Parks - IUCN

KENTON R. MILLER AND LAWRENCE S. HAMILTON
Second, re-scale protected area programmes
Action is needed at local, regional, and global levels to conserve biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Core areas (national parks and other IUCN Categories) are
elements of greater, ecosystem-wide conservation areas. It is these ‘bioregions’ that
now must become the ‘management unit’ – including core areas, their buffer zones,
and the remaining surrounding lands and waters in farms, forests, wildlife and fishery
production and infrastructure. Obviously, this requires a challenging level of
cooperation with neighbours, other jurisdictions, and even adjacent countries where
boundaries cut across common ecosystems.
In some cases, parks and reserves themselves cannot be expanded to cover
geographic spaces sufficiently large for maintaining biodiversity and generating the
full array of ecosystem services. The bioregional approach raises the scale of planning
to that of whole landscapes so that corridors, buffer zones, and cooperative
programmes with neighbours can increase the effective biological size of the area.
These mechanisms can also facilitate migration and dispersal in the face of climate
change and sea-level rise, reduce land degradation, and increase the chances of
meeting protected area goals. Globally, most countries have accepted the
responsibilities of the 1992 Conventions on Biological Diversity, Climate Change, and
Desertification. Goals and actions to save and wisely use diversity, develop response
mechanisms for climate change, and halt land degradation call for international
cooperation among national governments.
Third, reform the institutions
Finally, we need to establish mechanisms that permit and encourage protected area
managers to work with neighbours and other institutions that can help design and
implement management programmes. Such action can anticipate fragmentation and
other forms of change and promote the full range of ecosystem services. This
generally requires revision of policies, and occasionally of legislation. But, most
important, it requires development of economic incentives and institutional agreements
that encourage people to participate and cooperate. Furthermore, at scales greater
than wild core areas, we will need to cooperate with those in charge of other
jurisdictions, private and communal ownership, and ecosystems that range into other
countries. This calls for new ways of negotiating and shaping agreements among
those that benefit and are affected by these bioregional programmes. Transborder
protected areas also can be effective in reducing international tensions (Westing
1993) and even forming Peace Parks, as has been proposed for the Korean
Demilitarized Zone by Westing (1999) and by the Peace Parks Foundation for
Southern Africa (Hanks 1999). The benefits and drawbacks, and guidelines for
effective transborder cooperation, have been discussed by Hamilton et al. (1996).
Fourth, reconsider the role of protected area
managers
Managers will argue that they have enough problems addressing the issues they
already face within their jurisdictional boundaries without adding further demands
upon their limited time and resources. But, as our argument and the cases have
shown, a new set of challenges is looming over the horizon that may simply
overwhelm manager’s current agenda. The opportunity is for managers to adapt their
policies and practices to meet these new challenges head-on while time permits.
47