types of pa governance

8/3/2019 Types of PA Governance

1/56

Innovations in Conservationp a r k s i n p e r i l

Governance Trendsin Protected Areas

xperiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the CaribbNicole M. Balloffet and Angela Sue Martin


2/56

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a leadingconservation organization working around theworld to protect ecologically important lands and

waters for nature and people. Since 1951, TNChas been working with communities, businessesand people like you to protect more than 117million acres of land, 5,000 miles of river, and100 marine sites around the world. TNCs mis-sion is to preserve the plants, animals and naturalcommunities that represent the diversity of lifeon Earth by protecting the lands and waters theyneed to survive.

www.nature.org

Since 1990, The Nature Conservancy, theUnited States Agency for InternationalDevelopment, local government agencies andnon-governmental organizations have beenworking together through the Parks in PerilProgram (PiP) to protect and manage morethan 18.2 million hectares of endangeredhabitats in 45 protected areas in 18 countriesof Latin America and the Caribbean. PiP

works with partner organizations to improvenancing, supportive policies, and manage-ment of individual sites as well as entiresystems of protected areas, including private,indigenous, and municipal reserves, as well asnational parks.

www.parksinperil.org

The United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) is an independent U.S.government agency that receives foreign-policyguidance from the U.S. Secretary of State. Since1961, USAID has been the principal U.S. agencyextending assistance to countries worldwiderecovering from disaster, trying to escapepoverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.

www.usaid.gov


3/56

Governance Trends in Protected Areas

Experiences from the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean

Nicole M. Balloffet and Angela Sue Martin


4/56

Governance Trends in Protected Areas: Experiences from the Parks in PerilProgram in Latin America and the Caribbean

Copyright 2007 The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA. All rights reserved.

Editing: Angela Martin

Design/Layout: Kristen Truitt

Cover Photo: Hikers in Amboro-Carrasco 2006 Hernando Cabral

Production: Imaging Zone

Parks in Peril Program Director: James F. Rieger

Contributors to this publication: Felipe Carazo, Jorge Cardona, Ana Mara Gonzlez, JaimeFernandez, James Rieger, Julio Rodrguez.

Please cite this publication as:Balloffet, N.M. and Martin, A.S. 2007. Governance Trends in Protected Areas: Experiencesfrom the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean. Parks in Peril Innovationsin Conservation Series. Arlington, Virginia, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

This publication is made possible by the generous support of the American people through theUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Award No EDG-A-00-01-00023-00 for the Parks in Peril Program. The contents are the responsibility of TheNature Conservancy and do not necessarily reect the views of USAID or the United StatesGovernment.

For further information on the Parks in Peril Program, please visitwww.parksinperil.org

Parks in Peril Program

The Nature Conservancy4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100Arlington, VA 22203-1606 USATel: +1-703-841-5300Fax: +1-703-524-0296www.parksinperil.orgwww.parquesenpeligro.org


5/56

Foreword

The Parks in Peril (PiP) Program began in 1990 as the U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Developments and The Nature Conservancys urgent effort to safeguardthe most imperiled natural ecosystems, ecological communities, and species in theLatin America and Caribbean region. A partnership among the U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and

governmental and non-governmental organizations throughout Latin Americaand the Caribbean, over time PiP evolved through three distinct phases until2007, adapting to changing needs and priorities in the region and promoting anadvancing strategy to conserve increasing amounts of biodiversity. For 17 years, theprogram operated in threatened national parks and reserves of global biologicalsignicance, seeking to conserve these critically important ecosystems by buildinglocal institutional capacity for site management. USAID both the Latin Amer-ican and Caribbean Regional Bureau in Washington, as well as individual Missions invested more than $77 million in the program; with TNC and partner match,the total that owed through PiP was more than $104 million. PiP activities alsoresulted in indirect leverage funding attracted by sites and partners strengthenedby PiP, or complementing PiP investment of more than $450 million.

PiP has become well known for its success in transforming paper parks intofunctional protected areas through what is called site consolidation the pro-cess of consolidating the infrastructure, staff, tools, institutional and technicalcapacity, and nancing necessary to protect and manage protected areas, and toensure their management can respond to threats that may arise in the future. PiPhas consolidated 45 protected areas in 18 countries, totaling more than 18 millionhectares. Through Multi-Site and Alliance Strategies developed during the thirdphase of PiP (2002-07), PiP changed the way entire systems of protected areas

are managed, bringing together multi-institutional alliances to collaborate on sig-nicant conservation challenges. Nearly all the achievements of Parks in Peril havedepended vitally on the diligence, insight, and ingenuity of the staff of PiPs count-less partner organizations in the countries where PiP worked.

As part of the process of closing PiP 2000 A Partnership for the Americas,USAID, TNC, and partner staff described the programs seminal thematicachievements in the Parks in Peril Innovations in Conservation Series. The seriesincludes bulletins, which provide a quick survey of a topic and PiPs contribu-tions, as well as publications, which provide a much more thorough treatment ofeach topic for an audience interested in greater detail. The other bulletins and

publications of the Innovations in Conservation Series, as well as PiPs End-of-Project Reports and about 700 other publications of the Parks in Peril program,may be found on the nal PiP DVD (published in March, 2008) and on the Parksin Peril website, www.parksinperil.org. Added to the capacity for science-basedconservation and participatory management that PiP fostered in the region, thesepublications constitute an indelible legacy a foundation for future conservationand development in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Jim Rieger, Ph.D.Director, Parks in Peril Program


6/56


7/56

ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 What is Protected Areas Governance? 21.2 Governance Principles 31.3 Types of Governance Structures in Protected Areas 31.4 Sustainable Funding and Governance 41.5 Why is Governance Important for Protected Areas? 41.6 Governance and the Programme of Work on Protected Areas 5

2. GOVERNANCE LESSONS IN THE PARKS IN PERIL EXPERIENCE 7

2.1 State Governance 82.2 Shared Governance 112.3 Private Governance 132.4 Community Governance 16

3. CONCLUSIONS 19

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 23ENDNOTES 25

SOURCES 28

APPENDIX 1: CASE STUDIES

Cockpit Country Forest Reserve, Jamaica 30Lake Atitln Watershed Multiple Use Protected Area, Guatemala 33Motagua-Polochic, Guatemala 35

La Amistad International Park, Costa Rica & Panama 37Chagres National Park, Panama 39Condor Bioreserve, Ecuador 41Mbaracay Biosphere Reserve, Paraguay 42Bosawas Biosphere Reserve, Nicaragua 44Pacaya-Samiria Reserve, Peru 46

Table of contents


8/56


9/56Governance Trends in Protected Areas: Experiences rom the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean

Governance is emerging as a key concept in protected areas management. Governanceis about who is making decisions regarding the management of protected areas and howthose decisions are being made between the government, private sector and civil society.In a classic model of protected area governance, the government is likely the main or onlyactor making decisions about governing the area, primarily because it has the tools to doso. A broader view of governance incorporates into the management of the area diverseactors, such as private landholders and communities living close to the protected area aswell as those receiving benets from the area (e.g. water). The quality and type of gover-

nance (whether management is by government, shared, private or the community), is seenas a key to increasing the ecological connectivity across landscapes, facilitating greaterparticipation of civil society in protected areas management, and enhancing the long-termsustainability of protected areas.

This document provides an overview of the current concepts in protected areas gov-ernance, outlines the governance element of the Convention on Biological Diversitys(CBD) Programme of Work on Protected Areas, and examines examples and lessonslearned about governance in protected areas supported by the Parks in Peril (PiP) pro-gram throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

The governance structures within the protected areas in the PiP program are as diverseand complicated as the protected areas themselves. It is clear that governance affects themanagement effectiveness of a protected area, and ultimately whether the area meets itsconservation objectives. While most of the PiP sites are ofcially government-managed,there appears to be a trend towards shared governance structures that involve the par-ticipation of numerous stakeholders and collaborative decision-making models. However,there is no best t governance model for sites within the program. Each site must takeinto account complex socio-economic, political, institutional and ecological processeswhen determining the most appropriate governance model. Countries will likely needto employ a variety of governance structures in order to fulll their commitments to theCBD. The authors propose some practical steps in identifying, developing and imple-menting an appropriate protected area governance structure based on the literature and

the experiences seen in the PiP case studies.

