You are currently browsing the archives for the Feature Articles category.

Programme Affiliates and Sponsors





Member Login




Our Members are practitioners and university faculty that are experts in various aspects of protected areas policy and management. Review Membership Guidelines and Application Form.

Click here

Feature Articles Category

Conservation theory and practice has evolved from simply maintaining the flow of natural resources for human consumption to incorporating the concept of sustainable use, even as economic pressures have increased the degradation and loss of natural resources and natural areas to the point of reaching ecological thresholds.  In this context, establishment of a system of protected areas has become one of the pillars of sustainable development strategies.

Protected areas are established to meet a range of national development objectives, and as such, each site must be responsive to local needs and conditions, while the network of sites must be responsive to the national social, environmental, and economic development goals.  In that context, it has been accepted that a system approach to protected areas development improves the chance for integrating protected areas management issues with other conservation, social, and economic priorities and strategies.

However, simply adopting a system approach to protected areas planning does not remove the tensions between protected areas and other land uses.  In fact, some tensions have increased as economic hardships and social tensions increased in the wider society.  One of the impacts of economic hardship and increasing public debt is the reduction of funding from public sources to support conservation programmes, including management of protected areas.  As a result, financial sustainability of systems of protected areas is advocated within international conservation programmes, such as the Programme of Work on Protected Areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity.  This has been particularly problematic in smaller economies, such as the small island developing states of the Caribbean.

Many Caribbean countries have prepared national protected areas system plans, though implementation is usually constrained by several factors.  Such constraints typically include inadequate financial resources, non-integration of protected areas system strategies with other social and economic development strategies, existence of non-supportive enabling environments, and inadequate understanding of the financial demands.

Understanding the Demand for Financial Resources
The financial demands of a national system of protected areas depend not only on the number of sites, but also on factors such as size of the sites, the mix of management categories in the system (which influences the infrastructure, equipment, and staff requirements), the number and types of management and collaborating institutions, and the supporting policy and legislative framework.  Financial resources are required to meet a range of demands, such as the following:

  • Capital Costs: (1) initial construction and refurbishing or replacement of infrastructure (example; buildings, trails, and signage); and (2) purchase of vehicles and other equipment (example; office equipment, safety gear, monitoring and surveillance equipment).
  • Recurrent Expenditure (Operations): (1) salaries and related expenditures; (2) insurance; (3) maintenance (infrastructure, vehicles, equipment); (4) utilities; (5) supplies (example; stationery, fuel and tyres for vehicles); (6) uniforms; (7) waste disposal; (8) legal fees; (9) insurance (liability, asset replacement); (10) capacity development; (11) fundraising and fund development; and (12) system management, monitoring, and evaluation.
  • Resource Restoration: (1) routine restoration of cultural/historical resources; and (2) recovery from human and natural disasters.
  • Special Needs: Planning and management of pest/invasive species; pollution control; fire suppression and fire fighting; and disasters. Increased temperature and changing precipitation linked to climate change are expected to produce significant changes in ecological systems, and more intense rainfall and storm events are expected to result in greater levels of damage to natural and built systems.  Strategies for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction are often absent from protected areas system plans, hence the required financial resources are often not addressed by financial plans.
  • Managing Interactions with the External Environment: (1) managing the demand from economic sectors, uses, impacts, and interactions with sector interests (e.g. tourism and extractive industries); (2) community engagement, including livelihood support and socio-political dynamics; (3) interactions with regulatory agencies; and (4) external threats (pollution, development impacts, attempts to reduce the size of sites or de-gazette sites). The demand by the external environment on protected areas management institutions, at both site and system levels, can be extremely high.  It is also an aspect of protected areas management that is often overlooked, and for which institutions are least prepared.
  • Capacity Development: (1) staff and management institutions at site and system levels; and (2) supporting institutions at site and system levels. Protected areas system management institutions in the Caribbean typically do not have capabilities for long-range, system-wide planning, whether for dealing with critical resources or for managing interactions with their external environment.  This absence of system planning and management capabilities usually results in significant under-estimation of total financial needs.

Financial planning to address the demands across the system of protected areas requires knowledge of the financial needs of each site and for the whole system, development of appropriate funding and investment strategies, and ability to mobilize resources across the range of institutions involved directly or indirectly in protected areas development.

Institutional Framework
Financial resources for a national system of protected areas are required within three groups of institutions:

  1. Site management institutions;
  2. System management institution; and
  3. Supporting institutions at site and system levels.

Supporting institutions are typically institutions that do not have management responsibilities, but which may affect management operations by having regulatory control over an activity (usually permitting or health) or may play a supplementary role (example; concessions management, volunteer management, fundraising).

A survey of protected areas institutions in 2014 by Parks Caribbean found that, of twenty (20) Caribbean countries from which responses were received, 8.1 percent of countries had a single institution responsible for protected areas development, while in 91.9 percent of the countries, responsibility was shared among several institutions.  The distribution of costs and allocation of resources across and within the institutional groups is therefore dependent on the legal and policy framework, the institutional framework, and the agreements between the relevant institutions.

