Conservation Value of Multiple‐Use Areas in East Africa

Abstract

Despite wide agreement that strictly protected areas (World Conservation Union categories I-III) are the best strategy for conserving biodiversity, they are limited in extent and exclude many species of key conservation importance. In contrast, multiple-use management areas (categories IV-VI), comprising >60% of the world's protected-area network, are often considered of little value to biodiversity conservation, particularly in Africa, where they typically contain few charismatic large mammals. We sampled small mammals, amphibians, birds, butterflies, and trees at 41 sites along a four-step gradient of increasing human activity and decreasing conservation protection, from a well-protected Tanzanian national park to nonintensive agricultural land. Although preliminary, our results indicate that species richness of these five taxa did not decline along this gradient, but different management areas, occupying areas of largely similar habitat, hosted distinct communities of each taxon. Differences in species composition in the absence of manifest differences in species richness highlight the importance of developing landscape-scale conservation strategies and the danger of using either a limited suite of indicator taxa or umbrella species as surrogates for biodiversity. Although strictly protected areas perform a unique and vital conservation service in East Africa by protecting large mammals, areas that allow varied resource extraction activities still possess vital and complementary conservation value.

Supporting conservation with biodiversity research in sub-Saharan Africa’s human-modified landscapes

“…For example, Caro (2001) illustrated greater diversity and abundance of the small mammal assemblage in the agricultural matrix outside Katavi National Park, Tanzania than inside, a pattern also found for Niokolo Koba National Park, Senegal (Konecny et al 2010). Richness of birds, amphibians, small mammals, butterflies, and trees is similar at 41 sites across a land-use gradient from Katavi National Park to nonintensive agricultural land; however, composition changes along the gradient, and although the PA holds some unique species, some species found outside the PA are absent within (Gardner et al 2007). Thus, agricultural mosaics may contribute to greater gamma diversity at the landscape scale; nonetheless understanding the conservation implications of higher gamma diversity may require a regional or global perspective on species rarity and commonness.…”

Conserving Wildlife in African Landscapes: Kenya’s Ewaso Ecosystem

“…First, many valued species cannot be effectively conserved on the few increasingly isolated patches of lands on which biodiversity conservation is the primary land use objective (Gardner et al, 2007). This is particularly true for species that require extremely large areas and access to many different habitats to persist, i.e., many of the large herbivores and carnivores common in Kenya.…”

“…Gardner et al (2007) recently demonstrated that strictly protected areas created for large mammals in Tanzania were ineffective at conserving other taxa (e.g., butterflies and birds). The same is likely true for the Ewaso Nyiro.…”

“…Workshop participants agreed that planning based on all nine features was necessary to ensure that other forms of biodiversity, critical ecological functions (e.g., herbivore migration), and services (e.g., production of clean water) were well protected. Therefore, the planning process (especially steps 4-6; see Box 1) should include consideration of the remaining five features (i.e., reticulated giraffe, Jackson's Hartebeest, acacia-grassland mosaic, dry upland/montane forest, and the hydrological system) and possibly examine how well these surrogates represent a wider range of taxa (Gardner et al, 2007). The process of setting quantitative targets, producing the component maps (e.g., current importance), and prioritizing actions for each feature doubtlessly would be enlightening and may significantly shift near-term priorities.…”

Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes

“…Moreover, some of the commonest assessment methods, such as the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, METT [43] and RAPPAM [44], base assessment mainly on the opinions of key stakeholders (usually the protected area manager and staff). Many academics, NGOs and governments assume that category V (and category VI) protected areas are less effective in conserving biodiversity than stricter approaches in protected areas [45,46]. NGOs like WWF and Conservation International often simply omit categories V and VI from ecoregional plans and gap analyses, at least in the tropics.…”