.4 Protected areas and research
tainty. Good relationships with local people are an
integral part of successful protected area management; Although protected areas are not in themselves scien-
their support is essential if such schemes are to succeed tific research institutions they are, nonetheless, ideal
and prosper. In many cases, protected area managers facilities for promoting scientific research. This might
and their staff may learn how certain problems might range from essential research activities related to the
be better approached from studying the traditional ac- basic requirements of protection, or even to production
tivities of local people and from seeking their advice on and management of the site itself, or extending facilities
certain subjects. Likewise, local people should , when- and cooperation with scientists from other scientific
East Asia
research and education institutions. Forging links for national and regional level. This has happened in few
research and communication with other national and cases and existing networks should be expanded and
international institutions should be actively encouraged, strengthened to broaden the scope of the network. In
not only in anticipation of a greater understanding ofthe China, protected areas are largely located in the south-
social, ecological and legislative workings of a pro- west, south and north-eastern parts of the country, where
tected area, but perhaps more importantly because of biological diversity is therefore obviously better pro-
the increased awareness and attention that such produc- tected . However, the protected area network still lacks
tive efforts can provide. Protected areas can therefore some representative terrestrial ecosystems throughout
offer unique opportunities and facilities for environ- the East Asian Region. Greater attention should also be
mental monitoring stations, several ofwhich are already given to establishing protected areas in the marine and
operational in China (Wang Xianpu et al., 1986, 1989b) wetland biomes, as well as specific reserves to protect
and well advanced in Japan. natural monuments and cultural heritage. The protected
area network should be progressively increased to in-
The continued existence of national parks and pro-
clude about ten percent of the region's land area.
tected areas face many threats in East Asia , but some of
the most important that have come to light in recent
3. Promoting awareness of protected
years are in the form of environmental pollution. At-
areas
mospheric pollution, acid rain and global climate change
are all still poorly researched topics that may have an
In order to achieve long-term respect and appreciation
immediate, dramatic effect on ecological systems. In
for protected areas, education programmes must be
some parts of China, large areas of forest have already
strengthened throughout most of the region by introduc-
been destroyed, especially in the mountains where pre-
ing environmental education topics to the curriculum ,
cious and ancient trees have been killed . Reports of acid
and by creating and mobilizing an effective promo-
rain damage in parts of Japan are also currently receiv-
ing attention. Again, these are issues that cannot be tional system to enhance public support for nature
conservation. Suggested approaches include: (a) of-
addressed on a local or even national level, but require
an active internationally coordinated approach based on fering specialist courses in nature conservation at
scientific research . schools and colleges; (b) holding regular training
courses; (c) publishing textbooks and other materials
promoting conservation awareness; (d) improving rela-
8.5 Management effectiveness
tionships with the media in order to reach a wider and
perhaps more influential audience.
If a protected area is to be managed effectively it will
depend on the successful coordination and implemen-
tation of a number of intricately linked variables , in- 4. Strengthening the national legislation
cluding adequate levels of investment, an efficient lead and means of implementation
organization to promote and coordinate activities, the
good will and support of the local people, scientists , National legislation concerned with protected areas should
decision-makers, and the national departments of legis- be strengthened at all levels and greater attention should
lation, publicity and production and, finally, interna- be given to its enforcement. A strong, professional
tional institutions for the provision of training and system of leadership and management should be in-
management assistance. stalled and given responsibility for the protected area
system , following review and consultation with local,
national and international experts.
The following points represent regional priorities, and 5. Encouraging international cooperation
will be variably applicable to the countries in the region. and exchange
1. Improving the existing level of Management ofprotected areas is an international con-

cern with many underlying national considerations.
management of protected areas
Training courses and information exchange are essen-
Much greater efforts are required to enhance the degree tial aspects of protected area management which should
ofprotection afforded to existing protected areas. Clear be encouraged at all levels of management. Interna-
management plans and operational guidelines should be tional cooperation should be forged at as many levels
prepared for each protected area as a matter of priority. as possible. Japan has over 15 years experience in
Model protected areas should be established to demon- dealing with the protection of migratory birds with
strate sound management practices. partner organizations in Australia, China, the USA and
the USSR. In recent years, the Environment Agency has
2. Expanding the protected area network also cooperated in a series ofwildfowl surveys in south-
east Asia, particularly dealing with Malaysia and Thailand.
The protected area network should aim to include viable Together with JICA and the Government of the People's
examples of all major habitat types and species at a Republic ofChina, the Environment Agency has started
a programme for the protection of the endangered Japa- 6. Adoption of international conventions
nese Crested Ibis (Nipponia nippon) . Finally, the Envi- and programmes relating to the
ronment Agency has also recently begun an environment
international programme of cooperation for the conser-
vation and management of protected areas in develop- Further efforts are needed in all countries to ensure the
ing countries such as Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia and ratification and strengthening of such conventions as
Paraguay. Such programmes should be expanded. the World Heritage Convention, Ramsar Convention,
the Convention on Biological Diversity, and to further
develop the Man and the Biosphere Programme and the
UNEP Regional Seas Programme.
Acknowledgements
This report is based on original manuscript prepared by Wang Xianpu (Institute of Botany, Academia Sinica, China)
as a contribution to the Regional Review of China and Japan for the IV World Parks Congress . Additional materials
and editorial support have been provided by R. David Stone.
References
Akai, I. 1990. Protected Area management and Com- The Taiwan Nature Conservation Strategy. 1985. Con-
munity Development in Japan . FAO Regional struction and Planning Administration, Ministry of
Office for Asia and the Pacific. the Interior, Taiwan. (English translation, 39 pp.).
Aniruddh, D.P. et al. 1989. History ofwildlife conser- Wang Xianpu. 1980a . On the types and management of
vation in Taiwan . COA Forestry Series No. 20. protected areas. Journal ofNorth-east Forest Uni-
Collins, N.M. , Sayer, J.A., and Whitmore, T.C. 1991 . versity 2: 1-6. (In Chinese with English abstract).
The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Asia Wang Xianpu. 1980b. Nature conservation in China:
and the Pacific. MacMillan, UK. The present situation . Parks 5( 1): 1–10.
Department ofEdition in North-West University. 1987. Wang Xianpu. 1981. On the effective management of
Special symposium on the researches of nature protected areas. Wild Animal 1 : 17-19. (In Chinese).
reserves in China. Journal ofNorth-west University Wang Xianpu. 1982. General review of environmental
17: 1-158. (In Chinese, with English summary). education in China. Environmental education in
Department of Nature Conservation in National Envi- action. International Studies in Environmental
ronmental Protection Bureau. 1989. List of Education, pp. 45-47.
Protected Areas in China. China Environment Wang Xianpu. 1984. The basic concepts of eco-develop-
Science Press. (In Chinese and English). ment and construction of protected areas. Ecologi-
IUCN. 1990. United Nations List ofNational Parks and cal Science 1: 98-102 . (In Chinese).
Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Wang Xianpu. 1986a. The basic concepts of biosphere
Cambridge, UK . 284 pp. reserves and its application. Environmental Protec-
IUCN (1992). Protected areas of the World: A review tion 8: 11-13. (In Chinese).
ofNational systems. Volume 2. Palaearctic. Pre- Wang Xianpu. 1986b. Environmental and socioeco-
pared by the World Conservation Monitoring nomic aspects of tropical deforestation in China.
Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, Environmental andSocio-economic Aspects ofTropical
UK. 556pp. Deforestation in Asia and Pacific , United
MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review ofthe Nations , ESCAP, Bangkok. Pp. 65-71.
Protected Area System in the Indo-Malayan Realm. Wang Xianpu. 1986c. On the threatened reserves and
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. reliable measures. Guihaia 6(1-2): 141-146. (In Chinese).
284 pp . Wang Xianpu et al. 1986. Plant conservation in China.
National Park System of Japan. 1982. Nature Conser- Species Newsletter ofSSCIIUCN, No. 8: 5-6.
vation Bureau, Environment Agency, Japan. 17 pp. Wang Xianpu. 1987. Some experiences and problems
Schaller, G. 1991. The New Chang Tang Wildlife regarding construction of protected areas in Guizhou
Reserve in Northwestern Tibet. Unpublished report. province. Journal ofNorth-west University 17: 34-
37. (In Chinese).
East Asia
Wang Xianpu. 1989a. Theory andpractice ofprotected Wang Xianpu. 1991. The influences of global climate
areas. China Environmental Science Press . (In change on ecosystem and biodiversity and its strate-
Chinese). gies. Symposium on Climate Change and the Envi-
Wang Xianpu. 1989b. A preliminary experience of ronment. 166 pp. (In Chinese).
effective management by the method of five com- Woo, Bo-Myeong. 1990. Status and Management ofthe
bination in Daminhshan Reserve in Quangxi Province. Protected Areas in the Republic of Korea. FAO
Gulhaia 9(1): 59-64. (In Chinese). Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
Wang Xianpu et al. 1989a. Floristic inventory of tropi- Zhu Jing et al. 1981. Some suggestions regarding the
cal China. In Campbell, Ed. , Floristic Inventory of types of nature reserves. Nature Conservation and
Tropical Countries. Washington, DC. Agriculture Ecology, Ocean Press. Pp. 9-16. (In
Wang Xianpu et al. 1989b. The achievement andfuture Chinese).
task of conservation phytoecology studies, Zhu Jing et al. 1985. Programme for establishing a
Published by The Botanical Society of China. nature reserves network in China. Proceedings of
Pp. 30-34 the Symposium on Nature Reserves in China,
Wang Xianpu. 1990. The basic characteristic of the China Forestry Press, Beijing.Pp. 7-39. (In Chinese).
Snake Island and Laotieshan Reserve and the expe- Zhu Jing. 1989. Nature conservation in China. Journal
riences of effective management. Rural Ecological ofApplied Ecology 26: 325–333.
Environment 3: 9-14. (In Chinese).
South
and
Southeast Asia
protected
Percentage
%
0.1
Less
than 15-20
%
0.1-5
% 20
%
More
than от
Km
%
5-10
400
800 இரு 96
10-15
% 0
protected
designated
within
legally
included
country
P
ofercentage
Map
.areas
Contents
Page
1.1 The history of people and nature . . . . 181
1.2 Environmental implications of economic development • . 181
1.3 The growth of the protected area system • . 183
1.4 Lessons learned . . . 185
2.1 Systems plans . . . . 187
2.2 Coverage of major habitats by protected areas • . 187
2.3 Protected areas in danger 188
4.1 Conflict and cooperation with other development sectors 190
8. Major protected area issues in the region . 198
8.1 Improving the relationship between protected areas and local

communities • 199
8.2 Improving management of protected areas 199
8.3 Making protected areas part of modern society: The role of education,
training, and research .. 199
8.4 International cooperation 200
References 202
Page
Tables
Table 1 . Summary of the protected areas system . 182
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories 182
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system . 186
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions . 186
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in South and Southeast Asia 188
Table 7. Threatened critical wetlands of international importance for

conservation action 196
Table 8. Global Environment Facility biodiversity portfolio, South and

Southeast Asia 197
Table 9. FY 91-93 World Bank projects with biodiversity components 198
Table 10. Transfrontier protected areas 201
Figures

areas 178
Figure 1 . Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 184

South and Southeast Asia
Presented by Hemanta R. Mishra, Regional Vice-Chair for South and

Southeast Asia , IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas
1. Historical perspective Protected areas have a long history in South and

Southeast Asia. In the year 252 BC the Emperor Asoka
South and Southeast Asia is teeming with people, sup- of India passed an edict for the protection of animals,
porting nearly a third ofthe world's humans on just six fish, and forests, the earliest documented establishment
per cent of its land surface. The region also contains of what we today call a protected area. The practice of
some of the planet's most spectacular nature, ranging establishing sacred areas as religious sanctuaries or
from Mt Everest (Sagarmatha) in Nepal to the tiger exclusive hunting reserves has continued throughout
reserves of India, from the tropical rain forests of the region to the present day. The first nature reserve in
Malaysia and Indonesia to the coral gardens of the Indonesia, for example, was established in 684 AD by
Philippines. Indonesia is second only to Australia in its order of the king of Srivijaya. Babar, the first Moghul
number of endemic species of vertebrates, and both the Emperor of India, is said to have hunted rhinos in
Philippines and India are in the world's top ten countries special reserves established for the purpose in the flood-
in numbers of mammals and birds found nowhere else. plains of the Punjab during the 15th century (Gadgil,
In this region, the interface between nature and human- 1989). Nepal's Royal Chitwan National Park was first
ity is often blurred. The line where nature ends and established as a ' shikar' (hunting) reserve, as were
human influence begins is indistinct and only an artifact Ujung Kulon in Java and Ranthambore in India. Many
ofour limited perception of time. of these former hunting and forest preserves have been
converted to today's national parks or wildlife sanctu-
aries.
1.1 The history of people and nature
1.2 Environmental implications of

The coexistence of people and nature in Asia is the
result of a long history. Humans have occupied Asia for economic development
several hundred thousand years, sometimes playing an
important role in forming the ecosystems that are today Over the centuries natural resources have come under
considered "natural" . The region saw some of the earli- increasing pressure. The colonial era brought new trad-
est domestication of plants and animals, some of the ing opportunities to the region , opening world markets
earliest cities, and some ofthe earliest irrigation schemes. to Asia. Where once local economies were more or less
Many protected areas surround the ruins of these an- self-sufficient, today they are part of the global market-
cient civilizations; Ranthambore in India, Wilpattu in place. Governments, with the intention of mobilizing
Sri Lanka, and Angkor Wat in Cambodia are only three natural resources to support development, have become
of the most famous examples, but archaeological sites much more efficient at facilitating the exploitation of
are to be found in many of the realm's protected areas resources, reaching into even the most remote areas
and many contain religious shrines. with new roads, new crops, and new technologies. Rural
development has increased the productivity of agricul-
While civilizations ebbed and flowed, the hundreds ture, fisheries, and forests , often supported by subsidies
oflocal cultures devised ways to manage their resources from central governments and funding from interna-
to bring sustainable benefits to the community. Surviv- tional development agencies. National economies have
ing examples ofthese traditional conservation measures boomed, even when much of the rest of the developing
include sacred forests in India, community forest man- world has been in recession.
agement among the Sherpas in Nepal, hunting rituals in
Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Indonesia, and myth- Blessed with good agricultural land and plentiful
ical and spiritual relations with plants and animals water for irrigation, this part ofthe world also includes
throughout the region (McNeely and Wachtel, 1991). many ofthe world's most densely populated regions.
These traditional approaches once enabled people to With the human population nearly doubling over the
live in a kind of balance with the available resources past 30 years, forests, wetlands, grasslands and other
through sustainable harvesting. natural habitats have come under increasing pressure
from exploitation and the expanding need for land for mies ofthe region are built on timber, fisheries, agricul-
agriculture. At the same time, human dependence upon tural and grazing lands, water resources for irrigation
the environment has never been greater, as the econo- and power, and natural attractions for tourism.
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : South and Southeast Asia

Bangladesh 144,000 968 0.7 133 0.1 1,101 0.8

Bhutan 46,620 9,061 19.4 639 1.4 9,701 20.8
British IOT 60 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Brunei Darussalam 5,765 883 15.3 1,400 24.3 2,283 39.6
Cambodia 181,000 0 0.0 34,190 18.9 34,190 18.9
India 3,166,830 131,596 4.2 7,434 0.2 139,030 4.4
Indonesia 1,919,445 193,385 10.1 136,674 7.1 330,059 17.2
Laos 236,725 0 0.0 1,940 0.8 1,940 0.8
Malaysia 332,965 14,868 4.5 94,330 28.3 109,198 32.8
Maldives 298 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Myanmar 678,030 1,733 0.3 7,983 1.2 9,716 1.4
Nepal 141,415 11,085 7.8 2,155 1.5 13,240 9.4
Pakistan 803,940 36,550 4.5 35,720 4.4 72,270 9.0
Philippines 300,000 5,729 1.9 8,823 2.9 14,552 4.9
Singapore 616 16 2.6 0 0.0 16 2.6
Sri Lanka 65,610 7,837 11.9 11,926 18.2 19,763 30.1
Thailand 514,000 64,751 12.6 5,883 1.1 70,634 13.7
| Viet Nam 329,565 8,975 2.7 2,036 0.6 11,011 3.3
Total 8,866,884 487,437 5.5 351,266 4.0 838,703 9.5
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. " UA" indicates that no IUCN category
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : South and Southeast Asia
I II III IV V TOTAL
55775
2111113
Bangladesh 6 833 135 8 968

Bhutan 658 4 8,403 - 9,061
British IOT -
Brunei Darussalam 6 394 489 883
Cambodia - -
1
India 2 1,960 58 35,289 270 94,160 186 331 131,596

Indonesia 84 70,051 24 69,051 65 51,584 2,700 186 193,385
- - - -
101
Laos
Malaysia 22 834 16 8,140 9 5,883 1 10 48 14,868
Maldives - - - -
1
Myanmar 1 1,606 1 127 2 1,733

I
Nepal 8 10,144 4 941 - 12 11,085

Pakistan 6 8,822 43 27,007 4 721 53 36,550
1
211
116
Philippines 8 2,046 6 9 3,246 4 226 27 5,729

Singapore 1 16 -- 1 16
14
Sri Lanka 3 316 11 4,602 29 2,920 - 43 7,837

Thailand 66 34,237 36 29,949 565 106 64,751
Viet Nam 7 1,424 52 7,551 - 59 8,975
Total 117 73,555 207 176,508 6 211 528 232,493 30 4,670 888 487,437
Economic growth has had an environmental price. working in partnership with IUCN. Today the protected
Increased productivity has almost always been accom- area system of South and Southeast Asia covers 18
panied by a reduction in biodiversity, both in agricul- countries (Tables 1 and 2), with only the Maldives
tural ecosystems and in more natural ecosystems. In the lacking a legally designated protected area system.
process, local people have also sometimes lost local
autonomy over resources. In Thailand, for example, A major event in the history of protected areas in the
subsidized commercial fisheries have all but wiped out region was the III World Congress on National Parks,
artisanal fisheries (Rowchai, 1989) , while in Indonesia, held in Bali, Indonesia in October 1982. This congress ,
the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia, logging rights the first held in a developing country, gave particular
have been given to concessionaires with little reference attention to the relationship between protected areas
to the traditional ownership rights of resident people, and human needs, demonstrating that protected areas
nor of the impact of logging on them . Thus conflicts are not only of aesthetic significance but are vital to
have arisen between modern and traditional forms of sustainable forms of development (McNeely and Miller,
land and resource use, in the name of development. 1984). The meeting therefore gave protected areas a
new relevance, pointing the way to better integration of
protected areas with other major development issues. It
1.3 The growth of the protected area
led to books on protected area management (MacKin-
system
non et al. , 1984) and coastal and marine protected areas
(Salm and Clark, 1984) which have been widely distrib-
Recognizing that traditional forms ofconservation were
uted in the region; the former has been translated into
too weak to meet national needs in a time of rapid Indonesian.
economic growth, governments over the past 30 years
have also invested heavily in formal protected areas The Bali Congress catalysed the formulation of re-
(Table 3 , Figures 1 and 2) . Such sites have been seen as gional action plans and regional reviews . The Corbett
a means of balancing exploitation with conservation Action Plan, developed by field managers from 13
and a way of extending government influence into the countries of South and Southeast Asia, provided a re-
most remote areas. Indonesia, for example, established gional overview of actions needed to plan and manage
a national goal in the early 1980s of having 18 million protected areas more effectively (IUCN, 1985) . The
ha protected as conservation areas and 30 million ha as 1986 IUCN Review ofthe Protected Area System in the
protection forests, to balance the 65 million ha to be
Indo-Malayan Realm further considered the adequacy
used as production forest (Sudarsono and Suhartono, of protected area coverage according to habitat types,
1992). centres of biodiversity, and endemism within each bio-
geographic unit of the realm (MacKinnon and
Many ofthe first protected area networks grew in an MacKinnon, 1986) . It identified gaps in the protected
ad hoc fashion, focusing on remote areas with plentiful area network and listed actions for each country within
wildlife but little value for development, or building
the realm , including establishment of reserves, training,
upon hunting or forest reserves established by local investment and education and awareness needs.
rulers or colonial administrators. The first national parks
in South and Southeast Asia were Angkor Wat in In the decade since Bali, the protected area network
Cambodia ( 1925) , Corbett in India ( 1938) , Taman has grown considerably, with the establishment ofmore
Negara in Malaysia ( 1939) , Mt Arayat and Mt than 500 new protected areas covering some 13 million
Roosevelt in the Philippines ( 1933) , and Ruhuna and ha since 1982 (although not all of these areas meet the
Wilpattu in Sri Lanka ( 1938) . More recently, as the criteria for IUCN Management Category I-V) . The
impact of development on natural habitats has become dramatic growth of protected area systems in the past
more apparent, many countries have designed and es- decade has put many ofthe most biologically important
tablished protected area networks to conserve repre- areas under protection. The tendency to create more and
sentative samples of the country's biodiversity. larger reserves, however, has thinly spread the available
Protected areas have also been recognised as an effec- funds and human resources. For example, protected
tive means of protecting watershed and catchment ar- areas in Thailand have grown from less than 10 to nearly
eas. Now governments are looking increasingly to 200 in 25 years, yet key parks are inadequately pro-
protected areas to provide economic opportunities both tected and suffering from encroachment, poaching and
to local communities and to the nation as a whole. development intrusion (Chettamart, 1987).
Beginning in the 1960s, several international organi- During the past ten years many countries have ac-
zations provided important assistance to governments ceded to the various international conventions and pro-
to plan protected area networks. FAO was a major grammes associated with protected areas, including the
influence in Nepal, India, Myanmar, and Indonesia, and Convention Concerning the World Cultural and Natural
its regional office in Bangkok provided technical advice Heritage (World Heritage Convention), the UNESCO
to many countries. WWF, with National Organizations Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB), and the
in India, Pakistan, and Malaysia, and an affiliate Wild- Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
life Fund Thailand, supported Project Tiger in India and Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention)
was especially active in Indonesia and Nepal, often (Table 4). A number of areas are now internationally
300
Number of sites
250
Area (x1000sqkm )
200
150
100
50
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

1,000
Number of sites
600
400
200
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

recognised under these conventions and a list of the This does not mean blindly trying to " make parks pay
properties that have been inscribed on the World for themselves". While linking protected areas develop-
Heritage List is given in Table 5. ment with tourism can make sound economic sense, it
also places increasing pressure on them. In Nepal, the
Southeast Asia is the only region other than Europe formerly closed Shey valley in Dolpo has suffered
to have a regional convention under which protected environmental degradation since the establishment of a
areas have been recognised. Acknowledging the out- national park and the opening of this fragile area to
standing ecological importance ofthe region, Indonesia, tourism . In many parts of South and Southeast Asia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei national parks have become almost synonymous with
Darussalam have nominated a number of protected tourism development, and great care must be taken to
areas as ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves under the ensure that these developments do not degrade the
ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and aesthetic and conservation values of the parks. Even
Natural Resources. The ASEAN countries agree to give World Heritage sites like Nepal's Royal Chitwan
high priority to the preparation ofmaster plans for each National Park are being threatened by excessive infra-
site, including management guidelines, research, and structure development.
education. They also agree to cooperate in the manage-
ment of such areas, and to develop a regional mecha- Enable conservation NGO's to contribute to pro-
nism to support national efforts, through the ASEAN tected areas. Government action is not sufficient by
Group on Nature Conservation. itself to conserve protected areas. While local NGOs
have increased in number, few have the expertise or
A comprehensive review of the national protected capacity to be involved directly with protected area
areas systems throughout the region has been compiled management. Nevertheless NGOs do have a key role to
by WCMC (IUCN, 1992). play, especially in working with local communities on
buffer zone projects around national parks and other
kinds of protected areas. The Annapurna Conservation
1.4 Lessons learned
Area Project (ACAP) of Nepal and Ban Sap Tai in
Thailand, both established by NGOs working in col-
The past three decades have seen dramatic expansion in laboration with local people, demonstrate the kind of
protected areas. Economic and social development have innovative approaches that can work.
changed the face of the landscape , and the changes are
accelerating. In seeking to ensure that protected areas Build the capacity to absorb funding for conservation.
are able to make their best contribution to sustaining the Conservation funds provided to the region from exter-
evolving societies of the region, the following lessons nal sources have increased dramatically over the past
should be considered. few years but it has often been difficult to utilize these
funds effectively because of a lack of trained man-
Enlist local support to make protected areas work. power. Funding alone will not lead to effective conser-
The most positive trend in conservation in the past ten vation. Providing more training and building up man-
years has been the widespread recognition of the envi- agement capacity an urgent need which is expertise.
ronmental and ecological values of protected areas and
the increased understanding that national parks and Follow periods of rapid growth in area with periods
of institutional development . All ofthese lessons
sanctuaries are often the most appropriate land use for
such areas. Many new protected areas have been estab- lead to one major conclusion: in all parts of the South
lished, but if they are not to remain " paper parks", and Southeast Asia Region , protected area networks
effective management strategies must be developed. now need to become part of the foundation of national
The greatest challenge of the last ten years, and the one development. This will require stronger links with other
that has still not been addressed adequately , is the need sectors ; improved career structures, training, and work-
to involve local communities as active partners in pro- ing conditions; more effective economic incentives;
tected area management. Few, if any, of the region's better international cooperation; and above all, more
protected areas can really be considered secure. effective working relationships with local people.
Link conservation with development . The recogni-

tion at Bali that protected areas should be linked to
development and human needs has led to challenging The total land allocated to protected areas has increased
and innovative approaches to the establishment and dramatically in South and Southeast Asia over the past
management of protected areas. Several national parks three decades, from 200 sites covering 447,000 sq km
and protected areas have been established in association in 1960 to over 850 sites covering 832,607 sq km in
with major development projects. Dumoga- Bone 1992 (in IUCN Categories I to V, Figure 1 ) . The rise in
National Park in Indonesia, five new national parks in more strictly protected categories (I, II, and III) is
the Mahaweli region of Sri Lanka, and an extensive proportionally far higher, with an increase from 17,000
system ofprotected areas in the lower Mekong drainage sq km ( 186 sites) in 1960 to 252,463 sq km (316 sites)
were all linked directly to the development of water in 1992. The large area of more strictly protected areas
resources (McNeely, 1987) . can be attributed mainly to an increase in numbers of
national parks in most countries. The establishment of their watershed functions. For example, 30 million ha
several very large strict nature reserves by Indonesia have been established as protection forest in Indonesia.
strongly affects the percentage of land included in These protection forests and those in Malaysia and India
Category I. further extend the conservation estate, as do corridors
of relatively undisturbed habitat and seed reservoirs left
In addition to these conservation areas many coun- in production forests, as in Malaysia's "Virgin Jungle
tries of the region also protect large areas of forest for Reserves".
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : South and Southeast Asia

Bangladesh 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 0 967

Bhutan 0.0 0.0 87.2 12.8 0 9,061
British IOT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Brunei Darussalam 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 394 882
Cambodia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
India 6.0 6.4 52.5 35.1 3,527 131,595
Indonesia 7.3 1.2 58.0 33.5 4,868 193,385
Laos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Malaysia 45.1 10.0 8.5 36.4 0 14,867
Maldives 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Myanmar 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 1,732
Nepal 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 0 11,085
Pakistan 0.0 10.6 74.3 15.0 0 36,549
Philippines 67.1 24.6 1.0 7.4 0 5,728
Singapore 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 16
Sri Lanka 49.0 12.3 9.9 28.9 0 7,837
Thailand 0.0 4.0 56.4 39.6 0 64,750
| Viet Nam 0.0 3.0 8.8 88.2 750 8,974
Total 7.5 4.4 53.5 34.6 9,539 487,436
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions : South and Southeast Asia

011052000 | NOO
Bangladesh August 1983 May 1992 1 59,600

Bhutan
1161
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia November 1991
India November 1977 5 281,012 October 1981 192,973
Indonesia July 1989 297,681 6 1,482,400 April 1992 162,700
Laos March 1987
Malaysia December 1988
Maldives December 1988
Myanmar -
Nepal June 1978 2 208,000 December 1987 1 17,500
Pakistan July 1976 0 131,355 July 1976 9 20,990
Philippines September 1985 0 2 1,174,345
- -
123 | I
Singapore
Sri Lanka June 1980 1 8,864 9,376 June 1990 6,216
Thailand September 1987 1 622,200 26,100 -
UK (BIOT) May 1984 0 January 1976 0 0
Viet Nam October 1987 0 September 1988 1 12,000
2.1 Systems plans Zone bio-unit) , and to identify other remaining areas of
conservation importance for future protection.
The 1986 Indo-Malayan Review (MacKinnon and
Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand all have
MacKinnon, 1986) provided a system plan for the whole
extensive national protected area networks which pro-
region, identifying both gazetted and proposed areas,
vide adequate coverage of most major habitat types. Sri
and making further recommendations aiming to give
Lanka, for example, includes some 30 per cent of its
adequate protected area coverage. Detailed system plans
land within the protected area network. Even war-torn
for individual countries have been completed for
Cambodia has a protected area network planned during
Indonesia (FAO, 1981/1982), India (Rodgers and
the 1960s and early 1970s although at present these
Panwar, 1984) , Myanmar (FAO, 1985) and Bhutan
areas, though legally designated, exist only on paper.
(Forestry Master Plan Annex 1 , 1991 ) . Reviews of
Bhutan's protected area coverage (21 %) is one of the
national protected area systems including proposed new
highest in the region , but it is not representative, nor is
areas and extensions have been prepared for Viet Nam
management yet adequate.
(FAO/TFAP 1991) , Lao PDR (Salter and Phanthavong,
1989), and the Philippines (Haribon Foundation and
Compared with other habitats, the world's tropical
DENR, 1988). Malaysia is preparing a systems review
moist forests are among the least well protected . Not
through State Conservation Strategies (e.g. Chan et al., only do new sites need to be protected, but also pro-
1985). India has reviewed the status of its national
tected areas must be larger than at present if their
network (Kothari et al. , 1989) . Many of these system
biological diversity is to be maintained . Of the two
plans involved cooperation between local government nations inthe sub-region with more than 300,000 sq km
agencies and international organisations.
oftropical moist forest, Burma has a poorly developed
protected areas system, whilst Indonesia's is extensive.
A few countries still do not have a coherent systems Cambodia, India, Laos, Malaysia and Thailand each has
plan. Thailand, for example, probably has too many between 100,000 sq km and 200,000 sq km of tropical
national parks (over 60) and would be better served with moist forest and in all these the extent of existing and
only the top 20 to 30 areas under this designation, with proposed protected areas system is over 10% of the
other areas protected at the provincial level. A systems remaining tropical moist forest cover. However, it should
plan which considers the full spectrum of approaches to be noted that this percentage will rise as forests outside
protection will surely lead to a more coherent conserva- protected areas are cleared. In some nations with less
tion approach for the country. than 100,000 sq km oftropical moist forest, existing and
proposed protected areas systems are generally well
developed (Brunei , Darussalam, Sri Lanka) whilst in
2.2 Coverage of major habitats by
others (Bangladesh , Philippines and Viet Nam) this is
protected areas not the case (Collins et al. , 1991).
While many centres of biodiversity, endemism and Mostcountries have reasonably sophisticated approaches
Pleistocene refugia are included within the protected to conserving land, with a number of categories of
area networks , certain habitat types are still poorly protected areas managed by different management agen-
represented (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986). These cies in ministries or departments of forestry. This com-
habitats are often the most species-rich and those most plexity is apparent in the wide range of legal des-
threatened by development, for example lowland rain- ignations used throughout the region, and is also indi-
forests, coastal forests, riverine and wetland habitats cated in Table 2, which allocates the protected areas to
and marine ecosystems. The Indo-Malayan Review iden- the IUCN management category system (although it
tified major gaps in the system as a lack of protected should be recognised that it is a simplification ofthe real
areas in nine bio-units, in order of priority: Irrawaddy, situation). Institutional arrangement and definitions of
Philippines, Indochina, Bengal , Southern Indochina, the different categories of protected areas can be found
Ceylon Wet Zone, South Himalayas, Western Ghats in IUCN ( 1992).
and South Myanmar. Since that review many new pro-
posals to establish reserves have been put forward, and Marine conservation has so far lagged behind estab-
some have already been gazetted , especially in lishment of terrestrial protected area networks in the
Myanmar, South Himalayas (Bhutan) , Indochina (Lao region. Only Indonesia has identified detailed priorities
PDR, Viet Nam) and Western Ghats. For the other for marine reserves (Salm and Halim, 1984). A marine
bio-units with inadequate protection , the ongoing system plan is being prepared for the Philippines as part
Integrated Protected Area System (IPAS) review will of the IPAS programme. Elsewhere in the region, ma-
address this issue in the Philippines. Bengal and Ceylon rine conservation activities have been coordinated un-
Wet Zone show relatively little scope for further exten- der the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, although
sion ofthe protected area network but IUCN is collabo- practical progress has been disappointing to date. A
rating with the Sri Lankan government to strengthen particular problem for marine conservation has been
management of the Sinharaja National Heritage international disputes over boundaries which affect some
Wilderness Area, one of the last extensive areas of very extensive and rich marine systems, such as the
evergreen rain forest in Sri Lanka (in the Ceylon Wet Spratly and Paracel Islands and the spectacular coral
cliffs of Silabukan Island on the border between Sabah cleared to grow opium poppies and other crops. Heavy
and Indonesia. use of pesticides has also polluted the streams, while all
large mammals have been heavily hunted . Elsewhere
2.3 Protected areas in danger large tracts of Thailand's largest remaining freshwater
marshes in Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park are being
As pressures on land increase, many protected areas converted to shrimp farms.
have come under threat. Some, such as Mt Apo in the
In addition to institutional and jurisdictional issues,
Philippines, have been heavily occupied by illegal set-
tlers; others, such as Kutai National Park in Indonesia, marine conservation is particularly vulnerable to the
have been logged and/or burned. In India, Kaziranga environmental impacts of development activities. Ex-
National Park is threatened by plans to build an oil tensive oil exploration is now taking place in Asian
refinery upstream; this could send pollutants such as waters and few contingency plans have been prepared
phenolic compounds, oil and suspended solids into the for oil spills and their effects on marine ecosystems. The
park. Kaziranga is also threatened by increasing flood issues of coastal and marine conservation are particu-
levels along the Brahmaputra, thought to be at least larly complex because of the impact of activities and
partially due to increased deforestation in the upper land-use changes far removed from the marine area in
reaches of the watershed. question. Adequate conservation of marine ecosystems
will require the development of integrated coastal zone
In the Philippines, Tubbataha National Marine Park management plans and the active participation of local
has lost much of its coral over the past five years due to communities. Thailand and Malaysia already have con-
the use ofexplosives to stun fish. Using sodium cyanide siderable experience of planning integrated coastal zone
poison to capture ornamental fish forthe aquarium trade management, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
has also damaged coral reefs. Illegal harvesting of sea that far more needs to be done to protect the marine
turtles, giant clams and seabird eggs further threatens environment.
the park. In Bhutan, two dams proposed within the
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary would lead to flooding of In conclusion, most countries in the region seem to be
important sites and disturbance from road and canal making a serious effort to establish an adequate pro-
construction. These developments would also affect the tected area system. It is heartening that many of the
adjacent Manas Tiger Reserve in India. priority sites identified as needing protection in the
Corbett Action Plan and IUCN Indo- Malayan Review
have either already been gazetted or are in the process
Table 5. World Heritage sites in South
and Southeast Asia of gazettement. At the same time, while the protected
area system seems generally adequate on paper, man-
agement capacity is still inadequate to achieve effective
India
management on the ground. Virtually all protected ar-
Kaziranga National Park
eas in the realm are under some threat, and the legal and
Keoladeo National Park
administrative systems are insufficient to address all of
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary
these threats. This is likely to be a serious concern for
Nanda Devi National Park
some time to come, and will only really be turned
Sundarbans National Park
around when the values and benefits of protected areas
Indonesia are more clearly perceived.
Komodo National Park
Ujung Kulon National Park
Nepal
Royal Chitwan National Park required
Sagarmatha National Park
It might seem somewhat presumptuous to discuss the
Sri Lanka need for additional protected areas when so many ofthe
Sinharaja National Heritage Wilderness existing ones still lack adequate human and other re-
Area sources for effective management. With the increasing
Thailand pressures on land, it is important that designs for com-
Thung Yai - Huai Kha Kaeng Wildlife plete systems of protected areas be prepared for each
Sanctuary country in the region even if actual implementation is
still some years in the future. Such systems plans help
other government agencies determine which develop-
ments will be appropriate for which areas, discouraging,
for example, mining and timber concessions in areas
The problems facing Thailand's protected areas are which are identified to be ofhigh value for conservation
well illustrated by Doi Inthanon National Park, where
purposes.
the number of people living in the park has greatly
increased in recent years. The park has been degraded In seeking to "complete" the region's system of pro-
by poor farming practices, with 15 per cent ofthe area tected areas , the first question to ask is how much land
should be allocated for protected areas. Taking into Where opportunities still exist for identifying new
account the other demands on territory for economic protected areas, a systems plan approach should be
development and subsistence needs, ten per cent is applied to ensure that adequate areas of major habitat
probably a realistic guideline (McNeely and Miller, types and centres of biodiversity and endemism are
1984) . To date, this target has been reached or ap- protected within each major bio-unit. Protected area
proached by Bhutan, Brunei, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and design can incorporate a combination of large, medium
Thailand. If protection forests and other multiple pur- and small reserves according to national opportunities
pose conservation areas are included in this total then it and needs (MacKinnon et al., 1986) . When reserves are
should be, and often is, considerably larger, as illus- smaller, however, greater attention must be paid to
trated in Table 1. The needs and potential for further linking reserves together by corridors of relatively un-
expansion are different in each country of the region, disturbed habitat, thereby effectively increasing effec-
but many countries are inthe process of expanding their tive reserve size.
protected areas network.
Both Viet Nam and Myanmar have adopted a policy 4. Protected area institutions
to more than double the protected area estate in the next
Because modern protected areas have tended to be
five years. Lao PDR at present has no gazetted protected established by central or provincial governments, they
areas in the wildlife sector, but is developing and im-
cannot always reflect local needs and desires. Further,
plementing management plans for 10 areas which will
most protected area management agencies in the South
cover6.6 per cent ofthe country while aiming at a target
and Southeast Asia Region are relatively young, with
of 10 per cent by the year 2000. Indonesia already has
much of their growth coming only in the past few
an impressive system but even this may be inadequate
decades. They have not yet been tested over time, and
to conserve all habitats and all species since less than
their resources are increasingly stretched by the rapid
1.5 per cent ofspecies-rich lowland forests are included
expansion in the number and size of protected areas.
in the protected area network (BAPPENAS , 1991 ).
Moreover, Indonesia, like many other Asian countries,
Many of the laws establishing protected areas have
has listed marine conservation as a priority for the been based on models from the industrial nations , often
immediate future and plans to extend the system of
existing in parallel with traditional laws. This import of
coastal and marine reserves from 2 million to 20 million
foreign conservation concepts is perhaps not inappro-
ha by the year 2000.
priate, as protected areas are designed to provide a
balance to market forces and approaches to resource
Throughout the region special attention needs to be exploitation that also have their origins in the industrial
trading nations. But conditions are changing fast, and
given to conservation of wetland and marine ecosys-
new approaches are required to earn the respect, support
tems. With increasing pressure on land, wetland, and
marine habitats it is doubtful if many Asian govern- and commitment from local people for conservation
activities.
ments will approve further extensive territory for strict
protection as conservation areas. Moreover, many wet-
One of the key institutional issues is to ensure that the
land and coastal areas of high conservation value sus-
appropriate tasks are undertaken at the appropriate lev-
tain high human use and therefore require conservation
els. A strong central authority is often required to ensure
management other than protected area status. Conser-
that an effective protected area network is designed, that
vation of marine and wetland resources will require
the national legal and policy framework is appropriate,
innovative approaches to management. Community man-
that appropriate information is built into the national
agement of coral reef resources in some parts of the
curriculum and to ensure strong advocacy at the highest
Philippines provides a good model. Indonesia is ad-
levels of government. More local approaches are re-
dressing the sometimes- conflicting need of conserva-
tion and utilisation in the wetlands of Danau Sentarum quired to implement the protected areas, provide bene-
fits to local communities, design appropriate buffer
Reserve in Kalimantan with assistance fromthe British
zone activities, seek alternative sources of income for
Overseas Development Administration. Regional pri-
orities for protection of critical wetlands are listed in local people, and other such activities that reduce the
Table 7. pressure of local people on protected areas.
Since most protected areas in the region have been

Although opportunities are becoming limited for fur- established in forested areas, it is perhaps understandable
ther extension of the reserve network, much ofthe land that most protected area agencies are part of ministries
outside protected areas can and will serve a conserva- or departments of forestry. This has also facilitated the
tion function. Nor will all habitats outside reserves be allocation of protected status to forest land, as in India,
converted to agriculture, plantations or urban use. Pro- Indonesia or Thailand. However, many have criticized
tection forests , selectively-logged production forests this link because forestry departments have tended to
and other disturbed habitats will come to play an in- focus on exploitation of timber. Further, legislation for
creasing role in conservation as primary forest areas protected areas has sometimes been incorporated in
continue to decrease. more comprehensive environmental protection laws,
and this can weaken implementation and enforcement immune to the law enforcement efforts ofprotected area
of the protected areas element if focus and clarity are staff. In countries such as Cambodia and Myanmar,
lost. where government control of remote areas is tenuous,
or in disputed border zones as between India and
A few countries have given management responsibil- Pakistan in Kashmir, both military and opposition
ity for protected areas to other ministries such as Envi- forces can take a heavy toll of forests and wildlife.
ronment (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Philippines)
while others have tried a different arrangement such as The widespread adoption of environmental impact
a Special Board (Singapore) or linked parks more to assessment (EIA) procedures has helped to improve the
tourism and recreation (Malaysia). It is difficult, how- relationship between conservation and development sec-
ever, to generalise about what arrangement is most tors, sometimes averting threats to protected areas. For
logical or successful and this will in any case vary example, widespread opposition from NGOs helped to
according to national objectives for the protected area avert the proposed routing of the Indus Highway through
system . Kirthar National Park in Pakistan in 1991. Similarly, a
last-minute reassessment of the impact of a US$30
Few countries in the region have yet entrusted pro- million irrigation project on Chitwan National Park in
tected area management to private institutions or NGOs. Nepal led the Asian Development Bank to cancel its
An exception is Nepal, where the King Mahendra Trust loan and encouraged the National Planning Commis-
for Nature Conservation runs the Annapurna Conserva- sion to formally drop the project.
tion Area and helps ensure that the park is a centre of
socio-economic development and increased environ- Othercases have not been so successful . India's pow-
ment awareness (Norbu, 1989) . In the Philippines, three erful Rajastan Ministry of Mines has granted some 300
NGOs have management agreements with the Protected mining licenses in Sariska Sanctuary (49,200ha) in the
Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) for the Calauit past six years, in violation of the national Forest Con-
Game Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary, Tubbataha servation Act. Hundreds of people who were earlier
National Marine Park and Bicol National Park. Other paid compensation to move out of the sanctuary have
local NGOs that could develop the capability to manage now returned, and reports of poaching are now wide-
protected areas include the Royal Society for Protection spread (Sharma, 1991 ) . This is just one example of the
of Nature (Bhutan) , Wildlife Fund Thailand, and the kinds of institutional problems that can arise in federal
Haribon Foundation (Philippines) . In India over the past systems of government.
five years there has been a sharp increase in NGO efforts
to delay the degradation of protected areas by working Throughout Asia, protected areas institutions are be-
with local people in a series of welfare projects , such as ing put under great pressure, and being asked to do more
with less. This has led to a re-examination of the role of
primary health care, family planning and income gen-
government in protected areas. Different institutional
eration so as to provide the people with time , space and
sufficient income to consider ecology and the environ- arrangements are being attempted, including considera-
ment. These NGOs are serving as a vital interface, tion of a growing role for private land owners. These
connecting local people with protected area manage- new institutional arrangements require new legislation,
ment. and new enforcement mechanisms which may be more
cost-effective than conventional approaches which have
too often led to conflict and inadequate protection.
4.1 Conflict and cooperation with
other development sectors
Linkages with other powerful interests can have both investment in protected areas
positive and negative influences . Protected area agen-
cies have tended to be relatively low in the government Protected areas are economically important throughout
hierarchy and thus subject to shrinking government the region, providing destinations for the multi-billion
budgets, and subjugated to the priorities of other depart- dollar tourist industry, protecting watersheds which
ments. However, more effective linkages with other support the irrigation systems upon which Asian coun-
more powerful sectors can often be fostered through tries depend, and conserving species of plants and ani-
education and other mechanisms, and help to strengthen mals which make numerous contributions to society.
protected area management. They are thus a national economic asset and this should
be used as a strong justification for government invest-
In some countries, protected area authorities work ment in protected areas (BAPPENAS , 1991 ; MacKinnon
with the army to protect key sites, as occurs in Nepal's et al. , 1986).
Chitwan National Park. In many coastal countries, the
navy could play a more effective role in enforcing Yet the investment being made by governments falls
certain marine conservation legislation , especially be- far short ofwhat is required to enable protected areas to
cause of its mobility and mandate. Military personnel make their optimal contribution to modern societies.
can also cause problems. In Thailand, for example, While it is exceedingly difficult to find precise figures
military personnel may be among the worst poachers, on expenditures for protected areas, the best available
using sophisticated military equipment and being information suggests that two ofthe region's least wealthy
Asia
Southeas
and
S
: outh
budgets
agency
managem
areas
Protected
6.
Table t
ent
in
Budge t US
Dollar
Country
r
/ esponsible
agency currency
equivalent
Bangladesh BDT
Bhutan
F
-orest
Department Nu
2,128,0 00 137,000 1988 US
2
$
and
Wildlife
was
circles
Southem
Northern
The
for
budget 7,300
%
its
5
some
aside
has f
government
respectively
.T
1set he
o,708,000
$
annual
higher
-
purposes
conservation
for
budget
other
any
virtually
than
natural
lH
Asia and
population
countrymall
ith
owever
as,w.inimited
investments
priority
are
and
modest
government
revenues
resource
base
.
programmes
social
to
given
are Al
Indian
British
Territory
Ocean
Brunei BWD
59,500,000 34,393,000 1991 Forestry
B
($
),Department
million
Comprises
toND4.0
allocation
Government
Department
B
($ ND27.0
Brunei
),AMuseum
million
griculture
ND7.5
Offices
District
B
)a
($ nd
ND4.0
Department
million
,Fisheries
(SBND17.0
).T
million
is
areas
protected
to
allocated
proportion
he
unknown
. A3
Hunting
Cambodia
Directorate
-
and
Forests
of KHR
Kong
Hong HKD
Wildlife
.and
FEnvironment
D,of
epartment
-orests
India INR 1982 1982.
A6
Project
in
Tiger
under
Rs
million
were
16.2
allocated
Some
reserves
11
P
a HPA
)Nature
G Cons
.(ofnd
Prot
Forest
Indonesia
.-
Den.
ir IDR 39,800,000 1982 xcluding
e1982-1992
,for
period
the
expenditure
govemment
Estimated
protected
T
investment
inhe
.areas
funding
sector
international
private
.T
million
he
around
U
$ S6.0
estimated
at
infrastructure
is
for
tourism
only
RP10,150,899,000
total
was
year
fiscal
1990/91
the
for
budget
PHPA
U
$
(3
%
Cess .A.
S640,000
0
).lin
189/90
year
National
Parks
headquarters
.and
the
allocated
to
Most
are
resources
for
-
low
is
site
investment
The
per
47
Rp
approximately
example
,most
Kalimantan
in
NP
Kutai
for
allocated
hectare
spent
is
which
of
salaries
.on 57
Division
Conservation
Fisheries
and
-ildlife
WLaos LAK 10,000 1991 .The
WFCD
of
budget
Annual
planning
the
for
responsible
is
division
network
.areas
establishment
and
aprotected
of A9
Macau MOP
below
S
-ee ia
Malays MYR 19,232,770 1991 dministered
aMalaysia
eninsular
ncluding
(:areas
,for
Piprotected
budget
Total
.$
)U
by ,574,962
S
8Parks
and
National
Wildlife
of
Department
the
Trustees
Board
Parks
Sabah
theby
a):of
( dministered SUS 5,206,806
Sarawak SUS 3,378,168 A5
Maldives
Cons
WDept.ivision
nd
.DSanct
a orest
,-ildlife
FMyanmar BUK 1,400,000 1991 A5
)
Table
:Sont
budgets
agency
management
areas
Protected
6.
c
(
Asia
Southeast
.and
outh
Country
r
/esponsible
agency in
Budge t Dollar
US
nation
curren lent
equivaal
cy Year Notes Source
Wildlife
and
Parks
National
of
D
-epartment
Nepal
Cons
. NPR
124,300,000 2,900,000 1990 b ut
10,910km
of
areas
,network
protected
total
expenditure
for
Represents
remainder
protection
.T
units
Royal
Army
Nepal
84
ishe
%
to
allocated
maintainence
.R ecent
infrastructure
and
is
administration
on
spent
NRs22.0
.million
have
totalled
reserves
and
estimates
parks
from
revenue
Income
cermits
tourism
from
,pgenerated
sources
other
and
oncessions
has
protection
the
of
costs
the
if
expenditure
exceeded
consistantly
excluded
.
units
are A7,55,59
-
the
for
Council
National
Pakistan
)(Federal
Units
Conservation
Wildlife
of PKR
93,400,000 4,300,000 1990 Total
,o.3
1figure
$
US
.which
parks
national
the
to
allocated
was
million
f
bO
2
Rs
the f
costs
%7.5
development
capital
:4a
5illion
2.5
nd
Recurrent
Plan
seventh
-Y
Five
inear
the
ector
sub
forestry
sallocated
to
wildlife
allocated
to
)w
% ere
1Rs332
million
(,s6.6
ome
988-1993
.
conservation A2,55
Wildlife
and
Areas
-rotected
PPhilippines
Bureau
(P
) AWB PHP
23,000,000 816,200 1987 of otal
timportant
eamer
revenue
a
1988
ince
Tourism
,sin
an
is
reserves
the
from
in
reinvested
and
visitors
park
7,096,884
collected
were
Pesos
.
network
areas
protected 60
Singapore SGD
Wildlife
Conservation
D
of
Sri
-epartment
Lanka 27,825,000
LKR 636,000 Constitutes
.
Conservation
Wildlife
Department
of
budget
total
the 58
Taiwan 36,769,000
TWD 1989 for
allocation
budget
Total
national
.4
parks A8
Nildlife
-
WThailand
.&
Parks
Conservation
ational
Division THB 15,097,000 1991 ,
decade
past
the
over
substantially
increased
have
budgets
areas
Protected
land
corresponding
area
the
than
increase
at
fof
a
tham
rate
aster
.Appear
protection
under
h
general
in
budgets
,a
be
toowever
nnual
still
for
increasing
,a
were
they
lthough
heading
plateau
toward
1980s
.
late
the
parks
in
national A5,58
Viet
Nam
Ministry
Forestry
of VND 222,000 1991 A5
areas
management
Protected
6.
Table
agency
Southeast
budgets
and
:Sont
(c outh
Asia
.)
Sources
:
Conservation
[A
).N(,J]B
1in
Central 989
lower
1
ature
and
Northern
F.H.
Bhutan
R
4 ome
AO
8pp
[
]O
NRamos
Aational
VM
)(1
and
Brunei
in
areas.
thman
3
.J.A.
991
parks
national
on
protected
.Preport
Darussalam
ofresented
Session
Working
36th
B
CNPPA
IUCN
,to
angkok
2-4
6
.December
6pp
[Andated
]G
(u
India
).of
overnment
6
[5iodiversity
B.,B]A
draftF)(1
Forest 991
7non
Indonesia
inal
Dplan
for
General
irectorate
Conservation
Nature
and
Protection
ogor
[ nformation
]A
B)I(1
CNPPA 991
non
9
IUCN
36th
the
at
provided
Session
Working
2
U angkok
npublished
-4
,report
.December
(]W
Bank
)C
:a
1.draft 991
orld
5
onserving
[Atrategy
diversity
-
areas
protected
for
Psbiological
A
region
5reliminary
sia
7pp
)P(u,B]U[Aers
.cpreti
ndated
.7
omm
[5
V
O]U
)(1
World
the
Areas
National
R
:A
.of
Antarctic
G A1.
and
PCambridge
SI rotected
5
992
CN
eview
Systems
olume
Indomalaya
ceania
ustralia
land
and
,U UCN
witzerland
K
352pp
+
.xx
y]K
conservation
)S(1
Nepal
King
7 -:tin
five
.T 988
environmental
[5trategyplan9MTNC
initial
he
ear
action
Conservation
for he
Trust
Mahendra
Nature
K
.,N epal
0pp
athmandu
,][A
P (1
)M
Areasof
Region 990
alik
.M.
protected2
anagement
.status
Pakistan
in
areas
ataper
Regional
presented
Management
on
Consultation
Expert
-Protected
Asia
the
acific
for
Office
Regional
FAO
B
Pacific
the
and
Asia
.,1 angkok
December
0-14
40pp
1990.
][ hilippines
(1
:P)C
report
I
-C
,SG
.6witzerland
ountry
0
991
land
pp
UCN
NPPA
[5
AG)(P]B
prepared
.R
Congress.992
the
for
Protected
andridgewater
reviews
egional
World
IVth
Parks
National
on
1
,Areas
February
0-21
Custralia
V
I aracas
enuzuela
land
8UCN
.Switzerland
[A984
]T
(1
).Parks
aiwan
8
countries Sri Lanka and Bhutan-spend a far higher effectively if biodiversity conservation is to be ecologi-
proportion of their national budgets on conservation cally and economically viable. Since governments and
than do wealthier countries such as Thailand or foreign investors are likely to allocate substantial funds
Malaysia (Table 6). for protected areas only if they are convinced of the
long-term socio- economic benefits, modules such as
At the site level, protected area budgets are similarly those highlighted by Payapvipapong et al. ( 1988) and
elusive, though a few figures are available. Full imple- McNeely and Dobias (1991 ) for Thailand will become
mentation ofa comprehensive conservation programme increasingly useful.
in the upper Arun region of Nepal, for example, will
cost US$ 14.6 million over the next decade, including Further, protected areas may " go out of style" for the
US$426,000 to establish the Makalu-Barun National major funding agencies, especially if governments in-
Park. Annual operating budgets for major protected sist on other priorities. It is incumbent on protected area
areas in Indonesia vary from US$5 per sq km in Kerinci managers to use the current flow of major funding to
Seblat (budget: US$79,606) to US$794 per sq km in develop long-term funding strategies, to learn how to
Gunung Gede-Pangrango (budget: US$ 120,714). become more sophisticated when presenting their fund-
ing requests to the central government treasuries, to
More conservation funds are becoming available from seek ways to increase the self-reliance of individual
international sources, including the World Bank, the protected areas, and to enlist more partners in the fund-
Asian Development Bank, the Global Environment Fa- ing of certain aspects of protected areas.
cility, UNESCO's World Heritage Fund, several bilat-
eral development agencies, and international conservation Private sector investment is one important source that
NGOs such as WWF, IUCN, Conservation Interna- may increase substantially in the coming years, espe-
tional, Asian Wetlands Bureau, and BirdLife Interna- cially if given incentives by government policies. Fig-
tional (formerly ICBP) . Universities, research ures for investment by private organisations in protected
institutions , zoos , and others are also increasingly inter- areas vary from country to country, and in any case are
ested in supporting projects in protected areas. difficult to come by. For Indonesia the private sector
investment in protected areas is estimated at US$ 16
It is apparent that simple shortage of funds is no million to date with an expected investment of US$ 120
longer the only limiting factor for protected areas in the million for 1992-1997 (mostly on development of tour-
region, though other economic factors can prevent the ism facilities). If this figure is realised it will exceed
available funds from being used in the most productive projected government investment (including interna-
way. In Sri Lanka, for example, financial support from tional funds) for the same period.
USAID to establish five new national parks came at the
same time that IMF controls on hiring of new civil
The private and commercial sector is increasingly
servants came into force; as a result, staff were diverted being encouraged to become more involved in conser-
from existing parks to the new ones and the new biolo- vation in cooperation with government agencies and
gists, education specialists, and others required could NGOS to strengthen park and protected area manage-
not be hired in permanent positions. ment. Kaltim Primacoal, a mining company working
adjacent to Kutai National Park, has assisted the
In many parts of the region, the funding problems of Indonesian conservation authorities to develop an ac-
the protected areas are part of a larger picture of rural tion and investment plan for the park. The company is
poverty. The remote areas adjacent to reserves are often now seeking to establish a consortium of investors
financially neglected and poorly managed, and their drawn from local industries and international agencies
under-development is a source of pressure on the pro- to fund conservation activities in the park.
tected areas. Such problems may best be addressed by
funding development projects in the surrounding lands, Other innovative funding mechanisms tried or pro-
thereby reducing pressure on the protected area . Stress-
posed within the region include:
ing a multi-agency approach to these surrounding lands
and waters could increase the resources available to
■ "Adopt a Park" .The Minnesota Zoo has " adopted"
effectively increase the area of protected area core and
Ujung Kulon National Park in Indonesia, the best
bringing adjacent areas under more formal manage- remaining habitat for the Javan Rhino, and is pro-
ment, e.g. ICAD (Integrated Conservation And Develop-
viding a variety of forms of support to the park.
ment Project) in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Indonesia.
■ Debt-for-Nature Swaps. In the Philippines, WWF
Despite generous support from many sources, the fact and national NGOs have utilised this mechanism to
remains that few, if any, protected areas are provided purchase external debt at a discount and make funds
with sufficient trained staff, equipment, and rural devel- available in local currency to fund the IPAS pro-
opment projects in the surrounding lands. Therefore, a gramme and protected areas such as St Paul subter-
regional priority is to ensure the sustainability of fund- ranean National Park. Other countries may be
ing programmes. Funds from international sources for concerned that debt swaps could infringe on
protected areas must be allocated and utilised more national sovereignty.
■ Adoption of " Flagship Species" . Charismatic spe- In summary, a stronger financial commitment from
cies can be used to raise funds for conserving the the national governments and the multilateral and bilat-
habitats where these species are found. In this re- eral funding agencies remains central to the improved
gard, Project Tiger, Project SnowLeopard, and Pro- funding situation for protected areas. Governments that
ject Elephant in India are demonstrations of how to expect financial returns for their investments in conser-
build action plans into five-year development plans vation must be encouraged to realize that safeguarding
and thus strengthen the conservation of numerous the environment is worth a larger investment. They
less "glamorous" species. willingly spend billions to preserve their territorial se-
curity but are still reluctant to allocate the few millions
■ Environmental levies on logging and oil revenues. needed to preserve environmental security through con-
Stumpage fees from Indonesia's forest concessions
servation. Finally, it is also the responsibility of the
are reported to have reached a total capital of US$1
protected area planners and conservation community to
billion; such funds could provide a useful source for
utilize more effectively the funds which are already
long-term financing of protected areas.
available for protected areas and to tap into new and
untraditional financial sources, expanding the overall
■ Entrance fees. Nepal has successfully introduced a
funding pool for the protection of biodiversity.
user's fee (about US$4) levied on all non-national
visitors to the Annapurna Conservation Area Pro-
ject. Unlike most national park fees, these user fees 6. Human capacity in protected
do not go to the government treasury but are recycled
areas management
backtothe protected area by the King Mahendra Trust
which oversees 4633 sq km of protected area with Protected areas employ many people directly even though
over 100 staff without any financial burden to the
many governments pay only meagre salaries. Although
national government.
the total numbers of staff may seem large and some
protected areas even appear over-staffed, management
■ Tourism . Tourism can be a valuable source of in-
needs strengthening in virtually all countries. This is
come for protected areas as well as a source of
often a result of lack of well-qualified and trained staff
economic benefits to local people in the region.
as well as poor deployment ofhuman resources. To date
Revenues from tourism are difficult to estimate,
most senior protected area staff have been students of
especially as they often return to national treasuries
forestry or biological sciences. In view ofthe complexi-
rather than to the parks authorities. Nevertheless , ties of issues faced in conservation area management,
some parks do pay their way. Mt Kinabalu National
protected areas also need access to stafftrained in other
Park in Sabah, Malaysia, for example, generates
disciplines, particularly administration, tourism, social
sufficient funds from tourism to cover the whole
Sabah Parks budget. services, economics, rural development, and public re-
lations.
The following points summarize the finance issue:

In addition to employing local people as park staff,
many protected areas provide indirect employment op-
■ Funds must be directed from the central office to the
portunities at the local and regional level through tour-
field more efficiently. Too many of the " protected
ism and other employment opportunities such as construc-
area" funds remain in the capital cities to cover tion and maintenance work, seasonal grass cutting or
administrative costs and do not filter down to the
harvesting of other natural resources. Some authorities
protected areas themselves.
keep data on number of visitors and revenue in pro-
tected areas, but only a few attempts have been made to
■ "One-off" projects would be much more useful if
estimate how many people in total benefit from tourism
they were part of a reliable long- term package of
and other sectors. Total direct and indirect employment
financial support to entire national systems of pro-
generation at Khao Yai National Park in Thailand in
tected areas.
1987 was estimated at 1,200 people, who received a
■ Innovative financial strategies for protected areas total income of approximately 24 million baht (nearly
should be explored and made part of management US$ 1 million) (Dobias et al. , 1988) . Local communities
strategies for both individual sites and protected may also require and benefit from training to improve
area systems. their services for tourists, e.g. training to teahouse own-
ers in Nepal.
■ Funding for a protected area should be considered
as part of regional development , drawing on addi- Training both in protected area management and
tional funds outside the protected area budget. For buffer zone activities have been identified as priorities
example, the Asian Development Bank now triesto throughout the region. Regional courses for protected
include protected areas into its project boundaries area managers are run by the Wildlife Training Institute
rather than excluding them , as this permits specific (Dehra Dun, India) , the School of Environmental Con-
funding of protection for the area as part of the servation Management (Bogor, Indonesia) and the Asian
overall project funding. Institute of Technology (Bangkok, Thailand). Relatively
Table 7. Threatened critical wetlands of international importance for conservation action
Major sites which are very seriously threatened

or require swift action (over 1,000ha) Size in ha
Bangladesh
Wetlands of Sylet Basin 1,000,000
Myanmar
Irrawaddy Delta 3,500,000
Cambodia
Tonle Sap 1,500,000
India
Chilka Lake 116,000
Kollero Lake 90,000
Southern Gulf of Kutch 735,000
Sundarbans 450,000
Wetlands of Andamans and Nicobar 115,000
Indonesia
Riau coastal wetlands 500,000
Way Kambas 123,500
Musi Banyuasin Delta 200,000
Wasur & Rawa Biru 431,000
Malaysia
Sarawak Peat Swamp Forest 340,000
Southeast Pakary Swamp Forest 300,000
Pakistan
Outer Indus River 400,000
Philippines
Agusan Marsh undertermined
Viet Nam
Mekong Delta 3,900,000
Source: Asian Wetland Bureau
few countries in the region have training facilities spe- training is provided through bilateral arrangements; for
cifically for protected area management, but many example, Nepal park staff receive training in New
countries have courses that are relevant to park manage- Zealand and park staff from throughout the region
ment. For example, the Nepal Forestry Institute and attend higher degree courses at Los Banos, Philippines.
King Mahendra Trust run courses on parks and park
management. Peninsular Malaysia has a wildlife train-
ing centre in the Krau Game Reserve which provides 7. Priorities for future investment
in-service training. In-service courses are run in many
in protected areas
other parks within the region, and WWF has developed
training course material for protected area guards The major issues and required actions for the region
(MacKinnon, 1991). have been identified above . Investment needs will re-
quire a partnership between national governments and
In addition, numerous regional workshops and courses the private sector, leading to a substantial increase in
address specific topics, such as wildlife conservation budgets and a higher priority for protected areas.
and management (Smithsonian Institution in Malaysia),
wetlands (Asian Wetland Bureau) and coastal zone The most significant source of investment today is the
management (ICLARM in the Philippines). Study tours, Global Environment Facility (GEF) , which may pro-
exchange visits and training courses within the region vide some US$ 100 million for conserving biodiversity
are also sponsored by UNESCO, UNEP (Regional Seas in the region over the next several years. These funds
Programme) and FAO. The magazine Tigerpaper, spon- provide, for example, direct support to protected areas
sored by FAO, provides a regional forum for exchange (Indonesia), training (Viet Nam), and establishment of
of information on protected area management. Other trust and endowment funds (Bhutan) (Table 8). The
GEF projects show the kinds of activities which are nomic benefits from (or attributable to) protected areas
likely to be of interest to major international investors. may be the optimum strategy to avoid jeopardizing the
It is also possible that the Biodiversity Convention viability of natural resource systems. With protected
which was signed at the UN Conference on Environ- areas seen as an economic asset they will no longer be
ment and Development in June 1992 will lead to new regarded as a burden on state coffers and suffer from
sources of funding for investment in protected areas. benign neglect. However, economic utilization of pro-
tected areas will only succeed where allocation ofprop-
The Asian Development Bank's environmental erty rights provides sufficient incentives for sustainable
action plan for the 1990s calls for preparation of con- management of biodiversity as well as increased eco-
servation master plans and identification ofviable biodiver- nomic benefits. Property rights which favour economic
sity management projects (both terrestrial and marine) exploitation over biodiversity, or provide insufficient
for short-term and long-term investments, including economic interest to retain long-term involvement, will
policy options for developing and managing biological equally lead to eventual degradation of the natural
resources. ADB is convinced that increasing the ecosystem .
Table 8. Global Environment Facility biodiversity portfolio , South and Southeast Asia
Country Project Amount Innovation/Demonstration
Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation up to US$10m Use of a financial instrument to address
long-term sustainability issues
India Ecodevelopment US$20m
Indonesia Biodiversity Action Plan, preparation work, US$ 2m preparation; Development of large- scale model
for integrated conservation and development US$20m investment ofintegrating protected areas manage-
ment with economic development
of local smallholders.
Also smaller innovative components
Lao PDR Wildlife protected area management US$5.5m Establishment of a protected area
system; land tenure and use of forest
land; participation by communtities
in management of forest land.
Nepal Makalu-Barun Conservation Area and US$4.5m Development ofnational plan for
Conservation Strategy biodiversity conservation and of
model conservation area, integrating
conservation and development.
Philippines Conservation management of priority up to US$20m Policy-based lending package tied to

protected areas legislative conditionality to ensure
means of better mangement and
sustainability through contractual
arrangements with NGOs and
establishment of endowment funds.
Sri Lanka Wildlife conservation and protected area US$4m Minimize conflict between wildlife/
management humans; training and institutional
technical assistance support.
Thailand Forest reserve conservation US$ 10m Changes in policies governing forest
occupants and increased participation;
protection of forest areas representing
different forest incursions and occupancy.
Viet Nam Protected area and wildlife conservation US$3m Combination oftraining and development
technical assistance ofbiodiversity Action Plan to provide
foundation of effective biodiversity
protection.
Regional Preserving Coastal Ecosystem US$7.5m
Coastal Biodiversity US$ 11.50m
107
Table 9. FY 91-93 World Bank projects with biodiversity components
Country Project Component
Bangladesh Forestry III Protection of Sundarbans mangrove forests and establishment

ofwildlife conservation unit.
India Narmada River Basin Devleopment Wildlife sanctuary establishment and protecton.
Maharashtra State Forestry Sector Protection ofrepresentative wildlife nature reserves; institutiona
strengthening.
WestBengal Protection of Sundarbans Tiger Reserve.
Indonesia Integrated swamps Protection of key wetland sites.
Forest management and conservation Strengthening management of ten national parks.
Lao PDR Forest management Establishment and management of conservation-priority forest
nature reserves and human resource development.
Nepal Arun III - Hydro Power/ Access Road Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area: strength-
ening of national park and buffer zone areas.
Philippines Environment and Natural Resource Establishmen of Integrated Protected Areas System (IPAS);
Management Programme (SECAL) manpower development; and protection of 10 priority
protected areas.
Thailand Land reform and protection of forests Protection and management of conservation forest.
The World Bank has also been incorporating pro- and Phanthavong, 1989) , Viet Nam (Anon., 1985) , and
tected area components into many of its projects, illus- Sri Lanka (Kotagama, et al. , 1990) . A number of
trating a productive linkage between protected areas species-oriented action plans have also been developed
and investments in other development sectors such as which have elements relevant to the region; the Asian
agriculture, forestry, and energy (Table 9). Elephant Action Plan prepared by IUCN's Species Sur-
vival Commission is an excellent example of such a
In many parts of the region, the private sector might plan (Santiapillai and Jackson, 1990)
be encouraged to take over those parts of protected area
management which can be made to pay-such as eco-
8. Major protected area issues in
tourism infrastructure-but this needs close control of
the region
concessions to maintain management standards in parks.
The Tourism Authority ofThailand has given the Royal The single overriding issue is the quest for a balance
Forest Department approximately 40 million baht (US$ between the generalized desire to live harmoniously
1.6 million) over 3 years for tourism development at with nature and the need to exploit resources to sustain
national parks (Dobias et al., 1988) . The industrial and life. The problems facing protected areas are thus inti-
commercial sector should also be encouraged to play a mately related to socio-economic factors like poverty,
greater role in subsidising conservation and protected land tenure, and equity. Within this context the follow-
area costs as part of their increasing concern for the ing are the major issues which need to be addressed
environment. This can be arranged either through direct urgently if protected areas are to contribute to the fur-
donations and/or sustained support, such as linking
ther development of the countries in the Asian region.
protected areas budgets to income from sale of electric-
ity from dams whose watershed is protected by a na-
8.1 Improving the relationship
tional park, or assistance from mining companies as in
Kutai and Gunung Lorentz in Indonesia, or indirectly between protected areas and local
through environmental levies. communities
One result of establishing protected areas at the initia-

Currentaction plans at both national and international
tive of central or provincial government authorities has
levels identify national and regional priorities and in-
been to alienate local people from the areas which they
vestment needs. The Corbett Action Plan and the IUCN
had traditionally considered ' their territory' . In extreme
Indo-Malayan Regional Review provide the best re-
cases, this has led to violence and bloodshed.
gional overviews. The regional priorities for wetland
conservation have been identified by the Asian Wet- ■ In Assam, India, a large rebel force from an extrem-
lands Bureau (Scott and Poole, 1989) , supported by ist faction ofthe Bodo tribe recently invaded Manas
country reports by AWB. Detailed national action plans Sanctuary, killed 12 members of the forest staff,
have been prepared for India (Department of Environ- cleared the land, and opened the reserve to poachers.
ment, n.d.) , Indonesia (BAPPENAS, 1991 ) , Laos (Salter The Bodos claimed the park astheir ancestral lands,
stolen from them during the British rule of India. 8.2 Improving management of
They were merely reclaiming their rightful prop-
protected areas
erty, they contended (Dang, 1991).
In many other cases, villages have been removed With the establishment of representative systems of
from their traditional lands to establish protected protected areas in most Asian countries, the major issue
areas. In almost all cases, local people have been being faced by most protected area agencies is how to
expected to curb traditional uses of the resources manage these areas effectively. As suggested above, it
contained within the new protected areas. Further is no simple matter to protect the remaining areas of
problems arise when new immigrants and recent high value for conservation in a time when populations
settlers move into an area, increasing pressure on are growing quickly and demands on resources are
available agricultural land and forest and aquatic growing even more rapidly.
resources.
One approach to improving management is the prepa-
Lacking any significant involvement in the design ration of management plans. The standard approach to
and management of protected areas, local people have preparing management plans is now well known, but
not been strong supporters of their establishment and few plans are prepared through an appropriate process.
are sceptical ofthe capacity of governments to manage Too often, the management planning team consists
local resources on their behalf. But following the rapid primarily of outsiders, rather than including the man-
creation of protected areas in the 1970s and 1980s, ager who will be responsible for implementation; and
greater attention is nowbeing given to the sustainability few management plans have been prepared in consult-
and viability of protected areas. It has become widely ation with local people who are likely to be affected by
agreed that conservation is likely to be most effective the plan. Even where a reasonable planning process has
when it reinforces traditional rights and conservation been followed, as at Khao Yai National Park in
practices. This in turn is leading to many efforts to Thailand, the experience is not replicated in other pro-
involve local people more thoroughly in protected area tected areas in the country. As a result, many manage-
management (see, for example, the papers in Thorsell, ment plans have failed because they are unrealistic,
1985, and McNeely, Thorsell, and Chalise, 1985) . never fully approved by the protected area agency,
insufficiently funded , and inadequately integrated with
■ In Nepal's Sagarmatha National Park, a World regional plans.
Heritage Site, initial hostility to the park was con-
verted into strong support through economic incen- 8.3 Making protected areas part of
tives such as employment in tourism - related
modern society: The role of
activities, preferential employment as park staff,
registration of land to establish tenure rights, resto- education , training , and research
ration and protection of religious structures inside
the park, a return of forest management to the Throughout the region, considerably greater attention is
required to erect the three pillars of successful protected
village, and community development activities
clearly linked to the park (Norbu , 1985) . areas: education; training; and research . These pillars
will remain standing only if an appropriate career struc-
■ In Indonesia's Irian Jaya province, the Arfak Moun- ture is built upon them , to encourage well-trained staff
tains Nature Conservation Area exemplifies the mod- to remain in protected area management.
ern approach, fully involving local people in the
preparation of the management plan, marking and Education. Education and awareness programmes
maintaining the boundary, and benefiting from eco- are scarce inthe region, though some notable efforts are
nomic incentives designed to support the area. This being implemented around some protected areas in
effort has shown that building local support from the India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Far more
outset of protected area establishment can reduce needs to be done to make conservation a part of all
the costs ofboundary demarcation and enforcement subjects in the school curricula, with particular attention
ofregulations (Craven and De Fretes, 1987). being given to highly specific material for schools lo-
cated around protected areas. While "flagship species"
Despite these examples, and several others that could such as rhinos, orangutans, elephants, and tigers have
be cited, far more needs to be done to build support from been useful to symbolize conservation issues, far more
local communities for protected areas. This will require needs to be done to support protected areas in general.
a combination of incentives and disincentives, eco- Better information must be seen as the foundation of
nomic benefits and law enforcement, education and influential public support of protected areas.
awareness, employment in the protected area and em-
ployment opportunities outside , and enhanced land ten- Public education about protected areas is provided
ure and control of new immigration (especially if the primarily by the private sector, with numerous environ-
buffer zones around protected areas are targeted for mental NGOs carrying out campaigns on various issues.
special development assistance) . The key is to find the However, these tend to be aimed at rather specific
balance among the competing demands, and this will targets such as opposing dams in India and Thailand,
usually require a site- specific solution. or fighting for the rights of forest-dwelling peoples in
Sarawak rather than at protected areas in general. more sophisticated combination of science and practice,
Most countries have active press and other media, though biology and sociology, theory and practice, ecology and
again they are often more interested in specific issues economics. Even countries with a rich research tradi-
rather than general information about protected areas. tion, such as India, Sri Lanka, Nepal , and Malaysia, are
The Asian Forum of Environmental Journalists is one facing challenges in bringing science into protected area
useful mechanism which has been developed. Pakistan management. Pioneering work in Sri Lanka (Eisenberg
has established a Journalists Resource Centre, and Sri and Lockhart, 1972; McKay, 1973) led to greatly in-
Lanka an Environment Journalists Forum. creased fieldwork by Asian scientists in South Asia, but
few protected areas have working relationships with
Training. As discussed in section 6, major training local universities, though both Indonesia and Malaysia
institutions have been established in the region and are developing such links. While several biosphere
several universities provide courses of study relevant to reserves have been established with research as a major
protected areas. Nevertheless, training opportunities are focus, few have permanent research facilities or long-
still inadequate, and few protected area agencies are term research relevant to protected area management.
able to provide the specific training that is required for
modern protected area managers and their staff. Topics On the other hand, Sinharaja Natural Heritage Wil-
such as conflict resolution, fund-raising, tourism man- derness Area, a World Heritage Site and Biosphere
agement, and community relations still need far more Reserve which is managed by Sri Lanka's Forest De-
attention. A particular need in the region is for training partment rather than the Department of Wild Life Con-
in marine conservation. The establishment of a regional servation, has long been the site of management- oriented
training school for coastal and marine management is a research and this has ensured its survival against threats
priority for the region. SECM has already initiated a from logging (Ishwaran and Erdelen, 1990).
short marine course which could be expanded.
It is apparent that far more needs to be done to
Some countries, such as India, include conservation promote research in protected areas in the region, and
issues in training for military officers and senior admin- to apply that research to management issues ranging
from wildlife biology to habitat restoration to tourist
istrators, but few include protected areas issues as a
management to economic values of protected areas.
regular part of the training curricula for the full range
Few protected area authorities will be able by them-
of civil servants . The lack of such training means that
selves to undertake programmes to fulfil research needs.
many government officials have only a very superficial
Long-term research programmes need to be established
understanding of the role that protected areas play in
by universities or research institutions to assess the
modern society, and how their day-to-day activities
long-term consequences of land-use changes both within
affect protected areas.
and outside protected areas. This will be especially
Research. relevant to wetland and marine protected areas. Ex-
Knowledge about the natural systems of
change of research information among countries in the
the region has increased remarkably over the past dec-
ade with several important regional publications having region would appear to be a highly cost-effective way
appeared, including reviews on tropical forests (Collins ofimproving the application of science to management.
etal., 1991), wetlands (Scott, 1989), and coral reefs and
UNEP/IUCN, 1986) . While most countries have a rea- 8.4 International cooperation
sonable foundation of ecological scientists, few (India
being a notable exception) have adequate floral or fau- The countries of South and Southeast Asia have so far
nal inventories. More systematic inventory work is shown relatively little regional cooperation, with inse-
urgently needed in most countries of the realm. This cure national borders often leading to conflict rather
requires trained staff and well-maintained herbaria and than coordinated conservation action. Nevertheless, a
zoological collections, though few such institutions have number of protected areas adjoining international bor-
flourished in recent years. ders provide opportunities for improved cooperation.
At least nine such areas have been identified (Table 10)
Even so, for most countries sufficient data are avail- in the region, and could themselves become a focus for
able to identify areas ofhigh biodiversity and endemism improved international cooperation. Considerable op-
and to start to prepare system plans to give adequate portunities also exist for greater exchange of informa-
coverage of the full range of habitat types. Lack of tion and expertise within the region.
survey data cannot be an excuse for inaction in the
realm . Sri Lanka, for example, has imposed a ban on all
logging in the wet zone while a conservation review of
remaining natural forests is undertaken. This review is Maintaining and strengthening the protected area sys-
designed to identify centres of biodiversity and ende- tems ofthe region requires attention to several priority
mism which will be safeguarded from future exploita- issues:
tion.
1. Extending the protected area coverage ofrepre-
A far more serious omission is translating scientific sentative terrestrial and marine ecosystems, in-
results into management action. This requires a much volving the preparation of national system plans.
Table 10. Transfrontier protected areas
1. Sundarbans (India) Sundarbans (Bangladesh)

3
1
4
2
2. Barnadi (India) Shumar (Bhutan)

3. Manas (India) Manas (Bhutan)
4. Wasur (Indonesia) Tonda (Papau New Guinea)
5. Udaipur & Volmiki Nagar (India) Royal Chitwan (Nepal)
6. Samunsam & Tanjung Datu (Sarawak) Prop. Hutan Sambas (Kalimantan)
7. Yot Dom & Khao Phanom Dong Rak (Thailand) Preah Vihear (Kampuchea)
8. Kayan Mentarang (Kalimantan) Prop. Pulong Tau (Sarawak)
9. Gunung Bentang & Karimun (Kalimantan) Lanjak Entimau (Sarawak)
Source: Thorsell and Harrison, 1990
2. Integrating protected area design and manage- in biodiversity conservation and sustainable de-
ment withinthe context ofregional development velopment.
planning.
9. Increasing financial and institutional support for
3. Integrating conservation with development to protected areas and buffer/support zone activi-
provide benefits to local and regional communities, including improved allocation of existing
ties to relieve pressures on protected areas and resources and the long-term sustainability of
funding.
reduce degradation of natural habitats and loss
ofbiodiversity.
10. Strengthening protected area legislation and its
enforcement.
4. Giving greater emphasis to marine conservation,
especially on integrating conservation withcoastal
11. Promoting regional collaboration and coopera-
zone development.
tion to encourage exchange of expertise through
study tours, regional training, consultancies, and
5. Fostering participation of local communities and international programmes.
NGOs as partners with government agencies in
protected area management. 12. Fostering more active participation in global
conventions and other conservation programmes.
6. Building a career structure for protected area
staff. The activities that will convert these priorities into
action in each country will vary according to national
7. Establishing training and research facilities for conservation objectives, history, and political will. In
protected area management and buffer zone ac- every case, action needs to follow the general directions
tivities including training for protected area staff, outlined above.
local government, local NGOs , community or-
ganisers and training for trainers. Remarkable progress has been shown in the develop-
ment ofthe protected areas of South and Southeast Asia
8. Extending education and awareness programmes over the past several decades. The challenge now is to
targeted at all levels of society (local communi- convert ideas, concepts, proclamations, laws, gazette
ties to government planners) to increase recog- notices, and maps into a new and positive relationship
nition ofthe values and roles of protected areas between people and the rest of nature.
Acknowledgements
This review was developed from a regional meeting pants from 16 countries contributed to the discussions
held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 1 to 4 December 1991 , that led to this draft. Many ofthe data were provided by
under the co-sponsorship of IUCN, the Asian Institute the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge.
of Technology, and the World Bank. Some 58 partici-
References
ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1989. Minimum Quality Conservation Monitoring Centre, IUCN, Gland,
CriteriaforEcologically Sensitive Areas. Asian De- Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xx + 352pp.
velopment Bank, Manila. 96 pp. Kotagama, S.W., V.P. Fernando, and N. Ishwaran. 1990.
Anon. 1985. Viet Nam: National Conservation Strat- A Five-Year Development Plan for the Wildlife
egy. Committee for Rational Utilization of Natural Conservation andProtectedAreaManagement Sector
Resources and Environmental Protection. of Sri Lanka. Ministry of Lands, Irrigation, and
ASEAN. 1988. ASEAN Heritage Parks and Reserves. Mahaweli Development, Colombo. 50 pp.
JICA and UNEP, Bangkok. 173 pp. Kothari, A. P. Pande, S. Singh, and D. Variava. 1989.
BAPPENAS. 1991. Biodiversity Action Plan for Indo- Management ofNational Parks and Sanctuaries in
nesia. BAPPENAS, Jakarta, Indonesia. 120 pp. India: A status report. Environmental Studies Divi-
Chettamart, S. 1987. Assessment of National Parks, sion, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New
Wildlife Sanctuaries and Other Preserves Develop- Delhi . 298 pp.
ment in Thailand. Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart Mackinnon, J. 1991. Protected Area Guards Training
University, Royal Forest Department, and Office of Course for Asian Countries. Draft. WWF, Gland,
the National Environment Board, Bangkok. 138 pp. Switzerland.
Collins, N.M. , J.A. Sayer, and T.C. Whitmore. 1991 . Mackinnon, J, Mackinnon,K. Child, G. and Thorsell,
The Conservation Atlas ofTropical Forests: Asia J.W. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics.
and the Pacific. MacMillan, London. 256 pp. IUCN , Gland, Switzerland. Also available in
Craven, I. and de Fretes, Y. 1987. Arfak Mountains Indonesian (Gadjah Mada Press, 1990) .
Nature Conservation Area. Irian Jaya Management MacKinnon, J and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review ofthe
Plan 1988-1992 . WWF, Bogor, Indonesia. Protected Areas System in the Indo-Malayan Realm.
Dang, Himraj. 1991. Human Conflict in Conservation: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP, Nairobi. 284 pp.
Protected Areas, the Indian Experience . Develop- McKay, G.M. 1973. Behavior and ecology of the Asiatic
ment Alternatives, New Delhi. 255 pp. elephant in south-eastern Ceylon. Smithsonian Con-
Department ofEnvironment n.d. National wildlife action trib. Zool. 125: 1–113 .
plan. Government of India, New Delhi. 28 pp. McNeely,J.A. 1987. How dams and wildlife can co-exist:
Dobias, R. Wangwacharakul , V. and Sangswang, N. Natural habitats, agriculture, and water resources de-
1988. Beneficial use quantifications of Khao Yai velopment projects in tropical Asia. J. Conservation
National Park. Report to World Wide Fund for Biology 1 (3): 228-238.
Nature, Switzerland. Pp. 14-15. McNeely, J.A. and Dobias, R. 1991. Economic incen-
Eisenberg, J.F. and M. Lockhart. 1972. An ecological tives for conserving biological diversity in Thailand.
reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon. Ambio 20(2): 86-90.
Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 101 : 1-118. McNeely, J.A. and Miller, K. 1984. National Parks,
FAO. 1981/1982. National Conservation Plan for Conservation and Development: The role ofpro-
Indonesia. FAO, Bogor. (8 vols.) tected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian
FAO. 1985. Myanmar: Survey data and conservation Institution Press, Washington DC . 852 pp.
priorities: Nature Conservation and National Parks. McNeely, J.A., Thorsell, J.W. and Chalise, S. 1985.
FO:DP\BUR\80\006 Technical Report 1. People and Protected Areas in the Hindukush
Gadgil , M. 1989. The Indian heritage of a conservation Himalaya. King Mahendra Trust and ICIMOD,
ethic. In Allchin, B. , F.R. Allchin, and B.K. Thapar Kathmandu. 189 pp.
(eds). Conservation ofthe Indian Heritage. Cosmo McNeely, J.A. and Wachtel, P.S. 1991. Soul ofthe
Publishers, New Delhi. Pp. 13-21. Tiger. Doubleday, New York. 390pp.
IUCN 1990. IUCN Directory ofSouth Asian Protected Mishra, H. 1985. The fragile mountain revisited: Nepal's
Areas. Prepared by the World Conservation agenda for halting the slide. In McNeely, Thorsell, and
Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Chalise. Pp. 111–116
Cambridge, UK. 294 pp. Norbu, Lhakpa Sherpa. 1985. Management issues in
Haribon Foundation/DENR. 1988. Development of an Nepal's National Parks. In McNeely, Thorsell, and
Integrated Protected Areas System (IPAS) for the Chalise. Pp. 123–127.
Philippines. DENR/Haribon Foundation/WWF-US, PHPA 1991. The Development of a Protected Areas
Manila. System in Indonesia. Country Report for Indonesia,
Ishwaran, N and Erdelen , W. 1990. Conserving Asian Regional Experts Meeting, Bangkok 2-4 Dec.
Sinharaja. An experiment in sustainable develop- Praween Payapvipapong, Tavatchai Traitongyoo and
ment in Sri Lanka . Ambio 19(5) : 237–244. Dobias R.J. 1988. Using economic incentives to
IUCN, 1985. Corbett Action Plan. IUCN , Gland, integrate park conservation and rural development
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK . 24 pp. in Thailand. Paper presented at IUCN General
IUCN. 1992. Protected Areas of the World: A Review Assembly, Costa Rica.
ofNational Systems. Volume 1 : Indomalaya, Oceania, Rowchai, S. 1989. Economic incentives for the conser-
Australia and Antarctic . Prepared by the World vation and use of marine fishery resources . A
contribution to IUCN Project on Economic Incen- for the IV World Parks Congress, Caracas, 7-21
tives for Biological Resource Conservation in February.
Thailand. (Mimeo, in Thai). Thorsell , J.W. 1985. Conserving Asia's Natural Heritage.
Salm , R. and Clark, J. 1984. Marine and Coastal Pro- IUCN, Gland. 248 pp.
tected Areas: A Guidefor Planners and Managers. Thorsell , J.W. and J. Harrison . 1990. Parks that promote
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 302 pp. peace: A global inventory of transfrontier nature
Salm, R and Halim, M. 1984. Marine Conservation reserves. Pp. 3-23 in Thorsell, J.W. (ed.) . Parks on
DataAtlas: Planning for the Survival ofIndonesia's the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Con-
Seas and Coasts. IUCN and WWF , Bogor. servation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge
Salter, R.E. and Phanthavong, B. 1989. Needs and Priori- UK . 98 pp.
tiesfor a Protected Area System in Lao PDR. Forest Udvardy, Miklos. 1975. A classification of the bio-
Resources Conservation Project, Vientiene. geographical provinces of the world. IUCN Occa-
Santiapillai, C. and Jackson, P. 1990. The Asian Ele- sional Paper. 18 1-48 pp.
phant: An Action Plan for its Conservation . IUCN, UNEP/IUCN . 1988. Coral Reefs ofthe World. (Volume 2).
Gland. 79 pp. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK and
Scott, D.A. (ed .) 1989. A Directory ofAsian Wetlands. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 389 pp.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. WCED (World Commission on Environment and De-
1,181 pp. velopment) . 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford
Scott, D.A. and C.M. Poole. 1989. A Status Overview University Press , London. 383 pp.
ofAsian Wetlands. Asian Wetland Bureau, Kuala World Bank. 1991a. Asia Region Biodiversity Portfolio.
Lumpur. World Bank, Washington.
Sharma, Devinder. 1991. Quarrying threatens India's World Bank. 1991b. Conserving Biological Diversity:
tigers. New Scientist, 28 September. A Strategyfor Protected Areas in the Asia Region.
Sudarsono, M.A. and Suhartono, T.R. ( 1992) . Forestry (Draft).
policy and conservation in Indonesia. Paper prepared
Australia
protected
Percentage
%
0.1
than
Less 15-20
%
0.1-5
% More
%
20
than
%
5-10
10-15
%
protected
designated
legally
within
included
country
P
ofercentage
Map
.areas
Contents
Page
1.1 Development of the protected areas system over time 209
1.2 Factors influencing the establishment of protected area systems . 216
2.1 Protected area systems . 216
2.2 Categories of protected areas . 217
7. Priorities for future investments in protected areas • 223
8. Major protected areas issues in the region 224
8.1 People in protected areas 224
8.2 Involvement by the private sector . 224
8.3 Protected areas and surrounding lands • . 225
8.4 Protected areas and science . . 225
8.5 Threats to effective management of protected areas • 226
8.6 Transfrontier initiatives . . 226
9. Priorities for action in the region . 226
References 227
Tables

