|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law |
Last Updated: 13 February 2023
93
The Management of Protected Areas of International Significance
Alexander Gillespie*
The goal to create and effectively manage protected areas of global significance has been resolutely adopted by the international community. However, despite the clear merits of this goal, the need to maintain and conserve these protected areas from any number of threats has not been systematically advanced. The aim of this paper is to provide a framework, to show that a clear practice is evolving in international law with regard to protected areas, that their management and planning requires the endorsement of at least eight considerations. Once these foundations have been laid, it may be possible for a much greater and synchronised international attempt to comprehensively manage areas of international significance.
1. INTRODUCTION
The goal to create and effectively manage protected areas of global significance has been resolutely adopted by the international community.1 However, despite the clear merits of this goal, the need to maintain and conserve these protected areas from any number of threats has not been systematically advanced. That is, although it is becoming increasingly obvious that a large number of protected areas of international significance need to be effectively managed, there is no overall schema showing how these threats are being evaluated or dealt with under an increasingly complex matrix of overlapping international organisations. The aim of this paper is to provide a framework, to show that a
*Alexander Gillespie, LLB, LLM (Hons) (Auckland), PhD (Nottingham), Professor of Law, University of Waikato, New Zealand. Gillespie is the recipient of fellowships from the Rotary, Fulbright, Rockefeller Foundations. He was the 2004 International Research Fellow of the New Zealand Law Foundation. He is currently the Rapporteur for the World Heritage Convention.
1 See A Gillespie (forthcoming), “Obligations and Gaps in the International Framework for Protected Areas”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review.
clear practice is evolving in international law with regard to protected areas, that their management and planning requires the endorsement of at least eight considerations. These are with regard to management plans, legal status, size, boundaries, buffer zone, corridors and networks, staffing and associated resources, and the utilisation of Environmental Impact Assessments (“EIAs”). This article seeks to explore these eight areas and, in doing so, establish a foun dation from which the basics of good management are made clear.
Having adequate plans to effectively manage the natural sites in question is a key part of most, if not all, protected area regimes, and the goal is commonly articulated in, inter alia, the Mediterranean2 and Helsinki Commission,3 and the OSPAR.4 They have also been emphasised with the (Bern) Convention on the Conservation of Habitat and Wildlife in Europe,5 the Habitats Directive6 and the European Diploma.7 The Man and the Biosphere regime (“MAB”) has not just emphasised the importance of management plans,8 it has also challenged new inscriptions, or those under periodic review, if their management plans
were not up to scratch.9 Although both the MAB and the Bern Convention have developed a small corpus of decisions on the need for management plans, the foremost decisions have come from the (Ramsar) Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, WHC and the Antarctic regime.
The broad obligations for a State with World Heritage Convention (“WHC”) sites to “integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes” is set down in the Convention.10 Accordingly, at the time of nomination, States parties are encouraged to have finalised plans for the management of each natural site nominated,11 or clear evidence of operational plans that will guide the management of the site until such time when a management plan is finalised.12 If at the time of inscription, a site does not have an adequate management or contingent management plan, inscription may be conditional upon a suitable revised management plan first being made available to the Committee. Enhanced work on management plans, as part of the listing process, has been requested from the Committee in relation to applications from Australia,13 Madagascar,14 Senegal,15 Tanzania,16 Peru,17
Zaire,18 India,19 Sri Lanka20 and the Solomon Islands.21 Failure to produce such management plans within a reasonable period of time has resulted in strong rebuke by the Committee.22 The problem of inadequate management regimes has also been listed as a reason for refusing the extension in the size of a site,23 or deferring its extension until a later date.24 The Committee has also issued direct recommendations to countries to update or revise their existing man agement plans, as they do not adequately confront new challenges. At other times, the Committee has recommended that the entire management plan needs to be revised, due to the significantly changed background considerations. Such recommendations have been made, at various times, to Slovakia,25 Nepal,26 Australia,27 Thailand,28 India,29 Peru30and Tanzania.31 Finally, in some instances, a new management plan may be a critical part of a final process, such as having a site removed from the Danger List.32
Having adequate management plans for wetlands has been a clear priority of the Ramsar, since the mid 1980s.33 Despite this longstanding commitment, by
30 UNESCO. (1997). 21st Session of the WHC. WHC97/CONF.208/17. Feb 27, 1998. 23.UNESCO. (1998). 22nd Session of the WHC. WHC98/CONF.208/18. Jan 29, 1998. 45–46.
