=======
To obtain copies of
the book of ¡°China¡¯s Protected Areas¡±,
please check the web of www.chinabiodiversity.com or contact: csis@ioz.ac.cn.
Protected Area Task Force of CCICED
2003~2004
Co-chairs:
Peter
Schei¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Director,
Fridtjof Nansen Insititut, Norway
WANG
Sung ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Professor,
Institute of Zoology, CAS
International Members:
Andrew
Laurie¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ CTA,
GEF/UNDP Wetland Conservation and Sustainable Development Project
John
MacKinnon¡¡¡¡ Director, ASEAN Regional
Center for biodiversity Conservation
Jeff
McNeely¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Chief Scientist, IUCN
Russell
Mittermeier President,
Conservation International
National Members:
Michael
Lau ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Director,
Kadoorie Botanical Garden & Farms, HK
LU
Zhi¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Professor, Beijing University
SHEN
Xiaohui¡¡¡¡¡¡ State Forestry Administration
WANG
Xi¡¡¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Professor, Shanghai Jiaotong
University
XU Jintao¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Ass.
Res. Prof., Institute of Geographical Sciences & Natural Resources, CAS
Coordinator:
XIE
Yan¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Ass. Res. Prof., Institute of
Zoology, CAS
Special thanks to those who
attended the PATF workshops and commented the reports:
Robert Anderson, Andreas Benthal, William
Bleisch, Bram Busstra, Bosco Chan, CHEN Changdu, CHEN Liwei, CHEN Qing, CUI
Guofa, DENG Weijie, FAN
Enyuan, John Fellowes, HAN Xiao, Stein Hansen, HE Jianxiang, LI
Lifeng, LI Rusheng, LI Se, LI Shengzhi, LI Zhong, Henrik Lindhjem, MA Jiqun, MA
Li, Josef Margraf, Adrian Philips, QIN Liyi, QING Jianhua, Kishore Rao, REN
Xiaodong, REN
Yong, David Sheppard, SONG Chaoshu, SONG Tao, SUN Shan,
TAO Siming, Haakon Vennemo, WANG Bin, WANG Bingluo, WANG Dehui, WANG Longfu, WANG Panyan, WANG
Xianpu, WU Jian, YE
Shufeng, YU
Yongqing, YU Zhidi, YUAN Jun, ZHANG Yingyi, ZHENG Yisheng, ZHONG
Mingchuan, ZHOU Haili, ZHOU Jiemin, ZUO Xiaoping
Protected
Area Task Force Report to CCICED 2004
Using Protected Areas to
Extend Economic Benefits to
Rural China
-- Evaluation of the Protected
Area System of China and Policy
Recommendations for Rationalizing the System
¡¡
The future of China
depends on maintaining healthy ecosystems. Natural or reconstructed ecosystems
ensure China¡¯s supplies of fresh water, energy and nutrients, its banks of crop
pollinators, pest-control agents and genetic resources, and its capacity to
sequester carbon, maintain quality of life and provide many other essential
goods and services, including flood control. But all these functions can be
disrupted by inappropriate forms of development. Recognizing the many values of
ecosystem services, governments in all parts of the world have allocated
certain sites for maifntaining the biodiversity upon which those services
depend. Such sites, known collectively as ¡°Protected Areas¡±, are managed
through legal or other effective means to deliver long-term benefits to humans.
They help to define the national culture, assist economic development among
rural people, and serve as destinations for tourists. In total and
conservatively estimated, the economic value of ecosystem goods and services is
more than 30% of national GDP, and much of this is linked to protected areas
and their management in the context of the overall landscape and economic
development.
China has made great
progress in establishing protected areas, including nature reserves, scenic
landscape and historical sites, non-hunting areas and forest parks.¡¡ Protected areas now cover over 15 percent of
the country, most of this in the sparsely-populated west. ¡¡However, there has been no comprehensive
evaluation of their actual or possible effectiveness in conserving China¡¯s
biodiversity; preliminary analysis reveals significant gaps in the coverage of
species and habitats, and major problems within the existing system. A large
proportion of the protected areas are small and isolated, limiting their value
for species and ecosystem conservation. Meanwhile many important opportunities
to protect areas for their ecosystem services have been missed.
The protected-areas
system remains isolated from land use plan and economic development programmes
by the government. Protected areas¡¯ management and funding mechanisms are only
weakly linked to the full range of protected-area functions.¡¡ Current legislation and management practices
lead to conflicts with local people, poor enforcement of laws, little or no
coordination with other economic sectors, and, ultimately, loss of ecological
and other protected-area services such as climate regulation, watershed
protection, erosion control, biodiversity conservation and tourism earnings. Together
these will cost China many billions of US$ in potential revenue and social
benefits over the next decades. Many protected-area staff are low in technical
capacity and morale, with dim prospects for career progress. The diverse
functions of protected areas are poorly understood by the general public,
including those who make decisions affecting their viability.
China should work
towards a protected-area system fully representative of the country¡¯s wild
species and ecosystems, and their beneficial functions. It should encompass a
range of management categories, from strictly-protected to multiple-use.¡¡ Such a system will have:
l An advanced and comprehensive legal basis
l Effective coordination with relevant
economic sectors
l Specific means of providing benefits for
people living near to protected areas
l A variety of funding mechanisms clearly
linked to ecosystem services delivered
l A career structure and good training for
protected area staff
l Broad public understanding and support
The Evaluation Report
and a number of technical papers give the Task Force¡¯s recommendations in
detail.¡¡ The key recommendations are as
follows:
a.¡¡ Establish
a comprehensive legal framework for an advanced system of protected areas based
on the full range of protected-area objectives
China should draft a
broad, framework Protected Area Law under which more specific legislation,
including the nature reserve law currently under preparation and regulations on
other types of protected areas should be included. It is also urgent to categorize
protected areas, adapting the IUCN category, to set up different management
objectives according to the overall needs and feasibility.¡¡ The PA Law should specify legal procedures
and criteria for establishment of various categories of protected areas, based on
their management objectives, supervision and evaluation mechanisms, methods of
funding, and participation of local communities and the wider public.
b.¡¡ Design
a new and comprehensive protected-area system and build a high-level
multisectoral alliance to support it
China should design a protected-area
system that designates new protected areas where needed, including strategic corridors
preserving key ecological linkages, and provides for changes in the categories,
zoning or boundaries of existing ones. The PA System Plan should be integrated into
the governmental ¡°Five Year Plans¡± at national, provincial (and municipal) and
county levels. China should also form an above-ministry-level and
cross-sectoral alliance to ensure the integration of protected areas and
overall land use and development planning, coordination among line ministries, and
supervision of protected-area effectiveness. This alliance might follow the
model of the former Environment Protection Committee of the State Council.¡¡ Provincial Environmental Committees should
carry out essential conservation issues such as coordination, supervision and
evaluation of protected-area plans and performance. Regarding supervision and
evaluation of protected areas, some effective international measures for world
heritage site management can be applied.
¡¡
c.¡¡ Implement
a variety of funding mechanisms clearly linked to ecosystem services delivered
China should develop
innovative public funding mechanisms for protected areas that allow payments for
ecological and other services realized at various distances from the protected
areas – at the global, national, regional and local levels, as well as
through direct cash income such as from concessions to tour operators.¡¡ It is recommended that quality assurance
mechanisms be established so that no inappropriate sites are given protected
area status, and plans and results are subjected to strict evaluation linked to
funding. Funding presently available for infrastructure development in
protected areas should be diverted to uses more compatible with their prime
objectives.
d.¡¡ Ensure
that people benefit, and do not suffer, from living near to protected areas
In establishment and
management of protected areas the system must recognize the many relationships
between resource management and the needs of rural people.¡¡ All decisions taken by protected-area
managers must consider the socio-economic context of the protected area, and
protected-area management plans should be prepared on the basis of consultation
with stakeholders, giving particular attention to income sources for local
people. Special attention should be given to the plight of local people whose
relinquishment of the use of protected-area land or other resources has led to
poverty or other difficulties.
Other recommendations
in the report cover the need for a career structure and institutionalized
training in the wide range of skills required by PA staff, and the importance
of an protected area information service system, as well as public information
and involvement in a protected area system.
Taken together the
actions listed in Section 5 of the Evaluation Report will lead China towards a
modern effectively-managed system of protected areas that will provide
sustainable benefits at local, county, province, and national levels, and conserve
biodiversity and ecosystem services. ¡¡Achieving
that aim will require a considerable amount of political will to counteract current
institutional inertia, and narrow and short-term sectoral interests.
1.
Introduction – Broader
Roles For Protected Areas
Almost all countries in the world now recognise the
wisdom of designating protected areas (PAs) for conservation of species and
their habitats, for maintaining natural ecological processes, or for their
geological, scenic or cultural values. All countries that have ratified the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have an obligation under Article 8 to
establish representative systems of PAs. Article 7 of the CBD further requires
member parties to monitor biodiversity and conservation initiatives such as
PAs, and Article 17 obliges member countries to share such information
globally. Under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance,
the World Heritage Convention and the Man and the Biosphere Programme signatory
countries take on further obligations and commitments with regard to PAs.
The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) of
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) compiles information on the
global PA system and, with The World Conservation Union (IUCN), maintains the
United Nations (UN) List of National Parks and Protected Areas. The World
Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of IUCN undertakes the role of assisting
countries to improve the management, monitoring and reporting of their PA system.
Over 11% of the world¡¯s land area of the planet is now designated as some kind
of PA. IUCN have standardised information on PAs by assigning all sites to one
of six recognised management categories and have published guidance on applying
key criteria to assign such categories (See Paper of ¡°Applying the IUCN
Protected Area Category System¡± in China in the book of China¡¯s Protected Area).