Page
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in Australia 214
Table 6 . Government funding provided to the nine principal nature conservation

agencies and the GBRMPA for management of protected areas,
year ending June 1990. 215
Table 7. The sites first named " national park" in each State. 219
Table 8. Area occupied by terrestrial protected areas , 1968 and 1978. 219
Table 9. Protected areas under the jurisdiction of government agencies ,

31 December 1988. . 219
Table 10. Categories of protected areas in Australia, December 1988 . 220
Table 11 . Government agencies with jurisdiction for protected areas in

Australia. 221
Table 12. Visitor numbers to protected areas managed by the nine principal
nature conservation agencies and the GBRMPA, year ending
June 1990. . . . 222
Table 13. Numbers of staff of the nine principal nature conservation agencies
and the GBRMPA who were directly concerned with management
of protected areas, year ending June 1990 223
Figures

areas . . 206
Figure 2 . Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) · 212

Australia
Peter B. Bridgewater, Regional Vice-Chair for Australia , IUCN Commission

on National Parks and Protected Areas ; and Gwennyth L. Shaughnessy,
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service
1. Historical perspective 1.1 Development of the protected

areas system over time
The terrestrial area of the Australian Region covers
more than 7.68 million sq km. It includes two major land
The Period 1879-1915. The network of protected
masses: mainland Australia and Tasmania, and hun-
areas in Australia is generally considered to have origi-
dreds of islands in the surrounding seas, as well as more
nated with the dedication of The National Park at Port
distant groups oftropical coral cays and oceanic islands.
Hacking near Sydney, New South Wales, in 1879 (Black
The marine area included in the Australian Region
and Breckwoldt, 1977; Goldstein, 1979; Ovington, 1980).
covers more than 8.5 million sq km. It includes an The term " national park" was soon being applied to
extensive continental shelf and the Australian Fishing areas reserved for public recreation in the other colonies
Zone, which was proclaimed in 1979 and extends sea- in Australia and the adoption of the term is generally
wards for 200 nautical miles from the coast of all
taken to mark the beginning of the protected area system
Australian land masses and islands. It includes the in each State.
Australian territorial sea, which extends 12 nautical
miles seawards from the coast. Table 7, which is based on Black and Breckwoldt
(1977), provides information on the site first given the
While Australia is the only country in the Region, the name " national park" in each State. It shows that four
federal system of government divides responsibilities ofthe States established their first national park before
for protected areas among nine political jurisdictions , the federation of the Australian colonies occurred in
namely, the Australian Government (i.e. the Federal 1901. Thus, the term "national park" became widely
Government), the six States (New South Wales, Queensland, used at a time when what are now the States of Australia
South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western were separate, self-governing British colonies. All of
Australia), and two self-governing Territories (Australian the States and Territories continue to use that term
Capital Territory and Northern Territory) . today, generally for the most significant terrestrial pro-
tected areas under their jurisdiction.
The States and self-governing Territories have juris-
diction over the land within their boundaries and over The Period 1915-1967. The impetus for establishing
national parks in New South Wales in the first half of
that part of the Australian territorial sea which lies
within three nautical miles oftheir coast, except for any the twentieth century came particularly from the pio-
neers of bushwalking (i.e. wilderness backpacking) .
area for which there is an overriding Australian Gov-
ernment responsibility consistent with the Constitution. Recognising that many wilderness areas were threat-
ened by alienation for forestry , agriculture, army train-
Such areas include certain lands in the Northern Terri-
ing grounds and water storage schemes, they formed the
tory and the Australian Capital Territory which were National Parks and Primitive Areas Council with the
retained by the Australian Government at the time that
aim of lobbying the government to establish parks.
those territories attained self-government, as well as the Their inspiration came from the United States National
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Park Service and from the concept of wilderness areas
adopted by the United States Forest Service. Fourteen
In addition to such areas within the States and self- major parks were established largely as a result of the
governing Territories, the Australian Government has Council's campaigns to preserve them as wilderness for
jurisdiction over: the land and territorial seas of the recreational purposes (Dunphy, 1979) .
Territory of Jervis Bay and the Australian External
Territories; the territorial sea and Australian Fishing In the other States, interest groups also placed pres-
Zone beyond a distance of three nautical miles from the sure on their governments to establish parks. Ovington
coasts ofthe States and the Northern Territory; and the (1980) listed 24 examples of important nature conser-
Australian continental shelf. vation areas in all States and the Northern Territory that
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : Australia

Australia 7,682,300 814,026 10.6 23,816 0.3 837,843 10.9

Christmas Island 138 87 63.0 0 0.0 87 63.0
Cocos (Keeling) Island 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Norfolk Island 35 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 7,682,487 814,113 10.6 23,816 0.3 837,929 10.9
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a
nature protection function are generally included .
were given protection between 1900 and 1940, and for recreational and aesthetic purposes and the other
became the nucleus of the national park system in later comprising reserves for the protection of wildlife. They
years. also showed that a variety of terminology was employed
to categorise parks and reserves. Only in New South
The parks were established by a variety of legislative Wales had an integrated approach to the management
mechanisms. In New South Wales, for example, each of national parks and wildlife been achieved, and that
park was the responsibility of a group of trustees ap- only in the previous year. The report stressed that all of
pointed bythe Department of Lands. During the period the protected areas provided protection to habitat largely
1955 to 1965 a more structured approach to national in a natural state, and thus were of critical importance
parks administration became evident in three jurisdic- to nature conservation. The report also showed that the
tions, with the passage of legislation specifically pro- concept of marine parks was in its infancy.
viding for the establishment of national parks .
Data in the Academy's report showed that the per-
TheWild Life Preservation Society of Australia sought
centage ofthe land area of each State that was devoted
to convince the New South Wales government to estab- to protected areas at June 1968 ranged from a low of
lish reserves specifically for the protection of wildlife. 0.6% in Queensland (which is the second largest State
This goal was eventually achieved in 1949 with the in terms of total area) to 4.2% in Tasmania (the smallest
passing of the Fauna Protection Act (Strom, 1979) . State) . The Australia-wide average was 1.2%.
Similar developments occurred in other States, e.g.
Western Australia (Ride, 1975). In 1967, an annual series of conferences of govern-
ment Ministers having responsibility for national parks
The Period 1967-1979. In 1967, New South Wales
was initiated. At first, only the States were involved, but
passed the National Parks and Wildlife Act, which
the Australian Government also participated from 1969,
integrated the management of national parks and wild-
as a result of its responsibility for parks and reserves in
life throughout the State under the newly established
National Parks and Wildlife Service . This comprehen- the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.
In 1969, a parallel series of meetings concerning wild-
sive nature conservation legislation was later used as a
life conservation commenced. The mutual interest of
model by the other States and Territories (Turner, 1979
cited in Frawley, 1988). the two groups was such that by 1974 it was decided to
combine forces and establish the Council of Nature
The Australian Conservation Foundation (a national , Conservation Ministers, with all Australian Govern-
non-government conservation organisation) issued a ment and State Ministers having responsibility for na-
publication concerning the national parks of Australia tional parks and/or wildlife conservation participating.
(Mosley, 1968) and the Australian Academy of Science By that time, several of the States had followed the lead
published more detailed information soon afterwards of New South Wales and combined the two responsi-
bilities in one agency.
(Australian Academy of Science, 1968). The two pub-
lications provided a summary of the achievements of
the previous ninety years since the establishment of the Major conflicts over nature conservation matters
first national park in 1879. sparked public debate during the 1970s. Many were
concerned with mining, timber harvesting or construc-
The Academy's report showed that in each State tion of hydro-electric dams on public lands that were
separate systems of terrestrial protected areas had de- essentially wilderness, but not adequately protected . Be-
veloped, one comprising national parks established largely cause ofconcern about the impact of these developments,
Australia
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : Australia
I II III IV V TOTAL
Australia 73 25,835 350 633,123 1 15 245 105,679 64 49,374 733 814,026

Christmas I 1 87 87
Cocos (Keeling) Is
Norfolk I - - - -
Total 73 25,835 351 633,210 1 15 245 105,679 64 49,374 734 814,113
national park status was sought in order to prevent In 1974 the results of a project initiated by the
exploitation, but the respective State governments were Australian Academy of Science during the 1960s to
not always sympathetic to this tactic (Ovington, 1980) . considerthe conservation status of the major plant com-
Indeed, in some situations, national park status provided munities of Australia, as part of its contribution to the
no guarantee of protection, as governments sought to International Biological Programme, became available
revoke parks or change their boundaries in order to (Specht et al., 1974). The conservation status of each
accommodate the requirements of resource exploitation. major plant community in each State was assessed
according to the degree to which it was represented in
There was also concern about wildlife management, a park or reserve. The Academy recognised that it would
particularly in relation to the commercial exploitation be preferable to survey ecosystems rather than plant
of kangaroos. Management of kangaroos is the respon- communities, but because of resource constraints it was
sibility of the States, but if the products are exported decided to concentrate on vegetation , with the expecta-
from Australia, they become an Australian Government tion that conserving plant communities adequately would
responsibility because trade with other countries is a result in the conservation of the habitat of most animal
power specifically vested in the Australian Government species, provided that special provision was made for
bythe Constitution. The Australian Parliament appointed migratory species (Specht et al, 1974).
an Inquiry into Wildlife Conservation which reported
in 1972. The terms of reference covered not only kan-
At a symposium organised by the Australian Acad-
garoos , but also other native wildlife, survey methods ,
emy of Science, Specht ( 1975) recommended that at
adequacy of reserve systems, threats to survival, and
least one reasonably large sample of each major ecosys-
mechanisms to ensure better conservation management
tem in each biogeographical division of each State
(House ofRepresentatives Select Committee, 1972).
should be incorporated into an " ecological reserve" ,
either by designating the whole or part of existing
Two significant actions in 1975 had their origins in
national parks and other nature conservation reserves as
the recommendations of the Inquiry. They were the
establishment of the Australian National Parks and Wild- ecological reserves, or, where necessary, by acquisition
of land. It was recognised that the ecological reserves
life Service (ANPWS) and the Great Barrier Reef Ma-
proposed by Specht were similar in concept to Bio-
rine Park Authority (GBRMPA) as Australian Gov-
sphere Reserves (Frankel, 1975; Slatyer, 1975) . The
ernment agencies.
Australian Man and the Biosphere Committee was es-
tablished and it approached State and Australian Gov-
In 1974 another Inquiry issued its report. The Com-
ernment authorities to seek suggestions for prospective
mittee of Inquiry into the National Estate had been
Biosphere Reserves. Five areas were nominated to UNESCO
appointed by the Australian Government and it now
in 1976 and accepted in the following year and seven
urged that government to "press on with all speed in the
more nominations were accepted in subsequent years.
work of identifying and conserving " Australia's cul-
tural and natural heritage of national and international
significance (Committee of Inquiry into the National During the 1970s Australia became a party to two
Estate, 1974). An important outcome ofthe Inquiry was international treaties with significant implications for
the passing of legislation enabling the Australian Gov- protected areas, the Ramsar Convention and the World
ernment to provide financial assistance to the States for Heritage Convention, but only one site was nominated
nature conservation programmes. The legislation was for listing during the decade. This was the Cobourg
used for several years duringthe late 1970s to assist with Peninsula Fauna and Flora Reserve in the Northern
the acquisition of land for incorporation into parks or Territory, which was the first site included on the List
reserves (Goldstein, 1979). ofWetlands of International Importance . The relative
500
Number of sites
300
200
100
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
1,000
Number of sites
600
400
200
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Australia
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : Australia

Australia 4.1 17.3 74.9 3.7 143,056 814,026

Christmas Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 87
Cocos (Keeling) Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Norfolk Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Total 4.1 17.3 74.9 3.8 143,056 814,113
size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered bythe table, the figures may be distorted.
powers of the Australian Government and the State in the area occupied by terrestrial protected areas in
governments in relation to international treaties became Australia, as Table 8, derived from Ovington (1980),
a topic of intense debate at this time, which inhibited indicates .
further nominations. Australia's adherence to interna-
tional conservation treaties and programmes is summa- The data in Table 8 should be interpreted cautiously
rized in Table 4. because of differences in terminology and definitions
relating to parks and reserves in the various States, but
nevertheless, they show considerable gains during the
By the end ofthe period 1967-1979, every State had
period 1968-1978; this trend is further confirmed in
revised its protected areas legislation and administra-
Table 3, derived from data held at WCMC, which
tion and three more States (Queensland , South Australia
indicates a rapid growth in the period 1972-1981 , when
and Tasmania) had established an integrated National
Parks and Wildlife Service. In the other two States some 74.9% ofthe present protected areas system was
established. For Australia as a whole, the area added to
(Victoria and Western Australia), updated national parks
terrestrial parks and reserves in the decade was almost
legislation had been passed and National Parks Authori-
twice as great as that added during the 90 years previous
ties established, but wildlife management still remained
to 1968 (Figures 1 and 2) . In Western Australia there
the responsibility of a separate agency .
had been an increase from only 0.5% of the State in
protected areas in 1968 to 5.0% in 1978. Tasmania still
Several of the States established mechanisms for had the largest percentage, having more than doubled
systematically evaluating the need for additional pro- the area of its protected areas to reach 10% of the State
tected areas and began programmes to acquire addi- in 1978.
tional land for this purpose. In Western Australia, for
example, the government appointed the Conservation During this period, the Australian Government began
Through Reserves Committee to make recommenda- to adopt a higher profile in respect of protected areas.
tions for new parks and reserves. In Victoria, the Land Until 1975, its role was limited to its territorial respon-
Conservation Council was established to investigate sibilities in the Australian Capital Territory and the
and make recommendations on the balanced use of Northern Territory. By the end of the period, both the
public land and it recommended several new protected ANPWS and the GBRMPA had been established and
areas which would contribute to a truly representative for the first time the Australian Government was play-
system derived from existing public land (Goldstein , ing a national role in relation to nature conservation and
1979). During this period there was a marked increase to protected areas.
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions : Australia

Australia August 1974 10 42,167,718 12 4,743,223 May 1974 40 4,481,346

The period also saw growing awareness of the need towards protected areas in Australia. Some of the diffi-
for marine conservation. This was reflected in the es- culties between the Australian Government and the
tablishment of the GBRMPA and procedures to create States which had inhibited nominations to the World
a major marine park to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Heritage List were resolved and the first nominations
The IUCN International Conference on Marine Parks were made in 1980. Further nominations followed in
held in Japan in 1975 provided an opportunity for subsequent years and there are now nine sites on the
Australia to establish contact with marine park expertise List. (Table 5).
elsewhere in the world.
Table 5.World Heritage sites in Australia

The non-government conservation movement contin-
ued to grow. The Tasmanian Wilderness Society began
to coordinate campaigns to protect wilderness areas of Australia
Tasmania, particularly from hydro-electric development Australian East Coast Temperate and Sub-
schemes. The Australian Conservation Foundation in- Tropical Rain Forest Parks
creased its influence as it brought many conservation
Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region
issues to public attention and it instigated a series of
Great Barrier Reef
National Wilderness Conferences (Mosley, 1978; Messer
and Mosley, 1980) . Kakadu National Park
Lord Howe Island Group
In the mid- 1970s, concern about competing land-use Shark Bay
claims inthe areaknown as the Alligator Rivers Region,
Uluru (Ayers Rock Mount Olga) National
in the tropical north of the Northern Territory, resulted
Park
in a major public Inquiry initiated by the Australian
Government. The recommendations of the Inquiry led Tasmania Wilderness
to a resolution which sought to balance the interests of Wet Tropical Rain Forests of Queensland
Aboriginal people , the mining and tourism industries, Willandra Lakes Region
and the significant conservation values of the area.
Uranium mining was allowed under strictly controlled In 1983 intense public concern developed over plans
conditions in a specified location . The traditional by the Tasmanian Government to proceed with a major
Aboriginal owners of land in the Region were identi-
hydro-electric dam project within the Tasmanian World
fied under the provisions ofthe Aboriginal Land Rights
Heritage Area. Non-government conservation organi-
Act and were granted title to that land , which they then sations urged the Australian Government to take action
leased to the ANPWS for the purposes of a national
to prevent the dam from being built, arguing that, al-
park. In April 1979 Stage 1 of Kakadu National Park
though the site was under Tasmanian jurisdiction, the
was declared under the National Parks and Wildlife
Australian Government was obliged to intervene be-
Conservation Act of the Australian Parliament.
cause of its ultimate responsibility, as the national gov-
ernment, for implementation of international treaties.
In 1979the centenary ofthe establishment of Australia's
first national park was celebrated . By that time there The Australian Parliament enacted a law providing
were two national parks under the legislation adminis- the power to prohibit actions which might damage or
tered by the ANPWS, both in the Northern Territory. destroy a World Heritage site, even though situated in
The first had been established at Ayers Rock in 1977 a State, and used that power to prohibit construction of
and the second was Kakadu . The Northern Territory had the dam. The Constitutional validity of the legislation
been granted self-government in 1978 and the Territory's was subsequently upheld by the High Court. This con-
nature conservation agency had responsibility for all firmation of the Australian Government's power in
other national parks, and for nature conservation gener- relation to the World Heritage Convention encouraged
ally, throughout the Territory. non-government conservation organisations to seek World
Heritage Listing as a means to safeguard significant
Thus, by the centenary year of 1979 there were eight sites which they considered were inadequately pro-
nature conservation agencies with responsibility for tected by State governments. This approach led to the
national parks in Australia, representing the six States, World Heritage Listing of the rainforests of the wet
the Northern Territory, and the Australian Government. tropics region of Queensland in 1988 and a major ex-
To mark the centenary, Australia's 100 Years of pansion ofthe Tasmanian World Heritage Area in 1989,
National Parks was published . It contained historical with concomitant cessation of forestry activities in both
accounts of the growth of national parks in Australia areas.
and information on the park estate, policies, legislation,
administrative structures and plans for the future The State and Australian Government Ministers re-
(Goldstein, 1979). sponsible for nature conservation had issued a report in
1979 which concluded that there was strong justifica-
The Period 1980-1991 . During the 1980s the World tion for the establishment of a system of marine parks
Heritage Convention had a major influence on attitudes and reserves in Australia (Ivanovici, 1984) and the
Australia
1980s saw a significant expansion in that respect. The creation of the ANPWS as the Australian Government
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which covers 34.5 nature conservation agency now provided the means by
million hectares, was established to protect the world's which protection could be achieved for the significant
largest expanse of living coral reefs and their associated conservation values of some ofthe oceanic islands and
marine life. In 1982 and 1983 the first national nature cays for which Australia is responsible .
reserves were established under ANPWS legislation to
protect coral cays, reefs, territorial waters and parts of In 1989, the Australian Capital Territory attained
the continental shelf in two of the Australian External self-government, and responsibility for protected areas
Territories: the Coral Sea Islands in the South Pacific in that Territory was transferred from the Australian
Ocean; and Ashmore and Cartier Islands in the Timor Government to the Territorial government.
Sea. State agencies, including those responsible for
fisheries as well as nature conservation agencies , began In the early 1980s the ANPWS undertook the role of
to assess their existing marine protected areas and to collecting statistics on protected areas in Australia.
plan for more. They have been published approximately every two
years in a series entitled Nature Conservation Reserves
In 1984, the ANPWS published an inventory of main Australia. At first, only terrestrial reserves managed
rine and estuarine protected areas established by legis- by the principal nature conservation agencies were in-
lation and managed by government agencies responsible cluded in the survey, but subsequently coverage was
for national parks, wildlife , fisheries or historic ship- extended to include all reserves that are terrestrial ,
wrecks, as well as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, marine and/or estuarine, managed primarily for nature
as at 30 November 1983 (Ivanovici, 1984) . This was the conservation purposes, and under the jurisdiction of an
Australian Government, State or Territory agency res-
first time that such information for all jurisdictions in
Australia had been brought together. ponsible for nature conservation , forestry, fisheries, or
regional management.
As well as establishing several marine national nature The latest edition ofthe series provides statistics as at
reserves, which included coral cays, the ANPWS also 31 December 1988 (Mobbs, 1989) . The series shows
established national parks on two oceanic islands in that the area of Australia protected in parks and reserves
External Territories: Norfolk Island in the South Pacific continued to expand during the 1980s. A summary of
Ocean and Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean. The information from the latest edition is provided in Section 2.
Table 6. Government funding provided to the nine principal nature conservation

agencies and the GBRMPA for management of protected areas, year ending
June 1990 (after Wescott, 1991 )
Jurisdiction Funding (US$ million)
Australian Government
ANPWS 9.7
GBRMPA 7.0
New South Wales 44.4
Queensland 20.6
South Australia 10.8
Tasmania 12.1
Victoria 25.5
Western Australia 11.1
Australian Capital Territory 3.9
Northern Territory 6.6
Total 151.7
Note: Figures are approximate and are not comparable between jurisdictions because of differences in the
structure and responsibility of agencies. The table does not include State and Territory agencies
which have responsibility only for marine areas or for forests.
Active participation in the Ramsar Convention in- A motivating factor behind the establishment of ma-
creased markedly during the period 1980-1991 and all rine protected areas in earlier years was the protection
States except one nominated sites for inclusion in the of fish nursery areas. Now there is increased emphasis
List ofWetlands of International Importance. There are on a broader range of values, and many marine pro-
now 40 wetlands on the List and there is a strong tected areas are managed as multiple use areas, with a
possibility that sites in Queensland may be nominated zoning system to provide for separation of activities.
soon.
During this period, Australia became a party to two 2. Current protected area coverage
regional treaties which require commitment to the es-
tablishment of protected areas: the Convention for the 2.1 Protected area systems
Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment
of the South Pacific Region (the SPREP Convention) Each ofthe nine jurisdictions (the Australian Govern-
and the Convention on Conservation of Nature in the
ment, six States and two self-governing Territories), has
South Pacific (the Apia Convention).
a government agency having principal responsibility
for nature conservation . Together, they are responsible
1.2 for the management of a large proportion of the pro-
Factors influencing the
tected areas in Australia. In addition, the Australian
establishment of protected area
Government has the GBRMPA, which is responsible
systems
for the largest protected area in the Region, the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park. Several State and Territory
The factors influencing the establishment of the various forestry and fisheries agencies also maintain protected
protected area systems in Australia have been men- area systems. Mobbs ( 1989) provides information on all
tioned in the historical survey above. Black and Breck- of those protected areas systems as at 31 December
woldt (1977) identified four features that seemed to be 1988. Data from that publication, with certain modifi-
common to the national parks systems of the various cations, are presented in Table 9 to show the number of
States: protected areas, both terrestrial and marine, and their
total area, for which the various agencies are responsi-
■ a tendency for policies and practices to diffuse from ble in each ofthe nine jurisdictions.
the USA to Australia and from one State to another
within Australia; In the table, protected areas established under
Australian Government legislation are listed against the
■ movement away from a situation in which control of
Australian Government even though they are situated
national parks was decentralised and in the hands of
in a State or self-governing Territory. The only excep-
trustees or statutory boards to one in which control
tion is that areas situated in the Australian Capital
is centralised and in the hands of a government
Territory are listed against that Territory, even though
minister;
the Australian Government was technically responsible
for parks and reserves there until the following year,
movement away from viewing the primary purpose of
when self-government was granted . Another difference
national parks as recreational and towards increasing
between the data in the table and those provided by
recognition of their scientific significance and their
nature conservation function; and Mobbs ( 1989) is that an area counted as one marine park
by the latter is treated as two separate marine parks in
☐ an increasing trend to provide protection for parks the table, because it actually comprises two adjoining
against revocation and antithetical uses, although areas which are proclaimed separately under State and
parks were still not absolutely secure. Australian Government legislation.
Hall (1988) considered that Australia's national parks The table indicates that at 31 December 1988 , there
are not purely the result of aesthetic and ecological were 3,225 terrestrial protected areas in Australia, oc-
considerations, but also reflect the materialist percep- cupying 40,781,000ha, that is, about 5.3% of the land
tion that only lands that have no perceived alternative area (Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of total land
economic value should be used for national parks . While area within protected areas in 1992). In addition, there
this rather negative view may have some validity, the were 229 marine protected areas covered a total area of
nature conservation agencies themselves cannot be ac- 36,605,410ha, that is, about 4.1 % of the Australian
cused of such motives. The accounts of their policies Fishing Zone. About 94% of that total area is occupied
provided in Goldstein ( 1979) shows that they were by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which has an
seeking, within the constraints of limited resources, to area of approximately 34,500,000ha. The total of 229
establish a network of reserves that protected a repre- includes 89 areas that form marine components of pro-
sentative sample of ecological systems within their tected areas which are predominantly terrestrial and
areas ofjurisdiction , as well as providing protection for which are included in the total of3,225 terrestrial pro-
sites of aesthetic and cultural value and catering for tected areas referred to in the previous paragraph. Those
recreational needs. 89 areas occupy 172,900ha.
Australia
The total number of protected areas in the Region at Clearly the Park is a protected area, but equally clearly,
the end of 1988 can be calculated by adding the 3,225 the entire Park cannot be characterised as Category I or
terrestrial areas and 229 marine areas and subtracting II. Does such categorisation matter? The fact that the
the 89 marine areas that are double-counted, as ex- Great Barrier Reef is also inscribed on the World Heri-
plained in the previous paragraph. This gives a total of tage List is perhaps significant in trying to understand
3,365 protected areas. Similarly, those 3,365 protected the relative importance of the protected area classifica-
areas occupy (40,781,000+ 36,605,410 -172,900)ha, tion. According to Hooy and Shaughnessy ( 1992), the
that is, 77,213,510ha. Great Barrier Reef is currently classified as Category V,
as defined in the interim 1990 IUCN reclassification of
Subsequently an updated set of figures have been protected areas management categories.
published (Hooy and Shaughnessy, 1992). This indi-
cates an increased level ofprotection as of30 June 1991 , Less well known internationally , the Regional
with 3,429 terrestrial protected areas (50,139,421ha), Reserves in South Australia also do not appear to fall
and 158 marine protected areas (39,638,652), giving a into the categories given most attention in the United
total 89,778,073ha. The largest increase has been in Nations List, yet they perform a vital function in the
South Australia, from 11.1 million ha in terrestrial protected area network in the central arid region of
protected areas (Mobbs, 1989) to 16.7 million ha (Hooy Australia.
and Shaughnessy, 1992).
This raises the question whether classifications are
necessary or relevant. Perhaps we should aim to de-
2.2 Categories of protected areas emphasise protected area categorisation and concen-
trate instead on the management and functionality ofthe
Australia has no universally agreed classification sys-
protected areas and their context in the surrounding
tem for protected areas. Each agency within each juris-
landscape and/or seascape.
diction has adopted terminology that suits its particular
circumstances, resulting in a large variety of protected The application of the World Heritage Convention
area designations or categories. The most widely used has been a contentious issue in Australia at times. The
categories are " national park" and " nature reserve" . original nominations of the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu
There are more than 500 national parks distributed National Park Stage 1 , Uluru National Park and Lord
throughout all nine jurisdictions and about 1,400 nature Howe Island aroused little comment within Australia,
reserves in four jurisdictions . and were well regarded internationally. Nomination of
the East Coast Rainforests of New South Wales created
In the preparation of this Review, the question of
more attention, especially the decision not to include the
classification of protected areas inevitably arose
adjacent parts of Queensland, even though they are
(Tables 1 and 2 summarise the Australian protected area
ecologically continuous. Nevertheless, the nominated
system according to the IUCN management category site was inscribed on the List.
scheme). Of particular concern was how to relate the
classifications used within Australia to the IUCN cate- In comparison witness the controversy over the
gories of protected areas, and to the selection of pro- Tasmanian World Heritage Area, with the State Gov-
tected areas that appears in the United Nations List of ernment fiercely contesting the Australian Govern-
NationalParks and Protected Areas. The classification ment's right to protect it, the nomination of Kakadu
of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park caused some Stage 2, opposed by the Government of the Northern
debate. The whole of the Marine Park is protected and Territory, and the Wet Tropics of Queensland, whose
it conforms to the definition of a marine protected area nomination was opposed with particular tenacity by the
as adopted by the IUCN General Assembly: Queensland Government. Internationally, there was no
doubt over the worth of these areas, and they were
"Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together appropriately inscribed on the List.
with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna,
historical and cultural features, which has been reserved Much of the opposition, if analysed critically, was
by legislation to protect part or all of the enclosed less to do with World Heritage values, and more to do
environment. " with a perception that the Australian Government was
ignoringthe wishes ofthe States. There are still residual
Five per cent of the area of the Marine Park falls tensions over these issues, but the opposition from the
within IUCN Categories I and II , while the remainder State Governments has diminished from the peak of the
lies within Categories IV and V. The legislation under mid-to late 1980s. Indeed, some States are now arguing
which the Marine Park is established provides for all for areas to be nominated which would probably not
parts of the Park to be subject to a zoning plan. Protec- qualify! The lesson here is that protected area designa-
tion ofthe entire Marine Park is the overriding respon- tions, especially those of international status, need care-
sibility of the GBRMPA, as defined in its legislation. ful treatment, and explanation to an often largely ignorant
The Authority is empowered to create the levels of public.
protection needed to achieve its conservation goals.
Furthermore, the legislation specifically provides that Table 10 uses data from Mobbs ( 1989) to show the
no mining or mineral prospecting may occur in the Park . categories of protected areas, both terrestrial and
marine, in the various jurisdictions in Australia, as at well as areas of archaeological, historic or scientific
31 December 1988. importance, or of natural beauty suitable for recreation ,
and areas for the production of renewable natural re-
As noted earlier, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, sources.
which covers some 34.5 million hectares, accounts for
94% of the total area occupied by marine protected At the national level, the ANPWS initiated the Na-
areas. The Marine Park is managed as a multiple-use tional Index of Ecosystems programme in 1984 in order
region which allows for reasonable human use while to assist the States and Territories to adopt a systematic
still ensuring the protection of the Reef. Zoning enables approach to their protected area network. The pro-
conflicting activities to be separated , and allow for uses gramme is reviewing the application of major ecosys-
such as diving, reef-walking, recreational and commer- tem classifications covering Australia and developing
cial fishing and for general tourist activities. There are methods andproviding assistance to State and Territory
three major categories of zones: agencies to identify and conserve major ecosystems
within theirjurisdiction . The programme uses the com-
1. Preservation and Scientific Zones (equivalent to
puterised database facilities of the Environmental Re-
IUCN Category I), with a total area of 66,400ha,
sources Information Network which was established in
or 0.2% ofthe Marine Park.
1990 to provide geographically-related environmental
2. Marine National Park Zones, including Buffer information for planning and decision-making.
Zones (equivalent to IUCN Category II) , with a
total area of 1,668,700ha, or 4.8% of the Marine In 1990 the Australian Government initiated a pro-
Park. gramme to incorporate the philosophy of ecologically
sustainable development into all facets of Australian
3. General Use Zones (equivalent to IUCN Cate- life. Working groups were established to consider how
gories IV and V), with a total area of 32,746,900ha, to apply that philosophy to the various sectors of the
or 95% ofthe Marine Park. Australian economy. The programme recognises that
conservation of biological diversity is essential for eco-
Table 5 summarises the number of sites that have
logically sustainable development and there is increas-
achieved international recognition as Biosphere Re-
ing acknowledgement that the conservation of biologi-
serves, World Heritage Sites or Wetlands of Interna- cal diversity requires that landscapes and seascapes be
tional Significance. In most cases the sites are also managed within a bioregional framework with a net-
designated protected areas in one ofthe categories listed work of protected areas representative of all major
in Table 10.
ecosystems integrated into that framework.
3. Additional protected areas For marine areas, the Australian Government recently
launched the Ocean Rescue 2000 programme , which is
required
expected to run for the next decade. The Government is
While the acquisition of protected areas has not neces- to provide significant financial resources to enable the
sarily been carried out on a systematic basis in the past, development of a marine conservation strategy, a state-
several of the agencies now have a formal commitment of-the-marine-environment report, and a national sys-
to the establishment of a protected area system which tem of marine protected areas. The programme is being
represents all major ecosystems within their area of implemented through cooperative working groups with
jurisdiction. One of the corporate goals of the New representatives from Australian Government, State and
South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service is to Territory agencies. A major conference on marine and
work towards the development of a reserve system estuarine protected areas in 1991 , sponsored by the
which samples the complete range of natural and cul- Australian Committee for IUCN and attended by sev-
tural environments of the State. The Queensland Na- eral hundred people, provided a significant stimulus to
tional Parks and Wildlife Service has recently been this process.
charged by its government with the task of doubling the
national park estate of Queensland to achieve maximum Studies of ecological coverage also point to increases
representation ofthe State's biodiversity within the park needed in the protected area system . The study by
system. In Victoria, the Department of Conservation Specht et al. (1974), mentioned earlier, attempted to
and Environment has stated that one of its aims is to assess the extent to which the terrestrial plant alliances
establish a network of parks that protects a representative of Australia were conserved in protected areas. The
sample of Victoria's habitats and scenic and cultural results indicated that Tasmania was at that time the only
features, while providing opportunities for environ- State where more than a quarter of the plant alliances
mental education, research and public recreation. The could be considered to have an excellent conservation
Department of Conservation and Land Management in status and that, even there, the percentage was only
Western Australia has a commitment to establish and 28%. In four States, less than 3% of alliances rated as
maintain a system of secure reserves which protect excellent. At the other extreme, the percentage of alli-
viable representative samples of all the State's natural ances whose conservation status was classed as poor or
ecosystems and species, both terrestrial and aquatic, as nil ranged from 25% in Tasmania to 78% in Queensland.
Australia
Table 7. The sites first named " national park" in each State (after Black and Breckwoldt ,
1977)
State Location Area Year of Dedication
New South Wales Port Hacking 7,300 1879
South Australia Belair 800 1891

Victoria Tower Hill 600 1892
Western Australia Greenmount 1300 1900
Queensland Witches Falls 131 1908

Tasmania MountField 11,000 1915
Note: In several cases, the name of the park has changed and/or the area ofthe park has increased , since the
original proclamation.
Table 8. Area occupied by terrestrial protected areas, 1968 and 1978 (after Ovington ,
1980)
Total Area Percentage of Total Area in Terrestrial

State or Territory (x 000 ha) Protected Areas
1968 1978
Australian Capital Territory 243 2.0 4.0

New South Wales 80,177 1.0 2.6
Northern Territory 134,809 3.6 3.9
Queensland 172,826 0.5 1.3

South Australia 98,483 1.2 4.0
Tasmania 6,836 4.2 10.0
Victoria 22,771 0.9 1.3
Western Australia 252,870 0.5 5.0
Australia 769,015 1.2 3.5
Table 9. Protected areas under the jurisdiction of government agencies, 31 December

1988 (after Mobbs, 1989)
Terrestrial Marine
Jurisdiction Protected Areas Protected Areas
No. Area (ha) No. Area (ha)
Australian Government - ANPWS 5 1,895,489 8 2,105,410

Australian Government -GBRMPA 0 0 1 34,500,000
New South Wales 438' 3,812,165 20 7,255
Queensland 574 3,663,769 119 1,088,294
South Australia 279 11,117,167 20 33,717
Tasmania 227 966,997 14 24,060
Victoria 362 1,829,983 25 49,586
309
Western Australia 1,247 15,252,213 241,395

Australian Capital Territory 5 107,321 0
Northern Territory 88 2,135,826 229,251
Table 10. Categories of protected areas in Australia, December 1988 (from Mobbs , 1989)
Category Jurisdiction No. Area (ha)
Terrestrial Protected Areas

Aboriginal areas NSW 9 11,520
Aboriginal sites Tas 4 1,243
Conservation areas Tas 31 32,456
Conservation parks SA 193 4,078,109
Conservation reserves NT 12 33,778
Cons./recreation res. WA 25 12,611
Environmental parks Qld 168 48,057
Fauna refuges Qld 4 6,445
Fauna reserves Qld 2 25,906
Feature protection areas Qld 28 1,198
Flora reserves NSW 137 35,012
Flora & fauna reserves Vic 73 48,806
Forestreserves Tas 43 17,151
Game reserves SA, Tas 19 25,273
Historic sites NSW, Tas 43 3,365
Historical reserves NT 12 5,726
Hunting reserves NT 1 1,605
Muttonbird reserves Tas 5 9,288
National parks All 514 18,611,655
Native forest reserves SA 48 17,610
Nature parks NT 19 23,841
Nature reserves ACT, NSW , 1,391 11,123,781
Tas, WA
Other areas NT 38 1,528,663
Other parks Vic 44 442,953
Other reserves Vic 23 7,021
Recreation parks SA 14 4,536
Reference areas Vic 35 27,291
Regional reserves SA 2 4,345,965
Reserves ACT 3 7,821
Scientific areas Qld 48 18,400
Scientific reserves Qld 7 41 634
State recreation areas NSW 22 59,880
State reserves Tas 54 20,534
Wildlife reserves Vic 154 101,796
Marine Protected Areas

22400
Aquatic life reserves NT 151

Aquatic reserves NSW , SA,WA 23 16,495
Conservation areas Tas 3,481
Fish habitat reserves Qld 426,943
Fish sanctuaries Qld 6 3,343
Historic shipwreck Aust, NT, Qld
protected zones SA,Vic, WA 10 896
Marine parks Aust, NT, 13 35,104,200
Qld, Vic, WA
Marine reserves Vic, Tas 8 6,502
National nature reserves Aust 4 1,975,500
Waters managed in sympathy ACT 1 800
Wetland reserves Qld 29 567,774
Marine components of terrestrial reserves All 89 172,883
Notes: ACT = Australian Capital Territory; Aust = Australian Government; NSW = New South Wales ;
NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas Tasmania; Vic = Victoria;
WA = Western Australia
Australia
Since that time,the nature conservation agencies have 4. Protected area institutions
committed themselves to improving the representation
ofecosystems in their protected area networks, but their
ability to achieve that aim is constrained by lack of The protected areas summarised in Tables 1 , 2 and 10
resources, by competition for land-use and by past are managed by a variety of government agencies . Each
land-use decisions which limit the areas now available of the nine jurisdictions has a principal nature conser-
for reservation. The National Index of Ecosystems pro- vation agency with responsibility for the establishment
gramme and comparable State programmes are attempt- and management of national parks and other protected
ing to bring a systematic approach to the classification areas (Table 11 ). In some cases, it is a statutory authority
of ecosystems. in its own right while in others it is a part of a larger
government department.
A project carried out in 1991 used computerised data
in the Environmental Resources Information Network
concerning land tenure and vegetation types to assess In two instances , forestry is also the responsibility of
the representation in nature conservation reserves, the principal nature conservation agency , whereas in the
Australia-wide, of 24 vegetation growth form classes. other jurisdictions that function is carried out by a
The results showed that for four of those classes more separate government agency. Some of those forestry
than 20% ofthe total area was included in reserves. For agencies have established protected areas for nature
another seven classes, between 10% and 20% of the conservation purposes within the native forests which
total area was included in reserves. Seven classes had they manage. In some cases the principal nature conser-
less than 5% representation. vation agency has responsibility for marine areas as
well as terrestrial areas, but in other jurisdictions, ma-
As the concept of ecologically sustainable develop- rine protected areas are administered by separate fish-
ment becomes broadly accepted throughout the nation, eries agencies. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is
the importance of developing a system of protected managed by the GBRMPA, a regional management
areas that is representative of all major ecosystems will agency established by the Australian Government.
assume increasing importance nationally. Such a sys-
tem would require increased coordination among the
various management agencies to ensure that the pro-
tected area networks in the various political jurisdic- 5. Current levels of financial
tions complement each other to form a national system.
investment in protected areas
At the same time, those agencies will need to combat a
developing tendency among industry-oriented groups
to claim that the aim of achieving ecologically sustain- The nine governments in Australia provide funding for
able development justifies revocation of protected ar- their agencies in their annual budgets , part of which is
eas, excisions from them, and the conversion of totally applied to the management of the protected areas for
protected sites to multiple-use areas. which they are responsible . Table 6 gives approximate
figures for government allocations to the principal
South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland nature conservation agencies and the GBRMPA spe-
have recently developed proposals for a significant cifically for the management of protected areas in the
expansion of their protected area networks involving year ending 30 June 1990. The values are in millions of
new parks in the arid, northern and subtropical regions United States dollars (one Australian dollar = approxi-
oftheir States. mately 77 United States cents).
Table 11. Government agencies with jurisdiction for protected areas in Australia
Australian Government Department of Fisheries

• Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania
(ANPWS)
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) • Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage
• Forestry Commission
New South Wales
• National Parks and Wildlife Service Victoria
Forestry Commission • Department of Conservation and Environment
⚫ Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Western Australia
Queensland
• National Parks and Wildlife Service • Department of Conservation and Land Management
• Forest Service, Department of Primary Industries Australian Capital Territory
Division of Fisheries and Wetlands Management,
⚫ Parks and Conservation Service
Department of Primary Industries
South Australia Northern Territory
• National Parks and Wildlife Service • Conservation Commission
Woods and Forests Department ⚫Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries
Table 12. Visitor numbers to protected areas managed by the nine principal nature
conservation agencies and the GBRMPA, year ending June 1990 (after
Wescott, 1991 )
Jurisdiction Visitor Numbers
ANPWS 500,000
GBRMPA 2,500,000
New South Wales 17,500,000
Queensland 6,570,000
South Australia 2,000,000
Tasmania 740,000
Victoria 8,800,000
Western Australia 3,600,000
Australian Capital Territory 2,500,000
Northern Territory 2,500,000
Total 47,210,000
Note: Figures are approximate and are not comparable between jurisdictions because of differences in the structure and
responsibility of agencies. The table does not include State and Territory agencies which have responsibility only
for marine areas or for forests.
Many protected areas in Australia are important tour- park use fees, including those charged to commercial
ist destinations and thus important generators of reve- operators.
nue. The Great Barrier Reef, Kosciusko, Kakadu and
Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Parks, and In some States, non-government organisations raise
the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, in funds to assist government agencies. For example, in
particular, are well-known and attract thousands of recent years the National Parks and Wildlife Foundation
visitors from overseas every year, as well as large of New South Wales has provided financial support to
the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife
numbers of people from all over Australia.
Service for the operation of a seasonal ranger pro-
Table 12, summarises estimates of visitor numbers to gramme and for the construction of walking tracks and
protected areas managed by the nine principal nature interpretative displays in national parks.
conservation agencies and the GBRMPA in the year
ended 30 June 1990. The total of some 47 million can
6. Human capacity in protected
be compared to Australia's population of 16.7 million.
areas management
The management agencies derive income from fees
All nature conservation agencies have a head office in
imposed on visitors (e.g. entry fees and camping fees)
their capital city with staff mainly engaged in adminis-
but these are not charged at all parks . In the more remote
trative and policy matters. In some cases, head office
areas of Australia the cost of collecting fees could
staff also prepare management plans, educational and
exceed the income derived from them. Permit charges
publicity materials, and interpretative displays and they
imposed on commercial tourism operators who take may be responsible for research programmes in parks.
groups of visitors into parks, and thus use the parks as Other agency staff are stationed in regional headquar-
a resource, also provide revenue to park management ters while park superintendents and rangers generally
agencies. In some parks commercial photographers are reside in, or adjacent to, many of the larger parks.
required to pay fees for the right to use those parks as a
resource. Table 13 provides an indication of the number of
people employed to manage protected areas, whether
Figures on the revenue derived from tourism in based in head office, the regions, or the protected areas
protected areas is not generally available, but the Great themselves, at 30 June 1990.
BarrierReef Marine Park derives about US$ 3.9 million
annually from charges, and Kakadu and Uluru National As noted above, many protected areas in Australia are
Parks earned a total of US $ 1.65 million in the year important tourist destinations and they thereby generate
ending 30 June 1991 as direct revenue, mainly from significant employment opportunities in tourist-related
Australia
Table 13. Numbers of staff of the nine principal nature conservation agencies and the
GBRMPA who were directly concerned with management of protected areas ,
year ending June 1990
Jurisdiction No. ofStaff
ANPWS 92
GBRMPA 50
New South Wales 387
Queensland 418
South Australia 234
Tasmania 174
Victoria *n.a.
Western Australia 270
Australian Capital Territory 99
Northern Territory 295
*Not possible to identify these staff separately from those engaged in other activities of the agency.
Note: Figures not comparable between jurisdictions because of differences in the structure and responsibility of agencies . The
table does not include those agencies which have responsibility only for marine areas or for forests .
industries, such as hotels, coach companies and tour A significant new focus in training for nature conser-
guide companies. vation in the 1980s has beenthe development of ranger
training programmes for Aboriginal people. The ANPWS
initiated these programmes at Kakadu and Uluru Na-
Training of personnel engaged in park management
tional Parks, both of which are situated on Aboriginal
is achieved in a variety of ways. There is no specific land leased to the ANPWS. The ANPWS has also
qualification required for staff to be employed by park provided officers to conduct training programmes for
management agencies. Instead, a range of courses of-
Aboriginal rangers in South Australia and Western Aus-
fered by universities and colleges is accepted as provid-
tralia and several States now conduct their own pro-
ing appropriate training. At least 28 institutions in Australia
grammes.
provide courses which provide suitable initial qualifi-
cations for rangers or supplementary qualifications in The magazine Australian Ranger Bulletin, which is
particular areas of resource management. published twice yearly by the ANPWS on behalf of all
of the nature conservation agencies of Australia, con-
The park management agencies themselves also offer tributes to ranger training by providing a forum for
training for their staff and now have an additional training, communication and the sharing of ideas . Arti-
incentive to do so because the Australian Government cles are contributed by park management staff, based
has imposed a legal requirement on all but the very on their own experience and the magazine is distributed
smallest organisations to spend 1.5% of their gross to all rangers in the country.
salary budget on training for their staff.
7. Priorities for future investments

For park and wildlife managers at a senior level, a
series of Regional Seminars on National Parks and in protected areas
Wildlife Management is held biennially. They provide
Wescott (1991 ) carried out an assessment of the terres-
a training forum of international standard for approxi-
mately 30 delegates nominated by the nature conserva- trial national parks and other conservation reserves of
tion agencies of Australia and neighbouring countries. Australia and made comparisons with the national park
The Australian Government provides financial assis- systems of the United States and Canada, on the basis
tance to allow overseas delegates to attend . The Semi- that the three countries are comparable in size and
nars are coordinated through standing arrangements culture and that the percentage of their land area de-
involving all of the government Ministers responsible voted to sites designated as national parks is approxi-
for nature conservation, but each seminar is organised mately the same (2% ) . Despite these similarities, the
by a specific agency . The Seminars generally operate number of national parks in Australia is more than ten
on a case-study basis, with delegates visiting various times greater than the number in either of the other two
parks and reserves in the host State and examining at countries. Conversely, the average size of the national
first hand a variety of management issues. parks is much less. He also found that Australia expends
far less on national park management (less than halfthe managed as a national park. The land has been leased
amount expended by Canada and one seventh that by for99 yearstothe ANPWS in return for an annual lease
the United States). payment and a percentage of the park use fees paid by
visitors. The agreed arrangements for each park also
Wescott (1991 ) concluded that these two charac- include a Board of Management having a majority of
teristics of Australia's national parks (lower funding Aboriginal representatives of the traditional owners ,
levels and proliferation of small national parks) prob- and employment of traditional owners as rangers, guides
ably emanate from the fact that the national park sys- and advisers.
tems are run by the State/Territory governments rather
than the Australian Government. He observed that the In both parks the traditional knowledge and skills of
different States tend to run their parks systems as ifthey the Aboriginal people are being applied directly to park
were separate countries, rather than members of the management, particularly in relation to the use of fire.
same country and noted that the reasons for this were Where possible, the burning patterns followed by gen-
largely historical. He suggested that interstate political erations of Aboriginals to manipulate wildlife habitat,
rivalry may also have played a role, as individual States before European management practices interceded, are
"have attempted to demonstrate a better-than-others being reintroduced . The recollections of Aboriginal
environmental record by claiming a greater number of elders concerning the past distribution of wildlife are a
national parks. " key influence on wildlife restoration programmes. The
traditional Aboriginal owners live in the parks and have
As a result of his analysis, Wescott ( 1991 ) concluded the right to undertake subsistence hunting and gathering
that the only way to resolve the problem of low re- under certain conditions.
sources for Australia's national parks was for the
Australian Government to take over responsibility for Elsewhere in the Northern Territory, the Conserva-
tion Commission has made arrangements to manage
the funding of the system. This would not necessarily
mean direct management of the parks (which in any certain other Aboriginal lands as national parks on
case would hardly be feasible). He suggested a system behalf of the traditional owners. In Western Australia,
whereby the Australian Government would provide tied Aboriginal people live in two national parks (Purnululu
funding to the States ' parks agencies to operate their and Rudall River), and a similar arrangement is being
systems in return for the States allowing that Govern- negotiated in a third park. In both Queensland and New
ment to rationalise the systems to form one integrated South Wales the feasibility of establishing national
national system . The result, he considered , would be parks on Aboriginal lands is currently being investi-
that the already substantial and distinctive Australian gated.
national parks system would be improved even further.

In the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park provision is
made for traditional fishing and/or hunting in certain
8. Major protected areas issues in zones. To qualify as traditional, the fishing or hunting
the region must not be carried out for purposes of sale or trade and
must be conducted in an area by a traditional inhabitant
8.1 or a group oftraditional inhabitants in accordance with
People in protected areas
Aboriginal tradition or Islander tradition, as the case
The culture that has dominated Australia over the last may be, governing the entry and use of that area by that
200 yearsis derived from western Europe. The Aborigi- traditional inhabitant or group of traditional inhabitants.
A traditional inhabitant is defined as an Aboriginal or
nal culture that has been present in Australia for 50,000
Torres Strait Islander who lives in an area or areas in
years or more has tended to be ignored or subsumed by
that European culture. In recent years, however, there accordance with Aboriginal tradition or Islander tradi-
tion.
has been a revitalisation of Aboriginal culture and gov-
ernment programmes and community attitudes now
acknowledge its values. The Australian Government's 8.2 Involvement by the private sector
Aboriginal Land Rights legislation of 1976 was a major
factor in this change. It applies tothe Northern Territory In Australia the concept of national parks and nature
and enables formal hearings to be held to examine reserves is closely linked to public ownership. Procla-
claims by Aboriginal people to traditional ownership of mation of an area of land or sea as a park or reserve
areas of land. If there are no encumbrances on the land under special purpose legislation has been the means of
the traditional owners identified through this process retaining that area under public ownership and prevent-
may be granted inalienable title to it. ing exploitation of resources by the private sector. Thus,
there has been a dichotomy between publicly owned
Two of Australia's most important national parks,
parks and reserves which are generally protected from
Kakadu and Uluru , are established on land that was exploitation, and areas outside those parks and reserves,
granted to its traditional Aboriginal owners under the where exploitation can occur.
process described above . The traditional owners, after
being granted title to the land, have entered into an Today, it is being increasingly recognised that the
arrangement with the ANPWS so that the land can be conservation of biological diversity cannot be achieved
Australia
solely within parks and reserves and that the manage- governments to rehabilitate and protect areas of natural
ment of all areas of land and sea must be carried out in vegetation on land outside protected areas.
a manner which is conducive to the conservation of
biological diversity, even while resource exploitation 8.3 Protected areas and surrounding
by the private sector occurs. Landscape and seascape lands
management on a regional basis is receiving increasing
support. Multiple-use protected areas, in which certain While the late 1960s and the 1970s were significant for
exploitative activities may be carried out under speci-
the emergence ofgovernment nature conservation agen-
fied conditions are also becoming more common. Two cies as identifiable entities in the various jurisdictions
terrestrial Regional Reserves in the arid region of South in Australia, the 1980s witnessed a trend towards incor-
Australia provide for commercial activities (such as porating those agencies into larger departments , having
natural gas exploitation and cattle grazing) to occur wider environmental and natural resource concerns,
undercontrolled conditions, while the wildlife and natural
including, in some cases, forestry. In all States, except
and historical features of the land are protected . New South Wales, and in both of the Territories, the
nature conservation agency is now part of, or closely
Because the natural features of Australia are a major
allied to, a much larger agency.
attraction for visitors from overseas, tourism is a com-
mercial activity that has a close relationship with pro-
A major advantage of this integrated approach to land
tected areas. Tourist operators are generally required to
management is that, by providing flexibility in resource
pay a fee for the right to carry out their activities in parks allocation, it can increase the resources committed to
and reserves.
protected areas and nature conservation generally. It
also provides access to specialist expertise . For exam-
The various government nature conservation agen-
ple, forestry personnel can contribute significantly to
cies have instituted a variety of schemes to encourage
private landowners to protect wildlife and its habitat on the management of forested areas in national parks and,
conversely, wildlife officers can assist with the conser-
their land. Those schemes range from simple agree-
vation of wildlife in State forests. Integrated agencies
ments by farmers that they will prevent hunting on their
are well placed to conduct environmental management
land, to legally imposed requirements to protect stands
on a regional basis, with protected areas forming part of
of native vegetation (Thackway and Stevenson , 1989) .
the mosaic ofland management categories in the region .
In practice, only schemes that are backed by legislation
(principally in South Australia and Victoria) appear to
In some quarters , there are concerns that the interests
be truly effective.
of protected areas may be threatened by this type of
In South Australia a landholder must apply for per- regional administration . In particular, non-government
conservation organisations fear that placing responsi-
mission before any natural vegetation is cleared. The
conservation values of the vegetation are assessed and, bility for forestry and national parks with the same
agency is disadvantageous to the latter, because of the
if they are significant, permission to clear is refused .
The landholder then has the option of entering into a pressure experienced by such agencies to maximise the
economic return from the land they manage. Non-gov-
Heritage Agreement, which means that the legal title to
the land incorporates a proviso that the area of natural ernment conservation organisations have actively op-
vegetation is to be protected in perpetuity, even though posed government proposals to amalgamate the Forestry
Commission with the National Parks and Wildlife
ownership of the land may change. Once a Heritage
Service in New South Wales.
Agreement is made, the government must provide
financial compensation to the landholder, equivalent to
any reduction in the market value of the land, provided 8.4 Protected areas and science
that the land would have been suitable for agriculture
on a permanent basis if clearing had been allowed. The agencies responsible for protected areas endeavour
to manage those areas on a scientific basis, using both
South Australia is also the setting for a different type published research and the results of special purpose
of private involvement in natural area management. A studies. Most ofthe agencies employ some scientists on
private individual has devoted himself to the task of their staff and their work is supplemented by consult-
rehabilitating an area of land to restore natural ecosys- ants engaged on contract to carry out specific projects.
tems. He has provided secure fencing to keep out exotic Those consultants are generally from universities, the
predators and competitors such as cats, foxes and rab- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
bits. Animals native to the region are bred in captivity Organisation (CSIRO) or private consulting firms .
for release on to the land. Entry fees paid by visitors
help to defray the cost of operating this privately-owned Some examples of topics on which research is con-
wildlife sanctuary. ducted to assist in the management of protected areas
include: ecology of the crown of thorns starfish, a
The Australian Government has recently initiated significant predator of coral in the Great Barrier Reef
programmes which enable the ANPWS to provide Marine Park; experimental burning to determine the
financial assistance to community groups and local conditions that allow spread of wildfire in the Stirling
Range National Park, Western Australia; ecology ofthe separately under State and Australian Government leg-
brush-tailed bettong prior to its reintroduction into Nuyts islation because the Park includes both State waters
Archipelago Conservation Park, South Australia; and inside the three nautical mile limit and Australian Gov-
visitor use of Uluru National Park, Northern Territory. ernment waters beyond that limit. Separate plans of
management apply to the two separate parks, but their
The possibility of using protected areas as key sites preparation involves close cooperation. The State na-
in a nation-wide network of environmental monitoring ture conservation agency manages the Australian Gov-
stations is currently being investigated by the ANPWS ernment component of the Park, on behalf of the
and the CSIRO . This will have particular relevance to ANPWS, as well as its own component.
studies of global change.
The arrangements for management of the Great Bar-
rier Reef Marine Park and adjacent areas of water and
8.5 Threats to effective management
land, require a close and cooperative relationship be-
of protected areas tween the GBRMPA and Queensland government agen-
cies, particularly since many of the islands that are
The management agencies attempt to prepare plans of situated inside the boundaries of the Marine Park are
management for their protected areas, and some have a
part of Queensland. The arrangement has been very
statutory requirement to do so. Generally, those plans
successful despite intense jurisdictional conflict be-
are prepared through a process of public consultation,
tween the Australian and Queensland governments when
which includes issuing a draft plan for comment before the GBRMPA was established in the mid- 1970s . Com-
preparing the final plan. Constraints ofboth finance and
plementary planning and management are carried out,
staff limit the rate at which such plans can be prepared there is shared funding and responsibility, and Queens-
and the ability of the agencies to implement the plans.
land agencies act as agents for the GBRMPA in the
To a certain extent, this is inevitable in such a large day-to-day management of the Marine Park.
country with many protected areas situated in remote
areas. A developing form of cooperation involves the sepa-
rate agencies within some States which are responsible
Another more subtle threat to effective management
for terrestrial and marine protected areas. Increasingly,
comes from a developing tendency for the mining in- it is recognised that effective management ofthe coastal
dustry to argue that all existing protected areas should zone requires integration across the land/sea boundary.
be open to exploration for minerals and that no new To achieve this integration in protected areas manage-
protected area should be established until the area has mentin some States requires cooperation between sepa-
been subject to assessment for minerals. Such an ap- rate agencies responsible for national parks and fisheries .
proach fails to acknowledge that the long-term role of
protected areas in conserving biological diversity can
be far more important to humanity than short-term 9. Priorities for action in the region
economic gains from mining.
The European Review notes that it is " more difficult to
establish and manage a nature reserve than a land-
8.6 Transfrontier initiatives scape." Yet, in Australia, the obverse is true, whether
on land or sea. The opportunities to establish protected
The Australian Alps National Parks represent a signifi- areas are rapidly diminishing, because of competing
cant transfrontier initiative in protected area manage- land-use claims. Within the next decade, we must de-
ment in Australia. A memorandum of understanding velop a methodology to provide care and management
has been signed by Ministers from four jurisdictions, for landscapes and seascapes if we are to have the safety
New South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital net to allow our protected areas to survive and flourish.
Territory, and the Australian Government, which com-
mits their nature conservation agencies to cooperate in The Australian Government, in partnership with State
the management of seven national parks and other re- and Territory governments, has embarked on three in-
serves that are contiguous with each other along the ter-related programmes to achieve this aim. There is a
borders of the two States and the Territory. The parks programme each for the terrestrial and marine environ-
and reserves protect the only alpine habitat in mainland ments, and a major emphasis on developing an ecologi-
Australia. While the parks and reserves remain the cally sustainable future. Central to the achievement of
responsibility of the jurisdictions in which they are such a future is a sound and secure protected area
situated, the agencies are cooperating to ensure consis- system : one which knows no boundary between land
tent standards of management across the borders. The and sea, and which, in functional terms, ignores political
Australian Government role, through the ANPWS , is boundaries, while recognising the sovereign rights of
primarily to coordinate these cooperative activities and all governments .
to provide some financial assistance.
In the terrestrial environment, we have recently made
Another example of transborder cooperation is at a first attempt to screen, nationally, the existing pro-
Ningaloo Marine Park in Western Australia. The Park tected area network against a classification of environ-
actually comprises two adjoining parks declared ments . Those environments are derived by combining
Australia
a wide range of climatic and biophysical variables and which embraces some of the principles of Biosphere
then classifying the data. The results will be presented Reserve management. To help with this, the Australian
by Thackway and Cresswell (in press). They show that National Commission for UNESCO has recently com-
we have been successful as a nation in achieving pro- missioned a review ofthe existing network of Biosphere
tected areas in alpine and temperate forest environ- Reserves in Australia with an assessment of how to
ments. But Australia is largely a semi-arid tropical and determine options for the future.
subtropical land. Forty-five per cent of Australia has
less than one per cent protected area coverage. This The brightest star for the future in Australia is the
situation obviously deserves more attention. increasing involvement of Aboriginal people in man-
agement of protected areas. We have made a small
We are about to embark on a similar programme for beginning in the last decade, but the developments will
marine areas, which will help determine the key areas accelerate. Aboriginal involvement is important not
for protection in the littoral and EEZ components of the only for a recognition of the rights of the indigenous
continent and associated territories. The Australian Gov- peoples, but also because of the inestimable value of
ernment has announced Ocean Rescue 2000 , a decade- their knowledge of and respect for the land . They have,
long programme to achieve this aim . This is on top of after all, lived over most of Australia for at least 50,000
the 26% increase in Australian Government-managed years.
marine protected areas (outside the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park) and the 300% increase in State- managed
In the next decade, completion of ecological invento-
marine protected areas over the last five years. Of ries, and greater uniformity of administrative approaches
particular concern for marine conservation will be man- between Federal and second order jurisdictions, will
grove ecosystems. Australia has the greatest areas of combine to refine and improve the nations protected
undisturbed mangrove ecosystems in the world, with an areas. Australia, as a mega-diverse country, has the
extraordinary species diversity, even if the majesty of potential to have the finest protected area system in the
the forest is less than that of fully tropical areas. world.We look forward to an exciting decade ahead for
protected areas in Australia, both within our own coun-
In both terrestrial and marine environments, we rec- try, and also in partnership with our neighbouring re-
ognise that protected areas, on their own, are insuffi- gions, and indeed globally, to secure an ecologically
cient. We are developing a regional management approach, sustainable future.
References
Australian Academy of Science . 1968. National Parks Goldstein, W. (ed . ) . 1979. Australia's 100 Years of
and Reserves in Australia. Canberra. NationalParks. National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Black, A. and Breckwoldt, R. 1977. Evolution of sys- Sydney.
tems ofnational park policy-making in Australia. Hall, C. M. 1988. The "Worthless Land Hypothesis"
Pp. 190-9 in Mercer, 1977. and Australia's national parks and reserves, pp 441-
Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate. 1974. 56 in Frawley and Semple, 1988.
Report ofthe National Estate. Australian Govern- Hooy, T. and Shaughnessy, G. (Eds) 1992. Terrestrial
ment Publishing Service, Canberra. and marine protected areas in Australia (1991).
Davis, B. W. and Drake, G. A.. 1983. Australia's Bio- Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service,
sphere Reserves: Conserving Biological Diversity. Canberra. 81pp.
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. House of Representatives Select Committee. 1972.
Dunphy, M. 1979. The bushwalking conservation move- Wildlife Conservation. Australian Government
ment, 1914-1965. Pp. 54-64 in Goldstein, 1979. Publishing Service. Canberra.
Fenner, F, (ed). 1975. A National System ofEcological Ivanovici , A. M. (ed. ) . 1984. Inventory ofDeclared
Reserves in Australia. Australian Academy of Science, Marine and Estuarine Protected Areas in Australian
Canberra. Waters. Australian National Parks and Wildlife
Frankel, O. 1975. Conservation in perpetuity: ecologi- Service, Canberra.
cal and biosphere reserves, Pp. 7-10 in Fenner, Mercer, D. (ed .). 1977. Leisure and Recreation in
1975 . Australia. Sorrett. Malvern . Victoria.
Frawley, K. J. and N. M. Semple, (eds.). 1988. Australia's Messer, J. and G. Mosley, (eds. ) . 1980. The Value of
Ever Changing Forests. Australian Defence Force National Parks to the Community. Australian
Academy, Campbell, ACT. Conservation Foundation. Melbourne .
Frawley, K. 1988 : The history of conservation and the Mobbs, C. (ed.) . 1989. Nature Conservation Reserves
national park concept in Australia: a state of knowledge in Australia (1988) . Australian National Parks
review, pp. 395-417 in Frawley and Semple, 1988. and Wildlife Service . Canberra.
Mosley, G. (ed.). 1978. Australia's Wilderness. Australian Australia and Papua New Guinea. CSIRO,
Conservation Foundation , Hawthorn, Victoria. Melbourne .
Mosley, J. G. 1968. National Parks and Equivalent Strom , A. A. 1979. Some events in nature conservation
Reserves in Australia : Guide to Legislation, over the last forty years, pp. 65-73 in Goldstein,
Administration and Areas. Australian Conservation 1979.
Foundation, Canberra. Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I. in press. Regionalisation
Ovington, J. D. 1980. A national perspective, pp. 45-56 ofthe Environments of Australia a User Defined
in Messer and Mosley, 1980. and Integrated Approach.
Ride, W. L. D. 1975. Towards an integrated system: a Thackway, R. and Stevenson, P.. (eds.). 1989. Nature
study of the selection and acquisition of national Conservation Outside Reserves. Australian National
parks and nature reserves in Western Australia, Parks and Wildlife Service. Canberra.
pp . 64-85 in Fenner, 1975. Turner, A. 1979. National Parks in New South Wales,
Slatyer, R. O. 1975. Ecological reserves: size , structure 1879-1979: Participation, Pressure Groups and
and management. pp 22-38 in Fenner, 1975. Policy. PhD Thesis, Australian National University,
Specht, R. L. 1975. The report and its recommenda- Canberra.
tions. Pp. 11-21 in Fenner, 1975. Wescott, G. C. 1991. Australia's distinctive national
Specht, R. L., E. M. Roe and V. H. Boughton, (eds .) . park system . Environmental Conservation. 18(4):
1974. Conservation ofMajor Plant Communities in 331-340 pp.
Antarctica/New Zealand
Percentage
protected
Less
%
0.1
than
0.1-5
%
5-10
%
10-15
%
15-20
%
%
20
More
than
230
Km
4
800
000
Map
.Percentage
areas
protected
designated
legally
within
included
country
of
Contents
Page
2.1 The existing network: Adequate coverage on land • 234
2.2 Marine Reserves : Ample room for growth 237
2.3 Protected area management categories • 237
2.4 Sites under international recognition 237
2.5 Protection of private land . . 237
3. Additional protected areas required . 238
8. Major issues in protected areas 242
8.1 Introduced animals and plants • 242
8.2 Impacts of tourism 242
Annex 1. Protected areas in the Antarctic Treaty Area 245
1. History of the protected area system in the Antarctic Area 245
2. Deficiencies and threats in protected area management • 246
3. Protected area coverage • 247
4. Proposed protected areas 247
5. Management planning and design of protected areas 248
6. Institutional capacity for establishment and management of protected areas . 248
7. Integration of protection and other activities 248
8. Information management . 249

Page
Annex 2. Protected areas on islands of the Southern Ocean ... 251
1. Introduction-the Southern Islands 251
2. Biogeographical setting 251
3. Extent of protection 251
4. History of protection • 251
5. Status of protection . 251
6. Institutional arrangements 252
7. Management issues and priorities for future action 252
References 253
Tables
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in Antarctica/New Zealand . · 240
Table 7. Relationship between New Zealand protected area class and revised
IUCN category . . . 247
Table 8. Antarctica Specially Protected Areas (SPA) . 249
Table 9. Antarctica-Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) . . 250
Figures

areas . 230
Figure 1 . Growth ofthe protected areas network (non-cumulative) . 236

Paul R. Dingwall , Regional Vice-Chair for Antarctica/New Zealand ,

Historical perspective became Arthur's Pass and Fiordland National Parks and
1.
reflect an emerging interest in protection of lands of
The year of 1987, which stands mid-point between the high scenic and wilderness value as tourist attractions,
Parks Congresses in 1982 in Bali and 1992 in Caracas, following the traditions of America's Yellowstone Na-
was a significant milestone in the history of protected tional Park. But scenery protection was to reach its
areas and conservation in New Zealand. The nation zenith with enactment ofthe Scenery Preservation Act
celebrated the 100th anniversary of a gift from the 1903 , and scenic reserves extended progressively along
Maori people of sacred mountain lands, which were to road and rail corridors and in coastal areas, notably in
form the core of Tongariro National Park, the country's Taranaki, Westland and the Marlborough Sounds Rec-
first national park and now a World Heritage site (Thom , reational; and tourism interests also focused attention
1987). In that year also, two new national parks were on geothermal phenomena in the Rotorua region valued
added to the network of protected areas, the first in 23 as health resorts, and the Thermal Springs District Act
years. Further, the Department of Conservation was 1881 provided some of the country's earliest reserves.
established as the single agency for protected areas, Scientific influences prompted the establishment of "na-
thereby giving administrative effect to a greatly en- tional-domains" for protection of flora and fauna, and
larged protected areas system, and one which was na- also secured some of the earliest nature sanctuaries on
tionally integrated a trend which had begun emerging offshore islands, such as Resolution Island in 1891 ,
early in the past decade (Dingwall, 1981 ). Secretary Island in 1893 , Little Barrier Island in 1894
and Kapiti Island in 1897. A pioneering survey of the
Thus 1987 signified a coming of age of protected central North Island by the Government's leading bota-
areas in New Zealand. But it also ushered in a new era, nist, Leonard Cockayne, was to have a major influence
characterised by wholesale review and consolidation of in determining the eventual scope ofTongariro National
the system, and readjustment within a climate of eco- Park, and Cockayne was also prominent in the estab-
nomic recession. lishment of Arthur's Pass National Park (Department of
Lands 1908). Responding to these combined influences,
The evolution of New Zealand's protected area net- the reservation system evolved rapidly. By 1907 , re-
work has gone through several phases (Roche, 1984; serves extended over more than half the area contained
Devlin et al. , 1990) . An Acquisition Phase, beginning in national parks in 1980, and by 1920 already more
in the early years of European colonisation , during the than half the extent of today's scenic reserves was
latter half of last century and culminating in the period protected.
1890-1920, laid the foundation for the modern pro-
tected area system. Several motivating forces were behind Then followed a Maintenance Phase during the 1930s
the rapidly emerging network of protection. Utilitarian and 1940s, characterised by a caretaking role over pre-
concerns, particularly interest in conservation of timber, viously acquired areas. But it closed in an era of "park
soil and water resources, gave rise to the earliest ex- ascendancy" ushered in by the passing of the National
tensive reserves, protected under forestry legislation Parks Act 1952, an innovative measure which provided
and located primarily in forested mountain catchments. for an integrated parks system and led to creation of six
Concerns over the protection of surrounding farmland new parks in rapid succession: Fiordland and Mount
from flooding by numerous mountain streams were Cook in 1953 ; Urewera in 1954; Nelson Lakes in 1956;
instrumental in gazettement of Egmont National Park Westland in 1960, and Mt Aspiring in 1964. The Act
in 1900. Mountains were also favoured for protection also clearly enunciated the twin responsibilities of parks
by a concern to avoid alienation of lands of potential for serving the needs of nature and of people, and it
importance as farms in an expanding agricultural col- provided for constitution of a National Parks Authority
ony. Thus, reservation of two huge tracts of mountain- and individual Park Boards, thereby initiating citizen
ous " wastelands" ofthe South Island in 1901 and 1905, involvement in park management-a feature of the
respectively, formed the basis of what eventually protected areas system today.
Beginning in the late 1960s, a Management Phase These, and other, developments are further explored
was notable for the increasing professionalism in parks in the analysis which follows.
and reserve management. Planning as a basis for park
establishment and management became fundamentally
important in resolving conflict among competing inter- 2. Current protected area coverage
ests in land and resource use, and in meeting the de-
mands for socio-economic justification to expand the 2.1 The existing network: Adequate
protected estate. A growing scientific capacityprovided
coverage on land
the essential knowledge base for supporting protection
initiatives. Science also brought increasing realisation
At the core of New Zealand's conservation estate is a
ofthe needs for survey to document both the scope and
comprehensive series of protected natural areas-de-
the condition of protected ecosystems and species and
fined as areas of land or sea with a legal status and
it exposedthe imbalance in the ecological representativeness
management regime intended to maintain their indige-
ofprotected areas. This led, in turn, to efforts at identi-
nous state. Compilation of a register of some of those
fying and securing protection for those fast-diminishing
areas gazetted by March 1983 (essentially at the time of
remnants of indigenous biota and landscape on unpro-
tected lands. Establishment of a well-trained uniformed the Bali World Parks Congress) revealed that at that
time the network comprised 1,660 areas, covering ap-
ranger service became crucial for coping with growing
numbers of park visitors and the attendant rapid expan- proximately 4.6 million ha, equivalent to 17 % of the
sion of recreational and tourist facilities. A surge in country's total land area. By 1986, when the register
development of State Forest Parks at this time was was last updated, the network had expanded by about
2.5%, to include more than 2,000 areas covering ap-
prompted in part by the requirement to ease recreational
pressure on the national parks. proximately 5 million ha. This trend is likely to have
continued until the present day, but it is not possible to
Other patterns emerging at this time are symbolized be equally precise about the full extent of the network
by the events surrounding establishment of Papery in 1992 because updating of the register database has
National Park in 1987, marked by often acrimonious ceased temporarily, pending development of a compre-
conflict among competing interests in the use and pro- hensive conservation lands register. Summary data for
tection of resources, the vital role of consultation in the entire region are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and
fostering cooperation among widely divergent sector in- Figures 1 and 2. These do not fully reflect the data
terest groups (political, non-governmental , local com- presented here because ofthe exclusion of sites less than
munity, industry and scientific) , and the eventual at- 1,000ha in extent or which do not comply with the
tainment of acceptable compromise in park boundary IUCN management category definitions.
demarcation, giving due weight to long-term objectives
for both protection and development of resources. However, enactment ofthe Conservation Act in 1987
resulted in a very substantial increase in the extent of
Several distinctive processes and patterns which quickly the protected areas system by giving protection to pub-
emerged from the sweeping 1987 reform of environ- lic lands not previously included in the register. This
mental administration included: includes a new category of Conservation Area held for
stewardship purposes. A further element of this growth
■ intense competition for limited financial and was the creation of Conservation Covenants over Crown
human resources; forests (commercial), and land being sold to State-
■ introduction of business-like approaches to con- owned Enterprises. Protection was also given to ripar-
servation in an increasingly commercialized eco- ian areas as Marginal Strips.
nomic and social environment;
■ relative increase in the contribution of funding Major additions to the protected area system during
and support from user charges to supplementthe the past decade include:
increasingly limited contribution from Govern-
ment; Two new national parks established in 1987:
■ forging ofpartnerships and cooperative ventures Whanganui National Park protecting 81,000ha
between Government and local and regional au- of riverine landscape of high scenic and recrea-
thorities, local communities, conservation inter- tional value and of great cultural significance for
est and lobby groups, sector groups in the re- the Maori people; and Papery National Park,
source and service industries, and private citi- 30,000ha in extent, containing magnificent cave
zens, especially landowners; and and karst features and large tracts of lowland
■ increasing recognition of and respect for the forest.
rights and traditions ofthe Maori, bringing some ■ Addition of Waikukupa and Okarito lowland
new responsibilities but more importantly en- podocarp forests , which extended Westland
riching an emerging bi-cultural perspective on National Park from the mountains to the sea.
conservation, which in turn opens opportunities Protection of more than 300,000ha of former
for innovative approaches in protected area man- State forest in South Westland, later incorpo-
agement. rated in a World Heritage Site.
■ A 65,000ha addition to Mt Aspiring National Less conspicuous but no less important in their aggre-
Park in 1989 , through inclusion of the Red Hills gate was the host of smaller reserves of various kinds
and Haast Range areas. added incrementally over time. In 1988/89 for example,
■ Protection status for almost 50,000ha of beech 40 separate areas, acquired at a cost of almost $ 1 mil-
forests in Western Southland, with potential for lion, added 7,000ha of protected lands comprising six
addition to Fiordland National Park. areas of Protected Private Land, two Historic Reserves,
■ Between 1983 and 1986, establishment of 40 one Conservation Covenant, 15 new Reserves, three
new Ecological Areas representative of State additions to National Parks, and six additions to reserves.
forests, particularly in North Westland.
■ A more than four-fold increase in the number of
Open Space Covenants over private lands, from
112 areas covering about 4,500ha in 1983 to490
areas incorporating 18,200ha today.
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : Antarctica/New Zealand

Antarctic Treaty Territory 13,340,000 2,632 0.0 0 0.0 2,632 0.0

BouvetI 50 50 100.0 0 0.0 50 100.0
Falklands/South Georgia 12,175 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
French Southern Territory 7,241 367 5.1 0 0.0 367 5.1
Heard-McDonald Is 412 388 94.1 0 0.0 388 94.1
Macquarie Is 178 128 71.8 0 0.0 128 71.8
Marion-PEI 344 390 113.4 0 0.0 390 113.4
New Zealand 265,150 29,012 10.9 16,386 6.2 45,399 17.1
Tristan da Cunha 176 15 35.9 0 0.0 65 36.9
Total 13,625,726 33,032 0.3 16,386 0.1 49,419 0.37
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km, except for sites in the Pacific andthe
Caribbean where it is 1 sq km. "UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned . Forest reserves with a
nature protection function are generally included.
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : Antarctica/New Zealand
I II III IV V TOTAL
Antarctic Treaty 14 2,632 14 2,632

BouvetI 1 50 1 50
Falklands/
South Georgia
1
1
1
I
1
French Southern
1
Territory - 367 1 367

Heard-McDonald Is 1 388 1 388
Macquarie Is 1 128 1 128
Marion-PEI 1 390 - 1 390
New Zealand 20 3,902 11 21,710 5 210 88 3,191 - 124 29,012
Tristan da Cunha 1 65 - - - - - - 1 65
Total 40 7,555 11 21,710 5 210 89 3,558 0 0 144 33,032
50
Number of sites
30
20
10
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

500
Number of sites
300
200
100
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Complementing protected natural areas is a series of i.e. where human settlement interacts with nature, but
206 Historic Reserves, 50% of which protect traditional Recreation Reserves and Marginal Strips come closest
Maori occupation sites dating from prior to 1820. Also to this concept.
under protection are 52 Classified Buildings and Struc-
tures representing a wide range of European history 2.4 Sites under international
from 1840. The protected areas estate also includes
recognition
some additional areas, generally of lesser conservation
quality or integrity and with lower security, such as New Zealand has two areas listed as World Heritage
Recreation Reserves. These areas, together with the Sites (natural property category) under the World
protected natural areas, constitute a total protected areas Heritage Convention (Table 5) . The Government deci-
network today of some 8 million ha, or equivalent to sion to extend protection to some 300,000ha of former
30% of the country's land area. This represents an State Forest in South Westland, and a pledge of $ 1.5
expansion of about 50% in New Zealand's terrestrial million over three years for recreation and tourism
protected areas system over the past decade. development, paved the way for nomination of the
South-West New Zealand area (Te Wahipounamu),
2.2 Marine Reserves: Ample room which was accepted by UNESCO in 1990. The Site
for growth incorporates the formerly listed (in 1986) Fiordland
National Park, and combined Westland/Mount Cook
In sharp contrast to the extensive system of terrestrial National Parks, together with Mt Aspiring National
protection, the marine reserves network is extremely Park and most of the intervening Crown-owned land.
rudimentary, comprising today just four marine re- Covering 2.6 million ha, or some 10% of the total New
serves; a marine sanctuary established in 1988 to protect Zealand land area, this Site is among the largest World
the Hector's dolphin; two small marine parks estab- Heritage properties. Tongariro National Park was also
lished under fisheries regulations; and a Conservation accorded World Heritage status in 1990. Although sev-
Park under the Conservation Act. Thus, only a small eral other areas are regarded worthy ofnomination-the
fraction ofthe country's 33,000km of coastline is under Subantarctic Island Groups in particular-an indicative
legal protection. list of potential natural and cultural properties, as re-
quired underthe Convention, has not yet been prepared.
Current policies of the Department of Conservation
include a commitment to expanding marine reservation. With the designation of two new sites in 1989 and one
Attention is being given to long-overdue reform ofthe in 1990 , New Zealand now has five areas listed under
the Ramsar Convention as " wetlands of international
principal legislation, which emphasises value to sci-
ence, and makes secondary the broader mandate for importance, especially as wildfowl habitats". These
protection ofareas with natural, scenic, recreational and range in size from 3,556ha to 11,388ha, and cover a total
cultural values. Several marine reserve proposals are of almost 40,000ha. Several further sites are under
under preparation , and approximately 30 other sites active investigation.
have been selected for evaluation in the next ten years.
New Zealand has no Biosphere Reserves established
The process of identifying potential reserves benefits
within the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme.
from a broad-scale survey of natural and cultural con-
Interest in applying the concept has waxed and waned,
servation values on the coast. Although it is being
and potential opportunities have been explored in moun-
conducted systematically on a regional basis, the survey
tain, grassland , forest and coastal environments
lacks a biogeographical framework essential for judg-
(Dingwall and Simpson, 1988) . No formal proposals
ing ecological representativeness of areas. A national
have been forthcoming, however, probably because of
3-tier habitat classification scheme, designed for this
an inability to demonstrate what benefits their science-
purpose, is available (King et al. 1985) and a new
based approach to multiple-use management would add
scheme giving greater attention to latitudinal variation
to an already well-established and highly diversified
in ecosystems throughout the country is under prepara-
protected areas system.
tion as a guide to incorporating the full range of eco-
logical diversity of coastal waters in marine reserves Adherence to international conservation conventions
(C. Ray, pers. comm .). or programmes in the region is summarised in Table 4.
2.3 Protected area management 2.5 Protection of private land

categories
Increasing success in extending protection to private
Table 7 shows that the diverse series of protected area lands is one of the more remarkable achievements in
classes spans almost the full spectrum of IUCN's pro- protected area development in New Zealand over the
tected area management categories. There is no precise past decade . Outstanding in this regard has been the
match between classes of protected area and manage- performance of the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust,
ment categories, as some classes include areas of mark- an independent, Statutory body funded by private do-
edly different size, character and/or quality. There is no nation, subscription and Government grant. The Trust's
exact equivalent in New Zealand of Category V areas, principal responsibility is negotiation of Open Space
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : Antarctica/New Zealand

Antarctic Treaty 0.0 0.7 16.3 82.0 1,535 2,632

Bouvet I 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 50
Falklands/South Georgia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
French Southern
Territory 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 367
Heard-McDonald Is 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 387 387
Macquarie Is 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 127
Marion-PEI 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 390
New Zealand 79.5 12.4 4.5 3.7 14 29,012
Tristan da Cunha 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 65
Total 73.7 11.3 10.9 4.1 1,937 33,032
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions : Antarctica/New Zealand

(including Antarctic Treaty)
Country WorldHeritage Biosphere Reserves Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention

Australia August 1974 0 May 1974 0 0

France June 1975 0 October 1986 0 0
New Zealand November 1984 2 2,676,504 August 1976 5 38,099
Norway May 1977 0 July 1974 0 0
South Africa March 1975 0 0
United Kingdom May 1984 0 January 1976 0 0
Note: Only sites lying within the region are listed.
Covenants , which are legal contracts whereby land- 3. Additional protected areas
owners voluntarily agree to the land being managed to required
retain its natural character. Aspects such as the degree
and duration of protection (usually in perpetuity) and In 1984, an ambitious Protected Natural Areas (PNA)
provisions for public access are negotiable. At present programme was launched to survey remaining unpro-
490 Covenants are established over 18,200ha and a tected natural areas and identify those meriting protec-
further 470 cases amounting to 55,000ha are under tion, particularly in grasslands, wetlands and coastal
action. sites less well represented in the existing system . It was
stimulated by the National Parks and Reserves Author-
In 1991 , the New Zealand Forest Accord between the
ity, which was concerned about the accelerating loss of
NZ Forest Owners' Association and a coalition of 17
indigenous areas and the ecological imbalance in existing
non-governmental organisations established a policy of
protected areas, and it derived its statutory mandate
excluding from land development a number of classes
from the Reserves Act 1977. A conceptual framework
of indigenous vegetation and areas that qualify as po-
ofEcological Regions and Districts was devised, and a
tential protected areas.
rapid ecological survey technique was designed for
implementation by small multidisciplinary survey teams,
with oversight provided by a Scientific Advisory
Committee (Kelly and Park, 1986) .
A review of the programme last year revealed that it

had fallen well short of its target . Of the 136 Districts
selected for priority attention by 1990 only 34 had been
surveyed. Only modest success has been achieved in statutory mandate and mission to conserve the natural
formally protecting sites where this is recommended . and historic heritage of New Zealand. Other independent
Priority has been given to protection ofareas on pastoral agencies with some protected area responsibilities are
leasehold land in the South Island high country, where the Historic Places Trust, and Queen Elizabeth II
nine sites have been protected by purchase, transfer or National Trust.
inter-agency agreement, and agreements have been reached
on a further 60 cases, those in Central Otago and north In 1990, the New Zealand Conservation Authority
Southland covering some 40,000ha. In the North Island and 17 regional Boards were established as citizen
six protected private land agreements have been com- bodies for protected areas, replacing among others the
pleted in the Egmont region, and at least one area in formerNational Parks and Reserves Authority and Boards,
Coromandel purchased for reserve. the Nature Conservation Council, Forest Park Advisory
Committees, the New Zealand Walkways Commission,
Financial constraints appear to have been the princi- and Marine Reserves Management Committees. The
pal cause ofthe programme's limited success. A revised Conservation Authority has oversight of policy and
approach is now being devised to make use of less costly planning for protected areas and otherwise advises the
survey techniques and greater support from other re- Department and Minister of Conservation. Similar citi-
source administering authorities, accompanied by an zen bodies , the Fish and Game Councils, which replaced
enhanced awareness campaign. former Acclimatisation Societies, were established to ap-
prove policies and management plans for sports fish and
Although the PNA programme has had only limited
game and their habitats.
success in adding to the ecological diversity ofreserves,
rather more has been achieved through the substantial
Links between the tourism industry and the Depart-
park additions, reported above, with parks extending to
include coastal, lowland forest and grassland areas, and ment ofConservation are maintained through a Tourism/
Conservation Liaison Committee established under the
geological landscapes not previously protected . There
is the prospect of more to come in the two current Conservation Authority, and similar mechanisms exist
proposals for new national parks and five proposed park for linking the Department with the farming, forestry
additions all under active investigation. and fisheries sectors.
Of particular significance is the proposal to extend Most ofthe land in New Zealand protected areas is in
national park protection to remaining kauri forests in Crown ownership. Some areas are subject to claims
northern New Zealand-a unique sub-tropical forest under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, which established
community, much reduced by former timber extraction the basic principle of a partnership between the Crown
and of great scenic, ecological and spiritual value. The and the Maori. Government has recognised the validity
park would represent a radical departure from previous of many Maori grievances relating to ownership of
approaches, in focusing on a natural community type tribal lands and a Tribunal established in 1976 is work-
rather than on a geographically contiguous area. The ing to redress them .
proposed park incorporates more than 30 individual
sites, ranging from some 44ha to 23,000ha in size, and
Increasing recognition is also being given to the rights
covering a total of about 100,000ha. The other new park ofthe Maori for access to cultural materials for use in
proposal would upgrade the status of North West-Nelson
canoe building, carving and weaving, for example. In
Forest Park and add surrounding lands of complex
some legislation exceptions are being made which dis-
geological character and with diverse endemic flora.
criminate in favour of Maori traditional rights.
Also under investigation are proposals to create two
new Conservation Parks over the colder, drier grass- Owners ofprivate land, including Maori owners, may
lands of the Torlesse and Remarkable Ranges of the give protection to their land through Protected Private
Southern Alps. Land provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, or through
voluntary Conservation Covenants under that Act, or
Important among the five proposals for park additions Open Space Covenants under the Queen Elizabeth II
are those to extend Fiordland National Park to lowland National Trust Act 1977. The remarkable success of
forests and marine terraces; addition of grasslands to the these mechanisms in adding to the protected estate has
Arthur's Pass National Park; and inclusion in Tongariro already been noted . In return for protecting land, owners
National Park of a huge, forest-mantled lava field. may receive financial support and advice in matters
such as fencing, landscaping, rehabilitating or other-
4. Protected area institutions wise managing their property. Relief from Local Body
taxes is a further incentive to protect land. Tax incen-
In 1987 a radical change occurred in the administration tives are also provided for protection ofprivately owned
of protected areas in New Zealand, when responsibility historic buildings. For some significant reserves, citizen
for them passed from the Ministers of Lands, Forests, Boards may undertake management responsibilities on
Fisheries and Internal Affairs to the Minister ofConser- behalf ofthe Crown. A large number of small reserves
vation. The new Department of Conservation was a are under Local Government control.
Protected area management is reasonably well-served 5. Current levels of financial

by research in New Zealand. The Department of Con- investment in protected areas
servation has about 50 research scientists and techni-
cians, including a multidisciplinary core group and For the year ended June 1991 , the budget ofthe Depart-
advisory scientists in the regional conservancies to fa- mentofConservation was about $116 million, ofwhich
cilitate the application of science to management. In the $74 million was spent directly on protected areas man-
current year the research programme comprises about agement, with the balance directed to policy advice,
160 projects, supported by a budget of $6.8 million (6% advocacy, education and information, and servicing
of the total Department budget) of which $2.3 million Crown agencies. Of the total budget, $21 million was
is committed to contract research with universities and revenue earned from user charges and rents, retail sales ,
other Government science agencies. The research pro- resource sales, and donations. In undertaking its activi-
gramme covers a wide range of conservation science, ties the Department uses business, strategic and corpo-
particularly in support of threatened species and habitat rate planning approaches to management with rigorous
management, though less emphasis is given to biologi- testing of performance against responsibilities and goals.
cal survey and monitoring and to socio-economic re- This data, and the other scant information available
search. Restructuring of Government's principal science from the region as a whole, is summarised in Table 6.
agency into sector- based institutes may have adverse
consequences for Conservation research, but there is Programmes are increasingly being developed by the
growing support for research supporting protected areas Department to allow individuals, companies, and non-
from corporate sponsors and from non-governmental governmental organisations to contribute to sponsor-
conservation organisations, notably WWF-New Zealand. ship of projects , especially those aimed at recovery of
threatened indigenous species and their habitats. An
outstanding example is the Tasman Conservation Ac-
New Zealand is active in international protected areas
cord established among the Tasman Forestry Company,
programmes, either through memberships of interna-
Minister of Conservation, Royal Forest and Bird Pro-
tional organisations , such as or through its obligations
as a party to conservation instruments such as the World tection Society, Maruia Society and Federated Moun-
tain Clubs. The Accord extends protection to 52 areas
Heritage Convention and Ramsar Convention In 1990
New Zealand ratified the Convention for the Protection of indigenous forest throughout the country, totalling
ofthe Environment and Natural Resources ofthe South over 40,000ha in area. Of particular significance was
Pacific (SPREP Convention) and the Department, and the sale of a 3,500ha area to the Department of Conser-
others, have been contributing to programmes for spe- vation to safeguard the largest remaining population of
cies management, habitat survey and research, and other the rare blue-wattled crow, the kokako. Additionally,
advisory roles in several Pacific Island nations, notably the Accord provides $ 150,000 over a 3-year period for
the Cook Islands, Solomon Islands and Western Samoa. kokako research and management and $ 175,000 is made
In recent years the Department of Conservation has available for development ofrecreation facilities. Com-
pany sponsorships are also contributing to recovery
contributed to protected area management in Indonesia
programmes for the rare forest parrot, the kakapo , and
and Papua New Guinea. The Department also has re-
the kiwi, New Zealand's national bird.
sponsibility to promote conservation in the Ross De-
pendency of Antarctica, and with other Government
Government has announced two sources of support
agencies and non- governmental groups has contributed
for protecting private lands as part of its 1990 indige-
significantly to the development of policy for conserva-
tion in the Antarctic. nous forest policy, both of which are already proving
effective . The Forest Heritage Fund, currently standing
Liaison between New Zealand and Australia in pro- at $5 million per annum, is intended in particular to
tected areas matters is fostered through a Council of protect forest that is threatened or under-represented in
Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) and its Standing existing protection. To December 1991 , the Committee
Committee, allowing an exchange of experience in administering the Fund had considered 203 applications
policy development and management, and the estab- and recommended protection for 8,800ha of land.
lishment ofjoint training programmes.
Nga Whenua Rahui is a fund, currently of $2.1 mil-
lion, to assist Maori owners to protect their native
Table 5. World Heritage sites in Antarctica/ forests that respect their traditional rights, customs and
New Zealand chiefly authorities. Currently under consideration are
17 cases which would extend protection to 18,000ha of
forest.
New Zealand
South West New Zealand (Te Wahipounamu) 6. Human capacity in protected
Tongariro National Park areas management
Currently, the Department of Conservation has about

1,650 staff. Staff resources are deployed among a Head
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets : Antarctica/New Zealand
Budget in US Dollar
Country/responsible agency national currency equivalent Year Notes Source
Antarctica
Bouvet Island
Falkland Islands (Malvinas) FKP
French Southern Territories
Heard and McDonald Islands
New Zealand - Department
ofConservation 116,000,000 NZD 69,461,000 1991 Some NZD74.0 million are spent
directly on management. Of
this total figure, NZD21.0 million
was revenue from user charges
and rent, retail sales, resource
sales and donations. 58
Saint Helena 7,000 SHP 12,000 1983 Funding (through Project-UK)
from WWF/UK, ODA, FFPS
and the British Council for
conservation purposes
Source:
[58] Bridgewater, P. ( 1992). Australia. Regional reviews prepared for the IVth World Congress on National Parks and
Protected Areas, 10-2 February, Caracas, Venuzuela. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Office, which has primarily policy development roles, members appointed by public nomination, allow more
and 14 regional Conservancies, which undertake con- than 200 New Zealanders to have direct input to policy
servation action. formulation and management planning , and to perform
a range of advisory functions for the Department and
Staffcapacity is greatly enhanced by voluntary labour Minister of Conservation. During the past decade, the
in a Conservation Volunteers programme and a Conser- former National Parks and Reserves Authority and Boards
vation Corps youth development scheme, assisted by were influential in virtually every major initiative in
Government and others such as Maori Trusts. In 1991 development of the protected areas system and provided
some 10,000 volunteers participated in more than 400 a vital channel for dialogue between Government and
projects , and six Conservation Corps projects involved the public .
work in vegetation survey and rehabilitation , historic
site protection, track maintenance and warden staffing Non-governmental conservation and user groups have
at recreation huts, among others. continued to mount strong campaigns on behalf of
protected areas. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection
The Department of Conservation has a legal respon- Society, now entering its 70th year and with more than
60,000 members, has been a powerful voice for protec-
sibility to respect the rights of the Maori people, and is
committed to the inclusion of a Maori conservation tion of indigenous forests, marine reserve establishment,
ethic in management practices and corporate planning. threatened species management and World Heritage
promotion, among many others. A recently revitalised
Maori are employed at all levels of the Department and
play a particularly valuable role in the Conservancies in national organisation of World Wide Fund for Nature
establishing dialogue and mutually beneficial relation- (WWF) has developed a strong capacity in conservation
education and advocacy and is making a substantial
ships with local communities . Maori are also repre-
sented on the NZ Conservation Authority and they contribution to conservation research , The Federated
Mountain Clubs, with a long history of influencing
make up one-third of the members of Conservation
Boards (Maori comprise 15% of New Zealand's popu- national park development, continues to exercise an
effective voice in the interests of recreational user groups.
lation) .
The use of statutory citizen bodies to provide com- 7. Priorities for future investment in
munity input to management is a distinguishing feature protected areas
of the New Zealand protected areas system and an
object-lesson for administrations elsewhere . The New Government's aims and desired achievements in pro-
Zealand Conservation Authority, widely representative tected areas are established through a corporate plan-
of Local Government, Maori, tourism , recreational, con- ning mechanism, which forms a framework for develop-
servation and scientific interests, and 17 Boards with ment of annual business plans that guide conservation
action. Plan preparation is a wide-ranging consultative funds available and this allowed localised successes in
process both internally in the Department among its controlling possum, goat and wasp populations. This
various policy divisions, and externally with the Con- year the Department of Conservation will spend $20
servation Authority and Boards, non-governmental in- million on several hundred control operations applying
terest groups, the Maori community and the resource to about 1 million ha.
development sector. The planning process also serves
educational and advocacy roles for generating support Despite localised gains, the overall problem remains
for conservation from the public of New Zealand. Pre- and it is still impractical to achieve adequate controls
viously, corporate plans have had a one-year time hori- over large areas. The nature and extent of impacts are
zon, but the Department is now drawing up a five-year such that resources will never be adequate. Emphasis is
strategy to determine medium-term priorities and goals, now being given to designing control programmes which
in areas such as species and habitat management, con- match maximum effort against areas of highest conser-
trol of introduced animals, recreation and tourism de- vation value or vulnerability to impact. An ecosystem
velopment and research. assessment and ranking system has been designed to
select priority areas for applying controls . Government
The Conservation Act makes management planning has also made funding available to develop a national
mandatory for all protected areas . Developing site- possum control programme, which includes a formal
specific plans for all units in the system is impractical , agreement among Government, Regional Authority and
and attention has turned to preparation of regional con- farmergroups to coordinate planning and control opera-
servation management strategies. These facilitate co- tions, and is backed by an associated national research
ordinated planning for regional groupings of protected programme.
areas, and allow for integration of protected area plan-
ning and regional land use planning. Management plans Animal control on offshore islands has met with
will still be required for national parks, and all but one remarkable success. Veitch and Bell (1990) report eradi-
park currently have an approved and operative plan. cation of 12 mammals and one bird (the weka) from 60
islands. Outstanding recent examples are removal of
Currently, efforts are underway to develop a national cats from Little Barrier Island (3,000ha); possums from
conservation strategy , based on an earlier proposal Kapiti Island (2,000ha); possums and weka from
(Nature Conservation Council 1981 ) , which recognises Codfish Island ( 1350ha); and Norway rats from Break-
the vital role of protected areas in sustainable develop- sea Island ( 170ha) in Fiordland National Park. Preda-
ment. The Conservation Authority is taking a leading tor-free islands are then available as refuges for
role in this, in conjunction with other governmental and recovery of species endangered on the mainland . Out-
non-governmental bodies. These efforts guide New standing success has been achieved in the case of the
Zealand's investments in protected areas. ram kakapo, threatened with extinction on Stewart Is-
land but now breeding on Little Barrier Island.
8. Major issues in protected areas Corporate sponsorship through the Royal Forest and
Bird Protection Society Threatened Species Trust has
8.1 Introduced animals and plants been fundamental in the success of this programme,
illustrating the benefits from new partnerships among
Unquestionably, the presence of introduced alien spe- Government, non-governmental organisation and the
cies of animals and plants remains the greatest threat to private sector. The programme also reveals the value of
the integrity ofNew Zealand's protected areas . Animals species recovery plans, which are now being widely
of particular concern are the Australian brush-tailed used by the Department of Conservation to coordinate
possum, now spreading into the last remaining possum- management action, research and funding elements in
threatened species management .
free areas; red deer, increasing in numbers following
reduction by commercial live recovery operations; and
feral goats spreading as a result of accidental releases 8.2 Impacts of tourism
from commercial herds. Others of concern are rabbits,
rats, stoats, feral cats and dogs, and wasps. Problem Protected areas in New Zealand are at the heart of a
plants of greatest concern are the smothering vine burgeoning tourism industry, which is among the coun-
Clematis vitalba; marram grass on dunelands, heather try's fastest-growing industries and contributes $3.3
and Pinus contorta in Tongariro National Park, the billion (5.2%)of Gross Domestic Product. Tourist num-
flatweed Hieraciwn which invades grassland; and oxy- bers have doubled since 1980 to about 1 million annu-
gen weeds in lakes and other waterways. ally at present, and numbers are expected to double
again by the end of the century.
During the past decade concern has been mounting
about the deteriorating condition of affected eco- More than half of overseas tourists visit a national
systems, particularly from the National Parks and Re- park or forest park. The Department of Conservation
serves Authority and Boards which have called for spends about 25% of its budget on tourism and recrea-
greater injection of resources to combat the problem . tion management, and there is a large infrastructure to
Government responded last year by making additional maintain, including more than 1,000 huts and camp-
sites, many thousands of kilometres of walking tracks grassland, wetland and coastal environments,
and 60 visitor centres. Some 350 concessionaires oper- through progress with the Protected Natural
ate tourist facilities and programmes in protected areas. Areas Programme. This should include estab-
lishment of well-defined targets and timetables
While tourism presents no real problem over much of for surveys, prompt follow-up action to apply
the protected estate, evidence is mounting of serious legal protection to recommended reserves , enlist
localised impacts. A 1989 departmental report revealed greater cooperation from regional government, and
severe impact on existing facilities at 21 sites. The
strengthen public awareness programmes to gen-
Department will have increasing difficulty maintaining erate wider public support, especially from land-
and improving these to cope with projected increased owners.
in visitor use, and this will probably be the most impor-
tant requirement for new investment of funds and re- 4. Concerted effort to extend the marine protected
sources. areas network, development of a biogeographi-
cal framework to guide selection of representative
There will also be a need to combat any development sites setting target for additional reserves over next
oftension between the ambitions ofthe tourism industry
decade, and examination of a range of legal and
for continued growth, and the requirements of protec- regulatory measures for providing protection.
tion in parks. This calls for broad consultation and
cooperation among all interests. The Department has 5. Continued legislative reform to integrate and
taken the initiative in preparing a tourism management simplify the plethora of existing laws for pro-
strategy to explain the legal obligations and policy goals tected area establishment and management.
and outline the ways in which it will approach tourism
development. The strategy has been released for public 6. Further development of a tourism management
comment, and will be the focus of consultation with the strategy for protected areas, including extensive
Ministry of Tourism, the tourism industry, the Conser- consultation with the tourism industry, and inte-
vation Authority and conservation organisations. The gration with national and regional tourism de-
Department has also prepared a handbook of manage- velopment plans.
ment techniques for tourism impact assessment and
control. 7. Continued integration of Maori perspectives in
protected areas legislative and policy develop-
ment through strengthened consultative process
9. Priorities for action in the region with the Maori community.
Based on the significant and extensive protected area

8. Strengthen partnerships between the Department
system, and taking into consideration the current insti-
of Conservation and the Conservation Authority,
tutional structure and major issues , the following eleven
Fish and Game Councils and other protected
points are the highest priorities for action in New Zealand.
area agencies.
1. Further support for animal and plant pest control
9. Maintain constructive working relationships be-
programmes, including increased funding, clearly
tween government and non-governmental con-
defined objectives, well-coordinated planning
and operations at national and regional levels, servation agencies, and develop programmes of
and a strong associated research and monitoring joint action, including greater use of voluntary
programme. management support.
2. 10. Harness increased financial support for protected

Continued development and implementation of
recovery plans for threatened species of animals areas from private-sector sponsorship , based on an
and plants. investment portfolio .
3. Renewed efforts to extend the ecological repre- 11. Compilation of a comprehensive database on
sentativeness of protected areas particularly in protected areas.
Annex 1 .
Protected areas in the Antarctic Treaty Area
used for purposes of comparison with localities dis-

1. History of the protected area
system in the Antarctic Area turbed by humans.
By definition, SPAs are confined to protection of

On 15 January 1956 the first area for protection of
biological phenomena. It is also a requirement that the
nature in the region which subsequently became the
number of such sites be kept to the minimum required
Antarctic Treaty Areas was declared around Haswell
and that they be as small an area as possible to serve
Island, in territory claimed by Australia. However, con-
their designated purpose. The first SPAs were approved
servation measures had been in place for some time
in 1966 and by 1991 23 SPAs had been established,
prior to that date (Holdgate and Roberts, 961 ; Keage,
although four of these had been re-designated as Sites
986; Headland, 1989) . Dating from the 1870s, the ear-
of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Table 8).
liest conservation measures were almost exclusively
intended to protect marine mammals from indiscrimi-
Based on SCAR proposals, the Seventh Antarctic
nate exploitation by the burgeoning sealing and whaling
Treaty Consultative Meeting in 1972 (ATCM Recom-
industries in the Southern Ocean. Attention focused
mendation VII-3) approved provisions for designation
first on Australia's Macquarie Island, but extended
of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) . This
progressively to waters around the Falkland Islands and
category of protected area is intended to recognise the
Dependencies; French Antarctic Territory; the Norwe-
need for protection of scientific investigations from
gian Bouvetøya and Peter I Øy; and to Argentinean
damage. Thus, SSSIS are areas of exceptional scientific
Antarctic Territory when, in 1953, that Government
interest, which require long-term protection from harm-
declared a prohibition on killing native animals. ful interference. They can be designated to cover arms
of current or planned scientific activity where there
In the first decades of this century, while several
exists a demonstrable risk of interference , or where sites
subantarctic islands were declared wildlife reserves, the
ofexceptional scientific interest are considered to merit
earliest protection measures in the Antarctic were prin-
long-term protection . ATCM Recommendation XIV-6
cipally directed at species protection . With the advent
( 1987) makes specific provision for the establishment
of greatly expanded scientific activity from the mid-
of marine SSSIS.
1950s, however, more attention was given to area pro-
tection. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Protection ofSSSIS is for a specified period, normally
(SCAR), formed in 1958 to promote and coordinate 10 years, though it has been general practice to renew
science in the Antarctic, immediately expressed a con-
protection after the expiry date. The first group of seven
cern for the protection of representative areas of natural SSSIS was approved in 1975. By 1991 a total of 35
environments. Signatories, consultative and acceding SSSIS had been established, 24 of these being added to
parties to the Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force the network since 1985 (Table 9).
on 23 June 1961 , are listed in Table 4.A 1960 SCAR
report on Conservation of Nature in Antarctica outlined In 1989, the XV ATCM, agreed upon a new category
the general principles of nature conservation , which of protected area, known as a Specially Reserved Area
formed the basis of the first major conservation regime (SRA). This category extends the protection provisions
under the Antarctic Treaty-the Agreed Measures for of SPAS and SSSIS to allow inclusion of geological ,
Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora-formally geomorphological , glaciological , aesthetic, scenic, and
adopted by the Treaty Parties in 1964. wilderness features and landscapes. No such areas have
yet been designated.
The Agreed Measures stipulate that the Antarctic
Treaty Area, i.e. south of latitude 60°S , is to be consid- At the XV ATCM the Treaty Parties also reached
ered a "Special Conservation Area" (Handbook of the agreement on designation of Multiple-use Planning Areas
Antarctic Treaty System, 1990) . Article VIII of the (MPAs). The MPA concept reflects a SCAR recom-
Agreed Measures provides for the establishment of mendation for a category of protected area to provide
Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) , thereby laying the for coordinated management which would minimise
foundation for an Antarctic protected areas system . harmful environmental impacts. While they are not
According to objectives refined in 1972, SPAS are protected areas in the strict sense, MPAs would allow
intended to preserve unique or outstanding natural eco- for application of planning and management procedures
logical systems of scientific interest, which are to in- in Antarctic localities where multiple human activities
clude representative examples of major Antarctic land could interfere with one another or cause undesirable
and freshwater ecological systems; unique complexes cumulative environmental impacts. Thus, an MPA might
of species; the type locality or only known habitat of contain one or more scientific stations, transport net-
any plant or invertebrate species; especially interesting works and facilities, research sites (possibly SSSIs),
breeding colonies ofbirds or mammals; and areas which SPAs , historic sites and zoned tourist areas. No MPAs
should be kept inviolate so that in future they may be have yet been designated , but areas such as Ross Island
and the Palmer Peninsula have been suggested as prime ■ Provision for replacing the existing multiple-
candidates. category system with a simplified system compris-
ing just two categories of protected area: Antarctic
Recognition of the need for historic protection came Specially Protected Area (ASPA) intended to pro-
at the first meeting of the Treaty Parties in 1961 , when vide strict protection and accessible only under per-
ATCM Recommendation I-9 called on Governments mit; and Antarctic Specially Managed Area
to consult, exchange reports and adopt measures to (ASMA) intended to promote coordination of mul-
protect tombs, buildings or objects of historic interest. tiple-use activities and avoid mutual interference,
This provision was further elaborated by a series of where permits for entry would not be required.
recommendations at subsequent ATCMs, which pro-
■ The requirement that both major categories of pro-
vided for a progressive listing of Historic Sites and
tected area have approved management plans . Such
Monuments, and their appropriate identification. De-
plans would guide management action and be the
spite repeated calls for site protection and buffering,
legal mechanism for establishing Areas in that des-
these provisions continue to apply only to historic fea-
ignation of Areas would be achieved through ap-
tures and not to areas per se. By 1991 more than 50 Sites
proval of the management plan.
and Monuments were listed . The most conspicuous of
these are huts used by early polar explorers, but monu- ■ While responsibility for designation of Areas would
ments also include abandoned stations, rock shelters , be with ATCMs, they would be advised by the
cairns, graves, memorial crosses and plaques and stat- Committee for Environmental Protection, established
ues. under the Protocol, and by other elements of the
Treaty System including SCAR.
The additional protected area measures available un-
Extensive rules are provided to cover information
der the Antarctic Treaty System all relate specifically
and publicity requirements and arrangements for
to the marine environment. These include Seal Re-
collecting and exchanging information on the con-
serves, established under the 1972 Convention for the
dition and use ofprotected areas.
Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS) , within which
it is forbidden to take seals. To date three such oceanic
Designation of Antarctica as a World Park has been
reserves have been created at the South Orkney Islands, a long- sought goal of most non-governmental organisa-
and at two locations in the Ross Sea, respectively, with tions with an interest in Antarctic conservation. Given
a combined area of 190,000 sq km and in 1990 the the recent sweeping environmental protection reforms ,
Commission under CCAMLR adopted a measure pro-
this is now a highly unlikely prospect. There is, how-
viding protection to sites where colonies of seabirds and ever, continuing interest in the potential for designation
seals are being monitored under the CCAMLR Ecosys- of areas in the Antarctic under the World Heritage
tem Monitoring Programme (CEMP) . Yet to be imple- Convention. Unquestionably, several areas in the Ant-
mented, this measure provides for introduction of a site arctic are of exceptional universal value and would
management plan specifying conditions of access and qualify for World Heritage status. While management
activities that are prohibited. principles inherent in the Convention are consistent
with the Antarctic Treaty System, existing legal mecha-
At an historic meeting in Madrid in October 1991 , the nisms preclude the application of World Heritage status
Treaty Parties concluded a series of special consultative in the Antarctic Treaty Area. IUCN has urged UNESCO
meetings by adopting a Protocol on Environmental and the Treaty Parties to collaborate in seeking solu-
Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Developed in re- tions to this unfortunate impasse.
sponse to a combination of influences-including calls
from a number of non-governmental organisations for
2. Deficiencies and threats in
an Antarctic World Park, the Parties ' rejection ofthe
Minerals Convention , and their recognition of the need protected area management
for comprehensive revision of existing conservation
A critical review of the Antarctic protected area system
measures the protocol constitutes the most extensive
is a key element in the IUCN Antarctic Conservation
reform of protection measures in the Antarctic since the
Strategy (IUCN, 1991 ) . This comprehensive account,
1964 Agreed Measures. Indeed , the comprehensive le-
drawn up over several years in response to IUCN General
gal regime it establishes for environmental protection is
Assemblyresolutions, took advantage of extensive con-
tantamount to that invoked by the World Park concept.
sultation throughout the IUCN membership network,
including significant input from non-governmental
Annex V ofthe Protocol , adopted by the XVI ATCM sources particularly WWF, the Antarctic and Southern
at Bonn in October 1991 , addresses Area Protection and Ocean Coalition (ASOC) and Greenpeace International ,
Management. Once it comes into force, this measure and benefited from close collaboration with SCAR.
has the potential to revolutionise the current protected Advice contained in the strategy provides a useful
area provisions and overcome the major deficiencies in framework for reviewing inadequacies in the estab-
the existing protected area system . Outstanding among lishment and management of Antarctic protected areas
the innovative rules contained in the Annex are: and the remedial action required or in train.
Table 7. Relationship between New Zealand protected area class and revised IUCN
Category.
IUCN Category Class of NZ protected area
I Scientific Reserves and Wilderness Areas Scientific Reserves

Nature Reserves
Sanctuary Areas
Ecological Areas
Wildlife Sanctuary
NP Specially Protected Areas
Marine Reserves
Wilderness Areas (in National
Parks and Conservation Areas)
Conservation Covenants (some)
Protected Private Lands (some)
II National Parks and Equivalent Reserves National Parks

Conservation Parks
Large Scenic Reserves
Conservation Areas (some)
III Natural Monuments Historic Reserves

Scenic Reserves (most)
Conservation Areas (some)
Scientific Reserves (some)
IV Habitat and Wildlife Management Areas Wildlife Management Reserves

Wildlife Refuges
V Protected Land/Sea Scapes Marginal Strips

Recreation Reserves
3. Protected area coverage unique or scientifically significant sites in the coastal

environment, especially to seabird and seal breeding
In the absence of an overall protected areas systems localities and, to a lesser extent, vegetated sites. Thir-
plan, the Antarctic protected areas network has devel- teen of the 19 SPAs and 20 of the 35 SSSIS are either
oped in piecemeal fashion (see Tables 1 to 3) . Designa- entire or part of islands . Littoral zones are well repre-
tion of protected areas normally occurs through devel- sented, but near-shore marine environments are included
opment of national proposals, which are reviewed by in only three SPAs and 13 SSSIS, while exclusively ma-
SCAR and forwarded to ATCMs for approval by the rine protected areas are limited to five SSSIS . Geologi-
Treaty Parties. Note that data in Tables 1-3 do not cal features are the focus of protection in only one SPA
exactly correspond with that given in Tables 8 and 9, and seven SSSIS.
due tothe minimum size criterion applied to the former.
Inland sites , including aquatic ecosystems , marine
While ecological representation has been a long- areas and representative biota and landscapes figure
sought goal in protecting the Antarctic environment, more prominently in recently designated protected
protected area system planning has lacked an adequate areas, but along with geological, landform , glaciologi-
biogeographical framework. A habitat classification sys- cal, scenic and wilderness landscapes, they remain pri-
tem designed by SCAR, covering terrestrial, inland orities for filling gaps and ensuring protection ofthefull
water and marine environments (SCAR, 1977), has range of environmental diversity in the Antarctic.
proven useful for semi-quantitative characterisation of
individual areas (Keys, 1988) , but it lacks a spatial or
geographical component. Suggested improvements for 4. Proposed protected areas
relating habitat type to geographic regions (Hayden et
al., 1984; Ray, 1985 ; Keage, 1987) have not been To date, no comprehensive or systematic attempt has
pursued. been made to identify further areas meriting protection.
The New Zealand authorities have drawn up an indica-
Consequently, the biogeographic distribution of ex- tive list of 15 potential protected areas in the Ross Sea
isting protected areas is distinctly uneven (Lucas and Region (Keys et al. , 1988) , and a workshop to be jointly
Dingwall, 1985; Bonner and Lewis-Smith, 1985; Keage, convened by SCAR and IUCN in 1992 will give atten-
1987) . Overwhelming attention is given to protection of tion to future protection needs.
The 1991 Protocol expressly provides a legal man- ment ofregulations, are undertaken by national authorities.
date for this task and promises much improvement. They are assisted in this by entry permit and inspection
Criteria for establishing ASPAS make specific refer- procedures, which have tended to be incompletely ap-
ence to the inclusion of representative examples of plied in the past, and by reports of scientists. More
major terrestrial and marine ecosystems identified within recently, reports from inspection teams and from unof-
a systematic environmental-geographical framework, ficial inspections by Greenpeace International have in-
and allowance is made for inclusion of the widest pos- cluded reports on visits to protected areas.
sible range of biological, physical , historical, aesthetic
and wilderness features and values. Collated evidence from inspection and visit reports
(Handbook ofthe Antarctic Treaty System, 1990) sug-
gests that so far problems are few and amenable to
5. Management planning and solution. Among the most commonly reported concerns
design of protected areas are those referring to boundaries that are inappropri-
ately located, inaccurately mapped, or inadequately
Management planning is only rudimentary in Antarctic demarcated; littering of sites; evidence of vegetation
protected areas. Plans have traditionally been required trampling by people and animals; and observations on
only for SSSIS and these are generally limited in scope. tourist and recreational use of areas.
In 1989 the XV ATCM approved the application of
management planning to other major categories. SCAR The 1991 Protocol provides for much improved insti-
is currently preparing a handbook to guide management tutional and procedural arrangements for monitoring
plan preparation . The 1991 Protocol takes a major for- the condition and use of protected areas. Permits, issued
ward step in requiring the universal application of man- by an appointed authority of the Parties, are made
agement plans, and it details the matters to be covered mandatory for entry to and use of ASPAS. Management
and requirements for plan review and updating. plans, which are to be initially approved by the Envi-
ronmental Committee under the Protocol , in consult-
These provisions will help overcome several design ation with SCAR and the CCAMLR Commission, will
problems in established protected areas. With few ex- specify the conditions under which permits may be
ceptions, protected areas are restricted in size, lack granted, and may also require submission of reports
internal zoning, and are delimited by straight-line bounda- following visits to areas.
ries rather the natural features.
7. Integration of protection and

6. Institutional capacity for other activities
establishment and
Most protected areas are isolated and widely dispersed
management of protected areas
in Antarctica. Some, however, are in close proximity to
In Antarctica no single institution oversees establishment scientific stations and other areas frequented by scien-
and management of protected areas. The region is ad- tists and tourists.
ministered under the 1961 Antarctic Treaty, a remarkable
Scientists and supporting personnel the humans who
international legal agreement among 26 Consultative Par-
are present in greatest numbers in Antarctica-have the
ties who are active in Antarctica, and 13 Acceding
States. highest potential for disturbance. Protected areas are
important research sites and SSSIS are established spe-
The ultimate decision-making authority is the ATCM cifically for scientific purposes. Evidence to date sug-
of the Parties, previously biennial but now an annual gests that problems are minimal. While some areas are
round, at which the Parties adopt recommendations by regularly visited, for census or related studies ofwildlife
consensus with voting rights restricted to Consultative for example, the majority are used as reference sites or
Parties. Recommendations are hortatory only and re- for long-term monitoring programmes rather than inten-
quire national legislation for ratification and entry into sive field research, and the impacts tend to be benign.
force. Management action is variously undertaken as Some protected areas are not being used to their full
part of national Antarctic programmes. The parties are potential for science. Many, including some SSSIS,
advised on scientific matters, including area protection, have no current or planned research, and some serve
by SCAR, and a Council of Managers of National primarily to prevent indiscriminate research activities
Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP) meets to coordinate or over-zealous collecting of specimens, or to guard
and address management needs. against potential tourist interference.
ACommission established under the 1980 CCAMLR Experience with tourism reveals that, despite bur-
agreement is responsible for conservation measures in geoning tourist numbers some 2000-3000 tourists now
management of marine areas and resources, and it too visit Antarctica annually-and despite a tendency for
is assisted by a Scientific Advisory Committee. tourists to favour areas such as wildlife colonies with
high protection values, disruption to station routines is
No Antarctic protected area management service ex- far more significant than damage to protected areas and
ists. Surveillance and monitoring of areas, and enforce- their values.
However, where protection and other activities are pace of activity and interest in the region. Instead,
associated, coordinated management is needed . Provi- information must be sifted from scientific papers, in-
sions in the 1991 Protocol for establishing ASMAS hold spection reports and Treaty documents, many of which
the key to solving this potential problem. The ASMA are not readily available.
concept is specifically intended to allow integrated land
Again,the 1991 Protocol responds effectively to this
use practices to be applied and to facilitate cooperative
action which will minimise environmental impacts in need by requiring Parties to publicise site details and
management regulations, particularly by means of widely
multiple-use areas.
distributed management plans. Parties are also required
to arrange the exchange of information on permits
8. Information management issued, reports of visits including inspections, and re-
cords of changing circumstances, and to report annually
Management of Antarctic protected areas lacks the to otherParties and tothe Committee for Environmental
support of a dedicated information management system Protection on these and other management actions
for recording, storing and retrieving management-related taken. Further promising developments include plans to
information from research and monitoring, or for use in create a comprehensive Antarctic protected areas data
education, training and publicity programmes-all system at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
fundamentally important given the steadily increasing
Table 8. Antarctica Specially Protected Areas (SPAs)
No. Name Year designated Area (ha)

1234567
Taylor Rookery, MacRobertson Land 1966 20

Rookery Is. , Holme Bay 1966 90
Ardery Is. and Odbert Is,. Budd Coast 1966 240
Sabrina Is. , Balleny Islands 1966 70
Beaufort Is., Ross Sea 1966 1,860
6 Cape Crozier (now SSSI #4) 1975 462
Cape Hallett, Victoria Land 1966 12
1985 38
8 Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay 1966 20
9 Green Is., Berthelot Islands 1966 24
10 Byers Peninsula, S. Shetlands (now SSSI #6) 1975 6,000
11 Cape Shirreff, S. Shetlands (now SSSI #31 ) 1989 255
12 Fildes Peninsula, S. Shetlands (now SSSI #5 1975 220
13 Moe Is., S. Orkneys 1966 120
14 Lynch Is., S. Orkneys 1966 15
15 S. Powell Is. Group , S. Orkneys 1966 620
16 Coppermine Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1970 70
17 Litchfield Is., Palmer Archipelago 1975 250
18 N. Coronation Is. , S. Orkneys 1985 8,000
19 Lagotelleri Is., Marguerite Bay 1985 162
20 Caughley Beach, Ross Island 1985 9
21 Avian Is., N-W Marguerite Bay 1991 50
223
Cryptogam Ridge, Victoria Land 1991 60

Forlidas Ponds and Davis Valley Ponds 1991 600
Total: 19 SPAS 12,330

Table 9. Antarctica-Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
Year Year Area

No. Name designated ofexpiry (ha)
123
Cape Royds, Ross Island 1975 1995 2

2 Arrival Heights, Ross Island 1975 1997 175
3 Barwick Valley, Victoria Land 1975 1995 32,500
4 Cape Crozier, Ross Island 1975 2001 2,000
5 Fildes Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1975 2001 180
6 Byers Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1975 2001 7,100
7 Haswell Island, Queen Mary Land 1975 2001 80
8 Admiralty Bay, S. Shetlands 1979 1995 1,360
9 Rothera Point, Adelaide Island 1985 1995 5
10 Caughley Beach, Ross Island 1985 2001 50
11 Tramway Beach, Mr. Erebus, Ross Island 1985 2001 1
12 Canada Glacier, Victoria Land 1985 2001 100
13 Potter Peninsula, S. Shetlands 1985 1995 200
14 Harmony Point, S. Shetlands 1985 1995 25,000
15 Cierva Poinht, Danco Coast 1985 1995 1,450
16 N-E Bailey Peninsula, Budd Coast 1985 1995 55
17 Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast 1985 1995 1,000
18 N-W White Is. , McMurdo Sound 1985 2001 12,500
19 Linnaeus Terrace, Victoria Land 1985 1995 300
20 Biscoe Pont, Anvers Island 1985 1995 275
21 Deception Is. (parts), S. Shetlands 1985 1995 130
22 Yukidori Valley, Lutzow-Holm Bay 1987 2003 300
23 Svarthamaren, Dronning-Maud Land 1987 1997 390
24 Mt. Melbourne Summit, N. Victoria Land 1987 1997 100
25 Marine Plain, Mule Peninsula, Princess Elizabeth Land 1987 1997 1,500
26 Chile Bay, S. Shetlands 1987 1997 60
27 Port Foster, S. Shetlands 1987 1997 50
28 South Bay, Doumer Is. , Palmer Archipelago 1987 1997 115
29 Albation Pt-Ganymede Hts. , Alexander Is. 1989 1999 18,000
30 Mt. Flora, Hope Bay, Antarctic Peninsula 1989 1999 55
31 Cape Shirreff, S. Shetlands 1989 1999 590
32 Ardley Is., S. Shetlands 1991 2001 145
33 Lions Rump, S. Shetlands 1991 2001 150
34 West Bransfield Strait, S. Shetlands 1991 2001 57,600
35 East Dallmann Bay, Brabant Is. 1991 2001 96,300
Total: 35 SSSIS 259,820

Annex 2.
Protected Areas on islands of the Southern Ocean
1. Introduction - the Southern Edward and the South Sandwich Islands are without
Islands statutory land protection; but all have a conservation
management regime.
Within the vast Southern Ocean, beyond the Antarctic
Treaty Area and extending north to the Subtropical There are no formally declared marine reserves around
Convergence at latitude 35-40°S, are 20 major islands the islands. At Macquarie Island an area extending three
or island groups. Collectively these incorporate more nautical miles offshore is managed as a marine buffer
than 800 individual islands or islets, with a total land zone for the reserve, and at Tristan da Cunha, Gough,
area of approximately 27,000 sq km, or double the Heard, McDonald , Bouvetøya, Marion and Prince
extent of the Hawaiian archipelago. The islands are Edward Island, land protection provisions extend also
administered as sovereign territory of six states-United to territorial waters. At the Snares Islands, mooring of
Kingdom , Norway, South Africa, France, Australia and vessels and fishing in near shore waters are strictly
New Zealand (see Tables 1 to 3) . Sovereignty over the controlled, and at the Auckland Islands a fishing ban is
Falklands Islands (Islas Malvinas) , South Georgia and imposed within a 12 nautical miles surrounding zone.
the South Sandwich Islands is claimed both by the Similar controls have been imposed around the French
United Kingdom and Argentina. islands since 1978. Eight island groups are in the region
covered by CCAMLR, which regulates exploitation of
marine resources on the high seas south ofthe Antarctic
2. Biogeographical setting Convergence. A restricted fishing zone was established
In the context of the IUCN global biogeographical at South Georgia under CCAMLR in 1985.
system (Udvardy, 1975), the islands lie within the Prov-
ince ofInsulantarctica . This wide-ranging region can be
more used fully subdivided into three zones, as outlined 4. History of protection
below:
With a few exceptions , protected areas establishment is

■ Cool temperate. Containing islands lying between
a recent phenomenon on islands in the Southern Ocean.
the Subtropical and Antarctic Convergences; mean
The Auckland Islands were fully protected in 1934 (part
monthly temperature rarely below 5°C; trees, shrubs
protection from 1910) and at the French Islands a 1924
and tussock grasslands dominate the vegetation.
protection decree was replaced by legislation in 1938
■ Subantarctic. Containing islands lying in the vicin- declaringthem to be a "Parc national antarctique français".
ity of the Antarctic Convergence; mean annual Macquarie Island became a nature sanctuary in 1938.
temperature 1-5°C; grasslands and herb-field The other New Zealand islands were reserved in the
vegetation without trees. 1950s and 1960s and reserves in the Falklands/Malvinas
were established periodically from 1964. For all other
■ Maritime Antarctic. Containing islands apprecia-
islands, legal protection dates from the 1970s.
bly south ofthe Antarctic Convergence; mean annual
temperature below O°C; sparse vegetation cover
dominated by mosses and lichens.
5. Status of protection
3. Extent of protection
Mostprotected areas may be classed as IUCN Category I
A directory of protected areas in the Southern Ocean areas (Scientific Reserve/Wilderness) (Table 2). Marion
and Prince Edward Islands are not formally protected
was first published by IUCN in 1985 (Clark and Ding-
but their management regime satisfies the criteria for
wall, 1985), and was partially updated at a CNPPA
working session in New Zealand in 1987 (Dingwall , this class of protection also. The French islands are
1987) . Recent reviews of the conservation status of the declared national parks but the management approach
islands have also been undertaken in a SCAR atlas of is akin to that of Category V areas (Protected Land-
scape/ Ecosystem Conservation) . The New Zealand
Antarctic conservation areas (Bonner and Lewis- Smith ,
islands are declared National Reserves, according them
1985) and at a joint SCAR/ UCN workshop in France
in 1986 (Walton, 1986) , which will meet again in 1992. the status and security equivalent to a national park.
Macquarie Island was designated a Biosphere Reserve
Approximately 1,900 sq km, or about 7% ofthe total (MAB, UNESCO) in 1977. No islands have World
area ofthe islands, are included within legally protected Heritage status. Proposals for Heard and McDonald,
areas. Within island groups the proportion of strictly and Macquarie Islands are under assessment by UNESCO,
protected land varies widely, from 100% (e.g. New and an informal assessment has been made of World
Zealand islands, Macquarie, Bouvetøya) to less than 1% Heritage values of the New Zealand islands (Molloy
in the Falklands/Malvinas. Only Marion , Prince and Dingwall , 1990).
6. Institutional arrangements islands free of human modification . They include, inthe

Crozet Group, Ile de l'Est, Ile aux Cochons, Ilot des
All islands are governed as external territories of sov- Apotres, Ile des Pingouins and part of Ile de la Posses-
ereign states . Some, such as the UK and French islands, sion. At Iles Kerguelen, the offshore Ile Nuageuses, free
have resident administrations. Macquarie Island is man- of introduced mammals which are so destructive else-
aged as part ofthe State ofTasmania. The New Zealand where in the Group, are proposed for protection.
islands and Macquarie are administered by protection
agencies, but in other cases Foreign, Justice and Envi- Controlling of introduced species. Virtually all
ronmental Ministries have primary responsibility for island groups have been affected by human contact at
management, either solely or jointly. It is common some stage, and the introduction of alien plants and
practice for administering authorities to be assisted in animals, whether deliberate or accidental, has been
island management by Antarctic (or Polar) agencies or ecologically disastrous in places. Land mammals, largely
advised by scientific and/or environmental committees. absent from native biota on islands, have had the great-
Only Tristan da Cunha, Macquarie Island and Campbell est impacts, especially on islands with human settle-
Island are known to have permanently resident rangers ments (e.g. Falklands and Tristan) and at the French
or wardens with responsibility for administering pro- Islands (e.g. Kerguelen has seven species of introduced
tected area regulations . mammals). Uncontrolled grazing has often encouraged
the spread of alien plants among modified vegetation
communities. Predation by cats and rats has greatly
7. Management issues and
reduced bird numbers, particularly the smaller burrow-
priorities for future action ing petrels. Introduced plants, though widespread and
The following are the principal issues of management numerous (e.g. Tristan and Campbell Islands have more
concern requiring attention on Southern Islands, as than 100 and 80 species, respectively) have generally
been of much less concern.
assessed by SCAR and IUCN (e.g. Clark and Dingwall ,
1985; Walton, 1986; IUCN, 1991) .
At the other extreme are the relatively few islands
Strengthening legislation, policy and management remaining in an essentially natural state-particularly
planning. In several instances legislation for island Heard and McDonald Islands, the Snares, Bouvetøya
protection is outmoded or inadequate. Authorities at the and the S. Sandwich Island, which are free of introduced
Falklands/Malvinas, for example, have recognised the species, and the Bounty and Prince Edward Islands with
need for a major revision of legislation applying to no animal introductions. Several islets in the Crozet and
wildlife and area protection . A 1987 Environment Pro- Kerguelen Groups may also be free of such introduc-
tection and Management Ordinance for Heard and tions.
McDonald Islands has greatly improved their legal
standing as protected areas. But management protection Active management is required to address the most
in the Prince Edward and Marion Islands protection
pressing needs, which are to cease all further introduc-
management relies upon a voluntary code of conduct
tions, quarantine all undamaged islands, institute con-
which, although extensive, requires full backing of trol measures for areas under immediate threat and
legislation.
restore native communities as far as possible.
While conservation management guidelines exist for
most islands, detailed, officially approved and legally Rapid vegetation recovery after removal of sheep and
binding management plans exist only for the New cattle from Campbell Island and intensive control of
Zealand islands and (recently) at Macquarie Island. rabbits on Macquarie Island reveal the benefits which
Management planning is under consideration for can be derived from imposing control measures. The
Marion and Prince Edward, and Gough Islands. The recent removal of feral cattle and goats, and plans for
planning process should be universally applied eradicating rabbits, from the Auckland Islands are fur-
throughout the network. Existing plans serve as useful ther illustrations of a concerted effort to restore the
models , as does the planning prescription contained in vegetation on New Zealand islands. Other encouraging
the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the developments are the commencement of intensive con-
Antarctic Treaty. trols on cats at Marion Island and preparation of a
comprehensive plan of restoration of Amsterdam
Extending of the protected area network. Currently Island . WWF and IUCN have published a guide to
only 7% of the total island area is formally protected, rodent prevention and control measures, based largely
and protection is biogeographically uneven. For exam- on New Zealand experience (Moors et al., 1989).
ple, less than4% of the islands in the subantarctic zone are
under legal protection . Given the broad biogeographical
Regulating of tourism. The islands ofthe Southern
scope ofthe realm , and the high degree of endemism in
Ocean are being drawn inexorably into the orbit of
island biota, it is important that plans for extending the
network give consideration to including representative global tourism and , along with fishing, tourism is now
a well-established commercial enterprise in the region.
examples of the full range of ecological diversity.
Visits to islands are usually a component of more ex-
Several islands have been identified as having high tensive Antarctic voyaging. Experience to date reveals
priority for protection , some of them smaller offshore that tourism has had a benign influence on the islands,
but vigilance and controls are necessary, particularly to supervised by persons authorised by the management
avoid disturbance to biota and introductions of alien authorities. These policies offer a useful guide for other
plants and animals. island administrators.
Current management approaches to tourism vary con- Other priorities for action. Among other identified
siderably among islands. Tourism is not encouraged at needs for improved protection are:
the South African islands. At Macquarie Island, limited
tourism is permitted, though quarantine regulations put ■ Increased research with emphasis on completing bio-
the island off-limits for some time after 1982. At South logical inventories, assessing impacts, conducting
Georgia visits are restricted to designated Areas of ecological studies of native and introduced commu-
Special Tourist Interest. Seaborne tourism is well estab- nities, and investigating land-sea interrelationships;
lished in the Falklands and there have been reports of
localised disturbance to wildlife. In the New Zealand ■ Increased information exchange to promote wider
islands, comprehensive policies have been adopted to application ofsuccessful management programmes ,
cope with growing tourist numbers. The number of and encourage coordinated conservation effort;
visits is limited annually, and access to pristine and/or
■ Controls on station development and conduct and
unsafe islands (e.g. Snares, Bounties) is restricted to
application of environmental impact assessment to
shoreline cruising. Elsewhere , visits are strictly regu-
all human activities;
lated by permits, which require compliance with a mini-
mum impact code, stipulate those islands or areas that ■ Wider application of conservation education and
are off-limits, and direct tourists to preferred landing training for island residents and visitors including
sites. These are selected to maximise tourist experience scientists;
but alsoto allow limited development of facilities, such
as boardwalksto protect vulnerable soil and plant cover. Extension of protective measures to surrounding
A modest charge is levied for tourist permits to offset waters, including imposition of controls and formal
associated management costs and permits must be establishment of marine protected areas.
References
Bonner, W.N. and Lewis-Smith, R.I .. 1985. Conserva- Dingwall, P.R. 1981. Evolving a national system of
tion areas in the Antarctic. SCAR, Scott Polar Re- protected natural areas in New Zealand. Proc. CNPPA
search Institute, Cambridge. 299 pp. Working Session, Christchurch, N.Z. 24 pp.
Clark, M.R. and Dingwall, P.R. 1985. Conservation of Headland, R.K. 1989. Chronological list of Antarctic
islands in the Southern Ocean . IUCN, Cambridge, expeditions and related historical events. CUP, Cambridge,
U.K. 188 pp. U.K. 730 pp.
Department of Lands and Survey. 1984. Register of Handbook ofthe Antarctic Treaty System 1990. Part 3
ProtectedNatural Areas in New Zealand. Wellington. The Antarctic Protected Area System. (7th Edition
N.Z. 468pp . Oct. 1990) . Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge.
Department of Lands 1908. Report on a botanical sur- Hayden, B.P. et al. 1984. Classification of coastal and
vey ofthe Tongariro National Park. N.Z. Parliament marine environments. Environmental Conservation
House of Representatives, Appendices to Journals 11: 199-207.
C-11, 22 June 1908. Holdgate, M.W. and Roberts, B.B .. 1961. Wildlife laws
Devlin, P.J., Dingwall, P.R. Lucas, P.H.C.. 1990. New relating to the Antarctic and Subantarctic. SCAR,
Zealand. In International Handbook of National Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge University.
Parks andNature Reserves. Allin, C.W. (ed.). Greenwood IUCN, 1991. A Strategy for Antarctic Conservation.
Press, New York. Pp. 272-293. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. 85 pp.
Dingwall, P.R. and Simpson, P.G.. 1988. The potential IUCN. 1992. Protected Areas of the World: Volume I:
role for Biosphere Reserves in environmental moni- Indomalaya, Oceania, Australia and Antarctic Pre-
toring in New Zealand. In Proceedings of Sympo- pared by WCMC, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and
sium on Environmental Monitoring, Dept of Conser- Cambridge, U.K. xx + 352 pp.
vation. Pp.264-273 Keage, P.L. 1986. Antarctic protected areas: future
Dingwall, P.R. 1987. Directory of protected areas on options. Environmental Studies , University of
islands ofthe Southern Ocean-an update 1987. In Tasmania, Occasional Paper No. 19. 109 pp.
Dingwall, P.R. (ed .) Conserving the Natural Keage, P.L. 1987. Environmental Zones and planning
Heritage ofthe Antarctic Realm. Proc. 29th Work- units : a basis for an Antarctic terrestrial protected
ing Session of CNPPA, New Zealand, August 1987. area network. In Dingwall, P.R. (ed.) Conservingthe
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland . Pp. 75–84. natural heritage of the Antarctic Realm. Proc. 29th
Working Session, CNPPA, Wairakei , New Zealand al. (eds.) , Ecological restoration of New Zealand
(August 1987), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Pp. 135-140 islands. Conservation Sciences Pub. No. 2, Depart-
Kelly, G.C. and G.N. Park. 1986. The New Zealand ment ofConservation, Wellington. Pp. 194–206.
protected natural areas programme-a scientific fo- Moors, P.J. et al. 1989. Prohibited immigrants: the rat
cus. N.Z. DSIR , Biological Resources Centre Pub. threatto island conservation . WW-NZ publication,
4,68 pp. Wellington, New Zealand. 32 pp.
King, K.J. et al. 1985. Coastal and marine ecological Ray, G.C. 1985. Identification and selection of pro-
areas of New Zealand, a preliminary classification tected areas for Antarctica and the Southern Antarc-
for conservation purposes. N.Z. Department of Lands tic Ocean. Proceedings ofthe SCARIIUCN Symposium
& Survey, Info. Series 15 , 47 pp. onAntarctic Conservation, Bonn, Germany (April 1985).
Keys , H. 1988. An analysis of the present network of Roche, M.M. 1984. Some historical influences on the
protected areas and its ecological representation in establishment of protected natural areas. In People
the Ross Sea Region. Pp. 7-14 in Keys, J.R. et al. and Parks. Dingwall, P.R. (ed.), Dept Lands & Survey,
(eds.), Improving the protected area system in the Information Series No. 10. Pp. 7-14.
Ross Sea Region, Antarctica. Department of Con- SCAR. 1977. Report of SCAR Working Group on
servation Technical Report No.2. Wellington, New Biology. Cambridge, U.K. , May 1976. SCARBulletin
Zealand. No. 55: 165-172.
Keys, J.R. et al. (eds .) 1988. Improving the protected Thom , D. 1987. Heritage: the Parks of the People: A
area system in the Ross Sea Region, Antarctica. Century ofNational Parks in New Zealand. Lansdowne
Department of Conservation , Technical Report No. Press, Auckland, N.Z. 264 pp.
2 , Wellington, New Zealand . 48 pp. Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A classification of the bio-
Lucas, P.H.C. and Dingwall, P.R. 1985. Protected areas geographical provinces ofthe world. IUCN Occasional
and environmental conservation . In Antarctica and Paper No. 18. Gland, Switzerland.
the Southern Ocean. in Nelson, J.G. et al. (eds.), Veitch, C.R. and B.D. Bell. 1990. Eradication of intro-
Antarctic Heritage: Proceedings of a Symposium duced animals from islands of New Zealand. In
(August 1985) , Banff, Alberta, Canada. Pp. 219-241 . Towns, D.R. et al (ed .) , Ecological Restoration of
Nature Conservation Council . 1981. Integrating Con- New Zealand islands. Conservation Sciences Pub.
servation and Development-a proposal for a New No.2, Wellington. Pp . 137-146.
Zealand Conservation Strategy. Nature Conserva- Walton, D.W.H. (ed . ) . 1986. The biological basis for
tion Council, Wellington, 92 pp . conservation of subantarctic islands. Report of SCAR/
Molloy, L.F. and Dingwall , P.R.. 1990. World heritage IUCN Workshop, Paimpont, France , Sept. 1986.
values of New Zealand islands. In Towns, D.R. et
The Pacific
protect
Percented
age
%
0.1
Less
than
%
0.1-5
%
North
Marian
3.27
% as
%
5-10
Marshall
0.00
Is
%
%
2.79
Guam
10-15
%
%
0.00
Micronesia
of
States
Federated
Palau
%
3.29 15-20
%
25
>
Is
Minor
US
%
More
%
20
than
Kir
2
>5ibati
%
Nauru
%
-0.00
Solomon
%
0.00
Is
Tuvalu
0.00
%
Western
%
0.00
Samoa
* Wallis
F
-utuna
0.00
Is
% ·
French
%
3.43
Polynesia
%
0.00
Vanuatu American
%
22.22
Samoa
%
0.00
Niue
0.
% i33
Fij
Coo
19
0.69
% k
%
0.3
Ton7ga
"
%
3.52
Caledonia
New
Km
0 1000
Map
. protected
areas
Percentage
designated
legally
within
included
country
of
Contents
Page
1.1 Introduction 259
1.2 Countries which have developed protected area systems 260
1.3 Factors influencing the establishment of protected area systems . 263
1.4 Participation in major international protected area programmes . . 265
1.5 Major lessons learned 265
2. Current protected area coverage . . 266
2.1 Systems plans and coverage 266
2.2 Adequacy of current system coverage . 266
2.3 Categories of protected areas . . 267
2.4 Protected areas in danger . . 267
3. Additional protected areas required/recommended 267
3.1 Requirements for new protected areas 267
4.1 Protection mechanisms . . . . 269
4.2 Protected area administration . . 269
4.3 Linkages with other development sectors 270
6.1 Training facilities and needs 271
8.1 People in protected areas 273
8.2 Involvement by the private sector . 273
8.3 Protected areas and surrounding lands and waters 273

Page
8.4 Protected areas and science 274
8.5 Threats to effective management of protected areas • 274
References 276
Tables
Table 1 . Summary ofthe protected areas system 261
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in the Pacific 270
Figures

areas .. 256
Figure 1 . Growth of the protected areas network (non- cumulative) • 262

The Pacific
Presented by losefatu Reti , Regional Vice-Chair for the Pacific ,

with contributions from Peter Thomas, Director Pacific Field Programme ,
The Nature Conservancy, and Paul Holthus , Project Officer (Scientist) ,
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
1. Historical perspective countries . There is now a great deal more knowledge of

the ecosystems and habitats ofthe island countries than
in the 1970s. This information has been used to identify
1.1 Introduction
and target conservation priorities in some countries and
to design several proposed representative protected area
The establishment of protected areas in South Pacific
systems. It is therefore most unfortunate that the gov-
island countries has been a relatively new phenomenon
ernments of the region have not been able to respond to
(Figures 1 and 2) . Perusal of the IUCN Directory of
these initiatives and actively promote the establishment
Protected Areas in Oceania (IUCN, 1991) shows a
large number of the protected areas listed today were of new protected areas.
established in the 1970s, when the island countries of
In general, protected area establishment has been
Tonga, Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati , the
achieved under a variety of different forms of national
Cook Islands and Vanuatu were active in establishing
protected areas, some of which were for coastal and legislation. Where it exists, this legislation is often
closely aligned to the protected area legislation of either
marine areas (Table 3) . This activity reflected the inter-
the previous colonial administrations or the existing
est in protected areas which was generated as a direct
result of the First South Pacific National Parks and legislation of the metropolitan countries administering
territories or protectorates. This situation has not been
Reserves Conference, hosted by the government of
New Zealand in 1975. entirely satisfactory as the legislation has been devel-
oped onthe basis that the government ofthe day either
It is also apparent that following this initial interest, controls the land or is in a position to acquire it for
the decade of the 1980s has seen much slower progress conservation purposes. In the South Pacific this has led
to misguided attempts by colonial administrations to
with protected area establishment, despite a number of
regional initiatives aimed at stimulating the growth of establish protected areas without proper consultation
protected areas. These include the Third South Pacific and negotiation with the traditional land and resource-
owning groups . Few of these attempts have been suc-
National Parks and Reserves Conference held in Apia,
cessful and most have failed conclusively.
Western Samoa, in 1985 and the Fourth South Pacific
Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected
Areas held in Port Vila, Vanuatu , in 1989. Both of these However, in those cases where the governments have
important regional meetings produced Action Strate- either legitimately controlled the lands and marine areas
gies for protected area establishment in the region and or been able to satisfactorily negotiate their protection ,
the 1985 conference led to the strengthening of the there have been some successes. For example, in West-
protected area function of the South Pacific Regional ern Samoa, the government in the early 1980s, sup-
ported by assistance from New Zealand, established a
Environment Programme (SPREP) , the region's inter-
nucleus protected area system comprising one national
governmental organization for the protection and man-
agement ofthe environment. park and five reserves on available government-owned
lands.
The 1980s have also seen a strong interest by regional
and international organizations in the development of The development of marine protected areas (MPAs)
protected areas and the conservation of natural resources in the Pacific Region has been similarly limited and has
in the region. This has led to efforts to acquire new data proceeded sporadically over the past few decades. In the
on the ecosystems and species of the region and the early and mid- 1970s, several protected areas were de-
adoption of a more scientific approach to the selec- clared in French and US territories, some of which
tion and design of protected areas systems in several included marine and lagoonal areas. As was the case
with terrestrial protected areas , a few MPAs were de- system , no new areas have been added since then and
clared during periods of colonial or trusteeship control in fact, one has been lost.
of island states, particularly in Palau.
The Cook Islands has just one national park, a remote
In spite ofthe direction provided by the Action Strat- atoll gazetted as such in 1978 and which is under threat
egy for Nature Conservation in the South Pacific Re- from development for mariculture. However, like most
gion (SPREP, 1985; SPREP, 1989), during the past ten other Pacific Island countries, the Cook Islands boasts
years there has been little new development of MPAs several proposed protected areas and has been active in
in the Pacific Region . For the most part, factors which strengthening its conservation capability in recent years.
have impeded progress in MPA establishment in the
region are the same as those which have been noted as In Guam and American Samoa, both United States
problems inhibiting the development of protected areas Territories, various US Federal wildlife, natural area
of any kind in the South Pacific. In addition, issues and marine protection legislation has been used to es-
particular to the marine context include the lack of tablish systems of protected areas which are generally
information on the kinds and status of marine ecosys- adequately managed . However, as with all other sys-
tems and species and the absence of officers or pro- tems in the South Pacific region, they do not cover a
grammes dedicated to marine conservation at the national fully representative range ofthe island ecosystems. The
level. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a
protectorate ofthe USA, has proclaimed four uninhab-
In recent years, the coastal/marine and biodiversity ited outer island preserves under its Commonwealth
conservation programme activities of the South Pacific Code. However, protected areas on the heavily popu-
Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) have related and developed main island of Saipan, and the
sulted in increasing activities in the area of coastal populated islands of Tinian and Rota, are non-existent.
management in the region , with particular implications
for the conservation of coastal and marine areas, habi- New Caledonia, a French Territory, has one of the
tats and species. These include marine surveys and most extensive and representative systems of protected
inventories, the development ofproposals for the estab- areas in Oceania. The system contains a range of differ-
lishment of marine protected areas and drafting of manent protected area categories including strict nature
agement plans for important coastal and marine areas, reserves, territorial parks, special reserves and marine
some of which are existing or proposed protected areas. reserves, all of which are established through specific
declarations by the Territorial Assembly. It is interest-
ing to note that in New Caledonia, which has one ofthe
1.2 Countries which have developed highest levels of plant endemism in the world as well as
protected area systems some ofthe world's most extensive nickel reserves, all
protected areas are subject to mining unless specifically
The status ofprotected areas in the South Pacific region, included in a mining reserve established under the min-
both terrestrial and marine, has been described in a ing legislation. French Polynesia, also a French Terri-
number ofrecent documents (UNEP/IUCN, 1986; IUCN, tory, has a nucleus protected area system which includes
1991 ), and summarised in Table 1 and Figure 3. In five remote or uninhabited atolls and one recently-
general and with the exception of Hawaii, very few established ( 1989) Territorial Park. However, no pro-
island countries or territories have well developed protected areas have yet been established on the islands of
tected area systems or system plans. This is even more principal conservation interest.
true when considering MPAs.
One of the more interesting protected area systems of
Western Samoa has one of the earliest established the region is that of the Republic of Kiribati . Kiribati
systems of protected areas in the South Pacific. In has a total land area of a mere 684 sq km spread over a
addition tothe National Park and five reserves (includ- vast oceanic area of some 5 million sq km . Much of the
ing a marine reserve) managed by the government, two land is located in the Line and Phoenix Island group and
private conservation areas have been established on the in 1975 the government established a comprehensive
island of Savai'i. Western Samoa has also been the system of representative protected areas (closed areas
subject of several recent protected area system design and wildlife sanctuaries) over all or part of many of the
studies which have recommended new priorities for main islands in these groups. The system included
conservation based on the need to achieve ecosystem Kiritimati , a large island with a wide diversity of habi-
representation. However, to date , no specific action has tats and of international importance for seabird breed-
been taken to implement these. ing. However, as is the case with a number of the
countries of the region, no attempt has been made
A similar situation exists in the Kingdom of Tonga subsequently to review or expand the original system.
which has had a Parks and Reserves Act since 1976.
This provided the legal basis for the establishment of The Republic of Vanuatu has an extremely limited
five coastal/marine reserves in 1979 to complement protected area system comprising five recreation sites,
three reserves already in existence . However, again, all established in the mid- 1980s. These are very small
despite recommendations for the improvement of the in area and fail to provide the scale of protection which
The Pacific
is necessary to protect the extensive diversity of tropical agement Areas which vary in size from the smallest at
ecosystems and biota to be found in the archipelago. 15ha (Baniara Island) to the largest at 590,000ha (Tonda)
with most being in the range of 3,000 to 10,000ha.
The Solomon Islands, which lie several hundred kil- In addition to the existing protected areas, over 80
ometres to the north and west of Vanuatu, is credited further areas have been proposed as a result of various
with having a protected area system which includes a studies in the 1970s and 80s.
national park and a wildlife sanctuary. With one
exception, all the protected areas were established The present system has evolved largely since 1975
under the colonial rule on lands which were under and is woefully inadequate for a country of the size and
customary ownership. In the absence of adequate con- conservation importance of Papua New Guinea. This is
sultation with the landowners, or compensation for especially so when the management effectiveness ofthe
them , together with inadequate or non-existent manage- system is considered. Most ofthe Wildlife Management
ment overthe years since they were established (1930s Areas suffer from a lack of professional and trained
and 1954), all are now ineffective. local management and inadequate financial resources ,
and have been sorely neglected by the central govern-
The massive continental island ofPapua New Guinea ment since their establishment. The establishment of
with its area of 462,842 sq km, great ecosystem and new Wildlife Management Areas and other forms of
species diversity and high levels of endemism, has, on protected areas suffers from the same lack of resources
paper at least, the most extensive protected area system and government priority. Despite these problems the
in the region. This comprises a mix of five small na- Department of Environment and Conservation man-
tional parks (each less than 5,000ha) , some extremely aged to establish 11 new protected areas inthe 1980-89
small (less than 150ha) special purpose reserves and period.
sanctuaries, and an extensive network of Wildlife Man-
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : Pacific

American Samoa 197 44 22.2 5 2.3 48 24.6

Cook Is 233 2 0.7 0 0.0 2 0.7
Easter Is 68 67 98.0 0 0.0 67 98.0
Federated States of Micronesia 702 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Fiji 18,330 60 0.3 231 1.3 291 1.6
French Polynesia 3,940 135 3.4 0 0.0 135 3.4
Guam 450 13 2.8 73 16.2 85 19.0
Hawaii 16,760 2,858 17.1 8 0.0 2,866 17.1
Kiribati 684 266 38.9 321 46.9 587 85.9
Marshall Is 181 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Nauru 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
New Caledonia 19,105 672 3.5 6,365 33.3 7,038 36.8
Niue 259 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
North Marianas 471 15 3.3 0 0.0 15 3.3
Palau 365 12 3.3 3 0.7 15 4.0
Papua New Guinea 462,840 295 0.1 9,571 2.1 9,866 2.1
Pitcairn Is 42 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Solomon Is 29,790 0 0.0 26 0.1 26 0.1
Tokelau 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Tonga 699 7 1.0 28 4.1 35 5.1
༣ ༤ 8 - ༤
Tuvalu 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

US Minor Is 658 412 62.6 130 19.7 542 82.4
Vanuatu 14,765 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0
Wallis-Futuna Is 255 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Western Samoa 2,840 0 0.0 41 1.4 41 1.4
Total 573,690 4,858 0.8 16,803 2.9 21,661 3.8
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
"UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned. Forest reserves with a nature protection function are
generally included .
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover (eg. Kiribati and US Minor Is . ).
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network ( non- cumulative)

30
Number of sites
25
Area (x1000sqkm )
20
1591
10
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
100
Number of sites
60
40
20
0 wwww wwww.
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
The Pacific
1.3 Factors influencing the diversity. Particular attention has been given to the
establishment of protected area improving the scientific basis for protected areas and to
strengthening the institutional basis for their establishment
systems
and management.
As mentioned above, the series of National Parks and
Every four years SPREP organizes the South Pacific
Reserves conferences held in the region since 1975 has
Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected
been a major factor in the development ofprotected area
Areas at which the Action Strategy for Nature Conser-
systems in Oceania. They have served to remind gov-
vation in the South Pacific Region is reviewed and up-
ernments of their responsibilities in this area and to
dated. The Strategy provides a guide for action on
provide a valuable and regular regional focus on pro-
protected areas development in the region for SPREP
tected areas. However, despite the conferences and
and interested governments and international organiza-
other important regional initiatives, only limited pro-
tions (e.g. IUCN, UN agencies, international NGOs) for
gress has been made with protected area establishment
and most of this was in the 1970s. Governments have which SPREP is the region's clearing house and
not seen nature conservation and the establishment of co-ordinating unit.
protected areas as a particularly relevant or high priority

in the face of mounting overseas debts and social and Over the past 10 years SPREP has taken the lead on
a number of regional initiatives including the Third
economic hardship. The financial and human resources
South Pacific National Parks and Reserves Conference
needed to negotiate and create protected areas have not
in 1985, the Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature
been available, let alone the resources for effective
management of any system which may have been cre- Conservation and Protected Areas in 1989, both of
ated. which led to the preparation of joint SPREP/CNPPA
Action Strategies for Oceania. The implementation of
Until recently and with one or two notable exceptions , these Strategies has been undertaken through SPREP's
technical assistance organizations which have the re- extensive work programme, the activities of the South
sources to support governments in this field have ignored Pacific government conservation and environment agen-
nature conservation as a legitimate form of natural re- cies and through the work of several international and
source development, opting instead to channel assis- local conservation NGOs. Financial and technical assis-
tance to the traditional development sectors of forestry, tance has been provided from a number of sources,
fishing, agriculture and infrastructural development. notably the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand
Ironically, these activities have made the need for pro- governments.
tected areas even more critical . The low priority given
to conservation and environmental management in aid Although the specific protected area establishment
programmes has also acted as a disincentive for govern- goals in both Action Strategies were not achieved, there
ments to build protected area and resource management has been great progress in other related areas. These
agencies. include developing inventories of the island ecosys-
tems, the planning of systems of representative and
A third and particularly important factor for the lack priority conservation areas, strengthening of environ-
ofprogress isthe nature of land and resource (including ment and conservation agencies, public awareness of
marine resources) ownership. In many Pacific Island conservation issues and the development of a regional
countries very little land is owned or controlled by the perspective on the role of protected areas in sustainable
government. In many cases particular groups can lay development. In this latter respect, strong interest in the
claim to the ownership of the resources of the land and linkage between tourism and protected areas has emerged
coastal marine areas including reefs and fishing grounds. in the region. Not surprisingly given the diversity and
Pacific Island people have unusually strong cultural, natural beauty of their islands, several Pacific Island
spiritual and economic links with their land and coastal governments have developed national tourism strate-
marine environment resulting from their dependence on gies based on the development of nature tourism . These
terrestrial and marine resources for subsistence. In such include Western Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji and Solomon
circumstances the compulsory acquisition of land for Islands .
protected areas and the denial of resource user rights is
out of the question and governments have not seen In summary, the major specific actions which have
protected areas establishment as a high enough priority been taken in the Pacific Region over the last decade
to warrant expenditure on compensation or the possible include:
political impact of difficult or failed negotiations.
The establishment of the South Pacific Regional
Perhaps the most important event in the past 10 years Environment Programme (SPREP) in 1982 with the
influencing protected area establishment has been the promotion and establishment of protected areas as
establishment of the South Pacific Regional Environ- one of its functions
ment Programme (SPREP) in 1982. As the regional
organization for environment and conservation, SPREP The Third South Pacific National Park and Reserves
has been instrumental in promoting the establishment Conference held in Apia, Western Samoa in 1985
of protected areas and the conservation of biological and the development of the Action Strategy for
Protected Areas in the South Pacific at that confer- Action Strategy for Nature Conservation and Pro-
ence. tected Areas in the South Pacific.
■ The establishment by SPREP, with assistance from ■ Surveys and recommendations for representative
the New Zealand government, of a full time Pro- protected area systems for The Marshall Islands
tected Areas Management Officer position in 1986. (1988), Fiji ( 1989) , Solomon Islands ( 1990) and
Western Samoa ( 1990/91).
The 3-month International Parks Management Train-

The entry into force of both the Convention on the
ing Course held in conjunction with the New
Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia
Zealand National Parks Centenary year celebrations
Convention) and the Convention for the Protection
in 1987 together with the provision by SPREP of
ofthe Environment and the Natural Resources ofthe
scholarships for two Pacific Islanders to undertake
South Pacific (the SPREP Convention) in 1990
training for a year in New Zealand.
■ The development by SPREP of regional programmes

Aregional Workshop on the Customary Land Tenure, for the conservation of marine turtles, birds and
Traditional Knowledge and Protected Areas held by marine mammals; regionally appropriate terrestrial
SPREP in 1988. and coastal and marine ecosystem classification sys-
tems; and a South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation
The Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature Programme and the approval of funding of $10
Conservation and Protected Areas held in Port Vila, million from the Global Environment Facility in
Vanuatu in 1989 and the development of a revised 1991 .
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : Pacific
I II III IV V TOTAL
American Samoa 1 7 1 37 -
121 2 44
Cook Is 1 1
T
Easter Is 1 67 67
Federated States
14743
III - 212
| | 00 |
ofMicronesia
Fiji 3 56 1 4 60
French Polynesia 1 6 127 135
37
|
Guam 5 1 8 13
1
Hawaii 1,031 3 1,080 27 691 2 56 33 2,858

201 1 65 3 266
1115
Kiribati
I
Marshall Is
1
19
12
Nauru
-
New Caledonia 226 1 11 19 424 5 12 27 672

Niue
1
1
416
I
North Marianas 4 15 15
1
12 -
13
Palau 12
I
Papua New Guinea 3 73 222 295

Pitcairn Is
T
Solomon Is
Tokelau
177
13
Tonga 1 5 3
-
13
Tuvalu
US Minor Is 3 412 412
Vanuatu
1
Wallis-Futuna Is
1
Western Samoa
Total 16 1,948 11 1,281 1 12 62 1,543 8 76 98 4,858
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
The Pacific
A number of these actions are of particular import- conservation of South Pacific wetlands. These include
ance to the development of MPAs in the region. The wetland and lagoon systems of global significance such
coastal and marine ecosystem classification system for as the Marovo lagoon in Solomon Islands and the salt-
the South Pacific region will provide a comprehensive water and super-saline lagoons of Kiritimati (Kiribati)
framework for identifying the presence of habitat at which are habitat for some ofthe largest populations of
local, national and regional scales and determining the tropical seabirds in the world.
conservation status of those habitats. The application of
these classification systems to the countries and territo- Other than these initiatives, there has been little in-
volvement with international protected areas programmes
ries ofthe region in the 1990s will provide a means of
setting priorities for action. The South Pacific Regional which perhaps reflects the low priority accorded protected
Marine Turtle Conservation Programme and the recently- area establishment by many of the South Pacific gov-
launched Regional Marine Mammal Conservation Pro- ernments and a reluctance to become party to any inter-
gramme will spur activities in marine endangered nationalprogrammes which may involve additional finan-
species conservation education and research and is cial commitments. Conversely, the international pro-
likely to result in additional impetus for MPA development. grammes may find it difficult to justify the resources
necessary to undertake initiatives in the Pacific Region
which is remote, vast and sparsely populated and in
1.4 Participation in major international global terms, does not have a high priority for conser-
protected area programmes vation action.
South Pacific island country participation in major in- 1.5 Major lessons learned
ternational protected area programmes has been limited
(Table 4). However, there is growing interest in the
One ofthe major lessons learned during the past decade
World Heritage Convention and the benefits it has to is that the establishment of protected areas in the island
offer developing countries particularly in relation to the countries ofthe Pacific Region will require the consent
development of nature-based tourism . The inscription of the customary or other land or resource owning
of Henderson Island in the Pitcairn Group (a British
groups. The corollary to this is that the permanent
territory) on the World Heritage List was a first for the alienation ofthe land for protection is unlikely to occur.
region (Table 5). Solomon Islands is interested in be- Furthermore, landowner involvement in the future man-
coming the first country in the region to accede to the
agement of such areas is important as is flexibility in the
World Heritage Convention. Two potential World management regime to allow continued access to im-
Heritage Sites have been identified in that country, East portant subsistence resources and the sustainable utili-
Rennell Island and Marovo Lagoon, but there are still zation of some commercially important resources.
many obstacles to overcome before their designation
becomes a reality. It is clear that innovative models for protected area
establishment will need to be developed ifthese require-
The South Pacific is unusual inasmuch that two re- ments are to be met. It is equally clear that unless
gional conventions have come into force in recent years, government conservation agencies are dramatically
both of which specifically encourage the establishment strengthened through the increased allocation of finan-
of protected areas (Table 4) . The Apia Convention cial and manpower resources, little progress can be
(Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South expected with the establishment of new protected areas
Pacific) entered into force on 26 June 1990, and in- in the region let alone with the effective management
cludes the provision to " encourage the creation of pro- of existing areas.
tected areas which together with existing protected
areas will safeguard representative samples of the natu- Under present circumstances, progress with the estab-
ral ecosystems occurring therein" (Article II). The lishment ofprotected areas is most likely to be made by
SPREP Convention (Convention for the Protection of the international conservation NGOs working with their
the Natural Resources and Environment of the South local partners at the community level. The potential of
Pacific Region) entered into force on 19 October 1990. non-government organizations to work and negotiate
Article 14 refers to specially protected areas and protec- with customary owners at the community level for the
tion of wild flora and fauna, as follows "...the Parties establishment of conservation areas is greater than that
shall, as appropriate, establish protected areas, such as of many government agencies. NGOs have already
parks and reserves, and prohibit or regulate any activity demonstrated their ability to plan and achieve protected
likely to have adverse effects on the species, ecosystems area establishment and their endeavours should be fur-
or biological processes that such areas are designed to ther enhanced and encouraged through support from
protect" . international and regional donor agencies and the inter-
national conservation community. In particular, resources
The compilation of the Oceania Wetlands Directory need to be applied to the strengthening and support of
which is currently being prepared under the auspices of domestic NGOs involved in the conservation of biologi-
a range of international initiatives , including the Ramsar cal diversity and to encouragethe establishment of such
Convention, will provide a much-needed boost to the organizations where they don't already exist.
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : Pacific

up to 1962 1962-1971 1972-1981 19821991 unknown designated
American Samoa 0.0 0.0 14.9 85.1 0 43

Cook Is 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 1
Easter Is 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 66
Fiji 92.9 0.0 0.0 7.1 0 60
French Polynesia 0.0 64.8 29.6 5.6 0 134
Guam 20.9 0.0 70.9 8.1 0 12
Hawaii (USA) 72.4 0.0 7.4 20.2 0 2,857
Kiribati 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 266
Marshall Is 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Micronesia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Nauru 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
New Caledonia 50.2 27.4 18.6 3.8 47 672
Niue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
North Marianas 13.3 0.0 0.0 86.7 0 15
Palau 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 12
Papua New Guinea 0.0 10.7 75.2 14.2 294
Pitcairn Is 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Solomon Is 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Tokelau 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Tonga 0.0 0.0 36.6 63.4 0 7
Tuvalu 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
US Minor Is 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 411
Vanuatu 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Wallis-Futuna Is 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Western Samoa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Total 52.4 6.1 26.8 14.8 47 4,858
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the data-
base once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by
the table, the figures may be distorted .
The establishment of new and viable conservation Current protected area coverage
2.
areas in the Pacific will depend on our ability to work
with customary land-owning groups to develop co- 2.1 Systems plans and coverage
operative agreements for private conservation areas.
These will need to be linked to the development of As outlined in 1.2 above, very few ofthe South Pacific
sustainable economic activity which benefits those island countries have scientifically based and profes-
groups. Government environment agencies will have an sionally prepared protected area system plans. Exceptions
important role to play in coordinating and channelling are Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea, the Marshall
resources to assist these initiatives and in developing a Islands, Fiji, American Samoa, and the Solomon Islands. In
policy and legislative environment which will support all these casesthe system plans were produced as a result
and encourage both government and private conserva- of projects undertaken in conjunction with the govern-
tion initiatives. However, NGOs will have a greater and ments concerned and funded externally, using external
more direct role to play in the actual negotiation and expertise. Few of the recommendations have yet been
development ofcooperative and innovative agreements implemented.
for conservation as they are better placed to work at the
"grassroots" level necessary for success in this difficult
2.2 Adequacy of current system
area.
coverage
There is a general lack of information on species and

habitat type, distribution and status for the protected
areas of the region and this precludes any detailed
analysis of how well existing protected areas cover
major habitat types, centres of diversity or centres of
endemism . However, it is clear from the paucity of
The Pacific
protected areas generally in the region and from the suffered from illegal logging operations made possible
failure ofthose countries with comprehensive protected by a lack of an active management presence. Another
area system plans to implement the recommendations, example is the Queen Elizabeth II National Park in the
that the current systems fail to adequately cover the Solomon Islands which has been devastated by fire,
major habitats in the region. Application of the recently- gardening and illegal firewood gathering since its estab-
developed SPREP ecosystem classification system to lishment in 1954. There are numerous other examples.
the region over the next few years should provide some
indication of the situation and enable priorities to be It is difficult to identify which, if any, MPAs in the
determined. In addition, the status of coral reef related region are in danger and how. Nevertheless, it is very
protected areas has also been reviewed (UNEP/IUCN, likely that nearshore MPAs in the Pacific, especially
1988). those supporting coral reefs, are being damaged by the
effects of adjacent land and shore use. In particular,
water quality is often degraded due to increased sedi-
2.3 Categories of protected areas
mentation, nutrient inputs, organic and industrial pollu-
tion and sewage discharge. In addition, as most MPAs
Most of the IUCN protected area categories are repre-
in the region lack effective or enforced management
sented inthe region (Table 2). The most common cate-
plans, and habitat disturbance resulting from boating,
gories are National Park (Category II) , Managed Nature
anchoring, souvenir collecting and other recreational
Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary (Category IV), Protected
and tourist activities is common in MPAs near major
Landscape (Category V) and Multiple-use Manage-
population centres.
ment Area/Managed Resource Area (Category VIII)
and Scientific Reserve/Strict Nature Reserve (Category
Mangroves are another important habitat under wide-
I). There are no Biosphere Reserves (Category IX) nor
spread threat in the region, especially where they occur
are there any Natural Biotic Areas/ Anthropological
near urban areas. Although mangrove ecosystems play
Reserves (Category VII) (though in light of the discus-
an important role in the life cycle of many marine
sion ofcustomary ownership above, this would seem to
species and provide many of the resources needed for
be an exceptionally promising category for this region). subsistence, their role is not well understood . Man-
groves are destroyed to make way for landfill and
It is interesting to note that protected area categories
reclamation activities and are frequently used for gar-
and their applicability to the region were a main point
of discussion at the Fourth South Pacific Conference on bage dumping.
Nature Conservation and Protected Areas held in Vanu-
atu in 1989. It was felt strongly that Pacific Island
countries needed a more flexible definition which rec-
ognized the dependence of the people on their environ- required/recommended
ment and its resources for their subsistence. Accordingly,

the delegates at the Conference preferred to use the term 3.1 Requirements for new protected
"conservation area" to " protected area", considering areas
this better defined the rationale of management for
resource conservation which needed to be developed if A survey by Dahl ( 1980) identified over 70 ecosystem
protective status was to be accepted for customary or or biome types to be found in the South Pacific and it is
traditionally-owned lands in the region. estimated that less than 20 of these are under any form
of protection. There is clearly a long way to go before
The existing MPAs in the region have been informally
the region even approaches the goal of achieving the
categorized based on their function, location and level of
protection of a representative range of its ecosystems .
protection (Holthus, 1989) as the following: 1 ) tourism/
There is a great range and wealth of natural diversity to
recreation oriented MPAs; 2) general marine re-
be found in the South Pacific region although there is
source/habitat conservation areas near major population
considerable disparity in the distribution of that diver-
centres, 3) outlying/uninhabited islands, 4) MPAs to pro-
sity. The large island nations of Melanesia in the western
tect harvested species, and 5) fully developed MPAs.
Pacific Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu,
Fiji and New Caledonia― have the greatest diversity of
2.4 Protected areas in danger ecosystems, flora and fauna while the small atoll coun-
tries of the eastern Pacific-Kiribati , Tuvalu, and the
There is very little action occurring in the field of Marshall Islands have extremely low ecosystem di-
scientific monitoring of the health of habitats and spe- versity, at least on land . The extensive tropical lowland
cies populations in the existing protected areas, includ- and mid-altitude forests ofthe former group ofcountries
ing MPAs. It is therefore difficult to single out specific are under the greatest threat of loss or modification in
protected areas which are in danger and why. As has the region and their protection is ofthe highest priority.
already been pointed out, there is a general lack of Unfortunately our knowledge of the threatened animal
management resources and virtually all protected areas and plant species of the region is at best only sketchy
are under threat from human misuse. One such case is and apart from a few notable examples, insufficient for
the J.H. Garrick Memorial Reserve in Fiji which the identification of habitat reserves.
Table
.
4 SPREP
and
Convention
i
Apia
the
of
status
(:P ncluding
conventions
acific
international
r
/ egional
Adherence
to
Convention
protocols
related
and
)
Country World
Herit age C
W onvention
etlands
Convention
)(Ramsar
Apia
Reserves
Biosphere SPREP
Convention
Ratification
/ /
Ratification
Date No. Area
h
() a No. Area
h
)( a Date No. Signature
Area
)(ha Accession Signature Accession
Australia 28-3-1990 24-11-1987 19-7-1989