Abstract


10/56 Governance Trends in Protected Areas: Experiences rom the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Caribbean

1. Introduction

Protected areas governance incorporates both bio-diversity and social concerns by addressing the what,

why, how, and by whom of protected areas manage-ment. Essentially: What is the area being protected(what is the context? e.g. are there people livingthere?); Why is the area being conserved (what areits conservation objectives? e.g. species or watershedprotection or a cultural feature); How is an areabeing conserved (e.g. by strict protection or throughsustainable development practices); and by whom isit being protected or managed (by the government,by a consortium of stakeholders, or by a community).

This document provides an overview of the currentconcepts in protected areas governance, outlines thegovernance element of the Convention on Bio-logical Diversitys Programme of Work on Protected

Areas, and draws on examples and lessons learnedabout governance in protected areas supported bythe Parks in Peril (PiP) program throughout Latin

America and the Caribbean.

1.1 What is Protected areas Governance?

In Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the21st Century, Graham, Amos and Plumptre (2003)dene governance as:

the interactions among structures,processes and traditions that determine howpower and responsibilities are exercised,how decisions are taken, and how citizens orother stakeholders have their say3. Funda-

mentally, it is about power, relation-ships and accountability: who hasinuence, who decides, and how deci-sion-makers are held accountable.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Johnston and Pansky fur-ther clarify the distinction between protected areamanagement and governance by explaining (2006),Management is about what is done about a particular siteor situation, governance addresses who makes those decisionsand how. (p. 116).

Governance is emerging as a key variable in bio-diversity conservation and specically within pro-

tected areas management (Ervin, 2007). At theWorld Conservation Unions (IUCN) 5th WorldParks Congress in Durban, South Africa in 2003,governance was recognized as an important factorfor achieving the environmental, as well as the socialobjectives of protected areas1.

The degree to which protected areas meetconservation objectives, contribute to thewell-being of society and achieve broadsocial, economic and environmental goals is

closely related to the quality of their gover-nance. Thus, protected areas are relevant,benet society-at-large, and are a legacy to

future generations (WCPA, 2003, p. 175).

The establishment of protected areas has been aprimary strategy for protecting earths biodiver-sity. Protected areas now account for more than12% of the earths surface (of this, less than 1% aremarine protected areas) (Chape, Blyth, Fish, Fox &

Spalding, 2003). Yet, it has been suggested that thedesign, comprehensiveness and, the management ofmany protected areas are insufcient to protect fullytheir biodiversity for the long term (CBD, 2004;Dudley et al., 2005; Ervin, 2006).

In addition to biodiversity conservation, many pro-tected areas also strive to incorporate other inter-ests, such as sustainable development, recreation,and cultural heritage preservation. This is particu-larly the case of protected areas where people live

within or alongside the borders, or protected areasthat fall under IV VI (and in some cases II andIII) of the IUCN classication system2. However,there is concern that protected areas managementdoes not adequately include those who are mostaffected by protected areas, such as communitiesresiding within or near the area. Yet, it is also recog-nized that local communities may play a pivotal rolein the sustainability of the protected area (Borrini-Borrini-Feyerabend, Kothari & Oviedo 2004).



Governance is also about the interaction betweenthe government, private sector and civil society(Borrini-Feyerabend, et al., 2006). In a classicmodel of protected area governance the government

was likely the main or only actor making decisionsabout governing the area. A broader view of gov-ernance incorporates diverse actors, such as privatelandholders and communities living close to theprotected area and those receiving benets from thearea (e.g. water) into the management of the area.

The quality and type of governance in protectedareas is recognized as being important for increasingthe ecological connectivity across landscapes, facili-tating greater participation of civil society in pro-tected areas management and enhancing the long-term sustainability of protected areas (Ervin, 2007;Borrini-Feyerbend, 2007).

1.2 Governance PrinciPles

Good governance of protected areas has severalprincipal characteristics, outlined below, which

were derived from principles of good governancefrom the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) (Graham, et al., 2003; Ervin, 2007; Bor-rini-Feyerabend, et al., 2006).

Upholding the above principles is the cornerstoneof good governance of protected areas. While theseprinciples represent an ideal few protected areashave achieved, they represent important goals, whichstrengthen protected areas management.

1.3 tyPes o Governance structures in

Protected areas

To broaden the general concept of protected areasgovernance and in order to incorporate the princi-

ples of good governance into protected areas man-agement, experts have divided governance structuresinto four main categories (Borrini-Feyerabend,2007):

State governance

Shared governance

Private governance

Community governance

Figure 1 indicates that there is a continuum withregard to decision-making and participation amongthe categories of protected areas. Given the com-plexity of most protected areas, one type of gover-nance structure may contain governance elementsgenerally found in another structure. For example,Chagres National Park is a government-designatedand managed protected area in Panama that falls inthe middle of the spectrum as a result of its sharedor collaborative governance structure. While thegovernment (Autoridad Nacional del Medio Ambi-ente) has governance and management responsi-bility for the Park, there is an advisory managementcommittee for the Park, which includes other gov-

ernmental agencies, NGOs, and community leaders

Table 1: Principles of good governance

Five GoodGovernancePrinciples

Description4

lg

v

in protected area management,

particularly the level o participation

and the degree o consensus indecision making.

lp

d

o protected area managers andpolicy makers, including strategic

vision and clear direction based onthe ecological, historical and socio-

cultural complexities o protectedareas.

P

o protected area management,including responsiveness, efciency,and efcacy.

a

o the protected area managementto local communities, the public and

other key stakeholders, includingtransparency o decision making.

in decision making in protected

areas management, includingequitable benefts sharing among key

stakeholders, and application o therule o law.



mechanisms have increased the publics knowledgeof the management of protected areas, the trans-parency of decision-making, and in many casesstrengthened the administrative management ofthe area. Strengthening the governance of an area,through increased accountability, may allow for

more diverse funding sources, such as user fees andpayment for ecological services, as well as externaldonors and payments from nancial mechanismssuch as debt swaps. Sustainable and transparentfunding are critical features of protected areasgovernance that not only contribute to improvedgovernance, but also result from improved gover-nance. Therefore, for protected areas to achievetheir social and ecological goals, it is important toaddress the nancial as well as the social aspects ofprotected areas governance.

1.5 Why is Governance imPortant or

Protected areas?

Protected areas are a principal strategy for biodi-versity conservation, yet they are only effective ifthey achieve their conservation objectives. Effectivemanagement is a key part of achieving those con-servation objectives. Governance contributes to the

overall effectiveness and sustainability of the area.According to Borrini-Feyerabend, et al. (2006)The governance setting of the protected area determineswhether the protected area achieves its management objec-tives (is it effective?), is it able to share fairly the relevantbenets and costs5 (is it equitable?), and whether it has thesupport of local communities, politicians, and the broadersociety (is it sustainable?) (p.117).

While some protected areas do not have localcommunities in their vicinity, many, particularly

1.4 sustainable undinG and

Governance

Sufcient and reliable funding is a fundamentalcomponent of effective management and goodgovernance within protected areas. Adequate

funding allows for activities that strengthen gov-ernance, such as administrative and technicalcapacity building within protected area staff andcommunity organizations, holding participatorymeetings with stakeholders, and long-term plan-ning that emphasizes transparent decision-making.The United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) emphasized that, stable, predictable andadequate funding is a prerequisite for improved governanceand should constitute a central aspect of deliberations onimproving international environmental governance,(UNEP, 2001). In a global survey of protectedareas managers from 45 countries conducted byDearden, Bennett and Johnston in 2002, managerslisted involving and cooperating with stakeholder groupsand obtaining adequate funding as the top two chal-lenges to achieving effective protected areas gover-nance (2005, p.97).