At the Vth IUCN World Congress on Protected Areas in
Durban in September 2003 the 3,000 participants, including nearly 100 delegates
from China celebrated, voiced concern and called for urgent action on PAs in
the Durban Accord (see Paper of ¡°Durban Accord of the Vth World Parks Congress¡±
in the book of China¡¯s
Protected Area). They
called for a ¡°new paradigm¡± – a fresh and innovative approach to PAs and
their role in the broader conservation and development agendas that will forge
¡° the synergy between conservation, the maintenance of life support systems and
sustainable development¡±. The delegates expressed concern at the high rate of
loss of natural areas and biodiversity and the lack of PA status for many areas
of irreplaceable and immediately threatened biological diversity, that many PAs
exist more on paper than in practice, that development plans often do not include
attention to PAs, and that many costs of PAs are borne locally –
particularly by poor communities – while benefits accrue elsewhere and
remain underappreciated.
Protected areas perform a wide range of functions and
in a well designed system have specific objectives assigned to them when they
are designated. Usually PAs address a number of subsidiary objectives besides
their main objectives. The following examples indicate the range of possible
objectives:
- Provide
resilience to the environment through maintenance of valuable ecosystem
services to surrounding and downstream areas, through protection of soil
and watersheds for example, and effects on microclimate
- Conserve
populations of animal and plant species in natural environments that allow
for their continued natural selection and evolution. Gene pools of
cultivated plants and domestic animals are important here, and the
conservation of the widest range of species is insurance for the future in
terms of as yet undiscovered sources of medicines, foods or other
products.
- Protect
representative examples of ecosystems
- Protect
important staging areas for migratory species
- Provide
safe breeding areas for species that disperse and in some cases are
harvested elsewhere in a sustainable way
- Protect
local cultural links with nature
- Provide
sites suitable for development of eco-tourism and accompanying economic
opportunities
- Provide
sites where people can experience the aesthetic and therapeutic values of
wilderness, and enjoy themselves in and take inspiration from wild
settings
- Protect
natural resources of plants and animals that can be harvested in a
sustainable way in situ
- Provide
opportunities for public education and awareness and living laboratories
for continued biological exploration and study
- Protect
sources of potentially valuable genetic resources
Almost all
PAs serve important ecological roles quite apart from their original
established objectives. For example, a PA may be established to protect the
breeding area of rare cranes and this biological value remains its chief
conservation objective. However, the site may be a crucial water ¡°sponge¡± in a
river¡¯s catchment and its protection may serve a much greater contribution to
the regional economy through such ecosystem services than its biological
conservation purpose. Recognising this more important ecosystem role affects
how a site should be managed and can help PA managers to align themselves with
much stronger political forces than their own small administration.
The IUCN Categories for Protected Areas (see Paper of
¡°Applying the
IUCN Category System in China¡± in the book of China¡¯s
Protected Area)
demonstrates the range of objectives that different kinds of PAs can meet, and
represents varying degree of human intervention ranging from a strictly
protected area to a sustainable use reserve. It underscores the fact that PAs
belonging to different categories are equally important and no one type is to
be preferred over the other, and facilitates international accounting and comparison.
¡¡
The economic costs of environmental degradation have
been estimated at 4 to 8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in many
developing countries.¡¡ During the 1990s,
670,000 people – almost all of them in developing countries – died
as a result of severe climatic events, 90% of which were water related, such as
floods and droughts.
The economic and social impacts of floods and droughts have
increased over time as a result of human activities that tamper with important
stabilizing and resilience providing ecosystems (e.g. extensive drainage of
wetlands that otherwise would have absorbed floodwater, excessive logging and
deforestation leading to wind- and water erosion with subsequent land slides,
floods and local climate change). Overgrazing of fragile rangelands and
conversion to irrigated agriculture or pastures are leading causes of land
degradation, desertification, loss of biodiversity and loss of economic
opportunities for job creation and poverty alleviation. The World Bank
estimated that direct economic losses in developing countries due to such
ecosystem mismanagement in the 1980s equalled the overall foreign aid
disbursements to those countries; and also estimated that the costs of
preventive, corrective and rehabilitative measures to prevent such damage would
have been between 25% and 50% of the losses.
Establishment and effective management and
maintenance of PAs constitute important and significant preventive, corrective
and rehabilitative actions in national strategies for sustainable economic
development. Box 1 below and Table 1 give some idea of the extent of benefits
and the range of stakeholders in PAs, using Chinese examples.
BOX 1 Earning power
Economic valuation studies have calculated that
Wolong Panda Sanctuary could earn $4 million per annum from ecotourism (Swanson
1999, CCICED report). Analysis of the value of watershed conservation of the
protected forests of Xingshan county in Hubei indicated a service value of
$255.4 million per annum (BWG report to CCICED, 1997).
Table 1. Examples of
the range of benefits and stakeholders for a typical NR established for Giant
Panda conservation in Sichuan, China
|
Function
|
Type of benefit
|
Beneficiaries
|
|
Carbon fixation
|
Reduced global warming
|
Entire world
|
|
Protection of water sources
|
Greater water security
|
300 million people
|
|
Flood reduction
|
20 million flood-prone downstream
people
|
|
Raised water table
|
10,000 local resident farmers
|
|
Eco-tourism destination
|
Raised tourism revenues
|
International airlines, tourism
dept. capital hotels, domestic transport and restaurants, PA income,
opportunities for local community
|
|
Protection of rare plant resources
including useful medicines
|
Enhanced access to genetic
resources
|
Local medicine collectors, CTM
industry, patients dependent on medicines, research community, drug
companies, global community
|
|
Protection of giant panda
|
Existence value and raised tourism
appeal
|
National pride, Tourists, tour
operators and nature lovers worldwide
|
|
Protect wintering migrant birds
|
Preserve threatened global
populations
|
Distant PAs at other end of
migration pathway e.g. in Australia or Siberia.
|
An effective PA system is invaluable to a nation, yet
the people living in the immediate vicinity of PAs often ¡°pay for¡± the benefits
of the nation or of people distant from the PAs - in cities downstream for
example – through being denied economic development opportunities in the
PAs themselves. Some benefits may be very important but the stakeholders very
distant. The stakeholders are not merely the immediate ring of local
communities, so governments have attempted to develop policy that balances the
various benefits and costs in a fair manner for the overall good.
If properly managed and maintained, PAs can provide
significant local employment and business opportunities as wardens and other PA
staff, tourist guides, hotel and restaurant staff, and in transport, handicraft
production and reir facilities and other commercial services. Such
opportunities are particularly important near remote PAs where jobs and income
alternatives are scarce and subsistence livelihoods hard, but where human
populations are high even well managed ecotourism in and around PAs is often
insufficient to provide adequate livelihoods for many.
As the
numbers of PAs worldwide increases and growing development demands further
intensified the pressure on land resources, the capacity of government
departments to cope with the management and conflict issues around so many
sites has become overburdened. As a result, governments have been experimenting
with higher and higher levels of people participation in PA management or
co-management. The results are mixed: much depends on the particular circumstances
at each individual protected area.
Fiscal mechanisms and perverse subsidies that allow
for payments at the local level for the benefits accrued elsewhere are being
tested in various places. There is considerable accumulated experience
worldwide from PAs that have developed innovative funding mechanisms combined
with management regimes to secure a fair share of revenue and benefits for
local stakeholders. Examples of such cases are provided in the document Financing
Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Areas Managers (Financing Protected areas Task Force,
WCPA, 2000) (see Paper of ¡°Financing Protected Areas – Recommendation of the Vth World Parks
Congress¡± in
the book of China¡¯s Protected Area). When choosing between indirect forms of benefits,
such as assistance with establishing new livelihoods for example, and direct
benefits in the form of cash in compensation, for example, for lost
opportunities, there is evidence that direct payments are more effective in
reducing pressure on PAs and at the same time satisfying local residents (see
Paper of ¡°On
Payments to Poor Stakeholders for Sustainable Use of Protected Areas¡± in the book of China¡¯s
Protected Area).
There is no panacea: and responsibility for poverty
alleviation does not lie with PA management authorities alone. Poverty has to
be addressed through a holistic and landscape approach to development.
PAs are important, but are insufficient alone to
guarantee the conservation of biodiversity and the provision of ecological
services. Many of the threats to species and the integrity of natural
ecological processes arise from outside PAs, so conservation requires a
landscape approach that puts PAs and their management in the context of the
surrounding land uses and land use rights. Further, many species, particularly
migratory ones, have ranges far bigger than individual PAs, and their
conservation may require actions at surrounding (or distant) sites. Good
planning can reduce some of the risks: small isolated PAs lose component
species to exploitation, ecological deterioration and demographic catastrophes,
and because small populations can lead to fast genetic drift, inbreeding,
narrowing of genepools and demographic catastrophes (the number of species that
can be supported is proportional to the area of habitat), but such risks can be
managed through corridors linking PAs with other PAs or with patches of
suitable habitat, and through habitat management and other conservation
measures around PAs. In some cases transfer of individuals between isolated
patches of habitat may be desirable to achieve outbreeding. In general the
risks of relying on ex situ conservation actions such as captive breeding, are high: in situ conservation maintains the natural
selection pressures on a species in its normal habitat.
China has been active in the establishment of PAs
since the first nature reserve (NR) was established in Dinghushan in Guangdong
Province in 1956. Since then new PAs have been added to the national coverage,
slowly until 1979 and then rapidly after the Cultural Revolution (see Fig 2 and
paper of ¡°A Review on Management System of China¡¯s Nature
Reserves¡± in
the book of China¡¯s Protected Area). There are now over 1 900 terrestrial NRs covering
over 13% of the land area, 80 marine NRs, and over 2000 other types of PAs,
including forest parks (1 476), scenic landscape and historical sites (SLHS)
(690) that account for a further 2% of the national territory, so China has
designated ca 15% of its land area as protected, somewhat higher than the
global average. Over ten different ministries or administrations now manage PAs
in mainland China (see Fig 3 for breakdown of agencies managing NRs: more
agencies and categories are involved in the territories of Hong Kong, Taiwan
and Macao but these have not been taken into account in the present review.
A few very large NRs in sparsely-populated areas of
Tibet, Xinjiang and Qinghai account for about 30% of this coverage, and the
coverage in other provinces is significantly lower (see Fig 1). Protected area
coverage in the eight westernmost provinces is around 20%, and in the rest of
China the coverage is barely 5%. So the coverage is far from even over the
country. The NR legislation is very restrictive with respect to human
activities in all of the three management zones provided for, but many NRs are
simply superimposed upon a mosaic of land uses that are often in severe
conflict with the legislation. There are too few data to allow a reliable
breakdown of the 15% coverage into an accurate reflection of the level of
protection provided on the ground.
