The
social impacts of protected areas
A
proposal for a web-based learning resource
Dr. Kai Schmidt-Soltau [1] and Dr. Dan Brockington[2]
IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social
Policy, Sustainable Livelihood Working Group
Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity and
Protected Areas (TILCEPA)
DRAFT
Summary
The benefits and
administrative costs of conservation are well documented in academic literature
and popular media. The advantages of biodiversity conservation, watershed
protection, clean air, ecotourism and the preservation of natural and cultural
heritage for posterity are widely acknowledged. However potentially adverse
social consequences of the creation protected areas are less well known. Protected
Areas frequently require the eviction and exclusion of local groups, but do
not always compensate for, or properly assess, the costs involved. Since Protected
Areas cover more than 10 % of the earth’s land surface, and since more are
mooted adequately to protect a representative sample of the world’s ecosystems,
assessing the impacts of current costs and establishing a framework for evaluating
future costs is an essential task.
This proposal outlines
a two stage research project which would meet these needs. The first stage
consists of an initial global assessment and sets up frameworks by which the
diverse economic, social and cultural consequences of protected areas may
be evaluated in their different contexts. Results will disseminated on the
web. The second stage will refine and apply these frameworks more thoroughly
within particular parts of the world. At the same time it will seek to test
and correct the information generated by using web-based interactive tools
to canvass diverse opinions on the data displayed.
The impact of protected areas on local society and
economy has variable but growing recognition. The international conservation community voiced in the Durban Accord the
concern “that many costs of protected areas are born locally – particular
by poor communities – while the benefits accrue globally” (WPC 2003: 2). The
Congress made the commitment,
“that protected area management strives to reduce, and in no
way exacerbates, poverty” (WPC 2003: 4). [3]
Yet since their inception, protected
areas have necessitated the removal of people. Some more recent parks have
involved careful compensation arrangements for people moved to make way for
conservation. These are not the norm. Evictions frequently occasion expense,
hardship and impoverishment. Assessments of
biodiversity conservation in the context of poverty alleviation suggest that
protected areas did not reduce poverty, but on the contrary increase the poverty
of the rural populations (Brockington 2002, Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2003).
Compensation for the impoverishment caused by protected areas requires knowledge
of know who has been affected and how greatly their lives have changed. Appreciation
of the multiple benefits of conservation will be incomplete without a good
understanding of the costs involved.
Today there is an ever increasing pressure properly
to understand the social dimension of conservation for four reasons:
1. There is a widespread recognition that protected areas which cause
harm or inconvenience to local groups will be threatened by these groups non-cooperation
or outright resistance. State authorities and conservation organisations are
striving to find ways in which protected areas can provide real benefits to
local groups but are handicapped by want of measurement and understanding
of the costs involved. This makes it hard to tell whether the benefits offered
do provide adequate compensation for the inconvenience conservation can cause.
Similarly engagement between conservation authorities and local communities
is often handicapped by inadequate grasp of the history of interaction and
conflict between the two. This has to be recognised as part of any process
of rapprochement. Dealing with conflict between local people and protected
areas will require careful and detailed data collection.
2. Conservation can and should be a powerful tool for wealth creation
and poverty reduction. The potential for conservation agendas to empower and
enrich local groups is recognised in many quarters. Yet the full impact of
these schemes requires a good understanding of their impact on local peoples’
livelihoods and of the opportunity costs incurred by setting aside land for
conservation. The local politics and distribution of the positive and negative
consequences within communities must also be understood if the contribution
of these schemes to the common good can be realised.
3. The abuses that some groups have suffered
as a result of conservation policy have given human rights and cultural survival
organisations considerable cause for concern. At the same time it is clear
that many of the data they cite and examples they list are contested. There
is a profound need for reliable and high quality information to inform this
debate.
4. Despite the gains made for protected areas in recent years there
are still biodiversity hotspots and areas of particular habitat which are
not adequately protected. National governments and international conservation
organisations are seeking to expand the area of conservation estate to meet
these needs. To be undertaken properly this will have to involve good assessments
of the costs that these moves are likely to incur, and the benefits that they
will bring.
But despite these needs, which are strongly present
in all parts of the world, the precise nature of the social impacts of protected
areas is very rarely well understood. Detailed studies of specific protected
areas are the exception, not the rule. More importantly we have no understanding of the social consequences of
protected area establishment based on representative sample of protected areas.
Current edited collections about the nature of these impacts are not comprehensive,
and often only representative of researchers’ interests or expertise, not
of protected areas as a whole.
Our understanding therefore suffers both from the lack
of concrete data, and from the unsystematic approach adopted to its accumulation.
