Understanding and optimising governance: a Copernican revolution for protected areas? Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend Why is “governance” such a crucial new concept in the programme of work on protected areas (PAs) of the CBD? Why some believe it represents a sort of a Copernican revolution for protected areas? There are at least three main reasons: the first is that it broadens the perspective on what can be included as part of a national system of protected areas; the second is that it broadens the spectrum of the social actors recognised as legitimate protected area managers; the third is that it introduces the consideration of principles and values, affecting what is perceived as possible and desirable for protected areas. Governance has to do with power, relationships and accountability, and reflects what a society sees as fair, or is prepared to accept as such, in terms of the whos and hows of authority and responsibility. In a protected area context, governance affects the achievement of management objectives (effectiveness), the sharing of costs and benefits (equity) and the generation and sustenance of community, political and financial support. At the level of a protected area system or individual site, governance depends on history, culture, access to information and informal influence on decisions as much as on formal institutions and processes. Since the World Congress on Protected Areas of 2003, a first cut at understanding governance is made on the basis of “who holds relevant authority and responsibility and can be held accountable”.1 In this sense, four main types of protected area governance have been identified: A. Government managed protected areas (at various levels); B. Co-managed protected areas (in various forms and including transboundary PAs); C. Private protected areas (for profit and not for profit); D. Community conserved areas (including areas conserved by indigenous peoples). Besides the well known IUCN category (defined on the basis of main management objective), a protected area is thus characterised by its governance type (see Figure 1). Field based analyses of different governance types reveal that all include examples of major conservation value and that all types can be compatible with all IUCN categories. In this sense, a protected area can be found to occupy any of the position in the matrix of Figure 1. In particular, examples of Community Conserved Areas harbouring unique biodiversity and safeguarding essential ecosystems can be found all over the planet2 (see Figures 2-6) and are slowly becoming recognised as essential elements in national conservation systems.3 Community Conserved Areas are the oldest form of governance of natural resources and often reveal a symbiosis between communities and nature that some refer to as “bio-cultural units” or “cultural landscapes/seascapes”. Characteristically, they are established and managed by customary or otherwise locally-agreed organisations and rules, following various interlocked objectives and values (spiritual, religious, security-related, survival-related). They include “sacred” areas and resources but also resources collectively managed for sustainable use by indigenous peoples and local communities, both sedentary and mobile. Modernization processes have neglected and devalued such forms of conservation, which are rarely included as part of a national protected area patrimony and often under jeopardy today. Their “rediscovery” by the CBD is part of a broader movement that uplifts cultural diversity and human rights. Coherently, the same movement also advocates for comanagement4 for the protected areas established by state governments. Countries that take full advantage of all governance types can build a flexible and responsive national system, capable of expanding the national PA coverage, addressing its gaps, improving connectivity and enhancing the public support for conservation.5 Arguments are also accumulating that an expansion of the national PA system may be not only important for biodiversity and equity but also economically advantageous.6 Yet, such countries are more the exception than the rule. Indigenous management systems and community conserved areas are still generally unrecognised, when not actively undermined.7 Many private protected areas receive no incentive from the state. And co-management is often confined to marginal experiments. Fortunately, with the impulsion of the CBD leadership, all this might change. The CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas not only stresses the need to recognise and support different types of PA governance, and community conserved areas in particular. It also encourages its parties to seek “good governance”. It requires “not to harm” the indigenous, local and mobile communities living close to the relevant biodiversity, in full respect of their human rights, and it calls for “equity”, sharing in a fairer way the costs and benefits of PA management and ensuring recourse to justice when conflicts ensue. Other principles include “legitimacy and voice”— the capacity of men and women to influence