Conservation Theory Meets Practice

Chicchon, Avecita

doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.00200.x

Cited by 30 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other observations have surfaced about the lack of fit between a country's selected PA categories like biosphere reserves and field realities (Leroux et al, 2010). There are also examples where indigenous people entered into cooperative collaboration, protected their local reserve's resources, and even agreed to assign part of their land as ''no people'' zones (Chicchón, 2000). However, success or failure hinges on the selected rating factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI

Shafer

2015

Global Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t s• Although IUCN protected area management categories V-VI were adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in 2003, the fears of some skeptics have not been resolved.• Although promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people may be linked, tradeoffs are inevitable.• The expected win-win success stories for categories V-VI have not been abundant although evaluation methods are still unrefined. • Categories V-VI will be more effective for biological diversity conservation if the buffer zones have land use restrictions and adequate governance.• Local participation in buffer zone management is a wise strategy but enforcement by protected area authorities, and some coercion, may be essential to insure that land use practices are biologically optimal for the core area and its buffer zone. a b s t r a c tThe debate about the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) protected area management categories V-VI has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. Even though these two categories were officially adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003, and approved at the Fourth IUCN World Parks Conference in Barcelona, in 2008, this has not completely alleviated the fears of some debate participants. The question persists, can the perceived dual role of these two categories in promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people actually work in synergy? One aspect of categories V-VI needs careful scrutiny: buffer zone land use restrictions and adequate governance. Although local participation in buffer zone management marks a wise cooperative policy, some coercion and enforcement by protected area (PA) authorities seems essential to assure that land use practices in the buffer zone are optimal for core area biota. Buffer zone policy and governance is key to PA biological diversity conservation success.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI

Shafer

2015

Global Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No arrests have ever been made and no fines have been levied. Government agencies themselves too often undermine PAs, such as when they issue mining or petroleum concessions within parks (Chicchón, 2000). Successful PA management will require substantial increases in financial and legal support.…”

Section: Currentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, managers at some PAs attempted to prevent resource use by force (although in some cases use by indigenous people was allowed) ). Thus, small-scale farmers were evicted from Pacaya-Samiria, Rio Abiseo, and Machalilla, and Brazil nut harvesters from Pampas del Heath (Chicchón, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding protected areas and incorporating human resource use: a study of 15 forest parks in Ecuador and Peru

Naughton‐Treves

Álvarez-Berríos

Brandon

et al. 2006

Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from legal records, management plans, and interviews with 63 local experts reveal the substantial expansion of 15 protected areas (PAs) of forest in Ecuador and Peru during the last two decades. Combining results for these PAs, the area under protection increased by over half, from 5,760,814 to 8,972,896 ha, with the Amazonian PAs adding the greatest expanse. Most of this expanded land was legally designated for strict protection; however, in practice, human resource use and settlement are widespread. Hunting is the most common resource use, followed by logging and livestock grazing. Mining and petroleum extraction also occur in four of the 15 PAs. Together these activities on average affect approximately 30% of the area within eight Peruvian PAs and approximately 45% of the area of seven Ecuadorian PAs, far exceeding previous deforestation estimates. By expanding these PAs, Ecuadorian and Peruvian conservationists have significantly improved the coverage of key ecosystems and endangered habitats. However, they now face the daunting task of managing larger, more complex protected areas that de facto include thousands of local people. Conservation agencies in both countries are turning toward land-use zoning within PAs to integrate resource use with biodiversity conservation.

show abstract

“…Thus, whereas people-centred participation leads to development that is truly empowering, planner-centred participation tends to be nominal with local people acting as the passive recipients of development. Critics of the participatory approach argued that it will not succeed if strong alliances are not built on mutual respect and recognition of each group's particular interests (Chicchon, 2000); and if the local population is heavily dependent on local resources, as in the tropical rainforest of Africa (Terborgh & van Schaik, 2002). Mustalahti and Lund (2009) noted that success of the model may differ from country to country as security of rights and access to benefits by local communities may not be the same among countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%