|
|
7-17 September 2003, Durban, South Africa WPC RECOMMENDATIONS 1-32
|
1. Strengthening Institutional and Societal Capacities for Protected Area Management in the 21st Century
2. Strengthening Individual and Group Capacities for Protected Area Management in the 21st Century
3. Protected Areas Learning Network
4. Building Comprehensive and Effective Protected Area Systems
5. Climate Change and Protected Areas
6. Strengthening Mountain Protected Areas as a Key Contribution to Sustainable Mountain 7. Development
7. Financial Security for Protected Areas
8. Private Sector Funding of Protected Areas
9. Integrated Landscape Management to Support Protected Areas
10. Policy Linkages between Relevant International Conventions and Programmes in Integrating Protected Areas in the Wider Landscape/Seascape
11. A Global Network to Support the Development of Transboundary Conservation Initiatives
12. Tourism as a Vehicle for Conservation and Support of Protected Areas
13. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas
14. Cities and Protected Areas
15. Peace, Conflict and Protected Areas
16. Good Governance of Protected Areas
17. Recognising and Supporting a Diversity of Governance Types for Protected Areas
18. Management Effectiveness Evaluation to Support Protected Area Management
19. IUCN Protected Area Management Categories
20. Preventing and Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflicts
21. The World Heritage Convention
22. Building a Global System of Marine and Coastal Protected Area Networks
23. Protecting Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Processes through Marine Protected Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
24. Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas
25. Co-management of Protected Areas
26. Community Conserved Areas
27. Mobile Indigenous Peoples and Conservation
28. Protected Areas: Mining and Energy
29. Poverty and Protected Areas
30. Africa’s Protected Areas
31. Protected Areas, Freshwater and Integrated River Basin Management Frameworks
32. Strategic Agenda for Communication, Education and Public Awareness for Protected Areas
Capacity development at the institutional and societal level must include:
1. RECOMMEND that governments, inter-governmental organizations, NGOs, local communities and civil society:
a. RAISE awareness of the value of protected areas and the benefits they provide to society and enhance general commitment to support Protected Areas;2. PROMOTE local ownership and sustainability of capacity development programmes by ensuring that:
b. ADJUST current policies, laws, planning and management instruments, and institutional frameworks, to increase capacity for protected management at all levels. Specifically,i. Promote robust and complementary national, state, regional, municipal, community, and private protected area systems;
ii. Integrate conservation objectives into land /sea use and regional and sectoral planning at all levels and integrate protected areas planning and management into the wider land and seascape;
iii. Promote, coordinate and support systematic applied social, economic, political and biophysical scientific research related to identified needs and priorities, informing protected area management and activities aimed at conserving, monitoring, and using biodiversity in a sustainable manner in the face of rapid global change;
iv. Build coherent national frameworks for conservation of biodiversity and protected areas and harmonize sectoral policies and laws with conservation policies and laws at the constitutional level;
v. Establish mechanisms to harmonize policies and efforts among government agencies and other civil society organizations responsible for conservation and sustainable development;
vi. Elaborate and implement National Strategic Plans for Protected Area Systems and appropriate strategic and operational planning instruments for each protected area;
vii. Ensure that the staff of protected areas and their management bodies have sufficient decision making authority to achieve the management and conservation objectives of protected area systems;
viii. Encourage and support the establishment of new protected areas and of co-management agreements by and between local, regional and national governments, non-governmental entities, the private sector, local and indigenous communities and other stakeholders;
ix. Ensure that protected area management bodies (including decentralized and devolved statutory authorities, groups engaged in co-management and community based management) have the skills, knowledge and abilities to take on these responsibilities;
x. Adopt mechanisms to enable representation and participation of all protected area stakeholders at national, regional and local levels;
xi. Establish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms based on protected area objectives and using compatible methods, indicators and site specific standards to ensure management effectiveness and assure biological and cultural integrity;
a. Protected Area institutions maintain core funding for new and continuing capacity development as part of their ongoing business plans;
b. Capacity development programmes are designed and conducted by the beneficiaries themselves in collaboration with government at all levels, partnership, international agencies, NGOs and other relevant bodies, based on mutually agreed needs and priorities.
With these points in mind PARTICIPANTS in Stream on Capacity Building: Developing the capacity to manage at the Vth World Parks Congress in Durban South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
1. RECOMMEND that IUCN and the World Commission on Protected Areas:
a. Promotes and supports national and international collaborative capacity development activities through which stakeholders at all levels can acquire and share best practices; develop appropriate responses to change; and thereby enable and empower themselves to play their full role in protected area management by:2. RECOMMEND that protected area authorities recruit, develop and support staff in ways that will encourage and maintain high levels of commitment and performance by:i. Building 'learning organizations';b. Supports learning processes within workplace and community settings which are flexible, contextual and responsive, that builds on traditional knowledge and practices and that enhance two-way learning and sharing;
ii. Supporting learning exchanges for all stakeholders;
iii. Developing "communities of practice" for protected area management;
iv. Promoting learner-centered approaches;c. Supports the enhancement of capacity for protected area managers, local and indigenous communities and other stakeholders to work together by enhancing their skills in areas such as:
i. Facilitation, negotiation and conflict resolution;d. Encourages the full participation of local and indigenous communities and individuals by building confidence in the rule of law: assuring transparency, due process and access to public records;
ii. Change management processes to address values, attitudes of all stakeholders and relationships among them;
iii. Participatory planning and joint management; and
iv. Financial and institutional management;
a. Employing and investing in the personal development of local and indigenous people living inside and around the protected area;3. RECOMMEND that the World Commission on Protected Areas move towards common standards of competency by:b. Provide all protected areas staff (in particular rangers, wardens and forest guards, who face hardships and threats in carrying out their jobs) with adequate living, working, health and safety and security conditions by providing management support, appropriate equipment and training;
c. Ensure continuous and systematic institutional capacity development linking training to performance;
d. Encourage career development and retention of staff by relating salary, benefits and progression to performance.
a. Agreeing generic global competency standards for protected areas staff, which can be adapted at local, regional and national levels;4. RECOMMEND the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas coordinate a consortium of international organizations, training institutions, and other organizations to:b. Encourage and enable use of standards and self-assessments to support improved effectiveness of protected area staff and training.
a. Develop and conduct campaigns for higher level decision-makers to develop understanding that protected areas and the goods and services they provide are critical for the well-being of society as a whole;5. RECOMMEND that the IUCN through the Task Force On Capacity Building of World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) elaborate an action plan for the next 10 years based on the work and conclusions of the Vth World Parks Congress;b. Encourage partnerships between training institutions, protected area agencies, private sector and community-based organizations for the design and implementation of responsive training;
c. Promote establishment and strengthening of regional networks of trainers and training institutions for capacity development in protected areas management;
6. RECOMMEND that the World Heritage Committee take into account the
World Parks Congress recommendations on capacity development and link World
Heritage training activities with the global protected areas capacity development
agenda.
Furthermore, they may have little opportunity to share what they are learning from their own work with policy, strategies, and field practices. Managers often learn of new topics of considerable significance to their ability to ensure the sustainability of their sites only after long periods of time. Typically, only those managers that are fortunate enough to participate in international events learn about new practices and opportunities .
A new mechanism is needed that will enable managers to share experience and learn from one another more efficiently. New guidelines from science, traditional knowledge, and practice need to be exchanged quickly so that managers can ensure that their practices are up to date.
The Ecosystems, Protected Areas, and People project of IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas, in partnership with the World Resources Institute, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and UNESCO, propose, with the catalytic support of the Global Environment Facility among others, the establishment of the Protected Areas Learning Network (PALNet). This interactive web site will enable interested individuals around the world to obtain guidance from science, traditional knowledge and peers, and in turn, upload their own experience on issues of common interest.
Of particular interest for development during the early stage of the program are the issues and options related to the impacts and opportunities surrounding protected areas as the result of global change factors.
This program will complement the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UNEP/Conservation Monitoring Centre, and is designed to avoid duplication wherever possible.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Capacity Building: Developing the capacity to manage at the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
RECOMMEND
These gaps and changes require the expansion of existing, and the strategic creation of new, protected areas while ensuring the connectivity of suitable habitat between them.