Islands
Cook 24-6-1987 25-11-1986
-
Fiji Nov.
1990 18-9-1989 18-9-1989
France 1975
June 1986
Oct. 20-1-1989
12-6-1976 25-11-1986 17-7-1990
French
Polynesia
1975
June 1 2,000 1986
Oct. 20-1-1989
12-6-1976 25-11-1986
17-7-1990
New 1975
CaledoniaJune 1986
Oct. 0 20-1-1989
12-6-1976 17-7-1990
25-11-1986
F
)/ utuna
(Wallis 1975
June 1986
Oct. 20-1-1989
12-6-1976 25-11-1986
17-7-1990
Kiribati
Islands
Marshall 4-5-1987
25-11-1986
III 1000 11
11010001 I
Microne
, sia
Federated
States 9-4-1987 29-11-1988
Nauru 15-4-1987
Zealand
New 1984
Nov. 197
Aug6. 0 25-11-1986 3-5-1990
Tokelau
Niue
1 1
Marianas
Northern
Palau 25-11-1986
Guinea
New
Papua 12-6-1976 3-11-1987 15-9-1989
Islands 1992
Solomon June 10-8-1989
Tonga
Tuvalu 14-8-1987
Unite d
Kingdom 198
May 4 Jan.
1976 16-7-1987
UK
Pitcairn 198
May 4 1 13,700 Jan.
1976 0
of
States
United
America Dec.
1973 Dec.
1986 25-11-1986
1973
D
Samoa
A merican
)(ec. 1986
Dec. 25-11-1986
)(Guam Dec.
1973 Dec.
1986 25-11-1986
)(Hawaii Dec.
1973 92,934 99,545 Dec.
1986 25-11-1986
Vanuatu
Samoa
Western 20-7-1990
12-6-1976 19-7-1990
25-11-1986
1000 1│
1000 II
1000 | |
11151 I
:
Note .
region
listed
are
lying
the
within
1.
sites
Only
The Pacific
Improved, expanded protection of marine areas in the the immediate benefits of resource exploitation such as
South Pacific region is undoubtedly needed due to the logging and to provide sustainable alternatives for in-
importance of marine habitats and resources to the come generation. For example, in Western Samoa the
peoples , economies and ecosystems of the region. Of Swedish Conservation Foundation has built a school for
particular importance is the need to protect marine a local community in return for a covenant protecting
habitat for subsistence and commercial fishery resources an area of lowland coastal rainforest on the island of
and for use in tourism and recreation. The development Savai'i. In another district of the same island, the same
of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem classification organization is actively assisting the local community
systems for the South Pacific will allow priorities for in the development of nature tourism and associated
the establishment of new protected areas to be deter- infrastructure in another conservation area.
mined on a scientific , systematic basis. The classifica-
tion system categorizes the full suite of terrestrial fresh- The management of protected areas by private indi-
water and marine habitats and ecological communities viduals, organizations and trusts is, as indicated above,
which exist in the region. The occurrence of these can uncommon in the region. One exception is the National
then be documented for any particular island orcountry, Trust of Fiji which is an ad hoc statutory body charged
as well as their presence or absence in existing protected with the management of national parks and other re-
areas. Gaps in protection at a local , national or regional serves in Fiji. The two privately-owned and managed
conservation areas on Savai'i Island in Western Samoa
level can then be identified. When coupled with a
process to indicate the status ofthe habitats and ecologi- referred to earlier in this paper are also notable excep-
tions.
cal communities, whether protected or not, conserva-
tion priorities will be able to be determined at the
various levels. 4.2 Protected area administration
The administration and management of protected areas

4. Protected area institutions in the South Pacific region is carried out by a variety of
government agencies. In the past there has been a ten-
4.1 Protection mechanisms dency for these to be agencies having responsibilities
for the management and development of natural re-
Widespread customary land tenure has meant that inno- sources such as Ministries of Natural Resources. These
vative ways to achieve protection goals have had to be have responsibility for various combinations of primary
developed. One ofthe most interesting ofthese has been industry sectors such as forestry, agriculture, fisheries
the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) concept devel- and lands and may include small one-to five-person
oped bythe government of Papua New Guinea. WMAS conservation or environment units. However, this situ-
recognize the need to involve local communities in the ation is slowly changing. Governments are beginning
management and conservation of their own resources. to realize the importance of natural resource conserva-
They provide a legal mechanism through which central tion and sound environmental management polices and
government and local communities can work together practices and to recognize the inherent conflicts in
to define conservation goals, establish WMAS and pro- having conservation and environment units located within
vide for their management. Following the gazettement resource development agencies.
of a WMA a local management committee is estab-
lished by the community which works in consultation As a consequence, there has been a recent trend
with government Conservation Officers to manage the towards the establishment of new conservation and
area. However, a lack of staff and the financial re- environment agencies either in their own right, as with
sources necessary to undertake the cadastral surveys for the Cook Islands Conservation Service which is a statu-
gazettal purposes have meant that only a few of the tory ad hoc body, or as divisions of Government agen-
manyproposed WMAS in Papua New Guinea have been cies not involved directly with primary sector development.
established or are operating successfully. In the case of Examples of the latter are the Environment Section of
the Wildlife Management Areas established by the local the Ministry of Home Affairs and Planning in Vanuatu
communities ofPapua New Guinea, the purpose ofthe and the Environment Division of the Department of
protected area is to protect species from hunting by Lands and Environment in Western Samoa.
outsiders and to provide for the sustainable harvest of
that species. The importance of marine resource management in a
region which relies heavily on marine resources for
Recently the South Pacific region has seen an in- subsistence and commercial benefits is reflected in the
crease in the involvement of international and local generally well established and relatively powerful fish-
non-government organizations in the establishment of eries/marine resource agencies within governments of
conservation or protected areas. The activities of these the region. In many instances these agencies have the
organizations have led to the development of further potentially conflicting mandate to undertake both ma-
innovative approaches for dealing with the difficult rine resource development and conservation. At the
issues affecting the achievement of conservation objec- same time, the environment or conservation agencies
tives on customary lands. These include the need to find are relatively young within governments and have less
ways to compensate entire communities for foregoing well-defined mandates and jurisdictions, especially when
concerned with marine areas or resources. The devel- undertaken which require transport and logistical sup-
opment of MPAs in the South Pacific has thus some- port in outer islands.
times resulted in jurisdictional conflicts between fishery
and environment agencies where there are overlapping With the growing awareness of the role of environ-
and ill-defined mandates. mental management and resource conservation as a
component of national development, there is a trend in
Some MPAs which have been developed entirely for many South Pacific countries to pay greater attention to
fishery management purposes predate the establishment these issues in national planning policy. There is also a
of environment agencies and are managed by fisheries trend towards the introduction of basic Environmental
agencies. With the development of protected area sys- Impact Assessment procedures. These are policy initia-
tems, there is a need to integrate fishery management tives which will assist conservation agencies to develop
MPAs into more comprehensive MPA systems devel- linkages with other government agencies.
opment.
In some parts of the Pacific the tourism industry is However, a huge gulf remains to be overcome in the
emerging as a significant institution promoting both development of the vital linkages between these agen-
marine and terrestrial conservation . In the case of ma- cies and the public. Although most agencies undertake
rine conservation this is usually linked to existing hotels some form of public education activities, public con-
with ocean sports -oriented programmes and dive tour sultation on environment and conservation policy and
operators. These enterprises seek to have popular visitor issues, this is still in its infancy. However, some prom-
destinations protected from overfishing, destructive fish- ising initiatives suggest that progress is being made in
ing, degradation due to off-site influences, or other this direction. The National Conservation Strategy for
reduction of the site's attractiveness for visitors, which Vanuatu is being developed on a solid foundation of
is usually compatible with other MPA objectives. The public consultation and grassroots involvement and the
means to integrate this emerging private sector support conservation programme of the Republic of Palau is
for MPA establishment and development in the region encouraging Palauans to become involved in defining
has not yet been well defined or pursued. future directions for development in their country. Both
these and other similar embryonic initiatives in the
region auger well for strong public input and support for
Table 5. World Heritage sites in the Pacific resource conservation and protected area policies in the
future.
United Kingdom (Pitcairn)
Henderson Island
Finally, it must be remembered that some Pacific
USA Island governments as yet have no environment or
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park conservation agencies at all, which is an important
institutional constraint impeding the development of
any kind of protected areas, including MPAs. In addi-
tion, very few local NGOs are concerned with environ-
4.3 Linkages with other development mental issues and resource conservation in the Pacific
sectors
region, although this situation is slowly changing.
The strength and effectiveness of linkages between

conservation and environment agencies and other de-
velopment agencies vary from country to country. How- 5. Current levels of financial
ever, it would be realistic to say that there is a growing investment in protected areas
awareness in the public sectors throughout the region of
the roles ofthe various resource conservation and envi-
Little information is readily available on current invest-
ronmental management agencies and the need for con-
ment levels to complete this section . This highlights the
sultation on some issues. For example, in Western Samoa, need to improve the collection of such data at the
the Visitors Bureau works with the Environment Divi-
regional level. See Table 6.
sion to finance the development of park facilities to
ensure these are of a high standard and to promote
visitor enjoyment . Promotion ofthe sites through tourist In 1991 SPREP obtained funding ($10 million) from
brochures is also coordinated. the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for an ambi-
tious programme for the conservation of biological
Where conservation agencies are located within a diversity in the South Pacific. The main focus of this
multi-sector ministry the linkages with the various di- Programme is the identification , evaluation and estab-
visions of the ministry tend to be better than when the lishment of new conservation areas in the region. The
agency is independent. In such cases the conservation programme offers the regionthe opportunity to dramati-
agency often benefits from access to the resources and cally advance the cause of natural area conservation and
equipment of the usually better endowed development to build cooperation and collaboration between all the
divisions, particularly when field activities are being parties concerned and involved in this field.
The Pacific
management held in conjunction with the Third South

Pacific National Parks and Reserves Conference . How-
areas management
ever, very few of these were directly involved with
The low priority given to the establishment of protected direct protected areas management although all were
areas and the relative weakness of the conservation involved with environment and conservation agencies
institutions in the region is also reflected in the human in their home countries. This highlights a problem with
capacity to manage the limited number of protected the selection process for such regional courses. The
areas which exist. There are very few trained or partially accepted procedure calls on central governments to
trained park rangers or wardens, perhaps no more than nominate participants and because of the difficulties of
20-25 throughout the region. Most of these are located communication, time and travel this tends to result in
in just six countries, Fiji (2), Kiribati (3), Papua New the nomination of headquarters, rather than field, per-
Guinea (8-10) American Samoa (2), Guam (4) and sonnel.
Western Samoa (3). In these and other countries, casual
While there are no protected area training facilities in
workers are often employed to undertake maintenance
the island countries of the South Pacific, the region is
work and in a number of cases local caretakers receive
fortunate to have close links with the principal protected
a stipend to look after protected areas. This lack of
area management agencies in New Zealand and Austra-
personnel is even more evident in the case of MPAs . Of
lia. The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
the 15 independent countries in the region , only 2 have
marine conservation officers. has developed Memoranda of Understanding with these
agencies which specify cooperation in a number of
On current knowledge it is not possible to estimate technical areas and in particular, protected area man-
the number of people who may be indirectly employed agement training. It has become clear that given the
as a result of protected areas in the Pacific region. The state ofprotected area development in the region, these
agreements will provide the most valuable and effective
number would be probably be low and would reflect the
limited development of the protected areas systems in training opportunities for the region for some time to
the region and the relatively undeveloped nature-based come. On the one hand they offer the opportunity for
short-to medium-term training secondments for regional
tourism industry. There are, however, small numbers of
people who earn a portion of their living as a result of personnel which are designed to meet specific training
providing access and guiding services to natural areas and work-elated needs. On the other hand, they offerthe
or cultural features. In addition , the growing tourist use region access to training personnel from those organi-
and interest in marine visitor attractions , which include zation for the conduct of in-country courses where there
some ofthe few MPAs in the region , provides income is a need to provide basic training to a number of people.
for the guides and operators associated with the diving It is recognized by SPREP and its Australian and New
industry. Zealand partners that training opportunities will not be
confined to government personnel and will embrace
Access to technical and scientific assistance to ad- persons sponsored by NGOs and the private sector
dress the problems of conservation area management is where appropriate.
important in this region as this expertise does not exist
in the small island countries. The region relies heavily Finally, in 1987 SPREP conducted a survey of pro-
on the support of its neighbouring metropolitan coun- tected area training needs in the region which reinforced
tries and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. the need for training opportunities to be developed at a
The establishment ofcooperative agreements with lead- number of levels. These included training in basic pro-
ing conservation agencies (the Department of Conser- tected area development and management, the need for
vation, New Zealand, the New South Wales National mid-level management training for a few people who
Parks and Wildlife Service , the Australian National may be called upon to manage and supervise protected
Parks and Wildlife Service) for access to scientific, areas systems,and the need for graduate and post-gradu-
technical and training assistance has been undertaken ate level study opportunities for the future managers of
by SPREP. These agreements will greatly enhance the government protected area programmes.
resources available to the region for scientific research
and the management of protected areas.
7. Priorities for future investment in
protected areas
6.1 Training facilities and needs
Governments of the region must take a strong lead in
The issue of training in protected areas management is the promotion and establishment of protected areas.
a vexed one in the region. The problem of extremely This must be heralded by a re-direction of resources and
limited protected area personnel is compounded by the greater priority and attention being given to protected
fact that these people are spread between a number of areas as a vital part of the conservation and sustainable
countries separated by vast distances. Despite these development of natural resources. In the short term at
difficulties, several training activities have been under- least , the capacity of government environment and
taken in the past decade. In 1985 some 20 participants conservation agencies to actually become involved in
attended a three-week training course in protected area the establishment of new protected areas is limited.
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets : Pacific
Country/responsible agency Budget in US Dollar

national currency equivalent Year Notes Source
American Samoa USD

Cook Islands NZD
Fiji - National Trust & Forestry
Department FJD
French Polynesia XPF
Guam USD
Kiribati AUD
Marshall Islands
Micronesia, Federated States of USD
Nauru AUD
New Caledonia XPF
Niue NZD
Northern Marianas Islands USD
Palau
Papua New Guinea PGK
Pitcairn NZD
Solomon Islands SBD
Tokelau
Tonga TOP
Tuvalu AUD
United States Minor Outlying Is.
Vanuatu VUV
Wallis and Futuna XPF
Western Samoa Department of
Agriculture, Forests and
Fisheries 104,000 WST 43,000 1990 Proposed budget I1
Sources:
[11] SPREP (1989). Country review: Western Samoa. Fourth South Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and
Protected Areas. SPREP, Noumea, New Caledonia. 12pp.
However, these agencies can certainly work towards Government must continue to play a lead role in the
supporting and stimulating the involvement and interest development of MPAs in the South Pacific due to the legal
ofother agencies and organizations, particularly NGOs, control governments generally have over nearshore waters
in protected area establishment. This can be achieved and submerged lands. However, in many Pacific island
by the development of national plans and policies to areas, real control over marine areas and resources is
promote protected areas such as National Conservation exercised through traditional ownership patterns and cus-
Strategies, National Tourism Plans and the provision of tomary use practices , so these need to be investigated and
economic incentives to do so. Governments can also documented as a part of MPA development.
provide logistical assistance and information to groups
More detailed indications of action required, at both
involved in protected area negotiations and with access
to training opportunities. a national and regional level, for development of MPAs
and terrestrial protected areas in the region are reflected
in the SPREP work programme, based on government
Because of the complicated community-based sys- requests to SPREP for action . These requests are devel-
tems of land and resource ownership which prevail in oped into SPREP programme areas for funding and
the region, the impetus for establishment of new pro- implementation. The SPREP programmes on coastal/
tected areas in many countries will come from those marine conservation and biological diversity conserva-
organizations able to devote the time and resources to tion both feed into the actions required for protected
identify appropriate areas and negotiate a conservation area development in the region.
status with the owners. In many cases this will be tied
back to the development of realistic sustainable re- Potential exists for the establishment of protected
source management options for the local community areas as a component of externally-funded development
which may or may not include the use of resources for projects. In many cases the proponents of such projects
income generation. Clearly there is also a role for the have access to significant sources of development fund-
private sector to be involved where the maintenance of ing, have the backing of the governments and have
the natural asset is vital for the viability of tourism negotiated agreements with the landowners. The identifi-
development. cation of protected areas as a component of such
The Pacific
schemes should be included in the project brief. This harnessed. At present however, there are no direct eco-
can be easily done for aid-supported projects and there nomic incentives such as tax relief available in the
is a reasonable chance that the protected area compo- region to encourage private sector interest.
nent will receive support. However, it would prove
much more difficult to achieve in the case of private
8.3 Protected areas and surrounding
sector development agreements unless there was strong
lands and waters
government policy to this effect and a will to enforce it.
Integrated land use planning is not widely practised in

8. Major protected areas issues in the countries of the South Pacific. The policy frame-
the region work for integrated regional planning does not exist in
most countries and where it does, it receives scant
8.1 People in protected areas attention or priority by the governments. Although there
are exceptions to this rule, the customary nature of land
Understanding and incorporating human use of terres- and marine area tenure is such that it mitigates against
trial and marine areas and resources in the Pacific is the imposition of planning controls which could regu-
essential to protected area development in the region. late the resource use options of the landowners. Land
Overall , socio-economic considerations are of primary use planning is therefore confined to site-specific activi-
importance to resource conservation, including pro- ties associated with development projects, some town
tected area establishment. In the South Pacific, this is planning in the larger municipal areas and the develop-
even more so due to the intimate linkage of societies ment of sectoral plans for activities such as forestry.
and economies with land and marine areas and the
resources they support. National Development Plans often mention the im-
portance of sustainable resource development but rarely
Efforts to establish or manage protected areas in the
identify protected areas as a component of the develop-
Pacific without the involvement of local people have
ment process. In many instances the necessary institu-
been unsuccessful or fraught with difficulties and dis-
tional framework and technical expertise is not in place
putes. Recent initiatives to pursue conservation action
to give effect to the sustainable development philoso-
in the region including MPA development, recognize
phy ofa plan. Despite these problems it is important that
this and attempt to integrate traditional resource knowl-
protected areas are given consideration and recognized
edge and constraints with modern resource use tech- as a component of the development process. To achieve
niques. There is also a growing recognition that the
this requires developing stronger linkages between the
early and meaningful involvement of local communi-
conservation goals and objectives of the National De-
ties who own and control the resources in decision
velopment Plans and those of sectorial development
making is an absolute prerequisite to conservation
action. plans , which are meant to give effect to the conservation
goals set out in the National Plan.
The benefits flowing to local people from the existing

protected areas in the region are limited . Local commu- The role ofMPAs in resource use planning in a region
nities use some areas for recreation and in some cases where the population is concentrated on the coast de-
income is generated from access and guiding fees, and serves special mention. Due to the aquatic nature of
the provision of local accommodation. In a few cases, MPAs and the relative ease by which the influence of
tourism and adventure recreation facilities (e.g. diving) off-site activities and pollutants can be transported by
are closely tied to protected areas and there are obvious water,the management of surrounding lands and waters
benefits for local communities providing the staff and is ofparticular importance . In general, the development
food for such ventures. of MPAs in the South Pacific is increasingly being
pursued as part of comprehensive integrated coastal
8.2 zone management planning. In this manner MPAs are
Involvement by the private sector
the protected area zones in a system of zones ranging
To date there has been only very limited involvement from full protection to multiple use and development.
by the private sector in the ownership, establishment
and management of protected areas. One exceptional By developing MPAs as part of a comprehensive
case involves a resort established on an island in Fiji. zoning scheme within a coastal area management plan ,
The lease over the island calls for it to be managed by the interactive role of MPAs with surrounding areas is
taken into consideration and enhanced in a number of
the resort as a nature reserve and this has proved a
satisfactory condition for all the involved parties. NGO ways. For example, the role of MPAs as fishery re-
involvement in the establishment of the conservation source " seed areas" which provide stock to surrounding
areas in Western Samoa referred to earlier in this paper areas of sustainable fishery use is possible if considered
constitute another form of private sector involvement. as part of a comprehensive management regime. The
negative effect of off-site influences can be better con-
The considerable potential of the private sector to trolled ifprotected areas are surrounded by buffer zones
contribute to protected area establishment needs to be of low disturbance uses.
Comprehensive coastal management planning pro- logging, road-building, plantation establishment, min-
motes Environmental Impact Assessment as a major ing, etc. , often lead to the destruction of habitat and the
tool to ensure sound , sustainable development projects. loss of species and can occur in protected areas.
Thus if MPAs are being developed as part of compre-
hensive coastal plans, the impacts of development pro- Aside from the threat posed by human use, the intro-
jects should be fully taken into consideration , including duction of alien plant and animal species poses a direct
the impacts of those projects on existing or potential threat to the biological values of conservation areas.
MPAS. SPREP has developed a comprehensive set of The island biodiversity of the South Pacific and its
guidelines for the application of EIA in tropical insular component species has evolved in isolation and is re-
countries to assist in the development of EIA capability nowned forits high degree of endemism . These features
in the region. place it at great risk and examples of the disastrous
impact of introduced species abound in the region.
Perhaps the most well known is that of the relatively
8.4 Protected areas and science
recent introduction of the Brown tree snake Boiga
irregularis to the island of Guam which has led to the
The small islands of the South Pacific contain a high
decimation of the native avifauna of that island. Other
number of endemic plants and animals. The abundance
examples include the spread of the central American
and distribution of many of these are poorly known, if
plant species Miconiaflavences in Tahiti and the impact
at all . Small islands also provide natural laboratories for
of rats on the endangered population ofthe Rarotongan
studying the process of evolution . Unfortunately, little
flycatcher (Pomarea dimidiata).
research is being carried out in protected areas in the
South Pacific region . For the most part , adequate inven-
No formal mechanisms are in place in most countries
tories of flora and fauna have not been conducted in the
to identify, report , document or monitor threats to pro-
protected areas that exist. This lack of baseline informa-
tected areas. These activities are most commonly under-
tion is an impediment to effective management of pro-
taken on an ad hoc basis as a result of requests from
tected areas in the region. Management-oriented research
Governments to aid agencies or regional and interna-
is not being undertaken in the region. Few management
tional conservation organizations to either investigate a
plans exist and those that do are usually undertaken by
perceived problem or undertake such work in the course
outside agencies.
of scientific surveys. Very little information is available
on the threats to existing MPAs in the South Pacific and
The level of endemism in the region and the limited
physical extent of most habitats makes it all the more how these threats are identified, reported , documented
and monitored. The lack of effective management of
important to monitor the status of species and habitats.
Unfortunately there is almost no effort to undertake most MPAs in the region means that there is no estab-
lished mechanism for responding to any but the most
scientific monitoring within protected areas. In fact,
obvious and serious threats.
Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve (Palau) may be
one of the only protected areas in the region where both
The most pressing need in terms of a response to these
permanent terrestrial and marine transects have been set
threats is to improve management through the strength-
up, although these have yet to be resurveyed following
ening of management institutions where these exist and
their initial establishment in 1988.
by promoting landowner participation in management.
Virtually no information is available on the effects of The recruitment and training of staff to government
pollutants on protected areas in the South Pacific. For positions in conservation agencies together with the
terrestrial protected areas this is less of a concern as training of local people to manage conservation areas is
there is relatively little atmospheric pollution in the vital ifthere is to be progress with protected area estab-
lishment. Similarly, acquisition of sufficient resources
region. However, because water pollution has the po-
tential to have serious impacts on protected marine to function effectively is a pressing need in the region
ecosystems, a major regional marine water quality moni- and a priority for most conservation area management
toring programme is now underway through SPREP agencies.
(although this does not focus on MPAs for monitoring
or reference sites).
8.5 Threats to effective management Every four years SPREP organizes the South Pacific
of protected areas Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected
Areas at which the Action Strategy for Nature Conser-
The principal threat to the effective management of vation in the South Pacific Region is reviewed and up-
protected areas in the region is that posed by human use. dated. The Strategy provides a guide for action on
Unauthorized activities such as fuelwood gathering, protected areas development in the region for SPREP
subsistence gardening, illegal settlement and the har- and interested governments and international organiza-
vest of wildlife and marine resources place pressure on tions (e.g. IUCN, UN agencies, international NGOs) for
protected areas which the management authority can which SPREP is the region's clearing house and co-
do little about. Development activities in the form of ordinating unit.
The Pacific
The identified priorities for action recognize that Objectives relating to each of these goals have been
within the region, the sustainable use of natural re- developed and specific activities for the achievement of
sources and the establishment and effective manage- the objectives have been identified. A number of these
ment of protected areas involves a close working rela- relate directly to the priorities for the establishment and
tionship between governments and communities in the management of protected area and recognize the need
planning and management of natural resources and to:
protected areas. They call for the development of an
effective integrated policy and legal framework; streng- ■ Secure greater government commitment to the es-
thened conservation institutions; the integration ofmodern tablishment of protected areas as an important and
and traditional resource management skills; and support legitimate component of sustainable resource devel-
for education , training, research and information serv- opment.
ices. Pacific countries also have a need to consider more
■ Strengthen the institutional framework for protected
flexible categories of protected areas, which allow for
area establishment and management including the
the sustainable use ofimportant subsistence and cultural
provision of greater financial resources, more trained
resources.
staff and the development of appropriate legislation
and policy.
The Action Strategy identified seven principal goals
which recognize the need to address fundamental issues ■ Develop models for protected area establishment on
relating tothe conservation of biological diversity in the customary lands and in marine areas which link
region if future progress is to be significant and long protected areas to the development aspirations of
lasting. These are: local communities in a sustainable manner.
■ Incorporating conservation values and the concepts Involve the private sector and NGOs in protected
of self reliance and sustainability into national re- area establishment and management and where ap-
source management policies and plans; propriate, develop the linkages between tourism,
protected areas and sustainable development.
■ ensuring the continued viability of the full range of
ecosystem types and species in the region; ■ Obtain more scientific data on the ecosystems and
species ofthe region and record this in a systematic
■ integrating traditional knowledge and customs into way which will allow use ofthe data for the planning
sustainable resource conservation practice and pro-
of representative systems of protected areas and the
tected areas management;
setting of protected area priorities.
■ fostering links between tourism and nature conser- ■ Promote and strengthen cooperation and informa-
vation;
tion exchange among the countries and organiza-
tions working in natural resource conservation and
■ improving the level of environmental awareness in
protected area development in the region.
the region to assist individuals, communities and
government agencies to participate in the achieve-
Finally and perhaps most important, action to meet
ment of conservation goals ;
these needs over the next ten years will require the
■ planning, developing and maintaining appropriate concerted efforts of the countries and people of the
training and education in nature conservation and Pacific region together with the support and assistance
of the international conservation and development as-
protected area management; and
sistance agencies and the many non-governmental or-
■ strengthening cooperation in the promotion of con- ganizations and individuals dedicated to achieving the
servation in the region and support from interna- conservation of the region's biological and physical
tional agencies. resources and the protection of its unique environment.
References
Dahl , A.L. 1986. Review ofthe Protected Areas System reservesplan. Prepared forthe Government ofWestern
in Oceania. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Samoa by the South Pacific Regional Environment
Cambridge, UK. 328pp. Programme and the East West Centre, Environment
Dahl, A.L. 1980. Regional ecosystem survey of the and Policy Institute.
IUCN Technical Paper
South Pacific Region. SPC/ SPREP. 1985. Action strategyfor protected areas inthe
179. South Pacific Commission , Noumea, New South Pacific Region. South Pacific Commission,
Caledonia. 99pp. noumea, New Caledonia, 24 pp.
IUCN 1991. Directory ofProtected Areas in Oceania. SPREP. 1989. Action strategyfor nature conservation
Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring in the South Pacific Region. South Pacific Commis-
Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, sion, noumea, New Caledonia, 49 pp.
UK. 447 pp. Thomas, P.E.J. , Fosberg, F.R. , Hamilton, L.S. , Herbst,
Lees, A. (Ed.) 1991. A representative protected forest D.R. , Juvik, J.O. ,Maragos , J.E. , Naughton, J.J. and
system for the Solomon Islands. Prepared by the Strack, C.J. 1989. Report on the Northern Marshall
Maruia Society, Nelson , New Zealand, for the Islands natural diversity and protected areas survey:
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, 7-24 September 1988. South Pacific Regional En-
Canberra, ACT. 185 pp. vironment Programme, Noumea, New Caledonia
Maruia Society 1989. A representative national parks and East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. 133 pp.
and reserves systemfor Fiji's tropical forest. Maruia UNEP/IUCN 1988 Coral Reefs ofthe world; Volume 3.
Society Report Series No.9 . Maruia Society, Central and Western Pacific. UNEP Regional Seas
Nelson, New Zealand. 110pp. Directories and Bibliographies. IUCN, Gland,
Pearsall , S.H. and Whistler, W.A. 1991. Terrestrial Switzerland and Cambridge, UK/UNEP, Nairobi,
ecosystem mapping for Western Samoa: Summary, Kenya. 378pp.
project report, and proposed national parks and
North America
酵
Percentage
protected
Less
%
0.1
than
%
0.1-5
5-10
%
%
10-15
D %
15-20
More
%
20
than
Km
0 1000
2000
within
.Percentage
Map
included
country
of
areas
protected
designated
legally
Contents
Page
1. Historical perspective . 281
1.1 Introduction . .. 281
1.2 The concept . . 281
1.3 Growth ofthe protected areas system 282
1.4 Development of state/provincial protected areas 285
2. Current protected area systems 286
4. Protected area institutions . 289
4.1 The principal national agencies 289
4.2 State and provincial agencies . 290
4.3 Non-governmental organizations . 290
8.1 Threats to protected areas 294
8.2 Financial issues . 295
8.3 Science in the parks 295
8.4 People and protected areas 296
9.1 System planning 297
9.2 Management 297
9.3 Public participation and awareness 297
9.4 Finance 298
9.5 Research and monitoring • € 298

Page
10. Conclusions 298
References 299
Tables
Table 1 . Summary ofthe protected areas system • 283
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in North America 291
Table 7. Gaps in protected areas coverage in Canada . • 292
Table 8. Priority conservation areas in Mexico ... 292
Table 9 . Recommended new protected areas in the United States 296
Figures

areas 278
Figure 1 . Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) . 284

North America
Rob Milne, Regional Vice-Chair for North America, IUCN Commission

on National Parks and Protected Areas and John Waugh,
Protected Areas Programme Officer, IUCN - US
1. Historical perspective nized this need ; most are adjusting their programmes to
fit the changing paradigm of government. Protected
areas are, by nature, sensitive to their constituencies .
1. Introduction
Despite financial difficulties, there is plenty ofcause yet
for optimism for the future of the protected areas of
North America contains the oldest and most extensive
North America, but they are likely to be substantially
network ofprotected areas in the world. It is a complex different from conventional national parks. It remains
system ; virtually hundreds of government agencies and
to be seen how well wilderness, representing a rejection
private organizations have a role in protected area man-
of the twentieth century consumer society, adapts to the
agement. All sites share common threats: lack of under- cultural demands of the twenty- first century.
standing of the ecological processes that affect them;
pressures upon the areas from human interests compet-
ing for resources; and lack of integration of protected
1.2 The concept
areas in the matrix of regional development activities.
Momentum in preserving a representative system of To understand the established network of North Ameri-
wildlands is being lost and protected area institutions can protected areas, it is important to know something
throughout the region are fighting defensive battles. about the history of the concept of protection. In pre-
hispanic times, Mayan culture incorporated manage-
In the US and Canada, protected area agencies have ment and protection of key areas as extractive reserves
played an important role in moulding public opinion , and as " untouchable" reserves. At the time of the Span-
and public support for protected areas remains generally ish Conquest, the Aztec Emperor Montezuma main-
strong. Affecting the way North Americans have looked tained protected areas, including a zoological park and
at nature, protected areas are a cultural symbol of the a botanical garden. Colonization of Mexico brought
public's right to enjoy nature unimpaired. But now the drastic impacts in the transformation of complex eco-
same cultural values that have supported the develop- systems into monocultures favouring penetration and
ment of a system of protected areas threaten to over- exploitation of natural areas, and threatening many
whelm management systems. Significant cultural changes areas. As a result, in 1876 the forests surrounding
are needed if remaining ecosystems are to remain un- Mexico City were protected to preserve water re-
impaired. Protected areas are needed as midwives to sources. National parks in Mexico did not become part
these changes, educating the public to appreciate the of the popular culture, and a paradigm for a system of
multiple values of nature. protected areas rooted in indigenous cultural roots re-
mains a tantalizing, but unrealized, prospect for Mex-
In Mexico land is a powerful metaphor for Mexico's ico.
rural poor. It was taken away from the indigenous
inhabitants during the Conquest; land reform was a Frontier artist George Catlin was one of many who
critical issue during the Revolution. Land issues relate mourned the passing of the great frontier ofthe Ameri-
to community and well -being in very direct ways, and can west. Foreshadowing events to come, Catlin wrote
conservation efforts must tap this wellspring of in 1832 of his concern about the loss of indigenous
Mexican culture to succeed . The growth of a regional culture and the wild open spaces it implied (Mackintosh,
economy may earn Mexico the resources to protect its 1985) . This sentiment, rooted in 19th century European
environment, but the rate of environmental deteriora- romanticism, says more about the imagination of the
tion may well outstrip growth in capacity. European settlers than it does about the concerns for
North America's native peoples. Indeed , the decline of
Protected area institutions can do much to strengthen indigenous populations in the North probably did much
their constituencies and build support. To a greater or to facilitate the establishment of many large national
lesser degree, all protected area institutions have recog- parks.
It arose not out ofa strong sense ofscientific or natural and the USA both had significant proportions of the
values, but as a nationalistic impulse. Sensitive to their protcted areas systems in place by 1962, whilst the
perceived inferiority in the face of the millennia of network in Mexico has dveloped more recently. Finally,
European culture, the descendants of immigrants from it should be noted that the Greenland National Park
the Old World found consolation in a rugged and mar- (700,000sq km), established in 1974 distorts the data
vellous landscape whose features strained credulity. due to its extreme size.
Runte (1987) concluded that the opening of the Far Canada. Canada created its first national park at Banff
West, coupled with the long search for an American in 1885. Within the decade , Rocky Mountains Park was
identity, gave form and meaning to nature appreciation. enlarged and three other units added . In the early years,
The United States might have originated the national hewing to a pragmatic approach, grazing, logging and
park idea in the absence of cultural nationalism; with it, mining were allowed within Canadian parks. By 1911 ,
however, the nation had clear and immediate justifica- Canada had established the world's first modern park
tion to go beyond simply appreciating its natural won- management agency, the Canadian Parks Service.
ders to preserving them . It took landmarks of unques-
tioned uniqueness to form the cornerstones of a nation- Reserves to protect game for Canada's indigenous
inhabitants were established as early as 1894. By 1938,
alistic park idea.
these reserves covered 1.35 million sq km , but the
Early US and Canadian parks fulfilled the need for a system was reduced in size after 1948. Only a few of
monumentality that, to the romantic spirit of the time, the smaller of these reserves remain (Environment Canada,
imparted a sense of moral superiority. Parks were alle- 1991b).
gories for the superiority of pristine nature, imparted to
In 1923, the first organized opposition to industrial
the enlightened breed of man that took pleasure there.
development in parks took place, when the Canadian
This sense of superiority helped to mould and shape the
National Parks Association was formed to oppose a dam
mind of the descendants of North America's settlers in
in Banff NP. The government approved the dam and
the twentieth century . To indigenous Americans, this
cultural tonic must have been an alien notion. And in reduced the size of the park to exclude the reservoir
from park boundaries. It was not until 1930, however,
Mexico, the motive for early parks may have had less
to do with cultural needs than with the desire of the that the Canadian government passed a National Act
ruling classes to adopt northern affectations. prohibiting logging, mining, or hydropower develop-
ment within national parks. Federal policy here di-
Romantic sentimentality in North America did not, verged from that of the provincial parks, "which often
however, interfere with pragmatism . In the history of tried to meet the needs of both resource extraction and
protection in North America, parklands have largely conservation" (Environment Canada, 1991a). In the
been limited to what is considered barren and economi- 1930s, Canada began to add national parks to its eastern
cally useless for other purposes. The pioneer spirit of provinces.
the late 19th century would not understand preservation
of the richest lands, but it did allow a utility for every- By the 1960s, Canada had begun to apply an organ-
thing. A use for "worthless lands" fit well with the ized set of principles to park management, and a sense
of a system of parks emerged. The National Park Sys-
prevailing utilitarian attitudes. The progressive view of
tems Planning Framework was published in 1971. The
valuable resources was that they should be used, albeit
wisely. 1970s was a pivotal decade for parks , witnessing the
introduction of public participation in planning, the
Partnerships with business for the provision of serv- recognition of the traditional rights of aboriginal groups,
ices constituted an early and enduring success for the and the direct purchase of lands for new parks. Growth
national parks. The powerful railway companies ofthe of the system continued under the system plan in the
continent recognized very early that parks were an 1980s, and innovative arrangements continue to be
important business opportunity, and became early al- made, especially in the establishment of protected areas
lies. They built grand hotels to encourage the emerging under native land-claim agreements, and in the planning
middle class to vacation in America. Within a few for a system of marine protected areas. Amendments to
decades, parks were to become a symbol of national the National Parks Act in 1988 made ecological integ-
pride. By 1923, Robert Sterling Yard could write "no rity of parks the principal management objective.
other trademark ... pays such dividends of business,
Mexico. In 1898 Monte Vedado el Mineral de El
national prestige, and patriotism" (Runte, 1987).
Chico, in Hidalgo State, became Mexico's first national
park. Until the 1930s, only nine more parks were added,
1.3 Growth of the protected areas
with a disproportionately high representation of conif-
system erous forests, mainly in parks established for recreation
and scenic values (Flores 1989).
The growth ofthe protcted areas system in North Amer-
ica is illustrated in figures 1 and 2, and in Table 3. These Mexico embarked on the development of a protected
show a progressive development from 1900, but dra- areas network in earnest in the late 1930s, when most
matic increases from 1970. Table 3 shows that Canada of the national parks of the country were established . In
North America
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : North America

Canada 9,922,385 494,479 5.0 59,891 0.6 554,369 5.6

Greenland 2,175,600 982,500 45.2 0 0.0 982,500 45.2
Mexico 1,972,545 98,966 5.0 25,431 1.3 124,396 6.3
St Pierre-Miquelon 242 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
USA 9,363,130 984,557 10.5 8,990 0.1 993,547 10.6
Total 23,433,902 2,560,502 10.9 94,312 0.4 2,654,814 11.3
has been assigned . Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: North America
I II III IV V TOTAL
Canada 53 5,000 78 263,086 1 31 153 185,040 126 41,321 411 494,479

Greenland 1 10,500 1 972,000 - - - - 2 982,500
Mexico 7 3,573 33 16,232 2 42 11 38,745 7 40,373 60 98,966
St Pierre-Miquelon - - -
USA 9 651 56 201,310 225 184,632 318 472,508 329 125,456 937 984,557
Total 70 19,724 168 1,452,628 228 184,705 482 696,293 462 207,150 14102,560,502
1938 alone sixteen national parks and protected forests Fauna, addressing wildlife. New general regulations
were declared . The management of protected areas were proposedin 1992 which will, when adopted, result
remained under the forestry sector of government from in further reorganization of Mexico's protected area
1935 until 1976, when five different government agen- authorities . One change is the possibility of concessions
cies were given responsibility for the administration of for the management of individual units by non-govern-
different categories of protected areas. mental entities.
In the mid-seventies, the establishment of new types United States. On June 30, 1864 , US President Abra-
of protected areas (e.g. , biological stations and bio- ham Lincoln signed a law granting the Yosemite Valley
sphere reserves) allowed biological and ecological cri- and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias to the State
teria to be incorporated into the justification for the of California to be held for "public use, resort, and
establishment of protected areas. The first biosphere recreation ... inalienable for all time." But even as
reserves, Mapimí and Michilía, were established by the President Lincoln signed the act transferring Yosemite
Institute of Ecology in Durango, incorporating the con- to a state government, the United States was in the grips
servation of biodiversity, research, education and par- of a civil war that occurred at least in part over the issue
ticipation of local institutions and people. ofsovereignty. That issue resounded through the years,
manifesting itself today in debates over the right ofthe
Federal government to legislate land use in the public
In 1982,the Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología
interest.
(SEDUE) and its Subsecretaría of Ecología were cre-
ated. This represented the first effort by the Federal
Government to incorporate ecological criteria into de- It is generally held that, had there been a state which
velopment schemes. Within the Subsecretaría, two units included the territory ofthe Yellowstone in 1872 , that
were also created , DIPARES , dealing with Parks, Re- area would have been handed over just as Yosemite had
serves and Protected Ecological Areas, and Flora and been eighteen years earlier. That Yellowstone did not

1,200
Number of sites
1,000
Area (x1000sqkm )
800
600
400
200
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
2,500
Number of sites
2,000 Area (x1000sqkm )
1,500
1,000
500
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

North America
fall under the jurisdiction of a state created the condi- In the US, the concerns of the public and government
tions for a historic precedent, creating the world's first were driven by the growth in popularity of outdoor
modern national park. recreation. Equity of access to outdoor recreation op-
portunities and the loss of open space to urban sprawl
In 1891 , the US Congress, driven by concerns that the became key issues, leading to an appetite for more and
nation's natural resources were being depleted, gave the more protected areas. This demand could not be easily
President the authority to create forest reserves within the met by national parks, and newer, innovative types of
public domain. By 1893, the government had reserved protected areas were created, frequently administered
5,250,000ha of western forest land. In 1905, the US outside the National Park Service. Large-scale addi-
Forest Service was created . This service , with a tions led to charges that the quality of the system as a
mandate to manage the forest estate, was dedicated to whole was diminished by the inclusion of areas without
'utilitarian conservation ' . In the first decade ofthe 20th the monumental aspect that was the system's concep-
century, the system of National Forests swelled to tual underpinning.
60,000,000ha.
Politicians anxious to satisfy the demand for new
In 1906, the President was granted additional powers parks pushed for inclusion of new units of the system
to declare national monuments by Executive Order. within their constituencies. The result was an unprece-
President Theodore Roosevelt used this law aggres- dented expansion of USNPS , which groaned under the
sively, and by 1916, the protected area estate had grown burden of absorbing new units. Concerned that the
considerably. Service was losing its focus on stewardship of existing
units, USNPS abandoned the expansionist park plan in
In 1916, the National Park Service (USNPS) was 1982 in favour of additional resources to stabilize and
created, over the opposition of Forest Service head
upgrade existing properties. (Table 3 and Figures 1 and
Gifford Pinchot, who argued for the efficiency of utili- 2 show the growth of the protected area systems in
tarian management by the Forest Service. The new North America) .
agency inherited responsibility for 35 national parks
and monuments, and had a mandate to " conserve the International cooperation has long been an important
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild feature in North America. Canada, Mexico and the
life therein and to provide for the enjoyment ofthe same United States are all party to the World Heritage Con-
in such manner and by such means as will leave them vention and the Ramsar Convention and all participate
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations". in UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Pro-
Responsibilities for cultural and historical monuments gramme. Table 4 lists adherence to international con-
were added in 1933. ventionsd and prgrammes, whilst Table 5 indicates the
sites listed for each country under the stated interna-
A public outcry in the early 1960s over the shooting tional conventions and programmes.
of elk in Yellowstone National Park, precipitated a
special advisory board on wildlife management, chaired These and other issues relating to the entire region are
by A. Starker Leopold. The Leopold committee recom- discussed at length in a comprehensive review of na-
mended "as a primary goal, that the biotic associations tional protected areas systems, prepared by the World
within each park be maintained, or where necessary Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992).
recreated, as nearly as possible in the condition that
prevailed when the area was first visited by the white
1.4 Development of state/provincial
man.... A national park should represent a vignette of
primitive America" . Their report was an early reflection protected areas
of a change in the way North Americans were looking
at the environment. Its lasting significance lay not in its Enthusiasm for National Parks translated to increased
own romantic images of pristine America but in its interest in state and provincial parks. In 1883 , the State
guiding principle that the biological management of the of New York created the Niagara Falls Reservation to
national parks was just as important as the strict protec- address the stinging criticisms from European visitors
tion of their natural features for the enjoyment of the overthe seedy commercialism practiced at this popular
public (Runte, 1987) . attraction. Two years later, New York established Adi-
rondack Park, the first major protected area in the
Bythe 1970s,the environmental awareness presaged eastern part of the continent. By 1907, the state of
by the Leopold Committee had produced a powerful Wisconsin had developed a park system plan (Myers
constituency for protected areas. Mexico responded to and Green, 1989) . A (US) National Conference on State
similar national awareness by establishing a network of Parks in 1921 adopted the slogan " A State Park Every
biosphere reserves to accommodate the need for a bal- Hundred Miles," reflecting the new-found mobility brought
ance between nature conservation and development. by the automobile. By the 1920s, the development of
Canada expanded into its seemingly limitless wilder- state parks was following to some extent the develop-
ness lands during this period , as protected areas contin- ment of highways. In 1893 , Ontario established Can-
ued to preserve the best of the monumentality of the ada's first provincial park, Algonquin, with Quebec
Canadian frontier. following suit with Laurentides Provincial Park in 1895.
Thereafter, provincial parks were added in the rest of Analysis of coverage according to the Canadian Eco-
Canada's provinces. logical Land Classification System shows that 67 out of
177 ecoregions have no strictly protected areas, and that
in 138, less than 3% is strictly protected. When all
2. Current protected area systems categories are used, 41 ecoregions have more than 12%
protected, and less than 3% is represented in 97
Canada. The Canadian Parks Service has divided eco-regions, and in total about 5.6% of Canada's area
the country into 39 terrestrial natural regions, of which is protected within IUCN Categories I-VIII (Tables 1
21 are represented in the system , and 29 marine natural and 2). The largest gaps are in the boreal, tundra,
regions, of which two are represented. Some type of grassland, and lower arctic regions (Environment Canada,
protected area exists in 33 of the 39 terrestrial regions, 1991b).
and a proposed site has been identified in four more.
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : North America

Canada 53.7 10.5 15.2 20.6 30,117 494,478

Greenland 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 982,500
Mexico 7.9 0.1 49.2 42.9 4,845 98,965
St Pierre-Miquelon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
USA 23.4 8.3 68.1 0.3 64,404 984,556
Total 19.2 5.1 70.1 5.6 99,366 2,560,501
World Wildlife Fund Canada's Endangered Spaces for a national effort to establish a completely repre-
Program has identified 91 natural regions (out of ap- sentative system by the year 2000, comprising 12% of
proximately 350) where 50,000ha contiguous roadless Canada's land (WWF - Canada, 1991 ; 1992) . More
areas can no longer be found. The option of protecting than 99% oftall-grass prairie, 82% of short-grass prairie,
a large contiguous block of wilderness is threatened in 90% of fescue grassland, and 76% of mixed-grass prai-
many other regions. Some 400,000 Canadians have rie and aspen parkland have already been converted to
signed the Canadian Wilderness Charter, which calls agricultural uses (Environment Canada , 1991b).
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions : North America

Canada July 1976 6 14,710,321 6 1,049,978 January 1981 30 13,015,681

Denmark
(Greenland) July 1979 0 1 70,000,000 September 1977 11 1,044,500
Mexico February 1984 1 528,000 6 1,288,454 July 1986 1 47,480
France
(St Pierre/Miquelon) June 1975 0 October 1986 0 0
United States December. 1973 10 4,356,688 44 22,334,755 December 1986 11 1,192,093
Notes: 1. The World Heritage site Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias lies across the international border between Canada and the
United States. To simplify this table, each part of the site has been entered within the appropriate country.
2. Note that sites in Hawaii are included in this table, although technically they lie within the Pacific region,
otherwise only sites lying within the region are listed.
North America
In the Northern Territories, land claim settlements ferent denominations have been employed in designat-
between aboriginal people and the federal government ing protected areas in Mexico, and there is no actual
are under negotiation. For claims now being drafted, correspondence between the name or category and the
communities and governments are identifying natural management objectives pursued in each area. The areas
areas and cultural features, and terms are being set for currently decreed have not been formally reclassified,
the establishment and management of national parks in accordance with SINAP, or simply do not fit within
and other protected areas. Under the claim of the Tun- the recognized categories. Correspondence between these
gavik Federation of Nunavut, in the eastern Arctic, at categories and those internationally accepted and widely
least three national parks will be established (Environ- used is unclear and reconciliation is not entirely feasible
ment Canada, 1991b). at this point.
Canada's Green Plan recommends that Canada allo-

As a result of this confusion, there are differences in
cate 12% ofits total area in a network ofprotected areas
opinion with regards to the number and type of pro-
to protect representative samples of its ecosystems. The tected areas in Mexico. Information available to the
government of Canada estimates that the national park
World Conservation Monitoring Centre indicates a total
system, when completed, could occupy between 2.8 and
of 60 areas in IUCN Management Categories I-V,
3.4% of the Canadian landscape, compared with the
covering 9.8 million ha or 5.0% of the country. A further
current 1.8% (Environment Canada, 1991b).
2.5 million ha (1.3%) are covered by protected areas in
In addition, Canada's Green Plan calls for the govern- Categories VI-VIII (Table 1) . The Mexican Govern-
ment to: ment, however, in its National Program for Environ-
mental Protection 1990-1994 , considers SINAP to consist
■ Complete the terrestrial parks system by 2000, es- of 65 areas. The Ministry of Agriculture (SARH) and
tablish at least five new national parks by 1996, some State Governments protect an additional 8 million
negotiate agreements for the remaining 13 parks ha through 59 forest reserves and protected watersheds
required to compete the terrestrial park system , and and other categories that the law includes as subcate-
establish three additional marine parks by 2000; gories within the SINAP. If all of them are considered ,
approximately 7% of the territory could be considered
■ Develop an enhanced resource management pro-
to have a degree of legal protection due to natural
gramme for national parks involving applied studies
features (Perez Gil and Jaramillo, 1992).
for ecological integrity and regional integration;
Work with the provincial governments to establish Mexico's strategy emphasizes the need to strike a
a network of forest ecological reserves to preserve balance between conservation and exploitation of the
in their natural state the genetic stock of Canadian resources contained in its protected areas. At present,
forest ecosystems; and there is a lack of planning in protected areas, and no
■ Work with the provinces to develop a programme to specific criteria are applied for the selection or ranking
transferto farmers agricultural practices compatible of priorities to guarantee that the protected area system
with wildlife habitat needs. is truly representative. Recommendations have been
made to restructure and improve the functioning of
Canada has made significant gains in protecting the SINAP (Perez Gil and Jaramillo, 1992) . SINAP re-
wetlands that cover 14% ofits land area. Most provinces quires revised criteria for inclusion , revised categories,
have inventoried and classified remaining wetlands, review of the existing parks and of the regulations and
and some have formulated policies to protect the most policies pertaining to parks. Under the framework ofthe
valuable examples. The recently adopted Federal Policy General Ecology Law of 1988 , SINAP has the opportu-
on Wetland Conservation will promote the develop- nity to improve regulations, norms and policies for the
ment of a system of protected wetlands of national identification, selection, evaluation, monitoring and man-
significance. agement of protected areas. Additional action is re-
quired in such regulation. Areas that have lost the
Mexico. In Mexico, the Nearctic and Neotropical characteristics for which they were originally protected
biogeographic realms meet in an area with a complex are to be decommissioned, and protected areas will be
topography and a range of climates, conditions that given categories which conform to management prac-
create a great variety of habitats and promote tremen- tices and priorities.
dous species diversity. SINAP, the Mexican Govern-
ment's System ofProtected Areas, is designed to integrate United States. Over 10% of the United States is
protected natural areas of Mexico into a coherent, rep- protected in national parks and related areas (Table 1).
resentative whole. SINAP's objectives include building This figure is somewhat misleading, because of the
the capacity in each area for recreation, culture, research extensiveness ofthe protected estate in Alaska. Blockstein
and citizen involvement (Perez Gil and Jaramillo, 1992). (1989), citing a Department of the Interior report on
areas of more than 10,000ha, notes that "land adminis-
The General Environmental Law ( 1988) provides for tered by the four largest Federal land management
the nine categories of protected area, but the legal agencies failed to include 22% of the recognized eco-
categories have serious limitations. More than 100 dif- system types in the United States and under-represented
another 29%." A National Parks and Conservation As- may provide important opportunities for habitat con-
sociation (NPCA) review identified fifty-four of 133 servation in areas where large tracts of wildlands no
ecoregions in the US as having little or no representation longer exist. River corridors frequently provide focal
in the national park system (NPCA, 1988). Some of points for landscape protection, and protection of rivers
these regions are so small that representation is imprac- under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has been an area
tical, and others have largely been lost, having been of intense activity for over twenty years . Landscape
converted to other uses or otherwise degraded. Notwith- preservation will be a key growth area in coming dec-
standing these exceptions, a significant number of eco- ades as communities become more active in addressing
regions lack adequate representation in protected area quality of life issues and bioregional planning becomes
systems (see Section 3 for a discussion of gaps in widely practiced.
coverage) . The extent of under-representation is diffi-
cult to quantify, owing to the number of agencies and The proliferation of agencies and jurisdictions in the
US has made the evolution of a coordinated system of
jurisdictions that might provide protection. These agen-
cies do not necessarily share common data sets for their protected areas difficult. Diffusion of responsibilities
protected areas, nor do they necessarily share the same has created a leadership vacuum. No single body exer-
sets of maps. The Federal protected area estate has not cises satisfactory oversight over protected areas within
been entered onto any single series of maps in over the Federal government. Such oversight and coordina-
tion is needed to create a unified, representative system.
twenty years.
Non-governmental groups such as the National Parks
The 1964 (US) Wilderness Act established a national and Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, The
policy " to secure for the American people of present and Nature Conservancy, the Wilderness Society, and the
future generations the benefits of an enduring resource Defenders ofWildlife (to name only a few) have stepped
of wilderness." It stipulated that wilderness areas be in with their own data sets and systems reviews, and
"administered for the use and enjoyment of the American have made very significant contributions to understanding
people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired the gaps in the protected estate.
for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. " Eligibility
criteria for the National Wilderness Preservation System The protected area system in the US evolved in an ad
include pristine character, opportunities for solitude , hoc fashion, and without the benefit of any scientific
and sufficient size to allow management as a wilderness analysis of coverage and objectives during most of the
unit. The Wilderness Act recommends a minimum of twentieth century. Congressional prerogative in the se-
2,000 contiguous roadless ha as a guideline. Approxi- lection of protected areas preempts most efforts to set
mately4 per cent ofthe United States is preserved within priorities scientifically . During the 1970s, an effort was
the National Wilderness Preservation System. As of 30 made to create a comprehensive system plan for the
June 1989, 91.5 million ha (Alaska has 59 million ha), National Park Service. This process was terminated
or 10% ofthe US land area, was de facto wilderness and when expansion of the system outstripped managerial
had eitherbeen designated as wilderness, recommended capacities and budgets, but much relevant work was
for wilderness, or was under study as possible wilder- produced.
ness (CRS , 1989) . Currently in the US , 36,626,500ha of
public land is statutory wilderness, included in the In celebration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the
National Wilderness Preservation System covering 81 USNPS , a symposium was convened in Vail, Colorado
out of 233 distinct ecosystems recognized by the Forest in September 1991 to evaluate the NPS critically and
Service in the 50 states and Puerto Rico (TWS , 1989c). identify a course of action for the agency. The sympo-
sium wasjointly convened by the National Park Service,
The Nature Conservancy has its own Heritage Data- National Park Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, and
base system in all 50 states, using it to set protection Harvard University . A key recommendation, the estab-
priorities for The Nature Conservancy, state agencies, lishment of an Office of Strategic Planning, has already
and many federal agencies (including some managing been realized, setting the stage for serious consideration
defacto protected lands of the Department of Defense) . of other recommendations made in Vail.
In combination with the USFWS work and other gov-
ernment agency data sets , a foundation for a scientifi- Non-governmental organizations in the US are im-
cally based interagency planning programme exists. portant constituencies for land management agencies
working to build support for their conservation pro-
A type of protection attracting increasing attention grammes. An important tool in this effort has been the
in the US and Canada is landscape preservation alternative action plans and agendas they have devel-
(IUCN Category V). This approach, often applied to oped for the politically constrained government agen-
traditional or historic sites , emphasizes sustainability cies. These plans , which tend to be more aggressive in
and harmony between human activity and the natural support ofconservation goals than are the agency plans,
environment. Landscape preservation activities are are important tools in influencing the appropriation of
particularly strong in the northeastern states and ad- funds from the Treasury. Examples of these plans in-
jacent provinces of eastern Canada, where traditional clude the National Parks and Conservation Associa-
settlement patterns are being disrupted by intensified, tion's Investing in Park Futures: A Blueprint for
centralized development. Landscape- level conservation Tomorrow (a nine-volume study of the National Park
North America
system ), and the National Fish and Wildlife Founda- the national forests or lands administered by the Bureau
tion's annual Fisheries and Wildlife Assessment, an of Land Management.
assessment of the needs of the federal agencies key to
the wildlife estate. Governmental processes in the US At a higher level of resolution , NPCA found when
are very susceptible to constituent pressure . The exist- large-scale ecosystems were subdivided by the NPS
ence of these action plans and the efforts they represent natural regions, 54 out of 133 regions had little or no
to influence government is an important reason for representation in the park system . Eight have little
protection gains in the contemporary history of the representation in all federal lands, sometimes due to
nation.
original rarity of the ecosystem. Using the PNV classi-
fication system , 33 of 135 types were found to be poorly
represented in the federal estate, including nine with
almost no representation in the federal estate. Of the
required nine PNV types reported as not represented, three were
forested tropical ecosystems in Hawaii and six were
Canada. Of Canada's 39 natural regions, 18 have no
savanna grasslands and shrub lands in Texas. Table 9
representative portion protected. These are shown in
gives a list of recommended additional protected areas
Table 7, along with sites recommended to fill the gaps.
for the United States.
Mexico. A tentative ranking of proposed protected

areas was undertaken by Perez Gil and Jaramillo (1992), 4. Protected area institutions
using as criteria importance, urgency of action, and
feasibility. The tentative survey identified sixteen areas 4.1 The principal national agencies
oftop priority for conservation (Table 8) . Ofthe sixteen,
nine sites are proposed as new protected areas, six are a. Canadian Parks Service. The oldest ofthe
existing protected areas for which expansion and recate- world's modern protected area agencies , CPS is
gorization arerecommended , and expansion without change responsible for both the cultural and the natural
in status is recommended for one additional area. The heritage at the national level. CPS has 59 units
priority areas are located in 11 states of Mexico and and 3500 staff, and is responsible for 18,072,037ha
include regions considered to have the highest biologi- of protected areas. CPS will undergo a major
cal importance for the country. Inclusion/extension of growth period over the coming decade as the
these areas would protect as much as 2,695,000 addi-
system plan for Canada is developed and imple-
tional ha, increasing by up to 47% the area presently mented.
under protection. The authors identified an urgent need
to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of Mexico's b. Canadian Wildlife Service. The Canadian
protected area estate. Wildlife Service is responsible for Canada's net-
work of national wildlife areas and migratory
United States. The natural history (distinct from the bird sanctuaries. Its policy guidelines are set
cultural and historic components) component of the US forth in A Wildlife Policy for Canada (Wildlife
National Park Service's National Park System Plan Ministers Council of Canada , 1990) . The Wild-
(1972) addressed representative coverage according to life Service, in partnership with other govern-
thematic criteria covering both physiological (e.g. geo- ment and non-govemment organizations, implements
graphic) and biological features. A 1980 revision the North American Waterfowl Management
cited underground ecosystems, tropical ecosystems, Plan in Canada, and provides technical assis-
estuaries, marine environments, and grasslands as tance for conservation on private lands. The
under-represented. The NPCA undertook an analysis of CWS has responsibility for 11,462,484ha ofpro-
coverage in the late 1980s using the NPS thematic tected lands.
regions, Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV) types, and
National Park Service natural regions (NPCA, 1988). C. The Mexican National Park System (SINAP).
NPCA's analysis indicated that eight of twelve large- In May, 1992, in a reorganization ofthe Federal
scale ecosystems had relatively low representation in Government, the Ministry of Urban Develop-
federal lands. They are Coastal Prairies and Salt Marshes, ment and Ecology (SEDUE) was eliminated.
Tropical Ecosystems, Freshwater Ecosystems, Wetlands, Most major environmental responsibilities were
Chaparral, Desert, Eastern Deciduous Forest, Pacific Forest, taken over by the newly-created Ministry of
and "miscellaneous. " NPCA reported that apart from Social Development (SEDESOL) . Further, the
Eastern Deciduous Forest, these ecosystems are also the creation of a National Commission on Ecology
least common of the original ecosystems of the United has been proposed. The proposed Commission
States. Of the natural regions of the NPS occurring in would be a semi-autonomous body under
the continental US , the Mississippi Alluvial Plain , SEDESOL, with regulatory and control capabili-
Piedmont, New England-Adirondacks , Wyoming ties and capacities. Under the reorganization , the
Basin, Interior Low Plateaux, and Atlantic Coastal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
Plain were under-represented in the national park sys- (SARH) is expected once again to take respon-
tem . All appeared, however, to have representation in sibility for the management of most parks , while
SEDESOL will manage biosphere reserves and h. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
special biosphere reserves. The Ministry ofFish- Administration (NOAA) . NOAA is responsi-
eries will take over responsibility for the promo- ble for the newest reserve network within the
tion, conservation and development of the marine federal system, the national marine sanctuaries
and aquatic (freshwater) flora and fauna, and the and the national estuarine reserves. This pro-
establishment of breeding grounds, nurseries, gramme, authorized in 1972, now includes eight
refugia and aquatic and marine reserves. Under designated national marine sanctuaries, 10 pro-
the new Forestry Law, non-governmental groups posed sites or study areas, and 18 national estu-
will be permitted to manage federal protected arine research reserves. The latter are cooperative
areas, under the policies of SEDESOL and the programmes with the states for long- term scientific
managerial oversight of SARH. research and education.
d. The US National Park Service. The USNPS

is charged with the dual and sometimes contrary 4.2 State and provincial agencies
roles of protection and promotion of enjoyment
of the finest natural areas of the nation. An
In North America, more than 100 agencies at the state/
increased emphasis on parks as critical sites for
provincial or federal level are authorized to manage
conservation of biological diversity, as well as
protected areas. Until the expansion period ofthe 1970s,
scenic and recreational resources, will expand
these agencies were pre-eminent in providing the public
the scope ofduties of the 9000 people who make with access to open spaces for recreation . In 1985, state
up the Service. The USNPS has 358 units, cov- parks in the US hosted 650 million visitors on 4.1
ering nearly 32.5 million ha.
million ha of land, twice as many people as visited the
national park system (Myers and Green, 1989) . Some
e. The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) .
provincial/state parks rival the great national parks in
BLM is responsible for over 100 million ha of
significance. Frequently, especially in the US, their role
federal land, including one-fourth of the western
gives a higher priority to recreational services.
United States. Only a small proportion of BLM
land is considered protected under IUCN cate-
gories . Much of the growth potential within the 4.3 Non-governmental organizations
wilderness system in the decade ahead is in BLM
lands. BLM's capacity to incorporate new pro-
Long-term protection of biodiversity on many land-
tected wilderness areas was sharply restricted by
scapes in North America must include a well-organized
a 50% cut in its planning budget in the 1980s.
stewardship effort, as part of any protected areas strat-
f. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . egy (Cox, 1992). As the large blocks of publicly held
The USFWS has a staff of approximately 7,000 land that have been the focus of the protection debate
in more than 460 wildlife refuges and 13 field overthe past 100 years are allocated to resource extrac-
stations/research centres. The USFWS began tion or protection, activities have swung toward the
work in 1990 on a combined plan and environ- conservation of the spaces between large wildland ar-
eas, protection of a historic scene in a protected land-
mental impact statement for management of the
system through the year 2003, the 100th anni- scape, the conservation of the overlooked, relict tracts
versary of the first national wildlife refuge on of biologically rich wildlands in the more densely-settled
parts ofthe region, and the smaller blocks with features
Pelican Island, Florida.
attractive to the nature-oriented tourist. These types of
g. The US Forest Service (USFS). Of the 77 mil- sites tend to be in private hands, and are small enough
lion ha managed by the national forest system, to be acquired either through donation or through pur-
seventeen per cent or nearly 13 million ha is chase by private bodies, and managed by a small enter-
designated wilderness . The USFS is responsible prise, either for purposes of profit or as a charitable
for more than a third of the wilderness system , activity.
nearly 80 per cent of the wilderness area outside
Alaska (CRS , 1989). The Forest Service also has There are many excellent examples of successful
significant holdings in national monuments and private partnerships for conservation in North America.
national recreation areas, and an extensive net- Ducks Unlimited, for example, is active in preserving
work of research natural areas to provide base- wetland habitat throughout North America. In Canada
line information on natural ecosystems. The USFS alone it is responsible for 2.9 million ha of protected
is the only federal agency with a specific direc- lands (3.9% of all protected areas in Canada). The
tive to maintain biological diversity on its lands , Nature Conservancy of Canada is responsible for 32,400ha
workingto identify effective ecosystem approaches (it generally hands over lands it has acquired to appro-
to management of its land resources that can priate public agencies). Over 120 different government
serve as models for anchoring protected areas in and private programmes in Canada alone are involved
the management considerations of the broader in acquisition and management of lands for conserva-
landscape. tion (Environment Canada, 1991b).
North America
Table 5. World Heritage sites in North ■ Friends of Sian Ka'an (working in the Biosphere
America Reserve of the same name, in Quintana Roo);
■ DUMAC (managing and rehabilitating habitat for
waterfowl in the coastal lagoons Ría Lagartos and
Canada
Celestum in Yucatán, in the Don Martín Dam in
Canadian Rockies
Coahuila and at the Ciénega of Tololcingo Pond in
Dinosaur Provincial Park
Puebla, among others);
Gros More National Park
■ PRONATURA (managing small private reserves as
Kluane-Wrangell/St Elias (with USA)
Nahanni National Park the Cerro Huitepec in the state of Chiapas);
Wood Buffalo National Park ■ The Institute of Ecology, managing the Mapimi and
Michilia Biosphere Reserves;
Mexico
The University of Guadalajara, managing the
Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve Manantlan Biosphere Reserve; and
USA ■ FUNDAMAT (raising and channelling funds and
Everglades National Park support for the establishment, planning, research
Grand Canyon National Park and management of the El Triunfo, La Encrucijada,
Great Smoky Mountain National Park Montes Azules and Selva de El Ocote Reserves
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (actually in the among others, in the state of Chiapas).
Pacific region)
In the US , The Nature Conservancy (TNC) , a private,
Kluane-Wrangell/St Elias National Park (with
non-profit, membership organization, has established
Canada)
Mammoth Cave National Park over 1,300 preserves with nearly 650,000ha under strict
Olympic National Park protection measures since its founding in 1951. TNC
has conserved over 2 million ha, much of which it has
Redwood National Park
Yellowstone National Park passed on to federal and state agencies. Their Last Great
Yosemite National Park Places initiative aims to protect 75 large landscape-level
ecological systems , and plans to invest US$ 1 billion
in public and private funds over the next five years
In Mexico, the decade ofthe 1980s was an important (J. Humke, pers. comm . 1992) . This represents a shift
one for private organizations as NGOs began success- in strategy from the protection of core areas for biodi-
fully promoting the establishment and sometimes man- versity values to the conservation of functioning eco-
agement of protected areas. Significant examples in- systems, in places with the most biodiversity. This will
clude: be done through the development of partnerships to
extend the influence of core protected sites into the
■ Monarca A.C. (protecting winter habitat of the surrounding landscape.
Monarch butterfly in Michoacán and Mexico State);
Table 6. Protected areas management agency budgets : North America
Country/responsible agency Budget in US Dollar

national currency equivalent Year Notes Source
Canada - Canadian NPS/

Canadian Wildlife Service CAD 282,990,000 1991 Total figure for the Canadian
National Parks Service and the
Canadian Wildlife Service. E1
Greenland DKK
Mexico MXP 2,550,000 1991 Federal goverment expenditure in
protected areas. Includes estimates
for external funding for the year
1991. USAID contributes an
additional US$1.0 million to the
NGO Pronatura. El
Saint Pierre and Miquelon FRF
United States USD 1,962,700,000 1991 Estimates of federal governmen
expenditures in protected areas
(includes USFWS, WWF and
NAWMP). E1
Sources:
[E1 ] Waugh, J.D. and Perez Gil, R. ( 1992) . North America. Regional reviews prepared for the IVth World Congress on
National Parks and Protected Areas , 10-21 February, Caracas, Venezuela. IUCN, Gland , Switzerland.
Table 7. Gaps in protected areas coverage in Canada
Western Mountains: Strait of Georgia lowlands, Interior dry plateau, Northern interior plateaux and
mountains;
Interior Plains: Manitoba lowlands.
Canadian Shield: Tundra hills , Central tundra region, Northwestern boreal uplands, Laurentian boreal
highlands, East coast boreal region, Boreal lake plateau, Whale River region,
Northern Labrador Mountains, Ungava tundra plateau, Southampton plain, Hudson
Bay lowlands, Hudson-James lowlands.
Arctic Lowlands: Western Arctic lowlands, Eastern Arctic lowlands.
High Arctic Islands: Western High Arctic region.
Sites under consideration for inclusion in the system are:
Bluenose Lake, Northwest Territory (Tundra Hills)

Wager Bay, Northwest Territory (Central Tundra region)
Churchill, Manitoba (Hudson-James lowlands)
East Arm of Great Slave Lake, NWT (Northwestern Boreal Uplands)
Torngat Mountains, Labrador (Northern Labrador Mountains Region)
Northern Banks Island, NWT (Western Arctic lowlands)
Northern Baffin Island, NWT (Eastern Arctic lowlands)
(from Environment Canada, 1991a)
Table 8. Priority conservation areas in Mexico (after Perez Gil and

Jaramillo, 1992)
Name Area (hectares) Classification
Isla Guadalupe * 50,000 Natural Resource

Protection Area
Isla Cedros * 50,000 Biosphere Reserve
Los Pentenes not provided Biosphere Reserve
Cuatro Ciénegas 497,753 Biosphere Reserve
Corredor Yaxchilán-Bonampak 27,067 National Park
Ampliación El Ocote* 120,000 Biosphere Reserve

Sierra Cojolita 28,900 Biosphere Reserve
Teacapán-Agua Brava not provided Biosphere Reserve
Los Chimalapas- Uxpanapa 800,000 Biosphere Reserve
Sierras Zaachilac-Loxicha 250,000 Biosphere Reserve
Valle de Tehuacán-Cuicatlán not provided Natural Resource
Protection Area
El Pinacate* 496,766 Biosphere Reserve
Delta Rio Usumacinta-L.Terminos not provided Biosphere Reserve
Santa Martha* 54,592 Biosphere Reserve
Lox Tuxtlas-Volcan San Martin * not provided Biosphere Reserve
Arrecife Alacranes 18,000 Marine National Park
* expansion of existing site.

North America
The Land Trust Alliance represents local land trusts value of protected areas will depend in the future upon
across the continent with over 750,000ha under a pro- well-rounded staff trained to articulate the mission of
tection regime (either held outright or under easements) , the areas. Ironically, both the scientific and the public
where the property holder voluntarily (and sometimes outreach capacities of protected area systems seem to
for payment) surrenders rights to certain types of devel- be the most expendable in the short-term when budget
opment and use. Operation Stronghold is an alliance of cuts force retrenchment.
800-900 private landholders who have undertaken con-
servation measures on private lands estimated to total In US protected areas, budgets have not kept pace
up to 2.5 million ha. Partnerships are not restricted to with growth over the last 20 years, resulting in a 20%
private organizations, either. A growing area ofactivity net loss in managerial capacity. One hundred new parks
is in partnerships between corporations and other wild- have been added, doubling the area to cover. Visitation
life supporters . continues to swell; more than 250 million visitors came
to US national parks in 1990. Pay has not kept pace with
5. Current levels of financial the cost ofliving for park rangers, either. A decade ago,
there were 200 applications for each ranger position in
the USNPS ; today, five may apply, and those may not
It was not possible to compile data on funding levels be qualified (W. Dabney, pers. comm. , 1992) . Experi-
and coverage in all provincial/state and private pro- enced rangers are leaving; low pay, a stressful work
tected areas during this review (Table 6) . The figures environment, and a constricted career path are drawing
for Canada are only from the Canadian Parks Service top talent away from parks in search of higher pay and
and Canadian Wildlife Service. The figures for USA better working conditions. Rangers remain committed
include all federal land management agencies, includ- to the national parks, but increasingly , they are, as many
ing those managing multiple use lands. The figures for rangers have noted recently, "tired of being paid in
Mexico are estimates of federal expenditures in pro- sunsets. "
tected areas and support from external donors.

