Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
IUCN LOGO
The designation 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 delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN
This publication has been made possible in part by funding from BP plc, Junta de Andalusia, the Spanish Ministry of
Environment and the foundation Biodiversidad
Copyright: © 2008 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Citation: Nigel Dudley and Sue Stolton (eds) (2008). Defining protected areas: an international conference in
Almeria, Spain. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 220 pp
ISBN: 978-2-8317-1132-4
1
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Preface
2
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contents
Executive summary 7
Preface 8
Acknowledgements 9
1. Introduction 10
2. Background 12
2.1. A short history of the international system of protected areas management 13
categories
Adrian Phillips
2.2 A commentary on the origins of the category system 18
Kenton Miller
3. Challenges 21
3.1. Clarifying the IUCN definition of a protected area 22
Nigel Dudley
3.2. What does IUCN’s protected area definition actually mean? 26
David Harmon
3.3. What do we mean by wild? 29
Deborah Bird Rose
3.4. In defence of protected landscapes: A reply to some criticisms of category V 31
protected areas and suggestions for improvement
Josep Maria Mallarach, John Morrison, Ashish Kothari, Fausto Sarmiento, José-
Antonio Atauri and Bobby Wishitemi
3.5. From management objectives to biodiversity objectives 38
Luigi Boitani and Carlo Rondinini
4. The IUCN categories 46
4.1. Category Ia 47
Kent H. Redford and Nigel Dudley
4.2. Category Ib 50
Cyril Kormos
4.3. Category II 52
Craig Groves
4.4. Category III 55
Nigel Dudley
4.5. Category IV 57
Nigel Dudley and Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend
4.6. Category V 61
Adrian Phillips and Jessica Brown
4.7. Category VI 67
Cláudio C. Maretti
3
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Assignment 78
5.1 Process of assigning IUCN protected area categories 79
Nigel Dudley, Charles Besançon and Roger Crofts
5.2. Principles underlying the category systems and principles for assignment 82
Adrian Phillips
5.3. The role of zoning in protected areas and the IUCN categories 84
Charlie Falzon
5.4. IUCN protected area management categories and the World Database on 89
Protected Areas
Charles Besançon, Neil Burgess, Lucy Fish and Liesbeth Renders
5.5. Restoration and protected areas 98
Nigel Dudley, Daniel Vallauri, Stephanie Mansourian and the Society for
Ecological Restoration
5.6. Protected area categories and management effectiveness 99
Marc Hockings and Nigel Dudley
5.7 Names of protected areas 104
Nigel Dudley and Adrian Phillips
5.8 Verification and certification of protected areas using the IUCN management 106
categories system
Roger Crofts
6. Using the categories 108
6.1. Using the IUCN categories in policy decisions 109
David Sheppard
6.2. IUCN categories and conservation planning 112
Jeffrey Parrish, José Courrau and Nigel Dudley
7. Perspectives 115
7.1. Marine protected areas 116
Dan Laffoley, Jon Day, Louisa Wood and Brad Barr
7.2. Inland water protected areas (1) 121
The Skukuza Freshwater Group
7.3. Inland water protected areas (2) 123
Robin Abell
7.4. Forest Protected Areas 130
Nigel Dudley and Adrian Phillips
7.5 Perspectives regarding the IUCN categories system of protected areas 134
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association
(IPIECA) /Oil and Gas Producers Biodiversity Working Group
7.6. Urban protected areas 135
Pete Frost
4
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8.1. Wetlands of international importance and the IUCN system of protected area 138
management categories
Ramsar Secretariat
8.2. World Heritage and IUCN categories 143
Marc Patry
9. Governance 148
9.1. The “IUCN protected area matrix”: A tool towards effective protected area 149
systems
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend
9.2. Community Conserved Areas 157
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend and Nigel Dudley
9.3. Private protected areas 160
Brent Mitchell
9.4. Sacred sites and protected areas 164
Bas Verschuuren, Josep Maria Mallarach and Gonzalo Oviedo
10. Consultation 170
10.1. Southern and Eastern Africa Workshop 171
10.2. South East Asia Workshop 173
10.3. Europe 175
10.4. Cross-industry meeting 178
10.5. E-forum results 180
Compiled by Kari Lahti
11. The Categories Summit 185
11.1. Key issues for the IUCN Categories Summit: Spain 2007 186
11.2. Minutes of the Categories Summit 190
Appendices
Appendix 1: Protocols for translation 207
Nigel Dudley
Appendix 2: Summit agenda 208
Appendix 3: Participants at the Categories Summit 211
Appendix 4: Notes on the authors 213
References 215
5
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Executive summary
The IUCN Summit on Protected Area Management therefore be chosen with respect to the particular
Categories was held in Almeria, Spain in May 2007. It circumstances.
aimed to test the opinions of key thinkers and policy 9 There was strong support for linking category
makers regarding the revision of guidelines to with management effectiveness but some
interpretation of the six IUCN protected area confusion about how this might be achieved.
categories. The meeting was generously supported by 9 There was also strong recognition of the need to
the Junta de Andalusia, the Spanish Ministry of reflect a wide range of governance types within
Environment and the foundation Biodiversidad. the new category guidelines.
The meeting operated through plenary sessions and a Main agreed workshop outputs – the guidelines
series of specialised workshops, with many should:
presentations and time for detailed discussion. There 9 Define a protected area system as well as a
were two field trips, midway through the meeting and protected area
at the end. More than a hundred people attended from 9 Provide advice on where particular categories are
over fifty countries around of the world. suitable
9 Incorporate the governance matrix and
The summit reached either consensus or overwhelming recognise other governance types
majority support on several key points; workshops 9 Explain the role of categories in conservation
agreed on other issues without dissent in plenary. planning
While the summit was not a decision-making forum, 9 Explore voluntary verification or certification of
which is the role of the World Commission on categories to ensure that the management
Protected Areas (WCPA) Steering Committee, it did objectives match those of the assigned category
give IUCN a clear mandate to incorporate the 9 Identify category-specific criteria for
conclusions in the draft IUCN protected area management effectiveness
guidelines for further discussion. This has now been 9 Look at ways to integrate company reserves into
done and the main conclusions have so far been protected area systems
supported by IUCN members. The following 9 Refine guidelines to zoning large protected areas
proceedings outlines the main outputs and a summary into different categories
of decisions regarding process and next steps. 9 Clarify names of protected areas (but in general
there was support for these being retained)
Most significant plenary outputs 9 Agree common mechanisms and appeal options
9 The IUCN definition should be retained, with for assignment
wording changes to broaden the description of 9 Improve links between categories and
main purpose (e.g. nature conservation rather than conventions including in particular World
just biodiversity) and with a more precise Heritage, Ramsar and the Convention on
clarification of cultural links: the proposed Biological Diversity
definition should be widely debated within IUCN. 9 Focus the management matrix more on
9 The definition should be clarified with a series of freshwater issues and include specific guidance
principles, including the concept that: “many about categories in inland waters
sites … can have other goals as well, at the 9 Clarify limits of forest protected areas re
same level, but in the case of conflict nature plantations, commercial forestry and category VI
conservation has to be the priority”. 9 Mainstream marine issues in the new guidelines
9 The six current categories should be retained but rather than produce separate guidelines
with more clarification and tighter standards, in 9 Develop a principle to integrate species and
line with the proposals outlined in the current protected areas
volume. Some specific modifications were agreed
at the meeting and some areas that needed further A revised version of the category guidelines is being
discussion were also outlined. developed and will be presented to the World
9 All categories can make an equal contribution to Conservation Congress in late 2008 at Barcelona,
conservation but not all categories are equal in Spain.
every situation and management objectives should
6
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Preface
Nik Lopoukhine
The IUCN protected area categories are both a One major step in this process was a meeting – which
powerful tool for planning and recording protected we rather grandly called a categories summit – held in
area systems and, more fundamentally, are also the Almeria, Spain in May 2007 and generously supported
philosophical framework that establishes a collective by the regional government of Andalusia, the NGO
vision for protected areas and determines where they Biodiversidad and the Spanish Ministry of
fit into the portfolio of available conservation Environment. Their enthusiasm and commitment
measures. As such, the strength of the system is allowed us to bring together over a hundred invited
enormously important. people from around the world to discuss a number of
key issues relating to the categories. The meeting was
The current system of a protected area definition and not decision-making, but it did provide a major
six associated management categories was established opportunity for some of the world’s protected area
in 1994 and reconfirmed by IUCN members at the experts to discuss these issues over a period of several
2004 World Conservation Congress (WCC) in days and to reach consensus. On some key points we
Bangkok. However, delegates also recognised that went as far as having a show of hands to gauge levels
protected areas exist in a different world than was the of support and this proved enormously important in
case in the early 1990s and that the categories needed giving us the confidence to make recommendations to
to evolve to reflect these changes. As a result, the the IUCN Council.
World Commission on Protected Areas was requested
by IUCN members to re-examine the whole system We asked a lot of people who attended: the meeting
and in particular to prepare a new version of the had a packed agenda, and we are extremely grateful to
category guidelines. everyone who gave up their time to make the summit a
success and particularly to the people who wrote
The WCC requested that WCPA run a fully papers. Given the importance of the process, and the
participatory process in preparing the revision and by high quality of many of the inputs, we are publishing
most accounts we achieved this; through the proceedings as a companion volume to the revised
commissioning inputs from around the world, running edition of the protected area category guidelines, which
an e-forum and holding or taking part in many regional was itself released at the 2008 World Conservation
meetings. Literally thousands of people have been Congress in Barcelona in October 2008. The
involved. But participatory processes are always easier proceedings is in my view a further indication of not
to talk about than to run in reality. While difficult to only the care with which IUCN is addressing issues of
make sure that everyone has a chance to input, to protected area policy and management but also to
avoid the domination of a few loud voices, and get serve as a testimony to the convening power of IUCN.
proper regional representation at the end of the day I The contributions of so many and from variable
feel confident that we provided for and indeed viewpoints could only have happened under the
achieved our objective of participation of interested umbrella of IUCN. This volume is a rich collection of
parties. wisdom that I am sure will assist us all as we work with
governments and civil society to implement the new
guidelines in the future.
.
7
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acknowledgements
The fact that IUCN was able to hold a major meeting for the Environment and Housing of Catalonia for
to discuss the protected area management categories hosting this session.
was due entirely to the generosity of various
government and non-governmental institutions in The intellectual content of the summit was supplied
Spain, which provided the funding for the meeting, through the medium of an impressive volume of
along with a great deal of the logistical help. papers, reprinted here, written by task force members
and other experts from around the world. The costs of
We would like to thank in particular Fuensanta Coves preparing many of these discussion papers were
Botella and Maria Rosario Pintos Martin of Junta de covered by a generous donation from BP plc and we
Andalusia; Serrano Rodriguez of the Ministry of are very grateful to the company and to Chris
Environment in Spain; and Antonio Serrano of Herlugson for this support.
Biodiversidad; along with their staff, for the fantastic
support and welcome that IUCN received in Spain. With respect to preparation of papers we would like to
thank in particular: Robin Abel; José-Antonio Atauri;
The complex and time-consuming logistics for the Brad Barr; Charles Besancon; Harry Biggs; Luigi
meeting were coordinated from the IUCN Boitani; Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend; Jessica Brown;
Mediterranean Office in Malaga by Andres Alcantara Neil Burgess; José Courrau; Roger Crofts; Nick
and Sophie Moreau and in Gland by Kari Lahti, on Davidson; Jon Day; Charlie Falzon; Lucy Fish; Pete
secondment from Metsahallitus Natural Heritage Frost; Dave Harmon; Marc Hockings; Craig Groves;
Services in Finland, assisted by Delwyn Dupuis, both Cyril Kormos, Ashish Kothari; Dan Laffoley; Josep-
of whom put in a huge amount of time and energy to Maria Mallarach; Stephanie Mansourian; Kenton
make the event a success. Pedro Rosabal and David Miller; Brent Mitchell; John Morrison; Gonzalo
Sheppard at the Programme of Protected Areas at Oviedo; Jeffrey Parrish; Andrew Parsons; Marc Patry;
IUCN headquarters gave generous support to the ideas Adrian Phillips; Kent Redford; Liesbeth Renders; Carlo
and practicalities of the meeting and the overall work Rondinini; Deborah Bird Rose; Fausto Sarmiento;
of the task force. David Sheppard; Daniel Vallauri; Bas Verschuuren;
Bobby Wishitemi; and Louisa Wood.
A number of regional meetings outside of the Summit
contributed to the Categories Review process. These Finally, we would like to thank the people who took
included a workshop on Category V protected areas time to attend the summit, contributed their ideas and
(September 2005) hosted by the Garrotxa Volcanic were prepared to meet the often demanding timetable
Zone Natural Park in Spain. Our sincere thanks go to set by the organisers. A list of people attending the
the staff of the Natural Park and also to the Ministry summit is given in Appendix 3.
8
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Thirty years ago, IUCN developed a preliminary specific natural features – area containing
system of protected area management categories. In specific natural or natural/cultural feature(s) of
the late 1980s and early 1990s the IUCN Commission outstanding or unique value because of their
on National Parks and Protected Areas (now known as inherent rarity, representativeness or aesthetic
the World Commission on Protected Areas - WCPA ), qualities or cultural significance.
reviewed these, the IVth World Parks Congress in
Caracas confirmed a number of changes, and the 9 Category IV: Habitat/Species Management
IUCN General Assembly approved them in 1994. Area: protected area managed mainly for
They were published as IUCN Guidelines in the same conservation through management
year (IUCN/WCMC, 1994). Below we summarise the intervention – area of land and/or sea subject to
1994 WCPA definition of a protected area and active intervention for management purposes so
definitions of the six associated management categories as to ensure the maintenance of habitats to meet
of protected areas. the requirements of specific species.
9
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Background
11
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By now, nearly every country has adopted protected The emergence of a world-wide conservation
area legislation and designated sites for protection. movement after the Second World War encouraged
Many public, private, community and voluntary the idea of a global framework for protected areas. In
organisations are active in creating areas for protection. 1959, the UN Economic and Social Council
And many different terms are used at the national level (ECOSOC) recognised that “national parks and
to describe protected areas: for example, there are equivalent reserves are important factors in the wise
about 50 used in Australia alone. There are also use of natural resources”. In response, IUCN’s newly
international networks of protected areas created under formed protected areas commission – now the WCPA
global conventions (e.g. World Heritage and Ramsar - prepared a “World List of National Parks and
Conventions) and regional agreements (e.g. Natura Equivalent Reserves”, the first version of the now
2000 sites in Europe). In all, over 100,000 sites meet familiar “UN List of protected areas”. It was presented
the IUCN definition of a protected area (see below). at the First World Conference on National Parks in
Seattle (1962), along with a paper on the
Already this very short history hints at some of the ‘nomenclature’ of protected areas by C. Frank
issues that gave rise to the development of the Brockman (Brockman, 1962).
categories system. Thus protected areas have been set
up for different reasons, exist in wilderness areas and In 1966, IUCN published the second version of the
in long-settled landscapes and are present in all kinds UN list, using a simple classification system was used:
of terrestrial and marine habitats. They have been ‘national parks’, ‘scientific reserves’ and ‘natural
given many different names at the national level, and monuments’. The IUCN General Assembly in New
usually derive from national legislation or international Delhi in 1969 defined ‘national park’ as: “a relatively
agreements. They have come about through various large area where one or several ecosystems are not
12
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
materially altered by human exploitation and He had already developed a matrix to illustrate his idea
occupation”. The assembly called on countries “not to of classifying protected areas by management
describe as national parks” those areas that did not objectives and successfully developed this in field work
meet the definition. in Latin America (pers. comm.). His group’s final
report was issued in August 1978 as a “discussion
IUCN’s Senior Ecologist, Dr Ray Dasmann, proposed paper”, but it quickly became seen as IUCN guidance,
the following system of protected area in a paper for offering clarification where there had previously been
the Second World Parks Conference (1972): much confusion (IUCN, 1978).
1. Protected Anthropological Areas (Natural Biotic
Areas, Cultivated Landscapes, Sites of Special The committee incorporated the 1969 New Delhi
Interest) definition of a national park, but recognised that this
2. Protected Historical or Archaeological Areas was only one approach among many to protected areas
(Archaeological Sites, Historical Sites) conservation. It advocated using a range of categories,
3. Protected Natural Areas (Strict Natural Areas, based on management objectives rather than national
Managed Natural Areas, Wilderness Areas) names.
4. Multiple Use Areas
5. National Parks The report argued that this categorisation system
6. Related Protected Areas (Provincial Parks, Strict would: show how national parks can be complemented
Nature Reserves, Managed Nature Reserves, by other categories of protected area; help each nation
National Forests and Related Multiple Use to develop management categories to reflect its needs;
Reserves, Anthropological, Archaeological or and ensure that “regardless of nomenclature used by
Historical Reserves) (Dasmann, 1974; IUCN, nations …. a conservation area can be recognised and
1974). categorised by the objectives for which it is in fact
managed”. It would also: help remove ambiguities and
The 1972 Conference called on IUCN to “define the inconsistencies due to different “administrative,
various purposes for which protected areas are set institutional, legal and political mechanisms among
aside; and develop suitable standards and nomenclature nations”; help IUCN assemble and analyse information
for such areas” (Elliott, 1974). Between 1971 and 1975, on protected areas, which could then be “stored,
IUCN published further editions of the UN List, and recalled, udpated and printed”; and give the scientific
the World Directory of National Parks and Protected community access to better data on conservation.
Areas in 1975. By the mid-1970s, several trends were
apparent. More protected areas were being set up, but The key points to note about the 1978 system are
there was confusion over the meaning of terms like these:
‘national park’ and ‘nature reserve’. While some people 9 It involved ten categories (see box 1)
favoured a focus on national parks, with other types of 9 Apart from Group C, the categories derive from
protected areas covered by catch-all phrases like management objectives
‘equivalent reserves’ or ‘other protected areas’, others 9 All categories are important; no category is
advocated a variety of approaches to protected areas to inherently more valuable than another
complement the attention on strictly protected areas. 9 Governments were encouraged to develop systems
New international programmes and treaties were of protected areas based on a range of appropriate
making an impact (e.g. the Man and Biosphere categories
Programme, and the Ramsar [1971] and World 9 It was assumed that land in certain categories was
Heritage Conventions [1972]), while there was an likely to be owned or managed by government,
emerging debate on the need for an international but recognised that other interest groups might
terminology for protected areas. also be involved,
9 The system aimed also to influence land use
The 1978 IUCN report on categories, planning in areas not usually considered as being
objectives and criteria protected.
This was the background to CNPPA’s1 decision in
1975 to develop a categories system for protected But limitations in the system soon became apparent. It
areas. The work was funded by the Rockefeller did not contain a definition of a ‘protected area’, so the
Foundation and led by Dr Kenton Miller, chair of the ‘universe’ covered by the categories as a whole was not
CNPPA Committee on Criteria and Nomenclature. clear, and it caused confusion that several terms were
used to describe the entire suite of ten categories:
1Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, the ‘categories for conservation management’,
predecessor to the WCPA.
13
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
‘conservation areas’ and ‘protected area categories’. This Fourth World Congress on National Parks and
Also it included two international categories (IX and Protected Areas (a title that suggests that even then
X), while acknowledging that many such sites might that national parks were seen as somewhat different
also be classified under another category. Some of the from other protected areas), was held in Caracas,
distinctions between the categories were unclear; and Venezuela2. It included a three day workshop on the
the system was terrestrial in its concepts and language, category system. Participants addressed the task force’s
and lacked a marine dimension. recommendations, and were informed by a paper from
an IUCN consultant (Foster, 1992). A major feature of
Box 1: The protected areas categories the workshop debate was a move, led by several
system advocated by IUCN in 1978 experts from developing countries, to add a new
category to the first five of the 1978 system, so as to
Group A: categories for which CNPPA will take accommodate the idea of protected areas for
special responsibility sustainable use of natural resources.
I Scientific Reserve
II National Park Acting on the workshop’s conclusions, the Caracas
II Natural Monument/National Landmark Congress adopted Recommendation 17. This called on
IV Nature Conservation Reserve CNPPA and the IUCN Council to endorse a system of
V Protected Landscape six protected area categories based on management
objectives, recommend this to governments, and
Group B: other categories of importance to IUCN, explain it through guidelines. In fact, the IUCN
but not exclusively in the scope of CNPPA Council referred this matter to a higher level. In
VI Resource Reserve January 1994, ten years after the review of the 1978
VII Anthropological Reserve system had begun, the IUCN General Assembly,
VIII Multiple Use Management Area meeting in Buenos Aires, approved the new system,
commended it to governments and called on CNPPA
Group C: categories that are part of international to finalise guidance to explain it.
programmes
IX Biosphere Reserve Later in 1994, IUCN and the World Conservation
X World Heritage Site (Natural) Monitoring Centre (WCMC) published “Guidelines for
Protected Area Management Categories”, in English,
French and Spanish (IUCN, 1994). The guidelines
The adoption of the 1994 system of provide an introduction to the system, explain each
management categories category in turn and set out a number of worked
The 1978 system was used to compile the 1993 UN list examples of the application of the system to existing
of protected areas (which set out protected areas under protected areas.
categories I-V). It was also taken up in some national
legislation. However its shortcomings soon became The system explained – the main
evident. In 1984, therefore, CNPPA established a task points from the 1994 guidelines3
force under the chairmanship of Hal Eidsvik to Introducing the 1994 guidance, the then Chair of
consider up-dating the categories system. It had to take CNPPA, P.H.C. (Bing) Lucas wrote: “These guidelines
on board not only concerns about the 1978 system but have a special significance as they are intended for
also subsequent IUCN General Assembly resolutions everyone involved in protected areas, providing a
on topics like wilderness areas, indigenous peoples, and common language by which managers, planners,
protected landscapes and seascapes. The task force researchers, politicians and citizens groups in all
conducted a wide-ranging debate, initially amongst countries can exchange information and views”.
Commission members, then more extensively. It
reported to CNPPA members in 1990, advising that a The guidelines aimed to alert governments to the
new system be built around categories I-V of the 1978 importance of protected areas and encourage them to
system, whilst abandoning categories VI-X (Eidsvik,
1990). The report was adopted by CNPPA at its 2 Note that during the 1990s this remaining use of “national parks
and (other) protected areas” was progressively removed from: the
meeting in Perth (27 November, 1990) and tabled for title of CNPPA, which became in 1996 the World Commission on
information at the IUCN General Assembly next day. Protected Areas; the UN List of National Parks and Protected Areas,
However CNPPA referred it to the upcoming 1992 which became the UN List of Protected Areas in 1998; and the titles of
the series of international parks congresses, the most recent (2003)
World Parks Congress for review before any action being called the ‘Fifth World Congress on Protected Areas’.
was to be taken. 3 Only the briefest explanation is offered here: readers are referred to
14
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
develop systems of protected areas with management management objectives, guidance for selection,
aims tailored to national and local circumstances. The organisational responsibility and the equivalent
also aimed to: reduce the confusion around the use of category in 1978 system. This reveals some interesting
many different terms to describe protected areas; changes from 1978. Whereas the definitions etc. used
provide international standards for global and regional then implied that human occupation or resource use
accounting and comparisons between countries, using were unwelcome or unacceptable in categories I-IV,
a common framework for the collection, handling and the 1994 system explicitly recognises that some
dissemination of protected areas data; and generally to permanent human presence – albeit very slight in
improve communication and understanding between certain cases – may occur in all categories except Ia
all those engaged in conservation. (Strict Nature Reserve) (Ravenel and Redford, 2001).
While the 1978 system is fairly prescriptive about the
The 1994 categories system was not originally intended type of agency etc. that would normally manage each
to set, or drive up, management standards, nor to lay category that of 1994 allows for more flexibility. And
down a template for use at the national level. The idea while the 1978 system assumes all protected area
was that protected areas should be established to meet categories are managed for the broader public good,
national or local needs and then “labelled with an the 1994 guidance recognises that the values of
IUCN category according to the management indigenous peoples and other local groups should also
objectives”. be taken into account. To allay the fears of some that
category VI might be used to include large
Part I of the Guidelines sets out a definition of a commercially worked forests, the guidelines lay down
‘protected area’, which is the foundation of the system. some qualifying considerations for this category. Such
If an area does not meet this definition, it is not a places must fit within the overall definition of
protected area as far as IUCN is concerned and is not protected area, be managed for the long term
covered by any protected area category: but any area protection and maintenance of biodiversity, comprise
that is recognised under this definition should be at least two thirds in ‘an essentially natural state’ (this is
capable of being assigned to one of the six categories. defined), and exclude large commercial plantations.
The first five categories equate broadly to the first five Part III of the 1994 Guidelines contains 40 case
of the 1978 system, whereas category VI embodies studies, showing how the categories have been applied
some of the ideas from former categories VI, VII and in 33 countries. These pen portraits vary from a short
VIII, and responds to the debate in Caracas Congress paragraph to a full page with accompanying
workshop. While the new guidelines give prominence photograph.
to the numbers and related objectives, they do not
entirely bury the names attached to the categories, Developments since 1994
which some see as inconsistent with the need to Since the publications of the guidelines, IUCN and
develop a common terminology that is quite WCPA have actively promoted the understanding and
independent of that used in different ways at the use of the categories system in many countries and
national level. international fora. For example, national level
workshops have been held to explore the use of the
The 1994 guidelines are based on some key principles: guidelines in a local context (e.g. Australia Nature
9 The basis of categorisation is by primary Conservation Agency, 1995); and expert advice has
management objective assignment to a category is been offered to countries around the world on the use
not a commentary on management effectiveness of the categories in their legislation and policy work
9 The categories system is international (e.g. China, Madagascar, Vietnam). IUCN has been
9 National names for protected areas may vary involved in publications on how to apply the guidelines
9 All categories are important in specific geographical or other contexts (e.g.
9 A gradation of human intervention is implied. EUROPARC and IUCN, 1999; Bridgewater et al.,
1966). There are many references to the 1994 system in
A chapter in Part I of the 1994 Guidelines deals with IUCN/WCPA publications, notably the best practice
the application of the categories system and provides guideline series, including advice on linking the
some basic rules for its interpretation. Many of the objectives-based categories system to assessing
questions that are often asked about the system are management effectiveness (Hockings et al., 2000) and a
answered here. specific volume of guidelines for category V protected
Part II of the 1994 Guidelines set out a fuller area (Phillips, 2002). The 1994 categories were used in
explanation of each category, including a definition, compiling the 1997 and 2003 versions of the United
15
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps it is of value to recall the underlying analysis governments, and acknowledged by the Convention on
that led to the formulation of the “categories matrix,” Biological Diversity.
originally launched through the UNFAO Wildland
Management Regional Project for Latin America, in 1. Wildland. The practicing informal definition of a
1974. A copy of the original matrix is attached in “wildland” was: “an area characterized by its wild
English (Figures 1). It is most easily read in color. natural environment, including forest, savanna,
While the terms and concepts that I present here swamp, coastal zone, marine, and so on, where the
reflect the thinking and practice in the decade of 1970s, intervention of humans had been minimal; or
I offer them with the thought that they may still be of stated alternatively: where natural capital and
some value in guiding our actions today. natural ecological processes still dominate the
area.” This definition excluded agriculture, grazing
But, first a bit of history. At the First World with domestic livestock, and forest tree
Conference on National Parks, held in Seattle, USA in plantations. It did not, however, exclude such
1962, C.F. Brockman presented a paper in which he borderline cases as vicuna grazing at the Pampas
identified over 140 designations for natural Galeras in Peru, the restored semi-natural areas in
conservation areas then in use around the world, and the new parks of South Africa, or the landscape
noted the confusion caused by this plethora of terms. reserves in UK and other European countries.
Later, Raymond Dasmann proposed a simplified
scheme for reducing this diversity of nomenclature to a 2. Protected Area. This referred to geographic
more tractable framework. spaces which, because of their particular values for
conservation purposes, warranted special forms of
Two experiences in 1974 led me to design a matrix that management ranging from total closure, except for
would present the concept of management categories protection purposes, to direct human use, to
in the form of a decision-making tool: First, the various forms of intervention required to maintain
Minister of Agriculture of Costa Rica asked my Costa or restore habitats, re-introduce extirpated spaces,
Rican colleagues and me, with some curiosity and remove invasive species, or facilitate visitation by
exasperation: ”How much land do you want for parks scientists or the public for purposes of research,
and reserves?” My reply was, “That depends upon monitoring, recreation and education. Tourism per
what you and the nation want from your wildlands.” se was considered to consist of the facilitation of
The Director of Forestry in Cuba asked me a similar recreational visitation: roads, lodging, food
question a few months later while on FAO mission to services, guide services, and water and sanitation,
advise on the country’s national park programme. In and so on.
both cases, the issue was to first determine what the
objectives were, and then inventory what wildland 3. Objectives of management. Early on in the
resources were available from which to manage for conservation movement it was perhaps sufficient
those goods and services. to simply suggest that the purpose of protected
areas was to “conserve nature.” Subsequently, the
In 1975, Miller (yours truly), supported by a grant from term “conservation” was seen to be very broad,
the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, led a team, which carrying with it the sense of retaining, maintaining,
among various activities related to protected areas in saving as opposed to consuming, or more
Latin America, developed a guide for the designation technically, using natural resources at rates that
of natural protected areas, employing a limited ensure the sustainability of the resource. Later, we
nomenclature. Following discussion with colleagues in felt the need for more precision to guide policy
the Commission, UNESCO and FAO, the first draft and management action. Hence, the meaning of
was tabled in 1978 this approach to designating conservation was “unpackaged.” From the
“management categories” has now been in use “unpackaging” the “objectives of management”
internationally, been given the support of listed in box 2 were drawn.
17
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Box 2: Primary conservation objectives 5. Compatible Use. At issue was to determine what
types of uses, or better, what objectives, could be
9 Maintain sample ecosystems in their natural state pursued in the geographic space, including sub-
9 Maintain ecological diversity and environmental terranian and the above-ground air spaces, could
regulation be permitted or facilitated without creating
9 Conserve genetic resources conflict between or among objectives or uses, or
9 Provide education, research and environmental with the potential of the area to remain in its
monitoring desired natural dynamic, evolutionary form.
9 Conserve watershed production
9 Control erosion, sediment and protect 6. The assumption was that, overall, conservation
downstream investments policy would ensure that the area and its natural
9 Produce protein from wildlife, sport hunting and capital remain in their natural, wild form. In cases
fishing where sites important for biodiversity values had
9 Provide recreation and tourism services been degraded, conservation policy would call for
9 Produce timber and forage on a sustainable basis their restoration. In other cases, sustainable uses
9 Protect sites and objectives of cultural, historical, may deemed compatible with maintaining the
archaeological heritage natural capital. Furthermore, considering those
9 Protect scenic beauty and green areas regions of the world where much of the original
9 Maintain open options, management flexibility “wildness” had been altered by humans over
and multiple use millennia, the policy should be to maintain
9 Stimulate rational use of marginal lands and rural particular landscapes of the highest value for a
development wide variety of conservation purposes such as the
cases of European landscapes, for example.
Source: Wildland Management – A Programme for
Environmental Conservation in Latin America, Technical 7. Thus, for example, harvesting of timber might be
document number 4, FAO Regional office, Santiago, incompatible with the maintenance of the area’s
Chile 1974 biological diversity, or with human visitation.
Changes in air and water quality, noise, waste, and
4. The unpackaging of “conservation” provided the human movement commensurate with human
opportunity to address objectives that are today of settlements or transportation routes through
such critical importance for the promotion of wildlands might be incompatible with the area’s
sustainable development without jeopardizing biodiversity. Alternatively, under careful
ecosystem conservation. The Convention on management, the goal of providing fresh water
Biological Diversity calls for the maintenance of from an area’s watersheds could be compatible
unique forms of genetic, species, and landscape with recreation, timber harvesting, and certain
diversity. This might include, for example, the site levels of human settlement. Furthermore, some
of particular varieties of tree species, the seeds or multipurpose reserves can retain and maintain
cuttings from which are critical for genetically certain levels or components of biodiversity while
improving timber development elsewhere in the supporting human settlement and use; this is of
country to expand the source of paper needed in particular relevance where the protection of
response to growing literacy rates. Similarly, one particular species of high value are considered to
could imagine the countries of the Near East be compatible with human communities and their
establishing reserves to protect wild varieties of activities on the land.
the grains that today feed much of the world’s
human population and from which even greater 8. Thus, the proposed categories matrix of 1974
productivity will be required. The restoration of attempted to demonstrate graphically the
habitats and/or extirpated species, such as the relationships among objectives and approaches to
wolf in North America, the Vicuna in Peru, Chile, management. The requirements of plant and
Ecuador and Argentina, the White Rhino in animal growth and development were drawn from
Southern Africa, the Oryx in the Arabian biological, ecological, forestry and other sciences
Penninsula, and the Lynx in Europe, may be in order to take habitat requirements into account.
dominant goals. By making explicit the purposes From the economic sciences, such fundamentals
of management, the application and monitoring of as production functions and the production or co-
investments, actions, and policies may be more production of goods and services from fixed
effective. capital (nature) were determined in order to frame
18
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the potential for producing different goods and created by man; while they can be restored to
services in the same place, at the same time, and some extent with great effort and expense,
upon the same resource base. While not an they can be destroyed with great ease;
absolute decision tool, and calling for a certain
degree of flexibility, this approach offered the 9 Again, unlike a man-made machine, man has
manager a way to select the best category of no spare parts in reserve to replace whatever
management. pieces of nature are destroyed; and,
9. Turning to the dots on the matrix in Figure 1 9 Wildlands and the biodiversity they contain
various levels of compatibility can be suggested. cannot simply be picked up and transported
To simulate a hypothetical case: A manager, that elsewhere to be replaced by other apparently
is, the individual, agency or community that is higher priority uses of the geographic space.
responsible for deciding on the best approach to
management, consults the matrix and asks of it, Thus, the commitment to the protection of nature and
first: “What is the objective for which I or we are wildlands is a task of infinite importance and must one
to manage the area?” Second, “What are the of the great legacies of our generation.
secondary/tertiary objectives?” Then, “Are these
objectives compatible?” Or, “Must I/we separate
their pursuit in geographic space or in time by, say,
zoning them in separate areas, or sequencing them
over time by promoting habitat restoration,
species re-introduction, and so on?” If the policy
is to secure the sources of fresh water, for
example, the matrix suggests that there are a
variety of approaches that may be compatible.
Whereas, if the goal is to maintain biological
diversity, then the options are very limited. [To get
a more detailed explanation of the matrix, and
how to use it, you’ll have to consult my 1980 book
in Spanish (Miller 1980), or the 1978 English
manuscript (Miller 1978).]
19
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Challenges
20
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The IUCN task force on protected area categories is Does IUCN need a definition of a
clarifying how the categories are interpreted and used protected area?
and preparing new guidelines on their use. But as part Before talking about the IUCN definition in detail,
of this we need to clarify what the IUCN definition some more fundamental questions need to be asked.
means in practice, how it relates to the categories and Does IUCN need its own definition and if so what is it
what purposes it serves for national implementation. for? Currently there are two globally accepted
This paper summarises key issues and suggests that definitions of a protected area. The Convention on
IUCN must (1) decide if its definition is still necessary Biological Diversity (CBD) defines a protected area as
and if so (2) exactly what it means. a: geographically defined area which is designated or regulated
and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives. The
What is the problem? CBD recognises the IUCN categories. One option
Two competing definitions of a protected area would be for IUCN simply to adopt the CBD
within IUCN: there are a range of opinions inside and definition; since the signing of the Convention many
outside IUCN about interpretation. The IUCN countries have been basing their own legal definitions
definition is: An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated around that of the CBD. At present the IUCN
to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of definition is the basis for including areas on the World
natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through Database on Protected Areas and the UN List of
legal or other effective means. The debate rests on whether Protected Areas. (But note that in practice some areas –
“maintenance of biological diversity” is always the, or e.g. a proportion of Ramsar sites and many forest
at least a, primary objective of a protected area, or reserves – are included in the WDPA and UN list
whether it can be secondary to “natural and associated without being protected areas.) More fundamentally,
cultural resources”. the IUCN definition encapsulates a philosophy about
the role and purpose of protected areas. There is an
Many people believe that biological and cultural values assumption in IUCN that it describes something more
can be of equal value within protected areas. The more rounded than the view of protected areas promoted by
controversial issue relates to whether an area can be the CBD, with the latter’s understandable focus on
regarded as a “protected area” in the sense meant by biodiversity, and should therefore be retained5. The
IUCN and the CBD if its management does not first key decision is therefore:
prioritise biodiversity conservation, or more precisely if
it places biodiversity conservation secondary to other Decision 1: should IUCN keep its own definition
aims such as maintenance of cultural or landscape or replace it with that of the CBD?
values. The 1994 Guidelines for Protected Area Management
Categories suggest that other values can be more If IUCN keeps its own definition, does it matter
important; on p. 8 the “matrix of management if it is interpreted in different ways?
objectives” states: “wilderness protection” is a primary Protected areas are complex, and management
objective of category Ib and “preservation of species approaches are still developing: there is an argument
and genetic diversity” is a secondary objective. Similarly, that some definitional fuzziness is inevitable and even
“maintenance of traditional/cultural attributes” is a useful. But there is now a strong opinion in IUCN that
primary objective in category V and “preservation of this approach no longer works, if it ever did, for
species and genetic diversity” is a secondary objective4. several reasons:
But many users assume that biodiversity conservation
(or a rough equivalent such as wildlife protection) is
always a primary objective of protected areas. In effect, 5 This interpretation is itself open to challenge. The CBD’s overall
two interpretations operate in tandem. aims relate to biological diversity, sustainable use, and benefit sharing
and it could be assumed that the CBD definition is therefore broader
than IUCN’s. But in the absence of explanatory text around the
CBD definition, it is difficult to come to a firm conclusion about the
relative values of the two. The general opinion within IUCN staff is
4 The Speaking a Common Language project identified the need to that the IUCN definition is broader although there are also
redesign the matrix dissenters from this view!
21
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 Statistical analysis needs clarity and lack of Programme IUCN, have indicated that they support
ambiguity: the IUCN definition and categories this interpretation. This is a powerful and welcome
are used to calculate politically-sensitive statistics clarification for IUCN but it does not end the debate:
and confusion causes frustration. The UN none of these people has a mandate to decide IUCN's
Economic Commission for Europe and the general policy, which is set by members at the World
Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Conservation Congress. Initial responses from an
Forests in Europe cited lack of clarity in IUCN as earlier draft shows that other WCPA members have a
reason for developing their own definition of a different interpretation. The next section looks at the
forest protected area, which now runs in parallel implications of choosing one way or the other.
with that of IUCN
What would choosing one or other definition
9 Clear definitions are needed when categories mean?
are used to limit activities: such as the ban on There is no cost-free option for IUCN. Choosing
mining in category I-IV protected areas one or other interpretation has implications that might
recommended at the World Conservation create political tensions. The following two paragraphs
Congress in 2000. Industry stakeholders are contain some informed speculation about what this
demanding that IUCN has watertight guidelines would mean.
for deciding on what does and does not count as a
protected area when this decision could affect 9 If biodiversity is always a primary purpose:
investments worth many million dollars. some protected areas might have to be “de-
listed”. It is likely that a proportion of sites on the
9 The existence of an “alternative” CBD UN List of Protected Areas and the World Database
definition means that IUCN needs to sharpen on Protected Areas – including some with
its thinking: it is important that the IUCN and categories – would no longer be “eligible” as
CBD definitions do not clash, given that protected areas. (This is not suggesting that whole
governments’ political commitment to the latter is categories would be ineligible.) It is assumed that
often stronger. The CBD definition has not yet governments would react negatively to areas being
been amplified and it is therefore timely to clarify purged from the UN list, although we do not
exactly what IUCN means. know if this is true – some areas that appear to be
the most ineligible have been added to the WDPA
9 The categories are impossible to use to by people other than governments. However,
maximum benefit if they are applied in the insisting on a “biodiversity first” or “biodiversity
context of a variable definition: if the IUCN at least equal first” approach could alienate
definition is maintained alongside that of the CBD governments that have prioritised landscape
(perhaps as an interpretation and amplification of values. It would risk elevating biodiversity –
the CBD definition) then we owe users a clear arguably a current fashion – above values such as
agreement about what it means. ecosystem services and cultural benefits and would
create ambiguity about sites set aside for
What does IUCN say? geological values.
A consensus is emerging from senior IUCN
management. In autumn 2005, David Sheppard, 9 If biodiversity is not always a primary
Head of the IUCN Programme on Protected Areas purpose: the UN list might include places not
wrote: "Especially dedicated to me means that recognised as protected areas by the CBD. A
biodiversity conservation is a primary aim of protected number of powerful stakeholders, including many
areas. Also that all protected areas should have conservation NGOs, already effectively ignore
biodiversity conservation as an objective, along with IUCN categories V and VI, although these
other objectives. This does not mean that cultural categories also have powerful advocates: a
values are NOT important … Clearly protected areas stronger definition might in these cases help to
have a mix of values - most natural areas have some persuade dissenters that they have significant
cultural values and vice versa…” Nik Lopoukhine, conservation value. (Currently some category V
chair of WCPA, added: “David points out correctly and VI areas have proven benefits for biodiversity
that this definition does not preclude culture but it while in other cases the situation is less clear.)
does place biodiversity as a primary purpose”. Achim Including broad management approaches that
Steiner and Bill Jackson, respectively the former only have biodiversity as a secondary
Director General and current Director Global consideration could result in two “lists” of
22
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
protected areas that do not correspond. The current list. Expansion could focus first on a few
decision about what is recognised as a protected management approaches with clear links to
area would in that case depend on whether the conservation (forest reserves, watershed
IUCN or CBD definition carried the most weight. management areas, etc). Sites could move “up” to
If the CBD definition took precedence – which is a protected area category if management
likely because it is the one that governments have objectives were changed: this is underway with
to report against and comes from a legally binding some forest reserves in Uganda and Tanzania and
instrument – there is a risk that the broader the possibility of full protected area status is an
cultural and social values inherent in the IUCN important incentive for the agencies involved.
definition become overshadowed and IUCN
would be distanced from the CBD Programme of What implications does this have for the social
Work that it did so much to create. policies of IUCN?
This debate is about the limitations of what is and is
This leads to the second main decision required from not called a “protected area”. It does not affect
IUCN: IUCN’s support for many sustainable management
policies, such as Community Conserved Areas,
Decision 2: does the IUCN definition always sustainably managed forests, organic agriculture, sacred
imply biodiversity is a primary objective of natural sites or watershed protection areas. It does
protected areas or not? mean that clarity is needed about which of these very
valuable areas are also protected areas. While one result
What implications does this have for the World of IUCN clarifying its definition of a protected area
Database on Protected Areas? might be the removal of some existing areas from the
Whichever decision is taken, some changes will be list, it could also result in new areas being added
needed to the WDPA, which currently contains many including those with different governance types. To
errors. If IUCN decides that protected areas should some extent it could be argued that this debate is
always have biodiversity protection as a priority, the academic and that the precise status of land or water is
need to clean up the WDPA will grow. There are two unimportant so long as it contributes to biodiversity
options: conservation and social values. But with many other
issues, including legislation, funding opportunities and
9 Correct WDPA errors and duplications: this responses to international conservation obligations,
should be the approach in at least a proportion of riding on protected area status, greater clarity is now
cases and coordinated action by the whole of the imperative.
WDPA consortium is needed to achieve greater
accuracy. However, more significantly this will What implications does this have for the equity
also involve making strategic decisions about what policies of IUCN?
is and is not included on the WDPA – for instance IUCN says that all six categories are equally important
with respect to a proportion of category V and VI and this was supported by a resolution at the last
protected areas, private protected areas, World Conservation Congress. But it is important to
conservancies, wildlife management areas and define what “equal” means here. The social and
forest reserves. economic costs of establishing a category I or II
protected area – in terms of lost living and agricultural
9 Expand the WDPA to include non-protected space for instance – are higher than the costs of
areas: the WDPA already includes sites that are establishing a category V area where permanent
not protected areas as recognised by IUCN. One settlements remain and life often carries on much as
option would be to formalise this by including one usual. Any associated benefits from tourist revenue in
or more additional categories beyond protected the stricter reserves seldom trickle down to the
areas, if necessary changing the name to reflect communities most affected. Governments and NGOs
this, with IUCN protected areas as a subset which in the rich countries frequently lobby for strictly
would make up the UN List of Protected Areas. This protected areas in poor countries while promoting a
would mean that the database could be cleaned up less rigorous form of protection at home. There are
without the political embarrassment of informing increasing and justifiable complaints about the fact that
governments that some sites had been eliminated; the poorest countries are paying the most to save the
they would simply shift to a different field within world’s biodiversity. The issue of equity as it relates to
the WDPA. It would imply a lot more work and the IUCN categories is a hitherto almost ignored side
may be over-ambitious given the state of the of IUCN’s work that needs more attention.
23
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What implications does this have for What needs to happen now?
conservation? A (limited) survey of IUCN members in 2005 found a
The IUCN definition and categories are tools, intended wide divergence of views about the interpretation of
to help develop effective protected areas rather than the definition. IUCN needs to supply clear
restrict innovation. Protected areas are part of a guidance and leadership in deciding which of the
continuum of management responses to multiple two options is most suitable.
challenges, including maintenance of environmental
services, biodiversity conservation and sustainable One of the problems with the definition as it stands is
development. Many of the management regimes that that it tries to encapsulate a whole philosophy and
are vital components of conservation lie outside approach to conservation and development into a
protected areas as defined by both IUCN and the single short sentence. Whilst the role of the task force
CBD. The question of what falls in and outside is not to change the definition, but one element in
protected area systems is therefore partly a technical clarification could be to include some additional
and political question relating to reporting to explanatory sentences to amplify particular aspects of
international instruments such as the CBD. But there is this very important definition
a little more to it than that. Protected areas are primary
tools in conservation. Today anyone with access to the In addition, IUCN needs to provide greater clarity
internet can go onto GoogleEarth and see for about the effectiveness of different management
themselves the stark and tiny patches of green reserves approaches in protected areas. The task force intends
in a sea of overused farmland that is the reality of to carry out a comparative study of the effectiveness of
protected areas in many countries. Protected areas different IUCN categories, and perhaps other
carry a huge responsibility, which in most cases cannot management approaches outside protected areas, at
be replaced by other management approaches, and it is delivering both biological and social targets.
incumbent on us to assure their effectiveness. The real
debate is therefore not just about what “counts” from
a pedantic, record-keeping perspective, but about what
really works. This paper is a personal perspective. An earlier draft
benefited from comments from Jessica Brown, Dave
Are these the only questions about the IUCN Harmon, Bill Jackson, Gonzalo Oviedo, Adrian
definition? Phillips and Sue Stolton. It is fair to say that some of
By no means: other key issues relate to how the phrase these do not agree with some of the conclusions and
“effective means” is interpreted, particularly to protected they are certainly not responsible for any errors or for
areas outside the state system (private reserves, my opinions…
Community Conserved Areas etc) and about whether
the definition should include some reference to
permanence. These also form core issues of the task
force. This paper aims to address just one important
element about the protected area definition.
24
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following paper was prepared to make some initial “legal or other effective means”
proposals about how individual terms within the 9 This clause means that protected areas must either
definition might be interpreted. The IUCN definition be gazetted (that is, recognized under statutory
is as follows: An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated civil law), or else managed through other effective,
to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of but non-gazetted, means, such as the traditional
natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through rules under which community-conserved areas
legal or other effective means. operate.
25
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A proposed definition of a “protected Of course you could establish a continuum from low-
area system” to-high functionality depending on how much of the
A set of protected areas, comprising a combination of matrix a particular country has filled in.
two or more protected area categories, whose activities
are coordinated to achieve the protection and
maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and
associated cultural resources.
II National park
X
III Natural monument
X X
IV Habitat/species
management area
V Protected landscape /
X X X
seascape
VI Managed resource
X X
protected area
26
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
II National park
X X X
X
III Natural monument
X X X X
IV Habitat/species
X X X X
management area
V Protected landscape /
X X X X
seascape
VI Managed resource
X X X X
protected area
27
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Indigenous people in many parts of the world object to red (Martin circa 1803).’ Settlers saw the exotica, but
the term ‘wilderness’ when it is used to describe or few of them saw or understood that Aboriginal people
define their homelands. Australia offers an excellent had invested their labour in the land. In the past few
case study. Two issues stand out: exclusion of people, decades there has been a growing research effort to
and the wilderness concept. The first issue, exclusion, understand Indigenous fire ecology, and increasingly,
is currently being resolved through a variety of the evidence from landscape ecology indicates that
strategies that include Aboriginal people on indigenous people’s fire ecology sustained the
conservation zones – joint management, co- biodiversity of the Australian continent (Bowman
management, Indigenous protected areas, and 1998). The implication of this fact is that, as
employment agreements are examples. archaeologist Sylvia Hallam put it, ‘the land the English
settled was not as God made it, it was as the
My concern is with the second issue – the wilderness Aborigines made it (Hallam 1978).’
concept. It is less readily resolved because it involves
substantially different paradigms. The positive point of Australia had already been transformed in ways that
convergence is a shared desire to take care of sustained biodiversity, and it had already been invested
endangered country and species. The disagreements with cultural knowledge. It was travelled, known, and
arise out of different histories, and in settler societies named; its places were inscribed in song, dance and
such as Australia, out of the history of conquest and design; its histories were told from generation to
dispossession. generation.
Wilderness, David Brower said jokingly, is a place A definition of wilderness which excludes the active
'where the hand of man has not yet set foot' (Brower presence of humanity may suit contemporary people's
1978). 'Wilderness' has not always been positively longing for places of peace, natural beauty, and
conceptualized in the western world. Agriculturalists spiritual presence, uncontaminated by their own
tilled the earth, and kept the 'wild' or untamed world at culture. But definitions which claim that these
the edges of the fields or beyond the walls of the landscapes are 'natural' miss the whole point of
gardens (Wright 1980). Nation-states contrast Aboriginal people’s country. Here on this continent,
themselves with the uncontrolled and wild 'barbarians' there is no place where the feet of Aboriginal humanity
or 'savages' beyond the rivers or walls that mark the have not preceded those of the settler. Nor is there any
edge of centrally controlled society. On the other hand, place where the country was not once fashioned and
positive evaluations of wilderness also have a long kept productive by Aboriginal people's land
genealogy: in Jewish and Christian thought wilderness management practices. There is no place without a
can be a place where God's presence is intensely history; there is no place that has not been
encountered. The modern interest in wilderness is imaginatively grasped through song, dance and design,
related in complex ways to the conceptual domains of no place where traditional owners cannot see the
the past, but adds to them a positive evaluation imprint of sacred creation.
concerning preservation and conservation. Positive
values of wilderness include: helping to safeguard Australian Aboriginal people’s dedication to the living
biodiversity; maintaining sources of spiritual renewal; world of which they are a part poses an interesting
opportunities for self-reliant recreation; maintenance challenge to the identification and on-going
of significant opportunities for scientific study in management of protected areas. The IUCN / World
natural ecosystems (Robertson et al 1992). Conservation Union, defines protected areas as areas
‘of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the
Settler Australians saw a land that was incredibly protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and
foreign to them - ‘Trees retained their leaves and shed of the natural and associated cultural resources, and
their bark instead, the swans were black, the eagles managed through legal or other effective means.’ While
white, the bees were stingless, some mammals had the definition does not specifically exclude Indigenous
pockets, others laid eggs, it was warmest on the hills people, it sustains the division, and prioritizes the
and coolest in the valleys, even the blackberries were ‘natural’
28
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Moreover, many Aboriginal people see a kind of The point is clear: in Australia ‘nature’ is not what you
wildness that is completely the opposite of the positive get when you take away people. Flourishing country
connotations of wilderness. I came to understand this was what you got when Aboriginal people were at
point in a forceful way in 1986 when my teacher Daly home, taking care of country. Damage is what you get
Pulkara and I were travelling between communities in when you take people away, when they’re no longer
the Victoria River District in the Northern Territory. allowed to take care of country, or when they just can’t
The area has been under pastoral lease for over a do it anymore. Damage is what you get when you
century now, and much has changed in that time. The knock the stuffing out of country’s ability to be self-
route was familiar to both Daly and me, but we repairing and self-renewing. And damage is what you
stopped because I wanted to film some of the most get when you dull your own sense of what flourishing
spectacular erosion in the Victoria River District. I country is really like.
asked Daly what he called this country. He looked at it
long and heavily before he said: “It’s the wild. Just the In Aboriginal pastoral English quiet contrasts with the
wild”. wild – wild is running lawless, quiet is in
communication, in relationship. In contexts of cattle
Daly went on to speak of quiet country — the country and people, it means socialized. In relation to country
in which all the care of generations of people is evident it may speak to a broader domain of lawfulness.
to those who know how to see it. Quiet country stands Another term Yarralin people use is punyu – this is an
in contrast to the wild: we were looking at a wilderness, encompassing term that speaks to health, happiness,
man-made and cattle-made. This 'wild' was a place beauty, and lawfulness. The domains of the term punyu
where the life of the country was falling down into the work back and forth: that which is lawful is healthy and
gullies and washing away with the rains (see also Rose happy, that which is beautiful must be lawful, and so
1996). on. The term is as appropriately applied to country as it
is to people.
As most people are aware, we are in the midst of the
6th major extinction on Earth, and the first one to be One term that my teachers used when talking about
caused by a living species. The rate of extinctions of their flourishing country is ‘gardens’ And they were
mammals in Central Australia is the highest in the talking about gardens that are ‘for everybody’, as
world, and the waves of extinction are on the move. people say. Gardens where the benefits flow through
Daly’s use of the term wild calls up images of many species, and where the recursions of benefits
lawlessness – of death running amok, of loss of the form patterns of emplaced connection that go to the
integrity of living beings, of waves of suffering that do very heart of how the living world really works.
not really exempt anyone in the long term.
In saying that mutual benefits integrate an ecosystem
There is for me an invitation here to consider what we through dense and recursive connectivities and
really mean when we talk about wilderness. Pat Lowe, communications, my argument parallels a more
author and photographer, quoted the Aboriginal artist science-oriented set of propositions concerning
Jimmy Pike: ‘You call it desert, we call it home’ (Lowe connectivity, biodiversity, and stability. E.O. Wilson
1990). Had Daly been as familiar with the nuances of (2002: 108) notes that ‘the more species that inhabit an
contemporary English as Jimmy Pike, he might have ecosystem … the more productive and stable is the
said something similar: you call it wilderness, we call it ecosystem’. Indigenous people took care of gardens in
quiet country. You think the wild is a place that is free, which the benefits ‘for everyone’ ensured high levels of
we think it is running amok. densely entwined and stable diversity.
