What Do the IUCN Categories Really Protect? A Case Study of the Alpine Regions in Spain

Abstract

Protected area (PA) coverage is used as an indicator of biodiversity protection worldwide. The effectiveness of using PAs as indicators has been questioned due to the diversity of categories encompassed by such designations, especially in PAs established for purposes other than biodiversity protection. Although international standards have been developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the policies on the ground have been developed independently of the IUCN categories, thus making the IUCN categories dubious measures of biodiversity conservation. Management plans are crucial for the effective management of parks and for guidance on how biodiversity maintenance should be prioritized relative to other goals. We therefore analyzed the aims and regulations of the management plans of alpine PAs in Spain as a first step in evaluating conservation performance. We used content analysis and correspondence analysis of instrumental variables (CAiv) to assess how aims and regulations vary in relation to three explanatory factors: IUCN categories, vegetation zones and autonomous communities. We found that the aims of many parks were vague, without clear indications of how to prioritize biodiversity goals. Furthermore, only 50% of the parks studied had any management plan, which strengthens our argument concerning the lack of clear guidance in PA management. Although certain aims were correlated with the IUCN categories, the regulations showed no clear relationship to international policies, which indicates that these aims do not necessarily influence management practices. Devolution to autonomous communities could be one explanation for the large variation in management practices among parks. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of such management policies on biodiversity. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2013, 5 2368

Monitoring and Assessment of Protected Areas’ Management Capacities in the Republic of Serbia

“…IUCN categories cannot be automatically transferred and implemented to the national level, but rather an analysis should be performed for each individual protected area. A similar pattern emerges in other countries since management is adjusted to already developed national systems [41], and not to the IUCN categories [17]. A recommendation is that the IUCN system implementation is used as a means of improving the national categorization system, as well as for management of protected areas in general [30].…”

“…Additional indicators were taken as means for assisting in the analysis of establishing protected area management effectiveness. Clear, measurable and agreed goals enable the assessment of effectiveness and identification of uncertainty in management practices and increase the protected areas management effectiveness [17]. The analysis shows that only two protected areas have all the examined effectiveness indicators (100/100, Appendix A, Figure A1), thereby implying the response regarding the model for good management.…”

“…A significant threat to protected areas is that certain protected areas have only weak regulations and enforcement capacity [17]. These protected areas are referred to as 'paper parks' [18] since it is considered that they are protected 'only on paper', and they often fail to accomplish the goals of nature conservation due to the lack of legal and financial support [14,19,20].…”

Severe human pressures in the Sundaland biodiversity hotspot

“…The IUCN categorizes PAs into six groups globally. Each category is based on different levels of protection and restrictiveness of use (Muñoz & Hausner, ). Categories I–IV are managed for biodiversity protection, while Categories V and VI also allow sustainable use of resources.…”

Planos de manejo de áreas de proteção ambiental e a avaliação ambiental estratégica: diretrizes e procedimentos para uma base metodológica

“…Apesar do aumento das áreas protegidas no mundo, isto não tem representado uma diminuição na perda da biodiversidade (BUTCHART, et al 2010;LIU et al, 2001;MUÑOZ, HAUSNER, 2013). É preciso mais do que porcentagem de cobertura de áreas protegidas.…”