Exchange programmes - IUCN

Sites facing similar problems
As an example, we include a short section here on Tourism:
In September 1998, a joint UNESCO-China systematic monitoring mission was
undertaken to five natural World Heritage sites in China at the invitation of Chinese
authorities. Among other things, the mission concluded that (Feng and Molloy, 1998), in
view of the rapid development of tourism in China, a programme of education and
training for sustainable tourism practices should be developed. Particular attention
should be paid to establishing policies to make tourism compatible with site conservation,
and meeting other countries’ standards in this respect. Indeed this topic is also the
subject of recent IUCN advice based on recommendations in the East Asia Action Plan
(Eagles, et al., 2001).
The mission found that, in general, management is committed to the protection of the
World Heritage sites’ natural values and that the main problem they are all facing, with
the exception of Mount Huanglong, is tourism management. For example, managers at
the Mount Taishan World Heritage site felt they would benefit from the advice of other
World Heritage site managers who had to manage similarly high numbers of tourists.
Similarly, Mount Huangshan has been considered a good model for managing large
numbers of visitors to a complex scenic landscape in Asia. Recreation pressures on
Jiuzhaigou, however, are becoming a serious issue, and radical management measures
may be needed. Wulingyuan World Heritage site is reported to be overrun with tourist
facilities. It is not clear if these are having an adverse effect on the biodiversity values of
the wider site area, but the aesthetic impact is considerable and management is in need of
assistance (Feng and Molloy, 1998).
Thus, for China at any rate, tourism management could be a central theme of an East
Asian exchange programme. For example, site managers from throughout East Asia
could visit Chinese World Heritage sites where tourism is a management concern, and
be invited to analyse the situation, draw on experience elsewhere in the region and
beyond, and make recommendations. Another approach would be to use the North
America/UK exchange approach (section 2.2), in which several groups of external
experts would visit an area for a short period of time, discuss the issues with various
regional stakeholders, and write a final report with recommendations.
A Regional “Parkshare” programme
Recommendations for protected area exchanges in East Asia
The most ambitious approach to exchange programmes would be to develop an East
Asia version of the proposed IUCN/WCPA Parkshare Programme. Such a programme
would draw on the EUROPARC exchange (2.1) and the North America/UK Countryside
Exchange Programme (2.2). It would link all countries in the region and be developed
perhaps under the auspices of WCPA East Asia. It would aim to facilitate exchanges and
partnerships between protected areas in different countries in the region – and between
the region and other parts of the world. It would be designed to build capacity.
While an East Asia Parkshare programme could be developed at various levels of
sophistication, the elements might include:
� Using the WCPA network to compile a register of those potential partners who
would particularly benefit from participation in an exchange and partnership
programme, and be willing to make the organisational commitment to take part in
such a programme. (“Partners” would be individual protected areas, protected
area system administrations at the national and local levels, NGOs with a pro-
61