A reduction in the rate of loss of biological diversity can be achieved through protected area systems in all ecoregions of the world that are comprehensive, ecologically and biologically viable, representative, and effectively managed. Threatened species, particularly those listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, must be effectively conserved in these networks of protected areas.
The target to achieve “a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity” by the year 2010, agreed by the 6th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Decision VI/26), restated in the Hague Ministerial Declaration of April 2002, and endorsed by the world’s leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in September 2002 remains valid.
The WSSD Plan of Implementation states that biological diversity plays “a critical role” in “overall sustainable development and poverty eradication” and that “biodiversity is currently being lost at unprecedented rates due to human activities”. Protected area systems should ensure that valuable ecosystem services are sustained.
Biodiversity is not evenly distributed across the globe, thus an effective network of protected areas to reduce the rate of loss of biological diversity should be based on an adequate understanding of the patterns of distribution of species, habitats, ecosystems and ecological processes across all scales. Systematic conservation plans and decision-support tools should be used to identify targets for protection based on such understanding.
The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) is a vital tool to measure the efforts of governments and civil society to build comprehensive protected area networks. This database is maintained by the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre with the support and assistance of the WDPA Consortium that includes members of international conservation NGOs and other interested agencies. The importance of the database has been reflected in the UNEP Governing Council decision of 2003, implemented through a MOU signed between IUCN and UNEP at WPC 2003 and supported by the WDPA Consortium.
Many Multilateral Environmental Agreements, notably the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, along with many regional agreements, recognise the importance of protecting biodiversity as a priority for all nations.
With these points in mind, participants in the workshop on Building Comprehensive Protected Area Systems concluded that nations need to consider biodiversity-based targets as a means of maximising the coverage and representation of biological diversity and, in particular, threatened components of biological diversity in their protected area systems.
In addition to the conventional system of protected areas based on IUCN designated categories, a range of opportunities exist for enhancing coverage of protected areas, including community conservation areas, community managed areas, and private and indigenous reserves.
For protected areas to meet their biodiversity conservation and economic development objectives, they must receive adequate financial support. However, it is noted that many countries with the highest levels of biodiversity are challenged by inadequate financial means and by the imperative of poverty alleviation. Many countries therefore compromise on creating and/or effectively managing a comprehensive and effective protected area system even when it is not in the national or global interest.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the workshop stream on Building Comprehensive Protected Area Systems at the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
1. URGE governments, non-government organizations and local communities to maximise representation and persistence of biodiversity in comprehensive protected area networks in all ecoregions by 2012, focusing especially on threatened and under-protected ecosystems and those species that qualify as globally threatened with extinction under the IUCN criteria. This will require that:
a. Systematic conservation planning tools that use information on species, habitats and ecological processes to identify gaps in the existing system be applied to assist in the selection of new protected areas at the national level;b. All globally threatened species are effectively conserved in situ with the following immediate targets:
i. all Critically Endangered and Endangered species globally confined to single sites are effectively conserved in situ by 2006;c. Viable representations of every terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystem are effectively conserved within protected areas, with the following immediate targets:
ii. all other globally Critically Endangered and Endangered species are effectively conserved in situ by 2008;
iii. all other globally threatened species are effectively conserved in situ by 2010; and
iv. sites that support internationally important populations of congregatory and/or restricted-range species are adequately conserved by 2010;i. A common global framework for classifying and assessing the status of ecosystems established by 2006;d. Changes in biodiversity and key ecological processes affecting biodiversity in and around protected areas are identified and managed;
ii. quantitative targets for each ecosystem type identified by 2008; and
iii. viable representations of every threatened or under-protected ecosystem conserved by 2010;e. Regional landscape and seascape planning should consider locally generated maps, and incorporate zoning and management planning processes to assist in designing and enhancing comprehensive protected area networks that conserve wide-ranging and migratory species and sustain ecosystem services;
f. Protected area systems are established by 2006 that adequately cover all large intact ecosystems that hold globally significant assemblages of species and/or provide ecosystem services and processes;
g. Increase the coverage of protected areas in freshwater ecosystems as proposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity Recommendation VIII/2 to establish and maintain a “comprehensive, adequate and representative system of protected inland water ecosystems… using integrated catchment/watershed/river basin management” by 2012; and
h. Create a representative network of marine protected areas by 2012, as stated in the WSSD Plan of Implementation;
2. URGE the Parties to the CBD to make the achievement of the above-mentioned
targets possible by adopting a strong program of work and consider legal
mechanisms on protected areas at COP7 that ensures the establishment of
a representative global network of protected areas. In support of the Program
of work, establish an effective mechanism to measure progress towards the
achievement of the above-mentioned targets and ensure the provision of
adequate financing to support such a network, in accordance with Article
20 and Article 8(m) of the CBD;
3. CALL on governments, local authorities, donors and development assistance agencies, the private sector, and other stakeholders to financially support the strategic expansion of the global network of protected areas as well as the effective management of existing protected areas. Whilst taking appropriate steps to defray the attendant human opportunity costs where appropriate;
4. URGE governments to use international instruments, such as the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, to enhance the protection given to sites, and pass domestic legislation to implement their convention obligations, with a view to achieving the targets outlined above;
5. CALL on governments to develop and implement innovative plans and legislation involving all stakeholders to conserve biodiversity and ecological processes effectively under various conditions of land and resource ownership and usage rights, as well as across national boundaries;
6. URGE governments, non-government organizations, donors, private sector and development assistance agencies to promote socio-economic and cultural benefits of protected areas to foster support for the expansion of protected area networks;
7. REQUEST the consortium of institutions responsible for maintaining and managing the World Database on Protected Areas to continue the process of enhancing the quality of the data, and making these publicly available and accessible;
8. URGE the Parties to the CBD to request all governments to provide annual updates of information to the WDPA;
9. URGE the private sector to adopt best practices that do not threaten, compromise or thwart the achievement of the aforementioned targets and to assist in the establishment of a comprehensive ecologically and biologically viable and representative network of protected areas;
10. REQUEST the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas to establish a task force on conservation planning to guide countries in the achievement of the targets outlined in this recommendation;
11. CALL on parties to the World Heritage Convention to encourage the nomination of global physiographic, natural and cultural phenomena as large-scale multi-states serial World Heritage Routes to serve as frameworks for local and trans-boundary World Heritage sites and protected areas; and
12. URGE governments, local authorities, private sector, donors and development assistance agencies to ensure that further work towards building comprehensive protected areas systems takes full account of the rights, interest and aspirations of indigenous peoples, as well as of their desire to have their lands, territories and resources secured and protected for their own social and cultural survival.
Ecosystems and species will change as climate changes, requiring new protected areas and new management strategies in existing protected areas. Polar ice and glaciers are melting; sea levels are rising. Climate change is exacerbating the problems of invasive alien species and diseases, displacing native species. In combination with growing human populations, human settlement patterns and land use changes, climate change is exerting new demands on limited resources. These changes will require new resources for protected areas to meet their goal of conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Many of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity will occur in tropical countries while the major sources of global greenhouse gases are industrialized countries. This creates equity issues requiring new international funding mechanisms.
Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations leading to global climate change that contribute to species extinctions constitute “dangerous interference in the climate system”. Recent research suggests that climate change associated with doubled pre-industrial CO2 levels may result in high numbers of plant and animal extinctions. Since any extinction is unacceptable, urgent stabilization of global greenhouse gas concentrations is required.
Therefore a two-fold response is needed to protect biodiversity in the face of climate change:
a. Limitation of climate change by stabilizing global greenhouse gas concentrations; and
b. The institution of new conservation strategies that include elements such as the creation of new protected areas that are specifically designed to be resilient to change and the creation of corridors to protect biodiversity from the effects of climate change.