Of the many factors that determine operating costs, one that is often not fully understood is the legal status of the management institution.  Central government agencies typically have different requirements and technical support from those of statutory agencies, public corporations, civil society organizations, and private enterprises for addressing legal representation, insurance, and compensatory systems; all of which have implications for financing and asset replacement.

Financial Sustainability in Context
Within the Caribbean, financial sustainability for national systems of protected areas is pursued with the objective of reducing government budgetary contributions to a minimum.  It is questionable whether that objective can be attained, considering that some protected areas may have little potential for revenue generation, and that Caribbean economies are relatively small.  As such, sustainability has to be understood at both site and system levels.  More importantly, sustainability implies meeting all the costs of protected areas development, not only recurrent expenditures.

Making a PA truly sustainable in economic terms implies covering all of these indirect and opportunity costs, and compensating those who bear them. Failing to consider these costs can translate into a serious under-estimation of PA financing needs. It also runs the risk of undermining PA sustainability and management effectiveness. As long as these broader costs are unmet (and often unacknowledged), the people who bear them are likely to remain unwilling – or economically unable – to support the existence of PAs” (Emerton et al 2006, page 20, para. 2).

Protected area management is one of many conservation strategies, and is usually employed when more intensive management is required to maintain the integrity of important natural or cultural heritage resources.  For natural systems, the need to maintain ecological integrity implies that it may be best to encourage minimum levels of use at some sites.  That means that some sites are unlikely to generate the amount of revenues required for site management.  Given the small resource base of Caribbean islands, it also means that restricting resource harvesting within protected areas will affect the livelihoods of adjacent communities.  This matter of distribution of livelihoods costs and benefits is one of the major issues facing protected areas management institutions in the Caribbean, and governments are increasingly incorporating community livelihood components in protected areas projects.

In the Caribbean, establishment of new protected areas is driven primarily by grants from external funding sources, though the main source of post-project funding for protected areas is the public sector budget.  There are instances of earned income (user fees, concessions, and merchandising), though even in the more successful cases, user fees have to be supplemented by funds from other sources.  Fundraising is more likely to take place at the site level, typically for sites that are used by residents or visitors for recreation, and is often undertaken by the management institution or by individuals and groups that are considered “friends of” the protected area.

Development of national protected areas funds normally takes place at the system level, and, in the past, were financed through debt swaps or special tourism taxes.  The Jamaica Protected Areas Trust and the Protected Areas Conservation Trust of Belize are the oldest known examples of national protected areas funds in the Caribbean.  However, since the establishment of the Caribbean Biodiversity Fund in 2012, approximately ten Caribbean countries have established national conservation trust funds in order to access the regional fund.  Countries are also developing sustainable financing plans, supported by business plans for individual protected areas.  Both national and site-specific financing plans tend to recommend multiple potential funding sources, usually without acknowledging that each potential source may require particular technical resources, institutional capacities, and supporting mechanisms.  For example, merchandising is a growing source of revenues for protected areas, but to be done successfully on a large scale requires investment in skills and systems dealing with such issues as copyright, brand management, purchasing, inventory management, marketing, and contract negotiation.

Emerton et al (2006) identified five elements of protected areas financial sustainability:

  • Building a diverse, stable and secure funding portfolio;
  • Improving financial administration and effectiveness;
  • Taking a comprehensive view of costs and benefits;
  • Creating an enabling financial and economic framework; and
  • Mainstreaming and building capacity to use financial tools and mechanisms.

While this means building financial planning into protected areas development, it also implies moving protected areas financing more centrally into the macro-economic framework.  For example, although tourism revenues are tapped for a variety of taxes to support the general/consolidated fund, rarely are those funds identified specifically for protected areas development. Similarly, the millions of dollars spent for tourism marketing and product development do not include direct support to protected areas development.  Considering the tremendous contribution of ecosystem goods and services to Caribbean economies, revenue could also be obtained from a range of other development activities.  These would include:

  1. Fees for all forms of resource extraction from protected areas and conservation areas;
  2. Tax relief and other incentives for contributions to the national protected area fund and protected area projects;
  3. Removing perverse incentives for development projects (incentives and subsidies that generate adverse social and environmental impacts);
  4. Cost recovery mechanisms for pollution and other environmental damages, particularly within conservation zones and protected areas (Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee 2017);
  5. Social impact fees for change in land use type and intensity (especially change from conservation or green space);
  6. Social impact fees for loss of landscape features normally available to, and enjoyed by, the public; and
  7. Development impact fees for new and expanding projects.

Current Constraints to National Financing of Protected Areas
A major constraint to financing protected areas development solely from national revenue sources is that most sources of revenue are channeled through the general/consolidated fund, and allocated for national priorities.  Examples of national funds with a stated environmental focus, but which do not finance protected areas development include: (1) the Green Fund in Trinidad and Tobago (sales tax to be used for conservation and remediation initiatives); (2) the Environmental Levy in Barbados (tax on imported goods to be used for solid waste management); (3) the practice in a number of Eastern Caribbean countries of imposing environmental/visitor departure tax to finance solid waste management operations and other island “enhancements”; and (4) several funds in the U.S. Virgin Islands are based on fees from air emissions and water pollution, and from violations of the coastal zone act (revenues are used as matching funds for federal grants).  Considering that environmental quality is still a major aspect of tourism in the Caribbean, it seems reasonable to re-purpose a portion of those “environmental” fees for protected areas development.

