Protected areas

Informational material for regulations outlined in the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species of wild flora and fauna (also known as the CITES) has been developed for residents and tourists on Bonaire, Saba, and St. Eustatius. Posters, signs, and brochures have been made in four languages (Dutch, English, Papiamentu, and Spanish) by the Dutch Caribbean Nature Alliance (DCNA) by order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (ANFQ).

Image credit: © Deviate Design & Mercedes Madriz

In advance of the return of tourists, these materials will be placed at the airports and ports, and at the government and customs offices, nature park management organizations, diving schools, and hotels throughout the Caribbean Netherlands. In this way, DCNA and ANFQ will work to raise awareness about the protected status of flora and fauna in the Caribbean Netherlands, such as orchids and corals, and the rules concerning the removal of these species.

Conservation of biodiversity

The islands of the Caribbean Netherlands have a rich biodiversity. Many species are endemic to one (or more) of the islands, meaning they cannot be found anywhere else in the world. Almost 200 species living in the wild in the Caribbean Netherlands are protected by CITES. The list includes turtles, iguanas, orchids, cacti, whales, rays, and bird species. Furthermore, the corals these islands are known for, living or dead, are also protected under CITES and therefore cannot be removed. In addition to the CITES regulations, stricter local rules and measures may also apply.

What does this mean in practice?

Exporting living or dead species included on the CITES list to another country without a CITES permit – including between the Caribbean Netherlands to the Netherlands and vice versa – is prohibited. These regulations apply whether the species or objects are taken as a gift or for one’s own use, and include items such as orchids, cacti, corals, seahorses, turtles, sharks, iguanas, and birds. These regulations also apply to parts or products made of or from these species, such as food products, exotic leatherware, wooden sculptures, ornaments, musical instruments, or local medicines. In certain cases, exporting species or objects is prohibited altogether. Violation of these regulations can lead to penalties and/or legal action.

Check in advance: is it protected?

The mere fact that something is for sale or that you found it on the ground or in the sea, does not mean that you are allowed to take or travel with it. When in doubt as to whether you can take a species (or a part of a product made of or from this species), you can contact the local CITES authority with the National Office of the Caribbean Netherlands (Rijksdienst Caribisch Nederland, RCN), the customs authorities, the public entity, or the local management organization of the protected nature area.

What is CITES?

CITES is the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species of wild flora and fauna which regulates and, if necessary, prohibits the trade or removal of a species for the benefit of conserving it in the wild. More than 37,000 flora and fauna species are currently protected under the CITES convention. A CITES permit is required for the trade of these species. In some cases, the trade is prohibited altogether if the species is seriously threatened with extinction. These regulations do not only apply to the respective plants and animals but also to products made of or from these species.

# # #

Check the CITES information for the Caribbean Netherlands online:

https://www.dcbd.nl/document/cites-communication-materials-bes

For more information about CITES:

• www.RijksdienstCN.com
• www.RVO.nl/CITES
• www.cites.org

Article published in BioNews 41

The notion of an ecological corridor is to connect protected areas of high biodiversity to counteract the fragmentation of habitats, the loss of biodiversity and the negative impacts of human activities. It brings additional benefits such as strengthening ties between regions and creating a conservation area within a framework of ecological connectivity. The foundation CARIBESUR proposes the creation of a marine ecological corridor and Transboundary Marine Corridor "South Caribbean Islands" as well as the expansion of the National Parks "Paria Peninsula" and "Turuépano" and connecting them via a terrestrial ecological corridor.

In 1998 the Dutch Parliament called for a feasibility study for a trust fund and the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations agreed, under certain conditions, to make a financial contribution to
such a fund. In 2003 the Antillean Environmental Department invited tenders for this study, which began in 2004 with funding from the Dutch Ministry of the Interior. Besides assessing the feasibility of a trust fund to cover the operational costs of one terrestrial and one marine park per island, the study also included a broader analysis of how park funding can be made more sustainable. The consultants also advised on the technical and organisational aspects of the management and administration of a trust fund and presented a fundraising and communication strategy to support the process.

Summary of the findings
Sustainable funding: feasibility and constraints

1. The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that manage the nature parks on the Netherlands Antilles need at least €2.25 million each year to cover the costs of adequately managing at least one terrestrial park and one marine park per island. 
2. External funding sources are therefore necessary to achieve a sustainable financial situation. 
3. Certain developments in 2004 and early 2005 have considerably increased the chances of creating a sustainable funding strategy involving these four tracks:
4. In future years the National Postcode Lottery (NPL) will play a key role in providing longer-term funding to cover the running costs of the parks (track 1). 
5. An essential element in the strategy for achieving sustainable funding for conservation management is the establishment of a Trust Fund (track 2).
6. The Antillean governments should take their own share of the responsibility by ensuring the required legislative framework is in place and making a long-term financial commitment. 
7. The main capital donors to the most successful trust funds elsewhere in the world are bilateral and multilateral agencies (such as GEF and the World Bank) as well as international nature conservation organisations such as WWF and Conservation International. It is therefore highly important to obtain contributions from one or more of these parties in addition to the anticipated contribution from the National Postcode Lottery.
8. The private sector (business community, individuals and investment funds) is a potentially good source of funds in various tracks, particularly in the form of earmarked or non-earmarked donations, sponsorships and contributions to a Trust Fund (tracks 2 and 3).
9. Assuming a combined income of €1.17 million, an annual grant from NPL of €0.45 million and a return on investment of 6%, the Trust Fund would require a capital of €18.9 million to guarantee basic levels of park management on the islands.
10. The study provides a detailed design of the institutional set-up and a legal and financial framework for the Trust Fund. Instead of being a separate legal entity, the proposed Trust Fund will be established within the structure of the DCNA, since the advantages of this option outweigh the disadvantages.

