Rd October 2010 [a] Contents

Cross-border coordination can raise the profile of a particular site or sites and can help to increase management capacity and expertise in these areas. However the complexity of managing sites across borders should not be overlooked. The need for consensus and approval of management decisions from two or more governing bodies can slow decision making. Also if the two or more partnering protected areas or other conservation areas have different management objectives, for instance a category II national park promoting education and recreation next to a category Ib wilderness area aiming to be undisturbed by significant human activity, differing mandates can complicate cooperation and management. Differences in language across borders can also be a limiting factor; and major differences in resources between protected areas in different countries can create management difficulties and tensions.

Whereas the protected area estate has performed relatively well in securing representative samples of biodiversity pattern (distribution of species, communities, and ecosystems), it remains inadequate for conserving the ecosystem processes that will secure either the protected areas or biodiversity in the wider landscape. Multiple-agency, landscape-level approaches that involve a range of sectoral interests and objectives (the ecosystem approach) can help resolve this problem. At the same time such approaches when taking place across boundaries of different countries which do not have a harmonious relationship can result in the additional benefit of helping secure cooperation or at least ease boundary area dispute and conflict.

Alsdirawi, F. and Faraj, M. (2004) Establishing a transboundary peace park in the demilitarized zone (DMZ) on the Kuwaiti/Iraqi borders, Parks, 14:1 p. 48-55

Mittermeier, R. A., Kormos, C. F. Mittermeier, C. G. Gil, P. R. Sandwith, T. and Besançon, C. (2005) Transboundary Conservation, Cemex, Mexico

Manuel Rámirez

La Amistad sits on the narrow land bridge between North and South America, where two distinct biotas, extreme ranges of temperatures, rainfall, altitude, slope, and exposure converge, make it one of the most biologically diverse protected regions in the Western Hemisphere.

In 1979 Costa Rica and Panama established their first transboundary cooperation agreement for the purpose of jointly developing investment and assistance projects. Presidential declarations issued both in 1979 and 1982 with reference to the establishment of La Amistad International Park emphasized two important arguments: the need to conserve their joint natural and cultural heritage; and the importance to have a model for peace and friendship between neighboring countries.

La Amistad is important biologically and economically to these two countries. The high annual rainfall of 2,000–7,000 mm, combined with the short and steep watersheds common to the region, creates both serious flood hazards and a potential for hydroelectric energy production. Half of Costa Rica's freshwater flow originates from catchments in La Amistad. In Panama, the land surrounding La Amistad is vital to the country’s economy, producing 80 per cent of the country's fruits and vegetables. Currently, both Costa Rica and Panama have major hydroelectric projects inside or adjacent to La Amistad, e.g. the Fortuna dam that produces a significant portion of Panama’s energy, and the Cachi dam, that produces energy for the Costa Rican economy. Additional hydro projects are in the planning phase in both countries; all of them within the buffer zones of the parks and some in indigenous territories.

The geographic, cultural and biotic complexity of the Talamanca region requires a broad range of institutional involvement. The full support of national entities, governmental agencies, and international organisations is needed to ensure the success of La Amistad as a trasboundary conservation area. Only coordinated action between these entities will generate the required level of integrated management and development fundamental to the long-term survival of the biosphere reserve. Finding common ground between these and the local landscape users remains a difficult task. However, local and regional civil society groups and international agencies recognize that working together is the only way to achieve desired outcomes.

DeVries, P. (1987) The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history, Princeton University Press, USA

Nigel Dudley

The underlying message of this book is that the tenth or more of the world’s land surface set aside for protection, coupled with the growing amount of coastal zones and oceans, provide a far wider range of goods and services than has generally been recognised. Far from being a net drain on human resources, protection of natural capital leaves us well in pocket.

1. 
   Taking species away from their natural habitat and maintaining them in artificial conditions, known as ex situ conservation and including zoos, artificial breeding centres and seed or gene banks. Such approaches may be essential in emergency situations, as an insurance policy and if the natural habitat has entirely disappeared (which may become more common under climate change).
   
2. 
   Conserving species in semi-natural habitat, including for example agricultural areas, commercial forestry, waste ground and in urban settings. Careful management and usually some trade-offs between production and conservation can hugely increase the number of species supported in semi-natural habitats and at an extreme diversity can come close to fully natural conditions. But in most cases a proportion of species will be unable to survive or will be unwelcome. This may be because they are too specialised to adapt to changing conditions such as is the case with some shy primate or bird species. Alternatively it could be because they are associated with habitats that are unlikely to survive in managed habitats, like the many species associated with dead wood, which tends to be removed in managed forests to maintain tree health. Finally, some species compete directly with humans, a category including many large carnivores or species such as elephants that carry out crop raiding.
   
3. 
   Conserving species in a natural or near-natural habitat (protected areas), where because of an area’s remoteness or through deliberate management policies habitat is managed directly for nature, including management decisions to leave it entirely alone.
   

The distinction between the second and third of these inevitably remains slightly blurred. Most conservation biologists agree that effective biodiversity conservation is in almost all cases built around a framework of protected areas.

Protected areas are nowadays usually established primarily as a means of biodiversity conservation. Whereas in the past national parks were established either because of their scenic value or with an eye to protecting one or two key species, new tools and approaches are increasing the precision with which protected areas are selected (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Eken et al, 2004; Dudley and Parrish, 2006) and managed (Hockings et al, 2005) and the key role they play in biodiversity conservation is acknowledged in national and global policies, including those of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Climate change is creating additional challenges in this respect both in terms of the design and management of protected areas. An understanding of the various ways in which protected areas function as tools for biodiversity conservation helps to lay the ground for developing response strategies.

Protected areas play multiple roles in biodiversity conservation; nine different contributions can be distinguished depending on the species, ecological situation and types of pressures and opportunities present:

1. 
   Conservation of natural ecosystems without human interference
   
2. 
   Conservation of large, intact ecosystems for the protection of known and unknown species
   
3. 
   Conservation of particular endangered fragments of ecosystems
   
4. 
   Conservation of particular habitats or species by management tailored to their specialised needs
   
5. 
   Conservation of species adapted to culturally-influenced ecosystems by maintaining traditional management
   
6. 
   Providing high levels of protection for very limited, range restricted and endemic species
   
7. 
   Conservation of particular aspects of species’ life-cycles through time-limited interventions
   
8. 
   Conservation of habitat fragments of importance for migratory species
   
9. 
   Providing places to experiment with sustainable natural resource management
   

Each of these will be examined in greater detail below

Some species and habitats are highly susceptible to human interference and are likely to decline in managed landscapes or seascapes and in extreme cases even where there are a relatively few human visitors. This could be for example: plant species that are damaged by light trampling (Cole, 1995), animals with social structures that are easily disturbed (e.g. Kirika et al, 2008); species susceptible to introduced diseases or invasive species (e.g. Daszak et al, 2000); or species subject to over-collection or hunting (e.g. Walsh et al, 2003). Here the most strictly protected areas provide a partial or complete buffer from interference. Such sites can range from very small to extremely large, depending on the type of habitat and species under consideration.

At a scale that allows natural ecosystem processes to continue without interference, with populations of species large enough so that they are likely to remain genetically viable and able to withstand environmental pressures over time (e.g. Sanderson et al, 2002). Areas on this scale ensure protection both of known species and, particularly important in biologically-rich areas, species that have not yet been described by science (Peres, 2005). In reality, costs and human pressures often mean that there is a trade-off between ideal size and possible size. Wardens at Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda worry that the area is large enough to sustain the 300 pairs of mountain gorillas that live there, but farming takes place right up to the borders and there is local resentment about the area being set aside at all.