-MODULE 8-

CONNECTIVITY CONSERVATION - INTRODUCTION

EXERCISE 2

Understanding Governance of Connectivity Conservation Areas

OBJECTIVES AND INSTRUCTIONS

Nature of the Exerciseo Knowledge-reinforcing exerciseo Group exerciseo Discussion forum

Purpose of the Exerciseo Create an appreciation of the different types of governance that can be

used in connectivity conservation.o Provide an opportunity for Learners to understand issues of scale and how

they relate to governance of connectivity conservation areas.o Develop an understanding of the issues that impact governance of

connectivity conservation areas.o Enable Learners to reflect on the manner in which these issues may arise

in a practical setting.o Encourage Learners to begin thinking critically about the manner in which

these governance issues may impact on the formulation and selection of legal tools, which Module 9 will address.

Structure of the Exerciseo Introduction to exercise (suggested time allocation, 10 minutes)o Group work (suggested time allocation, 60 minutes)o Joint class discussion (suggested time allocation, 50 minutes)

Methodology/Procedureo Introduction to the Exercise - facilitated by the pre-prepared presentation

(suggested time allocation, 10 minutes) Divide Learners into groups of four. Outline the practical scenario:

This practical scenario builds on the one used in Exercise 1 of Module 4. The map for this exercise depicts a broad landscape comprising many different parcels of land subject to mixed land ownership, use, and conservation value including:

Protected areas of differing management and governance categories.

1

Privately owned-land, community-owned land and government-owned land.

Mixed land use - conservation, agriculture, open space. The case study explains that Government wishes to promote

connectivity across the landscape and that the Learners are groups of consultants who have been tasked with identifying:

The possible types of connectivity that could be used to do so;

The scale of possible connectivity initiatives; The types of governance arrangements that could be

used; The key factors that will influence the proposed

connectivity initiative and the choice of governance arrangements.

Explain to the Learners that their task is to reflect in their groups on the practical scenario and develop a series of responses for each of the above key issues (suggested time allocation, 60 minutes).

o Select at least three groups to present their responses (3 x 15 minutes = 45 minutes + 5 minutes to conclude the exercise = suggested time allocation, 50 minutes).

o Facilitate this process and encourage critical feedback and additions from the other groups.

Additional Notes to the Educatoro This Exercise is based on a fictional case study with a view to ensuring

that it: Remains universally relevant and contemporary; and Challenges Learners with a high level of skills/expertise.

o The Educator may want to: Substitute the fictional case study with an actual case from his/her

region/jurisdiction; or Edit/simplify the fictional case study depending on the level of

capacity of the Learners.In either of these cases the Educator will need to adapt Annexes A, B and D accordingly.

RESOURCES

Introductory Presentation Case Study Narrative and Questions (Annex A) Map of the Case Study Area (Annex B) IUCN Protected Area Categories (Annex C) Summary of Possible Responses (Annex D)

2

ANNEX A – CASE STUDY

THE CONTEXT

The Government has consolidated two protected areas – Mountain National Park in the North and the Wanui Wilderness Area in the South – and the Wanui Catchment Management Area to establish the Wanui Wetland Park and declare it as IUCN Category Ib under the national Protected Areas Act. The new park protects the previously unprotected Wanui Wetland, located between the former Mountain National Park and Wanui Wilderness Area, and incorporates several other parcels of land as well:

Land owned by Nature Co, a private sector company, which agreed to have its land incorporated into the park on condition that it could continue to operate two small tourist lodges;

Land owned by the Wetland Trust, an NGO that bought the land from a private developer and entered into an agreement with the Government to ensure that the land would be included in Wanui Wetland Park;

Land owned by the Government that the small Wanui Community has occupied for centuries, without having formal title to it. The Government granted special legal dispensation to allow the Wanui Community to remain, owing to their historic link to the land. The community continues to manage the resources in the area according to its customary laws and practices;

Land that the Government bought from a farmer; Land owned by the Peat Community, adjacent to the land the Wanui

Community occupies. The Government entered into an agreement with the Peat Community to compensate the community in cash and in kind to stop extracting peat and to subdivide the community’s land, including part of it in Wanui Wetland Park, and declaring the rest as a buffer zone for Wanui Wetland Park. Except for extracting peat, which it no longer does, the Peat Community continues to manage the resources on all of the land it owns according to its customary laws and practices.

The country is a Party to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and has designated Wanui Wetland as a Ramsar Site.