In Mexico, training needs have been cited as a prin-
The Global Environment Facility recently approved cipal factor limiting the effective management of pro-
a grant for Mexico that is predicated on Mexico's ability tected areas. There is a shortage of research scientists
to continue the recurrent costs indicated in this pro- and trained resource management specialists. No insti-
gramme ($20 million for seventeen protected areas over tution specializes in advanced training in conservation
three and a half years, or approximately $336,000 per and management of resources, though a Forestry and
unit per year). With the present budget estimates, Game Guardians School has been established. Some
Mexico could only afford around seven protected areas NGOS and academic institutions have offered short
at this level of recurrent cost. For the entire protected courses, but these are being curtailed due to lack of
area estate to be funded at this rate, Mexico's park financing. Mexicans trained abroad do not always re-
system would require an annual operating budget of ceive training relevant to Mexico's needs.
over $20 million dollars, nearly ten times the current
budget estimates. It appears that Mexico will be cutting In Canada and the US, training is generally available
its protected area budget significantly in 1993 . at universities in field-oriented natural sciences relevant
to protected area management. Priorities are to recruit
6. Human capacity in protected a representative sample ofthe demographic make up of
the society, and to refine the academic and in-service
areas management
training to ensure responsiveness to the needs of the
Protected area personnel have shown remarkable resil- system. Programmes to attract top talent and profes-
ience in responding to the challenges of the past decade, sional development programmes to ensure continued
but strains are apparent. Threats are increasingly com- proficiency will be required as the technical demands
plex, requiring increased technical ability. Consequently, of protected area managers grow.
the profession of manager has evolved into professional
specializations in law enforcement, natural resource An immediate opportunity for training is in the public
management, research, interpretation, and engineering. policy arena. Recently scholars of protected area issues
This tendency toward specialization must be balanced have called for managers to become more outward
to maintain the ability of protected area personnel to
looking, and seek to extend their influence beyond
bridge the gap between the protected areas and the protected area boundaries if they are to ensure the
surrounding community. survival of their units into the next century. The next
generation ofprotected area manager will require abili-
The eroding capacity to manage from a technical ties to tolerate ambiguity, manage change, set and com-
point of view is linked to eroding financial support for municate priorities, handle controversy, and understand
the protected areas; investments in basic research and political processes-skills essential to enable land man-
monitoring capacities throughout the region lag behind agement agencies to remain relevant in the 21st century
identified needs. The public's understanding of the (Smith, 1991 ; Grey Towers, 1990) .
7. Priorities for future investment tive support. Managers must weigh carefully a balance
between strictly enforced contracts and voluntary part-
in protected areas
nerships that will best serve protected areas.
The costs of implementing the Canadian Green Plan
priorities for protected areas will require an additional
$130,000,000 over the next six years. This will cover 8. Major protected area issues in
additional studies and the creation of several new parks. the region
The costs of a fully-representative system has not yet
been assessed . Park advocates in Canada indicate that 8.1 Threats to protected areas
significant additional resources will be required if
Canada is to meet its goals. Threats to protected areas can come from outside or
within. They can be the result of activities beyond the
In the US, NPCA reports that "industrialization and boundary of protected areas which alter the ecosystem
urbanization are making islands of our national parks and eliminate some of the prerequisites for the contin-
... and impairing natural processes in the larger eco- ued existence of the resource. This type of threat is
systems upon which protected areas depend. Unless diverse, ranging from climate change, through the dis-
this is halted, encroaching development will alter ruption of transfer of genetic material, to deterioration
some protected area ecosystems forever. " USNPS
of habitats through edge effects and invasions of exotic
has a $477 million backlog of resource protection species and loss of scenic values through degradation
projects that must be addressed immediately (USDI , of air quality. Internal threats include mismanagement
1992) . The backlog of repair, maintenance, preserva- and overconsumption of resources , such as over har-
tion, and public health and safety projects in the US
vesting or overdevelopment for recreation, and disrup-
National Parks exceeds $2 billion. According to NPCA,
tion of ecological processes such as overpopulation of
development of credible fund raising mechanisms for
a species.
protected areas worth $250 million is needed to sup-
plement the $ 1.2 billion appropriated annually. The Forestry and agriculture tend to be greater problems
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation recommended than urbanization in Canadian protected areas. This
frequently affects species composition both through
an operating budget for 1992 of approximately $ 1.6
the loss of native species and the introduction of aliens
billion (NFWF , 1992) , almost $200 million more
(C. Stewart, pers. comm. 1992). Several Canadian
than the 1992 fiscal year budget. Additional recom-
mendations push the total amount needed to $2.4 parks, primarily in southern Ontario and the Maritimes,
billion. An additional $ 1.2 billion has been identified have suffered significant mammalian species loss.
Wood Buffalo National Park is threatened by changing
in backlogs in capital investments , including land
acquisition. water levels caused by dams and by pollution from
upstream pulp mills (Environment Canada, 1991b) . In
The situation is much worse in US state parks, some Point Pelee National Park, 43% of plant species are
ofwhich closed their gates temporarily to users because exotic (Environment Canada, 1991b).
ofbudgetary shortfalls in 1990-91 . State park managers Encroachment affects as much as 25 per cent of
are particularly constrained in the acquisition of lands Mexico's national parks. Because many of Mexico's
deemed important to complete their protected area sys- parks are small, they are particularly vulnerable to
tems. resource impact on their boundaries. Direct threats from
encroachment for settlement and poaching are a level
In the private sector The Nature Conservancy plans of magnitude more urgent than most other threats in
to invest $1 billion in public and private resources
Mexico, and protected areas are at risk of losing their
(including grants from the Land and Water Conserva-
value before responses can be mounted.
tion Fund) on projects designed to protect major eco-
logical systems in the US and Latin America over the Mexico's protected areas lack personnel to conduct
the administrative, protection, monitoring, management
decade ofthe 1990s. Significant, but poorly quantified,
voluntary contributions to protected areas have come and development functions. Existing personnel frequently
lack the authority to enforce regulations or apply cor-
from the private enterprises that manage concessions in
parks. Much has been made of the high profits and low rective measures; they usually have little training and
fees paid by concessions. In-kind support to manage- lack the basic equipment to perform their duties. Land-
ment does occur, and may represent a significant, unre- owners and people living within or around protected
areas have not been involved in the establishment or
ported contribution to management in some larger units.
management of protected areas and typically derive no
Concession operators are likely to become even more
active, as fiscally-restrained management actively seeks apparent benefits from the existence of such areas.
Taken together with inadequate management, this has
partnership in functions for which public funds are
created a condition of intensified degradation within
scarce, such as interpretation. It is important that a
clearer understanding is developed of the interactions protected areas and perpetuation ofthe cycle of poverty
in the areas around them .
between these forces, and that all contributions are
factored into accounting. In the rigorous pursuit of In 1988, the US National Park Service ( 1988) re-
cost-recovery, park managers may risk losing qualita- ported a total of 1,696 individual threats to natural
North America
resources in parks; 200 parks reported that one or more upon to defend expenditure of public funds on protected
of their natural resources either were affected or would areas against charges that it takes food from children
become threatened within five years. Some 90 per cent and medicine from the sick.
of national park scenic vistas monitored in the 48 con- On the other hand, fiscal retrenchment also forces
tiguous states show man-made air pollution. Water management to develop innovative programmes that
quality is also threatened by pollution from industrial may ultimately have beneficial effects. It forces pro-
development, and urban and agricultural activities lo-
tected area managers to develop a constituency that
cated both inside and outside protected area boundaries. supports protected areas directly, as well as in an ab-
Sediment and contaminated run-off from urban and
stract fashion through payment oftaxes . It also provides
agricultural activities on protected area watershed lands
strong incentives for managers to work with local juris-
threaten the quality of surface and ground waters. Oil dictions in the co-management of resources necessary
development and transportation continue to present the for protection of the protected areas boundaries.
serious risk to coastal waters and shoreline ecosystems
shown in the aftermath of the 1990 grounding of the
8.3 Science in the parks
Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, and the ensu-
ing, almost undeterminable damage done to surround-
In Canada, protected area research is ordinarily under-
ing area, including two national park units , from spilled
oil. taken jointly with provincial/territorial authorities, aca-
demic institutions, and consultants (Environment Canada,
A report by the Inspector General of the Department 1991a). Canada's National Parks Act mandates that
of the Interior in 1992 found that "the Park Service's
park management plans be reviewed and revised every
protection of natural resources in selected parks was not five years. Park authorities are therefore required to give
sufficient to mitigate the degradation of those resources. " resources and attention to structured research to ensure
The report noted that the Park Service "had no assur- that adequate information for review of management
ance" that threats were being corrected and that the Park plans can be undertaken within mandated time periods
Service had not instituted a monitoring programme
(Environment Canada, 1991a) . As part of the legally-
(USDI , 1992). required management planning process, each park de-
velops and maintains a resource atlas (Colin Stewart,
8.2 Financial issues pers. comm. 1992).
Canada's research programme includes a social sci-
Throughout North America, budget reductions result- ence component. Visitor behaviour studies and market
ing in cutbacks in staffand backlogs in critical planning, surveys help planners to provide better services to visi-
resource management, maintenance, and land acquisi- tors. Data collected by researchers is coordinated with
tions have amplified threats, and have sometimes re- other research programmes to help integrate Canada's
sulted in temporary closure of protected areas. Delisting protected areas into national plans and analyses (Envi-
of protected areas due to financial pressure has become ronment Canada, 1991a).
an issue, and is increasingly likely in smaller jurisdic-
Mexico's data needs are profound, given its richness
tions. At least three Canadian provinces have reduced
in biological resources. Mexican protected area and
park area for fiscal reasons. More ominous still is the
research institutions lack the resources to undertake the
temptation for protected area authorities to enter into detailed monitoring and evaluation required to ensure
inappropriate arrangements with resort developers that
that biodiversity is preserved in Mexican parks, and that
result in privatization for industrial tourism in all but
key areas outside the system of protected areas are
name. Ontario has flirted with contract management ,
brought under protection regimes. The National Coun-
and it remains a perennial threat to the integrity of
cil for Science and Technology spent roughly US$ 100
protected areas throughout the region (C. Stewart, pers. million in 1992 for scientific projects and institutions ,
comm., 1992).
butjust four projects totalling approximately US$280,000
Inflation, the debt crisis, and massive unemployment related to protected areas (one for community partici-
have created a difficult situation in Mexico, where pation, one for archaeology, and two for geology and
protected area officials struggle for resources to fulfil vulcanism) .
their mandate. The economic stagnation and debt crisis
Despite Mexico's shortage of trained scientists and
of Mexico in the 1980s has created circumstances in
resource management specialists, a few research efforts
which major support for protected areas from within have taken place, primarily on the biosphere reserves.
Mexico is liable to be slow in forthcoming.
Basic studies that aim to provide necessary information
While the effect of under-funding is most poignant in for boundary delimitation and zoning have taken place
Mexico, its northern neighbours are not immune. Not in the Michilía and Mapimí Biosphere Reserves in
only are protected area systems struggling for support Durango, where the Institute of Ecology has studied
in the United States, but incidents of encroachment by biogeography, species abundance, sustainable use of
the homeless poor in the US appear to be on the rise, natural resources and agricultural practices for over a
causing fears of lawlessness and damage to resources. decade. Areas with similar programmes include El Vizcaíno
Protected areas compete for financial support with so- Biosphere Reserve in Baja California, Sur, El Triunfo
cial services, and protected area supporters are called Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Sian Ka'an Biosphere
Reserve in Quintana Roo and Manantlan Biosphere In 1990, the National Research Council established a
Reserve in Jalisco. Biological stations were established multi-disciplinary committee to undertake a review of
in the 1970s in Chamela, Jalisco and los Tuxtlas, the NPS programme. The report of the committee found
Veracruz, which have maintained continuous and de- that research was of critical importance in protecting
fined research programmes. park resources against growing threats. It concluded
that the National Park Service lacked a distinct science
programme, and recommended that the science pro-
Table 9. Recommended new protected
gramme receive separate funding and autonomy (NRC,
areas in the United States
1992).
National Park Service science programmes have not
This is an indicative list, based upon a National Parks
kept pace with demand, and are chronically under-
and Conservation Association study (NPCA, 1988).
funded, being only one-third the size of the National
It gives special emphasis to the National Park Service,
Wildlife Refuge system research budget, and one-eighth
and was not intended to be an overall system review, the size ofthe National Forest system research budget.
developed in consultation with all protected area
Sixty-five per cent of NPS units report inadequate data
agencies.
on at least one major resource. Seven per cent report
National Parks inadequate data on all major resource categories present
Tallgrass Prairie N.P., Oklahoma (NPS , 1988).
Jemez Mountains N.P., New Mexico The National Research Council recommended that no
Florida Keys N.P. , Florida less than ten per cent of the operations budget of the
National Park Service be reserved for science pro-
Blackrock Desert N.P. , Nevada
grammes (NRC, 1992). The Forest Service research
Michigan Peninsula N.P. , Michigan
programme, on the other hand, has benefitted from
Siskiyou N.P. , Oregon efforts to promote forestry as a profession with a scien-
Great Plains N.P, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Kansas , tific orientation. With a network of research natural
Wyoming areas and forest experiment stations, it is better posi-
Other Protected Areas tioned to monitor biological diversity on its lands than
most other federal agencies.
Escalante Canyons, Utah
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana
8.4 People and protected areas
Currituck Banks, North Carolina
Mojave Desert, California
Anewthreatto protected areas has arisen fromthe loose
Montauk, New York
coalition of exploitation oriented organizations in the
Hells Canyon, Oregon United States and Canada sometimes known as the
Big Sur, California "Wise Use" or the "Share" movement. Many of these
Loess Hills, Iowa or Nebraska groups are opposed in principle to public land steward-
Sonoran Desert/Pinacate, Arizona ship, favouring instead unimpeded private ownership of
land. The movement has its base in the rural west, but
Lower Altamaha River, Georgia
is gaining a following in parts of the rural east and even
San Juan Mountains, Colorado
in urban areas. Wise Use activists portray themselves as
Lake Tahoe, Nevada true conservationists, advocating a multiple use phi-
Owyhee Canyonlands , Oregon losophy that is superficially sympathetic to the sustain-
Mobile-Tensaw Bottomlands , Alabama able development objectives of the World Conservation
Nipomo Dunes, California Union's first and second World Conservation Strate-
gies. Closer examination indicates that this movement
Sawtooth Mountains , Idaho
is fundamentally opposed to any regulation of the indi-
Mount Edgecombe , Alaska
vidual's right to develop or otherwise alter the land for
Two-Hearted River, Michigan
personal purposes, without regard to the public good.
City of Rocks, Idaho
The Wise Use Agenda, published in 1989, calls for the
Cobscook Bay, Maine
opening of national parks and wilderness areas to min-
Connecticut River, Connecticut, Vermont, New eral extraction, and redesignation of nearly ninety per
Hampshire, Massachusetts cent ofthe National Wilderness Preservation System for
Machias River, Maine development and motorized vehicle use. Wise Use groups
Kings Range/Cape Mendocino, California have also been active in opposing wetlands and other
Mississippi River, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, types of environmental regulation, wilderness legisla-
Missouri tion, and conservation finance measures such as bond
issues. Financing of these opposition campaigns have
Adapted from NPCA, 1988 been traced to many large industrial concerns, belying
their claims to represent rural communities and small
private landholders. The Wise Use Movement provides
North America
a cautionary example to any who would ignore commu- harmonize classification and nomenclature systems
nity participation in land management decisions, even within each nation and assess the degree to which
when the decisions are being taken with the interests of the present systems meet the needs of major inter-
an entire nation in mind. ests;
Mexico's history regarding public lands differs ■ Develop the comprehensive planning processes, in-
sharply from that of its neighbours in North America. frastructure , and skills required to create a repre-
The backbone of the public lands system in Mexico is sentative network of marine and coastal protected
the ejido system of communal lands. An enduring leg- areas;
acy of Mexico's revolutionary heritage, the ejidos were
a key feature of land reform, comprised of lands once ■ Include a comprehensive needs assessment and fi-
in private hands, as well as public lands. In 1992, the nance strategy as part ofeach park management plan
President of Mexico proposed controversial new re- and protected area systems plan; and
forms to the Constitutional Article 27, permitting a
■ Create uniform databases and a map series showing
degree of privatization of the ejidos. The implications
the protected area estates.
are likely to be extensive . Proponents of the privatiza-
tion measures suggest that more efficient production in
the rural sector will have conservation benefits, astheir 9.2. Management
intensified use will remove pressure on natural areas by
subsistence farmers. Critics of the measure claim that it Assess the mechanisms available to each jurisdic-
will merely accelerate environmental degradation in the tion to intervene in activities that threaten the wel-
rural areas. The reforms to Article 27 open the possibil- fare and integrity ofparks, and the options to address
ity for land acquisition for protected areas and for the shortfalls , including regional and interagency coop-
establishment of communally-managed protected areas. eration and expanded legal authority;
This is extremely relevant because most existing pro-
■ Undertake system-wide analyses of visitor impacts
tected areas and some proposed areas are comprised of
and develop a comprehensive plan to manage their
ejido lands. Often the best land use option for the ejidos
impact, including mass transit alternatives in pro-
is the operation of a protected area, where the land,
tected areas where automobiles threaten protected
though biologically valuable, is unsuited for traditional
resources;
production schemes.
■ Redefine and broaden the way the private sector and
local organizations participate in protected area man-
agement;
The following list of recommendations addresses only
■ Conduct independent evaluations of every protected
region-wide priorities, based on recommendations made
area agency , including review of resource manage-
by the following individuals and organizations: the
National Parks and Conservation Association (USA), ment practices.
the work of Oscar Flores Villela and Patricia Gerez
sponsored by Conservation International and INIREB 9.3 Public participation and
(Mexico) , Ramon Perez Gil and Fernando Jaramillo awareness
Monroy (Mexico), the Canadian Ecological Areas Coun-
cil, Environment Canada, the US National Park Service ■ Develop a programme of incentives in each nation
and the National Science Foundation (USA). For a to foster collaboration between federal agencies,
detailed analysis at the national level, refer to the fol- states or provinces, local governments and the pri-
lowing: NRC, 1992; NPS , 1988 ; NPCA, 1988; the NPS , vate sector in planning and protection programmes;
1992; Environment Canada, 1991a and b, Taschereau,
1985; and USDI , 1992. ■ Develop programmes that demonstrate the compati-
bility between sustainable economic development
and wildlife conservation , employing: the recovery
9.1 System planning oftraditional knowledge and natural resources utili-
zation practices; community participation; and re-
■ Establish, in every jurisdiction, a participatory proc-
cycling of income from protected areas into the
ess involving major interests to set criteria for inclu- communities;
sion ofprotected areas within a system , covering the
ecological , economic, social and cultural dimen- Undertake management planning processes in all
sions of nature conservation; jurisdictions that are more sensitive to the needs of
both the communities and the protected resources;
■ Undertake an analysis of representativeness, utiliz-
ing the above criteria, to identify major gaps in Enhance the level of professionalism of interpreta-
coverage. Desirable sites for inclusion in each sys- tion, and conduct periodic assessments of the effec-
tem , and necessary revisions to boundaries of estab- tiveness of education and interpretive programmes .
lished protected areas where necessary to more fully Educate visitors about the impact they have on park
protect protected resources; The analysis should resources, and about scientific findings as a means
of developing and strengthening constituencies for ■ Streamline information management and make in-
new policies and programmes; formation management systems compatible between
agencies within all regions for effective coordinated
■ Form partnerships between governments and NGOs
conservation. Establish or upgrade and standardize
to obtain resources for research, monitoring, and
monitoring and evaluation systems;
management;
■ Include a well-organized stewardship effort in any ■ Publicly report indicators of the general health of
protected areas strategy; and protected area systems annually in State ofthe Parks
reports in each nation ;
■ Expand and upgrade interpretation facilities system-
wide. Intensify the analysis of economic issues in research
programmes for protected areas;
9.4 Finance
■ Develop mechanisms to coordinate , cooperate, and
■ Intensify government efforts to identify alternatives disseminate the findings of scientific efforts. Park
to exploitation of resources identified as critical in agencies should support publication of research, and
the systems planning process, including sustainable encourage scientific sabbaticals and participation in
multiple-use regimes and benefits from protection scientific fora by park staff;
of sites;
Establish closer relations between protected area
■ Where long-term benefits are not commercially re- agencies and the scientific community, make coop-
alizable, consider additional incentives such as tax
erative arrangements for research with other organi-
relief; zations and agencies, in the interests of maximizing
Correct the weaknesses of the financial approach to resources, and encourage regular, open reviews of
analysis of alternative uses, employing economic science issues bringing together scientists and man-
tools that estimate economic benefits not measured agers;
by the market. Ensure that this knowledge is used to
improve the decision -making processes that con- ■ Applythe principles ofconservation biology to protect
cern the allocation of natural resources; habitat, sustain populations and identify and moni-
tor indicator species sensitive to change; and
■ Provide significant additional resources for science ,
community outreach, and enforcement activities across Improve the basic infrastructure in all protected
the board. Include long-term funds that permit man- areas for research and monitoring.
agers to plan programmes to meet minimal opera-
tional requirements for park protection. Create endow-
ments for this purpose to supplement any capital- 10. Conclusions
intensive investment in parks;
As financial resources available to governments decline
■ Ensure that any expansion of commercial activity in and costs rise, spending for conservation programmes
protected areas be undertaken only after careful
will increasingly compete against needs such as educa-
consideration, and kept consistent with the manage-
tion and social services. The window of opportunity for
rial objectives for which the sites were established;
protection of remnant wild areas is closing. If degraded
■ Involve corporations and individuals in the finance by development, fragile and marginal lands will require
and management of protected areas; tremendous investments to restore their ecological val-
ues.
■ In Mexico, augment management capacity, includ-
ing support for the establishment of training facili- Additional investments are required throughout the
ties and support for park operations at an adequate region. The amounts required now will be a great bar-
level immediately through increased international gain compared with the costs of delay. In the 21st
assistance; and century, the resources we take for granted may be
looked on as riches beyond the dreams of avarice.
■ In Mexico, develop a portfolio of basic infrastructu- History will not judge us kindly if, for want of modest
ral investments and annual operating costs of each investment, we allow this patrimony to slip through our
protected area. fingers. We must build alliances to secure financial
commitment for a broad, scientific programme that
9.5 Research and monitoring integrates protected areas and land-use planning within
our economic zones, in a logical , step-wise fashion.
■ Immediately inventory the flora, fauna, ecosystems , Only then can we replace the practice of ad hoc creation
and habitat types of all protected areas. Upgrade of protected areas with a structured programme that
systems for data collection and retrieval; protects the best of what nature offers us for the future.
North America
References
Blockstein, D. E. 1989. Toward a Federal Plan for NPS. 1988. Natural Resources Assessment and Action
Biological Diversity in Issues in Science and Tech- Program Report, US Department of the Interior,
nology 5(4). National Academy of Sciences, National Park Service, Office of Natural Resources ,
Washington. Washington.
Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. 1991. A NPS. 1992. Steering Committee of the 75th Anniver-
Protected Areas Vision for Canada . Ottawa. sary Symposium National Parks for the 21st Cen-
Conservation Foundation, The. 1985. National Parks tury: the Vail Agenda. National Park Service.
for a New Generations: Visions, Realities, Pros- NPCA. 1988. Investing in ParkFutures: ABlueprintfor
pects. Conservation Foundation, Washington. Tomorrow. National Parks and Conservation Asso-
Cox, K. 1992. Stewardship: An old concept with new ciation, Washington.
meaning. Paper presented at IV World Congress on NRC (National Research Council) . 1992. Science and
National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas , the NationalParks. Board on Environmental Studies
Venezuela 10-22 February 1992. and Toxicology. National Academy Press. Washington.
CRS . 1989. Wilderness: overview and statistics byRoss Perez Gil R. and Monroy, F.J. 1992. Natural Resources
W. Gorte. Washington , DC: US Government Print- in Mexico-A report to IUCN and the Interameri-
ing Office. Congressional Research Service report can Development Bank. in mimeo.
for Congress 89-460 ENR, August 4, 1989. Runte, A. 1987. National Parks: the American experi-
Environment Canada. 1991a. State ofthe Parks Report ence. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln NE.
1990 (Canada's Green Plan) Vols. 1 and 2. Environ- Scott, J. M., Csuti, B. , Smith,K. , Estes, J.E. and Caicco,
ment Canada, Parks Service, Ottawa. S. 1989. Endangered Species Update 5(10).
Environment Canada. 1991b. The State of Canada's Smith, R. 1991. "Public Land Management Skills for
Environment, Government of Canada, Ottawa. the 21st Century" in The George Wright FORUM,
Flores Villela, O. and Gerez , P. 1988. Conservacion en vol 8 no 1.
Mexico: sintesis sobre vertebrados terrestres, vege- Taschereau, P.M. 1985. The Status ofEcological Re-
tacion y uso del suelo. Instituto Nacional de Inves- serves in Canada Canadian Ecological Areas Coun-
tigaciones Sobre Recursos Bioticos and Conservation cil, Ottawa.
International, Xalapa, Veracruz. The Nature Conservancy. A Conservation Strategy for
Flores Villela, O. and Gerez, P. 1989. Mexico's Living the 1990s. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,
Endowment: an overview of biological diversity. Virginia.
Conservation International and Instituto Nacional USDI. 1992. Audit Report: Protection ofNatural Re-
de Investigaciones Sobre Recursos Bioticos sources, National Park Service Report Number 92-
Washington. I- 1422. US Department of the Interior, Washington,
GEF. 1992. Mexico Protected Areas Program Project September.
Document. Global Environment Facility Adminis- US Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. America's
trator, World Bank, Washington. Wetlands: our vital link between land and water.
Grey Towers. 1990. The Conservation Legacy: news- Public Information Center, Washington, DC.
letter ofthe National Friends of Grey Towers. No. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Wetlands ofthe
8, Springfield, Virginia USA. United States: current status and recent trends . US
IUCN 1992. Protected Areas ofthe World: A review of Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
national systems. Vol . 4: Nearctic and Neotropical. Wilderness Society, The. 1989a. America's Wilder-
Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring ness: Twenty-five years ofwilderness preservation
Centre. IUCN, Gland , Switzerland and Cambridge, 1964-1989. The Wilderness Society, Washington,
UK. xxiv + 460 pp. DC.
Kusler, J. A. 1983. Our National Wetland Heritage: a Wilderness Society, The. 1989c. Wilderness America:
protection guidebook. Environmental Law Institute. A Vision for the future of the nation's wildlands.
Washington D.C. Washington, DC.
Mackintosh, B. 1985. The National Parks: shaping the Wildlife Ministers' Council of Canada. 1990. AWildlife
system. US Department of the Interior, National Policyfor Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa.
Park Service . Washington. WWF-Canada. 1991. Endangered Spaces ProgressRe-
Myers, P. and Green, S.N. 1989. State Parks in a New portNumberTwo, 1991. World Wildlife Fund, Toronto,
Era. The Conservation Foundation , Washington. Canada.
NFWF. 1992. FY 1993 Fisheries and Wildlife Assess- WWF-Canada. 1992. Endangered Spaces Progress Re-
ment (8 vols.) National Fish and Wildlife Founda- port Number Three, 1992. World Wildlife Fund,
tion, Washington. Toronto, Ontario. 42 pp.
Central America
protected
Percentage
%
0.1
than
Less
%
0.1-5
%
5-10
%
10-15
15-20
%
%
20
than
More
Km
0 100
400
300
200
areas
protected
within
designated
legally
included
country
Map
.P
ofercentage
Contents
Page
Introduction .... 305
2.1 Declaration vs. field management . 307
2.2 System plans . . . 307
2.3 Management plans at site level 309
2.4 Threatened areas 309
3.1 Terrestrial areas . . . 309
3.2 Wetland and coastal -marine areas . 310
3.3 Border protected areas 310
5. Current levels of financial investments in protected areas 311
5.1 Financing mechanisms . 311
5.2 Internal investment . 313
5.3 Foreign assistance . . 313
5.4 Mixed investments . 313
6.1 Institutional personnel and participation . .. 314
6.2 Training . . . .. 314
7. Priorities for future investment in protected areas . 314
8. Major protected area issues in the region . 316
8.1 Policies , macroeconomics and territorial order . 316
8.2 Reviewing the functions of protected areas .. 316
8.3 Population growth and demand for resources . 317

Page
8.4 Land tenure . 317
8.5 Community participation . 317
8.6 War, conflict, and expectations of peace • 318
8.7 Weakening of government institutions . 318
8.8 Private sector participation in protected areas management • 318
8.9 Tourism 319
References 320
Box.
Box 1. Estimates of priority "Unmet Needs " for top priority projects 315
Tables
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in Central America 311
Figures

areas . 302

Central America
Alvaro Ugalde, Regional Vice-Chair for Central America, IUCN Commission on

National Parks and Protected Areas, and Juan Carlos Godoy,
Biodiversity Coordinator , IUCN Regional Office for Central America
Introduction of the first forest laws in the region , between 1905 and
1940.
The purpose ofthis review is to assess the current status
ofprotected areas in each country of the region, analyse By 1923, Barro Colorado Island, located in the
both positive and negative factors that influence the Panama Canal basin, was declared a biological reserve.
development ofthe regional protected areas system, and In 1928, the British Colonial Administration in Belize
propose elements for a plan of action to improve the declared Half-Moon Key to be a " Crown Reserve" .
coverage and management effectiveness of protected Also in 1928, some mountains of Costa Rica were
areas. declared to be " inalienable by Law" . In 1957 , the areas
ofsome volcanic craters in Costa Rica were declared to
Geographically, Central America is a narrow strip of be National Parks , which were later ratified as Protected
land covering 533,000 sq km , joining two continents Areas in the 1970s.
and separating two oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific.
It has a rich variety of habitats with Nearctic and In Honduras, the San Juancito Forest became a re-
Neotropical faunal and floral elements. In general serve in 1952, later becoming La Tigra National Park.
terms, it includes the highlands of the interior with its In Guatemala, the first 10 national parks were estab-
volcanic chain which is very cold in some areas with lished in 1955; and Nicaragua established its first national
extremely humid forests and mountains, descending to park in 1958.
the coastal plains of the Pacific Ocean which are narrow
In the 1970s the first regional meetings were held to
and dry, and the plains of the Caribbean coast, which
are wide and humid. discuss protected areas development. Also in these same
years the organization of agencies and institutions for
Central America had an estimated population of 30 national parks management began.
million in 1991, most ofthem a mixture of pre-Colombian
native Americans and post-Colombian immigrants The most significant legislative changes covering
protected areas in the region occurred in the 1980s. In
from Europe, Africa and Asia. It is estimated that more
than half of the population live in extreme poverty. 1981, Belize enacted its Law for Protected Areas; and
between 1983 and 1985, Costa Rica legally reinforced
Agricultural land, economic development and popula-
its system through the establishment of Wildlife Sanc-
tion growth are concentrated in the central volcanic
areas and the Pacific coast, where environmental prob- tuaries. Also during that decade and at the beginning of
the 1990s, Honduras enacted legislation establishing its
lems are more acute and the original vegetation cover
most important protected areas, such as the Río Plátano
is very scarce outside the protected areas. In general , the
Caribbean slope is less populated and developed , and Biosphere Reserve (1980) and the Cuero y Salado
therefore, its natural resources have not been affected Reserve (1987) and declared 37 rain forests as perpetual
as much as on the Pacific side. reserves. In 1987 El Salvador declared its first legal
Protected Area (Montecristo National Park). In 1989,
Guatemala enacted the Law for Protected Areas, which
1. Historical perspective in turn enabled the creation of two Biosphere Reserves
in 1990. Between 1980 and 1988 , Panama issued legisla-
The establishment of protected areas at the national tion declaring 14 of its 20 Protected Areas, or 95% of
level goes back to the end of the last century and the the land now in the protected area system , for conser-
beginning ofthis century (Table 3; Figures 1 and 2) . The vation.
earliest records refer to the establishment ofthe Munici-
pal Sawmills (Astilleros Municipales) in Guatemala in Also in the 1980s, the basic ideas regarding national
1870 (natural forests under a special regime for the systems and the regional system of protected areas
management of wood products), and to the enactment were developed. By October 1991, Nicaragua had also
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : Central America

Belize 22,965 2,912 12.7 4,100 17.9 7,012 30.5

Costa Rica 50,900 6,208 12.2 10,353 20.3 16,560 32.5
El Salvador 21,395 194 0.9 0 0.0 194 0.9
Guatemala 108,890 8,330 7.6 8,431 7.7 16,761 15.4
Honduras 112,085 5,433 4.8 12,330 11.0 17,764 15.8
Nicaragua 148,000 9,519 6.4 8,646 5.8 18,165 12.3
Panama 78,515 13,275 16.9 14,353 18.3 27,628 35.2
Total 542,750 45,871 8.5 58,213 10.7 104,084 19.2
established two of the largest reserves in the country, 2. Current protected area coverage
equivalent to more than half of the country's system,
and covering more than 40 natural areas in the hills, By 1992 there were 131 recognized protected areas,
peaks and volcanoes supplying important water re- declared or managed under IUCN Categories I-V, cov-
sources. ering 45,871 sq km or the equivalent of 8.5% of the
Central American territory. If the land included in For-
Protected areas development in the Central American est Reserves, Indigenous Reserves, Protection Zones,
region has followed a different road from country to
and Multiple Use Areas (IUCN categories VI-VIII) is
country. Historical factors most influencingthe creation added, the total coverage is 104,084 sq km, equivalent
of protected areas in Central America started in the to 19.2% of the Central American territory (Tables 1
and 2; Map) .
1950-60s based on growing possibilities of recreation
and meditation in natural environments, protection of
Panama (16.9%) and Costa Rica ( 12.2%) are the
archaeological sites and/or outstanding natural resources
countries in the region which have the highest propor-
and the need to manage lumber and fuelwood demands.
tion of land as Categories I-V protected areas. Recent
information show that in theory, Panama, Costa Rica,
Beginning in the 1970s, an important factor influenc-
and Belize have each placed one-third of their land
ing the creation of protected areas was to curtail the
under the Central American Protected Areas System
process of degradation of natural resources. Also, it was
(SICAP). Guatemala, Honduras , and Nicaragua each
considered necessary to safeguard significant invest-
have between 4.8% to 7.6% protected and only El
ments in strategic water basins and protect endemic ,
Salvador is lagging far behind with less than 1% (Table 1 ).
rare or endangered species. More recently, another im-
portant factor for protected areas creation has been the
The 131 Category I-V protected areas in the region
inclusion in the national and regional political agendas
have shown a creation rate of about 4.5 per year over
of the need to curtail biodiversity loss and environ-
the last 36 years, but the rate of growth has been much
mental degradation in general.
faster in recent years. Between 1955 and 1960, 11 units or
protected areas were recognized; only six during 1960-
Recent factors in the region that have made possible 1970; 43 between 1970 and 1980; 37 between 1980-1985;
the creation and development of additional protected and 76 between 1985 and 1991. Of these areas, 26 are
areas in Central America include generating tourism considered Biological or Scientific Reserves; 69 are
attracted to natural protected areas, developing research National Parks; ll are either Natural or Cultural Monu-
on biodiversity, preserving essential ecological proc- ments and 36 are Forest or Wildlife Sanctuaries or
esses for the economic development of the region and reserves; 29 are National Natural Reserves; and 2 are
the potential benefit for local communities, training of Biosphere Reserves.
qualified personnel , developing minimum legal frame-
works and acceding to international conventions. One ofSICAP's characteristics is that most protected
areas are relatively small, with some 70% being under
A comprehensive review of the region's protected 10,000ha in size. On the other hand, SICAP's five
areas systems has been prepared by the World Conser- largest areas, (El Tigre National Park in Guatemala, Río
vation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992) . Plátano Biosphere Reserve in Honduras, Darién National
Central America
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : Central America
I II III IV V TOTAL
13
Belize 3 444 2 1,115 5 1,352 - - 10 2,912
Costa Rica 3 150 12 4,687 - 7 1,313 3 57 25 6,208
El Salvador 1 56 - 4 138 - - 5 194
Guatemala 6 7,684 5 110 5 526 1 10 17 8,330
Honduras 1 15 4,010 - 23 1,423 - 38 5,433
Nicaragua 1 2,950 3 273 1 11 16 6,285 21 9,519
1
Panama 1 14 12 13,187 1 54 1 20 - - 15 13,275
Total 8 3,558 51 31,012 7 175 61 11,057 4 67 131 45,871
Note: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Forest reserves with a nature protection
Park in Panama, Marine Biological Reserve of the "paper parks" and more than 60% have not cleared their
Miskito Keys and Bosawas Natural Reserve in property titles. Darién National Park in Panama, the
Nicaragua) , cover a total of 2.7 million ha, equivalent Volcán Pacaya National Monument in Guatemala, the
to 50% ofthe Regional System . Zapatera and Cerro Saslaya (Bosawas) National Parks
in Nicaragua and the Cerro Agalta National Park in
Since 1977, many countries in the region have ac- Honduras are some examples of areas which have been
ceded to the various international conventions and pro- declared and are not adequately managed, requiring
grammes associated with protected areas, including the urgent efforts.
Convention Concerning the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (World Heritage Convention) , ratified by all Some declared areas have never been managed and
countries, the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Pro- should be transferred to a different management cate-
gramme (MAB), and the Convention on Wetlands of gory or else disappear as protected areas. Such might be
International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat the case for Gandoca-Manzanillo in Costa Rica; Los
(Ramsar Convention) (Table 4) . A number of areas are Cobanos in El Salvador; Bahía de Santo Tomás, Atitlán,
now internationally recognized under these conven- Río Dulce, and Sipacate in Guatemala; Yuscarán in
tions and a list of the properties that have been inscribed Honduras; Chiltepe in Nicaragua; and parts of the
on the World Heritage List is given in Table 5. Amistad National Park in Panama.
2.1 Experience also shows that mass declaration of pro-

Declaration vs. field management
tected areas , such as mangrove protection in Costa Rica
or rain forests in Honduras, is not very effective . On the
While many protected areas have been declared in the
other hand , some small protected areas have not been
region, most ofthem are not being adequately managed.
declared as such but are reasonably well managed by
Basing management efficiency on key elements (legis-
government or private institutions. Such is the case of
lation, land ownership, management objectives, pres-
Lachuá National Park in Guatemala; the Barra de
ence of physical limits, infrastructure, management plan,
Santiago Sanctuary in El Salvador; the case of Mon-
local support, personnel , load capacity and financial
teverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica (CCT);
viability), although not a systematic evaluation or as-
partial management of Islas de la Bahía in Honduras
sessment, permits a satisfactory evaluation of manage-
(BICA) ; El Faro Sanctuary in Guatemala (FIIT); and
ment structure. Several pertinent observations can be
made. the Bowen Lands (Río Bravo Project) of the Belize
Program .
Many ofthe areas have no clear physical limits in the

field, most ofthem do not have legal property titles, and, 2.2 System plans
worst ofall, many do not have a permanent institutional
presence. In Panama, for instance, only half of the Practically all the countries in the region have prelimi-
conservation units have field personnel; in Nicaragua, nary drafts of a Protected Areas System Plan . Panama,
out of 36 declared areas late in 1991 , only 8 have field Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and Belize have docu-
personnel. ments identifying potential areas, most of them drafted
by consultants or experts in the field, but which have
Based on existing information, we must conclude that never become system plans, furnishing only background
over 30% ofthe region's declared areas continue to be information.
Figure 1 . Growth of the protected areas network (non -cumulative)

50
Number of sites
30
20
10
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Figure 2. Growth ofthe protected areas network (non-cumulative)
250
Number of sites
150
100
50
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Central America
Costa Rica, the country with the best consolidated Among the most important threats in the region are
system, has some documents which have separately the concessions for tourist development; conflicts be-
analysed its sub-systems, including current manage- tween private ownership of land and national parks;
ment status. This country has also defined the concept concessions to transnationals for petroleum exploration
of Conservation Units as a tool for the improvement of and extraction; illegal deforestation; drug production
the region's protected areas and a better coordination of and traffic; spontaneous land colonization by impover-
management procedures, while at the same time trying ished peasants; pirate fish and shrimp fishing; expan-
to furnish the communities near the Protected Areas sion of livestock and banana industries; forest fires;
with the benefits of the most efficient conservation urban growth; threat of chemical waste imports; and the
guidelines. increasing isolation of most conservation units through
the fragmentation of their surrounding lands.
El Salvador, the country with the least forest cover in
the region andthe lowest number ofprotected areas, has To this may be added the very limited political sup-
nevertheless developed a System Plan through a multi- port and interest, contradictory policies among govern-
disciplinary and inter-institutional team, based on land
ment sectors, and the limited authority and low priority
with protection potential, identified through the agrar- given to conservation and environmental protection.
ian land reform programmes .
In order to improve management efficiency of the

protected areas of the region as a whole, a new concept
required
has been developed to consider them along the whole
Central American isthmus as a biological bridge, both
terrestrial and coastal-marine, over both the Pacific and 3.1 Terrestrial areas
Atlantic Oceans and between North America and South
America. This bridge would be made up by all areas for
More than 91 additional proposed areas have been iden-
possible management of all protected area categories in
tified in detail and more than 300 conservation units
the region, both inland and along the shorelines on both
have been proposed in the region , which would cover
the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, including buffer zones
more than 100,000 sq km, equivalent to 20% of Central
and degraded zones which would be managed through
America's land mass. If all these proposals were en-
ecological restoration activities.
acted, SICAP would covernearly40% ofCentral America's
land area.
2.3 Management plans at site level
The region's protected areas as a whole have empha-
In spite of substantial efforts in the region between 1970
sized the protection of mountain ecosystems, such as
and 1985, only some areas had drafted management
peaks and volcanoes containing cloud or mist forests,
plans and their respective follow-up plans. Yearly op-
and low tropical rain forest. However, many endemic
erational plans, as a more realistic short-term tool, have areas or unique ecosystems are not well represented
shown better results. Since the late 1980s the idea of
within the Central American System of Protected Areas.
Plans as documents has been modified somewhat to-
Good examples are the dry and semiarid zones, the
ward the idea of planning as a process, wherein the Plan humid mountain forest of the cold highlands , zones of
as document is only a temporary profile ofthe optimum nearctic vegetation (oaks, pines, and others) , or rare
development of the conservation unit. plant combinations.
2.4 Threatened areas Therefore, important additions must be made to the

SICAP, such as the natural areas known as Los Morrales
Many protected areas in the region are considered threat- de Chalatenango in El Salvador; the area of Morazan in
ened. An example is the Sierra Lacandón National Park the semiarid highlands of Honduras; Los Cuchumatanes
in Guatemala, an area with as yet undefined boundaries, mountain range in Guatemala; the Pine Woods in Guanaja
no field personnel and illegal exploitation of the forest and the mountainous region of the Tawanka Reserva-
from hardwood cutting. The area is being invaded by tion in Honduras; the Mayan Mountains in Southern
former refugees, with official or government approval.
Belize; and Arenal mountain range in Costa Rica.
Nicaragua and Guatemala have the best potential in
Other protected areas threatened by colonization or
Central America for the establishment of additional
by changes in land use in their vicinity include
conservation areas in the future, both for the protection
Consiguina in Nicaragua, Agalta in Honduras, Barra del
Colorado in Costa Rica and Darién and Portabello in ofecosystems in the mountain zones and of the forests
Panama. ofthe low central plains in the Caribbean coast. Studies
carried out in Costa Rica point out the need to change
In countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua, conser- some limits in the protected areas in order to protect
vation officials believe that their whole protected areas more diversified plant life , expand key habitats, protect
system is threatened. In Belize , a less populated coun- endemic species, link strategic ecosystems, and include
try, its protected areas are less threatened. ancient cultural resources, among other criteria.
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : Central America

Belize 0.0 0.9 0.0 99.1 200 2,911

Costa Rica 0.4 7.3 32.3 60.1 0 6,207
El Salvador 0.0 0.0 59.8 40.2 0 193
Guatemala 7.0 0.5 2.5 90.0 0 8,329
Honduras 0.0 0.0 4.4 95.6 0 5,433
Nicaragua 0.0 1.3 6.0 92.7 113 9,518
Panama 0.0 0.0 49.8 50.2 0 13,275
Total 1.3 1.4 21.4 75.9 313 45,870
IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the database once,therefore if a major change in
The protected areas in the region's populated zones Useful additions to the Central American System
(central highlands and the Pacific coastal plains) are the include the wetlands of Caratasca , La Laguna de
smallest and most threatened due to human settlements Guaymoreto and the Islas del Cisne (Swan Island) in
from historical times to the present time. Urgent action Honduras; the Gulf of Fonseca, as a tri-national micro-
is required to protect what little is left of the vegetation region between El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua;
or to stimulate the creation or establishment of new Los Cobanos in El Salvador; Punta de Manabique-La
areas through ecological restoration , providing such Graciosa and Manchón in Guatemala; the Río Grande
goods and services as are required for the development Lake in Matagalpa, Tapamlaya, Kukalaya in Nicaragua;
of these areas. some mangrove areas in southern Belize; and many of
the keys and small reef islands in that country.
3.2 Wetland and coastal-marine
areas
3.3 Border protected areas
In general , few wetland protected areas or coastal-ma-
rine protected areas have been established and the man-
agement authorities have relatively little expertise in The need to establish border protected areas has been
these habitats. Ecosystems such as the mangroves and recognized since 1974, both terrestrial, coastal and ma-
other humid coastal areas need better protection and rine,but not until the last five years has interest has been
efficient management throughout the region. Declared shown in this subject. The Trifinio or Biósfera de la
coastal marine protected areas include the Miskito Keys Fraternidad Reserve between Guatemala, Honduras and
in Nicaragua, Cuero y Salado in Honduras and Isla del El Salvador; the Reserve of Amistad between Costa
Coco and Caño Negro in Costa Rica. A few national Rica and Panama; and the creation of the Protected
parks , such as Tortuguero and Corcovado in Costa Rica, Areas for Peace System (SIAPAZ) between Nicaragua
have declared some marine areas which are not yet and Costa Rica, are now some of the world's best
being managed efficiently. examples oftrans-border cooperation in protected areas.
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Central America

Belize November 1990 0 - -

Costa Rica August 1977 1 584,592 2 728,955 March 1991 2 29,769
El Salvador October 1991 0 - -
Guatemala January 1979 1 57,600 2 1,236,300 June 1990 48,372
Honduras June 1979 1 500,000 1 500,000
Nicaragua December 1979 0 - -
Panama March 1978 2 804,000 1 597,000 November 1990 1
1 80,765
Central America
The region's interest to work jointly and to give Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) man-
priority to information exchange to improve manage- ages the Barro Colorado Island Reserve in Panama.
ment of natural resources seems evident through efforts
such as the Río Coco/Bosawas/Río Plátano/Tawanka Other lesser known examples include the activities
Project between Honduras and Nicaragua; the Chiquibul/ carried out by the different Energy Institutes of the
Mayan Mountain project between Guatemala and Belize; region and those ofthe Water and Drainage Agencies,
and the initiative for the establishment of a Protected which often work in reforestation and conservation
Area System of Gran Petén (SIAP) between Mexico, management of the strategic basins for energy genera-
Guatemala and Belize (Calakmul, Mirador/Río Azul tion and/or drinking water supply for urban communi-
and the Río Bravo/Lamanai). ties. A good example is La Fortuna Forest Reserve in
Panama, managed by the Energy and Hydric Resources
Institute (IRHE).
Due to insufficient communication some problems
Between 1950 and 1970 the protected areas in Central arise when NGOs, because of the weakening of the
America were managed with national funds and some GOs, try to force their own as national policies or to
foreign support, mainly channelled through the govern- perform government responsibilities. In the future, clarifi-
ment agencies in charge of national parks management. cation ofthe roles corresponding to the government and
During the 1980s, the government natural resources to the NGOs must be defined as to management of the
agencies in general were weakened to critical levels by
national protected areas systems. NGOs participation
internal and external economic policies, " structural ad-
continues to grow offering good advantages when used
justment" and government size reduction, hindering correctly.
their institutional growth at a time when many more
protected areas were being declared . This resulting There are only a few examples of local community
situation has caused a loss of the operative capacity of participation in identification, planning and manage-
the Government Agencies to such a degree that many ment of protected areas, in spite ofthe great need such
of them at present lack even the minimum capacity to communities have for the goods and services derived
absorb or develop new projects and even to efficiently from the areas. Some exceptions are found in a few
continue the existing ones. indigenous communities, like the Kunas in Panama, and
in some local groups like the Manabique fishermen in
At present, protected areas in Central America are
Guatemala.
managed through a great number of agencies such as
Central Government, Autonomous Institutions , Private
Foundations, Municipalities and mixed organizations. Table 5. World Heritage sites in
The picture is complex since there is a tendency to Central America
manage areas in a co-financing and co-management
manner. Costa Rica
Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves
Parallel to the Government efforts, several institu-
Guatemala
tions, both government and private, are managing sys-
Tikal National Park
tems of protected areas to complement the traditional
approaches. These include: Audubon Society in Belize; Honduras
Defensores de la Naturaleza and FIIT in Guatemala; Rio Platano
FESA in El Salvador; FUCSA in Honduras; the Liga de Panama
Conservación de Monteverde (Monteverde Conserva- Darien National Park
tion League) in Costa Rica; and the Smithsonian Institution La Amistad International Park
in Panama. Furthermore, the Anthropology, Archaeology
and History Institutes of Guatemala and Honduras are
managing historical pre-Colombian sites such as Tikal
National Park and the Copan Ruins National Monu- 5. Current levels of financial
ment, both declared as World Heritage Sites. investments in protected areas
Some universities, research and educational centres, 5.1 Financing mechanisms

both national and with international linking, also coop-
erate in the protected area management, in some cases At present conventional financing mechanisms are used
like private institutions. A good example is the San in Central America, such as government budgets and
Carlos University of Guatemala (USAC). Through its donations by international development agencies and
Center for Conservation Studies (CECON) , it manages conservation organizations. Activities such as food sale
seven protected areas (Biotopos) covering more than franchises or souvenirs and art crafts are not common.
120,000 hectares, equivalent to 1.2% of the country. Also, income from entrance fees to the sites and indi-
The Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) manages vidual donations are small. The establishment of trusts
La Selva Biological Reserve in Costa Rica; and the is more frequent every day, as are private administration
C
America
entral
agency
budgets
management
areas
Table
:6.
Protected
Country
r
/ esponsible
agency in
Budge t US
Dollar
equivalent
currency
Belize BZD
Service
Parks
NCosta
-ational
Rica CRC 1,500,000 1980's
.in
late
areas
protected
on
spending
state
approximate
Constituted
hilst
,wthe
1980's
early
since
static
relatively
remained
has
This
Nacionales
Parcs
de
Fundacion
the
NGO n
particular
i,sby
spending
decade
past
the
over
million
six
.risen
),hF
U
$
to S
PN
zero
from
( as
areas
protected
on
spending
for
budget
FPN
1984
the
example
For
Uand
l$
a
of
establishment
the
included
which
aquisition
wasS259,480
anumber
funding
the
and
protected
specific
at
aimed
projects
of
fund
the
to
colon
11,000
some
transferred
Institute
.The
Tourism
areas
park
national
three
in
operations
support
to
Service
Parks
National
.
1990
in 22,23
Salvador
El SVC
NGuatemala
-ational
Department
Parks 30,000
CTQ 11,111 1987 of
1987
in
department
parks
the
to
allocated
budget
state
Approximate
international
this
salaries
to
addition
.Ifor
wnas
%
97
some
which
CECON
to
U
$S50,000
another
donated
groups
conservation
IDAEH
U)a
$
Sto S1,500,000
nd
Conservacioni
C
Eentro
de
(tudios stas
archaeological
de
of or
Historia
Archaeologia
protection
the
)fI( nstituto
1988
in
conservation
wildlands
on
expenditure
national
.The
total
sites
U
$S1,711,00024
was 24
Honduras HNL
Nicaragua NIC
Panama PAB
Sources
:
2
N.Rica
]N
(1
)A 1pp
Foundation
Parksosta
,Creport
2
984
nnual
PFCR
[ ational
M1de
M
.y
SERecursos
Naturales
,)Costa
Ricanergia
inisterio
979–1990
protegidas
silvestres
Sistema
(de
areas
del esarrollo
DNacionales
991
Parques
ervicio
3inas
]S[2ervicio
.
Nacionales
Parques
WInstitute
W
Resources
Environment
and
,/
Development
for
.Cforest
diversity
bGuatemala
:in
)B(1
]C
/ orld
International
assessments
tropical entre
iodiversity
RI
4988
IDE
[2iological
Washington
SA
,U85pp
..1
Central America
of funds from debt swaps and international donations. ment of the Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve
In this regard there are many opportunities to improve (250,000ha) and is establishing a budget of more than
theincome for protected areas. Protected areas manage- US$200,000 for 1990-91 (US$70,000 as the basic op-
ment agency budgets are summarised in Table 6. erational budget) . These funds are donated by foreign
NGOs and national private enterprise.
5.2 Internal investment
5.3 Foreign assistance
The present investment levels in protected areas in the
region are higher in gross amounts than ten years ago. During the past few years many organizations in Central
Nevertheless, due to substantial growth ofthe protected America have invested in protected areas and in their
area system , inflation and devaluation of national cur- surrounding zones. The most significant have been aid
rencies, net investment per area is lower than before. agencies such as USAID, ACDI , ASDI, DANIDA and
NORAD; also non-governmental conservation organi-
The general conclusion in the region is that at least 90 zations from the USA such as WWF, TNC, CI, Audubon
per cent of the government budget for these pro- and WCI, many of which have donated their own funds,
grammes is directed exclusively to salaries. The opera- channelled USAID funds or obtained them from private
tional capacity has been reduced to extreme and critical foundations such as MacArthur Foundation, Alton Jones,
levels.In cases where the situation is better, such activi- Tinker and others.
ties are often financed with international donations
channelled through local or extra-regional NGOs. The Dutch Government and the German Reconstruc-
tion Bank (KfW) , with the partnership of GTZ; the
There are great differences in budgets. In Guatemala, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) ; the World
for example, the University (USAC) and the Archaeol- Bank (WB) and the European Economic Community
ogy Institute (IDAEH) invest more in protected areas (EEC); and USAID, all make significant investments in
than the National Parks Agency of DIGEBOS, or the regions with protected areas of great importance in
National Secretariat of the Council for Protected Areas Central America.
(CONAP). Another country with the same situation is
Belize, with a great difference of investment between According to a WRI study in 1989, US$ 16 million
the Government and an NGO, the Belize Audubon from American foundations, NGOs and the US Govern-
Society (BAS). ment, was invested in projects to study or protect bio-
diversity in Central America, from the total of US$62.9
An assessment carried out in Nicaragua in 1990 showed million invested worldwide.
that between 1981 and 1989 foreign funding for pro-
tected areas was above US$400,000. It is evident that Costa Rica was the country which
benefited most, not only regionally but worldwide, since
In Costa Rica, the multi-million dollar investment in it received US$6.2 million (US$ 1,217 per thousand ha
protected areas made through Fundación de Parques ofprotected area). Belize received US$ 1.1 million (US$
Nacionales and Fundación Neotrópica in the last five 526 per thousand ha). Panama received US$ 125 per
years exceeds the investment made by National Park thousand ha; Guatemala received US$ 114; and Honduras
Service through its government budget (SPN-MIRENEM). US $ 38.00 per ha . Investment in Nicaragua and
It must be stated, however, that many of the funds El Salvador was practically none.
invested through foundations and NGOs are also gov-
ernment funds derived from debt swap. 5.4 Mixed investments
One of the few private foundations investing in pro-

Debt for nature swaps as a national funding mechanism
tected areas is Fundación Ecológica Salvadoreña Activo
have been used in Costa Rica in negotiation for more
20-30 (FESA), channelling funds donated by banks and
than US$85 million , obtaining good benefits both for
businessmen from El Salvador towards management of
the government and the NGOs administering these funds.
the "El Imposible" National Park.
There are strong initiatives for similar efforts in
In Costa Rica an excellent example is the Monteverde
Panama and El Salvador, but these have been unsuc-
Conservation League and the Tropical Science Center,
cessful to date. The Fundacion Vida has been organized
which channel individual and private enterprise dona-
in Honduras for the purpose of negotiating and channel-
tions for the management of the Monteverde Reserve,
ling funds from this type of initiative , to develop envi-
especially to buy lands to increase the reserve area.
ronmental education, protected areas programmes and
In San Pedro Sula, Honduras, the Fasquelle Founda- similar activities. Because of the political situation in
tion is another good example, helping in the manage- the past several years in Nicaragua, USA forgave its
ment of the Cusuco National Park. bilateral debt (US$15m) and is negotiating for part of
the multilateral or foreign debt to be swappedto develop
In Guatemala, for the first time and by means of an conservation programmes, among others. In Guatemala
Act of the Congress, a foundation (Defensores de la debt swap as a main mechanism has been practically
Naturaleza) , is officially participating in the manage- discarded as it is not competitive with other countries
because of the debt value in the secondary market; 6.2 Training

however, an NGO consortium (FUNDARY-DEFEN-
SORES-FIIT-WWF) has been able to achieve the first Since human resources arethe most valuable assets with
swap for a US$ 1 million. which to develop efficient management in protected
areas, training needs must be identified . In many in-
stances staff have to learn to read and write as well as
learn the basic environmental subjects, at a practical
areas management
level, including operational planning, the prevention
and handling of forest fires, and community relations.
6.1 Institutional personnel and Training makes insufficient use of indigenous knowl-
participation edge about nature and natural resources management.
It is estimated that in 1991 between 40 to 300 persons In Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica,
per country were employed in the National Parks Serv- the universities include relevant courses in their pro-
ices of the region, and in other similar systems. If we grammes to obtain Bachelor's degrees in Geography,
add to this number those employed by the Tourism and Biology, Forest Sciences or Agronomy, Tourism and
Archeology Institutes, universities and NGOs, each coun- Architecture. These courses often cover protected areas
try might have between 100 and 900 persons dedicated and the economic importance of landscape protection
to protected areas, in their different management cate- and preserving biodiversity. At post- graduate level , the
gories. University of San Carlos in Guatemala has recently set
up a Master's Degree in Environmental Design and
The National Parks Service of Costa Rica has 312
Management with a specific course on Planning and
field personnel, fully covering the national parks and Development of Protected Areas.
biological reserves system. The National Forestry
Directorate has about 55 officers in the units under its
At the regional level, the Tropical Agronomic Centre
management. Foundations and NGOs have about 160
for Research and Training (CATIE) offers post-gradu-
persons managing private protected areas. Panama has
ate courses in Planning and Management of Protected
at least 100 field personnel in its national parks and
Areas. Approximately 20 professionals have obtained
wildlife sanctuaries. Nicaragua has at least 70, of which
their Master's degree in the last 10 years and more than
almost half are in one conservation unit.
300 technicians have taken CATIE's intensive course
In Guatemala the situation is as follows: CECON has (though many of them are no longer working in the
field) . Also , the National University of Heredia in Costa
74, CONAP 160 and DIGEBOS 80, making a total of
Rica, UNA, is developing a Master's programme on
300 field personnel, most with insufficient training; in
addition, IDAEH has more than 275 persons perma- wildlife management. The Universidad para la Paz in
Costa Rica also runs protected area training courses.
nently in care of more than 40 archaeological sites and
surrounding natural areas. El Salvador has a total of 75
In 1992, the National School of Forest Sciences in
field personnel in the six declared conservation units.
Honduras (ESNACIFOR), the UNED University in
Honduras is improving in a significant manner the
Costa Rica, and the National School of Agriculture in
actual number of technical and field personnel support-
ing conservation units. Guatemala, will begin to offer training for protected
area technicians. Starting 1993-94, the School of El
The number of field personnel per unit is still very Zamorano in Honduras will also offer such courses.
low, taking into account external pressures caused by
exploitation of resources and the technological level of At the operational level, Costa Rica and Guatemala
management facilities. The regional spectrum may go are endeavouring to strengthen their capacity to train
from 800 hectares per employee in one country to 15,000 forest rangers. Costa Rica is working through the Min-
hectares in another (100 hectares per employee would istry of Natural Resources, and Guatemala through
be a standard toward which the countries should strive) . CECON. Other field training initiatives are being de-
veloped with the cooperation of the United States Peace
Although there are no statistics, it is widely consid- Corps, particularly in Honduras and Guatemala.
ered that labour conditions for forest personnel working
at conservation units throughout the region are unac-
ceptable. Salaries have deteriorated due to high infla- 7. Priorities for future investment
tion levels , and in many cases equipment and housing in protected areas
are in very bad shape. This often creates emotional
burdens for the staff. The lack of public services in In Central America, government financial participation
general (drinking water, electricity, drainage , commu- in identifying, declaring, planning and managing pro-
nications, etc.) is a reflection of national standards. tected areas has been very weak, with few exceptions.
Contrasts are evident in different units, according to the Even so, during the 1970s government investment was
institution managing it, and they vary from one country 8 to 10 times more in dollars per year and by country,
to another. than international contributions.
Central America
Box 1. Estimates of priority " Unmet Needs" for top priority projects : Central America
Item Cost Estimate
1. REGIONAL NEEDS (US$37.1 million)

1.1 Land Purchase 11.0
1.2 Management Planning and Finanical Structures 13.5
1.3 Technical Assistance 4.0
Regional Co-operation 28.5
1.4 Assistance to Communities 5.5
1.5 Infrastructure 13.5
1.6 Operations (Personnel, Equipment, Materials and Fuel) 16.0
1.7 Training Extension & Public Awareness 8.0
Total 100.0
2. INTERNATIONAL NEEDS - International Programmes

required in support of national endeavors (US$25.5 million)
2.1 Institutional Strengthening 19.5
2.2 Training and Management Capacity 8.0
2.3 Investigation and Management 18.0
2.4 Environmental Education 16.0
2.5 Legal, Financial & Economic Instruments 11.0
2.6 Planning: Coastal & Mountainous Areas 19.5
2.7 Extensions & Management Activities 8.0
Total 100.0
Source: CNPPA Regional Vice-Chair for Central America, July 1992.
Bythe beginning of the 1980s when economic growth local and regional benefits; to change institutional im-
in the region slowed down and then declined, govern- plementation and coordination ofexisting mechanisms;
ment conservation institutions stopped receiving even and to seek new ways to obtain financing (Box 1).
the modest budgetary allocations of the preceding dec-
ade. This coincided with an increase in international Investments in regional conservation must stimulate
financial contributions for the development of the Pro- improvement in living conditions and economic growth
tected Areas System. By 1985, the government and in Central America, besides fulfilling extra-regional
non-government financial support was of similar mag- requirements for the protection of our planet. Often,
nitude, a situation that remains the same in some of the such requirements imply great sacrifices or are openly
region's countries. contrary to the developmental aspirations and interests
of the region's governments .
During the next few years it is expected that interna-

As a matter of principle, priority should be given to
tional financial support in the region will increase.
urgent investment in the Central American countries
Donations from private foundations and from bilateral
with greatest diversity and which have not yet devel-
and multinational agencies and other organizations will oped an adequate system of protected areas. The main
ensure the protection of tropical biodiversity for the priorities are listed below.
benefit of humanity.
■ Technical Assistance and Support Services. It is
Investment should be concentrated on improving the necessary to promote mid- and long-term technical
management capacity of local institutions; the estab- assistance programmes, setting up adequate guide-
lishment ofindigenous policies and regulations for natural lines for planning and managing protected areas,
resources and protected areas management; to reinforce both systems and individual units. The few regional
planning and managing protected areas to generate institutions offering these types of services should
be reinforced. Investment must be channelled to- 8. Major protected area issues in

ward operational planning and to regional sub- the region
systems involved in territorial development and
regional conservation and development strategies; 8.1 Policies , macroeconomics and
drafting ofproposals will be a very important aspect. territorial order
■ Pilot Projects. The region needs to develop pilot
projects to provide valuable field experience in natural In general terms , the region's protected areas have been
resources and protected areas management. Exist- developed outside the context of territorial order and
ing projects need to reinforce their capacity to pro- within contradictory government policies and lately,
vide information to other agencies and projects in outside world economic trends. A historical perspective
order to have a multiplying effect of creative ideas. ofregional economic development and the establishment
of protected areas in the region indicates that many
■ Regional Integration. At present, regional devel- conservation units have been recognized as such by the
opment of projects in Central America is adequate, Central Governments on the basis of recommendations
but as new initiatives are implemented in the future, by forestry technocrats, or by other experts on natural
their coordination may pose some problems . Some history and, more recently, under pressure from inter-
projects have obtained financial support while others national environmental or development agencies.
have no technical assistance or other types of support.
Efforts to support the Central American Commission In recent times, it has become evident that agrarian
for Environment and Development (CCAD), the Inter- policies (such as those related to land tenure, agricul-
Parliamentary Commission (CICAD), and other in- tural credits, colonization or settlements), have been
stitutions such as the newly formed " Central implemented without regard to concepts of sustainable
American Council on Protected Areas", working development, working against conservation of biodi-
toward integration, efficient distribution and man- versity and even against elementary interests to main-
agement, will be rewarded by significant improve- tain essential ecological processes that make agricultural
ments in political support for protected areas, and development and economic growth feasible.
better linkages with development policies.
Numerous examples of duplication of responsibilities
■ Human Resources Training. Good technicians are in government institutions or of conflicting sectorial
needed to develop management, research activities legislation show the lack of comprehensive policies for
and environmental monitoring services, in connec- the development and conservation of natural resources.
tion with both land and water resources. Any im- Following this trend, sectoral cooperation is every day
provement in education and training of technicians a more urgent matter.
and forest rangers will up-grade the Central American
system of protected areas. It is urgent to invest in Communications and joint work between the national
some countries where the number of projects is parks and similar agencies with other ministries, state
increasing but human resources to manage them are agencies and NGOs or private associations is necessary.
not keeping pace with this growth. Evidence of the lack of such coordination includes the
development of the banana and/or citrus industries in
■ Institutional Support. Actions should be taken to
areas bordering national parks; the possibility that re-
ensure an acceptable minimum in the development turning refugees may be resettled in the vicinity ofother
of facilities for the implementation of conservation parks; hotel and tourist development along the coasts;
actions. Buildings and other facilities are necessary
the building of commercial ports and other facilities to
in the most accessible areas to take adequate care of
receive and process local and foreign toxic wastes; and
visitors; it is necessary to provide transportation and development of shrimp farms bordering some of the
telecommunications equipment for the efficient man- exceptional mangrove and wetland areas in the Central
agement of such buildings and facilities. It is neces- American.
sary to buy land and establish boundaries of protected
areas to provide permanent protection . These and
8.2 Reviewing the functions of
other actions require immediate and massive inter-
national backing and support. Priority should be protected areas
givento investments ensuring institutional presence
For many years, protected areas have been considered
within the conservation units to improve manage-
as limiting factors to the region's development. How-
ment efficiency and a responsible participation of
ever,the idea of total protection (through national parks
interested regional and national groups.
or biological reserves) , has prevailed among the popu-
lation and in the mind of most officers connected with
the development of protected areas and other environ-
mental fields.
Forthe last few years a new concept has been growing

whereby protected areas can be managed as instrumen-
tal in the general development of the region, especially
Central America
because it is estimated that more than 60% of the 8.4 Land tenure
population live under conditions of extreme poverty.
This new concept has led to the an increasing trend for A substantial amount of land included within the na-
the establishment of conservation units, with different tional parks and other protected areas in the region is
management categories, geared to include or be linked still in the hands ofprivate parties. Many parks that were
with multiple uses or an administrative reorganization established in public lands are being invaded by impov-
of protected areas as "Conservation Areas" (as a policy erished segments of the populations without the finan-
to regionalise and decentralize the management respon- cial means to obtain land otherwise , and because of the
sibilities for protected areas). lack of institutional presence and management in those
areas.
In this manner, protected areas are being seen as areas
involved in the production of strategic resources such In Costa Rica the situation is better because 85% of
as water, wood and electric energy. Moreover, these
lands reserved for national parks and biological reserves
protected areas are considered as raw materials for the
belong to the Government and neither these nor the
tourist industry and ecotourism, potentially generating
remaining 15 % in private hands are inhabited. In other
both employment and foreign exchange. management categories, the percentage of land in pri-
vate hands is a great deal higher.
Extractive reserves (which are government property),
and on the other hand, "environmental activities" as
In other countries, and especially in some conserva-
business ventures or with the participation of either
tion units, the land tenure situation is more conflictive.
corporations or individuals will become increasingly
For instance, in some of Guatemala's parks, more than
common because ofthe demand for "natural " goods and
70% ofthe land is in private hands or has been invaded
services. All these ideas will require conceptual changes
in the last 15 years. Guatemalan law establishes the
in the short term, as well as new methodologies for
possibility of private reserves and provides fiscal incen-
conflict resolution and modification of management
tives to these investing in private protected areas, but
approaches.
this initiative is not being used in its proper spirit to
stimulate the creation of these units.
8.3 Population growth and demand
for resources Costa Rica, Panama and Guatemala are trying to
acquire and consolidate land tenure in some of the high
It is estimated that over 20 million people (60% of the priority areas. In most instances , a strong political deci-
total population) in Central America use wood as the sion is necessary in this complex situation, as well as
primary source of energy for cooking. Because of a involvement from national and international organiza-
human population growth rate of 2.8%, the demand for tions, including those related to the debt for nature swap
resources is increasing . This demand increases continu- and with agrarian reform programmes. In many cases,
ously, without a corresponding increase in the per capita there is no information on the number of settlements ,
supply; this situation is the reason for the pressure inhabitants in national parks or other existing conserva-
existing in conservation units at present or that may be tion units; often land registry information is not avail-
exerted on potential units in the future. able to take decisions on lands to buy or swap. In other
cases, conservation units are declared in spite ofknow-
Even more conflictive situations are developing in the
ing that a private ownership situation or inhabitants
more densely populated areas of Guatemala, El Salvador, exist.
Honduras and Nicaragua (both in the highlands and the
Pacific coast), where demand for land is increasing. In Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica and
Exploitation ofnatural forests or woodland (either ille- Panama, private enterprise is identifying means to de-
gal or with license) will be increasingly more intense in velop ventures related with natural areas, such as Rara
view of national demand and foreign demand for raw Avis project near Braulio Carrillo National Park, and
materials . Monteverde Private Reserve, in Costa Rica; or the
Posada de Mateo (Mateo Inn) at Punta Chimino,
The consequences of inadequate planning and man-
Guatemala.
agement ofthe catchment basins is being felt in drinking
water shortages or by increases in the energy charge
rates or rationed hours of service in several of the 8.5 Community participation
countries in the Central American region. This growing
demand is opening the door for political decisions at the In the past, creating national parks meant displacing
highest level to plan protected areas and improve man- rural inhabitants from some areas, moving them to other
agement policies and procedures. Massive reforestation places or, as the best option, limiting their right to the
programmes are being promoted, both because their traditional use of the resources. Citizens and commu-
environmental benefits and those generated from pri- nity participation was limited to " consultation" at some
vate entrepreneurs engaged in reforestation activities momentduring the planning stage. In the 1970s and 1980s,
and taking advantage of fiscal incentives granted to environmental education became a vehicle to create
private enterprise by the governments. awareness in people living around the conservation
units in order to obtain their support for the projects or, impact are the conflicts in the last decade in Guatemala,
at minimum , so that they would not oppose them. El Salvador and Nicaragua, which might decrease or
end in the 1990s.
However, in the past several years the need for the
participation of the local communities has been identi- War has displaced ofthousands ofrural people through-
fied as essential for the success of the conservation out the region; caused direct damage to natural areas;
projects and the realization of its benefits, an approach limited democratic dialogue over land use; halted re-
that radically changed the environmental education ap- search in large areas; and limited protected areas man-
proach in the region. In spite of the new approaches, agement. As a result of armed conflict, problems of
actions taken in the field to promote community partici- poverty become worse due to the great need for land
pation are still scarce. Often, the national parks officers and employment for marginal displaced, repatriated and
are the only ones visiting or working in remote marginal expelled rural people; and because of the growing frus-
areas that lack practically all basic services (drinking tration at society's inability to address their problems.
water, electricity, public health, public transportation); For more than fifteen years, in the countries where the
therefore, they have to divide their control and monitor- conflict between the army and popular groups has oc-
ing work in the field with taking care of basic needs of curred, the natural areas have suffered great damage, a
the communities settled inside or around the conserva- situation affecting also the agencies and people tradi-
tion units. tionally managing the conservation units.
Some indigenous groups had been and are tradition- 8.7 Weakening of government
ally settled within or around very important protected institutions
natural areas such as the Kekchis inthe Maya Biosphera
Reserve, in Guatemala; Payas in Río Plátano Biosphere For more than five years the weakening of government
Reserve, in Honduras; Miskitos and Sumos inthe Bosawas
agencies has been the cause of decentralisation and, in
Reserve in Nicaragua; Bribris in La Amistad Biosphere some cases, privatization of the main public services,
Reserve in Costa Rica; and the Kunas in the Kuna Yala
such as transportation, health, and housing. This policy
coast in Panama, to mention a few. In general , so far has resulted in the reduction ofthe institutional presence
indigenous people have not played a dynamic role in in the protected areas, though some countries have
making decisions on the use of the natural resources in better situations than others.
their own regions; however, this is slowly changing and
will undoubtedly continue to do so. In cases where land In practice, the National Parks Services or Depart-
tenure is identified with the presence of indigenous ments have limited field personnel , poorly trained and
population, the criteria is to return or respect their guided and with little or non-existing logistic support.
traditional rights over natural areas. Basic budgetary problems prevent acceptable manage-
mentofthe conservation units; salaries are very low and
Religious groups , cooperatives, small enterprises and there are few incentives to keep qualified personnel
local conservation associations are also becoming more
working in the government programmes. Support for
and more interested in effective environmental manage- research in protected areas is practically non-existent,
ment, including protected areas as a valuable means for with the exception of institutions with international
it. support (such as INBio, STRI, OTS and a few others).
Municipalities have also developed an interest in To ensurethe future of the Protected Areas System of
preserving resources of great value for their communi- Central America it is essential to support the work of
ties. It is expected that for the 1990s, the participation the government agencies managing the natural resources
of municipal governments in conservation and manage- in each country, even though their role may be changing
ment oftheir areas will be more active in all the Central from direct management to control, facilitation and
American region; many of these municipal protected policy definition. Of course, these agencies must be-
areas will have more flexible management categories come less bureaucratic and have more vision. The needs
compared to the national ones, as they will have to are many and the challenge is to join the government
supply local needs such as woodfuel extraction and efforts with the efforts of private agencies, focused
management of strategic watersheds. toward the fulfilment of public interest in order to
achieve, in the long term, the implementation ofconser-
All these factors are stimulating decentralisation of vation work.
protected areas management, including creation of mixed
management structures.
8.8 Private sector participation in
protected areas management
8.6 War, conflict, and expectations of
peace In view ofthe weakening situation ofgovernment insti-
tutions and increasing international pressures (often
The historical structural crisis of the Central American exerted through the local NGOs), and taking into ac-
region has produced war and armed conflicts in at least count the acute need to preserve the region's valuable
four of the countries. Better known because of its high
resources, there is a trend among countries to give a
Central America
great deal of responsibility to private organizations and better determine which activities and financing
NGOs . In addition to stimulating the establishment of priorities should be implemented .
small protected areas on privately-owned land, there is b. We have no doubts in concluding that the status of
a trend toward transferring the government manage- the ecosystems and biological diversity in Central
ment of protected areas on government land to private America have worsened during the past decade.
organizations , or in some cases, to mixed joint ventures Unfortunately, we cannot be optimistic in our final
(government institutions, regional groups or munici- conclusions regarding the present status of the
palities and private foundations or NGOs) . When con- protected area systems or the level ofmanagement
sidering the management of protected areas and services, effectiveness required to counteract increasing pres-
the main priority must be the public interest, without the sures generated by the population and by the eco-
governments neglecting their duty of establishing cor- nomic system.
rect policies and supervising their compliance.
C. As for intentions or legal statements , SICAP has
grown a great deal from the time statistics were
8.9 Tourism
presented at the III World Congress on National
Parks in 1982. However, some of the units which
Tourism and its many facets is increasing in the region
where established a few years or decades ago have
and in protected areas. Channelling funds from other
lost all or a great portion of their resources and
sources, such as tourism, toward the management of
must either be removed from the UN List ofNa-
protected areas is a question that must be discussed in tional Parks and Protected Areas or have their
Central America in order to find adequate mechanisms
status changed to multiple use protected areas.
for this symbiosis. At present only Costa Rica and
d. Many ofthe units included in the system , both old
Belize are obtaining benefits from ecotourism in natural
areas, since they are the regional leaders in this field. and the more recently declared, still maintain a
For Costa Rica tourist trade represents the second lead- large portion of their resources and are salvage-
ing foreign income source (US$164 million for 1988 and able, if effective management steps are taken in
US$206 million for 1989) , an amount equivalentto 15% the very near future, including implementing eco-
ofall exports. logical restoration measures where required.
e. There is no doubt that, in general terms, Central
In Honduras some initiatives are being developed America is now more aware of its environmental
with beach and diving tourism ; in Guatemala , mainly in problems and of the value of establishing pro-
adventure tourism, using wildlife areas with excep- tected areas. Evidence of this are the presidential
tional natural heritage such as Tikal, Yaxa, Dos Pilas summit meetings in the region; the establishment
and Ceibal. In El Salvador and Nicaragua, the security of the Central American Commission for the
situation has limited tourism to recreation by present
Environment and Development; the establishment
and former citizens of these two countries. of ministries and national commissions for the
protection of the environment and natural re-
However, indications are that tourism is contributing
sources; the emergence of numerous non-gover-
a very small or non-significant amount to management
ment organizations, some of them cooperating in
of protected areas in the region. The support for conser-
managing protected areas; and the declaration of
vation activities promised by some entrepreneurs such
a large number of new units in all the countries.
as travel agencies and tour operators, has not material-
We believe that this concern and these actions
ized so far. As to those areas containing significant
represent a great opportunity for the consolidation
cultural heritage, a greater effort must be made at the
of SICAP in the next few years.
regional level to relate or restore their natural heritage
and thus create areas managed in a more integrated way. f. Because of all the above-mentioned circumstances,
we believe that the Central American system of
protected areas is now more dependent on interna-
9. Priorities for action in the region tional cooperation than in the past. This situation
is cause for concern, and its solution is a challenge
After completing this report, we wish to make the
for both the governments and cooperating institu-
following comments:
tions from foreign countries. We believe that inter-
a. Central America lacks monitoring mechanisms to national participation must emphasize the establish-
ment of long-term financing mechanisms which
facilitate evaluating the status of protected areas
ensure the sustainability ofthe systems.
in the region, especially regarding the effective-
ness of management systems. In general, national g. We recommend that all countries continue to pre-
reports do not include comprehensive data on land pare annual reports, both by country and on the
tenure, personnel, delimitation of units, budgets, regional level. We believe that such documents
equipment, and infrastructure; nor any informa- must emphasize the provision ofdetailed informa-
tion on monitoring activities carried out in each tion regarding the real status of each unit in each
unit within the different systems in the region. We system, especially referring to factors which de-
believe that it is urgent to correct this situation to termine the degree of management efficiency.
Acknowledgements
This document is based on consultation meetings held between June and September 1991, with the participation of
more than 170 persons from 48 Central American Government organizations (GOs) and 62 non-government
organizations (NGOs) . A draft was reviewed at a meeting of experts, adding new information and reaching a consensus
on the report, prior to its presentation at the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas.
Further changes were made as a result of discussions at Caracas.
References
Readers wishing to link the references to the text should contact the authors.
AID. 1990. Documento Basico de la Biosfera Maya Cardenal, L. 1990. Diagnostico sobre Areas Protegidas
(MAYAREMA). Guatemala. 36p. y Fauna Silvestre en Nicaragua. Managua, Nicaragua.
Alvarado, R. 1989. Procedimiento para la creacion y IRENA-COTLA. 24p. + anexos.
manejo inicial de parques nacionales: Dos estudios Cardenal, L. 1991. Debt-swaps, Medio Ambiente yDe-
de caso en Panama. Tesis URC-CATIE . Turrialba, sarrollo Sostenible. Managua, Nicaragua. 13p.
Costa Rica. CENREN. 1991. Anteproyecto de Ley de Proteccion y
ANCON. 1990. ANCON en sintesis. Panama. 2p. Manejo de la Vida Silvestre. San Salvador. 12p.
Anonimo. 1990. Proyecto Piloto de Desarrollo de la CENREN. 1991. Anteproyecto de Ley Forestal. San
region del Trifinio; Guatemala-El Salvador- Salvador. 25p.
Honduras; Resumen Ejecutivo. San Salvador. 9p . CIDESA. 1990. Diseño y Preparacion del Plan Corredor
Aragon, B. & O. Rodas. 1991. Areas Protegidas Admin- Sur Mesoamericano para la Conservacion de la Di-
istradas por DIGEBOS; Informe a la Mesa versidadBiologica; Propuesta. San Jose, Costa Rica.
Nacional de Consulta. Guatemala. MAGA. 11p. MIRENEM/CIDESA. 15p.
Archibold, G. 1991. Conservacion y Comunidades In- CONAMA. 1988. Decreto # 68-86; Ley de Proteccion
digenas en Panama. Panama. PEMASKY . 11p. y Mejoramiento del Medio Ambiente. Guatemala.
Arias, O. et al. Convenio Centroamericano para la CONAP/DEFENSORES. 19p.
Proteccion del Ambiente. Guatemala. CCAD . 11p. CONAP. 1990. Decreto # 4-89; Ley de Areas Protegidas
Belisel, R. 1991. Historical Perspective ofthe Protected y su Reglamento. Guatemala. CONAP. 68p.
Areas ofBelize. Forest Deparment, M.A. Belize. 5p. Cornelius, S. 1991. Conservation Prioritiesfor WWF in
Benitez, M. et al. 1987. La Conservacion de las Areas Central America. Washington. WWF. 6p.
Naturales y Culturales de el Salvador. San Salvador, Costa Rica. 1991. Aprobacion de Convenios Interna-
El Salvador. 66p. + anexos. cionales Ecologicos. Congreso de la Republica. La
Benitez, M. 1990. Apoyo de la UICN a la elaboracion Nacion 19.3.91.
de la Estrategia Nacional de Conservacion yDesar- Daugherty, H. et al. 1989. Perfil Ambiental de Hondu-
rollo Sostenible de El Salvador; Perfil de Proyecto. ras. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. SECPLAN- DESFIL-
San Salvador. UICN. 17p. AID . 346p.
Bradley, T. et al. 1990. Belize Natural Resources Policy Defensores de la Naturaleza. 1989. Estudio Tecnico
Inventory. USA. APAP/ROCAP. 47p. para dar a Sierra de las Minas la Categoria de
Bradley, T. et al. 1990. Costa Rica Natural Resource Reserva de la Biosfera. Guatemala. Defensores/WWF.
Policy Inventory. Maryland, USA. USAID/ ROCAP. 44p. + apendices.
54p. Delegacion de Costa Rica. 1987. Hacia la Consolida-
Bradley, T. et al. 1990. Guatemala Natural Resource Policy cion de un Sistema Regional de Areas Protegidas.
Inventory. Maryland, USA. USAID/ROCAP. 117p. In II Reunion Centroamericana sobre Manejo de
Brenes, C. 1990. Resumen de las Memorias del Primer Recursos Naturales y Culturales. San Jose, Costa
Encuentro Forestal Indigena . Heredia, Costa Rica. Rica. 56p.
UICN/WWF/ CIDESA/CONAI/DGF/ASOINDI . 40p. Detlefsen,G. et al. 1991. Plan de Accion Forestal para
Brenes, C. et al. 1991. Prediagnostico Socioambiental Guatemala; Documento Base y Pefiles de Proyec-
de PuntaSalyLancetilla. Honduras. UICN/COHDEFOR/ tos. Guatemala. MAGA-AID. 227p.
ESNACIFOR. 69p. Ehrlich, P. & E. Wilson. 1991. Biodiversity Studies:
Cardenal, L. et al. 1987. Conservacion de Patrimonio Science and Policy . Science 253: 758-762.
Natural y Cultural en Nicaragua; Estrategia para el Fundacion Ecologica Salvadoreña. 1991. Informe Anual
año 2000D. In II Reunion Centroamericana sobre de Actividades 1990. San Salvador. FESA. 15p.
Manejo de Recursos Naturales y Culturales. Mana- Fundaeco. 1991. Documento Basico de la Fundacion y
gua. IRENA. 22p. Proyectos Propuestos. Guatemala. 22p + anexos.
Central America
Garcia, R. et al. 1991. Estudio Diagnostico de las Areas Panama. 1990. Informe sintetizado Mesa Redonda In-
Protegidas de Costa Rica. San Jose, Costa Rica. ternacional; PAFT. Panama. INRENARE/PNUD/
MIRENEM-WWF. 31p. FAO. pag. irr.
GFA. 1991. Proyecto de Manejo y Proteccion de la Partido Unidad Social Cristiano. 1990. Plan de Accion
Reserva de la Biosfera del Rio Platano. Hamburg, de Recursos Naturales Renovables 1990-94. San
Alemania. GFA/COHDEFOR. 31p. Jose, Costa Rica. 34p.
Godoy, J.C. 1988. Informe sobre Areas Protegidaspara Paseo Pantera. 1991. A Strategyfor Regional Wildlands
una Evaluacion del Estado de la Diversidad Bi- Management; Project Plan. Florida, USA. WRI/
ologica y los Bosques en Guatemala. Guatemala. CCC/TR & D. 14p.
54p. Perez, I. 1991. Propuesta Regional de Canje de Deuda
Godoy, J.C. y Castro, F. 1990. Plan del Sistema de Externa para Conservacion y Desarrollo Sustent-
Areas Protegidas de El Peten, SIAP. Guatemala. able; Informe para la CCAD . San Jose, Costa Rica.
CATIE/UICN. 180p. CCAD/INCAE . 45p.
Gore, P. et al. 1990. Plan de Accion para Desarrollar Reid, L. et al. 1975. Prefeasibility studyfor a Master
una Estrategia Nacional para el Manejo del Ambi- Plan of the Renewable Natural Resources of
ente y de los Recursos Naturales de El Salvador. Guatemala. Vol VII National Parks. Guatemala.
Florida, USA. AID/TR&D. 20p. + apendices. BOVAY/URRUELA/AID. 101p .
Grant, J. 1991. Activities of Programme for Belize. Republica de Costa Rica. 1990. Plan de Accion Forestal
Belize, PFB . 4p . de Costa Rica; Documento Base. San Jose, Costa
Hartshorn, G. et al. 1984. Country Environmental Pro- Rica. MIRENEM-Paises Bajos. 84p.
file; Belize a Field Study. Belize . AID. 152p.
Republica de El Salvador. 1990. Decreto #20; Establecimiento
INRENARE. 1991. Proyecto: Manejo de RecursosNaturales
del Parque Nacional El Imposible. San Salvador.
(MARENA626-0308); Resumen Ejecutivo. Panama. 9p. Diario Oficial #53, tomo #302 . 2-7pp.
IUCN ( 1992) . Protected areas of the World: A review
Republica de El Salvador. 1990. Decreto # 73; Creacion
of National Systems. Volume 4. Nearctic and Neo-
del Consejo Nacional de Medio Ambiente . San
tropical. Prepared by the World Conservation Salvador. MAG . 5p.
Monitoring Centre. IUCN , Gland, Switzerland.
Republica de El Salvador. 1991. Reduccion de laDeuda
xxiv + 460p.
y Apoyo a Programas de Conservacion del Medio
Johnston, G. et al. 1990. Honduras Natural Resources
Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenido; Propuesta. San
PolicyInventory; Draft. Tegucigalpa. ROCAP. 69p.
Salvador. FUNDESA/MAG . 12p.
Leonard, H.J. 1987. Recursos Naturales y Desarrollo
Republica de Honduras. 1974. Decreto # 103. Tegucigalpa.
Economico en America Central; Un Perfil Ambien-
Congreso Nacional . 16p.
tal Regional. San Jose, Costa Rica. IIED-CATIE.
268p. Republica de Honduras. 1987. Decreto # 87-87. Tegucigalpa.
Congreso Nacional . 5p.
MAG. 1990. Convenio de Cooperacion entre el Ministe-
rio de Agricultura y la UICN. San Salvador. UICN/ Republica de Panama. 1990. Plan de Accion Forestal
MAG 2p. de Panama; Documento Principal . Panama.
INRENARE-FAO . 101p. + anexos .
Mansur, E. 1990. Plan Nacional de Reforestacion . San
Salvador. FAO (TCP/ELS/0051 ) . 60p. + anexos. Rodriguez,J. y Cabarle, B. 1990. Plan de Accion Forestal
Matola, S. 1991. A quick look into two border park para Centroamerica; Primer Informe de Consulto-
ria. San Jose, Costa Rica. WRI/CCAD/ PAFT- CA.
areas ofBelize and Guatemala. Belize, 2p.
Montrero, V. 1990. Las Areas de Conservacion en 14p. + anexos.
Costa Rica. San Jose. MIRENEM. 6p. Rojas, M. et al. 1990. Binational Conservation : Com-
Morales, R. 1990. Informe Final de Consultoria Re- munity Development & Biological Conservation on
gional sobre Areas Protegidas. San Jose, Costa the Border Region of Costa Rica & Panama. San
Rica. ORCA-UICN. 26p. Jose, CostaRica. NEOTROPICA/MIRENEM/ANCON/
INRENARE . 24p.
Morales, R. & M. Cifuentes. ed . 1989. Sistema Regional
de Areas Protegidas de America Central; plan de Sermeño, A. et al. 1990. Marco Conceptual y Meto-
accion 1989-2000. Turrialba, Costa Rica. CATIE- dologia para la Evaluacion y Analisis de las Areas
UICN-WWF. 124p. Integrantes del Sistema Nacional de Areas Naturales
Muñoz, E. 1991. Perfil General y Plan Operativo del ProtegidasdeElSalvador. San Salvador.CENREN/UICN.
Departamento de Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre. 73p. + anexos.
Tegucigalpa, Honduras. COHDEFOR. 7p. TNC. 1990. Parks in Peril; A Conservation Partnership
Nations, J. and Komer D. 1984. Conservation in forthe Americas. Virginia, USA. 24p.
Guatemala. Texas, USA. WWF. 170p. UICN. 1990. Informe Anual 1989; ORCA San Jose,
Nations, J. et al. 1989. Biodiversidad en Guatemala; Costa Rica. Recursos Edicion Especial. 75p.
Evaluacion de los BosquesTropicales. Washington , UICN. 1990. Planning and Management of Wildlands
USA. IIED/WRI . 185p. and Wildlife Resources in the Trifinio Border of
Nuñes, R. et al. 1990. El Salvador Natural Resources Honduras, ElSalvador and Guatemala; a Proposal.
Policy Inventory. El Salvador. ROCAP. 101p. San Jose, Costa Rica. ORCA. 22p + anexos.
UICN. 1990. Suplemento especial de la revista Recur- lentes en la Republica de Panama. Panama. DPNVS/
sossobre elProyecto SIAPAZ. San Jose, Costa Rica. INRENARE. 78p. + apendices.
ORCA. 16p. Vang, K.P.C. 1990. The Legal and Legislative History
UICN. 1990. 1990 United Nations List of National ofthe Costa Rican National Park and Preservation
Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland , System.Costa Rica. 55p.
Switzerland. 284p. WorldWildlife Fund. 1990. Propuesta de Reestructura
URBAPLAN. 1989. Plan de Desarrollo Integrado de delInstituto Nicaraguense de Recursos Naturales y
Peten; Terminos de Referencia. Lausana, Suiza. delAmbiente. Managua. WWF/TCF. 343p.
KfW. 30p. Zisman, 1989. The Directory ofProtected Areas and
Vallester, E. et al. 1987. Plan Estrategico para un Sites ofNature Conservation Interest in Belize . Uni-
Sistema de Parques Nacionales y Reservas Equiva- versity of Edinburgh. UK 110p.
Caribbean
protected
Percentage
%
0.1
than
Less %
15-20
%
0.1-5 %
20
than
More
5-10
%
10-15
%
k
Km
0 200 400
J
0
areas
protected
designate
legally
within
included
country
of
P
. ercentagde
Map
Contents
Page
1. Introduction 327
2. Historical perspective .. 327
2.1 Evolution ofthe rationale for protected areas . 327
2.2 Protected areas and national development 329
2.3 Participation in major international and regional conventions and

programmes 331
2.4 Lessons learned . . . 332
3.1 System plans 333
3.2 Coverage of habitat types and biological diversity . • . 333
3.3 Protected areas in danger . . 335
6. Current levels of financial investment in protected areas . 338
6.1 Funding mechanisms .. 338
6.2 Current level of investment, regional programmes . .. 338
8.1 Expanding the constituency • .. 339
8.2 Training and education . . 339
8.3 Economic values and revenue generation • • 339
8.4 Tourism and protected areas • . 339
8.5 Collaboration • 340
9. Priorities for action in the region • 341
10. Conclusion • 343
205
Page
References 344
Tables
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system · • 334
Table 5. *
Table 7. Habitats within marine protected areas rated as fully managed • 340
Table 8. Institutions taking part in the management of protected areas. 342
Table 9. Funding mechanisms for Caribbean protected areas by country. 343
Figures

areas . . 324
Figure 1 . Growth of the protected areas network (non-cumulative) 330
Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (cumulative) • 330
*Note that Table 5 is not included in this chapter due to there being no sites inscribed on the World Heritage List
in the Caribbean Region, but is included in the Table of Contents to ensure a numbering system comparable
with other chapters is maintained.
Caribbean
Allen D. Putney, Regional Vice-Chair for the Caribbean ,

1. Introduction rain" (Cross, 1991 ) , and the Kings Hill Reserve estab-
lished on St. Vincent in 1791 for " the purpose ofattract-
The purpose of this review is to document, diagnose, ing the clouds and rain" (Birdsey, Weaver, and Nicholls,
and prescribe. It documents the current status of pro- 1986) . Both reserves remain in existence today.
tected areas in the insular Caribbean, diagnoses impedi-
ments to the development of a fully effective and repre- Additional firsts:
sentative system, and prescribes a regional action plan
to stimulate improved management of existing pro- ■ marine protected area: Pedro and Morant Banks,
tected areas. Jamaica, 1907
■ national wildlife refuge: Culebra, Puerto Rico, 1909

The document is the result of a process that started
with a regional meeting of the IUCN Commission on ☐forest reserve: Grand Etang , Grenada, 1910
National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) in Santo
Domingo, 29 April-3 May, 1990. The meeting pro- ■ national park: Sierra de Cristal , Cuba, 1930
vided an opportunity to update information, identify
The World Conservation Monitoring Center lists a
key issues, build consensus on priorities, and form a
total of 175 protected areas in the region in IUCN
Steering Committee . The meeting results were the basis
categories I-V. These areas are spread among 25 politi-
for a first draft document circulated to the Steering
cal units, and cover an area of 22,857 sq km, 9.6% of
Committee, and other knowledgeable individuals, for
the land area of the islands (Tables 1 and 2 , and Map).
review. Comments were incorporated in the second
However, since many are part of the maritime jurisdic-
draft presented at the IV World Congress. New infor-
tion of the islands, the percentage area protected is
mation and consensus recommendations developed at
somewhat misleading as it is based on land area only.
the Congress have been included in the final draft.
These figures do not include other categories of pro-
tected areas, such as multiple-use forest reserves or
An attempt has been made to assure accuracy, reflect
consensus, and tap the experience of many individuals. marine parks, where resource extraction is permitted,
although data for IUCN Management Categories VI-
However, the region is too large and complex, and the
time and resources for preparation of this document too VIII is given in Table 1 , with a further 9,138 sq km
(3.8%) within protected areas. As shown in Figures 1
limited, for it to be totally inclusive and accurate. Inevi-
and 2 and Table 3, the establishment of new protected
tably, information and creative ideas were missed and
areas was most pronounced during the late 1950s and
the author's biases introduced . It is hoped, however, that
during the 1980s.
the review process that preceded publication of this
document has helped to keep these biases to a minimum .
2.1 Evolution of the rationale for
protected areas
2. Historical perspective
The Caribbean possesses a rich experience with pro- The reasons for establishing protected areas in the
tected areas. Each of the region's 25 political units has Caribbean have evolved over time from watershed pro-
approached protected area management in slightly dif- tection to wildlife protection, and then later evolved to
ferent ways, starting with imported institutional for- a broader focus on biodiversity protection. More and
mats, and later adapting them to local needs and exper- more, however, protected areas are seen as integral parts
ience. There are few regions ofthe world that can match of the development process and as basic tools for sus-
the variety of this experience! tainable development. A few examples are beginning to
point to their value as motors for rural development, as
The first Caribbean protected areas were established well as critical areas for the reproduction of economi-
over 200 years ago. The Main Ridge Reserve ofTobago cally importantfisheries species, as generators of drink-
was set aside in 1765 as "woods for protection of the ing water, and as attractions for tourism .
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : Caribbean

