Putting Nature on the Map Adrian Phillips

1. Putting Nature on the Map
Applying the IUCN categories system within the UK
Adrian Phillips

2. Background
• IUCN system of 6 management categories widely used
internationally – the 'common language’ of PAs
• CBD etc. requires all countries to report using system
• This PA data is collected nationally
• …and held by UNEP/WCMC on World Database for
Protected Areas (WDPA)
• UK has reported PA data in the past but with limited
regard to IUCN advice
• IUCN advice updated in 2008

3. The 2008 IUCN guidelines
• New definition of a PA:
“A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed,
through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of
nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”
• A key principle:
“For IUCN only those areas where the main objective is conserving nature can be
considered protected areas; this can include many areas with other goals as well at
the same level, but in case of conflict nature conservation will be the priority”
• An important definition:
“Nature always refers to biodiversity, at genetic, species and ecosystem levels, and
often also refers to geodiversity, landform and broader natural values”

4. The 2008 IUCN guidelines (cont.)
6 management categories retained (but with new definitions)
• Ia Strict Nature Reserve
• Ib Wilderness Area
• II National Park
• III Natural Monument or Feature
• IV Habitat/species Management Area
• V Protected landscape or seascape
• VI Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources
4 governance types introduced
• A: Governance by government
• B: Shared governance
• C: Private governance (inc. NGOs)
• D: Governance by indigenous peoples and communities

5. The categories/governance matrix
NB – it should be possible to assign any individual PA to a specific point on the matrix

6. The challenge we were set …
…. to apply the 2008 IUCN
protected area categories system
to the UK
PNOTM began in 2010 at request
of IUCN/WCPA Chair
Ended in 2014 with presentation of
results at World Parks Congress
Undertaken by the UK National
Committee for IUCN
Funded by WWF, SNH, NE, John
Muir Trust and Sibthorp Trust

7. How we did the work
• Adopted a very inclusive approach from the outset
• Identified all sites that might be protected areas
• Developed UK-specific guidance
• Determined what is and isn’t a protected area under
the IUCN definition
• Assigned management categories and governance
types
• Collected and reported on data to WCMC

8. 3 innovations:
1) A National Handbook
(2012)
Explains how the IUCN guidance
should be applied in UK – it helps
make that advice “UK-specific”
Handbook also:
- Listed all possible PAs
- Identified what were not PAs
(e.g. GBs, agri-environmental
schemes)
- Explained how the rest of
project would be undertaken –
inc. roles of Assessment Panel
and Statements of Compliance

9. 3 innovations:
2) A UK/IUCN
Assessment Panel
An Assessment Panel:
- WCPA experts
- providing peer review
and rigorous debate
- “Which sites are PAs and
what management
categories and
governance types?”

10. 3 innovations:
3) Statements of
Compliance
• Produced for most designations or
ownerships
• Each reviewed legislation,
management objectives and
practice against IUCN definition of
a PA
• 23 SOCs prepared (with both
positive and negative outcomes)
• All on view at http://www.iucn-
uk.org/projects/protectedareas/

11. 3) Statements of
Compliance
6 key questions:
1: Is it a clearly defined geographical area?
2: Is it recognised, dedicated and managed to achieve
long-term conservation of nature?
3: Is the main management objective nature conservation?
(other objectives of equal standing may be present but
should not cause conflict)
4: Does designation help prevent, or eliminate harmful
exploitation or management practice?
5: Does designation aim to maintain or increase the naturalness of
the protected ecosystem?
6: Is long-term nature conservation ensured through legal or other
effective means?

12. Main Results
Up-to date and far more accurate data on PAs in UK.
In particular:
- some designations added where previously missing
- other designations identified as ‘non-compliant’
- thousands of privately protected areas added to WDPA
- wider range of management categories identified
- data on governance types added

13. Types of area identified as PAs
• AONB (E, W)*
• Areas of Special Scientific interest (NI)*
• Marine Protected Area (S) - subject to confirmation
• Marine Conservation Zone (E) - subject to confirmation
• Marine Nature Reserve (UK)*
• National Park (E, W and S)*
• National Nature Reserve (UK)*
• NGO owned and/or land managed for nature (Butterfly Conservation, John
Muir Trust, NT, NTS, Plantlife, RSPB, Wetlands and Wildfowl Trust, Wildlife
Trusts, Woodland Trust)
• SSSI (E, W and S)*
• Special Area of Conservation (UK)
• Special Protection Area (UK)
• Ramsar (Wetland) site*
• UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (core and buffer zones only)*
• World Heritage Site (Natural and Mixed only)*
* Previously on WDPA
Marine Acts
2009/2010
NGOs
EC
Directives

14. Types of area not identified as PAs
• AONB (NI)*
• Forest Park (UK)*
• Heritage Coast (E, W)*
• Local Nature Reserve (UK) – but individual sites might qualify
• Marine Consultation Area (S)
• National Scenic Area (S)*
• Regional Park (S)*
• Local wildlife site (UK)
• Voluntary reserve and Privately Protected Area managed by an
individual – but individual sites might qualify
• UNESCO Geopark
• UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (transition zone only)
* Previously reported as PAs

15. The conservation NGO sites that meet the
IUCN definition of a PA

16. The Conservation NGOs are big actors
• Own 1.94% of all land in the UK
• Manage 12.5% of all SSSIs and ASSIs
• Manage c.300,000ha of SSSI and ASSI land
• ….plus c.176,000ha that is also PA status (not
previously on WDPA)
• The three biggest owners of PA lands are:
– RSPB (150,486ha)
– NT (135,645ha)
– TWTs (c.90,000ha)

17. Some examples of sites
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
• 49 such areas in E, W and NI on WDPA in 2011
• Panel decided SoC for NI AONBs did not meet criteria
(protection too weak, no clear primacy of conservation)
• Panel required the SoC for AONBs
in E and W to be strengthened
• And asked each AONB manager to
confirm their commitment to
IUCN’s understanding of PAs
• Now 38 areas on WDPA

18. Some examples of sites
National Trust holdings
• NT own 250,832ha of coast and
countryside
• SoC says that - to be recognised as a
PA - NT sites have to be:
– > 5ha
– Held inalienably
– Managed by NT and/or part of SSSI
• 136,645ha (54%) are compliant
• How can the remaining area attain PA
status?