Therefore, recognizing input from other streams, PARTICIPANTS in
the workshop stream on Building Comprehensive Protected Area Systems at
the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
1. CALL ON governments and citizens to recognize the threat posed to protected areas from climate and other global changes;
2. URGE governments to stabilize global greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents species from becoming threatened or extinct due to climate change, by implementing policies (including the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol) that will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions within their borders and globally;
3. URGE individuals to curtail their consumption of carbon-based fuels as an example to governments and other individuals, and urge individual protected areas to lead by example in installing and interpreting clean energy technologies;
4. CALLS ON IUCN and its members to pursue regional analyses of the impact of climate change on protected areas and the consequent need for new conservation strategies, including:
a. Immediate application and ongoing refinement of existing knowledge and tools for building resilience into protected area networks;5. URGE governments, donors and development assistance agencies to establish a global financing mechanism to cover the additional costs incurred by protected areas due to climate change;
b. A near-term, 5-year goal of freshwater, marine and terrestrial pilot regional studies of climate change impacts on protected areas, each incorporating Regional Climate Models and multi-species modelling; and
c. A long-term,10-year goal of establishing a program of ongoing regional studies of climate change impacts on protected areas covering all areas of the globe;
6. CALL ON governments, non-government organizations and local communities to identify and designate protected areas that increase representation of species and ecosystems, the persistence of which is found to be jeopardized due to climate change, including:
a. All threatened species by 2012; and7. RECOMMEND the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas to:
b. All species and ecosystems by 2015;
a. Expand partnerships and deepen their expertise in the provision of advice to practitioners, management agencies and communities on options and guidelines for adapting protected areas to the forces of global change; and8. RECOMMEND that the task force on climate change of the IUCN Species Survival Commission work with the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas to make available to protected area managers the names of species which may be at particular risk of extinction due to climate change within their region;
b. Identify and communicate best practices to establish methods to anticipate the impacts and opportunities from global change, and adapt management to those changes;
9. RECOMMEND that Governments, and protected area managers and planners, include concepts of resilience and adaptive management of protected areas to mitigate the impacts of climate change, including designing and managing protected area networks flexibly to accommodate adaptations to change; and
10. RECOMMEND that the Vth World Parks Congress evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to incorporate climate change into protected area management and other conservation strategies.
Chapter 13, the Mountain Chapter, of Agenda 21 from UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 1992) calls on all countries with mountains to strengthen national capacity for sustainable mountain development, and to prepare long-term mountain action plans.
2002, the International Year of Mountains, provided a remarkable and diverse array of events at local, national and international levels, which placed mountain ecosystems squarely on the global agenda as a priority concern.
The Bishkek Global Mountain Summit (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; October-November 2002), and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa; August-September 2002), reinforced these calls for action.
The close relationship between mountain biodiversity and protected areas will be a focus on the forthcoming Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 2004).
With these points in mind a Pre-World Parks Congress Workshop on Mountain Protected Areas, held in South Africa's uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site (September 5-8, 2003), involving 60 managers, scientists and policy makers representing 23 countries:
1. ENDORSE the establishment of an adequate and representative network of Mountain Protected Areas in all mountain regions as a key part of sustainable mountain development, including appropriate conservation linkages to adjacent landscapes and seascapes and working with local communities and land managers;
2. WELCOME the support for Mountain Protected Areas from outdoor recreation interests, as expressed in the Environmental Objectives and Guidelines of the International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation (UIAA), published during the International Year of Mountains;
3. URGE IUCN - the World Conservation Union, to:
a. Support the Mountain Initiative Task Force as an Inter-Commission group involving primarily the World Commission on Protected Areas and the Commission on Ecosystem Management, with opportunities for other Commissions to contribute as appropriate;
b. Give particular attention to implementing the WCPA 2004-2008 Mountain Strategy, as endorsed by the Mountain Initiative Task Force;
c. Engage fully in the International Partnership for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions, as a method of implementing Chapter 13 of Agenda 21;
d. Continue to press for recognition, during this International Year of Freshwater and beyond, of the vital role of Mountain Protected Areas in safeguarding water quality and quantity;
e. Provide leadership to highlight the vital relationship between biodiversity, mountains and protected areas as the CBD considers these topics at its 2004 meetings;
f. Give a prominent role to mountains and their protected areas at the 2004 World Conservation Congress; and
g. Provide a forum to discuss and advance transboundary protected areas in contributing to the conservation of regional biodiversity, recognizing the special circumstances of transboundary mountain communities, and resolving regional conflicts through mechanisms such as Peace Parks.
As an indicator of this need, it is estimated that protected area budgets in the early 1990’s totalled only about 20 percent of the estimated US$20-30 billion annually over the next 30 years required to establish and maintain a comprehensive protected area system including terrestrial, wetland, and marine ecosystems.
Nonetheless, there remain government policies and other institutional obstacles, which intentionally and unintentionally restrict the flow of funding to protected areas, such as:
a. Insufficient priority allocated to the conservation of nature and associated cultural values against other competing budget programs;To help address these problems the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas has implemented an initiative on Sustainable Financing.
b. Revenues from tourist income and environmental services provided by protected areas (e.g., water charges) not being earmarked for protected area management;
c. Institutional barriers restricting the flow of funding to protected areas;
d. Inappropriate management structures that fail to channel funding to protected area management;
e. Lack of mechanisms to encourage donor organizations to participate in supporting protected areas; and
f. Limited use of business planning at both a protected area systems level as well as for specific protected areas.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Financing: Building a secure financial future at the Vth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
RECOMMEND governments, national and international non governmental organizations, international conventions, indigenous and local communities, and civil society to:
1. OPERATIONALISE the WSSD biodiversity goal and assess the cost of achieving it;
2. ENSURE that the financial mechanisms adopted to increase protected area revenue do not lead to the degradation of biodiversity or the destruction of the natural and cultural heritage;
3. COMMUNICATE more effectively the results of investments in protected areas, to the global and national community to gain greater support for the funding of protected areas, including both conservation results and socio-economic benefits of protected areas;
4. INCREASE, diversify and stabilise the financial flows to protected areas and biodiversity conservation including through appropriate incentives and support for the implementation of diverse portfolios of financing mechanisms and cost-effective management approaches for terrestrial, wetland, and marine protected area networks and systems, so as to ensure that long term conservation objectives are fully met in each ecoregion of the world;
5. ENSURE that there is proper valuation of the goods and services provided by protected areas and biodiversity in general so that decisions about economic development are made with the full understanding of the costs as well as the benefits and the social impacts involved;
6. REMOVE policy and institutional barriers to sustainable financing solutions, including to the effective allocation of resources across protected area networks and systems, so that funding from both new and existing sources, and revenue generated by the protected areas can be fully and efficiently directed to protected area management; where such removal does not compromise biodiversity, natural and cultural heritage objectives;
7. ENSURE that protected areas, and the surrounding local and indigenous communities, as primary beneficiaries, are granted access to the benefits from the increasing number of opportunities to gain remuneration from ecosystem services provided by protected areas. These comprise existing sources such as tourism-related revenues as well as new opportunities like the provision of clean air and water, flood defence and disaster prevention, soil conservation, conservation of genetic material, recreational opportunities and carbon sequestration;
8. URGE donors, government, and the private sector to support the establishment of trust and endowment funds for the conservation of biodiversity, as well as support other sustainable financing mechanisms, such as debt swaps, and the inclusion of support for biodiversity and the environment in countries’ Poverty Reduction Strategies;
9. IMPROVE coordination of financial sources for protected areas based on jointly agreed strategies established with all relevant stakeholders; to support coordination, improve the quality and dissemination of conservation funding information;
10. INCREASE significantly future replenishments of the GEF to support the sustainable management of protected areas in developing countries through support for sustainable financing mechanisms;
11. ENCOURAGE governments at all levels to increase the financial flows to protected areas by reducing and redirecting funding currently allocated to subsidies for fishing, agriculture, and other sectors, that contribute to environmental degradation and biodiversity loss;
12. ENSURE, where appropriate, that environmental compensation payments from economic activities are effectively channelled to protected areas or ecosystem restoration; and
13. FOCUS greater attention on increasing the cost effectiveness of protected area financing through improved budgeting, financial planning and the use of innovative arrangements such as conservation easements, direct incentive payments, tax credits, and other market-based transactions.
Further, protected areas system managers are generally not familiar with the most appropriate forms of private sector participation required to secure the long-term financial future of protected areas, or the business methods and priorities of the private sector.