Anguilla 91 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Antigua-Barbuda 442 66 15.0 0 0.0 66 15.0
Aruba 193 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Bahamas 13,865 1,236 8.9 0 0.0 1,236 8.9
Barbados 430 3 0.6 0 0.0 3 0.6
Bermuda 54 125 232.0 0 0.0 125 232.0
British Virgin Is 153 16 10.2 0 0.0 16 10.2
Cayman Is 259 81 31.4 0 0.0 81 31.4
Cuba 114,525 8,944 7.8 7,424 6.5 16,368 14.3
Dominica 751 74 9.9 95 12.7 169 22.6
Dominican Rep 48,440 10,484 21.6 11 0.0 10,495 21.7
Grenada 345 0 0.0 6 1.8 6 1.8
Guadeloupe 1,780 210 11.8 162 9.1 372 20.9
Haiti 27,750 97 0.3 0 0.0 97 0.3
Jamaica 11,425 15 0.1 926 8.1 942 8.2
Martinique 1,079 714 66.2 1 0.1 715 66.3
Montserrat 104 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Neths Antilles 800 78 9.7 80 10.0 158 19.7
Puerto Rico 8,960 181 2.0 356 4.0 537 6.0
St Kitts-Nevis 261 26 10.0 0 0.0 26 10.0
St Lucia 619 20 3.2 75 12.1 95 15.3
St Vincent-Grenadines 389 83 21.3 0 0.0 83 21.3
Trinidad-Tobago 5,130 175 3.4 2 0.0 177 3.5
Turks-Caicos Is 430 171 39.7 0 0.0 171 39.7
US Virgin Islands 345 58 16.8 0 0.0 58 16.8
Total 238,620 22,857 9.6 9,138 3.8 31,995 13.4
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion for sites in the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
"UA" indicates that no IUCN category has been assigned . Forest reserves with a nature protection function are
generally included.
to some unexpectedly high figures for percentage cover (eg. Bermuda).
Caribbean societies have a history of questioning, Within this kind of holistic development vision, several
criticizing the status quo, and struggling to create better basic conditions facilitate the development process.
options. Thus, the role of protected areas is a hotly These include:
discussed issue on many islands. From this dialogue, a
conceptual framework has emerged that has been Peace and harmony among people, and between
articulated by Renard (1991): people and nature;
Protected areas are not an end in themselves, butpart ■ Equity in opportunity and in access to resources;
ofman's most basic concerns. Simply stated, they are
tools for development a special kind of development ■ Sovereignty of the nation, community, and individ-
that respects both man and nature, and is designed to ual , allowing each to participate in the shaping ofits
meetthe needs oftoday without sacrificing tomorrow's own destiny;
potentials.
■ Cultural integrity, providing a shared context for
individual and societal expression; and
Development is both a goal and a process . Ifprotected
areas are to contribute fully to that process, they must
meet people's needs, for people are not onlythe creators Sustainability so that natural resources are maintained,
of development, but beneficiaries as well . Certainly renewed, and passed on to future generations.
food, clothing, shelter, and good health are the most
basic of needs. Yet these material benefits cannot be If these conditions are nurtured, the development
widely enjoyed unless accompanied by sr rmony, context is enriched . Protected areas and their managers
education, security, recreation, cultural .on, and can contribute both to the nurturing of the context, and
artistic creation. to the development process itself.
Caribbean
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories: Caribbean
I II III IV V TOTAL
181
I3I41 11492∞ | 121 1121-1
13161
Anguilla
Antigua-Barbuda 66 66
Aruba
200
Bahamas 1.216 1,236
3I
Barbados 3
Bermuda 2 125 - 2 125
172
British Virgin Is 1 4 11 - 6 16
Cayman Is 1 17 13 8 51 13 81
Cuba 9 400 1,169 19 1,648 20 5,727 57 8,944
Dominica 74 - 2 74
Dominican Rep 8 5,639 4,401 443 18 10,484
Grenada
23
Guadeloupe 37 173 - 210
II
Haiti 75 22 97
Jamaica 15 1 15
1100104 1
Martinique 3 13 702 4 714

Montserrat -
|
2812
Neths Antilles 78 78
1
∞ 12
Puerto Rico 18 181 - 181
St Kitts-Nevis 26 - - 26
1183
St Lucia 20 - 20
1
St Vincent-
26
2923
Grenadines - 2 -
1161
1121
1164
112
83 83
Trinidad-Tobago 3 27 6 149 175
Turks-Caicos Is - 96 11 68 1 20 171
US Virgin Islands - 53 4 1 1 - - 58
Total 17 494 46 8,697 4 13 81 6,758 27 6,896 175 22,857
Note: Areas are given in square kilometres. Mimimum size for inclusion is the Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
Forest reserves with a nature protection function are generally included.
2.2 Protected areas and national protected areas attract about 168,000 divers per year.
development Projections indicate that the Montego Bay Marine Park
in Jamaica could attract some 96,000 visitors per year
What distinguishes islands is limited space , and in the andthe proposed Pitons National Park in St. Lucia some
Caribbean this is accentuated by dense human popula- 116,000 visitors. Estimates of income have been docu-
tions. Interactions among people, and between people mented in a few cases (OAS and NPS, 1991); divers at
and natural resources, are complex and intense. Every the Bonaire Marine Park (Netherlands Antilles) spend
space is intimately bound up with the functioning of about US$30 million per year while those diving in the
both the human and natural systems. Within such a Cayman Island marine protected areas spend about
US$53 million.
context, protected areas will only survive if they are
perceived to play an essential role in meeting the eco-
nomic, social, cultural, and personal needs and aspira- Different categories of protected areas contribute dif-
tions of people. If managed properly, they can also ferent combinations of goods and services to the devel-
contribute to global agendas. opment process. No one area can provide them all.
However, taken as a whole, protected area systems
Protected areas contribute considerably to Caribbean contribute significantly to the attainment of personal ,
development. In those cases where the contribution societal , and global needs and aspirations. At the most
been measured in economic terms, the true significance immediate, personal level, some categories ofprotected
has become apparent (OAS and NPS , 1988). For exam- areas contribute food, raw materials, medicines, em-
ple, the Virgin Islands National Park has produced a ployment, and recreation. At the larger societal level
benefit cost ratio of 11 : 1 . The projected ratio for park they may contribute to the sustained production and
development projects in Jamaica is about 10: 1 . The quality of goods such as water, timber, forage, fish and
enormous value of protected areas to tourism , the Car- wildlife. They also may contribute important services
ibbean's only growth industry, is apparent. The Virgin such as the conservation of life-support systems bound
Islands National Park has 750,000 visitors per year. up with the soils, hydrological regimes, marine re-
Even the relatively small Cayman Islands marine sources, and air; the preservation of sites of cultural and
Figure 1. Growth of the protected areas network (non -cumulative)
50
Number of sites
30
20
10
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
250
Number of sites
150
100
50
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Caribbean
spiritual significance or amenities for tourism; and the 2.3 Participation in major international
maintenance of future options. At the global level, and regional conventions and
protected areas may contribute to the maintenance of
programmes
genetic diversity, the increase of knowledge of natural
and human systems, and the stability of global climate. As shown in Table 4, few Caribbean islands participate
fully in major international conventions and programmes
While the potential contributions of protected areas even, though they provide technical and financial sup-
to development are large, actual contributions are often port for areas that qualify. Most countries have signed
much less. Many legally protected areas are neglected, theWorld Heritage Convention , but to date no sites have
under-utilized, and irrelevant to the development proc- been incribed. (Table 5 is therefore omitted) . There is
ess. Many potentially important areas remain unidenti- clearly much more scope for using international pro-
fied and ignored. The steady increase of legally estab- grammes and conventions to support Caribbean pro-
lished protected areas has not been matched with devel- tected areas.
opment ofeffective management capacity.
A number ofregional programmes support Caribbean
protected areas. As with national programmes, these
An inventory of Caribbean marine and coastal pro-
efforts are relatively small and fragmented.
tected areas (OAS and NPS, 1988) rated the manage-
ment effectiveness of 51 marine and coastal areas ofthe
Caribbean Programme, The Nature Conservancy.
insular Caribbean's 158 protected areas. The inventory
The Nature Conservancy, based in Washington , DC ,
concluded that 24% were protected in name only, 43% works with partner conservation organizations to im-
were partially managed, and 33% were fully managed.
prove the information base for conservation, enhance
Thus, fully two-thirds are in need of improved manage- local management capacity, and obtain financial re-
ment, and it is widely agreed among protected areas sources. The Conservancy has helped establish Conser-
managers that this is representative of the overall situ-
vation Data Centres in Puerto Rico and Curaçao and is
ation in the region. The most common threats were currently working with local organizations in Jamaica,
human settlements , over-fishing and hunting, and chemi-
the Dominican Republic and Dominica to establish
cal and thermal pollution of marine areas. national trust funds, develop conservation data centres,
support organizational development, and improve infra-
Efforts to establish and manage protected areas in- structure. The Conservancy's budget for its Caribbean
itially came from efforts by individuals, or small, local Program was US$ 1,200,000 for FY1992 (Northrup,
interest groups in response to a threat to a specific area 1991).
or resource. During the last decade , a series of regional
initiatives have also been launched by international The Conservancy's "Parks In Peril" Programme is an
conservation organizations. Many have taken the form emergency effort to safeguard imperiled natural areas
of action plans such as the following: bybringing on-site management to 20 critical parks and
reserves each year for a ten-year period (TNC, 1990).
Some 37 "critical parks and reserves" and another 30
■ IUCN Marine Conservation Strategy for the "proposed and unprotected sites" of the Caribbean have
Caribbean (IUCN, 1979) ; been identified for inclusion in the programme .
USAID Training Strategy for Natural Resource Marine Parks Program, Caribbean Conservation
Management in Latin America and the Caribbean Association. The Caribbean Conservation Associa-
tion, supported by Canada's International Center for
(WWF-US , 1980);
Ocean Development, has developed a marine parks
programme for the 1991-94 period which focuses on
■ Bali Action Plan (global plan for protected areas pro-
pilot projects in Anguilla, Barbados, British Virgin
duced at the III World Parks Congress) (McNeely and Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St.
Miller, 1984); Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Trinidad and Tobago.
The programme is designed to disseminate information,
■ Nahuel Huapi Action Plan (for protected areas of train personnel , establish a data base , develop materials
Latin America and the Caribbean) (IUCN, 1986); for public awareness and education , and publish tech-
and nical articles. The project budget is about US$250,000/
year.
Survey of Conservation Priorities in the Lesser
Parks and Protected Areas Program, Caribbean
Antilles (Putney, 1982) .
Natural Resources Institute. One of the two major
programmes of the Caribbean Natural Resources Insti-
None of these action plans have been systematically tute (CANARI) centres on protected areas. The focus is on
promoted, and there is little indication that they have policy, technical cooperation, training, networking, and
been the source of inspiration, funding or implementa- field demonstration projects. The Institute's budget for the
tion forthe protected areas in the region as a result. programme during calendar year 1991 was US$ 165,000.
Field projects to develop biosphere reserves in Puerto There have been a plethora of regional assessments,
Rico and the Virgin Islands are being undertaken in strategies, and action plans. The situation in the region
cooperation with the universities of Puerto Rico and the is indeed complex, and each organization has felt it
Virgin Islands. A project to support non-governmental necessary to carry out an independent assessment. The
organizations for management ofthe natural heritage in process is costly, because of the many actors, small
Jamaica, the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Barbuda, institutions, and high costs of travel . The result has been
Dominica, and St. Lucia is being undertaken in coop- a disproportionate amount of assessing and planning
eration with the Caribbean Conservation Association. followed by little implementation.
Both are funded by the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation. b. Process over project approach
A newsletter and training exchanges have supported The complexity ofmanagement in small island settings
the regional parks and protected areas network. is often severely underestimated by outsiders. Projects
CANARI has served as the Secretariat for the Caribbean planned in places far from the region commonly focus
Network of IUCN's Commission on National Parks and on simple and simplistic solutions to complex prob-
Protected Areas, and coordinated Caribbean participa- lems. Small pieces of the overall picture are targeted
tion in the IV World Congress on National Parks and and crucial connections ignored. This is compounded
Protected Areas. by the fact that most organizations can only frame
projects for two- or three-year periods. A long-term
Caribbean Program , World Wildlife Fund-US. WWF- process approach is needed that acknowledges the com-
US responds to project requests submitted by local plexity of the task, the long time periods needed to
organizations. Current protected area projects support achieve sustained action, and the need for adjustment
resource assessment, infrastructure development, and as the process evolves.
educational activities. The budget (projects and admini-
stration) related to Caribbean protected areas for FY 91 c. Priority to manage established areas
was about $ 150,000 (Pinilla, 1991).
Withtwo-thirds of the protected areas not achieving the
Programme for Specially Protected Areas and Wild- objectives for which they were established, consider-
life. A Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and able investment will have to be made to bring them up
Wildlife was adopted by the Governments of the Wider to standard. Enhancing local capacity to manage should
Caribbean in January, 1990, as part of the Caribbean thus be given priority over the establishment of addi-
Environment Programme (CEP) . In follow-up, the CEP tional "paper parks" . This does not mean that important
has developed a regional programme on networking, areas should be ignored if they are not currently in
revenue generation, training, regional standards, and protected area status. Rather, the point is to focus on the
evaluation and assessment of protected areas (UNEP, development of truly effective management rather than
1991 ). The programme begins during the 1992-93 relying on the theoretical power of unenforced laws. In
biennium. A core budget of US$70,000 was projected those cases where plans have been effectively used to
for 1992. A further US$510,000 in counterpart funding guide projects , these have generally been conceptual in
is being sought. nature and/or have focused on immediate operations of
individual programmes or protected areas.
Protected Areas Programme, Organization of East-
ern Caribbean States (OECS) . The Organization of d. Issues of scale
Eastern Caribbean States, Natural Resources Manage-
Few Caribbean organizations have the resources to
ment Unit, supported by German Technical Coopera-
effectively implement protected area programmes . An
tion (GTZ), and USAID, has identified protected areas
important share of the resources for local programmes
as a programme focus for 1992. The programme will
is provided by international assistance programmes.
concentrate on training and information exchanges at
Thus, decisions are commonly made by individuals
the regional level, and on a pilot project in one OECS
with little grasp of the scale of small islands. They find
member country . Through its ENCORE Project
it difficult to relate to the requirements of institutions
(Environmental Coastal Resources) , the OECS will
that will never be larger than a handful of individuals.
support environmental education, training, and on-site
The smaller the island, the more acute this problem is
development for two protected areas.
likely to be.
2.4 Lessons learned e. Regional cooperation
The variety of political forms, colonial histories, and The Caribbean islands together have the human and
institutional approaches in the Caribbean provides a financial resources to establish and manage a repre-
richness of experience from which numerous lessons sentative system of protected areas. They do not have
can be drawn. these resources on an individual basis, and the multi-
plicity of national jurisdictions severely hampers the
a. Assessments, strategies, and action plans are dis- flow of human and financial resources between islands.
proportionate Regional cooperation based on stable regional structures
Caribbean
is an essential goal . Even though the costs are high, A comprehensive review of national protected areas
donors seldom work together, and most technical assis- systems in the region has been prepared by the World
tance programmes draw on human and financial re- Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN, 1992).
sources from outside the region.
f. Effective cooperation requires a better flow of 3. Current protected area

information within the region coverage
Effective cooperation depends on the flow of informa- The current Caribbean islands protected areas system is
tion between islands and organizations. While there summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
have been efforts to develop data bases and communi-
cations networks linked by computers, these have not 3.1 System plans
worked satisfactorily. Regional meetings remain the
most effective, but most expensive, mechanism for The reasons for creating protected areas vary from
information transfer. Next in effectiveness is the trans- country to country. It is essential that each develop a
fer of information through a central communication system plan so that the objectives for management ,
point, such as a travelling consultant, or the offices of specific to that country, are clearly defined, and that a
regional organizations. Newsletters are perhaps next in range of areas is identified to meet those objectives.
line in effectiveness , but can cover only a few topics at Broad public support for protected areas is a key ingre-
one time. dient of success and the system plan can be the vehicle
for involving constituents in the design process . Not
g. Broadening the constituency only should they be involved in determining objectives
and selecting areas, but in developing the financial
The most common complaint of protected area manag- framework as well.
ers is the lack of human and financial resources. Yet
these resources become available only when there is a System plans have been developed for 9 of the 25
strong and effective constituency to back protected political units ofthe region including Haiti (Woods and
areas. Thus the focus must be on building the required Harris, 1986) , the Dominican Republic (Departamento
base of support, and translating that support into avail- de Vida Silvestre, 1990) , the British Virgin Islands
able human and financial resources. (BVI National Parks Trust/CANARI, 1989), Anguilla
(marine only)(Jackson, 1987) , Antigua and Barbuda
h. Absolute need for partnerships (Robinson, 1979) , Dominica (Shanks and Putney, 1979),
Grenada (Grenada Government and OAS, 1988), and
In a situation where single institutions cannot effec-
Trinidad and Tobago (Thelen and Faizool , 1980). System
tively mount protected area programmes alone , partner-
plans are currently in the later stages of development in
ships become a prerequisite for success. Caribbean Jamaica and St. Lucia.
protected area managers will thus have to give high
priority to creating low friction inter-institutional envi-
Only the plan for the British Virgin Islands has been
ronments where many inputs can be effectively inte- officially endorsed by government. The only plan that
grated into an overall programme supported by a variety has been developed with the active involvement of a
of actors.
broad range of constituents is that being developed in
St. Lucia.
i. Plans must address both supply and demand
Almost all plans for protected areas in the Caribbean 3.2 Coverage of habitat types and
concentrate on defining what needs to be done and biological diversity
where. They usually pay little attention to costs , or to
the sources of revenue for implementation . Under these There is no single ecosystem, vegetation, habitat, or life
circumstances, few of these plans have actually been zone classification that has been applied uniformly within
implemented. Future plans must concentrate equally on the region. The question of coverage must, therefore, be
realistic definitions of needs (demand) and sources of handled in pieces.
support (supply).
Information on marine and coastal protected areas
j. Revenue for maintenance more elusive than reve- is relatively good (OAS and NPS, 1988; IUCN, 1982;
nue for development WCMC , 1991 ) . Not only is there an up-to-date inven-
tory, but also information on ecosystem coverage and
It is generally easier to generate funding to develop new management effectiveness for each area. The only ex-
programmes or infrastructure than to maintain regular ception, and a notable one indeed, is Cuba, the largest
programmes. This means that disproportional effort is Caribbean island. An analysis (excepting Cuba) of ma-
required to raise the resources for maintenance than for rine ecosystems within protected areas that are rated as
development costs, and this needs to be factored into fully managed is presented by subregion in Table 7. To
operational plans. facilitate analysis , the marine and coastal protected
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : Caribbean

2000
Anguilla 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Antigua-Barbuda 0.0 0.0 37.7 62.3 66
Aruba 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
Bahamas 36.9 61.7 1.3 0.0 1,235
Barbados 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0 2
Bermuda 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 5 125
British Virgin Is 43.3 0.0 56.7 0.0 0 15
Cayman Is 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 81
Cuba 19.1 3.7 14.7 62.5 4,794 8,944
Dominica 0.0 0.0 92.8 7.2 0 74
Dominican Rep 14.3 0.0 6.2 79.4 0 10,484
Grenada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Guadeloupe 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 210
Haiti 0.0 22.7 0.0 77.3 0 97
Jamaica 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 15
Martinique 0.0 0.0 99.3 0.7 2 714
Montserrat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Neths Antilles 0.0 76.0 24.0 0.0 0 77
Puerto Rico 3.5 2.1 48.9 45.4 2 181
St Kitts-Nevis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 26
St Lucia 0.0 0.0 74.9 25.1 0 19
St Vincent-Grenadines 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 82
Trinidad-Tobago 76.0 8.9 3.7 11.4 0 175
Turks-Caicos Is 0.0 0.0 12.1 87.9 76 170
US Virgin Islands 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 57
Total 16.5 6.3 12.4 64.8 4,911 22,857
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres. Minimum size for inclusion for sites inthe Pacific and the Caribbean is 1 sq km.
Only protected areas meeting criteria for IUCN management categories I-V are included. Sites are only in the data-
base once, therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by
the table, the figures may be distorted.
areas ofcontinental countries adjacent to the Caribbean Sanctuaries, though none is considered to be fully man-
are included. aged (Cross, 1991).
Venezuelan Dry Forest. The subregion includes Aruba,

The analysis indicates that all major ecosystems are Bonaire, and Curacao. The terrestrial life zones ofthese
covered by protected areas rated as fully managed . The islands include mangrove, littoral vegetation, cactus
subregion of greatest concern is the Guianan. Of the scrub, and dry forest (ECNAMP, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c) .
subregion's three countries, only Surinam has estab- Each of the terrestrial life zones is covered by protected
lished coastal protected areas. The northwest subregion areas (Washington-Slagbaai and Christoffel National
would also appear to be relatively lightly covered, but Parks; Spaans Lagoon Conservation Area and Ramsar
this may only reflect lack of information on Cuba. Site) . However, none of these are rated as fully man-
aged.
For terrestrial protected areas, the IUCN classifica-
tion ofbiogeographical provinces (Udvardy, 1975) lists Bahamas - Bermudian Subregion. The subregion in-
six units for the insular Caribbean. These are outlined cludes Bermuda (UK) , the Bahamas, and the Turks and
below. Caicos (UK) . These are low-lying islands with an average
elevation of only 10m . The vegetation is generally low,
Guianan. This subregion includes Trinidad and dense, and thorny and is classified as mangrove swamps
Tobago. No comprehensive legislation is in place for and marshes, beach vegetation, mudflats, pine forests and
protected areas, although a draft policy and system plan mixed broad-leaf coppice (Scott and Carbonell, 1986).
have been prepared (Thelen and Faizool, 1980a, 1980b). Two protected areas rated as fully managed (Exuma Cays
Currently the protected area system consists of 3 Pro- Land-and-Sea Park and Inagua National Park) protect
hibited Areas, 11 Nature Reserves, and 10 Wildlife these habitats, except the pine forests.
Caribbean
Cuban Subregion . Cuba has the richest biota in the Lesser Antillean. Coverage of the Lesser Antillean
Caribbean with about 50% ofthe flora and 69% ofthe subregion, with the exception of the US Virgin Islands,
endemic fauna (Figueroa, Ortiz, and Quevedo, 1985) . has been analyzed through a Survey of Conservation
The Cuban National System of Protected Areas consists Priorities (Putney, 1982). The Survey classifies the
of over 200 areas, covers 12 % of the country, and subregion by seven terrestrial life zones (mangroves ,
includes representative samples of 98% of the Cuban littoral woodland, cactus scrub, dry woodland, moist
landscape types (Santana, 1991 ; Perera and Rosabal, forest, rain forest, and cloud forest). The two fully
1986a, 1986b). Strictly protected areas cover about managed protected areas of the region (Virgin Islands
1.02% ofthe country, but no information is available on and Guadeloupe National Parks) protect all seven ofthe
habitats included or management effectiveness for these region's terrestrial life zones.
areas.
Greater Antillean Subregion . This includes the is- 3.3 Protected areas in danger
lands of Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and Hispaniola which
have high rates of endemism with 17%,27%, and 36%
The threats to protected areas in the Caribbean vary
respectively for flora, and 32%, 46% , and 74% respec- from island to island. The greatest dangers are the
tively for resident fauna (Figueroa, Ortiz, and Quevedo,
spontaneous colonization of terrestrial protected areas
1985) . There is no single classification system for judg- by people, notably on the island of Hispaniola, and the
ing the completeness of coverage, and each island must
widespread die-off of coral reefs in marine parks, due
be considered separately. especially to sedimentation. As noted above, a full
two-thirds of the protected areas of the region are not
Puerto Rico has a system of protected areas that
achieving the objectives for which they were estab-
includes areas managed by the Federal ( 15,300ha) and
lished. All of these areas must be considered in danger
Commonwealth (30,692ha) governments, and those owned until effective management is in place.
and managed by the non-governmental Puerto Rico
Conservation Trust (1,760ha) (Figueroa, Ortiz , and Quevedo,
1985). Six zones of the Holdridge Life Zone System are
found in Puerto Rico (subtropical dry, moist, and wet 4. Additional protected areas
forests; subtropical rain forest; and lower montane wet required
and rain forests). Each is effectively protected in the
system of Federal and State forests (Birdsey and Weaver, Identification of gaps in coverage requires a clear defi-
1982), though management would correspond to IUCN nition of management objectives and criteria for deter-
Category VIII , multiple use management/managed re- mining when those objectives are met. This is best
source areas. A more detailed inventory of biotic ele- accomplished within the national context through a
ments has been carried out, and additional priority areas systems planning process. A participatory approach to
requiring protection identified (Figueroa, Ortiz, and defining objectives provides an opportunity for address-
Quevedo, 1985). ing a spectrum of national needs and building a solid
and diversified constituency for protected area manage-
Jamaica initiated an energetic programme two years ment. While outside technical and financial assistance
ago to develop protected areas legislation and a system can help animate and support this effort, the definition
plan, and to manage two pilot areas, one marine of objectives must be decided nationally.
(Montego Bay Marine Park) and the other high moun-
tain (Blue Mountain/John Crow Mountains Proposed
National Park). System planning, and the consequent involvement of
the various constituencies in protected area programmes,
is time-consuming. Yet the lack of systematic pro-
The island ofHispaniola is divided between Haiti and
the Dominican Republic . A representative system of grammes has resulted in only a small percentage of
protected areas achieving the objectives for which they
protected areas has been identified in each country, and
were established. As long as the focus is on areas, not
management programmes have been in place for many
years. Due to severe limitations on human and financial on the objectives of a spectrum of constituents, and the
programmes, personnel, and institutions needed to
resources, especially in Haiti, none of the established
effectively manage those areas, little effective protec-
protected areas can be considered to be fully managed.
tion will be achieved.
A detailed review of protected areas of the Dominican
Republic (Departamento de Vida Silvestre, 1990) indi-
cated that all major ecosystems are included in estab- Usingthe very limited criteria of habitat coverage, the
lished protected areas. The least well represented eco- legally protected areas generally cover the region's
systems were the sand dunes, rivers and forests of the major habitats. It would be erroneous, however, to
coastal plain. Specific areas have been identified to assumethat these areas contain the region's full biologi-
increase the representation of these ecosystems in the cal diversity. Because ofthe high degree of endemism
protected areas system, and to protect particular endan- on all islands, many more small areas would have to be
gered species. protected to accomplish this more ambitious goal.
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions: Caribbean

01 10 1000 1001100
││││110015 | |
…………… │001 11g

Antigua and Barbuda November 1983
Bahamas
Barbados
Cuba March 1981 323,600
Dominica
Dominican Rep February 1985
France (Guadeloupe) June 1975 69,000 (see France)
France (Martinique) June 1975 (see France)
Grenada
Haiti January 1980
Jamaica June 1983
Netherlands (Aruba) August 1992 May 1980 70
Netherlands (Antilles) August 1992 May 1980 1,940
Saint Kitts-Nevis July 1986
I
Saint Lucia October 1991
Saint Vincent and
11000
110000
the Grenadines
10
Trinidad and Tobago
UK (Anguilla) May 1984 January 1976
(Bermuda) May 1984 January 1976 0
(British Virgin Is) May 1984 January 1976 0 0
(Cayman Islands) May 1984 January 1976 0 0
(Montserrat) May 1984 0 January 1976 0 0
121
(Turks and Caicos) May 1984 0 January 1976 1 54,400

(Puerto Rico) December 1973 0 15,346 December 1986 0 0
(Virgin Islands) December 1973 0 - 1 6,127 December 1986 0 0
Note: 1. Only sites lying within the region are listed.
5. Protected area institutions (STINAPA), or National Trusts in the Bahamas, the

British Virgin Islands, and St. Lucia.
The Caribbean's diversity is reflected in the variety of
institutional formats for managing protected areas. These
The situation is often complex, with a number of institutions
include:
having important roles to play in the management or
■ National government agencies of metropolitan coun- financing of particular areas. Co-management and co-
tries (in the case of some dependent territories) financing situations are the rule, rather than the excep-
tion, as shown in the table of institutional arrangements
■ Government agencies (in the case of independent islands) presented in Table 8. Each institutional format has
advantages and disadvantages, but all are needed. The
■ Independent statutory, or quasi -governmental , bodies
challenge is to maximize the advantages of the combined
Non-governmental organizations (local, regional , and inputs ofa variety of institutions, while minimizing disad-
international) vantages. Unfortunately, the search for better methods for
programme delivery is consistently lost in the press of
Local communities
immediate concerns .
■ Private entities
■ Bilateral assistance organizations

In general, Caribbean protected areas have not been
■ Multilateral assistance organizations effectively linked to other development sectors. In a few
isolated cases, productive linkages have been made to
None ofthe areas rated as fully managed are admin- fisheries, forestry, and tourism. However, few mecha-
istered by local government agencies. Instead, they are nisms for long-term linkages are in place even though in
managed either by an agency ofa metropolitan govern- many islands there would appearto be great potential for
ment, such as in the case of Puerto Rico and the US productive partnerships with the tourism and education
Virgin Islands, or by non-governmental organizations, sectors, potable water authorities, and rural develop-
such as the Netherlands Antilles Parks Foundation ment programmes .
Table
:Caribbean
budgets
agency
management
areas
Protected
6.
Country
r
/ esponsible
agency in
Budge t Dollar
US
equivalent
national
currencyYear Notes Source
Anguilla XCD acoastal

undertaking
for
budget
estimated
,The
analysis
and
inventory
parks
and
marine
new
, stablishing
information
public
eproviding
U
$
isS100,375
amelioration
damage
reef
errosion
and
beach
undertaking
US14,600
of
optiona
a n
plus
Icomponent
Barbuda
and
Antigua XCD
Aruba ANG
Trust
Bahamas
National
- BSD forest
government
for
administration
1990
specific
no
is
There
and
operations
for
m1990
expenditure
protection
,.Taintainence
he
totalled
parks
national
five
costs
recurrent
)f(ieor
development
following
institu-
allocated
the
to
training
is
budget
B
.T he
$SD134,054
West
the
and
Indies
Bahamas
of
tions
,Uthe
:Cniversity
ollege
station
field
.FOFAR
Barbados BBD
Bermuda BMD
Islands
Cayman KYD
Cuba CUP
Dominica
Wildlife
and
Forestry
of
Division XCD
1,126,300 425,018 1991
:Botanic
follows
as
breakdown
budget
.Capital
improvement
garden
area
Trios
Protected
Piton
D
More
of
E00,00
)$
1( evelopment
C
protected
restoration
and
areas
1
),e$
of00,000
C
(Establishment
and
U
($
parksdevelopment
).national
S392,000
S534,300 35
Domini
Republican
c DOP
Grenada XCD
Guadeloupe
Parc
-
la
de
National FRF
16,000,000 2,970,000 (abody
Guadeloupe
la
de
National
Parc
the
Budget
1991
fordministrative
investment
).Of
PAs
Guadeloupe's
year
three
current
the
programme
EC
.is
the
from
around
%
30 F2
Haiti HTG
Jamaica
Natural
-
Division
Conservation
Resources JMD establish-
thecosts
or
xpenditure
expenditure
)f(. apital
cEForest
department
J/ohn
Mountains
the
Blue
and
Park
Marine
Bay
Montego
ment
of
Uf
$
to
amounted
Park
National
Crew
(6
million
o
%
funding
S2.86
0
).
AID
US
from F1
Martinique FRF
Montserrat XCD
Antilles
Netherlands ANG
Puerto
Rico USD
Saint
Nevis
and
Kitts XCD 100,000 Commission
Conservation
for
Budget
Lucia
Saint XCD
Grenadines
Saint
the
and
Vincent XCD
Trinidad
and
Tobago TTD
Caicos
and
Turks USD
Virgin
(British
)Islands USD 120,000 1988 budg
Stateet
)(US
Islands
Virgin USD
Sources
:
3ers
W
P,D
c
[F
]A
(1
)L
.U
Guadeloupe
la
de
national
Parc
5 991
.npublished
5illiam
e
pp
2
non
omm
.[report
Studies
of
Association
the
to
development
.P
conservation
and
pNpresented aper
sustainable
in
:aCaribbean
Jamaica
planning
park
]A
,B
)(1 ational
.llen
990
1
[Froject
Caribbean
Domingo
,S
Environment
Caribbean
the
on
Conference
Danto
2
.Republic
ominican
2pp
6. Current levels of financial funding mechanisms are currently being pursued as

noted in Table 9.
The overall picture relating to investment in protected 6.2 Current level of investment ,
areas is 'complex both in terms of the large number of
regional programmes
small programmes in the region, and the variety of
funding mechanisms in use. The six regional programmes for protected areas out-
lined in section 2.3 have a combined annual budget of
about US$2 million.
6.1 Funding mechanisms
Little success has been achieved in coordinating the
Funding mechanisms currently in use to channel finan-
inputs of various sectors and donors at the programme
cial investment into the region's protected areas in-
level . Each has their own programming mechanisms,
clude:
schedules , and requirements which tend to be inflex-
■ Government budgets ible and varied. Attempts at inter-governmental , inter
-institutional and inter-sectoral coordination have
■ Grants from bi- and multi-lateral aid agencies, inter- proven to be expensive and relatively unproductive.
national conservation organizations , private foun-
dations, and individual donors Coordination at the field level has proved to be more
efficient and less costly. By the time funding reaches
■ User fees (entrance , docking, mooring, and diving the ground, personnel are in place, schedules have been
fees, etc.) established , and most of the institutional requirements
have been addressed. Field personnel can often be quite
■ Concessions (rentals, leases, rights to provide serv-
effective in moulding, or even changing, their project's
ices, rights to erect communications towers or trans-
mission lines, etc.) inputs to avoid duplication , meet immediate needs, fill
gaps , or take advantage of new opportunities .
■ Commercial bank loans
The relative advantages of field over programme
■ Local non-governmental support organizations coordination has important implications for training.
The more managers perceive their task as coordination,
■ Sales (souvenirs, guide books , interpretive materi- and have the necessary attitudes and skills for stimulat-
als, refreshments , etc.)
ing and facilitating it, the more effective they will be.
■ Services from government departments (law en-
forcement, public works , tourism , etc.) 7. Human capacity in protected
■ Volunteer services (international, national , and areas management
local)
Information on the number of individuals employed in
■ Trust funds and endowments (capitalized by dona- the management of protected areas in the Caribbean is
tions, aid agencies, blocked funds, debt-for-nature sketchy. The most precise study is more than 10 years
swaps, other debt reduction programmes, surplus old (WWF - US , 1980). Based on this study and data
commodities, etc.) contained in the Inventory of Caribbean Marine and
Coastal Protected Areas (OAS and NPS, 1988) , it is
■ Universities and research centres (in-kind support estimated that approximately 75 professionals and 300
and cost sharing) . technicians are employed outside of Cuba. Though no
information is available, it is probable that Cuba has at
The mechanisms used in each country are shown in least as many employees as the rest of the Caribbean
Table 9. Grants, government budgets, and volunteer islands put together. This would give a very rough
services are currently the main sources of financial and
approximation of about 150 professionals and 600 tech-
human resources. Protected areas management agency nicians employed regionwide.
budgets are summarised in Table 6.
However, trained personnel are scarce in the region.
While the listing of current mechanisms is long, other A survey by CANARI (van't Hof and Gardner, 1991)
potential means of financing protected areas have yet to indicated that over 80% of the protected area personnel
be tried in the region. These include: commercial en- of the Caribbean do not consider themselves to be
dorsements and sponsorships (fees charged for the use adequately trained for their job. This is not surprising,
of a park's name or visual images); "voluntary" sur- given the lack of training institutions for protected area
charges (added to the bills of users of tourism services management in the region.
bycooperating businesses); stamps , duties , and proprie-
tary funds (hotel or departure taxes, cruising permits, No facilities or regular programmes exist in the
firearm and hunting permits, taxes on fuel for recrea- Caribbean for training protected area personnel. Most
tional boats, etc.); and loans from multilateral and re- professionals come from an educational background in the
gional development banks. Several of these proposed biological sciences, fisheries, forestry, or resource
Caribbean
management. Technical personnel generally have edu- 8.1 Expanding the constituency
cational backgrounds in forestry or agriculture.
Perhaps the most essential building block for the man-
Training is provided through ad hoc workshops and agement and development of Caribbean protected areas
short courses at the professional and technical levels, is the mobilization of a committed group of supporters.
and in-service at the ranger or guard level. However, the Whilethe human and financial resources are potentially
following problems are evident: available in the region, they have not been adequately
tapped. Indeed, there may be a preliminary indication
■ No regular protected area training programmes are
from the information presented in Table 8 that the
available within the region , and those available out-
overseas supporters for protected areas have been just
side are generally inappropriate to the small scale
as important for Caribbean protected areas as local
institutional setting of the Caribbean islands .
constituencies. Since it is clear that the potential for
■ Given the project orientation of most donor institu- increased support to protected area management by
tions, only one-time, ad hoc park training courses governments is limited, the key to improved manage-
are possible. ment is the mobilization of the private sector through
non-governmental organizations, community groups,
■ Attempts at mixing language groups in single train- and businesses.
ing sessions have not been very successful, though
participants benefit from sharing experiences with 8.2 Training and education
other language groups whenever possible.
Another ofthe fundamental building blocks of manage-
■ In general, participation of park personnel in short
courses and workshops does not lead to career ad- ment capacity is skilled manpower. None of the tools
vancement or pay increases. for protected area management can be applied effec-
tively without trained and capable personnel. Even the
The few professionals trained in fields related to most capable individuals cannot implement protected
natural resource management are in great demand area programmes on their own. The solutions to the
for a wide spectrum of assignments. Thus the ten- training and education needs of the region are not simple.
dency is to remain a generalist rather than special- Yet there is no way that protected areas can develop in
izing in protected area management. general without solving them .
The training needs of the region are quite complex,

8.3 Economic values and revenue
but the following are paramount:
generation
■ An institutional and financial framework that allows
for a regular and systematic park training programme One of the problems that has resulted in the rather
in English, Spanish, and French. restricted constituency for protected areas is the diffi-
culty in attributing economic values to protected areas,
■ Recognition of the training programme by resource and thereforejustifying greater expenditures. While this
management institutions so that successful comple- is a problem of theory and methods in the field of
tion of courses leads to career advancement for resource economics the world over, even the more
trainees.
simple indicators of economic values are not collected
and used as arguments for Caribbean protected areas.
Course content that recognizes the special institutional
Certainly simple statistics, such as the numbers of over-
requirements and social and bio-physical characteristics
of the insular Caribbean. seas visitors to protected areas and their contributions
to national economies, can be powerful arguments in
■ Practical orientation that emphasizes field work and favour ofprotected areas. Relatively basic systems for
actual case studies in the Caribbean island context. gathering, analyzing, and disseminating basic statistics
are extremely important to making the case for pro-
Low cost facilities.
tected areas.
8. Major protected areas issues in 8.4 Tourism and protected areas

the region
Tourism is the only growth industry in the Caribbean.
The issues facing the region are basic and clear. What It is an industry built and marketed on the characteristics
is needed in two-thirds of the cases is to build the and quality of the natural and cultural resources. The
capacity to manage at the local level. Without the es- industry thus has a vital interest in preserving the very
sential building blocks of management in place, it is features which define the product. At the same time,
impossible to address the secondary issues such as uncontrolled tourism could mean the destruction ofthe
community participation and awareness, involvement protected areas that they visit. Thus, an essential link
ofthe private sector, development of buffer zones, the must be developed between the tourism industry, which
application of science, amelioration of immediate threats, has the potential to generate the revenues for manage-
and transfrontier initiatives. ment, and the managers of protected areas, who are
essential to the presentation and maintenance of the for this are not in place in most countries, and there is
resource. considerable friction between individuals and groups.
The region's characteristics make regional coopera-

8.5 Collaboration tion more difficult, in many instances, than international
cooperation. Usually the links between individual is-
lands and metropolitan countries are stronger and more
None of the major actors in protected area manage- effective than links within the region. This often leads
ment-government agencies, interest groups, busi- to a situation of applying temperate continental solu-
nesses, and local communities-has the resources at tions to small tropical island problems. The challenge,
their disposal to implement effective management of therefore, is to find ways to translate the much-needed
protected areas on their own. Thus , successful manage- support from metropolitan countries into mechanisms
ment will depend on the ability of resource managers to for strengthening linkages and cooperation within the
encourage the collaboration of various groups in a rela- region.
tively friction-free environment. Currently, mechanisms
Table 7. Habitats within marine protected areas rated as fully managed
GGGGGG
Subregion and Country Protected Area Habitat
Antillean Subregion
British Virgin Islands Wreck ofthe Rhone MP R
UUUUUU
US Virgin Islands Virgin Island NP WR BLH
Buck Island National Monument R B H
Netherlands Antilles Saba Underwater Park с R
B33
Antigua and Barbuda Nelson's Dockyard NP WRB L
St Lucia Maria Islands Nature Reserve B
LLLL
Barbados Barbados Marine Reserve с B
Continental Subregion BBBB
3333
GGGG
Colombia PN Corales del Rosario W B LH

PN Tayrona с W R B H
Netherlands Antilles Bonaire Underwater Park W R B
Curacao Underwater Park WR B
Northwest Region
Mexico Parque Submarino Cozumel C G
Res . Ecologica Isla de Contoy W B
RB Sian Ka'an C G WR B L H
GulfSubregion
LLLLL
Mexico Res . Ecologica Rio Lagartos W LH

GGGGGG
UUU
US, Southern Florida Looe Cay Nat. Marine Sanctuary с

Key Largo Nat. Marine Sanctuary с
BBBBB
HHHH
John Pennekamp State Park с WR B L H

Everglades NP W B L
UU
Fort Jefferson Nat. Monument с W R B

Biscayne NP с W R B L
Rockery Bay NERR W
Bahamian Subregion
33
Bahamas Exuma Cay Land & Sea Park с G WR B LH

Inagua NP с G WR B L H
Guianan Subregion
BBB
HHH
G9G
Surinam Wia Wai Nature Reserve W B L H

Coppename-Mouth Nature Reserve W L
Galibi Nature Reserve W B L H
Key:
C - Coral reef; G - Sea Grass beds; W - Wetlands; R - Rocky shoreline; B - Beaches; L - Bays, lagoons , or estuaries;
H- Critical habitat for endangered species
Principal Source: OAS and NPS, 1988

Caribbean
Network Steering Committee (two per year);

reviews of national protected area programmes
The following agenda for the future of national parks on each island; information circulars to network
and other categories of protected areas in the Caribbean members from the CNPPA Vice Chair/Caribbean,
is based on the consensus that has been developed on and the focal points on each island; development
issues, priorities and approaches. Previous sections of of regional and sub-regional projects; and, capi-
this review have served to document and diagnose the talization of a regional Trust Fund.
status of Caribbean protected areas.
2. Support services. Support will be provided to
Action priorities were discussed during the Santo national programmes through: regional stand-
Domingo meeting of the CNPPA/Caribbean member- ards and guidelines; regional assessments; train-
ship, the Guadeloupe and Caracas meetings ofthe CNPPA/ ing and education (university courses, short courses
Caribbean Steering Committee, and at the IV World for professionals, internships, and materials for
Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. The park guard courses); technical information and
Action Plan outlined here addresses the issues that have documentation (newsletter, documentation cen-
been identified, and builds on the consensus that has ter, basic references); public awareness materi-
been developed through regional meetings. The overall als; and assistance in development of national
goal of the Action Plan is to increase the number of projects.
effectively managed protected areas in the Caribbean.
This is to be achieved by: 3. Technical cooperation. Technical cooperation
will take the form of short-term consultancies,
■ Enhancing local capacity to manage protected areas internships , and case studies.
throughnetworking, regional support, technical coop-
eration, and demonstration; 4. Demonstration projects. Existing demonstra-
Promotingcollaboration and regional self- sufficiency; tion projects will be strengthened so that the
and experience gained and lessons learned are trans-
ferred to other islands. Those currently in place
Collecting and analyzing information and opinions include:
in the region so that priorities can be updated, and
effective programmes defined, funded, and imple- - Biosphere reserves (Cuba, Puerto Rico, and
mented. the US Virgin Islands)
- The Caribbean Heritage Program, a collabo-
■ Implementation ofthe Plan should be guided by the
rative undertaking ofthe Caribbean Conser-
following principles:
vation Association, the Caribbean Natural
■ Where possible, on-going regional programmes will Resources Institute, and the governments and
be supported. In cases where there are strong na- selected quasi- and non-governmental organi-
tional programmes that could be expanded or en- zations of Jamaica, Anguilla, the British
hanced to play a role at the regional or subregional Virgin Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica,
level, these will be supported before new programmes and St. Lucia
are initiated. Parks in Peril (Jamaica and the Dominican
Decisions on the regional Plan of Action will be Republic)
made by the CNPPA/Caribbean Steering Commit- Thematic projects (systems plan and com-
tee, and guided by the decisions of the full CNPPA munity participation , St. Lucia).
Membership when it meets.
Those expected to be in place in the near future are:
■ Every effort will be made to coordinate the Plan with
those ofthe various on-going regional programmes. Biosphere reserves (Guadeloupe, Haiti, and
the Dominican Republic)
■ The Plan of Action will form the basis for activities
- World Heritage Site (St. Lucia)
of the CNPPA in the Caribbean.
Parks in Peril (Dominica)
■ While the Plan will address immediate needs through ENCORE (Dominica and St. Lucia)
short-term solutions, it will also seek longer-term - Marine parks (Anguilla, Barbados, British
solutions.
Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica,
The following plan elements will meet the needs Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts- Nevis, and
identified and the guidelines established, and build Trinidad and Tobago).
on on-going activities.
5. Implementation. Implementation will be pro-
1. Regional network. The regional network of moted bytheCaribbean membership ofthe CNPPA,
protected area managers will be energized and and carried out by cooperating regional and
maintained through: meetings ofthe full network national institutions. Programming and evalu-
membership every three years; meetings of the ation will be the responsibility of the CNPPA/
Caribbean Steering Committee in consultation Though the CNPPA/Caribbean will take the lead in
with national and regional organizations. Activi- promoting the regional Action Plan, the Plan itself can
ties will be coordinated by the CNPPA Regional only be implemented in partnership with national and
Vice Chair with the assistance of a small Secre- regional programmes. At the national level partnerships
tariat. will be forged with governmental and non-governmen-
tal organizations , as well as with private enterprise. At
The basic strategy for implementing the Plan is two- the regional level, partnerships will be sought with the
fold. First, ongoing networking, regional support serv- on-going and upcoming regional programmes. Individ-
ices, technical cooperation, and demonstration projects ual projects and activities will be carried out through
will be promoted and enhanced where possible by a cooperative agreements with partner organizations, con-
more active and better-funded CNPPA Network in part- tracts with organizations and individuals, and directly
nership with interested national and regional institu- bythe Network Secretariat.
tions. Second, a longer-term effort will be undertaken
to support the development of a new and innovative
regional initiative, the Caribbean Heritage Park System
and Trust Fund.
Table 8. Institutions taking part in the management of protected areas
Country MG GA ос NG LC PE BA MA
Anguilla X X
Antigua and Barbuda X X X
Aruba X
Bahamas X
Barbados X
XXXX
XX
Bermuda X X
British Virgin Islands X X
Cayman Islands
X
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic X X
Grenada X
Guadeloupe X X
Haiti X X X
XX
Jamaica X X
XXX
Martinique
Montserrat
Netherlands Antilles X X X
Puerto Rica X X X
St Kitts-Nevis X
St Lucia X X X X
St Vincent and the Grenadines X
XX
Trinidad and Tobago X X X

Turks and Caicos X
U.S. Virgin Islands X
Totals 2 13 13 9 7 3 3 2
Key:
MG: National government agencies of metropolitan countries; GA: Government agencies;
QC: Independent statutory, or quasi -governmental , bodies; NG: Non-governmental organisations;
LC: Local communities or resource user groups; PE: Private entities; BA: Bilateral aid organisations;
MA: Multilateral aid organisations.
Source: WCMC, 1991a.

Caribbean
10. Conclusion to manage. This review has called particular attention

to the over-riding need for cooperation within countries ,
This document presents an overview of a region where among islands, and between regional programmes to
efforts to establish and manage national parks and pro- improve the management of already established areas.
tected areas have been frustrated by fragmentation of If that call is heard, the reasons for it understood, and a
effort. In spite of this, a system of protected areas, consensus on the actions required to overcome it has
relatively representative of the region's major habitats , developed, then this effort will have served a good
has been legally established . Unfortunately, the willing- purpose.
ness to legislate has not been matched by the capacity
Table 9. Funding mechanisms for Caribbean protected areas by country
Country GB GR UF CN CB LN SL GS VS TF ID CE SR PF DB RS
Anguilla X X P P
Antigua and Barbuda X X X X X X X
Bahamas X X X X X
Barbados X X X
XX
Bermuda X X X X
X
British Virgin Islands X X X P X X X X
XXX
Cayman Islands X X X
Cuba X X X
PP
XXX
Dominica X P X
Dominican Republic X X X X X P X
Grenada X
Guadeloupe X X X
XX
Haiti X X
XX
Jamaica X X X X P X
XXX
Martinique X X
XXX
XXX
Montserrat
Netherlands Antilles X X X X X
X
X
Puerto Rica X X X X X X X X
St Kitts-Nevis X X X
St Lucia X X
St Vincent and the Grenadines X X
Trinidad and Tobago X X X
Turks and Caicos X X P P X P P
U.S. Virgin Islands X X X X X X
Regional X PPPPP x
Total 22 20 6 5 1 6 6 9 11 7 9 1 5 0 1 14
Key:
GB: Government budgets; GR: Grants; UF: User fees; CN: Concessions; CB : Commercial bank loans;
LN: Local non-governmental support groups; SL: Sales; GS: Services of other Government departments;
VS: Volunteer services; TF: Trust funds; ID: Individual donors; CE: Commercial endorsements and sponsors;
SR: Surcharges; PF: Proprietary funds; DB: International and regional development banks; Universities and
research centres. X = existing funding mechanisms; P = proposed funding mechanism
Sources: Geoghegan, 1991 ; WCMC , 1991a.

References
Birdsey, R. and P. Weaver, 1982. The forest resources Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
ofPuerto Rico. Resource Bulletin SO-85, US De- xxiv + 460pp.
partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Jackson, I., 1981. A preliminary management strategy
Forest Exp. Station, New Orleans, LA. forthe utilization of the critical marine resources of
Birdsey, R., Weaver, P. and Nicholls, C. 1986. The Anguilla. Unpublished paper by ECNAMP for the
forest resources of St. Vincent, West Indies. Re- Government of Anguilla.
search Paper SO-229. US Department of Agricul- McNeely, J.A. , and K.R. Miller (eds.) . 1984. National
ture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Exp. Station, parks, conservation and development, the role of
New Orleans, LA. protected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian
BVI National Parks Trust and CANARI, 1989. Aparks Institution Press, Washington, DC.
and protected areas system plan for the British Northrup, B. , 1991. Personnel communication. Letter
Virgin Islands. Caribbean Natural Resource Institute, St. of 1.XII.91 , The Nature Conservancy Washington ,
Croix, V.I. DC.
Challenger, B., 1991. Personal communication. Memo- OAS and NPS, 1988. Inventory of Caribbean marine
randum of 14.XI.91 , Organisation of Eastern and coastal protected areas. Department of Re-
Caribbean States, Natural Resource Management gional Development, Organisation of American States,
Unit, St. Lucia. Office ofInternational Affairs, National Park Service,
Cross, R. Personal communication. 35th Working Session, Washington, DC.
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Perera, A. and P. Rosabal , 1986. La areas protegidas en
Areas, Santo Domingo, 29 April-3 May, 1991. Cuba. Flora, Fauna y Areas Silvestres 2: 13-17.
Departamento de Vida Silvestre, 1990. La diversidad
Perera, A. and P. Rosabal, 1986. Panoramica de las
biologica en la Republica Dominicana. Sec. de Est.
areas protegidas en la Republica de Cuba. In: Con-
de Ag. , Subsec. de Rec. Nat. , Departamento de Vida
servando el patrimonio natural de la region Neo-
Silvestre, Santo Domingo.
tropical. Proceedings of the 27th Working Session
ECNAMP, 1980. Aruba data atlas. Eastern Caribbean
of the IUCN Commission on National Parks and
Natural Area Management Programme. St. Croix , Protected Areas, Bariloche, Argentina.
V.I.
Pinilla, M. , 1991. Personal communication. Facsimile
ECNAMP, 1980. Bonaire data atlas. Eastern Caribbean
of 16.XII.91 , World Wildlife Fund, Washington,
Natural Area Management Programme. St. Croix , V.I.
DC.
ECNAMP, 1980. Curacao data atlas. Eastern Caribbean
Natural Area Management Programme. St.Croix , V.I. Putney, A. , 1982. Final report, survey ofconservation
Figueroa, J. , Ortiz, P. and Quevedo, V. 1985. Programa priorities in the Lesser Antilles. Caribbean Conser-
pro-patrimonio natural de Puerto Rico. Diversidata vation Association , Caribbean Environment, Tech-
2(2): 2-5, The Nature Conservancy, Washington, nical Report 1 , ECNAMP, St. Croix, V.I.
DC. Renard, Y. , 1991. Parks and development, towards a
Geoghegan, T., 1991. Information on financing for Caribbean agenda. Paper presented, 35th Working
Caribbean overview. Internal memo., 7.X.91 , Caribbean Session, IUCN Commission on National Parks and
Natural Resource Institute, St. Croix , V.I. Protected Areas, Santo Domingo, 29 April-3 May,
1991 .
Grenada Government and OAS, 1988. Plan and policy
for a system of national parks and protected areas. Robinson, A. , 1979. Identification and development of
Department of Regional Development, Organisa- a national park system in Antigua and Barbuda.
Unpublished Project Report, Government of Antigua-
tion of American States. Washington, DC.
Harrison, J. Personal communication. Facsimile of 10.XII.91, Barbuda.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, Santana, E., 1991. Nature conservation and sustainable
U.K. development in Cuba. Conservation Biology, 5(1):
13-16.
Howell , C., 1991. Personal communication. Letter of
10.XI.91 , Caribbean Conservation Association. Barbados. Scott, D. and Carbonell , M. (Compilers) , 1986. A
IUCN, 1979. A strategy for the conservation ofliving Directory of Neotropical Wetlands . IUCN
marine resources and precesses in the Caribbean Cambridge and IWRB Slimbridge, UK.
region. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Shanks, D., and Putney, A. , 1979. Dominica forest and
IUCN, 1982. IUCN Directory ofNeotropical Protected
park system plan. Dominica For. and Wildlife Divi-
Areas. Tycooly International Publications Ltd. , Dublin.
sion and ECNAMP, St. Croix, V.I.
IUCN, 1986. Nahuel Huapi action planfor the protected
areas of the Neotropical Realm. IUCN , Gland, Sergile, F. Personal communication. IV World Con-
Switzerland. gress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas.
IUCN 1992. Protected Areas ofthe World: A review of
Thelen, K. and S. Faizool , 1980. Plan for a system of
national systems. Volume 4: Nearctic and Neo-
national parks and other protected areas in Trini-
tropical. Prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring
dad andTobago. Ministry of Agriculture , Land and
Caribbean
Fisheries, Forest Division Technical Document. Port van't Hof,T. and Gardner, L. 1991. Enhancing the skills
of Spain, Trinidad. ofprotected area professionals in the insular Caribbean.
Parks 2(1 ): 28-31.
Thelen, K. and Faizool, S.1980. Policy for the estab-
lishment and management ofa nationalpark system WCMC, 1991. Draft review ofprotected areas systems in
in Trinidad and Tobago. Ministry of Agriculture, the Caribbean islands. World Conservation Monitoring
Land and Fisheries, Forest Division , Port of Spain, Centre, Cambridge, U.K. Unpublished
Trinidad. WCMC, 1991. Protected area summary statistics, Neo-
TNC, 1990. Parks in peril, a conservation partnershipfor tropical Caribbean. Unpublished report, World
the Americas. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
DC. Woods, C.A. , and L. Harris, 1986. Stewardship plan for
Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A Classification of the Bio- the national parks of Haiti. University of Florida,
Gainesville.
geographical Provinces of the World. IUCN Occa-
sional. Paper. 18: 48pp. WWF/US , 1980. Strategy for training in natural re-
sources and environment. World Wildlife Fund,
UNEP, 1991. Report of the ninth meeting ofthe moni-
US., Washington, DC.
toring committee on the action plan for the
Caribbean Environment Program, Kingston 12-14
June, 1991. UNEP (OCA)/CAR IG.8/5.
South America
Percentage
protected
%
0.1
than
Less
%
0.1-5
5-10
%
10-15
%
%
15-20
%
20
than
More
Km
0 1000
designated
areas
protected
Map
.Percentage
legally
within
included
country
of
Contents
Page
2. Current coverage of protected areas in South America 352
3. Additional protected areas needed 355
3.1 Regional initiatives 355
3.2 National needs 355
8.1 Human populations in protected areas 364
8.2 Research in protected areas . 366
8.3 Regional initiatives 366
8.4 Importance of environmental non-governmental organizations (NGO's) .. 367
8.5 Tourism and protected areas . 367
9. Priorities for action in the region . 368
9.1 Critical issues 368
9.2 Strategic actions needed 368
9.3 Principles for implementing the strategic actions • . 369
9.4 Investment priorities 369
References 369
Tables
Table 1 . Summary of the protected areas system . . 353
Table 2 . Protected areas by IUCN management categories · 353

Page
Table 5 . World Heritage sites in South America 357
Table 7. First protected areas established in South America 361
Table 8 . South American critical areas considered in The Nature

Conservancy's " Parks in Peril" campaign 361
Table 9. Officially sanctioned debt for nature swaps to date • 362
Figures

areas .. 348
Figure 2. Growth ofthe protected areas network (cumulative) • 354

South America
Cristina Pardo , Regional Vice-Chair for South America , IUCN Commission

on National Parks and Protected Areas , with contributions from
Hernán Torres and Cesar Ormazábal
1. Historical perspective occupied by indigenous tribes living a simpler exist-

ence. But more frequently,the opening offorested lands
for cultivation and grazing is spontaneous, driven by
South America covers nearly 18 million sq km, extend-
poverty, growing populations, and government policies
ing from the sunny beaches of the Caribbean Sea to
(Southgate, 1991 ) . The region confronts numerous pro-
Tierra del Fuego, where permanent winter prevails;
blems resulting from the processes that are transforming
from the driest environment on Earth-the Atacama
the land: agriculture, ranching, forestry , mining, explo-
desert in Chile-to one ofthe most humid-the Chocó
ration for oil , industrialization and urbanization (Latin
in Colombia. The most important natural features of American and Caribbean Commission on Development
South America are the 7,000km long Andes, the longest and Environment, 1990; Hajek, 1991) . Perhaps as a
mountain chain in the world; and the rivers Orinoco,
result of this rapid change in land use, concern is in-
Amazon, and Paraná-La Plata, all flowing into the
creasing about environmental problems and more con-
Atlantic , and their flood plains. The 25,432km of coast-
servation activities are being carried out, despite the
line include extensive areas of mangroves, many coastal
meagre funds and scarcity of trained personnel that
lagoons, and deltas ofthe enormous fluvial systems. characterize most institutions in charge ofprotecting the
environment.
The Amazon region includes about six million sq km
of tropical forest, 56% of the world's total. Besides Conserving biological diversity and meeting human
being among the oldest forests in the world, these
needs sustainably requires protected areas to play a role
forests comprise the world's most species-rich habitats. of increasing importance. Unfortunately, this growing
The humid subtropical forest areas of Argentina, Bolivia, role does not guarantee the protection and sustainable
Brazil, and Paraguay greatly increase the continent's use of the valuable natural resources of South America,
diversity since they contain a large number of species especially in times when the demand for these resources
different from those of tropical forests, including nu- is growing rapidly. Progress will depend upon linking
merous endemic species. protected areas in a harmonious way with other means
of protecting nature so that South America's outstand-
In general , South America has experienced a trend ing natural heritage will not continue to diminish in both
towards social and economic concentration in metro-
quality and quantity.
politan areas , which has led to growing consumption of
the region's resources- both renewable and non- The protected area concept has been based on the
renewable (Latin American and Caribbean Commis- national park ideal developed in the United States at the
sion on Development and Environment, 1990) . One of turn of the last century. The first protected areas in the
the limiting factors for the establishment of protected region were created at the beginning of this century in
area systems is the deep social-economic crisis that has Argentina and Chile (Table 7) . Gradually the other
affected the region since the beginning of the 1970s. countries began to establish them , sometimes in catego-
This has relegated environmental actions to a lower ries other than the National Park.
priority in the majority of South American countries,
leading to destruction of large forest areas, pollution and Protected area systems grew quickly beginning in the
degradation of coastal ecosystems-which in turn has 1960s, building on strong government support (Figures
reduced biological diversity (MOPU, 1990) . 1 and 2; Table 3) . In the 1970s, the idea of international
protection systems gained strength and the biosphere
Many experts contend that the destruction of natural reserve concept appeared. Almost all ofthe countries in
environments in South America is a consequence of the region have ratified at least one of the major interna-
agricultural colonization which was intended to rein- tional conventions and programmes which address pro-
force national sovereignty. Thus, several countries have tected areas (Table 4), and a number of protected areas
pushed government projects to relocate farmers in the havebeen inscribed on the World Heritage List (Table 5) .
forested lands ofthe interior, most of which are already Among the most outstanding are the Convention on
Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the The level of development and the legal support for
Western Hemisphere (Western Hemisphere Conven- protected areas in the region is highly heterogeneous.
tion) (Washington, 1940); the creation of IUCN in Most countries do not possess a parks system that was
1948; and an FAO Regional Project which published legally created and structured as such, although some
two very useful technical documents: "Planning Systems bills are being considered to correct deficiencies (Moore
ofForest Areas" and "Planning National Parks." and Ormazábal, 1988) . Without a doubt, the majority of
institutions charged with administration of a protected
In 1982, the III World Congress on National Parks, areas system are burdened with a legal framework that
held in Indonesia, prepared the Bali Action Plan. This is scarcely appropriate, discouraging them from taking
plan constituted the conceptual framework for pro- the actions that are needed to effectively manage and
tected areas forthe following ten years. During the 27th develop their areas. Where laws have formally created
Working Session of IUCN's Commission on National protected area systems, they often are obsolete and
Parks and Protected Area, held in Nahuel Huapi present gaps and contradictions, especially in aspects
National Park in Argentina, the Action Plan for
related to indigenous populations , penalties for viola-
Protected Areas ofthe Neotropical Realm was prepared tions, tourism use, and utilization of flora, fauna, and
by members of the CNPPA (IUCN, 1986) . The Plan water resources (Marchetti, Oltremari, and Peters, 1992).
recommended actions required at the regional level in Unquestionably, deficiencies in the legal systems threaten
order to effectively plan and manage protected areas of the very integrity of individual protected areas.
the region, complementing the Bail Action Plan and
helping put it into practice. While not all of the Plan's South America has a total of at least 53 different
goals have been attained, the terrestrial area under pro- protected area management categories, the most com-
tection has nearly tripled in the decade from 1982 to mon of which is the national park (Ormazábal, 1988) .
1992 (see below). Of the 666 South American protected areas (Table 2)
recognized by IUCN, 234 belong to that category (IUCN
The ineffective management of most protected areas category II) . Other categories aim at the integral protec-
is one of the disappointing aspects of the past decade, tion of areas in their natural state; protect specific living
due especially to the lack of trained personnel, lack of resources; or protect tourist resources.
political will and the inadequate budgets of the institu-
The protected areas network has grown from 41 mil-
tions in charge of preparing or executing management
lion hectares in 1982 to 114 million hectares (in IUCN
plans. Rapid turnover of employees, due primarily to
management Categories I-V) in 1992, covering 6.4%
low salaries, is the most decisive factor in the loss of
ofthe region. The percentage of each country included
already- scarce qualified personnel .
in Categories I-V are illustrated graphically in the map.
In addition, a further 247 million hectares (13.7% ofthe
region) are included in the IUCN Management Categories
2. Current coverage of protected
VI-VII, reflecting the extensive network of indigenous
areas in South America
reserves (Table 1 ).
Despite the fact that the area under protection in some
In the first attempts to establish protected areas in the countries represents an important percentage of their
region, management categories were somewhat arbi- national territories, in general the national systems do
trary, not only among countries, but also within them. not well reflect the outstanding biological diversity
which is characteristic of South America. This is dueto
Protected areas, particularly national parks, were estab-
lished simply to protect scenic beauty and provide deficiencies in the geographic distribution of protected
recreational possibilities in a natural environment. This areas, the lack of representation of many key ecosys-
situation is changing, and in recent years, national pro- tems and a selection process which did not consider
tected areas systems plans have been carried out for criteria such as diversity, endemism , and the degree to
Brazil (Wetterberg and Jorge-Padua, 1978; Wetterberg which species are threatened. For example, although
et al. 1976; Chile (Thelen and Miller, 1976; Oltremari, 18.2% of Chile's territory is included in its national
Paredes and Real, 1981 ) , Ecuador (Putney, 1976; system of protected wildlands, only 51 of the 83 plant
Cifuentes et al. , MAG/Fundación Natura, 1989) , Perú formations that are recognized by the country are pro-
(CDC-UNALM , 1991), and Venezuela (MARNR, 1989). tected . The 13.7 million hectares that are protected are
Today, biological diversity and richness is seen as the concentrated in only 2 of 13 administrative regions of
most important reason to conserve natural areas in the country (Ormazábal, in press). In addition, in some
South America (Torres, 1990) . South American coun- cases, the areas assigned to a specific category do not
tries have generally felt that tourism should be a secon- fulfil the basic requirements and do not conform to the
dary objective, developed in accordance with the primary international definition of that category, so they can
objective ofconserving existing ecosystems (Oltremari, neither function as they should nor accomplish the goals
1993). assigned to their respective categories (Ormazábal, 1988).
South America
Table 1. Summary of the protected areas system : South America

Country Area Categories I-V % VI-VIII and UA
V % designated %
Argentina 2,777,815 93,360 3.4 38,864 1.4 132,224 4.8

Bolivia 1,098,575 92,496 8.4 153,712 14.0 246,208 22.4
Brazil 8,511,965 277,420 3.3 1,152,747 13.5 1,430,167 16.8
Chile 751,625 137,155 18.2 0 0.0 137,155 18.2
Colombia 1,138,915 93,911 8.2 724,435 63.6 818,346 71.9
Ecuador 461,475 111,356 24.1 29,180 6.3 140,536 30.5
French Guiana 91,000 0 0.0 1,872 2.1 1,872 2.1
Guyana 214,970 586 0.3 0 0.0 586 0.3
Paraguay 406,750 14,830 3.6 0 0.0 14,830 3.6
Peru 1,285,215 41,762 3.2 85,440 6.6 127,201 9.9
Suriname 163,820 7,360 4.5 683 0.4 8,043 4.9
Uruguay 186,925 321 0.2 145 0.1 466 0.2
Venezuela 912,045 275,337 30.2 278,159 30.5 553,496 60.7
Total 18,001,095 1,145,894 6.4 2,465,237 13.7 3,611,131 20.1
Table 2. Protected areas by IUCN management categories : South America
I II III IV V TOTAL
Argentina 11 18,416 24 20,691 2 260 53 39,691 10 14,301 100 93,360

Bolivia 1 1,350 7 36,385 16 54,462 2 299 26 92,496
12
Brazil 38 38,234 74 145,480 45 44,423 57 49,282 214 277,420

Chile 29 83,517 136 34 53,502 - 65 137,155
Colombia 2 19,470 33 70,438 6 574 38 3,429 79 93,911
21
Ecuador 3 6,426 6 24,625 79,946 4 359 15 111,356

French Guiana -
1 586 1 586
156
Guyana
27218
Paraguay 13,628 1 25 1 300 877 19 14,830

I
Peru 23,811 7 16,299 2 753 898 22 41,762

Suriname 866 - 11 6,494 - - 13 7,360
Uruguay - - 2 153 1 80 5 88 8 321
Venezuela - 39 126,298 10 11,203 5 964 50 136,871 104 275,337
Total 55 83,896 234 546,325 24 28,076 176 281,189 177 206,404 6661,145,894
Although none of the countries has specifically incor- within their limits or on their periphery, sometimes
porated the marine national park category into its legisla- accelerating degradation of the areas (FAO/ UNEP,
tion, approximately 25% ofprotected areas protect marine, 1988). Numerous government organizations are in-
coastal or insular ecosystems; protected areas in Argen- volved with coastal zone management in South America,
tina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, French Guiana, ranging from those related with tourism to those in
Perú, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela protect marine, charge of national defence; this sometimes causes serious
coastal or insular ecosystems. Most of the coastal pro- conflicts of interests.
tected areas in the region have human settlements either
300
Number of sites
250
Area (x1000sqkm )
200
150
100
50
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
1,400
Number of sites South America
1,200 Area ( x1000sqkm )
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
South America
Additional protected areas ment of natural fauna and its habitat under the umbrella
3.
needed of sustainable development. They see their work as a
form of both preservation of biological diversity and
betterment of the quality of life of surrounding popula-
Due tothe scale ofcurrent degradation, each day natural
tions (FAO/UNEP/US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993).
environments in a pristine state become more scarce so The activities carried out under the supervision of this
opportunities for creating protected areas must be taken
group will have a beneficial influence on the estab-
advantage of as soon as they appear. However, those
lishment of new protected areas particularly where
countries which have a great number of protected areas
animals are seen as a resource with an important role.
"on paper" areas which were created legally, but with-
out the necessary measures to allow effective protec- The IUCN/SSC South American Camelid Specialist
tion-need to work first on effective management of Group, which includes members from Argentina,
areas already legally created before proposing new ones. Bolivia, Chile, and Perú countries that protect both
species of wild South American camelids, the vicuña,
3.1 Regional initiatives Vicugna vicugna, and the guanaco, Lama guanicoe-
has prepared an Action Plan for the Conservation ofthe
At the regional level, the South American countries that South American Camelids and has suggested the crea-
share the Amazon basin have proposed to create 94 new tion of nine new protected areas in zones inhabited by
areas and to enlarge nine existing areas within the these species (IUCN, 1992) . Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil ,
framework of the Amazonian Cooperation Treaty. The and Paraguay-which share the Gran Chaco biogeo-
signatories of this agreement are Bolivia, Brazil, graphical province-have proposed the creation of 13
Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Perú, Suriname, and new areas to ensure adequate protection and manage-
Venezuela (Rojas and Castaño, 1990) . Of these coun- ment ofthe Chaco ecosystems (FAO/UNEP, 1986).
tries, Brazil has the most ambitious plans for expansion.
A total of 54 new areas have been proposed reflecting 3.2 National needs
both the outstanding biological value of the Amazon
region and the degree of threat to these fragile ecosys- At the national level, it is considered urgent for each
tems which face the processes of human occupation. country to have a legally established and effectively
These countries have been supported by FAO's Re- managed national protected areas system, including a
gional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean. variety of management categories and covering repre-
Recently, an important programme providing technical sentative ecosystems (Ormazábal 1988) . Protected area
assistance for the planning and management of pro- specialists have identified several gaps in the current
tected areas in the Amazon Basin was agreed upon with network of protected areas (IDB/IUCN, 1992).
the financial support of the European Community.
Argentina. Argentina has recently completed a re-
view of its protected areas, based on ecological repre-
The countries of the Amazon region have made an
sentativeness. Areas which are insufficiently covered include
incomparable effort to establish a system of protected
the Pampas , the humid portions of the Chaco, the
areas. In terms ofcoverage, the Amazon system of units
of conservation is one of the best in the world . The Yungas and Paranaense forests, and the Andean
negative side is that, due to lack of financial resources Patagonia (National Network of Technical Cooperation
in Protected Areas , 1990).
during the last decade, this system is very poorly admin-
istered and directed (Comisión Amazónica de Desarrollo Bolivia. Gaps in the Bolivian parks system include
y Medio Ambiente, 1992) . Thus while the protected
parts of the Bolivian Amazon, swamplands in the Chaco,
area system in the Amazon represents its biological
the Puna and Andean highlands, inter-Andean dry val-
richness reasonably well, the area protected is insuffi-
leys, and sub-Andean foothills. Bolivia is considering
cient in size to guarantee ecological sustainability or to the creation of four boundary parks, adjacent to or
address the multiple objectives of the diverse categories
contiguous with protected areas in Brazil, Chile,
of management that compose this system. From this
Paraguay, and Perú.
point of view, the support manifested by the Amazon
nations forthe establishment ofprotected areas has been Brazil. The ecosystem coverage of protected areas in
important, but has been insufficient due to especially a Brazil is remarkably uneven. Most parks are located in
lack of human and financial resources it has been insuf- the Amazonian section of the country, while other re-
ficient (Rojas y Castaño , 1990). gions such as the araucaria forests and the Atlantic
forests are poorly protected . A 1982 plan drafted by the
The recent creation of the Sub-network for Natural
Brazilian Forest Development Institute provided guide-
Fauna of the Southern Cone, established under the lines forthe designation of new parks based on ecologi-
framework of the FAO Latin American Network of cal criteria. Unfortunately this plan has notbeen implemented
Technical Cooperation in National Parks, other Pro- (Blockhus, et al., 1992).
tected Areas, and Natural Flora and Fauna, is also
noteworthy. The main objective of the Group-made Chile. Under-represented ecosystems include the
up ofrepresentatives from Argentina, Chile , Paraguay, Patagonian steppe, the Atacama desert, the sclerophyl-
and Uruguay is to promote conservation and manage- lous forests, the northern Nothofagus forests, and major
Table 3. The development of the protected areas system : South America

Argentina 27.3 12.5 41.3 18.9 886 93,360

Bolivia 3.3 11.9 46.3 38.5 0 92,495
Brazil 12.5 2.5 36.0 48.9 2,427 277,419
Chile 27.6 58.6 2.0 11.8 0 137,154
Colombia 0.7 13.8 21.9 63.6 0 93,910
Ecuador 6.5 5.5 14.9 73.1 0 111,356
French Guiana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
Guyana 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 585
Paraguay 0.0 18.9 57.5 23.6 0 14,830
Peru 0.1 0.4 86.1 13.4 0 41,761
Suriname 4.9 62.9 14.4 17.9 0 7,359
Uruguay 19.9 75.6 4.5 0.0 0 320
Venezuela 2.3 11.0 60.6 26.1 0 275,336
Total 10.1 14.6 37.8 37.4 3,313 1,145,892
Notes: Areas are given in square kilometres . Minimum size for inclusion is 10 sq km. Sites are only in the database once,
therefore if a major change in size, or a change in designation, has occurred during the period covered by the table, the
figures may be distorted.
Table 4. Adherence to international/regional conventions : South America

Argentina August 1978 2 655,000 5 2,409,980 May 1992 3 82,474

Bolivia October 1976 0 3 435,000 June 1990 5,240
Brazil September 1977 1 170,000 1 4,936,825
002
Chile February 1980 8 2,417,169 July 1981 1 4,877

Colombia May 1983 3 2,514,375 -
Ecuador June 1975 1,038,439 2 1,446,244 September 1988 2 90,000
France
(French Guiana) June 1975 0 October 1986 0 0
Guyana June 1977 0
0 -
13
Paraguay April 1988

Peru February 1982 4 2,179,918 2,506,739 March 1992 3 2,415,691
Suriname - March 1985 1 12,000
Uruguay March 1989 0 1 200,000 May 1984 1 200,000
Venezuela October 1990 0 - November 1988 1 9,968
Notes: 1. The World Heritage site Iguaçu/Iguazu lies across the international border between Brazil and Argentina. To simplify
this table, each part of the sites has been entered within the appropriate country.
aquatic ecosystems. The country is carrying out an areas which have been proposed for inclusion in the
in-depth analysis to determine priorities in conserving system may inake up for some of this deficiency.
terrestrial biodiversity and formulate a plan by the
Ecuador. The 1989 Strategy for the National System
middle of 1993 that will incorporate these formations
in their system of protected areas. of Protected Areas, developed by the Government of
Ecuador and the Fundación Natura, proposes the crea-
tion of 17 new parks to fill gaps in the current network.
Colombia. Only 44% of Colombia's major ecosys-
tems are covered in its protected area network. Ten new
South America
Priority areas for protection include coastal mangroves, of the country and should be a priority area for the
dry southern coastal forests, and lowland wet coastal establishment of new parks.
forests (MAG/Fundación Natura, 1989). Other areas
Venezuela. Many of Venezuela's ecosystems are
currently not represented are tropical deserts, tropical
dry forests , low mountain rain forests, and páramo covered in the current protected area network, but cur-
(alpine moors). rent proposals for the creation of 13 new protected area
units will improve the representativeness of the system
French Guiana. There is no system of national parks (MARNR, 1989). One priority is the creation ofbiologi-
in French Guiana, although a proposal for the creation cal corridors linking protected areas in the Andes.
of 16 protected area units is under consideration.
Recent research and global comparative analyses have
Guyana. Guyana has only one national park, but Gov- determined the great biological richness of the South
American subcontinent. This research indicates that
ernment authorities are considering plans to create an
integrated protected area system consisting of 22 new Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, Bolivia, and Vene-
management units. zuela are among the countries richest in number of
species on a global level " megadiversity countries".
Paraguay. Some 90% of Paraguay's protected areas Colombia and Perú have the highest number of bird
are located in the sparsely-populated western section of species in the world. Brazil has the highest number of
the country, leaving important ecosystems in the eastern amphibian and plant species (McNeely, et al., 1990) .
section poorly represented or are not represented at all. Knowledge of these facts has generated a change in
The Paraguayan Conservation Data Center has pro- international conservation priorities and, possibly, may
posed the creation of 27 new areas for inclusion into the bring about a change at the national level as well.
national parks system (CDC- Paraguay, 1990).
Table 5. World Heritage sites in South
America Protected area institutions are highly variable in South
America. Ministries responsible for protected areas in-
clude Peasant and Agricultural Affairs (Bolivia), Interior
Argentina
(Brazil), Agriculture (Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay,
Iguazú National Park (with Brazil)
Los Glaciares National Park Perú), Communications and Labor (Guyana), Environ-
ment (French Guiana, Venezuela), Natural Resources
Brazil
(Suriname), and Housing, Land Use Planning, and
Iguaçu National Park (with Argentina) Environment (Uruguay) . But the real situation is far
Ecuador more complex. For example, Argentina is a federation,
Galápagos Islands so the areas in each province are administered by dif-
Sangay National Park ferent institutions. At the national level, the National
Parks Administration is in charge of National Parks,
Peru
Reserves, and National Monuments; it is a government
Huascarán National Park
institution which is part of the newly-created Natural
Manuú National Park
Resources and Human Environment Secretariat. At the
Río Abiseo National Park
provincial level , protected areas are managed by a va-
Sanctuario Histórico de Macchu Picchu
riety of institutions, resulting from autonomous initia-
tives without following agreed general or national
outlines -although some have followed at least par-
Perú. Perú's 24 protected area units cover only 60% tially the orientations assigned to National Parks and
of the country's life zones. The national Conservation Reserves. In addition, there are two municipal protected
Data Center has proposed that 24 new areas be added areas, two university protected areas, and four private
to this system in order to fill the gaps, ranging from areas.
tropical dry forests to Pacific deserts and Andean lakes.
The coastal and mountain ecosystems are severely de- In Colombia, the organization in charge is the
graded and are under-represented in the current net- National Institute for Renewable Natural Resources
work. Important gaps range from tropical dry forests to and the Environment (INDERENA), part ofthe Minis-
Pacific deserts and Andean lakes. try of Agriculture, through the Natural National Parks
Division. INDERENA has delegated administration of
Suriname. The Conservation Action Plan for Suriname protected areas in several parts of the country to re-
proposes the creation of two nature reserves, two new gional autonomous corporations; protected areas with
forest reserves and the expansion of Brownsberg National territory in the jurisdiction of several corporations are
Park (Mittermeier, et al., 1990) being administered by up to 4 corporations, as is the
case with Los Nevados National Park.
Uruguay. If 36 areas proposed are approved by the
government, coverage will still be only 0.7%. The French Guianais a dependency ofFrance and is subject
Atlantic Plain is the most biologically diverse section to French legislation . The institution responsible for
Protected
6.
Table
areas
management
agency
budgets
S
: outh
America
Count
r
agency ry
/ espons ible in
Budget US
Dollar
currency
equivalent
Argentina ARS
FBolivia
Development
Centre
C DF
)(-orest BOB
2,964,915 78,000 1988 Constitutes
state
the
budget
natural
the
for
resource
management
sector
as
a
whole
T
. he
recieves
CDF
very
external
little
funding G1
Brazil
BAMA
budget
Iee
notes
for
translation
)s(- BRC
121,139,100 1,211,000 1990 Brasileiro
(Instituto
IBAMA
the
to
budget
state
total
the
Comprises
Meio
do
Ambiente
Recursos
dos
Naturais
Renovaveis
).e G2
Chile
sC
staffONAF
(-ee
notes
translation
)for CLP
Colombia
-epartment
Ecuador
Dof
Areas
Natural
Wildife
and 50,800,000
ECS 250,000 1984 Budget
the
for
national
parks
system G3
French
Guiana FRF
Guyana GYD
1,452,225 6,201,000 1990 Projected
budget
activities
conservation
for
including
development
the
a
of
protected
,as
system
area
Plan
Action
Forestry
National
the
of
part G4
Paraguay
2
PYG
Peru PEN 1,162,000 1990 G5
Suriname SRG
12,000 7,000 1967 Forest
of
department
protection
nature
the
for
.Budget
Service G6
fauna
of
-ivision
DUruguay
22
UYP
IVenezuela
-nstituto
Nacional
Parques
de
)(I NPARQUES VEB 1A
$
Uillion
forS
project
institutional
strengthening
INPARQUES
of
mis
collaborative
.T
progress
in
jcurrently
a
is
between
venture
oint
his
and
E
INPARQUES
.,W
EEC
the
coNatura
CI 30,31
:
Sources
R
Soria
1
AcciónG]S
)P(,Jand
de andoval
1
eyes
J
.M.
[G.L.
989
lan
Desarrollo
el
para
forestal
.9 8pp
B[G.F.O
I]D
A
M
1Meneses
(,Eand
Unidades
Gde )S
Conservaçio
do onçalves
ias
2
orges
.R
.
991
.O.
istema
Federais
I
Brasil
-D
.-D BAMA
IREC
EUC
B
C
L
R M
H
Shores abarle
Assessment
][G.N.
,JD
(1
)A
Diversity
of 3
J
respi
alaway
uzuriaga
.D
ose
.C
.989
Biological
and
PTropical n
.Forests
Ecuador
repared
for
E
-A
/US
an
ascuador
ID
Annex
Country
the
Development
Strategy
Statement
1989-1990
1 10pp
.to
NC
Plan
C
K
G
7 /]G
)(1 IDA
4
.Action
.,Agency FC
[ ational
1990-2000989
uyana
Commission
Forestry anadian
International
/
Development
ingston
eorgetown
7pp
sobre
)I(]D
1988-1990
forestal
meeting
Forestry
1V
2[G8th of
C
- 991
5
GFF
nforme
.progreso
American
Latin Perú
del
the7th
enezuela
OFLA
,Commission
.-
1.February 2nd
Lima
1991.
2pp
,]S[G
P
J2 ).N
Suriname
in
r
:a
situation.P.
chultz
6
preservation
(1 ature
968
eview
present
the
ofuriname
Service
Forest
aramaribo
1pp
1(,C]S
[3.c991
.harpe
)Pers
0omm
I
][3litt NPARQUES
.)I(1n1989
South America
establishing parks and reserves in France is the Direc- ■ World Bank. The World Bank provides financial
tion of Nature Protection, a division of the Ministry of support to special projects. One of the largest pro-
the Environment. In this dependency, the National For- viding support for protected areas is the Pilot Pro-
est Office, under the supervision of the Ministry of gramme to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest. In
Agriculture, is responsible for the management offorest March 1992 , the Executive Directors of the World
lands. The creation ofprotected areas is a recent process Bank established the Rain Forest Trust Fund as a
here. financial mechanism to support the Pilot Programme,
with US$60 million now committed to finance the
In Suriname, the management of natural protected Fund. Several countries are providing co-financing
areas is the responsibility of the Forest Service, part of to the Pilot Programme through regular bilateral
the Ministry of Natural Resources. One exception is assistance mechanisms, now totalling over US$280
Brownsberg National Park, administered by the Foun- million. Only a portion of these funds will directly
dation for the Preservation of Nature (STINASU) , a support protected areas.
semi-governmental agency.
The Bank also provides support to conservation
efforts through its regular lending programme. For
instance, the states of Rondonia and Mato Grosso have
investment in protected areas recently signed loan agreements for US$ 167 million
and US$205 million respectively. The funds will be
Most of the governments assign a budget that covers used to finance agriculture , rural development and con-
only the minimal needs for managing protected areas; servation activities, including protection of both pri-
practically no budget is available for investments in vately and publicly held properties.
most countries (Table 6). The information compiled in
the region indicates that a great number of protected The National Environmental Project of Brazil is a
areas do not even have the basic infrastructure, e.g., US$ 166 million combination grant and loan initiative
access roads , permanent personnel, housing for person- financedjointly by the World Bank and the government
nel, communications equipment, guard posts, and patrol of Germany. The Bank is providing US$ 117 million of
vehicles. Moreover, it is recognized that the majority of loans; Germany will provide approximately US$20 mil-
protected areas possess only minimal installations for lion equally divided between grants and loans plus
recreational or educational public use (Oltremari, 1993). US$3 million in technical assistance; the government
of Brazil will fund the balance. The purpose of the
Several major international organizations are techni- project is to protect the natural environment of Brazil
cally and financially supporting protected areas in the by strengthening relevant government agencies, sup-
region. Among the most outstanding are: porting specific conservation units, and protecting threat-
ened ecosystems. The three main regions covered are
International organizations the Pantanal, the Atlantic forests and the coastal zone.
■ FAO. FAO has been the most important interna- ■ Inter-American Development Bank. The IDB
tional agency for protected areas in South America has recently increased its institutional capability to
since the mid- 1960s. It now organizes workshops address environmental issues. Current proposals un-
about different topics related to management of der consideration call for US$400 million of invest-
protected areas with focus upon developing strategies ments in conservation activities in Latin America.
for the rational management and utilization of vari- The IDB loaned US$ 100 to Brazil on concessional
ous species. Support is channelled through the Latin terms to finance a national environmental fund. The
American Network of Technical Cooperation in
IDB also provides financial and technical support to
National Parks , other Protected Areas, and Natural
special projects. This Bank has an active programme
Flora and Fauna. Through the network, with the help oftechnical cooperation for environmental coopera-
of its Regional Office for Latin American and the
tion at the regional and subregional level. It re-
Caribbean and UNEP, numerous training and tech- sponds to requests both from borrower countries and
nical interchange programmes have been carried regional organisms such as the Amazonian Co-
out. They have also published several technical bul-
operation Treaty, the Andean Pact (Cartagena Accord),
letins that promote exchange of information. and others.
■ UNEP. UNEP supports different projects and pro- ■ European Community. The EC recently has
grammes of great importance for the management agreed a project on planning and management of
of protected areas in the region. It has formulated an protected areas in the Amazon Basin, to be carried
Action Plan for the Environment in Latin America out by the Interim Secretariat of the Amazonian
and the Caribbean. For several years, UNEP has Cooperation Treaty, the Special Commission for
supported activities carried out by FAO's Regional Amazonian Environment (CEMAA) , and the re-
Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, princi- spective national organisms of the nations which are
pally those which deal with protected area training signatories of the Treaty. It will develop a plan for
programmes. the establishment of a system of protected areas in
the Amazon which will include the most important Eastern Wetlands. Public and privately chartered pro-
ecosystems and will strengthen the management and tected areas will be established.
administration of its integral units. Emphasis will be
given to the preparation of development and man- Non-governmental organizations
agement plans which address natural, cultural, and
Several foreign Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
socio-economic factors in an integrated fashion.
with mandates to work in nature conservation are active
The programme will also include pilot areas, dem-
onstration centres, training programme and a sub- in protected areas in South America. The majority of
network for Planning and Management of Protected these groups come from the United States but European
Areas in the Amazon Region as a mechanism for NGOs are increasingly prominent aswell. In 1989, total
coordination and technical interchange between pro- NGO funding for biological diversity research and con-
fessionals and institutions linked to these protected servation in South America was approximately US$3.3
areas. million (Abramovitz, 1991). Much of this money was
spent either directly or indirectly on protected areas.
■ Global Environmental Facility. The largest mul-
NGO funding levels have increased since then but have
tilateral fund for environmental projects is the Global
not been quantified in any comprehensive studies. Some of
Environmental Facility (GEF) , jointly sponsored by
the notable NGO groups are listed below:
the World Bank, UNDP, and UNEP. In South America,
the international community has made commit- Conservation International. CI supports dif-
ments to six major projects as part ofthe biodiversity ferent projects related with research, planning, and
component ofthe GEF. Not all ofthese projects are management of protected areas, and was the force
devoted exclusively to protected areas, and none of behind the debt-for-nature swap in Bolivia.
these monies had yet been disbursed as of early
■ Missouri Botanical Garden. MBG has sup-
1993. Listed below are the total dollar amounts
ported different research projects including: Río Utría
committed and brief descriptions of the projects:
National Park, Colombia; macaws; Colombian flora;
Amazon Region. " Regional Strategies for the Con- Colombian mosses; Bolivian tropical forest; Pilón
servation and Sustainable Management of Natural Lajas in Bolivia; Yungas in Bolivia; flora inventory
Resources in the Amazon" (US$45 million): The objec- in Paraguay; flora studies in Ecuador; flora studies
tive is to build sub-regional capacity to preserve biodi- in Iquitos, Perú; and botanic research in the Peruvian
and Colombian Amazon.
versity, monitor territory, and manage natural
resources. Activities include bolstering government ■ Wildlife Conservation International. WCI has
capacities to protect and manage habitats. set up conservation courses linked into university
biology programmes in a number of countries ,
Argentina. "Patagonian Coastal Zone Management
e.g. Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador. It supports re-
Plan" (US$2.8 million) : This projects concerns the de-
search and conservation projects in South America
velopment of a management plan which will bring this
involving penguins, crocodiles, cetaceans, flamin-
coastal zone under sustainable management and con-
gos, sea lions, and primates.
serve biological diversity.
■ Smithsonian Institute. The Smithsonian is de-
Brazil. "Conservation Units" (US$30 million): These veloping a very active project to monitor biodiver-
funds are intended to support actions to decentralize sity in biosphere reserves through SI/MAB's Tropical
management and administration of selected conserva- Forest Biological Diversity Monitoring Programme. It
tion units, broaden public involvement, and create a supports the management of Manu National Park
stable financial resource base for ensuring continuity of (Perú) , as well as several research and training pro-
key management activities and scientific research . jects and activities in Beni Biosphere Reserve (Bolivia),
Pantanal (Brazil), Galápagos Islands (Ecuador) , and
Colombia. "Conservation of Biodiversity in the Chocó Guatopo National Park (Venezuela) (Smithsonian
Biogeographic Region " (US$9 million) : Objectives are MAB News, 1992).
to identify biological resources and their potential uses;
The Nature Conservancy. TNC provides sup-
to develop human resources and involve of local com-
port both to different projects related to protected
munities; and to broaden research and management
areas , and to national foundations such as the
activities to protect natural resources . Peruvian Foundation for Nature Conservation
Ecuador. " Biodiversity Protection" (US$6 million): (FPCN) and the Peruvian Association for Nature
The main objective is to support the restructuring and Conservation (APECO) in Perú, Moisés Bertoni
strengthening of the country's institutional capacity, its Foundation in Paraguay, and Foundation Natura in
overall policy, and its legal framework for adequate Ecuador. It has provided assistance for debt- for-na-
management of the National Protected Area System. ture swap projects in Ecuador and supported a cam-
paign for Galápagos National Park, among other
Uruguay. " Biodiversity Conservation in the Bañados projects. TNC has provided US$2 million ofsupport
del Este" (US$3 million): This project aims to work to protected areas through its "Parks in Peril" pro-
with farmers to promote wise stewardship of Uruguay's gramme (TNC, 1990). See Table 8.
South America
Table 7. First protected areas established in South America
Year of
Country Establishment Name of Protected Area
Argentina 1903 Public Natural Park (now Nahuel Huapi National Park)
Chile 1907 Malleco Forest Reserve
Uruguay 1916 F.D. Roosevelt National Park
Guyana 1929 Kaieteur Natural Reserve (National Park)
Ecuador 1934 Galápagos National Park
Brazil 1937 do Itatiaia National Park
Venezuela 1937 Rancho Grande National Park (now Henri Pittier)
Bolivia 1942 Tuni Condoriri National Park
Colombia 1948 La Macarena National Reserve
Suriname 1953 Coppename-Mouth Natural Reserve
Perú 1961 Cutervo National Park
Paraguay 1966 Tinfunqué National Park
Source: FAO and other sources
■ WWF. WWF - International provides financial agement ofthe Ciénaga de Santa Marta, Colombia and
support for protected areas projects in the region. recently supported a major study of South American
National Parks (Amend and Amend, 1992).
WWF - United States has supported several a num-
ber of projects over the past 25 years. Current
priorities include: Cuyabeno Reserve, Ecuador; Table 8. South American critical areas
marine turtles in Ecuador; and a debt-for-nature considered in The Nature
swap in Ecuador. Conservancy's " Parks in Peril "
campaign
Bilateral assistance
Several governments, principally North American and Country Number of Areas