Globally, the environment is still treated primarily as a source of resources for extraction or as a waste receptacle, and environmental management is often marginalized in order to support economic activities.  In the Caribbean, damage impact fees are rarely included in the design of environmental enforcement strategies, and less so in financing plans for protected areas, even when recommended.  With the exception of the United States territories in the region, there are very few known cases of recovery of damage costs in protected areas.

Progress in this area requires action on several fronts, including: (1) improved and consistent national environmental planning processes; (2) mainstreaming protected areas in social and economic development strategies, particularly in sectors dependent on good environmental quality; and (3) improvement in the public engagement practices of site and system management institutions.

Mainstreaming protected areas was mentioned above as a strategy for encouraging increased investment in protected areas development.  That recommendation underscores the fact that protected areas development is generally not approached as central to national development.  While multiple economic sectors depend heavily on a range of ecological goods and services, in most Caribbean countries there is almost no relationship between financing for protected areas development and the benefits provided to society.  Such benefits include the provision of potable water, support to the tourism sector, disaster impact reduction, enhancing the health and well-being of residents, and supporting community livelihoods.  The inadequate demonstration of a return on investment results in the situation where protected areas development is not perceived as a priority in the allocation of scarce financial resources.  This issue is relevant generally to conservation planning in the Caribbean, where there is insufficient articulation and estimation of the value of ecosystem services, even though tools exist for undertaking the analyses.

Globally, it is estimated that protected areas provide livelihoods for approximately 1 billion persons, provide drinking water to more than a third of the world’s largest cities, and play a major role in ensuring global food security.  In the Caribbean, making the economic argument for prioritizing protected areas financing is constrained because there is limited data available for economic assessment of natural resources utilization (Hinds Unlimited 2003).  Persons attempting such analysis often use contingent valuation tools, despite their inherent limitations (Bervoets 2010, World Resources Institute 2011).  Considering the limited use of economic valuation in environmental policy and decision making in the Caribbean, it is easy to understand why contingent valuation analyses may not play a central role in resource allocation decisions.  Another approach that could be used to make the case for success and prioritizing financial support would be to assess the direct economic contribution of protected areas to local and national economies.  Outside of the United States territories, such assessments are rare in the Caribbean, the implications of which are acknowledged in Jamaica’s financial sustainability plan 2010-2020 (Government of Jamaica 2010).

Actions to move protected areas financing higher up the policy agenda would include:

  1. Demonstration of an economic return on investment by conducting periodic assessment of the direct economic contribution of protected areas;
  2. Preparation of case studies demonstrating ecological and social benefits of protected areas, even in cases where economic assessment is difficult;
  3. Conducting the necessary assessments to prove management effectiveness and success in achieving the objectives for which each site was designated; and
  4. Improved public engagement by management institutions.

The factor that is the most impactful in protected areas development is the nature of the enabling environment, primarily the policies and laws that shape the management framework, and integrate that framework into the larger development planning and development control processes.  The inadequacy of the enabling environment for protected areas development in the Caribbean results in the situation where cost recovery and other financial mechanisms are largely absent or poorly designed and managed.  There are also instances where there is deliberate suppression of cost recovery initiatives, typically because of political arrangements (as in the case of concessions and resource extraction) or due to the efforts of lobby groups (particularly tourism, minerals, and oil and gas).  Resolution of this constraint starts with the development of a rational system management framework (policy, laws/regulations/procedures, institutional arrangements, development of individual capability and institutional capacities for system planning and management, and mechanisms for periodic reporting to government oversight institutions and the public).

Although the story on sustainable financing for protected areas appears gloomy at the national level, success cases exist at the site level (Geoghegan 1998).  The main issues seem to be mainstreaming protected areas within national development planning processes and building the capacity for system management.

Progress Towards Sustainable Financing
In countries small and large, developing and developed, the constant tensions between protected areas development and business activities provide two important lessons. First, if conservation programmes, particularly protected areas development, are treated as constraints to economic growth, economic activities will always be prioritized over protected areas development.  Second, the public sector budget process is not necessarily the best mechanism for financing protected areas development.  This latter constraint is due partly to the fact that budgets are the results of compromises in allocation of resources for short-term activities, and partly because public sector budgets are often responsive to private sector advocacy, sometimes to the detriment of long-term national development objectives.  Any serious approach to development of a sustainable financing strategy for protected areas development should include the following components:

  1.  Establishment of an Appropriate Enabling Environment: Treating protected areas development as an important part of national development, by; (i) development of a rational system management framework (policy, laws/regulations/procedures, institutional mechanisms, financing strategy and plan); and (ii) integrating financing mechanisms throughout the development planning and development control processes, including the tax system.
  2.  Ongoing Capacity Development: To provide the skills, resources, data, and capacities for system-wide planning and management; particularly fund development, financial planning, provision of financial advisory services to site management institutions, and systems monitoring and evaluation.
  3.  Establishment of a National Protected Areas Perpetual Fund: A permanent, reliable source of funds is necessary to ensure effective protected areas system development. Policies and operating conditions for national funds imposed by institutions and governments outside the country should be resisted.  More insidiously, it is very unlikely that countries will develop adequate capacity for financial planning if fund development, financial planning, and fund management services are all provided by external institutions, with minimal, if any, direct input by national institutions. However, it is taken as understood that financial planning, fund development, and financial management should reflect internationally accepted standards of practice.

