The Protected Landscape Approach - Centre for Mediterranean ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7. WH inscription and challenges to the survival of community life in Philippine cultural landscapes they have decided to implement. With local residents taking custodianship of their landscape and seascape, preservation in Batanes is a community effort. Both sites prove that tangible and intangible heritage must be preserved together to assure the sustaining of life, culture, and the physical attributes of the resident community in a cultural landscape. Without considering the nature-culture continuum, the continuing cultural land - scape dies and passes into a relict cultural landscape. However, without the participation of local residents, any preservation programme is doomed to failure. The most important lesson to be learned from the two case studies is that site preservation is impossible without government and community partnership. 105
8. Pastoralists, conservation and livelihoods in East and Southern Africa: reconciling continuity and change through the protected landscape approach Brian T. B. Jones, Moses Makonjio Okello and Bobby E. L. Wishitemi Introduction Conservation of natural resources in Kenya and Namibia has for many years been based on the model of formal protected areas owned and managed by the state. In many cases, the establishment of these protected areas has been characterized by the government identifying an area of land based on its resource endowment, displacing local people, outlawing human settlement and proclaiming a national park or game reserve. There are 52 protected areas in Kenya covering about 8% of the total land. Namibia has 21 proclaimed parks and recreation areas covering about 13.6% of the land surface. However, there are important limits to the extent that the protected area networks can conserve biodiversity in these two countries. In Kenya most protected areas have become increasingly isolated and fragmented conservation entities that cannot guarantee conservation for posterity (Western, 1997; Western and Ssemakula, 1981; Soulé et al., 1979; Young and McClanahan, 1996). In Namibia large parts of the Namib Desert were designated as conser - vation areas largely because they were unsuitable for other forms of land use. Meanwhile, important biomes are not represented in the protected area network (Barnard, 1998). Further, the protected area approach in both countries has in the past focused on protection through legal means of areas in which humans are separated from nature and are only allowed to be temporary observers. Few landscapes representing unique interactions between the environ - ment and culture and incorporating local management regimes that conserve biodiversity by means other than legal proclamation were recognised or legitimized. This bias in emphasis towards what constitutes a protected area led to parks and game reserves being synonymous with the exclusion of humans and their activities, with protection of wildlife and other natural resources and management enforced by government through legal means. Yet in both countries pastoralist communities have for many centuries been presiding over landscapes now recognised as important for biodiversity. The land-uses of these communities and the sustainable nature of their grazing management regimes have helped to preserve landscapes that still provide important habitat for wildlife. This chapter considers the way in which pastoralists in Kenya and Namibia have sustained their landscapes in the past and are trying to cope with aspects of continuity and change in their societies. In some cases change has negative impacts on the way people are managing their land and resources. Their ability to sustain their landscapes and the natural resource base on which they have always depended is being undermined. As a result, the conservation benefits that came from their management of the land are being lost. Formal protected area approaches that separate people from their land provide few solutions for these mobile people. This chapter argues that a protected landscape 107
Page 1 and 2:
IUCN World Commission on Protected
Page 3 and 4:
The Protected Landscape Approach Li
Page 5 and 6:
Dedication This publication is dedi
Page 7 and 8:
The Protected Landscape Approach: L
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Part I Introduction and global over
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
3. World Heritage Cultural Landscap
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
4. From pre-assumptions to a ‘jus
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66: 4. From pre-assumptions to a ‘jus
Page 77 and 78: 5. Conserving “unprotected” pro
Page 93 and 94: Part II Case studies from around th
Page 95 and 96: The Protected Landscape Approach: L
Page 115: The Protected Landscape Approach: L
Page 119 and 120: 8. Pastoralists, conservation and l
Page 129 and 130: 9. Protected landscapes in the Unit
Page 141 and 142: 10. Sustaining rural landscapes and
Page 157 and 158: 11. Cultural landscapes of the Ande
Page 167 and 168:
11. Cultural landscapes of the Ande
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
12. Protecting landscapes and seasc
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Colour plates The terraced landscap
Page 189 and 190:
Colour plates Sagarmatha National P
Page 191 and 192:
Colour plates Ebey’s Landing Nati
Page 193 and 194:
Colour plates Artisan, Mata Atlanti
Page 195 and 196:
Colour plates Forest of Bowland Are
Page 197 and 198:
Colour plates Fruit orchards are a
Page 199 and 200:
13. Protected landscapes and seasca
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Part III The way forward
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Appendix 1 IUCN Protected Area Mana
Page 281 and 282:
Appendix 3 Guidelines for Category
Page 283 and 284:
Appendix 5 Evaluation of Cultural L
Page 285 and 286:
Appendices Country Title of World H
Page 287:
IUCN - The World Conservation Union
show all

The Protected Landscape Approach - Centre for Mediterranean ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?