Biosphere Reserves : Bureaucratic Label or Sustainable Landscape. KAERA COETZER, BFN Erasmus, ETF Witkowski

Transcription

1 Biosphere Reserves : Bureaucratic Label or Sustainable Landscape BACKGROUND, CHALLENGES & THE K2C CONTEXT KAERA COETZER, BFN Erasmus, ETF Witkowski

2 Biosphere Reserves: The Background UNESCO designation: Man & Biosphere Programme, 1976 Biosphere reserves (BR) vs. traditional protected areas (PAs) Multi-use landscape: Resident human population, matrix of existing human land-uses with stakeholder involver involvement in the BR s decision-making process Zonation of BRs to prevent spatial conflict Core, Buffer, Transition zones Links to contemporary views on conservation: conservation planning for bioregions & ecosystems, ecosystem services, equity & benefit sharing

3 (Spatial) History of the Programme Number of BRs : 57 (8) 1980 : 162 (43) 1990: 286 (72) 1997: 352 (87) 2010: 563 (109) Evolution of MAB themes : ecological baselines versus relationships btn people & the environment

4 No. of Biosphere Reserves Growth of the Programme: : Seville Strategy UK North America Latin America Europe Asia Arab States 100 Africa: Arab States Rate of buy-in ( av. new listings/time): Developing : 7.6 Advanced : 4.8 Year Rate of buy-in (av. new listings/time): Developing : 12.8 Advanced : 3.2 SubSaharan Africa Note: Country counts on the top of bars indicate countries as they existed at that point in time (prior to modern-day dissolution, secession or renaming)

5 Number of Biosphere Reserves Current BRs: Post & Pre-Seville Listings o Seville Strategy & widespread concerns: paper parks % opre-seville: Non-compliance issues ~>50% no zonation, no resident communities / opportunity for stakeholder involvement 300 o REVIEW PROCESS implemented: policing & delisting process % 42% Post-Seville Pre-Seville 53% 54% 15% 58% 37% 42% 47% 46% 85% 63% 100% 100% 58% Total Europe Asia Latin America North America SubSaharan Africa Africa: Arab States Arab States UK

6 Occurs 1 every 10 years : to date - 11 delistings o o The Review Process: some background & the outcomes 1997 (1, Norway), (7, Scotland), 2010/11(3, Scotland, Sweden, Australia). Reasons: zonation, no resident human pop. Pre-Seville sites(320): 65 % reviewed 50% of these do not conform Post-Seville (243): total of 7have been reviewed 3 do not conform Further 5% unreviewed only fulfill conservation function America case (47): 3 appear to have required zonation?? Review Process as a successful policing method (& a big enough stick)?? Review success stories 16 years on : 3 examples of transformation (France, Chile, UK) Braunton Burrows BR Sources: Walker & Solecki, 1999; McDonell, 2005; Price, 2002; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Price et al., 2010; UNESCO, 2010

7 The Review Process & transformation: (sustainable) development as the carrot Sustainable development & social upliftment attractive: govs., communities (Future) opportunities in non-conforming sites promoted, increased buy-in for transformation following review (for zonation, include resident population) Compromised conservation values e.g. Yancheng BR, China Conflict of interest: sustainable development versus conservation priorities (i.e. the unreviewed 5% that are only a National Park) Query the appropriateness of BR designation... Rethink suitability of development goals of MAB on a site-specific basis? Case of Macquarie Island, Tasmania

8 Case of Macquarie Island BR (listed 1977) Following review, the transformation required (development initiatives) placed conservation values at risk site delisted July 2011 **?? For non-conforming BRs with other NB conservation designations: Ramsar, World Heritage, National- & Specially-protected Sites, Scientific Interest Sites. prioritise conservation versus BR designation? Coincidental conservation designations: National Nature Reserve, Critical Habitat, Commonwealth Marine Park & World Heritage Site Core objectives: Conservation & Research Sub-Antarctic systems severe tourist restrictions (pre-approved visits due to sensitivity of environment)

9 K2C: est. 2001

10 1993, 2006: Status quo land-cover maps Multi-use landscape with significant change over time Coetzer et al SAJS:106 (7/8)

11 K2C Land-cover : Zoom-in on Bushbuckridge Coetzer et al SAJS:106 (7/8)

12 INTACT VEGETATION ( ): Spatial distribution of Gains, Losses, Persistence in Relation to Private Reserves Year X % Year Y Losses Persistence Gains Photo credit: BFN Erasmus; Xanthia

13 IMPACTED VEGETATION ( ): Spatial distribution of Gains, Losses, Persistence in Relation to Zonation Year X % Year Y Losses Persistence Gains

14 SO WHAT? Big-Picture Biosphere Challenges in K2C context Land-cover change not limited to transition zone Expanded into buffer zone; impacted existing PAs Space limiting factor: only so much area available that is NOT conservation Long-term: Transformation up to PA fences Transformation increased by worsening socio-economic circumstances (increasing dependency on rangeland resources) Future development priorities for Poverty nodes International BR failures, successes : compare to K2C Long-term consequences for K2C s Biosphere status: Catch 22: Human needs versus Environmental Protection Re-examine zonation : Issues around Buffer & Transition Zones RETHINK required

15 Acknowledgements Andrew W. Mellon Foundation National Research Foundation (NRF ) Palabora Mining Company Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute The University of the Witwatersrand