A similar point was made by David Claudie, a Cape Indigenous traditions develop worldviews that identify
York man whose homeland, Kanju country, is between ultimate values. Our 21st century efforts to protect
the Wenlock and Pascoe Rivers. When I visited him biological and cultural diversity will depend in large
two years ago, and camped on the Wenlock River, part on how well we are able to articulate the non-
David told me that he objects to the term ‘wild rivers’. negotiable value of the connectivity’s that sustain life
He says his rivers are not wild. They have been on Earth. Conservation policy that is designed for
properly taken care of by generations of his old people. dialogue with Indigenous knowledge in all its domains,
He absolutely does not want them to be designated including the critique of the wilderness concept, thus
‘wild’. Here too we see the concept of wild being takes significant steps toward a larger goal that may
rendered as that which is outside the law, that which is well define our long-term capacity for conservation:
uncared for, that which is running amok. the integration of knowledge and wisdom.
29
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary
This paper discusses some of the main criticisms that Phillips (2003), which they strongly oppose. The goal
category V protected areas has received, while of this paper is to discuss the main specific criticisms
addressing, at the same time, the “new paradigm” for related to category V protected areas. We also attempt
protected areas, the challenges it creates for to address the “new paradigm,” acknowledge the
biodiversity conservation, and suggesting an alternative challenge that this paradigm represents to biodiversity
solution. It argues the need and significance of conservation, and suggest an alternative solution.
category V protected areas in many regions of the
world, as the most suitable, or even the only existing The new paradigm and category V
option for protecting biodiversity. Wherever it has protected areas
been measured, the effectiveness of category V in Although category V as Protected Landscape started in
conserving biodiversity seems not to be lower than 1978, the current six categories of protected areas were
other categories. It also stresses the risks of throwing officially endorsed in 1992 (IVth World Park Congress,
out categories V and VI from the network of protected Caracas) and two years later the IUCN General
areas, as some critics have suggested, namely removing Assembly approved the system. The Guidelines for
legitimate biodiversity protected areas, alienating large Protected Area Management Categories were
constituencies, and weakening national and published in 1994 by IUCN and the World
international legal, policy, and financial backing and Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN and WCMC
attention to some of the most important biodiverse 1994).
areas on Earth. Finally, it discusses the possibility of
developing resolution into this category by adding non- Locke and Dearden state that category V “was created
exclusive subcategories which would allow to see the to deal with an anomaly, the English national park
various functions that category V protected areas are system, which did not fit well into the categories I-IV”
performing, other than vital biodiversity protection although they acknowledge that the English National
functions. Parks ‘narrowly meet the mark’ to be considered
protected areas. However, the IUCN WCPA Action
Purpose Plan of Protected Areas of Europe (IUCN and
Category V (Protected Landscapes) of IUCN’s CNPPA 1994) provided evidence that category V
categorization of protected areas has received several protected areas amount for almost 67 per cent of the
criticisms since its formal adoption in 1992. This paper about 20.000 European protected areas. That is, it was
deals with the criticisms presented by the recent paper estimated that category V, far from being an English
“Rethinking protected area categories and the new anomaly, encompassed in the year of its official
paradigm” by Locke and Dearden (2005). We chose it adoption about two thirds of all European protected
because of its strong argumentation outweighs all the areas. At the global level, according to Chape et al
previous critical remarks that category V received. (2003) protected areas under categories V and VI
Criticisms presented by Locke and Dearden are bold, combined cover about 3,6 per cent of the globe
indeed, addressing the very raison d’être of this category. surface, i.e. an area greater than categories II and III
The authors contend that “only IUCN categories I-IV combined. category V alone covers a larger surface
should be recognized as protected areas” (while) than categories Ia, Ib and III combined. The 26 case
categories V and VI should be reclassified as studies discussed in the category V Guidelines (Phillips
“sustainable development areas”. They consider that 2002) come from four continents, including a large
these two categories are a ‘distraction’ and a crucial variety of settings and management practices found
component of the “new paradigm” described by both in developed and developing countries. Similarly,
30
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the “Protected landscape approach” documents 10 Dearden’s concern, there are three additional reasons
relevant case studies from around the world, most of that they may need to be more sympathetic to category
which have being conserving biodiversity in effective V protected areas:
ways for centuries (Brown et al 2005). Therefore, there
is sound evidence that category V was created and 1. In many geographies, human dominated
applied to acknowledge a reality: the existence of a landscapes are in fact the only option to conserve
large number of protected areas, already established in certain aspects of biodiversity, including “wild”
many countries of the world, which did not fit under biodiversity, because in many parts of the world
the four previous categories. virtually all areas are already heavily influenced by
humans
After the Recommendations of World Parks Congress 2. Human management is required to preserve
of Durban (IUCN 2003), and the adoption of a certain habitats in certain regions, including
Programme of Work on Protected Areas -legally habitats for “wild” biodiversity and many
binding on all member countries- under the endangered or threatened species
Convention on Biological Diversity at Kuala Lumpur 3. Many category V protected areas are as effective
(2004), the significance of this category is even greater as the other categories in protecting biodiversity.
than before. This is because the outcomes of both
these meetings, in which thousands of conservationists To this first point, the most biodiverse countries of
participated, recognized multiple governance forms of Europe are in the Mediterranean, where worked
protected areas, including not only government landscapes have dominated for two to eight millennia,
managed but also collaboratively managed protected from the coastal areas to the highest mountains
areas (CMPAs), community conserved areas (CCAs) (McNeill 1992, Conservation International, 2007). Not
and private protected areas (PPAs) (see IUCN 2003, surprisingly, most northern Mediterranean countries,
and CBD 2004). Many such areas, with significant such as France, Greece, Italy or Spain, include even a
biodiversity and wildlife conservation value, would fit larger than average proportion of category V protected
into categories V or VI (Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004; areas. In Spain, for instance, it is considered that
Kothari 2006). Clearly, category V protected areas are category V includes the vast majority of ‘Natural Parks’
going to be a significant portion of the global protected which represent over 70 per cent of all the existing
area network, as governments start implementing the protected areas (Europarc-España, 2006) . In some of
CBD Programme of Work. the most biodiverse Spanish Autonomous
Communities, such as Catalonia, category V type
The new paradigm that concerns Locke and Dearden, reaches over 90 per cent of the protected areas system
and which is typical of category V, involves protected (Mallarach 2006).
areas that include more of a people-focus. We can
think of many possible reasons why this category has Locke and Dearden imply that only categories I to IV
proven to be so popular. One is the desire of local can protect the full array of biodiversity, especially
peoples to have their traditional practices recognized, large carnivores. However, category V can and does
for cultural, ecological, political, scenic or historical also play a vital part. To follow with the example of
preservation purposes. Also the misuse of categories I Spain, this country currently has the largest populations
and II, creating severe social injustices, in many of both brown bear (Ursus arctos) and wolf (Canis lupus)
countries, such as in central Africa (Cernea & Schmidt- of Western Europe, both of them expanding. Most
Soltau 2003) which explains that in many parts of the populations for both species are found in category V
world is almost impossible, right now, to propose new protected areas, while they are lacking in most
categories I or II protected areas (Okello et al 2003; protected areas of categories I-IV. For instance, in
Wishitemi and Okello 2003). On the scientific arena, Somiedo Natural Park (Asturias), the heart of the
the emergence and recognition of the nature in flux Cantabric brown bear population, brown bear habitat
and the ecosystem management paradigms, both based is found in mountain valleys with working landscapes
on the idea of nature in flux, rather than balance, and a that have a history of over 25 centuries of continuous
view of people within, rather than separate from, human activity; brown bears are living close to the
nature, has provided a new, more inclusive, approach villages and farms and cattle and people feel proud of
in contrast with earlier preservation ideas that, as shown by the motto of this mountains: “País de
(Kalamandeen & Gillson, 2007). Some of these reasons Osos” (Bear Country) (Nores & Naves 2004).
do seem to represent a drift away from the traditional
role of protected areas to only conserve “wild” Some examples of heartlands of Africa which are based
biodiversity. However, to respond to Locke & on IUCN category V include mainly conservation areas
31
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
adjacent to the Greater Virungas of Rwanda and components of the protected area systems of most
Democratic Republic of Congo. Other examples European countries. It is documented that the
include Laikipia/Samburu conservation areas of abandonment of the pastoral or agricultural practices
Central Kenya and Amboseli/Longido on the Kenyan will lead to a habitat changes producing species
Tanzania border (Wishitemi & Okello 2003; Okello et extinction (Donald et al 2001; Baucells et al 2004).
al 2003). Indeed, it has been shown that in many Mediterranean
countries a large proportion of endangered and
To the second point, Locke and Dearden consider the threatened species are mostly dependent on extensive
category V Guidelines (Phillips 2002) statement that agro-forest mosaic landscapes outside protected areas,
that “the protection of the landscapes puts people at requiring management (Pino et al 2000; Santos et al
the heart of the operation –and indeed requires them 2007).
to be there” to be ‘problematic’. They assert that the
very purpose of protected areas is the protection of Another good example comes from the tropical
wild biodiversity, implying that this is contradictory to mountains of South America, where the astonishing
having people living in protected areas. They also argue numbers of species gives Ecuador the condition of
that this new paradigm ignores the findings of mega diverse country. It is argued that highland
conservation biology. However landscape ecology has grasslands show endured management of Andean
shown strong scientific evidence of the crucial role of forest over millennia, particularly through the use of
heterogeneous–managed-landscapes in maintaining fire. Most plants and animal species of the Páramos are
biodiversity (Rescia et al 1994; Farina 1995; Böhning- pyrophytic and serotonic, requiring the continual
Gaese 1997; Pino et al 2000; Atauri & de Lucio 2001). human driver of burning for their existence (Sarmiento
In many parts of the world, (e.g. Northern Europe, 2002).
Middle East and the Mediterranean), where the natural
environment has been greatly modified by human In view of these facts, is it only logical that many
activities, these heterogeneous landscapes are complex management plans and budgets of category V
mosaics of natural and semi-natural ecosystems under protected areas of Europe are actively supporting
different management regimes, which are vital to the extensive agro-pastoral practices, which are not
maintenance of biodiversity (Wishitemi & Okello 2003; economically viable anymore, trying to slow down or
Farina, 1997; González Bernáldez 1992; Richardson & to stop the decline of rural people and rural extensive
Cowling 1993; Antrop 1993) and often the only option systems both within and around protected areas, for
to protect the habitat of species at the brink of they are needed to maintain critical components of
extinction, such us the Iberian Lynx (Aerts & Van biodiversity (Vickery et al 2004). The role of
Heijnbergen 2006). agricultural landscapes as suppliers of environmental
goods and services is essential (Baudry 1989; Burel
A good example of this is the European Natura 2000 1995), as is their value in terms of cultural and natural
network, one of the largest and more ambitious heritage (Meeus 1995).
international conservation strategies based on an eco-
regional scientific approach. A large number of Similarly in many wetland ecosystems, human use
threatened or endangered birds of Europe depend on appears to be necessary to maintain the wetland
grazed steppe or extensive cereal field habitats; character and thereby protect species typical of such
(Omerod & Watkinson 2000). Therefore, Natura 2000 habitats. A classic case of not recognizing this and
includes Special Protection Areas (SPA) classified paying the price is that of the world-famous Keoladeo
under the European Birds Directive of 1979 to help Ghana National Park (more popularly known as
protect and manage areas which are important for rare Bharatpur) in western India. In 1982, upon conversion
and vulnerable birds because they use them for of the area from a Wildlife Sanctuary (category IV) to a
breeding, feeding, wintering or migration. In particular, National Park (category II) status, buffalo grazing that
the Spanish network of Special Protection Areas for had been traditionally permitted in the wetland was
birds (SPA) includes 480 sites covering a total of abruptly stopped (leading to a clash between villagers
8,379,733 hectares, i.e. 16.59 per cent of the country and the police in which 7 villagers were killed). A long
(data from December 2004) many of them being term study by the Bombay Natural History Society
agricultural landscapes. Although managed, these showed that the result was a tendency of the ecosystem
landscapes are habitat of a number of endangered wild to turn more into grassland, as also change in
species, and their conservation depends on the composition of the grasses, which was having an
maintenance of agricultural practices (Suárez et al adverse impact on several waterfowl and other wetland
1997). No wonder if SPA are considered important species (Vijayan 1991). Unfortunately the law did not
32
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
permit restarting of grazing, so instead, a high level of for homestead consumption, and so on (TILCEPA
grass cutting was encouraged. Either way, intensive 2004; Kothari, 2006). These are conserved and
human use of the area was found necessary. In the managed for a variety of reasons, from cultural and
same vein, in many diverse wetlands, including a spiritual association (Dudley et al 2005) to economic
number of RAMSAR sites, all around the welfare and security, to political empowerment and the
Mediterranean basin, spanning three continents assertion of identity. And in many cases they have been
(Africa, Asia and Europe) a vast array of cultural effectively conserving biodiversity for centuries
practices and cultural elements inspired in nature has (UNESCO-MAB, 2006).
been documented, sometimes with several thousands
of years of truly sustainable practices, without serious The challenge of the new paradigm
loss of biodiversity until very recently, when mass We do not dispute the idea that some elements of
tourism has had negative impacts (Papayannis 2005). biodiversity need little to no human influence to thrive,
and that where possible, strict or elevated protection of
To the third point, effectiveness of protected areas is a the least degraded habitats should be achieved. In fact,
key aspect that criticisms avoid discussing. In fact, we will go so far as to say that categories V and VI
many category V protected areas are designated for protected areas should not substitute categories I - IV
protection of biodiversity and/or landscape diversity. in the context of biodiversity protection, when options
They have similar planning and management for the latter exist; indeed, as a general rule, no
instruments as I to IV protected areas, a dedicated category that is the most appropriate and feasible in a
administrative structure, human and material resources, particular context should be substituted by another one
and a wide experience in management of species, simply for reasons of political or economic expediency.
ecosystems and landscapes. Category V areas have (or Wilderness, where it exists, should also be protected
should have) specific legal and technical tools, as well where possible, since the presence of naturally
as human resources, particularly designed to reach the occurring ecological processes in these areas are most
primary objective of nature conservation. They have likely to be resilient in the face of increasing
(or should have) mechanisms to monitor and evaluate disturbance, both natural and otherwise, and thus more
the effectiveness of management and the degree of likely to conserve dynamic biodiversity. However, we
fulfilment of such objective. Other sustainably have to admit that the very concept of wilderness is
managed landscapes -not designated as protected absent from many cultures and languages, from most
areas- do not have as primary objective the indigenous people to Latin languages (Ohlgren & Berk
conservation of biodiversity, nor all those mechanisms. 1995; Turner 2002). Not only that the word
One of the few performance evaluation of an entire “wilderness” is capriciously used by the specific
protected area system including I to V categories in political ecology of American frontiersmen, but the
Europe was done for Catalonia, Spain, in 2004, by the “myth” of the pristine that it perpetuates, has been
Institució Catalana d’Història Natural, an independent long debunked in geographical and ecological literature
scientific organization. This study, involving over one (Denevan 1992; Cronon 1995), even as new debates
hundred scientists and 145 protected areas, did not have highlighted the theoretically flawed trouble with
find differences of performance between V and I to IV the “new” wilderness concept (Callicot & Nelson 1998;
categories, the main correlations being identified Rose, 2007).
between the number and degree of pressures and
impacts that protected areas were under (Mallarach The above arguments notwithstanding, it does seem
2006). that there has been a shift from the concept of
protected areas as a tool for conserving “wild”
Finally, as already mentioned above, a number of biodiversity to a more inclusive model that also
CCAs and PPAs that have considerable biodiversity protects human values, including domesticated
value, and deserve to be in their respective national biodiversity, which is often under threat. Whatever the
protected area systems, would be category V type. A original motivation, however, the result of the rapid
recent compilation of the range and status of CCAs in growth in categories V and VI in forms that sometimes
several regions of the world demonstrates this (Parks, do not clearly emphasize the conservation of wildlife,
Vol. 16 Issue 1, 2006). Such areas include sacred sites does hold the potential to dilute the original value and
or sacred landscapes with multiple land uses, grazing purpose of protected areas – especially in the context
territories of nomadic peoples and communities, of the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD),
territories of indigenous peoples under various kinds of since this instrument asks that nations to conserve a
use, wetland and grassland ecosystems, catchment threshold (currently 10 per cent) of their land area in
forests and forests conserved for resource harvesting protected areas. Thus Locke and Dearden highlight a
33
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
real problem, as countries are sometimes preferentially protecting “wild” biodiversity in human-dominated
choosing to gazette category V and VI protected areas landscapes where there are no other options. In fact, in
because it is more politically expedient to do so many of these protected areas some of the human
(Bishop et al 2004). This, they point out, is artificially activities are required in order to maintain habitats for
inflating protected area figures, with no necessarily wild species. A conversion of such areas into
added biodiversity value. Additionally, they point to the “sustainable development” sites would risk loss of a
fact that some governments are abusing category V by focus on wildlife, which they currently enjoy; this is
declaring areas with very little or no wildlife value as especially true given that the term “sustainable
protected areas, and/or by subjecting such areas to development” itself is open to a whole lot of dubious
commercial exploitation and developmental activities. interpretations including substantial industrial scale
exploitation.
We recognize that some category V protected areas are
indeed problematic from all these perspectives. The next is that such a move would most certainly be
However, it is fallacious to conclude, from evidence of opposed by large, influential, and legitimate
the abuse of a category of protected areas, that the constituencies. If the suggestion of dropping category
category itself is faulty. For there is plenty of evidence V sites from protected areas was to be accepted,
of similar abuses of various kinds that categories I to almost entire systems of protected areas in many
IV are subject to. In India, for instance, some “national regions and countries of the world would vanish
parks” (legally, akin to category II), are no more than overnight. This includes a large proportion of both the
zoos or degraded scrublands, and a huge number of European Natura 2000 and Emeralds networks, which
“wildlife sanctuaries” (legally, category IV), contain have been built over decades of concerted efforts
dozens (in some cases, hundreds!) of human among scientists, policymakers, environmentalists,
settlements inside with intense resources use taking farmers, foresters, and many social sectors, providing
place. A recent survey showed that several dozen of effective protection for a vast number of landscapes,
these protected areas were subjected to mining inside habitats and species. It is worth recalling that the
or adjacent to them, and the Indian government has European Union has been one of the few international
not hesitated to degazette or reduce in size many more political authorities in the world to adopt a resolution
protected areas to make way for roads, dams, and calling from stopping the losses of biodiversity by the
industries (Vagholikar 2003; Kutty & Kothari 2001). year 2010 (Duke 2005).
Just as this kind of abuse does not undermine the
concept of categories I to IV, we submit that the abuse Third, such a move would mean the loss of support
of category V should not be a reason to throw it out. and legal backing that is currently provided to such
areas under national laws and policies, and under the
The need of evaluation the effectiveness of category V Programme of Work on Protected Areas of the
is out of question. But the same is applicable to the rest Convention for Biological Diversity. Inevitably, that
of categories. There is no evidence that preservation of would mean less protection for wildlife in such areas.
large areas without human intervention in category I to
IV protected areas are being more effective in It seems that three things are needed to address Locke
protecting biodiversity that category V are. and Dearden’s criticisms and at the same time
acknowledge the broad use of the concept of protected
Is there, then, a way to embrace the new paradigms of area:
protected areas without diluting either the objective of
biodiversity and wildlife conservation or the push for 1. Develop a more generic framework for protected
more strictly human-free protected areas? areas that encompasses all kinds of ways of
conserving wildlife and biodiversity; Only those
An alternative solution sites where the main goal or outcome is
Locke and Dearden suggest that categories V and VI biodiversity conservation, should be considered
be downgraded to “sustainable development areas” so protected areas. Note that this would include
as not to be confused with protected areas intended to many sites which can have other goals, as well, at
protect “wild” biodiversity. While the intention could the same level, such as cultural or spiritual, but in
seem reasonable, and we agree that “careful scrutiny is case of conflict, nature conservation has to be the
needed..” we have several concerns with this proposal. priority.
Our first concern is that the Locke and Dearden
proposal throws the baby out with bathwater – there 2. Develop more specific category V (and VI)
are many category V protected areas legitimately subcategories that allow clear identification of
34
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
which protected areas are conserving biodiversity conservation6. Once again, one has to guard against
that would not otherwise be conserved (e.g. Va - misuse, but not question the category because of this
biodiversity protected where no other options abuse.
exist, Vb – significant cultural values along with
biodiversity values, Vc – maintains scenic pastoral Finally, we would stress that a more inclusive system of
landscape with significant biodiversity values, etc.). protected area categories seems the only way that in
These same additional subcategories could also be many countries protected areas would be politically
used for others’ purposes to indicate which acceptable in todays’ context. Exclusionary policies and
category V’s contain which cultural, historical or practices of protected area management have alienated
other values. Obviously, since the category V and dispossessed millions of people, to the extent that
protected areas (though this is not exclusive to protected areas in many developing countries are seen
category V) can contain more than one value, the with widespread hostility and declining political
subcategories would not be exclusive. support (McKay 2002; Wishitemi & Okello 2003,
Okello et al 2003. Demonstrating that protected areas
3. Develop a means to identify, expose, and advocate are also vehicles for poverty reduction and sensitive
against the misuse of any of the categories of the development, while ensuring that the biodiversity conservation
protected area system, e.g. to artificially inflate the values of individual protected areas and of the protected area
protected area figures, or use of any one category system as a whole are not compromised, appears to be a
as a proxy for the others. crucially important way forward. Category V protected
areas are well suited for projecting this kind of image
This sub-categorization would allow conservation of protected areas, and the increasing political support
planners, as well as the Convention for Biological this could achieve would help, rather than hinder, the
Diversity and researchers, to distinguish among maintenance and creation of more strictly protected
category V protected areas in order to more accurately areas too. We submit that this could also be a means by
account for how much biodiversity is being conserved. which to regain donor support; Locke and Dearden
This is currently not possible and the reason why some rightly point out that such support for protected areas
researchers simply leave out categories V-VI in their may be declining, but our assessment, based on a
analyses (Rodríguez et al 2004). number of evidences, is that this is not because of the
shift towards a “new social approach”, but more
Of course, the remaining task would be to tighten the because conventional models of protected areas are
language of the Convention for Biological Diversity, in seen, in many countries, and with some justification, as
order to restrict the protected areas eligible to meet the being anti-people (Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2003;
10 per cent threshold to those intended for or actually Okello et al 2003; Wishitemi & Okello 2003), and that
achieving the preservation of biodiversity. However, indeed an emphasis on a wide range of categories
this task would be necessary anyway, given the current including those clearly helping to achieve poverty
situation, and rather than throwing out categories V reduction and livelihood enhancement, would help
and VI (and creating a very negative dynamic), this regain donor interest in protected areas as a whole.
solution would introduce needed resolution in the
categories while retaining those category V and VI Conclusions
protected areas that really are protecting biodiversity. 9 Category V was not created to deal with an
anomaly, as it has been argued, but to
To briefly also respond to Locke and Dearden’s acknowledge the widespread existence of
criticism of the inclusion of agrobiodiversity as an protected areas, often very effective, found in five
objective for protected areas, we submit that there is continents, of a type that did not fit with I to IV
nothing wrong in this objective, provided it is not categories. In the European continent category V
clashing with the objective of ‘wild’ biodiversity includes about two third of the total protected
conservation. In many countries agrodiversity is under areas, and in some of the most biodiverse biomes
much serious threat than wild biodiversity. Many of the word, such as the Mediterranean basin,
category V protected areas indeed are intended to do category V protected areas can reach over 80 per
both, or are intended for one but also effectively cent of all protected areas, including a large variety
helping achieve the other, and we do not see any
reason to think that this would necessarily undermine the 6 Several members of the Protected Landscapes Task Force of
potential of protected areas to achieve wildlife WCPA are bringing out a series of publications highlighting the
different values and benefits of Category V protected areas, the first
volume being on the conservation of agrobiodiversity. Contact:
Jessica Brown, (jbrown@qlf.org).
35
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
of working landscapes and seascapes, where some them to sustainable development areas, risks
of the key protected wild species or habitats of removing legitimate biodiversity protected areas,
these countries biodiversity are found. Many of alienating large constituencies, and weakening
these category V protected areas are protecting national and international legal/policy/financial
wild biodiversity that would not otherwise be backing and attention to some of the most
protected. important biodiverse areas on Earth.
9 Categories V and VI should not be seen as 9 A more constructive solution would appear to be
opposing categories I to IV, but as to develop resolution to the category V system by
complementary, as it has been clearly stated and adding non-exclusive subcategories which would
demonstrated in all the relevant documents allow to see exactly which category V protected
concerning category V. Even if in a number of areas are actually performing vital biodiversity
countries categories I to IV can only account for a protection functions that would not otherwise be
very limited proportion of its protected area possible. Other interests would simultaneously be
systems, nobody denies that these categories able to see what other functions these protected
perform valuable functions and have significant areas were fulfilling.
intrinsic value.
9 One can imagine that a similar effort might be
9 The application of the WCPA framework for helpful for category VI protected areas, which
assessing protected areas management often include highly protected inclusions of
effectiveness in different geographical regions has extreme biodiversity importance.
shown that category V is not less effective than
categories I to IV in conserving biodiversity.
36
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introductory comments on the guidance for their use. In contributing to the process
structure and rationale of the current to revise the guidelines, it is essential to assess the
system capacity of the current category system to take full
The report “Speaking a Common Language” (SaCL) account of the issues of biodiversity conservation and
confirmed the general validity of the framework to adjust these in whatever ways possible to
offered by the IUCN Protected Areas category system, accommodate the current body of knowledge on
but it also highlighted several problems in its species and ecosystems.
implementation and use, especially in its application in
certain biomes, notably forest and marine, and in In spite of their obvious shortcomings, protected areas
understanding and using the categories in national have a primary role in our current tools to conserve
reporting. biodiversity. Particularly for species, which are central
to most efforts to conserve biodiversity, protected
The report also highlighted that the system is areas are one of the most powerful, and often the only
increasingly used in many new ways such as: available conservation tool. IUCN’s definition of a
protected area is “an area of land and/or sea especially
9 determining appropriate and inappropriate dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity,
activities in protected areas (for example, mining); and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed
9 establishing criteria to assess management through legal or other effective means”, thus confirming that
effectiveness; biodiversity conservation is the fundamental goal of
9 advocacy in relation to protected areas; the protected areas classified by IUCN. Other types of
9 providing a framework for national protected area protected areas, such as historical parks, monuments,
legislation and policy and for international sacred sites, tribal reservations, etc., that have no
agreements; content related to the conservation of nature or natural
9 the provision of quality standards; resources in any of its manifestations (see below), while
9 as a tool for broad, systematic landscape-level of the utmost importance, need not necessarily fall
planning. under the umbrella of the IUCN protected area
categories.
The report concludes that “… the rules for
categorisation are not always understood. The methods However, while the concept of biodiversity
used to assign protected areas to categories must be conservation is the prime basis for establishing
clearer. There is confusion between a system of protected areas for nature conservation, the current
categorisation based on management objectives and category system and the guidelines for its application
the reality on the ground, which is a measure of the do not appear to reflect the complex articulation of the
effectiveness of their management. …. And some think biodiversity concept; in view of the recent
that the system favours an out-dated view of protected development of ecological theories and the substantial
areas as stand alone 'islands'.” contributions of conservation biology, the relationship
between the categories of protected areas and the
The SaCL report and the WCPA Categories Summit various notions of biodiversity conservation appears to
provide the opportunity to open a discussion on the need an extensive revision.
effectiveness of the current category system to address
the needs of biodiversity conservation, and many In this document, we discuss the specific roles that we
welcome this opportunity. In response to see the different IUCN categories contributing to the
RESWCC3.048, the current revision of the guidelines conservation of species and the modifications in
for the application of the protected area category interpretation or guidance to these categories that
system is not intended to change the current category could help increase their effectiveness. In particular, we
system but only to redefine the objectives by which the take a two-pronged approach to respond to the
categories are assigned and used, providing improved opportunity of the Summit: 1) presenting a
37
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
substantially new paradigm for the protected area and processes, species stand out as the most practical
category system, which is based on the conservation of target for conservation action. Species are discrete,
biodiversity in all its manifestations - species, groups of easily identifiable units, their populations can be
species, functioning ecosystems, ecosystem goods and counted, their distribution mapped, their habitat and
services, etc. and 2) making the best of the current communities described and identified (i.e. habitat types
situation and contributing to a revision of the and ecosystems). As species contain the genetic
guidelines to make their application more meaningful. diversity and form the community and ecosystem
diversity, they are central to all structural elements.
Suggestions for revising the Species are also the necessary components of
protected area category system – not ecological processes: healthy species communities
just the guidelines for application of ensure functional processes and there are no ecological
the current categories processes without species. Species have a complex set
The IUCN definition of protected area makes explicit of values over and above of their functional roles,
reference to biological diversity as a broad concept including ethical, cultural, aesthetic, and recreational
encompassing all natural ecological systems, their values in most human cultures. Conservation success
elements and their evolutionary and ecological with regard to species is generally much easier to assess
dynamics. The current category system does not use and measure compared to ecological processes that are
the general concept but uses some of its components often difficult to manage and evaluate in practice.
and meanings too loosely and sometimes
interchangeably in the definition of the various In short, species are the most common (though not the
categories (e.g. species, ecological functionality, only) currency for all structural and functional
ecological processes, genetic resources and many biodiversity manifestations and values and this is the
others). As conserving the valued aspects of main justification for adopting species as one of the
biodiversity is the fundamental justification for most most practical surrogates for implementing the
protected areas, it is of paramount importance that the required actions and measuring the success of
concept is defined clearly and applied consistently biodiversity conservation. Species threatened with
throughout the system and within the various extinction are an increasing proportion of all species
categories. and in many cases deserve priority action; however,
their conservation alone does not substitute for nor
The concept of biodiversity includes the structural exhaust the needs for all species which constitute by
elements, such as genes, species, communities and far the greater part of biodiversity.
ecosystems (and landscapes), and the ecological
processes that link all elements in a dynamic and ever- Our concern extends to all species and this is the
changing state. The interaction of the structural conceptual context of our contribution to the
elements within their ecological complexes produces IUCN/WCPA category system debate. We argue that,
ecosystem goods, including renewable resources (e.g. for the practical purpose of implementing a category
foods, fibres, medicines, wood, etc.) and the ecosystem system that is both easy to apply and comprehensive in
services (e.g. clean air and water, climate regulation, its conservation goals, species should be considered as
nutrient cycling, etc.) on which we depend. the central and most measurable target of protected
areas for biodiversity conservation. A number of
While the concept of biodiversity is extremely powerful general attributes have been associated with species
to put conservation action in the proper context, it is and could be effectively adopted as explicit
also very difficult to master when conservation action conservation targets: phylogenetic uniqueness,
needs to be implemented. Moreover, as biodiversity vulnerability, irreplaceability, richness/diversity, and
elements and ecological processes occur at a great ecological integrity are just some of the most common.
variety of spatial and temporal scales, conservation These attributes could be used to give substance and
action is inevitably limited to just a few of the elements precision to the objectives of the categories of
or the processes. Thus, conservation approaches tend protected areas.
to focus on some of the structural elements, namely
species and ecosystems, or on maintaining some of the Logically following on from these remarks, we argue
processes that produce ecosystem services. that the current category system suffers from a number
of weaknesses, which could be strengthened in the
However, when the protected area approach is applied, following ways:
the different conservation targets often narrow
substantially. In fact, among all biodiversity elements
38
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
a. Relate the objectives of the categories to defined fuzzy. The vagueness and generality of these
conservation objectives “management objectives” is, in our opinion, among the
The current system is based on management objectives main reasons for the weaknesses and both underpin
instead of conservation objectives. In other words, the many misapplications of the system, while
protected areas are classified in relation to the undermining their potential value.
management regimes that are to be implemented in the
areas, not in relation to the biodiversity values or The system should be deeply revised to reflect more
attributes that are to be conserved. accurately the role of protected areas as one of the
most powerful tools in modern conservation biology
This appears to be inconsistent with the conceptual and to allow the ranking of each area, regardless of its
meaning of at least three types of protected areas: category, on the basis of its effectiveness in conserving
explicit elements and processes. Perhaps it is timely to
9 I Strict nature reserve/Wilderness area return to the basic fact that “protected areas” are
9 II National Park protected because there is something to be protected
9 IV Habitat/Species Management Area and which is the priority for management; and there
are three basic “things” that may be in need of
For these types of areas, management is explicitly protection: species or groupings of species (and the
aimed at preserving, maintaining, and sustainably using ecosystems they form and maintain), particular
the components of biodiversity (i.e. species and their landscape features and specific cultural/traditional
role in keeping ecosystems functioning). Therefore, features associated with natural elements and
these protected areas are primarily tools for processes. These three types of targets should be
biodiversity conservation and it should be obvious that priority reasons for establishing (and therefore
their categories should be based on the quality and managing and maintaining) a protected area that has a
quantity of the contribution of each protected area to significance for conservation, per se, and hence an
explicit biodiversity conservation goals. The current interest for the IUCN system. Enhancing tourism,
system focuses on the ways the objectives are to be improving environmental awareness, expanding
reached (i.e. the management tools and regimes) but scientific research and sustainably utilising natural
fails to articulate the quality and quantity of the resources may all be desired management objectives to
conservation objectives to be reached, how they will be be met by protected areas but are necessarily
maintained over time and how achievement of these subordinated to the primary goals as a result of their
objectives will be measured. innate dependency on the values and attributes of
biodiversity being conserved in any given protected
In the context of a modern logical framework area or network of protected areas. The table with the
approach, the management objectives, as currently matrix of management objectives for the categories
defined, are articulated as broad mission statements should be revised accordingly.
rather than well-defined goals and precise, measurable
objectives. The goals and objectives of a protected area b. Define what individual protected areas
should not be stated in terms of general functions or contribute to networks and systems of protected
steps in a process but rather in terms of expected areas
outcomes of those functions or steps, and in this way The current system conveys a concept of protected
their contributions could be monitored and evaluated areas as entities whose goals, roles and management
far more effectively. focus on their contribution to representativeness, or
individual features, patterns and processes that are
This is particularly evident for two current objectives: entirely internal to these same protected areas.
“Preservation of species and genetic diversity” which is However, the most elementary experience of protected
a priority management objective for 5 out of 7 area managers and the scientific information from
(including Ib), of the categories of protected areas, and conservation biology clearly point to the need to
“Maintenance of environmental services” which is a consider each protected area in the context of its own
priority management objective for 4 out of 7 of the environmental, social and political landscape.
categories. Both objectives are used to qualify an area Depending on this context a protected area can have
whose management is aimed at preserving species but, very different impact on biodiversity conservation.
in the absence of an explicit reference to biodiversity
elements or processes, which articulate the values and If the effectiveness of a protected area is defined by
attributes to be preserved and a quantification of the the objectives that it can achieve, including the threats
expected results, these objectives remain imprecise and is can mitigate, then its IUCN category does not
39
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
depend only on the management inside the protected conserving biodiversity elements and processes but
area, but also on the context in which the protected which may nonetheless contribute to counteracting
area exists. threats to these values and attributes. For a long time
the need has been advocated of conservation strategies
For example, a protected area of a given size and shape that are not limited to the establishment of protected
and managed in a certain way may counteract threats in areas, but include other production landscapes that are
one context but cannot counteract the same threats in managed in a way that can mainstream the
another context. For example, a protected area that conservation of at least some biodiversity elements and
encompasses the sources and the upper portion of a processes. This requires taking these considerations
river basin can protect riverine species from into their planning and management as well. An IUCN
downstream pollution. Another protected area, of the classification of these areas, which incorporates and
same size and management capacity, which is further expands on some of the elements of the current
downstream, can not. Rationally speaking, they should category system (e.g. categories V and VI), could
be assigned to different categories to reflect their acknowledge the contribution to biodiversity
different roles in mitigating threats. conservation of areas in the surrounding production
landscapes, which will always comprise far greater area
Again, depending on the feature that is the target of on the ground. This would be a major step towards
conservation (e.g. species, habitat types, ecological recognising and practicing more comprehensive and
processes, cultural values, etc.) each area may be systematic conservation planning at the landscape level.
categorized on the basis of its potential contribution to
the conservation of that feature. For example, it could This vision would also help tremendously in placing
be categorized on the basis of its irreplaceability value, protected areas in the context of the full array of other
a measure of how unique the individual area is to conservation tools and would relieve the pressure on
reaching a specified conservation target. The concept them as stand alone “bastions” for biodiversity
of irreplaceability is one of the most powerful in conservation.
conservation biology, contributing to the identification
of the optimal system of protected areas and also, c. Articulate and define the ecological terms and
indirectly, to assessing each protected area’s concepts invoked when categorizing
importance to the overall conservation goal. Given the IUCN definition of a Protected Area (see
page 1), biodiversity conservation (be it species,
Clearly, this approach goes in the direction of refining communities, ecosystems or the provision of goods
the ways that protected areas are used for conservation and services) is central to all protected area categories.
by articulating the specific contribution(s) of individual Yet biodiversity conservation, per se, remains ill-
protected areas to networks or systems of protected defined in terms of exactly what it implies for the
areas, which should be the real target of conservation establishment and management of protected areas. The
planning. It is likely that new categories will be fact that it is a vague expression allows the
necessary to define the combined objectives of establishment of many protected areas claiming to have
individual protected areas into protected area networks this goal and yet ultimately doing very little towards
within larger landscapes. At present, many areas are set achieving it.
aside to support species hoping that their contribution
will be matched by other conservation areas or Currently, the IUCN protected area category system
measures elsewhere: it is necessary to avoid this and the guidelines have no clear definitions that ensure
fundamental pitfall by redefining the role of each area appropriate and consistent application of the categories
within a larger goal of effective biodiversity across a range of geographic and ecological contexts.
conservation where protected areas operate in full The guidelines are filled with terms that even in the
synergy with the surrounding matrix of land uses. This scientific literature carry a variety of different
will be necessary to ensure that protected areas are, in meanings. It is neither reasonable nor realistic to
fact, effective tools for conserving biodiversity. expect that managers and politicians use them in a
consistent way. There are no universally accepted
In addition to this and wherever possible, protected definitions of many terms such as ecosystem, habitat,
areas should be enshrined in a systematic conservation environmental services, ecological processes, dynamic
planning approach and assessed for their role and and evolutionary state, ecological quality, integrity,
contribution to the entire system including areas of stability, etc.. These are just some examples of the
alternative land use, such as production landscapes, variety of fuzzy concepts that a manager must be able
which are not managed with the primary objective of to master in order to assess a protected area and select
40
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the appropriate category for designation under the for all elements and processes to be conserved. In the
current system. current system, biodiversity conservation is only
intended to mean that a species is present within a
For example, “ecosystems” are scale-dependent and in protected area and that the protected area must
the field it is sometimes difficult to define their provide defence against detrimental factors: but such a
boundaries unless you use the concept to mean habitat definition is neither adequate nor sufficient in
types; but “habitat” is a species-specific concept and conserving such a species by even the most minimal
the term habitat cannot be used for all species or for standards of current ecological theory and
many species in an ecosystem, unless you refer to yet conservation practice.
another concept like “vegetation type”. In reality,
ecological processes are difficult to identify and to be In defining biodiversity conservation targets, the IUCN
used as criteria for field assessment. Maintaining protected area category system should expand from the
species and functioning ecosystems, which are in a simplistic concept of target species representation (i.e.
dynamic state, implies a wealth of technical knowledge presence) to include also that of species persistence
that is not available or immediately obvious in the and apply this concept to protected area categories.
majority of areas or to the majority of managers. IUCN SSC has developed an accepted global standard
Finally, among all ecological theories the concept of to assess the conservation status of species and their
“ecological stability” is one of the most controversial risk of extinction (or probability of persistence). The
and difficult. In short, the concepts used to underpin system could be applied to evaluate the consistency of
the designation of individual protected areas to a protected area’s management effectiveness in
individual categories is fraught with complexity, maintaining, restoring, contributing to securing or
rendering the current system, at best, difficult to apply improving the status of resident biodiversity.
and, more generally, somewhat futile for meaningful Application of the IUCN Red List criteria to individual
application by general practitioners. species is currently the best proxy for assessing the
conservation status of species (ALL species, not just
While it has been suggested that a standardized those threatened with extinction) in the wild and could
glossary of terms should accompany the guidelines for be applied to rank protected areas depending on their
application of the protected area category system, we contribution to maintaining a species or groups of
caution that this would be only a partial and, we species at a certain status level. A further refinement of
believe, poor solution to this problem as the mismatch the IUCN Red List approach could lead to the
between the huge complexity of the ecological theories conservation objective of maintaining a certain number
behind these words and concepts. As the need for a of individuals of one (or many) species, particularly
brief definition to enable a fast and easy method to those more strictly associated with the ecological
select the category is likely to continue, the only processes that provide the desired goods and services
suitable solution is to deeply revise the text of the (i.e. those most closely linked to human livelihoods and
guidelines. This would require an attempt to eliminate wellbeing). Although it may not be applicable to all
as much as possible all sources of subjectivity and species, this would be the ideal approach that we
ambiguity, use only clear and unambiguous concepts would like to see explicit in the revised guidelines or
that have the robust support of scientific theories, and any new system for categorizing protected areas,. It
universally accepted terms that have a direct relation to adds to the true dimension of protected areas as tools
features and processes that can be identified in the field for conserving biodiversity, makes the whole system
by non-experts and without complex ecological much stronger and conservation oriented, and reduces
background information and insights. the political/subjective component in favour of more
strict criteria based on definable biological
d. Clearly define desired biodiversity conservation components.
targets from the outset
In order to achieve biodiversity conservation, we For example, if a protected area is placed in a category
believe that the values and attributes of biodiversity to where it is expected to conserve a number of
be conserved should be more clearly articulated in the species/communities or processes produced by those
description of various protected area categories species/communities, that area has to have a minimum
(including new categories to account for systems or size, configuration, habitat types, etc. to ensure that the
networks of protected areas). This should be done in a persistence of those species/communities is, at the
standardized manner and from an objective standpoint very least, not threatened. In short, if protected areas
and may require the use of proxies or surrogates, i.e. have to be assessed for their role in biodiversity
meeting the needs of species as a practical surrogate conservation, they should be qualified using criteria
41
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
that include targets of population size at least for a set If the conservation objectives and management actions
of species that are the primary reason or are associated needed to reduce threats for individual protected areas
to the functional processes that are the primary reason or networks of protected areas in the IUCN protected
for establishing that area in the first place. This further area category system were more explicitly linked this
reinforces the need for a vision of networks of would allow at least three major achievements:
protected areas rather than individual protected areas
in isolation. 1. the ability to know what a given system of protected
areas is expected to achieve in terms of
Moreover, as the drive to assess the effectiveness of conservation;
management in protected areas increases, explicit
quantitative targets (population sizes, trends, indices, 2. the ability to plan what type of protected area (or
etc.) to measure the “state” of biological diversity will network of protected areas) is needed and suitable
provide the basis for methods to measure their de to protect a species of special concern, an
facto contribution to conservation. assemblage of species needed to fulfil necessary
traditional/cultural values or the functions of
e. Base protected area categories on conservation ecosystems contained within; including what is
objectives to benefit conservation planning, needed in terms of area and/or management
monitoring and the evaluation of protected area actions; and
management effectiveness
What is outlined above opens an entirely new vision of 3. the ability to know what to monitor and how to
how the IUCN protected area category system should evaluate the effectiveness of a protected area, given
be revised. Although the adoption of a new framework its objectives and its ability to counteract threats in
is not under discussion at this stage it is useful to the fulfilment of its conservation objectives.
outline it here, because ultimately this is what IUCN
should aim for. Ultimately, conservation achievement of a protected
area or a system of protected areas – that of true
The pressure-state-response model is seen as the ideal conservation impact – will be assessed through
framework upon which to base any future debate. This monitoring the conservation status of biodiversity.
could be deeply integrated with the ideas that have Monitoring the conservation status of species provides
been developed by the Conservation Measures an excellent starting place.
Partnership, in agreement and collaboration with
IUCN SSC, and that underpin the newly adopted Specific comments to improve the
standards for the assessment of the effectiveness of current guidelines
threat reduction (pressure) and conservation measures Since the review initiated by WCPA under
(response) for conserving species. These same ideas WCCRes3.048 is not aimed at a substantial revision of
and approaches have for some time been used in the system and its articulation, it may not be possible
conservation planning by academic and non-academic to address our general concerns and basic comments at
institutions (e.g., the University of Queensland, this stage. Therefore, to respond to the need for
UNDP, World Bank, the GEF, WWF, TNC). gradual and partial revision of the guidelines for
application of the IUCN protected area categories, we
A protected area should be established, as stated offer two examples of how the guidelines could be
above, for conserving species, groups of species for modified to accommodate at least some of the
their associated biological/cultural/traditional values concerns for biodiversity conservation (proposed text
and attributes or ecosystem processes. To understand changes are highlighted) without starting from scratch.
how a protected area or a network or system of
protected areas can achieve their primary conservation Notably, however, even though these partial
objectives, the relevant threats to the elements of modifications and interpretations would improve the
biodiversity to be conserved must be identified first. current system, they would not constitute a fully
When the threats are known, the conservation satisfactory solution to the very significant and
measures or management actions that should be taken substantial issues outlined above. These would require
to counteract the proximate and ultimate threats can be a more meaningful and rational process of revision.
more easily determined. Reduction in threats will act as
a measure of conservation outcomes, though ultimately 2.1 Category II. National Park: protected area managed
success will be measured through the state of the mainly for ecosystem protection the conservation of
biodiversity being conserved. species and large habitat types and recreation.
42
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
43
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
intervention by the management authority, if • The size of the area should depend on the habitat
necessary through environmental habitat requirements of the species to be protected and
manipulation (c.f. category 1a) may range from relatively small to very extensive.
44
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
45
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Category Ia
Kent H. Redford and Nigel Dudley
46
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The area could be of religious or spiritual significance 9 Providing reference points to measure the impact
(such as a sacred natural site) so long as biodiversity of human-induced change that is not confined to
conservation is identified as a primary objective. In this particular areas (e.g. pollution)
case the area might contain sites that could be visited
by people engaged in faith activities consistent with the What makes category Ia unique?
area’s management objectives. Allocation of category is a matter of choice, depending
on long-term management objectives, sometimes often
Challenges with a number of alternative options that could be
Scholars have increasingly shown that humans have applied in any one site. The following table outlines
played important roles in altering areas which were some of the main reasons why category Ia may be the
once thought to be largely untouched by human action. chosen in specific situations vis-à-vis other categories
As a result it is commonly thought that there are few that pursue similar objectives.
areas of the terrestrial and marine worlds which do not
bear the hallmarks of earlier human action, though in Category Ia differs from the other categories in the
many cases these people are no longer present on the following ways:
ecological stage. As a result, conserving significant
Category Category Ia and Ib are two aspects of the
areas to be completely free of any earlier human
Ib same thing; Ib protected areas will
imprint is difficult.
generally be larger and less strictly
protected from human visitation:
This conclusion has combined with a growing criticism
although not usually the subject of mass
of national parks, and in particular, the “Yellowstone
tourism they usually would usually be
model.” This model for creating national parks has
open to people prepared to travel on foot
carried forward an apparently too common practice of
or by boat, which is not always the case in
displacing people in order to save nature. As a result,
Ia.
those protected areas that are designed specifically to
exclude people are often, and increasingly, faulted for Category Category II protected areas usually
having displaced people. II combine ecosystem protection with
tourism on a scale not suitable for
It is also becoming depressingly apparent that some category I.
human actions have a regional and global reach that is
Category Category III protected areas are generally
not restricted by protected area boundaries. This is
III centred on a particular natural monument,
most apparent with climate and air pollution and new
so that the primary focus of management
and emerging diseases.
is on maintaining this feature, whereas
objectives of Ia are generally aimed at a
Role in the landscape/seascape
whole ecosystem.
Category 1a areas are a vital component in the toolbox
of conservation. As the Earth becomes increasingly Category Category IV protected areas protect
influenced by the rising tide of human activities, there IV fragments of ecosystems or habitats,
are increasingly fewer areas left where such activities which often require continual
are strictly limited. Without the protection management intervention to maintain.
accompanying the 1a designation, there would rapidly Category Ia areas on the other hand
be no such areas left. As such, these areas contribute in should be largely self-sustaining and their
a significant way to conservation/development objectives preclude such management
through: activity or the rate of visitation common
in category IV. Category IV protected
9 Protecting some of the earth’s richness that will areas are also often established to protect
not survive outside of such strictly protected particular species or habitats rather than
settings; the specific ecological aims of Ia.
9 Protecting religious and cultural sites when Category Category V protected areas are generally
associated with biodiversity conservation;
V cultural landscapes or seascapes that have
9 Providing reference points to allow measurement been altered by humans over hundreds or
of the impact of human-induced change outside even thousands of years and that rely on
such areas;
continuing intervention to maintain their
9 Providing areas where ecology can be studied in as qualities. Many category V protected areas
pristine an environment as possible contain permanent human settlements.
47
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
All the above are incompatible with Malla strict nature reserve in Finland, near the
category Ia. borders with Sweden and Norway, was established for
scientific research and nature conservation. Although a
Category Category VI protected areas contain areas
trail runs through the park, access away from this area
VI of sustainable use of natural resources,
requires written permission from the state protected
which are incompatible with Ia.
area agency Metsähallitus.
48
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.2. Category Ib
Cyril Kormos
This paper reviews the current (1994) guidelines for - provide regulatory ecosystem services (as
category Ib-Wilderness under IUCN’s system of defined in the Millennium Ecosystem
protected area categories. The paper preserves the Assessment, 2003), including buffering
focus on biodiversity conservation, which is strongly biodiversity from the impacts of climate
implicit in the current text, but makes this focus more change.
explicit, while also broadening the language describing 9 To maintain these areas free of modern
the management objectives for wilderness protected infrastructure, including roads, pipelines, power
areas. This paper also provides some additional clarity lines, cell phone towers, other permanent
on the degree of acceptable human use of wilderness structures, low flying aircraft etc.), preferably with
areas, a question that has been central in the no motorized access (or highly regulated
international wilderness debate since the passage of motorized access where strictly necessary and
laws and policies defining wilderness protected areas. consistent with the biological objectives listed
above);
Current Definition: Large area of unmodified or 9 To maintain these areas free of development and
slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its natural industrial extractive activity, including but not
character and influence, without permanent of limited to mining, hydropower development, oil
significant human habitation, which is protected and and gas extraction, and agricultural development
managed so as to preserve its natural condition. including livestock grazing.
49
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 Maintenance and protection of viable and of the original extent of the ecosystem, complete
functional populations of native biodiversity, or near-complete native faunal and floral
including migratory species, intact predator-prey assemblages, and large mammals and top
systems, genetic diversity within and between predators.
species, evolutionary processes, and functioning
ecological processes; 9 Wilderness areas should be of a sufficient size to
9 Maintenance of regulatory ecosystem services. protect biodiversity, and to maintain ecological
processes and ecosystem services. Ideally they
Secondary: should also be of sufficient size to buffer against
9 Sustainable use by traditional indigenous the impacts of climate change, and to maintain
communities living in low densities; evolutionary processes.
9 Scientific research;
9 Spiritual inspiration; 9 The area should offer outstanding opportunities
9 Ecologically and culturally sensitive tourism and for solitude, enjoyed once the area has been
recreation; and reached, by simple, quiet, and non-intrusive means
9 Educational activities. of travel (i.e. non-motorized, or highly regulated
motorized access where strictly necessary and
Guidance for selection/distinguishing consistent with the biological objectives listed
features above).
Current Guidance from 1994 Guidelines
9 The area should possess high-natural quality, be 9 Inappropriate or excessive human use or presence
governed primarily by the forces of nature, with in a wilderness area will decrease wilderness values
human disturbance substantially absent, and be and ultimately will prevent an area from meeting
likely to continue to display those attributes if the biological and cultural criteria listed above.
managed as proposed. However, human presence should not be the
determining factor in deciding whether to
9 The area should contain significant ecological, establish a wilderness area. They key objectives are
geological, physiographic, or other features of biological intactness, and the absence of
scientific, educational, scenic or historical value. permanent infrastructure, extractive industries,
agriculture, motorized use, and other indicators of
9 The area should offer outstanding opportunities modern or lasting technology.
for solitude, enjoyed once the area has been
reached, by simple, quiet, and non-intrusive means 9 Somewhat disturbed areas that are nonetheless
of travel (i.e. non-motorized). capable of restoration to a wilderness state over
time, and smaller areas that might play an
9 The area should be of sufficient size to make important role in a larger wilderness protection
practical such preservation and use strategy should qualify for a wilderness
designation if the management objectives for
those areas are otherwise consistent with the
Proposed revisions submitted by the objectives set out above.
IUCN-WCPA Wilderness Task Force
9 Wilderness areas should be characterized by a high
degree of intactness: containing a large percentage
50
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.3. Category II
Craig Groves
Current Definition: Natural area of land and/or sea, 9 Incorporate the notion of ecological integrity but
designated to: (a) protect the ecological integrity of one be sure to include native species composition and
or more ecosystems for future generations, b) exclude ecological function as part of integrity
exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of
designation of the area, and c) provide a foundation for Preliminary Recommendation: Ecosystem protection is
spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor an ambiguous term. I would suggest modifying the
opportunities, all of which must be environmentally primary objective to indicate that these areas are
and culturally compatible. managed primarily for conserving and restoring the
native elements of biodiversity (genes, species,
Objectives communities), their underlying ecological structure,
Current primary Objective: protected area managed and environmental processes that support these native
mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation (from species. Non-consumptive forms of environmental
1994 Guidelines) education and recreation that are consistent and
supportive of the first objective would also be part of
Proposed Revisions to Primary Objective7: the primary management objective. It would be
9 Exclude commercial exploitation as part of the possible to simplify the primary objective as one of
primary objective biodiversity conservation and non-consumptive forms
9 Add non-extractive and non-consumptive uses to of education and recreation, but it would be necessary
the primary objective to then define biodiversity conservation as having the
9 Focus on natural or native ecosystem protection three components of composition, structure, and
(as opposed to ecosystems that contain non-native function and define those terms with some specificity.
species)
9 Add the notion of ecologically intact ecosystems Other Objectives: (from 1994 guidelines)
or healthy ecosystems (meaning that they should 9 To protect natural and scenic areas of national and
contain the full component of native species or we international significance for spiritual, scientific,
should be working toward restoring the full recreational, or tourist purposes
component as well as functional ecological 9 To perpetuate, in as natural a state as possible,
processes such as natural flow regimes or natural representative examples of physiographic regions,
fire regimes) biotic communities, genetic resources, and species,
9 These areas should provide benefits to local to provide ecological stability and diversity
communities 9 To manage visitor use for inspirational,
9 Recreation should not be a primary objective educational, cultural, and recreational purposes at
because of the difficulties that managers can a level which will maintain the area in a natural or
encounter in trying to meet both the primary near natural state
objectives of ecosystem protection and recreation; 9 To eliminate and thereafter prevent exploitation or
could add the qualifier of passive recreation occupation inimical to the purposes of designation
9 Change ecosystem protection to landscape 9 To maintain respect for the ecological,
protection and define what we mean by landscape geomorphological, sacred, or aesthetic attributes
(associated landforms, species, habitats) which warranted designation
9 Strict controls on human settlement 9 To take into account the needs of indigenous
9 Allow as a primary objective sustainable uses by people, including subsistence resource use, in so
indigenous communities far as these will not adversely affect the other
objectives of management
51
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Protected Areas to a goal of increasing fish yields geomorphological sites are of special spiritual,
at the expense of other conservation objectives; in scientific, educational, recreational, or tourist
contrast, others like the idea of including significance.
ecosystem services as a secondary objective if a 9 The area should be large enough to contain one or
systematic effort is made to economically value more entire ecosystem not materially altered by
these services current human occupation or exploitation.
