Search results

IUCN ‐ The World Conservation Union defines a protected area as an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) describes a protected area as a geographically defined area, which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objective. Protected areas‐national parks, wildlife reserves, wilderness areas, etc. ‐ are the cornerstones of national and international conservation strategies. They act as refuges for species and help maintain critical ecological processes and ecosystem services that intensely managed landscapes and seascapes cannot provide. These places provide space for natural evolution and future ecological restoration. In recent years there has been growing recognition of the benefits that protected areas provide for people: genetic resources for pharmaceuticals and agriculture, traditional medicines; recreational opportunities and ecotourism revenues; sustainable sources of goods such as non‐timber forest products; and refuge for traditional and vulnerable human societies (Dudley et al. 2005). A wide range of management objectives, approaches and types of governance are used within protected areas in different countries. In terms of management objectives, these range from strict protection and exclusion of humans to broad‐scale approaches that include cultural landscapes such as farms and managed forests. IUCN‐The World Conservation Union subdivides protected areas into six categories based on management objectives: Ia: strict nature reserve/wilderness protection area; Ib: wilderness area; II:national park; III:natural monument; IV:habitat/species management area; V:protected landscape/seascape; and VI:managed resource protected area. In terms of governance types, protected areas may be managed directly by a government, co‐managed with other actors such as nongovernmental organizations, or even declared and managed collectively by indigenous peoples and local communities or by the relevant individual or corporate landowner. Today, there are more than 100,000 designated protected areas in the World Database on Protected Areas covering around 11.4 per cent of Earth’s land surface, along with more than 1,300 marine protected areas covering less than 0.5 per cent of the oceans (Dudley et all. 2005).

Argues that conserving biodiversity requires a combination of policy reform and appropriate economic instruments. Presents policy reforms which would remove the underlying causes of the loss of biodiversity and create incentives for the efficient use of biological resources. The economic instruments would further strengthen the incentives for behaviour which is supportive of the objectives of the convention on biological diversity and generate the additional financial resources required to fund investments in biodiversity.

This uses a framework of systemic change to understand the contextual factors including stakeholder, social, political, cultural and economic, which contribute to the social and environmental narratives of a conservation organisation that has and continues to undergo transformation.

The social and environmental disclosure annual report narratives for a 27-year period were coded to a framework of systemic change.

The end of apartheid in 1994 meant that South African society required transformation. This transformation impacts and drives the social and environmental accounting disclosures made by SANParks. The social and environmental disclosures coded against a framework of systemic change, fluctuated over the period of the study as the format of the annual reports changed. The systems view was the most frequently disclosed category. The political ecology subcategory which details the power relationships showed the most disclosures. However, 25 years after the end of apartheid, the transformation process remains incomplete. Although the evidence in the paper does not support Joseph and Reigelut (2010) contention that the framework of systemic change is an iterative process, it nevertheless provides a useful vehicle for analysing the rich annual report narratives of an organisation that has undergone and continues to undergo transformation.

This paper makes two primary contributions. First, to the limited developing country social and environmental accounting literature. Second, the development, refinement and application of a framework of systemic change to social and environmental disclosures.

The concepts of Tapovana are rooted in the spiritual values given by the people to their natural surroundings in appreciation of miraculous benefits in terms of ecosystem services. Some of the natural landscapes have become notable when the well-known hermits spent their spiritual life, such as in Shivapuri and Khaptad. In the present contexts, Tapovana concepts have contributed for conservation programs in the protected areas and heritage sites. In fact, such sites have also received importance because of shrines that existed there. In Nepal, protected areas and ecotourism are complementary to each other resulting in multiplier effects for win-win situation. At present, the modern form of Tapovana satisfies spiritual and physical needs of visitors. Its applications prevail in conventional education and sustainable development.

The purpose of this chapter is to give an interpretation to the limits of Indonesia’s forestry policy through the sustainable development approach analyzing the crossroads between economic development and environmental sustainability. There is an expansion and intensification of industrial plantations such as palm oil, as part of the economic development strategy, which must coexist with ongoing efforts of conservation of forest resources in the pursuit of environmental sustainability, including policies such as the Forest Moratorium.

The study explores the influence of the economic development of the palm oil industry in the environmental sustainability of the Forest Moratorium during the period 2011–2014. A case study on the Forest Moratorium is presented analyzing the operativeness of sustainable development principles in the discourse and concrete actions of this specific policy.

The study evidences that there is a basic problem in Indonesia’s forestry policy and the sustainable development approach, not only because of its inherent contradictions, but also due to the flaws in its interpretation and implementation. It is necessary to rethink the sustainable development, its scopes and limitations, taking into consideration its hybridity, dynamism, and constant transformation. It is also necessary to consider the feasibility of a paradigm shift or a search for sustainable solutions based on other parameters. One way of doing it should include a more participatory approach with a joint work by the government, local communities, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and academia.

First, as this is a case study the findings are not generalizable; and second, the social dimension of sustainable development is not incorporated in its entirety, as this study focuses mainly on the economic and environmental dimensions.

The findings contribute to the discussion in the theoretical and public policy fields, on the crossroads between economic development and environmental sustainability in the international agenda for sustainable development.

The study allows capturing the discussion in a concrete case and learning from the experience of Indonesia, its institutional failures, and the causes of its environmental problems.

