| ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
1. REVISION OF CATEGORIESFollowing management concepts developed in the nineteen seventies, Honduras has assumed about eighteen management categories for SINAPH. In agreement with the Terms of Reference, part of the rationalisation process is to re-assess which categories should be used for the now existing protected areas. The existing categories are not always clear in their objectives and limitations, which is a major draw-back in setting the rules for all actors. Legal clarity is quintessential for all actors:
It should be well understood that protected areas are distinguished from unprotected (rural) areas by the fact that they are protected from certain human activities or uses. That implies that there are certain sets of regulations set by law that restrict certain rights of land-use as compared to non-protected areas. For each management category it should be made very clear what is allowed and which are the essential restrictions; differences between management categories must leave no room for doubt. With 18 different categories, there is no clarity and we propose that the number of management categories of SINAPH be reduced to the categories listed in Table 7, “Characteristics and use objectives of categories of management areas as proposed in this study” and that their definitions as proposed in the following paragraphs be included both in the law and elaborated in a new Code of Regulation for SINAPH Table 9 : Characteristics and use objectives of categories of management areas as proposed by this study.
1 as defined and regulated in the management plan. The advisory team has taken the six world wide IUCN management categories as the point of departure for defining the proposed categories, as those categories basically cover all the different existing options into clear and distinct sets of rules. Specific legal definitions are proposed for each Honduran category. The precise legal clarity, the wording has been kept exactly the same for all categories where the conditions coincide. Differences are made clear by textual differentiation or absence. A National park is a large – usually over 5000 ha - natural terrestrial or aquatic area of national importance to protect the integrity of a representative sample of one or more ecosystems with their ecological processes and genetic flow, groups of species, unique natural phenomena and to conserve outstanding landscapes and/or natural beauty in an unaltered state. A management plan is subject to approval by the management authority, after a stakeholder hearing process. It defines the nuclear and bufferzone(s) and other zoning, including, for the nuclear zone the visitation areas, and for the bufferzone(s) land-use, areas for habitation and biodiversity conservation, as well as land use regulation and wildlife management to protect biodiversity in the bufferzones. In the nuclear zone(s) non-consumptive use is permitted – if compatible with natural ecological processes and subject to regulation in the management plan - specifically, scientific research, environmental education, visitation and harvesting of water; forbidden are any human productive or extractive land use. In the bufferzones hunting is forbidden, unless by ethnic groups with traditional land-uses, in which case the hunting regimen shall be defined in the management plan. A Nature Reserve is a natural terrestrial or aquatic area of national importance to protect the integrity of a representative sample of one or more ecosystems with their ecological processes and genetic flow, groups of species, unique natural phenomena and to conserve outstanding landscapes and/or natural beauty in an unaltered state. A management plan is subject to approval by the management authority, after a stakeholder hearing process. It defines the nuclear and bufferzone(s) and other zoning, including for the bufferzone(s) land-use, areas for habitation and biodiversity conservation, as well as land use regulation and wildlife management to protect biodiversity in the bufferzones. In the nuclear zone(s) non-consumptive use is permitted – if compatible with natural ecological processes and subject to regulation in the management plan - specifically, scientific research, environmental education, and harvesting of water; forbidden are any human productive or extractive land use. In the bufferzones hunting is forbidden, unless by ethnic groups with traditional land-uses, in which case the hunting regimen shall be defined in the management plan. A Natural Monument is a natural terrestrial or aquatic area – usually less than 5000 ha - of national importance to protect the integrity of a representative sample of one or more ecosystems with their ecological processes and genetic flow, groups of species, unique natural phenomena or to conserve outstanding landscapes and/or natural beauty in an unaltered state. A management plan is subject to approval by the management authority, after a stakeholder hearing process. It defines zoning, including the visitation areas. Non-consumptive use is permitted – if compatible with natural ecological processes and subject to regulation in the management plan - specifically, scientific research, environmental education, visitation and harvesting of water; forbidden are any human productive or extractive land uses. Assuming these definitions, the areas of the “National Parks system” model have been selected as an integrated group of areas that together is expected to conserve the majority of biodiversity of Honduras through ecosystem protection. Each one has ecosystems whose integrity is essential for the conservation of the national heritage of Honduras’ biodiversity. The advisory group recommends that several protected areas be combined into one single protected area: · National Park Pico Bonito would be unified with Texiguat and Arenal; · Golfo de Fonseca National Park would result from the merger of the estuarine protected areas on the south coast; · Bay Islands National Park already consists of the three larger Bay Islands; · Rus Rus National Park would include Warunta in the proposal; · Lago de Yojoa would encompass Santa Barbara and Mount Azul Meambar; · Capiro y Calenturo would be expanded with Laguna Guaymoreto. The unification of these areas would upgrade the splendour of each unit, it would simplify the administration and it would enhance the public recognition of these high-profile national parks. After the merging of these areas, Honduras would have 24 national parks, 4 biological reserves and 2 natural monuments. Whether this can be done legally or only from a management point of view may vary from case to case, but it is important to at least present those areas to the public as integrated national park units. This would also need to be reflected in fully integrated management plans. This should be considered as the regional plans as proposed in the draft strategy for SINAPH. Unification