Shifting Perspectives
If the information given above is difficult to process, consider the following perspective.  Protected areas include the most valuable, yet most fragile and vulnerable, natural and immovable cultural heritage assets of a country.  These assets are so important to national and international development that they are subject to national laws and international agreements.  The current targets for natural protected areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity are 17 percent of terrestrial and 10 percent of marine habitat protected by 2020. Yet the threats to protected areas are significant and growing.  Consider the capacity and capabilities required to manage such assets in a way that sustains their contributions to national development while protecting the integrity of the assets.  Now imagine how that management system could be financed.

Some of the earliest protected areas in the Caribbean were declared for the purpose of maintaining natural resource flows to national economies, yet somewhere along the way, and despite the overwhelming evidence of the continued dependence on ecosystem services, protected areas development has not been brought into the mainstream of development planning.  Caribbean peoples are proud of their heritage, their strengths, and the potential of their cultures, yet somehow that sense of pride has not translated to effective management of their most significant cultural heritage assets.  It is possible that the desire to emulate the successes of other places and people has resulted in some devaluation by Caribbean peoples of their natural and cultural heritage.  Maybe the answer is more complex.  Hopefully the current attempts at national financial sustainability planning will result in more effective national protected areas system development.

References Cited
Bervoets, Tadzio (2010). Report on the Economic Valuation of St. Eustatius’ Coral Reef Resources. National Parks Office, St Eustatius National Parks Foundation, St Eustatius, Netherlands Antilles.

Emerton, L., Bishop, J. and Thomas, L. (2006). Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas: A global review of challenges and options. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Geoghegan, Tighe (1998). Financing Protected Area Management: Experiences from the Caribbean. Caribbean Natural Resources Institute. St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands and Vieux Fort, St. Lucia.

Government of Jamaica (2010). Sustainable Financing Plan for Jamaica’s System of Protected Areas (JPAS) 2010–2020. Kingston, Jamaica.

Hinds Unlimited (2003). Socio-Economic Assessment of Marine Resources Utilization in the U.S. Virgin Islands. University of the Virgin Islands and the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources. St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.

Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee (2017). Protecting Our Marine Treasures: Sustainable Finance Options for U.S. Marine Protected Areas. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, USA.

World Resources Institute (2011). Coastal Capital Literature Review: Economic Valuation of Coastal and Marine Resources in Jamaica. Washington, DC, USA.

Note from the Editor
Lloyd Gardner is an environmental planning consultant whose practice includes a special focus on protected areas development.

Parks Caribbean welcomes reports on business plans, economic studies, and financial plans for individual protected areas, as well as sustainable financing plans and evaluation reports for national systems of protected areas.

Introducing Urban Protected Areas
The defining feature of an Urban Protected Area is that it is located in close proximity to a large population centre. The Best Practice Protected Areas Guidelines (No. 22) describes urban protected areas in the following manner:
“Urban protected areas are protected areas situated in or at the edge of larger population centres. They meet IUCN’s definition of a protected area and can be in any of its six Management Categories. In governance terms, most of them are the responsibility of national, state or provincial, or local governments; others are managed by NGOs or businesses; and some are collaborative or community efforts. They do not include conventional urban parks with lawns, flowerbeds and sports fields” (Trzyna, 2014).

Although urban protected areas are not considered as constituting a separate management category, their relationship to urban areas makes them distinctive in a number of ways, mainly: (1) they receive a relatively large number of visitors; (2) the management institution has to relate to a wider range of stakeholders on a fairly frequent basis (such as urban decision makers, educational institutions, media personnel); (3) they are disproportionately affected by crime, vandalism, littering, dumping, and light and noise pollution; (4) they are threatened by urban sprawl; and (5) they are disproportionally affected by threats such as frequent fires and invasive alien species.

Although it is often acknowledged that urban protected areas provide opportunities for recreation, their range of contributions to the health of urban dwellers and the development of urban communities is often not fully appreciated by urban residents.

Urban Protected Areas in the Caribbean
Most of the larger urban areas in the Insular Caribbean are located in coastal areas, and urban protected areas are found both upstream and downstream of urban areas. As with the global situation, urban protected areas in the Caribbean provide a range of ecosystem services, and directly support human livelihoods, health, and well being. However, they are adversely impacted by encroachment, resource harvesting, and pollution from the urban space.

