All three scenarios indicate there will be more protected areas in the future. The question remains therefore as to where these new protected areas should be located and how should they relate to existing areas. Since it is impossible to predict what species will be useful in the future, and because almost all habitat types on the planet contain some unique species, conservation strategies should attempt to preserve viable examples of all distinct ecosystems and all species. To implement such a policy there should be at least one, and preferably more, protected areas in each distinct biogeographic zone and within each zone every major habitat type should be represented in a protected area. The following model for an effective protected areas system design is recommended for consideration. The design is based on regional objectives, but the respective responsibilities of individual countries will depend on their size and content.
1. Major biogeographic divisions must be identified and a representative system of protected areas established in each.
2. Within each biogeographical division, the main priority should be the establishment of large, major ecosystem protected areas selected to include a continuum of many habitat types including, if possible, the richest examples of those habitats, major ecotones and viable wildlife populations.
3. Smaller protected areas should augment these major reserves by protecting additional habitat types or covering regional variants of habitats.
4. Small protected areas may be included in the system to provide additional recreational, educational or research facilities or to protect unique sites of special interest.
The policy message is that effective conservation areas, that capture adequate samples of biodiversity throughout the region must be based on scientific studies, and not political expediency. Such studies may produce results that are uncomfortable for governments, such as placing land with high development potential under protection for biodiversity. In many cases, existing protected areas have been chosen on the basis of minimum competing land use pressures, but this has lead to imbalanced networks (even when these are extensive) and the omission of those habitats that are actually under the greatest threat.
Even protected areas systems that fulfil these design principles will still be destined for failure if there is insufficient consideration given to effective management. What comprises effective management will be specific to each protected area. The IUCN management category system encourages governments to consider a wide range of management strategies, appropriate to meet clearly defined objectives.
Perhaps more important than the extent to which protected areas networks might or might not grow from the present day to 2010 are questions concerning the efficiency with which the fullest complement of biodiversity is included in protected areas. In addition, many protected areas throughout the Asia-Pacific Region are considered to be 'paper-parks', being conservation areas in name only. Emphasis should therefore be put on good system design, and ensuring that those areas that have been or will be established receive sufficient support such that the objectives for which they were set up can be achieved in both the short and long term.
There has been no single study of all ecosystems found in the Asia-Pacific region, and their representation with protected areas networks. However, there have been several national or sub-regional studies, covering for example, South and South-East Asia (Murray, et al., 1995), the very similar Indomalayan Region as defined by Udvardy (MacKinnon, 1996), China (MacKinnon, et al., 1996) and the Pacific (Dahl, 1986). Other global studies have been carried out, designed to identify areas of the highest conservation potential, and which should be regarded as priorities by governments in establishing new or enlarged protected areas. These include identification of endemic bird areas (ICBP, 1992) and centres of plant diversity (WWF/IUCN, 1995). If the growth of protected area systems indicated in all the scenarios is realised, then these studies should provide the basis for identifying the location of new or extended sites.
Murray, et al. (1995) carried out a pan-tropical review of protected areas coverage which permits a discussion of not only the adequacy of representation in existing protected areas, but also comparisons with other parts of the world. The study provides for the first time a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status of terrestrial biodiversity throughout the tropics. Using the classification system of ecofloristic zones developed by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (University of Toulouse, France) and that of closed moist forests developed by WCMC and IUCN, the protected area coverage of tropical habitats was examined and gaps identified in five regions: tropical Africa, South and South-East Asia, Insular South-East Asia, tropical South America, and Central America and the Caribbean. Tropical China, Australia and the South Pacific were not included.
The classification system of ecofloristic zones (EFZs) was developed in order to standardise the existing vegetation classifications and is based on climate, physiognomy and vegetation structure, edaphic factors and dominant or characteristic forest species of indigenous flora. A classification of moist forests was developed by WCMC and IUCN to integrate national datasets and produce a pantropical forest map. The system is currently limited to closed moist forest, except in Latin America where closed dry forest and pine forest is also recognised. Open forest/woodland and savanna woodland have not been included. Datasets are mostly from the late 1980s but some are earlier than this.
The study identifies EFZs and forests with little or no protected areas coverage. It also distinguishes countries with de facto sole responsibility for conservation of an EFZ by virtue of their near exclusive territorial jurisdiction of that EFZ.
Globally, it was found that 7.7% of tropical regions and 12.2% of moist tropical forests are conserved within protected areas. Protected area coverage of ecofloristic zones is shown to be uneven, with better protection of moist zones and forests compared with dry ones. Future conservation actions should focus on improving the management of existing protected areas in moist zones, and on expanding protected area networks in drier zones. Regarding moist forest types, over 20% of sub-montane and montane forest types are protected but only 5% of inland swamp forest is protected. Some 12.4% of lowland rain forest occurs within protected areas.