There is very little understanding of how much we know, or any overview country
by country, or region by region or for particular ecosystems. This makes it
difficult to resolve disputes between those who are denying the existence
of costs, or even benefits. This is a branch of research about which there
are very few good data and much heated discussion.
This situation suggests four priorities. First there
needs to be a careful assessment of the existing research into the local costs
and benefits of protected areas. Second, on the basis of this survey, important
gaps in our understanding of the consequences in particular regions, or about
particular aspects of protected areas need to be identified and addressed.
Third, appropriate methodologies
for assessing impacts need to be tested.. Fourth, the assessment
and new research needs to facilitate an on-going evaluation of the quality
of this knowledge.
Our ultimate goal here is to produce a web-based resource
that will provide users with access to carefully assessed socio-economic information
about the social consequences of specific protected areas. Users keen to test
the knowledge will also be able to review current debates about particular
costs and benefits. This information will clearly indicate what type of protected
areas these data are representative of within each country and how many are
not included.
The work will develop in two stages. First an initial
survey will produce a ‘first cut’ on the information already available on
the basis of separate regional assessments. This will be collated in a meeting
of all the researchers involved in the project. The tasks here are:
1. To examine what data are available about
specific protected areas within the different world regions used by the IUCN.
2. To assess the means and extent to which the impact of displacement
on livelihoods can be estimated. In particular here we are concerned with
baselines – do they exist, what can be used without them?
3. To assess the scope and assess of any schemes in place which create
wealth for local groups living close to particular protected areas.
4. To indicate the extent of ignorance – lack of data – about displacement
and local wealth creation for protected areas in general within these regions
This element of the research will necessarily be based
primarily on existing work and sources with some limited funds to generate
new knowledge.
The second stage of the proposal will set about meeting
the gaps identified in the first stage. We will seek to fill the gaps revealed
by the survey through consultation with specific regional experts and new
research programmes. The emphasis here will be on generating new high quality
information that is based on careful participatory research, surveys, historical
records and interviews. We will also seek to review and update existing information
using similar criteria. The data available on the website will be regularly
reviewed and updated as new findings become apparent, and comments invited
from the sites users. This will not function simply as a web-based discussion
board. Unedited comments will not be posted, rather the web site will function
in a manner analogous to an academic journal. Periodically a standing committee
of experts (editorial board) will consider new material for inclusion on the
site which has been previously anonymously peer-reviewed.
Framework
This survey is concerned
primarily with the currently undocumented advantages and disadvantages rural
groups derive from protected areas. Its primary concern will therefore be
to examine the impact of protected areas on small-scale local users where
detailed social impact assessments have not been carried out. This will be
most applicable in poorer parts of the world where there are predominantly
rural populations whose livelihoods are more likely to be strongly affected
by the establishment of protected areas, and where governments are weaker
or poorer and so public enquiries into such impacts may be correspondingly
less thorough. It does not, however, exclude richer parts of the world where
those affected by protected areas are relatively poor compared to the rest
of the country and are often politically marginal.
There
are some social impacts, and some protected areas, which will fall beyond
its remit. For example, where careful public enquires are required before
the designation of protected area status is agreed, no new research or assessments
are proposed here. Instead the web-site will simply summarise the main findings
and state where these existing assessments can be obtained from.
Further,
this survey will not include the costs of protected areas to large-scale high
impact uses such as mining, road building, large-scale agriculture or construction.
This is partly because these uses do not tend be driven by local groups (although
there are cases where they are locally owned and run), and partly because
the survey is concerned with undocumented costs, and these large-scale uses
often have powerful and vocal advocates adept at highlighting the opportunity
costs of refusing development.
This position may change as the research develops.
As our understanding of impacts and benefits improves it may necessary to
incorporate more complicated and larger scale issues into consideration. The
utility of this framework will therefore be reviewed at the end of the first
stage of the research.
There are two main sets of social impacts with which this survey is concerned.
First there are the consequences of displacement from protected areas and
subsequent exclusion from them which is likely to have diverse negative impacts.
Secondly there are a series of potential local advantages which the establishment
of protected areas may bring. Methodologies which integrate both aspects are
not well developed and will need to be established and tested by this research.
The first step in this enquiry will be to ask whether or not people have
been moved from the areas under investigation.
We will ask of each area studied whether evictions took place or not
to establish the Reserve. If they did take place we will consider how complete
and effective the moves have been – for some protected areas may be proclaimed
clear of people when in fact they are not. If not we will ask whether evictions
are pending.