9 Resource extraction is an inappropriate objectives
9 May be a need for more intensive management to Proposed Revisions to Distinguishing Features7:
attain natural resource objectives 9 Support of surrounding (human communities)
9 Representative assemblages of native species at including in some cases co-management of natural
densities sufficient to allow them to play their resources
ecological role 9 Area capable of contributing to a network of
9 Add something specific about maintaining protected areas that, in turn, represent a system of
diversity at different levels – community, species, sources and sinks for wildlife
and genetic 9 Bring in the notion of contributing to a
9 Consider adding language about ecosystem complementary (in terms of representing different
integrity and resilience ecosystem types) network of protected areas (e.g.,
9 Contribute to poverty alleviation and human well we don’t need more areas that conserve “rocks
being (bringing in the Millennium Development and ice” in the western US) (could also be stated
Goals) in terms of inadequately conserved species and
9 Bring in concept of conserving migration routes as ecosystems, bringing in the concept of gap
a secondary objective analysis)
9 Incorporate language on ecological function and 9 Creation of area does not displace indigenous
integrity people or disturb their legal rights
9 These areas should be maintained and managed 9 Complementarity is good but we also need
for their natural values whether or not they are replication in terms of areas that conserve species
“profitable” to society; incorporate the notion that and ecosystems
society has an obligation to conserve these areas 9 Minimal chances of successful invasions by non-
because of their natural values native species
9 The potential to maintain or restore naturalness in
Preliminary Recommendations: Add an objective (to terms of community structure, function, and
the original 1994 objectives) related to maintaining composition
viable and ecologically functional populations of native 9 Contribute to the global protected areas network
species and the ecological integrity of communities and in terms of species and ecosystem representation
ecosystems for their long-term persistence. (We can 9 Potential for protecting the resources from future
define viability, ecologically functional, and integrity in threats
some detail if necessary.) Add another objective related 9 Drop the idea of national significance because it
to the contribution that these areas make within a cannot be adequately defined or defended
regional network of conservation areas including the 9 Incorporate language on the conservation
ability to conserve wide-ranging species, linkage or significance of proposed area – its under-
corridor areas, and regional ecological processes that representation or non-representation in a system
often cannot be conserved adequately by any individual of protected areas
protected area. Revise the third objective to indicate 9 Include not only the species or ecosystem (the
that visitor use should be managed so as to not cause targets of conservation) as part of the selection
any significant biological or ecological degradation to criteria, but also the ecological processes on which
the natural resources of the area. Modify the original those targets depend
second objective to remove the ambiguous language
on diversity and stability. Modify the first objective to Preliminary Recommendations: The first (1994)
include conservation as one of the purposes. distinguishing feature should be modified to include
the idea of representative examples of biological and
Distinguishing Features environmental (including the physical and biophysical
From 1994 guidelines environment) features as identified through regional,
9 The area should contain a representative example ecoregional, national, or continental conservation plans
of major natural regions, features or scenery, or assessments and to incorporate the notion of native
where plant and animal species, habitats and plant and animal species. The second distinguishing
52
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
feature should be revised to indicate that the area 9 Improving the management capacity, developing
should be of sufficient size and ecological quality so as training curricula, establishing competency
to maintain ecological functions and processes that will standards
allow the native species and communities to persist for 9 Lack of compliance by tour operators
the long-term with minimal management intervention. 9 Trend towards privatization of management of
A third distinguishing feature would be the these areas
contribution that the area makes to a regional network 9 Political perception of resources being “locked
of protected areas including the possibility of serving up”
as a linkage area or corridor between existing 9 Shifting baselines of what is regarded as “natural”
conservation lands and waters. Yet a fourth
distinguishing feature could be that the composition, Preliminary Recommendations: These challenges could
structure, and function of biodiversity is to a great be consolidated into a few key threats or management
degree in a “natural” state or has the potential to be issues.
restored to such a state (we will probably need to put
in some language on naturalness). Finally, we should Role in the landscape/seascape
consider a feature which articulates that the potential These category II areas should be more strictly
or opportunity exists to manage threats to the area so protected areas where ecological functions and native
as to minimize the chances that the natural features of species composition are intact; surrounding landscapes
the area will be significantly degraded over the long can have varying degrees of consumptive or non-
term. consumptive uses but should serve as buffers to the
protected areas and their functions
Challenges7
9 Will private ownership or foundation ownership Preliminary Recommendations: There are two
of land/water preclude an area from qualifying for thoughts about this role, one looking inward to the
category II area and the second looking outward. The former role
9 Applying greater rigor to the definition of this is identifying the species, ecosystems, or processes that
category the area is contributing to conserving on a broader
9 Displacement of indigenous people, providing landscape or regional scale. The latter thought relates
alternative livelihoods to indigenous people to management issues that occur across the broader
9 Types and levels of allowable recreation landscape beyond the protected area boundary which
9 Commercialization of lands in this category must be effectively dealt with so that the protected area
9 Compensation for displaced fishermen in marine itself will have a greater probability of persisting over
protected areas the long term. (This same notion is captured in the
9 Providing alternative food sources for subsistence concept of a buffer zone.)
fisheries
9 Shifting baseline of what we consider a natural Case Studies
ecosystem Suggested Case Studies for revisions:
9 Mariculture 9 Yellowstone National Park (US)
9 Managing natural resource extraction 9 Kruger National Park (South Africa)
9 Building and maintaining adequate monitoring, 9 Kakadu National Park (Australia)
assessment, and report systems to improve 9 (Latin America example)
management effectiveness 9 (Asia example)
9 Building good governance systems and
appropriate “ownership” in the management
process of these areas
53
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The current use of the category is reviewed and some 9 Natural geomorphologic features: such as
changes made to emphasise the importance of waterfalls, cliffs, craters, fossil beds, sand
biodiversity in selection, clarify what is meant by dunes, rock forms, valleys and marine features
“natural monument” and discuss how category III such as sea mounts or coral formations
protected areas fit into national protected area systems.
9 Culturally-influenced natural features: such
Objective as cave dwellings and ancient tracks
Proposed primary objective
9 To protect specific outstanding natural features 9 Natural-cultural sites: such as the many
and their associated ecology forms of sacred natural sites (sacred trees or
groves, springs, waterfalls, mountains etc of
Other possible objectives of management: importance to one or more faith groups
(Other possible objectives are applicable to the extent
that they do not undermine the primary objective.) 9 Cultural sites with associated ecology:
9 To provide biodiversity protection in landscape or where protection of a cultural site also protects
seascapes that have otherwise undergone major significant and important biodiversity
changes8
9 To protect specific natural sites with spiritual and Biodiversity values of category III protected areas fall
/ or cultural values where these also have into two main types:
biodiversity values
9 To facilitate traditional spiritual and cultural 9 Biodiversity that is uniquely related to the
activities related to the site ecological conditions associated with the
9 To provide opportunities for public appreciation, natural feature – such as the spray zones of a
research, education and interpretation waterfall, the ecological conditions in caves or
9 To deliver benefits consistent to the other plant species confined to cliffs.
objectives of management to resident or local
communities 9 Biodiversity that is surviving because the
presence of cultural or spiritual values at the
Distinguishing features site have maintained a natural or semi-natural
Category III protected areas are relatively small sites habitat in what is otherwise a modified
that focus on a single prominent natural feature and its ecosystem – such as some sacred natural sites
associated ecology, rather than on a broader ecosystem. or historical sites that have associated natural
They are managed in much the same way as category areas (e.g. some of the Mayan ruins in Central
II. America and Angkor Watt in Cambodia). In
these cases the two key criteria for inclusion as
The term “natural” as used here can refer to both a protected area will be (i) value of the site as a
wholly natural features (the commonest use) but also contribution to broad scale biodiversity
sometimes features that have been influenced by conservation and (ii) prioritisation of
humans. In the latter case these sites should also always biodiversity conservation within management
have important associated biodiversity values, which plans.
should be reflected as a priority in their management
objectives if they are to be classified as a protected area Category III has been suggested as providing a natural
rather than an historical or spiritual site. Potential management approach for many sacred natural sites,
category III protected areas include: such as sacred groves or trees. Although sacred natural
sites are found in all categories and can benefit from a
wide range of management approaches, they may be
particular suited to management as natural
8 Noting that protection of specific cultural sites can often provide
monuments.
havens of natural or semi-natural habitat in areas that have otherwise
undergone substantial modification – e.g. ancient trees around
temples
54
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Category III is likely to be a relatively uncommon centrepiece of management. Not all natural
designation as compared to other categories (and monuments are managed as category III; for instance
indeed tightening the criteria for inclusion may result in the Grand Canyon in Arizona is managed as category
a reduction in the overall number recognised as II, despite being one of the most famous natural
protected areas). monuments in the world, because the size of the
protected area and associated management fits better
Challenges with the category II model. Category III could be
9 It will sometimes be difficult to ascertain the defined as areas that might have been category II but
conservation values of category III sites, are too small to provide effective ecosystem values.
particularly where these have a cultural element
and in cases where there may be pressure to Category III differs from the other categories in
accept them within the protected areas system to the following ways:
help protect cultural or spiritual values – managers
Category There is no particular stipulation that
of national protected area systems will often have
Ia category III should be found in
to make judgement calls in these cases
wilderness areas; indeed many natural
Category
monuments are preserved in areas that are
9 Not all natural monuments are permanent – while Ib
otherwise cultural or fragmented
some sacred trees have survived for a thousand
years or more they will eventually die – indeed Category The emphasis of category III
many trees are considered to be sacred in part II management is not on protection of the
because they are already very old. It is not clear whole ecosystem, but of a particular
what happens to a category III protected area is its natural features; otherwise III is similar to
key natural monument dies or degrades II and managed in much the same way
Category The emphasis of category III
9 It is sometimes difficult to draw the boundaries
IV management is not on protection of the
between a natural monument and cultural site,
key species or habitats, but of a particular
particularly where archaeological remains are
natural features
included within category III
Category Category III is not confined to cultural
Role in the landscape / seascape V landscapes, and management practices
9 Category III is really a category to protect the will probably focus more on preservation
unusual rather than to provide logical components than in the case of category V
in a broad scale approach to conservation, so that Category Category III is not aimed at sustainable
their role in landscape or ecoregional strategies is VI resource use
sometimes opportunistic rather than planned.
55
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.5. Category IV
Nigel Dudley and Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend
This paper reviews the definition of category IV particular species. Three broad management
protected areas and proposes a small but significant approaches may be suitable:
change, to switch the emphasis from the process of
management as in the 1994 guidelines more broadly Protection of natural or semi-natural ecosystem
towards the overall management objectives, fragment: protection will aim to secure the concerned
particularly as they relate to protection of species. The species and their habitats (which may be temporary,
proposed new guidance is outlined first and discussion such as migration stop-over places or breeding
of the changes follows. grounds), with monitoring usually needed to ensure
these survive over time. Examples9 include:
Objectives
Proposed primary objective: Conservation of species 9 Reserve aimed to preserve wild relatives of
and habitats in fragments of ecosystems pineapple and custard apple in Paraguay (WWF
and IUCN 1994)
Other possible objectives of management: 9 Fragments of rainforest conserved to protect
(Other possible objectives are applicable to the extent threatened lemur species in Madagascar
that they do not undermine the primary objective.) 9 Bogs in managed forests in Finland
56
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ecosystem has been created or at least substantially Role in the landscape / seascape
modified as a result of management. Examples include: Category IV protected areas frequently play a role in
“plugging the gaps” in conservation mosaics by
9 Maintenance of culturally-defined grassland protecting key species or habitats in ecosystems that
habitats in Minorca Biosphere Reserve (Spain) have otherwise been substantially altered. They could,
(Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004) for instance, be used to:
9 Management of cork oak forests in Tunisia
(Moussouris, and Regatto 1999) 9 Protect fragments of remaining habitat and
9 Maintenance of Tembawang fruit gardens in western associated species that risk disappearing for a
Borneo variety of reasons.
What “management” means in this context: “active 9 Secure stepping stones (places for migratory
management” is taken here to mean that the overall species to feed and rest) or breeding sites for
functioning of the ecosystem is being modified by, for migratory species
instance, halting natural succession, providing
supplementary food sources or artificially creating 9 Provide management strategies in buffer zones
microhabitats in other words something more than around or corridors between more strictly
removing artificial threats, such as anti-poaching protected areas that are acceptable to local
measures or even in most cases removal of invasive communities and other stakeholders.
species as these activities can and do take place in
virtually all protected areas in any of the IUCN 9 Maintain those species that have become
categories and are therefore not diagnostic of a dependent on cultural landscapes where their
particular category. original habitats have disappeared or been altered
Whether or not they are actively managed, category IV What makes category IV unique?
protected areas will generally be accessible to humans, Allocation of category is a matter of choice, depending
either as a result of their involvement in management on long-term management objectives, sometimes often
itself and/or through recreational visits. with a number of alternative options that could be
applied in any one site. The following table outlines
Challenges some of the main reasons why category IV may be the
9 Many category IV protected areas by their nature chosen in specific situations vis-à-vis other categories
exist in crowded landscapes and seascapes, where that pursue similar objectives.
human pressure is comparatively greater than in
more remote areas, both in terms of potential Category IV differs from the other categories in
illegal use and visitor pressure the following ways:
Category Category IV protected areas are not
9 The category IV protected areas that rely on
Ia strictly protected from human
regular management intervention need appropriate
interference, nor do they prioritise
resources from the management authority, and
scientific research, although this may
can be relatively expensive to maintain unless
take place as a secondary activity
management is undertaken voluntarily by local
communities or other actors (with or without Category Category IV protected areas can not be
economic interests involved). Ib described as “wilderness”, as the word is
used by IUCN. Many will be subject to
9 Because they protect only a sub-ecosystem, the management intervention that is inimical
long term future of category IV protected areas to the concept of category Ib wilderness
remains in doubt, necessitating careful monitoring areas; those that remain un-managed are
and an even greater-than-usual emphasis on likely to be too small to fulfil the aims of
overall ecosystem approaches and the use of Ib.
compatible management purposes in other parts
Category Category IV protected areas conserve
of the landscape or seascape.
II fragments of ecosystems, whereas
category II protect areas aim to conserve
areas that are large enough to be fully
functional as ecosystems. Given that very
few protected areas are large enough to
57
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
protect entire ecosystems in all their categorising protected areas in Madagascar define
aspects, the distinction between II and category IV through its name in the 1994 guidelines –
IV is partly a matter of objective – i.e. habitat/species management area – to include any (often
whether the aim is to protect the entire small) reserves set up to protect particular species: e.g.
ecosystem (II) or more focused to small woodland fragments to protect lemurs. Many are
protect a few key species or habitats (IV). not managed through intervention, but do not fall
obviously into other categories (not being strictly
Category The objective of category IV are of
protected, an ecosystem, a natural monument,
III more “biological” nature than the ones
culturally defined or set up for sustainable use)
of category III, more morphologically or
(Borrini-Feyerabend and Dudley 2005). We came to
culturally oriented
the opinion that their approach made sense. Similarly,
Category Category IV protected areas aim often in a 2005 assessment of protected area management
V quite specifically to protect identified effectiveness in Finland, the problem of finding IUCN
target species and habitats whereas categories to fit small, unmanaged nature reserves was
category V aims to protect overall also identified (Gilligan et al 2005).
landscapes and seascapes that have value
to biodiversity. Category V protected 2. To address a conceptual anomaly in the
areas will – generally speaking –be larger objectives: currently category IV is the only category
than category IV and unequivocally (or at least the most prominent case) where objective is
possess socio-cultural characteristics that defined partly by the process of management rather than
may be absent in category IV. the desired end-point. “Management intervention” is
not actually an objective, which is instead conservation
Category Management interventions in category
of species and habitats, with management actions being
VI IV protected areas are primarily aimed at
a response to achieve this goal. We felt the category was
maintaining species or habitats while in
being artificially constrained and that the clarifying text
category VI protected areas they are
did not necessarily equate to what the original name
aimed at using resources sustainably. As
implied (or to the 1978 equivalent).
with category V, category VI protected
areas are generally larger than category
We concluded that the defining issue was less the form
IV.
of management action as the values of the areas to be
managed and the objective of management: and that
Likely impact of the changes what was implied was that category IV applied to
This proposed change in the definition of category IV protected areas that host valuable species and habitats
would probably not necessitate changing the would never be complete, self-sustaining ecosystems.
classification of many protected areas that are already Moreover, when category IV aims explicitly at
under category IV. Some large areas, hardly managed protecting fractions of ecosystems in order to conserve
and merely protected under a category IV label may particular species or habitat types, then management
find a better home under category II or V, but this is intervention are often necessary. However, the new
not a problem related to this new definition. The more definition of the category would not eliminate those
interesting changes are likely to come in terms of sites where a decision had been taken to protect a
additional protected areas being classified as IV, for habitat or ecosystem fragment without any further
example many small nature reserves that currently fall active intervention.
outside the IUCN classification.
In the proposed new definition of category IV, the
Summary of and reasons for primary objective has therefore been modified to stress
proposed changes habitat and species conservation, and the other
The key change being proposed is to put the focus of objectives have been adjusted to reflect this. An
management on conservation of particular habitats and additional possible objective has been added reflecting
species and not to insist that all category IV protected the historical-cultural values of some management
areas require active management intervention. There systems (for instance coppice woodland). In
were two important reasons: accordance with this new interpretation, the section on
distinguishing features lists three different types of
1. To provide a home for a proportion of the management intervention that might be suitable for
protected areas that it is currently difficult to category IV.
categorise: for instance, the people working on
58
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note about terminology: we have been using Thanks to Sue Stolton for comments on an earlier
“ecosystem” to imply something larger and more draft and for providing additional examples.
complex than “habitat”, implying that an ecosystem
would often be composed of many different habitats:
for instance the Serengeti ecosystem consists of
savannah grassland, various forms of woodland, the
Mara River, permanent and temporary pools, kopjes
etc. This seems in accord with the interpretation
implied by the use of the categories, particularly
category II. However, we will need to define these
terms, probably in a glossary. Most current definitions
do not specify size: for instance the Concise Oxford
Dictionary says “a biological community of interacting
organisms and their physical environment” and other
sources define ecosystems as small as ponds.
59
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.6. Category V
Adrian Phillips and Jessica Brown
60
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 To provide a framework which will underpin There are long term physical threats, like climate
community participation in the management of change. There are the pressures that arise from
valued landscapes or seascapes and the natural burgeoning populations or changing lifestyles. And
resources and heritage values that they contain; there are short term challenges, like out-of-date or
9 To contribute to bio-regional scale conservation non-existent management plans or the need to develop
and sustainable development; staff capacity.
9 To encourage the understanding and conservation
of the genetic material contained in domesticated There are also some challenges that are particularly
crops and livestock; relevant to this category:
9 To help ensure that the associative and non-
material values of the landscape and traditional 9 In landscapes that are shaped by people, what are
land use practices are recognised and respected; the limits of acceptable change? For example,
and should farming or pastoralism be subsidised to
9 To act as models of sustainability, both for the protect traditional farm and/or pastoral
purposes of the people and the area, and so that landscapes and dependent biodiversity? And what
lessons can be learnt for wider application. kind and scale of economic development is
compatible with the aims of the category?
Distinguishing features
Category V protected areas should have the following 9 Category V’s emphasis on the interactions of
essential characteristics, which should be of national or people and nature over time raises the conceptual
international significance: question: at what point on the temporal
9 Landscape and/or coastal and island seascape of continuum should management focus? And, in an
high and/or distinct scenic quality; Significant area established to protect values based on
associated habitats, and flora and fauna; traditional management systems, what happens
9 Evidence that a harmonious interaction between when traditions change?
people and nature has endured over time, and still
has integrity; 9 Since social and economic considerations are
9 Unique or traditional land-use patterns, e.g., as integral to the concept, how can one define and
evidenced in human settlements; measures of performance in these sectors? How
9 Valued for the provision of environmental should these be weighed against for example
services (e.g., watershed protection); biodiversity indicators?
9 Valued for the sustainable use of natural
resources; 9 If people are the stewards of the landscape, how
9 Unique or traditional social organisations, as much should decision-making be left to them and
evidenced in local customs, livelihoods and beliefs; how far should a wider public interest prevail
and when there is conflict?
9 Opportunities for public enjoyment through
recreation and tourism consistent with life style 9 How is category V distinguished from sustainable
and economic activities. management in the wider landscape? As an area
with exceptional values? As an example of best
The following are desirable characteristics: practice in management?
9 Suitability for scientific research; Important for
education; 9 There are still only a few examples of the
9 Recognition by artists of all kinds and in cultural application of category V in coastal and marine
traditions (now and in the past); settings where a “protected seascape” approach
9 Important for agro-biodiversity (domesticated could be the most appropriate management
livestock and crops); and option.
9 Potential for ecological and /or landscape
restoration. 9 Agrobiodiversity is under higher threat of
extinction than wild biodiversity in some regions
Challenges of the world. What should be the responsibility of
Like all categories of protected areas, category V Category V in this respect given that the CBD
protected areas face a range of challenges. There are definition reflects the dynamic nature of
underlying ones like lack of political support, the need biodiversity and the continuum of biodiversity,
for community engagement, and financial shortages. wild and domesticated?
61
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 Some have criticised category V as not being a characteristics of agro-biodiversity, which can be
‘true’ protected area. How can the full value of conserved only by maintaining those traditional
this approach to the protection of biodiversity, systems.
environmental services, cultural and scenic values
be demonstrated? 9 When conservation objectives are to be met over a
large area of land (e.g., to maintain habitat over
Role in the landscape/seascape large areas for top predators) and there is a need
Generally, category V protected areas play an to accommodate a range of ownership patterns,
important role in conservation at the landscape scale, governance model, and land uses. In such cases of
particularly as part of a mosaic of protected area landscape-scale conservation, category V
designations and conservation mechanisms. A range of protected areas are uniquely suited to protect
geographical relationships between category V and portions of the larger landscape fitting the
other protected areas is possible, and which grade into appropriate criteria. Moreover, because category V
one another: is a relatively flexible model, in some situations it
may be the only politically feasible option.
9 In some cases, an extensive category V protected
area may include one or more small reserves for 9 A category V protected area which forms part of
strict protection. Many protected areas in Europe such a large-scale scheme should still meet the
exhibit this feature; above criteria of distinguishing features. However,
the category V area is clearly of greater strategic
9 An important function of some category V value to conservation and sustainable land use
protected areas is to act as a buffer around a larger when it is part of a region-wide, systematic
core of a more strictly protected area. As a buffer, approach to the protection of biodiversity, and is
a Protected Landscape/Seascape can help ensure an element in a mosaic of protected areas that may
that land use activities do not threaten the integrity include a variety of categories.
of the core protected area, which is normally
defined as categories I-IV; What makes category V unique?
Allocation of category is a matter of choice, depending
9 In some regions, a category V protected area is the on long-term management objectives, sometimes often
most suitable or even the only available option to with a number of alternative options that could be
act as a link between several other protected areas, applied in any one site. The following table outlines
supporting the ecological benefits of connectivity some of the main reasons why category V is unique.
and strengthening linkages within the broader
landscape; and Category V differs from the other categories in the
following ways:
9 Finally the most ambitious role for Protected Category Human intervention is allowed or
Landscapes is to be “building blocks” within large- Ia necessary. While scientific research is
scale, regional or sub-regional schemes for advisable, category V does not prioritise
conservation, helping to create a corridor for scientific research, though it can offer
wildlife and deliver the benefits of greater unique opportunities to study interactions
connectivity over maybe several hundred between people and nature.
kilometres. Examples of this kind of bio-regional Category Category V protected areas cannot be
planning which include category V areas can be Ib described as “wilderness”, as the word is
found in many regions of the world. (Bennett used by IUCN, but we note that this is a
2003 and Bennett and Mulongoy 2006). cultural construct (as is the term
“landscape”). Many will be subject to
Category V offers unique contributions to management intervention that is inimical
conservation of biological diversity. In particular: to the concept of category Ib wilderness
areas. These are typically lived-in
9 Biodiversity that has evolved in association with landscapes where the interaction of
cultural management systems can only survive if people and nature over time defines the
those management systems are maintained. special values of this landscape.
62
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
63
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
interconnected protected areas systems of Europe. In the Sacred Valley of the Incas, Peru, El Parque
The Parcs naturels régionaux, which currently cover de la Papa (Potato Park) is an example of a
12% of mainland France are Category V. community-conserved area in which Quechua
Similarly, the Alpine Network of Protected Areas, communities and NGOs are working to maintain
supported by the Alpine Convention, is a good the character of this cultural landscape in order to
example of international ecological network protect its rich biodiversity (including agro-
including a number of large Category V areas. biodiversity and wild biodiversity), habitats
(including high mountain native forests, grasslands
9 The Batanes Protected Landscape and Seascape, a and wetlands) and cultural sites, while
category V protected area in the Philippines that safeguarding traditional knowledge, and
encompasses an archipelago of islands, was strengthening local livelihoods and food systems
proposed for designation as a World Heritage (Argumedo in Phillips 2002).
Cultural Landscape in 2004. Batanes is a volcanic
landscape with dramatic geological features that is 9 Brazil’s system of protected areas includes the
rich in biodiversity, including many endemic Area de Proteçao Ambiental (Environmental
species, as well as cultural values including Protection Area) or APA, a designation similar to
archaeological sites and architecture unique to this category V. An example is the Cananéia-Iguape-
region (Villalon in Brown et al 2005). Peruibe APA, which encompasses an important
extension of remaining Atlantic Forest, and one of
9 The upland meadows of the White Carpathians the most productive marine nurseries in the world
Landscape Protected Area, a trans-boundary within an estuary-lagoon system formed by a
category V site in the Czech Republic and barrier island. It is an important feeding area for
Slovakia, support a rich diversity of threatened and migratory birds and rich in cultural values
endangered orchid species. To maintain these including archaeological sites and the living
meadow eco-systems protected area managers and cultural heritage of the caiçaras people (Lino and
local NGOs are working with local farmers to Britto de Moraes in Brown et al 2005).
continue traditional hay-making practices and re-
introduce sheep grazing (Kundrata and Huskova
in Brown et al 2005).
9
Protected areas Outside protected areas
V
IV
Line shows degree of
VI environmental
II/III modification
Ia/Ib
64
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
65
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.7. Category VI
Cláudio C. Maretti11
This paper reviews the definition of category VI, local natural resources management systems that are
keeping the essences of the previous definition, sustainable, close to that or with room to be improved
looking for a stronger concept in this new definition, towards the sustainability.
keeping the classification orientation towards
objectives, skipping from odd particularities, and trying Those elements should be enough to distinguish the
to clarify some strong linkages and consequences of protected areas of this category from other areas of
this approach. The proposed new guidance is outlined natural resources exploitation (as ordinary forestry or
first and discussion of the changes follows. fishing areas, settlements of natural resources gatherers
(collectors, extrativists) or farmers, etc.). The nature
Objectives conservation is above all the superior objective of
Primary objective: To protect natural ecosystems and [nature] protected areas, and intentions or practices of
to promote the sustainable use of natural resources, natural resources management just with conservation
when the conservation and the sustainable use are concerns are not enough. Or, in other terms: if nature
mutually beneficial. conservation is not the major objective, the area would
not be a [nature] protected area; and if the nature
To better understand the primary objective conservation is not aimed in synergy with the
The two elements of this protected area category – promotion of sustainable use, the (protected) area
protection of natural ecosystems and promotion of the would not fit in this category.
sustainable use – should neither be understood as
separated, nor competitive or conflicting. They should Possible Complementary Objectives
be considered as two parts of the same main objective. 9 To protect in situ biological diversity in its
Only when they are intended to be synergetic this complete perspective, including genetic, species
category should apply. The sustainability includes at and ecosystems diversity, as well as other natural
least the ecological, economic and social (includes features, including physical elements, landscapes.
cultural) dimensions, as central part of this category
definition12. 9 To promote sustainable use of natural resources,
considering at least its ecological, economic and
Those elements are mutually beneficial, for instance: social dimensions – including social and economic
when local communities (including indigenous peoples) benefits to the local communities when these are
have their livelihoods based upon the natural resources included.
or their cultural reproduction depends on the natural
ecosystems; or when the simple presence of local social 9 To facilitate inter-generational security for local
groups is an ally to the resistance against new-coming communities’ livelihoods – therefore to facilitate
more threatening economic activities; or when exist for them to become sustainable.
11 With support from Olatz Cases and Ticiana Imbroisi and 9 To collaborate in the aegis of cultural, economic
participation of some 70 other colleagues, on behalf or the IUCN- or other social elements or aspects associated to
WCPA Task Force on Protected Area Categories with additional
input from other forums, such as RedParques (FAO) (RedParques, the elements of nature, by direct use or any kind
FAO. 2006. Seminario-Taller sobre Categoría VI de la UICN: Áreas of cultural links, as understood or defined by the
Protegidas con Recursos Manejados en América Latina. Santiago del different cultural approaches, beliefs, or cosmos-
Chile, FAO. (CD de documentos de trabajo del proyecto
FAO/OAPN, Red Latinoamericana de Cooperación Técnica en visions (world-visions, cosmologies), either
Parques Nacionales, otras Áreas Protegidas, Flora y Fauna Silvestres. concrete or not.
Oficina Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe,
Santiago, Chile.); Ponce, C. 2006. Documento base para el Foro
Electrónico sobre la Categoría VI de la UICN: Área Protegida con 9 To facilitate the easier realisation of relationships
Recursos Manejado (10–28 de abril de 2006). Santiago del Chile, between humankind and nature, and the social
FAO. (Documento de trabajo de la Red Latinoamericana de
Cooperación Técnica en Parques Nacionales, otras Áreas Protegidas, understanding of their importance and gamut,
Flora y Fauna Silvestres. Oficina Regional.)
12
including ecological, cultural (mythic, mystic,
As this classification is based on objectives, this item should be historical, aesthetic appreciation etc.), economic,
understood as the intention of the establishment of any protected
areas of this category, instead of the previous condition or the and other social dimensions.
current situation in the declaration
66
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 To contribute to the local (mostly when related to economic benefits to the local communities are
the local communities users depending on the necessary part of the management objectives, as well as
protected natural resources), regional and national their social (including cultural and economic)
sustainable development. reproduction, in order to keep or achieve the
sustainability in the use of natural resources.14
9 To facilitate scientific research and environmental
monitoring, mostly when related to the In the case of existing systems of natural resource
conservation and sustainable use of natural management somehow close to the sustainability
resources. condition, mostly when related to local communities,
their presence may be per se already an important
9 To develop public education and appreciation of element for the nature conservation – even more when
the characteristics of nature, or the ecosystems the protected areas do not benefit from the good
concerned – and possibly the management presence of governmental institutions or when more
systems, when not denied by the users. predatory, non-sustainable uses are threatening to take
over. Nevertheless, the objective of this category is
9 To collaborate in the delivery of benefits to related to the achievement of ecological, economic and
people, mostly local communities, living in or near cultural sustainability, and it demands some equilibrium
to the designated protected area. of rights (usually including entitlements and similar
concepts) and duties (or responsibilities).
9 To facilitate recreation and other non-harming
social human uses. Distinguishing Features
9 The category VI protected areas, different from
To better understand the possible complementary other, have the sustainable use of natural
objectives resources as a means to the nature conservation,
Cultural linkages or relationships are particularly very together and in synergy with other actions more
relevant to category VI, but could apply to the others common to the other categories, as the protection.
as well. However, cultural, economic or other social
elements or aspects could be part of the conservation 9 The category VI protected areas look more
objects of category VI protected areas, mostly when towards sets of ecosystems and habitats as
linked to the nature elements, by direct use or any kind conservation objects, together with associated
of cultural links. cultural values and natural resources management
systems, more than towards individual or
Conservation and social objectives must be particular features or species. Therefore, the size
compatible, mutually beneficial. On the one hand, the of this category protected areas tends to be larger
objectives of nature conservation should respect the (rather than smaller).
cultural diversity and eventual needs for social
promotion. Particularly important for this category are 9 Because of the characteristics of this category,
the natural elements that support the social there are strong possibilities for a gamut of
reproduction and the cultural diversity. On the other systems of protected areas and natural resources
hand, whether the pre-existing or potential management.
management systems are traditional or not, the aim of
the category VI protected areas is in the search of the Role in the landscape
complete sustainability. Particularly important for this 9 The category VI protected areas are particularly
category is the promotion of cultural behaviours that adapted to the application of landscape
collaborate to the nature conservation13. approaches (Brown et al 2005).
Local communities are among the most important 9 This is an appropriate category to the large natural
social actors with possible relation to this protected large natural spaces, such as tropical forests,
area category. Whenever is the case, social and deserts and other arid lands, coastal and high seas,
sea mountains, boreal forests, cold lands, etc. (for
13 Particularly to the protected areas of this category, any creation
example the mid Pacific, mid Atlantic, Amazon
(selection, design, public consultation) or management actions shall
start from the recognition of local communities rights (as also
applied to other categories). Nevertheless, this is an issue more 14 The term ‘local communities’ is used here in the sense of people
related to the national definitions, or international agreements, than living in local or small places (not cities), with some communal or
to this category specific role in nature conservation. (This is just a collective and non-governmental sense in the practical customary
matter of scope, and brings no restrictions to the definition, decision making processes. They could be village, rural, “traditional”
demands and debates on the here mentioned issue. or indigenous peoples (see Maretti, 2002, v. 2, and 2003.)
67
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
biome, Congo basin, Siberia, Artic region, Sahara, resources use is intended to be promoted –
Mongolia region, Patagonia, etc.) – not only by with particular interest for this category;
individual bigger protected areas, but also by among others.
taking part in larger ecological networks.
9 Presence of traditional management systems and
9 Category VI protected areas may be also demands from local communities are important
particularly appropriate to collaborate in the elements and may be considered in selection and
conservation of natural ecosystems when there are design of category VI protected areas. In that
none or little areas without use or occupation sense, this is an appropriate category to most of
(most common situation). In that sense, this is an the situations in which local communities want to
appropriate category to the costal zone area, protected part of their lands – including
freshwater ecosystems, river banks, floodplains indigenous peoples and other social groups with
and other wetlands. traditional management systems. Nevertheless, the
inclusion of local communities or traditional
Further guidance for category VI management systems is not obligatory for a
protected areas creation15 category VI protected area16.
9 Category VI protected areas may complete the
representativeness within the protected areas 9 The area selected, the size and the design of a
global system, or sub-global (regional, national, category VI protected area should make possible
sub-national, local…) sub-systems, as well as the carrying capacity for the sustainable use of
protect particular (exceptional, more sensitive, natural resources, without compromise in the
etc.) features. ecological sustainability and auto-regulation,
keeping the ecosystems integrity in the long term
9 The conservation objects should consider the in – with particular attention to the conservation
situ biological diversity in its complete perspective, objects. Whenever local communities using the
including genetic, species and ecosystems natural resources are included, it also applies to
diversity, but should as well go beyond (beyond their socio-cultural reproduction.
the sometimes too strictly defined biodiversity)
and include: 9 The area selected, the size and the design of a
9 other natural features, including physical category VI protected area should consider both
elements (as geological, paleontological, the internal sustainability, as well as the necessary
geomorphologic – including underwater resilience to face threats from outside
geomorphology, pedologic, or other elements unsustainable uses and from global to local
or aspects); climate, environmental and politico-economic
9 elements of nature as understood or defined changes.
by different cultural approaches or beliefs,
either concrete or not, including with 9 There is no obliged minimum size to the category
particular importance when elements from VI – once the definition and principal objective,
nature are important to local communities’ and their consequences, are met – including
cosmos-visions – with particular interest for resilience to global to local changes and carrying
this category; capacity limits. Nevertheless, those protected areas
9 interesting natural resources management have important potential to collaborate strongly in
systems, from which lessons can be learned the conservation of large natural spaces.
to the benefit of the whole system or sub-
systems – with particular interest for this 9 Although cultural values should apply to, and local
category; and communities (including indigenous peoples) could
9 areas under use interest from social groups in be involved, directly or not, in all protected area
which the sustainability of the natural categories, the category VI ones consider them
also in direct relation with the use of natural
15 It is consider here, in a simplified manner, that the protected areas resources. Therefore they are more adequate for
process has two major phases: the creation, including the selection, most cases of consuetudinary or traditional
design, public consultation, etc.), and the management, including the
parts of the management cycle, as planning, management, knowledge and practices of natural resources
monitoring and evaluation, register and diffusion of lessons learned,
re-planning, etc. – and of course include zoning, all the adequate
management programmes, etc. (The establishment, as the first steps 16 Local communities (including indigenous people) demands and
after the creation of a protected area, can be mentioned in one and interests should be considered in all categories, both in creation
other of the two major phases, but is in fact part of the second (selection, design, public consultation, etc.) and management phases
68
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 The protected area should not be chosen where More related to (nature) conservation
the major objective is simply natural resources 9 The zoning process is necessary, including a large
exploitation, as ordinary forestry or fishing areas, gamut of restrictions and possibilities, to the
settlements of natural resources gatherers organisation of the natural resources uses,
(collectors, “extrativists”) or farmers, etc., even according to the ecological and social specificities,
with conservation concerns, whenever this goes in in order to prevent compromises to the protected
disharmony with major nature conservation area conservation objectives or to the larger
objectives. environmental unit where it is located, by the
different possible uses.
9 Although participation and collaborative
management should apply to all protected area 9 In the category VI protected areas it is always
categories, this is even more important and better when a no-take zone is defined, and from
adequate where there is more direct involvement the beginning, as part of creation or first steps
of social actors. The responsible participation is a establishment. But, in the cases when no-take
principle for the creation (selection, design, public zones are necessary, they should be established
consultation, etc.) and management of the with clear criteria, and based on the specific
category VI protected areas, particularly of the characteristics of ecosystems, natural resources,
ones involved in the existing or possible use of management systems, kind and magnitude of
natural resources, and moreover of the local natural resources uses, social actors involved, etc.
communities. This may include formal and It is not possible to consider that no-take zone as
comprehensive processes of public consultation, a completely and strongly separated part, but the
public hearing processes and others (not only relationship between the sustainable use zones and
meetings or single hearing events). For local the no-take zones should be kept. Those zones
communities, the processes are better when clear, can be particularly important in the ecological
transparent, simple and understandable (Borrini- sustainability and for freshwater ecosystems.
Feyerabend 1996).
9 Environmental units are important for the
9 Together with the other categories, the protected creation (selection, design etc.) and management
areas classified as category VI should keep some (zoning etc.) of protected areas. The environment
flexibility in terms of land (or ‘water’) tenure, units, where the protected areas are located, are
ownership or responsibility – within a protected also important to the design and management of
area or in its buffer zone; previous and post the buffer zone, around the protected area. For
protected area creation –, as well as in relation to the category VI, the environmental units should
the access to the natural resources, recognising the consider river basins, social and cultural
possibility of a diversity of management systems perceptions, the larger land-use planning, besides
and existence of protected areas on State other criteria.
proprieties, on lato sensu private owned lands and
on communal lands, as well as a combination of 9 Monitoring and evaluation are important to assure
them. However, particularly in the category VI that management is in good way towards the
protected areas, the land tenure and rights to sustainability, including the long-term
access natural resources shall be identified in the maintenance of ecosystems health, ecological
selection, design or establishment phases17. processes, and other aspects of biological
diversity, the sustainability in the management
17The term ‘land’ is here generally understood as a piece of area, processes of the natural resources exploitation and
possibly composed by terrestrial or aquatic areas. When referred to protected area management effectiveness.
protected areas it may include as well the aerial space and the
underground, particularly when they are important for the
Considering the characteristics of this category
conservation objectives, unless expressed differently. Nevertheless, protected areas, the monitoring and evaluation
the rights and duties may well be different from terrestrial areas, to need to be participatory.
freshwater ecosystems to seas, as well as in relation to the aerial
space and the underground. Following the same path, the term ‘land-
use’, as here used, always includes the possibility of the use of aquatic
systems as well. And the term ‘landscape’, as here used, may include
terrestrial and aquatic systems, either freshwater or marine ones,
among others. The private ownership includes NGOs, community,
private individuals, companies, etc
69
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
More related to the sustainable use of the natural 9 Existent, interested or potential users of natural
resources resources should be identified. An analysis of
9 The activities possible to happen within and social actors (interested, involved or affected) or
around (buffer zone) the protected area should be stakeholders is necessary, for each individual
clearly established as soon as possible and should protected area or larger ecological networks or
consider the distinctions in terms of ecosystems, land-use definitions, including: a comprehensive
specific management systems, and interference of list and a typology of natural resources uses and
each kind of use. users, with their characteristics (including
strengths and weaknesses), giving particular
9 The occupation of the area and the natural attention to the local communities (include
resources uses should consider the carrying indigenous peoples); the definition of rights and
capacity, to assure both the ecological duties related to the natural resources exploitation,
sustainability and the socio-cultural reproduction as well as for their monitoring, and the protected
whenever local communities using the natural area management for all natural resources users;
resources are included – with particular attention and the identification of needed strategic
to the conservation objects. interventions, as the ones related to the technical
improvements on management systems, new
9 There is no specific limits to be predefined to the techniques, local communities organisation and
kind or volume of natural resource uses – once empowerment, etc.
the definition and principal objective, and their
consequences, are met, for it is important to 9 Adequate research should be promoted to bring
consider in each case the specific characteristics of information and guidance to the establishment
the ecosystems, natural resources, management and management of category VI protected areas,
systems, kind and magnitude of natural resources including for the sustainable use of natural
uses, and social actors involved. resources, particularly in relation to local
communities, and directed to the technology
9 Nevertheless, not any kind of use can happen in development and diversification related to the
the category VI protected areas, for some activities management of natural resources and associate
might be against the objectives. Although in a production chains.
preliminary way, it is possible to say that probably
are not adequate within the category VI: large 9 In order to achieve sustainable production, it is
homogeneous plantations (annual or perennial, necessary to promote population dynamic studies
grasses, shrubs or trees, for grains, fruits, bio-fuel, related to the species target of management or
timber or other products, even when not exotic impacted by the uses, as well as to elaborate
plants); large planted pastures for cattle ranching natural resources management plans, adapt the
or other animals (goat, sheep etc.); industrial and management practices and promote the
urbane areas; large dams, for hydro-power restoration of degraded populations.
production or other purposes; high impact mining
and oil or gas drilling; intensive commercial or 9 Research should also be based on valorisation
industrial fishing; high impact exploitation of (and redeeming) of traditional knowledge related
forest products; settlements; etc. Of course some to the management of natural resources, followed
similar activities may be allowed when in small by comparing with and complementation by
scale, with low impact and adequate and scientific knowledge and efforts to fill the
contributing to the main objective, as: small knowledge gaps, as needed to achieve the
familiar agriculture or livestock, when sustainability. No previously established hierarchy
complementary to the extrativism, small scale among knowledge sets should be established.
fisheries or part of the local communities
livelihoods; small scale and low impact forestry 9 Parameters for the relationship of agents and
and fishing; rural dwelling or habitation areas, objects of research should be established, based
within limits, when related to the local on formal and consensual agreements. This could
communities using the natural resources; etc. As a look towards the collaborative research or
general rule, settlements are not recommended research-action.
within category VI protected areas.
9 Policies to support and promote the sustainable
production should be established, but need to
70
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
adapt to each protected area, according to the – without bring to the natural resource users,
specific ecosystems, social actors involved and particularly the local communities, to the ‘role of
management systems. police’.
9 Policies and incentives to promote the More related to the organizational responsibility
development and strengthen the responsible 9 Although it is more common that the
markets to the products coming from the category management authority is placed in a governmental
VI protected areas should be also established. institution, and sometimes even recommended,
this is neither obligatory nor necessary. Any kind
9 Although adapted to the existent and interested of lato sensu institutions, belonging to the
social actors, mostly in the case of local governmental or lato sensu private domains18, can
communities, technical and institutional support be responsible for the management of protected
should be implemented towards the diversification areas – and in certain cases even the systems or
of sustainable economic activities. sub-systems of protected areas. In any case, it is
always better when the institution is clearly
9 Processes for clear definition or conflict resolution devoted to the conservation objectives, or at least
or management, related to the land tenure and somehow related to that with specific department
rights to access natural resources, should also be or section dedicated to the protected areas
part of the protected area management. management19. (Applicable to all categories.)
More related to users of natural resources, mostly 9 In any of the just above mentioned case, the
local communities collaborative management is possible and
9 Management procedures should include the desirable. How this should happen, is defined
respect to and foresee the maintenance and within specific systems and sub-systems, and
valorisation of the cultural identity and traditional should be based upon the specific characteristics
knowledge and practices related to the sustainable or each individual protected areas – ecosystems,
use of natural resources and nature conservation. natural resources, management systems, kind and
magnitude of uses, and social actors, for the
9 Management procedures should search adaptive category VI. The co-management should be
and iterative mechanisms to strengthen the promoted, accepting different models, according
management authority and local communities’ to the specific characteristics or each individual
capacities to face pressures and threats from protected areas. Particularly in the category VI
unsustainable uses and from global to local protected areas, the parity amongst the involved
climate, environmental and politico-economic social actors depends on their specific
changes. characteristics and responsibility.
9 Management procedures should respect the social 9 Collaborative management schemes could include
dynamics, its time, social actors affected and diverse levels of sectors of governments and
processes, in the way to the sustainability. different governmental institutions.
9 In any action related to the local communities, the 9 From the beginning, structure, mechanisms and
need to the previous and informed consent should other management needs for full responsible
be observed. participation and collaborative management
should be in place.
9 In any action related to the access of genetic 9 Whenever existent or involved, the local
resources and benefit sharing, definitions of the communities should have a central and more
Convention on Biological Diversity should be
applied. 18
Among the lato sensu private institutions could fit communal,
consuetudinary, NGOs, individual or companies related ones
9 It is necessary to recognise, identify or turn clearer 19 The term ‘institution’ in its stricto sensu may means an organisation,
the decision processes and accountability for all often formally constituted. But in its lato sensu, as mostly used here,
means the establishment of regular or systematic rules or procedures.
social actors involved in all natural resources uses. Therefore, it may be or not a formally (legally) constituted
organisation, for it may also be a customary, consuetudinary,
9 Also in the law enforcement, surveillance and common practice. The relationship amongst social groups and
human individuals are usually based on rules, procedures, formal
patrolling participatory mechanisms should apply organisations…, or institutions. (Based also on Mearns, 1996; and
Claval, 1995, among others.)
71
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
important role in any responsible participation or financial resources – particularly considering the
collaborative management process. Mechanisms need for more intense involvement and the
for their empowerment should be looked for in complexity of management of the category VI
order to optimise their responsible participation protected areas.
and involvement in the sustainable management
of natural resources. 9 Considering, on the one hand, the strong
possibilities to the conservation or large area, and,
9 Although interesting, and sometimes with much on the other hand, the responsible participation
better results, it is neither obligatory nor necessary and collaborative management, in relation with
that a system, or entire sub-systems, is managed by rights and duties, it could be difficult to achieve
just one institution. It is necessary, though, to exist the proper management for the whole protected
a clear governance and relationship mechanism area, particularly in terms of surveillance, law
for it to be managed as a system. enforcement, patrolling, and monitoring.
9 The category VI is a great opportunity for local What makes category IV unique?
governments to participate, get involved or take Allocation of category is a matter of choice, depending
responsibility over the protected areas on long-term management objectives, but also on local
management. This category VI protected areas to specific characteristics. The following table outlines
achieve success depend particularly on pro-active some of the main reasons why category VI may be the
position of all levels of governments and different chosen in specific situations vis-à-vis other categories.
sectors of the civil society.
Category VI differs from the other categories in
Challenges the following ways:
9 The most important challenge of the category VI
Category - Category VI protected areas does intend
is to assure that its two elements – protection of
Ia to conserve nature, its ecosystems and
natural ecosystems and promotion of the
their contents and conditions, including
sustainable use – are really two parts of the same
species and genetic diversity, but the aim
main objective, integrated, mutually beneficial.
would not be to strictly protected them
from human interference.
9 But, even its concept being considered solid and
relatively simple, the correct implementation of - Although scientific research may be
the category VI protected areas is also a great consider an important activity in those
challenge, because the processes, mechanism and protected areas, and even promoted, it
tolls to protected areas creation and management would be considered a first level activity
might be sometimes very complex.. only when applied to sustainable uses of
natural resources, either in order to
9 Therefore, it could be a challenge to keep them in improve them, or to understand how to
the correct track, avoiding both the easier minimise the risks over the ecological
tendencies, either [i] to the full protection to the sustainability.
whole area (more suitable for other protected area
Category - Category VI protected areas in certain
categories), or [ii] to the simple areas of natural
Ib cases could be considered close to
resources exploitation (as ordinary forestry or
“wilderness”, but differ from that in the
fishing areas, settlements of natural resources
promotion of sustainable use.
gatherers or farmers, etc.) – even when
sustainable, or, even, [iii] to the clear and strong - They would as well contribute to the
separation of the two elements (turning the maintenance of environmental services,
protected area into a multiple use one). but not only from nature strict
preservation, for the sustainable use of
9 The category VI protected areas to achieve natural resources can also contribute to
success depend particularly on pro-active position provide the protection of ecosystems,
of all levels of governments and different sectors large habitats, and ecological processes.
of the civil society. Any authority or institution Category - Category VI protected areas aim to
responsible for them should have good conditions
II conserve ecosystems, as complete as
for their creation and management (better than possible to be fully functional, and their
today), including human, social, material and contents and conditions, including
72
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
species and genetic diversity and the Category - Category VI protected areas might
maintenance of environmental services, V include the protection of species and
but differ from the category II in the genetic diversity among their objectives,
promotion of sustainable use. whenever the sustainable use of natural
resources is also part of the objectives.
- Recreation can be developed in those
areas, but only as a very secondary - Recreation can be developed in those
activity or when they are part of the areas, but only as a very secondary
local communities’ reproduction activity or when they are part of the
strategies. local communities reproduction
strategies.
Category - Category VI protected areas might
III include the protection of specific natural - Category VI protected areas is also
or cultural features, including species devoted to maintenance of cultural or
and genetic diversity, among their traditional attributes, mainly when local
objectives, whenever the sustainable use communities (including indigenous
of natural resources is also part of the peoples) are involved, and similarly to
objectives, but they are more oriented to category V they are more oriented
the protection of ecosystems, ecological towards large areas and landscapes, but
processes, and maintenance of these are more oriented to the
environmental services through nature protection of natural ecosystems and
protection and promotion of the ecological processes (therefore to areas
sustainable use of natural resources. usually less modified by human
activities), and through (not besides)
- Recreation can be developed in those
nature protection and promotion of the
areas, but only as a very secondary
sustainable use of natural resources.
activity or when they are part of the
local communities reproduction
strategies. Proposed new matrix of management
objectives to category VI
Category - Category VI protected areas might
Table modified (reordered, new text in italic or
IV include the protection of species and
removed text struck through) from the “matrix of
genetic diversity among their objectives,
management objectives and IUCN protected area
whenever the sustainable use of natural
management categories” (IUCN, 1994), suggesting
resources is also part of the objectives,
correction of objective levels and including other
but they are more oriented to the
elements or aspects.
protection of ecosystems, ecological
processes, and maintenance of
Management Objective VI
environmental services through nature
protection and promotion of the Protection of ecosystems, large habitats, and ecological
sustainable use of natural resources. processes and maintenance of environmental 1
- They include the maintenance of services
environmental services among their Preservation of species and genetic diversity 2
objectives, but differ from the category
Protection of a ecologically representative sample of the
IV in the promotion of sustainable use.
biological diversity (ecosystems, species and genetic 1
- While category IV protected areas tend biodiversity, including the conditions for their maintenance)
to prioritize the active conservation, i.e.
Protection of specific natural features, including
the interference or handling on natural
physical elements (as geological, paleontological,
elements to promote its reproduction
geomorphologic (also underwater geomorphology), pedologic, 3
for their preservation, the category VI
or other elements or aspects), cultural features or specific
ones promote the intervention to the
species
exploitation of natural resources,
whenever through or promoting Wilderness protection 2
sustainable use, in the direct benefit of
Conserve natural ecosystems and promote the sustainable
users. 1
use, together and in synergy
73
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
can contribute to provide the protection of does not fit in other categories, and sometimes considered as a
ecosystems, large habitats, and ecological processes. second level one, with prejudice or not (mostly by whom has no
experience on this category)
74
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
75
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
76
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Assignment
77
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the past, IUCN categories have been assigned either 9 Democracy: nonetheless, IUCN should urge
by governments or by UNEP-WCMC and the process states to consult with relevant stakeholders in
of assignment has never been spelled out. Here we assigning categories, particularly when this will
suggest a clear series of steps and present an ideal have direct impacts on the way that areas will be
process for assignment. managed. Proposals for this are outlined below.
78
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Good guidance for governments and other the World Database on Protected Areas and the UN
protected area authorities List of Protected Areas?
The basis of using categories should be clear guidance
from IUCN, which will be presented as revised In many cases the fact that something is protected will
guidance for application, to be prepared during 2007 already have been decided by the government
and presented to the World Conservation Congress for (although it may be that what is considered to be a
ratification in 2008. However, additional guidance may protected area in national law does not meet the IUCN
also be required, for example in terms of: definition). Tools also exist or are being developed to
9 Biomes: e.g. forests (for which bespoke guidance help identify the best category for a particular site –
already exists), marine, freshwater protected areas suffice to note here that there will often be situations
etc where more than one category might apply and
9 Categories: similar to the guidance developed for decisions will not be clear cut.
category V
9 Regions: similar to the guidance produced in However there will be other cases where decisions are
Europe far more complicated – for example if a forest
9 Selection tools: such as the draft selection tool department is trying to decide which of its forest
for identifying category and governance type reserves should be recognised as protected areas or
currently being tested when private reserves are trying to attain protected area
recognition within national systems.