European, provide support to protected areas in South 2
Argentina
America. The various agencies of the United States Bolivia 7
have traditionally played a strong role in this area, with Brazil 29
the US National Parks Service and Fish and wildlife
Chile 1
Service being especially supportive. In 1989 , US gov- Colombia 8
ernment support for biological diversity research and
Ecuador 7
conservation projects, including support for protected French Guiana 2
areas , totalled approximately US $ 3.5 million 1
Guyana
(Abramovitz, 1991) . Reportedly these funding levels 2
Paraguay
have increased substantially since then. The "Parks in Perú 13
Peril" Project, which is a collaborative effort between Suriname 5
The Nature Conservancy and the US Agency for Inter- Venezuela 15
national Development, has provided a total of US$7
million since September 1990 as management support Total 92
for critical parks in Latin America and the Caribbean;
USAID provided US$5 million and the balance came from
TNC. Source: The Nature Conservancy, 1990
Under its "Enterprise for the Americas" initiative, the

US government forgives a large portion of its bilateral
Debt-for- nature swaps
debt in exchange for a commitment from beneficiary
countries to implement a package of economic reforms.
Debt-for-nature swaps are a mechanism to finance the
So far, Chile and Bolivia have begun to implement this
programme while Uruguay, Colombia, and Argentina costs of environmental activities in developing coun-
are negotiating agreements. In the case of Chile and tries. Essentially, they involve the cancellation of debt
Bolivia a portion of the bilateral debt, US$ 1.4 and in exchange for commitments to nature conservation.
US$2.2 million respectively , was transformed to These exchanges are made possible by the existence of
finance environmental funds. secondary markets for commercial bank debt where
banks will sell debt for prices significantly less than its
As with NGOs, European donors are now increasing face value. The depressed secondary market prices are
their efforts . For example, the German GTZ is carrying a result of a country's low credit rating and its inability
out a conservation project for the restoration and man- to make payments on its debt.
Table 9. Officially sanctioned debt for nature swaps to date
Purchaser/ Conservation
Date Country Fund raiser Face Value Cost of Debt Bonds Generated
8/87 Bolivia CI $100,000 $650,000 $250,000

12/87 Ecuador WWF $354,000 $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000
4/89 Ecuador WWF/TNC/MBG $1,068,750 $9,000,000 $9,000,000
5/92 Brazil TNC $739,750 $2,200,000 $2,192,000
Key:
CI = Conservation International; MBG = Missouri Botanical Gardens;
TNC =The Nature Conservancy; WWF = World Wildlife Fund
Sources: TNC, 1991 and TNC, 1992a and 1992b.
Typically, a fund-raising entity or coalition will pur- FONAMA. Part ofthe agreement stipulated that US$200,000
chase heavily discounted debt in a secondary market. of annual interest payments on a remainder of the bilat-
This debt is then turned over to a local NGO or group eral debt would be funnelled back to FONAMA .
of NGOs in the beneficiary country. The NGO, in turn,
will cancel the debt in exchange for certain commit- WWF signed an agreement with the Ecuadorian gov-
ernment to convert $ 1 million in external debt to local
ments from the debtor government. The commitment
usually takes the form of the issuance of special gov- currency bonds. The interest on these bonds was to be
used to fund nature conservation activities. In 1989,
ernment bonds, payments on which are used to finance
conservation activities. The value of the bonds is deter- WWF, TNC, and the Missouri Botanical Gardens un-
mined through negotiation and is based on a percentage dertook a similar initiative to purchase $9 million of
discounted Ecuadorian debt. The beneficiary of this
of the face value of the original debt. The mechanism
swap was the Fundación Natura which agreed to invest
used is similar to that of the traditional " swaps ", con-
sisting of the exchange of debt documents for produc- interest generated from the local currency bonds into
tive investments . As of May 1992, Bolivia, Brazil , and activities to support parks and protected areas.
Ecuador have carried out this type of operation. Other Debt-for-Nature swaps have been highly controver-
projects were discussed with Colombia, Perú, and
sial in some countries. They are perceived by certain
Venezuela, though some of them were officially re- sectors as a mechanism to secure foreign control of
jected (MOPU, 1990 ; TNC, 1991 ; TNC, 1992a; and
national territory. However, experience has demon-
TNC 1992b).
strated that if adequate standards and mechanisms, based
In 1987 Bolivia carried out the first debt-for-nature on national laws, are applied between the beneficiaries
swap. Conservation International donated US$ 100,000, and the operating organisms, financial resources have
which was used to retire US$650,000 of discounted gone towards projects that are maintained under na-
tional control. Even when lands are acquired for conser-
Bolivian foreign debt. In exchange, the Government of
vation purposes by means of non-governmental organiza-
Bolivia agreed to a series ofcommitments related to the
Beni Biosphere Reserve. These commitments included tions, these lands must be passed into the hands of the
State, which acts as authorized administrator (Quesada,
the expansion of the area under protection; the estab-
1992). Others have opposed the swaps on the grounds
lishment ofa buffer zone of more than a million ha; and
the creation ofa conservation trust fund. The trust fund, that the foreign debt itself is illegitimate and should not
the "Fondo Nacional para el Medio Ambiente" (FONAMA), be subject to this type of bargaining. Despite these
objections, it seems likely that donor groups and con-
was the first of its kind in Latin America. It provides an
servationists will continue to pursue debt-for-nature
ongoing source of finance for biological diversity con-
servation and sustainable development projects. swaps as long as external debt is available on the sec-
ondary market at a substantial discount. See Table 9.
In August, 1991 , FONAMA received a major infu-
sion of funds. At that time, the governments of Bolivia
and the United States struck a landmark agreement to 6. Human capacity in protected
areas management
forgive US$370 million of debt. In a variation on pre-
vious debt-for-nature swap arrangements, the US agreed
to forgive the debt in exchange for a commitment by the South American protected areas are characterized by
Bolivians to create a US$20 million bond to benefit limited personnel who receive low salaries and lack the
South America
equipment necessary to fulfil their functions. Training 7. Priorities for future investment
opportunities are few (Ponce, Gallo and Moore, 1989).
in protected areas
In South America the only facilities exclusively devoted
to personnel working in protected areas are at the Training
The decade of the eighties was characterized by the
Center ofBariloche (Argentina) and the Training Center uncontrolled increase of external debt in South American
of Rancho Grande (Venezuela). Some professionals
countries, and a growing impossibility to pay it. This
have been able to attend the courses given at the Center
situation produced a tremendous social-economic crisis
for Tropical Agricultural Research and Training
that led inevitably to the adoption of adjustment policies
(CATIE) , in Costa Rica, or regular programmes offered
which in turn affected environmental policies. In
at European and American universities. But this is
some cases, this debt-despite the efforts to reduce it
exceptional, since most of the South American coun-
-continues to increase and is consuming economic
tries cannot afford the cost of such training and fellow-
resources. Countries have succeeded in generating the
ships for these courses have been very scarce.
necessary revenue only at the cost of exporting their
natural resources . Another consequence ofthis situation
NGOs are actively cooperating in training efforts . For
is less funding for the effective management of pro-
example, in Ecuador, Fundación Natura, with the tech-
tected areas in the region.
nical assistance of The Nature Conservancy, offered
two courses in 1991 for protected area managers, con- During recent years, various studies have been carried
servation officers, and guards . These courses were held out, of the major threats to protected areas inthe region.
in different protected areas and covered, management- In 1990 a survey was conducted, with partial support
related themes; the planning process and design of from WWF-US, to evaluate the current state of protected
infrastructure; and environmental interpretation facili- area management in Latin America (Torres, 1990) .
ties. Information was gathered from 249 protected areas,
finding that only 30% of the areas had a management
Training activities carried out in cooperation with plan, and of these, only 5% were implementing it; 28%
FAO/UNEP have been significant, including (FAO/ had an annual operational plan; 5% had a research
UNEP, 1992a): programme regarding basic resources with the aim of
supporting management objectives; and 4% had ade-
■ International workshops on protected areas which quate educational or interpretative programmes. Fur-
focused on management of mountain ecosystems, ther,66% ofthe areas had no type of equipment to allow
environmental interpretation, project formulation , the achievement of management objectives-29% were
research, the Amazon, local communities, manage- partially equipped and 5% were inadequately equipped;
ment of wildlife species for sustainable use, man- less than 1% had enough trained personnel to attain
agement of Biosphere Reserves, and tourism policies. management goals; and nearly 70% received neither
Technical Documents have been published after financial or technical support of any sort from the
each workshop, following its subject matter. These government. Given this alarming situation, major in-
documents are based on the accounts presented by vestment is required in almost all aspects of protected
each representative of the countries involved, in area management in the region.
accordance with guidelines on format sent previous
to each workshop. By the end of 1992, twelve tech- Another research project, which was carried out in
nical documents had been prepared. 1991 with support from GTZ and IUCN, studied local
populations inhabiting South American national parks.
■ Numerous technical interchanges which have in-
Park administrators were sent questionnaires as a means
cluded visits by specialists from other countries of
to determine the problems afflicting 184 national parks
the region to obtain direct knowledge of specific
(Amend and Amend, 1992). According to this survey,
situations, to share experiences, or to supply direct the problems (both proximate and ultimate are included)
technical advice.
detected in the region , in descending order, are:
■ Publication of the bulletin " Flora, Fauna y Areas
Silvestres" every four months. Articles include edi- 1) Extraction ofnatural resources from the park (33.1 %);
torials, technical reports, presentations with ideas on 2) Lack of qualified personnel (27.0%);
how to resolve practical problems, information on
3) Land tenure problems (21.6%);
research projects , notices of general interest, and
4) Agriculture and Livestock grazing (20.3%);
information on species of flora and fauna. To date,
sixteen issues of the bulletin- widely distributed in 5) Inadequate planning of the management of the
South America-have been published . national park (16.9%);
■ Publication of a newsletter which summarizes the 6) Illegal occupation (16.9%);

activities of the Network, its future work program- 7) Inadequate or undefined park boundaries ( 16.2%);
mes, and other information of general interest to
8) Lack of control and surveillance ( 16.2%);
institutions and professionals linked to its subject
matter. To date, twenty-three issues of the newslet- 9) Fires (12.8%);
ter have been published. 10) Legal occupation (12.2%);

11) Lack of financial resources (11.5%); However, this situation too is changing. A Coordinating
12) Inadequate park infrastructure and on-site facili- Group of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon
Basin (COICA) has been created, representing 327
ties (11.5%);
indigenous tribes of Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil,
13) Settlement in areas surrounding the park (10.8%); Ecuador, and Perú. Voices defending indigenous peo-
14) Mining activities and oil drilling (10.1%); ple are beginning to be heard in other countries of the
15) Pressure from tourism (8.8%); region as well, and several laws are being studied to
protect their territories and their rights.
16) Pollution (6.1% );
17) Lack of political and institutional support (6.1%); Indigenous rights are currently being defended by
local and international non-governmental organizations,
18) Public constructions (5.4%);
by indigenous leaders, and by environmental leaders.
19) Guerrilla or drug trafficking activities (4.7%); and
Governments and international organizations are gradu-
20) Introduction of exotic species (2.7%). ally reacting to this pressure, either by legislating in
favour of these minorities or by providing them with
8. Major protected areas issues in support.
the region
In Venezuela, MOIIN (Indigenous Movement for
National Identity) has vowed to protect the natural
8.1 Human populations in protected resources of territories occupied by indigenous commu-
areas nities , to maintain their territorial as well as social-
cultural unity. In Perú, AIDESEP (Interethnic
Regardless of whether they are migrant or permanent
Association for Development of the Peruvian Jungle)
settlers, human populations in South American pro- considers the best way to protect the environment is to
tected areas can be basically divided into four groups
recognize and defend indigenous territories, promoting
which differ in the way resources are used: Tribal groups;
their patterns of life. Moreover, AIDESEP has proposed
ethnic groups undergoing an acculturation process; exter-
that future external debt swaps focus on indigenous
nal occupants who carry out extractive activities look-
territories, with the goal of returning the stewardship
ing for a profit, either for personal purposes or as part
and care offorests to their ancestral owners. They have
of a large-scale business; and occupants who are con-
also emphasized that debt swaps should not focus on
sidered settlers and carry out agricultural activities.
land purchase, but on funding to support conservation
in general .
Indigenous groups with a tribal pattern of life are
found mainly in the Amazon Basin, exploiting natural Towards the end of the 1980s, the Colombian govern-
resources of the region on a sustainable basis. They
ment explicitly recognized the rights of the indigenous
practice hunting, fishing, wild fruit gathering, and sub-
people that live in the national territory, since they
sistence agroforestry (Rojas y Castaño, 1990) . constitute an important population of nearly 450,000
persons who " represent an invaluable social and cul-
Ethnic groups undergoing an acculturation process
tural facet of the country" (Colombia, 1989) . This pol-
have slowly, over past centuries, incorporated external
icy is closely linked to environmental policy, and its
material and spiritual values. In most cases, they have
purpose is to organize, protect, recover, and promote
gradually replaced their traditional life patterns with
sustainable use of natural resources, particularly in the
other models. These groups are found in all the coun-
fragile environments of the tropical forests. A total of
tries ofthe region , particularly in the Andes. They have
81 Colombian indigenous groups occupy extensive
historically used resources for subsistence, and their
territories in the Amazon Basin, the Pacific coast, the
presence in protected areas of different categories is
natural savannas on the eastern side of the country, the
internationally accepted as long as they live in harmony
with the environment (IUCN, 1990b). semi-arid peninsula of La Guajira, and the Andean
lands.
Although the main objective of establishing new pro-
In accordance with this general framework, Colombia
tected areas in the region has been environmental con-
has initiated a series of programmes to guarantee in-
servation and not the protection of their indigenous
digenous people access to the land and ensure the best
inhabitants (Poole , 1990) , this situation is now chang-
interests of renewable natural resources within their
ing. Cultural values are more frequently incorporated in
decisions to establish or extend protected areas. Two territories. The country has promoted the establishment
of two management categories in particular: "resguar-
principal reasons have motivated this change in attitude:
dos indígenas" (lands with communal titles, owned by
a growing interest with the destiny of local communities
the indigenous peoples; and "reservas indígenas" (gov-
who constitute a part of the cultural and historical
ernment-owned lands managed by the indigenous peo-
heritage of their nations; and the compatibility of the
traditional activities with the conservation objectives of ples). In Colombia, these cover an area close to 26
protected areas (Rojas y Castaño, 1990). million ha (i.e. 25 per cent of national territory)-13
million of which are located in the Amazonian region
In addition, indigenous people have had little means (Rojas y Castaño, 1990) . Some national parks such as
to create a movement in defence of their rights. Cahuinarí, La Paya, and Chiribiquete share their
South America
borders with "resguardos" or "reservas ," or are located also produced indiscriminate logging of tropical for-
within these territories. The integration of indigenous ests either for commercial use ofthe wood , or to plant
communities has been achieved in the management of grasses for cattle grazing. In addition, the Ecuadorian
Amacayacú National Natural Park and of Cahuinarí Mining Institute has given out concessions within pro-
National Park. tected natural areas of the Amazon-such as Sangay
and Podocarpus National Parks and Cayambe-Coca
Ecuador, in its Strategy for the National Protected Ecological Reserve (Savia, 1990) . Intensive gold min-
Areas System ( 1989) , includes nine management cate- ing has also occurred in the Colombian Chocó region
gories to provide adequate orientation for the manage- and the States of Bolívar and Amazonas in Venezuela.
ment of its areas. One of these management categories
-"Indigenous Territories "-is defined as "areas which
maintain their natural characteristics because modern Theseexternal occupants also utilize significant quantities
technological influence has not interfered with the tra- of wildlife. In some areas, many species that have been
ditional use of resources and with the patterns of life of widely hunted are being negatively affected particularly
thosethat can provide fur and hides. Trade has increased
the region's indigenous inhabitants. " The government
in live animals for commercial use as pets, and for use
has further stated that, "the aim of these areas is to
in laboratory experiments, with live primates and par-
ensure that the societies, nationalities, or groups that
rots, and reptile and feline hides, originating especially
inhabit them maintain their singularity and will have the
from protected areas where effective control of the
opportunity to continue to evolve and promote the man/
territory has not been achieved.
nature interrelation they have achieved. These lands
should be owned by the community, so as to ensure the
best interests and continued existence of the native
societies which reside there as a means of promoting Among the occupants considered as settlers are farm-
their particular value as a culture. Scientific research is ers who maintain small crops for family subsistence and
a secondary objective" (MAG/Fundación Natura, 1989). practice migratory grazing of goats , sheep and cattle .
The presence of these occupants causes conflicts be-
Currently, two indigenous territories have been estab- cause their land use patterns, are usually opposed to
lished and three new areas have been proposed. Partici- conservation objectives. However, in most cases, the
pation of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities occupants were inhabiting the region before the estab-
of Ecuador (CONAIE) was crucial in guaranteeing the lishment of the protected area. Park authorities are
Awá community's interests (Poole, 1990) . poorly prepared for integrating people into protected
areas, and government funds are lacking for such activi-
In Brazil, as a solution to the conflicts between IBAMA's ties.
environmental policies and FUNAI's (National Foun-

dation for the Indian) policies related to indigenous
affairs, the creation of " florestas nacional" (national The most serious problem facing some protected
forests), and " reservas extrativistas" (extractive reserves) areas is marijuana, amapola, and coca cultivation prac-
is being promoted. The "reservas extrativistas" are de- tised by settlers within area boundaries—particularly in
fined as natural areas that have not been greatly dis- Bolivia, Colombia, and Perú. These drugs are inter-
turbed and are occupied by social groups that base their planted with other crops or are simply cultivated in
subsistence on activities that fall under the concept of zones that are not controlled. Settlers linked to these
sustainable management of resources. These include activities may obtain incomes many times higher than
the gathering of native fruits and small-scale fishing those they would obtain from other agricultural activi-
carried out according to traditional practices. The "flore- ties. The eradication of these cultivation areas involves,
stas nacionais" are areas with a forest cover composed in increasing measure, the use of powerful chemical
mainly of native species, suitable for the sustainable agents (herbicides) with polluting effects that are un-
production of wood and other forest products, for the questionable (MOPU, 1990).
management of wildlife, and for recreational activi-
ties in accordance with the objectives of the areas.
In general terms, a " protectionist" mentality persists
External occupants who carry out extractive activities in the management of protected areas in South America,
for commercial or industrial profit constitute threats for and successful work with local communities has seldom
many South American parks-especially when these been achieved. Systematic methodologies to bring about
activities are supported by large scale businesses. In the the efficient participation of local people have not yet
Brazilian Amazon , for example, this type of activity has beendeveloped . In the majority of the cases, while these
produced concentrations of large numbers of "garim- communities have been considered as an element that
peiros"-gold miners. This small-scale mining causes must work for the protection of natural resources, their
serious mercury pollution , since that element is used to own needs have been disregarded. There has been no
separate the gold from the sand of rivers. Gold mining real work to inform communities about the direct or
is the fastest growing activity in the Ecuadorian Ama- indirect benefits these areas can provide. Instead , exces-
zon region. In a short period, it has led to the migration sive emphasis has been placed on the alleged benefits
ofthousands ofpeople to primary forest zones. This has that would result from mass tourism.
8.2 Research in protected areas different management categories; the majority of border
protected areas are highly attractive to tourists; the
At the regional level, there is a growing awareness of majority contain human populations of different kinds,
the importance ofprotected areas for scientific research. who have migrated from one area to another and gen-
Because of their special characteristics, these areas are erated important environmental changes; in almost all
expected to remain relatively unaltered from their natu- of the countries have management plans for protected
ral condition. South American countries have not fully wild border areas, though planning processes and later
developed research in protected areas, due to the tradi- execution have been carried out in a unilateral manner;
tional lack of human and financial resources and the and the legal frameworks that apply to these territories
lack of national policies and guidelines to regulate differ-some countries have specific laws, while others
research within protected areas. National protected areas have incomplete decrees or laws.
agencies assign an average of 18% of their budgets for
research. Ecuador assigns 25 % , and is among the coun- The countries participating in the Amazonian Co-
tries with highest budgets for research. Argentina and operation Treaty (ACT) have recommended the creation
Venezuela assign 2.2% and 2.5% respectively, and are of the following border protected areas in the Amazon
Basin:
among the countries with lowest budgets. Bolivia
assigns no budget for research.
(a) Venezuela-Brazil: The southern border of Canaima
An International Workshop on Research in Protected National Park in Venezuela should be expanded
in order for it to connect with Monte Roraima
Areas, held in Galápagos, Ecuador, in March, 1989,
National Park in Brazil.
concluded that: the majority of protected areas in the
region lack infrastructure for adequate development of (b) Brazil-Perú: Perú has planned a project to estab-
scientific research; none of the countries charge for lish to establish a protected area in the vicinity of
rights to conduct research; all of the countries have Brazil's Serra Do Divisor National Park.
signed an agreement with national and/or international
(c) Brazil-Perú: It is recommended that Perú create an
organizations especially universities to carry out area that will neighbour with Rio Ocre Ecological
research in protected areas; six of the countries have Station in Brazil.
personnel exclusively dedicated to research in protected
areas, but research in the others is carried out through (d) Brazil-Colombia-Perú: In the border areas ofthese
three countries, there is only one protected area-
contracts and/or agreements with universities and re-
Amacayacú National Park in Colombia. It is rec-
search institutes; and research guidelines do not always
ommended that similar areas be created in the
coincide with current research needs that address im-
other two countries.
proving management of the areas.
(e) Bolivia-Brazil: Bolivia's Noel Kempff Mercado
National Park is located on the border with Brazil.
8.3 Regional initiatives It has been recommended that establishment of a
similar protected area in the same zone be consid-
Border protected areas
ered by the latter.
In South America, nine protected areas are located on

The coordinated management, by two or more coun-
the border of a country, with another protected area tries, ofthese protected border areas would make use of
across the borderline (Marchetti, Oltremari , and Peters, resources more effective . Actions that could be carried
1992). These areas are:
out include tourism development, joint scientific re-
search, information exchange, and preparation of co-
Los Katios/Darién (Colombia/Panama)
ordinated protection programmes and regulations for
El Tamá (Colombia/Venezuela)
Do Pico da Neblina/La Neblina (Brazil/Venezuela) the rational use ofprotected areas and their buffer zones
(Rojas y Castaño, 1990).
Manuripi Heath/Pampas del Heath (Bolivia/Perú)
Sajama/Lauca (Bolivia/Chile)
Regional agreements
Iguazú/do Iguaçu (Argentina/Brazil)
Lanín/Villarrica (Argentina/Chile) The following regional programmes, treaties, or agree-
Nahuel Huapi/Puyehue and Vicente Pérez Rosales ments related to the protection of resources have been
(Argentina/Chile) used in South America:
Los Glaciares/Bernardo O'Higgins and Torres del
Paine (Argentina/Chile) ■ Amazon Cooperation Treaty (Brasilia, Brazil; 1978).
Ratified byBolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana,
Marchetti , Oltremari, and Peters, ( 1992) synthesized Perú, Suriname, and Venezuela.
the situation of these border areas in the following
■ Convention for the Conservation and Management
manner:
of Vicuña (Lima, Perú ; 1979). Ratified by Argen-
Each country has followed its own style of develop- tina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and Perú.
ment in the creation of protected wildlands, using dif- ■ Convención del Pacífico Sur. Ratified by Colombia,
ferent systems to classify ecological environments and Chile, Ecuador, and Perú.
South America
In addition, the Convention on Nature Protection and To cooperate with governmental organizations, groups,
Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere or persons, in aspects concerning the conservation
(Western Hemisphere Convention) (Washington, 1940) ofnature.
has been ratified by all ofthe South American countries
except Guyana. It has been used to foster significant Nevertheless , environmental NGOs of the region have
cooperation on protected areas. been the subject of a wide range ofcriticism . They have
been accused of being elitist institutions; being driven
In October 1990, the Seventh Meeting on the Envi- more by enthusiasm and passion than by science and
ronment in Latin America and the Caribbean approved professionalism; lacking a knowledge of natural re-
an Action Plan for the Environment in Latin America source management or administration; and being sub-
and the Caribbean, prepared by UNEP upon request ordinate to conservation groups in the United States. In
from the Sixth Ministerial Meeting on the Environment addition, they have been criticized for competing for
in Latin America and the Caribbean, held in Brasilia, international funds and for having very limited or non-
Brazil, in May 1989. The governments of the region existent public membership (Myers and Bucher, 1989).
considered it "appropriate to define a common position
regarding the main political/ environmental issues, at A more balanced view is that, during the past decade,
the regional and global level." The Action Plan includes environmental NGOs of the region and many other
the following programmes : non-governmental organizations with international pro-
grammes have had an important role in the defence of
■ Protection ofboth natural areas and cultural heritage; protected areas and other conservation-related issues.
■ Management ofnational and international river basins; In many countries, they have contributed to the awak-
ening of public awareness, resulting in both greater
■ Conservation of biological diversity;
public and governmental support to protected areas.
■ Environmental education;
■ Developmental and environmental planning; and 8.5 Tourism and protected areas
■ Management of protected areas.
In 1992 an International Workshop on the Tourism
8.4 Importance of environmental Policies in National Parks and other Protected Areas
non-governmental organizations was sponsored by FAO/UNDP. This meeting, which
( NGOs) was attended by representatives of eight South American
countries, discussed the benefits that are generated by
Environmental NGOs have experienced a rapid growth tourism in protected areas. Principal conclusions drawn
in South America especially during the 1980s as a were these (FAO/UNEP, 1992b; Oltremari, 1993):
response to public concern and to the inefficiency,
short-sightedness, and chronic lack of resources ofgov- In general , facilities and services for visitors in
ernmental organizations. Brazil has the greatest number protected areas are few. While many wildlands have
of environmental NGOs in South America-there are installations such as paths, shelters, sites for camp-
more than 500. Among the most important are founda- ing, visitor centres, parking lots, and lookout points,
tions, which are able to receive donations from the these are not sufficient either to satisfy the growing
private sector in exchange for fiscal incentives. Forty- demands of tourists or to produce economic reve-
two South American environmental NGOs are mem-
nues of any importance. Larger installations, such
bers of IUCN and participate in conservation projects as hotels and guest houses, are found only in places
and activities supported by that institution. Major ob- where the investment is very specific . This absence
jectives of South American environmental NGOs in- of large-scale infrastructure is beneficial from the
clude (FAO/UNEP, 1989b):
point of view of conserving areas in their natural
state, but it deprives protected areas of potential
To contribute to the preservation of threatened or revenues which could be reinvested in management.
endangered species; Tourism in general, occupies a relatively secondary
■ To educate the public about subjects related to the place in the economy of most of the countries. The
conservation of nature; economic benefits obtained from protected areas are
insignificant, due to the low tariffs which have been
■ To support and inspire educational and research
applied and the lack of a developed infrastructure.
projects concerning conservation of nature;
■ To persuade national governments of the impor- ■ Investment in tourism development in protected areas
tance of protected areas and the natural environ- arises principally from government institutions. How-
ment, ie., lobbying; ever, this tendency has been changing in recent
■ To promote the establishment of protected areas for years, and much more active participation on the
wildlife; part of private investors can be envisioned.
To promote improved legislation dealing with the In most countries, tourism in protected areas, along
conservation of wildlife and its habitat; and with tourism in general , is a growing activity though
■ reliable statistics that measure its magnitude are not The ultimate goal is to achieve a better quality of life
available. The majority of South American coun- through activities which: protect the environment and
tries consider the growing demand for nature tour- natural areas; contribute to increasing economic
ism to be still low in relationship to the potential welfare; and collaborate in improving social equity. To
carrying capacity. But tourism is growing without reach this goal, the following priority actions-ordered
much planning, control , or adequate administration arbitrarily by theme only for presentation purposes
making it difficult to harmonize primary objectives have been identified.
ofconservation with programmes for public use.
■ Tourism in protected areas has not brought about

9.1 Critical issues
significant national and social benefits, but in sev-
eral countries, the contribution of tourism activity
as a generator of social benefits at the local level is
The analysis presented in this chapter indicates that,
important. Exceptions include Galápagos National taking South America as a whole, the following issues
Park in Ecuador, which generates annual revenues are of central importance:
close to US$560,000 (Blockhus et al., 1992) , and
entry fees for Morrocoy National Park in Venezuela
1) Whilethe biogeographical regions are fully repre-
reach approximately US$50,000 each year. sented in the South American protected area sys-
tem , analysis at the ecosystem or life zone level
9. Priorities for action in the region reveals many gaps.
2) National policies and laws are weak and often

This chapter has shown that South America supports contradictory.
important biological diversity, generated by its remark-
able variety of soils, climates, and topography. Conser- 3) Government protected area management agencies
vation ofthis biodiversity constitutes an essential means are stagnating or declining.
ofguaranteeing the economic, social and environmental
4) Management agencies generally have a protec-
security of its people. However, the region is losing
tionist mentality, and relatively little work is being
these resources at an accelerated rate, as a result of
carried out with interest groups and local commu-
over-exploitation of resources, introduction of exotic
nities.
species, and pollution in various forms. Governments
are growing to realize the role of protected areas in
5) Trained personnel are generally lacking especially
maintaining essential ecological processes, conserving among government agencies.
diversity of species and genetic variety, and providing
a tool for defending key environments for sustainable 6) In most cases, the field management of protected
use of natural resources. areas is either poor or non-existent.
However, apart from the fact that these areas alone

are not sufficient to guarantee the conservation of bio- 9.2 Strategic actions needed
diversity, South American protected areas are confront-
ing numerous problems. Outstanding among these are
These critical issues indicate that the support base for
the insufficient coverage of important ecosystems, a
protected areas in South America is weak. To reverse
lack of mechanisms that would permit local communi-
the negative trends, a strategic approach, based on iden-
ties to obtain some benefit from this type of land use,
tifying, broadening, and mobilizing support groups,
the institutional weaknesses of the organizations in
seems to be an essential requirement. This general
charge of their management and development, a lack of
approach needs to be implemented by the following
planning to confront current challenges, and a scarcity strategic actions:
of trained personnel for their management and protec-
tion. As a consequence of the above, many countries
1) Use of participatory research and planning tech-
lack policies, legal instruments, and appropriate strate-
niques.
gies to efficiently guide their course of action.
2) Critical attention to funding mechanisms, both at
The conclusions presented below summarize the di-
regional and national levels.
verse requirements that have been discussed at many
regional meetings. This section does not pretend to be
3) Training programmes that emphasize participa-
a plan of action, but rather a contribution to stimulate tory processes, conflict resolution, and harmoni-
more definite preparation of the actions required , often zation of interests.
at the national level. As with any programme of this
type, in order to be truly effective and achieve full 4) Clear definition ofthe roles and functions of inter-
application and implementation, ample participation of national organizations, governmental agencies, NGOs,
all sectors involved and a lengthy process ofdiscussion communities and private enterprise, and the estab-
and maturation are required. lishment of mechanisms for coordination.
South America
9.3 Principles for implementing the 9.4 Investment priorities

strategic actions
In orderto put into motion the strategic actions outlined
In implementing the strategic actions outlined above, above, the following long-term investments are needed
several basic principles should be followed: as a matter of urgency:
1) Existing institutions should be strengthened where 1) Executive training of strategic planning and sup-
possible, especially existing FAO and CNPPA port building for the heads of protected area man-
networks. agement agencies, both governmental and non-
governmental.
2) Actions should focus on underlying causes as well
as symptoms. 2) Reinforcement of the system planning and review
process in each country, giving particular empha-
3) Technical assistance projects should, as much as
sis to support groups.
possible, be small-scale and long-term . As a rule,
most institutions cannot manage growth in excess
3) Development of a regional institution to focus
of 25 per cent per year, nor sudden decreases in
specifically on building training capacities at the
support. national level.
4) Technical assistance projects should encourage
4) Establishment of a regional investment service to
cooperation and complementary action among do-
promote standards for technical assistance pro-
nors, as well as national agencies.
jects, facilitate communications between donors
5) Priorities for technical assistance should address and implementing agencies, and assist in develop-
institution building instead of focusing on " bio- ing national trust funds and other innovative fund-
logical hotspots". ing mechanisms.
References
Abramovitz, J.N. 1991. Investing in Biological Diversity: FAO/UNEP. 1986. Un Sistema de Areas Silvestres Pro-
US Research and Conservation Efforts in Developing tegidas para el Gran Chaco. Documento Técnico No1.
Countries. World Resources Institute. Washington Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO
DC, USA. para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile.
Amend, S. & T. Amend, (ed.) 1992. ¿Espacios sin Habi- FAO/UNEP. 1989b. Directorio de Instituciones: Parques
tantes? Parques Nacionales de América del Sur. Edi- Nacionales, otras Areas Protegidas, Flora y Fauna
torial Nueva Sociedad, Caracas, Venezuela. Unión Silvestre. Documento Técnico Nº 6. Proyecto
Mundial para la Naturaleza. FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para
Blockhus, J.M., M.R. Dillenbeck, J.A. Sayer, and P. América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile.
Wegge. 1992. Conserving Biological Diversity in FAO/UNEP. 1992a. Informe de la Cuarta Reunión de la
Managed Tropical Forests. IUCN, Gland, Switzer- Red Latinoamericana de Cooperación Técnica en
land and Cambridge UK. Parques Nacionales, otras Areas Protegidas, Flora y
CDC-Paraguay. 1990. Areas Prioritarias para la Conser- Fauna Silvestres. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina
vación en la Región Oriental del Paraguay. Dirección Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe.
de Parques Nacionales-Centro de Datos para la Con- Santiago, Chile.
servación (CDC) . Asunción, Paraguay. FAO/UNEP. 1992b. Informe del Taller Internacional so-
CDC-UNALM. 1991. Plan Director del Sistema Nacional brePolíticas de Turismo en Parques Nacionales y otras
de Unidades de Conservación (SINUC) . Una aprox- Areas Protegidas. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina
imación desde la diversidad biológica. Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe.
Comisión Amazónica de Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente. Santiago, Chile.
1992. Amazonia sin Mitos. Banco Interamericano de FAO/UNEP/US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Informe
Desarrollo/Programa de Naciones Unidas para el De- de la Mesa Redonda Internacional de Encargados de
sarrollo/Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica. Fauna Silvestre de los países del Cono Sur. Proyecto
Washington, DC, New York, N.Y., USA. and Quito, FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de la FAO para
Ecuador. América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile.
Colombia. 1989. Política del Gobierno Nacional para la Hajek, E. 1991. La situación ambiental en América Latina.
defensa de los derechos indígenas y la Conservación Algunos estudios de casos. Introducción. Centro Inter-
Ecológica de la Cuenca Amazónica. Caja Agraria, disciplinario de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo Latinoameri-
Colombia. cano (CIEDLA) . Buenos Aires, Argentina.
IDB/IUCN. 1992. Parks and Protected Areas in Latin Ormazábal , C.S. 1988. Sistemas Nacionales de Areas
America and the Caribbean. Draft report prepared Silvestres Protegidas en América Latina. Documento
byIUCN for theInter-American Development Bank Técnico Nº 3. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Re-
based on proceedings from the World Parks Con- gional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe.
gress in Caracas. Santiago, Chile.
IUCN. 1986. Plan de Acción Nahuel Huapi para las Ponce, A.S. , Gallo, N. and Moore A. 1989. Programa
Areas Protegidas de la Región Neotropical . IUCN, de Capacitación del Personal del Sistema Nacional
Gland, Suiza. de Areas Protegidas del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador.
IUCN. 1990b. Manejo deAreas Protegidas en losTrópicos. Poole, P. 1990. Desarrollo de Trabajo Conjunto entre
IUCN, Gland, Suiza and Cambridge, Royaume Uni. Pueblos Indígenas, Conservacionistas y Planificadores
IUCN. 1992. South American Camelids: An Action del Uso de la Tierra en América Latina. CATIE,
PlanfortheirConservation. IUCN Species Survival Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Commission, Gland, CH. 58pp. Putney, A. 1976. Estrategia Preliminar para la conser-
Latin American and Caribbean Commission on Devel- vación de áreas silvestres sobresalientes del Ecuador.
opment and Environment. 1990. Our Own Agenda. PNUD/FAO- ECU/71/527. Documento de Trabajo 17.
Inter-American Development Bank/United Nations Quito, Ecuador.
Develpment Programme. Washington , DC and New Quesada, C. 1992. Canje de deuda externa por natu-
York, N.Y., USA. raleza. Memoria de Seminario/Taller. Oficina Re-
MAG-Fundación Natura. 1989. Estrategia para el Sistema gional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe.
Nacional de Areas Protegidas del Ecuador, II Fase. Santiago, Chile.
Quito, Ecuador. Rojas, M. y Castaño, C. 1990. Areas Protegidas de la
Marchetti, B.; Oltremari, J. and Peters, H. 1992. Manejo Cuenca del Amazonas: Diagnóstico preliminar de
de áreas silvestres protegidas fronterizas en América su estado actual y revisión de las políticas formu-
Latina. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional ladas para su manejo . INDERENA/FAO/TCA.
de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Bogotá, Colombia.
Santiago, Chile. Savia. 1990. Boletín Trimestral de la Red Latinoamericana
MARNR. 1989. Marco Conceptual del Plan del Sistema de Bosques Tropicales, N 3, Octubre 1990. Fun-
Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas. Serie In- dación Natura. Quito, Ecuador.
formes Técnicos DGSPOA/IT/295. Documento en Smithsonian MAB News. 1992. Biodiversity. Nº 2.
Revisión. Caracas, Venezuela. Winter 1992. Washington DC, USA.
McNeely , J.A. , Miller, K.R.; Reid, W.V.; Mittermeier, Southgate, D. 1991. Influencia de las políticas en el uso
R.A. and Werner, T.B. 1990. Conservingthe World's y la gestión de los recursos naturales renovables de
BiologicalDiversity. IUCN, Gland , Suiza; WRI , CI , América Latina. En: Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente.
WWF- US , and the World Bank. Gland, Switzerland Hacia un enfoque integrador. Corporación de Inves-
and Washington, DC , USA. tigaciones Económicas de Latinoamérica (CIEPLAN).
Mittermeier, R.A.; Malone, S .; Plotkin , M.; Baal , F.; Santiago, Chile.
Mohadin, K. , MacKnight, J.; Werkhoven, M. and Thelen, K.D. and Miller, K.R. 1976. Guía para sistemas
Werner, T. 1990. Conservation Action Plan for de áreas protegidas, conuna aplicación a los parques
Suriname. STINASU, CI, LBB, WWF, University nacionales de Chile. Documento Técnico de Tra-
ofSuriname. bajo 16, Proyecto FAO-RLAT TF 199. Santiago,
Moore, A. y Ormazábal, C.S. 1988. Manual de Planifi- Chile.
cación de Sistemas Nacionales de Areas Silvestres TNC 1990. Parks in Peril, A Conservation Partnership
Protegidas en América Latina. Documento Técnico for the Americas. The Nature Conservancy,
Nº4. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Oficina Regional de Arlington VA., USA.
la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, TNC. 1991. Officially Sanctioned Debt-for-Nature-
Chile. Swaps to Date (As of November, 1992) . Unpub-
MOPU. 1990. Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente en America lished paper prepared by the Nature Conservancy.
Latina y el Caribe. Centro de Publicaciones Minis- Arlington, VA., USA.
terio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo. Madrid, TNC. 1992a. "Brazil Approves First Debt-Nature-
España. Swap". TNC News Release. The Nature Conser-
Oltremari, J.; Paredes, G. and Real, P. 1981. Meto- vancy. Arlington, VA., USA.
dología para la reclasificación y redelimitación de TNC. 1992b. In lit. 12/14/92. The Nature Conservancy ,
parques nacionales y reservas forestales en Chile. Arlington, VA., USA.
CONAF/UNDP/FAO Project CHI/76/003 , Docu- Torres, H. 1990. The Status of Protected Areas Man-
mento de Trabajo 42. Santiago, Chile. agement in Latin America. Yale University, School
Oltremari, J. 1993. El turismo en los parques nacionales ofForestry and Environmental Studies. New Haven,
y otras áreas protegidas de América Latina. Docu- Connecticut, USA (Unpublished paper).
mento Técnico Nº 11. Proyecto FAO/PNUMA. Wetterberg, G.B. and Jorge Padua, M.T. Soares de
Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y Catro, C. and Vasconcello, J.M. 1976. Uma Análise
el Caribe. Santiago, Chile (en imprenta) . de Prioridades em Conservaao da Natureza na
South America
Amazonia-PNUD/FAO/IBDF/BRA-
45, Srie Tcnica Wetterberg, G.B. , M.T. Jorge-Padua y C.F. Ponce del
No 8, 62pp. Prado. 1985. Decade of progress for South Americal
Wetterberg, G.B. and Jorge Padua, M.T. 1978. Preser- National Parks. International Affairs Office of the
vacao da natureza na Amazonia Brasileira: situação National Parks Service . US. Department of the In-
em 1978. PNUD/FAO/IBDF/BRA/76/02 Serie Tec- terior. Washington , DC , USA.
nica No. 13. Brasilia. 44pp.
Caracas Action Plan
Caracas Action Plan
1. Introduction air, soil and water. Ifprotected areas are to be a success-

ful form of land use, they must adapt to these changes.
The late 20th century is a time of unprecedented eco-
This Action Plan was generated by the Congress as a
logical, political, and economic change. In responding
vehicle for converting the rich, diverse, and complex
to such change, governments are calling for increased
experience of Caracas into a simple and straight-for-
international cooperation to achieve forms of develop-
ward framework for collective action by professionals
ment which are sustainable. A significant contribution
involved with protected areas . It is supported by
to the debate came from the IV World Congress on
Recommendations, reports from 49 workshops held at
National Parks and Protected Areas, held in Caracas,
the Congress, and publications resulting from the Con-
Venezuela, from 10 to 21 February 1992. Participants
gress (to be issued over the coming several years). It is
at this once-a-decade meeting reviewed and re-defined
a major contribution to implementing Agenda 21 (the
policy and adopted a Declaration and conclusions
action plan from the Earth Summit), the protected area
which have far-reaching implications for humanity.
elements of the new Convention on Biological Diver-
sity and the Global Biodiversity Strategy, and the phi-
A few months later, the policies articulated at the losophy contained in Caring for the Earth.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-
opment (the Earth Summit, held in June 1992 in Rio de
Janiero, Brazil), reaffirmed that protected areas can 2. Major protected area issues
actively benefit people everywhere, and should there-
fore be considered an important part of the sustainable The Congress focused on a number of issues of global
development process. The theme of the Caracas Con- concern.
gress, Parks for Life, underlined that point.

First, what can protected areas contribute to overall
strategies for sustainable development? Environmental
Protected areas are needed in order to safeguard bio- destruction and economic underdevelopment are con-
logical diversity in its own right and as an asset for the
sequences ofrelationships between people with diverse
future. They provide many services to humanity, rang- and often conflicting economic interests. Local patterns
ing from the practical to the aesthetic : from watershed
of land and sea tenure, income inequities among rural
protection to spiritual inspiration. Indeed, they are often
people , denial ofthe rights ofindigenous peoples to land
the most effective form of land use, in economic as well
and resources , inappropriate interest and exchange
as ecological terms. The global list of protected areas rates, inequities in the commodities trade, and agricul-
which now includes over 8,500 sites protecting some
tural subsidies can all have major influences on the
850 million hectares in more than 120 countries indi-
success ofa protected area. Such factors can seldom be
cates government commitment to ensuring that this
addressed effectively by the protected area manager, yet
generation passes on to future generations a world
they are critical to the long-term success of the protected
which is at least as diverse and productive as the one we area system. The various economic, physical , and re-
enjoy today.
gional planning approaches therefore must provide a
viable framework for fully integrating protected area
However, these assets are under increasing threat programmes into the pursuit of sustainable and equita-
because of a dramatic expansion in human demands ble development.
upon the environment: demands which have their ori-
gins in exponential population growth, waste, and ex- Second, how can protected areas command broader
cessive consumption. As a result, the decade of the support from society? Resource managers, users, and
1990s, perhaps more than any previous period in human beneficiaries all must be involved in generating political
history, can be expected to witness intense competition and financial support. Experience shows that planning
forthe use of natural resources and accelerating rates of which fosters full participation is likely to be most
change on a global scale which will affect the even the successful over the long run, though it is sometimes
most fundamental resources on which people depend: more expensive and complex initially. Such approaches
275
can consolidate and expand support for protected areas,

Objective 1. Integrate protected areas
especially from international and non-governmental
organizations , private landowners, and private corpora- into larger planning frameworks
tions. Local communities must receive particular con-
sideration and protected area managers must strive to
Action 1.1 . Develop and implement
dignify and give value to local cultures and ways of life.
national protected area system plans.
Third, how can protected area management be made
more effective under current and expected economic Develop national system plans as the primary national
conditions? The magnitude and complexity ofprotected policy document for strengthening management and
area management requires that a broad range of institu- extending protected area coverage. Base state or pro-
tions and individuals be involved , using approaches that vincial plans on the national plan.
increase cooperation and substantially reduce friction.
Protected areas must be managed so that local commu- Identify all the groups with a particular interest in
nities, the nations involved, and the world community protected areas and enable them to participate actively
all benefit. This calls for enhanced management capac- in the system planning process. Review the system plan
ity: expanded protected area infrastructure and staffing; widely with all potential interest groups and agencies
more and better training; additional funding; and im- before final adoption and periodically thereafter.
proved research and information management systems
to enhance the capacity to predict changes and adapt to Mobilize the best available science to identify critical
them. sites that need to beincluded in the system ifthe nation's
full range of biodiversity is to be protected, and to
Fourth , how can more effective international support provide guidance on appropriate management policies
be mobilized? Protected areas provide many benefits at for the individual sites and their surrounding lands.
the international level, justifying greatly increased in-
vestments from international sources through such Include within the system a range of terrestrial and
mechanisms as the World Heritage Convention, the marine protected area categories that addresses the
new Convention on Biological Diversity, the Wetlands needs of all interest groups, including agriculture, for-
(Ramsar) Convention, the Biosphere Reserves Pro- estry, and fisheries. Ensure that all sites managed for
gramme, the Global Environment Facility, and a wide conservation objectives are incorporated, including
range of bilateral supporters. International investment tribal lands, forest sanctuaries, and other sites managed
in protected area systems needs to be promoted through by agencies other than the main protected areas man-
clearly identifying needs and benefits. agement authority (for example, private land-owners,
local communities, and the military).
3. Actions for adapting to change

Action 1.2. Integrate national protected
The actions needed to strengthen, improve, and extend area system plans into economic
protected areas require both skills and wisdom. The
development planning frameworks.
experts on protected area management present at the
Caracas Congress recognized the futility of prescribing Seek to ensure that protected areas are fully considered
general actions that would be both meaningful and
in development planning through working closely with
relevant to all protected areas. Each country needs its
relevant ministries and presenting system plans to con-
own Action Plan, with measurable objectives, timeta-
cerned agencies, organizations and individuals.
bles, and budgets. Each protected area has different
requirements , and general prescriptions need to be
Seek opportunities to influence development plans to
adapted to meet specific needs. However, based on the
ensure that protected area concerns are reflected.
issues identified above, four basic objectives emerged
as being particularly worthy targets for worldwide co-
Support efforts of all relevant support institutions and
operation in support of field action. These basic objec-
organizations to identify clearly their responsibilities
tives and a checklist of the highest priority actions and
under the system plan, and to obtain sufficient funding
associated tasks follow.
to carry out the necessary actions.
Action 1.3. Plan protected areas as part

of the surrounding landscapes.
Recognize the landscape scale incorporating one or

more protected areas and sufficient surrounding lands
to maintain the integrity of the region's ecosystems as
the level at which the benefits of biodiversity and bio-
logical resources can be provided to local communities,
and ecosystem services can be protected and managed.
Caracas Action Plan
Develop buffer zones around protected areas, and competing groups to identify optimal management so-
corridors joining them. lutions acceptable to a majority.
Develop means appropriate to local communities to Promote attitudes among protected area managers
ensure that any use of wild resources is sustainable both that encourage recognition ofthe need of local commu-
within and outside protected areas. nities for equitable and sustainable development.
Promote the restoration of degraded ecosystems in Seek the support of local communities in promoting
protected areas and extend restoration activities to ad- protected areas by offering opportunities for influenc-
jacent regions. ing decision-making, for example through repre-
sentation on local protected area management boards
Action 1.4. Develop techniques for and at public debates on management issues.
assessing and quantifying benefits of
Based on examples of success, publish guidelines for
protected areas.
establishing co-management and co-financing arrange-
ments that take into account all interested groups.
Assemble existing studies ofbenefits derived from pro-
tected areas, including benefits which cannot be ex-
Develop participatory research, involving local peo-
pressed in purely monetary terms . Disseminate
ple and institutions, as a tool for planning, a means of
information on benefits associated with different man-
sharing basic information, and a mechanism for build-
agement categories, and prepare guidelines on how
ing working relations among interest groups.
such benefits can be determined.
Prepare comprehensive inventories of the assets of Action 2.3. Stimulate informed advocacy .
each protected area landscapes, cultural and historic
sites, ecosystems, species and genetic resources and Assess the vested interests of groups and take account
recognize these resources as capital assets. of these in seeking greater political and financial sup-
port for protected area programmes. Reinforce the sup-
Develop methodologies for economic evaluation of port of key interested groups through award schemes,
protected areas and use these to determine and defend public ceremonies, and personal communications.
resource use priorities.
Strengthen education and information programmes
within protected areas, and widely disseminate infor-
mation on protected area issues.
Objective 2. Expand support for
protected areas
Objective 3. Strengthen the capacity

Action 2.1 . Identify the key protected
to manage protected areas
area interests of various groups .
Determine the potential range of products and services Action 3.1 . Expand training opportunities
that can be provided by protected areas, including those at all levels .
relevant to non-traditional interest groups, such as re-
ligious groups, artisans, users of traditional medicines, Establish clear career development possibilities, with
and the military. associated training opportunities and commensurate
scales of remuneration.
Identify the groups that have a stake in these services
and products. Promote the sharing of views and experi- Expand and strengthen the global network of regional
ences, and the development of organizations to repre- (multicountry) protected area training colleges to pre-
sentthe interests of groups not yet organized. pare protected area personnel for senior posts.
Explore means for enhancing the benefits obtained by Provide diverse training opportunities for field staff.
some groups from protected areas without diminishing
those of others. In training courses, emphasize skills in participatory
and collaborative management at all levels.
Action 2.2. Recognize priority concerns
for local communities. Action 3.2. Improve management of
protected areas.
Work with local communities to determine how man-
agement oftheprotected area can help meet local needs. As an essential prerequisite for effective management,
Develop an understanding of local resource issues prepare a management plan for each protected area
through building on local knowledge and perceptions setting outwhat needs to be done, why, by whom, when,
of needs. Develop consultative processes that encourage and with what resources.
Establish a set of professional standards for protected Action 3.5. Give attention to the special
area staff, and improve the capacity of protected area requirements for managing marine
managers to monitor their own performance through protected areas.
indicators of management effectiveness.
Contribute to a global system for categorizing coastal
Develop innovative ways of accomplishing manage-
marine regions as the basis for assessing the adequacy
ment tasks by using other than regular staff, such as
of protected areas in these regions.
conservation volunteers, youth corps groups, prisoners,
the army and the unemployed (where appropriate).
Participate actively in coastal zone management pro-
grammes and ensure that both marine and terrestrial
Action 3.3. Develop means of increasing protected areas are used as key management tools in such
financing and generating revenue. programmes.
Include strategies and investment plans for the financ- Develop and implement integrated management pro-
ing of protected areas in the national system plan. grammes for marine protected areas.
Where feasible, develop innovative financing mecha-
nisms such as debt-for- nature swaps, trust funds, and
earmarked taxes.
Objective 4. Expand international

Develop means such as service fees and voluntary
green taxes to capture the potential contributions of cooperation in the finance ,
environmentally sensitive corporations and individuals. development, and management of
protected areas
Establish concessions for products and services pro-
duced by protected areas, including payments from
hydroelectric generating facilities which benefit from
the watershed protection services provided by the pro- Action 4.1 . Clarify the roles and
tected area. functions of institutions at all levels.
As a supplement to budget allocation , introduce con- Support the development of a Global Protected Areas
cession and entrance fees andreinvest them in manage- Investment Service to help coordinate the inputs of
ment. international organizations worldwide in implementing
this Action Plan.
Work with non-governmental organizations to de-
velop funding campaigns, special tours, trust funds, and
Mobilize multi-institutional support to protected area
the sale of arts, crafts, and souvenirs to support pro-
tected area management. management.
Link international technical assistance to the devel-

Action 3.4. Improve the application of opment of effective coordinating mechanisms for pro-
science to management . moting support to field action.
Ensure that management is science-based, and that re-

search carried out in protected areas can contribute Action 4.2. Develop international and
effectively to management. Where feasible, extend re- regional action plans to support
search results to assist surrounding communities and implementation of the priorities
resource users. established in national protected area
system plans.
Give priority to research on acute and chronic man-
agement problems, including land-based marine pollu-
Support the development of international guidelines for
tion and other pollution outside protected areas, control
terrestrial and marine biogeographical coverage, effec-
ofexotic species, and management of small populations
tive management, and the assessment of threats to pro-
of wildlife.
tected areas.
Develop means for harmonizing the work ofthe many

institutions active in information gathering and man- Contribute to an agenda for coordinated international
agement. Establish or strengthen global, regional, and action based on the priorities identified in national
national protected area documentation centres, and im- system plans, and keep the agenda up to date through
prove linkages between them. regional meetings.
Provide basic infrastructure for scientific research in Integrate the contributions of potential international
appropriate categories of protected areas, including supporters (inter-governmental institutions, non-gov-
staff assigned to coordinate scientific research pro- ernmental organizations, and multi-national corpora-
grammes within protected areas. tions) into regional and global action plans.
Caracas Action Plan
Action 4.3. Re- invigorate existing maintain the physical, economic , and spiritual re-
frameworks for international cooperation. sources that sustain us? Can we retain at least repre-
sentative samples of the natural and cultural wealth of
Support regional networks of protected area personnel our planet? Or will our natural and human systems
as a basis for international cooperation. collapse under the weight of increasing competition for
resources and expanding populations? The answers to
Give highest priority for international investment to
these questions depend on how societies respond to the
developing protected area institutions and systems.
many challenges before them . While protected areas
alone cannot solve the problems of modern society, they
Promote greater investment by governments , conser-
can make an important contribution to a better future
vation organizations, and multi-national corporations in
for all.
the management of protected areas recognized under
international agreements, extending these agreements
wherever possible. The Congress called for replacing the negative image
ofprotected areas as somehow set aside from the main-
Distribute information on new technical publications stream concerns of society by a more positive recogni-
to protected area managers through newsletters and tion of protection as the process of safeguarding an
other means, and develop means whereby protected area's distinctive contribution to the human commu-
area managers may request copies of relevant technical nity. Such a change in emphasis reflects the many
publications through regional documentation centres. values provided by wild habitats, and sees conservation
Systematically distribute basic technical references to as the process of maintaining essential environmental
major protected area documentation centres and man- resources , benefits, and services. Protected areas must
agement agencies. become demonstrations of how an entire country should
be managed.
4. Implementation
Many at the Congress were encouraged by the fact
Implementing this Action Plan requires the involve- that a wide range of governments and organizations
ment of large numbers of international, regional, na- through- out the world had made public commitments
tional, and local governmental and non-governmental to substantially increased support for protected areas.
organizations. Governments must continue taking the At the sametime, Congress participants were frustrated
lead in developing overall policy, establishing adminis- by the slowness or inability of governments and insti-
trative structures, monitoring networks and guidingthe tutions to convert public statements into effective ac-
financing and management of protected areas. tion.
In discharging this responsibility, they will need to

Protected area managers from all corners ofthe Earth
call upon significantly greater levels of active support
reminded the Congress of one indisputable fact. While
from other organizations than in the past. This could
involve allocation of management responsibility to in- the underlying factors which bring about success or
failure of conservation efforts are to be found in a
stitutions such as non-governmental organizations, cor-
porations, local communities, or private landowners. country's approach to economic development, the
struggle to retain meaningful parts of the world's vast
IUCN, through its Secretariat and Commission on biological, physical, and cultural wealth will finally be
National Parks and Protected Areas, will promote this won or lost in the field. The thousands of dedicated
Action Plan and support the preparation of more de- individuals working to manage protected areas effec-
tailedAction Plans for specific regions of the world. tively need much stronger support if they are to succeed
These will provide guidance for coordinated action, and in the tasks they have been assigned.
stimulate the development and/or review of national
system plans . IUCN will also assist governments , inter- Above all, this Action Plan is an urgent bid for coop-
national agencies, and others to determine how best eration, cooperation in marshalling knowledge, experi-
they can contribute to the implementation ofthis Action ence, finance, and human resources, and cooperation in
Plan and increase their investments in protected areas.
channelling them simply and efficiently to colleagues
in the field. IUCN invites its members and collaborating
5. Conclusion organizations to review their own programmes in light
of the IV World Congress on National Parks and Pro-
This Action Plan seeks to respond to the urgent chal- tected Areas, and to use this Action Plan as a framework
lenges identified at the IV World Congress. Can we for collective and mutually reinforcing effort.
Glossary of Acronyms and
Abbreviations
ACAP Annapurna Conservation Area Project (Nepal)

ACCT Agence de Coopération Culturelle at Technique (France)
ACDI Agencia Canadiense para Desarrollo Internacional (see CIDA)
ADB Asian Development Bank (Philippines)
ANCON Asociación Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (National
Association for Nature Conservation) (Panama)
ANPWS Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service
ASDI Agencia Sueca para Desarrollo Internacional (see SIDA)
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ASMA Antarctic Specially Managed Area
ASOC Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition
ASPA Antarctic Specially Protected Area
ATCM Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting
BAS Belize Audubon Society
BICA Bay Islands Conservation Association (Honduras)
BLM Bureau of Land Management (USA)
BVI British Virgin Islands
CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources
(Zimbabwe)
CANARI Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (St Lucia)
CATIE Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (Tropical Agronomic
Centre for Research and Training) (Costa Rica)
CCAD Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo (Central American
Commission for Environment and Development) (Guatemala)
CCAS 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals
CCC Caribbean Conservation Corporation (Florida)
CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antartic Marine Living Resources
CCT Centro de Ciencias Tropicales (Costa Rica) (see TSC)
CDC- UNALM Centro de Datos para la Conservación - Universidad Nacional Agraria
(Conservation Data Centre) (Peru)
CECON Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Centre for Conservation Studies)
(Guatemala)
CEDIP Centro documentazione internazionale parchi (International Park Documentation
Center) (Italy)
CEMAA Special Commission for Amazonian Environment (Interim Secretariat of the
Amazonian Co-operation Treaty)
CEMP CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (Australia)
CENREN Centro de Recursos Naturales (Natural Resources Centre) (El Salvador)
CEP Caribbean Environment Program (Jamaica)
CI Conservation International (USA)
CICAD Comisión Interparlamentaria Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CIDESA Coorporación de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo Socioambiental (Costa Rica)
CNPPA Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (IUCN)

COA Council of Agriculture (Taiwan)
COE Council ofEurope (France)
COHDEFOR Corporación Hondureña de Desarrollo Forestal (Honduran Forest Development
Corporation)
COMNAP Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes
CONAI Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas (National Commission for Indigenous
Affairs)
CONAP Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (National Council for Protected Areas)
(Guatemala)
CONCOM Council of Conservation Ministers (Australia/New Zealand)
CORINE Coordination of Information on the Environment (European Community)
CPS Canadian Parks Service
CSIRO Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Organisation (Australia)
CWS Canadian Wildlife Service
DANIDA Ministry ofForeign Affairs, Department of International Development
(Denmark)
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Philippines)
DGF Dirección General Forestal (General Forest Directorate)
DIGEBOS Dirección General de Bosques (National Directorate of Forests) (Guatemala)
DPNVS Dirección Nacional de Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre (National Directorate
for Protected Areas and Wildlife) (Panama)
EC European Community
EEAA Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ENCAMP Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Programme
ENCORE Environmental Coastal Resources (cf OECS)
ESNACIFOR Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Forestales (National School of Forest Sciences)
(Honduras)
FESA Fundación Ecológica Salvadoreñía Activo 20-30 (El Salvador)
FIIT Fundación Interamericana de Investigación Tropical (Interamerican Foundation
for Tropical Research)
FINNIDA Finnish International Development Agency
FNNPE Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe (Germany)
FSC Field Study Centres (cf SPNI)
FUCSA Fundación Cuero y Salado (Honduras)
FUNDAMAT Fundacion Chipaneca Miguel Alvarez del Toro para la Protección de la
Naturaleza (Mexico)
FUNDARY Fundación Mario Dary (Guatemala)
GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia)
GEF Global Environment Facility
COHDEFOR Cooperación Honduresa de Desarrollo Forestal
GO Governmental Organisation
GTZ Deutsch Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit Gmbh (German Technical
Co-operation)
IBA Important Bird Areas
IBCN Institut Burundais de la Conservation de la Nature et de l'Environnement
ICAD Integrated Conservation And Development Project (Kerinci Seblat National
Park, Indonesia)
ICBP International Council for Bird Preservation (renamed BirdLife International (UK)
ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Nepal)
ICLARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (Philippines)
IDAEH Instituto de Arqueología e Historia (Institute of Archaeology and History)
(Guatemala)
IDB Inter-American Development Bank (USA)
Glossary
IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy (Germany, France , UK,

Netherlands, Belgium)
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development (UK)
INBIO Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (National Biodiversity Institute) (Costa Rica)
INCAE Institito Centroamericana de Administración de Empresas (Costa Rica)
INDERENA Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables y del Medio Ambiente
(National Institue for Renewable Natural Resources and the Environment)
(Colombia)
INIREB Instituto Nacional para la Investigacion sobre Recursos Bióticos (National
Institute for Research on Living Resources) (Mexico)
INRENARE Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables (National Instutute for
Renewable Natural Resources) (Panama)
IPAS Integrated Protected Areas System (Philippines)
IRENA Instituto de Recursos Naturales (Natural Resources Institute) (Costa Rica)
IRNR Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (Ghana)
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (World
Conservation Union) (Switzerland)
IZCN Institut Zairois de Conservation de la Nature
JICA Japanese International Co-operation Agency
KfW German Reconstruction Bank
MAG Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock)
(El Salvador, Ecuador)
MBG Missouri Botanic Garden (USA)
MARNR Ministerio del Ambiente y de los Recursos Naturales Renovables (Ministry for
the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) (Venezuela)
MEPA Meteorological and Environmental Protection Agency (Saudi Arabia)
MIRENEM Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas (Ministry for Natural
Resources , Energy and Mines) (Costa Rica)
MOIIN Indigenous Movement for National Identity (Venezuela)
MOPU Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo (Ministry for Public Works and
Cities) (Spain)
MPA Marine Protected Area
MPA Multiple-use Planning Areas (Antarctica)
NCA Nature Conservation Areas (Oman)
NCPA National Parks and Conservation Association (North America)
NCWCD National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development (Saudi Arabia)
NEOTROPICA Fundación Neotrópica (Costa Rica)
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA)
NORAD Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment (Norway)
OAS Organisation of American States (USA)
OECS Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (Caribbean)
ORCA See UICN- ORCA
ORPN Office Rwandais des Parcs Nationaux
OSME Omnithological Society of the Middle East
OTS Organization for Tropical Studies (Costa Rica)
PAFT-CR Plan de Acción Forestal para Costa Rica (see TFAP)
PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (Philippines)
PFB Programme for Belize (Belize , UK)
PNA Protected Natural Areas Programme (New Zealand)
PNUD see UNDP
PRONATURA Asociación Mexicana Pro Conservación de la Naturaleza (Mexican Association
for Nature Conservation) (Mexico)
ROCAP Regional Office for Central American Programme (USAID) (Honduras)
ROCAP US Agency for International Development-Regional Office for Central America
and Panama (USAID)
ROPME The Regional Organisation for the Protection of the Marine Environment
(Arabian Gulf region)
RSCN Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (Jordan)
RSPB Royal Society for Protection of Birds (UK)
SARH Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (Mexico)
SCAR Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (Antarctica)
SEDESOL Secretaría de Desarrollo Social (Ministry of Social Development) (Mexico)
SEDUE Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología (Ministry of Urban Development
and Ecology) (Mexico)
SI Smithsonian Institution (USA)
SIAP Sistema de Areas Protegidas del Gran Petén (Protected Area System of Gran
Petén) (Mexico, Guatemala and Belize)
SIAPAZ Sistema de Areas Protegidas para la Paz (Protected Areas for Peace System)
(Nicaragua/Costa Rica)
SICAP Sistema Centroamericano de Areas Protegidas (Central American Protected
Areas System)
SIDA Swedish International Development Agency
SINAP Sistema Nacional de Areas Protegidas (National Protected Area System)
(Mexico)
SPA Specially Protected Areas (Antarctica)
SPA Specially Protected Area (EC)
SPN Servicio de Parques Nacionales (National Park Service) (Costa Rica)
SPNI Society for the Protection of Nature (Israel)
SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (Western Samoa)
SRA Specially Reserved Area (Antarctica)
SSC Species Survival Commission (IUCN)
SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest (Antarctica/UK)
STINAPA Netherlands Antilles Parks Foundation
STINASU Foundation for the Preservation of Nature (Suriname)
STRI Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (Panama)
TFAP Tropical Forestry Action Plan
TNC The Nature Conservancy (USA)
TR& D Tropical Research and Development (El Salvador)
TSC Tropical Science Center (Costa Rica)
UICN ORCA UICN - Oficina Regional para Centroamérica (IUCN Central American
Regional Office)
UNA Universidad Nacional Autónoma (Autonomous National University of Heredia)
(Costa Rica)
UNDP United Nations Development Programme (USA)
UNED Universidad Estatal a Distancia de Costa Rica (Costa Rican State Open
University)
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme (Kenya)
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (France)
USNPS United States National Park Service
USAC Universidad de San Carlos (Guatemala)
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USFS US Forest Service
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service.
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
WB World Bank (USA)
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development ( 1983-88)
WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UK)
WRI World Resources Institute (USA)
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund
List of Countries
The following is a list of the countries , islands and other geographical units included in each of
the regions presented in this book. Countries which are recognized by the United Nations are
identified in CAPITAL LETTERS, while those geographical entities in the list of the International
Standards Organisation but not recognized as countries by the UN are given in italics, with the
name of the country in brackets. For example: FIJI, CANADA, New Caledonia (FRANCE) , Aruba
(NETHERLANDS )
ANTARCTICA/NEW ZEALAND Virgin Islands (British) (UNITED KINGDOM)

Virgin Islands (US) (UNITED STATES)
Antarctica
Bouvet Island (NORWAY) CENTRAL AMERICA
Falkland Is. (UNITED KINGDOM)
BELIZE
French Southern Territories (FRANCE)
COSTA RICA
Heard and McDonald Islands (AUSTRALIA)
EL SALVADOR
NEW ZEALAND
GUATEMALA
Tristan da Cunha (UNITED KINGDOM)
HONDURAS
NICARAGUA
AUSTRALIA
PANAMA
AUSTRALIA
EAST ASIA
Christmas Island (AUSTRALIA)
Cocos (Keeling) Islands (AUSTRALIA) CHINA
NorfolkIsland (AUSTRALIA) JAPAN
Hong Kong (UNITED KINGDOM)
CARIBBEAN KOREA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF
Anguilla (UNITED KINGDOM)
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
Macau (PORTUGAL)
Aruba (NETHERLANDS) MONGOLIA
BAHAMAS
Taiwan
BARBADOS
Bermuda (UNITED KINGDOM) EUROPE
CaymanIslands (UNITED KINGDOM)
CUBA ALBANIA
DOMINICA ANDORRA
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AUSTRIA
GRENADA BELGIUM
Guadeloupe (FRANCE) BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
HAITI BULGARIA
JAMAICA CROATIA
Martinique (FRANCE) CZECH REPUBLIC
Montserrat (UNITED KINGDOM) DENMARK
Netherlands Antilles (NETHERLANDS) ESTONIA
Puerto Rico (UNITED STATES) Faroe Islands (DENMARK)
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS FINLAND
SAINT LUCIA FRANCE
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES GERMANY
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Gibraltar (UNITED KINGDOM)
Turks and Caicos Islands (UNITED KINGDOM) GREECE
EUROPE (cont.) NORTH EURASIA
HUNGARY ARMENIA
ICELAND AZERBAIJAN
IRELAND BELARUS
ITALY GEORGIA
LATVIA KAZAKHSTAN
LIECHTENSTEIN KYRGYZSTAN
LITHUANIA MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF
LUXEMBOURG RUSSIAN FEDERATION
MACEDONIA TAJIKISTAN
MALTA TURKMENISTAN
MONACO UKRAINE
NETHERLANDS UZBEKISTAN
NORWAY
POLAND PACIFIC
PORTUGAL
American Samoa (UNITED STATES)
ROMANIA
Cook Islands (NEW ZEALAND)
SAN MARINO
FIJI
SLOVAKIA
French Polynesia (FRANCE)
SLOVENIA
Guam (UNITED STATES)
SPAIN
KIRIBATI
Svalbard andJan Mayen Islands (NORWAY)
MARSHALL ISLANDS
SWEDEN
MICRONESIA
SWITZERLAND
NAURU
UNITED KINGDOM
New Caledonia (FRANCE)
VATICAN CITY STATE
Niue (NEW ZEALAND)
YUGOSLAVIA
Northern Mariana Islands (UNITED STATES)
Palau (UNITED STATES)
NORTH AFRICA AND MIDDLE EAST
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
AFGHANISTAN Pitcairn (UNITED KINGDOM)
ALGERIA SAMOA
BAHRAIN SOLOMON ISLANDS
CYPRUS Tokelau (NEW ZEALAND)
EGYPT TONGA
IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF TUVALU
IRAQ United States Minor Outlying Islands (UNITED
ISRAEL STATES)
JORDAN VANUATU
KUWAIT Wallis and Futuna Islands (FRANCE)
LEBANON
SOUTH AMERICA
LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
MOROCCO ARGENTINA
OMAN BOLIVIA
QATAR BRAZIL
SAUDI ARABIA CHILE
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC COLOMBIA
TUNISIA ECUADOR
TURKEY French Guiana (FRANCE)
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES GUYANA
Western Sahara PARAGUAY
YEMEN, REPUBLIC OF PERU
SURINAME
NORTH AMERICA URUGUAY
VENEZUELA
CANADA
Greenland (DENMARK) SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA
MEXICO
St. Pierre and Miquelon (FRANCE) BANGLADESH
UNITED STATES BHUTAN
List ofCountries
SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA (cont.) ETHIOPIA

GABON
British Indian Ocean Territory (UNITED GAMBIA
KINGDOM) GHANA
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM GUINEA
CAMBODIA GUINEA-BISSAU
INDIA KENYA
INDONESIA LESOTHO
LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC LIBERIA
MALAYSIA
MADAGASCAR
MALDIVES MALAWI
MYANMAR MALI
NEPAL MAURITANIA
PAKISTAN MAURITIUS
PHILIPPINES
MOZAMBIQUE
SINGAPORE NAMIBIA
SRI LANKA NIGER
THAILAND NIGERIA
VIET NAM RWANDA
Réunion (FRANCE)
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE
ANGOLA SENEGAL
BENIN SEYCHELLES
BOTSWANA SIERRA LEONE
BURKINA FASO SOMALIA
BURUNDI SOUTH AFRICA
CAMEROON St. Helena (UNITED KINGDOM)
CAPE VERDE SUDAN
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC SWAZILAND
CHAD TANZANIA, UNITED REPUBLIC
COMOROS TOGO
CONGO UGANDA
CÔTE D'IVOIRE ZAIRE
DJIBOUTI ZAMBIA
EQUATORIAL GUINEA ZIMBABWE
Index
Index
A Andorra 101-132, 385

AngkorWat 181, 183
aboriginal people/sites 214, 220, 223-224, 227, 282, 287 Angola 43-72,387
Abruzzo National Park 116 Anguilla 323-344, 385
Acacia invasion 119 Ankara Forestry Research Institute 94
accident 40, 51, 94, 119 Annapuma 185, 190, 195, 381
accountability 41 antarctic 5, 6, 15, 17, 42, 202, 231, 235-236,
ACCT 65, 381 238, 240, 245-254, 381 , 382, 384, 385
acquire/acquisition 60, 62, 64, 88, 115, 148, 211, 213, Antarctic Convergence 251
218, 228,233, 235, 259, 263 , 274, 290, 294-295, 297, 317, 362 Antarctic Specially Managed Area 246, 249, 381
ADB 190, 195, 197, 199, 202, 381
250 Antarctic Specially Protected Area 246, 381
Adelaide Island
285 Antarctic Specially Reserved Area 245, 384
Adirondack State Park
Antarctic Treaty Territory 235-236, 238, 245-250
Admiralty Bay 250
Antarctica 13, 15, 229, 232, 233, 235, 238,
advocacy 189, 240-242, 377
aerosols 151 240, 241, 245, 246, 248-250, 254, 383-385
aesthetic anthropogenic 143, 150, 151
141, 161, 183, 185, 210, 216, 245, 248, 375
anthropological reserves 267
aesthetic forest 128
anthropology 311
Afghan 84,94
73-100, 386 Antigua and Barbuda 323-344, 385
Afghanistan
African Convention 47,49 Antilles 328, 329, 331 , 334–336, 340, 342–344, 384, 385
African Wildlife Foundation 64 Apia Convention 216, 264, 265, 268
Afrotropical 15, 24, 51-52, 71 aquarium 188
agrarian 309, 316, 317 aquatic 54, 94, 119, 143, 199, 218, 220,
agricultural 8, 37, 49, 55, 71 , 77, 78, 84, 88, 247, 273, 290, 356, 382
92-94, 96, 98, 105, 107, 119-121 , 130, 132, 138, 141 , 144, 146, aquatic reserves 220
149, 151, 152, 165-166, 167-169, 172, 175, 181-183, 189, 198- Arabic 79,97
199, 202, 209, 221 , 233, 263, 269, 272, 286, 287, 289, 294–295, arable 94, 121
305, 314, 316, 339, 344-345, 351 , 357, 359, 363-365, 375-376, Araucaria forest 355
382-384 archaeology 8, 79, 181, 218, 295, 306, 313-314, 383
agro- industrial 77, 105 archipelago 111, 139, 152, 226, 249-251 , 261
agroforestry 364 architectural 144, 149, 314
agronomic 51,314, 381 archive 150
aid 64, 65, 92, 93, 105, 121, 263, arctic 105, 129, 137, 142, 143, 286, 287, 292
273-274, 313, 320, 321 , 331 , 338, 342 Arenal Mountains 309
Air and Ténéré Reserve 47, 51, 62, 63 Arfak Mountains 199, 202
Akan National Park 163 Argentera Nature Park 113
Alabama 296 Argentina 245, 251 , 344, 347-372, 386
Alaska 287,288, 290, 296 arid 52, 71, 77, 78, 87, 88, 92, 94, 96,
Albania 101-132, 385 98, 167, 217, 221 , 225, 227, 364
Albation Point-Ganymede Heights 250 Arizona 71,296
Alberta 254 166
Arjin Mountains
Aldabra 62 armed conflict 75, 86, 88, 93, 130, 318
Algeria 73-100, 386 Armenia
285 133-156, 386
Algonquin Provicial Park
151 army 190, 192, 209, 121, 318, 378
alkalinity
Amhem 132
Alligator River 214
Arrabida Nature Park 119
alluvial 289
Arrecife Alacranes 292
alpine 165, 357
13, 105, 110, 113, 116 Arrival Heights 250
Alps (Europe)
Altaisky Zapovednik 138 Arthur's Pass National Park 233,239
Alvao Nature Park 119 artisan 183,377
Amazon 351, 355, 359, 360, 363–366, 369-371, 381 Aruba 323-346, 385
Amboseli National Park 55, 63, 64 Arun 194, 198
amenities 40, 331 ASEAN 185, 202, 381
amenity forest reserve 85 Ashmore and Cartier Islands 215
American Samoa 255-276, 386 AsianWetlands Bureau 194, 196, 198
Amistad 307, 310, 311 , 318 Aso-Kuju National Park 163
amphibian 127, 357 Assam 198
Anatolia 84, 85, 92, 94 assessment 38, 60, 71 , 97, 107, 143, 161, 167,
ancient 47, 78, 79, 94-95, 161 , 173, 181 , 309 190, 202, 223, 226, 227, 242, 243, 251, 253, 270, 274, 289, 297,
Andalucia 115 299, 307, 313, 332, 341, 378, 382
Andamans 196 Assyrians 78
Andes 351, 355, 357, 359, 364 Astrakhansky 138, 142, 149, 150
Andohahela Reserve 71 Aswan Dam 94
Atacama Desert 351, 355 61, 64, 71, 75, 77, 81-82, 84-88, 92-94, 98, 105, 110, 129, 130,
Atchafalaya Basin 296 132, 139, 147, 149, 153, 162-163, 165–166, 170, 173-175, 180,
ATCM 245, 246, 248, 381 183, 187, 189, 194-198, 200-203, 218, 224-227, 260, 263-265,
Atlantic 42, 77, 87, 111 , 113, 132, 137 , 289, 270, 272, 274-275, 283, 290, 291, 295, 296, 299, 305, 306, 313-
305, 309, 351 , 355, 357, 359 316, 319-320, 325, 327, 333, 335, 351-352, 355-356, 360-362,
Atlas Mountains 13, 84, 94 367-370, 375-376, 383
atmosphere 151 , 274, 290, 383 Biogenetic Reserves 84, 85, 117, 127
atoll 62, 260, 267 biogeography 3, 4, 10-13, 15, 24, 25-28, 35, 36,
Auckland Islands 251, 252, 254 41, 42, 111, 142, 161 , 167, 183, 203, 211, 232, 237, 247, 251-252,
Audubon Society 311, 313, 381 287, 295, 334, 345, 360, 368, 378
Australia 5, 6, 15, 17, 42, 119, 173, 181 , 202, biological reserve 85
205-228,238, 240-241 , 245, 251, 253, 263, 271,276, 381-382,385 biological stations 283,296
Australian Alps National Parks 226-227 biological reserve 305, 307, 311, 314, 316, 317
Austria 101-132, 385 biomass 151
Avicenne Initiative 87 biomes 10, 166, 173
Ayers Rock 214, 222 biomonitoring 150
Azerbaijan 138, 141, 143, 147, 151, 154, 386 biophysical 227
Azores 111 bioregional planning 288
Azov Sea 143 Biosphere Reserve 4, 22, 23, 33, 34-35, 52, 59, 63-64,
Azraq Wetland Reserve 93 83, 85, 92, 97, 113, 126-127, 139, 144, 147–150, 152-153, 167-
Aztec 281 168, 174, 186, 200, 211, 213, 218, 227, 237-238, 251, 253, 267,
268, 283, 285-286, 290–292, 295–296, 305–306, 310, 313, 318,
B 332, 336, 341, 351 , 356, 360, 362-363, 376
bird sanctuary 62, 85, 93, 119, 289
Babylonians 78 340
Biscayne National Park
Bactrian deer 150 bison 137, 139, 142, 150
Baffin Island 292 Blackfoot 5
Bahamas 323-346, 385 Blackrock Desert National Park 296
Bahrain 73-100, 386 Boabeng-Fiema 47
Baja California 295 boardwalks 253
Bali (World Parks Congress) 6, 10, 31, 33-35, 78, 85, 105, boating 267
139, 183, 185, 233, 234, 319, 331 , 352 Bodo people 198
Baltic 13, 36, 42, 105, 107 , 111 , 113, 118,
120, 126, 129, 132, 138 , 139, 143, 149 Bogor 195, 202, 203
Bañados del Este National Park 360 Bol'shehehzirsky Zapovednik 150
Bol'shezemel'sky 143
Banc d'Arguin National Park 47, 54, 62, 63
Bolivia 347-372, 386
Bandiagara 59,62
BanffNational Park 282 Bonaire 323-346
border 59, 64, 119, 126, 139, 153, 188,
Bangkok 174, 183, 195, 201 , 202
Bangladesh 177-204, 386 190, 200, 226,286, 303, 310, 321 , 356, 365-366
Baniara Island 261 Bosawas Natural Reserve 307, 311, 318
Barbados 323-346, 385 Bosnia and Herzegovina 101-132, 385
Barbary sheep 96 botanic garden 94, 281, 360, 362, 383
Barbuda 323-346, 385 botanical reserve 51,85
Barcelona Convention 82-85, 87, 111 , 117, 118, 128 Botswana 43-72, 387
Bardawil Ramsar Site 94 boundary 13, 15, 17, 37, 39, 40, 54, 61, 64,
Barents Sea 143 93-95, 127, 145, 147-149, 152-153, 165-166, 187, 195, 199, 209,
Bargusin Zapovednik 137, 150 211, 226, 234, 248, 282, 293-295, 297, 309, 316, 355, 363, 365
Bariloche training centre 363 Bouvet 235, 238, 241, 251-253, 385
Barouk cedars 87 Brabant Island 250
barrages 55 Brahmaputra 188
Barro Colorado 305, 311 Brasilia 366, 367, 371
Barwick Valley 250 Braulio Carrillo National Park 317
baseline 33, 40, 86, 274 Brazil 42, 347-372, 375, 386
Basra 86 breeding station 37, 64, 85, 96, 148, 149, 242, 245,
Bavarian forest 105 247,260, 290
Bayanga forest 51 British 47, 49, 101-132, 182, 186, 189,
Bayerischer Wald National Park 116, 126 199, 209, 241, 265, 305, 328, 329, 331-334 , 336, 340-344, 381,
beach 93, 119, 249, 250, 319, 334, 340, 351 385,387
beaver 137, 150 British Indian Ocean Territory 177-204, 387
Bedouin 61 British Virgin Islands 323-346, 381
bee- keeping 95 Brownsberg National Park 357, 359
Beijing 166, 175 Brunei Darussalam 177-204, 387
Belarus 15, 133-156, 386 Buddhism 161, 167
Belgium 8, 49, 101-132, 385 budgets 40, 46, 49, 58, 76, 88-89, 92, 104,
Belize 301-322, 381 , 383-385 110-111, 115-116, 121 , 131, 144-146, 149, 154, 160, 168-169,
Bemaraha Integral Nature Reserve 62 172, 180, 190, 194–196, 198, 221 , 223, 232, 240-242, 258, 272,
Bengal 187, 198 280, 288, 290-291, 293–296, 304, 311 , 313, 315 , 318, 319, 326,
Beni Biosphere Reserve 360, 362 331-332, 338, 343, 350, 352, 359, 366, 376, 378
Benin 43-72, 387 Buenos Aires 369
Berezinsky Zapovednik 138, 142, 150 buffer/buffer zone 35, 39, 51, 55, 58, 61, 61-63, 65,
Beringia 153 121, 129, 143, 147, 148, 185, 189, 195, 198–199, 201 , 218, 246,
Bermuda 13, 323-346, 385 251, 273, 309, 339, 362, 366, 377
Bern Convention 118, 127, 130 Bulgaria 101-132, 153, 385
Bernardo O'Higgins 366 Burkina Faso 43-72,387
Bhutan 15, 177-206 , 386 Burren 113
Bialowieza National Park 120, 139 Burulus Ramsar Site 93
BICA 307, 381 Burundi 43-72,382, 387
Bicol National Park 190 Buryat 147
biodiversity 13, 18, 23, 24, 35-38, 41, 42, 47, Bwindi Forest Reserves 55
Index
by-laws 138 Chiapas 291,295