Where evictions have taken place our assessments of costs will follow the
logic of the Operational Policies (OP) 4.12 of the World Bank, which is regarded
as the best set of formal norms available (Chatty & Colchester 2002),
the assessment will cover the “direct economic and social impacts
caused by:
(a) the involuntary taking of land resulting in
(i)
relocation or loss of shelter;
(ii) lost of assets or
access to assets; or
(iii) loss of income sources
or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another
location; or
(b) the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected
areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons. Involuntary restriction of access covers restrictions
on the use of resources imposed on people living outside the park or protected
area, or on those who continue living inside the park or protected area during
and after project implementation. In cases where new parks and protected areas
are created as part of the project, persons who lose shelter, land, or other
assets are covered under para. 3(a). Persons who lose shelter in existing
parks and protected areas are also covered under para. 3(a).” (World Bank
2002, 2).
During the early and mid-90s
Michael Cernea developed a conceptual model of the risks of impoverishment
embedded in the development-induced displacement and resettlement of populations.
This model of Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) was first used
on a large scale, and with significant findings, in a World Bank analytical
study of some 200 of its financed development projects that entailed involuntary
displacement (Cernea & Guggenheim 1996; Cernea 1997, 2000). The origin
of the IRR model is both empirical and theoretical. Empirically, the model
is distilled from the accumulation of research findings by sociologists, anthropologists,
geographers, political scientists, environmentalists and others during the
last three decades in many countries. Theoretically, it builds upon state-of-the-art
work in both resettlement research and poverty-related research.
The IRR models structures the pre-post comparison of the affected peoples’
livelihoods following a set of 8 major impoverishment risks:
1.
Landlessness (expropriation of land assets
and loss of access to land)
2.
Joblessness (even when the resettlement
creates some temporary jobs)
3.
Homelessness (loss physical houses, family
homes and cultural space)
4.
Marginalisation (social, psychological and
economic downward mobility)
5.
Food insecurity (malnourishment, etc.)
6. Increased morbidity and mortality
7. Loss of access to common property (forests,
water, wasteland, cultural sites)
8.
Social disarticulation (disempowerment, disruption to social institutions)
The IRR model has been tested
and applied in numerous large studies, including in the World Commission of
Dam’s report (WCD 2001), in an all-India monograph (Mahapatra, 1999) and many
other books and studies on population displacement, in numerous resettlement
studies in the irrigation and mining sector (Downing, 2002), etc. and is used
now operationally by major development agencies (ADB, the World Bank) and
in resettlement planning. In national parks, a first systematic study of indigenous
population displacement under the lens of the IRR model was carried out in
12 protected areas and national parks in 6 Central African countries by Kai
Schmidt-Soltau (2003) and underlined the analytical strength of the IRR model.
Beside of its analytical advantages, our utilization of the IRR model guaranties
the compatibility of our findings with the mainstream policies for involuntary
resettlement, since the OP 4.12. of the World Bank, which is considered by
all major stakeholders as best practice, is
based on the IRR model.
A significant problem for any
assessment of the social impacts of existing parks derives from the fact that
in most developing countries no baseline data on the economic and social utilization
of the land exists. This uncertainty on the pre-park situation will be tackled
by a full array of data collection methods and strategies:
·
Detailed literature reviews
of published and unpublished data to find for example old census data (which
could be extrapolated), old maps (documenting at least the number and spatial
position of settlements), data on similar areas, regional market data (to
examine lost trade following eviction), bio-monitoring and forest inventories
(to calculate the lost stumpage value), correspondence of relevant governmental
departments (to reconstruct the process of displacement from trip reports
etc.), etc.
·
Where funds allow detailed
interviews with displaced populations (utilizing the snowball sampling method)
to establish population lists, land use maps (to identify affected populations
and the extent of their land losses), detailed descriptions on the non-monetary
social costs (especially risks 4-8 in the IRR model), and assessments of livelihood
change based on oral history, local records (or herd or farm sizes for example),
and comparison with similar livelihoods in places which have not experienced
displacement. This method has been successfully tested in many countries in
the context of land restitution.
·
While detailed assessments
of the economic value of land exist for most parts of the world and have established
and tested sets of quantitative methods, their fluctuations are high. In some
areas an assessment of market values of similar lands will be used to assess
the social costs experienced by the rural populations. In other areas land
is not a market good, so that the costs have to be established via a theoretical
assessment of the benefit the area under research would offer, if used for
the most economic utilization (lost stumpage value). These cost-assessments
will be supported by an evaluation of the costs necessary for acquiring land
for that group on which they could practice their livelihoods with similar
freedom. It might be true that especially mobile and/or indigenous populations
would in a no-park-situation not have the chance to capitalize the land, utilized
by them, but even if it is common that the rights of local people are ignored,
it does not justify that their losses are not assessed and/or compensated.