would also lead to reduced management costs, as some of the management functions could be reduced, resulting from the lower management costs for larger protected areas. Protected areas in Honduras, usually include bufferzones. These bufferzones allow for certain forms of utilisation of natural resources, and therefore would fall under IUCN Category VI. On the other hand, Category II and VI areas may contain within them Category I areas. The nature reserve should have the option to define Ia or Ib status by management plan, rather than defining such status by decree. This will allow the area administration the necessary flexibility to properly protect the area. Usually a dual function is ideal and such distinction would most appropriately be established in internal zoning regulations as established in the management plan. The nature reserve part of the Lancetilla Botanical Garden would best qualify under the management category of biological reserve. However, both the botanical garden and its international research programme generate considerable visitation. Visitation is not a primary characteristic for a nature reserve and therefore the JBL - with its reserve as a lower visitation zone - would probably better fit under the category of national monument as defined previously in this document. Specific needs of the area would need to be regulated in the management plan. An observation regarding the integrity of the Bay Islands Marine National Park is at place. While the significance of the area’s marine environment is and remains paramount, there should be more integration of both marine and the unique Caribbean terrestrial ecosystems into the management attention as well as in the presentation to the visitors. Table 10 : Selected Areas and Proposed Management Category
The non-selected areas are all considered of more local importance and it is recommended that they all be re-categorised to serve much broader management objectives to fulfil the needs of local communities as defined under the definition for multiple use areas: A Multiple Use Area is a terrestrial or aquatic area of local importance to integrate and harmonise productive land use with (1) the conservation of fragments of natural and semi-natural ecosystems and fauna elements (2) the production of high quality water, (3) recreation (4) forestry and extractive use, as well as scientific research and environmental education. A management plan is subject to approval by the Departmental or Municipal authority or authorities[2], after a stakeholder hearing process. The management plan defines zoning of areas for habitation, recreation and other land use and it regulates the use of natural resources of the area. It is very important that the management of multiple use areas be brought as closely as possible to the local beneficiaries by full decentralisation and their management should fall solely under municipal mandate. To achieve this, local administrations should obtain the legal authority for management so that they may solely take decentralised management decisions or delegate management to local communities or NGOs as seen fit. They should also be delegated the authority to enforce the law with municipal rangers. National forests are distinct from multiple use areas in their objective to particularly produce wood-products and that they are of national importance. As none of the areas need to be re-categorised under this category, a precise definition is not proposed. Within the SINAPH there is one area of national significance, Copan National Park, that is of high profile, but does not fit in the SINAPH profile of protected areas. The area is administered by the Instituto de Antropología, which has no practical relationship with any conservation-oriented authority; this area should be reclassified as an Archaeological Park under the mandate of that institution. If this is not yet the case, it is
recommended that Management plans for SINAPH be mandated by law to
legally impose zoning, such as land-use, restriction and regulation of
construction, building, housing and habitation. 2. Institutional considerations2.1. The “national parks system” of honduras2.1.1. The “National Parks System” within SINAPHWith the majority of the selected areas falling into the category of national parks, it would be a wise strategic approach to collectively nominate the selected protected areas of national and international significance the “National Parks System” of Honduras within the SINAPH. This would enhance the prestige of the SINAPH to both the national public and the international tourism market. The establishment of the “National Parks System” would have to be realised in a new Code of Regulations for SINAPH, in which the categories be limited as proposed in this document and in which there is a distinction between the areas of national and international significance administered under the mandate of the National Government on the one hand and, on the other hand, the areas of local importance, administered under the mandate of municipalities[3]. 2.1.2. The "National Parks Service" of HondurasWith a DAPVS legally responsible for primarily national parks, it would be no more than logical to officially elevate DAPVS to the level of National Parks Service, with the same benefits of enhanced prestige, which will thus improve its image, authority and public recognition. The administration of protected areas in Honduras is rather unique in the sense that the management of many nationally owned protected areas has been delegated to different NGOs. While this level of public support is highly commendable, it also risks fragmenting the coherence of the system. It is in the interest of all parties concerned to avoid such development and jointly work at a tight integration of the mandated administration and the NGOs. The latter already have taken a significant step towards integration by the creation of the Alliance of Protected Areas, but integration must still go further. To the broad Honduran public, it should not be visible who administers their national parks. The "National Parks System" concept should have one single profile for the entire nation: one logo, one national uniform design and staff in all the national parks, nature reserves and natural monuments (regardless of his/her status of employment with an NGO or the "National Parks Service") that sends out the same conservation message everywhere. This unique mixed private/public model of administration would require a major effort from all parties concerned. With the government institution being named the National Parks Service, it might be worth considering naming the Alliance something like the National Parks Alliance. In spite of great involvement of NGOs in
the management of protected areas, the involvement of the real owners of the
national parks, the People of Honduras, is still very low. Mechanisms
should be explored to greatly increase the involvement of the Hondurans.
