Ecological and Social Outcomes of a New Protected Area in Tanzania

Hall, Jaclyn; Burgess, Neil D.; Rantala, Salla; Vihemäki, Heini; Jambiya, George; Gereau, Roy E.; Makonda, Fortunatus B. S.; Njilima, Fadhili; Sumbi, Peter; Kizaji, Adam

doi:10.1111/cobi.12335

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other loses suffered in Nepal's Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve include a compensation of less than 60% of what their land was worth and having average crop yields drop after resettlement to less than 50% of previous amounts (Lam and Paul, 2014). ICDPs often report economic loses spread across communities as in the Derema Forest Corridor in Tanzania's East Usambara Mountains (Hall et al, 2014). Ferraro and Pattanayak asked whether ICDPs could be spending ''money for nothing '' (2006).…”

Section: Perceptions Of Human Integration Problemsmentioning

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: Perceptions Of Human Integration Problemsmentioning

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

“…established conservation corridor (Hall et al, 2014). This example also illustrates why it is important that gender is mainstreamed in the whole equity and conservation discourse.…”

Section: Parks Vol 222 November 2016mentioning

confidence: 88%

Untitled

2016

PARKS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Indeed, as shown in Figure 3, effective protection inside PAs might have prompted protection across the unprotected buffer zones surrounding those PAs. Remaining governance challenges could be designing and implementing compensation schemes for conservation-related displacements of people in buffer areas and sometimes inside PA territories [26].…”

Section: Deforestation and Isolation Of Pasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deforestation and Connectivity among Protected Areas of Tanzania

Gizachew

Rizzi

Shirima

et al. 2020

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected Areas (PAs) in Tanzania had been established originally for the goal of habitat, landscape and biodiversity conservation. However, human activities such as agricultural expansion and wood harvesting pose challenges to the conservation objectives. We monitored a decade of deforestation within 708 PAs and their unprotected buffer areas, analyzed deforestation by PA management regimes, and assessed connectivity among PAs. Data came from a Landsat based wall-to-wall forest to non-forest change map for the period 2002–2013, developed for the definition of Tanzania’s National Forest Reference Emissions Level (FREL). Deforestation data were extracted in a series of concentric bands that allow pairwise comparison and correlation analysis between the inside of PAs and the external buffer areas. Half of the PAs exhibit either no deforestation or significantly less deforestation than the unprotected buffer areas. A small proportion (10%; n = 71) are responsible for more than 90% of the total deforestation; but these few PAs represent more than 75% of the total area under protection. While about half of the PAs are connected to one or more other PAs, the remaining half, most of which are Forest Reserves, are isolated. Furthermore, deforestation inside isolated PAs is significantly correlated with deforestation in the unprotected buffer areas, suggesting pressure from land use outside PAs. Management regimes varied in reducing deforestation inside PA territories, but differences in protection status within a management regime are also large. Deforestation as percentages of land area and forested areas of PAs was largest for Forest Reserves and Game Controlled areas, while most National Parks, Nature Reserves and Forest Plantations generally retained large proportions of their forest cover. Areas of immediate management concern include the few PAs with a disproportionately large contribution to the total deforestation, and the sizeable number of PAs being isolated. Future protection should account for landscapes outside protected areas, engage local communities and establish new PAs or corridors such as village-managed forest areas.

show abstract

Ecological and Social Outcomes of a New Protected Area in Tanzania

Cited by 26 publications

References 26 publications

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI

Untitled

Deforestation and Connectivity among Protected Areas of Tanzania

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About