The Protected Landscape Approach - Centre for Mediterranean ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community Acknowledgements This chapter was only possible with the direct or indirect collaboration of several colleagues, including Lucia H. O. Wadt, Daisy A. P. Gomes-Silva, Wanda T. P. de V. Maldonado, Rosely A. Sanches, Jessica Brown, Francisco Coutinho, Severino da S. Brito, Renato R. Sales, and Christiane Ehringhaus. It should be mentioned, as well, that this chapter was prepared based also on the following: the work done on the establishment of Mandira Extractive Reserve and COOPEROSTRA, mostly under the leadership of Renato Sales (formerly at FF), Francisco Coutinho (president of Mandira association and COOPEROSTRA) and Wanda Maldonado (FF), with other col - leagues from FF and other organizations; the description of the rise of extractive reserves and the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, by Lucia Wadt (EMBRAPA researcher), Christiane Ehringhaus, Daisy Gomes-Silva (associate researcher of EMBRAPA and fellow of CNPq), and Severino Brito (president of AMOPREB); 23 analysis of relationships among local com - munities and protected areas in Brazil, prepared for the World Parks Congress, with collaborators, mainly Rosely Sanches (ISA), 24 and in consultation with colleagues; work related to the APAs Cananéia-Iguape-Peruíbe and Ilha Comprida; the workshop on “Protecting Landscapes and Seascapes” at the WPC; and activities, on behalf of IUCN, related to the World Heritage Convention. 23 EMBRAPA: the Brazilian Agency for Agricultural Research. CNPq: the [Brazilian] National Council of Scientific and Technology Development. Amopreb: the Association of Brasiléia Dwellers, Extractivists and Producers. WPC: IUCN-WCPA V th World Parks Congress, Durban 2003. 24 ISA: Socio-Environmental Institute. 64
5. Conserving “unprotected” protected areas – communities can and do conserve land - scapes of all sorts Edmund Barrow and Neema Pathak Introduction – hundreds of thousands of communityconserved areas across the globe During the last century, state designation and protection have been the main “official” tools for the conservation of biodiversity. Formally recognised Protected Areas (PAs) have been broadly successful in conserving biodiversity but have also led to social inequity, as those who declare PAs are rarely impacted by the restrictions imposed, whereas those who are impacted have rarely been a part of the decision-making process regarding their creation or management. State-constituted PAs continue to be a dominant focus for conserving biodiversity. With over 12% of the earth’s surface gazetted as PAs, one would think that a representative section of the planet’s biodiversity and ecosystems had been conserved! But often these PAs are not large enough to be viable; or lack the ecological connectivity to other parts of the ecosystem or landscape; or are inefficiently managed because of limitations of staff and resources; or face serious conflicts with hostile local human populations that have been forcefully denied their ‘rightful’ access. In most biodiversity-rich countries, conventional PAs are ridden with internal conflicts, and are under threats from ever-expanding industry, hydro-electric projects, agricultural expansion, and growing urbanization and con sumerism. Under the circumstances it seems unlikely that these “pristine islands” would survive very long. As Kolmes (1999) mentions, PAs are often set aside for protection without in any way questioning the manner in which we use our natural resources in general, or altering how people think about the use of nature in a moral sense. In the emphasis on “official” protected areas, one aspect has been consistently overlooked, or not understood, namely that rural people conserve vast areas of land and biodiversity for their own needs, whether utilitarian, cultural or spiritual. The history of this kind of conser - vation, or what we will be referring to as Community-Conserved Areas (CCAs), is much older than government-managed protected areas, or even the notion of the nation-state (Pathak et al., 2003). African, Asian, and Central and South American countries have a strong history of traditional systems of resource management for water, forests and rangelands. Some of these systems have existed and evolved over hundreds of years, and have their origins in traditional common property resource management regimes of pastoralists, hunter-gatherers, fishing and agricultural societies. What is also common within the communities practising conservation systems is a history of alienation from these resources by colonial rulers. Governments (preand post-colonial) have generally ignored CCAs until recently. Yet these CCAs have long been central to how communities all over the world have cared for the land scapes they inhabit, and should be seen as an important element in the protected landscape approach. Estimates indicate that between 400–800 million hectares of forest are owned or admin - istered by local communities or indigenous people (Molnar and Scherr, 2003). In 18 65
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: The Protected Landscape Approach: L
Page 49 and 50: 3. World Heritage Cultural Landscap
Page 59 and 60: 4. From pre-assumptions to a ‘jus
Page 75: 4. From pre-assumptions to a ‘jus
Page 79 and 80: 5. Conserving “unprotected” pro
Page 93 and 94: Part II Case studies from around th
Page 117 and 118: 8. Pastoralists, conservation and l
Page 127 and 128:
8. Pastoralists, conservation and l
Page 129 and 130:
9. Protected landscapes in the Unit
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
10. Sustaining rural landscapes and
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
11. Cultural landscapes of the Ande
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
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?