2002 of the 1230 wetlands on List of Wetlands of International Importance only 35 per cent had management plans.34 This figure is regrettable, as the Ramsar has developed a very strong practice in this area. This has ranged from calling for the development of adequate management plans for specific countries (in particular with Greece),35 through to the creation of management guidelines, which have been continually refined and renewed,36 and even financial assist ance.37 The conclusion of this process was twofold. First, from the 7th COP came the Guidelines for Developing and Implementing National Wetland Policies.38 Second, the 8th COP adopted revised Guidelines for Management planning for Ramsar sites and other wetlands.39 It also established the “San Jose Record”. This consists of sites where management plans are being implemented which are models for demonstrating application of the Ramsar Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wise Use concept. This record is meant to display “effective management and exemplary practices”.40 The Ramsar target is for at least three quarters of all Ramsar sites having management plans in place in the shortterm future.41
The final regime of note with regard to management plans is that related
to Antarctica. According to Article 1 of Annex V of the Madrid Protocol, a “Management Plan” is a plan to manage the activities and protect the special value or values in an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area. Such plans, which supplement a number of generic environmental controls for the Antarctic,42 establish the particular processes that management plans must follow before they are accepted,43 and identify a number of specified details,44 which must be addressed and accompany any proposition for a designated area within the Antarctic regime.45 Although this policy is currently well settled within the Antarctic Treaty Regime, it took well over twenty years to evolve, before it covered all of the types of protected areas in the region.46 In 1995, a uniform model for management plans for SPAs was
adopted,47 and in 1998, Guidelines for the Preparation of Management Plans for all of the respective protected area types in the region were issued.48 These uniform models and guidelines have assisted a process undertaken since 1992, whereby the consultative parties agreed to reexamine their existing protected areas, and revise their management plans for them as necessary.49 This process of entering revised descriptions and new management plans continued in 1994,50 1997,51 2002,52 2003,53 and 2004.54
Part of the reason why consultative parties have been revising their manage ment plans for their protected areas has been in response to the Madrid Protocol, which established that management plans only have a currency of five years.55 Accordingly, in 1998, and again in 2002,56 the consultative parties identified the SPAs and the countries responsible for them in need of revised management plans, and called for the adoption of timetables for these to be completed by.57 Despite this push, a number of SPAs require updated management plans.58 Likewise, with SSSIs, although management plans associated with these areas have been called for from the early 1970s, and designation of an SSSI or a CEMP now requires an accompanying management plan,59 compliance with these has not always been strong and since the mid1980s, the consultative
parties have had to badger their members to make sure the management plans for their respective SSSIs are up to date.60 However, this process has been slow, and in 1998, the consultative parties took the initiative in this area, and identified the SSSIs, and the countries responsible for them, in need of revised management plans, and called for the adoption of timetables for these to be completed by.61 The consultative parties reiterated this call in 2002.62
Every area, to qualify for its recognition as protected, must have a specific legal status guaranteeing its protection. This is important for questions of both definition and operation.63 This rule is recognised in numerous regimes including, inter alia, the Mediterranean64 and Caribbean65 Protocols, the Bern Convention (which has directed resolutions to particular parties to clarify legal status issues),66 the Ramsar (again at the generic and specific level),67 and the
4.4. Establishment of Wetland Reserves. (1990, Montreux). Recommendation 5.3. The Essential Character of Wetlands and the Need for Zonation Related to Wetland Reserves. (1993, Kushiro). Recommendation 4.10. Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wise
European Diploma, which is clear, that such a Diploma can only be awarded if the country in question has an appropriate protection system in place, which guarantees its legally protected status.68
Other regimes, such as the WHC, refuse to inscribe a nominated site until its legal protections have been viewed to the satisfaction of the Committee.69 If a site does not have adequate legal protection at this stage, the application will be deferred. Accordingly, between 1992 and 2002, nine sites were deferred listing until strengthened legal regimes were in place,70 including applications from, inter alia, Sri Lanka,71 Cuba72 and Ethiopia.73
Aside from the issue of having adequate laws guaranteeing protection at the time of inscription, is the question of the viability of those laws, several years post inscription. The Ramsar has dealt with this potential problem by issuing Guidelines for Reviewing Laws and Institutions to promote the Conservation and Wise Use of Wetlands.74 By the new century, the emphasis was shifting towards incorporation of meaningful ways to establish compliance with the requisite legal regimes for wetlands,75 as is done in comparable international environmental arrangements.76 The Ramsar goal was that at least 100 members had reviewed their national policies and laws by 2002.77 This target was later
Use Concept. Annex. Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept of the Convention. Resolution 8.25. The Ramsar Strategic Plan. (2002, Valencia). Annex. Operational Objective 2. Additional Guidance for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept. Annexed to Resolution 5.6. Wise Use of Wetlands (1993, Kushiro).
extended to 2005,78 and then 2008.79 The only other regime to confront the problem of antiquated or inadequate laws is the WHC. In this instance, the approach has been one whereby the Committee has reexamined existing listed WHC sites and issued direct recommendations to remedy legal deficiencies that have developed over the years. This process has been most clearly demonstrated with the Galapagos, which narrowly avoided (although concerns have continued)80 being listed as in Danger, due to its new legal regime.81 Other examples where new laws were required have involved Ha Long Bay in Vietnam,82 ShirakamiSanchi in Japan83 and Dja Faunal Reserve in the Cameroon.84
Every protected area must have clear boundaries. This rule has been strongly pursued by the Ramsar, which aside from granting a small latitude on delineation with the initial designations, has come to strongly emphasise the importance of clearly marked, mapped and delimited wetlands, replete with full and correct information (hence detailed Ramsar information sheets)85 that fall under its auspice.86 It is recommended that such boundaries and information should be reviewed every six years.87 This matter has been increasingly pursued since it has become apparent that a number of Ramsar sites are without adequate information, including mapping and boundaries issues.88 For example, in 2002, 70 countries were singled out as being in default of one or more Ramsar
81 UNESCO. (1995). 18th Session of the WHC. WHC94/CONF.003/16. Jan 31. 1995. 44.UNESCO. (1996). 19th Session of the WHC. WHC95/CONF.203/16. Jan 31, 1996. 36.
82 UNESCO. (1995). 18th Session of the WHC. WHC94/CONF.003/16. Jan 31. 1995. 43.
UNESCO. (1996). 19th Session of the WHC. WHC95/CONF.203/16. Jan 31, 1996. 8.
UNESCO. (1996). 20th Session of the WHC. WHC96/CONF.201/21. Mar 10, 1997. 28.
83 UNESCO. (1993). 17th Session of WHC. WHC93/CONF.002/14. Feb 4, 1993. 34.
information sheets.89 This is a particular problem with regard to boundaries, which may have changed from the time of original inscription, and require new and accurate resurveying.90 A similar approach is mirrored in the Bern Convention, although it has focused more on the need of clear boundaries around its sites,91 and has directed resolutions to countries, such as Greece, involved with particular boundary problems.92
The idea that a protected area should be of a sufficient size, as to achieve its objectives, is one which can be traced back to the 1933 Africa Convention,93 and has been repeated in multiple instruments thereafter. For example, according to the Madrid Protocol the area proposed for designation shall be of sufficient size to protect the values for which the special protection or management is required.94 Thus, it is not the size of an area per se which is the issue, but whether the size of the area allows it to fulfil its objectives, in terms of the values it is trying to preserve.95 They key word here is “integrity”. Thus, as the first UNESCO Conference on the Use and Conservation of the Biosphere in 1968 explained, “an area may be small or large; its actual size is not its defining characteristic. It must however, have integrity.”96 Accordingly, some regimes, such as the Ramsar, have actually set out to capture, inter alia, relatively small and transitory areas such as temporary pools.97 Conversely, other regimes have
set out to capture relatively large areas. This second approach is noticeable with international and/or regional marine protected areas (“MPAs”). For example, although the Mediterranean,98 and Caribbean99 Protocols, and the OSPAR Convention followed the traditional line that MPAs under its auspices should be of a sufficient size for the area to maintain its integrity and enable effective management,100 the Helsinki Convention actually put a minimum figure down. That is, the minimum size of a BSPA should be preferably 1000 ha for terrestrial parts and/or 3000 ha for marine/lagoon parts.101 Likewise, with the International Maritime Organisation (“IMO”), it is suggested that the size of a Special Area will be “rather large”102 and the practice of approved Special Areas reflects the focus upon large areas. The existing Special Areas are the Mediterranean Sea Area, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, the Gulfs area (which was partly expanded in 2001),103 the Gulf of Aden, the Antarctic area and the Baltic. Similar considerations apply to Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (“PSSAs”), although there is an increasing concern, as with the Western European PSSA, that they should not be so large, as to not include throughout the nominated area, all of the values that they were nominated for.