There are several regulations on PAs: the Nature
Reserve Regulations, the Temporary Regulations for Scenic Landscape and
Historical Site, and a Management Measures for Forest Parks (See paper of ¡°A Review on Management System of China¡¯s Nature
Reserves¡± in the
book of China¡¯s Protected Area). All NRs are established under the 1994 Regulations of the People¡¯s
Republic of China on Nature Reserves which allow for only one management category, but
NRs are established for a variety of purposes and at different levels of
government (national and local (provincial. prefectural, county)). NRs are
assigned to one of three major types – wildlife protection, ecosystem
protection or natural monument protection, although most reserves include
elements of more than one type. Table 2 shows the numbers of NRs in each of the
major types.
Current legislation has been found to be inflexible
and ill-matched to the real situation of most PAs in China, so various teams
are already engaged under the National People¡¯s Congress Environmental
Protection and Nature Resources Conservation Committee in preparation of a new
law for NRs, and revision of existing regulations for SLHSs.
The three management zones available are the core
area with no use,
habitation or interference permitted, apart from limited scientific research; buffer
zone where some
collection, measurements, management and scientific research is permitted (but
which is not really a buffer zone in the usual international meaning of that
term); and experimental zone where scientific investigation, public education, tourism and raising
of rare and endangered wild species are permitted. There may also be an outer
protection zone (which is
a buffer zone in the usual international meaning of the term) where the normal
range of human activity is allowed with restrictions if those activities have
damaging effects inside the NR.
Local governments coordinate
between government agencies, and control regular investments, operating budgets
and salaries of staff in many PAs.
Evaluation of the coverage and effectiveness of the
NRs of China with respect to ecosystems and species was undertaken by the task
force using a GIS-based analysis approach. Note that scenic sites and forest
parks were not included in this analysis because it was too hard to obtain the
requisite data. Boundaries of all NRs were digitised into an ArcInfo GIS
system. Some small reserves were entered as points due to lack of boundary
data. This coverage was then overlaid and analysed against a classification of
the country based on 124 recognised biogeographical units and the distributions
of all 3,254 vertebrate species (not including marine fish). The full analysis
is attached as Paper of ¡°GAP analysis of NR system of China¡± in the book of China¡¯s
Protected Area. Some of
the main findings are given in this section.
The GIS analysis identified certain areas (including
Tianshan, Jinji Mts., Eastern border of Qinghai Province, Southeast
Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, Huangtu Plateau and Northern Guangxi) as relatively
underrepresented in the national coverage. The analysis also identified gaps in
the ecosystem coverage, with some biogeographical units having no PA coverage
or only minimal coverage, some biodiversity important biogeographical units are
under protected and many threatened species are also not covered, or not
covered well, by the NR system. Considering for the moment all species of
mammals (560), reptiles (391) and amphibians (287), 48 species are not covered
by any NR and it is estimated that there would be much more plants are not
protected at all. Relatively few marine NRs have been established and there are
none NR along the coasts of Southern Shandong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang Provinces
to protect wildlife living in sea.
In conclusion, the current PA system does not fully
represent the feature of China¡¯s biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
Furthermore, individual PAs are not connected well by habitat corridors.
Figure 1: NRs
in China
Figure 2:
Numbers and areas of NRs each year in China
Figure 3:
Distribution of NRs by number among different agencies
SFA: State Forestry Administration; MOA: Ministry of
Agriculture; MWC: Ministry of Water Conservation; MOC: Ministry of
Construction; MOGM: Ministry of Geology and Mineral Resources; MLR: Ministry of
Land Resources; SOA: State Oceanic Administration; SEPA: State Environmental
Protection Administration.
Table 2The Types of NRs in
China (Department of
Natural and Ecological Conservation, SEPA, 2002)
|
Type
|
Number by the end of 2001
|
Area
by the end of 2001 (1000 ha.)
|
|
Natural Ecosystems
|
|
|
|
Forest ecosystem
|
769
|
224.5
|
|
Prairie and meadow ecosystem
|
33
|
35.1
|
|
Desert ecosystem
|
20
|
362.4
|
|
Inland wetland and watershed
ecosystem
|
137
|
216.1
|
|
Ocean and coast ecosystem
|
40
|
10.1
|
|
Wildlife
|
|
|
|
Wild animals
|
325
|
415.0
|
|
Wild plants
|
111
|
21.3
|
|
Natural Monuments?
|
|
|
|
Geological Formations
|
90
|
11.0
|
|
Paleeontological
|
26
|
3.6
|
|
Total
|
1551
|
1,299.1
|
The PA system is not directly connected
with the government plans for overall land use and development programs at
national, provincial and county levels. So large development projects often
take precedence over the interests of PAs. However, China¡¯s new ¡°Scientific
Development Perspective¡± calls for a higher level of recognition for PAs.
A new approach to PAs is being put into
practice by SEPA through the planned Ecological Function Conservation Areas
(EFCAs), large areas that include settlements and a wide range of human
activities by design and often overlie existing NRs. The aim is to provide
coherent guidance to land use across certain critical ecological zones with
important biodiversity and ecological processes.
In total and conservatively estimated, the
economic value of the combined functions of PAs in China is equivalent to and
linked with more than 30% of national GDP.
Protected areas are funded by a variety of
mechanisms. National Nature Reserves may receive funding from ministries for
infrastructure construction, while salaries may be paid by provincial budget
and, in many cases, by county budget. Provincial Reserves receive much less
funding from the government except infrequent allocation under specific
projects, and salaries and operation are usually funded under the government at
province, prefecture or county level. Establishment of most PAs is based on the
willingness of county governments, and economic arguments are essential to
persuade them of the value of setting aside resources for PA management.
In practice the bulk of PA funding comes
from provincial and county sources. For instance, until 1999 Yunnan province
had spent a total of 58 million RMB on construction of PAs. Some provinces are
much weaker in this capacity than others. It is often the economically poor
provinces and counties that contain the best natural areas for biodiversity.
The national government annually allocates
30 million RMB to national NRs. These funds are mostly expended on
infrastructure development. About 30 reserves can get the fund each year to
among the total of national NRs now standing at 226.
The Government of
China has recognized the benefits provided by PAs and has legally protected
over 4000 sites (see Section 1) and put in place extensive environmental
legislation. However, despite the measures taken, the integrity of many PAs,
and the effectiveness of PAs in providing national, regional and local benefits
is still at risk from pressures of human population growth and economic
development.
Road building, mining,
oil exploration and extraction, pipeline construction, dams and water diversions
and other large infrastructure projects are all essential components of
economic development but they can have devastating effects on natural
ecosystems if not planned carefully, and there are many examples of such
developments affecting PAs.
Over-harvesting (or
harvesting in ways that damage the ecosystem) of wild animals, trees and other
plants, and overgrazing also pose threats to PAs, as do drainage and conversion
of wetlands for agriculture and aquaculture, pollution from industry,
households, agriculture and aquaculture, erosion and siltation, over-use of
ground and surface waters, and introductions of certain invasive alien species.
Paper of ¡°Problem trees of Pas in China¡± in the book of China¡¯s Protected Area
shows examples of problem trees for protected areas.
Many of the underlying
causes of these immediate threats lie in the ease with which activities that
provide short term profit at the expense of long term stability can be carried out
within the current policy, legislative and regulatory framework. In the rush
for economic development ecological systems are being destroyed. Different
agencies often pursue their programmes
independently without taking into account the full impacts of their actions on
PAs, biodiversity, ecological processes or people¡¯s lives. Legal ambiguities
and straight lawbreaking are responsible for much of this.
Protected
areas are used as a tool in conservation, but they are often superimposed on a
mosaic of different land uses with little or no institutional jurisdiction or
influence over the various holders of land-use rights. Under the Chinese
constitution all land and sea belongs to the state, but different individuals,
organisations or communities may enjoy various powers or rights to make
decisions on land use or resource use. Many such tenure rights overlap and
often pre-date the boundaries of PAs and this is a source of considerable
management limitation and sometimes conflicts of interest between NR management
bureaux and local communities.
In some of the less
developed ethnic minority areas, community rights are strong and traditional
land-uses may have been established although never certified, long before the
founding of the PRC. Many farmers have extended the lands that they cultivate
beyond their certified limits, but have enjoyed such tenure unhindered for many
years. For example, a large part of the Menglun Nature Reserve (part of the
well-known Xishuangbanna National Nature Reserve in Yunnan) has been abandoned
by the Nature Reserve Management in the face of armed demonstration by
villagers, and it appears that there may be other parts of the NR that have
never legally been under the control of the NR Management Bureau.
Many NR managers have
to tolerate activities inside NRs that threaten species or interfere
drastically with ecological function and are incompatible with PA status. The
oil fields of Shengli, for example, are fed by large amounts of water pumped
out from the Yellow River Delta NNR at the expense of NR objectives. Many NR
managers have no control over development activities within the reserve
boundaries, even if they are forbidden under the 1994 Nature Reserve Regulations.
The boundaries defined for many reserves have created conditions in which laws
and regulations are unenforceable. Sometimes whole mines and even towns or cities,
are included within NRs, yet none of the available management zones permit
this. There is hardly a NR in China where the experimental zone does not
contain human settlements, farming, and unsustainable harvesting of resources.
Many government
agencies have influence over land use and development within and around PAs,
and they have various missions, all designed for the public good. In practice
problems are created for PAs when agencies with overlapping jurisdictions
pursue objectives that conflict with the PAs objectives. For example, the
policy of construction of a road to every Administrative Village has
over-ridden the mission of protection in many PAs, and the policy of
reforestation, while apparently beneficial to PAs, may have unintentional
effects when it involves planting of exotic species and monocultures inside PAs
that should be devoted to diverse natural forest.