In addition, the guidelines should be produced in many
more languages – at least in summary form – and with Figure 2 shows a draft process for assignment that was
clearer guidance on protocols for translation. prepared at a workshop discussing categories in
Eastern and Southern Africa, held in Nairobi in
An agreed process for assignment October 2005. Although developed particularly for
How does a government or other body determine forest reserves, it could apply to any area. It suggests
whether an area of land or water is truly a protected that there are obligations on both protected area
area as recognised by IUCN, how is a suitable category agencies and UNEP-WCMC in terms of justifying
identified and – a related question – how is this designation and assignment and in ensuring that these
information related to UNEP-WCMC for recording on data are adequately recorded.
Document the characteristics – legal states and other data fields in the
core WDPA database – and justification for protected area status
UNEP-WCMC confirms that the proposal is Other stakeholders can challenge the
accepted and that data on the WDPA is as government about the categorisation in
submitted: both data fields and the spatial data cases of dispute
79
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ideally, this process should involve many stakeholders, A system for challenging categories
particularly when assignment to a particular category Many stakeholders have demanded a system for
will have impacts on people living in or near the challenging categories when these are considered to be
protected area or on other stakeholders. One option incorrectly assigned. Ultimately this may be largely
would be to have a national task force reviewing data symbolic – in state-run protected areas ultimate
on protected areas and it has been suggested that a decisions about management rest with the state, but
national committee for IUCN might be one vehicle for such challenges could be important if particular
ensuring that this takes place. The extent that categories have legal or financial implications or for
stakeholders are involved in these decisions ultimately instance if they relate to stated conservation targets.
rests with governments and IUCN can only advise and
encourage. Most such challenges will take place at a national level.
However, there is also an option for IUCN to provide
IUCN occasionally offers direct support to some kind of verification procedure to assist in such
governments in assignment of categories cases. This has many implications for the organisation
and would need considerable analysis before making
any decisions were made.
80
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
81
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
this debate is best resolved by agreeing that all having an interest in it, should not be able to make
categories are needed without making a judgement representations to those who make decisions. Again
about their respective value. Thus categories I-III are the establishment of a national forum for protected
often suitable where high levels of protection can be area assignment would help to clarify these points and
secured, other categories are appropriate where this is widen the ownership of the decision.
not possible; and while some offer scope for
integration of biodiversity protection with community Equitable – all interests should be equally well served
needs, it may not be possible to do that so well in by the system. That means not only professionals and
others. Would this not be a more productive way business interests, but also representatives of local and
forward than to argue that one category is intrinsically indigenous communities and civil society. All should
“better” than another? be treated equally and none given special access to the
assignment process.
Principles for assignment of the
system of categories Transparent – it is a necessary corollary of the above
The following principles for assignment are suggested: that everyone should be able to see how decisions are
made. Once more, this would be easier if there were
9 Participatory some kind of national forum for assignment.
9 Accountable Meanwhile bodies involved in the process -IUCN, the
9 Equitable data base managers at UNEP/WCMC and government
9 Transparent focal points - need to be open in explaining how and
9 Performance-led why decisions are taken.
9 Part of a continuum of responses
9 Rights-based approach Performance-led – if the assignment process is to
carry credibility, then standards governing the process
Taking these in turn, the Almeria meeting may wish to must be set and pursued. These could be incorporated
consider these points: in the revised guidelines. All the bodies involved in the
process should sign up to them and be bound by them.
Participatory – basically this means that all
stakeholders are able to play their part in the Part of a continuum of responses – assignment and
assignment of categories to protected areas. While this the collection of data on categories are part of a wider
may seem to be a distant ideal, it is important to move process of data collection on protected areas. They are
from a situation where assignment is undertaken by an not a stand alone process and should not be presented
individual or small group of people without regard to or undertaken as such: rather, they are part of the way
the interests of other stakeholders. One way in which in which everyone becomes better informed about
this might be done is to encourage the setting up of protected areas.
national fora (perhaps under the auspices of the IUCN
national committees, where these exist) to oversee the Rights-based approach – because assignment can
assignment process. Such fora could be attended by a affect people in many different ways, the system
wide range of government, community, business, civil should operate with due regard to the rights of
society and other interests. One incidental benefit individuals and groups. This will help to reinforce the
would be to raise understanding of the significance of principles of equity and transparency set out above.
the system among all stakeholders.
Finally, if these principles are to be applied, and the
Accountable – those responsible for providing, whole process is to win respect, there should be shared
storing, analysing and publishing data should if ownership, inclusiveness and the full involvement of
necessary be called to account. While this may sound international bodies, national agencies and national and
rather aggressive, it is not acceptable in terms of local stakeholders.
natural justice that those affected by assignment, or
82
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What is the issue? “Though the primary purposes of management will determine the
A number of documents and discussion reports have category to which the area is assigned, management plans will
called for clarity and guidance in relation to zones, often contain management zones for a variety of purposes which
multiple classifications and protected area categories, take account of local conditions. However, in order to establish
since it is not clear how to classify large protected areas the appropriate category, at least three-quarters and preferably
containing a range of zones, each with different more of the area must be managed for the primary purpose; and
management objectives. For instance Bishop et al the management of the remaining area must not be in conflict
(2004) state: “There is … confusion about whether different with that primary purpose.’(IUCN 1994)
zones within a protected area can be assigned to different
categories, an issue that has particular relevance to marine The word ‘conflict’ is open to interpretation and can be
protected areas. For instance, many category V or VI marine confusing. Does it exclude an area that is perhaps
protected areas contain zones that are more strictly protected than inconsistent with the main purpose of designation but
others (no take zones). Although there are precedents for not necessarily damaging to it? It may be worth asking,
addressing this (e.g. in Australia), many protected area agencies for instance, whether a visitor or research centre
find this issue difficult and are looking for further guidance.” complex with ranger base and facilities within the
boundary of, say a category 1b area is in conflict or
One of the recommendations at a UNEP-WCMC whether it is ancillary to the effective management of
meeting in Nairobi on protected area categorisation in the area.
Africa (October 2005) was for better guidance on
zoning (UNEP-WCMC 2005). The report states that Most protected areas are actively managed i.e. some
form of intervention is carried out. This may happen
‘Although there is no reason why different areas within a spatially (over limited or over more extensive areas)
protected area cannot be reported as having different categories, it and temporally (for a season regularly or for a limited
was agreed that there needs to be much more guidance on zoning number of years to allow recovery, or over a regular
and categorisation.’ and extended period of time).
The issue is thus not about when and how to use The degree of intervention is a reflection of the
management zones (other advice is available on this), category. For instance an area defined as category 1a is
but when and how zones should be reported as likely to be an extensive tract of land or sea in which
protected areas in their own right according to the natural processes occur largely uninterrupted by human
IUCN protected area category system. agency, whilst category IV implies regular intervention
in order to conserve valued species or habitats that
A working paper from the Speaking a Common Language would otherwise be lost. However both these
project (Anon 2003) sums up the issue: categories might exist within areas that have been
designated category II or V. Furthermore, some human
‘Although the concept of zoning is simple and well understood, interventions invariably occur when indigenous people
the question of when a particular zone is a protected area and traditionally graze animals or take fodder or wood in
when a zone should be counted in statistics relating to the category II areas (such as Sagarmatha National Park in
national protected area system, has been the cause of some Nepal), in which case land may be set aside (or zoned)
confusion in relation to the IUCN protected area management in such a way that it might qualify as a category V area
categories.’ within a category II area. (In fact Sagarmatha NP has a
distinguishable and more recently established buffer
The 1994 Guidelines: zones and the zone to the south of the park boundary, which would
75 per cent rule almost certainly qualify that zone as a category V area,
The 1994 Guidelines (IUCN 1994) on protected area but also contains a number of settlements within the
management categories note that zoning is an accepted park itself – see TRPAP 2006).
feature of protected areas and that:
83
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The conclusion is that ‘nested’ or adjacent zones, zones in such a way that they threatened the viability of
depending on their status in law or policy and their the main management purpose. The 75 per cent rule
permanence, can qualify as protected areas in their own should therefore relate to the basis on which zones are
right. This is apparently quite straightforward, although established.
it goes without saying that it is critical to avoid double
counting in such cases, so that databases do not Furthermore, in assigning relevant parts of a protected
overstate the area designated. area to the different categories, it is important to
ensure that each part is ‘significant’ enough for it to be
In some cases, however, no legal or policy framework worth assigning, irrespective of percentage. If a
exists. For instance, Sethupan (2006) states: ‘Attempts protected area comprises many thousands of hectares
have been made to interpret “land” to include the sea bordering of wilderness, with a hectare or two of recreational
islands and seashore. These unresolved legal issues put severe space or woodland for local use, it might perhaps be
constraints on the national parks’ ability to regulate economical seen as somewhat over-diligent to expect those few
and recreational activities in seawater area. The parks have for hectares to be separately notified. On the other hand,
example been unable to properly zone the aquatic areas of the an area of some hundreds of hectares that is
parks … neither the National Park Act nor other relevant acts recognisably set aside for local use and conservation of
under the Royal Forest Department, including the National natural resources, within a wilderness area many
Forest Reserve Act of (sic) Wildlife Reserves Act, give the parks hundreds of thousands of hectares in size, may
any legal authority to create buffer zones surrounding the nonetheless be considered as a category VI area.
protected areas. The parks are therefore unable to regulate ‘Significant’ here is therefore taken to mean significant
environmental (sic) unfriendly activities taking place in areas in scale to the landscape and significant in proportion
neighboring the parks including shrimp farm and resort.’ to the ‘main’ protected area under consideration. This
must ultimately be a matter of judgement for the
In the case of Australia, zoning as both a management relevant authority.
tool and as a tool for protected area designation is
advanced and enshrined in regulation, so that Chape et ‘Hard’ and ‘soft’ zones
al (2003) can point out that: ‘Some protected areas have It is perhaps feasible to think of zones as ‘hard’ or
more than one IUCN category assigned to them. For example, ‘soft’, so that the former are reported, but not the
the vast area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in latter. For instance an area might be described as a
Australia has been assigned category VI in its entirety, but has ‘wildlife conservation zone’ – this may be defined in
also been officially assigned other relevant categories that relate to law, and will thus be a permanent or ‘hard’ zone, and
management zones within the park.’ may be assigned to category IV. Within it may be
different habitats that may require different levels and
A further example of the close regulatory link between different kinds of intervention, and may be identified
zoning and protected area designation can be see in as zones in management plans. These are ‘soft’ insofar
New South Wales’ Brigalow and Nandewar as they may change over time, and are identified in
Community Conservation Act (NSWCA 2006) that management plan policies and activities. Similarly the
identifies four zones and allocates protected areas siting of facilities for visitors may change over time.
entirely contingent with them, thus zone 1 is declared a
‘conservation and recreation zone’ and labelled ‘State Protected areas and wider landscapes
Forest reserved as a National Park’; zone 2 is the Although the focus of the brief appears to relate to the
‘conservation and aboriginal cultural zone’ and labelled role of zones within protected areas, the reality goes
‘State Forest reserved as Aboriginal Area’, and zone 3 beyond this, and is even more dynamic and
is the ‘conservation, recreation and mineral extraction challenging.
zone’ and identified as ‘State Forest reserved as State
Conservation Area’. Zone 4 is the ‘forestry, recreation The term ‘zone’ is increasingly used in rural situations
and mineral extraction zone’, which has no further in some laws in a way that it has been used exclusively
label, though it too is nominally state forest in the Act. in urban scenarios, to define both designated protected
The 75 per cent rule is not relevant in such cases, since areas and other land for national land-use planning
an area that, for instance, comprises 35 per cent plus purposes (e.g. enterprise zones, mixed-used zones,
core zone and less than 65 per cent managed resource wilderness zones, development zones, settlement
zone would effectively become two separate categories zones, etc), as well as identifying areas within protected
Ia/Ib and category V areas. The 75 per cent rule might areas for management and other purposes (core zones,
apply in a situation where the zoning was not rehabilitation zones, buffer zones, recreation zones
permanent, and a management plan might arrange etc).
84
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Whereas in the past land use law and policy has tended The concept is therefore very dynamic both temporally
largely to consist of ‘protected areas versus the rest’, a (i.e. zones may be permanent or temporary in varying
progressively integrative approach to ecosystem degrees) and spatially (i.e. zones might exist within
management is emerging, and zoning will feature more protected areas, they might coincide exactly with
and more in such legislation on national planning protected area boundaries, or they might extent beyond
policies that will incorporate protected areas in a wider protected area boundaries).
landscape.
The technology
Some states have a legally defined system of generic It does not require a great expertise in technology, to
park zones, into which protected areas are allocated recognise that there are some obvious shortcomings in
entirely or in parts according to the zone descriptors. usability of the current UNEP/WCMC database, not
Thailand (Sudara and Yeemin 2006) for instance all of them technical. The two main databases that
appears to zones its national parks in a standardised provide information are the World Database on
format, thus: Protected Areas (WDPA) and the Marine Protected
Area (MPA) Global database.
Table 3: Classification of Zones for Thailand’s
National Parks The MPA Global database provides for a range of
Symbol Name Purpose categories and also asks whether the area is zoned for
IUZ Intensive Use Areas that provide different purposes. For example, the Great Barrier
Zone centralized visitor and Reef is shown as comprising 344,400 Ha, of which
staff service as well as 115,395 is a no-take zone, and states that the MPA is
park administration zoned for different purposes. It also states that the
ORZ Outdoor Areas that provide protected area comprises category areas Ia, II, IV and
Recreation Zone outdoor opportunities VI, but does not say how zones correspond to these
and facilities including areas, or how much of the overall area is divided into
nature study the various categories (WWF, UNEP-WCMC and
PZ Primitive Zone Areas that represent IUCN undated).
natural environments
and serve as water In the case of the Florida Keys, this is shown as
recharge areas. Outdoor comprising 9,845 Ha and is category IV, but provides
recreation is limited no information about zoning. However, other sites
SNRZ Strict Nature Areas that consist of reveal that a zoning plan exists for the Florida Keys
Zone special and rare (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary undated).
biological sites and also More confusingly, only one category is shown on the
preserved as watershed. MPA database (WWF, UNEP-WCMC and IUCN
Outdoor recreation is undated), yet the FK website refers to a range of legally
limited except for designated protected areas (not management zones)
research that are likely to come under different IUCN
RZ Recovery Zone Areas that have been categories:
degraded or destroyed
by ecological recovery is ‘In addition to the Existing Management Areas in the Keys
necessary to protect the (national wildlife refuges, state parks, etc.), Wildlife
remaining intact areas Management Areas, Ecological Reserves, Sanctuary
(sic) Preservation Areas, and Special-use Areas are
established to ensure protection of Sanctuary
Parks Canada (2007) maintains operating guidelines resources.’ (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
based on a standard zoning system to which all undated)
national parks adhere according to protection needs. It
states: ‘The national parks zoning system will apply to all land The obvious difficulty is that any database is only as
and water areas of national parks, and to other natural areas good as the quality of the information it provides.
within the Parks Canada system as appropriate… Any change There is a challenge to maintain consistent, up to date
to a park's zoning constitutes a major amendment to the park data, and clearly the responsibility lies with the parties
management plan and may only be made following an to the presentation and use of that data.
environmental assessment, public notice and public participation
in the decision.’
85
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
86
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IS IT CALLED A
MANAGEMENT
No ZONE* OF SOME Yes
SORT?
Legally
Do its management binding Can the zone be
objectives match those for amended in
an IUCN category? management
plans without
changes in law,
Yes by creating regulation or
by-laws ministerial
confirmation?
Yes
No
Yes No
Is it permanent
Temporary
Yes No
Is it
significant?
KEY:
Management zone – e.g. buffer zone, wilderness zone, recreation zone, no-take zone, core zone etc.
Protected area authority – Ministerial department, agency, NGO or community institution that is recognised in
law
Permanent – inscribed in law, established and recognised, subject to a long-term vision (e.g. core zone for key
breeding species), not subject to changes between management plan periods (10 years +)
Temporary – established for management purposes only, temporal (e.g. for a limited period), subject to changes
between management plans (10 years –)
Significant – of a recognisable and reasonable scale and/or proportion to the wider landscape
87
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This paper outlines the current World Database on sites are found within the attribute database
Protected Areas (WDPA), how the IUCN protected (March 2007).
area definition and its categories fit into the WDPA,
the challenges faced by the United Nations 9 The GIS database: This is a spatial database that
Environment Programme - World Conservation maps the position and the boundary, where
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) in maintaining available, of the protected area. For many
and updating the database and the IUCN categories protected areas the only data in the GIS database
within it, solutions that are proposed to address the is a single point denoting location. Currently
challenges, and the use that is made of the WDPA 50,734 sites have polygon boundaries, 49,866 sites
currently. UNEP-WCMC presents the paper for have a locality but lack polygon boundaries (points
consideration at the IUCN Categories Summit as a part only) and 17,643 have no location data at all
of engaging the broader conservation community in (March 2007).
maintaining and improving the WDPA as the definitive
source of information on the protected areas of the The attribute database and the GIS database are linked
world, with a well defined and transparent process of by a common unique site ID, but not every protected
data gathering, data management, and reporting. area in the attribute database has a point or polygon in
the GIS database23.
In particular, this paper calls for the strengthening and
capacity development within IUCN-WCPA networks The current WDPA has evolved from paper lists of
to allow for improved protected area data collection protected areas from earlier editions of UN Lists and
and verification. also contains some data from countries of questionable
quality. We know, therefore that not all of the data in
What is the WDPA? the WDPA would qualify as protected areas according
to the IUCN definition. Improving the data quality is
Box 3: The WDPA Vision an ongoing issue and will require the assistance of
To create a decentralised, user-friendly, up-to-date national governments, IUCN and NGOs. Within the
system for storing, managing, and reporting on trends WDPA system redevelopment we propose to separate
in coverage for all the world’s protected areas – data into distinct areas where it can further
conforming to best practice techniques and providing a interrogated for accuracy, especially in regards to its
platform that allows for the easy integration of other adherence to the IUCN definition of a protected area
conservation datasets and user opinion (see below).
The WDPA is the largest assembly of data on the What is the current UN List of
world’s terrestrial and marine protected areas. A joint Protected Areas?
project of IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, the database Every few years (nominally 4) the United Nations
holds spatial and attribute information from (UN) List of Protected Areas is derived from the
governments and NGOs on protected area systems. WDPA. The UN List is the definitive list of the world's
Increasingly, the WDPA also holds information on national parks and reserves. It is compiled under the
private, community and co-managed reserves. The authority of the United Nations, based on resolutions
database consists of two elements: adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council.
Historically, criteria for inclusion in the UN list
9 The attribute database: Currently a relational focused on specific definitions of protected areas, a
database that holds a number of non spatial
attributes on each protected area. Eight fields 23 Much of these data have either been inherited from the UN Lists
form the core of the database. At present, 120,000 from many years ago, or are the result of a lack of capacity from
many developing countries to map and manage spatial data.
88
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
minimum size, and since 1982 the UN list only In addition, there are many thousands of protected
included those sites with IUCN protected area areas owned and managed by large NGOs, private
management categories. In 2003 the composition of agencies and communities that are generally excluded
the UN list was changed again. At that time all from the government-sourced data in the UN List of
protected areas were included that met the IUCN protected areas. Nevertheless these sites are managed
definition of a protected area, regardless of size and as protected areas according to the IUCN definition
whether or not they have been assigned a category. and constitute an important additional means for
protecting the biological diversity of the planet.
The 2003 UN List contains 102,102 protected areas, Examples include the 150 nature reserves in the UK
covering some 18.8 million km2 of the world’s surface. managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of
Marine areas make up 1.64 million km2 or 8.7 per cent Birds (covering 0.5 per cent of the UK land surface)
of that total area protected. Within this total figure and over 60,702 km2 of land in the USA owned and
there are 68,066 protected areas with IUCN managed by The Nature Conservancy. These data are
management categories, and 4,633 sites designated also included, where available, within the broader
under international agreements or conventions e.g. WDPA.
UNESCO World Heritage, Wetlands of International
Importance (Ramsar). As a consequence of the above and other factors, the
broader WDPA contains a richer set of data on the
Does the WDPA contain additional worlds protected areas (and other reserves) than is
sites that are not in the UN List of found in the official UN List.
Protected Areas?
Owing to the nature of the data collection process, it is How much data does the WDPA hold on IUCN
often difficult for UNEP-WCMC to obtain complete protected area categories?
datasets from governments of the world. There are The IUCN protected area management category for a
numerous reasons for this, but many are the result of protected area is stored as one of the fields in the
inadequate communication networks and capacity to WDPA attribute database. UNEP-WCMC does not
source and provide the relevant data. In these cases assign IUCN categories to protected areas. These are
official protected area data from a particular country only added to the database when they have been
may not be available for the UN List. However, provided by the data provider. Currently 70, 907 (63.5
UNEP-WCMC often has datasets provided by NGOs, per cent) of the protected areas in the WDPA have
Universities or experts that are up to date, at higher IUCN categories assigned to them. There is significant
resolution and mapped in GIS. These datasets may variation in the regional distribution of assigning
include information on the IUCN protected area IUCN protected area categories, as outlined in Table 4.
management category. UNEP-WCMC maintains these
additional datasets, provided by non-official sources,
within a broader WDPA.
89
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thus 32 per cent of designated sites have no IUCN 2. Difficulties with generating the UN list of
categories. It is suspected that more have been protected areas
assigned in country, but these data have not yet been The UN List of protected areas should only contain
made available to UNEP-WCMC. the government endorsed information on the
protected areas of the world. However, owning to
As can be seen in the table West and Central Africa (10 various reasons, this has proven challenging. The main
per cent), Eastern and Southern Africa (22 per cent) problem is that the current WDPA structure makes it
and North Africa and the Middle East (34 per cent) difficult to manage effectively the sources of attribute
have the lowest rates of assigning protected area and GIS information. This means producing outputs,
categories to their networks of sites. To some extent like the UN List, which requires a subset of the
this is because large numbers of African Forest database e.g. only governmental sourced data, is
Reserves are included within the dataset, and it remains difficult and time consuming.
unclear whether these (or some of these) reserves meet
the definition of a protected area or not. Other regions 3. Need to improve data gathering
of the world with less than 50 per cent of the sites The current WDPA faces a number of challenges in
having IUCN categories assigned are the Pacific (38 this respect:
per cent) and South Asia (46 per cent). a. Inadequate attribute and GIS data. Both of these
components of the WDPA have problems of
Current challenges faced by UNEP- missing data fields or GIS polygons.
WCMC with regard to holding
accurate data on the worlds b. Incomplete coverage of many types of protected areas. The
protected areas and their IUCN broader WDPA database that includes protected
categories areas managed by NGOs, private agencies and
UNEP-WCMC faces the following challenges in its communities is significantly less complete than
data holdings that will be addressed in the that for government managed reserves. Many of
redevelopment of this system: these do not have IUCN categories assigned
although they may fulfill the IUCN protected area
1. The WDPA is based on old technology definition and could have categories applied to
The current version of the WDPA is based on them. Gathering and maintaining these datasets is
computer technology and an architecture that was a major challenge for UNEP-WCMC. In addition
developed in 2000. This means that it is not able to there are sets of reserves that may fulfil the criteria
address the questions that are asked of it, and this leads of protected areas (in part at least) but which are
to frustration within UNEP-WCMC and amongst the not currently accepted as protected areas and do
users and contributors. not have IUCN protected area categories.
90
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SQL Server
ArcSDE
Protected Areas Attribute
Protected Areas Perform Spatial
Database
Geodatabase Integrity/Validation
Procedures
WDPA
Web Interface
ImapS Add New Spatial and
Attribute Data
Update existing
Spatial and Attribute
Verification by
Data
Users
5. Problems in the data verification process proposal has been made to separate governance into
The process to verify the data that has been received government, co-managed, private, and community.
by UNEP-WCMC through the current WDPA is The current WDPA is strongest on the government
cumbersome, time consuming and causes many managed protected areas, and contains only variable
problems. The lack of automation and transparency data on co-managed, private or community protected
within this process affects the capacity of UNEP- areas.
WCMC to communicate effectively with data providers
and data reviewers. This leads to a lack of confidence 8. How to address issues of management
of the scientific community and data providers in effectiveness
certain aspects of the WDPA and UNEP-WCMC in its It has been proposed to include scores for
ability to deliver on the mandates it is assigned. management effectiveness of each protected area in the
database. At the present time the database does not
6. Problematic assignation of IUCN Protected have attribute fields for this, and there is little data
Area categories globally on the effectiveness of reserve management,
Some of the categories assigned to protected areas in although this is rapidly changing.
the WDPA are not correct. There are several reasons
for this, not least difficulties in interpreting the
categories within countries undertaking the exercise. 9. The lack of a standard format for reporting to
There is no formal mechanism for ‘quality control’ conventions
over the methodology behind IUCN category The WDPA is currently used to report the progress
assignment or for challenging the IUCN category of a towards targets and mandates under the Convention
given site once it has been added to the WDPA. on Biological Diversity, Millennium Development
Goals, Commission on Sustainable Development,
7. Problems with the incorporation of World Summit on Sustainable Development and the
governance attributes UN List of Protected Areas. Using the current WDPA
UNEP-WCMC has been requested to include elements data structure producing these statistics is time
of protected area governance in the WDPA. A consuming and difficult for the following reasons:
91
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
a. Current lack of standardization and agencies but where it is not clear if they meet the
coherence between target definitions and IUCN definition of a protected area. Some of these
methodologies sites might be listed as protected areas in the future
b. required to perform ratio analysis and a relevant IUCN protected area category might
c. Current lack of standardization of data then be applied.
delivery formats requested by conventions
One of the intentions of this clear separation and
10. Challenges in specific biomes differentiation of processes above is to improve, over
There are some biomes where the establishment of time, the data from governments by allowing
protected areas and the application of criteria have governments to accept NGO data and give it their own
proven problematic. The classic example is in areas official stamp of approval.
beyond national jurisdiction such as the high seas,
although similar problems have also been experienced 3. Improved data gathering
in other habitats – for example in the Antarctic a. Sourcing data through governments. UNEP-WCMC has
wilderness. a worldwide network of contacts in governments
that it contacts periodically for updates. Response
Solutions rates to requests for data are generally low. Many
The following are proposed as solutions by UNEP- governments in the developing world lack capacity
WCMC. An indication is made on whether these are to address the questions raised. UNEP-WCMC
being addressed, or need further input to solve. proposes to update its network of contacts over
the coming year and suggests improved
1. Redevelopment of the WDPA system mechanisms for data flow.
UNEP-WCMC supported by ESRI (technical partner) b. Sourcing data through NGOs and others (role of the
and the private sector are developing a new WDPA WDPA consortium). Leading to the 2003 World
system, moving towards distributed data management Parks Summit considerable assistance was
and allowing data providers to upload, edit and provided to UNEP-WCMC by a consortium of
download protected area data through a web-enabled international NGOs and others. The WDPA
spatial and aspatial (attribute) database platform. consortium has been less active during 2004-2007,
but it is proposed to reactivate the consortium to
2. Clear separation of data from governments seek a significant updating of the broader WDPA
(UN List) from those provided from other by the October 2008 IUCN World Conservation
sources (the expanded WDPA) Congress.
The database will also maintain a history of changes
and complete data sourcing down to the attribute and 3. Improved data flow management
feature level, where data exist. This will enable UNEP- The redeveloped WDPA system (figure 5) will enable
WCMC to efficiently stratify the data holdings (GIS the protected areas community (e.g. WCPA), data
and attribute data), through its source, in two ways: providers and any interested parties to engage fully
a. The official (government provided) protected area with the WDPA.
data for the nations of the world (UN List). This
will include many sites that currently lack an UNEP-WCMC will call on the experience and
IUCN protected area management category, but knowledge of a) the protected area community to aid
where one could be applied. the verification of any submitted data, including the
b. A broader WDPA of sites that meet the criteria IUCN management category and b) the data provider
for protected areas (or are thought to), but which on the progress of their data submission through a
include data provided by NGOs, communities, systematic assessment process. Interested parties will
private agencies and experts – in addition to that also be able to comment on the data presented in the
provided by governments. This expanded WDPA WDPA through a Wikipedia-style interactive site.
will cover many additional sites, and will include
many that do not have an IUCN protected area The technological development of the WDPA system
management category, but where one could be places the responsibility for data quality in the hands of
applied. the data provider. Providing UNEP-WCMC with a
renewed ability to integrate, manage and serve this
a and b, above can be subdivided into a further set of information with limited resources (whether manpower
sites maintained in the WDPA that are managed or or financial) in standardized format via the web or
governed by governments, communities, private other media.
92
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Web based analysis and Web based data viewing e.g. Web based data download e.g.
reporting tools ImapS, ArcGIS Explorer KML, Shapefile, WFS
Figure 5: Overview of the future information flow into the redeveloped WDPA system. The red text
highlights the verification process as discussed in solution 5.
4. Submission and data verification of the 8. Once received, the data are accepted and uploaded
WDPA into the database
UNEP-WCMC proposes an automated data 9. Other users can provide comments on data
submission and verification process , similar to those content through a wikipedia style interface.
used in the publishing industry, allowing data providers
to track the status of their submitted data’s integration UNEP-WCMC requests a significant increase in the
into the WDPA as marked by underlined text in figure level of support from existing NGOs and governments
5 and outline in more detail below. to build the capacity of governments and experts from
the NGO or academic communities to improve
1. Data are submitted to UNEP-WCMC and enter a current protected area data and to build processes that
holding area (quarantine area) in the database. The result in the delivery of yearly data that improves over
data provider will provide source (metadata) of the time.
data submission including terms of use/data
restrictions. UNEP-WCMC regards this verification (including the
2. An acknowledgement letter/email is sent out be IUCN category allocation and certification) process as
the WDPA to the data provider. an important priority. However, in order to prevent
3. The submission goes through a process of WCPA becoming a bottleneck in the publication of the
verification by UNEP-WCMC, WCPA and other latest WDPA information UNEP-WCMC
experts. Time limits will be set for the provision of recommends the following:
feedback from WCPA and other experts.
4. Enquiries and any comments are sent back to the 1. WCPA regional nodes recommend an in-country
data provider WCPA member to serve as a focal point for any
5. A revised version is received back from the data verification/collaboration on datasets (on a
provider country level) in the WDPA. It is strongly
6. The revised data are either accepted or rejected recommended that WCPA seek funds to
and a letter (email) is sent coordinate this effort as the over-reliance on
7. The data provider is asked to confirm the terms of volunteerism has been shown to be ineffective.
use of this revised dataset and its publication
within the finalized WDPA database.
93
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. The WCPA in-country focal point utilizes the information module with the protected area site code
WCPA network to coordinate verification and forming the mechanism to link the two data sets.
collaboration on a country level.
9. Standardized reporting formats for conventions
3. The WCPA in-country focal point for the WDPA UNEP-WCMC believes that the various indicators
should be given support through IUCN national agreed by conventions provide the framework against
or regional offices. which it should provide data on protected areas to
conventions and other governmental and
4. All requests/enquiries for verification will have a intergovernmental processes.
set timeframe. No response within the agreed
timeframe will be taken as the reviewer’s 10. Addressing the issue of particular
agreement on the data content. biomes/places
UNEP-WCMC is working with partners around the
5. WCPA is not the only form of expert opinion on world to address specific issues posed by maintaining a
data verification. Other sources to be used include database of protected areas. For the high seas a special
NGO’s, park managers, in-country projects e.g. project has been commissioned to address the issue.
under the World Bank or Global Environment For areas like the Antarctic which is already protected
Facility, universities, etc. The WCPA focal point by the Antarctic Treaty, the relevant bodies need to
should be responsible for convening these other decide whether the entire area should be deemed a
groups and developing special processes that are protected area – which would make it by far the largest
specific to the circumstances in each country. in the world.
6. The data source will also be required to verify How is WDPA data currently used and
their own data in response to queries raised by how should it be interpreted?
UNEP-WCMC through its standardized in-house There are a number of uses of the WDPA. Some of
verification/data quality procedures (see below). these are officially mandated to UNEP-WCMC by
other agencies and others are uses within UNEP-
6. Improved guidelines on how to assign IUCN WCMC or by its network of collaborators.
protected area categories
UNEP-WCMC sees the need for an update of the Mandated uses of the WDPA
1994 IUCN publication that provided countries with 1. UNEP WCMC is mandated to develop the UN
guidance on how to apply the protected area categories List of Protected Areas every 4 years or so. In the
to their own situation. This is regarded as an urgent past this was a paper product but is now electronic
priority, IUCN category assignment needs to be a and web-based. The last was produced in 2003 the
streamlined and coherent process across all countries next will be in 2008 for the IUCN World
resulting in data provided to the WDPA is as accurate Conservation Congress. Reporting to the UN list
and complete as it can be. uses the IUCN protected area management
category system and summary statistics are
7. Protected Area governance attributes presented on how much of the world is protected
UNEP-WCMC fully endorses the IUCN Protected Area by the various categories.
Governance Matrix - proposed under the governance
module of the Categories Summit. This approach has 2. UNEP-WCMC is also mandated to provide
influenced the restructuring of the new WDPA and support to a number of international targets and
will allow much more rigorous reporting of community mandates. These include 2010 Biodiversity
conserved and private protected areas, thus improving Indicators – Convention on Biological Diversity,
the overall quality of the WDPA. Millennium Development Goals, Biodiversity
Coverage Targets under the WSSD and the Global
8. Inclusion of information on Management Environment Outlook. Standardization of
Effectiveness statistics to answer these targets and mandates will
UNEP-WCMC is currently working closely with IUCN enable UNEP-WCMC to produce these
and a partnership of NGOs to collect and report on automatically through the new online WDPA data
the management effectiveness of protected areas. delivery system.
UNEP-WCMC proposes that management
effectiveness data are linked to the WDPA as an
94
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://proteus.unep-wcmc.org
95
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2) WDPA search functionality data utilize all IUCN protected areas rather than those
- Simple search: basic criteria such as name, with protected area management category I-IV when
designation, country doing analysis.
- Advanced search: criteria such as IUCN
protected area management category, Conclusion
designation, region, name, country (multiple), Despite being the only database of its kind and of great
convention, environment (e.g. marine, value to the wider conservation community the WDPA
terrestrial, freshwater) has often been criticized as cumbersome and
- Map search: bounding box, zoom to inaccurate. It is hoped that this document goes some
country/region using an interactive map way to shed light on the challenges and obstacles faced
by UNEP-WCMC in its management of the WDPA.
Search results screen will generate a list of matching
answers with a level of relevance, summary and links to As outlined in this document UNEP-WCMC, and
2D (maps) and 3D visualization tools. partners, is undertaking complete redevelopment of
the WDPA system from its data structure and content
3) WDPA protected area visualization tools to its verification processes and delivery mechanisms.
- Site summary sheet of information held in the This should allow the WDPA to continue to evolve
WDPA along side current thinking and developments in the
- 2D map of site location and boundary (where protected area fora, whilst enabling UNEP-WCMC
available) renewed ability to manage such a system and the
- 3D map (e.g. Google Earth, ArcGIS demands placed upon it. However, without much
Explorer) of site location and boundary greater involvement from the international community
(where available) and especially from IUCN networks (especially
WCPA) and NGOs, data quality issues will continue to
4) WDPA Download Tools be a major barrier to this project. It is our sincere hope
- Ability to select and download subsets of the that new funding mechanisms will be called upon to
database strengthen the ability of data providers and aggregators
- Ability to generate online statistics to deliver accurate data on a sustainable basis to the
- Variety of data formats such as KML, WDPA into the future.
shapefiles, excel/dbf tables, PDF
As a joint project of IUCN and UNEP-WCMC it is
Interpreting WDPA data our sincere hope that the participants of the IUCN
Because there are known gaps in data in certain parts Categories Summit will recognize the considerable
of the world, the WDPA should be considered an efforts required to deliver this valuable conservation
under-representation of the number and extent of data to the world and will endorse the suggestions (or a
protected areas of the world. variation thereof) asserted in this paper.
96
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The IUCN protected area category is chosen primarily 9 Restoration through time-limited
with respect to management objective, i.e. it relates to interventions to undo past damage: one or
the aims of management rather than the current status, more interventions to restore damage; for example
so that any category can be subject to restoration. reintroduction of extirpated species; replanting to
However, in practice the category also usually infers hasten forest regeneration; seedling selection;
something about the protected area status and active thinning; removal of invasive species – not usually
restoration practices are probably not suitable for every suitable in strictly protected category Ia or Ib
category of protected area. For example, categorisation protected areas but possible elsewhere.
with respect to wilderness values is not usually
appropriate for an area that will require constant 9 Restoration as a continual process for
management to maintain these values. In some biodiversity conservation: for instance artificial
situations, restoration in a protected area can be a time- maintenance of water levels in a wetland in a
limited intervention to undo past damage while in watershed that has undergone major hydrological
others changes have been so profound that continual change; coppicing (regular cutting) of trees to
intervention will be needed in the long term: this is maintain an important cultural forest; using
often the case if invasive species have really become domestic livestock grazing to maintain grassland
established or if some parts of the ecosystem, such as 9 and control scrub invasion – suitable for
important species, have disappeared. The following categories IV – VI.
general advice would be:
9 Restoration as a continual process for both
9 Restoration through natural processes as a natural resources and biodiversity: for instance
result of protection (mis en défens): for instance recovering productivity after soil erosion,
restoration of old-growth forest through removal providing resources for human well-being –
of logging or grazing pressure; re-growth of fish suitable for categories V – VI.
stocks or coral reefs by prevention of over-use;
removal of trampling pressure in mountain plant In cases where general habitat destruction has
communities – suitable for any category of advanced so far that protected areas themselves require
protected area. substantial restoration, it may be sensible to wait and
see how successful restoration projects are before
assigning a category.
Ia Ib II III IV V VI
98
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
These objectives are normally specified in relevant authority for community conserved areas) which
legislation or other governance system (e.g. traditional provides overall direction for management of the site.
For example, designation as a category II protected management being assessed. The expert knowledge
area means that the area should be managed primarily systems generally use a questionnaire approach asking
for biodiversity conservation with no, or very limited, people with detailed knowledge of the protected area
extractive use of resources. In some cases, managers and its management to rate various aspects of
may have difficulty in managing the site in strict management or to nominate characteristics of the site
accordance with these objectives. The results of such as the nature and significance of protected area
assessments of management effectiveness should not values and threats. These assessments may be
be used as a basis for allocating or changing the supported by a considerable knowledge base consisting
category to which a protected area is assigned. So, for of the results of monitoring and research that has been
example, the appropriate response to an evaluation of carried out at the site. This approach to assessment is
management effectiveness that reveals a failure to often applied when assessing management of large
completely control illegal resource exploitation in a numbers of protected areas, often all of the protected
category II protected area is not to change the site to areas in a country, as it is quicker and less resource
category V (which allows for a level of sustainable intensive than the monitoring approach.
resource use) but rather, to seek to adapt management
to more effectively achieve the legally specified The choice of evaluation approach is affected by the
management objectives. purpose of evaluation, level of resources available to
undertake the evaluation and the number of sites
One form of management evaluation that is of involved rather than the particular category of
relevance to assignment of protected area categories protected area being assessed. However the criteria and
and that has some similarities to management indicators that are used in undertaking the evaluation
effectiveness evaluation, is an assessment of may be affected by the category of the site(s). For
management intent. The purpose of such assessments example, criteria relating to sustainability of resource
is not to evaluate the effectiveness of management but use should be prominent in assessments of category V
to clarify the expressed and operationalised objectives and VI sites but less important in categories I to IV,
for management. Such an approach has been assessments of category Ia and II sites could be
developed by IUCN-WCPA in Europe and has been expected to pay particular attention to assessing quality
used to “certify” that a protected area has been and outcomes of management of biodiversity, while
assigned to the correct protected area category assessment of wilderness management should figure
(according to legislation and governing regulations) and prominently in assessing category Ib sites. Many
whether the site is being managed in accordance with evaluation systems provide for this diversity by
management objectives relevant to that category. As providing for development of specific criteria and
yet, there is no written methodology and the system is indicators to match the characteristics and needs of the
under development. sites. Other systems seek to cover the key issues
relevant to all categories of protected areas but provide
Assessment systems, assessment for certain criteria and indicators to be omitted from
criteria and relevance to protected the assessment where these are not relevant to the
area categories protected area being assessed. In most cases, this
A large number of systems for assessing management omission would be on the basis that the particular
effectiveness have been developed over the past 10-15 aspect of management is not relevant to the IUCN
years although many of these have been applied in only category of the site.
a few protected areas. In excess of 90 per cent of
assessments of sites have been undertaken using Management Effectiveness data and
systems that were developed around the IUCN-WCPA data management
Framework. This means that they share a common As management effectiveness evaluations are a
underlying approach and largely common criteria, relatively recent innovation in protected area
although the indicators and assessments methods will management, issues of managing the data arising from
vary. The systems can be broadly divided into two these assessments are still be identified and addressed.
main types: 1. systems using mainly expert knowledge Data from assessments is of most direct interest to the
and 2. systems using monitoring data, stakeholder organisation involved in managing the protected area
surveys and other quantitative or qualitative data or in sponsoring the evaluation study. These
sources. Some assessment systems combine both organisations do have internal data management issues
approaches to evaluation depending on the aspect of to address, especially where the number of sites is large
99
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
or repeat assessments are being collected over time. format would use the IUCN-WCPA Framework
However these issues are tractable with reasonable elements, criteria and indicators as a means of
database design and management. There is growing structuring data and a set of rules for “translating” the
interest from a number of organisations in analysing results from different assessment systems into a
data across systems. Such regional or global analysis common format. In most instances, this common
can help identify common threats, patterns in strength format would be a 4-point ordinal scale of
and weaknesses in management. This type of management performance.
information can be used to help make more effective
decisions for prioritisation of effort, capacity building Common reporting format and
and policy development. minimum data set
Ideas on a common reporting format and minimum
The variation in assessment systems, criteria and data set for management effectiveness information
indicators used in evaluating management effectiveness were discussed at a meeting of NGOs and key
mean that combining data from different systems is international institutions interested in this issue in mid
not a straight forward matter. The IUCN-WCPA 2006. A proposal for such a system was developed and
Framework with its structure of six main elements of is being trialled. The components of the minimum data
evaluation and a broadly common set of criteria for set are structured according to the IUCN-WCPA
assessment does provide a means of harmonising data Framework (see table 5).
from different systems. One approach to addressing
this issue that is currently being investigated is the All elements of the Framework are represented except
development of a common reporting format and for Output measures which are more relevant at the
minimum data set for protected area management local level.
effectiveness information. The common reporting
100
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Issues and sensitivities in relation to Conservancy and Worldwide Fund for Nature, under
sharing ME data the auspices of the IUCN World Commission for
There is no doubt that information on effectiveness of Protected Areas, and in cooperation with other
management of protected areas is potentially very organisations including the World Bank, Global
politically sensitive. The development of a common Environment Fund and UNEP/ World Conservation
reporting format and minimum data set may help to Monitoring Centre.
overcome these sensitivities as full results of data from
site assessments is not proposed to be stored in global The goal of the study is to produce a global review of
datasets. Investigation of other mechanisms to restrict management effectiveness evaluations of protected
access to data and analyse and report only at regional areas. The project will assemble and analyse all studies
levels may help address these sensitivities. It is likely of management effectiveness that can be located
that open access to data will be restricted for many around the world (drawing on information from
sites in the foreseeable future. The most important WCPA members, NGO and government networks).
means of overcoming this sensitivity, however, is likely This project was developed in response to the World
to be responsible use of the data in global datasets so Parks Congress Recommendation 5.18; Durban Action
that Agencies develop confidence that data will not be Plan Targets 5-7 and; the specific goals and activities
used to “attack” agencies and governments but will be outlined in the Convention on Biological Diversity
used to support enhanced management, more effective COP7 Protected Areas Programme of Work.
policy development and more effective priority setting. Information from this analysis will help meet or inform
action in relation to four of the targets within the CBD
Potential to link other protected area Protected Areas Programme of Work.
data to basic dataset in WDPA
Management effectiveness data could be maintained in The objectives of the study are:
a database linked to the WDPA by the unique 1) Collection and collation of available information
protected area code used to identify sites in WDPA. from assessment systems, individual park
This arrangement would have significant advantages in assessments and other evaluations of management
terms of: effectiveness that have been undertaken in
9 security and control of access to data in the ME protected areas.
database; 2) Analysis of dataset to gain an understanding of
9 general protected area data and spatial data held in most appropriate methodologies for different
WDPA need not be stored separately in the ME situations and protected area systems.
database; 3) Analysis to gain as wide a picture as possible of
9 consistency of protected area identification with status of parks, key threats, factors influencing
WDPA. effectiveness of management and necessary
changes to management strategies and approaches.
However the current problems in the WDPA in terms 4) Analysis of most useful and commonly used
of accuracy and completeness of protected area indicators for assessing management effectiveness
information could create some problems in the short of protected areas (i.e. what indicators are most
term. reliable predictors of overall effectiveness)
5) Development of a system for integration of
Current and proposed ME projects management effectiveness information into the
relevant to protected area categories World Database on Protected Areas.
Global ME project and potential to analyse trends The project commenced in mid 2005 and will continue
in ME at regional and global scales until late 2007 (and possibly beyond). A related project
The global study into management effectiveness that is currently being considered for GEF funding as
evaluation of protected areas is an initiative co-funded part of the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership
by the University of Queensland, The Nature Project would extend the global study by seeking to
101
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
both extend coverage of ME data to a wider range of assessment without going as far as questioning
protected areas and to examine the potential to category choice at the level of effectiveness
develop an general indicator (or small set of related evaluation.
indicators) to report on management effectiveness.
Recommendations
Examining effectiveness of IUCN is committed to continuing the process of
management of different protected examining options for certification within conservation
area categories in general, as recommended by the Vth World Parks
Some stakeholders have also suggested that categories Congress. With respect to the categories, different
could be assessed for effectiveness of management approaches are needed in the cases of ensuring that the
(rather than accuracy with which a particular category “correct” category has been assigned and in assessing
is applied). how effectively this has been applied in practice.
102
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Proposal: to eliminate the names from the definition 2) Addressing ideological objections: some of the
of the categories; these would instead be identified names used create problems for some
simply by (1) the numbers and (2) accompanying stakeholders. The strongest example is “wilderness
descriptions area”, which holds negative connotations for some
stakeholders, particular indigenous peoples who
Background: removal of the names from the believe that the term “wilderness”, with its
categories was indicated as desirable in connotations of “untouched nature,” downgrade
Recommendation 19 at the Vth World Parks Congress or ignore their own long-term management
(2003). Recommendation 19, paragraph 5[d] suggested impacts on ecosystems – and indeed may even
that IUCN “Considers removing generic names of appear to imply the desirability of their eviction
protected areas from the category system, as these may and exclusion from such areas.
have different meanings in different countries, and
using only management objectives and numbers for 3) Emphasising the international nature of the
each category” This recommendation was referred to system: the IUCN categories system is an
positively in Resolution 54 of III IUCN World international one, designed for use by all nations.
Conservation Congress. Incorporating within it descriptors of protected
area types that are drawn from national contexts,
Reasons for removing the names but not applied universally, may reduce its global
1) Reducing confusion: A major source of appeal. A more “neutral” way of describing
confusion about protected areas arises because the different types of protected areas is more in tune
same name (e.g. national park) may be used in with the system’s international status and use.
different countries to describe areas that are
managed in different ways; and, conversely, areas Reasons for keeping the names
in different countries that are given different 1) Usefulness as a campaigning tool: the Danish
names at the national level may be managed for Committee for IUCN has argued strongly that the
the same purpose. One of the main reasons for named areas such as “national park” provide a
adopting the categories was to reduce such powerful concept to strive for that would be lost
confusion between countries when dealing with with mere numbers, and fear that a loss of the
different types of protected areas. To use names at names at the international level would undermine
the international level may even increase the their own particular campaign to create national
confusion. However, the first categories system parks in Denmark.
(adopted by IUCN in 1978) gave both a number
and a name to each international category. When 2) Maintaining commitment to core values: there
some of the participants at the categories is a (probably) quite small but certainly very
workshop at the 1992 Caracas World Parks passionate group of IUCN members who believe
Congress proposed removing the names, this was that names like “national park” and “wilderness
strongly opposed by others. The proposal for area” are important to retain for what amounts to
change lacked sufficient support and so the names philosophical reasons. They feel that to remove
were retained alongside the numbers in the system them from the IUCN international system implies
adopted in 1994. But in many ways this may have a weakening of the commitment to the concepts
reduced the effectiveness of the categories in that such names represent. They have promised to
fulfilling one of their primary functions. This is argue strongly against any change.
most apparent in connection with category
II/National Park, because ‘national parks’ in many Way forward
parts of the world are not managed as category II There seems to be little point in examining
protected areas. Table 6 overleaf (from the compromises, such as changing some of the names,
Speaking a Common Language report), summarises because the names that enjoy the strongest support in
the problem. some circles (national park and wilderness) are precisely
103
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
those that others would particularly like to eliminate. consensus, but it is important to gauge what the
Nor is this by any means the most critical issue to be majority of IUCN members feel about this issue and
addressed by the categories task force or the new act accordingly.
guidelines. It seems unlikely that we will reach
Table 6: Examples of protected areas called “national park” in different IUCN categories
Category Name Location Size (ha) Date
Ia Dipperu National Park Australia 11,100 1969
II Guanecaste National Park Costa Rica 32,512 1991
III Yozgat Camligi National Park Turkey 264 1988
IV Pallas Ounastunturi National Park Finland 49,600 1938
V Snowdonia National Park Wales, UK 214,200 1954
VI Expedition National Park Australia 2930 1994
104
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
105
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. step by step approach A system has been developed and operated in Europe
i. assignment process framework and method by WCPA in response to requests from Austrian
for assigning protected area to IUCN Federal and Regional authorities for national parks.
category
ii. data to the WDPA WCMC need to define Should system be voluntary on part of protected area
data requirements for WDPA from WCPA authorities or mandatory? Currently in Europe it is
Verification process voluntary and IUCN WCPA has no basis for making it
iii. interaction with data originators and mandatory, although presumably the UN through
others define process to allow data UNEP-WCMC has this option. General preference is
originators within governmental system to for a voluntary system with examples of successful
scrutinise and challenge WCPA verification Certification used to persuade others of its value.
material
106
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
107
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
108
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
prohibit by law, all exploration and extraction of mineral Application of the category system in
resources in protected areas corresponding to IUCN Protected policy at national levels
Areas Management Categories I to IV”. This represented a Most countries have National legislation relating to
new application of the IUCN category system in that it protected areas. In many cases this predates the
linked restrictions on resource use to the system itself. development of the 1994 category system. In recent
This in turn provided a major contribution to the (since 1994) a number of countries have developed
decision by Shell and ICMM to make a “NO-GO” new legislation or policy instruments. Dillon (2004)
pledge in relation to exploration and use of resources found that 10 per cent of the “new wave” of national
in natural World heritage sites. It also gave raise to legislation has used the IUCN categories. These
questioning by a number of Extractive Industry include legislation in Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria,
companies and representatives of the validity and Cambodia, Cuba, Georgia, Hungary, Kuwait, Mexico,
accuracy of the process used to assign protected areas Niger, Slovenia, Uruguay and Vietnam. Australia and
to the IUCN categories, particularly category I to IV. Georgia are two countries that specifically mention the
IUCN categories in their national legislation. Many
Application of the category system in other countries have included the IUCN category
policy at regional levels system in their national policies but not in their
Two regional conventions and agreements have legislation.
applied the IUCN categories (Dillon, 2004). These are
the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Many of these new legal initiatives have been
Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) stimulated by the publication of the 1994 Guidelines.
Strategy and Action Plan 1996 and the Revised African National level application has also been assisted by the
Convention on the Conservation of Nature and provision of expert guidance and assistance by IUCN
Natural Resources 2003. experts, particularly experts from the IUCN
Commission on Environmental Law (CEL) and the
In the case of the African Convention, the IUCN IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
categories had a strong influence on the development (WCPA). For example, national level workshops were
of the revised Convention and provided a framework held in Australia, with input from WCPA, prior to the
for a number of sections of the Convention. The development of national legislation to explore the use
development of the African Convention involved an of the guidelines in a local context. Also, expert advice
interagency taskforce which initially endorsed the use has been provided by IUCN to China, Madagascar and
of the IUCN guidelines and draft text was then Vietnam on how to apply the categories in their local
submitted to a number of African government experts legislation and policy work
who adapted the text to the African context. Article V
of the Convention defines a Conservation Area as any The IUCN category system has also been used as a
protected area designated and managed mainly a range vehicle to promote higher national level standards in
of purposes, and then goes on to elaborate these relation to protected areas. For example, the
purposes by referring to the six IUCN categories. This Government of Austria requested guidance from
provides an example of an approach that has been IUCN in relation to the steps necessary for the Hohe
used elsewhere in relation to application of the Tauern National Park to be formally recognized and
categories. That is the system is carefully reviewed and certified as a category II National Park. This input was
considered in relation to a particular application and provided and an Action Plan was developed which set
then it is adapted and tailored to meet local or regional out the steps required to improve the level of on site
circumstances. management to a level consistent with an IUCN
category II. This Action Plan resulted in the
Another example of regional level application exists certification of the Hohe Tauern as an IUCN category
within Europe, where a publication has been prepared II National Park in 2006.
on “Interpretation and Application of the Protected
Area Management Categories in Europe”. This aimed Lessons learnt from application of the
to provide clear and useful guidance for applying the category system in policy
categories within the European context. In particular There are a number of lessons that can be derived
this document highlighted challenges in applying the from the application of the category system in policy at
system in Europe and also included guidance in international, regional and national levels. These
relation to how each of the individual IUCN categories include:
could be assessed and applied.
109
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 The categories have significant potential for which linked a “No-Go” policy recommendation
influencing protected areas policy and legislation to assignment of a protected area within an IUCN
at all levels. The level of application has greatly category I to IV;
accelerated since the publication of the 1994
guidelines; 9 Lack of awareness and/or understanding of the
IUCN category system;
9 It is anticipated that the relative importance of the
category system in influencing policy decisions will 9 Variable accuracy of data on protected areas in the
increase, particularly at national levels, as the CBD World Database on Protected Areas and the UN
Protected Area Programme of Work is more List of Protected Areas;
widely and effectively applied;
9 Lack of understanding and awareness of how the
9 The advantages of including the category system category system can be applied at national levels
in policy level decisions are that it gives the system and also in particular biomes.
extra weight and credibility and can enhance
awareness and understanding of the values of Implications for the category Summit
protected areas; and There are a number of implications from the above
sections for discussions on this topic at the category
9 The most effective use of the category system in summit. These include:
policy level decisions has been where the system is
applied in a flexible way, in response to unique 9 Experience in applying the category system in
national or regional circumstances. policy at international, regional and national levels
needs to be more widely identified and
There are, however, a number of constraints to the communicated. This should include both positive
effective application of the category system in policy and negative examples;
decisions. These include:
9 Approaches to improve the process of assignment
9 the validity and accuracy of the process used to of protected areas to categories and also to
assign protected areas to the IUCN protected area improve the accuracy of the data on protected
categories, particularly category I to IV, has been areas in general need to be identified and
challenged by a number of individuals and increasingly applied; and
organisations. In particular challenges have been
received from representatives of Extractive 9 Better guidance on how the category system can
Industries in response to the IUCN Amman be applied to policy level decisions should be
Recommendation on Mining and protected Areas, prepared and distributed.
