1.Front section - IUCN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

chapter 13 <strong>IUCN</strong> Photo Library © Jim Thorsell Contribution of the World Heritage Convention to building support for the global protected area system by Jim Thorsell Editor’s introduction As the person responsible for managing the assessment of nominations of natural sites to the World Heritage List over the past two decades, Jim Thorsell is very well placed to offer ideas on how World Heritage designation can lead to broader support for protected areas more generally. He gives particular attention to World Heritage Sites as exemplars of effective protective area management, covering topics such as the preparation of a management plan, involvement in bioregional planning, establishment of monitoring and reporting processes, building the capacity of staff, and managing and marketing tourism. He also discusses how World Heritage can assist in developing new thinking and policies for protecting a nation’s natural heritage, specifying what should be identified and protected, designing new approaches to management, and dealing with threats from various external factors. To capture the potential of World Heritage sites for building broader support will require more transboundary cooperation, better coordination of activities among the potential external sources of support, partnership between World Heritage and industries based on natural resources, and better use of the World Heritage idea in building broader support for protected areas. Photo: China’s Huangshan Mountain World Heritage site with its travertine pools. 169
13 Friends for Life: New partners in support of protected areas Introduction As of the end of 2003, 172 protected areas have been inscribed on the prestigious World Heritage (WH) List as being of “outstanding universal value” for their natural features (including 23 which also satisfy cultural criteria). Together these sites cover an area of 1.7 million km 2 , approximately 9% of the global protected area network and 0.16% of the total number of the world’s protected areas (<strong>IUCN</strong> Category I–VI sites). This may appear to be a small proportion of the total network but the WH Convention is only intended to apply to a select number of the world’s most outstanding sites. Although relatively few in comparison to the global total of protected areas, WH sites assume a disproportionate prominence in ways that other sites do not. For example, WH sites are part of a rigorously screened exclusive global network of “the best of the best”, the “crème de la crème” or the “crown jewels” of this network. They fall under an international convention ratified by 176 countries that seeks not representativeness (which is the objective of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere programme) and recognises that WH sites are at the zenith on our scale of natural resources. Figure 13.1 provides a graphic view of World Heritage sites and how they fit in the spectrum of different types of protected areas. The figure illustrates that WH sites are limited in number and that there is a hierarchy of sites, all of which are important in conserving the earth’s diversity. One consequence of this “hall of fame” approach is that WH sites have attained a high level of public exposure and political support. For nature conservation they could be referred to as “political hotspots” – areas that have been proposed by governments and accepted by a committee made up of 21 countries as being of “Nobel prize” quality. A second consequence of WH listing is that most sites (particularly those in non-OECD countries) are in a favoured position when it comes to financial support. Not only do tourism levels increase, bringing added economic benefits, but donors such as the UN Foundation and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) give priority to funding projects in WH sites. Donors justify funding WH sites more easily as they have been designated under a UN convention, they have been screened for their global importance and ecological integrity and come with a national commitment for their protection (Paul, 2003). This donor preference has been recently reinforced through a significant Memorandum of Understanding between the World Heritage Centre, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UNDP/GEF. With this reinforced financial backing along with their “branding” and political support, WH sites have been called “Cadillac parks” and are expected to set the standards and be models of effective management for other sites in the protected areas system. But along with these advantages, WH site status also carries greater responsibility and brings wider international exposure, particularly when a