Major development
projects often have negative impacts upon existing PAs, and powerful government
agencies are able to ride roughshod over the legislation with impunity,
inflicting damage on PAs and the environment in general. Sometimes values of
PAs will over-ride other national policy. But even in cases where projects are
considered of strategic national importance, mitigation measures can greatly
reduce the impact on the values that PAs are designed to protect. There are of
course cases where NR management bureaux prevail over the demands of
developers, in imposing mitigation measures for example, but such measures are
not always effective. For example, the West to East Pipeline bisected several
NRs and provided compensation, and the major highway that will cut through
Mengyang NR in Xishuangbanna will be raised off the ground for some sections to
allow elephants to pass underneath, the Golmud-Lhasa railroad was designed to
allow Tibetan Antelope to continue their migration between two PAs, and a
railway scheduled to be built inside the Cao Hai NR was resited elsewhere. But
these are exceptions: the general pattern is for large infrastructure projects
to go ahead regardless of PAs, as in recent approval for a dam project that
will affect Mugecuo Lake (part of the Gongga Shan Scenic Area) in Sichuan.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is often used merely to design mitigation
measures, and not as a tool to decide whether or not to carry out the
particular development.
Existing regulations
allow for the de-gazettement or down-grading of NRs. Partly because of this,
more powerful agencies can inflict damage on PAs with impunity. For example, in
Xinjiang, when the Kalamari Nature Reserve and local government came into
conflict over tourism developments inside the NR, the local government was able
to arrange to downgrade the reserve to county level status.
The strictness of the
current NR legislation is itself a source of problems for managers. It is often
necessary to exclude humans in order to protect biodiversity, but by no means
always. Some species are actually dependent on certain levels of human activities
to create suitable habitat, and these activities include some that are
prohibited under current legislation inside NRs in China. For example,
migratory geese and cranes rely on cropland for winter feeding in many areas.
Yet there are no mechanisms to allow such coexistence under the 1994 Nature
Reserve Regulations.
The current level of
public financing is not sufficient to run the PA system and leads to a variety
of, essentially illegal, economic ventures that are in conflict with PA
objectives
Although funds are
provided by central and provincial governments for PA establishment and
management, and the amounts provided annually are increasing, this public
funding remains far from adequate, particularly for operational costs.
Questionnaires returned from PAs across China indicated major funding shortages
for staff salaries and benefits, maintenance and running costs of equipment and
infrastructure, travel, compensation for animal damage to surrounding
farmlands, legal prosecutions, communications, publicity and meetings with
local stake-holders. In short, allocation of state funds for conservation is
inadequate, poorly targeted and not well-utilised or transparent.
PAs in China take more
than 15% of the country¡¯s land area and play an important role in supporting
the ecosystem, a living basis for development. However, the central government
has not established a separate account in its budgeting system to support the
PA system. This issue has been raised for many years but has still not been
properly dealt with. In past years, the government funding to PAs has been
significantly increased, but most of them are one time allocation, or on
project basis.
PAs receive major
funding only for initial establishment, after which civil servant employees
continue to be paid their government salaries but there are zero or minimal
funds for management. It is relatively easy for PA directors to get funds for
physical construction, but much harder to obtain funding for maintenance and
basic operations.
A high proportion of the
funds available are spent on the national, high profile sites while most of the
sites in the system get almost no funding. There are many PAs with low
immediate user values but significant value in terms of ecosystem services and
biological preservation that are facing a difficult situation and a funding
gap.
Ecosystems are changing,
dynamic, and species change their ranging behaviour. Funds for investment in
fixed infrastructure are more easily obtained under the current system than
funds for operational costs, yet such funds could be wasted if the resources to
be protected are no longer in the same place in a few years time.
As many of the current
NRs include areas unsuitable for inclusion in strict NRs the infrastructure being
provided is not always required, and this represents an additional waste of
resources.
Alternative sources of
funding available to the PAs capture only local user values of PAs. Payments
for ecosystem services to Chinese society and the services of biological
diversity/heritage for China and the global community are not captured by the
individual PAs. The net result is a systematic tendency to overexploit user
values by means of economic ventures, while ecosystem services and preservation
of biological values do not get sufficient attention. PA managers are thus
encouraged, or forced against their better judgement, to set up their own
sources of funding through various economic ventures.
There are
uncertainties with any kind of manipulation of natural ecosystems, and
decisions on habitat and species management have to be based on a mix of
science and common sense and a clear idea of objectives. However, policies that
require NR managers to raise revenue for operational costs have led to
activities that are clearly deleterious to the values that the NRs were designed
to protect. In Chinese NRs such revenue raising activities include tourism that
relies on construction of damaging infrastructure, hotels, zoos and specimen
collections, cultivation of food crops, forest, reed and bamboo plantations and
fish farming and other types of aquaculture, even though these activities are
forbidden within NRs.
Realization of the
economic values of NRs is important, but economic activities should be compatible
with the objectives of the NRs: assuming that all NRs should provide income
through harvesting of resources is misguided. Even when conservation funds are
made available as grants or loans to local people for revenue generation, the
environmental effects of the activities funded by such schemes are not always
well assessed. In some integrated conservation and development projects no
environmental criteria are used.
Effectiveness of
management has been assessed in three ways: literature reviews of extensive
previous surveys, plans and reports; personal observations by Task Force
members, and analysis of the results of returned questionnaires sent to PA
managers.
Nature Reserves in China have initiated many questionable
practices, such as captive breeding, unnecessary or damaging habitat
manipulation, artificial feeding, burning without a fire management plan,
predator control, introduction of alien species, and forced relocation of local
people. Many of these were standard practices in Europe and N America fifty
years ago but were superseded by more ecological approaches. PA staff also miss
many opportunities for more effective activities.
Nature Reserve
directors are often drawn from professions such as local civil servants: there
is no formal career structure with specific PA management qualifications. This
may be a contributory factor to some of the interventionist approaches to PA
management.
Unsound NR management
practices, particularly in taking endangered species from the wild for captive
breeding or displays result partly from ignorance of ecological approaches to
management, but the underlying reasons also lie in the policy framework that
encourages NR leaders to compromise the objectives of the reserves in order to
raise money to cover operational costs (see above 3.2.3).
Protected
Areas are established under the loose system of types described above in
Section 2 and this results in important functions being missed when it comes to
developing management plans.
Central
planning units, such as the Forest Inventory and Planning Institute, develop
Master Plans for PAs. However, these units are short of experts with wide
knowledge and experience in conservation and wildlife protection. The existing
system of approval of plans is inadequate and does not adequately reflect all
relevant stakeholders, lacking an effective supervisory system to monitor
performance and use of funds.
In order to take
advantage of PA systems in neighbouring countries China has already established
coordinating agreements with transboundary reserves in some places, for example
with Russian and Mongolia in NE Inner Mongolia, with Russia in NE Heilongjiang
and with Nepal in the Himalayas. However, there are conflicts with such efforts
demonstrated by Chinese logging companies operating across the borders are
destroying possible transboundary reserve areas in Myanmar.
Levels of income from
tourism at PAs vary greatly, but are generally low. There are some notable
exceptions where receipts are high, but very often in those cases the types of
entertainment or exhibitions developed to attract visitors are inappropriate
for PAs and may be damaging. There is often excessive disturbance to wildlife
and other visitors from loudspeakers, fairground amusements and traffic, and
too much emphasis on specimen collections and the sale of wildlife or wildlife
souvenirs originating within the PA, entertainments such as shooting at live
birds (as in Dafeng Milu National NR), and cages with poorly cared for animals,
often caught in the PA.
The
Task Force recognizes that tourism can provide significant revenue for PAs and
a platform for economic development for remote communities living around them.
However, tourism and the infrastructure needed to support it can also do
serious harm to the environment. Many tourism sites are developed by local
government and managed by the Tourism Department. Protected area staff are not
appropriately involved during planning stages and find difficulties in
controlling impacts. Appropriate guidelines for evaluation and management of
tourism are needed.
Tourism in China is more in the form of organized group
trips than privately planned tours. Much of the income is collected by the air
carriers and big hotels in distant cities, provincial or county tourist
departments and tour operators for provision of transport, guides,
accommodation and meals, and relatively little may accrue to the PA itself and
almost none to the local people whose relinquishment of opportunities for
greater economic development has in fact created the conditions for such
eco-tourism in the first place.
Such arrangements (a) make it very difficult to convince
local people of the economic values of PAs and (b) encourage PA managers to sacrifice
long term protection objectives for immediate financial gain and leads to many
of the inappropriate developments noted above
Many PAs face
pressures of access to land and resources by poor local communities. Local people
often cannot do without certain resources, such as fish, firewood, construction
wood, or grazing land that lie within nearby PAs. Domestic stock and dogs
wander into PAs and cause damage to wildlife and vegetation. Different types of
adjacent or even overlapping land-use may be highly incompatible with the PA
management and result in spread of fire, invasive species, pollution or other
undesirable factors into the PA. On the other hand, many species of wildlife
have ranges that extend beyond the boundaries of PAs and can cause damage to
crops or livestock.
Local people living in
or near rural PAs are also sometimes restricted in their access to resources.
This may be in the local people¡¯s long term interests in terms of
sustainability of resource use, but many of the benefits from protection of
biodiversity and ecological services accrue nationally, regionally, and even
globally. So, in many cases, local people are being asked in effect to pay the
¡°opportunity costs¡± of not using PA resources, and are not compensated
sufficiently.
While China as a Party
to the CBD has embraced the concept of involvement of local people and fair
sharing of benefits from the utilisation of biodiversity, local people are
largely excluded in practice and even regarded as a problem rather than an
opportunity for collaboration. Local people are rarely involved during the
establishment and in management of PAs, and are not encouraged (are sometimes
deliberately excluded, indeed) from participation in ecotourism opportunities.
The paper of ¡°At least
do no harm: Poverty and Protected Areas in China¡± in the book of China¡¯s Protected Area
gives an account of the implications of rural economic development for China¡¯s
PAs.