110
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary of key recommendations and balance that with society’s needs. Under
9 Historically the protected area management agreements of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
categories have been used by management governments are committed to completing ecologically
agencies to classify post hoc with varying accuracy, representative networks of protected areas, and this
the purpose of a given protected area for process usually starts by identifying gaps in the current
reporting purposes. system – typically through an ecological gap analysis
(Dudley and Parrish 2006). In a conservation context,
9 We recommend that protected area management gap analysis is a method to identify biodiversity (i.e.,
categories be used a priori in the design of a more species, ecosystems and ecological processes) not
diverse portfolio of protected areas of varying adequately conserved within a protected area
management purposes (and governance types) to network or through other effective and long-term
meet the needs of biodiversity across the conservation measures. Well designed ecological gap
landscape or seascape. analyses identify three types of gaps in a protected area
system (sensu Dudley and Parrish, 2006):
9 As governments are called upon to identify and
urgently fill gaps in their protected area systems, 1. representation gaps (no or insufficient existing
we urge planners to use the full suite of protected coverage of a species or ecosystem by a protected
area management categories when identifying, area).
designating, and launching management of new 2. ecological gaps (protected area system fails to
lands and waters. The purpose, as much as the capture places or phenomena that are key to
place on a map, matters when rethinking the conserving a species or ecosystem during its life
design of existing and new protected areas in the cycle), and
system. 3. management gaps (the protected areas
geographically cover the biodiversity elements but
9 In light of the above there may also be fail to protect them due to insufficient
justification for many countries to review their management purpose or implementation).
existing protected area categories.
When gaps are identified and resulting actions are
Background implemented – such as new protected areas being
As human use and consumption dominates much of proposed to fill those gaps and reviews of management
the world’s land and seascapes, there is a growing need categories for the existing protected areas, being
to view protected areas as a range of management conducted - the full suite of categories should be
practices rather than isolated, locked-up and restricted considered. Further, though management effectiveness
places on the planet. A “one-size fits all” approach to is receiving increased attention by protected area
the management of biodiversity in protected areas will managers worldwide, it is still quite rare at the stage of
not only create conflict with other societal needs for gap analysis to consider the gain that could be made by
natural resources, but will limit the range of improving the effectiveness of management or
management options for conservationists and the modifying the management objectives of existing
amount of land and sea available for biodiversity protected areas, yet ineffective protected areas can be
protection. Indeed, the diversity of protected area as much of a gap as the absence of protected areas. We
categories presents to conservation and natural strongly encourage protected area planners to explore
resource planners a wide spectrum of options or not only improved management effectiveness, but also
prescriptions to place on the land/seascape to resolve changes in a new or existing protected area’s
conflicts among environmental, social, and economic management category as a tool for better biodiversity
values. Each category serves as a tool to be used to conservation.
tackle an ecological necessity of a species or ecosystem,
111
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When revisiting the categories of existing protected area important actors in the management of protected
to determine the type of protection that will best areas, especially under any form of co-
conserve the biodiversity within that protected area, management agreements.
there is no single rule that says a category I protected
area is better than a category II or III or VI. The only 9 When biodiversity has become adapted to cultural
principle that should apply in assigning categories or management systems and absence of these
evaluating protected area efficacy in biodiversity interventions now constitutes a pressure on
conservation is the appropriateness of a protected species
area’s assigned management purpose relative to the
ecological needs of, and threats to, the species of The case of the Carara National Park in Costa Rica is a
ecosystem in the context of existing social and good example of how not to assign management
physical circumstances, and in the context of the entire categories. The site used to be a Biological Reserve, a
landscape or seascape where that biodiversity element category I, strict management. However, historically
occurs. The protected area creation objectives are also the site allowed tourism use and other uses that
important to be considered at the moment of conflicted with the category I. After some years and
reviewing and assigning a management category. In some confrontations with the tourism industry, the
some cases, it may be best to strengthen the degree of protected area agency decided to change the site
protection because of declines in the ecological or management category to national park. In this case,
conservation status of a species or ecosystem within apparently the tourism industry demands prevailed
the protected area or across its distribution. In others, over the protected area creation objectives and
it might actually be more strategic to “lower” the purpose.
protected area category assignment (e.g. from a
category II protected area to a category IV). When Principles for assigning protected
might natural resource managers choose a lower area management categories in
protected area category over a more restricted one? protected area system planning
Examples include:
9 Start with the ecological needs of species and
9 When the viability of a species’ population or the ecosystems. Management options should be
integrity of the ecosystem has improved across its determined primarily by the ecological
distribution and no longer demands reduced characteristics and life history of the species and
human use and intense protection. ecosystems. For example, it would be quite risky
to assign a lower category designation to an area
9 When the potential human uses in a lower that is a critical bottleneck for the species, such as
protected area category are unlikely to affect the a singular congregation and refuelling area during
health of the species of ecosystem. migration.
9 When the management of ecological resources in 9 Consider the threats to the species or
the surrounding areas of the protected area or ecosystem values. Some threats lend themselves
under lower IUCN protected area categories are to a particular category, depending on their nature
compatible with the targeted species or ecological and intensity. For example, poaching or complete
system’s needs. For example, it may be more habitat destruction for a rare or endangered or
effective in river and freshwater protection to endemic and geographically restrictive species may
manage more of a watershed for ecosystem be better managed with higher category (e.g.
function with less restrictive protection than to category I or II) than with lower categories.
protect the mainstream of the river as category I
or I, depending on the priority threats to the 9 Consider the protected areas objectives,
biological target. international designations and how they
contribute to the landscape, country and
9 When the reduction in constraints on uses of the global biodiversity conservation efforts. Each
land/seascape will result in openness among existing protected area has been established for
stakeholders for increasing the geographic specific purposes and to accomplish specific
coverage of protection to capture important areas objectives. When we consider the landscape and
for a species or ecosystem. In addition, the country levels is possible to re-consider those
engagement of stakeholders is becoming more purposes and objectives according to the role the
common over time. Stakeholders are also protected area is expected to play in the
112
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
biodiversity conservation efforts. International should also take into account the existing and
designations such as those covered by the World likely management effectiveness of a given area
Heritage Convention and the RAMSAR when recommending management purpose
convention are useful to consider the best (protected area categories). Ineffective or non-
approach to manage a site. existent management at a category I or II
protected area (the paper-protected area
9 Consider designing a process to syndrome) may achieve less conservation impact
assign/review management categories in a than a category V or VI protected area that,
country. A national protected area agency should because of its diversity of stakeholders, may be
have an official process to review and assign able to deliver greater and less conflictive
management categories. This process should be management on the ground. It is generally better
known by agency staff and stakeholders. For to have an effective and permanent protected area
example, as a result of an ecological gap with less complete protection than an ineffective
assessment, the protected area agency in Panama strictly protected area (although there may be
is currently engaging in the review of the exceptions to this which we should elaborate).
management categories of all the country
protected areas. They expect to develop a process 9 Higher categories aren’t always better. It is
to assign and review protected areas management often the case that conservation scientists assume
categories. that categories I-IV represent more effective
conservation than lower categories in designation
9 No loss of naturalness, ecosystem function, or of protected areas as well as global, regional, and
species viability. The management option national analyses. This is not always the case. This
chosen should not in most cases result in a loss of depends entirely on management purpose and
current naturalness within the protected area (e.g., effectiveness vis-à-vis the biology and natural
we would not normally propose a category V or history of the focal biodiversity element.
VI protected area in a more-or-less natural site)
although there may be exceptions. 9 Use the categories as a tool for within-
protected area planning. Within a single
9 Consider the land and seascape mosaic when protected area, several zones with different
assigning categories. of Choice of category management objectives can be agreed if this helps
should reflect a contribution to the overall mosaic overall management. Consider temporary zones
rather than just to the individual site, i.e. within protected areas (e.g. to allow sustainable
management objectives for any given site should exploitation of non-timber forest products by
not be selected in isolation. Similarly, we local communities).
recommend that environmental planners seek to
invest in a diverse portfolio of managed areas 9 Societal benefits of diversifying the category
across the IUCN categories for a given portfolio. Considering use of a variety of
biodiversity element. protected area management categories can often
help perceptions of protected areas and increase
9 Stakeholders matter. Management options their adoption if people recognize that not every
should take into consideration the needs, protected area means that the terrestrial, aquatic or
capacities and desires of local communities and marine resources are “locked up.” Use of certain
should generally be selected after discussion with categories can build commitment by stakeholders
stakeholders – in general management objectives for conservation and expand options for
that are supported by local communities are more designation of areas for protection (e.g. sacred
likely to succeed than those that are unpopular or sites for local people’s religion and that also
opposed. represent significant contributions to biodiversity,
as is the case in Tikal National Park, Guatemala).
9 Consider management effectiveness when
assigning protected area categories. Managers
113
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Perspectives
114
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This paper outlines key issues arising from the circumstances of the place where it is established”
application of the current IUCN categories for the (Agardy 1997). Put most simply, an MPA is any
marine environment and marine protected areas marine area afforded some kind of legal or non-
(MPAs). It is based on a workshop prior to the statutorily agreed protection, usually to benefit
IMPAC1 Congress (2005), a paper by Wells & Day marine values such as conservation and/or
(2004), discussions at the WCPA – Marine MPA fisheries; this definition views protected areas
Summit (May 2007), and comments from MPA whose boundaries include both terrestrial and
practitioners around the world. marine habitats as an MPA28.
No categorisation system will ever be perfect for all 3. Available information indicates that there is
protected areas, but there are many benefits to currently very poor alignment between the IUCN
adopting an internationally acceptable common system category currently recorded, and the extent to
of protected area categories. Examples include: a which human activities can be regulated (as
universal approach understood by all; facilitation of specified in the relevant legislation or management
regional and global reporting; ensuring that plan) (Louisa Wood pers comm). This suggests
comparisons between protected areas are valid and that the system is not currently operating as an
based on globally standardised criteria; and assisting effective or reliable classification system.
the implementation of global goals (e.g., the goal of at
least one Cat I or Cat II MPA per bioregion). Today 4. Despite these implementation difficulties, the
some 4000 marine protected areas (MPAs) from source (and therefore the reliability) of the
around the globe have been assigned an IUCN information on IUCN category currently available
category and this information is stored in the WCMC for many MPAs is unknown. Furthermore, it is
global database. However various problems with these not always clear with whom the responsibility for
data have been identified. classifying the MPAs lies.
1. Many practitioners consider that the IUCN As a consequence of these and other challenges, to
categories are not easily applied in the marine date, the IUCN category system has largely been
environment. Some feel that the categories are poorly or inappropriately applied to MPAs. As such,
only applicable to terrestrial protected areas and the categories do not enable or facilitate accurate
would need to be substantially revised to gain any reporting on MPAs and their management objectives.
relevance for their MPAs. As such, the application Therefore, while there is potential for the categories to
of the current IUCN categories system to MPAs be highly applicable to MPAs, this potential is not
has been highly uneven, both at the policy level currently being realised. Many of the problems
and in practical terms. Some practitioners do not encountered in applying the categories to MPAs are
use the system at all, and may have developed also found with terrestrial protected areas.
their own framework. Where the system is used, Nevertheless, some issues are specific to MPAs, and
the difficulties in applying it mean that it may not there is an urgent need to increase understanding by
be applied consistently between locations, MPA practitioners of the functions of the category
reducing the efficacy of the system as a global system. An improvement in the application of the
classification scheme. system to MPAs is a significant and long-standing issue
that needs to be addressed.
2. There is considerable debate over the definition of
an MPA, but the definition adopted has important
consequences for the application of the system
correctly to the correct list of MPAs. The diverse
array of MPA goals, and their order of priority,
varies enormously from place to place – “so much 28 The IUCN definition of an MPA is “Any area of intertidal or sub-
so that one could almost say that every MPA is tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora,
fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by
unique, having been tailored to meet the specific law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed
environment”
115
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
116
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. There is a lack of clarity in the 1994 Guidelines protected areas and should be a requirement of the
for ‘multiple classifications’ reporting process.
Multiple classifications are defined in the Guidelines as
places “where parts of a single management unit are Multiple use MPAs currently may have been assigned a
classified by law as having different management range of categories, and it may be important that these
objectives”. This definition does not make it clear to be re-assessed. For example, the Ngerukewid
whether the term ‘multiple classifications’ applies to a Islands Wildlife Preserve in Palau has been assigned
single protected area, or to several protected areas. category III on account of its unique limestone islands
which constitute in effect a ‘national monument’.
Many MPAs may comprise more than one IUCN However, the main objective of the protected area,
category. Multiple-use MPAs are generally zoned, each particularly for the marine component, is strict
zone type having different specific objectives, with biodiversity protection.
some allowing greater use and removal of resources
than others. It is important to recognize that arrangements made to
deal with the anomalous position of some very large
The 1994 Guidelines acknowledge that zoning is a MPAs should not lead to an attempt to categorise all
feature of the management of many protected areas. protected areas by their management zones. It is also
The Guidelines recognise that “protected areas of desirable that assignment ‘rules’ should apply to all
different categories are often contiguous; sometimes protected areas (not just marine) – for example, the ’75
one category ‘nests’ within another. Thus many per cent rule’ requiring at least 75 per cent of the area
category VI areas contain within them category II and to fit the appropriate category criteria). These rules
IV areas. This is entirely consistent with the application must be applied by all those providing information for
of the system, providing such areas are identified the WDPA, as in many cases those doing so, are
separately for accounting and reporting purposes.” managing both terrestrial and marine protected areas.
(IUCN 1994) The Guidelines also recognise that there
are cases where “parts of a single management unit are 7. How should vertically-zoned areas be
classified by law as having different management recorded in the database?
objectives” (ibid). In effect, these ‘parts’ are individual In a three-dimensional marine environment, some
protected areas that together make up a larger unit, jurisdictions have made attempts at vertical zoning (eg
which – confusingly – may also be considered as a different rules within the water column than those
single protected area. allowed to occur on the seafloor). This is one way of
aiming for increased benthic protection while allowing
In 2001, a recommendation was adopted by the WCPA pelagic fishing; however it also raises difficulties for
Steering Committee, which allows for single enforcement purposes and is not easily shown within
management units to be separately reported on and the existing 2-dimensional databases or on maps. More
accounted for if: importantly, the linkages between benthic and pelagic
systems and species are not fully known, so the
9 the areas (or zones within the protected area) were exploitation of the surface or mid-water fisheries may
defined in the primary legislation setting up the have some unknown impacts on the underlying
protected area; benthic communities. Recognising that vertical zoning
9 these areas are clearly defined and mapped; and already exists in some MPAs, a number of important
9 the management aims for the individual parts are questions remain … a major one being how should
unambiguous, allowing assignment to a particular such areas be shown in the WDPA?
protected area category.
8. Should the categories imply the desired level
When these conditions are met, each part of the larger of management (i.e. be based on the objective
management unit should be recorded and classified of the area?), or should categories only be
separately on the database and in the UN List. The applied based on the existing level of
larger unit may retain its own categorisation, as now, management effectiveness?
provided the entire area meets the Guidelines. If specific Point 2(b) above makes it clear that the category
zones within the broader area equate more to other should be chosen on what it is intended to be by law,
IUCN categories, then the smaller units are the basis not on the current management situation. It is obvious
for accounting and reporting rather than the larger that an area that was previously able to be fished but
primary unit (this will reduce any problems of double- that has been recently set aside under law as a no-take
counting). The advice would relate to all kinds of area, will not immediately be as pristine as an area that
117
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
was set aside with a ‘no-take’ management objective 20 numbering system does apply which is not consistent
years ago and since been effectively managed as a no- with the international IUCN system.
take area. Hence it should be the legislated (or non-
statutorily agreed) objective of the area that determines The IUCN category system is not legally binding upon
the IUCN category, not the conditions existing at the a State Party; and if a country chooses to use a system
time that the category was assigned. that is inconsistent with the international system, then
that is their own choice. However given the
9. What other types of marine areas are suitable international application and intention of the IUCN
for recording as various IUCN categories? system, this is not the preferred approach. When
(eg. fisheries closures?) reporting internationally (eg to the global database), all
Areas managed primarily for fisheries management countries will be requested to report in a manner
rather than for conservation are not always recognised consistent with the international guidelines; hence it
as protected areas in the IUCN sense. This has raised makes sense for countries not to adopt inconsistent
some concerns as it could mean that no-fishing areas approaches.
that may be more strictly protected than some areas set
aside for marine biodiversity conservation, would not 12. Resolving MPAs that do not neatly fit into one
be recognised as MPAs. category or another – who makes the call?
Also who has the responsibility for assigning
Provided a part of the marine, estuarine, or inshore categories in the first place?
environment fits the IUCN definition for a MPA The diverse array of MPA goals, and their order of
(whether or not the area wants to be referred to as a priority, varies enormously from place to place – so
MPA), then it is not inappropriate that it be assigned to much so that one could almost say that every MPA is
one or more of the relevant IUCN categories. This unique, having been tailored to meet the specific
means that any marine area, including an intertidal or circumstances of the place where it is established
sub-tidal area, “together with its overlying water and (Agardy, 1997). In this way there may be instances
associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, where the criteria mean a MPA does not fit neatly into
which has been reserved by law or other effective one category or another … it is up to the State Party
means to protect part or all of the enclosed (ire the country) to make the call as to the most
environment” may be assigned to a IUCN category - appropriate category, remembering that the WDPA is
even if its prime purpose is for fisheries management. publicly available and it will be of little value if MPAs
are obviously mis-reported. There are also ‘rules’ for
10. The above approach should clarify the often the application of the categories (e.g. the ’75 per cent
prevailing view that all MPAs must be either rule’ ensures assignment to only one category provided
category I, II or III. 75 per cent of the total area meets the objective of that
Few outside the protected area profession are aware of particular category). It is also important to recognise
the IUCN categories managed for sustainable use (i.e. the WDPA is the international list upon which
categories IV to VI). These may still be called MPAs progress will be reported
provided they meet the IUCN definition.
13. How can the assignment of IUCN categories
11. What happens when there are inconsistencies in the WDPA be more effective? Also how can
between the IUCN categories and other the can the monitoring of IUCN categories in
category systems? the WDPA be more effective?
A number of countries have already adopted a category By far the biggest issue is incorrect application of the
system into their own legal framework (for example, categories, whether they be due to land/sea issues,
Australia), and this is being increasingly done interpretation issues, locational/cultural differences or
elsewhere. For example in Australia, the Environment some other reason. This has then been exacerbated by
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) the fact that there is a lack of clarity on who should be
requires that an IUCN category must be assigned when assigning the categories. Finally, because the WDPA
any protected area is declared by the national doesn’t store reference information at the field level, it
government. The legislation includes, for each is not possible to track when and by whom that
category, a set of ‘Australian IUCN Reserve decision was made. One suggestion is that it may be
Management Principles’, based on the 1994 IUCN more appropriate to focus on overhauling the data
guidelines for assigning categories. Reserves may be once the guidelines have been improved, and also
multiple-use, in which case each zone is assigned an introducing a referencing system for the data.
appropriate category. Note however that a different
118
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The various difficulties in applying the category system uses of MPAs and the adoption of the ‘hurricane’
cover have the combined effect of heavily diminishing approach of just numbers (i.e. category II) along
the value and reliability of the data currently stored in with clear criteria for each category rather than
the global database. There is a clear need to revise and names for categories.
update the category information currently in the
database for all MPAs. In addition, given the d) The relevance of IUCN categories to MPAs
difficulties in applying the categories and the ambiguity should be promoted, and made clear to all those
over who has the responsibility to assign a category to involved in MPA establishment and management.
an MPA, it would greatly facilitate monitoring efforts if Some countries may need technical assistance in
the database were expanded to also store information the assignment process.
on when and by whom the category was assigned, and
under what conditions. e) MPA practitioners should be requested to
periodically review the IUCN categories
Recommendations to the Summit on applying in their MPA, and if necessary advise
future work and direction their WCPA Regional Coordinators and/or
Regarding the application of the IUCN categories for WCMC/UNEP of any necessary changes.
MPAs, the following are considered the key
recommendations: f) The UNEP/WCMC database needs to be
amended to:
a) A ‘Marine Version’ of the IUCN category a. allow inputting of multiple IUCN
guidelines should be developed by WCPA- categories for single protected areas
Marine and widely disseminated as a companion (marine and terrestrial);
document or addendum to the IUCN ‘Guidelines b. store reference information at the field
for protected area management categories’. This should level, so it is possible to track when and
build upon the format already existing for each of by whom that decision for a particular
the IUCN categories (and draft versions known to category was made;
exist), and be aimed primarily at those involved in c. Enable future editions of the UN List to
MPA establishment and management. It should more accurately report separate
also include practical examples for each category management units within a protected
showing how they have been correctly applied. area provided they meet the criteria set
down in the guidelines.
b) In the IUCN Guidelines there is also a need to
clarify terms that have different meanings or On the issue of double counting, WCPA/IUCN
customary interpretations between land and sea should ask UNEP/WCMC to develop a means of
(one notable example is the term ‘land-use’ which identifying and recording any protected areas, including
is often used to mean the entire range of human MPAs, that are located within other protected areas so
activities that impact the natural environment). as to remove any double counting from the data base
and UN List.
c) WCPA-Marine needs to stress the objective-
based approach of the categories in relation to
119
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary
Freshwater biodiversity is underrepresented in conservation, for example headwaters are
protected area systems worldwide. This threatens the typically excluded and rivers are used as their
ecological integrity of freshwater ecosystems as well as boundaries;
human communities across the globe. We believe this They are usually not networked effectively to
gap in awareness and in protected areas must be conserve freshwater species or maintain
urgently addressed. This should begin with the very necessary ecological processes.
definition of protected areas which has assumed that They are often viewed and managed as a
freshwater biological features will be included by any necessary resource for conserving terrestrial
terrestrial efforts – an assumption that has proven to biodiversity rather than for their intrinsic
be incorrect. This need for greater attention to biodiversity value.
freshwater biodiversity – along with terrestrial and 9 Conserving freshwater ecosystems is one of the
marine systems – has implications for the protected greatest governance challenges faced by modern
area management categories, and we call upon societies. There are multiple and often conflicting
members of the World Commission on Protected demands placed upon freshwater. Nearly everyone
Areas to ensure any improvement to the category lives within a river basin and everyone needs to be
system addresses freshwater biodiversity and part of the solutions for their conservation.
freshwater protected areas.
The Skukuza experts discussed the low priority
What is the problem? afforded by most governments to better freshwater
Conservation of freshwater ecosystems is crucial for ecosystem management, and concluded that:
providing reliable and clean water supplies needed to 9 Conservation of freshwater ecosystems is critical
sustain people, ecosystems and nature. Globally, for sustainable livelihoods and the achievement of
freshwater biodiversity and habitats are being lost at an human development targets; the wise management
unprecedented rate. of ecosystem services provided by freshwater is
the key link in achieving multiple development
There is: targets.
9 A massive decline of freshwater biodiversity, 9 Governments and societies are often unaware of
which is worse than that recorded for terrestrial the need to conserve freshwater ecosystems,
and marine biomes; threats to them and opportunities to manage them
9 A growing demand for water and increasing better.
pollution over large parts of the world threaten 9 There are unique opportunities now to advance
remaining freshwater biodiversity; freshwater conservation, especially for freshwater
9 The likelihood that these threats will be protected areas, through commitments made
exacerbated by climate change, and by inadequate under the Convention on Biological Diversity and
or inappropriate government responses to climate the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
change, such as the construction of more dams for 9 The Symposium concluded that the world
hydroelectricity and water supply. community needs to enhance conservation
9 Large areas of freshwater habitats are incorporated management, especially by using areas for the
in protected areas (e.g. Ramsar sites), but these protection of:
protected areas face numerous problems: The entire freshwater biome at the largest
They are not properly representative of the scale through wise use and conservation;
diversity of habitats, nor geographies and Environmental processes, such as the flow of
biogeographic realms; sediments and nutrients in rivers needed to
They are rarely sustained by environmental sustain the ecology of floodplains, deltas and
flows estuaries;
Existing protected areas were often not
designated and managed for freshwater
120
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Attributes that provide particular ecosystem protected as free-flowing rivers can be registered
services from natural wetlands, services such by governments and celebrated;
as clean water, medicinal plants and fish; 9 Supporting national governments to implement
Freshwater-dependant species, such as national protected area systems to conserve
mammals, birds, fish; freshwater biodiversity;
Ecological communities, such as floodplain 9 Existing method and case study materials are
forests, lakes, and peat swamps. being published on the website:
www.protectedareas.info
To best manage and conserve freshwater habitats, it is
critical that a linked set of actions are implemented The Symposium concluded that:
concurrently at different scales, ranging from sites, to 9 Freshwater habitats need to be conserved as the
small catchments, to entire river basins, to concerted source of water for people and nature;
national and international actions. Protected areas are 9 Effective protected areas are one of the best tools
one of the most important strategies for conserving for conserving freshwater ecosystems to benefit
inland water biodiversity at local to basin scales. people and nature;
Integrated river basin (catchment / watershed) 9 Globally, peace, good health and food security
management, and the provision of adequate water depend on sustainable management of freshwater
flows are two other critical actions that are needed. ecosystems as the main source of water for people
and nature;
The symposium agreed that the roles of protected 9 A well managed aquatic environment is the best
areas regarding the conservation of freshwater defence against disasters such as floods and
ecosystems are to: droughts and the best response to mitigate against
9 Conserve biodiversity in situ (species, wetlands the impacts of climate change.
types) 9 The need for greater attention to freshwater
9 Maintain ecological processes (e.g. free-flowing, biodiversity has implications for the protected area
icon sites lever allocation of flows) management categories, and we call upon
9 Manage the ecosystem and biodiversity to deliver members of the WCPA to ensure any
defined ecosystem goods and services, e.g. to improvement to the category system addresses
sustain fisheries and/or reliable sources of clean freshwater biodiversity and freshwater protected
water supply areas.
9 Act as scientific reference points
9 Reduce user group conflicts The world’s governments face a huge challenge to
manage freshwater ecosystems sustainably – mitigating
The Symposium urges IUCN, through its WCPA, to the threats is urgent. The future of freshwater
redefine its definition of protected areas to better biodiversity and the critical ecosystem services that it
embrace freshwater conservation. We propose that a provides, such as drinking water, food, nutrient cycling,
new definition for freshwater protected areas should flood and drought control, depend on immediate
be redefined as: “An area of land, inland waters and/or sea action. Fortunately the government commitments that
especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of have been agreed under the Convention on Biological
biological diversity, ecological processes and the ecosystem services Diversity and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
provided, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and provide a unique opportunity to establish an effective
managed through legal or other effective means." protected areas system that will make a major
contribution, by 2010, to significantly reduce the rate
The Symposium participants committed to several of biodiversity loss as a contribution to poverty
actions designed to help governments and society alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth.
better conserve freshwater ecosystems for people and
nature. These actions include:
9 Preparing and distributing guidelines and case Acknowledements
studies publicly on: a) management guidelines for On 9-13 October 2006, 33 experts from government
optimal conservation of freshwater biodiversity in and non-government organizations, with particular
protected areas; b) establishing protected area expertise from Australia, South Africa and the USA,
systems to conserve freshwater biodiversity at the gathered in Skukuza, South Africa, to identify solutions
national scale; for freshwater conservation, especially through
9 Developing criteria, guidelines and case studies, improved establishment and management of protected
and develop a place where rivers that are areas for freshwater conservation.
121
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Inland wetland ecosystems occupy only a small area of not saline.’ Technically, then, it excludes inland saline
the planet but of all biomes and habitats, are the most and brackish-water systems, but in practice the term is
heavily impacted and threatened by human activities. often used as equivalent to inland wetlands. The
Governments and the conservation community have Ramsar Convention defines wetlands as ‘areas of marsh,
made commitments to conserve inland wetland species fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial,
and habitats equal to those for the marine and permanent or temporary, with water that is static or
terrestrial realms, but those commitments have yet to flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of
be fully realized. Greater effort and attention must be marine water the depth of which at low tide does not
given both to achieving adequate representation and exceed six metres.’ In some regions of the world the
protection of inland wetland systems through term wetlands is informally understood to exclude non-
designation of so-called inland wetland protected areas vegetated aquatic systems like streams, lakes, and
and to improving management of inland wetland groundwaters. For the purposes of these guidelines we
systems and species that occur within protected areas use the term inland waters to describe the variety of
originally designated to protect terrestrial targets. aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats, and their associated
Inland wetland considerations should be species, that fall outside marine classifications. Natural
integrated into the management of all relevant inland water wetlands include (modified from the
protected areas, Furthermore, protected areas Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Wetlands and
need to be seen in a wider bioregional and Water Synthesis Report, Table 3.1):
catchment context if inland wetland conservation 9 Permanent and temporary rivers and streams
is to succeed. 9 Permanent lakes
9 Seasonal lakes, marshes, and swamps, including
These guidelines summarize key commitments, floodplains
challenges and solutions for using protected areas, and 9 Forested wetlands, marshes, and swamps,
applying categories specifically, to advance the including floodplains
conservation of inland wetland ecosystems and species. 9 Alpine and tundra welands
Information is grouped under the following headings: 9 Springs, oases and geothermal wetlands
9 International inland wetland protected areas 9 Underground wetlands, including caves and
goals/targets/resolutions groundwater systems
9 Links with the Ramsar Convention
9 Complexities of inland wetland protection International inland wetland
9 Applying the new protected areas definition protected area goals/ targets/
9 Applying protected areas categories resolutions
9 Integrated protection of terrestrial and inland The world’s governments have made numerous
wetland systems commitments to protect inland wetland biodiversity
9 Accounting of inland wetland protections and ecosystems in protected area systems:
122
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 The Food and Agriculture Organisation’s 1995 Work Plan. Thus implementation of CBD’s Thematic
“Code of conduct for responsible fisheries,” that Programme of Work on Inland Waters Biodiversity is
was adopted by 170 nations, requires protection of practically delivered through Ramsar implementation,
critical habitats. Section 6.8 (FAO 1995) states including through the designation of Ramsar sites.
“All critical fisheries habitats in marine and fresh water Likewise the designation of Ramsar sites provides a
ecosystems, such as wetlands, mangroves, reefs, lagoons, significant tool for delivery of CBD programme of
nursery and spawning areas, should be protected and work on protected areas.
rehabilitated as far as possible and where necessary….”
The Convention has many benefits for wetlands
9 Several regional and bilateral migratory bird conservation since it creates moral pressure for
agreements call for the protection of wetland member governments to establish and manage wetland
habitats critical to waterbird survival. For example, protected areas; sets standards, provides guidance, and
the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement facilitates collaboration on wise usei has a triennial
(AEWA) states that ‘Parties shall endeavour to continue global reporting and monitoring system; and
establishing protected areas to conserve habitats important encourages participation of non-government
for the populations listed.’ organizations, local communities, and indigenous
peoples. While Ramsar sites may fall into any one or
9 In 2006, Parties to the CBD COP 8 adopted more of the IUCN categories of protected areas, and
targets for achievement of the CBD PoWPA, many Ramsar sites are not IUCN categories I-VI, all
including inland wetlands biodiversity targets Ramsar sites are protected areas and are included in the
(CBD 2006, decision VIII/15: Annex IV) for: World Database of Protected Areas. Ramsar guidance
At least 10per cent of known inland wetland can be adapted for any wetland protected area, whether
ecosystem area effectively conserved and under or not it is a site of international importance (i.e.
integrated river or lake basin management; and Ramsar site). For more information about Ramsar, see
275 million hectares of wetlands of particular ‘Other Approaches to Protection.’
importance to biodiversity protected, including
representation and equitable distribution of areas of Complexities of inland wetland
different wetland types across the range of protection
biogeographic zones. The relationship between protected areas and inland
wetland conservation is complex. There are many real
A Thematic Programme of Work for Inland Waters and perceived incompatibilities and challenges that
Biodiversity (decision VII/4 – annex) with a strong set arise when considering this relationship, including:
of goals and activities has also been adopted.
Integrated river basin management was adopted as a 9 Landscape relationship and role. Inland
primary tool for implementing the Programme of wetland systems are part of the larger terrestrial
Work, along with a provision calling on Parties to landscape and distinct parts are linked to their
facilitate at least minimum water allocations to upstream catchments29 through a variety of above-
maintain function and integrity of inland wetland and below-ground hydrological processes. The
ecosystems. prospect of ‘fencing off’ inland wetland systems is
in most cases technically infeasible, for the reasons
Links with the Ramsar Convention described below. The most effective protected
The 158 Contracting Parties (Governments) to the areas for inland wetland conservation will be part
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands have committed of integrated river basin management (IRBM),
themselves to the ‘wise use’ of all wetlands on their sometimes called integrated catchment or
territory (including rivers), conservation of “wetlands watershed management. IRBM involves a
of international importance” (Ramsar sites), and landscape-scale strategy to achieve environmental,
international cooperation. Ramsar Convention economic, and social objectives concurrently.
Contracting Parties each commit to undertaking an IRBM is a form of the ecosystem approach, which
inventory of their wetlands and preparing a ‘strategic the countries that have acceded to the Convention
framework for the Ramsar list’ for the systematic and on Biological Diversity are committed to
representative national designation and management of implementing. The world's governments are also
wetland habitat types. committed to planning and
Ramsar has acted, by decision of CBD COP 3, as the
29 A catchment is defined here as all lands enclosed by a continuous
CBD’s lead implementation partner for wetlands, and
hydrologic-surface drainage divide and lying upslope from a specified
this is implemented also through a CBD/Ramsar Joint point on a stream; or, in the case of closed-basin systems, all lands
draining to a lake.
123
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
124
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
provide a wide array of essential ecosystem A wide range of inland wetland conservation strategies
services, not least of these being drinking water. targeted at protecting water quality and quantity, such
The fundamental right of access to fresh water, as managing for environmental flows32 and applying
both within and upstream of protected araes, can wise management practices to land use, normally fall
be in conflict with the aims of some protected outside the protected area definition. They are
area categories that limit human resource use. mentioned here because effective conservation of
inland wetland systems within protected areas will in
9 Multiple management authorities. In many if most cases only be achieved through coordinated use
not most countries there are overlapping and of such strategies outside protected areas. protected
potentially conflicting responsibilities of different areas can play important advocacy roles for such
government agencies as they relate to the external strategies.
management of freshwater resources, wetland
species, aquatic habitats, surrounding landscapes, Applying protected area categories
and protected areas. Consequently, managing As with terrestrial (with special cases such as forests) or
inland wetland species and habitats within a marine protected areas, any of the protected area
protected area – which as noted above will likely categories can in principle apply to areas with explicit
require managing lands and water outside the inland wetland conservation objectives. Examples of
protected area as well – can be complicated by the protected areas that have clear objectives relating to
need to coordinate among multiple authorities, inland wetland conservation are found within every
some with mandates at odds with biodiversity IUCN category (see Table 7 at the end of the paper):
conservation.
Like protected areas generally, inland wetland-
In short, challenges for conserving inland wetland associated protected areas may benefit from mixed
systems and species abound. While ideally protected zoning to permit different levels of use. For example,
areas established to conserve inland wetland in Lake Malawi National Park (Malawi), traditional
ecosystems will encompass entire catchments, more fishing methods aimed at catching migratory fish are
typically innovative combinations of protected areas permitted in limited areas, while in most of the park
and other strategies will need to be applied within an the resident fish may not be fished.
IRBM framework. Existing protected areas designated
and designed to protect terrestrial targets no doubt Whether and how protected area categories are linked
confer some benefits to inland wetland biodiversity to place-based protections is case-specific. Table 8 lists
through landscape management, but there are a number of place-based strategies and identifies when
significant opportunities to provide enhanced they are particularly compatible, not incompatible, or
protection. Designs for new protected areas can and incompatible with IUCN protected area categories.
should include inland wetland considerations from the These assignments are generalities, and exceptions will
outset to achieve better integration. The following exist. World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites, and
pages provide introductory guidelines for how Biosphere Reserves are included because they have
protected areas can better assist inland wetland been used widely to protect inland wetland features
conservation. and because they have each made use of mixed zoning.
Place-based protection mechanisms both specific to
Applying the new protected area inland wetland systems and not are listed to emphasize
definition the variety of strategies in an inland wetland protection
The new protected area definition -- A clearly defined toolbox (see Table 8).
geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed to achieve
the long-term conservation of nature, associated ecosystem services Many protected areas designated in whole or part to
and cultural values – is more inclusive of fresh waters protect inland wetlands, including most Ramsar sites,
than the previously adopted definition through its do not yet have protected area category assignments.
replacement of ‘area of land and/or sea’ with ‘a clearly Additionally, many protected areas contributing to
defined geographic space.’ Protected areas that may be inland wetland ecosystem conservation have no
defined primarily to conserve inland wetland features Ramsar status. Consequently, it is presently not
such as river corridors or lakes are now clearly covered possible to assess globally which existing protected
by the definition. This includes some types of areas have inland wetland objectives, or how IUCN
protected areas that are unique to inland wetland
ecosystems, such as designated free-flowing rivers. 32 The quality, quantity, and timing of water flows required to
125
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
categories have been applied to them. The need to ensuring that roads within pas are not fragmenting
quantify the extent of dedicated inland wetland stream systems)
protection, though, should not take attention away 9 Protecting native faunas (e.g. Prohibiting exotic
from the necessity of considering inland wetland fish stocking or overfishing)
objectives for all terrestrial protected areas. Different 9 Protecting native flora – particularly in riparian
types of inland wetland systems, with different degrees zones which may be neglected in the broader
of intactness, may lend themselves more to some protected areas
protected area categories than others. The variety of 9 Managing aquatic recreational activities (e.g.
options and examples suggests that, contrary to Restricting motorized watercraft)
conventional wisdom, protected areas and inland 9 Aggressively protecting water quality (e.g. Careful
wetland protection can be compatible (see Table 9). management of point-source discharges from park
facilities)
Integrated protection of terrestrial 9 Protecting headwater flows so that downstream
and inland wetland systems users can enjoy the benefits of ecosystem services
This account intentionally avoids use of the term 9 Protecting or restoring riparian buffers both
‘inland wetland protected area’ because defining and within a park and along a park’s border if a river
applying it is problematic. MPAs are easily identified by demarcates the border (and extending protected
their location in the marine realm. Inland wetland areas boundaries where possible using appropriate
systems, however, span the terrestrial landscape and inland wetland ecosystem criteria -- for example,
occur in virtually all terrestrial protected areas. Certain using catchment boundaries, not river channels, to
protected areas, such as free-flowing rivers and many demarcate areas)
Ramsar sites, might clearly qualify as ‘inland wetland
protected areas’. But the designation of other inland Accounting of inland wetland
wetland protected areas is ambiguous. Some protected protections
areas have included both terrestrial and inland wetland Whether or not protected areas are classified as ‘inland
management goals from the outset, whereas others wetland,’ recording and accounting of inland wetland
originally designated to protect terrestrial features have protections for the purposes of databases like the
grown to incorporate inland wetland objectives over WDPA remains a challenge. Not only can measuring
time. South Africa’s Kruger National Park is one and interpreting the size of many wetlands be difficult,
example: originally designated to protect its large and in many cases wetlands vary greatly due to natural
mammalian fauna, the riparian and riverine zones are factors (e.g., seasonal flooding), and currently the
estimated to support 50% of the park’s biota and the WDPA has no provision for length measurements.
park’s management now includes an estimated 30 per Further, data on the global extent of inland wetlands
cent inland wetland management focus. Ultimately, remain insufficient, hampering a reliable calculation of
whether a protected area is considered ‘inland wetland’ the proportion of inland wetland systems occurring in
may have as much to do with its management protected areas worldwide. For instance, the
objectives as with its component habitats. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provides a figure
of 12 per cent protection for inland wetlands, a value
While there is evidence that some protected areas generated by overlaying protected area polygons with
benefit the inland wetland systems within them inland wetlands categories of the Digital Chart of the
irrespective of whether explicit inland wetland World (DCW). However, the data used to calculate
management is applied, there are numerous other total habitat area for inland wetland categories are
examples of protected areas failing to protect their known to be unreliable and unrepresentative, and in
component inland wetland systems. In many instances, particular do not adequately estimate the extent of
inland wetland ecosystems within protected areas have seasonal or heavily vegetated wetlands. About 12 per
been deliberately altered to supply water and cent of the earth’s terrestrial surface occurs within
hydroelectricity, and even to facilitate wildlife viewing protected areas, suggesting only that inland wetlands
and other forms of recreation. What is needed is the have not been intentionally excluded from existing
integration of inland wetland considerations into the protected areas. Until inland wetland conservation is
management of all relevant protected areas, including incorporated into protected area management plans,
coastal marine protected areas. Management of and those management plans acknowledge processes
‘terrestrial’ protected areas could include, for example: and threats external to protected area boundaries,
9 Protecting or restoring longitudinal and lateral knowing the geographic extent of inland wetland
connectivity of stream corridors (e.g. Removing systems within protected areas tells us more about
barriers, reconnecting rivers with floodplains, conservation potential than conservation reality.
126
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ia Srebarna Nature A 600 ha Biosphere Reserve, World Heritage Site, and Ramsar Site designated
Reserve to protect Srebarna Lake, located on the Danube floodplain. The reserve was
(Bulgaria) set up primarily to protect the rich avifauna, especially waterfowl.
Ib Avon A 39,650 ha wilderness park covering entire catchments of the Avon River
Wilderness Park headwaters, designated for conservation and self-reliant recreation under the
(Australia) National Parks Act.
II Pantanal A 135,000 ha national park (and Ramsar site) situated in a large depression
National Park functioning as an inland delta. The area consists of a vast region of seasonally
(Brazil) flooded savannas, islands of xerophytic scrub, and humid deciduous forest.
III Ganga Lake A 32,860 ha natural feature (and Ramsar site) encompassing a small brackish
(Mongolia) lake and associated lakes in eastern Mongolia within a unique landscape
combining wetlands, steppe and sand dunes. The lake district is of great
importance for breeding and stop-over waterbirds.
IV Koshi Tappu A 17,500 ha wildlife reserve running along the Sapta Kosi River and consisting
(Nepal) of extensive mudflats and fringing marshes. The reserve contains Nepal's last
surviving population of wild water buffalo.
V Big South Fork This national river and recreation area encompasses 50,585 ha of the
(USA) Cumberland Plateau and protects the free-flowing Big South Fork of the
Cumberland River and its tributaries. The area has largely been protected for
recreational opportunities.
VI Titicaca (Peru) A 36,180 ha national reserve established to protect the world's highest
navigable lake.
Table 8: Compatibility of various inland water protection strategies with IUCN categories
Type of protected area: descriptions If outside I-
normally refer to isolated entities - all can VI, likely role
be incorporated as part of larger reserves Compatibility with protected area category in IRBM*
Ia Ib II III IV V VI conservation Examples
Designation/recognition under an international convention or programme
World Heritage Site Low Lake Malawi (Malawi)
Ramsar Site Very high Upper Navua CA (Fiji)
Biosphere Reserve High Dalai Lake (China)
Freshwater place-based protection mechanisms
Free-flowing river High Upper Delaware R. (US)
Douglas R./Daly R.
Riparian reserve/buffer High Esplanade CA (Aust.)
Floodplain reserve High Pacaya-Samiria (Peru)
Fishery/harvest reserve High Lubuk Sahab (Indonesia)
Wetland game/hunting reserve Moderate Ndumo Game Res. (SA)
Recreational fishing restricted area Moderate Onon River (Mongolia)
Protected water supply catchment High Rwenzori Mts NP (Ug.)
Protected aquifer recharge area High Susupe Wetland (Saipan)
Other place-based mechanisms with potential freshwater benefits
Marine reserve/coastal mgt. zone Low Danube Delta (Romania)
Seasonally closed fishery Moderate Lake St. Antonio (Brazil)
Forest reserve Moderate Sundarbans (Bangladesh)
Certified forest area Moderate Upper St. John R. (USA)
127
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 9: Most appropriate protected area categories for different types of inland wetland ecosystems
Freshwater ecosystem type IUCN Category Examples
Ia Ib II III IV V VI
River systems
128
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
129
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
minority habitat, such as relic forests, riverine Areas that gives meaningful and accurate data.
forests and mangroves. This creates problems of Calculation should follow the sequence shown in the
interpretation and data availability. Should forest Guidelines below. Forest Protected Areas can be
statisticians differentiate the fractions of protected calculated as an unambiguous subset of national
areas that contain forests? protected area statistics, capturing information on all
protected forests but eliminating plantations within the
9 Is all the forest in a protected area automatically Forest less strictly protected categories.
Protected Area? Some protected areas, particularly
categories V and VI, may contain areas of trees Calculating the extent of forest
that are not protected forests. Examples include protected areas
exotic plantations in many category V protected When statistics are required that specifically relate to
areas in Europe. These do not meet the forests, it is necessary to identify that portion of
definition of a forest proposed for use in protected areas that contains forest. This will seldom
protected areas outlined in box 6 but currently be straightforward: many protected areas contain some
they are sometimes recorded as being “protected” forest, even “forest protected areas” are often not
– and thus can appear in official statistics as entirely forest and in addition calculation sometimes
“Forest Protected Areas”. needs to take into account forests within broader scale
landscape protection that do not meet the
It is important that a standardised procedure is identification criteria listed above.
followed in determining the extent of Forest Protected
No Yes
It follows that any area that appears to fit into one of the categories based on a consideration of its
management practices alone, but which does not meet the general definition of a protected area, should
not to be considered as protected area as defined by IUCN.
Policy guidance
Calculation of Forest Protected Area includes the following steps:
Remove any area of trees that do not meet the definition of a forest: i.e.
industrial plantations for timber, food, oil palm etc
130
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What areas fall outside the IUCN 9 Forests managed primarily as a community
definition of a forest protected area? resource – e.g. forests managed for non-timber
There are many forest uses – some with high social and forest products, fuelwood and fodder, recreational
ecological or biological values – that lie outside the or for religious purposes
precise IUCN definition, and some examples being 9 Forests managed as a strategic resource – e.g. as a
given below. emergency supply of timber in times of conflict
9 Forests with unclear primary management
Policy guidance: The following are not automatically objectives resulting in biodiversity protection
Forest Protected Areas: being considered as an equal or a lesser priority
along with other uses
9 Forests managed for resource protection other 9 Forests set aside by accident – e.g. woodland in
than biodiversity – e.g. forests set aside for the central reservation or verges of motorways,
watershed or drinking water protection, avalanche forest maintained for military or security reasons.
control, firebreaks, windbreaks and erosion
control Some examples are given in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Examples of Forest Protected Areas, and also of well conserved forests that are not Forest
Protected Areas
Type of forest Example Notes
Examples of Forest Protected Areas
IUCN category Ia Wo Long Nature A strict nature reserve, established primarily to protect the giant
protected area Reserve, Sichuan, China panda, including a captive breeding centre
IUCN category II Huerquehue National This national park is entirely protected (there are some
protected area Park, Chile properties within it, but excluded from the protected area, that
are used for ecotourism). It was established mainly for the
preservation of the unique Araucaria (monkey puzzle) forests.
IUCN category III Monterrico Multiple Use This is a coastal area with the largest remaining block of
Area, mangrove in the country, plus turtle beaches and several marine
Guatemala communities. Mangroves are managed for protection and
artisanal fishing.
IUCN category IV Dja Faunal Reserve, This is in the southeast of Cameroon in the Congo Basin. Many
Cameroon people live in and around the reserve including tribes of baka
(pygmy) people. Active management is needed to control the
bushmeat trade and to help restore areas of forest.
IUCN category V Sugarloaf Mountain, The woods on the side of the mountain are owned and managed
Brecon Beacons as a nature reserve by the National Trust, a large UK NGO,
National Park, UK although limited sheep grazing is permitted within the Forest
Protected Area. Surrounding hills are used for sheep pasture.
IUCN category VI Talamanca Cabécar Some forest use is permitted in this reserve, particularly by
Anthropological indigenous peoples, but most of it remains under strict
Reserve, Costa Rica protection.
Examples of forests that are not Forest Protected Areas
Forest in IUCN Plantation forest within Although the plantation is within the category V protected area,
category V the Snowdonia National it is an entirely commercial, state-owned timber plantation of
Park, Wales, UK exotic species and as such does not constitute a Forest
Protected Area.
Forest in IUCN Extractive Reserve of The 53 per cent of the reserve that is used for extractive
category VI Alto Juruá, Brazil purposes is not a Forest Protected Area, while the remaining
area is fully protected.
Forest managed Brisbane watershed, The catchment around Brisbane is set aside from logging and
for environmental Queensland, Australia other disturbance so as to maintain the city’s water supply. The
control forest is strictly conserved but not as a protected area as there is
no special purpose of biodiversity protection, although there are
some small protected areas within it.
131
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Finally, IUCN provides guidelines for identifying when and buffer zones, fall inside or outside definitions of a
some important linking habitats – such as corridors protected area (table 11).
Table 11: Distinguishing biological corridors, stepping stones and buffer zones inside and outside
protected areas
Element Description Examples
Biological Area of suitable habitat, or Protected areas
corridor habitat undergoing Designation of an area of forest linking two existing protected
restoration, linking two or forests as a fully protected area with an IUCN category
more protected areas (or Not protected areas
linking important habitat Areas of forest certified for good management between Forest
that is not protected) to Protected Areas
allow interchange of Area of woodland connecting two protected areas voluntarily
species, migration, gene managed for wildlife by landowner on a temporary basis
exchange etc Areas of forest covered by a conservation easement held by
government or private conservation organisation
Ecological Area of suitable habitat or Protected areas
stepping habitat undergoing Relic forests managed to provide stopping off points for
stone restoration between two migrating birds
protected areas or other Not protected areas
important habitat types that Woodlands set aside by farmers under voluntary agreements and
provides temporary habitat government compensation to provide temporary habitat for
for migratory birds and migrating birds
other species
Buffer zone Area around a core Protected area
protected area that is Forest area at the edge of a protected area that is opened to
managed to help maintain community use under controls that are nature-friendly and do
protected area values not impact on the primary aim of nature conservation. Typically
a category V or VI protected area surrounding a more strictly
protected core (I-IV). In some countries, buffer zones are legally
declared as part of protected area.
Not a protected area
Forest area outside a protected area that is managed sensitively
through agreements with local communities, with or without
compensation payments
The paper summarises key parts of Forests and Protected Areas, volume 12 of the Best Practice Protected Area
Guidelines Series published by Cardiff University and IUCN.
132
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
133
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
134
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We suggest this might be done most easily by health and mental well being, and to promote support
incorporating the following wording into the definition for the conservation of nature in general.”
of category IV protected areas as a supporting
objective to the primary objective: We also note that urban and peri-urban protected areas
cut across almost all IUCN categories and recommend
“To provide a means by which the residents of towns further discussions are held to decide how to respond
and cities may obtain regular contact with nature close to this reality for the greater benefit nature and nature
to where they live, for the benefit of their physical conservation.
135
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
136
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Over the years, there has been some confusion and For example, the Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of
uncertainty about the relationship between Wetlands of International Importance makes no reference to protection
International Importance and the IUCN system of status. The Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands implies
protected area management categories (as used by that protection status is not mandatory, with phrases
IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas - such as: “If a reserve has been established” and “If
WCPA). The adoption in 1994 of a revised appropriate, list the IUCN (1994) protected areas
management categories system, by the 19th session of category/ies”. The Ramsar Convention Manual (2006) is
the IUCN General Assembly, and the publication explicit: “Designating a wetland for the Ramsar List
(CNPPA/WCMC, 1994) of guidelines about that does not in itself require the site previously to have
system, followed by extensive discussion on this topic been declared a protected area. In fact, listing under
inter alia at the Vth World Parks Congress (Durban, the Ramsar Convention, especially in the case of sites
South Africa, 2003) suggest clarification of the subject to intensive use by human communities –
relationship is timely. either to extract resources or to benefit from the
natural functions of the wetland – can provide the
This paper seeks to demonstrate that the IUCN necessary protection to ensure its long-term
management categories system is not only compatible sustainability. This can best be achieved by preparing
with Wetlands of International Importance as defined and implementing an appropriate management plan,
and managed by the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, with the active participation of all stakeholders. ”
Iran, 1971), but that it can inform the planning,
management and effectiveness of those sites. Also, we In fact, listing of a wetland under the Ramsar
aim to illustrate by examples the practical application Convention, especially in the case of sites subject to
of the revised system of protected area management intensive use by human communities should provide
categories to Biosphere Reserves. the necessary protection to ensure its long-term
sustainability. Listing under the Ramsar Convention
Protection status of Ramsar Sites elevates the sites to a higher status (recognized as
The Ramsar Convention encourages Parties to places of "international importance"), focuses more
designate and manage important wetlands in a way that attention upon them, and should contribute to their
does not change their ecological character. While many long-term conservation and wise use – whether or not
of these Wetlands of International Importance Ramsar status conveys additional legal protection in-
(Ramsar Sites henceforth) also have other protection country depends upon the national and local policy and
status (e.g., are protected areas under natural legislation concerning Ramsar Sites. Human uses of
legislation, World Heritage sites or UNESCO wetlands are indeed compatible with listing under
biosphere reserves), there is no obligation for Ramsar Ramsar, provided that they are in line with the Ramsar
sites to be legally protected areas under national concept of "wise use" (sustainable use) and do not lead
legislation. Indeed, this sometimes helps to persuade to a negative change in ecological character.
governments to designate sites under Ramsar when
they would be reluctant to make them protected areas It is unclear whether all the Parties regard inclusion on
under national legislation. the List as, in effect, meaning that the site becomes a
protected area, whether or not it has been given an
Of course, the legal protection afforded by the IUCN category). Ramsar designation implies an
Convention is itself a legal support, but not always so obligation to manage the site wisely (i.e. maintain its
clearly articulated. This distinction is implied, although ecological character), which suggests protection status.
not often stated as baldly, in Ramsar literature. Many sites are listed in the WDPA, which also implies
that they may be protected areas, but so are other
designations of land use that are clearly not protected
137
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
areas (for example some military lands, World Heritage processes, ecosystem services, and of natural and associated
sites that are not protected areas etc) and this may cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective
reflect confusion in the WDPA. means."