Now that the Wanui Wetland Park has consolidated several areas of high conservation value for the country, the Government is considering the possibility of creating a connectivity conservation corridor to link the Park with a National Forest to the West, the Grassland National Park to the East, and another Ramsar Site on the southern coast. The corridor would help to conserve the habitat of the endemic Wanui Warbler, the country’s national bird, and an endangered albatross. The Wanui Warbler is rare because it depends on specialized habitat. It nests only in grasses and shrubs that grow in forests that contain a particular species of tree that grows in the National Forest, in the forest patches in Grassland National Park, and in the forest patches on public grassland between the National Forest and Grassland National Park.  The Wanui Wetland and the South Coast Wetland Ramsar Sites are on the albatross’s migratory flyway.

The National Parks Agency manages Wanui Wetland Park and Grassland National Park, which is designated as IUCN Category VI under the national Protected Areas Act. The Forest Department manages the National Forest, which is not designated as a protected area under the national Protected Areas Act, and is also responsible for forest patches on public lands. The Wetland Affairs Department manages the

3

South Coast Wetland Ramsar Site, which is designated as IUCN Category IV under the national Protected Areas Act.

Peat Co. owns the land where it has been extracting peat for more than 20 years. Individual families have owned the farms south of the National Forest and Peat Co.’s land for generations. All of these family farms have converted to organic farming. Two families grow organic avocado trees and the third family grows organic onions. Fruit Co. owns the land where it started large-scale commercial blueberry cultivation three years ago. The organic farmers and Fruit Co. all depend on bees that nest in Grassland National Park and in the public grasslands to pollinate their crops. Fruit Co. buys peat from Peat Co. and uses it to prepare its land for optimal blueberry cultivation.

Herders settled two villages in this area of public grassland six generations ago and have never applied for title to the land they occupy and where they graze their animals sustainably. One of the villages is in what is now the buffer zone of Grassland National Park.

The Government is aware that there are many different land uses in the area around Wanui Wetland Park and is concerned that making decisions concerning a possible corridor could be complicated and even contentious.

YOUR TASK

You are a group of consultants that the Government has contracted to advise it on the types of governance arrangements that could be used for the potential connectivity conservation corridor.

Having read through the above context carefully, prepare your responses to each of the following questions:

1. What types of connectivity could be used to create the potential corridor? Describe the factors that determined your choices.

2. What should be the scale of the possible connectivity corridor?Describe the factors that determined your choices.

3. Based on the answers to the previous questions, what type of governance arrangements do you propose for the potential corridor?Describe the factors that determined your choices.

Write your responses to each of these questions on the separate sheets of paper that have been provided.

4

ANNEX B – MAP OF THE CASE STUDY AREA

5

ANNEX C – IUCN Protected Area Categories1

Category DescriptionIa: Strict nature reserve Strictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also

possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. Such protected areas can serve as indispensable reference areas for scientific research and monitoring.

Ib: Wilderness area Usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.

II: National park Large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.

III: Natural monumentor feature

Set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature such as an ancient grove. They are generally quite small protected areas and often have high visitor value.

IV: Habitat/speciesmanagement area

Aim to protect particular species or habitats and management reflects this priority. Many category IV protected areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category.

V: Protected landscape/seascape

Where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values.

VI: Protected area withsustainable use of natural resources

Conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area.

The IUCN categories system was introduced in large part to help standardize descriptions of what constitutes a particular protected area. The names of all protected areas except the ones in category II were chosen to relate, more or less closely, to the main management objective of the category.

The term “National Park”, which existed long before the categories system, was found to apply particularly well to large protected areas under category II. It is true however, that many existing national parks all over the world have very different aims from those defined under category II. As a matter of fact, some countries have categorized their national parks under other IUCN categories.

This is what the Government has done with Grassland National Park, which it designated as Category VI.

It is important to note that the fact that a government has called an area a national park does not mean that it has to be managed according to the guidelines under category II. Instead the most suitable management system should be identified and applied; the name is a matter for governments and other stakeholders to decide.

1 Dudley, N. (Editor) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN.

6

ANNEX D – Summary of Possible Responses

NOTE - The following summary draws on issues contained in the seminar presentation and reflects on them through the facts of the case study. It highlights key responses to the questions posed to the Learners. Its purpose is two-fold - first as a resource for the Educator to stimulate discussion during the group presentation component of the exercise; and second as a resource which can be handed to Learners on completion of the exercise as a resource for further self-reflection.