·
Assessments of the economic
value of land exist for most parts of the world and have established and tested
sets of quantitative methods. In many cases it will be necessary to include
the market value of lost land as part of the social costs experienced by the
rural populations. In other areas land is not a market good, or people did
not rely upon, or benefit from the ownership or sale of their land. Here it
is not appropriate to include the value of lost land as part of the costs
it is however necessary to consider the cost of providing alternative lands
where these livelihoods could be enjoyed with equivalent security and benefits.
Assessments of benefits will examine the ways in which
local groups may profit from the presence of the protected area.
1. Jobs and livelihoods.
2. Security and empowerment
3. Health
4. Other values
The key questions to ask with respect to jobs and livelihoods
are what new income earning opportunities are afforded by the presence of
a protected area, and what elements of people’s livelihoods are sustained
and supported by the presence of a protected area? The growth of tourism globally
and the need to exploit a country’s comparative advantage with more attractive
scenery and wildlife are often one of the main justifications behind the creation
of new protected areas. Equally the scale and availability of new income earning
opportunities is frequently feared to be insignificant compared to the costs.
It is nonetheless important to consider these potential benefits, to consider
how many people in what sectors of the economy, are benefiting from the protected
area, and whether the evictees share in them. We should expect also that if
there have been these benefits then they will have a positive impact on health.
With respect to security and empowerment we have to
examine how reliable they are. Do they just provide seasonal labour, and how
reliable are the tourists’ numbers? How do they vary according to the vicissitudes
of currency prices and global economic performance? Similarly if local groups
have access rights to use part of the protected area how secure are these
rights? What powers do governments have to deny or restrict these rights?
The final category of benefits is necessary because
it has to be recognised that some protected areas provide benefits which are
not easily expressed in economic terms. There may be significant local buy-in
to the values which endorse the setting aside of natural areas. However unlikely
this is it is important to look for it in order that a proper assessment of
locally felt costs and benefits be achieved.
A sampling frame
for a global assessment
There are over 100,000 protected areas worldwide. If
one assumes that an assessment of a single protected area will take on average
30 working days and will cost around US$ 15,000.- (see budget below) a total
sample will not be possible due to financial constrains. Even an assessment
of the 42,614 protected areas with a surface area of 10 km2 or more - which
would cost US$ 630 Million without overheads - is unrealistic. This study
will therefore only be able to assess a sample of the protected areas of the
world.
We will be selecting protected areas to study from the UN 2003 database
of protected areas produced for list by the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), The World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the World Conservation Monitoring
Centre (WCMC). This is produced for the IUCN’s World Commission on Protected
Areas and was recently substantially updated for the World Parks Congress,
which meets once a decade. It lists, by country, all protected areas in the
world, with their size, location, year of establishment and IUCN categorisation
(which ranges from 1, strict wilderness, to 6, multiple use).
We will structure our sampling in two ways. First the study will set out to examine only the most strongly guarded protected areas, those that fit into category I and II of the IUCN management categories. There are just over 10,000 of these covering nearly 32% of the protected land area. There are three caveats to this procedure. One is that the categorisation of protected areas however has only been unevenly completed across the world. Up to 50% of protected areas in some parts of the world are uncategorized. A second is that some lower categories of protected area still require the eviction and exclusion of people. For example Game Reserves in East Africa in which local residence is not allowed are categorised as IUCN category 4. Finally some theoretically strictly protected areas are not in fact well protected in practice. The first stage of the research will amend the type of protected areas that need to be included by virtue of the people they exclude.
Second, the sample will be structured regionally. The study will cluster the world into regions and sub-regions, the latter following the IUCN groupings, before taking the sample. In total there are 5 regions with 14 sub-regions:
Region 1: Australisia and Oceania
2
Sub-regions: Pacific, Australia and New Zealand.
Region 2: Americas
4
Sub-regions: North America, Central America, South America and Brazil, Caribbean.
Region 3: Africa and Middle
East
3
Sub-regions: East and Southern Africa, North Africa and Middle East, West
and Central Africa.
Region 4: Eurasia
2 Sub-regions: Europe, North Eurasia
Region 5: Asia
3
Sub-regions: South Asia, South East Asia, East Asia.
The
table below (see end of document) shows number and size of category 1 and
II protected areas, and the proportion of land they occupy. To achieve a reliable
baseline we will aim to analyse a 2% sample. If the numbers of category 1
and II are indicative of the total number of reserves which exclude rural
groups, then this will require investigation of 196 protected areas. This
total will be split evenly across the
globe with 14 protected areas taken from each sub-region. This,
as Table 1 indicates, will mean that regions with more protected areas will
be under-represented relative to those with less protection. Notably
North America will be underrepresented and South and East Asia will be over-represented.