A powerful instrument could be to sell a national annual (family) entry
pass at an affordable price. This
pass would require the registration of the pass holder with an address.
The passholder would automatically receive a national parks membership to
the Alliance and a three-monthly news journal, with the announcements of
achievements, special excursions, family activities and children and students
programmes. 2.1.3. Normation and supervision2.1.3.1. Normation and supervision of multiple use areasWith the
existence of a normative and supervisory Government institution, it would be
desirable to transfer the normation and supervision of the management of
multiple use areas by municipalities to SERNA/DIBIO, so that the new
"National Parks Service" may focus at the task at hand: the management
of the areas of "National Parks System" only. 2.1.3.2.
Supervision of species conservation and law-enforcement of species
conservation
If DAPVS be
transformed into the National Parks Service, the tasks of supervision of species
conservation (hunting, harvesting and sales of wild species) should be delegated
to SERNA/DIBIO, so that the former can dedicate all its attention and resources
to its prime task at hand, the conservation of Honduras’ “National Parks
System”. 2.1.3.3.
Proposal of new protected areas and moratorium
The protected
areas of national and international significance have been selected as an
integrated and interrelated group to protect the broadest possible set of
species of Honduras. It is
essential that all gaps in legal status, management category and where
appropriate corrections of limits be legally corrected speedily and that no area
be left behind. At the same
token it would be recommendable to withdraw all current proposals for
declaration of areas that have not been selected as areas of national
significance and impose a five year moratorium on the proposition of any new
protected area so that the recommendations of current report can be properly
implemented, including the formulation of a new code of regulations for the
SINAPH. Legally existing areas that have not been selected as areas of national
significance should be re-categorised to multiple use areas. 2.1.3.4.
Definition and correction of legal boundaries
In some cases, bufferzones add size to the protected areas while offering little additional biodiversity value. As a result, they raise costs, as management costs are size related. Furthermore, the presence of significant numbers of inhabitants in bufferzones requires even more attention to the public and thus higher staff density than the nuclear zones. Therefore the bufferzones should be proportionate in size and practical; heavily populated areas should be excluded from the protected areas altogether, as they don’t contribute to conservation and only increase conflicts of interest, management complexity and costs. Table 11 : Areas in need of correction of legal boundaries
Current boundaries need to be
reviewed on possibilities to reduce unwarranted inclusion of excessive human
habitation. Other areas need some correction of legal boundaries to include
additional vital habitat. Areas in
need of corrections of limits are listed in Table 10, "Areas in need of
correction of legal boundaries". Attention to the public in bufferzones is very different from attention to visitors to the nuclear zones. Inhabitants of bufferzones need agricultural extension services, technical assistance on agro-forestry and quite frequently on health and social services. The "National Parks Service" should not be set up to provide such services. At best it could assist local populations, functioning as an "administrative catalyst", to get appropriate attention from the responsible institutions for such services. Particularly regional offices may be very instrumental in organising interinstitutional co-ordination to attend to the needs of populations in bufferzones without actually providing the services. Many biological corridors are similar in nature to bufferzones and for those too, regional offices may assume some coordinating leadership, although their primary tasks should remain attention to the management tasks of the areas of the "National Parks System". 2.1.3.5. Nuclear zonesWhen analysing the distribution of ecosystems, the current boundaries of the protected areas were taken as the source of reference and not the boundaries of eventual nuclear zones. This means that the nuclear zones of ALL the national parks of the system need to be carefully reviewed to make sure that especially the vulnerable ecosystems are wholly included. These revisions must be executed with the use of the ecosystem map GIS and satellite images. When the entire revision is done it is recommended to perform a new Presence/gaps/viability analysis with MICOSYS on the ecosystems present in the nuclear zones. When establishing the nuclear zones it should be taken into account that it may not always be possible to establish clean centres in the middle with bufferzones in the periphery. Sometimes several nuclear zones may be required in one protected area. Particularly the nuclear zone of Río Plátano is much too small. Many essential ecosystems are outside of the nuclear area and need to be included. Without such correction the those several ecosystems cannot be considered adequately protected and must be considered at serious risk. 2.1.3.6. Deconcentration and delegationTo match the qualification of
"National Parks System", the Department for Protected Areas, DAPVS,
would have to be upgraded to the "National Parks Service" and become a
direct-line-authority with its own regional offices.