decisions, built on freedom of association and speech; “subsidiarity”— attributing management authority and responsibility to the institutions closest to the resources at stake; “accountability”— ensuring a transparent flow of information on processes and institutions, with decision-makers assuming responsibility for their choices; “performance”—meeting the needs and concerns of all stakeholders according to agreed plans and while making a wise use of resources; and “direction”— grounding long-term conservation strategies on ecological, historical, social and cultural complexities. With the lamppost of the principles of good governance and the full spectrum of IUCN categories and governance types at their disposal, national protected areas systems, indeed, can enter an era of renewed strength. Likely, the new challenge will be harmonising protected area governance within the broader system of governance at the landscape and regional level.8 Biodiversity conservation may even become a widespread and quite “normal” consideration in managing natural resources— the concern not only of expert professionals but of society as a whole. IUCN Category (manag. objective) I - Strict Nature Reserve/ Wilderness Area II – National Park (ecosystem protection; protection of cultural values ) III – Natural Monument IV – Habitat/ Species Management V – Protected Landscape/ Seascape VI – Managed Resource C. Private Protected Areas Declared and run by local communities …by for profit organisations (e.g. individual or corporate land-owners ) Declared and run by indigenous peoples …by non-profit organisations (e.g. NGOs, universities, etc.) Collaborative management (various forms of pluralist influence) Joint management (pluralist management board) B. Co-managed Protected Areas Declared and run by individual land-owner A. Government Governance Managed Protected Type Areas Trans-boundary management Government-delegated management (e.g. to an NGO) Local/ municipal ministry or agency in change Federal or national ministry or agency in charge Figure 1 The emerging IUCN classification system for protected areas, comprising both management category and governance type.9 D Community Conserved Areas Figure 2 to 6 [high resolution version to be sent separately] Figure 2. Women collect and make sustainable use of wild plants in Kayan Mentarang National Park (Indonesia), the first Indonesian protected area under a comanagement regime with the resident Dayak people. Courtesy Cristina Eghenter Figure 3. Community members pull in the net in the Marine Extractive Reserve (MER) of Arraial do Cabo (Brazil). This is the oldest of Brazilian MERs and is governed by a local fishing community in collaboration with a federal environmental agency. The resources remain under the exclusive access of the community that possesses customary rights and developed through time a complex system of rules for their sustainable use. Courtesy Patricia Pinto da Silva. Figure 4. Indigenous leaders gathered in Yurayako-Caquetà (Colombia). The Ingano peoples have themselves proposed to the Colombian government that their traditional sacred territory is declared “protected area”. This was agreed, and now Alto Fragua Indiwasi is a National Park managed by its traditional owners. Courtesy Asociacion de Cabildos Tandachiridu Inganokuna—Jose Ignacio Giraldo Figure 5. A sacred lake in the region of Toulear (Madagascar). This lake and several sacred groves in the same region remain remarkably conserved within a territory dominated by destructive and unregulated exploitation. Courtesy Claudine Ramiarison. Figure 6. US Forest Service Officials discuss with local residents a variety of management issues, including a revised management plan for the San Juan National Forest in Colorado. Courtesy Randall K. Wilson. Notes 1 Borrini-Feyerabend, 2003; http://www.cbnrm.net/pdf/iucn_005_wpc2003_governancereport.pdf ; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004; http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/TILCEPA/briefing%20notes%20on%20governance%20of %20PAs.pdf 2 Stevens, 1997; Kothari et al.,1998; Posey, 1999; Pathak and Gour-Broome, 2001; Smyth and Jaireth, 2003; http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/TILCEPA/community.htm; IUCN/CEESP, 2003; Molnar et al., 2004. 3 Examples exist in all continents: Chapin, 2001; Alden Wily and Mbaya, 2001; Parques Nationales de Colombia, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2002; Szabo and Smyth, 2003; http://www.regole.it ; Whande et al., 2003; Ghana has just completed an official survey of 3000 sacred groves; similar endeavors are under way in India (Pathak et al., 2005), Senegal (Thiaw et al., 2003) and under discussion in Madagascar. 4 Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004a. 5 This is extensively discussed in Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004b. 6 Carret and Loyer, 2003. 7 One example for all: the sacred groves of many countries in Africa are at times logged and destroyed by religious zealots to “demonstrate” that the traditional beliefs that support them are not valid. See also Colchester, 2003. 