The Ramsar Secretariat certainly has sometimes seen This is a somewhat cumbersome elaboration on the
the List as a set of “protected areas”: for example the existing definition - however it does for the first time
document Emergency solutions seldom lead to sustainability include the idea that protected areas are important for
gives “an introduction to the concept of Wetlands of the provision of ecosystem services. What it does not
International Importance as a network of protected do well is convey the need for protected areas,
areas” (emphasis mine). Conversely, Recommendation especially those with water as a component, such as
4.4, recognising the value of establishing nature MPA's, freshwater sites etc, to be linked to other such
reserves on wetlands of diverse types and sizes, and the protected areas, and the surrounding land- or seascape
value of reserves in promoting conservation education elements which nurture them.
and public awareness of the importance of wetland
conservation and the goals of the Convention, urges A simplified version to take account of these issues,
Contracting Parties to “establish national networks of while not over-emphasising one ecosystem at the
nature reserves covering both listed and non-listed expense of the rest might be; “An area of land or water
wetlands”. dedicated to the maintenance of biological and cultural diversity,
and continued delivery of ecosystem services, which may be
There is recognition that there is thus some confusion. managed through legal or other effective means, and which is
It was agreed at COP9 (Resolution IX.22) to include linked effectively to supporting elements of surrounding
data about the IUCN category within the database of ecosystems.."
Ramsar sites: “The Conference of the Contracting
Parties … AGREES to include as extra data fields in This definition includes marine areas as water, as well
the approved Ramsar Information Sheet for the as all other water bodies, fresh, brackish, saline or
designation of Wetlands of International Importance calcareous. However the idea that protected areas are
from COP9 onwards the following: Protected area dynamic components of the land/seascape, delivering
categories, if any, for the site, as established by each a wide range of services to people is much more
Contracting Party, and/or IUCN categories (1994), if appealing than the former static definition. And by
appropriate, and any other relevant designations”. providing a statement on the need for broader linkages
the dynamic nature of, especially, freshwater
So, in summary, Ramsar sites (WII) are protected areas ecosystems is also covered, as are coastal wetlands.
sensu the IUCN-WCPA definition. What is clear, Such a definition very clearly covers all Ramsar sites.
though, is that a Ramsar site may be equivalent to a
particular IUCN protected area category, or it may be The categories system and Ramsar
equivalent to several categories, or none, or partly In the original version of the management categories,
covered by an IUCN protected area category. Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage sites were
identified as a category in their own right, yet Ramsar
Recent developments sites were not so identified. Subsequently, the 1994
Recently a number of leading freshwater biodiversity guidelines did not treat any named category as a unique
and protected area experts, gathered together for a category, quite rightly.
summit at the Skukuza Camp in Kruger National Park
to begin to tackle questions related to the efficacy of Ramsar sites are nationally-designated. The IUCN
protected areas as a strategy for conserving freshwater categories system is a means of classifying them on the
biodiversity features. basis of management objectives. Ramsar sites cut right
across this approach because the very concept
One of the very basic issues addressed at the meeting embodies the idea of a range of management
was the very definition of “protected areas” as used by objectives.
IUCN and WCPA. The group felt the existing
definition perhaps reflects the neglect freshwater On the other hand, some Ramsar sites often contain a
biodiversity has suffered. The group has proposed series of management zones with differing
some changes to the IUCN definition to make management objectives, each of which may correspond
freshwater areas more explicit; viz. “An area of land, to a category in the IUCN system. Some may consist
inland waters and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection of a number of different use categories.
and maintenance of biological diversity and requisite ecological
138
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It may indeed be that some Ramsar sites include parts A classification system of this type serves a number of
which are subject to several different management valuable purposes in the international context as it:
objectives. The 1994 guidelines, therefore, observe that 9 emphasises the importance of protected areas;
Biosphere Reserves, like World Heritage (natural sites) 9 demonstrates the range of purposes protected
and Ramsar sites are not a management category in areas serve;
their own right, but an international designation. 9 promotes the idea of protected areas as systems;
However, the Ramsar site, or the constituent protected 9 reduces nomenclatural confusion;
area(s) making up a Ramsar site, would be categorised 9 provides an agreed international set of standards;
under the IUCN system according to the rules set out 9 facilitates international comparison and
above. In addition, the guidelines comment that: accounting; and
9 improves communication and understanding.
The following principle should apply: providing that the area is
identified under national arrangements for special protection, it Five principles emerge from the categories system.
should be appropriately recorded under one (or more) of the
standard (i.e. six) categories. Its special international status will 1. The basis of categorisation is by primary
be recorded (separately), for example, in the UN List and in all management objective.
other appropriate IUCN publications. This principle is the most important of all. There are,
in fact, a wide variety of potential primary management
Applying the categories to Ramsar objectives for protected areas. According to the
sites priority assigned to relevant objectives, a categorisation
Under the IUCN categories system protected areas are system logically follows, as table 12 shows.
classified according to management objectives.
Key: 1 Primary objective; 2 Secondary objective; 3 Potentially applicable objective; - not applicable
139
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. The categories imply a Gradation of Human intervention in category V areas. Since category VI was
Intervention added to the system later it does not fit neatly into the
The IUCN categories imply a gradation of human general pattern, but lies conceptually between III and
intervention, ranging from effectively none at all in the IV (figure 7).
case of some category I areas to quite high levels of
Natural
⇓ I
⇓ II
Degree ⇓ III
of ⇓ VI
Human ⇓ IV
Intervention V
⇓
⇓
⇓
⇓
Artificial
Figure 7: Idealised representation between protected area category and the degree of human intervention.
Landscapes dominated by human activities and management have few, higher type, protected areas.
The determination of the correct IUCN category is appropriate category, at least three-quarters, and
normally undertaken by the management authority, preferably more, must be managed for the primary
based on the IUCN guidelines and subject to purpose; and the management of the remaining area
endorsement by. Although this body is often the same must not be in conflict with that primary purpose.
as the Ramsar site management authority, in some
cases they will differ. In either case, the assignment 2. There is one management authority responsible for two or
exercise would be assisted by the following guidance. more areas making up the Ramsar site, but each such area
The IUCN guidelines provide several ways in which has separate, legally defined management objectives.
the many different situations likely to be found within
Ramsar sites can be reconciled with the categories The guidelines recognise this situation by
system. The approach recommended here involves two acknowledging that “protected areas of different
stages: categories are often contiguous, while sometimes one
category ’nests’ within another”. Thus many category V
Stage I: identify whether the whole Ramsar site should be areas contain within them category I and IV areas:
classified under one, or more than one, category. some will adjoin category II areas. Again, some
To do this, it is necessary to establish which of three category II areas contain category Ia and Ib areas.
theoretical possibilities applies:
In this case the separate parts of the Ramsar site will be
1. There is only one management authority for the entire categorised differently.
Ramsar site and, for legal purposes; the whole Ramsar site
is classified by law as having one primary management 3. There are two or more management authorities responsible
objective. for separate areas with different management objectives,
which jointly make up the Ramsar site
The area would be assigned to a single category.
Here, too, the correct interpretation of the guidelines
While the guidelines require that the assignment be would be to categorise these areas separately.
based on the primary purpose of management, they
also recognise that management plans often contain Stage II: assignment of parts of the Ramsar site to individual
management zones for a variety of purposes to take categories.
account of local conditions. In order to establish the
140
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
141
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This paper seeks to achieve its two stated objectives The OG also acknowledge that “no area is totally pristine
based primarily on the application of the WH and that all natural areas are in a dynamic state, and to some
Convention under the 2005 OG, but will also rely on extent involve contact with people. Human activities, including
short case studies to illustrate specific points. Finally, those of traditional societies and local communities, often occur in
for the sake of brevity and simplicity, this paper will natural areas. These activities may be consistent with the OUV
focus its discussion mainly on sites inscribed on the list of the area where they are ecologically sustainable.” (OG para.
of WH under criteria (ix) and (x) – that is, for 90). This paragraph clearly opens the door to a variety
ecosystem and biodiversity values, and will discuss of human activities within WH sites.
those natural WH sites inscribed for exceptional beauty
or superlative natural phenomena (vii) or for geological Finally, the OG include a lengthy section entitled
features (viii) only to help illustrate specific points. Protection and Management (para. 96-118) which
outlines measures for the long term conservation of
The World Heritage Convention’s protected areas being nominated for WH
Operational Guidelines consideration. Specifically, paragraph 97 states that:
The OG explain that an area may be inscribed onto the “All properties inscribed on the World Heritage List must have
list of WH only if strict conditions integrity and adequate long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional and/or
conservation are met (OG para. 88). For a site to meet traditional protection and management to ensure their
conditions of integrity, it must: safeguarding. This protection should include adequately
i. include all elements necessary to express the delineated boundaries.”
Outstanding Universal Value33 for which it is being
nominated for inscription to the WH list. Paragraph 98 of the OG further adds that: “Legislative
and regulatory measures at national and local levels should
assure the survival of the property and its protection against
development and change that might negatively impact the
33 OUV is a term employed in the World Heritage Convention,
142
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
States Parties should also assure the full and effective i.e. some forms of legal protection are not restrictive
implementation of such measures.” enough to satisfy the OG requirements.
In regards to the relationship between nominated sites OG paragraph 119 deals with sustainable uses
and existing protected areas, the OG state, in permitted within WH sites: “World Heritage properties may
paragraph 102, that: “The boundaries of the nominated support a variety of ongoing and proposed uses that are
property may coincide with one or more existing or proposed ecologically [...] sustainable. The State Party and partners must
protected areas, such as national parks or nature reserves, ensure that such sustainable use does not adversely impact the
biosphere reserves [...]. While such established areas for outstanding universal value, integrity [...] of the property. [...].
protection may contain several management zones, only some of For some properties, human use would not be appropriate.”
those zones may satisfy criteria for inscription.”
The OG makes no reference at all to “protected areas”
This last statement implies (somewhat as a nor to IUCN protected area categories, however, one
counterbalance to the statement in OG para. 90 - see can conclude that areas not under any particular
above), that not all areas already benefiting from some protection regime should be excluded from WH sites
type of legal protection might qualify for WH status, (e.g. OG paragraphs 97 and 102).
143
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WH IUCN Year
Site Name Discussion
Criteria Cat. Inscr
A collection of 7 distinct protected areas, along with significant
(e.g. >50%) proportion of private lands. Landowners
Peninsula encouraged to collaborate through a joint management
Valdès II, IV,
x 1999 planning exercise, though not apparently legally bound to do so.
VI
Argentina Current threats include land subdivision for coastal residential
development. This site appears to be an experiment in private
land ownership within a natural WH site.
Discovery A series of 8 distinct protected areas spread over 450km, and
Coast Atlantic nested within a 1 million hectare Biosphere Reserve –
Forest ix, x Ia, II 1999 interstitial lands are largely privately owned.
Reserves
Brazil
The inscription of this serial site is the result of a multi-year
Cape Floral process through which the State Party’s original nomination
Region was not accepted due to a lack of a consolidated management
Protected Ib, II,
Ix, x 2004 regime for the collection of 7 protected areas. As a result of
Areas IV
these negotiations, a final nomination was submitted, meeting
South Africa technical requirements of IUCN, and inscribed by the WH
Committee.
The original boundaries proposed by the State Party included
Sichuan Panda towns, agricultural areas and public infrastructure works.
Reserves Revisions of the original nomination took place over more than
x n/a 2006
10 years. IUCN requested the revision of the boundaries so that
China only core areas be included. The final boundaries reflect
IUCN’s request.
1. Relationship between World Heritage and the sites today contain areas of incompatible uses large
IUCN Definition of a Protected Area enough to be considered as clearly defined zones
IUCN’s definition of a protected area – “An area of land within a WH site, and not just minor “pre-existing”
and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance intrusions to an otherwise relatively undisturbed
of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural protected area. One could suppose that in a
resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.” retrospective exercise, States Parties could excise some
of these areas from their older nominations – this is in
In the earlier years of the Convention, significant areas fact happening in some cases.
mainly dedicated to resource extraction and or urban
development managed to be included within a larger However, over the years, States Parties have been
inscription to the WH list. In Galapagos, a simple encouraged to draw WH site boundaries along existing
exchange with the State Party would have sufficed to protected area boundaries, or to include these
exclude incompatible agricultural and urban lands from completely within existing protected areas. As
the original nomination. Three years after the illustrated in the case of Lake Baikal, and more clearly
Galapagos inscription, in its evaluation of the Great with the Sichuan Panda Reserves, there is a tendency
Barrier Reef nomination, the IUCN highlights this to ensure that WH boundaries are clearly articulated
issue, and timidly suggests that some incompatible with other protected area boundaries. Where large
zones should be excluded from the propose site – non-protected area gaps separate protected areas that
though does not follow through, when, in the same would logically form one WH site, then a serial
report, it recommends inscription. nomination is recommended – such nominations are
increasingly frequent (e.g. Discovery Coast Atlantic
These situations likely arose out of the coarse Forest Reserves and Cape Floral Region).
application of the Convention in its early days, where
little experience had yet been gained in the negotiating The case studies (see table 13) provide a clear,
process that would later take place between IUCN, the graduated demonstration of how this tightening up has
WH Committee and the State Party in the taken place during the nomination process, and
development a nomination. As a result, several WH illustrate how, over a 25 year process, new WH sites
144
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
are conforming more strictly to IUCN’s definition of a Of these, 47 are inscribed exclusively under criteria
protected area in excluding lands not benefiting from a that do not focus on biodiversity / species issues (vii
protection regime, though egregious exceptions and viii). For the purpose of this discussion, these are
continue to occur (e.g. Peninsula Valdés). referred to as “non-biodiversity” natural heritage sites.
The remaining 139 are inscribed under criteria ix
2. Relationship between World Heritage and the and/or x, either exclusively, or in combination with the
IUCN protected area categories non-biodiversity criteria vii and viii, and are considered
There are 186 WH sites inscribed for at least one of as “biodiversity” natural heritage sites.
the four natural heritage criteria (some are “mixed”
sites, and also include cultural heritage criteria).
80%
70%
60%
20%
10%
0%
Ia Ib II III IV V VI
Figure 8: Frequency of IUCN protected area categories in biodiversity and non-biodiversity natural WH
sites
Figure 8 illustrates the frequency of occurrence of a considered category II), and Tanzania’s Ngorongoro
particular IUCN protected area category34 within Conservation Area. These are typically large sites
biodiversity and non-biodiversity natural WH sites35. (348,700 sq km, 12,000 sq km and 8,288 sq km
respectively). The Great Barrier Reef includes large
Over 70 per cent of biodiversity sites contain a restricted uses zones that in themselves would likely be
category II (national park) protected area. Some of considered category I-IV protected areas. To this end,
these same sites may also contain protected areas of it is not clear whether the category V-VI accorded to
other categories (for instance, Te Wahipounamu in these protected areas is an accurate reflection of the
New Zealand is comprised of several different permitted activities within their entire areas
protected areas representing 5 different protected area
categories). Conclusions
The WH Committee, in deciding on the inscription of
The chart shows that very few biodiversity WH sites nominated sites to the WH list, is not currently
contain category V and VI protected areas (these constrained by IUCN definition of a protected area,
categories are represented in 8 and 6 of biodiversity nor by the IUCN system of protected area categories.
WH sites respectively, out of 128 sites for which the However, given the increasingly refined Operational
WCMC database attributes a protected area category). Guidelines for the Implementation of the WH
Of these, only three (2 per cent of all biodiversity sites) Convention, and also that it is the IUCN’s Protected
are comprised exclusively of a category V or VI Area Programme which leads the IUCN’s role as
protected area – being Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, advisory body to the WH Convention, there is a visible
Mauretania’s Banc d’Arguin National Park (e.g. usually narrowing of the previous gap that used to separate the
application of the WH Convention in relation to
34PA Category information obtained from the WCMC database. IUCN protected area approach.
35Because a WH site may be composed of more than one PA, to
which different categories are assigned, the numbers do not add up Some ambiguities remain, particularly in relation to the
to 100 per cent. Also, only 128 of the 139 biodiversity sites, and 38
out of the 47 non-biodiversity sites are attributed a PA category in category V and VI protected areas. It is clear that only
the WCMC database.
145
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
in rare circumstances will a biodiversity WH In the end, under the new 2005 Operational Guidelines for
nomination be inscribed if it is comprised exclusively the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (the
of a category V and/or VI protected area. It may be OG), one would now be hard pressed to inscribe a site
argued that for those three WH sites that exhibit this on the WH list under criteria (ix) or (x) that would not
characteristic, a refinement of the IUCN protected area meet the IUCN definition of a protected area category
categorization of their component protected areas I-IV. Any inclusion of category V-VI would likely be
would result in the inclusion of category I-IV as a component of a larger site dominated by category
components. I-IV protected areas.
146
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Governance
147
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
introduce to CBD Parties the concept and practice recognised that various types of landowners (communal, individual
or corporate) can play a crucial role in conservation: and this was in
turn reflected in the guidelines on the IUCN protected area
categories
148
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Durban Action Plan affirms “improved authority and responsibility and can be held
governance”37 among its key targets, and the CBD accountable according to legal, customary or otherwise
Programme of Work on Protected Areas includes a legitimate rights” (Borrini-Feyerabend 2004).
specific element on “Governance, Equity, Participation Accordingly, four main protected area governance
and Benefit Sharing”, which calls on the Parties to the “types” were identified and discussed38 at the Durban
Convention to achieve measurable targets by 2012 or Congress:
earlier. As a matter of fact, governance issues are
embedded in all the elements of the CBD work A. Government managed protected areas
programme. The programme urges Parties to adopt B. Co-managed Protected Areas
better governance practices and to recognise and C. Private protected areas
promote various protected area governance types in D. Community Conserved Areas
national and regional systems. It lists specific targets
such as engaging stakeholders in participatory These are briefly described in box 7.
management processes, respecting the rights of
indigenous and local communities, developing Box 7. Governance types for protected areas
mechanisms for equitable sharing of the costs and
benefits of conservation and adopting specific Type A: Government Managed Protected Areas
standards, criteria, and best practices for protected area (state governance)
governance. These targets open new horizons and A government body (such as a Ministry or Park
assign new tasks for professionals and activists engaged Agency reporting directly to the government) holds
in conservation policy and practice. here the authority, responsibility and accountability for
managing the protected area, determines its
“Governance of protected areas” is a relatively new conservation objectives (such as the ones that
concept (Abrams 2005, Borrini 2003, IUCN and Parks distinguish the IUCN categories), develops and
Canada 2005, Jaireth and Smyth 2004) in the enforces its management plan and often also owns the
conservation field. Governance is about power, protected area’s land, water and related resources.
relationships, rights, responsibility and accountability Reflecting the devolution trend in many countries, sub-
(UNDP 1999, 2002). Some define it as “the national and municipal government bodies can be in
interactions among structures, processes and traditions charge in place of federal or national ones. In some
that determine how power is exercised, how decisions cases, the government retains full land ownership
are taken on issues of public concern, and how citizens and/or control and oversight of protected areas – in
or other stakeholders have their say”. Graham et al other words decides the objectives of managing the
2003). Thus a specific governance setting depends on a area—but delegates the daily management tasks to a
combination of explicit and implicit policies, practices para-statal organization, NGO, private operator or
and institutions that affect public life. In a protected community. Under state governance there may or may
area context, governance covers a broad range of not be a legal obligation to inform or consult
issues – from policy to practice, from behaviour to stakeholders prior to setting up protected areas and
meaning, from investments to impacts. It is crucially making or enforcing management decisions.
related to the achievement of protected area objectives Accountability measures also vary according to the
(management effectiveness), determines the sharing of country at stake.
relevant costs and benefits (management equity), is key
to preventing and solving social conflicts, and affects Type B: Co-Managed Protected Areas (shared
the generation and sustenance of public support. governance)
Complex institutional mechanisms and processes are
The complexity of the governance concept has lead here employed to share management authority and
professionals to devise ways to “break it down” into responsibility among a plurality of (formally and
simpler constituents. Two main dimensions of informally) entitled governmental and non-
governance thus emerged: “type” and “quality”, which governmental actors. Co-management comes in many
will be briefly reviewed below. forms. In weak forms, sometimes called
“collaborative” management, decision-making
Governance “type” authority and responsibility rest with one agency but
A basic distinction among governance types can be the agency is required – by law or policy – to inform or
made on the basis of “who holds de facto management consult other stakeholders. In stronger forms of
149
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“collaborative” management, multi-stakeholder bodies effective means”.40 Here authority and responsibility
are in charge of developing technical proposals for rest with communities through a variety of forms of
protected area regulation and management, to be ethnic governance or locally agreed organizations and
ultimately submitted to a decision-making authority for rules. These forms and rules are tailored to the specific
approval. In “joint” management, various actors sit on context of application and can be extremely diverse
a management body with decision-making authority and sophisticated. For instance, land and/or some
and responsibility. Co-management is a governance resources may be collectively owned and managed,
type that well suits democratic societies and complex while other resources may be individually managed or
situations. (Sandwith et al 2001) Transboundary managed on a clan-basis. Different communities may
protected areas are an example of such complex be in charge of the same territory at different times, or
situations, as they involve at least two or more of different resources within the same territory. Rules
governments and possibly other local actors.39 The generally intertwine with cultural or religious values
strength of co-management often depends on whether and practices. Most often, the customary rules and
or not decisions require consensus among the organizations in charge of managing natural resources
participants. possess no legal recognition or sanctioning by the
government. In some cases, however, the communities
Type C: Private Protected Areas (private or indigenous peoples are fully recognised as the
governance) legitimate local authority, at times even with a property
Private governance comprises protected areas under title. In such cases, the relevant communities may
individual, cooperative, NGO or corporate ownership. decide whether they wish the protected area to be
The setting of the area for conservation may be not- recognised as a CCA or PPA. The community’s
for-profit or for-profit. Typical examples are lands and accountability to the larger society is also usually
resources acquired by NGOs explicitly for limited, but it can be enhanced and made specific
conservation purposes. Many individual landowners through negotiations, which at times result in co-
also pursue conservation objectives out of respect for management arrangements with other stakeholders
the land and desire to maintain its beauty and (thus changing the governance type from D to B).
ecological value. Utilitarian purposes, such as gaining
revenue from ecotourism, hunting or the reduction of Governance can only be understood within a particular
levies and taxes, are additional incentives. In all these historical and social context, often as indicator of
cases, the authority for managing the protected land institutional continuity and resilience (strength or
and resources rests with the landowners, who change). In the last centuries, modernization processes
determine the conservation objective, develop and occurring throughout the world have devalued the
enforce management plans and remain in charge of roles of indigenous peoples and local communities
decisions, subject only to applicable legislation. Their (settled and mobile) in natural resource management.
accountability to society is usually quite limited. Some Their “re-discovery” at the Durban Parks Congress41 –
forms of accountability may be negotiated with the while acknowledging the many constraints and pitfalls
government in exchange for specific incentives (as in that apply to community-based conservation – is
the case of Easements or Land Trusts). relevant to both conservation effectiveness and equity
as it raises the questions: “Is the governance type in
Type D: Community Conserved Areas place for a given protected area effective in terms of
(community governance) conservation results? Is it fair in the light of historical
“Natural and modified ecosystems including significant conditions, customary and legal rights and impact on
biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values the concerned communities?” Many conflicts between
voluntarily conserved by indigenous, mobile and local protected areas and communities could actually be
communities through customary laws or other avoided and replaced by constructive cooperation if
communities were recognised as rightful managers or
co-managers of the natural resources on which they
39 In some rare cases, transboundary protected areas may be under
Community Conserved Area straddling across national boundaries, (CCA) is stronger than the one of Protected Area in general.
as is possible for the migratory ancestral domain of mobile peoples Identifying an area as CCA implies that the community management
has been and/or is effective, i.e. successful, in conserving biodiversity.
A Protected Area, on the other hand, implies only that the
government has “dedicated” it to the conservation of biodiversity
(etc.) and that it has agreed to manage it towards that aim (Borrini-
Feyerabend et al 2004)
41 See Recommendation 5.26 on Community Conserved Areas
150
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
depend for their livelihoods and cultural identity42. The protected areas for private lands under conservation
meaningful engagement of indigenous peoples and easements? Is there a neat distinction between a local
local (sedentary and mobile) communities in the protected area managed by technical personnel
governance of the land and resources to be conserved appointed by elected leaders (a local “government-
could be vital to both conservation effectiveness and managed” protected area) and a Community
equity43. Conserved Area managed by a local customary
institution? Is there a neat distinction between a
The “IUCN protected area matrix” protected area managed by an NGO who is the owner
Table 14 illustrates governance types as a of the land or by an NGO that has been appointed by
complementary dimension to the IUCN category the government? Is there a neat distinction between a
system. As mentioned, this is possible because protected area managed by a National Park Agency
governance types are category-neutral and protected areas used to widely consult and involve other stakeholders
exist that fill each possible combination of and a jointly managed protected area where elected
management category and governance type. For officials hardly understand or utilise the voting
instance, even for the most strictly protected area prerogatives assigned to them by the law? The broad
categories, such as category Ia, all four governance answer to all these questions is no. But the fine answers
types occur44. This matrix has been discussed and depend on the specific contexts. And the implications
adopted in various venues since the Durban Congress of such answers are important for conservation.
of 2003, and already used by national governments to
develop and expand their protected area system45. It is By definition, “governance types” can be differentiated
here proposed that it is officially named “IUCN by looking at who holds de facto decisions-making
protected area matrix” (and “IUCN matrix” for short), authority and responsibility for the area and resources
described and illustrated in the revised version of the in question or, more simply, who decides how the area
IUCN Protected Areas Guidelines, and endorsed by and resources are to be managed towards what specific
WCPA/CEESP in preparation for the formal purpose/ management category.46 Besides that, we can
publication by the IUCN at the IVth World investigate who takes the decisions that matter the
Conservation Congress in 2008. most for biodiversity and natural resources. Is the
private owner who signed the conservation easement
Conservation professionals are much more familiar entirely free to decide about managing the land to raise
with categories of protected areas than with wild herbivores for controlled hunting or to promote
“governance types” and may wonder why adding a the regeneration of natural forests? If yes, the
layer of complication to an already intricate reality. It protected area would be type C. Is the appointed
can be argued that a clearer attribution of authority and conservation professional in charge of a municipal
responsibility is bound to promote more accountable, protected area in tune with what the area represents for
and thus effective and equitable, decision making the local people? In other words, are gates, guards and
processes and rules. In other words, there is merit in fees needed to protect the concerned resources? If the
assigning a governance type to a protected area answer to this question is yes, we most likely have a
because “clearer governance is bound to promote type A. If the answer is no, or “only to protected the
better governance”. If the reasons to specify land from outsiders”, we most likely have a type C. Is
governance types may thus be rather evident, the the NGO that manages the protected area free to carve
distinction between different types may not be. Professionals up room for a five star hotel and allow access only to
may pose themselves very legitimate questions. Is there the hotel guests? If yes, we have a type C. If not, we
a neat distinction between co-managed and private have a type A. In case of controversy with the local
communities or indigenous peoples, is the National
42 See Park Agency entirely free to go ahead with its own
www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/TILCEPA/community.htm views? If yes, we have a type A. If not, and some form
IUCN/CEESP, Policy Matters Special issue on Community
Empowerment for Conservation, 2003; IUCN/CEESP, Policy Matters of negotiations are set up, we have a type B.
Special issue on History, Culture and Conservation, 2005 and
Brechin et al 2003
43 See Recommendation 5.25 on Co-managed Protected Areas and, 46Granted that all decisions taken by all social actors are embedded
before that, the WCC Resolutions 1.42 (Montreal, 1996) and 2.15 in some legal framework… we can understand “governance” as a
(Amman, 2000) concept that can even go beyond such framework, as it recognises
44 For example, some of the most valuable wilderness areas in the customary and even experimental models of decision-making… This
world correspond to territories under the control of un-contacted presents both an opportunity and a risk for the conservation of
peoples, in the Amazon and some other forests in the Tropics. These biodiversity—the opportunities being related to the power of
communities have conserved their environments as part of an innovation and the engagement and meaning related to cultural and
unbending resistance to outside contacts of any kind customary processes and values, and the risks being related to
45 Notably in the “vision Durban” process in Madagascar, on-going possible manipulations by vested interests of any given form of
since 2003 recognition …
151
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To understand governance types, it is useful to recall between a variety of concerned actors, and/or where
the co-management continuum that introduced shared societies exist at the interface between local/traditional
governance to many conservation professionals and outside/”modern” powers and rules.
(Borrini-Feyerabend 1996). Figure 9 illustrates such a
continuum of possible actions as seen from the Some professionals have pointed at the need to
perspective of a governmental agency, and no sharp identify parameters and phenomena that highlight the
distinction is apparent between governance types. Type difference between CCAs and CMPAs and help to
B is intermediate between A and C or D, as applicable. unequivocally identify Community Conserved Areas.
Type B is particularly important for protected areas Annex 1 offers a simple tool to explore such a
where management decisions need to strike a balance difference.
Table 14: “The IUCN protected area matrix”: a classification system for protected areas comprising both
management category and governance type
A. Government B. Co-managed C. Private Protected D. Community
Governance managed protected protected areas Areas Conserved Areas
types areas
Collaborative management
universities, co-operatives)
organizations (e.g. NGOs,
(various forms of pluralist
communities (sedentary
management (e.g. to an
Government-delegated
individual or corporate
(pluralist management
individual land-owner
ministry or agency in
organizations (e.g.
Joint management
agency in change
Trans-boundary
…by non-profit
and mobile)
protected
influence)
area
charge
NGO)
categories
I a– Strict
Nature
Reserve
Ib- Wilderness
Area
II – National
Park
III – Natural
Monument
IV – Habitat/
Species
Management
V – Protected
Landscape/
Seascape
VI – Managed
Resource
Protected Area
enforce rules inform and/or seek negotiate (involve in formally share recognise
and repress consult about consensus, decision making) & authority & full private or
violations management also through develop specific responsibility customary rights
decisions benefit sharing Agreements (e.g. via seats in a & assist in
CM body) management
152
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
of the Millennium Declaration, the subsidiarity principle enshrined in this to the IUCN in 2007, and a related recommendation or
EU legislation resolution will be tabled for adoption at the IVth WCC in 2008.
153
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
At the international level, the IUCN governance matrix stimulate the engagement in conservation of more
and underlying concepts can be used in the WDPA private actors, indigenous peoples and local
and in the UN List to structure entries and promote communities, and thus a sizeable expansion of areas
meaningful comparative analyses, including for World managed towards conservation objectives (Pathak et al
Heritage Sites. Importantly, they should be used to 2004). With biodiversity loss looming on the horizon,
report and monitor the status of CBD Programme of conservation opportunities and protected area labels
Work on Protected Areas, as the related targets will acquire more importance, offering interesting land
specifically refer to governance concepts and issues. use options for both social prestige and economic
returns. In addition, more indigenous peoples and local
At the national level, the IUCN protected area matrix communities will discover that CCAs are good avenues
and underlying concepts can be used to structure the to secure their customary rights to land and natural
understanding of the national system of protected resources,50 and even to secure carbon sequestration
areas, and to identify possible gaps and ways (including payments if current attempts at developing related
novel governance types) to fill those gaps. This has policies are successful.51 If the conditions for
already happened in Madagascar (Ministère de embracing variety, promoting permanence and
l’Environnement, des Eaux et Forets de Madagascar securing rights will be in place for PPAs and CCAs,
2005), where the “IUCN protected area matrix” has conservation is likely to be a major winner.52
assisted the Malagasy government and partners in the
currently tripling of protected area extension in the In this light, a partnership among IUCN, UNEP
country and influenced the development of a new WCMC and CBD centred on the meaningful and
implementation policy for the protected area rigorous application of the IUCN protected area
legislation. Similarly, the new protected area law of matrix and underlying concepts will be most useful to
France (Ministère de l’écologie et du développement provide the necessary benchmark to develop
durable de la République Française 2006) has drawn international guidance, standards and tools. The latter
from recently developed governance concepts and should be formally offered to the CBD to support the
debates. implementation of its Programme of Work on
Protected Areas. In fact, the IUCN and partners have a
At the local level, the IUCN governance matrix and rather crucial role to play, as lessons learned about
underlying concepts can be used to better understand a governance issues need to be placed at the disposal of
local protected area in relation to other protected areas the CBD Secretariat and the CBD Parties, including at
in the country. This can prompt a participatory the next Conference of the Parties. For instance, they
evaluation of the appropriateness of both management should provide an introduction to CCAs, the type of
category and governance type (Abrams et al 2003), as governance least familiar to many conservation
well as links of communication, collaboration and professionals (see Kothari 2004), and advice about
mutual learning among various actors and institutions avoiding the pernicious consequences potentially
in charge of governance. related to CCA formal recognition (see box 8).
A broad understanding and acceptance of Private payments to flow towards the stewards of existing natural forests
Protected Areas and Community Conserved Areas as rather than to new forest plantations only.
52 Conservation can be expected to be a big loser everywhere else, in
part of national systems of protected areas will likely fact, due to the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources and
the environmental degradation processes well underway
154
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) How can states let go of their legal procedures and
is best placed to develop a Specialist Group dedicated formally assign conservation authority and
to drawing lessons from the use of the IUCN responsibility to the supposedly capricious,
protected area matrix and underlying concepts, and to unpredictable, and bewilderingly diverse customary
consequently advise national and international bodies. institutions that represent indigenous peoples and local
The WCPA’s Task Force on Protected Areas communities? How can states move away from
Categories and Strategic Direction on Governance, wanting to impose uniform institutional and legal
Equity and Livelihood (TILCEPA- a joint Theme with regimes on diverse situations? These questions are not
the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic trivial and are relevant in both the North and the
and Social Policy) are rightly placed to identify the key South, and not only with regard to the conservation of
professionals around which that Specialist Group biodiversity. Throughout the last century, state
could grow. The Specialist Group could offer advice governments designed a number of mechanisms by
about when particular governance types are “strong which they dealt with the interface between traditional
enough” (e.g. because of proven capacities and and “modern” institutions supposedly representing the
promise of permanence) to “count” as protected areas. same people. Conservationists, however, have not yet
It could propose governance standards and advise on fully scrutinised such mechanisms and their
appropriate management objectives in supra-national effectiveness. Too often, hastily imposed “democratic”
systems of protected areas. It could provide guidance forms of governance have provided fast inroads to the
about national policies and practices in support of unsustainable and inequitable exploitation of natural
Community Conserved Areas and Private Protected resources. Too often, “modern” institutions have not
Areas. And, importantly, it could support national performed as well as customary institutions in
agencies to use the IUCN matrix to review their conserving biodiversity. As a matter of fact, some
systems of protected areas, to identify new options to “democratic” and “modern” institutions have been
close biodiversity gaps and to assess their achievements responsible for degrading bio-cultural diversity This is
with regards to CBD obligations. In all, an effective more than a curiosity, an “inevitable side effect of
Specialist Group would constitute a powerful modernity”, or a minor problem. Given the extent and
mechanism for IUCN to fulfil the obligations included variety of Community Conserved Areas around the
in its mission world, the issue is of enormous concern for
conservation. The conservation potential of CCAs will
Box 8: Dealing with cultural complexities – pitfalls be greatly diminished if not altogether lost if state
to avoid! governments will not be capable of embracing cultural
complexities and respecting the idiosyncratic
A major stumbling block towards recognising and customary institutions locally in charge of biodiversity.
harnessing the conservation potential of Community When dealing with conservation jewels such as many
Conserved Areas (CCAs) is the inability of states to CCAs still are, conservationists who understand these
accommodate and respect the variety and complexity initiatives need to advise both governments and
of forms of ethnic governance or locally agreed conservation organisations about effective and
organizations and rules. These forms and rules emerge unobtrusive forms of respect and/or recognition and
from local cultural milieux that often have little in support.
common with dominant society (although in many
cases they are a mix of local customs/traditions and
outside influences). Their interrelation with elements
of religious, spiritual, or magic significance, their
frequent lack of secure financial bases and their
dependence on local institutions that derive legitimacy
from customary and not necessarily formal
“democratic” or “scientific” standings, contribute to
the lack of trust that state institutions and many
conservation organisations have in them.
155
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ommunity Conserved Areas (CCAs) have been In fact, CCAs are starting to be incorporated into
defined53 as: “natural and modified ecosystems, including broadscale conservation planning strategies,
significant biodiversity, ecological functions and cultural values, complementing government-managed protected areas,
voluntarily conserved by indigenous peoples and local and mobile private protected areas and conservation easements or
communities through customary laws or other effective means”. various other forms of co-management to create a
biodiversity compatible landscape or seascape mosaic
Community Conserved Areas have three essential (Borrini-Feyerabend and Dudley 2005). But this is still
characteristics: more the exception than the rule. Most CCAs are not
formally recognised, protected or valued as part of
9 Some indigenous peoples and local and mobile national protected areas networks. In some cases, there
communities are “concerned” about the relevant may be good reasons for this – including reluctance of
ecosystems – usually being related to them the relevant communities to becoming better known or
culturally (including because such areas are disturbed or because the site has particular sacred
regarded as sacred) and/or because of livelihoods. values that require privacy – the location of some
sacred sites remains a secret of the relevant community
9 Such indigenous and local communities are the for example.
major players (and hold power) in decision making
and implementation of decisions on the In many other cases, however, Community Conserved
management of the ecosystems at stake, implying Areas face formidable forces of change, which they
that some form of community authority exists and might be better able to withstand with the help of an
is capable of enforcing regulations. official recognition and appreciation. In particular, the
alternative to state recognition as CCAs may be state
9 The voluntary management decisions and efforts exploitation, e.g. for timber or tourism, with great
of such communities lead towards the losses for cultural and biological diversity. In these
conservation of habitats, species, ecological cases recognition within national protected area
functions and associated cultural values, although networks can give communities additional safeguards
the protection status may have been set up to over their land. This may be coupled with the
meet a variety of objectives, not necessarily related acceptance by the state that community management
to the conservation of biodiversity. policies may be different from “typical” state-governed
protected areas.
There is mounting evidence that such CCAs can
provide effective biodiversity protection responding to Many conservation professionals view the possible
any of the management objectives of the IUCN formalisation of CCAs with mixed feelings. There is
categories, and particularly so in places where formal growing recognition of the positive role that CCAs can
protected areas are politically or socially impossible to play in maintaining biodiversity, but there is concern
implement or are likely to be poorly managed.54 that “weak” CCAs could be added to national
protected area systems as a cheaper and more
politically-expedient alternative to other conservation
options. There are also worries that, as societies
change, approaches to management may also change
and some of the traditional values and attitudes that
53 The definition evolved through preparatory work towards and at helped conserving biodiversity might be lost in the
the World Parks Congress of Duran (2003) and was extensively process. Formal CCAs that are unable to maintain their
illustrated as part of the IUCN categories/ governance type matrix in
Borrini-Feyerabend, et al., 2004. The only change made here with traditional conservation practices are worse than
respect to the original definition is the substitution of “function” to informal, unsecured CCAs, where the government or
“services” to stress that ecosystems provide more than economic
benefits to people.
other stakeholders may be better equipped to
54 The categories task force is developing a project to compare the intervene.
effectiveness of different models of protected areas in terms of
meeting biodiversity conservation objectives – including analysis
with respect to both management objectives and governance types,
hopefully starting in 2008.
156
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We propose that IUCN respond to the potential and communities. Importantly, this will enable them to
the challenge offered by Community Conserved Areas enforce their decisions (as in the case in which an
in three ways: ordinance for the control of fishing may provide
the needed legal backing to a community-declared
9 Formally recognising that CCAs can be protected marine sanctuary).
areas. This is in line with the IUCN definition of a
protected area, with recommendations 5.17 and 9 When there is incompatibility between community
5.26 from the World Parks Congress and with management and national protected area
resolutions 3.012 and 3.049 approved at the 2004 categories, legal and policy adjustments will be
World Conservation Congress. required to the current statutory provisions so that
the relevant community can retain its governance
9 Set in place a process to identify the careful steps system. Often, what the communities request is a
needed for CCAs to be formally incorporated guarantee of customary tenure, use and access
within a national protected areas system – rights, usually sanctioned through a demarcation
probably through a joint TILCEPA-categories of territories and resources. For that to happen,
task force working group however, it may be necessary that the community
institution in charge of the management of the
9 Work with the UNEP World Conservation CCA be recognised as a legal persona. This may
Monitoring Centre to identify mechanisms by result in changes in the ways a community
which CCAs can be recognised within the World organizes itself and manages the area. It is
Database on Protected Areas and the UN List of important that the community itself determines
Protected Areas. such matters.
Some initial thinking on the criteria for recognition has 9 After the incompatibility is removed, the agency
already been published (Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004) should embark on a process of negotiation, which
and we reproduce this below as a starting point for may end in a contractual arrangement between the
discussion community concerned and the national or sub-
national conservation authorities. This contractual
Steps to determine whether a arrangement may recognise the CCA and provide
Community Conserved Area is a to it some form of legal protection or support. In
“protected area” other cases, it may transform the area into a de facto
Co-managed Protected Area.
9 Determine whether a CCA and its current
governance system fit within the protected area 9 Once agreement has been reached between the
definition and/or criteria under national legislation community and the protected area agency about
and policy, as well as under IUCN and CBD recognising the CCA as a protected area, jointly
definitions for the purposes of international agreed rules and regulations are needed for
registries and classification. managing it. These may simply involve recording
the community's existing rules, without
9 If so, determine whether it fits within the existing interference from the state agencies, or
protected area categories of the country incorporating new advice, methods and tools. The
concerned. Could the CCA qualify as a national rules should specify what kind of land and
park, sanctuary, game reserve, or other existing resource zoning exist, what community and
protected area category? Importantly, would such individual rights (including ownership) exist, what
a category allow for the community's own institutional structures manage the area, whether
governance system to continue? Would it allow and how sustainable resource harvesting is allowed
for management objectives that may be to take place (e.g. with limits on quantity, species
conceptually and/or practically different from and seasons). It may also be useful to clarify and
conservation per se? record the subdivision of rights and
responsibilities within the community itself and to
9 When national legislation and policies are fully specify provisions against the misuse of rights and
compatible with local practice, conservation power on the part of both the community and
agencies should grant, or formally recognise, that government authorities.
authority and decision-making powers for the
management of the CCA should rest with local
157
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
158
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This paper relates to other submissions on governance and which they exercised direct management authority,
protected area categories by focusing on one of four types of through public ownership or other means.
governance—private protected areas—arguably the only type that
does not include ownership or direct control by a government of A unique governance type
any kind. The 2003 World Parks Congress identified four main
protected area governance types:
Protected areas are owned and managed through A. Government managed protected areas
private mechanisms in most of the world, and their B. Co-managed protected areas
number and extent are growing fast. Often the result C. Private protected areas
of local initiative and conducted without the direct D. Community conserved areas
intervention of government, they are not yet fully
integrated in national conservation planning or In this typology, private protected areas are unique in
reporting in many countries. The international system not having a direct government role. The first
of protected area management categories historically (government protected areas) include government by
emphasized the role of governments. Reflecting this, definition and in the second (co-managed) usually at
private protected areas are not as well understood least one of the co-management entities is
globally as their contributions warrant. The current governmental. As for D, if one takes the broad
review of the categories represents an opportunity to definition of government, “the system by which a state
recognize the full spectrum of protected area or community is governed”, then community-
governance. conserved areas also are directly controlled by
government, albeit expressed very differently from the
When is a protected area a protected kind of state bodies most people might normally
area? associate with the term government. Though subject to
The foundation of the categories system is the 1994 government by regulation, private protected areas do
definition: An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to not include direct governmental authority. It is this
the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of feature—independence from direct governmental
natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through intervention—that makes private protected areas
legal or other effective means. attractive to many.
It is a rather open secret that there are a great many Embedded in the private protected area type
areas that are protected de facto or de jure (and often description (“C” in the typology above) are four
both) that meet the IUCN definition but have not been ownership models:
specifically recognized as Protected Areas and not
listed in the World Database on Protected Areas. In 9 Individual (areas in which ownership is held by a
the United States alone there are thousands of private single person or family)
protected areas that satisfy the definition, yet only 23 9 Cooperative (perhaps the rarest form; examples
are currently listed as private reserves in the database. include the Ahuenco Conservation Community in
Chile)
One of the purposes of the 1994 category guidelines 9 Nongovernmental Organization (private not-for-
was to alert governments to the importance of profit organizations operating to advance a
protected areas and encourage development of systems specific mission and usually controlled by a board
of protected areas, and that they have had and specific regulations)
demonstrable impact since that time Bishop et al 9 Corporate (a for-profit company or group of
2004). Though extra-governmental protected areas people authorized to act as a single entity, usually
were never specifically excluded from consideration, in controlled by an executive, an oversight board,
practice most governments focused on those areas in and ultimately individual shareholders)
159
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Each of these general ownership models (and myriad Integrating management categories and
variations on them) has particular implications for governance types
management. In attempting to provide protected area managers with
a common language, the international system of
Private protected areas in the categories is of course in many ways functionally
categories analogous to the Linnaean system of classification used
Governance is a cross-cutting descriptor of protected in taxonomy.55 A Greater Shearwater is a Grand
areas; that is, although historically developed with Puffin, a Petrel-Hagdon, Pardela cabeza negra,
government primarily in mind, the categories can be zuguromizunagidori, Большой буревестник, or
applied irrespective of ownership. Private protected Bobo-grande-de-sobre-branco depending on national
areas can and do fall into all of the 1994 categories, and or local conditions, but it is internationally recognized
presumably will apply in any future amendments. It as Puffinus gravis (and never Fratercula spp. nor Pterodroma
would be incorrect to assume that private protected spp.!) Similarly, a national park may be category II in
areas are better represented under categories IV-VI; one country and category V in another, but the
many fit the management objectives of I-III, perhaps management aims of a category II should always be
especially those owned/managed by NGOs. understood, throughout the world. A state park is
understood to be a national park in one country but a
That is, they would fit if they were so assigned. Most of subnational (i.e., provincial-level park) in another, and
the data on categories to date has been submitted by may be II, V, or any other category. But category V is
national governments, and the level of recognition of always V, throughout the system.
private protected areas tends to be positively correlated
with the level of governmental involvement in In considering governance in the international system,
stimulating or enabling their creation. The system of it may be helpful to adopt a binomial structure for
Private Natural Heritage Reserves (Reserva Particular do protected areas. Though management objectives for
Patrimonio Natural–RPPN), so important to biodiversity the categories can be developed and assigned without
conservation in Brazil, was established by the Brazil regard for governance, comparisons of protected areas
Environmental Agency (IBAMA) in 1990, and so far and their effectiveness would be greatly enhanced by
234 of the 429 RPPN have been listed in the WDPA. listing governance type as well as management category
In contrast, only 11 of the 100 private reserves in future databases. The categories are not taxonomic,
recognized by NGOs in Costa Rica appear to be listed. but a binomial classification would easily sort for both
An individual example, also not on the list, is the management objectives (i.e. category I-VI) and
Mornington Wildlife Sanctuary. At 312,000 ha it is the governance type (i.e. A - D, as described above). Using
largest property of the Australian Wildlife these letters designations, for example, Yellowstone
Conservancy, protecting 189 bird and over 80 reptile National Park might be described as category II:A;
and amphibian species (Figgis et al 2005). With little Mornington Wildlife Sanctuary might be II:C;
data on private protected areas in the database, it is Snowdonia National Park V:B.
impossible to make quantitative statements about
representation across categories or undertake accurate Special reference to geographic scale may be necessary
national gap analysis. This lack of accurate data makes when considering governance, though it is equally
fulfilling the CBD’s aim of a comprehensive, important to consider in management categories. The
effectively managed, and ecologically representative geographic definition used to describe a protected area
national and regional system of protected areas an even may affect the governance type that best describes it.
more difficult task While certainly there are large areas under single
ownership/management authority, simply put the
Governments have an incentive to provide data to larger the geographic area the more likely it is to
UNEP/WCMC for inclusion in the WDPA as a way to contain multiple owners/managers and, depending on
document their contributions to conservation, however the country, the more likely to include different
this incentive might not carry over to private protected governance types. This could lead to a large proportion
areas. Other limiting factors may include a lack of of protected areas being assigned as co-management
governmental capacity to collect data on private protected areas (“B”), even though this may not best
reserves, or private protected area managers/owners represent the dominant power relationship affecting
being reluctant to share information freely. Additional
mechanisms for applying the international categories to 55The ongoing development of the international system of protected
private protected areas may be needed (see below). area categories also parallels development of the Linnaean system of
binomial nomenclature in that has changed with better
understanding of the relationships it seeks to order. It is moving
from general characteristics to more scientific criteria.
160
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
management objectives. On the other hand, a picture A key point of contention about the categories system
of otherwise coherent landscapes, where a matrix of stems from a concern that recognizing the spectrum of
ownership patterns has evolved over time, may be management objectives and governance types that exist
obscured by piecemeal application of the categories by today might dilute the definition of a protected area
government type. Should IUCN pursue options for and possibly divert attention from biodiversity
integrating government types with management conservation. Part of the issue derives from basic
objectives, considerable planning and testing would be interpretations of what the “protected” in protected area
required to find and establish protocols for application means. In all three core languages of IUCN, the name
to complex protected areas. The problem is similar to implies a level of completeness—and a past tense—
that of applying management categories to protected that belies the constant management and vigilance that
areas with multiple management zones, but adds a true protection requires. Meeting the definition is not
dimension. Though challenging, the higher the an endpoint but only the beginning of management to
resolution in applying the categories the sharper a achieve specific conservation objectives.57 Though semantics
picture of the state of protected areas will appear. cannot resolve the issues to be debated about labels of
categories and governance, it might be helpful and
Use and misuse of protected area more accurate to change the cardinal label from
statistics protected areas to protection areas.
A full counting of the extent of private lands56 that
satisfy the IUCN definition of a protected area would “Effective means”
significantly expand the aggregate statistics for the area In the majority of cases, the creation of a private
“protected” around the world. Broad statistics can be protected area—and management of the same for
used inappropriately and, stripped of detail on the conservation objectives—is a voluntary act on the part
objectives and effectiveness of management of the landowners.58 A growing recognition of the
designations, can give the impression that a very great opportunities for achieving conservation objectives on
deal of land and sea are already adequately conserved. private land—and especially the proliferation of
Summary protected area totals can and have been used mechanisms and incentives for doing so—has resulted
to argue against the designation of additional protected in a dramatic increase in the number and extent of
areas or commitment of resources for conservation private protected areas in the last century, and in some
work within them. To quote Andrew Land, there are countries these increases have been logarithmic in scale
those who would use “statistics as a drunken man uses in the past few decades.
lampposts – for support rather than for illumination.”
As IUCN reviews definitions of and guidelines for A list of these mechanisms and incentives for private
protected area management categories, it may also land protection include:
need to establish or review internal policies for the use
of global protected area statistics. 9 Systems of voluntary protected areas designations,
in which landowners agree to certain management
But potential misuse of aggregate statistics should not objectives or restrictions in return for assistance or
restrict efforts to describe conservation work that is other incentives. (The RPPN of Brazil are an
and has been done at local and national levels. The excellent example.)
international system of protected areas management 9 Voluntary surrender of legal rights to land use on
categories was intended to provide a shared private property, sometimes to realize advantages
understanding of local and national protected areas at a conferred by the theoretical loss in value, or to
global level, to reflect rather than direct national and secure protection in perpetuity. (Conservation
local policies. Though they might be negatively easements and related covenants and servitudes)
affected, advances in private land management and 9 Charitable contributions, in which
protection will continue, whether adequately described nongovernmental organizations raise funds
in an international system or not. The same may apply privately or publicly for purchase of land for
to other governance types, as well as the categories protection, or receive gifts of land directly from
themselves, including category V and category VI. But willing donors (large NGOs such as The Nature
no global picture of protected areas is complete
without them. 57 From the Convention on Biodiversity definition of a protected
area as a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and
managed to achieve specific conservation objectives
58 There are of course instances where private land is managed as a
161
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
162
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Proposal
Sacred sites (including sacred natural sites) that fit into sites are currently not effectively reflected in protected
national and international definitions of protected areas area designations and management plans, and existing
can where appropriate be recognized as legitimate policy and legal frameworks do not adequately support
components of protected area systems and can be sacred (natural) sites (Jeanrenaud 2001). There is a
attributed to any of the six IUCN protected area sound and widespread evidence that sacred natural
categories. At the same time, the cultural and spiritual sites have been providing, often over the centuries and
values of protected areas should be better reflected in continue to provide effective biodiversity conservation
the whole range of categories, where at the moment (Posey 1998, Berkes 1999, McNeely 2000, Jeanrenaud
they are absent or insufficiently recognized. 2001, Harmon & Putney 2003, Dudley et al 2005). It
has become evident that the integration of cultural and
Background and rationale spiritual values of sacred natural sites can play a pivotal
IUCN’s definition of protected areas recognizes the role in the sustainable and equitable conservation and
intrinsic cultural dimension of protected areas. The ecosystem management.
cultural and spiritual values that human communities
and individuals assign to protected areas and natural Recommendation 5.13 from the Vth World Parks
places of special significance are expressions of such Congress called governments, NGOs, local
cultural dimension. communities and civil society to “ensure that protected
area systems, protected area designation, objective
This has been reflected, at least partly, in the setting, management planning, zoning and training of
experience of the protected areas community around managers, especially at the local level, give balanced
the world. Many protected areas contain sites of attention to the full spectrum of material, cultural and
importance to one, and some times more than one spiritual values; and requested IUCN to “review the
faith or spiritual value systems, including both sacred 1994 Protected Area Category Guidelines with the aim
natural sites and built monuments such as monasteries, of including cultural and spiritual values as additional
temples, shrines, pilgrimage trails, etc. Even in systems potential management objectives in categories where
of protected areas of the most secularised countries of they are currently excluded”59. Further,
Europe, which were established using only ecological Recommendation 5.19 on “IUCN Protected Area
criteria, it is estimated that between 20-35 per cent of Management Categories” requested that the revised,
them include significant cultural or spiritual values. updated edition of the 1994 guidelines “Gives greater
recognition of cultural and spiritual values, so that the
Chair of the WCPA, Nik Loupukhine states that full range of special qualities of each protected area are
WCPA supports the call for faiths and conservationists to work fully recognized”.
together to help achieve the world’s vision of halting biodiversity
loss. As representatives of conservation organisations, we pledge At that time, it was suggested that category III might
to work with faiths in ensuring that when protected areas overlap provide a natural “home” for sites with a particular
with sites of spiritual importance, both these values will be taken focus on sacred values and that guidance on category
into account in management. We hope and believe that both faith III could be modified accordingly. Since 2003, research
groups and conservation organisations can benefit from working on five continents has shown that sacred natural sites
in partnership to recognise and to protect the natural world, exist in all categories of protected areas and each may
which provides such inspiration to so many. (Quoted from have particular benefits depending on circumstances
Dudley et al 2005). (Secretariat of the CBD 2004, Putney 2005, Dudley et
Managers have to ensure that these spiritual values are 59 WPC 2003 Durban, Recommendation 13 Cultural and Spiritual
protected alongside natural heritage. However, sacred Values of Protected Areas. The participants in the Session entitled
“Building Cultural Support for Protected Areas”, held in the Building
Broader Support Workshop Stream, recommended that all protected
area systems recognise and incorporate spiritual values of protected
areas and culture-based approaches to conservation. WPC
Recommendations are available at:
http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/reco
mmendations.htm
163
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
al 2005, Verschuuren 2007, Mallarach 2007). This for management of sacred sites related to mainstream,
conclusion is applicable in both developing and institutionalised religions has been initiated by the
developed countries. As an example of the latter, The Delos Initiative of CSVPA.