As a contribution to resolve this problem, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas has implemented an initiative on Sustainable Financing.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Financing: Building a secure financial future at the Vth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
1. RECOMMEND governments, national and international non government organizations, local and indigenous communities, businesses and civil society:
a. REMOVE the obstacles and enhance the opportunities for public-private –community partnerships in protected area management and funding to ensure sustained conservation of biodiversity, natural values and cultural heritage;2. CALL on the WCPA to consider means to:
b. DEVELOP appropriate legal, administrative and financial instruments which implement new partnership arrangements for the benefit of both the protected area and its private sector partners;
c. ENSURE through adoption of appropriate legislation and other mechanisms a more effective, equitable and efficient distribution of the returns to the protected area from the emerging environmental services markets;
d. ENSURE that local and indigenous communities which provide services and contribute support to the protected area and its management are able to participate and engage in an equitable dialogue with the private sector and share in the financial benefits earned by the protected area and for project activities linked to protected areas;
e. FOSTER, ADOPT and PROMOTE business planning, marketing and related techniques appropriate to the management of protected areas;
f. CREATE business guidelines and standards for businesses that promote good governance and transparency and enhance the objectives of the protected areas; and
g. ENSURE that where specific private sector activities affect biodiversity, natural or cultural heritage adversely, the responsible parties should meet the costs of avoiding, minimizing, mitigating, restoring or compensating for their damages, including for support of protected areas;
a. ENHANCE financing opportunities for protected areas; and
b. PROMOTE a culture within all levels of protected area management which recognizes and respects local and indigenous community aspiration, culture and values.
Several other Multilateral Environmental Agreements, notably the Convention on Migratory Species, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, along with several regional agreements, recognize the importance of integrated approaches to land/seascape management in pursuit of their conservation objectives, including also the cultural landscapes inscribed on the World Heritage List and the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
At the same time, protected area design and management must reflect the structure and condition of surrounding landscapes/seascapes, and in particular must be flexible enough to adapt to increasing unpredictability in rates and directions of global changes.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Steam on Integrated Landscape Management to Support Protected Areas at the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa (5-17 September 2003):
1. RECOMMEND governments, non-government organizations, local communities and civil society to:
a. ADOPT and promote protected area design principles that reflect those inherent in the world network of biosphere reserves where core protected areas are part of landscapes designed to enhance the overall conservation value;2. CALL on UNESCO, IUCN and Secretariats of relevant multilateral environmental agreements, to work with Governments, civil society, the private sector, indigenous and local communities and NGOs to:
b. ADOPT design principles for protected areas which emphasize linkages to surrounding ecosystems and ensure that the surrounding landscapes are managed for biodiversity conservation;
c. RECOGNIZE the need to restore ecological processes in degraded areas both within protected areas and in their surrounding landscapes to ensure the ecological integrity of protected areas;
d. RECOGNIZE that the presence and needs of human populations consistent with biodiversity conservation within and in the vicinity of protected areas should be reflected in the overall design and management of protected areas and the surrounding landscapes;
e. RECOGNIZE the importance of participatory processes that link a diverse array of stakeholders in stewardship of the landscape linkages;
f. ENSURE that principles of adaptive management are applied to protected areas; and
g. ADOPT and promote a policy framework and incentives that encourage active involvement of local communities in biodiversity stewardship; and
a. DEMONSTRATE how international law can contribute towards building site-specific, mutually beneficial relationships between biodiversity conservation, protected area management and sustainable development;
b. USE linking protected areas with the surrounding landscape as an opportunity to regenerate cultural landscapes including those shaped by traditional and mobile people, and to revitalize rural communities; and
c. ADOPT and promote the experience and lessons learned in integrated earthscape management of the UNESCO MAB World Network of Biosphere Reserves, the Ramsar Convention and other relevant international agreements in particular to move towards ‘benefits beyond boundaries’.
At global level:
With these points in mind participants in the “Linkages in the landscape and seascape” Workshop Stream concluded that these instruments can be use to link protected areas with the wider land/seascape.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Linkages in the Landscape/Seascape at the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
RECOMMEND that:
1. Governments, local and indigenous communities, civil society and NGOs maintain and strengthen their involvement with the existing international instruments and pursue opportunities to harmonize their implementation in relation to PAs identification and management;
2. Governments, local and indigenous communities, civil society and NGOs ensure consistency of their contributions to the above mentioned international instruments with their contributions to implementing the plan of action of the WSSD, and in the framework of the Articles of the CBD in light of the conceptual integration offered by the Ecosystem Approach as adopted by the CoP to the CBD;
3. Governments, local and indigenous communities, civil society and NGOs working in Protected Areas, and surrounding areas promoting sustainable development as contemplated under the World Network of MAB Biosphere Reserves, designated under these international instruments, make full use of the linkages between them, and ensure that actions are also coordinated with activities in the surrounding land/seascape;
4. The governing bodies of relevant international conventions and programmes, as a means to achieve their conservation objectives, promote the establishment and maintenance of linkages in the Land/Seascape in their implementation plans or programmes;
5. The governing bodies of the MEAS/Programmes, as a means to achieve their conservation objectives, promote the establishment and maintenance of linkages in the land/seascape in their implementation plans/programmes; and
6. Recommend that sufficient financial resources be made available to governments, local communities, indigenous people, civil society, and NGOs who demonstrate need for participating in discussions pertaining to international conventions and other instruments.
The involvement and investment of many conservation and development agencies in transboundary conservation initiatives worldwide has been very important. Nevertheless, there remains a need for enhanced co-operation among agencies to support and develop transboundary conservation areas and to refine tools for their sustainable effective management.
A strategic global framework for transboundary conservation is lacking, along with an agreed approach towards monitoring and evaluating progress across biological, social, economic, political, legal, institutional and peace/co-operation objectives.
In order for protected area managers to conduct effective transboundary conservation programmes, there is need to harmonise approaches to management, involve communities in conservation and development programmes, develop and jointly apply best practice at the site level and share lessons learned.
The participants in the Governance and Linkages workshop streams, noting these points, highlighted that, despite considerable efforts over many years to provide guidance and support including the development of the World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 7 on Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Cooperation containing both Transboundary Protected Area Best Practice Guidelines and a Draft Code for transboundary protected areas in times of peace and armed conflict, the absence of an international forum to support and develop transboundary conservation initiatives in a coordinated and collaborative manner impedes progress.
They also noted the need for an international register/designation of transboundary conservation areas, which could formalise the status of these areas and ensure that appropriate standards are applied to their establishment and management.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Linkages in the Landscape/Seascape and in the Stream on Governance at the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
RECOMMEND governments, non-government organizations, international organizations, development agencies, and specifically IUCN – The World Conservation Union, to:
1. SUPPORT the establishment of an international forum that will act as a global network for transboundary conservation initiatives where IUCN members, Parties to the CBD, protected area managers, and other audiences can collaborate, share lessons and continue the development of appropriate approaches and strategies;
2. DEVELOP and apply an agreed programme to develop tools and mechanisms for transboundary conservation initiatives, translating generic guidance into effective implementation for enhanced conservation at the site level, and especially to advance best practice for target-driven conservation management, for inclusive local governance and for implementing protocols for peaceful co-operation;
3. DEVELOP and apply an agreed programme of monitoring and evaluation for transboundary conservation of all types and across biological, social, economic, political, legal, including customary law, institutional and peace/co-operation indices; and
4. DEVELOP, with broad consultation, an international enabling framework and internationally recognised designation/register of transboundary conservation areas, and further recommend recognition of such sites through joint nominations to conventions such as Ramsar, World Heritage and the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program.
However, the ecological, social and cultural costs of tourism can be considerable. Even limited impacts may have major conservation significance. If not planned developed and managed appropriately, tourism can contribute to the deterioration of cultural landscapes, threaten biodiversity, contribute to pollution and degradation of ecosystems, displace agricultural land and open spaces, diminish water and energy resources, disrupt social systems, and increase poverty.
Tourism in and around protected areas must be designed as a vehicle for conservation: building support; raising awareness of the many important values of protected areas including ecological, cultural, spiritual, aesthetic, recreational, and economic values, and generating much needed income for conservation work for the protection of biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and cultural heritage. Tourism should also contribute to the quality of life of indigenous and local communities provide incentives to support traditional customs and values, protect and respect sacred sites, and acknowledge traditional knowledge.
There are many stakeholders concerned with protected areas, and thus managers need resources and training to enable them to work effectively with different constituencies, including the tourism industry, local communities and visitors.