Funding and governance are closely linked: gov-ernance may improve as a result of adequate and

dependable funding and improved governancemay also serve to generate increased funding for aprotected area (Dearden, et al., 2005). In addition,the public, governmental agencies, and in manycases, donors are holding managers of protectedareas responsible both nancially and for achievingconservation results. Protected areas are heldaccountable through various mechanisms includinglegally mandated annual reports, project-reports todonors, external audits, public meetings and advi-sory committees (Dearden, et al., 2005). These

Figure 1: Protected areas governance types and range of decision-making characteristics.(Adapted from Borrini-Feyerabend, et al., 2004)

tp a: g

Authority & responsibility bygovernment through ederal,

national or sub-nationalagency

tp b: g

Authority & responsibility sharedbetween governmental agencies and

other entitled actors

tp c & d: p &

g

Authority & responsibility by landowners or

communities with customary rights

enorcerules and

suppressviolations

inorm and/orconsult about

managementdecisions

seek consensus,also through

beneft sharing

negotiate (involvein decision making)

& develop specifcagreements

ormally shareauthority &

responsibility (e.g. viaseats on a board)

recognize ull privateor customary rights &

assist in management



in Latin America and the Caribbean, have peopleliving inside or in the area immediately surroundingthe protected area. Often this produces a conictbetween protected areas managers and local popula-tions. In addition, it is recognized that few protectedareas in Latin America and the Caribbean have suf-cient resources (nancial, human and political) touphold the strict state governance model of exclu-sion, patrolling, and enforcement. It is in these areas

where evaluating governance options can be particu-larly benecial. For example, in Ambor NationalPark in Bolivia, the management categories weremodied in 1991 from strict protection throughoutthe entire park to include a core area (managementcategory II) and a multiple use zone (category IV)in order to accommodate the human settlementsalready living there. This strategy appears to haveimproved relations with local communities and has

put Ambor on the path towards greater sustain-ability and conservation of its core area than whenthe entirety of it was under strict protection (Park-swatch 2007).

While the state may have ofcial responsibility for aprotected area, there are often differences betweenthe ofcial or de jure and the de facto governance ofthe area (Borrini-Feyerabend, et al., 2006). Forexample, in the Rio Pltano Biosphere Reserve inHonduras, the government is ofcially in charge of

the Reserve. However, as of 2005, the northern partof the reserve had only one governmental repre-sentative (NGO-MOPAWI, personal communica-tion). In practice, the reserve is a complex web ofmostly untitled private and indigenous communallands with an assortment of actors engaged in gov-ernance of the area, including NGOs, indigenousleaders, new colonists, and others. Recognizing thiscontext and developing inter-related governancestructures that take this diversity into account canhelp improve overall management of the reserve.

Different types of governance structures, such asmanagement committees and community-con-served areas, that allow communities to participatein decision-making processes or manage an area orresource, can improve the management and conser-

vation status of the park. Therefore, it is importantto recognize the diversity of actors and governanceoptions within a protected area so that the most

effective governance and management structurescan be developed.

1.6 Governance and the ProGramme o

Work on Protected areas

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

notes that protected areas are a vital contribu-tion to the conservation of the worlds natural andcultural resources (CBD, 2007). As such, at theseventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties(CoP7) to the Convention on Biological Diversityin 2004, CBD developed the Programme of Workon Protected Areas. The overall purpose of thisambitious program is to support, by 2010 for terrestrial and 2012 for marine areas, the establishmentand maintenance of comprehensive, effectively managed, and ecologically representative national andregional systems of protected areas (CBD, 2004).

In order to achieve this, CBD outlined goals, targetand suggested activities, which fall into four maincategories (Dudley et al., 2005; CBD, 2004):

Direct Actions for planning, selecting, estab-lishing, strengthening and managing protectedarea systems and sites.

Governance, participation, equity and benetsharing.

Enabling activities.

Standards, assessment and monitoring.

While the principles of good governance, diversegovernance structures and the importance of localparticipation are found throughout all the elementsthe CBD expressly recognized the importance ofgovernance for effective protected areas manage-ment by designatingGovernance, participation, equityand benet sharingas one of the four principal ele-ments. There are two main goals of this element: 1)To promote equity and benet sharing and 2) Toenhance and secure involvement of indigenous andlocal communities and relevant stakeholders (CBD2004).

To achieve these goals, the CBD suggests thatparties legally recognize a diverse set of gover-



nance types in coordination with their potential toenhance biodiversity conservation. The CBD placesparticular emphasis on the need to go beyond state-managed protected areas and to recognize and supportprivate protected areas and indigenous or community-conserved areas.

This document provides examples, characteristics and

lessons learned from specic protected areas withinLatin America and the Caribbean, which are in the pro-cess of modifying the governance of the particular area tomore fully reect the socio-cultural context of the area,in order to more effectively conserve the biodiversity ofthe area.



The majority of the 45 protected areas within thePiP program are ofcially state-governed areas. In

fact, in the early years of the program, that was acriterion for inclusion in the PiP program. However,while legally many are considered to be state-gov-erned, in practice most of the protected areas havea much more nuanced governance structure andmay contain elements of multiple governance types(state, shared, private and community-conserved).

As part of the PiP approach to site consolidation6,the program has focused on building a supportivelocal constituency for protected areas, in part bystrengthening protected area governance. This was

done by bolstering existing governance structures

and increasing the opportunities for civil societyto participate in protected area governance by

expanding the denition of roles and responsibilitieswithin the current legal, cultural and organizationalframework.

Strengthening civil societys participation in pro-tected areas governance can be a slow process. Forsome protected areas, it can take years of buildingtrust and capacity among the various actors involvedin governing the area before a shift of power anddecision-making can occur. In other cases, policiesmust be developed that administratively and legally

enable this shift to happen. The following nine

Figure 2: PIP Sites and IUCN governance types and management categoriesOf the 45 protected areas PiP has worked in since 1991, the majority are designated category II or category VI.Therefore,categories III V are not represented by PiP sites in the table. Also, TNC does not work with corporate-owned areas.

Fe

dera

lor

Na

tiona

lMinistry

or

Agency

inCharge

Loca

l/Mun

icipalM

inistry

or

Agency

inCh

arge

Governme

t-dele

ga

ted

managemen

t(toa

nNGO)

Trans

boundary

Managemen

t

Co

lla

bora

tive

Managemen

t

(Various

Plura

lis

tIn

fluences

&

Struc

ture

s)

Dec

lare

dan

dR

un

by

lan

downe

r

Dec

lare

dan

dR

un

by

non-pro

fitorgan

iza

tions

(NGOs,

Un

ivers

ties

)

Dec

lare

dan

dRun

by

for

Pro

fitOrganiz

ations

(corpora

telan

do

wners

)

Dec

lare

dan

dRun

by

Indigenous

Peop

les

Dec

lare

dan

dRun

by

Loca

l

Commun

ities

I. Strict nature

reserve or

wilderness area

II. Ecosystem

conservation &

protection

Amistad,Costa Rica& Panama

Chagres,Panama

Pacaya-Samiria,

Peru

III. Natural

Monument

IV. Conservation

through active

Management

V.Landscape /

Seascape

Conservation &

Recreation

VI. Sustainable

Use of Natural

Resources

CockpitCountry,Jamaica

Atitlan,Guatemala

Sierra delas Minas/Bocas delPolochic /Motagua,Guatemala

Condor,Ecuador

Mbaracayu,Paraguay

Bosawas,Nicaragua

B. Protected Areas with

Shared Governance

IUCN Governance Types

Protected

Area Type:

IUCN Category(Management

Objective)

D. Community

Conserved Areas

A.State-Governed Protected Areas C. Private Protected Areas

2. Governance lessons in the Parks in Perilexperience



examples, arranged according to governance typeand management category, are explored in moredetail in the subsequent section and illustrate thePiP experience with strengthening the governanceof protected areas throughout Latin America andthe Caribbean. While there are no cut-and-pastetemplates for strengthening protected areas gov-ernance, the protected areas featured in this docu-ment provide examples for meeting the governanceelement of the CBDs Programme of Work onProtected Areas, within each areas unique legal,cultural, organizational and ecological context.

2.1 state Governance

State governance is the most common form of pro-tected areas governance in Latin America and theCaribbean. While the traditional model of state gov-

ernance emphasized control and protection, withinstate-governed protected areas, new approaches havebeen developed which seek to increase participa-tion by local people in the management of the area.

Additionally, the increased emphasis on decentral-ization, and more specically the decentralizationof natural resources management, has enabled more

local governments to become involved with governingprotected areas. Many national agencies within Latin

America and the Caribbean have delegated protectedareas management to NGOs and indigenous groups.

The main task of the Parks in Peril project is

to establish alliances between civil society orcommunities, and governments.

Felipe Carazo, Parks in Peril Amistad Site Manager.