The other regime which gives an emphasis on larger, as opposed to smaller, protected areas is the MAB. This is partly due to the obvious fact that “biospheres” (as in biosphere reserves) tend to be large interconnected ecosystems, implicitly related to biogeographical provinces.104 The median, or most common, size of a biosphere reserve in the 1980s was between 10,000 to 25,000 hectares.105 However, although some parties clearly envisage that biosphere reserves may be large enough to encompass entire bioregions,106
Section 1.
and there have been some loose rules of thumb suggested,107 there is no corresponding recognition of this in the official objectives of the programme. Rather, the only guidance in this area is the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves, which is clear that each site should have “an appropriate size” to serve the three functions of biosphere reserves.108 In this regard, although it is agreed that each Biosphere Reserve should have enough “critical mass” to enable objectives of BRs to be achieved, there is no standard definition of size requirement. This is especially so with regards to the buffer and transition zones which are more defined by political, rather than ecological, decision. With core areas, size is a little easier to define, in that there might be a lower limit of size beyond which it would not be possible to conserve viable populations of certain species, or for an ecosystem to function.109 Accordingly, at various times, it has been recommended that the core area of a BR be expanded or refined.110
The issue of size is also a matter of concern for the WHC. Although there is a precedent whereby a site has been denied for being too small,111 this is very unusual, and the typical practice for WHC sites is that there are no key size requirements. Accordingly, they range from two square kilometres (the Slovakian caves of Skocjan) through to 127,900 square kilometres (Australia’s Great Barrier Reef).112 The key requirement for the WHC is that the site must
Feb 4, 1993. 38.
possess “adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance”.113 This question is then devolved into the four separate categories. Thus, with Criteria 1 (Geomorphic or Physiographical Excellence) nominations, the forwarded site should contain all or most of the key interrelated and interdependent elements in their natural relationships.114 With Criteria 2 (Ecological and Biological Processes) sites should have sufficient size and contain the necessary elements to demonstrate the key aspects of processes that are essential for the longterm conservation of the ecosystems and the biological diversity they contain.115 Thus, the size of inscribed forests should be large enough so that they retain their ecological integrity.116 With Criteria 3 (Aesthetics) a site should include areas that are essential for maintaining the beauty of the site.117 Finally, with Criteria 4 (Threat ened Species of Outstanding Value) a site should be large enough to include the most critical habitats essential to ensure the survival of viable populations of those species.118
In light of the above considerations, in some instances, original listings have been deferred, so that the State party could consider the recommendations of the Committee on how sites should be extended, to encompass certain key areas119
Sites of UNESCO: Nature Sanctuaries (WhiteStar, Vercelli). 28, 44, 49, 72, 97, 98, 128, 176,
181, 210, 241, 242, 247, 267, 301, 334, 344.
(which may not even be physically adjacent to each other).120 Extensions are often following IUCN recommendations, to include additional areas, so as to help maintain the integrity of a property.121 Between 1992 and 2002, with regard to natural sites, the Committee recommended that 17 sites be deferred until additional hectares be included in the site. In some instances, these were very large increases. For example, the Central Eastern Rainforest site of Australia increased by 30 per cent to 108,000 ha, Laponia of Sweden increased from 285,000 to 940,000 ha, and Sundarbans of Bangladesh went from 71,500 to 140,000 hectares.122
There is an equally strong tradition here, in that sites which are applying to be listed have been deferred or accepted on condition that a certain piece of territory is not included in the package. For example, Canaima National Park was finally accepted after a section of savannah was removed because it did not meet WHC criteria.123 Similar reductions of sizes have occurred with listing nominations from Mauritania124 and Vietnam.125
The more usual way in which the size of sites is altered is post facto. This is when either the Committee or the party themselves seek to revisit the original boundaries of a listed area, and an extension is made (assuming the extended area also meets the inscription criteria).126 The purist of extensions began as an ad hoc process until the 1990s when it became a standing item on the agenda. Sometimes this is at the initiative of a party, who, after a period of reflection, has come to the conclusion that the borders of a site are no longer adequate. For example, within Latin America and the Caribbean, a 2004 periodic review showed that 49.2 per cent of the parties were actively considering revisions of
Cultural and Natural Heritage. CC81/CONF.003/6. Jan 5, 1981. pp. 2. UNESCO. (2003). 27th Session of the WHC. WHC03/27.COM/24. Dec 10, 2003. 100.
123 UNESCO. (1995). 18th Session of the WHC. WHC94/CONF.003/16. Jan 31, 1995. 42.
1995. 43.
boundaries or buffer zones to existing WHC sites.127 In some instances, the extensions can be quite large. For example, in addition to a number of extensions to other WHC sites in Australia,128 the extension of the Eastern Rainforest Reserves increased the site by an extra 35 per cent.129 Other countries which have extended their sites include the Ivory Coast,130 Peru,131 the Seychelles,132 Argentina and Malawi,133 Canada,134 Bulgaria,135 Costa Rica,136 Tanzania, 137 the United Kingdom,138 Kenya,139 Russia,140 Ecuador (despite being initially deferred),141 and two sites in New Zealand were extended by being collapsed into one site.142
Kakadu. 16th Session of the WHC. WHC92/CONF.002/12. Dec 14, 1992. 35.129 UNESCO. (1995). 18th Session of the WHC. WHC94/CONF.003/16. Jan 31. 1995. 43.