8 Sandwith et al., 2001; Van der Linde et al., 2001; Phillips, 2002; Brechin et al., 2003. 9 Reproduced from Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004b. References Alden Wily, L. and S. Mbaya, Land, People and Forests in Eastern and Southern Africa at the Beginning of the 21st Century. The impact of land relations on the role of communities in forest future, Natural Resources International and IUCN, Nairobi, 313 pages, 2001. Amadou, B., G. Vogt and K. Vogt, “Developing a ‘Community Conserved Area’ in Niger”, Parks, 13 (1): 16-27, 2003. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/Publications.htm#parks131 Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M. Pimbert, M.T. Farvar, A. Kothari and Y. Renard, Sharing Power: Learning by Doing in Co-management of Natural Resources throughout the World, IIED and IUCN/CEESP, 500 pages, 2004a. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/sharingpower.htm#download Borrini-Feyerabend, G., A. Kothari and G. Oviedo, Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation, IUCN, WCPA and CEESP, Best Practice Protected Areas Guidelines no.11, 108 pages, 2004b. http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/guidelines.htm Borrini-Feyerabend, G., “Governance of protected areas… innovations in the air…”, Policy Matters 12: 92-101, 2003. Brechin, S.R., P.R. Wilhusen, C.L. Fortwangler and P.C. West (eds.), Contested Nature. Promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty first century, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York (USA), 321 pages, 2003. Carret J.C. and D. Loyer, “Madagascar Protected Area Network Sustainable Financing: Economic Analysis Perspective”, World Bank Report, Washington, DC, 12 pages, 2003. Chapin, M., Defending Kuna Yala, 2001. http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam/panama/panama.html Colchester, M., Salvaging Nature: Indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conservation, World Rainforest Movement and Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh (UK), 135 pages, 2003. IUCN/CEESP Policy Matters 12, Community Empowerment for Conservation, 320 pages, 2003. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/Publications.htm#pm12 IUCN/CEESP Policy Matters No. 13, History, Culture & Conservation, 308 pages, 2004. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/Publications.htm Jaireth, H. and D. Smyth (eds.), Innovative Governance, Ane Books, Delhi, 338 pages, 2003. Kothari, A., R.V. Anuradha, N. Pathak and B. Taneja (eds.), Communities and Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia, Sage Publications, New Delhi and London, 506 pages, 1998. Mitchell N., B. Slaiby and M. Benedict, “Local community leadership: building partnerships for conservation in North America”, Parks, 12 (2): 55-66, 2002. http://iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/pdfs/PARKS/parks12.2.pdf Molnar, A., S.J. Scherr and A. Khare, Who Conserves thee World’s Forests?, Forest Trends, Washington DC, 28 pages, 2004. Parques Nationales de Colombia, Politica de Participation Social en la Conservation, Ministerio de Meio Ambiente de Columbia, Bogota, 85 pages, 2001. Pathak, N. and V. Gour-Broome, Tribal Self-Rule and Natural Resource Management. Community based conservation at Mendha-Lekha, Maharashtra, India, Kalpavriksh, Pune (India) and IIED, London, 118 pages, 2001. Pathak, N., S. Chowdhury and R. Bandekar, Directory of Community Conserved Areas in India, Kalpavriksh unpublished report, 2005. Phillips, A., Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas: Protected Landscapes/ Seascapes, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland) and Cambridge, UK, 122 pages, 2002. Posey, D.A. (ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity, UNEP, Nairobi and Intermediate Technology Publications, London, 731 pages, 1999. Sandwith, T., C. Shine, L. Hamilton and D. Sheppard, Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation, IUCN/WCPA Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines, no. 7, 111 pages, 2001. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Biodiversity Issues for Consideration in the Planning, Establishment and Management of Protected Areas Sites and Networks, CBD Technical Series no. 15, 160 pages, Montreal (Canada), 2004 http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/cbd-ts15.pdf Stevens, S. (ed.), Conservation through Cultural Survival, Island Press, Washington D.C., 361 pages, 1997. Szabo, S. and D. Smyth, “Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia”, 145-164 in Jaireth and Smyth, 2003. Thiaw, W., S. Sylla and J. Larivière, “Les Aires du Patrimoine Communautaire : les paradoxes de la conservation au Sénégal”, Policy Matters, 12 : 156-165, 2003. Van der Linde, H., J. Oglethorpe, T. Danswith, D. Snelson and Y. Tessema, Beyond Boundaries: Transboundary Natural Resource Management in Sub-saharan Africa, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington DC, 166 pages, 2001. Whande, W., T. Kepe and M. Murphree, Local Communities, Equity and Conservation in Southern Africa, PLAAS, Africa Resources Trust and TILCEPA, Cape Town (South Africa), 74 pages, 2003.