There are numerous conventions, charters and guidelines that can be of assistance, including, inter alia:
a. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Guidelines on Tourism in Vulnerable Ecosystems;
b. The ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter: Managing Tourism at Places of Heritage Significance;
c. The Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism;
d. The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas’ (WCPA) publication Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management;
e. The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage;
f. The World Tourism Organisation Global Code of Ethics for Tourism.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Building Broader Support
for Protected Areas at the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa
(8-17 September 2003):
1. RECOMMEND that the tourism sector, including appropriate institutions, associations, and operators, work together with protected area managers and communities to ensure that tourism associated with protected areas, in both developed and developing countries:
a. Respects the primacy of the role of conservation for protected areas;
b. Makes tangible and equitable financial contributions to conservation and to protected area management;
c. Ensures tourism contributes to local economic development and poverty reduction through:i. Support to local small and medium sized enterprises;d. Uses relevant approaches that encourage appropriate behaviour by visitors (e.g., environmental education, interpretation, and marketing);
ii. Employment of local people;
iii. Purchasing of local goods and services; and
iv. Fair and equitable partnerships with local communities;
e. Uses ecologically and culturally appropriate technologies, infrastructure, facilities and materials in and or near protected areas;
f. Monitors, reports and mitigates negative impacts and enhances positive effects of tourism;
g. Communicates the benefits of protected areas and the imperative for conservation; and
h. Promotes the use of guidelines, codes of practice and certification programmes;
2. RECOMMEND that key decision-makers work with the conservation
community, including the IUCN WCPA Task Force for Tourism and Protected
Areas, to ensure that tourism:
a. Supports the sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage;
b. Supports local and indigenous community development and economic opportunities;i. Provides political and financial support for the establishment, extension, and effective management of protected areas;
ii. Supports implementation of relevant international agreements, national legislation, and guidelines on protected areas;
iii. Fosters respect and stewardship for natural and cultural heritage through visitation and education: and
iv. Promotes the use of culturally appropriately participatory processes;
3. THEREFORE RECOMMEND to key international and national agencies,
local authorities and the private sector to support research and development
to:
a. Understand the links between tourism, conservation and community development;4. ENCOURAGE dissemination of these recommendations and coordination of their implementation by the IUCN WCPA Task Force for Tourism and Protected Areas.
b. Establish reliable data on protected area tourism;
c. Determine optimum types and levels of protected area visitation;
d. Promote appropriate monitoring and evaluation;
e. Promote effective management;
f. Encourage policy development on protected area tourism;
g. Provide appropriate tourism training for protected area personnel;
h. Provide effective interpretation and education;
i. Understand visitor experiences, behaviour and impact; and
j. Develop appropriate tools and techniques for sustainable finance of protected areas through tourism;
Protected areas serve as fundamental tools for conservation of nature, and thus are an expression of the highest desires and commitments of humankind for the preservation of life on the planet, and that as such, those areas constitute places of deep reverence and ethical realization.
Many societies, especially indigenous and traditional peoples, recognise sacred places and engage in traditional practices for the protection of geographical areas, nature, ecosystems, or species, as an expression of societal or cultural choice and of their worldview of the sacredness of nature and its inextricable links with culture. They also recognise sacred places as a unique source of knowledge and understanding of their own culture thus providing what could be considered the equivalent of a university.
Sacred places are revered and cared for by indigenous and traditional peoples and are a fundamental part of their territories, bringing significant benefits to local, national, and global communities. In some cases, they are seeking to have them recognised as part of existing protected areas systems.
With these points in mind 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.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Building Broader Support for Protected Areas at the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
1. ACKNOWLEDGE indigenous peoples’ internationally guaranteed rights to, among others, own and control their sacred places, their archaeological and cultural heritage, ceremonial objects and human remains contained in museums or collections within or adjacent to protected areas. These include the following rights to:
a. DEFINE and name their sacred places and objects, ancestral remains and archaeological, cultural and intellectual heritage and to have such designations respected as authoritative;2. THEREFORE RECOMMEND that international institutions, governments, protected area authorities, NGOs, churches, user and interest groups fully recognise and respect the above-mentioned rights in relation to conservation activities;
b. Where relevant, MAINTAIN secrecy about and enjoy privacy in relation to their heritage, objects, remains and places as described above;
c. RESTITUTION of sacred places, heritage, objects and remains taken without their free and informed consent;
d. FREELY EXERCISE their ceremonies, religious and spiritual practices in the manner to which they are accustomed;
e. GATHER, collect or harvest flora, fauna and other natural resources used in ceremonies and practices that take place at sacred places or archaeological and cultural heritage places; and
f. MAINTAIN their responsibilities to their ancestors and future generations;
3. RECOMMEND governments to:
a. PROMOTE and adopt laws and policies that foster multi-cultural values and approaches to protected area systems;4. FURTHER RECOMMEND governments, NGOs, local communities and civil society to:
b. PROMOTE and adopt laws and policies that acknowledge the importance of sacred places, particularly those of indigenous and traditional peoples, as valuable for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management;
c. ADOPT and enforce laws and policies with the full and effective participation and consent of peoples and communities concerned, which protect the integrity of sacred places;
d. ADOPT and enforce laws and policies that guarantee the restitution of sacred places as well as effective control and decision-making processes by local communities and indigenous peoples;
e. PROMOTE and adopt laws and policies, which recognise the effectiveness of innovative governance models such as Community Conserved Areas of indigenous peoples and local communities to ensure control and adequate protection over sacred areas;
f. PROMOTE and implement effective action to support community protection efforts in areas of cultural and spiritual importance including sacred places; and
g. ADOPT and enforce policies and legal measures, which respect customary use and management of sacred places and ensure access for traditional practitioners in protected areas;
a. ENSURE that protected area systems, protected area designation, objective setting, management planning, zoning and training of managers, especially at the local level, give balanced attention to the full spectrum of material, cultural and spiritual values;5. REQUEST protected area managers to:
b. ASSIST indigenous and traditional peoples in obtaining legal and technical support related to protection of their sacred places when requested and in a manner that respects their rights and interests; and
c. DEVELOP and implement public education and media campaigns to raise awareness and respect for cultural and spiritual values and, in particular, sacred places;
a. IDENTIFY and recognize sacred places within their protected areas, with the participation and informed consent of those who revere such places, and to actively involve them in decisions regarding management and protection of their sacred places;6. RECOGNIZING the importance of cultural and spiritual values in all protected area categories, request the IUCN to review the 1994 Protected Area Category Guidelines with the aim of including these values as additional potential management objectives in categories where they are currently excluded; and
b. PROMOTE inter-cultural dialogue and conflict resolution with indigenous peoples, local communities and other actors interested in conservation;
c. SUPPORT the efforts of such communities to maintain their cultural and spiritual values and practices related to protected areas; and
d. PROMOTE the use of indigenous languages in these matters;
7. REQUEST the World Commission on Protected Areas of IUCN and its members to plan and implement actions within the protected areas component of the IUCN Programme for supporting the application of the actions recommended above.
Nevertheless, urban residents can gain greater appreciation and love for nature through experiences in natural areas and open spaces as well as through education. Ecological restoration and environmental protection are essential to the quality of life of urban dwellers. Interaction with nature by city dwellers brings direct social, economic, and cultural benefits.
Agencies responsible for protected areas can serve urban residents through conventional activities such as preserving, restoring, and interpreting natural areas in and near cities, but also through less conventional roles such as reaching out to disadvantaged people, working to bridge social divisions through shared experiences in nature, and helping to “green” and promote sustainable development in cities.
IUCN has recognised the critical roles that cities, urban people, and urban institutions play in achieving IUCN’s overall mission, for example, in Caring for the Earth (1991) and at the Union’s 50th Anniversary Celebration (Fontainebleau, 1998). Urban populations are also essential to achieving such fundamental goals of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) as “Strengthening the constituency for protected areas” (Recommendation 1 of the IVth World Parks Congress; Caracas, 1992). Connecting protected areas to social and economic concerns is a priority of WCPA’s 2001-2004 action plan.
At the same time, more should be done to facilitate exchange of experience in urban conservation and outreach among the increasing number of IUCN members with such activities, and many innovative local socio-environmental programmes, including programmes involving children and young people in making the case for conservation.