Urban protected areas in the Caribbean are often located in geographic spaces that add complexity to their management. For example:
Montego Bay Marine Park, Jamaica – The marine protected area (MPA) is bordered on one side by the City of Montego Bay, the third largest city in Jamaica, population 110,000 (2010 census). In addition to receiving the surface runoff from the city, at least three watersheds drain into the MPA. The city is located within a bay, and as the western regional centre, the city contains infrastructure such as a transshipment port, oil storage facility, cruise ship facility, and other urban infrastructure. The MPA management institution has no authority to regulate the operation of any of the afore-mentioned infrastructure or services. Nor does it have any role in the management of the watersheds that drain into the park. However, the ecosystems within the park make significant contributions to the local economy, not to mention the contribution to the general well-being of the residents of the city.
Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area, Saint Lucia – The protected area is located adjacent to the town of Vieux Fort, with the surrounding district of Vieux Fort Quarter having a population of approximately 16,000. The site contains most of the natural resources that form the tourism product in the area, the main beach is heavily used by locals, and the area receives runoff from the town channeled by storm drains. Other livelihood support to the local economy includes mangrove harvesting for charcoal production from within the protected area. There is no intention to halt all extractive uses, as the protected area was designated to support both biodiversity conservation and community livelihoods (Gardner, 2009).
Piñones Forest Reserve, Puerto Rico – The forest reserve is located within the greater San Juan area, a city of approximately 395,000 (2010 census). The site is part of an extensive mangrove forest within the San Juan Bay Estuary. Given its proximity to the city, and the location of the San Juan Bay Estuary at the bottom of a watershed that is mainly urban in character, the reserve is impacted by recreational uses, extractive uses, and pollution and other urban edge effects.
Blue and John Crown Mountains National Park, Jamaica – The park is located adjacent to the Kingston Metropolitan Area, with a population of approximately 1.3 million. The park also sits astride the upper reaches of the Blue and John Crow Mountains, and crosses the boundaries of four local government jurisdictions.

As the above examples show, urban protected areas in the Caribbean are often impacted by initiatives and actions over which the management agencies have no control. In many cases there are multiple institutions with regulatory authority, severely constraining the establishment and sustainability of collaborative management arrangements.

In rare cases, a protected area may be large enough to encompass one or more settlements. This is the case with the Portland Bight Protected Area, Jamaica. The park boundary encompasses nineteen residential communities directly on the coast, and thirty towns or settlements further inland, with a (1991) population of approximately 48, 600 (Caribbean Coastal Area Management Foundation, 1999). In addition to all the commercial activities associated with small towns, the site contains a bauxite processing plant, two major ports, a power plant, limestone quarries, and large acreages of farmland. In this scenario, the complexity extends beyond site management considerations, to issues of urban and regional planning, and more broadly, to national development planning.

Climate change adds yet another level of complexity to management of urban protected areas. In addition to the usual threats from urban areas, under climate change scenarios, it is anticipated that urban green space, conservation areas, and urban protected areas will be lost or severely impacted from two sources. First, there is the loss of areas resulting from sea level rise or damage from storms and other extreme events. Second, loss of areas resulting from the relocation of housing and infrastructure from threatened coastal cities to small inland towns or rural areas.

It will therefore be useful to identify ways in which natural areas can build climate resilience of urban areas. There is a large body of work that supports the concept that urban dwellers benefit physically and psychologically from interacting with urban green space. It has even been suggested that health benefits increase with increasing biological complexity of the green space (Fuller et al, 2007). The role of natural areas in climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas has been articulated, and experiments to evaluate the contributions of natural areas to climate resilience of urban areas are being conducted in many cities.

Building Resilience to Climate Change
Discussions of resilience traditionally focus on whether a system is able to absorb shock and renew itself without human intervention. Under climate change scenarios, it is usually assumed that shocks will occur at a frequency, and produce enough damage, that self-renewal of the system is constrained. As such, examination of climate resilience usually encompasses climate adaptation measures.

Cities are special environments, composed of built, social, and natural systems, and climate resilience must therefore incorporate all those elements. Resilient City offers the following definition of resilience for urban areas:
A Resilient City is one that has developed capacities to help absorb future shocks and stresses to its social, economic, and technical systems and infrastructures so as to still be able to maintain essentially the same functions, structures, systems, and identity“.

Natural areas have been used in many ways to reduce the stresses to the social and economic systems and infrastructure of urban areas. In addition to providing recreational opportunities for urban residents, one of the traditional ways in which natural areas has been used in urban planning is to provide “Green Fences” around urban areas. Green fences are used to delimit urban growth, thereby softening the transition from urban to sub-urban land uses. Natural areas are also used in urban planning as a mechanism for separating and maintaining distinct identifies of communities.

In the context of climate change, urban protected areas offer several possibilities for enhancing the resilience of urban areas to climate change:
(a) Reducing the impact of flooding or avalanches associated with extreme rain or storm events – usually achieved by reducing the rate and volume of surface runoff, reducing erosion, and, in the case of wetlands, absorbing the excess flows.
(b) Improving the health and well being of urban residents, particularly as other urban green spaces are lost.
(c) Buffering coastal infrastructure from damage by wind and wave action during extreme natural events such as storms.
(d) Maintaining community health and economic well being by protecting community livelihoods. In times of economic hardship people usually increase their reliance on natural resources (for example, by fishing, hunting, harvesting fuel wood). It has been suggested that in many Caribbean countries, small settlements may expand by absorbing persons migrating from rural areas or threatened coastal cities, and establishment of urban protected areas is one mechanism to enhance the capacity of those settlements to provide social and economic benefits to the urban residents.