In many cases, it can be argued that the national pro-tected areas system ministry or agency is the mostefcient and most appropriate entity to manage aprotected area. In areas that have been owned by thestate for a long period of time (100 years or more),state governance is usually the most appropriateform of governance (Dudley & Borrini-Feyerabend,n.d.) This is also true in cases of national patrimonyor areas that are part of natural cultural identity. Forexample, in the case of Tikal National Park in Gua-temala, which is located within the Maya Biosphere

Government-delegated management to Bolivian NGOsBolivia was one o the frst countries in South America to establish government-delegated management agreements,agreements with the private sector and civil society (PiP 2007a). Beginning in the early nineties, the government delegatedmanagement o seven protected areas to several national NGOs, Indigenous organizations, an international NGO and an

academic institution (Oetting, 2006; Mason et. al., 2004). Called co-management agreements, these provide a legal basisor shared responsibility or protected areas management (PiP 2007a). The Nature Conservancy (TNC), through the Parks

in Peril program, supported the eorts o two national NGOs at three o those protected areas.

In 1995, Fundacin Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN) signed a ten-year co-management agreement or with the BolivianDirectorate or Biodiversity (DGB), which later was overseen by the newly created National Protected Areas Service

(SERNAP), or Noel Kemp Mercado National Park. The agreement concluded in 2005 and FAN declined to renew theagreement, but remains deeply involved with the park and continues to execute specifc projects within Noel Kemp,such as community development and a carbon-sequestration project (FAN, 2007b). FAN was also responsible or co-

administering Ambor National Park rom 1991 until SERNAP re-assumed management authority or the park in 1995(FAN, 2007a, Parkswatch, 2007). In 1997, Proteccin Medio Ambiente Tarija (PROMETA) signed a fve-year co-management

agreement or Tariqua Flora and Fauna Reserve. In 2003, PROMETA declined to renew the agreement, but continues toimplement conservation and sustainable development projects in the Reserve.

While the co-management agreements in the above-mentioned protected areas were not renewed, other co-managementagreements in Bolivia have persisted. The Parks in Peril program supported an evaluation o the private/public co-management agreements in Bolivia to ascertain whether these agreements have contributed to biodiversity protection andto document lessons learned. The evaluation concluded that co-management in Bolivia has been a positive experience

and does beneft biodiversity protection as a result o increased park personnel, technical capacity, unding, and localcommunity participation as compared to protected areas managed directly by the government (PiP 2007a). However,

the evaluation also suggested that or co-management agreements to be successul and sustainable, SERNAP shouldconsider co-managers as equal decision-making partners and strengthen its unding capacity (PiP 2007a; Oetting, 2006).

In addition, successul co-managers needed to be committed to and possess the capacity to carry out the protected areasmanagement goals. Finally the report determined that overarching mechanisms that improve communication, generatebroad participation and support adaptive management are critical or successul co-management by public and private

institutions (PiP 2007a, PiP 2007b).



Reserve, the government manages the park throughtwo government agencies, the Instituto de Antro-pologia e Historia de Guatemala (IDAEH) and theConsejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (CONAP).The ancient Maya temples found within the parkare an important source of cultural identity for allof Guatemala. However, in some cases, state gover-

nance may fall short with respect to stakeholder andlocal populace participation, buy-in, and inuence indecision-making.

In table 2, three types of State Governance areinvestigated through case studies from three pro-tected areas in the PiP program.

Table 2: Comparison of key issues among three types of state-governed protected areas

k i7 1. c G

ag

2. l mp

G

3. G-g

g (.g. nGo)8

n P

a

Cockpit Country Forest

Reserve

Lake Atitln Watershed

Multiple Use Protected Area(LAWMUPA)

Sierra de las Minas Biosphere

Reserve (SMBR); Bocas delPolochic Wildlie Reserve(BPWR); Motagua Valley Thorn

Scrub (MV) (not ofciallydesignated PA)

Pp o

c G s-p

Central government owns and

has ultimate managementauthority or PA9.

Central government/agency

may manage regional agencybranches.

Management authority or

PA is decentralized10

to localor municipal government.

Land may be owned by

central government orby local or municipal

government.

Central government delegates

management authority to NGOor other private entity, while

retaining ownership o land.

There may be a hybridsituation where an NGO owns

a parcel o land within largergovernment owned PA.

c Jamaica Guatemala Guatemala

iucn cg

(mg

oj)

VI VI VI

P eg11

Jamaican Moist Forests Sierra Madre de ChiapasMoist Broadlea Forests Central American Pine Oakand Montane Forests, MotaguaValley Thornscrub

PP Pj t PiP 2002-2007 PiP 2002-2007 PiP 2002-2007; Sierra de las

Minas only; PiP 1995-1999

sz P

a12 / c

u13

22,327 ha / (45,000 ha in

conservation unit)

62,500 ha / (130,000 ha in

conservation unit)

SMBR 240,803 ha; BPWR

20,760 ha; MV 900 ha /(440,000 ha in conservationunit)

s ow The Forestry Department isre-inventing its approach

to orestry management by

incorporating participatorymanagement practices,

such as the ormation oLocal Forest Management

Committees.14

Five municipal governmentsin the Department o Solol

have created municipal

parks on land owned by themunicipalities o San Pedro,

San Juan, Santa Clara, SanMarcos and San Lucas

Tolimn.15

Management o SMBR wasdelegated to the Fundacin

Deensores de la Naturaleza

(Deensores) in 1990 upondesignation o the reserve as a

protected area.16,17

of mg

a

Central government:

Jamaica Forestry Department

The municipalities are the

primary authority or themunicipal protected areas.CONAP provides some

management oversight.Other land in this site is

managed privately.

Deensores and the national

protected areas authority,Consejo Nacional de AreasProtegidas (CONAP)


18/560 Governance Trends in Protected Areas: Experiences rom the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Car ibbean


k i7 1. c G

ag

2. l mp

G

3. G-g

g (.g. nGo)8

n P

a

Cockpit Country ForestReserve

Lake Atitln WatershedMultiple Use Protected Area

(LAWMUPA)

Sierra de las Minas BiosphereReserve (SMBR); Bocas del

Polochic Wildlie Reserve(BPWR); Motagua Valley Thorn

Scrub (MV) (not ofcially

designated PA)

l t:

State, regional,municipal, private, or

communal?

Mainly state-owned, also

private and communal landsin periphery.

Most land is municipal or

communal or private. Littleor no central government-

owned lands.

Mainly state-owned. Some

lands owned by Deensores,private and communal

landholders. Insecure landtenure, especially in Polochicwatershed.

Pp-n

i:

Present & generallypositive with regard

to biodiversity

conservation?

Mixed. Bauxite miningposes a threat. Agricultural

practices and resourceoverexploitation.

Yes and generally positive. Mixed results with regard tobiodiversity conservation.

e

s:

Area provides

environmental servicesto specifc communities?

Yes. Water, soil, eco-tourism,

orestry, biodiversity.

Yes. Water, soil, orestry,

eco-tourism, biodiversity.

Yes, Water, soil, orestry, eco-

tourism, biodiversity.

s v:

Area at the basis o

economic livelihoodo local communities?Extractive or non-

extractive (e.g. tourism)?

Yes. Extractive andnon-extractive.



top:

Area comprised o

traditional settlements?

Yes. Maroon indigenouscommunities in periphery othe reserve.

Yes. 94% indigenous oMaya origin, includingTzutujil, Kaqchikel andKiche linguistic groups.

No, not in core part o SMBR.Northern part o SMBR andBPWR experiencing recentmigration.

s c

v: Area withsacred or culturallyvaluable sites that are

regularly visited, notvisited or not present?

Yes. Maroon townshipconsidered culturally valuable

site and permanentlyoccupied.

Yes. Regularly visited sacredand culturally valuable sites.

Yes. Culturally valuable sites,especially in MV.

r c

i:

Area crucial or thecultural identity othe country (national

patrimony), amilies(amily patrimony),

local communities(community patrimony),

or indigenous people(indigenous patrimony)?

Yes. Site is crucial ornational, amily, community

and indigenous patrimony.

Yes. Site is crucial ornational, amily, community

and indigenous patrimony.

Yes. Site is crucial or national,amily, community and

indigenous patrimony.




k i7 1. c G

ag

2. l mp

G

3. G-g

g (.g. nGo)8

n P

a

Cockpit Country ForestReserve

Lake Atitln WatershedMultiple Use Protected Area

(LAWMUPA)

Sierra de las Minas BiosphereReserve (SMBR); Bocas del

Polochic Wildlie Reserve(BPWR); Motagua Valley Thorn

Scrub (MV) (not ofcially

designated PA)

ig

lp/sp:

Area well-integratedinto the surrounding

landscape

Mixed. Some incompatible

land uses (Bauxite mining,land conversion).