There are good reasons for this however. This is not just a study of protected
areas – but also their social context, particularly in poorer parts of the
world. It will therefore be important adequately to sample the poorer and
more populous parts of the planet. Furthermore the nature of the social consequences
of conservation may well vary region by region according to the modes of government
found there. The consequences of conservation policy are generally mitigated
or not by the role different governments play. It will be important to give
space for the diversity that is likely here by evenly distributing the protected
areas to be sampled across the regions.
Within
each sub-region some adjustment will be necssary. Some sub-regions contain
so few countries that each has a substantially greater chance of being included
in the survey than countries from regions with many (Australia and New Zealand
contain 2 countries, North America 3, Europe nearly 40). In these instances
we will treat the separate states of federal countries as separate countries
for the purpose of the sample. The IUCN list provides data separately for
each state in these countries. Second, each country be weighted according
to its size, and the sample of protected areas within the countries structured
according to their size and number in order that our work be representative
of a significant proportion of the terrestrial globe and its protected areas.
The assessment will have two stages. In the first we
will approach groups of experts on particular regions and countries to invite
them to review current information available about specific protected areas.
A list of experts proposed for each region is given below. This information
will be summarised, where possible, according to the criteria suggested above,
such that a reasonably concise rendition of the social consequences of the
protected areas is produced. The methodology described above will be used
as far as possible at this stage, and where not possible as a model for assessing
the extent of ignorance and defining what needs to be known. The 14 protected
areas to be sampled from each sub-region will be identified at this stage.
All the expert teams will be invited to discuss and
compare the findings from the different regions in a final joint reporting
meeting. This meeting will review problems with the comparative framework
and methodologies used for this assessment in order to make appropriate adjustments
for the second stage of the research. In particular teams may wish to suggest
amendments to the proposed criteria of using category 1 and 2 protected areas
only. It may be necessary to include other categories, or exclude particularly
inadequately protected reserves. The findings of this stage of the research
will be available on the web site with the sources for all the data presented
indicated.
The second stage of the survey will hone, refine and
add to the knowledge of the first survey in two ways. Primarily the regional
boards will direct, and where necessary seek funding for, further research
into the 14 protected areas identified for further study during the first
stage of the research. This could use a combination of post-doctoral researchers
or consultancies according to their needs.
We should expect that the information used in the initial
survey will be reputably contested and counter-veiling views will be deliberately
and clearly requested on the web site. It will also be debated in other sites,
for example book reviews, academic articles and in ‘grey’ literature, which
the web site will need either to include or provide access to. Submissions
and debates will be reviewed periodically by regional experts will act in
a manner analogous to editorial boards of academic journals. Where necessary
they will send out submitted material for anonymous peer review and meet regularly
to decide what material is sufficiently rigorously collected to merit inclusion.
The boards may also commission responses to debates generated. The intent
here is not to offer one view about the consequences of any particular protected
area. Rather the goal is to facilitate informed debate and to enable those
who are keen to investigate the sources and problems with the data displayed
to do so.
Web site design
Information about the costs and benefits of each protected
area will be summarised in a brief table. Links to pages with more details
about disputed information will be available within each table. Access to
the information on each protected area will be through various means. A clickable
world map into which users can ‘zoom’ will allow regional focus. In addition
protected areas can be listed alphabetically, by country, and by category.
Outlines of the legislation which makes provision for protected areas in each
country will also be provided.
Budget:
Phase 1: Preparation
phase
During this phase, the organisational framework of
the survey will be established, the methodology will be elaborated, discussed
on an international workshop and published on the web, the protected areas
for the case studies and the case study researchers will be identified and
regional research coordinators elected. The output will be one detailed literature
review per region elaborated by the sub-regional research coordinators (see
list below). This review will outline the extent to which the establishment
of protected areas have entailed evictions or exclusions, and the extent to
which the costs of these are already known. It will then recommend case study
sites and case study researchers. On the basis of these literature reviews
and the draft methodology, an international workshop under the supervision
of the leading scientist in the area of resettlement, conservation and social
impact will finalise the methodology to be used in each of the case studies
and agree on case study protected areas and researchers.
Budget: Phase One
1.
Infrastructure
a. Establishment of the web-page
$ 20,000
b. Maintenance, running costs, advertising
(for 2 years)
$ 6,000
c. Communication, Material etc.
