Guidelines for Planning and Managing Mountain Protected Areas

I. Mountain protected areas: to protectwhat?It is true, broadly speaking, that protected areas in mountains have hitherto been mainly chosenfor their spectacular scenery, their quality of wilderness, their biodiversity and the opportunitiesthey offer for tourism; and the criteria used to select them have been based on thesevalues. In many respects, these criteria are the same as those used in other biomes. Manyexisting mountain protected areas are empty of resident people, or nearly so; but there areothers which have substantial populations, especially in the valleys. Here the landscapes haveoften been shaped by long occupation and many of their special qualities lie in the contrastbetween the tamed and the wild. These people, over centuries, have reached a way of life whichis broadly in balance with the setting in which they live. Both they and the pressures upon them,are now changing fast; and the changes are in many instances harmful to the environment andtoo rapid or too violent to allow for harmonious adaptation by the local communities.Because most mountain protected areas in the past have been chosen for their physical,biological and scenic qualities, the role of local people has usually been seen as one ofmaintaining these physical, biological and aesthetic qualities. Community livelihood andculture, the protection of them from unnecessary disruption and the conservation of theresources upon which they are based, have not been seen as special features which should beprotected and upon which areas should, therefore, be selected for protection. This is no longer atenable attitude. To provide sufficient protection to enable the ways of life of residentcommunities to develop without undue disruption should be one of the central aims ofprotected areas in mountain regions – consistent, of course, with broader environmentalconservation. Ways of choosing the communities which deserve such protection should,therefore, be among the criteria for selection of protected areas.If resident populations are to be included as an essential element in some mountain protectedareas this has direct consequences for the category of protected area to be chosen and for theobjectives of management. The IUCN Categories cover a wide range of characteristics andobjectives and, by defining different zones within a protected area, many of these differentobjectives can be included in one area.Perhaps the most flexible category is Category V (Protected Landscapes) because this, intheory, affords broad protection to the whole, while it can give greater protection to parts forspecially defined purposes. The essential characteristic is a system of graded protectionsupported by legislation, controls and incentives, since much of the land is in human use forlivelihoods; the nomenclature is less important, since many of these are called National Parks(Category III) by their countries. 1 Indeed, the greatest number of MtPAs are in Category IVHabitat/Species Management Areas, although the greatest area is in Category II.It is not suggested that this flexible approach must be adopted for all mountain protectedareas; there is clearly a place for areas which fall firmly into Categories I or II. In fact,1The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve provides for this kind of graded protection, with a more protectedcore zone and a peripheral or buffer zone. It also includes a research component and monitoring as partof an international network.7