Mixed. Some incompatible

land uses (Fire, uncontrolledtourism, land conversion).

Mixed. Some incompatible land

uses (Fire, settlements).

i

mg:

Strong interest amongmany, some, or ew

stakeholder groups?

Interest among some groups. Strong interest among manygroups.

Some. Interest among somegroups.

P c /

i

Guaranteed by Law?

Yes. LFMCs mandated by law. 1996 Peace Accords

mandate strengthening olocal government and civilsociety and opportunities or

public participation.

1996 Peace Accords mandate

strengthening o localgovernment and civil societyand opportunities or public

participation.

s g

Mechanism in Place?18

Yes. US $16M debt swap

(2004) will create endowmentund and provide support

conservation, orestry andsustainable developmentprojects, accessed through

LFMCs.


(2006) will provide a portiono unding to Atitln & other

sites in western highlands.Government orestry &Conservation subsidies

(PINFOR19) will provide$250K over next fve years to

municipal PAs.


(2006) will provide a portion ounding to SMBR/BPWR/MV

conservation unit & other sites.PINFOR subsidies will provide$200K over next fve years or

site. A water und is also beingdeveloped by Deensores.

This project has succeeded in getting some authorities

to take us into account and has enabled us to be

known outside of Chagres National Park, however

this is just the beginning; we need the communities to

be aware of the need for conservation, the importance

of hydrological sources and the conservation of natural

resources, and it is also important for them to be

organized in groups for the communities to develop.

Cristina Ortega, President, Management CommitteeRegion , Community Association or the Participatory

Management o Chagres National Park, or ACOCHA byits Spanish acronym. (Panama)

2.2 shared Governance

Shared governance is a relatively new conceptin protected areas management, but one that isbecoming more important as legislation or poli-cies increasingly require managers to include localstakeholders in protected areas management.

Dearden, et al. (2005) note that in the last tenyears, participatory management has become muchmore prevalent in protected areas. In addition, theCBDs Programme of Work on Protected Areasemphasizes the importance of establishing andstrengthening transboundary protected areas (goal1.3) and creating highly participatory protectedareas planning and management processes (goals1.4.1, 2.1 and 2.2) (CBD, 2004). Protected areasthat span two (or more) countries, necessitate ashared governance structure or mechanism for



joint management. Other protected areas may havevery complex and at times conictive social contexts,which benet from management committees andother participatory governance mechanisms thatrepresent multiple interests and inuence decision-making. The effectiveness of shared governance, interms of the actual participation of civil society indecision-making may vary considerably, from simply

holding participatory meetings with the public, toconsensus-based management boards composed ofstakeholder representatives.

Table 3 illustrates characteristics of the Shared Gov-ernance type through two sub-types: TransboundaryGovernance and Collaborative Management.

Table 3: Comparison of key issues between two types of shared governance

k i t G c G

n P a La Amistad International Park Chagres National Park

Pp o

c G

s-p

Multi-stakeholder management

PA crosses a geopolitical border.

Generally across internationalboundaries, but may have similarelements between dierent states or

provinces within a country.

A multitude o stakeholders

share management authority andresponsibility.

May involve multi-stakeholder body,which presents recommendations to

decision-making authority.

Multi-stakeholders may hold seats onand make decisions on a ormal board .

c Costa Rica & Panama Panama

iucn cg

(Management Objective)

II II

P eg Talamanca Montane Forest, IsthmianAtlantic and Pacifc Moist Forest

Isthmian Atlantic Moist Forests

PP Pj t PiP 2001-2007 PiP 2001-2007

sz P a/c u Roughly 584,000 ha in Costa Rica and655,000 ha in Panama (1.2M ha in

conservation unit)

129,585 ha (130,585 ha in conservationunit)

ow Complex transboundary site hasdeveloped a Binational management

committee to coordinate management othis World Heritage site.21

Site is composed o our administrative

units, divided by country and by Pacifcand Atlantic Regions.

Multiple stakeholders as this site islocated in the Panama Canal Watershed

and supplies water or canal operationsand two largest cities.

Management committee developed

to create shared governance inthis important site with multiple

stakeholders.22

of mg a Costa Rica: Sistema Nacional de Areas

Protegidas (SINAC). Panama: AutoridadNacional del Medio Ambiente (ANAM)

National Environmental Authority -

Autoridad Nacional del Medio Ambiente(ANAM)

l t:

State, regional, municipal, private,or communal?

Mostly state-owned. Also indigenous

and private ownership.

Mostly state-owned. Some private and

communal ownership

Pp-n i:

Present & generally positive withregard to biodiversity conservation?

Yes. Generally positive with regard to

biodiversity conservation, especially onCaribbean side o site.

Mixed results with regard to biodiversity

conservation.

e s:

Area provides environmental

(ecosystem) services to specifccommunities?

Yes. Water, biodiversity, soil, eco-tourism. Yes. Provides 40% o reshwater orPanama canal operations, Panama

City and Coln. Also biodiversity andeco-tourism.



and Corporations. Privately owned protected areasmay be established primarily to protect biodiver-sity, or they may focus on tourism or other typesof environmentally sustainable productive activity.They may have extensive rights, which give themexibility, but they may lack accountability to localcommunities or to a countrys protected areassystem. Some landowners have formed private

Table 3: Comparison of key issues between two types of shared governance

k i t G c G

n P a La Amistad International Park Chagres National Park

s v:

Area at the basis o economic

livelihood o local communities?Extractive (e.g. orest products) or

non-extractive (e.g. tourism)?

Yes. Extractive and non-extractive. Yes. Extractive and non-extractive.

t op:

Area comprised o traditionalsettlements?

Area comprised o traditionalsettlements, indigenous settlements

(Ngbe-Bugle, Naso, Bri Bri, Cabecar)and people migrating to area.

Area comprised o small settlements andsome indigenous settlements (Ember).

There is increased migration to area.

s c v:

Area with sacred or culturally

valuable sites that are regularlyvisited, not visited or not present?

Yes. Visited regularly. Yes, Visited regularly.

r c i:

Area crucial or the cultural identityo the country (national patrimony),

amilies (amily patrimony),local communities (community

patrimony), or indigenous people(indigenous patrimony)?

Yes. Site is crucial or national, amily,

community and indigenous patrimony.Also recognized as globally important

(World Heritage Site).


community and indigenous patrimony.Globally important or its role in Panama

Canal.

ig

lp/sp:

Area well-integrated into the

surrounding landscape (compatibleland-use practices, incompatible

practices, ecological isolation)?

Yes. Threatened by some incompatible

land-uses (mainly agricultural).


land-uses (agricultural andurbanization).

i mg:

Strong interest among many, some,or ew stakeholder groups?

Strong interest among manystakeholdergroups


Public Consultation / Involvement

Guaranteed by Law?

Yes. Biodiversity Law 7788 provides

some guarantee o public participationin natural resources management.

Yes. Two recently passed policies:

Decentralization policy guaranteespublic participation (Executive decree

N 82, April 9, 2007) and Public Accessto Environmental inormation policy

(Executive decree N 83, April 9, 2007).

Sustainable Funding Mechanism inPlace?

Yes. A portion o US $26M debt swap(2007) is earmarked or conservation in

Amistad.

Yes. 2003 US $10M debt swap providesunding or $5M in investments in

Chagres over the next 14 years, as wellas the creation o a long-term $5M

endowment und Chagres Fund.

2.3 Private Governance

Private Governance of protected areas is recognizedas a crucial part of biodiversity conservation. Privateprotected areas are dened as as any lands of morethan 20 ha that are intentionally maintained in a mostlynatural state and are not government owned (Langholzand Lassoie, 2001 in Borrini-Feyerabend, Johnstonand Pansky, 2006). Types of private landownersinclude single landowners, NGOs, Universities,



protected areas associations, which can lobby as agroup and may set up guidelines for inclusion asa protected area. Recognizing private reserves asan integral part of the protected areas system of acountry adds accountability and credibility to pri-

vate reserves. The Parks in Peril program providedfunding and capacity building to private lands asso-ciations, including the Network of Private NatureReserves of Costa Rica. Carlos L. Sand, vice-presi-dent of the Network noted, PiPs support has been very

important at the national and regional levels because nowprivate lands conservation is seen as an opportunity and notas a threat to the public systems of protected areas.