Finally, allied intergovernmental programmes such as the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme and national programmes that connect natural and cultural heritage sites are placing greater emphasis on urban dimensions of protecting biodiversity.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Building Broader Support for Protected Areas at the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
1. RECOMMEND that conservation agencies, NGOs, local authorities and local communities:
a. RECOGNISE the importance of protected areas and green spaces to the people living in cities and encourage and resource the development of strategies and programs that engage groups in activities that improve their quality of life;2. RECOMMEND that the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas incorporate an urban dimension in its activities through a Theme on Cities and Protected Areas; and
b. RECOGNISE the interdependence of cities and protected areas, as demonstrated for example through regional and ecosystem approaches linking urban and rural conservation areas and efforts, and the important contributions of protected areas to socio-economic priorities; and
c. STRENGTHEN the capacity of the protected area community to preserve and restore natural areas in and near cities, reach out to urban residents, and build stronger urban constituencies for nature conservation;
3. RECOMMEND that IUCN:
a. ORGANISE activities at the 3rd World Conservation Congress (Bangkok, 2004) spotlighting innovative programmes linking cities and protected areas;
b. INCORPORATE the urban dimensions of conservation into the 2005-08 intersessional programme to be considered at the 3rd World Conservation Congress (Bangkok, 2004);
c. LINK biodiversity conservation to human settlements in order to better advance the implementation of sustainable development objectives, including the United Nations Millennium Development Goals;
d. RECRUIT as members organizations engaged in urban environmental issues, invites prominent leaders and experts in urban management to participate in the work of IUCN;
e. DEVELOP partnerships with key organisations engaged in the urban environment; and
f. DEVELOP tools, such as modelling techniques, which assist urban managers to incorporate ecosystem management approaches in their planning and management.
Many protected areas are however located in politically and socio-economically sensitive regions where the risk of conflict has been historically high, or within countries facing significant insecurity. Protected Areas can be both a focus and source of finance for conflict, and suffer from it. The outbreak of armed conflict can halt and reverse conservation and management efforts and destroy natural resources, lives and livelihoods. Poverty is linked to the cycle of conflict and poor governance.
It is therefore urgent that relevant actors understand, evaluate and address the challenges of establishing and managing protected areas in conflict-prone situations, drawing on international mechanisms such as the World Heritage in Danger listing to apply political pressure and mobilize financial support.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Building Broader Support for Protected Areas at the Vth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
1. RECOMMEND that governments, non-government organizations, local communities and civil society:
a. RECOGNIZE that the establishment and management of a protected area can influence and be influenced by peace and conflict dynamics;2. RECOMMEND, with a view to mobilizing action by key parties, that IUCN's Commission on Environmental Law, its Commission on Environmental Economic and Social Policy, World Commission on Protected Areas and other appropriate parties establish a Task Force to:
b. DEVELOP the capacity for international rapid response to provide training, mediation and support for field based protected areas staff in times of crisis including armed conflict;
c. ENSURE any humanitarian relief efforts minimize negative effects on protected areas;
d. REVIEW, DEVELOP AND ADAPT design and management tools, such as Social Impact Assessment, Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA), ecological, and law enforcement monitoring (LEM), to systematically monitor and evaluate the impacts of peace and conflict dynamics on protected areas, and the impacts of protected areas on those dynamics, using the results to inform practice;
e. INVESTIGATE AND IMPLEMENT international and national instruments to strengthen protection of World Heritage Sites and other protected areas in times of armed conflict and post-conflict reconstruction (Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Protected Areas), and enhance accountability by all parties for their impacts on protected areas and people, including field based staff;
f. ENSURE that post-conflict social and economic development takes into account the importance of protected area integrity and conservation;
g. ENSURE that any parties supporting protected areas in the field in conflict situations are recognized as neutral in that capacity;
h. ENABLE a management presence to be maintained in protected areas in times of armed conflict through contingency planning and other means;
i. ENSURE that protected areas field staff are adequately trained, equipped and continually supported to maintain conservation effectiveness, morale and safety;
j. CALL on donors and other supporters to remain and provide continued funding and assistance to protected areas in situations of conflict;
k. PROMOTE continued involvement of local communities in conservation through their engagement in protected areas management, capacity building, education, incentives and benefit sharing, and provision of alternatives to exploitation of protected areas in times of crisis;
l. SUPPORT prompt coordinated action to rehabilitate affected protected areas after conflict has ended;
m. INCORPORATE protected area conservation in military and peacekeeping training programmes and operations;
n. URGE countries in situations of real or potential conflict with other countries to explore protected areas cooperation as a basis for peace building;
o. ESTABLISH a fund to assist families of protected areas staff killed or injured in the line of duty;
p. ADDRESS root causes of violent conflict by promoting respect for human rights, improved governance, the elimination of corruption, poverty alleviation (see WPC recommendation 5.29) and certification of sustainably produced commodities (e.g. Forest Stewardship Council); and
q. INCORPORATE these recommendations into existing IUCN and World Heritage guidelines and best practice, including the Draft Code for Transboundary Protected Areas in Times of Peace and Armed Conflict.
a. IDENTIFY AND REPORT ON the forms of international instruments available to enable the capacity for international response (as per clause 1.b.) to provide a neutral status to protected areas personnel and to enhance accountability for impacts on protected areas and people including field based staff in situations of armed conflict;
b. COMPILE guidelines and good practice examples of protected areas management in times of armed conflict and in post-conflict reconstruction; and
c. MONITOR and report on implementation of this recommendation at regular intervals
‘Good governance’ was identified by the World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation as being “essential for sustainable development” and States committed themselves to:
Further, the United Nations Secretary General has stated that ‘good governance’ is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development”.
Practically, protected areas should be managed in keeping with the Ecosystem Approach as defined by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Decision V/6) which can be summarised as a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Also, the IUCN /WWF Principles of Indigenous/Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas includes a principle that decentralization, participation, transparency and accountability should be taken into account in all matters pertaining to the mutual interests of protected areas and indigenous and other traditional peoples. And, the UNDP has published a list of characteristics of ‘good governance’ and there is growing recognition of the key elements that constitute ‘good governance’.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Governance: New ways of working together at the Vth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
RECOMMEND governments and civil society:
1. ENDORSE the importance of governance as a key concept for protected areas and PROMOTE ‘good governance’ as essential for the effective management of protected areas of all types in the 21st Century;
2. RECOGNISE that governance of protected areas should reflect and address relevant social, ecological, cultural, historical and economic factors, and what constitutes ‘good governance’ in any area needs to be considered in light of local circumstances, traditions and knowledge systems;
3. ADOPT “Legitimacy and Voice”, “Accountability”, “Performance”, “Fairness”, and “Direction” as general principles of ‘good governance’ for protected areas in the 21st Century and use them as a basis for developing their own principles to improve protected area management;
4. URGE all those involved in the establishment and management of protected areas to strive to pursue the above principles for ‘good governance’ including attention to:
a. recognition of the diverse knowledge systems;5. RECOGNISE that ‘good governance’ contributes to the achievement of the objectives of protected areas and to social acceptance and sustainability of conservation in the long term;
b. openness, transparency, and accountability in decision making;
c. inclusive leadership;
d. mobilizing support from diverse interests, with special emphasis on partners and local and indigenous communities; and
e. sharing authority and resources and devolving/decentralizing decision making authority and resources where appropriate;
6. ENCOURAGE and IMPROVE the capacity of managers of protected areas to apply the above principles of good governance in implementing the ecosystem approach advocated by the Convention on Biological Diversity and dealing with global change; and
7. CALL on the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to address the matter of good governance in the programme of work for protected areas, in particular with regard to capacity building needs and exchanges of experiences and lessons learned.
The world is experiencing rapid and profound social, technological, cultural, demographic and environmental changes and governance arrangements that were appropriate in the last century may no longer be appropriate or sustainable in the face of the trends and challenges that countries and civil society will have to contend with in this century. There is also a worldwide trend towards decentralising authority and responsibility for the management of protected areas, including increasing efforts to develop partnerships among different sectors of society and to provide for greater engagement of civil society in decision making related to protected areas.
The Ecosystem Approach endorsed as a basic framework by the Convention on Biological Diversity (Decision V/6) supports a diversity of governance types since it recognises the centrality of social, cultural, economic and institutional factors in promoting conservation, and calls for decentralising management to the lowest appropriate level and stakeholder involvement in conservation.