In order to realize the above benefits of urban protected areas, economic and land use planning processes must place protected areas more centrally in the development process. This would include landscape planning (Depieti and Estrella, 2011) to ensure that the larger landscape is used in a way that does not degrade natural areas, thereby maintaining the continued flow of ecosystem good and services to adjacent communities.

Citations
• Caribbean Coastal Area Management Foundation. (1999). Portland Bight Protected Area, Jamaica: Management Plan 1999-2004. Natural Resources Conservation Authority, Kingston, Jamaica.
• Depietri, Y. and Estrella, M. (2011). Managing Watersheds for Urban Resilience: Policy Brief. Presented at the Global Forum for Disaster Risk Reduction. May 12, 2011, Geneva, Switzerland.
• Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., and Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological Benefits of Greenspace Increase with Biodiversity. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149.
• Gardner, L. (2009). Management Plan for the Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area 2009-2014. Government of Saint Lucia.
• Trzyna, T. (2014). Urban Protected Areas: Profiles and best practice guidelines. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 22, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Note from the Editor
Lloyd Gardner is an environmental planning consultant, a Director of Ecotech Inc. Limited, and currently serves on the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas as the Regional Vice Chair Caribbean. This article is the written version of a PowerPoint presentation given during the Sixth World Parks Congress, Sydney, Australia, November 12-19, 2014.

Information Sources on Urban Protected Areas and Urban Natural Areas
• IUCN WCPA Urban Specialist Group: http://interenvironment.org/USG.html
• Urban Protected Areas Network: http://upa-network.org/
• The Nature of Cities: http://www.thenatureofcities.com/

off

INTRODUCTION TO CONNECTIVITY CONSERVATION
Maintenance of functional ecosystems is an increasingly difficult task, as the demand for space to carry out “development activities” degrades and fragments ecosystems. Not only are critical habitats for plants and animals degraded or lost, but critical ecosystem services (such as aquifer recharge, filtering water and air, reducing pest outbreaks, reducing flooding and erosion, maintaining productive soils, supporting fisheries, and providing food and medicines) are often severely impaired or lost.

Establishment of protected areas is a strategy to conserve the most important or threatened ecosystems. However, with protected areas covering only 15.4% of the world’s terrestrial area and 3.4% of the global ocean area (Juffe-Bignoli et al, 2014), conservation strategies cannot be based solely, or even primarily, on protected areas management. Although protected areas provide economic benefits to more than one billion people worldwide (Bertzky et al, 2012), as the general landscape is degraded, there is increasing demand by economic special interests that protected areas be opened for greater levels of exploitation.

It is now widely accepted that sustainable development is best pursued by balancing sustained economic growth, social equity, and environmental protection. In that context, exploitation of the planet’s last ecological refuges in pursuit of narrow economic interests cannot be considered an appropriate development strategy.

Enter the practice of Connectivity Conservation. Connectivity conservation is a concept and strategy that focuses on establishing linkages/corridors between fragmented ecosystems, maintaining ecosystem functions in threatened areas, and restoring and re-connecting habitats and ecosystems as necessary to ensure biodiversity protection and maintenance of ecosystem services. As such, not only does the strategy address biodiversity loss and deteriorating environmental health, it is also meant to improve the resilience of ecosystems to a range of human and natural threats.

Therefore, connectivity conservation initiatives must necessarily address both ecosystem dynamics and the economic imperatives that resulted in the degradation of the ecosystem in the first place.

CONNECTIVITY AS AN ECOLOGICAL REALITY
At its simplest, ecological connectivity can be viewed as movement between different parts of an ecosystem (such as movement of fish and other marine species between coral reefs and open water or seagrass beds for food or shelter). A similar form of connectivity is movement that takes place between adjacent ecosystems, such as between coral reefs and mangrove wetlands, or between wetlands and adjacent pastures or forests.

Mangrove Lagoon, St. Thomas USVI

Such movement can involve animals moving for food or shelter, or it can be movement during one stage of the life cycle of a particular species. For example, species of freshwater shrimp that hatch in the coastal area and return to streams for the adult phase of their lives. Sometimes that movement is active, as with animals such as turtles, or passive, as with corals and some species of fish. The movement between adjacent ecosystems also occurs for the non-living component of ecosystems, as shown by nutrients, sediments, and chemicals.

This simple aspect of connectivity underpins a number of resource management strategies, such as establishment of fish sanctuaries to protect nurseries or spawning aggregations, or non-point source pollution programmes to protect coral reefs and other coastal resources.

On a slightly larger scale, the Caribbean Sea, displaying similar bio-physical characteristics throughout its range, is often referred to as a Large Marine Ecosystem (LME). One of the defining features of this LME is the pattern of the ocean currents, which facilitate the movement of animals, plants, nutrients, and contaminants through the Caribbean.

Caribbean Large Marine EcosystemOcean currents through the Caribbean

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As stated before, both living and non-living components move between adjacent ecosystems. For the Caribbean LME, there is movement into the Caribbean from the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and from the interior of the continental countries bordering the Caribbean Sea. Fisherfolk and other users of the marine environment in the Caribbean are familiar with the “green water” phenomenon, resulting from periodic algal blooms caused by nutrients contained in the outflow from the Orinoco River (Venezuela) and the Essequibo River (Guyana).