Jan 12, 1984. pp. 6.
UNESCO. (1984). Eighth Session of the WHC. SC/84/CONF.004/9. Nov 2, 1984. 7–8.
WHC04/28.COM/26. Oct 29, 2004. Decision 28 COM 14B.19. pp. 26.
COM/26. Oct 29, 2004. Decision 28 COM 14B.17. pp. 25.
92–95.
In some instances, sites have been extended in one area (by area of equal or better value), and reduced in others (at the suggestion of the Committee).143 This has occurred in Canada144 and Australia, with the latter involving one instance of a site reduction by 30 per cent.145 This later process introduces the idea that in as much as territory can be added to a site, it can also be removed. With regard to removals of parts of sites after they have already been listed, the key consideration is that removal is only permissible if the areas do not meet (and were probably mistakenly listed) universal value146 or parts of the noncore area, perhaps on the periphery, have become degraded.147 However, it is clear that downsizing of the site is not possible if the reduction includes core areas which encompass the values for why the site was listed in the first place. The later precedent was clear with the Mt Nimba Park in the Guinea/Cote d’Ivoire Park.148
Zoning is the principal method used to control uses within or next to a protected area.149 It is designed to allocate geographical areas for specific levels and intensities of human activities and conservation. It is particularly useful in helping people understand what site values are located where, as well as establishing boundaries and associated standards to show what is acceptable or not in different locations. As such, zones are the map of management objectives. Zoning may be applied within a single area (such as having a core area and a buffer area), or as a strategic framework for the planning of a group of protected areas.
143 UNESCO. (1991). 15th Session of the WHC. SC91/CONF.002/15. Dec 12, 1991. 7.
144 UNESCO. (1991). 15th Session of the WHC. SC91/CONF.002/15. Dec 12, 1991. 7.
The first protected area regime of note to recommend zoning (of sorts) was the 1933 African Convention. This instrument clearly envisaged the creation of “intermediate zones” around the protected areas, through which certain activities, which would otherwise be strictly controlled in the core area, would be permitted under strict controls.150 The “intermediate zones” of the 1933 African Convention are now known as “buffer zones”. Buffer zones, as best described in the MAB Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves, are areas which are “clearly identified and surrounding or contiguous to the core area or areas, where only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place”.151 Such zones are a subset within an overall zoned region (whose boundaries and associated standards show what is acceptable or not in the core, buffer and transition zones) which are peripheral to a national park/ reserve where restrictions are placed upon resource use or special development measures are undertaken to enhance the special conservation value of the core area. Variations, focusing on the social aspect of the equation, may give emphasis to managing the surrounding community (around the protected area). Primarily, a buffer zone should help to protect the core area from harmful human activities, interact to provide positive landscape features, provide diffusion to sustain natural and manmade flows in the landscape, and control human activities in areas adjacent to the protected area, whilst also enhancing compatible opportunities for the local populations in these areas.152
The utility, and recommendations for the use, of buffer zones can be found in the 1968153 and 2003 African Convention,154 the Caribbean,155 South East Pacific,156 and East African Protocols,157 the Helsinki Convention,158 the Arctic
regime,159 repeatedly in Agenda 21,160 the IMO with its PSSAs,161 the ITTO,162 the Ramsar,163 and the European Diploma.164 Even the Global Environment Facility (“GEF”) has come to support buffer zones, and has financed 44 pro jects, covering at least 209 protected areas, to incorporate buffer zones.165 The idea of having an added layer of protection around a site has also been utilised by the WHC.166 Thus, as the Operational Guidelines explain:
The boundaries should include sufficient areas immediately adjacent to the area of outstanding universal value in order to protect the site’s heritage values from direct effects of human encroachment and impacts of resource use outside of the nominated area. The boundaries of the nominated site may coincide with one or more existing or proposed protected areas, such as national parks or biosphere reserves. While an existing or proposed protected area may contain several management zones, only some of those zones may satisfy criteria for listing a natural site. Other zones, although they may not meet the criteria set for listing a natural site, may be essential for the management to ensure the integrity of the nominated site. For example, in the case of a biosphere reserve, only the core zone may meet the criteria and the conditions of integrity, although other zones, i.e. buffer and transitional zones, would be important for the conservation of the biosphere reserve in its totality.167
CAFF Habitat Conservation Report, No 4. Principle 11.
The need for such a buffer zone has been emphasised by the Committee with regard to applications from India,168 Peru,169 Japan,170 the United Kingdom171 and Guatemala.172 The only other regime which has developed a greater juris prudence on buffer zones is the MAB. The MAB places buffer zones between the core area173 and the transition zone.174 All three zones are obligatory for an MAB site to come into existence,175 and sites failing to deliver the three zones have been deferred.176 This is especially the case with inadequate buffer zones, which have either been deferred,177 or given conditional acceptance, on the condition that their buffer zones be enhanced (in terms of legal protection, clarity of location or supplementing values to the core zone).178
Feb 4, 1993. 34.
2000. 74–75.
7. NETWORKS AND CORRIDORS
Protected areas, and the ecosystems and species within them, can rarely exist as isolated islands. Rather, they have to be integrated into the broader ecology.179 Buffer zones, as discussed above, are the first stage of this process. The second stage is that of corridors and interconnected networks. Corridors are various ecological features, other than core areas, which represent links that permeate the landscape, maintaining or reestablishing natural connectivity. In Europe, ecological corridors are often the result of human intervention in nature, such as hedgerows, stonewalls, landscapes with small forests, canals and regulated rivers. Others such as coastlines and watercourses are also notable. Corridors reduce ecological fragmentation, and allow species to bypass barriers that would otherwise represent clear threats to them.180
Whilst a number of regimes talk of a “network” of protected areas, such as the MAB,181 and some oceanic regimes,182 and a number of instruments mention “corridors”, relatively few have actually tried to implement them. The notable few which have tried are the Bern Convention,183 the Habitats Directive184 and the GEF. The Habitats Directive is notable because it obliges its member States to endeavour, where they consider it necessary, in their landuse planning and development policies and, in particular, with a view to improving the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network, to encourage the management of “features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora”. It then explains that “such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure (such as rivers with their banks or the traditional
Meeting. SC/03/CONF.217/14. July 30. 19. Elgon in Kenya. UNESCO. (2003). ICC Bureau Meeting. SC/03/CONF.217/14. July 30. 10. Caatinga in Brazil. UNESCO. (2001). ICC Bureau Meeting. SCI/01/CONF.217/8. Dec 12, 2. 12.