Recognition of different types of governance is important to help fulfil the requirements of national protected area systems as called for under Article 8a of the Convention on Biological Diversity and in particular to ensure the bio-physical connectivity essential to conserve biological diversity. Thus, protected area systems combining different governance types are likely to be more resilient, responsive and adaptive under various threats to conservation, and thus more sustainable and effective in the long run.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Governance: New ways of working together at the Vth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
1. RECOMMEND governments and civil society:
a. Recognise the legitimacy and importance of a range of governance types for protected areas as a means to strengthen the management and expand the coverage of the world’s protected areas, to address gaps in national protected area systems, to promote connectivity at landscape and seascape level, to enhance public support for such areas, and to strengthen the relationship between people and the land, freshwater and the sea; and2. REQUEST the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) to refine its Protected Area Categorization System to include a governance dimension that recognises the legitimacy and diversity of approaches to protected area establishment and management and makes explicit that a variety of governance types can be used to achieve conservation objectives and other goals;
b. Promote relationships of mutual respect, communication, and support between and amongst people managing and supporting protected areas under all different governance types;
3. RECOMMEND that this "governance dimension" recognise at least four broad governance types applicable to all IUCN protected area categories:
a. Government managed;4. URGE the Chairs of IUCN’s Commissions to establish an inter-Commission working group on protected area governance with membership especially from the WCPA, the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) and the Commission on Environmental Law (CEL), to advance a comprehensive programme of work, including:
b. Co-managed (i.e. multi-stakeholder management);
c. Privately managed; and
d. Community managed (community conserved areas);
a. Research that supports, improves and evaluates the management effectiveness and the good governance attributes of all protected area governance types (especially including participatory research approaches);5. ENCOURAGE the UNEP/World Conservation Monitoring Centre to expand its data collection and dissemination programme to recognise all governance types, particularly areas of conservation value established and managed outside government protected area networks, such as community conserved areas and private protected areas;
b. Analysis of the type and extent of support required in terms of legislation, policies and practices to improve protected area governance;
c. Compilation, analysis and sharing of relevant experiences and best practices; and
d. Capacity building initiatives;
6. CALL on the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to:
a. RECOGNISE the legitimacy of all these governance types;
b. ADOPT legal and policy measures to reinforce the management effectiveness and good governance attributes of these governance types; and
c. UNDERTAKE initiatives to strengthen relevant institutional and human capacities, particularly mutual learning among protected area institutions and sites engaged in similar efforts.
Evaluation of management effectiveness can increase the transparency and accountability of protected area management, thus assisting in cooperative management and enhancing community support. It can also provide a more logical and transparent basis for planning and for allocating resources.
At the same time there is increasing interest by governments, management agencies, NGOs and others to develop and apply systems to evaluate the effectiveness of management of protected areas.
There is also an increasing number of international institutions, governments, donors, non-governmental organisations and members of civil society that are asking for more rigorous guarantees of effective management; however there has been little enthusiasm for any overall “certification” scheme for protected areas.
In this regard, recommendation 17 (Protected area categories, management effectiveness, and threats), paragraphs c, d, and e, which was adopted at the IVth World Parks Congress (Caracas, 1992), inter alia, called for IUCN to develop a system for monitoring management effectiveness of protected areas and for managers and others to apply such a system and report on the findings of monitoring. In response, IUCN has prepared the publication Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management of protected areas (IUCN, 2000), which provides a framework and principles for evaluation of management effectiveness.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Stream on Management effectiveness: Maintaining Protected Areas for now and the future at the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Af-rica (8-17 September 2003):
1. AFFIRM the importance of monitoring and evaluation of management effectiveness as a basis for improved protected area management and more transparent and accountable reporting;
2. CALL on states and protected area managers (including government, private sector, NGOs, indigenous and local community managers) to adopt, as a routine component of protected area management, systems for evaluating management effectiveness that accord with the principles set out in the IUCN World Comission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Best Practice Series publication No. 6 Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management of protected areas;
3. RECOMMEND that IUCN’s members, in considering the IUCN Quadrennial Programme Framework for 2005-2008, ensure that it fosters cooperation with relevant partners for the purpose of undertaking a work programme on management effectiveness evaluation, which would include:
a. Mechanisms to facilitate research and development on appropriate indicators, standards and methodologies for assessing aspects of protected area management (e.g. biodiversity conservation, ecological integrity, social, economic and governance aspects). This research should incorporate experience of protected area managers and take account of differences in various environments and parts of the world;
b. Development of an overall minimum standards system for protected area management effectiveness globally. This system should allow for differences in capacity, conditions for measurement, and methodologies across the globe, yet provide a consistent overall metric of management effectiveness that can complement measures of protected area coverage and distribution across nations and across biomes around the world;
c. Development of a database of management effectiveness assessment initiatives and experts in management effectiveness assessment, This information should be made available to State Parties, protected area managers, relevant NGOs and other protected area institutions;
d. Analysis of the results of management effectiveness evaluations to identify common regional or global trends and dissemination of findings to states/management agencies;
e. Preparation of advice and best practice guidelines to states and protected area agencies on the most effective means of addressing significant and widespread threats to protected areas such as alien invasive species, unsustainable resource harvesting and climate change;
f. Development and promotion by IUCN of minimum standards for evaluation systems and practices for assessing management effectiveness; and
g. Inclusion of management effectiveness tracking in global databases of protected areas;
4. RECOMMEND that WCPA, on request and subject to availability of
relevant experts and necessary resources, provides guidance in selection
of evaluation systems and/or undertakes review of evaluation systems for
protected area agencies;
5. ENCOURAGE states, protected area managers and NGOs to report on the outcomes of management effectiveness evaluations in an open and transparent way. Such reporting will help to build an informed (and hence more supportive) community and will assist in regional, national and global priority setting;
6. RECOMMEND that WCPA provide guidance on the similarities and differences between management effectiveness evaluation and State of Environment and State of Protected Area Reporting in order to enhance application of these tools in the appropriate circumstances;
7. CALL on states, protected area managers, funding bodies and NGOs to use strategies for meaningful community involvement in management effectiveness evaluation, and to include analysis of the impact of protected areas on local and indigenous communities, and the effectiveness of their involvement in management as part of the evaluation;
8. RECOMMEND that funding bodies promote the use of transparent, appropriate and credible management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas or systems where support is being provided and provide financial and other necessary support for implementation of such systems;
9. ENCOURAGE and support the establishment and strengthening of international efforts to undertake global assessments and tracking of threats to protected areas as a basis for more informed national and international policy and action;
10. RECOMMEND that the WCPA task force on certification of protected areas investigates and makes recommendations on the suitability of and options for developing a process to move forward toward a proactive monitoring, auditing and evaluation including:
a. Development of guidelines for minimum standards for each IUCN protected area category – with encouragement for individual countries and/or regions to adapt these to their own situations;11. RECOMMEND that The World Heritage Centre and WCPA management effectiveness theme develop a process to strengthen the reactive monitoring scheme and to investigate options for a more formal certification scheme for Natural WH Sites;
b. Development of certification or verification schemes relating to management effectiveness for protected areas to give guarantees that these are meeting minimum standards to be included in national protected area networks; and
c. Explores a certification scheme for management effectiveness for the CBD;
12. RECOMMEND that WCPA works with partners to investigate options for outlining benefits and costs of certification and encourages protected area effectiveness assessment methods and certification schemes to include wider benefits from protected areas such as environmental services;
13. RECOMMEND to the parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) include policies and actions relating to evaluation of management effectiveness when they develop policies and a work program on protected areas. These policies and work programs could encourage Parties to the CBD to:
a. ADOPT and INSTITUTIONALIZE periodic system wide protected area management effectiveness assessments by 2005, where:14. RECOMMEND that the Secretariats of relevant Conventions such as the World Heritage Convention and the UNEP Regional Seas Conventions, adopt a consistent and compatible reporting framework that includes the results of management effectiveness evaluation.i. The results of such assessments should be integrated into the reporting requirements of the Parties reporting to the Conference of the Parties; andb. PROMOTE the adoption and implementation of best practice systems for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas at the local, national and regional level and support this through appropriate capacity building activities;
ii. The reports should be based on the credible assessment systems;
c. ENCOURAGE State Parties, protected area managers and relevant NGOs and protected area institutions to methodically and transparently use the outcomes of management effectiveness evaluation and state of parks reporting to improve management of protected areas at local, regional and state/ national level; and
d. CO-OPERATE with IUCN and WCPA in research, development and promotion of best practice systems and indicators and standards for evaluating management ef-fectiveness of protected areas; and
Publication of the Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories by IUCN in 1994 provides advice on the new system agreed to at Buenos Aires. Also, the results of the research work (Speaking a Common Language) undertaken in preparation for the 5th World Parks Congress on the impact of the 1994 categories system, provide insights.