Byelorussia see Belarus Chile 247-272, 386
Byeloveha Puscha Zapovednik 137, 139 Chilka Lake 196
Byers Peninsula 249, 250 China 15, 153, 157-176, 385
Byzantine 78,94 Chiquibul/ Mayan Mountain Project 311
Chiribiquete National Park 364
Chirisan National Park 161, 165
с Christchurch 253
cactus scrub 334, 335 Christianity 95
CahuinaríNational Park 365 Christmas Island 210, 213, 215, 385
Calabria National Park 116 Christoffel National Park 334
Calauit Game Preserve 190 Chubu-Sangaku National Park 163
California 283, 295, 296 Chukotsk (proposed zapovednik) 143
Camargue 119 CIDA 313, 381
Cambodia 177-204, 387 Circeo National Park 119, 120
camelids 78, 355, 370 classification 3,7, 10-11 , 24, 34-35, 42, 51, 85,
Cameroon 43-72, 387 87, 127, 165, 203, 217-218, 221, 226-227, 237, 247, 253-254,
Campbell Island 252 264-265, 267, 269, 286-287, 289, 292, 297, 333-335, 345, 366
CAMPFIRE 63,381 climate change 23, 62, 173, 175, 294
58,222, 367 closed areas 260
camping
Canada 13, 99, 153, 223, 224, 250, 254, 263, cloud forest 307,335
277-300, 331 , 381-382, 385, 386 CNPPA 3-5,7, 11 , 13, 15, 17, 30, 31,
Canaima National Park 366 33-36, 42, 47, 54, 55, 83, 89, 97-99, 105, 109, 111, 119, 129,
331-334, 338, 344, 381-382 131-132, 137, 251 , 253, 254, 263, 315, 327, 341 , 342, 351, 352,
CANARI (previously ECNAMP) 369,382
Canary Islands 111, 115
Canberra 42,227, 228, 276 co-management 295,311, 336, 377
co-financing 201 , 311, 336, 359, 377
capacity building 18, 31, 37, 38, 40, 41 , 45, 54, 58,
coast/coastal zone 13, 17, 29-42, 47, 54-55, 57, 61,
64, 75, 89, 103, 116, 130, 135, 146, 159, 170, 179, 185, 188, 195,
199, 207, 222, 231 , 234, 240, 241 , 248, 257, 271 , 279, 281, 287, 64,71, 77, 84, 84-87, 93-95, 98, 105, 107, 111-112, 119, 128-129,
290, 293, 298, 303, 307, 311 , 313–316, 325, 331 , 332, 338, 339, 142-144, 153, 161 , 165-167, 183, 187-190, 196-197, 200-201,
341, 343, 349, 360, 362, 368, 376, 377 203, 209, 214, 217, 226, 233, 237-239, 243, 247, 249-250, 253-
296 254, 259–260, 263–265, 269, 272–274, 289, 291–292, 295, 297,
Cape Mendocino
Cape Verde 43-72,387 303, 305, 309-310, 315-318, 331-335 , 338, 344 , 351 , 353, 357,
63 359-360, 364, 378, 382
Caprivi Strip 211
64,96 CobourgPeninsula
captive breeding Cobscook Bay 296
Caracas (World Parks Congress) 6, 7, 17, 18, 23, 66, 97, 111,
Cocos (Keeling) Islands 210, 211 , 213, 385
113, 131, 203, 233, 241 , 291 , 299, 320, 332, 341, 344, 369, 370, Codfish Island 242
373, 375, 376 47
Caribbean 5, 6, 10, 11 , 13, 15, 17, 24, 36, 42, colobus monkey
Colombia 13, 340, 347-372, 383, 386
106, 109, 114, 162, 210, 235, 261 , 264, 266, 305, 309, 323-346, Colombo 202
351, 355, 359, 361 , 367, 370, 381-383, 385
153 colonial 47, 49, 51, 57, 79, 181 , 183 , 259-261 , 305, 332
Carpathian Mountains colonies
55, 112, 199, 356, 361 , 368 49, 51, 209, 233, 245, 246, 248
carrying capacity colonization
78,94 233, 281, 309, 316, 335, 351
Carthage Colorado 98,288,296,305, 309, 311
Cartier Islands, Ashmore and 215
commercialization 148, 234, 285
Caspian Sea 77, 79, 87, 143, 150
Commonwealth 225, 260, 335, 382
CATIE 314, 320, 321, 363, 370, 381 communal forest 63,79, 95, 297, 364, 381
cattle 58, 61, 78, 93, 147, 148, 150, 225, 252, 365 120
communes
Caucasus/Caucasian Zapovednik 137-8, 142, 144, 149-151 105
Communist
Caughley Beach 249, 250 272
365 community-based
Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve COMNAP 248,382
Cayman Islands 323-346, 385 Comoe National Park 62
cays 209, 215, 334 Comoros 43-72,387
CCAD 316, 320, 321, 381 112, 120, 147, 149, 172, 190, 225,
compensation
CCAMLR 246, 248, 251, 381 261, 263, 269
CCAS 246, 381 50, 218, 221, 333
computers/computerization
CDC 352, 357, 369, 381 concessions 92, 188, 195, 198, 243, 283, 294,
cedars 78,87 309, 338, 343, 365, 378
CEDIP 83, 97, 129, 131 , 132, 381 CONCOM 240, 382
Ceibal 319 Confucianism 161
CEMAA 359,381 Congo 43-72,387
CEMP 246, 381 Connecticut 296,370
Central African Republic 43-72, 387 conservation area 47, 49, 51-52, 54, 58, 61-62, 64,
Central-Siberian Zapovednik 138 84-85, 87, 93, 96, 98, 128, 142, 163, 165, 167, 170, 183 , 185-186,
Central-Chemozemny Zapovednik 142 189-190, 195, 197–199, 202, 209, 220, 234, 245, 247, 251, 253,
CEP 332, 381 260, 263, 265-267, 269-271 , 273-274, 280, 292, 309, 317, 334,
cereal-producing 121 381,383
Cerro Saslaya National Park 307 conservation park 220, 226, 237, 239, 247
Cervus 139, 150, 151 conservation reserve 211, 215, 220, 221, 223, 228
cetaceans 360 conservation unit 198, 309, 314
Cevennes National Park 119 contingency plans 188
Ceylon see Sri Lanka convention 3-4, 18, 23, 33, 35-36, 39, 45-47,
Chaco 355, 369 49, 51-52, 57, 59, 65, 76, 82–83, 85, 87, 99, 104, 111, 115, 118,
Chad 43-72, 387 127-128, 130, 135, 139, 147, 160, 167–168 , 174, 180, 183, 185-
Chamela 296 186, 197, 201, 208, 211, 213-214, 216-217, 232, 237-238, 240,
chamois 151 246, 258, 264-265, 280, 285–286 , 304, 306–307, 310, 325–326,
Chaparral 289 331, 336, 349, 351–352, 356, 366–367, 375–376, 381
charcoal 47,78 Cook Islands 240, 255-276, 386
Chernobyl 151 cooperative 23, 62, 64-65, 71, 153, 218, 226,
Chewore Safari Area 62 234, 249, 266, 271 , 290, 298, 318, 342
Coppename-Mouth Nature Reserve 340,361 deforestation 47, 172, 174, 188, 309
coppice 334 degradation 40, 62, 77-79, 96, 105, 151, 185,
coral 33, 34, 40, 54, 57, 77, 86, 89, 99, 188, 190, 197, 201 , 267, 270, 88 , 294–295, 297-298, 306, 309,
181, 187-189, 200, 203, 209, 215, 225, 267, 276, 335, 340 351, 353, 355, 357, 377
Corbett National Park 183, 188, 198, 202 Dehra Dun 195
Corcovado National Park 310 deltas 54, 55, 93, 94, 105, 113, 119, 121,
CORINE 87, 112, 127, 129, 382 196, 292, 351
CORINE Biotopes 87, 112, 132 Denmark 101-132, 286, 382, 385, 386
Coromandel 239 Denver 98
corridor 37, 55, 64-65, 93, 107, 129, 186, dependencies 245
189, 233, 288, 357, 377 desert 13, 25-28, 47, 51 , 52, 54, 77, 86, 93-95, 98, 137, 142,
cost-effective 115, 190, 200 161, 296, 351, 355, 357
cost-recovery 294 desertification 78,94
Costa Rica 202, 301-322, 363, 370, 381 , 383-385 desman 142
Côte d'Ivoire 43-72,387 Diawling 51
Cotswolds 110 Dimonika Biosphere Reserve 64
country parks 166-168, 170, 172 Dinosaur Provincial Park 291
countryside 110, 116, 120, 131, 132, 144, 172 Dion Islands 249
covenants 8, 234, 235, 238, 239, 247, 269 disease 47,51
coverage 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 24, 31 , 36, disincentive 199, 263
45, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, 60, 75, 84-86, 103, 105, 112, 129, 135, 139, dispossessed 121
159, 161, 165-167, 179, 183, 185, 187, 200, 207, 215, 216, 218,
227, 231, 234, 247, 257, 266, 280, 286, 288, 289, 292, 293, 297, disputes 86, 187, 190, 273
303, 305, 306, 325, 333, 335, 349, 352, 355, 357, 368, 376, 378 Djibouti 43-72, 387
Cozumel Underwater Park Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary 62
340 Dnieper 137
craters 305 Doi Inthanon National Park 188
Crimean 139 Dominica 323-346, 385
crisis 295,318, 351, 363 Dominican Republic 323-346, 385
criteria 7, 11, 24, 36, 51 , 52, 56, 65, 82, 85, donation 49, 65, 92, 149, 198, 237, 240-241,
107, 114, 143, 145, 163, 165–166, 183 , 186, 202, 213, 238, 247-248, 290, 293, 311, 313, 315, 333, 338, 343, 361–362, 367, 369
251, 266, 283, 286-289, 297, 309, 310, 318, 334, 335, 352, 355 Dovrefjell National Park 119
critical 36, 37, 39, 40, 57, 77, 84, 92, 113, DPNVS 322,382
121 , 180, 189, 196, 210, 246, 263, 281 , 290, 295, 296, 298, 311 , 77, 86, 105, 111, 112, 185, 311, 314
drainage
313, 327, 331 , 340, 344, 349, 350, 361 , 368, 375, 376 55
Drakensberg
Croatia 201-132, 385 250
crocodiles 360 Dronning Maud Land
305 drought 47, 52, 54, 61, 93
crown reserve 185
Crozet 252 Dumoga-Bone National Park
dumping 165,267
CSIRO 225, 226, 228, 382 dunes
Cuba 54, 112, 242, 296, 335
323-346, 385 63
327 Dzanga-Sangha Dense Forest Reserve
Culebra National Wildlife Refuge
culture/cultural 8, 13, 15, 23, 33, 39, 42, 47, 54, 59,
61-62, 77-78, 83, 85, 88–89, 93–94, 96, 98, 105, 110, 116, 130, E
139, 141, 144, 149, 153, 161 , 163, 165, 167-168, 172-173, 181,
EC/EC Directives 84, 87, 89, 105, 110, 113, 115, 117,
183, 211 , 216-218, 223-224, 234, 237, 239, 263, 271, 275, 281-
119, 121, 127, 129, 130, 313, 359, 382, 384
282, 285, 287, 289, 297, 306-307, 309 , 319-320, 328-329, 339,
360, 364-365, 367, 376-377, 379, 384 ECNAMP see CANARI
Curacao eco-development 174
334, 340, 344
curriculum 173, 189, 199, 200 ecocide 93
261 , 264-265, 267 ecological reserves 211, 227, 228, 287, 299, 365
customary ownership
Cusuco National Park 313 ecological areas 235, 247, 254, 283, 297, 299
Cutervo National Park 361 ecological station 366
Cuyabeno Reserve 361 Ecological Bricks 113, 126
Cyprus 73-100, 386 economics 23-24, 36-37, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49,
Czech Republic 101-132, 385 51-52, 55, 57-58, 63-66, 71 , 78-79, 88-89, 92, 96, 98, 105, 110,
Czechoslovakia 101-132, 153 115-116, 120-121 , 127, 129-130, 137-138, 141 , 145-149, 152,
154, 159, 162-163, 165, 167, 169–172, 174, 179, 181-183, 185,
D 189-190, 194–195, 197-200, 202–203, 216, 218, 225-226, 233-
234, 240, 263, 266, 269, 272-273, 282, 295, 297-298, 303, 305-
Daisetsuzan National Park 163 306, 311, 313-316, 319, 325, 327, 329, 339, 351 , 360-361 , 363,
Dakota 296 367-368, 375-377, 379, 382
Dalyan 88 ecoregions 286,288
dams 55, 61 , 92, 94, 119, 166, 188, 198, eccsystems 7-8, 33-37, 40-42, 47, 54-55, 62,
199, 202, 210, 214, 282, 291 , 294 64, 77, 79, 84, 86-87, 93, 96, 105, 107, 110-111 , 119, 130, 137,
Daminhshan Reserve 175 139, 141-142, 149–151 , 161 , 163, 165–166, 173, 175, 181, 183,
DANIDA 313, 382 187-189, 197,200,211,218, 221 , 225, 227, 234, 237, 242, 246-248,
Danube Delta 105, 113, 120 251, 259-261,263-265, 267, 269, 274-276, 281 , 287-291 , 294-295,
Darién National Park 306-307,309, 311, 366 298, 309-310, 319, 333-335, 351-353, 355-357, 359-360, 363,
Dartmoor National Park 119 368, 376-377, 381
Darvinsky Zapovednik 151 ecotourism 96, 167, 198, 265, 271, 317, 319
databases 11, 56, 64, 82, 85, 87, 112, 114, Ecuador 347-372, 383, 386
129, 143, 150, 153, 163, 186, 213, 218, 234, 238, 243, 286, 288, education 7-8, 37-38, 41 , 45, 63, 95, 131,
297, 310, 356 138-139, 141, 144-147, 171, 173-174, 179, 183, 185, 190, 194,
de-gazetting 115 199, 201, 218, 222, 240-242, 249, 253, 265, 270, 275, 281, 283,
debt-for-nature 89, 194, 313, 317, 320, 350, 290, 297-298, 311 , 313, 315-318, 325, 328, 331-332, 336, 338
360-362,364, 370, 378 339, 341, 359, 363, 367, 377, 384
decentralization 103, 114-115, 120, 130, 137, 141, EECONET 107, 129
144, 152, 154, 167, 216, 317-318 , 360 EEZ 227,382
decision-makers 34, 37, 41, 65, 86, 97, 127, 139, effectiveness 36, 86, 92, 103, 112, 130, 152, 159,
146, 152, 170, 173, 217–218, 237, 248, 273, 298, 317, 377 166, 173, 261 , 270, 297, 305, 319, 331, 333, 335, 377
defoliation 150 Egmont National Park 233, 239
Index
Egypt 73-100, 382, 386 firearm 145,338

EIA 167, 190, 274, 382 firewood 55, 61 , 78, 92, 121, 172, 267,274,
El Kala National Park 93 306, 318
El Salvador 301-322, 381-385 fish habitat reserves 220
El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve 291, 295 fish sanctuaries 220
Elba 61, 84, 86, 93, 131 fisheries 8, 33, 37, 39-40, 55, 57-58, 107,
elephant 54, 64, 195, 198-199, 202, 203 132, 181-183, 202, 215-216, 221 , 226, 237, 239, 269–270, 272
elk 285 273, 289-290, 299, 327, 336, 338 , 344-345, 376
emergency 144, 331 fishermen 144, 311
emigrants 89, 116 fishing 33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 54, 55, 61, 78,
emissions 94, 119 86, 95, 162, 167, 209, 216, 218, 224, 251 , 252, 263, 270, 309, 331 ,
enclaves 61, 121 364, 365
encroachment 54, 61, 147, 172, 183, 294-295 fishing reserve 54
endangered 61, 64, 96, 112, 127, 137, 142, 143, Flemish 107
148, 150, 153, 165, 167, 174, 242, 265, 274, 286, 299, 306, 335, flooding 127, 188, 233
340,367 floodplains 181
Endemic Bird Areas 13 flora reserve 211, 220
endemism 13, 77, 84, 98, 142–143, 166, 170, Florence 129, 132
181, 183 , 187, 189, 200, 239, 252, 260-261 , 266, 274, 306, 309, Florida 290, 296, 321 , 340, 345
335, 351-352 Florida Keys 296
endowment 196, 197, 270, 299, 338 flyways 49
entrance fee 88, 89, 116, 195, 311, 338, 378 FNNPE 113, 116, 120, 121 , 129, 131 , 132, 382
entrepreneurs 317,319 forage 329
environmental parks 220 forest parks 51, 85, 214, 234, 239, 242
environmentally sensitive areas 121 forest reserves 5, 6, 51-55, 57, 58, 60, 63, 78, 81,
Equatorial Guinea 43-72, 387 85, 105, 109, 138, 141 , 162, 182, 183, 197, 210, 211 , 220, 235, 261,
eradication 119, 242, 252, 254, 365 264, 283, 285, 287, 306-307, 311 , 327-329, 353 , 357, 361
erosion 8, 40, 55, 96, 119 forest sanctuary 85,376
Estonia 101-132, 137, 139, 145, 385 forestry 7, 37, 57, 58, 61-64, 71 , 79, 88, 94,
estuaries 35, 36, 215, 218, 227, 289–290, 340 95, 98, 111 , 130, 138, 144, 165, 169 , 172, 174 , 175, 187, 189, 195,
Ethiopia 43-72, 387 196, 198, 202, 203, 209, 214-216, 221 , 225, 233, 239, 240, 263,
ethnic 5,364 269, 272, 273, 283, 290, 293, 294, 296, 314, 316, 336, 338, 339,
Etna Regional Park 83, 89, 97, 105 351,370, 376, 384
Euphrates 94 forests 5-7, 13, 25-28, 37, 47, 51-55, 57-58, 60-64,
EUROMAB 129 71, 77–79, 81, 85–88, 93–96, 98, 105-106, 109–113, 119–120,
European Diploma 84-85, 117, 127 128-130, 137-138, 141-147, 149–150, 161–163, 165–167, 169,
EUROSITE 129 172-175, 181-183, 186-187, 189-190, 195-200, 196-200, 202-
eutrophication 40, 94, 119 203, 209-211 , 214-216, 220-223, 225, 227, 233-235, 237-242,
evaluation 23, 64, 71, 87, 92, 103, 112, 127, 261, 263-264, 267, 269, 272–273, 276, 281-283, 285, 287-290,
129-130, 142-143, 148-149 , 152-153, 172, 213, 237, 270, 287 293-294, 296, 305-307, 309, 311 , 314, 316–317 , 320, 327-329,
289, 295, 297-298, 307, 319, 332, 341 , 363, 377 334-336, 338-339, 344-345, 351-53, 355, 357, 359-361, 364-365,
Everest 181, 199 369-370, 376, 382, 384
Everglades National Park 13, 291, 340 Fort Jefferson National Monument 340
Evros Delta 93, 121 France 49, 59, 71, 82, 101-132, 150, 238,
exotic 55, 110, 225, 294, 364, 368, 378, 242, 252, 274 251 , 254, 286, 336, 356, 357, 359, 381 , 385-387
expedition 79, 137, 253 Fraser Island 214
expenditure 18, 89, 145, 168, 169, 190, 263, French Southern Territories 241, 385
291, 293, 295, 339 French Polynesia 255-276, 386
exploration 17, 61 , 188, 195, 226, 234, 237, French Guiana 347-372, 386
246, 309, 351 freshwater 54, 128, 130, 170, 188, 245, 289, 290
extraction 93, 119, 239, 281–282, 290, 296, frontier 5, 93, 96, 103, 121 , 126, 132, 281 , 285
309, 317-318, 327, 363-365 fuelwood 55, 61, 78, 92, 121 , 172, 267, 274, 306, 318
extractive reserves 281, 317, 365
Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park 334, 340 G
Exxon Valdez 295
Gabon 43-72, 387
F Galapagos 36, 357, 360-361 , 366, 368
Galibi Nature Reserve 340
Falaise de Bandiagara 59,62 Gambia 43-72,387
Falklands/Malvinas 235, 238, 241 , 245, 251-253, 385 game management area 85
FAO 42, 58, 71 , 89, 174, 175, 183, 187, game sanctuaries 147
196, 202, 321 , 352, 353, 355, 359, 361 , 363, 367, 369-371 game preserve 190
farming 51, 62, 94, 96, 103, 112, 119, 121, game reserves 6, 51, 54-55, 57, 62, 85, 139, 196, 220
188, 225, 233, 239, 242, 287, 297, 351, 360, 365 Gandoca-Manzanillo 307
Faroe Islands 385 Garamba national park 62
Fasquelle Foundation 313 Gardens 94, 181, 362
faunal reserve 62, 85 Garoua 60
feature protection area 220 GBRMPA 35, 36, 42, 208, 211 , 213-217, 219,
fees 38, 58, 88-89, 116, 195 , 222, 224-225, 221-223, 226, 382
273, 294, 311 , 338, 343, 368, 378 Gebel Elba 61, 84, 86, 93
fellowships 363 GEF 89, 92, 196, 197, 264, 270, 293, 299, 360, 382
fertilizers 119, 121, 150, 151 geological reserves 142
FIIT 307, 311, 314, 382 Georgia 133-156,386
Fiji 255-276, 385, 386 Georgia (USA) 292, 296
Fildes Peninsula 249, 250 geothermal 233
Finland 101-132, 150, 152, 153, 382, 385 German 101-132, 313, 332, 361 , 382, 383
FINNIDA 61, 382 Germany 101-132, 150, 153, 254, 359 , 382, 385
Fiordland National Park 233, 235, 237, 239, 242 Ghana 43-73, 383, 387
fire 40, 55, 94, 119, 145-146, 166, Gibraltar 77, 106, 109, 114, 385
224-225,267, 309, 314, 363 Glacier National Park 250
{
glaciological 245, 247 Huanglong 168

global change 226 Hungary 101-132, 386
goats 61, 78, 93, 242, 252, 365 hunters 94, 98, 144
Goreme National Park 83 hunting 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 62, 65, 78,
Goscomhydrome t 150 79, 85, 89, 93-96, 105, 110, 111, 115, 119, 128, 136-139, 142, 144,
Goscompriroda 144, 145, 153 145, 147, 148, 151 , 161 , 166, 169, 181 , 183, 220, 224, 225, 269,
Gough Island 251, 252 331, 338, 364
Gounda-St Floris National Park 55,62 hunting areas 85,139
Gran Paradiso National Park 126 hunting reserves 79, 85, 89, 96, 105, 115, 128, 145,
Grand Canyon National Park 291 161, 181, 220
grasslands 10, 13, 25-28, 47, 54, 61 , 110, 121, 163, hydro-electric 55, 165, 210, 214, 282, 378
181, 237-239, 242-243, 251 , 286, 289
grassroots 266,270
grazed 78, 94, 121
grazing 47, 58, 61, 62, 64, 78, 92, 94, 95, ICBP 13, 24, 63, 64, 84, 98, 194, 382
110, 119, 121, 148, 150, 166, 172, 182, 225, 252, 282, 351, 363, 365 iceberg 119
Great Barrier Reef Marine 33, 209, 211 , 214-218, 221-222, Iceland 101-132, 386
Park 224-227, 382 Ichkeul National Park 79, 83, 86, 93, 94, 96
Great Gobi Desert 161 ICIMOD 202,382
Great Smoky Mountain National Park 291 ICLARM 196,382
Greece 79, 93, 101-132, 385 IDB 313, 355, 359, 370, 383
Greenland 282,283, 286, 291 , 386 IEEP 107, 131, 383
Greenmount National Park 219 Iguaçu/Iguazú National Park 356-357,366
Greenpeace 246, 248 Ile aux Cochons 252
Grenada 323-346, 385 Ile de la Possession 252
Grenadines 328, 329, 334, 336, 342, 343, 385 Ile de l'Est 252
Gros More National Park 291 Ile des Pingouins 252
GTZ 313, 332, 361 , 363, 382 IIED 321, 383
Guadalajara 291 Ilot des Apotres 252
Guadalupe Island 292 IMF 194
Guadeloupe 323-346, 385 immigrants 5, 199, 254, 282, 305
Guam 255-276, 386 IMO 36,40
Guatemala 301-322, 381-385 Inagua National Park 334, 340
Guatopo National Park 360 INBio 318, 383
guidelines 42, 61, 82, 169, 173, 185, 189, 252, incentives 38, 52, 57, 71, 92, 171, 185, 194,
274, 288-289, 309, 315, 341 , 355, 363, 366, 377, 378 197, 199, 202, 203, 223, 239, 272, 273, 295, 297, 298, 317,318,367
Guinea 13, 15, 43-72, 387 incursions 88, 165, 197
Guinea-Bissau 43-72, 387 India 6, 15, 150, 177-204, 387
GulfofAden 82 Indians 5
GulfofFonseca 310 indigenous 5, 6, 42, 57, 63, 170, 227, 234, 238,
GulfofKutch 196 240, 241, 281 , 282, 306, 311 , 314, 315, 318, 351 , 352, 364, 365,
Gunung Gede- Pangrango National Park 194 375, 381-383
Gunung Lorentz National Park 198 indigenous areas 238
Guyana 347-372, 386 indigenous forest 57, 240, 241
indigenous reserves 6,306, 352
H Indochina 177-204
Indomalaya 15, 177-204, 253
Haiti 323-346, 385 Indonesia 6, 33, 177-204, 240, 352, 382, 387
Hallyo Marine Reserve 165 Indus 190, 196
handbook 33, 243, 245, 248, 253 industrialized 5, 8, 40, 54-55, 77, 92, 94, 105,
harmonization 52, 83, 297, 368, 378 119, 149, 151, 165–166, 189, 198, 221 , 225, 267, 282, 294–295,
Harrat al Harrah Nature Reserve 96 296,351, 365
Haswell Island 245, 250 industries 35, 40-41, 49, 120, 141 , 145, 149,
Hawaii 251, 255-276,286, 289, 291 151, 162, 190, 194, 214, 221 , 223, 226, 234, 239, 242-243, 245,
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 270, 291 269-271, 309, 316–317, 329, 339, 382
Heard and McDonald Islands 235, 238, 241 , 251-252, 385 infrastructure 49, 52, 58, 61 , 92, 111, 120, 145,
heathlands 110, 112 148, 153, 167, 185, 198, 242, 263, 269, 297-298, 307, 315, 319,
Hells Canyon 296 331-333, 359, 363-364, 366-367, 376, 378
Helsinki Convention 36, 111, 118 infringement 95, 194
hema 79,95,98 Insulantarctica 229-254
Henri Pittier National Park 361 Inter-American Development Bank 313, 355, 359, 370, 383
herbaria 150, 200 international park 61, 64, 83, 97, 129, 131, 132, 153,
herbicides 40, 365 264, 311, 381
herdsmen 78 internships 341
Hierapolis-Pamukkale 83 inventories 13, 55, 64, 84, 87, 145, 150, 175,
High Tatra National Park 120, 126 200, 203, 215, 227, 253, 260, 263, 274, 287, 298, 320-321, 331,
highlands 25-28, 79, 94, 292, 305, 309, 310, 317, 355 333,335, 338, 344, 360, 377
Himalaya 181, 187, 199, 202 investment 8, 18, 31 , 37-38, 45, 55, 58, 60-61,
Hindu Kush 13, 202 75, 88, 92, 95, 103, 115–116, 135–136, 145-149, 151, 154, 159–
Hispaniola 335 160, 168-171, 173, 179, 183, 190, 194-198, 207, 221, 223, 231,
historic 8, 81 , 88, 110, 139, 141 , 144, 148, 240-243, 257, 270-271 , 279, 293–294, 298, 303, 306, 311 , 313–
149, 153, 168, 215, 218, 220, 235, 237, 239, 241, 245-247, 285, 316, 325, 332, 338, 349, 359, 362–363 367 , 369, 376, 378-379
288-290, 377 IPAS 187, 194, 198, 202, 383
historical reserves 220 Iran 18,73-100, 386
Holdridge 335 Iraq 73-100, 386
Honduras 301-322, 381-383, 385 Ireland 101-132, 386
Hong Kong 162, 163, 166-170, 172, 385 IrianJaya 15, 199, 202
Honolulu 24,276 Irrawaddy 187, 196
Hortobagy National Park 121 irrigation 8, 78, 93, 119, 181-182, 190, 202
hotspots 369 Isla Cedros 292
Index
Isla del Caño 310 Killarney National Park 119

Isla del Coco 310 Kingston 345
Islam 79, 83, 95, 386 Kiribati 255-276, 386
islands 13, 15, 25-28, 36, 39, 42, 54, 71, Kirishima-Yaku 163
105, 115, 119, 130, 137-139, 142–144, 147, 152, 165–167, 172, Kiritimati 255-276
175, 187-188, 209-210, 213–215, 217, 226, 231 , 233, 237, 239– Kirthar National Park 190
242, 245-247, 249-254, 259-261 , 263-267, 269–274, 276, 290, Kiskunsag National Park 119
292, 294, 305, 310-311 , 327-329, 331-336, 338-345, 357, 360, Kluane-Wrangell/St Elias 286,291
381,385-386 Kopacki rit Special Zoological Reserve 119
isolation 41, 54, 64, 77, 95, 105, 172, 248, Kora National Park 55
274,309, 336 Korea 157-176, 385
Israel 73-100, 384, 386 Kosciusko National Park
Istanbul 222
98 Krasnovodsky Zapovednik 152
Italy 49, 101-132, 381, 386 Krau Game Reserve 196
Itatiaia National Park 361 Krkonose National Park
IUCN 119, 120
3-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 24, 33-35, Kronotsk Zapovednik
42, 46, 47, 49, 51-56, 58, 61 , 64 , 71 , 76-78, 81-83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 138, 143, 148
Kruger National Park 49, 61, 64
92, 93, 95, 97-99, 104-107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 120, 121 , 126, Kuala Lumpur 203
128, 129, 131 , 132, 135, 137–139, 141 , 143, 145, 155, 159, 161–163, Kumasi 58
165-167, 170, 174, 180-183, 185-188, 194, 198, 200-203, 207, Kuna Yala 318
209-211, 213, 214, 217, 218, 232-235, 237, 238, 241 , 246-248, Kuril Islands 143
251-254 258-261, 263, 264, 266, 267, 274, 276, 280, 281, 283,
Kushiro Shilsugen National Park 163
285-288, 290, 291 , 299, 304-307, 310, 320-322, 326-329, 331-335, Kutai National Park
344,345, 349, 351-353, 355, 363 , 364, 367, 369, 370, 379, 382-3 188, 191 , 194, 198
Kuwait 78, 81-83, 88, 89, 92-95, 98, 119, 386
IUCN General Assembly 202, 217, 246 KWS 71
IWRB 344
Kyongju National Park 165
Kyrgyzstan 133-156, 386
J Kysyl-Agachsky Zapovednik 138, 150
Jakarta 202
Jalisco 296 L
Jamaica 323-346, 385 La Graciosa 310
Japan 39, 143, 150, 157-176, 214, 383, 385 La Macarena National Reserve
Java 361
181
Jeddah La Selva Biological Reserve 311
82 La Paz
Jervis Bay 209 314, 384
JICA La Paya National Park 364
170, 173, 202, 383 laboratories
Jiddat al Harasis 60, 95, 274, 365
83, 93, 96 Labrador 292
Jiuzhaigou Valley 168 Lahemaa National Park
340 139, 145
John Pennekamp State Park Lake Baikal
Johnston Island 321 138, 144, 147, 151, 155
Lake Malawi 54, 61, 62
Jordan 73-100, 384, 386 Lake Turkana
Judaism 55
95 land reclamation
186 88, 149, 166
jungle reserves land tenure 51-52, 62, 111-112, 137, 147-148,
152, 159, 170-172, 190, 197–199 , 221 , 225, 234, 238-239,243,261,
K 263-266, 269, 273-274, 282, 293-294, 296, 304, 307, 316–319, 363,
376,379
Kahuzi-Biega National Park 62 landfill 267
Kaieteur National Park 361 landscape 8, 77, 81, 85, 96, 98-99, 103 , 105,
Kakadu National Park 214, 217, 222-224 107, 109-111 , 113-115, 119-120, 126, 128, 130-132, 142-144,
kakapo 240, 242 149, 166, 172, 185, 217-218, 225–226, 234, 239, 245, 247, 251,
Kalahari Desert 55,58
Kalimantan 267, 282, 287-288, 290-291 , 314, 335, 376-377
189, 201 landscape protected area 128
Kamchatka Peninsula 137, 143 landscaping 239
Kanamai reef 54 Laos 177-204, 387
kangaroos 211 Laotieshan Reserve 175
Kansas 296 Laplandsky Zapovednik 151
Kapiti Island 233, 242 Latvia 101-132, 137, 139, 145, 386
Karelia 139 Lauca National Park 366
Karimun 201 Laurentides Provincial Park 285
Karpatsky Zapovednik 150 Lazovsky Zapovednik 150
karst 126, 234 Lebanon 73-100, 128, 386
Kasetsart University 202 legislation 23, 33, 37-42, 47, 49, 52, 55, 57,
Kashmir 190 60, 65, 79, 84, 86-88, 95-96, 106, 111-112, 115, 120, 127, 129,
Kathmandu 202 132, 137-138, 142, 144, 148, 152, 154, 161 , 163, 165–167, 171-
kauri forest 239 173, 189-190, 197, 199, 201 , 210-211, 213-217, 224-226, 228,
kaya forest 47 233, 237, 239, 243, 248, 251-253, 259–260, 266, 275, 283, 285,
Kayan Mentarang Reserve 201 287, 290, 293, 296, 299, 305, 307, 316-317, 322, 332, 334-335,
Kazakhstan 133-156, 386 338, 343, 352-353, 357, 362, 364, 366-368
Kaziranga National Park 188 Lesotho 43-72, 387
Kedrovaya Pad Zapovednik 150 Levant 77, 78, 81 , 86-88, 94
Kenya 43-72, 174, 203, 276, 387 Lhasa 166
Kerguelen 252 Liberia 43-72, 387
Kerinci Seblat National Park 194, 382 Libya 73-100, 386
Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary 340 license 190, 317
KfW 313, 322, 383 Liechtenstein 101-132, 386
Khallet Khazem Nature Reserve 96 Limpopo 61, 64
Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park 188 Lincoln 283,299
Khao Yai National Park 195, 199, 202 Lithuania 101-132, 139, 386
Khingansky Zapovednik 150 littoral 35, 36, 128, 227, 247, 334, 335
livestock 47, 55, 61 , 62, 77, 92-94, 309, 363, 383 marine 5, 6, 10, 13, 17, 18, 29-42, 54, 55,
local people 17-18, 23, 37, 45, 55, 61, 63, 92, 57, 61, 77, 78, 82, 84-87, 89, 92, 95, 96, 98, 103, 106, 111 , 113,
97, 110, 115, 120, 131 , 147-148, 152, 159, 165, 169, 171-173, 183, 118, 128-130, 132, 137-139, 143, 153, 159, 162, 165–167, 170,
185, 188-190, 195, 198-199, 201 , 234, 241 , 269, 272-275, 306, 171, 173, 182, 183, 187–190, 197, 200-203, 209-211 , 214-227,
311, 317-318, 336, 340, 342, 360, 363-365, 368, 376-377, 379 231,235,237,239,241,243, 245-248, 250, 251,253,254, 259-261,
logging 7, 47, 162, 165, 168, 183, 188-189, 195, 263-265, 267, 269-275, 282, 283, 286, 287, 289, 290, 292, 297,
200, 267, 269, 274, 282, 306, 365 303, 306, 307, 309, 310, 326-329, 331, 333, 335, 338, 340, 341 ,
Lord Howe Island 214, 217 344, 353, 361, 376, 378, 381-384
marine mammals 82, 245, 264
Los Chimalapas-Uxpanapa Biosphere Reserve 292
marine parks 33, 42, 54, 85, 113, 159, 165–167,
Los Glaciares National Park 357,366 188, 190, 209-211, 214-218, 220-222, 224-227, 237, 287, 292,
Los Katios National Park 366 327, 329, 331, 335, 341, 353, 382
Los Tuxtlas Biological Station 296 marine protected areas 17, 31, 33-42, 98, 103, 111, 113,
Losiny Ostrov National Park 144 132, 143, 183, 200, 215-218, 220-221 , 226-227, 243, 247, 253,
Louisiana 296 259-260, 265, 267, 270-274, 282, 310, 326–327, 329, 331 , 333,
340, 376, 378, 383
lowlands 54, 77, 105, 107, 113, 149, 165, marine reserves 57, 61, 85, 98, 111, 128, 165, 187,
170, 172, 187, 189, 234, 239, 267, 269, 292, 357 189, 214, 215, 220, 231, 237, 239, 241 , 247, 251 , 260, 290, 340
Luangwa National Park 63 marine sanctuaries 290
Lupanda Game Management Area 63 marine sanctuary 237, 290, 340
Luxembourg 101-132, 386 Marion/Prince Edward Islands 235, 238, 251, 252
Mariposa Grove 283
maritime 36, 40, 113, 251, 327
M market 121 , 154, 181 , 189, 225, 295, 298,
314, 361, 362
Maasai peoples 61 242
marram
MAB Programme 23, 34, 49, 52, 82, 83, 87, 92, 97, Marshall Islands 255-276, 386
139, 167, 183, 211 , 251 , 285, 307, 360, 370 marshes 37, 77, 79, 86-87, 93–94, 112, 188,
MacArthur Foundation 313,332 289, 334
Macau 157-176, 385 Martinique 323-346, 385
Macchu Picchu 357 Maryland 98,320
101-132, 386 Mashgara National Park 87
Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic
Massachusetts 296
Macquarie Island 245, 251-253 Mato Grosso 359
Madagascar 43-72, 174, 387 Mauritania 43-72, 387
Madeira 111 Mauritius 43-72, 387
Madrid 24, 115, 246, 370 Mayotte 43-72
Maharashtra 198 meadows 36, 110, 113
MEDPAN 89
Mahaweli 185, 202
megadiversity 227,357
Makalu-Barun National Park 194, 197, 198 Mekong 185, 196
Makerere 64 Melanesia 267
Makgadikgadi Pans Game Reserve 55 Mercantour National Park 113, 119
Malawi 43-72,387 Mesopotamia marshes 87,94
metals 40, 94, 119, 151
Malaysia 42, 173-174, 177-204, 387
Mexico 13, 88, 277-300, 311 , 340, 382-384, 386
Maldives 177-204, 387 283,291, 295
Michilia Biosphere Reserve
Mali 43-72,387 Micronesia 255-276, 386
Malleco Forest Reserve 361 migrant 54, 62, 77, 364
Malta 101-132, 386 migration 8, 61, 64-65, 77, 149, 153, 166, 365-366
migratory bird sanctuaries 289
Malvinas/Falklands 235,238, 241, 245, 251-253, 385
migratory species 37, 118, 142, 211
Mammoth Cave National Park 291 119
Mikra Prespa National Park
Mana Pools National Park 62 military 55, 78, 93, 94, 97, 111, 119, 121,
managed nature reserve 85, 109, 110, 113, 267 130, 190, 200, 376, 377
management categories 4, 6, 7, 11 , 15, 46, 53, 56, 76, mining 40, 55, 119, 151, 162, 165, 166,
81-82, 104, 107, 109, 135, 141 , 143, 145, 159, 162-163, 180, 168, 188, 190, 194, 198, 210, 214, 217, 226, 260, 274, 282, 351,
182-183, 186-187, 207, 211, 213, 217, 225, 231-232, 234-235, 364, 365
237-238, 258, 264, 266, 280, 283, 286-287, 304, 307, 310, 314, Minnesota 194,296
317-318, 326-327, 329, 334, 349, 352-353, 355, 364–366, 377 Minpriroda 144, 145, 149, 155
management effectiveness 112, 159, 173, 261 , 305, 331 , 333, Miquelon 283, 286, 291 , 386
335, 377 Mirador/Río Azul 311
management plan 41, 52, 61, 63, 85, 165, 199, 202, Mississippi 289,296
226,242, 246, 248, 273, 289, 297, 307, 360, 363, 377 Missouri Botanic Gardens 360, 362, 383
Managua 320, 322 Mobile-Tenshaw Bottomlands 296
291,296 Mojave Desert 296
Manantlan Biosphere Reserve
Moldova 133-156, 386
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary/ 188, 198, 201
Monaco 101-132, 386
National Park Monarca AC 291
mangroves 37, 40, 54, 77, 89, 166, 198, 227, Mongolia 153, 157-176, 385
267,307, 310, 316, 334-335, 351, 357 monitoring 5,8, 23, 33-34, 36, 38-39, 41-42,
Manila 202
51, 64-65, 71, 86-87, 98, 111 , 113, 115, 127, 130, 132, 137, 139,
Manitoba 292 141, 145, 150, 153–155, 165, 172-174, 201-202, 226, 240, 243,
Manovo-Gounda-St Floris 55,62 246, 248-249, 253, 267, 274, 276, 279, 285, 287, 293–296, 298-
National Park 299, 306, 316, 318-319, 321 , 327, 333, 344-345, 360, 377, 379,
Manu National Park 357,360 381,384
366 monocultures 281
Manuripi Heath National Reserve
Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve 59,62
Maori 233, 234, 237, 239-243 montane 47, 54, 77, 84, 107, 335
Mapimi Biosphere Reserve 283,291, 295 Montego Bay Marine Park 329, 335, 337
Mariana Islands 260-261,264, 266, 272, 386 Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve 291
Index
Monteverde Cloud Forest/ 307, 311 , 313, 317 Nelson's Dockyard 340
Conservation League Nenetzk 143
Montezinho Nature Park 119 Neotropical 13, 287, 299, 305, 321 , 344, 345, 352, 370
Montserrat 323-346, 385 Nepal 15, 177-204, 381 , 382, 387
monuments 81, 85, 128, 137, 139, 141-144, Nestos Delta 113
152-153, 155, 173, 246, 247, 285, 290, 306–307, 311 , 340, 357 Netherlands 7, 101-132, 329, 336, 340, 342,
moorland 119 343,384-386
Morocco 73-100, 386 Netherlands Antilles 323-346, 384, 385
Morrocoy National Park 368 Neusiedler/See Fertő-tö 126
Mosi-Oa-Tunya National Park 59,62 New Caledonia 255-276, 385, 386
Mount Apo National Park 188 New Orleans 344
Mount Arayat National Park 183 New Zealand 5, 6, 8, 15, 17, 196, 229–254, 259,
Mount Aspiring National Park 233, 235, 237 263, 264, 271, 276, 382, 383, 385, 386
Mount Cook National Park 233 newsletter 98, 174, 299, 332-333, 341 , 363, 379
MountHuangshan 168 Ngerukewid Islands 274
Mount Kilimanjaro National Park 62,64 Ngorongoro Conservation Area 58, 61, 62
Mount Kinabalu National Park 195 Niagara Falls 285
Mount Kyeryong National Park 165 Nicaragua 301-322, 384, 385
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve 59,62 Nicobar Islands 196
Mount Olympus National Park 105, 112 Niger 43-72,387
Mount Roosevelt National Park 183 Nigeria 43-72, 387
Mount Taishan 168 Nile Delta 93, 94
mountains 11, 13, 24, 47, 54-55, 62, 71, 77, Ningaloo Marine Park 226
79, 84, 86-87, 94-95, 98, 105, 107, 110, 113, 120-121, 137, Niokolo Koba National Park 51,62
142-144, 147, 151 , 153, 161 , 165–167, 173, 202, 233-234, 237, Nipomo Dunes 296
240-241, 282, 291–292, 296, 305, 309 , 311 , 315, 335, 351 , 357, Niue 255-276, 386
363, 382 NOAA 290,383
Mozambique 43-72, 387 nomadic 55,95
multilateral 121, 195, 313, 336, 338, 342 non-sustainable 120
multiple use 34-35, 40-41, 49, 51-52, 57, 63, non-profit 291
85, 87, 107, 189, 216, 218, 221 , 225, 237, 245, 246, 249, 267, 273, non-renewable 351
281, 293, 296, 298, 306, 317, 319, 327, 335, 355 NORAD 58, 61 , 313, 383
Murchison Falls National Park 55 Nordic Convention 118
museums 57, 145 Norfolk Island 210, 213, 215, 385
muttonbird reserves 220 North Carolina 296
Mweka 58, 60, 71 Northern Mariana Islands 260-261, 264, 266, 272, 386
Myanmar 13, 15, 177-204, 387 Norway 101-132, 150, 153 , 238, 242, 251 , 383, 385, 386
Noumea 272,276
Novaya Zemlya 143
N
Novosibirsk 155
Nahanni National Park 291 Nunavut 287
Nahuel Huapi National Park 331, 344, 352, 361 , 366, 370
Namibia 43-72, 387 O
national parks/parks 3,5-7,9-10, 15, 24, 33-34, 38, 42,
47, 49, 51-52, 54-55, 57-58 , 60-65, 71 , 77-79 , 81 , 83-89, 92, OAS 329, 331 , 333, 338, 340, 344, 383
94-99, 103, 105-107, 109-110, oases 92,95
national parks/parks 112-113, 115-116, 119–121, Oban National Park 63
126-132, 136-139, 141-154, 159–163, 165–174, 181 , 183, 185- objectives 3, 6-8, 10, 23-24, 34-35, 37-42,
188, 190, 194-196, 198-199, 202-203, 208-211 , 213–228, 233- 49, 87, 110, 130, 142, 144, 147, 149, 154, 190, 201 , 234, 243, 245,
235, 237-243, 246-247, 251, 253–254, 259–261 , 263–265, 267, 269–270, 273, 275, 282, 287-288, 296, 298, 307, 332–333, 335,
269-271, 76, 279, 281-283, 285-299, 305-307,309-311 , 313-314, 352, 355, 360, 363-365, 367–368, 376-378
316-322, 327, 329, 31-336, 338-345, 350-353, 355-357, 359-368, obstacle 144,265
370-371, 375, 379, 381-34 Oceania 13, 15, 42, 202, 253, 259,260,
National Research Council 296,297, 299 263, 265, 276
nationalism 105, 148, 282 oceans 39, 42, 94, 137, 209, 215, 246, 260, 290, 305, 309, 383
native forest reserves 220 ODA 61, 189, 241
natural areas 8, 23, 49, 85, 94, 96, 119, 121 , 131, OECS 332,382, 383
137-139, 142, 144, 148-149, 153, 167, 172, 225, 234, 237-238, Ogasawara Marine Park Area 167
253-254, 260, 270-271 , 281 , 287, 290, 296–297, 306, 309, 314, oil 40, 75, 88, 92-94, 119, 121 , 149,
317-319, 331, 344, 352, 365, 367-368, 382-383 188, 195, 295, 309, 351, 364
natural monument 81, 85, 128, 142, 152, 155, 173, 247 Oiti National Park 119
natural parks 96, 163, 165–168, 171 , 357, 361 , 365 Okavango Delta 54, 55
natural reserve 81, 85, 96, 306-307, 361 Oklahoma 296
nature areas 146 Olympic National Park 291
nature conservation areas 64, 84, 87, 98, 128, 163, 165, 167, Oman 73-100, 383, 386
199, 202, 209, 383 Omayed 94,96
nature conservation reserves 211, 215, 221, 228 Ontario 285, 294, 295, 299
Nature Conservation Society ofJapan 166 Oostvaardesplassen Nature Reserve 110
nature monuments 137, 141 opium 188
nature parks 110, 115, 119, 126, 128, 132, 142, 220 orangutans 199
nature preserve 166 Orchid Island 166
nature reserves 7-8, 24, 47, 52, 57, 62–63, 85, Oregon 296
87-88, 96, 107, 109-110, 113, 115, 121 , 126, 128, 136–139, 141– organochlorine 151
155, 172, 174–175, 181 , 186, 198, 203, 215, 217, 220, 224, 226, Orinoco River 351
228,247, 253, 260, 267, 273, 334, 340, 357 Otago 239
Nauru 255-276, 386 OTS 311,318, 383
Nazinga Game Ranch 60,63 Ottawa 299
Neblina 366 over-consumption 294
Nebraska 296, 299 over-development 294
Negev Desert 94 over-exploitation 7, 33, 97, 368
over-fishing 39-41 , 270, 331 Poland 89, 101-132, 153, 386

over-grazing 54, 93, 96, 94, 110, 119 polders 110
overflows 40 policies 34, 37-38, 40, 52, 54, 57, 62-63,
overpopulation 294 65, 71, 86-89, 92, 95, 97, 107, 112, 115–116, 121 , 130–132, 137,
overview 86, 103, 105, 183, 198, 203, 299, 343, 344 154, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171–172, 189, 194, 197, 203, 214, 216,
ownership 8, 39, 57, 58, 62, 78, 92, 111 , 112, 222, 227-228, 237-243, 252-253, 266, 269-270, 272-273, 275-
120, 147, 148, 152, 170, 183, 224, 225, 239, 261 , 263, 267, 272, 276, 282, 287–290, 293, 298–299, 303, 309, 311 , 315-321 , 331,
273,296,307, 309, 317 334, 344-345, 351 , 360, 363-368, 375-376, 379, 383
Owyhee Canyonlands 296 political 13, 15, 36, 38, 41, 49, 54, 61-62,
64-65, 78, 84, 86, 95, 97, 105-107, 112, 115, 126, 129, 137,
P 146-147, 152, 161, 170, 201 , 209, 221 , 224, 226, 234, 263, 288,
293,306,309, 313, 316–317, 327, 332–333, 352, 364, 367, 375, 377
Pacific 5, 6, 7, 11 , 15, 17, 36, 39, 42, 106, 109, 114, 137, 139, politicians 60, 146, 285
143, 162, 174, 175, 202, 210, 215 , 216, 235, 240, 255-276,286, pollution 33-34, 39-41, 54-55, 83-84, 94, 111,
289, 291 , 305, 309, 310, 317, 328, 329, 334, 357, 364, 384, 386 118-121, 128, 130, 135, 141 , 150-151 , 172, 173, 188, 267, 273
Pakistan 15, 177-204, 387 274, 294–295, 331 , 351, 364–365, 368, 378
Palaearctic 13, 15, 77, 87, 98, 99, 132, 155, 174 Polynesia 260,261, 264, 266, 272, 386
palaeobotany 95 Portugal 101-132, 168, 385, 386
palaeontology 95 Potential Natural Vegetation (US) 289
Palau 255-276, 386 Prague 129
Pallas-Ounastunturi National Park 120 prairie 77, 105, 286, 289, 296
Palmer Peninsula 246 pre-hispanic 281
PamirMountains 137 pre-Islamic 79
Pampas 355 preserves 61 , 137, 166, 181 , 190, 195, 202,
Panama 301-322, 366, 381-385 209, 245, 260, 274, 281 , 285, 287, 291,318, 360
Pantanal 359,360 Prince Edward/Marion Islands 251, 252
Paseo Pantera 310, 321 Prince William Sound 295
paper parks 38, 51, 58, 111 , 142, 185, 187 , 307, 332 Prioksko-Terrasny Zapovednik 150, 151
Papua New Guinea 13, 228, 240, 255-276, 386 priorities 8, 11, 17-18, 24, 31 , 33, 36, 38-39,
Paracel Islands 187 41, 45, 49, 54–55, 60–61 , 65, 75–76, 84, 88, 92–93, 95, 97, 104,
Paraguay 174, 347-372, 386 115, 121, 129–131 , 135, 146, 152–153, 159, 170, 173, 179, 185,
parks/national parks 3, 5-7, 9-10, 15, 24, 33-34, 38, 42, 187-190, 194-198, 200-203, 207, 223, 226, 231-232, 238-239,
47, 49, 51-52, 54-55, 57–58, 60-65, 71 , 77-79, 81 , 83-89, 92, 241-243, 247, 252-253, 257-261 , 263, 265, 267, 269, 271 , 273-
94-99, 103, 105-107, 109-110, 112-113, 115–116, 119–121 , 126- 275, 279–280, 287–290, 292–294, 297, 303–304, 309, 311 , 314–
132, 136-139, 141–154, 159–163, 165–174, 181 , 183, 185-188, 317,319-320,325, 327, 331-333, 335, 341, 344, 349, 351, 356-357,
190, 194-196, 198-199, 202-203, 208-211 , 213–228, 233–235, 361,363, 368-369, 376-379
237-243, 246-247, 251 , 253-254, 259–261 , 263–265, 267, 269- private 7-8, 18, 57–58, 62, 65, 79, 85, 89,
271, 276, 279, 281-283, 285-299, 305-307, 309-311 , 313-314, 92, 95-97, 111-112, 120, 135, 145-149, 163 , 165, 167-172, 190,
316-322, 327, 329, 331-336, 338-345, 350-353, 355-357, 359 194, 196, 198-199, 207, 224-225, 231, 234-235, 237, 239-240,
368, 370-371 , 375, 379, 381-384 242-243, 247, 257, 260, 266, 269-273, 275, 281 , 289–291 , 293-
Parks in Peril 321, 331 , 341 , 345, 350, 360, 361 , 370 294, 296–297, 304, 307 , 309, 311 , 313–319, 336, 338–339, 342,
parrots 240, 365 357, 359-360, 367-368, 376, 379
partnerships 23, 65, 78, 115, 183, 196 , 226-227, private reserves 58,62, 85, 95, 96, 168, 171, 225,
234, 239, 242-243, 282, 289–291 , 293–294, 298, 313, 321 , 333, 266, 269, 291, 317
336, 342, 345, 370 privatization 61, 120, 148, 295, 297, 318
pastures 61, 94, 148, 149 production forest 183, 186, 189
Patagonia 355, 360 profit 290,291, 294, 364, 365
patrolling 92, 145, 395 programmes 4, 13, 15, 18, 23, 31 , 33-38 , 40-42, 45, 49,
Pechoro-Ilych Zapovednik 138 51-52, 54-55, 58, 62-65, 71 , 75 , 79, 82-84, 86, 89, 92-94, 96, 98,
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge 290 107, 111 , 119, 129, 131–132, 139, 146, 153, 165, 167, 170–175,
Pemba Island 54 183, 187, 194, 196, 198-201 , 211, 213, 218, 221-227, 237-243,
penalties 40, 352 246, 248-249, 253-254, 257, 259-260, 263-265, 270-272, 274,
Penang 42 276, 281, 285-288, 290, 293, 295–299, 307, 309, 313-315, 317-
Peneda-Geres National Park 112, 119-120 318, 321 , 325, 331-333 , 335-336, 338-339, 341-345, 351, 355,
146 359-361 , 363-364, 366-368, 370, 375-379, 381-384
perestroika
85 prohibit 92, 95, 97, 112, 137, 139, 147-148,
permanent hunting reserve
Peru 214, 245, 246, 254, 265, 282, 334
347-372, 381, 386 protected forests
pest control 52, 95, 137, 276, 283
242-243, 252
121, 151 , 188 protected landscape 85, 103, 109-111, 113, 119-120,
pesticides
126, 131-132, 142, 166, 251 , 267, 290
petroleum 40, 75, 88, 92-94, 119, 121 , 149, protected watersheds 287
188, 195, 295, 309, 351 , 364 protection areas 93, 127, 165, 220, 292
pH 1 50, 151 protection forests 6, 54, 183, 186, 189
Philippines 177-204, 382-383, 387 306
Phoenicians protection zones
78
Piedmont 289 provincial parks 282, 285, 286, 291
public parks 163
Pieniny National Park 119, 126 Puerto Rico 288, 323-346, 385
pilgrimage 148
Punjab 181
Pindos National Park 119
Puyehue National Park 366
Pinezhsky Zapovednik 149
pipeline 149
Pitcaim 255-276, 386 Q
Pitons National Park 329 Qatar 73-100, 386
plantations 94, 119, 189, 274 Quangxi 175
plateau 142, 289, 292 quarantine 252, 253
Pleistocene refugia 187 quarrying 119,203
PNUD see UNDP Quebec 285
poaching 51, 52, 54, 61, 65, 145 , 172 , 183, Queen Elizabeth National Park 63
190, 198, 294 Queen Elizabeth II National Park 267
Point Pelee National Park 294 Queen Elizabeth II National Trust 237,239
poison 151, 188 Queensland see Australia
Index
questionnaire 116, 131, 363 road-building 119, 274

Quintana Roo 291,296 roadless 286,288
quotas 60, 148 Romania 101-132, 386
Romans 78,79
R Rondonia 359
Roosevelt National Park 361
rabbits 225,242, 252 ROPME 384
railway 55,282 Roraima 366
rainforest 13, 15, 47, 64, 71, 187, 214, 217, 269, 359 Ross Island 245, 249, 250
Rajastan 190 Rothera Point 250
Ramsar (Wetlands) Convention 4,, 18-20, 33, 35, 36, Rotorua 233
49, 52, 59, 82, 83, 99, 130, 139, 147, 168, 174, 183, 186, 211, 240-242
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society
213, 216, 23-238, 240, 265, 268, 285-286, 307, 310, 336, 356
Royal Chitwan National Park 181, 185, 188, 190, 201
ranching 119, 351 RSFSR 133-156
rangeland 93, 95, 96 RSPB
rangers 38, 57, 89, 116, 145, 154, 170, 222, 64, 384
Ruhuna National Park 183
223,234, 252, 271 , 293, 314, 316, 339 Russian Federation
Ranthambore National Park 181 15, 133-156, 386
Ras Mohammed National Park Rwanda 43-72,383, 387
96, 89, 90
reclassification 217, 287
recommendations 54, 58, 60, 64, 87, 92, 98, 111, 127, S
139, 166, 187, 211 , 213, 214, 228, 245-246, 248, 260, 264, 266,
267, 287,288, 294, 297, 316, 327, 375 Saba Underwater Park 340
recreation areas 96, 220, 290 SADCC 58
recreation forests 6 safari areas 62
recreation parks 220 Sagarmatha 181, 199
recreation sites 260 Sahara 51, 77, 86, 87, 93, 98, 386
recycling 89, 195, 297 Sahel 26, 51, 54, 62
red data books 142, 143, 167 Saint Floris National Park 53, 55-56, 62
Redwood National Park 291 Saint Helena 59,387
reedbed 87 Saint Kitts and Nevis 323-346, 385
reef-walking 218 Saint Lucia 323-346, 385
reefs 34, 40, 54, 64, 77, 86, 99, 188, 200, Saint Pierre and Miquelon 283,286, 386
203, 215, 263, 267, 276, 335 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 323-346, 385
reference areas 220 Saipan 260
reforestation 311, 317 Sajama National Park 366
reforms 115, 130, 138, 149, 163, 198, 234, Salonga National Park 62
237, 243, 246, 281 , 297, 309, 317, 361 Samaria Gorge National Park 116
refuge 47, 85, 290, 296, 327 Samoa 240, 255-276, 386
refugees 309, 316 Samunsam 201
refugia 84, 86, 94, 98, 187, 290 San Marino 101-132, 386
Regina 99 sanctuaries 7, 47, 62, 85, 93, 119, 128, 137,
reindeer 119, 149, 151 139, 141-142, 144, 146-149, 152-153, 165, 167-168, 181, 185,
reintroduction 96, 99, 146, 224, 226
188, 190, 198, 202, 220, 225, 233 , 237, 247, 251 , 260-261, 267,
religious 5, 95, 181, 199, 318, 377
Rennell Island 289-290, 305-307, 314, 334, 340, 376
265
sanctuary areas 7,247
representativeness 142, 143, 234, 237, 243, 297, 357 Sangay National Park 357,365
research 7, 8, 18, 23, 24, 33, 37-42, 45, 63, Santiago 307, 369, 370
64, 87, 94, 95, 98, 116, 132, 138, 139, 141 , 144-146, 149-153, 159, Sao Tome and Principe 43-72,387
163, 167, 170, 172–174, 179, 185, 194, 199–201 , 218, 222, 225, 62
240-243, 245, 248, 249, 253, 265, 271 , 274-275, 279, 283, 287, Sapi Safari Area
Sapo National Park 71
290-291, 293, 295-296, 298-299, 306, 311 , 314, 316, 318, 338, Sarawak
343, 344, 349, 357, 360, 361 , 363, 365–369, 376-378, 381-384 196, 200, 201
reserved area Sariska Sanctuary 190
142, 149, 209, 217, 245, 251 , 285,
Saskatchewan 99
296, 317, 384
reserves Saudi Arabia 73-100, 383, 386
4-8, 23-24, 34-35, 39, 47, 49, 51-55,
57-64, 71 , 78-79, 81-85, 87-89, 92-98, 105-107, 109-111, 113, savanna 13, 17, 25-28, 47, 54, 61 , 77, 289, 364
sawmills 305
115, 119, 121, 126-128, 132, 136-139, 141-155, 161–163, 165-
175, 181-183, 185-189, 194, 196-198, 200, 202-203, 210-211, Sayano-Shushensky Zapovednik 138, 148
213-218, 220-221, 223-228, 231 , 233-235, 237-239, 241-243, Scandinavia 105, 107, 110, 119, 120
245-247, 251, 253, 259–261 , 263-265, 267, 269, 271, 273, 276, SCAR 245-248, 251-254, 384
281-283, 285-287, 290-292, 295-296, 299, 305-307, 310-311, scenic areas 168
313-314, 316-318, 320-321, 327-329, 331-332, 334, 336, 340, scenic landscapes 149
341, 351-353, 356-357, 359-363, 365, 376 scenic reserves 85, 87, 233, 247
reservoirs 88, 186, 282 scenic rivers 288
resettlement 51,316 Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer 119
restoration 75, 96, 110, 112, 115, 120, 129, 141 , 144, science 18, 23, 31, 33-36, 38-39, 41-42,
146, 150, 153, 155 , 199, 200, 224-225, 252, 254, 298, 309-310, 51,63-65,75,77, 83, 85, 92, 94-95, 97-98, 105, 112, 135, 138-139,
319, 361, 377 141 , 144-147, 149-150, 153, 155, 161, 163, 166-167, 169-170,
Reunión 43-72, 82, 97, 320 172-175, 195, 200, 207, 210-211 , 216, 218, 220, 225, 227, 232,
revenue 38, 58, 89, 96, 130, 169, 195, 222, 234, 237-238, 240-241 , 245, 247-254, 258-259, 263, 266-267,
240-241, 332-333, 339, 363, 367-368, 378 269, 271, 274-275, 279, 282, 288, 290, 293, 295-299, 306, 313
Rhino 64, 181, 194, 199 314, 320, 338-339, 360, 365, 367, 376, 378, 382, 384
Rhododendron invasion 119 scientific areas 220
Rhodopi Moutains 113 scientific reserve 85, 220, 247, 251 , 267, 306
Rhone River 119, 340 Scotland 113, 129
rinderpest 55 seagrass 36, 37, 40, 77, 86
Río Abiseo National Park 357 sealing 245
Río Plátano 305-306, 311, 321 seascape 166, 217-218, 225-226
Río Lagartos Ecological Reserve 340 secondments 271
Riyadh 94,98 selectively-logged 189
self-financing 58,138 state forest 85, 144, 234, 225, 234–235, 237, 335
self-sufficient 181,341 state forest parks 234
self-sustaining 170 state nature reserves 144
Selous Game Reserve 62 state owned 8, 54, 234
semi-arid 52, 227, 309, 364 state parks 79, 285, 290, 294, 299, 340
semi-deserts 13 state recreation areas 220
Senegal 43-72, 387 state reserves 220
Serengeti National Park 47,62-64 Stelvio National Park 116, 119
set-aside 121 steppe 25–28, 77, 84, 94–96, 137, 142, 143, 149, 355
settlements 15, 52, 55, 110, 148-149, 165, 237, Stirling Range National Park 225, 226
252, 274, 287-288, 294, 310, 316–317, 331 , 353, 364 strategic planning 288, 369
sewage 40, 121, 267 strict nature reserves 62, 186, 260, 267
Seychelles 43-72, 387 sub-alpine 165
Shark Bay 214 sub-Saharan 4-6, 15, 43, 46, 47, 53, 56, 59, 387
Shaumari Reserve 96 subantarctic 15, 237, 245, 251-254
Sherpa 181 , 202 subtropical 13, 137, 221 , 227, 251, 335, 351
Shetlands 249, 250 Sudan 43-72, 86, 93, 387
shipwrecks 215, 220 Sumava National Park 126
Shorsky National Park 139 Sundarbans National Park 188, 196, 198, 201
Shoshone people 5 Suriname 347-372, 384, 386
shrines 79, 181 sustainability
Shumar Wildlife Reserve 201 40, 42, 194, 197, 199, 201, 275,
288, 319, 328, 355
Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve 291 , 295, 340 sustainable 8, 23, 24, 35, 37, 39–42, 61, 63, 65,
SIAPAZ 310, 322, 384 79, 83, 98, 110, 120, 121 , 130, 132, 169, 171 , 181 , 183, 197, 201,
Siberia 138, 142-143, 149-150
202, 218, 221,226, 227, 242, 263, 265, 266, 269, 271-275,295-298,
SICAP 306, 309, 319, 384 316, 327, 344, 351 , 355, 360, 362-365, 368, 375, 377
Sicily 83, 89, 92, 97 sustainable development 24, 37, 61 , 63, 65, 83, 121, 201,
SIDA 313, 381 , 384 202, 218, 221 , 242, 263, 271 , 273-275, 296, 316, 327, 344, 355,
Sierra Leone 43-72,387 362, 375, 377
Sikhote-Alinsky Zapovednik 138, 150
sustainably 42, 351
Simen National Park 62 Svalbard-Jan Mayen 106, 109, 114, 386
Sinai 93-96
SINAP swamps 54, 198, 334, 355
287, 289, 384 Swaziland 43-72, 387
Singapore 177-204, 387 Sweden
Sinharaja 7, 101-132, 150, 153, 269, 384, 386
187, 188, 200, 202 Switzerland
307 8, 101-132, 241, 291, 386
Sipacate Sydney
296 209, 227
Siskiyou proposed national park Syria
Sjaunja Reserve 105 73-100, 128, 386
42, 132 systems planning 54, 61 , 86, 187, 189, 247, 282,
Skagerrak
skiing 120 297-298, 335, 341
Slimbridge 344 systems review 187
Slovakia 101-132, 386
Slovenia 101-132, 386 T
sluices 94, 119
Smithsonian Institution 24, 42, 98, 99, 132, 196, 202, 311, Tadjikistan 133-156, 386
Tahiti 274
318, 344, 360, 370, 384
smuggling 52 taiga 25-28, 137, 142, 143
Snares Islands 251-253 Taimyrsky Zapovednik 138
snow-mobiles 120 Taipei 165
social-economic 351, 363 Taiwan 15, 157-176, 382, 385
socio-economic 52, 64, 65, 146, 165, 171 , 174, 190, 194, Tajikistan 133-156, 386
198, 234, 240, 273, 351 , 360, 363 Talamanca National Park 311
Solomon Islands 240, 255-276, 386 tallgrass prairie 286,296
Somalia 43-72,387 Taman Negara National Park 183
Sonoran Desert 296 Tanganyika 54
South Africa 43-72, 238, 251 , 387 Tanzania 43-72, 387
South Georgia 235, 238, 251 , 253 Taoism 161
South Orkney Islands 246, 249 targets 10, 49, 51, 55, 116, 129, 189, 199,
South Sandwich Islands 251, 252 238, 243, 259, 376
Southern Alps 239 Tasmania see Australia
souvenirs 267, 311, 338, 378 Tassili N'Ajjer National Park 83,93
sovereignty 33, 127, 137, 144, 148, 194, 251, Tayrona National Park 340
283, 328, 351 technical cooperation 331, 332, 341, 342, 355, 359
Spain 82, 88, 101-132, 344, 345, 383, 386 Tel-Aviv 94
sparsely populated 84, 265, 357 territorial parks 260
spawning area 37 TFAP 187, 383, 384
SPC 276 Thailand 173, 177-204, 387
special areas 127, 165, 166 thatch 110
special protection area 93, 127, 165 The Nature Conservancy 259, 288, 290, 291, 294, 299, 313,
special reserves 181,260 321, 331, 344-345, 360-363, 370, 384
Specially Protected Areas 82, 84-85, 89, 111, 118, 127-128, threats 18, 23, 31 , 34-36, 39, 49, 54-55,
137, 139, 148-149, 154, 161, 232, 245-247, 249, 265, 332, 381,384 57, 84, 86-88, 93-95, 97-98, 107, 112, 115-116, 119–120, 127,
specially reserved area 245, 384 129-130, 132, 135, 139, 150, 152, 165–166, 172–174, 180, 185,
species-rich 110, 187, 189, 351 187-188, 190, 196, 200, 203, 207, 209, 211 , 225–226, 231 , 240-
sponsorship 201, 240, 242, 243, 338 243, 246, 252, 254, 258, 260, 267, 274, 279, 281 , 286, 293-297,
Spratly Islands 187 303, 309-310, 331 , 335, 339, 352, 355, 359, 363, 365, 367, 375, 378
SPREP 15, 36, 216, 240, 259, 260, 263-265, Tibet 166, 174
67, 270-272,274,276, 384 Tien-Shan 137
Sri Lanka 177-204, 387 Tierra del Fuego 351
SSC 13, 174, 355, 384 tiger 148, 150, 181 , 183, 188, 195,
SSSI 112, 232, 245, 247, 166, 172, 249-250, 384 198-199, 202-203
Index
Tigris 94, 150 Urewera National Park 233

Tigrovaya Ballka Zapovednik 150, 151 Uruguay 347-372, 386
Tikal National park 311, 319 USAID 71, 98, 194, 291 , 313, 320, 332, 361 , 383, 384
TimorSea 215 USFS 290, 384
Tobago 327-329, 331 , 333, 334, 336, 341-345, 385 USFWS 288, 290, 291, 384
Togo 43-72, 387 USNPS/NPS 288-289, 290, 291 , 293, 294, 296, 297, 299
Tokelau 255-276, 386 329, 331 , 333, 338, 340, 344, 361, 384
tombs 246 USSR 33, 93, 118, 132-156, 173, 384
Tonda Wildlife Management Area 201, 261 Ussuriisky Zapovednik 150
utilization 8, 51, 61, 64, 98, 138, 147, 152,
Tonga 255-276, 386
163, 169, 171, 185, 189, 195, 197, 202, 265, 297, 344, 352, 359, 365
Tongariro National Park 233,237, 239, 240, 242, 253 Uzbekistan
Toronto 299 133-156, 386
Tortuguero National Park 310
Toubkal National Park 79,86 V
tourism 7-8, 17-18, 37-38, 40, 46, 49, 55, Vail Agenda 288,299
57-58, 60-62, 64, 75, 77, 84, 86, 88-89, 92, 94-96, 103, 105, vandalism 165
110-111, 116, 119-120, 129-130, 138, 144-145, 149, 166, 168- Vanoise National Park 120, 126
169, 172, 182, 185, 190, 194–195, 198-200, 214, 218, 222, 225, Vanuatu 255-276,386
231, 233, 234, 237, 239, 241-243, 245, 248, 252-253, 263, 265, Vatican 101-132, 386
267, 269-273, 275, 290, 295, 304, 306, 309, 314, 316-317, 319, Venezuela 6, 291 , 299, 347-372, 375, 383, 386
325, 327, 329, 331 , 336, 338-339, 349, 352–353, 363-370, 383 Veracruz
transects 296, 299
274 Vermont 296
transfrontier 64-65, 103, 113, 119, 121, viability 23, 49, 54, 92, 173, 194, 197, 199,
126-127, 131, 135, 147, 152, 153, 180, 201 , 203, 207, 226, 310, 339
Transvaal 218, 266, 272, 275, 307, 375
62 Victoria Falls 59, 62, 64
Trifinio 310, 320, 321 vicugna 355
Triglav National Park 120 Viet Nam 177-204, 387
Trinidad 323-346, 385 Villarrica National Reserve 366
Tristan da Cunha 235, 238, 251 , 252, 385 violation 127, 148, 152, 190, 352
tropical forest atlas 71, 174, 202, 203 virgin jungle reserves 186
trustees 210, 216, 260 Virgin Islands (British) 323-346, 385
TSC 307, 381 , 384 Virgin Islands (US) 323-346, 381, 385
Tubbataha National Marine Park 188, 190 Virginia 299, 321
tundra 13, 25-28, 105, 137, 142, 143, 151 , 286, 292 Virunga National Park 47, 49, 62
Tuni Condoriri National Park 361 visitation 8, 89, 96, 113, 116 , 120, 131 , 145,
Tunisia 73-100, 386 160, 165-166, 168-169 , 171, 195 , 208, 222, 224-226, 234, 243,
Turkey 73-100, 386 253, 270-271, 285, 290, 293, 295, 297, 316, 329, 339, 367
Turkmenistan Vodlozersky National park 139
133-156, 386 volcanic
Turks and Caicos 165, 305
328, 334, 336, 342, 343, 385 volcanoes
Turrialba 63, 105, 270, 291 , 295, 306, 309
320, 321, 370 Volcanoes National Park 63
turtle reserves 57 volunteers 38, 89, 115, 116, 146, 241 , 338, 343, 378
turtles 54, 57, 82, 93, 96, 119, 188, 264–265, 361
Tuscany 110
Tuvalu W
255-276, 386
twinning 60, 131 Wadden Sea 111, 113, 119-120, 199
Wales 110, 116, 209, 210, 215, 217–226,
U 228, 271
Wallis and Futuna Islands 255-276, 386
Udaipur 201 war-tor 187
Uganda 43-72,387 wardens 79, 88, 115, 241 , 252, 271
Ujung Kulon National Park 181, 188, 194 wars 49, 77, 93, 105
Ukraine 15, 133-156, 386 Washington-Slagbaai National Park 334
Uluru National Park waste 309, 316, 375
214, 217, 222-224, 226
UN List 7, 8, 24, 104, 107, 109, 113, 128, wastelands 233
132, 141, 174, 217, 319, 322 Wasur Game Reserve 196, 201
UNA watertable 93, 119
314, 321 , 369, 384
waterfowl 18, 85, 87, 165, 167, 173 , 183, 237,
underground 93,289
Underwater Park 85, 340 289,291 , 307
waterfowl sanctuary 85
undisturbed 51 , 186, 189, 227 watershed 6-8, 58, 92, 183 , 186, 188, 190,
UNDP 42, 66, 321, 360, 367, 370-371 , 383, 384
UNEP 198, 287, 295, 318, 327, 375, 378
24, 33, 34, 36, 42, 71 , 82, 87, 89, waterways 79,242
99, 111, 115, 128, 132, 167, 170, 174, 187, 196, 200, 202, 203, 260, 196
Way Kambas Game Reserve
267, 276, 332, 345, 353, 355, 359, 360, 363, 367, 369, 384 WCED
UNESCO 34, 203, 384
4, 23, 33-35, 42, 49, 52, 64, 71 , 82, WCI
83, 89, 97, 98, 127, 139, 152, 167, 170, 183, 194, 196, 211, 227, 313, 360
WCMC 10, 24, 35, 36, 47, 54, 71 , 82, 83, 85, 87,
237,246, 251, 285, 307, 384
uninhabited 260, 267 97, 106, 107, 109, 115, 118, 128-131 , 185, 213, 253, 333, 342,
343, 345, 384
unique 8, 23, 79, 113, 119, 127, 130, Wellington 253,254
141-143, 149, 150, 166, 173, 239, 245, 247, 275, 282, 309 West Indies 344
United Arab Emirates 73-100, 386 Western Ghats 187
United Kingdom 8, 101-132, 168, 238, 251 , 270, 385-387 Western Hemisphere Convention 352,367
United States 209, 221, 223, 224, 260, 272, Western Sahara 386
277-300, 314, 351 , 360-362, 367, 384-386 Westland National Park 233-235, 237
Unzen-Amakusa National Park 163 wetland reserves 35, 55, 85, 93, 220
uplands 77, 142, 292 wetlands 13, 18, 23, 33, 35-36, 40, 47, 49,52,
Urals 137, 142, 144 54-55, 58-59, 61 , 63-64, 77, 79,82-87 93, 98, 105, 110-111 , 113,
uranium mining 119, 214 119, 127, 129, 132, 139, 147, 149, 167-168, 173 , 180-181 , 183,
wetlands (cont.) 186-187, 189, 194, 196, 198, 200, 203, Wulingyuan 168
211 , 213, 216, 218, 220, 221, 237-238, 243, 265, 286-287, 289- WWF 24, 42, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 71, 86,
290, 296, 299, 303, 307, 310, 316, 336, 340, 344, 356, 360, 376 113, 121 , 126, 129, 132, 167, 170, 183, 194, 196, 202, 203, 240,
whaling 245 241, 246, 252, 286, 291 , 299, 313, 314, 320-322, 331 , 332, 338,
Whanganui National Park 234 345, 361-363, 370, 384
wildemess 5, 7, 34, 87, 110, 119, 163, 170, Wyoming 289,296
187, 200, 209, 210, 214, 222, 228, 233, 245, 247, 248, 251, 281,
285, 286, 288, 290, 296, 299 X
wildemess areas 7, 87, 110, 119, 163, 170, 187 , 200,
209, 214, 247, 288, 290, 296 Xalapa 299
wildfire 225 Xinjiang 166
wildfowl 18, 85, 87, 165, 167, 173, 183 , 237, 289, 291 , 307
wildland area 290
wildlife area 7, 8, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, Y
60-63, 65, 71, 77, 79, 81 , 84, 85, 92–98, 105, 110, 112, 118, 121 , Yedigoler National Park 94
127, 128, 141 , 161 , 166, 167, 170, 171 , 174, 181 , 183, 188-190, Yellowstone National Park 5, 6, 233, 283, 285, 291
195-198, 200, 202, 209-211 , 213–215, 218, 220-225, 227, 228, Yemen 73-100, 386
245, 247, 248, 252, 253, 260, 261 , 267, 269, 271 , 274, 276, 283, Yosemite National Park 283,291
285-291 , 293, 294, 296, 297, 299, 305, 306, 314, 319, 321, 322, 201
Yot Dom Wildlife Sanctuary
327, 329, 332, 334, 344, 345, 352, 355, 360–363, 365, 367, 369,
378, 381-384 Yugoslavia 101-132, 386
Yushan National Park 166
Wildlife Management Areas 261, 269
Willandra lakes 214
Wilpattu National Park 181, 183, 202 Z
Wisconsin 285, 296
wise-use 86 Zabaikal'sky National Park 139
Wood Buffalo National Park 291 , 294 Zaire 43-72, 383, 387
woodland 13, 47, 54, 61, 77, 94 , 105, 110, 119, 317, 335 zakazniki 138
World Heritage Convention 4, 21, 23, 24, 33, 35, 46, 47, 49, 51, Zakynthos 119
59, 62, 64, 76, 83, 85, 92, 104, 118 , 127, 130, 135, 139, 147, 153, Zambia 43-72, 387
160, 167, 168, 174, 180, 183, 185, 186, 194, 199, 200, 208, 211, Zanzibar 54
213, 214, 217, 218, 222, 232–234, 237, 238, 240, 241 , 246, 251 , Zavidovo Zakaznik 139
254, 258, 265, 268, 270, 280, 285, 286, 291 , 304, 307, 310, 311 , ZeravshanZapovednik 151
326, 331 , 336, 341 , 350, 351 , 356, 357, 376 Zhygulevsky Zapovednik 138
world heritage sites 23, 35, 46-47, 51, 59, 62, 64, 76, Zimbabwe 43-72, 381 , 387
83, 85, 104, 127, 135 , 139, 153 , 160 , 167–168 , 180 , 185, 199, 200, zoning 35, 37, 39, 41, 51, 54-55, 58,
208, 214, 218, 232-234, 237, 240, 265, 270, 280, 286, 291 , 304, 61-62, 64-65, 77, 92–93, 97, 121, 129, 139, 142-143, 147-149,
311, 341, 350, 356-357 153, 161, 165, 170, 190, 199, 216–218, 220, 224, 245, 247-248,
Wrangel Island Zapovednik 138, 139 251 , 253, 273, 295, 298, 306, 309-310, 313 , 334-335, 339, 355,
Wreck ofthe Rhone Marine Park 340 357, 365-366, 377
WRI 42, 132, 313, 321 , 370, 384 zoological reserve 119
IUCN - The World Conservation Union
Founded in 1948 , The World Conservation Union brings together States ,

government agencies and a diverse range of non - governmental organizations in a
unique world partnership : over 800 members in all , spread across some 125
countries .
As a Union , IUCN seeks to influence , encourage and assist societies throughout

the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any
use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable . A central
secretariat coordinates the IUCN Programme and serves the Union membership ,
representing their views on the world stage and providing them with the strategies ,
services, scientific knowledge and technical support they need to achieve their
goals . Through its six Commissions , IUCN draws together over 6000 expert
volunteers in project teams and action groups , focusing in particular on species
and biodiversity conservation and the management of habitats and natural
resources . The Union has helped many countries to prepare National
Conservation Strategies, and demonstrates the application of its knowledge
through the field projects it supervises . Operations are increasingly decentralized
and are carried forward by an expanding network of regional and country offices ,
located principally in developing countries.
The World Conservation Union builds on the strengths of its members, networks
and partners to enhance their capacity and to support global alliances to
safeguard natural resources at local , regional and global levels .
IUCN Communications Division IUCN Publications Services Unit

Rue Mauverney 28 219c Huntingdon Road
CH- 1196 Gland , Switzerland Cambridge , CB3 0DL , UK
Tel : ++ 41 22-999 00 01 Tel: ++ 44 ( 1 )223-277894
Fax: ++ 41 22-999 00 10 Fax: ++ 44 ( 1 )223-277175
E - mail : [email protected] E- mail : [email protected]

Paps 004 en Libro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paps 004 en Libro

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Paps 004 en Libro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Protected Areas Programme

J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison , P. Dingwall

IVth World Congress on National Parks and

J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison , P. Dingwall

IUCN - The World Conservation Union

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial

Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without

Citation: McNeely, J.A. , Harrison, J. and Dingwall, P. (eds) . ( 1994), Protecting

Cover photograph: Mount Makalu, Nepal : J.A. McNeely

Cover design by: IUCN Publications Services Unit

Printed by: Page Brothers (Norwich) Ltd, UK

Available from: IUCN Publications Services Unit

Introduction : Protected Areas in the Modern World . . . 1

Coastal Marine Protected Areas ... 29

North Africa and the Middle East 73

North Eurasia 133

East Asia ... 157

South and Southeast Asia 177

Australia ... 205

Antarctica/New Zealand . . . 229

The Pacific ... . 255

North America 277

Central America . 301

Caribbean ... 323

South America 347

Caracas Action Plan . . . 373

Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 381

List of Countries 385

Readers should be aware that this publication is based on information

Readers are encouraged to consult the 1993 United Nations List of

It should also be noted that during 1994 IUCN introduced a revised

A large number of partners ranging from governments to private foundations-provided the

J.A. McNeely, Gland, Switzerland

Protected Areas in the

2. Objectives and classification of protected areas 7

3. The world's protected areas 10

3.1 Analysis of protected areas coverage 10

4. Protected areas of the world's regions 13

4.1 The regional approach to protected areas • 13

4.2 Regional comparisons of protected areas . 15

5. Regional reviews of protected areas . 17

5.1 Preparation of the reviews 17

5.2 Format and content of the reviews 18

7. Conclusion : People and protected area systems 23

Annex: Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by

Box 1. Conservation objectives for protected areas 8

Box 2 . Categories and management objectives of protected areas 9

Box 3. The modified system of protected areas categories approved at the

Table 1. Summary of the global system of protected areas by CNPPA region • 5

Table 3. The development of the protected areas system of the world by

Table 4. Analysis of protected areas coverage of the world by biome type • • 13

Figure 2. Growth of the protected areas network (non- cumulative) 11

Figure 4. Geographical responsibilities of CNPPA Vice - Chairs . 14

Figure 5. Relative development of Categories II and V: Europe compared to the

Figure 8. Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites (global) . . 19

Figure 9. Adherence to Ramsar Convention and location of Ramsar sites

Protected Areas in the Modern World

Jeffrey A. McNeely, Secretary General ,

Jeremy Harrison , World Conservation Monitoring Centre