PoWPA Activity 1.1.4
Conduct, with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders, national-level reviews of existing and potential forms of conservation, and their suitability for achieving biodiversity conservation goals, including innovative types of governance for protected areas that need to be recognized and promoted through legal, policy, financial institutional and community mechanisms, such as protected areas run by government agencies at various levels, co-managed protected areas, private protected areas, indigenous and local community conserved areas.
Review of governance models
Under this Activity, countries need to undertake a review of different governance models and management objectives, considering both experiences in other countries and within the country. Although many protected areas will doubtless remain state-managed areas with limited access, other models to consider include private protected areas, community conserved areas and various forms of co-management. Management objectives to consider range from strict protection to significant but sustainable levels of resource extraction and use, some of which can retain traditional management systems within them. Choosing the most effective management and governance systems can involve a trade-off between the needs of biodiversity and human livelihoods. While strict protection can sometimes appear to be the “best” for biodiversity, balancing conservation needs with those of users, in particular local communities, often results in different models, and a less strictly protected, but well-managed, area is often more effectively conserved than a protected area that is in theory strictly controlled, but in practice open to widespread illegal use. Experience with different approaches is growing and countries have access to a range of case studies, guidelines and models.
NISP
Under this activity, support can be granted for models such as National Implementation Support Partnerships (NISP). A number of countries have already created such partnerships, composed of key national government agencies, NGOs and other stakeholders (e.g., indigenous peoples’ organizations). These multi-stakeholder NISP partnerships have typically included formal collaboration agreements that outline key actions, timetables and responsibilities as elements of a national implementation plan for the Programme of Work. An example is the case of Brazil, where over 30 organizations and government agencies have signed a formal agreement to collaborate to implement the Programme of Work. Here, six governmental working groups on priority themes have also been established, along with a national forum on protected areas. A national implementation plan can provide a framework for organizing action over the coming decade. Sequence of the NISP initiation / national level review of existing and future PA system: - Government initiates a comprehensive implementation planning process;
- A formal implementation support partnership is organized (perhaps also thematic committees);
- A work plan for the NISP is being approved.
- NISP budget and funding needs are agreed;
- Alternative strategies are developed for expanding the PA system and negotiating an optimal strategy with local residents;
- A “master plan” for the system of protected areas (based on assessments, studies, etc.) is developed;
- Implementation of the key actions of the “master plan” begins.
|
