Since 1961, when WWF began, the number of protected sites has increased more than tenfold while the total area protected has grown more than sevenfold. This area has continued to increase rapidly even over the past decade, alongside a steady growth in environmental anxiety and accumulating evidence of the risks of climate change. This shows that the efforts of the global conservation community to protect what we have not yet destroyed are something of a success story. It demonstrates a willingness and increasing understanding among many governments to think of what we will leave to future generations.

Vital understanding
The growth of the world’s area under protection and the increasing designation of World Heritage sites has been most important, and will continue to be so. But the increased understanding of the relationship of protected areas to human society – and more particularly to local communities – has been equally vital. We have come to realize that the long-term viability of protected areas cannot be assured without the serious involvement of local people, whether they live inside or adjacent to them. Experience with participatory models has grown further and substantially since the last World Parks Congress in Caracas in 1993. Park authorities and conservationists have in the past often paid lip service to ‘people participation’: sometimes they still do. But we now know that the participation of communities has to start with the planning of the protected area, be maintained during the phase when the decisions are being made and the area is being established, and be carried through to managing and monitoring it, and to sharing the benefits that arise from it. This is a demanding process which not all governments are willing to pursue.

Genuine people participation involves a great deal of responsibility and commitment. The gap between the aspirations behind protected areas and the reality of their management is often embarrassingly wide – there is ample evidence that many are falling far short of the expectations placed upon them. Economic and social pressures, pollution, poor management – and sometimes a lack of political support – all continue to leave protected areas vulnerable to degradation, while the lack of sustainable financing is now a major concern and a threat to many of them.

True participation
The impressive growth of protected areas clearly indicates the increasing pressure on land – from agriculture, forestry, mining and other forms of exploitation – and the multiplying threats to ecosystems. They are generally set aside to ensure that unique or biologically rich areas do not fall victim to commercial use, such as timber exploitation, industrial or large-scale agricultural development. The livelihoods of local people may, it is true, be affected by their establishment, but this difficulty can be overcome by sensible and true participation. Indeed there are many examples worldwide of conservation measures that actually improve the livelihoods and economic position of local and indigenous peoples.

There are many examples worldwide of conservation measures that actually improve the livelihoods and economic position of local and indigenous peoples

Unfortunately, the perception has been increasingly promoted that these areas are being set aside primarily to keep local people out or to deprive them of their traditional rights, just to create a playground for nature-lovers – distorting their real justification. In some countries, local politicians and dealers have used or even promoted this anti-people image of protected areas in pursuance of their own vested interests – the very interests that the areas have to be protected against. How often we hear the word ‘fence’ used in this context, symbolizing the notion that these areas are to be protected from intrusion by local people. In fact, only a tiny fraction of protected areas is fenced and, even then, this is normally to keep wildlife in, rather than people out.

Multiple assets
Similarly, protected areas are commonly considered a kind of sacrifice, a financial burden on humanity rather than an asset. But they do far more even than fulfil a crucial role in preserving biodiversity. They also contribute greatly, for example, to maintaining freshwater resources and protecting against flooding: big cities rely on them for the integrity of their water supplies. Yet such practical services are rarely listed as assets in national accounts. By contrast, destruction is often measured as accrued value, for example through the sale of timber when a forest is cut.