TYPES OF CONNECTIVITY COULD BE USED TO CREATE THE POTENTIAL CORRIDOR

CONNECTIVITY TYPE DETERMINING FACTORSHabitat connectivity Connects patches of habitat suitable for the Wanui Warbler

Connects patches of habitat suitable for pollinating bees Connects patches of habitat suitable for the migratory albatross

Landscape connectivity Connects grassland habitats across the landscape Connects forest habitats across the landscape Water resources flow through and sustain the landscape

Ecological connectivity The landscape relies on hydro-ecological flows from the mountains through Wanui Wetland and the South Coast Wetland to the sea

SCALE OF THE POSSIBLE CONNECTIVITY CORRIDOR

SCALE DETERMINING FACTORSHabitat corridor Hedgerows between and on the boundaries of the farms provide

micro-connectivity for small species Riverine vegetation along the Wanui River provides resting places

along the albatross’s flyway Proposed corridor would link a mountain range, a major river system,

and the coastal zoneStepping stone corridor Forest patches provide habitat for the Wanui Warbler

Two wetlands and riverine vegetation provide resting places on the albatross migratory flyway

TYPE OF GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS DO YOU PROPOSE FOR THE POTENTIAL CORRIDOR

GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

FACTORS IN FAVOR

Government sole decision-maker Protected Areas Agency manages Wanui Wetland Park and Grassland National Park

Wetland Affairs Department manages the South Coast Wetland Ramsar Site

Land Administration Department manages public lands

Government consults before making decisions

Nature Co. agreed to have its land incorporated into Wanui Wetland Park on condition that it could continue to operate two small tourist lodges

Wetland Trust has an agreement with Government to include land it owns in Wanui Wetland Park

Peat Community owns land inside Wanui Wetland Park Wanui Community Village has managed its land for centuries and has

special government permission to continue to do that inside Wanui Wetland Park

Government cooperates with other stakeholders before making decisions

Nature Co. agreed to have its land incorporated into Wanui Wetland Park on condition that it could continue to operate two small tourist lodges and has an interest in ensuring the integrity of the Park and any corridors that link it to other protected areas to increase the eco-

7

GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

FACTORS IN FAVOR

tourism appeal of its lodges Wetland Trust has an agreement with Government to include land it

owns in Wanui Wetland Park and has an interest in ensuring the integrity of the Park and any corridors that link it to other protected areas

Peat Community owns land inside Wanui Wetland Park Wanui Community Village has managed its land for centuries and has

special government permission to continue to do that inside Wanui Wetland Park

The family farms buffer the National Forest from Highway 1 The herders have sustainably used the grasslands inside and outside

the buffer zone of Grassland National Park

Government and other stakeholders make decisions jointly

Nature Co. agreed to have its land incorporated into Wanui Wetland Park on condition that it could continue to operate two small tourist lodges and has an interest in ensuring the integrity of the Park and any corridors that link it to other protected areas to increase the eco-tourism appeal of its lodges

Wetland Trust has an agreement with Government to include land it owns in Wanui Wetland Park and any corridors that link it to other protected areas

Peat Community owns land inside and outside Wanui Wetland Park Wanui Community Village has managed its land for centuries and has

special government permission to continue to do that inside Wanui Wetland Park

The family farms buffer the National Forest from Highway 1 The herders have sustainably used the grasslands inside and outside

the buffer zone of Grassland National Park

Government delegates decision-making authority to other stakeholders

Nature Co. agreed to have its land incorporated into Wanui Wetland Park on condition that it could continue to operate two small tourist lodges and has an interest in ensuring the integrity of the Park and any corridors that link it to other protected areas to increase the eco-tourism appeal of its lodges

Wetland Trust has an agreement with Government to include land it owns in Wanui Wetland Park and has an interest in ensuring the integrity of the Park and any corridors that link it to other protected areas

The Wanui Community village has for centuries sustainably managed land and resources that are now inside Wanui Wetland Park, and continues to do so

The Peat Community continues to sustainably manage the resources on its land inside and outside Wanui Wetland Park

Fruit Co. and the family farms have an interest in ensuring that the protected areas and the land connecting them continue to support pollinators.

The herders have sustainably used the grasslands inside and outside the buffer zone of Grassland National Park

Non-government stakeholders made decisions

The family farms can jointly manage micro-connectivity in their common hedgerows.

The growers have an interest in ensuring the connectivity their pollinators need

8