At an even larger scale, the Caribbean ecosystem is part of the hemispheric and global systems, functioning as a critical link in the oceanic and aerial migratory pathways for animals, and being impacted by global phenomena such as African dust and global warming.

Caribbean Bird Migration

The establishment and management of protected areas is one way to ensure protection of critical ecosystems. Contrary to the belief that protected areas lock away resources, the Protected Planet Report 2014 shows that protected areas coverage is low compared to other land uses, with global coverage being 15.4% of the terrestrial space and 3.4% of oceans (Juffe-Bignoli et al, 2014). Even this level of coverage does not present an accurate picture of total protection, as (i) many sites are not actually managed, (ii) some types of sites, such as national parks, are used for various purposes, and (iii) some sites offer protection to human artifacts, as with cultural heritage sites. Some types of protected areas, such as biosphere reserves, are established in order to achieve more harmony in the interaction between humans and the natural environment. Another important issue is that protected areas actually provide critical goods and services, such as water and flood protection.

In the Wider Caribbean Region and adjacent regions, the inter-connected ecosystems of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem are used for social and economic development by 116 million people (CARSEA, 2007), and through harvesting by other countries, support a global food chain. At the local level, the interactions between humans and the environment determines to a significant extent the state of the ecosystems. Unfortunately, the current trend is for human activities to degrade and fragment habitats, to disrupt ecosystem functioning, and hence undermine economic and social development.

Connectivity Conservation is an approach to conservation planning that is based on maintaining the ecosystem functions of fragmented natural areas. Simply put, connectivity conservation has the following purposes:
• It maintains or establishes natural areas that function as corridors between fragmented ecosystems.
• It maintains ecosystem functions in threatened areas.
• It restores and re-connects habitats and ecosystems.

The practice of connectivity conservation involves modifying the human-ecological interactions in order to improve ecosystem functioning, and as such, connectivity conservation is also a social construct.

CONNECTIVITY AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
The Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) is shared by twenty two independent states and seventeen non-independent island territories, including nine continental countries. The CLME is “home to more than 116 million people” (CARSEA, 2007), and as such, connectivity in the Caribbean context cannot be fully understood or addressed without an appreciation of the social component of Caribbean inter-dependence.

In pursuit of their economic agendas, countries have consistently undertaken activities that degrade the environment that supports that economic development. Similarly, the social (cultural and spiritual) needs of communities are sometimes adversely impacted, creating tensions between various groups in a community, and even between countries. “Apart from the economic importance of the ecosystem, it shapes the lives of all the inhabitants of the Caribbean in ways which defy statistical analysis. The Sea and its coasts form the stage on which the cultural, spiritual, and recreational life of the region is played out” (CARSEA, 2007).

In balancing these various needs, communities developed various forms of environmental management systems. Many persons should be familiar with actions by national governments to protected critical resources and influence how groups and individuals share in the use of natural resources. These actions include closed season for hunting various animals, watershed management, wildlife reserves, fisheries priority areas and fisheries reserves, and making various laws and rules. Some initiatives are based on concepts that shape actions at landscape (large) scales. Familiar concepts include watershed management, ridge to reef, and white water to blue water. These landscape concepts are based on the knowledge that ecosystems are connected even across large areas.

In much the same way that national governments act to influence the interaction between man and the environment, governments also cooperate in protecting and sharing in the use of environmental resources at the regional level. Mechanisms that support regional action include the establishment of regional institutions such as the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, establishment of regional conventions such as the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (the Cartagena Convention), and periodic regional projects.

However, ecological connectivity and social connectivity are typically addressed as separate issues in public policies, even though it should be obvious that some forms of social interaction are based on relationships established through interactions with natural systems.

SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Adapting a Wikipedia definition, an ecosystem can be described simply as a community of living organisms (plants, animals, and microbes) interacting with each other and with the non-living components of their environment (things like air, water, and soil) to form a distinct system.

Similarly, a social system can be defined as a society that displays distinct characteristics resulting from enduring patterns of interaction between individuals, groups, and institutions. The distinct characteristics include beliefs that shape the behavior of the social actors.

A Social-Ecological System (also referred to as a socio-ecological system) is an ecological system linked with and affected by one or more social systems, and which in turn affect the interactions between humans. In other words, some of the social interactions take place through interaction with ecosystems. This is most obvious in the use of environmental resources that are considered to be common property resources, such as beaches, oceans, and rivers.

Understanding social-ecological systems require the incorporation of concepts from several disciplines in the natural and social sciences, contributing to the complexity of designing and implementing sustainable development strategies. However, the literature suggests that, as the concept of social-ecological systems incorporates theories dealing with issues such as equity, resilience, and sustainability, the use of social-ecological systems concept in conservation and development planning provides the adaptability necessary to address current and future development challenges.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN CONNECTIVITY CONSERVATION AND PROTECTED AREAS DEVELOPMENT
Connectivity is increasingly being acknowledged as a key factor in the design of marine protected areas, ensuring that sites contain habitats necessary to support all the life cycle stages of important species, and that networks of protected areas are available to enable migration and recruitment (Grober-Dunsmore and Keller 2008, Pittman et al 2014, Green et al 2014). Not as well understood is how to incorporate refugia (places that offer protection of key species from extreme events and/or which function as sources for recruitment), adequate space for migration of habitats under climate change conditions, and how to maintain protected landscapes.

