Integrating conservation and use at the regional level E 3.9 201 abstract problem, they ensure a high degree of commitment. Adaptive management The introduction of flexible, adaptive management can be of great assistance to the implementation ofthe goal of ‘integration of conservation and use’. Adaptive management takes account ofthe fact that knowledge about biological systems is imperfect (Section E 220.127.116.11; Holling, 1978; Walters, 1997). The setting and achieving of targets is hampered by this lack of knowledge.Adaptive management recognizes change as a fundamental reality and does not attempt to define objectives or strategies ‘once and for all’ (Gunderson et al, 1994). Instead: – interventions are designed as experimens so that the result not only brings a direct benefit, but also reduces uncertainty about the function ofthe system, – the results are used in order to improve management, – adequate monitoring is carried out before, during and after the interventions. Bioregional management makes provision for interdisciplinary research efforts to concentrate on applied aspects and on the relationship between man andthe environment: the development of innovative, sustainable and socio-economically viable technologies and methods for the use of local resources, but also the protection of species and ecosystems within the region. E 3.9.3 Case studies In large parts ofthe USA, Canada and Australia, and increasingly also in New Zealandand Europe, bioregions are already defined as the foundation of planning for administration and resource management. So far, experience has been gathered on this under various conditions with respect to the ecosystemic circumstances, administrative prerequisites, economic framework conditions andthe involvement of stakeholders. Three case studies will be used to show how the above-mentioned considerations have been implemented andthe special challenges which result for the design ofthese projects (La Amistad, Costa Rica: Box E 3.9-2); Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia: Box E 3.9-3; Rhön, Germany: Box: E 3.9- 4). These case studies were consciously chosen as a comparison to the situations described in Section E 2 (Amazonia, the Indonesian shallow sea andthe Central European cultivated landscape). Furthermore, reference is made to other regional projects in this report that can also be seen as a case of application (Campfire, Section E 3.3.3; Obergurgl, Box E 3.7-3). E 3.9.4 Evaluation and application In the Council’s guard rail concept, areas are defined where it can be assumed that precept of sustainability is being violated (WBGU, 1998a). In analogy to the global guard rails (Section I 1), guard rails can Box E 3.9-2 Case study: La Amistad in Costa Rica The ‘La Amistad’ biosphere reserve covers an area of over 600,000 ha (approx 12 per cent ofthe country’s total area) in the south-east of Costa Rica with a large number of unique ecosystems from the Atlantic coast right up to high mountain forests. Around 30–40 per cent ofthe flora are endemic in the entire area. Within Costa Rica this region is one ofthe last where the indigenous population still lives. In 1982 Costa Rica and Panama set up a cross-border national park and in the same year the area was recognized as a biosphere reserve and extended. In 1983 declaration as a ‘World Heritage Site’ followed (Gobierno de Costa Rica, 1990). Overall, the reserve comprises several areas with different protection status (national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, game protected areas and protected water areas as well as ‘protected areas’ for the indigenous population.) A commission, which was financed by a 5-year debtfor-nature swap (Section I 18.104.22.168) and in which all ofthe institutions already present in the region were represented, was entrusted with coordinating and managing the region. After initial difficulties (including financial difficulties) this commission, together with international organizations, developed a joint strategy for institutional development. What is especially important here are strategies to resolve conflicts, recognition of indigenous territorial claims, the development of management plans for the protected areas andthe specification of priorities for future development options. The commission also makes recommendations for development projects, such as the extension of roads, mining activities and generating electricity. The incorporation of indigenous groups proved to be difficult because the required skills had to be developed here first and organizational structures had to be built up. An indigenous NGO (KANEBLO) has taken on these tasks with the support of various national and international aid organizations. A critical phase ofthe project was reached when, after five years, the funding from the debt-for-nature swap ran out and transitional financing could only be secured with extreme efforts (including funding from GEF, the Netherlands, Sweden and UNEP). The project is now financed for the longterm by a national environmental fund.