Delos Initiative case studies currently feature over 30
sacred natural sites located in protected areas ranging Relevant recommendations made by the participants of
from categories II-VI60. Table 15 below provides some the Tokyo International Symposium are summarised in
examples. the box below:
Sacred sites may exist in more or less natural Box 8: Excerpted recommendations from the
ecosystems, cultural landscapes or managed landscapes Tokyo International Symposium
and when they occur in protected areas they need to be 1. Considering that sacred natural sites and cultural
fully incorporated into management strategies in landscapes are of vital importance for
cooperation with the relevant faith and community safeguarding cultural and biological diversity for
groups. present and future generations;
2. Recognizing that many sacred natural sites have
Category III – a natural monument – is therefore only great significance for the spiritual well being of
one possible management option. Highly sacred sites indigenous peoples and local communities;
where human visitation is discouraged may benefit 3. Noting the need to promote and safeguard
from being classified as category Ia. Sites including cultural and biological diversity, particularly in the
retreat or hermitages centres, where solitude and face of the homogenizing forces of globalization;
silence are essential, could qualify for category III61. 4. Bearing in mind that sacred natural sites, cultural
Other sacred sites, found in managed protected landscapes and traditional agricultural systems
landscapes, should best be placed under other cannot be understood, conserved and managed
categories, notably category V. Therefore while IUCN without taking into account the cultures that have
should provide additional advice about approaches to shaped them and continue to shape them today
management of all protected areas containing sacred
sites, or landscapes, as well as for the cases of sacred IUCN works in different ways to integrate cultural and
sites that could also become protected areas, there is spiritual values in protected areas, fostering positive
no limit on the category in which they occur and synergies throughout the world. It aims to ensure the
sacredness is therefore not a distinguishing feature for effective protection of sacred natural sites and their
any category in particular. recognition as contributors to biodiversity
conservation and the objectives of protected area
IUCN and the integration of sacred sites in systems. Through its Secretariat programmes, IUCN
protected areas implements projects and actions in this regard in
Over the last years IUCN through the WCPA Task several countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Force on Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Through the work of the CSVPA, WCPA has enabled
Areas (CSVPA) and in collaboration with UNESCO much evidence to support the integration of cultural
has been developing draft guidelines for the and spiritual values in protected area management, and
Management of Sacred Natural Sites in protected the development of policies, tools and actions to
areas62, based on the body of case studies presented at promote the protection of sacred sites. Within CSVPA,
the 2003 Kunming workshop UNESCO 2003) and the the Delos Initiative focuses on the sacred natural sites
2005 Tokyo International Symposium (UNESCO in technologically developed countries throughout the
2005). At present these guidelines cover most world in order to maintain both the sanctity and the
important management issues related to sacred natural biodiversity of these sites.
sites in protected areas linked to indigenous or primal
traditions; a parallel process for developing guidelines CSVPA’s work enables WCPA to play an important
role in redressing the imbalance between the emphasis
60 For more information visit the web site of the IUCN WCPA
given to the tangible and intangible aspects of
Delos Initiative at (http://www.med-ina.delos/org). protected area management. This role can be enhanced
61 There are sacred sites devoted to silence and solitude, for instance
by assisting WCPA members, protected area agencies
those used for retreats, by Daoist or Christian hermits as well as
indigenous people. Others sacred sites that are not, such as El Rocío- and the protected areas community to identify and
Doñana in Spain which by its own nature is attracting huge crowds manage the cultural and spiritual attributes of protected
in pilgrimages, who practice chanting and celebrations, usually in areas as a means of maximizing their contribution to
loud voice, for days or weeks.
62 The UNESCO/IUCN Draft Guidelines for the Management of society.
Sacred Natural Sites can be accessed at
http://topshare.wur.nl/naturevaluation/75082
164
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Russian Golden Mountains of Sacred for many different faiths: Indigenous, Christian, Buddhist,
Federation Altai and Islamic.
Greece Mount Athos WHS Stronghold of Orthodox Christianity including 15 monasteries and a
peninsula large number of hermitages with over one millennia of continuous
monastic activity.
IV Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through
management intervention
Lebanon Qadisha Valley and Sacred forest to the Christian Maronite Church, including a
the Forests of the significant monastery, hermitages, and residence of religious
cedars of God WHS authorities.
Borneo tembawang gardens Some sacred sites will need continual intervention or even be
planted -such as the tembawang gardens that contain high levels of
biodiversity
Sri Lanka Peak Wilderness Sacred natural site for Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity,
Park, (Sri Pada or attracting many pilgrims of all these faiths.
Adam’s Peak)
V Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape
conservation and recreation
China Xishuangbanna Landscape with several sacred sites (groves and mountains), which
National Park have long been managed by the community and are part of an
important and biologically rich cultural landscape.
Romania Vanatori Neamt The spiritual heart of Romania, including 16 Christian monasteries,
Natural Park along with outstanding wildlife: European bison, brown bear and
wolf populations.
165
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Spain Montserrat Nature Christian monastery with centuries old hermitages which has been a
Reserve & Natural pilgrimage centre since the 14th century. Today it is the most heavily
Park visited protected area of Spain
VI Managed Resource Protected Area: protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of
natural ecosystems
Ecuador Cayapas Mataje Sustainable use area said to contain the world’s tallest mangroves
and important spirit dwellers that are worshipped by local people.
USA San Francisco Peaks Sacred to over one dozen of Native American tribes, mainly the
National Forest Navajo.
Egypt St Catherine Area Mount Sinai is sacred to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The ancient
WHS - Mt Sinai monastery of St Catherine is WHS.
At the First Workshop of the Delos Initiative held ecosystem functions whilst supporting conservation
November 23-26 at the Monastery of Montserrat in efforts and consequently developing “people-inclusive”
Catalonia, Spain, the participants incorporated the management objectives (Verschuuren 2007). In
experience and knowledge they gained during the case- addition, because of sacred natural sites’ unique
studies preparation. Some of these experiences were intercultural and interdisciplinary character (see figure
summarised in the “Montserrat Statement”63. 10) they can be a suitable means for environmental
education, cross cultural learning and intergenerational
Box 9: Excerpted from the Montserrat Statement transmission of spiritual and bio-cultural knowledge.
of the Delos Initiative 1st workshop These potential benefits call for safeguarding sacred
RECOGNISE that for assurance of long-term natural sites and their integration into conservation and
sustainability, conservation goals, programs and ecosystem management strategies. Even though a
messages need to be grounded in deeply held values, precautionary approach and sensitising to cultural and
beliefs, ideas, and practices. The conservation spiritual values is a prerequisite conservation
community needs to recognise these aspects and give management has the ability to play a largely facilitating
these deeply held values, beliefs, ideas, and practices role in this process.
the place that they deserve in the conservation of
protected areas. This constitutes both a challenge and a The most common view shared by institutionalised
great opportunity to build further support for the and indigenous spiritual traditions alike is that the
conservation movement, involving partners and world is a multiple level hierarchic reality (Smith 1977).
stakeholders that up to the present have not been Figure 10 shows these relationships simplified as three
supportive, because they felt excluded by the different planes that overlap. It is a way of showing
materialistic outlook that nature conservation has often that management of sacred sites should consider all
adopted; values and stakeholders involved. Therefore, it is
RECOGNISE AND CONFIRM the actual necessary to acknowledge that many different
existence of sacred natural sites in all of the IUCN worldviews coexist and each worldview may have its
categories of protected areas found in own hierarchy of values. Within these worldviews
technologically developed countries; different traditional cosmological sciences have
FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE that positive evolved over time, often in harmony with nature, many
synergies between natural, cultural and spiritual values of which are still alive in different regions of the world.
extend to sacred sites beyond the boundaries of Thus, to gain new allies for protected areas, especially
designated Protected Areas and therefore function as a those that include intangible values, it is important to
vehicle for supporting and communicating nature focus on the common ground, instead of insisting that
conservation; every body accepts the worldview of modern science64.
The benefits of integrating sacred Embracing the concept of sacred natural sites, it is
sites in protected areas evident that focal areas of spiritual values and cultural
Because sacred sites areas frequently also hold high significance exist. However, it is of critical importance
biodiversity values, these sacred natural sites or sacred
landscapes hold considerable potential to serve as a
64See also the position paper ‘ What do we mean by "wild nature"’
of Deborah Bird Rose, of the Australian National University (ANU)
traditional blueprint for restoring and safeguarding giving an indigenous peoples' perspective that challenges some
western notions of nature and protection. Available at the categories
summit website:
63 The Montserrat Statement is available at the web page of The http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/theme/categories/summit/pap
Delos Initiative at: http://www.med-ina.org/delos ers/Whatdowemeanbywild.pdf
166
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SNS Human
World
Human Natural
World Conservation World
value Natural
World
Figure 10: Constituents of Sacred Natural Sites, top and side view (Source; Verschuuren 2007)
to recognise that in many cultures and traditional IUCN Vice President, Puri Canals foresees that the
worldviews their importance generally extends to the future of conservation will be inspired by cultural change and
wider landscape. Hence, in some regions the whole spiritual values. Spiritual values of nature apply to everyone in
landscape can be permeated with spiritual significance. the developing as well as the developed world. Understanding the
relationship between nature and religion will create sustainable
Depending on the governance model of the protected opportunities for both to live together on this earth. The theme of
area, the empowerment of custodians of sacred sites the World Conservation Congress 2008 at Barcelona; “A
permits their participation in the management of diverse and sustainable world” can best be explained as not just
sacred sites. Traditional custodians of sacred sites will bio-diverse but diverse in all aspects, including cultural diversity.
need to be able to communicate and translate cultural Canals further supports the inclusion of sacred natural sites in
and spiritual values of sacred sites where relevant to protected area management and hopes to see their value
the management objectives. Sacred sites offer an communicated at the WCC 2008, alongside that of cultural and
excellent opportunity to engage in this dialogue and spiritual values.(Personal communications at Delos 1st workshop
develop synergies that are environmentally sustainable December 2006).
and socially equitable.
Key Messages
From an ecosystem management perspective, care
needs to be taken to ensure that cultural and spiritual 1. IUCN should advance on cultural issues and
values do not jeopardise biodiversity values (Shepherd in the future IUCN’s Guidance needs to include
2004, Verschuuren 2007,). Integrating sacred sites, or explanations of its key concepts, such as "living
more broadly, the perception of sacredness of nature, cultures" and "spiritual significance". A simple
in conservation plans can only be achieved when doing change in the IUCN’s definition of protected
this across ideological, physical and institutional areas from cultural resources to "cultural values"
borders, in and outside protected areas! In short this is would mean a lot
a process which integrates knowledge and wisdom.
Therefore, including sacred sites in all protected area 2. The cultural and spiritual values of protected
categories builds on their intercultural and crosscutting areas should be better reflected in the whole
values which, in turn produces equitable synergies range of categories, where at the moment they are
between spiritual, cultural and natural diversity in absent or insufficiently recognized
support of more holistic conservation objectives65.
65 Being aware that in some indigenous worldviews the concept of
sacred is absent, precisely because its opposite, profane, is not they coincide with the non-dualistic dimensions shared by mystics of
recognized as real; hence, everything is perceived as sacred. In that mainstream faiths (Smith 1977).
167
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. IUCN protected areas categories should (natural and social sciences), environmental
accommodate Sacred sites and where appropriate compartments (soil, water, atmosphere),
be recognized as legitimate components of stakeholders (views, interests and perceptions),
protected area systems in line with scales in space (local, regional, national,
recommendation 5.13 from the Vth World Parks international and global), scales in time (short-
Congress term versus long-term effects), cause-effect
4. Synergies between conservation management and measures (adaptive management, ecosystem
traditional sacred sites management should be approach)
maximized in order to maintain and achieve 7. Guidance and management implications for
sustainable and equitable management aims. It different categories are in demand and currently
may be the case that the two sets of objectives are being developed. Therefore, planning and
quite easily served by the same measures management objectives should reflect sacred sites
5. Adaptation to the reality of sacred sites in terms as an integrated component of planning and
of categorization and management approaches management plans and processes
should be considered when this increases the
extend to which there is or could be convergence The ecosystem approach offers global guidance
between the protection/management measures towards opening a dialogue and finding common
required for spiritual values and those required for ground as a basis for communication in order to
natural heritage values consider management and planning options regarding
6. Integration of sacred sites in conservation sacred sites (notable are the principles 2, 5, 6, 10,11
management should be based on involving and 12).
multiple aspects such as; scientific disciplines
168
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. Consultation
169
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
170
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
171
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
172
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10.3. Europe
WCPA Europe circulated an online questionnaire responded. Below is a summary report from the
about the categories before the summit. Twenty people responses.
173
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
174
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 Management: National Parks in Austria follow European Union as well as initiatives to establish
mostly the management aims, Slovak protected ecological networks. But concern was expressed that in
areas, Canary Islands practical terms they were difficult to implement within
9 Policy: Used to guide recommendations on national systems. Some guiding material already exists
appropriate designation of the Igneada area in through the category V guidelines and the work of the
Turkey. It is a clear wish of Austrian politicians to category VI Task Force.
consider the category II guidelines. Development
of ‘no go’ areas for natural resource exploitation 6. What clarification or elaboration of the
such as mining. guidelines is needed?
9 Objective setting: Canary Islands Although respondents identified that most of the
topics listed required clarification. Issues such as land
4. Are all of the categories useful? ownership were seen as particularly important, where
Whereas the majority felt that the categories were all criteria or sub-categories were suggested. Also when
useful, some expressed concerns or comments: private ownership changes this may have implications
9 Category II and category V often conflict or for the management.
mislead. Some distinction/clarification could be 9 Management operations: personnel, visitor
made between National Parks that have removed management, restoration of ecosystems,
or banned people from living within them and naturalisation of wetlands and streams.
those that have people living and working in them. 9 Zoning – criteria were recommended for specific
Both are valued in their contexts and can deliver categories. Definition needed of the time period
conservation and enjoyment. allowed for active management (intervention) until
9 Before considering the value of individual implementation of the 75 per cent rule.
categories, we need to assess the whole categories Clarification is needed to differentiate zones with
system in its entirety. different objectives. Protected area may contain
9 There is an uneven status attributed to the zones that could be in any of the categories; how
different categories which may be unjustified. to put the site in a single category?
9 A category for protected productive areas. 9 Game management: the extent to which wildlife
Perhaps a category VII. management (manipulation) can be extended to
9 I have used Scientific Interest sites as small areas improve seeing wildlife for visitors to protected
with external control. Very useful in islands with areas, clear rules when and what and how.
spot endemics. 9 Hunting: Some wanted clarification for categories
9 Co-ordination is needed with the world network V and VI, differentiation between organised
of MAB/UNESCO's biosphere reserves, and with hunting by the protected area as a management
EU Natura 2000 areas is much needed. operation or general hunting.
9 Grazing: the definitions of over- or under-grazing
5. Do you consider categories V and VI to be is very differently considered according to the
protected areas for use in Europe? region even within a sub-region or a mountain
Most of the respondents identified that both category range and often more linked to cultural habits
V and VI were important within the European context, more that ecological considerations.
especially as they can relate closely to Europe’s 9 Forestry management: Just criteria V and VI
productive or mixed-use landscapes. In Scotland SNH 9 Other issues: climate change, mining, quarrying,
has made significant use of category V protected areas tourism, commercialization (in a broad sense),
and consider that they have particular strengths in entrance fees, role of protected in the context of
terms of 1) Serving as models of sustainable use and sustainable productive land use, How sustained
test-beds for sustainable development in rural areas; 2) exploitation works is known in many fields
encouraging positive links between local communities (hunting, grazing). Protected Areas as part of an
and the conservation of biodiversity, as well as other ecological network
natural and cultural values; 3) providing the wider
context for the planning and management of smaller 7. Do you agree with the proposed classification of
protected areas which exist within them and 4) making governance types? A. Protected areas managed by
crucial building blocks in landscape-scale conservation. the government: federal or national ministry or
However views were expressed that these categories agency, local ministry or agency or management
need expanding in scope and currently can be difficult delegated by government B. Co-managed
to implement practically. There is a possibility for them protected areas: transboundary protected area,
to have a closer relationship with Natura 2000 in the collaborative management C. Private protected
175
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
areas: declared and run by private individual, 8. As a WCPA member, would you be prepared to
declared and run by non-profit organisations, participate in Verification or Certification
declared and run by for-profit organisations D. exercises?
Community conserved areas: declared and run by Most agreed that as WCPA members that they were
indigenous peoples, declared and run by local prepared to participate in such activities. Those that
communities? did not agree said that they did not have capacity to
Most respondents agreed with this classification. Some participate.
disagreed with aspects and some wanted more
clarification: 9. Would the organisation who you work for be
9 Land ownership should be separated from the interested in independent WCPA advice on the
management (including by whom the protected assignment of protected areas to the IUCN
area has been declared and run). categories?
9 Nearly all protected areas in Scotland are Most said however that their organizations could not
designated by Government on private land where take part in independent WCPA advice. SNH indicated
social and economic activity has helped create or their interest in working on such issues subject to
sustain the ecological or landscape interest. The feasibility and cost.
active involvement of the land owner or manager
is therefore often vital to achieving the aims of the 10. What suggestions do you have for the
protected area. This category of governance is not gathering of protected area data and inputting it
fully reflected in the proposed classification but onto the WDPA?
should be. It is perhaps closest to the co-managed 9 Before revising the IUCN categories, revising
or collaborative governance model suggested in B. input to WDPA would not be suitable.
9 Option B should be divided into two separate 9 The openness, transparency and consistency of
categories. the process could certainly be improved, though
9 Within Option A, the component for local this will require some leadership and resourcing
ministry or agency or management delegated by and it is not clear how this can be found.
government” should be separated. As protected 9 More valuable data for the WDPA would include
areas managed by local communities should have simple information on logging, hunting,
its own category, whether delegated or not. construction, settlements etc. allowed or not in
9 Why does Option D only include indigenous any particular protected areas or parts of them.
people? We must recognize and value farmers and 9 There is a serious need to gather and monitor
other local people’s connections and contributions information about the financial sustainability of
to landscape protection. protected areas.
9 If there is a proper unification of IUCN, 9 Asking protected areas for a annual reports
UNESCO and EU categories (which is badly according to a standardised method (see European
needed) and we arrive at a functional system, will Diploma).
the need for such governance types become 9 The update and the selection of the respected
irrelevant? category should be done by independent experts
9 There is a problem with C and D in that the legal (not state organisations).
basis is too flexible, making it difficult for a 9 There should be an interactive web site
regulatory agency to have oversight. Management 9 We need a way of qualifying sites as "paper sites",
standards can be highly variable and have an with a more diplomatic language, e.g. marking the
uncertain longevity; what happens when a formal category with a mark* meaning it is just a
community changes leadership, as some people potential base on the legislation, not a reality.
advocate a different land use? 9 The criteria become more transparent and
objective.
176
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
177
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
178
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The private sector can play a role in improving the fundamental to maintain realistic expectations
effective management of protected areas by on the level of support given the 100,000 existing
sharing corporate biodiversity data (to design, protected area’s. Given the large number of
monitor and set up controls for protected areas). protected areas, more concrete partnerships are
They can also contribute to set standards on best possible at the local level, near areas of company
practices for specific activities in protected areas, operations. Specific partnerships could build
and develop and manage operations in buffer protected area managers’ capacity in business
zones in ways that positively contribute to skills (e.g. marketing, business planning) or
effective management of the protected area educate local communities on sustainable use.
(including establishing private protected areas). Companies could also lend political support for
Companies could lobby for designating protected specific protected areas and provide services and
areas as a conservation tool. However, it is infrastructures to managers and communities.
179
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
This section is a distilled version of the collection of 9 The proposal for neutering the language is in fact
comments posted on the E-Discussion Forum web a highly political initiative that will damage
pages. Most of the statements are not straight quotes conservation goals across the globe.
but summarized versions of the postings, which 9 We cannot opt for the number system alone; not
capture their original meaning. In order to account for only for philosophical reasons but also for the fact
possible human bias in summarizing the comments mere numbers will not be able to evoke
received, two additional documents are available: 1) a meaningful responses from relevant stakeholders.
full collection of original comments/postings 9 Certification is the best tool to correct misuse.
submitted online, organized by topic; and 2) summaries 9 IUCN should focus its efforts on providing
of the statements. There has been substantial clarification to ensure their proper use rather than
commentary which, although valuable, did not abandoning the terms altogether
precisely target the objectives of the Categories
Summit and, therefore, have not been included in this National Park as a term
summary. 9 is one of the few aspects of conservation that is
internationally understood.
Key issues addressed in the following paper are: 9 is the very symbol of a protected area.
9 Naming and Hierarchy 9 has tremendous power in the minds of the public
9 Definitions and in a political sense.
9 Categories system 9 (and wilderness) is deeply evocative and full of
9 Other related commentary inspiration and convey society’s commitment to
protecting nature in a way that simple numbers
Naming and hierarchy can never hope to imitate.
The argument that the use of names in the category
system should be changed because of inconsistent use There was an understanding that the current IUCN
of terminology and application of the system was category system creates a hierarchical order concerning
strongly opposed on the basis that the existing the conservation values
problem should be solved by other means.
Hierarchy and categories:
Inconsistent use of the terms, National Park in 9 IUCN needs to accept that the categories are a
particular, and ways to deal with the problem: numerical hierarchy of protection.
9 If someone is misusing the system, it does not 9 Categories are not of equal value with respect to
justify changing the very system biodiversity conservation.
9 Rather than removing the generic names “national 9 All the categories make an equal contribution to
park” or “wilderness” due to confusion, reserves conservation but in different ways since the
must be named correctly in terms of the categories strength of the conservation element cannot be
and their management functions. the same throughout.
9 There is no consideration of the impact of 9 The numbering is causing “hierarchy of merit”
dropping using the terms. and therefore consideration should be given to
9 In removing generic names from categories abandoning the numbering altogether.
system, it would be attempting to treat the
symptoms and not the underlying causes of Definitions
political disputation over reserve areas.
9 To drop generic reserve names would for a Definition of a Protected Area
certainty be exploited by interests hostile to The common view was that the current definition
conservation, notably the resource extraction emphasises biodiversity protection more than cultural
industries. values and natural resources
180
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Following are some concrete suggestions on what 9 The definition and management objectives state
should be changed in the current definition of that wilderness does include people, just not
Protected Area: permanent settlements.
9 There is not any suggestion that wilderness
9 More emphasis on nature and biodiversity ignores or disputes “cultural significance”.
protection 9 Wilderness clearly celebrates both natural and
9 More emphasis on cultural and educational cultural features, and has had tremendous impact
approaches to protection as an educational tool.
9 Need to integrate IUCN's policies and activities
on equity Categories system
9 Need to address questions of geodiversity Generally, there are many different suggestions on how
9 To include the word “permanent” to use and change the system to serve the very
9 To include the word “freshwater” meaning of it.
9 Wording “legal or other effective means”- causes
confusion between legally notified national 9 The definition of categories does not reflect that
protected areas and UN listed protected areas the recent trend in tourism is towards
9 Restrict the use of the term “Protected Area” to nature/culture-based tourism.
legally notified areas for the preservation 9 IUCN should not help engineer shifts in land
/conservation of wild fauna and flora (or wildlife tenure within protected areas via the category
or wild biodiversity) and their habitat and the term system.
Protected Zone for areas of high biological, 9 Any categorization should allow systems of
natural and cultural value but not designated as sustainable use that ensure the greatest benefits
protected area in official records. flow to the poorest sectors of society
9 Biodiversity protection must be a primary 9 Categories could be based on approaches rather
objective, but need not be the sole objective. than objectives
9 Only those sites where the main goal or outcome 9 There should be a possibility of having different
is biodiversity conservation should be considered categories within a large protected area
protected areas. Note that this would include 9 Redefinition of management types should be
many sites which have other goals as priorities, considered according to the types of society/ies
such as cultural or spiritual. However, in case of involved, self-management or co-management
conflict between protected area objectives and regimes, and traditional and non-traditional types
values, nature conservation has to be the priority. of landscape governance.
9 The criteria to classify the categories need to
Definition of the wilderness concept reflect the global and national conservation value
There is strong opposition to how the wilderness of the protected area.
theme has been interpreted in the working papers.
Statements on the subject: The concern about the objectivity and accuracy in
assigning the categories should be taken seriously.
9 In wilderness areas, active management is not
necessary for biodiversity conservation. 9 Because management categories can have such
9 The wilderness concept does not imply the large social and economic impacts, it is imperative
exclusion of people since IUCN’s definition only that classification is done as objectively and
excludes permanent settlements, not people. scientifically as possible.
9 To maintain that humans must be present for 9 The fact that the category system is being used in
ecological harmony in wilderness areas is strongly a particular way does not mean that the system
anthropocentric. IUCN, as the body responsible should be changed to accommodate that new use.
for promoting nature conservation, should not 9 There is a need to develop a means to identify,
support anthropocentric assertions that the "land expose, and advocate against the misuse of any of
needs people". the categories of the protected area system, e.g. to
9 Claiming that wilderness is ‘land untouched or artificially inflate the protected area figures, or use
unmodified by the influence of people’ is not of any one category as a proxy for the others.
correct since the IUCN definition states that “A 9 Clear criteria and associated indicators are needed
large area of unmodified or slightly modified in order to objectively classify a protected area
land…” within the IUCN categories.
181
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Category I: the thematic discussion of the wilderness 9 Many category V protected areas are designated to
concept spurred most interest and raised a large protect biodiversity and/or landscape diversity
number of questions. In addition, there were only a and have good planning and management tools,
few other comments concerning the working papers adequate resources and suitable administrative
on category I. structures.
9 There is a need to develop more specific category
Category II: the discussion on the significance of V (and VI) subcategories that allow clear
keeping/deleting the name “National Park” received identification of which protected areas are
most attention and raised many questions. Apart from conserving biodiversity that would not otherwise
that there were only a few other comments concerning be conserved
the working papers on category II. 9 The negative attitude of nature protection or
conservation as a practice excluding human needs
Category III: the discussion over the working papers can be weakened by promoting category V
on category III mainly concerned the difference protected areas
between geodiversity and biodiversity values. 9 Removing category V (and category VI) areas
would eliminate legitimate biodiversity protected
9 Definition of protected area with preoccupation areas, alienating large constituencies, and
on biodiversity does not do justice to geodiversity weakening national and international
as a rationale for a protected area. "Geodiversity" legal/policy/financial backing and attention to
(geology, geomorphology - i.e. the diversity of some of the most important biodiverse areas on
earth features and systems) is increasingly entering earth.
into the literature (e.g. WH sites criteria viii) and 9 There is a need for more careful clarification to
should be identified under the debate on the ensure category Vs meet the definition of
primary definition of a protected area. protected area by ensuring that they emphasize
9 Many category III areas might score high on natural biodiversity protection.
geodiversity, and the fact that they are of little
interest from a biodiversity point of view, should Category VI: the discussion on the category VI was
not exclude them from consideration. partly included in the discussion on category V.
9 We have to accept that sometimes it is difficult to Comments strongly stated that by including elements
draw the boundaries between a natural monument of sustainable use and development in the concept of
and a cultural site, particularly where biodiversity protection, governments and communities
archaeological remains are included within could be helped to adopt and contribute towards
category III. conservation activities. It was stated that the most
important challenge of category VI is how to assure
Category IV: the discussion over the working papers that protection of natural ecosystems and promotion
on category IV was limited and the emphasis was on of sustainable use are really two parts of the same main
encouraging good dialogue and co-operation between objective: integrated and mutually beneficial.
stakeholders.
Other related commentary
Category V: the discussion on the category V was
comprehensive and the key findings are: General: there was a strong and well-grounded
9 The area coverage of category V is particularly opinion about the importance of “periurban” natural
large in some countries and significant even parks and similar protected areas in safeguarding
globally. biodiversity, promoting environmental education and
9 In many parts of the world the possibility of providing ecosystem services.
establishing new protected areas with high
biodiversity value relies on assigning category V Governance: the potential problems with private
areas. protected areas (PPAs) were about their legal status
9 Many, also politically, important large carnivore and how to guarantee the permanence of protection.
species like the wolf or brown bear inhabit Establishment of a new category for PPAs was seen as
category V areas but are missing from other irrational from the governance point of view since it
categories. was pointed out that the current biodiversity crisis
9 There is strong evidence that category V areas play demands strong public governance.
a crucial role in maintaining “wild” biodiversity.
182
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It was proposed that many collaboratively managed Management Effectiveness: it was suggested that the
protected areas (CMPAs), community conserved areas study on management effectiveness and evaluation
(CCAs) and private protected areas (PPAs), with methods should lead to a formal statement in 2008 by
significant biodiversity and wildlife conservation value, IUCN/WCPA. This should result in a set of
would fit into categories V or VI. recommended actions for governments to implement a
relevant CBD goal by 2010. There was a concern that
Biomes: the freshwater issues were about including evaluation costs are a missing element in the
freshwaters within the very definition of protected management effectiveness approach since verification
areas, and promoting the importance of protecting is very expensive and, if there is no government buy-in,
these resources through flexible means to guarantee it will be very difficult to finance.
the availability of quality freshwater for people.
The full e-discussion can be accessed on
http://wcpa.almlet.net/
183
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
184
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
185
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 Verifying categories: one option would be for 5. Management effectiveness: IUCN has always
IUCN to investigate a system of certification or defined categories by management objective – i.e.
verification, as has been tested in Europe intention – rather than the effectiveness of delivery.
Some stakeholders think that it should be possible to
Key issues challenge a category if management is not
What is the best process for assigning categories at meeting the objectives, while others believe that
international, national and sub-national levels? protected area management effectiveness assessment
Should IUCN support some kind of grievance should consider categories in more detail within
procedure for challenging categories? assessment systems. Issues to discuss thus centre on:
Should IUCN investigate further ideas for formally
verifying categories? 9 Bringing effectiveness into the assignment of
What process should be in place to reassess categories by:
categories of protected areas? o Linking the category not only to
objective but also to management
4. Principles for use of the categories: categories are effectiveness
judged in terms of their objectives – in theory if a o Making the IUCN categories a particular
management authority says that an area is managed as a focus for assessment systems
protected area, this is sufficient to ensure recognition.
It has been proposed that the new category Key issues
guidelines include principles for assignment to Should the protected area category be influenced by
avoid both “paper parks” and the tendency for how effectively it is managed?
governments to add “protected areas” to the UN List Should assessment of management effectiveness
that provide little in the way of real protection specifically look at the category?
Key issues
Should application of the protected area definition
and categories be accompanied by principles or
minimum thresholds?
If so, what should these be?
186
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11 Names of The current practice of listing both names and numbers WCC rec. However,
protected areas in the UN list and WDPA is replaced by simply identifying some reactions
categories by numbers. have been negative
187
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
188
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 Some participants suggested that the term 9 Some delegates noted that using terms like
“maintenance of associated ecosystem services” “conflict” is not helpful and suggested that
should be deleted from the definition but further synergy and collaboration between objectives
defined in the explanatory text. The majority show should be emphasized rather than starting from a
of hands was however in favor of the definition as premise of conflict.
proposed; and
QUESTION 2: In the application of the
9 There was agreement that further discussion on categories, you must first determine whether or
the final wording of the definition and supporting not you have a protected area (i.e. apply the
explanatory text was to be pursued involving a definition) and then decide which category is
broader constituency. relevant – do you agree?
QUESTION 1: There seems to be support for There was consensus on this question – all participants
adding the following principle to further explain agreed. There was no discussion on this question.
the definition – do you agree ? For IUCN, only
those sites where the main goal or outcome is QUESTION 3: (a) The consensus seems to be
that we keep the current six categories – do you
66 Record of Discussion on Day 4 of the Categories Summit on agree? (b) If so: feedback seems to be that there
Thursday 10 May. This is presented first in these minutes in view of
the relative importance of the topic.
should be tightening of standards for categories
67 The current IUCN Definition of a Protected Area, as adopted at and clarifying differences – do you agree?
the 1994 IUCN General Assembly, is as follows: “An area of land
and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of
biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources,
and managed through legal or other effective means”
189
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The majority of category summit participants were in There was consensus on this question – all participants
favour of part (a) of this proposal but there was not agreed. Discussion before the show of hands included
full consensus. There was consensus on part (b) of this the following points:
question – all participants agreed. Discussion before
the show of hands included the following points: 9 Many participants noted that all categories are
important and make a contribution to biodiversity
9 Many participants noted that more guidance in conservation; also that a systems approach to
applying the categories is required rather than protected areas is required. It was noted that one
changing an existing system which is accepted in single category cannot protect the whole
many countries. Discussion in the French ecosystem and that a mix of approaches is
speaking group emphasized the need to better required. Further that these approaches should be
clarify what each category means, while retaining applied in a complementary manner;
flexibility at a national and local level in their
application; 9 It was noted that, in some cases, categories were
assigned for political or related reasons, and may
9 Many participants emphasized the importance of not adequately reflect the real objectives of the
having clearer and tighter standards and criteria protected areas nor the real contribution of these
for all categories and that this aspect must be areas to biodiversity conservation;
given priority in the preparation of revised
guidance on the category system; 9 A number of participants also noted that not all
categories are equal in every situation;
9 There was a suggestion from some participants to
reverse the order of protected area categories (V) 9 Some participants emphasised that strictly
and (VI). Other specific suggestions included protected areas, categories I through IV are
making categories Ia and Ib separate categories particular important for supporting ecosystem
thus having a 7 category system. There were dynamics, in line with principles of conservation
mixed views on both points and no show of hands biology; and
was called for;
9 Many participants noted the importance of
9 There was questioning of why “recreation” is only including illustrated and practical examples in the
included in the definition of category II, National revised guidance on the category system and that a
Park when recreation occurs within all protected “picture is worth a thousand words”.
area categories;
QUESTION 5: The consensus seems to be that
9 The need to ensure that all categories explicitly category should be changed if assessment shows
refer to MPAs was noted; that the management objectives do not match
those of the category – do you agree?
9 Some participants suggested that having numbers
for the categories implies there is a hierarchy, Participants agreed that this was a confusing question
which is unhelpful, and that numbers for specific and there was no show of hands called for on this
categories should be removed. Also some question. Discussion before the show of hands
participants suggested that names of the categories included the following points:
should be removed. There were mixed views on
both points and no show of hands was called for; 9 The main issue is to ensure that protected areas
and are more effectively assigned to a category. Key
issues include: “who assesses” and “who decides”.
9 Many participants noted that category (V) and Guidance on this should be included within the
(VI) contribute to biodiversity conservation and revised guidance on the category system;
that this should be given more emphasis in the
explanatory text and guidance for the categories. 9 Many participants noted the importance of
strengthening and supporting national processes
QUESTION 4: (a) All categories make a for assignment of categories. Better guidance on
contribution to conservation but objectives should this is essential; and
be chosen with respect to the particular situation –
do you agree?
190
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 Some participants noted the need to link this to Part b: record of discussion in
certification systems for protected areas, which sessions of the categories summit
should be undertaken on a voluntary and non
binding basis. The revised guidance on the DAY 1: MONDAY 7 MAY, 2008
category system should also support and enable
the review and, as required, revision of categories Introductory Session: Setting the
assigned to protected areas. IUCN’s role in this Context
should be advisory and any change to categories
should be undertaken by national governments. Introduction from Junta de Andalusia. Miss
Fuensanta Coves Botella, Regional Councillor for
QUESTION 6: Conversely the consensus from the the Environment, Consejería de Medio Ambiente
workshop was that category should not be de la Junta de Andalucía.
changed if management effectiveness is poor – do
you agree? Miss Botella officially opened the IUCN Category
Summit and noted the Summit is a very important
There was consensus on this question – all participants preparatory meeting for the IUCN World
agreed. Discussion before the show of hands included Conservation Congress to be held in Barcelona in
the following points: October, 2008. It was noted that the key challenge
ahead of the Summit is to review the category system,
9 Many participants noted that - if a protected area to develop a common and agreed set of standards and,
is poorly managed - then the strategy should be to importantly, to ensure the system is effectively applied.
improve management rather than to change the
category. A general aim should be to improve The importance of protected areas and the categories
effectiveness in all protected area categories. It system within Spain was noted. The importance of
was further noted that poor management “speaking a common language” is particularly relevant
effectiveness should not lead to change of the in Spain in view of the number of actors involved, at
category. Changing the category would set a national and provincial levels. Particular issues include
dangerous political precedent; and improving the assignment process of protected areas to
categories – a challenging process in Spain - and also
9 The important link between governance and improving coordination and cooperation between
effectiveness was noted as was the need to different stakeholders and authorities. In the province
improve the process for assigning categories. of Andalucia this issue is further complicated by the
requirements of Natura 2000 and the large number of
different areas which are established as protected areas
– for example, 30 different types of protected areas are
identified in Spain.
191
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction from Antonio Serrano, Secretary This Summit is underpinned by a great deal of work
General for Territory and Biodiversity, Ministry of and consultation, including that involved in the
the Environment of Spain. Speaking a Common Language publication; an
exhaustive process and product, which was endorsed
Mr Serrano noted the importance of the Summit in the by WPC68 and WCC69 members. Consultation with a
context of IUCN cooperation with Spain on wide range of partners and organizations is also very
environmental issues and Spain’s commitments to important and Ms Marton-Lefèvre noted the
biodiversity conservation in general. Spain has consultation with conservation groups and the private
developed a clear framework and a new law on Natural sector, prior to this Summit and suggested this should
Heritage and Biodiversity, which will be addressed continue after the Summit in relation to the
shortly in the National Congress. This has been based preparation of revised guidelines. Finally, Ms Marton-
on a review and rationalization of different laws Lefèvre noted the importance of the Summit
regarding protected areas and a clearer definition of developing clear recommendations which will improve
protected area categories used by different authorities. the category system, and thus in turn help to enhance
This process has resulted in recommendations to conservation and livelihoods.
maintain categories related to traditional use and
activities, as well as to include a category for marine Nik Lopoukhine, WCPA Chair. The IUCN
protected areas. protected area category system and its
international application, with particular reference
Mr Serrano emphasized that conservation is a priority to the CBD.
goal for protected areas and emphasized that protected
areas should be clearly defined areas that are monitored The CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas
to ensure their protection. Monitoring should be notes the importance of the IUCN protected area
undertaken by competent agencies and should aim to category system, and, specifically: “recognizes the value of a
ensure that protection is being carried out effectively. single international classification system for protected areas and
For example, Spain has the highest number of the benefit of providing information that is comparable across
protected areas within Europe, but monitoring must countries and regions and therefore welcomes the ongoing efforts of
assess whether these areas are effectively delivering the IUCN/WCPA to refine the IUCN system of
conservation goals. IUCN can and should play a role in categories..”70 This Summit will play a major role in
this area and also in relation to the area of protected advising how the category system can be refined and it
area certification. is important that this is undertaken in an open and
transparent manner. It is also important that there is
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN Director General. close cooperation with the CBD Secretariat as we
Introduction to IUCN and its role in protected further progress on the refinement of the category
areas and the IUCN protected area category system.
system.
Statement from Peter Bridgewater, Secretary
Ms Marton-Lefèvre thanked all involved for the General, Ramsar Convention. The IUCN
organization of this Summit and in particular noted the protected area category system and the Ramsar
generous support from the Spanish Authorities. She Convention.
noted that the Summit represents an important
milestone for protected areas and for the development Ramsar sites aim to: “develop and maintain an international
of the category system. The category system is a network of wetlands which are important for the conservation of
flagship product for IUCN and is an important tool for global biological diversity and for sustaining human life through
protected area management in general, as underlined the maintenance of their ecosystem components, processes and
by its endorsement and application by Conventions benefits/services”. Designating a wetland for the Ramsar
and International Agreements. However, there is a List does not in itself require the site to have been
need to ensure that the category system can realize its declared as a protected area. Such sites have no formal
full potential and also to ensure that it can be applied need for national level protection, and may allows for
in a range of circumstances and environmental intensive use by human communities. The 2005
conditions. This Summit must thus ensure that the Ramsar COP included reference to the protected area
category system is enhanced and that the system is
practical and useable. It is important to base the work 68 The 2003 IUCN World Parks Congress, held in Durban, South
192
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
system and noted the need to identify the protected also the air above protected areas. All categories are
area category which may apply to a particular Ramsar important: we need categories I-IV but also V-VI are
site. This implies that Ramsar sites can be included in needed but they should not be used as “an easy way
the IUCN protected area List. out” to avoid designating category I-IV protected
areas. Certification is also important and we have to
Fresh water ecologists have suggested that the IUCN move in that direction.
definition of a protected area be amended to include
reference to inland waters, introducing a number of David Sheppard, Head IUCN Programme on
proposals. A definition has also been proposed by the Protected Areas. Introduction to the reason for
Ramsar Scientific Committee which also addresses this and aims of the Summit.
point. It is important to note that the management of
fresh water ecosystems requires a “basin wide David Sheppard outlined preparatory work that has
approach” which, by definition, often covers areas been involved in the preparations for this Summit,
outside of formal protected areas. including the work associated with the preparation of
the “Speaking a Common Language” publication and
Historical background and aims of the the various resolutions from IUCN Members on the
Category Summit IUCN protected area category system. Four key
principles relating to the Summit were noted: (1) the
Kenton Miller, Senior Advisor, WCPA. History of Summit is not a decision making forum, but provides a
the IUCN protected area category system. key opportunity to obtain input and guidance from the
some of the world’s leading protected areas players in
Kenton Miller provided information on the early relation to the future development of the category
development of the category system, emphasizing that system; (2) the aim of the Summit is not to change the
the system was devised as a tool to better communicate basic architecture of the categories system (6
what protected areas were about and how they could categories) but to improve the application and
contribute to conservation objectives. The original interpretation of the categories system; (3) an
concept introduced the principle of focusing on the important aim of the Summit is to reinforce the value
objectives of protected area management and aimed to of the whole system of protected areas (from Cat. I to
place protected areas within their broader Cat VI), and not focus on particular components or
environmental and social context. This introduced the categories in isolation; and (4) the category system is
concept of a matrix of land uses within any given not the end in itself – it is an important tool to
region, within which protected areas were “nested”. improve the extent and coverage of protected areas, as
The development of the original IUCN protected area well as the management effectiveness of existing
system recognized the importance of working with protected areas, for better biodiversity conservation
local people and communities, as well as the fact that and to better contribute to sustainable development
any system must be capable of implementation at
different levels: from the local to the international The overall objectives of the Summit were noted as: (1)
level. to assess the conceptual and methodological strengths
and weaknesses of the system and its application; and
The major change since the initial development of the (2) to identify required actions to strengthen the system
category system is in the growth of “interest groups”. and enhance its application at different levels, including
The initial development of the protected areas category its use in supporting regional planning and connectivity
system focused on government interests and this has initiatives.
now broadened to include civil society, the private
sector and other stakeholder groups. Plenary discussion
The following points were made by Summit
In relation to the future development of the category participants, following the presentations by Kenton
system it is important to confirm that biodiversity is Miller and David Sheppard:
the primary aim for protected areas. Given the current
speed of biodiversity loss we need to move quickly. We 9 There is a need to make better use of all of the
need to be creative and flexible and look at new categories, and not consider category I-IV
applications of the category system. For example the separately or in isolation from categories V and
system must work at different spatial levels, not only at VI;
a horizontal level but also at a vertical level to
accommodate, for example, the bottom of the seas and
193
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 The most important aspect is to ensure better including through: (a) background papers prepared for
application of the category system application. A the Summit (60 in all); (b) regional and thematic
key element of this is providing better guidance to meetings held prior to the Summit71; and (c) the web
WCPA members, protected area agencies and based discussion “e-forum” which was held in the 2-3
others as to how they can better apply and months prior to the Summit. All material arising from
implement the category system; these fora is freely available on the IUCN web site.
9 Any revision of the category system could be The discussion72 on the definition of a protected areas
linked with the major CBD meetings in 2008, in at this Summit is to present differing views, rather than
particular the CBD COP meeting and the Ad Hoc to reach consensus. The definition is the fundamental
Technical Meeting on Protected Areas in “glue” which holds the category system together and it
February, 2008. These meetings provide an needs to be clear and well understood. There also
excellent opportunity to highlight on going work needs to be more guidance on the interpretation of the
and developments in relation to the category definition, particularly in relation to the relative
system; importance of biodiversity conservation. It was also
noted that there are other definitions of protected
9 There is great potential for on going and endless areas, including that adopted by the Convention on
discussion regarding the category system. It is Biological Diversity and the definition used in Europe
important to revise the system, based on in relation to forest protected areas. These different
consideration and assessment of the various views, definitions have created confusion in some quarters.
and then “close the page” and move on to
implementation; There were a number of key messages from the e-
forum, including:
9 Protected areas should address a full range of
issues associated with “diversity”, including the 9 The importance of keeping the “basic
need for protection of geological and soil architecture” of the category system but providing
diversity; and more detailed guidance on how they should be
applied;
9 Major future challenges relate more to improving
the effectiveness of protected area management. 9 strong support for having a range of protected
This needs to be a primary consideration for the areas while providing more emphasis on
future of protected areas. improving effectiveness and also reviewing
options for certification; and 0.
Plenary discussion on the IUCN
definition of a protected area and 9 the need for IUCN to to set minimum standards
proposals for categories for protected areas and for biodiversity
conservation in general. It was noted that such
Nigel Dudley. IUCN definition of a protected area standards should be higher within protected areas
and the IUCN categories: choices are needed than outside.
Nigel Dudley noted that the revision of the category Harvey Locke. Are all the categories equal? -
system responded to the Resolution from the 2004 Critique of categories V and VI73
IUCN World Conservation Congress (WCC). He
noted the importance of both the process and the Harvey Locke noted a number of points relating to the
product and that the revision of the category system vital importance of IUCN categories I to IV for
should consider the evolving direction of protected biodiversity conservation, including the following:
areas, as outlined in key products such as the Durban
Action Plan. He also noted that the revision of the
categories system must be based on an open and 71 Workshops on the Categories were held in Asia, Africa and in a
consultative process and that differences of opinion number of specific countries, including Madagascar and Senegal. A
should be openly addressed. number of thematic and issue based workshops were also held, such
as the Private Sector Workshop on the Categories which was held in
IUCN HQ in February, 2007.
The “Speaking a Common Language” Project has 72 Matters outlined in this paragraph were discussed on Day 4 of the
provided an important input to this process but many Categories Summit on Thursday 10 May (see Part A of these draft
Minutes)
other opportunities for comment have been provided, 73 Point and counterpoint: Part 1 of 2 presentations giving different
194
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 It is important to re-think the “new paradigm” on Many category V protected areas are just as
protected areas as put forward by some in WCPA effective as other IUCN protected area categories
and IUCN, to ensure there is greater emphasis on for biodiversity conservation;
the role of protected areas in conserving nature; 9 There has been a great deal of work on the
application of categories V and VI which have led
9 Nature conservation is the primary objective of to series of guidelines being developed, including
protected areas. Human influence should not the IUCN Best Practice Guideline on Category V
dominate in protected areas. The IUCN Red List – this has led to improved practice in relation to
of Threatened Species is an inditement of our the application of these categories;
efforts – it shows that nature and species are
disappearing at a faster rate than ever before; 9 Any “throwing out” of categories V and VI from
the IUCN category system poses major risks, both
9 The focus for protected areas, as promoted by in terms of removing legitimate protected areas
IUCN and others, over recent times have given from the “protected area system” and also in
less attention to nature than is needed and this alienating large constituencies and weakening
focus should be shifted back to nature national and international backing for some of the
conservation as the primary objective for most important biodiversity areas on earth. Many
protected areas; category V protected areas also protect and
maintain other values, including cultural and
9 Agriculture is not an appropriate activity within spiritual values; and
protected areas. Harvey noted that: “if it is ploughed
it is not a protected area”; and 9 In conclusion category V and category VI play a
vitally important role in national protected areas
9 There is a need to establish more IUCN category I systems and must be retained. It is further noted
to IV protected areas in all countries. that nature conservation should be a priority
where there is a conflict over values and uses
Jose Maria Mallarach: The importance of applying within category V and VI protected areas.
all the categories74
Plenary discussion on perspectives in
Jose Maria Mallarach responded to Harvey Locke and relation to different categories,
noted a number of points, including: session chaired by Marc Hockings
9 Category V and VI categories can and do make a Kent Redford (IUCN protected area category Ia:
valuable contribution to biodiversity and must be Strict Nature Reserve)
retained as part of the overall protected area
system. category V and VI should be seen as These are typically highly protected areas which aim to
complementary to and not in opposition to protect biodiversity, and where human use is limited to
categories 1-IV specific conservation targets, such as research. The
main objective is to protect natural processes. An
9 The value of category V and VI has been shown important challenge is to better link Categories Ia and
over many years in Europe and the protection and Ib and to harmonize the language relating to
enhancement of agricultural biodiversity is often biodiversity. It is important to strengthen the
an important objective for category V and VI. In effectiveness of management of these areas and to
total category V and VI protected areas cover 3.6 better develop and promote such areas for their critical
per cent of the earths surface – larger than the role is addressing the catastrophic loss of species that is
areas covered under categories II and III; currently occurring.
9 In the Mediterranean, protected area categories V Cyril Kormos (IUCN protected area category Ib:
and VI cover up to 60 per cent of the territory and Wilderness Area)
are vitally important for biodiversity conservation.
On going management of many of these areas is Work on this category is led by the IUCN/WCPA
required to preserve certain habitats in certain Wilderness Task Force. Work is currently underway in
regions, including habitats for wild biodiversity. relation to the development of guidelines for this
category. These guidelines will give more emphasis to
74Point and counterpoint: Part 2 of 2 presentations giving different biodiversity conservation, but will also note the
opinions about the IUCN categories
195
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
importance of preserving indigenous traditional use: Jessica Brown (IUCN protected area category V:
wilderness should not be seen as places unaltered by Protected Landscape/Seascape)
humans. In some quarters wilderness is seen as a
“discredited concept,” but the reality is far different. In This is an important category for the reasons already
fact the wilderness concept is broadening in both its elaborated by Jose Maria Mallarach at this Summit
use and application. There are now 11 countries with (refer section above). Category V sites can play a vital
specific wilderness laws and some forms of wilderness role in protecting wild biodiversity and they also play
designation. In the USA, for example, there are 6-7 an important role in buffering and connectivity. Such
Indian tribes which use wilderness in their activities. sites are important for protecting agricultural
The wilderness concept reflects a fundamental respect biodiversity and for protecting sacred and cultural
for wild nature and for the protection of biodiversity. values. It is important to recognize that these sites can
achieve a range of objectives, including conservation
Craig Groves (IUCN protected area category II: and enhancing human livelihoods.
National Park)
Claudio Maretti (IUCN protected area category
This is one of the best known brand names for VI: Managed Resource Protected Area)
protected areas. Although there is a perceived bias
towards developed countries National Parks have been These comments reflect an e-debate on category VI
widely established around the world. The main aim of involving 60 persons, which was held prior to this
this category is for ecosystem protection and Summit. The definition of this category should give
recreation. In future these aims need to be retained but greater emphasis to nature conservation. The overall
also widened to include restoration of biodiversity. It is aims for this category should be to protect natural
important that these areas represent major ecological ecosystems and promote sustainable use: these aims
features. Maintenance of ecological integrity is critical should be considered together in a synergistic way,
and this needs to be given greater emphasis in the rather than in opposition. Category VI protected areas
development of revised guidance on the category are important as many ecosystems are not well
system. The management of visitor use is particularly protected and future options for strictly protected
important and should be given more attention in the areas are limited in many cases. Category VI areas play
future, in particular to minimize ecological degradation. a critical role in strengthening connections between
category II areas should be large enough to contain protected areas and other land uses. They also play an
functioning ecosystems and to maintain ecological important role in strengthening connections between
processes. people and nature. Lessons learnt in relation to
category VI need to be better identified and
Nigel Dudley (IUCN protected area category III: disseminated: Guidelines should also be developed.