The lowest regional level of representation in protected areas (3.6%) was in South and-South-East Asia. Tropical South America has the highest level of protection (9.8%). Protection of the other regions is intermediate, some zones being poorly represented and others well represented in protected areas. Moist forests are least protected in Africa, where 7.6% of all moist forests are under protection and only 6.9% in the case of lowland rain forest. Tropical South America has the highest level of regional protection, with 15.1% of all moist forests and 14.4% of lowland rain forest within protected areas.
Twelve countries in South Asia and South-East Asian were considered (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Lao PDR, Malaysia (Peninsular), Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam).
Ecofloristic zones
The EFZs of South and South-East Asia vary in size from a small patch of sub-tropical hill forest in Sri Lanka (EFZ 36) to a large area of dry deciduous forest in India (EFZ 18) which is some 5,100 times greater in area. Of the 39 EFZs in the region, only five have more than 10% of their area protected by conservation areas, 11 have less than 1% of their area protected, including four with no protection at all (evergreen and semi-evergreen forest in Viet Nam; deciduous and mixed forest in Cambodia; temperate and alpine forest and scrub in Pakistan; and sub-tropical hill forest in Sri Lanka).
India is much the most diverse country with 26 EFZs represented. Seven countries in the region (Cambodia, India, Peninsular Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam) each contain entire EFZs within their territories and, therefore, are ultimately responsible for their protection. India contains over 50% of 15 EFZs, and four of these are found nowhere else, emphasising the regional importance of this country for habitat conservation.
There are compelling arguments for national conservation action where a country has a high proportion of an EFZ and little of it is currently protected by that country: the priority in such cases is to expand the exiting protected areas network. In cases where there is already good representation in protected areas, or where an EFZ is spread over several countries, the priorities may lie in strengthening management.
Moist forests
The majority of moist forest in South and South-East Asia consists of lowland rain forest and lowland monsoon forest, which occur in all countries in this sub-region, with the exception of Pakistan. A negligible amount of lowland rain forest occurs in Bhutan. Inland swamp, lowland rain forest and montane monsoon forest are well represented in protected areas in South and South-East Asia, but mangrove, montane rain forest and lowland monsoon forest are less adequately protected.
Myanmar contains over 50% of montane rain forest but none of it is protected; it also contains large areas of lowland rain forest with virtually none protected. Large areas of mangrove are found in Bangladesh and Thailand with little protection. India has large areas of lowland and monsoon rain forest with relatively small amounts protected. Peninsular Malaysia has large areas of inland swamp forest with little protection.
The six countries of Insular South-East Asia included in this analysis are Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak), Papua New Guinea and the Philippines.
The EFZs of Insular South-East Asia vary in size from a small patch of evergreen forest on Sumba (EFZ 6) to a large area of lowland evergreen forest west of Wallace's line (EFZ 1), which is some 475 times greater in area). Of the 17 EFZs in the region, eight have greater than 10% of their area protected by conservation areas and only one (EFZ 12 - Alpine grasslands and scrub in Irian Jaya and Papua New Guinea) has less than 1% under protection.
Indonesia is much the most diverse country with all 17 regional EFZs represented, and Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines each include 50% or more of some EFZs. Five EFZs are found exclusively within Indonesia, emphasising the international importance of this country for conservation of unique habitats.
The majority of moist forest in Insular South-East Asia consists of lowland rain forest which occurs in all the countries in this sub region. Mangrove, montane rain forest and montane monsoon forest are well represented in protected areas, but inland swamp, lowland rain forest and lowland monsoon forest are less adequately protected.
Indonesia contains over 50% of five types of forest: mangrove, inland swamp, lowland rain forest, lowland monsoon forest and montane rain forest, three of these being less than adequately protected. The Philippines has over 50% of montane monsoon forest, over half of which is protected. Papua New Guinea has large areas of montane rain forest which are poorly protected.
The analysis identifies priorities for conservation interventions at national and regional levels. A number of EFZs fall entirely within the territory of single countries, highlighting their exclusive responsibility for conservation in Cambodia, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam and Indonesia. It has also been shown that the level of protection of EFZs varies widely and that some have no protection at all. Given the likelihood that governments are still willing to establish new protected areas, analyses such as this should form the basis for deciding where such areas should be located. Green et al., (1996) cite specific national priorities. As just one example, the analysis shows that the highest priority for the conservation of lowland evergreen and hill forest in South-East Asia rests with Thailand and Malaysia. The analysis also provides a scientific basis for international cooperation, where ecofloristic zones cross political boundaries.
The Review aimed to examine the existing system of protected areas of the Indomalayan Biogeographical Realm, with a view, inter alia, of evaluating representational coverage, identifying gaps; evaluating proposed reserves and other important areas and identifying priorities for strengthening protection. This approach can help provide information additional to that developed in the EFZ analysis as it considers issues such as the rate at which natural habitats are being lost and the effectiveness with which existing protected areas are managed. Two key indices were used to identify priorities: the biodiversity index and conservation importance index.
