Abstract
Biological diversity has been recognized as a global asset that is key to the well-being and survival of present and future generations. In response to massive destruction of the world’s ecosystems, the international community has agreed on several initiatives, most importantly, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992, which is the basis of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, and the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. A central instrument of these initiative are protected areas. The nine Amazonian countries alone, have designated 390 million hectares of protected forest areas, some of which are under very heavy pressure. As explicitly stated in Aichi Targets 11, 17, and 18, the effective governance and management of these protected areas requires the active participation of indigenous and other local resource user groups and respect for their traditional knowledge and customary practices. This manuscript analyzes to what extent and in which way these targets have been achieved by analyzing three transboundary protected areas in Brazil, Peru, and Bolivia constituted of five national parks. The analysis shows that important progress has been made in terms of the local participation and the generation and sharing of economic benefits, mostly due to the engagement of non-governmental organization (NGOs) funded from overseas development assistance (ODA) sources. However, many of the established mechanisms show major shortcomings, such as power imbalances, lack of legitimacy of decision-makers, unclear responsibilities, unresolved logistical challenges, and the lack of financial support. In addition, the functionality of local governance structures is severely threatened by the vagaries of national policies that often put biodiversity conservation and economic development at loggerheads. In order to ensure the functionality of protected areas in the Amazon region, binding and sufficient commitments by national governments are needed for genuine and effective local governance.
Highlights
The Challenge of Biodiversity LossBiodiversity, understood as the life on earth and all the variability among living organisms within species, between species, and between ecosystems (Swingland, 2000; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005), is key to ecosystem health, which guarantees the provision of ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA], 2005; Amazon Protected AreasRanganathan et al, 2008; Faith et al, 2010; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010; Kasparinskis et al, 2018)
The manuscript aims to answer the following questions: (1) What are the social and institutional conditions that impact PA governance? (2) What are the impacts of actorsbased interventions on PA governance? (3) How do actors agree on the definition of responsibilities related to the PA management and what means or support do they have to meet them? (4) What are the contributions of each actor to PA management? and (5) How do these contributions help to achieve the Aichi Targets and the compliance of other international agreements that the actors’ host countries have signed up for? From this analysis we hope to learn what are minimum conditions needed to make PA work in the Amazon region?
PA management committee (PAMC) is a formal mechanism for PA management and governance that aims at facilitating the participation of the various actor groups in the process of planning and decision-making (Arguedas et al, 2018a)
Summary
The Challenge of Biodiversity LossBiodiversity, understood as the life on earth and all the variability among living organisms within species, between species, and between ecosystems (Swingland, 2000; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005), is key to ecosystem health, which guarantees the provision of ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA], 2005; Amazon Protected AreasRanganathan et al, 2008; Faith et al, 2010; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010; Kasparinskis et al, 2018). Levels of biodiversity and ecological multifunctionality are higher in complex ecosystems like the Amazon biome (Thompson et al, 2012; Brockerhoff et al, 2017; Mori et al, 2017). Despite the advances in the understanding and recognition of biodiversity in the last 15 years (IPBES, 2019), it is still being lost continuously in tropical countries in general and in the Amazon biome in particular (Fearnside, 1993; Hecht, 1993; Foley et al, 2007; Vieira et al, 2008; Piotrowski and Ortiz, 2019). Deforestation in the Amazon region is the most important reason for biodiversity loss, causing a spiral of progressive degradation (Giam, 2017). Deforestation in the Amazon biome was attributed to population growth, which was linked to the expansion of the road network and other infrastructure increase, like dams, oil pipes, and ports (Gentry and Lopez-Parodi, 1980; Fearnside, 1993). Quite a few academics warn that the Amazon biome is nearing a degradation tipping point (Piotrowski and Ortiz, 2019)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