Finally, the new ways in which the category system is now being used - none of which was clearly envisaged in 1994 – serve to raise the importance of the system, for example:
1. DECLARE that the purpose of the IUCN protected area management categories system is to provide an internationally-recognized conceptual and practical framework for planning, management and monitoring of protected areas;
2. REAFFIRM that in the application of the management categories IUCN’s definition of a protected area (“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”) must always be met as the overarching criterion;
3. REAFFIRM the value to conservation of the 1994 system of protected area management categories, and in particular that the six category, objectives-based approach should remain the essential foundation for the system;
4. REAFFIRM that the integrity of the protected area categories system is the responsibility of IUCN, and that it should reinforce its efforts, through its membership as well as through WCPA and other commissions, to promote the understanding of the full range of IUCN categories at national and international levels;
5. ADVISE, however, that the new uses of the system require that IUCN, working in collaboration with partner organisations, urgently produce, through an open, participatory process, a revised, up-dated edition of the 1994 guidelines, which:
a. Builds on the existing objectives set out for each category, including by improved summary definitions of the categories;6. ADVISE further that IUCN, in collaboration with partner organisations, urgently invest in awareness raising and capacity building about the use of the categories system, based upon the foregoing and working with partners such as UNEP/World Conservation Monitoring Centre, through training, case studies and additional published guidance (linked to the updated 1994 guidelines);
b. Includes a set of criteria and principles which should underpin the categories system and its application;
c. Explains how the categories relate to ecological networks and wider regional planning;
d. Considers removing generic names of protected areas from the category system, as these may have different meanings in different countries, and using only management objectives and numbers for each category;
e. Redesigns the “matrix of management objectives and IUCN protected area management categories” in the 1994 edition, so as to relate better to current experience in protected areas;
f. Gives more emphasis to marine and freshwater protected areas;
g. Gives more consideration to the linkage between protected areas and sustainable livelihoods;
h. Gives greater recognition of cultural and spiritual values, so that the full range of special qualities of each protected area are fully recognized;
i. Provides guidance on the inclusion, within the system, of private protected areas, and of those managed by local and indigenous communities;
j. Enables protected areas to have more than one category when zones within them have been legally defined for different management objectives;
k. Suggests how protected areas, which are assigned to their category by primary management objectives, can also be described by reference to the organisation responsible for their governance, the effectiveness of their management and the degree to which they retain their naturalness;
l. Clarifies the recommended process by which categories are assigned to protected areas; and
m. Makes these revised guidelines available in IUCN’s official languages and also in other languages as permitted by available resources;
7. RECOMMEND that in such awareness raising and capacity building, priority should be given to:
a. Advocating an open, inclusive and transparent procedure for assignment of protected areas to categories for application at the national level, including an IUCN review procedure in relation to reporting;8. URGE IUCN to develop a monitoring and research programme around the use of the categories, including the legal implications of using categories in legislation, and the implications of the categories system for indigenous and community rights;
b. Providing supplementary guidance on Category VI protected areas;
c. Providing supplementary guidance on the application of the categories in the marine and freshwater environments; and
d. Promoting the use of the categories for protected areas in forest, marine and freshwater environments;
9. CONSIDER that the foregoing would be aided by the creation of a task force on the protected area management categories within the WCPA Management Effectiveness theme;
10. URGE IUCN to work with parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in preparation for, and during the CBD/COP7, so as to secure:
a. Inter-governmental recognition of the IUCN protected area management categories system as the international method for categorizing protected areas; and11. Further URGE IUCN to work with the parties and Scientific and Technical Review Panel of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands to promote application of the categories to the global network of Wetlands of International Importance;
b. Agreement to use the system as a basis for national data collection and reporting to the CBD Secretariat on protected areas;
12. CALL on all governments to recognise the importance of the decisions that they take on category assignment, made at the request of IUCN and UNEP/WCMC, and to undertake this exercise in a timely manner through open, inclusive, and transparent procedures;
13. RECOMMEND that UNEP/WCMC reviews the format used in the UN List of protected areas to depict clearly all protected area categories and associated information; and
14. RECOMMEND that IUCN’s Inter-sessional Programme Framework for 2005-2008 accommodate a programme of work to further develop and promote the IUCN protected area categories system, which will be considered by IUCN’s members at the 3rd World Conservation Congress (November 2004).
While some remedial measures and tools exist to assist stakeholders to prevent or mitigate this conflict, most of this information is strongly site and species /genera specific, and is not widely or easily accessed by protected area managers who most closely confront HWC. In addition, the lessons learned in these specific sites and within taxonomic groups often have applicability across a wider spectrum. However, there is no existing international forum to address HWC across taxonomic groups, disciplines and geographic regions with a mandate to develop and share lessons, tools and strategies to prevent and mitigate the ecological, social and economic costs of human-wildlife conflict.
By better addressing human-wildlife conflict issues, through coordinated global, national, regional and local action, we, as a conservation community, will be able to more successfully conserve protected areas and wildlife, mitigate the economic and social costs to local communities, and thus realize the “benefits beyond boundaries.”
IUCN has recognized the importance of this issue in the support given to the realization of the workshop “Creating Coexistence between Humans and Wildlife: Global Perspectives on Local Efforts to Address Human-Wildlife Conflict”, with linkages in the Landscapes/Seascapes Stream & Community and Equity Cross-cutting theme.
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the Steam on Linkages in the Landscape/Seascape at the Vth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
RECOMMEND that local, national, and international conservation organizations, governments, non-governmental organizations, interest groups and specifically IUCN, to:
1. SUPPORT the establishment of an international forum that will act as a global network for addressing human-wildlife conflict issues where IUCN members, CBD parties, protected area managers, communities and other stakeholders can collaborate to share lessons, resources and expertise and continue the development of appropriate approaches and strategies, by working across taxa, disciplines and geographic regions;
2. STRENGTHEN the capacity of protected area managers, communities, stakeholders and others to better prevent and mitigate human-wildlife conflict in all regions in which it occurs;
3. ENSURE national and international cooperation in developing and supporting programs to address human-wildlife conflict among institutions responsible for conservation in conflict areas;
4. ENCOURAGE governments and conservation authorities at the local, national, and international levels to recognize the pressing need to alleviate these conflicts, prioritise management decisions, planning and action to prevent and mitigate human-wildlife conflict, and incorporate global, regional and local mechanisms to ensure proper addressing of these issues; and
5. ENCOURAGE national and international funding organizations to designate and allocate adequate financial resources to support programmes targeted at preventing and mitigating human-wildlife conflicts.
In addition to a number of prominent conservation success stories, there have been several important advances in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention over the past 30 years including:
Therefore, PARTICIPANTS in the World Heritage cross-cutting theme at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003):
1. DECLARE their wholehearted support for the World Heritage Convention as a highly effective international instrument, which provides invaluable international reinforcement for local, national and regional efforts to protect the world’s outstanding natural and cultural heritage;
2. ENCOURAGE countries that have not yet joined the World Heritage Convention to do so at the earliest opportunity;
3. NOTE with appreciation the action of the International Council on Mining and Metals and Shell in declaring that they will treat World Heritage sites as ‘no-go’ areas for their exploration and extractive activities and calls on all other members of the mining, oil and gas industries to make the same commitment;
4. CALL on the international community to give special protection to World Heritage sites in regions affected by war and civil unrest;
5. URGE the international community, including the private sector, to recognise and respect World Heritage sites for their international legal status and for their global significance to this and future generations, ensuring in particular that they do not promote or support activities that threaten them;
6. CALL on the World Heritage Committee, the States Parties, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, IUCN (and the other Advisory Bodies, International Council on Monuments and Sites and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, as appropriate) to: <