$ 17,000
2. Human resources
a. Methodology, structure, general setting
(2 people x 10 days x $ 300) $ 6,000
b. Sub-regional studies (14 people x
10 days x $300)
$ 42,000
c. Coordination of working group, writing
up of global
assessment (2 people x 20 days x $ 300)
$ 12,000
3. Workshop
a. International
workshop to discuss and finalise the methodology
and research strategy (14 sub-region research coordinators &
2 overall coordinators and 4 senior supervisors = 20 people)
Transport on average $ 1000,-
p.p. & 5 days per diem $ 200 p.p;
conference facilities $ 1000,- materials
etc. $ 1000)
$ 42,000
Total
$ 145,000
Phase 2: The case
studies
This budget is based on five years work in the five
regions and the 14 sub-regions. Regional information will be updated yearly
by a regional board of editors. Further research will be carried out in the
196 protected areas identified in phase 1. This work will be set up and supervised
by the regional boards with help from the two coordinators.
The specific research on the 196 protected areas identified
in the first stage will be tackled through a combination of specific consultancies
and post-doctoral researchers. Budgets for both are given below. There are
advantages to both methods. Consultancies are cheaper in the first instance.
Hiring post-doctoral researchers buys more experts’ time for the project.
The decision as to which is most appropriate will vary from region to region
and will be the decision of each regional board. The exact budget required
for further research in each region will therefore be determined after the
first stage of the research is complete. We offer an estimate below.
Budget: Phase Two
1.
Infrastructure
2005-2010
a.
Maintenance of web page. Web technician $43,000 pa cost to
employer (NB ideally this would be a well qualified researcher who
also had
web expertise. Part of the job here would be to network with conservation
and
research institutions to ensure the web site is used and engaged with
) $ 215,000
b. Material, communication
etc.(20,000 p.a.)
$ 100,000
c. Transport ($ 5000,- for research coordinators,
2000 for regional coordinators
and 1000 for sub-regional coordinators
p.a.)
$ 170,000
2. Human resources
a. Research coordinators (2 people x
30 days x $300 for 5 years)
$ 90,000
3. Development and monitoring
a. Regional meetings of editorial boards
to discuss changes to the data base and
propose priorities for follow
up (The annual regional meetings consists of the
regional coordinator, the sub-regional
coordinators and the case study researches
and one of the research coordinators)(in total ~15 people x 2 days
per diem $ 200,-
$ 500 p.p. transport results and $ 1500 for conference facilities etc.)
$ 375,000
b. A mid term meeting (in years 3) of
all research coordinators with the senior
supervisors (costs see 3.a. of phase 1)
$ 42,000
c. A final workshop to discuss the final
outcomes and round up the projects (a
selection of researchers, 19
coordinators and 4 senior supervisors)
$ 84,000
Total
excluding cases studies and post-doctoral research
$ 1,076,000
Estimated maximum cost of case studies, based on 196
individual consultancies
required because there are no existing studies
to draw upon: $ 3,175,200
Yearly costs of post-doctoral researcher:
Cost to employer :$ 54,000
5 days work for regional chairs :$ 1,500
5 days work for sub-regional chair :$ 1,500
Costs of consultancy:
30 days research (breakdown below) : $ 15,000
2 days work for regional chair : $ 600
2
days work for sub-regional chair
: $ 600
Breakdown of consultancy
costs.
Average
cost per procted area during 12 case studies (Schmidt-Soltau 2003) |
Number of days |
Honor-arium[4] |
per diem[5] |
Research assistants[6] |
per diem[7] |
Transport |
Material |
Total |
Literature Review |
5 |
1.500 |
250 |
250 |
250 |
100 |
100 |
2.450 |
Identificantion of affected populations |
5 |
1.500 |
250 |
250 |
250 |
250 |
100 |
2.600 |
Detailed
household survey in 5 % of the affected household or at least 50 hh |
10 |
3.000 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
200 |
250 |
4.950 |
Report writing |
5 |
1.500 |
250 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
1.850 |
Presentation
of report to affected population |
2 |
600 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
1.100 |
Transport |
3 |
900 |
150 |
0 |
0 |
1.000 |
0 |
2.050 |
Total |
30 |
9.000 |
1.500 |
1.100 |
1.100 |
1.650 |
650 |
15.000 |
The Team
Senior Advisors: Michael M. Cernea,Gonzalo
Oviedo,Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend,
Taghi Favor, Adrian Phillips
Coordinators: Dan Brockington & Kai Schmidt-Soltau
Region 1: Australia and Oceania
Pacific:
Australia and
New Zealand: Conservation
& Economics Group (Hurstville; NSW Australia)
Region 2: Americas
North America: Jim
Igoe
Central America:
South America: Tom
Griffiths, Alejandro Argumedo
Carribean:
Region 3: Africa and Middle East
North Africa
and Middle East: Dawn Chatty
West and Central
Africa: Kai Schmidt-Soltau, Phil Burnham
Eastern and Southern
Africa: Christo Fabricius; William Beinart; Chris de Wet;
Ed Barrow; Dan Brockington; Jim
Igoe; Peter Rogers; Rod Neumann; James
Murombedzi, Hector
Magome
Region 4: Asia
Southeast Asia: Paul
Jepson, Marcus Colchester
China: Shi Guoqing, Zhu Wenlong, Kai Schmidt-Soltau
East Asia: Ashish Kothari;
Mahesh Rangarajan; Farhad Vania;
Ghazala Shahabuddin; Arpan Sharma: Kishore
Rithe
Region 5: Eurasia
Europe: Kevin Bishop
North Eurasia: Ken MacDonald
Tables showing the distribution and area of protected area by region.