The Task Force recognized the great
strides China has made in rationalizing the planning and management of PAs, and
in the establishment of a national system of protected areas in terms of
numbers of sites, area, completeless of coverage, staffing, budget allocations,
studies and projects. The government has a clear commitment to further improve
in these areas, and to resolve several remaining threats and problems and has
already initiated a review of the NR legislation and begun the preparation of a
new NR law (see Section 2 above).
However, despite this great progress the task force
sees weaknesses throughout the system ranging from systemic to very specific,
and feels that unless these matters are addressed quickly the great investments
of land and funds will be largely wasted, biodiversity losses will continue and
reductions in ecological and other services provided by PAs, such as climate
regulation, watershed protection, erosion control, biodiversity and genetic
resources protection and tourism earnings, will cost China many billions of US$
of potential revenue and social benefits.
The Task Force has prepared a number of
recommendations for further actions and approaches, supported by technical
papers and supplementary documents to this report.
The Task Force¡¯s vision is of a PA system fully
representative of China¡¯s wild species, habitats and ecosystems, including a
range of objective based management categories and zones, from strict NRs at
one end of the scale and multiple land-use areas with certain conservation
related restrictions at the other end. It would be a system that provides a
full range of benefits including biodiversity conservation, ecological
services, recreation and education and that is valued accordingly. The PAs would
be managed by the same over ten agencies as now, but a joint database would
summarize the status, size, objectives, management category and zones of each,
and uniform standards for reporting the effectiveness of management would be
used.
A new, overarching PA law would have established the
PA management categories legally, and the NR law currently under preparation
and other legislation would have defined in more detail the regime for the
various categories of PAs and their associated internal and external management
zones. Consideration of PAs would have been fully incorporated into the
legislation governing sectors such as agriculture, forestry, water, oceanic, mining,
transport, construction and other development, and into revisions of or
regulations supporting the current EIA law.
A system plan would have been developed
based on accurate data provided by all relevant agencies, that sets targets for
representation of species, habitats and regions, provides a wide range of
multiple functions, and has coherent links with conservation measures taken
outside PAs to maintain connectivity and to mitigate effects within the PAs.
Protected areas would be given full consideration in
all regional and river basin development planning as part of the landscape, and
a strong alliance of the main development agencies (see Box 2 below for
examples of relevant sectors) would be promoting the benefits of PAs on the one
hand, and the folly of damaging them through economic development activities
that have not been subject to thorough environmental assessment, on the other
hand. Such an alliance of line ministries and others, with an interest in the
services provided by PAs, would ensure that PA development becomes integrated
with and supported by more powerful national programmes through the development
of appropriate collaboration and synergies.
Resolution of conflicts between government agencies
over activities affecting PAs would be being addressed through establishment of
a cross-sectoral mechanism for the multiple functions of PAs to be factored
into the development plans. EIA for individual projects would be being carried
out rigidly, and there would be a greater emphasis than now on strategic
environmental assessment would routinely consider PAs from the start of planning
processes for regional development. Laws would be being enforced well and
government officials would be being held accountable for lapses in implementing
environmental legislation.
All PA management would be following management plans
approved by higher authorities, and would take fully into account the people
living within and around the boundaries. Supervisory bodies at provincial level
would be evaluating plans and results. Special attention would be given to the
plight of local people whose relinquishment of the use of PA land or other
resources has led to poverty or other difficulties, and it would be mandatory
to take into account local people in all management decisions that have an
effect on their livelihoods.
The system would be funded through innovative public
funding mechanisms that allow payments for ecological and other services
realized at various distances from the PAs – at the global, national,
regional and local levels, as well as through direct cash income such as from
concessions to tour operators.
A professional career structure would be in place
putting PA management on a par with forestry or policing as an occupation with
its own standards and codes of conduct, with a set of required qualifications
defined for each of the established posts, and a system of pre-service and
in-service training for personnel (see Box 2 below). Staff would be circulated
between regions routinely on postings of various durations. Protected areas
would also be given special attention in the training of government officials
outside the PA system itself. Capacity would have been strengthened especially
in the areas of ecological principles, taxonomy, communication skills,
outreach, conflict resolution, grant application, networking with other
agencies and other areas not traditionally taught to PA staff.
The public¡¯s increased knowledge of PAs and greater
involvement in PA management would be creating an easier environment for PA
management bureaux to operate in, and there would be much open access to
information on development plans affecting PAs.
BOX 2: Sectoral Links Required for an Effective Protected
Area System
WATER PAs serve as a vital
component of the water catchment, regulation and purification processes
ensuring more regular supply of better quality water and flood controls.
ENERGY PAs serve to protect
water sources needed for hydropower efficiency and also serve as major carbon
sinks in relation to CO2 emission reduction efforts.
AGRICULTURE PAs serve as reservoirs
for important wild germplasm of relatives of domestic crops, horticultural
varieties and livestock. Buffer zones around PAs are ideal places for in-situ conservation of
indigenous varieties of crops being elsewhere abandoned in favour of new high
yield varieties. Water supply from PAs is vital for irrigation. Natural pest
control and pollination agents dependent on PAs contribute greatly to
agricultural productivity.
FISHERIES PAs serve as vital
breeding areas and species strongholds for inland, coastal and marine
fisheries.
FORESTRY PAs serve as sources of
wild seed and germplasm of silvicultural species. They also serve as seed
sources for species needed in China¡¯s ambitious plans for ecological
restoration and combating of desertification.
OCEANIC: PAs protect most important
marine biodiversity and has the potential to demonstrate sustainable harvesting
and marine resource management
LAND AND RESOURCES: PAs safeguard the most
important natural resources and ecological services to support long term
interests for livelihoods of people.
HEALTH AND TRADITIONAL
CHINESE MEDICINE PAs fix hazardous pollutants from air and water. PAs serve as wild
sources and buffer zones serve as production areas for the components of
Traditional Chinese Medicine and the source of other active compounds of
medicinal value or potential.
TOURISM PAs act as important
visitor destinations. Although revenues raised at PA gates and facilities are
relatively modest as yet, the earnings of airlines, hotels and transport
sectors outside the PAs are very large.
CULTURE, CONSTRUCTION,
AND EDUCATION. PAs preserve cultural diversity, traditional practices, historic and
religious sites and offer educational opportunities.
SCIENCE PAs serve as the natural
laboratories for research and experimentation for the development of biological
discovery and understanding.
LAW ENFORCEMENT In reflection of the
great value of public services derived from PAs, law enforcement agencies and
judges must be alerted to pay greater attention to enforcing PA regulations.
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS. PAs provide benefits to
local communities, the wider public, including civil society organizations, and
the private sector and should also seek to draw these into the broader
constituency of support.
The Task Force is convinced that new legislation and
a wider range of PA categories is required, and has discussed extensively the
advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to formulation of new laws
and revision of existing ones. The new legislation could be comprehensive,
including the detailed regulations for each type of protected area, or it could
be of a framework or umbrella type providing reference to specific subsidiary
regulations to be published by relevant management authorities. The former
approach gives greater legal power to the regulations but the latter approach
provides greater flexibility to adapt regulations to specific local conditions
and opportunity for periodic revision without having to reformulate the law
itself.
Three main options were discussed:
Option
1: Separate
laws for each type of PA
Option 2: Extension of the ongoing work of drafting a NR law to
include other/new types of PA
Option 3: A broad framework ¡®Protected Area Law¡¯ under
which would fall the more specific legislation (including the ongoing work on
NR law)
Option 3 is recommended by the Task Force and
specific recommendations with regard to legislation and safeguards are
summarized below. Full details are given in Paper of ¡°Proposals for Development
of a Protected Area Law¡± and ¡°Applying the Protected Area Category System in
China¡± in the
book of China¡¯s Protected Area.
1.
Ensure that
the preparation of the current NR law under the auspices of the National
People¡¯s Congress follows the principles laid down in the following specific
recommendations for a framework PA law
2.
Resolve
legal issues of property and customary rights of local communities on land and
natural resources
3.
Establish
clear objectives of management for each PA type, using a range of PA categories
to meet diverse management objectives, from the strictly protected to the
sustainably used areas. For this purpose, the 1994 IUCN guidelines on PAs
management categories may be consulted to build upon and improve the existing
Chinese categories of PAs.
4.
The law
should establish the responsibilities of different PA management agencies
– and should cover funding mechanisms, procedures for submission and
approval of plans, supervisory and control mechanisms, requirements for
standardization of reporting, monitoring and information sharing, and capacity
development and career structure for PA staff.
5.
The law will
resolve the problems of conflicting jurisdictions and allow PA managers
adequate decision making rights or representation on local decision making
bodies
6.
Establish
the requirement for each PA in every category to have clearly stated objectives
from the date of gazettement and for those objectives to form the basis for
management planning and internal zoning
7.
Include the
revised PAs categories system within a comprehensive framework law on PAs.
8.
For each
protected area, prepare detailed implementation regulations to achieve the
agreed management objectives and define the activities permitted or prohibited
in different management zones (where necessary and appropriate) so that
specific functions, including scientific research, can be performed.
9.
The
implementation regulations should consider resources used by local communities,
permitting sustainable subsistence use where this is consistent with the
particular category of PA and its management objectives.
10.
Introduce a
legal provision for the establishment of community managed PAs corresponding to
the appropriate management categories.
11.
When PAs are
divided into different management zones, provide for areas to enable community
use of resources, where suitable and consistent with the management objectives.
12.
Strictly
guard against revenue generating ventures that conflict with the management
objectives agreed for the particular category of protected area.
13.
Develop and
use the full range of PA categories to enable conservation planning to be
conducted at the landscape/bioregional scale, within the overall planning
frameworks of provincial, county and municipal governments, and within an
overall national PA system plan.
14.
Assess all
PAs against the revised categories system to review their management objectives
and assign them to appropriate categories based on the local context and
established objectives. However, in doing so, guard against expediency oriented
dilution of protection status.
15.
Implement a
broad communications and awareness raising strategy to promote the use of the
generic term ¡°protected areas¡± to encompass diverse types of areas, and enhance
understanding of management objective-based categorisation of protected areas.
16.