The paper seeks to respond to calls by Jones for more studies exploring the possibility of operationalising accounting for biodiversity.

Archival data are used to produce a natural inventory report for the Sundarbans, the world's largest mangrove forest declared as a World Heritage site by UNESCO in 2007.

The study extends prior research on biodiversity accounting by exploring the applicability of Jones' natural inventory model in the context of Bangladesh. The results indicate that application of Jones' natural inventory model is feasible in the context of developing countries such as Bangladesh. It is also recognised that the socio‐economic and political environment prevailing in developing economies may lead to the emergence of important stakeholder groups including local civil society bodies, international donor agencies and foreign governments. Biodiversity accounting may provide a legitimate basis for the government in allaying concerns regarding environmental stewardship and assist in negotiations with powerful stakeholder groups on important issues such as financial assistance after natural disasters and claims to the global climate change fund.

This is one of the early attempts to operationalise biodiversity accounting in the context of a developing economy.

This paper seeks to offer an overview on the theme of “Traditional agricultural landscapes and indigenous and community conserved areas.” It aims to explore questions related to the special values of these landscapes, the threats facing them and ways to sustain them in the future. It also aims to discuss recent developments in conservation, particularly related to governance of protected areas and the emerging recognition of “indigenous and community‐conserved areas” in diverse regions worldwide.

Drawing on a collection of conceptual papers and case‐studies presented at a workshop (Cusco, Peru, 2008) and compiled in the present issue of this journal, this overview paper explores key issues and challenges related to community stewardship of traditional agricultural landscapes. It synthesizes a few common themes emerging from these papers and the discussions in Cusco, and reviews these in the context of global developments in protected areas and conservation.

Across diverse settings, traditional agricultural landscapes, created by indigenous peoples and local communities, have been shaped by the dynamic interaction of people and nature over time. These landscapes, rich in agro‐biodiversity as well as inherent wild biodiversity and cultural and spiritual values, embody human ingenuity and are continually evolving. Key points emerging from this review include the role of traditional ecological knowledge systems, cultural practices and social institutions in creating these landscapes and ensuring their stewardship; the importance of securing customary governance; and need for dynamic socio‐ecological indicators to measure the resilience of different landscapes.

The paper shows that these “living landscapes” play a vital role in sustaining agro‐biodiversity as well as inherent wild biodiversity values, ensuring ecosystem function, and supporting livelihoods and food security. These landscapes and their associated management systems have much to teach us about sustainability and resilience in the face of global change.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the emergence of the concept of outstanding universal value and its application from the ancient to modern times culminating with its codification under the auspices of UNESCO in 1972.

The nearly four decades‐long application of UNESCO's World Heritage Convention offers a solid basis for a critical reflection regarding past achievements and future challenges. An entire review of this being beyond the scope of a single paper, it focuses on only a few salient issues which illustrate how this unique international legal instrument evolved in the past 39 years.

The paper singles out for each of the four stages at least one emblematic and most threatened World Heritage property, in order to illustrate major legal issues and how these were addressed by the parties.

As Secretary of the World Heritage Committee as well as Founder Director of the World Heritage Centre viewpoints the author presents that constitute a direct and continuous observation of World Heritage related matters over the last four decades.

The paper aims to provide an introduction to the new journal, its scope and papers in the inaugural issue.

The paper introduces the new journal by exploring the normative foundations of cultural heritage management and how this can be used to construct a bridge to processes of sustainable development. In doing so, the rationale is explained for a journal with this specialism, like JCHMSD, including potential areas for research. All this then is linked to the theme and respective papers especially selected for the inaugural issue.

Increasingly the role of cultural heritage in processes of regeneration and sustainable development of cities and regions is being explored, while at the same time the international debate is intensifying as regards a re‐orientation of the concept of sustainability and to re‐emphasize its meaning in clear and unambiguous terms. In the build‐up to the review of the Millennium Development Goals in 2015, the international community by way of UNESCO is promoting the inclusion of culture in the development paradigm.

In providing an overview of the state of debate in the fields of cultural heritage management and sustainable development, the paper is useful to the readers of the journal who are interested but have limited knowledge in these fields. It clarifies the focus to those who wish to submit articles to the journal, as well as highlights some potential areas for research.

The purpose of this paper is to present an approach aimed at facilitating nature conservation that builds on the ecological and social synergies that exist in traditionally managed landscapes in and around protected areas and integrates conservation and social goals to achieve a reduction in the levels of marginalization of indigenous and local communities while preventing ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss.

Drawing on literature research and insights from political and historical ecology and systems theory, a framework was developed to aid the understanding of human‐environment interactions taking place in traditionally managed ecosystems and landscapes and to monitor the role that these interactions play in the maintenance of such systems.

Virtually all ecosystems and landscapes must be seen as coupled social‐ecological systems whose ability to respond to stresses and change derives from ecological and social characteristics, as well as from the link between these natural and human components. A variety of mechanisms by which indigenous and rural communities help anchor biodiversity and contribute to social‐ecological resilience were identified.

This paper challenges the rationale behind exclusionary approaches to nature conservation. Indicators are developed to facilitate a shift towards the widespread adoption of “human‐centered” conservation practices, in which nature conservation benefits from the inclusion and empowerment of human communities instead of their exclusion and marginalization.