Myth or Reality ?” (UNESCO, Paris). 4.
systems for marking field boundaries) or their function as stepping stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species”.185 The GEF is notable because it has provided funding for 32 GEF biodiversity projects, involving at least 207 protected areas, which include corridor components. An outstanding example is the Program for the Consolidation of the MesoAmerican Biological Corridor, coordinated by the Commission for Environment and Development in Central America.186
The First National Parks Congress in 1962 suggested that because national parks are so important, they should be “vested in a statutory organisation charged with the duty of permanent trusteeship”.187 Implicit within this recommendation was that such an agency would have adequate resources, in terms of both effective human and other capital, to carry out its responsibilities.188 The overall goal, as recently articulated by the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which followed repeated concerns of all the subsequent World Parks Congresses,189 is that all of its signatories will:
Ensure that protected areas are effectively managed or supervised through staff that are welltrained and skilled, properly and appropriately equipped, and supported, to carry out their fundamental role in the management and conservation of protected areas.190
Due to the importance of such a goal, the CBD also recommended that, by 2006, “appropriate methods, standards, criteria and indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management and governance” be established, and that management effectiveness evaluations be carried out for “at least 30 percent of each Party’s protected areas by 2010 and of national protected area systems and, as appropriate, ecological networks”.191
The importance of staff and supporting resources for effective management of protected areas is clearly recognised in, inter alia, the European Diploma,192 the Mediterranean,193 South East Pacific,194 and Caribbean195 Protocols, the Africa Conventions,196 the Bern Convention,197 Agenda 21,198 the MAB,199 the Ramsar Convention200 and the WHC.201
Despite such recognition, the relatively clear goals in this area are not being met. For example, in the late 1990s, although the global mean staff input in protected areas was 27 per 1000 square kilometres of protected area, and the averages between the developed (26.9 per 1000 km) and developing (27.6 per 1000 km) were broadly similar, the discrepancies within the overall ranged from 432 per 1000 km in East Asia, to 4 in Central and South America. Such differences reflect the fact that whilst the global mean budget for protected areas was $893 per square kilometre in the late 1990s, the developed country mean was $2,058 per square kilometre, whereas the developing country level was $157. Within this range, the differences in budget range from $12,308 per
kilometre in East Asia, through to $24 in Africa.202 Such considerations of lack of staff and resources typically leads to the contention that many protected areas are only “paper parks”. For example, in 2004, a survey of almost 200 forest protected areas in 34 countries found that less than 25 per cent were considered well managed with good infrastructure, and only 1 per cent were regarded as secure in the long term.203 Likewise, the management level of MPAs in the mid 1990s revealed that of a total of 1,306 MPAs 117 had high management (achieve management objectives), 155 had medium (partially achieve), 111 low (failed to achieve management objectives) and 923 were unknown. The recurring themes for those in the low and medium bracket were insufficient technical and financial support, and lack of trained staff.204
Despite such pressing needs in this area, only three instruments have clear policies to rectify the problem. The first is the GEF, of which capacity building is a strong theme in their protected area assistance. Indeed, over three quarters of GEF protected area projects involve capacity building, covering at least 875 sites. In particular, training is the focus of 103 projects covering 406 sites.205 The other two instruments of note are the Ramsar and the WHC. The Ramsar is notable because it has continually reiterated the importance of this area, manager training programmes,206 and it has also sought to establish centres for the training of such people,207 and provided financial assistance for the purpose.208
With regard to the WHC, although training may be considered part of technical assistance, for the purposes of this section, I have divided them into two categories. Technical assistance was one of the first agreed funding objectives of both the WHC and the Committee.209 Training represents 16.8 per
Recommendation 1.2. Developing Countries and the Convention. (1980, Cagliari).
cent of the World Heritage Fund overall.210 The 2004 figure for this budgetary component (360,000, although the figure is actually larger, as part of what was traditionally seen as technical assistance now falls within the category of capacity building)211 was over double what it was in the late 1970s.212 Although it was originally difficult to ascertain exactly what the “technical assistance” granted was for (as it was not recorded in the official records),213 later records have shown that technical assistance has included, inter alia, assistance for the purchase of antipoaching materials,214 motor boats,215 motor vehicles,216 audiovisual equipment,217 park shelters and guard posts,218 visitor centres,219 communications equipment, solar panels, construction of wells and donkeys for use in national parks,220 water quality measurement tools, buffer zone development and GPS systems,221 equipment to study the effect of various types of air pollution,222 biodiversity inventories,223 conservation projects,224
WHC/05/29.COM/14 B.
212 165,400. UNESCO. (1979). 3rd Session of the WHC. CC79/CONF.003/13. Nov 30, 1978.pp. 15. UNESCO. (2004). 7th Extraordinary Session of the WHC. WHC04/7 EXT.COM/7. Oct 25. pp. 5.
UNESCO. (1990). 14th Session of the WHC. CLT90/CONF.004/13. Dec 12, 1990. 15.UNESCO. (1996). 20th Session of the WHC. WHC96/CONF.201/21. Mar 10, 1997. 64.
UNESCO. (1980). Fourth Session of the WHC. CC80/CONF.017/4. May 28, 1980. pp. 7.
UNESCO. (1987). 11th Session of the WHC. CC87/CONF.005/9. Jan 20, 1988. pp. 12.
UNESCO. (1988). 12th Session of the WHC. SC88/CONF.001/13. Dec 23, 1988. 12.UNESCO. (1989). 11th Session of the WHC. SC89/CONF.004/12. Dec 22, 1989. pp. 9.