Successful
implementation of the recommendations in this report will rely on more than a
single law: revisions of other relevant laws will be required so that they
incorporate PA considerations, and new laws currently in preparation, such as
the Yellow River Law must include PA considerations from the beginning. It is
recommended that a review is made immediately of the legislative changes that
should be made to enable a new PA framework law to function without conflict
and ambiguity.
17.
Detailed
discussion and justification about the management objective-based
categorisation of PAs in China is contained in Paper of ¡°Applying the IUCN Category
System in China¡± in the book of China¡¯s Protected Area. The recommended categories are listed in
Table 3.
Table 3: Recommended Categories for
China¡¯s Protected Area System
|
Category
|
Name of each category
|
Objectives
|
Examples
|
Existing protected area types in China
|
|
Ia
|
Strict Nature
Reserve
|
To
preserve habitats, ecosystems and species in as undisturbed a state as
possible to maintain genetic resources in a dynamic and evolutionary state,
and maintain ecological processes. To permit non-destructive scientific
research.
|
Dinghushan,
Foping, Wolong, Xishuangbanna, Nanji Islands, Changbaishan
|
National
NRs of forest ecosystem type, including the core zone
|
|
Ib
|
Wilderness Protection Area
|
To preserve the
natural attributes and qualities of a large area of unmodified or slightly
modified land/and or sea, without permanent or significant habitation. To
enable local resident people living at low densities and in balance with the
available resources to maintain their lifestyles.
|
Qiangtang,
Kekexili, Anxi Jihan Desert, Wula¡¯ersuosuolin, Menggu Wild Ass
|
National
NRs of parairie and meadow¡¡ ecosystem
or desert ecosystem, including the buffer zone
|
|
II
|
National/provincial
park
|
To protect natural and
scenic areas of national or international significance for spiritual,
scientific, educational, recreational or tourism purposes. To take into
account the needs of the resident local people without adversely affecting
the other objectives of management.
|
Juzhaigou,
Huanglong, Fanjingshan, Jinyunshan, Jinfoshan, Gonggashan, Xiguliangshan,
Danxiashan, Qinghaihu, Zhumulangmafeng, Yaluzangbu Gorge, Taibaishan, Hanasi, Lushan
|
NRs of the ecosystem, wildlife or natural
monument types, including the experimental zone;
National SLHSs or Forest parks
|
|
III
|
Natural monument
|
To protect specific outstanding or unique
natural features for their inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic or
cultural significance. To provide opportunities for research, education,
interpretation and public appreciation. To deliver such benefits to local
people as are consistent with the other objectives of management, and ensure
that such use is sustainable.
|
Jixianshangyuan,
Dianzixiang, Yitong Volcanos, Shanwang biological fossil, Heyuan dinosaur egg
fossil, Wudalianchi, Qinglongshan
|
NRs of the natural monument type
|
|
IV
|
Wildlife
Sanctuary
|
To maintain the habitat conditions
necessary to protect species, biotic communities or physical features of the
environment through specific manipulative management intervention. To deliver
such benefits to local people as are consistent with the other objectives of
management, and ensure that such use is sustainable.
|
Datian, Dafeng
Milu, Wanglang, Zhuhuan
|
NRs of the forest ecosystem, wildlife type
|
|
V
|
Protected
Landscape/Seascape
|
To maintain the harmonious interaction of
people and nature through the protection of landscape/ seascape and the
continuation of traditional landuses and cultural practices. To maintain the
diversity of landscape/ seascape and habitat, and of associated species and
ecosystems. To benefit local communities through the sustainable use of the
PA resources and services.
|
Many current
forest parks and ecological function areas.¡¡
Many ¡°outer zones¡± of current nature reserves, Xiangshan
|
NRs
of the forest ecosystem type, parairie and meadow ecosystem type, including
the outer protection area;
SLHSs; Forest parks, Coastal parks,
Wetland parks, Community PAs
|
|
VI
|
Ecological
Reserve/ Managed Resource
Area
|
To manage largely unmodified natural
systems to ensure long-term protection and maintenance of biodiversity and
ecological function, while providing a sustainable flow of goods and services
to meet community needs.
|
Panda corridors,
Dongzaigang, Xingkaihu, Ruo¡¯ergai, Poyanghu
|
NRs of all kinds of ecosystem types,
including the experimental zone;
Forest Park, Coastal parks, Wetland parks,
Community PAs
|
Under the new EIA Law of China (and under a future PA
Law), detailed regulatory controls could be developed to control PA management
and to effectively safeguard PAs from development projects (see Boxes 4 and 5
below). However, supporting these safeguards requires technical guidance and
supervision of projects that affect PAs. Projects may be outside and even quite
far away and still have major impacts on the PA. Since poor implementation of
good laws has been a chronic problem in this sector, capacity building and
improved enforcement will also be required.
1.
Fully
independent evaluation of proposals for initial establishment of PAs, and
subsequent PA Master Plans, Management (Operation) Plans and their
implementation, with attention on results. Audits of performance of PAs should
be based on published indicators and standards, for example, IUCN is now
drafting the ¡°Use of the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories in
regional criteria and indicator processes for sustainable forest management¡±.
l
Proof that land tenure issues have been resolved
l
Statements from local community leaders welcoming
cooperation with PA
l
Proven capacity to manage and maintain any
infrastructure or hardware applied for
l
Clear prioritised statement of PA objectives
l
Sensible zoning plan
l
Appropriate regulations controlling allowed and
prohibited activities in PA and Plan for law enforcement and list of
enforcement procedures to be employed
l
Respective zones
l
Appropriate outreach plan
l
Analysis of staff needs, including skills and training
needs
l
TOR for key staff positions
l
5 year operational plan
l
Targets and verifiable indicators
l
Monitoring and self-evaluation plan
l
Justified budget based on costed units
l Regional
integration plan showing how the reserve will be integrated into the
surrounding land-use and landscape
2.
The
application of EIA requires further development to provide the basis for
strategic environmental assessment. Protected areas should be given central
consideration in the ongoing development of regulations.
3.
Plans for
any infrastructure development that might impact PAs should always be subject
to full EIA at the earliest planning stage (as now required by law). This
includes projects distant from the PA itself, such as downstream hydro-projects
that raise water levels to inundate areas inside the PA, or that cause people
to resettle into PAs or adjacent to PAs. PAs should be fully considered in
Strategic EIA and regional plans.
4.
After
development plans are approved, independent supervision of these projects would
ensure that mitigation measures are carried out, that funds are used as
intended, and that there is no unanticipated environmental damage.
5.
Improve
supervision of the EIA process in PAs by the appropriate government offices
under SEPA.
6.
Incorporate
requirement of EIA into the PA Law. Any construction project in a NR or other
strict PA should be required to undergo an EIA, this should be so even if the
project is designed by the NR with the objective of improving protection, such
as tourism development, reintroduction programmes, or fire-breaks. Alternative
designs and mitigation measures should be considered, along with the no action
alternative.
7.
Do not allow
PAs to retain gate fees, and income derived from tourism services (sales,
meals, accommodation etc) but set the system such that concessions are offered
to local communities to provide ecotourism services with the PAs retaining firm
control over developments (even those being pushed by local government) to ensure
that they are in line with the PA management objectives.
The Task Force recommends that China
improves its PA system. When designating new PAs and corridors, and changing in
status, category, zoning or boundaries of existing ones, it is necessary to
make a link to land cover, land-use, future development plans, financial
feasibility and involvement of local governments at various levels. Such a PA system
plan should be integrated into the overall development plan at national,
provincial and county levels. This will save resources, ease management
problems and inconsistencies, clarify land tenure disputes and maximise
benefits of PAs.
The
specific recommendations are as follows:
5.2.1 Establish and support a comprehensive Gap
Analysis on the current protected area system.
This will assess not only what species or ecosystems
are covered, but also what ecological services are provided, and the values of
PAs for other uses such as research, education, tourism, as well as long-term
viability in the face of anticipated future developments and climate change and
the degree of connectivity needed by the ecosystems and species for which they
are established. To complete this task, it is necessary to extend gap analysis
studies with particular reference to ensuring that altitude is considered as
well as two-dimensional coverage. All types of currently established PAs will
be covered in the analysis, including forest parks, scenic areas and non-hunting
areas as well as NRs.
5.2.2 Develop a system plan of a PA network in a
more strategic and systematic manner.
This includes designating new PAs and changes in
status, category, zoning or boundaries of existing ones. It should also include
corridors (management criteria for key landscape) with reference to land cover,
land-use, future development plans and involvement of local governments at
various levels.
5.2.3 Integrate the PA system plan into the governmental
¡°Five Year Plans¡± at national, provincial and county levels.
With such an integration, the needs of PAs will be mainstreamed
hopefully with necessary budgetary and administrative support
5.2.4 Form a higher-level and cross sectoral alliance
to ensure the integration of PA and overall land use and development planning;
coordination among line ministries and supervision of PA effectiveness.
This alliance may follow the model of former
Environment Committee under the State Council (dismissed in 1998) with
appropriate adjustment. The need of a similar committee also appeared in
recommendations made by other CCICED task forces. So the joint suggestion might
be achieved by multiple task forces to form a National Environment and
Resources Committee under the State Council. Under which, sub-committees could
be set up to oversee different themes such as PAs, water and watersheds and energy.
The terms of reference of the PA sub-committee would be:
1. Develop overall and dynamic strategy and
legislation of PA in line with overall sustainable development context and
national conservation priorities
2. Coordination among line ministries and
bureaus
3. Rights for approval / rejection of
development programs with direct or indirect effects on PAs
4. Coordination with development authorities
for balanced resolutions when facing conflicting agendas
5. Establishing criteria and processes for
evaluating PA management plans and implementation
6. A platform of effective and regular
information exchange and feedback top down and bottom up, and horizontal to 1)
support wise decisions by PA authorities; 2) raise the awareness and
understanding to the importance of PAs among higher decision making agencies,
governments and the public
7. Build in accountability to the public on
implementation of laws and regulations by management authorities
The
committee should:
1.
Be affiliated
to SEPA, with the condition that SEPA withdraws its involvement in direct
management of specific PAs to avoid conflict interests
2.