202 E Diversity of landscapes and ecosystems Box E 3.9-3 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia The Great Barrier Reef extends along a 2,300km-long coastline and is the largest continuous coral reef in the world. It is made up of individual reefs, islands and sandbanks and provides a habitat for around 400 coral species and 1,500 fish species. The main use of this region, recognized as World Heritage in 1981, is tourism with a large number of different leisure and sport activities. Every year, around US$1 thousand million is earned. Raw material depletion, fishing and shipping are other, but less important, economic activities in this area. Two factors are currently threatening this unique ecosystem: • Disruptions from tourist activities, such as diving, shell collecting, boat trips in sensitive areas. • The tremendous increase of starfishes in some places, which is probably linked to pollution and eutrophication and which destroys the corals. In 1975 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was founded with the aim of protecting the marine and coastal ecosystems and promoting the appropriate use ofthe resources in this area. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is responsible for the management of this region. The government authority with close contacts to the Environment Ministry has built up many contacts to local authorities, governments and other interest groups via an agreement with the Federal State of Queensland.The authority’s main task is to bring together and spread information and to carry out studies and projects on ecosystem management. A committee for the regular exchange of information between the Park administration and other institutions, experts and citizens was set up for the involvement of important groups. The main conflicts in this region were oil pumping in the 1960s and lime extraction in the coral reefs. Australia has clearly decided on protection here: the country is prepared to do without these uses in favour of conserving this unique reef. The Marine Park Authority uses two important instruments to avoid conflicts: on the one hand a seven-stage system of zoning lays down precisely what activities in which areas are allowed, not allowed or allowed only with a special licence. On the other hand, the Authority is in regular dialogue with companies who (want to) use the reef – whether for the removal of raw materials, fishing or tourism. These users then voluntarily undertake to adhere to certain rules. For example, sport anglers may not fish in fish breeding areas andthey supervise each other in adhering to this prohibition; tough sanctions await anyone who does not stick to these rules. Ships carrying mineral oil and travelling through parts ofthe reef are now accompanied by specially trained pilots who guide the ships through the highly sensitive areas. The example shows that effective instruments can be developed as a result ofthe cooperation of a national authority with local authorities and interest groups that do justice to the different protection and usage requirements. Existing institutional capacities have been used and supplemented by the national authority. The general appreciation ofthe ecosystem by all involved as well as the knowledge that the state national park authority can introduce more stringent restrictions on use at any time ensure that there is high acceptance and effectiveness for voluntary commitments. also be identified at regional level. This concept can be very well combined with the above-mentioned approach for bioregional management: designating areas for placing under protection or restriction on use defines ‘sustainability limits’ which must not be exceeded. In this respect, the term ‘bioregional management’ could suggest that biosphere conservation should be accorded priority over economic biosphere use from the outset.This is not the case: in a successful concept all three aspects of sustainability must always be regarded as integrated. Bioregional management should therefore create a balance between the interest in intensive land use andthe protection interest without one ofthe two interests being granted a priori priority over the region as a whole. No user should be prescribed a use plan right down to the individual field. Only a network of ecosystems is identified, each of which is of major important for biosphere conservation. The zoning concept provides a differentiated foundation for this (Section E 3.9.2). There will be type ‘N’ areas in every region (Section E 3.3.2) in which important ecosystem services are performed, which are undervalued when viewed from a purely market point of view, and would be lost if used for economic purposes – conversion and subsequent intensive land use – (eg core zones of protected areas as a habitat for endangered species, high-slope forests without economic use because oftheir importance for erosion prevention, water protection areas). These protected areas are of regional importance and can also be designated at this level. Added to these are protected areas of supraregional or global importance, such as areas of natural heritage or areas of importance to the global protected areas system (Section E 3.3.2).These are agreed at national or global level, but also have a binding nature for the region concerned. The regions can vary greatly with respect to their share ofthe three landscape-use types. This means that this concept is ultimately a geographical implementation ofthe guard rail concept for the regional integration of conservation and use ofthe biosphere: after a network of protected and buffer areas has been designated, there remains some ‘leeway’ within which economic search processes can run their course – while adhering to the guidelines for intensive sustainable use (Section E 3.3.4) – and a market-oriented use is possible and desired, eg with respect to the goal of safeguarding adequate supply of food.