3.5 Biodiversity and protected areas 40
3.5.2 Definition and classification of protected areas 43
The IUCN defines a protected area as a clearly defined geographical area managed to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley, 2008). The main aim of protected areas is long-term nature conservation, in addition to associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Stolton, 2010b).
Scherl et al (2004) note that there are many types of protected areas in different countries, established for different purposes under different management models, and called by many different names. With the aim of providing some structure, the IUCN has established six categories for protected areas based on their management objectives (Dudley, 2008; Dudley et al, 2010b; Laurance et al, 2014; Scherl et al, 2004). Under this system, some protected areas are strictly protected against consumptive human activities (for example, those in Categories I and II), while others allow for sustainable resource utilisation (for example Categories V and VI) (Laurance et al, 2014; Scherl et al, 2004). Approximately two-thirds of all the protected areas of the world have been assigned an IUCN management category while the remainder (33.4%) is still uncategorised (Chape et al, 2003; Laurance et al, 2014). The IUCN categories are described below (Dudley, 2008):
Category Ia (strict nature reserve): Set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/ geomorphological features where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values.
44
Category Ib (wilderness area): Usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, protected and managed to preserve their natural condition.
Category II (national park): Protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the compliment of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.
Category III (natural monument or feature): Protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature, such as an ancient grove.
Category IV (habitat/ species management area): Protect particular species or habitats, where management reflects this priority. Many will need regular active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category.
Category V (protected landscape): Where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated values.
Category VI (protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources): Conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen.
Like all artificial definitions, the above categories of protected areas are imprecise, with the distinction between them sometimes blurred (Stolton, 2010b). There are some continuing debates on some fundamental questions, and the first question has been about the very definition of a protected area (Dudley et al, 2010b). The debate is centred on whether protected areas should be confined to a narrow focus on biodiversity conservation, or whether they can accommodate a wider set of non-industrial interests incorporating landscape values, local community needs and spiritual and cultural aspects (Dudley et al, 2010b). On the one
45
hand, there are fears that protected areas will be diluted and their conservation values lost while, on the other, the dominant fear is that emphasis on conservation will undermine other legitimate interests (Dudley et al, 2010b). This has, however, been resolved by recognising that many protected areas will have other values of equal importance besides conservation, though in the event of conflict of interests, nature conservation should take precedence (Dudley, 2008; Dudley et al, 2010b).
Another major debate was on whether Categories V (protected landscape/ seascape) and Category VI (protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources) are really protected areas at all and, if so, how they should be managed (Dudley et al, 2010b). Locke and Dearden (2005) proposed that management in many areas under these two categories paid so little attention to conservation and thus they should be removed from the WDPA. It is important to note that half of the area under protected areas in Europe is in Category V (Dudley et al, 2010b).
Controversy has also come from the use of management objectives in the classification of protected areas by IUCN (Boitani et al, 2008; Dudley et al, 2010b). Boitani et al (2008) have suggested a proposal to change the IUCN system in three ways: (1) have the category designation tied to defined outcomes for the biodiversity elements for which the protected area is recognised or was designed for (for example, a Category I protected area would be essential for the long-term viability of a targeted species, community or ecological system and would protect source populations and ecosystem occurrences); (2) link categories to quantified goals for the biodiversity elements for which the protected area was designed (for example, Category I would require meeting requirements of strict size and naturalness to maintain populations or ecosystem processes while Category VI would make partial contributions to the maintenance of selected biodiversity); and (3) link protected area categories to the context of conservation planning frameworks and to the monitoring and evaluation of protected area management effectiveness. Boitani et al (2008) further note that the current typology based on management objectives was fundamentally flawed and thus should be abandoned in favour of one more closely linked to conservation outcomes. The World Committee on Protected Areas and the IUCN Species Survival Commission have since set up a joint programme to look at options for categorising protected areas based on conservation outcomes (Dudley et al, 2010b).
46
While the IUCN categories of protected areas have been criticised on various points, they currently provide the best succinct overview of the multiplicity of protected area types (Stolton, 2010b). It is encouraging to note that efforts for their improvement and refinement are already underway as has been shown above.