Reflect high
authority, expertise and civil participation among its members, including:
1)
¡¡At least one senior official above
ministerial level
2)
¡¡Relevant ministries¡¯ representatives at
DG level or above, namely:
SEPA
Ministry of Land and
Resources
Ministry of Water
Resources.
Energy Departments
Ministry of
Agriculture, including Fishery, Rangeland and other agricultural land
management agencies
State Forestry
Administration
State Oceanic
Administration
Ministry of Health and
TCM Administration
State Tourism Bureau
Ministries of Culture,
Construction, and Education
Law making and
enforcement agencies
Ministry of Defense
3.
Experts in
natural and social sciences, legislation£¬economics and management
4.
Civil
Society Organization (CSO) representatives
5.
Community
representatives
5.3
Ensure that people benefit, and do not suffer, from
living near to protected areas
Most areas valuable for biodiversity are found in
remote regions where poverty remains an important issue. Therefore, in establishing
and managing PAs, we must recognize many relationships between resource
management and the needs of rural people. All decisions taken by PA managers
must consider the socio-economic context of the PA, and PA management plans
should be prepared on the basis of consultation with stakeholders, giving particular
attention to income sources for local people. A proportion of the income earned
by the protected area, for example through gate fees, should be paid to local
communities in return for managing their land in ways consistent with the
protected area. (See Paper of At Least Do No Harm ¡¡– Poverty and Protected Areas in China¡± in the book of China¡¯s Protected Area)
The role of PAs in poverty alleviation should be
treated as circumstances indicate: as said above, there is no panacea or
universal solution, and PA managers cannot act in isolation from local
government. PAs can contribute to poverty reduction in the rural landscape if
appropriate policies and management measures are put in place. Satisfying local
pressure by allowing access to PA resources is rarely a satisfactory or
sustainable option. PA management can help local communities through
employment, involvement in ecotourism sector, etc., but this is a clear case
where the broader alliance must be called upon and resources from other sectors
and programmes must be brought to bear in helping to solve poverty issues in
such priority areas (see Paper of ¡°Adjacent Area Management Planning in
Practice¡± in the
book of China¡¯s Protected Area)
An increasing number of PAs in China are involved
with various activities designed to alleviate poverty and develop the local
economy, and these often involve measures to allow controlled use of natural
resources from the PA. Addressing poverty through generating more income from
natural resources in such areas may result in unsustainable pressure on the
natural resources the PA is designed to conserve. Wise choices are needed to
ensure that conservation and development are partners instead of competitors
for limited resources.
It is recommended that all planning of rural poverty
alleviation programmes should also consider their impacts to PAs. For example,
promoting goat herding among rural farmers living around PAs can
unintentionally subvert efforts to restore forest inside PAs, and fish farming
enterprises can lead to introduction of exotic species and eutrophication as
well as overharvesting of food species.
Forms of rural employment vary in their impact on PAs, with some --
such as clearing new land for agriculture, harvesting of wild plants and
animals, and so forth -- being highly destructive. Others may be neutral, or
actively support PA objectives such as tourism. Local communities might be
offered financial support to establish appropriate tourism infrastructure
outside the PAs. Many tourists will appreciate an opportunity to stay in a
fairly rustic setting, in a small hotel that is built in the architecture of
the local peoples (especially in minority areas). But these tourists will still
expect appropriate sanitary measures and healthy living conditions. Other local
people might be offered employment as guides, porters, or other staff within
the PAs. It is important that any alternative livelihood schemes established
are (a) well evaluated for environmental impacts and (b) targeted at the people
who have relinquished use of the PA resources. Very often such schemes are
established so that all local residents in nearby administrative units benefit
and in this way resources are dissipated ineffectively to those who have given
up nothing as a result of establishment of the PA.
Direct Compensation to rural people for their stewardship of forested
areas or other habitats important for conserving biodiversity, or payments for
services such as carbon sequestration, watershed protection, conservation of
pollinators, and so forth, are all being implemented in various parts of the
world. The Task Force recommends that Government should explore which of these
possibilities is likely to be most relevant to conditions in different parts of
China.
Encouraging emigration from remote areas to places with better economic
opportunities is a common tactic for establishing and depopulating PAs in
China. However, as with all the approaches to tackling the conflicts between
people and conservation, such programmes need to be carefully designed,
including full prior informed consent before people are relocated, diligent
supervision of compensation schemes for relocated people, and consideration of
ecological effects that they will have in the areas to which they are moved.
Population pressures are so great that unless land tenure rights have been
settled unequivocally (see Section 5.1) emigration of one group may be followed
by immigration of equally needy groups from elsewhere. The Task Force
recommends that careful study of prognoses for movements of people out of
agriculture following China¡¯s joining of the World Trade Organization should
contribute to planning in this area.
Comanagement is especially appropriate for PAs
with human residents (and such PAs are foreseen under the new system), when
protection needs are not over-riding but other activities such as collection of
natural products, fishing, transport, eco-tourism or farming activities are
compatible with the local protection needs. Agreements can be negotiated with
local people, including conservation contracting and easements, through which they
agree to carry out conservation activities or to relinquish rights to key
resources in return for compensation. Some experiments have already been
conducted but there are few real examples of co-management yet in China.
The central government should increase its funding
commitment support for salaries, operations, scientific research, and very
critically, compensation to affected local community.
These needs should also be prioritized in the
implementation plan of the existing Ecological Compensation Fund. Provide
incentives and explore multiple mechanisms to encourage other sectors, especially
the private sector to invest in PAs. These can include payments for watershed
protection services, carbon sequestration, and genetic resource conservation.
The funding of PAs should be seen in
a system perspective: once objectives are clearly stated it will have been made
clear that some are of global significance for biodiversity and should be
strictly protected, while others may be suitable for sustainable agricultural
and/or industrial use and income generation from tourism. In a system of PAs the
former types of PAs may be cross subsidized from other PAs that generate more
funds, creating a more flexible funding mechanism that can serve the overall
purpose of the PA system in China better.
Specific Recommendations:
Government
should pay particular attention to value for money and to avoiding wastage. Strengthening the selection process for PAs, as detailed below, may
lead to slower expansion but higher quality.
In particular there should be:
l
Clear restrictions
on the development of activities that are contrary to the objectives of nature
protection. Independent monitoring of PA operations and performance should be
established.
l
Sufficient
funding to cover the entire basic operation costs of running PAs.
l
A greater
level of transparency to see that funds are justified, correctly used and
properly accounted for.
l
Less funding
for superfluous display offices or equipment and more focus on real protection
needs.
l
Greater
selectivity before accepting new sites for protection. Reserves should be
selected for their key biological, ecological or landscape features needed to
complete the system, rather than mere availability of land. Care must be taken
not to create PAs of large size unless the physical and biological conditions
are suitable.
l
The approval
of the creation of PAs should be based on a rigorous appraisal process (see Box
4 above and Box 5 below). This process should involve the environmental
economic evaluation of the PAs, and the assessment of the following critical
items:
Financial feasibility
Resettlement issue related to
affected local community
Environmental Impact Assessment
with special attention to alternative livelihood activities and resource uses
in Pas
l
Proof
of ownership jurisdiction over
land by applying agency
l
Proof
of capacity for basic protective establishment (boundary demarcation and
protection officers)
l
Description
of site (physical, biological, ecological, cultural, social context)
l
Statement
of objectives for protection
l
Justification
in terms of biological, ecological importance, gaps in system etc.
l
Tourism
potential analysis
l
Socio-economic
evaluation
Many sites would initially be merely held
and protected. They would only get development money when they had demonstrated
a good understanding of appropriate management, needs and a readiness and
capacity for such development.
Continued need to apply for funding would
help ensure that only sensible activities were proposed and undertaken and that
inconsistent economic ventures would jeopardise further support.
There is a cost element to this plan,
namely that a provincial committee needs to be available almost full time to
review applications, check and approve plans and make field inspections on
progress and management quality. Given the huge savings in inappropriate
developments and expenditures and the major anticipated increase in management
effectiveness, this extra cost seems eminently justifiable. An overall increase
in government investment into PA development and management is proposed.
Due to the public service nature of PAs, there has to
be increasing central government commitment in PA funding. The increased
funding is mainly to cover those missing elements in traditional government
budgetary framework for PAs, such as budget for salary, management and
operation and scientific research. Government should also make sure that enough
funding is supplied to compensate affect local community and residents based on
existing land and resettlement regulations.
Improving funding effectiveness is becoming another
important issue. This can be achieved via changed funding distribution. The most critical PAs should
be under the direct supervision of central government and also be fully funded
by the central government.
Recently, central government has increased its
commitment to the Ecological Compensation Fund. Nevertheless, existing
implementation of the fund largely ignored the nature and needs of PAs which
have been used as arguments for the creation of the fund. To improve the design
of the fund, Funding needs of PAs must be addressed appropriately in the new
enactment of the fund, which implies that enough funding should designated to
cover funding needs in PA management and compensation to local community. Effectiveness of the ecological
compensation fund should also be improved to maximize benefit. To be so,
funding allocation to PA should be competitive and contingent on well developed
management plan and compliance with regulations
Despite of the availability of ecological compensation
fund, commitment from central and local government will be limited and probably
not sufficient to meet all funding needs of the PAs. This leads to the need to
consider multiple means of payment to environmental services in PAs. In some
places, ear-marked taxes can be levied to support PAs. In some other cases,
water right and carbon market can be tried out to enhance PA financial
feasibility.
Currently, private sector contribution to
conservation in China is growing but limited. With fast growth of private
economy in China, given appropriate incentives, private sector can play an
effective role in enhancing PA investment. One of the potential incentive is
tax benefit for private sector contribution to PAs. Government should also
encourage NGOs, especial local NGOs involvement in supporting and enhancing PA
management.
Despite all these possible funding mechanisms,
however, direct payments to local people might still be the most effective way
to achieve conservation goals of PAs (see Box 6 below and Paper of ¡°On Payments
to Poor Stakeholders for Sustainable Use of Protected Areas¡± in the book of China¡¯s
Protected Area).