Abstract:

This document is an orientation to sources of funding for protected areas and biodiversity conservation. It is designed to serve as a primer for protected area agencies and managers as well as non- governmental organizations carrying out programs of conservation, education, and sustainable uses of biodiversity resources in and around protected areas. The editors intend to provide the reader with a basic understanding of the mechanisms that can be used to raise funds and generate revenues, as well as the sources of financial and technical support generally available for protected areas and biodiversity conservation in the Wider Caribbean. All of the mechanisms, and many of the sources, will also have applications outside the Wider Caribbean region.

This document is also intended to assist governments of the region in meeting their obligations acquired under biodiversity-related agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and in particular the 1990 Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) and the Convention on the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean (Cartagena 1983). Therefore, the report responds to requests made by the governments of the region, members of the Caribbean Environment Programme of UNEP, and Parties to the Cartagena Convention and SPAW Protocol. In this context, it is expected that this document will contribute to regional and national efforts in strengthening protected areas and also the work of the regional network on Marine Protected Areas (CaMPAM) of the Caribbean Environment Programme. It is a joint effort of UNEP’s Regional Coordinating Unit for the CEP and The Nature Conservancy.

During the 1990s, it became increasingly clear that protected areas and conservation are not a sector unto themselves, but rather, a fundamental element of any country’s overall planning for development and sustainability of the resources fundamental to development —watersheds, forests, fisheries, recreational sites, and more. So, this guide will take a somewhat broader view of funding and revenue generating options than previous overviews of resources available strictly for conservation. We will also take a fairly broad view of the social goods and services provided by, and demanded from, protected areas, bearing in mind that conservation is the fundamental, core purpose. The challenge for managers of achieving participatory management while assuring that community needs and aspirations do not overrun the fundamental purpose of the protected area is, itself, a contributing factor to the need for more resources and more depth of skilled management at many protected areas.

Through the 1970s and 80s and into the 1990s, many protected areas in the Wider Caribbean relied heavily on financing from external donors —bilateral and multilateral assistance, international NGOs, and philanthropic institutions. Today, the resources available from these sources are stretched ever thinner. In many cases, the resources were available primarily for start-up and infrastructure costs, with the expectation that protected area systems would develop on-site or in-country sources for recurrent costs. Protected areas are also turning to permanent income- generating mechanisms to diversify their revenue sources. As protected area systems rely increasingly on revenues from services ranging from tourism and recreation to watershed protection, the very nature of protected area management has undergone subtle and not-so-subtle changes of emphasis, including meeting increased demands for visitor services. Financial planning for protected areas now focuses on both short and long-term prospects, and the potential for generating recurrent resources often influence decisions about whether to establish new areas and how to manage areas that are established.

This guide will attempt to show through examples and case studies how managers of protected area systems have incorporated different funding sources for the distinct phases of establishment and management. We will discuss "making the case" for the tangible and intangible benefits protected areas provide, as a means for building support for both national appropriations and external support. The examples and case studies will also show how protected areas that provide tangible benefits such as education, recreation, and tourism can recover costs and generate income from those activities. It is important to note in this regard, however, that not every protected area can or should become financially self-sustaining through fees and revenues. Often the issue of where costs can be recovered, where profits may be realized, and where subsidies will be needed on a recurring basis is best addressed at the level of the national system. This may mean adding areas specifically for their revenue generating potential as a means of assuring the sustainability of the entire system.

Surveys of the current financial situation of protected areas in the Wider Caribbean show great differences among countries in the percentage of costs covered by national budgets, the level of reliance on volunteer services, and the severity of crises resulting from financial shortfalls. In the early 1990s, many countries established park trust funds or directed debt swap proceeds toward protected area management. However, user fees, voluntary donations, and revenues from sales and concessions are still the exception rather than the rule. In most areas, there are many opportunities to improve revenues for protected areas, as well as opportunities to improve coordination among donors and revenue-generating sectors.

To address these challenges and take advantage of these opportunities, protected area systems need to build capacity in a variety of ways. Factors crucial to building a financially sustainable system include skilled personnel who can analyze financial needs and opportunities, and select approaches appropriate to each area; infrastructure sufficient to the needed management and visitor services, including accommodations, communications, and transportation; a policy environment in which necessary actions (such as dedicating revenues to the system) can be accomplished; and developing systems for community participation. This guide attempts to identify sources of capacity-building assistance that can help protected area managers meet these challenges.