The concept of Private Governance is described intable 4 through two types of private governance:individual private landowners and NGO owned andmanaged lands.

Table 4: Comparison of key issues between two types of privately governed protected areas.

k i i G nGo G

n P a c b m n r

Pp o

c Gs-tp

Individual owners manage lands orconservation.

May have productive/economic

component.

Generally have ewer governmentalregulations and oversight.

Lands o 40 ha or larger (citation).

Private ownership may be concentrated

among wealthy.

Individual landowners tend to ormcollaborative groups o conservation-minded private landowners.23

NGO owns and manages PA.

May participate in protected areassystem, but likely to have ewer

governmental regulations and oversight.

Dierent rom government-delegatedmanagement to NGO because in this

case, NGO owns the land and createsa private protected area in contrast togovernment-delegated management,

where government retains ownership oland.

cEcuador Paraguay

iucn cg IV IV

P eg Northern Andean Pramo, Eastern

cordillera real montane orest, Napomoist orest

Paran-Paraba interior orests (interior

Atlantic orests)

PP Pj t PiP 2001-2007 PiP 1992-1997

sz P a /

c u

2.4M ha in conservation unit (90,000haprivate lands corridor between the

Antisana and Cayambe-Coca EcologicalReserves)

64,400 ha in reserve, roughly 20,000 hain buer zone.

ow Condor Bioreserve is a large, unctional

landscape, which includes six protectedareas and buer zones between them.24

Private landowners play a critical role in

conserving ecological corridors withinbuer zones.25

Mbaracay Reserve was created in 1992

by Law 112/91.

At that time Fundacin MoisesBertoni (FMB) assumed management

responsibility or Reserve.

Reserve was purchased by The NatureConservancy and FMB. FMB now has

legal ownership o reserve.26

of mg a Ecuadorian environmental ministry:Ministerio del Ambiente

National Paraguayan NGO: FundacinMoises Bertoni (FMB)



Table 4: Comparison of key issues between two types of privately governed protected areas.

k i i G nGo G

n P a c b m n r

l t:

State, regional, municipal, private,

or communal?

Mixed. State-owned, IndigenousReserves, Communal, Private ownership.

NGO-owned. Private land in buer zone.

Pp-n i:


Yes. Mixed results with regard to

biodiversity conservation.


conservation.

e s:

Area provides environmental(ecosystem) services to specifc

communities?

Yes. Provides reshwater or greater

Quito metropolitan area, ecotourism,biodiversity, soil benefts.

Yes. Provides biodiversity benefts.

s v:

Area at the basis o economiclivelihood o local communities?

Extractive (e.g. orest products) ornon-extractive (e.g. tourism)?

Yes. Extractive and non-extractive

activities.

Yes. Ach indigenous group retain right

to subsistence hunting within Reserve.

t op:


Yes in parts o reserve. Kichwa

indigenous group in town o Oyacachi,within Cayambe-Coca Ecological

Reserve and Con indigenous groupwithin the Con-Bermejo Ecological

Reserve. Area also has small andmedium-sized armers.

Not at present, but was originally

occupied by Ach indigenous group.

s c v:

Area with sacred or culturallyvaluable sites that are regularly

visited, not visited or not present?

Yes. Regularly visited. Yes. Occasionally visited.

r c i:


amilies (amily patrimony),local communities (communitypatrimony), or indigenous people

(indigenous patrimony)?


community and indigenous patrimony.

Yes. Site is crucial or national and

indigenous patrimony. Buer zonecritical or community patrimony. Alsorecognized as globally important (United

Nations Man and Biosphere Reserve).

ig lp/

sp:


surrounding landscape (compatibleland-use practices, incompatiblepractices, ecological isolation)?


land-uses (mainly agricultural andinrastructure).

Yes. Becoming somewhat ecologically

isolated. Some incompatible land-usesin buer zone.

i mg:

Strong interest among many, some,

or ew stakeholder groups?


Interest among a fewstakeholdergroups.

P c /

i G

lw?

Yes. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente

guarantees participation o civil society.

As a private NGO managing a private

reserve, FMB is not bound by nationallaws o protected area system.However, FMB works closely with local

communities.

s g m

P?

Fondo para la proteccin del agua

(FONAG) is a water protection und orthe metropolitan area o Quito, Ecuadorthat provides PA unding through ee or

water.

Mbaracay Trust und was established

in conjunction with Reserve. Roughly$250K is dispersed per year. Otherunding is sel-fnanced by FMB.



2.4 community Governance

Local and Indigenous communities have long beentaking care of natural resources and sacred sites, butonly fairly recently have they been formally acknowl-edged as managers of protected areas on a level equalto state-governed areas (Kothari, 2006). Com-munity27 governance is dened by Borrini-Feyera-

bend, et al. (2006) as natural and modied ecosystemsincluding signicant biodiversity and ecological and culturalvalues voluntarily conserved by indigenous, mobile and localcommunities through customary laws or other effective means(p. 120). Given that a number of protected areashave been superimposed on lands which were (andstill may be) occupied by people, recognizing com-munity governance is another key strategy for sus-tainable biodiversity protection. While communityconserved areas may differ greatly in terms of theirsize, objectives, history, management institutions,legal mandate, and type of social, economic and eco-logical benets, there are three principle characteris-tics that unite them. According to Ashish Kothari ofthe IUCNs World Commission on Protected Areas(WCPA) (2006), these characteristics are:

1) One or more communities closely relate to the ecosystemsand/or species because of cultural, livelihood, economicor other ties.

2) Community management decisions and efforts lead to

the conservation of habitats, species, ecological benetsand associated cultural values, although the consciousobjective of management many not be conservationper se and could be related to livelihoods, water securityor cultural values.

3) Communities are the major players in decision-makingand implementing actions related to ecosystem man-agement, implying that some form of communityauthority exists and is capable of enforcing regulations.(p. 549)

The importance of recognizing the role of indig-enous peoples and communities in conservationis apparent throughout the CBDs Programme ofWork on Protected Areas, however in goal 2.1.3, it isstated explicitly, facilitate the legal recognition andeffective management of indigenous and local com-munity conserved areas in a manner consistent withthe goals of conserving both biodiversity and theknowledge, innovations and practices of indigenousand local communities (CBD, 2004).

PiP helped me principally through trainings

and technical assistance, so that I could achieve

self-management as well as the ability to manage

funds from this Project and other international

organizations. Now I feel more capable personally

and more committed to conservation in my territory,

through my association.

Marcos Serapio Martnez, Vice President o the Indig-enous Association, KUNASPAWA in the Territory o Kipla

Sait, Bosawas Biosphere Reserve, Nicaragua.

While some communities may declare and managetheir own protected areas, unresolved land tenure

issues may complicate this. In other cases, a com-munity may enter into an agreement with the stategovernment to manage a particular natural resourceor area within a protected area, thus creating amodel of shared governance. For example, it wasnoted that the single most relevant accomplish-ment of the Parks in Peril project in CahuinariNational Park in Colombia (1992 1998) was theformulation of a co-management model betweenindigenous communities and the Park authority.Cahuinari was the rst National Park in Colombiato establish a co-management model, which thenserved as an example for other parks in the country.This agreement was the result of 12 years of nego-tiations between the Park and the communities.

The IUCN Community Governance type is illustratedin table 5, through two case studies involving indigenousand community management.



Table 5: Comparison of key issues between two types of community-governed protected areas.

k i ig g c g

n P a bw P s n r

Pp o

c

Sel-identifed as indigenous

Traditional governance body

Generally advocate collective rights tolands and resources

A community is a human groupoccupying same general area, in daily

contact with each other and engaged invarious livelihood activities within area.

Community may manage an area or aspecifc natural resource.

Generally advocate collective rights to

lands and resources

c Nicaragua Peru

iucn cg IV IV

P egCentral American Atlantic Moist Tropicalorest

Amazonian Flooded orest (IquitosVrzea)

PP Pj t PiP 2001-2007 PiP 2001-2007

sz 730,000 ha (6% o Nicaraguas total landarea)

2,150,770 ha (1.7% o Perus total landarea)

ow

Biosphere Reserve (United Nations Manand the Biosphere Reserve).

21,000 Mayangna (~7000) and Miskitu

(~14,000) indigenous people live withinthe reserve.

