Relevant Indicators For Assessing Management Effectiveness In Different Types Of Parks & Social Contexts Katrina Brandon, CABS-CI

WCPA Evaluation Framework

Park Establishment Process Land & Resource Tenure Resource Uses Organizational Roles Linkages between Parks & Buffer Areas Conflict Management & Resolution Large Scale Threats National Policy Framework Indigenous Peoples & Social Change Transboundary Issues Resettlement Key Social & Policy Themes

Ría Lagartos & Ría Celestún Special Biosphere Reserves Guatemala: Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve Costa Rica: Corcovado National Park Dominican Republic: Del Este National Park Belize: Rio Bravo Conservation & Management Area Ecuador: Machalilla National Park Ecuador: Podocarpus National Park Bolivia: Amboró National Park Peru: Yanachaga-Chemillen National Park PiP Case Study Sites

Selected Results, Base Study CONTEXT FOR PA MANAGEMENT STABLE AREAS: Remote PAs or Opportunity PAs, watersheds, little pressure for agriculture

RAPIDLY CHANGING AREAS: PAs Created to Stop Change (road, mining, etc.) Transformation due to forces outside CONTEXT FOR PA MANAGEMENT

TWO TYPES OF PAs CORE AREAS most of area under protection managed to limit consumptive or extractive activities (IUCN Categories Ia,Ib,II)

. Selected Results, Base Study managed for multiple objectives Residence and consumptive uses allowed (IUCN Categories III, IV, V, VI) BIOSPHERE RESERVES & MULTIPLE USE AREAS

. E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4 or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4 Selected Results, Base Study This is a National Park; IUCN Category II– but it can never be managed as a core – it must be managed as a multiple use area! CLASSIFY BY ACTUAL NOT LEGAL

STABLE CHANGING CORE 1 3 MULTIPLE USE 24 Ease of Action 1 easiest 4 hardest CONTEXT & MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY

Selected Results, Base Study Immediate Actions At Core Areas

Selected Results, Base Study Immediate Actions At Multiple Use Areas

STABLE CHANGING CORE 1 3 MULTIPLE USE 24 Ease of Action 1 easiest 4 hardest CONTEXT & MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY

Selected Results, Base Study Site Scale: Helps inform better understanding of context PA System: Helps define strategy across sites Larger Scales/Donors: Costs, Financing, & Complexity Scales For Context Asst.

. E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4 or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4 Selected Results, Base Study Human Footprint & Last of the Wild WCS & CIESIN

. E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4 or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4 Selected Results, Base Study Numbers & % of Protected Areas & Human Footprint by Category IUCN Category Total # of PAs Outside Footprint Inside Human Footprint I50076 (15%)424 (85%) II1, (19%)1,226 (81%) III15058 (39%)92 (61%) IV2, (9%)2,139 (91%) V20618 (9%)188 (91%) VI1, (19%)815 (81%) Total5, (15%)4,884 (85%)

. E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4 or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4 Selected Results, Base Study IUCN Category Total Percent Outside Human Footprint (%) Inside Human Footprint (%) I II III IV V VI Total Area of Protected Areas (pct) In Human Footprint

. E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4 or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4 Selected Results, Base Study Social Context of Protected Areas: Numbers PA CATEGORY 1 REMOTE/ STABLE 2 CHANGING 3 CORE267 (5%)1,755 (31%) MULTIPLE USE 395 (7%)3,331 (58%) TOTAL662 (88%)5,086 (12%) 1 : Core PAs are IUCN categories I and II, Multiple Use PAs are IUCN categories III – VI 2: Remote/Stable PAs are those lying at least partially beyond human footprint and with average annual population change < 3.5% between 1990 and : Changing PAs are those with average annual population change > 3.5% between 1990 and 1995 or lying within the human footprint

. E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4 or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4 Selected Results, Base Study PA CATEGORY 1 REMOTE/ STABLE 2 CHANGING 3 CORE (23%)40.4 (18%) MULTIPLE USE 71.8 (32%)63.3 (28%) TOTAL123.0 (54%)103.7 (46%) 1: Core PAs are IUCN categories I and II, Multiple Use PAs are IUCN categories III – VI 2: Remote/Stable PAs are those lying at least partially beyond human footprint and with average annual population change < 3.5% between 1990 and : Changing PAs are those with average annual population change > 3.5% between 1990 and 1995 or lying within the human footprint 4: Figures are millions of ha Social Context of Protected Areas By Area (ha) & Percent

. E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4 or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4 Selected Results, Base Study Indicators of Social Change at Different Scales Site Level: ratio of park boundary subject to human pressure; level & rate of deforestation surrounding PA; infrastructure development; land use changes. National Level : above factors + social data (GIS) on poverty, landlessness, government expenditure Regional Level : above (if available) + human footprint data; little change data exists; use proxies.

. E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4 or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4 Selected Results, Base Study Within a system or broadscale, this can help, when used with other data(e.g. $ available) can clarify what is possible and nature of tradeoffs. Biological/Ecological Criteria First! Then Type of Site or Scales For Context Asst.