Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm

Abstract

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) plays a global leadership role in defining different types of protected areas, and influencing how protected area systems develop and are managed. Following the 1992 World Parks Congress, a new system of categorizing protected areas was developed. New categories were introduced, including categories that allowed resource extraction. Since that time there has been rapid growth in the global numbers and size of protected areas, with most growth being shown in the new categories. Furthermore, the IUCN has heralded a 'new paradigm' of protected areas, which became the main focus of the 2003 World Parks Congress. The paradigm focuses on benefits to local people to alleviate poverty, reengineering protected areas professionals, and an emphasis on the interaction between humans and nature through a focus on the new IUCN protected area categories.The purpose of this paper is to examine critically the implications of the new categories and paradigm shift in light of the main purpose of protected areas, to protect wild biodiversity. Wild biodiversity will not be well served by adoption of this new paradigm, which will devalue conservation biology, undermine the creation of more strictly protected reserves, inflate the amount of area in reserves and place people at the centre of the protected area agenda at the expense of wild biodiversity. Only IUCN categories I−IV should be recognized as protected areas. The new categories, namely culturally modified landscapes (V) and managed resource areas (VI), should be reclassified as sustainable development areas. To do so would better serve both the protection of wild biodiversity and those seeking to meet human needs on humanized landscapes where sustainable development is practised.

Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target

“…Some governments and corporations have concerns about expansion of areas dedicated to biodiversity because they are seen as being economically unavailable for other uses. This concern drives political interest for recognition of areas with lower standards of protection (Locke and Dearden 2005). There is perceived political value for achieving Target 11 with the least economic costs, resulting in efforts to achieve the target by merely re-branding existing area-based conservation initiatives.…”

“…These areas will not necessarily result in real gains in biodiversity conservation as envisioned in the CBD's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. While many conservation advocates promote PA expansion as a critical factor for conservation success (see Chape et al 2005;Locke and Dearden 2005), the inclusion of areas with limited conservation effectiveness to advance political objectives will undermine the intent of the CBD's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi process.…”

Evolving national park models: The emergence of an economic imperative and its effect on the contested nature of the ‘national’ park concept in Northern Ireland

“…While this did not amount to an additional explicit socio-economic development aim for national parks, it did in effect, give greater prominence to development within national parks but, importantly, not at the expense of conservation: the Environment Act (1995) endorsed the Sandford Principle (McCarthy et al 2002) whereby in situations of conflict between the park aims, greater weigh should be given to 'conserve natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage'. Because of the adoption of the Sandford Principle this model of national park, according to Locke and Dearden (2005), only narrowly fulfils the definition of a protected area. Furthermore, a DEFRA Circular (2010: 5) presents a strong sustainable development vision for English national parks: by 2030 they will be places where '[s]ustainable development can be seen in action'.…”

Compensation Payments for Downsides Generated by Protected Areas

“…In addition, the inclusion of local communities in the designation process and decision making related to compensations is typically overlooked, a situation that further hampers implementation of conservation goals (Abakerli 2001;Trakolis 2001;Liu et al 2010). Thus, new approaches are forthcoming that link protected areas with the wider landscape and its socio-economic patterns by adopting measures that include the needs of the local people (Locke and Dearden 2005;Naughton-Treves et al 2005;Tumusiime et al 2011).…”