Composed o six indigenous territories incore o reserve.28

In 2005, government granted communal

land titles or six territories.

A pilot governance structure wasdeveloped through a participatory

process in Li Lamni territory. Thegovernance structure is based ontraditional indigenous governance and

Nicaraguan legal ramework.29

This is the second largest PA in Peru.

It was originally established to protectthe paiche (Arapaima gigas), the largest

resh-water fsh in the Amazon.

Over 40, 000 people live within thereserve (25% are o indigenous Cocama-

Cocamilla decent).

50,000 additional people live in thebuer zone o the reserve.

18 Resource management committeeshave developed legal resource

management plans or paiche andarahuana fsh, yarina and moriche

palms, and river turtles.30

of mg a

Indigenous Associations rom six

territories participate in decision-makingprocesses or reserve; Ministerio delAmbiente y los Recursos Naturales

(MARENA); Secretaria Tecnica deBosawas (SETAB) are in charge o

management o reserve.

Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales

(INRENA)

l t:

State, regional, municipal, private,or communal?

Communal land titling being carried out. Mainly state-owned, but people live

within PA.

Pp-n i:


Yes. Generally positive with regard to

biodiversity conservation.


conservation.

e s:

Area provides environmental

(ecosystem) services to specifccommunities?

Yes. Biodiversity, water, soils, orestry. Yes. Biodiversity, water, soils, orestry.



Table 5: Comparison of key issues between two types of community-governed protected areas.

k i ig g c g

n P a bw P s n r

s v:

Area at the basis o economic

livelihood o local communities?Extractive (e.g. orest products) or

non-extractive (e.g. tourism)?

Yes. Mainly extractive. Yes. Mainly extractive (fshing, orestproducts, hunting, turtle eggs).

Threatened by overexploitation o naturalresources. Some tourism.

t op:


Yes Yes

s c v:

Area with sacred or culturallyvaluable sites that are regularly

visited, not visited or not present?

Yes. Regularly visited. Yes.

r c i:


amilies (amily patrimony),local communities (communitypatrimony), or indigenous people

(indigenous patrimony)?

Yes. Indigenous patrimony; national

patrimony. Was declared UNESCOBiosphere Reserve.

Yes. Community patrimony; indigenous

patrimony; national patrimony.

ig lp/

sp:


surrounding landscape (compatibleland-use practices, incompatiblepractices, ecological isolation)?

Yes. But threatened by some

incompatible land-uses (mainlyagricultural).

Yes. But threatened by some

incompatible extraction and land-use.

i mg:

Strong interest among many, some,

or ew stakeholder groups?

Yes, strong interest by manystakeholders.

Yes, strong interest by manystakeholders.

P c /i G

lw?

Yes. Yes. INRENA guarantees participation

o civil society through national andPA-level representative managementcommittees.

s g m

P?

No. Yes. A portion o US $14M debt swap(2002) is earmarked or conservation in

Pacaya-Samiria.



Protected areas governance is a complex and rela-tively new way of thinking about the role of civil

society, government, and the private sector in pro-tected areas management. Yet policy makers andpractitioners increasingly recognize that governanceplays a fundamental role in the long-term successof protected areas. Principles such as legitimacy,leadership, performance, accountability, and fairnessform the framework of good governance. Sufcientand transparent funding is also a critical compo-nent because it both drives and results from goodgovernance.

The CBDs Programme of Work on Protected Areasemphasizes the importance of protected areas gov-ernance throughout the four program elements, andin particular in element two: governance, equity andbenet sharing. CBD stresses incorporating partici-patory processes that enable the involvement of localstakeholders. It also broadens the type of governancestructures within a protected areas system to includeshared, private, and community governed areas, inaddition to various types of government-managed

areas.The Parks in Peril program has supported thedevelopment of good governance and helped coun-tries meet their commitments to CBD by strength-ening the site constituency of protected areas. Thisincludes supporting the development of policies,processes and mechanisms that enable a pluralityof stakeholders to participate in protected areasmanagement, facilitating dialogue among diversestakeholders, recognizing a spectrum of governance

structures, promoting compatible resource use bylocal communities, and providing environmentaleducation and institutional strengthening.

Parks in Peril experience

The protected areas outlined in tables in the pre-vious section illustrate the variety, as well as thesimilarities in governance among sites in the PiPprogram. It is challenging to draw specic conclu-

3. Conclusions

sions about governance across sites because of theunique and overarching socio-political context of

each country and protected area.The questions or key issues as presented in tables2, 3 and 4 are drawn from a tool being developedby IUCN to evaluate and implement gover-nance structure that are most appropriate for thesite (Dudley and Borrini-Feyerabend, n.d.). Thequestions reect the critical issues for protectingbiodiversity that the CBD addresses through theProgramme of Work on Protected Areas. However,these key issues are somewhat vague. For example,

the question of Sacred and Cultural Values askswhether the area has sacred or culturally valuablesites that are regularly visited, not visited, or notpresent. The country or protected area will haveto dene what a sacred or culturally valuable sitemeans for that area and what constitutes regular

visitation. While the key issues bring up impor-tant questions, each country will have to adapt thetool to the context of their protected areas systemin order to effectively use it to evaluate where a

protected area actually ts within the governanceframework. Barring that adaptation, how a pro-tected area rates in terms of its governance is amatter of judgment at best.

In spite of the challenges to systematic evaluationusing the tool mentioned above, some interestingexperiences with protected areas governance haveemerged from sites in the Parks in Peril program.

Context matters

As mentioned above, the regional and national (andinternational) context of the protected area is crit-ical for determining the most effective governancestructure for that site. It is important to look at thepolitical framework within country and determinehow protected areas governance ts with largerpolitical and social context. Governance is stronglyinuenced by forces outside of the control of indi-

vidual sites and even outside of the protected areas



system. Those forces may drive certain types ofgovernance structures and mechanisms, which mayhave a positive or negative impact on biodiversityconservation. For example, Guatemala is recoveringfrom a more than 30-year civil war. Protected areasgovernance structures and processes that foster dia-logue, participation, transparent decision-making,and equitable benet sharing among all stakeholdersare crucial to the long-term success of biodiversityconservation in the country.

To collaborate with these type of initiatives allows one

to see our region from a different perspective, perhaps

a little romantic and idealized, but at the same time

with our feet rmly on the ground. This gives us a

commitment that transcends frontiers and borders fora cause that belongs to everyone.

Luis Olmedo Sanchez, Environmental EducationDirector or Panamanian Community organization, FUN-

DICCEP, which works on the Pacifc side o Amistad inPanama.

Scale

As protected areas management expands fromfocusing exclusively on sites to approaching con-servation at an ecoregional or landscape scale,embracing a diverse set of governance structuresbecomes essential. Transboundary and MarineProtected Areas are some of the most complex typesof protected areas and are greatly affected by scale.Differing institutions, legislation, norms, culture,language and socio-economic conditions are a fewof the issues that inuence protected areas gover-

nance at a larger scale. While the protected areas inthe early years of the PiP program were all govern-ment managed, the later sites included larger con-servation units that incorporate public, private, andcommunal lands. Therefore, a multi-prong, collab-orative, approach that incorporates diverse gover-nance structures into the larger conservation visionand within the socio-political context is needed.

State governance

States currently are (and are likely to remain) theprincipal owners and managers of protected areasin Latin America and the Caribbean. In manyinstances, they are the most appropriate and ef-cient managers of protected areas. In addition, as aresult of increasing democratization, many countries

are in the process of developing policies and mecha-nisms that ensure the participation of civil society inprotected areas management. However, many gov-ernmental agencies lack the funding, capacity andtraining to fully implement the policies. Therefore,fortifying state government and empowering themto integrate communities and develop shared man-agement mechanisms is a critical part of strength-ening protected areas governance.

There isnt conservation while there is hunger. We

as governmental agencies or NGOs cant expect that

people and local communities will become involved

in the processes of conservation if they cant rst

satisfy their basic necessities. The knowledge that

PiP gave me, is that conservation projects should be

accompanied by alternatives that generate economic

opportunities for local participants.

