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.