104
The shaping of the global protected area estate
wise - use, wildlife wilderness and nature monument
movements (Chapter 2 ) and enabled the alignment of
conservation with a key development policy agenda of
the time, namely the introduction of rational resource
and land use planning in developing countries.
This positioned protected areas fi rmly within the
domain of newly independent administrations. As well
as facilitating development funds to build state resource
planning capacity, a planned expansion of protected
areas also provided an expedient means for, among
other things:
1 states to assert control over remote territories;
2 resource management ministries to expand the territory under their jurisdiction; and/or
3 political regimes to reign in cronyism in the allocation of forest concessions (see Jepson, 2001 ; Peluso &
Vandergeest, 2001 ).
The IUCN ’ s chief ecologist, Raymond F. Dasmann,
designed a framework to apply the representation principle at the global scale. This involved a hierarchical
system that defi ned and classifi ed natural regions
for the purpose of conserving natural ecosystems and
vegetation types and the conservation of species. His
framework established a classifi cation of communities
based at the macro - scale on ecoclimatic features, but
at lower levels on taxonomic differences, to create
a nested framework of biogeographical regions,
provinces and (subsequently) units (Dasmann, 1972,
1973 ) (Table 5.3 ; Jepson & Whittaker, 2002b ).
It transpired that the Russian biogeographer M.D.F.
Udvardy (1969) had independently been working
along similar lines to Dasmann to distinguish biogeographical provinces. As a result, IUCN commissioned
Udvardy to review and refi ne Dasmann ’ s system.
In substance, Udvardy ’ s (1975) report reaffi rmed
Dasmann ’ s approach but introduced a number of terminology modifi cations, hence our reference to the
fi nal version as the Dasmann – Udvardy framework
(after Jepson & Whittaker, 2002b ). This approach fi ts
into our earlier typologies as a cheese - cutter, zonal biogeographical approach emphasizing the representation principle, and it was a crucial fi rst step towards
modern systematic conservation planning (Chapter 6 ).
At the top level in the hierarchy, Dasmann (1972,
1973) chose the biome system (tundra, taiga, deciduous broad - leaved forest, etc.) of Clements & Shelford
(1939) on the basis that it is readily applicable globally,
takes into account both plants and animals, and broadly
conforms to observable reality in areas not greatly
modifi ed by humans. Because the biome approach
The growing popularity of these criteria - based
approaches can be attributed in part to their alignment
with new policy norms relating to decentralization, in
part to the ease with which they can be aligned with
the audit culture (policy guided by measurable targets
and objectives) and in part to the relative ease with
which they can be pursued without the need of partnerships with government agencies or the major biodiversity funders.
5.3 TERRESTRIAL PROTECTED
AREA SCHEMES
‘ … a critical issue is the relationship between biogeography and conservation … The biodiversity question is really a biogeographical one, as it is a question
of where the limited fi nancial and human resources
should be applied … Historical biogeographical analyses, however, are not playing the signifi cant role in
biodiversity conservation that they should. ’
(Crisci, 2001 , pp. 164 – 165.)
As the foregoing discussion has outlined, the protected
area planning approaches we are about to discuss
present varied combinations of properties: zonal or
azonal; targeting regions, landscapes, or specifi c sites;
emphasizing ideas of representation or ecological functionality; and targeting richness, endemism, threat or
particular intrinsic attributes. The schemes provide a
complementary suite of approaches that have shaped
the current protected area estate at every level from
that of regions within a single state up to the global.
5.3.1 IUCN Biogeographical Regions
(Dasmann – Udvardy) s cheme
The International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources was created as a quasi -
governmental body in 1948 within the newly formed
United Nations. IUCN assumed two related roles: to
promote the conservation of nature and natural
resources; and to collect and classify information to
support effective decision - making (Holdgate, 1999 ). To
support the former, the IUCN formulated the goal of
establishing a worldwide network of reserves encompassing representative areas of the world ’ s ecosystems
(Dasmann, 1972 ). This ‘ representation principle ’
embraced the international aspirations of the
The shaping of the global protected area estate
wise - use, wildlife wilderness and nature monument
movements (Chapter 2 ) and enabled the alignment of
conservation with a key development policy agenda of
the time, namely the introduction of rational resource
and land use planning in developing countries.