Luis Snchez Arguedas, Protected Areas Manageror La Amistad Pacifc Conservation Area, which per-tains to the Costa Rican government National Systemo Protected Areas/Ministry o Environment (ACLAP,

SINAC/MINAE)

The move to shared governance

One trend that has become apparent within the PiPportfolio of sites is that most protected areas seemto be heading towards shared and participatorygovernance, regardless of the ofcial governancestructure. The need for greater collaboration and anemphasis on local participation and decentraliza-tion policies are driving many protected areas tothe middle of the governance spectrum. However,this may be in part because of the type of sites PiPselects. Many of these sites tend to be government-


29/56Governance Trends in Protected Areas: Experiences rom the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Car ibbean

managed, either category II or VI, fairly large, andwith complex social contexts. These types of siteswould seem to favor a more collaborative approach,since many stakeholders are interested in the man-agement and outcome of these protected areas anddemanding a say. One could argue however, that gov-ernments themselves are emphasizing participationand decentralization on a system-wide level. Either

way, many types of protected areas are increasinglybeing managed in a more collaborative manner.

One caveat is that while many protected areas aremoving in the direction of participatory and sharedgovernance, actual decision-making power may stillultimately be concentrated in the hands of the state,

with local stakeholders having nominal inuence onmanagement. This is due in part to a lack of trustamong stakeholders. Therefore it is important to

stress a positive trust-building process that leads togreater collaboration and inuences diverse gover-nance policies and practices.

Private governance

To ensure ecological connectivity and sustainability,conservation practitioners increasingly approachconservation at a landscape scale. This necessitates

working with private landowners outside of thegovernment owned and managed protected areas.

Often the most room for innovation is outside ofthe core protected area. Private lands may have moreregulatory exibility than public lands, so there maybe more opportunities to employ diverse conserva-tion strategies, such as shade-grown coffee, that alsobenet the landholder. However, since it is mucheasier to reverse the conservation status of privatereserves, it is important that they are recognized bythe government as protected areas, and that they areintegral to the biodiversity of a country. Policies andpractices that promote private lands conservationby facilitating conservation easements, recognizingand collaborating with private-reserve networks, andinscribing private reserves into the protected areassystem, all strengthen the private governance ofnatural resources.

Equitable sharing of costs and benets

Determining how to share equitably the costs andbenets of protected areas needs to be addressed

at both a site and country level. As governmentsstrive to include local stakeholders in protected areasmanagement, it is important to not just share theresponsibilities of managing an area. Stakeholdersalso need to share in the benets. As governmentsdevolve power to and recognize indigenous andcommunity conserved areas or resources, communi-ties must be allowed to carry out decisions and notjust act as guardians of an area. However, a word ofcaution is that indigenous and community conservedareas, or areas with high levels of participatory pro-tected areas management, do not always achieve theirconservation objectives. (Dearden, 2005).

Before this project, we only carried out agricultural

activities and the extraction of natural resources,

because we didnt have any alternatives. Now, thanksto the project, we see an improvement in our lives.

I feel that I have improved a lot, both in knowledge

as well as economically. Five years ago, I worked

only to provide subsistence because I didnt have an

alternative. Now I realize that I am rising above that.

Miguel Jarama Valderrama, Member o Pacaya-Samiriacommunity organization, COMAPA and boat driver in the

Rumbo al Dorado Consortium in Peru.

Funding

Funding is a chronic concern of protected areasand impacts the quality of governance. However,good governance can lead to increased funding. Ofthe nine case studies chosen, eight had sustainablenance mechanisms. While this is not necessarilyillustrative of the connection with good governance,

this does point to the importance of long-termfunding for the success of a protected area.

Since funding may drive good governance. If aprotected area has funding, it can develop processesthat incorporate participatory management. Fundingmechanisms can also be structured in way that forcecollaborative governance, as in the case of the Cha-gres fund, which mandated the creation of anotherentity to manage the disbursement of funds.31 Trans-



parent and accountable nancial management anddemonstrating a commitment to principles of goodgovernance may also serve to generate fundingfor a protected area or group (e.g. NGOs or pri-

vate lands associations). The Programme of Workstipulates that funding mechanisms be developed

which support diverse governance structures.

Expanding denition of protected areas governance

Broadening the denition of protected areas gover-nance opens up more ways for civil society and theprivate sector to participate. This gives credibilityand empowerment to those who may not have hada voice at the table, such as private landowners andcommunities. Recognizing shared and communityconserved governance types may also help protectand validate traditional knowledge and practices. It

is crucial to encourage the government to adapt toparticipatory approaches and new protected areasgovernance paradigms.

Our organizations believe that it is very important

to receive recognition and support from our

Governments. In this area, the support received

from PiP has been very important because TNC has

identied itself with the needs and goals of our localorganizations, it has been giving us advice, technical

support and guidance so that we could create our

own identity and to obtain, through our own work,

recognition from our governments, which is so

important to us and society in general.

Franklin Carmiol, President Costa Rican Network o

Private Nature Reserves

Policy development

There is a need for protected areas policy devel-opment in many countries that allows numerousgovernance structures. There is generally room forinnovation in governance within a countrys legalframework and laws and practices must supportincreased participation in protected areas manage-

ment. In some PiP sites, protected areas governancepolicy is being shaped from the bottom-up, leading toa change in legal or customary practice. In others, thepolicies are being enacted on a national scale. Policydevelopment that addresses governance issues alsohelps fulll Programme element 3: enabling activities.

No best tCountries will likely need to employ a variety ofgovernance structures in order to fulll their com-mitments to the CBDs Programme of Work onProtected Areas (Ervin, 2007). In some cases,government managed areas are more appropriatethan Community Conserved Areas and vice versa.The complexity of the site also calls for a pluralityof governance types. For the purposes of demon-strating differing governance types, the sites pre-

sented in this document were divided into the fourmain governance types. However, in reality, mostof these sites have similar governance issues. Forexample, although most are government-managed,all have people living in or immediately surroundingthe borders of the area and most are importantfor both national and community patrimony. As aresult, a nuanced approach to governance, one thatleans towards shared governance by incorporatingmeaningful local participation in management anddecision-making processes, may be the most effec-

tive approach for long-term conservation of the area.A variety of governance structures also contributesto ecological connectivity by supporting conserva-tion between different types of protected areas atdifferent scales. The ecological, political, social, andlegislative context of a protected area is key to deter-mining the most appropriate conservation categoryand governance type.

Timeframe

Building trust and modifying power and decision-making structures can be a long process. Expecta-tions should be realistic, with short and long-termgoals (i.e. initially working to strengthen governance

within the existing framework and, in the long-term,actually modifying the governance framework).Often the process of developing shared governancemechanisms is as important as the outcome, becauseit is during these processes that trust is built andthen expanded upon.


31/56Governance Trends in Protected Areas: Experiences rom the Parks in Peril Program in Latin America and the Car ibbean

Some practical steps in identifying, developing andimplementing an appropriate protected area gov-

ernance structure arise from the conclusions of thisstudy. These are:32

Evaluate institutional, economic and socialgaps of protected areas and stakeholderinstitutions.

Identify the legislative and policy gaps thatdetermine the range of governance types fora country. For example, not having laws thatallow for delegated management (sometimes

called co-management).

Evaluate costs and benets of protected areasto local and indigenous communities.

Reevaluate, and when appropriate modify,management categories and governance types,using a participatory approach.

Identify potential ways to expand governance

to include civil society.Ensure local participation and appropriate

management category and governance typewhen creating new protected areas.

Support bottom up (and top down) policymaking that take into account diverse gover-nance types and good governance principles.

Ensure sustainable funding mechanisms sup-

port all the governance structures and upholdthe principles of good governance.

The bottom line

The governance structures within the protectedareas in the PiP program are as diverse and compli-cated as the protected areas themselves. It is clearthat governance affects the management effective-ness of a protected area, and ultimately whether the

4. Recommendations

additional relevant PiP leGacy

Publications

Equitable Sharing of Costs and Benets ofProtected Areas

Conservation in the Context of Decen-tralization Processes

Indigenous Groups and the Managementof Protected Areas

Management Committees in ProtectedAreas

Policy Agenda for Protected AreaManagement

Community Initiatives for the Sustainable

Use of Natural Resources in ProtectedAreas

Partnerships in Protected AreasConservation

Gender in the Conservation of ProtectedAreas

Land Tenure in Protected Areas

Park Guards in the Conservation of Pro-tected Areas

Pride Campaigns for Community Engage-ment in Protected Area Management

available on www.parksinperil.org



or additional resources

www.parksinperil.org: Parks in Peril pro

types of pa governance

Documents