UNESCO. (1991). 15th Session of the WHC. SC91/CONF.002/15. Dec 12, 1991. 15.
216 UNESCO. (1988). 12th Session of the WHC. SC88/CONF.001/13. Dec 23, 1988. 12.
UNESCO. (1990). 14th Session of the WHC. CLT90/CONF.004/13. Dec 12, 1990. 15.
UNESCO. (1991). 15th Session of the WHC. SC91/CONF.002/15. Dec 12, 1991. 14.
217 UNESCO. (1989). 11th Session of the WHC. SC89/CONF.004/12. Dec 22, 1989. pp. 10.
UNESCO. (1997). 21st Session of the WHC. WHC97/CONF.208/17. Feb 27, 1998. 55.
218 UNESCO. (1991). 15th Session of the WHC. SC91/CONF.002/15. Dec 12, 1991. 8.
UNESCO. (1997). 21st Session of the WHC. WHC97/CONF.208/17. Feb 27, 1998. 55.
219 UNESCO. (1991). 15th Session of the WHC. SC91/CONF.002/15. Dec 12, 1991. 14.
220 UNESCO. (1993). 17th Session of WHC. WHC93/CONF.002/14. Feb 4, 1993. 42.
221 UNESCO. (1995). 18th Session of the WHC. WHC94/CONF.003/16. Jan 31, 1995. 49.
222 In the former Yugoslavia. UNESCO. (1987). 11th Session of the WHC. CC87/CONF.005/9. Jan 20, 1988. pp. 12. UNESCO. (1988). 12th Session of the WHC. SC88/CONF.001/13.
Dec 23, 1988. 12.
223 UNESCO. (1996). 19th Session of the WHC. WHC95/CONF.203/16. Jan 31, 1996. 52.
224 UNESCO. (2002). 26th Session of the WHC. WHC02/CONF.202/25. Aug 1, 2002. 68.
new and revised management plans225 and even assistance to help the Seychelles eradicate the feral goats on Aldabra Atoll.226
The provision of funds for training is difficult to trace through the WHC, as the concept is both widely interpreted (and goes well beyond traditional conceptions of staff at protected areas, practical handson, related management training)227 and has fallen under a number of different categories, from being part of “technical assistance”228 to part of “capacity building”.229 Whichever way it is looked at, it is notable that since the late 1980s the demand for training assistance has grown faster than any other kind of international assistance.230 By the new century, support from training had risen (despite a ceiling placed on the amount each training request could seek)231 from around $200,000 per year in 1980 to close to one million dollars per year.232 Training workshops remained prominent in the 2004 budget233 (especially as part of the work of the Advisory
225 UNESCO. (1996). 19th Session of the WHC. WHC95/CONF.203/16. Jan 31, 1996. 52.
UNESCO. (2002). 26th Session of the WHC. WHC02/CONF.202/25. Aug 1, 2002. 69.
UNESCO. (1986). 10th Session of the WHC. CC86/CONF.003/10. Dec 5, 1986. pp. 14.
UNESCO. (1980). 4th Session of the WHC. CC80/CONF.017/4. May 28, 1980. pp. 8.
UNESCO. (1980). 4th Session of the WHC. CC80/CONF.016/10. Sep 29, 1980. pp. 11.
UNESCO. (1992). 16th Session of the WHC. WHC92/CONF.002/12. Dec 14, 1992. 38.
10. Table 1.
89/CONF.004/9. Dec 22, 1989. pp. 2.
$550,000 for 1990, before falling back to $500,000 (91), $475,000 (92) and $400,000 in 1993 before beginning to rise to $440,000 for 1994, $452,000 for 1995, before rising quickly in the late 1990s to $982,000 (1998), $981,000 (1999), $980,000 (2000) and $960,000for 2001. Note, within these figures, a component has typically been set aside for training provided by the IUCN. At the turn of the century, this was normally around $30,000 (inclusive within the overall training budget).
bodies)234 and increased allowances for training was given to the IUCN in 2005.235 Part of this growth is due to the change in funding emphasis for this area, which has gone from being largely ad hoc, oneoff requests in the 1980s,236 to being more systematised in the 1990s, with particular regional training programmes.237 This was taken further with the Global Training Strategy (as part of the overall goal of capacity building), which attempts to focus training into institutional teaching, individual scholarships, inventories and mapping, and possible thematic training as well, such as with forest managers.238
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
An Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) is “a process of evaluating the likely environmental impacts of a proposed project or development, taking into account interrelated socioeconomic, cultural and human health impacts, both beneficial and adverse”.239 Such evaluations are critical management tools as they ensure that the impact of any potential developments within, or next to, a protected area are fully assessed before approval or rejection of the development is given. The facilitation and utilisation of EIAs is already an existing obligation under the CBD upon all parties, with regard to proposed projects that could have significant adverse effects on biodiversity.240 To further this goal, the CBD has produced synthesis reports on the use of EIAs in this context,241 placed the utilisation of EIAs in all of its thematic work,242 and reiterated their importance with regard to substantive (national) decisionmaking policies.243 Thereafter, the
28 COM 10A.2.
236 UNESCO. (1995). 18th Session of the WHC. WHC94/CONF.003/16. Jan 31, 1995. 5152. UNESCO. (1996). 20th Session of the WHC. WHC96/CONF.201/21. Mar 10, 1997. 64–65. UNESCO. (2003). 27th Session of the WHC. WHC03/27.COM/24. Dec 10, 2003.
33. UNESCO. (1987). 11th Session of the WHC. CC87/CONF.005/9. Jan 20, 1988. pp. 12. UNESCO. (1991). 15th Session of the WHC. SC91/CONF.002/15. Dec 12, 1991. 15.
237 UNESCO. (1999). 23rd Session of the WHC. WHC99/CONF.209/22. Mar 22, 2000. 104–
106. UNESCO. (2001). 24th Session of the WHC. WHC2000/CONF.204/21. Feb 16, 2001. 115–120. UNESCO. (2003). 27th Session of the WHC. WHC03/27.COM/24. Dec 10, 2003. 140–144.
