Conservation is a positive endeavour including “… the preservation, maintenance, sustainable use, restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment”.
Contents
- Why governance
- Governance at the IUCN World Parks Congress
- Governance Diversity
- Four main governance types
- ICCAs
- Conserved Territories or Areas
- Voluntary and ancillary conservation
- Systems of protected and conserved areas
- Other effective area based conservation measures OECMs
- IUCN principles of good governance for protected areas
- Equitable and effective governance
- Substantive and procedural rights
- Governance vitality
- How does governance improve
- References
Protected Area is "“...a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”. This IUCN definition applies equally to land, inland waters and coastal and marine territories and areas and is widely considered to be equivalent to the CBD definition.
Governance is (the process of) “…interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say…”. In less elegant, but possibly clearer words, governance is about taking decisions and ensuring the conditions for their effective implementation. It is the process of developing and exercising authority and responsibility over time. It is about who takes decisions, and how, including in relation to learning processes and evolving institutions in society.
Governance is related to management but different from it. What is the difference? Management is about what is done in pursuit of given objectives. Governance is about who decides about what is to be done, and how those decisions are taken. It is about who holds power, authority and responsibility and who is, or should be, held accountable. Governance is nothing new: someone, somewhere, has always been taking decisions about protected and conserved areas. What is new is that we are now paying better attention to governance, adding visibility, articulating concepts, and monitoring and evaluating practice. There is no ideal governance setting for protected or conserved areas, but a set of “good governance” principles can always be taken into account. Governance is appropriate only when tailored to its specific context and effective in delivering lasting conservation results, livelihood benefits and the respect of rights.
Why governance?
Governance can be improved and provide precious help in facing on-going challenges and global change.
Governance at the IUCN World Parks Congress
The IUCN World Parks Congress is held once every decade. Since the Congress in Durban (2003), governance has been a recurring stream in the deliberations of the Congress. Governance was also a major stream at the IUCN World Parks Congress 2014. The stream, among other things, published a primer to develop a basic lexicon in the hope that speaking “a common language” may help to better communicate and develop concepts of increasing clarity and meaning.
Governance Diversity
We speak of governance diversity for protected and conserved areas when decisions are made by a variety of actors who enrich and strengthen conservation in practice. For instance, a national system of protected areas can “enhance governance diversity” by including in the system areas governed by different types of actors and under different arrangements, and/or by providing better recognition and support to conserved territories and areas outside the system.
Four main governance types
The IUCN and CBD distinguish four broad governance types for protected and conserved areas according to the actors who take or took the fundamental decisions about them (e.g. the actors that “established” them and decided their main purpose and management). The four main governance types are:
ICCAs
ICCAs is an abbreviation that refers to the territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities. There are three essential characteristics common to ICCAs:
Management categories and governance types are independent and can be juxtaposed in the “IUCN Matrix”, visualizing a spectrum of area-based options to conserve nature in a given region/ system. The IUCN Matrix can be used to situate protected areas but also conserved territories and areas (the management category, in such case, would not correspond to a key objective but to an observed result).
Conservation depends on well governed systems of protected and conserved areas in the landscape and seascape and systems are made stronger by governance diversity.
Conserved Territories or Areas
Conserved territories or areas are “…area-based measure that— regardless of recognition and dedication and at times even regardless of explicit and conscious management practices— achieve conservation de facto and/or is in a positive conservation trend and likely to maintain this trend in the long term…”. This definition applies equally to land, inland waters and coastal and marine territories and areas. The governance types apply to both protected areas and conserved territories and areas that are NOT recognised as “protected” by the IUCN or any specific national government. In this sense, the terms “Privately Conserved Areas” and “ICCAs” encompass extents of land, inland waters and coastal and marine territories and areas that go beyond those recognised as “protected” by either national government or the IUCN.
Voluntary and ancillary conservation
Many systems of land and water management support high levels of biodiversity, including critical biodiversity, outside the formal system of protected areas, in sites such a tourism and commercial hunting reserves, private estates or village forests. The term voluntary conservation captures the idea that those who exercise governance do so consciously and without restriction, in ways that are fully compatible with conserving biodiversity values while they may or not see conservation as the primary objective of their management efforts. In other cases, as in military no-go areas or areas abandoned after a natural or man-made disaster, the term ancillary conservation is more appropriate, since conservation is an entirely unintended (though welcome) consequence of management for other purposes. Conservation in the landscape and seascape is the result of various area-based and non-area- based measures. Among area-based measures we find both protected areas and conserved territories and areas. Crucially, those should be biologically, but also socially, well connected.
Systems of protected and conserved areas
A well-functioning system of protected and conserved areas is complete and well-connected in conserving the representative features and functions of nature in a given environment.
Other effective area- based conservation measures (OECMs)
The term “other effective area-based conservation measures”– abbreviated as OECMs—is used by the Convention on Biological Diversity to refer to territories and areas that are effectively conserved but not part of the official protected area system of a given country. In this sense, OECMs can be seen as “clearly defined geographical space where de facto conservation of nature and associated ecosystem services and cultural values is achieved and expected to be maintained in the long-term regardless of specific recognition and dedication” (11). OECMs can include the following:
The following Table summarises various ways of classifying conservation efforts and results:
IUCN principles of good governance for protected areas
We speak of governance quality when decisions are made while respecting the “good governance” principles developed through time by a variety of peoples, nations and UN agencies. A simple and compact formulation of the “IUCN principles of good governance for protected areas”, includes:
Thus, a “good governance” situation is one in which decisions are taken legitimately, competently, fairly, with sense of vision, accountability and while respecting rights.
Equitable and effective governance
The IUCN good governance situation can also be summed up as “equitable and effective governance”. The criteria of legitimacy, voice, fairness and (procedural and substantive) rights contribute to equitable governance. The criteria of direction, performance and accountability lead to governance that is effective.
Substantive and procedural rights
Rights are usefully distinguished between substantive and procedural. Procedural rights, such as the rights to information, participation and access to justice, govern the process of determining and adjudicating substantive rights. In turn, substantive rights refer to the specific powers and obligations of individuals and collective bodies under accepted customs and legislation. They span from basic human rights (e.g. life, liberty) to material and financial rights under specific contractual conditions (e.g. access to a given territory). Procedural and substantive rights deserve respect in relation to both protected and conserved areas and territories
Governance vitality
We speak of governance vitality when decision-making actors and institutions are functional, responsive and thriving, meeting their role and responsibilities in timely and appropriate ways. Vitality is expressed by several of these properties:
While governance diversity and quality have been explored rather exhaustively, the concept of governance vitality has only recently been identified for further consideration. All governance properties are open to enrichment and debate.
How does governance improve?
The IUCN and CBD have recently published a volume of Guidelines for assessing, evaluating and planning for action with a view to improving governance for a system of protected areas or a specific site. In both cases, the methodology begins with an analysis of the historical, socio-cultural, institutional and legal contexts. It then proceeds with a spatial analysis of governance vis-à-vis the status of conservation of nature. This requires a large, territorial view of the region or area under consideration, including an assessment of biological, ecological and cultural values and their potential association with governance diversity, quality and vitality. From that, valuable lessons can be derived and action plans for improvement can be drawn.
Globally, there remains a need to initiate such systematic governance assessments and evaluations processes in a range of contexts, with the aim and expectation that they will catalyze enhanced diversity, quality and vitality. A structured programme of governance assessments, supported by learning and capacity development networks is a short and medium term priority to strengthen both conservation policies and results.