IUCN Region |
Count of Protected Areas |
Size of Protected Areas
(km2) |
Total |
% Land |
% Land in |
||||||
1a |
1b |
2 |
Total (all cat) |
1a |
1b |
2 |
Total (all cat) |
Land Area |
Protected |
Category 1 or 2 |
|
Australia
and New Zealand |
2,136 |
38 |
680 |
9,547 |
218,649 |
41,898 |
344,756 |
1,513,679 |
7,957,975 |
19 |
7.6 |
Pacific |
24 |
0 |
24 |
389 |
445 |
0 |
553 |
27,741 |
552,463 |
5 |
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caribbean
|
11 |
18 |
161 |
961 |
183 |
98 |
27,101 |
73,182 |
235,002 |
31.1 |
11.7 |
Central
America |
18 |
14 |
97 |
775 |
4,579 |
3,461 |
34,092 |
159,132 |
523,160 |
30.4 |
8.1 |
South
America and Brazil |
236 |
3 |
393 |
2,752 |
90,682 |
314 |
693,627 |
4,103,273 |
17,806,530 |
23 |
4.4 |
North
America |
845 |
701 |
1,362 |
13,414 |
66,838 |
475,327 |
1,670,502 |
4,555,201 |
22,112,713 |
20.6 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North
Eurasia |
195 |
0 |
66 |
17,712 |
22,865 |
1,1740 |
357,754 |
1,133,278 |
12,818,614 |
8.8 |
3.1 |
Europe |
1,489 |
533 |
271 |
44,534 |
2,628 |
1251 |
506,523 |
1,693,042 |
11,549,000 |
14.7 |
4.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western
and Central Africa |
22 |
7 |
94 |
2,607 |
5,252 |
31 |
215,922 |
1,304,354 |
12,855,068 |
10.2 |
1.7 |
Eastern
and Southern Africa |
16 |
7 |
214 |
4,759 |
359,038 |
0 |
126,989 |
1,816,735 |
22,100,900 |
8.2 |
2.2 |
North
Africa and Middle East |
29 |
2 |
72 |
1,132 |
56,839 |
37,708 |
97,271 |
731,587 |
5,116,286 |
14.3 |
3.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East
Asia |
44 |
45 |
92 |
3,208 |
92,234 |
243,892 |
106,227 |
1,408,751 |
11,751,928 |
12 |
3.8 |
South
Asia |
31 |
1 |
139 |
1,477 |
2,758 |
200 |
68,840 |
308,826 |
4,481,128 |
6.9 |
1.6 |
Southeast
Asia |
287 |
12 |
254 |
2,650 |
21,179 |
15,646 |
213,111 |
775,431 |
4,479,935 |
17.3 |
5.6 |
Source: IUCN list of World Protected Areas.
References:
Brockington, D. 2002, Fortress Conservation. The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania, Oxford: James Currey.
Cernea, M. M. 1997. The Risks and Reconstruction Model for Resettling Displaced Populations. World Development. (25) 10: 1569-1589
Cernea,
M. M. 2000. Risk, safeguards and reconstruction: a model for population displacement
and resettlement. In: Cernea, M. M. & McDowell, C. Risk and reconstruction: experiences of resettlers and refugees. Washington:
Word Bank.
Cernea, M. M. and Guggenheim, S. 1996. Resettlement and Development. The Bankwide Review of Projects Involving Involuntary Resettlement, World Bank: ESSD, Resettlement Series no. 32, Washington, DC.
Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2003. National parks and poverty risks: Is population resettlement the solution? Paper presented at the World Park Congress (Durban, September 2003). An abbreviated version was published as: The end of forced resettlements for conservation: Conservation must not impoverish people, Policy Matters 12: 42-51.