Environmental Impact Assessments. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/4/14. pp. 48.243 Decision V/18. Impact Assessment, Liability and Redress. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23. pp. 148.
CBD244 adopted Guidelines for Incorporating Biodiversity Related Issues into Environmental Impact Assessment Legislation and/or processes,245 and their importance has been stressed in all CBD related areas. For example, with regard to protected areas, the parties to the CBD have recommended that all Parties:
Apply, as appropriate, timely environmental impact assessments to any plan or project with the potential to have effects on protected areas, and ensure timely information flow among all concerned parties to that end, taking into account [CBD Guidelines in this area].246
The CBD also adopted the recommendations for the conduct of cultural, en vironmental and social impact assessments regarding development proposed to take place on, or which is likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous communities.247 The key parts of these recommendations pertain to the involvement of traditional and local communities in the Impact Assessment process (so that the cultural angle of the socioeconomic impacts can be taken into account) and that both the knowledge and the holders of the knowledge are respected. These latter rec ommendations on indigenous peoples and EIAs became incorporated (despite strong debate at the 7th COP) as the (Akwe Kon) Voluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments Regard ing Developments to take Place on, Or Which Are Likely to Impact on Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities.248 The process which followed this was largely
this group or community of people and possibly undertaken by this group or community of people: a cultural impact assessment will generally address the impacts, both beneficial and adverse, of a proposed development that may affect, for example, the values, belief systems, customary laws, languages, customs, economy, relationship with the local environment and particular species, social organisation and traditions of the affected community. Report of the Third Meeting of the Ad Hoc Open Ended Inter Sessional Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions. UNEP/CBD/COP/7/7. Dec 12, 2003. pp. 29.
modelled on the established EIA process (screening, scoping, impact analysis and assessment, mitigation options/alternatives, reporting, review, monitoring and decisionmaking), although processes specific to indigenous peoples and associated protocols were added.249
The passing notation of the utility of EIAs is clear in the 2003 African Convention,250 the Mediterranean,251 South East Pacific,252 East African253 and Caribbean Protocols,254 the Habitats Directive,255 and even Agenda 21.256
One of the most notable features of the discussion of EIAs over all of the other protected area regimes is how developed this area has become in terms of both the general recognition of the value of EIAs, and directed calls for their utilisation. For example, with the Convention on Migratory Species (“CMS”), the utilisation of EIAs with regard to all developments that need to have their effects anticipated and predicted due to their possible impacts on Appendix I species, that EIAs should be utilised.257 This approach has also been directly reflected in both their Albatross and Petrel Agreement,258 and the Cetacean Agree ment for the Mediterranean.259 Other regimes, such as with Antarctica, show how a relatively new idea has become quickly entrenched. Consider, although the idea of EIAs can find its roots in a number of earlier recommendations,260 it was not until 1987 that the scope and considerations for an “initial environmental evaluation” were set down. In particular, such evaluations were called for to determine whether proposed activities might reasonably be expected to have a significant impact. If this was so, a “comprehensive environmental evaluation” was to be conducted, and shared with the other parties, to examine alternatives, the full range of possible impacts, benefits of the project, and suitable monitor ing regimes for the proposed activity.261 The importance of EIAs was later
Reprinted in Austen, A (ed). ibid. Article 7.
incorporated into the Madrid Protocol.262 Rules for circulation of EIAs, with uniform formats and information they should contain, were later agreed,263 as were guidelines to help with analysis (especially in terms of alternatives to the activity and identification of outputs of the activity) of the potential impacts.264 The WHC does not mention the utilisation of EIAs. However, it has become
the very clear practice of the WHC Committee to request countries to get EIAs done before projects are undertaken which may have implications for WHC sites. This has been the practice with developments in the United States,265 with pulp mills in Canada266 and Russia,267 helicopter flights in Peru268 and tourism in South Africa269 and Australia,270 hydro developments in the former
Decision 28 COM 15B.22. pp. 87.
Jan 31, 1995. 19.
Yugoslavia,271 Honduras,272 Niger,273 China,274 and Senegal,275 mines in Canada276 and Russia,277 power lines in Venezuela,278 wind turbines in Slovenia279 and roads in Mauritania,280 Ecuador,281 Indonesia282 and Nepal.283 In instances where an EIA has not been utilised, the Committee has been unusually blunt. For example, with the roading projects associated with the Royal Chitwan Park in Nepal, the Committee recommended that the WHC Centre and IUCN:
Continue to communicate with all concerned donors to fully understand how an infrastructure project impacting World Heritage could have been financed without an EIA and how the recurrence of such practice could be prevented in Nepal and elsewhere in the future.284
Although the Committee will challenge a country if an EIA is slow in coming,285 and may even ask for copies of the EIA,286 they generally do not appear to
Dec 12, 1991. 10.
Jan 29, 1999. 23.
28 COM 15B.1.
UNESCO. (1981). 5th Session of the WHC. CC81/CONF.002/4. July 20, 1981. pp. 5.
40.
Feb 27, 1998. 22–23.
COM/26. Oct 29, 2004. Decision 28 COM 15B.22.8. pp. 91.
Jan 31, 1996. 9.
Decision 28 COM 15B.10. pp. 80.