Even less understood is how to address the cultural aspects of social-ecological systems, such as (i) cultural practices, which support or create conflicts with conservation and protected areas management strategies; (ii) human migration patterns in the Caribbean, which influence understanding of social norms, and hence resource management strategies; (iii) human motivations (such as greed, fear, cynicism, livelihood needs) in facilitating or limiting public policy development; and (iv) community dynamics, and the associated potential for governance.

Research on ecological connectivity in the Caribbean is more advanced than research on governance arrangements in resource management. However, research on social-ecological systems in the Caribbean is at its very beginning. Considering the ongoing investment of financial and human resources in the design and operation of natural resource management strategies, there is need for greater integration of both strands of research, as well as incorporating research results into protected areas development and management.

Note from the Editor
Lloyd Gardner is an environmental planning consultant, a Director of Ecotech Inc. Limited, and currently serves on the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas as the Regional Vice Chair Caribbean. This article is the written version of a PowerPoint Presentation made during the Sixth World Parks Congress, Sydney, Australia, November 2014.

The Parks Caribbean Initiative welcomes information on connectivity conservation initiatives relevant to protected areas development in the Caribbean. Information should be sent to: info@parkscaribbean.net

Literature Cited
Bertzky, Bastian; Corrigan, Colleen; Kemsey, James; Kenney, Siobhan; Ravilious, Corinna; Besançon, Charles; and Burgess, Neil. (2012). Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking progress towards global targets for protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

CARSEA. (2007). Caribbean Sea Ecosystem Assessment: A sub-global component of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Agard, John; Cropper, Angela; and Garcia, Keisha. (eds.), Caribbean Marine Studies, Special Edition, 2007.

Green, Alison; Maypa, Aileen; Almany, Glen; Rhodes, Kevin; Weeks, Rebecca; Abesamis, Rene; Gleason, Mary; Mumby, Peter; and White, Alan. (2014). Larval dispersal and movement patterns of coral reef fishes, and implications for marine reserve network design. Biological Reviews, pp. 000–000. 1 doi: 10.1111/brv.12155

Grober-Dunsmore, R., and B.D. Keller, eds. (2008). Caribbean connectivity: Implications for marine protected area management. Proceedings of a Special Symposium, 9-11 November 2006, 59th Annual Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Belize City, Belize. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-08-07. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 195 pp.

Juffe-Bignoli, D., Burgess, N.D., Bingham, H., Belle, E.M.S., de Lima, M.G., Deguignet, M., Bertzky, B., Milam, A.N., Martinez-Lopez, J., Lewis, E., Eassom, A., Wicander, S., Geldmann, J., van Soesbergen, A., Arnell, A.P., O’Connor, B., Park, S., Shi, Y.N., Danks, F.S., MacSharry, B., Kingston, N. (2014). Protected Planet Report 2014. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK.

Kennedy, Amy. (2014). Satellite telemetry and humpback whales: A tool for determining the habitat use, distribution and behavior of an endangered large whale species. Agricultural sciences. Universit_e Paris Sud – Paris XI, 2013.

Pittman SJ, Monaco ME, Friedlander AM, Legare B, Nemeth RS, et al. (2014). Fish with Chips: Tracking Reef Fish Movements to Evaluate Size and Connectivity of Caribbean Marine Protected Areas. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96028. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096028.

Sources of Images
Caribbean Bird Migration Poster – BirdsCaribbean

Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem: http://www.clmeproject.org/

Current Patterns in the Caribbean: http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean.html

Mangrove Lagoon, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands – The image was generated using Google Maps

off

Country Profiles

Reviews of country management systems

The Country Profile is a summary of protected areas programming that provides information on the national management framework, programmes and projects, relationship with economic sectors, and the linkages and responses to international environmental agreements. They also show how the benefits produced by a well-managed system of protected areas extend into communities and the national economy.

Click here

Publications

reports on a range of protected areas topics

Parks Caribbean makes available reports on a range of protected areas topics, and may be focused on a particular site, a country, or may cover regional issues. This wealth of materials on protected areas policy and practice is used by policy makers, protected areas practitioners, students, and the general public.

Click here

Protected Area News

Updates from the protected areas network
Parks Caribbean provides the most current information on protected areas programming in the Caribbean. Also included is global news of relevance to the Caribbean, and thought-provoking briefs and analyses prepared by our network of Members. Persons who wish to have protected areas news sent directly to their email addresses can subscribe to the Parks Caribbean news list.

Click here

Parks and People

Contribution to sustainable development
This section of the website promotes protected areas that demonstrate the triple bottom line of sustainable development; that is, sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development, and environmental protection. Submission of site profiles must follow the Guidelines provided by Parks Caribbean.

Click here