BOX 6 Options for Raising Funds for PA
System Establishment and Operation
l
Eco-tourism development/
gate revenue
l
Nature conservation tax
l
Ecological service
provider awards e.g. from Water user tax
l
Headwater conservation
programme
l
Sale of bio-prospecting
licences and options
For example the Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanic Gardens at Menglun
has an entry fee of 30 yuan and gets about 250,000 visitors a year earning a
total of $2 million revenue.
Conservation tax is used in some countries (e.g. Kenya, Costa Rica)
as a way to raise earmarked funds for use in conservation. This tax can be
levied on international travel (as part of the airport tax) or on international
hotel room tariffs. Levels of international visitors to China may not match
numbers of domestic tourists but it is significant and rising, and these are
bigger spenders. Studies based on interviews of tourists show a high willingness
to pay this extra tax (CCICED, 1999).
¡¡
Downstream beneficiaries of good water supply – industrial,
irrigation, hydropower, transport, drinking water, mostly based in wealthier
coastal provinces should pay tax for this benefits. These funds should be reinvested
in those water catchment areas where development is limited by the imperative
to protect water sources. This money could be spent on compensation schemes,
forest strengthening or restoration or PA development and protection.
The government already earmarked billions of $US towards various
types of upstream ecological protection (returning farmland programme,
reforestation programmes, fire prevention programmes, check dam constructions,
Great Western Development). Some of these funds should be diverted specifically
towards protective management of upper catchment PAs and should be provided
directly for PA management and managed by PA departments.
CBD obligates member countries to institute mechanisms of prior
informed consent (PIC) as a precondition to granting bioprospecting permits.
This offers the scope for Protected Areas and/or local communities to negotiate
(in return for an agreed fee) before bioprospecting is undertaken in their
vicinity. Revenues could be increased if bioprospecting opportunities were
advertised and offered internationally.
The Task Force recommends first that capacity be
strengthened in some key areas (see book of Competence Standards for
Protected Area Jobs in Southeast Asia translated by the Task Force and Box 3 below), and
second that a career structure be established for PA staff. In particular, the
following recommendations are made:
1.
PAs should
be fully integrated within the government administrative structure and
recognizing all permanent employees as civil servants will help retain
competent staff, provide greater staff stability and better facilitate law
enforcement.
2.
Staff should
be given clear job descriptions and duties, while supervisory and performance
assessment mechanisms need to be put in place. These will make PA management a
profession that is recognized by both the public and private sectors.
3.
Professional
standards of competence should be approved for all grades and functionary
positions and these can be used to help select more suitable staff, plan
individual training needs, guide development of training courses, govern job
descriptions and allow promotion as higher levels of competence are reached.
4.
In-service
training should be mandatory for all PA staff (both full-time and part-time)
and be covered in the Management Plan and budget so that they will be able to
achieve the necessary competence to perform efficiently and develop career
progress.
5.
Horizontal
learning among different PAs should be encouraged through formal and informal
networks, staff exchanges and joint programme activities (e.g. biodiversity
surveys).
6.
Training
opportunities for PA staff should be improved within China
7.
Existing
training programmes for government officials should be adjusted so that they
cover protected areas and their role in the national economy, and rural
development.
The mechanism for the PA staff training component
could be one or more of the following options:
Option 1: Establish an independent institution along the Indian
model with national and provincial training centers, devoted to training PA
staff, undertaking nationwide research and PA monitoring (costly, but creates a
high-profile independent centre of excellence which can have a positive
influence on policy making)
Option 2: Strengthen or develop new courses in two or more
existing training centres or institutions to meet identified PA training needs
(less costly but lacking independence or research capacity)
Option 3: Develop and support a virtual network of trainers in
nature conservation (less costly with advantage of regional specificity but
less reliable and quality very variable from region to region).
The Task Force recommends that the combination
of first and third options should be pursued.
BOX 3 Competence Standards for
Protected Area Management
The task force have introduced a set of
standards from the neighbouring ASEAN region comprised of a total of 250
different skills needed for protected area management. Some skills are required
widely across the staff of PAs and others are specific to only one or two
positions. Five levels of seniority and responsibility have been defined - from
level 1 = untrained hired workers up to level 5 – the director of a major
national park or provincial system of PAs.
The use of such standards has many
advantages including:
l
Staff know
what roles they are expected to perform.
l
Clear
terms of reference can be drawn up for each job on the basis of these
standards.
l
Hiring
of staff can be guided by whether the applicant has the necessary skills.
Training can be individually tailored to bring staff up to standard to fulfil
their own roles.
l
Training
courses can be redesigned to ensure that they deliver the exact skills needed
by the profession.
l
Staff
can plan their own training to achieve upgrading.
l
Projects
with funds for staff training purposes can ensure that these are spent on
courses that are compliant with the standards adopted for the trainees needs.
l
Expertise
requirements for special jobs can be very precisely defined in terms of
standardised skills.
l
Professional
societies can emerge based on recognised qualifications.
Many of the skills required in PA
management are nothing to do with biological or ecological knowledge but to do
with communication skills, report preparation, application preparations,
organising meetings, community relations and conflict resolution. These are
skills that are usually overlooked in traditional training courses for PA
managers.
Although project training is usually
directed either at junior guards or at senior managers and directors, the
people who require the widest range of skills is Level 3. Staff at this level
rarely receive any training in conservation projects.
5.6 Encourage bottom-up and stakeholder- participatory PA management decisions
1.
The
important role of local leadership in PA management must be recognized. With
the introduction of village and township level elections, the local leadership has
an increasing role in representing the interest of local communities. County
government, who have key control over the resources for operating budgets and
salaries of many PA management authorities, is also a major stakeholder.
2.
PA-regulations
must be formulated in a way that clearly describes who is responsible for
enforcement, management decisions, and decisions on any land use that may have
an effect on the objectives of the PA. Decision-making on management of PAs
should normally be taken at the lowest appropriate level, but should be lifted
if there are conflicts between stakeholders. There should be established
stakeholder-fora for each PA that have regular contact to discuss status and
fronds of nature in the PA and management-decisions for the PA.
3.
A new
multi-sectoral provincial supervisory body could be established as well as a
comparable national PA Committee, or The Provincial Environment Protection
Committee (PEPC) could be put in charge of supervising PAs. Under the
committee, a group could specifically deal with PA issues. Composition and
terms of reference of this unit will need to be developed, but it should
include representatives from all stakeholder agencies and experts. They could
review approval of Master Plans and management plans and performance
assessment. Supervision could be based on published indicators of PA effectiveness,
such as those developed by IUCN.
4.
Increased
transparency would allow public involvement in evaluation and supervision of PA
planning and performance. Public access to information about PAs, their
resources, plans and performance, would allow academics and CSOs to support
management efforts by voluntarily providing independent expert evaluation and
advice, which would be given at no cost to the government. An Advisory
Committee, including local government representation, could provide local people
a voice in PA management. Local government already plays a key role in
coordination between government agencies and land use, and is the elected
representative of local people. Greater transparency will require careful
consideration of when, how and to whom the information should be released.
Although PAs are given much attention in current
education programmes both in school and in educational visitors centre at NRs
and generally in the print and visual media, a specific public awareness and
education strategy is needed. Many PAs that receive a large number of visitors
have minimal interpretation materials. Education displays have been developed
in some PAs but not all of them are effective. For instance, showing dead,
stuffed specimens without much interpretation can convey the wrong message, and
many of the (often very beautiful) videos on displays are shallow in the
treatment of the ecological problems. Also the PAs as an educational resource
are in general under-utilized by the local people. A more analytical approach
on the roles of PAs in environmental and biodiversity conservation is
recommended. Programmes should be styled from simple presentation of facts and
displays of specimens to innovative treatments of how ecosystems work and the
value of ecological services that they provide, and links to ecological
requirements for support of local (and distant) livelihoods, and the likely
effects of changes in land use on PAs and their objectives. Programmes should
be adapted for different target audiences: in particular relevance of Pas
differs to people according to distance they live from the Pas. Education
outreach in the immediate vicinity of PAs should reflect more local concerns,
where at provincial and national level the treatment will reflect wider
interests.
The Task Force recommends that education programmes
cover also the economics at the heart of decision making and land use, the
place of PAs in the whole landscape and the problems identified elsewhere in
this report concerning PAs categories. Although the aesthetic value of PAs are
extremely important in people¡¯s lives, we should not underestimate the
readiness of people to explore the wider implications of development.
Traditional public awareness programmes have tended
to concentrate on a one way flow of information and through brochures,
newspaper articles and radio and television programmes. The Task Force
recommends a fundamental change in approach to encompass innovative and more
effective ways getting people to think about and be involved with PAs. The key
to such an approach is establishment of dialogue, allowing for responses from
the public. Mechanisms should include meetings, discussion groups, talks,
visits to PAs including questions and discussions sessions with PA staff and
follow up activities, and involvement of local people in maintenance of new
style displays (e.g. through farmers regularly reporting number of cranes or
other species on their land, or water level or state of vegetation). Active
websites dedicated to individual PA and linked to other relevant PAs,
organizations (e.g. zoos) and groups (e.g. bird watching societies) at local,
regional, nation and international level, particularly trans-boundary PAs and
those along the same migration pathways, should also be developed.
At the local level educational outreach should be an
integral part of much of PA planning and management. Particularly in the
adjacent area management planning there is such a need and an opportunity to
inform the public extensively about the objectives of PAs, the challenges and
solutions, the benefits and costs for various stakeholders, and to engage in
dialogue.
Quite apart from the educational value of these
proposed outreach activities the public will be informed of proposals and
decisions that influence PAs and this will contribute to the growing role of
individual members of the public, and civil society organizations, and
development decision making, and in holding government officials accountable
for proper implementation of environmental laws and regulations.
The list below summarizes the main
recommendations:
1.
Add value to
existing environmental and education programmes in terms of specific PA
content.
2.
Go beyond
the superficial into ecosystem, economics and landscape management approaches.
3.
Develop
innovative dialogue mechanisms to interest and involve people in PAs.
4.
Establish a
range of outreach activities according to context:
local-provincial-regional-national-international.