36.284 UNESCO. (2004). 28th Session of the WHC. WHC04/28.COM/26. Oct 29, 2004. Decision
28 COM 15B.11. pp. 81.
285 UNESCO. (2003). 27th Session of the WHC. WHC03/27.COM/24. Dec 10, 2003. 36.
286 UNESCO. (1999). 23rd Session of the WHC. WHC99/CONF.209/22. Mar 22, 2000. 62.
challenge the results of the EIA, unless it was flawed in its scope, such as with the Russian EIA for possible oil accidents on a bordering Lithuanian WHC site.287 The exception to this was with a planned open pit mine in the Rockies. Here, despite the fact that the EIA concluded the project only had limited and containable impact (and the Canadian government had subsequently agreed to it) the Committee called upon the Canadian government to reconsider the decision, with a view to seeking out alternative sites with less damaging effects.288
Article 3 of the Ramsar obliges the conservation of wetlands, when change is “likely”. To work out whether change is likely, implicitly entails a degree of anticipation that requires a means of predicting effects. The Ramsar has dealt with this through both general rules for EIAs, as well as directions for them to be utilised by certain parties with regard to some particularly threatened wetlands. It is the target of Ramsar that all members use EIAs for all wetland decisions in the new century.289 To further this, in 2005 one of the adopted goals from the Kampala meeting was for the Secretariat to have identified at least 50 parties to have in place Strategic Environmental Assessment for policies, pro grammes and plans impacting upon wetlands, by 2008.290
The general rule in this area was clearly articulated in 1980 when the Ramsar COP recommended that for Ramsar parties (and development agen cies)291 involved in cases of largescale wetland transformation, “the decision is not taken until an assessment of all the values involved has been made”. In subsequent meetings, before the CBD offered clear guidance in this area, the parties fleshed out what an EIA should consist of. Specifically, they should be participatory and transparent,292 buttressed by rigorous and formal legal and policy procedures,293 buttressed with the CBD and CMS efforts in this field.294 The practice of calling for EIAs with regard to specific wetlands of
UNESCO. (2004). 28th Session of the WHC. WHC04/28.COM/26. Oct 29, 2004. Decisions 28 COM 15B.1, B.7 & B28. Decision 29 COM 7B.5 (on Banc d’Arguin).
287 Decision 29 COM 7B.67.Rev.
288 UNESCO. (1997). 21st Session of the WHC. WHC97/CONF.208/17. Feb 27, 1998. 21.
289 Resolution 7.27. The Convention’s Work Plan 2000–02. (1999, San Jose). Annex. Work Plan. 290 See Resolution 9.8. Streamlining the Implementation of the Strategic Plan of the Convention
2003–2008. (Kampala, 2005). Strategy 1.2.
international importance dates back to 1971. The initial instance (in fact, the first resolution from the first meeting) was directed to some of the key Baltic States not to proceed with planned dams or industrial activities until appropriate research had demonstrated that no harmful effects would result.295 Subsequent recommendations for assessments before works proceed were issued to the Ukraine,296 Iceland,297 Jordan (repeatedly),298 Australia,299 and Germany (and its neighbours sharing transboundary sites).300 In addition, EIAs have been rec ommended, generically, for most forms of coastal development and intertidal areas.301
In a very similar manner, the Bern Convention has developed a strong utilisation of EIAs in its work. This practice, derived from the Convention itself,302 has led to calls for the utilisation of EIAs for particular developments related to particular species, such as new fish farms and freshwater mussels,303 the introduction of nonnative species,304 wind turbines,305 and overhead electric
7.21. Intertidal Wetlands. (1996, San Jose). Resolution 7.21. Intertidal Wetlands. (1996, San Jose). Recommendation 6.8. Strategic Planning in Coastal Zones. (1996, Brisbane).
power cables.306 Specific countries and the impacts of their developments on particular species, or habitats, have also been drawn out, such as with, inter alia, Greek engineering works around an area of important bird habitat,307 and for all mining activities around key snake habitat.308 Afforestation309 and hydro development in Iceland310 has also led to calls for EIAs. The Bern Convention is also notable in this area, not only because of its calls for EIAs, but also for its insistence on what they should contain, and how they should be interpreted. For example, the parties have been quick to point out when an EIA has been inadequate and in need of further input, such as with the decision on motorways through the Kresna Gorge in Bulgaria,311 and national parks of Poland,312 and the proposed navigable waterway through the Bystroe estuary (Danube Delta, Ukraine),313 by which they set down very clearly all the steps that an appropriate EIA should contain. In other instances, such as with Greece, they have called for a certain position to be adopted, if the EIA reaches certain conclusions.314
There are a solid eight management considerations which all protected area regimes must reconcile. However, not all eight considerations require the same
Report of the 23rd Meeting of the Bern Convention. TPVS (2003). 24. Appendix 12.
attention in each regime, and different regimes have developed some areas more than others. For example, with regard to management plans, the foremost regimes of note are the WHC and the Antarctic regime. With the WHC, failure of having adequate management plans may result in deferment of nominations, or extensions, and can be part and parcel of a site being listed in Danger. The Ramsar has developed a different approach, whereby targets, models, and guidelines have been utilised to spur countries to create management plans. The Antarctic regime has also issued models and guidelines, and in addition to having a process of identifying management plans which need to be updated, also instigated a rule that each management plan only has a fiveyear lifetime.
A strong legal status, with clear boundaries, is essential for all protected area regimes, and listings are only possible if a site has both of these requirements. Once a site is listed, if the legal protections become questionable, most regimes are quick to issue recommendations to parties to clarify the problems. The WHC is particularly strong in this approach, but only the Ramsar has instigated a systematic review of the laws covering all of their sites.
There is no specific rule on the necessary size of a protected area, beyond the fact that a site should be big enough to preserve the integrity of an area. Although MPAs and MAB sites tend to be larger than other sites, other regimes, depending on the area in focus, can be equally big. The only regime to have developed an active regime for changing the size of sites, via extensions or reductions, is the WHC. Buffer zones, between the core site and the surrounding areas, are increasingly recognised in most protected area regimes as an essential part of any management process. However, despite this recognition, only the WHC and, in particular, the MAB have developed rules for buffer zones. Ecological networks and corridors are also notable in the literature, but very few regimes have actually tried to implement these. The exception to this avoidance is with the Habitats Directive and, in particular, with the GEF.
Having adequate staff and associated resources is recognised in all protected area regimes, and is a clearly iterated goal of the CBD with regard to protected areas. However, only the Ramsar, the GEF and the WHC have developed clear policies to facilitate this area, with the GEF and the WHC particularly notable for their targeted financial assistance in this area. Finally, EIAs have become part of the protected area framework, from the work of the CBD down. Some regimes, such as that of Antarctica, have developed clear rules on what must be examined. Other regimes, such as the WHC, Ramsar and the Bern, have all created clear precedents calling for the utilisation of EIAs, and, at times, have even called into question the adequacy of these.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZJlEnvLaw/2006/4.html