site’s integrity is threatened. A reporting and monitoring system is in place which allows a site to be placed on the List of WH in Danger and eventually to be delisted if the values for which it was originally inscribed are lost. Though this latter step has never been taken, the prospect of it has been raised in several cases (e.g. Srebarna in Bulgaria and Ichkeul in Tunisia). This “state of conservation reporting” mechanism serves as an important means to ensure accountability of member countries and to maintain credibility for the system. It also helps marshall international support if needed (Von Droste and Ishwaran, 2003). The leverage value in reporting on threats to sites has been applied with great effect in many sites (Thorsell, 2003) and is another mechanism unique to this Convention. Despite these distinguishing features, WH sites should not be viewed as above and apart from the global protected area network. Indeed, Article 5 of the Convention text as agreed in 1972 calls for each State Party to undertake a number of measures that apply generally to protection of the natural and cultural heritage. These include adoption of heritage policies that would be integrated into comprehensive planning programmes, establishing government departments to manage heritage sites, undertaking research and setting up training centres for staff. All of these 170
Page 1:
Chief Scientist’s Office Friends
Page 5 and 6:
Friends for Life New partners in su
Page 7:
Table of contents Foreword Kenton M
Page 10 and 11:
the management of protected areas,
Page 12 and 13:
Introduction IUCN Photo Library ©
Page 14 and 15:
Building broader support for protec
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
chapter 1 © Jeffrey A. McNeely A t
Page 24 and 25:
A taxonomy of support: how and why
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
chapter 2 © Patricio Robles Gil/Si
Page 34 and 35:
Extractive industries as a new cons
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
chapter 3 © Ted Trzyna Urban dwell
Page 48 and 49:
Urban dwellers and protected areas:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
chapter 4 IUCN Photo Library © Jim
Page 62 and 63:
The role of hunting in promoting pr
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
chapter 5 © AHEAD Building support
Page 78 and 79:
Building support for protected area
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
chapter 6 © Charles Besançon Prot
Page 94 and 95:
Protected areas and the security co
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
chapter 7 © Thomas O. McShane Prot
Page 104 and 105:
Protected areas and development ass
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
chapter 8 © Corbis Protected areas
Page 114 and 115:
Protected areas and local and indig
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
chapter 9 IUCN Photo Library © Jim
Page 126 and 127:
Protected areas and indigenous peop
Page 128 and 129:
Protected areas and indigenous peop
Page 130 and 131: Protected areas and indigenous peop
Page 140 and 141: chapter 10 IUCN Photo Library © Ji
Page 142 and 143: Building cultural support for prote
Page 152 and 153: chapter 11 © Paul F.J. Eagles Buil
Page 154 and 155: Building support for protected area
Page 166 and 167: chapter 12 © D. Ostergren Making c
Page 168 and 169: Making connections: the tactics, ar
Page 182 and 183: Contribution of the World Heritage
Page 188 and 189: chapter 14 IUCN Photo Library © Ji
Page 190 and 191: Communication as a means of buildin
Page 202 and 203: chapter 15 © Jeffrey A. McNeely So
Page 204 and 205: Some conclusions and ways ahead 15
Page 206 and 207: Some conclusions and ways ahead 15
Page 208 and 209: x Acronyms ADB Asian Development Ba
Page 210: x Thomas O. McShane Senior Conserva
Page 213 and 214: x Baillie, Barry. 2002. New Gummut
Page 215 and 216: x Brown, K. 2004. Trade-off Analysi
Page 217 and 218: x Convention of Biological Diversit
Page 219 and 220: x Eagles, P., S. McCool and C. Hain
Page 221 and 222: x GEF. 2004. GEF and the Convention
Page 223 and 224: x Homsey, J. 1999. Ape Tourism and
Page 225 and 226: x Kalema-Zikusoka, G., R.A. Kock an
Page 227 and 228: x Leung, Y.F., J.L. Marion and T.A.
Page 229 and 230: x McCullough, D. 1996. Spatially st
Page 231 and 232:
x Murphree, M.W. 2000. Community-ba
Page 233 and 234:
x Pedersen, Arthur. 2002. Managing
Page 235 and 236:
x Rodrigues A.S., S.J. Andelman, M.
Page 237 and 238:
x Scott Wilson Resource Consultants
Page 239 and 240:
x Taber, A., G. Novarro and M.A. Ar
Page 241 and 242:
x Von Droste, Berndt and N. Ishwara
Page 243 and 244:
x World Parks Congress Outputs. 200
Page 245 and 246:
Front Cover Photographs Olga group
show all

1.Front section - IUCN

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?