Protected Areas: Conservation Cornerstones or Paradoxes? Insights from Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Africa and Southeastern Europe

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) are considered the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation (Chape et al., 2005), and according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), are defined as “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” (Dudley, 2008). The IUCN set the first ‘target’ for protection, by agreeing at the 1992 World Parks Congress in Caracas, Venezuela, that PAs should cover a minimum of 10% of each biome by 2000. There are now over 120,000 PAs worldwide, taking into account both those classified under any of the six IUCN management categories, and those not classified, including private reserves and community'conserved areas (UNEP'WCMC, 2008). The overall trend in the total surface of PAs has been steadily upward during the last few decades in all regions of the world, but has been leveling off somewhat since 2000 (Fig. 1). Recognising the importance of PAs to global efforts to halt biodiversity loss, in late 2010 at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 10th Conference of Parties in Japan, twenty targets were set for biodiversity conservation (‘Aichi Targets’). These include a global increase of terrestrial and inland water PAs to 17% (from 13%) by 2020, and coastal and marine PAs from 1% to 10% in the same period (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). Despite this growth, however, the effectiveness of PAs in conserving habitats and species cannot simply be interpreted as the result of their number and size as it also depends on their location, structure (size, shape, connectivity) and, of equal importance, their management (Cantu'Salazar & Gaston, 2010; Rodrigues et al., 2004). Traditionally, a top' down approach was employed to PA establishment and management which excluded local participation (Ervin et al., 2010; Kiss, 1990; Stevens, 1997). As a result, people whose livelihoods chiefly involve the direct exploitation of local natural resources often come into conflict with the institutions of PAs. Frequently, communities living in and around PAs have important and longstanding relationships with these areas that embrace inter alia cultural identity and subsistence practices essential to sustaining livelihoods, and often contribute to maintenance of biodiversity (Anthony & Bellinger, 2007). Consequently, PAs