View
30
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Relevant Indicators For Assessing Management Effectiveness In Different Types Of Parks & Social Contexts. Katrina Brandon, CABS-CI. WCPA Evaluation Framework. Key Social & Policy Themes. Park Establishment Process Land & Resource Tenure Resource Uses Organizational Roles - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Relevant Indicators For Assessing Management Effectiveness In Different Types Of Parks & Social Contexts
Katrina Brandon, CABS-CI
WCPA Evaluation Framework
• Park Establishment Process
• Land & Resource Tenure
• Resource Uses• Organizational
Roles • Linkages between
Parks & Buffer Areas
• Conflict Management & Resolution
• Large Scale Threats
• National Policy Framework
• Indigenous Peoples & Social Change
• Transboundary Issues• Resettlement
Key Social & Policy Themes
•Ría Lagartos & Ría Celestún Special Biosphere Reserves•Guatemala: Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve•Costa Rica: Corcovado National Park•Dominican Republic: Del Este National Park•Belize: Rio Bravo Conservation & Management Area•Ecuador: Machalilla National Park•Ecuador: Podocarpus National Park•Bolivia: Amboró National Park•Peru: Yanachaga-Chemillen National Park
PiP Case Study Sites
Selected Results, Base StudyCONTEXT FOR PA MANAGEMENTSTABLE AREAS: Remote PAs orOpportunity PAs, watersheds, little pressure for agriculture
RAPIDLY CHANGING AREAS:•PAs Created to Stop Change (road, mining, etc.)•Transformation due to forces outside
CONTEXT FOR PA MANAGEMENT
TWO TYPES OF PAsCORE AREAS
•most of area under protection
•managed to limit consumptive or extractive activities (IUCN Categories Ia,Ib,II)
•.
Selected Results, Base Studymanaged for multiple objectives
•Residence and consumptive uses allowed
•(IUCN Categories III, IV, V, VI)
BIOSPHERE RESERVES & MULTIPLE USE AREAS
•.E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4Selected Results, Base Study
This is a National Park; IUCN Category II– but it can never be managed as a core – it must be managed as a multiple use area!
CLASSIFY BY ACTUAL NOT LEGAL
STABLE CHANGINGCORE 1 3MULTIPLE USE 2 4Ease of Action 1 easiest 4 hardest
CONTEXT & MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY
Selected Results, Base Study
STABLE/REMOTE RAPID SOCIAL CHANGE Boundary Demarcation With
Communities Compensation &
Substitution Strategies
Conflict Identification & Resolution
Boundary Demarcation With Communities Compensation & Substitution
Strategies Conflict Identification &
Resolution Identify & Stabilize Threats Increase Enforcement Local Organizations Stabilize Land Use Outside PA Strengthen Tenure Near PA Address Policy Context, inc.
Perverse Policies
Immediate Actions At Core Areas
Selected Results, Base Study
STABLE/REMOTE RAPID SOCIAL CHANGE Work with
communities to define core areas (ecological & social data)
Clarify jurisdictional issues – who has authority?
Compensation & substitution strategies
Secure agreements on levels and types of uses for zones
Work with communities to define core areas (ecological & social data)
Clarify jurisdictional issues – immediate authority needed
Compensation & substitution strategies (insiders vs. outsiders?)
Secure agreements on levels and types of uses and sanctions
Increase enforcement; (insiders vs. outsiders)
Strengthen existing claims for tenure within BR
Stabilize land use outside PA Identify and address perverse
policies affecting management
Immediate Actions At Multiple Use Areas
STABLE CHANGINGCORE 1 3MULTIPLE USE 2 4Ease of Action 1 easiest 4 hardest
CONTEXT & MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY
Selected Results, Base StudySite Scale: Helps inform better understanding of context
PA System: Helps define strategy across sites
Larger Scales/Donors: Costs, Financing, & Complexity
Scales For Context Asst.
•.E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4Selected Results, Base Study
Human Footprint & Last of the WildWCS & CIESIN
•.E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4Selected Results, Base Study
Numbers & % of Protected Areas & Human Footprint by Category
IUCN Category
Total # of PAs
Outside Footprint
Inside Human
FootprintI 500 76 (15%) 424 (85%)II 1,522 296 (19%) 1,226 (81%)III 150 58 (39%) 92 (61%)IV 2,360 221 (9%) 2,139 (91%)V 206 18 (9%) 188 (91%)VI 1,010 195 (19%) 815 (81%)
Total 5,748 864 (15%) 4,884 (85%)
•.E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4Selected Results, Base Study
IUCN Category
Total Percent
Outside Human Footprint (%)
Inside Human
Footprint (%)I 100.0 83.6 16.4II 100.0 75.9 24.1III 100.0 95.9 4.1IV 100.0 58.1 41.9V 100.0 57.5 42.5VI 100.0 79.0 21.0
Total 100.0 75.6 24.4
Area of Protected Areas (pct)In Human Footprint
•.E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4Selected Results, Base Study
Social Context of Protected Areas: NumbersPA CATEGORY1
REMOTE/STABLE2
CHANGING3
CORE 267 (5%) 1,755 (31%)MULTIPLE USE
395 (7%) 3,331 (58%)
TOTAL 662 (88%) 5,086 (12%)
1: Core PAs are IUCN categories I and II, Multiple Use PAs are IUCN categories III – VI2: Remote/Stable PAs are those lying at least partially beyond human footprint and with average annual population change < 3.5% between 1990 and 19953: Changing PAs are those with average annual population change > 3.5% between 1990 and 1995 or lying within the human footprint
•.E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4Selected Results, Base Study
PA CATEGORY1
REMOTE/STABLE2
CHANGING3
CORE 51.24 (23%) 40.4 (18%)MULTIPLE USE
71.8 (32%) 63.3 (28%)
TOTAL 123.0 (54%) 103.7 (46%)1: Core PAs are IUCN categories I and II, Multiple Use PAs are IUCN categories III – VI2: Remote/Stable PAs are those lying at least partially beyond human footprint and with average annual population change < 3.5% between 1990 and 19953: Changing PAs are those with average annual population change > 3.5% between 1990 and 1995 or lying within the human footprint4: Figures are millions of ha
Social Context of Protected AreasBy Area (ha) & Percent
•.E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4Selected Results, Base Study
Indicators of Social Change at Different ScalesSite Level: ratio of park boundary subject to human pressure; level & rate of deforestation surrounding PA; infrastructure development; land use changes.
National Level: above factors + social data (GIS) on poverty, landlessness, government expenditure
Regional Level: above (if available) + human footprint data; little change data exists; use proxies.
•.E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4
Selected Results, Base Study Within a system or broadscale, this can help, when used with other data(e.g. $ available) can clarify what is possible and nature of tradeoffs.Biological/Ecological Criteria First! Then
Type of Site 1 2 3 4 100 50 10 6
or 50 20 15 12
Scales For Context Asst.
Recommended