Chatty, D. & Colchester, M. 2002. Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development. Oxford: Berghahn.
Downing, T. E. 2002. Avoiding New Poverty: Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement. IIED and World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Mahapatra, L.K. 1999. Resettlement, Impoverishment and Reconstruction in India: Development for the Deprived. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2003, Conservation-related Resettlement in Central Africa: Environmental and Social Risks, Development and Change 34: 525-551.
WCD 2001. Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making. Earthscan.
World Bank 2002. Operational Policy 4.12: Involuntary Resettlement. Washington: World Bank.
WPC (World Park Congress) 2003. Recommendations (R 1-32) http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/ english/outputs/recommendations.htm
Kai Schmidt-Soltau is a sociologist and independent consultant with GTZ and the World Bank Group based in Central Africa since 1997. P.O. Box 7414; Yaoundé; Cameroun (Email: SchmidtSol@aol.com). He has published on this subject: The local costs of rainforest conservation: Local responses towards integrated conservation and development projects. In: Journal of Contemporary African Studies (in print); Conservation-related resettlement in Central Africa: Environmental and social risks. In: Development and Change 34(3): 525-551 (2003); Die soziokulturellen Risiken von naturschutzindizierten Zwangsumsiedlungen: Fallbeispiele aus Zentralafrika. In: Peripherie 18(4): 732-823; Displaced by conservation. In: Voices 4/2002: 9; Die Opfer der Nachhaltigkeit: Soziale und ökologische Folgen des Naturschutzes in Zentralafrika. In: Iz3w 264 (2002):7-11
He has presented papers on the subject at the X. world congress of rural sociology (IRSA) in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil, 2000), the international symposium on resettlement and social development” in Nanjing (P.R. China, 2002), the international symposium on the multidimensionality of displacement risks in Africa in Kyoto (Japan, 2002), at the 8th Biannual Conference of the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration in Chiang Mai (Thailand, 2003)
Together
with Michael Cernea he has published: Biodiversity conservation and poverty
risks: Is population resettlement the solution? Lit Verlag (Hamburg/London)
in print; The end of forced resettlements for conservation: Conservation must
not impoverish people. In:
Policy Matters 12 (2003): 42-51. They have presented joint papers at the international
CIFOR conference on “rural livelihoods, forests and biodiversity” in Bonn
(Germany, 2003) and on the World Park Congress in Durban (South Africa 2003).
Dan Brockington is a lecturer at the School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3TB, UK. (Email: dan.brockington@geog.ox.ac.uk.). He has conducted a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of eviction policies in Tanzania and worked closely with village governments and local resource management institutions. Key publications include Fortress Conservation. The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. James Currey, Oxford (2002). ‘Myths of Sceptical Environmentalism.’ (2003) Environmental Science and Policy 6: 543-546; ‘Injustice and conservation – Is “local support” necessary for sustainable protected areas?’ (2003) Policy Matters 12: 22-30; ‘Women’s Income and Livelihood Strategies of Dispossessed Pastoralists.’ (2001) Human Ecology 29: 307-338; ‘Degradation debates and data deficiencies. The case of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania.’ (2001, with Kathy Homewood) Africa 71: 449-480; ‘The costs of conservation: monitoring economic change as a consequence of conservation policy at Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania.’ (2004) In K.Homewood (ed) Rural resources and local livelihoods in Africa. James Currey, Oxford; ‘Wildlife, Pastoralists and Science. Debates concerning Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania.’ (1996, with BrockingtonKathy Homewood) In M.Leach and R.Mearns (eds) The Lie of the Land. Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment. International African Institute, James Currey, Oxford; Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. 1999. Pastoral Land Tenure and Community Conservation: a case study from North-East Tanzania. Pastoral Land Tenure Series No 11. IIED, London.
[1] Kai
Schmidt-Soltau. c/o GTZ; P.O. Box 7414; Yaoundé; Cameroun (Email: SchmidtSol@aol.com).
[2] Dan Brockington School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3TB, UK. (Email: dan.brockington@geog.ox.ac.uk.).
[3] The
COP 7 of the CBD has approved the following activity for its programme on
protected areas: “Assess the economic and socio-cultural costs, benefits and impacts arising
from the establishment and maintenance of protected areas, particularly
for indigenous and local communities, and adjust policies to avoid and mitigate
negative impacts, and where appropriate compensate costs and equitably share
benefits in accordance with the national legislation.”
[4] $ 300.- p.p. p.d.
[5] $ 50.- p.p. p.d.
[6] $ 50.- p.p. p.d.
[7] $ 50.- p.p. p.d.