Regardless of its legal position in the national administration, this
"National Parks Service" should be presented to the public as a
self-functioning unit and not as a dependency of a larger organisation, such as
AFE-COHDEFOR. The management of national parks can only be carried out by an organisation specialised in nature conservation and management of visitors. This requires properly trained professional national parks management staff operating from regional conservation offices that have the full control over their own tasks. Given the selection of National Parks, recognizable dedicated national parks regional offices[4], directly under the "National Parks Service" would be required in Roatán, La Ceiba, Puerto Lempira, Catacamas, Santa Rosa de Copan, San Pedro Sula and Choluteca. The protected areas around the capital would be managed from the headquarters in Tegucigalpa. In this set-up "National Parks Service" needs to be a highly deconcentrated[5] line organisation, which consists of three linear levels: · The Headquarters; · Regional offices; · The field. Each level has its own responsibilities: · The staff of the Headquarters deals with integration of the “National Parks System” as a whole: it sets national standards and policies on visitation, national rules and regulations for bufferzones, etc.; pricing of services, distribution of budgets and staff, review of consistency with national policy and financing strategy after which approval of management plans, interministerial contacts at a national level; management agreements with external parties; dealing with the public on national issues. It also coordinates the monitoring of the system as a whole, as this is part of the supervision of the functioning and success of the organisation. · The staff of the Regional offices have a high level of autonomy when dealing with day-to-day management. They are responsible for the actual management, acquisition of goods and services for their protected areas, supervision and management of staff, organisation of field monitoring, periodic reporting to the Central office, preparation of management plans and annual budgets, interinstitutional coordination and defence of the interests of their parks, attending to the public – both local actors and visitors - of the parks under their jurisdiction and supervision of delegated management to NGOs. · The field staff deals continuously and directly with the public, both visitors and the local actors. The tasks involve routine execution of service rounds, promotion of the National Parks philosophy among the local population, monitoring the condition of the park, observation, reporting and registration irregularities, basic maintenance on trails, etc. The delegation
of tasks to NGOs has somewhat complicated the assessment of staffing
requirements in MICOSYS. It is very
likely that duplication of staff at a regional level is unavoidable. Delegating
a management task to a NGO requires that the field staff be supervised, and
administered, for which both professional and administrative staff is required.
However, the interinstitutional coordinating tasks, non-NGO staff, monitoring,
supervision of the task execution by the NGO, etc. all require both professional
and administrative personnel. It
was not possible in the context of this study to fully analyse the consequences,
of this situation, and the estimates of personnel costs may actually be a bit
higher. It is expected that office costs will be higher as the NGOs are usually
housed separately. To promote
progressing integration and cost-efficiency it is recommended that when the
National Parks Service obtains its independent regional offices, that the NGOs
be housed in the same buildings as much as possible. Management of
protected areas by different organisations leads to loss of identity towards the
public (both national and international) as well as loss of technical critical
mass. As each NGO manages its own
area, institutional experience of the management system as a whole is more
difficult to establish and each NGO can only have limited professional staff and
know how. A single integral
management organisation is much better equipped to have in-house specialisation
and inter-area know-how. Exchange
of management experience is much more likely to flow within one managerial
organisation than among a collection of different small organisations. Another
factor that needs attention is equal remuneration of staff to avoid salary
discontent. The benefits of managerial renovation, personnel satisfaction and
professional enhancement through staff rotation are more readily established in
an integrated management organisation. The "National Parks Service" and the "National
Parks Alliance" need to find mechanisms for salary equality and integrated
career development through exchange of personnel and job rotation. 2.2.
