Back to VOTES FOR DIVERSITY

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2006 HOST PROPOSALS INVITED!

TWO PERSPECTIVES ON THE 2003 WORLD PARKS CONGRESS

Editor's note: Many SCB members were unable to attend the World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa this past September. Therefore, I solicited the impressions of two members who did attend. President Elect John Robinson, a frequent participant in IUCN meetings, offers an "insider" perspective, while Nick Salafsky contributes his view as a comparative "outsider." To share your thoughts via an SCB forum, visit http://www.conbio.org/WPC/.

The World Parks Congress comes of age, by John G. Robinson

In the words of the Durban Accord, one of the products of the Fifth World Parks Congress, the convocation brought together "resource managers, scientists, civil servants, and industry leaders" to "celebrate, voice concern and call for urgent action on protected areas." Held every ten years, these congresses, organized under the umbrella of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), are part technical sessions, part political theater, and part policy process.

The Durban Accord, an affirmation of the value of parks and protected areas for both biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods, was one of the major products of the 2003 congress. Congress participants recognized that many natural systems and species depend for their existence on parks, and that the contribution of parks to human well-being is pervasive, unquantified, and underappreciated--especially for many indigenous peoples and for the rural poor. This consensus was not an insignificant accomplishment, because many individuals argued that parks could be justified only if they contributed to the well-being of local inhabitants. Others argued that parks had to be engines for national development. Still others argued to excise human activities completely from parks. Resolving differences involving strong opinions was often a challenge.

The location of the congress placed these discussions squarely in the African context--important for a continent stressed by economic and social challenges, and grappling with issues of land use and land rights. In addition, the congress generated a long list of recommendations (see www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/recommendations.htm). And the World Parks Congress formally adopted a letter that will go to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the international treaty process that is presently mired in debates on how governments will address biodiversity conservation. For many people engaged in the reality of on-the-ground conservation or active in the science of conservation biology, these statements are perhaps too full of platitudes, generalities, and truisms. Yet the statements have a validity within the policy process. Words and phrases will be parsed and interpreted in the months ahead, and eventually used to refocus governmental programs and multilateral funding for conservation.

The congress was a great opportunity to bring together much of the international conservation community for discussions and face-to-face debates--but will it make a difference? We heard no "pop" of an event or resolution that will alter the way we think about parks in the future (such as the 10% "rule" that emerged from the Bali Parks Congress 20 years ago, which suggested that all countries should allocate at least 10% of their area to parks). Nevertheless, the congress motivated considerable productive discussion about the need to manage and finance parks. "Problem" areas for later resolution were identified. For example, should mining and other extraction industries be engaged in the parks debate, trading access for long-term funding? Should people living in and around parks become more engaged in decisions about the future of parks? The debate on topics like these was hard and acrimonious, and there was no clear resolution. The Fifth World Parks Congress probably will not be remembered as one of the great congresses (if such things ever can be characterized as "great"), but useful, mature work was accomplished, and parks clearly are no longer under the sole purview of conservationists and biologists.

The ghost of SCB future, by Nick Salafsky

Until last month, the largest professional meetings I had attended were the annual meetings of SCB, which draw around 1200 people. It was thus quite an eye-opener to attend the 2500-person World Parks Congress in Durban. As I reflect on the WPC in the context of SCB's efforts to expand into a truly global society, I have some interesting insights into what future SCB meetings might look like.

• A 2500 person meeting is a logistical nightmare. It took most delegates hours to register for the congress. It was difficult to set up side meetings or to meet with people. Plenary sessions were held in cavernous meeting halls. And workshop sessions were held in thinly-partitioned giant cubicles that were overcrowded and had truly awful acoustics. If the SCB meeting grows in size, we will have to step up to large professional meeting facilities (which have a very different feel than universities) and exponentially improve our logistical management capacity.
• It was exhilarating to be at a meeting with such a wide diversity of conservationists from around the world, in terms of both geography and professional focus. I haven't had much exposure in the past to traditional park and protected area managers and it was fascinating to talk and interact with them. As SCB's internationalization efforts progress, I look forward to similar opportunities at SCB meetings.
• The congress was the first meeting I've attended that employed United Nations-style simultaneous translation of plenary sessions into English, French, and Spanish. On one hand, it was great to have the participation and perspective from non-English speakers. But on the other hand, the translation definitely slowed things down. And the non-English speakers were pretty frustrated by the fact that smaller sessions all were conducted in English. As SCB becomes truly global, we will have to weigh the costs and benefits of adopting other languages.
• The World Parks Congress was designed both to develop a collaborative output (the Accord and recommendations that John Robinson describes) and to allow for sharing of experiences through seven specific workshop streams (linkages in the landscape / seascape, building broader support for protected areas, new ways of working together--governance of protected areas, developing the capacity to manage, evaluating management effectiveness, building comprehensive protected area systems, and building a secure financial future) and three cross-cutting themes (communities and equity, marine protected areas, and world heritage). At times in the past, I've felt that SCB meetings are a bit passive and that the formal program could benefit from having a more action-oriented agenda. However, the WPC experience made me realize how difficult it is to have action-oriented items at a large meeting without massive amounts of pre-meeting preparation leading to pre-ordained conclusions that make conference participation feel somewhat spurious and artificial. And by trying to do both, the sharing of experience suffered--the concurrent streams were not run very efficiently and it was very difficult (as compared to an SCB meeting) to try to hop from one presentation to another.
• Finally, as is the case at any meeting, the best part was the informal networking and schmoozing. I ran into people in Durban from all facets of my life--many people I hadn't seen in years and other people who live across town, but with whom I never spend time on a day-to-day basis.

Back to VOTES FOR DIVERSITY

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2006 HOST PROPOSALS INVITED!