Biodiversity and conservation indices
The Biodiversity Index (BI) reflects the relative importance of a country for biodiversity conservation, per unit area. The Conservation Index (CI) gives a measure of how well a country is protecting its biodiversity, relative to the expected need. Thus, a relatively low diversity country with a good protected areas system will have a high CI score (>1.0), whilst a high diversity country with a weak protected areas system will have a low CI (<1.0). Countries that have a high Biodiversity Index must do proportionately more, in terms of the size of protected areas networks, or the effectiveness of management, compared to countries with a lower Biodiversity Index. As Figure 2 illustrates, the greatest conservation burden within the Indomalayan Realm falls on Indonesia, due to its very high biological diversity. In contrast Bhutan, which is a medium diversity country by Asia-Pacific standards, has recently redesigned its protected areas network in line with best conservation practice and is also achieving relatively good management effectiveness. Consequently, it scores a very high Conservation Index, indicating a situation that, at present, is satisfactory. Most countries at present however are falling short of the conservation effort required to adequately protect their biodiversity.
Table 4 provides the Biodiversity Importance and Conservation Index scores for tropical countries in the Asia-Pacific Region. This table includes a spread of BI values, from Indonesia scoring by far the highest at 26.8, to Pakistan scoring 4.0. Other high scoring countries include Philippines 14.0; Malaysia 13.7; and Papua New Guinea 13.3. These correspond with well-recognised biodiversity hot spots and reflect the add-on richness of countries which span several biogeographical units.
The results of the CI analysis show those above 1.0 consist of Brunei (2.4), Bhutan (4.1), Cambodia (1.5), Sri Lanka (1.0), and Thailand (1.1). In other words, these countries are doing as well as can be expected in providing for conservation of biodiversity, at the present time. However, as more habitat is lost and development pressures grow, these scores may fall, unless there is compensatory action in the form of better management or additional protected areas. A number of other countries come close but the lowest scoring countries are Bangladesh (0.1), India (0.3), Myanmar (0.1), Malaysia (0.3), Philippines (0.1), Papua New Guinea (0.1) and Viet Nam (0.2), all falling short of the conservation effort required to secure their biodiversity. From a global perspective, of these low scoring countries, India, Viet Nam, Papua New Guinea, Philippines and Malaysia are all in the top twenty biodiversity countries in the world (Table 1).
It is a reasonable expectation that all countries could reach a Conservation Index of 1.0 or higher by 2010 and specific measures to do are very briefly summarised in Annex 5.
China occupies a special place in the Asia-Pacific Region, on account of its very large human population, physical size and exceptional biodiversity. China contains a very wide range of physical conditions, ancient centres of evolution and dispersion, and many areas that have served as Pleistocene refugia during glacial periods. China faces severe environmental problems, not least due to a massive and growing human population that is largely dependant on natural resources for its livelihood. There are also important hurdles in the form of a lack of awareness amongst government officials, and a subsequent dearth of financial support and training for environmental protection programmes. To identify key areas for protection, China has been the subject of a biodiversity review (MacKinnon, et al., 1996) using a methodology similar to that used for the Indomalayan Realm.
MacKinnon, et al. (1996) reviewed the extent of original and existing vegetation, and the success with which it is protected. This is used in conjunction with information on biogeography and biodiversity hotspots to make recommendations for additional reserves, or extensions to existing sites, on a province-by-province basis.
It is government policy, in line with the Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan, formulated in 1994, to further extend the existing protected areas system to between 800 and 1,000 nature reserves covering 10% of the country by the end of the current decade.
The most important sites, considered to be of global significance are identified in the biodiversity review. The 40 sites are well distributed to cover the best possible spectrum of ecosystems and many are formed by linking or extending existing sites. The priority for protected area development in China in the period to 2010 will be the implementation of the recommendations made in this assessment.
Table 4 Country scores of Biodiversity Importance (BI) and Conservation Index (CI)
Country |
BI |
CI |
Bangladesh |
5.9 |
0.1 |
Brunei |
10.7 |
2.4 |
Bhutan |
8.6 |
4.1 |
Indonesia |
26.8 |
0.6 |
India |
9.0 |
0.3 |
Cambodia |
7.5 |
1.5 |
Lao PDR |
8.3 |
0.6 |
Sri Lanka |
7.4 |
1.0 |
Maldives |
5.2 |
0.6 |
Myanmar |
6.8 |
0.1 |
Malaysia |
13.7 |
0.3 |
Nepal |
7.9 |
0.9 |
Pakistan |
4.0 |
0.8 |
Philippines |
14.0 |
0.1 |
Papua New Guinea |
13.3 |
0.1 |
Singapore |
9.8 |
0.6 |
Thailand |
8.5 |
1.1 |
Viet Nam |
12.7 |
0.2 |