Natural Monument) Management effectiveness should be strengthened and
major modifications or land use activity should be
This is an underused category and further work should excluded. The internal debate within the protected
be undertaken on its application. The current scope of areas movement about the relative importance of
this category should include natural ecology and should
cover a reduced range of features. There may also be Plenary discussion
application of this category to sacred sites, and there is There was a wide ranging plenary discussion which
potential for engagement with faith based groups in followed these presentations on individual categories.
this regard. Key points included:
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend (IUCN protected area 9 All categories are important and internal debates
category IV: Habitat/Species Management Area) about the relative importance of different
categories can be counterproductive. As one
Category IV could be more effectively applied but this delegate mentioned: “we need to fight against real
will require a tighter definition and a shift of emphasis threats not to fight amongst ourselves”;
to more active management. The challenge of
managing species and habitats in a fragmented 9 Key challenges are to: (a) improve management
landscape is a particular challenge, where protected effectiveness of protected areas in all categories -
areas are one of a number of protected area the highest possible standards of management
designations. The application of this category to should apply to all categories; (b) improve linkages
address the loss of species is a particular challenge. between protected areas and surrounding land
196
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
uses; and (c) to mainstream protected areas into 9 The work on categories should also be considered
wider community agendas and debates – reflecting within the context of the CBD and in particular
the message of the Durban Accord and Action the Program of Work on Protected Areas;
Plan; (d) to ensure that protected areas are
responding to future challenges such as climate National and regional experience with
change; the categories system
9 The key starting point for the category system Three workshop sessions explored perspectives from
should be the definition of a protected area and different protected area agencies from around the
this definition should recognize a range of world. Each workshop was asked to identify: “What are
objectives. However, in cases of conflict, it should the key lessons from application of the IUCN category system in
be acknowledged that nature conservation is a their country/region”. The following key points were
priority. The definition of a protected area and of included in the report back from each Session.
individual categories should be as clear and
unambiguous as possible; Session 1: French speaking Countries
9 A particular strength of the categories is their non Only a few countries have used the IUCN categories
binding nature for Governments and also there is even though there is interest in making more use of the
flexibility in application. As one participant noted: system. Madagascar, as one example, has used the
“All countries are different and there needs to be system within their protected area framework as a
flexibility for application in different countries”. broad guide and has found it useful. Lessons from
These key features should continue but further application from francophone countries have included:
clarification and advice is required on the
application of the category system, to enhance its 9 all category types should be used without a
use as an effective management tool; defined hierarchy, all are important and can be
useful for conservation: this underscores the
9 There is often a problem with assignment of an importance of a network of protected areas;
entire protected area to one category, particularly
when there are a variety of uses occurring within 9 The category system should not be rigid and
these areas. Advice is also needed where protected should be capable of adaptation to different
areas are not meeting standards: systems of situations;
arbitration should be developed. Enhanced
guidance on the category system should address 9 More guidance is required in relation to the
these issues; categories, particularly in relation to application of
the system to areas of high cultural and spiritual
9 There was some discussion on the use of numbers value and application to issues such as agro-
or names for categories. In general there was a biodiversity;
feeling that both names and numbers should be
used. There was a strong feeling that names that 9 Developing countries have to address issues
have a high brand recognition, such as National relating to local communities and the need to
Park and Wilderness Area, should not be dropped; guarantee livelihoods of local people: protected
areas have to be considered within this context
9 It was noted that nature conservation should also and this issue should be reflected within the
include “geodiversity”, in relation to protection of category system; and
important geological and geomorphological
features; 9 The need for zonation within categories is an issue
that is confusing and should be addressed in the
9 The guidelines should recognize that there are a revision of the category system.
range of management arrangements for protected
areas, including governments, civil society and Session 2: Spanish speaking Countries
local communities. Revised guidance on the Lessons from application from Spanish speaking
category system should recognize this; countries have included:
197
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
what is a protected area and what is – and is not – protected area systems and has been adaptable to
acceptable: protection of Biodiversity is the main different types of protected areas including
objective and should prevail; community and indigenous reserves. Main
messages from this application have included: (a)
9 There is a potential role for the category system in the system works and is useful; (b) all categories
the certification of protected areas. For example, have to be used; and (c) the system can be useful
Mexico is certifying different protected areas as a tool for lobbying decision makers and for
under the IUCN category system and using this as getting more funding from donors;
one input to determining priorities for fund
allocation and grants; 9 Problems have included: (a) inappropriate
application; (b) inadequate guidance on permitted
9 There is a need to reduce the numbers of uses within different categories; (c) lack of clarity
protected area definitions in use - IUCN, CBD, in relation to application within different biomes,
European Union all use different definitions - and including the marine environment; and (d) the
ensure the definition arising from this categories (incorrect) assumption that the system is
Summit is clear and durable; hierarchical, with category I representing the
“best” or most important and category VI
9 A number of countries have used the category representing the least important;
system in legislation but there should be flexibility
in national level application. There are many 9 There should be better communication about the
different names used for different types of category system and why it is important. More
protected areas in Spanish speaking countries and clarity is also required in the different definitions
this can and does create confusion; and how they are applied; especially for categories
V and VI;
9 There were a range of views within this group in
relation to using names or names for categories 9 The process of assignment is often weak and
and the application of the categories in relation to needs to be improved; in particular there is a need
zonation. In relation to zonation some for a verification process. Countries need support
participants thought that the system should allow in this process but the voluntary nature of the
differentiation for different zones within different system is important and should be retained:
protected areas while others thought this was categories should not be “pushed on” countries to
more of an internal management planning issue; apply;
9 The use of the category system in relation to 9 Aspects that should be covered in the revised
different planning standards, such as those guidance include: (a) the use of categories to
covering protected areas under Natura 2000, was develop innovative solutions for conservation
identified as an issue requiring further clarification; management, such as in helping managers deal
with climate change; (b) the relationships and
9 The category system should allow for different linkages between protected areas and other land
types of governance regimes for protected areas. uses within the landscape; (c) improvement of
Application in the marine environment is a effectiveness of protected areas, across all
weakness, which should be addressed in the categories
preparation of revised guidance on the category
system Experience with the application of
specific categories
Session 3: English speaking Countries Working Groups reviewed experience with the
There is a wide variation in the application of the application of different categories. Groups were asked
category system in English speaking countries. Some to identify: (1) How adequate are these categories in guiding
countries have included it within legislation and protected area planning and management? What needs to be
planning systems and others have not used it at all. changed and improved? ; (2) How can these categories be better
Lessons from application from English speaking promoted and applied in policy, in national legislation, and at
countries have included: other levels ?; and (3) How can the process for assigning these
categories be improved ?
9 On the positive side, the category system has
provided a flexible approach to designing
198
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 In relation to category II the Working Group 9 The needs to be a clearer distinction between
noted that the objectives and criteria should be category V and VI. At present, there is confusion
clear and strict rather than flexible; with over the primary objective and language used in
management objectives linked to biodiversity; the existing category system in relation to
categories V and VI; and
9 At present there is inappropriate use of category II
in some countries due to the symbolic power and 9 Category V and VI are also particularly relevant in
name recognition of the term “National Park”. A relation to bioregional planning and in adaptation
mechanism for challenging category assignment to climate change. The particular relevance of
should be developed which would be subject to category V and VI in the marine environment was
mediation by an appropriate body, such as WCPA. also noted
199
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9 Application of all categories in the marine addressed in the revised guidance on the
environment requires further work. There is categories system. Better guidance on permissible
opposition from the fisheries sector to strictly uses within category VI protected areas is also
protected areas (category I to IV) and categories V required; and
and VI will more commonly be applied. The best
available science needs to be applied to identify 9 Assignment of protected areas to categories
“no take” zones within Marine Protected Areas. should not be undertaken by site managers but
Zonation is particularly relevant for MPAs, which should involve national bodies working with and
are often large and accommodate a range of uses. through external experts. WCPA input should be
Many countries have introduced statutory zoning encouraged where possible and appropriate.
systems of which MPAs are one component;
Working Group 2: Data Collection and
9 Better guidance on permitted activities within each Management
category is required, particularly in relation to the Key issues were noted as:
level of acceptance of human intervention; and
9 The revision of the category system must be
9 All categories are important and the notion of a closely linked with the current plans to redevelop
hierarchy should be avoided. All protected areas the World Data Base on Protected Areas
should be considered in the context of a national (WDPA). The WDPA is based on two types of
system of protected areas. data input: (a) from national level sources, as
reported through the UN List; and (b) from a
Improving the application of the range of sources as represented through the
category system WDPA Consortium, which involves NGOs and a
Four workshop sessions assessed different aspects of range of partners. There is current emphasis on
the application of the category system; results are improving the quality of the data and a
outlined below. decentralized approach to data collection;
Working Group 1: How can we improve the 9 Accurate information is essential and a key
assignment of protected areas to categories ? element of this is effective and accurate
assignment of protected areas to IUCN categories.
Key issues were noted as: This requires relevant and useful guidelines for the
category system and also an effective and expert
9 A problem is that different people and different review process. WCPA has to be better engaged in
organizations assign the categories, and there this process. The issue of certification of protected
inadequate procedures to guide this process. More areas is also an important issue and requires
effective procedures and guidance should be further assessment;
developed and persons with a technical
background in protected areas should be involved 9 The Working Group agreed that the WDPA
in the assignment process; should be the key system and that it needs further
investment. Issues identified in relation to the
9 There should be a consistent approach to the WDPA included: (a) the need to map the
process of assignment of categories. This must footprint of overlapping designations; (b) the need
include clear definition of responsibilities, to be able to handle data at different scales; (c) the
particularly at national levels, in relation to the need for consistency and clarity in terms of
assignment of different categories; definitions; (d) the need to explore linkages with
the CBD, in particular the Protected Areas
9 The assignment process requires clarity in terms Program of Work;
of definitions and criteria and thus the revised
guidance on the category system must ensure that Working Group 3: Governance of protected areas
all definitions, criteria and standards are as clear and the category system
and unambiguous as possible. Terms must be Key issues were noted as:
clearly explained to minimize misunderstanding;
9 The World Parks Congress (WPC) noted four
9 There is some confusion as to the difference types of protected area governance: (a) by
between categories V and VI and this need to be government agencies, at various levels; 2) by
200
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
various parties together; 3) where an individual or which has also been integrated into the work
group holds authority; and 4) where local programs of the CBD;
communities and indigenous peoples are
responsible. The WPC noted that all are legitimate 9 A range of management assessment evaluations
and relevant, and are essential if we are to consider have been undertaken, from those at the site level
protected areas as a mosaic in the broader to those at the whole of system level75.The
landscape, rather than as islands. The matrix for message from these assessments is that any system
linking these governance types with the categories needs to be relevant and useful – it should not be
was developed from the WPC to assist the used for “naming and shaming” exercise. The
development of the category system; approaches can provide good arguments for
increasing resources for protected areas;
9 This Working Group endorsed the incorporation
of the matrix on protected area governance within 9 It is important to link work on the category
the revised guidance on the category system. It system with the assessment of management
was noted that management and governance are effectiveness. Key issues that need to be
different: with management encompasses what do considered in relation to this include: (a) the
we do and governance addressing who decides assessment of effectiveness should not determine
what we do; the category to which a protected area is assigned;
(b) assessment of effectiveness should apply to all
9 Key challenges in applying the Governance matrix categories of protected areas; (c) assessment of
within the category system include: (a) the management effectiveness could be considered in
different governance models are not recognized in a similar way to the way in which protected area
all countries, thus limiting the application of these Governance has been added to the categories
concepts; (b) in some cases there is a confusion matrix; in effect this would add a third dimension
between land ownership and statutory powers; (c) to the categories matrix; (d) training and capacity
there is limited experience in the application of the building is needed in relation to this issue; (e)
category system in Community Conserved Areas, there is a need for caution in changing the
and a body of experience or case law needs to be assignment of categories or of removing protected
developed; (d) applying the different governance area status, as a result of the assessment of
types should not be used as a pretext for “letting management effectiveness – this can have political
governments off the hook” in relation to their consequences.
fundamental responsibilities in relation to
establishing and managing systems of protected Working with partners to improve the
areas; and IUCN category system
9 In moving the this forward there is a need to Three workshop sessions assessed how to better work
integrate this with the work undertaken by WCPA with different partners (organizations and groups) to
and CEESP on protected area governance in ensure better application of the category system; results
general and on Community Conserved Areas in are outlined below.
particular.
Working Group 1: Working with the International
Working Group 4: Guaranteeing categories and Conventions and Agreements to improve the
improving protected area Management application of the category system
Effectiveness Key issues were noted as:
Key issues were noted as:
9 Conventions can be used to promote the
9 There has been considerable work on the application of the category system: for example,
assessment of management effectiveness in recent the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas
years and more than 5,000 assessments have been references the IUCN category system;
undertaken in 80 countries. This is a major
contribution towards the target in the CBD 9 IUCN has a key role in a number of Conventions,
Programme of Work on Protected Areas which including the CBD, World Heritage and CITES
calls on 30 per cent of the world’s protected areas and this also provides an opportunity to promote
to be assessed. This work has resulted in the
development of a common set of indicators, 75 Such as the PA System Assessments undertaken in Finland and
201
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the category system in a range of different forums, 9 The private sector should not be looked upon as
as a useful and practical standard in relation to simply a source of funding for project activities.
protected areas. Each Convention offers particular There should be more of an emphasis on
opportunities and these should be identified and developing activities cooperatively which are of
promoted. There is particular scope for using the mutual interest and benefit;
category system for harmonizing reporting on
protected areas and related issues from the 9 From the perspective of the private sector the
different Conventions; category system represents a clear and logical
framework for dealing with protected areas. There
9 IUCN has a key role as a technical advisory body, are particular opportunities in relation to linking
as it is generally outside of political processes. the category system with the Project Life Cycle –
IUCN and its Members should better from planning/designation to implementation to
communicate the category system as an IUCN evaluation;
standard which can be applied by a number of
Conventions in relation to protected areas issues; 9 The extractive industry representatives at the
Summit requested adequate consultation in
9 Specific recommendations from this Working relation to the establishment of new protected
Group in relation to the application of the areas, citing the example of Canada where mineral
category system in International Conventions and assessments allow for the identification of both
Agreements included: (a) simplify the existing conservation and mineral values. The potential of
guidelines – often persons participating in the extractive industry sector to contribute to the
Convention meetings are “politicians or decision more effective management of protected areas,
makers” rather than “technical”. Thus it is through site specific and other interventions, was
important that the revised Guidelines are as simple also noted;
and clear as possible; (b) relevant text should be
included in the revised Guidelines to address the 9 It was noted that the private sector often has data
issue of International Conventions and available and skills in data management which can
Agreements; (c) the revised Guidelines should be be useful for the planning and management of
sent to the Secretariats of all relevant Conventions protected areas. The private sector has supported
and Agreements, to be offered as a useful and the strengthening of the World Database on
widely accepted tool that may be useful for Protected Areas (WDPA) through the Proteus
application within their Convention/Agreement; project, with the aim of ensuring the WDPA is
(d) consider holding regional protected area more accurate and robust;
workshops that bring together technical experts
and secretariats of Conventions and Agreements 9 Private protected areas are becoming increasingly
to ensure more cohesive and effective approaches important and will play an important future role in
to issues such as the category system. conservation efforts. Private protected areas need
to be better integrated into the broader
Working Group 2: working with the Private Sector conservation debate;
to improve the application of the category system
Key issues were noted as: 9 Shell has supported efforts to improve
management effectiveness of protected areas and,
9 The private sector is not homogenous although it in particular, business planning for protected
is often “couched under one term” in discussions areas. Shell has assisted a number of natural World
with IUCN. It is impossible for the private sector heritage Sites to develop Business plans which
to talk with one voice on issues such as the have helped to develop the skills of protected area
application of the categories system; managers and also to tap into the expertise
available within Shell to assist in this area;
9 There was a preparatory meeting for the
Categories Summit in Gland in February 2007, 9 Other opportunities for linking work on the
which involved representatives from a range of category system and protected areas with the
industry sectors. This reflected a high level of private sector included: (a) the use of biodiversity
private sector interest in protected areas, in offsets to support protected areas; (b) experience
general, and the categories system in particular; of the private sector with scenario planning
exercises; (c) the interest of certain sections of the
202
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
203
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
needs to be provided in the case of large MPAs involving consideration of the underlying
and it was noted that this can be accommodated substrate – the soil – and the air above the
within the new WDPA model. Vertical zoning protected area;
needs to be addressed, both below and above the 9 Transboundary considerations in relation to
water surface. The issue of temporal closures of freshwater protected areas should also be
parts of MPAs for fishing should also be considered as freshwater ecosystems often cover
considered in applying the category system; and more than one country. There needs to be
consistent application of the category system, in
9 Minimum standards should be identified for relation to issues such as category definition;
Marine Protected Areas, particularly in relation to
recreational angling/fishing; allowable impacts 9 The revised category system should include
from commercial activities, including commercial specific objectives relevant to the management of
fishing; trawling and off shore exploration and freshwater ecosystems. This should include issues
mining. such as restoration and invasive species;
Working Group 2: Applying the IUCN category 9 The emerging matrix for the application of the
system in Freshwater Ecosystems category system – which is including factors such
Key issues were noted as: as Governance - should also consider adding a
component relating to the economic and social
9 Many protected areas protect freshwater benefits that flow from ecosystem services; and
ecosystems, however the boundaries of these
ecosystems often cover more extensive areas 9 WCPA should establish a Task Force on
which include river basins and freshwater freshwater protected areas and this should take a
catchment areas. Thus the category system does lead on the further development and refinement
not apply to all freshwater ecosystems but the of the category system, in a similar way to the way
subset that meets the definition of a protected in which the WCPA Marine Program is
area. The specific implication for freshwater supporting the development of the category
protected areas is that they need to be considered system in the marine environment.
in the context of the whole ecosystem and not
considered in isolation. It is particularly important Working Group 3: Applying the IUCN category
to protect water sources (i.e. upper catchment), to system in Forest Ecosystems
maintain the integrity of freshwater ecosystems; Key issues were noted as:
9 Assessments from the IUCN 2003 World Parks 9 It is important for IUCN to clearly define the term
Congress underlined that freshwater ecosystems “forest protected area” and to define the limits in
are currently underrepresented in current terms of what is acceptable or not within these
protected area systems – often they represent the areas. The need for clear definitions particularly
“canary in the coal mine” to enable us to assess if applies to the application of the category system to
ecosystems are healthy; category V and VI protected areas and also in
relation to the status of managed forests.
9 Ramsar sites often fall within category II and Participants noted the need to be cautious and to
afford an extra level of protection for freshwater maintain the focus of all protected areas on
ecosystems which are so designated. Ramsar sites biodiversity conservation;
should only receive this label if they are effectively
protected, with a clear protection status; 9 The guidelines on category V and VI in relation to
forest protected areas need elaboration.
9 Introduced alien invasive species are a particular Participants agreed that category VI in particular
problem in relation to freshwater ecosystems and should be managed for conservation as the main
these need to be addressed as a key element of objective and that plantation forestry is not
improving the management effectiveness of appropriate; and
freshwater protected areas;
9 Verification of forest protected areas is important
9 It is important to consider the multiple and could link with the overall work on
dimensions of protection. Freshwater ecosystems certification by the Forests Stewardship Council.
should be viewed in 3 rather than 2 dimensions,
204
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Working Group 4: Species conservation and levels. These efforts should address threats
connectivity and the IUCN category system coming from within and from outside protected
Key issues were noted as: areas. The assessment of management
effectiveness should examine species conservation
9 The category system should be better used as a outcomes across the whole of the protected area
tool for species conservation and conservation at a system and ecological functioning should be
landscape level. It is important to better integrate considered as part of effectiveness.
species and protected areas within conservation
planning: at present the linkages are not as clear or Next Steps and Conclusions
explicit as they should be. A key area of The following actions were noted after the Categories
intersection is in relation to site selection of new Summit
protected areas, with new protected areas better
focused on addressing species that are threatened 9 Draft of revised Categories Guidelines to be
or at risk; prepared by end August 2007 (draft 1)
9 Draft 1 of revised Categories Guidelines to be
9 A number of specific issues were raised in relation discussed at the WCPA Steering Croup in
to protected areas and species conservation, September 2007
including: (a) guidelines for the management of 9 8 weeks consultation and an E-forum on
specific categories should include species content within the WCPA Steering Committee
conservation guidance; (b) there should be scope on draft 1
for dealing with specific species conservation 9 revised Draft (draft 2) revised by January 2008
issues, such as invasive species, within the revised 9 Draft 2 to be placed on the IUCN web site for
categories system; (c) protected areas should comment by February 2008
maintain their primary focus on biodiversity 9 Field testing in selected countries early 2008
conservation and the protected area system in 9 Refinement mid 2008
each country should cover all key elements of 9 Development of IUCN language versions mid
biodiversity; the need for different approaches to 2008
species conservation in the terrestrial and the 9 Final categories document to be published and
marine environment was noted; launched at the Barcelona IUCN WCC -
September 2008
9 Participants noted the need to address species 9 Implementation Strategy to be also developed
conservation across the whole of the landscape by November 2008
and that this is related to the need for effective
governance across the landscape. This also relates Conclusions
to transboundary governance for issues such as Participants noted that the Summit had been very
the protection of migratory species. It was useful in clarifying a number of issues regarding the
emphasized that protected areas are not enough category system and that the many workshop and
by themselves to achieve conservation outcomes plenary sessions had provided very useful material for
and that planning for protected areas must be finalizing the Guidelines. Sincere appreciation was
linked with other land uses within the landscape; expressed to the Junta de Andalucia, the Fundacion
and Biodiversidad and the Ministry of the Environment of
Spain for their support in making this Summit a reality.
9 The need to strengthen the effectiveness of
protected areas was noted as essential for
improving species conservation efforts at all Minutes compiled by David Sheppard
205
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Some of the problems with application of the 1994 definition of a protected area). In the next edition of
IUCN category guidelines arose because users simply the guidelines such phrases should where necessary be
misunderstood them, either because they were reading clarified by accompanying text and in some cases
them in a second or third language or because local principles; these will also help translators in
translations were inaccurate. It would be unfair to lay understanding the deeper meaning behind the words.
the blame for this on the translators. The political
challenges faced by those trying to reach agreement on 9 Summary texts: translation is expensive. The
the IUCN categories meant that some of the wording next issue of the guidelines will include an
was quite ambivalent even in the original English and
this led to misunderstandings and misinterpretation, appendix giving a succinct and carefully worded
frequently compounded during the translation process summary of the key aspects of using the
into other languages. Creating a stronger framework categories, which will provide a simple template
for translations was identified as a major for translation. It is hoped that regional IUCN
recommendation in the Speaking a Common Language offices will be able to give help in translation,
report. sometimes directly doing this internally.
206
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10:00-11:00 Historical background and aims of the summit (Talks and plenary discussion)
9 Kenton Miller, WCPA Chair Emeritus: history of the IUCN protected area category system.
9 David Sheppard, Head IUCN Programme on Protected Areas: introduction to the aims of the Summit
Plenary discussion on the IUCN definition of a protected area and proposals for categories: Chair: Marc
Hockings, WCPA Vice Chair Science and Management
11:30-12:30
9 Nigel Dudley: IUCN definition of a protected area and the IUCN categories, choices needed.
9 Harvey Locke: are all the categories equal? - Critique of categories V and VI.
9 Josep Maria Mallarach: the importance of applying all the categories.
15:30-17:00 Workshop Session 1: National and Regional Experience with the categories system
Nigel Dudley: Introduction and explanation of the workshop session (5 minutes). Three Workshops will explore
perspectives from around the world for the three IUCN languages. In each session speakers who will give short
presentations, followed by discussion. Each workshop is asked to identify: “What are the key lessons from application of
the IUCN category system in their country/region”.
9 Session 1: French: Chair: Christian Barthod, Sous Directeur des Espaces Naturels, Direction de la Nature et
des Paysages, Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable, France: presentations from Algeria,
France, Madagascar, Tunisia, etc. followed by discussion
9 Session 2: Spanish: Chair : Rosario Pintos Martín, Directora General de la Red de Espacios Naturales
Protegidos de Andalucía y Servicios Ambientales. Consejeria de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía, Spain:
presentations from Bolivia, Cuba, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Spain etc with discussion.
9 Session 3: English: Chair : Roger Crofts, WCPA Regional Vice Chair for Europe: presentations from
Australia, Canada, Iran, Kenya/East Africa, Korea, Norway, Serbia, Turkey, Uganda etc with discussion.
207
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
categories be better promoted and applied in policy, in national legislation, and at other levels ?; and (3) How can the process for
assigning these categories be improved ?
1: Categories I and II: Chair: Miguel Castro-Viejo Bolivar, Permanent Rep. of Spain to the EU.
2: Categories III and IV: Chair: Tom Brookes, Conservation International
3: Categories V and VI: Chair: Rosario Pintos Martín, Directora General de la Red de Espacios Naturales
Protegidos de Andalucía y Servicios Ambientales, Consejería de Medio Ambiente
Nigel Dudley: Introduction and explanation of the workshop session (5 minutes). Four workshop sessions will
assess different aspects of the application of the category system and will address specific issues.
1: How can we improve the process of assignment of protected areas to categories? Chair: José Antonio
Atauri, EUROPARC-Spain. Key Question: How can the process of assignment of protected areas to categories be improved?
(Aspects such as: principles for assignment, consultation, addressing complaints)
2: Data Collection and Management, Chair: Charles Besancon, Head Protected Areas Programme, UNEP-
WCMC. Key Question: How can the application of the category system within the World Database on Protected Areas be
improved? (Steps to improve recording and reporting, regionalisation of data collection and data/information use for
a variety of objectives (research projects; extractive industry’s objectives, EIA; etc)
3: Governance of protected areas and the category system: Chair: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, WCPA Co-
Vice Chair, Governance, Equity and Livelihoods. Key Question: How can different protected area Governance models be best
integrated within the IUCN category system? (Aspects such as Accommodating information on Community Conserved
Areas, private protected areas, sacred sites)
4: Guaranteeing categories and improving protected area Management Effectiveness: Chair: Marc
Hockings, WCPA Vice Chair Science and Management. Key Question: How can the category system accommodate
information on Management Effectiveness? (Aspects such as Legal and institutional issues, management effectiveness,
discussion on options for certification etc).
15:30-17:00 Workshop Session 4: Working with Partners to improve the IUCN category system
Nigel Dudley. Introduction and explanation of the workshop session (5 minutes). Three workshop sessions will
assess partnerships with different partners (organizations and groups) to ensure better application of the category
system. Each Session will be asked to address specific issues
1: Working with the International Conventions and Agreements to improve the application of the category
system: Chair: Mayte Martín Crespo, Ministry of the Environment of Spain. Key Question: How can the category
system be better linked with and applied within International Conventions and Agreements? (Application within Conventions
and Agreements such as the CBD, Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention, Man and the Biosphere
Reserve Programme etc).
2: Working with the Private Sector to improve the application of the category system. Chair: Nik
Lopoukhine, WCPA Chair. Key Question: How can the Private Sector be more effectively involved with the IUCN category
system? (Key issues and challenges of working with the private sector, opportunities for private sector support for
the application of the category system and for protected areas in general)
3: Working with local communities and other local partners to improve the application of the category
system. Chair: Juan José Luque Ibañez. Delegado Provincial de la Consejería de Medio Ambiente de la Junta de
Andalucía en Almería. Key Question: How can local communities, indigenous peoples and other local partners be better involved
and engaged with the IUCN category system? (Approaches to involving local communities in the identification of
categories and the development of management strategies etc)
208
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Plenary session reporting back from the workshop sessions of Day 2. There will be presentations (10 minutes
each) by one person from each session (7) to report back from Workshop Session 3 (improving the application of
the category system) and from Workshop Session 4 (improving partnerships). Chair: Gonzalo Oviedo, IUCN
Head of Social Policy
10:00-13:00 Workshop Session 5: Applying the category system in different biomes and at a
landscape scale
1: Applying the IUCN category system in the marine environment: Chair: Dan Laffoley, WCPA Vice Chair,
Marine. Key Question: How can the category system be better applied in the marine environment and how can marine specific issues
be addressed? (What should be included in guidance for applying the categories in the marine environment, how to
deal with marine specific issues such as vertical zonation, etc)
2: Applying the IUCN category system in Freshwater Ecosystems: Chair: Peter Bridgewater, Ramsar
Secretary General. Key Question: How can the category system be better applied in freshwater ecosystems (What should be
included in guidance for applying the categories in freshwater ecosystems, how do we increase attention for
freshwater within the different categories)
3: Applying the IUCN category system in Forest Ecosystems. Chair: José Guirado Romero, Director
General de Gestión del Medio Natural. Consejería de Medio Ambiente. Junta de Andalucia. Key Question: How can
the category system be better applied in forest ecosystems? (Addressing problems with the categories in forests and asking
whether these have been addressed – interventions from COST and others)
4: Species conservation and connectivity and the IUCN category system: Chair: Holly Dublin, Chair, IUCN
Species Survival Commission. Key Question: How can the category system be used as a more effective tool to enhance species
conservation and better conservation at a landscape level? (covering: Role of zoning, role of different categories within the
mosaic, areas outside protected area networks, corridors)
13:00-14:00 Plenary session. Reporting Back from Day 3: Chair: Cristina Narbona, Ministry of the
Environment, Spain. Presentations from each session to report back from Workshop Session 5
15:00-16:00 Plenary: Where do we go from here? Chair: Nigel Dudley
Outline of what will hopefully be an emerging consensus; proposed process for revising the guidance to the
categories, with a Panel of Kenton Miller, Ernesto Enkerlin Hoeflich, and José Courrau
16:00-16:30 Final plenary: Nik Lopoukhine and David Sheppard
16:30-16:45 Representative from the Government of Andalusia: Official closing of the meeting
16:45-17:00 María Artola, Director, Fundacíon Biodiversidad, Spain: Official closing of the meeting
209
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
210
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Maximo Liberman Cruz, Servicio Nacional de Areas Kent H. Redford, The Wildlife Conservation Society,
Protegidas SERNAP, Bolivia USA
Harvey Locke, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Manuel Rendon Martos, Reserva Natural Laguna de
Canada Fuente de Piedra, Spain
Axel Loehken, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Robbie Robinson, IUCN WCPA, South Africa
Platform, Belgium Emilio Rodriguez, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente,
Arturo López, Ornat/PANGEA, Spain Colombia
Elena López de Montenegro, RENPA, Spain Manuel Rodriguez de Los Santos, RENPA, Spain
Nikita Lopoukhine, IUCN-WCPA, c/o Parks Canada - Pedro Rosabal Gonzalez, IUCN - The World
Parcs Canada, Canada Conservation Union, Switzerland
Ibañez Luque, Consejera de Medio Ambiente Junta de Juan Carlos Rubio García, Paraje Natural Marismas del
Andalucia, Spain Odiel, Spain
Maher Mahjoub, Ministère de l`Environnement et du Alberto Salas Avila, UICN ORMA, Costa Rica
Développement durable, Tunisia Franciscoj Sanchez, Espacio Natural Sierra Nevada,
Josep Maria Mallarach, Spain Spain
Moses Mapesa, Uganda Wildlife Authority, Uganda Ana Elena Sánchez de Dios, EGMASA, Spain
Cláudio Maretti, WWF-Brasil, Brazil José Luis Sánchez Morales, Parque Natural Sierras de
Vance Martin, The WILD Foundation, USA de Cazora, Segura y Las Villas, Spain
María Teresa Martín Crespo, Ministerio de Medio Mohamed Seghir Melouhi, Direction Générale des
Ambiente-Comité Español de la UICN, Spain Forêts, Algeria
Carole Martinez, UICN Comité français, France Antonio Serrano, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente,
Baldomero Martínez, EGMASA, Spain Spain
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN - The World Peter Shadie, IUCN - The World Conservation Union,
Conservation Union, Switzerland Thailand
Mehrasa Mehrdadi, Department of the Environment, David Sheppard, IUCN - The World Conservation
Iran Union, Switzerland
Rosa Mendoza Castellón, Parque Natural Cabo de Sue Stolton, Equilibrium Research, United Kingdom
Gata-Níjar, Spain Gustavo Suárez de Freitas, Peru
Susan Miller, IUCN WCPA, USA Daniela Talamo, Federparchi (Federazione Italiana dei
Kenton Miller, IUCN WCPA, USA Parchi e delle Riserve Naturali), Italy
Fernando Molina Vázquez, Consejería de Medio Tony Turner, Geo Connections, Canada
Ambiente, Spain Rauno Väisänen, Metsähallitus Natural Heritage
Sophie Moreau, IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Services, Finland
Cooperation, Spain Tafe Veselaj, Agency of Environment, Serbia
Gérard Moulinas, Fédération des parcs naturels Nestor Windevoxhel Lora, PROARCA/APM,
régionaux de France, France Guatemala
Marta Múgica de la Guerra, EUROPARC-Spain, Spain Stephen Woodley, Parks Canada, Canada
Eduard Müller, Universidad para la Cooperación
Internacional, Costa Rica
Andreas Müseler, REWE Touristik, Germany
Olav Nord-Varhaug, Directorate for Nature
Management, Norway
Juan Carlos Orella, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente,
Spain
Gonzalo Oviedo, IUCN - The World Conservation
Union, Switzerland
Ana Pena, Federparchi (Federazione Italiana dei Parchi
e delle Riserve Naturali), Spain
Milagros Pérez Villalba, Consejera de Medio Ambiente
Junta de Andalucia, Spain
Christine Pergent-Martini, RACISPA, Tunisia
M. Rosario Pintos Martin, Consejería de Medio
Ambiente, Junta de Andalucia, Spain
Anabelle Plantilla, Haribon Foundation for the
Conservation of Natural Resources, Philippines
Francisco Quiros, Consejera de Medio Ambiente,
Spain
Mohammad Rafiq, IUCN - The World Conservation
Union, Switzerland
Anitry Ny Aina Ratsifandrihamanana , World Wide
Fund for Nature, Madagascar
211
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brad Barr is a member of the IUCN WCPA marine Lucy Fish works for the UNEP World Conservation
task force and is at the National Oceanic and Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, UK.
Atmospheric Administration in the United States.
Peter Frost is a member of the WCPA Cities Task
Charles Besancon is a member of the IUCN WCPA Force and works for the Countryside Council of Wales,
transboundary protected areas task force and is UK.
director of the protected areas programme at the
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Craig Groves is North America vice chair for the
Cambridge, UK. IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management and
works for The Nature Conservancy based in Montana.
Harry Biggs is chair of the WCPA Freshwaters Task
Force and works at the Kruger National Park in South Dave Harmon is IUCN WCPA vice-chair for North
Africa. America and is director of the George Wright
Foundation
Luigi Boitani is on the steering committee of the IUCN
Species Survival Commission and works at the Marc Hockings is chair of the Science Theme for
University of Rome, Rome, Italy. IUCN WCPA and teaches at the University of
Queensland.
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend is co-chair of the
WCPA/CEESP Theme on Indigenous and Local Dan Laffoley is IUCN WCPA vice-chair for marine
Communities, Equity and Protected Areas and is a issues, based at Natural England in the UK.
consultant based in Switzerland.
Cyril Kormos is a member of the IUCN WCPA
Jessica Brown is chair of the IUCN WCPA landscapes Wilderness Task Force and is vice president for policy
task force and works for the Quebec-Labrador at the WILD Foundation, based in California.
Foundation.
Ashish Kothari is co-chair of the WCPA/CEESP
Neil Burgess is a member of the IUCN WCPA Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity
categories task force and works for the UNEP World and Protected Areas and a member of Kalpavriksh in
Conservation Monitoring Centre and the WWF Pune, India.
Conservation Science Programme.
Kari Lahti is director of Oulanka National Park in
José Courrau works for the protected areas programme Finland and was on secondment to IUCN in Gland,
of The Nature Conservancy, based in San José, Costa Switzerland, working on the categories summit.
Rica.
Nik Lopoukhine is chair of IUCN WCPA and former
Roger Crofts is IUCN WCPA vice-chair for Europe director of Parks Canada, based in Ottawa.
and an inspector for the Pan Parks Foundation, based
in Scotland, UK. Josep-Maria Malarach is a consultant based in
Catalonia, Spain and co-chair of the Delos Initiative on
Nick Davidson is deputy director of the Ramsar sacred sites and protected areas.
Bureau in Gland, Switzerland.
Stephanie Mansourian is a consultant based near
Geneva, Switzerland.
212
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Claudio Maretti is chair of the IUCN WCPA Category Daniel Vallauri works for WWF in France, based in
VI task force and conservation director for WWF Marseilles.
Brazil.
Bob Wishitemi is a member of the IUCN WCPA
Brent Mitchell is chair of the WCPA Task Force on landscape task force and Vice Dean at Moi University,
private protected areas and works at the Quebec Nairobi.
Labrador Foundation.
Louisa Wood is a member of the IUCN-WCPA marine
Kenton Miller is a former chair of WCPA and former task force and is carrying out research at the University
director of the World Resources Institute. of British Columbia.
213
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
Bennett, G. (2003) Integrating Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Use, IUCN, Gland
Abrams, P., G.Borrini-Feyerabend, J. Gardner, and P. Bennett, G. and K. J. Mulongoy (2006) Review of
Heylings, (2003) Evaluating Governance. A Handbook to Experience with Ecological Networks, Corridors and Buffer
Accompany a Participatory Process for a Protected Area. Zones, CBD Technical Series No. 23, CBD Montreal
Manuscript, Parks Canada and TILCEPA; Governance
of Protected Areas: participatory evaluation handbook Berkes, F. (1999) Sacred Ecology; Traditional ecological
http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/wkg_grp/cmwg/ knowledge and resource management; Taylor & Francis,
evaluating%20governance%20handbook.doc Philadelphia
Aerts, S. and P. van Heijinsbergen (2006) The Iberian Bishop, K., N. Dudley, A. Phillips and S. Stolton
Lynx: Extinction or Recovery? IUCN and the IUCN (2004) Speaking a Common Language: The uses and
Committee of The Netherlands performance of the IUCN System of Management Categories for
Protected Areas, Cardiff University, IUCN, UNEP-
Agardy, T. (1997) Marine Protected Areas and Ocean WCMC
Conservation. RE Landes Co. Austin Texas
Böhning-Gaese, H. (1997) Determinants of avian
Anon (2003) Draft Case Study ‘Using the IUCN species richness at different spatial scales, Journal of
Categories – From Management Plan Zones to Biogeography 24: 49-6
Bioregional Planning’. IUCN/Cardiff University, p1
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative management
Antrop, A. (1993) The transformation of the of protected areas: tailoring the approach to the context. Gland,
Mediterranean landscapes: an experience of 25 years of Switzerland, IUCN
observations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 24 (1/4): 3
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (2003) Governance of
Atauri, J.A. and J.V.de Lucio (2001) The role of Protected Areas: innovations in the air, Policy Matters,
landscape heterogeneity in species richness distribution 12: 92-101
of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in
Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Ecology 16: 147- Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (2004) “Governance of
159. Protected Areas, Participation and Equity”, pages 100-
105 in Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Australia Nature Conservation Agency (1995) Diversity, Biodiversity Issues for Consideration in the
Application of the IUCN Management Categories – draft Planning, Establishment and Management of Protected
Australian Handbook, Anca, Canberra, Australia Areas Sites and Networks, CBD Technical Series, 15,
Montreal (Canada)
Baucells, J. et al (2006) Ecology and Conservation of Steppe- http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/cbd-ts-
land Birds. Linx edicions. 247 p. Proceedings of the 15.pdf
2004 International Symposium on Ecology and
Conservation of Steppe-land Birds, conclusions Borrini-Feyerabend, G., T. Banuri, M.T. Farvar, K.
available at http://www.ctfc.es/symposium Miller and A. Phillips (2002) Indigenous and local
communities and protected areas: rethinking the
Baudry, J. (1989) Interactions between agricultural and relationship, Parks, 12(2): 5-15
ecological systems at the landscape level. Agriculture.
Ecosystems and Environment 27:119 Borrini-Feyerabend, G. and N. Dudley (2005), Elan
Durban, IUCN report to the government of
Beltrán, J. (2000) Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Madagascar
Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Borrini-Feyerabend, G., A. Kothari, and G. Oviedo
WWF International, Gland, Switzerland,.Best Practice (2004) Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected
World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation, WCPA
Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 4. Best Practice Series 11, IUCN WCPA, Gland and
Cambridge
Beresford, M. (ed.) (2003) Parks 13(2)
214
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., J. Rita Larrucea and H. Synge Solution? Paper presented at the World Park Congress,
(2004) Participatory management in the Minorca Durban, South Africa
Biosphere Reserve, Spain, pages 16-24 in in Synge, H.
(ed.), European Models of Good Practice in Protected Areas, Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox and M. Spalding
IUCN and the Austrian Federal Ministry of (eds) (2003) 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas,
Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and
Management, IUCN, Cambridge (UK) UNED-WCMC, Cambridge, UK
Bowman, D. (1998) The impact of Aboriginal Claval, P. (1995) La géographie culturelle, Paris, Nathan:
landscape burning on the Australian biota, New 384 p
Phytologist 140 (3), Tansley Review 101, 385-410
Conservational International (2007) Biodiversity hotspots:
Brechin, S.R., P.R. Wilhusen, C.L. Fortwangler and The Mediterranean Basin,
P.C. West (eds.) (2003) Contested Nature. Promoting http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/m
international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty first editerranean/
Century, State University of New York Press, Albany,
New York (USA) Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) The
Ecosystem Approach, Montreal, Secretariat of the
Brockman, C F (1962) Supplement to the Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity
Committee on Nomenclature in Adams A.B. (ed.) First
World Conference on National Parks, National Park Cronon, W. (ed.) (1995) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking
Service, Washington the Human Place in Nature, W.W. Norton & Company:
575 pp.
Brown, J. and A. Kothari (Guest eds.) (2002) Parks –
Special issue on local communities and protected areas, Dasmann, R. F. (1974) Development of a Classification
Parks 12 (2), IUCN System for Protected Natural and Cultural Areas in Elliott
H. B. (ed.) Second World Conference on National Parks,
Brown, J., N. Mitchell and M. Beresford (eds.) (2005) Proceedings, IUCN, Morges, Switzerland
The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture
and Community. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Denevan, W. M. (1992) The pristine myth: The
Switzerland landscapes of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 82 (3): 369–385
Bridgewater, P., A, Phillips, M. Green and B. Amos
(1996) Biosphere Reserves and IUCN System of Protected Dillon, B. (2004) The Use of the Categories in
Area Management Categories, ANCA, Canberra, Australia National and International Legislation and Policy,
Parks 14 (3): 15 to 22
Brower, David (1978) Wilderness and the Wildness
Within Us, Habitat, 5, 6, p. 7 Donald P.F., R.E. Green and M.F. Heath (2001)
Agricultural intensification and the collapse of
Burel, F. (1995) Ecological patterns and processes in Europe’s farmland bird populations, Proceeding Royal
European agricultural landscapes, Landscape and Urban Society of Birds 268: 25-29.
Planning 31 (1-3): 1-2
Dudley, N., L. Higgins-Zogib and S. Mansourian
Callicot, J.P. and M.P. Nelson (eds.) (1998) The Great (2005) Beyond Belief: Linking faiths and protected areas to
New Wilderness Debate, University of Georgia Press, support biodiversity conservation, Arguments for Protection
Athens Report, WWF, Gland, Switzerland: 143 pp
CBD (2004) Programme of Work on Protected Areas, Duke, G. (ed.) (2005) Biodiversity and the EU – Sustaining
at Life, Sustaining Livelihoods. Conference Report.
http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?dec=V Stakeholder Conference held under the Irish
II/28 Presidency of The European Union in partnership with
the European Commission, 25th - 27th May 2004,
Cernea, M. M. and K. Schmidt-Soltau (2003) National Grand Hotel, Malahide, Ireland.
Parks and Poverty Risks: Is Population Resettlement the
215
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Farina, A. (1995) Distribution and dynamics of birds in Hockings, M., S. Stolton, F. Leverington, N. Dudley
a rural sub-Mediterranean landscape, Landscape and and J. Corrau (2006) Evaluating Effectiveness (2nd
Urban Planning 31: 269-280. edition), IUCN and James Cook University, Gland,
Switzerland and Brisbane, Australia
Farina, A. (1997) Landscape structure and breeding
bird distribution in a sub-Mediterranean ago- Holdgate, M. (1999) The Green Web, Earthscan, London
ecosystem, Landscape Ecology 12: 365-378
IMPAC (2005) Workshop on Improving the Application of
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: URL< the IUCN Categories for Marine Protected Areas, Geelong,
http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/regs/zoning.html> 22-23 October 2005
(accessed 11th January 2007)
IUCN (1974) Classification and Use of Protected Natural
Figgis, P., D. Humann and M. Looker (2005) and Cultural Areas, IUCN Occasional Paper No. 4, IUCN,
Conservation on private land in Australia, Parks 15(2) Morges, Switzerland
Foster, J. (1992) Framework Paper on an International IUCN (1978) Categories, Objectives and Criteria: Final
Review System for Categorising Protected areas, their Report of the Committee and Criteria of the CNPPA/IUCN,
Management Effectiveness and Threats to Them, Morges, Switzerland
IUCN/CNPPA (Unpublished)
IUCN (1992) World Park Congress Caracas:
Gilligan, B., N. Dudley, A. Fernandez de Tejada and Recommendations and Action Plan
H. Toivonen (2005) Management Effectiveness of Finland’s
Protected Areas, Nature Protection Publications of IUCN (1998) United Nations List of Protected Areas, 1997
Metsähallitus Series A147, Vantaa IUCN Cambridge, UK
216
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IUCN (2004) PARKS – Vol. 14, no. 3 (includes 10 Kutty, R. and A. Kothari (2001) Protected Areas in India:
papers) A Profile, Kalpavriksh, Pune/Delhi
IUCN (2003) Recommendations of the World Park Lewis, D. (2002) Slower than the Eye can See:
Congress, and the Durban accord, at Environmental Change in northern Australia’s cattle
http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003. lands, Tropical Savannas CRC, Darwin
IUCN and WCMC (1994) Guidelines for Protected Area Locke, H. and P. Dearden (2005) Rethinking protected
Management Categories, Gland, Switzerland area categories and the new paradigm. Environmental
Conservation 32 (1): 1-10
IUCN CNPPA (Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas) (1994) Parks for life, Action Plan for Lowe, P. with Jimmy Pike (1990); Jilji: Life in the Great
Protected Areas of Europe, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Sandy Desert, Magabala Books, Broome
Cambridge, UK,
Lucas P. H. C. (1992) Protected landscapes, Chapman &
IUCN and Parks Canada (2005) Governance Stream of the Hall
Vth World Parks Congress, a CD collection
MacKay, F. (2002) Addressing Past Wrongs: Indigenous
Jaireth, H. and D. Smyth (2004) Innovative Governance, Peoples and Protected Areas:The Right to Restitution of Lands
Ane Books, Delhi, 2003.; see also the Resolution on and Resources, Forest Peoples Programme occasional
Governance of Natural Resources adopted at the 3d World paper
Conservation Congress
McNeely, J. A. (2000) Cultural factors in conserving
Jeanrenaud, S. (2001) An international Initiative for the biodiversity. In Wilkes A., H. Tillman M. Salas T.
protection of sacred natural sites and other places of traditional Grinter and Y. Shaoting (eds.) Links between Cultures and
and indigenous people with importance for biodiversity Biodiversity: Proceedings of the Cultures and Biodiversity
conservation, A concept paper, Draft 5. WWF Congress, Yunnan Science and Technology Press, China,
International. (Available at: pp. 128–142
217
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Martin, J. (c. 1803); from signage in the National Okello, M., S. Seno and B. Wishitemi (2003) Maasai
Museum of Australia community wildlife sanctuaries in Tsavo-Amboseli,
Kenya, Parks 13 (1): 62-75
McNeill, J.R. (1992) The Mountains of the Mediterranean
World: An Environmental History. Cambridge University Ohlgren, T.H. and L.M. Berk (ed.) (1995) The New
Press. Languages: A rhetorical approach to mass media and popular
culture, Prentice Hall: 395 pp.
Mearns, Robin. (1996); Environmental entitlements:
pastoral natural resource management in Mongolia. Ormerod, S.J. and A.R. Watkinson (2000) Editor’s
Paris, Orstom, Cahier des Sciences Humaines. 32 (1): 105– Introduction: Birds and Agriculture. Journal Applied
31 Ecology 37: 699-705.
Meeus, J. H. A. (1995) Pan-European landscapes, Palmer, M. and V. Finlay (2003) Faith in Conservation:
Landscape and Urban Planning New Approaches to Religions and the Environment, The
31 (1-3): 57-79. World Bank, Washington D. C.
Miller, K. R. 1978. Planning National Parks for Papayannis, T. coord. et al (2005) Action for Culture in
Ecodevelopment – experiences and cases from Latin America. Mediterranean Wetlands, Mediterranean Institute for
MS. U.S. Peace Corps, Washington D. C. Nature and Antropos, Athens, Greece. Med-Wet,
Ramsar.
Miller, K. R. 1980. Planificacion de Parques Nacionales para
el Ecodesarollo – experiencias y casos de America Latina. Parks Canada Agency: ‘Guiding Principles and
Incafo, Madrid Operational Polices’: 2.0 Management Planning:
URL<http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/poli/princip/sec
Miller K. R. (2006) Personal communication on the 2/part2a4_E.asp> (accessed 12th January 2007)
history of the categories
Pathak, N., S. Bhatt, T. Balasinorwala, A. Kothari, and
Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable de G. Borrini-Feyerabend (2004) Community Conserved
la République Française (2006) Décret no 2006-944 du Areas: A Bold New Frontier for Conservation, IUCN
28 juillet 2006 relatif aux parcs nationaux et modifiant WCPA/CEESP TILCEPA
notamment le code de l’environnement, Juin 29
Phillips, A. ed. (2002) Management Guidelines for IUCN
Ministère de l’Environnement, des Eaux et Forets de Category V Protected Area:. Protected Landscapes / Seascapes,
Madagascar (2005) Décret n° 2005- appliquant l’article Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland
2 alinéa 2 de la loi n°2001/15 portant Code des Aires
Protégées Phillips, A. (2003) Turning ideas on their heads: a new
paradigm for protected areas, George Wright Forum 20:
Mitchell, B. (guest ed.) (2006) Special issue of Parks on 8-32
Private Protected Areas, Parks 16 (1)
Phillips, A. (2007) “A Short History of the
Moussouris, Y. and P. Regatto (1999) Forest Harvest: International System of Protected Areas Management
Mediterranean woodlands and the importance of non- Categories”. Paper for the 2007 Categories Summit in
timber forest products to forest conservation, arborvitaæ the current volume
supplement, IUCN and WWF, Gland, Switzerland
Pino, J., F. Rodà, F. Ribas and X. Pons (2000)
Nores, C. and J. Naves (2004) Distribución histórica del oso Landscape structure and bird species richness:
pardo en la Península Ibérica, Ministerio de Medio Implications for conservation in rural areas between
Ambiente, Madrid natural parks, Landscape and Urban Planning 49: 35-48
218
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rescia, A., M. F. Schmitz, P. Martín de Agar, C. L. de Secaria, E. and M. E. Molina (2005) Planning for the
Pablo, J.A. Atauri and F.D. Pineda (1994) Influence of Conservation of Sacred Sites in the Context of Protected Areas:
landscape complexity and land management on woody An adaptation of a Methodology and lessons from its application
plant diversity in Northern Spain, Journal of Vegetation in the Highlands of Western Guatemala, The Nature
Science 5: 505-516 Conservancy
Richardson, D.M. and R.M. Cowling (1993) Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Processes: Opportunities (2004) Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of
in Mediterranean-type Ecosystems, Trends Ecological Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
Evolution 8 (3): 79-81 regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are
Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters
Robertson, M., K. Vang and A. Brown (1992); Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local
Wilderness in Australia, Issues and Options, Australian Communities, Montreal
Heritage Commission, ACT http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/akwe-
brochure-en.pdf
Rodríguez, A. S. L., S .J. Anderson, M. I. Bakarr, L.
Boitani, T. M. Brooks, R. M. Cowling, L .D .C Sethapun, T. (2000) Forest Technical Officer, Marine
Fishpool, G.A.B. de Fonseca, K. J. Gastom, M. National Park in Thailand
Hoffman, S. J. Long, P. A. Marquet, J. D. Pilgrim, R. L. URL<http://www.dnp.go.th/parkreserve/e-
Pressey, J. Schipper, W. Sechrest, S. N. Stuart, L. G. book/Marine_Park_Th_Tsunami.pdf > (accessed
Underhill. R. W. Waller,M.E.J. Watts and X. Yan 12/01/2007)
(2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area
network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: Shepherd G. (2004) The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to
641 Implementation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK
Rose D. (1996) Nourishing Terrains:
http://www.ahc.gov.au/publications/generalpubs/no Smith, H. (1977) Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of
urishing.pdf, further explores some of the implications the World’s religions, Harper and Collins Publishers. San
of Daly's statement Francisco
Rose, D. B. (2007) What do we mind by wild? Working Steward, P. J. and A. Strathern (2003) Landscape,
paper of the Summit of Andalusia on the IUCN Memory and History, Anthropological Perspectives,
categories Anthropology Culture and Society, Pluto Press
London
Salafsky, N. and R. Margoluis. 1999. Greater than the sum
of their parts: designing conservation and development programs Suárez, F., C. Martínez, J. Herranz and M. Yanes
to maximize results and learning, Biodiversity Support (1997) Conservation status and farmland requirements
Program, Washington D.C. of pin-tailed sand grouse Pterocles alchata and black-
bellied sand grouse Pterocles orientalis in Spain, Biological
Sandwith, T., C. Shine, L. Hamilton and D. Sheppard Conservation 82: 73-80
(2001) Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-
219
IUCN Protected Areas Categories Summit – Almeria, Spain – May 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sudara S. and T. Yeemin (2002) Demonstration Site UNESCO-MAB (2006) Conserving Cultural and Biological
Baseline Assessment Report: Mu Koh Surin Marine National Diversity: The Role of Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural
Park, Thailand, Department of Marine Science, Landscapes, Proceedings of the Tokyo Symposium,
Chulalongkorn University/Marine Biodiversity UNESCO, Paris
Research Group, Ramkhamhaeng University Bangkok,
URL<http://www.icran.org/SITES/doc/MuKohSuri Vagholikar, N. and K. A. Moghe (2003) Undermining
nBaselineAssessment.pdf> (accessed 12th January India: Impacts of mining on ecologically sensitive areas,
2007) Kalpavriksh, Pune/Delhi.
TILCEPA (2004) Community Conserved Areas: A bold new Verschuuren, B. (2006) An overview of cultural and
frontier for conservation spiritual values in ecosystem management and
http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/TILC conservation strategies. Chapter in Haverkort, B. and
EPA/CCA%20Briefing%20Note.pdf. Rist, S.(eds) Endogenous Development and Bio-cultural
Diversity, The interplay of worldviews, globalisation and locality.
TRPAP – Department of National Parks and Wildlife Compas/CDE, series on Worldviews and Sciences,
Conservation/Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation No. 6, Leusden, The Netherlands.
Programme (2006) Draft Sagarmatha National Park and
Buffer Zone Management Plan (2006-2011 Vickery, J. A., R. B. Bradbury, I. G. Henderson, M. A.
Eaton and P.V. Grice (2004) The role of agri-
Turner, F. W. (2002) Beyond Geography: The Western spirit environment schemes and farm management practices
against the wilderness, Rutgers University Press: 340 pp. in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England.
Biological Conservation, in press Check status
UNDP (1999) Human Development Report – Globalisation
with a Human Face, United Nations Development Vijayan, V. S. (1991) Keoladeo National Park Ecology Study
Programme, New York 1980-1990, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1999/en/pdf/hd
r_1999_front.pdf Wells, S. M. and J. C. Day (2004); Application of the
IUCN Protected Area Management Categories in the
UNDP (2002) Human Development Report – Deepening Marine Environment, Parks 14 (3): 28-38, IUCN Gland
Democracy in a Fragmented World, United Nations Switzerland
Development Programme, New York
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/pdf/fro Wishitemi, E. L. and M. M. Okello (2003) Application
nt.pdf of the Protected Landscape Model in southern Kenya.
Parks 13 (2): 12-21
UNEP-WCMC (2005) Protected Areas in Eastern and
Southern Africa: New perspectives on the use of the Wright, J. (1980) Wilderness, Waste and History,
IUCN Categories and Protected Area listing. A report Habitat, 8,1, 27-31
of a workshop held for the UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre at the IUCN East WWF and IUCN (1994) Centres of plant diversity: A guide
African Regional Office, Nairobi October 2005, pp1-7 and strategy for their conservation, 3 volumes, IUCN
Publications Unit, Cambridge, UK, Vol 3: 390
UNESCO (2003) Convention for the safeguarding of the
intangible cultural heritage, Convention text available at WWF, UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (undated);
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132 WWF/UNEP-WCMC/IUCN/Sea.Around.Us.Project
540e.pdf [last accessed at 20-09-2006]. URL<http://www.mpaglobal.org/index.php?search_t
ext=florida+keys&txt_site_name=on&txt_designation
UNESCO (2003) The Importance of Sacred Natural Sites for _type=on&country_id=840&fao_id=&conv_code=&
biodiversity Conservation: Proceedings of the international adv=0&action=searchResults&des_nat=on&des_des=
Workshop held in Kun Ming and Xishuangbanna on&des_informal=on > (accessed 13th January 2007)
Biosphere reserve, China 17-20 2003
220