Data presented in Table 2 and Annex 4 indicate the extent of national protected areas networks. These data can be interpreted in quantitative terms of the physical extent of system, and to a greater or lesser extent, the natural ecosystems and species that are contained within their boundaries. However, there are important qualitative dimensions missing from such an analysis, including the level of commitment from governments to maintaining established sites as viable conservation areas. One indirect measure of commitment can be derived from levels of investment made by governments, in terms of both financial support, and the number of staff. Since the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, the flow of financial resources for biodiversity conservation has emerged as an area of key concern for the international community. There is now widespread recognition of the need for cross-country data on such financial investments.
A recent study (James, et al., 1996) has for the first time provided internationally comparable data on national investments in protected areas, covering financial and human resources. As prior to this study there were no equivalent data, trends cannot be estimated.
Results from the survey indicate that some US$6.2 billion are invested annually in protected areas around the world, with a mean of US$776 per square kilometre. The global mean level of staffing is 24.5 per 1,000 square kilometres.
Data collected from protected areas management agencies in the Asia-Pacific region is briefly summarised in Annex 6. Of the 39 countries in the Asia-Pacific Region, data were collected from 22. In a number of cases, for example Malaysia and Australia, data from sub-national agencies has been aggregated. Information was not forthcoming from two of the most significant countries in the Asia-Pacific region in terms of biodiversity, namely India and Indonesia. In addition, data were not available for Japan, the wealthiest nation in the region. Consequently, the finding of this survey should be treated with caution.
Table 5 Summary: protected areas budgets by IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) regions
Region |
Mean budget (US$ per sq. km protected) |
Mean staff per 1,000 sq.km protected |
South Asia |
175 |
81 |
South-East Asia |
509 |
29 |
East Asia |
197 |
432 |
Australia |
359 |
2.6 |
Pacific |
1,015 |
14.98 |
Table 5 compares the regional budgets on the basis of mean expenditure per square kilometre of protected areas (defined as those sites classified as IUCN Management Category I-V), and the number of staff available to management agencies per 1,000 square kilometres of protected areas. These two measures can be taken as reasonable indicators of the intensity of management and the level of commitment.
One region has mean rates of investment higher than the global average of US$776 (Pacific) whilst all others are lower. The mean figure for East Asia (US$197) masks very wide discrepancies. Some East Asian nation's budgets are in fact the highest in the world in terms of investment per square kilometre, especially those of Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. The inclusion of China reduces the mean figure considerably, although it is likely that Japan also has a higher than average rate of investment. Besides reflecting the availability of financial resources, the high rate of investment also reflects the intensity of pressure on protected areas, requiring an intensive management response. The level of staffing in countries in East Asia for which data are available is the highest in world.
In contrast, the mean rate of investment in Australia is amongst the lowest of all the developed regions in the world at US$359. However, it would be a mistake to assume that this indicates a low level of commitment as there is substantial evidence, both from the size of the protected areas estate in Australia, and through numerous policy statements and legal enactments to indicate a generally high level of commitment. Instead, the low figures in Table 5 are a reflection of the low level of pressure on protected areas. Sites often comprise extensive areas in remote regions, thus requiring minimal management input. The provision of staff at a rate of only 2.6 personnel per 1,000 square kilometres of protected areas is a further reflection of the high level of natural protection enjoyed by many of Australia's protected areas.
The mean figure of US$509 for South-East Asia disguises wide discrepancies within the region. Investments varies from as little as US$1 (Lao PDR) to US$3,769 (Brunei Darussalam) per square kilometre. These two countries have very different backgrounds, the former being one of the poorest nations and the latter one of the richest. Furthermore, protected areas have existed in Brunei for a number of years with an established legal and administrative framework. In contrast, Lao PDR has only initiated a protected areas programme in the last three years and is still heavily reliant on international donors. It remains to be seen whether countries such as Lao PDR, Cambodia and Viet Nam, countries of considerable international importance for biodiversity conservation, can find sufficient resources during the next 15 years to replace the tenuous support of international assistance. It is worth noting that even in instances where the financial inputs are modest, the level of staffing is still relatively high. Indeed both Myanmar and Thailand have staffing levels greater than the global average.
A similar pattern emerges in South Asia, where in general budgets are low on a world scale, but staffing is high. What is not revealed in these data is whether or not the higher levels of staffing compensate for the lack of financial resources. Infrastructural support, such as vehicles, radios and training, may be inadequate or absent, thus leaving staff relatively powerless.
Data for the Pacific are dominated by a limited number of countries, two of which, Fiji and New Caledonia, have high levels of mean investment and staffing, due in the former case to having only a very modest protected areas network. The Pacific includes New Zealand which has characteristics typical of a developed country (a relatively high mean investment of US$898 but relatively low staffing at 15 per thousand square kilometres). Papua New Guinea, a mega-diversity country, stands out as priority for international assistance. Despite only a modest formal protected areas network compared to the size of the country, the level of investment is low (US$211) and the level of staffing is low (14 per thousand square kilometres).
James, et al. (1996) have shown that there is a strong correlation between national income and financial investments in protected areas. On this basis, it likely that the availability of resources will be largely driven by economic growth in the region. The benefits accruing from such a trend may be offset by increased resources exploitation, pollution and increasing recreational pressure on protected areas from mobile and urbanised populations. It may also be the case that pressure on forest resources will be deflected from national resources and towards those overseas in other nations.
The principle difficulty in projecting likely trends to 2010 is that there are no historical and comprehensive data upon which conjecture can be reliably based. However, it is hoped that this information gap will be filled in due course, as state parties fulfil the reporting obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