19. Some examples of sites
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
• Pre-2009/2010 Marine Acts
– Marine Nature Reserve – UK (3)
– Marine Consultation Area – S. (2)
• European designations
– SPA: recognised as PAs (incs. marine sites)
– SAC: recognised as PAs (incs. marine sites)
• Post-2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act
and 2010 Scottish Marine Act
– Marine Protected Area – S. (30 sites)
– Marine Conservation Zone – E. (27 sites)
Intent of both new national designations compatible
with PA definitions but too early to say if practice
matches up – revisit in 2017. Work on MPAs in Wales and
NI will be assessed then too

20. New categories identified
• Previously all UK sites reported as Category IV
(Nature Reserves) and V (Protected
Landscapes/Seascapes):
– Category IV : most nature conservation designations (e.g.
SSSI, ASSI, NNR)
– Category V: most landscape protection designations (e.g.
AONB and NP)
• But PNOTM identified sites that are:
– Category Ia (Strict Nature Reserve)
– Category II (National Park)
– Category III (Natural Monument)

21. Example – Wytham Woods, Oxford, Category Ia
• Ancient semi-natural woodland,
SSSI
• Owned by Oxford University,
used for environmental
research
• One of the most researched
woodlands in the world – data
goes back 60 years
• Public access is by permit only
Category Ia: “Strictly protected area set aside to
protect biodiversity … where human visitation, use
and impacts are strictly controlled … (they are)
indispensable reference areas for scientific
research and monitoring” (IUCN 2008)

22. Example – The Island of Rum, Scotland, Category II
• An NNR since 1957
• Mostly owned and managed by SNH
• Aims:
• Woodland restoration and natural
heritage conservation
• Research in earth science, deer, and
wildlife and woodland restoration
• Manage visitors
• Work with resident community
Category II: “Large natural or near natural areas
set aside to protect large sale ecological
processes … with species and ecosystems
characteristic of the area …. (and)
environmentally and culturally compatible
spiritual, scientific, recreational and visitor
opportunities” (IUCN, 2008)

23. Category III: “Protected area set aside to
protect a specific natural monument, which
can be landform, sea mount, submarine
cavern, geological features such as a
cave….they a generally quite small areas and
often have high visitor value” (IUCN 2008)
• Dramatic basalt columns 50-60 millions
years old
• Marked the opening up of Atlantic
• NI premier tourist site since 1768
• Managed by NT; new Visitor Centre
• Designated as a Natural WH site in 1986
• .. and as an NNR in 1987
• Part of an AONB
Example – Category III: Giants Causeway

24. IUCN Categories assigned against UK PA designations
etc.IUCN Category Ia Ib II III IV V VI
AONB (E and W)
ASSI (NI) ? ? ?
Marine Protected Area (S) ? ?
Marine Conservation Zone (E) ? ?
Marine Nature Reserve (UK)
National Park (E, W and S)
National Nature Reserve (UK)
NGO-owned land managed for
nature
SSSI (E, W and S) ? ? ?
SAC (UK) ? ? ? ?
SPA (UK) ? ? ? ?
Ramsar ? ? ? ?
UNESCO biosphere reserve ? ? ? ? ?
WHS (mixed and natural) (UK) ? ?
?
Classified previously,
confirmed by PNOTM
Newly classified by
PNOTM
Potential for
categorisation
Categories
Ia: Strict nature reserve
Ib: Wilderness area
II: National park
III: Natural monument
IV: Habitat/species
management area
V: Protected
landscape/seascape
VI: Protected area with
sustainable use of
natural resources
.

25. New information on governance
• Previously sites on the list were all official sites – i.e.
government type of governance
• Now we recognise thousands of PAs as private type,
run by NGOs
• Many are shared governance type – e.g. privately-
owned SSSIs run under an agreement
• Community governance emerging

26. The categories/governance matrix pre-PNOTM

27. The categories/governance matrix post-PNOTM
The range of categorised sites in the UK – pre- and post-PNOTM

28. What are the outcomes of PNOTM?
• Better understanding of international standards for protected areas
• The implications of the IUCN system for conservation management
• Confirmation of the status of PAs in UK
• Identification of sites that don’t make grade – and what to do about them
• Revealing variety of management approaches and governance types
• Better data about PAs in the UK
• Data more complete
• Data more accurate
• Improved map of PAs in UK
• Improved assignment processes
• Inclusive process
• Three innovations – National Handbook, Assessment Panel and SoCs

29. What are the implications of PNOTM?
• Helps UK meet its international obligations – CBD,
IUCN etc.
• Provides better baseline data for work relating to PAs –
management, protection, outreach etc.
• Promotes co-operation between PA data providers and
managers – agencies, NGOs + JNCC, WCMC, EEA
• Generally informs the quality of debate about
conservation in the UK (e.g. fracking)

30. Questions for today
• How do you see the results of this work being
used?
• What needs to be done to improve the application
of the IUCN categories system in the UK?
• Should “non-compliant” sites aim at eventual
recognition?
• What is the role of IUCN/UK in protected areas
work beyond PNOTM?