Private sector involvement
The involvement of the private sector in the wise utilisation of the National Parks should be very ominous, and would include the organisation and guiding of tours and expeditions, transportation, hostelling, food supply and restaurant services the production and sales of souvenirs, research and planning, construction and maintenance. The economic value of those services outweighs the government/ngo administration’s investment and spending manifold, as we shall see in the next chapter.
[1] Categories are listed in Volume I, Annex II, IUCN Categories. [2] This applies when one area falls in the jurisdiction of more than one municipality. [3] Honduras has 2 levels of government: The National Government and Municipalities. [4] These regional offices have been budgeted in the programme. If rented, the costs would probably be lower and the investment requirements would disappear. [5] Deconcentration implies that tasks of the central government are delegated to the regional offices of the same organisation. Decentralisation assumes the transfer of mandate and tasks to local administrations, in the case of Honduras, the municipalities. |
|
NATURE WORLDWIDE is the official website of the World Institute for Conservation and Environment, WICE. It is an integrated network of web sites dealing with different topics on nature, nature conservation and natural resources management. Read here why we created Nature Worldwide. Our Methodology explains how we produced our information. Our Site Map helps you find your way in the website. We made this website out of passion for conservation. We spent our own salaries and free time to gather the information and publish it on these websites, in total valuing hundreds of thousands of dollars of professional time. Nobody pays us to do this. We simply want to contribute to conservation. If you appreciate our work, PLEASE visit our site Adopt A Ranger and see how you can make a difference for conservation most effectively: By paying one day of the salary of a ranger, you will make a difference in conserving the lives of thousands of birds, other critters and entire forests. Enjoy! NATURE DU MONDE est le site Web officiel du World Institute for Conservation and Environment, WICE, C'est une collection intégrée de sites web qui traitent avec des sujets différents sur nature, conservation de la nature et gestion des ressources naturelles. Lisez ici pourquoi nous avons créé Nature de Monde. Notre Methodologie explique comme nous avons produit nos renseignements. Notre Site Map vous aide trouver votre entrée dans le site web. Beaucoup de plaisir! NATURALEZA DEL MUNDO es la página Web oficial del World Institute for Conservation and Environment, WICE, Es una red de páginas Web tratando de temas diferentes relacionados a la naturaleza, la conservación el manejo de recursos naturales, parques nacionales y áreas protegidas. Lea aqui porqué hicimos Naturaleza del Mundo. Nuestra Methodología explica como produjimos la información. Nuestro Mapa del sitio le ayuda encontrar su información en nuestra página web. Disfrute! NATUREZA DO MUNDO é o Web site oficial do World Institute for Conservation and Environment, WICE, Es uma red de páginas Web tratando de temas diferentes relacionados à natureza, la conservação el manejo de recursos naturaleiss, parques nacionais y áreas protegidas. Lea aqui porqué creamos Natureza do Mundo. Nossa Methodología explica como produjimos a informação. Nosso Mapa do sitio le ayuda encontrar sua informação no web site. Desfrute! NATUR DER GANZEN WELT ist, die offiziellen Website der World Institute for Conservation and Environment, WICE. Es ist ein einheitliches Netzwerk von Web Sites, über Themen wie Natur, Natur-Schutz und natürlichem Ressourcen Quellen Hege. Lesen Sie hier warum wir Natur der ganzen Welt gemacht haben. Unsere Verfahrensweise erklärt, wie wir unsere Informationen produziert würde. Unsere Site Map hilft Ihnen Ihren Weg im Website zu finden. Viel Spaß! NATUUR UIT ALLE STREKEN is, de officiële Website van het World Institute for Conservation and Environment, WICE. Het is een geïntegreerd Netwerk van websites, over Natuur, Natuurbescherming en het beheer van natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Lesen Sie hier warum wir Natuur uit alle Streken gemacht haben. Onze pagina Methode legt uit, hoe we onze informatie vergaarden. Onze Site Map helpt u op weg door onze website. WICE is a worldwide non-government non-profit organization that contributes to the conservation of nature. While it works on a many issues related to the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment, it is particularly committed to the conservation of national parks and other protected areas. WICE - USA office: 1639 Steamboat Run Road Shepherdstown, WV25443, USA
Please read the disclaimer. webmaster monitoring: -- 390 (0 today) -- |
