Belize National Protected Areas Policy and System Plan

A previous assessment project (National Protected Areas System Plan, funded by USAID) was conducted in 1994, but was focused solely on biodiversity conservation and was never fully incorporated into the national agenda. It set the stage for system-wide thinking and planning.

Background N

EW

S

Archaeological ReserveBird SanctuaryForest ReserveMarine Reserve

National Park

Natural MonumentNature ReservePrivate Reserve

Marine Reserve:Spawning Aggregation

Wildlife Sanctuary

Map Prepared by Jan MeermanApril 2005

Grid: UTM zone 16, NAD 19270 10 20 30 Miles

The project was developed in 2004 through the Ministry of Natural Resources with the guiding principle that the Protected Areas System should be a major contributor to national development and poverty alleviation, while maximizing its biodiversity value and ecological functionality.

The National Protected Areas Policy and System Plan Initiative

Ministry of Natural Resources – Launched in 2004

Strengthening Management & Monitoring

Identification and Delivery of Economic Benefits

Management Procedures and Sustainable Use

Protected Area System Assessment & Analysis

Policy Formulation

provided official platform for NGO assistance

Five Themes

NPAPSP Protected Area Analysis

0 9 18 27 36 45 Miles

N

EW

S

Map Prepared byJan Meerman, April 2005

Grid: UTM zone 16, NAD 1927This map is not a legal defenitionbased on the Maritime Areas Act

(GOB, 2000)

Exclusive Economic ZoneTerritorial Sea

Belize Land Mass

Hectares

Land 2,212,760

Territorial Sea 1,865,300

EEZ 1,605,880

NationalTerritory 5,683,940

18.5 %. national territory under some form of conservation

management

.

Terrestrial vs Marine Protected Areas

94 Protected areas, witharcheology & private PAs

42% land in PA’s17% is in conservation 25% extractive uses (e.g. forestry reserves)

7% marine territory in MPA(includes EEZ or ~20% for shelf)3% in conservation4% extractive uses

Analysis Method

MARXAN is software that delivers decision support for reserve system design. MARXAN finds reasonably efficient solutions to the problem of selecting a system of spatially cohesive sites that meet a suite of biodiversity targets. Given reasonably uniform data on species, habitats and/or other relevant biodiversity features and surrogates for a number of planning units MARXAN minimizes the cost while meeting user-defined targets.

Steps:

• Defined Conservation Targets

• Set specific goals for each target (based largely on their “environmental services” or perceived need/threat and on comparison with widely used values)

• Few ‘experts’ or accepted criteria – did the best we could

PDF file 5,580 kb

Original Marine Habitats> 30 classes x 6 zones

simplified into

19 Marine Bioregions

Based on habitats, sediments, bathymetry and geography

Based on Australian model

Marine Conservation Target Proportions (minimum value for each)

Each marine bioregion: 20%Coral reefs: 30%Mangroves*: 40%           High Interconnectivity**: 50%Manatee distribution: 30%Turtle nesting sites: 60%Saltwater crocodiles nesting: 60%Spawning Aggregation sites: 80% (Birds treated under terrestrial)

Used only national

scale data

Clean slate approach - does not consider existing MPAs

‘Locked in’ approachIncludes all MPAs & adds in needed gaps

Marine Variations(Important MARXAN choices)

Variation Useda compromise

We chose to use a compromise approach by seeding the selection with

existing MPAs

Human Needs

A “cost layer” in MARXAN

Identify the areas where human needs come first

Or footprint / threat is highest

Make these areas more ‘expensive’ to select

Combined Results Minimize conflicts

betweenConservation targets &

human needs layers

Encourages ridge to reef conservation connectivity

Combined Results:

Marine results are more ‘flexible” than terrestrial results.

Although some coastal/marine areas are always selected

Some of these are outside existing network

Conclusions

• In general there is still a lack of data that would help conservation planning and management. There is a need for a spatially enabled species database, standardized monitoring schemes.

• No data was available for the deep water ecosystems of Belize and such data is clearly needed for conservation planning

• Monitoring of biodiversity is still in its infancy, yet it will be important for the future management of conservation management areas.

Conclusions• There is no single ‘correct” way of designing a protected areas system and a

variety of options can achieve similar results

• Multiple considerations, shifting priorities and changing conditions need to be considered, with humans (not MARXAN) making final decisions

• Despite a fairly high percent area in protection, the analysis shows many gaps outside the existing network. MARXAN can help us be more efficient – getting maximum conservation results with less area under conservation

• Need the right mix of science, politics and practicality to turn design options into an achievable reality-based Network

http://biological-diversity.info/Downloads/Report_result2_finaldraft_s.pdf  

Next Steps• Production of final report including multimedia data CD

• Public Dissemination

• Use as a planning tool for implementation of a more rationalized and functional Protected Areas Network

WWF now begins a ecoregional

MCPA network assessment