Roots, relevance, aims and values
23
or CBD, which was signed at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. One of the key treaty commitments of states that signed up to the CBD was to
select, establish and manage a network of protected
areas as outlined in Articles 8a and 8b of the
convention:
• CBD Article 8a. Establish a system of protected areas
or areas where special measures need to be taken to
conserve biological diversity.
• CBD Article 8b. Develop, where necessary, guidelines
for the selection, establishment and management of
protected areas or areas where special measures need
to be taken to conserve biological diversity.
Like most international conventions, the CBD is not
legally binding in a strict sense, and each individual
state needed to draft or redraft legislation in order for
the convention to take effect. As might be expected, the
translation, transposition, and integration of international law into national law is complex and time -
consuming and has allowed for considerable fl exibility
in how protected areas networks have been developed
and designated in different countries.
The CBD is just one of a number of international
conventions that require states to identify, designate
and create protected areas. For example, the Convention
Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and
Natural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 1972 allows
member countries to propose sites for addition to the
World Heritage list. Many countries proposed their
most spectacular national parks, e.g. the Serengeti
(Kenya), Ayers Rock or Uluru (Australia) and Yosemite
(US). In such cases, the designation merely overlays the
national park status. In other cases, world heritage
status proposals have been developed as a tool to conserve a heavily used landscape by mobilizing the local
pride and sense of international responsibility attached
to the designation to strengthen existing planning laws
and prompt heritage - friendly development.
An example of this approach is the Jurassic Coast
World Heritage site in Dorset, England, which covers a
scenic coastal landscape and which has been designated largely for its landforms and geology but which
has many small nature reserves ‘ nested ’ within it.
Similarly, the European Union ’ s Birds Directive (1979)
and Habitats Directive (1992) require that member
states identify and designate Special Protection Areas
(SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation that together
form a European network of protected sites called
Natura 2000. These may be sites managed (or at least
legally designated) as reserves, those holding other
designations (e.g. SSSI), or sites that have not previously been designated under any legal framework.
2.4 AN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FOR
CATEGORIZING PROTECTED AREAS
Protected areas are generally no longer thought of as
embodying specifi c social values. This is possibly
because they have become an integral part of the
global system of environmental book - keeping that is
an essential component of international conservation
conventions such as the CBD. However, in order to fi t
comfortably into a global accounting system, a standardized classifi cation system based on scientifi c principles is required.
The fi rst attempt at such a classifi cation scheme was
developed in 1978 in a joint project between the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN) Commission on National
Parks and the World Commission on Protected Areas)
(IUCN, 2003 ). By 1994, and after several iterations,
this framework had stabilized into six categories of protected areas distinguished by their primary management objectives (Table 2.2 ; IUCN, 1994 ).
Under the IUCN system, a protected area is defi ned
as: ‘ An area of land or sea especially dedicated to the
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and
of natural and associated cultural resources, and
managed through legal or other effective means ’
(IUCN, 1994 ). Signifi cantly, under this scheme, a protected area is designated to the IUCN classifi cation
which best refl ects its management aim without
reference to its legal title (Fitzsimmons & Wescott,
2004 ).
Of course, grouping the entire world ’ s protected
areas into six management categories (whatever their
origins and motivating objectives) inevitably brings
with it some limitations, but this has proved useful not
only for monitoring purposes but also in providing a
framework for reserve planners in developing or adding
to protected area systems. For example, the system was
adopted and applied in the development of a complete
protected area system for the Canary Islands, leading
to the designation of approximately 40 per cent of the
land surface area of the archipelago and providing a
framework not only for strict protection but also for
integrated conservation and development projects
(see Mart í n - Esquivel et al ., 1995 ; Whittaker &
Fern á ndez - Palacios, 2007 , Chapter 12 ).
23
or CBD, which was signed at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. One of the key treaty commitments of states that signed up to the CBD was to
select, establish and manage a network of protected
areas as outlined in Articles 8a and 8b of the
convention:
• CBD Article 8a. Establish a system of protected areas
or areas where special measures need to be taken to
conserve biological diversity.
• CBD Article 8b. Develop, where necessary, guidelines
for the selection, establishment and management of
protected areas or areas where special measures need
to be taken to conserve biological diversity.
Like most international conventions, the CBD is not
legally binding in a strict sense, and each individual
state needed to draft or redraft legislation in order for
the convention to take effect. As might be expected, the
translation, transposition, and integration of international law into national law is complex and time -
consuming and has allowed for considerable fl exibility
in how protected areas networks have been developed
and designated in different countries.
The CBD is just one of a number of international
conventions that require states to identify, designate
and create protected areas. For example, the Convention
Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and
Natural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 1972 allows
member countries to propose sites for addition to the
World Heritage list. Many countries proposed their
most spectacular national parks, e.g. the Serengeti
(Kenya), Ayers Rock or Uluru (Australia) and Yosemite
(US). In such cases, the designation merely overlays the
national park status. In other cases, world heritage
status proposals have been developed as a tool to conserve a heavily used landscape by mobilizing the local
pride and sense of international responsibility attached
to the designation to strengthen existing planning laws
and prompt heritage - friendly development.
An example of this approach is the Jurassic Coast
World Heritage site in Dorset, England, which covers a
scenic coastal landscape and which has been designated largely for its landforms and geology but which
has many small nature reserves ‘ nested ’ within it.
Similarly, the European Union ’ s Birds Directive (1979)
and Habitats Directive (1992) require that member
states identify and designate Special Protection Areas
(SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation that together
form a European network of protected sites called
Natura 2000. These may be sites managed (or at least
legally designated) as reserves, those holding other
designations (e.g. SSSI), or sites that have not previously been designated under any legal framework.
2.4 AN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FOR
CATEGORIZING PROTECTED AREAS
Protected areas are generally no longer thought of as
embodying specifi c social values. This is possibly
because they have become an integral part of the
global system of environmental book - keeping that is
an essential component of international conservation
conventions such as the CBD. However, in order to fi t
comfortably into a global accounting system, a standardized classifi cation system based on scientifi c principles is required.
The fi rst attempt at such a classifi cation scheme was
developed in 1978 in a joint project between the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN) Commission on National
Parks and the World Commission on Protected Areas)
(IUCN, 2003 ). By 1994, and after several iterations,
this framework had stabilized into six categories of protected areas distinguished by their primary management objectives (Table 2.2 ; IUCN, 1994 ).
Under the IUCN system, a protected area is defi ned
as: ‘ An area of land or sea especially dedicated to the
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and
of natural and associated cultural resources, and
managed through legal or other effective means ’
(IUCN, 1994 ). Signifi cantly, under this scheme, a protected area is designated to the IUCN classifi cation
which best refl ects its management aim without
reference to its legal title (Fitzsimmons & Wescott,
2004 ).
Of course, grouping the entire world ’ s protected
areas into six management categories (whatever their
origins and motivating objectives) inevitably brings
with it some limitations, but this has proved useful not
only for monitoring purposes but also in providing a
framework for reserve planners in developing or adding
to protected area systems. For example, the system was
adopted and applied in the development of a complete
protected area system for the Canary Islands, leading
to the designation of approximately 40 per cent of the
land surface area of the archipelago and providing a
framework not only for strict protection but also for
integrated conservation and development projects
(see Mart í n - Esquivel et al ., 1995 ; Whittaker &
Fern á ndez - Palacios, 2007 , Chapter 12 ).