Guidelines for applying protected area management categories
Using the IUCN protected area categories as a tool for conservation planning
When reviewing the categories of existing protected areas to determine the type of protection that will best conserve the biodiversity within that protected area, there is no hierarchy that suggests, for instance, that a category I protected area is invariably better than a category II or III or IV. On the other hand, categories are not simply interchangeable. The only principle that should apply in assigning categories is the appropriateness of a protected area’s assigned management purpose within the system relative to the ecological needs of, and threats to, the species or ecosystem in the context of the entire landscape or seascape where that biodiversity occurs. The protected area objectives also need to be considered at the moment of reviewing and assigning a management category. In some cases, it may be best to increase the stringency of protection because of declines in the ecological or conservation status of a species or ecosystem within the protected area or across its distribution– e.g., part or all of a category V protected might be reassigned as a category Ib. In others, it might actually be more strategic to shift management to allow more flexibility in terms of sustainable use (e.g., from a category II protected area to a category VI).
Historically the protected area management categories have been used by management agencies to classify, with varying degrees of accuracy, the purpose of a given protected area once this has been determined through conservation planning. IUCN recommends that protected area management categories also be used to help in the design of protected area systems with varying management purposes (and governance types) to meet the needs of biodiversity across the landscape or seascape. As governments are called upon to identify and fill gaps in their protected area systems, planners should apply the full suite of protected area management categories when identifying, designating, and launching management of new protected areas.
Background As human use and consumption dominates much of the world’s land and seascapes, there is a growing need to view protected areas as a range of management practices rather than isolated, locked-up and restricted places. A “one-size fits all” approach to the management of biodiversity in protected areas will not only create conflict with other societal needs, but will limit the management options for conservationists and the amount of land and sea available for biodiversity protection. The diversity of protected area categories can be used to tackle an ecological necessity of a species or ecosystem, and balance that with society’s needs.
Increasing the stringency of protection will usually be a response to a continued decline in biodiversity within an existing protected area. When might natural resource managers choose a less strictly protected area approach over a more restricted one? Examples include: ●● When the viability of a species’ population or the integrity of the ecosystem has improved across its distribution and no longer requires reduced human use and intense protection. ●● When the potential human uses in a lower protected area category are unlikely to affect the health of the species or ecosystem. ●● When changing the category increases the size of the protected area to the benefit of target species and ecosystems. For example, it may be more effective in river and freshwater protection to manage more of a watershed for ecosystem function with less restrictive protection than to protect the main stream of the river as category I or II, depending on the priority threats to the biological target. ●● When biodiversity has become adapted to cultural management systems and the absence of these interventions now places pressure on species’ survival or viability.
Under agreements of the CBD, governments are committed to completing ecologically-representative systems of protected areas, and this process usually starts by identifying gaps in the current system – typically through an ecological gap analysis. In a conservation context, gap analysis is a method to identify biodiversity (i.e., species, ecosystems and ecological processes) not adequately conserved within a protected area system or through other effective and long-term conservation measures. Well designed ecological gap analyses identify three types of gaps in a protected area system (Dudley and Parrish 2006): ●● Representation gaps: no or insufficient existing coverage of a species or ecosystem by a protected area; ●● Ecological gaps: protected area system fails to capture places or phenomena that are key to conserving a species or ecosystem during its life cycle; ●● Management gaps: the protected areas geographically cover the biodiversity elements but fail to protect them due to insufficient or inadequate management.
Some considerations for assigning protected area management categories in protected area system planning There are no hard and fast rules about choosing a particular category for a given protected area. However, the over-riding approach should be to recognise that not all protected areas will be managed in the same way and that the choice of management approach needs to be made by weighing the different
When gaps are identified and resulting actions are implemented – such as new protected areas being proposed and reviews of management categories for existing protected areas being conducted – the full suite of categories should be considered.
44