This positioned protected areas fi rmly within the
domain of newly independent administrations. As well
as facilitating development funds to build state resource
planning capacity, a planned expansion of protected
areas also provided an expedient means for, among
other things:
1 states to assert control over remote territories;
2 resource management ministries to expand the territory under their jurisdiction; and/or
3 political regimes to reign in cronyism in the allocation of forest concessions (see Jepson, 2001 ; Peluso &
Vandergeest, 2001 ).
The IUCN ’ s chief ecologist, Raymond F. Dasmann,
designed a framework to apply the representation principle at the global scale. This involved a hierarchical
system that defi ned and classifi ed natural regions
for the purpose of conserving natural ecosystems and
vegetation types and the conservation of species. His
framework established a classifi cation of communities
based at the macro - scale on ecoclimatic features, but
at lower levels on taxonomic differences, to create
a nested framework of biogeographical regions,
provinces and (subsequently) units (Dasmann, 1972,
1973 ) (Table 5.3 ; Jepson & Whittaker, 2002b ).
It transpired that the Russian biogeographer M.D.F.
Udvardy (1969) had independently been working
along similar lines to Dasmann to distinguish biogeographical provinces. As a result, IUCN commissioned
Udvardy to review and refi ne Dasmann ’ s system.
In substance, Udvardy ’ s (1975) report reaffi rmed
Dasmann ’ s approach but introduced a number of terminology modifi cations, hence our reference to the
fi nal version as the Dasmann – Udvardy framework
(after Jepson & Whittaker, 2002b ). This approach fi ts
into our earlier typologies as a cheese - cutter, zonal biogeographical approach emphasizing the representation principle, and it was a crucial fi rst step towards
modern systematic conservation planning (Chapter 6 ).
At the top level in the hierarchy, Dasmann (1972,
1973) chose the biome system (tundra, taiga, deciduous broad - leaved forest, etc.) of Clements & Shelford
(1939) on the basis that it is readily applicable globally,
takes into account both plants and animals, and broadly
conforms to observable reality in areas not greatly
modifi ed by humans. Because the biome approach
The growing popularity of these criteria - based
approaches can be attributed in part to their alignment
with new policy norms relating to decentralization, in
part to the ease with which they can be aligned with
the audit culture (policy guided by measurable targets
and objectives) and in part to the relative ease with
which they can be pursued without the need of partnerships with government agencies or the major biodiversity funders.
5.3 TERRESTRIAL PROTECTED
AREA SCHEMES
‘ … a critical issue is the relationship between biogeography and conservation … The biodiversity question is really a biogeographical one, as it is a question
of where the limited fi nancial and human resources
should be applied … Historical biogeographical analyses, however, are not playing the signifi cant role in
biodiversity conservation that they should. ’
(Crisci, 2001 , pp. 164 – 165.)
As the foregoing discussion has outlined, the protected
area planning approaches we are about to discuss
present varied combinations of properties: zonal or
azonal; targeting regions, landscapes, or specifi c sites;
emphasizing ideas of representation or ecological functionality; and targeting richness, endemism, threat or
particular intrinsic attributes. The schemes provide a
complementary suite of approaches that have shaped
the current protected area estate at every level from
that of regions within a single state up to the global.
5.3.1 IUCN Biogeographical Regions
(Dasmann – Udvardy) s cheme
The International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources was created as a quasi -
governmental body in 1948 within the newly formed
United Nations. IUCN assumed two related roles: to
promote the conservation of nature and natural
resources; and to collect and classify information to
support effective decision - making (Holdgate, 1999 ). To
support the former, the IUCN formulated the goal of
establishing a worldwide network of reserves encompassing representative areas of the world ’ s ecosystems
(Dasmann, 1972 ). This ‘ representation principle ’
embraced the international aspirations of the